The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1636 - BREAKING: 26 Feds Involved In January 6th Riot

Episode Date: December 13, 2024

Twenty-six FBI informants are confirmed to have been at the Capitol on January 6th, Caitlin Clark shares "her truth," and assisted suicide now accounts for one in 20 deaths in Canada.   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri   Ep.1636   - - -   DailyWire+:   Finish your Christmas shopping with one click. Go to https://DailyWire.com now and give the gift of DailyWire+!   Matt Walsh’s hit documentary “Am I Racist?” is NOW AVAILABLE on DailyWire+! Head to https://amiracist.com to become a member today!   Join The Candle Club! Become a Founding Member for 20% OFF, plus receive an exclusive members box with limited-edition candle at https://TheCandleClub.com   Order your Mayflower Cigars here: https://bit.ly/3Qwwxx2 (Must be 21+ to purchase. Exclusions may apply)   - - -   Today's Sponsors:   Lumen - Get 15% off your purchase! https://lumen.me/KNOWLES   Stronghold Rescue & Relief - Support our teams today at https://strongholdrescue.org   Stop Box USA - Get firearm security redesigned and save with BOGO the StopBox Pro AND 10% OFF @StopBoxUSA with code KNOWLES at https://stopboxusa.com/KNOWLES! #stopboxpod   - - -   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

The Justice Department Inspector General has just proven once and for all that there were 26 FBI informants present during the tumult at the Capitol on January 6th, the worst day in history of the Australian Republic. Which explains, of course, why the liberal media are uniformly reporting that the FBI had nothing to do with January 6th. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. assisted suicide is now the cause of about 5% of deaths in Canada. One in 20 people dies because of assisted suicide. And the numbers are only going to get worse. But before we get to that unhappy news, I've got something to show you. Prepare yourself.

I have to actually move things away on my desk. This is so exciting. There it is, baby. This is the Mayflower official 100-count. cigar humidor, glass top. It's upside down, but you see the Mayflower logo. You see the nice insignia here and you fit a lot of cigars in there. Also what I love about this beautiful humidor. It's got a nice little accessories drawer. You get your Mayflower cutter. You get your Mayflower lighter. You get this. Here it is. Your beautiful Mayflower leather carry case.

This is good stuff. I realized it was doing the math on the accessories. I think this humidor is severely underpriced. It's a little under $400. But just with the accessories, you get a lot of nice stuff. Anyway, these are going to sell out very, very quickly. So if you want, this is kind of your last shot, I think you can still get it before Christmas. But I would order it now because they will not last very long. Also, if you want your chestnut candles from the candleclub.com. Also, if you want your yes or no game and the yes or no expansion packs, you got to go to dailywire.com slash shop. You can get your order in now. Get your order in by Sunday. You will get your order in time for Christmas. Head on over if you want it. You know, if you want, otherwise disappoint your family.

That's fine. It's a heavy little humonor, isn't it? Okay. Big news. The DOJ Inspector General admits that there were FBI informants at the Capitol on January 6th. There were dozens of them. There were 26 of them. So that is Politico report up. on this. This is the headline. FBI did not deploy undercover agents on January 6th. Watchdog report finds undercutting conspiracy theories. Wait, what? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I thought, I saw that the FBI had 26 informants at January 6th, but this Politico headline says, FBI did not deploy undercover agents on January. Hold on. Let me read the article, at least. What are they saying? A Justice Department of Watchdog found no evidence that the FBI deployed

undercover agents to the Capitol or nearby protests on January 6th, January 6th, 2021, further undercutting debunked conspiracy theories about the riot being instigated by law enforcement. The report throws cold water on theories that have become gospel among some segments of Donald Trump supporters who accuse the FBI fomenting violence, blah, blah, blah. But hold on, and this is an interesting paragraph. Horowitz also found that among the tens of thousands of Trump supporters, who flooded Washington that day, 26 were people who had served as informants for the FBI. Wait, hold on. FBI didn't deploy...

Oh, oh, now I get it. They didn't deploy undercover agents. They just had informants there. An undercover agent is different from, I don't know, an out in the open office worker is different from an informant or an asset. Okay, so they did have 26 people who served as informants. Those informants, known as confidential human sources or CHS's, are not government. employees, but occasionally, they occasionally provide intelligence to the Bureau.

Next paragraph. Of those 26 informants, only three had been specifically tasked by the FBI to track individuals they suspected of potential domestic terrorism activity. And the other 23, you know, they were just kind of there. Though some of them, it's amazing, some of them proactively contacted the FBI amid the riot to report potential crimes. and just four of the 26 informants went into the Capitol and nine others trespassed on the FBI grounds. Hold on. Hold on. Wait. So the headline is FBI didn't deploy undercover agents, but the actual facts of the article are the FBI had 26 informants at the January 6th riot. They specifically tasked three of them with working for them at the riot. And then in addition to the,

the three who were specifically tasked with that, the other ones who were there proactively, some of them, not all of them, proactively contacted the FBI during the riot to snitch on people. And your headline, Politico, is, FBI didn't deploy undercover agents, debunking conspiracy theories. What do you talk? This totally validates all of the theories. The FBI had a bunch of people there. And they were during the riot, they were reporting and snitching on people who were there. and some of them were specifically tasked with being there and following people. This is why nobody trusts Politico and nobody anymore seems to trust the mainstream news networks and nobody seems to trust the New York Times or the Washington Post because the purpose of

this headline is to deceive. That's the purpose. Technically the headline is accurate. The FBI didn't deploy undercover agents. But is our accusation that the FBI deployed a specific kind of employee, this one specific kind of employee only on January 6th? No, our argument was, seems kind of like there were some feds there. You know, it seems kind of like the FBI was involved in this in some way.

It's kind of glows a little bit, man, wouldn't you say? And the Inspector General report proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the headline, and it's not, I'm beating up on Politico, it's not just Politico, it's all of the liberal news sources are saying new IG report debunks claims. But if you actually read the meat of the report, it completely validates the claims. This is a prime example of fake news. And for the people who do actually read into it now, we can see the FBI was involved in January 6th. On the ground, in the moment, live reporting involved. no surprise there. Meanwhile, the libs are trying to undercut the incoming Trump administration.

They obviously were trying to undercut President Trump in 2020, but they're doing it again in 2024, even after Trump's landslide win, even after he won the popular vote. They're trying to undercut the administration with sex scandals. And this is kind of ironic. The latest one, the latest one comes from or against Kimberly Gilfell. Foyle. Kimberly Gilfoyle, long-time Fox News host, conservative activist and commentator. She has been in a relationship with Don Jr. She's now been appointed or nominated for the ambassador to Greece. Great for her. Fabulous congratulations. Except now the libs want to take her down because of a sex scandal. I won't even get into all the ridiculous charges, but this is actually old news. There was a

report about this some years ago. It was during the Me Too movie. and it was some assistant saying that, you know, she spoke in improper ways to me or whatever. You know, who cares. My interest in this is not about the libs dredging up some long ago supposed sex scandal. My interest in this is in the audacity of the libs to make sex scandals a thing at all. Because correct me if I'm wrong, the liberal culture has told everyone for 60 years now, more than 60 years, that sex is no big deal. For 60 years, the libs have encouraged everyone to stop being so uptight about sex. The libs have encouraged everyone to have the weirdest

kind of sex they can possibly imagine. They have parades for weird sex. They fly flags for weird sex. They put those flags for weird sex in kindergarten classrooms with other weird sex propaganda. They are really, really pro weird, eccentric, bizarre sex. And then they have the goal to try to take down President Trump's nominees on sex scandals. Successfully in the case of Matt Gates, it would seem unsuccessfully in the case of Pete Hegseth. But they're going after everyone this way. They'll certainly go after Bobby Kennedy. They'll go after everyone, Trump himself.

Now Kim Gilfoyle. That's kind of odd, isn't it? Now, they never go after the Libs for their manifest sex scandals. Remember when Joe Biden had that bald-headed cross-dresser in his administration? he was the nuclear waste official. He ended up going down because he was a kleptomaniac who got caught multiple times stealing women's expensive luggage at multiple airports. So that had him out.

But when he was just a cross-dresser, gallivanting pictures of him dragging men along on leashes with leather costumes on, Joe Biden had that monkey pox, I guess that's sort of fitting. But he was a guy. He was a very open, homosexual, wearing pentagram leather harnesses doing all. We're not even talking about just like, kind of keep it to yourself stuff. We're talking like flaunted out in the open, post all over social media, we're queer, we're here, get used to it, weirdo sex stuff. That was never a scandal.

But now any time any Republican ever, you know, engages in any kind of romantic activity that did not immediately result in the birth of a child with one's wife, you know, all of a sudden now that's front page news. So it seems really arbitrary. Well, not arbitrary. It seems intentional, but it seems selective. And there's a conclusion to draw from this. One, the libs are being completely disingenuous and hypocritical on the sex scandals, which is why judging by the standards of the day, it's really difficult for me to get riled up about them because there's not a uniform standard for everyone, at least in the popular culture. But two, it is a reminder. to behave yourself. It's a reminder to avoid temptations to this weird sex stuff. And because

while everyone might say, oh, it's totally fine. It's cool. You're actually weird if you only want to get married and have children. No, come on. You need to loosen up, man. It's the age of Aquarius. They'll say that at one moment. But then the moment they want to take you down, they'll use all of that behavior. It's compromise is really what they're getting. I think this is why the liberal establishment is so keen on getting everyone hooked on porn and all this kind of weird sex stuff is because then people have embarrassing information about them. And then they can use it against you when you step out of line. It's compromise, plain and simple. So as a general rule, you know, stick on the right side of things, like behave yourself. But when we're talking about

these confirmation battles, I don't think any Republican senator should, should for one moment consider voting against one of these appointees because they engaged in, even in sexual behavior that might, that is legitimately kind of off or weird or could be, even if some of these allegations are true. That is not the standard by which political appointees are judged. And the libs are not bringing these accusations in good faith.

And if the culture has been telling people to do this stuff for 60 years, you know, I think we kind of have to offer a little bit of grace on that. And then we should fix the culture and have the culture stop encouraging it. There's so much more to say, first, though, go to lumen.me. Use code knolls. It is tough to prioritize your health, especially if you're not sure where to start. However, it's not just about making a decision. It's about making a commitment to a better quality of life. That is why I love Lumen. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It is a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. All you have to

do is breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning. You will know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. I was recently mentioning to my uncle, I had a family reunion. I think I mentioned this to you about another sponsor. Well, he was asking me about Lumen. He's a super fit guy, military man. And I told him, I said Lumen's absolutely fantastic. With Lumen, you're not just getting a device.

You're getting a health companion. It makes it super duper easy. And you can get 15% off right now. You go to Lumen. Dot me slash Nulse, K-N-W-L-L-E-S. makes a great Christmas present, too. L-U-M-E-M-E, use Code Knowles, KennaWLAS, for 15% off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring the show.

One last bit on weird sex stuff. There's a story out of South Jersey, the area, coincidentally, where I was conceived. South Jersey has just turned to the ABC News investigative team, because she says she was the target of a malicious online attack. Some guy created fake pornography about her. So some guy using artificial intelligence created all of these pictures and perhaps even videos judging by some of the things he's said, of her engaging in degrading, obscene actions that she never engaged in. And she's rightly upset about this and wants this guy to be held to justice. She learned the images were likely being created by a guy she'd befriended on a social dating app. The same guy she told her investigative team had also had access to her Facebook photos.

One thing that really stuck with me in the screenshot she sent me is that he said, I made so many clips of what that BITCH would do. Like, it's disgusting. Like, how dare you? This is very, very disgusting. But then it got me thinking, okay, what exactly is the crime here? Because he didn't take photos of her. He didn't secretly record her or anything like that.

He took publicly available images of her. Maybe it's a warning for women not to post all their pictures online. But he took publicly available pictures of her, then plugged it into a robot and asked the, robot to create a depiction of her doing all this weird stuff. But it's a, it's just an artistic depiction, an obscene artistic depiction, but it's not, it's not an actual photograph. I thought, how is this different from the guy if he had a crush on this woman and just spent hours at night doing an oil painting of this woman in all sorts of obscene positions? How would it be different?

It's just an artistic rendering of something from his imagination based on a real person. How is it different. And so a few ways that they're different. One, oil painting requires skill, plugging something into grok or chat GPT does not require skill. But furthermore, the way it's different is if the guy were spending hours and hours every night making oil portraits of some woman that he barely knows in obscene sorts of positions, that guy would be considered the creepiest predator, a true psycho who should probably be locked up in a padded cell, totally ostracized from society. But because he's doing the same thing, just plugging in some pictures into a robot, it's considered somewhat normal. Some people throw their hands up, they say, oh, there's nothing

we can do about this. Oh, well, that's just how it works. That is really spooky. That is really creepy. that we could normalize this kind of behavior. And deep fake pornography is now a ubiquitous problem for years. Law enforcement has been warning about this. So what do you do about it? The only thing you can do is you can try to put some limits on the technology, which would be a good thing to do. Libertarians might not like it, but that's a good thing to do.

And you need to pass laws criminalizing this stuff, which the libertarians also might not like and the liberals might not like, but you have to do that. And I know that the sophomoric response to that from the libs is going to be, well, who's it hurting? You know, what does it matter? What you're doing the privacy of your own? Well, it's hurting this person who's being depicted.

I think. I think the person who's being depicted ought to have some legal recourse and not have these realistic looking images of herself out there. It's hurting the individual who's looking at this stuff because it's turning him into like a little demon, you know, into a little pervert demon and warping his soul and warping, turning his brain into mush and just making him into a little creepy Gollum. You know, it's bad for him. And I believe as a society, we ought to create incentives that lead people toward flourishing and we ought to have disincentives for things that turn you into creepy

little pervert golems. That's just my view. Call me old-fashioned. And it's bad for a society because the individual participates in society. So if you have a society of perverts, you're not going to have a good country. And you have an obligation, not only to yourself, not only to your God, but also to your neighbors to not be a creepy little golem pervert, okay? So for all of those reasons and more, we got to cut this stuff out. And you have to do it at the private level, at the business level, you know, the corporate level,

but also as a matter of the law. There need to be severe punishments for this stuff to discourage people from getting involved in it so that we don't all turn into a society of little creeps. Now, speaking of young women, Caitlin Clark, the lady basketball player, has just been named the Time Athlete of the Year. And there are a lot of conservatives who are placing some hope in Caitlin Clark.

Seems like a nice girl. I believe she was Jesuit educated. Seems perfectly lovely. Some have even suggested maybe she's kind of conservative. Well, this interview she just gave to Time magazine seems to pour a little bit of water on that idea because she seems to be talking like a big lip. I feel like I always have had really good perspective on everything that's kind of happened in my life, whether that's been good, whether that's been bad.

And then obviously coming to the WMBA, like I've said, I feel like I've earned every single thing that's happened to me over the course of my career. But also, I grew up a fan of this league from a very young age. Like, my favorite player was Maya Moore. Like, I know what this league was about. And like I said, it's only been around 25 plus years. So I know there's been so many amazing black women that have been in this league and continuing to uplift them, I think, is very important. And that's something I'm very aware of.

And like I said, like I try to just be real and authentic and, you know, share my truth. And I think that's very easy for me. Like, I'm very comfortable in my own skin. And that's kind of been how it is my entire life. Yes. She gets the applause, but she's getting the applause speaking in a pretty, liberal way, even the notion that one can have his own truth or her own truth, my truth and your truth rather than the truth, the truth by its nature being objective. That's pretty lib. Elsewhere,

in Time magazine, it says, Clark is cognizant of the racial underpinnings of her stardom. I want to say I've earned every single thing, but as a white person, there is privilege. A lot of those players in the league that have been really good have been black players. This league has been built on them, you know, all this stuff. We need to elevate black women, black good, white, bad, all this seems kind of lib. Now, you might say, look, she's speaking the language, paesikivai, usanzikotrovi, you know, you've got to be all things to all men. But at a certain point, where does that leave you? She's using the language of libs. She's spending all her time around libs.

She's in a field that is intrinsically liberal. It's probably going to leave you a lib. And this is a broader observation that I think is important for everyone to consider. if you spend your life in and around libs all the time, you are most likely going to end up a lib. Or a conservative, if you spend your time all around conservatives, or a Zoroastrian, if you spend your time all around Zoroastrians. Human beings are memetic. We imitate each other. We imitate each other's behaviors and desires and beliefs. And we're memetic creatures. This is also why sometimes you have a real firebrand politician goes to Washington. D.C. to change Washington. What happens? Washington changes the politician.

Tale as old as time. Tale as old as the country, at least. Well, what happened? You were changed. Yeah, that's what happens. That's inevitably, actually. You just acclimate to your environments, which is why it's so important to create conservative institutions, which is why it's so important to uphold standards and norms for a conservative culture. You cannot be in a place and take on the habits of a place and speak in the language of a place without, well, without becoming as people are in that place. You know, we, it's not, no one should be surprised when that happens. We just need to make sure that all of that assimilation and acculturation that takes place makes people better, more inclined toward flourishing,

a more right wing. There's so much more to say first, though, go to stronghold rescue.org. Americans, we are blessed to have people like Navy Seals and Army Rangers and many others to represent and defend us during the worst of times. However, in most countries, when war and violence break out, there is often no one to help the people caught in the middle. That's where an organization called Stronghold Rescue and Relief steps in. Founded by a former Navy SEAL, Stronghold sends small teams of U.S. vets like former Navy SEALs and Army Rangers into active war zones to conduct rescue missions and deliver life-saving care in the most remote and dangerous places imaginable. At this very moment, stronghold teams are deployed on the front lines of the war in Burma, assisting

tribes facing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Some of these brave men will, unfortunately, remain deployed over Christmas to meet the urgent need in Burma. Stronghold is able to serve others because it's founded by a subscription model. It's similar to Netflix. Every month, thousands of supporters each pitch in a little bit to keep Stronghold running. If you would like to become a supporter, this is the time of year when you're looking at your donations. You can go to strongholdrescue.org. When you become a monthly supporter, you'll receive the same kind of t-shirt that Stronghold teams wear during their real-world operations. And a private donor this month is pledged to double the donation of every new supporter up to 25 grand. Right now, got to stronghold rescue.org.

My favorite comment yesterday is from the drummer's workshop, Norm's Music, says, if Luigi were at one end, were the one at the golf course, rather, hiding in the bushes, the left would have reacted the same way. Well, no, that's not true. the left would have loved him even more. In this case, the Libs loved Luigi because he allegedly murdered a health care executive. Had Luigi murdered the Mango Mussolini, then Luigi would be a national hero, an international hero to the left. It wouldn't be a hero to most Americans, most of whom support Trump. But, oh, man, if he'd gone after Trump, they'd love him even more. Now, speaking of death, assisted suicide is now the cause of one in 20 deaths in cancer.

Canada. Five percent of Canadians who die die by their own hand or by their own hand with the help of a doctor or a nurse or some other ghoul helping to snuff out their life. Most of the recipients are older adults, 96 percent, with a median age of 77. Well, hold on. Median age of 77, that's really actually not all that high. These days, people live into their 80s, sometimes 90s or 100. 77, that's actually younger than I would have expected. And that's the median, which means half of them are younger. Half of the older adults are younger. What about the 4% who were not older adults with the median age of 77?

How old were they? 50, 40, 30, 25? Yikes. We're getting these numbers from an annual report by the Canadian government, showing that ever since euthanasia, a preposterously titled euphemism, euthanasia means a good death. It's the opposite. It's the worst kind of death. It is the single worst kind of death you can suffer, a death at your own hand. A vile, evil way to die. A good death is a death where you have some notice where you can prepare your soul, prepare for

to meet your maker, surrounded by loved ones. That's a good death. That's what our civilization is considered a good death for many, many centuries, not anymore. Now we consider a good death to be one that you don't see coming or one at your own hand, both of which would have been considered the worst kinds of death when our civilization was healthy. The number just keeps growing, doesn't it? Since the establishment of Maid, medical assistance in dying in Canada, I was in 2016, more than 60,000 people have killed themselves. More people have killed themselves in other ways, but they've killed themselves through Maid. 4.7% about 1 and 20 of all deaths in the country. This is one of the real moral hazards of

assisted suicide. Assisted suicide or any kind of suicide is wrong because it violates the natural law. It is contrary to one's own good. It creates a duality in man where none ought to exist, where you become your own murderer, where you are the victim of yourself, which is contrary to the unity of the person. It's contrary to the most basic aspect of the natural law, which is to do good and avoid evil. It's an offense to God because God gave you your life. Even if you don't believe in God, you have to admit you didn't make your own life. You're not responsible for your own life. You don't own your own life. It is a gift that was given to you and you don't get to keep it forever. You are a steward of your life. And it's offensive to the person who gave you your life,

to the one God who gave you your life. This is one of the many more. Hazards, though, of assisted suicide, even beyond why it's intrinsically wrong. People say, when they think about assisted suicide, they think that it's some 99-year-old person suffering from immense pain that cannot receive any palliative care whatsoever. Now, this person doesn't exist. If there's one thing modern medical science has figured out, it's how to manage pain. We're pretty good at that. Not perfect, but we're pretty good at that.

but it's not the 99-year-old with the pain that can't be controlled at all, who's just going to be snuffed out five minutes before death, a mercy killing. No, no, that's not it at all. Not the numbers we're seeing. The problem with assistance, one of the problems with assisted suicide is not that a few people are going to kill themselves every year. It's that everyone's going to kill themselves eventually. The problem, one of the problems with this, I have to keep saying one of the problems

because there are many problems with it. But one of the problems with assisted suicide, one of the mistakes we make when we think about it is we think it's going to be some really small percentage of the population that uses it. No, that number is still growing in Canada. It's only been around a handful of years. The problem is eventually, as it is normalized,

you're going to see more and more, at a certain point, maybe most people dying in this way. This is like The Giver. If you've ever read the book, The Giver, Everyone just kind of gets killed by a doctor in the end. It's so normalized, it's expected. And then people who fear that they're a burden to their families, which is almost every elderly person, people who fall into a little bit of a depression. And this particular political climate, it's understandable why people would be a little depressed.

People who live in a culture of despair and a culture of death increasingly are going to be inclined to kill themselves. And that's going to be the way we do. We're going to kill ourselves if this keeps up. We often talk about the suicide of the West. This will be the literal instantiation of it. Speaking of despair, Rosie O'Donnell is blaming Donald Trump

for giving her herpes. Well, hey, everybody, it's Friday all day, as my Nana would say. And look what I have on my lip. Everybody's been saying, you have herpes, you have herpes, all this time, and I never had a cold sore in my life,

and now I have a cold sore. And it makes me think that perhaps this weird pimple that had a tiny little head was a cold sore too. And so I talked to my doctor today, and I did a video telehealth, and they said that it's not a cold sore,

it's some reaction to the sun. Now, I did sit in the sun yesterday, but I had sunscreen on. So I don't know, I will let you know tomorrow, if I do, in fact, have herpes as some of the taunting from the MAGA people in the last couple of weeks,

Hasn't it been fun, ladies and gentlemen, to be standing in direct opposition to everything he is and represents and always have been. And always will be. Okay, hold on. There was a little bit difficult to track her logic there at the end. So I don't think she's saying that Trump and the MAGA people gave her herpes. Though if it's some kind of reaction to stress or anxiety,

I guess then she could blame it on Trump. But it might, she might just be blamed. blaming Trump and the MAGA people for the mockery that she's receiving at the prospect that she might have herpes or I don't know. It's hard to track, but I do know she started out talking about how she has a blister on her lip and she ended up talking about how much she hates Trump. And frankly, I think she could have started out talking about any topic. I think she could have started out talking about the New York Mets or gingerbread cookies. and she still would have ended her monologue talking about how much she hates Trump, because, especially for Rosie O'Donnell, who's feuded with Trump for 20 years now,

but really for the Libs broadly, he lives rent-free in their minds. They just keep coming back to Trump. It's just every, it's about him. Everything's about him. The political narrative of the past decade almost now has really been about this guy. Sometimes your politicians say, it's not about me, it's about the people. It's not about me. It's about the climate. It's about this. No, with Trump, it really is just about him. It is about him. He, that man lives rent-free in their minds. I really like Trump. Obviously, I'm a big supporter of Trump from 2016, 2020, 2020, 24. But I don't think about Trump nearly as much as these people do. I host a political talk show and have for eight or nine years or something at this point. And I still don't think. Every day I, I'm, I do my show. I still don't think about Trump as much as these libs do.

Astounding. Now, speaking of conservatism, there's a story that I, look, I really wanted to get to it. I really, really wanted to. I said I was going to talk about it. Yesterday, I said I was going to talk about it tomorrow. I was about Yale Law School launching the Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech. And all the conservatives are excited, but they shouldn't be because neither of those things are conservative. But you know what? I've run out of time again.

I've run out of time again and I want to get to the mailback. It's more important for me to get to the mailback than to talk about Yale. There's so much more to say first, though. Go to stopbox USA.com. Use code noles. I'm so excited to tell you about a fantastic new product and that would be my stopbox. As a gun owner myself, I can tell you no more worrying about fumbling with your keys in the dark or dealing with some electronics safe where the batteries might die.

the worst possible moment. You're left in the lurch. This thing, the Stopbox Pro, brilliantly simple, incredibly effective. What blew me away was the build quality. This is built from glass reinforced polycarbonate that is real tough. And the push button locking system is mechanical. So it gives you instant access when you need it. No keys, no batteries, just reliable security with quick access. For those of us who take our Second Amendment rights seriously, while prioritizing family safety, This is exactly the sort of thing that we are looking for. What really sets Stopbox USA apart, everything's manufactured right here in America in their own facilities. Right now, go to StopboxUSA.com, use Code Knowles, and you will get a buy one, get one offer.

So you get 10% off plus your free Stopbox Pro. StopboxUSA.com code Knowles. Are you still, even still, searching for the perfect Christmas gift? DailyWR Plus gift memberships are 40% off right now. It's a ticket to uncensored truth, unapologetic news, premium entertainment for the conservative in your life. With a DailyWire Plus membership, they will get a year of daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media with limited ads, live breaking news that gives the full story. You will also get access to an entertainment library packed with hit movies and documentaries like, Am I Racist, along with Can't Miss series like Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's The Gospels. Get 40% off DailyWR Plus gift memberships at dailywire.com slash gift 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 PureTalk.com slash Knowles, Canada, W.L.A.S. You'll get an additional 50% off your first month. Take it away. Hey, Michael. I'm just I'm 17. I'm Dominic and I'm 17. And we're really big fans of the show. But we just had a question. We were talking with some friends and we have a friend in class who is, who is a female but pretends to be a male.

We don't want to call her by her fake name, but we don't know what a real name is, and we definitely don't want to call her by the false pronouns. But is it all right to call her by her fake name, Miles? What would be an alternative if we didn't want to call her by her fake name? Anyway, thank you. We really appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. God bless you. Thank you. Really good question, guys.

And one that doesn't have an easy answer because you don't know her real name. I guess what I would do if I were in your shoes. It would be very difficult for me to use the fake name Miles. If she were going by Skyler or something, maybe you could, because some names are ambiguous. Even like Evelyn or Evelyn, you know, Evelyn Wall. But Miles, that's a fella's name. There's no doubt about that.

And one of the reasons that you don't want to call the girl by the boy's name is not just to stand on your high horse or even, just to maintain your principles, which is an important thing to do. But it's also, you don't want to be guilty of scandal by affirming this poor, confused girl of a delusion that is really harmful to her. So I think you actually would be harming her, and you would be harming a lot of other people, if you were to call them by some fake name, the name of the opposite sex. Certainly, you wouldn't use the pronouns. So what would you do? If it were me, I would avoid using the name.

Or I would I don't know, maybe use the last name if you can. I don't know if her name is Millie Smith or something. Oh yes, the lovely Smith over there, you know, or something. It's very difficult. It's very awkward. This is why this is one of those issues that's so

polarized and polarizing is you can't even speak about it. When you speak about it, you are taking aside. I remember some years ago, a friend of mine, one of a handful of friends who have really written me off because she's very, very liberal, very liberal. But we were chatting and we were talking about Bruce Jenner or something like that. And we were having a conversation and she referred to Caitlin Jenner and she, she and her and Caitlin Jenner, and I was referring to Bruce Jenner and he and him. It was very awkward. You can't, you actually can't speak. And whichever one

gives up first on the name and the pronouns is implicitly conceding the debate. So I would, in charity, but in justice also, I would avoid the name. Hey, you. Next one. Hi, Michael. It's the Shuckmeister. Since assisted suicide is being pushed, I would like to ask if it's at all possible to have a death with dignity by your own hand. Now, I'm a Catholic. I believe it's deeply mortally sinful in union with the catechism. However, a little-known Catholic poet you might have heard of called Dante has a bit of a nuanced take. The first demand that Dante and Virgil meet in Purgatorio is Cato the Younger, the famed a Roman statesman who chose to unalive himself rather than compromise to Caesar. He's not condemned to the circle of violence against self. In some

ways, he's venerated by Dante guarding the foot of Mount Purgatory. This is especially confusing because Dante has a strong respect to Caesar in his writings. Why do you think it is is. And did people like Cato or even Socrates die with dignity by their own hand? It's a very, very good question, a very challenging question. But my answer is, I think Dante used a little poetic license here. The issue is Dante puts the suicides in hell very clearly. And their skin has been cast off. And it's on all these gross like trees and because they just They had no care for their bodies in life. But he puts Cato, who is an exemplar of liberty for Dante, in purgatory, he's guarding

Mount Purgatory. And Cato also killed himself rather than see the total collapse of the Roman Republic. So what do we make sense of that? Well, Dante is focusing on an aspect of Cato, his defense of liberty. And he's not really answering for the suicide. You know, St. Augustine deals with this issue, too. Is Cato, is it good? Is it defensible that he kills himself in defense of?

of liberty, or is it, or is it disreputable? And Augustine's very clear. He says, no, it's bad. Don't defend him for killing himself. That's wrong. But St. Augustine is writing a work of theology. Dante is writing an epic poem that contains a lot of theology, but it's about more than theology, and so I would say it's

poetic license. And not in any way defense of suicide. Next question. Hi, Michael. My name is Josephine, and I'm a Jew living in Romania. My husband and I are currently going through IVF, and I've been struggling with the bioethical dilemmas of the disposal of unused embryos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christians believe that

since life begins at conception, the disposal of unused embryos is tantamount to murder. As Jews have a different perspective, and I'm curious to hear your opinion. In Judaism, we believe that IVF is okay, provided that the sperm and the egg be from the husband and wife, and thus they frown upon surrogates, egg and sperm donors. Thank God that's not something my husband and I are doing. We are using my egg and his sperm, but because of fertility issues, we are unable to conceive naturally. Secondly, for life to begin, you require the egg of the sperm and the womb. Without the womb, it is not yet a life. The embryo will not continue to grow on its own without an incubation in the mother's womb, meaning that it is morally okay to dispose of unused embryos. I think this

would not include the possible scenario in the future where scientists are able to grow the baby in an incubator outside the mother's womb since the womb provides for much more than just an incubator. What do you think of this perspective from comparative religious preview? Thanks for all that you do. Love the show. Really good question. Sorry to hear about your fertility struggles. I don't think that argument quite holds up. You rightly recognize that there are bioethical issues for IVF. I know it's tempting. I would discourage you from doing IVF. I would encourage you to try other methods. tried to sell my wife and me IVF for two years and they really push it and they make it seem like that's the only option and it's not two years in we got we got our first kid now we've had a couple more since

then and it was through other methods you know for my wife she ended up taking a shot for a week and self-administered shot and that was it so I'm not saying that will work for you but I this is how they lure you in this is the only way you won't have a kid no big deal yeah there's some bioethical problems but who cares the ends justify the means and it's all sort of It's a moral reasoning that is weak. But the weakness of your comparison here is you say, look, in order for a child to grow, you need the sperm and the egg, but you need a womb, you need an environment for the baby to grow in. So if you create the child outside the womb, if you deny the womb to the child,

then you have no obligation to keep the child alive. Now, there are other problems here. Because in order to procure the sperm, you might need your husband. to engage in an intrinsically evil action. So that would complicate the ethics here, right? And you would have to undergo some invasive surgery. You say that the sperm and the egg have to be joined from a husband and a wife, but there are mix-ups at the IVF factory all the time happens frequently.

So, you know, you might end up in a case where you've got a kid who has a mother and a father who don't even know each other, or where you have a baby who's been implanted in the wrong woman. These things happen. They're in court right now. So that would complicate the ethics there. But let's say you actually did get it. A husband and a wife and the sperm and the egg together, but you say, look, I'm going to deny this baby.

I've conceived this baby outside the womb, which is naturally impossible, but using a little wizardry, we did it. But I'm going to deny the baby the womb, so it's okay to kill the baby. Well, you could just fast forward nine months and observe that in order for a baby to grow, a newborn baby to grow, the baby needs a home. If the baby is left exposed on the street, the baby's going to die within a matter of hours at most. So is it okay, then, to leave it?

the baby on the street, a newborn baby. You have a newborn baby, but you're going to deny the baby the home, just as you would deny the embryo, the womb. You're going to leave them out there, and look, nature's going to run its course. Are you not morally culpable for that? Of course you would be. If you left a little baby out to die of exposure, of course you would be. So I don't mean for my advice to be in any way harsh, but I think that the, I've never heard a compelling ethical argument for IVF, and I've heard many, many good arguments as to why it's not acceptable. And the only arguments I've heard for it or that it's people want it. They really want a kid, which is a natural longing. But I don't think that an end, no matter how good the end is, I don't think that justifies immoral means. Next question.

For the last few years, conservatives have been saying, look at how bad the inflation is under Joe Biden. Think about how much worse it could get under Kamala Harris. That's why we need Donald Trump in the White House. But now all of a sudden, conservatives like yourself, are saying, oh, it's not about the prices. They're going to get worse under Trump, of course, because of the terrorists. But he's going to create long-term sustainability. This seems to be a massive goal shift to me. And I would like you to define what you mean by short-term pain, because to me, in the realm of politics, short-term means more than four years at least. Are we going to be experiencing a situation where Democrats are going to have justification for saying, look how bad the economy was under Trump, which is going to

run counter to our electoral goals? And if that's going to run counter to our electoral goals, fight for long-term sustainability is going to be moot point anyway. So which is it? What should we be arguing for? Thanks. I don't think there's any contradiction at all here. I don't think Trump has hit the ball on this at all. Just consider the deportations. Trump says he's going to deport 10 million people. You deport 10 million people. That is going to cause labor costs to rise, especially 10 million people, many of whom are practically indentured servants. That is going to cause labor costs to rise. It doesn't take an economist to realize that. So those costs were going to go up. if Trump ran on tariffs. He said, I'm going to slap tariffs. He was very open about tariffs,

and he used tariffs in the first term. That is going to cause the costs of certain goods to rise, though it's also going to create an incentive for goods to be manufactured at home, which would be at lower cost. So I don't think he's hit the ball at all. The difference here is that the Democrats brought us inflation because of their irresponsibility, short-term loss and long-term loss. Trump has plenty of of economic measures that will reduce certain costs in the short term, like unleashing American energy, just to use one important example. But he has other economic programs that might increase certain costs in the short term in certain areas, but in the long term, we'll bring costs down and make us more secure nationally. So you have the Democrats, short term bad, long term worse,

because of their irresponsibility. For Trump, you have short term, maybe it's a mixed bag, long-term better because of his responsibility. Those are not the same things. Okay, it's fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code. Knowles, Ken or WLA.

So check out for two months free on all annual plans.