Ep. 1789 - White Woman Beaten By Black Gang SPEAKS OUT
The single mom who was beat in Cincinnati speaks out, President Trump gets revenge on left-wing banks, and Disney surrenders to Gina Carano.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1789
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Old Glory Bank - Go to https://OldGloryBank.com/Knowles to open an account and make the switch today!
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/KNOWLES to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.
During answer the call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.
How do I balance all of this grief, responsibility?
How do you repair this kind of damage?
My daughter, Michaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.
Everyone has their own destiny.
Everyone.
you you you The single mother who was beaten unconscious on the streets of Cincinnati by a mob after a jazz concert is speaking out for the first time since the incident, which reveals some good news and some really, really bad news about the situation in the country.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
We'll be right back.
There's potentially a new Republican presidential candidate trying to run in the MAGA lane in 2028.
It could upend the entire race.
It's the first candidate who's floated an idea where I thought, oh, wow, this could actually upend the whole race, everybody's plans.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, I want to tell you about Old Glory Bank.
You need to go to oldglorybank.com slash Knowles.
Here is an uncomfortable truth.
Most big banks in this country are not neutral.
They're actively working against you.
They take the money you deposit.
They use it to fund agendas that oppose faith, family, and freedom.
They fund gender ideology, abortion activism, ESG mandates, you name it.
You are unknowingly, unwittingly helping them do it.
Also, institutions in finance have been debanking people for years for being conservative, for being pro-life, for defending the Constitution.
That is one of many reasons to open an account at Old Glory Bank.
When I heard about Old Glory Bank, I ran on my computer and went to open an account.
It's so, so easy.
You can open an account very, very quickly.
Even I, I'm a Luddite.
This is an FDIC insured bank built by people who fear God, love this country, and still believe in right and wrong.
They do not fund evil.
They don't cancel people for standing up for truth.
They protect your money and your beliefs.
I love Old Glory Bank.
One, it's a good bank, and there are plenty of banks out there that are unpleasant to use.
But two, they're on our side.
Okay, it takes a few minutes to switch.
Stop letting your money serve the wrong side.
Join me.
Join tens of thousands of customers on the right side of banking at oldglorybank.com slash Knowles.
Old GloryBank.com slash Knowles.
You know the story.
We covered it a few days last week.
Cincinnati Jazz Festival.
There's a man and a woman.
I don't think they were together.
One's a tourist, one's a single mother.
They were walking, white people.
Then there was a mob of black people who just beat them mercilessly, beat the woman unconscious.
She was bleeding out of her mouth.
Here's what she had to say at a press conference yesterday.
First and foremost, I just want to say that I don't want to relive what happened to me, you know, eight or nine days ago.
I'm here to talk about the future and how we can change it, how we can prevent this from happening to anybody else.
These heinous crimes have to stop.
You know, I never want this to happen to anyone else, especially a mother, a daughter, somebody who is loved.
So I just know what it's done to my family, not just to me.
And I think that moving forward, we do need more accountability.
And I definitely think that, you know, we need more police officers.
But like he said, you know, the judges who are just letting people out with a slap, the man who attacked me and might have permanently damaged me forever should never have been on the streets, ever.
And the fact that he had just gotten out of jail previously for something he should have been in there for years.
Okay, so this woman went on to say, she said, I'm in excruciating pain all the time.
If it wasn't so important to be here today to be the voice for presenting this for the future, I wouldn't have left my aunt's basement in a dark bed with a blanket over my head.
It's been horrible.
I mean, this woman could have died and thought she was going to die.
It's kind of surprising she didn't die.
And the guy who did it to her, well, there was a whole mob of people, but some of the people who have been arrested so far and the guy she's referring to there, career criminals, been convicted of felonies, been, it was just recently, just weeks before this incident, was arrested again, then let out on a very low bond, I think $400 bond or something.
So this guy certainly should be locked away for life, at least, at least.
And as far as I'm concerned, I don't know, three strikes, you're out.
If you keep committing violent crimes again and again, you prove that you are not able to live as a person in society, then we need some very serious punishments because this was totally preventable.
This issue is not one of racking our brains, the sociologists at Harvard, what do we do?
How do we solve this intractable social problem?
There's a very simple solution.
If the courts and the politicians had just enforced the law and not let these guys out on basically a $2 bond, had they not let these guys off the hook, had they not given them just a slap on the wrist for their past crimes, this wouldn't have happened.
And this woman wouldn't have been knocked out cold in the street and her kid would be doing better and the community would be doing better.
This issue in Cincinnati and the violent crime around the country, it's just like the border under Biden.
Remember the border under Biden?
How do we solve the border crisis?
Oh, Joe Biden, look, I want to solve the border crisis.
I want to stop these millions of illegal aliens coming over, but I just can't.
I need new legislation.
I need the Republicans.
I need Trump to call up the congressman and tell them to vote for my legislation.
Otherwise, my hands are tied.
Then what happens?
Trump gets elected.
No new legislation is passed.
Crossings drop to zero because he just enforces the law.
There was nothing complicated about it.
There was no big debate to be had in the country.
There was no wrangling on Capitol Hill.
It's just Biden didn't want to enforce the law and Trump did want to enforce the law.
Biden didn't want to enforce the law, probably because it gives Democrats an electoral advantage if they flood the country with illegals.
And so, yeah, a bunch of girls are going to get raped and a bunch of people are going to get murdered and 75,000 people a year are going to be poisoned by fentanyl and you're going to let terrorists in the country and you're going to let Satan worshiping gangsters into the country.
But, you know, that's a price to pay for a little more political power.
So that's, he just didn't want to enforce the law.
Trump did want to enforce the law and it worked.
You don't need any new laws in Cincinnati or really any of our cities around the country.
You just need people to lock up these savages, these absolute animals.
Just lock them up.
Just lock them up for the crimes they've already committed.
And ladies like this won't be bleeding out of their mouths on the street.
This gets to a distinction in politics.
Ronald Reagan famously did not refer to his domestic political enemies.
He would say, we have no enemies, only opponents.
We only have our opponents.
Enemies we would refer to as the people abroad, you know, the Soviet Union, our geopolitical adversaries.
Those are our enemies.
But the people we disagree with in America, they're just our opponents.
Donald Trump, you'll notice, is more keen on referring to his political enemies at home.
And the squishy Republicans say, this is terrible and it's a degradation of our politics and it's dangerous rhetoric and whatever.
No, Trump is using it for good reason.
And Ronald Reagan used his word for good reason because there's a distinction.
An opponent is someone who shares your same goal, but disagrees about the means to get there.
That is generally how the word opponent is used in politics.
Look, we all have the same goal.
We all want a secure border.
This is like the 1990s.
We all want a secure border.
Republicans and Democrats, we want a secure border.
We just disagree about the means to get there.
We all want a thriving economy.
We just disagree about the means to get there.
We all want national security.
We just disagree about the means to get there.
We all want fairness in sexes or races or whatever.
We just disagree about the means to get there.
That's opponents.
Enemies have different goals.
They have fundamentally different goals.
That is what those terms mean in politics.
So 1990s, Bill Clinton, we need to secure the border and get rid of these illegal aliens.
Republicans say, yeah, we do need to secure the border, get rid of these illegal aliens.
Okay, here's my plan to do it.
here's my plan to do it.
Those are opponents.
But when you have people who fundamentally disagree over what they even want to accomplish, when you have Republicans say we need to secure the border, Democrats say, no, we don't.
We need to open the border.
Republicans say we need to get these security risks out of the country.
Democrats say we need to bring more of them in.
Republicans say we need to lock up the criminals.
Democrats say we need to abolish prisons.
Now you're talking about fundamental disagreements over what you even want to accomplish.
Whenever people say, well, the politics has reached a fever pitch, there's just so much more tension.
That dastardly Trump, it ain't Trump who did it.
It's the mayor of Cincinnati who did it.
It's the mayor of Chicago who did it.
It's the Democrats in Congress who opened the border who did it.
It's Joe Biden and Kamala Harris who did it.
Don't blame Trump for that.
There is a fundamental difference between how politics works, at least publicly, at least in an explicit way today than there was in the 80s or 90s.
Different world.
Okay, now we're getting some good news out of the White House.
Really, really good news.
President Trump yesterday issued an executive order on debanking.
Debanking, it's a little bit of an egghead issue.
You know, it's not as sexy as keeping big hulking dudes out of swimming or something.
It's not quite as sexy as saving babies from the predations of murderers.
It's not quite as sexy as deporting 16 million illegal aliens.
It's not as saucy.
It doesn't get the blood up like some of those cultural issues, but it's a major, major issue because it affects every American.
There has been a trend, not just in America, but throughout the West in recent years, whereby political conservatives, Christians, pro-lifers, defenders of the Second Amendment have been debanked.
And when you get debanked, you cannot operate in the modern marketplace, in the modern economy, in the modern political order.
And this issue is a little bit personal for me.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, I want to tell you about Policy Genius.
Go to policygenius.com slash Knowles.
What would happen if you died tomorrow?
Unexpectedly, total surprise to everyone.
That might sound jarring.
Nearly half of American adults would face financial hardship within six months if they lost their primary income due to a loss or tragedy of that kind.
Luckily, Policy Genius makes finding life insurance simple, helping you secure real coverage so your loved ones have the financial safety net that they need when it matters most.
With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies starting at just $276 per year for $1 million in coverage.
It's an easy way to protect the people you love and feel good about the future.
Policy Genius is the country's leading online insurance marketplace, helps you compare quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price.
Their team of licensed agents walks you through the entire process step by step, handling paperwork and advocating for you while clearly laying out all your options, coverage amounts, prices, and terms with no guesswork.
With thousands of five-star reviews on Google and TrustPilot, Policy Genius has earned customers' trust by helping them find the best policy fit for their needs.
Secure your family's future with PolicyGenius.
Head to policygenius.com slash Knowles.
Compare free life insurance quotes from top companies, see how much you could save.
Policygenius.com slash Knowles.
Trump issues his debanking executive order.
What does this do?
This orders federal banking regulators to remove the reputational risk language from their guidance to lending institutions.
Reputational risk is a broad concept that allows lenders to debank people.
And it says, well, you know, look, this person, he manufactures firearms.
And even though that's protected by the Second Amendment and gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment, I don't know, that just, that might compromise our reputation here at such and such bank.
So we're going to debank the makers of AR-15s, let's say.
Hey, President Trump is unpopular after January 6th because of a bunch of lies that were told about him.
So we're going to debank the president of the United States.
Reputational risk.
All sorts of people get debanked.
And often they don't even know what's happening and they cannot find out what's happening.
This is what happened to me.
I was debanked for six months by a major payment processor, and I couldn't get any information on it.
I talked to the payment processor.
I talked to the client, the vendor, I talked to this, I couldn't get any information whatsoever.
Happily, I have a big platform, thanks to all of you.
So I have a big platform.
I made this public.
And what do you know?
Two seconds later, my issue was resolved.
And in fairness to the payment processor, it turned out to have been started by an erroneous government filing.
So the problem initially was not with the payment processor.
Before that, it was with the government.
Now, there were lots of strange questions, timeline questions on this, why the government only contacted one payment processor, not other financial institutions.
It was pretty weird.
I'm still kind of looking into it.
But the issue there was the payment processor said, we're not allowed to talk directly to you.
You have to talk to the vendor.
The vendor says, no, we're not going to deal with this.
You got to talk to the payment processor.
The government is not particularly accountable.
And so millions of Americans, potentially hundreds of millions of Americans, could be iced out of the financial sector and never even find out why.
And not only have no recourse, not even be able to figure out what their recourse could be.
And so this debanking EO, this is really, really great.
It's retroactive in the sense that it says individuals, their businesses and their families have been subjected to debanking on the basis of their political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.
And banks have 120 days, payment processors have 120 days to figure that out, let them know, try to fix the problem.
But I think we need to go a little further.
And we need right to know legislation, right-to-know legislation and regulation, so that at the very least, people who are in my position who don't have millions of followers on social media and a big platform and a big show, who are basically just screaming into the void when it comes to these major institutions, so that they can know what the next steps are to get their rights back and to get back into the political order.
Because this is one of the cleverest and most devastating ways that the liberal political order can ice out people that it doesn't like.
Now, speaking of liberal companies surrendering, there are a lot of banks right now are sucking up to Donald Trump because they are afraid that the chickens are coming home to roost.
It's not just the banks.
Disney.
Disney, this one is really sweet.
This one is personal.
Disney has just settled a lawsuit with Gina Carano.
You know Gina Carano, my former colleague, Gina Carano, who was canceled by Disney for posting during COVID about how people were being oppressed, comparing the tyrannical government actions during COVID to tyrannical government actions in Nazi Germany.
And for this, she was bizarrely maligned as anti-Semitic or something.
It was very strange because of course she was making the opposite point, but it was just an excuse to cancel her for contradicting the exalted Dr. Fauci and the rest of them.
Gina Carano was fired from The Mandalorian, the Star Wars franchise, and from Disney.
Daily Wire uncanceled Gina Carano, and she came here.
We did a movie together and she did a bunch of our shows and she's great.
She just won her lawsuit.
This is what Disney had to say.
The Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm are pleased to announce that we've reached an agreement with Gina Carano to resolve the issues in her pending lawsuit against the companies.
Ms. Carano was always well respected by her directors, co-stars, and staff.
And she worked hard to perfect her craft while treating her colleagues with kindness and respect.
They are eating so much crow, they are going to have to go to the hospital.
I think they're going to have to have their stomachs pumped with all the crow they're eating.
With this lawsuit concluded, here's the kicker.
We look forward to identifying opportunities to work together with Ms. Carano in the future.
This is complete surrender from Disney, which was the face of companies going woke.
So much so that Daily Wire shifted its business model in part to take advantage of their collapse, to take advantage of their extremism politically, because we knew that most Americans hated it.
So much so that the governor of Florida went to war with Disney, so much so that Gina fought this lawsuit for four years.
Disney was the face of woke.
And not only are they losing, They're surrendering.
They're surrendering.
Got to give a hat tip to Elon Musk, too, who funded Gina's lawsuit against Disney, because Elon said, anyone who gets fired because of something that they posted on my app on Twitter, I'll fund the lawsuit.
Also, because Elon is on a jihad against woke liberalism.
Gina, Gina won.
Why is this lawsuit coming out?
Why is Disney all of a sudden saying, oh, no, we actually love Gina?
Oh, no, everyone loves Gina.
Yeah, we want to work with Gina in the future.
This is more than we're going to lose in court.
This is, we've lost in the court of public opinion.
This is, we need to fundamentally change our business model.
This is American Eagle is right.
Jaguar is wrong.
This is woke is dead.
And this lawsuit, I don't think the statement was just written by the lawyers.
I think it was written by the accountants.
I think it was written by the executives and the shareholders.
This is a surrender.
That fever dream that we went through is over.
For now, it's not that it can't come back, but it's over for now.
You know, I'm reminded of an eschatological point that was made by Cardinal Manning, who says there is a day to come.
He said it more eloquently than I, but he said, there is a day to come that will reverse the confident judgments of men.
And this is a wonderfully consoling observation, political and theological observation.
There was a time.
Some of you kids, some of you kids out there might not remember it, but I remember it.
There was a time when everyone believed that a man could be a woman.
And if you didn't believe that, you were looked on as an idiot and evil and as though you would be ostracized forever from polite society.
And most people went along to get along, but some people said, no, this is ridiculous.
This ideology is false and it needs to be eradicated from public life entirely.
And there were a number of people who said things like that.
There was a time when we were told that if you don't put a hanky on your face for three years and let your grandma die alone and stand six feet away from people for whatever reason and inject yourself with a with an experimental drug and believe Dr. Fauci about the supposed bat soup origin of the Wuhan virus, even though there was a biolab that we were funding doing this kind of research right down the road.
If you didn't do and believe all this stuff, you were going to be ostracized from society and you never work again and you'd never be invited to Thanksgiving again and you're just out.
Okay.
And that's all done.
And we look at that now as if we woke up from a fever dream.
We say, oh my goodness, all those people were wrong.
All those people who demanded we get the vaccine, who demanded we put the stupid hanke on our face, who insisted that men could be women.
This is like, what?
Can you believe we believe that?
Can you believe we believe that?
That's what we are already starting to say.
That's what Disney's starting to say.
Big win.
And the wins just keep on coming.
The liberal apologies and retractions just keep on coming.
James Carville.
You know, James Carville, yeah, James Garville, the Democrat, he Democrat political scientist over raging Cajun hard to understand where big cake banged.
He won an election for Bill Clinton one time, been riding the coattails of that for 30 years.
He's that guy.
You know, you've probably seen him on cable news or whatever.
James Carville went a little bit too far.
James Carville posted a video to his show page, I guess, made some statements that he has since retracted and apologized.
Some of them are still up on the internet, though, on other channels.
Here's the claim Carville made that got him into trouble.
We have to consider this possibility.
Okay.
I said possibility, but it's a real possibility that Melania was introduced to Donald by Jeffrey Epstein.
Maybe that's why we have this fierce resistance to find out what's going on.
Now, I'm a very serious political consultant, political scientist.
I think we need to consider the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese.
People say, people say the moon is made of rock, but I think we need to consider the possibility that the moon made a green cheese.
We have to consider it.
Do we have to consider it?
Why?
There's no evidence for it.
Well, that done that never stopped me before.
It never stopped my political party before.
We don't have to consider it.
Hey, hey, James, what's your evidence that Melania Trump is a prostitute trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein?
That's the claim.
That's a very sophisticated way of saying, I dang the first lady the whole.
That's what he's saying.
That's what he's saying.
Very offensive, not just to Trumps, but to the United States.
And he's saying this without any evidence whatsoever.
And he's trying to insinuate that Trump is deeply involved in the Epstein underworld.
So it's just based on nothing.
And the Trumps pushed on it.
Melania pushed on him.
Carville got a letter, and Carville immediately apologized.
And Carville immediately took the videos down because Carville knows that he would lose that defamation suit.
Hard to sue for defamation, especially if you're a public figure.
He will lose.
So he says, we took a look at what they complained about.
I just mostly like doing the James Carville Cajun accent.
We dug down the video and edited out the comments from the episode.
I also take back these statements and apologize.
Yeah.
Yeah, you better.
You better.
I get a kick out of James Carville.
I think he's a funny political character.
But yeah, you better.
That's a little bit, that's a little bit too far.
We're not going to put up with that.
Hey, Manks, you know how you were canceling people for their political views, their religious views, for defending their constitutional rights.
Yeah, you're going to want to apologize.
You're going to want to make good on that real quick because we're going to punish you.
That's what's going to happen.
So you better watch out for that.
Yeah, Disney?
Oh, yeah.
Well, we all love Gina Carano.
We can't wait to work together.
We want to do a new movie with it.
Yeah, yeah, you better.
I'd get that pre-production rolling real fast because forgiveness is great.
It's a wonderful thing to do.
We all should do it.
But we don't forget.
And prudence is a political virtue.
And we're not letting people get away with this stuff.
This doesn't even end as far as I'm concerned with the Trump term.
There's more to come.
We'll get to what that means, what comes after Trump, because there's a new figure who could be in the presidential race, upend the whole thing.
You want culture that fights back.
You want daily shows that are uncensored, unapologetic, grounded in facts.
You want entertainment that entertains without the pronouns, the lectures, and the ideological landmines.
It's all here.
Take a look at what's happening this month on Daily Wire Plus.
I don't care what you did in your career the last five years.
What are you going to do tonight?
Yeah, that's a very good question.
Are you ready?
I'm ready.
Let's do it.
The moment you've waited for is here.
Coming up on the Pope and the Fury.
Here we are with yet another week.
Ben Afternoon.
My podcast has a brand new home, The Daily Wire.
This is where you make a decision of conscience.
I'm somebody that never gave up.
I'm somebody that never gave up.
Don't miss a moment of what's coming to Daily Wire Plus.
Now is the time to join a community that still believes in what you believe in, believes in common sense, believes in the truth no matter who it offends.
Go to dailywireplus.com.
Be part of the fight.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Dolores Martinez 2434.
Remove the word Mexican.
These illegals are majority from El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Somalia, India, etc.
Not all Mexico.
Yes, I know that.
The title yesterday was something like ICE offers 50 grand to round up Mexicans or something, which I didn't come up with, but I did think it was the funniest title.
It's funny.
It's funnier that way, guys.
Yes, I know most of the illegal aliens are not from Mexico.
I know they're from all sorts of places, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Guatemala.
I know.
But Mexican is funnier.
That's a funnier title.
And I think you appreciate the poetic diction of our titles.
We strive for excellence.
And I think you all have to acknowledge that's funnier.
Why is it funnier?
It just is.
It just is.
It's funny in its ignorance.
That's funny.
I make no apologies.
I will not change the title.
Unlike James Carville, I will not change what was uploaded to YouTube.
Okay.
Speaking of the presidency, new candidate potentially in the race.
The Daily Mail is citing a well-placed source next to, close to this potential candidate, who claims that Steve Bannon is planning a 2028 run.
You know Steve Bannon.
He was one of the architects of the Trump 2016 campaign.
He was a chief strategist in the White House.
He hosts a very popular podcast, major political figure in the MAGA movement, went to war with Elon Musk famously during Doge, has hit Trump every so often.
Trump and he have fought, then they've gotten back together, then they've fought, then they get back together.
Steve Bannon might want the job himself.
I did not see this coming.
Steve is kind of quelling the rumors, but kind of not quelling the rumors.
He was asked about this.
His response is apparently two words.
His response was Trump 2028.
And some people are saying, he's denying that he wants to run because he said Trump 2028.
That's not a denial.
That's a confirmation that he wants to run.
A denial that he wants to run would be Vance 2028.
Rubio 2028.
I don't know.
Kennedy 2028.
Trump 2028 means I'm not endorsing Vance.
I'm not endorsing Rubio.
I'm not endorsing any of the players who clearly want to run because I want to run.
This is an interesting candidacy.
I'm not saying that I'd bet the farm that Steve Bannon is going to be president.
I don't think he's a likely nominee.
Put that on the table to begin with.
But Steve Bannon, more than any other candidate right now, could blow up this race because right now, the heir apparent is J.D. Vance.
J.D. Vance, very, very competent vice president, very skilled politician, extremely intelligent, finger on the pulse of the base, online enough to be relevant, not so online that he misses the majority of the norming part of the country.
He's just, he's in a very good position.
He's a very talented guy.
Rubio would be the next guy, Secretary of State.
Rubio, we'll get to this in a moment.
Rubio seems to signal Vance is too strong.
I'm not going up against Vance.
So Vance is the heir apparent with Rubio waiting in the wings.
Then there are going to be other people from Capitol Hill.
There are going to be people, other governors.
There are going to be other private citizens who kind of mix things up.
None of them fundamentally alter the dynamic.
The only person who alters the dynamic here is someone who can make a credible claim to represent MAGA.
And that person, to my mind, is Steve Bannon.
Right?
I don't know.
Maybe Elon could make a run or something.
Oh, no, he can't.
I'm sorry.
He's an African-American.
No, I'm not saying African-Americans can't run for president.
I'm saying he wasn't.
He was born in Africa.
You understand.
So he can't do it.
So Steve Bannon.
He's the guy.
And he could say, no, all these other guys are fakers.
I'm the real MAGA.
I'm the OG MAGA.
I'm Trump's third term.
That's what he's saying here.
Are you going to run?
No, not.
I want the third Trump term.
Implicitly, he's saying, and he's not going to give it to you, and he's not going to give it to you, and he's not going to give it to you.
I'm going to give it to you.
Now, what does Trump think about all this?
Well, before the rumors that Steve Bannon was running, Trump was asked who he thought the heir apparent would be.
He has thus far tried to brush this question off.
Oh, I'm not going to say yet.
This guy's good.
He gets a little bit more specific here.
Morning that you probably won't be running for a third term.
This weekend, Secretary of State Rubio said that he thought J.D. Vance would be a great nominee.
You could clear the entire Republican field right now.
Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is J.D. Vance?
Well, I think most likely, in all fairness, he's the vice president.
I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form.
I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here.
So it's too early, obviously, to talk About it, but certainly he's doing a great job and he would be probably favored at this point.
So, this is not, as it's reported, Trump's full-throated endorsement of Vance 2028.
That's not what this is.
He was asked a question by Peter Doocy.
He had to give an answer.
He was a little stronger than he's been previously.
Previously, I said, Is JD the heir apparent?
He goes, No, not necessarily, maybe, but not necessarily.
Here, he says, Look, right now, the favorite has got to be JD.
Now, why is he willing to say that?
Because Rubio kind of endorsed JD.
Rubio said, I think JD would be a great nominee.
So, Trump's objective here is not to set the race in stone already six months into his term.
In fact, he, I'm sure, emphatically does not want to do that.
Trump's objective here is to keep all of his guys incentivized to keep working hard.
If he comes out and he says, Hey, it's JD, but before Rubio's comments, if he just comes out, he goes, It's JD, all these other guys are going home.
Why is Marco Rubio going to be doing five different jobs for the administration?
What incentive does he have to keep working?
He might be better served to quit as Secretary of State, go run for governor of Florida or something.
What incentive does Pete Hakeseth have to keep working hard if Pete wants?
I don't know that Pete wants to run for president, but he could as Secretary of Defense.
What incentive does Tulsi Gabbard have?
Bobby Kennedy have.
These two people have already run for president, albeit in a different political party.
He wants to keep them all incentivized to keep doing a good job.
So, that's his objective.
But the field is already starting to coalesce.
Why?
Because this political moment for the Republican Party, more so than during the age of George W. Bush, more so than during the age of George H.W. Bush, about as much as it was during the age of Reagan.
This moment is all about Trump.
So, really, we say Steve Bannon could totally up in the race.
He could if Trump lets him.
And JD could be the nominee if Trump wants him.
And Rubio could be the nominee, probably if Trump wants him.
I think it's down to Trump.
Since 2016, people have been saying it's not about Trump.
It's about this idea or that idea.
The movement's not about, it is.
All these other guys who say, I'm MAGA.
No, I'm the essence of MAGA.
No, I'm the heart of MAGA is Trump.
Trump's the guy who did it.
Trump's the guy who survived all of the political assassination attempts, the literal assassination attempts, got part of his ear blown off and won the popular vote as a Republican for the first time in 20 years.
It's going to come down to him.
That's why people keep asking him who's the successor going to be.
And so, right now, no question about it.
It's looking like Vance Rubio.
Okay, here's a story I really want to get to.
I know my take is going to be super unpopular, but I don't care.
I'm telling you the truth, man.
You don't come to me to be flattered.
You come to me for the respect and dignity that I offer you, or the respect I have rather for your dignity, the respect that I offer you, to tell you the truth.
Alan Dershowis was just up at Martha's Vineyard.
He's had a lot of problems at Martha's Vineyard recently because he represented Trump.
He was Trump's impeachment lawyer.
He, even though he's a lifelong liberal and kind of a libertarian, civil libertarian type, but he's a liberal.
He got all of his liberal friends in Martha's Vineyard.
They stopped talking to him.
Larry David would shout at him in grocery stores because he was associating with Trump, because Mike Pompeo is one of his former students, because he says nice things about Ted Cruz.
So Alan shows up to a farmer's market, goes up to a pierogi stand.
This video is taken.
We're entering in media race here, but apparently the proprietors from the super liberal enclave of the super liberal vacation spot refuse to sell Alan pierogies, apparently because he's a Zionist.
Two pierogi stands, one for anti-Zionists and one for will sell them.
I'd ask you to please just sell me any one of your products to show that you're prepared to sell to anybody and not allow your anti-Zionism to decide which people will say.
Hello, Finn.
This man is calling me an anti-Zionist.
Excuse me, this man is a saint.
I also have to offer you this book.
Thank you.
I signed it to you.
Thank you so much, Alan.
Thank you so much.
I'm very surprised that he's here because of the things that he's been saying about us and the business.
So this is not the first interaction.
Apparently, Alan showed up here before, said, Okay, I want to buy some pierogies.
I love a good pierogi.
For those of you who don't know, it's a Polish dumpling.
It's very delicious.
And I said, wait, the Poles are liberal now?
I thought the Poles were conservative.
The Poles have saved Western civilization before.
Jan Sobayevsky, what is well, apparently this person who runs the shop, Miskovich, uses they-them pronouns.
Okay, and is a huge lib, apparently.
So, okay, Alan shows up there and you're trying to figure out: okay, what don't they like about Alan Dershowitz?
He represented Trump, could be the usual thing.
Is it no, it sounds like from this that it's because he's a Zionist, he is very emphatically quite pro-Israel.
And Alan concluded this from some of the comments these people have made on social media.
According to Alan Dershowitz, not only about support for the state of Israel, but about Jewish cultural institutions generally.
Okay, whatever.
I don't know anything about that.
What I do know is that Alan Dershowitz is completely in the right here.
I don't care if you don't like Alan Dershowitz.
I do like Alan Dershowitz, but I don't agree with him on a lot of things.
He's a liberal.
I'm a conservative.
He's an ardent Zionist.
I don't believe in the religious or historical premises of Zionism.
I do like that he defended Donald Trump in the impeachment.
That was good.
I do.
And he's a very intelligent man, and he's very, he's a Harvard law professor.
I don't like Harvard, really.
So, look, there are a lot of reasons that people might not like Alan Dershowitz, but this guy is completely in the right here.
Some people are going to make a comparison.
They're going to say, well, Michael, if Jack Phillips from Masterpiece Cake Shop doesn't have to bake the cake for the transgender transition ceremony or for the gay wedding, why do the pierogi people have to sell pierogies to Alan Dershowitz?
Whether it's because they hate Trump or whether it's because they hate Israel or whatever, they should have every right to refuse him.
That isn't true.
In fact, the conclusion from the whole Masterpiece Cake Shop saga was that if a couple of guys who were light and the loafers walked into the cake shop and just wanted to buy a regular ordinary cake, Jack Phillips would have to sell it to them.
He never refused to sell it to them.
The issue is they ordered a custom cake.
They wanted him to use his artistic abilities to create a custom work to participate in something that he deemed immoral.
So, sure, if Alan had walked up to the pierogi people and said, I want a custom pierogi in the shape of Netanyahu's head, then they would have every right to say no.
They don't have the right to refuse him service just because he's conservative.
He's not even conservative or pro-Israel or a Jew or a Harvard professor.
They don't have the right to do that.
Now, some are going to say, what are you talking about?
We have free association in America.
No, we don't.
No, we don't.
We haven't since the 1960s.
You might say it would be better if we had greater freedom of association in America.
Yeah, maybe.
We just don't.
We just don't.
So what happens inevitably is the liberals enforce the law in the toughest way possible against their opponents, and then they completely shirk the law and evade the law when it's convenient to them.
And when I look at this, this is a they-them refusing the president's lawyer and a strong defender on sometimes of conservative things, refusing him on illegal grounds.
And I think Alan should sue them for all they're worth and take all their pierogies 100%.
Last point on this: people say, well, he was Epstein's lawyer.
He's the most famous criminal defense attorney in the United States.
Yes, he also defended a fella who broke the record for being the first, didn't break the record, he set the record for being the first NFL player to rush 2,000 yards in a single season.
Remember that guy?
That's what he'll always be known for, as Norm McDonald pointed out.
Yeah, he's a famous criminal defense lawyer.
Sometimes he defends innocent people like Trump, sometimes rather guilty people like O.J. Simpson or Jeffrey Epstein.
Take them for every pierogi they're worth.
I love pierogies.
Okay.
It's my favorite time of the week.
The mailbag sponsored by Pure Talk.
Go to peer talk.com/slash Knowles Canada WLES.
Get your free phone today.
Take it away.
Hey there, Mr. Knowles.
I got a question.
So do you have like Any advice or encouragement for someone who feels purposeless right now?
Like, you know, like they read the Bible, they pray, they still feel purposeless.
Like they just go from day to day, not really doing much with their lives, just having that purposelessness.
And they tried hanging out with friends.
The friends don't really want to hang out with them.
They don't have any hobbies.
They don't have any skills.
You know, do you have any advice for someone like that?
Not saying it's me.
Asking for a friend, of course.
But like, yeah, do you have any advice for someone like that?
Thank you so much for listening and your amazing show.
We can't wait to hear back.
Not that you have to do anything.
It's very kind.
Sorry to hear about your friend's predicament because it's very tough.
Very tough to be lonely.
And it's very tough to feel as though you're not going anywhere and you're not succeeding.
Those things are difficult individually.
And when they all compound, as they sometimes do, it can be very, very difficult.
So I'm sorry to hear that.
But yes, there is a way out of that.
You say you're praying, you're reading your Bible.
That's all very good.
You got to do stuff.
You got to do stuff is what you have to do because we're physical creatures as well as spiritual creatures.
So you're not going to find your purpose by just like thinking really hard.
In modernity, that's what we think happens.
I'm just going to think really hard and I'm going to dig into myself so deeply that I'm going to find my true self.
That's not how we work.
We're incarnate creatures.
So you cultivate your identity by doing in the real world in time and space.
So what I would suggest, you say you have no skills.
You have no job.
You have no skills.
You have no, go get a job.
Go get any job.
Go get any job.
If you can't get a job, volunteer.
Go volunteer for something.
Probably better to get a job.
Also good to volunteer.
Maybe best to do both and just start seeing what's going on.
Worst case scenario, you still don't figure out what you like and want to do, but you've at least made some money.
You've at least been productive.
You can at least, I don't know, go take your family out to dinner or something like that.
You will meet people that way.
You will gain friendships that way and maybe friendships that are deeper than the friendships you have right now.
Because the friendships that you say are kind of weak, your friends don't want to hang out with you.
Maybe those are friendships of convenience.
You happen to grow up in the same place.
You happen to go to the same school or something.
But those deeper friendships, friendships of either friendships of utility, which is still a little weak, or friendships of the good, friendships of virtue, they're going to develop from things that you're interested in because two friends are like two people standing side by side, looking at the same thing, pursuing the same thing.
That's what you got to do.
And anyone can do that.
You can almost certainly get some job.
I saw some report yesterday.
11% of Zoomers are NEETs.
11% were one in 10.
Neats, meaning not in education, not employed, not training and anything, not doing anything.
So you're far from alone in your loneliness and feeling of purposelessness, but just do something.
The line that Andrew Clavin used to me once, who was giving me career advice, he said, well, God can't drive a parked car.
Car's got to be moving, man.
So that's what I would do.
Don't despair.
Just do.
You say you don't have any hobbies?
Go bird watching.
You say you don't have any hobbies?
Order some cheap canvases and paint acrylic paintings.
That's why I did during COVID.
Still terrible at it.
It was a great joy.
Go order a ukulele.
You don't have any hobby.
You know how you're going to get a hobby?
By doing stuff.
Next question.
Good morning, Big Mike.
You seem to be quite excited about the new ICE job offers on your show on Thursday, August 7th.
You and I are in a similar state in life.
I have two kids under two and just getting started.
A beautiful wife, traditional Catholic, a good paying job.
Although you are several years older than I am, and I am a bit more physically conditioned.
No offense.
I have always had a love for this country and really wanted to serve the country in some way.
Keeping prudence and the ultimate goal of making it to our eternal reward in mind, along with about six months of basic training that requires living away from wife and kids.
What are your thoughts on someone in this state of life joining ICE?
It would be a significant pickup And require being away from wife and kids for basic training.
Or is there something else you would suggest to fill this patriotic desire?
Just curious.
Thanks, Gavas.
Well, yeah, I don't know that you need to take a big pay cut and leave your family in order to join ICE.
The ICE offer is very attractive.
I mean, the ICE offer is, it's offering, what, an average salary of like 90 grand a year, plus a $50,000 signing bonus, plus maybe some performance-based bonuses, plus some student loan forgiveness.
So there are a lot of people for whom the ICE offer is even just on the financial level, very, very attractive.
And it's obviously good to serve your country, especially on an important issue like this.
But it's not for everybody.
And it seems like to me, you're asking me the question because you're not all that drawn to it.
You say it'd be pretty rough, bad pay cut.
Is there something?
Look, there are plenty of things you can do in public service, but I would say it's got to be tied to your desire.
The first thing that a political consultant will tell you if you're thinking about running for office is, are you 100% committed?
And is your family 100% committed?
If not, don't do it.
Because it requires a lot of sacrifice.
If you're going to do public service well, it requires a lot of sacrifice.
If you're going to do it in a poor and corrupt way, then it doesn't really require sacrifice.
Then you get the Nancy Pelosi portfolio.
You know, it's the most lucrative job in the world.
But if you do it well, it requires sacrifice.
So make sure you're on board.
It sounds like maybe you're not the top candidate for ICE.
All right.
Leave those jobs to someone else.
But there are plenty of ways to serve.
Run for dog catcher.
They want me to move to the member segmentum right now.
I'm not going to do it because I want to get through this voicemail bag.
Keep going.
Hi, Michael.
Love the show.
Except for on Theology Thursdays when I always find myself yelling the answers and frustration at the screen.
I just wanted to push back a little bit on your position on the renewal of marriage vows, which you had commented on in the past.
Just for some context, I also attend the TLM here in Oklahoma.
So I would remind you of how during the Easter Vigil every year, we all renew our baptismal vows together.
Why do we do this?
It's not that our baptism didn't work in the first place, but rather because we as humans need to be reminded of the pledges we made at baptism.
We need our intentions and our resolve to be reignited.
Now, before you start arguing with me that both the form and the matter of the sacrament are present when renewing marriage vows, while they are not necessarily when we renew our baptismal promises, I would just reiterate again that the purpose of the renewal in both cases is not to receive the sacrament again, but rather to remind our human nature of what we ought to be doing.
Love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks and God bless.
Okay, that was a very, very thoughtful question to make a good case for a side of the argument that is not the most persuasive.
But that was a very, very thoughtful way to put it.
My issue with the vow renewals is more practical than that.
You raise a great point at a deeper level, which is that when you're reiterating your baptismal vows, it's not as though the form and the matter are both present from the original sacrament, from the efficacious and single sacrament, but it's just a kind of, you're saying the same thing again.
Whereas with the vow renewal in marriage, it's a little different.
My issue with it is more practical.
Practically speaking, when I hear someone is going to have a renewal of vows, they say, oh, that's the first step to their divorce.
Okay.
Just practically speaking, I've seen it happen.
So this is we, ah, yeah, the wife and I, we went through a tough patch, but we renewed our vows five seconds later that that couple's divorced.
Not every time, but a lot.
Because, yes, it is good to reiterate your marriage vows.
You should reiterate it when you're sitting on the couch at night on a Tuesday.
I think about this.
I don't want to get too mushy or whatever.
I look over at Elisa.
I say, well, I won't tell you everything I say to her, but I look, girl, man, I really, yeah, things worked out for me, huh?
Yeah, this is all right.
You know, I'm not like really sappy or whatever about it, but I think, man, I got a good wife.
You know, I got a good wife.
And so you should do that.
And you can, if you want to have a more formal, structured way of doing that, I'd go on a religious retreat or something.
Maybe a silent retreat.
That's nice, especially if you have young kids.
But do that.
But I wouldn't kind of recreate a wedding.
I just practically, I don't think it works out.
And that's not, we don't even, we don't recreate our the image and the aesthetics of our baptism, you know, when we when we reiterate those vows either.
Okay, final question.
Hello, Michael.
My question concerns the ethical implications and justification of organ transplantation.
As has been something you've been talking about on the show quite frequently as of late.
I am currently 19, but at 16, I received a heart transplant due to prior health issues.
Since then, I've obviously grown much in wisdom, intellect, and virtue, and now I firmly echo your concerns.
And I believe that removing the care from someone else's life, cutting them open and essentially killing them, obviously can never be morally or ethically justified.
As I've been being a devout Catholic for over two years now, after being largely estrained, this is something I really struggle to reconcile with my faith and how to justify not justifying it.
When I address these concerns with my family, who is still largely secularized, they consistently urge me to justify the moral flaws in this practice, pushing me to focus on the donor's good intentions, often growing upset or irritated when I bring it up.
Please let me know what I should do.
These issues are weighing on me heavily, and your wisdom and input are greatly appreciated.
I think you got to give the heart back.
No, I'm joking.
I don't mean to make a joke about this.
I guess I do mean to, but I don't mean to be light about it.
But I don't know why this should be weighing on you.
You don't need to feel guilty that you got the heart.
You didn't really have much to do with it.
And you don't know if the heart was harvested necessarily in an immoral way.
The issue with organ donation is precisely that, is the uncertainty.
Because sometimes, not necessarily all the time, but sometimes because of our definition of brain death and apparently evolving notions of death, sometimes the organs are harvested from living people and it is in fact the harvesting of the organs that kills the person.
So that's the issue.
You don't know any of the details of that.
You're the recipient of this heart.
You don't need to feel bad for that.
If it's really bothering you, bring it up in confession.
I wouldn't worry about that at all.
I'll go further.
Even if you were to find out that the heart was harvested in an immoral way, you could say, well, I'm grateful that I'm alive.
I'm grateful for the good that I am alive, but I would not justify a practice that is immoral or that is even potentially immoral.
Just like you could say, if you were the product of rape, if you were conceived in rape, you could say, well, I'm grateful for the good that I am alive, but I'm not justifying rape.
This is people have this issue, especially you see this with IVF, where they begin to realize, oh, yikes, there are some serious bioethical problems with IVF.
It practically speaking skyrockets the abortion rate.
It generally comes to killing a dozen children or something and freezing them indefinitely and has all these many, many other implications.
They say, but, you know, I wouldn't have my little nephew if not for IVF.
So I have to defend it.
You don't have to.
You can be grateful for good ends without justifying immoral means.
And in this case, you actually have a lot of credibility.
You say, look, I'm a beneficiary of this system, but the system obviously needs to be reformed and highly regulated and have guardrails put on because while those people had good intentions, maybe the people, forget about the donors, obviously, who have literally given you their organs, but even the people who built the system of organ donation, those people had good intentions too.
