Loading summary
Transcript22 lines
- [00:00]
A
The grill is shot, the chairs are held together by optimism, and what happened to the rug? Sounds like your outdoor setup is not ready for patio season. Fix it all with Wayfair. Shop Wayfair for grills, rugs, furniture and more. With 20 million 5 star reviews, room of choice delivery and expert setup on qualifying orders, it's never been easier to do more for less. Get 10% off your first eligible purchase. Hurry to Wayfair.com or download the app now.
- [00:28]
B
Wayfair Every Style, Every home.
- [00:30]
A
Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock. Scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it. A brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too. Alright, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and fast expert setup on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit wayfair.com or the Wayfair app.
- [00:57]
B
Wayfair Every style, every home Four ladies and John Roberts sell out our country in the Supreme Court's worst case scenario ruling on birthright citizenship. Really hate to say I told you so on this one. It could not have gone worse. As of today, if your family settled In Jamestown in 1607, you are an invader with no claim to this stolen land. And if your Chinese mom pops you out in Guam tomorrow, America is your birthright. Make it make sense. Then the libertarians in New Hampshire make Mussolini look like a hippie. And a new species of psychedelic mushrooms makes people see little gnomes everywhere. And scientists have no idea why. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. Can I get some of the gnome mushrooms? Does anybody. Professor, do you have any gnome mushrooms to make this immigration decision go down easier? I actually don't know that it even makes you happier. It probably just has you interact with demons. Really awful decision. I told you. When everyone started to get optimistic about the Supreme Court rulings, they said, oh look, they ruled this way on the Haitians. Ooh, look, they ruled this. I said, they're giving Trump little tiny wins, but they're gonna clobber him on the one that actually matters. That's exactly what happened. Then we will also get to the vice president fresh on the heels of our interview with the Vice President, we'll get to the Vice President dismantling Bill Maher. On immigration, there's A lot to learn just rhetorically from how we should talk about these issues. First, though, smash that like button. Subscribe. Check us out on Spotify where you can download full episode audio and video to watch or listen whenever you want without using your data. Do not miss an episode. The decision's brutal came out yesterday. It was a 5, 4 decision. You are seeing this reported in some places as a 6, 3 decision on the question of birthright citizenship. You recall that President Trump had an executive order that was overruling birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship, which had never really been definitively decided by the Supreme Court. Its precedent goes back to 1898, the Wong Kim Ark case, to determine this line from the 14th Amendment as to who is a citizen in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was only ratified to deal with the issue of the freed slaves, it was not ratified in order to give Guatemalan drug dealers or Chinese spies the ability to go on birth tourism to California. So the Supreme Court had never really ruled on it. And President Trump provoked the Supreme Court with his executive order saying the 14th Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to Venezuelan gangsters or Chinese spies or anyone else who abuses our system to radically change our demography, to radically change our political community. The case was Trump v. Barbara. It was not a 6, 3 decision. The reason that some people are reporting that is they want to make it seem even more legitimate. They want to give it more of this patina of authority. But the reason they're able to do that is because you have a 5, 4 decision on the constitutional question. And then Kavanaugh comes in and he says, okay, I'm gonna join the majority of the court here, which is the liberals, plus Barrett. Sorry, yeah, with Barrett and Roberts. But I'm not gonna do it on constitutional grounds. I'm gonna do it on statutory grounds. So what Kavanaugh says is, I think that Trump's executive order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. But I'm not going so far as to say that, that the 14th Amendment says that Guatemalan drug dealers can have anchor babies in the United States so that you then get chain migration. So you totally change the makeup of the country. The liberal justices, all of them, all of whom are women, plus Amy Barrett, who is apparently kind of a liberal justice, plus John Roberts, who is the chief justice, he tries to preserve the integrity of the court by acting in a really political, slippery way, which ironically only undermines the credibility of the court. They ruled to sell our country down the river. Basically, it was all the women, plus John Roberts. They ruled to sell the country down the river. This is the worst case scenario. Cuz what they could have given us. I told you I did not think they were going to rule that birthright citizenship was not implied in the 14th Amendment. What they could have given us was a narrow ruling on the merits of the case, on the executive order, while punting the question to Congress. That is to say, Congress, do your job and give a statutory remedy here to clarify what exactly is meant by birthright citizenship. They didn't do that. They said the 14th Amendment demands birth tourism from Chinese spies. Couldn't go worse. So Congress can't change it. Some people are saying, well, now we can have a constitutional amendment. Good luck. You're not gonna get a constitutional amendment. Throughout the history of our country, for most of it, it was pretty tough to get constitutional amendments. Antonin Scalia, when I met him as an undergraduate, one of my friends asked, would you change anything about the Constitution? He said, I would make it easier to amend. You're not gonna get it. In our very polarized country. Not gonna happen. You could call a convention of states. Not gonna happen. So no, it's totally off the table. The argument I wanna be as fair as I can to the women and the Chief justice who destroyed our country yesterday, the argument that they're making is that the 14th Amendment does presume birthright citizenship, which in a way kind of predates the 14th amendment in the US that because we take from the English common law this notion of jus soli. There's jus soli the right of the soil and jus sanguinis the right of blood. And we in the Anglo tradition, from the English common law, we go with the right of the soil, that if you're born on our soil, you're a citizen. But there's an irony to it, which is that England, the UK doesn't even believe that anymore. And it's because of an unjust conflation of two concepts, subject and citizen. When the English gave us bequeathed to us this notion of the jus solely, they didn't really have citizens in anything like the modern sense. They had subjects. So if you're born on English soil, you are English in a certain sense. But frankly, that entails more responsibilities to the King than it entails any rights in our modern nation state system. After World War II, as the UK began to adopt the idea of citizenship more than the idea of subject, what happened in the 1980s, the UK clarified and said we do not have birthright citizenship anymore. As you had migration that was really beginning to tick up from around the world. They said, hey, we gotta clarify. You can't just show up here and because of the magic dirt, become an Englishman. That's not gonna happen. So even when you look to the uk, one, they changed their mind on the idea of birthright citizenship on the right of the soil. But two, the source from which we get it never really meant the same thing as citizenship. To have a birthright in the 19th century England or 18th century England was very, very different than the kind of privileges that are entailed by birthright citizenship in 2026America. So enough of the majority for now. The dissents were scorching. Clarence Thomas, who's usually a man of few words, he gives this blistering, very, very lengthy opinion, or dissent, rather shows that the majority of the court had misread history and precedent. It was great in the sense that we hope that one day in the not too distant future, after you get new judges with new clerks and new students, a new generation of legal minds, hopefully they will overturn this horrible decision. For now, though, the libs are thrilled. So we have a perfectly typical tweet from Yassamine Ansari. Yassamin Ansari, who's a Congress lady. She says, if you're born in America, you're an American. Take that, conservatives, take that, people with a stable American identity. Yassamine Ansari, who I think is the. I think she's the child of immigrants. Yassamine Ansari, if you're born in America, you're an American. Thank you so much for your opinion. Yassameen Ansari. I really appreciate your opinion. Yasmin Ansari, how convenient for you that this new definition of what it is to be an American includes you, a relatively recent arrival who has given nothing to the country whatsoever. You, Yassamine Ansari, now say that. That's all that matters. You have this Guatemalan lady who's also in Congress, Representative Delia Ramirez. And this is almost more offensive. She says, I am the proud daughter of Guatemalan immigrants. I am a proud anchor baby, all caps, and I am an American. Thank you. Thank you so much for your opinion, ladies. So the way the left is going to spin this is they're going to say, well, this is how the American law has always been. The Supreme Court is just affirming the American law, the precedent that goes back not just to the Wong Kim Art case, but to the 14th amendment. And really it's even deeper rooted in American history, to which we would have to say, oh, yeah, Then why Was it a 54 decision? Why did the Supreme Court have to take on this question in a definitive way in the year of our Lord 2026, 250 years on into our country, if it was so clear from American history, why was it one vote? Amy Barrett, really, who? We're so furious out here. We expect little of John Roberts. We've cut Ben actually. You know, we sometimes make fun of Ben when he makes bad political predictions. But Ben made one very good political prediction about John Roberts 20 years ago whenever he was confirmed. We never expect Roberts to go with us. But I thought Amy Barrett was supposed to be the based Catholic pro life student of Antonin Scalia. Well, the hardcore Scaliaites, originalists and textualists on the court, Alito and Thomas, they were obviously in the dissent. Amy Barrett totally betrayed us on a crucial issue, A crucial issue, possibly the most significant case that the Supreme Court has dealt with in decades. You want to say that the most important case was the Dobbs decision. It was very, very important. But we have to put a little asterisk on the Dobbs decision because after the Dobbs decision, you didn't outlaw abortion. It just went back to the states. And it got worse. In some states after the Dobbs decision, the number of abortions actually went up. That's not because of the Dobbs decision. It's because of the technology of the abortion pill. But just to say the practical effect of Dobbs was basically non existent. We hope it will have more of a practical effect in the future. The practical effect of this will be to incentivize birth tourism. All those Chinese ladies working for the ccp, all the either explicit enemies of the United States or just people who are cynically trying to exploit our country as a tax base and a welfare base, they are gearing up to have their kids. There's nothing you can do about it. They will get all of the privileges of American citizenship. They will then use chain migration to bring all of their family over and they will radically change the demography because Amy Barrett betrayed us. So that now you have these ladies, not exactly names out of Jamestown, Yassamin Ansari and Dalia Ramirez, proud anchor baby, telling us, telling us what it is to be an American, using definitions that the men of the Mayflower, the founding fathers, the 19th century statesman, the 20th century statesman would not recognize at all, wouldn't recognize this country. So one little silver lining to all of this, before we get into Justice Jackson's absurd opinion that tells us that a country with a lukewarm IQ is not going to survive very long. And before we get into all of that, there's a little glimmer of silver lining, which is that I might become a Libertarian again, thanks to the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. Before we get to that, I want to tell you about Ave Maria Mutual funds. Go to avemariafunds.com Michael M I C H A E L let's talk about compartmentalization for a minute. People are encouraged to have one set of values on Sunday. Then a totally different set of values at work. Who knows, maybe a different set of values on the golf course. You shouldn't do that. You have another set of values when you vote. You're going to have another set of values when you're this, that, the other thing. No. Somehow, when it comes to investing, they're often told that their values should not matter at all. I have never found that argument to be very persuasive. Not since my Libertarian youth have I entertained that. If your convictions shape every other important decision in your life, why would they suddenly disappear? When you're deciding where to invest your money, that's a very significant thing that you do in your life. That is one of many reasons that I'm very proud to serve on the board of Ave Maria Mutual Funds. It's a great fund. It was founded in 2001. They've helped investors align their investments with their beliefs. Today, they manage nearly $4 billion in assets for more than 100,000 shareholders. The philosophy is really simple, straightforward. They refuse to invest in companies involved in abortion, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, or companies supporting Planned Parenthood. Learn more@avemariafunds.com Michael that is avemariafunds.com Michael all mutual funds are subject to market, including possible loss of principal. Request a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, fees, charges and expenses and other information you should read carefully and consider carefully before investing. The prospectus can be obtained by calling 1-866-283-6274 or it can be viewed at avemariafunds.com Ave Maria mutual funds are distributed by Ultimus Fund Distributors, LLC. I was a libertarian when I was a teenager. Okay, I say this is the right wing version of that old idiom. If you're not a libertarian by the time you're 17, you have no thumos. You have no chest or spirit. If you're not a traditional conservative by the time you're 25, you have no brain, you have no heart. I gotta workshop the phrase. In any case, I haven't been this attracted to libertarianism in a long, long time. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire responds to the birthright citizenship cases. Well, if we can't end birthright citizenship, we'll just have to end democracy instead.
- [15:47]
C
Did you just get.
- [15:48]
B
Did I get a thrill up my leg? Hold on. Don't threaten me with an orderly society. Whoa. Hold on. Let's not forget the word democracy appears a handful of times in the Federalist Papers, always in the negative, always with a warning. Our framers. Not the most pro democracy people, despite what you might have heard in the 20th century. Wow. I feel like I'm 16 again. Feeling so good about the Libertarian Party. Apparently, though, they're kind of an offshoot of the actual Libertarian Party, so maybe not. We're not gonna end democracy. The left might the next time they come to power. And I'm not gonna become a libertarian. However, our sacred democracy, as it were, might end all on its own, especially if Justice Ketanji Jackson's writing is any indication. Here is what the newest member of the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Jackson, wrote in her concurring opinion. She says, in the aftermath of the Civil War, those who championed the 14th Amendment, both within and beyond Congress, understood the assignment. Their work product used language that transcended race and region. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I won't go further. That's the line. Those three words are really going viral now. Those who champion the 14th amendment understood the assignment. We're totally cooked. We're cooked. Just pack it up. You know, the billionaires are building all those bunkers and go befriend a billionaire. Go take weapons and gold and ukuleles, whatever you want. Just go make flowers, cigars, Go to the bunker. We're not going to make it. We're cooked. It's over. It's over. This is what Supreme Court justices are writing now. This is maybe what you would expect of a remedial 7th grader. If I were a 7th grade English teacher or social studies teacher, history teacher, and I got this paper from a remedial seventh grader, I would say, oh, you know. Hey, Ketanji, good try. Hey, that's fun. Even with grade inflation, you get a B minus because you have to write like a big boy, like a big girl. You gotta write, and you're not. This is pathetic. And I know I haven't seen anyone make this rejoinder yet. To all of us making fun of Ketanji Jackson's illiteracy, which shouldn't surprise us. This is a woman who, during her confirmation hearings could not say what a woman is. That's the same woman. You remember that during the confirmation hearings, Marsha Blackburn says Judge Jackson, what is a woman? She says, I'm not a biologist. It was almost like a Tucker laugh from Ketanji Jackson. There's a woman with two Harvard degrees. Ketanji Jackson. The condescension. Not just the ignorance, not just the stupidity, the condescension. I'm not a biologist. How am I supposed to know what a woman is? She a woman who wishes to be. Who wishes to pretend to have such judgment that she would be on the Supreme Court, the highest level of the judiciary, which is supposed to have judgment, should not surprise us at all. But I can foresee coming down the pike, a rejoinder to us making fun of Ketanji Jackson's illiteracy. And the rejoinder is going to be, well, you people, you're betraying your own illiteracy, your own ignorance. Because if you have ever read dissents from conservatives, especially Antonin Scalia, you would know that they use silly, wacky language all the time. So why is it okay when Scalia does it? It's not okay when Ketanji Jackson does it. And it's fair enough to point out Scalia, in his dissents will use phrases like jiggery pokery. That was one. I forget which case that was from. But he used the phrase jiggery pokery. In another dissent, he referred to pure applesauce, not as literal applesauce, but meaning nonsense. In the Obergefell decision about the supposed right to intimacy. He mocked the idea that marriage would expand a right to intimacy, which doesn't exist anyway in the Constitution. And he used the phrase ask the nearest hippie. It's true. He would use funny language. He explained the reason he did that was to make his dissents funny, interesting, entertaining, so. So that law students would actually read them so that he could infect their minds with his better jurisprudence, so that when they became clerks and judges themselves, they would carry on his way of legal thinking. So he was very intentional about it. But notice the difference between what Scalia did and what Ketanji did. Scalia used uncommon language. In fact, part of the reason it jars you, part of the reason it's memorable is you don't hear these phrases all the time. Jiggery pokery doesn't come up in the. In ordinary conversation, we don't refer to nonsense and piffle, as I think he might use the word piffle too, but we don't hear it referred to as applesauce it's for ask the nearest hippie. He used uncommon language to shake us out of the common language. The common language, which George Orwell reminds us is made up of dead metaphors because those metaphors are not evocative. It opens up our minds to just have someone else's thinking enter it. Someone else who constructed those dead metaphors, those cliches. Those people are doing our thinking for us. We outsource our thinking to them. And that is what Ketanji does by using a phrase that is bland, that really has been popularized on TikTok to say understood the assignment. That's not evocative at all. What it shows you is she doesn't really think for herself. She outsources her thinking to the spirit of the moment to fads and popular culture. So much so that probably 20 years ago she could have told you what a woman was. But because of the fashion, the fad of transgenderism, she couldn't. She outsources her thinking, she plugs her brainstem into the matrix of the zeitgeist and she just lets the spirit of the age come on in. It's actually what she is doing here with this kind of language is the exact opposite of what Scalia was doing. Scalia actually could think and wanted you to think, wanted you to think about the law in a new way. And Catanje Jackson cannot Totally pathetic. Pathetic that our court told us yesterday that we're not allowed to have a country. It's basically what they told us. Pathetic that a supposedly self governing republic now has no right. The Supreme Court took once again from the Congress our elected representatives. We have no right even to begin to weigh in on the matter of who gets to come in and milk the system and take all the same political rights that we have. Pathetic that even conservatives are pointing out that we don't have. They're making liberal arguments. In some cases they're saying no, we can't have tiers of citizenship gradations of citizenship. First of all, yes, of course we can. Of course we can. That goes back to the Constitution. The fact that the US President has to be a natural born citizen tells you that. Well, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens are all citizens. Some have different privileges than others, namely running for President. The fact that you have to be 35 to run for president, 30 to run for the Senate, 25 to run for Congress tells you there are gradations of privileges even among citizens. And we all know that an anchor baby use the case of Hasan Piker, the left wing streamer who should be in prison. He was an anchor baby. His parents, his mother had him here. And then he was raised in Turkey. He just goes to Turkey and he's raised in Turkey. Then he comes back here to milk the system for college. He hates the country. He doesn't really know anything seriously about the country. He only wishes ill on the country. He calls to murder multiple US Senators. He calls for the streets to run red in our blood. And he says that America deserved 9, 11. But that guy, you're telling me that guy is exactly as American as someone whose family came here on the Mayflower or settled at Jamestown or even who's been here for three or four generations from legal immigrants? Of course not. No one seriously believes that. Do the liberals on the court even believe that? No, they're just declaring power for themselves. And it looks like for now, it has worked. Okay, so they want to feed us a little bit of a win. There was one little win that came out of the Supreme Court yesterday. We'll get to that. Then we'll get to the mushrooms that make you see gnomes and scientists can't even figure out what the drug is in the mushrooms. It's kind of weird. And listen, it's been a rough week. There have been some really great things. Obviously, got to interview the vice president. The White House put up a statue of my great, great, great, great, great grandpa. We had a cool ribbon cutting yesterday with a couple of cabinet secretaries. And I'll tell more about that. We'll try to get some video of that up, too. But you know, the Supreme Court sold out our country. The Yankees can't figure out how to hit or catch a baseball. You know, I don't know. It's getting a little bit rough. And maybe I want the magic mushrooms. Before I resort to that, I want to tell you about Catholic match. Go to catholicmatch.com one of the most common questions that we all get from the young people in our lives, and especially, I'm noticing from young Catholics who want to get married, have 15 or 16 kids, to have a small Catholic family. They'll say, how do I actually meet someone? Not theoretically, not someday actually in real life, right now. Because if you're serious about marriage, there comes a point where you have to stop merely hoping you'll bump into your future spouse in the grocery store. And in our modern culture, you either get weird hookup culture or you get endless texting. Or you. I don't know. I don't know what you do. You just keep swiping Right on the apps that are not going to align with your values and what you really want. That is one reason the Catholic Match is so great. It's the largest Catholic dating platform in the world, built by Catholics for Catholics, not a secular dating app where you have to spend the first three conversations figuring out whether the other person even shares your faith, whether the other person, like Ketanji Jackson, even knows what a woman is. Here, you're on the team, all right? You guys are aligned.
- [25:42]
A
And.
- [25:42]
B
And you can get into what really matters. You know, your view of marriage, your view of the important things, all the way down to liturgical preference. Maybe you're a Latin Mass person. I don't know. Then you found a real winner right there. To get you off the app and sitting across the table from that real person right now, you need to go to catholicmatch.com it's free to download on the Apple App Store and Google Play. Go to CatholicMatch.com to get started.
- [26:05]
A
This episode is brought to you by Starbucks.
- [26:07]
B
That is fire. Whoa, that's good. This might be the drink of the summer. Okay, I like this. I'm rocking with it.
- [26:14]
A
Okay, try it for yourself. Starbucks refreshers concentrates are coming home. Find them in the coffee aisle and make it yours.
- [26:22]
B
So the good news out of the Supreme Court, we don't want to doom and gloom too much. There was one win, and it was a cultural win for normal people. Little Vihicox and West Virginia vs BPJ, not BJP, not the Hindu nationalist party in India, but BPJ 6:3 decision that said that states can in fact ban men from women's sports. That's a win. That's a win. And we need to recognize that that is a win also, man. That's a win. That's where we're at. That's where we're at that we celebrate. When the Supreme Court says that states can but don't necessarily have to keep hulking dudes out of women's sports leagues, that they at least kind of sometimes have the right to maybe do that. You just think, man, imagine. Imagine going back in a time machine not to 1835, not to 1794, but to, like, 2008. Imagine you get in your 21st century time machine and go back to 2008 and you say, hey, hey, conservatives, I know it looks bad with Obama around the corner and the Iraq war's not looking great and the financial crisis, but don't worry, we're about to score a major win, a major generational win at the Supreme Court. Because the court is gonna say that states sometimes can keep men out of girls sports teams. Your little daughter doesn't always have to change in the locker room next to a big husky. Hank. Huge win, guys. Bro, isn't that awesome? They would look at you like you have five heads. Say what? Yeah, I should hope that men are not going into the girls sports rooms. And with the modern guy would tell the 2008 guys, he'd say, well, no, no, no. Sometimes they can. It's just that sometimes maybe the states can sort of sometimes stop it. Isn't that a great win? That's pretty sad. What is the substance of the ruling? It's kind of an ironic ruling because Justice Gorsuch, who's another conservative who flipped on us on a crucial case, Justice Gorsuch previously in the Bostock decision, said that Title vii, these are all Civil Rights act provisions. In Title vii, when it comes to employment, the meaning of sex includes gender. So you'd say, like, if you have a protection on the basis of sex, you would say that, therefore you do not have a protection on the basis of gender identity. The reason being that a protection on the basis of sex, if you make a claim based on gender identity can undermine the protection on the basis of sex. Because in the gender identity, you're claiming to be the opposite sex. So you're claiming rights and privileges that pertain to the sex rights and privileges that you do not have as a member of the opposite sex. I'm oversimplifying it a little bit, but it's really weird that Justice Gorsuch would go tranny on the Bostock decision but remain sensible on the Title IX decision. Now, he makes the argument that it's totally harmonized. In fact, he makes the argument in this decision. He says, no, no, you're misunderstanding it, because any decision on the basis of gender identity therefore involves sex. In other words, if it's okay for a woman to wear a dress, but it's not okay for a man to wear a dress, in one sense, you could say it's a decision based on gender identity, but on the other, it is ultimately a decision on the basis of sex, because one's a woman, one's a man. So you say, okay, that's cute. That's kind of clever. Furthermore, he says that Title VII does not create separate spaces for men and women, whereas Title IX explicitly does. That's where you get girls, sports leagues. And therefore this is different. You apply some slightly different logic, but I want to not to be cynical about this. And Justice Gorsuch, he might be a real nice guy. He's obviously very intelligent and educated. But I just. Gorsuch is claiming that his apparently contradictory rulings pro trans on the Civil Rights act in the Bostock case, anti trans with regard to the Civil Rights act on this new case, he's saying, no, no, there's a real logic here. You just got to squint and twist your head a little bit to see the logic why this is consistent. Can I just point out, Bostock was decided in 2020, more or less. Peak woke, peak transgenderism, peak gender ideology. And this case was decided in 2026 after transgenderism has basically been eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level. When even the Democrats are trying to run away from the transgender issue because they know it's a total loser when Donald Trump has won the popular vote running against issues like transgenderism. I can't help but notice that Gorsuch's vote in Bostock, the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock, was politically popular and fashionable in 2020. And this decision in 2026 is also politically popular and fashionable. Almost like the Court reads the election returns. Almost like the liberals are totally inconsistent when it comes to their jurisprudence. But even the originalists and the textualists might be arguing a little too much. They might be talking past the sale a little too much. The notion that. Which I think is derived and inferred from textualism and originalism, the idea that in matters of jurisprudence we don't have to apply too much of our own judgment, we don't need to apply too much of our own thinking that comes by virtue of our education, that the virtue that we have accumulated, the wisdom we've accumulated along with reading of case history, the idea that really you could take the judge out of it entirely, you could basically just put a judge shaped robot. Because the plain meaning and the original public meaning or the original intent of a statute or of the Constitution is so clear that no one can really disagree. I don't know that that's true. In a way, originalism or textualism is kind of Protestant. It's funny that the Supreme Court is made up mostly of Catholics and Jews, but it's kind of Protestant in that it's sola scriptura. It's sola scriptura for the law. And like sola scriptura, whatever your theological views on sola scriptura, there is this really practical problem that comes out, which is that if the Scripture interprets itself, if the meaning of the Scripture is so plain. How is it that all these people who adhere to sola scriptura disagree on what the Scripture means, if the text can interpret itself? Why do all of the people who hold to that very principle? It's not a principle I hold to, but all the people who do hold to that principle. A lot of them disagree about the meaning. Well, the same thing is true with originalism and textualism, which is certainly a preferable legal principle, judicial principle, to whatever the libs are doing, which is to shred the Constitution. But how is it that the arch originalists like Alito and Thomas, even a textualist like Gorsuch, that they might disagree? Forget about the trans case for a second, go back to immigration, that they would disagree with the other arch originalist, Amy Barrett, who worked for Scalia. How is it, Maybe there's something a little more political going on. Maybe there are some more intangible and personal aspects to this decision. All the ladies plus Roberts, really, really messing up our country. Okay, okay.
- [34:40]
A
When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you like.
- [34:48]
B
All the way.
- [34:51]
A
Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.
- [35:09]
B
At least the libs are upset about the trans decision. We'll get to their reaction momentarily and then, then we will get to the mushrooms that I want to take. Professor Jacob, do you have any hard drugs on you right now? It's very early in the morning here. No, I don't want your zins. Does it let you see little gnomes? Yeah, for him it probably does because his dosage is so high. Before we get to any of that, my favorite comment yesterday, it's from ndboy says, I love how chill this comment section is compared to literally everywhere else online. I'm so impressed by it. I'm picking. That was from Spotify. You can leave comments on YouTube or I guess you can't really on like Apple podcasts, but you can on Spotify and the comments on YouTube. Look, sometimes you get some real good ones, but it is schizo, man. There is a lot of schizophrenia and psychosis and psychopathy on YouTube. The guys on Spotify, man, they're chilling. They're chilling, they're cool, they're normal. Maybe they're hallucinating little gnomes, I don't know. But whatever it is they're chill. Before we move on to the magic mushrooms NBC was covering after the libs get this huge win on immigration. But they still. It's not enough for them. They need to complain about the trans decision, try to overturn that. This is how they report on the trans decision. The terms that we're using here during our reporting, Biological male, biological female. The High Court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself. Biological male, biological female. NBC News is objecting to the terms biological male and biological female. They just gave a trigger warning for transvestites because they had to read a Supreme Court opinion. What's funny is I also object to the term biological male and biological female. I know a lot of the more moderate conservatives use those terms. I hate those terms because they imply that there is a non biological male. They imply that there is some other kind of male or female. I'm a biological male, but I'm a spiritual female, which. That's actually transgenderism. Transgenderism says that you can have a biological kind of gender and a non biological kind of gender. I hate that. It's just men and women. That's all it is. Your body and soul are fused together in a hylomorphic union. So I hate it. It's funny, I guess. I agree with NBC News. We both object to this term for opposite reasons. For them, even that is too right wing. And I just think, like, are we in the big two, six guys? Are we? Or are we in 2022? Is this still peak woke? This is not coming from some Fringe Weirdo on YouTube. This is coming from NBC News. One of the major news networks is still doing this stuff. They're still doing it. They haven't given it up. And they're not going to give it up. It's going to get worse the second they get power again. And winning that Supreme Court decision on immigration gives them a lot of power. They're champing at the bit. They're salivating. They see the path. They're gonna bring all that back. No biological males or females allowed. Okay, speaking of salivating, this is a weird story. It has nothing to do with any practical politics right now, but I had to get to it. The New York Post is reporting that there's a new magic mushroom that makes users see tiny gnome people. And you say, okay, well, magic mushrooms, psychedelic mushrooms, they do make you hallucinate, so that's not surprising. You know, you, like, smell color, man, you know, and you see like little weird demon things or whatever. And that's the very specific subset of that. What's weird about these mushrooms is the scientists can't find any drugs in the mushrooms. They don't usually, the magic mushrooms use psilocybin. There's another active ingredient and that's not in here. So what are these guys seeing? So even to this day, science doesn't understand what's going on in the brain to cause this or how to treat it. And this mushroom is the only thing that we currently know of reliably to produce this effect. What they're seeing, they're hallucinating teeny tiny people all around them. This is something no other mushroom is known to do. They don't have any of the other side effects of magic mushrooms. They don't have the dilated pupils or the elevated heart rate or the impaired coordination. They just hallucinate little tiny gnomes. And apparently the gnomes are kind of playful. Apparently the gnomes will. They're like crawling up chairs and in doorways. They will interact with objects in the real world. They are three dimensionally rendered, highly detailed figures inhabiting the exterior world. And they don't know why it happens. They're calling them Lilliputians, after Jonathan Swift's skull over his travels. So the reason the story is so fascinating to me is I think, why would anyone do these mushrooms? Why would anyone do them? You don't even get the other weird effects of the drug. You just see little tiny gnome things all around you. Why would you do them? Is it just the novelty? Because that would freak me out a lot. I don't. Is it just the novelty? Is it just curiosity? I think that's why people do a lot of things, certainly drugs, but also lots of other weird behaviors. Is it just. It's just for the thrill and the weirdness of it. Like when people would tell you, I had a bunch of friends who did. I've never done a hard drug, but I had a bunch of friends who did like mushrooms or LSD or whatever in school. And they would say, oh man, it totally changes your brain. And I think, all right, well, I kind of like my brain. I'm not a brawny guy. So my brain is very, very important to my life. Why would I want to change it? No, it's. Man, it rewires it. I was like, yeah, well, but it's kind of work. It's basically working now. Why would I want to rewire it? No, man. Then they go further. They make spiritual claims. It allows you to communicate past the illusions of this world to another kind of spirit realm. I said in Christian language, that means you're talking to demons. Basically, I say, okay, why do I
- [41:45]
C
want to do that?
- [41:46]
B
Why do I want to talk to demons? You think about this with, like, seances and weird occult rituals. They say, no, you can talk to these spiritual entities that are very. I think, okay, I don't want to. No, thanks. No, thank you. Either. To go back to the gnome little gnome drug. Either they're not real, in which case they're just distracting and weird and I don't want to see the gnome people. Or they are real. Or if the hippies are right and you really are seeing something that maybe actually has a kind of spiritual reality, then you can see it in a physical way. Then I don't want to see the tiny little Lilliputian demons. Why would anybody want that? People are so stupid. I don't mean like other people, not me. I mean like people as such. After the Fall, we're so stupid. It's like Drew Clavin's orange for a head joke. We just want things that are bad for us to get a thrill. I don't know, but this is like, the dumbest one yet. Hey, do you want a drug that doesn't make you feel good but allows you to hallucinate miniature demons? What's the catch? What's it really? I can have all of that? No, thank you. I'm good. People, they do this with ayahuascas. You gotta go take ayahuasca, man. It's great. You evacuate your intestines, you violently vomit for like 12 hours. You sweat and then you pass out. It's so great, man. You think I'm good, Maybe I'll have a pina colada and sit at the pool. That sounds nice. Okay, before we go, speaking of novelty, we were obviously just interviewing the vice president on the show. A lot of those clips making the rounds. Lot of fake news coming out of that from the vice president's enemies, which I think is great. It tells you you're really over the target. Some really interesting, really interesting INS insights from the VP and into his way of thinking when it comes to religion, his conversion, which is the subject of his book, whether or not he's ever had a kind of numinous experience. You ever see a ghost? His view on the Iran war, the future of conservatism, how to make sense of all the warring factions on the right. A lot of insight there that he gave. But as part of this book tour. He went on Bill Maher's show and he gave us a masterclass in political rhetoric, talking to people on the other side. Because Bill Maher, for his flattery of the American right, occasionally, he's a guy of the left, he's a Democrat, he's a liberal, his premises are liberal. He's a Democrat. He's really not one of us. And when it really counts, he's not on our side. Here is how the vice president disarms him. You guys went too far. You went too far and you should own it like you did childless cat ladies.
- [44:31]
C
Okay? So here's the basic problem with that Bill is you cannot do any deportations without law enforcement. And you can't do a law enforcement operation like that without having some situations that don't look good when they're, when they're recorded like that. I mean, let me give you, like just one obvious example. Let's just set aside the immigration element of this, okay? If you take a guy who's committed murder and you go in and arrest that guy, sometimes that person's going to resist arrest. Sometimes if you take a video of it and it's out of context and you don't appreciate why that person is being arrested in the first place, it looks pretty icky if you take that out of context. Video clip. And what I worry about is when people say, you can't ever do immigration enforcement if it produces a bad video clip, what they're really saying is you can't ever actually do immigration enforcement. We had 12 million people come into the country, into the interior over the last four years, or I should say from 2021 to 2025. And we were elected with a mandate to get some of those people out of the United States of America.
- [45:39]
B
Just a masterclass. Just a masterclass in how to notice everything that he fit in into that. What was that one minute clip? You get a very common objection, and not just specific objection type of argument from Bill Maher. This is how liberals argue, whether it's on immigration or taxation or foreign policy or abortion or whatever he says. Look, look, look, people can disagree on immigration, but you guys went too far. This vague claim. Not that you're wrong in principle, you can't. Only the craziest ideologue would say it is wrong to deport foreign criminals in principle. Some Democrats make that claim. But Bill Maher's not gonna do that. He says, no, no, no, no. I'm gonna grant deportations. Rocking principle. But you guys went too far. And what Does Vance do? Does he say what a lot of us are thinking, which is we didn't go nearly far enough. Are you kidding? Too far. We got 3 million illegals a year coming in under Biden, plus another million legal immigrants, plus whatever chain migration that implies for the future. We gotta go way further. No, he says, well, Bill, okay, I see why you could conclude that. I see why. In other words, I see why that's a persuasive argument. Because anytime you have any immigration enforcement, forget immigration, he takes it out of that hot issue and he puts it into something we can all agree on, like a murderer on the street, who even is a citizen. Say, anytime the police go to arrest anyone for any crime, the criminal might resist arrest, and that might lead to provocative situations and that might lead to a confusing little melee that might not always look good on camera. He's not saying it was awesome for that cop to run over Renee Goode. Sorry, to shoot Renee Goode as she tried to run over him. It was awesome to kill Alex Preddy. He's not saying that. I don't think anybody really thinks that you can think the killings were justified while not celebrating them. You say, no, no, no, those do look bad. We don't like to look at those things on camera. Even George Floyd, who was resisting arrest and had a four times lethal dose of fentanyl and all the rest, it just. You don't like looking at a guy with his knee on his back or his neck, or you don't like looking at that, so you say, no, it can look icky. But just follow me here, Bill, if you're going to have any law enforcement at all, sometimes the criminals are going to resist and then you're going to get a provocative situation. And if you record it, sometimes it's going to look icky. But when people say, you've gone too far, what they usually mean is, we don't want you to enforce the law at all. And he says it in a calm way. He explains the real meaning here. And he does it in such a way that Bill Maher really has no rejoinder. And he says, that's really what that's getting at. It reminds me of when he was talking to. When the vice President was talking to Whoopi Goldberg on the View. And Whoopi said, you know, you're erasing history and you're not. You're erasing the history of slavery, the Trump administration. And he says, hey, Whoopi, what specifically are you talking about? And he doesn't do it in A condescending way or a mean way? What are you talking about, woman? He just says, hold on, I want to make sure we're not talking past each other. What specifically are you talking about? And she couldn't cite a single example. She goes, I mean, I'm talking. I mean, I mean, it's. Well, it's like, oh, there's so many examples. The same thing here. They say you've gone too far. Well, how far is far enough? Why do you think that we got too far if you sincerely believe that? And what do you really mean with that statement that you don't want us to enforce the law at all? But by the way, President Trump got elected with the popular vote, specifically with a mandate to do this thing, to do the mass deportations. So he makes the. He dismantles, or rather he exposes the substance of the left wing argument, which ultimately is speciest. And then he also gives the political justification for the President's actions, which Bill Maher can't argue against. It's just really masterfully done. This is the kind of rhetoric that conservatives should be paying attention to and should be imitating. It's very, very good. Okay, so much more I want to get to. When I get to James Tallarico's whiteness. I know I keep saying I'm going to get to his whiteness and masculinity. For the future senator from Texas, we hope not. But I can't do it right now. I am in the middle of nowhere, Idaho. I am going to give a speech today, then I am coming back. I'm flying back to Nashville. There will be a Membrum segmentum tomorrow. Not today.
- [50:06]
C
Today.
- [50:06]
B
If you want to talk to people that seem kind of like virtual, you gotta do the weird new magic mushrooms and hallucinate the gnomes. Cause you can't. There's not gonna be a creme de la creme Membrum segmentum today. That will resume tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. See you then.