The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1100 - AOC Rallies The Commies To Fight For Abortion

Episode Date: October 3, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl AOC claims workers need abortion to fight the capitalists, Nancy Pelosi says we need immigrants to pick our crops, and David French makes the “conservative” case for trans-ing the kids. - - -  DailyWire+: Join the Jeremy’s Razors Contest For The Car at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/play. See terms and conditions for complete details at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/referralterms Become a DailyWire+ member today to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se  The Daily Wire is looking to hire a Senior Front End Web Developer and a Senior Vice President of Marketing Analytics, Data, and operations. To view open positions and to apply, go to www.dailywire.com/knowles    - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Pure Talk - Stop funding woke corporate agendas. Switch to Pure Talk instead. Get 50% off your first month with promo code ‘KNOWLES’’ https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/KNOWLES - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Four days ago, AOC said something really dumb and wrong. That alone, of course, would not be particularly newsworthy, since the news typically endeavors to present stories that are unusual. But this particular viral diatribe caught my attention, not because AOC's argument is wrong, but because it is perfectly wrong. Take a lesson. I think it's important to state that that abortion is an economic issue. forcing poor and working-class people to give birth against their will, against their consent, against their ability to provide for themselves or a child is a profound economic issue, and it's certainly a way to keep a workforce basically conscripted to large-scale employers and to employers to be

to work more against their will, to take second and third jobs against their desire and their own autonomy. And so the idea that that abortion and access to abortion is somehow not a profound and central economic and class issue and class struggle is certainly something that I think a person who's never had to contend with the ability to carry a child. You know, it belies that perspective. So AOC's argument is that abortion is an important tool of the working class of the proletariat to shake off the bonds of its capitalist oppressors. But if that's the case, then how come all the big corporations are subsidizing it? How come after the Dobbs decision came down overruling Roe v. Wade?

How come Google and Walmart and Amazon and pretty much every big company in the country sent out a press release promising to reimburse the costs of female employees who want to travel out of state to abort their babies. Abortion is a class issue, but not in the way AOC thinks, actually in exactly the opposite way. Abortion, much like AOC, is a tool of wealthy capitalists to squeeze more productivity and therefore more money out of their labor force. Women who have babies take more time off. during pregnancy, during maternity leave, even after they come back to work, if they come back to work, mothers are more distracted with their kids' doctors' appointments and Little League and piano recitals and all the sorts of things that make them less ideal as automaton's

churning out widgets in the factory for big boss penny bags. It's much, much more efficient from a money standpoint for the capitalists to just encourage the women and even pay the women to kill their kids so that they can get back to the office and do more spreadsheets. If AOC had an ounce of introspection, she might stop to ask herself why pretty much all of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country support her. Why she gets such glowing treatment in the corporate press. Why she gets invited to all of the fancy events with all the rich people. Why AOC rakes in more big dollar campaign donations than pretty much any politician of her stature in the country. If AOC were really a renegade radical fighting the evil and entrenched capitalist

establishment, wouldn't you expect that that establishment might not fawn over her constantly? In reality, AOC is no renegade. She is no radical. She is certainly no threat to the system. The system attacks and silences and prosecutes the only real people who question or oppose it, which is to say conservatives. The system will throw Midwestern grannies in jail for taking selfies in the Capitol Rotunda. It'll raid Donald Trump's home on bogus charges if he gets a little bit too high up in the polls for 2024. But it will never go after AOC, at least as long as she continues, as we see now, to do its bidding. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment Friday is from Shailin Moon. What a name. Who says, that happens to my

son all the time. Whenever he's with someone, he gets attention from other girls. But when he's been single, they don't show nearly as much interest. He's recently married with a new daughter. Well, that's good for him. That's totally true. When I think I mentioned this in the context of dating advice, but it's true in all walks of life. It's true politically and everywhere else. When you are successful, whether it means you got a girlfriend or whether it means you're winning elections or whatever. When you're successful, that invites more success because it is social proof that you're someone worth investing in. So if you got a girlfriend, then more girls are going to show interest in you because you seem successful. And so these other girls are going to look around. They're going to

say, oh, well, good enough for that girl, good enough for me. Maybe I've got to take another look at that guy. When you see a political team that is winning and winning and winning, that's going to persuade more people, huh? Maybe that team is worth looking at. Maybe they've got the right idea. This is true in all walks of life. Okay, now when you're talking, whether it's to a girl or to a boy, or I don't know, to your grandma across the country, you got to check out Pure Talk. Right now, go to Pure Talk.com, enter code Knowles. The government is addicted to spending. It's not going to stop. And that reckless spending is driving up the costs on everything. It's not fair. Sure, we can whine and complain about it, but we can also do something about it. There are things you

going to do right now to lower your monthly expenses and mitigate the impact of inflation. Step one, this should be a no-brainer. Switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk. You are hemorrhaging money on your cell phone bill. If you even look at your cell phone bill, which I used to not even want to do, okay, but if you're with Verizon ATT, T Mobile, I know how much you're paying. You're paying too much. Pure Talk will give you unlimited talk, text, and six gigs of data for just $30 a month. That's not it, not $30 plus another $20 plus another, just $30 a month. That could be a huge savings for you and your family. That's grocery money. That's gas money. And Pure Talk never raises their rates. By switching to Pure Talk, the average family of four is saving over $75 every month.

Customers are realizing they just don't need as much data as they thought. Join the hundreds of thousands who are making the switch to Pure Talk today. When you switch to Pure Talk with my special code, you will get 50% off your first month. Go to PureTalk.com. Choose your plan. Enter code Noles, K&WLES for this special offer. That's puretalk.com. Enter code Knowles, K&WLES, for 50% off your first month. The class struggle, pseudo-communist rhetoric coming out of the left is so silly. It's so ridiculous.

So much of our political system is just so fake. And I think it's becoming clearer and clearer. Donald Trump in particular exposed a lot of it as being. so fake, that what we see is two sides locked in the struggle, the far left and the far right, and they're fighting each other. That it's really just kind of a charade very often. It's kind of just political theater. And no matter what happens in these battles, the system, the kind of liberal establishment system, just sort of always wins. You see this on certain issues. They don't change no matter who wins. The left wins, the right wins. We get more and more immigration,

and more and more illegal immigration for that matter. The left wins, the right wins, we just keep offshoring our jobs. The left wins, the right wins, we keep getting more globalist government, whether that means through trade treaties or whether that means through giving more of our national sovereignty away. It just doesn't seem to, whether the left wins or the right ones, we get the exact same foreign policy. A lot of it just seems like a charade.

I don't think the political battle in this country is between the communists on one side and the fascists on the other side. I think it's between two slightly different variations of liberals. You see this with Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi, who came out and she said, look, we need more mass migration because, not first because of justice, not first because of these poor oppressed masses, yearning to be free, but no, because we need someone to pick the crops. The fact is, is that we have a responsibility to secure a,

our border. We also have a responsibility to recognize the importance of newcomers to our nation. Right now, the best thing that we can do for our economy is to have comprehensive immigration reform. We have a shortage of workers in our country, and you see even in Florida, some of the farmers and the growers saying, why are you shipping these immigrants up north? We need them to pick the crops down here. But that doesn't mean that we don't recognize our moral responsibility as well. Notice what she leads with. She doesn't say, we need more migrants in this country because it's the right thing to do.

Or because American foreign policy has destabilized Latin America. Or because we're a melting pot and we, no, she says we need more workers. She's making a capitalist argument. AOC is shilling on behalf of the capitalists to get, women to sit in their offices and stay in their jobs and not have the temerity to want to raise a family. That's why the capitalists fund all of these people. The dominant power in this country that conservatives need to fight against is actually not the communists or even the socialists. They're a problem too, but there are a relatively minor problem. The problem is the liberals.

The menace in our country is not Joseph Stalin. It's Bill Clinton. Okay. It's neoliberal. kind of crony capitalist, money, money, money above all else to the destruction of, to the detriment and I think really destruction of communities, families, the traditional way of life, are national borders for goodness sakes. Everything is money. The libs want the open borders. They've got a whole lot of reasons for one of the open borders. They say they've got social reasons. They certainly have political reasons and electoral reasons. But the reason they got a lot of oomph behind it is because open borders is good for the crony capitalists. It's not the commies exactly.

And conservatives, I think we're figuring this out now. We've certainly been figuring out a little bit more since Trump. We should not reflexively be defending big corporations. Or even the free market as an end unto itself. Markets are great. Market dynamics can be a wonderful thing for economic growth in a country. But it's not the be-all and end-all, okay? It's not an end-unt to itself.

That would be putting the cart before the horse. The end of government is justice. The end of government is a flourishing society where we're all getting along and growing and living together in a good country. Okay, we want the general welfare. We want the common good. We want to live in a nice place. We were talking about this a week or two ago. You would much rather be a poor man in a good society than a rich man in a society falling apart because even your wealth is contingent. on the stability and flourishing of your society. Okay, if you're a rich man in Afghanistan, well, you're probably not going to stay a rich man very long because the Taliban's going to show up and take your money.

Okay. That's what we need to focus on here. We need to stop. I remember when I was coming up in politics, when I was a teenager first kind of learning about politics, the Republicans and the conservatives, they just carried water for big corporations. Even when the corporations attacked us,

Even when they started to censor us, you heard arguments from people ostensibly on the right who said, well, you know, we can't regulate Google, the most powerful company on earth. We can't regulate that. If you don't want to be censored and kicked out of the public square in your self-governing republic, in your formerly self-governing republic, then just build your own Google. Yeah, that's a solution. It's preposterous. And it does nothing but advance the interests of what we would call the left.

Speaking of guys who just constantly defend. the liberal status quo. David French, David French, who we've always gotten along personally well enough, but he's, the Donald Trump era just really radicalized this guy. So he was always considered a conservative or a right winger. We wrote for right wing outlets and things.

But since Donald Trump, he's been moving further and further to the left. I think now you would call him a liberal writer, but he still calls himself a conservative writer. And I think, I'm actually grateful to David's columns. I know a lot of conservatives just dunk on David all the time. I am grateful for David French's columns because they show you the chaos and absurdity that conservatives' relatively recent obsession with liberalism and love affair with liberalism will lead to. David French just recently took to his blog to make the conservative case for transing the kids. I'm not joking. I'm not being hyperbolic. It's called when culture wars go way too far.

He writes, I've always been conservative. In the left versus right context, I've always considered myself a man of the right, the Reagan right. But when the extremes grow more extreme and the classical liberal structure of the American Republic is under intellectual and legal attack, suddenly I'm an involuntary moderate. So I think he's overstating the classical liberal structure of the American Republic. I don't think America was founded as some classical liberal place. I just gave a long speech on this and wrote a long essay about this at The Daily Wire. I think that's made up. I think that's a completely retconned revisionist history of America that took place in the middle to late 20th century. And I think that America actually was founded as a Christian nation.

And the evidence for that is pretty clear. for one, the word liberal just doesn't appear in the founding documents at all, doesn't appear in the Constitution or the Declaration, doesn't appear even in the Federalist. It appears a handful of times in the Federalist, but then not referring to a political philosophy, only really referring to the classical sense of the word, which means generous. You know, he's very liberal with his wine or something. So anyway, I think he's wrong on that point, but he might be sincerely wrong there, okay, he thinks of himself as a man on the right, but now he says, because the right wing is so extreme, he's gone moderate. He says, it's difficult to think of an exercise of state power more

raw, immediate, and devastating than the use of state power to sever the bond between parent and child. What is he talking about here? He's talking in part about Texas's decision to classify transing the kids as child abuse, that if you go and you take a kid and you take the kid into a doctor to put him on cross-sex hormones or block his puberty or chop off his genitals, that that is a child abuse. And David It says, no, no, that's going too far to suggest that parents can't lop off their kids' genitals and pump them full of the wrong hormones. That's going too far. He says, it is a power to be exercised sparingly.

In the most extreme cases, it is not a power to enlist in the culture war over one of the emotional and contentious contests of our time, whether or not to turn little children into eunuchs. At a time of profound public division and deep moral conflict, pluralism suffers. from a serious disadvantage compared to the ill-liberal extremes of the far left and far right. It's not utopian. By design, it doesn't own the libs. He's talking about pluralism here. It doesn't own anybody. It accommodates dramatic differences in worldview. The illiberal extremes by con he thinks liberal is a good word when referring to the political philosophy. The illiberal

extremes, by contrast, offer an alluring vision for their partisans, ultimate victory in the vanquishing of their opponents. But when that victory sever his parent from child, it's not only unjust, it's destabilizing. I think it's much better to sever a parent from the child that that parent is abusing than to sever a child from his genitals. Call me crazy. Call me a radical. Call me illiberal. I think it's pretty clearly child abuse to lop off a child's genitals or to start that process by putting him on cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. I think that's an abuse. And whether parents are doing that because they've got Munchausen by proxy, whether parents are doing that because they sincerely believe that's the right thing to do, I don't really care. You've got to protect the kid from that kind of abuse that will destroy the kid's body for life.

It's irreversible. Okay. And it comes with all sorts of other medical ailments that are not even related directly to sex. And what it does, speaking again of the crooked capitalists, what it does is it puts these kids on a lifelong subscription to pay oodles and oodles of money to big pharma. Do you think that might have something to do with the explosion of transgenderism for ever younger groups of people? You think there might be some financial motives here, since it's such a huge moneymaker? Since we've got doctors on record, public health leaders and administrators on record, who are saying, you know, these transgender surgeries, they're a big moneymaker. Matt Walsh in his expose of the Vanderbilt Transgender Clinic published one of those videos just a couple of weeks ago.

Of course. Of course. I am grateful to David's columns because if this is the logical conclusion of liberalism, the kind of classical liberalism or right-wing liberalism or whatever the people want to call it, then I'm out. Then I don't want it. And I think David's a very smart guy, actually. And so people mock him now because he comes to these crazy conclusion. because he's a very intelligent guy. And so if this is the conclusion that liberalism leads to, then we got to get rid of liberalism, guys. Liberalism is bad. It's not good. You've even in recent years that you've heard this crazy line,

you've other people say, I'm a conservative because I'm a liberal. I don't know. That's not me. I'm a conservative because I'm a conservative. I'm a conservative because I don't want to lop kids genitals off. Call me crazy. We need, we obviously need an alternative.

And in recent years, in the last few decades, politically, there really isn't an alternative. It's a kind of sock puppet game between, you know, AOC and Pelosi, they play the part of the far left wing people, and then David French plays the part of the right wing people. But the effect of their political bickering is substantially the same. You're enriching the same oligarchic, crooked capitalist corporations. You're advancing the same social policies. AOC, because he says it's good to trans the kids, David French, because he's saying it's so important to our liberal structure that we must allow in certain cases, people, to trans the kids. But what's the conclusion? The conclusion is that the kids get transced.

Same thing. AOC calling for mass migration and conservatives saying, well, we can't stop mass migration. That would be wrong. That's not who we are. We need to be responsible and lose with dignity. And we can't really deport people or, okay, well, what's the effect? The effect is mass migration. The libs pushing for all these kind of transnational trade deals that give up American sovereignty. The conservatives, quote unquote conservative saying, well, you know, free trade. is a deeply conservative value as of, I don't know, 20 years ago. And so we've got to give up all that sovereignty, too, but we're doing it to, not for any political arrangement, not because we love the UN or the IMF or anything like that. It's because we want to make money. Okay, well,

what's the effect? The effect is the same thing. And, and bizarrely, maybe not so bizarrely, all those kinds of policies are deeply unpopular with the American people. Right now, go out and do a poll. There have been polls on this, but go out, do a poll. on the popularity of transing the kids. I promise you the vast majority of Americans opposed transing the kids. Go look at the popularity of middle to late-term abortion. It's extremely, virtually no one supports late-term abortion among the American public. The ruling class does.

The crooked capitalists do. The libs who run everything, they support it. But the people don't. Who supports mass migration? The vast majority of Americans, according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, want to drastically reduce illegal immigration and legal immigration, drastically reduce it. And yet the ruling class doesn't want to do a thing about it.

On the left, they say we need more of all kinds of immigration, and on the right, they don't fix the illegal immigration problem, and then they say we need more legal immigration. Both of those views from the political class are completely out of step with where the American people are. And the result of both of them, of this kind of bickering between the left and the right, it's basically just the same policy. that's what we're fighting folks.

And it's not, it's not anti-democratic or something like that to say that liberalism has gone way, way too far, we've let it run roughshut over our country for far too long. No, it actually, to say no to liberalism would be a vindication of American democracy. But unfortunately, the liberals ensconce themselves in power by pretending to speak on behalf of democracy. And whenever the people don't want to go along with their plans, they just say, well, no, no, no. that the people are trying to threaten democracy. Oh, no, no, no, when the majority of people vote for some policy or vote for some candidate that's too conservative, they say, no, no,

that's a threat to democracy. Oh, no, that Trump won the election, that's a threat to democracy. Oh, no, Georgia Maloney won the election in Italy. That's a threat to, Victor Von, won the election in Hungary. That's a threat to democracy. But this is the conclusion of it, folks. The religious writer, the social conservatives of the 1990s and 2000s, they have been vindicated in absolutely everything. Here's a headline from the Guardian. It's quote, we're expected to be okay with not having children. How gay parenthood through surrogacy became a battleground. Became a, yeah, I agree that shouldn't be a battleground. We shouldn't even be suggesting it. How did it become a battleground? It became a

battleground because the liberals rammed it through against the will of the people and against right reason and against justice. How gay parenthood through surrogacy. How gay parenthood through surrogacy. became a battleground. What does this say? Says, in New York, a gay couple fighting to make their insurers pay for fertility treatment have found themselves in the middle of a culture war. What happens when the right to parenthood involves someone else's body? What is the right to parenthood? Could someone explain that to me? I think people have a, you have a right to marry, or you have a right to do the right thing, and getting married is certainly the right thing. When you get married, you do that to come together for the sake of the generation of an education of children.

Now, not everyone gets kids. Some people are infertile, and that's a great pain. I've mentioned on the show before, sweet little Elise and I have, we spent a couple years dealing with infertility. but fortunately we were able to sort of, you know, get around that with a few different treatments. We didn't, because we're Catholic, we couldn't do IVF, which is the subject of this particular article. But it was a real pain. And so I know that it's really hard for couples who are infertile and you can adopt and you can do all sorts of other things. Gay couples obviously do not have a right to parenthood because, two men can't make a baby and two women can't make a baby. But those people still have the same

natural longing for kids that we all do. And so they want to get around it. They say, well, I have a right to parenthood. But if you have an obligation to deal with the consequences of your actions. And so if you say, okay, I'm not going to get married. I'm going to live with, if I'm a man, I'm going to live with another man or if I'm a woman, I'm going to live with another woman, then one of the consequences of that is you're not going to have kids. Because the only people who can be truly said to have any rights in the context of child birth and child rearing are the babies here. The babies who have a right to their natural mother and father, a right to be the product

of the conjugal act of their mother and father bound together in marriage. If we're talking about rights in the abstract, that is the only real right that can be said about birth and parenting. Now, the libs don't like that. So this article goes on. It's an amazingly long article. And these two, they say, look, it's illegal to do gay surrogacy in some places. You know, to go out, purchase the egg of a woman, and then rent the womb of a poor woman, and then create a child in a petri dish, and then implant that child, probably just freeze a bunch of the other children that we create in a freezer indefinitely, and then plant that child into the poor woman, and then eventually get that child and intentionally deprive the child of his natural mother.

They're saying, and it's hard for us to do that. Of course, that should be completely illegal. That's insane. And then it's amazing, too, what the article goes on to say. The article says that because this is illegal in much of the United States and much of Europe, certain countries have become tourist destinations for this, including Ukraine. So Ukraine, apparently, though it's, I think officially still illegal to do gay commercial surrogacy in Ukraine, they do permit commercial surrogacy generally. And apparently, according to this article, Ukraine has become a hot spot center for same-sex couples to go rent a womb and create a child through surrogacy. And then they said, but when the war broke out, this was really awful because people's babies

that they had created and implanted in these poor women's wombs, they were locked away in a war zone. Can you imagine? Yeah, that's horrible. The whole thing is so insanely dystopian. None of this should be happening whatsoever. The phrase they use, they say, when the Ukraine war broke out, these gay couples in the West,

well, they saw that their precious cargo was still in Ukraine, which made me wonder, how come a baby is precious cargo when that baby is desired by rich, gay men, but the baby is merely a clump of cells when the baby is not desired by his mother. Isn't that kind of weird? How the baby changes like that depending on who wants the baby? That seems a little crazy. This is the problem with the slippery slope. I don't even blame the

gay men who are confused by this or who haven't thought this through or who naturally desire a child. It makes perfect sense. But this is the slippery slope. When you redefine marriage, in this absurd way and pretend that two men can be married to one another, or two women can be married to one another, then you are saying that the union of two men is the same as the union of a man and a woman. And so when we're talking about marriage, obviously married couples have a right to procreate. Now, gay men can't procreate with one another.

So then the law has to go along, come behind, and sort of change to accommodate this, fiction that there's such a thing called same-sex marriage. So they'll do that by permitting homosexual adoption, and they'll do that by permitting surrogacy and IVF and renting a womb in Ukraine. And they'll do this through all sorts of things that are completely immoral, that are really heinous, that are really awful and a child abuse, and they're destructive for society, but that advance a liberal paradigm. This is the slippery slope. This is why they say, oh, who cares? Why does it matter? Why does it matter if two people want to get married? First of all, again, it's not,

the issue is redefining marriage. Who cares if we fundamentally redefine the basic social institution, basic political institution? Well, I don't know, because now we've got poor babies being created to be deprived of their natural mother in war zones because of what? Not because of communism, not because of a hyper-capitalist system where now human beings are commodities, where now you are purchasing a womb. And by the way, I'm referring to a womb. You're not even purchasing the woman. You're not viewing the woman as a real woman.

You're viewing the woman as nothing but a vessel to be rented and purchased for your interests and desires. So that you can purchase a child. A child is no longer the product of love between his parents and the personification of that love. The child is just another commodity to be purchased like a prod a handbag or a Rolex watch. Except slightly more expensive, actually, in the case of surrogacy. and IVF. That's hideous. But it's not just the commies. It's not just the far leftists. It's a perversion of. It's an extreme version of capitalism divorced from any moral order. And the conservatives have utterly failed to fight against that because we've been tilting at windmills

against Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. The problem lies a little bit closer to home, I think. Speaking of hypercapitalism and Ukraine, actually, I mentioned a piece on Friday by Christopher Caldwell, who's a terrific cultural writer, and it was in the Claremont Review of Books. The article was on, why are we in Ukraine? And it was, I felt it was a pretty fair article on how we ended up in this war in Ukraine and this kind of proxy war with Russia and how the Ukraine war broke out and just a little bit of a history of it, because the war didn't just break out earlier this year. It's been building for a long time. There's been some version of of this war going on for about eight years now. And the tensions in that region of the world go back

about a thousand years. So he gave a decent, a very good, I think, overview of it. But there's a really interesting observation he made, which is the role of corporations in that war. You think about early on after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Elon Musk offered to use his Starlink satellite system to give the Ukrainians internet and allow them to coordinate and communicate. And this was hailed is a wonderful thing. And for the Ukrainians, it certainly was a wonderful thing. And for stopping Russian aggression, it certainly was a wonderful thing. But it also means then that an ostensibly private corporation became a belligerent in the war. The U.S. Congress, or the Ukrainian Congress, or whatever, didn't vote or NATO or the EU. None of those people voted to send Elon Musk's

machinery into Ukraine. He just did it. He's just a wealthy guy. He's just a wealthy guy. He's just a a capitalist, and he did it. Ian Bremmer, who's a well-known writer, especially in foreign policy, he said that SpaceX, Microsoft, and Google have become, quote, literal belligerence in the war. And he said that this was a wonderful thing. He said they were creating a world in which corporations and banks have, quote, a hell of a lot more impact in what the global outlook on climate will be than any government. So he was turning his attention, not just from the war in Ukraine, but on climate change and all the rest of these political initiatives. But think about that. If these corporations are literal belligerents in the war, then they're the ones waging the war. Then they become

targets in the war. Then all of a sudden Russia might decide to send a missile to, not just to the capital, not just to an American military target, but to SpaceX headquarters or to Google headquarters. Maybe they're going to send it over to Palo Alto. And then if the corporations are the ones that are the literal belligerents in the war that are waging the war, then that means they're making the strategic decisions on how to wage the war. But war is a serious business. That's why in the United States, at least according to the Constitution, to go to war, the Senate needs to vote for it. It's not even just the president. The president is the commander in chief of the military, but to declare war, you need to bring in the legislature. We're not supposed to do this willy-nilly.

We're supposed to take this very, very seriously. Now, it won't be the legislature. It won't even be the president, won't even be the commander in chief. It's going to be these corporations outside of the government. But if the corporations are powerful enough to wage war, certainly if the corporations are powerful enough to control the public square in what is ostensibly our republic, if they can not only silence you, they can silence the duly elected sitting president of the United States, Donald Trump on January 7th, 2021. If the corporations can do that outside of the government, then the corporations are the government. The Daily Wire is hiring a senior front-end web developer to join our streaming platform and e-commerce team.

You need at least three years of real-world software experience, but you do not need a college degree. Just Big League coding chops. In Big Bang Theory speak, you've got to be adept in HTML-5, CSS3, JavaScript, React Native, and Restful API. I'm pretty strong on a mind sweeper, and I did visual basic one. So maybe I'll apply for this job and we'll compete with one another. If front end web development is your love language, apply to join us in Nashville where you will upgrade the user experience and beauty, not just of our streaming platform, but more importantly, of my section on the DailyWire website. It could use a facelift. We need it now. Let's do it. Go to dailywire.com slash careers to apply today. Also, the DailyWire

is hiring a senior vice president of marketing analytics data and operations. Wow, it's a lot of responsibility. I'm told that this is a high profile executive role with paid relocation to Nashville. This innovator will design, hire, and oversee a world-class marketing data and analytics team that is built atop the marketing data stack from CRM platforms to multi-touch attribution tools. What the hell do any of these words mean? To propensity targeting models? Okay, whatever. This leader will, for example, study which Daily Wire shows in films. most interest the audience and also which DailyWire host is the most annoying. And I think we all know the answer to that. Rhymes with Mr. Blen Blapiro. Don't you say it's me. Don't you dare tell

them that it's me. So if you understand what a full marketing data and analytics stack is, head on over to dailywire.com slash careers apply now. That was a lot. That was a lot. We're hiring so many people, speaking of big tech and censorship. We have less and less control over our government. In a world in which the corporations can decide what's allowed to be said in the public square, in a world in which the corporations can literally wage war, according to Ian Bremmer, then unless you're a major stakeholder in Microsoft or Amazon, then you have even less control over the government than you did under our old system of government.

Here's a case in point. This drove me crazy. There's a headline. It's all throughout the media right now. It says FBI's brutal draft letter firing disgraced agent Peter Struck revealed. We're all covering it. And there are some people on Twitter on social media. They say, wow, owned. Oh, yeah. Yeah, this is brutal. Oh, yes, suck it. Peter struck. Yeah, we're going to show you. He says, while there is no doubt your 21 years of service to the organization cannot and should not be erased, it is difficult to fathom the repeated sustained errors of judgment you made while serving as elite agent in two of the most high-profile investigations in the country. Peter struck, you corrupt left-wing anti-Trump FBI. You remember he was the really corrupt FBI agent

who went after Trump, through the Office of the Inspector General, although the Office of the Inspector General found no evidence of bias impacted any of you or the FBI's investigative actions or decisions, your sustained pattern of bad judgment and the use of an FBI device has been called into question for many of the decisions that you made. In short, your repeated selfishness

has called into question the credibility of the entire FBI. I take that. How do you like that, Peter Strzok? It's a strongly worded letter. That's great. That's great. I'm so glad we're the party of the strongly worded letter. That's what the conservatives are. The conservatives, we are the party of the strongly worded letter and the left is the party of the firing squad. But we got, oh, did you see, we got some total burns in there. Zing. Owned. Take it. And it's true. Peter Struck did get fired. He's trying to sue now and trying to say it was wrongful, a politically motivated termination, and who knows, he'll probably get something out of it too. But okay, Peter Strzok gets fired. Did the FBI get cleaned up? The FBI, which colluded directly with the Democrats, with Hillary

Clinton and the Democrats, to spy on the Republican presidential nominee when he was running in 2016, and then to undermine his entire administration based on absolutely nothing. just completely cooked up political operation. Did the FBI get cleaned up at all? Other than this guy sort of got pushed out a little bit? No. The FBI is still doing the same thing. The FBI is still going after parents who are concerned about their kids being taught critical race theory in schools and being transed in kindergarten. The FBI is going after those people. The FBI is going after attacking pro-lifers right now in America. the FBI is raiding the home of the former president and chief political rival to Joe Biden, just coincidentally, on completely bogus charges.

No, the FBI's gotten worse. Not only do we not clean up the FBI by firing this loser, Peter Strach, he's probably going to get something out of the government when he sues them. And the FBI itself is worse than ever. but we feel really good, boom, owned. We wrote you a mean letter. How do you like that? They like it just fine.

Yeah, we write them a mean letter and we show them what jerks they are. And then they keep wielding power over us. That's what happens. I would much rather be the party of just political efficacy. I would much rather be the party of winning and actually fixing things about our culture than the party of like really, really, really, zingy letters. I don't, I've had enough of the strongly worded letters. We need to do something. It's so pathetic. They're just rubbing our noses in it now. Did you, you remember Peter Dajack?

I talk about Peter Dajack in my Fauci unmasked series, which you can get at Daily Wire Plus right now. It's best, you should especially get it now because it goes through the history of Dr. Fauci and the corruption in our public health system, taxpayer funded, and, and the corruption that we, we are still seeing today, in many cases, it's getting worse. So Peter Dajak is this maniac who was doing gain of function research through his group EcoHealth Alliance. He was doing taxpayer-funded government research on bat coronaviruses, all the sort of dangerous research that would seem most likely to be very connected with the outbreak of the woo flu. And Dr. Fauci initially denied that he had ever funded Peter Dajak and this particular kind of research. And then he said that to the United

States Senate. Then it turned out that was a total lie that actually we have, we have the grant. Dr. Fauci funded hundreds of thousands of dollars of research on this kind of stuff to Peter Dashak, too, EcoHealth Alliance. So you'd think, okay, after the COVID thing, this guy's career is over, right? Certainly he's not getting any more government funding. Certainly he can't. This is a guy who was doing research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, certainly, at the very least, this guy is not getting government funding to do research on bat coronaviruses, right? No, he just got more money. He just got some more money. He just got $653,392 for Eco Health Alliance Incorporated to begin September 21st, 2022. So, you know, 18 days from now.

to do research on on these sorts of viruses. We know that in all likelihood, it was this kind of research that led to the outbreak of COVID. According to Justin B. Kinney, who's an associate professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Princeton PhD, he said, this evidence is not dispositive, but were the lab leak hypothesis incorrect,

it would represent a staggering set of coincidences. This, I think, is the biggest effect of COVID. This is the biggest side effect of COVID and really, certainly the biggest side effect of the COVID vaccines. Coincidences. You know, just so many coincidences as a result of all of this. No consequences here. Plenty of coincidences, no consequences. Even Peter Dashak, he became, it was a big political issue.

We raked Fauci over the coals. Remember, Rand Paul grilled Dr. Fauci. It was great. It was great TV. It was good stuff. applaud Rand Paul for doing it, for calling attention to this. I think that my series, Fauci Unmasked, is very important stuff. Sheds all the light on this stuff. But where's the political power? I'm just a guy with a microphone. I do not currently hold any political office.

Maybe I should. I don't know. I think 2020 is going to be a good year. It's probably a little to throw my hat in now. But I can't change the policy right now. I can just call attention. The people who have political power are the ones that can change the policy. Where are they? Why can't we do that? I'm not even casting aspersions on the senators and the congressmen. And in many cases, they don't have the power to do that either, because the political system is dominated by the libs. Even when the Republicans win the House, even when Republicans win the Senate, even when Republicans win the White House. We had unified government for a while under Trump.

But we don't control the executive agencies. We don't control the corporations that have taken more and more and more power and can literally wage war and can censor even the president of the United States. And how did those corporations get all that power? In part, the left let him have it. In part, the right, the right let him have it. But either way, those guys aren't on our, those capitalists aren't on our side. And then, of course, the universities and then, of course, the media,

which is just a corporate media anyway. and on and on and on. It's very, very difficult in this political structure to really get anything done. And whenever people pose any threat to the political structure, they get taken out. Not AOC. She gets invited to the Metgala. She gets put on the cover of all the magazines and all the glossy photos and all the newspapers. But whenever anyone raises any real objections to this sort of a system, that person is suppressed. There's no question about it. You're seeing this dynamic right now, the no-conform. consequences dynamic play out on the transgender issue. There's a high school in Vermont that's cracking down right now after female students complained about a dude who thinks that he's a woman in

the in the girls locker room. So girls complain, they say, look, we don't want to get naked in front of this guy. We don't want this guy getting naked in front of us. That's why we have a girls' locker room, right? And the school says, okay, we're going to do something about this. Girls, you're no longer allowed in the locker room. I'm not joking. This is being reported by CBS affiliate W-C-A-X. They said, okay, the way we're going to deal with this, transgender lady, you know, this guy who's dressed up like a lady, you get to use the girls' locker room. And the girls on the team, they have to change individually in a single bathroom. So they've got to take turns in this one single bathroom to get changed.

Because the great fear would be, you know, that this transgender student were being bullied by being asked to leave the girls' room and not get naked in front of the girls. Why is the school doing this? It's not because this is what the parents want. It's not. It's not because this is popular. It's not. Public opinion is totally against this.

If you go out on the street right now, you talk to 100 people, 92 of those people are going to tell you this is completely insane. Transgenderism is bogus. Certainly at the very least, guys should not be allowed in a girls' room. So why is this permitted? because the ruling class wants it to happen, the people with the power. In our government, in the corporations, in the media, in the press, and all over, in academia, these people who have this kind of power, they are pushing transgenderism and why.

I actually have some theories as to why, along the lines of the sort of financial thesis of today's show. We don't have time to get to it right now. We can get to it at a later date. How's that for a teaser? We do have more show coming up, though. What we've got to get to is a rap, a rap song from a Utah State Senate candidate, a Republican Utah State Senate candidate. I have never heard this rap song before, but it's Music Monday. So my producer, Ben Davies, has lined up this song for me. I can't wait to listen to it. That show is continuing right now. You don't want to miss it if you're not a member, click on the link in the description and join us.