Ep. 1094 - The Democrat Fantasy World Is A Nightmare
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Stacey Abrams denies the heartbeats of preborn babies, Forbes invites a confused man to its Women’s Summit, and Christianity might soon become a majority religion in America.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join the Jeremy’s Razors Contest For The Car at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/play. See terms and conditions for complete details at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/referralterms
Become a DailyWire+ member today to watch Ben Shapiro’s Book Club, BreakAways with Allison Williams, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Stop funding woke corporate agendas. Switch to PureTalk instead. Save 50% OFF your 1st month when you enter promo code KNOWLESPODCAST at puretalk.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The bad news is that the Democrat governor of New Jersey believes there is a 50-50 chance of recession.
We need this budget surplus right now to survive some difficult days ahead.
Yeah, I think we do, is the short answer.
And you're right.
The budget I signed a couple of months ago had a surplus of $6.8 billion.
I think the budget the year before we got here was $440 million.
And by the way, on top of the $6.8 billion, we've got another over $5 billion in either a debt avoidance or a debt defeasance fund.
And I thought the prior conversation that Joe had on the prospects of a recession at about 50-50, that seems right to me.
So we don't want to get caught out.
New Jersey's been caught out before, and we are determined not to get caught out again.
Our job is to make sure we deliver affordability, that we've got enough in the bank for a rainy day, and that we outperform other like states.
And those are our obsessions right now.
Murphy thinks there's a 50-50 chance of recession.
That's the bad news.
The worst news is that there's actually a 100% chance of recession because we have officially been in a recession since July 28th.
Because a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
And we're there and we've been there for a while.
That's the bad news and the worst news, both of which add up together to the worst news of all.
The Democrats are now out of options.
They have no other way to make themselves at all palatable to the American people other than to lie.
And you can expect those lies to become more extreme by the day as we approach the midterm elections.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Heather Thompson, who says, Gotta love when Catholic colleges won't even let one of their own speak.
Don't worry, Michael.
We Lutherans always love to have you.
Have a great time speaking at WLC.
Yes, I am in Wisconsin right now.
I was at Wisconsin Lutheran College.
It was a great time last night.
You can catch my speech over at the YAF YouTube channel.
It was a great deal of fun.
You know, I really love coming out here to Wisconsin.
I love flying all over the country and talking to people.
When you want to talk to people without flying all over the country, you've got to check out Pure Talk.
Right now, head on over to puretalk.com, enter code Knowles.
Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, these guys take way too much of your money every month for way more data than you'll ever need, which is really concerning, especially given the current state of our economy.
No matter what the left tells you, we are in a recession, and it's time to hunker down and start saving money wherever we can.
One of the ways you can do that is by looking at your current cell phone bill.
Are you paying for way more data than you need?
If so, then you should talk to my friends over at Pure Talk.
PureTalk gives you myriad choices so that you can choose the data plan that is right for you, whether that's two gigs per month or an unlimited plan with a mobile hotspot.
By switching to PureTalk, the average family of four is saving over $75 every month.
Customers are realizing they simply don't need as much data as they thought.
Plus, PureTalk makes it easy to find the right plan for you and your family.
They're a veteran-owned company with a customer service team based right here in the U.S.
They make the switch super easy.
That's always one of the holdups is you think it's going to be impossible to switch.
It won't take you more than 10 minutes.
It's well worth it for those savings.
Join the hundreds of thousands who are making the switch to PureTalk today.
Plus, this month, when you switch to PureTalk, you get one month for free.
I love PureTalk.
These guys have been terrific for years.
They've been on this show for a really long time.
They've never made an offer this big.
Go to puretalk.com, choose your plan, enter code Knowles for this special offer.
puretalk.com, enter code Knowles to get your one month free.
The lies are becoming more egregious.
Yes, politicians lie.
Yes, the Democrats lie in particular.
But the lies are becoming more egregious because if the Democrats had anything whatsoever to hang their hats on for the midterm elections, they would be focusing on that.
But they don't have it.
They don't have it on the economy.
They don't have it on foreign policy.
They don't have it on immigration.
They don't even have it on public health, which was the most favorable issue for them previously.
So now they are just lying about everything.
You want to see an example of how they lie.
This clip is going viral, and I think actually most conservatives who are reacting to it are missing the point of the clip.
It's Stacey Abrams denying that when a fetus, quote-unquote, when a little baby in the womb gets a heartbeat, that that is actually a heartbeat.
There is no such thing as a heartbeat in six weeks.
It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body and waste it.
When you go into the doctor's office and you hear that little baby's heartbeat, that's not really a heartbeat.
That's manufactured.
That's what Stacey Abrams is saying.
And the conservatives who are watching this are saying, lady, you're completely nuts.
You're totally making that up.
That's ridiculous.
Actually, though, it's more insidious than that.
Because the way Stacey Abrams is lying here is the way that Democrats lie most effectively, which is that there is a little tiny kernel of an almost little grain of truth there around which Stacey Abrams can build a much more powerful lie.
And the little tiny, little bitty itty grain of truth is this.
When you go into the doctor's office and you hear that fetal heartbeat at six weeks, the sound you are hearing is in fact sort of manufactured.
The heartbeat is not manufactured, but the sound that you are hearing sort of is.
Because at that time, the heartbeat that your baby has is not actually audible.
The heartbeat that your baby has is observed by observing electrical pulses from the heart.
But she's got a point.
The heart that your baby has at that time is not exactly the same as the heart that you have right now, or the heart that you will have in 50 years, or the heart that you had when you were 5 years old.
It's true.
Your heart is developing.
And your heart, your whole body is developing from the moment of conception and your heart is developing from those very, very early weeks onward throughout pregnancy and then throughout the rest of your life.
So what is happening is the sonogram technology is interpreting the electrical pulses in the early stages of that heart development and making it sound like a heartbeat.
But where Stacey Abrams is wrong is that's not being made up out of whole cloth.
That's not being just totally fabricated.
The machine is just interpreting those electrical pulses, which are the basis of the heartbeat.
Those little electrical pulses that the machine is interpreting as...
That is what your heartbeat is and will be for the rest of your life.
A way to think of it is...
When sweet little baby June comes up to me...
My little 20-month-old kid...
And he comes up to me, and he wants to watch TV. Sometimes we'll let him watch a little bit of TV. He really likes this one random YouTube channel, which is just a series of clocks.
It's called Clock TV. I don't know.
The kid is just obsessed with clocks.
And so he'll come up to me, and he'll say, Daddy, da-da!
I would like to watch Clock TV now.
I want to watch that young man's clock collection.
So could you please go to the Apple TV and then turn on YouTube and then search for Clock TV and then click on that particular video and then we can watch that together.
Dada, please.
No, wait a second.
That's not what he says.
What he actually says is, T... That when my little kid wants to watch that specific thing, because that's really all he ever wants to watch, he just comes up and he goes, T? He doesn't even say TV. He can't quite say that yet.
So he says T, and then I interpret that to mean, Daddy, I want to watch TV and on YouTube, and I want to watch specifically this channel on YouTube and specifically this video.
And my interpretation of that is correct, but he is not saying all of that yet because he's a little itty-bitty baby.
The signal that's coming out requires some interpretation, but that interpretation is correct in what that thing is signifying.
It's the same thing with your baby's little heartbeat.
But Stacey Abrams doesn't want to admit that.
She doesn't want to admit that babies have little heartbeats because she wants to justify killing them to the tune of 850,000 per year.
You're seeing this kind of lying with the way that the libs are talking, obviously, about transgenderism.
Did you see...
Oh my gosh, did you see?
The Forbes Women's Summit.
You could not make this up.
The Babylon Bee could not do a satirical article about this.
Forbes held a Women's Summit.
And the Women's Summit invited women's rights advocates.
And online influencers and all sorts of, you know, all sorts of big women.
And one of the women that the Forbes Women's Summit invited is a guy named Dylan Mulvaney, who is a guy who thinks that he's a woman and he's come to some prominence on TikTok for his Days of Girlhood series.
This is the guy that they invited to personify, to exemplify the very best of women.
Day 66.
Being a girl and today I'm in nature.
Trees?
I love them.
Water?
Lakes?
I love them.
Heels?
They're my hiking heels.
I love them Bridges Love them.
Coconut water?
Love it.
Not nad.
Just love it.
Wind turbine?
Love it.
Meadows?
Love them.
I'm scared of getting Lyme disease.
Please.
Love ya!
Did you see that?
I gotta get out of here!
Did you see that?
There's a dragon.
Oh my god!
Never again!
Get me out of here!
Love ya!
That's just what women are like, right?
This man, prancing around in booty shorts with a little bra on, playing up this extremely foppish face, sort of fear of a little bug, and flitting about and throwing himself on the ground.
That's just what women are like, right?
Isn't that what women are like?
No, not at all.
That's not at all what women are like.
That's what men with a bizarre sexual fetish are like.
He's explaining what it's like to be...
He's explaining the absolute horror that some people would believe that he's actually a man.
Day 62 of being a girl.
And I have been misgendered so many times this week.
And most commonly, it's a follower running up to me on the street and being like, you're the boy from TikTok.
It's the boy from TikTok.
And I'm like, no, it's the girl from TikTok.
And they always feel so bad after I correct them.
And that's so not my intention.
It doesn't hurt my feelings all that much.
But I wear all this makeup and sometimes fake boobs and the hair.
And it still doesn't register with people at times.
And I was just wondering if there's anything I can do on my end for you all to see me more as a girl.
I know it's not my job.
I was just curious.
No, there's absolutely nothing you can do.
Could you believe it?
Could you believe that some people would think that guy is a man?
That guy, he says, look, I dress up like a Betty Boop caricature of what some man might think a woman at her most absolutely absurd caricature could be.
And some people still think that I'm a man.
Could you imagine that?
Could you possibly...
Imagine that.
And I know it's not my job to show people that I'm really a woman, but of course, he's not really a woman, and the things he's doing are extremely absurd and disordered and ridiculous, and we wouldn't tolerate it from any other person.
It reminds me of Family Guy, that voice crying out in the wilderness, Family Guy, which explains this phenomenon.
Excuse me, ma'am.
No porn at the bar.
Oh, it's okay.
I'm transgender.
Oh, I had no idea.
Do whatever you want all the time.
No, no, no.
Sir, you don't understand.
I'm allowed to do absolutely anything whatsoever because I'm saying I'm transgender.
And what does society say?
Oh, yes.
Yes, of course.
This guy who shows up to the Forbes Women's Summit dressed up like some ridiculous caricature of a woman and flitting about and mocking women and making a whole mockery of the concept of womanhood.
How do we deal with this?
The way that conservatives are dealing with this now is we're saying, you're not really a woman.
Boom, owned with facts and logic.
You have a strong jawline, sir, and you don't have the body parts of a woman.
And you're not, boom, owned, science.
But that's not enough.
Do you know what that guy's going to say?
He's going to say, F your science.
Who cares?
I don't care about your stupid science.
Take your science and shove it.
I'm going to dress up like a lady because I say I'm a lady and you can't stop me.
Who's going to stop me?
And this is where we get to what the real conservative response has to be.
Who cares?
Who cares if I'm dressing up like a woman?
Me.
I care.
Who's going to stop me from dressing up like a woman and behaving this way?
I guess I can't speak for you all.
I'll just speak for myself.
Me.
I would very happily stop you from doing that.
I think that you, sir...
And all men out there have an obligation not to behave that way.
You have an obligation not to go outside in little booty shorts and a bra and a big silly wig and lipstick and pretend to be a woman.
I care.
I don't want you to do that.
I am willing to wield the force of culture and standards and norms and the state to stop you from doing that.
That's the conservative response.
That's the only way you're going to stop it.
You're not going to stop it by winning some debate on YouTube or TikTok.
You're not going to stop it by showing someone some statistics and citing some stupid data set about chromosomes.
You're going to win it by pointing out that whatever bizarre perversions are going on in this dude's head, he has a duty and an obligation not to express them, certainly not to express them in public.
And then the only other way you're going to win it is by wielding political power to say, no, you don't get to do it.
When you go out in public like this, You have to be brought to psychological counseling.
If you continue to behave like this, you're going to be committed to an institution.
This kind of behavior is obscene.
I'm thinking of that shop teacher who showed up to class in Canada with the gigantic triple Z prosthetic breasts and the wig on, looking like a complete maniac.
The only way you're going to stop it is if you have the courage to wield political power to say, no, you don't get to behave like a crazy person.
Why do I care?
You know why I care?
Because I live in society.
And I don't want my kids to grow up in this kind of degenerate society.
And I don't want to live in this kind of bizarro world, absurd society.
I want to live in a nice, good place with good, true, and beautiful things around me and people acting as they should and being polite and being normal.
Be normal!
Come on, folks.
Good grief.
Is it so much to ask that we live in a society that is normal?
Because this is becoming normal.
And I don't want to live in that normal.
I don't want to live in the new normal, okay?
I want to live in a good, traditional society.
Is that so much to ask?
I don't think it is.
So how do you get to that society?
What's the basis of that society?
The answer is Christianity.
This was the topic of my speech last night.
The speech was on our far-right, semi-fascist, radical, extreme founding fathers in the way that our country existed until about five minutes ago.
But the basis of that society is Christianity, if you want to have the good, normal society.
And that society is slipping away.
There's a terrifying report out.
It's in all the newspapers.
Here it is in the Wall Street Journal.
Christian majority in the U.S. could shrink to minority by 2070.
This is based on a new survey from Pew Research Center.
Shows that nearly a third of people raised in the Christian faith currently leave the religion before turning 30.
And an additional 7% do so after that age.
If those rates continue, Pew projects that 46% of Americans would identify as Christian by 2070.
Those with no religious affiliation would stand at about 41%.
Christianity would no longer be the majority religion in the U.S. Now, some of us fell away from Christianity long before 30 and then came back.
There is a phenomenon of people reverting to the church.
And it is this really weird trend that's going on right now.
And if you're on the political right, you may have noticed it.
At the same time that the whole culture is becoming atheist, irreligious, spiritual but not religious, man, you know, that stuff.
At the same time that that's happening, you are seeing a major uptick, especially among American political conservatives, in not just Christianity broadly, but in Catholicism.
And not just Catholicism broadly, but in traditional Catholicism.
You know, the smells and the bells and the Latin mass.
Shia LaBeouf saying that he is now converting to Catholicism because of the Latin mass.
And he said he's doing that because he felt like at the Latin mass they weren't trying to sell him a car.
There's a lot of wisdom in that quote from Shia LaBeouf.
Why is this happening?
The reason this is happening actually was predicted by Alexei de Tocqueville specifically.
So Alexei de Tocqueville, probably the greatest observer of American government.
Democracy in America is his famous book written in the early 19th century.
And Alexei de Tocqueville predicts in a very not frequently cited passage from that book that in America, Christianity is extremely important to the American character.
But over time, Americans will either become Catholics or atheists.
That's his prediction.
And it seems like a crazy prediction because you say America's a Protestant country.
Catholicism is a kind of minority religion in America.
That's crazy.
How could that happen?
Well, Tocqueville doesn't totally explain his reasoning here.
But I think the reason is...
So Americans are going to look for authority.
They're going to look for what the Catholics call the magisterium.
They're going to look for the eternal truths that have endured from 33 AD all the way up to the present.
Or, they're going to spin off in their own irreligion because there is no authority that they can cling to.
Even if they have a denomination that they really like, some version of Protestantism, they're not going to be able to ground that in the kind of historical continuity and authority that is required for a religious group to persist in the long run.
I'm not just saying this as a Catholic because I'm cheering on that people are coming back to the Catholic Church.
I'm just observing this as a trend.
It's the very same trend that Tocqueville was observing and predicting, actually, in the 19th century.
But don't forget, he gives two choices.
He says they're either going to become Catholic or atheist.
Well, unfortunately, at the moment, it seems like the atheists are winning.
It seems like they're going to The giving up.
And actually, Tocqueville doesn't say they're going to become atheists.
He says they're going to leave Christianity.
And that's especially what you're seeing now.
It's not even that people are exactly becoming atheists.
They're just becoming weirdos.
They're becoming crystals people.
They're doing all sorts of weird, new-agey, occult, demonic, satanic kind of practices.
Like the Biden administration appointees, they're wearing pentagrams and leather harnesses and changing their sex or attempting to and dressing up in all sorts of weird, bizarre, occult ways.
Well, I'm just pointing out, if you want that good, traditional American society where people are flourishing and having a good time and not everyone is being made miserable and not all the social science surveys are showing people getting less and less happy over time...
You're going to have to establish your society on the basis of something other than what we currently have.
Currently, since the middle of the 20th century, the basis of society, the sort of animating principle, the soul of America, as Joe Biden calls it, has been liberalism, public liberalism, such that you can believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.
You have the freedom to worship, not the freedom to religion, the freedom to worship.
But in public, you've got to just be totally secular and liberal.
That's not the traditional American political order.
The traditional American political order is really Christian nationalism, is the idea that America is a nation.
It's not an empire.
It's not a city state.
It's a nation with borders.
That's a specific form of physical order for the country.
And then at the metaphysical level, at the soul level, it's animated by Christianity, not Zoroastrianism, not Shintoism, not Confucianism, not communism, not It's animated by Christianity.
That's the kind of spirit of America.
That's how America was made great before until very, very recently.
Certainly until the middle of the 20th century.
Since then we've tried something else.
Something else hasn't worked.
So I think anybody who wants to restore any kind of good sort of America...
Anything resembling a normal, flourishing country.
The idea here is that America, as America was being made great, as people of all backgrounds and all religions and whatever were coming to America, the basis of America was public Christianity.
If you want to make America great again, you've got to get back to that before it's too late.
Speaking of authority...
Donald Trump is punching back on all of the FBI, DOJ probes and raids into his classified documents, they argue, which presented a threat to the security of the United States.
And they probably had the nuclear codes and Trump almost killed us all because of his closet at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump is arguing that not only did he not have the classified material, Not only did he not mishandle classified material, Trump is arguing that he could declassify material simply by thinking about it.
Is there a process?
What was your process to declassify?
There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it.
You know, there's different people say different things, but as I understand, there doesn't have to be.
If you're the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it, because you're sending it We're good to go.
Now, I declassified things and we were having a lot of problems with NARA. You know, NARA is a radical left group of people running that thing.
And when you send documents over there, I would say there's a very good chance that a lot of those documents will never be seen again.
There's also a lot of speculation because of what they did, the severity of the FBI coming and raiding Mar-a-Lago.
Were they looking for the Hillary Clinton emails that were deleted, but they are around someplace?
So Trump is making a good observation.
He's saying they obviously didn't go after Hillary this way.
And Hillary had, not only did she have more urgent documents that were contemporary documents, they were documents while she was Secretary of State, not documents from the past when she was in office, as was the case with Trump.
But furthermore, he's saying, Hillary did not have this ultimate right to declassify stuff.
And I, as president, did.
And I didn't have to follow a procedure.
And I could declassify it with a magic wand.
I could declassify it by saying these are declassified.
I could declassify documents simply by thinking these documents are declassified.
And so what people are going to hear is, ah, there's Trump's hyperbole again.
There's Mr.
Trump, Mr.
Exaggerator.
He's right.
He's right.
He has this caveat here.
He says, look, different people have different opinions.
And that's true.
The reason it's still something of an open debate is because this has never been brought up before.
No DOJ has ever had the audacity to go after a former president for mishandling classified documents.
Plenty of presidents have taken documents from the White House.
Most, if not all of the modern presidents have done that.
DOJ has never gone after them.
And in part, this might be because of the strange historical circumstance that Trump is not just the former president.
He's the current top political rival to the incumbent president who has all but said that he's running for president in 2024.
So yes, it's a sort of open question.
But the answer to that question, it's again, it's that the liberals taking this tiny little grain of almost tiny little bit of truth and then constructing a big lie around it.
The answer to that question, obviously, is that Trump is right.
Of course the president can declassify whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants to do it.
Otherwise, you have a kind of inversion of the constitutional order.
Otherwise, the president is then required to get the permission of some random bureaucrat at the DOJ. And that is not how our system works.
It's certainly not how our system is supposed to work.
The president is not supposed to be responsible and accountable to some middling careerist employee at one of his own agencies in the executive branch.
That's insane.
Of course the president has to have ultimate declassification authority.
This is just a political hit job on Trump.
It's not the only one.
We mentioned earlier this week that Letitia James, the Democrat AG in New York, who ran for office on a campaign of taking down Donald Trump.
Letitia James is now bringing suit against Trump for some fraud in his businesses.
And she's saying that Donald Trump exaggerated his wealth.
Breaking news.
Stop the presses.
Donald Trump may have at some point or another exaggerated a little bit, particularly about his health.
Wow, no one ever saw that one coming.
Of course they did.
That's part of the guy's whole brand.
And even Bill Barr, Trump's former attorney general, who now they seem to have a pretty frosty relationship, Barr has been very critical of Trump at times.
Bill Barr has even raised the prospect that Trump may have broken some law with the classified documents.
Even Bill Barr is coming out and saying, this probe in New York, this is a total political hit job.
What ultimately persuades me that this is a political hit job is she grossly overreaches when she tries to drag the children into this.
Yes, they had roles in the business, but this was his personal financial statement.
It was prepared by the CFO. The accounting firms were involved in it.
The children aren't going to know the details of that, nor are they expected in the real world to do their own due diligence and have it reviewed independently.
And so this, to me, looks like gross overreach, which I think is going to end up backfiring on them, because I think it will make people sympathetic for Trump, that this is another example of people piling on because of Trump derangement syndrome, this strong desire to...
So Bill Barr, who everyone knows doesn't exactly love Donald Trump, he's saying, this is so ridiculous.
And of course, I've been saying this for many months now.
It is a prosecution in search of a crime in so many levels.
Going after Trump at the federal level because of the election claims.
Going after Trump at the state level because of the election claims.
The New York Attorney General looking into the Trump Organization and Trump's business dealings.
The FBI raiding Mar-a-Lago over the classified documents.
It's all just BS. It's a political hit job to attack Donald Trump.
Because the libs think that he is the top prospect in 2024.
But there is actually some question about that now.
There is a crazy new number out of Florida.
A new poll finds that since January, Republicans in Florida have significantly changed their presidential preference.
And Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, was trailing Trump in Florida pretty significantly.
Now he's flipped that.
Now DeSantis is leading Trump in Florida for president in 2024 by the same margin that Trump had been leading DeSantis at the beginning of the year.
This according to a USA Today Suffolk University poll.
On top of that, DeSantis has raised $177.4 million.
That's more than any other governor in history.
And he's giving a lot of it away.
He's currying favor with lots of other Republican candidates to help them win around the country.
Again, I still think today if the primary were held today, Trump would most likely blow it out of the water.
That's still where most of the numbers are.
But the question has been recently, can there be movement?
DeSantis, you know, he's running, he's in the national media all the time.
Does he have the oomph to overtake Donald Trump?
This is the very first time And granted, it's in DeSantis' state, but this is the very first time that you're seeing this kind of movement where people might be scratching their heads and saying, wow, even if Donald Trump runs, could someone like a Ron DeSantis make a credible play for president and beat him?
There are a lot of people who are signaling, hey, maybe I'll run.
I'm going to run even if Trump runs.
Pompeo, Nikki Haley is doing that.
Ron DeSantis has been a little more subtly suggesting that and going around and raising money.
Other candidates, too.
And it's probably BS. Probably people are not going to run if Trump runs.
But if you're getting numbers like this, and if DeSantis sees this kind of movement in a few other states, you might get an actual primary in 2024.
Now, we've got a brand new show coming out tonight on Daily Wire Plus.
It's called Breakaways with Alison Williams.
If you have not heard, Alison was a successful ESPN sideline reporter.
When ESPN insisted everyone get the Fauci ouchie, she refused.
Why?
Because she was trying to get pregnant and was worried about potential side effects of the vaccine.
Rather than take the risk, she quit.
On Breakaways, Allison sits down with athletes who took a stand for their beliefs.
The first four episodes feature Jonathan Isaac, Nick Rolovich, Inez Cantor-Freedom, and Dana White.
Those episodes will be available tonight at 7 p.m.
Eastern, and the remaining four are coming soon.
Head on over to dailywireplus.com right now to become a member and watch the series tonight.
Now, finally, we have arrived at my absolute favorite time of the week.
When I get to hear from you in the mailbag, the mailbag is sponsored by PureTalk.
Go to puretalk.com, select a plan, enter promo code Knowles to get one month free.
Without further ado, let's hear from the Voice mailbag.
Hi, Mr.
Knowles.
I live in metro Atlanta with my family.
Recently, Marjorie Taylor Greene has gotten a lot of press here for her stance on abortion and some other local topics.
No one represents my district.
I have moved.
We live in a bluer town now, and my husband and I have been discussing how best to campaign for our representatives.
We feel like having signs in our yard would put a target on our property.
We have the means and will to protect ourselves if it came to it, but we obviously don't want undue conflict.
What can we and other conservatives do in a situation like this to stand up for our beliefs, but not become a target in blue areas?
I want to raise my four-month-old to stand up for what he believes in, but I also don't want to put him in undue danger.
Thanks.
You've got to take stock of the actual danger that you are in.
Okay?
So you've got to use your prudence here a little bit.
If you are in a basically nice community that is basically normal, but you're just afraid because at the national level the libs are getting very aggressive and violent, then I think you can feel fine putting the sign up there.
Then I think it's probably worth the risk.
If you're living in a community where people very likely are going to attack you for this, Then I don't think you're under any obligation to put the sign up.
We're called to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, not the other way around.
So I think there are certainly other ways to support candidates.
The easiest way is with money.
Well, it's not the easiest way for everybody, but it's the most direct way.
Campaigns need money in order to win.
So if you're in a position to donate money, you can do that.
You can donate your time.
Campaigns rely on free work from volunteers.
I've been on plenty of campaigns with plenty of volunteers, and that kind of work is invaluable when you get someone really committed to the cause.
Making phone calls and knocking on doors, that can be a great thing that you can do.
Organizing through civic associations, that can be really, really important.
So even if you don't want to go out door to door and open yourself up, if you're just...
Or cold calling random people.
If you just want to organize your friends, right?
And maybe you can have a little hodgepodge of these things.
Host a fundraiser.
So you invite your wealthier friends over.
Give a little bit of money to a campaign.
That's one thing you can do as well.
You can get involved in some issues.
So you get involved at the school board level, right?
You get involved at the county level or the township level.
And you're working on specific issues of taxation, of local ordinances.
That's a way then you're not necessarily supporting a candidate.
Very often at the local level, candidates are nonpartisan anyway.
There are ways to do it.
The political involvement, this is something the left is really good at, it happens everywhere.
It's from the very smallest kind of school board race to the smallest little referendum on a budget all the way up to President of the United States.
So you can get involved that way.
And you should err on the side, I think, of courage.
But this is why prudence is a virtue, too.
You are not under an obligation to put yourself into danger.
We know that things are a little different now than they were 20 years ago.
The libs are openly calling for violence against conservatives, not just crazy libs.
Well, they are all crazy, but not just random fringe libs.
We're talking about Democrat elected officials.
We're talking about the vice president of the United States bailing out rioters who attack people in the streets and commit crimes.
We're We're talking about staff members for Joe Biden doing the same thing.
We're talking about Hillary saying, don't be civil with Republicans.
We're talking about Maxine Waters saying, go attack Republicans.
Go find them where they are, where their children sleep.
So that's a situation that means you are not required to put your family in danger.
You've just got to use prudence.
Next question.
Hi, Michael.
This is Brian from Ireland, listening to you in the Czech Republic.
I'm a new subscriber.
I love your show.
I was pleased to hear you mention the European energy crisis yesterday.
This is getting pretty bad, I have to say, over here.
And various governments are now introducing price caps, which we know is...
Not really going to do anything because it's like stepping on the end of a hose.
The water is just going to get out somewhere else.
And industry is really worried about these prices at the moment that they're just so high that the likes of steel manufacturers and all kinds of heavy industry are just basically shutting down or are at least going to.
So my question really is, from your slightly more detached position in America, how do you see this going for Europe over the winter?
Pleased to get your thoughts on this.
Okay, thanks.
Bye bye.
Terribly.
I'm sorry to tell you, I see this going terribly for Europe.
This is because, obviously, Putin has invaded Ukraine.
That's the direct cause of it.
But this is also caused by really stupid Western policies with regard to Russia and Ukraine and with regard to energy for a long time.
The thing that no one wants to say, that we're not really supposed to say, but is nevertheless true, and very serious American statesmen and foreign policy watchers from George Kennan to Henry Kissinger to all sorts of people saw this coming, to Michael Knowles saw this sort of thing coming.
The West has been provoking Russia steadily since the end of the Cold War.
The West has been expanding NATO in some cases in a way that's totally normal and understandable, in some cases in a way that is provocative and reckless and totally unnecessary since the end of the Cold War.
And the Western involvement in and after the 2014 coup in Ukraine is problematic.
And in Putin's words in his speech that launched the war...
Putin said that this is an unacceptable security threat that you've got NATO on the border of Russia.
Now, NATO comes in and says, no, no, no, we're just a defensive alliance.
You have nothing to worry about from us, Russia.
Oh, yeah?
Tell that to Libya.
Oh, yeah?
Tell that to Iraq.
Oh, yeah?
Please tell me that NATO is a defensive alliance to all the countries that NATO has invaded.
Again, I'm not saying that NATO was necessarily wrong to invade those countries.
In the cases that I cited, you know, especially Libya, I don't think that was a good idea.
I'm just observing a fact NATO has been proactive as well, not just defensive.
And so when Putin says it's an unacceptable security risk to have NATO on the border of Russia, specifically in Ukraine, which is such an important territory from the national standpoint of Russia...
Then you've got a provocation that at least makes you understand why Putin considers this such a big risk.
Furthermore, the Europeans, and the Americans, but especially the Europeans, allowed themselves to get totally played by Russia in particular when they dismantled their energy industry.
When Russia, very likely funding environmentalist groups, went in and said, hey Europe, you've got to get rid of your gas production.
Hey Europe, you've got to get rid of your oil production.
Hey West, more broadly, in the name of stopping the sun monster, you've got to get rid of the way that you can sustain your entire civilization.
You're going to get rid of your most important energy sectors.
What's the effect of that?
In Europe, what that means is that Europe is just now reliant on Russian gas and oil.
Donald Trump predicted this.
He said this is a terrible idea.
In fact, the immediate cause of the war in Ukraine was the very fact that Joe Biden took sanctions off of Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
And then when Russia was able to, or believed it was going to be able to send oil and gas directly to Europe, they invade Ukraine.
Again, this is not just my own rantings.
This is what the president of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, said.
He said, you guys are causing this by lifting these sanctions.
And what happened exactly what we all predicted.
So...
That's the 30,000 foot view of all the stupid decisions that the West has made to put themselves in this vulnerable position.
What would I do now?
Now, the first thing that I would do right now, if I were in making the decisions in Brussels for Europe or in the United States, is I would ramp up.
And I would have done this six months or a year ago, but I would ramp up as quickly as possible.
Domestic energy production, oil, gas, dirty, rotten, filthy coal, just anything you can to get energy.
It's going to be a very, very cold winter.
And I don't think that we should be sacrificing our poor people and our elderly people and our vulnerable people to Mother Gaia, you know, in the name of stopping global warming.
I think we need to heat our homes and I think we need to fuel our civilization, especially now if we're getting into an ever escalating war with a nuclear former superpower, okay?
Do it.
Drill, baby, drill.
Get that.
And if not, I hold the European leaders responsible.
Next question.
Hi, Michael.
I would like to get your take on a personal issue.
I am seeking your perspective about a couple with differences of opinion with some pretty important topics.
I will give you an example of one.
I am very conservative.
My fiancé sort of is on some things, but he's indifferent about others.
I have conservative values, and I use those values when raising my children.
An example would be, he sees no harm in smoking weed from time to time.
Despite not having done it in 11 years, he has suddenly taken interest in it again.
We are in our 30s with two children, only one of whom is biologically mine.
I understand young people who might try different substances.
I was not one of them, never have been, but I have several friends who have in their younger days.
But as a father and a soon-to-be husband, am I asking too much to expect that he should be more responsible?
I don't want marijuana in my house.
I don't want my kids finding it.
I want to set a strong, moral, and not to mention healthy standard for my children because the world won't give it to them.
Thanks, Michael.
Love the show.
Of course, you are well within your rights to say, hey, I don't want drugs in my house.
Even a drug that we're told is not that big a deal like marijuana.
You are absolutely well within your rights to tell your husband that, and you should tell him to stop trying to relive his college days and get with the program and grow up.
Now, some people are going to push back, as always happens when I come after the old Haitian oregano, the old devil's lettuce, and they'll say, Michael, pot's not that big a deal.
There's no problems.
It's not addictive.
It's really great.
It cures cancer, whatever nonsense people say.
First of all, The claims that marijuana is not addictive seem to be falling apart because people do get addicted to it, if not physically, certainly psychologically.
And it does cause some problems.
The way that people consume marijuana these days leads to neurosis, leads to anxiety, can lead to psychosis, leads to all sorts of mental problems.
You don't want your kids involved in that because at the very least, one person A disease that marijuana is definitely linked to is laying on the couch eating potato chipsitis.
One problem that the old devil's lettuce is definitely linked to is people just becoming big stoner losers who don't do anything and don't want to get a job and don't feel particularly motivated.
Now, I'm not saying it's true for everybody.
Some people can smoke a doobie, spark up a jazz cigarette, and function perfectly fine in society.
But it is a problem.
It's a legitimate fear, especially if you've got kids in the house.
So, yeah, I think you ought to bring that up with your husband.
And it's going to be difficult.
Obviously there's a little bit of a values misalignment here, as we call it, and so I don't envy the position that you're in, but I would present it as not just a sort of nagging or scolding or moralizing, but say, look...
I like you the way you are.
I don't think that you're going to be improved by smoking the Peruvian parsley.
I think the only thing that could happen is you become more of a loser.
And I don't think our kids' lives are going to be improved by having pot in the house.
And so, regardless of what you think about the science of marijuana or whatever BS, stoner, nonsense you're hearing, just...
Just from a personal level, honey, would you mind making a little sacrifice and giving up the old California...
Man, I can't think of another pun.
I've run out of puns.
California cumin?
I don't know.
You've got to give it up.
Would you mind just giving it up for me, please, honey?
I'm just asking you to do that.
That's what I think I would do.
And then, I don't know, get your husband to smoke normal things like tobacco.
Alright, next question.
Mr.
Mr. Knowles, as a Service Academy graduate and a military officer, the education skill set of myself and my peers, combined with our patriotism and desire to serve, means that most of us strongly consider federal service after the military.
How can we uphold our conservative values while working for agencies like the FBI, ATF, or IRS?
Should we even apply to work at these institutions or take our education and skills somewhere else, which could be challenging?
Thank you for all you do.
My wife and I have been considering Catholicism and attending Mass largely due to your influence.
Thanks.
Alright, I'm so pleased to hear that.
Yes, I am of the opinion that if you are so inclined and you want to work for the FBI, but you fear working for the FBI, or you have some hesitation because the FBI has been largely corrupted by the Libs, I would suggest you go do it anyway.
The Libs are really good at infiltrating the institutions and taking political power and then wielding it, and we're not that good at it.
We kind of throw our hands in the air and say, oh well, it's all ruined, never mind, give it up.
If there is a chance that you think you could do some good there and right the ship, I'm all for that.
I'm all for that.
I do not think we should let the perfect get in the way of the good.
I think absolutely get in there.
If you're going to graduate, Work at the FBI. Don't compromise your morals.
Don't become just a tool for the libs.
Don't follow the sticks and carrots that they're going to lay out for you to just become one of their puppets.
But if you can go in there and hold firm and stick to what you believe in and make the country better, I love it.
That's why I think conservatives should become teachers.
That's why I think conservatives should get out there into all of these fields and then wield that power.
Do that kind of unglamorous work of wielding the power to...
Push the libs to the sidelines and actually give us a good country again.
Okay, the rest of the show is continuing now.
You know that this is Friday.
That means that Mr.
Ben Davies, my producer, has given me five headlines from the week.
Four are real.
One is fake.
We have to figure out which one the fake one is.
Also, because it's mailbag day, I will be taking more of your mailbag questions, like the mailbag questions that are actually written in, in the old-fashioned mailbag.
