Joe Biden spreads scientific misinformation on the COVID vaccines, California makes it easier to kill yourself, and a student gets released on bail after shooting up a school.
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
You know your presidency is in trouble when you are bragging about mass firings.
But unfortunately for Joe Biden, whose poll numbers are tanking on every single issue, the best thing he's got to brag about these days is the huge number of his constituents who are losing their jobs because they are losing their jobs in the name of public health.
These requirements work.
And as the Business Roundtable and others told me when I announced the first requirement, that encouraged businesses to feel they could come in and demand the same thing of their employees.
More people are getting vaccinated.
More lives are being saved.
Let's be clear.
When you see headlines and reports of mass firings and hundreds of people losing their jobs, look at the bigger story.
I've spoken with Scott Kirby, CEO of United Airlines, who's here today.
United went from 59% of their employees to 99% of their employees in less than two months after implementing the requirement.
99%.
99% because they fired all the ones that weren't in that 99%.
99%.
Lots and lots and lots of people are going to lose their livelihoods in order to pressure other people to get a vaccine that may or may not prevent them from getting a cough.
Is Joe Biden sure that we are the ones who are not looking at the bigger story here?
I don't think so.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Old Schooled.
Man, you know, when my producer sends me in these comments in the morning, I don't see whose name it is.
I just see the comments.
Once again, Old Schooled, he keeps coming up here on these comments.
He writes, one of my sons is actually named Brandon, and he's on cloud nine because he thinks the whole country is cheering for him.
It's true.
And every single day, more and more of the country is cheering him on.
Let's go.
Brandon, when you want to see things clearly, but without eye strain, without that nasty blue light that can give you headaches and things like that, I strongly recommend you check out blue blocks.
I no longer look at a screen if I'm getting blue light from that screen.
I just don't do it.
I do it as little as I possibly can.
You don't realize how much the blue light damages your eyes and leads to that digital eye strain until you get rid of it.
Symptoms of digital eye strain include blurred vision, headaches, dry watery eyes, It can include anxiety, depression, low energy.
Blue Blocks was created to change this with high-quality lenses for daytime, nighttime, and for color therapy, exactly in line with the suggested peer-reviewed academic literature.
They've got over 40 HIP frames, come in prescription, non-prescription, and readers.
They have frames for every single need.
Blue Blocks is also giving back by working in partnership with Restoring Vision in their Buy One, Gift One campaign.
For each pair purchased, they donate a pair of reading glasses to someone in need.
Go check it out today.
Blueblocks.com slash Knowles.
Use the promo code Knowles at checkout to get 20% off and enjoy free shipping on orders over $115.
Get your energy back, sleep better, block out the unhealthy effects of blue light with Blueblocks.
B-L-U-B-L-O-X dot com slash Knowles.
Click the link below.
Make sure you use code Knowles to get 20% off your order.
Enjoy free shipping on orders over $115.
B-L-U-B-L-O-X dot com slash Knowles for 20% off today.
Joe Biden, semi-coherently, and I'm being generous, I think, gave this speech yesterday about the vaccines and the vaccine mandates and how it's great if a lot of people lose their jobs because they're not vaccinated, because then that might encourage other people to get vaccinated.
And we need certain people to get vaccinated, okay?
It's not just about your personal choice.
It's not just about your liberty, as Biden had said a few weeks ago.
This is about the public health.
And Biden brought it home with this point.
At the very least, we need to get the nurses and the healthcare workers vaccinated because you, if you're going in to your checkup, if you're going in to be treated for some other illness or for coronavirus, you need to be confident that the people who are treating you are not going to transmit the virus to you.
We have to beat this thing.
So while I didn't race to do it right away, that's why I've had to move toward requirements that everyone get vaccinated where I had the authority to do that.
That wasn't my first instinct.
My administration is now requiring federal workers to be vaccinated.
We've also required federal contractors to be vaccinated.
If you have a contract of the federal government working for the federal government, you have to be vaccinated.
We're requiring active duty military to be vaccinated.
We're making sure healthcare workers are vaccinated because if you seek care at a healthcare facility, you should have the certainty that the people providing that care are protected from COVID and cannot spread it to you.
So you've got to have that certainty that the people at the healthcare facility can neither contract nor transmit the coronavirus.
And that's why they've got to get the vaccine.
Which does not prevent them from contracting or transmitting coronavirus.
The vaccine may reduce the risk of hospitalization or death, but this is even according to the CDC. I've got it right here before YouTube or whoever tried to kick me off for spreading scientific disinformation.
I've got the report right here from the CDC. CDC report shows vaccinated people can spread COVID-19.
So...
The vaccine mandate here serves no public health purpose.
The very argument, the justification that Joe Biden is giving for the COVID vaccine mandate has no standing whatsoever.
It does not carry any weight because it doesn't achieve that purpose.
This is, I think, the key to thinking about the vaccine mandates here.
Because there are all sorts of arguments that people are making about the vaccine mandates.
There's the arch-libertarian argument.
This violates my individual liberty and you can't inject me with anything in my body, my choice.
Then there are other arguments.
You're hearing them from the left, which is that, look, absolutely we have to protect people's public health and you have no right to spread germs here.
We all live in a society.
And you've got conservatives trying to make more prudential arguments in the middle.
I think what we have to do is look at the specifics of this vaccine and this virus.
Vaccines can do two things.
They can protect you from a virus and they can protect other people from a virus.
And some vaccines do both of those things.
These vaccines do not by the CDC's own admission.
So this vaccine apparently is very good at protecting you from going to the hospital or dying from the coronavirus.
But it does not protect you from transmitting the virus.
That's why the CDC gave guidance at the end of July saying that you've got to still wear the mask even if you are vaccinated.
That was the argument they made.
Now, you might say that's a stupid piece of guidance as well, but neither here nor there.
The justification for that is that this vaccine Vaccine does not protect other people from the risk of you, a vaccinated person, transmitting it to them.
Which means that there might be a personal health benefit to having people get the vaccine, but there is no additional public health benefit.
I understand the argument for vaccine mandates.
Going back to 1905, there was a Supreme Court case about this.
Going back even further, George Washington inoculated the Continental Army against smallpox.
The reason being that we all live together and other people might be at risk by your personal behavior.
But that argument doesn't hold here if the virus is still transmissible by the vaccinated people, which Joe Biden doesn't seem to understand or doesn't seem to care about because he's making arguments that do not apply in this case.
Doesn't matter.
You're seeing the vax mandates going around in all sorts of left-wing places.
The Los Angeles City Council voted 11-2 on Wednesday to pass a new ordinance mandating that most patrons provide evidence of vaccination against COVID-19 to enter the indoor portion of a covered location.
This is a lot of businesses, restaurants, bars, personal care establishments, and shopping centers.
Retail establishments, grocery stores, pharmacies are not included in that, so they're very basic things.
You need to get some food, you need to get some medicine.
They're not going to require that, but basically everywhere else they will.
The LA rule will allow customers to submit written exemptions for religious or medical reasons, but then businesses have to require those customers to use outdoor facilities.
Or to show evidence of a recent negative COVID test if no outdoor facilities are available.
So the effect of this is going to be segregation.
The filthy, dirty, unvaccinated prole peasants have to stay outside and the good, compliant sheep get to go indoors.
For now, but the rules are changing every single day, so who knows.
It's hard to follow these arguments because the authorities keep changing them so quickly.
The classic example of this is Fauci saying, don't wear masks.
Masks do not stop the spread of a virus.
And then immediately thereafter saying, no, you actually have to wear masks.
Sorry, I lied to you.
I lied to you because I wanted to make sure there were enough masks left over for my buddies.
Believe me, though, I was lying to you then, but believe me now.
So the narrative is changing all of the time.
Be very clear here.
When we're talking about the vaccine mandates, you don't need to go so far as to say that the vaccines are evil and they're going to inject you with microchips.
You don't need to go so far as to say that all vaccine mandates at all places at all times are wrong.
It will suffice to point out that this vaccine mandated for this virus...
It has no leg to stand on.
It does not achieve the purpose that its proponents are suggesting it will achieve.
Speaking of death, kind of a morbid topic, California has gone further beyond just these vaccine mandates.
They have gone further to make assisted suicide easier.
Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law on Tuesday that will make it easier for terminally ill patients to kill themselves.
Right now, terminally ill patients can already kill themselves in California, but they have to wait 15 days before their families can get the lethal drugs and kill off their relatives.
Now, you only have to wait 48 hours.
The law also requires healthcare providers to post their physician-assisted suicide policies on their websites.
The reasoning for this, the reasoning for making it easier for depressed people to kill themselves, is that a third of the 400 terminally ill patients who requested assisted suicide drugs in recent years Died before they had reached that 15-day waiting period, before they'd reached the end of it.
So because of that, because of the awful cruelty that the people who were trying to kill themselves died before they had the opportunity to kill themselves, we need to make it easier for people to kill themselves.
See, I was already having trouble following the scientific and medical logic of the day, but that one is really hard to wrap your head around.
It's cruel that the people who are trying to kill themselves died before they had the chance to kill themselves, and so we need to make it easier to kill themselves.
What, so they don't get an extra five days or something?
Is that why?
There's a personal twist in this as well, which is really, really disturbing.
And in a way, it actually gives you a little bit more sympathy for someone like Gavin Newsom, who's a very unsympathetic character.
Gavin Newsom has a personal connection to this issue here.
And I think it actually reveals a lot of the illogic of the people who are supporting doctor-assisted or just broadly assisted suicide.
What we want to do here is not support death.
We want to support life, which is why you ought to check out 40 Days for Life.
A lot of people talking about life and death these days, and specifically they're talking about abortion, with these court cases winding their way up to the Supreme Court, new pro-life laws in Texas and Florida.
If you're struggling on what to say or how to say it when abortion is the topic of conversation, you need to check out a recent new book, What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion.
Since its release, it has already been a number one Amazon new release and a number two Amazon bestseller.
It's already on its second printing.
It's an easy book to use, tells you what to say, what not to say, and its proven arguments have worked with everybody, people on the fence, abortion supporters, even Planned Parenthood workers.
This is an absolutely invaluable and timely tool, so get it now.
What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion, how to change minds and convert hearts in a brave new world.
Go to Amazon or get it directly.
From 40 Days for Life.
You can do that at 40daysforlife.com.
That is 40daysforlife.com.
Gavin Newsom signed into law this assisted suicide bill to make it easier for depressed people and terminally ill people who obviously are depressed to kill themselves.
Gavin Newsom seems to have admitted in a magazine interview to helping his mother kill herself.
So this is from 2002.
This occurred in 2002.
From the interview, quote, In May 2002, his mother decided to end her life through assisted suicide.
Newsom recalled, quote, She left me a message because I was too busy.
Hope you're well.
Next Wednesday will be the last day for me.
Hope you can make it.
Newsom's mother had had cancer.
Newsom says, I saved the cassette with the message on it.
That's how sick I am.
The interviewer writes, he crossed his arms and jammed his hands into his armpits.
I have PTSD and this is bringing it all back, he said.
The night before we gave her the drugs, I cooked her dinner, hard-boiled eggs, and she told me, get out of politics.
She was worried about the stress on me.
This is a horrifying, horrifying scene to think about.
That Newsom's mother, governor of California, his mother calls him up.
She was terminally ill.
Who knows when she would have died?
Very often, the predictions on these things can be way, way off.
And she just said, you know, I've got cancer.
I don't want to live anymore.
I'm going to kill myself.
Hey, son, I'm going to kill myself.
I hope you can be there.
And she had her son come there to help her kill herself.
And he said he still has PTSD from it.
Of course he does.
It's a horrible thing for her to do.
And it's a horrible situation he was put in.
And it's a horrible thing in general.
It's an evil, evil thing in general.
She died at 55 years old.
She's very, very young.
In San Francisco, 2002.
This was while her son was a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
At the time, assisted suicide was a felony in California.
No longer is.
This is gaining in popularity.
They call it euthanasia, assisted suicide.
It's gaining in popularity.
There are really dark, really, really dark versions of this.
There was a story out of the Netherlands where an old woman had been scheduled for assisted suicide but she was sort of out of her mind a little bit and she would go out of her mind and come in and she was varying degrees of lucidity.
And when the time came for the scheduled assisted suicide, she begged them to stop.
She tried to smack the poison out of their hands.
Actually, her family members had to hold her down while the doctor killed her while she was struggling to survive.
So there are these really ugly things.
People who are depressed, people who feel they're a burden on their families, people who feel they're too old, they give in to this kind of despair.
It's a very, very hideous sort of thing.
But you're seeing it even for young people, people who are very sick.
This is an evil thing in and of itself because the premise here is that suffering is the worst possible thing in the world.
The only reason to live is to feel good and to have pleasure and And the moment that the pleasure and the feeling good wears out or you feel that you're a burden to somebody or you think life's not quite as bright as it used to be, you ought to just end your life.
That is a very perverse logic.
It's going to lead to a lot of people Offing themselves, and it also is based on a false understanding of our own bodies.
And the left leans into this, but the right does sometimes as well, especially the libertarian right.
We have this idea that we own our bodies and we can do whatever we want with them.
Do whatever you want.
It doesn't bother me.
Just don't make me pay for it.
But you have a right to do whatever you want with your body.
You own yourself.
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
You don't own yourself.
You don't have a right to do whatever you want with your bodies.
I know that this very liberal lowercase l idea has pervaded the left and the right these days, but it's just not true.
You have obligations to your family, to your community, to your nation, and to your God, to the transcendent moral order.
You don't have the right to do a great many things.
Not the least of which is you don't have the right to kill yourself.
Okay?
Speaking of death and distress, it's a really downer kind of a news cycle.
Well, luckily, we've actually got some good news coming up, too.
But before we move on to that, we do have to talk about abortion.
This is the last piece of death, I think, we're going to be talking about here.
But there is a bright side.
I think the left is stumbling over their own illogic on abortion.
There's a writer, Julia Ioff.
I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly.
She's...
Popular writer on the left, and she posted this whole tweet thread about abortion and how terrible it is if you are pro-life, or she refers to pro-lifers as anti-choice.
And she says, if you are anti-choice and you want to make sure women carry every pregnancy to term, why not make the person who created the pregnancy contribute?
Why not have men pay child support to the women they impregnate?
Surely it is not the woman's responsibility alone.
Yeah, sure, that sounds good.
Yeah, good idea.
Yeah, I bet you pro-lifers don't want men to have to stick around and take care of the mother of their child and the child himself.
No, we would like that.
That would be a good thing.
Yeah, maybe we should make it harder to get divorced.
Yep, that sounds awesome.
Great idea.
Yeah.
And maybe we should discourage casual sex and the hookup culture.
Uh-huh.
Keep going.
What else do you have?
Yeah.
And maybe we should encourage a traditional family structure.
Uh-huh.
You're on it, baby.
Let's do it.
Julia, where can I vote for you?
This sounds great.
This sounds great.
So this has happened a few other times.
Where these pro-abortion people think they've got a real zinger on the pro-lifers because they'll say, maybe you should hold the men accountable.
And then all the pro-lifers, every single one of them, every single one in the entire country, will say, yeah, that's a good idea.
And what this reveals is that the pro-abortion side, they come to their ignorance honestly.
And I actually mean this sort of as a compliment.
I don't think generally they're just lying about...
I think they genuinely believe that people who oppose abortion, pro-lifers, do so because they hate women and they want to control women's bodies and they want to keep women as second-class citizens.
I think that's what they genuinely believe.
In fact, I know that's what they genuinely believe because when I was young and stupid back when I was a teenager, I thought that.
I was pro-abortion.
I thought the arguments for pro-life didn't make any sense to me.
That was the case until I was about, I don't know, 19, 20 years old.
I remember I had a conversation with a bioethicist during a summer fellowship once, and she disabused me of my stupid pro-abortion notions, but I really had it in my head.
The pro-lifers, they just, you know, they just didn't respect women.
They didn't think women ought to have the choice.
It didn't occur to me that the baby was actually the subject in this discussion.
Not just the woman or the man or the society or the economy or whatever.
But the baby actually had some rights as well.
So I think it's good.
When these stories come up, when these pro-abortion people come up and they think they've got a real zinger here, I think we need to speak loudly and say, oh, you're absolutely right.
Good job, honey.
Yep.
That's right.
Let's end no-fault divorce.
Yeah, let's make sure that men have some say over whether or not their kids get killed.
And let's make sure that men have to bear some responsibility for raising their kids.
Great stuff.
Love that idea.
Speaking of pro-life, you know that Nancy Pelosi pretends to be a practicing Catholic, but she is in a great disagreement with Catholic teaching on a very important issue, a non-negotiable issue that is the right to life.
And so this is a grave mortal sin.
And this is actually entails another sin, which is the sin of scandal, because she is leading people astray by pretending to be a practicing Catholic while supporting the widespread slaughter of babies.
So Nancy Pelosi's archbishop, Archbishop Salvatore Cordiglione, has come out and He's a very strong bishop, very strong defender of the faith.
And he's called for the conversion of Pelosi's heart.
He says, A conversion of heart of the majority of our congressional representatives is needed on this issue, beginning with the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
I am therefore inviting all Catholics to join in a massive and visible campaign of prayer and fasting for Speaker Pelosi.
Commit to praying one rosary a week and fasting on Fridays for her conversion of heart.
It's a great idea.
The reason I bring this up, you know, especially for non-Catholics, this might seem kind of weird.
The idea that just prayer and fasting are good ways to affect positive change in the world.
But they are.
This is the tried and true method, okay?
And just yesterday, we celebrated a very important anniversary here in the West.
It's the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, October 7th, 1571.
It's one of the most important battles in all of history.
It was a battle between the Holy League under St.
Pius V and the Ottoman Turks who were invading.
The Muslims have...
Come close to conquering the West on three occasions.
The Battle of Poitiers, also known as the Battle of Tours, in the 8th century.
The Battle of Lepanto in the 16th century.
And the Battle of Vienna, largest cavalry charge in history, in the 17th century.
And these were massive moments when civilization, as we know it, could have disappeared.
And there have been victories that some might call miraculous.
In the case of the Battle of Lepanto, whose anniversary we celebrate yesterday, the Holy League was vastly outnumbered by the Ottoman Turks.
And what did the Christian West do?
Prayed the Rosary.
Prayed for the intercession of Our Lady.
And actually, this is why there's a feast day in the Catholic Church, which is Our Lady of Victory.
Our Lady of Victory yesterday.
And so, this prayer, obviously, you know, The soldiers, the sailors, the fighters, they did their part.
But there is this idea that we actually, our prayers are effective.
Our prayers can actually do things.
Our physical life and our metaphysical life, our physical life and our spiritual life are actually connected.
And so one simple thing we can do, we can write op-eds, we can campaign, we can go vote, we should do all of that.
You can also pray and fast.
You can also do that yourself.
And I know you might think it's crazy and kooky and strange, but it has served our civilization well for a very, very long time.
Speaking of violence, there's a story coming out of Texas, a school shooting.
Usually the media blasts school shootings all over the TV and the newspapers and everywhere.
This one, though, you may not have heard about so much.
The reason that you may not have heard about it is that it contradicts the prevailing narrative on school shootings.
How does it do that?
Because in the prevailing narrative on school shootings, all the shooters are white.
In this case, the school shooter was black.
Furthermore, it contradicts a lot of the narrative on criminal justice because what we always hear is that the cops go really easy on white people and they're really harsh on black people.
But in this case, the 18-year-old student who shot up at Texas high school was just released on bail.
He shoots four people, injures four people, shoots up the school, and he gets released on bail.
And so I don't...
It's very sad.
It's sad whenever anyone shoots up a school or shoots up a community or commits any act of violence.
But that doesn't necessarily make it a national news story.
These things do happen.
The reason I mention this story is to point out That this sort of thing never would have happened if the kid were white.
If the school shooter were a white kid, he never would have been released on bail.
There would be marches, there would be wall-to-wall news coverage.
And there isn't now, because it contradicts that narrative.
And I don't want to fall into the trap of saying, you know, if the shoe were on the other foot, or, you know, if the roles were reversed.
It doesn't matter if the roles were reversed.
There were double standards in this country.
But you've got to point it out when it happens.
You have to be aware of it, because some people, I think, are still locked in that matrix.
Okay?
One of the most persistent...
Myths, canards, from the left's narrative on race and the criminal justice system, and specifically on school shootings, and church shootings, and race relations.
Dylan Roof, he's the guy who shot up a black church in South Carolina.
Dylan Roof, when he was arrested, he was taken alive.
He wasn't killed in the act.
And he was taken alive.
And the cops took him to Burger King.
Have you heard this lie?
The cops, first of all, the cops didn't take...
An arrested mass shooter to Burger King.
Could you imagine the cashier at Burger King if the cops walk in with this deranged killer?
No, obviously that didn't happen.
The cops arrested him, but they did bring him Burger King.
Why did they bring him Burger King?
Because they had to feed him.
It is the law that no matter how heinous a crime a person commits, you have to protect certain basic rights, including their right not to be starved.
They have to be fed.
Furthermore, the reason the cops bought Dylann Roof Burger King is because if they didn't, if they didn't get him food, if they didn't satisfy these basic requirements of the law...
He might have been able to get off the hook, or at least it would have raised problems for the trial, because he and his lawyers could have claimed that his rights were violated, and it would have complicated the trial, and it would have made it harder to punish him.
Buying Burger King for that shooter, for Dylann Roof, made it easier to punish him.
It was a tool and an instrument in order to bring justice to that shooter.
In this case, you're not going to hear anything about that.
He was let off the hook.
He was released on bail.
You're not going to hear anything about that because it doesn't fit the racial narrative.
Remember this story.
Remember this story the next time the left brings it up.
The next time the left tries to construct one of these kooky racial narratives about it.
It's just not true.
You saw it with the whistleblower this week at Facebook.
The valiant whistleblower who...
She's speaking truth to power and that's why she's being lauded by every powerful institution in the country.
Virtually every single one, right?
No, she's not a real whistleblower.
She's not really speaking truth to power.
The narrative over who is oppressed and who is doing the oppression when it is being pushed by the ruling class is almost always exactly the reverse.
Speaking of double standards, Rashida Tlaib, who is, I guess she's the George Harrison of the squad.
AOC is Paul.
Ilhan Omar is John.
Ayanna Pressley is Ringo.
I think Rashida Tlaib is the George Harrison of the squad.
She is a radical leftist member of Congress.
She was just caught on camera admitting that the only reason she ever wears her mask is in case hostile media are filming her.
Greg has been out at all of our community meetings.
Oh, I thought you were like, oh wait, he's the one unmasked guy.
Oh, gotcha.
It's a little hard to hear on this video.
The video, as she says at the end, is being filmed by a Republican tracker.
So for congressional campaigns, the opposing campaign will send some punk kid with a cell phone to film you all the time and try to catch you doing something unfortunate, as actually happened to Rashida Tlaib in this clip.
But she's got the mask on.
She's talking about the mask.
And then some guy goes, oh yeah, I'll put my mask on.
She goes, oh no, not you.
No, don't worry.
No, it's not that.
The only reason I've got to wear mine, I only wear it because I've got the Republican tracker following me.
And she actually, as she tells him that, she pulls the mask down.
And of course that's true.
We know that all of these people ignore the rules when they think nobody's looking.
That's true of Gavin Newsom.
That's true of Nancy Pelosi.
It's true of Elizabeth Warren.
It's true of Dr.
Fauci.
It's true of all of them, okay?
It's true of every single one.
It's true of Joe Biden.
It's true of all of them.
But we've got to keep up the fiction.
We have got to continue the fiction.
I mean, I don't.
Except for the very narrowest of circumstances where I have to, for instance, wear the mask, at least partially if I'm on an airplane or I won't be able to get on the airplane and I've made a prudential judgment that it's better to go fly somewhere than it is to sit at home and not have the mask on.
Other than that, I don't wear the thing because it's obviously not serving a scientific or a medical purpose.
It is merely a symbol of a political power grab and I do not cut into that sort of thing.
Speaking of double standards, before we go, we will get to the mailbag.
Before we go, though, I have to get to this point.
The Telegraph, the newspaper The Telegraph, was complaining about how James Bond, in the movies, dates younger women.
And this is terrible.
James Bond dates these younger women, and it's terrible, and it's creepy.
It would never happen the other way around.
So they tweeted, quote, flip the genders, and suddenly everyone sits up in horror.
This was the promise of the mother, a neglected BBC-funded drama playing a burly carpenter called Darren.
Daniel Craig was 34 at the time, 32 years younger than the film's leading lady, Anne Reed, who was 66.
And the movie didn't do well.
And it turns out that people actually don't want to watch a 34-year-old guy sleep with a 66-year-old woman.
And it's just such a double standard in the sexism.
Imagine if the genders were flipped.
Yeah, if my aunt had cojones, she'd be my uncle, right?
Yeah, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
What do you mean if the genders were flipped?
They can't flip.
Because men and women are different.
The transgenderists today, the radical gender ideologues today, think that men and women are exactly the same.
That includes the feminists, that includes everyone from the feminists all the way to the transgenderists.
They think men and women are exactly the same and they're indistinguishable and one can become the other.
But it's just not true.
So yeah, duh, when you flip it, it's weird and people don't like it.
That doesn't tell you about the problems of society.
It tells you about the problems of your ideology.
You know, this coming Tuesday, October 12th, we are taking backstage to an entirely new level.
Instead of the usual Daily Wire studio, we will be streaming our conversation live on stage at the famous Ryman Auditorium right here in Nashville.
This will be an event and a live stream.
Unlike any other we've done, we are thrilled to be able to share it with all of you.
Plus, we'll be making some extremely exciting announcements, which you will not want to miss.
So be sure to tune in.
Join me, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Jeremy Boring, Matt Walsh, Andrew Klavan, and our live audience for a backstage like never before.
Tuesday's live stream will begin 8.30 Eastern, 7.30 Central.
Head on over to dailywire.com or the Daily Wire YouTube channel to catch the show.
We'll be right back with the mailbag.
Bye.
you you you you you Welcome back to the show.
My favorite time of the week, the mailbag.
First question up from Jackson.
Dear Michael, I'm a law student running for class president on an anti-mask, anti-COVID restriction platform.
Do you have any tips on how to persuade people to my side?
Thanks.
I do.
And I actually, I guess I opened the show talking about this broad point.
I don't think you should make the argument that From some abstract ideology.
Okay, I don't think you should make the argument from some general rule that's going to hold at all times for all illnesses and all vaccines.
I think you should very narrowly focus the message.
Point out that for the vast majority of people, COVID does not pose a real health risk.
That the infection fatality rate for the vast majority of people is extremely low.
If you're under 65, you have a 99.5% chance of survival.
And if you're a young person, as we're talking about these law school students, you have a 99.997% chance of survival.
For teenagers, it's a 99.999% chance of survival.
So the extraordinary measures to upend all of society don't seem to make a lot of sense.
Furthermore, the vaccine, while it may protect you individually from hospitalization and death, does not prevent you in all cases from contracting the virus or from transmitting the virus, as the CDC admits.
So the vaccine mandate there, I think, fails on the scientific front.
From the legal standpoint, it's kind of dubious.
Even Joe Biden has admitted that.
And from the political standpoint, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both, during the Trump administration, said they very likely wouldn't take the vaccine because they thought it was rushed and they didn't trust the vaccine coming out from Trump.
So now that they're in power, they've completely changed their point of view.
But this is a common point of view, the vaccine hesitancy, as it's called, on all sides of the aisle.
And I think there are plenty of good reasons to avoid the vaccine, including your own risk profile, right?
There was a study that came out of UC Davis that said that certain young men are at greater risk from the vaccine than they are from the virus.
We know that they had to pause the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because women died from blood clots, blood clotting.
We know that there is risk of myocarditis, pericarditis.
There's risk of nerve damage.
And so these might be small risks, but when you look at the broader risk profile from the virus itself, then the suggestion of a vaccine mandate seems a little less palatable.
And so I would make those really narrowly focused arguments.
And depending on how lib your school is, you might lose.
But at least you tell people what you really think.
From Bethany.
Hey, Michael.
My name is Bethany.
I know.
I know.
You read it.
It's right at the top there.
I'm a huge fan of your show and love hearing your insights.
Thank you very much.
My question to you may seem really weird, but please hear me out and it'll make sense.
Is one related to one's cousin's cousins?
The reason I ask is because on one of your shows, you mentioned that you were a cousin-in-law to Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately, I am also a distant cousin-in-law of Hillary Clinton, though through her marriage to Bill Clinton, does this mean we are very distant cousins?
I think it does, but I'm not entirely sure.
That would be super cool if we were, since I enjoy listening to your show, and it would make me feel better about the unfortunate Clinton connection if we were also related to you.
The Lord bless you and keep you.
I think that may make us cousins, uh, But I suspect we could still probably get married.
Well, we can't get married because I'm already married to someone else.
But what I mean to say is I don't think there would be worries about genetic problems.
Something tells me we're not that closely related.
It reminds me of a great advice I once heard, which is that knowledge...
Is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
But wisdom is knowing not to put it in fruit salad.
So I think the knowledge here is that, yes, we very possibly are cousins.
But I'm sure there's some distinction to be had between, you know, our relation and our relation to, say, our father's sister's children.
You dig?
You get me?
There's a difference here, but nice to meet you, cousin.
From Arun, Dear Dr.
Kofefe, Do you think that prior to addressing matters of metaphysics, one should first understand physics?
That is, a basic comprehension of the material world in the classical sense of the word.
I ask because I've observed that while people on the right like yourself and Stephen Crowder take great care to research the science and statistics before opening on the COVID hoax, leftists tend to begin with moral pronouncements about the public courtesy of wearing a mask and claim that those who refuse to do so are personally killing my grandma with their bare hands. leftists tend to begin with moral pronouncements about the public Do you think the woke journalism majors at CNN would have greater moral clarity if they were required to master elementary statistics and biology before offering their opinions?
Well, I actually think the two are inseparable.
That is, if you focus only on the physical world, you're going to miss something.
And if you focus only on the metaphysical world, you're going to miss something, too.
And it's ironic that the left makes all these moral pronouncements.
Because the left, at least out of one side of their mouth, seems to hold this very materialist view of the world.
That's what the cult of science is getting at.
They say that anything that we can't see and touch and put under a microscope is just not real.
It's imaginary and we should completely ignore it.
At least they say that.
Then some other times they'll say that our bodies have nothing to do with who we really are.
And if you're a man who thinks he's a woman, you're really a woman.
But the other part of the time they're saying the physical world is all that there is.
And the reason the cult of science is so silly is that...
Well, the idea that the physical world is all that there is, is not physical in and of itself.
So the idea of science kind of undercuts this materialist view of things.
So I think we've got to have both, and I don't think we should even separate them very much either.
I think that we need to recognize that the physical world has implications about the metaphysical world.
I'll bring that down to Earth.
I think it means that our bodies...
Actually have a purpose.
We can know things from our bodies about what we should do with our bodies.
We can know things about this world, about what things are for.
I can look at the Leftist Tears Tumblr, and I can know just from the physical nature of the Leftist Tears Tumblr that the Leftist Tears Tumblr is for delicious Leftist Tears, right?
I can know that my eyes are for seeing.
I can know that there is a purpose here, okay?
I can know, for instance, from the natural world that there is a God and I can learn things about the world through that.
So yes, the left needs to understand basic physics, but we really shouldn't separate those two things.
And I think sometimes on the right, we try to do that when we focus on, you know, telling people only study STEM in college, don't study anything about the humanities.
I think that's very silly.
And the left obviously makes a similar mistake.
But we've got to do all of it, man.
You've got to walk and chew gum at the same time.
From Samantha.
Michael, do you think people are born gay?
I've had this debate with my boyfriend of several years.
And he does not believe that this is the case.
He feels that men are drawn to other men because of early sexual experiences in their lives.
And I feel just like how some guys are more attracted to a redhead over brunettes or certain lady parts over other lady parts.
Gay men could also just be more drawn to men over women.
I love your show and I can't wait to read Speechless.
Well, my really sophisticated answer to this question is, I don't know.
Right?
I know some of my friends are really insistent that there is no natural inclination toward homosexuality.
And I just don't really buy that.
Homosexuality is a persistent phenomenon everywhere in the world throughout all of human history.
And I only speak from my own personal experience.
Not on homosexuality, but on sexuality in general.
You know, since I was a very, very young boy, I guess since my earliest memories, I have had an attraction to women.
You know, I'd be watching TV, I'd be watching Munster's reruns, and I was attracted to the blonde girl, three, four years old.
I don't know...
Why?
I didn't know what that meant.
It's not as though I were sexually aware or conscious, but I had an attraction to the girl.
So I can't help but imagine that gay guys might have a natural inclination toward guys.
I mean, this is a...
This is a very strange and varied world here, and people have kind of unusual things about them.
And so I don't think that implies that we therefore need to, I don't know, redefine marriage or encourage all sorts of attractions and say that if it's natural, do it, or if it feels good, do it, or anything like that.
I mean, you can have any sort of discussion you want on sexual ethics, but But I don't think that relies on there not being a natural inclination toward homosexuality.
I think it's sort of beside the point.
If you're going to have a discussion on sexual ethics, I think it ought to presume that it's a fallen world and there are lots of unusual things about this world and move on from there.
From Shane.
Mr.
Knowles, I find myself in a bit of a dilemma.
I've attempted a great many times through the years to attend church in a variety of denominations.
I always found the same problem.
I've always felt judged and demeaned by the people in it, and most of the people acted as though it was just for bragging rights.
It was as if they went just to flout the fact that they went as opposed to wanting a spiritual connection to God and their fellow man.
Any advice for a lost soul seeking a deeper connection to the divine?
Thank you from Tennessee.
I do.
I have an answer, and you might expect this coming from me, but hear me out.
You should find not just a mass, you should find a Latin mass.
You should go find a traditional Latin mass.
And you might not have Latin, and don't worry, you have a little booklet you can follow along, and it'll give you the English translation.
But the reason you should find a traditional Latin mass is, well, there are many reasons, but the reason in your case is...
Because the traditional Latin Mass is not about you.
And it's not about the person sitting next to you in the pews.
And it's not about the people at all.
Actually, the priest is not even facing the people.
The priest is facing the altar.
And we're actually all facing the altar.
And it is all about the sacrifice that is taking place on the altar.
And it is all about God.
And I think that that focus is going to resolve a lot of the problems that you're having in whatever churches you've been going to.
Where it's people making it about them and which pew they're sitting in and how upright they are and how they look and everyone's kind of looking at the people and thinking about themselves.
But in the traditional Latin Mass, you really lose yourself.
The smells and the bells and the ritual and the liturgy, it's taking you completely out of yourself.
Even the fact that it's in a language that you might not be fluent in or familiar with and you're following along in the English, that will take you out of yourself and I think that's That is the stumbling block that you're describing right now, and the best way that I know to figure out how to get out of that problem is the traditional Latin mass.
from Lucas.
Hey, Michael, I'm a New Jersey resident.
And as you may know, our governor's seat is up for grabs this November.
The Republican candidate, former Assemblyman Jack Chiatterelli, just had his first debate against incumbent Phil Murphy, or as my boss calls him, horse face.
That's not very nice.
However, as a true conservative who cares about cultural issues, I wasn't in love with some of his answers the other night, He's pro-abortion.
He says systemic racism exists.
I think these stances are tactical because in a deep blue state like Jersey, he has to appear moderate even to have a chance of being elected.
Do you think Republican candidates in blue states should do what it takes to appear electable, even if it means giving ground to the left or take a hard stance against the cultural degradation that is plaguing our country?
Thanks for all that you do.
I think that...
The Buckley rule holds.
I think you should vote for the most right viable candidate.
And I think there can be an argument.
Abortion kind of complicates this, but I think there can be an argument for voting for squishy candidates if there is no better option available and if the leftist candidate poses a real threat.
I don't think there was an argument for real conservatives lying to the people when they run for office and pretending to hold certain views to get elected so they won't hold those views afterward.
I think that's a bad thing and it speaks to a lack of integrity.
And so I would be skeptical about voting for someone like that.
But if you're in Jersey, you've got to live in reality.
Politics at its best has a tight connection to reality.
And so I would recommend that you...
You know, you make a prudential calculation there.
But there's far less of an argument for voting for that person if you think he's just being disingenuous and lacking integrity.
Last question from Jennifer.
Michael, I'm a fellow devout Catholic.
I prefer the term practicing Catholic because I'm going to keep on practicing until I get it right.
But good.
That's great to hear from a fellow papist.
I'm in a serious relationship with a guy who was raised Protestant but left the Christian faith as a young adult.
We've known how differently we view faith for the entire year we've been together, but recently he started asking me what-if questions about future children.
He seemed fixated on what if your son's gay, and all I can do is tell him what the church teaches about celibacy.
What would you do if you had a child?
This is a very gay mailbag today.
What would you do if you had a child come out as gay?
Obviously, I'd imagine you'd still love them and encourage them in Catholic teachings, but would you attend their non-Catholic wedding if they had one?
Would you have relationships with their adopted children if they chose to have any?
I guess what I'm wondering is where's the line between not condoning certain actions and still being there for people you love?
Thanks for being such a spectacular role model for the faith.
Well, thank you very much.
Yes, my little baby is the absolute apple of my eye.
And so, yes, I would love my child unconditionally, of course.
I don't think I would be able to...
I changed my opinion on the definition of marriage, and my faith would not permit me to attend a non-Catholic wedding.
Actually, it's a matter of the Catholic faith.
So I hope that I would raise him in such a way that he would have a great reverence for that thing, regardless of his sexual desires or any of the other issues that can come up along the way.
So yeah, I wouldn't abandon my faith and radically change my view of reality, but I would love my son unconditionally.
Of course, as I love my gay friends and all sorts of things like that.
Believe it or not, you can do both.
This reminds me of this question of...
You know, the Julia Ioff, who said, you know, you pro-lifers, what if we made the men take care of their kids?
And you say, yeah, yep, that sounds like a good idea.
You can be against killing babies and for men taking responsibility.
Actually, it makes perfect sense to do all of that.
You can do that, despite how viciously the left-wing media wants to portray us.
All right, that's our show.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you Monday.
Bye.
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 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.
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.
