CBS News reports on Biden’s 150 most corrupt-looking financial transactions, a new study shows the fourth COVID shot doesn’t last very long, and Texas governor Greg Abbott buses illegals to D.C.
I’m exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL .
The magic has left the kingdom. It’s time to build new things that we can believe in. Subscribe to The Daily Wire today with promo code BUILDTHEFUTURE for 45% off: https://utm.io/uereW
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The New York Times now admits that the Hunter Biden laptop is real.
The Washington Post admits that the Hunter Biden laptop is real.
Lots and lots of establishment media are admitting that it's real, which means that Hunter's meticulously recorded crimes are real.
Which means that the crooked deals with enemy governments are real.
Which means that in some of those crooked deals with the enemy governments, the 10% being held for the big guy, Joe Biden, is almost certainly real.
Which is, to borrow a phrase from Joe Biden, a big effing deal.
But some people in the liberal establishment media still don't want to admit it.
Thank you for doing this.
Really appreciate it.
I'm Daniel Schmidt.
I'm a freshman at the University of Chicago.
My question is for Ms.
Applebaum.
So in 2020, you wrote, those who live outside the Fox News bubble do not, of course, need to learn any of the stuff about Hunter Biden, referring to his laptop, of course.
A poll later after that found that if voters knew about the content of the laptop, 16% of Joe Biden voters would have acted differently.
Now, of course, we know a few weeks ago, The New York Times confirmed that the content is real.
Do you think the media acted inappropriately when they instantly dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian disinformation?
And what can we learn from that in ensuring that what we label as disinformation is truly disinformation and not reality?
My problem with Hunter Biden's laptop is, I think, totally irrelevant.
I mean, it's not whether it's disinformation.
I mean, I don't think the...
Hunter Biden's business relationships have anything to do with who should be president of the United States.
So I don't find it to be interesting.
I mean, that would be my problem with that as a major news story.
It's not interesting.
You can say a lot of things about the Hunter Biden laptop.
But crackpipes, hookers, seven-figure bribes from foreign governments, I think we all would have to agree that is at least interesting.
More to the point, this is not a major news story.
We're talking about what appears to be, from all the available evidence, perhaps the most egregious financial corruption in the history of the United States.
That's not a major news story.
No, it's not a major news story to the writers and editors who are carrying water for Joe Biden.
Yeah, it's not to them.
But if you're just looking at the news, of course it's a major news story.
It implicates not just Hunter Biden, it implicates Joe too.
And CBS News is finally admitting it.
CBS News has a big report on this.
They say, quote...
CBS has learned more than 150 financial transactions involving either Hunter or James Biden, that's Joe's brother, their global affairs business were flagged as concerning by U.S. banks for further review.
Some of those concerns included large wire transfers.
Now, some people in the liberal establishment press still don't want to come clean about all of the work they've done to cover up for Joe Biden.
They still want to stick to the story.
But frankly, what is more interesting to me is the growing number of major establishment liberal outlets that are coming clean all at the same time.
The Times, The Washington Post, CBS News.
Seems to me Joe Biden's not getting any respect these days.
Not from Obama the other day at the White House, not from the White House staff, and not even from the press anymore.
All of the dirt, all of the mud that we've known about, if you've been listening to this show that we've known about for years, all of it's just coming up now.
Does this mean, perhaps, that the big guy's political time is up?
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show, Michael.
My favorite comment yesterday is from McNasty1977.
What a name.
Who says, our kids should be taught their ABCs, not their LGBs, period.
I like that.
That's a good slogan.
It's only confusing because LGB also can refer to Let's Go Brandon.
But probably that phrase is over.
I think that meme is probably dead.
I like that.
Kids need to be taught their ABCs, not their LGBs.
We've got to be taught basic stuff about this world.
True from false, right from wrong.
One issue that is so clear when we're talking about right and wrong is the issue of life, which is why you must go check out 40 Days for Life.
You always hear this phrase today, follow the science.
Well, probably the most anti-science movement in the country is abortion.
It just doesn't make sense.
It is biologically and bioethically completely indefensible, which is why you've got to check out our friends over at 40 Days for Life.
They have the number two Amazon Christian bestseller.
The book is What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion.
How to change minds and win hearts in a brave new world.
40 Days for Life is based in Texas.
They are one of the largest pro-life organizations out there.
It's really important to know the arguments, what to say when abortion is about to become a huge issue because of the Supreme Court's decision coming up that could overturn Roe v.
Wade.
We've seen one of the grisliest mass murders in American history involving an abortionist in D.C. Get the arguments right now.
They've got a million volunteers in a thousand cities holding peaceful 40-day vigils outside of abortion facilities to save lives and help abortion workers leave their jobs.
Get the book What to Say When.
Right now, head on over to 40daysforlife.com to check it out.
On that point, by the way, of life...
I want to get into more Biden corruption and his entire political career falling apart.
But on that point of life, there is a piece right now on the Daily Wire by Mary Margaret Olihan that goes in-depth on that mass murderer abortionist, Cesare Santangelo.
He's the one who's responsible for, just in the latest news story, having killed five people.
Basically full-term or viable babies through abortion.
Very possibly he killed them outside of the womb.
And then well over 100 babies who were in their first trimester or early second trimester.
The guy is almost certainly violating the law.
Even if he's not violating the civil law, which again, almost certainly he is.
He's just a demon.
He's just the nearest thing to what a demon looks like.
Cesare Santangelo.
Go read that.
It's going to be the most important piece you read today.
Frankly, it'll probably be the most important piece you read all year.
Things are not going well in the country right now.
Obviously, you see a story like that, things are not going well.
But things are not going well Anywhere in the country.
And the buck stops with the president.
And we're talking now not just about the economy.
We're talking not just about immigration.
We're talking not just about crime.
We're talking about foreign policy too.
And the White House is admitting it.
Jen Psaki was just asked a question about the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, who is now claiming that over the past 18 months, the world has become more dangerous.
General Milley has some pretty sobering testimony on the Hill today regarding the state of the world and sort of a grim outlook.
The potential for significant international conflict is increasing, not decreasing.
Is that an assessment the president shares?
And is that sort of the assessment of the U.S. government, sort of the state of the world, right, darker than it was when the president took office?
Well, certainly General Milley speaks for the assessment of the U.S. military, and I think that's what he was testifying on, and, you know, he speaks on behalf of the administration.
So she's trying to get out of it.
She says, well, he speaks for the military.
Gosh, he's telling us that things have gotten much more dangerous on our watch.
He speaks for the U.S. military, but I can't say that there's a difference between the White House and the military.
Yes, and he speaks for the administration.
Okay, so the administration is admitting that on Joe Biden's watch, the world has gotten more dangerous.
On Trump's watch, the world got safer.
On Trump's watch, you saw less war.
You saw a lower risk of greater conflicts.
You saw a relative peace abroad.
Now on Biden's watch, you're seeing the outbreak of the first major war in Europe since World War II, potentially a global conflict.
And it is Biden's fault.
There's something I want to clear up here.
Ted Cruz got in trouble the other day because he said that Joe Biden bore a lot of responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That's just a fact.
That's not some partisan talking point.
That's not some cheap slogan.
It's just a fact.
The president of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, says the exact same thing.
Zelensky said on June 6th of last year, This was referring to Joe Biden's lifting the sanctions off of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that Vladimir Putin was building, which gave him the opportunity to invade Ukraine.
Zelensky said, this is a weapon, a real weapon in the hands of the Russian Federation.
It is not understandable that the bullets to this weapon can possibly be provided by such a great country as the United States.
He's saying, what are you doing, Joe Biden?
You're giving Russia the bullets to shoot us.
This was long before the invasion, by the way.
But everyone saw the writing on the wall, everyone with two brain cells to rub together, a group that I guess excludes Joe Biden.
He said, what are you doing?
Stop giving Vladimir Putin the bullets to shoot us when they inevitably invade Ukraine.
That was last June.
And then just a few weeks ago in March of this year, Zelensky was responding to Joe Biden reinstating the sanctions that he had previously lifted.
And he said to Biden and the West broadly, you've applied sanctions and we're grateful.
These are powerful steps.
But it was a little late because if it had been preventative, Russia would not have gone to war.
I don't know how it can be stated more clearly.
Yes, the aggressor in any conflict bears moral responsibility for that.
But Joe Biden set the stage.
Joe Biden served up Ukraine to Vladimir Putin on a silver platter.
And he bears responsibility for that too.
And that's not a cheap partisan talking point.
It's just a fact.
If you are one of the people out there who has the Ukraine flag in their bio and you're using the Ukraine flag...
Just as the new face mask, which is just the new BLM symbol, which is just the new rainbow flag, and it's just the thing du jour, the current thing, and you're using it as a cudgel to attack Republicans.
Listen to the Ukrainian president, who says that this war is Joe Biden's fault.
So he's failing.
He's failing on the domestic front.
The walls are closing in, but it seems the walls actually might be closing in because the press are finally giving up on Joe Biden.
The press was propping him up for the past, I was going to say for the past couple of years, really they've been propping him up for the past 50 or so years.
You're seeing this foreign policy collapse on Joe Biden's watch.
And then even the one issue that he had been doing relatively fine on, that was COVID, he's underwater on.
He's underwater in terms of public opinion polls.
And it seems that things are going to get worse because you know how I hate to say I told you so.
You know that I hate to be Noel Stradamus and put on my magical hat and take out my crystal ball and tell you what the future is.
The libs are not going to give up on COVID. It was politically very effective for them, and it helped them to rig an election because it helped them to change all of the rules.
Well, there's more news on the COVID front, and frankly, it's just more of the same.
There's a new study app.
This is a new study about the COVID vaccine, which, as you know, is 100% safe and 100% effective.
That's why we need to keep taking all the boosters is because of how effective it is.
The new study is on the fourth COVID shot.
So you get your first one, then you got to go back, take your second one.
Then I guess maybe those didn't work quite as well as we were told they would.
Then you had to get your third one.
Then you had to get your fourth one.
the study on the Pfizer shot, and by the way, this is coming from CNN.
I'm not even reading this from a right-wing source, is that it does not offer long-lived protection against the virus.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
It examines more than 1.25 million people in Israel, 60 years or older, who have been fully vaccinated.
The time period was January through March of this year, when the Omicron variant was dominant.
And it just turns out that fourth shot doesn't work that well.
So line up for your fifth.
That one will work, right?
That'll work.
Because we were told by Fauci and Walensky and Biden that when you are vaccinated, when you get your two shots in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, then you'll be safe.
You won't contract the virus.
You won't transmit the virus.
It can't happen.
And then they change their story.
And then we'll know, actually, you can contract it, but it won't be as bad.
Well, yeah, it might not be pleasant, but it would be a lot worse if you hadn't gotten that vaccine.
And, well, it turns out you can transmit it, too.
So that's why they need to get their multiple shots.
Okay.
But can you imagine how terrible it would be if you didn't get the extra shots?
And now they're going to push for a fifth and a sixth and a seventh and an eighth and a ninth.
And it's just going to go on and on and on.
And the sheep are going to line up.
They are.
They're going to do it.
They're going to do it.
Even though everything we've been told, everything we have been told from the very beginning of this virus...
Has basically been a bunch of bunk.
So Biden failing on that level as well.
Failing on the COVID front, which has been the dominant political issue for the past two years.
How about on the border?
Oh, the border's only getting worse.
Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, is rescinding Title 42.
Now, this has to do with COVID.
This Title 42 issue that came into effect during the Trump administration, it was a way that the government could, in some modest way, try to curtail the flood of illegal aliens who were coming across the border by pointing out, hey, we're in a pandemic.
All the American citizens are being told that they can't even leave their homes.
Why are we letting a million illegal aliens with no vetting, certainly with no vaccines, with no testing, just pour across the border, often undetected?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
If COVID's a real grave threat, it's the worst thing ever, and we've got to shut down the economy and close your churches, well then how come millions of Guatemalans and Salvadorans are allowed to come through and do whatever they want?
Why is the American government giving much better treatment to Guatemalans than they are to American citizens?
Doesn't make sense.
So there were some restrictions put in place.
Now the Secretary of Homeland Security wants to take those away.
And that's not all they're doing for the illegal aliens.
Not only are they not saying, hey, stay in your own countries.
Not only are they not saying, hey, once you get here, we're going to turn you around because you have no right to be in this country.
No, they're encouraging these people to flood into the country, and then when they get here, they're giving them free cell phones.
So admits Jen Psaki.
Our team in Texas is saying that you guys are starting to give smart phones to border crossers hoping that they'll use the phones to check in or to be tracked.
Which part of that is supposed to deter people from crossing illegally into the states?
Well, I think you of all people, since you've asked me a range of questions on this topic over time, would recognize that we need to take steps to ensure that we know where individuals are and we can check in with them.
We need to take steps to ensure, for instance, that the Guatemalans can play Candy Crush.
That's something that Americans get to do.
How are they going to check their Twitter timelines if they don't have nice new cell phones?
So we have to give that to them.
We need to give them a nice expensive piece of equipment.
That will, therefore, disincentivize them from coming across the border.
I don't think so.
Even her explanation is so pathetic.
She says we're going to give them the cell phones and then they can check in.
They're going to check in.
The people who are violating one of our most basic laws and you're letting them do it and then you're just letting them go and wander into the country, they'll probably check in, right?
Call me once a week.
Come on.
I don't think so.
They're not going to do that at all.
But it's because the Democrats want to flood the country with the illegal aliens.
This causes, like so many of the Democrat policies, this causes them short-term political pain but long-term political gain.
On all of these issues.
The vast majority of Americans, the vast, vast majority of Americans want to secure the border.
The majority of Americans want to drastically reduce legal immigration too.
So the Democrat position on this is completely out of line with where the majority of Americans are.
It's going to hurt them at the polls, but it could help them in the long run because those illegal aliens coming from Latin America are overwhelmingly likely to identify as Democrats and vote for Democrats.
There has been a big shift in the Hispanic vote in the United States.
That's an encouraging sign.
But the numbers just aren't there to make this anything but a disaster for Republicans.
Ronald Reagan used to say that Hispanics are Republicans.
They just don't know it yet.
Well, we've been waiting and there have been some modest shifts, but not enough to make up for just the sheer volume of people that the Democrats have imported into this country so that it can help them win elections.
Same thing is true of the transgender issue, for instance.
Transgenderism in schools.
Parents hate it.
That's why they elected Yunkin in Virginia.
That's why they're supporting DeSantis in Florida.
That's why this is such a winning issue for Republicans.
It's causing them short-term pain.
But if you can indoctrinate a whole generation of Americans into transgenderism, into this completely absurd ideology that's utterly in conflict with the traditional American understanding of sex and family and who we are and our way of life, then in the long run,
you're going to have people who are much more amenable to the Democrat point of view That's a Republican point of view.
So, sure, yeah, you're going to lose votes from the parents, but once those kids become the dominant voting bloc, in the long run, the Democrats are going to win.
The Democrats play the long game.
They play the long march through the institutions.
Republicans are not as great at that.
Though Republicans are pretty good at tactics, present tactics in the moment.
You just saw that from Greg Abbott down in Texas.
Greg Abbott is on the front lines dealing with this illegal immigration problem.
Floods of foreigners coming across the border, Biden encouraging it, and now Greg Abbott's got to deal with it.
So he's packing up a bunch of charter buses and sending them to Washington, D.C., To help local officials whose communities are being overwhelmed by hordes of illegal immigrants who are being dropped off by the Biden administration, Texas is providing charter buses to send these illegal immigrants who have been dropped off by the Biden administration to Washington,
D.C. We are sending them to the United States Capitol where the Biden administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border.
I love this.
And I hope they're nice charter buses.
I love the idea of, listen, Texas, we're going to spare no expense.
We're going to put people on these nice air-conditioned buses.
And you go right down to Joe Biden's doorstep and then deal with them there.
The only thing they get wrong is that I don't think the buses should go to Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. is a pretty run-down city at this point.
Crime is going through the roof.
There's already a lot of...
Crime, both in terms of violent crime and also illegal immigration and all the like.
There's already a lot of that in Washington, D.C., and a lot of the people who are in Washington, D.C. aren't there full-time.
You think about the Democrat members of Congress.
They go home on the weekends.
The Democrat senators go home on the weekends.
Joe Biden's going to Delaware all the time, so it's not going to really make as much of a difference there.
I want these buses to go to Martha's Vineyard.
I want these buses to go to Southampton.
I want these buses to go to all of the places that the libs actually spend time in.
And not even the cities, you know, San Francisco or something, that is their permanent residence.
I want it to go to their vacation homes.
I want the libs to have to deal with this.
I want them to go to the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
I want them to go to really, really nice places that generally don't have these kinds of problems.
And I want the libs to see it in real life.
Fine, you want to flood the country with illegal aliens?
I'll still fight your tooth and nail on it because it's giving you a major electoral advantage.
And it's just plain wrong.
But if it's going to happen, don't make the Republicans in Texas deal with the problem, which involves drugs and crime and all the things that Donald Trump said were coming over the border with illegal aliens.
Make the libs deal with it.
There is one thing that Joe Biden has managed to accomplish in his entire presidency that might sort of possibly be a net positive, although it has not ended up looking quite as positive as it previously did.
That is that Joe Biden got his judicial nominee confirmed to the Supreme Court.
He got Ketanji Jackson confirmed.
It was not a total slam dunk.
They really dirtied her up in the process and they dirtied her up by reading her own judicial record.
This isn't like with Kavanaugh when the Libs accused him of gang rape based on nothing.
This was just Republican senators reading her own court opinions, reading her own judicial record, and she had no answer for it.
But she's made it now to the Supreme Court and she's made it to the Supreme Court.
She has made it to the Supreme Court with the votes of all of the Democrats and none of the Republicans except for three.
Lisa Murkowski, we knew it.
Susan Collins, we knew it.
And you guessed it.
Willard Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney voted for Ketanji Jackson to the Supreme Court.
We all strongly suspected he would do it.
It's extremely disappointing.
It's very sad.
And frankly, it's infuriating.
This man was the Republican nominee for president 10 years ago.
And he voted for her.
I blame him more than I blame Murkowski and than I blame Collins.
Collins is a Republican senator in a purple state.
The vote didn't really matter.
This woman was going to be confirmed anyway.
Susan Collins wanted to get some cred with the libs in her state.
Murkowski, it's a little harder to make that argument because Alaska is more Republican than Maine is.
But Murkowski, okay, fine, I get it.
Utah is a blood-red state.
It is one of the most conservative states in the country.
Mitt Romney is the senator from Utah.
It's a little weird because he was the governor of Massachusetts and then when he wanted to run for president he moved to New Hampshire because he thought that would help him to win.
And then after that he couldn't get any offices there so he moved to Utah and now he's the senator from Utah.
Romney didn't have to do it.
This woman is the most radical leftist ever, not just on the court right now, but ever in the history of the court.
Mitt Romney didn't have to vote for her.
He did it because Mitt Romney's job is to put Republicans in their place.
That's all he does.
Mitt Romney is a guy.
He's the Anna Navarro of the U.S. Senate.
Mitt Romney is the guy who shows up and he just puts Republicans in their place.
That'll show you conservatives.
I'm so much better.
Hey, Democrats, look at me.
Hey, MSNBC, CNN, look, I'm so good, R&I. Don't you love me?
I'm the good one.
I'm not like all those other Republicans.
I'm a conservative, but I'm not that kind of conservative.
It's just nauseating.
It's just nauseating.
I am so...
I don't feel too much guilt about 2012 because I worked for multiple of Mitt Romney's opponents in 2012 to try to prevent that man from getting the GOP nomination.
I did.
But I voted for him in the general.
I guess I don't regret that either.
I guess he would have been better than Obama.
But it is nauseating.
It is nauseating that Republicans nominated that guy to be president.
Mitt Romney won't endorse his fellow Utah Senator Mike Lee, who's a perfectly amiable, reliable, conservative Republican, with, as far as I can tell, not a single scandal in his entire history.
He's one of the squeaky cleanest guys I've seen in politics.
He won't endorse him.
He will endorse a radical leftist who supports critical race theory and who lets pedos off the hook and who doesn't know what a woman is.
If I talk about it any longer, I'm going to start yelling.
Speaking of Utah, speaking of these weird Utah Republicans, Utah, very conservative state, very, very conservative state, they elected this governor, Spencer Cox, who, in a Zoom address that he was just giving, announced his preferred pronouns.
Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
I am Governor Spencer Cox, and I have the pleasure today to Of hosting the first One Utah Student Town Hall.
And my preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.
He, him, and his?
What?
Oh, my God.
Play it again.
Just play it again, please.
Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
I am Governor Spencer Cox.
And I have the pleasure today of hosting the first one Utah student town hall.
And my preferred pronouns are he, him, and his. - Whatever political team that guy's on, I'm not on it.
If that guy is what a Republican is, I guess I'm not a Republican.
Here's my ideology.
I generally don't like it.
My ideology is whatever he's not.
Because that is the saddest thing I have ever seen.
And I guess he thinks he's pandering to students.
I guess he thinks that students really believe in all this stuff.
Who knows?
Maybe they do.
Not the conservative students I talk to, and I talk to thousands of them a year.
Spoke to some last night right here in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
I'm speaking to some on Monday at Yale University.
That should be interesting.
I spoke to some last week at Washburn.
I go around to a lot of these schools.
We don't introduce our preferred pronouns.
Some people will say, who cares?
Who cares?
Spencer Cox, he'll cut taxes or regulations.
So he's a perfectly fine Chamber of Commerce Republican.
I care.
I care.
That's it.
That's my line.
I'm all for a big tent party.
If you use your preferred pronouns, if you introduce yourself stating your preferred pronouns, you're out.
You're out.
I think he should be kicked out of the Republican Party.
He has no place here.
I'm not even just being hyperbolic and reacting emotionally.
What it means is you don't get anything.
You just don't understand anything.
If you are willing to cave on Men are not women.
If you're willing to cave on a fundamental aspect of human nature, then you're just completely useless.
I don't care.
Elected Democrat, Utah.
Who cares?
You just don't get anything.
So, Spencer Cox, you're out.
When I become the head of the Republican National Committee, you're gone.
I'm taking away your Republican card.
What is called for is the opposite approach here.
Not to remain passive and conciliatory and go along and okay, I'm happy to use my pronouns.
It's the opposite.
It's to get a little bit more aggressive and it's to wield our power a little bit more.
Look at Elon Musk.
I'm giddy with the Elon Musk story.
I don't think Musk is some right-wing, hardcore, rock-ribbed Republican, but obviously he's not a big lib.
And he's extremely funny, and he's generally wielding his enormous political and financial power for the good.
So Elon Musk bought 9% of Twitter.
He is already using that for the good.
There's a hysterical article up in the Washington Post.
It's Elon Musk's Twitter investment could be bad news for free speech.
How is this bad news for free speech?
He's going in and he's saying, Twitter is too harsh on free speech.
I think the insinuation is he wants to reinstate some banned accounts.
I think the insinuation is he wants to lift some of the rules and some of the capricious guidelines.
And that's certainly how the Twitter employees are interpreting it, because some of the most woke Twitter employees right now are saying that they're very likely to quit.
Twitter told Reuters that the company's board plays an important advisory and feedback role across the entire service, but says they don't really affect the day-to-day very much.
And then Reuters was talking to some of the employees and they say, no, we're so scared that Musk is going to bring more free speech back to Twitter that we're leaving.
Some people are dusting off their resumes.
I don't want to work for somebody like Musk.
Substack is hiring.
Substack says, I mention the story because Elon Musk hasn't done anything yet other than get himself onto the board of directors.
He hasn't changed a single policy, hasn't changed the dot over an I or the cross on a T, and already Twitter is getting better because these woke idiots are leaving, and that's good because personnel is policy.
The people who are executing policy are going to largely determine what that policy looks like.
I hope big baggy Elon goes in there and pushes these people out of the company, ostensibly of their own will.
That's a great way that conservatives can wield our political power.
The libs are doing it right now in the army and the CIA.
That's what those woke recruitment commercials are about.
That's what the vaccine mandate is about.
Push the conservative minded people out so that your people are in there because personnel is policy.
Now, speaking of personnel who've been around the government for a long time, you probably know that Dr.
Fauci has been in government for, what, 40 years now?
Some 40 years.
Fauci did not happen overnight.
He changed your lives.
He changed this country overnight for the past two years, just more and more and more.
But this man has developed, has grown his power over time.
We have a series called Fauci Unmasked.
You can get it right now over at the Daily Wire.
Take a listen.
And beginning in the spring of 2020, Dr.
Fauci began to set national policy that affected the way that 330 million Americans lived their lives.
For goodness sakes, I'm telling you, wear a mask, keep social distancing.
There's nothing political about that.
But who is Anthony Fauci?
People who have conspiracy theories, those are people that don't particularly care for me.
In this short series, we will do what the establishment media have refused to do.
We will give you an unvarnished look at the career of the most powerful politician in America, Dr.
Anthony Fauci.
Don't you think it's time that you step down and let someone else who has a more effective message?
Actually, no.
No.
Go check it out right now.
Dailywire.com slash subscribe.
We will be right back with The Mailbag.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite time of the week, the mailbag.
First question up from James.
Hey, Michael.
Love the show.
I've been dating my girlfriend for almost a year, and we're talking about getting married.
Everything is going well, and the only time we have a major tiff is when the topic of previous relationships comes up.
She basically wants to know how promiscuous I was before her.
I never get into details because I'm a private person.
It's also because I know this will only lead to arguments since I was a slay king in college.
It's a great term, James.
What should I do?
Tell her knowing she's going to hate the truth or just tell her I love her and don't want anything between us?
I'd love some advice.
It's a great question.
I don't think that everyone should be totally open about every weird thing they ever did in their whole lives.
I know that it's very fashionable in our modern, liberal, enlightened age to have radical, total transparency about everything.
I don't think that's a great idea.
Actually, that very notion did come about.
With the rise of the modern left going back centuries, this idea that we should have no secrets, no private aspects of our lives, that we should tell our partners, our spouses, our wives, everything, absolute radical transparency.
No one likes that.
Nobody likes that.
Do you want to know about every guy that your wife ever dated?
Do you want to imagine that?
Do you want to think about that?
Unless you're Will Smith, you probably don't.
And Will Smith doesn't like it either.
That's why he's punched Chris Rock in the face.
It's because no one actually likes thinking about that sort of thing.
So if I were you, I would take the latter route and say, listen, I love you.
When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.
If she really pushes it, you can say, listen, I was popular with the ladies.
I was.
I did well.
I did well, but it was bad.
I did well by the standards of our secular age, but it was not good.
And thank goodness I found you, my virtuous wife.
Now let's stop talking about it.
Let the dead past bury the dead.
No reason to go digging that up.
I mean, if you just live in the past and stew in your regrets forever and ever and ever, you're not going to do anything.
To be less flippant about you apparently schtupping all these ladies...
Maybe you regret that.
Maybe you don't regret that, but probably you do.
And that's life.
That's life.
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
So you can do that.
From Aaron.
Hello, Mr.
Knowles.
I have a question about dating at work.
I'm in my late 20s, and there is a guy who seems interested in me, and we have a good time flirting back and forth, but I don't know if it's a good idea.
We work closely together and I don't know if he's ready for a serious relationship and don't know how to navigate this.
He also seems to just be flirty, so I don't know what to do.
Any advice would be appreciated.
There are two basic bodily functions that every human being has to engage in.
One is eating and one is excreting.
And as a general rule, you should not excrete where you eat.
I would not recommend dating your co-worker.
This is not a good idea.
I'm not saying it never has worked out.
It has worked out sometimes.
I have friends who work together who ended up getting married.
I went to their weddings and they have wonderful marriages.
I'm not saying it can't happen.
Usually it doesn't work out.
And then it's awkward, and sometimes people get in trouble, and depending on your company's HR policy, you could end up getting fired, and you're already saying you don't know if this guy is serious about anything, or he's just kind of flirtatious.
No.
Do not do it.
Do not do it!
Unless you don't care about your job.
In which case, whatever.
Go have fun.
From Andrew.
Hi, Michael.
I had a question in regard to religion.
I'm not Catholic, but was raised in the faith and still have a great respect for it.
I don't wish to disrespect religion, so I had a question in regard to group prayers held in social circumstances, such as at weddings or before meals at banquets.
If I don't believe in God, would it be blasphemous or would I be taking the Lord's name in vain if I bowed my head and prayed or even pretended?
Since I'm not sure of the existence of God, it seems blasphemous to bow my head and pray.
I don't want to disrespect the faith even though I'm no longer a firm believer.
No, absolutely not.
Of course you should bow your head and you should pray.
God exists whether you believe in Him or not.
And you're even saying you don't know if you don't believe in Him, you don't know if you do believe in Him, you're just kind of not firm in your faith.
Well, okay, how about you err on the side of caution and pay the respect that is due to God.
God is not just some figment of your or anyone else's imagination.
He's real.
I know that these days that's a radical statement and all the atheists with their neckbeards laugh about it, but it's just a fact.
It's just true.
God exists.
He is real.
He created you.
He knew every hair on your head before you were born.
And so, if you struggle with your faith, as a great many people do, as certainly I have done in my life, and you're in one of those periods where you're not quite sure, just be reverent.
Just pray.
Just, I would recommend behaving as though God exists.
This is Drew's great experiment that he gives to atheists.
He says, live for 60 days as though God exists.
Pray, follow the rules, talk to God, take care of your spiritual life, and see what happens at the end of 60 days.
Maybe that'll work for you within 60 days, maybe it won't.
But no, there's nothing disrespectful about showing respect Just because you might be a little uncertain or have mixed emotions.
No, it's not all about you, man.
It's about doing stuff matters, too.
So do it.
I think that's the right thing to do.
From Michael.
Hello, Michael.
With the Libs coming out to defend grooming children into woke ideology, specifically the sexual aspects, I can't help but see the similarities of this type of grooming to Christian conversion therapy.
Not specifically how they function, but the outrage.
Libs railed against the world at conversion therapy, but is grooming young impressionable minds into sexual ideologies and wokeism not, in a sense, conversion therapy?
I know the Libs thrive and survive on hypocrisy, but okay, groomer won't go far enough.
We need to keep hitting them where it hurts.
You give us Michaels a good name, kind for guards.
Thanks.
Yeah, I think the comparison is fair enough in as much as everybody's got to serve somebody.
There is no such thing as neutral education.
The libs disingenuously pretend that there is a neutral education.
And the squishes on the right naively believe there is such a thing as neutral education.
But there isn't.
Every syllable that you utter, every second you spend educating a young person, is either going to be bringing them closer to the truth or further from the truth.
It's going to be teaching them to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing.
It's going to be cultivating their taste for beauty or their taste for ugliness.
But there's no neutrality here.
The one point that you've got to give to the libs when they're talking about sexual conversations in kindergarten, when the groomers are pushing the weird sex stuff in K through third grade, is they're saying, well, what happens when we have to talk about marriage?
Marriage is going to come up.
You read a little storybook to a kid, and there's a husband and a wife.
So what if it's a husband and a husband?
Now, traditionally, we would say that can't exist.
There's no such thing as a husband and a husband.
A husband married to a husband, because that's not what marriage is.
So that's not possible.
Now we're saying you've got to keep that very novel sexual ideology out of the schools.
So you're telling me you can't read a little storybook, a little board book to kids that involves a husband and a wife?
Well, that's sort of sexual, isn't it?
Is that banned too?
And what we would say is no.
No.
We should teach people that There's such the thing as a man and such a thing as a woman.
And they're different.
They're not the same.
So the feminists are wrong and the transgenderists are wrong.
And they're actually meant for one another.
And they're actually complementary.
And men and women, generally speaking, should get married.
And generally speaking, they should have kids.
And that's the right thing to do.
I guess that's kind of a sexual ideology.
Is that kind of a conversion therapy?
Whatever slogan you want to use.
No, that's just the way the world is.
And so now we're upset that the libs are completely contradicting that and saying, no, men and women aren't different.
No, people shouldn't get married.
No, you shouldn't have kids.
Actually, you should kill your kids.
Actually, you should go and engage in all these crazy sexual views.
We're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's crazy.
Stop indoctrinating kids into sex.
But...
They're going to know something.
They're going to know that there's a mommy and a daddy or that there's a mommy and a mommy and a daddy and a daddy and the daddy became mommy last week.
And so that's inevitable.
And so we've got to move beyond just the procedural aspects of things and talk about the substance too.
This is the thesis of my book, Speechless.
Free speech in the abstract.
All these procedural questions don't mean anything if you don't have anything to say.
From Katie.
Hey, Michael.
That's for all you do in particular.
Oh, that.
Thanks is what I think you meant to say.
Thanks for all you do in particular, the entertaining relationship advice.
Oh, thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
It seems I may be in need of some relationship advice myself.
My fiancé and I are having a great time getting ready for our big day and he's the love of my life.
However, I'm a Christian and he's not.
Since we are getting ready for the wedding, family and friends are making sure they say their piece before our big day.
Usually goes something like this.
I love you and support you, but...
And then some version of it concerns how he's not a believer.
I hear the concern and pray for his salvation and also mention 1 Corinthians 7.14, quote, For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.
Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
What would you say to me?
Thanks.
Well, sure, I'm not telling you not to marry your fiancé, but you are not husband and wife yet.
So we're not addressing a question of, you know, you're already married and one spouse has become a Christian and the other is not and here's why you shouldn't get divorced and here's how you should grapple with that situation.
You're talking about entering into a marriage knowing all of this.
I'm not saying that marriages between atheists or agnostics and Christians cannot work or interfaith or anything like that, but it can be trickier.
You Your family is going to have to believe something.
You're going to have to determine how to raise the kids.
And this is a particularly difficult issue because it's the husband who's not Christian.
And it's the wife who is Christian.
And if you are Christian, you probably have some sense that the husband should be the head of the household.
So that creates some problems as well.
I'm not giving you a firm answer here, yes or no, on what to do.
But I am saying that the concerns are legit.
And I think you need to have all of these conversations with your fiancé before the big day.
At the very least, you have to have the conversation, how are the kids going to be raised?
Are the kids going to be raised Christian or kind of without a religion?
And by the way, Even if he says the kids are going to be raised Christian, is daddy going to go to church?
Because if daddy doesn't go to church on Sunday, and church is just a thing that mommy makes the kids go to, but daddy gets to stay home and watch football, the kids are probably not going to continue to go to church when they become adults.
Because there's not going to be a coherence to the faith.
And they're going to have questions.
Is daddy going to go to hell?
They're going to have questions.
Why doesn't daddy take...
I want to be more like daddy.
Daddy seems cool.
He's cool.
He just eats Cheerios and watches football.
So you've got to really sort that out.
And if your fiancé says, look, I don't believe in this yet.
I don't know.
This is kind of new to me.
But because this matters to you, I promise you I will raise the kids in the church.
I will go to church on Sunday.
If he does that, then I think that shows that you're growing together.
But otherwise, one fears that you could grow apart.
From Deborah.
Michael, do you agree with the statement, live life with no regrets?
I'll pause there because you have more to say.
What does that even mean?
We're all fallen creatures.
We all sin frequently.
So how are you supposed to live life with no regrets?
The only way to do that would be to not have a moral conscience or to try to suppress your moral conscience and say, oh well...
I probably shouldn't have done all those drugs and slept around with all those people and gambled all my money away last night, but oopsie daisy, YOLO! No, that's not a good idea.
May I say, I don't agree with that statement.
Yes, no, nor do I. Because we don't live in a pink bubble with unicorns and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, and everything is happy, happy, happy.
We can't control every aspect of our lives.
I think Kierkegaard's statement of life can only be understood, that life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards, quite frankly, is a better statement.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, oh wise sage.
Yes, I like your answer.
The issue of live life with no regrets has a few parts to it.
One comes from a play by David Mamet.
Where one of the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross says, people say you regret the things that you don't do.
I'm doing a slight Pacino accent because he played him in the movie.
But that's not necessarily true.
You regret things that you do do as well.
There are plenty of things I've done that I regret.
I guess they're trying to think if there were things I haven't done that I regret not doing.
Maybe one or two, but actually much more it's the other one.
So I wish I didn't have those regrets.
And then what does that mean now, to just disregard the moral order?
Go out, cheat on your wife.
No regrets.
Yeah, go out on a school night and bomb the paper.
No regrets.
No, I think you probably will regret all of those things.
Chesterton said that the carpe diem religion, the seize the day religion, is not the religion of happy people, it's the religion of very unhappy people.
It's the religion of people desperately grasping for anything to feel like they're doing anything.
But no, I would not recommend that.
I would live life conscious of regret, not bogged down by the shame of regret, but conscious of it and able to repent and improve your life and do the right thing.
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 Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
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.
