Ep. 1713 - Women Won’t Be Allowed to Vote?

Is a new Republican law about to stop married women from voting?

Because that would be terrible, right? I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show.

Welcome to the show look at this smoke just kind of coming up filling my i don't know what i want to light i want to relight i want to i want to de wick i want to clip my wick there's a lot to get to today we'll also have fake headline friday in the member of segmentum for people who aren't in the hoi polloi, who are part of the creme de la creme. Also, you know, the stages of grief, you know, there's like denial and then there's anger and there's bargaining.
Stephen Colbert represents the American left in the bargaining stage of grief for the new Trump administration. He's now begging the deep state to come in and stop Trump.
There's so much more to say. First, though, go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles.
You know how much I love Helix Sleep. I have had my Helix mattress for, at this point, going on five years, I think.
And you know what I just did? Because I'm a good father, I just ordered a second Helix mattress for my kids. A second, forget about it for me.
Even for my kids, because I'm such an indulgent and good father. When my first boy went from his crib to his bed, I got him a nice Helix.
And the same is true now for my middle son. What makes Helix different is their personalized approach.
They actually take the time to match you with the perfect mattress for your specific needs. So I'm not going to want to sleep on exactly the same kind of mattress as my four-year-old boy, am I? No.
But I tell you, everyone loves their Helix. I cannot wait to get this next one.
And then I guess that means I'm going to have to get one for my third son. Right now, if you are ready to make the most of your sleep, go take advantage of their spring savings event.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles for 20% off site-wide. Take their personalized mattress quiz today.
Start sleeping better tonight. Helixsleep.com slash Knowles for 20% off site-wide.
Helixsleep.com slash Knowles. All right.
Now, folks, now, without any further ado, I'm going to relight my beautiful Smells and Bells candle because today is the last day that you can order the Smells and Bells candle and get it in time for Easter. I think this is an essential Easter home product to make your home smell like a 12th century monastery, lit beautifully with the Mayflower triple flame lighter.
You know who loves candles? Women. And you know who supposedly want people to vote anymore because of a new law passed by Republicans in Congress? Women.
That's right. That's what you heard if you read Newsweek yesterday.
The SAVE Act was passed by the House. Obviously still has to go through the Senate.
The SAVE Act, Republicans are saying it's just a way to protect the integrity of our elections. But Democrats and the establishment media, but I repeat myself, they know the real story, which is that this is about stopping married women from voting.
Headline, married women could be stopped from voting under the SAVE Act. That's a story by Sophie Clark, USA Today.
What is the SAVE Act? Here's what it could mean for married women and voting rights. On and on, there are a number of, a Glamour magazine ran a piece titled, the SAVE Act could stop millions of women from voting.
Here's what you need to know. Now, what does this legislation do? It says that you need to prove that you are who you say you are to vote.
That's all it says. This legislation passed by Republicans says you need to prove that you're an eligible voter if you want to vote.
This is basic stuff that any sensible country in the world requires. The legislation further direct states to, quote, provide reasonable accommodations for disabled Americans and applicants that have discrepancies on their documentation due to a name change.
So you see, this is where, the Democrats are so good at this, they find one little thing in a law that they can twist and pervert beyond all recognition and try to pretend that that's the essence of the law. What they're saying is, look, if you have to prove that you are an eligible voter in order to vote, then you need to provide some documentation of your identity.
However, if you're a married woman, sometimes you take your husband's name. You're supposed to take your husband's name.
And sometimes you don't update all of your documentation. so what happens if Sally Smith marries Bobby Jones, and now she's Sally Jones, but her ID still says Sally Smith? Does she not get to vote anymore? No, I'll just use my own experience here.
I have a wife. She took my name.
She still votes just fine, even though she has to provide ID because we live in a sensible state called Tennessee. Millions and millions of women take their husband's name when they get married and have no problem getting some proof of who they are.
It's not that hard. It's a little bit of a headache.
Maybe it takes a week or two, but it's not that hard. Furthermore, the way you know that this story from Democrats is completely bogus.
If Republicans were going to try to suppress the vote of anyone, it would not be married women. We win married women.
Maybe you could say Republicans would prefer to suppress the vote of single women or something.

Again, there's no evidence that they actually want to do that.

But, and by the way, we won 40% of women under the age of 30 in the 2024 election, so we probably wouldn't even want to do that.

But the last group of women that we would want to suppress from voting would be married women, because married women vote Republican.

The headline should just be, hey, Republicans require that you actually be able to vote in order to vote. Total nonsense.
Not even a plausible fear-mongering campaign on its own terms. So you can ignore that.
Now, speaking of women, we turn to the latest allegation against internet star Andrew Tate. Not because I care that much about the gossip about Andrew Tate, but because of the political implications.
Headline, Andrew Tate told woman, I'm debating whether to rape you, court papers allege. Claims by four women are filed at high court, including of rape, coercive control, and assault, and battery.
I don't think anyone is denying that Andrew Tate has said things like this and engaged in acts that look like this. There's this video of him smacking a woman and screaming all sorts of things at her and branding them with his tattoo of his name and saying all sorts of really disrespectful things like i own you you're i'm

going i'm branding them with his tattoo of his name and saying all sorts of really disrespectful things like, I own you, I'm going to rape you, or whatever. I don't think anyone, including Andrew Tate, denies that these things have been said.
The defense of the Tate is that it's all just kind of kinky. It's all totally consensual.
And in fairness, the woman who I guess made this allegation did go back and visit this guy for a long time afterward. So it wasn't like he was lurking in a dark alleyway or something.
And she kept going back and I guess was dating this guy or something like it. So I think that that whole tit for tat totally misses the point here.
One side says, this man, when he was smacking women and saying he owns them and wants to rape them and wants to beat them, that was rape and assault. And then the other side says, no, no, no.
When Andrew Tate did all of those things, it was just consensual. It was like a kind of fun game.
It was a role play. It was kinky.
He was just expressing his animalistic desires. And she was on board with it too.
Even if she said she wasn't, she was cool with it. the actual issue here is, regardless of consent or not, I mean, consent is a serious thing,

but it's not the only criterion of morality. The deeper issue is, one should not have these desires.
Even if it was just like a kinky role-playing thing between a boyfriend and a girlfriend, I'm a little skeptical of that, but even if that's what it was, the boyfriend should not want to beat his girlfriend, even in a fantasy, even in a fun little role-playing game. The boyfriend should not be titillated by saying things like, I own you, by saying degrading things to his girlfriend, by putting his name as a tattoo on his girlfriend,

or hitting his girlfriend, any of those things. That should not even be the sort of thing that one

desires. Now, you can criticize Tate for all sorts of reasons.
If, however, you actually want to

criticize Tate in a coherent way, then you need to go all the way and say, okay, his very desires,

regardless of whether or not these actions were consensual, his very desires are wrong and perverse and need to be changed. They need to be sublimated so that you take dark, low desires and sublimate them and point them in the right direction.
That's what you need to say. But many of Andrew Tate's critics will not do that because that has implications for all other sorts of behaviors.
If we are willing to establish that certain desires, certain sexual desires are wrong and perverse and disordered, then we need to apply that evenly and across the board and say, well, okay, how about you check in on your own desires? How about we check in on the desires of our communities? How about we recognize that certain behaviors are better than others? Having a loving marriage where you are open to the possibility of life, and when you do that thing that married couples do, it's actually loving and produces children. That's actually better than whips and chains or whatever.
That's better than random hookups. That's better than strange arrangements that involve three dudes, five chicks, and a billy goat or whatever modern people do today.
There are better and worse ways to engage with our sexuality, which is an important part of human nature. There is such a thing as sexual ethics and morality, and we ought to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others.
That's what is underlying all of this Andrew Tate stuff. Because if the debate just remains, hey, Andrew Tate did these depraved things and it wasn't consensual versus Andrew Tate did these depraved things, but the girl was consenting.
The debate's not going to go anywhere because the people who recognize that this kinds of behavior is just vile and despicable are going to say, well, the woman couldn't really consent because she was too young or she was too dumb or she was too helpless or she was too vulnerable or she didn't speak the right language or whatever. You can find a million excuses and they're all kind of somewhat persuasive, but they're ultimately missing the point.
The thing is, nobody, consensual or not, should be engaging in this kind of behavior because the very notion of consent is problematic, to use a favorite term of the left. The very notion of consent is problematic because when our wills become compromised by ignorance or by vice and giving into temptation, then we can't really consent.
Just like Hunter Biden can't really consent to smoking the fifth crack pipe. He's an addict.
He's compromised his intellect and his will, certainly his will, and by engaging in sin, that clouds his intellect. So even the very notion of consent in a society that's convulsed by grave mortal sin all the time is a dubious concept.
You want to criticize Tate? Criticize Tate all day, but do it for the right reasons and apply it evenly. There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to takelean.com. Use code Michael20.
Have you ever found yourself in a yo-yo dieting cycle? You lose weight, you feel great. Then you watch as those pounds creep back, plus a few extra.
Then you start all over again. This is not just frustrating.
It is potentially harmful to your health. America faces a health crisis with over 96 million people in the pre-diabetic category.
Studies have linked yo-yo dieting patterns to increased risk of type 2 diabetes and other serious health conditions like heart attack and stroke. Breaking free from this cycle is exactly why doctors developed Lean.
This natural supplement, not an injection, not a prescription medication, offers a different approach to weight management. Lean's effectiveness comes from its scientifically studied natural ingredients that work in three powerful ways.
Supporting healthy blood sugar levels, helping you control appetite and reduce cravings, and enhancing your body's ability to burn fat by converting it into energy. If you are ready to stop the cycle of losing and regaining weight and want to achieve meaningful lasting results at a healthy pace, lean could be the solution you've been looking for.

I know for a fact that my team loves lean.

Okay, I'm not going to call out anybody in particular here, but let's just say the team

loves lean and you can greatly benefit from it too.

Let me get you started with 20% off when you enter michael20 atLean.com. That is code Michael20 at TakeLean.com.
Speaking of foreign things, we turn away from the UK and Romania to Germany. Great news coming out of Germany.
The right-wing party, Alternative for Deutschland, is now the most popular political party in Germany. You'll remember AFD, the right-wing party there, did pretty well in the elections, the recent German elections, but they're not governing.
Well, there was a poll that just came out yesterday. Alternative for Deutschland is not only popular, it is now the strongest party in Germany.
Germany, like a lot of European countries, unlike the United States, has more than two political parties. So to govern, all these different political parties form coalitions and governments.
And right now, AFD is polling at 25% nationwide, which doesn't sound like a lot. But when you have a billion political parties, that actually is a lot.
CDU, the Christian Democratic Party, and CSU, the, forget what that one stands for, I guess that's a little more socialist or something, are both lagging. AFD, this is the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany that those parties are in second place to a party that is not the Social Democrats.
Now, the right-wing party is still not going to govern. And the reason it's not going to govern is something that J.D.
Vance was talking about when he scolded the Europeans at Munich, namely that the Germans have a firewall against the far right. Again, I'm not convinced that Alternative for Deutschland is the far right because Alternative for Deutschland, rather than being run by a fascist or an authoritarian or a monarchist or something, Alternative for Deutschland is run by a lesbian libertarian who said that Hitler was a communist, famously in an interview with Elon Musk.
So it doesn't seem that far right to me. But in any case, the other parties in Germany say we will not work with this party.
It's too far right. We're going to maintain our firewall.
We're not going to give the people what they want. And I guess my question for the German government and for the European elites, and elites even in our own country, is how much longer can you keep that up? How much longer? AFD keeps getting more popular.
The right-wing, increasingly right-wing, seriously right-wing populist parties that object to globalist liberal rule. They keep growing in popularity.
Brexit in the UK, the election and continued popularity of Viktor Orban in Hungary, George Maloney in Italy, strong moves from the Vox party and the right wing in Spain, AFD in Germany. It keeps growing, growing.
Donald Trump getting elected in 16. Donald Trump is politically assassinated, almost literally assassinated after that, and yet he comes back and serves a second non-consecutive term.
I don't think you guys are going to be able to maintain your firewall for very long. Certainly not forever.
There is a persistent movement. Call it populist, call it nationalist, call it far right if you want.
It is persistent. It it is growing in popularity not just here but around the west it is growing for a reason in response to real political problems like mass migration like dying societies that don't have babies don't make families a social problems that have been caused by the liberal elites that we conservatives now want to supplant.
It's not just a blip. It's not just a little fever that people had in 2016.
Okay, but we just got to get over this hump, and then we can go back to globalist liberal rule. This shows no sign of stopping.
Now, speaking of attempting to stop certain ideas, back in our own country, immigration and customs enforcement just posted an infographic, posted a little advertisement, and then took it down from social media very quickly because it caught a lot of flack. The infographic says, if it crosses the US border illegally, it is our job to stop it.
And what's listed is people, money, products, ideas. And the fourth one is the one that got them in trouble.
No reasonable person thinks that we shouldn't stop people from crossing our border who shouldn't be allowed to cross. The face-tattooed Mexican gangsters.
Okay. Money.
Yeah, we don't want criminal cartel money crossing our border. Certainly not.
We got to know the money that's crossing our border. Products.
Yeah, fentanyl. Guns.
All sorts of drugs. Even going back to people, human beings were being smuggled across, which happens a lot for sex slavery and other kinds of nefarious activities.
But then the fourth one, ideas. That's what caught all the flack from all the libs.
And I'm sorry to say ICE pulled it down. And the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs over at ICE said in a statement, that post was sent without proper approval and should not have been shared.
Ideas should have said intellectual property. Respectfully to DHS, they should have kept it up.
We do need to stop ideas, certain ideas from crossing our border. There's nothing shocking about that, nothing authoritarian.
That's just how nations operate. Think about during the Cold War.
The US and the Soviet Union were constantly trying to propagandize into each other's country. And we had agencies of the government designed to stop that propaganda from entering into the country.
There are plenty of ideas I don't want entering into the country. I mean, when we say that we want to stop radical jihadis from entering into our country, members of ISIS have crossed our border into the country illegally.
Okay, why do we want to stop that? We want to stop that in part so that they don't commit acts of violence. We also want to stop that because we don't want their ideas spreading.
There are ideas that should be excluded. There are ideas that we're opposed to.
William F. Buckley Jr., as urbane a conservative as ever there was, famously said on his public affairs show in 1966 that he's an epistemological optimist we can come to certain conclusions we can make certain exclusions there's no reason to protect the liberties of a nazi or a communist at the very least at the level of those ideas we don't need to let communism into our country that was true in the cold war it's true now we don't need to let nazism into it We don't need to let jihadism into our country.
Why do we need those ideas? But it's because it sounds very illiberal to say we're going to stop ideas. And so DHS spins it, says, well, it should mean intellectual property.
No, it should mean ideas. It's okay.
We don't need to apologize to the libs for basic enforcement of our border. We don't need to kowtow and pretend to,

we're the real liberals.

Actually, no, we totally support the free,

I don't support the total free exchange of ideas

from a bunch of face-tattooed Satan-worshipping gangsters.

Not at all.

We can know things.

We can make exclusions.

We know what we believe.

And if your mind is too open,

your brain is going to fall out.

It's all right.

Stand firm, guys. Don't worry.
People are on your side. DHS doesn't need to be making any apologies.
Now, speaking of foreign invasions, President Trump is serious about taking Greenland. People thought he was joking on the campaign trail when he said, we want Greenland.
Look, maybe we'll annex Greenland. We're going to buy it from Denmark.
Maybe we'll invade. And everyone thought he was kind of joking.
He is not joking. President Trump said, we need Greenland for national security, even international security.
And we're working with everybody involved to try and get it. One way or another, we're going to get it.
Remember, we are the United States of America. We've been looking at Greenland as a strategic spot and trying to acquire it since the middle of the 19th century.
This has been a priority of the State Department for over 150 years. Truman tried to get it after World War II.
This is nothing new, nothing crazy from Trump. And the New York Times is reporting that one way we might get it is through financial incentives.
So right now, Denmark gives $600 million in subsidies to Greenland every year. And so one idea, according to the New York Times, that Trump is floating is just replacing that annual payment with about $10,000 per Greenlander.
A lot of money, but we're a rich country. What is this about? According to Mike Waltz, the national security advisor, this is about critical minerals.
This is about natural resources, rare earth minerals, copper, gold, uranium, oil, especially as we're starting this trade war with China, especially as global conflicts seem to be growing in their seriousness and extent.

Chinese soldiers being caught, allegedly, fighting with Russia in Ukraine.

Obviously, the Israel-Gaza conflict.

What's interesting about this story to me is not just that America is going to acquire some Eskimos.

It's not just that it's going to be a great way to just trap America's evil top hat so we can make Canada the 51st state. It's not any of this kind of funny stuff.
It's that we need Greenland because it's strategic land and it has natural resources. And that's why we want it.
And that's the whole reason that we want it. We don't want it to liberate the Greenlanders from their oppressive Danish overlords.

We don't want it to spread democracy abroad and so that we can have a new Madisonian spring in the Arctic. We want it because the land is important and because they have copper.
And we forget in our highly ideological age, highly liberal ideological modernity, especially after fighting one of the most clearly ideological wars ever fought, that would be the Cold War between liberalism and communism. Before that, the Second World War, which was this weird hodgepodge of initially liberalism versus Nazism, fascism, and communism.
And then eventually the communists switched sides and it was liberalism and communism versus Nazism and fascism. And we can think of those things ideologically.
There is no ideology in the acquisition of Greenland. And by the way, most wars in history have been fought for these kinds of reasons.
Most wars in history have not been fought for ideology. Most wars in history have not been fought for the spread of an idea in an abstract that will melt away borders and change the way that human nature works.
Most wars in history have been fought for that hill over there and because I want access to that sea and because that guy has a lot of copper. That's it.
And what we are seeing, this is one of the hallmarks of the Trump era, and just kind of waking up from the dream of the Cold War and that brief post-Cold War era of the 1990s, when we thought the world was flat and history had ended. We're seeing a return to normal, return to normal people behaving in the normal ways, you know, none of the weird, like, drag queen story hour stuff.
We're seeing a return to normal. Return to normal people behaving in the normal ways.
You know, none of the weird like drag queen story hour stuff. We're seeing a return to normal people wanting normal immigration policies, not just completely open borders.
A return to normal people caring about their communities, not just global trade in the abstract. And a return to normal conflicts.
History remains undefeated. Human nature remains undefeated.
Ideology goes down. We want the copper.
There's so much more to say. First, though, text Knowles to 400-400.
Summer is near, and you're going to want to make sure that that little door that you got with the gap between the frame and the door, you're going to want to seal all that stuff up, okay? You're going to want to make sure you're energy efficient. You're going to want to make sure that that little door that you got with the gap between the frame and the door, and you're going to want to seal all that stuff up, okay? You're going to want to make sure you're energy efficient.
You're going to want to make sure you don't have water damage and the door, when it swells up, isn't pulling, and so you can actually get outside in the summer. Look, you're going to want to do all that because I realized I have to do all of that with my old doors, which is why, who did I call? Renewal by Anderson.
Called up Renewal by Anderson, met with their team, super duper easy. And hopefully we're going to get started really quickly on that so that I can save money so that there's no gap between my door and my wall.
Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering this special offer during their spring savings event. Buy one window or door, get one 40% off plus an additional 45 bucks off each window door with a minimum purchase of four.
Text Knolls to 400-400. Get a free in-home consultation like I just got on quality, affordable windows and doors for no money down, no monthly payments, no interest for one year.
That is Knolls, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 400-400 for this great deal on replacement windows and doors. Hurry, these savings will not last long.
be sure to check it out by texting Knowles to 400-400. That's K-N-O-W-L-E-S to 400-400.
Texting privacy policy and terms and conditions posted to textplan.us. Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message and data rates may apply. Reply stop to opt out.
My favorite comment yesterday. This one was picked by the producers.
So I don't know if this is going to be my favorite. We'll see.
It's from Voltron, RIP to the Chinese advisor who told Chairman Xi that retaliatory tariffs were a good idea. Maybe.
It remains to be seen. China might do very well in this.
I understand the American spin right now is, yeah, we totally destroyed China. Like, ha ha, it's over.
This is not over. This trade war is just beginning.
We'll probably win. We're still much stronger than China, and Trump is a very good president.
So we'll probably win. But don't underestimate the Chinese, and don't think this is over.
This 90-day pause with the tariffs, this is the beginning of a long, long negotiation. Now, speaking of Trump initiatives, RFK Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, says that he intends to root out the autism epidemic in a matter of months.
The autism rates have gone from now most recent numbers we we think, are going to be about 1 in 31.

1 in 12.

So they're going up again.

From 1 in 10,000 when I was a kid.

And we are going at your direction.

We are going to know by September we've launched a massive testing and research effort that's going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world. By September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we'll be able to eliminate those exposures.
Oh man, the arrows are going to fly against RFK for this one. The libs hate it when RFK talks about autism, because sometimes RFK links autism to vaccines, and they really don't want RFK to talk about vaccines.
I was just speaking with Secretary Kennedy at the White House, what was it, two weeks ago or something, and I was sitting down with him. He was engaged.
He was giving me perfectly good answers. But then right at the end, I said, hey, by the way, you've advocated against vaccines for years and years.
Is anything going to change about vaccines on your watch? And that was when he got really animated. And he said, everything is going to change.
And that statement alone made international headlines. And it's clear that he really cares about this.
I guess we should say it's three separate issues. He cares about vaccines, and he's skeptical of the safety of vaccines.
He cares about the autism rate spiking, and he has said in the past that he thinks there's a link between vaccines and autism. And people lose their minds when he says this.
But it's just a fact. In 1966, the autism rate was 1 in 2,500.
In the year 2000, the autism rate was 1 in 150. 1 in 2,500 kids diagnosed with autism versus 1 in 150.
That is an insane spike. 2020, 1 in 36 kids diagnosed with autism or some disorder on the autism spectrum.
One in 36? That is an insane increase. So this could be one of three things.
It could mean that the autism diagnoses are dubious. It could mean that a lot of these autism diagnoses are just fake.
And kids being a little bit weird doesn't mean that they have autism. That's one thing it could mean.
It could mean, on the flip side, that autism was just underdiagnosed 50, 60 years ago. And we used to say that people were just a little bit weird, a little bit odd, a little eccentric.
And now we say that they have autism and we medicate them. Maybe.
It could be that. Or it could be that the spike in autism is real.
And it could be that the spike in autism is real and caused by vaccines. And it could be that it's real and caused by something else.
I know it sounds like I just listed more than three options here, but I guess I'm lumping in the fake diagnoses, the over-diagnoses now, the under-diagnoses back then. I'm lumping that all in one category.
It could be that the autism spike is not real, or it's real and caused by the vax, or it's real and caused by something else. In any of those three big buckets, wouldn't you want to know, why are the libs so afraid of RFK answering that question? Is it because they think he'll be sloppy with the science? He's got great scientists working for him.
And you can analyze the studies, and you don't need to take HHS at its word. But why not look into it? Isn't it a problem? If one in 36 kids seriously has autism now compared to one in 2,500 60 years ago, isn't that a problem? Don't you want to kind of fix that? If there is an issue with vaccine safety, don't you want to fix that too? If it is something else and it's not the vaccines, don't you want to find that out so that you can tell people, go get the vaccines.
There's no problem. Forget about this autism thing.
Autism is actually caused by drinking too much Diet Coke or something. I don't know.
You would want to know that. The only thing that raises my eyebrow about all of this, because I think it could be any one of these answers, the only thing that raises my eyebrow is the vitriol with which some people, certainly in the pharmaceutical industry, but even just in the establishment, the broad kind of liberal consensus, the vitriol with which they consider this question at all.
Now, speaking of statistics, good news and bad news. Good news, I guess, is that the market is up right now, at least a little bit.
Bad news is the market was down a bunch yesterday. The market had been up before that.
And well, here's some more bad news. A hedge fund founder, Mark Spitznagel, what a name, predicts that the market will be down 80% when this is all over.
When all the tariff stuff shakes out, that the market's going to be down 80%. It's going to be a lot lower than it is today.
This guy is the founder and chief investment officer of Universa Investments. He thinks that the little bumps have been kind of a trap, according to his commentary in Market Watch.
And Universa, his hedge fund, did return 4,144% in the first quarter of 2020 when the market crashed over COVID. So the guy, he's got a pretty good track record.
And he says, we're not even close to out of the woods. And that's how I feel about it.
I mentioned this yesterday when I was hating to say I told you so. And I said, look, everyone has been making these stupid predictions and making all this stupid T-reading analysis, magic eight ball stuff of what exactly what Trump was doing.
Either Trump was just a total bumbling idiot and he had no idea what he was doing. And thankfully the free traders swooped in and saved the day.
Or Trump was playing 5D chess and all along he wanted to just spook every country on earth, including the penguin islands that don't have any people on it. But he was really going to get rid of all of those tariffs or at least most of them and just go after China and all, it's just nonsense.
Only one man told you the truth, which is that no one has any idea what these tariffs are about. No one, including top administration officials, no one.
Trump's big political strength is unpredictability. It's one of his big political strengths.
And you don't know. The market doesn't know.
China doesn't know. Cabinet secretaries don't know.
So you don't know, Mr. Economist.
You don't know, Mr. Pundit.
I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday, and he said, you know, Michael, thanks for saying I don't know, and no one knows. Because he said, on my list of people that I trust to make predictions i i have let's say um meteorologists uh shaman witch doctors on the west coast of africa um debt people who conduct seances and psychic readings and then just below that are economists and all of these kind of market pundits so give give me a break, okay? But just gear up.

I mean, this is, when I say let Trump cook,

recognize you don't know what's going on.

I'm also trying to manage expectations here

for the White House and for people

who are worried about their 401ks going up and down.

This thing is just beginning.

We're not, it's not just, oh good, the market's back up.

Okay, oh boy, all right, we got out of that.

That was a rough week, wasn't it?

We are in a trade war with China.

We are so far from being out of the woods

that you don't even, like stop checking your portfolio.

This is a serious financial issue

that could partake of a global conflict. We might already be in a global conflict.
Why are there Chinese soldiers fighting in Ukraine? Some people are getting real desperate here, okay? Stephen Colbert would be one, representing the liberal establishment in a perfect way. Goes on his show, allegedly.
Does anyone watch that show anymore? Does anybody watch the late night left wing comedy shows on network TV? I just see clips

on Twitter occasionally. In any case, I saw this clip on Twitter, X, of Stephen Colbert begging the deep state to stop Trump.
One bit of good news coming out of this. It's all pretty solid proof that there is no deep state.
Because if there was, they would have stopped this s**t. Okay? But if they do exist, I just want to say to the cabal of financial and governmental elites who pull all the strings behind the scenes, maybe put a pause on your 5G chip JFK Jr.
adrenochrome chemtrail orgy and jump in here because we're f**king dying. Okay, we're not dying.
I don't know. He's maybe worried that his portfolio went up and down a little bit or something.
But this is a joke, right? He's saying the proof that there is no deep state that has power is that they're not doing anything to stop Trump from roiling the markets. But in every joke, there's just a little bit of truth, isn't there? Is there ever a joke with that? Any little bit of truth in there? I don't think so.
This, to me, is a mask-off moment for the American left, perfectly embodied by Stephen Colbert as establishment glib-lib as it comes. And it reminds me of the mask-off moment we saw from Bill Kristol, the formerly right-wing pundit and government staffer and magazine editor who's become a left-winger in his old age.
And Bill Kristol said the same thing in 2016. He said, between the deep state and the Trump state, give me the deep state.
And we know that there is such a thing as a deep state, meaning a bureaucracy that opposes the duly elected people, because the liberals themselves cheered it on in 2016. When the FBI and the DOJ were spying on Trump's campaign, trying to undermine Trump's administration, trying to set the stage for him to be impeached, colluding with the Democrats and ironically the Russians and Russian intelligence to cook up that ridiculous dossier.
No one denies that stuff. So it is real.
And I think Stephen Colbert's plea here, and I think Bill Kristol's plea in 2016 are real too. It's the establishment liberals saying, hey, please, deep state.
Hey, please, entrenched interests. Hey, please, oligarchs.
Please undo the expressed desires of the people. Yeah, okay, we get it.
Trump won the popular vote. But please, undo that.
Okay. All right.
That is an honest point of view. I don't think it's going to play well in Peoria.
I don't think it's going to play well in the next presidential election. But that's kind of where they're at.
Please. That is totally sincere.
Please, deep state, whatever you're doing, please undo what Trump wants. Trump, who was elected by the popular vote.
There's so much more to say. First, though, go to expressvpn.com slash Knowles.
Do you remember when we had privacy in this country? I don't know. I actually don't know if I do anymore, but we used to.
There was a time when we had privacy. And you know who still does have privacy? The government.
The government has all sorts of privacy through countless classified documents. The irony, they're supposed to work for us.
We know that the NSA watches our online activity by purchasing our data from brokers. There's a solution that can help you reclaim your privacy, ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN routes all your online activity through secure encrypted servers, preventing data brokers and their government and tech company clients from seeing what you do online. ExpressVPN, just in the past year alone, got over 400,000 data requests, shared zero customer information.
I have been using ExpressVPN personally for, I don't know, seven years or something at this point, super easy.

You put it on your phone, your tablet, your laptop, click one button, boom, you are protected. Right now, you can get an extra four months for free when you use my special link.
That is expressvpn.com slash Knowles. Get four extra months of ExpressVPN for free.
expressvpn.com slash Knowles.

You want to know what real media look like?

The Daily Wire delivers hard-hitting news led by facts, not feelings, also some feelings. We cut through the noise with unapologetic truth.
When you become a Daily Wire Plus member, you unlock it all. Ad-free podcasts, the best in investigative journalism, premium entertainment that's reshaping American culture, the most handsome hosts.
America needs bold voices now more than ever. Join the fight today.
Dailywire.com slash subscribe. Finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
The mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk. Switch to Pure Talk at puretalk.com slash Knowles.
Get a year of Daily Wire Plus for free with a qualifying plan. Take it away.
Michael, you've talked before about men asking permission from their wives. You've talked a lot about women wanting to work from the home, or not work from the home, stay with their kids at home.
You've talked about these two things, but separately. I feel like they're one issue.
So, for instance, if a man sees that his wife desires to be home with the kids, but she has worries about the finances, that it's the man's responsibility to be able to look at that logically, look at the money and be able to tell her, well, we have to lose X, Y, Z, but also we can and we should because not only do you have a passion for this, but also it would be the best thing for our kids. What do you think of that idea, marriage? Thanks for all you do.
Oh, that's a really good description of a healthy marriage, which is you're saying, look, the man should not be a tyrant. So like, you get back in the kitchen, woman.
You know, I mean, every so often I scream that at Elisa, but it's very, very rare. Most of my toddlers scream that actually.
But you know, the man is not a tyrant just pushing his way around all day long. Likewise, the man is not, you know, overcooked noodle either.
Just whatever you want, honey. You know, is it okay if I go see my friends later on this month or something month or something? You don't want that either.
You want the man to be confident and to lead his household in a good way and in a way that is loving and taking into account his wife and his family, taking into his mind things that his wife desires, noticing maybe some of his wife's desires that she isn't even articulating, as you're suggesting here, and then making suggestions and leading the family. Absolutely.
But this isn't really complicated at all. I mean, you're focusing on this issue of women deciding to give up their jobs, stay home with the kids, and that's going to maybe put a little more financial strain on the husband.
Maybe it means they're going to have to tighten their belts a little bit. But we do this all the time.
Families do this all the time. Are we going to do takeout three nights a week? Are we going to go out to dinner all the time? Or are we going to cook at home and then take that money and maybe we go on a vacation? Or are we not going to go on the extravagant vacation? Maybe we're going to do a little staycation or go nearby to the beach or something, but then we're going to get a new car because we need a bigger car because we're having another kid.
You know, household finances recognize that money is fungible, and you're making all of these kinds of calculations all the time. However, we've recently just gotten addicted to two incomes.
And so when we're making all of those normal calculations we never consider these days the the good that that comes about when you take away the wife's income if the wife wants to stay home and raise the kids it's the same thing as do you want to go out to dinner three nights a week or do you want to save some money for a vacation it's we just we don't recognize that there is serious value in a woman staying home and raising her family. And maybe that value is greater.
Maybe it's greater for your family than the 60 grand a year she makes at the widget shop or whatever her salary is. Next question.
In her book, The Toxic War on Masculinity, Nancy Peercy explains that female suffrage was originally rejected by most women.

The debate was framed not as male vote versus female vote, but as individual versus household vote.

A lot of women questions. When the church led the culture, the nuclear family was ubiquitous.

Husbands and wives were not canceling each other out with their votes.

As a woman, if you wanted your voice to be heard in the political realm, you had to find a husband that shared your values.

Likewise, if men wanted to ensure that they were on good terms with their families, they had to vote with their family's interests in mind. And since the nuclear family was not merely the norm, but the standard in society, it was seen as counterproductive for women to vote because they would have created unnecessary wedges between husbands and wives and eliminate an incentive to marry in the first place.
It would have put individualistic politics before the family. The hard question here is if the goal of the conservative movement is to restore the nuclear family, don't you think we should grapple with this issue as hard as it may be? Yeah, I think probably first we need to kick the husky guys out of the women's bathroom.
I think probably first we need to convince people to get married. I think first we probably need to convince husbands and wives to be open to life.
I think first we need to restore any sense of normality before we go about repealing the 19th Amendment. I don't mean to mock your suggestion because you're making a very serious observation, which is, hold on.
I know it's verboten to say now, but at the time of the 19th Amendment, many, many women opposed it. So were they all just crazy, dumb idiots suffering from a false consciousness? Or was there some reason that led some women to oppose this? We should, of course, take that seriously.
But we also have to recognize, you know, we live in a certain political order. And look, I'd be happy to go back to just before the so-called Glorious Revolution, when the parliament asserted an unjust supremacy over James II, and invited those interlopers from Orange, William, and Mary to come and take over.
Sure, you know, there are all sorts of historical deviations that I can make counter arguments for, but we are where we are. So if the point is, the reason why many women opposed suffrage was because they feared that it would reorient the culture away from the family as the building block toward the individual, which would set us on a course of radical liberalization.
Okay, fine. But how do

we advance the goals of defending the family and a traditional culture and a thriving country that is conducive to all of our flourishing today in our political circumstances? So, you know, you can sit online and be like, oh, I would repeal the diet to the bed, but like, what are you actually going to do? What do you actually want to do to improve our country? Next question. Hi, Michael.
I need you to settle a debate between Arun and I. Like you, I can trace my lineage back to several families on the Mayflower, and I have ancestors who fought in every American war up until Vietnam.
Arun believes that I should not take pride in my lineage, my deep American roots, and the accomplishments and patriotism of my ancestors. Obviously, I disagree.
I'm curious to get your thoughts, and do you think that such a heritage makes one any more American than a person born in another country who has obtained citizenship, or someone who doesn't have as deep a roots? I'm not saying it does, but I want to get your opinion. Thanks for settling this debate for us.
They do. Unless you think that America is just an idea floating in outer space, and someone who has become a citizen yesterday could be more American than a 14th

generation descendant of Governor Bradford or something. If you think that, okay, that's just a very liberal ideological view.
Now, the descendant of William Bradford might be a total jerk, but he just is American in a very deep way. Tradition matters.
Heritage matters. The inarticulable little habits that define a people and a people's customs are real, and you don't just learn them by taking a citizenship test.
So yeah, it does, and that's why we need, when we do have immigration, we need to have assimilation, and it's why we need to have people really stew. If we are going to be a melting pot, if we accept that notion, then you got to stew a little bit.
You got to melt a little bit. That is certainly going to make you more American than the guy who just got off the boat from wherever, Poland or Karachi or Timbuktu yesterday.
That guy, I don't care if he's got perfect English.

He's just not going to have being an American in his bones quite as much as other people. with no antibiotics or hormones.
Subscribe now using code DAILYWIRE to get your free bacon, ground beef,

seed oil-free chicken nuggets,

or salmon in every order for an entire year,

plus $40 off.

That's goodranchers.com, promo code DAILYWIRE.

Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.

Next question.

Hi, Michael.

I'd like to get your opinion

on whether the founding fathers

were right to rebel from England

from a Christian perspective. Obviously, the outcome of their decision ended up being pretty good, but I've heard it argued that their decision to rebel goes against, say, Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2, 13-17.
Were they morally justified for the American Revolution? I appreciate your insight. Well, this is high stakes for me because two of my ancestors fought in the American Revolution.
One of them fought for the whole of the revolution from Bunker Hill up through Yorktown, crossed the Delaware with Washington, was up at Newburgh, was discharged with Washington up at Newburgh. So I like to think that the American Revolution would be justified.
And it would be at least in the way that the war was conducted.

Because if we go to one of the most intelligent people to ever live, St. Thomas Aquinas, we know that there is a justification for revolution in certain circumstances.
However, if the revolution is justified, then St. Thomas tells us that the revolution should not be carried out by a mob of unwashed terrorists but should be carried out through the principle of subsidiarity so the leaders of the people in an orderly and hierarchical way ought to engage in the rectification of these political problems that might even create a new political order.
And that is basically what happened in the American Revolution. The American revolutionaries were not unwashed, bloodthirsty ruffians.
They were elites, and they were people who were involved in the affairs of the colonies, and they determined the revolution was justified, and so they said about it. I guess the debatable question is, were some tea taxes sufficient to justify breaking away from the crown? And there was more to it than that.
And there was a growing American identity that was just independent caused by an ocean in between the two countries. However, I think that part is more debatable, but the way that the revolution was conducted was, I think, pretty clearly in line with Christian teaching.
Okay. Was that, you know, I'm not, look, I'm not saying the Tories didn't have a point, but I think good old Simon Knowles back with General Washington, you know, I think he could be justified.

Okay, how do you like that?

He's my grandpa.

How am I supposed to throw him under the bus?

It's my country.

How am I supposed to throw him under the bus?

Today's Fake Headline Friday.

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 at checkout