The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2006 - WORST Ruling Ever： The Supreme Court Betrays America

00:00:00.000 Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone.

00:00:05.540 You're relaxing in an old hammock, scrolling Wayfair's app, when you spot it, a brand new patio set.

00:00:10.580 Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up.

00:00:14.520 Oh, you need a new grill too? Alright, Wayfair's got you covered.

00:00:18.120 With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and fast experts set up on qualifying orders,

00:00:22.300 life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app.

00:00:26.580 Wayfair, every style, every home.

00:00:28.580 July is National Grilling Month, and there's no better time to stock up on America's best meat from Good Ranchers.

00:00:34.060 They source 100% of their meat from American farms and ranches and deliver it straight to your door, making summer grilling easier than ever.

00:00:39.840 Good Ranchers makes it simple to stock the kitchen with quality American-raised meat, while also supporting the farmers and ranchers keeping American agriculture alive.

00:00:46.960 Visit GoodRanchers.com to get $50 off your order when you use the code DAILYWIRE.

00:00:51.060 That's code DAILYWIRE for $50 off, but you can also get free meat with every order on top of the $50 off if you decide to start a plan today.

00:00:58.580 Good Ranchers dot com. American meat delivered. Four ladies and John Roberts sell out our country

00:01:04.300 in the Supreme Court's worst case scenario ruling on birthright citizenship. Really hate to say I

00:01:10.200 told you so on this one. It could not have gone worse. As of today, if your family settled in

00:01:15.780 Jamestown in 1607, you are an invader with no claim to this stolen land. And if your Chinese 1.00

00:01:23.980 mom pops you out in Guam tomorrow, America is your birthright. Make it make sense. Then, 1.00

00:01:30.540 the libertarians in New Hampshire make Mussolini look like a hippie, and a new species of psychedelic

00:01:35.860 mushrooms makes people see little gnomes everywhere, and scientists have no idea why.

00:01:41.400 I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.

00:01:53.980 Welcome back to the show. Can I get some of the gnome mushrooms?

00:02:05.560 Does anybody, Professor, do you have any gnome mushrooms to make this immigration decision go

00:02:10.500 down easier? I actually don't know that it even makes you happier. It probably just has you

00:02:14.580 interact with demons. Really awful decision. I told you when everyone started to get optimistic

00:02:21.180 about the Supreme Court rulings. They said, oh, look, they ruled this way on the Haitians. Oh,

00:02:26.760 look, they ruled this. I said, they're giving Trump little tiny wins, but they're going to

00:02:30.440 clobber him on the one that actually matters. That's exactly what happened. Then we will also

00:02:34.840 get to the vice president. Fresh on the heels of our interview with the vice president, we'll get

00:02:38.820 to the vice president dismantling Bill Maher on immigration. There's a lot to learn, just

00:02:43.840 rhetorically, from how we should talk about these issues. First, though, smash that like button,

00:02:47.820 Subscribe. Check us out on Spotify where you can download full episode audio and video

00:02:51.880 to watch or listen whenever you want without using your data. Do not miss

00:02:55.660 an episode. The decision's brutal. It came out yesterday. It was a 5-4 decision. You are seeing

00:03:03.120 this reported in some places as a 6-3 decision on the question of birthright citizenship. You

00:03:08.860 recall that President Trump had an executive order that was overruling birthright citizenship.

00:03:15.240 birthright citizenship, which had never really been definitively decided by the Supreme Court.

00:03:19.960 Its precedent goes back to 1898, the Wong Kim Ark case, to determine this line from the 14th

00:03:26.600 Amendment as to who is a citizen in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was only

00:03:32.400 ratified to deal with the issue of the freed slaves, it was not ratified in order to give

00:03:37.980 Guatemalan drug dealers or Chinese spies the ability to go on birth tourism to California.

00:03:43.900 So the Supreme Court had never really ruled on it, and President Trump provoked the Supreme Court with his executive order saying the 14th Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to Venezuelan gangsters or Chinese spies or anyone else who abuses our system to radically change our demography, to radically change our political community.

00:04:05.300 The case was Trump v. Barbara.

00:04:07.720 It was not a 6-3 decision.

00:04:09.820 The reason that some people are reporting that is they want to make it seem even more legitimate.

00:04:14.220 They want to give it more of this patina of authority.

00:04:17.180 But the reason they're able to do that is because you have a 5-4 decision on the constitutional question.

00:04:25.460 And then Kavanaugh comes in and he says, okay, I'm going to join the majority of the court here,

00:04:30.120 which is the liberals plus Barrett. Sorry, yeah, with Barrett and Roberts. But I'm not going to do

00:04:36.360 it on constitutional grounds. I'm going to do it on statutory grounds. So what Kavanaugh says is,

00:04:40.480 I think that Trump's executive order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. But I'm not going

00:04:46.380 so far as to say that the 14th Amendment says that Guatemalan drug dealers can have anchor babies 0.96

00:04:52.680 in the United States so that you then get chain migration so you totally change the makeup of the

00:04:56.320 country. The liberal justices, all of them, all of whom are women, plus Amy Barrett, who is 0.89

00:05:04.020 apparently kind of a liberal justice, plus John Roberts, who is the chief justice. He tries to

00:05:10.160 preserve the integrity of the court by acting in a really political, slippery way, which ironically

00:05:15.880 only undermines the credibility of the court. They ruled to sell our country down the river,

00:05:21.140 basically. It was all the women plus John Roberts. They ruled to sell the country down the river. 1.00

00:05:25.020 this is the worst case scenario. Because what they could have given us, I told you, I did not think

00:05:30.620 they were going to rule that birthright citizenship was not implied in the 14th Amendment.

00:05:36.220 What they could have given us was a narrow ruling on the merits of the case, on the executive order,

00:05:41.680 while punting the question to Congress. That is to say, Congress, do your job and give a statutory

00:05:48.280 remedy here to clarify what exactly is meant by birthright citizenship. They didn't do that.

00:05:53.000 They said the 14th Amendment demands birth tourism from Chinese spies.

00:05:59.440 Couldn't go worse. 0.90

00:06:01.480 So Congress can't change it.

00:06:03.040 Some people are saying, well, now we can have a constitutional amendment.

00:06:06.820 Good luck.

00:06:07.380 You're not going to get a constitutional amendment.

00:06:09.540 Throughout the history of our country, for most of it, it was pretty tough to get constitutional

00:06:12.940 amendments.

00:06:13.900 Antonin Scalia, when I met him as an undergraduate, one of my friends asked, would you change

00:06:19.240 anything about the Constitution?

00:06:20.600 He said, I would make it easier to amend.

00:06:23.640 You're not going to get it. In our very polarized country, not going to happen. You could call a

00:06:28.020 convention of states, not going to happen. So no, it's totally off the table. The argument,

00:06:33.640 I want to be as fair as I can to the women and the chief justice who destroyed our country yesterday. 0.98

00:06:39.260 The argument that they're making is that the 14th amendment does presume birthright citizenship, 0.99

00:06:44.660 which in a way kind of predates the 14th amendment in the U.S. because we take from the English

00:06:49.800 common law, this notion of use solely. There's use solely, the right of the soil, and use sanguinis,

00:06:56.640 the right of blood. And we, in the Anglo tradition, from the English common law, we go with the right

00:07:02.840 of the soil. If you're born on our soil, you're a citizen. But there's an irony to it, which is that

00:07:08.560 England, the UK, doesn't even believe that anymore. And it's because of an unjust conflation

00:07:15.340 of two concepts, subject and citizen. When the English gave us, bequeathed to us, this notion

00:07:22.640 of the use solely, they didn't really have citizens in anything like the modern sense.

00:07:27.200 They had subjects. So if you're born on English soil, you are English in a certain sense. But

00:07:33.160 frankly, that entails more responsibilities to the king than it entails any rights in our

00:07:38.880 modern nation state system. After World War II, as the UK began to adopt the idea of citizenship

00:07:46.920 more than the idea of subject, what happened? In the 1980s, the UK clarified and said,

00:07:52.460 we do not have birthright citizenship anymore. As you had migration that was really beginning

00:07:57.580 to tick up from around the world, they said, hey, we got to clarify, you can't just show up here

00:08:01.880 and because of the magic dirt, become an Englishman. That's not going to happen.

00:08:04.920 So even when you look to the UK, one, they changed their mind on the idea of birthright

00:08:09.940 citizenship on the right of the soil. But two, the source from which we get it never really

00:08:15.780 meant the same thing as citizenship. To have a birthright in the 19th century England or 18th

00:08:23.400 century England was very, very different than the kind of privileges that are entailed by

00:08:28.860 birthright citizenship in 2026 America. So enough of the majority for now. The dissents were

00:08:35.360 scorching. Clarence Thomas, who's usually a man of few words, he gives this blistering, very,

00:08:40.100 very lengthy opinion, or dissent rather, shows that the majority of the court had misread history

00:08:45.840 and precedent. It was great in the sense that we hope that one day in the not too distant future,

00:08:53.960 after you get new judges with new clerks and new students and a new generation of legal minds.

00:09:00.400 Hopefully, they will overturn this horrible decision. For now, though, the libs are thrilled.

00:09:05.120 So we have a perfectly typical tweet from Yasamin Ansari. Yasamin Ansari, who's a congress lady,

00:09:13.580 she says, if you're born in America, you're an American. Take that, conservatives. Take that,

00:09:24.920 people with a stable American identity. Yasamin Ansari, who I think is the, I think she's the

00:09:30.820 child of immigrants. Yasamin Ansari, if you're born in America, you're an American. Thank you

00:09:36.340 so much for your opinion, Yasamin Ansari. I really appreciate your opinion, Yasamin Ansari.

00:09:42.780 How convenient for you that this new definition of what it is to be an American includes you, a relatively recent arrival who has given nothing to the country whatsoever. 0.92

00:09:55.840 You, Yasemin Ansari, now say that that's all that matters. 0.69

00:10:00.140 You have this Guatemalan lady who's also in Congress, Representative Delia Ramirez.

00:10:07.140 And this is almost more offensive.

00:10:08.780 She says, I am the proud daughter of Guatemalan immigrants. I am a proud anchor baby. All caps. And I am an American. Thank you. Thank you so much for your opinion, ladies.

00:10:23.160 So the way the left is going to spin this is they're going to say, well, this is how the American law has always been.

00:10:29.280 The Supreme Court is just affirming the American law, the precedent that goes back not just to the Wong Kim Ark case, but to the 14th Amendment.

00:10:37.020 And really, it's even deeper rooted in American history, to which we would have to say, oh, yeah, then why was it a 5-4 decision?

00:10:44.860 Why did the Supreme Court have to take on this question in a definitive way in the year of our

00:10:50.880 Lord, 2026, 250 years on into our country? If it was so clear from American history,

00:10:57.880 why was it one vote? Amy Barrett, really, who we're so furious out here. We expect little of

00:11:04.600 John Roberts. Ben, actually. We sometimes make fun of Ben when he makes bad political predictions,

00:11:10.020 but Ben made one very good political prediction about John Roberts 20 years ago, whenever he was

00:11:15.340 confirmed. We never expect Roberts to go with us, but I thought Amy Barrett was supposed to be the

00:11:20.000 based Catholic pro-life student of Antonin Scalia. Well, the hardcore Scaliaites, originalists and

00:11:27.020 textualists on the court, Alito and Thomas, they were obviously in the dissent. Amy Barrett

00:11:33.880 totally betrayed us on a crucial issue. A crucial issue. Possibly the most significant case that the 0.97

00:11:41.320 Supreme Court has dealt with in decades. You want to say that the most important case was the Dobbs

00:11:47.800 decision. It was very, very important. But we have to put a little asterisk on the Dobbs decision

00:11:53.640 because after the Dobbs decision, you didn't outlaw abortion. It just went back to the states

00:11:58.440 and it got worse in some states. After the Dobbs decision, the number of abortions actually went 0.96

00:12:02.820 up. That's not because of the Dobbs decision, it's because of the technology of the abortion

00:12:06.420 pill. But just to say the practical effect of Dobbs was basically non-existent. We hope it will

00:12:11.800 have more of a practical effect in the future. The practical effect of this will be to incentivize

00:12:16.980 birth tourism. All those Chinese ladies working for the CCP, all the either explicit enemies of 1.00

00:12:26.700 the United States or just people who are cynically trying to exploit our country as a tax base and 1.00

00:12:31.800 welfare base. They are gearing up to have their kids. There's nothing you can do about it. They

00:12:36.880 will get all of the privileges of American citizenship. They will then use chain migration 0.99

00:12:40.980 to bring all of their family over, and they will radically change the demography 0.97

00:12:44.640 because Amy Barrett betrayed us. So that now you have these ladies, not exactly names out 1.00

00:12:51.900 of Jamestown, Yasemin Ansari and Dalia Ramirez, proud anchor baby, telling us,

00:13:00.100 telling us what it is to be an American using definitions that the men of the Mayflower,

00:13:06.300 the founding fathers, the 19th century statesmen, the 20th century statesmen would not recognize

00:13:12.300 at all, wouldn't recognize this country. So one little silver lining to all of this,

00:13:18.020 before we get into Justice Jackson's absurd opinion that tells us that a country with a

00:13:26.000 lukewarm IQ is not going to survive very long. Before we get into all of that, there's a little

00:13:30.920 glimmer of silver lining, which is that I might become a libertarian again, thanks to the

00:13:35.580 Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. Before we get to that, I want to tell you about Ave Maria

00:13:40.180 Mutual Funds. Go to avemariafunds.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Let's talk about

00:13:47.220 compartmentalization for a minute. People are encouraged to have one set of values on Sunday,

00:13:53.080 than a totally different set of values at work. Who knows? Maybe a different set of values on the

00:13:58.280 golf course. You shouldn't do that. You can have another set of values when you vote. You can have

00:14:03.020 another set of values when you this, that, the other thing. No. Somehow, when it comes to investing,

00:14:07.100 they're often told that their values should not matter at all. I have never found that argument

00:14:11.700 to be very persuasive. Not since my libertarian youth have I entertained that. If your convictions

00:14:17.660 shape every other important decision in your life, why would they suddenly disappear when you're

00:14:21.520 deciding where to invest your money. That's a very significant thing that you do in your life.

00:14:26.760 That is one of many reasons that I'm very proud to serve on the board of Ave Maria Mutual Funds.

00:14:31.100 It's a great fund. It was founded in 2001. They've helped investors align their investments

00:14:35.820 with their beliefs. Today, they manage nearly $4 billion in assets for more than 100,000

00:14:40.620 shareholders. The philosophy is really simple, straightforward. They refuse to invest in

00:14:44.320 companies involved in abortion, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, or companies

00:14:47.740 supporting Planned Parenthood. Learn more at AveMariaFunds.com slash Michael. That is AveMariaFunds.com

00:14:53.320 slash Michael. All mutual funds are subject to market risk, including possible loss of principal.

00:14:56.940 Request a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, fees, charges, and expenses,

00:15:00.340 and other information you should read carefully and consider carefully before investing. The

00:15:03.640 prospectus can be obtained by calling 1-866-283-6274, or it can be viewed at AveMariaFunds.com.

00:15:09.160 Ave Maria Mutual Funds are distributed by Ultimus Fund Distributors, LLC.

00:15:12.140 see. I was a libertarian when I was a teenager, okay? I say, this is the right-wing version of

00:15:17.800 that old idiom. If you're not a libertarian by the time you're 17, you have no thumos. You have

00:15:24.180 no chest or spirit. If you're not a traditional conservative by the time you're 25, you have no

00:15:29.220 brain. You have no heart. I've got to workshop the phrase. In any case, I haven't been this 0.97

00:15:35.700 attracted to libertarianism in a long, long time. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire responds

00:15:41.000 to the birthright citizenship cases. Well, if we can't end birthright citizenship,

00:15:45.320 we'll just have to end democracy instead. Whew. Did you just get, whew, did I get a thrill up 0.97

00:15:51.640 my leg? Hold on. Don't threaten me with an orderly society. Whoa. Hold on. Let's not forget

00:15:57.900 the word democracy appears a handful of times in the Federalist Papers, always in the negative,

00:16:02.560 always with a warning. Our framers, not the most pro-democracy people, despite what you might have

00:16:09.480 heard in the 20th century. Ooh, wow. I feel like I'm 16 again, feeling so good about the

00:16:15.420 Libertarian Party. Apparently, though, they're kind of an offshoot of the actual Libertarian

00:16:18.940 Party, so maybe not. We're not going to end democracy. The left might the next time they

00:16:24.580 come to power, and I'm not going to become a Libertarian. However, our sacred democracy,

00:16:31.000 as it were, might end all on its own, especially if Justice Ketanji Jackson's writing is any

00:16:39.440 indication. Here's what the newest member of the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Jackson,

00:16:45.760 wrote in her concurring opinion. She says, in the aftermath of the Civil War, those who championed

00:16:53.720 the 14th Amendment, both within and beyond Congress, understood the assignment. Their work

00:17:01.480 product used language that transcended race and region, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I won't go

00:17:06.400 further. That's the line. Those three words are really going viral now. The, those who champion

00:17:12.080 the 14th amendment understood the assignment. We're totally cooked. We're cooked. Just pack it

00:17:18.080 up. If you have, you know, the billionaires are building all those bunkers and go befriend a

00:17:22.460 billionaire, go take weapons and gold and ukuleles, whatever you're going to want. Just go Mayflower

00:17:28.220 cigars, go to the bunker. We're not going to, we're not going to make it. We're cooked. It's

00:17:33.020 over. It's over. This is what Supreme Court justices are writing now. This is maybe what

00:17:38.860 you would expect of a remedial seventh grader. If I were a seventh grade English teacher or social

00:17:45.460 studies teacher, history teacher, and I got this paper from a remedial seventh grader, I would say,

00:17:52.920 oh, you know, hey, Ketanji, good try. Hey, that's fun. Even with great inflation, you get a B minus

00:18:01.840 because you have to write like a big boy, like a big girl. You got to write and you're not, 0.85

00:18:10.060 this is pathetic. And I know I haven't seen anyone make this rejoinder yet to all of us 0.98

00:18:15.600 making fun of Ketanji Jackson's illiteracy, which shouldn't surprise us. This is a woman who 0.68

00:18:20.120 during her confirmation hearings could not say what a woman is. This, that's the same woman.

00:18:24.960 You remember that during the confirmation hearings, Marsha Blackburn says, uh, judge

00:18:28.680 Jackson, what is a woman? She says, I'm not a biologist. It was almost like a Tucker laugh

00:18:35.920 from Ketanji Jackson. There's a woman with two Harvard degrees. Ketanji Jackson, the condescension, 1.00

00:18:41.260 not just the ignorance, not just the stupidity, the condescension. I'm not a biologist. 1.00

00:18:47.200 How am I supposed to know what a woman is? She, a woman who wishes to be, who wishes to 1.00

00:18:55.660 pretend to have such judgment that she would be on the Supreme Court, the highest level of the

00:19:01.840 judiciary, which is supposed to have judgment. Should not surprise us at all. But I can foresee

00:19:09.520 coming down the pike a rejoinder to us making fun of Ketanji Jackson's illiteracy. And the rejoinder 0.96

00:19:16.080 is going to be, well, you people, you're betraying your own illiteracy, your own ignorance. Because 0.99

00:19:20.780 if you have ever read dissents from conservatives, especially Antonin Scalia, you would know that 0.97

00:19:27.740 they use silly, wacky language all the time. So why is it okay when Scalia does it? It's not okay

00:19:34.840 when Ketanji Jackson does it. And it's fair enough to point out, Scalia in his dissents will use

00:19:40.720 phrases like jiggery-pokery. That was one, I forget which case that was from, but he used the

00:19:46.560 phrase jiggery-pokery. In another dissent, he referred to pure applesauce, not as literal

00:19:52.860 applesauce, but meaning nonsense. In the Obergefell decision about the supposed right to intimacy,

00:19:59.400 he mocked the idea that marriage would expand a right to intimacy, which doesn't exist anyway in

00:20:03.900 the Constitution, and he used the phrase ask the nearest hippie. It's true. He would use funny 1.00

00:20:08.860 language. He explained the reason he did that was to make his dissents funny, interesting,

00:20:13.620 entertaining so that law students would actually read them so that he could infect their minds with

00:20:19.220 his better jurisprudence so that when they became clerks and judges themselves, they would carry on

00:20:23.960 his way of legal thinking. So he was very intentional about it. But notice the difference

00:20:28.200 between what Scalia did and what Ketanji did. Scalia used uncommon language. In fact,

00:20:35.740 part of the reason it jars you, part of the reason it's memorable is you don't hear these

00:20:38.740 phrases all the time. Jiggery-pokery doesn't come up in ordinary conversation. We don't refer to

00:20:43.600 nonsense and piffle as, yeah, I think he might use the word piffle too, but we don't hear it

00:20:49.120 referred to as applesauce. It's for ask the nearest hippie. He used uncommon language to

00:20:54.480 shake us out of the common language, the common language which George Orwell reminds us is made

00:20:58.660 up of dead metaphors. Because those metaphors are not evocative, it opens up our minds to just have

00:21:04.520 someone else's thinking enter it. Someone else who constructed those dead metaphors, those cliches,

00:21:10.760 Those people are doing our thinking for us.

00:21:12.940 We outsource our thinking to them.

00:21:15.240 And that is what Ketanji does.

00:21:16.840 By using a phrase that is bland, that really has been popularized on TikTok,

00:21:23.960 to say understood the assignment, that's not evocative at all.

00:21:27.060 What it shows you is she doesn't really think for herself.

00:21:30.100 She outsources her thinking to the spirit of the moment, to fads and popular culture.

00:21:35.860 so much so that probably 20 years ago, she could have told you what a woman was, but because 0.60

00:21:41.000 of the fashion, the fad of transgenderism, she couldn't. She outsources her thinking,

00:21:45.920 she plugs her brainstem in to the matrix of the zeitgeist, and she just lets the spirit of the

00:21:51.660 age come on in. It's actually what she is doing here with this kind of language

00:21:56.680 is the exact opposite of what Scalia was doing. Because Scalia actually could think and wanted

00:22:03.340 you to think, wanted you to think about the law in a new way. And Ketanji Jackson cannot.

00:22:08.800 Totally pathetic. Pathetic that our court told us yesterday that we're not allowed to have a 0.99

00:22:14.580 country. It's basically what they told us. Pathetic that a supposedly self-governing republic 0.99

00:22:19.900 now has no right. The Supreme Court took, once again, from the Congress, our elected representatives, 0.98

00:22:25.220 we have no right even to begin to weigh in on the matter of who gets to come in and milk the system

00:22:31.100 and take all the same political rights that we have. Pathetic that even conservatives are pointing 0.89

00:22:36.520 out that we don't have, they're making liberal arguments in some cases. They're saying, no, 0.98

00:22:41.820 we can't have tiers of citizenship, gradations of citizenship. First of all, yes, of course we can.

00:22:47.660 Of course we can. That goes back to the constitution. The fact that the U.S. president

00:22:51.780 has to be a natural born citizen tells you that, well, naturalized citizens and natural born

00:22:56.540 citizens are all citizens. Some have different privileges than others, namely running for

00:23:02.640 president. The fact that you have to be 35 to run for president, 30 to run for the Senate, 25 to run

00:23:06.540 for Congress tells you there are gradations of privileges even among citizens. And we all know

00:23:12.240 that an anchor baby, I'll use the case of Hassan Piker, the left-wing streamer who should be in

00:23:18.660 prison. He was an anchor baby. His parents, his mother had him here and then he was raised in

00:23:23.420 Turkey. He just goes to Turkey and he's raised in Turkey. Then he comes back here to milk the

00:23:27.020 system for college. He hates the country. He doesn't really know anything seriously about

00:23:31.140 the country. He only wishes ill on the country. He calls to murder multiple U.S. senators. He

00:23:35.880 calls for the streets to run red in our blood. And he says that America deserved 9-11. But that

00:23:40.720 guy, you're telling me that guy is exactly as American as someone whose family came here on

00:23:44.740 the Mayflower or settled at Jamestown or even who's been here for three or four generations

00:23:49.120 from legal immigrants? Of course not. No one seriously believes that. 0.97

00:23:53.420 Do the liberals on the court even believe that? No, they're just declaring power for themselves.

00:23:59.800 And it looks like for now it has worked. Okay. So they want to feed us a little bit of a win.

00:24:04.520 There was one little win that came out of the Supreme Court yesterday. We'll get to that.

00:24:07.240 Then we'll get to the mushrooms that make you see gnomes. And scientists can't even figure out

00:24:11.140 what the drug is in the mushrooms. It's kind of weird. And listen, it's been a rough week. There

00:24:16.100 have been some really great things, obviously. Got to interview the vice president. The White

00:24:20.280 house put up a statue of my great, great, great, great, great grandpa. We had a cool ribbon cutting

00:24:25.120 yesterday with a couple of cabinet secretaries. And I'll tell more about that. We'll try to get

00:24:29.700 some video of that up too. But you know, the Supreme Court sold out our country. The Yankees

00:24:34.960 can't figure out how to hit or catch a baseball. You know, I don't know. It's getting a little bit

00:24:38.840 rough and maybe I want the magic mushrooms. Before I resort to that, I want to tell you about Catholic 0.99

00:24:43.260 match. Go to catholicmatch.com. One of the most common questions that we all get from the young

00:24:50.780 people in our lives, and especially I'm noticing from young Catholics who want to get married,

00:24:55.380 have 15 or 16 kids, have a small Catholic family. They'll say, how do I actually meet someone?

00:25:01.620 Not theoretically, not someday, actually in real life right now. Because if you're serious about

00:25:06.200 marriage, there comes a point where you have to stop merely hoping you'll bump into your future

00:25:10.320 spouse in the grocery store. And in our modern culture, you either get weird hookup culture or

00:25:17.660 you get endless texting or you, I don't know, I don't know what you do. You just keep swiping

00:25:23.940 right on the apps that are not going to align with your values and what you really want.

00:25:27.420 That is one reason the Catholic Match is so great. It's the largest Catholic dating platform in the

00:25:30.840 world built by Catholics for Catholics, not a secular dating app where you have to spend the

00:25:35.140 first three conversations figuring out whether the other person even shares your faith, whether

00:25:39.300 the other person, like Etonji Jackson, even knows what a woman is. Here, you're on the team, all

00:25:43.380 right? You guys are aligned, and you can get into what really matters. You know, your view of

00:25:48.280 marriage, your view of the important things, all the way down to liturgical preference.

00:25:52.140 Maybe you're a Latin mass person. I don't know. Then you found a real winner right there.

00:25:55.540 To get you off the app and sitting across the table from that real person right now,

00:25:59.560 you need to go to catholicmatch.com. It's free to download on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

00:26:03.460 Go to catholicmatch.com to get started. So the good news out of the Supreme Court,

00:26:08.220 We don't want to doom and gloom too much. There was one win, and it was a cultural win for

00:26:13.620 normal people. Little Vehicox and West Virginia versus BPJ. Not BJP, not the Hindu Nationalist

00:26:22.480 Party in India, but BPJ. 6-3 decision that said that states can, in fact, ban men from women's

00:26:32.760 sports. That's a win. That's a win, and we need to recognize that that is a win. Also, 1.00

00:26:42.420 man, that's a win. That's a win. That's where we're at. That's where we're at

00:26:47.780 that we celebrate when the Supreme Court says that states can, but don't necessarily have to, 1.00

00:26:56.280 keep hulking dudes out of women's sports leagues, that they at least kind of sometimes have the

00:27:03.740 right to maybe do that. You just think, man, imagine, imagine going back in a time machine, 0.83

00:27:11.160 not to 1835, not to 1794, but to like 2008. Imagine you get in your 21st century time

00:27:25.420 machine and go back to 2008 and you say, hey, hey, conservatives, I know it looks bad with Obama

00:27:30.600 around the corner and, you know, you probably, the Iraq war is not looking great and the financial

00:27:33.800 prices, but don't worry. We're about to score a major win, a major generational win at the Supreme

00:27:40.060 Court because the court is going to say that states sometimes can keep men out of girls' sports

00:27:48.480 teams. Your little daughter doesn't always have to change in the locker room next to a big husky 0.99

00:27:54.140 Hank. Huge win, guys, bro. Isn't that awesome? They would look at you like you have five heads

00:28:01.220 and say, what? Yeah, I should hope that men are not going into the girls' sports rooms. 1.00

00:28:07.760 And with the modern guy, would tell the 2008 guys, he'd say, well, no, no, no. Sometimes they 0.72

00:28:12.460 can. It's just that sometimes maybe the states can sort of sometimes stop it. Isn't that a great win?

00:28:17.700 That's pretty sad. What is the substance of the ruling? It's kind of an ironic ruling

00:28:22.060 because Justice Gorsuch, who's another conservative who flipped on us on a crucial case,

00:28:27.940 Justice Gorsuch previously in the Bostock decision said that Title VII, these are all Civil Rights Act

00:28:34.560 provisions, in Title VII, when it comes to employment, the meaning of sex includes gender.

00:28:45.180 So you'd say, like, if you have a protection on the basis of sex, you would say that therefore

00:28:49.820 you do not have a protection on the basis of gender identity. The reason being that a protection 0.91

00:28:55.700 on the basis of sex, if you make a claim based on gender identity, can undermine the protection on

00:29:02.460 the basis of sex. Because in the gender identity, you're claiming to be the opposite sex. So you're 0.65

00:29:08.060 claiming rights and privileges that pertain to the sex, rights and privileges that you do not have 1.00

00:29:12.980 as a member of the opposite sex. I'm oversimplifying it a little bit, but it's really 0.99

00:29:17.240 weird that Justice Gorsuch would go tranny on the Bostock decision, but remain sensible on the 0.88

00:29:23.020 Title IX decision. Now, he makes the argument that it's totally harmonized. In fact, he makes 0.75

00:29:30.980 the argument in this decision. He says, no, no, you're misunderstanding it, because any decision

00:29:35.920 on the basis of gender identity, therefore, involves sex. In other words, if it's okay for

00:29:40.380 a woman to wear a dress, but it's not okay for a man to wear a dress, in one sense, you could say

00:29:44.380 it's a decision based on gender identity. But on the other, it is ultimately a decision on the

00:29:49.540 basis of sex because one's a woman, one's a man. So you say, okay, that's cute. That's kind of 0.63

00:29:54.640 clever. Furthermore, he says that Title VII does not create separate spaces for men and women,

00:30:03.940 whereas Title IX explicitly does. That's where you get girls' sports leagues. And therefore,

00:30:09.140 this is different. You apply some slightly different logic. But I want to not to be

00:30:13.620 cynical about this. And Justice Gorsuch, he might be a real nice guy. He's obviously very

00:30:18.240 intelligent and educated, but I just, Gorsuch is claiming that his apparently contradictory

00:30:24.180 rulings, pro-trans, pro-trans on the Civil Rights Act, in the Bostock case, anti-trans

00:30:31.600 with regard to the Civil Rights Act on this new case. He's saying, no, no, no, there's a real

00:30:36.880 logic here. You just got to squint and twist your head a little bit to see the logic, why this is

00:30:40.480 consistent. Can I just point out, Bostock was decided in 2020. More or less peak woke,

00:30:50.940 peak transgenderism, peak gender ideology. And this case was decided in 2026,

00:30:58.780 after transgenderism has basically been eradicated from public life entirely, 1.00

00:31:03.040 the whole preposterous ideology at every level. When even the Democrats are trying to run away 1.00

00:31:06.600 from the transgender issue because they know it's a total loser. When Donald Trump has won 0.98

00:31:10.020 the popular vote running against issues like transgenderism. I can't help but notice that

00:31:15.860 Gorsuch's vote in Bostock, the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock, was politically popular

00:31:23.680 and fashionable in 2020. And this decision in 2026 is also politically popular and fashionable.

00:31:31.360 Almost like the court reads the election returns. Almost like the liberals are totally inconsistent

00:31:37.880 when it comes to their jurisprudence, but even the originalists and the textualists

00:31:43.040 might be arguing a little too much. They might be talking past the sale a little too much.

00:31:50.900 The notion that, which I think is derived and inferred from textualism and originalism,

00:31:56.520 the idea that in matters of jurisprudence, we don't have to apply too much of our own judgment.

00:32:03.720 We don't need to apply too much of our own thinking that comes by virtue of our education,

00:32:11.360 the virtue that we have accumulated, the wisdom we've accumulated, along with reading of case

00:32:15.980 history. The idea that really you could take the judge out of it entirely. You could basically just

00:32:19.800 put a judge-shaped robot because the plain meaning and the original public meaning or the original

00:32:26.440 intent of a statute or of the constitution is so clear that no one can really disagree.

00:32:30.640 I don't know that that's true. In a way, originalism or textualism is kind of Protestant.

00:32:40.740 It's funny that the Supreme Court is made up mostly of Catholics and Jews, but it's kind of 0.83

00:32:46.540 Protestant in that it's sola scriptura. It's sola scriptura for the law. And like sola scriptura, 0.75

00:32:53.720 whatever your theological views on sola scriptura, there is this really practical

00:32:58.820 problem that comes out, which is that if the scripture interprets itself, if the meaning of

00:33:06.080 the scripture is so plain, how is it that all these people who adhere to sola scriptura disagree

00:33:13.400 on what the scripture means? If the text can interpret itself, why do all of the people who

00:33:18.980 hold to that very principle, that's not a principle I hold to, but all the people who do hold to that

00:33:22.960 principle, a lot of them disagree about the meaning. Well, the same thing is true with

00:33:28.660 originalism and textualism, which is certainly a preferable legal principle, judicial principle

00:33:35.920 to whatever the libs are doing, which is to shred the constitution. But how is it that the arch

00:33:42.560 originalists like Alito and Thomas, even a textualist like Gorsuch, that they might disagree?

00:33:52.420 forget about the trans case for a second, go back to immigration, that they would disagree

00:33:56.200 with the other arch-originalist, Amy Barrett, who worked for Scalia. How is it? Maybe there's

00:34:04.940 something a little more political going on. Maybe there are some more intangible and personal

00:34:10.960 aspects to this decision. All the ladies plus Roberts really, really messing up our country. 1.00

00:34:22.420 Okay, okay. At least the libs are upset about the trans decision. We'll get to their reaction 1.00

00:34:26.980 momentarily. And then we will get to the mushrooms that I want to take. Professor Jacob, do you have

00:34:32.280 any hard drugs on you right now? It's very early in the morning here. No, I don't want your zins.

00:34:37.900 Does it let you see little gnomes? Yeah, for him, it probably does because his dosage is so high. 0.99

00:34:44.220 Before we get to any of that, my favorite comment yesterday, it's from N.D. Boy. It says,

00:34:50.260 I love how chill this comment section is compared to literally everywhere else online. I'm so

00:34:56.260 impressed by it. I'm picking that was from Spotify. You can leave comments on YouTube

00:35:00.080 or I guess you can't really on like Apple podcast, but you can on Spotify and the comments on

00:35:06.900 YouTube. Look, sometimes you get some real good ones, but it is schizo, man. There is a, there is 1.00

00:35:12.160 a lot of schizophrenia and psychosis and psychopathy on YouTube. The guys on Spotify,

00:35:21.140 man, they're chilling. They're chilling. They're cool. They're normal. Maybe they're hallucinating

00:35:26.140 little gnomes. I don't know, but whatever it is, they're chilled. Before we move on to the

00:35:30.400 magic mushrooms, NBC was covering, after the libs get this huge win on immigration,

00:35:37.840 but they still, it's not enough for them. They need to complain about the trans decision, 0.92

00:35:42.340 try to overturn that. This is how they report on the trans decision. 0.57

00:35:48.420 The terms that we're using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female,

00:35:55.200 the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you

00:36:02.560 know, we're using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female.

00:36:07.840 NBC News is objecting to the terms biological male and biological female.

00:36:13.100 They just gave a trigger warning for transvestites because they had to read a Supreme Court opinion.

00:36:23.080 What's funny is I also object to the term biological male and biological female.

00:36:27.960 I know a lot of the more moderate conservatives use those terms.

00:36:31.240 I hate those terms because they imply that there is a non-biological male.

00:36:37.020 They imply that there is some other kind of male or female.

00:36:41.260 I'm a biological male, but I'm a spiritual female.

00:36:44.100 That's actually transgenderism.

00:36:45.960 Transgenderism says that you can have a biological kind of gender and a non-biological kind of gender. 0.90

00:36:51.940 I hate that. It's just men and women. 0.87

00:36:53.780 That's all it is.

00:36:55.000 Your body and soul are fused together in a hylomorphic union.

00:37:00.340 So I hate it. It's funny.

00:37:01.460 I guess I agree with NBC News.

00:37:02.720 We both object to this term for opposite reasons.

00:37:04.980 for them, even that is too right-wing. And I just think like, are we in the big two six, guys?

00:37:12.400 Are we, or are we in 2022? Is this still peak woke? This is not coming from some fringe weirdo

00:37:19.040 on YouTube. This is coming from NBC News. One of the major news networks is still doing this stuff.

00:37:26.280 They're still doing it. They haven't given it up. And they're not going to give it up.

00:37:34.980 it's going to get worse the second they get power again. And winning that Supreme Court decision on

00:37:42.120 immigration gives them a lot of power. They're champing at the bit. They're salivating. They

00:37:47.980 see the path. They're going to bring all that back. No biological males or females allowed.

00:37:53.480 Okay. Speaking of salivating, this is a weird story. It has nothing to do with any practical

00:38:00.580 politics right now, but I had to get to it. The New York Post is reporting that there's a new

00:38:05.100 magic mushroom that makes users see tiny gnome people. And you say, okay, well, magic mushrooms,

00:38:12.660 psychedelic mushrooms, they do make you hallucinate. So that's not surprising. You know,

00:38:18.140 you like smell color, man, you know, and you see like little weird demon things, whatever. And it's

00:38:23.460 the very specific subset of that. What's weird about these mushrooms is the scientists can't

00:38:28.080 find any drugs in the mushrooms. Usually, the magic mushrooms use psilocybin. There's another

00:38:34.720 active ingredient. And that's not in here. So what are these guys seeing? So even to this day,

00:38:42.880 science doesn't understand what's going on in the brain to cause this or how to treat it.

00:38:45.980 And this mushroom is the only thing that we currently know of reliably to produce this

00:38:50.800 effect. What they're seeing, they're hallucinating teeny tiny people all around them. This is

00:38:56.100 something no other mushroom is known to do. They don't have any of the other side effects of magic

00:39:02.080 mushrooms. They don't have the dilated pupils or the elevated heart rate or the impaired

00:39:05.740 coordination. They just hallucinate little tiny gnomes. And apparently the gnomes are kind of

00:39:12.240 playful. Apparently the gnomes, they're like crawling up chairs and in doorways, they will

00:39:17.480 interact with objects in the real world. They are three-dimensionally rendered, highly detailed

00:39:22.540 figures inhabiting the exterior world, and they don't know why it happens. They're calling them

00:39:29.680 Lilliputians after Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's travels. So the reason the story is so fascinating

00:39:34.540 to me is I think, why would anyone do these mushrooms? Why would anyone do them? You don't

00:39:43.620 even get the other weird effects of the drug. You just see little tiny gnome things all around you.

00:39:49.120 why why would you do them is it just the novelty is it because i that would freak me out a lot i

00:39:58.320 don't is it just the novelty is it just curiosity i think that's why people do a lot of things not

00:40:03.860 certainly drugs but also lots of other weird behaviors is it just it's just for the thrill

00:40:09.180 and the weirdness of it is it see like when people would tell you i had a bunch of friends

00:40:15.020 who didn't i've never done a hard drug but i had a bunch of friends who did like mushrooms or lsd

00:40:18.780 or whatever in school, and they would say, no, man, it totally changes your brain.

00:40:25.100 And I think, all right, well, I kind of like my brain. I'm not a brawny guy, so my brain is very,

00:40:31.620 very important to my life. Why would I want to change it? No, it's, man, it rewires it. I was

00:40:38.220 like, yeah, well, but it's basically working now. Why would I want to rewire it? No, man.

00:40:44.020 then they go further. They make spiritual claims. It allows you to communicate, you know, past

00:40:50.240 the illusions of this world to another kind of spirit realm. I said, in Christian language,

00:40:57.640 that means you're talking to demons, basically. I say, okay, why do I want to do that? Why do I, 0.58

00:41:01.760 why do I want to talk to demons? You think about this with like seances and weird occult rituals,

00:41:08.240 I say, no, you can talk to these spiritual entities that are very, I think, okay, I don't

00:41:13.060 want to. No thanks. No thank you. Either, to go back to the gnome, little gnome drug,

00:41:21.960 either they're not real, in which case they're just distracting and weird and I don't want to

00:41:26.240 see the gnome people. Or they are real. Or if the hippies are right and you really are seeing 0.99

00:41:32.280 something that maybe actually has a kind of spiritual reality, then you can see it in a

00:41:35.940 physical way. Then I don't want to see the tiny little Lilliputian demons. Why would anybody want

00:41:40.720 that. People are so stupid. I don't mean like other people, not me. I mean like people as such 1.00

00:41:46.660 after the fall. We're so stupid. It's like Drew Clavin's orange for a head joke. We just want 1.00

00:41:51.960 things that are bad for us to get a thrill. I don't know, but this is like the dumbest one yet. 0.99

00:41:57.680 Hey, do you want a drug that doesn't make you feel good, but allows you to hallucinate miniature 1.00

00:42:01.580 demons? What's the catch? What's it? Really? I can have all of that. No, thank you. I'm good.

00:42:09.660 people, they do this with ayahuasca. You got to go take ayahuasca, man. It's great. You evacuate

00:42:16.540 your intestines. You violently vomit for like 12 hours. You sweat, and then you pass out. It's so

00:42:24.220 great, man. You think, I'm good. Maybe I'll have a pina colada and like sit at the pool. That sounds

00:42:28.700 nice. Okay, before we go, speaking of novelty, you know, we were obviously just interviewing

00:42:33.640 the vice president on the show. A lot of those clips making the rounds. A lot of fake news coming

00:42:38.100 out of that from the vice president's enemies, which I think is great. You know, it tells you

00:42:42.340 you're really over the target. Some really interesting, really interesting insights from

00:42:46.460 the VP and into his way of thinking when it comes to religion, his conversion, which is the subject

00:42:52.180 of his book, whether or not he's ever had a kind of numinous experience. You know, you ever see a

00:42:56.420 ghost, his view on the Iran war, the future of conservatism, how to make sense of all the

00:43:01.360 warring factions on the right. A lot of insight there that he gave. But as part of this book tour,

00:43:07.360 He went on Bill Maher's show, and he gave us a master class in political rhetoric, talking to people on the other side.

00:43:17.500 Because Bill Maher, for his flattery of the American right occasionally, he's a guy of the left.

00:43:22.480 He's a Democrat. He's a liberal. His premises are liberal. He's a Democrat.

00:43:26.020 He's really not one of us. And when it really counts, he's not on our side.

00:43:31.920 Here is how the vice president disarms him.

00:43:34.420 You guys went too far. 1.00

00:43:37.600 You went too far, and you should own it like you did childless cat ladies. 1.00

00:43:41.580 Well. 1.00

00:43:45.580 Okay.

00:43:47.860 So, here's the basic problem with that bill is you cannot do any deportations without law enforcement.

00:43:56.620 and you can't do a law enforcement operation like that

00:43:59.580 without having some situations that don't look good

00:44:03.140 when they're recorded like that.

00:44:05.160 I mean, let me give you like just one obvious example.

00:44:07.880 Let's just set aside the immigration element of this, okay?

00:44:12.060 If you take a guy who's committed murder

00:44:14.600 and you go in and arrest that guy,

00:44:16.740 sometimes that person's gonna resist arrest.

00:44:18.860 Sometimes if you take a video of it

00:44:20.440 and it's out of context and you don't appreciate

00:44:22.420 why that person is being arrested in the first place,

00:44:24.520 It looks pretty icky if you take that out of context video clip.

00:44:28.340 And what I worry about is when people say you can't ever do immigration enforcement if it produces a bad video clip, what they're really saying is you can't ever actually do immigration enforcement.

00:44:38.700 We had 12 million people come into the country, into the interior over the last four years, or I should say from 2021 to 2025. 0.82

00:44:46.520 And we were elected with a mandate to get some of those people out of the United States of America. 0.94

00:44:52.160 Just a masterclass. Just a masterclass. Notice everything that he fit in into that one-minute 0.99

00:45:00.000 clip. You get a very common objection, and not just specific objection, type of argument

00:45:06.220 from Bill Maher. This is how liberals argue, whether it's on immigration or taxation or

00:45:12.620 foreign policy or abortion or whatever. He says, look, look, look, people can disagree

00:45:18.040 grant immigration, but you guys went too far. You, this vague claim, not that you're wrong in

00:45:25.520 principle. You can't, only the craziest ideologue would say it is wrong to deport foreign criminals

00:45:30.460 in principle. I mean, some Democrats make that claim, but Gilmore is not going to do that. He

00:45:34.900 says, no, no, no, no, I'm going to grant deportations are okay in principle, but you guys

00:45:38.760 went too far. And what does Vance do? Does he say what a lot of us are thinking, which is we didn't

00:45:45.580 go nearly far enough. Are you kidding? Too far? We got 3 million illegals a year coming in under

00:45:50.720 Biden, plus another million legal immigrants, plus whatever chain migration that implies for

00:45:54.100 the future. We got to go way further. No. He says, well, Bill, okay, I see why you could conclude 0.64

00:46:03.880 that. I see why, in other words, I see why that's a persuasive argument. Because anytime you have

00:46:10.580 any immigration enforcement, forget immigration. He takes it out of that hot issue and he puts it

00:46:15.540 into something we can all agree on, like a murderer on the street, who even is a citizen.

00:46:20.340 Say, any time the police go to arrest anyone for any crime, the criminal might resist arrest,

00:46:29.120 and that might lead to provocative situations, and that might lead to a confusing little melee

00:46:33.220 that might not always look good on camera. He's not saying, it was awesome for that cop to run

00:46:38.000 over Renee Good, or sorry, to shoot Renee Good as she tried to run over him. It was awesome to

00:46:42.580 kill Alex Petty. He's not saying that. I don't think anybody really thinks that. You can think

00:46:47.140 the killings were justified while not celebrating them. You say, no, no, no, those do look bad. We

00:46:52.500 don't like to look at those things on camera. Even George Floyd, who was resisting arrest and

00:46:56.040 had a four times lethal dose of fentanyl and all the rest. You don't like looking at a guy

00:47:00.340 with his knee on his back or his neck. You don't like looking at that. So you say, no, it can look

00:47:05.960 icky. But just follow me here, Bill. If you're going to have any law enforcement at all,

00:47:11.040 sometimes the criminals are going to resist. And then you're going to get a provocative

00:47:14.700 situation. And if you record it, sometimes it's going to look icky. But when people say

00:47:19.560 you've gone too far, what they usually mean is we don't want you to enforce the law

00:47:26.100 at all. And he says it in a calm way. He explains the real meaning here. And he does it in such a

00:47:32.480 way that Bill Maher really has no rejoinder. And he says that's really what that's getting at.

00:47:36.960 It reminds me of when the vice president was talking to Whoopi Goldberg.

00:47:41.040 on the view. And Whoopi said, you know, you're a race in history, and you're not, you're erasing

00:47:46.020 the history of slavery, the Trump administration. And he says, hey, Whoopi, what specifically are

00:47:53.080 you talking about? And he doesn't do it in a condescending way or mean way. What are you

00:47:56.700 talking about, woman? He just says, hold on. I want to make sure we're not talking past each

00:48:00.900 other. What specifically are you talking about? And she couldn't cite a single example. She goes,

00:48:05.640 I mean, I'm talking, I mean, I mean, it's, well, it's like, oh, there's so many examples.

00:48:10.400 The same thing here.

00:48:11.020 They say, you've gone too far.

00:48:12.900 Well, how far is far enough?

00:48:15.900 Why do you think that we got too far, if you sincerely believe that?

00:48:20.520 And what do you really mean with that statement?

00:48:22.540 That you don't want us to enforce the law at all.

00:48:24.500 But by the way, President Trump got elected with the popular vote,

00:48:28.600 specifically with the mandate to do this thing, to do the mass deportations.

00:48:33.220 so he makes the he dismantles or rather he exposes the substance of the left-wing argument

00:48:42.320 which ultimately is specious and then he also gives the political justification for the president's

00:48:48.940 actions which Bill Maher can't argue against it's just really masterfully done this is the kind of

00:48:54.420 rhetoric that conservatives should be paying attention to and should be imitating it's very

00:48:58.500 very good. Okay. So much more I want to get to. I want to get to James Tallarico's whiteness. I

00:49:03.160 know I keep saying I'm going to get to his whiteness and masculinity for the future senator

00:49:06.460 from Texas. We hope not. But I can't do it right now. I am in the middle of nowhere, Idaho.

00:49:11.520 I am going to give a speech today. Then I am coming back. I'm flying back to Nashville. There

00:49:16.940 will be a memberum segmentum tomorrow. Not today. Today, if you want to talk to people that seem

00:49:24.860 kind of like virtual, you got to do the weird new magic mushrooms and hallucinate the gnomes.

00:49:29.980 But because you can't, there's not going to be a creme de la creme membrum segmentum today that

00:49:34.000 will resume tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show. See you then.

The Michael Knowles Show - July 01, 2026

Ep. 2006 - WORST Ruling Ever： The Supreme Court Betrays America

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript