The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1726 - Michelle Obama Admits She's a Man?!

Episode Date: May 1, 2025

Michelle Obama has a Freudian slip in a rant about child mutilation, Neil Young claims that Tesla is for fascists, and Tim Walz admits Kamala's big mistake.   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri   Ep.1726   - - -   DailyWire+:   Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we’re keeping it.   The hit podcast, Morning Wire, is now on Video! Watch Now and subscribe to their YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/3RFOVo6   Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael   - - -   Today's Sponsors:   Birch Gold - Text KNOWLES to 989898 for your free information kit.   Jeremy's Razors - Try Jeremy’s Razors for 20% off risk-free: https://www.jeremysrazors.com/KNOWLES   Lean - Visit https://takelean.com and get 20% off with promo code MICHAEL20   - - -   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

Because our corrupt political elite has been caught lying to us spectacularly in recent years, especially during COVID, because certain so-called conspiracy theories have turned out to be true. Lots of kooky ideas have gained traction, ideas about historical events, politicians, racial groups, religious groups, even geology. Some conspiracy theories are more compelling than others. But there is one that has been floating around for a while that I have always. rejected and which I actually thought was downright mean, namely the theory that Michelle Obama is a man called Big Mike. I don't like this theory because I think it's wrong to make fun of people's appearances, especially the appearances of women. So I've never really touched that theory. And then Michelle Obama said this. I wanted to talk, Marlon, a bit about, you know,

just so proud of how you are being a role model for dealing with a child that's transgender. Absolutely. And that's, you know, that warms my heart, particularly as a black man. You know, would you care to share that journey of? Well, I learned.

I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls show. Welcome back to the show. Tim Walls. Do you remember him? The former future president could have been. and there was a chance. He could have been the second woman president. No, I'm joking. Tim Walls claims that Kamala picked him because he could code talk with white guys. Just another piece of

evidence for the Democrats' political confusion. I have much more to say, but first, you need to text Knowles, KNAWLAS to 98, 98-98- This July, there is a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro. The block of emerging powers, including China, Russia, India, and Iran, are, are. meeting with the goal of displacing the U.S. dollar as the global currency. They're calling this the Rio Reset. As Bricks nations push forward with their plans, global demand for U.S. dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollars in your savings. While this transition will not happen overnight, the Rio Reset in July marks a pivotal moment when Brick's objectives move decisively from theoretical possibility toward reality. Learn if diversifying your

savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard-earned savings into a tax-sheltered IRA and precious metals, claim your free info kit on gold by texting my name, Knowles, K&WLAS to 98-98-98-98, with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers. Let Birch Gold arm you with a free, no-obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio reset. You know, I've been very happy to have a fair bit of gold in my portfolio. Text Knowles! Kno, W-LAS, to 98, 98, 98, 98. It's so great to see you raising a trans kid. you know, for me, particularly as a black man.

Care to comment on that, Mr. Wains? There are three scandals here. One scandal is fake. Two of them are real. I still don't think Michelle Obama's a man. I still think it's wrong to make fun of her appearance. I think it's wrong generally to make fun of people's appearances, especially the appearances of women.

I don't think she's a fella named Big Mike, okay? There is a real scandal, though, which is that Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton, and she doesn't know how to use English grammar. Can you play the clip again, please? I want to get the words exactly right. I wanted to talk, Marlon, a bit about, you know, just so proud of how you are being a role model for dealing with a child that's transgender. Absolutely.

And that's, you know, that warms my heart, particularly as a black man. You know, would you care to share that journey of? Well, I learned. That warms my heart particularly as a black man. Unfortunate wording from Michelle Obama, if you graduate from Princeton, you should know how to use parenthetical clauses in sentences. You should know what pronouns in such clauses would insinuate.

You shouldn't say it warms my heart particularly as a black man. Now, I think she's referring to him as a black man, but still, get it together, people. we clearly have falling standards in our elite universities. The third scandal here, the greatest scandal of all, is the intellectual and moral corruption that is displayed when a former First Lady of the United States encourages the mutilation of little kids.

And that's really what people are sick of. Okay. She might be on the level here. She might think that it's a really good thing to cast straight little kids and to pump them full of cross-sex hormones and to give them a bone disease and to increase the likelihood that they kill themselves. She might think all that because she might think that a boy can really be born in the wrong body, and she might think, alternately, that it's good to lie to people and that the truth is cruel,

and she might think all of these things. But that's a national scandal, that's someone who is gone to elite institutions, who has risen to the very heights of political power, First Lady of the United States, that such a figure could think these things is a national scandal. It is a sign of a deeply corrupt elite. It actually goes all the way full circle. This is why people believe in conspiracy theories and why some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.

Because our political elite are extremely corrupt. They might not even want to be corrupt. If you think it's good to castrate a little kid, there has been a corruption of your intellect or your will or your moral perception, or all three. That is how Trump got elected, and that is why, to celebrate his 100 days, his first 100 days of his second term,

he talked about that very corrupt elite. We're taking back our country from a sick political class that got rich selling America out and bleeding America dry. We don't let that happen anymore. And we had four great years. We had the greatest economy in the history of our country.

The stock market went up. 88% we did great. And we're going to do better now because now we're really, we learned a little bit. After years of leaders who sent your money to defend the borders of distant foreign nations, that's what we did.

We'd fight for other nations, but not for ourselves. You finally have a president who is defending our borders and our nation. Now, the way a lot of analysts are going to view the dichotomy Trump is drawing here is between the nation and the world.

nationalism and globalism. They're going to say that's the, those are the two paths that Trump is offering to you. They are the globalists. We are the nationalists. They care about other countries in the world. We only care about ourselves. I don't think that's the distinction Trump is drawing. Because Trump clearly has interests in the rest of the world.

He wants to acquire Greenland. He wants to invade Canada. He wants to solve the Gaza War. He wants to solve the Ukraine-Russia war. He wants to trade a lot with things. China, but get a fair deal with China. He's obviously interested in the rest of the world and in promoting American interests around the world. The real distinction Trump is drawing, he gets to it that first part. He said, we have corrupt political elites who have been bleeding our country dry.

The real distinction is between elites who govern out of private interest versus elites who govern for the common good. It's not that trade is necessarily bad. It's that our crooked elites sold out middle America to get trade deals that would line their own pockets but hollow out the country. It's not that being involved in other areas of the world is necessarily bad for America. Trump's trying to resolve two wars right now. It's that crooked elites have been promoting war all around the world to line their own pockets at the expense of the American treasury and America's families and America's children. that's his argument.

And people misunderstand that, which is why there's so much confusion when Trump decides he wants to be involved elsewhere around the world. When Trump bobs and weaves on trade policy and actually does encourage more free trade rather than merely trying to have protective tariffs and resure all the manufacturing here. It's why people don't really understand what he's talking about. But this is the message, and this is why it appeals to so many people. This is why his message appeals to isolationists and Warhawks. This is why his message appeals to some free traders and to protectionists. Because his political argument is more basic than these kind of wonkish debates. His political argument is, you crooked blood-sucking elites have been pursuing your own private interests on America's dime and with the American authority for decades.

And we're going to reorient that. it's not even basically a reorientation from world affairs to national affairs. It's a reorientation from the private interest of a crooked, morally bankrupt elite toward governing for the common good. That's how you get so many people to come vote for you. That's how you assemble this new coalition that won the popular vote. I have much, much more to say, first thing, you need to go to jeremy'sraisers.com slash knolls.

If your razor company can't say what a man is, why let the company near your face. Jeremy's gives you a close, clean, shave, no confusion. Five stainless steel blades that destroy stubble with facts and logic and steel. And they also destroy corporate pandering. A precision trimmer for clean lines, a lubrication strip with argon oil and aloe. Plus, they offer a 30-day money-back guarantee. You try it.

You don't like it. Just send it back for a full refund, but you will like it. Go to jeremysraisers.com slash knolls or use code Knowles, KennaWLES, a checkout for 20% off your first order. That's jeremy's raisers.com slash knolls. Code Knowles at checkout. Not everyone likes recent political changes, including aging boomer rock stars such as Neil Young.

If you're a fascist by a Tesla, if you're a Democrat, taste your freedom, come on Ford. It's wonderful, Neil Young's ignorance, because, By the end, he ends up promoting Ford,

which means I don't think Neil Young has ever Googled a fellow by the name of Henry Ford. Had some fairly right-wing leaning. Some would say extremely right-wing. Some would say a little bit too right-wing for comfort. Vote for Ford. Did you ever know that his buddy was Hitler? Oh, wait, hold on.

Whoops. Man needs a maid. It doesn't rhyme. It has no rhythm. Oh, boy, it's also tedious. How did this happen? How did this happen? So many people observed that rock and roll was born to subvert the political order, you know,

is meant to go after the man. But now it just defends all these corporate interests. Go by Ford, go by GM. How did that happen? It was totally predictable. Because you're half right. The 60s and 70s rock music. was developed to tear down the established political order.

That was the purpose. That's what all these rockers like Neil Young. Who's a Canadian, by the way? He's not even an American. That's what they were after. That's what Woodstock was about. But it succeeded. And now these aging rockers, I think, are victims of their own success

because that kind of art, such as it is, can only do what it's designed. to do, which is to tear things down. It can't really build up anything new. So when it attempts to, when it attempts to now defend Ford and GM and the liberal political order and the Democrats who have had power for decades and decades in most areas of our public life, it just seems weird and discordant. Literally discordant, his pitch is terrible. So some new kind of art is required to build something new. Rock and roll is. Rock and roll is. dead. Rock and roll will never die. It died. You killed it, Neil Young. It did amazing. Everything

seems to come full circle. But it won't succeed at building up something new. The leftism, the purely destructive leftism of the 60s and 70s has succeeded. It is now a victim of its own success. And now that they have subverted the established political order in order to edify, in order to build things up, we need something else, which is why the kids ain't tuning in to Neil Young anymore. Now, speaking of building something new, Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, has just announced a new economic deal with Ukraine. And I think that's going to leave a lot of right-winger's vaguely happy, but a little bit confused as to how we're supposed to feel about it. Do we like Ukraine? Do we not like Ukraine? Do we want to be more involved with

Ukraine? Do we want to just completely get out of Ukraine? Is this? Well, here's the deal in the Treasury Secretary's own words. Thanks to President Trump's tireless efforts to secure a lasting peace, I am glad to announce the signing of today's historic economic partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine, establishing the United States Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund. This partnership allows the United States to invest alongside Ukraine to unlock Ukraine's growth assets, mobilize American talent, capital, and governance standards that will improve Ukraine's investment climate and accelerate Ukraine's economic recovery. The Development Finance Corporation will participate in help to establish

this fund in collaboration with the government of Ukraine. Today's agreement signals clearly to Russian leadership that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term. It's time for this cruel and senseless war to end. I agree with every word that the Treasury Secretary just said. And it is it He's showing here the Trump administration's smart alternative to the stupid false dichotomy that we've been presented with over the past five years. Are you pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia? Why would I be pro-Ukraine? Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth.

It has been conquered by just about every people. It was conquered by the Poles, for goodness sakes. It was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's been part of Greater Russia for a long time, but it also kind of, they also sort of hate. the Russians. And anyway, why do I care? Why do I care about Ukraine? That's on one side. On the other hand, why would I be pro-Russia? They have a lot of intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed right at our heads. We fought a war with them for 50 years. We have had longstanding hostilities with Russia, predating the Cold War. And the Russians don't really view themselves as part of the West. And the

West doesn't really view Russia as part of the West either. And in fact, in Tolstoy, in War and Peace, there's a famous line from Anna Pavlovna speaking in French because the Russians would speak French, and there's always been this tension of whether or not the Russia's in the West. But she has this great line, Europe no sura, no's our alie censer. Please excuse my terrible French. It says Europe will never be our sincere ally. The whole book is about Russia fighting Europe and making alliances with parts of Europe, like the Austrians and the Germans, but then not really having a good relationship with the Austrians and the Germans and being sold out, and then going back and forth and always occupying this liminal space when it comes to Western civilization. And there are some idealists now who I

guess will think that we can have a longstanding great alliance with Russia, but Russia's never really viewed it that way, and that's never been born out in history. So what's the upshot for the U.S.? The upshot for the U.S., says Trump, is if we have certain hard interests that are contrary to Russia's hard interests, if we have a centuries-long tension that just is born out of real geopolitical realities, if we can't really ever be buddy-buddies with Russia, because it just, the geopolitics of it just doesn't work. The geopolitics of it just doesn't work. then, okay, let's pursue our interests. We are not going to write a blank check for a regional war that could become a serious global conflict

because of Ukrainian democracy, which basically doesn't exist. We're not going to do it because of the sincerity of the Ukrainian political leaders who are extremely crooked. We're going to do it in our own interest. And so the Treasury Secretary comes out and he says, Yeah, we just signed a deal, an economic deal that is going to benefit us.

It's going to give us some incentive to stay involved in protecting Ukraine. It's going to acknowledge the reality that we're never going to be bosom buddies with Russia because certain geopolitical realities are pre-ideological. And there are just certain hard interests. And there is a reason that the West and Russia have had a fraught relationship forever. So we're going to acknowledge that reality, but we're not going to become bellicose warhawks, and we're not going to become liberal ideologues talking about the spread of Madisonian democracy all over the earth like occurred during our fever dream of the 2000s. We're just going to have a return to normal realpolitik, hard interest politics.

And that is refreshing because it means you don't have to be pro-Ukraine, you don't have to be pro-Russia, you can just be pro-America, which is the same thing. which is the space that I think a lot of us and all normal people have wanted to occupy the whole time. Trump's actions stand in stark contrast to what has passed for elite conservatism over the past 15, 20 years. There was an article that I saw yesterday. Probably not a lot of people saw because it was published in this outlet called The Dispatch, which is it's kind of conservative. The dispatch was founded as an outlet for disaffected conservatives who hate Donald Trump. Kind of like the bulwark. The bulwark went so far. It became a radical left-wing outlet. That one was founded by Bill Crystal.

The dispatch was founded by disillusioned, disaffected, but slightly less radical, former conservative types. And this is the article. My presidential candidacy. And you don't even need to read the article to get the point. The subheader says, If nominated, I will consent to be elected, but don't expect me to do much else. What's his presidential platform? If you elect me, I'm going to do nothing. My platform is the Constitution. I'm going to stop being so ambitious like all of these people in both parties. And I'm just going to let the Constitution do its job. and I'm going to sit back and do nothing. He who governs least, governs best,

that's my radical candidacy. What do you think about that? And of course, no one will vote for it. But this was a popular view around the Tea Party era among a certain species of a libertarian-affected Beltway elite conservative.

It was a popular, it was never a popular view with the people broadly, but it was a kind of a popular view with the right-wing commentariat. And it doesn't work. I don't mean

to make fun of the guy who wrote this article. I'm sure it's a sincere political position. I'm not even really knocking the dispatch for publishing this kind of thing. It's just so passe. And it's not only passei because fashions have changed. It's passei because this doesn't work as a governing philosophy. Give me power and I'll do nothing

with it. Doesn't work. What happens when you behave that way, when you say vote for me, and I'll do nothing with the power, is then you get voted out of office and your enemies take power and your enemies transform the political order and you're pushed to the sidelines and you become a court jester in the kingdom of liberalism rather than a serious political actor. That's why this doesn't work. And Trump knew that. So Trump comes in and he says, I'm going to use power. I'm going to use power in a just way in a way that respects the limits set forth by the Constitution and by other political traditions. But I'm going to use it, baby. We're going to do stuff, okay? that came out of the 2000s. The first extreme came from Carl Rove. This is a great line. It was reported in, oh, some magazine.

I forget which one, but this was about 20 years ago. Carl Rove, who's referred to here as an unnamed aide, but most people think it was Carl Rove, advisor to George Bush. The aide said that guys like me, me, liberal journalists, were in what we call the reality-based community, which he defined as people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. And Rove, probably it was Roeve, says,

that's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality, judiciously as you will, we'll act again, creating other realities, which you can study too. And that's how things will sort out. We are history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. It's a hardcore quote. Now, that's one extreme.

The other extreme is we're not going to do anything. We're just going to allow the Constitution, this dead piece of parchment, to act, and then everything will work out just fine. If only we stopped doing things as human beings and just allowed our beautiful systems to act of their own logic and apparently of a will of their own, then society would be great. A total political quietism on the one hand and a total transcendent will volunteerism, quasi-Islamic, kind of funny that it comes out of the Bush era. On the other hand, Trump has found the Via Media between these two views,

between the Tea Party and the Bushy neocons. He's found the via media, which is, we need to base our political actions on reality. We need to be normal. We have to respect the natural law and the transcendent moral order, and we have to just recognize. And we have to respect hard political interests. We have to respect certain realities. We have to not be taken off by flights of fancy and ideology. That's all there in Trump.

But also we have to act and we have to do things. And when we pursue our interests, that is going to help shape the political circumstances around us. It's not going to change reality. Reality is not made through a sheer force of our will. But we have a lot of power in the world and we can shape events. And so long as we don't totally divorce ourselves from reality, we can we can change political circumstances and make other people react to what we do because we are history as actors because we're the greatest country on earth and we're going to become greater

and that's going to give us even more power. But in order to become great, we have to respect the eternal realities that undergird our whole politics. That's a beautiful thing. Romney lost. Republicans lost in the 20thens and Republicans lost in part because of the excesses of the 2000s. Trump, let him cook. It's sort of like thesis, antithesis, synthesis, synthesis. Hate to sound hegelian about the whole thing. But that is not only a popular political view, it's not only the sort of thing that gets you elected on a wave of populism.

It is the most sensible version of conservatism that we've seen in a long, long time. Listen here, we will get to my pearls of wisdom again in one moment. First, though, go to take link. www.com use code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-20. Do not mistake what I'm about to tell you about for another injectable weight loss solution. This is something entirely different. These impressive weight loss results come from a physician-developed dietary supplement called Lean. Lean was developed by medical and academic professionals as an alternative to GLP-1 medications,

eliminating the need for injections. Research on the components in lean demonstrates their ability to regulate glucose levels, significantly decrease hunger sensations, and enhance metabolism by utilizing fat stores as an energy source. Real people have seen real results. Lori M. wrote, quote, I've struggled to get weight off and lean has been a lifesaver. I've been losing a couple pounds a week or more.

Kelly F. said, amazing. I immediately noticed an energy boost and a healthy loss in weight. I would promote this product to anyone. Strongly recommend if you struggle with weight. I know a lot of people have struggled with weight. Go look into this. Check this out. You know, sometimes a healthy diet and exercise just don't.

seem to be enough. That is where Lean is for you. Let's get you started with 20% off. Just use code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-20 at TakeLean.com. Code Michael, M-C-H-A-E-L-20 at Take-Lean.com. What is that URL? Take-Lean.com. Code Michael, M-C-H-A-E-L-20. Results vary. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. It's not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, and is not a substitute for care from a health care provider. Speaking of changing realities, House Minority Leader Democrat Hakeem Jeffries was just asked if Democrats are going to follow through on their promise to follow Chris Van Hollen, Democrat Senator from Maryland, and go visit Kilmar Abrago Garcia in El Salvador. Kilmar Abrago Garcia, whom Democrats have called a Maryland father. In fact, he's most likely an MS-13 gang affiliate whose wife filed a court order to stop him for.

from beating her at one point, who's in this country illegally, who's the sort of fellow who probably shouldn't be in this country. And here's how he responded. Hakeem Jeffries said, our reaction to the questions about Kilmar-Rago Garcia is that Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history. That's it. The question was specifically, do you agree with your colleague, Henry Quellar, who positions himself as a more moderate?

Democrat. Do you agree there was a bad idea to rally around this MS-13 gangster? And Hakeem Jeffries completely deflects. He says, our reaction is Trump is really unpopular, which is to say, yes, I do agree with Henry Queller. Yes, I do realize that it was a mistake to rally around this guy. He might be the most sympathetic deportee that we can find, but he's not sympathetic. He's a gangster who is accused of beating his wife, who has weird gang. looking tattoos on his knuckles. He's in illegal. People don't want him here anyway. Even if he were a nice abuela minding her own business who's here illegally, most people want to deport her. So yeah, we're done with that. Democrats are done with Chris Van Hollen's gangster boyfriend.

Okay, it's over. They realize that that's a big problem. They're going to move on. But how? The leader of the Democrats in the House can't come out and say, yeah, that was a mistake. That guy should be deported. But likewise, he can't say he didn't have. due process and we need to bring back sweet Kilmar Obrego Garcia. He's American as Takitos and apple pie. That doesn't work either. He's just got to deflect. He's got to try to ignore the problem and put his head in the sand. That's not going to work. You're not going to win elections by ignoring the most important political issues of the day. In this case, migration, top political issue for a lot of people. So it's fine. Democrats, good on them for

realizing that their current position is untenable. But what are they going to do? You got to run on something in order to win. They haven't figured that out yet. Now, speaking of boyfriends, a couple of fellas just went viral for their two guys. They seem to be very good friends in some kind of romantic relationship. And they have acquired a baby somehow, obviously not the natural way. and they just posted pictures of that baby's first birthday for social media cloud. Kyle, you're going to sit on my shoulder? Oh my gosh. You're so tall.

Can I sit in my shoulder? Wow. No. Kyle, look out of your balloons. You love it? Do you love it? So the guy, for those of you who are only listening to this right now, the one guy has a really long,

a bleak blonde. Bleach blonde hair. He's wearing some bizarre shiny outfit. His paramour appears to have makeup on and is also wearing bizarre outfits. And they're holding this baby. I don't even know their names. I think they're social media stars. They're holding two babies. They got two babies out of it. And they're holding up the baby, not just to the presents and the decorations, but they're holding up the baby to the camera. because they want to get social media clap. And you just look at these guys. And you notice they're not the bourgeois kind of gays. You know, they're not the gays who wear business suits,

who other than this one weird thing, basically, are kind of normal. They, these are really decadent looking people who should not have babies. You just, any person with a semi-functioning conscience, certainly any person who's ever been around a baby and knows, the kind of things babies need, looks at this and says, this should be illegal, these people should be punished for doing this, these guys have absolutely no business with a baby. How did they acquire the babies? And you can say all sorts of things. They acquired the babies because we've redefined marriage. They acquired the babies because of the sexual revolution. They acquired the babies because of a

degradation of morality. They acquired the babies because of a recession of public Christianity. You can go on and on and on. there is a technological answer here. The way that homosexual guys have been able to acquire babies is one by changing the adoption laws, but two, increasingly, because you can now make a baby in a petri dish. Why is this happening now when you see this kind of social problem so horrifying?

Well, part of the answer is because technology changed less than 50 years ago. 50 years ago, this would not have been possible. But in 1978, we loosened our bioethical standards, and we advanced in technology, and we came to the point as a society where we said it is technologically possible and morally acceptable to create a baby in a petri dish. And now that we've done that long enough, there is no technological barrier. There's no physical barrier for two fellas not to have a baby. They can't do it the natural way, which was what prevented guys who obviously are unfit to have children. for millennia from acquiring children, now that barrier is gone.

So as technology advances, that can be a good thing for civilization or it can be a very bad thing for civilization. As technology advances, one has to have a clearer moral vision. One has to have greater personal discipline. One has to attain greater responsibility. And we're not doing that. we're doing the opposite. We are clouding our moral vision. We are shoving off responsibility. We are allowing the corrosive acid of liberal ideology to melt down all of the things that used to make us behave in our society. At the very same time, it's a perfect storm as technology is advancing, which means you're going to see more of that. It's revolting. Anyone who spend any time with a baby knows a baby needs a mother. Okay. And If you're going to give babies to any pair of fellas, it probably shouldn't be the ones who are so indulgent, so decadent, so over the top.

So it shouldn't be those guys, right? But what do you do about it as a political? The only way to deal with it now is to circumscribe people's autonomy and license. The only way to deal with that now is to put some limits on the uses of technology. Are we a responsible, morally clear enough society to do that? Is that even possible right now? Open question. It's one of the big open questions, frankly, of the Trump era. Take a look around. Do you feel it? Something is happening. People are smiling at each other in public. Things are not on fire. And reality, objective reality, is making a little bit of a comeback. This is not a glitch in the matrix. This is what happens when the fever breaks. Welcome to the return. of normal.

It's a new day. The sun is rising. The birds are singing. And things are returning to normal. It's norming in America. Today, we're actually arresting shoplifters, and fewer businesses are being burned down. All over America, pronouns are being dropped from bios.

Men are not having babies. and fewer drag queens are flashing their genitals of children. Videos like this one aren't being shadow banned as much. People are saying master bedroom. And look at that. White people are reappearing in commercials.

Oh, and guys, we can say guys again. America, the fever has broken. Now we can be sensible, nicer, and normal. join us and let's never go back to those weird angry divisive times again it's norming in america have a great norming you hear if that made you smile or at least blink twice in disbelief good now let's make it permanent join us at dailywire dot com slash subscribe become a part of the rebellion

against the ridiculous normal is back this time we're keeping it now Now, my favorite comment yesterday is from Family Gash 7500. It says, as a British person with autism, I can indeed confirm that I used to be a male inside of a female's body. And then I was born. It's a joke I've heard before. But it's pretty funny. Pretty funny. I get a kick out of it.

There's good timing, too, so we're talking about the babies. And providential timing, since we're talking about LGBTism. Jennifer Coolidge, that late, that actually. actress lady who we played on the show yesterday. She was making all these kind of odd claims about LGBT. Well, now she's gone even further and said that her life would be worth nothing without the LGBT movement. I feel like I joined the LGBTQ plus community before. I mean, I think when I was young, I think we didn't all know that we were going to, you know,

sort of we were all attracted to each other for the same thing I didn't quite feel like I you know I didn't feel like I was sort of been I was sort of a you know I was kind of lost you know when I was a young kid and stuff

and so I felt like I felt like we all find out later you know like also my buddies like gay men you know um gay women too but you know we just all felt like we were

the same tribe. And how, I can't even, I could go on forever about how much it improved my life. If it hadn't happened, if I hadn't met all, you know, everyone from the gay community that I know, I think my life would be, would be nothing, nothing. And I'm talking nothing. My life would be nothing without the, I Googled, said, is Jennifer Koolidge a lesbian? And it doesn't seem like she? she is, she might be, it's kind of unclear, but she's somehow part of the LGBT community. I've heard of,

guys who are married to women calling themselves queer. Okay, I don't know with that, but she says she's part of the LGBT community, and without the LGBT community, her life would mean nothing, which really tells you what LGBT is about. And I hope this penetrates to liberals and leftists who don't understand the way that a lot of conservatives talk about pride and LGBTism. It's not merely that conservatives think, you know, they shouldn't do those things that they like to do. I'm sure there's a little bit of that too. But that's not really primarily what it's about. The problem with LGBTism, the political problem with LGBTism is broadly that it is a collective problem with LGBTism is broadly that it is a collective,

identity that is disordered. It's not even necessarily tied to these actions because a woman who is ostensibly straight says she's part of the LGBT community. Because increasingly, I've known actually multiple people, multiple just straight guys, just normal guys who called themselves non-heterosexual or queer to be fashionable among liberals. It is a

collective identity that is intrinsically tied to leftism. Kind of like BLM. Like, not every black guy has to be in BLM. The normal black guys are not in BLM. Because BLM is an explicitly Marxist movement.

So what if you're a conservative black guy or just a normal, non-ideological black guy? You're not really part of BLM. BLM is not fundamentally about black identity. It's about this leftist kind of identity. The same thing is true for LGBTism here.

it's a substitute religion, deeply sacrilegious religion. It provides a substitute morality, a substitute anthropology, a substitute kind of human nature, a substitute political science. It has a view of politics that goes all the way down to what the purpose of laws are, how the laws should look in the United States. It rewrites a lot of our law and our civil rights law, rewrites our jurisprudence. It's an all-encompassing worldview. This is a why we don't want it in schools. It's not just because it's kind of icky when fellas do behave like ancient Greeks. It's because this is a whole political vision that now encompasses multiple liturgical months of the calendar, like LGBT Pride Month, and the October is also

an LGBT month. Because it's just wrong. It's wrong politically. And it's, it's wrong politically. And it's it's wrong in ways that so transcend any kind of personal erotic actions that it's that it becomes a big political problem if you said to me michael michael what's the most important thing in your life i'd say well without christianity my life would would mean very little i would say that i would still have my kind of natural reason and i would still have you know there would still be things in my life but my life would i could basically go as far as she's going and say without christianity my life would be meaningless. It would be nothing. I'd live for a short period of time, die, take a dirt nap, turn to warm food. That's how she's talking about weird sex stuff. That is what's ultimately so horrifying about the LGBT ideology.

And it's why even, it is why even some people who engage in those activities will come out and say, we don't want any part of LGBT. We don't want any part of that rainbow flag. We don't want any part of this political ideology. Now, speaking of a sense of belonging, Tim Walls, The man who could have been president had Kamala Harris won even like three votes. Tim Walls just came out and explained his view that Kamala Harris picked him to be the VP because he could code talk with white guys. His exact words, I don't want to take him out of context. I could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck, and put them at ease.

He's a, I'm a permission structure for white men to vote for death. Democrats. If that was Kamala Harris' strategy, she picked a guy who could code talk to the white guys. I think she picked the wrong white guy. Does anyone look at Tim Walls and say, ah, yes, the governor who put tampons in the fourth grade boys' bathroom. That's a good old red-blooded American man. Yeah, I want to crack a beer with that guy. No, not one person did that. but I see the strategy. She needed someone who could talk to white guys. Because Democrats have told white guys in particular for decades that they hate them. Democrats have said being white is bad.

We need to abolish whiteness. Being a guy is toxic. We go to abolish that too. So then the white guys said, well, we don't really like you, Democrats. And the Democrats said, shoot, we've got to figure out a way to talk to white guys. I know. We'll pick the least likeable white guys. guy in public life and we'll make him our vice president. Will that work? No. Democrats picked a

white guy, couldn't win over white guys. Trump picked a white guy and won over black and Hispanic guys. Clearly, what is at issue here is not the whiteness and it's not the guyness. It's the talking. Democrats could not talk to these people. They thought that just by putting a guy who was technically a white guy in, that spot, they would be able to reach those voters. They didn't because human beings are not just grunting baboons. We're rational creatures who are persuadable, but you have to use talking. You have to use language. That's what distinguishes us from the brute beasts. It is what makes us children made in the image and likeness of God. There's a similarity there because we're rational creatures. So then Trump picks a white guy, like a real white guy, white guy, white guy from Ohio, was raised,

drug addict mother, in tough circumstances, worked his way up, didn't really have advantages growing up. That guy was able to talk not only to white guys, but to win over an historic number of black guys and to win over 46% of Hispanics. It's the talking. That's the problem. And the Democrats couldn't talk to anyone really

this past election cycle. Their arguments seem stale and old. they seemed not to have a grasp on reality. And Trump did. So now we've got this new political paradigm. It's not the extreme ideology of the... Well, I guess a lot of this is ideology. But it's not the imperial ideology of the Bush era.

It's not the individualist, quietest ideology of the Tea Party era. It's some new thing, grounded in prudence and practicality and reality and heart interests and a reset for normality. Now what does it look like going into the future? Don't forget. We still have 265 days left of this term. And that's assuming Trump doesn't run for his third term. We'll get to a lot of those issues later on.

Today's Theology Thursday. We have to get to the Membrum segmentum. And if you are part of the Hoypiloi, who are just watching this on the public platforms, or listening on your podcast app, you've got to go to DailyWire. com. Use code Knowles at checkout. You'll become a member. You will get all the great member in segmentum. You will join the chem de la chem. Head on over right now. We'll see you in the member block.