The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1307 - RFK Finally Answers If He Would Run With Trump

Episode Date: August 11, 2023

RFK Jr. finally answers whether he would be Trump’s VP, the suicide rate hits an all-time high, and the GOP establishment attacks the party faithful.   Ep.1307    - - -     Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl   - - -    DailyWire+:   Get 25% off your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs   Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/Knowles   PragerU - Have your donation DOUBLED at http://www.PragerU.com     - - -   Socials:   Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6   Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA   Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg   Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some breaking political news this morning that will likely distress tens, perhaps even dozens of people. Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will not be Republican Donald Trump's running mate in 2024. Can you definitively say you will never run on a ticket for the White House with Donald Trump? In my experience, a lot of the stuff that you read in the mainstream news and the corporate news is what I I would call conspiracy theories. You're dealing with an entire industry made up of conspiracy theorists. And a direct answer to your question, no, I will not be Donald Trump's vice president. Drats.

Of course he won't be Trump's running mate. Bobby Kennedy Jr. barely agrees with us on anything. It is fun to see him poke Biden and the Democrats. It is satisfying to see him. to see him attack his own party over its COVID lies. That's pretty much it. Kennedy is with the conservatives on COVID, which is great, but COVID is not even a live issue anymore.

If COVID were the big issue of this election, Ron DeSantis would be leading the pack by a country mile. But it isn't. COVID was awful. The issues at play, however, in this campaign go even deeper. With an open border, an all-out assault on parents, and a Justice Department attempting to imprison the leader of the opposition. The question in this election is not an ordinary political issue, but a meta-political issue.

It's a crisis of regime. Do conservatives have any political rights left at all? Do we have the right to run our candidates? Do we have the right to pass our laws, to trust our institutions, even just to raise our own kids? I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. Really, really pleased to see some proof, I think, that I was right about Barbie, which is that Bill Maher hated it.

We'll get to that in a moment. First, though, this is my favorite take on the crisis of regime. Just came out from Roseanne Barr on Twitter. She said, the propaganda here from the other side is sad. It's just a collection of unhinged emotional outbursts from Trump derangement syndrome psychopaths who only hate him because the war party pedos told them to. I've been mentally ill my whole life, and these people are bat S-H-I-T crazy in comparison. Pretty much sums it up.

That's it, man. So if you think the issue in this campaign is, well, you know, those rates of illegal immigration are a little bit high. I think we need to curtail those a little bit. You know, I just think that those corporations are getting away with a little bit too much. We might need to regulate them a little bit more. then you'll probably try to pick from the ordinary array of candidates and policies. If, however, you think that the issues at play in this campaign are a little bit deeper, if you think that the fact that the current president is trying to imprison his chief

political rival is not just an aberration, but a harbinger of even more ominous things to come, then you're probably looking at the election a little bit different. and you're not going to be a one-issue voter, COVID or immigration or, I don't know, any issue. You're going to be looking at the whole political order. Now, Bobby Kennedy Jr. did just get one endorsement. That would be from Woody Harrelson. Lovable Woody Harrelson, great actor. He posed with Bobby Kennedy's wife, Cheryl Hines, who plays the wife on Curb Your Enthusiasm with Larry David, which is funny because Larry David's a huge lib and screams at anyone. who's even vaguely conservative. So this sums up the Kennedy campaign to me. The Kennedy campaign

is for cool hippies, not ordinary hippies who are generally insufferable, but cool, lovable hippies like Woody Harrelson. Bobby Kennedy's campaign is for anodyne populists, people who recognize that there is something wrong, not just with the Democrat Party, not just with the Republican Party, There's something wrong with the whole system. The corporate media, the liberal establishment, whatever term you want to use for it. But they're anodyne hippies because they're not going to support a populist candidate who can actually gum things up. Kennedy is polling at, what, 17% in the Democrat Party. Democrat Party keeps a much tighter lock on the primary process than the Republican Party does. There is a 0% chance that Bobby Kennedy becomes the Democrat nominee for president. Not going to happen. But you can feel kind of good because you say, all right, baby, I'm voting

against the system. It's like the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. It's like a glorified version of the Green Party. Now, the populists who want to get something done, they vote for Trump. Not that that's a guarantee to get anything done. It might not. They might not let him win either. But at least he has won before. At least he has gumbed up the system before. You see this a little more clearly overseas. The populists who want to get something done, vote for the Brexit. They vote for Georgia Maloney, although she has gone a little bit squishy. They vote for Viktor Orban in Hungary. They vote for the Vox Party in Spain. They vote for AFD in Germany. They vote for the Conservative Party in Sweden. They vote for these insurgent groups that actually have a shot of winning.

But if you don't want to deal with that, you don't want to be called an evil, terrible, monster, racist, this is, thatist. Then you endorse Bobby Kennedy Jr. And you get to have your cake and eat it too. You don't actually get any consequence out of that, but you get some populist cred without having to deal with the downsides of that. It is a crisis of regime, though, and I don't think I'm being hyperbolic about that. You want to know my evidence for it? My evidence for it is that the suicide rate just hit an all-time high. That's probably the best evidence I could give you that the problem we face right now is not just one little area of public policies gone off, or one little part of the government has become

corrupt, but that the whole system is really rotten. The suicide rate, in recent years, has been getting worse and worse and worse, so much so that the life expectancy in the United States has declined because of deaths of despair, overdoses, and suicides, and now the suicide rate hit an all-time high. Forty-nine, five-hundred people killed themselves last year in the U.S., highest number ever, CDC has not yet calculated the official suicide rate for the year. The available data suggests that suicide rates are more common in the U.S. than any time since at least the dawn of World War II. Largest increases were in older adults. Deaths rose nearly 7% in people ages 45 to 64, rose more than 8%, 65 or older, and white men in particular, the most maligned group in the entire country, probably in the entire world, have very, very high.

rates. This tells you that the argument of the Unip Party, everyone from the Clinton Democrats all the way over to the Romney Republicans, has fallen flat. And that argument, we've heard it a lot, especially over the last

10, 20 years, is that liberalism is great. And on the right, you hear classical liberalism is great. We just need to return to the Enlightenment values. And on the left, you hear, liberalism is great, and we need to follow liberalism to its logical conclusion and be more progressive and kindler and gentler, but we're all going to follow the liberal program of what,

of prioritizing material benefit, which is fine, we all want to be able to eat, but prioritizing material growth over any other consideration, not at all considering the other things that make a nation and nation, people, customs, language, borders, traditions, all of that is going, religion, most of all, that's all bunk, forget about that. That's from the Stone Age. That doesn't matter anymore. Now we have iPhones, and iPhones are all that matters. See, and when you ever suggest that maybe there's a problem in the country, a problem that goes a little bit deeper than one party and goes to the systemic level, what you will hear from the line towers on both sides of the partisan divide is, look, things are better now than they've ever been. Deaths in infancy are

way, way down, they'll tell you, look, people used to die in childbirth. Now those deaths are way, way down. You might say, yes, that's true, because of modern medical technology. The problem is no one's having any kids. Well, okay, sure, but deaths from war and violence, they're way, way down. Yeah, but people are killing themselves more than ever. Oh, okay, yeah, that's true. Well, now people aren't stuck in abusive marriages or marriages for politics or economic consider. That's true. Just now no one's getting married. Yeah. And people are literally killing themselves. So it reminds me of the socialists.

You know, the socialists would always say, look, socialism, it's just never been tried. Let's say, forget about all the actual data on what socialism looks like in practice. Let me tell you what it looks like in theory. And this is what I'm hearing from the liberals. Modern progressive liberals and so-called classical liberals all the same. They're basically saying, oh, no, true liberalism's never been tried.

Oh, don't look at the actual data. don't look at the people killing themselves, don't look at the families collapsing, don't look at the drug overdoses, don't look at the borders falling apart, don't look at the political structure. No, no, no, just in theory, in theory, liberalism is great. Who cares if it works in practice, does it work in theory? I care if it works in practice. And the millions and millions of Americans, the many, many millions of people across the West who are voting for these more populist parties who are questioning the dogmas of official regime liberalism in the last few years. We all care if it works in practice much, much more than what you can sketch out on a chalkboard.

Now, when you want to talk to people about these things, you've got to check out Pure Talk. Right now, go to Pure Talk.com slash Knowles. You know a company is looking out for you when they upgrade your service without even charging you for it. It's great news for new and current Pure Talk customers. Pure Talk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever. If you've considered Pure Talk before but have not made the switch, take a look again. For just 20 bucks a month, you will get unlimited talk text and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot. This is why I love Pure Talk. It's veteran-owned.

They only hire the best customer service team located right here in the great US of A. Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network in America. Remember, you vote with how you spend your money. So stop supporting woke wireless companies that don't support you. When you go to Peartalk.com slash Knowles, K&WLAS, you'll save an additional 50, 5.0% off your first month because they value you. That's Peartotalk.com slash Noles KNAWLES. Peer Talk Wireless for Americans by Americans. Speaking of the Uniparty liberal establishment types, Jonah Goldberg is typifying this. He's furious that people aren't just going along with the program. Jonah came out with a book after he had his big split with the GOP and the conservatives over Trump.

He was one of the true inveterate never Trumpers. He, like a lot of the self-styled classical liberals, wrote one of these books about how everything today is really great and all those dumb, stupid people in the middle of the country need to shut up and stop complaining because, you know, the enlightenment and classical liberalism is just so wonderful, and we just don't appreciate it enough. And so Jonah Goldberg is following this idea now to its logical conclusion by complaining about the fact that people, ordinary people, have a say in the nominating contests for the GOPAY. He's complaining that candidates are paying attention, not just to the big mega donors on Wall Street, but to the small dollar ordinary donors on Main Street. And just also think that we were dealing with a time where there were a lot of people,

there was a lot of cheering and self-congratulation about the rise of small donors a decade ago. And now small donors are actually one of the biggest problems for democracy for the GOP because small donors, large donors actually have a strategic view about moderation, who can win, who can't. Small donors really are just venting their spleen with their credit card. and they lock candidates into positions that can hurt them in the general election. Venting their spleen, the contempt just dripping from his voice. They're just these small, these small dollar donors, which is to say, ordinary people,

these ordinary people, they're a real threat to democracy. This is the exact same thing Hillary Clinton said. These deplorable, irredeemable, ordinary people. they're a threat to our democracy because sometimes they want something that I, an elite liberal, do not want. And that's a big threat. Jonah's actually

taking the argument even further. You've got to give them points for at least being honest about his views here. Where he's saying, you know, if these campaigns were just decided by a handful of billionaires on Wall Street, we'd be so much better off. Our democracy would be so much healthier. Of course, that's an incoherent statement.

Democracy is government of the people, by the people for the people. But he's showing you that when liberals on the left and on the right, when they use that term democracy, when they complain because the Hungarian people elected Victor Orban, oh, no, this is a threat to democracy. You say, how could the people voting for someone be a threat to democracy? What they mean by democracy is liberalism. A very elite, theoretical ideology that is having all sorts of problems in practice, but to which these people cling with the zeal of the most ardent converts and proselytizers. Of course, of course. But it's not convincing people. And so when that argument doesn't convince people, then the liberals on the left and

the right, turn against the people explicitly. Asa Hutchinson's doing exactly the same thing. Asa Hutchinson, who theoretically is running for president, he's the former governor of Arkansas, who became best known for insisting as a quote-unquote Republican governor, insisting that we trans little kids in Arkansas. Asa Hutchinson made the same point. The fact is, I'm not a self-funded candidate, and the RNC rules is burdensome on the candidates to, instead of, focusing on other ways of raising money and focusing on other styles of campaigning, I've got to spend all of my time at the Iowa State Fair trying to get on the debate stage with $1 contributions. And so that's not helpful. And it's not good for our democratic process.

It's not helpful to me that I can't just call a few billionaires and then become the president. I have to go, I have to talk to those disgusting, filthy people in, in, Iowa. I got to go to the state fair and eat a corn dog like a plebeian. Can you imagine like a rough neck, disgusting peasant? And that's a big threat to, I got to talk to people. It's a big threat to our democracy if I've got to talk to people to become their president. Notice where Asa Hutchinson made this comment. Did he say it on The Daily Wire? Did he say it on Tucker Carlson's show? No. He said it on The Blaze. Did he say it on? No. He didn't even say it on Fox News. He said it on MSNBC. Where did Jonah make his comments? I believe it was CNN. These guys were Republicans.

Even it pains me to see what's happened to Jonah Goldberg because I used to enjoy reading him sometimes. But the moment that Donald Trump came in and injected a little bit of nationalism, a little bit of populism into the national concern. conservative conversation. All those guys split. He said, nope, no thanks. I was willing to play around with the Republicans for a little bit when I thought that I could steer the party in a liberal direction. But now that I can't, okay, I'm effectively a Democrat. I know Jonas, I think still says he's a Republican. A. Sachinson's running as a Republican for president doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. But in their practical lives, where do they write? Who funds them? What TV channels do they go on. It's all for the left.

Russell Kirk made this warning. In the early days of the post-war conservative movement, when there was the prospect of a fusion between the conservatives and the libertarians, Russell Kirk, the great conservative political philosopher, warned he said, this is not going to work out very well because a lot of those libertarians ultimately are going to move to the left, which we've seen. Now, speaking of small dollar donors, Mike Pence has gotten a fair number of them, and that's why he is going to be on the debate stage for that first debate. So far at that debate, you are going to have, well, Donald Trump is qualified, but we'll get to whether or not he's going to be there in a moment. Desantis has qualified. He will be there. Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Vivek, Ramoswamy, Chris Christie, Chris Asante still has hope. Doug Bergam, I think has qualified, the North Dakota governor who is running as a tax-cutting social liberal. Don't think that's going to go very far. But Pence is qualified now too. And regardless of whether Trump shows up or not, this is yet another reminder that something that a lot of Republicans want to avoid is unavoidable. One of the main complaints

I've heard from Republicans regarding these debates and campaign is we got to move on from 2020. We can't keep talking about 2020. We got to move on. We got to move on. We got to move on. We can't. It won't happen. I'm not telling you, it's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just telling this will be a relitigation of 2020. The fact that Mike Pence is on that debate stage means that a lot, all of the questions to him are going to be about his relationship to Trump. And January 6th, and whether that election was stolen,

he was the vice presidential candidate during the contentious 2020 election. If Trump is on that stage, can you even imagine those two going at it? Even if he's not on that stage, people are going to be attacking Trump or attacking Pence as a lackey for Trump or for having turned on Trump. But there's no way to avoid that. That is going to happen. I'm sorry.

Don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just telling you that the contention that 2020 was stolen is the reason Trump is running in the race. Trump is the leading candidate in the race. So people are going to have to focus their fire on him, either directly if he's on stage or indirectly if he's off the state. stage. And if they're going to focus their fire on him, they're going to focus the fire on 2020. It's it. We're stuck there, baby. The only way out is through. And you know what rhymes with through? Prager You, which you got to check out. Right now, go to prageru.com. Many Americans have lost faith in the government, media, and schools. That's the bad news. The good news is there's

something that you can do to help get the country back on track. Prager You is an educational nonprofit that is fighting to save the future of America. Watched five million times a day, Prager You videos spread messages of liberty, economic freedom, and the values that built our country to the next generation. There truly is hope for America, but only if we reach more young people and Prager You needs your help. Go to Prageru.com and make a tax-deductible donation. Whatever you give right now will be matched and have twice the impact. Donate $10, it doubles to $20. Give $50, it becomes 100. You get the idea. 70%, 70% of viewers say their mind was changed after, watching a Prager You video. Please give to Prager You today so your gift can have double the impact

in reaching more people and changing more minds. Go to Prageru.com today. Whatever you give will be doubled. My favorite comment yesterday is from Cozgerer, who says, Michael's team has always laid on the bell because Ben Shapiro's book, The Authoritarian Moment, left them speechless. The authoritarian moment, not only Ben Shapiro's book, but My Future campaign slogan. It's going to be Knowles 2028, the authoritarian moment. That'll be a lot of fun. On the debate, on the Trump question,

Trump has now said he will not sign the pledge that he is required to sign to support the eventual nominee, which means that most likely he won't be in the debate. When you're at 75, 78, 80%,

and other guys you're at 0, 1%, 2%, 3%, you do say, what's the upside? Am I going to go up one point, but they could go up. You know, they're not dumb people. They're senators, their governors, they're intelligent people. You have some very good people. I think you have some very good people and you have some people. I mean, I have a problem with the debate for another reason. I wouldn't sign the pledge. Why would I sign a pledge or people on there that I wouldn't have certain people as, you know, somebody that I'd endorse. So they want

you to sign a pledge. But I can name three or four people that I wouldn't. support for president. So right there, there's a problem. Of course. Of course he's not going to sign the pledge. Before anyone out there who hates Trump, who is supporting another candidate, before you shoot the messenger,

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I've told you, I'm the last GOP conservative commentator in America who isn't actively working for one of the campaigns. I'm just describing to you what is happening. And I'd like to point out, I'm doing that not because I don't have thoughts and even some preferences in the campaign. I'm doing that because I think it's much more interesting to just tell you what I see.

I'm doing that because it allows my predictions to, hate to say I told you so, tend to be a little bit more correct, I think, than some other people's predictions in the campaign. and because politics is largely about leverage and power. And so you could be angry. You could say, well, Trump, he's a coward for not, okay, maybe. But why would he sign the pledge to say that he'll support the eventual nominee? Well, what about party unity? Trump doesn't care about party unity. Trump launched a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

2016 was a hostile takeover. He's not a lifelong Republican. He doesn't have any loyalty to the Republican Party. He took it over. And he was able to take it over because a lot of Republicans don't have that much loyalty to the Republican Party because they felt the Republican Party was corrupt and not giving them results. So that's off the table. Well, because he should want to debate to present his case to the voters. It's disrespectful. Yeah, maybe if his poll numbers were lower, then he would have to do that. But his poll numbers are very high, so he doesn't have to do that. Well, I I just think it's wrong of him. Okay, maybe you might think it's wrong. Sure, but unless Trump has an incentive to debate, unless he has an incentive to support the eventual nominee, he's not going to do it. So that's that. And you can whine and complain and pull your hair out over it,

but that's just a fact. That's politics. And if you don't like that, then you should stop following politics. To me, that's some of the most interesting stuff are these power games and who's got the leverage and where people are on the chessboard. I find that very engrossing. I find it delightful, no matter who the candidate is, that's quite interesting to me. But if you're just viewing the campaign through a lens of, why aren't things

turning out the way I want them to, why aren't things going the way I predicted? Well, then you should check your priors. You should check your premises. Because if your predictions are consistently wrong, then it means that there's something a little bit off about the way you're viewing the game. Now, outside of presidential politics, the former Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee, Carrie Lake, is apparently staffing up for a Senate campaign. This would be the campaign to take Kirsten Cinema's seat. Kirsten Cinema is a Democrat, but she's kind of moderate and she's now an independent. So she's running as an independent.

You've got a Democrat now who's running Ruben Gallego. And you've got a Pinaw County Sheriff, Mark Lamb, who's running as a Republican. Carrie Lake might challenge him to be the Republican nominee. This also makes sense. Carrie Lake has to run for something because she needs to set herself up to be the vice president. So Carrie Lake has been not so subtly campaigning to be the vice presidential running mate with Donald Trump, but right now she's just a lady who lost a gubernatorial election. So she needs something to give her the credibility to take that position.

The Arizona Senate seat would make a lot of sense. Speaking of women, I'm going to try to get through a lot of stuff before we get to the mailbag today. Dr. Charlotte Proudman, what a name. Couldn't write it better out of Hollywood. It just went viral for a message she had to pregnant women. She said, a message to pregnant women, please give the baby your surname. You carried a baby for nine months, gave birth, and will be responsible for that child for the rest of your life. When you're registering the baby, ask yourself, why is the father's surname more important than yours? Okay, I've heard this. Some people have written in with this question.

should should we you know have families with one name should women take their husband's name should the kid have the father's name the three reasons why they should the husband is the head of the household

as such everyone should have his name it's a family unit okay maybe you think that's a little too old timely and traditional for you second reason women carry the baby women have a very close connection to the baby, the man's relationship to the baby, you know, it's a relatively quick contribution. And so, with the baby taking the man's name, it joins these two things together.

The man will never have the physical bond with the baby that a mother has, but they will be a family unit and they will have his name. But the third reason why Dr. Proud Man Lady is so wrong here is that that baby will inevitably have a man's surname. The baby will either have his father's last name or his maternal grandfather's last name. She's saying, message to pregnant women, please give the baby your father's surname instead of your husband's surname, which doesn't make a lot of sense at all. But if you're doing this from a feminist perspective, it's going to be a man's name. Now, you might say, well, I'm a millennial and I actually, I took my mother's, I have my mother's last name. Okay.

And my mother actually, she had her mother's lesson. Okay, okay, go up two generations. You're going to get to a guy pretty, pretty quickly. Before we get to the mailbag. Bill Maher. Bill Maher says that Barbie was terrible. He said, okay, Barbie, I was hoping it wouldn't be preaching, manhating and a zombie lie. Alas, it was all three. What's a zombie lie? Something that never was true, but certain people refused to stop saying it. Tax cuts for the rich increased revenues, for example, or something that used to be but no longer is, but certain people pretend it's still true. Barbie is kind of a zombie lie. He goes on this whole long essay. He hated Barbie. I rest my case. You know, I had a little bit of a debate with our pal, Ben Shapiro, and some other conservatives. Barbie really split the conservative movement. And now that Bill Maher says that Barbie was terrible, I rest my case. That it was terrific. There were some people pointing to Bill Maher's commentary and saying, see, this proves that Barbie was bad. Bill Maher is wrong about pretty much everything. But I'm so glad Bill Maher disagrees with me. That's how I know I'm right. And this ties

into something we were talking about a little bit earlier, which is a deeper issue here. And that is, Bill Maher is a liberal. He's a progressive liberal, but he's styled himself in recent years as a slightly more classical, I don't know, classical meaning he's a liberal from the 90s. And some conservatives, some people on the right, have really gone along with this. Some of the squishier people on the right that say, oh, I agree with Bill Maher on all sorts of things. That's a problem. Bill Maher is an atheist libertine who maybe will say, wokeness has gone too far or something. If that's the best conservatives can do, if the best conservatives can do is conservative 90s liberalism, then,

let's just hang it up, folks. If we cannot offer an alternative political vision, if we're, if the moment that someone does offer an alternative political vision, we just cut and run and go wine on MSNBC and CNN, then just hang it up. And then there are no conservatives in America. If you can't recognize that Bill Maher is wrong about the most important things, he's funny, I like, I like Bill Maher. He invited me on his show one time. I didn't make it. Maybe I'd be happy to go on again. I like him in some ways. It's kind of funny, but he's wrong about everything. And if a conservative can't acknowledge that, You know, come on.

Then you probably don't even realize that Barbie's a good movie. Okay. Candace just wrapped the 10-part series convicting a murderer that you will not want to miss. It's one of our most ambitious projects yet. You might think that you're familiar with the Stephen Avery case and everything that happened in Manitawak County. Did I pronounce that correctly?

This is especially true if you watched making a murderer, but it turns out the filmmakers only told you part of the story. Coming soon, Candice Owens will unveil the shocking parts of Avery's story that were omitted in the Netflix series. Quite excited to present the convicting a murderer trailer. Check it out. This is a collect call from... Oh, Steve.

An inmate at the Calumet County Jail. The man served 18 years in prison until DNA evidence cleared his name. The Two Rivers Man was convicted of sexual assault in 1985, but exonerated with DNA evidence in 2003. So this is the infamous Avery lot? Now, two years later, he again finds himself tied to a police investigation.

Accused of murdering Teresa Holbeck on the Avery property. Stephen Avery's 16-year-old nephew admitted his involvement in the rape and murder of Teresa Hallbuck. The car is discovered just around the bend. It was just this worldwide phenomenon. I think they framed this guy. I think he intended to crush the vehicle, but ran out of time. Avery thinks the $36 million lawsuit he filed

is why he's being targeted in this investigation. Netflix made millions of dollars. from making a murderer. But the filmmakers left out very important details, mountains of evidence that you have not yet seen. The blood vile. The most egregious manipulation from the movie. Interrogations.

That's when he started beating me because I told him that he's sick. Cell phones. And I saw melted plastic parts of a cell phone. Interviews. Her arms were pinned behind her head. They made Stephen Avery look like a victim. Do you believe your brother's guilty?

I don't know if I'm a suspect. I get on a hide. I'm getting sick and tired. of media deception. Evidence piling off. Why would they omit so many different things? Why are you editing my testimony? I am not going to make the same mistake that the filmmakers did.

Rearranging the testimony, they delete a portion of it at the end. How could they claim to care about the truth? They all know that Stephen Avery committed this crime. The evidence forces me to conclude that you are the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. That looks pretty good. To get the rest of the story, you have got to watch Convicting a Murderer coming to you this September. This 10-part series is exclusive to DailyWire Plus. So join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. You get 25% off your new annual membership. So you can watch Convicting a Murderer when it premieres. Trust me, you do not want to miss this. And now finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.

This mailbag is sponsored by PureTalk. Go to PeartTalk.com slash Knowles, Knollas, to get 50% off. your first month. Take it away. Howdy, howdy, once again, Mr. Knowles, it's slot my base. Once again, coming at you with another question. So my church band has been asked to play the Assumption of Mary Ceremony at our local church next Wednesday. And what I wanted to ask you is, can you explain what the assumption of Mary is? I'm not very well versed in these holy holidays, as you know, and would like to know a little bit more about it. I realize I could probably save a lot of time by just researching it myself on Google,

but it's a lot more fun when you explain it to me. Plus, I like hearing your dulcet tones, much like I'm pretty sure you like hearing my dulcet bass tones and my music. Anyway, love your input, love your show. Thanks again. Excellent question and an excellent feast. The short version is that the assumption of Mary refers to the bodily assumption of Mary, the mother of God, into heaven. if you want to go find Mary's body on earth, you know, open up Mary's tomb, discover her remains,

you will not do that because Mary is in heaven. This is a dogma. This is a dogma that was defined relatively recently. It was officially defined in the Catholic Church in 1950, I think it was, by Pope Pius XVI in Munificentissimus Deus, I believe, is the document in which he defined it. but the tradition goes back much, much further to the very earliest days of the church. This is a view not only held by Catholics, it's held by the Eastern Orthodox, obviously, by the Lutherans, at least the Lutherans for a long time held it. I don't know if they still do or how many of them still do. The Anglicans believe in this.

It's not required, if you're an Anglican to believe in this. It's considered something indifferent, but many Anglicans do believe in this. the feast was preserved for a long time. Bollinger, the successor to Zwingli in Zurich, among the Protestants, he believed in the assumption of Mary. So the idea is that our Lord would not let his mother's body just simply decay on earth, but assumed her. This belief is attested to, at least as early,

as the 5th century, maybe the 4th century, and then there's an oral tradition that goes back, basically to the time of the apostles. but we've got very, very strong evidence of it, still from way back in antiquity. So anyway, that's the view. And a lot of people don't even know about it today, even though the vast majority of Christians for all of history have believed in it. Okay, next question.

Greetings. Dear Executive Grassy Knowles, for a long time now, I've questioned the titles used to differentiate American generations. You have Generation X, myself being a Generation Y, excluding the millennials, proceeding to Generation Z, what were we counting down toward? Now, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but now that I know that Generation Alpha will be the first majority non-white generation, was this planned since the 70s? No. It was planned since the 60s. You're not allowed to say that, because if you say that, they call you a conspiracy theorist and a racist and everything. But what's

funny as the liberals frequently will say that. They will, I mean, there was a very famous, I think 2004, very famous political science paper that talked about this new ascendant coalition of non-white people and how politically advantageous this is going to be for Democrats. And it goes back to the 60s because of the 1965

Hartseller Immigration Bill, which said, basically, we're going to open up the borders and dramatically flood the country with new immigrants, and that this will change the demographic makeup of the country, and this will, since it was passed by Democrats, this will presumably we're down to the benefit of Democrats. So that was planned. As for the naming of the generations,

you know, might just be one of those happy coincidences, all nature's, but art unknown to the, although if you look at the way that masculinity is going in the country, perhaps generation beta is a prophecy rather than just a coincidence. Next one. Hi, Michael. My name is Evan. I've been a longtime fan of your show. I'm sending this question today about Ronald Ronald Reagan, who was a figure, I think, on which we disagree. I want to know why you and so many other figures on the right venerate Ronald Reagan as some kind of icon and hero of our movement, when in reality he actually did a lot of things wrong. Like, when he was governor of California, he signed the nation's first no-fault divorce law and a law that required permits to carry loaded guns in public. While he was president, he signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized over 60,000 illegals just while he was president.

as well as deferring deportation for another 100,000 illegals. He also appointed Bush Sr. as vice president and tried to play nice with the libs, saying that we have no enemies, despite the fact that they were already committing industrialized baby murder. He was also famous for his intervention overseas. After his presidency, he signed a letter supporting Clinton's assault weapons ban. But in short, I think that Reagan was just another squishy Republican who gets too much credit for being patriotic, while he actually worked to undermine the country, like so many of our Republican leaders now. I just want to know your thoughts. Well, I don't venerate Reagan.

I do admire Reagan, and I don't deny any of the things you've said. He was far from perfect. He did a lot of things that weren't wrong. But I think you've got to put the guy in his historical context. First of all, you knock him for picking Bush. He picked Bush to unite the party. And I think you grant that. He picked Bush because Bush was a liberal Republican. and Reagan was the representative of the conservative Republicans. And he was conservative for his time. I mean, don't forget. He ran against Jerry Ford in 76, and he ran against Jerry Ford, who Ford had a lot of problems, but he was quite left-wing.

I mean, the guy was promoting the Equal Rights Amendment, this feminist madness that would have obliterated sexual difference much earlier in this country than it happened. So, you know, I talked to Yoram Hazzoni about this, the Israeli political philosophy. And he said, I know Reagan gets knocked a lot now, but at the time, it really felt like a revival. At the time, it really felt like a religious revival. And the madness of the 60s had been so, so intense that there was a lot of climbing back to do. And I just give the guy a little bit of grace for doing what he could do in his time, especially when he was governor of California. And then when he was president without a Republican Congress. I agree. He did all sorts of things and probably held views. In fact, I know he held some views that I would disagree with. But I think

he played his part. I can't think of a viable conservative who would have done better in his time. So I give him credit for it. But I agree. I don't think we should, you know, try to exhum his corpse, reanimate his zombie body and, you know, have him run for president again. He did his part in his time. Now we have to do our part in our time. Next question. Hey, Knowles, I have a question about reading. What should I be reading as a Catholic to further understand the faith better other than the Bible, the catechism? What authors would you recommend I read? I know you talked a lot about St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, what books should I read? And do you have a full reading list? If you do, that would be amazing. I don't have a full reading list, but I probably should make one. I was asked to make one the other day for an outlet that I should probably do. You mentioned the catechism. I would recommend reading the catechism of St. Pius the 10th. It's a really short one. It's very quick that you can read St. Pius the 10th. Great guy. And you can get it online for like $5. And it's quite good. And it would seem to be a little more precise than maybe catechisms that have come later. I would recommend for Chesterton reading orthodoxy. I would recommend reading anything by Hilar Belloc is just so delightful because he's so acerbic in his prose. I would write, yeah, I mean, you could open up the Summa Theologia. It might be a little,

little bit much to take in at once, but I don't know, I'd just sort of dive in. Sumicontra Gentiles, maybe is more approachable. I would recommend St. Athanasius on the incarnation. I would recommend the writings of St. John Henry Newman. Epilogia provitia sua is probably his master work. The idea of a university is really, really good. I recommend the writings. This is a little more contemporary of Father George Rutler. I really like him. He's a friend of mine, and he's an excellent writer. I would recommend, hmm, oh goodness, I don't know, it's just so much to read. It's a good place to start, though. Let's see, some written mailback. Ciao, Signor Renoz. I would like some advice on a matter. I'm newly engaged to a wonderful man. I love the idea of having a traditional wedding

ceremony. My only problem is that my father hasn't been active in my life. I barely saw him as a child, and even in my adult life, I rarely see him. It's rare for him to show up, even to family, holiday gatherings. My stepdad was the one who raised us and was there to support us through lives. He sadly passed away two years ago. My dilemma is about who should walk me down the aisle on my big day. Should an absent father be given this honor? Or would it be better to somehow honor the man who would have been given that duty if we were given time? It's a really tough ones already here for that, that you've got that dilemma and that your stepfather died. Had he lived and he were your adoptive father, he's the man who raised you, then it would seem clear enough he should probably be the one to

walk you down the aisle. Since he is gone though, and since it sounds like you've got a deadbeat for a father, I would still tend toward the idea that your father walks you down the aisle, even if you don't like him, even if he's a bum. I think that, you know, the wedding ceremony is a public act. It's liturgical. It's quite traditional. And you'll have a better life. You'll have a better life. if you forgive your father for being a bum. And one way to do that is to not turn your wedding into a protest of him. If he's going to show up to the wedding at all, and maybe that's up in the air, but if he's going to show up to the wedding at all, I would have him do it. It's not about honoring him personally. It's about honoring the role of the father. And it's, you know, a wedding is the beginning

of your new family. And it's making a statement about the family, that the family is stronger even than the individual and flawed personalities within it. So for those reasons, I would give your father that role, even if he doesn't deserve it. Okay, now, there's something coming out. There's something coming out this weekend that I am not even allowed to talk about on YouTube. The thing that is coming out will air,

it's a very long interview, it's a Michael And episode, it will air on DailyWR Plus and it will air on Twitter at M. Knowles Show. This interview is apparently so radioactive according to the sensors at YouTube that I can't even show you a trailer.

I can't even tell you the title of this interview. We shot it a little while ago. We were trying to figure out how to release it. It will be released on DailyWare Plus. So make sure you go check out DailyWR Plus. I think it'll be up there potentially for free

so anyone can see it even if you're not a Daily Wire member, but you're not to deal with a bunch of ads and a bunch of nonsense. It'll be a DailyWare Plus. It'll be on Twitter at MNOL's show. It involves a certain issue that we're not allowed to talk about on YouTube.

And it involves an angle on that issue that very, very few people are talking about. I'm not surprised that YouTube has taken such a strong stance against this because I think this kind of perspective really guts the political ideological movement that we're not allowed to talk about. Do you catch my drift? Also, it's fake headline Friday. I need your help with that. The rest of the show continues now. Head on over to DailyWire.com, use code Knowles. You will see on the member block.

You will see the trailer for this interview. DailyWire.com, use code Knowles. Check out for two months free on all annual plans.