Ep. 1623 - The Matt Gaetz Withdrawal EXPLAINED In 5 Mins

Just over two weeks after President Trump's landslide election, the transition team has hit its first major speed bump as Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz withdraws his name from consideration amid a looming sex scandal. I'm Michael Knowles, this is Michael Knowles Show.

Welcome back to the show, Big Internet Drama, which I usually avoid, but this one I'll get into because I think there's a broader point to be made on it. A gal who appeared on my show, Nala Ray, is being accused of admitting that she lied about everything on my show and that she didn't really give up porn and she didn't really convert to Christianity. So anyway, I'll get into that in a little bit. First though, I want to tell you about

the new Mayflower triple flame torch lighter. That's right, baby. So first of all, if you've not gotten your Mayflower compacts, your Mayflower Dawn Petite Coronas, they are selling out very, very quickly. They will be gone shortly. So if you want them stocking stuffers, I would go get them now. Also, we have the triple flame lighter. This is a double action lighter, meaning you click it,

And it both opens the lid and starts the triple flame. I'll use it right now to light my little delicious Michael Knowles candle. It's got Mayflower written here. It's got a nice, easy gauge. So you can see how much butane's in there. It has a pop out cigar punch. So you're never without a cutter. You put that right in there. Easy to adjust the flame height right here below. It says Mayflower on the side. And you get a beautiful Mayflower logo on that triangle top. So,

another great stocking stuffer. If you are in the business of smoking cigars, if you have friends who are, I get them this windproof lighter. Sometimes when you're indoors, you want a soft flame, but if you're outdoors, you don't want a soft flame. You want to make sure that that is windproof. So go get it at MayflowerSigars.com today and it'll come in this swanky looking, beautiful little box. Matt Gaetz has withdrawn his nomination from the attorney general race.

Matt Gaetz says, I had excellent meetings with senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump Vans transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle. Thus, I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as AG.

Trump's DOJ must be in place and ready on day one. I remain fully committed to see that Donald J. Trump is the most successful president in history. I will forever be honored that President Trump nominated me to lead the DOJ. I'm certain he will save America. Whoa, why is Matt Gaetz out just a little over two weeks after the election? I suggest it.

at the time, you know, I had to say, I told you so, that there might be a little bit more strategically going on there than met the eye because Matt Gaetz had been accused of all sorts of weird sex stuff. And the DOJ declined to pursue charges. So this is the Biden DOJ. They felt the case was so flimsy that they weren't going to pursue charges. Nevertheless, there was this house ethics report. The house ethics report was due to come out the Friday after his nomination. He was nominated on a Wednesday

Gates took the opportunity on that Wednesday to resign from Congress, which was a nice off-ramp to be able to stop the House from releasing the ethics report.

unless they wanted to just look petty, and like they were trying to torpedo a nominee. It gave him an off-ramp without looking as though he were resigning in disgrace or resigning out of fear. Then there was very little chance that he was going to get through his AG, even from Republican senators, weren't going to move on it. So now he can withdraw from that nomination. And who knows what he could do? Maybe he could run for Governor of Florida.

Maybe he could pursue some other kind of political post. But it seems basically to have worked out pretty well for him. Had the ethics report come out, it would have led to a really big political fight. Maybe Gates would have survived it. Maybe he wouldn't have survived it. So this, one of the better outcomes for Matt Gates, as for Trump, does it really help Trump?

At the time, I said it did help Trump because it meant that we weren't talking about Pete Hegseth, we weren't talking about Tulsi Gabbard, we weren't talking about Bobby Kennedy, all these supposedly controversial picks for the cabinet that Trump had put up there. It was a way to kind of distract from what everyone else was paying attention to, even if that distraction wasn't going to have long-term consequences, because Kate was going to pull out now just what a week or so later.

may have kind of worked. Now, unfortunately, now there's a little bit of blood in the water. Trump has shown that he's willing to accept the withdrawal of one of his appointees. Does this mean that others are going to be pressured to withdraw, or does this mean the others are going to get through more easily? That remains to be seen. But I do see some pretty clear benefits, at least for Gates, and at least arguably for Trump. So now the focus is going to be back on Pete Hegseath and the Lib media are wasting no time. Big hit piece in mediaite yesterday, trying to torpedo Hegseath.

And I hate giving airtime to these kinds of salacious and I think baseless stories. However, assuming Pete is going to go through the confirmation process, all of this is going to be aired out, so I think it's better to get ahead of the story. The headline is media items contains full police report.

on Pete Hegseth's sexual assault allegation. So the media have already had a field day pointing out that Pete has been married multiple times and suggesting that these guy-girl problems. Here they're saying that he committed a sexual assault, or at least that's what they're insinuating. Okay, what happened? I won't go through the whole story. They're saying that Pete, this was years ago, something like seven years ago, Pete was at some

political event and he was hanging out with a bunch of girls and they were drinking in a suite and they were drinking at the hotel bar and then eventually he winds up down by the pool and he's getting into a sort of elevated conversation with one of these women and they're kind of yelling at each other. But then they, the pool staff and the hotel staff come down and the woman apologizes for Pete and then they walk off arm in arm with the woman smiling according to witnesses. This is where this begins. I'll just read for me.

The hotel worker said Jane Doe then led Het Seth away. He said Het Seth appeared very drunk while Jane Doe was standing on her own and seemed coherent. Doesn't mean she wasn't a little buzzed, but apparently, according to this hotel worker, Pete had had more to drink than her. Surveillance video reviewed by police from around 1.15 AM showed Doe and Het Seth walking toward the pool, their arms locked, and Doe appeared to be smiling per the report. So right there,

These two are getting along pretty clearly. That's not even according to witnesses. That's according to video footage. Okay. Do told police that she had been drinking that night and told the nurse that she believed someone had slipped something in her drink. Okay. It's possible people do slip things in drinks, but there's really, there's certainly no reason to think Pete Haggseth would have done that. And sometimes people say that someone slipped something in their drink and really it was just that they had too many drinks.

She told police that her recollection became fuzzy after the pool exchange and that the next memory she had was in an unknown room. She said, Higgseth took her phone and blocked the door with his body when she tried to leave. She told police, she said no repeatedly. She said she was next on a bed or a couch and Higgseth was on top of her with his dog tags hovering over her face. Then it goes into details that we don't need to get into that are just a little lurid, but don't really add anything to the story. She says she did not remember how she got back to her hotel room later that night.

Four days later, she went to the hospital to be checked out. Four days later, this is not the next morning, this is not the morning after, this is not even the morning after that, this is the morning after that, after that, after that, after that. And here is the final line I'll read. After sex, Heg Seth said, Doe showed early signs of regret and said she would tell her husband she fell asleep on a couch in someone else's room. Okay.

There is absolutely no evidence based on video footage, based on any witnesses, based on what Pete Hegset is saying here, and really even based on what the woman is supposedly alleging, according to the media report, there is no evidence for the allegations that this was non-consensual, that this was an assault of any kind. There is some evidence

Against the allegations, there's actually a fair bit of evidence against the allegations, the smiling on camera, the arm and arm, the number of days it took, the some evidence against it. There is obviously evidence that Pete has made mistakes in his life. There's obviously evidence that Pete Hexett has been a cosanova, okay? Nobody is denying that. But I have to ask, since when has that been the standard for political appointments? If that were the standard for political appointments,

bill clinton wouldn't be president probably half of congress would have to reside in bobbie kennedy wouldn't be at the entire kennedy family wouldn't be in politics you know that's obviously not the standard

So this reads to me like absolute dirt, like a total smear campaign, not grounded in reality. That's just gonna turn every political fight now into Kavanaugh 2.0. Kavanaugh, the Kavanaugh fight, which was also a totally baseless allegation that fell apart under even the slightest scrutiny, but still made life hell for Brett Kavanaugh. This is a recreation of the Clarence Thomas, high tech lynching.

I don't know, this is really dirty stuff. If this is the best they've got, however, Pete is going to get through. They're going to try to make his life a living hell, but this is a very weak allegation. There's no evidence for it whatsoever. It seems to me they're only trying to put that through to smear Pete for being a ladies man years ago. Okay, I don't think he would deny that.

I don't think that's the standard for political appointees, really, really dirty hit job. And it's the kind of story you're going to have to get in front of because otherwise they're going, they're going to do Kavanaugh times 10 seems to me. There's so much more to say first though, go to tryarmra.com. There is a lot of talk these days about getting back to basics.

whether it's in politics, culture, or health. Getting back to basics, I want to tell you about something fascinating. Arm rock colostrum. Now, colostrum is not some newfangled health fat. It's the first food that all mammals receive in life. If you have any kids, you know what colostrum is. It's nature's original superfood containing over 400 bioactive ingredients that your body needs to thrive. It's like liquid gold.

Armra is found a way to harness this incredible substance in its purest, most potent form. What makes Armra different is their proprietary cold-chain biopotent pasteurization technology. Unlike other supplements that lose their potency through processing, Armra preserves all those crucial nutrients in their most bioavailable form. And it's all sustainably sourced from grass-fed cows on American family farms. The best part is not some synthetic compound created in a lab. It is a natural whole food that works with your body's own systems in a world

where so many health solutions are artificial and processed? Is it not refreshing to find something that is both cutting edge and completely natural? This is exactly the kind of innovation we should be embracing. Right now, get 15% off your first order when you go to tryarmored.com slash Noles and enter code Noles. T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Noles. I usually avoid internet drama.

Including what it involves me because I think it's mostly kind of silly and stupid and doesn't deserve a response. However, this little piece of internet drama, which involves at least my show, I think is helpful because there's a broader political and religious point to make on it. There's an accusation that a gal who sat down on my show for a Michael Anne episode, really long interview, Nala Ray,

that she was totally lying, that she lied to my face, that she made it all up. Nala Ray worked in porn, she was very successful in porn, not only fans, and then she says she had a conversion, and she quit porn, and she gave it up, and now she covers up, she wears clothing that's not revealing, and she got married, and she says that she converted to Christianity. And we sat down and talked about this, I think it's a really interesting conversation. You can go check it out on my YouTube channel and on your favorite podcast app.

But there's this allegation going around the internet that people kept tagging me. And that's the only way I saw it, that she was actually lying about the whole thing, the whatever podcast posted said, so Nala was lying about everything. And then a bunch of other accounts said Nala was lying and she lied to Michael Knowles's face and she didn't really convert and she didn't really give up porn. And it's all fake. And here's the clip that they played.

As a viral creator on, I went on so many podcasts because I knew the only way to grow my own was to be viral. And it's such an oversaturated platform right now. And I've been on it for like five and a half years. So everything I've said on podcasts is complete clickbait. I did it to go viral to then make money and it worked. I said whatever I needed to because I understand the male brain and I needed to make money. And I was like, I gotta take it down. You basically, you lied about everything.

Yeah, pretty much. Okay, so that's the clip that's going around. And because I think Maisha was probably the biggest show that she went on of all these podcasts. So people keep tagging me in this and saying, see, she's admitting that she made it up. She didn't really convert. She didn't really give up porn. She just did it to make money and grow her only fans channel and her porn account. And so she's a total sociopath. That's the line. So I said, huh?

Well, I don't know. I mean, I only sat down with this girl one time, but she struck me as basically sincere. So I'm really surprised to hear that. Maybe there's a little more context here. So I look for the context. What was she saying? That's a 30 second clip or something. What was the full context of what she was saying? And this is what I discovered. We get over the cheating king, Nala.

I am so happy we get to finally address this. So as a viral creator on OnlyFans, like when I was on OnlyFans about eight, nine months ago, I went on so many podcasts because I knew the only way to grow my OnlyFans was to be viral. And it's such an oversaturated platform right now. And I've been on it for like five and a half years.

Everything I've said on podcasts is complete clickbait. I did it to go viral to then make money and so many people believed it and it worked. So that's what's so like crazy about the internet and if you've heard it before, it's very true. The internet is not real.

So, like, everything I've said, like, oh my God, I love cheating. Like, dude, I was so frickin' dead single at the time. Like, who would I have cheated on, bro? Like, so, for me, I made up this complete character that everyone believed in, and everyone was like, I was very controversial to people, and I was very, like, some people really, really liked me. But at the end of the day, social media is just fake news. So,

I never had a cheating kink. I've been single for such a long time, especially when I was on only fans and I said whatever I needed to because I understand the male brain and I needed to make money and I was like bet. But isn't the counter to this position that if you spent that much time lying about that, why should we assume you don't spend time lying about this?

Because as a Christian, if you doubt me, as a Christian, you should look at the fruits of the Spirit. And if you really do, if you can't have an actual conversation with me to see where my focus is lying now, just ask God and look at the fruit of the Spirit.

So the context of this is she's asked, when you were on this show last time and you said you had a kink fetish for cheating or being cheated on, is that true? And she says, no, no, I lied then. I was lying on podcasts when I was on only fans. And because I understood the male brain and because porn is a fantasy and I was giving people that fantasy, but it was a lie. I didn't even have a boyfriend at the time. And so the follow up question, which is a good question is, okay, if you were lying then,

how do we know you're not lying now, now that you've given up pornography? And she says, well, you judge it by the fruits of the spirit. And then she further proves that that previous clip was dishonest because she refers to her work on OnlyFans in the past tense. She's done with porn. She's done selling her body. You can also see this visibly. She's covered up on this show. Women are often scantily clad. She's covered up. She's wearing a big hoodie. She's describing porn as being in the past. So whatever you think about this girl,

Let's say you think she is an insincere or she's not a true Christian or whatever you think about her. You certainly have to admit the first clip is deceptive. It is claiming the opposite of what she is actually saying. And to the point, how do we know you're not lying now? I think it's a really good answer here, which is, well, the way you know I'm not lying now or some evidence for that is,

Previously, I was in porn and porn is a fantasy. Porn is grounded in lies, lies about human nature, lies about the purpose of sex, lies about how the sexes relate to one another and how women relate to sexual acts. So that was based on lies and I lied, whereas Christianity is grounded in the truth. Our Lord is the truth himself.

And so that is in itself one reason why people in porn are intrinsically engaging in lies. Christianity intrinsically inclines one toward the truth by definition. It seems to me quite scandalous that this clip is going around, that the first clip is going around to insinuate that she's making the opposite point that she's making. And it's scandalous because

It is so totally lacking in grace, and it's the sort of thing that would seem to me to be leading someone away from Christ. It strikes me that if one is going to err, one should always err on the side of grace. Because you have to ask yourself, what is the end that we're seeking here? The end that I am seeking, at least, is to lead more people to Christ. That's the end that I'm after.

So if someone is inclined to go in that direction, to give up a life of sin and vice, and is showing evidence that she wishes to do that, I would like to encourage that person down that path. I think that would be a good thing.

Some people, though, if they're trying to twist her words and make it seem as though she's saying the opposite of what she's really saying, it would seem that those people are intentionally trying to lead someone away from Christ or to put up obstacles that would get in the way of a person seeking life in Christ. And that is deeply scandalous and

You will answer for that. If you are putting up obstacles, if you were scandalizing people, scandal, which is a serious sin, you will answer for that someday. So that seems kind of crazy to me. The question you have to ask yourself in all of these conversations is, what is the end we're seeking? This gal got in trouble too, because she was asked a question about the Trinity. This is the central mystery of the Christian faith.

how God has three persons in one divine unity. God is one, and yet we have the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. This is the central mystery that we cannot really fully comprehend or articulate. Many have tried. There's a legend about St. Augustine attempting to fully comprehend the Trinity.

And an angel mocks him for trying to do something impossible. So anyway, Nala got tripped up on the nature of the Trinity. And it seems to me there are two ways to engage with that. Either you can say, ha ha, see, you've fallen into this heresy. I don't know, everyone falls into a heresy when they try to describe the Trinity, just about.

whether it's the heresy of modalism, whether it's the heresy of Arianism, which took over half of self-professed Christians in antiquity. Any of these heresies, it's very difficult. Either you can respond and say, ha ha, gotcha, see, boom, you're not a Christian, get out of here. Or you can say, hey, you're seeking Christ, you're trying to improve yourself, you're trying to grow in sanctity. Here are some ways that maybe, here's a pitfall that sometimes you fall into, but anyway, keep going, just

Do your best. Pray hope and don't worry. You do your best. God will do the rest. Seems to me that's the thing that we ought to do. But the question then you have to have is, what's the point? If the point is, and this is a broader point even on politics, on cultural battles,

If the point is just to dunk on people and own them and degrade them and debase them, then sure, pull every gotcha you possibly can and deceptively edit people and try to make it seem as though they're saying the opposite of what they're saying, then don't engage in good faith. But if the point is to persuade people and lead them closer to the truth and to help them to grow in sanctity,

Well, then you should probably do that. You should probably offer them grace and try to speak the truth in love. Two very different approaches for two very different ways of life, and they'll have two very different consequences, so watch out. There's so much more to say first though, text Noles to 98, 98, 98. For those of us holding our breath for the past several months, we can exhale.

Work can finally be done on the major issues facing our country, one of the most significant being our national debt. Fact is, the country's broke. That debt is a House of Cards that cannot quickly be dismantled. For as long as the economy sits on top of that House of Cards, the strategy remains the same. Diversify your savings.

There are so many things out there out of our control, out of our president's control. That is why you want a safe haven for your savings. Birch Gold Group will help you convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold. Best news does not cost you a penny out of pocket. It only takes the removal of one card for the whole house of cards to fall. Protect your savings with gold. Text Knowles, Canada, ULAS, 298-9898. Get your free info kit right now through Black Friday.

You will receive a free one ounce silver eagle for every $5,000 purchased as the gold partner of the Daily Wire for the past eight years. You can trust Birch Gold as I do to help protect your savings. Text Knowles, Canada, WLAS to 98, 98, 98 today. 98, 98, 98, get your info kit in gold. My favorite comment yesterday is from hard boiled entertainment, who says, and just as we're on the brink of peace, always remember,

Never underestimate Joe's ability to F things up. Yes. We are there, man. Russia will Ukraine firing missiles into Russia, Russia responding. We thought we voted for peace. We thought we voted for the Abraham Accords and Russia not invading other countries and things just being kind of cool. Well, don't forget, it's end of November. We have two more months.

of the Democrats' ability to try to tie Trump's hands and prevent peace. And it looks like they're doing their best at it.

Now, speaking of changing hearts and minds, AOC has responded to the other drama going on on the Hill right now over whether or not a man, a Democrat congressman named Tim McBride, who calls himself Sarah, can invade the women's bathroom over the objections of the actual women who were in Congress. And Speaker Mike Johnson has made clear he does not get to go into the women's bathroom.

after I called a little bit of attention to this issue a week or so ago, because it seems like a trivial fight, but there's a lot that's being smuggled in with a man going into the women's bathroom. The whole ideology of transgenderism is being smuggled in. So Speaker Johnson, as I said, I was hopeful for, has said, no, we're not going to allow that to happen. AOC melts down over it.

It's disgusting. And everybody, no matter how you feel on this issue, should reject it completely. What are they doing? They're doing this so that Nancy Miskin make a buck and send a text and fundraise off an email. They're not doing this to protect people. They're endangering women. They're endangering girls of all kinds. And everybody should reject it. It's gross. Thank you.

It's gross. It is gross that we're not letting this dude with some combination or one or the other of mental illness and a sexual fetish just walk into the women's bathroom over their objections, including people who have experienced rape like Nancy Mase as she said on this show just a few days ago. It's disgusting that we won't let that man do that. This is endangering women and girls of all kinds. Wait, what?

How is it endangering women and girls to say that men can't go into the women's bathroom? That would seem to me to be the opposite of endangering women and girls. This is an example of

something that Democrats do frequently, which is they just say words. And some people use rhetoric and little clever tricks of their language to try to persuade or to spin realities. But this is something Democrats seem to do a lot. She's just saying words that have no relation to reality, but she's saying them emphatically and with passion and hoping that that will persuade people. And it won't. So that's why I'm glad that AOC is pursuing this path. She has learned absolutely nothing.

This election, this landslide that went to Trump and the Republicans was in no small part due to Democrats overstepping on the trans issue, not even because people are so focused on the trans issue, but because it was so offensive to people's intellect. And it's so proved that the Democrats have lost the common sense.

If Democrats believe that a man is secretly a woman, if Democrats want to cast straight kids, then you can't trust Democrats on anything, on Ukraine, on immigration, on the economy, because they've obviously lost their minds. They're not in touch with reality or the common sense. So AOC learned nothing. Some Democrats are saying, look, maybe we need to moderate on identity politics. Look, maybe we need to moderate on castrating little kids. Maybe we need to moderate. AOC says no.

It is repulsive to me that we will not force women to use the bathroom and give up their private spaces to men who are mentally ill and have bizarre sexual fantasies and disorder desires. That's repulsive to me. Okay, AOC. Shout it from the rooftops. Put it on TV commercials. I'm all for it. She's learned nothing and we might get the 2024 results. Next election too. Meanwhile,

The wackos are proving Nancy Mace's point. Nancy Mace was giving a speech and a man, some big hulking fella who dressed up as a lady who has a lot of problems, obviously, in his mind, stands up and tries to charge the stage.

Another man who's significantly shorter than the supposed woman has to hold him back

Okay, all right, you get the point. How dare you say that I'm not a beautiful woman or I can't use your bathroom. I'm gonna get up, run up on that stage and beat you to a bloody pulp chicky. Cause I'm a beautiful and feminine and dainty woman. And you've got the male security guard there.

who over whom this transvestite towers this hulking transvestite. I'm gonna show you what a woman is. And the security guard happily is able to constrain this deranged lunatic of a man and get him out of the assembly, but seems to prove the point.

Because what if the security guard weren't there? What if people who, by definition, are suffering from mental illness and severe perversion, do find themselves in the bathroom with Nancy Mase, whom they hate, Nancy Mase, whom they regularly threaten to kill for objecting to their deluded self-identity? What if Nancy Mase is just there and they catch her with her pants down, which is what happens in the bathroom, and the security guard's not there to protect her? Her, a victim of sexual assault.

That's not acceptable. That's just not acceptable for anyone. And it shouldn't take these kinds of incidents to prove it. For the good of society, I've said it before, for the good of society, and especially for the good of the confused people who have fallen prey to this ideology, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level.

period. Punta e Basta. Speaking of strange ideology, Jaguar, Jaguar, the preferred car company of wealthy British women has just decided to rebrand. And Jaguar's rebranding has come through a viral commercial. Take it away. For those who cannot see, it's a bunch of androgynous individuals wearing

high fashion, hooked couture, sorts of dresses and suits, carrying sledgehammers and seem to be on planet Mars or something. Copy nothing. Jaguar. Jaguar. By a Jaguar, you can become androgynous and really weird. Jaguar.

Jaguar was always kind of a posh British luxury car brand. It was just sort of expensive, but still tasteful. And now it's really weird and transsexual and androgynous and colorful and bizarre.

I don't think I'm speaking with hyperbole when I say this is why Trump won. The fact that Jaguar needs to go trans is why Trump won. I have a little advice to corporate America and to the people who run our institutions. Not everything has to be gay. Some things are going to be kind of gay. The YMCA, I guess, is kind of gay. It's been in that song for 50 years now. Some things are going to be a little bit

show tunes, they're always going to be a little bit gay. I mean, plenty of straight people like them, but not everything has to be gay. Some things can be normal. It's okay. The stuffy old British card, driven by wealthy women predominantly, that doesn't have to be gay. But the most people who voted for Trump

actually don't really care if some things are gay. They don't really think that much about politics. But what they object to is that everything has to be gay, that kindergarten classrooms and libraries have to be gay. That's what they object to. It's just constantly cram down your throat and no one wants that, okay?

But that's fine, Jaguar. I want every campaign ad in the future to be the new Jaguar ad and AOC talking about how we got to shove dudes into the women's bathroom. And they've learned nothing. That's great. Keep playing it. I'm all for it. Now, there's so much more I want to get to. My friend Lauren Southern was just speaking at Canadian Parliament. I want to get to that.

A Democrat strategist doesn't know what weapons that military uses. A Bob Casey finally conceded in Pennsylvania, so Dave McCormick is

He was already officially the Senator-elect, but now everyone admits that. But I don't have time because I got to get to the mailbag. There's so much more to say first though, go to responsibleman.com, use code Knowles. Gentlemen, let's talk about something the libs don't want you to have, robust, unapologetic health. While they're busy pushing their soy-infused agenda, I've discovered a way to fortify ourselves against the tide of cultural decay. And that is responsible man vitamins. Now I know what you're thinking, Michael,

Aren't all vitamins the same? Not even close. Responsible man created the Emerson multivitamin for men who take their duties seriously. Not for the participation trophy crowd, okay? This isn't some feel-good supplement designed by coastal elites who think the masculinity is toxic. No, sir.

This is a vitamin packed with 33 key ingredients that support your immune system, sharpen your mind, and keep your heart and muscles strong. It's everything a conservative man needs to stand firm in these trying times. A responsible man is a daily wire ventures company. You know these vitamins are made right here in America. No Chinese knockoffs, no outsourcing to countries that resent our values. Just good old American quality.

is a strong America needs strong men and strong men need this vitamin. I'm not saying Emerson multivitamin will single-handedly save Western civilization, but I'm not saying it won't either. Right now, go to responsibleman.com. Code Knowles for 60% off. That's with my special discount code, responsibleman.com. Use that code. Knowles get 66 0% off.

Ladies and gentlemen, our Daily Wear Plus Black Friday sale starts now. This is our best deal of the year. Get 50% off annual memberships today. No code needed. Just go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the fight with Daily Wear Plus. You will get access to our uncensored daily shows with limited ads plus breaking news coverage from the most trusted voices in conservative media. Get it all for 50% off. That is not all. Daily Wear Plus is home to the number one documentary of the decade. Am I racist? Our full library of premium entertainment that is reshaping the culture. Say 50% off now.

You go to dailywire.com slash subscribe, join the fight today. Finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you and the mailbag. The mailbag is sponsored by PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com slash Knowles today, switch to a qualifying plan, get one year free of daily wire plus insider. Take it away. Hi, Michael. As I'm sure you've seen, the day after the election, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from our leftist friends.

I saw a particular argument made by a leftist quote-unquote lawyer who stated that due to the DOP's decision, conservatives were coming for quote interracial marriage. She based her claim based off of the use of starry decesis, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, which is basically the court's precedent.

I made the argument that Alito's decision had very little to do with starry diseases and more to do with the separation of Roe versus Wade and by nature Casey from the 14th Amendment and the protections it ensues. I argued that loving is clearly protected under the 14th Amendment and that Alito's separation of Roe and Casey from loving and by making a distinction between Roe and loving

that Lido actually affirms Loving's protection under the 14th Amendment while stripping Roe and Casey's protections of the 14th. Do you agree with my analysis of the Dobbs decision? And am I understanding the ruling correctly? Love the show. Thanks. Great question. I agree with your top line analysis that no, the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade does not imperil Loving v. Virginia, you know, the ruling that brought us

a constitutional right to interracial marriage. There is no threat to interracial marriage anywhere in the United States. One bit of evidence for this is that one of the great Supreme Court justices who brought us the Dobbs decision is himself in an interracial marriage. That would be Clarence Thomas. So that's totally ridiculous. The reason, though, the reason for the question about that

doesn't really rest on story decisis, story decisis, which is respect for court precedent. It rests more on a questioning of substantive due process, substantive due process, which does play a role in the loving decision. But substantive due process is something that is rejected by Clarence Thomas and Samuelito and questioned by guys like Antonin Scalia. Substantive due process, we would say, is a contradiction in terms.

Because due process refers to a process that people have. You commit a crime, you're arrested, you're brought up on charges, you face a trial, maybe you're convicted by a jury of your peers. That's a process. Substantive due process says that there is substance. Substantive matters that can basically take the place of due process. And you can be found to have a violation of your due process because of substantive claims and that I'm giving a poorly articulated and overly simplistic view of it. That's basically what it is.

So substantive due process is pretty much ridiculous. And so if the Dobbs decision were to say substantive due process is totally out, it's a bunch of bonk, it's total nonsense, then that could raise questions about all sorts of court cases. But the bottom line of it is the reason the Dobbs decision, the other reason the Dobbs decision does not in any way imperil interracial marriage is one, the justices say that in the opinion that this does not imperil loving. But also there's just no appetite.

Nobody wants to abolish interracial marriage or outlaw interracial marriage or do anything to interracial marriage. Nobody wants that. Half the country wanted to stop the killing of little babies. So that's just as a practical prudential reason. There is no political appetite. If there's a political appetite for anything, there is a chance that that thing could come to pass and be brought into being in a self-governing republic such as ours. But there is no appetite for that.

and the Dopp's decision explicitly does not imperil that, so it's a bunch of nonsense. But it's not just nonsense because of story decisis. There is this question about substantive due process, which we should continue to pursue as being mostly ridiculous because the libs have rammed a lot of nonsense through using substantive due process. Next question.

Hey my, a lot of conservatives are celebrating a lot of things right now. And one of the things they're celebrating is people like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk with their huge followings coming into the fold and endorsing Trump, which is a really big deal. But my fear is that since these people are not ideological conservatives and they're just sort of calling the shots as they see them, they might likely just go right back to supporting Democrats in 2028.

Let's say that the Democrats, for example, learn something and they put forward someone that's more moderate in 2028, like Andrew Yang or something. Do you really think that Joe Rogan would vote for, say, JD Vance over Andrew Yang? What are your thoughts?

Yeah, maybe he would. First of all, I don't consider Andrew Yang to be moderate at all. I think Andrew Yang is pretty radical. He's calling for a universal basic income and demanding that we create wages and tax forms for people having a wife. He seems like a really nice guy, but politically, he seems quite radical to me.

As for Joe Rogan, though, yeah, I guess he could support Andrew Yang or someone like him in 2028, but I don't know. It's not as though politics is static, that this time he endorsed this guy, next time he'll endorse the opposite guy. It's, you know, we're creatures of habit. So the more that Joe Rogan has brought into the Trump world and the conservative fold,

I think the more likely he is to support those kinds of candidates in the future. What happens if next time Bobby Kennedy endorses the Democrat? I don't know. We'll deal with that then. I'm not going to give up the win today because of some hypothetical loss we might have in the future. I don't think that's how politics works. I don't think you win by losing. I think you win by winning. There are people who legitimately think you win by losing that to lose an election is good because it will force us to recalibrate

ensure the libs will pack the court and destroy our system of government in the meantime. But don't worry, next time we'll have a really great candidate that is beloved by, you know, 60 year old conservative desiccated institutions. I don't buy that for one second. I think we win by winning. I think we are winning right now. And we just need to take the people who have taken the first little step. They put their feet into the shallow end of conservatism. We need to lead them.

with charity and grace into the deeper end of the pool. We don't wanna repel them. We don't wanna create obstacles to them deepening their conservatism. We wanna pull them in and encourage them because politics often comes down to the distinction between friend and enemy. We wanna be their friends and people tend to become more like their friends. Next question.

Hi Michael, I have a faith question for you. I was baptized in a non-denominational Protestant church in 2019 and then my husband was baptized shortly after in 2020. We've really grown in our faith and I personally feel like my faith journey is leading me towards the Catholic church just because I am on fire for Christ. My husband seems to be too, but he has his reservations about

the Catholic Church. I've tried to speak with him about things that I've learned and he seems very resistant. I don't want to go against my husband because he is the leader of our family. However, I really do feel like I want to have my children baptized. I feel this calling very strongly.

How do I convince my husband or how can I speak to my husband to help him understand my point of view and to get him on board to lead us as our family to the Catholic Church? I really appreciate your advice. Thank you.

really good question and phrased really, really well. Because you're saying, look, I respect my husband as the head of the household and I don't want to be in opposition to him in any way, all of which is very, very good. Now there is a reminder here as pertains to your own conversion. It reminds me of St. Thomas Moore describing Henry VIII, who as St. Thomas Moore is about to be executed because he won't give up his faith. He says, I die the king's loyal subject, but God's first.

And so you might say the same thing about your husband. You say, look, I am my husband's loyal subject, but God's first. So I wouldn't allow that to impede your conversion and your practicing the Catholic faith. And you might then just take the opportunity to answer some of your husband's objections to Catholicism. I forget if it was Ronald Knox or Fulton Sheen or John Henry Newman, I confuse often the great quotables of Catholicism, but they say there are not

100 people in the country who seriously oppose the Catholic faith. There are a million people who oppose what they mistakenly believe to be the Catholic faith, but it's usually a lot of fake news. There's a good podcast, if you're so inclined, that I just listened to on the Thomistic Institute on the differences, the similarities and differences between Martin Luther's view of justification and grace and St. Thomas Aquinas's view, the Catholic view, which is really good. That sort of thing might help bring him in.

St. John Henry Newman said, 10,000 questions don't make one doubt. It's very good to have questions about the faith. I still have many questions, but doesn't make one doubt. So I would do that. I think it's important for your kids to be baptized, let the little children come to me. But one way that you might express this to your husband, who maybe doesn't support infant baptism.

is to point out that given some of his Protestant priors, actually infant baptism is a great thing to do. And again, I'm just guessing, but if your husband's opposition to Catholicism is that he mistakenly believes Catholicism to be a workspace to salvation or anything like that, then you might point out that infant baptism actually acknowledges God's sovereignty, that infant baptism is not only scriptural. You see it take place in the book of Acts.

And I think you hear our Lord encourage it in the Gospels, but actually it takes the

individual will of earning salvation totally out of the question because infant baptism in particular recognizes that the gift of salvation is coming from God gratuitously. It is a matter of His grace. It is not the sort of thing we earn with our will. Little babies can't earn anything with their own will. So in a way, you could say, look, it's putting all of the focus on God. It's proving that this grace is not earned, that it is truly gracious.

And honey, it would really make me feel better and hear all the reasons. And if I think it really matters and you think it really doesn't matter at all, then would you mind just giving it to me, since it's something that really matters to me and doesn't matter to you? Those would be some ways I would phrase it. And then through that conversation, assuming it's done in love, you can both really grow in faith. And I think I'll swim the tiger. Next question.

Hello Michael and thank you for taking my question. I'm 23 and I've been dating my girlfriend for almost five years. I would like to propose to her and get married, but there's a problem. Both of us are 23 in college, broke, and we're living with my parents.

I myself am not even working because I've been trying to find a job but no one wants to hire me because of my school schedule. Right now it doesn't seem like it would make sense for us to get married financially but I would like to make this next step.

I could propose to her and us just stay engaged for a while, but I wouldn't really care for that. I was hoping you could give me some advice on how I could navigate this situation, whether it be proposed and then just stay engaged for a while, or just wait until we are both financially stable. Thank you. Good question. You don't need to wait until you're both financially stable. You don't need to wait until you can afford a Maserati or something like that. But I would recommend not becoming the formal head of a household.

until you can have a household.

You know, until you have some form of employment, I'm not even saying until you're out of debt. I'm not even saying until you're out of college. I'm not saying necessarily any of that. But I would recommend making sure that you've got some sure footing because the role of a husband is not just a personal relationship to a wife. The role of a husband is really an office that comes with a lot of responsibilities. So if you're going to assume that office, you need to make sure that you can carry out the duties of that office.

at the very least at the minimum level. So what I would do if I were in your case, you find this girl, you really like her, she's the one, is I would propose, lock it down, maybe you're engaged for a year or something like that, that's not too long, you're finishing up school, and then I would make sure that you have a job and you have at least a path toward some kind of independence, household independence.

make sure that you've got that all locked down. That will also greatly reduce the stress in your early marriage, and it will give you greater authority and credibility as the head of your household. So that's what I would do. And it means you've got to delay that fun thing, you know, that Mary Govels do. But that's okay, a little patience. Patience can be sanctifying and edifying. It's fake headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member who used code NOLS, Canada BOLS. Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

Ahhhhhhh!