The EPA warns of two toxic chemicals in drinking water, USA Today deletes 23 fake news articles, and Rand Paul wrecks Dr. Fauci at a COVID hearing.
Watch our Summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie” with Gina Carano: https://utm.io/ueFOe
Watch Matt Walsh’s new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com, and pick up your copy of the “What Is A Woman?” book here: https://utm.io/ueFMe.
Join us for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Stop funding woke corporate agendas. Switch to PureTalk instead. Save 50% off your first month at https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/knowlespodcast.
Ring Alarm is an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe. Learn more at www.Ring.com/KNOWLES.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Put another nickel in the Alex Jones was right jar.
It turns out that whatever they are putting in the water is not only turning the frickin' frogs gay, but it's posing serious danger to our health.
And now, all of a sudden, the EPA is admitting it.
We've got a story just came out from USA Today.
EPA finds no safe level for two toxic forever chemicals found in many U.S. water systems.
These forever chemicals are linked to different types of cancer, low birth weights, and other ailments.
One expert said this will set off alarm bells.
So there are all sorts of contaminants in the water.
And the EPA will say, okay, well, if it's below this threshold, then it's fine.
But if it's above this threshold, then it's not fine.
What the EPA has discovered is that two of these contaminants are not safe at any level.
Any level that can ever possibly be measured, they're still very dangerous to human beings.
And so they've now got to work to take all of that out of the water.
For 60 years, these guys have been mocking American people, regular old Americans, as rubes and kooks and idiots for asking if maybe there's some dangerous stuff in the water supply.
Now they tell us there are multiple contaminants in the water that are not safe at any level.
The chief issue here is not that we might currently all be poisoning ourselves.
My problem is not even that our public authorities got this and so many other things wrong.
My main issue is the arrogance, the haughtiness, the absolute disdain with which our My issue is that almost every single day now,
it seems, these supposed genius experts who run our country are being made to look like fools by the people that they all used to accuse of wearing tinfoil hats.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from SoulSilverSnorlax, who says, I tied a cinder block around my ankle before going swimming today on the advice of an expert.
It was terrible, and I almost drowned.
But imagine how much worse it would have been if I didn't have the cinder block tied around my leg.
Such a great point.
We've got to make sure.
Goodness sakes, people.
Tie those cinder blocks around your legs.
The experts say so.
And they can't be proven wrong.
They literally cannot be proven wrong because anything that happens, they say, proves them right.
We need to talk to each other.
The mass messages that we are getting from the institutions and the big propaganda outlets, they are not serving us very well.
We need to speak to one another and communicate.
When you want to communicate, I strongly recommend you check out Pure Talk.
Right now, go to puretalk.com.
Use promo code NOLSPODCAST. Later on, we're getting to my favorite time of the week.
That is the mailbag.
Now with the voicemail bag, and that voicemail bag is brought to you by Pure Talk.
I totally love these guys.
If you want to keep more of your money, if you want to save money from woke sell companies that are just spending it on all sorts of nonsense, if you want to keep the voicemail bag on this show...
Go switch to Pure Talk now.
You are getting the exact same quality service as all those other companies, but you're saving a ton of money.
You can get the unlimited talks, the unlimited text, six gigs of data, beautiful 5G network, puretalk.com.
What's the catch?
There isn't one.
There's no catch.
Go to puretalk.com, select a plan, enter the promo code Knowles Podcast, save 50% off your first month.
You can be switched over to Pure Talk in less than 10 minutes.
That is promo code Knowles Podcast, K-O-W-L-E-S-P-O-D-C-A-S-T, all one word at puretalk.com.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
I'm not sure I want to be citing USA Today on this water story.
It's been reported elsewhere, so I suppose we can assume that it's real.
I saw the press release from the EPA. But I don't know that I would trust USA Today because USA Today just found itself in a huge journalistic scandal.
Yesterday, USA Today announced that it would be deleting 23 articles.
Almost two dozen articles.
Why is that?
They were all by the same writer, Gabriela Miranda, and they had to delete them because it turns out that those articles were fake news.
They weren't just fake news in the sense that They got some facts wrong.
Even that they slightly misquoted something, they were fake news in that they were just completely made up.
This reporter, this breaking news reporter for USA Today, was just making up quotes, people out of whole cloth, and then writing works of fiction, and then publishing those works on USA Today.
Why is this a big deal?
Well, one, because USA Today used to have some kind of reputation, and now that reputation has taken a big, big hit.
But there's a political problem too, which is that USA Today is a trusted source on social media.
When something appears in USA Today, that helps to push social media algorithms in a certain direction.
But it can't be a trusted source.
They just deleted almost two dozen articles because they were totally fake.
Daily Wire has never had to delete two dozen articles for fake news.
Have we gotten everything 100% right all the time?
No, there's occasionally a problem here, an error here.
You go in and you correct it.
We've never had anything anywhere close to this.
And yet Daily Wire is not considered a trusted, super-duper special, nonpartisan, unbiased news source for the social media algorithm.
On the contrary, we rely on those algorithms, we rely on all of the supposedly trusted sources to back up what we're saying, and if they contradict us, then very often social media will suppress what we have to say.
My problem here...
It's not even that there is such a thing as trusted sources.
I know some people are so skeptical of the power in big tech, or so skeptical of the power in our corporate press, that they don't think we should have any trusted sources.
That social media and the public square should just be a total wild west where no one organization carries any more weight than any other.
I'm not even saying that.
No, look, there are total rags out there that I don't think should carry a lot of weight in the public square.
My problem isn't that there are trusted sources, quote unquote.
My problem is that the trusted sources that our public square relies on are not trustworthy.
I don't even mean to beat up USA Today.
USA Today is far from the worst offender of this.
The fact that the New York Times counts as a trusted source is preposterous.
The New York Times is not fit to line a person's birdcage.
You think of the fake news that the New York Times has spread just on the Russia hoax alone in the last five years.
It's a joke, and there have been so many other...
You think about the fake news that the New York Times has spread about January 6th or really anything having any to do with Donald Trump and the effective parts of the Republican Party.
Why is that a trusted source?
I'm not saying this in a self-serving manner or at least not exclusively in a self-serving manner.
The Daily Wire is a much more reliable, trustworthy source than the New York Times.
The Daily Wire, the Michael Knowles show in particular, you hear things here first.
I take out my crystal ball as Knowles Stradamus.
I tell you what's going to happen in the future.
This show, this news outlet is a much more trustworthy source.
We have a much better record of accuracy than the Washington Post, than CNN, obviously, than ABC, CBS, NBC, than any of the supposedly trusted news sources.
We've got experts.
You know, we've got experts out there beyond just the news organizations, and we are supposed to trust the experts.
Who is the number one expert, quote-unquote, in the country?
You know.
You know who I'm talking about out there.
Of course, it's Dr.
Fauci.
He's the number one expert.
Whatever he says is the law.
He has got more power than the ancient pharaohs, than any dictator has presumed to have.
Whatever he says not only is policy.
Whatever he says is the science.
He says he's a representative of the science.
And yet...
Fauci consistently gets things wrong.
Now you have our public health establishment, just to use one example, encouraging the Fauci ouchie, the boosters, the jabs, all that stuff in very, very little kids.
So during a COVID hearing yesterday, Senator Rand Paul asked for any scientific evidence at all to back up that policy.
Fauci comes up empty.
What is the possibility if your kid has had COVID, which is 75% of the country's had COVID, what is the chance that my child's going to the hospital or dying?
If you look at the number of deaths in pediatrics, Senator, you can see that there are more deaths...
Of people who have had it.
Of people who have had the disease.
Senator, we also know from other studies that the optimal degree of protection when you get infection is to get vaccinated after infection.
And in fact, showing reinfection in the era of Omicron and the sub-lineages But you can't answer the question I ask.
The question I ask is how many kids are dying and how many kids are going to the hospital who have already had COVID? The answer may be zero, but you're not even giving us the data because you have so much wanted to protect everybody from all the data because we're not smart enough to look at the data.
When you released data earlier, when the CDC released the data, they left out the category of 18 to 49 on whether or not there was a health benefit for adults 18 to 49.
Why was it left out?
When critics finally complained, it was finally included because there was no health benefit from taking a booster between the 18 to 49 and the CDC study.
There it is.
There is the expert.
The expert is asked a very simple question by Rand Paul.
Dr.
Fauci, how many children are dying of reinfection from COVID? It's a very simple question.
And Fauci starts to answer a different question.
He starts to say, well, among children generally, with or without a prior infection, and Rand Paul says, no, that's not the question.
My question is how many people are dying from reinfection?
And Fauci says, well, Senator, you know, we know that the optimal degree, and then he's answering a completely unrelated question.
He's just spouting his talking points.
And Rand Paul says...
You just won't answer.
Why won't he answer?
Is it because Fauci doesn't have the data?
He just doesn't know?
Is he just an idiot?
Maybe.
I could see why you might be inclined to think that, because he doesn't come off as the brightest bulb in the pack.
But then Rand Paul makes a great point.
He says, how come the federal government collects all of these data about COVID?
My goodness, they collect every little jot and tittle they possibly can about COVID.
And then when they release the data, they leave some parts out.
They only release the data that are convenient for their narrative.
They'll leave out whole age groups when it comes to risk from COVID.
Why?
Just conveniently, they happen to leave out all of the age groups that show that COVID is not as dangerous as the ruling class led us to believe.
That is not just a matter of idiocy.
That is not even just a matter of ignorance.
That is a matter of corruption.
Now, when you want to protect yourself from all sorts of bad people and from freeze and from fire and from flooding, you got to check out Ring.
Right now go to ring.com slash Knowles.
Summer is here.
People are traveling.
You're going to be away from your home quite a bit if you're anything like me.
You can also rest easy if you're anything like me because of Ring Alarm.
Ring Alarm is the award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe.
Best of all, you can easily install it yourself.
A friend of mine just got married here.
Do you know what I did?
Do you know what I gave this person for her wedding?
I gave her Ring Alarm Pro.
I love it.
It makes a great gift.
It's really, really great for your home.
And you can go pro.
You can be a pro, just like me.
Ring Alarm protects your home, your windows, your doors from freeze, fire, flood.
Ring Alarm Pro protects your physical home and your digital home, too.
It protects your data.
We live so much of our lives online.
Make sure you're protecting your data.
They've got an incredible deal.
To subscribe for professional monitoring right now to learn more, go to ring.com slash Knowles.
That's ring.com slash Knowles.
Our genius experts are not only stupid and incompetent very often, but they're also frequently corrupt.
In part of Rand Paul's beautiful grilling of Dr.
Fauci, the high pontiff of public health, Rand Paul asks him a question, not so much about the data and the infections and the deaths and the hospitalizations.
He asks him about the money.
He says, do you think, Dr.
Fauci, there might be any kind of conflict of interest here?
There might be any kind of big money moving around when you guys are all making your recommendations?
Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?
Well, first of all, let's talk about royalty.
That's the question.
No, that's the question.
Have you ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company?
You know, I don't know is a fact, but I doubt it.
Well, here's the thing is, why don't you let us know?
Why don't you reveal how much you've gotten and from what entities?
The NIH refuses.
We ask them.
We ask them.
The NIH, we ask them whether or not, who got it, and how much.
They refuse to tell us.
They sent it redacted.
Not only do they refuse to tell, they'll actually redact the specific pieces of information that the Senate is requesting, that Rand Paul is requesting.
Why?
Later on in that exchange, Fauci is able to turn it a little bit and he says, well listen, for this specific series of years I didn't make a lot of money.
And he thinks that that is going to put the question away.
But it's not.
You see it from that early evasion.
Rand Paul asks a direct question.
He says, hey, did you guys get money?
Do you guys get money from these things?
And what does Dr.
Fauci do?
Listen, let's talk about...
No, let's not talk about any nonsense that you want to talk about, Fauci.
How about you just answer a simple question?
You don't want to.
You don't want to.
And by the way, even if Fauci's not making...
Let's say that Fauci's not making a lot of money.
Then why won't the NIH provide this information of the royalties that members of these committees, members of the public health establishment are getting...
Specifically, with regard to companies that they are passing judgments on.
Why won't the government give you that information?
The very fact that they won't provide that kind of transparency is proof positive, as far as I'm concerned, that there is clearly the possibility, the open door to corruption.
The issue is not...
Any conspiracy theory.
There's nothing conspiracy theoretical about suggesting that there can be conflicts of interest in big politics and we should protect against them.
It's not even a question of getting rid of the experts.
I have no problem with Listening to expertise and putting expertise in its proper place.
I don't believe that the only thing that we can do is just destroy all of the American scientific institutions and all become yeoman farmers or something.
I'm not saying that that's what's going to happen.
But surely the experts that we have are no good.
They're no good.
Their predictions are wrong.
They lie to us.
Not only get things wrong, they will actively lie like Fauci did during COVID. And there is a huge possibility for corruption, which is now not being dealt with.
Now we're just getting stonewalled by the NIH. So what's the solution to that?
The solution to that is to go in and wield political power to make it better.
There are two reactions from the right.
Two completely different strategies for how to deal with this kind of thing.
There's one which is the kind of...
The libertarians tend to favor this strategy more, which is just get rid of the experts, ignore the experts entirely, and take all of the money and the power away.
And then nobody gets power.
And we just reduce the amount of power in the government and reduce the amount of power, specifically in the scientific bureaucracy, and then everything will be better.
I get why that suggestion is tempting.
I get why that sounds good.
It does sound good.
If we could just take that power out of Washington, D.C., take that power out of the NIH or any other aspect of the deep state, I would love that.
Wouldn't that be so wonderful?
Would that it were so simple.
The conservative solution, the solution that the conservatives generally tend to favor more, though, says you're never going to get rid of experts.
Every state, every government in the history of the entire world has had experts and has had bureaucracies and has had specialization.
And it's a complete pipe dream to say that you're going to get rid of that.
Furthermore, every state, every society in the history of the world has political power that is conserved.
Political power is not just going to disappear.
It's not just going to go away.
You're not going to just pop it like a balloon.
It's going to exist, especially in a big, powerful country like ours.
You're not going to just make the power go away.
So it's just going to move.
Is the power going to be in this part of the government?
Is the power going to be more with the corporations?
Is the power going to be more with the universities?
Is the power going to be more with technology?
Is the power going to be more in Silicon Valley?
Is the power going to be more in Washington, D.C.? Is the power going to be more with the Republicans?
Is the power going to be more with the Democrats?
Some people might not like that.
They might think it's kind of icky and yucky.
What do you mean we can't just make the power magically go away by waving a magic wand?
I would that it were so simple, guys, but it's not.
There is going to be power.
The only question is going to be, who is going to wield it?
Where is it going to reside?
And what is it going to be wielded in service of?
I'm not giving you some kind of utopian dream fantasy of how we're going to just knock down all the buildings in Washington, D.C. and send all of those deep state bureaucrats to St.
Helena and then we're going to return to the republic of the 1790s and all will be well again.
No, that's not going to happen.
I don't think it's going to happen.
I don't even really want it to happen.
It's just so fantastical to suggest anything like that.
The question right now is, what do we do?
I think very easily you could...
Well, one, just to Rand Paul's point, you could demand a little bit more transparency on the conflicts of interest that these guys have.
You could take some of the power away from the Fauci's of the world and give it back to the Rand Paul's of the world.
That would be an improvement.
Take some power away from the scientific bureaucracy, give it back to the Senate.
Maybe take some power away from the federal government, give it back to the states.
You're not saying we're going to magically get rid of power here, but you can move it around in such a way that's more conducive to flourishing to a traditional American government.
And you can move some power away from these idiot experts, these jerks, these corrupt people, these deceivers, these, oh, they're just so awful.
You could take some power away from those experts and give it to our experts.
You could take some power away from the Democrats and give it to the Republicans.
Is that a perfect solution for all time?
No, but it would do quite a lot to improve the state of our country and the state of corruption.
And then if the Republicans screw it up, then we'll go to somebody else.
If the new experts screw it up, we'll go to somebody else and we will keep this thing moving so that power doesn't become so concentrated in this horrible elite that becomes so corrosive to the American form of government.
We're getting all sorts of bad answers from the Biden administration right now.
Ducey, Peter Ducey at Fox News just grilled the new press secretary, Corrine Jean-Pierre.
He asked her, Why is inflation so bad?
And the press secretary gave this answer that the White House has been pushing on television, in the press, which is, look, inflation is no worse here than it is anywhere in the world.
It's actually much, much worse.
It's better here than anywhere else.
It's much worse overseas, and so stop complaining about inflation.
And Peter Doocy looks down at some of those numbers.
He says, wait a second, that's just not true.
I did look locally, though.
He says that inflation is worse everywhere but here.
That's not true.
The U.S. has worse inflation than Germany, France, Japan, Canada, India, Italy, Saudi Arabia.
So why is he saying that?
I think what we are saying is that when you talk about inflation, it is a global thing.
And it is not just about the United States.
This is something that everyone is feeling because of coming out of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, because of the war that Russia has started in Ukraine.
No, that's not what you said.
You're changing your answer now.
Previously, you said inflation is worse everywhere else.
Come on, it's relatively not that bad here.
And then Peter Doocy says, no, it's actually relatively really bad here, even relative to other places in the world.
And then Karin Jambier says, no, look, we're just pointing out it's like a global thing.
No, that is not what you pointed out.
That is not what you said.
Either you guys just got the numbers completely wrong and you're incompetent, or you knew what the real numbers were and you lied.
Either way, not good.
Either way does not speak very highly of our current ruling elite.
It's a very different country that we are living in right now.
Well, certainly compared to the country that we had at the start of the United States.
It's a very different country that we're living in right now compared to the country we had three years ago.
I had this thought the other day.
I said, do you remember when Trump was president and pretty much everything was better?
Do you remember that?
Seems so long ago.
What about other historical?
What kind of country are we living in now and going to be living in in the future?
The country that the Libs want to give us is not the historical American nation.
George Washington University is named after George Washington.
It resides in Washington, D.C. It's also named after George Washington.
George Washington is the father of the country.
Their mascot is a colonial who looks like George Washington.
They're called the Colonials.
Well, the school just voted to get rid of it in the name of inclusivity.
Here is what the school said.
A moniker must unify our community, draw people together, and serve as a source of pride.
This is the chairman of the school's board of trustees.
We look forward to the next steps in an inclusive process to identify a moniker that fulfills this aspiration.
It's got to be really inclusive.
I suspect that if you took a poll of Americans, most Americans still like George Washington.
I think George Washington is pretty inclusive.
GW pushes policies that are not so inclusive of everyone's views.
GW pushes transgenderism.
If a boy wants to dress up like a girl, go into the girl's bathroom at GW, I strongly suspect That he would be allowed to do that.
That's not inclusive.
It's inclusive of that deluded man and his small band of other deluded people.
But it's not inclusive of the views of the majority of Americans far from it.
So when they say inclusivity, they're describing inclusivity for their group.
They're describing inclusivity for an extremely exclusive group that doesn't include you.
You used to hear this line about the Senate, about the political elite broadly.
They say, it's a big club and you ain't in it.
When we hear the word inclusion, some people are deceived to believing that means we just include everybody.
No, it doesn't.
It means we include everyone in this extremely corrupt, stupid elite, and we exclude everybody else.
That's what it really means.
Even now to the point where you've got these radicals at the university saying, we're going to cancel George Washington at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Who are you going to replace him with?
Either you're going to just become completely nothing.
Completely generic.
Remember they got rid of the Redskins and they called it the Washington football team for a while.
Now they call it the Commanders.
Just still pretty bland.
Not quite as bland as the Washington football team.
So either you're going to do that.
Or you're going to pick some radical who I promise you is less popular than And almost certainly less virtuous than George Washington.
What's it going to be?
The new mascot is Ibram X. Kendi of GW University.
Here is our new mascot, a drag queen.
Happy Pride Month.
Drag queens are everywhere now.
That's going to be our new inclusive mascot.
Don't you feel like that's very inclusive?
When I was an undergraduate, there was going to be a class-wide dance, and I think it was themed after Gone with the Wind or The South or something like that.
And I think it was Gone with the Wind, though.
And then some liberal northerner took issue with this.
Some white liberal northerner took issue with this and said it's racist, it's terrible, it's not inclusive.
Mind you, this was 13, 14 years ago.
Things hadn't gotten nearly as crazy as they are now, but you saw the seeds of it already.
This is not inclusive at all, this is terrible.
And so what did the theme become?
Any theme that we tried to pick, someone could contrive a problem with.
Oh no, well this theme is offensive to this group.
This theme could be misconstrued to be offensive to this group.
This theme upholds a norm and a standard that now is considered unfashionable and politically incorrect.
Do you know what theme we ended up going with?
Blue.
Blue was the theme.
Because no one yet was able to come up with an issue to have with blue, though probably they would now.
Is this the country we want to live in?
It seems like either way.
I've been radicalized by this GW mascot issue.
It can only take our country in one of two ways, both of which are worse than the current way.
The one way that it could take us is to get rid of all particular things.
Anything that is particular, nice, beautiful, you can have an attachment to, goes away.
And now everything is just bland and generic and totally plain without anything that would draw you to it.
Or it goes in the direction of particular radicals.
So we cancel Thomas Jefferson and we exalt Ibram X. Kendi or Malcolm X or somebody like that.
Angela Davis is a good example of this.
Angela Davis is an actual communist who was credibly accused, I think, of terrorism.
And now she's considered this great luminary.
Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground.
Bill Ayers was considered a mentor to Barack Obama.
Radical leftist terrorist.
Bill Ayers, though, he's exalted.
He's feted.
But John Adams, George Washington, those guys were terrible.
Got to cancel them.
Got to tear down their statues.
Speaking of that Washington football team...
Jack Del Rio, coach over there with the commanders, he just got in a whole lot of trouble because he had the audacity to contradict the official regime genius expert narrative on January 6th.
I see the images on TV. People's livelihoods are being destroyed.
Businesses are being burned down.
No problem.
And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol.
There's nothing burned down.
And we're not going to talk about, we're going to make that a major deal.
I just think it's got two standards.
And if we apply the same standard and we're going to be reasonable with each other, let's have a discussion.
Let's be reasonable.
Let's have a discussion.
Let's compare similar events.
That guy nearly got canceled for those comments.
He got a massive fine.
I think it was about $100,000.
He's now at the target of a ton of attack pieces.
Why?
Because what did he say?
You know, that dust up at the Capitol, I'm not saying it was good, but I'm saying relative to other insurrections, violent uprisings, it wasn't a big deal.
That's just true.
That's just a fact.
We know that January 6th was not the worst insurrection in history.
We know it wasn't the worst insurrection of the year.
That would have been BLM. But even look at attacks on the Capitol.
1915, a Harvard professor blows up the Senate reception room, sets off explosives in the Senate reception room.
19, when was it?
1943 or 53?
I think it was 1953.
You had a group of Puerto Rican activists who shot up the House of Representatives, injured five members of Congress.
1971, the Weather Underground, you know, Bill Ayers' organization, the Weather Underground, radical leftist group, blew up part of the Senate.
A little over 10 years later, another radical group, another radical leftist group, blew up another part of the Senate.
Did the January 6th people blow up the Senate?
Did they shoot up the House of Representatives?
Did they do really anything other than dance around in a horn hat, crack a Coors Light in the rotunda, and make a mess of Nancy Pelosi's desk?
I'm not even excusing that.
But the language that Jack Rio is using here is absolutely precise, and he's not allowed to say it.
So, which narrative do you think is more accurate?
The narrative that you're getting from CNN, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, everything, big tech, everything, that January 6th was the worst event ever in the whole history, our democracy was on the brink of collapse, or...
This guy, this football coach, who says, yeah, you know, let's have a conversation about that little dust-up back there.
Let's just be reasonable and have cooler heads.
Which one do you think is more accurate?
Which do you think is more precise?
My problem is not with experts.
My problem is not with talking about political events.
My problem is with this current crop.
And the answer to this current crop of experts, hollowed out institutions, political rulers, the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand and hope that the power goes away.
The answer is not to pretend that there's some kind of neutrality here and we can find some neutral.
I don't see any neutral ground.
The answer is to take political power away from them and redistribute that.
They love redistributing things.
Redistribute that political power to experts who have greater expertise, to public servants who are more interested in serving the public, To institutions that are more conducive to human flourishing.
The answer is to engage in that political process and to wield the power that we get.
You know...
Right now, there's political power all throughout our country.
Obviously in the Senate, obviously in the courts, obviously in big tech.
Entertainment is one that conservatives often neglect.
Well, we at The Daily Wire are not neglecting it.
We've got a big movie.
We uncancelled Gina Carano.
That movie is available right now.
That's over at The Daily Wire.
Dailywire.com slash subscribe.
You can watch Terror on the Prairie with Gina Carano.
We'll be right back with the voice mailbag.
I love the voice mailbag.
This is my favorite thing that we've done on the show in years.
If you want to keep the voice mailbag continuing, you need to switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk.
I love Pure Talk.
They are sponsoring the voice mailbag.
They're making it possible.
Go to puretalk.com, select a plan, enter promo code NOLSPODCAST. Save 50% off your first month.
You will save a ton of money.
You will get exactly the same high-quality service that you've got now.
Maybe you'll end up getting better service.
But most importantly, you will keep the voice mailbag coming so I can hear your dulcet tones.
All right, let's take it away with the first question.
Hey there, Mr.
Michael.
My name is Stanley.
I just want to say, first off, I'm a big fan.
I'm one of those came for Ben, stayed for Michael kind of guys.
And of all the questions I might ask you about your thoughts on politics, religion, relationships, etc., really the one question I would love for you to answer, and I'm so glad the voicemail is here because I didn't know how to ask you this in a written email.
Why do you pronounce certain words with a short I sound rather than a long I sound?
Words like divisive rather than divisive.
Or words like ideology rather than ideology.
To me, I would take the root word idea or divide and make it ideology or divisive.
So I want to know why you do the ideology or divisive kind of pronunciation.
Otherwise, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
Have a great one!
This is a very, very good question.
The answer to this question is extremely complicated, but the short version is...
Because it's a fallen world, my friend.
That's why.
That's why I pronounce certain words.
So, for ideology, I believe that ideology or ideology are both considered somewhat common and acceptable pronunciations.
But you've hit on the word that is very divisive.
And that would be the word divisive.
And I think in the case of divisive, I think my pronunciation is technically incorrect.
It's become popular especially in politics but it is, I believe, incorrect.
I googled this some time ago because I was having a debate with a friend over divisive or divisive, and apparently it is a mispronunciation, first popularized by George H.W. Bush, then popularized again by Barack Obama.
I believe it is the common pronunciation in Canada America's hat, but in America and in the United Kingdom, in England, the preferred pronunciation is divisive.
And I just say it wrong.
I find it easier to say divisive.
That's a tough one.
There's another word.
This one I definitely get correct, but it bothers people.
Schism versus schism.
People want to say schism.
It's not.
It's schism.
That's one that drives people absolutely up.
There's so many.
I say coffee because I'm from New York.
Some people say coffee.
I don't know.
I actually don't know how people say it.
There is some variation here, but I... As prescriptivist as I am when it comes to language, I will have the humility to admit sometimes I get it wrong and I'm so damn stubborn I won't change.
Next question.
Hello, Nostradamus.
My best friend who lives in another country recently told me that by December of next year, she will either conceive a child with a partner or will be artificially inseminated.
I asked her why she wouldn't want to find a man who would stick around for her and commit to her and a child, and she told me that she would prefer that, but her end goal is to have a baby.
And she's perfectly fine with being a single mother if her timeline runs out and she's left with artificial insemination.
She told me that she wants a baby more than anything, which is understandable because...
We're both 19.
We talked about marriage and children since we met five years ago, and we even talked about wedding dresses and everything that girls talk about marriage in the future.
But my question is, how can I help my best friend find a guy who will commit to her and a child?
And if she goes the other route, how can I be a supportive friend for her and this baby, regardless of the circumstances of their conception?
Thank you for advice and love the show.
Wow, that was a real shock right there in the middle of that question.
I was kind of going along with the question.
I understand it.
I think a lot of people are dealing with some of these issues.
Then you said the girl's 19?
If I'm not pregnant by next summer, I'm going to artificially inseminate myself and intentionally deprive my child of his or her father?
19?
It's not like your biological clock is running out at that point.
Okay, well that makes it an extremely clear-cut case.
Tell your friend to stop being so damn selfish and recognize that a baby is not all about her.
She's obviously not ready to be a mother because she still is only viewing the world entirely through her own desires and the satisfaction of her own caprices and appetites.
What is good for the baby is the question.
There's no question.
It is much better for a baby to be raised in a stable home with a mother and a father who are married to each other.
There's no question about that.
It's not that you can't have a good life being raised by a single mother or being raised in some kind of difficult circumstance or anything.
Of course you can.
And people can do that wonderfully.
But it's not ideal.
If you had your choice, it's not that the husband leaves, it's not that a spouse dies, it's not that there's some difficult circumstances.
If you're planning it out, no, it's extremely selfish to choose to bring a baby into the world.
Intentionally to deprive that baby of his natural father and his natural mother joined together in matrimony.
To intentionally deprive that child of any kind of fatherly influence in his life.
That's just a terrible thing to do.
So tell your friend to stop being so damned selfish.
Right now she's thinking of it as...
A wonderful gift that she can give the gift of life and then she's trying to position herself in her own mind as the sort of hero, this wonderful giving person.
I think you need to make it clear to your friend she is being extremely selfish, as is often the case.
It's not that your friend has a tiny heart.
It's that her heart is not in the right place.
This is a line that Chesterton used about his friend George Bernard Shaw.
He said, Bernard Shaw has a great, great heart.
This socialist playwright, Bernard Shaw.
But the conservative Christian Chesterton said, the problem is his heart's not in the right place.
Tell your friend to get her heart in the right place.
Meet a man the normal way.
Get married.
Get settled.
Have children the right way.
Next question.
Hi Michael, love your show.
This week my company came out with a company diversity, equity, and inclusion style guide, just so we don't make any missteps.
And I noticed while going through it that we're instructed not to capitalize WHITE. Because that goes back to white supremacy.
But we are supposed to capitalize black in all instances.
So I'm wondering how that's not racist and what your thoughts are on that.
Thanks.
Well, it obviously is racist.
I don't know that the word racist means anything anymore.
I try to use even more specific language.
The policy is designed to punish white people and to give an advantage to black people.
To say that white people are worse than black people, which is why we're going to lowercase this letter.
That's just what the symbolism suggests.
You're lowercasing the word white because white people are lesser than black people who deserve more and that is represented in the capital letter B. So I would not do that.
I would not follow that policy.
I'm not saying you have to quit your job.
I'm not saying you even need to make a big hullabaloo at the diversity equity training or anything, but I would not go along with that policy.
And if one of your superiors has a problem with that, I think you can very calmly explain and say, you know, I just find this very racist, and so I'm not going to go along with that.
And if they insist upon it, then you might want to consider other employment because...
Especially when we're talking about language, this is not just your manager telling you, hey, go over there and do that grunt work that you don't want to do.
Maybe you don't really want to go do it, but hey, that's your job.
You're getting a paycheck and you're going to go do it.
When we're talking about language, this is your manager saying, hey, discard your beliefs.
Hey, say something that you know isn't true.
Or say something that you think is evil.
Or say something that you think is not conducive to human flourishing.
That's far more insidious.
I would not be able to do that.
Next question.
Alright, Michael, I've got one for you.
I'm an anesthesia provider in a blue state that does gender affirmation surgeries.
Yes, my institution cuts perfectly functioning body parts off people with underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes and mental illnesses.
My question is, how do I conduct myself in an atmosphere I do not want to be in?
I love what I do.
This is only a sliver of...
What I do as an anesthesia provider, but I have a very difficult time in the operating room surrounded by people who were given the title of doctor, although they fail on maintaining objective reality and truth and doing this, and they consistently call girls boys and boys girls.
Give me some advice.
Anything will help.
Thanks.
Really tough problem.
I don't think you necessarily need to quit your job, but I would not be able to participate in those kinds of surgeries.
So you say it doesn't happen frequently maybe, but when little kids come in and their psycho parents and these sick doctors decide to put them under and then chop off their body parts, you might be called in to provide the anesthesia.
I think it would probably disturb your sleep at night.
I think your conscience will probably bother you because of that.
I would not participate.
There are different degrees to which people participate in evil.
There are really indirect ways.
A really indirect way that one could participate in evil is by going over and eating a Girl Scout cookie at a friend's house.
And the Girl Scout cookie funds the Girl Scouts Organization of America.
And some chapters of a Girl Scouts organization used to partner with Planned Parenthood.
And so as a result, you're basically performing an abortion when you eat your friend's cookie.
Well, there is a remote participation with evil there, perhaps.
But it's not a very direct one.
At a certain point, you can't really operate in the world.
Depending on how removed you become from this, the very fact that you and I pay taxes means that we are funding Planned Parenthood, just to stick on that same example.
So there are...
There is nuance when we're talking about a very, very remote participation with evil.
You're not morally required to participate with evil in any way.
Certainly not.
But it's a different situation than when we're talking about a direct participation with an evil act.
So I would say no to that.
And I like to think that your superiors would accommodate that.
I know some people who work in the medical field who say they're not going to do that kind of thing, specifically on transgender surgeries.
And the people that I know who have voiced those concerns have been accommodated.
Your mileage may vary, and you might need to go to a different healthcare center.
But that's the way I would parse the issue.
All right, one more question from Rosalie.
Michael, I need your advice.
I've always had the problem of wanting everyone to like me, which I know is impossible, especially as a right-wing conservative.
I've heard people say, just get over it.
But I need more advice than that.
How do you handle the liberal attacks and do you have any suggestions on how I can speak up for what I believe is right without getting emotional and letting the libs get under my skin?
Yes.
I like it when people like me.
I don't need people to like me.
Obviously, I would have chosen a different profession had I really needed people to like me.
But I like it.
I don't get a thrill when everybody hates me.
I know that some people feel that way and they want to always be the object of scorn in any room.
But I like it when everybody can get along.
So then, if you're inclined that way, as it seems that you are, how do you Deal with it when you are maybe an otherwise perfectly lovely, charitable, nice, kind person whom everyone should love, but because of your politics, at least half the country hates you, and because of the liberal skew of the culture, the number is probably even higher.
This is where Christianity is very helpful for two reasons.
One, look at what they did to Jesus.
When you say things that are true, well, in the case of Jesus, when you are the truth, then they really come at you.
And even when you say things that are true, when you take the side of truth, that's generally unpopular.
That's been true since the very beginning of the world.
Almost the very, very beginning of the world.
Certainly since sin and death pervades the world.
So you can take some solace and comfort in that.
And then there is the traditional Christian, and certainly now this would be considered a Catholic point of view, that suffering is sanctifying.
That suffering is not just a bad thing that people endure and it's really annoying and it's sad and it's just generally depressing.
No, suffering can be a good thing.
When we suffer, we can kiss it up to God.
That's another old way of talking about it.
Actually, the greatest saints in history have suffered a great deal.
Our Lord suffered as much as could be suffered on the cross.
And so, when that happens, we are, in a way, connecting ourselves to Christ.
St.
Paul writes about this.
He says, I rejoice in my sufferings.
I am making up in my flesh that which is lacking in the cross of Christ, which is a really pregnant line of the scriptures.
But this is that connection there, that we are in some way doing some good when we endure suffering with patience and with grace.
Suffering is not a moral category.
It's not that it's just really, really bad.
It's not even that it's just really, really good.
Suffering is just a fact of the world.
The only question that you have is, how will you react to suffering?
Will you react to suffering in a whiny, petulant, self-absorbed way?
Or will you react to suffering in a way that is sanctifying and edifying and lifts your eyes up to heaven?
Hopefully the latter, my friend.
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.
