LaMonica McIver (5:49)

This was.

Michael Knowles (5:49)

This was a male in a dress with brown hair. The guy's last name. Gotta give a hat tip here to Mario Naufal who pointed out that the social media profiles have trans colors, trans flags, trans pronouns. I think the guy's last name is Strang. Like strange, almost. Gnomon est omen. Gotta give a hat tip to Libs of TikTok here who points out that a family member has confirmed the trans thing. It's always the ones you most expect. I almost don't even want to say it anymore. This following the pattern that we saw in Minnesota recently with the attack on the Catholic school. This after the shooting that we saw in Nashville at the Presbyterian school. Covenant. Trans identifying people, going in and assaulting normal people. When I say it's always the ones you most expect. There's a real moral invective here because all of those shootings in Minneapolis, in Nashville and in British Columbia, if these reports are true, all of those shootings could have been prevented and would have been prevented until very recently because the people who perpetrated the shootings would have been institutionalized or placed under very serious protective care because they are manifestly insane. The proof that they're insane is that they don't even know what sex they are. Furthermore, they labor under a delusion that they are the opposite sex, a psychosexual affliction that is particularly associated with violence. Not even just in recent years. This isn't something we've discovered in the last few years that trannies are violent. This is actually such a common theme of history that it is probably the singular, the single most frequently used psycho trope in horror movies, including in the movie Psycho, by the way, and Silence of the Lambs, drawing from Ed Gein, the psychologically depraved, confused, demented shooter having this particular issue, all could have been predicted and stopped. Now, what some people are going to say, including the squishy people in the middle and on the left, you say, well, Michael, hold on, look, yes, it's true. A disproportionate number of these shootings are carried out by trans identifying people relative to their proportion of the population. It's an insanely outsized portion. Yeah, that's true. But look, come on. Are you saying that all trans identifying people are crazy and should be viewed as potential threats? Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm saying. And that is how society viewed these people. Until very, very recently and very recently, we have tried to disabuse ourselves of this perfectly just and justified prejudice. And they've killed a lot more people. How could I forget? Not just Nashville, not just Minneapolis, not just now in British Columbia. Many more examples. To cite the most prominent political assassination of our lifetimes, the assassination that just took place less than six months ago. The assassination of one of the great leaders of the American right, Charlie Kirk, carried out by a guy who I don't think he identified as trans himself, but his furry boyfriend certainly did. You don't need Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, okay? The people, the particular subset of people who are particularly divorced from reality, who. Who constantly are threatening violence against normal people, carry it out. Arthur Conan Doyle passed over that story because it's so obvious to everyone except the media and the authorities. The authorities whose job it is to keep us safe and to maintain order and to effect justice. The authorities who say they're never gonna figure out the motive. It's a shooting just like all the other ones, but we'll never figure out the motive. So stop asking questions and don't even report on the most salient fact of the entire case. Canada, man, what a warning. What a warning. America's evil top hat. But we're seeing those same sorts of things here. Okay? Now I have something nice to say about the media, if not nice, at least better than what we're seeing up in Canada. And that pertains to cnn, the New York Times, and ABC News, all of which are super lib. And all of which wittingly or unwittingly, accidentally or intentionally just had to tell the truth. We'll get to that momentarily. First, I want to tell you about Lovebird cereal. Go to lovebirdfoods.com knowles. You want to know what my cereal cabinet looks like? Open up the Knowles cabinet. It's lovebirds. That's what it is. Grab your cereal box if you do not have lovebirds and read the ingredients. I bet you're going to see refined sugars. You're going to see Red 40. You're going to see seed oils. You're going to see words that you can't pronounce. It's. Is that food or is that a science experiment? Big Food engineered this junk to drive cravings and make money at your family's expense. The founder of Lovebird cereals took on big food after his daughter was born. He created a cereal he's proud to serve his family every day. Lovebird has just seven real ingredients. It's all right on the front of the box. Believe it or not, they're Honey O's, which the boys love. Organic buckwheat, cassava, coconut honey, coconut sugar, vanilla, sea salt. That's it. Real food that you can pronounce. They it's organic, it's grain free, it's gluten free. It's packed with prebiotic fiber for gut health. No refined sugar, no lab engineered flavors, no stevia or monk fruit that trick your body. Just real ingredients. They're third party tested, glyphosate free. And unlike 80% of cereals, they can actually say that Lovebird is 100% family owned, donates 20% of profits to fighting childhood cancer. It's just a fabulous cereal and my kids love it right now. If you're ready to take your breakfast back, go to lovebirdfoods.com knowles Use code knowles for 25% off your first order. You can also find Lovebird cereals at Walmart, Whole Foods, Sprouts and major retailers nationwide. Lovebirds cereal. Join the real food revolution. Take back our country's health from big food, box by box. Folks, Valentine's Day is coming up. It's time to find out what your boyfriend, your girlfriend, your husband, your wife, your beloved actually believes. That is why we are running a Valentine's Day sale on the yes or no dating and relationships expansion pack. Over 100 new cards for the bestselling yes or no game cards like. Mr. Davies, are you there?

Guest or Interviewee (possibly a reporter or commentator) (12:54)

I'm here.

Michael Knowles (12:55)

Couples should have access to each other's social media accounts. Do you think that? I think that couples should have access to each other's social media accounts.

Eric Swalwell (13:07)

Wait, am I doing what you think or are you doing what I think?

Michael Knowles (13:09)

Okay, I'll do what you think. No.

Eric Swalwell (13:19)

I mean, I think you should. Yeah.

Michael Knowles (13:23)

Really?

Eric Swalwell (13:24)

What do you think you should share a bank account and you know, like who's spending what money and that kind of stuff?

Michael Knowles (13:28)

Yeah, you should share a bank account.

Eric Swalwell (13:30)

So is it okay that if they have access and it's like troll, should they.

Michael Knowles (13:33)

Should they have. Should they share a text messaging account? Should they share a cell phone?

Eric Swalwell (13:38)

No, it's like a single thread.

Michael Knowles (13:39)

Should they share underwear? Should they share. What do you. There's, you know, a little privacy is. Okay, you know what? I agree to disagree. I'm actually surprised. So you. Your wife has access to your social media accounts?

Guest or Interviewee (possibly a reporter or commentator) (13:50)

No, she doesn't.

Eric Swalwell (13:50)

I'll be fine with it if she wanted it.

Michael Knowles (13:52)

She doesn't. So. All right, that's ridiculous. You're cheating. You're stating something that you don't live out yourself. The one point I Will give you is. Women basically shouldn't have social media accounts.

Eric Swalwell (14:06)

Correct.

Michael Knowles (14:07)

They can have like lurker Twitter account. They can have lurker accounts. You're fine. But like, if your wife is posting selfies on Instagram, big red flag. You should not.

Eric Swalwell (14:17)

Yeah, like, my wife has access to my Instagram. Cause sometimes she'll, like, post stuff for me, you know, I think that's fine.

Michael Knowles (14:23)

She your assistant? What are you. She's your social media.

Eric Swalwell (14:26)

I'm busy doing this show.

Michael Knowles (14:27)

Michael. Bro, I don't. I don't know. You got this. I gotta probe your relationship a little. I gotta probe that marriage. Folks, these are not cute questions. These are questions that decide whether the relationship survives dinner. Right now, get 25% off only through Valentine's Day. Go to DailyWire.com shop. Add the dating and relationships expansion pack to your yes or no game. See how well you really know your beloved dailywire.com shop. Okay, I'm gonna say something nice about the media. The media on multiple fronts in the last couple of days has been forced to acknowledge reality. Beginning with one of the most controversial bills going through the US Congress right now. It's called the SAVE Act. We've had. I'm trying to think. We gotta get Mike Lee on the show again. We haven't had Mike Leon in a while. Senator Lee, great Republican senator, has this bill, it's called the SAVE Act. What is the SAVE Act? It's the Safeguard American Voting Eligibility Act. And the act just says you need to prove that you're eligible to vote if you wanna vote. Simple, right? This should be passed easily. Not only can they not get the Democrats to vote for it, because the Democrats want the illegals to vote so that they can rig the elections and steal them from the American people. Apparently, the Republicans can't even get the Republicans to vote for this. John Thune, who is the majority leader, says there aren't anywhere close to the votes, not even close to nuking the filibuster, which would be required to. To get the SAVE act through. So that idea is something, although it continues to be put out there, that doesn't have a future. Doesn't have a future. Making Americans prove that they can vote in order to vote. Safeguarding in the most basic ways. US Elections doesn't have a future, not just because of Democrats, obviously. They don't want to secure our elections because of Republicans, because. So, okay, you might say, well, some of these senators, you know, they're representing whole states and some of those states are kind of purple and you know, maybe it's, we gotta, we gotta hand it to Susan Collins and Lisa Murzkowski. You know, maybe this is really a controversial issue. You know, the Democrats hate voter id and maybe it's controversial among Republicans. Right, right, right. Cnn, you tell me the racial breakdown.

News Clip or CNN Reporter (16:37)

Okay, what's the racial breakdown on this? Right? Because I think a lot of people make the argument that people of color, non white Americans, have a harder time procuring a photo ID to vote. But even here, take a look here. Favorite photo ID to vote, 85% of white people. Favorite 82% of Latino. 76% of black Americans favor it. So the bottom line is this. Voter ID is not controversial in this country. A photo ID to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree with Nicki Minaj that in fact you should, should have a photo ID to be able to vote.

Michael Knowles (17:14)

Not controversial in the least. I was even surprised by these racial polls, actually by the partisan poll too. You see, basically every Republican supports voter id. But even go back to the top of the clip. 71% of Democrats, 71% of Democrats favor voter ID. 0% of Democrats who are in elected office support voter ID. The vast majority of Democrat voters, 71% favor voter ID. 95% of Republicans. Then go back to the racial one. It's a little down the clip. You have 76% of black people. This is the most reliably Democrat racial group. The group that we are told is specifically being disenfranchised by voter ID. More than three quarters of them support voter ID. You look at Latinos, it's even higher, 82%. We're told the Latinos are being discriminated against. Hard for them to get ID. And white people close to the Latinos, 85%. Everybody supports voter ID except for elected Democrats, none of whom support voter ID. Why? Because they are trying to steal elections. This isn't tinfoil hat stuff, folks. This is the only way to explain the discrepancy between elected Democrats, politicians, operative activists and ordinary voters. Basically everyone in the country supports voter id. The only people that don't are the ones who particularly work to run and win elections. Why could it be that they don't favor voter id? And what you're going to hear from the establishment media is, well, actually, you know, it's very rare for illegal aliens to vote in elections. It's very rare for people who are ineligible to vote in the elections. Right, sure. Okay. The libs have told you a lot of lies over the years and I'm not gonna go through the litany of them. I'm not gonna rehearse all of history. I just wanna take you back a few months. Do you remember when the Democrats shut the government down? The government shut the government down because they wanted to try to juice their numbers before some special elections. And the Republicans came out and said, you're shutting the government down in order to give healthcare to illegal aliens. And the Democrats said, no, we are not. Uniformly, they said, no, we are not. We do not give healthcare to illegal aliens. That is not true. That's a lie. By the end of the shutdown, the Democrats were inveighing against the Republicans. Cuz they said this is so awful. Illegal aliens can't get food, they're losing their healthcare, they're losing their SNAP benefits. They completely contradicted themselves over the course of weeks, not of years, not even of many months of weeks. They told you the illegal aliens don't get health care and welfare. And then they told you we have to reopen the government so that the illegal aliens can get health care and welfare. Again. The Democrats tell you that illegal aliens are not voting, but they were fighting tooth and nail against the vast majority of their own voters too to prevent voter id. Why? I think it might have something to do with the fact that the illegal aliens are voting. The Democrats are counting on the illegal aliens to vote. Even beyond the illegal aliens, there are plenty of other ineligible voters who are not illegal aliens. Voters who maybe are bused in from out of district. Voters who maybe because of felonies or other issues, are not allowed to vote. Regardless, they need to minimize ballot security measures. The only explanation, the only explanation for the Democrats to fight against their own voters on this issue is that they want to steal elections. If you don't get that at this point, I don't know how to help you. I don't know how to help you. Now before we move on back to reality, back to the establishment media just being flacks for the Democrats, one more little brief blip of honesty here. This from ABC News, you gotta hand it to them. ABC News ran this article saying that Trump told the police that everyone knew about Epstein according to an FBI document. So this is based on the latest tranche of Epstein files that came out and the libs are all saying Donald Trump's in the Epstein files. It's true. Yeah, he's named, obviously. He's like the most prominent person in the world right now and has been for 10 years. But specifically, he is named by the FBI as having called the cops on Epstein. This is not coming from the Daily Wire. This is not coming from Fox News. This is not coming from Breitbart or the Blaze. Not only was it printed in ABC here, it runs on television this morning.

Guest or Interviewee (possibly a reporter or commentator) (22:09)

A new document coming to light claims in the mid-2000s, President Trump called police about Jeffrey Epstein. Among the 3 million Epstein files released by the Department of Justice last month is a four page FBI report on an interview the Bureau conducted in 2019 with the man believed to be former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter. Reiter and his detectives began investigating Epstein for human trafficking in 2004. According to the document, Trump called Reiter around that time and said, thank goodness you're stopping him. Everyone has known he's been doing this. Reiter also says Trump said he threw Epstein out of his club and he was around Epstein once when teenagers were present and Trump got the hell out of there. The former police chief says Trump told him to focus on Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell, saying, she is evil.

Michael Knowles (22:53)

Did you have any suspicions that he was molesting young women, underage women?

Committee Chairman or ICE Acting Director (22:59)

I had no idea.

Guest or Interviewee (possibly a reporter or commentator) (23:00)

Trump has long denied having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes, but writer says Trump was one of the very first people to call when people found out that they were investigating Epstein.

Michael Knowles (23:09)

Now, this is amazing spin because ABC News, I guess you gotta give him credit, maybe they're reporting the facts, which is that Trump was one of the first people to call the cops on Epstein. Many, many moons ago, when Bill Clinton's palling around with him and Bill Gates is palling around with him and all the elite libs in the world are palling around with Epstein, Trump calls the cops on the guy. And that's not just spin coming from the conservatives and the people who support the White House. That's coming from ABC News. He was one of the first guys to call the cops on Epstein when he heard that Epstein was being investigated. Proactive measure. You gotta get this guy. You gotta get Ghislaine Maxwell, his madam. She's a facilitator. But ABC still has to spin it. So they go to some random press gaggle where they say, did you know the specifics of these underage girls and molesting and this and that? And Trump says, no, no, I didn't know all that. Now, even here, there's not necessarily a contradiction between, hey, I think Epstein was up to bad stuff. And I've seen him hanging around with young girls. And now that you're investigating, I just want you to. Here's what I know. There's not necessarily a contradiction between that and did you know that Epstein was molesting these girls in this place at this time? And say, oh, I didn't know that. It's not necessarily. He obviously knew something about it, but no one ever has really denied that. Regardless, ABC News has to take the libs are pushing this story. They say Trump was basically like running the Epstein ring or something. There's no evidence of this at all. All the evidence is contrary to that. The evidence comes out and says, oh, he actually blew the whistle on Epstein. He actually called the cops. ABC News runs it. And then they have to spin it in a negative way. So they. And Trump, he actually, he did the right thing. He was apparently like the only guy who did the right thing and actually blew the whistle on Epstein. But then later he didn't talk about how he blew the whistle on Epstein. That liar. That lie. He's a liar. He said, how do you turn. Trump alone blew the whistle on Epstein? How do you turn that into a negative story about Trump? And ABC News manages to do it even as they are forced to run the story about how Trump did the right thing. Okay, before we go, I know I said this would be the end of my plaudits for the mainstream media. One last bit. I have to get to the New York Times vindicating your favorite podcaster yet again. You know how much I hate to say I told you so. The New York Times coming out, admitting that they were wrong, that they have been wrong for many years, that marijuana is bad for you. We'll get to that momentarily. First, I want to tell you about Preborn. Go to Preborn.comKnowles Canada. Wles pregnancy can arrive unexpectedly. For those facing an unplanned pregnancy, fear and uncertainty can feel overwhelming. Past decisions and abortions may carry lingering grief that is difficult to navigate alone. That is where our sponsor, Preborn, steps in. These clinics offer compassionate support without judgment, providing honest conversations, accurate information, and a safe space to process difficult emotions and explore real options. One of the most powerful tools Preborn provides is ultrasound technology. Seeing a developing baby on screen and hearing a heartbeat can bring clarity in moments of confusion. For many, that simple appointment becomes a turning point, transforming fear into hope and uncertainty into confidence. Preborn walks alongside women through every stage of their journey, offering ongoing emotional support, practical resources, and community. The impact is real. Babies are born, families are formed, and healing happens. It often begins with something as simple as an ultrasound, one moment. That can change everything. And you can be a part of that change with a $28 donation to cover the cost for a mother in need. I personally support this group, and I strongly recommend that you give what you can. All donations are tax deductible. 100% of your donation goes directly to saving babies and building families. To donate securely to L250, say keyword baby. That's £250, keyword baby. Or go to preborn.com knowleskenwlas preborn.com/knowles Folks, the Epstein files. The Alex Preddy shooting Stolen Land. These are a few of the topics I debated with viral TikTok libs, Harry Sison and Chris Mowry on the latest episode of Bar Fight. If you've not checked out the full episode, check out this teaser. Harry. Where's Harry? Joe Biden was one of the most productive presidents in modern American history. We gotta boot him out. Most Americans agree with that. I think most Americans only enforce the law when I want. What happened to no King? She was shot, right?

News Clip or CNN Reporter (27:32)

You're right.

Michael Knowles (27:32)

When cops were being beaten and your daddy pardoned the cop beaters. Well, these were some of the rowdiest audience members we've ever had. Watch the full uncensored episode on Dailywire and thank you to all of our members. Because it's because of you that we can keep producing content like Bar Fight, which I love. I love this show. I've wanted to launch this show for a long time. We finally have it. It's kind of an expensive show to do. We. But it's worth it. It's worth it. I love it. That's what you want. You want that the debate in person, face to face, not just mediated by computer screens, not just on random college campuses. You want to bring people here. You want to actually subject these ideas to some rigor. I love it. I love it. Go check it out so that Bar Fight gets bigger and better and greater and handsomer and more beautiful guests. I love it. The New York Times. Where is it? Where is it? There it is. This is an editorial, so it's coming out from the full editorial board. It is time for America to admit that it has a marijuana problem. It's not just time for America to admit, by the way, the New York Times goes on to admit that it's time for the New York Times to admit, for the liberal establishment to admit, and for some people, even on the right. There are plenty of people on the right who enjoy the old devil's lettuce. You know what I'm talking about? Talking about the Peruvian parsley. Do you catch my drift? I'm talking about that California cumin, you know, jazz cigarettes. I'm talking about pot. Some people on the right, I don't know, maybe it's cuz they like it, they like taking a few puffs on the left handed cigarettes, but it's not good. The New York Times, even New York Times, one of the biggest promoters of legal marijuana says:13 years ago no state allowed marijuana for recreational purposes. Today, most Americans live in a state that allows them to buy and smoke a joint. President Trump has continued this trend toward legalization in December by loosening federal restrictions. You will remember that when President Trump was considering that, I strongly encouraged the White House not to do it. I love what the White House has done. Trump's the best president of my lifetime, no doubt about it. I say he doesn't get it right 100% of the time. He gets it right like 98.7% of the time somewhere it gets very close. But this was a misstep, I felt. This editorial board has long supported marijuana legalization. In 2014, we published a six part series that compared the federal marijuana ban to alcohol prohibition and argued for repeal. Much of what we wrote holds up, but not all of it does. There's the admission. Much of what they wrote does not hold up, by the way. But they say, actually though, we might have gotten it a little wrong at the time. Here's the key. At the time, supporters of legalization predicted that it would bring few downsides. In our editorials, we described marijuana addiction and dependence as relatively minor problems. Many advocates went further and claimed that marijuana was a harmless drug that might even bring net health benefits. They said legalization might not lead to greater use. Now it is clear that many of these predictions were wrong. Legalization has led to much more use. So one of the arguments made especially by the libertarians on the right is to say, hey man, we need to legalize drugs. Cuz if we legalize drugs, drug use will actually go down, man. We, one second you say, how does that work? The libertarians, they pride themselves on being so economically literate, they pride themselves on being so economically rational, and yet they don't even understand the most basic aspects of incentives and disincentives. It turns out when you legalize something, when you promote something, when you subsidize something, you get more of that thing. When you outlaw something and you discourage it and you punish it, you get less of that thing. It does not require a PhD in economics or statistics, probability, anything. It doesn't require a second grade education to know that fact. So what did they do? They legalized pot. They had this ridiculous idea that actually, actually use is going to go down because the taboo will go away. And then blah blah, blah, blah blah. And they said all these things and they weren't true. Actually, it's skyrocketed. Today the number of US residents who consume marijuana three days or fewer per month has gone up from about 2.5% in the year 2000 to 11 or 12% in 2023. It's like a 6x jump, 4 to 20 days per month. So you're chuman, like potentially 2/3 of the month. That's gone up from about 4% in 2000 to 15% over 3x rise in 23 years. And then number of Americans who are puffin, 21 plus days per month. So for all intents and purposes, every day, maybe multiple times a day has gone from 4% in the year 2000 to. Sorry, not percentage. These are millions of Americans that the multiples still hold. Obviously it's gone from 4 million Americans to 1718 million. Huge number. What is that 4x increase or more? It's just skyrocketed. So is that good? Has that led to no social problems? No. According to the New York Times says wider use has caused a rise in addiction and other problems. Each year, nearly 2.8 million people in the US suffer from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which causes severe vomiting and stomach pain. No, there's no side effects, man. It just makes you more peaceful and loving. More people have also ended up in hospitals with marijuana linked paranoia and chronic psychotic disorders. Bystanders have also been hurt, including people driving under the influence of pot, of course. And then I'm not even gonna read the rest. Cause the New York Times says, look, we were wrong. Everything we said was wrong. We don't wanna admit that everything we said was wrong, but everything we said was wrong. And so we need to rethink this. But we shouldn't go back to criminalizing it. They say, look, we want to admit we were totally wrong, but what's very important now is that we learn nothing from this. I think we should learn something from this. I'm glad the New York Times has been forced by reality to admit that they were totally wrong. The liberal view was totally wrong. The libertarian view was totally wrong. Because the libertarian view is substantially a liberal view. That's true. Now can we just learn something from it, please? Can people Please prefer something like a nice delicious mayflower, which just relaxes you, makes you a little sharper, a little smarter. Can we please prefer something like that for our recreation to the old Haitian oregano? Okay, now we turn back to the issue of immigration. Back to my new favorite member of Congress, representative Lamonica. Lamonica McIver, a Democrat who just asked the acting director of ICE if he's going to hell. We will delve into the theological musings of Reverend. The Most Reverend LaMonica of U.S. congress. Tonight we're going live with an all new friendly fire. If you've never watched one before, here's the deal. It's the only time and place you get me, Ben, Matt, Drew, all in the same place for an hour with the freedom to say exactly what we think, especially about each other. We take the biggest stories in the headlines, we discuss them, we debate them, we disagree on them a lot of the time. Yes. The live chat will be open for members, so you can jump in, be part of the conversation with us starts tonight at 7pm Eastern. Watch it dailywire.com or on the Daily Wire plus app. My favorite comment yesterday, and once again, Drummers workshop Norman's music. They didn't even send me all the comments yesterday. They knew this was gonna be the winner. And Drummer's Workshop Norman's music is probably the modal favorite commenter. Over the years, I've just picked him more than anyone else. And he writes that meme proves. This is the meme of all the Democrats in the Jungle Book or whatever in the Lion King. You know the one that was the meme where they put it was Obama's head on the gorilla's body and it was supposed to be racist, but all the Democrats anyway says that meme proves that in 2020, the left was a bunch of cheetahs. Cheetahs, that's very good. Okay. Representative Lamonica McIver, how do you use your time when you have the opportunity to question the acting director of ice?

LaMonica McIver (35:59)

Let me ask you some questions that you may be able to answer. Mr. Lyons, do you consider yourself a religious man?

Committee Chairman or ICE Acting Director (36:06)

Yes, ma'.

LaMonica McIver (36:07)

Am. Oh, yes. Okay. Well, how do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?

Michael Knowles (36:14)

I'm not gonna entertain that question.

LaMonica McIver (36:16)

Oh, okay. Of course not. Do you think you're going to hell, Mr. Lyons?

Michael Knowles (36:19)

I'm not gonna entertain.

LaMonica McIver (36:20)

Of course.

Committee Chairman or ICE Acting Director (36:21)

How many government gentlelady will suspend. A gentlelady will suspend, Chairman, as I. A gentlelady will suspend. As I said, the issues we're debating here are important to ones that members feel deeply about.

LaMonica McIver (36:32)

Thank you.

Committee Chairman or ICE Acting Director (36:32)

While vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative process, members are reminded that we must adhere to established standards of decorum and debate. The witnesses are here voluntarily. And I will continue. Remind. Continue, remind members that while oversight is important, aggressively attacking those witnesses personally is inappropriate and not in keeping with the traditions of our committee.

LaMonica McIver (36:53)

Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking a question. You all, you guys are always talking about religion here in the Bible. I mean, it's okay for me to ask a question, right?

Michael Knowles (37:01)

This is a novel pronunciation of the word ask. I know some people make fun because some people pronounce the word ask as axe. I'm going to axe you a question. Ms. LaMonica goes even further. What did she say? How did she. Can you just get the last few seconds there? How is she pronouncing that word committee?

LaMonica McIver (37:21)

Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking a question.

Michael Knowles (37:24)

Accent. It's an act.

LaMonica McIver (37:25)

It's not religion.

Michael Knowles (37:27)

You see, there's a subtle difference. Anyway, I'm sorry, I'm digressing. I'm being dry. The bigger point is this Democrat member of Congress is asking the acting member of ICE if he's going to hell, and he gives a perfectly fine answer, which is, this is totally out of order. I'm not answering that question. I might have answered it if I were in his position and given the answer as I see it, which is, well, I think that I will go to heaven eventually if I die in a state of grace, in a relationship of grace with God. And I pray that I do that. And I pray for a good death. And I hope that I don't turn away from God's grace before my death, because then I'll go to hell. That's really what I believe about it. That's what Christians traditionally have believed about heaven and hell. I would have given her, in other words, a straight answer because I don't think she's axing or asking or any other pronunciation of that word. This question, seriously, you know, Democrats will throw this stuff around. You think you're going to hell, you high and mighty Bible thumping religious person. You ever think about you're going to go to hell? You know that you guys are demons. They invoke demons. They evoke this imagery of spiritual darkness. They talk about hell. Do they really believe in hell? I really believe in hell. I think hell really exists. I think that it is possible. I think God has given us freedom and sufficiently respects our freedom that we can choose eternal separation from him. Which is eternal torment. I think that's a real possibility. And I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. And I do not want to offend so good a God. And so I do my best as I can. I strive to remain in a relationship of grace with him. Because at a very practical level, I think that the consequences of that are paternal. Does Representative LaMonica really believe that, or is this just some cheap shot about religion? Does Representative LaMonica support abortion? Just ask that question. Does Representative LaMonica support the wholesale slaughter of innocent little babies? Does she ever consider that that kind of support might be leading her to hell, which might actually exist and not just be fun little flourish for political rhetoric? I would put this right back on people. Notice how flippant people are about religion. Not just on the left, but on the right, too. They describe the demonic. You hear descriptions of the demonic all over our culture. On the right as well. And people are so flippant about this, they'll invoke the demonic, they'll invoke hell, but they won't follow those observations, those statements, to their logical implications. If evil exists, if demons exist, if hell exists, then God exists too, right? If God exists, He has a nature. He is being, actually. But he probably desires things, doesn't he? Probably desires things from us. If God exists, there is a moral order. There are good things and bad things. And we probably should strive to do the good things and avoid the bad things. And we should probably cooperate with God's grace. And we should probably take seriously revelation. We should probably seriously consider the implications of the incarnation, whether Jesus is who he says he is, what that means for our lives. People are very flippant about religion. And, you know, rather than say, well, that's out of bounds. You shouldn't bring religion up in a political hearing. Maybe this is a great opportunity for evangelization. Do you believe in hell, sir? I do. Do you, lady? Do you believe in hell? Let me explain to you what I think. Yeah, I think that what I am doing in enforcing the law, whether we're talking about immigration law or whatever, whatever controversial issue you hear from the left, I believe that what I'm doing is just. I think it is good. I think the civil authority doesn't bear the sword in vain. I think the civil authority is there, even appointed by God for our good. And I think that it is in the interest of the United States to defend our laws justly passed by Congress to deport the illegal aliens who are committing atrocities against Americans. I think what you're doing. Congress, lady is unjust. And if you want to get into the eternal implications of it, I think that you could be leading yourself down to hell. And you should seriously consider that. I don't think they would know what to do with that. When people invoke demonic occult imagery on the left or the right, maybe ask them like, okay, you think demons exist? That's good. Did you go to church on Sunday? Did you go to church? Did you go to confession? Did you read your Bible? You don't need to be judgy. You gotta watch out for the plank. In your own eye, of course, but this is a way to actually help people. You say, look, it's good that you recognize that the devil exists, but the devil's nothing compared to God. Are you doing what God wants you to do? You want. Look, you brought it up, lady. I'm not the Bible thumper in this. I mean, I'll thump it back, I guess, but I'm not. You're the one who brought it up. So you want to take this seriously? Let's take it seriously. It wasn't just lamonica. Representative Eric Swalwell also grilled the acting director of ice. Supposed to protect or will you side with the killers bringing terror to our streets? Mr. Lyons, will you resign from ICE?

Eric Swalwell (42:45)

No, sir, I won't.

Michael Knowles (42:46)

Why not?

Eric Swalwell (42:47)

Because, sir, that child that you're showing.

Michael Knowles (42:49)

Right there, the men and women of ICE took care of him when his father abandoned him and ran.

Committee Chairman or ICE Acting Director (42:52)

Gentlemen, time has expired.

Michael Knowles (42:54)

He never should have gone has expired.

Committee Chairman or ICE Acting Director (42:56)

I recognize John from Mississippi.

Michael Knowles (42:58)

If Eric Swalwell didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Eric Swalwell comes out and he uses this example that the liberals are always pushing and say, I've had a family member even send me this example. They say, you know, ICE arrested a five year old kid. Can you believe it? ICE arrested a five year old kid. I said, oh, that's. That's interesting. I wonder why they did that. Let me Google this for three seconds. Oh, ICE detained the five year old kid because his illegal alien criminal deadbeat father abandoned him on a freezing cold sidewalk. So ICE had two options. Leave the little kid alone in the freezing cold on a sidewalk, or take care of the kid while they go get his deadbeat, dirtbag father. What do you think I should have done? And that's what the acting director says to Representative Swalwell. Swalwell has got nothing on this. He has absolutely nothing. So he just comes back, he goes, well, he never. The father never should have been arrested in the first place. Yes, he should have. According to the law passed by the government body that you're a member of. Is that really now their argument, we should not arrest illegal aliens? I guess it is. I had this bar fight with Harry Sisson and Chris Mowry. And one of the funniest moments, the clip was going viral on social media. I was sitting there, I said, guys, I just wanna be very clear about this. We can debate the morality and potential future laws. I just want right now, should we deport the illegals? The law says that we should. It was passed by Congress. Members of both parties have voted for it. Borders are what delineate a political community. And the majority of Americans voted for this in 2024. Specifically, should we deport the illegals? And you know what answer I got? Humming a. Humming a. Humming a. Well, well, well. It's actually really nuanced. It's actually really complicated. I got the Swalwell answer because what they actually Swalwell is, in a way, more honest because he basically just comes out and says, no, we shouldn't. We should ignore the voters. We should ignore the law. We should let the criminals just fester on the streets. We should allow them to bring in fentanyl to kill 75,000Americans a year and to rape Americans and to murder Americans and to traffic human beings and potentially to vote in our elections. And we should just do that. We should just do that. Even though most Americans oppose that, that's gonna help us, the Democrat Party. So we're gonna do it. Most Americans think you should show an ID to vote, but it hurts the Democrat Party if you tamp down on voter fraud. So we're gonna oppose it. Okay. All right, that's fine. So much more to say. Cause I wanna beat up on some Republican members of Congress too, but I don't have time. It's Work from Home Wednesday, and I'm so excited about this one. I know I was a little late in assigning the homework this week. We used to have woke Wednesday, but I hated that. It was such lazy slop. I'm never gonna get off the producer's case about that. So instead, I changed it to Work From Home Wednesday. I think working from home is fake. And even when I've worked from home myself, it's mostly fake, especially if you have kids running around. Anyway, the one kind of working from home I really like is this day, because I get to assign some kind of reading, some kind of music, something that I really like. This is the esoterica this is for the Reims de la Creme. And this week we're going over one of my favorite stories. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual. My favorite Sherlock Holmes story. If you're not a member, you don't get it. And this story is profound in what it means to be a conservative. If you want to see it, you got to go. Subscribe to Daily Wire. Download the app. Get the app on your tv. Subscribe. The show continues now. Become a member. Use code knowleskenwlas at checkout for two months, free on all annual plans.

Voice Actors or Characters in a Dramatic Reading (46:45)

What was it like, Marlon, to be alone with God? Is that who you think I was alone with?

Michael Knowles (47:00)

Martin? I knew your father. I am yet convinced that he was not of this world.

Voice Actors or Characters in a Dramatic Reading (47:07)

All men know of the great Taliesin.

Michael Knowles (47:11)

You are my father.

Voice Actors or Characters in a Dramatic Reading (47:12)

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 pirate work in the world.

Michael Knowles (47:29)

I've seen it.

Voice Actors or Characters in a Dramatic Reading (47:31)

A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are each given only one life.

Michael Knowles (47:35)

Singer. No.

Voice Actors or Characters in a Dramatic Reading (47:37)

And we're given another. I learned of Yazu the Christ. And I have become his follower.

Michael Knowles (47:45)

He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one.

Voice Actors or Characters in a Dramatic Reading (47:49)

Trust in Yezu. He is the only hope for men like us. Hate to Bruce. Never rests in the hands of the great light. 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 light, forgive me. The time has come to be reborn.