Al Sharpton gets heckled at the border, AOC cries over Israel’s ability to defend itself, and one of the creators of the COVID vaccine said the virus will eventually just be a cold.
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
The countless thousands of Haitians pouring across our southern border have divided Americans.
Conservatives argue that nations need borders, and we cannot tolerate a flood of foreign nationals violating our most basic laws.
Leftists argue that we owe it to the people of Haiti to take them in.
As many as want to come should be allowed to come, and border patrol should not lift a finger to stop them.
Up until now, President Joe Biden has remained quiet on the issue.
But at long last, we finally have video of President Biden's view of Haitians and their island nation as it pertains to the national interest of the United States.
If Haiti, a god-awful thing to say, if Haiti just quietly sunk into the Caribbean or rose up 300 feet, it wouldn't matter a whole lot in terms of our interest.
Well said, Mr.
President.
Now, in fairness, Joe Biden said that back in 1994, back when people still had at least the semblance of a sliver of common sense.
Today, the Biden administration is attacking its own Border Patrol agents for in any way attempting to enforce the law.
So is it any surprise that Americans fed up with the lawlessness are beginning to take the law into their own hands?
I'm Michael Knowles.
It's the Michael Noles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Thor Darson, who says, if the Democrats are able to enact their global vision, we will have an embassy in every country that flies Hunter Biden's paintings just below the pride flag.
That comment is actually even more profound than the commenter probably knew, because yes, it's true.
The symbol of American imperial hegemony these days is just the gay pride flag, and we're going to raise it in Kandahar, and we're going to raise it all over the place.
But this is not because of some...
This coherent moral philosophy that is being pushed by the liberal imperialists.
It's mostly just a grift.
What the left is doing is appealing to our most base passions and our appetites.
Consumerism, sex, whatever.
They're appealing to all of that.
To entrench their power for this oligarchy that is basically just enriching themselves by selling Hunter Biden's stupid finger painting for half a million dollars.
By enriching themselves at the expense of our political order.
It drives me nuts when people disrespect good Americans that way, which is why I'm so supportive.
Of Good Ranchers.
Did you know that over 80% of the grass-fed beef sold in the United States is imported from overseas?
Well, it might be local in Guatemala or something, but it's not local here, which is why the Good Ranchers have gone out to American ranches to bring you American meat to the American consumer, all at an incredible price.
Head on over to GoodRanchers.com.
You get better than organic chicken.
You'll get American craft beef.
They have T-bones, fillets, strips, gourmet burgers, and more.
At half the price of online competitors, you will get the steakhouse quality you deserve at a price every family can afford.
I really love Good Ranchers.
They got all the cuts you want, T-bones, fillets, strips.
For me, this is going to sound kind of basic.
I love those burgers.
Their gourmet burgers are magnificent.
Go to goodranchers.com slash Knowles right now.
Save 20 bucks or better yet.
Subscribe and save on each box of mouthwatering American meats that will show up on schedule right to your door.
That is $20 off and free express shipping if you go to goodranchers.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, or use code Knowles at checkout.
20 bucks off and free shipping at goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
The...
Crisis at the border is supposed to play well for Democrats.
That was the idea.
You're going to open it up.
The poor, oppressed, insert whatever foreign nation in the world is pouring over our border.
We've got to let them across.
We're the cause of all their problems.
We're such a terrible country, and that's why we've got to let them into our terrible country.
We owe it to them.
We're the only nation on Earth that shouldn't have borders, so knock all of them down.
I think the American people are sick of that.
I think that doesn't work.
So the main way that the left tries to gin up this kind of division is through race hustling.
And in this case, because it's a bunch of Haitians pouring over the border, how did they get here?
I don't know.
I know that the Biden administration, Jen Psaki, is saying that they don't plan to stay very long.
And yeah, the Haitians just made it all the way over to Mexico, and then they're running across the border just for a long weekend away or something.
But because they're Haitian, Now you have an added element of Black Lives Matter, right?
These are black people, and so obviously the only reason to keep foreigners out of our country is because they're black.
So Al Sharpton, the race hustler par excellence left in our country, flies down to the border and he starts to give one of his stupid race hustling lectures, but he's not as well-received Down there in Texas, as he often is.
Actually, he gets heckled while giving his extremely dumb remarks.
Why are you here advocating for violence?
Del Rio is not a racist city.
Del Rio is a loving, caring community.
We don't want your racism in Texas.
Get out of here.
Nobody wants to hear your racist nonsense in Del Rio.
You're a racist.
Nobody wants you in Texas.
Nobody wants you in Texas.
Wow, you know, I didn't expect to hear such common sense remarks in that speech.
I wasn't hearing it from Al Sharpton.
I was hearing it from the hecklers in Texas.
And it's true.
Al Sharpton is a disgrace.
I mean, he's been a hustler and a pimp his entire career.
He launched his career on a rape hoax, the Tawana Brawley hoax.
Virtually everything else the guy's been involved in is a hoax.
And it's just a shakedown so that any time he can claim some sort of racial offense, he can shake down corporations and local communities and enrich himself.
Frankly, I had a greater deal of respect for Al Sharpton back when he was a big fat guy wearing those expensive pinstriped suits, just walking around New York shaking people down like the mobster that he is.
Now that he looks like a shriveled up little raisin and he's wearing his kind of more put together...
Higher class, more muted, you know, little vest and his little nice shirt.
I don't know.
It doesn't play as well to me.
It's sort of sad.
And I don't think the American people are really buying it either.
But the problem is, the problem is the libs still have all the power and we don't really have the power.
So yes, people are shouting down Al Sharpton.
If you look at public opinion polls, the immigration crisis at the border is a disaster for Joe Biden's poll numbers, but they're not going to change course because they have all of the institutional power.
So Jen Psaki was asked about this.
She was asked about that complete non-traversy, that fiction that border patrol agents were using whips against Haitian illegal aliens who were pouring across.
They weren't using whips.
They were holding reins so they could ride their horses.
And based on this lie, Jen Psaki is now saying, yeah, we're going to punish the border patrol.
They're no longer allowed to use horses.
What he has asked all of us to convey clearly to people who understandably have questions, are passionate, are concerned, as we are about the images that we have seen, is one, we feel those images are horrible and horrific.
There is an investigation the President certainly supports, overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, which he has conveyed will happen quickly.
I can also convey to you that The Secretary also conveyed to civil rights leaders earlier this morning that we would no longer be using horses in Del Rio.
So that is something, a policy change that has been made in response.
But separately, all related, it's also important for people to understand what our process and our immigration process is and what the steps are that are taken.
Now, I agree with Jen Psaki here.
The images we saw were horrible and horrific.
Because a lot of the criminal migrants were getting through.
That was what was horrible.
What was horrible is not that law enforcement was attempting to enforce the law.
What was horrible is that they weren't doing it very effectively.
Because the politicians, notably people in the White House, were tying their arms behind their backs.
Now the White House is saying no more can Border Patrol use horseback.
What are they going to use?
In certain areas, they can't take a Humvee.
They can't take Crown Victoria.
They can't take these cars into these.
They can't even take 4x4s into these areas.
So what are they going to do?
They can ride on horseback, but now they're not allowed to ride on horseback.
Oh no, what a mistake.
What incompetence, some people say from the Biden administration.
Please, please, don't give me that.
It's amazing to me that some Republicans still say this is incompetence.
It's not incompetence.
It's the point.
But if you get rid of horseback, then they won't be able to enforce the law.
Right.
That's the point.
They don't want to enforce the law.
The law is good for the American people.
It's good for the national integrity of our country.
But it's bad for Democrats because then Democrats can't flood the country with future voters.
Statistically, Illegal aliens are overwhelmingly likely to identify with Democrats.
With the destruction of voter integrity measures, they can probably vote in the next election.
But even if they can't, because of our understanding of birthright citizenship, the idea that if you are a foreigner who comes here and has a kid, the kid automatically gets citizenship, then they're certainly going to get a lot of voters down the line.
And with the mass amnesty that the Democrats keep trying to cram through, they'll probably get it much sooner than that.
So they've got the power and they're going to do it.
And that's just the way it goes.
I wonder when AOC is going to go down to the border and start crying like she did under Trump.
You remember that?
The kids in cages.
She wasn't actually crying in front of kids in cages.
She was crying in front of a parking lot in that white suit and she pretended to cry.
And it was not exactly a Marlon Brando kind of performance, but it got the message across.
AOC has not done that.
She's not going to do that because now it's the Biden administration.
Which is enforcing this sort of stuff.
So it's not good PR. She has been crying though.
She's crying because she was not able to stop the Congress from giving a billion dollars to Israel to fund their missile defense system.
And so she just starts crying.
You can see video of her on the floor of the house just sobbing.
Oh no!
The Jews are going to be able to protect themselves!
No!
No!
This is defensive missiles, by the way.
It's not offensive missiles.
It's the Iron Dome system.
No, those Jews are going to have defensive weaponry.
No, now the Muslim terrorists in the Palestinian territories can't shoot at them.
No.
First of all, hysterical people should not be in public life, okay?
If this woman can't keep her emotions together...
While she's on the floor of the Congress, she shouldn't be there.
She's too frivolous a person to be there.
I understand she might get re-elected, but it's bad.
It's not good for public life.
But it's also worth pointing out why she is crying.
She's crying because we're paying for Israel's defensive missiles.
A lot of conservatives don't like foreign aid.
Some conservatives don't like Israel.
I'm not making a point on either of those things right now.
I am asking you to consider why she is crying.
She's crying that Israel can defend itself because she and her ilk view Israel as an extension and really a creation of Western imperialism.
They view the modern nation state of Israel as an expansion of Western imperialism in the Middle East as a symbol of Western civilization which they hate, which they want to subvert.
That's why they want to get rid of Israel.
So regardless of your views on modern nation state of Israel, regardless of your views on us giving foreign aid willy-nilly all over the place, Don't get confused here.
The reason that AOC hates Israel is because she hates you.
Because she hates this civilization that we on the right are attempting to defend.
You know, when you want to really defend the health, not just of our civilization, but of yourself, I would strongly recommend you check out Super Beats.
I've got a new way to start your day.
Super Beats heart chews.
They are a tasty treat to give you the energy that you need that are also good for you.
No more afternoon coffees, energy drinks, or candy for a quick pick-me-up.
Add two delicious plant-based Super Beats heart chews to your morning routine and promote heart-healthy energy for your day without a caffeine crash.
The grapeseed extract used in Super Beats heart chews has been clinically shown to be two times as effective at supporting normal blood pressure as a healthy lifestyle alone.
Really would recommend this, especially, you know, if you're working long hours, you find yourself tired, you got a sweet, cute little baby who's screaming and keeping you up all night.
I don't know.
I'm just thinking hypothetically.
I would strongly recommend Super Beats Heart Chews for heart-healthy energy.
You should, too.
Join over 1 million customers, get free shipping and returns, a 90-day money-back guarantee, and right now, you can get a free 30-day supply with your first purchase at superbeats.com slash Knowles.
The defining feature of...
The left, of the libs, the kind of liberal rule more broadly, is that it wants to tear down that which distinguishes the West.
Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go, as Jesse Jackson said while he marched through Stanford University.
Tear down the statues, tear down our traditions, tear down our system of law, tear down our borders, tear down the things that distinguish us and set us apart from the rest of the world.
You're seeing this right now in a specific way in Michigan.
The Attorney General of Michigan, Dana Nessel, is very upset about the pro-life law in Texas.
And there's actually some really good news on that from around the country, which we'll get to in a bit.
But she says, quote, Adultery is a felony in Michigan.
The prohibition was passed the same year as Michigan's abortion ban.
Do those who support the Texas abortion law also support granting standing to private citizens to sue adulterers when they violate the law?
What say you, Michigan legislators?
Ha!
Got you there!
What?
What, do you think that adultery should be a crime too?
Yeah, sure.
Why not?
Why not?
I mean, I don't think that adultery, I don't think that cheating on your wife and killing a baby are on the same level.
I think one of those things is graver than the other.
But yeah, they're both pretty bad, and I don't think that we should really encourage either of them.
And yeah, they both were illegal for a very long time.
For most of our civilization's history.
So yeah, why wouldn't we do that?
Wait, what?
You think that?
Yeah, we do think that.
This is just like when the Libs, when the Texas abortion law came out, and the Libs said, huh, well, I'll tell you what, Rachel Maddow made this point, my doppelganger.
I made this point over on MSNBC. She said, well, you know, if we're not going to allow legal abortion, then we should hold the men responsible for staying with their children.
Okay.
Yeah, sounds great.
Oh, we should make no-fault divorce harder?
Yeah, I agree.
That's a good idea.
You're coming around, Rachel.
You're coming around, Libs.
You're coming around, Michigan Attorney General.
Of course we should.
At its most basic level, all polities, all political communities Attempt to pursue good and avoid evil.
That's what we do.
And how do we do that?
Well, by protecting certain liberties here, or by protecting the integrity of these institutions, or by keeping some power separate in this government, the local government, versus the...
But what we are trying to do, and it's just the most simple level, do good, avoid evil.
Adultery is bad.
We shouldn't have it.
And so, yeah, I guess we should discourage it.
That's pretty basic stuff.
Politicians are really misunderstanding this political moment.
A woman on the New York City subway showed the political moment.
I just saw these when I was in New York.
A ton of really gross dating app ads where it's people licking each other's mouths and simulating sex.
And in some cases, they got people propped up on countertops and little things.
So this woman sees them and just starts ripping them down.
Oh, this is gross.
I don't know, for kids to be looking at this, is that okay?
Is that okay?
For kids to be looking at this gross stuff on the subway?
This is propaganda.
Normalizing, normalizing.
You're normalizing all these kind of sick, weird gender stuff.
Weird, gross sex stuff all over the subway.
The TV told them not to get upset and wear the mask.
We're going over there.
Let's go to the back.
I also love that just very few people are wearing masks on the subway.
Like some people are, but a lot of people are not.
When I was there, I didn't.
If you look up, it's like, oh, gross.
It's like someone with their finger going through an apple, obviously simulating some gross stuff.
Also some guardianian imagery there.
Yeah, it's gross.
People with their tongues in each other's mouths.
So, the debate is, what is freedom?
Living in a society where anyone can put any kind of gross, obscene, weird porn stuff all over the subways for everyone to see, including little kids, or is the free community the one that can band together and say, no, we don't want this crap on our subways, and we don't want to allow sick, degenerate corporations to enrich themselves by rousing up all our basest passions and having porn everywhere.
Which is it?
What is the freedom?
You can kind of see an argument either way, right?
So I think the people who are missing the moment, the libs and to some degree the libertarians, the ones who say like, you know, the greatest freedom is to just look at porn everywhere, right?
I think those guys are misunderstanding where people are.
I think most of the American people, especially younger Americans, are with that woman saying, we don't want this filth.
We don't want this degeneracy everywhere.
It's not good for us personally.
It's not good for our political community.
It's not good for our country.
This gets to a debate that we had on the last episode of Backstage.
I'll give you the perfect example of it.
Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi was just asked, as a Catholic, allegedly, to defend her views on abortion.
The Catholic Church says you can't have abortions, you can't encourage abortions if you're a politician, you can't go along with abortion.
She says, well, I have a difference of opinion with the Catholic Church on that.
And she makes a ridiculous moral argument for why that's the case.
Yeah, I'm Catholic.
I come from a pro-life family.
Not active in that regard.
Different in their view of a woman's right to choose than I am.
Am I right to choose?
I have five children in six years in one week.
And I keep saying to people who say things like that, when you have five children in six days, six years in one day, we can talk about what businesses of any of us tell anyone else to do.
For us, it was a complete and total blessing, which we enjoy.
Every day of our lives, but it's none of our business how other people choose the size and timing of their families.
The Archbishop of that area of San Francisco and I have a disagreement about who should decide this.
I believe that God has given us a free will to honor our responsibilities.
We need to have legal abortion because God gives us free will.
And so it's actually wrong.
It's unchristian to prevent people from exercising their free will.
Yes, I think abortion's wrong.
For me, I would never kill any of my precious children.
But poor people and disproportionately black people, yes, they should be able to kill their kids.
We have a lot of them, don't we?
All those little poor people running around.
Yes.
No, look, I would never do it.
Why would you never do it, Nancy?
Because it's wrong.
But you think that it should be legal to do wrong things.
God gives us free will, and it is therefore unchristian to outlaw things that are manifestly wrong, even killing babies.
This gets to a debate that we had on the last episode of Backstage, actually.
There were the kind of the more traditional concern, you know, it was me, Matt, to some degree, I think Drew were saying, no, you should not be able to do that kind of stuff.
And then Ben and Jeremy were making the point that you should have the right to sin.
Now, I think we would all agree abortion should not be legal.
Okay, so we would all agree on that point.
And I think we would all agree, but Nancy Pelosi might not agree, that a theft should be illegal.
Murder should be illegal.
Hey, Nancy, God gave you free will.
So should you have the ability to go steal something?
It's wrong.
You shouldn't do it.
But you have the right to do it.
You have the freedom to do it.
You just need to choose not to do it, right?
No, nobody thinks that.
Well, God gave me free will, so murder should be legal.
I don't think we should commit murders, but murder should be legal.
No.
Everyone should choose for themselves if they want to commit murder, if they want to commit theft.
No, I don't think so.
But then I think where the divide might be is, you say, okay, look, you don't have the right to commit a sin that harms someone else, but you do have the right to commit a sin that harms yourself.
Now, first of all, there is no sin that doesn't harm anyone else.
We all live in a society.
It has effects on the world.
But The most private sorts of sins, let's say drugs or something.
In American history, I mean, it's completely anti-historical, ahistorical to say that, you know, it's deeply American to have the right to harm yourself, to commit a private personal sin.
We've had laws against drugs.
We've had laws against certain sexual behaviors.
We've had all sorts of laws that prevent you from doing that.
But now, the more libertarian argument is, you should be allowed to overdose on drugs if you want.
You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your body, as long as it doesn't scare the horses in the street.
And the conservative argument is, no, you shouldn't.
What it comes down to is this question.
Do you have the right to sin?
It would seem to me that error has no rights.
You don't.
You don't have the right to commit theft.
You don't have the right to commit murder.
You don't have the right to kill your baby.
You don't, at least for now, have the right to do a bunch of illegal drugs.
You don't have the right to mutilate yourself.
You don't have the right to kill yourself.
You actually don't have those rights.
There are just certain moral realities that you cannot transgress, okay?
But that's the debate of our time right now.
That's the big debate going on.
This notion of radical individual autonomy, I can do whatever I want, just don't tell me no, or this notion of do we want a good society?
And I think the way it plays out is you got porn all over the subways or you've got Something of the society that we seem to have lost, a more ordered society where things make a little more sense.
Which society do you want to live in?
I want to protect not just my life, not just my society, but also I want to protect my data and my identity.
That's why I would recommend checking out LifeLock.
Do you do anything on the internet?
Well, if so, your information is at risk.
Payment apps like Venmo, Cash App, and others may make payments easy.
But also, you might want to adjust your privacy settings to prevent them from sharing your personal information.
There's a new report just found that payment apps share user data with third parties, such as banks and fraud monitoring services.
Some even share it with marketing firms.
Very important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives every single day.
Just about every minute of the day, we put our information at risk on the internet.
In an instant, a cyber criminal could harm what's yours, your finances, your credit, your reputation.
Good thing there's LifeLock.
LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats, like your social security number for sale on the dark web.
You have access to a dedicated restoration specialist if you become a victim.
And no one can monitor all identity theft or all transactions at all businesses.
But you can keep what's yours with LifeLock by Norton.
Join now.
Save up to 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Knowles.
That's LifeLock.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S for 25% off.
We got some really good news right now out of Florida.
And I was hoping that this would happen, but now it seems to have happened.
So we got the Texas pro-life law.
I asked some of the people who were involved in drafting the Texas pro-life law, will this Texas pro-life law be replicated in other states, or is it just peculiar to Texas?
And the legislator who drafted the law and came up with it said, it can be replicated in other states.
You need some tweaks, but it could work.
Well, that's already happening.
A Florida Republican state lawmaker on Wednesday introduced a bill that is modeled after a strict Texas law prohibiting abortions after six weeks.
That wonderful pro-life law.
It's called House Bill 167.
It's by Representative Webster Barnaby.
And it does the same thing.
You can sue people if they're committing abortions, if they're involved in abortions.
This is really great stuff.
We need to go on the offense.
It ties in with this broader theme we've been talking about.
Where is the future of the right and where is the future of the country?
For a great many decades, the right could only agree on one thing in particular.
Maximize individual autonomy.
Choice.
Do whatever you want.
Just don't make me pay for it.
I think we have seen that that is insufficient.
I think that having lost our institutions, having lost the definition of marriage, having lost the nature of sex itself, having lost education, having lost everything other than occasional tax cuts, I think we've realized that vision is insufficient because all societies need to do something.
All societies need to value certain things and oppose other things.
And if we're not going to offer a vision of what we think the good is, then the only vision you're going to have is from the left.
And then the left, because nature abhors a vacuum, is going to take over.
So I think this is good stuff.
I think all the other states, with Republican governors and legislatures, need to go on the offense, need to start passing this stuff.
Okay?
Move the culture in that direction.
That's going to It would be difficult for some squishy Republicans, even on the issue of abortion, say, well, I don't know, can't we just avoid the culture wars?
Let's just talk about bumping up GDP a little bit.
Let's just talk about tweaking the healthcare system.
No, let's talk about justice.
Let's talk about virtue.
Let's talk about the kind of society we want to live in.
Do you want to live in an angry, crazy, senseless society that's just saturated in filth?
Or do you want to live in a society that's not perfect?
It's never going to be perfect.
This is a fallen world.
But it's just a little bit nicer.
Where things are a little more stable.
Where the family is a little more stable.
Where our local communities are a little more stable.
Where you can take your kid onto the subway without seeing creepy, gender-bending porn.
Which one do you want to live in?
I think we would all agree.
The latter.
But one of the big holdups to getting back to a normal society is that the liberal establishment has just taken a ton of power.
They've taken a ton of power away from you, and they've done it through our COVID regime.
As long as the emergency of COVID lasts, then these rulers can rule however they wish, with whatever whims and caprices they like.
Fifteen days to slow the spread is now well over a year and a half.
Now, this is probably going to be censored, but I'll say it anyway.
The creator of the AstraZeneca vaccine, a very, very important scientist, Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, has just come out and said that eventually COVID will just be a cold.
It'll just be a common cold.
Some of us have been saying that for most people it is a cold already.
For some people it's very serious, but for most people it's just kind of like a cold.
It's like a bad cold, but it's fine.
She says eventually it's just going to be a cold for everyone.
This is what happens.
She says, quote, we already live with four different human coronaviruses that we don't really ever think about very much, and eventually SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, the Wu flu, will become one of those.
It's just a question of how long it's going to take to get there and what measures we're going to have to take to manage it in the meantime.
Why does this happen?
Because, quote, viruses become less virulent as they circulate more easily and there's no reason to think that we will have a more virulent version of COVID-19.
We tend to see slow genetic drift of the virus and there will be gradual immunity developing in the population as there is to all the other seasonal coronaviruses.
Good news.
But how long is this going to go on for?
One of the vaccine manufacturers, I forget which one, I think it was Moderna, but who knows, it's one of them, says, you know, I think COVID, I think these difficult COVID measures are going to go on for another year.
Oh, do you?
Do you?
You people who are most profiting from coronavirus, you think it's going to, other than Amazon, who's profiting the most, you think it's going to go on another year.
I bet in a year you're going to hear, oh, it's going to go on another year, another two years, another three years.
This stuff is not going away until We tell it to until we make it go away.
You know, Leanna Nguyen, who's the former president of Planned Parenthood, she now goes on CNN all of the time, and she talks about her health advice.
She says we are nowhere near allowing kids to lose masks in schools.
I agree that masks are a very powerful layer of protection, but it's one layer.
And if we have so many other layers that are present, masking may be one that could go away.
But I would say that, let's say a school or a particular class, everybody is vaccinated in that class.
And also the level of community transmission is declining.
I could imagine that situation being where we remove masks because we have all these other layers.
Or if we have rapid testing, imagine if every child and teacher were tested every morning and also they're vaccinated.
You can imagine that situation even if there's high levels of community spread that maybe you can remove masks at that time.
But we are nowhere near that yet.
And I think what we really need to do is get the vaccines authorized for children as soon as that's possible.
And also really ramp up testing because that is a powerful tool that we're just not using across the country as we should be.
We're just we're nowhere near where we need to be to let little kids take off the masks, even though kids statistically face virtually no risk.
Very, very, very, very little risk from the coronavirus.
And then the people who are vaccinated, we are also told, face very, very little risk from serious disease.
So you can't worry that the kids are just going to spread it to the vulnerable people because the vulnerable people already have the vaccine unless the libs are lying about something somewhere down the line.
Nowhere near it.
But you could see a world.
You can see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Just allow us to keep power for a little while longer.
Leanna Nguyen is a curious figure because she's talking about the The health of children.
And she, of course, is best known for running an organization that kills hundreds of thousands of children a year.
That their job is to kill little babies.
But Leanna Wynn was also pushed out because she wanted to de-emphasize abortion at Planned Parenthood.
She wanted to at least have a little cover at Planned Parenthood to say, no, that's not all that we do here.
And so they booted her.
They said, no, that is.
That is all that we do.
You're out, Leanna Wynn.
So she's a confounding figure.
I think she's a good...
It's representative of the quote-unquote moderate liberal view, which isn't very moderate at all.
It's quite extreme to the left.
But I think that if you look at what Leanna Wendt is saying here, that is the voice of the establishment.
Yes, there's a world in which we can almost go back to normal, even though we're still going to have the power to do whatever we want.
But we're nowhere near that yet.
Oh, we're not just a little bit longer, just a little bit longer.
How much longer are we supposed to wait before we all start taking down signs in the subway like that lady in New York?
You know, systemic corruption infects our institutions and all of the elites blame you.
We've been talking about that on this show.
Well, Drew is going to talk about that today on the Andrew Klavan show.
So go check that out.
Also, subscribe and listen to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, and leave a five-star review.
review.
If you like what you hear, we'll be right back with the mailbag.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite, not my favorite comment.
These are my favorite time of the week.
This is the mailbag.
First question from Daniel.
Michael, I started dating my girlfriend a couple weeks ago.
However, I have had strong feelings for another girl who has expressed that she wants to be with me, but doesn't want to be in a relationship.
Uh-huh.
The situation is rather difficult as we see each other very often and the chemistry is still there.
I want to be with this girl, but I would rather be in a serious relationship rather than just something meaningless.
Is there anything I can do?
So you're telling me.
So you got this girlfriend who seems nice enough.
And then there's this other girl.
Who you've got the hots for.
And she's got the hots for you.
But she doesn't want to be in a relationship with you because she's got the hots for other guys too.
And so what you want to do is dump your good girlfriend to go hang out with this strumpet so you can have casual sex on those happy occasions when she's not having casual sex with other guys.
That's what you're saying.
Ah, to be young.
To be young and stupid.
Gosh, it's been a while, but I know.
I know.
I know.
Guys, think this way.
Young people think this way.
But I hope that my describing the situation to you, my just repeating back to you what you have told me, will let you see clearly.
You should definitely not be with the strumpet.
That's not a good idea.
You maybe should not even be in a relationship with your girlfriend because it sounds like you're not ready for a relationship.
You're just kind of settling for her or something like that.
I would recommend...
Trying to work on a little bit of chastity.
Easier said than done.
It's easier for an old man like me, an old married man with a kid to talk about this, than a young person like you.
But I think that it's quite clear that what would be better for you and for society is for you to be in the more kind of steady relationship with the girl who's not going to lead you astray.
So either do that and take that seriously and make a decision and work on that, or don't.
Break up with both girls.
Don't just take your girlfriend as a consolation prize if you're really not into her.
And wait until someone that you do like comes along.
But I would not...
Good grief.
It's amazing.
I mean, I know that men think this way.
I was young once, so I do know.
But it reminds me of this joke that Drew Klavan talks about, the joke about the guy who walks into a bar with an orange for a head.
And the short version of it is, the bartender says, all right, are you going to tell me how you got an orange for a head?
He says, well, you know, I walked on the beach, I found a magic lamp, and a genie came out.
I wouldn't believe it.
He said, I'll give you three wishes.
I said, okay, well, if you're really a genie, I want you to give me a million dollars.
I go home, oh my gosh, Publisher's Clearinghouse shows up, a million dollar check.
I go, okay, you know, I want to sleep with every Playboy playmate, you know, of the last year.
I knock, knock, knock on the door.
Oh my gosh, all these women show up.
Wow, that's amazing.
He says, okay, well, what happened then?
He goes, well, you know, I had one more wish and here's the part that's, well, I asked to have an orange for a head.
And some people really don't get that joke, but it's a joke about the perversity of mankind.
We are self-sabotaging creatures, and that's what you're doing, buddy.
You're sabotaging yourself, so don't do that.
From Seth.
Dear Michael, I've been watching your show almost daily since I discovered it two years ago.
Thank you.
And have purchased Speechless Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
Thank you.
Oh, man.
You're a gentleman and a scholar.
I agree with you on probably everything but the death penalty.
Do we sinners have the authority to condemn somebody to death?
Does justice not belong to God?
And as it does, if the death penalty also isn't as effective as a deterrent in life in prison, then what argument is left to prefer the death penalty over mercy and giving ourselves every bit of time to try to convert these criminals?
Hope to hear from you soon.
Love you.
Sincerely, the ghost of Saddam Hussein.
Okay, well, first of all, your hypothetical there is a big if.
If it's not a deterrent.
I actually think the death penalty is a deterrent when it is implemented.
Right now, we don't really implement it all that much, so when studies come out and say, it's not really a deterrent crime, well, right, we don't really implement it.
It seems like a decent deterrent to me, but deterrence is not the primary purpose.
Now, you mentioned, shouldn't we have time to convert the people who are on death row, the people who otherwise we would execute, right?
Well, you're getting to rehabilitation now, which is another reason, another argument for the criminal justice system.
But it seems to me that hanging concentrates the mind.
It seems to me you might have a far better chance of converting someone if he knows that he's on the brink of death, that he's facing the gallows.
So the rehabilitation aspect, I think, is already there.
And then you say, well, what's the point?
The point is neither deterrence nor rehabilitation primarily, but justice.
The point is justice.
Do I think that we lowly sinners have the right to kill people?
No.
But I think that...
Or in self-defense, I suppose we do, which is one argument for the death penalty.
But rather than me or you, I think that the civil authority has the right for capital punishment.
Actually, the Bible says so too.
St.
Paul makes it very clear.
The Old Testament makes it very clear.
He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.
I think that history makes it very clear.
I think that if we have the right to throw people in prison for 70 years or 50 years, why would we not have the right to kill them?
We through the civil authority.
I don't really understand that.
It seems to me you're taking justice to this extreme of we should never pass any judgments whatsoever.
We need to have justice in society.
I don't think there's anything Christian or biblical or right or just about letting the cruel rape the earth.
Now it can't be revenge, it can't be just vigilantism all over the place, but we have a criminal justice system in place.
It's relatively effective, so it seems fine to me.
One of the arguments you'll hear is Catholics cannot support the death penalty.
First of all, Catholics, many Catholics support the death penalty.
As Pope Benedict says very well, there can be a legitimate disagreement about the implementation of the death penalty among Catholics.
And in fact, many popes have carried out the death penalty.
And blessed Pope Pius IX carried out a lot of executions in the papal states.
So that just seems to me very modern, a kind of modern liberal or libertarian argument that does not hold a lot of historical water.
From Michael, Master Knowles, I would like to know your opinion on the idea of putting a fleece before the Lord, referencing the story of Gideon in the Bible.
I have a family member who often urges me to do this as a way to find direction from God.
However, it makes me feel as though I'm seeking God to be my personal genie rather than living by faith and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
The only time I feel biblically confident in testing God would be in finances, specifically with tithing.
Putting a fleece before the Lord just feelsicky to me.
What are your thoughts on this?
P.S. My wife is jealous of how much I admire you.
Let's be friends.
Sincerely, a fellow Michael.
Oh, thank you.
So, for those who don't know, putting a fleece before the Lord is...
Basically asking for a sign.
Lord, I have to make this difficult decision, so tell me what I should do.
People pray for this sort of thing.
It's very nice to get these sorts of things, but don't forget that it is an evil generation that seeks for signs and wonders.
My priest, Father George Rutler in New York, very wise man, points this out.
He says it's an evil generation that seeks for signs and wonders, but it is a stupid generation that ignores signs and wonders.
Very often you will get some kind of You will see some kind of symbol in the world.
I myself have had this happen.
You know, I was an atheist for a very long time.
Then I started to revert.
And I became intellectually convinced.
And then during the period where I really...
My faith solidified.
I was...
It was a really wild time.
I mean, I was having what you would call religious experience that was happening quite a lot, and there were these sort of numinous events and symbols and maybe coincidences, you would say, but I really don't think there are many coincidences.
So what does that mean?
What does it mean when you get a sign from the Lord?
I try not to interpret these things and divine their special meaning and act like a sorcerer or a magician.
To me, the meaning of the sign is that the Lord is there.
There is an order to the universe.
There is such a thing as providence.
And the good Lord has endowed you with moral reasoning, judgment, conscience.
And I think you should rely on that and not just try to read the tea leaves.
I agree with your feeling that that generally is icky.
Hi, Michael.
My wife and I are about to have our first baby, and we're looking to confirm that our baby's godparents need to be of the Catholic faith.
In good standing and confirmed, is this accurate?
I've done some research, and it seems that this is the case, but we heard from others that it's not necessary.
We will ask our priest on Sunday, but if you could address this before then, I don't want to leave him speechless.
We don't know the answer to this.
Love the show.
Yes, if you are Catholic and you're going to raise a kid Catholic, then the godparents need to be Catholic.
That's true.
That's true.
It's just the way it is.
From Jamie, I recently got engaged to a wonderful man.
We will be getting married in about six months, or according to Dr.
Fauci, less than 15 days.
Both of us are active churchgoers and strong believers in Christ.
We recently started marriage counseling with one of the ministers from the church my fiancé grew up in, and we've been reading The Meaning of Marriage by Tim Keller together as well.
Do you have any advice for us as we move through the rest of our engagement and into young married life that might help our marriage be successful and of strong faith?
My now fiancé is the one who turned me on to your show and we started dating, so as you might imagine, we're both huge fans.
That's great.
Sounds like you found a very excellent man with sound judgment and good taste.
My fiancé and I are looking forward to any advice you might have to offer.
Yes, I will give you the advice.
It actually ties in with the theme of this show.
Do you have the right to commit sin?
Do we have the right to adultery?
Do we have the right to sort of pursue our own tastes and appetites everywhere?
This is advice that Drew Clavin gave me before I got married.
I said, Drew, you've been happily married a long time.
What's your advice?
He said, here's my advice.
Don't sleep with other people.
He used more colorful language.
I'm going to clean that up because this is a family show.
Don't sleep with other people.
And you'll have a good...
Wedding.
And a good marriage, rather.
I asked Jeremy for advice.
Jeremy gives me good advice, too.
He said, you know, if you have to, go to bed angry.
If you go to bed angry, you're still married in the morning.
But if you make this thing, I won't go to bed angry, and you just keep some argument going on and on when you're all tired and angry and at your wits end, that's not going to be good either.
Now, these are both men who have been married longer than I have.
Probably a bit more wisdom in that area than I do.
But I think that's pretty basic stuff, yeah.
Do the right thing.
Respect your, you know, wives submit to your husbands.
Husbands love your wives.
I'm not sure which one is more difficult at certain times.
They're both difficult.
They're both calls to do things that we are not, through our broken nature, normally inclined to do.
Have respect for your spouse in all things.
In the Drew advice, that means don't cheat on your spouse.
And in the sort of Jeremy advice, it is recognize you're in this thing.
You're in this thing together.
And have respect for them.
Don't just always try to win every single point and every single argument.
I mean...
You'll grow together, ideally.
You'll grow together or you'll grow apart.
So make sure that you do that.
And recognize that this other person is now part of you.
When the good Lord says you're one flesh, that is a very profound image.
It's part of you.
So you wouldn't want to abuse some part of yourself, whether that's emotionally, physically, obviously, spiritually.
But I guess in our culture, we think that we do have a right to abuse ourselves.
We do think that we have a right to sin and error.
But I don't think that you do.
So don't do that either.
The way that you treat your spouse and the way that you treat your own body are sort of the same thing.
You should treat them both well.
From Jesse.
Sweet Nephew Knowles.
I have been in many different conversations with my friends about the draft and the future of warfare.
All of them have told me that war will never be fought in the same manner, hand-to-hand, trench warfare, etc.
This constitutes the elimination of the draft.
Because normal people cannot operate complicated equipment.
For instance, drones.
What are your thoughts?
Has warfare changed forever with the advent of drones and nukes to the point of eliminating the draft?
If so, should women be included in a draft?
Because physical combat is no longer necessary.
Congrats on Sweet Baby June.
Well, if you're saying, if the premise is there's not going to be any draft anymore, then I guess women should not register because there's not going to be any draft.
But no, I think that the military is a very broad place.
There's lots of different jobs in the military, lots of supportive roles.
And so I don't think there's ever going to be a world in which our wars are fought by 10 people.
I think that the draft is still necessary because a nation has to defend itself.
And I don't think women should register for the draft.
I think that's wrong.
I think it is.
You're right.
It does not maximize individual autonomy.
It does, this particular view of mine, it does not eliminate the biological constrictions of sex and nature.
But that's just the way it is.
I think that we need to stand up for what is right and we need to embrace and enforce such a vision.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you on Monday.
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 Wall Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
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 Cherokee Heart.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
