The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1312 - Christianity Called "Bigoted" As Attacks Continue

Episode Date: August 18, 2023

Joe Biden gets caught using a pseudonym in Hunter’s crooked business deals, a Republican congressman calls Christianity “bigoted,” and Trump plans to release a 100-page report exposing 2020 election fraud.   Ep.1312    - - -     Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl   - - -    DailyWire+:   Get 20% Off Select Jeremy’s Items: https://bit.ly/3ObQOqg   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   Helix - Get up 20% off + 2 FREE Pillows with all mattress orders at http://www.HelixSleep.com/KNOWLES.   - - -   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

Remember a few years ago when we all discovered that Mitt Romney had an alter ego? Senator Romney, we learned, went by a pseudonym, Pierre Delecto. And as Pierre Delecto, Romney liked and replied to tweets from journalists and from some of his colleagues in Congress. Okay. Well, it turns out there's another politician in Washington with a gnome-de-plume. This time, it's President Biden, whose pseudonym is Robert L. Peters. And as Robert L. Peters, President Biden emailed Hunter Biden's crooked business associates and scheduled secret phone calls with the president of Ukraine while running U.S. policy on the Eastern European nation.

A little bit different. Very different uses of pseudonyms. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has uncovered Biden's secret identity, which appears to have been a little bit more focused and a little bit more lucrative than Mitt Romney's silly burner. account. The committee has actually uncovered that Biden used multiple pseudonymous accounts to secretly conduct business with his son and foreign powers while he was vice president. Those other pseudonyms include Robin Ware, J.R.B. Ware, and who knows how many others. This fact might explain why Joe Biden struggles these days to remember his own name. He has so many of them. It's difficult to

keep track. Also might explain why Joe Biden managed to forget and deny all of the times that we now know he heard about, participated in, and apparently profited immensely from all those crooked business deals. It wasn't him, after all. It was Robert L. Peters. But something tells me, despite the committee's request for more records that the executive agencies are going to continue to Stonewall, they're not going to go after Joe Biden or Robert Peters or Robin Ware or any other Biden persona. They're not going to go after the current president for being a crook. They're too busy prosecuting the former president for opposing him. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Knowles show.

Welcome back to the show. There's some real anti-marriage propaganda going around on TikTok, whether this is propaganda sent from the Chinese through TikTok or just from insufferable American leftists. We will get to it. First, though, I've got to turn my attention to a Republican. Back to Congress, back to Capitol Hill, to a Republican there, though. This is a bizarre saga. I was traveling a little bit the last couple of days, and so I'm just catching up on it now, which I'm glad it actually took me a little while because there have been some new developments. Over in Ohio, there's a GOP conservative activist and campaigner by the name of Lizzie Marbach, and she tweeted out this quote,

There is no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone. Okay. It's a pretty basic profession of the Christian faith. The Christian creed begins, I believe in God, the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, Seferon of Pontius Pilate, which crucified died and was buried, the rest of the creed goes on. And so this is a very, very basic expression of what you believe if you're a Christian. There's no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone. Okay.

Also, this is a private citizen, a woman with not very many followers on Twitter who has worked in politics and has campaigned and apparently worked for the Ohio right to life. Okay. Then a sitting Republican congressman quote tweets this lady. and says, this is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen. Delete it. Lizzie, delete it. Delete it. Christian. Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion. You've gone too far. This is one of the most bigoted tweets I've ever seen. This is an insane, completely egregious tweet. The translation of which is this profession of Christian faith is one of the most biggest tweets I've ever seen.

delete your expression of faith, Lizzie. Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion, except for Christianity, apparently. You've gone too far. Okay. So completely insane, completely unacceptable, truly, truly scandalous stuff from a sitting member of Congress, Max Miller, a Republican to boot. But he then recognized his error. So not too long afterward, he tweets out, I posted something earlier that conveyed a message that I did not intend. I will not try to hide my mistake or run from it. I sincerely apologize to Lizzie and to everyone who read my post. I'm really glad to see this because he says, I sincerely apologize. I was wrong. I did something wrong. Sorry. And I'm generally, I try to be quick to accept apologies. I try to be slow to anger and quick to forgive. That's in the Lord's Prayer. We Please, Father, forgive us our debts as we forgive those who trespass against us. But there's a question raised by this apology. It says, I posted something earlier that conveyed a message I did not intend.

So the obvious question is, well, what message did you intend? This is a pretty blunt tweet. So what message did you intend? It would seem more reasonable to me that he intended to say exactly what he did said, but he said it in a moment of passion and anger and irrationality. and then he realized once he had cooled off that what he said was completely unacceptable, and he regretted it and changed his mind. That to me, so it's, that seems much more likely to me.

The congressman is more than welcome to come on the show. We can talk about it. It's a little bit of an ambiguous apology, but still, he says, I sincerely apologize. I did something wrong. The thing that I said came out wrong. I'm sorry. Okay. But then, this is really troublesome.

it broke last night that Lizzie Marbach, the woman who posted this basic expression of faith, has been fired from her job at Ohio Right to Life. It also came out that the congressman's wife is on the board of Ohio Right to Life. Now, I don't know, maybe this gal, Lizzie Marbach, maybe she really messed up something in the office yesterday. Just coincidentally, you know, she poured coffee on the computer. or all right, you're fired gal. But that seems unlikely to me. It seems likely to me that she was fired in relation to this tweet,

this sitting member of Congress attacking her for the most basic expression of the Christian faith I can possibly imagine. And then publicly apologizing, but then she loses her job when the congressman's wife is on the board of the... It really stinks to high heaven. And so now, while previously,

I would totally accept that apology, and I think we ought to be as gracious and forgiving as we can be within reason and within prudence. Now I have to question that apology. I think we need to call attention to that because it's indicative of a broader problem in the country, which is we talk a lot about religious freedom, we talk a lot about neutrality and everyone's welcome to believe whatever they want, but there is a concerted effort in this country that has gone on for many, many years to stigmatize Christians and to ostracize the and to push them out of the public square and to kick Christian beliefs and customs and rituals

out of classrooms, government buildings, the popular culture, just everywhere. A big, big problem. And now, when you add on to that, you've got the FBI infiltrating Catholic traditional masses, when you've got the FBI coming in knocking down the doors of pro-life activists knocking on, you know, the wife opens the door, seven kids there, they arrest the father for simply following his faith and protesting against infanticide. You see, there is a deeply, deeply anti-Christian campaign going on in the country. And I expect it from the libs, but when you see it from a Republican member of Congress, that's a big problem. Had the, had the gal not been fired, I'd say, okay, move on, accept the apology, because you also want to give

people an off-ramp. I don't know what motivated this guy, Max Miller, to send his tweet. Maybe he was really tired, he was overworked, he was drunk. I have no idea. But I've said plenty of things that I come to regret or that I didn't even believe at the time. So I'm totally willing to extend grace.

But there needs to be an explanation for why this woman lost her job. Because right now does not look good. It would seem to be part of a broader campaign to attack Christians in the United States, which is a Christian nation, which has been founded from the very, very beginning to be a Christian

nation, without which Christian soul, without which Christian spirit, the country, in the words of our own founding fathers, the country doesn't make any sense. The country can't work. We got to talk about these things. When you want to talk to your friends, you got to check out Pure Talk. Right now, go to PureTalk.com slash Knowles. You know a company is looking out for you when they upgrade your service and don't charge you for it. It's great news for new and current Peart 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 a month. He will get unlimited talk, text, and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.

This is one of the many reasons I love Pure Talk. They're veteran-owned and 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 coverage in America. Remember that you vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting woke wireless companies that do not support you. When you go to PureTalk.com slash Knowles, you'll save an additional 50, 50, 50% off your first month because they value you. PureTalk.com slash Knowles, PureTalk Wireless for Americans, buy Americans.

Speaking of misspeaking, Kathy Hochel, the Democrat governor of New York, she is not happy with all the illegal aliens who are making it to New York. After conservative governors like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott and Texas and others have passed along the great benefit of all those illegal aliens, you know that wonderful expression of diversity, which is our strength, well, Texas and Florida, they don't want to hog all of that wonderful diversity for themselves. They want to pass some of it along to Martha's Vineyard and Rahobah Beach and to New York. And Kathy Hochel says, hey, hey, we didn't ask for this. Do you think the city may have dropped the ball somewhat in dealing with this crisis? Over 100,000 migrants arriving in New York City since spring of last year. No, the mayor has had extraordinary challenges. He didn't invite all these individuals in.

I think there was an expectation that not so many would be allowed to come to the border or that they'd relocate another state. so no, this is nothing anyone could have anticipated, and it's been an enormous challenge. We didn't ask for this. No one could have anticipated this. You literally asked for it. You and Eric Adams and many Democrats who preceded both of you

in New York have asked for it when you have described New York as a sanctuary state. When you described New York City as a sanctuary city, that is the same thing. thing as telling illegal aliens come here. You're not welcome in other parts of the country. You are welcome here. Please come here. But they say, please come here when they don't think that the Florida governors are going to help those illegal aliens who generally don't have a lot of money make that long voyage. It's very easy to say, please come here when you're a thousand miles away or more.

Because you think, well, these guys, they're probably not going to hop on a Greyhound bus, so it's going to be El Paso's problem. It's going to be Texas's problem. It's problem. Until Abbott and DeSantis start chartering flights, then they come there and they say, wait, we don't want this. We want you guys to have all the diversity. Okay. Well, that's the reality. The reality of a sanctuary state is this massive increase in disorder and dysfunction and crime and housing problems and all the rest of it that goes along with it. And I'm so glad that New York finally gets to see that so closely. Speaking of the rule of law, there's good news and then there's bad news.

The good news was Donald Trump was planning a press conference at which he was going to double down on claims of 2020 election fraud and provide a 100-page report that apparently documents it. The bad news is he's just canceled the press conference because a bunch of news organizations reported that Trump's lawyers were advising him to cancel the event because such an event. would expose him to further legal consequences. Here is what Trump said. He said a large, complex, detailed but irrefutable report on the presidential election fraud, which took place in Georgia, is almost complete and will be presented by me at a major news conference at 11 a.m. on Monday of next week in Bedminster, New Jersey, based on the results of this conclusive report, all charges should be dropped against me and others. There will be a complete exoneration. They never went after those that rigged the election. They only went after the,

those that fought to find the rigors, the rigors, not R-I-G-O-R-S, R-I-G-G-E-R-S, Riggers. I love this. I wish you did the press conference. I think it was a bad idea to cancel it, and I don't know what those lawyers were thinking. I do know what they were thinking. They were thinking, oh, no, Trump, oh, please, Mr. President, please shut up about the election fraud, because it's going to, they're going to put more charges on you, and that's going to complicate the 2024 election. Guys, I see that, I get that, I recognize that prudence is the highest political virtue. Trump is currently facing over 700 years in prison. There is an argument to be made based on the statutes involved in the charges against Trump

that they could try to execute him. Okay, I don't think one more press conference is going to hurt. Oh, no. if he has another press conference, they might try to throw him in prison for 800 years. Guys, we're so past that. And from the political side, but people are going to say, just move on, stop talking about the 2020 election. Just talk about the future.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe, theoretically, it would be better if we could talk about 2024 rather than 2020. They're trying to throw the guy in prison over 2020. They're trying to throw the current leader of the opposition, the presumptive Republican nominee for president in prison for for the 2020 election. It is not possible to avoid talking about the 2020 election in 2024. But if only we could just talk about our brand new tax plan, that would win over so many more suburban voters. Yeah, sure, if my grandma had wheels should be a wagon.

But you can't do that because the election will hinge largely around the person of Trump unless something drastically changes. The election and the candidacy of Donald Trump will. will hinge largely around the multiple indictments that he's under, the hundreds of years in prison that he's facing, and all of that is going to hinge on the 2020 election. So you can't avoid it. Guys, you've got to talk about it. Trump can't run away from his claims that the 2020 election was rigged. The only reason he's the presumptive nominee right now is because he's claiming the 2020 election was rigged. That's how he's still got mojo to run.

George H.W. Bush couldn't have run again in 1996 after losing in 1992 because he lost, and everyone knew he lost. With Trump, there were, to my mind, very legitimate questions to be raised about the ways the Democrats rigged the election. But even if you don't believe that, even if you think it was a totally fair election and the Democrats, they would never cheat or anything, and they just coincidentally changed all their rules right before the election, even if you think that, the reason that he is a candidate right now and a plausible candidate is because he can claim that the election was stolen and a lot of people will believe it. because we have eyes and ears, and we read news reports and saw what happened. So you can't run away from that.

I would just double down. I would just recognize that the only way out is through. Now, speaking of Trump and those poll numbers, new poll out from NPR and Marist showing that not only is Trump leading the pack on the primary side of things, but he's neck and neck with Biden nationally, Biden 47, Trump 46, so statistics. a tie, which is a tough argument. It's a tough fact for the people making the argument that Trump can't possibly win a general election. And also among independence, Trump is leading Biden by a lot. According to NPR Marist, obviously not a right-wing poll, Trump is up eight points among independence over Joe Biden. Then you look at the Harvard Harris poll. Trump is currently leading Biden for president by five points, 45 to 40. And among independence, Trump is leading Biden by

18 points, 45 to 27. Still, you're going to hear this argument from some people who prefer other candidates. They're going to say, well, Trump just can't win the general election. Sure, he's dominating the primary, but he can't win a general election. What is your evidence of that? The only evidence of that is the 2020 election, which, as we've just pointed out, is hotly disputed, I think legitimately so, because the Democrats changed all the rules right before the election. Some of those rules have been fortunately changed back a little bit, but who knows? Maybe we're just through the looking glass and we're not going to get a fair shake for the near future. The other reason why that argument is weak is all the people right now who are making the argument

that Trump can't win a general election made the same argument in 2016. I'm not saying it's 100 percent every single person is identical to the people who made that argument in 2016, but the overlap is pretty substantial. You can't help but notice it. And so that argument doesn't have credibility because all the people making it were wrong about that argument in 2016. He obviously can win a general election. He already did. He's now running two national elections, one with basically ordinary voting rules, one where they completely upended the voting rules in ways that open up the system to a lot of fraud, as even Barack Obama admitted about widespread mail and ballots and extending the voting period far beyond voting day. Obama made that argument about

10 years ago before it was advantageous for his side to do it during COVID. Regardless, though, you can't make that argument. And when you look at these numbers, again, we take polls, we take all social science with a grain of salt. I don't see how one can argue that Trump doesn't have a shot in an even relatively fair election. I'm not saying he's going to win. I'm not convinced he's going to win at all. Even if he is the nominee, I'm not going to put all bet the farm on that.

But to say he doesn't have a shot, guys, look at the facts, look at the numbers. Don't look at what the chattering class is saying. Don't just look at what all the GOP genius consultants are saying, people who have been wrong time and time again. Just look at the numbers and look at history. That might help you sleep easier at that.

You know what else will help you sleep easy? Helix. Right now go to HelixSleep.com slash Knowles. With everything going on in the world right now, you could really use a good night's sleep. That is why you need to check out Helix mattress. Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience.

They just launched their new Helix Elite. The Helix Elite collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences. I've had my Helix for years now. I absolutely love it. Night after night, I sleep like a sweet, delicate little child. I want the same for you. Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress. Why would you buy a mattress made for someone else? Get out of my mattress. I'm a married man. Go to HelixSleep.com slash Knowles. Take their two-minute sleep quiz to find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type. Their flexible payment plans

make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away. Helix is offering 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners. Hurry over to HelixSleep.com slash Knowles with Helix Better Sleep Starts. Now, folks, it's here. You can enjoy an all-new episode of my beloved wildly controversial interview game show. Yes or no? In this latest episode, I'm joined by metal band lead singer and comic book guru, Eric July. Check out this clip.

Every Hollywood superhero moving forward will be required to have at least one LGBTQ character shoved into the story. What do you mean moving forward? We're already there, buddy. Don't forget, you can bring the show home. Yes or no, the game is in stock. Go to Dailywire.com slash shop to get yours. These games go very, very fast with 200 cards and the ability to play up to nine people at once. It is easy to see why this is the best-selling and most important game at the Daily Wire.

Yes or No? the best way to add some excitement to your parties, challenge your friends and family's knowledge and delve into the most thought-provoking topics of our time. By the way, the new booster pack, the booster set with brand new cards on conspiracy theories, is

here. It's here. It's landed. Okay, folks, go get it. If you've already played all the game, all the cards, go get some more. DailyWire.com slash shop. Order yes or no today. My favorite comment yesterday from Vanilla Southpaw. Michael's going soft, none of his show was censored on YouTube today. I want to correct that, okay, because

I see why you would think that, but that's actually not true. Some of my show was censored on YouTube. It's just that our editors are so good that they were able to splice out that section without totally disrupting the show. But basically every single day, there will be part. Sometimes, if it's just a word that I have, they'll bleep it out and keep the rest of it. But if there's a segment that YouTube says, no, we're going to nuke your whole channel for this. Then we cut it out. The editors, producer Danny's very good at this. The editors will cut it out. So you'll have to go to all the other places where the show is, the RSS feed, Apple Podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Twitter at Emnoles show, the Daily Wire Plus, obviously. Head on over there. That's where you can see the full show

where I talk about all the spicy topics that YouTube won't let us talk about. Okay, speaking of spice and the sexual revolution and weak arguments like we were talking about in 2024. There is some anti-marriage propaganda going around on TikTok. This video is going everywhere. I cannot ignore it any longer.

If you're watching, you can see it. If not, I will describe... If you're only listening, I will describe what's happening. A pretty young girl, nice looking, happy. She puts an engagement ring on, on the wrong hand, actually. And every time she puts it on, she sees a vision of herself cooking, cleaning, being barefoot and pregnant, holding a baby. She's working so hard. And she puts it down. She says, no, thank you. I'm out. I'm out. Don't need that. Don't want marriage.

And the thing about this clip, people are saying, on the one hand, this is not true. This is not true. That's not what marriage is like at all. And on the other hand, obviously people on the other side are saying, that is what marriage is. That's why you got to flee. And the reality of this clip, of this anti-marriage propaganda is it's half true. It's half true in that when you get married, you will be cooking and cleaning. And if you're a good wife, you'll be cooking and cleaning and having babies and taking care of the babies and keeping a home. You'll be doing, you will be doing all those things. some some are pointing out well you're doing a lot of those things anyway even if you're not married you know cooking and cleaning at the very least doing laundry yeah that's true but it's it's not even in the same stratosphere okay when you the amount of just laundry that exists when you have even one baby not that i know much about this it's not like i've ever done probably a single load of laundry at my house but i see it see my wife my wife does a lot of it she works very very hard that's that's true you do all of that and there is joy that

comes from that. The real answer to this anti-marriage propaganda is, what else would you be doing? And the setting for the video is so perfectly telling here, because it's at a nice-looking little brunch spot. That's where it is. Nice little outdoor patio, cafe sitting at a table. That's where the guy's proposing. And that is the alternative. If you don't want to get married, if you don't want to have a baby, if you don't want to commit to religious life, and marriage isn't for everybody, if you don't want to consecrate your singlehood to something greater than your own pursuit of pleasure, then you're just going to have a lot of brunch. And you know what? At every single, discrete moment, the brunch is going to seem more pleasant than getting married

and having a baby and raising a family until it's not at all, until it's misery-inducing. and until you realize that the family is this joy that I couldn't even possibly express. So I get home from work. I've been on the road. I've been working hard. My wife, she's been working very hard. We sit down. We're just so bone tired.

And then the kids come over and they do something that's like demanding more of our energy and attention. I can't go. I just want to sit and watch an episode and I just want to go eat brunch somewhere or something. And then your little kid just says something or just looks at you and just kind of giggles and smiles or something. And your heart swells up. It's so great. What are you going to do? You're going to do something in your life. And so then the question becomes deeper. The question is, is the point of your life to receive a lot of pleasure, to feel really pleasant all the time, or whether we're talking about material pleasure, whether we're talking about pursuing your career ambition or something like that? Or

do you have more of a purpose? Do you have a biological purpose? Does your body imply a purpose? Does the fact that you're a social creature and a complementary creature and that in the words of Thomas Aquinas, human beings are pairing creatures? So men are for women and women are for men. Does that point you towards something that will be more fulfilling? You're right, lady. If you get married, you're going to work a lot harder than you're working now as some bubbly little feminist 22-year-old. girl eating brunch. That's true. You'll also live a much happier life. Work is not the enemy. Sloth will not make you happy. Mimosis will not make you happy, at least not for very long. Speaking of women's issues and stories that I almost certainly will not be able to talk about on YouTube, I'm just going to read the headline. I'm not even going to introduce it. The headline is demands ex-boyfriend return his frozen testicles. A Michigan man who identifies as a Muslim woman

has filed a legal claim to retrieve his... It's the woman, but it's his amputated testicles from his ex-boyfriend's refrigerator. And this is just the first paragraph. Defendant retains possession. So I guess it's hard with all the hises because it's two dudes, one of whom pretends to be a woman, but they both have testicles.

And it's confusing where the his refers to, but I think it's that the ex-boyfriend possesses the gonads of the man who now says he's a woman, and they split up, and the man who thinks he's a woman wants his gonads back. Defendant retains possession of my surgically extracted testicles, preserved in a mason jar, kept in the fridge next to the eggs. This is real.

Demand immediate return of my human remains specimen and damages of $6,500, writes, 40-year-old, 4-year-old Brianna Kingsley, I assume his real name is Brian. This was in an affidavit to 37-year-old William Woltzot-Cochochewski, according to a report by Redux. Okay, I'm going to leave the news story there. There's something deeper to this story than just the absurdity and sensationalism of the headline and what these people look like and the body part at stake here. This is the logical conclusion of a libertarian premise, which is the principle of self-ownership. Okay.

We live in a society now that treats our body as property to be commoditized and sold. The libs have done this by pushing the sexual revolution. The right has done this by making an idol out of capitalism and commerce. this is why you will hear left-wing and even some right-wing kind of people, or right-wing libertarian types, say that we should legalize prostitution, or say that they have no problem with pornography, or say that, well, at least on those two, those are two examples where you are very clearly treating your body as property that you can sell. I mean, the most extreme libertarians will say you ought to be able to sell your organs because your body is property. And it comes from this

principle of self-sovereignty and self-ownership, which many, even conservative people, would say that they believe in. But it's fundamentally wrong because you don't own your body. You are your body and you are your soul. You are a steward of your body and your soul. But you are not accountable only to yourself. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want to do. You are accountable to him who made you, who gave you your life, who gave you your body, your soul, you're accountable to God. And we are accountable to God in many ways, one of which is by following the moral law, the natural law, the objective moral order in the cosmos. That is why you don't get to pretend to be the opposite sex. That's why you don't get to do a ton of weird

sex stuff. That's why you don't get to chop yourself up and follow all sorts of fantasies. That's all the philosophical and theological reason. A practical legal reason is If you treat your body as property, you're going to get into really weird situations like this, where you commoditize yourself, you chop off part of your body, you give it to your boyfriend as a gift. Not a great gift of, you know, he makes Van Gogh look positively sane. You know, I'd much rather receive an ear in the mail than whatever this guy gave to his boyfriend. But then you'll get into a moment of regret where you realize, wait a second, my body is not just some piece of property. It's not like I gave them a mixtape.

These are my family jewels here, okay? not diamonds or rubies, something even more precious to me. Give those back. I don't really have the right to give those away. That's completely insane. So the guy, this obvious lunatic, the guy who says he's a Muslim woman, he is recognizing that. At some deep level, even if it's not at a conscious level, and he's demanding it back. What will the courts do now? Remains to be seen. Because we live, the law still tends to reflect the old classical understanding that you don't get to just like sell your body parts and give them away. But the culture reflects the modern libertarian understanding, which is that you own your body as a piece of property and you can do with it as you please. Where will the courts land?

Remains to be seen. Speaking of what to do with your body and how to chop parts of it off, you obviously don't want to chop off organs or anything like that, but you do need to chop off your stubble, don't you? Of course you do. As you if you want to look clean and shaven and smart. That's why you got to give your son and his values a fighting chance with Jeremy's back-to-college deals. Get up to 20% off select razors and men's care bundles. Get Jeremy's shampoo, body wash and conditioner. All paraben free. Sulfate-free, woke-free, made here in the U.S. of A.

Get him a Precision 5 razor with welded steel blades, a sturdy tungsten handle, and flip-back trimmer. Unlike your kid's radical professors, Jeremy's aims to groom his face, not his beliefs. Go to jeremy'sraisers.com. take advantage of the last day of this sale. Now, speaking of dishonesty, oh, are we at the mailbag already? We've made it, oh my gosh, goodness gracious, we're already at the mailbag. I have so many more things to get to. That'll just be my tease for this weekend, or maybe we'll talk about it in all access today. But now, this mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk. Go to Pure Talk.com slash Knowles, KnaW, L-A-S. You get 50% off your first month. Take it away.

Hi, Michael Arun here, username Arun Parody in the chat. First of all, I am not the real Arun. I just happen to share his voice, face, home address, bank account, social security number, parents, and wife. But I'm not him. Never even met the guy. Anyway, I'm calling in to discuss the issue of space aliens on which you and Matt Walsh, both of whom I love, no homo, have taken equally absurd positions on opposite ends of the spectrum. As I understand it, you object to the existence of intelligent aliens because the existence of such an intelligent,

human race would preclude your belief that Jesus is the savior of all mankind, i.e. the children of Adam. Now, I'm familiar with the New Testament and the particulars of Roman Catholic theology, and I disagree with your claim that these are mutually exclusive assertions. And I say this as someone who doesn't believe in Jesus. I merely believe that the existence of aliens is unrelated to the question of whether Jesus is the savior of mankind, and I'm curious to hear you expand on why you believe otherwise. Now, on the other hand, Matt Walsh starts with the very reasonable premise that intelligent life evolved on other planets as it did here. I think that this is statistically likely, and as a Hindu, I believe that any such life was created by God, with immortal

souls, they are subject to the law of karma. However, Matt urs in my opinion by expressing the inane proposition that UFOs, which in all likelihood are radar blips and optical illusions, are in fact aliens that amends to breach the light speed barrier and come here only to prank us by hinting at their presence without revealing themselves. It's far more likely that this narrative is promulgated by the Democrats to distract from the many crimes of the Biden family who should be prosecuted under the very RICO laws they're being weaponized against Donald Trump at the moment. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and if you think there can be a middle ground between yours and Matt's current position on aliens. Thank you, as always, for your wisdom.

Arun, as always, very articulately stated. You totally get to it, and I totally agree with you on Matt. I also, my view has been slightly caricatured, I think, which is that people say that I think that all the alien sightings are demons or something, which is not my view. My view is that probably a lot of it is, as you say, optical illusions, little radar blips, and the government's trying to cover up various weapons programs. Though I do think that some of it, inasmuch as people do see shadowy little gray figures, very possibly could be demons, which I certainly think exist, as virtually everybody for all of human history. Now, to the question of the statistical likelihood, I guess this is where we disagree, because

in order to ascertain the statistical likelihood of life existing elsewhere in the universe, we would have to know something about how life arises in the first place. And there are people who hold a deeply held religious belief in some theory of evolution or other who believe that life arises just naturally or, inevitably is a process of complexity over time develops amid, I don't know, I don't know what. I don't know what because nobody knows what because no one has ever shown the natural process by which we go from inorganic to organic, but from which we go to inanimate, I should say, inanimate to animate. I just don't, I've never seen it. So it would seem to me,

to me at least, that the development of life is much, much, much more special, that it's not the inevitable product of some natural process. So therefore, if it were the latter, then the vastness of the universe might imply that statistically it would be likely that life would arise elsewhere. But if it's the former, as I believe, or at least as I have no reason not to believe, then the universe could be 50 gazillion times larger than it already is, and that would still not imply anything about the statistical likelihood of life arising anywhere else in the world. The other reason, just from the Christian perspective, is we hear about a lot of different things in the Bible, all sorts of things that we don't know much about, Leviathan, Nephilim,

principalities in power, spiritual wickedness in high places, orders of angels, demons, all sorts of things. Don't you think, if there were little green men out there somewhere that might have popped up, It seems like a pretty glaring omission to say nothing about what it implies for salvation history. So anyway, as usual, Arun, I deeply respect to your points, but I'm afraid the most insightful part of your question was when you pointed out that Matt Walsh is wrong. Next question. Hello, Michael, big fan. I just watched your interview with Tracy Shannon.

And while I can't help but feel terrible for what happened to her and her children, there were a couple things in there that really did not sit right with me. Tracy refers to being asked by her husband to do some unusual things in the bedroom as, quote, sexual abuse and coercion. To me, this is an extremely grave false accusation. This smacks of the Me Too movement, and I was hoping you would push back on this claim a little bit more. As a conservative movement, I hope we can distinguish going forward between a false belief that upends your entire life and causes you to not be able to fulfill your duties to your children and a bizarre sexual fetish that is captured. relatively within its proper place inside the bedroom. This obviously was not kept to the bedroom, but speaking as a Catholic who himself struggles with some pretty severe fetishism,

I'm very thankful that my own is not the kind that will compel me to grievously hurt others or to upend my own life, but there but for the grace of God go I. I know your advice to me might be simply knock it off and be normal, but as you know, this is much easier said than done. I hope that God willing, if I ever were to get married, and gathered the courage to explain my desires to my wife and to open up to her about them, that she would be receptive or at least understanding and patient with me,

not threaten me with divorce or accuse me of something tantamount to rape like Tracy Shannon did. Am I being too harsh on her here? Please let me know your thoughts, Michael. Thanks. You are. You are being too harsh, and it's a very good question, but you're wrong. And you're wrong in the way that, unmarried guys are wrong. As you're saying, look, I've got all these bizarre sexual desires, and I just hope that my wife accommodates them someday. That is not the Catholic view of sex. The Catholic view of sex is that sex has a purpose, okay, and the purpose is not just to

indulge whatever fantasies you have. Even if you say, well, they're not violent fantasies. They're just some other kind of fantasy. Right. Even that. Not a great idea. The other reason you're wrong here is because you are viewing desire in the way that Freud might view desire, which is that you've got to blow off a little steam. And if you don't indulge some of these desires, then they're going to totally warp your mind and go out of control. That's very different from the Aristotelian view of desire, which is that it's a habit. And so you cultivate habits. And the more you indulge, say, these sexual fetishes and desires that you have, that's not going to alleviate those desires, it's going to exacerbate them. It's going to make it worse, actually. So the best thing that

you can do is try to tamp them down a little bit. And obviously, in a way that is prudent, you ought to try to turn your desire. It's a fallen world, and we're subject to concupus. And so it's probably not going to totally work, but you should try to turn your desire toward that which is properly ordered. And you will find, this is not just a sex thing. This is true of all disorder desires, you will find that those disorder desires abate, at least to some degree. As you say, you struggle with these desires now, I don't know, I'm not accusing you of looking at pornography or anything like that or even fantasizing. But don't forget, even the willful entertainment of disordered and impure and unchaste thoughts and desires, even that is a sin

if you do it willfully. And so you should really work on that because the basic reason is because Sex is not about just you and fulfilling your pleasure. Sex is about the other person, your spouse, one hopes, and about fully giving of yourself to the other person, not merely, you know, titillating yourself. And doing that in such a way that the love between you two becomes so real that it creates another person. Okay, next question.

To put a button on that. Hello, Michael. Hold on, pause that question. To put a button on that, No, no husband or wife has the right to the indulgence of, of some disordered sexual desire by his spouse or her husband for the purpose of pure pleasure. I mean, that's a very modern view of sex. It's not a Christian view of sex. Next question. Hello, Michael. This is Brian. Come in to you from a village named after a word derived from the Native American language, meaning mud turtle. You mentioned in the past you would like to have a deeper cigar discussion on your

program. I do need your cigar expertise. What is your protocol after you have enjoyed a fine cigar in a delicious beverage and you want to have some romance with sweet the little lease? And you go up to her and she says, Mark, get away from me with that filthy cigar breath. My question to you is, when I would like to get fresh with the bride of my youth after enjoying a Monte Cristo White series and a delicious beverage, what can I do to prevent from hearing, Brian, get away from me with that filthy cigar breath. I appreciate all you do. Continue being the light. Anytime you're blowing through the windy city, let me know we can have a chat over at Monte Cristo. Take care. Bye.

A beautifully stated question, you have the cigar afterward. That's the real answer. You know, you're the head of your household. You call the shots ultimately. prudence is an important prudence keeps coming up today prudence is an important virtue and the prudent thing to do is you save the cigar for the end of the night that's what you do

we have more voicemail bag to get too we've got more written mail bag to get to we've got fake headline Friday there's a lot to do the rest of the show continues now you do not want to miss it become a member use code NOLS and WLES at check out for two months free on all annual plans

Thanks.