Ep. 2078 - We Are Going To Publicly Execute A Terrorist And You Can Watch

Okay, fellas. Since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wires newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s. Good guys win. Bad guys lose. No one apologizes for it. Check out run hide fight infidels now streaming only on the daily wire. This episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers. Good Ranchers partners with American farms and ranches and delivers the meat directly to your door. Go to GoodRanchers.com slash Knowles, Canada VLAS. Get $50 off plus free meat with every order when you start a plan. Good ranchers American meat delivered. The White House is bringing back rest for Columbus. The Pentagon is bringing back public executions and Gen Z is bringing back heterosexuality. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. There was a massive Senate debate last night in Michigan between Abdul Al-Sayed and Mike Rogers. It came down to which country is a greater threat to the United States? Iran or Israel? Abdul had a lot of trouble answering before we get to that though. The public execution. This is the big story is what everyone's talking about. Secretary War Pete Hegseth announcing that Nidal Hassan, the perpetrator of the worst mass shooting on military base ever at least at the time of the shooting. 2009 murdered 14 people injured more than 30 others. He was a Palestinian army major and psychiatrist. Obviously a Muslim terrorist. This guy has been waiting on death row for a while. The trial and the execution handled by the military rather than by the civilian courts. Finally, he is going to be executed and the military has made this decision to make it a public execution. One, not behind closed doors. And two, to live stream the whole grizzly affair. Here is Pete Hegseth. Execution by firing squad. Army major betrays his country. Radical Islamist kills a bunch of Americans at Fort Hood. Of course, we're going to do it at Fort Hood. We're going to do it on a Thursday. We're going to do it at 1 o'clock, which is when he did it. That's going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad. He had been since World War II since we've done that. Well, I kind of like the mentality we had in World War II, which was when, which was, uh, understand when the enemy attacks you, you, you, you need to stand your ground. So it was radical Islamist terror attack. Remember what, remember what Obama called it? Workplace violence. I mean, that's what we're up against. That's the world viewer up against his workplace violence, uh, CVE. We don't, we know what it is. It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks. And so he's going to get a firing squad of soldiers as it should be. And we'll make sure that people are able to watch it. That it's public, uh, because people need to understand that this is a, there's serious consequences for these types of things. Do you, has Major Hassan made any final request, reached out to the president, like that's your knowledge? Don't care. We'll see him on December 3rd. No, cold is ice. You don't care. See him on December 3rd. This public execution is surprisingly controversial. There are people on the right who are questioning it. Some people have turned against the death penalty, even in principle on the right. And then some people say, well, this is a public spectacle. This is wrong. This is vengeful. This is the worst part of, uh, the justice system, all the worst impulses we should not have a public execution. Hold on, hold on. This seems to me totally common sense. If we're going to have capital punishment, if we're going to have executions, I am very much in favor of public execution, not so that we can rile up the worst parts of our wrath and vengeance, but because it's a public execution, it's right there in the name for the people who say that this is out of step with America. And this is contrary to our values. As is so often the case when people make those claims, it's people just being ignorant of American history. We had public executions for most of American history. George Washington had public executions. We had public executions for the first 161 years of our nation's history. Now that ended around, I think, 1937 or so. But to Pete Hegg Sets Point, he says, the last time we did one of these in the military was in the 40s around, around World War II. And I think we had a better mentality in World War II. The people who saying, all right, we haven't done this since the Second World War. Hey, were we a better country during World War II or during like the trans, murder all the babies, open the borders, flood the country with foreigners, turn against American history, chop off kids' genitals time. Which time would you say was better? The time that we refer to as the greatest generation when America emerged as the global world power and the almost undisputed force for good in the world. Or now, 2026, when the most prominent news story is a bunch of weirdos doing freaky sex death at Cornell. When would you say we were a better country? Oh, earlier in the past, okay, maybe we should do what they did. But the reason that I think even people who are uncomfortable with the death penalty or who are outright opposed to the death penalty, the reason that they should support this too is because we should grapple with what the death penalty really is. What we like to do in America, this was so perfectly demonstrated in the Christopheic botched execution in Tennessee. We want to have our cake and eat it too now. In our, in our decadent liberal society, we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want the death penalty. We want to follow the law. We want some justice for criminals. But we don't want to look at it and it makes us kind of icky and then we get cold feet at the last minute and we start to execute someone and we kind of change our minds. And now we're providing life-saving care for the person we were trying to kill and then we don't know, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me. If you're going to do it, do it. Do we, do we have capital punishment? At the very least for terrorists who murder 14 American service members, injure more than 30 others and cold blood at Fort Hood, are we going to, are we going to execute that person? Yes or no. Maybe you're going to say no. Let's say though that the answer is, as it is, which is yes. Okay. Well, if you're going to do it, do it with your whole chest. This is not a private killing. This is not a murder. This is not vengeance. This is the state executing people. It's a public event. The public should see it. And if the public sees it, two things will happen simultaneously. One, it will deter crime. If we brought our public executions back and made them public again, that would deter crime. When people have to look at what it's like for someone to be executed, that's going to shape how they view the commission of crime. And two, it is going to take us, it is going to make us take executions more seriously. Because it's not, you know, it's, it's really easy to eat your steak. When you're not looking at how the, how the cow is killed. I'm very pro eating steak. I think I'm, I'm very much a carnivore. But you got to know what that means. We right now, we divorce consequences from actions in the country more broadly. I see. I really see no real argument against this. The only argument against this is we don't want to cultivate vengeful bloodthirsty spirits, like some pagan gladiatorial combat. But I don't think that's what's going on here. We're not feeding innocent Christians to the lions here in the Coliseum. This is a guy who committed a very serious capital offense. He's getting his just desserts. If public executions were good enough for George Washington and presidents all the way up to the middle of the 20th century, I don't see why they shouldn't be good enough for us. Okay. Now, let's turn from the Pentagon to the White House phenomenal stuff coming out of the White House today. A major event in the lead up to Columbus Dan Monday to honor one of the great men of history, Christopher Columbus. I really wanted to attend this event. I really, really wanted to make it out to Washington DC for it. The only thing that could have kept me away was the arrival of another Italian in the New World, namely my daughter. So I was not able to make it, but I'm sure it's going to be a wonderful event. It's happening any minute now. This after President Trump brought a statue of Christopher Columbus to the White House. You remember, maybe some of you don't remember, six, seven years ago, you had leftists tearing down statues specifically of Christopher Columbus all around the country. In Columbus Circle, they were defacing a statue of Columbus. They really hate Columbus. They hate all sorts of figures from American history, but they especially hate Columbus. There has been colony after colony levy to Columbus in recent decades, calling him an enslaver and a sadist and an oppressor and all the rest. Christopher Columbus is one of the greatest men in history. Christopher Columbus is invaluable in the founding of the United States, in the discovery of the New World. Christopher Columbus invented Latinos for goodness. He is a transformative figure. He was a devout Christian. He made it across the ocean using only dead reckoning. He's all of the greatness of what we now call Western civilization, what we used to call Christendom. That's why they hate him. So the president issued his Columbus Day Proclamation. It's really, really great. He all but uses the Tony soprano line, you know. And this house Christopher Columbus, he's a brave Italian explorer and this house is a hero in response in response in that scene in the sopranos. Two, Howard Zins, people history of the United States and all the leftists nonsense that people are taught in schools. Really good, I encourage you to read the full proclamation, I encourage you to follow the Columbus event today. This is part of a broader White House effort to correct the record on American history 'cause for the last 20, 30, 40 years plus, we have had the institutions entrusted with preserving American history and cultivating American patriotism, doing exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. Lying about American history, hiding American history and encouraging people to hate their own country. Here's Lonnie Bunch, the secretary of the Smithsonian, describing not only his hostility to American history, the men who built this country, which you see in spades throughout the Smithsonian institution, but a really revealing interview, this is from 2003, when Lonnie Bunch was asked why he went to Howard University, here's his answer. I went to Howard in part two because, I remember saying, I was tired of white people. I was just tired of trying to fit in, tired of the questions, tired of the dating issues. And I said, I'm gonna Howard. He was tired of white people. This is back when he was a student. And I don't think his opinion has changed very much, judging by how he's run the Smithsonian. And I guess you're free to have your prejudices and your hatreds and your biases or whatever, but if you're the head of the American history institution and you're tired of white people, that is gonna really undermine your ability to do your job because white people have a lot to do with America. And Christopher Columbus is Italian, so he's a little bit of a liminal case. We're kind of a dusky people and everything. But what this shows you is a lot of the telling of American history today, which presents itself as given the unvarnished facts. We're not gonna whitewash it, pun intended. We're not going to clean it up and have it be a really nice feel good history. No, no, we're gonna tell you the hard unvarnished truth. Deal with it, but it's not. It's not the hard unvarnished truth. It's just another form of whitewashing, blackwashing or brownwashing, I guess. It's just another form of narrative. It's another form of ideology presenting itself. Instead of airing on the side of your country, instead of airing on the side of patriotism, they air and egregiously air on the side of hating their country. The extreme of this being the 1619 project pushed by schools around the country and the New York Times to detune a millions and millions of dollars, which began with the thesis that the American Revolution was fought to defend slavery. Complete nonsense, completely fabricated. No grounding of that whatsoever in actual history. But you see that writ large over the whole country. And so Columbus is so important because Columbus is the first guy. He comes over in many ways he inaugurates the modern era. He discovers the new world. He brings the old world of Europe into the new world. And without him, we would not be here. And it's very easy to now stand on the shoulders of that giant and rethink that we're flying and criticize him. Most of the criticisms leveled against Columbus are just not true, by the way. They're based on documents that were written by Columbus's chief political rival in the new world, Francisco de Bobadea. They're historical fictions. They were cynically used by the Spanish crown to avoid paying Columbus what they owed him. A lot of, I'm not saying he was a perfect administrator. I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong. He's a human being. He did plenty of things wrong. He wasn't a great administrator. But what the story that is levied against him is just not true. And the reason that the left is attacking him is not because they want an unborn history of history. It's because they hate the country. That's what they're beginning from. They're beginning from an equally and in fact, much more emotional, irrational position than the patriots are, for sure. They're beginning from, as the head of the Smithsonian will tell you, I'm tired of white people. And then they try to fill in the facts or fabricate the facts to fit that narrative. The White House saying no. White House saying no is absolutely delightful. Kills me not to be there today to support the administration and Christopher Columbus. But good opportunity for us all to remember what a great man he was. Because if you're not sold on Columbus yet or you've been taught a bunch of nonsense, the proof that it is important to honor men like Columbus is how much the left wants to tear them down. Okay, speaking of other good turns in culture, LGBTQ identity is in free fall right now. We'll get to that in a second first, though. I want to tell you about Mack Welden. There's a lot more to say first, they'll go to mackweldon.com, use promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, men generally divide their clothes into two categories. Clothes come to roll enough to wear at home and clothes presentable enough to wear around other people. There is a very little overlap for most people. I wear a three-piece suit all the time. But no, I'm joking. Even I have comfortable clothes. And you know what? Max Welden has the perfect solution. Their Arnit X collection uses breathable nylon mesh for maximum air flow along with moisture wicking and odor fighting technology. It's lightweight and the four-way stretch moves with you without bunching, sagging or requiring constant adjustment. I love my Mack Welden products. I love all of it. I don't want to be too lured here. Their boxers shorts are absolutely phenomenal. My favorite, my favorite piece of clothing I have from is their Terry cloth shirt where my kid will come up to me and say, "Dada, you wearing a towel." And it looks really good. You look like James Bonding Goldfinger. It's very work. Well, all this stuff, though, is top notch. It's excellent. Mack Welden makes clothing that feels relaxed without making you look as though you've abandoned civilization. Feel as effortlessly cool as you look with Mack Welden. Go to Mack Welden.com at 20% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code Michael. That is m-a-c-k-w-e-l-d-o-n.com. promo code m-i-c-h-a-e-l. An amazing story out of the Washington Post, I rarely say that. The number of teens who identify as gay or bisexual is in freefall. So we covered a similar story, a related story last week, which is that in the LGBTQ element OP acronym or initialism, the BTQ has demonstrably been in freefall for some years now. So the L and the G were relatively stable, but the BTQ have been collapsing. I mean, as of two, three years ago, some 30% of Gen Z identified as LGBTQ. Something clearly was in the water turning the frogs gay or it was a social contagion, probably more the latter. But they said the L and the G are pretty stable. Now the L and the G are falling too. The subheader conservatives have trumpeted the data from the CDC, but researchers say the reasons for the decline are unclear. Notice the researchers aren't saying that the decline is fake. They're just saying that the reasons for the decline are a little bit unclear. Here are just some highlights from the report. Young teenagers are less likely to identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual than they were a few years ago, according to a new analysis from the CDC. And where is the decline chiefly? The decline is particularly striking on ninth grade girls. This is according to Jean Twenge, who is not a right wing pundit. Jean Twenge is a professor of psychology at San Diego State University. She published this analysis just last year. In 2021, do you know what percentage of ninth grade girls identified as a lesbian or bisexual? Ninth grade girls, we're talking about 14 year old girls. Do you know what percent? 30%. About a one in three chance, if you had a teen girl five years ago, that she would call herself a lesbian or half a lesbian. You know what the number is today? 17%. So almost in half. Now interestingly, the rate of boys who identify as gay or bisexual has remained roughly the same over the past decade. It ticked up a little bit decade ago, but it's remained roughly the same. So what does this tell us? But this tells us this, the trans thing is obviously completely fake and clearly a mental illness. The bisexual thing is rather malleable and probably fake. Homosexual men, men with same sex attraction, that seems to be relatively stable. The male inclination for doing kind of Greek stuff with other guys, that seems to be a little more built in, a little more deeply embedded, I should say, than the lesbian stuff which is basically totally fake. In other words, every prejudice, every bit of common sense that you've ever heard from your most, your least informed, but most incisive right wing uncle. I go, well, you know this trans stuff is total nonsense and lesbians don't really exist. And some guys are a little light in the loafers, but whatever, you know, that's all totally right. We need studies from San Diego State University and the CDC to prove that your least informed bigoted uncle is right about everything. But and this is good news. You know, for the people who are very pro LGBT, I most of them would acknowledge the LGBT lifestyle. It's a tough life, isn't it? Isn't that central to their activism? They say, who would choose this? The way you know that we're born this way and born this way is getting a little complicated by the data showing 50% drops almost in LGBT identity, but put that aside for a second. The people who say, we're born this way, this is why we need to redefine marriage, this is why we need homosexual adoption of children or surrogacy or we're born this way. And nobody, if you could choose this, nobody would choose this life because it's so hard. And it involves certain medical conditions, likely to have certain pathologies involved. Social ostracists. It involves highly increased rates of depression and anxiety and, okay, suicidality, especially in the case of trans. So they say, this is really, really hard. So shouldn't everyone, including LGBT identifying people, including LGBT activists, shouldn't everyone celebrate that the numbers are going down? If everyone agrees, it's a hard life and it comes with lots of extra challenges and nobody would choose this. It has increased rates of depression and anxiety and suicide, shouldn't everyone celebrate? That seems like the right thing to me. This was really one of the unanswerable arguments during the trans debate. The argument was trans identity is associated with so clearly associated with suicide that we need to do everything we can for the trans people except for discouraging them from being trans. You say, hold on, these people killed themselves at a very, very high rate. They do so even after the trans surgeries and procedures and hormones. In some cases, the rate of anxiety actually increases after the procedures. So isn't the most compassionate thing we could do for them to discourage them from being trans in the first place? And they say, no, no, no, you can't do that. The similar phenomenon happens with all of LGBT element OP. So our takeaways are men who are a little bit, a little on the phynoxide, a little mezzo phynoch, a little lighten the loafers. That seems to be a little more deeply embedded. There's no evidence that there's a gauging, but it seems to be a little more stable and deeply embedded than the LBTQ element OP. So okay, we'll focus on that at another time. The lesbian thing seems very, very malleable. Everyone knows this. Everyone who's ever known a girl in college knows that's a little malleable. The bisexual thing is totally fake and transgenderism is a mental illness. And we actually can decrease the rates of these things in society. The only question is, should we? And is there any pro-LGBT activists who can explain to me why we should encourage those various orientations and inclinations, because I can't see one, other than for the purpose of liberation or for the purpose of, I don't know, I don't know. I don't hear the argument. Can someone explain that to me? Because otherwise we should all celebrate this. Okay, speaking of homosexuals, Abdul al-Sahed, no, I'm joking, I'm joking, Abdul al-Sahed, I don't think is homosexual, but he sometimes plays one on TV, because the alternative is to look like a jihadi. So he has to go out there and post TikTok videos singing, you know, "Oh, I'm gonna dance with somebody." Anyway, Abdul al-Sahed was debating the Republican mic Rogers for the Michigan Senate race last night. And however scary you thought Abdul was, it's worse. You're gonna have trouble sleeping easy. Unless you have a Helix mattress, go check out Helix today. There's a lot more to say first, they'll go to helix-sleep.com/nulls, Canada VLS. October is the season for haunted houses, horror movies, and mysterious things creaking in the night. But if the creaking is coming from the mattress you've been sleeping on since the Bush administration, the problem is probably not paranormal. Some mattresses really do become frightening. They develop permanent valleys, mysterious springs, begin announcing themselves, and every morning you wake up feeling as though you spent the night wrestling a ghost. This is one October scare that you can actually fix with helix. Sweet little Elise and I absolutely adore. I'm not even gonna say our helix mattress. That is under state. It's our helix mattresses because we don't just have one helix mattress in the house. We have multiple. We're such good parents. We got helix for the kids. I get this was a crazy one. I even got a helix for the guest room. And it's weird because I wanted to scourge house guests. And yet I feel if they're gonna be there, I want them to sleep on the very best. Helix offers more than 20 mattress models and their quick sleep quiz matches you with one based on how you actually sleep, whether you prefer something softer, firmer, cooler, or need extra support. Ships free in the U.S. comes with a hundred twenty night sleep trial, limited lifetime warranty, a happy with helix guarantee. You're not gonna need any of those things because you're gonna love it. Go to helix sleep.com/nolescanadavues for 20% off site wide during helix's fall savings event. That is helix sleep.com/nolescanadavues 20% off site wide helix sleep.com/noles. The Abdul Microdger Senate debate was illuminating, not because we learned all that much about his positions, but we learned that he's not gonna back down from some of his positions. He's not gonna lie. He's not, he can't warm out of some of his positions. Clearist example. Who is the biggest threat? I think it was Leland Vitter, my friend Leland, who was moderating the debate, said who's the bigger threat to America? Iran, which chants death to America, which began its regime by taking a bunch of Americans hostage, which murdered hundreds of Americans in the Beirut barracks bombings, which is constantly calling for the death of the great Satan, which is who we are. Iran or Israel, an official ally of the United States that we've generally gotten along pretty well with over the years. It's not a perfect relationship. There are some tensions, no doubt about it, but this should not be a tough question, right? When I ask you again tonight, who do you think is the bigger threat to the United States? Israel or Iran? You have 60 sites. And again, Rick, I'm just gonna say that that's a ridiculous hypothetical, because here's what's happening right now. Our ostensible ally in Israel has lobbied us to go to war with Iran. We have watched as Iran has responded by bombing all kinds of countries in the Middle East, and then choking off the world's energy supply. So this is a situation in which I don't think we should be a part. I don't want to be pushed into war by Israel. And I. Okay. So he says it's a really difficult question, and then he makes a bunch of, I think, generally persuasive arguments about why people don't like the Iran War, okay? But that wasn't the question. Question was not asked by Leland Vitter, by the way. And notice, I thought Leland was moderating this, but he certainly didn't ask that question. Okay. He says, he says, that's a difficult question, because people hate the Iran War. Israel pushed us into this Iran War, but even that dodge, even that evasion seems to give away the game, right? The fact that Israel could push us into the Iran War, Israel was lobbying for the Iran War. There's no doubt about it. Other people were lobbying too, seems like some evidence that Saudi Arabia, some of the Gulf states were in favor of the Iran War, a lot of elements of the US government were in favor of the Iran War. Trump's been tough on Iran for a long time. But yeah, Israel definitely wanted us to be involved in the Iran War. The fact that one nation came over as part of their regular ally meetings with this nation, along with other nations, and encouraged us to enter into this war with the other nation, which was more than happy to make war with us and continues to attack us, as it has for a long time, for many decades, and attacks are allies, that whole framework should tell anybody with two brain cells to rub together that Iran is the greater threat. Because Iran is the kind of country we can go to war with. Israel is not the kind of country we go to war with. Israel is an ally. Sometimes they're a great ally. Sometimes they're kind of an annoying ally. You could say the same thing about France. France is an ally. We make a lot of jokes about the French, but France is an ally. But they're part of the alliances. They're part of the American Empire. The fact that Abdul Al-Sahed refuses to answer means that Israel answer is that Israel's the worst threat. And why does this matter? Plenty of people don't like Israel. But this matter is because the United States is not a human republic of farmers. The United States is a global empire. We have been a global empire, not even just since World War II. We've been a global empire for well over a hundred years. We've been a global empire since at least the Spanish-American war. We've been expansionary since the very earliest days of our country. That's strict constitutionist, Thomas Jefferson. Former constitutionally doubled the size of the United States by buying the new half of the country from Napoleon. Okay. We're an empire. And some people don't want to admit that or just don't even really know how empires work. This isn't it or no. We're not an empire. We just were a global power with a lot of allies. Yeah. Sure. But historically, that's how a lot of empires operate. Empires don't often operate with just brute force and totally exoteric domination, saying we own you, you do what we want. Very often the way that empire is going back to Athenian imperial democracy. The way that empires operate is that a power has lots of allies. And we treat them respectfully and we'd listen to their concerns, sometimes the tailwags the dog. But the thing that constitutes an empire is often on the surface just a bunch of allies. So we have lots of allies. We have all of Europe. We have the state of Israel. We have some of the Gulf states. We have other, throughout the rest of the world, we have other allies. We have basically the entire Western hemisphere in South American Central America. We have Greenland, I guess, which belonged to Denmark, which is another one of our allies. That constitutes the American empire. China has its own kind of empire. Russia has its own kind of empire and the Russian empire sometimes butts up against the American empire, our empire, which we inherited from the British empire. And so what Abdul Al-Sahid is saying is, I want to change the American empire. I want to dismantle the American empire. I want to weaken American power in the world. That's why this matters. It's not that you have to really care about Israel. It's not that you have to make some moral or theological argument for defending the state of Israel. You have to recognize that this guy is hostile to American interests. [BLANK_AUDIO] hostile to the American national and imperial project because he doesn't view himself as an American. He views himself as something else. And it's not just because he's Muslim, though that's part of it. It's not just because he's got a foreign name and a foreign culture, though that's part of it. The problem gets back to what we were talking about with Christopher Columbus at the top of the show, which is that whole scores of Americans, many of whom probably descend from the Mayflower, which is a great cigar, by the way, whole scores of lily white Americans also want to dismantle the American project because they are hostile to their country too. That is what liberalism and especially liberal maleducation is done to us for 60 years now. That's the threat. And you have some people, some people on the fringe kind of right who they're so fanatically opposed to Israel, they're saying we need to vote for Abdul al-Sahed. We need to trans the kids, flood the country with illegals. We need to murder all the babies, we need to elect an explicitly anti, I don't know, anti white, anti male, anti, anti everything that the left is anti-candidate because we hate Israel so much. And I don't think those people actually have a lot of political influence at all. I think that's pretty demonstrable, but regardless, that is taking politics in far too ideological direction. That's doing what the left seems to do a lot of the times. But politics isn't just about debate club as I point out frequently on the show. Politics is about hard interests and geography and peoples, the nation is its people. And it's about exerting power around the world, hopefully in accord with reason. When you have guys coming up saying I want to dismantle your power, that's a big threat. That's a bigger threat than any individual issue. Okay, speaking, let's get one more from the Abdul al-Sahed debate. He can't condemn Hamas, he can't condemn the Muslim Brotherhood, he says his home is Egypt. This is all started by Hamas. We are going for it. We can continue this conversation in the second half of the day. He does own a home the floor. I just, he took it off the market. I don't know for why. He just took it off his home in the United States. We're done. Emmering. Staying in the Middle East, Congressman Rogers is in the United States. I love that. I love this point. The mic Rogers is making. Get out there. Donate to mic Rogers. Go out there to vote for mic Rogers. He makes this point. He says, this guy says his home is Egypt. He's not even just, he's a radical leftist and he opposes these policies and we disagree about it. He says he's not American. The guy's clearly not American. And then the best rebuttal Abdul can come up with is, well, you know what, he owns a vacation home in Florida. And Rogers comes back with a killer singer, he goes, yeah, he owns a vacation home in the United Arab Emirates, at least my homes in America. The guy is just a foreigner. I don't care what his paperwork says. He's clearly a foreigner. You want to see a crazier debate? There's the lieutenant governor debate in Vermont, not a lot of people paying close attention to the lieutenant governor debate in Vermont. Here is, we don't have the, what, you don't have my Vermont clip? You big jerks. That's driving me crazy. All right. We're going to do a pickup for the public show. That drives me nuts. It was a great clip. Okay. Before we go though, before we get to the mailbag, I have to give you an update in the Cornell 7. I know, I avoided talking about it yesterday, but I can't avoid talking about it today. So you know, the story of the Cornell 7, there was this girl who went over to a flat house and did a bunch of ketamine and drank a bunch at the flat house, and then she happily agreed to a threesome with the guys. And then it became like a menacea, septum menacea, weets, and then I'm using a lot of euphemisms here. And then anyway, it goes on for seven hours and guys say, hey, could we do this? She says, no, don't do that. But yeah, I do want to do that. And now, okay, then 530 rolls of rent. She says, okay, I'm done. They all go home. Then later on, she wants to get invited to a party at the flat house. They don't invite her. She then accuses them of rape. And then they investigated this. There was no evidence it was a rape. Then two years later, she follows a civil suit. Now, they're reopening the criminal case. They're going to change the law in New York to say that even explicitly, consensual sex is somehow rape. And so then the boys respond and they say, okay, you're going to accuse us of rape because we were drunk. We're going to accuse you of rape because we were drunk doing. Maybe you raped us. So then there was a kind of clever ideological and legal maneuver to stop what seems like an unfair attack from the girl. And then anyway, there's an update. Apparently, the girl might have actually raped one of the guys in that the guy is alleging that he was. How do I say this? Because the family show that the girl didn't just allow him to do things to her, but that she did things to him that she like, she was the active party and doing things that he didn't want. She kind of like, how do I put this? She kind of played the part of the guy and he kind of played the part of the girl. And anyway, so that's like totally gross. You couldn't waterboard that one out of me, but he admitted that because he wants to make the point, hey, you're going to accuse me of rape. There's a stronger argument that you rape me, lady. And then this other text just came out, this text comes out from right after the supposed rape, where one of the guys writes, he goes, hey, this is Jonathan, so and so, gave me your number. I just wanted to apologize for everything. It's went the other night. My memory is kind of fuzzy, but we both feel bad for being too messed up to shut it down and kick people out before it got out of hand. You're a great person, sorry, you're catching heat on campus. I'm sorry, you were hurt, not I'm sorry, because no one thinks they were hurt at this point. Saying sorry, your reputation is suffering. Here's what the girl says right after the supposed rape, all Jonathan, I really appreciate this text. My memory is super cladded too. I think we were all way to effing drunk and high. I'm getting a little heat from the pifi girls and so and so and so and so can't get my name out of their mouths, but that's to be expected. So again, her concern is only about her reputation, not about any supposed violation to her, but that's to be expected, but at the end of the day, the nuns, none of the sexual stuff was illegal. And honestly, I really liked being with you and Matt. So anything anyone has to say about the, I, she doesn't say Menazzo, which she says, you know, I'm going to spell it for the kids and anyone, anything anyone has to say about the G-A-N-G-B-A-N-G. She uses that word specifically is out of their jurisdiction. I don't think we should feel any shame for the party, our body, our choice, ASF. This is, if a Hollywood screenwriter wrote it, they'd say it's too on the nose. There is no legal case whatsoever. This woman said during the entire sexual encounter and afterwards, perhaps multiple times that it was all consensual, she was into it. She supported it. No one should feel like they broke the law. No one should feel any shame for that matter. I mean, you kind of look, I feel bad for the kids because she's ruined their lives and it gives them a rape, basal state. I feel bad for her because she's super messed up and she later goes on to say, I'm, you know, I'm not really promiscuous. That was all crazy. Maybe that's true. It might be true. And kids just go kind of crazy in college. Especially, this is where I really feel bad for all of them because they've been cultivated in liberalism where they say, my body, my choice. This is good. This is liberating. I'm supposed to do this. I'm doing what I'm supposed to do. Years ago, 70 years ago, kids would have said, you know, I went to bed by 9 p.m. and I finished all my homework and I said my prayers and I went to bed. I'm a good little boy. I'm a good little girl. And today in our liberal culture, we say, you know, I went out and I slept with seven guys and I did a bunch of ketamine and I just did whatever I wanted with my own body and I exercise my personal autonomy. Isn't that, isn't that great? In other words, they're not trying to be bad. They're trying to be good according to the bad standards of liberalism. And that's where you pity all of these people. But the poor guys, I mean, they should sue Cornell. They should sue this woman for defamation. It's just horrific what they have been put through. Even though their behavior was horrific, even though the girls behavior was horrific, the, I lay most of the blame at the feet of the school administrators and of liberalism more generally. It would be one thing if they were trying to be bad, but just skirted the law. You know, they're trying to be bad, but it didn't rise to the level of criminal liability. The saddest, the most repulsive part of the whole thing is they were trying to be good according to the perversions of our time. Okay. Before we go, my producers have finally pulled this amazing debate from the lieutenant governor race in Vermont, Molly Gray to lieutenant governor John Rogers. The lieutenant governor John Rogers is a Republican in Vermont is a very, very moderate Republican. He was a Democrat for most of his career. He's debating Molly Gray just to give you just a little hint of the lesser known races going on in these midterms, the kind of candidates were up against, speaking of crazy women. Miss Gray, you talk constantly about your family farm. Your campaign website also says you believe everyone has the right to live with dignity and ensure humane treatment, but your family farm was at the center of serious labor violations around its treatment of H2A migrant workers. Why did you not speak out against the mistreatment of migrant workers on your family farm and did you use your influence to direct the investigation? Wow. You know, John seems like kind of a new, a new low here. I'm on the ballot. My experience, my background, my policies are on the ballot. my family's not on the ballot. So I'm gonna give you an opportunity. opportunity to ask a different question. No, I don't think I will. I think I'll. He asked this very well-formed question, "Hey, you have this family farm that you're involved in that you're constantly touting, and you also tout how we need to be so helpful to migrant workers, but your family farm, this business that you're involved in, abused migrant workers. And then you have some responsibility over that, so did you abuse your power here? Is there hypocrisy?" And she answers with just the most stereotypical, worst caricature of a white liberal lady. Okay. First of all, you're giving me the ick. Okay. Second of all, "What?" "Excuse me?" Okay. You know what? I'm going to give you a chance to shut up. That's her answer. This is a very good question, totally valid question, articulate. She was not, it wasn't engaging any invective or anything, or you know, ad hominem, it's it. Yeah. And this is just liberalism. I mean, this gets down to perhaps the essence of liberalism, which is that it makes communication impossible, either because they're obtuse, and they pretend not to understand the issue, or because they change the language all the time, using politically-correct euphemisms to make communication impossible, or because they just won't engage. You can't have a republic with people like that. You cannot have a republic with people like that who won't discuss an issue. The basis of our republic is that we can deliberate and discuss and resolve problems through speech. You can't have a republic, I'm rubbery and you are glue, and John, what bounces off of me sticks to you. This is who's going to take over the country if we lose the midterms. Okay, speaking up, before we get to the mailbag, I want to tell you about GOP votes. There's a lot more to say first, they'll go to GOPvotes.org. The midterm elections are here. 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. We'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 Senate Battle Grants States of Maine or Ohio, early voting is already underway starting this week, making your voice heard as easy as you then ever. You can get election reminders, look up your polling location, and pick a date to vote early. Go to GOPvotes.org today. I did four by SLF PAC, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. I did not pick the comment. Somebody picked the comment in the control room. We'll see if this was a good comment from Ian Bob. Michael, yesterday was a rough day. The Yankees lost. I mean, I did have a daughter yesterday, but the Yankees, Michael might actually be their biggest fan. I know. You know, it's funny. People are surprised because I don't care about sports at all. When the whole girl's sports debate was up, I was very forthright. I'm like, most of my conservative friends who pretended to care about the WNBA or whatever, women's sports. I said, I don't care about women's sports at all. I barely care about men's sports and I don't know the rules to football. I know like most of them, but I don't know, I don't know, I don't watch football basketball, hockey even. I don't watch any of that. I care about one sport, and specifically I care about one team. I don't even want to watch other teams. So New York Yankees. And I don't know if I ever, if Ben ever gets his way and I finally get canned from the daily wire, I am going to throw in my application to be the field manager or general manager of the New York Yankees because at this point, I think I could do a much better job than Aaron Boone or Brian Cashman. Finally, we arrive at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mail back or mail back a sponsor by PureTuck at PureTuck.com/NolesCanadaVVLS to join my wireless company today. Take it away. Hi, Michael. Millie here. I just turned 18 and immediately registered to vote in preparation for the upcoming November election. I'm sure you and your team are well aware of how difficult it is for a Gen Z college student to get information on politicians without being blatantly lied to. So I was wondering if you had any advice on what I should be looking for or where to start looking for information. As always, thanks for helping me turn my purple state a little more red. Great question. Just vote straight Republican. I know this is going to be so contrary to all the preening, sanctimonious pundits and activists on the left and the right and your civic teacher and all that, but no one has time to research all the candidates and write up. No one really should. That's a rationalist ideological approach. A good rule of thumb. They're going to be way more right, especially now that the parties are so clear and one party is trying to flood the country with illegal and is totally opposed to patriotism and has the heat map of love is completely inverted away from those close to us to those further away and abstracted. And they want to kill babies and chop off kids, generals and all the rest. So you just vote straight Republican. Sometimes they're bad Republicans in the mix and maybe those you either withhold your vote if the office doesn't matter as much or you write somebody in or you probably don't vote for a Democrat almost ever. But just as a rule, save yourself a bunch of time. You don't need to get brownie points and cookies for, you know, I did research on every county clerk candidate and to our and I, the most civically engaged, doesn't matter. Just vote Republican. Like I said, I don't mean to sound like a hack. I don't think I think I'm giving the more astute and deeper view of political philosophy, which is, it's like the IQ belker of me. It's like, it's like you got your local yokel doesn't, doesn't read his Edmund Burke, doesn't find he's just like, well, I vote Republican. And then you get the midwet and say, we actually have to read the economics white papers on the websites of every candidate. I don't know why it sounds like Jordan Peterson. That's not something Jordan would say, but, well, you know, and it's about whether you believe in the candidate. No, it's whatever. The guy in the middle, the kind of the, the, the wonk guy would say, no, you have to, you don't because then you get to the Jedi up at the top, just vote straight Republican. That will serve you better statistically 100% of the time, okay, next question. Hi, Michael Sean here, longtime listener of the show, and I have a question for you about your favorite topic of conversation, Dante, more specifically in Fernow. I'm in Kanto 19, where Virgil and Dante trek into the eighth circle of hell and they come across the shade of Pope Nicholas III. And I was wondering, even though Dante laments the Pope for his corruption, how would a Pope be sent to hell if he's infallible? It's something that I was confused about, figured I'd go to a trusted source on Dante. Thanks. Look forward to hearing what you have to say. Very good question with a very simple answer, infallible does not mean impeccable. Infallible means, and in the context of the papacy, infallible means in certain contexts, in certain very limited contexts, the Pope can teach infallibly on matters of doctrine, dogma, and faith and morals, ex-cathedra, through a formal act. It's narrow, but people infallibility in that narrow sense is actually a logical necessity that comes from ecclesiology if Christ is to have a representative on earth in a visible church that actually exists throughout the world. It's not something that people invented down the line. It's not something that gives magical powers to the Pope or anything like that. It's a logical necessity of a visible and distinct church. It's implied by the keys to the kingdom of heaven, but it doesn't mean that they're impeccable. A good example is the first Pope, Peter, is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What you bind on earth will be on in heaven. What you lose on earth will be lost in heaven. And then Peter sins, like right away. Peter sins a bunch in the Bible, which is important, that's instructive for us, because impeccable means comes from the Latin verb peccarae means to sin. The Pope can sin. We're going to say in acts when St. Paul goes up to Peter, Peter, who's been eating like Gentiles, and then the Jews come around, and he wants to eat like Jews again and not hang up with the Gentiles, and Paul rebukes him. Paul is not, in any way, diminishing Peter's office as the spokesman of the apostles, the kind of leader of the group, he's not doing that, he's not suggesting that Paul is teaching in error or anything like that, that we shouldn't take seriously the apostles of Paul. Peter, what he's saying is, he did something wrong, but that's okay, infallible has never meant impeccable. So there could be plenty of popes in hell. I don't think there are a lot of popes in hell, but there might very well be some, and if Dante's right, there's Pope Nicholas and Pope Boniface. Okay, next question. Michael, you get about 98% of your takes, right, but this is one of the two percent from one baseball officiant out to another. Berlin are getting pulled out of the game by his daughter, his final game of his 20 year career, and he gets choked up, he starts crying, it was a beautiful thing to quote, "Moneyball, how can you not be romantic about baseball?" Your main problem with the whole thing was he wasn't stoic about it, correct? He wasn't Tony Suprano, he wasn't Lou Gehrig. Okay, my question, similar situation, it's game seven of the world series. The guys are on the baseline, old glories flying in the wind. They start playing the national anthem, and it all comes together. The cameras panning around the guys. They've been playing for years. All this work, all this time, all this effort, the love for the country, and they pan to the guy. You see the tear to the eye? You see the tear running down his face? And I love it. I love that moment. It's a beautiful thing to pride for the country, to pride for what they do. I love the game. game. Is that a bad thing? Bingo. That's not a bad thing, but those are totally different circumstances. So I talked about it on the show, Verlander, and this is 21 year career, he's one of the greatest pitchers ever, and what do they do? I guess the team arranged for his daughter to run up onto the mound after his last pitch, and then he starts crying and he's got his shoulders going on. It's really sad because Verlander's awesome, but I hated that scene. I really didn't like that because that is different from the baseball players, as you say, standing on the first baseline of the beginning of the game, world series, all glories flying, the national anthem. Tear goes down their eye because of the love for their country and the love of the game. Right. Yeah. Love of the country, love of the game. That's what I want to see. I don't want self-indulgent love on the field. And to have, I don't want to grow up, forget about, he should have remained stoke when his daughter ran up to him. I don't want his daughter running on the field during a game. That's weird. I don't want that. Nothing against the daughter. She was a cute little kid and Verlander's very impressive guy. But I don't want that. The game, yes, you're very romantic about baseball. I tear up watching baseball. I'm very romantic about baseball. But yes, it's about the love of the game. It's about the country. It's the most patriotic sport left. It's America's favorite past time. It's about the legacy. It's about the history. It's about, but it's not about the individuals and indulging the personal and the individual decide. That's what I didn't like. I don't like it now when the baseball players start dancing around and getting pretending that they're basketball basketball or more football players for that matter. I don't like that. I like the old. You keep it about business. You keep it about the game. And then when something great happens in the game, when something great happens for the country, then you're cheering, then you jump on each other. Well, even when something bad happens in Paul O'Neill starts punching out water coolers, I like that. But it's got to be about the game. It can't be self-indulgent. It has to be all about winning. And you can tell I'm sensitive to this because the Yankees have not been all about winning in quite a while. Okay. I know we're running late. I don't care. Give me the last mail back question. Good morning, Michael. This is Aaron. So in light of the Christopheike Bot's execution, I am curious about your thoughts on the Western tradition of the last meal. I looked into this and last meals in the United States are surprisingly restrictive in practice. Intenacy last meals must cost $20 or less in Texas. They got rid of the last meal together because some guy back in 2011 ordered everything but the kids in sync and didn't eat any of it. Now I realize that these people are the worst that humanity has to offer. But just for context, Adolf Eichmann, the chief architect of the Holocaust, was granted his last meal request of a bottle of kosher Israeli wine and he finished half of it. So I'm curious if you think we need to modify our last meal practices. Also, if hypothetically, Professor Jacob were in the chief priest of the Sanhedrin and condemned you to death or idolatry and fact-shaming, what would be your last meal? Hypothetically, of course. Very, very good question. And it actually gives me another thought on the earlier question about the Pope's in hell. But we'll get to that in a second. Yeah, I'm very pro last meal. Civilized. When we execute people, we don't want it to be in a state of private vengeance. We don't want to torch them. Sometimes people will say, "Isn't it even worse for these people?" They make this, I think, disingenuous argument against death. They say, "I don't want to execute them. I want them to suffer even more. I think it's way worse for them to have to live out their lives in prison." You say, "Okay, well, I don't want them to suffer. I want justice. I want there to be justice. I want to help rehabilitate them, and concentrate on the mind. I want to deter other crime." Ironically, many of the pro-death penalty people are less bloodthirsty, or at least present themselves that way, than the anti-death penalty people. Because you misunderstand the point of the death penalty. I don't want them to suffer. The death penalty, I think, is more civilized, certainly than whatever we have in America right now. So, yeah, I think they should have a last meal. I'm very pro last meal, even for a guy like Ikeman. Give him his bottle of wine. Give people their last meal. What would my last meal be? You said if Jacob became the head of the Sanhedrin, this also brings me to another point on the Pope, the difference between infallible and impeccable. Think about Caiaphas, the high priest. Caiaphas in the Bible is, he does a lot of bad things. It does everything he possibly can to kill God. But by virtue of his office as the high priest, he prophesies. He says better for one man to die that the nation may live. That is the kind of prophecy that comes from his office as the high priest, even though he's a sinful man. So, Professor Jacob becomes head of the Sanhedrin, and I get my last meal, probably a cheesesteak. Probably a cheesesteak. I too would like a glass of red wine with that. I don't know about his really wine, but if Professor Jacob's one doling it out, I'll take what I can get, so sure. I'll have that wine, I'll have the Jacob wine, and a nice, delicious cheesesteak with onions and little bit of mushrooms and whizz chopped on a nice, Samarosa roll. Okay. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member of these good and all kind of rebellious. Check it for two months free on all annual plans. This is our generation civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should it figure as polarizing as place sonders, even be allowed on campus? Oh, can you hear me okay? Tonders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman, this is the decision I cannot find. Islam will conquer the West. Samarikum. 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. Mohamed 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 leap front. Stretch your mouth and listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling.