The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1330 - 7,000 African Migrants Take Over Italian Island

Episode Date: September 14, 2023

A tiny Italian island gets flooded with African migrants, Zelensky threatens Europe, and Senator Josh Hawley attacks usury.   Ep.1330    - - -     Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl   - - -    DailyWire+:   Watch Episodes 1-4 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL   Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7   Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Ramp - Get $250 when you join Ramp: http://ramp.com/knowles   Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation  Text KNOWLES to 200-300    - - -   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

Lampedusa is a small Italian island of about 6,500 residents. Yesterday, the population of Lampedusa more than doubled, as more than 7,000 illegal immigrants from Africa arrived on the island on more than 100 different migrant boats. Human traffickers took advantage of calm seas yesterday to increase the number of migrant boats, but this situation is nothing unusual, it is nothing new. hundreds, often thousands of foreigners illegally land at Lampedusa every single day,

and they have for well over a decade. Well over a decade, at which point they're processed by the government of Italy and generally given easy entry into Europe, laws be damned. This was the subject of Douglas Murray's excellent book, The Strange Death of Europe. He published that book six years ago, and in the six years, Since he wrote that urgent analysis of immigration, the situation has only gotten worse, drastically worse, which is precisely what liberal politicians in Rome and Brussels and throughout the West want.

According to them, this mass illegal migration is not a political problem, but a solution. More votes for the liberal parties, more social friction, less traditional society. But it's not merely a tactic of spite. This is a logical conclusion of liberal ideology, which denies the distinction between nations and cultures and peoples. We're all just kind of citizens of the world, man, kumbaya, there's no such thing as borders, man. The liberal Europeans don't see any distinction between themselves and people beyond their borders. But the people beyond their borders do. European nations and economies and customs are much more pleasant than the sort found in Africa,

and the Middle East, and elsewhere. So African migrants are invading supposedly sovereign nations to the tune of thousands per day, and the Europeans, all these years after the problem began, continue to do nothing to stop it. Because a liberal, as Robert Frost observed, is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel. So the borders and the cultures and the nations collapse, not through homicide by foreigners, but through a strange, civilizational suicide. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Nulls show. Welcome back to the show. A man just crashed a fashion show runway wearing a trash bag. And he He made it pretty far. No one noticed that he was an intruder and not wearing high fashion.

We'll get to that very important story in a second. First, though, speaking of foreigners, I intend to keep this segment on YouTube, so I'll try to watch my language a little bit. The American transvestite, who's volunteering to be the spokesman for the Ukraine military, is now threatening anybody who is in any way critical of Ukraine's actions in this war. Russia hates the truth that their obsessive force. focus on a Ukrainian volunteer is simply allowing the light of the Ukrainian nation's honesty to shine brightly. Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder, and their rabid mouths will foam an uncontrollable frenzy, as the world will see a favorite Kremlin

propagandist pay for their crimes. And this puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia's war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down, and justice will be served, as we need to be Ukraine are led on this mission by faith in God, liberty, and complete liberation. I'm not soft on Russia or anything. Russia is a geopolitical foe of the U.S., and I get it. But with this kind of talk coming out of the Ukraine military, with this kind of behavior coming out of the Ukraine military, are we sure we're on the right side of this thing? Is it possible that maybe we just in the rush to pick aside? Are we sure that this is the right thing to do?

I ask because the way that this person is talking about the Russian devil propagandists is pretty broad. It's kind of the way that liberals in the U.S. will refer to anyone even slightly to the right of Barack Obama as a Nazi. You say, I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a racist. I'm not a thisist. I'm not a phobic. I'm not a this, but it doesn't matter. they just paint everyone with that broad brush. And I suspect here this person, this spokesman for the Ukrainian military, Hey, YouTube spokesman is a gender neutral term. I don't want to hear it.

Don't take me off. It seems to be reacting to criticism that he himself is getting. So I worry a little bit because I did a long thread on this person a while ago, exposing a lot of bizarre aspects of this person's biography and how this person managed to get to this position in the Ukraine military. So I don't know, am I going to be lumped in with the Russian devils and the Russian propagandists? I think so. I think that's the way this spokesman is talking. And that's not great when they're threatening to hunt everyone down. You know how we hear in the liberal West that those autocratic regimes, Russia and China, they oppose journalism.

They oppose free speech. They oppose free expression. That's out of one side of their mouths. Then out of the other side, they say, hey, anybody who criticizes us in any way is a Putin propagandist. And even if you just use your words and even if you just raise questions about the war, we're going to hunt you down and kill you like a rabid dog. That's what they say.

How do they do it? Well, because these people are on the side of humanity. They're not fighting an ordinary war, you see. It's not just two powers, two peoples with different interests who are butting heads, as has happened throughout all of human history. No, no, no. These people are fighting for all of humanity. In fact, we know that because this very spokesman said that Russians are not human beings. Do you know the difference between us and them besides fighting under this?

flag and for freedom on behalf of the people of Ukraine while the Russians are fighting for tyranny and dictatorship? It's pretty simple. We're human. And those guys most definitely aren't. Slav Ukraine. It's something out of Saturday Night Live, except it's real. And this person is speaking for the Ukrainian military in the first major war in Europe since World War II with a nuclear former superpower. And also with the super power. And also with these superpower of the world, a nuclear power as the belligerent using this proxy of Ukraine. In any case, anyone who opposes liberalism is not just coming from a different point of view, not just coming from a different nation, not just a different people, not just a different religion.

They're not human, according to these people. And so you see this irony, which is that the people who fight in the name of humanity, in the name of humanitarianism, are very often the most. cruel. And wars that are fought in the name of humanity are going to be the least humane wars that could possibly be fought. So you hear bubblegums and roses and let's be inclusive and have self-expression, man, and it's going to be these people wearing their eccentric outfits with their unusual gender expression. They're going to be the ones who are just happily, inclusively, diversely, sending all the big bombs all the way to their enemies.

All right, I think I managed to make it around that discussion without getting myself totally kicked off of YouTube. I said transvestite at the top. They're probably going to have to bleep that. But speaking of threats coming from Ukraine, our friend Vladimir Zelensky, leader of Ukraine, highest paid actor in the world, made $100 billion last year.

That's pretty impressive. So that's better than anything they're getting out of Hollywood. Zelensky is threatening the West, Europe in particular, if the West stops funding the billions and billions of dollars of aid without which Ukraine could not continue to fight the war. Zelensky says, quote, there is no way of predicting how the millions of Ukrainian refugees in Europe could countries would react to their country being abandoned. I'm going to say that again without a bad Ukrainian accident on, so you get the threat that he's implying here. There is no way of predicting how the millions of Ukrainian refugees in European countries would react to their country being abandoned. What does that mean? Well, he says that these refugees who have been given asylum by the generous countries of Europe, who are also funding this war for Ukraine,

they have, quote, behaved well so far. But their good behavior in places like Germany and France and Italy could not be guaranteed necessarily to continue. you. And then he said, it would not be a good story for Europe if it were to drive these people into a corner. This little pipsqueak mafioso is saying, hey Europe, thanks for being the only reason that our country is not a parking lot right now. Hey, Europe, thanks for being the only reason that Vladimir Putin hasn't given me a nice cup of polonium tea up until now. Hey, Europe, thanks for the billions of dollars and the jets and the guns and the ammunition. Oh, and taking all of our people in. And as refugees.

But hey, if you don't keep it up, we're going to start killing you. That's what he's saying. And in his defense, he's playing his hand very well. If I were the leader of Ukraine, I would be saying these exact same things. This guy is defending the interests of his country and his people. I don't really have any problem with him doing that. That's how war on politics works. But why aren't the Western Europeans defending the interests of their own people?

and their own countries. Why is the United States all too often not protecting the interests of our people and our country? Why is that? Can we maybe start? I don't know that we can start doing that. You're going to hear the globalist type say that actually funding the war in Ukraine is one of the best military investments we can make because it's only something like three to five percent of our defense budget and we don't have to sacrifice any American lives and it'll just let the Ukrainians and the Russians kill each other and that'll be good because it'll weaken Russia. Maybe. I don't know. That's a pretty dangerous game to play when you are accelerating a war with a nuclear former superpower in a way that Russia is saying the United States is a belligerent in the war.

This is something we avoided for the entirety of the Cold War, including at that hot moment of the Cuban missile crisis. Now we just seem to be kind of sleepwalking into that war. Meanwhile, we open up the borders to people from all around the world, including the Ukrainians who appear to be fairly dangerous now, too. And meanwhile, our supposed allies, the people that we're funding, they're the ones who say, yeah, if you don't keep it up, if you don't keep the money coming, then we're going to murder you. Then I'm going to activate all of those sweet, wholesome refugees, and we're going to start causing a lot of trouble in Europe and, I think, implicitly, in the United States as well. Are we really playing our hand? Or no, are we committing a kind of civilizational suicide, the likes of which

Douglas Murray predicted six years ago, observed six years ago, and which since then has only gotten worse? I think we need an off-ramp for this kind of madness. And speaking of ramps, you've got to check out ramp. Right now, go to ramp.com slash knolls. Are you looking for a better way to simplify your business finances across expenses, vendor payments, and accounting? If so, Ramp could be a complete game changer for your business. Ramp is a corporate card and expense management software designed to help you save time and money. With RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions and automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month.

Ramp's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you don't have to. The time that you will save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster. businesses that use Ramp save an average of 3.5% within the first year. Ramp is easy to use. Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you've got five or 5,000 employees. Right now, get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to Ramp.com slash Noles, RAMP.com slash Noles. Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank, members FDIC, terms and conditions apply. Now, turning to the home front here, turning to political leadership in the United States,

Kevin McCarthy is pushing for an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The Senate Republicans are not so happy about this. Mitch McConnell has not really come out and supported this. Actually, no Republican in congressional leadership. Certainly up in the Senate has come out supporting this. Other than Republican Senator John Barrasso, who came out and he said that the corruption surrounding the Biden family needs to be untangled.

according to Punch Bowl News, Barroso is the only Republican in leadership who backed McCarthy's efforts. This is fine by me. This is a good sign that John Barrasso might be the man to take over after Cocaine Mitch has to leave. Cocaine Mitch is not going to remain in leadership forever, even despite the health scares, even despite his advanced age. That's just the way it works. Time goes on and people are going to need to come into the wings. I have said that I'm not for pushing cocaine Mitch out just because he had a couple brain freezes during press conference. because one, cocaine Mitch has been pretty good at wielding levers of power. He's been especially good on judges. But three, who's going to replace him? All the prospects of people to replace cocaine Mitch don't seem to be any better than he is. So while the conservatives might be wailing

and saying Mitch isn't one of us, he's establishment, he's suppressing our agenda, that might all be true, but who's the replacement? If we don't have a better replacement, then let's just leave cocaine Mitch, better the devil we know than the devil we don't. If John Barrasso is going to come out here and start flexing a little bit of power, start taking the side of the more conservative wing of the conservative party, that's a good sign. The people who are looking to replace cocaine Mitch, maybe they should get on board too. Speaking of the Senate, Josh Hawley has just gotten in hot water for proposing an 18% credit card interest rate cap. Now, this seems like good news. because we know these credit card companies

prey on people. They get them hooked on debt, especially people who don't have a lot of money who are living maybe paycheck to paycheck. They'll start putting big purchases on their credit card. And then because the interest rate is 18% or more, 20%, 25%, they're never going to get out of that debt. So they're just going to be in debt forever

making these payments. And it's especially people who were at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder who get squeezed this way. Now, 10 years ago, it would not have been a conservative right-wing senator proposing an interest rate cap. It would have been Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders would have given some speech about the proletariat and the workers of the world need to unite. And those rich fat cat millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street, they're taking advantage of you workers.

And then Bernie Sanders became a millionaire, and then he stopped invading against the millionaires. But in any case, it would have been a left-wing attack. And the conservatives would have said, well, actually, you know, there's nothing more American than usury. Actually, there's nothing more American than taking advantage of poor people who sometimes don't know any better, and in some cases, don't have any other options than to put their bills on their credit cards and then get stuck in debt slavery forever. Now things have flipped. And as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have said, the Republican Party has ceased to be the party of Wall Street. The Republican Party is now the party of Pittsburgh, not the party of Paris. And this was a good campaign line, and it was a great way to follow up the populism that came to the fore with the election of Donald Trump. but if that kind of populist rhetoric and enthusiasm is not backed up by hard policies, then it's going to be nothing. It's going to ring hollow.

So now Josh Hawley is backing it up with real hard policies. And he's doing this in particular because he says, usury is bad. What is usury? Usory is lending money and interest. There's more to it than that. But for the vast majority of the history of our country, of our civil society, Forget our country, it goes back much further than that. For the vast majority of the history of our civilization, usury was against the law because the church prohibits it. And it's not just the church. Virtuous pagan societies prohibited usury as well. Other religious traditions ban usury as well. Why? Well, as Thomas Aquinas says, to take usury for money lent is unjust in itself because this is to sell what does not exist. And this evidently leads to equality, which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there

are certain things, the use of which consists in their consumption. So he says, we consume wine when we use it for drink, and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore, in such like things, the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself. And whoever is granted the use of the thing is granted the thing itself. And for this reason, to lend things of this kind is to transfer the ownership. So that's a little bit confusing. But what Thomas Aquinas is saying there is when you lend money at interest, when you commit usury, you are using the thing twice. You're double-dipping, basically, and that is not fair. It says, accordingly, if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist. Wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. In like matter, he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment.

the return of the thing in equal measure, the other price of the use, which is called usury. We don't talk this way anymore because our entire modern economic system is based on usury. And the loosening of laws against usury has had a material benefit. The economy exploded, material wealth exploded. That's all true. Don't think that when you commit bad things, you don't receive at least momentary or partial pleasure from it. You do. Of course you do. If you didn't, then there would be no temptation to sin. If you didn't enjoy, you know, doing naughty sex things, you wouldn't be tempted by them. If you didn't get a sensory pleasure from eating too much food or drinking too much booze, there wouldn't be a temptation. If all you got was the hangover, you wouldn't want it. So there are these apparent benefits that come along with vices and sins. That's what tempt us into them. And with usury, it's been the creation of the modern economic.

system, which has given us a lot of material wealth. But are we so stupid in liberal modernity that we think you can get something for nothing? Are we so diluted in this utopian ideology that we think there isn't a cost to pretty much everything in this world? What's the cost? The cost is, in this case, that we've indebted ourselves, that we have become individually and nationally slaves to debt. We've transformed from a civilization that we've, we've transformed from a civilization that would leave an inheritance to its children, that would leave the place better off than we found it, into a civilization that, in the words of the conservative writer Patrick Deneen, leaves to its children no inheritance other than a mountain of debt. That is wrong. There is a reason,

I think we need to accept this in our humility. There is a reason that every serious civilization ever recognized that usury is very wrong. And you're not going to dismantle the modern economic system. Maybe you don't want to dismantle the modern economic system. But we do have to acknowledge this is a problem, that a civilization that commits this kind of a sin, that indets its people this way, that takes advantage of people who sometimes aren't that bright and who often don't have resources, that that's wrong to do. And that we haven't reinvented the moral code. And that a civilization that prioritizes material wealth above everything else is a civilization that worships mammon. And that is not going to be conducive to human flourishing.

even if we get more stuff. Senator Hawley, I don't know what the details are on this yet, but he's going down the right path. Also, by the way, it is politically beneficial for Republicans to be on the side of people and not on the side of Wall Street jerks. So generally speak, overall, this young upstart, new right senator,

going down the right path. Speaking of renewal, you've got to check out renewal by Anderson. Right now, text Knowles to 200, 300. For most homeowners, window replacement is not something they've done before, and for many it is not something they want to do, but rather something they have to do. If you've put off replacing the windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news. You can now get a free in-home window consultation and a free price quote from Renewal by Anderson. Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the

best customer service possible, supported by the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive product. Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable quality affordable windows or patio doors for zero dollars down, zero payments, and zero interest for one year. Text NOLES, KNAWLES to 200, 300 for your free consultation to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door. These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting NOLS, KNAWLES to 200, that is, NOLES, KNAWLES to 200, 300.

Texting Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions posted at textplan.us. texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages, message, and data rates may apply, reply, stop to opt out. Go to window appointment now.com for full offer details. Okay, on the topic of debts and deficits, big deficits now. Turning on 2024, most Republicans have an unfavorable view of Chris Christie. Breaking news. Stop the presses. Chris Christie isn't very popular. I know. That's not exactly a man bites dog story. This is according to Morning Consult.

just one quarter of Republican voters have a favorable view of Chris Christie. That gives him a net favorable rating of negative 26. That's not great. Who's the second least favorable? Republican, that would be Mike Pence. Mike Pence has 37% of Republican voters expressing an unfavorable view of him. His favorable rating, however, is overall because unlike Christy, 51% of people have a favorable view of him. So he's still doing way better than Chris Christie is, but he has a pretty high. unfavorables too. Why do I bring this up? Am I bringing this up because I think, there it goes.

Chris Christie was this close to the White House and then he disappeared. Or Mike Pence was this close to becoming the nominee? No. I bring it up though because Ron DeSantis, I think still has a shot at the Republican Party nomination. And these numbers do not bode very well for him. Because in order for Ron DeSantis to become the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump either has to die, be ostracized, be legally prohibited from running for president, or Ron DeSantis has to persuade people to stop liking Donald Trump. Donald Trump now has, what, a 50-point lead in the Republican primary, at least a 40-point lead, and even in the early primary states, it's a 20-point lead. DeSantis has to become much more critical of Trump. No one's going to do it

for DeSantis. So DeSantis has to get much more aggressive against Trump to try to knock down his numbers. But the problem with this poll is, what is the commonality between Mike Pence and Chris Christie? There's not a lot that those guys have in common, but the commonality is they are the two candidates who are most critical and most openly critical of Donald Trump. And you see what that gets them. It gets them a very, very high unfavorable rating and it gets them very, very low poll numbers in the Republican Party. So I get why DeSantis is not being too openly critical of Trump. He can't be. He sees what happens to the other candidates who are openly critical of Trump. But then what's the alternative? This is the problem for his campaign that has existed long

before he announced that he was running. He has very few options for maneuvering. Where is he going to go? If he gets more anti-Trump, he's going to end up like these two guys. If he doesn't hit Trump all, he's going to end up like Ted Cruz in 2016, who was playing nice with Trump until it was too late. So what's he going to? That's not a knock on either of their campaigns. I think Senator Cruz ran a great campaign in 2016, and it just, it almost worked, but it didn't work.

And here, you're seeing the repeat of that same campaign, and it hasn't gotten anywhere near close to almost working as it did for Cruz in 2016. The question that the dissantis campaign has to ask now, as it is caught between rock and hard places, where can we go? And I told you, I'm not endorsing in this primary. I know a lot of conservatives in the media and in public life are effectively working for these campaigns. I'm not doing it. When DeSantis does something good, I'm happy to applaud that, and I do it almost every day. When Trump does something good, and especially if his campaign is doing well, I'm happy to point that out too. When Vivek is doing something good, when any of these guys are doing

well, I'm merely want to describe the campaign. So I'm not working for any of them. And in the case of DeSantis' problem, what do you do when you're caught between a rock and a hard place? I just don't have the answer. If I were working on his campaign, I have no idea what I would advise him to do right now. It might be the case as, you know, I hate to say, I told you so, but as I predicted early on, that no matter how good a candidate you've got, no matter, how genius the consultants are, you hire the most big brain people from Washington, D.C. Sometimes the circumstances are such that you don't have anywhere to move. Putting people in a bad spot brings my attention over to

the view where even one of the big libs on, they're all libs on the view, but one of the most openly liberal people on the view, Sonny Hosten is finally willing to admit that the Bidens are dirty. People are going to be shocked. I completely agree with that. I think that there has been some shocking, right? I think that there has been some

impropriety. I think that there are instances where Hunter Biden in an attempt to show access to the vice presidency, the vice president's office made phone calls to daddy. Those have been taped. I think we have the situation with his work in Ukraine. We have the situation with his work in China. There's no way that political influence wasn't a part of that. I don't like nepotism across the board. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And so I understand that there is some real concern there. But what is upsetting to me is that Kevin McCarthy and the Republican, this right-wing Republican party is trivializing what impeachment is. High crimes and misdemeanors. Our former twice impeached, disgraced, former president.

Accused of, you know, talking to President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and trying to do a quid pro quo and trade information. for arms when his country was about to start a go into war with Russia. Don't you think that's pretty significant? That is literally what Biden did. She starts out well. She says, look, I think the Bidens are a little dirty. They're peddling influence around the world. I'm willing to admit that.

But the Republicans are trivializing impeachment. Look, when we impeach Trump, we did that because he pressured the leader of Ukraine to give him something that he wanted to benefit himself personally, and the threat behind that was that he would withhold military aid as Russia was looming on the border. That is exactly what Joe Biden did. And Joe Biden, in his guileless corruption, he actually confessed to this at the Council on Foreign Relations. They were walking out to press conference. I said, no, I said, I'm not going to, or we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said, I.

I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here. I think it was, what, six hours? I looked at, I said, I'm leaving it six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money. Oh, son of a bitch.

Got fired. He got fired. The guy who was investigating the company that was sending my family a ton of money in super crooked payments, that prosecutor got fired because I told Ukraine with an aggressive Russia looming on the border that I was going to withhold a billion dollars in aid. Anyway, dinner's on me tonight, fellas. What bar do you want to go to? This is so embarrassing for Sonny Hosten on the view because she, look, she made her bet she's going to lie in it. She decided that she was going to be a little bit honest about how corrupt

Biden is, even when some of the fake conservatives on the panel were trying to continue to carry water for Biden. She thought that she could engage in a limited hangout. She thought that she could give the observers of Biden's corruption just a little bit of truth and say, yeah, okay, you're right. But he didn't do like what Trump did, what we accused Trump of doing when I guess Honey Austin just doesn't follow the news closely enough. And the Democrats often unwittingly just project the things that they accuse their opponents of they themselves have done. She is describing and accusing Trump of doing the thing that we have video evidence of Joe Biden himself doing. Sounds like Sunny

Hosten and the view is for impeachment. Now, Senator Ted Cruz, unsurprisingly, put this situation a little bit more clearly and cogently than the ladies of the view. Here is how Senator Cruz struck down one of the biggest talking points that the libs are relying on to stop the impeachment of Joe Biden. You know, the latest talking points Democrats are trying to trot out in response to this impeachment inquiry, is there is no direct evidence of Joe's involvement in the corruption. So they pretty much given up on Hunter. Yeah, Hunter's corrupt as the day is long, but there's no direct evidence of Joe's involvement. That's what they're saying. Now, that's a flat out lie, too. There's at least two instances of direct evidence of Joe's corruption.

Number one, you played on this show, which is Joe Biden's admission in front of the council on foreign relations, that he held a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer loan guarantees hostage in order to force the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian oligarch. That is one of the critical elements of bribery of the quid pro quo. Quid pro quo, as you know, is Latin. For this, for that. The that, Joe Biden has admitted to, that is direct evidence that he's admitted to. The only question is, is there the quid? Is there the $5 to $10 million of payments? Now, on that, there is circumstantial evidence. There are the $20 million plus of payments to the Biden family. And there is also the consistent pattern of obstruction and covering it up.

Very well said, of course, as usual. And a point that Senator is alluding to in this clip. And he said explicitly elsewhere is, circumstantial evidence is good enough. most of the time. You'll sometimes hear people say, well, you can't prove that he committed that crime. You've only got circumstantial evidence. People are convicted of crimes every single day in the United States on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is pretty good. Circumstantial evidence is different from direct evidence and that direct evidence is, hey, hey, I saw it snow last night. I stayed up late and I looked outside my window and it was snowing. And I saw that. and I took some pictures of it and I video recorded it and there's the direct evidence of the snow.

Circumstantial evidence is you go to sleep and there's no snow on the ground, as Senator Cruz says, and you wake up in the morning and there's snow on the ground. And you say, I don't have any proof that it snowed. I don't have any hard direct proof that it snowed because I don't have pictures or photographs. I don't have eyewitness testimony. But there wasn't snow on the ground when I closed my eyes and there is snow on the ground now. So I am going to use that circumstantial evidence to do that. deuce, it did in fact snow. And we have got mountains of circumstantial evidence that Joe Biden engaged

in this kind of corruption, handwritten notes, text messages, emails, a whole laptop from Hunter Biden giving a real insight into these crimes. And then we've got some direct evidence as well, like when Joe Biden's admitting these things at the Council on Foreign Relations. The only thing to do at this point is to impeach. If the Republicans don't impeach, we just look completely Fecless. So Senator Cruz is the right idea. Senator Barrasso is the right idea, and the squishes need to get on board. Speaking of corruption, moving from political corruption into corruption in the arts, is a video has just gone viral of an intruder making it to some fashion show where he walks down the runway, wearing a plastic bag before a security guard stops him.

There he is. You guys got a shower cap on. He's got some. He's got some. kind of plastic bag or poncho. And then he's strutton and then finally a security guard takes him down. And the reason this is going viral, I don't know when this was shot, I don't know where this was shot. But the reason it's going viral is not because of the guy. This was a good prank. He pulled it off well.

It's because the audience looks completely nonplussed. So, yeah, there it is. There's high fashion. And we all know this. Even if this were just a sketch on on Saturday Night Live or something, we've all seen this happened before, where some modern artist will show something that's not beautiful, that's not particularly intricate, that a three-year-old could have put together in two seconds. And because of the, I don't know, the pretensions of the artist and of our culture, you'll have otherwise serious,

you know, well-dressed, wealthy elite people looking at it, trying to pretend as though there's some deeper meaning or that it's in some way aesthetically pleasing. How does this happen? This what happens when art in a society ceases to be connected to beauty. We'll get to that in one second. But speaking of art and criticism, critics and fans alike are raving about convicting a murderer, calling it one of the best documentaries of 2023. It's been a massive success reaching over 8 million views, ranking number two in documentaries on Rotten Tomatoes. Episode four is available now. We have a sneak peek for you. Take a look. Coming up on convicting a murderer. What would be the upside for this man? I mean, he just got out of prison.

He has this new lease on life. What would be the motive for something like this? We're talking about somebody with unexplainable, impulsive behavior, a pattern of violence and aggression. There were a lot of coincidences on the day that Teresa Halbach was killed and making a murderer either completely omitted them or only presented half of the story. Stephen Avery leaves work and doesn't tell his brothers.

He'd never used his sister's phone number to book an appointment. before. Stephen Avery makes two phone calls to Teresa's phone. Why is he blocking his caller ID? I don't think Teresa liked Stephen the way Stephen wanted her to like him. Make sure that you're caught up on all the available episodes. You do not want to miss one minute of this expose that Candace is done on Hollywood. And the filmmakers of making a murderer new episodes are released every Thursday exclusively on DailyWare Plus. Head over there now to start the series if you haven't already. If you're not a member, go to DailyWire Plus. us.com slash subscribe to join today. My favorite comment is Waffles McGalliger 934. Says the actress in the Apple skit also portrayed God in a Christian quote-unquote movie called

The Cabin. Weird how she portrays a deity several different times. It's because our culture worships black women. And it's a little weird. I like black women. In fact, some of my best friends are black women, like my friend that I was just talking about who made convicting a murderer. But I don't worship black women, and our culture does. You see countless articles, especially at election time of, oh, black women have to be our saviors again. They're just so, they're the most perfect people on earth, and they're the most wise and virtuous. And it's a kind of idolatry, probably a fetish of our culture. It's very, very strange.

But that's why. That's why in liberal portrayals, God or the godlike figure is often. going to be a black woman. And I say this as a swarthy man. There are lots of different categories here. But speaking of aesthetics, the reason that this guy was able to walk down the runway in a plastic bag and have people take that seriously as high fashion is because art, for at least 100 years now, has not been connected to beauty any longer.

Art has become critical, self-referential, ironic, and really just a form of anti-art, a deconstruction of art. You see this most clearly with an artist like Marcel Duchamp. He's the modern artist who put a urinal in the middle of the floor and said this is a work of art, the fountain. By the way, I say this as a modern artist. I don't want to toot my own horn here, folks. I am one of the most prominent modern artists in the world today. my modern art piece reasons to vote for Democrats a comprehensive guide, a number one bestselling blank book that continues to sell oodles and oodles of copies.

That is a work of modern art. That is a deconstruction of the form of the book. And I'm a regular Marshall Duchamp, but I'm a regular Damien Hurst. But with all of those artists, I get a kick out of some of the work of like a Damien Hurst who, I mean, he's got all these weird works of art, like a big shark in formaldehyde or, you know, poca dots or whatever, or even more Shell Duchamp with the urinal. But it's purely an intellectual and critical endeavor.

It's critical, it's not artistic, it's not beautiful. When you disconnect from the transcendentals, the good, the true, and the beautiful, you are left in this morass of relativism, according to which you don't know if a guy wearing a garbage bag is really wearing high fashion. And in that society, because we know, we know that it's not beautiful. We're not attracted to it in any way. We just have to take our

cues from everybody else. You kind of find yourself looking around you. Is that person taking the art seriously? Is that person taking the art seriously? And then you convince yourself that ugly works of art are actually beautiful and worth lots of money. That's a society that's much more volatile. And I think it helps to explain from the artistic angle some of the political volatility that we're seeing that was less common in earlier ages of our country and our civil. And civilization because we're not grounding our views and our behaviors in anything objective and real anymore. The good, the true, and the beautiful are objective. They're unchanging. We can discourse rationally about them. This kind of crap, the modern art and wearing garbage bags around and

urinals pretending to be fine works of sculpture. There's nothing objective about that. It's all socially contextualized. It's all contingent on the feelings of the people in the room. which can change rapidly because man's passions are wild and the imagination of man's heart is evil from the beginning. Expect more volatility the more crazy, kooky art we get. Speaking of art, is this one going to kick me off YouTube too? I'm going to try to speak in a very specific way here, and you can either bleat me. I don't know, we'll see what happens.

The actress Ellen Page, who now pretends to be a man named Elliot Page, this lady, is arguing that we need gender-neutral acting categories for the big award shows. Page says, yeah, it seems like a good idea, according to Entertainment Weekly. And again, this sort of unusual aspect of that being the only category, right, where that sort of happens. So hopefully we start moving beyond that degree of binary thinking. Page, the performer known as Page, first initial E, is saying here that we don't have best female director, best male director, awards. We don't have best female cinematographer, best male cinematographer. So why is it? We have best actress and best actor. And she's kind of got a point. I'll give you the answer.

The reason that we have best actor and best actress is because actors and actresses used to be different. You wouldn't confuse an actor for an actress or vice versa. Because men and women used to be different. You wouldn't confuse a man for a woman or vice versa. But if that should change, and that is in the process of changing, with the exaltation of androgyny and gender-bending performances and dress and ideology, the line between actor and actress

is going to be blurred. In fact, Page is blurring that line. So we might hate it. We might stamp our feet and bang our hands, but it is a fact. That's the way the industry is moving. That's the way art broadly is moving. When you move away from

Brunelleschi and Bernini and Raphael and Titian and Caravaggio, when you move away from high art that is rooted in beauty and you move toward a urinal on the floor of a gallery, things are going to get ambiguous and confusing and blurry and downright degenerate and not conducive to human flourishing. The same thing is going to happen in every other art form, and same thing is going to happen in movies. they're probably going to get rid of the separate best actor and best actress categories.

And most people probably aren't going to know because people are just going to tune out the awards shows. And people are going to tune out the awards shows because people are tuning out the movies. It is a path to artistic irrelevance. But it doesn't mean that the industry itself isn't going to do it. Now, speaking of things that men and women do together, there's a new study out, very helpful to the pro-life cause and very helpful to poor little babies who are being targeted by liberals. it knocks down a lie that we've heard, which is that abortion is not painful to babies. Abortion is not painful to babies.

At a certain point, it becomes painful. And when the babies are capable of pain, then maybe we'll have some restrictions on it. But early on in pregnancy, it's just not painful. So just we can poison them and chop them up, and they don't feel any pain. And that's obviously not true. And I think we all know intuitively that that's not true. Well, we've got a study now that backs it up. It's called reconsidering fetal pain by two medical professionals.

Stuart Derbyshire and John C. Bachman. What the study says is, fetal pain has long been a contentious issue. In large part, because fetal pain is often cited as a reason to restrict access to termination of pregnancy or abortion. Very clinical language. But he says, we have divergent views regarding the morality of abortion, but have come together to address the evidence for fetal pain. So they're saying, look, we don't, we're not both pro-lifers, we're not both pro-abortion. We have different views on abortion, but we're just addressing, do these babies actually you feel pain. And they say, at 12 weeks gestation, there were the first projections from the thalamus into the cortical subplate. And then they use a bunch of scientific jargon to explain how we think

that pain begins much, much later in pregnancy. But actually, no, it doesn't, as people think now, begin around 24 weeks. It probably starts around 12 weeks gestation. And so the conclusion is, fetal analgesia and anesthesia should thus be standard for abortions in the second trimester, especially after 18 weeks when there is good evidence for a functional connection from the periphery into the brain. So this is an amazing conclusion. What they're saying is, look, we used to think there was pain starting at 24 weeks, that the babies would feel the pain. Now we think it could be as early as 12 weeks, and it's certainly as early as 18 weeks. So when you murder your baby at 12 to 24 weeks, give him an anesthetic and then chop him up or poison him or inject him full of saline

solution. But when you're about to murder your child, just know, he's an excruciating pain. So you're going to want to give him an anesthetic before you chop him up. What woman, maybe some psychopath doctor, you know, doctor abortionist doesn't care about any of that. But what mother is going to say, wait, my baby feels pain? so okay if I'm going to have to give him an anesthetic so I can kill him. Well, if I give him an anesthetic, he sounds kind of like a person. His people feel pain. So it doesn't feel just like a clump of cells anymore.

Maybe I shouldn't kill my kid. Now, what's amazing here is the fact of whether or not a baby in the womb feels pain should not be all that morally relevant. There are people who can't feel pain. There's still people. We still shouldn't murder them. The question is, is this baby a baby? Is this a human being? Is this a live person?

One of the aspects of being a living person is that you feel pain often. And much of the time you are capable of feeling pain. But that shouldn't actually matter to the moral question of whether or not it's right to kill an innocent little baby, whether he feels pain or not. And yet it is relevant. Politically, it is relevant. Because as a friend of mine says, facts, don't care about your feelings. But politics, I will complicate the phrasing. politics largely cares about your feelings. And the science here is on our side, and the science doesn't just exist in a vacuum.

Our bodies don't just exist in a vacuum. The facts of this world don't exist in a vacuum. The physical facts of this world imply certain metaphysical things and moral things, and they pull on our heartstrings for good reason. And this is all the more reason for the conservatives as we get a new generation of leadership, and we stop being so squishy, to get even tougher on these laws. and stand up for objective truth. So we don't live in a subjectivist, relativistic civilization where we've got urinals all over the floors

pretending to be art. The rest of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. This is a really big show. My friend, Congressman Eric Berluson, is going to be on the show. Congressman Berluson is on the alien committee, the UFO committee, and you know my views on the aliens. But just yesterday, we had that big, breaking news story

that some obvious hoax artist made a little statue of E.T. And pretended it's a thousand-year-old alien mummy. So anyway, we'll get to that latest update, and we will destroy Matthew Walsh with facts and logic. Use code Noles right now, dailywired.com. Use code Noles to check out for two months free on all annual plans. We'll be right back.