Ep. 1739 - Rep. Nancy Mace BARES ALL In Congress
46:08 Share

This is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Watch parenting.

Available exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. We're dealing with misbehaviors with our son. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums. Our son turned to some substance abuse. Go to dailywireplus.com today. A Republican Congress lady just showed a nude photo of herself in Congress. The Republican Secretary of State and Department of Justice are using civil rights and immigration law to fight anti-white racism. And the Republican president...

is laughing in the media's face after federal law enforcement arrested a Democrat Congress lady. If you somehow have not noticed yet, this is not your grandfather's Republican Party. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.

Welcome back to the show. Hillary Clinton is back and she has advice for the future first female president. Isn't that sort of like me giving advice to the quarterback of the Denver Broncos? I have a lot more to say and I will say it. I will get to it. But first, I want to tell you to go to Vandy crisps dot com slash Knowles.

Spring is when we throw open the windows and freshen up, including refreshing our kitchens. It is time to ditch seed oils and process snacks. Vandy crisps are just real potato chips made the old-fashioned way. They taste better than any chip you've ever tried. They, frankly, they taste like a different thing. They taste like what a potato chip is supposed to taste like. In your mind, in your repressed memory of ancestral knowledge, what you know that a potato chip...

should always have been. That's what a Vandy Crisp is.

I'm really not being hyperbolic. It's just absolutely phenomenal. They are the first real potato chip you've ever tasted. They're made the way they were made 100 years ago. Just three simple ingredients, heirloom potatoes, grass-fed beef tallow, and sea salt. That is it. That grass-fed tallow, it's not just for flavor. It's packed with nutrients that are great for your brain, your skin, and your hormones. You're not going to get that heavy, sluggish feeling you get from regular chips. I can't recommend these highly enough. They're just phenomenal. 100% American-made potatoes.

Now is the perfect time to start snacking right. Go to vannycrisps.com slash Knowles today. Get 25% off your order. We have to start with the Nancy Mace story, don't we? I've looked at it from every angle, not the picture I'm saying. I've looked at the news of the day from every angle. I think we have to begin with the naked Nancy Mace story. Yesterday, Republican Congressman Nancy Mace, who's been on this show,

Tweeted out, she said, I'm going to go there. I am going to show a nude photo of myself today in Congress to take on a very serious issue that affects women and pertains to sexual assault and predation and all the rest of it. So people were, they were tuned in. They were curious. People, that raised an eyebrow. And here is what Nancy Mays showed. I speak not just as a lawmaker, but as a survivor.

Starting on November 5th, 2023, I discovered my former fiance, Patrick Bryant, had filmed women without their knowledge, without their permission, and without their consent. He appeared to catalog his tapes and footage and images and photos,

in the way that he saved the files. And he stored these images, photos, and videos for years. Exhibit one, behind me is a screenshot from one of the videos I found of myself. The yellow circle, this naked silhouette, is my naked body. I didn't know that I had been filmed,

I didn't give my consent. I didn't give my permission. And this particular video that Patrick Bryant recorded of me on his secret camera, he saved for over three years without my knowledge.

Okay, so the allegation from Nancy Mace is that her former fiancé secretly recorded her. Now, you can see from the camera angle, this is a camera angle into what looks like his living room. So it's not a camera into his bedroom, which would be a little creepier.

It's into his living room. So some people are saying, well, it's just a security camera. But I don't know the way she's talking about it. She says there are multiple cameras and he cataloged the videos of multiple women. So the way she's describing it, it sounds like it wasn't just a routine security camera. It might have been something more nefarious. Her ex-fiance issued a statement said her allegations are absolutely baseless and I will at the right time do whatever is necessary and appropriate to clear my name to prove my integrity.

and to restore my reputation in the community. I'm not going to get into the specific allegation specifically regarding Nancy Mace and her ex-fiance here because, I don't know,

Yeah, no matter how this story turned out, it wouldn't totally surprise me. It is true that men can be creeps so that it could be that. Also, it's true that hell hath no fury like a woman scorns and people have security cameras. So I don't know. I just don't know. And presumably this will be worked out in court. I don't know that the political point to me that is more interesting is the one that Nancy Mace is raising in Congress.

Which is we need protection for people from voyeurs. And that's obviously true because there are cameras everywhere all over the world right now. So I totally understand that. But then there's an even deeper philosophical point. The point that both the left and the right seem to agree on here is that we need more privacy. And I don't really think that's true.

virtually everyone on the left and the right seem to agree we need more privacy. We need more individualism. We need more isolation. We need more protection from the community. I don't know that that's true. I think in some ways we...

The advent of all of this new technology might impel people to behave better. I wonder, this might just be my Italian speaking, okay? You know that I'm of Italian extraction. The Italians do not have a word for privacy. When you say the word privacy in Italian, you say, dobbiamo parlare della privacy. They have to borrow it from English because Italians don't have any privacy. But I have found, I'll just use myself as an example. Ever since I've had a modicum of public profile,

Some people complain about that. I think that's a nice thing because I assume that I'm always being watched. I assume people are always spying on my computer. I assume that there's always someone in public, some lib waiting to record me doing something stupid or yelling or something like that. I just assume that everything's public. There are cameras everywhere now, as Nancy Mace is pointing out. And so I have found that that knowledge impels me to behave a little bit better.

There's an old line in politics, which is never send something in an email or a text that you would not be comfortable reading on the cover of the New York Times. I find that's not necessarily a bad thing. I find that impels me to behave better because ultimately we're not isolated creatures. Ultimately, there's no such thing as a private sin because we're social creatures. So everything we do affects the community.

If you go out and murder someone, that seems like a more public sin than if you go, I don't know, get addicted to drugs or porn or some other kind of vice, I don't know, or gluttony or wrath or whatever. But you just kind of keep it all in and it seems private. But it's not really private because it affects who we are and we're constituent parts of the community. So, I don't know. I...

This is just my little suggestion while we're debating this topic from a 30,000-foot view. Do we really need more privacy? Do we really need more individualism? Do we really need more social alienation? Or is it the opposite? Have we all become too locked up in our own little solipsistic boxes? So much so that we no longer have a shared agreement on what reality is. So much so that now we try to redefine basic aspects of our human nature like our sex. I don't know. I think maybe a little...

The knowledge that we don't actually have privacy, that privacy is kind of an illusion. Privacy and individual autonomy, the absolute highest virtues of liberalism, but not really virtues in the real sense. I don't know. The fact that we know that we don't have that privacy, maybe that will get us all to act a little bit better. I'm not saying Nancy Mace's bill shouldn't pass. We need protection for people from creeps and predators and voyeurs and all the rest of that. But just as we think about these growing technologies, I know it's very untrad and unconservative of me. Maybe...

This technological fact will get us all to act a little bit better. And I think we could all use that. We don't need more privacy. We need more solidarity. And you're seeing this not only in America. You're seeing this over in the UK, too. The British prime minister, who's a liberal, Keir Starmer, has just come out and said that mass migration is not necessarily a great thing. Actually...

Mass migration risks turning Brits into an island of strangers. These rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together. So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse...

that encourages some businesses to bring in lower paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth. You're not championing justice or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart. So yes, I believe in this.

I believe we need to reduce immigration significantly. This is just the latest. This might be the clearest sign that we have had a total sea change in the immigration conversation. Now, where is this coming from? This is coming from what's happening on the ground in the UK. There was a study just came out from the More in Common polling firm that showed that, and this was before the prime minister's speech,

44% of Brits feel like strangers in their own country. As well they should. You walk around London, you think you're walking around Karachi. No knock on the migrants. It's just, you know, they stand out. They're not exactly British. They're certainly not English. And it's true throughout the West. You walk around Paris, you feel odd if you're not wearing a burqa, at least a hijab. You walk around much of the United States and you feel strange for speaking English.

And there's something deeply upsetting about that, to see your country being radically changed against your will. And politicians are at least noticing it, even if they're not doing anything about it. And it's not just the conservatives. Keir Starmer is a huge lib. And Keir Starmer is coming out and saying, I think we need to radically reduce immigration or we're going to become an island of strangers. To put this in perspective,

60 years ago, Enoch Powell, who was considered the furthest, most far-right, quasi-fascistic right-winger in the UK, Enoch Powell gave a very famous speech, the Rivers of Blood speech. Enoch Powell was a classicist, so the Rivers of Blood speech referenced a line from Virgil's Aeneid, the book six of the Aeneid, the political book. And

And he was mocked at the time. They called it the rivers of blood speech about how terrible mass migration is going to be to the country. He was derided. He was mocked. He was pushed to the fringe. Now the liberal PM of the UK is giving, in some ways, a clearer, blunter, more intense version of that speech.

Total, total change. Total change. And if the liberals and the centrists and the former centrists, now they're quite far on the left, and the squish Republicans, if they don't get on board with this, they are going to be washed away. They will be washed away in Enoch Powell's rivers of blood because people are sick of feeling like strangers in their own country. And they're justified in that. They're justified in that. You have a right as a citizen to feel like your country is your country.

Because a country is not just an economic zone and a country is not just a geographic area that happens to be shared by a bunch of radical individuals that have nothing to do with each other. A country is a country and you are entitled to your countrymen and your way of life and your rights and your traditions. And people know that intuitively, even if they don't have the language to express it. And if a politician is going to undermine that and not going to respond, then

that politician's going to get wiped away. Hold on. Stop what you're doing. We will get back to my point in one moment. First, though, go to shopbeam.com slash Knowles. I like to sleep, okay? And I don't get enough sleep. Sometimes when I was younger, I didn't get enough sleep because I didn't know how to fall asleep right. Now I don't get enough sleep because I have screaming toddlers and I work a lot. The best way right now, right this second, for you to get that beautiful night's sleep

is to go check out Beam's Dream Powder. Beam is proudly founded in America, run by people who share our values, hard work, integrity, and delivering results. Beam is a healthy nighttime blend packed with science-backed ingredients shown to improve sleep so you can wake up refreshed and ready to take on the day. Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients, reishi magnesium, L-theanine, apigenin, and melatonin. Can you pronounce all of those correctly? It doesn't matter if you can. Just you get them, and then you have a good night's sleep

Your focus and energy can return. You can finally feel equipped to excel rather than merely endure each day. Here's the bottom line. Beam is giving our listeners the ultimate Patriot discount of up to 40% off. Try their best-selling Dream Pattern. Get up to 40% off for a limited time. Go to shopbeam.com slash Knowles. Use code Knowles at checkout. That is shop, B-E-A-M dot com slash Knowles.

slash K-N-W-L-A-S. Use code Knowles for up to 40% off. Sleep better, wake up stronger, show up ready for your family, your work, your country. When you're well rested, you're unstoppable. Country needs more people like that. Speaking of the Commonwealth, Marco Rubio, who is a clubbable, respectable, not exactly a bomb-throwing politician. He's a totally mainstream Republican politician.

He just called out Tim Kaine, Tim Kaine, Democrat senator. He was Hillary Clinton's running mate. He was this close to becoming one heartbeat away from being the second woman president. Marco Rubio called him out for anti-white racism over the matter of white Afrikaners coming to the United States as refugees.

But I'm going to ask you, what's so well-justified fear of persecution? Yeah, they thought their farms were being burned down and they would be killed. I think that's a pretty good justification for wanting to come. They're afraid for their lives. And should it be applied in an even-handed way? That's an easy question. Our foreign policy doesn't require even-handedness. It requires prioritizing the interests of the United States. But the statutory phrase says you are entitled to entrance as a refugee if you demonstrate a well-justified fear

fear of persecution. No, no, you're not entitled. So could you have a different standard based upon the color of somebody's skin? Would that be acceptable? Well, I'm not the one arguing that. Apparently you are, because you don't like the fact that they're white. No, I'm just asking you to say that that would be unacceptable. Well, no, I would say that the United States... That would seem to be a very easy thing to say. The United States has a right to pick and choose who they allow into the United States. Even based on the color of somebody's skin. You're the one that's talking about the color of their skin, not me. You're refusing to acknowledge that they should be even-handed. Well, I'm...

And they cut his microphone. Well, you've demonstrated enough because you think anyone should be allowed into this country for any reason because they met a certain criteria. Who has said that? We are going to prioritize people that come into our country on the basis of what's in the interest of this country. Done and done.

Tim Kaine, absolutely furious here. Tim Kaine, who has slowly since 2016 morphed into Jack Nicholson's Joker. More and more each year, the hair gets a little wilder. The eyebrows kind of go up. Hello, Batman. And there's Rubio sitting there. And he says, yeah, we're going to let these people in because they're being threatened and their farms are being burned down and they're being raped and murdered. And we're going to do that. You want to let everyone into this country except for these people some reason. And I'll tell you exactly why you don't want to let them in. You don't like them because they're white.

And that's it. It's not that Tim Kaine and the left doesn't like the Afrikaners because they have that silly accent. They do have a silly accent. One time I heard a comedian describe the South African accent as being like playing a London accent reverse on a record player. Hello, my name is Johnny from London. It's not it's not that.

It's not that the liberal politicians have a problem with the accent. It's not that they don't like farmers. They say we need to have mass migration from Latin America controlled by the cartels bringing face tattooed Satan worshiping gangsters over here specifically so these guys can work the farms and pick the grapes and do the jobs Americans supposedly don't want to do. It's not a problem with the farms. They don't like them because they're white. They'll take in everybody from around the world, no matter criminal record, no matter the economic contribution they can make, no matter anything, as long as they're not white.

That's what it comes down to. The Episcopalian bishop in the United States who loves to resettle refugees said, we're going to end this refugee resettlement program because we refuse to resettle white people from South Africa because we don't like the white people. And Rubio says that's wrong. There was a campaign. It was a while ago now. I want to say it was 2015, 2016.

And it was promoted by these white identitarians on college campuses and in public places. And the whole camp, it was a brilliant campaign. The whole campaign was putting up flyers that said, it's okay to be white. And no matter the motives, no matter some of the bad ideas of these identitarians who were putting this up, the campaign was brilliant because

because the left had so overreached in overt anti-white rhetoric and discrimination. We need to abolish whiteness. White people are oppressors and this and that. That the simple phrase, it's okay to be white. Not it's good to be white. Not you should be proud of being white. Not white people should have power. And I just said, it's okay. It's okay to be white. And the left couldn't handle that. That was too much for them. And that's going to cause a blowback.

As I pointed out, you know I hate to say I told you so, but as I pointed out, for months, really for years I've been pointing this out. If you have, according to Pew, a system where black people have a 70% plus racial consciousness, Asians and Hispanics have 50% plus racial consciousness, and white people have 15% racial consciousness, and you have a left that is increasingly discriminating against openly white people,

you're going to see an increase in that racial consciousness. And you're going to have people like Marco Rubio, who's a little swarthy himself, similar skin color to me, Marco Rubio from Cuba. He says, hey, we're not going to discriminate against people because they're white. You will. You guys hate white people. We don't hate white people. So the white people get to come in. 59 white farmers from South Africa who are being threatened with rape and murder, they get to come into the country. And you can cry about it all you want, Tim Kaine, but we're going to do it. Too bad. You're seeing this at a...

very high level in the government. It's not just from Marco Rubio. It's not just with regard to the Afrikaners. It's throughout the administration. Marvelous announcement last night from the DOJ Civil Rights Division. So after the Civil Rights Act passed in the 1960s, there have been many civil rights acts throughout American history. But the big one in the 1960s, after that, you see the establishment of an almost parallel government and parallel constitution.

This was the subject of Christopher Caldwell's book, The Age of Entitlement, which observed that with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, you get a kind of parallel constitution in the form of the Civil Rights Act with all of its various titles, Title VII, Title VI, Title IX, that have a real tension with the Constitution because the Constitution enshrines freedom of association and the Civil Rights Act undermines freedom of association. So now you've got two kind of rival bases of American law.

And so all these government departments have their own civil rights office. Civil rights becomes another form of government. And Republicans for many decades, now conservatives for many decades, have said that's wrong and we shouldn't have that and we need to return to the Constitution and that's actually going to be the best way to protect the rights for everybody and forget about all these unconstitutional changes in the 1960s. And the Republicans now, after the Trump revolution,

say no. That tactic hasn't worked. We're not going to deny that there have been changes to our government throughout the 20th century. We're going to use them. And so that's what you see. The DOJ Civil Rights Division comes out and says that that

They've opened an investigation of the employment practices of the city of Chicago, Illinois, to determine whether it has engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Whenever this is brought up, it's because of some supposed injustice against black people or Hispanic people, maybe Asian people, maybe Jewish people, but never, never white people.

Same thing with the sexual protections. There will be investigations to see if there's been discrimination against gay people or lesbians or bisexual or trans or pans or thank you, ma'ams, but never against normally sexually minded people. And Trump is going in and he's saying, you know, we're going to protect every race, every background, but we're also going to protect white people. We're going to protect everything that we're supposed to protect with the Civil Rights Act, but we're also going to protect people.

the people that haven't been protected. Because you remember, I played it on the show yesterday, the mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, was bragging about how he prefers black people and he prefers to hire black people over white people and how he views black people as our people, white people, presumably not our people. And he says black people are better and they're more generous. And that's why I discriminate against whites to hire blacks. Here's what he said. Here are his words. I don't want to put words in his mouth. Here's what he said.

Some detractors that will push back on me and say, you know, the only thing that the mayor talks about is the hiring of black people. No, what I'm saying is when you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else. We are the most generous people on the planet. I don't know too many cultures that have play cousins. That's how generous we are. We just make somebody a family member, right? This is how we are. And so

Business and economic neighborhood development, the deputy mayor is a black woman. Department of planning and development is a black woman. Infrastructure deputy mayor is a black woman. Chief operations officer is a black man. Budget director is a black woman. Senior advisor is a black man. And I'm laying that out because when you ask how do we ensure

That our people get a chance to grow their business. So he is insinuating that he's committed a crime. What he is insinuating here, if not admitting outright, if not just totally confessing, is that he's committed a crime, which is to discriminate in employment on the basis of race. And in the past-

The Republicans would have had one of two answers to this. The squishes would have said, well, it's okay. You know, I mean, really white people have had it too good for too long. And black people really are oppressed by the evil white man. And really we may a culpa, may a culpa, may a moxie, my culpa, please only hire black people. Don't hire white people. That would have been the squish response. And then the principled conservative response would have been,

That we should not even acknowledge the excesses of the civil rights laws because they undermine the Constitution and we need to just get back to 1789, baby. We need to get back to the late 18th century. That's how we're going to restore our republic. What the Trump administration is doing is saying, hey,

We're not going to have this racial grievance struggle session. We're not going to have a new caste system where we say that certain races are better than others and we're going to give black people everything and Hispanic people some things and Asian people basically nothing and white people less than nothing and Jewish people, we're going to classify them differently depending on the day of the week. And we're not going to have that. Okay. And also, we're not going to pretend that the government is different than it is.

60 years ago, there was a big change to our government. There are always changes to our government. And so you can either react according to the real political circumstances that you live in, or you can bury your head in the sand and pretend that politics is different than it is. Well, you know, if only this were 1776. Well, it's not, buddy. It's 2025. And the left has succeeded at changing the political order to some degree. So we can either let them continue to run amok, or we can allow them to be hoisted by their own petard.

That's what Trump is doing. Trump is hoisting the left with its own petard. And I am here for it. That is a good political strategy. And it is conducive toward, it is in service of justice. Also, it's politically very effective.

America is built on hard work and powered by American energy. Chevron has spent $44 billion with local businesses across all 50 states since 2022, fueling infrastructure and communities, all while strengthening local economies. Last year, Chevron increased U.S. production nearly 20%, powering communities and businesses from the heartlands to the coasts.

We're helping to fuel America's energy advantage, building a brighter future right here at home. Visit chevron.com slash America to discover more. Folks, I have a really big Mike Land episode that's just come out, and I think it might be getting sat on by some of the old social media algorithms because it's very much a dissident perspective.

for the public authorities. Nevertheless, it's still leaking out. It's still making some waves. That would be Michael and the vaccine dissident. One of the most controversial episodes we've ever done. I sat down with Dr. Andrew Wakefield. We dive deep into the science, the scandals, the questions. The CDC does not want you asking, covering everything from vaccine risks to public health cover-ups. Check out this teaser. I started getting calls from

Parents saying, my child was perfectly normal. They stopped sleeping at night. They were screaming. They were in pain. The lights went out in their eyes. It was a very common description. Doctors say, this is just part of autism. Get over it. Put your child in a home. Have another child and forget about it. What were they thinking? This is their quote. We are not going to be left with an orphan drug. And so it was decided to avoid that. They would put it into one-day-old infants. ♪

Go watch the full episode right now at YouTube and subscribe for the ad-free version on Daily Wire Plus. Speaking of prosecutions and investigations, Representative LaMonica McIver, who is that Democrat Congress lady who insurrected at the DHS facility and was pushing cops around, and she was arrested for her misbehavior there. President Trump was just asked about this.

He was asked what he feels about, is this the persecution of his political enemies? Could you imagine arresting members of the opposite party? Of course, President Trump knows a thing or two about that, having been prosecuted on four different fronts on totally bogus charges and having the FBI raid his home, his bedroom.

all the rest of it. In this case, a random Democrat member of Congress was arrested allegedly for committing crimes, caught on tape where she was allegedly assaulting law enforcement officers, all the sorts of things that Democrats have been making a fuss about in recent years. President Trump was asked about this and he gave, I thought, a pitch perfect answer in terms of the tone.

I'll give me a break. Did you see her? She was out of control. Those days are over. The days of woke are over. That woman, I have no idea who she is.

That woman was out of control. She was shoving federal agents. She was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We're going to have law and order. Mr. President, thank you very much. You campaigned. Perfect answer. Four words. Give me a break. Give me a break. She was out of control. The days of that are over.

When President Trump was running toward the end of the campaign, many of his supporters started repeating this phrase, Daddy's home. We want Daddy to come home. And I didn't use that phrase. I felt it was a little much. It's kind of funny. This is the embodiment of that phrase.

Because the first thing I thought, I was watching this reaction. I thought, why do I like this reaction so much? I said, oh, because it reminds me of how I, at my absolute best fathering, how I react to my petulant toddlers. I was explaining this to my wife, sweet little Elisa. Because sometimes the kids come in, they're just whining, you know, they're whining.

Most of the time, very, very good, well-behaved, well-mannered little boys. But sometimes they're toddlers. And they start yelling, throwing things, whatever. And my wife, being a loving, nurturing woman, she kind of stresses her out a little bit. You can see the stress for me.

I get happy. I get excited when I have the opportunity to correct my toddlers in this way. It does, you know, sometimes people say it really pains me to say no to my kids. That's true a lot of the time. But when they're behaving like little brats, I get a thrill. I get a true delight out of saying no to my kids because of two things. One, I know it will be good for them if I correct their behavior. So I think what a great opportunity to give them a better life by correcting their behavior.

But two, because I know that kids are going to follow the leader. Everyone follows the leader. And so you have to set the right tone. And if the tone you set is, no, boys, come on, please stop. I'm begging you. Don't. No, boys, no. You're killing me. This is terrible. I hate that I have to tell you. No one take the toy away. Then they're going to match that kind of energy, that attitude, that behavior.

We talk a lot about mimetic desire on this show, Rene Girard, that we're very, we imitate one another in our behaviors and in our desires. If, on the other hand, the kid comes up to you and he says, Jade, I want to go to the thing and I want to give me another toy and I want to do, and you lean in and you say, hey, buddy, no, we're not going to do that. No, we're not. You start like tickling him a little. I don't know. No, we're not. No, but I want to. No, we're not. And you kind of, the kid eventually is going to match that energy.

They say, no way, we're not doing that, Buster. And the more you whine, the less chance you're going to get it. That's what Trump is doing to the Democrats. If Trump had come out and said, well, it was a very serious issue, and we're obviously, we're investigating it, but this Congress, we did, I didn't want to have to arrest her, but, you know, she was, seriously, guys, come on. I mean, did you see the video? I mean, seriously, I didn't want to. Then it would be a big, more of a federal case than it already is. But instead he goes, give me a break.

We all know that woman was behaving like a crazy person, and we're not going to put up with that. You don't get to. Sorry, little toddler. You don't get to scream in the restaurant. And sorry, Democrat Congress lady. You don't get to shove federal agents because you want to insurrect at a DHS facility. Uh-uh.

That's very good parenting, and that's very good national leadership. And there's actually a pretty big connection between those two things. Maybe we get confused about that because we've denigrated and neglected the role of fathers in our country in recent decades. Well, now it's a big surprise to us when you see what good fathering looks like. Now, speaking of the administration and correcting wrongs,

There's a really great correction that the Trump administration is engaging in right now. This is justice years overdue.

Our Daily Wire Plus Memorial Day sale is happening now. Get 40% off an annual Daily Wire Plus membership with code DW40. That includes ad-free shows from the most trusted and handsome and beautiful voices in conservative media. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, myself, and more. You will also get access to our full entertainment library and the premiere of Dr. Peterson's new series, Parenting, premiering this Sunday exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. Join now at dailywireplus.com, code DW40 to save 40% on all new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships.

My favorite comment yesterday is from Take 47 podcast, who says, Katie Perry went to space for two minutes and became an astronaut. Michael went to the beach for four hours and became a person of color. I am loving the accomplishment speedruns. That's so true. I went to a university for about, I don't know, 12 hours and I became a doctor. Things are moving fast, folks. We are living in the age of chat GPT, okay? The Trump administration has just announced the righting of a wrong. And I'm really, really pleased to see this.

Long overdue. The federal government will pay $5 million to the family of Ashley Babbitt. Ashley Babbitt, contrary to the popular media narrative, is the only person who was killed in the political violence of January 6th. And she was not a left-winger, and she was not a Democrat Congress lady, and she was not a law enforcement officer. She was a conservative Trump supporter, and she was shot by a trigger-happy cop. The Trump admin has agreed on behalf of the federal government to pay $5 million

$5 million to the family of Ashley Babbitt to settle a lawsuit brought by Babbitt's estate. This is according to reporting from the Washington Post. Good. Good. When Libs are killed by the police, their families raise lots and lots of money. And then the government gives them lots. And they are so eager to give them lots and lots of money.

even if the killings were justified. In the case of Ashley Babbitt, that was a trigger-happy cop. This was a woman who served her country. She was in the Air Force. She followed me on Twitter. I looked when it was reported that she was killed. I looked her up, and she was a conservative. She showed up to the Capitol that day. That's not to justify everything that happened at the Capitol, but it's to say that woman did not deserve to be killed. And in our political order, we bend over backwards,

not just to remunerate the families of people who were killed by law enforcement, but actually to go out of our way to reward people who actively commit crimes. How much money, the kid who allegedly murdered Austin Metcalf, how much money did his family raise? Six, $700,000? Because he committed a crime? Because he murdered a kid? Yeah, I think Ashley Babbitt's family needs to be paid. I think this is good. And I think the Trump administration is very wise to wield power for justice

But in a similar way in which the left wields power, as opposed to the old way that Republicans would behave, which is at best refusing to wield power at all. What's the point of electing them? Now, speaking of women and politics, Hillary Clinton was just being interviewed for some reason, and she gave some advice to the first female president. Here's what it is. What advice do you have for the first female president of the United States? Well, first of all,

Don't be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few. Lisa Murkowski. Liz Cheney. Yeah, there's a few.

Look, first we have to get there, and it is, you know, obviously so much harder than it should be. So, you know, if a woman runs who I think would be a good president, as I thought Kamala Harris would be and as I knew I would be, I will support that woman. Okay.

Well, thanks. Anyway, moving on. Hey, lady who lost multiple runs for the presidency, what do you think the first female president should do? Oh, great, because then I'll be sure to tell her to do the opposite if she wants to win. And her advice is totally to be expected. Don't be a handmaiden to the patriarchy. And a very telling addendum there, she says,

which of course excludes the entire other political party, with the exception of Lisa Murkowski. All these Republican women, because they're handmaidens to the patriarchy. What does it mean? What does she mean to be a handmaiden to the patriarchy? I think what she's talking about basically is opposing infanticide, thinking that it's wrong for a mother to murder her child. That's what she's really getting at, I think. There are other issues that are ancillary, but that's the big one.

Don't be a handmaiden to the patriarchy. Let's just take her at her own words. Why does Hillary think? Why does Hillary think?

that half of women are handmaidens to the patriarchy? Is it because they're all just idiots? That's probably what she thinks. She probably thinks, following the Western Marxist tradition, that the women are laboring under a false consciousness and they need to be liberated from their false consciousness. They think they're happy, but they're not. They need to be liberated from their illusory happiness as conservative women into the true liberated misery of left-wing women.

I think that I'm not constructing a straw man here. I think that's actually what she believes. That's certainly what the New York radical feminists believed in the 60s and 70s and their their successors have believed ever since. Why is it if Hillary's got all the answers and she's just given him away for free? Why is it that she lost two runs for the presidency? Why is it that she lost to supposedly the worst presidential candidate ever, Donald Trump? Why is it that Joe Biden beat her?

Joe Biden supposedly didn't beat her, but supposedly beat Donald Trump where she could not. Why is that? I guess it's that if her political order or if her political agenda comes down to don't be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, I guess it comes down to a lot of women want to be handmaidens to the patriarchy. And maybe they're maybe they're right. Because what do we mean by patriarchy? What we mean by patriarchy is that men and women are different.

And men and women are not opposed to one another. It's not that they're in this battle for power, as Hillary seems to view it. It's not that men and women are indiscernible and identical, that one can be substituted for the other, but that they're different. We say, vive la différence. Hillary Clinton has gender dysphoria. That's really what this comes down to. All this anti-patriarchy talk, all this radical feminist talk, comes down to a kind of gender dysphoria.

which says that men and women are exactly the same and men can be women and women can be men. It's a more polished, more subtle version of the same gender dysphoria that has big husky dudes marching on into the girl's bathroom and changing room at the public pool. But it's the same basic premise that men and women are effectively the same and men can be women and women can be men. Voters decisively rejected that, that ideology in November.

And so what the political geniuses and the analysts are going to say is, well, what they rejected were the excesses of the gender ideology, transgender movement. Maybe, but ideas have their own momentum. Just as feminism led, I think, inexorably to the transgender movement. So to the rejection of the transgender movement is going to cause people to question a lot of the LGBT movement all the way back to feminism. It's going to question that gender ideology because sex is at very, very near to the heart of human nature.

And Hillary's view is contrary to human nature, contrary to reality. And it's a big reason people have rejected her multiple times, rightly so. Before we go, Hillary had one other little theory floated at this conference that she was speaking at. And I love it because no one's really noticed it. Or they haven't noticed the full depth of what she was saying. Hillary Clinton accidentally seems to have embraced the great replacement theory. This...

very blatant effort to basically send a message most exemplified by Vance and Musk and others that you know what we really need from you women are more children and

And what that really means is you should go back to doing what you were born to do, which is to produce more children. But if you had read the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite Trump saying he knew nothing about it, if you had read it, it's all in there.

It's all in there. Return to the family, the nuclear family. Return to being a Christian nation. Return to producing a lot of children. Which is sort of odd because

The people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants, and they want to deport them. So none of this adds up. But one of the reasons why our economy did so much better than comparable advanced economies across the world is because we actually had a replenishment, because we had a lot of immigrants, legally and undocumented, who had larger-than-normal, by American standards, families.

Did you catch that? So we've been told for years by the left that there's this crazy evil conspiracy theory called the Great Replacement, whereby liberal political forces want to change the demographics of the United States by encouraging mass migration and discouraging procreation.

That's the evil, crazy, supposedly bigoted, racist conspiracy theory. Never mind that the left has explicitly embraced this theory on multiple occasions, including in the pages of the New York Times.

It gets to what Michael Anton calls the celebration parallax, which is when the left notices something, they can celebrate it. When you notice something, it's a conspiracy theory. You could be noticing the same thing. It just depends on what your attitude is. If you like it, then it's good and it's real and we can celebrate it. If you dislike it, then it's not happening. It's a crazy conspiracy theory. But what Hillary just said is,

The Republicans want to encourage women to have more children. And that's really bad because we don't need American women of all backgrounds, of all races. We don't need actual American women to have children. We just are going to import immigrants from the third world. And they're going to have more children than the American population. And that obviously is going to change the demographics of the country. And that's a good thing.

Unless you acknowledge that. Unless you say exactly what Hillary Clinton just said. In which case, that's not happening. It's a conspiracy theory and you're a bigot. Hillary Clinton, I would not take advice from this woman. If you want to be the first woman president or anything else. That's not... Whatever...

Whatever political currency that Clinton advice used to have ain't happening anymore. This is not your grandpa's Republican Party or political order. Today is Woke Wednesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code NOLSKIN at WLE. Check out for two months free on all annual plans.