Trump prosecutor Fani Willis delivers belligerent testimony in her own defense, Joe Biden's VA initiative aims to diagnose more Black veterans as mentally disabled, and a man discovers he's the father of 97 children.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1428
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 15% off all of your Jeremy’s essentials and JR Shave Reload: https://bit.ly/49h2yBk
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Knowles, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/knowles
Hallow - Join Hallow’s Prayer 40 Challenge! https://hallow.com/Knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
In 2020, while running for Fulton County DA, Fannie Willis made two promises.
Here is why she said she was running.
Because they deserve a DA that won't have sex with his employees.
Because they deserve a DA that won't put money in their own pocket when it should go to benefit children.
Because we deserve better.
No, I'm not sure if you've caught up on this particular news story.
But it turns out that Fannie Willis, who is leading the prosecution against Donald Trump in Georgia, she didn't keep her promises, as she made abundantly clear yesterday during the craziest televised testimony I have seen in a very long time.
As we learned Yesterday, during that testimony that would have made Judge Judy blush, Fannie Willis did sleep with her employee, she did put inappropriate money in her own pocket, and she may very well have gotten the whole Georgia case against Trump thrown out of court.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
A man just found out that he's the father of 97 kids, and the guy is my age.
Now, I'm all for big families and everything.
That's probably excessive, and the way that he went about having those kids will shed some light on bioethical issues we've been talking about recently.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, though, Go to Hillsdale.edu slash Knowles.
Are you a few years or decades out of school and wondering, what the heck did I even learn and what was the point?
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, you're not alone.
It's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic, or The History of the Ancient Church, with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you are not sure where to start, check out C.S. Lewis on Christianity.
In this seven-lecture course, you will examine some of Lewis's classic works, including Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, and The Abolition of Man.
You'll also see what Lewis had to say about scripture, prayer, suffering, joy, heaven, and hell.
The course is self-paced, so you can start whenever and wherever.
Enroll now in C.S.
Lewis on Christianity to discover Lewis' core lessons on Christianity and how to apply faith to your life.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
hillsdale.edu slash knolls, K-N-N-W-L-E-S to enroll.
hillsdale.edu slash knolls.
Fannie Willis, district attorney, Fulton County, Georgia.
She's the one bringing the charges against Donald Trump in the RICO case where the Democrats are trying to allege that Trump is some kind of gangster.
And they want to interfere in his reelection.
They want to throw him into an orange jumpsuit.
Fannie Willis testified yesterday in court because a lawyer for one of Trump's associates, who's also being prosecuted, This didn't come from Trump himself, but one of his associates who's being prosecuted.
The lawyer for that person complained that the DA had an inappropriate relationship with a special prosecutor and she said this stinks up the whole case and the whole thing should be thrown out.
So that's why the DA, Fannie Willis, was on the stand.
And from the moment this testimony began, you knew.
They had this woman dead to rights.
I'm very much want to be here, so I'm not a hostile witness.
I very much want to be here.
Not so much that you're hostile, Ms.
Wills, albeit an adverse witness.
Your interests are opposed to Ms.
Merchant's.
Ms.
Merchant's interests are contrary to democracy, Your Honor, not to mine.
Alright, let's proceed.
We can keep things moving.
Ms.
Merchant, next question, please.
Little defensive, huh, darling?
You seem a little touchy about this.
So she opens up and the lawyer is making the point that there are two sides to this particular case.
And Fannie Willis gets very defensive.
She goes, I'm not a hostile witness!
Like, well, you know, you're screaming at us, so you kind of seem like you are.
No, I'm not a hostile witness!
He says, no, no, I'm just trying to explain your interests are opposed to this other person's interests.
She goes, no, that other person, these people, they're opposed to democracy!
That's the tell.
The Libs do this all the time.
If we ever question any of their corruption, they say that we're threats to democracy.
If we ever suggest that perhaps they shouldn't rig the elections, and perhaps we should make sure that it's citizens who are voting, and perhaps we shouldn't let bad actors go around and Collect a ton of ballots and drop them off at insecure drop boxes.
They say, no, no, no, that's a threat to democracy.
We say, no, we're the ones trying to protect democracy.
Every time a fraudulent vote is cast, that negates the vote of someone who actually has the right to vote.
No, no, no, it's a threat to democracy.
Okay, every time you protest, every time you lobby your government, every time you express discontent at corruptions, we used to think was an expression of democracy.
No, no, it's a threat to democracy.
Some Midwestern granny takes a selfie at the Capitol.
Threat to democracy!
Anytime the people elect a candidate that they like, you know, they elect Viktor Orban, let's say, in Hungary.
The majority of people want to elect him.
That's a threat to democracy.
The majority of Brits vote for the Brexit.
That's a threat to democracy.
The majority of Italians vote for Giorgio Meloni.
That's a threat to democracy.
It's always a threat to democracy, even when that's what most people want.
Doesn't make sense.
So, the woman opens up.
Typical line because she doesn't have any other arguments to use.
She also doesn't seem to understand the words that the lawyer is speaking to her.
She doesn't understand what adversary and hostility are referring to here.
So already, you know, man, we're in for a good testimony and we got quite a show.
The question is, One, did Fannie Willis have an improper relationship with the man she hired to be the special prosecutor here?
The answer, now we know for a fact, is yes.
She's admitted that.
Then the question is, did they have a relationship before she hired him in this case?
She maintains no.
So it wasn't an inappropriate favor to her lover, who then paid her back with all sorts of lavish trips and gifts.
She says no, she hired him for the job, and then they began their romantic relationship.
Which would be bad enough, but it seems that that's a lie too, as her friend testified in court.
Do you understand it, that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay, so if the relationship began in 2019, then obviously it predates the prosecution.
President Trump was still president in 2019.
So that, and that was the least colorful part of the testimony because it wasn't Fannie Willis who put on a crazy show.
To underscore just how significant that admission is, even the libs on MSNBC admitted That is explosive.
It's so legalistic centric and yet so important and fascinating.
Right.
Don't let the legalese fool you.
This is epic.
This is monumental.
If things are going in the direction we think Fannie Willis lied to the court, it's game over for her.
She will be disqualified if they had a relationship prior to when they represented to the court.
It's a huge deal.
I can't overstate it.
So, she lied to the court.
This is a woman who's not only a lawyer, she's been a judge, she's district attorney now.
She lied to the court.
Not only did she possibly commit a crime, certainly an impropriety as DA with this relationship, and she almost certainly committed a crime if she was taking kickbacks from the money that she set aside for her lover, but then she would have perjured herself before the court By lying about when this relationship began, but that's not even the end of the crimes that she admits.
Because the question becomes, we know that the lover bought her all these sorts of nice vacations and all these nice dinners and all these trips, so how is Fannie Willis going to pretend that that's not a kickback?
And she's going to say, well, it wasn't a kickback because I paid for my share of it.
Even then, a little bit dubious, but if she paid for her share, okay, fair enough, there should be a record of that, right?
For goodness sakes, I have a record of basically every cup of coffee I buy when I'm going through an airport.
Everything is electronic these days.
So, okay, Fannie, if you actually paid for half of these expenses, all these lavish trips with your boyfriend that you hired to prosecute Trump, then where are the receipts?
And her boyfriend, Nathan Wade, gives an unsatisfying answer.
You said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel though, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
So this roughly sharing travel, you're saying she reimbursed you?
She did.
And where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you?
It was cash.
She didn't give me checks.
So she paid you cash for her share of all these vacations?
Mr. Schaffer, you'll step out if you do that again.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
And so all of the vacations that she took, she paid you cash for?
Yes, ma'am.
If you, first of all, if you believe that she actually paid him back, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
But second of all, if you believe, I don't know what's worse.
Is it worse that he's pretty clearly lying about this?
That she didn't, in fact, hand him just thousands and thousands of dollars in cash?
In what, envelopes?
This is what they got Senator Bob Menendez on.
It looks like the worst kind of gangster bribes you can imagine.
Who's carrying around that kind of cash?
I don't know if it's worse that she did that and is acting like a gangster, or if it's worse that he's lying, which seems much more likely.
What are you talking about?
She didn't.
She didn't pay me in Venmo.
She didn't pay me on a credit card.
She didn't pay me in a check.
She didn't... No, just fat wads of cash that we apparently all have lying around.
Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of dollars in cash.
Give me a break.
So, they ask Fannie Willis about this.
She's on the stand.
They say, hold on, hold on.
So, you're dating this guy.
You probably were dating him before you hired him to prosecute Trump.
But even if you weren't somehow, this guy then is making a ton of money.
He's completely unqualified for the job.
You're paying him way more money than he deserves and that other lawyers in his shoes would get.
And then he starts spending that money on you.
But then he insists that you paid him back for it.
But there's no record of any of this somehow because you were paying him in cash.
Okay, Fannie.
Where'd you get the cash?
And I, you could not, if you were writing a dark Hollywood comedy about political corruption, you could not have scripted a better answer than this.
But I always have cash at the house.
That has been, I don't know, all my life.
If you're a woman and you go on a date with a man, you better have $200 in your pocket.
So if that man acts up, you can go where you want to go.
So I keep cash in my house and I don't keep cash as good in my purse like I used to.
I don't go on many dates, but when you go on a date, you should have cash in your pocket.
So my question was, where did that cash originally come from, if it didn't come out of the bank?
Cash is fungible.
I had cash for years in my house.
So for me to tell you the source of where it comes from, when you go to Publix and you buy something, you get $50, you throw it in there.
It's been my whole life.
When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that.
Hold on, hold on, wait, pause, rewind the tape.
So, it just shows you what happens when you start telling lies.
You have to start telling crazier and crazier lies.
Or, what's worse in this case, perhaps, is that you start telling lies to cover up some misdeed, but then in the course of telling those lies, you accidentally reveal another misdeed.
This woman just casually admitted to embezzling money from her political campaign for personal use.
Casually.
She wasn't even aware of it.
Wait, you're asking me why I just have thousands and thousands of dollars of cash lying around?
Oh, I don't know, man.
You know, cash is fungible.
It's true.
I get money is fungible.
That's true.
She's obviously saying this so that she doesn't have to give a source for the cash.
You know, if I take $50 out of the bank, and then I get paid back $50 from a friend, and I put it in my drawer, one can't neatly say, well, this is the 50 from my friend, and it's just all money, it goes together.
But then, when she's pressed on the question, because the lawyer doesn't want her to evade it, she actually gives the worst answer possible, which is, huh?
Oh, yeah, I embezzled the cash from my campaign.
I am so thoroughly corrupt that my excuse for my other corruption is to casually admit to a very significant crime.
The funniest part of all of this.
Zoom out a little bit here so you don't miss the forest for the trees.
The case that Fannie Willis is bringing against Donald Trump is a RICO case.
It's the case you bring against the mob.
It's for racketeering.
It's for all the stuff.
What does the mob do?
The mob goes around.
Mob deals in cash.
Mob doesn't swipe credit cards, okay?
You go to the Bronx.
Most of the mob has been wiped out in New York because of Rudy Giuliani.
But you go, sometimes you see a few wise guys.
They're dealing with cash, okay?
And they're going around and there's influence operations, and they all got weird romantic relationships, and they're all just trying to impose their political will, usually absent reason, certainly absent the law on their opponents.
And, well, what do you know?
Not only did Trump not do any of that.
But this woman did, and so did her lover, and so did this whole crooked establishment.
And it's so a part of the fabric of their political operation that she would just casually admit to significant crimes.
So she's got all the cash, she keeps it in her house cuz she embezzles from her campaign, and then what's she do with it?
And then he tells me how much it is, and I give him the money back.
I don't, just like you're asking me about the money with Robin, I don't do my friends like that.
So if you tell me it's a G, then you're going to get $1,000.
Whatever it is, I didn't ever make him produce receipts to me.
Whatever he told me it was, I gave him the money back.
This is the district attorney who's trying to imprison the leader of the Republican Party, the former President Donald Trump.
This is the great legal mind that is going to upset centuries of American legal precedent and tradition to transform our country into a banana republic, a tin pot dictatorship, on this novel legal theory that you should throw the former president and the current leader of the opposition into prison.
And I assume here she's quoting from Blackstone's commentaries.
I think it's Book 1, Chapter 15, in which Blackstone writes, I don't do my friends like that.
You tell me it's a G, you're going to get $1,000.
That's it.
That is about the height of legal theory that will take us to the Trump prosecution.
Obviously, Fannie Willis should be dismissed from this case.
Obviously, her boyfriend should be dismissed from this case.
Obviously, at least Fannie Willis, maybe her boyfriend as well, should be prosecuted for the crimes that Fannie Willis accidentally admitted to on the witness stand yesterday.
But most importantly of all, This case against Donald Trump needs to be thrown out of court.
This is a complete farce.
This is a major embarrassment, not only for this woman, not only for the whole Fulton County DA's office, not only for the Democratic Party.
This is a major, major embarrassment for the United States.
If they have any self-respect whatsoever, they will throw this out.
Immediately.
There is much more to say first, though.
Go to halo.com slash Knowles.
As many of you know, our good friends over at Halo had a commercial in the big game this weekend.
There is something special about taking a moment to remember what truly matters in life and preparing for this season of Lent.
Lent is a time of intense prayer, fasting, and giving.
This year, Halo's annual Pray40 Challenge focuses on surrender and includes meditations on the powerful book, He Leadeth Me.
This is a story about a priest who became a prisoner and slave in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
His story is one of ultimate surrender and how we are called to offer up our own worries, anxieties, problems, and lives to God.
There will also be Lent music, Lent-specific Bible stories, and other Lenten prayers, such as the Seven Last Utterances of Christ with Jim Caviezel.
So, what are you waiting for?
Join Halo's Prayer 40 Challenge today.
Download the Halo app at halo.com slash Knowles for an exclusive three-month free trial of more than 6,000 prayers and meditations.
That is halo.com slash Knowles.
Speaking of bad news for Joe Biden...
Joe Biden has a new VA initiative, the Veterans Affairs Department.
And the initiative, this is in an election year, Joe Biden knows his approval ratings aren't doing so great.
He needs something.
He needs some really good PR.
Okay, what's his PR?
Joe Biden is announcing a new initiative to diagnose more black veterans as mentally disabled.
Which is odd, because black veterans are significantly more likely to be declared mentally disabled than white veterans already.
But that's not good enough for DEI in the White House.
This new equity initiative would acknowledge that while black veterans currently receive mental disability diagnoses at nearly twice the rate of white veterans, That's not enough.
That number needs to be even higher.
Is this not the perfect symbol of modern liberal culture?
They want equity.
And equity, as we've discussed many times, is a utopian goal that is actually opposed to human nature.
It can never happen, and that's why the equity initiatives always lead to so much suffering and political disorder.
But let's say it were possible.
Let's just engage in that little thought experiment.
There would be two ways to achieve equity in a world of natural inequalities.
The one way to achieve equity would be to bring everybody up.
You encourage people, you help them to develop, and you raise everybody up to the same level.
The other way to achieve equity would be to bring everybody down.
It would be to diagnose people with more mental handicaps.
It would be to reduce the degree to which people can achieve.
It would be to punish people who do better.
Now I'm moving beyond the veteran affairs, obviously.
I'm thinking of the way that education has developed.
I'm thinking of the way DEI initiatives work in universities and in professional settings.
But this is perfect.
The way that we're going to help black people is we're going to say that more of them are mentally disabled.
Yes, that's the way that we're going to do it.
You can raise people up, you can bring people down.
Guess which one we're going to do?
This is right out of Kurt Vonnegut.
This is right out of Harrison Bergeron, if you ever read that story in school.
This is the way these equity initiatives always go.
Probably not great for these black veterans, many of whom are not mentally disabled, obviously.
Many have been diagnosed as mentally disabled, but the notion that, well, we just need more, we need more and more and more, that'll be really good for them.
Not good for them, not good for the military, not good for the society.
Now, speaking of military engagements, there's a major, major military news story.
That very few people are covering, and it's one of the most important stories of foreign military affairs in the world.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, though, text Knolls to 989898.
We are experiencing a lot of global instability as we plunge into primary season.
North Korea is testing missiles.
Iran is becoming increasingly aggressive.
What are you doing to protect your family in the midst of all this chaos?
A great place to start is by protecting your savings.
It's not too late to invest in gold with Birch Gold Group today.
Unlike many other investments, gold is often viewed as a safe haven investment during turbulent times because it provides a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty.
Birch Gold will help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold, and it won't cost you a penny out of pocket.
While diversification does not eliminate risk entirely, Birch Gold's experts can help you manage and reduce, providing a more resilient foundation for your financial well-being.
I encourage you to talk to one of their trusted experts today.
Just text KNOLLS, K-N-O-W-L-L-E-S, to 989898 for a free info kit.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of happy customers, check out Birch Gold today.
Text KNOLLS, K-N-O-W-L-L-E-S to 989898, claim your free info kit, and protect your savings with gold.
That is KNOLLS, K-N-O-W-L-E-S to 989898.
My favorite comment yesterday is from MikeV8085, who says, when Michael does his Putin impression, he sounds like Count Dracula.
It is because I do not do very many impressions.
Don't you understand, Tucker, that I want to suck your blood.
So that's my Putin, man.
That's it.
But I don't know.
I apologize to the President of the Russian Federation.
I do not want any polonium to end up in my leftist tears tumbler.
All due respect.
Great respect to you, Mr. Putin.
Okay, speaking of military engagements over on the other side of the world, Really troubling story coming out of Armenia.
Armenia is warning that Azerbaijan is planning a full-scale war.
This would be an enlargement of a conflict that has been simmering for some years now called the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
This is between Azerbaijan, a Muslim nation, and Armenia, which is the oldest Christian nation in the world.
Armenia has been officially a Christian nation since the year 301.
That is a dozen years before Emperor Constantine's Edict of Milan tolerating Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.
Christianity first arrived in Armenia in the year of our Lord, 40.
Not 540, not 240, not 140, 40!
Not 540, not 240, not 140.
Forty.
Seven years after the resurrection.
Armenia has been Christian for a very long time.
And Armenians have been the victims of persecution for a very long time.
Famously, infamously, Armenians are the victims of the Armenian genocide, which took place during World War I, when a million Armenians were slaughtered by the Muslim Turks.
And Azerbaijan is another version of a Muslim Turkic state.
And Azerbaijan now not only wants to take this historical land from Armenia, the Nagorno-Karabakh land, but also now launch a full-scale war on Armenia.
And you're not hearing very much, if anything, about this because of all sorts of weird alliances.
Because Putin in Russia has been supportive of Armenia and Iran, which is kind of weird.
A Muslim nation, Iran, is supportive of Armenia as well.
But Turkey, which is an American ally, is supportive of Azerbaijan.
And Israel, an American ally, is supportive of Azerbaijan.
Isn't that kind of weird?
Why is Israel supporting the Muslim nation and Iran supporting the Christian nation?
Well, foreign policy gets a little complicated sometimes and there's questions of different resources there and blah blah blah.
I really don't care.
You know what I care about?
The oldest Christian nation in the world.
A people who has been the victim of genocide within about a century, the last century.
A people that could be wiped out by an aggressive Muslim nation, Azerbaijan.
I think that if we're involving ourselves as the global hegemon in all sorts of wars that don't seem to have a huge direct relation to American interests, we do it all the time and we're doing it right now, I think it would be good
If the model of Christian charity, to use the words of John Winthrop in our nation's earliest days, if the model of Christian charity might extend a hand to the oldest Christian nation in the world and prevent these people from becoming the victims of genocide again, and prevent the oldest Christian nation on earth from being wiped off the map, I think that would be a good thing.
Some might say, well, we don't want to be involved in any Foreign conflicts.
That, by the way, has never been my position, as I've made clear.
I think my political philosophy boils down to, I think we ought to do good and avoid evil.
Call me crazy.
I'm very old school when it comes to my political philosophy.
Not very modern, but I still think that's probably the most defensible political philosophy.
Well, here, if you are going to be involved, and we are involved with virtually every nation on earth, this might be a good place to extend that model of Christian charity.
Don't say you weren't warned.
I think the media are going to block out this conflict.
Don't allow it to go by unnoticed.
This is a grave injustice that has already been taking place for a while, and a far graver injustice might take place.
And if we're going to help out in any of these apparently far-flung foreign conflicts, this might be a good one to do it.
Now, speaking of many generations, a man who is my age has just discovered that he's the father of 97 kids.
He's doing better than me, and well I don't know if it's better though exactly, because I don't think he's married, I don't, something tells me these kids are not all from the same mother, and the thing that tells me is this story about him.
The kid, the kid, the man, 33, 34 year old man, is a sperm donor.
He donated sperm, what a euphemism that is, in college.
He was a student at Georgia State in 2011.
He's now discovered that he has 97 children.
Pretty crazy thing to discover.
I remember, I was in college at the same time this kid was, and we were all sort of sitting, joking around one day, and we were trying to figure out how much money we could make by donating sperm.
And I did the math.
Over the course of college, I could have banked $400,000 if you keep up at the pretty steady pace of donation, so to speak.
And I thought, well, $400,000, that's a lot of money.
But probably, I don't know, probably not a great idea.
I was never really seriously tempted by this financial incentive, but a lot of people have been.
I see easily, especially some dumb college kid could eat, oh yeah, free money, and I go do this thing that probably a lot of college kids are just doing already for free.
Okay, yeah, why not?
Well, then you discover you have 97 kids.
Don't you think you might feel some responsibility for those kids?
You got someone out there who looks like you, who is born Without a father.
Maybe they're born to an adoptive father.
Maybe it's a husband and a wife, and the husband's swimmers don't work, and so they use donor sperm, and then maybe they tell the kid maybe they don't.
That's going to give the kid some problems later on.
Maybe though, as is in a lot of these cases, maybe that child is just born to a single mother, because the single mother doesn't like men, can't find a husband, so she's just going to go purchase a father for her kid, and then that kid is going to grow up without a father.
That's really... Maybe the kid is going to be born to a couple of lesbians.
Because the lesbians, they're in some kind of union together and they want to have a kid but they don't want to do it the right way and so the kid's going to be born and he's really not going to have a father.
He's going to have two mothers and no father.
Isn't that wrong?
Isn't that right?
Beyond that, there's another story just came out of CNN.
A woman named Victoria Hill recently learned not only that the man she thought was her father is not her father, because the father had a problem with his swimmers, so they went to a fertility treatment specialist.
They received donor sperm.
They never told the daughter.
Turned out the donor sperm came from the fertility doctor himself, because he was a pervert, because this is a perverse industry.
Where you just buy and sell people like they're commodities.
And you want to hear the craziest part of it, she then found out that there were a lot of other people in her town that were her half-siblings, because they also had donor sperm from this fertility doc, and she found out that her high school boyfriend was really her half-brother.
So this woman now is dealing with the trauma of having slept in high school with her half-brother, a man that she said she could have married, though luckily she didn't in the long run.
All of this to say, When I have brought up some of the negative and unintended consequences of things like IVF and surrogacy, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
And by the way, this isn't even the most extreme, terrible version of it.
The unintended consequences of this are awful, but it all derives from the same moral error.
And the moral error that affects all of the IVF and surrogacy and procreation industry broadly is the error of treating human beings as though they are commodities to be purchased on a free market, of treating children and mothers and fathers as though they're just interchangeable of treating children and mothers and fathers as though they're just interchangeable widgets, as though they're just objects rather than proper subjects with moral rights and This is what we're talking about.
Not good stuff, man.
We want you to be fruitful and multiply, but in the right way.
In a way that is conducive to human flourishing and doesn't just turn you into some kind of degenerate who's trading people for cash.
You know, most of the products in your bathroom have gone woke at this point.
That's what I say.
Jeremy's wants to help you wash the woke off with 15% off all of your essentials and Jeremy's Shave Reload.
The Shave Reload includes shave cream, post-shave balm, helping to provide a clean shaving and soothing post-shaving experience.
It is made with natural ingredients such as green tea oil, aloe vera, and hyaluronic acid.
Jeremy's leaves out toxic chemicals like the parabens, the sulfates, the phththththththalates!
Because how can you wash off toxic values if you're using toxic chemicals?
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to get your Jeremy's Shave Reload and other essentials for 15% off today.
While you're getting your stuff, maybe you want your home to smell like a nice 12th century monastery or something like that.
You know, it's the Lenten season.
You can get the smells and bells candle.
Dailywire.com slash shop.
And if you want your home to smell even more like the incense of the temple of the body, you can of course always get Mayflower cigars at Mayflowercigars.com.
You can't get them right now.
They're still in pre-order.
They're almost certainly going to sell out in the pre-order, so don't wait until they're in stock.
Order them today.
21 years or older to order.
Some exclusions apply.
Finally, finally, I've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk.
Go to puretalk.com slash Knowles today.
Take it away.
Hi Michael, this is Molly.
My question is if you think kids should be allowed to have smartphones.
I have four young kids and everywhere I look it seems like kids are younger and younger holding cell phones.
I personally didn't have one until high school and even then I can only use it to make phone calls after 9 p.m.
when, you know, the free minutes started.
So I'm just wondering how to navigate this as my kids get older, and what age you think would be appropriate, and if there's any way to make it safer.
Thanks.
No.
Your kids should not have smartphones.
Next question.
No, they shouldn't.
They shouldn't have smartphones at all.
If you give a smartphone to a boy, he's going to look at porn.
Even if he's the nicest little boy in the world, it's going to happen.
If you give the smartphone to a girl, she's going to look at all the social media apps, and she's going to develop all sorts of body issues and social issues.
Both of them are going to get very depressed.
And both the boys and the girls are going to live their lives more and more in virtual reality, which is going to cause all sorts of problems.
And it's going to disassociate them from the real communities in which they live.
And they're also all going to talk to little boys and girls, and they're all going to get up to no good.
Don't do it.
If you love your kids, do not give them smartphones.
You can give them brick phones, you know, the ones that are kind of like e-readers.
You can give them flip phones.
You can give them old Nokia-style phones.
I'm not saying you don't want a way to contact your kids when they're out and when they're at ballet class or whatever they do.
Do not give your children smartphones.
At what age should you give them smartphones?
Some parents will say, you can't have a smartphone until you can pay for it yourself.
No, the problem with the smartphone is not that the phone is $500.
The problem with the smartphone is that it's a portal to hell.
So, instead of that, you just pick an age at which you think they would be mature enough for it.
Maybe that's 17, maybe that's 18, maybe that... I don't know when that is, okay?
But it sure ain't 12.
Next question.
Hey, Michael.
I've been going out with this girl from church for a while now, and we just talked about the nature of the relationship, whether or not we want to make it official, and We both would like to, but she tells me that there's a possibility she might be moving back to her home state within a year.
And I definitely have to stay where we currently live, which is many hours apart.
She doesn't know if that's going to be the case, but she says at the moment it looks like it might be moving in that direction.
But she's not sure.
So what would you do in this situation?
Would you try to stick it out as long as you can?
Or would you move on in hopes of not wasting anyone's time?
Appreciate the response.
Thanks.
It depends how old you are.
I don't know.
Maybe I just missed that in the question.
I don't know.
Is this the sort of thing where, you know, you're in high school and her parents are moving so you'll be a little while away for a year but then maybe you'll go off to college and you could be closer to each other?
I don't know.
Or is it that you're just both in your 20s and she wants to go to another city and you want to stay in your city or vice versa and so you're going to be split apart?
If it's the former, I don't know, maybe you can kind of stick it out.
If you're just both adults making a decision to say, we're going to go into different places, then I don't know, I guess probably you've made your decision there.
But if it's young love and you say, we're going to be away for a little while, we're going to go to different colleges or whatever, then I think you might be able to stick it out.
I say this as someone who is very, very happy.
I thank my lucky stars every day that I married my high school sweetheart.
But, you know, we lived in different places, we went to different colleges, and so you could stick it out there.
I wouldn't just If you really love each other and you really could see yourselves getting married, then I wouldn't just break up because you'll have to spend a few weeks apart or something, or even a few months apart.
But if there's no world in which you end up back together, if there's nothing motivating you to be back in the same place to be together, then, and I guess you've probably already got your answer, you just don't want to admit it.
Next question.
Hi Michael, this is Catherine.
Lately I've been reading a bunch of posts by one of your favorite Twitter accounts, Edmund Smirk, who has been talking about the Freak Right, which has a bunch of conspiracy theories about Taylor Swift, like that her rise to fame has been a psy-op and all these theories.
And then the anecdote to that, Edmund says, is the Girl Dead Right.
And the Girl Dead Right is still obviously conservative, But embraces what he calls Swiftian normality and embraces the idea that Taylor Swift is at least temperamentally conservative.
And I was wondering just what are your thoughts about the girl dead right and the freak right?
Edmund Smirk, my favorite pseudonymous at Twitter account, and I, we must be brothers from another mother.
You know, we think very much on the same wavelength.
This phrase temperamentally conservative is a phrase I've used for 20 years.
I remember I said it about my wife, Elisa, who grew up in even a more liberal environment than I did.
And I said, well, maybe sweet little Elise's politics, such as they are, maybe they're more left-wing for now or something.
But temperamentally, she's actually more conservative than I am.
I'm more prone to radical, I don't know, behaviors or plans or schemes, whereas Elise is more temperamentally conservative and normal.
And that can be a really great thing.
Politically, we ought to harness that.
So yes, Smirk has just suggested a related term to swifty and normality.
You know, Taylor Swift just being a kind of pretty girl who normal people like, and she's not like dancing around doing demon gesticulations, and she's not, you know, engaging in pornography in the streets, and she's just kind of normal.
The related term is the girl dad right, which is, you know, Men who just behave normally and they really care about their daughters and they like women and women like them and they're not, they're not unlike so many right-wingers now.
In public life, probably not in regular life, but in public life, a lot of right-wingers are just saying and doing things that are really bizarre and off-putting, especially to women.
My read of the Girl Dad Right is that the Girl Dad Right, channeling Swifty and normality, is not just woman-repellent and is not going to totally alienate voters and citizens that we need to get on our side.
And I think that's a really great thing.
Now, I am not, to my knowledge, I am not a girl dad.
Now, you know, we've got two boys already, then one on the way, we don't know, we don't know the sex of the third Knowles.
So, I don't, I'm in no way presently, to my knowledge, a girl dad, but the girl dad right is a very important constituency for any conservative coalition.
Next question.
Next question.
Elmo can't remember the last time you did Elmo a favor.
Even though Elmo has entertained you and your children and Elmo never asked for anything.
So it disturbs Emma.
To hear you, Mr. Lawrence, mistake my clear Sicilian accent for that of a Latino.
Even though you, you yourself are Sicilian, just like Emma.
But let's be frank here.
You never wanted to talk like Emma.
Now you're afraid of being Emma's pet.
I'll see you out on Sesame Street, Mr. Knowles.
Until then, bye!
I never knew that Elmo was Sicilian.
You learn something new every day, don't you?
Question from Dorian.
Good evening, Mr. Knowles.
It's actually morning, Dorian, but maybe you wrote this in the evening.
On the subject of intelligent life on other worlds, the probability of intelligent life happening on other worlds has been calculated under a mathematical equation known as the Drake Equation.
Oh, here we go.
The result out of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, many of them with their own planets, the number of planets with the potential for intelligent life is roughly 12,500.
What say you, sir?
Yeah, the Drake Equation is totally fake.
It's a joke.
I don't mean to really criticize, you know, Mr. Drake all that much, but the problem with the Drake Equation is it is totally arbitrary.
It's just a guess, and the reason that we know that for certain is it just assumes certain facts about the way life develops, when in fact we know absolutely nothing about the way that life begins.
So, what the Drake equation, for instance, would say is, okay, you know, what are the number of planets that are a certain distance from a star, that are of the proper size, that have the proper elements, the elements that we know are necessary for life?
Okay, yes, there are certain elements that we think today are necessary for life, but we don't know what is sufficient for life.
We don't know We don't know how you go from inorganic to organic.
We don't know how you go from inanimate to animate.
We don't know, scientifically, anything about how life begins.
Now I do know a little bit how life begins, I feel confident.
I am fairly confident that the explanation that life begins when God gathers up dust and breathes into the dust and forms man out of clay, I think that is by far the best explanation that we have come up with yet as to how life begins.
There have been other scientific attempts to try to figure out the origins of life, but none of them have been persuasive at all.
So in order to establish the probability that life would exist anywhere else in the universe, you would first have to know how life begins.
And we just don't know that.
And the Drake equation doesn't know that either.
They just make a bunch of assumptions.
They basically just ignore that question.
So the numbers that it spits out are completely meaningless.
Next question.
Hey Michael, if you read this, I'm in dire need of guidance from the only person who could possibly have genuine advice.
Whoa man, that's a heavy burden.
I've been dating this girl for three years and saying she's the love of my life would be an understatement.
I was planning on proposing to her this year.
Unfortunately, last year my parents decided to move 100 or so miles away and I had to go with them.
Oh wow, this is similar to that earlier voicemail back question.
Due to the distance and some underlying personal issues on my part, we were apart and have since separated.
As you can imagine, it's not a terribly joyful situation.
I'm planning to move back very soon and have been working to put an end to the issues I was causing and want to start up our relationship again.
You have spoken many times about how you and your wife broke up for a year, more than a year during college, but got back together.
How did you navigate that?
I feel both hopelessly lost and positively hopeful it will all work out between the two of us.
I don't know how to get into a situation in which we can start to work on our relationship again.
The last thing I want is to try and have her wanting nothing to do with me.
Whenever I feel like my situation is at a loss, I tell myself I cannot lose as motivation, but I don't know what I would do if I actually do lose.
And it worries me if you end up reading this and feel like replying in any sort of way, I would be forever grateful.
Sure, sure.
A very painful situation.
You certainly have my empathy.
It depends a little bit on time and age.
So, I don't know, if you're a freshman in high school, it sounds like you're older than that, but if you're a freshman in high school, you say, this is the love of my life, we're going to get married, but our parents are apart, and then you go through three years of high school, and then wherever you go to college, and that might be tough, that might be a little tricky.
If it's that, you know, you're going to be apart for a year, and then maybe you end up in similar places for college, or at the same college, or maybe, I don't know, it's very difficult.
You don't necessarily want to pick a college just because of a girl that you, you know, you dated a little bit in high school.
Maybe you could do that.
It depends on what those underlying issues are as to why you broke up.
Is it just kind of ordinary jealousy?
Or is it just because, you know, out of sight out of mind?
Because we're incarnate creatures, we like to see each other.
Do you have an ability to see even though you're a hundred miles apart?
Is there a way for you to, I don't know, meet in the middle or something?
Maybe not when you're 17, 18 years old.
You say that, you know, you'll say you cannot lose.
Well, you might.
You might, I mean you are broken up and you got to figure out from her perspective why you broke up, why she broke up with you.
And if it's the sort of thing that can be remedied with some phone calls and a visit now and again within the next year or two, that's fine.
If it's because she's just moved on with her life and she really, she doesn't have affection for you anymore, then you might lose, you know.
Now one way that you might get her back is that you might Just move on yourself and start dating other people and maybe that doesn't work out and maybe that gets her a little bit jealous and you know, people have played that game more than once in the history of romance.
When my beloved wife and I were split, we were still kind of chatting, you know, it was still, there were these moments, are we really split or are we gonna?
And every time it would kind of come to that, you know, are we really just going to, one or the other of us would say, well, no, hold on.
Let's just, maybe we just go get a cup of coffee or something like that.
So, you know, it's, I wish I could give you some firm, easy advice on do these three things and you get your girlfriend back, but that's not how it works.
It's very subtle and nuanced and it's, it's relational, you know, it's not, it can't be distilled down into some little three-step program.
But if you want the girl, make it clear you want the girl.
And then if she doesn't want you, don't be a creep.
Act like a man.
Women like men.
Maybe, you know, you go on, you live your life, you do something else, and then she wants you all the more.
