Michael Knowles (4:10)

Beautifully articulated, yet again. JD Vance showing his skill at just explaining what's going on in the administration. The administration is very good all around. They're doing a great job. I give them a 99.78% in terms of getting stuff done. They've done a very, very good job. However, they're not always the best at explaining what they're doing. Some of the departments are a little weaker than others. Vance is just a pro at it. And so he comes in and he points out. Hold on. The story you're being told is that ICE arrested a five year old. Did that really happen? No. ICE arrested an illegal alien who happened to have a kid. And because the illegal alien abandoned his kid in the freezing cold on the street, ICE also took care of the kid because this dirtbag dad left his kid to freeze his Five year old kid. ICE detained the kid and took care of the kid. So a complete inversion of the story, or I shouldn't say that because the left is cleverer than that. What the left has done is report a partial truth that tells a total lie. It is true. ICE detained a child. And to arrest, the word arrest just means to stop. So they arrested the child. That's a partial truth. That makes you think they're putting the kid in cuffs or something, gonna put him on trial. The rest of the story is they took care of the child because his dirtbag father abandoned him in the freezing cold. So you see how a partial truth can tell a whole big lie. This is what heresy is actually. This is what heresy. And when it comes to religion, heresy is just, it means choice. It comes from Heresis. So you choose one partial truth. But if you make the partial truth the whole truth, you tell a total lie. So that's what's happened here. But then the vice president goes further. The vice president says, okay, so they take care of this kid as the dirtbag father's running away. What would you have them do? Would you have them leave the kid to freeze on the street? No, what would you really have them do? What you would really have them do is not arrest the father. No one thinks the kid should freeze on the street. Even the awful leftists don't think that the kid should freeze on the street. But what they do think, and what a lot of them don't want to admit to you is they think that you should not arrest the father if you really push them on it. What they would say is, well, we need some carve out where if you have a kid, you don't get deported. If you have a kid, you don't get deported. First of all, you've now created a perverse incentive to have a ton of banker babies. But two, that means you're just not gonna deport basically any of these guys. It's just a workaround to say, yeah, don't enforce immigration law, have a wide open border, don't have sovereignty, don't have citizenship, let the cartels rape the country. Because why? Well, because when we go to arrest some of these guys, they'll probably abandon their 5 year olds in the cold and then ice will have to take care of them while they go get the dad. And you know, we can't have that. When you think about it, when you really think about it, when you look at what the picture really looks like, you realize the left doesn't have a leg to stand on. Once again, ICE acted perfectly correctly. This is the follow up to the Renee Goode story. How could ice? Why would ICE shoot this woman? Why? It's very sad the woman died. It's very Sad that this 5 year old's dad abandoned him in the cold. It's very sad that illegal aliens are imperiling their families like this. It's very sad. The cop was entirely in the right in both cases with regard to Renee Goode and with regard to the five year old, the cop was entirely in the right. The woman in the case of Renee Goode and the illegal alien in the case of this father and five year old. They were both entirely wrong. And yet it's a sad story. And what would you have us do? The only way to prevent these sad stories in the future is to enforce the law. These guys are doing exactly the right thing. That's the first left wing lie debunked. Second one that's been going around. This one's been going around for a while. This one's been going around since at least the government shutdown. Remember, you heard ad nauseam that illegal aliens do not receive government healthcare. The Democrats shut the government down. Then the Republicans say they're shutting the government down to give illegals health care. And then the Democrats say they are not getting health care. These illegals do not get one penny of government health care. Yesterday at the World Economic Forum, here is what Gavin Newsom had to say about illegals in government health care. Do you think that your party went too far or that you went too far? And I think, for instance, you know, in extending Medi cal to the California health care program to undocumented immigrants, like, do you. Oh, two different questions, I guess, on the big picture and the small picture. Do you feel like you went too far? Two different questions.

Gavin Newsom (9:25)

Do I believe in universal health care? Yes. Regardless of pre existing conditions, ability to pay and your status. I campaigned on that and we delivered.

Michael Knowles (9:31)

On that and I'm proud of that.

Gavin Newsom (9:33)

We're one of 16 states to provide care to people regardless of their immigration status.

Michael Knowles (9:37)

Okay, I believe in that. I believe in that. I believe in giving healthcare to illegal aliens. First of all, he says regardless of your ability to pay, regardless of your insurance, regardless of your status, meaning whether you're an American citizen or not an American citizen. Does he really believe this? Because if that were the case, wouldn't that mean that he would have to have California taxpayers and actually federal taxpayers, which we'll get to in a second pay for the health care? Of the entire world. A guy living in Varanasi, India, right now is not an American citizen. His status is as an Indian citizen, not as an American citizen. If what Gavin Newsom is saying here is literally true, then California should be paying for his healthcare. It sounds absurd. It sounds hyperbolic. That is literally what Gavin Newsom saying. Regardless of your status as a California resident, as an American citizen, we should pay for your health care. Okay, so then why don't we pay for 7 billion people around the world? If that were literally true now, if you tried to pin him down on this, he's, wow, that's ridiculous. I don't really mean that. Then what do you mean? Then what do you mean? You mean regardless of your status, as long as you're from California or you live in California? Well, that's not true. If some Guatemalan illegal alien came from Nevada into California and broke his leg, Gavin Newsom would say, we have to pay for that. So what's the limiting principle? He wouldn't give you one. The limiting principle that most Americans believe in is whether or not you're an American citizen. Which is why even the Democrats had to pretend during that whole government shutdown which occurred for this very reason, they had to pretend that that was, in fact, the limiting principle here is, do we have Hakeem Jeffries? Federal law prohibits the use of Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care act to provide health.

Gavin Newsom (11:46)

Insurance in any way, shape, or form.

Michael Knowles (11:48)

To undocumented immigrants, Period. Full stop. That's the law, and Democrats aren't trying to change that. Not one penny of federal taxpayer dollars goes to the health care of illegal aliens. Mark Kelly said the same thing. All these Democrats said the same thing, and yet Gavin Newsom admits it right there. And in fact, at the World Economic Forum, they admit it specifically because he says, Look, 14 states give healthcare to illegal aliens. And how does California do it? Through Medi Cal. What is Medi Cal? Medi Cal is the California healthcare system. So this is where the Democrats are gonna try to say, well, no, we said that no federal taxpayer money went to illegal aliens healthcare. The state taxpayer money might, but that's a lie, because Medi Cal is half funded by the federal government, which means it's half funded by the regular American taxpayer because money is fungible. So the argument that they have to make is, no, no, no. Illegal aliens don't receive federal taxpayer dollars for their healthcare, because even though they go to a fund which is half paid for by federal tax dollars, we just make sure that we take their dollars from over here. You know what we do? We keep all the federal tax the right hand side of the fund and then we keep all the state taxpayer dollars on the left hand side of the fund. And we make sure when the illegal alien breaks his leg, when we reach into the fund, we only grab the dollars from the left side. That's not how money works. That's totally ridiculous. This is why this argument that federal taxpayer dollars don't pay for abortions is so ridiculous. As long as the federal government funds Planned Parenthood in any way, $1 one penny federal tax dollars are going to pay for abortions. Because Planned Parenthood would say, well, no, we're just using those dollars to keep the lights on. Yeah. And because you get those dollars to keep the lights on, you can use your other dollars to pay for abortions. If you didn't get those dollars to keep the lights on, you'd have fewer dollars to pay for abortions because money's fungible. It's amazing. I mean, Newsom, this is making me second guess his skills because it's the problem for Newsom. He wants to be all things to all people. And the aperture is just too open wide. Right now on the Democrat side you have Commun Fetterman and that's the range. It's becoming a little bit too polarized. They're not as in lockstep as they used to be. And the left is much further left there. So he's trying to swing back and forth. We don't pay for health care for illegals. Of course we pay for health care for illegals. Do, do, do, do back and forth. But he's just admitted something that's really embarrassing. Republicans should run that in basically every midterm campaign. Yeah, of course. Fourteen states. Fourteen states pay for health care for illegals. Don't look good. They're not sending their best. And his sugar daddy, Alex Soros made even more of an embarrassment of himself at the World Economic Forum. We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about Boland branch. Go to bolenbranch.com knowles I love Bolen Branch. I have loved Bolen branch for what, eight years now or something like that. Our sponsor bowl and branches signature sheets and waffle bed blanket are the bedding combination that delivers that needed escape without having to leave the home. It's like you're staying in a five star hotel in your own bedroom. I have both of those on my bed. I just adore them. I've had the sheets forever. The waffle blanket is relatively new and it's just magnificent. You know, there are these little things you can do where you don't need to go. Stay at the Ritz Carlton every night. You know, there's little things you can do, these little indulgences, these little luxuries that just perk up your everyday. And Bowlen branch sheets and the waffle blanket, they're up there. You get a 30 night worry free guarantee. You will not need it. You will love them so much. Discover a softness beyond your wildest dreams. With Bolen Branch, get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bolandbranch.com knowles with code knowles Boland Branch B O L L a n d branch.com knowles code knowles unlock 15%. Exclusions apply. Alex Soros Scion to George Soros George Soros, the super villain, the James Bond villain of the global left funds all the worst stuff. All the prosecutors who let the criminals off the hook, all the furthest left awful candidates. Alex Soros has now taken over for the old man because the old man is like 93 or something. He shows up at the World Economic Forum. This is really his debut on the world stage. Taking over his father's enterprise, the most important left wing funding in the world. How'd he do?

Alex Soros (16:31)

Democracy is messy. I mean, you know, democracy is about contestation of ideas. It's about plurality. It's about people having different truths actually. Now, fundamentally, how society lives together civically in those contestations is you know, is obviously, you know, quite, quite, you know, quite tricky. But I think that if we play too much on this disinformation card, we're taking the responsibility away from ourselves to actually create a narrative that inspires people to vote and to believe, you know, in democracy and democracy, democratic institutions on the institutional part. I think that we can talk about institutions as these abstract things, but institutions are also about people. And you know, we just heard this point about untrustworthy people and we talked about things in the United States like, you know, like checks and balances which aren't written anywhere but are customs. And one man, Donald Trump, literally came in and just took that, you know, took that, took that all away, you know, so, you know, so, you know, but when I see this, you know, when I look at this, you know.

Michael Knowles (17:53)

I can't decide if this is Bart Simpson doing his book report on Libya or if this is Charlie Day arguing with the Harvard lawyer about bird law. I don't know. It's both, actually. I love this so much. This is the biggest white pill I think the global right has had in a long time. Since the second election of Trump, probably. So this is the elite. The elite forum for liberal globalist politics. This is supposed to be the guy, the Mack daddy funder of it all. Um, yeah. So, like. So what do you think, Mr. Soros? What do you. You.

Interviewer/Host (Michael Knowles or guest) (18:41)

What's.

Michael Knowles (18:41)

What's your take on this? Democracy is like, duh. Uh. Okay, go on, Mr. Soros. It's like we. It's like you all make up your own truth. Okay. Anything else? Yeah, duh. It's like. There's no. It's like checks and balances, which aren't even written anywhere. Just quick little fact check. They. They are written somewhere. For instance, the Constitution of the United States. They're explicitly referred to in the Federalist Papers explaining the Constitution. But anyway, go on. Duh. Duh. I need to stop. I need to stop. This is becoming cruel. It's cruel to think about what he did at the World Economic Forum. It's humiliating. Say what you will about George Soros. George Soros is a very smart guy. He's a very, very intelligent guy. He broke the bank of England. Okay? He's clever and he's been very politically effective. But, you know, the apple fell very far. A strong wind blew that apple far away from the tree. He shares his father's ideological principles, I guess, if he can even articulate them, his ideological inclinations or passions, but he doesn't seem to share the intellect or the competence. This is something I've talked about in politics. This is something I'm really pleased about with the second Trump administration, is we tend to focus so much on ideology. Does this person agree with me? We do this when we pick candidates, and sometimes we pick bad candidates because they seem like they agree with us, but they're totally incompetent. And the great thing about this Trump administration in particular is they've got the right ideas, they're on the right page, they know what time it is, and they're very competent, so they can actually implement it. This is a good sign. Best sign for the right wingers out of. Out of Davos. Things are looking up for us, man. This guy is not his dad. Okay, final little bit to debunk here. Speaking of incompetent leftists, Don Lemon, since he got canned from CNN, has decided to become, like, a YouTuber, I guess. I don't know. He's decided to become a man on the street troll. And so he's out now after he conspired with a left wing mob to violate the Face act and interrupt a church service in Minneapolis. Don Lemon now has shown up to, I guess. Is that Minneapolis? I don't know where that is. Is that New York? I don't know. Wherever he is, he shows up and he starts interviewing people on the street about illegal immigration, using the most childish left wing talking points. You've probably heard these before, even in your own conversations with people, with your lesbian cousin or with your, I don't know, your purple haired roommate or your, whatever. The liberals who you love, who are in your life, they've probably said something like, don Lemon is about to say. Listen to how to shut it down. Okay, Crossing the border illegally is not a crime.

Gavin Newsom (21:49)

No, it's not a criminal act. It's a misdemeanor.

Michael Knowles (21:52)

So why are they being sent back and saying that they're breaking the law? That's the point, okay, as somebody that.

Gavin Newsom (21:57)

We don't know if they're breaking the law because they won't tell. There's no due process. Where's the evidence? That's the whole point. And if they are breaking the law, most people will say, okay, then they need to go if they're criminals. But if they're not, why are they being rounded up and sent out? Especially when he promised to. To deport the criminals, and now he's not doing that.

Michael Knowles (22:16)

Yeah, I don't think we're going.

Gavin Newsom (22:19)

So.

Michael Knowles (22:19)

Misdemeanor is not a criminal act.

Gavin Newsom (22:21)

No, if you get charged with a misdemeanor, that's not a criminal charge at all.

Michael Knowles (22:24)

Then if it's not a criminal act.

Gavin Newsom (22:27)

Because we have different levels of crime, everything is not the same.

Michael Knowles (22:30)

So it is crime.

Gavin Newsom (22:31)

No, it's just different. We have different levels of. It's actually. I didn't say crime, but it's not a crime. You're not breaking the law. I mean, you are breaking the law, but it's not a criminal act.

Michael Knowles (22:42)

I love it. I love this woman. She's got a little bit of an accent. She's clearly not from here originally. And then there's this guy off camera because she's just believing Don Lemon. He says, a misdemeanor is not a crime. She says, really? And the guy off camera goes, yes, it is. Ask him if a misdemeanor is a crime. She goes, is misdemeanor a crime? He's like, no, no, it's not. It's not a criminal act. You're not charged with a criminal act. And then she goes, well, hold on if it's not a crime, why are you being charged? He goes, I mean, look, no, it's because there are different levels of crime. And then she astutely observes, he goes, well, so it is a crime. If there are different levels of crime and this just happens to be at a different level of crime than a felony, then you're admitting it is a crime, albeit a lesser crime than a felony. Well, no, I mean, it's not. And she just humiliates him. I mean, it's just so embarrassing. The libs will say this. They will say, illegal immigration is not. Is not a felony, which is also not true much of the time, depending on if you're a repeat offender or it can be a felony. But let's say it's not a felony. Let's say in the cases where it's not a felony, they say it's a misdemeanor. The obvious rejoinder is what this woman said, which is misdemeanors are crimes. And then they'll say, well, you know, there are plenty of other crimes that are misdemeanors that aren't as big a deal. I don't know, what's a version of a speeding? Really, really fast speeding, that could be a misdemeanor. Okay, so then the next follow up question is not to try to equate illegal immigration with speeding, because they can both be misdemeanors or certain drug crimes or what have you. Just ask. Okay, well, what's the punishment for that? What's the punishment for the drug crime or for the property crime or for the vehicle crime or whatever the misdemeanors, what is the punishment? They're gonna be different punishments. You say, okay, what's the punishment for the misdemeanor of illegal immigration? It's deportation, and that's it. It's what we're doing that is. But these illegals aren't getting due process. They are, you know, the first step in due process. Getting arrested. That's the first step. Then being processed differently depending on the crime, and then being found guilty, found innocent, and then you're out. Well done. Well done, lady. I don't know her name, but she did a great job. Okay, beyond all the debunking, big news. Marco Rubio has another job. We'll get to that momentarily. First, I want to tell you about Brickhouse nutrition. Go to takelean.com, use code knowles. This episode is sponsored by Brickhouse Nutrition. By the time the average person reaches 60, they have likely cycled through numerous fad diets and juice cleanses and the cabbage soup diet and the raw food regimen. And they've collectively lost and regained several hundred pounds over the years. You've probably done it without knowing that there's a name for it. Weight cycling. You lose 10 pounds, you feel great, then you watch them creep back on. Plus, a few extra half of Americans are stuck in this frustrating cycle. Doctors are now seeing it's not just disappointing, it can be dangerous. Truth is, most of us need more than willpower to break free from this pattern. That's where lean comes in. Unlike those expensive GLP1 injections, Lean is a non prescription supplement created by doctors specifically for this problem. The science behind it is solid. Lean tackles weight loss three ways that help you keep it off, keeps your blood sugar steady. No more energy crashes, that sends you back to the snack cabinet, controls cravings and that constant hungry feeling. And it helps your body convert fat into energy instead of storing it. I have heard reliably that multiple producers and employees at the Daily Wire have tried lean and they have been so impressed with how effective lean has been in such a short period of time. If you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace and keep it off, add lean to your diet and exercise lifestyle. Get 20% off when you enter knowlesakelean.com, code knowles k n w l e s@takelean.com Here we go again, baby. Poor Marco. President Trump posts to Truth Social Today I am announcing the United States intention to bid for the World Expo 2035. The great state of Florida has expressed strong interest in hosting the Expo in Miami, which I fully Support. Miami Expo 2035 can be the next big milestone in our new golden age of America. Now, hold on. You're already hearing this, Miami. Hold on. There's a new opportunity for America as a whole regarding the World stage, specifically one that will take place in Miami. Oh no. You see Rubio's reading this. He's just, oh no, my phone's gonna ring. It's about to ring. No, don't say the next sentence. No, no. I am appointing Miami native Secretary of State Margot Rubio to chair the efforts of coordinating and advancing this exciting opportunity to convene the world. We will create thousands of jobs and add billions of dollars of growth to our economy. In my first term as president, I fought hard to bring the 2026 FIFA World Cup. We'll forgive him for that though. And 2028 LA Summer Olympics for the USA. I now have the honor of hosting as 47th president plus America 250 G20 Doral and. And the G7. I look forward to the Miami Expo. Okay, so Rubio's got another job. This is great. I think two things are going on here that I haven't heard other people observe. The basic thing that everyone's observing is Marco Rubio's really competent, and this involves the world stage. He's the Secretary of State, so it kind of makes sense. He's already what? He's already the Administrator of usaid. He's also the acting Archivist of the National Archives and Records Administration. He's already, I think, the dictator of Venezuela. He's about to become El Commandante of Cuba. He's doing all these jobs. Trump is leaning into the meme. That's what's going on here, I promise you. President Trump knows about the meme of Marco Rubio sitting in the Oval Office getting all these new jobs. Oh, no, he's gonna have to be the new Ayatollah of Iran. Oh, no, he's going to have to be the new this and that. He's leaning into the meme. Trump is very meme y. He's very into pop culture. He's the biggest pop culture star we've ever had as President. The second observation, though, is Marco Rubio's already endorsed J.D. vance for president. So there is no evidence whatsoever that there's any tension between the two. But some of the markets are betting, is the nomination gonna be JD as it seems it is, or is it maybe gonna be Marco? Is Marco gonna enter into the primary against JD Is Trump going to pull his support from JD and put it to Rubio? You know, the left and the opportunist cynics on the right are always trying to look to sow dissension by Trump leaning into this meme and appointing Marco to all these jobs. It seems to me what he is saying is, Marco, I'm keep you really, really busy doing lots of stuff, specifically with regard to the world stage over the next two years, three years, because when you're doing all of that, the one thing you're not going to be doing is running for president. I don't think this. He's not dissing Rubio in any way. I think he clearly loves Rubio, thinks Rubio's very competent, and he's obviously right about that. But some people from the left and the opportunists on the right, who, for whatever reason, maybe they don't like Trump, maybe they don't like J.D. vance, maybe they're more Establishment or whatever. They really want Rubio to be the guy, you know, they're trying to suggest. Well, by President Trump giving Rubio all of these roles, he's maybe appointing him to be the next guy. I would say it's the opposite. Obviously, it's the opposite. He keeps focusing on all of these world stage roles, which backs up what he previously said, which is, I was actually in the Cabinet meeting when Trump said this. He said, rubio is so good at Secretary of State, I want him to do this job forever. I don't want him ever to run for another political office, which is a little blunt, but furthermore, it keeps him really occupied. Well, if you're doing all these jobs, the one thing you can't do is run a presidential campaign, which is fine. I don't think Rubio's angling for that. Rubio's already endorsed J.D. vance. The thing that's so beautiful, getting back to the competence point of the administration, is it works together very well. No one's gone down yet. No one really seems to be stabbing each other in the back. It's beautiful. It's harmonious. From the outside looking in, it looks harmonious, which you never get in presidential administrations. That's good stuff all around. Okay, speaking of new gigs, I have to get to this, don't I? I have to. Dylan Mulvaney. You remember Dylan Mulvaney. He is the guy who. He's a guy who pretends to be a girl, but he's really flamboyant about it. And he pretends that being a girl is just about being frivolous and shrieking and screaming and falling all over yourself. He had this TikTok series, 120 Days of Girlhood. He was a Broadway star, and he just loves getting attention. He also took down Bud Light by taking an endorsement deal with them. He gets a lot of attention. Anyway, he's back in the news because he has been cast in a Broadway play called Six about the wives of Henry viii. And he's gonna play Anne Boleyn. Hasn't Anne Boleyn suffered enough? Don't you think? Seems to me the wives of Henry viii, they have a lot of indignities, a lot of lopping their heads off, a lot of. And this is a bridge too far. However, if a misogynist and sexual deviant such as Dylan Mulvaney were going to appear in this play about Henry viii, obviously he should play Henry. Why would he play Anne Boleyn? It would make much more sense for him to play Henry. The play the Producers are now saying, this is awful. You know, we're getting all of this bullying. This is so transphobia. It's so awful. As if they didn't know about the controversy when they cast this guy as Anne Boleyn. As if that's not what they were after. As if that's not what Dylan Mulvaney were after. This is why he's doing all of this, is to get a lot of attention. And it's kind of sad because in a certain sense, his whole life is just acting, right? He's pretending to be something he's not. But in another sense, he's really not an actor. He's closer to a reality TV star than he is to an actor. And there are lessons here for all of us, actually, whether you're in the theater or not, which is what distinguishes good acting from bad acting, what distinguishes a real actor from, say, a reality TV star. It's the orientation of the performance for a good actor. Think of someone like Philip Seymour Hoffman, probably the greatest actor of the last 30 years, Philip Seymour Hoffman. If he would give an interview, they'd ask about his personal life or his political beliefs or whatever, and. And he would say, I don't want to say, because the less you know about me, the better. The less you know about me, the easier it is for me to become another character in your mind. And what is it to become another character? What is it to act on the screen or on the stage? It's to live truthfully in imaginary circumstances. What Dylan Mulvaney is doing is the opposite of acting. He is living falsely in real circumstances. It's an inversion. It's not that a man can't play a woman. Boys played women in Shakespeare's plays. But they're mistaking the circumstances. They're mistaking the stage for reality, and vice versa. And then, furthermore, Dylan Mulvaney is making everything about himself. It's all about his journey, his transgenderism, his misconceptions of what a woman is. So at a really basic level, it's not about Anne Boleyn. It's not about the play. It's not about telling the story. This is true. Whatever you do in life, if you're a lawyer, if you're a carpenter, if you're a cashier, if you're whatever, there's a good way to do it and a bad way to do it. For any job, whether you're a student, whatever. The good way to do it is to make your job about the goal of the job. You can seek fame and Money and power along the way. But the good way to do that is if all of those things are in service of the goal of the job, be it to write the law or, I don't know, run the store or to learn the book or whatever. If you make it about the thing, the objective truth, the thing outside of you, the greater good, you'll be doing your job well if you make it all about you. If you say, you know, I'm gonna run for Congress so that I can get really rich and famous, Nancy Pelosi's portfolio's looking pretty good. I'm gonna get rich and famous. Now you're a bad politician. If you say, I'm going to be in public life and maybe I'll get some fame and maybe I'll get some money, but it will be for writing good laws and advancing the common good. That's the right way to do it. You could do it in any field. And there's a good version and a bad version. That's true even in acting. And Dylan Mulvaney, he's making a lot of mistakes. No surprise. Okay. Much more I want to get to, but I don't have time because I got to get to the mailbag, which is my favorite time of the week. Before we do that, I want to tell you about Ridge wallet. Go to ridge.com, use code knowles. Guys need a lot of help in the wallet department. Okay? Some people I don't know these days, people that carry just loose cards. Sometimes I would. Sometimes I would know people. They'd tie their stuff in a rubber band or, I don't know, they'd have some frayed, disgusting leather wallet that was falling apart. Folks, I have the answer. I want to tell you about our sponsor, Ridge. These are very impressive wallets. They've got a unique, slim, modern design. They hold up to 12 cards plus cash. They're made with premium materials like aluminum, titanium, and minus carbon fiber. They don't fall apart in your pocket after a few weeks. There are over 50 colors and styles to choose from. You can find something that really fits your aesthetic. And what really sold me, one of the things that sold me is that Ridge products come with a lifetime warranty. So this is the last wallet you will ever need to buy. And they've got RFID blocking technology built in. Gives you peace of mind so that you're protected from digital pickpocketers. The physical pickpocketers you will still have to deal with yourself. But, you know, that's all right. They meet you halfway There. My kids also love it. My kids just love this. They think it looks so cool. They said, don't play with that. Don't throw that. Don't give me that. With over 100,000 5 star reviews, people love this stuff. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off of Ridge. Using code Knowles at checkout, go to ridge.com, use code KNOWLES. You're all set. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please let them know that it was me. Ridge.com, code knes.

Guest/Co-host (37:36)

Are you really not going to get to this?

Michael Knowles (37:38)

Get to what?

Guest/Co-host (37:40)

Potentially the most viewed drag show in world history in three weeks.

Michael Knowles (37:44)

Dillard, Mulvaney.

Guest/Co-host (37:46)

No. Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl.

Michael Knowles (37:49)

So I saw this. You sent this to me. You sent me the article. Bad Bunny, with whom I am not terribly familiar. Bad Bunny. Breaking news. Bad Bunny, who is best known as being a radical leftist transvestite, is going to wear a dress to the super bowl in furtherance of leftist politics. And you said this to me, and I was like, oh, yeah? Well, hey, breaking news. Dogs bark, birds chirp, sun shines. I thought, why would I cover this breaking Transvestite wears a dress. Stop the presses. News at 11. Why is that a news story?

Guest/Co-host (38:25)

Because it's not just on, like, TLC at 10:00pm this is the Super Bowl. Like, one of the most viewed things in the world happening. And the dude's just gonna wear a dress. He says he's gonna honor queers. That's the reason why he's doing it.

Michael Knowles (38:36)

Yeah, but that's what they all do. Barack Obama lit the White House up in rainbows. What's his face? Joe Biden. I forgot his name. Joe Biden invited some transvestite, I don't know, transgender, some version of tranny to the White House lawn. And he lifts up his shirt and shows his fake breasts. I don't. To me. Look, am I. Maybe I'm just too jaded by our popular culture. To me, this is not exactly a man bites dog story.

Guest/Co-host (39:02)

I'm just saying, like, would you rather have. If you are, which I know you're not watching the super bowl, would you rather have your son see that? Or, like, what happened with Janet Jackson on stage in, like, 2001?

Michael Knowles (39:11)

That's fair. You know, both degenerate, but at least one is not contrary to nature. You know, that's actually a very sophisticated point. What I want to have my kids watch is the TPUSA super bowl halftime show. Except I'm in a little bit of a fight right now with my friends at tpusa. I'm in a little bit of a. They don't even know it's a one sided fight, but I'm gonna fight because they announced the super bowl halftime show. They're gonna get all these musicians and yet what do the people want? The people want ukulele. I think what the people want at the TPUSA halftime show is your boy Michael playing the ukulele. Does my phone ring? Oh, hold on, let me check my no missed call. So anyway, enough about the Super Bowl. Huge news at the Daily Wire yesterday. Huge news for popular culture. We launched the Pendragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin. This was a multi year project, multiple continents. And it's the kind of story that I love. Wasn't some stupid ideological story which we usually get from the left, but even from the right. I hate that we do it on the right sometimes and I hate it. This is so much deeper. A deeply Christian story steeped in one of the great legends of our entire civilization. Before Camelot, before King Arthur, before the Roundtable. An amazing project. It came out beautifully. And with the Pendragon cycle, we launched a new membership tier. That would be the Pendragon Pass. You get your first month of DailyWire plus for free, plus three months of access, enough to watch the entire seven part series as new episodes release each week. This is premium storytelling without compromise. It's what Hollywood refused to make. Go to DailyWirePlus.com, start streaming the Pendragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin. My favorite comment yesterday is from Raith Senhar 1337, who says if he doesn't name it Orangeland, I will be disappointed. Beautiful. Love it. Because by the way, Greenland is not green. I've been to Iceland. I've never been to Greenland. But the irony is Iceland is green and Greenland is ice. And it's about to be orange. Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure talk@PureTalk.com knowleskennetw L E S. You will save an additional 50% off your first month. Take it away.

Listener/Caller (41:26)

Hi, Michael. Love your commentary, especially your religious commentary, but I've got a bone to pick with you about Henry viii. What he wanted was an annulment, not a divorce, which of course the Roman Catholic Church recognizes in principle. And so the dispute was whether or not the Pope has universal jurisdiction, not whether or not divorce is okay. Now, if the claims of Rome can stand, they can stand against the real arguments that the reformers were making. And I think that as we try to work forward towards unity in the body of Christ, we should engage charitably with one another's arguments. I think that's especially true since Roman Catholics have been so routinely mischaracterized by Protestants. And so I'm curious about your thoughts about that. Once again, love the show. Love what you do. Please keep on it. God bless.

Michael Knowles (42:14)

That's a very good observation about the distinction between divorce and annulment. Yes, he did end up getting a divorce, but what he sought was an annulment from the Pope. And what is an annulment? An annulment is when an ecclesiastical body declares that the marriage was never valid in the first place. So you don't get an annulment because your husband cheated on you. That's very painful. That's really terrible. You don't get an annulment because your wife went crazy. That's very painful and terrible, too. You would get an annulment only if the marriage were never valid in the first place. And Henry VIII was a serious theological thinker. So it's all the more painful that he, because of his error and his malign will, destroyed western Christendom. But he sought an annulment. Why? Because if I'm getting it, if I'm remembering it correctly, Catherine of Aragon had been married to his older brother. So in order to be married in the first place, Henry VIII had to get a dispensation from the Pope, which he did. Pope Julius. Right. And so he argues, well, because of consanguinity, because of. Was it Leviticus? Because of Leviticus saying, you can't marry your brother's wife. This is not a valid marriage. Give me my annulment. But then the Pope comes back and says, well, hold on. You got a dispensation for this? The question was answered. It's a little confusing. As Deuteronomy says, you should marry your brother's wife if your brother dies. So even the scripture here is quite nuanced. But after that, Catherine makes the argument she never consummated the marriage with the older brother. So it was not a valid marriage. A marriage is not valid until it is consummated. So you're right. It's a more nuanced question just than, like, big fat guy wanted a divorce. But I think when you get into the details of it, Henry doesn't have a leg to stand on. And so then it does become, okay, well, who has the authority here? Does the Pope really have this universal jurisdiction? And I would say Henry would argue he did. Henry would have argued he did before he argued that he didn't. That's why Henry appealed to him in the first place. Yes, the real story is always more interesting than the slogans. But the real story here, I think makes Henry even look worse. Okay, next question.

Listener/Caller (44:39)

Okay, Michael, so you just offhandedly said, you know, and sometimes I watch trash tv, you know, and you didn't say it in the past tense. You said it in the present tense. So now we must know what is a trash TV that you indulge in? What are your guilty pleasures? I will, to make you feel more comfortable in opening up, I will admit that my husband and I, and for reference, we're very similar to you, Melissa. It sounds like we go to a Latin novus Ordo. Our Christmas decorations are still up and yeah, blah blah, blah. We're very traditional Catholics, but sometimes we indulge in watching a little bit of Emily in Paris. Not a little bit. We're pretty much up to date with all the seasons, but we enjoy Emily in Paris. It's so decrepit and predictable that it somehow is hilarious and entertaining. So anywho, that's our guilty pleasure. I need to know what yours is. Ideally, actually, I would like to know what you and Elisa enjoy to watch together.

Michael Knowles (45:42)

Thanks. Good question. I watch very little tv. Not cause I'm better than that or whatever. Not cause I don't look at screens. I just doom scroll. That's my version of trash tv most of the time, however, when I watch real TV with Alisa because Alisa and I have very different tastes in movies tv, we're closer. But I did recently, I watch one or two shows a year, but we just finished watching one and enjoyed it very much. The Beast in Me. The Beast in Me on Netflix with that famous actress. I forget her name. The Beast in Me. It is pure garbage. It is such trash. But it's high class trash. Like it looks good and it's engaging. It's a thriller. Some of it's so clunky and just ham fisted. And it's just garbage. It's just garbage that I love. I was listening to an Elmo album with my middle son. Just loves Elmo. All these Elmo songs. And there's this song, I forget how it goes, but it's like a Broadway rendition from the trash Sesame street character. What's his name? Whatever his name is. Oscar. Oscar the Grouch. Yeah. Is it Oscar? I don't know. Whatever it is. And it's just about how much he loves trash. Like delicious trash. That's how I feel. About this show. It's just delicious garbage. Next question.

Interviewer/Host (Michael Knowles or guest) (47:12)

Hey, Michael, I've been very historically confused for some time now, and some comments you made on your show kind of hit at it. You mentioned how conservatives are very. Some conservatives are very cautious around MLK because what he stood for in the abstract was great. The political implementation was not. And that, I think, puts many of us in a very confused place when we observe that we agree with those historical facts, but then we have to reconcile them. You know, our Lord says we don't pull bad fruit from good bushes. Why did such a seemingly just cause produce so much problems? And how do we discuss this with those conservatives who are making the case that what was stood for in the abstract with MLK wasn't good? How do we make that case to them that it was? Thank you very much. Bye bye.

Michael Knowles (48:15)

Well, you gotta examine the premises a little. You know, I'm not an MLK hater, as some people on the right and the left are. But I think I look at him realistically, not through the lens of mythology, which is what we've made of him, because we've made him a secular saint. He has his own feast day on the liberal liturgical calendar. So when you say what he stood for in the abstract was great. Hold on. He was a racial identitarian and a socialist is what he was. We kind of forget that because he's most famous for one speech that he didn't write, the I have a dream speech. And the I have a dream speech comes down and says, hey, let's not be mean to each other on the basis of race, Right? Let's treat each other fairly and justly, regardless of race, which we all agree, all decent people, I think agree with. But the rest of the stuff, he was a socialist and he was a racial identitarian. And he. So even that stuff in the abstract was not great. But why did he come to symbolize good things, namely racial harmony. He did so because we have imposed a mythology on him that was not totally separated from his real self. I mean, some of his writing was quite good. He plagiarized his PhD thesis, his doctoral dissertation. But A Letter from Birmingham Jail is a very impressive piece of writing, and he's a very impressive figure, regardless of any personal failings. But the problem with him is the stuff that he got right. He got right incidentally, because liberalism, incidentally, gets stuff right. In other words, we think of him as this Christian leader, the Reverend Martin Luther King. He wasn't really Christian in any meaningful sense. He didn't believe in the Trinity. He didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. He was a liberal. Now, look, there have been plenty of great men throughout history who were heterodox or heretics or, you know, John Adams had a similar religious view to Martin Luther King. But Martin Luther King's real religion wasn't Christianity. It was liberalism. And liberalism is bad because it gets certain fundamental premises wrong. But because liberalism comes out of Christianity and is really a perversion of Christianity, it does, incidentally, get some stuff right. John Locke, who's the father of classical liberalism, he does get some stuff right. He gets a lot of stuff wrong, but he does get some stuff right. And so that's why Martin Luther King, incidentally, gets some stuff right as liberalism, incidentally, gets some stuff right. But because the premises are wrong and because the political ideology that is motivating him is wrong and therefore becomes wrong in implementation, it all kind of goes off the rails. That's why, if you want a real technical explanation, that's why it's not to totally dis Martin Luther King, certainly not to diss the mythology of Martin Luther King, which, as with most mythologies, is better than the real thing. But it's because it's a liberal. And so our ambivalent views, our mixed views on Martin Luther King is reflective of our mixed views on liberalism. It gets some stuff right, and we're familiar with it. And what if it were so simple, but in principle, it starts out in the wrong place? Okay, I know I'm running late. I don't care. Give me one more voicemail back.

Listener/Caller (51:34)

Hi, Michael. This is in regards to the penny. I own one of those smash pennies you get at the fair or the attraction. And mine has the Lord's Prayer stamped on it. And it comes and goes from my possession. I will lose it at times in a pocket or in a laundry cycle, and then eventually it will pop back up again. Well, it just popped back up again. And I find it curious because I've been wanting to see a psychic lately to try to find some reason or rhyme to the chaos that has been in my life. And I haven't gone to the psychic yet because of things that you've said, honestly. But I'm wondering, what is it that's so hard about accepting Jesus?

Michael Knowles (52:16)

Ooh. Really good question. First of all, I'm glad you haven't gone to the psychic. Don't go to the psychic, in part because you should save your pennies, you shouldn't waste your money, and in part because it's Deeply sinful. And the best thing that could happen at the psychic is that you are taken in by a charlatan. And the worst thing is you commune with a demon and let him into your life. So don't do that. What are you looking for? From the psych, you just told me. You said you want to make sense of the world. You think a psychic's going to do that for you? How would a psychic do that for you? Well, by talking to spirits or seeing the future or. Right. That's the only thing the psychic could do. Talking to the dead, maybe. Right. That's what the psychics promise. Reading your mind. Well, you already have your mind. You don't need someone to read it. All those things, even if the psychic can do them, are much less satisfactory, much less powerful than speaking to God, right? Surely a psychic communing with your dead grandma is going to tell you less about the world than God, who created and sustains the world, right? I'm sure your grandma's great, but your grandma knows less about things than God. If the psychic is communing with a spirit demon, by the way, but even just any kind of spirit, surely a created spirit is less powerful and less knowledgeable than the God who made the spirits, right? So you should talk to God and you can do that. But that gets to the last part of your question. How do we pray to God? Well, or how do we talk to God? We pray. How else do we talk to God? We avail ourselves of the sacraments where we believe. Christians believe that God is really present, really truly present in the sacraments. But then you say, why is it so hard to believe in Jesus? Because Jesus tells you you can talk to God and see God, know God and eat God. That you can really tangibly encounter God, have a real personal relationship with him, so personal that you can eat him. And that food which is figured in the manna from heaven is like food in all appearances. It is different in that when you eat most food, you break it down and the food becomes you. When you eat the flesh of the Son of man, when you eat that, you become like him. You become like God. It's a scandal. It's a scandal that God, who we feel more comfortable with at a distance. God's kind of scary, isn't he? You know, awe and wonder and sublimity. It's a scandal that he's really close to us, that we can actually talk to him, that we can see him, that we know what he looks like. That's scandalous to people. It's hard to pray to a man who is God. It's hard to do that. I think you would much rather pay the psychic whatever, 20 bucks and say, ooh, here's the I'm getting the message now from beyond. And whoa. And you put on a kind of big show. But the paradoxically prosaic nature of the ultimate glory that we have in the God man, where we see his glory in the transfiguration, the apostles. Three apostles see the transfiguration of our Lord with Moses and Elijah, and we see that. And also, he's a guy, he's. Wait, you're talking about Jesus of Nazareth. Wait, the guy. The son of Mary and Joseph, the carpenter. That guy. That's what's jarring for us. And it tells us something about our dignity as human beings. That's why it's so hard to believe. But it's much more real, it's much more tangible, it's much more logical than paying some charlatan or demon worshiper to go screw up your soul. Don't do that. Okay, on that cheerful note, it's a fake headline. Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You don't wanna miss it. Become a member. Use code Nolescannon Wles at checkout for two months free on all annual plans. What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God? Is that who you think I was alone with? Maradin? I knew your father. I am yet convinced that he was not of this world. All men know of the great Taliesin who are my father that the gods should war for my soul. Princess Garrus, savior of our people. I know what the Bull God offered you. I was offered the same. And there is a new power at work in the world. I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are each given only one life. Singer. No. We're given another. I learnt of Yazu the Christ and I have become his follower. He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one. Trust in Yaesu. He is the only hope for men like us. Fate of Britain never rests in the hands of the great life. Great light, Great darkness. Such things mattered to me then. What matters to you now, Mistress of lies? You, nephew. The sword of a high king. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield? So clinging to the promises of a God who has abandoned you. I cannot take up that sword again. You know what you must do. Great life, forgive. The time has come to be reborn.