Elon Musk (7:22)

And this is big numbers. Talk about 100 to 200 billion dollars a year, serious money.

Reporter (7:27)

Mr. Musk, you said on X that an example of the fraud that you have cited was $50 million of condoms was sent to Gaza. Fact check this. Apparently Gaza in Mozambique and the program was to protect them against hiv. So can you correct the statements? It wasn't sent to Hamas. Actually, it was sent to Mozambique, which makes sense why condoms was sent there. And how can we make sure that all the statements that you said were correct so we can trust what you said?

Michael Knowles (7:58)

I love this kid.

Elon Musk (7:59)

Just like pulling his dad will be incorrect and should be corrected. So nobody's going to bat a thousand. I mean, any. You know, we will make mistakes, but we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes. So, you know, if the. I'm not sure we should be sending $50 million worth of condoms to anywhere. Frankly, I'm not sure that's something Americans would be really excited about. And that is really an enormous number of condoms, if you think about it. But, you know, if it went to Mozambique instead of Gaza, I'm like, ok, that's not as bad. But still, why are we doing that?

Michael Knowles (8:35)

Love it. I love everything about this answer. Because, one, he takes some responsibility. He doesn't just totally deflect. He says, huh? Oh, yeah, Okay. I guess we thought it was the one Gaza but it turns out it was the other Gaza. You know, okay, honest mistake. But I don't know that that makes it any better. You know, $50 million worth of condoms is a lot of condoms, okay? And this discussion of contraception is made all the funnier by the fact that Elon has his little kid on his shoulders, tugging at his hat, you know, poking his face. And Elon is just like any dad is, just pretty much undisturbed by this. He kind of bats his kid's hand away. He's kind of playing with him, pulling on his legs, whatever. But even just the fact that Elon brought a little kid into the Oval Office, that's beautiful. Because think about this. Elon Musk is one of the busiest guys in the world. Elon Musk has a bunch of kids. President Trump has a bunch of kids. But Elon Musk has, I think, twice the number of kids or more. So Elon Musk has a lot of kids. He's running some of the biggest companies in the country, and he's a senior advisor to the President of the United States, and he's gutting zillions of dollars out of the federal government. He does not have a lot of free time. So something tells me that if Elon Musk wants to see his kids, he's got to integrate them into his extremely, perhaps singularly, busy lifestyle. And that's good. It's good to bring a little kid into the Oval Office every once in a while. I remember I was at the Madison Square Garden rally right before the election, and I was sitting right behind the Trump team, little box down by the stage at the place where Elon was sitting. And Elon had his kid up on his shoulders there, too. And I thought it was very endearing. If we want a culture that isn't dying, we need to have kids. And if we want to have kids, we need to permit people to be with their kids in public places. Something that drives me really, really crazy. You'll hear this at church sometimes. I don't care what denomination or flavor you attend. You will see people get very, very angry when people's kids start crying in church. But kids cry. That's what they do. And we want kids to be in church. There's an old expression. If a parish is not crying, it's dying. Okay? I've been to plenty of parishes where there aren't crying kids, and guess what? The median age is about 103. And the parish isn't gonna last very long. It's about to become a coffee Shop or a mosque. All right, we need that stuff. I love. It's like perfect. That whole scene was written in Hollywood or something. I don't know. It was actually written providentially perhaps, because also something the reporters fail to understand is there are Americans. I'm not even saying, I'm not saying it's the majority of Americans, but there are a lot of Americans who oppose sending condoms anywhere because we don't think condoms are particularly moral or virtuous. We don't think they're a good thing to be imposing on cultures, especially more traditional cultures. Take a lesson from Elon and Trump. The most normal people in that room, weirdly enough, they're extremely influential and successful and billionaires and all, but they have a real normality to them. And the most normal people in that room have a bunch of kids and are cool with it and encourage that for others. It's the abnormal people who say, well, no, we just need more condoms. $50 million of condoms to Gaza and I don't know, maybe the other Gaza and everywhere, but no kids. No, I don't. Yikes. We need to sterilize ourselves to prove a point to Trump. No, you don't, lady. It's okay. It's all right. You just be normal. It's. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to tryarmra.com knowles There's a lot of talk these days about getting back to basics, whether it's in politics, culture, or even health. Well, speaking of back to basics, I want to tell you about Armora. Colostrum doesn't get much more basic than Colostrum. It's the first food that all mammals receive in life. It is nature's original superfood, containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that your body needs to thrive. Amra has found a way to harness this incredible substance in its purest, most potent form. What makes ARMRA different is their proprietary cold chain biopotent pasteurization technology. ARMRA preserves all those crucial nutrients in their most bioavailable form. And it's all sustainably sourced from grass fed cows on American family farms. Not some synthetic compound created in a lab. It's a natural whole food that works with your body's own systems. We have worked out a special offer for our audience. Receive 15% off your first order when you go to tryarmora.com knowleskennetwlies or enter code knowles K N A W-L- that is T R Y- A R M R A.com K N O W L E. S speaking of President Trump, President Trump keeps using military planes to deport illegal aliens, which I think is really good and important. Military planes, you'll recall, were at the center of the first deportation crisis of this second administration, which has only been around for like three weeks now. It feels like it's been three years, but it was three weeks. Remember, Trump sent those military planes full of illegals to Colombia. Columbia rejected them. Trump threatened to completely nuke their economy. And then about an hour later, the president of Columbia sent the presidential airplane to go pick them up. He actually was doing our job for us, so that was great. But at the center of the face saving side of that issue was this question of, well, can you put illegal aliens on military planes? And the answer is yes. In fact, I think you must. Because the United States needs to demonstrate that we are treating illegal immigration as a very serious problem, as a national security problem. And we are willing to put the full weight and power of the American nation and empire into solving this. And you know what the full weight of the American power looks like? It looks like C17s. That's what it looks like. Okay. I'm not saying we need to, you know, strap them down and waterboard them while they're on the airplanes, but we also don't need to send them first class on Emirates Airlines. Okay? We can, we can use these military planes to show that we're serious. Also, they have a pretty large capacity because these images of illegal aliens being loaded up on military bases, it's. That sends a message to people who might make the mistake. They're on their way now from Venezuela or wherever, and they're crossing through Mexico and they might make the mistake because Joe Biden invited them in, that they're gonna be welcomed here and they're gonna get all sorts of financial benefits and they're not going to have to be subject to American laws. You get a few of those images. This is what Nayib Bukele learned in a much more severe way down in El Salvador. If you just post some images of people being subject to the law in a serious way, crime's gonna drop. People are gonna stop breaking the law. Now big news on immigration. The Holy Father has weighed in. Pope Francis sent a letter to bishops that has been widely reported in the media as condemning President Trump's deportation policy as even taking a shot at J.D. vance. And J.D. vance's understanding of the Order of Charity, the Ordo Amoris, which he brought to the national scene during a television interview with CBS a week or so ago, what did the Pope actually say? If the Pope had really been coming out against deportation, generally against immigration law, this would be a rather strange turn of events because, as Michael Haynes, the senior Vatican correspondent for LifeSite News, points out, in December, the Vatican made a base penalty of between one and four years in jail and a €10,000 to €25,000 fine for anyone illegally entering the Vatican City state. And then the penalties would increase if the offender were to use guns, vehicles, disguises, or came in a group. So it'd be very strange if the Vatican City state, the last remnant of the papal States, if the Vatican were able to have strict immigration laws, but the United States of America were not. So that can't possibly be what the Pope was saying. Right? All right, well, let's. Because the Pope is often misinterpreted in the press, and though there are sometimes real questions that are come up in the pontificate, let's just read a little bit of what the Pope actually wrote. Dear brothers in the Episcopate, I'm writing today to address a few words to you in these delicate moments that you are living as pastors of the people of God who walk together in the United States of America. Okay? So right off the top, we know, okay, we are focused on America here. This is about the U.S. it's gonna be about U.S. immigration policy. I like to recall, among other things, the words with which Pope Pius XII began his apostolic Constitution on the care of migrants, which is considered the Magna Carta of the Church's thinking on migration. Quote, the family of Nazareth in exile. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, emigrants in Egypt and refugees there to escape the wrath of an ungodly king, are the model, the example and the consolation of emigrants. Emigrants and pilgrims of every age and country, of all refugees of every condition, who beset by persecution or necessity, are forced to leave their homeland, beloved family and dear friends, for foreign lands. Okay, so this is from Pope Pius xii. Everyone loves Pope Pius XII and is saying that the Holy Family is the model of emigrants. Now, it's worth remembering that the Holy Family never left the confines of the Roman Empire. They did, in fact, flee. The family of Nazareth in exile did flee to Egypt, which was also part of the Roman Empire. But it's true they were fleeing a terrible local ruler who wanted to slaughter our Lord. Certainly true. What does this mean, though? Even the word emigrant? You know, an emigrant is one who leaves a country. An immigrant is one who comes into a country. In practice, the two are used interchangeably. But the Pope makes clear, he says we're talking about people who are forced to leave their homeland. So there's some people who are being threatened with death, say, by a tyrannical government, and people flee that country to escape death at the hands of some tyrant. That is not really what we're talking about when we're talking about mass migration into America. That's what the liberals pretend is going on. That's what a lot of the news reports say. Maybe there are some people in Rome who actually believe those news reports. But by and large, the migrants who are coming into the United States are economic migrants. They're not fleeing immediate persecution or the immediate threat of violence. They just want to make more money in America. And I understand that they want to make more money, but that's a different thing. The Pope here is saying that the Holy Family is the representatives of the symbol for all those who are forced to flee their homeland. But when we're talking about mass migration to America, by and large, that's not what we're talking about. Okay, the Pope goes on. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality. This is the first line where I think. All right, this is a little bit confusing. The Pope says the rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express disagreement with any measure that says that illegal aliens have committed a crime. Now, perhaps the confusion arises from just not understanding the U.S. code because the U.S. federal law identifies illegal crossing as a crime. The first time that someone crosses the border illegally, that's a misdemeanor. And if you do it multiple times, that's a felony. So is the Holy Father saying that the rightly formed conscience must express disagreement with the US Code on a basic question of immigration long standing law. That could not possibly be what he's saying. Right. So I don't know. That's a little bit confusing. Perhaps that line calls for some clarification. Are we now saying the entirety. The most basic aspects of US Immigration law must be rejected by a rightly formed conscience? That couldn't possibly be. At the same time, the Pope says one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival. Yeah, okay. Totally agree with that. Totally normal. No one would disagree with that. Then here's where the rubber meets the road. This is the second kind of confusing line in this letter that said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution, or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of men and women and of entire families and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness. So this is to say, deporting people who are in the country illegally, who have left not just for immediate threat of violence or something like that, but because they're poor, because they feel insecure, because their natural environment has deteriorated, that that damages the dignity of men and women. So this is the line I think that people are gonna say means that the Pope is saying that we just can't deport people, period. Now, I'm going to get into what other popes have said on this, just to help clarify Catholic thinking on this question. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to expressvpn.com knowles think about everything you've browsed, searched for, watched or tweeted. Now imagine all of those data being collected and aggregated by data brokers into a permanent public record so that the libs can get you fired, which is increasingly what they seem to want to do. Well, even if they're not going to do that. To keep your data private. To keep my data private when I go online, I turn to Express vpn. Every device you use has a unique digital fingerprint called an IP address that reveals who and where you are. ExpressVPN masks this fingerprint, making it nearly impossible for data brokers to track your online activity. Not only does ExpressVPN hide your identity, it also encrypts everything you do online, protecting you from hackers on public Wi Fi. One tap on any device, you are instantly secure. ExpressVPN gives me the freedom to explore different perspectives without my browsing history being sold or used to profile me. So there's some New York Times piece about all the radical fringe extremists that I read on some political journal or something. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com knowles e x p r E-S-S vpn.com knowles you can get an extra four months for free. Expressvpn.com knowles knowles the Pope suggesting that deporting people who leave for many of the reasons the people have come here into America illegally, that that damages their dignity. Now, Pope Benedict, Pope Benedict XVI of blessed memory, he said on World day of migrants 2010, quote, states have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers. Always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Okay, yeah. Okay, that makes sense. Clear enough. Pope John Paul II, Pope St. John Paul II in 2001 said, quote, or he said even, quote, highly developed countries are not always able to assimilate all those who emigrate. Certainly, the exercise of such a right to emigrate is to be regulated because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. So true. John Paul II, again in 1996. Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. So true. So then how could it possibly be that deporting illegal aliens damages their dignity? Is this to say that deporting people who are here illegally, especially in this case with President Trump, we're talking about people who right now committed very serious crimes. Is that not a way to regulate migration? Is that not a way to prevent migration? It seems to me if you don't deport at least some of the illegal aliens who are here, that you would be encouraging, you would be incentivizing more illegal immigration, and in fact, you would be encouraging the criminal cartels that control the southern border and the illegal immigration flow. This is a very confusing statement, and it would be good perhaps to have some clarity on this statement from the bishops, from the Holy Father, from Ron. Anyway, the Pope goes on. The true common good is promoted when society and government welcomes, protects, promotes and integrates the most fragile, unprotected and vulnerable. This does not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration. Okay, well, there you go. That's good. Makes sense. You don't see those lines really so much in the reporting, but they're saying, yeah, yeah, states have the right to regulate migration. Great. Then final point. The Pope says Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words, the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive with some philanthropic feelings. The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. You say, okay, what's he talking about here? Well, the Pope makes clear what he's talking about. He says, the true ordo amoris. Ah, that's the line that J.D. vance just used. So this is clearly a response to Vice President Vance. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating Constantly on the parable of the Good Samaritan, that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all without exception. Okay, clearly a criticism of J.D. vance, but what is this? Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. Well, I don't think J.D. vance would say that. I don't think that's what he said at all. In other words, the human person is not a mere individual relatively expansive with philanthropic feelings. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think J.D. vance says that he is. I don't. In fact, whatever is being described here by the Holy Father, I don't think that represents what J.D. vance was saying about the Ordo Amores and doesn't represent what St. Augustine said about the Ordo Amoris, or what St. Gregory the Great or Bernard of Clairvaux or St. Thomas Aquinas says about the Order of Charity, the Ordo Caritatis and the Summa Theologiae, or. I don't. So I don't know. Maybe something's just sort of lost in translation here. I think that's probably a way to understand this. The vast majority, all of that to say the vast majority of attacks on popes, including Pope Francis, are nonsense, generally speaking. I've heard so many attacks on popes. Generally speaking. They are attacks on things that popes have not actually said or done, or they are just broad attacks on Catholicism by people who disagree with Catholicism, which. Okay, fair enough. Your mileage may vary, but that's not really, then a criticism of a pope. It's a criticism of the faith. There are, it seems to me, I don't want to be accused of just flacking for the pope reflexively. I have a reverence and love for the Holy Father by virtue of the fact that he is the pope, but I don't want to be accused of just flacking for him. There are legitimate. There is, I think, a legitimate confusion that comes out of this letter that merits reflection on the fullness of the Catholic tradition, and I think that merits the prudential judgment of bishops to clear up ambiguities. Because in a couple instances here, I don't, you know, it's just. It's a little unclear. Something perhaps has been lost in translation. Now, turning closer to home for the question of immigration, there is a new report out that Elon. Not Elon. Ilhan, very different people. Ilhan good. Ilhan not so good. Ilhan Omer did, in fact, according to the Daily Mail, marry her brother. There was this rumor, some years ago, Ilhan Omar got married in a Somali ceremony, big Somali ceremony in America. Maybe wasn't registered with the government, it was just a religious ceremony. And then later on she married a second time, this random guy. But then she had a kid with the first husband and this random guy. It didn't, it looked a little dodgy. And then some people suggested that it was her brother. Now, Ilhan Omar initially denied that she married her brother. Then she and her office stopped denying it quite so vociferously as more information came out. Well, now I'm not the one reporting it. It's the Daily Mail says exclusive. Ilhan Omar did marry her brother and said she would do what she had to do to get him papers to keep him in the US Reveals Somali community leader so according to this leader, Abdi Hakim Osman, she said she needed to get papers for her brother to go to school. We all thought she was just getting papers to allow him to stay in the country. And so she married him, I guess, and this turned out much, much later. No one even knew about the wedding apparently at the time. I have a little offbeat take on this as a conservative and someone who doesn't like Ilhan Omar that much. If this report is true, there is something actually charming about her desire to help her brother stay in America and go to school or whatever. There's actually something sweet in a weird way about her willing to really extend herself to help him in a way that is weird and might damage her reputation. However, this is the wrong way to go about it. This is illegal. It's gross. I'm not saying they did the things married people do. It's just gross to even think about. Plus, it's not as though the brother, speaking of refugees, were fleeing some war torn country. According to this report, the brother had been living in London and just fell under the sway of some bad hombres and was getting involved in kind of weird London party scenes. And so the father wanted him to come to Minnesota to dry out a little bit. And so this is not the way to do it, but it shows you the reason this is politically interesting, not just tabloid fodder, is it shows you the depth of our immigration crisis. If this report from the Daily Mail is true, than a sitting legislator, a very prominent sitting federal legislator, personally committed immigration fraud. That is a deep level of an immigration crisis, the kind of crisis that it would seem to me would impel a just civil authority to rigorously and thoughtfully begin to enforce the immigration law lest we lose this whole system, lest we lose the very distinguishing features of a nation. And if Ilhan Omar denies this, let her deny it. Let her show some kind of proof. Somalia didn't keep particularly good records around this time, so we might never know for sure. But seems like the people in her community think the lady did marry her brother, which is gross and illegal. It is also gross for legislators to violate basic laws of their country. Now, speaking of weird sexual behaviors, there is a fella who thinks that he's a lady, or at least pretends to be a lady, who is in Congress now. First ever trans identifying member of Congress, Tim, quote unquote, Sarah McBride. And Representative Mary Miller, one of my absolute favorite Republicans in Congress, has just introduced Mr. McBride in a controversial way.

Mary Miller (33:09)

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride, for five minutes.

Michael Knowles (33:17)

Mr. McBride. Very, very controversial. Why is this controversial? I can't quite tell you why this is controversial. Because it's rude, Allegedly. Is it rude? Seems to me it's rude to lie to someone. It's rude to know the truth. But just to coddle someone, an adult, a member of the federal legislature, because you think that person is just so crazy and so fragile and so ready to go off his rocker that he can't handle even basic truths about his identity. We have to do this. I do not want to hear a single Republican referring to this guy as Sarah or as miss or the lady or whatever. We have to do this. Not to be cruel, not to upset this guy's feelings. If he's really that worked up and fragile, he should probably check himself into an asylum. We have to do this because the moment that a Republican calls this man Sarah, which is a girl's name, the moment a Republican calls this man Ms. Or Ms. Ms. Or whatever, the lady from Delaware, then we have just accepted the transgender ideology, which is a false account of human nature. Then we've accepted this gnostic, bizarro, occult, just deeply damaging fake news about human nature. And we're going to trans the kids because you have. Because if transgenderism is real, then it's real for kids too. And if it's real for kids, you should trans them. If they're trans. If that's how human nature works, then you should do it, obviously. But it's not real. So we should stop pretending for everyone. You gotta do it. Clarity is charity. You know, when you join Daily Wire plus, you're making a statement, a refusal to be spoon fed the nonsense shoved down your throat by the establishment media. Becoming a Daily Wire plus member is not just about access to content. It's about standing up for truth in a world that treats truth like a disposable inconvenience. Every dollar you spend goes directly into building the future, because America's future will not build itself. Join the fight today dailywire.com subscribe My favorite comment yesterday is from Mr. Dillinger, who says, and I didn't pick this one. So this is the producers. We're gonna see if this is actually my favorite. Not naming JD as the successor means that the opposition does not have a definite target. That's also true. That's a good point. My take on it was it gives incentives for the other members of Trump's cabinet, people like Marco Rubio, to keep working and doing a good job. Because you know that guy wants to run for president, he's already run for president. So if Trump right now says, okay, JD Is my successor, okay, immediately Trump is a lame duck. All the focus is on J.D. the power flows to J.D. rubio's totally disengaged. He might want to quit the administration, go start launching his campaign. Other people who might want to run for president, same thing. But you're right, that's the carrot side. The stick side of it is you don't want to. You don't want to make a target. Yeah, that's a fair point. Okay, now, speaking of members of Congress, Ayanna Pressley, member of the squad. She's kind of like the Ringo of the squad. She's not the most prominent squad member. Congressman Ringo, Ayanna Pressley is complaining that the state of Iowa is too white.

Mary Miller (36:41)

Governor Reynolds, my Republican colleagues invited you here today to promote what they see as a model of governance. Simply put, Republicans vision of America is to be more like Iowa. Governor Reynolds, let's learn more about the state. Do you know what percentage of Iowans are white and what percentage are black?

Michael Knowles (37:03)

I don't know the exact percentages. Now, we're by far larger percentage of white population.

Mary Miller (37:10)

That's correct. Iowa is 90% white and only 4.5% black. So that is drastically different from the national population. So when Republicans suggest Iowa should be a national model, they're advocating for a government that doesn't reflect our country.

Michael Knowles (37:28)

Okay, so that's true. Iowa's a rather white place. Ayanna Pressley's argument is it's too white to serve as a model for the country. Now, of course, I don't even wanna say this. It makes me feel icky because it brings me back to the days when the conservative pundits would Always say, could you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? Could you. What if the roles were reversed? But just. Just to establish as a premise of the argument here, this woman obviously would never drag the mayor of Oakland or Chicago before the panel and say, excuse me, do you know that your city is disproportionately black? Your city is too black to serve as a model for the nation. No. What they would do is they say, oh, you're so much blacker than the nation. What a model of diversity. Everything you're doing must be working so well. You are truly a multicultural model, and diversity is our strength. If only your city were 100% black, all the better. That would be. That's what you would hear. So this is not a principled argument that Ayanna Pressley is making. It's an expression of disdain for white people. It's just an expression of contempt. But it's not grounded in any kind of principle. Now she makes the final part of her argument.

Mary Miller (38:45)

Governor Reynolds, the Iowa Legislative Services Agency conducted a nonpartisan analysis of that bill. Do you know how much money was saved when you eliminated those commissions?

Michael Knowles (38:56)

Actually, it was not about saving money. It was about putting more resources behind the Department of Human Rights so that we could actually provide them more resources for minority communities.

Mary Miller (39:09)

Reclaiming my time. Let me help you with the math. Roughly $112,000 in your state budget was saved. So that is.001%. Barely a rounding error.

Michael Knowles (39:29)

Wow. This shows you the degree of insight, the adaptability of the Democrats in the legislature. Ayanna Pressley went in locked and loaded to say, it is bad that you oppose DEI because you didn't actually save that much money. That was her argument. And the line of attack was, do you know how much money this DEI stuff cost? And Kim Reynolds, the governor of Iowa, has a perfect response. She goes, oh, yeah, it wasn't about the money. We didn't get rid of it to save money. We got rid of it because it was bad. And we wanted. The only way the money factors is we wanted to reallocate resources to better things. But the issue was the principle. In principle, it was bad. She was reclaiming my. Shut up. Stop talking. Stop. I had a good argument going here. No, you actually had a bad argument going. And I'm just correcting you because you're misunderstanding what my motives were. Not reclaim. I'm reclaiming my time. Who is $100,000 or whatever. Yeah. No, lady, that's not the point. The point is completely flown over your head. That money sped. It was so good. So like, oh, Democrats, you don't even know what we're arguing about. Don't forget DEI was a major issue in this campaign. When people went to the voting booth, they were voting on dei. Trump did not hide the ball here. Democrats did not hide the ball. DEI was on the ballot. Most people voted against dei. Huge swaths of every population, the white people, the brown people, the black people, the people on this coast and that coast and up and down and everywhere else voted against dei. And Ayanna Pressy doesn't know. The Democrats don't know how to respond to that. They're trying to make these kind of technocratic arguments. Actually, it wasn't that expensive. And actually this percentage of the population, this means your state is unrepresentative. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No, forget your statistics. Forget the financial tabulations. People voted on principle here. This was an ideological battle in this election. We just rejected your ideas. No one likes that. That stuff ain't selling. Take that back to 2012, okay? Ayanna Pressley, that ain't. We're in 2025, okay, lady, your Jedi mind tricks don't work on us anymore. Okay, now turning to funnier differences of opinion. Snoop Diggity dog, I didn't want to miss this before we totally move on from the super bowl news cycle. Snoop Dogg, before the game, he ripped Bill Belichick. Because Bill Belichick, who is up there in age, I believe he's 72 years old. He now has a 24 year old girlfriend. Here's Snoop Dogg's little riff on it.

Snoop Dogg (42:28)

Cause I've been a football fan for a long, long time. I mean, I remember back when the Cowboys was good. I remember back when the Chiefs was bad. And I remember.

Michael Knowles (42:45)

What was it?

Snoop Dogg (42:46)

Bill Belichick's girlfriend wasn't even born.

Michael Knowles (42:56)

Okay, that's. I cut to her. She's a little embarrassed. She's giggling, wearing a somewhat revealing dress. I bring it up because it's an important lesson for all of you. I remember when the news came out that Bill Belichick is dating this girl who's like almost 50 years younger than him and said, ah, you know, she could be his granddaughter. It's not even, she's young enough to be his daughter. She's young enough to be his granddaughter. And I thought, that's humiliating. No knock on Bill Belichick. I'm sure he's a fun guy to hang around with, but I don't want to be that. No one looks at that and says, yeah, that's what I want for myself. Why? Because in principle, you think, especially if you don't take moral considerations into it, you just think, oh, man, this guy, he's like this older guy. He's got this cute young thing, 24 year old girl. Wow, that's every guy's dream, right? Except it's not. You would be embarrassed to go out to dinner with your friends. People would talk about you. Snoop Dogg would make jokes about you. Why? Because there's no escaping reality. And that is a lesson that pertains to. Well, we've talked about it a lot with the transgender movement. You see it really broadly with the LGBT movement, the whole DEI movement. So much of leftist utopian policies just come down to, man, you can't escape reality. You can yell, you can be really angry that I don't call you a woman or whatever, but you just. You can't escape it. You can't. I know you. I know you. Really, you're like a really rich, famous guy, and you're one of the greatest football figures ever in all of history, and you want to date this smoking hot young girl, but people will still make fun of you for it. Actually, it's still kind of dishonorable because even you, even you, Bill Belichick, you can't escape reality. A lesson for all of us to take to heart. Okay, before we go, just one little clip here. Chattanooga, a Baptist pastor has been encouraging his congregation to commit violence against Elon Musk and Republicans. Take a listen.

Snoop Dogg (45:06)

And in this nation, I'm worried that we are on the verge of bloodshed. This is an attempt to take us back to a day that we do not want to go and we will not go. Therefore, there will be conflict. I pray that the peace of God will win out and overcome the madness that is attempting to take over this nation. And I will say to you, beloved, no one likes violence, but sometimes violence is necessary. When Elon Musk forces his way into the United States treasury and threatens to steal your personal information and your Social Security check, there is a possibility of violence. Sometimes the devil will act so ugly that you have no other choice but to get violent and fight. Well, someone might say, now, Reverend, you know, you shouldn't be talking about violence. This is the Christian thing to do. Well, I will say, why not talk this way? Because Jesus did. Jesus said in this key verse, didn't he? The kingdom of heaven suffers what violence in the. Who? The violent. Take it by force.

Michael Knowles (46:25)

Okay, first, take reading scripture out of context has been a disaster. For the human race. Because I think it's good to read Scripture liturgically, actually. But at the very least, you have to read it within context. What is being described here, the ministry of St. John the Baptist is what's being described in that verse of Scripture. Not going in and shooting Elon Musk because you're afraid that he's going to cut some government programs or something. There is no other way to interpret what that Baptist pastor said. He is calling for violence against Elon Musk and associates because Elon Musk is following through on President Trump's directive to make the federal government more efficient, which is entirely legitimate and within the purview of the executive branch. Okay? This after Trump was shot in the ear, nearly murdered twice. This after Steve Scalise was shot and nearly killed at the Congressional baseball game. This after Rand Paul was beaten to within an inch of his life, had a part of his lung removed because his neighbor beat him up so badly. This after Brett Kavanaugh was nearly murdered by a leftist who came across the country to assassinate him and maybe his whole family in his home. And this is the kind of stuff we hear, frankly, this Baptist preacher's comments make the pope's comments on migration seem relatively mild. The implicit criticisms of the administration seem rather mild compared. You need to be violent against these Republicans. But this is what we've heard. We've heard this not just from preachers in Chattanooga in recent years. We've heard this kind of stuff from Maxine Waters. You push back on Republicans when you see them in public, specifically with regard to the Trump administration. The first time Hillary Clinton, you can't be civil with Republicans. Eric Holder, all these major Democrat figures said this. Hmm. Really, this is. This is a deep madness, a moral madness and maybe a psychological madness which some psychologists are actually reporting, but we'll have to get to that tomorrow. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowleskin at WLAS at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.