Ep. 1995 - MLB Punishes Christian Players For Desecrating LGBTQ Hats

The world moves fast. You work day, even faster. Pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work, built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use. Helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize. So you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at Microsoft.com slash M365 Copilot. Major League Baseball is attacking three players for writing Bible verses on their capstring Pride Month. A major Hollywood actor reveals why liberals hate America and the Warhawks fume over President Trump's Iran deal when they have no one to blame but themselves. I'm Michael Knowles, this is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to this show. Smash the like button, subscribe. Also check us out on Spotify where you can download full episode audio and video to watch or listen whenever you want without using your data. Do not miss an episode. Great news. Gavin Newsom is being investigated by the federal government. Newsom is blaming Trump. He says Trump is targeting his political opponent. There's just one problem with Gavin Newsom's accusation, which we'll get to in a moment. First though, this MLB thing, man, it's driving me crazy. MLB is, I think, the most normal, conservative, patriotic sports league. NFL, totally gone, NBA, gone, soccer, need I say more. But the baseball was generally solid. They had their little dalliances during BLM. They kind of got a little bit, a little touch into BLM. Not nearly as much as the NFL, but enough to be annoying, enough that I canceled my MLB subscription for a few years. Then they occasionally, Pride Month comes up, they do a little gay stuff. Again, not as much as some of the other leagues, not as much as soccer, which is gay, but they do a little bit, little rainbow here or there. The baseball players themselves are pretty conservative, generally speaking. And so when the MLB suits in the executive suites decided to force some gay stuff on them for June, they decide, some of them decided they were going to, they'll wear the hat. There's a little rainbow hat, it's annoying, but they'll wear the hat, they're team players, but they're just going to add a little Bible verse to it, to give context to the rainbow. This from Giants Pitcher Landon Roup, they make him wear the gay hat with the rainbow. And so what does he do? He writes just a little citation of the verse from the book of Genesis, where God establishes the rainbow as an enduring covenant with mankind. Never, never again will I destroy the world in a flood. That's it, it doesn't even write out the whole verse, just says Genesis, you know, chapter and verse. And this was too much for the MLB executives. MLB fans, basically conservative, not gay. And not like, if they are gay, they're like quiet about it. You know, they're like a conservative, they're conservative people. The MLB players, pretty straightforward normal people, but the execs, man, it's just like all of corporate America, they didn't get the message. And so not only is the flag kind of gay, it even has the trans part on it. So it's like the pride progress flag. And the MLB executives are now trying to punish this Giants pitcher, along with a couple other members of the Giants. According to the New York Times, an MLB official has warned those players against violating the rules and writing on their cap. What they're pretending is it's not about the Bible verse, they're pretending it's just about writing anything on their cap. Maybe it's distracting. You know what I think is distracting on a baseball cap? A bunch of rainbow pastel blue and pink, gay, trans, LGBT colors. I think that's probably more distracting for a batter than a little Bible verse written down. They say, no, no, no, it's, it's, this is against the rules. The writing on the cap violates our rules and consistent with normal practice. We have warned the players about future violations, says Pat Courtney, MLB's chief communications officer in a statement. The entire executive leadership of MLB should be shamed for this. This is preposterous. It's anti-American. It might well be unconstitutional, but it's definitely super duper lame. So let's hear from the player. Let's hear from Landon Roup. Why did he put the passage on his hat? In a post game presser, he said, it's just about God's covenant and a promise that he makes to us that, you know, his faithfulness and his mercy. That's just kind of something I believe in. It's just, it's just kind of something I just kind of believe in God. I just kind of, it's, is it okay if I kind of believe in the Bible? Is that all right? And I stand firm in that and I'm thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what you want and express what we want. Do we have that freedom? I thought we did. MLB executives say you can't. You can't be a Christian and play baseball. Kind of what the verse says, you know, what's it mean? The rainbow is a symbol of God's covenant to us and us as believers to stand firm in that. There's no hate at all. It's just what I stand for and what I stand in. I believe in God and that's me. The MLB execs. I mean, forget, call your congressman. Maybe you should call your congressman too. But write to the MLB. Call the MLB executives. Let them know this is not acceptable. This is anti-Christian discrimination. It's super lame and it makes us seem like we're soccer. I mean, it's just, it's just awful. It's nauseating that the MLB execs would try to pervert America's favorite pastime. They go on. This is Rup. First of all, as a believer, I would push people to read the Bible. I think God has blessed me in so many ways and I don't think I would be here right now if it wasn't for him. So like I said, there's no hate in it at all. What you're saying, what the MLB is effectively accusing him of is of encouraging hatred, of promoting hatred by citing the Bible. He says there's no hate in it at all. You know, like I said, we live in a country where you're welcome to believe what you want. There's a freedom of speech and stuff like that. So that's really all I have to say about that. I'm just thankful that God has put me in this situation and I can go out there and share His kingdom. So great on land in Rup, great on the other giants here and shame on the MLB and shame on those executives. There is a political conclusion that we draw though beyond just my personal affinity for Major League Baseball and my fury at the lame executives who are trying to ostracize Christians from Major League Baseball. And the political takeaway is for all this talk of inclusion, that's what Pride Month is about. It's about inclusion, right? Inclusion always involves exclusion. There is no inclusion without exclusion. There is no getting around the law of non-contradiction. If you are including a celebration of LGBT, you are necessarily excluding people who oppose that, which in this case would be Christians and Jews and Muslims and anybody who has a more conservative and normal and traditional view of human sexuality. Inclusion necessarily involves exclusion. What's the other takeaway here? The other takeaway here is that Pride, the Pride Month celebrations, Pride is necessarily anti-Christian. Every Pride parade, every Pride display, every Pride flag that goes up in the public square is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim and anti-tradition. But you can't have both. You cannot say, I equally hold to the Pride flag and the cross. I equally hold to the Pride flag and the Star of David. I equally hold to the Pride flag and the Crescent. It's not just about Christians here. It's about anyone who holds to an even relatively traditionally religious view of human sexuality. Those people are excluded. MLB is saying you can be a Christian in your own head, I guess, but you better not express it. You better not live it out. You better keep your mouth shut. Deem me. You're a deem me. It's dimmitude for the Christians. First class status for the sexual revolutionaries and the liberals, dimmitude for anyone who's a traditional religious person. What's the third political takeaway from this? The third political takeaway is that liberalism itself was always anti-Christian. I don't just mean leftism. I don't just mean modern progressivism. I mean liberalism, hundreds of year old political ideology. Liberalism was always anti-Christian. How liberalism began 300 years ago, whenever it was, is that, I guess a little more than that now, it began as not explicitly anti-religious, but anti-clerical. You think of Diderot inspiring the French Revolution when he says, man will only be free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. It's very anti-clerical. They say, we're not anti-religious. We're not anti-God. We're just anti-clerical. And it always starts out that way. You hear this from all the most woo-woo, lib lunatics in our modern culture. They say, I'm spiritual, but not religious. They say, I just don't like organized religion. Well, so you like disorganized religion. You like incoherent religion. That's what you like. You like religion about you. You like a religion about the self. You like the religion of pride, which is the queen of all vice. But it starts out, they say, we just don't like priests. We just don't like clergy. We just don't like dogmas then. We just don't like doctrines. And what it ends up with is, we don't like God. We don't like religion at all. And if you are a Christian, you're excluded from the public square. The end goal of liberalism was always Christian because it makes false assumptions about human nature and it puts man at the center of society, not God. And when man worships God, man becomes the fullest he can be. He lives up to human potential. When man worships the self, he's like an Ouroboros snake eating his own tail. And you end up destroying even Major League Baseball. Okay, enough. I can't even think about it anymore. I expect better of baseball. I don't expect better of liberalism. Speaking of liberalism, Robert De Niro. I referred to this yesterday, but I really want to get into it because it tells you something not just about this sort of washed up liberal annoying actor, but it tells you a lot about the nature of political liberalism. Robert De Niro says he can't love his country. He doesn't love America anymore because of Trump. We'll get to that in a second. First, I want to tell you about balance of nature. Go to balanceofnature.com. Use promo code, nulls. People tend to have one of two approaches to summer. Either they become incredibly disciplined and decide that this is the summer, they're finally going to establish all of their healthy habits, or they decide summer is a free-for-all and they'll worry about everything in September. Most of us probably live somewhere in the middle. You want to enjoy the family vacation. You want to go out with friends. You want to enjoy a barbecue or a long weekend without turning every meal into a math problem. At the same time, you don't want to completely abandon the habits and routines that help you feel your best. One is one reason that I love balance of nature. Balance of nature's whole health system gains 47 ingredients from real fruits, vegetables, spices, and fiber, making it easy to incorporate more whole food ingredients into your day, even when your schedule is not as predictable. During the summer especially, I've also enjoyed their freeze-dried snacks. Very easy to pack. They're great, especially if you're on the road. They're terrific. If you would like to learn more, go to balanceofnature.com right now. To the whole health system, receive an additional 10% off your subscription with promo code nulls. That's balanceofnature.com. Promo code KNOWLES. Robert De Niro at the Rise Up Sing Out counter-programming of Trump's awesomest show ever. It is his display with the flyover and the fighting and the gladiators. The Libs did this thing called Rise Up Sing Out where they had washed up bed middler croaking out some hippie tune from Pete Seeger or something. Robert De Niro shows up there too, one of the younger members on the stage. He shows up and he explains not only is he angry at Trump, not only does he hate the UFC or whatever, he no longer loves America. Later the letter stated, regardless of our political affiliation or whether we engage in politics or not, we all love our country. So with me? Not so fast. The phrase, we all love our country stuck in my throat. Because our country isn't so lovable right now. I hate to say it, but loving our country is starting to sound like an abused spouse saying they love their abuser. I can't love a country that starts stupid and inhumane wars. I can't love a country that takes health care away from millions of people and uses that money to enrich their pals in the Trump Epstein class. I can't love the country that's led by Donald Trump. I can't love a country that is led by Donald Trump, which means I can't live a country that elects Donald Trump, which means I can't love a country where most people disagree with me and our conservatives. The one line, I can't let it go. When he refers to this led by the Trump Epstein class, the Epstein class, I can't love a country led by the Epstein class, Robert De Niro, famously friends with Bill Clinton. How many, just Google De Niro Clinton, there will be no end to the photos of them over decades of them together. Here we got De Niro with the beard, here's De Niro no beard, this was way back in I think maybe the 90s. I think Clinton might have been president at that time. De Niro and Clinton were in tuxedos at the White House and they've been friends forever. Bill Clinton was much closer with Jeffrey Epstein than Donald Trump ever was. Jeffrey Epstein was a member of Mar-a-Lago, he and Trump were friends, there's no getting around that, there's no denying that. But Epstein was flying around on Epstein's jet, sorry, Clinton was flying around on Epstein's jet, Clinton had Epstein visiting him multiple times at the White House. He was leading the country. He said, I can't love a country that's led by a member of the Epstein class, the most famous member of the Epstein class who was leading the country during his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, De Niro has no problem hanging around with, there's nothing that the Epstein class can be a break. De Niro can't love a country that is led by a conservative or a Republican. De Niro can't love a country that has conservatives in it to elect a Republican or a conservative. The Libs are just not patriotic. I'm not saying that no one who calls himself a little bit liberal can be a patriot. I'm not saying that no one who identifies as a Democrat can be a little patriotic. I'm just saying at a much deeper level than the babbling nonsense of Robert De Niro, in as much as you are a liberal, you are not patriotic. It's not just that there's this kind of funny coincidence where people who are liberals just happen to not like their country that much. It is intrinsic to liberalism itself because liberalism ultimately is about liberation. It's about throwing off constraints and shackles and unchosen bonds and relationships. And one of the basic unchosen bonds and relationships is your relationship to your country, which is an extension of the essential unchosen relationship, which is your relationship to your family. You're born into a family. You don't choose your family. And patriotism, coming from patria, is an extension of filial piety. So we're supposed to love our country. That's a virtue, just like you're supposed to honor your father and mother. That's a virtue. It's not something you choose consciously. It's not a matter of your private autonomy. It's just something you do. It's what you're expected to do, and it's a good thing. But in as much as you are a liberal, you are endeavoring to liberate yourself from all of those shackles of morality, of family, of country, of obligation, of biology sometimes. And so in as much as you are liberal, you're not a patriot. That's true. You consider yourself a citizen of the world. You consider yourself a radical individual. You consider yourself a person totally free from all constraint. So this is not surprising at all. It says, I don't love my country, but that's what it comes down to. Yeah, we know. We know, Robert, we know you don't love your country. Because you've always been kind of a lib and you've become just insufferably extremely liberal and as that happens, you love your country less and less and less. Of course. And at least give it to Nero credit. At least he's honest about it. He's not just saying, I hate Trump. To say I really hate Trump and I can't love a country where Trump is the president is implicitly to say, I hate my countrymen and therefore I hate my country because your countrymen are the ones who elected Trump. But usually the Libs will stop short of that. I love the American people. I just hate the guy they elected. But he's saying, no, I hate my country. I hate my country because they have different political views than I do. And so I'm going to come to the least charitable, worst conclusions about all of their motivations and I hate them. And they want to rob people of health care. What are you talking about? And they engage in wars. Oh, gee, like every country ever. And they're a part of the Epstein class. The Epstein class, all your buddies are the leaders of the Epstein class. You're literally the best friends of Epstein. And they are the politicians who are leading the country who are the best friends of Epstein. It's not about any of that. You hate your country because you're a Lib. And when you were less of a Lib, you hated your country less. No good, no good. Speaking of patriotism, we've got this peace deal that has been signed, a memorandum of understanding. I think the vice president is supposed to fly to Switzerland on Thursday or Friday to formalize all of this. And the Warhawks are furious about it, man. All these, it's kind of funny too, because a lot of the people that were really pushing more war in Iran were people who hated Trump in the beginning. Then they kind of came around to Trump sometimes when Trump was doing what they liked. And now they hate Trump again. We've come full circle. We're just back in 2016. It's Groundhog Day. But you'll notice one of the argument, very few people are trying to argue that the peace deal is bad for the peace deal today, given that the war already started, given that the straight-up form was closed, given that the Iranian regime didn't fall, that the peace deal today was against America's interests. Very few people are seriously arguing that. The state of Israel, yet Israeli officials are co-belligerents in this war. Even they were saying, yeah, this is kind of an America's interest. It's not as much in our interest, but it's in America's interest. We get it. So what the people are trying to argue is, well, but this is violating some principle. What's the principle? We need to liberate Iran. It's a betrayal of the Persian Iranian people and their longing for freedom. And this is terrible because the Mullahs, the Iranian Islamic regime is awful. Yeah, the Iranian Islamic regime is awful. But none of these people have made the argument as to how prolonging or escalating the war, invading Tehran, putting boots on the ground, occupying Iran for five, 10 years, how that was actually going to make anything better. Very few people are arguing that. And one leader of the Iranian resistance is actually making the opposite case. This is a leader going viral now from the National Council of Resistance of Iran, who is saying, actually, the peace deal is good for the Iranian resistance and is bad for the Islamic regime. What's the argument? According to Mariam Rajavi, Iranian resistance, which for nearly five decades has sought freedom and peace, welcomes any understanding to end the war and the suffering of the Iranian people. In Iran, no one except the remnants of the Mullahs and the Shah has wanted or wants war. The effort to produce nuclear weapons, war mongering and meddling in the countries of the region are part of the survival strategy of the religious fascism ruling Iran, and it will not abandon them as long as it can. War is this regime's shield against popular uprisings, while peace and a ceasefire are, as Khomeini put it, like poison for it. The overthrow of the regime is the responsibility of the Iranian people and their organized resistance. Mrs. Rajavi also added, I will reiterate once again that any international agreement to end the war must include an end to the execution of political prisoners and killing protesters. This is the key line. War is this regime's shield against popular uprisings. I'm no Iran expert. I can't, in a granular detail, evaluate the reality of those claims. I'll point out though that is true for radical regimes. Radical regimes are always trying to keep the sense of the war, of the revolution going. Think of Fidel Castro, rules Cuba for 60 years. Fidel Castro would always wear the military fatigues. What was the motto? The motto was, viva siem pre la revolucione. The revolution's always going on. All of these radical revolutionary military leaders, they're always wearing their military fatigues because they need to appear as though they're always at war because it allows them to, one, suppress civil rights in countries, but two, it encourages a population that otherwise would be discontented to rally around the flag. This is what happened in Iran. This is what happened in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the early 90s or late 80s, whenever it was. The Iran-Iraq war increased support for the Islamic regime in Iran. Islamic regime, which wasn't terribly popular, it increased support. There is evidence, obviously we don't have a lot of good social science on this, but there is evidence that since the start of the most recent war in Iran, support for the regime has increased. Pro-regime protests have increased. Reconciliation protests have decreased. The idea that Trump is betraying the Iranian people, this is totally ridiculous. Let's not forget, when Trump started the war, the cause was belly. The argument for the war was Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon or Iran is close to the point at which its ballistic missiles program will be such that they will have a breakaway capacity such that if they want a nuclear weapon, they could get it quickly. However you want to describe it, Trump's argument was Iran cannot get a nuke, so we're going in to stop Iran from getting a nuke. He also left open the possibility, he said, hey, by the way, Iranians, we've been here in for decades about how you want to overthrow the mullahs and take back your country. So now's your chance. This is Trump almost verbatim. This will be probably your only chance for generations. For many years you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond. Here is your chance, Iranians. We've been told you really want to overthrow your regime. So here's your chance. We're providing the air cover. We're killing all the top leaders. Here's your chance to overthrow the regime. And guess what? They didn't do it. They didn't do it. You could say, well, they didn't do it because the Islamic regime had just slaughtered 10,000 of them. Maybe. You could say they didn't do it because they were waiting for just one more military action of the US. Yeah, maybe, maybe. But they didn't do it. There was no ground swell of support to overthrow the Islamic regime. There was no evidence that whatever regime would have replaced the mullahs would have been better. There was no, it didn't happen. Iraq gave them the chance. It didn't happen. Remember when we overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan and we said, Afghanistan is going to go back to the 70s. You know, it's going to be put back on a path to liberalization and you're going to have a lot of like nice looking women take off the burqas and start smoking long cigarettes. And it didn't happen. You know what happened at the end of 20 years and a lot of American blood and treasure? The Taliban came right back. Remember Iraq? Iraq, which is a very civilized country relatively. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Remember, we go in. We go to the top of the largely secular regime in Saddam Hussein. And then what happened? Did federal Iraq flourish as a beacon of Madisonian democracy? No. Is there any evidence that Iraq is particularly better off today than it was 20 years ago? No. It just didn't really happen. And in Iran, the regime had a much tighter grip on the people than Saddam did or the Taliban. It just didn't happen. This was always going to be the end result. And so, you know, in this case, I actually do hate to say I told you so because before the war, I argued against the cases for war. At the time the bombs were dropping, I was on air in this chair and everybody was celebrating and everyone was talking about a new day and the Shah is going to come back and it's going to be liberalization for Iran. And I said, I don't know. I don't really buy it. Don't forget the Islamic regime has lasted twice as long as the CIA regime from 1953 when we over through Mosaddeg. I said, I don't really buy it. I don't really buy the propaganda. I would be surprised if the regime would fall. We gave it a shot. It didn't work. So then you were always going to end up in this situation where you're going to get a peace deal that satisfies basically nobody or you're going to get a protracted war where you cannot even possibly calculate all of the things that could go wrong. No one really has a clear view of the good that could be achieved. And there's no reason to believe that there's a reasonable probability of success that you could overthrow the regime and reinstate the Shah and there would be no civil war and it would be great for the region. And there's no real sense that there would be proportionality, that the goods to be achieved were proportional to the losses incurred. So from the minute the bombs were dropping, you were in this situation. And now what President Trump can say is, look, I seriously set back Iran's nuclear program. They're probably still going to want nukes, of course, but we've set it back five or 10 years. We took out their top leadership such that now we have a more direct relationship with the people that we're working with and maybe they're a little less hard line. And yeah, we devastated some of their country and maybe we're going to get the nuclear dust. At the very least, we buried it underground. And now we're kind of back to the status quo. Best best you were going to get built in from the beginning. So for the for the Warhawks, we were saying we needed to go further. We needed more. We're giving up. We're surrendering. This is a terrible deal. I guess my question to you is, what's the alternative? What are you actually proposing as the alternative? Because you'll notice none of them were ever offering this. If we just need to go further, we need to stand firm. We need we can't sign this deal. We need to know what's in this deal. We OK. What's your alternative? What are you proposing? What they're really proposing and they won't tell you is boots on the ground and a decade long occupation and managing a civil war and overseeing elections. And what they're proposing is Iraq, two point out, three point. Oh, I guess because Iraq, one point out was in the early 90s. That's what they're proposing. There is even if that were a good idea. And I'm not saying it is even if that were a good idea. There is zero political appetite for that in the United States on either side of the aisle. There is zero reason to believe that would work. But even if it would work, it politically speaking, it wouldn't work. So what are you proposing? All these people who have turned on Trump again and they're attacking Trump again over this deal. What did you think was going to happen? Your predictions were wrong. The regime was not overthrown. What did you think was going to happen? Unbelievable. Sometimes people got to sometimes listen to the guys who hate to say, I told you so all the time. OK, speaking of corrupt regimes, we turn from Tehran to California. Gavin Newsom is under investigation. We will get to why that is. He's blaming Trump. There's just one problem with this claim. First, I want to tell you about preborn. Go to preborn.com slash Knowles. Every father remembers a moment when fear gave way to purpose for John. That moment came after an unexpected pregnancy. He said, me, a dad that didn't even feel possible. But after connecting with preborn and receiving a free ultrasound, everything changed. We could do this. He said, I could do this for a lot of people. I'm now on my fourth go around as a father and you're very excited. You've been trying for it. For some people, it happens unexpectedly. And when people are getting a lot of pressure in all sorts of directions, when a mother sees her baby on ultrasound, here's that heartbeat, sees that baby. It doubles the baby's chance at life. This is one of the best investments you can make to help save a life. Preborn also great organization, fund raises for its admin costs separately. So every dollar you give is going towards saving babies. I personally support this organization. I encourage you to give what you can. This Father's Day, help another father experience the same hope. For $28, sponsor an ultrasound through preborn, help expectant parents choose life. To donate to £250, say keyword baby. That is £250, keyword baby, or go to preborn.com slash Knowles. Gavin Newsom made your statement coming out. He's just learned that the Trump administration is sickening its federal investigators on him. In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family, friends and former employees. Not because they found a crime, because they're simply trying to find one. They're demanding records. They're abusing the grand jury process, digging through years and years of random trying to find crimes. Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean tweets. He's coming after me because I'm considering running for president, because he hates that I consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit. OK, so Newsom says, these investigators are come knocking on doors, not because they have conclusive proof of a crime, but because they're trying to figure out if I committed one. Can you believe that? Say, well, that's what investigators do. Yeah, do you know what the verb investigate means? That's when you're that's when you're searching for your exploring, you're considering evidence to see if a crime has been committed, at which point you would bring charges. So yeah, he's Trump is investigating. That's true. And he says he's investigating me because I'm going to run for president. I've been a thorn in his side and I'm going to run for president. That's why he's investigating me. There is just one problem with Newsom's claim. Trump didn't start the investigation. Trump's DOJ didn't start the investigation. As the journalist Adam Housley points out, Emmy award-winning journalist, the new the investigation began under Joe Biden. Like Adam Housley posted, minor detail. They've been under federal investigation since the Biden admin. This isn't new, not just Adam Housley, but a semaphore. White House correspondent says, new, a source familiar with the situation tells me that there are several investigations ongoing relating to Gavin Newsom. I'm told they're focused on his wife's taxes, which we've covered that. His wife seems to have a little bit of a financial scandal, but that's been true for a long time and Newsom's chief of staff. They did not originate from the main DOJ, but are out of Sacramento and involve whistleblowers per the source. The DOJ is declining to comment. Do we have. Do I have no, I don't have the article. There's a there's a federal release from the DOJ that was released under Biden. They're investigating this. The chief of staff to Gavin Newsom got caught in some pretty serious corruption. And so now what also there was there were allegations of financial corruption on the part of Newsom's wife. So what do you know they're investigating Gavin Newsom now? This this actually isn't coming from Trump. It would be fine if it is. We absolutely should wield the the government properly, not unjustly, but properly to investigate corruption, which is manifest threat the Democrat Party and especially in California, California, Democrats who just stole an election from Spencer Pratt or stole a runoff, at least from Spencer Pratt in LA. That would be good. But this he Newsom's nervous. You can tell Newsom's nervous because he's not a totally stupid guy. So he knows that this investigation did not begin under Trump. And the fact that he's calling attention to it, the DOJ is not calling attention to this. Donald Trump is not calling attention to this. No one would have really known that much about it, unless you're a total political nerd, unless Gavin Newsom made the statement. This tells me Gavin Newsom is trying to get ahead of the story. And I think Newsom is trying to get ahead of the story because there's something there there. Now, speaking of the next president, there is a ton of jockeying going on, as you know. And a lot of this is being exacerbated by the Iran deal. But you've seen this shadow campaign for for the Republican presidential nomination being waged not between the vice president, JD Vance and the Secretary of State, Mark Rubio, but between various supporters of those two guys. By all accounts, those two guys get along great. I think they're legitimately friends. Rubio has endorsed Vance. Vance has said many nice things about Rubio. And the shadow campaign is being waged by partisans and ideologues, who in many ways, I think, are projecting onto Vance and Rubio their own wishes. I think some people are projecting onto Vance, this purely populist, purely isolationist kind of view. There's really no evidence of that at all. And people are projecting onto Rubio this kind of neocon hawkishness return to the Bush era that I think is unfair as well. I don't I don't think that that really accurately describes either of those guys. But furthermore, those two guys have made very clear they're not running against each other. Rubio actually endorsed Vance for president and Donald Trump, who is the king, who is the Caesar, who just hosted the gladiatorial games, he has yet again the most recent statement he's made on the Vance-Rubio, I suppose, shadow campaign is from just a couple of weeks ago, where he once again endorses them running as a ticket. You're a player. It's a good idea. And I was interested when you talked about how you studied Marco Rubio and JD Vance as they interact. What is their interaction and how do they relate? I studied, see if they like each other. I just find it interesting. You know, it's life. It's big time stuff. Do you do that with everyone in the cabinet? I do it with everybody outside of the cabinet to study everything. I'm a studier. Why? Because it's interesting. Human is the human thing, the human equation. So I watch them together. They get along great. They have a good relationship. They're sort of similar in a lot of ways, but they're very talented. And I think the two of them running together as a team would be very unbeatable. So you see this again and again and again. Trump has said the two of these guys running together as a team would be unbeatable. You saw I was actually in the cabinet meeting, the longest cabinet meeting in American history and I never chair, but it was very cool to be there where President Trump says, he was Marco, you're doing such a good job. I hope you never run for office again. Say, oh, is that that's a tough compliment? That's a back end to come. What do you think? You're doing such a good job as Secretary of State. I hope you remain in this position. Other times he said, I hope he runs on the ticket with JD Vance, who's obviously the heir apparent. You're seeing this unity from Trump down into the relationship between Vance and Rubio. I believe Trump's perception of that now. It's really kind of noise that's happening among the chattering class and among ideologues who aren't even really connected to those two guys who are trying to drive a wedge between them. You look at the Dems right now. The Dems are totally at each other's throats. You're seeing, you look at the Dems right now. You're seeing that that investigation into Newsom seems to have begun in Sacramento, not even in DC. Meanwhile, the GOP remains pretty unified. OK, Micah, what do you want now? Roy is coming home, baby. Can't you feel it? The excitement, the group chats, the atmosphere. Well, come on. I've got a good feeling about this one, Roy. The world's gone football. OK, Dan, a bit. Getting on the action this summer with SkyBear, 18 plus gamblerware.org. Now, speaking of Trump, Trump's seemingly preternatural power. There's one little coda that we have to add to that UFC fight the other night. You know, we saw the signs in the sky, the rainbow appearing over the Washington Monument with a shot of lightning between the rainbow and the Washington. All these amazing images coming. There's one more amazing image that not enough people are talking about. Comes from our National Weather Service, one of our National Weather Services. First, though, my favorite comment yesterday is from Sonia Childs, M2S, who says, our pride colors should be red, white and blue. I love that. I love that. That's great. I like sometimes I like the blunt. We don't eat French fries. We eat freedom fries. Bleed red, white and blue. That's my pride flag. Hmm. Am I right? I love it. That's right. You're right. You're right. It should be. OK. A lot of great images came out of that UFC fight. You had the flyover pick with the octagon in front of the White House. That was pretty. That was an iconic photo. Obviously, that photo cost some money to stage. Then you got a photo for free where it's the rainbow with the shot of lightning by the Washington Monument over the reflecting pool. You think, good grief, this is something the ancient pagans, the ancient Romans, would have seen as an omen from the gods. And but then there's another weird one. There's another weird one. We were hearing from the weather channel, especially, but we were hearing all day, Saturday and Sunday, that Trump's fight is going to be rained out, terrible weather, swarms of flies and mosquitoes everywhere. It's going to rain. And you think, all right, it's DC in the summer, there are flies and mosquitoes, but oh, it's going to be awful. It's going to be like a plague. You know, it's just going to be absolutely terrible. And there was bad weather coming in. And then this is crazy. The bad weather is approaching Washington, DC. It's coming on. And then how do you explain this? Just as it gets to Washington, it like splits apart. So you have, you know, really bad weather, thunderstorms, all of this just south of Washington and just north of Washington. And then it seems that the weather system actually blew a lot of the flies and mosquitoes out of the way entirely. And it just, let me just ask you something. How do you explain that? This is a subject that concerns me greatly that I think about a lot that I'm actually writing a book on now, which is how do you explain a sign like this? Does this have meaning? Is it just like a random coincidence? Is it just when the rainbow appears, whether we're talking about the rainbow in the book of Genesis or we're talking about the rainbow Sunday in Washington, DC, when a sign just appears, when a weird coincidence just happens, when an improbable turn of events happens, is it just like her, I guess that was random? Or does it have meaning? Does it have significance? You know, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the very first passages of the Summa Theologiae, book one, like right at the beginning, he says, you know, books, especially scripture, has meaning because, you know, you write the letters and there's the literal thing and then there's the figurative thing and there's the moral and the anagogical. And so we have to interpret that the symbols signify something. They have meaning. They symbolize something. But God is the author of creation, which means that things mean something too. It's not just that letters and words and signs signify something, but because God made creation, it's just like the lamp and the lightning and the person you're encountering and the chance event that has meaning too. And I look at the weather systems in DC or on Sunday night and just say, how do you, does that have meaning? Is it all just like random? Is it all just life is a tale told by an idiot full of sand and fury signifying nothing? Is it that or is life full of meaning? Is it, is our world rich in semiotics and symbols and can you actually pull meaning out of it? Okay. So, one of this type of phenomenon, speaking generally of phenomena, not explained by natural means, Lisa Kudrow from friends, you know, Phoebe from friends, one of the more sane, seeming people in Hollywood, she goes on Bill Maher's show to explain her conclusion that consciousness is not in the brain and Bill Maher, hardcore atheist, cannot comprehend what she's saying. I've been listening to physicists that are, you know, thinking about the difficult question of consciousness and deciding that what makes the most sense is it's consciousness is not in here. Consciousness exists in a field, the field that is everywhere, but it's not in here. I don't understand that. You don't understand it. What do you mean everywhere? Because you like writing while smoking, right, or being altered in some way. Yes, yes, exactly. So a lot of neuroscientists, I'll say a lot, but neuroscientists are saying the brain is a great filter, especially this front part. And it really, it's filtering all the information you can't use to exist here. Once you make the filter a little more permeable, you're getting access to some things. And creativity is one of those things that maybe doesn't start here. Okay, okay. There's a lot of woo woo, new age nonsense here, but there's a core of total insight. And it's kind of funny because for those who are, you know, in the more millennial Gen X boomer in the audience, Lisa Kudrow's character on Friends was this kind of woo woo, new agey, hippie type. But and she sounds that way a little bit here. So when she says, you know, actually doing drugs can make you more creative. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. It can also fry your brain and turn you into Brian Wilson. It takes a genius and just turns them into a vegetable. So I wouldn't encourage you to do drugs. The idea that the brain is just a filter for the consciousness man. There's some truth to that, which is that, you know, just as our eyes take in color and our ears take in sound waves and our fingers and feel touch, take in texture. So to our intellect, our brain's are working with our intellect to like deal in things, to deal in universals and forms. But her core point here, which is that consciousness is not synonymous with the brain. That is obviously true. And this is an scholastic and an ancient insight that the mind and the brain are different. And the only part where I think she goes a little wrong is she's kind of separating them too much. Our culture identifies them as the same because we're materialists and we just view ourselves as meat bags. But what she's describing is how you can make sense of near death experiences. You know, when people have an out of body experience, how can it be that I'm conscious outside of my body? That doesn't make a lot of sense. But the reality of it is that our intellect is immaterial. It's not the same thing as our brain. The way that we know this is because it receives universals and forms and abstracts things from the tangible world. Like taking sensory data that is working with our brain. But it's abstracting them and dealing with things that are immaterial, immaterial substances. And weirdly enough, in this woo-woo conversation where you got Phoebe from Friends talking about the force fields out there and stuff, and Bill Maher, who is supposedly the really grounded normal guy, Lisa Kudrow is more correct. She is more correct than Bill Maher here. And it reminds me of this phenomenon in politics, which is you have these guys who are libertarians, classical liberals, center-right people. We'll say, you know that Bill Maher, I know he's a big lib and he's on the left, but I find myself agreeing with him more and more. Bill Maher and I have common ground. This is this idea that you're going to form a political coalition of libertarians and center-right people and center-left people who like to smoke pot and are just disillusioned because the left got woke. And I actually think, no, Bill Maher is wrong about everything. I get a kick out of him. I'd like to have a conversation with him. But I would much rather be in a political coalition with woo-woo, Lisa Kudrow, than I would with Bill Maher because he's totally wrong. He thinks God doesn't exist. He thinks that we're just meat puppets. In as much as he has a political ideology, the political ideology is liberalism, which is totally wrong. In some ways, I can have a more fruitful conversation with a communist than I can with a liberal. In any case, go down Phoebe. Just remember, you're consciousness man. It's not the same thing as your brain. Also, don't do drugs. Okay, much more to say, speaking of intelligence, Trump is apparently purging the intelligence community. Love that. But it's TEE Tuesday. So the rest of the show continues. Now we have Cabot joining us. Cabot Phillips from Wired in Life, which you can check. You got to check out Wired in Life always on the Daily Wire. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member of the Use Code in Knowles, Canada, B-Villa. I asked you to check out for two months free on all annual plans.