Ep. 1675 - JD Vance Threatens Europe for Censoring Christians

High Five Casino lets you play your favorite slot and live table games, like blackjack,

with the chance to redeem for real cash prizes.

High Five Casino has a giant selection of over 1,200 games,

including hundreds of exclusive games only found on High Five Casino.

It's always free to play, and free coins are given out every four hours.

Ready to have your own High Five moment?

Visit HighFiveCasino.com.

That's High, the number 5, Casino.com.

No purchase necessary. Voidware prohibited by law.
Must be 21 years or older. Terms and conditions apply.
Vice President J.D. Vance lit up the Munich Security Conference on Friday and put all of Europe on notice that if they continue to censor legitimate speech and target conservatives and Christians, the U.S.
will hold them accountable, leading Margaret Brennan of CBS

News to blame free speech for, wait for it, the Holocaust. I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael

Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show.
Tom Hanks just did a hilarious bit on Saturday Night Live. You're not going to believe the premise.
It was really, really funny. You see, he played a Trump supporter who was racist.
In that, oh man, they're not paying those Hollywood writers enough, huh? Boy, oh boy. Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights.
Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports.
Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding, and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety.
Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe.
Sign up for Greenlight Infinity at greenlight.com slash podcast. Also, speaking of value, I know a lot of people have written in for the past year or year and a quarter asking for Mayflower Cigars in their brick and mortar cigar shops, their local shops.
There were regulatory issues. The demand for Mayflower's vastly outstripped the supply for a lot of the first year of operation.
But we are prepared now to go into retail. So if you want your local brick and mortar to carry Mayflower cigars, go to mayflowercigars.com slash stores and have them apply there.
We're going to work through these applications as quickly as we can. But that is how to become an official Mayflower cigar retailer.
You must be 21 years or older. Some exclusions apply.
What did J.D. Vance say in Munich? The Munich Security Conference, big event over in Europe, the newly inaugurated vice president shows up there.
Usually the speeches are about all of the external threats to Europe and the United States. It's all the external threats to our civilization.
J.D. rolls up, guns ablaze, and he says, I don't want to talk about the external threats right now.

There'll be plenty of time for that.

I want to talk about one of the biggest internal threats we face. Namely, that all of you, you liberal elites that run Europe and until very recently the United States.
you by censoring all of our citizens, by targeting conservatives and Christians and people who want to protect our borders and protect the integrity of our civilization, you pose a far more urgent threat than any of the bad guys outside of our civilization. JD did not hold back.
And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be, quote, hateful content.

Or to this very country, where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of, quote,

combating misogyny on the internet, a day of action.

I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Koran burnings that resulted in his friend's murder. The British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes.
These are shocking examples. These are egregious examples.
And they're just a handful basically off the top of JD's speechwriter's head. Because there are many, many more such examples.
These are not aberrations. These are not fringe cases.
This happens all the time in Europe and the UK. People just praying inside their own heads, not even right next to an abortion mill, but a little further away from them, will be arrested.
Germany will launch midnight raids because people post things they don't like on social media.

Seems like a far more urgent threat to Western civilization than the machinations in the Kremlin that Vladimir Putin is cooking up right now. The fact that if you object to a Muslim invasion of Europe, a major, major social problem in Europe, that you will be the one punished by your own government? If you criticize Islam, if you offend the sensibilities of Muslims, even if it leads to your friend being murdered by aforementioned Muslims, that you will be the one who will get in trouble? That seems like a real perversion of justice and of our governments in the West.
Then J.D. honed down even further on an issue that many Americans probably are not aware of.
I know there are a lot of people who listen to this show in Germany in particular, but throughout Europe, who will be aware of this issue. A lot of Americans will not.
And it is the issue of the so-called firewall in German and really, therefore, all of. And more and more all over Europe, they're voting for political leaders who promise to put an end to out-of-control migration.
Now, I happen to agree with a lot of these concerns, but you don't have to agree with me. I just think that people care about their homes.
They care about their dreams. They care about their safety and their capacity to provide for themselves and their children.
It is the business of democracy to adjudicate these big questions at the ballot box. I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing.
In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy. What no democracy, American, German, or European, will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered.
Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There's no room for firewalls.
You either uphold the principle or you don't. There's no room for firewalls, he says.
What is the firewall? The German firewall is an agreement that in many ways defines the German political order, that political parties will not deal with right-wing parties. It is a way of isolating right-wing parties, even when they're popular, even when the people vote for them, even when the people are demanding that they come into power.

It is an agreement that constitutes the bedrock of the present German political order and therefore of the present European political order because Germany leads Europe. That says we will not work with the right wingers.
In this case, the right-wing party Alternative for Deutschland, which is frequently written about in the press as a far right-wing Nazi fascist extremist party. Really, it's just kind of a libertarian party.
In fact, the leader of Alternative for Deutschland is a libertarian lesbian who says that Hitler was a communist during a viral interview with Elon Musk recently. So to suggest that this is some extremist beyond the pale party, totally crazy.
But it's a way for Europe, for the European elites who are laughing at J.D. Vance, who are mocking him while he's speaking, while he's defending the voice of the European peoples.
It's a way for them to lock out any dissent. And I think after JD finished his speech and got off stage, there was a little less laughing among the crowd.
In fact, one of the leaders ended up crying, maybe for a different reason, but maybe it was related. Because what they recognize is, one, Germany leads Europe, sure, but America leads Germany, because America's the global hegemon, certainly the leader of the West.
And so when J.D. Vance shows up and says, hey, there's a new sheriff in town, we're not going to put up with this anymore.
We're not going to put up with it in America, we're not going to put up with it in Europe, we're certainly not going to underwrite it. We're the reason that Europe has security right now, and we're not going to tolerate this anymore.
What that represents is not just a change in policy in Europe. That represents a fundamental shift in the political order.
Ronald Reagan had teared down this wall at the Brandenburg Gate. J.D.
Vance had teared down this firewall in Germany, in Munich. That is a fundamental reordering of European politics.
And all those liberals in the room who have been governing Europe during the post-World War II consensus, they all should be very, very worried because this is a legitimate shift in power in the United States and therefore in the West. So the liberals on both sides of the Atlantic are totally freaking out.
And what are they doing?

They're going straight for the argument that they always go for, which is if the conservatives do anything, if we in any way change anything about this desiccated, corrupt liberal order, why we're going to get Hitler 2.0. If Europe is forced to begin to pay for some of its own defense, if Europe's not allowed to censor its citizens, if we're not going to bring the weight of the state to discriminate against Christians and conservatives, why then? We're just moments away from another Holocaust.
There's so much more to say. First, though, go to expressvpn.com slash Knowles.
It is often said that freedom isn't free. That's true.
Freedom has to be defended. But what is not said enough is that online freedom isn't free either, though it's not too expensive if you go to ExpressVPN.
You have to defend your online freedom, not with a military force, but with encryption. Strong encryption can protect your right to privacy online and defend you from hackers.
How do you get the encryption? ExpressVPN. Internet providers track and sell your data.
Hackers prey on public Wi-Fi. Governments monitor your every move online.
With ExpressVPN, their powerful encryption reroutes 100% of your online activity through secure servers, making your data invisible to prying eyes. I really recommend ExpressVPN, especially if you're in the political side of the aisle that has a lot of powerful institutions coming after it.
Really smart idea to protect your privacy. Don't just take my word for it.
They have invited the world's top auditors PWC and KPMG to verify their revolutionary trusted server technology. It's the only system that physically cannot store your data because it runs entirely on volatile memory.
So while other companies profit from invading your privacy, ExpressVPN goes the extra mile to protect it. Right now, go to expressvpn.com slash Knowles.
Get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free. expressvpn.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
The liberal journalist of the year, Margaret Brennan from CBS News. Margaret Brennan is the one who first went viral because she was interviewing J.D.
Vance and she was henpecking him. And J.D.
said, you know, I really don't care, Margaret. I really don't care what you have to say.
I'm going to fulfill what the voters asked us to do in November. And she just keeps coming up with all these strikeouts.
You know, she was interviewing a conservative member of Congress about USAID got totally demolished. And here she's interviewing Secretary of State Marco Rubio and making the head scratcher claim that free speech caused the Holocaust.
Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide. And he met with the head of a political party that has far right views and some historic ties to extreme groups.
The context of that was changing the tone of it. Look at Rubio.
And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right. No, I have to disagree with you.
Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews.
There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none.
There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were a sole and only party that governed that country.
So that's not an accurate reflection of history. Free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.
So claims Margaret Brennan of CBS. Now, I don't know if you guys are history buffs or anything like that but one of the very first things that the nazis did when they came to power was to drastically curtail free speech just 1933 alone just focus on 1933 there was the editor's law which said that only aryans could be was the law, of course, against the formation of political parties that turned Nazi Germany into a totalitarian state.
There was the Reichstag fire decree, 1933, also severely curtailed civil liberties. What is she talking about? I mean, I think that there are plenty of criticisms about the way that liberals talk about free speech, but this is an extreme example because they clearly just, they don't even know what they are trying to mean by free speech.
If the Holocaust was caused by free speech, what definition of free speech could you possibly give that would satisfy that claim? I don't think you could give one. Even more important, perhaps, than this ridiculous nonsense about speech in Nazi Germany.
Other things have happened in history beyond the Holocaust and World War II. I know this will be shocking to many liberal journalists and politicians, but there actually have been other events in history to which we can compare present events.
Well, maybe they can't compare present events to anything else because they don't know about anything else that ever happened in history. But there is an irony here, which I have found.
The people who are most inclined to compare every single present political event to the Holocaust or Hitler or World War II, ironically, don't even know anything about Holocaust, Hitler, World War II. Have you noticed that? Because there are other events.
There are the Napoleonic Wars, for instance. There was the Renaissance.
There was the Battle of Vienna. I don't know.
I'm just kind of off the top of my head. There are other events that have happened in history.
But the ones who constantly say, well, you know, Donald Trump wore a necktie. And you know who else wore a necktie? Hitler.
You think, oh, you don't, not only do you know nothing about history, you don't even know about Hitler. You don't know anything about anything at all.
I think this stuff just does not work anymore. Oh, the conservatives are fascists.
15 years ago, we used to say, no, we're not. Marco Rubio still had a little bit of that reaction.
No, we're not. We're actually the opposite.
The Democrats are the real fascists. They're the real Hitlers.
Now I think people make these stupid claims. And my reaction is just to say, oh yeah, okay, whatever.
We're going to keep doing what we're doing, all right? You know the thing that the majority of Americans elected us to do? We're going to keep doing that. And you can keep screaming your head off about Hitler and how free speech caused the Holocaust or whatever.
You can just, you can babble your gibberish. We don't really care.
We don't really care, Margaret. Okay.
Now, speaking of Germany, the German president, Frank Volta Steinmeier, he doubled down after J.D. Vance's audacious speech.
He said that he will not allow social media and the open exchange of ideas to threaten his democracy. We Europeans demand that tech companies, just like everyone else, that these companies comply with European law, whether their name be TikTok, X, or something else.
We cannot and will not allow platforms to destroy our democratic societies or cause serious harm to our children. Now notice, this guy didn't have a huge problem with social media back when it was just liberals running social media uniformly censoring conservatives.
The big problem with social media in the eyes of liberals on both sides of the Atlantic occurred when Elon Musk bought the smallest mainstream social media platform and allowed conservatives to speak. Then all of a sudden, social media was a big threat.
Social media have been around for, what, 15, 20 years at this point? Now it's a problem. He says he will not allow the open exchange of ideas to threaten democracy.
What does he mean by democracy? What do any of these liberals mean by democracy? When they can say things like, you know, the popular election of Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. Oh, you know, the popular election of Viktor Orban or of Georgia Maloney or of the Brexit, that that is a threat to democracy.
People speaking and sharing their ideas, that's a threat to democracy without fear of the German police coming in the middle of the night and arresting you over Facebook posts. What does democracy mean in that context? It certainly doesn't mean democracy.
It means liberalism, and liberalism is on the ropes right now. And that's why they're freaking out.
Now, speaking of democracy and liberalism and Western identity and the other side of the Atlantic, there is a clip that's just gone viral between Constantine Kislin and Fraser Nelson. Fraser Nelson is a columnist for the Times of London.
He was the editor of The Spectator for for 15 years and he just got into a debate with constantin kislin over what an englishman is walsh had what is a woman i think maybe that the european version of that documentary is going to be what is an englishman because constantin who's not an englishman he knows what an englishman is this this brit British columnist and newspaper magazine editor, he doesn't seem to know. This is something that no one wants to talk about, especially in these kind of places, but I as an immigrant can say it.
At what percentage of the native population does England cease to be England? Is it 50 percent? Is it 40 percent? Is it 10 percent? When there are no English people left, is it still England? That's right. I mean, do we regard Rishi Sunak as English, for example? I've always said, this is a very unpopular thing, that I'm not English, I will never be English.
I don't think Rishi Sunak is English. We're both British, but we're not English.
No, you weren't born here. You were an immigrant.
No, but my son was born here. I don't think my son is English.
Right. He's born to a Russian and Ukrainian immigrant.
Again, that's the definition. I would say that Rishi Sunak is as English as Tizer and Wiferns, right? He is absolutely English.
He was born and bred here. And I wouldn't say that the colour of his skin makes him any less.
He's a brown Hindu. How is he English? Because he's born and bred here.
So by being born here you become English in your opinion? Yeah. English, because there's a difference, right? I don't think English is national… If your children had been born in Japan, would they be Japanese? If they were born there, look, you get white Caribbean people for example.
Hold on, just the Japanese example, would they be Japanese? If they were born there and lived their life there, then yeah. It depends if you think English has got an ethnic undertone.
Of course it does. Well, I disagree.
I disagree. What makes you think that English has anything to do with being English? You can tell he's on the ropes because he wants to get off the Japanese example, and Constantine just hits him on it.

He says, hold on, you're telling me your kids,

white as the freshly driven snow, are born in Japan.

They're just Japanese because they were born in Tokyo?

Yes, I think so. I think they'd be perfectly Japanese.

They're basically a reincarnation of Emperor Hirohito.

Well, you know who doesn't think that?

The Japanese. They don't think that.
You're born in Nigeria. Let's say your kids are born in Nigeria.
You, Mr. British man, you, Mr.
Fraser Nelson. Your kids are born in Nigeria.
That means your kids are Nigerian? Oh, absolutely. Of course.
I'm going to name them all Malcolm X. That's not even a Nigerian name.
But no, no one would think that your kids are Nigerian. But this shows you one of the big political debates that is finally coming to the fore, which is how does one deal with racial problems, especially in the West, which has had mass migration and therefore an exacerbation of racial problems? How do you deal with the strife that comes throughout all of history, Aristotle wrote about it, between different groups of people living together, which is inevitable.
I'm not saying it's insurmountable, but it is inevitable. It does happen.
This has been an observation since classical antiquity. How do you deal with it? And the liberal response is, we deny that race exists.
You know who doesn't deny that race exists? Everybody else. In fact, do you know who doesn't deny that race exists? Even the liberals today, which is how we got wokeism and leftism and racial identity politics.
There is an English identity. You know, the English, the word comes from the angles who are a people.
You know, It's not just an idea floating in outer space. And it benefits precisely no one to pretend that there's no such thing as racial difference.
Of course there is. And so if you want to construct a society that is harmonious, that protects the legitimate rights of everyone, you have to deal with that reality.
But the West, Europe especially, has just had its head in the sand on this for so long. And to the point that British politicians will deny the existence of and legally protect Muslim Pakistani grooming gangs that are raping British children because they're so afraid of being called racist.
They would rather sacrifice their daughters to Pakistani gangs than risk being called racist. That is a horrifying position, a deeply immoral position, and one that is not going to be sustainable in the long term.
Just ask the voters. So then the Europeans and the British can just suppress the will of the voters when it comes to Brexit, when it comes to anti-mass migration political candidates throughout the European continent and throughout the UK.
Or they can grapple with the issue. And it is going to be like pulling teeth to get them to grapple with that issue.
There's so much more to say. First, though, go to stopboxusa.com.
Use code Knowles. If you own a handgun, you know the dilemma.
You either keep it locked away somewhere secure, but tough to access, or you compromise on security for quick access. Neither option is ideal.
That is why I love Stopbox Pro. I've had my Stopbox Pro for a while.
It solves that access versus security problem perfectly. What makes it different is it uses this clever push-button mechanical system, which means there are no keys to lose, no batteries to fail, which has kept me off of certain electronic systems, just reliable access when you need it.
And what really sold me was testing it out. The build quality is exceptional, and it should be since they make everything right here in the USA.
I can access it quickly in the dark. Gives me real peace of mind.
I love Stopbox, and you can get multiple Stopboxes for multiple firearms. You know that it is secure.
It's not going to fail you when you need it. It is also TSA compliant when you travel.
For a limited time only, our listeners are getting a crazy deal. Not only do you get 10% off your entire order when you use code Knowles at stopboxusa.com, they're also giving you buy one, get one free for their Stopbox Pro.
10% off and a free Stopbox Pro when you use code Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, at stopboxusa.com. Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with Stopbox.

You know, I just sat down with my most recent guest on Yes or No,

a wonderful game that you can get at home,

dailywire.com slash shop.

You can play it for yourself.

Check out my latest teaser with Ari Shafir.

Is this gay?

Buddy, there's only one right answer.

It's not straight.

Wow.

Now, I am fine with that being gay.

Yeah.

Because gay means happy and delightful.

No, it means lame and retarded.

And that's what that was. Watch full episode now on the Michael Knowles YouTube channel or subscribe for the uncensored ad-free version exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
Speaking of racial politics, Tom Hanks just took to Saturday Night Live for a hilarious, observant, profound sketch that none of us has ever seen before in which he accuses right-wingers of being racists. All right.
You're welcome in Black Jeopardy anytime. All right.
Well, thank you, my brother. Now, maybe I'll start a show for you to come on and we'll call it Lot Jeopardy.
We don't need it. We don't need it.
Do you get it? The joke is that the Trump supporter is racist. He doesn't like black people.
You get it? except this is the big problem with that joke president trump assembled the largest coalition of black voters and hispanic voters and just kind of racially diverse voters generally that any republican has assembled in decades and certainly in my lifetime. So that's the problem with the joke.
It doesn't,

it's not reflecting reality. And it's just so tired.
The thing I really like about this sketch is it shows that Hollywood has learned nothing. I know that SNL is taped in New York, but the broader entertainment industry has learned absolutely nothing.
They think, wow, we just got our clocks cleaned. We lost an historic proportion of black voters, black male voters that we relied on, and Hispanic voters.
We thought we could run really hard on the immigration issue, but it turns out almost half of Hispanics like Trump. We even lost a lot of young women, young women under 30.
Yikes. All right, let's just double down on exactly what we were doing.
Republicans are racists. Actually, first, we're going to make fun of Republicans being religious.
We're going to make fun of Christians. That'll work.
And then we're going to call our opponents racists because apparently the majority of Americans, including a lot of black and Hispanic people, are racists. Yeah, that a ticket.
And we'll say that they're stupid, too. That'll work.
Okay, great, guys. Keep it up, man.
Please keep it up. Let's blast those SNL sketches all over the country.
Now, speaking of our coalitions, speaking of the broader American coalition, American citizenship. Beautiful piece in the New York Times.
Just came out yesterday, I think it was. No, two or three days ago.
Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship. Ooh, okay, here we go.
Saturday Night Live refuses to be introspective, refuses to learn any lessons from the election. But at least the New York Times editors, running a piece by Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman.
Mr. Barnett is a law professor at Georgetown.
Wurman is a professor at University of Minnesota. Both conservatives run this really good essay.
You know that Trump, he might actually have a case because Trump ran on changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to stop the phenomenon of anchor babies, illegal aliens who cross the border with the help of the cartels and then immediately have a kid here. And because of our current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the kid immediately becomes an American citizen.
And for years and years, the left said Trump has no argument here. Even the squish Republicans said Trump has no argument.
Birthright citizenship is a sacred aspect of our constitution. And I don't care if you're a face tattooed gangster from MS-13 or Trendy Aragua.
If you spit out a kid the minute you get to America, that child is as American as apple pie, entitled to all the rights of any American citizen.

And people who have even a passing familiarity with constitutional law in American history,

they said, well, actually not so fast.

It's not totally clear that those kids really are entitled to American citizenship right away.

Just a little bit.

I'll just read a few lines from the article. I encourage you to read citizenship right away.
Just a little bit. I'll just read a few lines from

the article. I encourage you to read the whole thing.
What this falls down to is four words in the 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction. As it says, people born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for citizens.
Well, what does that mean? As Barnett and Worman write, it is widely agreed that subject to the jurisdiction excluded the children of diplomats, Native Americans subject and with allegiance to tribal authority, though this changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and members of invading armies. So, right off the bat from the passage of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, right off the bat, children of diplomats who were born in the United States did not immediately become U.S.
citizens. Children of Native Americans who were born within the borders of the United States did not immediately become U.S.
citizens. Invading armies that happened to be in Louisiana or something, and one of them gave birth, they would not immediately become citizens of the United States.
So there are exclusions to this notion of birth right citizenship. Furthermore, the very notion of birth right citizenship comes from the common law.
We inherit that from merry old England. And the notion of jus soli.
There's jus sanguinis, which is the right of blood, and jus soli, the notion that the right of the soil, that if you're born on certain soil, you're subject to the responsibilities of citizens, or subjects rather of the king of England in this case, but you're also entitled to certain benefits. But they go on, they say, the common law principle of us soli also excluded these groups.
So even that common law principle that we get birthright citizenship from included certain exceptions. And that's the question here.
Do the kids of illegal aliens count among the exceptions? Now, they go further. They say, you know, our present interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which comes from the U.S.
versus Wong Kim Ark, it's a Supreme Court case from 1898, says it cannot explain the status of children born to foreigners on foreign public vessels in U.S. waters who were not considered citizens.
They don't get birthright citizenship. According to the allegiance for protection theory articulated in the Bates opinion, none of the excluded groups was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because none of the members of these groups had entered into the social compact with the people of the United States, and none gave allegiance to the United States.
So from the Bates opinion, you have this expression, this reinterpretation of the right of the soil and a birthright citizenship from the English context to the American context. The English context is, okay, you're born within the confines of merry old England.
Okay, that's fine. You're a subject of the king.
So you pledge your allegiance to the king of England, and as a result, you get certain benefits. Here, we don't have a king.
So what are you pledging allegiance to? You're pledging allegiance, I guess, to the people of the United States. You're pledging allegiance to the system of laws in the United States.
And you get allegiance, you get protection for allegiance. Okay, well, the question is, in the American context of joining the social compact or whatever, have these people, the children of illegal aliens, people who their very first action coming into the U.S.
is to break our basic laws, have they really entered into the social compact? Have they really pledged allegiance to the laws and the people of the United States? I don't think so. I don't think so.
And so this is an open question. And even with the Supreme Court precedent in 1898, as Barnett and Worman point out, the Supreme Court has never ruled squarely on this question of illegal aliens.
Now, if you zoom out a little bit,

because I don't want to get too lost in the details here, the 14th Amendment obviously

was not ratified to protect the birthright citizenship of the kids of illegal aliens.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, as it was commonly understood, public meaning at the time

of ratification, was to bring black people into the American political project. That's what it

was about. Freed slaves can be citizens.
That is the beginning and the end of the 14th Amendment. So the question is, okay, what about this particular example that's been abused, that's created a major social problem? What is it? The Supreme Court's going to have to rule on this.
But there's a broader political point, which is common sense tells us, obviously these kids should not be entitled to birthright citizenship. This is creating a major moral hazard, a huge perverse incentive for illegal immigration that's threatening the very social fabric of the country, that's threatening the rule of law, threatening the whole project.
Obviously, common sense tells you this is not what the 14th

Amendment is about. If your ideology, this is just a broader 50,000-foot view, if your ideology

demands that you discard common sense, there's a problem with your ideology.

What the liberals will tell us, what the liberal, utopian, pie-in-the-sky theorists,

whose views are totally disconnected from human nature, what they want to tell you is that when there is a conflict between your ideology and human nature and common sense, choose the ideology. Forget about the common sense.
All the way down to a baby's not a baby and a man can become a woman. but I think we all know when there is a conflict

between your ideology

and common sense, something's going a little wrong with the ideology because human nature doesn't change. Common sense doesn't really change.
So you got to tweak the ideology, okay? And that is exactly what the Supreme Court should do. Now, if you're with us for election night or the inauguration, you already know Daily Wire doesn't just show up.
We take over, baby. And now we're headed back to DC to do just that at CPAC.
Join me along with Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boring, all on stage live Thursday night, February 20th. No scripted talking points, no corporate approved narratives, just real conversations that matter.
Streaming live on Daily Wire Plus. We are taking your questions.
Do not just watch CPAC. Be a part of it.
Live, Thursday night, February 20th, Daily War Plus. My favorite comment on Friday is from Jush Mumma, who says, these people who are not Christian try to tell us what Christians act like.
Yes, I know there's actually a meme about this, which is some smug lib saying, listen, I don't believe your backwards, stupid, ridiculous views, but if I try to articulate them, maybe I can trick you into doing what I want. So you hear this all the time.
These people who really have no familiarity with the Christian tradition, theological, political, philosophical, or anything in between.

They say, you know that J.D. Vance, he has no idea what he's talking about when he brings up the ordo amoris,

the hierarchy of loves, the order of charity.

This is completely ridiculous.

Because actually, I one time heard someone talking about the Bible.

No, I've never read it myself.

But I heard someone talking about it, and I was told that Christianity just says you should vaguely be nice. So like that JD, it's like, man, have like a tiny little bit of humility.
You have no clue. When your intellectual better, JD Vance, is lecturing on scholastic and really ancient philosophy in Latin, maybe take a beat, consider that maybe he knows more about what he's talking about than you do, and entertain those ideas.
Contemplate them. Consider them and see if they do anything.
No, no, no. That's not what Christianity, forget about Thomas Aquinas.
I one time listened to a podcast. So let me tell you about Christian theology and philosophy.
Yeah, okay. All right, fine.
Speaking of President Trump flexing his muscles, I am very pleased to report to everyone that President Trump is posting Napoleon quotes. I really like this.
Many have compared President Trump to Caesar, to Cyrus, to many great strong leaders throughout history. But now President Trump himself is drawing a connection between his administration and Emperor Napoleon.
and how did he do this? He did this with a quote that is attributed to Napoleon. He who saves his country does not violate any law.
Now, I'm especially happy because this is a principle that I described years ago on this show. And I actually caught a lot of flack for it.
Because I pointed out that in the extreme, when the whole of the law is threatened, when the whole of the polity is threatened, then the political rulers are not just tolerated to exceed the technical boundaries of the law, but actually they must exceed the technical boundaries of the law to preserve the whole law. I articulated this very principle and I caught a bunch of flack from squishes, but it's totally right.
It was right when Napoleon pointed it out. It was right when earlier political thinkers pointed it out.
And it's right when Trump points it out right now. Now, I say the quote is attributed to Napoleon because we don't have a direct citation from Napoleon's writings.

I think it comes from a collection put together by Honoré de Balzac, not to be confused with big balls from Elon's Doge, but Balzac. And anyway, it seems like the sort of thing that Napoleon would say, there's decent provenance to it.
And as Gladden Pappin, a wonderful conservative writer and intellectual

and even politician now, has pointed out, this comes from antiquity. Salus rei publique suprema lex.
The good or the health or the welfare of the people should be the supreme law. And I love how ancient this political wisdom is because the libs are losing their minds.
I think we have some headline here. Oh yeah, here it is.
Trump suggests he's above the law with ominous Napoleon quote. This is from the independent UK, but a lot of establishment media quotes about that.
But hold on, that's not really what he's suggesting. He's just describing what the law is.
He's not saying he's above the law. He's describing what the law is in words attributed to Napoleon, but which go back to Cicero on the laws.
That phrase, salus repubblica suprema lax, good of the people should be the supreme law, is actually quoted from Cicero by John Locke as an epigraph in the second treatise of government, as the basic rule of government. In other words, what Trump is posting here comes from an insight that our founding fathers and framers would have been well aware of.
Cicero and John Locke, pretty important figures in the American founding. Once again, once again, and there are many such cases, President Trump is articulating truths that come from the very heart of the American political tradition.
And the modern libs, who until very recently ran our political order, they're arguing that it is a betrayal of the American political tradition. Because it's a betrayal of the things that they believe.
Because what the liberal elites, who until very recently have been running our country, what they have been doing is in itself a betrayal

of the American political tradition and the broader Western political tradition. That's what this is about.
Once again, Trump exposing his opponents with a bunch of egg on their face. Once again, Trump showing that all of the things that we're told are crazy and kooky and a threat to our constitutional republic that he is proposing actually have far sturdier grounding in the American and more broadly Western tradition than anything that these modern libs are suggesting.
I love it. And I love the comparison of Trump to Napoleon because Trump in many ways is our Napoleon.
in as much as Trump, like Napoleon, is simultaneously a child of the revolution and the undoing of the revolution. That's the comparison.
Trump is a product of the modern liberal revolution. The way he behaves, all the business mogul stuff, the playboy lifestyle, the brash, big gold letters.
He's not some stodgy, stuffy figure wearing a tweed suit with his glass of port talking about the good old days or the middle ages. He's not that guy.
he he is a pop culture figure he is a product of the revolution and he's also the undoing of

the revolution because he rides this wave of the revolution into power, like Napoleon, and then he becomes the enemy of all of these excesses. In some ways, he's really the restorer of tradition.
Beautiful comparison. All the more beautiful when Trump himself is making it, when it's a self-conscious comparison.
Now, speaking of Trump initiatives, Trump's Doge is now poking around in the IRS. Libs are furious about this.
ABC News, Elon Musk's Doge asks for access to IRS taxpayer data, sources say. If granted, Doge would have personal financial details on millions of Americans.
Here's what Doge's potential access to IRS databases means for you. I'll tell you, too long didn't read.
I'll tell you what it actually means for you. It means that your government might become more efficient.
It means that your government might stop wasting money, or not even just wasting money, but actually using money for you. It means that your government might become more efficient.
It means that your government might stop wasting money or not even just wasting money, but actually using money for malicious purposes to undermine your interests. As we saw in the case of USAID, it's not just that these feckless bureaucrats are wasting your hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
No, no, no. It's much worse than that.
They are not feckless. They're actually somewhat clever, and they're taking your taxpayer dollars and laundering them through a system of left-wing NGOs to directly undermine your interests.
In one case, I'll give you just one example. USAID taking money, paying the Tide Center, a left-wing organization, Tide Center paying off BLM.
BLM then going out with your taxpayer dollars and burning down your neighborhoods and maybe killing you and robbing the stores in your neighborhood and extorting corporations to further advance radical leftism that you hate, that undermines your interests. That's what we're talking about here.
So that's what's going to happen. But what about, let's take on the real worry head on.
The worry is that Elon Musk and Doge are going to be kicking around taxpayer files. They're going to get access to your financial information.
Just a reminder, and Elon Musk reminded people of this on X, Elon owned PayPal. Okay, the guy who was in charge of Doge owned PayPal.
In 2023, more than 70% of American adults

used PayPal at some point. If Elon wanted your financial information, he would have it.

First of all, it is perfectly legitimate for the president of the United States,

the head of the executive branch, to deputize people to go in and clean up the executive branch.

Thank you. It is perfectly legitimate for the president of the United States, the head of the executive branch, to deputize people to go in and clean up the executive branch.
That is completely legitimate. There is nothing really unusual about that at all.
But furthermore, if the guy he deputizes to do it already has or has had access to the financial information of the vast majority of Americans, this is a non-troversy, okay? What the establishment media, what the liberals broadly are concerned about, is not that Elon's going to get access to your social security number or something, or that he's going to figure out how much you paid in taxes. What they're worried about is that he's going to take away their power from them, which is exactly why we're all cheering it on.
Okay, it is Tee He He Tuesday. The producers have assembled a collection of bits from a comedian, Christina Mariani.
I don't know anything about her, though I do love the idea of an old drink, a drink from about 100, 150 years ago called Van Mariani, which was wine mixed with cocaine. So I don't know if she's anything like that.
I'm sure she's great. The rest of the show continues now.
You do not want to miss it. Become a member.
Use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S,