Biden promises to wield the full federal government to stop Texas from saving babies, Dr. Fauci wants to jab your kid, and NPR can’t even google “ivermectin.”
My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
President Joe Biden is furious that the state of Texas has voted to limit abortion, and he is ready to wield the full weight of the federal government to stop it.
According to Biden, quote, the Supreme Court's overnight ruling is an unprecedented assault on constitutional rights and requires an immediate response.
We will launch a whole of government effort to respond, looking at what steps we can take to ensure that Texans have access to safe and legal abortions.
He calls it an overnight decision, as though it was rushed, it was illegitimate somehow.
If it were a daytime decision, that'd be fine.
This was an ordinary Supreme Court decision to observe that a state is allowed to pass a law and it'll work its way through the courts.
It doesn't even rule on the constitutionality of the law.
All To kill more babies.
That's what all of this is about.
All of this outrage, all of this effort to stop some kids from living.
Our senile, allegedly devout Catholic President of the United States mustered more energy and clarity of purpose than he has at any point in his presidency, more than any point probably in the last five years, to stop a state From letting kids live.
How sick is that?
What kind of a psycho is this guy?
What kind of a psycho country have we become?
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Zoe Glass, who says, I'm sure that's what he was thinking.
Part of it was the identity politics.
He had to pick a black woman because he backed himself into that corner, and the only options were Karen Bass, who's actually a communist, or Susan Rice, who was the fall man on Benghazi, or Kamala Harris, who was the first person out of the Democratic Party.
Presidential primary.
But that's actually a bonus for him, at least in the latter.
Kamala didn't have a ton of dirt on her in terms of her radicalism.
She's just deeply unlikable.
And so, yes, it's true.
One of the reasons I oppose impeachment, even beyond the constitutional legal arguments, is that I don't want President Harris.
That's a good place to be in if you're the president.
You know, if you want to hedge your bets, I would strongly recommend you check out Acre Gold.
Inflation is through the roof.
Everything is more expensive.
I'm going to go see my relatives this weekend.
I tried to get a hotel.
The prices are way, way up.
But you know, the price of groceries is up.
The price of gas is up.
Great way to hedge against inflation?
Physical gold.
Right now, Acre will let you start investing in physical gold for as little as $30 a month.
Michael, you liar!
Hold on, don't call me a liar.
Michael, gold is more than that!
Stop it.
Don't call me a liar.
Acre has come up with an ingenious plan to let you invest in physical gold without coming out of pocket all at once.
You subscribe $30 a month to their gold bars.
When your gold stash reaches the price of their gold bars, they discreetly ship AcreGold to your house.
Just this month, they introduced a $100 a month subscription to a 5-gram gold bar if you want to up the ante.
I have loved investing in physical gold and physical precious metals.
Go visit GetAcreGold.com slash Knowles right now.
Start investing in physical gold today.
Make sure you go to that URL. Acre's giving away a gold bar to qualify for the giveaway.
Tweet or post why you should be the recipient mentioned at get underscore acre.
It's a free bar of gold.
Getacregold.com slash Knowles.
Thank you, Acregold, for supporting this show.
The abortion response is scandalous.
It is scandalous that of all of the issues, especially after this absolute chaos pulling out of Afghanistan, especially with inflation going through the roof, especially with all of the domestic problems, the true crisis on the border, millions of illegal aliens flooding across.
We have no idea who's coming over, allegedly during a pandemic, but these people aren't even being tested for COVID.
Just crisis after crisis after crisis.
The only one that has aroused the full energy of the federal government is a little law in Texas that lets some kids live.
That's scandalous.
That is an impediment to people's understanding of the world.
I mean, that's really a big problem.
And it's especially scandalous because the president allegedly is a devout Catholic.
That's all we hear from the mainstream media.
He's a Catholic.
He's a devout Catholic.
He goes to mass every Sunday.
He's such a Catholic.
But Catholics are not permitted to support abortion.
So, Jen Psaki, please explain this for me.
What our effort and what the focus of the federal government is, Is to look for every resource, every lever at our disposal to ensure women in Texas have the ability to seek health care.
Following up on the Texas law, why does the president support abortion when his own Catholic faith teaches abortion is morally wrong?
Well, he believes that it's a woman's right, it's a woman's body, and it's her choice.
Why does the president, who does he believe then should look out for the unborn child?
He believes that it's up to a woman to make those decisions, and up to a woman to make those decisions with her doctor.
I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant, but for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing.
The President believes their rights should be respected.
Go ahead.
I think we've got to move on.
So, first of all, I've been told by the government for many months now that men can become pregnant.
I've been told that it's not just women who get pregnant.
Now, there was a lot of confusion over who gets pregnant for many months.
Now, all of a sudden, the White House sees it clearly, now that the fictional right to abortion is being threatened.
But I think Saki just told on herself.
I think Saki just gave away the game here.
Because did you hear that last sentence that she uttered?
She got very emotional and Borderline hysterical.
Wouldn't answer the question.
She says, you, you've never been pregnant.
For women who make this, this is a very difficult choice.
Why is it difficult?
Why is it a difficult choice?
You're telling me that abortion is not the taking of an innocent human life.
You've been telling me for a long time, radical left, that abortion, it's just the removal of a parasite.
It's just a clump of cells.
It's no different than getting your appendix removed.
So then why is it a difficult choice?
If your appendix needs to be removed, if you think that's best for your health, then that's a very easy choice.
We're Remove my appendix, please.
Easy.
I don't need to worry about that.
I won't face trauma after I've done that.
Why is abortion different?
Why is it a difficult choice?
Because you know that it's the ending of an innocent human life.
Because we all know it, no matter how much we want to suppress it.
We all have this just nagging little feeling, uh...
Maybe this is different.
Why did Hillary Clinton say that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare?
Why should it be rare if it's just removing a parasite?
If it's just your body, your choice?
Because it's not.
Because we all know that it's not.
It's difficult because it involves...
People's natural understanding that this is a baby and it is wrong to kill your baby.
And it also involves predators such as abortionists, such as the pro-abortion media, such as Joe Biden and Jen Psaki and the liberal establishment and the elected officials.
Who are all preying on the fears and anxiety of women who get pregnant who don't know what to do to just make it all go away or at least pretend to make it all go away by killing their baby.
That's why it's difficult.
It's a difficult decision because one grapples with one's conscience on the one hand and one's temptations on the other.
That's why it's difficult.
You're right.
You're right, Jen.
It is difficult.
On the point of Joe Biden being Catholic, What she is admitting here is that Joe Biden is not a practicing Catholic.
To be a practicing Catholic, you cannot support abortion.
When she says, well, look, yeah, Joe's Catholic, but he believes that a woman has the right to kill her baby.
She is admitting he's not a practicing Catholic.
And I know there's some confusion on this point, certainly among the left, but even among conservatives.
And they'll say, well, Michael, you're just gatekeeping religion.
Well, Michael, you're just nitpicking.
Well, what?
You're holier than thou.
You're saying that someone can't be a Catholic if they don't agree with every single thing.
The Catholic faith is different than some other faiths.
In that, the Catholic faith is an incarnational faith that says that there are real obligations and those real obligations will be defined by real people in a real church that has real authority to make you do certain things.
And if you don't do certain things, then that church, that real place, led by real people, including a real pope, has the authority to define that you are not practicing the faith.
What I mean by that is this.
You've got to do certain things.
There are real sacraments.
You actually do have to go to Mass on Sunday, but that's not enough.
You also have to go to confession.
That's another sacrament.
You also have to follow the guidelines of the Catholic Church, the moral...
Demands of the Catholic faith.
And some are more demanding than others.
So one objection I often hear is, well, Michael, but the Catholic Church is against the death penalty, which is sort of true, but not totally true.
The Catholic Church, as a prudential matter, discourages the death penalty.
It says it's inadmissible now.
Even that's the most radical language.
That's from Pope Francis.
Or that practically speaking, it shouldn't be performed in most places.
But, as Pope Benedict said quite well, there can be a legitimate disagreement among Catholics.
Thomas Aquinas defended the death penalty.
St.
Paul defends the death penalty.
Many popes defended the death penalty.
Blessed Pope Pius IX carried out many death penalties in the papal states.
Obviously, at the very least, there can be difference of opinion.
There cannot be a difference of opinion on abortion.
For 1900 years, at least, the Catholic Church has taught clearly that abortion is not permissible.
It is a non-negotiable issue.
So Joe Biden has to choose which faith he wants to follow.
His Catholic faith that he tries to use to score political points or his progressive faith, which is his actual religion.
And before you tell me that a man's religion should have nothing to do with his politics, it should have nothing to do with the way he governs, I will point out a man's gods have everything to do with how he governs.
Everybody's got to serve somebody.
And so his moral, his ethical, his views of man's relationship to man, to the state, to God, to metaphysics, that is going to define his government.
The left knows this.
The left told us this in the 1970s.
The feminists said the personal is political.
Personal choices, decisions, behaviors have a political effect.
And conservatives have made fun of them, but they're right.
They're right.
And they knew it then.
They don't want to admit that it's true in this case as well.
I think we should all admit that it is right.
And we need to question, what gods are our leaders serving?
What has struck me about all of this, and it was actually a meme from my doppelganger, Rachel Maddow, that showed me this, is that the left really does not understand where we're coming from here.
Forget about questions of religion or even the broader ethical questions.
I mean, even just on abortion, they have no idea what pro-lifers believe.
There was a meme from Rachel Maddow that said, if they make abortions illegal, they should make it illegal for men to desert women after getting pregnant.
If women can't back out of pregnancies, men shouldn't be able to either.
Yep.
Conservatives on the one hand, Rachel Maddow on the other, both agreeing, abolish no-fault divorce.
Absolutely.
We totally agree with that.
Of course we don't think men should be able to abandon women after they have babies.
Either they should take a little more precaution before they indulge in certain activities that produce babies, or once they do that, they should stick by the baby.
We all agree with that.
The left doesn't even, forget about abortion for a second, the left doesn't even realize that that's how we view human relationships, that that's what we're for.
You know, this is the sort of thing that really, really gets your heart going.
If you want good heart health, I would strongly recommend you check out Super Beets.
If you want to live a long time, you got to keep your ticker working right.
And so one thing I would strongly recommend is Super Beets Heart Chews.
They combine non-GMO beets with a special ingredient, grape seed extract that is unique to Superbeets Heart Chews.
It's been the focus of scientific research for years.
Grape seed extract has a high concentration of antioxidants, supports cardiovascular health and overall wellness.
The grape seed extract used in Superbeets Heart Chews has been clinically shown to be two times as effective at supporting normal blood pressure as a healthy lifestyle alone.
Healthy blood flow means more energy, It's the way nature intended, without all that jittery caffeine or stimulants.
And just two delicious chews a day gives the blood pressure support that you need and the energy that you want.
Strongly recommend this.
Do what I did.
Support your heart health with delicious Super Beats heart chews.
Get your Super Beats heart chews today at superbeats.com slash knolls.
When you buy two bags, they will throw in the third for free.
That is superbeats.com slash knolls.
My doppelganger, Rachel Maddow, highlighted a point that I think we all know implicitly, which is that the pro-abortion people really do not understand where we're coming from.
They really think that we just want to punish women, we hate women, we don't want them to have the wonderful, liberating, beautiful choice to kill a baby.
And it's all just about being vindictive and mean.
We're all just meanies, right?
And a friend of mine posted on Twitter yesterday, he said, you know, this Rachel Maddow meme that's going around, it just really shows that neither side understands the other.
But I don't think that's true.
I don't think that's true.
And actually, some research from Jonathan Haidt, the social scientist, kind of backs this up.
I agree that the left doesn't understand where we're coming from on abortion, but I think that I do understand where the, and I think we broadly understand where the pro-abortion people are coming from.
I get it.
You think that if a woman is to be equal and indiscernible from a man, she can't have this natural difference whereby she's the one who can get pregnant and a man can, even though the left is now sort of denying that also, except when abortion's at an issue, then they know who's pregnant.
But they believe that for true gender equality, a woman needs to be able to kill her baby.
Or they believe that it's not really a baby if he can't talk.
Or he's not really a baby if he's not fully formed.
Or he's just a clump of cells.
It's not a big deal.
Sure, the clump of cells is genetically distinct.
And sure, the clump of cells, we were all clumps of cells once.
And sure, it's a baby.
It's at least a pre-baby.
But it's not a big deal.
Don't worry.
He's not going to feel any pain.
I get it.
I used to support...
When I was a teenager, I was pro-abortion.
I just assumed...
I didn't know anybody who was pro-life.
It was the culture we lived in, so I get it.
But I don't think we can just say, well, both sides need to understand the other better.
I think the conservatives understand the left, and I think it is incumbent upon the left to understand the right.
It's important for the right to...
Persuade the left and to make our case.
And then most importantly of all, it's important for us to wield political power because I don't think the left is going to reconcile with us.
I don't think they're going to come around.
I don't even think they know what we believe.
I don't think they know what they believe.
There was a tweet yesterday from Richard Hanania.
He's a progressive think tank president.
He tweeted out, quote, you can't screen for Down syndrome before about 10 weeks and something like 80% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted.
If red states ban abortion, we would see a world where they have five times as many children with Down syndrome and similar numbers for other disabilities.
The horror.
The horror that people with disabilities might be permitted to live.
Could you imagine?
We'd have to look at them.
We might even have to talk to them.
Could you imagine?
They wouldn't all be perfect, you know, like we are.
We're so perfect.
Not like them.
They're defective.
They're yucky, huh?
He goes on, could be outliers in the whole developed world.
There are already negative stereotypes of Americans in these states.
Ha, you get it?
Ha, ha.
They're all, they're all retards.
Those retard Republicans down in the southern states.
Imagine if we had real retards running around.
Gosh, that'd be terrible.
Got to keep killing them through abortion.
One can imagine, he writes, it getting much more extreme.
What if they also ban genetic engineering and embryo selection, as we obviously should, you psycho, while other places go ahead?
Oh, God, could you imagine?
We wouldn't all just be perfect.
We wouldn't all just be perfect.
Perfect like Richard.
Doesn't he seem perfect to you?
Oh, a wonderful specimen.
Mentally, physically, and spiritually, right?
I don't think so.
My friend Spencer Clavin made this point yesterday.
We are rightly disgusted by it.
I mean, this is sick, psycho stuff.
This is the norm, okay?
This is the norm.
Richard Hanania is the norm.
Eugenics is the norm.
Trying to kill off the weak, trying to kill off people who might have some more visible problems than others.
That's the norm in human society.
Child sacrifice is the norm in human society.
Then, you have, in the Old Testament, you see in Judaism, a turn away from human sacrifice.
A taking of the side of the victim, rather than of the community that tries to sacrifice the victim.
And then you see the fullness of this in Christianity, which says, no.
No, we're not doing that.
And the reason that we in the West have had a problem with eugenics, where every other country on Earth, every other culture on Earth, has not...
Every other culture on earth has, and in many cases continues to practice child sacrifice, and we increasingly are practicing child sacrifice.
The only thing that has distinguished us is that we are a Christian civilization.
Or at least we were.
Now it would appear that we are not exactly defined by Christianity.
Expect more child sacrifice.
Expect more psychos like Hanania and Biden and all the rest of them.
Meanwhile, speaking of the way they're treating your kids, Dr.
Fauci wants to jab your kid with vaccines.
Now we know we've talked about risks from COVID for various groups.
Morbidly obese 85-year-olds face a greater risk from COVID than perfectly healthy 12-year-olds.
Actually, it's not even comparable.
The perfectly healthy 12-year-olds face virtually no risk, very, very little risk.
The 85-year-old faces significantly greater risk.
Doesn't matter.
Gotta jab your kids.
Now that the vaccine has full approval from the FDA, the Pfizer vaccine, would you like to see it mandated for students elsewhere in the U.S.? And once it's approved for kids under 12, should it be mandated for them too?
You know, I know that a lot of people will be pushing back against that, but if you get the imprimatur about the safety and the strong benefit-risk ratio for the children, when that gets established, which I believe it certainly will, by the FDA and the ACIP, I believe that mandating vaccines for children to appear in school is a good idea.
And remember, Jake, this is not something new.
We have mandates in many places in schools, particularly public schools, that if in fact you want a child to come in, we've done this for decades and decades, requiring polio, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis.
So this would not be something new, requiring vaccinations for children to come to school.
So dishonest.
So dishonest.
Polio, smallpox, all these sorts of...
Diseases that he was told, measles, whatever.
These are associated with very negative outcomes for children.
Those are diseases that pose a great risk to children.
Coronavirus is not.
Talk about child sacrifice.
The actual argument for vaxxing all the kids is not that it's really going to help the kids out.
It's not even that there are no risks to the kids.
We know that there are risks to the kids.
The CDC and the FDA have admitted that.
It's that it'll be better for the old people.
It'll be better for us.
The kids, I don't know.
We're going to take some risks with the kids, but it'll be better for us.
Sick.
Sick stuff.
I believe.
The other problem with Fauci suggesting this is he just doesn't have any credibility.
One of the defining features of Fauci's career is that he's obsessed with vaccines and he doesn't focus on treatments.
There are treatments for coronavirus that have shown some promise, but Fauci has never focused on treatment of illnesses.
He's just obsessed with creating vaccines.
They did this during AIDS. Fauci put basically no focus on therapeutics, on treatments for AIDS and the Here we are, decades and decades later, we still don't have a vaccine.
And yet, people don't die from AIDS. Virtually ever anymore.
At least not for a very, very long time.
Why is that?
Because of therapeutics.
Because finally, mostly private companies focused on creating treatments for AIDS, and that was what allowed people to live.
And you're seeing the same idiocy play out now.
There have been proposed treatments for coronavirus that have shown some success.
I know you're not allowed to really talk about that anymore, but they have shown some success.
I'm not favoring one over the other, but people have tried treating coronavirus.
My doctor has treated people with the coronavirus.
And it's worked out for them.
They've recovered, even when they were not looking so great.
Now, Because we have a guy at the head of NIAID who's vaccine obsessed, all the focus is on vaccines.
Well, if the guy has a checkered career, if the guy has a record of incompetence and deception, why are we still listening to him about this?
I certainly am not.
One of the suggested treatments...
For coronavirus is ivermectin.
Are we even allowed to say ivermectin anymore on camera?
Joe Rogan came out yesterday.
He said, look, I got COVID and then I threw a bunch of stuff at it.
You know, this, that, the other thing.
Ivermectin was one of them.
And then I had one bad day and now I feel great.
And then all the libs One, we're hoping that he would die, I think.
I don't think that's an exaggeration.
I'm not saying it was prominent libs, but there were a lot of libs I saw in the comment sections and on Twitter who were saying, yeah, it would serve him right.
It would serve, he spread disinformation.
I hope he gets the worst he can get.
But even the ones who were not wishing that Joe would die or face serious complications were making fun of him.
They were making fun of him for taking all these treatments, including ivermectin.
Ivermectin.
Idiot Joe, you're taking a horse tranquilizer?
That's what NPR said.
They wrote, quote, the podcast host Joe Rogan, who has dismissed COVID vaccines, said he tested positive and is taking a cocktail of unproven treatments.
I think it just got proven, bro.
Including ivermectin, a deworming drug for cows that the FDA warns people not to ingest.
That's just a lie.
That's just fake news.
The geniuses over at NPR couldn't even Google ivermectin, which is a drug.
I'm not saying it's approved for use in coronavirus.
It is an FDA-approved drug for human use.
Not only that, it has been called, in major scientific journals, a wonder drug very, very recently.
Joe Rogan, that idiot Rube, he took the deworming horse drug, ivermectin, and he recovered very, very quickly.
Like, way quicker than we said that you can recover from this thing.
Wow, what an idiot, right?
So, on this point of ivermectin, I'm not, I am not, talk to your doctors, okay?
I'm not saying ivermectin cures coronavirus or anything like that.
I am just pointing out That before Trump, before conservatives suggested that maybe ivermectin had antiviral qualities, everyone was calling this thing a wonder drug.
I read one abstract from the NIH yesterday.
Here's one published in Nature.
It's from the Journal of Antibiotics.
This was published February 15, 2017.
ivermectin, enigmatic multifaceted wonder drug, continues to surprise and exceed expectations.
The guy who discovered this won the Nobel Prize, for goodness sakes.
2015 Nobel Prize.
The drug is in part for suppressing things like lice or suppressing things like worms, but it also has observed antiviral qualities.
And as we read yesterday, there have even been some experiments to show its use on coronavirus and that it was effective.
Though the question that remains is, what would the dosage be?
Would the dosage have to be so high that it would be toxic for humans?
So maybe that's why we can't suggest it.
But to say...
Now, what was previously being called a wonder drug that led to a guy winning the Nobel Prize that shows antiviral qualities, now to write it off as just a silly horse dewormer obviously has nothing to do with science.
It is a consequence of the orange man being bad.
It shows you how grave a threat, a global pandemic, you might say, Trump derangement syndrome is, that we are now mocking and deriding and throwing aside one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in recent decades, ivermectin, just because some Trump supporters suggested maybe it's good at suppressing viruses.
That is really sick.
When our lust for vengeance and our lust to own our perceived enemies, and when I say our, I'm not really talking about ours.
I'm talking about the left's perception that we are their enemies.
When their lust to own us and smack us down is so great that they're going to throw out a great scientific breakthrough, something has gone seriously sick in the country.
TDS, by the way, does not just affect...
The left, as I pointed out, it affects the right, too.
Paul Ryan, former Republican Speaker of the House, former rising star in the Republican Party, is making a point to go on TV and still, all these months later, say, Trump!
Trump lost!
Biden won!
Stop ever saying there was anything wrong with the election, please!
Biden won!
President Trump lost the election.
Joe Biden won the election.
It was not rigged.
It was not stolen.
Donald Trump lost the election.
Joe Biden won the election.
He exhausted his cases.
He exhausted the court challenges.
None of them went his direction.
And so he legitimately lost.
Is there mischief and shenanigans in elections?
Sure.
Is there fraud?
Yes.
Was it organized to the extent that it would have swung the Electoral College in the presidential election?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
Hi, I'm Paul Ryan, and I am going to devote as much time and energy as I possibly can to convincing everyone that the Democrat president is totally above board.
Because I'm a Republican.
It's weird.
It's weird that he would spend so much energy focusing on left-wing talking points.
Also, one of the things he said is just patently not true.
So he says the election was not stolen.
I don't know if the election was stolen or not.
He's right.
There were court challenges.
They didn't present proof.
So, okay.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm not willing to say the election was stolen.
100% definitively the election was...
I'm not going to say that.
The election for sure was rigged.
For sure.
That's undeniable.
They changed all the election rules in the weeks before the election to favor Democrats and to take away election integrity measures.
And in at least one state, they violated the state constitution to do it with the widespread use of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.
For sure.
There was double counting of ballots in just one batch in just one county in Georgia that we only found because conservatives keep raising these questions.
So please, Paul Ryan, shut up!
Look, you can have your view.
I don't want to be disrespectful or uncivil or anything like that.
But the questions that people have raised about the 2020 election are perfectly legitimate.
The investigations that are still going on have uncovered fairly widespread problems, at least in individual batches and individual precincts and individual counties in states that Joe Biden, according to the official tally, barely won.
So...
Sure, you're perfectly fine to have your view that the election wasn't stolen and to point out that Trump didn't prove that the election was stolen.
Absolutely right.
But if you're not going to help people on your putative side raise legitimate questions and try to fight to make sure that there aren't shenanigans and fraud in the next election, then just do nothing at all.
Just sit back.
It's so frustrating to me, though, when people who have built their careers on the support of Republicans and conservatives not only turn their backs, not only step out of the fight, but actively work to undermine those conservatives.
Not just when the conservatives are being unjust and crazy, but even when conservatives are raising legitimate questions and pursuing investigations that, one, are uncovering some fraud, but, two, are not interfering with the government.
It's not a coup d'etat.
It's not an insurrection.
It's really, really frustrating.
I used to really admire Paul Ryan.
I used to really admire some of what he was trying to do, at least as it pertained to reforming the administrative state and the entitlement programs.
But TDS takes down even the best of them.
It's really, really frustrating.
Really, really frustrating.
There is a big win, though.
I've got to get to before we go.
John MacArthur.
John MacArthur is a Protestant.
I think he's Baptist, a Baptist preacher in California.
I've met him, this very amiable man.
He stood up against the COVID lockdowns.
He stood up against the local government and the state government, and he refused to shut down.
He referred to his church services as a peaceful protest.
He During the lockdowns.
I loved it.
And he was doing it when other churches wouldn't, even when bishops wouldn't, even when some of the parishes in my church wouldn't do it.
The Catholic Church.
And he stood up and he was fined and the government tried to shut down his church.
Well, he just won a big settlement.
The L.A. County Board of Supervisors is going to pay him $400,000, and the state of California is going to pay him $400,000 because he had the right to hold his church services, and the government had no right to shut him down, and he was willing to take the risk and take the fines, and now the government's paying up.
I love it.
Great stuff.
Congratulations to John MacArthur.
Some really good news this week.
some really good news to winning back the culture.
Our October episode of Backstage is going to be a little different.
I think I've told you this before.
Instead of just tuning in from your home, you're going to be able to see us live and on stage at the famous Ryman Auditorium right here in Nashville.
So join me, Candace Owens, Jeremy Boring, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Drew Klavan, for Backstage Like Never Before.
Presale tickets sold out within hours yesterday, and general admission tickets went on sale at 10 a.m. today.
We are offering three different kinds of tickets.
There are VIP tickets that come with an exclusive gift and a meet and greet with us, the DW hosts, followed by a ticket that comes with upgraded seating and a show poster.
Finally, tickets for general seating.
Whichever ticket you choose, I guarantee it's going to be a good time.
Hurry, though.
Head to dailywire.com slash Ryman, R-Y-M-A-N, to purchase your tickets before they sell out.
They really did.
They sold out much more quickly, even than we thought yesterday, for the presale.
So go, if you, if you want to come, and I hope you do, I hope we'll see you there.
But if you do want to get a ticket, I would do it like now.
We'll be right back with The Mailbag.
Welcome back to my favorite time of the week, The Mailbag.
First question from Andrew.
Michael, love the show, but I must clog your inbox with another relationship question.
Sorry.
That's all right.
This is what I live for.
The first part of the show is political philosophy, statecraft, policy, theology.
Then the second part during the mailbag is Dr.
Phil.
I'm just, sometimes Jerry Springer.
Okay, this person writes, What do you think?
Am I holding out for an unattainable prize or should I trust that God can bring along someone who I enjoy spending time with and who I think is the hottest woman on two legs?
Signed, I'd rather be unhappily single than unhappily married.
Well, I will tell you, buddy, this is going to be hard for you to hear.
I did marry someone who I enjoy spending time with, who I think is very intelligent and interesting to talk to, and who I also think is the hottest woman on two legs.
It actually did work out for me.
I don't think it works out for everybody, but it did for me, and I don't want to brag, but I just want to tell you that is possible.
Or you hear Drew talk about his wife, and that guy, he sounds like a 16-year-old boy, and I think he's a little older than 16 at this point.
So it can happen, and I think it's important.
Of course, looks are going to fade, my friend.
Looks are going to fade.
And also, when you're thinking about, well, am I always going to be totally sexually turned?
You know, I'm never going to be sexually attracted to anyone else.
People, just men in general, are going to be sexually attracted to a lot of things.
I mean, that's not going to change.
You're going to see a woman walk by and you're going to feel an attraction to her.
Regardless, I mean, you could be dating the hottest woman on planet Earth and you'll still feel an attraction to other women.
Partially because the imagination of man's heart is evil from the beginning.
And also because men like variety and because men are just attracted to hot weather.
That's just how it goes.
So, yes, it's important that you find your wife attractive.
But recognizing that looks will fade over time, it is much, much more important that you guys see eye to eye, that you see the world in a basically similar way, that you have the same idea of what marriage even is.
That's a really important one because if you go in with one view of marriage, let's say it's a biblical view of marriage, and then the woman goes in with, let's say, a feminist view of marriage, you're just not even getting into the same institution.
I mean, that's going to be a really big problem.
But I would hold out, and I think...
Don't fall into the swipe trap.
Don't fall into the big city trap of you don't value the women that you are with because you know there's always going to be a hotter woman on the app.
You could be dating the hottest woman in the world, but some other woman is going to come along at some point and she's going to be the hottest.
Or you're talking to a woman and you think she's really interesting and she's really cool and you get along, but then you meet some other woman and oh my gosh, she shares this passion of yours.
This is what happened to my friends in the big cities who didn't leave the big cities.
A lot of them got caught in the swipe prep.
There's always someone better, so I'm not going to invest in the person that I'm with.
And a lot of what's going to make a relationship and a marriage is going to be shared experience.
It's going to be growing together, which is going to make you love that person even more and be even more attracted to that person.
You hear this sometimes with happily married couples at the end of their lives.
They've been married 60 years or something, and they'll say, I am more attracted to my wife today than I was on the day that we got married.
They're not just blowing smoke.
That is actually how it works because marriage is a real thing that you're getting into.
Do it.
Act like a man.
You're going to act like a man.
What's the matter with you?
Do it.
Don't make a mistake, but don't hem and haw and keep waiting for the perfect person to come along for the whole rest of your life, because then you're going to miss out on marriage.
From Emily, dear Michael, I'm going to get a little saucy here with my question.
Here we go.
I'm newly married and I'm very much enjoying the honeymoon phase, if you're picking up what I'm putting down.
Okay, okay.
It's a great time.
This is a family show.
I don't know if I can even read this question.
All right, whatever.
I'll just, that's fine.
Maybe close your kids' ears until you hear this question.
It's a great time, but I want to have more of a dumb and submissive bedroom feel.
My husband isn't into the idea, though, and he says it makes him uncomfortable.
I'm not willing to give up on it, but he's very adamant, it seems, in not taking a dumb role.
Should he just man up and take the more trad role of being the dominant one in the relationship into the bedroom, or are my wants a little much...
Sincerely, does S&M stand for saints and merry?
Wow.
That's actually, rather than being sacrilegious, I think that signature is actually kind of getting to your question, which is, if I've got these kind of kinky sexual desires, can that be virtuous and good and right, or is it always going to be sinful?
Yes, your husband is the head of household.
Yes, he should be confident and assertive and Trad.
But you don't want it to be sadomasochism.
I mean, that's the question, right?
S&M, is it Saints and Mary?
Sadomasochism is wrong.
It's bad.
It's disordered to want to hurt yourself.
Sadism.
Or masochism, rather.
And it's disordered to want to hurt another person.
Sadism.
To get pleasure from the pain of another person.
And it's especially disordered to want to get pleasure from the pain of your wife.
I mean, that's especially disordered.
I would not do that.
I would not feed that particular lust or appetite.
Everyone's got some kinks.
Everyone's got some weird stuff that they're into.
This is why there's a porn for every single thing on the internet.
But I don't think that it's necessarily a good thing to indulge all of that.
Women in particular have these fantasies.
This is why There's like chick lit, right?
This is why there's the romance novels and Fifty Shades of Grey and all of that.
So I'm not saying that you can't have fun and you can't have the man be a little more assertive.
But when it gets to the point of, like, I get a thrill out of causing you real pain, or I get a thrill out of being in real pain myself, I would not indulge that too much.
That's...
That would not be cool with the Saints and Mary, I would imagine.
Have fun, have a good time.
You don't need to be totally bland.
But I wouldn't cross that line.
I don't think that that's just sort of blowing off a little steam and having fun.
I think that is the sort of There's vice and appetite that is not going to make you happier.
I think that's going to get more extreme over time.
Just how people who write in about porn, they'll say, I started looking at porn and then I got way more extreme and weird and eventually I was disgusted with it.
I think that's kind of what happens there, which is why you either turn your desires in a virtuous direction or you turn them toward vice.
But whichever one you do more of, it's going to be easier to do.
You're going to ultimately be more inclined to do over time.
From Wilson.
That actually turned out to be a much more serious answer to a weird, frivolous sex question.
I didn't expect it going that way.
But anyway, that's my answer.
From Wilson, hey Michael, should something be said about the OK white power symbol emoji?
The fact that we're even calling the OK sign the white power symbol is so insane.
Just curious.
I typed it to acknowledge a message from my buddy the other day and I've been regretting my whiteness ever since.
Stay woke and enjoy a good smoke.
You know, it's funny because it's a joking question, but now you actually do have to think twice before doing the A-OK, you know, the OK symbol.
And it's because symbols...
Can change with use.
I mean, now to a great many people, if I say, hey man, good stuff, great work.
Many hysterical libs will view that and say that I'm, you know, a Klansman or something like that.
I mean, I guess they call me that anyway.
But this is why we've got to control the symbols.
This is why we've got to control the language.
This is the whole point of my book, Speechless.
If you don't, then the symbols really will take on different meanings over time, and then you've lost the ability to communicate.
You've lost your words.
You are rendered, you might say, speechless from Nick.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Is this...
I know Nick is a common name, but let's see.
Hi, Michael.
My younger brother has been in a relationship with a woman almost twice his age.
He is 23 and she is 39.
I've never felt right about the relationship.
She has repeatedly lied about her past and only recently did we find the truth about her.
He recently proposed to her and still feeling uncomfortable about the situation, we decided to do a background check on her.
We found that she's been married twice, has children with both of her ex-husbands.
She doesn't have custody of any of her children.
She has a lot of debt and has been charged with theft six times.
I tried to tell him he's making a mistake, but he seems to be blinded by his love for her.
Now that he knows that no one in his family supports his marriage, he plans to move away and cut ties with all of us.
Is there anything I can do to avoid losing a relationship with my brother?
Thank you for your help.
I've been a big fan of your show for years.
Sincerely, not the same Nick.
Okay.
Oh, I'm sorry to hear about your problem, man.
That's really tough.
He obviously should run as fast as he can, not away from you, but away from her.
There should be a Nick's brother-shaped hole in the wall when he learns these things.
And if you've told him this and he still won't run away, then something's gone a little kooky in his head.
And I'm not saying that that is the fault of the family.
He's at a really precarious place because...
In the early 20s, men can go a little crazy.
I mean, this is after college age.
You're just maybe starting out in your career or your job, and you're really unsettled, and it's kind of a new thing.
Throughout history, men are taken to flights of fancy in their early 20s.
It's just something about the male psyche.
The hope is that the mistakes you make in your late teens and early 20s will not be...
You're going to make mistakes.
You're going to do very bad things in those...
Years, most likely.
But the hope is that it's not a permanent mistake.
And if he gets married, it will be.
I mean, this woman might leave.
It sounds like she's kind of flighty and dishonest.
But I think all you can do is be there for him in the sense that you're presenting him with this information.
You still love your brother.
You don't want him to go away.
But I would not sanction this wedding.
I would not I would not show up.
Hard as that is to say, I don't think I would show up.
I'm not 100% on that.
I need to know a little bit more about the circumstances, where they are, what they're doing.
But I would not support this.
I would do everything you can to stop this wedding, short of throwing a burlap sack over him and dragging him away.
I would not go along with this.
From Charles.
Hey, Michael.
You said on your show today, Tuesday, the 31st of August, that there is no constitutional grounds for impeachment of Joe Biden, but I disagree.
The standard of high crimes and misdemeanors is vague, deliberately so, I think.
As we all know, in law, negligence can be criminal.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Biden ignored all the advice of his military commanders in this botched withdrawal, getting soldiers killed, stranding U.S. citizens behind enemy lines, leaving billions of dollars of high-grade military equipment to an enemy, etc.
I agree that mere incompetence is not impeachable, but this is beyond incompetence.
This is criminal recklessness.
Thanks, love the show.
That's a clever argument, but I just don't buy it.
I just don't buy it.
I don't see what the limiting principle of this would be.
I don't see how this would not just be used by every opposition party for every administration to say, look, we're not saying that maladministration is impeachable, but serious maladministration is impeachable.
I just don't buy it.
I don't think that's how the clause was understood by the framers or anyone else, for that matter, at the time of ratification.
I wouldn't go down this road.
Yes, we're in an age of largely politicized impeachments that don't even really have a legal basis like the Trump impeachments, but I also don't see the benefit of impeaching Biden.
Then we get President Harris.
I think that's worse.
So I wouldn't go down that road.
From Sam, Dear Michael, I just started my senior year at Brigham Young University.
Being a STEM major at a majority conservative university, I've been extremely lucky that I've avoided the rampant cancer of wokeness that has invaded most campuses.
However, I am in an 1877 to present U.S. history class, and it is as woke as they come.
I have very specific circumstances that have locked me into this class and this professor, so I can't get out of it.
What is it, a cute girl or something?
Do you have any advice on getting through this social indoctrination course without me getting failed for disagreeing with this reconstruction of history?
Loved your book.
Glad I was able to finish it before class.
I've taken woke history classes before.
I mean, one of my senior advisors was a very woke professor who now frequently publicly criticizes me.
She also publicly criticizes Ben Sasse, who was another student of hers.
And I think she just gets a thrill, I think, out of publicly criticizing her former students.
But at the time that I was a student of hers, she was very polite.
She knew that I was very conservative.
She was fine with it.
So I would stick by your guns.
I would take his argument seriously, the professor's.
I would, if you disagree with him, make your argument seriously.
I wouldn't hide your views.
And if you get a lower grade, you know, it's too bad.
That's the cost of having integrity.
Okay, last question.
Binyamin says, Michael, seeing as the mailbag has become a quasi-Dr.
Phil show, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring.
I'm 19, I finished my degree in high school, and I'm currently doing a year of religious studies.
I'm Jewish before I enlist for a whole bunch of years.
I didn't date throughout high school since I was always busy, but now I'm wondering if it may be time to start.
Sincerely, it's all about the Benjamins.
It's all about the Binyamins.
Yes.
It is time to start, bro.
I mean, you're still, you know, you're not over the hill.
You're 19, right?
So it's not like, oh, I gave up my youth to date.
But yeah, you should date.
You should date.
It's good for a man to date.
Better for a man to get married.
Sounds like you got a good career, good head on your shoulders.
Do it.
Absolutely.
I'm Michael Noles.
This is The Michael Noles Show.
show.
I'll see you guys next week.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boren, our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producer Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny D'Amico, associate producer Justine Turley, audio mixer Mike Coromina, and hair and makeup by Nika Geneva.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
