Ruth (9:27)

I can't say my friend's name, but he said his biggest fear is that ISIS or some terrorist group like that would get a hold of a dirty bomb and explode it over a major city within the United States and kill tens of millions of people. Because then the blowback against innocent Muslims would be absolutely terrible. Mm, yeah, that's Ruth.

Michael Knowles (10:05)

That's true.

Ruth (10:06)

Okay, let's do some jokes. That went well, Josh.

Michael Knowles (10:11)

Just a Crickets. Oh, yes, that's right. That's it. And that's exactly what the UK Government said here. Their biggest fear was that Pakistani gangs of men would rape children by the thousands for decades because then the news might get out and the blowback against peaceful Pakistanis would be terrible. That's it. That was in more or less their own words. That's what the UK Government is admitting now. So will the British government be held to account for this? I hope so. Elon is on the warpath right now. That answers my first question, which is, why is this coming up now? This is coming up now because Elon Musk is making a big deal about it. And Elon Musk has a lot of money, and Elon Musk has a bully pulpit, and Elon Musk is one of the loudest men in the world, and he can draw attention to stories. He can make a story that's been percolating for 30 years, 40 years, become a major political issue. He has that power. Most of us don't have that power. I have a show. I have a little bit of that power. I don't have even an iota of the kind of platform that Elon Musk has. So that's a real political power. He can make issues happen, or he can rather make political debate and political consequences happen for issues that were already existing. That's one reason. The other reason is because Trump won. And because Trump won, we're allowed to talk about real things. Again, at Kamala won. We can't talk about real things. We have to pretend that the border is secure. We have to continue to let millions of people into our country. We have to continue to let criminals commit violence on our subways and on our streets and all over the country. We have. We have to continue to pretend that world affairs are going fine and you don't have major wars breaking out. We would have had to continue to live in lies. Because Trump won and because he won the popular vote, people can now admit. Okay, we all agree it's normal to. It's mainstream to point out we don't wanna be invaded by millions of foreigners who are committing hideous crimes against our people. Okay, good. Okay, great. I'm glad we can. I don't know. I didn't know if that was politically incorrect. But now you're allowed to speak. Those are the two reasons that this is coming up right now. But then the other question is, why cover it up? Why, for instance, are the UK politicians so afraid? Why is their greatest fear the backlash against peaceful Pakistanis or whatever? Why cover up such a broad and particularly horrific crime? Because I have the answer and I haven't heard anyone else say it. Because the UK as it is currently constituted requires multiculturalism. The UK needs to be multicultural. In the middle of the 20th century, liberals in America hypnotized everyone and convinced us that America is really just an idea. That America is just a multicultural melting pot. And we don't have any kind of native stock and we don't have any traditions and we don't have any real history or culture, but we're just, you know, a free floating idea. And anyone who comes here five seconds later, they can just be American. That was not the traditional understanding of America. But in the middle of the 20th century, that's what the liberals can. Okay, you figure it was a continent that was discovered, conquered in the 17th century, so it's at least plausible. The UK. Hold on. England, the country of the Angles, the country that has a very long history, that has a very clear people, the English peoples. You're telling me England is just an idea now? When did England become just an idea? Well, sometime around the same time. Because America and England are pretty similar places and our ideas flow freely one to another. We share the same language just about. So the English say, well, no, we're a multicultural country too. Forget about the English, forget about the Anglos, forget about English history. No, no, no, we're just a multicultural country also, much like in the United states. In the US we have had a below replacement birth rate since 1971. In the UK they've had a below replacement birth rate since 1972, almost exactly the same time. England needs migrants to keep their welfare state and their economy afloat. That was the calculation they made in the middle of the 20th century. And they started in the latter part of the 20th century, taking in huge numbers of foreigners. And now they're there and they have to do something. They can either deport all of them, they can deport all of these Pakistanis in northern England. Good luck. Or they can just pretend that England is an idea. Or they can now discourage mass migration and their country can die because no one's having any kids. I've harped on this issue of birth rates for years at this point. And sometimes people even who are on the right, they say, michael, that's a little too extreme. You think it's a bad idea. Okay, I get being anti abortion, but you think it's a bad idea even to promote contraception. And you think it's a bad. And you think it's a bad idea to discourage promiscuous, or you think it's a good idea to discourage promiscuous sex. And you think, really, to quote Norm MacDonald, Sex is a filthy, shameful thing that's obviously meant for procreation and so on and so forth. I don't know. Isn't that extreme? Isn't that very culturally and socially conservative? It is culturally and socially conservative, but you can't have any of the other conservatism without that. So many of our social problems stem from these issues. Our country is dying because it's literally dying. It's not just our country, it's other countries like the UK too. Think about this. We murder a million babies a year through abortion in the United States. We are told by our political elites we need to take in a million legal immigrants a year to keep our economy afloat. That is a one to one trade. If we just didn't murder our babies, there would be no political and economic argument for the necessity of abortion, to say nothing of the illegal aliens. If the UK had a thriving national identity and were having kids and had strong foundations, they would not have any. The libs would have no political argument to say you need to take in roving gangs of psycho Pakistanis to rape your daughters. There would be no argument for that. Because they'd say, no, we actually don't need to take in all these people. But because the cultural rot sets in all the way down to the basic unit of politics, the family. Because that rot sets in, so many other political problems flow from it. Now, moving from the UK a little bit closer to home, Greenland is calling for independence from Denmark. President Trump is Metternich. He is the greatest grand strategist since, I don't know, the Treaty of Augsburg or something. You know, Trump wants to buy Greenland. Trump floated this idea in his first term. He's a real Estate mogul. This makes sense. I'm sure he'll get a really good deal. Maybe we could flip Greenland. Who knows? We could, you know, make a few improvements, repaint the walls and we can sell it to China for twice as much. No, we wouldn't do that. We would buy Greenland because it's a strategic territory and there's no reason that Denmark, which currently controls Greenland, should, should own it. What is, what does Denmark have to do with this? We're America. We're the global hegemon. Greenland is closer to us anyway. Give us Greenland. Denmark said no. Trump reiterated at the beginning of the second term that he wants to buy Greenland. Denmark once again says no. So the leader of Greenland just came out and said, you know, we don't really want to be controlled by Denmark anymore. Here's what he says.

Mutah Igid (17:46)

Here in Greenland, we need to have some growth. We need to have some economic growth and diversify our economy. And of course we welcome our strong partners, like minded nations as first. But if they don't invest, there's a lot of companies who also want to invest in this country.

Michael Knowles (18:05)

Oh, hold on, wait a second here. That sounds like a guy who just heard President Trump. No, we don't. You know, there are other people who want to invest in the country. Now, just to be clear, Prime Minister Mutah Igid, I'm sure I'm mispronouncing that. Did say Greenland is ours. We are not for sale. We'll never be for sale. We are not. We must not lose our struggle for freedom. So he's officially, he's saying we do not want to sell to Donald Trump. But you know what that sounds like to me? That sounds like he's negotiating is what it sounds like. Trump says, I want to buy Greenland. Denmark says, no way. Greenland says, hey, hey, Denmark, go take a hike. We don't want you anymore. We want new parts partners. That reads to me like a guy who is very much interested in selling his country to Donald Trump. Now, how many people are in Greenland? There are 57,000 people in all of Greenland. So it's, it wouldn't be that hard. You know, it's not like you're taking over China or Russia or something like that. We've tried to buy Greenland before. The United States tried to buy it in 1867. We also tried to buy it after World War II. Both times we were rebuffed. Denmark hasn't even controlled Greenland all that long. They've only officially controlled. They've informally or in different political constitutions. Have had a relationship with Greenland going back many centuries, but they've only officially controlled it for like 200 years or so. So I don't think it'd be all that hard. From the practical politics point. I think it would be good for us to acquire Greenland. We should do it. America expands. We've done that since the early 17th century. We should continue to do that. We're the global hegemon. We need to be tough, we need to be strong. So I'm cool with that. But at a deeper political level. The most interesting thing about this story for me is this line. He says we must not lose our long struggle for freedom. I was a history major in college. I read the news a lot. I keep up on things I must have missed. The long enduring historic struggle for freedom in Greenland. Did you ever read about that? When I think of the great crusades for freedom, Greenland doesn't really make the top of the list for me. What crusade for freedom? They're a territory with like five people in it. They've basically been run by Scandinavia parts east for seven or 800 years. And now they might join the new global hegemon in the United States because we're a little bit closer. But freedom. It actually makes you think about how ridiculous so much modern liberal talk about freedom and liberation and autonomy is. Not every political grouping of 50,000 people needs to be fully, totally autonomous. In fact, not every grouping of 5 million people needs to be fully, totally politically autonomous. There's no such thing really ultimately as total liberation from everyone else. Total autonomy. I don't think that would be good. That's what the libs talk about. They want every 12 year old child to be totally autonomous and free from his family, to go, I don't know, get tattoos or chop off his body parts or do whatever. But that's a very leftist idea. It's a very liberal idea. The conservative idea is you want proper control within its proper sphere in proper respects. You want what we would say is subsidiarity. You want decisions to be made at as local a level as they can competently be made. You want something resembling federalism like we have in the United States, but total independence. Should every township in the United States be totally autonomous and independent? Of course not. They'd all fall apart. Should every human being be totally autonomous and individual? No. Then we'd have anarchy. We'd all fall apart and really we would just become subject to tyrannies. Because when we're all totally divided, we are much weaker and more vulnerable. Bring it on bring on Greenland. Bring on the 51st state. There's so much more to say. First though, go to Preborn.comKnowles this Sanctity of Life Month, we honor the over 66 million babies whose lives have been tragically ended through abortion since Roe v. Wade. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, babies lives are actually at an even greater risk because the abortion pill now accounts for over 60% of all abortions. Makes this tragedy available 24. 7. In the midst of this darkness, there is a light that shines. Preborn has rescued over 300,000 babies from abortion. And every day, on average, they rescue 200 plus babies. When a woman considering abortion hears her baby's heartbeat and sees her precious baby on ultrasound, her baby's chance at life is doubled. I personally support Preborn as an organization. I strongly encourage you to give however much money you can. I think this is a great group, a top, top charity to support Preborn shares, free heartbeats and God's love for mother and child. They need our help. For just 28 bucks, which is the cost of a dinner, not even in some places, you can sponsor an ultrasound to introduce a mother to her baby for the first time. 100% of your donation will go towards saving babies. Will you help? Dial pound250 say keyword baby that is pound250 keyword baby or donate securely@preborn.com knowles preborn.com canada w l e S Speaking of the Trump agenda, good news coming out of the US Senate, a phrase I rarely use. The Senate Majority Leader John Thune says that Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary nominee, will get through this, according to news reports. Now, a spokesman for Leader Thune only told CBS News, quote, two things we don't discuss publicly, whip counts and private conversations with the president. So they're saying no comment. We're not gonna say that. However, he's not denying it either. And I predicted this from the beginning. I thought Pete Hegseth would get through. I know the libs hate him. I know they tried to smear him early on. I thought he would get through. I want Pete to get through and I thought he would get through. Broadly, the presidents should have a great deal of power to put in their people. The American people voted for Donald Trump not only in the electoral College, but the majority of Americans voted for Donald Trump. He should get his picks. If there's some particularly egregious pick, then the senators should flex their muscles. But generally they should defer to the president. But at a broader point here, why I'm so happy to hear Pete getting through. Beyond just that, I like him and I think he'll do a good job. Republicans need unity right now. There is a time to every purpose under heaven. Sometimes Republicans should be at each other's throats. We should be attacking each other and fine tuning on every little point, every point of policy, every point of philosophy, every point of religion, every point of this, every point of that. There are moments for that. I'm as guilty of that as any. I engage in that frequently. There are other moments when unity is called for. Unity is a good thing. Unity is a transcendental. Unity is really, really important. Okay? And right now, as we head into January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany, and also the solemnity of the insurrection. It's January 6th, so we're gonna certify the election. We're getting ready for January twent when Trump gets sworn in. We are gonna have 100 days to really get things through. And we need to be totally unified. I do not want Republican on Republican political violence, rhetorical violence in that period. Republicans are gonna go right back to being divided probably on day 101. But we need unity now or we are going to squander our historic opportunity, which is unified government, totally demoralized libs, and a president who got elected by the popular vote for the first time in 20 years for a Republican. We have a huge opportunity, Republicans in the Senate and in the House and in the commentariat and everywhere. Be a little more circumspect in your battles for the next hundred days. Let's just try to get anything accomplished given the historic mandate that we have been given to that point. Mike Johnson has just been reelected speaker of the House. There was talk that Johnson didn't have the votes. It was going to be a big fight for the gavel. A lot of conservatives are irritated at Johnson. I totally understand why conservatives are irritated at Johnson. But he won and he won his election on the first ballot. Remember McCarthy? It took him, what, 15 ballots or something to hold onto that gavel. And then he lost it eventually because Matt Gaetz fought him. Well, Mike Johnson won it on the first gavel. It was close. 218 to 215. You had one Republican defecting. That would be Thomas Massie, who's often listed as the most conservative, most right wing member of the House of Representatives. But ultimately there were a couple others who said they might defect. That was Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Keith Self of Texas. But Norman himself switched their votes. They backed Johnson So only Massie stood against him. Massie voted for Tom Emmer, the Majority Whip. Okay, all the Democrats voted for Hakeem Jeffries, who's their leader. But Johnson got it and I don't care. You might be irritated with Johnson on the continuing resolution over Christmas. You might be irritated with Johnson because he's given too much money to Ukraine. You might be irritated with Johnson for any number of reasons. But here was my question from the beginning. Who else, who else was going to be the speaker of the House? Who among the people who plausibly could have been elected Speaker? I'm not saying who in Congress or who in the whole country or who in the whole world would you prefer? I'm saying who among the people who could plausibly have been elected speaker would be better than Mike Johnson? Who? Someone say Thomas Massie. Thomas Massie was not gonna get elected Speaker. Some people said Matt Gaetz, they should seat him and he could go. Matt Gaetz didn't want it. He's not going back to Congress and he couldn't get elected Speaker. Tom Emmer. Do you think Tom Emmer would be better? I don't know. Maybe. I don't know. It's a horrible job. It's probably the worst job in Washington dc. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Some people have said we should pick, I don't know, Thomas Massie or Rand Paul from the Senate should come down, be speaker of the House. I guess anybody could be speaker of the House. Or Jim Jordan. We like Jim Jordan. Yeah, I love Jim Jordan. That's why I don't want him to be Speaker. Cuz I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, much less someone I like. Among the people who could do that job, who do you think would really be all that? I don't know. To me, Trump wanted Mike Johnson. I say give it to him. Give him what he needs. Given everything that we're up against, this multi million person bureaucracy, this deep state that has tried to destroy his administration, prevent him from getting elected multiple times, justified his assassination, tried to kick him off the ballot, tried to put him in jail, raided his home, he's up against so much, to say nothing of our foreign adversaries. I'm only talking about our domestic adversaries now. He's up against so much. Give the guy what he needs to have even a chance of succeeding for the first few months, okay? And then everyone can go back to the circular firing squad, which I know the Republicans are gonna go back to. In the meantime, Though the Democrats are so demoralized. Speaking of Congress, Chuck Schumer, Democrat leader in the Senate, just goes on NBC News. One of the propaganda arms for the Democrat Party and NBC News is ain't really having it. The Democrats are at each other's throats now because they just lost in so humiliating a way. So NBC News asks Schumer, hey, man, you remember when you told us that you talked to Biden all the time and Biden was totally sharp and he had his wits about him and he didn't have dementia and he was, hey, like, do you want to apologize for lying to us?

Chuck Schumer (30:34)

I want to play you a little bit of something you said last year. Take a look.

Olivia (30:38)

I talk to President Biden, you know, regularly. Sometimes several times in a week or usually several times in a week. His mental acuity is great. It's fine. It's as good as it's been over the years. All this right wing propaganda that his mental acuity is declined is wrong.

Chuck Schumer (30:56)

Leader Schumer, what do you say to Americans who feel as though you and other top Democrats misled them about President Biden's mental acuity?

Olivia (31:07)

Look, we didn't. And let's, let's look, let's look at President Biden. He's had an amazing record. The legislation we passed, one of the most significant groups of legislation since the new, since Lyndon Johnson's Great society, putting in 235 judges, a record. And he's a, he's a patriot. He's a great guy. And when he stepped down, he did it on his own because he thought it was better not only for the Democratic Party, for America. We should all salute him. We should all salute him.

Chuck Schumer (31:40)

Do you feel as we have this conversation today, that President Biden could serve another four years had he stayed in the race and potentially won?

Olivia (31:50)

Well, I'm not going to speculate.

Michael Knowles (31:53)

Oh, you were speculating a few months ago, aren't you? Olivia says, hey, Joe Biden, he's a great guy. Yeah, that's not what the question was. The question was, why did you lie to us? No, now listen, hold on. Joe Biden's a patriot. No, no, we're not accusing him of being a bad guy. We're accusing you of being a bad guy, Jeff Schumer. Cause you lied to us and you said you talk to Biden all the time and he's so sharp and he's so great. And then kudos to NBC because when Schumer totally evades the question and redirects, as is his wand, she Asks. She says, okay, well, you're not gonna answer my direct question. Okay. Do you think Biden could continue to be president after January 20th? I'm not gonna speculate. They've got such egg on their face. They're so humiliated. They're so demoralized. It's gonna take them a minute to recover from this loss. I'm not saying that they're totally destroyed. They're not totally destroyed. I'm not saying that the left wing coalition is cracked up or that they're not gonna come roaring back or that Trump isn't gonna face challenges. All I'm saying is they've lost a step. They missed a step here, okay? They're off footed and we need to pounce on that opportunity. We need to kick them while they're down. It's like in blackjack. If you want to have a chance of winning in blackjack, you have to know when to hit, when to double down, when to split. You have to know when to pull your specific moves. If all you do is just hit, stand, hit, stand, hit, stand, you're lose all your money. You have to know to quote other lyrics about card games. You have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run. And now's the time to just hit them. Just hit them, guys. Even Chuck Schumer on NBC turns beet red practically because he's got no answer. Now, speaking of absurdity on tv, I somehow stumbled across a Netflix commercial for the Meghan Markle Show. I don't know what mistakes I made over my little Christmas break here that led me. I don't know what errors have gone on in advertising that allowed Netflix to serve me this commercial, but this is the new show that Netflix is promoting with the American actress who became a duchess who tried to destroy the royal family, which then booted the mad of England who seems to be detested by just about everyone in public. This is the show that they've made with her. Let me make a show.

Meghan Markle (34:39)

Let's go. I've always loved taking something pretty ordinary and elevating it. Surprising people with moments that let them know I was really thinking of them.

Michael Knowles (34:54)

What? This is probably one of the most glamorous moments of my life. It's magic.

Meghan Markle (35:00)

I'm going to share some little tips and tricks. I see what color I grabbed gravitate to and everything goes from there. And how you incorporate these practices every day. That's what you want. You want that shape and texture.

Michael Knowles (35:15)

Come on.

Meghan Markle (35:17)

This is about Connecting with friends. I love that we're doing this together for the first time. Making new friends. That is so good.

Michael Knowles (35:26)

We family now.

Meghan Markle (35:28)

I'm just learning. Look at how much honey we have.

Michael Knowles (35:31)

Do you believe in magic?

Meghan Markle (35:34)

We're not in the pursuit of perfection. Woke us all up. We're in the pursuit of joy. Love is in the details. I have to do it totally wrong to get it totally right.

Michael Knowles (35:48)

I am, and this is. I'm not exaggerating. I'm not just saying this for rhetorical effect. I am physically nauseated watching that clip. That is like a parody of what that show should be. I had to get it totally wrong to get it totally right. I just love, really. One of my favorite things is doing small wonderful acts of charity and kindness for people to let them know I'm thinking of them. You know, I love what love Megan. Someone pointed out on Twitter. I forget who it was the woman who destroyed her in law's family. Whose own family doesn't like her. Whose the in laws obviously don't like her. The public doesn't like her. She seems to be one of the more vindictive, nasty figures in public life. What's the title of her show? Love. Love Meghan. For what? To watch. Who wants to watch Meghan Markle bake a pie? Even in the commercial? What's really wrong with this is all the little clips of her seem to attempt to show some reticence or some kind of meekness. They want her to appear demure and modest and so she has a modest little giggle or something. But the act of making a TV show about herself is not modest. It's not demure. She's not reluctant to speak. She really wants attention. And so this is the problem. This is really her biggest PR problem that she thinks she can hire consultants to solve or hire Netflix to solve, but it's not gonna work. She was a pretend princess. She was an actress. Actresses are people who play princesses on tv. She then became a real princess, but she didn't like being a real princess. Because pretend princesses and real princesses might look the same, they might wear the same costumes, but their lives are totally antithetical. One to another, to be a real princess is to focus your life on the service of others. Is to be elegant and to comport yourself with dignity and to restrain your individual desires and to deny your autonomy and to just. And to be a public figure serving the public without any particular care for yourself. To be a pretend princess, to be an actress is to totally indulge your selfish desires and do whatever you want and be glamorous and live for the tabloids and beg for people's attention. They're totally antithetical. But now she's stuck because she was an actress who became a real princess who wants to be an actress again, but has to continue to pretend to be a real princess. The job of a royal is in many ways to be boring. The job of an actress is to get eyeballs. You can't do both at once. And she's trying to split the baby. She's a classic example of the modern woman, which is she wants to have it all. You can't have it all. You can have a wonderful, glorious life. You can have all virtue. You can have all sorts of things together, but you can't. You can't have opposites at the same time. You can't. To use the clearest example, devote your whole life to a career and devote your whole life to your family. It's not gonna work. You have to pick one or try to find some balance that you'll probably find unsatisfying. Aristotle once again vindicated. The law of non contradiction. Totally vindicated. You can't simultaneously be things that are opposites. This show is so awful looking, I almost want to watch it. But not quite. Now you can kick off your 2025 with 25% off your new Daily Wire plus annual membership. This year is one for the history books. In just 14 days, Donald Trump will be inaugurated. The Daily Wire will be there, bringing you live, uncensored coverage of every monumental moment. While we celebrate the victories ahead, we can never forget that the fight continues. 2025 reminded us of that fight in its very first hours. With terrorism in New Orleans and more terrorism in Las Vegas. Bad guys don't rest. Neither do we. The battle for truth, justice and clarity is ongoing. We are on the front lines every single day to bring you the facts. But you can't do it. We can't do it without you. Join us now. Get 25% off your new Daily Wire plus annual membership. Every dollar you spend fuels our mission. Go to dailywire.com subscribe get 25% off your new Daily Wire plus annual membership today. My favorite comment yesterday is from Kennykos744 who says so. If Tesla vehicles can be remotely controlled, could this one have been driven remotely and the man found inside was already dead when it arrived at the site where it exploded? That's a really good question. He's referring to the cybertruck exploding at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas, really good question. I don't know if that happened. It's certainly possible. I don't know if that happened. The one thing I can tell you is if it did happen, you almost certainly will never find out about it. I guess my argument for this is, remember that terror attack in Las Vegas that seemed like it had been carried out by multiple shooters with machine guns? And then we were told it was just some weird loner with a bump stock who somehow managed to spray zillions of bullets down, and we just never really learned much of anything about it. And that was years ago, and we're never going to learn anything about it. I think this is a similar situation. Hold on. A guy who's an active duty Green Beret, who's on leave from Germany, rents this car, shoots himself in the head and then blows up the truck. And they can identify him because he had his passport on him for some reason and the passport survived and he was a Trump supporter and. Hold on, What? Yeah, maybe some intrepid journalist will uncover something. But as of now, the more we learn about it, the weirder it seems, which makes me think we're not going to get an answer. Speaking of journalists, speaking of broadcast media, local news is reportedly moving to delete old crime stories. This is a story from the Guardian. US Newspapers are deleting old crime stories, offering subjects a clean slate. Why is this? Because more than 70 million Americans, according to the Guardian, have prior convictions or arrests. That means roughly one in three American adults has been arrested or convicted of a crime. And they can go on, and they can in principle get a job and have a life. But for this one problem, which is that now we have the Internet, and the Internet is forever. So it used to be local papers, where local papers still exist, would report on, oh, there was a carjacking, there was a burglary, this guy gets arrested, whatever. But in the old days, it'd be in the newspaper, it'd be out of the newspaper. There would still be records at the library, but it'd be really hard to dig up. Now, though, if you commit some crime when you're 18, whatever, you get in a bar fight or something, you get arrested. When you go to apply for a job, someone's gonna Google you. And the. For most people, that could be the top result on Google. Now you can pay services to try to wipe you from the Internet. It's a little trickier, but local news is now gonna say, okay, we're gonna wipe old crime stories. I get the impetus for it, don't call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I actually think we need to do a better job in America at reintegrating criminals. Right now we have the worst of all worlds. We don't arrest criminals for committing crimes. When we do arrest criminals, we don't imprison them a lot of the time, especially if they fit certain favored demographic traits, especially if they're in liberal cities with George Soros appointed DAs or funded DAs. So we don't arrest them. When we do arrest them, we don't really imprison them. We let them back on the street, they commit all sorts of crimes. We don't discourage them from committing crimes in the first place by enforcing standards on the streets. But once people have been convicted of a crime and have been to prison, we basically never let them get over it. One of the men I most admire back in New York killed a guy and went to prison for it. And in prison he was converted. He totally turned his life around. And he's a wonderful man and a very charitable man and goes to daily mass and he's incredible, an incredible figure. It would be a pity if someone goes to the correctional facilities and they really do turn their lives around, but they can never be reintegrated into society. It seems to me the way to deal with that, though, is not to deny that bad things have happened. It's not to just delete the stories. It's not to be George Orwell's 1984 and Memory Hole. What happened. Ultimately, I don't think it works, and it's not really fair to employers. Employers have a right to know about their people's background. I think the only way is to take redemption seriously. And the only way to take redemption seriously is to take crime seriously. This is an important part of the gospel. This is an important part of religion, which is before you hear the good news, you have to hear the bad news. I'm not the first to observe it. If you want the good news of the gospel, you need the bad news of your sin, okay? And if you want the good news at a political level of bringing a society back and making it healthy and flourishing again, you need the bad news, which is that we have a ton of criminals and they do a lot of really terrible things. And there's always crime and there's always brokenness in this fallen world, but we're at a particularly bad moment, okay? You know, just to use one example, we kill over a million babies a year. One in four women has murdered her own child. I think there's redemption available from that. But to get the good news, you have to first understand the bad news. I think our country could be great again. I really do. I'm not a total doomer about the country. But to get the good news of making our country great again, you need to accept the bad news. We're doing really bad things. We're off. We need to fix something about our thinking and our behavior now. Speaking of dystopian, I have another story that I teased on Friday and I'm still not gonna get to. But maybe I'll try to get to it tomorrow cause it's a really good story. Bill Gates foundation is turning mosquitoes into flying syringes to vaccinate people without their will and without their knowledge. That is such a crazy story. But I don't have time to get to it today. So we're gonna have to get. But it's crazy, it's spooky, and I have controversial thoughts on it. But we'll have to get to it tomorrow because today we are back in studio. It is January 6th, a very holy feast. And it is also Music Monday. So the rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles k wles at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

Dr. Horton (46:58)

Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of their national red tag sales event going on right now through January 19th. Stop by any of their participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton difference@drhorton.com that's Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.