Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:01]
Michael Knowles
So good, so good, so good. New spring arrivals are at Nordstrom Rack stores. Now get ready to save big with up to 60% off rag and bone,
- [00:10]
Anna Paulina Luna
Marc Jacobs, free people and more.
- [00:13]
Michael Knowles
How did I not know Rack has Adidas? Cause there's always something new.
- [00:16]
Anna Paulina Luna
Join the Norty Club to unlock exclusive discounts. Shop new arrivals first and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at
- [00:23]
Michael Knowles
your favorite Rack store for free. Great brands, great prices.
- [00:27]
Anna Paulina Luna
That's why you rack.
- [00:30]
Michael Knowles
The Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship and gay conversion therapy. Then speaking of aliens and weird sex stuff, sitting members of Congress seem to back up Matt Gaetz's claims of extraterrestrial human breeding programs. Didn't totally see that one coming. And President Trump fires his Attorney general. This is just the second major firing of the second Trump administration as the Iran war finishes up its fifth week. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Big news in the trial of Charlie Kirk's alleged murderer, Tyler Robinson. We will get to that. So much chatter about all sorts of extraneous things related to that most significant political event of last year, really, as far as I'm concerned, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And yet now we're finally getting down to the brass tacks. The real consequences, how justice could be served and how the political order could be reshaped. We'll get to that momentarily. First, though, I want to tell you about Cardiff. Go to Cardiff Co Knowles. There are more than 36 million small businesses in America. Over 70% of them need more capital just to keep things moving each year. So the irony is the business is booming, revenue is at record highs, and yet the big banks are clamping down harder than ever, dragging their feet with miles of paperwork and approval processes that take weeks, sometimes months. You might have the great business idea. Small business, obviously so important to the American economy and these people can't get money. This is a perfect example of how our financial system talks a big game about supporting entrepreneurs, but rarely makes it easy for them to succeed. Now, if you want bank rates without the bank delays, you need to check out Cardiff co Knowles K N A W L E S. You can get up to $500,000 in same day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in America. It's already funded more than $12 billion since 2004. If you want bank rates without the bank delays, you gotta go check it out right now. Banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loans. Cardiff does. If you have Been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue. Apply now for $500,000 in same day business funding at Cardiff Co Knowles. That is Cardiff Co Knowles Real growth fast funding. Cardiff Borrow better. Okay, right off the bat, before we get to the Supreme Court cases and alien breeding programs and all the rest, Pam Bondi's out. The Attorney General. This is only the second major firing of the top level of the Trump administration this go around. The first one was just a week or so ago. Kristi Noem out as Secretary of Homeland Security. More than one week now. I guess it's been a little bit. This one is also not a surprise. The Kristi Noem firing was not a surprise and the Pam Bondi firing not a surprise. Kristi Noem, because there had been a lot of heat on the deportations, especially after Minnesota, after the left more or less threatened civil war and made a big case about how that lady and then the rabble rouser guy were killed in altercations with the police. The handling of all that, it just, it wasn't great for the Trump administration. So no surprise that Kristine Holmes moved out of that role. And after that everyone was saying, okay, how much longer does Pam Bondi have? The reporting is that Bondi was fired because the Swalwell investigation leaked. Congressman Eric Swalwell, the once and future Democrat presidential candidate now running for governor of California, probably illegally. Swalwell allegedly had an affair with a Chinese spy named Fang Fang. And just a few days ago that news leaked, according to the reporting. So this is hearsay upon hearsay, upon rumors, upon gossip, upon reporting. President Trump thought that maybe Pam Bondi was behind that. I don't know if that's true or not. I never believe mainstream reporting, or at least I don't take it at face value. The fact is this is no surprise at all. This was coming regardless of Fang Fang or Eric Swalwell. And the reason for that is that the biggest fumble of last year for the Trump administration was the handling of the Epstein files, the binders and the reports that the files were on the Attorney General's desk, the list of the clients. But then there was no list of clients and then the whole thing was a fumble. I'm not saying it was all Pam Bondi's fault. It might not have been Pam Bondi's fault, but regardless, she was at the top of that. And so certainly after the shakeup at dhs, Bondi was the weakest link. She's out. The takeaway for me from the Bondi firing is that she lasted a really long time. That's the same thing I would say about Kristi Noem. She lasted a really long time. And more than whatever that says about the two women, it's what it says about this Trump administration. In the first Trump administration, President Trump was firing people after five minutes on Twitter. This time he's given a lot more grace because I think of the importance of having cohesion in the administration. All the libs wanna do and some actors on the right is find division within the Trump administration. Trump has fought that. He's been super disciplined about it. He's obviously learned a lot since the first administration. And so, okay, she made it over a year. This is the time that the White House gets shaken up, business moves along. Speaking of legal issues, big, big cases at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now hearing this case about birthright citizenship. We have had birthright citizenship in this country as a matter of Supreme Court precedent since at least the 1890s. And this comes from the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, which really was just intended to guarantee the citizenship rights of former slaves. But it has been expansively interpreted since then. And actually it goes back even before the 14th Amendment because of the inheritance from English common law of the notion of a right deriving from the soil, that someone who was born on English soil would be a subject of the King of England. And so our notion of birthright citizenship, even before the 14th Amendment comes from that. However, times change and we'll get to what that even looks like today in England, which is where we get the notion of birthright citizenship from. But just on the case. The case is Trump versus Barbara. Barbara is a pseudonym for a Honduran illegal alien challenging President Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship. They heard oral arguments at the Supreme Court. And here is the newest Supreme Court justice, the left wing, Ketanji Jackson, a woman who during her confirmation hearings could not tell Senator Blackburn what a woman is, cuz she giggled and said she's not a biologist. Ketanji Jackson, arguably not the most qualified jurist we've ever had on the Supreme Court. Some would say not the brightest bulb in the candelabra. Here is Ketanji Jackson arguing against the Trump administration's claim that the birthright citizenship as it's currently enforced doesn't make a lot of sense.
- [08:08]
Solicitor General / Legal Expert
I was thinking about this, and I think they. There are various sources that say this that you can have. You obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other, other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I'm, I'm. I, U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, that if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on. Even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that.
- [09:16]
Michael Knowles
What, what are we talking about? You're saying that because a person in the United States, whether he's a tourist, whether he's an illegal alien, whether he's an. Because a person who's in the United States has to obey American laws, therefore he's entitled to birthright citizenship or his children would be entitled to birthright citizenship because he is, in that sense, by respecting the laws of another country, he is, in that sense loyal to that country. He has allegiance to that country. He is subject to the jurisdiction of that country. That's even if he's a foreign national. That's your best argument, Libs. Your best argument is that if Ketanji Jackson got mugged in Japan, there would be criminal proceedings over that. Therefore America doesn't have any right to delineate citizenship. That's your best argument. It goes on. It gets better. Ketanji Jackson moves beyond the now infamous wallet stolen in Japan argument for birthright citizenship to the notion that, that babies can establish domicile in foreign countries.
- [10:28]
Solicitor General / Legal Expert
Your view of this turns on what the status of the parents are and not the child, as would the born in the United States view of it. Can you help us understand why we wouldn't expect to see a mention of parents in the text of this amendment?
- [10:47]
Michael Knowles
I think it was well understood that for, for example, children cannot, you know, newborns cannot form domicile. So it follows every 19th century that
- [10:55]
Solicitor General / Legal Expert
assumes domicile is in the test. And I'm asking you, how do we know that Congress did adopt the test that you say it adopted?
- [11:03]
Michael Knowles
When you're looking at 19th century conceptions of allegiance, the notion that the allegiance, again you say domicile, is instantiating the concept of allegiance for aliens as opposed to citizen, all of that the 19th century understands the newborns domicile. Its allegiance follows the allegiance of the parents, and I point out that their theory relies on parental allegiance as well, because they recognize the exceptions for, you know, hostile invading armies, for tribal Indians, for ambassadors. Again, the child's allegiance status, even on their view. Well, how do you know? Okay, so the question here on domicile is, refers to a person's home in a person's homeland to establish the place where, when you go somewhere else for a while, you intend to return to that place. Establishing domicile in the United States. So foreigners who are Honduran or Nicaraguan or whatever, if they come to the United States illegally, they're still foreign nationals, right? Their home is still Nicaragua or Honduras. And then they come here and they have an anchor baby. And according to the current practice of American law, the baby is now an American citizen. The baby will be able to bring not only the parents, but the extended family to the United States. And it's a sneaky way to get into the country. And the government is pointing out, well, this is pretty silly. Babies can't establish domicile, right? And Ketanji Jackson says, well, why not? Scratching it. Why not? I mean, what makes you think that? And then the Solicitor General has to go in and describe what everybody always knew for all of history and specifically has to go in and explain what domicile meant and what all of these legal terms meant in the 19th century. And let me just. Let me just get to the question here. Can we acknowledge that this is a problem? Can we acknowledge that this is a serious problem? I should hope that we can, but I'm not totally sure that we can. We'll get to that in one second. First, though, I want to tell you about cow guys. Go to cowguys.com folks. I cannot give a better endorsement of cow guys than this. Sweet little Elisa endorses Cow guys. Sweet little Elisa has impossibly high expectations, as you can see. As you can see. You know, and no, I failed to meet those expectations frequently. You know what doesn't fail? Cow guys. Big Pharma ruined your skin. Can you pronounce every ingredient on your lotion bottle? Does your moisturizer read like a lab report? What big Pharma did to food, they did to skincare too. They ruined it. They used slick marketing to convince us to rub industrial byproduct on our faces. Skin issues, super common nowadays. Everyone knows someone, at least, who's struggling with bad skin or some kind of skin condition. Guess what we used to use? We used to use tallow for generations before the chemical companies took over Cow Guys, tallow is great. Sweet little Lisa tallow pilled me when it comes to underarms, I didn't think it would work. I like to use the poisonous stuff. And then there's the natural stuff. That really doesn't work. No, no, the tallow. That's the perfect blend. It's natural, but it actually works. Look up Cowguys right now. Cowguys.com, get your tallow bomb. Get mini tallow bomb for free. No special code needed. That is three to four months of moisturizer for 34 bucks. Search cowguys.com, get free tallow bomb with your order. Can we acknowledge that this is a problem? That this is kind of silly, that now you have a huge proportion of births in the United States born to foreign nationals who are cheating the immigration system. Can we establish that? Can we establish where we get the concept of birthright citizenship from? Which is. We get it from the British. The idea of a distinction between the jus soli, the right of the soil, and the jus sanguines, the right of blood. You know, the notion that you get your citizenship from the blood of your parents versus you get your citizenship because you were born on certain soil, well, we get it from the English common law. Guess what? The English, the Brits have not had use solely right of the soil birthright citizenship since 1983. So even they recognize there's a problem. Can we recognize that there's a problem? Here's a little proof hat tip here to Western Lensman 2020. Here's a little proof Western Lensman who posted this clip in 2020. There are anchor baby farms that are breeding paperwork, Americans that have been operating in this country for years.
- [15:28]
Solicitor General / Legal Expert
Crackdown on an alleged anchor baby ring on Long Island.
- [15:32]
Michael Knowles
Prosecutors say more than 100 pregnant women from Turkey came here to give birth,
- [15:37]
Solicitor General / Legal Expert
so their children were instantly granted U.S. citizenship.
- [15:40]
Tim Burchett
Investigators say the women then used benefits like Medicaid. So CBS2's Carolyn Gossoff reports from Suffolk County.
- [15:47]
Michael Knowles
An alert Smithtown town employee noticed a strange pattern of birth certificates. Five babies from one house at one time. An investigation led to an international fraud scheme, an alleged birth tourism ring operating on Long island for three years.
- [16:02]
Tim Burchett
The defendants fraudulently facilitated the births in the United states of approximately 119 Turkey Turkish children. And those children now hold birthright U.S. citizenship.
- [16:14]
Michael Knowles
It's the 14th amendment that grants citizenship to any child born in the U.S. officials say in this case, ringleaders brazenly advertised in Turkey. Translation, if you believe your baby should be born in the USA and become an American citizen. You're in the right place. This is a business. This is an industry. They do this in China, too. There was a bust of a Chinese version of these birthing farms in 2013. So can we acknowledge that this is a problem? Yes. Where does the problem derive from? It derives from what is now an outmoded conception from the English common law, so much so that the English got rid of it, and from abuse of the 14th Amendment, which has been perverted way beyond its intention to now declare anyone from Nicaragua that wants to be an American an American, or China or Turkey or anywhere else. Can we acknowledge that? Okay, if that's the case, what's the solution? The solution, very obviously, is to circumscribe birthright citizenship. You don't even need to get rid of it entirely. You just need to circumscribe it. And you can even do that from within the text of the 14th Amendment, which makes exclusions, which the Solicitor General pointed out, the legislators of the 19th century always understood that there were exclusions. Okay, that's what we should do. That's the reasonable thing to do. I hope that the more reasonable liberal jurists on the court, and certainly that the conservative jurists on the court, who are often very disappointing, I hope that they get that this is an existential problem for the country. If the country can't determine who is a citizen, there is no country. Speaking of Supreme Court cases, another big one, not just oral arguments, but we actually got a decision in a case just a few days ago, Chiles versus Salazar. This was a highly controversial case on conversion therapy, so called conversion therapy in Colorado. What is conversion therapy? Therapy? Conversion therapy is a term of derision. It's a polemical term used to stigmatize psychological therapy that suggests in any way that LGBTQ identity is not the most desirable thing in the world. And so if a patient goes to a therapist and says, hey, I have these unwanted intrusive sexual thoughts, be they gay or trans or whatever, anything within the LGBT umbrella, I have these intrusive thoughts. They're really bothering me, and I would like some kind of talk therapy to help reduce these unwanted thoughts. If the therapist in Colorado, until just a few days ago, if the therapist said, okay, I'm willing to help you talk through these things, that therapist could lose his license, because that would be. So called conversion therapy, and that would be terrible. Now, mind you, if a patient went into a therapist and said, hey, I want to identify as the opposite sex. I want to be gay, I want to cultivate various LGBTQ desires. And the therapist said, great, let me help you with that. I'm gonna call you by the opposite pronouns, and I'm going to. I don't know, I'm gonna just talk about a bunch of weird sex stuff and encourage you in that journey. That would be totally fine. So that kind of conversion, the conversion visibly from a man to a woman, that's totally fine. That's not conversion therapy somehow, but to tell the man that he's actually a man. The man who comes to the therapist says, I want to know that I am a man, but I feel like I might be a woman sometimes, but I want to know that I'm a man. And the therapist says, well, don't worry. Okay, that's fine. You are a man. That's conversion therapy. Little crazy, right? So the Supreme Court ruled on this and they ruled to overturn the Colorado ban on so called conversion therapy. But that's not even the best part. That's good. Obviously, you have to do that. All therapy is conversion therapy. A point I've made for many years. The only reason that you go to a therapist is to convert in some way to change your mind. You have a psychological affliction and you want something to change. You want a conversion of your psyche. But only some types of conversions are allowed. Other conversions are not allowed. And just coincidentally, the way it works is if you convert according to a leftist framework of the mind in the world, that's fine. And if you convert according to a normal or traditional or commonsensical view of the world, that's not allowed. So the best part of this decision is that it was nearly unanimous. I say nearly unanimous because who was on the opposite side, 8 to 1, who was the one? You guessed it. The woman who doesn't know what a woman is. That would be Ketanji Jackson, the newest member of the Supreme Court. Now, the reason that the Supreme Court found that the conversion therapy ban is illegal or unconstitutional is because it constitutes what's called viewpoint discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination. Saying that the law is weighing in on ideological matters and it is promoting certain viewpoints and discouraging other viewpoints, and that's not allowed. And so, weirdly, this sounds strange to say it. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to Ketanji Jackson here. She made the wrong decision. She doesn't understand the law. But I'm somewhat sympathetic because I think the very notion of viewpoint neutrality, the idea that the law cannot discriminate based on viewpoints, is kind of silly. Just as a matter of jurisprudence and history. The notion of viewpoint neutrality only really entered our law in 1995. This is not something that goes back to the English common law, to Blackstone, to the late 18th century or the 19th century. This is very, very recent and it's pretty live and it's kind of silly. So like Ketanji Jackson, I am much more open to limits on speech. I think that's much more in American jurisprudence and the American tradition and just in the nature of how speech operates. That said, this woman's arguments are ridiculous. Elena Kagan, a very left wing member of the Supreme Court, was mocking Justice Jackson's arguments in this case. This woman just has no grasp on the law. Ketanji Jackson has no grasp on the law. She has no grasp on formal logic or informal logic. She clearly doesn't understand the matters that she's supposed to deliberate on. Indeed, she doesn't understand what a woman is. And so this is a further point, I guess, where I differ from the originalists or the textualists, and I embrace more of a conservative jurisprudential tradition, is if you saw this case two years ago, three years ago, whenever Katanji Jackson was appointed to the court, it would have been a unanimous decision. The libs and the conservatives agree on this. It's not, this is, it's crazy, based on American law, that this law in Colorado would pass. However, if you had a court full of Ketanji Jacksons, the American jurisprudence would be shredded. The court wouldn't even know what it was talking about, but it would just rule in a highly ideological, radical, left wing way. And the scary thing is, especially if we get a Democrat President In 2029, you're gonna get more Ketanji Jacksons. It's not just that the court is getting more liberal, it's that the liberals are getting, how do I say this in a way that doesn't engage in the sin of detraction. They're not sending their best. The liberals are getting much worse. Even just as a matter of competence, as understanding the job beyond even ideology, they're not what they once were. There is no comparison between a Ketanji Jackson and an Elena Kagan or even between a Ketanji Jackson and a Sonya Sotomayor, who again, herself is not exactly Blackstone. Okay, really sad, really silly. The Supreme Court is supposed to be this kind of rock solid element that restrains the passions of the other parts of the government. The executive, which is the thumotic, the spirited part of the government, and the Congress, which is the appetitive part of the government responds to the pathos of the people and the Supreme Court is supposed to be rock solid. And when you fill the court up with Ketanji Jacksons, that's going away. Cuz we already know that the other branches of government can get a little bit kooky, as we saw the other day when Matt Gaetz, former congressman, came out and he said, hey, there are alien breeding programs where extraterrestrials and humans are breeding. They're actually like raping each other. And the US Military is overseeing this. And I've been briefed on that. I said, you know, I said this from NASA. I said, I'm a little skeptical. Now. A sitting member of Congress is not contradicting Matt Gaetz. We'll get to what he said. We'll get to what another member of Congress, Anna Paulina Luna, said about the aliens. First, though, I want to tell you about Brickhouse nutrition. Go to takelean.com enter code k n o w l e s code knowles. This episode is sponsored by Brickhouse Nutrition. You've probably heard about those weight loss injections that everyone's been talking about for good reason. The results can be pretty incredible. They work by helping to regulate blood sugar and keeping your appetite in check. Here's the thing, though. Not everyone wants to deal with weekly injections, especially when you start hearing about some of the side effects that can come with them. That is where Lean comes in. It's a weight loss supplement developed by doctors. People are seeing some really, really impressive results. The ingredients in Lean are backed by research showing they can help lower blood sugar, turn stored fat into energy, and reduce those constant cravings and hunger pangs that make dieting so hard. One important thing to know, Lean is not just designed for someone who wants to drop a couple pounds. Doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition specifically formulated this for people who've been struggling to lose 10 pounds or more and are ready for something that actually works. Multiple producers and employees at the Daily Wire have tried Lean and they are looking sexier than ever. No, I'm not allowed to say that because of hr, but they've been very impressed with how effective Lean has been in such a short period of time. Let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add Lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Go to takelean.com, enter code knowles for your discount promo code knowlesakelean.com you all know what Matt Gaetz said. He said there are half a dozen to a dozen locations around the country where the army is raping aliens, basically, is what he said. This breeding program for extraterrestrial human hybrids. I've been briefed on this by a uniformed member of the US military. So Rob Finnerty on Newsmax just asked Congressman Tim Burchett who is one of the more prominent figures involved in the UFO UAP investigations. He asked him about Gates claims, expecting Burchett to say, yeah, that's all a bunch of nonsense. That's crazy. Whatever. Moving on, keep calm and carry on. That's actually not what Burchett said. I don't have the tinfoil hat on just yet, Congressman, but I'm wondering, you know, kind of how you react to that. Because you are connected. You're on the UFO Subcommittee. I mean, I'm just wondering what you make of that. Have you heard anything like that?
- [27:36]
Tim Burchett
Well, I'm still a member of Congress, so I can't really comment too much on what Matt said. But I will say this.
- [27:44]
Michael Knowles
Wait, seriously, Are you being serious, or Is that tough?
- [27:47]
Tim Burchett
100% serious. I've been 100% serious. I've been briefed by just about every Alphabet agency there is. And I'll just tell you this. If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff. We just need to disclose it all. I'm sick of it. You're. Well, I was. I was brief. I'll just tell you this. I was brief last week on an issue, or. Excuse me, two weeks ago, and it would have set the Earth off. This country would have come unglued. I think if they would have heard all that I heard, they would demand answers.
- [28:31]
Michael Knowles
What? The question, I'm only paraphrasing slightly, was, hey, Congressman Burchett is the US army raping aliens at bases around the country. And Burchett, who you'd expect to say no, he says, I'm sorry, I can't comment on that. I'm a sitting member of Congress. I can't reveal that kind. Look, I'm not one for total transparency. I'm not one for total disclosure. I basically always pick the least popular view on any issue, which is how you know I'm right. But I think government operates sometimes in secrecy for a purpose. That's why every government threat, all of human history, everywhere, has done so. We're. We're not supposed to, I don't know, do everything on camera. We're not supposed to have a radically direct democracy. That's not what the founders Wanted that's not conducive to good government. But. Well, what. What does he mean by that? He didn't confirm it. He didn't say, yes, sir. He just said, if you knew the things I knew it would keep you up at night. So what is keeping people up at night? What would keep people up at night? Congress lady Anna Paulina Luna, who's also involved in the UFO UAP disclosures, she clarified the issue.
- [29:48]
Anna Paulina Luna
Being a member of oversight, we follow up with whistleblowers and we also can conduct our own investigations. So myself, Representative Burchette from Tennessee and Representative Gates were on a small code to the Panhandle because a whistleblower came forward from Eglin Air Force Base pilots to Representative Gates office saying that the Air Force was essentially covering up UAP activity and we needed to look into it. So we coordinated the meeting. Pentagon tried to initially cancel the first one. We got it back on the books. We show up there and we get in. And the base commander tried to basically tell us that we didn't have authorized clearance to look into and speak to some of the witnesses, of which you don't tell Congress that we don't have authorized clearance, especially members of House Armed Services, Oversight, Judiciary. So we, I kind of had it out with the base commander, which is kind of funny because this guy really thought that he, he had it going on. And he actually, in the middle of our. Our meeting, he took off on leave, which never happens with a member, a delegation going to military institution base. But then also too, we had pretty sure people from the agency that were there as well. And so you really don't find that. I've worked at Hurlburt Field. I, you know, I worked in the military for a number of years and so why would a intelligence agency need to be there on a meeting for whistleblowers? So that happened. I can tell you, based on my investigations, not in a classified setting, that I absolutely believe that there is things that are advanced technologies, not of human origin. And then we conducted the interview with David Grusch. As you saw, it was one of the most widely attended congressional hearings in U.S. history. The information that was brought forward was particularly alarming because you're hearing about people that have potentially been murdered and covering up this information. And it was very interesting. So I advise everyone to watch it.
- [31:35]
Michael Knowles
Yeah. Was it. So based off of it and have you received classified information or just what they said?
- [31:40]
Anna Paulina Luna
No. Yeah, we've. But I can't talk about.
- [31:42]
Michael Knowles
Of course you can't talk about it. So what did you. Before you came to Congress, did you think aliens were real?
- [31:48]
Anna Paulina Luna
So I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings, and he's very specific about that.
- [31:55]
Michael Knowles
What does that mean?
- [31:55]
Anna Paulina Luna
I think it means that they're not necessarily a biological entity from another planet per se.
- [32:04]
Michael Knowles
Interesting.
- [32:06]
Anna Paulina Luna
What I will say is, you know, I share a Christian perspective on many things. And what's been interesting about this.
- [32:12]
Michael Knowles
Here we have it.
- [32:13]
Anna Paulina Luna
The amount of stigma that existed previously to this cycle.
- [32:17]
Michael Knowles
Yep. Okay. All right, we got it. Thank you, Anna Paulina Luna. Thank you. It's all a wordy way of saying, what? What? You know how much I hate to say I told you so. It's all a wordy way of saying the aliens are demons. That's actually what that means. I'm not being hyperbolic in any way. That's what that means when she says, well, I just don't know if they're by. I don't think they're biological. I think they're interdimensional beings. Okay, so what is a thing that is not physical? We mean it's not biological. It's also not inanimate. It's not like my cup or my microphone. It means it's not physical. So it's not physical. It's interdimensional. But it has intelligence and it has will. What is that? That's a demon. That's just what a demon is. You might say, well, I don't believe in demons. I'm not saying you have to believe in demons. You should. And you should believe in angels and you should believe in immaterial substances because we, we operate as if they exist every single day. And in fact, we can know with certainty that some immaterial substances exist. But regardless, I'm just saying that's what that is. When people say, well, that's great. Can you believe the Vice President said he thinks aliens are demons? Can you believe that? Michael said, can you believe Anna Paulina Luna said, can you? That's just the definition of a demon. Two definitions of a demon. Or an angel would be a non physical interdimensional being. I guess one way to put it. Or spiritual, but not religious. That's another way to put it, too. Okay. How do you reconcile what Anna Paulina Luna said with what Tim Burchett said? The way you reconcile it is you recognize that when Tim Burchett says, if you knew what we saw, it would keep you up at night, what you would realize is that spirits are more shocking than aliens to materialists. C.S. lewis makes this point. He says there are different degrees of scariness. There's the just scary. Basic scariness is when you're told there's a tiger in the next room. Then there's the uncanny, which is when you're told there's a ghost in the next room. It's not as with the tiger that you're afraid the tiger's gonna come in and eat you. When you hear that there's a ghost, what you're afraid of is not that the ghost is gonna do anything to you. You're afraid that there are ghosts. Wait, what? That shakes my view of the world. And then there's the numinous, which is religious awe, which is the kind of the sublime fear of God. In any case, that's how you reconcile it. Little green men is much less scary, are much less scary than little green demons. There's no question about it. Okay, Speaking of evil, spiritual evil and physical evil. Big news in the Charlie Kirk murder case. The prosecution is reportedly going to call up some new witnesses. We've heard some reporting that after Joe Kent left the government, Joe Kent, who resigned angry about Trump's policies, and he was previously the head of the Counterterrorism Center. There was some rumor that the defense for the guy who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk wants to call Joe Kent as a witness because Joe Kent seemed to think that there was foreign involvement or other theories of the. Of the assassination. The prosecution now, which is making the argument, obviously, that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk. The prosecution now has some new witnesses. Do you know who they are? They're not people who were just speculating from the government or from the private sector, from the media or from. Do you know who's gonna testify for the prosecution? Tyler Robinson's parents. You know who else is gonna testify? Tyler Robinson's tranny boyfriend. That's who. That's firmer stuff. Because what we know about the alleged murderer is that his fingerprints were on the murder weapon. We know that he confessed multiple times to murdering Charlie. We know that he had means, motive, and opportunity. We know that he's the kind of person, radical, lgbt, radicalized online by leftism, the kind of person who's been trying to murder not just Charlie Kirk, but many public conservatives for many, many years now. We've all seen it up close. But we also know that he confessed to his parents, allegedly. I have to say allegedly. Until he's convicted. We know that he confessed to his parents, allegedly. And to the Trainee, boyfriend, both of whom are gonna be called up by the prosecution. That's good news. It's good news for the cause of justice. You need justice for the Kirk family, for Charlie's friends, for the country. You need justice. But also you need to deter this kind of violence, which the left has been threatening for years, trying to carry out for years, and celebrating after it was committed against Charlie. The other big takeaway here, and this is so important, it pertains to a lot of the political debates and specifically to the political media debates over all sorts of speculation with regard to Charlie Kirk, but also with regard to myriad other issues, is how best do we take on these issues? How best do we calibrate public information and move forward together? And the real answer is the law cuts through bs. That's my answer. That's my conservative answer. That's not a liberal answer. That's not a libertarian answer. The liberals and the libertarians, what they say is, you know, the best response to false information is true information. The best response to speech that we don't like is more speech. That's the free marketplace of ideas argument, which is liberal, lowercase L, Liberal, libertarian. That's what they say. We just need to litigate everything in the court of public opinion, in the public square. No, that isn't true. That's not what our founding fathers thought. That's not what American legal tradition suggests. That's not how politics works. The best way to establish good behaviors in politics is with the law as a teacher. The best way to punish bad guys is not to talk about them more. It's to punish them. The best way to establish certainty is not through endless debate. It's through trials. They come to conclusions that entail punishments. That's what we need. That's what's gonna do it. That's all that's gonna do it, actually. Okay, so much more to get to. However, we have to get to the mailbag streaming right now on Daily Wire. Plus, a special event you do not wanna miss, and it involves me. I got to fly up and hang out with Matt Walsh, Isabel Brown. We all sat down with some members of the creme de la creme of the Daily Wire, members for a roundtable on the Passion of the Christ by St. Mel Gibson, discussing its cultural impact when it was released and why it still matters more than 20 years later. Then watch the full film followed by our closing thoughts. It's available for a limited time only on Dailywire. My favorite comment yesterday is from Brian Lederman, who says, I know it wasn't a green screen, but the weird light on Michael made the background look like a green screen. I know. You know, listen, we gotta give big credit to Bobby here. Bobby who did the lighting at NASA. Cause this clip went viral. I. I did this clip where I had to prove I wasn't on a green screen. And I went, I did jumping jacks, I pulled grass up, I was standing in the sun and I had to do it. I think it has 10 million views on it now on Twitter. Really, people? Really? There's a whole commentary that one could have on what this says about distrust in institutions and the fact that AI means we can't trust our eyes anymore. But really, it's about Bobby who just who gave me studio quality lighting in very difficult conditions outside on the grass at Cape Canaveral. Very impressive. Okay, finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week. Our mailbag is sponsored by PureTalk or to PureTalk.com knowlescanna wles to switch to my wireless company today. Take it away. Hello, Michael. I would like your thoughts on the following expression. The heart wants what the heart wants. And separately, though perhaps related, what role in decision making do logic and reason play versus emotion and instinct? And finally, can you square your answer with Proverbs 3, 5, 6. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, submit to him, and he will make your path straight. Thank you. Yes, very, very good question. And I certainly can square my answer with Proverbs, which is, you know, trust in the Lord with all of your heart, but setting your heart with his right, this is the key. The heart wants what the heart wants. That's true. That is part of why we have to train our hearts. Because what does the book of Genesis tell us? The book of Genesis tells us that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. So there is a brokenness to our heart. That is to say, there is a brokenness to our desires. God makes us good, but then we bring sin into the world. We bring brokenness into the world because of our first sin. And so it doesn't mean that now everything's totally, irreparably ruined. It just means things are a little bit off. It means that sometimes our heart is not in the right place. Chesterton made this point about his socialist atheist friend, George Bernard Shaw. He said, George Bernard Shaw is a man of a great heart. He has a great big heart, but his heart is not in the right place. So, yes, you don't want to totally oppose your desires. You wanna sublimate your desires. You wanna make sure that your desires are pointed in the right direction. You wanna make sure that your heart is in the right place. To do that, you have to train yourself. You have to avail yourself of God's grace. You have to train yourself. You have to grow in sanctity, you have to habitually practice virtue such that your heart increasingly desires what God desires generally and for you. But if you allow your heart to follow only your own wisdom, if you allow your heart to go off on the path of perversity, then you'll say, as many an adulterer has, that the heart wants what the heart wants, to excuse all manner of sin that will ruin your life. The heart wants. What the heart wants is just a descriptive fact of the world. It's a truism. But therefore, you need to make sure that your heart is in the right place. Okay, next question. Good morning, Michael. This is Arun. So I've always believed that manned space exploration is one of the most important duties of the United States government. And I always thought that you would take the opposite view, that time, effort and money are better spent on problems here on Earth. But I'm starting to have my doubts, because on Wednesday you will be, or I guess have already podcasted from the Artemis 2 launch. Can you explain to me what is your opinion on the place that manned space exploration should take in an America first policy? Thank you as always, for your wisdom. Excellent question, Arun. Yes, you're wrong. You're wrong about your hunch of what I believed. You hear this sometimes from conservatives. This is a big waste of money and we shouldn't go to the moon because even though it's totally awesome, we need to spend more money on potholes or tax cuts or whatever. And look, I wanna fix the potholes and I wanna keep low taxes. But no, I think countries have to do things. I think we have to do things together. And I think if we wanna be a great country, we have to do great things together. And going to the moon is great. It's just great. That's the thing great countries do and that weak countries don't do. And so I think it's important not just as a matter of pride, but as a matter of the national project, as a matter of making America great again, as a matter of putting America first, I think you have to do stuff like that. You know, also in history, part of what great nations do that defines them as great is they go out and conquer places. They just go. Alexander Rome, you just go, you take a lot of territory. Certainly the Muslims did that as they were really growing. You just take territory and you kill people. And that's something that defines you as a great country. And so going to the moon is a less bloody way of doing that. Unless we get there, we do find the aliens, and we just, you know, slice them all in half, which would be pretty cool, actually, especially if they're demons. Anyway, I'm sorry, I'm getting off track. Yes, it's great. You have to do great things together. You don't want to fall into the trap of just diminishing everything. This is essentially the problem with libertarianism, is that libertarianism is centered entirely around the individual person. It's all about man. And because it takes this bad anthropology, this notion that man comes first, that we're self created beings, that everything's about us, that we own ourselves, that we can do whatever we want, we should have neutrality in our viewpoints. It's all just about individual autonomy. Paradoxically, that diminishes man. The whole point of philosophical liberalism, political liberalism, was to make man even greater. But by focusing entirely on man, we've made man smaller, we've diminished man. Man becomes greater when he focuses outside of himself, specifically when he focuses on God, because man is made in the image of God. So as we focus our attention on God, we mimetic creatures become more like God. We become holier, we become more sanctified, we become greater. And so we become more perfectly human. And when we look at the great work of God in the heavens, we commit ourselves to knowing God's creation. That makes us greater too. Okay, next question.
- [46:17]
Tim Burchett
Hello, Mr. Knowles. I'm a Greek Orthodox, or some call it Eastern Orthodox Christian, who has taught math at Catholic high schools for over a decade. By now, and over the years I've come to know and learn about the Catholic faith and how it compares to my own. Because of this, I feel like the Catholic approach to fasting during Lent is like a decaf version of fasting. Because the swarthy, somewhat light in the loafers podcaster once said, decaf coffee is for people who want the look of the thing, but not the essence of the thing. And I see this and go, well, Catholics fast for meat during Lent, but only on Fridays and Ash Wednesday. And my students have told me that you can even break your personal fasts during Lent on Sundays and days like the Annunciation, which surprised me. This is in contrast to the more, I would say, tried version of fasting practiced promoted by the Orthodox Faith, which at minimum calls people to fast for meat during all days of Lent, as well as various other things like dairy, wine, et cetera. And so I wanted to ask you if you think the Catholic practice of fasting during Lent could use a bit more trading up to be on par with the Orthodox practice. And who knows, maybe after that we can work on bringing your way of saying the Creed back to the more trad way, AKA without the filioque.
- [47:25]
Michael Knowles
There you go.
- [47:25]
Tim Burchett
Thanks. And enjoy a happy early Easter.
- [47:28]
Michael Knowles
Sorry, I'm still recovering from the light and the loafers comment. Okay, so the point you're making is that the Catholic fasting during Lent is less rigorous than the Eastern Orthodox fasting. That's true. Okay, you want me to admit it? That's true. The Eastern Orthodox, they're more hardcore about it. I'm not even gonna get into your comment on the nice ink read in the Philly Oak way that we don't have enough time to the point on fasting, though. Yes, I think you wanna hear how ecumenical I'm gonna be. I think that probably the Catholics, as a personal matter, if they wanna make it a little more rigorous, that would probably be good. I mean, even down to on the true fasting days, the Good Friday. Good Friday, which is the day that is today. Or Ash Wednesday. On the true fasting days, Catholics are permitted now to have one small meal and two snacks that together don't make a second meal, but which is pretty nice, you know, I mean, as far as fasting goes, that it's kind of cushy. So maybe you could restrict that a little bit. Maybe. Okay. As a personal matter, however, you bring up a point about Sundays that actually does tell us something about rigor and asceticism and devotion. You said it's crazy that the Catholics don't fast or abstain from their. Whatever they're giving up on Sunday during Lent. No, no, no. Or on feasts. Feast of the Annunciation, the feast of St. Joseph. And you say this is not rigorous. Hold on. What is the purpose of fasting? The purpose of fasting is to bring your will more in line with the will of God. It is to diminish your personal will and to tame it and to discipline it and bring it more into line with God's will. Thy will be done, not my will be done. And so the reason we don't fast on Sundays or Sundays, it's the Lord's day. It's a day of celebration even during Lent. And the reason that we relax, Lent and penances on these big feasts of the Annunciation or The feast of St. Joseph is. Cause they're big feasts and these are days to celebrate. And so when the Church tells us on these days you can eat meat or you can relax your Lent in penances or whatever, the question you have to ask yourself is, what is more in service to the point of fasting for me to just rigorously maintain not having cookies or whatever as I see fit, or to submit my will to the church, Christ's Church that he initiates on earth, and ultimately to submit my will to God, even if you don't want to eat the cookie because you don't feel as cool and based. And traditionally, what involves the greater submission of the will. And I would posit that having that little cookie on the feast day or whatever, or relaxing your Lenten penances on Sunday, it diminishes your own pride. Cause you say, well, now you can't say that you kept up your feasts for. Or you're fasting for 45 days or whatever. Cause also, by the way, the 40 days doesn't include the Sunday. So even just as a matter of number, it doesn't. Anyway, it's true, it diminishes your pride. But I think it involves a greater submission of the will to God, which is good. Okay, the rest of the show continues now on this Good Friday. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles Ken at WLAS at checkout for two months. Free on all annual plans.
- [51:02]
Anna Paulina Luna
I didn't expect this. TikTok has more short dramas than I could ever finish. Each episode leaves you wanting the next. Download TikTok now and try it.