Will The Supreme Court Finally END Transgenderism?

The right just received a massive political gift, it happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, and the gift all comes down to the left's inability to give up transgenderism. The justices heard two cases over letting boys compete in girls sports. It was just as goofy as every other debate that we have ever heard over transgenderism, and the oral arguments were in fact heard by the very justice who infamously could not define what a woman is during her confirmation hearings. We will get into the oral arguments. First though, I want to make a little admission, okay, as a right-wing podcaster, author, communicator, broadcaster, campaigner, but a card-carrying true red Republican and conservative, I'm sick of the transgender thing. It's ridiculous. Both the ideology and the debate are ridiculous. It is degrading that we as a nation have to talk about this. It is probably a harbinger of our imperial collapse. It is the clearest sign of a decadent society and a darkened intellect that we have ever experienced as a country. And yet, od at Amo, I hate and I love, this issue is the greatest gift the Democrats could give to Republicans. It is the issue on which most Americans think that the libs are the craziest. At a time when Democrats could try to run on healthcare, or they could cook up some manipulative narrative on the ICE raids, like we're seeing in Minneapolis, or when they could focus on literally anything else other than transgenderism, they return. Like Jake Gyllenhaal to Heath Ledger on Brokeback Mountain, they return right back to the trans thing. Because it is the tragic culmination and the most likely downfall of their false ideology. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. A millennial woman has just admitted something that we all intuited. It affirms something that I have said about the left for many years. It's what the ICE protests are really about. It's not about migrants. It's not even about cops. We'll get to that. Also, Scott Adams died, the Dilbert cartoonist, and so much more than that, actually. He died. We'll get to that, too. First, though, I want to tell you about Balance of Nature. Go to balanceofnature.com. New Year is finally here for many people. That means focusing on our health in 2026. That is where our sponsor, Balance of Nature's Whole Health System, comes in. This has been a game changer for a lot of people's families. Their convenient blend of fruits and veggies in easy-to-take capsules means that I can ensure that we're all getting essential nutrients. It's an effortless way to fill in the nutritional gaps. When life gets a little bit busy for meal planning, when you're traveling with all the prep, Balance of Nature's Whole Health System supplements are incredibly versatile, easy to work into your daily routine. The fiber and spice supplement blends smoothly into your favorite drinks, adding a warm, aromatic depth from its spice blend. If you prefer, you can even open up the fruits and veggies capsules, mix the powder directly into a smoothie, or sprinkle it over your meals. Make some special. They're packed with 47 ingredients from 100% real whole fruits, vegetables, spices, fibers, everything from psyllium husk and flaxseed to cinnamon, turmeric, mango, pineapple, blueberries, shiitake mushrooms, spinach, kale, cayenne pepper. Did I mention psyllium husk, which you're not getting enough of? I bet. I love Balance of Nature. It's fabulous. This year, lock in 50% off for one year. When you subscribe to the Whole Health System supplements as a preferred customer, go to balanceofnature.com. Real quick, these delightful little cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia versus BPJ, oral arguments yesterday at the Supreme Court involving two trans-identifying students. The cases focus on whether or not states can ban boys from playing in girls' sports and girls from playing in boys' sports, though that one doesn't really matter because boys are stronger than girls. Here is Sam Alito setting up the whole case, arguing with or questioning, I suppose I should say, the ACLU attorney. Is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? Yes, your honor. And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court. Well, how can you, how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes? I think here we just know, we basically know that they've identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them and we don't dispute them. This is so pathetic. It's really pathetic for the ACLU attorney, but it's so pathetic for our country that this is what the Supreme Court is talking about. What is the definition of a boy or a girl? We are gonna collapse. I hope we're not. I hope Trump and these last 10 years have given a little more juice to the American empire, but all empires fall. And this is real decadent, depraved, darkened intellect stuff. This is pathetic. The Supreme Court is supposed to be filled with the most intelligent, educated legal thinkers in the country and really the world. And you got the justice asking this lawyer, a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court. And it's not even just that they can't define boy or girl or man or woman. That is bad enough. But listen to what Alito says. He says, okay, so the question is here for equal protection, is there discrimination on the basis of sex? Yes, okay, so that means that we need a definition of sex, of boy, girl, man, woman. Yes, okay, so what's your definition, ACLU? We don't have one. What? And Alito, you can almost hear the incredulity in his voice. First of all, you just acknowledged that you need these definitions. And then you admit you don't have the definition. But how can you determine if there is discrimination on the basis of sex if you don't have a definition of sex? I don't like the ACLU. I think they're awful. But at the very least, I don't care if it's the Church of Satan that's arguing before the Supreme Court. You should have and are expected to have the very best lawyer you can possibly have. And maybe this is the best lawyer they can possibly have. And the problem is there's no argument they can make because the premise is ridiculous. Unfortunately, we turn to another supposedly conservative justice on the court, Amy Barrett. Amy Barrett, Catholic, conservative. And yet Amy Barrett uses the transgender language completely unironically. You're just drawing the line based on biological sex and saying that trans girls can't be on the girls team in an age group that's prepubescent. The record in this case does not support the notion that males lack an athletic advantage at six years old, that that's about as early as the science goes from what's in the record. And even at that age, males have about a 5% athletic advantage over girls in most situations. So here you have the conservative justice saying, what about the trans girls? Elsewhere, she uses the phrase cisgender. And she does it more than once. But then, look, I am among the people on the right who really don't like this when conservatives use the trans language. Because to refer to a trans boy, to refer to cisgender, which as Norm Macdonald said, is just a word that's used to marginalize normal people. But to use these words is not merely to be polite or to be nice. It's not even to play 5D chess, to try to grant them some rhetorical grace so that we can really undermine their argument. To use those words is to grant the argument. To suggest that there's such a thing as a trans girl grants that this is a type of girl and that there's some other kind of girl. To use the phrase biological male, as many people on the right did, is to grant that there's some kind of non-biological male, which there isn't. To use the phrase cisgender is to grant that there is a transgender, which there isn't. So it's really, really weird. Now, before we beat up on Amy Barrett too much, before we try to read too much into the tea leaves of how she's gonna vote, she then does go on to undermine the pro-trans argument. Since trans boys can play on boys teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys? We understand the point. And I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right? There were not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women. Okay, so this is an important distinction here. And this is lost in a lot of the commentary on this case. If the argument is that these states are discriminating against transgenders, Amy Barrett is saying, well, that's not true. They're only discriminating against trans, it's hard to remember which way it goes, against trans girls, quote unquote. In other words, boys who say that they're girls. But the states don't really discriminate in the other way. If a boy wants to go, or if a girl rather wants to say that she's a boy and go join the boys wrestling team, one, she's not going to get picked. But two, she's going to lose every match because girls are weaker than boys physically. But boys are stronger than girls physically. And so when the boys compete against the girls in the sports, they're going to win most of the time. So she says the discrimination only affects one group of so-called trans people, which means that the discrimination cannot be on the basis of transgender identity. It's on the basis of something else, maybe on real sex, which is actually enshrined in our civil rights law. The notion that we should discriminate on the basis of sex is weirdly kind of enshrined in our civil rights law in order to stop discrimination on the basis of sex. In other words, you don't want girls in, let's say, sports in high schools and colleges. You don't want girls to be discriminated against on the basis of sex when it comes to sports and school. So we're going to set up girls' sports leagues. But then when the pro-trans people come in and they say, we're discriminating on the basis of gender identity, that's why we need boys to play in girls' sports. The conclusion must be that you must discriminate on the basis of sex when it comes to who gets to play in which league so that you're not discriminating on the basis of sex when it comes to whether or not girls are allowed to have sports leagues. It's a little bit confusing to say it, but it's not that difficult to think about. You gotta pick either the trans or the girls. You have to pick one. You can privilege one, and then you are necessarily discriminating against the other. And the question is, which, if either, discrimination is just? And it would seem to most reasonable people, it is just to discriminate against the trans-identifying people because that's not real. So where are we going to end up here? Justice Thomas wraps it up for us. We'll get to that in a moment first, though. Justice Thomas, a Catholic. I want to tell you about Catholic Match. Go to catholicmatch.com. This episode is sponsored by Catholic Match. You know one of the things that gives me hope, even as our culture spirals toward the end? Faith-filled families raising kids that can turn things around. But here's the thing, that can't happen if faithful Catholics are not getting married and having babies and having lots of babies. I hear from people how hard it is out there in that dating market. You know, it's rough. Sweet little Elisa and I, you know, we got together right before the dating apps. I didn't, I never, and the dating apps are extremely perilous, but that's where all the dating takes place today. Happily, there is an answer, which is Catholic Match. They are doing something different. They're focused on sacramental marriage, not hookups, not endless swiping, actual marriage. It's the largest, most trusted Catholic dating app out there. They've built real tools to help people make meaningful connections. The profiles go deeper. It's not just, you know, what color your hair is and how tall you are. It's important stuff. All the way down to liturgical preference. We're talking about traditional Latin mass, maybe that's a good way. It's a good way to do it. Right now, there are even live events for premium members, so you can build those incarnate real experiences. I love Catholic Match. Plenty of people on there have gotten married and been married for years. If you're looking, if you tried before and gave up, do not. God's providence might just surprise you. Download the app or head to catholicmatch.com and find your forever. Here is what Justice Thomas said. This little tidbit caught by Roger Severino says, what remedy are you seeking? That's the question Clarence Thomas, good, nice, conservative Catholic has for the ACLU lawyer. An innocuous seeming question. What remedy are you seeking? He says, look, you're looking at this case. The states have this rule saying boys can't play and what are you seeking? He says, practically, you would get different treatment based on sex. Now the plaintiff comes in and he says, well, yeah, the issue here is that trans boys or trans girls are not being allowed to fulfill their, I don't know, the treatment and both social and medical that accompanies their gender identity and said, okay, well here, let's drill into a really specific case. A girl who identifies as a boy would be allowed to get drugs to go through male puberty despite being a girl. That's what happens when you're put on the cross-sex hormones. That means that girls who identify as boys would have a right, a constitutional right, according to the gender ideologues, to get this testosterone. But boys who identify as boys would not have a constitutional right to get the testosterone. You see the brilliance of this very simple observation. If a boy, and actually this relates to an interview I just did. I just did an interview with this looks max or clavicular who's been injecting himself with testosterone against his parents wishes, getting illegally on the internet since he was 14 years old. But that's actually a very telling point because the girl has a right to be injected with the testosterone, but the boy does not. If a boy were to do that, he'd be taking steroids or say, one, the doctor wouldn't do it. But two, if he were caught doing this, that'd be cheating in the sports, which is discrimination on the basis of sex, right? It's not on gender identity, but it is on sex. This is an argument other people have made, but really nice to see Thomas bring it up here in the oral arguments. And then I know I said that that was the end of the arguments, and I guess it is. But before we go, I just want you to hear not quite an argument. I just want you to hear Katonji Jackson, the most recent left-wing justice, babbling incoherently. You have the overarching classification. Everybody has to play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth. But then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can't. So I think that, okay, as to the- I love, I think we are all the West Virginia Solicitor General here, Michael Williams. I think we're all, because, yeah, so you have when you're a boy, but you're assigned it at birth. But then, meaning you are a baby, but then later, meaning you're a toddler, you have a gender, and there's a gender identity operating. And so meaning you have, I don't find me the nouns and the verbs. Do they align? Does this sentence scan? If I were in the first grade diagramming sentences, is this English? I don't know. This is the woman who couldn't define what a woman is at her confirmation hearing. And then the solicitor general goes, okay, he's trying to craft a sentence out of the wall of noise that just erupted from Katonji Jackson's mouth. Pretty sad, that woman, good grief, man. She has no place on the court. And her defenders say, she has two degrees from Harvard. And you say, uh-huh, yeah, I think that says more about Harvard than it does about Katonji, because this lady doesn't understand rudimentary concepts, not about the law, about reality, about language, about biology. That's the whole thing. The whole thing, man. I know we've been culture warriors on the transgender issue. I'm the guy who gave the eradicate speech at CPAC. We've spoken about this a lot. It's the Daily Wire. Matt put out the What is a Woman movie, and we had to focus on it. And it's a big political winner. And I hope the Democrats make us focus on it more, cuz we're gonna win 57 states next election. But man, is this degrading. It's so degrading for our country that the left put us in this position. It's an electoral win for us. So I guess we are where we are. You gotta play the hand you're dealt. But this is so degrading that we have to do that. It does not make one feel all that hopeful for the future of the country, other than most people reject it. Okay, speaking of law enforcement and pretty obvious issues that most people reject. There's been all this talk about the awful, terrible ice raids in Minneapolis. And then you had that woman who obstructed law enforcement, blocked traffic, and then drove her SUV into a cop. And then she was shot in the face for it. It's very sad that she did that. It's sad for her and for her family. You heard her lesbian partner come out and scream, those guns have real bullets. Why do they have real bullets? They didn't know that the guns have bullets in them. She says, this is my fault. I told her to come out here. And she told her to drive into the guy and drive, baby, drive, drive. And you just feel terrible for these people because of, well, because of the same reason that we were just talking about with the Supreme Court case. Cuz they're so divorced from reality. And that they've allowed their intellects to become so darkened that they don't know guns have bullets in them. And now we're seeing who ICE is arresting in Minneapolis. And they're actually sending more people to go, more agents, 1,000 more agents to go arrest these guys. You know who that woman, Renee Good, forfeited her life for? She forfeited her life for child abusers and drug dealers. Here we go, ICE is just releasing the mugshot, alleged drug dealers and child abusers. They released the mugshots of some of the people, ten of the people that ICE is arresting up there. They are alleged child molesters, drug dealers, pushing poison on kids. That's where the drugs go. That's where it's the stereotype of the pusher standing by the playground to get a kid hooked. That's who this woman woke up one day and said, I'm gonna drive into a cop. I'm effectively gonna commit suicide by cop, maybe not intentionally. I'm gonna abandon my kid as a result of that. I'm gonna break the law. Best case scenario for that woman, she didn't get shot in the face and she'd end up in jail. But anyway, she's abandoning her kid. She's doing reckless stuff. She's breaking the law for what? To stop law enforcement from arresting child rapists and drug, poison peddlers. And even the ones who didn't do that were breaking the law and in this country illegally. It's so sad. Because in her mind, in the minds of these leftists who are out there screeching and obstructing law enforcement, they're out there protecting the nice abuela or whatever. There aren't that many abuelas getting arrested. There are some getting arrested. You have to, they're here illegally. But that's not really who ICE is going after. They're not going after abuela. And what's even sadder is you say, well, yes, but look, our Lord gave his life for sinners, specifically for sinners, for all of us, but for sinners. You say, yes, that's true. We actually should extend grace, even to really bad people. We should pray for really bad people. We should contribute to the common good. We should sacrifice for our country, which in part means sacrificing for bad people. It's not good for these people to not be arrested. I mean, this is what Plato writes about in Gorgias. There's been a lot of ink of moral philosophy spilled over this kind of question. Is it better or worse for the person committing bad acts, criminal acts to punish them? Some people they say, well, it's good to let them off the hook. It's not good to let child rapists and drug dealers off the hook. One, it's obviously bad for society, but two, it's bad for them because they're continuing to destroy their own souls. They're continuing to, as they do bad things, they are making their lives worse. You have women in Minneapolis who are sacrificing their lives to stop a child rapist from getting arrested. It's so perverse. It's so perverse. Everyone is wrong here. Okay. What is this all really about? A not quite hinged millennial woman has just explained what the ICE protests are really about, and it's not about the illegal aliens, and it's not even about law enforcement. It's about something that I love to say I told you. We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about Equip Foods. Go to equipfoods.com slash Michael Knowles, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-K-N-O-W-L-E-S. New Year's resolutions are tough. They're really tough when the New Year's resolution is getting enough clean protein. Most protein bars are loaded with sugar and trash, ingredients you can't even pronounce. Well, you've heard me talk about our sponsor Equip's prime bars in the past. Equip is all about making healthy habits simple and sustainable with their delicious, clean, grass-fed beef prime bar. The first of its kind grass-fed beef protein with only real food ingredients, nothing to hide, 20 grams of clean protein. Starting today, our listeners will receive an exclusive discount on prime bar, which has become our team's favorite protein bar on the market. 20 grams of protein, 11 clean ingredients, including collagen, beef tallow, colostrum, naturally sweetened with dates and honey. Go get it right now, bloat-free, no whey, no seed oils, no gluten, no artificial additives, absolutely delicious chocolate, mixed berry, peanut butter, and churro. Churro, if you're feeling a little exotic, these bars are dessert-worthy, clean protein without the junk. I hate protein bars. I love Equip Foods. I love the prime bar. Maybe that's why, maybe there's a connection why. It's all the good stuff. Go to equipfoods.com slash Michael Knolls, use code Michael Knolls, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, K-N-O-W-L-L-E-S, all one word, and check out to get 25% off one-time purchases or 40% off your first subscription, order for a limited time, E-Q-U-I-P, foods.com slash Michael Knolls, code Michael Knolls, so check out. What are the ICE protests about? I will allow a millennial leftist woman to explain. You know, one thing that hating men has trained me for is literally trained me for chasing ICE cars off of my street, five of them right now, following down the neighborhood, honking, blowing whistles, telling them to **** off. All that rage that I have felt towards men is coming out. I have been trained for this moment. I will follow you everywhere. First thing I noticed, Mr. Davies, are you on the line? Yes, I am. Are you there? Did you notice something? You know, we did our investigative report, our deep dive. We uncovered some really important facts. Do you notice anything about this video? It is truly one of the most important discoveries that we've made on this show. And yes, it is very prominently featured right in our septum. There is a direct, scientifically proven, I assume peer-reviewed correlation between leftist, crazy behavior and women who have nose rings. And not even the side nose ring, which can be kind of cute sometimes. The middle one, the septum, the bull, the demon one. It's never turned out well. 100% of women who have the bull septum nose ring are crazed and certainly politically on the left. It's not that all crazy people are on the left, but all people who are firmly on the left are crazy. It's kind of like a square and a rectangle. And what does she say? She affirms something that I've repeated on the show every four days for years at this point, maybe. Liberalism comes down to three words and it's screw you, dad. She says, something that hating men for so long has trained me in is to go beat up ICE agents, go drive my SUV into ICE agents. This is the secret. I don't engage in a ton of psychobabble, but this is what it's about. And there is actually a whole genre. I wish we had that. Maybe in post-production, we can pull the images being generated of romance novels. This is elder millennial, younger Gen X women fantasizing about big, strong guys ordering them around. There is deep stuff going on. There was one I saw, detained by desire. It's one of these women at her window just really getting sassy with an ICE agent, just daring him to drag her out of the car. That's what this is about. That's what it's all about. I hate men. Why do I hate men? Because I hate my dad. Why do I hate my dad? Because I hate authority. Ultimately, I hate my heavenly dad. That's what this comes down to. And I hate the moral strictures and the moral norms that come with this. I hate the limitations that have been imposed on me, not only by my sex, but by my human nature. And I seek maximum individual autonomy, a liberation, not merely from unjust strictures, which we all seek, but not just not liberation from sin, which we should all seek, but not liberation from addiction and vice, which we should all seek, but liberation from my very constituent parts, the things that make me who I am. Liberation, a deeply wicked liberation, the kind of liberation that tends one toward assisted suicide. Liberation even from what makes me me. Liberation from religion. Liberation from my child through abortion. Liberation from my country through, I don't know, either fleeing the country or tearing down the government, tearing down the borders. That's what it's about. That's the secret. These women, they got problems, and they need husbands. And they need good husbands. They can't have schmucky loser husbands. So it's not that men totally get off the hook, but they need husbands. It is a them problem, primarily. Men have other problems. Men gotta get their act together. But this is a woman problem, for sure. ICE should just keep doing it. Well, that's what they're doing. The administration is sending another 1,000 agents. These protests are like 3% about the illegal aliens. I'm increasingly convinced it's not even really about abuela. There's other stuff going on. There's other stuff going on here. Okay. That woman persuaded me. Speaking of persuasion, sad story, though not unexpected, Scott Adams has died. And actually, wow, coincidental, providential. I was just talking about assisted suicide. And this comes into the story because Scott Adams did not kill himself. Jeffrey Epstein probably didn't kill himself, and Scott Adams didn't kill himself. Scott Adams was the cartoonist behind Dilbert, a huge phenomenon. I actually got nostalgic. I was going through old Dilbert comic strips. I don't know, it reminds me being at my father's house or something. I don't know, it reminds me of being a kid. And I was kind of nostalgic. This was such a phenomenon. And then he parlayed that into a career as a writer of advice, self-help, persuasion. He became a really incisive political commentator, one of the first guys to point out that Trump was not just a big dummy saying big dummy things, but that Trump was actually extremely persuasive. And this really tuned me into Scott Adams. Because early on, I too thought this Trump, everyone's saying he's dumb or loose with his language, but I think he's got real poetic diction. I think he's using his language very carefully. And Scott could explain in much more precise terms, or much more expansive terms, I should say, what was really going on. So anyway, he was just a really delightful figure in American public life. And he didn't kill himself, but he thought about it. And in fact, he talked about this on his show. In California, you have the right to end your own existence. If you have a terminal illness, you get a couple of doctors to certify it and all that. And I was in that situation, meaning that I'm officially terminal. I've got two doctors to certify it. I've done the paperwork. I've even ordered the medicine that you eventually drink to end your life. I had sort of internally planned, but wasn't telling the world, that I needed to get past my stepdaughter's wedding and reception and end my life. Guess when? Basically today. Today was the day. I was planning literally to take my own life today. That was back in June. He died yesterday. So obviously, he didn't take his own life. And you can hear him laugh even. He says, and I got the medicine. Not medicine. If something kills you, it's not medicine. But he was for it. Not only was he open to assisted suicide, he was vociferously in favor of it. Scott Adams, this is going back to 2013. After his dad died, I guess his dad was in a lot of pain as he was dying, Scott Adams took to the Libertarian magazine Reason to defend assisted suicide and invade against those who oppose it politically. He said, I'm okay with any citizen who opposes assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too. He says, look, you can have your own moral reservations, but don't do anything about it. Don't actually act on it. We need assisted suicide. He's just coming off this difficult situation, which many people have faced, watching a loved one die. And he came to, at that time, the wrong conclusion. He said, we need assisted suicide. You and the government are accomplices in the torturing of my father. There's a good chance you'll someday be accomplices in torturing me to death too. Wow. And then he changed his mind. Why? Well, as he wrote, and as he said in interviews with guys like Greg Gutfeld and others, he said, it was only long after he had committed to the process of killing himself with the approval, with the scandalous, evil approval of doctors and the government, my commentary, not his words, that he realized it would be more complicated. It's not like you just take the pill and then the lights go off. If you don't vomit the poison up right away, it could put you to sleep. And then that process of your dying could take hours. And then your poor family not only has to endure the scandal of watching a loved one kill himself, the sort of thing that is much more likely to persuade, to persuade the people, the loved ones around you to kill themselves. So suicide is a social contagion, long documented. But they have to keep checking to see, is he dead yet? Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet? That process itself is a kind of a torture. You're transferring the supposed torture from the person dying, which is, you know, we all die, to the loved ones because of a personal choice. The process is described as being akin to drowning. And what Scott Adams then said to Drew Pinsky, Dr. Drew, and Greg Gutfeld is, quote, it's not as cool as I thought it would be, which is kind of delightful, happy, Scott Adams diction. And the amazing irony, if you followed Scott's position on assisted suicide for over 10 years now, is instead of killing himself, instead of scandalizing the whole world that loved him, Scott offered us one of the best examples of dying well that we have seen in our lifetimes. That's an amazing irony in the grand scope of Providence. He was calm. He was loving. He did not hide it. You know, we hide away our dead and dying. We stick them in centers and try to forget about them. We don't like to see death. We don't really do long funerals anymore. We don't do long wakes. We don't, we do, we try to get people in the ground as fast as possible, get it out of our heads. Maybe we do a celebration of life later on, but we don't like, we don't, we don't like to think about death. We want death to be fast. In the Middle Ages, a good death was understood as being one where you knew you were dying. You could get your affairs in order. You could think about what happens next. This is what Scott did. Scott said, look, I'm not a believer, but I'm persuaded by Pascal's Wager and my loving Christian friends really, you know, have, they've persuaded me. So you know what I'm going to say? I don't look, I'm being honest. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie to you, God. I don't really believe, but I accept Jesus. I accept Jesus. I want to spend eternity with Jesus. I want to believe is what he said. I want to believe. Okay. And so, and if I wake up in heaven, that'll convince me. And there are all ways to parse the, the theology of that. However, something that gives me some hope is it's very childlike. It's a very childlike approach to say, look, I'm, I'm dying. I'm not invading against you. A lot of people, as they die, they invade against God, the supposed unfairness of our death. And he says, look, we're all going to die. This is what happens. This is what I deserve for being a human. You know, that's what we get. But I want to believe I've never been a believer, but I'm not gonna pretend to be one now. Exactly. But I want, I'm persuaded that I'd like to spend eternity with Jesus. I'd like to, I'd like to, isn't that childlike, you know, and our Lord tells us you have to be like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven, not childish. Childish is when you have the bad characteristics of kids, when you're an overgrown little bratty kid. That's what you're seeing in the protests in the streets. Childlike is good. We all should be childlike. It's having a humility. It's having a kind of an innocence, looking at the world with awe and wonder. And he did that. And, and he, he, he could have, he could have scandalized the world. He could have killed himself. And a lot of people who look up to him as their internet dad would have been scandalized by that. And instead he gave a really exemplary show in, in dying well. Beautiful thing. So we should all pray for him. We shall pray for his soul. How did the New York Times react? How did the Boston Globe react? The wait is almost over. Episodes one and two of the Pendragon Cycle Rise of the Merlin begins streaming on DailyWare Plus in eight days. A legend 1,500 years in the making brought to life as a full-scale cinematic epic after three years of production across two continents. Set before King Arthur, before Camelot, before the legend you think you know. This is what premium is supposed to be like. Episodes one and two premiere January 22nd exclusively on DailyWare Plus. Be among the first to experience the Pendragon Cycle Rise of the Merlin. Join now at dailywire.com slash Pendragon. I want to tell you about my favorite comment. Also pertains to religion and pertain, you know, and pertains to ways religion goes really wrong and ways it can go really right. Wow, this is a providentially ordered show. I didn't totally do this intentionally. This is from Mrs. Old MacDonald who says, when I left witchcraft and converted to Catholicism, I realized everything I had been practicing was a direct inversion of every aspect of true religion. Yeah, that's how it works because the devil doesn't create. So it's always just a perversion or an inversion of the real thing. Reality which is made by God. You see that in politics, you know, liberalism especially is just a very serious perversion if not an outright inversion of Christianity, Christendom. So it goes because they can't make anything. Folks, tonight we're excited. We are back with another live taping of Bar Fight. We have two shows as DW wants to save on production costs. The first show is 6 p.m. I take the stage with featured libs Oliver Niehaus and The Soy Pill. Then at 8 p.m. Things get spicy with Adam Mochler and Lauren Peretra. Two debates, two time slots, one night, free drinks. If you like watching people actually argue instead of just nodding politely at each other or screaming and biting each other's heads off, if that is the case, you got to come check out Bar Fight. If you haven't seen a Bar Fight episode, take a look at what to expect. Because this is America! Welcome to Bar Fight. Tonight I'm joined by two libs. That's my case. I think it's a pretty good one. My first guest, that is Zina Ikemek. You've been calling me a lib this whole time. I hate to break it to you. It might be a little bit worse than that. Just be consistent. I've been very consistent. Luke gets to finish his point. I think this bell is rigged. My second guest, one of the top names in online liberal commentary today, Luke Beasley. We'll see you tonight at Bar Fight. Make sure you RSVP by clicking the link in the description. How did The New York Times react to Scott Adams' death? Scott Adams, whose comic strip Dilbert was a sensation until he made racist comments on his podcast, has died at 68. Boston Globe, almost the same thing. Racist, disgrace, terrible, evil, awful, cartoonist. Scott Adams dies. This is what they do. I mean, look, we're talking about the political left, which celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So yeah, when a prominent right-winger dies, they're going to find some way to attack him, even in his death. They're going to do it to Charlie. They're going to do it to anybody. They'll celebrate your death. That's a hard thing to conclude. It's deeply unpleasant if you like to think, look, we're all one country and we have no enemies, only opponents. And it's sad to conclude that they'll celebrate your death. When that lady in Minneapolis died, deservedly, because she drove her car into a cop, you really didn't see people on the right celebrating. What you heard was what you heard on my show, and you heard that from most people, I think, on the right, which is, this is very sad. The cop was entirely in the right. The lady was entirely in the wrong. She is entirely responsible for her own death. I wouldn't have changed a thing if I were the cop. But it's sad. It's sad that this happened for this woman's family. It's sad for her. You don't hear that in the other direction. You hear, I hope this person dies. I hope Trump dies. I hope that's good that Charlie died. It's good. It's good, good, good, good, good. If only that guy hadn't missed him, Butler Pence, but that's what you hear. And it's not just anecdotal. This is backed up by social scientific surveys, the left supporting political violence much more, all the rest of it. Boston Globe did the same thing. Just a little correction here, though. What did Scott Adams say? The one thing, he endorsed Trump, that was really what was unforgivable. But the one thing that Scott Adams said that was beyond the pale that led to the cancellation of Dilbert and newspapers and all the rest. He was reading a survey, a social scientific survey, which showed that about half of black people did not agree with the statement, it's okay to be white. Now, I haven't looked at that survey. I haven't read. I'm just telling you what he said. And his conclusion from that was, hold on, man. If half of this group of people, if half of any group of people doesn't think it's okay for me to be a white person, just okay to be a white person, then I don't wanna be near those people. That's all he said. That was his comment. I guess it's provocative. I guess it's spicy. I guess it's based on underlying social scientific data, which could be disputed, I guess, maybe, I don't know. But that's all he said. For that, which I think if you were kind of neutral about which group was which and if you substituted them out, and I think everyone would basically agree with. For that, it's, yeah, racist cartoonist is dead. Yeah, read all about it. Yeah, awful racist is dead. That's what they do. I don't think so. I don't think that sums up Scott Adams's life. But then again, I don't believe most of what I read in the New York Times. Okay, speaking of journalism, before we go, pretty crazy story. James O'Keefe has just nabbed in another undercover investigation, a US Secret Service agent spilling security info about the Vice President. tells her about detailed future travel plans for the Vice President, and even sends her pictures with location metadata revealing where the President's convoy was located, potentially violating both the Secret Service NDA and United States federal law. Tomas is fully aware of this, quote, I signed paperwork. So if I don't have to get out information, I never do. Otherwise, I get in trouble. You really have to stand in awe of lack of self-awareness about what we do. Tomas Escoto also reveals that he voted for Biden, and that he hates Trump and advances immigration policies. Did you vote for Biden? What do you think about like all the stuff going on? Wow, man, this is bad. Now sometimes, James, look, I like James O'Keefe a lot. Sometimes he oversells the significance of the undercover stories. A lot of times, what he gets is totally explosive. This is in the explosive category. This is crazy, okay? I'm not being sensationalist here. I'm not just carrying water for James because I like him. This is crazy. You had a President of the United States come within one twentieth of an inch of having his brains blown out. Then there was another assassination attempt on him shortly thereafter. You have people already saying J.D. Vance as the presumptive 2028 nominee is worse actually than Trump. You got a Secret Service agent just giving out these kinds of details, giving out photos with metadata, giving out timing, location to random chicks on dates. People are going to focus on the partisan aspect here. They're going to say, this guy voted for Biden. We need to root out all the Democrats in the Secret Service. First of all, there are Democrats in the Secret Service. It's a police force. You're not going to discriminate exactly based on partisanship. In my experience, I know a number of guys in the Secret Service. In my experience, most of the guys in the Secret Service tend to be on the other side of the aisle. We don't want them all to get fired when there's a Democrat in charge. Then there wouldn't be a Secret Service actually. But I don't think this is partisan, really. I'm not even sure I believe that he voted for Biden. He might just be trying to impress this girl. Sometimes guys, I don't know. It's been a while since I've been in a dating pool. But sometimes guys, they'll downplay their right-wing politics if they're trying to rizz up some lib chick. It's not a good idea in the long run, but it happens. The real issue here is not partisanship or ideology. It's competence. It's actually what we're talking about at the very top of the show. The trans case at the Supreme Court is really embarrassing because of how crazy the ideology is. But it's also embarrassing because it's just so degrading. It's degrading to have someone like Katonji Jackson on the Supreme Court, someone who can't define what a woman is. It's degrading for Harvard University that she has two degrees from there. It's degrading that this is the kind of thing we're talking about. It's degrading that the ACLU attorney can't anticipate the most obvious questions coming from the conservative justices. It's degrading that the Secret Service would make such an egregious error, an extremely dangerous error, an error that could imperil the life of the vice president. But we tend to think of politics and whether or not America will succeed in the future or fail in purely ideological terms. We just need to make sure that the right-wingers get in there, not the left-wingers. That's important. That is very important. But there's another axis. You have the ideological axis, and then you've got the competence axis. It doesn't matter if you have people with the perfect ideology or political priors. If they're not able to do the job, if they're like big dummies who don't have any skills, you're gonna fail as a country. We need competence. This is just completely unacceptable. Especially right now, the country is too volatile. We feel like we're on the brink of a civil war. We are too volatile for this kind of incompetence from any law enforcement agency, certainly one that is tasked with protecting the president, the vice president. Okay, today is work from home Wednesday. I've redone woke Wednesday. I hate woke Wednesday. Today is work from home Wednesday. It's the only kind of work from home I like. We'll talk about what that is. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member, use code NOLSKAN at WLAS to check out for two months free on all annual plans. All of this is an illusion, an echo of a voice that has died. And soon that echo will cease. They say that Merlin is mad. They say he was a king in Dovid, the son of a princess of lost Atlantis. They say the future and the past are known to him. But the fire and the wind tell him their secrets. The magic of the hill folk and druids come forth at his easy command. They say he slew hundreds, hundreds do you hear? That the world burned and trembled at his wrath and died long before you and I were born. Merlin Emerus has returned to the land of the living. Vortigern is gone. Rome is gone. The Saxon is here. Saxon Hengist has assembled the greatest war host ever seen in the island of the mighty. And before the summer is through, he means to take the throne. And he will have it. If we are too busy squabbling amongst ourselves to take up arms against him. Here is your hope. A king will arise to hold all Britain in his hand. A high king who will be the wonder of the world. You. To a future of peace. There'll be no peace in these lands till we are all dust. Men of the island of the mighty. You stand together. You stand as Britons. You stand as one. Great darkness is falling upon this land. These brothers are our only hope to stand against it. Not our only hope. They say Merlin slew 70 men with his own hands. I could say he slew 500. No man is capable of such a thing. The immortal man.