Biden officially nominates a generic black woman to the Supreme Court, Howard Stern defends censorship of Joe Rogan, and a Loudon County judge lets a 15-year-old serial rapist off the hook.
Check out my shop page to purchase shirts, stickers, and books (one with words, one without) https://utm.io/uedo1
My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer has announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, and President Joe Biden has announced that he will not consider any nominee to replace him who is not a black woman.
Our process is going to be rigorous.
I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer's legacy of excellence and decency.
While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one.
The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity.
And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
It's long overdue in my view.
I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment.
So there you have it.
Joe Biden will be nominating some black lady to the Supreme Court.
He does not really care who the black lady is.
Doesn't seem to have much of a preference.
He is not suggesting any names.
Probably doesn't know very many, if we're being totally frank about it.
But that doesn't matter to Biden.
All he knows is the sex and skin color of his nominee.
And all I know is that whoever Biden picks...
Groped me at a party in 2003.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Robbie Hobbs, who says, It will be sad if a liberal black woman is selected.
No one will believe it.
It was because of merit.
She herself probably will have doubts, as she should.
It's pathetic that we're even at this point selecting people based on race and sex.
I was thinking that.
You know, if you make it to the Supreme Court, I guess you win.
I guess that's fine and people are willing to put up with a lot of losing their dignity of debasement and all sorts of struggle and suffering to get to that point.
But still, you think you're a woman.
You've made it through your law school, through your career.
You've made it to the point where you are even in the running for the Supreme Court.
And then the president who nominates you says from the outset, you are a diversity hire.
It says from the outset, we are not doing this based on merit.
We are doing this primarily based on skin and sex.
That's got to be kind of annoying.
That's got to be kind of upsetting to think, huh, I've worked very hard.
I'm a talented person.
And the only thing that the president sees about me is my race and sex.
That's one of the real downsides of identity politics.
Now, Fortunately, I can tell you about a wonderful upside.
That would be GetUpside.
I am giving you money.
You're welcome.
How do you get the money?
You download the free GetUpside app.
You use the promo code Knolls.
And then whenever you go to the gas pump, you will get 25 cents per gallon cash back.
Except on your first fill up.
Then you will get 50 cents per gallon cash back.
That's a lot of money.
People who are driving a lot are making up to $200 to $300 a year cash back.
I'm just handing you $200 to $300.
You want it?
Yes or no?
You want to take it?
I would.
Especially now with gas prices going through the roof.
There is no cash.
There is only cash back.
You get the cash back straight to your bank account or if you prefer through PayPal or Amazon or an e-gift card to some other shop.
Super easy.
Just download the free GetUpside app right now.
Use promo code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to get up to 50 cents per gallon cash back on your first tank.
That is code Knowles.
I would just like to say this off the bat.
I guess we are breaking news right here.
Joe Biden's nominee groped me.
Whoever she is, she groped me.
I was terrified.
It was horrible.
I was at a party and she groped me.
And it's traumatized me and it's affected the course of my life.
And if you give me a little while longer, I'm sure I can muster up some tears.
I have exactly as much proof that that happened as Christine Blasey Ford had about Brett Kavanaugh.
So I just want that on the table now so the journalists can start digging into whoever the nominee is.
She totally groped me, and it was terrible, and she should not be on the Supreme Court.
Okay, we've established that?
Okay, good.
Should we Kavanaugh the nominee?
And I'm not talking about boofing or any parties with squee.
I'm saying, should we smear the nominee, dig through their personal life, and come up with some cockamamie story to try to derail the Supreme Court nominee?
I don't think we should lie.
The Democrats lied about Brett Kavanaugh.
They just completely lied.
They made stuff up.
They had zero evidence.
We have no evidence that Christine Blasey Ford ever met Brett Kavanaugh.
And then when you move beyond Christine Blasey Ford to Julie Swetnick, that was the client of Michael Avenatti, the criminal lawyer.
I'm not saying he's a criminal attorney.
I'm saying he's a lawyer who also is a criminal, and the Democrats had on their news networks constantly.
Julie Swetnick, who said that Brett Kavanaugh ran some kind of gang-raping, underground...
Obviously there was no evidence whatsoever that she ever met Kavanaugh.
That was completely discredited.
And with Christine Blasey Ford, she never mustered even one tiny shred of proof that the two knew one another.
Should we do that to the Democrats?
No, I don't think we should lie.
I don't think that we should do something immoral for a good end.
The good end being keeping a liberal off the court.
I don't think the ends justify the means.
I'm not even saying we should make the process a living hell for the nominee.
But I do think we should make it a living purgatory.
I do.
I think that...
We don't want to make it a living hell because we don't want to put ourselves in the position of the devil.
But we should make it pretty hot, pretty fiery, pretty difficult.
We should make this a truly miserable experience for whoever the nominee is.
And the reason for that is, it is the only way to make this process better.
Democrats started it.
Democrats are the reason that Supreme Court nominations are so miserable.
They started it with Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's nominee for the Supreme Court.
They didn't like that Robert Bork disagreed with Roe versus Wade.
Meaning they didn't like that Robert Bork was literate and that he could read the Constitution.
So they hated that.
And Ted Kennedy stood on his soapbox and said that in Robert Bork's America, women would be dying of back-alley abortions.
And he was a racist and a this-ist and a that-ist.
And this hideous, dishonest character attack on Bork and they get rid of Bork.
Now we have a verb.
It's called Borking.
When you Bork a nominee.
And it's only gotten worse since.
The next time we really saw this happen was Clarence Thomas.
Clarence Thomas, who the Democrats attempted to lynch in the metaphorical sense.
Thomas called it a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deigned to think for themselves.
Then they did it again, obviously, to Brett Kavanaugh, a little bit to Amy Barrett, not as much.
They've done this a lot.
The only way to make this better is for it not to only be one-sided.
If the Democrats can't get away with it, they might think twice the next time.
It's like the bully on the playground.
The way to stop bullying on the playground is not to never fight back against the bully.
The way to stop bullying on the playground is to punch the bully right in the nose.
And when you punch the bully right in the nose, you know what happens?
You get less bullying.
It's the same thing here with Supreme Court nomination fights.
When you push back a little bit, when you give as good as you can get, On digging through the past, on giving these people the second degree, then you have a much better chance of a more orderly and civilized confirmation battle.
There's one last point on the Biden announcement.
Did you notice the pronoun that he used?
Can we play it again?
Let's play the Joe Biden announcement again.
Our process is going to be rigorous.
I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer's legacy of excellence and decency.
While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one.
The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity.
And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
It's long overdue in my view.
I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment.
Okay, so you heard that.
That made perfect sense to me.
And that person will be the first black woman nominated to the court.
But then when Joe Biden tweeted this out, he changed the pronoun.
So the person I nominate to replace Justice Breyer will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity, and they will be the first black woman nominated to the Supreme Court.
But you've already said it's a woman, so why don't you use the singular female pronoun?
Why are you using the plural pronoun?
They will be the first woman.
Are their pronouns multiple, or do they identify as having multiple people in their heads?
And their name will be Legion, for they are many.
I don't think so.
Why the discrepancy?
If I had to venture a guess, I would imagine that the person running social media maybe is a little bit younger than the person writing the speech.
If I had to venture a guess, because I've seen this with a lot of millennials and Zoomers, they will use they as a singular pronoun.
Not even the super politically correct ones, but other people as well.
Because we all feel these days that it is somehow politically incorrect to use he as the gender neutral pronoun, or she.
Just say they, it's easier.
That way it blurs the difference between men and women.
This is one of the paradoxes of leftist identity politics.
On the one hand, everything is about identity.
The most important thing about you is that you are a woman, is that you are black, is that you are this, is that you are that.
But then on the other hand, nothing is about identity and there's no such thing as identity.
And men and women are exactly the same.
And all the races are exactly the same.
And all the geographies are exactly the same.
And all the countries are exactly the same.
And all the cultures are exactly the same.
And there's no difference at all.
It's this strange...
Duality.
I mean, you really see it play out with the LGBT movement.
On the one hand, we're born this way.
Sexual desire is immutable.
There's no changing it.
On the other hand, a man can be a woman.
And nothing's real.
And there's 57 genders.
And actually, there are infinite genders because it's all just kind of fluid, man.
Why?
Why?
How does this make sense?
The only reason that makes sense is because your identity comes from God.
Whether you're an atheist, whether you're an agnostic, you might not believe that God exists, but he believes in you.
God is I am.
In the Bible, when Moses says, who are you?
He says, I am that I am.
Christ says, before Abraham was, I am.
I'm being itself.
So if you find your identity in God, if you say man is made in the image of God, your identity makes sense.
If not though, then you're left with this pathetic question.
Who am I? And you find all these subsidiary sort of identities.
But the problem is, if God doesn't exist, then there's no meaning.
If we're all just flesh puppets, if we're all just kind of moving around and all of the things that we love and hope for and desire are just illusions, then nothing really has meaning at all.
And identity doesn't have meaning either.
And if a man wants to chop himself up to look more like a woman, then sure, I guess he really is a woman because there's no meaning in his life.
This is one of probably the most corrosive aspects of identity politics.
You have this huge swing from everything is excessively about your identity characteristics, but nothing means anything either.
And we're all just kind of babbling into the chaos.
Now, if Senator Mazie Hirono, speaking of babbling and chaos, if Senator Mazie Hirono is to be believed, Democrat Senator from Hawaii.
We can expect a very bad nominee for the Supreme Court.
We have a number of really highly qualified black women, and I very much support President Biden's decision to put a black woman on the court, high time, about time.
What I'm looking for is a justice who can be fair and impartial and who does not have an ideological axe to grind, which is what we saw, as far as I'm concerned, in President Trump's nominees.
including to the Supreme Court.
So yes, I am expecting a fight, but there you have it.
And I'm looking for someone who's going to be not only highly qualified, as all of the people that you already talked about are, but who really brings to the judiciary the kind of diversity that I'd like, that someone who will consider the impact, the effects of that someone who will consider the impact, the effects of whatever decision-making is on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on what
which I would like them to base it on law, which would be nice and precedent, and who are not eagerly trying to get rid of You remember in school when a student would get called on and the student hadn't done the homework and the student hadn't paid any attention in class and the student would get called on and they
would just start I'll try to come up with an analogy.
Let's say you had a pack of light bulbs.
And some of the light bulbs, because of peculiarities of the manufacturing process, some of the light bulbs were brighter than other light bulbs.
And let's say you had one light bulb that was the brightest of all in the pack of light bulbs.
That light bulb would not be Maisie Hirono.
If you had a shed, a lot of you probably have a shed outside of your home.
You've got a lot of tools in your shed.
Some of those tools, through use or manufacturing, are going to be sharper than the other tools.
And so let's say you have one tool that is the sharpest tool in your shed.
That tool would not be Maisie Hirono.
Maisie Hirono is a little confused on a lot of topics, and here she has just contradicted herself.
Many, many times.
She says, I want a nominee who is selected for being a black woman.
I want a nominee selected for under sex and under race.
And I want the nominee to be the top, most qualified, unbiased, impartial.
I want the nominee to be picked based on merit.
And also, I just want the nominee to be picked based on her race and sex.
You can't have both.
You can't have both.
I'm not saying that...
Black women can't be the top of the heap.
They could be.
I'm not saying that the top of the heap can't be a black woman.
But I'm saying that if you are choosing one priority over the other, then necessarily you're excluding the other.
If there's a conflict, Biden's going to go with the black woman, not with the most qualified candidate.
Then it gets even crazier on the contradiction because she says, I want a judge who doesn't have an ideological axe to grind, who is impartial, Who is fair, but who doesn't just look at the law.
Well, hold on.
I thought you wanted a judge who was impartial, who was fair, just like Lady Justice, totally blind, reading the law, interpreting the law, treating everyone equally, but also someone who doesn't just read the law.
Someone who considers the social outcomes of decisions.
Well, you can't have both.
And she actually catches herself.
She realizes in the moment that she's saying that she wants a judge who won't follow the law.
So she says, look, yeah, we want to follow the law.
It's really good.
They've got to follow the law.
Wouldn't that be great if they follow it?
Because now they're not following the law.
What are you talking about?
She's insinuating these things that she doesn't explain.
Then she says, but we need someone who goes beyond the law.
Okay.
All well and good.
You have to pick one.
You have to pick one.
You can have a judge who follows the law.
And pursues justice, giving to each what he deserves.
Or you can have a judge who is a social engineer, who merely attempts to figure out what the most socially useful outcome will be in this judge's view on how society should look.
And so you ignore the law and you say, okay, look, if, let's say, a straight white 31-year-old man comes before the court and he broke the same law that a 52-year-old black Muslim midget broke, And they both broke the same law.
I am going to maybe put the straight white guy in jail, and I'm going to let the 52-year-old black Muslim midget off the hook, because I think that there are too many 50-year-old black Muslim midgets in jail, and there aren't enough white guys in jail.
Because I'm going to consider the end result, the consequence, the end of what's going to happen in this trial.
I'm going to consider that instead of what the law says.
Okay, fine.
But you can't have both.
You can't have both.
This goes back to good old Uncle Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction.
Two things that are contradictory cannot simultaneously be true.
It's amazing how little people understand about the Supreme Court and the way the law works and the judiciary.
Even prominent people.
Speaking of tools and sheds and light bulbs and packs, the women of The View were just debating the Supreme Court nomination.
And Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg went on some discourse, gave some lecture on the law and the courts that was very nearly incomprehensible.
You know, you could make the case that somebody like Amy Coney Barrett was put in there because she's a white woman who they say, well, she'll go against abortion rights, and she's a woman.
So that was deliberate, I think.
Clarence Thomas, a black guy, a black man, a justice, okay, I'll give it to him, he's a smart guy, but he is to the right of Attila the Hun, this guy, and they put him in there thinking, oh, a black man will go against voting rights.
Which is what he does.
And it was a terrible...
And it's a very tricky business they're pulling over there when you think about it.
Not to mention the fact that Mitch McConnell has no concept of the law when it comes to the Supreme Court.
They know the law.
They're not following it.
They don't want to follow it.
No, and he's allowed to not follow it.
It was terribly disrespectful to appoint someone like Clarence Thomas with his philosophies to the seat of Thurgood Marshall, a civil right.
I know.
Yes.
It was a big deal with his wife right there.
With his wife's activities involving the insurrection.
Let's not even get into that.
Can anybody tell me what these hens are clucking about?
What on earth are any of these people talking about?
Mitch McConnell, he doesn't know anything about the law.
Yeah, Mitch McConnell, who's been in the Senate since 1831, one of the most adept parliamentary geniuses in the history of the U.S. Congress, he doesn't know anything about the law.
And Whoopi Goldberg realizes that what Joy Behar said doesn't make any sense.
And so she says something to contradict that, but that also doesn't make any sense.
Namely, that they know the law, they're just not following the law.
What law are they not following?
They have no answer.
It's just this vague sort of insinuation.
Amy Coney Barrow was put in that position.
She's a woman, but she was put in that position to vote against Roe versus Wade.
And Clarence Thomas, he's a black guy.
Okay, I'll give it to him.
Joy Behar says, okay, I'll grant he's a black guy.
Thank you, Joy.
Thank you for giving Clarence Thomas his race.
That's very kind of you.
Okay, Granny's a black guy.
Sure, he's smart enough, but he's bad.
He's got a bad judicial philosophy.
I, Joy Behar, who does not have one one-hundredth the IQ of Clarence Thomas, I, who have never studied anything about constitutional law, I am going to pontificate about what adult Clarence Thomas is.
One of the most accomplished jurists in the history of the court.
He's voting against voting rights.
What does that mean?
And then the other one, I don't even know her name, but the other one on The View, she says, yeah, and his wife and the insurrection and the whoopee says, that's the whole show.
What are you people talking about?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
It's just cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck.
I don't like this.
There's a lesson here for conservatives.
Not merely that if you want to preserve your brain cells, you don't tune into this show.
A show hosted by five women and four brain cells.
That's not just the lesson.
The lesson is, it is a losing game for conservatives to play identity politics.
It's a losing game.
We think, sometimes we conservatives, we try to get really clever.
We say, ooh, if we play the game and we nominate a, I don't know, racial minority woman of a minority religion of this, then, but then that person does what we want them to do.
Oh, that'll own the libs.
Yes, that'll convince them.
That'll prove to them we're not racist.
They don't care.
What they're insinuating here is that Amy Coney Barrett isn't really a woman, that Clarence Thomas isn't really a black guy.
Sure, they might look like a woman and a black guy, but really, because of their beliefs, they're not.
And actually, Republicans are even more racist, even more sexist, for choosing a woman and a black guy.
Just tune it out.
Just go with the best people.
Go with the best people, okay?
Clarence Thomas is not a great jurist because he's a black guy.
He's a great jurist because he's Clarence Thomas.
Speaking of different sets of rules...
Howard Stern.
Howard Stern, the shock jock, par excellence.
Really a pioneer in the field of shock jockery, variously obscene, profane, pro-free speech.
That's what he is.
He's anti-censorship.
Until he and his friends became the dominant ruling class, the establishment, at which point they defended censorship, specifically in the case of Neil Young trying to get Joe Rogan censored from Spotify.
Here is Howard Stern twisting himself into logical pretzels to try to defend Neil Young without explicitly defending censorship.
I don't think he's for censorship.
I don't think Neil Young is for censorship.
I just think he's saying, look, I don't want to be part of this organization.
Because if my music is helping people bring people to the table, and then they're spreading something as lethal as don't take the vaccine, do this.
That makes sense.
Yeah, you know, I'm against any kind of censorship, really.
You know, I really am.
I don't like censorship.
But when you're talking about life and death, like poor Meatloaf got sucked into some weird f***ing cult.
I'm against all forms of censorship.
Really, I'm against all forms of censorship.
But, you hear that but?
That but is doing a lot of work there, Mr.
Stern.
Neil Young, he's not for censorship.
Neil Young just explicitly called to censor Joe Rogan on Spotify.
Neil Young just said, if you don't take Joe Rogan off Spotify, then you don't get Neil Young.
I want all my songs gone.
And then Spotify said, okay, they're gone.
I said, what?
I said, yeah, they're gone.
No, guys, I'm serious.
I'm going to take all my songs off.
Yeah, I know.
We heard you, Neil.
They're gone.
Bye.
Don't let the door hit you.
Guys, come on.
I'm serious.
Yeah, okay, right.
Because they weren't going to stand for that.
Good for Spotify.
And now Howard Stern is defending Neil Young, but he's positioned himself as the anti-censorship guy, and yet now he is overtly defending censorship.
A lot of conservatives are wondering, what happened to these guys?
What happened?
Howard Stern was...
Neil Young and Crosby, Stills and Nash, they had the free speech tour in 2006.
What happened?
UC Berkeley, all those hippies, they had the free speech movement in the 1960s.
What happened?
They were all against censorship.
Now they're the censors.
They were never against censorship.
They were only against your censorship.
They were never against censorship.
They just wanted to stop your censorship of their stupid ideas and their perversions.
The minute that they broke the conservative censorship of their terrible ideas and their perversions, they reinstituted censorship.
But it was a censorship of your good ideas and your normal, flourishing way of behavior.
That's what they did.
As I wrote in a particular book called Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
Where's the bell?
It's gone.
Okay, that's fine.
The battle that we're talking about here It's not a battle between free speech on the one hand and censorship on the other.
It's a battle between two competing sets of standards.
Every society is going to have taboos.
Every society is going to have limits.
The genius of the free speech movements and the anti-censorship movements was that they convinced a society that we could have absolutely unfettered license and that would be totally, you could just say whatever, but that's obviously not true.
That's never been true in any society ever, least of all in America.
There were always going to be limits.
Ask Howard Stern if he supports teaching the Bible in schools.
You're against censorship of all sorts, right, Howard?
Okay, so certainly we shouldn't censor the Bible from schools.
One, it's the most important book ever written from which all of Western civilization springs.
So surely you...
Oh, you don't?
Oh, that's so weird.
I thought you were against censorship.
Oh, right, you won't even support Joe Rogan bringing on well-respected medical experts to discuss...
The major medical public health questions of our day.
Of course they support censorship.
Speaking of schools, really bad news out of Loudoun County.
So you remember in Loudoun County, Daily Wire broke this story.
In Loudoun County, a school district covered up a rape that occurred in a girl's bathroom.
A rape perpetrated by a young man who wore a dress, who was confused about his sex, who went into the girl's bathroom and raped and sodomized a girl.
Then the school covered it up.
They moved him to another school.
What happened?
He did it again.
There's actually a third allegation that he did it a third time.
So this kid was sentenced.
The judge in this case said that she has never put a minor on the sex offender registry, but the details of what he did were so horrifying that she felt to protect the public safety, she had to put him on the sex offender registry.
Well, another judge has just reversed that decision.
Loudoun County Judge Pamela Brooks just said, this court made an error in the initial ruling.
The court is not vain enough to think it's perfect, but I want to get it right, and they're taking the kid off of the sex offender registry.
This judge, Pamela Brooks, should be impeached without question.
This is deeply unjust.
Conservatives should wield political power.
This is a winning issue, first of all.
The current governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, won largely on this issue.
It's a winning issue, and it's the right thing to do.
Speaking of the wrong thing, I have to get to the story.
I've been meaning to get to it for a few days now.
Speaking of the wrong thing to do and the relationships between men and women, Cheryl Hines was the wife on Curb Your Enthusiasm, and she's married to RFK Jr., who's a generally liberal lawyer.
He's the son of Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated and ran for president.
So, RFK has come out and he's made these comparisons between...
He's very anti-vaccine.
He's very anti-Dr.
Fauci.
And he's used some lurid language and he compared some of the medical regime to the Holocaust.
Everyone makes Holocaust comparisons.
I don't really think it's a great idea, but he made it.
it.
And the wife comes out and tweets out, quote, my husband's reference to Anne Frank at a mandate rally in DC was reprehensible and insensitive.
The atrocities that millions endured during the Holocaust should never be compared to anyone or anything.
His opinions are not a reflection of my own.
In other words, yes, I take you to be my husband in sickness and in health for good times and bad till death do us part or until you express a political view with which I disagree.
This is a PSA for all the young marriages out there, all the young ladies.
Ladies, never do this.
This is not what a marriage is.
You become one flesh.
Wives, submit to your husbands.
Husbands, love your wives.
I know that's controversial now to read the gospel, but you're not pitted against one another.
You're not just atomized individuals, either of you, duking it out in public and having to throw your own husband or your own wife under the bus.
Don't do it.
Love and respect one another.
Goodness.
Gracious.
If you didn't catch it yet, the latest episode of Adam Carolla's Daily Wire exclusive comedy series, Truth Yeller, is streaming right now.
It might just be the best one yet.
Adam takes on Hunter Biden and is joined by comedian T.J. Miller, who drops some comedy gold and proves he's the real deal.
What do I mean by that?
Well, head on over to dailywire.com slash watch right now to find out.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Miller for 25% off your membership.
Get ready for some serious laughs.
Also, if there's anyone that the Biden administration, the mainstream media, big pharma don't want you to hear, it's the voice of Dr.
Robert Malone.
Actually, the interview that Joe Rogan has with Robert Malone is one of the reasons why Neil Young begged Joe Rogan to be censored from Spotify.
He's one of the pioneers of mRNA vaccines.
He was removed from Twitter and most social media for his public skepticism of the COVID vaccines.
Then he went viral on Rogan.
So you should head on over right now.
Check it out.
Our very own Candace Owens sat down for a three and a half hour interview with Dr. Malone.
She does not leave any stone unturned.
Together, they touch on some of the most alarming statistics, questions, and trends that the media and big tech don't want to acknowledge.
It's available exclusively at dailywire.com this Tuesday, February 1st.
If you don't already have a Daily Wire membership, join now to catch Tuesday's episode of Candace, premiering at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central.
Central.
We'll be right back with the mailbag.
Welcome back to my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
First question up from Arun, who says, Dear Dr. Covfefe, I think that over the past 23 months, you have had a better take than any other conservative on the matter of the COVID hoax.
Thank you.
But among your opinions, my favorite is your belief that we ban people from wearing masks in public.
Was this a hypothetical musing, or do you really believe there is a political path for us to implement a mask ban at the federal or state levels?
In my home state of Minnesota, we actually have a law on the books banning face coverings in public, and Governor Walz had to illegally order us to ignore this law when he mandated masks in our state.
Could we realistically use laws like this to prohibit public masking?
Can we look forward to that glorious day when Karens are handcuffed in the streets for covering their faces?
I'm so glad you brought this up.
Because some people seem to think that I'm kidding when I say that not only should we not mandate the masks like the liberals want us to do, not only should it be the case that we should just choose to wear the masks whether we want to or not, like the sort of squishes and center-right people want us to do, but actually we should not permit people, with rare exceptions, to wear the masks.
We should not allow that in public.
And some people think, oh Michael, you're just being provocative.
You're just being to the right of Attila the Hun.
You're just imagining some law that could never exist, that is so beyond the bounds of American law.
It's already the law.
In a lot of places, there are already laws about this.
Not only is my position not so far off the edge of the right, my position was the mainstream position two years ago.
You are not allowed to dress up like a bandito throughout your entire public life.
That's not good.
There was a video we played yesterday of the liberal comedian Michael Rappaport in New York filming a video of a criminal robbing a Rite Aid and just walking out and he had a big mask over his face and no one really did anything.
Part of the reason that you're seeing an uptick in these robberies is because people are masking up and so it's very hard to identify the people who are doing it.
This is not some new technology.
This is what train robbers did in the Wild West.
Of course, I really do believe.
I know that sometimes people think I'm a little more on the right wing side of things, whether it's at our outlet or whether it's just in the conservative movement.
I consider myself a moderate.
Moderation is a virtue, but moderate with respect to what?
With respect to the law as it stood throughout most of America two years ago, my view that we should not be allowed to put our secular keffias on constantly and our medical burkas on everywhere we go, that was the law.
And I think we should go back to enforcing that law.
From Andy.
Esteemed love guru, I've recently joined a dating site.
A lovely young lady and I have been texting here and there for a couple of weeks, and she seems like a good fit for me so far.
Not to mention she's cute.
I don't know if it's going anywhere since she lives a few hours away, but I'm praying that it does.
Now, a family member wants to introduce me to one of her friends on a double date.
On one hand, I'm not actually dating the girl I'm texting with at this point, but I'm hoping to.
On the other hand, the girl in the double date situation lives in my area so we would be able to see each other much more often if we want to keep it going.
Is it acceptable to go on the double date so I don't pass up on an opportunity to meet someone?
Or should I only focus on the girl online in hopes that we do start dating?
Your advice and any prayers would be much appreciated.
If you want to date that girl, you should go date her.
But she lives far away.
Alright, go drive.
Go meet up with her.
Have her visit you or you visit her.
This is one of the real temptations of our modern world is we think that time and space and physicality don't matter at all.
We're all just living in the metaverse.
So yeah, you're texting this girl and that seems like a relationship, but it's not a relationship.
You don't know this girl.
You haven't seen her in person.
Now maybe you'll hit it off.
Maybe you're soulmates.
Maybe you're meant to be you and this girl three hours away.
You're not going to know that unless you meet her.
You're not going to date her unless you go on dates with her.
So if you want to do that, go do it.
But don't allow the simulation of a relationship, the virtual relationship, prevent you from engaging in an actual relationship.
I don't like that word, relationship.
How about love affair?
How about courtship?
How about going to get a girlfriend?
How about that kind of thing?
Absolutely, you're not married.
There's also a difference between dating and marriage.
These days we blur it because there's obviously so much cohabitation.
People just live together in perpetuity and they don't even ever really get married.
But it's different.
The rules are different.
The stakes are different.
Your ability to leave is different.
And so, yes, we should not treat marriage like dating.
We shouldn't treat marriage like it's the sort of thing that you can just break up and walk away and go date somebody else.
It's really not a lot of stakes.
We shouldn't treat marriage like dating.
But we also shouldn't treat dating like marriage.
Because if dating is treated like marriage, then there's no inducement to get married.
I can pray for you.
Best of luck.
I hope you enjoy the dates and find a nice lady.
From Jessica.
I'll get straight to the point.
I'm glad, Jessica.
I don't want you to beat around the bush.
She says, do guys care about a woman's body count?
Not of the murder type.
Oh, okay.
Let's see what you're getting at.
I know that religious men would find a low to no body count.
Would prefer, maybe.
But what about the general believes in God, but not a trad and not a total wimp?
I'll clean up some of your language.
As a majority, do guys care?
Sincerely, who's counting?
Yes and no.
That's not a satisfying answer, but I'll tell you why.
Yes, guys do care.
We don't like the idea that our lady has been Around the block many times.
We like the idea that a woman has some modesty, that a woman is pursuing virtue, that a woman is sort of saving herself, maybe just for us even.
We like that idea.
So it would be good not to rack up a terribly high body count in the way you're describing it.
On the other hand, It's a fallen world.
People do lots of bad stuff.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
In the course of justice, none of us should see salvation.
There is redemption.
There is repentance.
People change.
It's okay.
We can move on.
But I think the key here is the repentance idea.
If you're the sort of lady who, you know, has dated every single guy on the football team, you know, in the matter of a month or something, and you haven't changed your ways, then I don't think a man would look very kindly on that.
But if you say, look, when I was young, I mean, I was completely nuts.
I was a wild child.
I did all this crazy stuff, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
And then I realized that was all bad and not conducive to virtue or a flourishing life, and I completely turned it around.
And, you know, now I'm going to church and doing the right thing, then that's fine.
That's good.
Go and sin no more.
From Chad.
Hey, Michael, love your show.
I listen every day.
Thank you.
What's keeping the Republicans from getting out in front of the SCOTUS pick and saying, we're really glad the next nominee will be a black female, and we look forward to Condoleezza Rice, who is well qualified being the next nominee.
Thanks so much.
That's a good idea.
I don't think that would trigger the libs enough.
I don't think it would.
I mean, it would never happen anyway.
There's no non-leftist nominee who has any chance of going through and actually taking Justice Breyer's seat.
So, the only utility in pushing a candidate on the right is to trigger the libs.
It's not going to happen.
And I just fear that the libs sort of like Condoleezza Rice.
She's a little more moderate.
Provost of Stanford University, for goodness sakes.
I think if we're going to back a candidate, though I have a great deal of respect for Condoleezza Rice, it's got to be Candace.
It's got to be Candace.
You know, I'll do it right now.
I officially endorse Candace to be the nominee to replace Justice Breyer on the court.
Now, I know that I said at the top of the show that whoever Joe Biden picks groped me at a party in 2003 and Alright, so let's just start that rumor.
That's fine.
From Alex, what are your favorite non-fiction and fiction books?
The Office or Parks and Rec?
Also, nice transition on Thursday.
Seems like everything is upside down.
One way to remedy this upside down world we live in is to get upside.
Thank you.
I was proud of that.
Oh, you say yes.
I can tell you're particularly proud of that.
P.S. Do a transition challenge with two seemingly unrelated things and see how well you can transition it.
Examples.
Monkeys in Africa and a girl playing with a doll.
I would, except I fear that you're...
You've mentioned things that are going to get me in trouble with political correctness.
You're not allowed to say anything about Africa.
That will become racist.
I don't think you're really allowed to say anything about girls anymore.
That will be sexist and phobic and all sorts of things.
So, no, in the interest of my show and career, I will not do that transition.
Because there would be a lot of downside.
And I much prefer upside, which is why you should get upside.
I'm sorry, what was your question?
I don't even remember what the question...
Oh, yes.
My favorite fiction and non-fiction books.
My favorite fiction book...
I don't know.
In terms of a novel, you mean?
I guess my favorite novel is Crime and Punishment.
My favorite poem is The Divine Comedy.
My favorite...
Alright, let's leave it at that.
My favorite non-fiction books?
Just in no particular order.
Poetic Diction by Owen Barfield.
Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.
Gosh, not my favorite.
Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzin.
I love that history book.
Symbolism and Belief by Edwin Bevin.
It's kind of a weird little book, but I love that one.
Oh gosh, I don't know.
The list could go on and on.
Between the Office and Parks and Rec.
That's not even close.
Parks and Rec.
From Jacob.
Hey, Michael.
I was watching your Face the Mob episode and you mentioned that you don't believe bodies should be cremated.
Can you expand on this?
I was not aware this was a part of Catholicism.
Sincerely, don't burn me, bro.
Sure.
I think the Catholic Church now permits people to be cremated, but I am still against it.
I think it makes a mockery of the resurrection of the body.
I think a lot of pagan cultures, maybe most pagan cultures, burn their bodies.
They dispose of their bodies.
Zoroastrian cultures leave them out for vultures and dogs to eat.
Christians have traditionally treated the body in a more respectful way.
We bury the body.
We put the body in a tomb.
And this is in no small part because we look forward to the resurrection of the body.
body.
This doesn't mean that the body will not decay in most cases, but it just means that we treat the body in a way that is a little bit more respectful and a little bit more looking toward the day when these bones shall live and jump out of their graves.
The popularity of cremation has really come about in modernity during a period of intense anti-Christianity, and I think it has become popular in no small part as a mockery of the resurrection.
So I wouldn't recommend it.
From Nate.
Hey Michael, this is Nate.
I have a quick question about relationships.
You and everybody else, Nate.
Get online.
I've been with my girlfriend for what will be two years in July.
However, we have been best friends for over three years.
There is no question that we are going to get married, but there is a snag to the plan.
She will be graduating six months to a year earlier than I am and moving to Florida with her family.
I don't know if I should propose when she graduates and spend most of our engagement apart.
Or if I should wait and risk losing the relationship we've worked so hard for.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely, Nate.
Pronouns nor slash mull.
Depends what you're graduating.
Are you graduating high school or college?
The reason I ask is because if you're...
It sounds like you're graduating from high school.
Or she's graduating from high school because she's saying she's going to graduate and move to Florida with her family.
So if she's 18, I don't really...
So she'd move to Florida with her family, and then is she going to go to college?
Maybe she's not going to go to college.
Okay.
If she's graduating from college, then why is she going to move with her family?
She's 22 years old.
She's an adult.
She can move with her family, that's fine, but she's her own person.
She can also just go get an apartment.
She can also just go live somewhere.
She can also just get engaged.
Why...
Why wouldn't she live near you if you were going to be engaged?
I would need more details on this.
Look, I married my high school sweetheart.
Spent a little bit of time apart, but then we got back together, and so that's a wonderful thing, and I wish we'd gotten engaged and married sooner.
So whether it's a high school or college relationship, I'm all for it.
I think that's great.
But the snags here are a little confusing to me.
If you're going to do it, just do it.
You don't need her father's blessing, I suppose, but you don't need anyone's permission.
If it's high school, you might be a little young, I guess.
If it's college, though, I don't think you are.
Just go for it.
Alright, that's the show.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Next time you want me to solve all of your love problems, all you wonderful people out there, I need the details.
That's where the real advice is going to come from.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
See you 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.
Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
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.
