Nala Rae (13:42)

As a viral creator on. I went on so many podcasts because I knew the only way to grow my was to be viral. And it's such an oversaturated platform right now. And I've been on it for like five and a half years. So everything I've said on podcasts is complete clickbait. I did it to go viral, to then make money, and it worked. I said whatever I needed to because I understand the male brain and I needed to make money. And I was like, wait, basically you lied about everything? Yeah, pretty much.

Michael Knowles (14:13)

Okay, so that's the clip that's going around and because I think my show was probably the biggest show that she went on of all these podcasts. So people keep tagging me in this and saying, see, she's admitting that she made it up. She didn't really convert she didn't really give up porn. She just did it to make money and grow her OnlyFans channel and her porn account. And so she's a total sociopath. That's the line. So I said, huh, Well, I don't know. I mean, I only sat down with this girl one time, but she struck me as basically sincere. So I'm really surprised to hear that. Maybe there's a little more context here. So then I look for the context. What was she saying? That's a 30 second clip or something. What was the full context of what she was saying? And this is what I discovered. Get over the cheating king. Nala.

Nala Rae (14:58)

I am so happy we get to finally address this. So as a viral creator on OnlyFans, like, when I was on OnlyFans about eight, nine months ago, I went on so many podcasts because I knew the only way to grow my OnlyFans was to be viral. And it's such an oversaturated platform right now, and I've been on it for like five and a half years. So everything I've said on podcasts is complete clickbait. I did it to go viral, to then make money, and so many people believed it and it worked. So that's what's so, like, crazy about the Internet. And if you've heard it before, it's very true. The Internet is not real. So, like, everything I've said, like, oh my God, I love cheating. Like, dude, I was so frickin dead single at the time. Like, who would I have cheated on, bro? So for me, I made up this complete character that everyone believed in and everyone was like, I was very controversial to people and I was very, like, some people really, really liked me. But at the end of the day, social media is just fake news. So I never had a cheating kink. I've been single for such a long time, especially when I was on Only Fans, and I said whatever I needed to because I understand the male brain and I needed to make money. And I was like, but isn't the.

Michael Knowles (16:14)

Counter to this position that if you spent that much time lying about that, why should we assume you're spending time lying about this?

Nala Rae (16:21)

Because you can. As a Christian. If you doubt me as a Christian, you should look at the fruits of the spirit. And if you really do, like, if you can't have an actual conversation with me to see where my focuses lie now, just ask God and look at the fruit of the spirit.

Michael Knowles (16:34)

So the context of this is. She's asked when you were on this show last Time. And you said you had a kink, a fetish for cheating or being cheated on. Is that true? And she says, no, no, I lied then. I was lying on podcasts when I was on OnlyFans because I understood the male brain and because porn is a fantasy and I was giving people that fantasy, but it was a lie. I didn't even have a boyfriend at the time. And so the follow up question, which is a good question, is, okay, if you were lying then how do we know you're not lying now, now that you've given up pornography? And she says, well, you judge it by the fruits of the spirit. And then she further proves that that previous clip was dishonest because she refers to her work on OnlyFans in the past tense. She's done with porn. She's done selling her body. You can also see this visibly. She's covered up. On this show, women are often scantily clad. She's covered up, she's wearing a big hoodie. She's describing porn as being in the past. So whatever you think about this girl, let's say you think she is insincere or she's not a true Christian or whatever you think about her, you certainly have to admit the first clip is deceptive. It is claiming the opposite of what she is actually saying. And to the point, how do we know you're not lying now? She, I think, gives a really good answer here, which is, well, the way you know I'm not lying now or some evidence for that is previously I was in porn and porn is a fantasy. Porn is grounded in lies. Lies about human nature, lies about the purpose of sex, lies about how the sexes relate to one another and how women relate to sexual acts. So that was based on lies and I lied. Whereas Christianity is grounded in the truth, our Lord is the truth himself. And so that is in itself one reason why people in porn are intrinsically engaging in lies. Christianity intrinsically inclines one toward the truth. By definition. It seems to me quite scandalous that this clip is going around, that the first clip is going around to insinuate that she's making the opposite point that she's making. And it's scandalous because it is so totally lacking in grace. And it's the sort of thing that would seem to me to be leading someone away from Christ. It strikes me that if one is going to err, one should always err on the side of grace. Because you have to ask yourself, what is the end that we're seeking here, the end that I am seeking at least is to lead more people to Christ. That's the end that I'm after. So if someone is inclined to go in that direction, to give up a life of sin and vice and is showing evidence that she wishes to do that, I would like to encourage that person down that path. I think that would be a good thing. Some people though, if they're trying to twist her words and make it seem as though she's saying the opposite of what she's really saying, it would seem that those people are intentionally trying to lead someone away from Christ or to put up obstacles that would get in the way of a person seeking life in Christ. And that is deeply scandalous. And you will answer for that. If you are putting up obstacles, if you are scandalizing people, scandal, which is a serious sin, you will answer for that someday. So that seems kind of crazy to me. The question you have to ask yourself in all of these conversations is what is the end we're seeking? This gal got in trouble too because she was asked a question about the Trinity. This is the central mystery of the Christian faith. How God has three persons in one divine unity, God is one, and yet we have the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. This is the central mystery that we cannot really fully comprehend or articulate. Many have tried. There's a legend about St. Augustine attempting to fully comprehend the Trinity and an angel mocks him for trying to do something impossible. So anyway, Nala got tripped up on the nature of the Trinity. And it seems to me there are two ways to engage with that. Either you can say, ha ha, see, you've fallen into this heresy. I don't know, everyone falls into a heresy when they try to describe the Trinity. Just about whether it's the heresy of modalism, whether it's the heresy of Arianism, which took over half of self professed Christians in antiquity. With any of these heresies, it's very difficult. Either you can respond and say, ha ha, gotcha. See, boom, you're not a Christian, get out of here. Or you can say, hey, you're seeking Christ, you're trying to improve yourself, you're trying to grow in sanctity. Here are some ways that maybe here's a pitfall that sometimes you fall into. But anyway, keep going. Just do your best, pray, hope, and don't worry, you do your best, God will do the rest. It seems to me that's the thing that we ought to do. But the question then you have to have is what's the point? If the point is, and this is a broader point, even on politics, on cultural battles. If the point is just to dunk on people and own them and degrade them and debase them, then sure, pull every gotcha you possibly can and deceptively edit people and try to make it seem as though they're saying the opposite of what they're saying, then don't engage in good faith. But if the point is to persuade people and lead them closer to the truth and to help them to grow in sanctity, well, then you should probably do that. You should probably do that. You should probably offer them grace and try to speak the truth in love. Two very different approaches for two very different ways of life. And they'll have two very different consequences. So watch out. There's so much more to say first, though. Text KNOWLES to 989898 for those of us holding our breath for the past several months, we can exhale. Work can finally be done on the major issues facing our country, one of the most significant being our national debt. Fact is, the country's broke. That debt is a house of cards that cannot quickly be dismantled. For as long as the economy sits on top of that house of cards, the strategy remains the same. Diversify your savings. There are so many things out there out of our control, out of our President's control. That is why you want a safe haven for your savings. Birch Gold Group will help you convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold. Best news does not cost you a penny out of pocket. It only takes the removal of one card for the whole house of cards to fall. Protect your savings with gold. Text Knowles Kennewles to 989898 get your free info kit right now. Through Black Friday you will receive a free 1 ounce Silver Eagle for every $5,000 purchased. As the Gold partner of the Daily Wire for the past eight years, you can trust Birch Gold as I do to help protect your savings. Text Knowles KWLAS to 98989898989898 get your info kit in gold today. My favorite comment yesterday is from Hardboiled Entertainment who says and just as we're on the brink of peace, always remember, never underestimate Joe's ability to f things up. Yes, we are there man. Russia. Well, Ukraine firing missiles into Russia. Russia responding. We thought we voted for peace. We thought we voted for the Abraham Accords and Russia not invading other countries and things just being kind of cool. Well don't forget it's end of November. We have two more months of the Democrats ability to try to tie Trump's hands and prevent peace. And it looks like they're doing their best at it now. Speaking of changing hearts and minds, AOC has responded to the other drama going on on the Hill right now over whether or not a man, a Democrat congressman named Tim McBride, who calls himself Sarah, can invade the women's bathroom over the objections of the actual women who are in Congress. And Speaker Mike Johnson has made clear he does not get to go into the women's bathroom after I called a little bit of attention to this issue a week or so ago, because it seems like a trivial fight, but there's a lot that's being smuggled in with a man going into the women's bathroom. The whole ideology of transgenderism is being smuggled in. So Speaker Johnson, as I said I was hopeful for, has said, no, we're not gonna allow that to happen. AOC melts down over it.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (24:29)

It's disgusting. And everybody, no matter how you feel on this issue, should reject it completely.

Michael Knowles (24:36)

What are they doing?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (24:36)

They're doing this so that Nancy Mace can make a buck and send a text and fundraise off an email. They're not doing this to protect people. They're endangering women. They're endangering girls of all kinds. And everybody should reject it. It's gross. Thank you.

Michael Knowles (24:50)

Thank you. It's gross. It is gross that we're not letting this dude with some combination or one or the other of mental illness and a sexual fetish just walk into the women's bathroom over their objections, including people who have experienced rape, like Nancy Mace. As she said on this show just a few days ago, it's disgusting that we won't let that man do that. This is endangering women and girls of all kinds. Wait, what? How is it endangering women and girls to say that men can't go into the women's bathroom? That would seem to me to be the opposite of endangering women and girls. This is an example of something that Democrats do frequently, which is they just say words. And some people use rhetoric and little clever tricks of their language to try to persuade or to spin realities. But this is something Democrats seem to do a lot. She's just saying words that have no relation to reality, but she's saying them emphatically and with passion and hoping that that will persuade people, and it won't. So that's why I'm glad that AOC is pursuing this path. She has learned absolutely nothing this election. This landslide that went to Trump and the Republicans was in no small part due to Democrats overstepping on the trans issue. Not even because people are so focused on the trans issue, but because it was so offensive to people's intellects and it so proved that the Democrats had lost the common sense. If Democrats believe that a man is secretly a woman, if Democrats want to castrate kids, then you can't trust Democrats on anything. On Ukraine, on immigran, on the economy, because they've obviously lost their minds. They're not in touch with reality or the common sense. So AOC learned nothing. Some Democrats are saying, look, maybe we need to moderate on identity politics. Look, maybe we need to moderate on castrating little kids. Maybe we need to moderate. AOC says, no. It is repulsive to me that we will not force women to use the bathroom and give up their private spaces to men who are mentally ill and have bizarre sexual fantasies and disordered desires. That's repulsive to me. Okay, AOC Shout it from the rooftops. Put it on TV commercials. I'm all for it. She's learned nothing. And we might get the 2024 results next election, too. Meanwhile, the wackos are proving Nancy Mace's point. Nancy Mace was giving a speech, and a man, some big hulking fellow who dressed up as a lady, who has a lot of problems, obviously in his mind, stands up and tries to charge the stage.

Unknown Speaker (27:23)

I'm sorry, we're living with that in real time right now. This is ridiculous.

Michael Knowles (27:28)

Who's another man who's significantly shorter than the supposed woman, has to hold him.

Unknown Speaker (27:33)

Back because of the hate and lies that you are spreading? And if we want an Internet, are we building an Internet with free speech for everyone or just the privileged few?

Michael Knowles (27:42)

Are you.

Unknown Speaker (27:43)

Are you going to stand up for the lives of trans people, black and brown people? Are we fighting for justice or are we fighting for big tech? We respect freedom of speech.

Unknown Speaker (27:54)

God loves him.

Michael Knowles (27:55)

I love him, but his penis isn't going to be in my bathroom. So at any rate. But we have a responsibility.

Unknown Speaker (28:03)

If you're.

Michael Knowles (28:04)

Okay, all right, you get the point.

Unknown Speaker (28:05)

And watching me undress.

Michael Knowles (28:07)

How dare you say that I'm not a beautiful woman and I can't use your bathroom. I'm going to get up, run up on that stage and beat you to a bloody pulp, chicky, because I'm a beautiful and feminine and dainty woman. And you get the male security guard there who over whom this transvestite towers. This hulking transvestite. You. I'm going to show you what a woman is. And the security guard happily is able to constrain this deranged lunatic of a man and get him out of the the assembly. But seems to prove the point. Because what if the security guard weren't there? What if people who by definition are suffering from mental illness and severe perversion do find themselves in the bathroom with Nancy Mace, whom they hate. Nancy Mace, whom they regularly threaten to kill for objecting to their deluded self identity. What if Nancy Mace is just there and they catch her with her pants down, which is what happens in the bathroom and the security guard's not there to protect her? Her a victim of sexual assault. That's not acceptable. That's just not acceptable for anyone. And it shouldn't take these kinds of incidents to prove it. For the good of society. I've said it before, for the good of society and especially for the good of the confused people who have fallen prey to this ideology. Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level. Period. Punto Ebasta Speaking of strange ideology, Jaguar. Jaguar, the preferred car company of wealthy British women, has just decided to rebrand. And Jaguar's rebranding has come through a viral commercial. Take it away. For those who cannot see, it's a bunch of androgynous individuals wearing high fashion haute couture sorts of dresses and suits, carrying sledgehammers. Seem to be on planet Mars or something. Copy Nothing. Jaguar. Jaguar. Buy a Jaguar and you can become androgynous and really weird. Jaguar. Jaguar was always kind of a posh British luxury car brand, not, you know, just sort of expensive, but still tasteful. And now it's really weird and transsexual and androgynous and colorful and bizarre. I don't think I'm speaking with hyperbole when I say this is why Trump won. The fact that Jaguar needs to go trans is why Trump won. I have a little advice to corporate America and to the people who run our institutions. Not everything has to be gay. Not every. I'm not saying some things are going to be kind of gay. The ymca, I guess, is kind of gay. It's been in that song for 50 years now. Some things are going to be a little bit show tunes. They're always going to be a little bit gay. Plenty of straight people like them. But it's. But not everything has to be gay. Some things can be normal. It's okay. The stuffy old British car driven by wealthy women predominantly. That doesn't have to be gay. But most people who voted for Trump actually don't really care if some things are gay. They don't really think that much about politics. But what they object to is that everything has to be gay. That kindergarten, classrooms and libraries have to be gay. That's what they object to. It's just constantly crammed down your throat. And no one wants that. Okay, but that's fine. Jaguar. I want every campaign ad in the future to be the new Jaguar ad. And AOC talking about how we got to shove dudes into the women's bathroom. And I want. They've learned nothing. That's great. Keep playing it. I'm all for it now. There's so much more I want to get to. My friend Lauren Southern was just speaking at Canadian Parliament. I want to get to that. A Democrat strategist doesn't know what weapons the military uses. Bob Casey finally conceded in Pennsylvania. So Dave McCormick is. He was already officially the Senator elect, but now everyone admits it. But I don't have time because I gotta get to the mailbag. There's so much more to say. First though, go to responsibleman.com, use code KNOWLES. Gentlemen, let's talk about something the libs don't want you to have. Robust, unapologetic health. While they're busy pushing their soy infused agenda, I've discovered a way to fortify ourselves against the tide of cultural decay. And that is Responsible man vitamins. Now, I know what you're thinking, Michael. Aren't all vitamins the same? Not even close. Responsible man created the Emerson Multivitamin for men who take their duties seriously, not for the participation trophy crowd. Okay, this isn't some feel good supplement designed by coastal elites who think that masculinity is toxic. No, sir. This is a vitamin packed with 33 key ingredients that support your immune system, sharpen your mind and keep your heart and muscles strong. It's everything a conservative man needs to stand firm in these trying times. A Responsible man is a Daily Wire Ventures company. You know these vitamins are made right here in America. No Chinese knockoffs, no outsourcing to countries that resent our values. Just good old American quality. Because a strong America needs strong men. And strong men need this vitamin. I'm not saying Emerson Multivitamin will single handedly save Western civilization, but I'm not saying it won't either. Right now go to responsibleman.com code knowles for 60% off. That's with my special discount code responsibleman.com use that code knowles. Get 66 0% off. Ladies and gentlemen, our DailyWire/ Black Friday sale starts now. This is our best deal of the year. Get 50% off annual memberships today. No code needed. Just go to dailywire.com subscribe and join the fight with Daily Wire Plus. You will get access to our uncensored daily shows with limited ads, plus breaking news coverage from the most trusted voices in conservative media. Get it all for 50% off. That is not all. DailyWire plus is home to the number one documentary of the decade, Am I Racist? Our full library of premium entertainment that is reshaping the culture. Save 50% off. Now you go to DailyWire.com subscribe join the fight today. Finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag. The mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk. Go to PureTalk.com Knowles today. Switch to a qualifying plan. Get one year free of DailyWire +Insider. Take it away.

Unknown Speaker (35:02)

Hi Michael. As I'm sure you've seen, the day after the election there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from our leftist friends. I saw a particular argument made by a leftist, quote unquote lawyer who stated that due to the Dobbs decision, conservatives were coming for, quote, interracial marriage. She based her claim based off of the use of stare decisis. I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, which is basically the Court's precedent. I made the argument that Alito's decision had very little to do with stare decisis and more to do with the separation of Roe versus Wade and by nature Casey from the the 14th amendment and the protections it ensues. I argued that Loving is clearly protected under the 14th amendment and that Alito's separation of Roe and Casey from Loving and by making a distinction between Roe and Loving, that Leto actually affirms Loving's protection under the 14th Amendment while stripping Roe and Casey's protections of the 14th. Do you agree with my analysis of the Dobbs decision and am I understanding the ruling correctly? Love the show. Thanks.

Michael Knowles (36:18)

Great question. I agree with your top line analysis that no, the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade does not imperil Loving v. Virginia. You know, the ruling that brought us a constitutional right to interracial marriage? It does not. There is no threat to interracial marriage anywhere in the United States. One bit of evidence for this is that one of the great Supreme Court justices who brought us the Dobbs decision is himself in an interracial marriage. That would be Clarence Thomas. So that's totally ridiculous. The reason, though, the reason for the question about that doesn't really rest on stare decisis story decisis, which is respect for court precedent. It rests more on a questioning of substantive due process. Substantive due process, which does play a role in the loving decision. But substantive due process is something that is rejected by Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito and questioned by guys like Antonin Scalia. Substantive due process, we would say, is a contradiction in terms because due process refers to a process that people have, you know, you commit a crime, you're arrested, you're brought up on charges, you face a trial, maybe you're convicted by a jury of your peers. That's a process. Substantive due process says that there is substance, substantive matters that can that basically take the place of due process. And you know, you can be found to have a violation of your due process because of substantive claims and that I'm giving a poorly articulated and overly simplistic view of it, that's basically what it is. So substantive due process is pretty much ridiculous. And so if the Dobbs decision were to say substantive due process is totally out, it's a bunch of bunk, it's total nonsense, then that could raise questions about all sorts of court cases. But the bottom line of it is the other reason the Dobbs decision does not in any way imperil interracial marriage is one. The justices say that in the opinion that this does not imperil loving, but also there's just no appetite. Nobody wants to abolish interracial marriage or outlaw interracial marriage or do anything to interracial marriage. Nobody wants that. Half the country wanted to stop the killing of little babies. So that's the other. Just as a practical, prudential reason, there is no political appetite. If there's a political appetite for anything. There is a chance that that thing could come to pass and be brought into being in a self governing republic such as ours. But there is no appetite for that. And the Dobbs decision explicitly does not imperil that. So it's a bunch of nonsense. But it's not just nonsense. Because of story decisis. There is this question about substantive due process, which we should continue to pursue as being mostly ridiculous because the libs have rammed a lot of nonsense through using substantive due process. Next question.

Unknown Speaker (39:03)

Hey, Mike, a lot of conservatives are celebrating a lot of things right now. And one of the things they're celebrating is people like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk with their huge followings coming into the fold and endorsing Trump, which is a really big deal. But my fear is that since these people are not ideological conservatives and they're just sort of calling the shots as they see them, they might likely just go right back to supporting Democrats in 2028. Let's say that the Democrats, for example, learn something and they put forward someone that's more moderate in 2028, like Andrew Yang or something. Do you really think that Joe Rogan would vote for, say, JD Vance over Andrew Yang? What are your thoughts?

Michael Knowles (39:48)

Yeah, maybe he would. First of all, I don't consider Andrew Yang to be moderate at all. I think Andrew Yang is pretty radical. He's calling for a universal basic income and demanding that we create wages and tax forms for people having a wife. And I don't know, he seems like a really nice guy, but politically he seems quite radical to me. As for Joe Rogan, though, yeah, I guess he could support Andrew Yang or someone like him in 2028, but I don't know. It's not as though politics is static that this time he endorsed this guy. Next time he'll endorse the opposite guy. We're creatures of habit. So the more that Joe Rogan is brought into the Trump world and the conservative fold, I think the more likely he is to support those kinds of candidates in the future. What happens if next time Bobby Kennedy endorses the Democrat? I don't know. We'll deal with that then. I'm not gonna give up the win today because of some hypothetical loss we might have in the future. I don't think that's how politics works. I don't think you win by losing. I think you win by winning. There are people who legitimately think you win by losing, that to lose an election is good because it'll force us to recalibrate, ensure the libs will pack the court and destroy our system of government in the meantime. But don't worry, next time we'll have a really great candidate that is beloved by 60 year old conservative desiccated institutions. I don't buy that for one second. I think we win by winning. I think we are winning right now and we just need to take the people who have taken the first little step. They put their feet into the shallow end of conservatism. We need to lead them with charity and grace into the deeper end of the pool. We don't want to repel them. We don't want to create obstacles to them deepening their conservatism. We want to pull them in and encourage them because politics often comes down to the distinction between friend and enemy. We want to be their friends, and people tend to become more like their friends. Next question.

Unknown Speaker (41:32)

Hi, Michael. I have a faith question for you. I was baptized in a non denominational Protestant Church in 2019, and then my husband was baptized shortly after in 2020. We've really grown in our faith and I personally feel like my faith journey is leading me towards the Catholic Church just because I am on fire for Christ. My husband seems to be, too, but he has his reservations about the Catholic Church. I've tried to speak with him about things that I've learned and he seems very resistant. I don't want to go against my husband because he is the leader of our family. However, I really do feel like I want to have my children baptized. I feel this calling very strongly. How do I convince my husband or how can I speak to my husband to help him understand my point of view and to get him on board to lead us as our family to the Catholic Church? I really appreciate your advice. Thank you.

Michael Knowles (42:34)

Really good question. And phrased really, really well because you're saying, look, I respect my husband as the head of the household and I don't want to be in opposition to him in any way. All of which is very, very good. Now, there is a reminder here as pertains to your own conversion. It reminds me of St Thomas More describing Henry VIII, who as St Thomas More, is about to be executed because he won't give up his faith. He says, I die the king's loyal subject, but God's first. And so you might say the same thing about your husband. You say, look, I am my husband's loyal subject, but God's first. So I wouldn't allow that to impede your conversion and your practicing the Catholic faith. And you might then just take the opportunity to answer some of your husband's objections to Catholicism. I forget if it was Ronald Knox or Fulton Sheen or John Henry Newman. I confuse often the great quotables of Catholicism, but they say there are not 100 people in the country who seriously oppose the Catholic faith. There are a million people who oppose what they mistakenly believe to be the Catholic faith. But it's usually a lot of fake news. There's a good podcast, if you're so inclined, that I just listened to on the Thomistic Institute on the differences, the similarities and differences between Martin Luther's view of justification and Grace and St. Thomas Aquinas View, the Catholic view, which is really good. That sort of thing might help bring him in. St. John Henry Newman said 10,000 questions don't make one doubt. It's very good to have questions about the faith. I still have many questions, but it doesn't make one doubt. So I would do that. I think it's important for your kids to be baptized. Let the little children come to me. But one way that you might express this to your husband who maybe doesn't support infant baptism, is to point out that given some of his Protestant priors, actually infant baptism is a great thing to do. If, and again I'm just guessing, but if your husband's opposition to Catholicism is that he mistakenly believes Catholicism to be a works based salvation or anything like that, then you might point out that infant baptism actually acknowledges God's sovereignty, that infant baptism is not only scriptural. You see it take place in the book of Acts and I think you hear our Lord encourage it in the Gospels. But actually it takes the individual will of earning salvation totally out of the question. Because infant baptism in particular recognizes that the gift of salvation is coming from God gratuitously. It is a matter of his grace. It is not the sort of thing we earn with our will. Little babies can't earn anything with their own will. So in a way you could say, look, it's putting all of the focus on God. It's proving that this grace is not earned, that it is truly gracious. And honey, it would really make me feel better. And here are all the reasons I like. And if I think it really matters and you think it really doesn't matter at all, then would you mind just given it to me since it's something that really matters to me and doesn't matter to you. Those would be some ways I would phrase it. And then through that conversation, assuming it's done in love, you can both really grow in faith. And I think I'll swim the Tiber. Next question.

Unknown Speaker (45:51)

Hello Michael, and thank you for taking my question. I'm 23 and I've been dating my girlfriend for almost five years. I would like to propose to her and get married, but there's a problem. Both of us are 23, in college, broke and we're living with my parents. I myself am not even working because I've been trying to find a job, but no one wants to hire me because of my school schedule. Right now it doesn't seem like it would make sense for us to get married financially. But I would like to make this next step. I could propose to her and us just stay engaged for a while, but I wouldn't really care for that. I was hoping you could give me some advice on how I could navigate this situation, whether it be propose and just stay engaged for a while or just wait until we are both financially stable. Thank you.

Michael Knowles (46:44)

Good question. You don't need to wait until you're both financially stable. You don't need to wait until you can afford a Maserati or something like that. But I would recommend not becoming the formal head of a household until you can have a household, until you have some form of employment. I'm not even saying until you're out of debt. I'm not even saying until you're out of college. I'm not saying necessarily any of that. But I would recommend making sure that you've got some sure footing. Because the role of a husband is not just a personal relationship to a wife. The role of a husband is really an office that comes with a lot of responsibilities. So if you're going to assume that office, you need to make sure that you can carry out the duties of that office, at the very least at the minimum level. So what I would do if I were in your case, you find this girl, you really like her, she's the one is I would propose lock it down. Maybe you're engaged for a year or something like that. That's not too long, you're finishing up school. And then I would make sure that you have a job and you have at least a path toward some kind of independence, household independence. Make sure that you've got that all locked down. That will also greatly reduce the stress in your early marri and it will give you greater authority and credibility as the head of your household. So that's what I would do. And it means you gotta delay that fun thing, you know, married couples do. But that's okay. A little patience. Patience can be sanctifying and edifying. It's fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowleskin WLAS Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

Unknown Speaker (48:33)

AI is coming to your industry, if it isn't already here. But AI needs a lot of speed and computing power. So how do you compete with cost spiraling? Upgrade to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or oci. OCI is the blazing fast and secure platform for your infrastructure, database, application development and AI workloads. Right now, Oracle is offering to cut your current cloud bill in half if you move to OCI for new US customers with minimum financial commitment. That offer ends December 31st. See if your company qualifies@oracle.com Morningwire.