The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2023 - Did America Just Merge Militaries With Israel?

Episode Date: July 24, 2026

Viral posts claim we just merged our military with Israel's, the Tate brothers' attorney blames their arrest on an international conspiracy, and Marco Rubio weighs in on the campaign to make Vice President J.D. Vance the face of Iran diplomacy. Ep. 2023 - - - Today's Sponsors: Cardiff - America’s favorite small business lender, provides the liquidity to move at the speed of business with same-day funding up to $500,000. Apply in under 3 minutes with zero credit impact. Apply now at https://cardiff.co/knowles PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and enjoy your first three months of talk, text, and data for just $15 a month. Go to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES to make the switch.  Catholic Match - If you’re looking for a partner, check out the largest Catholic dating platform in the world. Built for Catholics serious about their faith. Visit https://CatholicMatch.com to get started. Balance of Nature - Visit https://BalanceofNature.com today. Subscribe to the Whole Health System and receive an additional 10% off your subscription with promo code KNOWLES. - - - DailyWire+ 🎆 🇺🇸 Our America 250 SALE is still available! Get 3-Months of DailyWire+ for just $17.76 📜 Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Recently, our company's softball team lost the big game by one run. Then Dale tried to console us with the quote, Winning isn't everything. Well, Dale and I are very different. I get early payout from Bed 365. If my team goes up big, I get paid out instantly, even if they blow the lead later. Sound familiar, Dale?

Thanks, Beth 365. Must be 19 or older Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please go to connectsuntario.cate and C-Supply. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same-day funding, up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co slash Knowles. Did the House of Representatives just vote to merge America's military with Israel?

That is the viral claim about the National Defense Authorization Act. We will get into what the bill does say and what it does not say. Then Andrew and Tristan Tate's attorney blames the brother's recent arrest. for rape and trafficking on an international conspiracy. And he kind of has a point. He's got a little bit of a point. Also, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio weighs in on the campaign to make Vice President J.D. Vance, the face of Iran diplomacy, as President Trump considers vastly expanding this war

five months in. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. Big headline. Half of Gen Z says that the support that churches give to the Trump administration is keeping them from going to church. We're hearing all this news about Gen Z going back to church. Headline says, no, the fact that churches support Trump is keeping them from church.

The headline is actually totally backwards. We'll get to that. First, though, I want to tell you about pure. talk. Go to puretalk.com slash knolls. Back to school season means parents everywhere are having the same conversation. When is my kid old enough for a cell phone? The answer is 75. That's a debate, actually, that every family has to settle for themselves. But if you do decide it's time, here is one piece of advice. Do not lock yourself into an expensive wireless contract for a teenager. Because preteens and teenagers have a remarkable ability to lose phones, break phones, and occasionally make you question

every financial decision that you have ever made. That is one of the many reasons that I love Pure Talk. Right now, for the first time ever, any Pure Talk plan is just $15 a month for your first three months. Any plan? Do you hear me? Do you hear what I'm saying? You're hearing for some plans.

No, for any plan. Even their unlimited, they're unlimited, high-speed data plans, even their top-tier plan, 15 bucks a month. And best part, no service contract, no cancellation fee. If the grades mysteriously start slipping or the phone somehow ends up at the bottom of a swimming quill, you are not trapped in some long-term commitment. Pure Talk also is veteran-led backed by 100% U.S.-based customer service. It's got an excellent, excellent service, best towers, for a fraction of what many people are paying. I love it. I've had my PureTalk for like six years now.

Go to puretot.com slash Knowles, Ken at W-LAS, make the switch today. PureTalk.com slash Knowles to start saving. Is America merging its military with the state of Israel? That is the viral claim on social media. It's a claim going around the mainstream press. There was a big vote yesterday for the National Defense Authorization Act in the House of Representatives. The NDAA passed. The vote was what? 216 to 212. Now, it still hasn't passed the Senate yet, so the Senate's going to have to do its own version of the bill. But what do we make of this claim? I just need to wait for my $7,000 to clear from BB Netanyahu. Do we have, producers? Do we have confirmation that my $7,000 is cleared before I give my commentary? No, we don't. Okay, all right. Well, then I'm going to have to give

different commentary. There are a lot of conspiracy claims. There are a lot of conspiracy claims, generally, in part because our government has lied to us, especially during COVID. So, you know, there's some reason for the conspiracy claims. But this is especially true when it comes to the state of Israel. So you have to parse it. You need to make sure that you're actually getting your facts right. What is this over? This is over specifically. Section 219. There are actually a few other sections of the NDAA that relate to this question, but specifically Section 219, which would direct the Secretary of War to create an apparatchik at the Pentagon, an executive agent, to oversee the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation

Initiative. So that apparatchik would then coordinate aspects of defense research, development, testing, supply chain, industrial cooperation. Okay. Top line takeaway. No, it does not merge the American military with Israel. You're not going to see Marines taking orders from Itamar, Ben-Gavir, or something like that. However, this is a notable provision of the NDAA, and it actually does merit some pretty serious debate, because what it says at the top level is that the U.S. and Israel will cooperate more on military research and tech development, supply chain, and all the rest of it. However, in this case, it would actually give the state of Israel greater military integration priority than some NATO allies. Okay, and Israel's obviously not party to NATO. So that is a little strange.

It would create this special office that would oversee that cooperation. So it creates effectively a new kind of deep state position that would be specifically tasked with further cooperation with Israel, which, again, we've cooperated with on tech on the military on development for many, many years, many decades. One part, I was talking to a friend of mine in politics last night, one part that hasn't played a huge role in this debate, but it is kind of related, comes from a different bill, not the National Defense Authorization Act, but the Intelligence Authorization Act for 27. That would be sectioned. 622, which mandates that we give Israel more intelligence. And in fact, it prohibits

suspending or limiting that intelligence, absent some direct involvement from the president. Now, this also all relates to the big debate that has emerged, well, it's been on the left for a long time, but it's emerged a little bit on the right as well, which is a pull to stop giving military aid to the state of Israel. We give them $3 billion. or so a year. And there's been this big debate that's gone on over whether or not we should pull that military aid from Israel. You see people who are a little more focused on domestic policies or a little more isolationist in their views. They'll say, well, why are we funding this foreign nations, military? What's that about? You know, we had enough problems at home.

Keep our money here at home. And then you have other people who are looking from more geopolitical and grand strategic standpoint who are saying, no, it's actually, it's good that we're involved with the state of Israel, and actually a lot of the defund Israel rhetoric has come from our geopolitical adversaries like Russia or Iran, of course, or China, that want to limit America's involvement around the world for their own benefits so that China can then come in and supplant the United States as the global hegemon. This also relates to Israeli policy, because back in June, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked about this claim that the, the United States wants to defund a military funding for Israel. And Netanyahu said something that a lot of

people didn't expect. He said, that's fine. I don't want the military aid from the United States. I don't want them to just give us all this money because then we're kind of on the hook. What I want is greater cooperation. In other words, I want a deeper partnership, but I don't want them to just give me a handout. So what's the positive argument for these kinds of provisions? The positive argument for this kind of a provision is that it would prevent a future president a.O.C. from announcing, I don't know, the U.S. Hamas partnership or something. It would prevent a lot of the opposition to this provision is coming from the left. It's coming from Democrats. And so the argument for it is, look, the left is radically not just anti-Israel, but anti-American.

And so they want to weaken the U.S. Israel alliance. But they also kind of just, just want to weaken the United States. And so that would be really, really bad if some president AOC came in and totally messed up our global alliances because we know she doesn't really have America's best interests at heart. So it's a protective measure to stop against a bad future administration. It would make it harder to disentangle the United States and Israel. It would make it harder to disentangle the current state of U.S. alliances. However, the negative part of this provision, of these multiple provisions, is that it would limit the American options regarding the Israel Alliance. So it's great as a way to stop the downsides of a really bad future Democrat administration,

but it's not great in that it would limit our abilities. It would limit our optionality when it comes to the Israel Alliance. And we don't want to do that with our alliances with anybody. We don't want to limit what the United States military can do. We don't want to limit what appointed officials can do. Ultimately, what these provisions are about is a deeper integration of the United States and Israel on tech, on research, on supply chain, on the military that would be harder to disentangle. And so this presents maybe a little potential upside from the actual strategic viewpoint, but some downsides, too, because it would limit us.

And so ultimately I think the juice is not worth the squeeze. Ultimately, I think this is probably a bad idea, even just from a strategic standpoint, though there's a case to be made that it's not. Then you have to look at the political, the optical standpoint of this. At a moment when Israel is losing popularity, not just on the left, the state of Israel lost the left a long time ago, but even on the right, and especially in the young right, is this really a good look? Is this the sort of thing that Republican congressmen and Republican senators want to vote for? Does it look good that we are further

entrenching in a way that would be difficult to untangle our integration with the state of Israel? Does it present national security challenges? Well, according to the letter of the provisions, not exactly, but according to how they would actually be implemented, yeah, yeah, it kind of does. And so I don't know. If I were a senator, I would try to strip these provisions out of the bills. Not because I hate Israel. I actually broadly support the state of Israel. But I don't think ultimately the positives outweigh the negatives. And I think optically, it's really, really bad for Republican politicians. And so the kind of funny thing is, if you're looking at three buckets of our options with the state of Israel, you either have the real, you know, Israel's

apartheid state defund Israel and, you know, they're an adversary or whatever. There's that bucket. I don't think that's where it's at. Then there is the, just giving the military aid, which comes with a lot of strings, or there's this deeper integration that's harder to untangle. Here, I think what the NDAA and what the Intelligence Act are presenting is this pretty strong argument for just keeping the funding. You don't want to lose the Israel law. I don't think you want to lose the Israel alliance. I think ultimately, if it's well structured, that is in America's interest. But, and I think to lose that alliance would give a benefit to our adversaries. But I don't think you want to entangle us in such a way that would be harder for future administrations to untangle.

So ironically, after this many months-long debate over Israel aid, you know, $3 billion a year, ultimately that actually is probably the best version of America's alliance with the state of Israel, which is why Republicans traditionally have supported it. And it's why actually the Israeli government, I think, would like a kind of a deeper integration where the $3 billion a year, given the budget of the United States, is really kind of immaterial when you're dealing in trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't know. If I were a Republican senator right now, I would, I would be very cautious about this provision. I just, I don't think it plays optically, strategically, and you might end up in a situation where the strongest position for the United States, and then in the long run, probably for the state of Israel, is to maintain the current status quo, which has more benefits to the United

States than I think a lot of the critics have admitted. Okay. Now, speaking of joint war efforts involving the state of Israel, but in the broader Middle East, President Trump is now threatening to expand, perhaps greatly expand the war in Iran. This, as we conclude the fifth month of the war in Iran, looking ahead to the sixth month, we will get to that momentarily. Then we will get to the Secretary of State weighing in, not just on these international questions, not just on Iran, but about the supposed shadow war between the pro-rubio elements of the GOP and the pro-V.

J.D. Vance elements of the GOP, how it all relates to the Trump administration. First, though, I want to tell you about Catholic Match. Go to Catholicmatch.com. Can I offer a piece of dating advice? Can the love guru come here and give you a little prescription? Gentlemen, take the lead. You do not need to be Shakespeare. You do not need to be Cyrano de Bergerac. Would you like to grab coffee after Mass on Sunday? Why not? How about after Mass? That's enough. Women? You're allowed to message first. That's not desperation. That's clarity. and men these days, they're not always taking my first advice, so sometimes you give them a little tiny nudge.

Okay, man is the head of the household. Sometimes the woman has to be the neck a little bit, okay? There are a lot of good Catholic guys who are trying very hard to not come off as creepy. It's hard out there. Dating is very hard these days. I, in many ways, feel that I got the last chopper at an om when it comes to sweet little Elisa. I got the last chopper at an... If I had to date in this environment, I would be very upset.

One thing I would definitely check out, though, is Catholic match. It exists because dating is difficult enough. everyone there is serious about their faith and about marriage. The goal is not endless chatting and swiping. It's about two people meeting and hopefully never needing the app again. Go to Catholicmatch.com or download the app today. It is Catholicmatch.com. Folks, I've been warning you all for weeks.

And we have just about reached the I Told You So moment. The all-new America 250 expansion pack for my best-selling yes or no game. My special limited release only for the semi-quincentennial has sold out its first batch. games are shipping now for those who ordered in time, but do not despair. There's hope. If you want this expansion pack, you have to pre-order it right now at dailywire.com slash shop. It's strikingly beautiful. Look at this. This is a beautiful limited edition. Commemorative box, 120 brand new cards covering the great American debate. You need to know what your family and friends think. This is the best way to figure out how well you actually know your loved ones,

figure out where they stand. Limited release, only while supplies last. You have to secure yours. Now, dailywire.com slash shop. I was actually just, I was introduced to someone. I coincidentally ran into a friend of mine. I hadn't seen in years, years and years and years. And I run into her in New York and she says, oh, Michael, I want to introduce you to this other friend of mine. Okay, no big deal. I chat with the other friend. I say, hey, how'd you meet so-and-so? He says, Michael, that's the craziest thing. We were hanging out one time at a party and I wanted to play a game and I pulled out, you guessed at the yes or no game. And we made the connection. And you can make those connections. And you can make those connections with your loved ones. Dailywire.com slash shop. President Trump weighing, expanding the

Iran war. Speaking to Axios, President Trump said, quote, I am considering a massive attack bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it. The context of Trump's comments, he's threatened these kind of things before. Sometimes he's followed through on him. But the context is that oil has jumped up. After we covered this on the show yesterday, after the MOU broke down because Iran violated the ceasefire. You had the United States just guaranteeing the shipment of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, but we remain in the stalemate in the war. There have been alternative routes to get the oil. Don't forget, Strait of Ormuz has 20% of the world's oil and natural gas, fertilizer, petrochemicals. It's a major, major throughway.

There have been alternative routes that have been proposed. Well, the Iran-backed militia, the Houthis, were striking ships in just off of the Red Sea, in a different straight that was one of the alternative routes for the oil. So oil starts to jump up a little bit again. Yesterday when I did the show, oil was at about 91. Brent Crude has just jumped up north of $100 a barrel. That is the context of Trump making these remarks. So Wall Street Journal reporting, the U.S. is now surging forces and medics and weaponry to the Middle East. This is going to give Trump that word that we were talking about at the top of the show. Optionality. He's keeping all of his options on the table here. He also said, he goes, look, if we want to go in here,

Israel is going to be with us. Israel wants to blow Iran back to the Stone Age. So we not only have the full might of the U.S. military, which is now hurtling toward the Middle East, the ones that aren't there already, but we know that Israel's going to jump in on it. So Iran, you better come back to the table and negotiate. What makes this threat, I think, a little stronger. And if I were in the Iranian system, I would probably be paying close attention is, yeah, sometimes Trump bluffs. Sometimes he talks past the sale. He's unpredictable. That is his strength in foreign policy. That's been true since 2017. But one thing that we know, Trump will tolerate a lot. He will tolerate a lot on the global stage. He doesn't actually hold personal grudges despite what people have said about him.

Some of his worst enemies have become his closest allies, domestically and internationally. He can do that. He moves around. He doesn't, he's all about business. The one thing he will not tolerate is oil prices going up. This is, this was the observation about Trump when it came to the tariffs, this is the observation when it comes to war, Trump will tolerate a lot, but he does not like it when the stock market goes down. He does not like it when the bond market hits crises. That's what first led President Trump to reconsider the tariffs. And he really, really doesn't like it when oil goes up, especially around a midterm election. If I were a gambling man, and if I were in the Iranian system, I would have to be a gambling man. I would take this threat

very, very seriously. One thing we know, we've known Trump, for 10 years now as president or at the height of national politics. This is a red line for him. Brent crude, oil futures. That is a red line for Trump. And I think you're seeing a very sincere threat, a very credible threat that this could increase. Now, the House of Representatives just voted. They actually broke with Trump. The House, which is controlled by the GOP, narrowly, just broke with Trump. They voted to pass a resolution, telling Trump to end the war. Now, This resolution is not binding. Trump has the War Powers Act, which empowers him to fight wars essentially on his own for up to 60 days. Don't forget, because the Iran War ended with that ceasefire technically weeks ago, months ago now, it kind of resets the War Powers Resolution. And the War Powers Resolution doesn't even really matter because when you look at Barack Obama and Joe Biden, they exercise their war powers authority for months and months and months, way past anything the War Powers Act would actually give them. the House resolution doesn't really mean much other than potentially a turning of public opinion.

And you look, there were four Republicans who broke with the GOP on the resolution. You look, the first one is Thomas Massey. Well, okay, Thomas Massey is a libertarian who is now an enemy of the administration. He's not just a libertarian in the vein of Ron Paul or Rand Paul, the kind of loyal opposition within the GOP. He's going to oppose the GOP on a lot of stuff when it comes to the military, but he's not going to sidle up to Democrats. Thomas Massey is going further. Thomas Massey is a guy with nothing to lose. So Thomas Massey is palling up with Rokana. Thomas Massey is palling around with Democrats. So I don't really take that defection too seriously.

Brian Fitzpatrick is kind of a squishy Republican. I don't take that defection too seriously, Republican from Pennsylvania. But then you've got other guys here, Tom Barrett, Warren Davidson. These are not hardcore never-trumpers. These are not guys who pal around with Democrats. It's just an indication. It's a leading indication. that the appetite for this war is waning, not just with the broader public, but even among the

legislators. So I agree in principle it would be good to wrap up the war, but this is the problem with war is, as we now repeat almost every day on the show from Machiavelli, a war begins at any man's will, it does not end at any man's will. And so these situations can really spiral out control. They can spiral out from this tactical hit on Iran all the way to the Strait of Hormuz when they played that card. Then it can spill out beyond the Strait of Hormuz into that point right by the Red Sea and even more broadly. It should be wrapped up, but there's no end in sight because in war your opponent gets to say. So once again, the administration has to take this very, very seriously. There's no way to wrap this up quickly, I don't think. But the best way to deal with this through the

midterms is to just lower the importance, decrease the priority in voters' minds of the war in Iran because it's not wrapping up anytime soon. And the Iranians, as of now, are not interested in diplomacy. Now, speaking of diplomacy on Iran, this has become a real flashpoint in the shadow war for 2028. There are a lot of people who are calling for Marco Rubio. I shouldn't say a lot of people. The polls don't really reflect a lot of people. But a lot of people within the GOP, pundit class, the political class, they're calling for Rubio to be the heir apparent, to get the Trump blessing for the 2028 presidential nomination, not J.D. Vance, who you would expect to be the heir apparent because Trump picked him as his vice president in a non-consecutive second term.

J.D. Vance, who is still far and away leading the polls for the 2028 GOP presidential nomination. There are people calling for Rubio, and one way they're doing this is they're trying to pin the breakdown of Iran diplomacy, not on the chief diplomat of the United States, Rubio, not on the guy who's actually making the decisions, Donald Trump, but on J.D. Vance. So it's a little bit of a political operation. I mean, that's how politics works. You can't blame guys for trying. But what does the chief diplomat, Marco Rubio, have to say about this operation? We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about Balance of Nature. Go to Balance of Nature.com. He's promo code Knowles. I have a totally non-controversial question

for you. What is the worst vegetable that there is? You know what people are going to say? They're going to say Brussels, I bet. And that's such a calumny. I love Brussels sprouts. Some people say broccoli. I love broccoli. Some people say tomato. Tomatoes a fruit. No, nobody says to me. Everybody likes tomato. Anyway, kale kind of sucks. I don't like kale. But I'm digressing here. Even if you genuinely like fruits and vegetables, most of us don't eat nearly the variety that we probably should. You find the five things you like and then you just rotate them forever. That is one reason that I love balance of nature. Their whole health system is made from 47 real fruits, vegetable, spices, and fiber, making it an easy way to add more whole food variety to your daily routine. 47. Can you even name 47 fruits and vegetables? I also appreciate how simple balance of nature is. There's no complicated routine. There's no elaborate meal prep. It's easy. Even for me. Even a guy like me.

Even on the road, you can do it. Go to balance of nature.com today and subscribe to the whole health system or any of their subscriptions, get an additional 10% off with promo code. Noles. skin to WLES. This balance of nature.com promo code Knowles. Mr. Rubio, Secretary Rubio, is the Iran war all J.D. Vance's fault? Here's his answer. Prominent Republicans who have said, they want you to take over the Iran negotiations.

They trust you. They think that you will prioritize Israel's interests, and they're attacking Vice President Vance. Who are these prominent Republicans? Senator Shee, the Wall Street Journal opinion page. Well, that's not Republican. That's a newspaper. Well, the...

You're a troublemaker of these questions. No, no, no, look, guys, listen, here's the bottom. You know who the lead negotiator is? His name is Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States. That's who dictates our policy. He has a team of people that work together on this. We all have a role to play, depending on what the topic is. We have very good negotiators in Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner.

We have the Vice President of the United States, which is the second highest ranking official, which tells you how the importance we've given this file. Obviously, I have a role to play. Department of Wars had a role to play. That's how we approach it. This doesn't... I mean, it's a combined effort, and it always should be.

Do you wish people didn't endorse you to take over the talks yourself? I mean, you're telling me about that. But that's not how our system works. That's not how this administration works. It starts at the top. The president is in charge, and he has a team of people that provide counsel and provide advice, but ultimately whose job it is to execute on the president's directive.

We have a great team that works very well together. On that topic, we've worked together on a number of talkets. We've worked together as a team on Lebanon. We've worked together as a team on Venezuela. We've worked together as a team on the Thailand-Cambodia peace agreement that was put together. We've worked together as a team. We have a really good core team that works on foreign policy and national security. And oftentimes it's a multi-agency effort because there's a role for Treasury to play.

Sometimes there's a role for energy to play. That's how these things work. It's not one person. It's all these different elements of our government that have to work in conjunction and in concert to execute on the president's directive and on the direction that he's giving us. Rubio's such a pro, man. He's such a... This is a great, great answer. And it's a great answer that not only deflects the heat, but it actually tells us something about the way that Rubio is thinking about this. Because Rubio's a pro, so he can give a good answer. Rubio, at least at some point in his life has wanted to be president. I think most people in the government probably would like to be president. Rubio has run for president before. So, given that he's such a sharp politician, think about what he could have said. If right now there's this movement from within the GOP political class, if not among GOP voters, to really try to axe Vance and to boost Rubio to be the presumptive nominee

in 2028, the answer that he could have given without looking disloyal is, what are you talking about? No, come on, you're trying, you're a troublemaker, you're trying to make division. Look, this is, this is crazy. Look, we, when we're working on things here in the administration, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about immigration, look, look. There's a multi-agency effort. And I think on Iran, I think the vice president has done his level best. I think I, in other words, if Rubio were trying to knife Vance here, if Rubio were really buying for that presumptive error position, what he would have said is, no, no, no, we're all

working together. Stop going after J.D. Vance. I think he's doing his best as the lead negotiator on Iran. No, the president trusts the vice president on Iran. In other words, he would have tried to set him up as the fall guy. just like a lot of people in the GOP political class, they're too afraid to attack Trump directly. They're too afraid to say the buck stops with the president.

This is the president's policy. So they're trying to attack the administration by going after Vance to maybe score a political wind down the road. Rubio would have jumped on with that, and he could have done it in a very subtle way. He's a total pro. That's not what he's doing. He's saying this is totally bogus.

This is all on Trump. And not only is Trump, the chief negotiator, But the immediate negotiators that he have as it's not the vice president. It's Jared Kushner. It's Steve Whitkoff. But, you know, I'm involved. Vance is involved. This guy, this guy, this guy.

His answer is actually in keeping with his other public statements, which is there's no division here. He endorses Vance to be the heir apparent. Again, there will be some kind of GOP primary. If the Trump administration collapses, let's say Iran really goes south, let's say the economy really goes south, then probably the guy who's going to be strongest in the race is going to be someone from outside the Trump administration. It's not going to be Vance. It's not going to be Rubio. It's going to be a Ronda Santis or a Rand

Paul or a Ted Cruz or Nikki Haley or I don't know. Whoever, I don't know who's going to run. Whoever is going to run. It would be someone from outside the administration. But if Trump continues his hold on the GOP, then it's going to be whoever Trump picks, who will get the nomination. We'll see what happens in the general election. Really sophisticated answer from Rubio. And a further expression of his opinion that that division is being stoked by ideologues. But it's not being, it's not being stoked by GOP leaders. That's the first part of the premise that he knocks down. And, and I think this is sincere coming from, from Rubia, but it's also recognizing that he sees what the polls say. And he's, he's not going to play that game.

Okay. Speaking of international politics, I wanted to get to this yesterday, we have to get to it today. Andrew and Tristan Tate, you know, Andrew Tate and Tristan, his brother, too, is very popular. but the big social media influencers, kind of red pill, manosphere content, kind of right wing, but also not, you know, also they're, Andrew Tate had the school that offer the PhD, the Pimp and Hose degree, and they're now being brought up on all these charges related to pornography and grooming and rape in this case. So they were arrested in Miami. They're now set to be extradited to the UK for a bunch of additional charges there. There are also charges against them in Romania. The Tate's lawyer has just come. Matt said this is all an international conspiracy. The process becomes the punishment until you can clear your name. They've been clearing their names domestically and abroad for years. This is just the next logical conclusion in that situation. Kirstairn just retired or is retiring.

I'm sure he's mad that Andrew and Tristan Tate had a lot to do with his fall in Great Britain. And there's a new guy in there right now. But this is the last vestige of attack of a prime minister who, didn't do a good job, and it continues to do bad work, and I'll just leave it there. Innocent tool proven guilty, we're going to let the court process play out here the way that it should. We're happy to be here. Okay, so the press conference goes on a little bit longer, but he says, now, this is,

the reason they're being indicted is because the ousted labor prime minister, Keir Starmer, had an axe to grind with them, and that's part of the tates are the reason that Keir Starmer went down in the United Kingdom. I don't really buy that. I don't. And so it's all a big political conspiracy. And the thing is, he's basically wrong about this, but there is a kernel of truth to it. There is a kernel of truth, which is that a lot of people are looking at it. A lot of the pro-Tate people are looking at this and saying it's all made up. They didn't commit rape. They didn't do sex crimes. They didn't do this. They didn't do that.

I don't know. These guys on camera, especially Andrew Tate, on camera, have browned. about doing all sorts of terrible things to women. They've bragged about pimping out women. They've bragged about running pornography businesses. So it seems to me, I don't know. I find the charges kind of credible. Okay. Maybe in one or two of the cases, maybe they're not.

Like in one case, a woman alleges that Andrew Tate abused her. But they had a relationship for like two years. So, you know, he abused her. He allegedly raped her and assaulted her. And then they, but then they dated, apparently this happened over the course of of two years. That does raise an eyebrow. You say, okay, well, if he committed this awful crime against you, why would you continue to date for two years? It's not that it's impossible, but all that's a little weird. Nevertheless, the conspiracy here, the part that really makes the establishment

look crooked is, if the issue is rape in the UK, then, okay, go after Andrew Tate, fine. But as I said, when the charges came down, this would be a stunning reversal of the UK's longstanding policy never to prosecute Muslims for rape. You know, we have just had the revelation of this decades-long rape scandal in the UK where untold numbers of Pakistani Muslim rapists groomed and raped little English girls for decades to the tunes of thousands. Some of the claims are hundreds of thousands. So it's not that you shouldn't prosecute Andrew Tate or whatever, but Andrew Tate is small potatoes. What about all that? other guys? What about all of the Muslim rapists who have been grooming and trafficking and raping

in the UK for decades where the police not only didn't pursue it, but intentionally turned a blind eye? That is corruption. That is a kind of hypocrisy. The Tates were pornographers. That's really bad. I hate pornography. I think it should basically be illegal. There's some prudential questions about exactly how you make it illegal, but yeah, it should be illegal for sure. Well, to rotate as small potatoes when it comes to pornography. Why aren't you going after the big guys? Why aren't you going after the big porn corporations that are actually poisoning the minds of whole nations? Go after those guys. In addition, go after the Tates too. But why don't you also go after those guys? You want to talk about human trafficking. Maybe the Tates did traffic

girls. I don't know. I guess we'll find out in court. But if you care about human trafficking, why aren't you closing your borders? Why aren't you going after the criminal cartels in the UK, in Europe in the United States, the criminal cartels that are trafficking human beings by the millions. Trafficking that entails rape and sexual assaulted. There was a study from Amnesty International infusion years ago now. It's probably the numbers are way outdated. That 60, 80% of women and girls who cross the American border illegally are sexually assaulted along the way. How about you go after them too? When you conclude that there is a kind of conspiracy or at least corruption, the answer is not that we should then go lighter on other people who have committed the same crimes.

It's that you need to go much harder on the big players who are doing all of that. And you don't really see that happening. Certainly not in the UK. You see it since Trump's election a little bit in the United States, but you don't see that in the UK or in Europe. That's the kernel of truth that really resonates for people, I think, in the take case. Okay, before we get to my favorite time of the week in mailback, I do want to get to this story that hasn't gotten enough play. the story is about Trump support, about the kind of conservative resurgence in the United States, and the religious revival. Because it does seem like there's a religious revival going on in the United States and in Europe.

Baptisms increasing 38% year over year, multiple years in a row. A lot of people going back to church. I remember a lot of us saw this the Sunday after Charlie Kirk was murdered. You saw a lot of new people showing up to church. That's one of the silver linings in that awful storm cloud. And frankly, the religious revival was even preceding that horrible event. So now we're getting this headline. Half of Gen Z says that Trump's support keeps them out. Half of Gen Z says Trump support.

They would go to church, but the churches are too Trumpy. So what is the message? The message from these kind of headlines is the churches just need to be less conservative. They need to be more liberal. They definitely can't support Trump. And I say, well, hold on. Let me look at the numbers here. I guess if the headline is half of Gen Z, it's actually a little under half of Gen Z,

says that Trump's support at church turns them off from going to church, then the actual headline is most of Gen Z is not turned off by Trump alignment in church, which is actually pretty stunning because young people are disproportionately left wing. Only 42 to 46% of Gen Z voted for Trump. So that means that there are many zoomers who voted against Trump, who are now going to church, who are not turned off at church by the fact that the church is kind of aligned with Trump. And what does it even mean to be aligned with Trump? What does it mean for a church to be aligned with Trump? Does it mean that churches oppose abortion? Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with Trump. That has to do with morality. That has to do with Christianity. Does it mean that churches support prosecuting criminals and protecting the innocent like Trump does?

Yeah, I guess so. That doesn't have to do with Trump. Trump didn't start that. Trump isn't a doctor of the church. He's not the theologian. That has to do with Christianity. That's what the church is. Is it that the churches have made a right wing turn?

No, oh my goodness gracious. The very terms left and right originate in the French Revolution when the left, the left side of the National Assembly signified all the people who hate church. It was, they also hated the king, but they, the people who sat on the left were the secularists and the atheists and the people who wanted to weaken the church. So the left just intrinsically is opposed to the church. It's not that you can therefore map the church directly onto American right wing politics or British right wing politics or whatever. That doesn't exactly work. But the left is intrinsically opposed to the church. And the Trump era has coincided. You can say correlation is causation, correlation is not causation, but the Trump era has coincided with a massive increase in church attendance and religiosity, given where the trendlines were before, which were plummeting. And as a consequence, we're seeing from these very numbers, the people who are attending church are warming up to Trump, and not just Trump, it's conservative politics and a more traditional understanding of the moral order. And so this becomes a positive feedback loop. And some of my more libertarian friends, some of my more neocani friends, they don't, they have this natural aversion to the government getting involved in domestic affairs. The libertarians have an aversion to government just generally.

The neocons have an aversion to government in domestic affairs, but not so much in foreign affairs. They really want a muscular government in foreign affairs, but less so in, at least when it comes to social policy, they say, well, the government can't promote virtue. You know, the government can't do anything right. You just got to get the government out of everything. But that isn't true. That's not how politics works. That is not the understanding of any classical political philosopher at all, be they Christian or otherwise. Obviously, the purpose of the government is to, is that good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.

The government institutes laws and enforces laws, laws which St. Paul tells us and pagan philosophers tell us, the law, which is a teacher. So when you incentivize some kind of behavior and you punish some other kind of behavior, you have the magical thinking of the libertarians and maybe some of the neocons. The magical thinking says that the behavior that you promote, you're not going to get, and the behavior that you ban, you are going to get. This is how the libertarians talk about drugs. So, you know, if you want drug use to go down, you need to legalize all the drugs. And then people will somehow do fewer drugs. That's not true. It's never been, never been proven. in any case and it flies against common sense. But no, the government has to have some kind of role

in shaping the character of the people because the government, especially in our system, is a reflection of the people because we have self-government. It's true of any government, but especially of our government. So you can't neatly separate politics and culture, like a lot of the libertarian types wanted to do, when they would say politics is downstream of culture, it has nothing to do with the government or politics. You can't neatly separate those two things. And so you're getting this positive feedback loop where people are, during the Trump era, people have started going back to church. And even the people who kind of hate Trump, don't mind that the church seems to be aligned with Trump. And so you get a more of a positive

feedback loop. That is one of the purposes of government, one of the purposes of government. Going back to Thomas Aquinas, going back to the ancient Romans and ancient pagan political philosophers, even going back to our founding fathers who have been retcon to some kind of 2016 Reddit liberals, but they weren't. They were very serious people. They recognize, that one of the purposes of government is to encourage virtue and discourage vice. We totally wrote that out, even on the right in the later part of the 20th century. And you've seen the results of that. They haven't been very good. Okay, the producer's favorite comment yesterday. I didn't pick it. This is from the producer. I was running a little late today. This is from Overtoast,

who says, everyone should go on Instagram and like Michael's comment on Olive Garden's account so he can get the infinite pasta pass. Okay, this is very important. Producers, Mr. Davies, Professor Jacob, you just picked the perfect comment. I don't know what the other comment. This is perfect. I'm deeply envious of Jacob. Jacob got the pasta pass. He got the endless pasta pass for $100 bucks at Olive Garden. I'm not saying Olive Garden is my favorite restaurant. I'm just saying I'll eat the pasta. I'll go, I'll have the pasta pass. I'm a real cheap skate and Olive Garden's food. I'll take it. I enjoy it. It's fine. And I tried to buy one and it was sold out. And then they were giving one away. And then they said, you got to click this and like the thing and do the beep boop on the

Instagram and I really want my pasta pass. I want to spaghetti mug Jacob. Please, you have to. I'm begging. Begging. You have to support me in this endeavor. Okay. Our mailbag is sponsored by PureTuck. at Peartock.com slash Knowles, Kenna, W. LAS to start saving today. Take it away. Hi, Michael. Kylie here. I went to see the Odyssey movie this past weekend and I loved it, but it did get me thinking. I went with a couple of friends, and in my mind, I figured everyone had at least a very basic understanding of the original epic, but they didn't even know who Achilles was or were the phrase Achilles heel came from, let alone Odysseus Orris story. It made me wonder if I was missing any staple literary works myself. I took college literature classes last semester where we read The Odyssey,

Agamemnon, Oedipus Rex, Medea, the Anniad, Dante's Inferno, Parciful, Thomas Morris Utopia, and a couple of others. But I was wondering if you had any more to recommend beyond these. I'm always looking for good classical book recommendations. Thanks so much for your help. Oh, really, really good question. Because you named a lot of great works there, you know, obviously the Aeneid by Virgil, Medea by Tyler Perry. There are a lot of great works that you can go back and revisit. You're right. There is a kind of illiteracy when it comes to classic and ancient literature. We see this with the Bible. It's unbelievable how biblical literacy has collapsed. I include myself in this. We just weren't taught the Bible in schools. Look what happens.

As a result, people aren't really catechized or when 10, 20 years ago we were not catechized all that well. And so I heard from a very, very prominent professor at the University of Chicago. many kids in his class, this was 10 or 15 years ago, had never heard of Noah. They didn't know who Noah was. So, biblical literacy is collapsed, as has literacy in classical works. I noticed this when I gave my review of the Christopher Nolan movie, and I said, you know, one of the weird things about this is, you know, okay, they make Helen of Troy, who is white, obviously, they make her black, that's kind of weird, and they make this character who would have been Achilles,

but Achilles was recast as this other warrior. Achilles was supposed to be the greatest warrior ever. They recast him as this other warrior, Sinan, and they have him played by a lady. And a ton of people responded to me and said, Michael, you clearly even see the movie. Achilles isn't even in the movie. You dummy, you're not even, and I thought, oh my goodness,

it's not, I'm not a genius when it comes to literature. I'm not Spencer Claven, okay, but can, the role was recast. That's why the Sinon character plays the Achilles role, in the Hades scene, and it's just like, but they're not even aware of that because they're not familiar with the poem or the Aeneid, where Sinan comes from, or the Divine Comedy, where some of Christopher Nolan's take on Ulysses comes from, or any, so anyway, all of that, rant done, all of that to say, I recommend you read the Song of Roland. Go read the Song of Roland. That's not ancient,

that's medieval. It's from the 11th century, 11th or 12th century. It's one of the great works of the Middle Ages, Knights in Shining Armour, Charlemagne, it's about this Count Roland. So read that. There's an Italian version that comes later, Orlando Frioso, also a great work of literature, but Song of Roland, that's a good one. That's a good one to start reading. I think I'm going to go back to that myself. Next question. Hey, Michael. It's Sarah from Wisconsin. This is a very Michael Knowles question. I've never read Dante's Divine Comedy, but... Seeing a theme here. If you're going through all the layers of hell, how is it a comedy? Can you just, like, give me the Cliff Notes version of what, how, why is that funny?

Yeah, well, it is fun. Actually, Dante's Inferno is very funny. There are a ton of funny moments and it was like kicking the dead people and, you know, he's like, it's funny. I mean, it's kind of heartbreaking too and you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll love Dante's Inferno. But the divine comedy is not just the Inferno. You got to keep reading. The key is you got to keep reading. Because comedy in the sense doesn't mean like, ha ha. It's not like, you you know, Big Bang Theory. It's, though it does have a cosmic vision. So in that way, it is sort of a Big Bang Theory.

But I'm getting distracted. Comedy just means it has a happy ending. And you've got to keep reading. Because after the Inferno, you will get to purgatory and then you will get to paradise. And then it's got a real, spoiler alert, it's got a real happy ending. Next question. Hey, Michael. Professor Jacob here.

Since our members didn't really want to send a lot of mailbags this week, I decided that I need to ask you a really important question. gunned to your head. Would you rather go to a Diddy Party or Epstein's Island? Thank you. A Diddy party or Epstein's Island? That's one of those dichotomies where you can't have a good answer. You say, would you prefer arsenic or cyanide? I remember once, I was in a debating club once, and we were doing all these kind of impossible dichotomies. And they started out kind of easy, and then they got really dark. There was this very dark sort of comedy about it. And so they'd say like Athens or Jerusalem, you know, or. Chaucer or Dante to play on a theme or, you know, Coke or Pepsi. And then eventually it got down to like Auschwitz or Doc Howe. Like, no, I don't want to know. Nothing, neither.

I don't want. So anyway, Diddy or Epstein Party? I guess, or sorry, Diddy Party or Epstein Island? I guess, oh, this is going to come back to homey. But I guess if you had to choose one of those two, you'd have to choose Epstein Island, actually. The reason why you'd have to choose Epstein Island, one, it's probably a little sunnier. You'd get a suntan and have a pinia calada. That seems nicer than the dish.

Diddy Party. But the weird thing with Epstein Island, because he was involved in so many things, and he obviously was involved in all sorts of horrific crimes, but because he was involved in kind of normal stuff too, you could envision a world in which someone who went to Epstein's Island or one of his properties wasn't committing crimes. Whereas with the Diddy Party, there's no, there's no even plausibly innocent version of going to the Diddy Party. It's just all heinous, degeneracy. So I guess I would pick that. But I do want to critique Professor Jacob again, because one, he said, there weren't many mail bags this week. It's a mail bag. The bag is singular, and it is filled with the mail, different letters, letters or emails or notes, which would be

plural, but the mail bag is singular. Second point I want to make, this happened some months ago, you'll recall, or maybe this didn't even make it into the public show. I said to Professor Jacob, I said, where are the mailbag questions? Where are the voicemails? And he said, oh, we didn't get any this week. I said, you didn't get any? You didn't get any? No, we didn't get any. It's really weird. I don't know. We got to remind people to send them. So that doesn't seem possible to me. So can you, maybe can you look into that? They said, oh, oops, it looks like our inbox was full. So anyway, I would tell you at Professor Jacobs's encouragement to send in more voicemail bag questions and written. But I am mostly confident it's all Professor Jacobs' fault. So I'll tell him to like, click,

click the delete button and we'll get to more of your questions next week. Right now, it's fake headline Friday. The show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code, NOLES, a checkout for two months free on all annual plans.