Ep. 2073 - She Wasn't Invited BACK? New Bombshell "Cornell 7" Texts Revealed

Okay, fellas. Since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wire's newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s, good guys win, bad guys lose. No one apologizes for it. Check out Run Hyde Fight Infidels now streaming only on the daily wire. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004 plan under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co/noles. Condamped murderer Christopher Pike is receiving life-saving medical care after her executioners failed to kill her on Wednesday. She is now in critical condition with a reported brain injury, but doctors are hopeful that she will make enough of a recovery that the state can execute her again. We will examine the cruel and unusual case of our modern death penalty then. New text messages in the case of the Cornell 7 reveal that Jane Doe changed her mind on the ketamine-fueled Manaja Wheat and concluded that she had been raped because her alleged rapists did not invite her back to another party at the supposed location of her rape the following week. Then one of the most prominent Democrats running for Congress this cycle accidentally admits that his own party hates Jews. I'm Michael Noles, this is the Michael Noles Show. Welcome back to the show. If you haven't seen run-hide fight infidels yet, I don't know what to say to you. You have to go to dailywire.com/subscribe. We got Omani Muslim terrorists, hijack and airplanes only being thwarted by fast-thinking Indian pilots and Jewish dentists, and you haven't seen run-hide fight infidels yet. At dailywire.com/subscribe, it's crazy. Speaking of death, this Christopher Pike execution is a Monty Python sketch. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and scary and freaky and ridiculous. Christopher Pike was supposed to be executed for a grizzly brutal, horrific murder of a teenage girl that she committed 30 years ago. Because of our current death penalty system, where we want to carry out the death penalty, but we don't want to admit that we're carrying out the death penalty, like we want to, exact justice, but we feel kind of icky about it. Because of that, it now takes 30 years to kill someone, which almost totally destroys the deterrent effect of capital punishment, which is one of the purposes of capital punishment, but not the main one. Because of that, she is supposed to be executed 31 years later. She wakes up after the first shots are administered. She says, "Hey, is it supposed to hurt this bad? Is this my arm feels like it's going to explode? Is this normal?" Then she kind of goes back to sleep and it doesn't work. They administer more poison shots. That doesn't work. So then what do they do? They take her to the hospital. They take her to the hospital because she needs life-saving medical care because she might die from the death penalty shots, but she didn't die fast enough. So they're going to save her life. But the conviction in the sentence still stands. So they got to save her life so they could bring her back and kill her again. Now she's in the hospital in critical condition and new sources are reporting that she has a brain injury. Executions usually cause brain injuries. So I don't know why this is shocking to the journalists, the doctors, the state executioners. They want to make sure, though, that she is alive. And if she has a brain injury, it's unclear if they can execute her because you're not supposed to execute people who are mentally incapacitated. Now, of course, she only got the brain injury because they tried to execute her and executions 100% of the time cause brain injury. So now we don't know what to do. How did this all happen in the first place? Well, it's because Chris DePike requested execution by death penalty, which is a far more, sorry, execution by firing squad, a far more humane far more dignified way to go. She was totally right to request that. But the state said no. The state said we have to inject you with poison. So then her dying wish was or what was supposed to be her dying wish was that she'd be executed by an execution team of all women. Would not be my request if I were in Chris DePike's position. Nevertheless, they say, okay, we're going to make some history here. We're going to have an execution team of all women didn't work out. Some jobs, let's just say some jobs are best left to men. So it doesn't work out. She's in the hospital now. She, according to the New York Times, might have a near post-rather probably has a brain injury. Everything went wrong here. And this is really an indictment of us, of our politics, of the demos of our society. We already have the indictment of Chris DePike. She committed the horrific crime. She was convicted for it. She was sentenced to death for it. This is really an indictment of us. The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. By any understanding of that language from US law, from the US constitution, it is not cruel and unusual punishment. It is a very standard form of justice administered in our own country and everywhere around the world since the dawn of time. It doesn't have to be cruel. We want to make it humane. We don't want to torture the condemned. This woman has been tortured now, but you don't want to torture the condemned. You want it to be quick and easy. The invention of the guillotine was to make it quick and easy and painless. The electric chair was supposed to make it relatively quick and easy. That did not. The firing squad certainly does that. But the lethal injection does not actually do that. The lethal injection is not about being humane to the condemned. The lethal injection is about being humane to the rest of us because the lethal injection is supposed to put you to sleep. You're not supposed to see them riding in pain or crying or anything like that. But that's for us. There's really no evidence that it's not painful. In fact, now there is a lot of evidence that it is painful for the person because the condemned here sat up and said, "Wow, this really, really hurts." Is this supposed to hurt this bad? The lethal injection is about protecting our feelings. Is about alleviating the pain for us, the spectators, the society that condemned her to death, not Christopheic. There's the moral question and there's the political question. On the moral question, there are lots of people debating whether or not the death penalty is moral. And you see this especially among Catholics because over the last eight years, the most recent popes have really increased their invective against the death penalty going so far as to say it's inadmissible. Now, the popes have not gone so far as to say it's morally evil because that would contradict scripture and 2,000 years of church history and the doctors of the church and popes, including popes who have been beatified, who have carried out the death penalty themselves. So they can't go that far. However, they've gone about as far as they can possibly go. And so some people are saying now you can't be Catholic if you make any defense of the death penalty. Again, the church measures her time not in weeks or days or even years. The church measures her time in centuries. And so this is a complex issue. It will be worked out over a long period of time by many popes and bishops in the history of the church. It's obviously a nuanced issue. This all began because John Paul II said that he was personally opposed to the death penalty. He said it's a practical matter in the modern era. We have enough guardrails that we don't need to carry out the death penalty. Pope Benedict followed that. He personally was opposed to the death penalty, though he said reasonable minds and reasonable Catholics could disagree over this. It was Pope Francis who really ratcheted up the language in 2017-2018. And then Pope Leo seems to have maintained Francis's view. I think there is a misunderstanding, though, on the purpose of the death penalty. The chief purpose of the death penalty is not deterrence. The chief purpose of the death penalty is not protection of the public safety. The chief purpose of the death penalty is not rehabilitation. It is retribution. It is that justice has to be restored. So we see this in the writing of St. Thomas Aquinas, a common doctor of the church in the summa contra gentilace. But in the summa theologia, you see that Thomas Aquinas writing more from the perspective of public safety. All to say, it's a very complex issue. It will be debated for a very long time. Obedient sons of the church, you know, we pay due reverence to what the Holy Father says, but obviously there's more to the story. And we don't have to turn our brains off when we think about moral issues. That's really not what is relevant in this case. Because whatever you think about the morality of the death penalty, whatever you think about whether or not the death penalty should be carried out as a matter of the civil law, what is happening to this woman is cruel and unusual punishment. What is happening to this woman is absurd. It is absurd on its face to take a condemned criminal, bring her to the execution chamber, fail to execute her twice, and then rush to get the ambulance so you can save her life. That is absurd in itself. And the reason that we are doing it, at that point you think, okay, it doesn't work two times. Get out the matzatello. You ever hear of those, the matzatello? It was actually, it was used in the papal states by the papal executioner to kill condemned criminals. It was just basically a big bludgeon to crush the skull of the condemned criminals. There are many other methods of execution. But at that point, you say, okay, well, look, the shots didn't work. Anybody have a pistol on them? We're here to do a job. The job is to kill the condemned criminal. Anybody got a pistol? But we don't do that because it's about us. Now, I suggested on the show yesterday. I said, look, even if you totally support the death penalty being carried out here and you recognize the Truly. horrific nature of this woman's crime, there is a little role for providence here. If someone survives two executions, one, I want to see if it's sabotage, but if there's no evidence of it's sabotage, maybe it's a sign. You know, we have natural justice, but also sometimes we need to be open to God's interventions. Maybe it's that whatever you think about it, this is cruel and unusual punishment. And more broadly, the way that the death penalty is carried out in the United States is cruel and unusual. Either do it or don't do it. But to let people languish for 30 years on death row and then to only execute a very, very small number of these people in a way that seems kind of capricious, that to me is unusual and that to me is quite cruel. I think they're very, very, very strong defenses of the death penalty. But they should be quick, they should be efficient. We should not torture the people. In this case, this woman is being tortured and we are torturing ourselves, we're twisting ourselves into pretzels because we want to be the society that deals with criminals that protects the public, that restores order, but we don't want to do the icky stuff. We don't even want the civil authority, which is given the sword by God, according to Saint Paul. We don't even want them to do the icky stuff. We want, this is, this is liberalism, this is, we want de-caf coffee. We want, we want the good stuff from the, we want some of the thing, but not the essence of the thing. So, we want capital punishment without having to actually execute anyone, pretty ridiculous to me. Speaking of women in the news, the text message is coming out of the Cornell 7 case. We are seeing there is a real grave injustice being done. And it's a grave injustice being done to the men who were accused of the rape here. We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about Hallow. There's a lot more to say first. They're going to Hallow.com/Noles, Canada view LES. Every week your phone sends you a screen time report, an unsolicited accounting of how much of your life you've surrendered to a glowing rectangle. The number is usually not encouraging, it's usually deeply blackpilling. We have no shortage of time for news, work, text, social media, but somehow when it comes to prayer, we convince ourselves it just isn't enough time. Hallow is asking you to reclaim some of it with the 21 days of prayer challenge. For 21 days, you'll make intentional time for God and pray alongside someone new. Coach Prime, Gwen Stefani, and Gary Sinese, two priests, pastors, mothers, nurses, and police officers. Each person answers two questions. Who are you? And how do you pray? You may discover a prayer to begin your morning, one to remember when life becomes difficult or simply relearn how to be still. Your phone is received enough of your attention, give some of it back to God. This happens to me. I get to the end of the day, say, "Oh, I didn't finish this decade of the rosary." Oh, I didn't say, "I definitely doomscrolled a lot, definitely saw a lot of stupid tweets." So look, we all do it. Okay. Forget about it. Just start now. Download Hallow for three months and join the 21 days of prayer challenge at Hallow.com/Nolls CanadaVLS. Hallow.com/Nolls. The reporting, coming out of the New York Times here from the Cornell 7. This is pretty, pretty gross stuff. The whole story is completely disgusting. For those of you who haven't followed the story, a girl shows up, a sophomore, a Cornell shows up to a frat house. They give her one beer. She has the beer. She said, "I guess she had been drinking a little before, but she was in her right mind relatively. She was consenting to things. She goes to hook up with a guy. The guy says, "Hey, can I bring another guy into this?" Gross. She says, "Okay, that's fine." And then they start doing their thing and then more guys show up and the girl is apparently kind of into it and she starts snorting drugs off some of the guy's appendages and whatever. And then they ask her to add another guy and she says, "No, I don't want to add the fourth guy, but then or the third guy to the Manajakathra." But then some other guys come in. She's apparently open to that and then whatever. Okay. The whole thing is completely gross, but the question is, did these guys commit a rape? Their faces have been plastered everywhere. The accuser's face has not been plastered everywhere. We don't know for sure what her name is, though some people are reporting on it. But these guys, we know their names, we got their faces everywhere, they're getting fired from their jobs. So the question is not, did they do a weird thing in college? The question is not, did they do a yucky thing in college? The question is not, did they do an immoral thing in college that we'll get to that? The question is, did they commit a rape? That's what this girl is now alleging. But here's the reporting from the New York Times. After this whole thing took place, and at 5.30 in the morning, she says, "Okay, you know what? I think I'm done with this." And the guy said, "Okay, that's fine." She goes home. New York Times says, "In the meantime, Jane Doe delivered strict instructions to one of her roommates." She was talking about this whole thing to her roommate, so that was a crazy thing I did. She says to her roommates, "If anyone asks about this, say it didn't happen." The roommate was plainly concerned. Initially, she said, Jane Doe was, quote, "kind of recounting it as this sort of crazy thing she had done." So the girl comes back. She's talking to her roommates. She goes, "She doesn't say, I was raped. She doesn't even say, I felt uncomfortable, and this was, I don't know what happened to me." She comes back and she goes, "Man, I had the craziest experience that's night. Wasn't that wild? Aren't I a fun girl?" That was nuts, huh? As the days went on, the roommate continued. I think she kind of came to realize that it was something bad. Really important wording here. Not something criminal. Not something that was done to her, not that she had been violated. That the thing she participated in was itself a bad thing. So she came to realize that it was something bad, and that she didn't really enjoy her time there. Initially, she said she did enjoy her time there. This is crazy thing. She was doing it for seven hours, but then she came to discover that actually she didn't enjoy her time there. On October 25th, one of the accused texted Jane Doe. You good? Jane Doe replied that this guy had deaf told people. Notice. She doesn't say what you did to me, it was awful, but you did to me, it was criminal. I can't believe you would do that to me for seven hours, constantly asking me if I was enjoying it or if I wanted to leave or whatever. No, no, no. Her first concern was not about the act itself. It was whether or not he had told people. Keep going on the reporting. Quote, "I'd have conversations," and she would describe a part of what happened, and I would tell her that that is what could be classified as rape, says the roommate. So they were having conversations, and she didn't think it was rape. But then the roommate comes at, and the roommate doesn't even say that was rape. The roommate says that is the sort of thing that could be classified as rape. That's a very clinical language. That's very abstracted language. This is a struggle session. This is what happened with the New York Radical Women's Groups in the 1970s. You'd have these women show up, and they'd say, "I have a pretty good life. I like my husband. I like my kids. I have a pretty good life." And then the New York Radical Women's Groups would raise their consciousness. The whole point of these meetings was to say, "No, no, you hate your life. You have to change your opinion about your life." That's what's going on here. At Chi Phi, the fraternity that was preparing for a Halloween party, Jane Doe was eager to attend. Most messages included in the investigation show one of the guys, assuring Jane Doe that he and the other fraternity members wanted her to be there. So hold on, right here, just that line alone. This woman who is now, way after the fact saying she was raped, was upset in the week following the supposed rape because her supposed rapists didn't invite her back to the scene of her supposed rape for another party, totally absurd. That line alone says, "Whatever that was, that was not a rape. Whatever that was, this woman did not think it was a rape. Whatever that was, it was like the opposite of a rape because she was so eager to go back." The fraternity member responds, "Khi Phi is your house. You are welcome here," he wrote, relaying the views of the fraternity's president, who is not among those accused of sexual assault. Keep going. Thank you. I really appreciate that, Jane Doe responded. Heart emoji, "I'll bring my SIGs tomorrow. Thank you. I'm so excited to come back and I'll bring my SIGs, and I love you. Heart emoji, I love you." But then Jane Doe received a phone call from the fraternity's president, according to the text messages. She was disinvited from the party. "It was for her own good," he said. What does that mean? It was for her own good. It might mean that it could mean really three things. One, and I think a very likely contender, all the guys felt weird about this too, because it's a super weird thing that they did. And they felt ashamed and they felt embarrassed, and they didn't want to relive that. They didn't want to recreate that, certainly. There's that. Two, they don't like her. They just, they used her. They got what they wanted, and now they want a cast to recite. That's kind of related to number one, because she kind of brings up this weird memory. And then three, and I think this is heavily implied by what he's saying. The word got out, and people were going to be mean to her about it. Maybe they were going to try to pull the same thing with her. Maybe they were actually looking out for her own good, because they didn't want her to just be the piece of the meat at the party. And certainly, I think we could conclude they didn't want her to just be the laughing stock of this party. It's probably for your own good. This thing that happened after this like really humiliating thing, you probably shouldn't come. At the very least, it's going to reflect badly on us. I don't know, maybe some of these guys were going after other girls at the party. Whatever it is, the guy says you can't come to the party. Jane Doe, according to New York Times, sent a biting text to this guy. I knew this was going to happen. Very interesting message. Not only is she shocked, you know, that she is not shocked, in fact, forget about not only. She is not shocked that she's been disinvited from this party. She's not only disappointed that she's disinvited from the party. She suspected that would happen. Why? Because her conscience is telling her that what she did is gross and depraved. And what all the guys did is gross and depraved. And it's not the sort of thing that one wants to really remember or relive. That it was a shameful act. And so stigma and shame would follow it. And she would suffer social consequences as a result. She knew that already before she got the text. I knew this was going to happen, she wrote. The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your derriers. She doesn't say derriers. We clean it up for a family show. Even as we're talking about the subject, which is not fit for a family show. By November 3, Jane Doe appears to have concluded that she was assaulted at the October party. She sent a text to Mr. Newell. Is there any more of the reporting here? Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. It was given more key, I guess, ketamine than I can remember. And I know that I told you I felt uncomfortable and I didn't know anyone in the room. The text continued with her telling him that one of her only memories was doing ketamine off of his appendage in front of everyone like a sex doll/worker. Four days later, on November 7, according to the documents, Jane Doe went to an emergency room in Ithaca and requested a rape kit. OK. So one of these guys says after this is filed. So you have the supposed rape, then over a week later, there's a party she wants to go to. She's told she can go to the party. She's so excited. She can't wait to go back. Then she's told, actually, that was pretty weird. Better if you don't come to the party. Then she says, OK, you guys raped me. And this guy says, according to the New York Times, I remember the girl in specific saying something along the lines of this was normal in medieval times. So guy comes into the room and says, hey, what are you guys doing? Stop it, nag it off. Get out of here. This is weird. And she says, no, no, this was normal in medieval times. The guy says, when she then approached him, allegedly, and tried to get him involved in the Manaja Wheat, I kind of took a step back because I didn't want to engage in anything like sex. I thought it wasn't the time for that. Lee later engaged in sexual contact with Doe. He asked her if she was comfortable with what was happening. And she allegedly told him, quote, we're all consenting adults here, according to the New York Times. OK. I feel bad for the girl. I feel really bad for the guys because their lives are being ruined. And her life is not being ruined in the same way. Her social life at Cornell was being ruined. But her name is not being plastered everywhere. These guys are losing their jobs. And it's going to follow them for the rest of their lives. And they all acted stupidly. But I feel bad for the girl here in that. She clearly liked one of the guys. And she-- one of the guys was kind of a weirdo and wanted to bring another guy into this. And she thought that it would impress him and ingratiate herself to him if she did that. And then she clearly wanted to ingratiate herself to all the other guys. She was doing all this other stuff. And she was trying to be cool. She was trying to be the cool girl and act like one of the guys, which was exactly what feminism tells you to do. Tells women to engage in sex in exactly the same way that men do with the same kind of flippancy, with the same attitudes and with the same kinds of behaviors. And then it doesn't work out. And she realizes there is a double standard. It's not a double standard. It's just that men and women are different. And she realizes she's going to face different social repercussions than the men are. And so she doesn't know what to do. And she completely changes her tune and calls it rape two weeks later. Vocal distance. I think it was vocal distance. Our old pal vocal distance on the show had a really good take on this. He said, the way that she might have convinced herself that this was not consensual is by understanding what she was consenting to. He is-- this is a little psycho Babel, but I think it's persuasive. He's saying what she was consenting to was being one of the guys. And part of that was engaging in this depraved sexual act that a lot of girls wouldn't do. And what she expected in return was to be considered one of the guys to have their affection, to be invited to their parties, to be given special privileges at their fraternity house. That was the deal. And in her mind, they violated that deal. They didn't treat her like one of the guys. She's not one of the guys. She's a girl. And they didn't invite her back to the party. And so there is a plausible way to say that what happened was not consensual in this really degraded perverse form of consent, because this was an exchange that took place. I will give you my body for all these depraved things for the next seven hours, but you need to let me into your club. And then they kicked her out of the club. That legally has no merit. It's a very perverse way of thinking, but these are very perverse times that we're living in. I feel bad for the guys. Feel bad for her, you know, as I said, if I were this girl's father, I'd go and chop all their heads off. But I'd at least want to. That would be wrong. It would be immoral. That would be illegal. But I'd certainly want to chop their heads off. Consent or no consent. But I feel bad for everyone involved because this is all very, very embarrassing. And it's really sad. Like the saddest thing for a romantic, such as myself, is that in this colonel of the beginning of the story, the girl has a crush on guy number one. The girl has a crush on guy number one. She wants to go hook up with guy number one. And guy number one, a little bit of a weirdo, says, can you bring, let's bring another guy into this. What? Okay. So the guys had no respect for this girl. And the guys just wanted to treat her like a piece of me. Maybe they'd watch too much porn or something. Probably this girl watched too much porn or something. And so she says, okay, that's fine. It reminds me of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, where the protagonist, John, wants to have a real romantic relationship. But in the Brave New World Society, it's the opposite of the George Orwell Totalitarian Society. The George Orwell Totalitarian Society says, you're not allowed to have fun. You're not allowed to have luxuries. You're not allowed to, it's just entirely oppressive with this heavy hand of the state. Whereas the Aldous Huxley Brave New World dystopia says, no, you get everything your heart desires. It's just all perverse. You get, oh yeah, you're gonna have promiscuous sex all the time, but you can't have meaningful sex. Yeah, you're gonna get drugs all the time, but you can't do anything meaningful. You can't do anything with purpose. And so John in Brave New World wants to have a real romantic relationship. And Lenina, Lenina, doesn't know what to make of that. She's kind of disgusted by it. This is what we do here. The social convention is we just hook up and have meaningless promiscuous sex. What, whoa, slow your roll buddy. It's just so depraved. So at a legal level, these guys, these guys seems like they should get off the hook and probably start suing for defamation, suing press outlets. I mean, this is gonna ruin their lives. They also need to reform themselves. The girl needs to think deeply about the real source of her anxiety and trauma. I'm sure she is traumatized. But she is traumatized by her own decisions by the carelessness with which the men think about sex that she played into. And by all the feminists in society who are telling her to behave in the way that she is behaving. It's just everyone loses here, but we can't, we lack the moral language to speak about what actually happens. So we have to pretend it's something that's not. Okay, speaking of romance, I wanna move from whatever that was at Cornell to marriage because there's a headline out. I've one weird trick to increase your chances of not getting divorced by 100%. First, I wanna say about GOP votes. They're good at GOP votes.org. The midterm elections are here. If the DSA Democrats win, they will push a radical socialist agenda and drown President Trump in endless investigations. We've seen their playbook before. They tried impeaching him. They tried putting him in prison. They've tried everything. Do not let them win. Because if we lose, they will undo everything our movement is fought for. I need you to vote early. You can bank your vote and fight back against the left's turnout machine. Go to GOPvotes.org right now. Find out when you can vote. Making your voice heard is easier than ever. You can get election reminders, look up your polling location, and pick a date to vote early. Go to GOPvotes.org today, paid for by SLF PAC, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. Imagine setting your makeup. Then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupy setting mist from Mavily New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all-day comfy grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue. Just plump, dewy, hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupy setting mist from Mavily New York. Maybe it's Maybelline. Great study, very important study. One weird trick. People are putting off getting married. They're worried about getting married, especially Gen Z and millennials 'cause all our parents are divorced. The birth rates down. The soul society's crumbling. Well, here's one weird trick to not get divorced. Ladies, take your husband's last name. Study out from the Institute for Family Studies, married couples with different surnames, divorce at a 50% higher rate. And they make it an average of just eight to 10 years before filing for divorce. according to an analysis. from the IFS. So the couples that where the woman doesn't take the man's last name, they get divorced in a way, way higher rate than the couples where the woman does take the man's last name and they get divorced even sooner. It's not that when the couple has the same last name, they don't ever get divorced, but the couples that have the different last names, they get divorced a lot more and they do it a lot sooner. So in America, 79% of women take the husband's last name. And yet, not taking the husband's last name is a great predictor of divorce. It's not though just looking at divorce. The Institute for Family Studies shows that couples where the wife takes the man's last name are happier in every way, in every measure. Overall, relationship happiness, quality of community together, how well you share tasks, level of commitment, sexual relationship, they're just happier in every way. Why is that? It is because to take the husband's last name is to affirm the permanence of marriage. That's what it is. It's why having a prenup increases your chances of divorce. It's not that the prenup itself possesses a magical power that increases your chances of divorce. It's that the prenup is a sign that you are open to the possibility of divorce. I am not open to the possibility of divorce. I won't do it. I'm Catholic. My church tells me I can't get divorced. I certainly don't want to get divorced, but I would sooner be struck dead than divorce my wife. In some cases, in extreme examples of danger or abuse, there might be some cause for a separation or even a civil divorce, but as pertains to the nature of marriage itself, I don't think divorce is even possible. Ain't going to do it. If you have a disagreement with your wife or your husband, my view is the only way out is through your in it, so you better figure it out. When you believe that, when you approach marriage that way, you're going to treat disagreements differently because you're stuck together, bud. You can't afford lingering tension, nasty words, unpleasant living situations because there's no way out. That's going to change the tone with which you speak to your wife. That's going to change the issues that you bring up. That's going to change the seriousness with which you're going to try to fix marital problems. The last name is just part of that. If a woman goes through the effort of changing your name on all of her legal documents and changing your name to all of her friends and changing a part of how she identifies herself, she's going to be less likely to divorce. Do it. It's one weird trick. People, we live in this real psycho-babel age where we just all try to examine ourselves and find our true, authentic, psychological impulses and a blah, blah, blah. Life can be simpler than that. Just like do the right thing, just like do those things, even if you don't want to do those things, do those things enough and your will will start to change, your perception, your introspection will start to change and we will want to do those things. Humans are very complex creatures in so many way. In other ways, we're pretty simple things. Creatures of habit were creatures that are bodies as well as souls. When you just do this stuff enough, it happens. Some of the best advice I ever got from someone who's been married for a while. That's the best way not to get divorced. Sorry, what's the best way to have a blew the punch line? What's the best way to have a long marriage? Don't get divorced. That's it. If you start out from the beginning saying, we're not going to get divorced, it turns out you're less likely to get divorced. Okay. Turning to people who are not married, Senator Scott Wiener. Scott Wiener, he's that state senator in California. His most famous infamous political accomplishment is reducing the punishments for petarists, grown men who rape little boys. He is a member of the LGBT element of the community Scott Wiener. He has these real hangups, unjust, constantly pushing weird sex stuff onto minors that is his raison d'etre in politics. Well, now he wants to leave the state legislature and take over Nancy Pelosi's seat in Congress. He is as libous as they come. He's as Democrat as they come. He's a total freak, something deeply wrong with that guy. And he is on CNN because the left wing doesn't like him and they don't like him. You couldn't wish this on a nicer guy. The left wing doesn't like him because despite being super left on everything. He's a Jew and he's a very anti-Israel Jew. He accuses the state of Israel of committing genocide and Gaza. He parrots all the lines about how terrible Israel is. But he's a Jew. And they don't like him for it. Well, what I will say is, 2026 is not, shall we say, an easy year to be progressive to running for Congress. And we have seen Jewish candidates, Jewish elected officials be targeted here in San Francisco and around the country and held to a different standard than non-Jewish candidates with similar positions. And so it is an issue. Jewish candidates, Jewish elected officials, not just me, others as well, have been getting targeted for several years now. And that needs to stop. I have no problem being held accountable for anything I do or say or propose or don't do or say that's democracy. And I have hard conversations with my constituents all the time. But when it rises to the level of straight up harassment and intimidation and assault, that crosses a lie. And particularly when you're only targeting certain elected officials and candidates specifically Jewish elected officials and candidates. Can I say it as for the only time I'm ever going to say it? Scott Winner is totally right here. He's totally, this is a crazy thing to say about your own party in a midterm election year. When your party seems to have the political wins in its sales, he is coming out and he's saying my party hates Jews. I, a Jew, am a member of my party. I want you all to go out and vote for my party. But a lot of my party hates me because I'm a Jew because my party hates Jews. Vote for my party. I'm a Jew. That is a crazy thing to say in a midterm election year. That's a crazy thing to say in any year. But he's totally right. Anti-Semitism rises up throughout the ages, probably it will until the end of time. It comes up. It's not confined to one political ideology or another. It's risen up in parts of the right. No question. It's an issue of the left. It is chiefly an issue of the is without question, incomparably more pronounced on the left. That is a crazy indictment of his own party and he isn't entirely right about it. Okay. Before we get to the mailbag, my favorite comment yesterday is from Rusted Echoes who says daily wire in two years, run hide fight first class. Oh, because of the fly Dubai plane where the Israelis stop the terrorist on the airplane. Okay. You know what? That's fine. But no, I'm going to do you one better. If the daily wire executives are watching this show right now, they're probably not. But if they were, someone send this to the daily wire executives, I want you to take out your checkbooks. I want you to write down one million dollars paid to the order of Michael Knowles. You got that? Is that written down? Are you ready for it? Run hide flight. You like that? You like run hide flight. That's a pun. Million dollars, please. Where is my all? I'm going to be refreshing my bank account on send it over here. You're welcome. You're welcome. All the thing, all the things I've done for this company over the run hide flight. You're going to watch it. That's good. Our mailbag is sponsored by pure talk at puretalk.com/ Knowles today to join my wireless company. Take it away. Hi, Michael. Ryan from South Dakota here responding to your conversation with Dr. Johnston concerning Noah's Ark. Of course, it's absurd to suggest that it's literally been found. But I would suggest the possibility there's something more nefarious going on in the reporting of it than just over excitement on a big story. I would suggest the media knows it's dumb and still reports it with passion and a slow game of demoralization by attempting to get earnest seekers of Christ excited knowing the wrong is going to be pulled away pretty soon. This has been done before with such things as the real location of the Garden of Eden or Sodom and Gomorrah or real pieces of the real crucifix or whatever. Scam folks enough times and in theory, you can get enough people to question if any of the faith is literally true. And then the next thing you know, yeah, people joining churches like Taloriko's were perhaps even Jesus himself didn't exist at all. If you can convince confused people that Jesus wasn't actually real or actually divine, then you can convince them that what's really important is the political message in the Jesus legend, which is of course whatever left this wacko message they're selling in the moment. Curious to know what you think. Thanks. It's an interesting theory, but you're giving them too much credit. I don't think through that sophisticated. I think it's just sensationalism. I think they know I'll get a lot of clicks and a lot of people will talk about it, including me, which is true. It worked and they get clicks. I think that's what it's about. Plenty of people in the media hate God and religion and the faithful and that's true. But the simpler answers you sometimes. more persuasive. The only other correction I'll give you there. Yes, claims that we've discovered the Garden of Eden or something are pretty silly. I am fairly convinced about pieces of the true cross. And I know a lot of modern people, they don't buy a lot of relics, you know, I say, oh, there's no way that Constantine's mother could have, you know, discovered the true cross, or all the way back. Oh, my goodness. In what the fourth century, there's no way it's not. There's no way that she discovered the sight of Jesus' tomb. That actually, by modern archaeology, does seem to have been affirmed just a few weeks ago. But yeah, I kind of buy it. I don't know, I don't know for sure. Some relics are not legitimate. I mean, there are two skulls of St. Thomas Aquinas that are available for veneration. And he was a smart guy, so people say he needed two skulls for all his brains. But probably one of those skulls is not legitimate. So yeah, some relics are probably not legit. But a lot of them are. The thing about Christians is we're pretty big on keeping stuff. The faith, the tradition, artifacts, relics. I mean, don't forget the martyrdom of polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. And the martyrdom of polycarp describes the early Christians collecting all of his bones after the pagans burned him up. And they just kept, they kept the bones. And they didn't. I don't think they just like threw him out. I don't think they sold them in a garage sale or something like that. So anyway, I'm pretty relic built. I do buy it. As I explained on the show earlier this week, but no, I don't think it's sophisticated because your faith doesn't rest on, your faith isn't going to rest on the provenance of some relic or another. And my faith certainly doesn't rest on whether or not they find the Noah's Ark or something like that. I just think that the journalists want to, they want to play on people who are a little gullible and gradual as it makes the money. But they're, they're attacks on religion are blunt or unless sophisticated than that. Next question. Okay, three things today. Number one, who is gatekeeping the Christian community? Because if Teleriko says that or his parish, quote, unquote, parish says that Jesus Christ didn't exist, how can they be Christian? Like who's saying, no, you can't actually be claimed to be Christian if you don't believe in Christ that he was a person. That is like, that's a question that I have. Second, I don't like all the Jacob fat-chaming. That's like all of us in the chat. We have radio faces and we're probably just as chubby if not more. So I don't like that. Also, I'm a female and women can historically not ever like give each other crap because it's just we take it personally. I'm just very uncomfortable. I don't like a chick of your fine. Thirdly, let's us do a quick kill. I'm married for your wife because you have your baby. You can't marry full of grace. Lord is with you. Plus, I'm a woman. And blessed is for you as I'm Jesus, holy man, but I've God, pray for us to understand the order of the human. Wow. Great, great mailbag question overall. Let's, let's take them in order. Who is gatekeeping Christianity? I guess it's supposed to be the Pope, right? You know, again, the bishops and all. Yeah. And, but Taloriko, he's a member of, he's not just a Presbyterian. He's a member of PCUSA, I think, which is the super duper lib gay variation offshoot of Presbyterianism. So they're not paying much attention to the Pope, I guess, but yeah, agree. That's pretty crazy. As to the Jacob fat-chaming, I'm afraid to tell you it will continue until morale improves. You're right, though. Women can't, first of all, I don't think any of you have radio faces. And you in particular, you have this lovely voice. And so I refuse to hear any self-effacing comments about your appearance, or any appearance in the crème du de crème. All the negative comments have to be about Jacob's appearance. But yes, you're right. Women hate it when guys give each other grief. I remember one time in college, I didn't go to Cornell. I didn't go to Cornell, but we were hanging out in our suite. If you guys, you know, we're like five guys living together, one of us brought a girl over and the girl was horrified because, you know, my college, pretty liberal place, and they hear all of us talk in, and we're like, you fat, stupid idiot. No, you dummy. You big dumb. We were pretty rough on each other, you know, and the girl had no idea how to interpret it. We were very close. We were all very good friends. And she had no idea how to enter. She goes, "Why are you all so mean to each other?" And I said, what? Oh, it goes, you've never been around guys. Because the guys that she was hanging out with were these lib, you know, kind of little more, little more on the soy boy level of the way that they spoke. They spoke in a more feminine way. And we were the more conservative guys in the campus. And so we talked to each other like men do. And she was horrified by it. And on the third point, thank you very much for the Hail Mary. Appreciate the obvious from everybody out there. As sweet little Alisa approaches, I think we're now 58 months into pregnancy. So any day now, next question. Good morning, Michael. This is Arun. So I want to clarify why precisely I hate both French and Scots. I don't hate him because he's generally racist. I think that racism is really funny. I hate him because he's specifically racist against Indians. Now we are a fairly inert ethnic group. We don't come any crimes. We aren't done welfare. And I don't think any of us own guns. I'm the only Indian that I know of who owns firearms. So we're not going to be committing any violent uprisings anytime soon. The only offensis that I can think of that we've committed against both French are that we are smarter than him and took all his jobs. And I don't mean white people generally. I just mean both French specifically who probably never made a multivariable calculus. And also we have religious traditions that deviate strongly from his own. So given that Indians are only 2% of the population of Texas, wouldn't that make him literally Hitler? I'll see myself out. Not out of the country just out of the voicemail bag. I can't. I don't know that I could respond in any way that would add to Arun's question. Was there a question? The question is is he literally Hitler? That's true. And I like your point where you say, hey, I hate this guy not because he's racist because racism is generally funny but because he's racist against my group in particular. And to your point on the Indo Filia, I agree. This is where I say I don't know. This is one place I'm really out of step with the online right because maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker or maybe because I don't know. But I have a particular affection for Jews and Indians. I've been to India twice. I love India. I play the sitar. One of my best friends is Indian of many years and I just, I love Indian food. And so I'm totally out of step. I don't know. My numbers would go up on social media if I hated the Jews in the Indians in particular. But I don't, I like them in particular. It's very, very frustrating for me, very hard for me. Okay. Last mailback question. Hey, Michael. This is Devon. This is my first voicemail bag I sent in. Anyway, I had two questions related to your show on Monday just about the holy relics and the resurrection. I was thinking about this differently. I'm LDS. And the two thoughts I had on this was would holy relics like the job on of that bishop wouldn't that be kind of desecration of the body? The second question, and so that would be kind of outlawed by Christ's gospel. At least that's my thoughts on that. And then the second question I had about cremation is that there have been so many people that have been cremated. If God is all powerful, wouldn't He be able to piece them together with so that they can be resurrected? So I don't see really see an issue with that either. As long as like they're doing it for the right reasons and not to mock the resurrection like you said. Anyway, happy to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, really good questions. No, I was on your first point. Is this desecration to have physical relics, you know, to take a piece of a bone or something from a dead body? No, it wouldn't be desecration just by definition because the relics are to be venerated. So you can't simultaneously venerate and desecrate a thing. Those are opposites. So because they are for veneration, they are not being desecrated. If they're being thrown in the river or something, then I guess that would be desecration. In terms of the second point is this outlawed by the gospel. I don't think so. The early Christians didn't think so. I can't think of a verse that would outlaw that. You do see relics in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts. And then in the very early Christian tradition, like the aforementioned martyrdom of Polycarp, so no, I don't see that being outlawed. And then on cremation, can God piece back together people who are cremated? Yes, of course. The issue with cremation is not that God can't resurrect someone who is burned rather than whose body decays in the grave. You're going to turn to dust in the grave too. It's more what you are signifying by the act. So it is notable that pagan cultures, modern and ancient cremated bodies. That is one of the hallmarks of a pagan culture. The Christian culture, as it existed for about 2000 years, did not cremate bodies as a general rule. Sometimes there were extenuating circumstances. Then in the modern era, as we have decrystionized, as there have been attacks on the church and on Christianity, you see the growth of cremation again. Because it's not that the act prevents God from resurrecting the body. It's that what it signifies is a lower opinion of the body. And in antiquity, one of the issues that Paul had when he was preaching to the pagans is that people believed in a kind of resurrection of the spirit or something like that. But they viewed the body as like a prism so that our true selves Those are these immaterial substances within the body. You see this kind of pagan idea today, when Robin Williams killed himself, you remember the Oscars tweeted out, very controversial, they said, "Geney, you're free." They eventually deleted it. It's a very scandalous thing to say, and yet it's very common in human history. This idea that our true selves are not the body, that the body is evil, that matter is evil. These crop up in heresies and pagan ideas all the time, but that's now what Christians believe. We think that we are our bodies and our souls. So one of the things that distinguishes Christianity from other beliefs is we don't just believe in some kind of spiritual resurrection. We don't believe in just becoming one with the spirit or reincarnation even. We believe that our bodies will be resurrected. And so how you dispose of your body, how you treat your body when you shuffle off this mortal coil, matters. It signifies something about what you believe. If you bury the body, if you entomb the body, that's one thing, and if you just burn the body up, it conveys a kind of disrespect. You're probably not venerating those bones. You're probably not venerating those ashes or what you know, what it signifies is the body doesn't really matter that much, and our true selves are somewhere else. So that's the problem. It's not about what God can do. You're not limiting God in any way. It's about what you are saying and what that means for all of us and how that shapes what all of us believe. Okay. It's fake headline. Friday, the rest of the show continues. I don't want to miss it. Become a member of Usco. Nolest Candidate of ULAS. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Every significant movement in history started with protesting. No, it's Uncle Todd. This is our generation civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, you should have figured as polarizing as place Saunders. You can be allowed on campus. Oh, can you hear me? Okay. Todd, this is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I cannot find. Islam will conquer the West. I'll be paying attention. If they've taken over the building, they're downstairs, and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Muhammad is the messenger of God. God is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel beams into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leap front. Stretch them out when they listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling. Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupie setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Just plump, dewey hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupie setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Maybe it's Mabelie.