Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
AOC makes a fool of herself over D.C.’s plan to let illegals vote, a liberal “think tank” botches an attempted attack on Michael, and the CDC finally acknowledges problems with the COVID vaccine.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 40% off to access movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/knowles
Jase Medical - Get a discount on your Jase Case with promo code ‘KNOWLES’ at https://jasemedical.com/
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month with promo code ‘KNOWLES’’ https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/KNOWLES
- - -
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
House Republicans yesterday voted to overturn two bills that had been passed by the D.C. Council that would allow non-citizens to vote in local elections and go even softer on criminals.
And Congress Lady Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is not happy about it.
In direct contradiction of their quote-unquote conservative values of small government and defending freedom, have decided to expand the jurisdiction of this body to meddle into the business of DC residents.
The DC City Council has the right to determine its policies for DC residents.
And if any member of this body does not like that, they can feel free to change their registration, resign their post, and run for DC City Council.
Now, AOC says lots of things that are not true, but very often the false things that she says are false because they're exaggerations or selective interpretations or imaginative predictions.
In this case, though...
What AOC said is just perfectly, precisely, easily demonstrably wrong.
The D.C. City Council does not have the right to determine the policies for D.C. residents.
Congress does have that right.
And that right doesn't come from some obscure section of the U.S. Code or some little-known court decision.
It is laid out explicitly in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, quote, the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the federal district of Washington, D.C. the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation Now, at first, I figured AOC was just being disingenuous.
The more I listened to her rant, though, the more convinced I became that she just sincerely doesn't have any idea how the Constitution established the government of D.C. I understand that there may be disagreement.
I understand that Republicans may not be happy with what the DC City Council is doing.
But when cities in Vermont passed the same provisions, when San Francisco, when nine Maryland cities brought up this provision, did the Republican Party corral all of Congress and bring this issue down to the floor for a vote?
No, they did not.
They are singling out The residents of the District of Columbia and expanding in the history of disenfranchisement that goes all the way back to the legacy of slavery.
And they're bringing it right here to this floor because why?
They don't have any real bills to debate.
No, it's just because that's Congress's job.
The Congress is not overruling laws in Vermont and Maryland and in San Francisco because that's not Congress's responsibility.
It's just basic civics, the sort of thing you're supposed to learn by the fifth grade, especially in a republic which cannot endure if even the elected representatives don't understand the basic functions of the government.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Vince Dow, who says, that was me in the suit on the panel about assimilation, erasure, and crime.
Very cool.
Thank you, Michael.
I'm pleased to hear it.
That's great.
It's kind of funny to play a clip on the show and then have the person in the clip say, oh, I was watching you talk about that thing.
That's great.
Well, Vince, you did a great job.
This was in the clip yesterday on my show.
From Vice, this great Vice documentary where they're talking about all sorts of woke nonsense and you've got this one conservative guy and then all the libs around him who are just absolutely aghast whenever he says anything even remotely commonsensical.
Like really basic stuff.
I thought you did a great job.
It's terrific.
And we've got to talk at some point.
Not just through this show.
Maybe we'll talk on the phone.
When you want to talk to your friends on the phone, you've got to check out PureTalk.
Right now, go to puretalk.com, use promo code Knowles.
PureTalk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
It is proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team, and absolutely refuses to spend money on fake news networks.
Not to mention, PureTalk's service is fantastic.
They are one of the largest networks in the country.
You can get blazing fast data, talk, and text for as low as $30 per month.
That is probably half or less than half of what you are currently paying Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile.
Switch over to PureTalk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
Your first month is guaranteed, risk-free, $20.
Try it.
And if you are not completely happy with the service, you will get your money back.
Stop throwing money out the window.
You will get the same great network.
You will get better customer service.
You can switch in a very short amount of time.
Do it today.
Make it a goal to support companies that support you.
Go to puretalk.com, enter promo code Knowles.
You will save 50% on your first month.
puretalk.com, promo code Knowles.
PureTalk is simply smarter.
Wireless.
I don't usually go after AOC these days.
I don't hit her so much anymore because I feel it's played out.
I feel this is the most basic, superficial kind of conservative commentary these days is just...
Hey, you see how crazy AOC is?
You could do that.
You could fill a show with that every single day.
And so I generally stay away from it.
But sometimes, sometimes AOC demonstrates such blithe ignorance that one cannot ignore it.
This occurred not just yesterday, talking about Washington, D.C., not knowing what the government of Washington, D.C. is supposed to be, even according to the Constitution, but this happened a couple days ago, too, when AOC was discussing the big tech...
Hearings and testimony when the Congress was grilling these big tech executives, especially on things like the Hunter Biden laptop story.
AOC went on a tangent about how upset she is that Libs of TikTok, one of the great Twitter accounts, is still on Twitter despite spreading false information.
Ms.
Navarroli, are you familiar with the account Libs of TikTok?
I have heard of it from the news, yes.
Mr.
Roth, are you familiar with this account?
Yes.
Yes, ma'am, I am.
Are you aware that from August 11th to August 16th, that account posted false information about Boston Children's Hospital claiming that they were providing hysterectomies to children?
Okay.
The claim, the accusation, libs of TikTok posted false information suggesting that the Boston Children's Hospital transes the kids, specifically provides hysterectomies to children.
That's the claim.
Let's check to see if that claim holds up.
Boston Children's Hospital, take it away.
A hysterectomy itself is the removal of the uterus, the cervix, which is the opening of the uterus, and the fallopian tubes, which are attached to the sides of the uterus.
Some gender-affirming hysterectomies will also include the removal of the ovaries, but that's technically a separate procedure called a bilateral oophrectomy.
And not every gender-affirming hysterectomy includes that, and people who are getting gender-affirming hysterectomies do not have to have their ovaries removed.
So it sounds like Libs of TikTok was right.
Because I'm watching a commercial now from Boston Children's Hospital talking about performing these hysterectomies.
I guess you could say that libs of TikTok didn't go far enough, because libs of TikTok should also maybe have talked about bilateral euphrectomies.
Is that how you pronounce that?
But...
They did it.
AOC could have just Googled that.
AOC launches into this long, emotional rant about how Libs of TikTok is lying about Boston Children's Hospital and hysterectomy.
She could have just Googled it.
It would have taken like five words.
She didn't do that.
She could have saved herself the rant about Washington, D.C. by reading the Constitution even just one time or having learned anything in civics class in elementary school.
And I know that they were teaching civics back when AOC was in school in Westchester because I grew up one town away from AOC and AOC went to the schools in the ritzier, wealthier, nicer area.
So you assume she had a civics class.
She just didn't learn very much And it's not just AOC. I don't just mean to pick on AOC. There is a congressman, Representative Dan Goldman.
He has a much more impressive, prestigious academic pedigree, certainly, than AOC does.
And he was humiliated almost as much, frankly, even perhaps more than AOC, because the expectations for this man were higher, when discussing a basic aspect of free speech law with the legal scholar Jonathan Turley.
Does the First Amendment protect someone from yelling fire in a movie theater?
Well, unfortunately, that one is not yes or no, because that's become a mantra for people.
It's the Holmes-Shank line.
Holmes himself walked back on it.
We don't need a law class here.
But you do agree, though, don't you, that the First Amendment does not protect all speech?
No, there are limits to speech.
All constitutional rights have limits.
I felt as though I were watching Always Sunny in this exchange.
So he says at the top, can you yell fire in a crowded theater to suggest that the right to free speech is not absolute?
Which is true, but of course it's not absolute, as Jonathan Turley admits.
But that phrase, yelling fire in a crowded theater, that comes from a very famous case, Schenck v.
the United States.
It was a case about whether or not a man could be thrown in jail for passing out flyers against the draft and against the war.
And it's a complicated case.
I write about it at length in my book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, number one national bestseller on free speech and the evolution of speech.
But it's a complicated case.
And so Jonathan Turley says, well, actually, Representative Goldman, you've picked probably the worst example to talk about this.
And because it's a little complicated and it goes back to what Oliver Wendell Holmes said.
And what is the representative goes, hey, hey, hey, all right, listen, we don't need to hear about, listen, we don't.
It was just the Charlie Day response.
I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings.
I'm well-educated, well-versed.
I know that situations like this, real estate-wise, they're very complex.
Actually, they're pretty simple.
The forms are all standard, boilerplate.
Okay, well, we're all hungry.
We're going to get to our hot plate soon enough, all right?
But let's talk about the contract here.
Sorry, I forgot.
Where did you go to law school again?
Well, I could ask you that very same question.
I went to Harvard.
How about you?
Where...
I'm pleading the fifth, sir.
I'd advise that you do that.
And I'll take that advice into cooperation, all right?
Now, let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
You know, I don't think I'm going to do anything close to that, and I can see clearly you know nothing about the law.
It seems like you have a tenuous grasp on the English language in general.
Okay, well, filibuster.
Do you know what that word means?
Yep.
Yeah, what's that mean?
Listen, Professor, do you think you can yell fire in a crowded theater?
Well, actually, the case that used that example ended up being largely over...
Okay, okay, listen here, mister.
We don't need any of your lawyerings, okay?
Let's go toe-to-toe on bird law.
That's what Representative Dan Goldman sounds like.
And what's so embarrassing about this is that the joke in Always Sunny is that Charlie Day is completely uneducated.
Representative Dan Goldman went to Stanford Law.
Dan Goldman went to what is considered the second best, most prestigious law school in the country.
And he doesn't even understand the context of one of the most basic slogans from one of the most basic cases of free speech.
These people don't know anything.
And it's not just AOC.
It's very easy to make fun of AOC because she's infamously ignorant.
It's all these guys, isn't it?
It's not just AOC. People make fun of her.
They say, oh, she's a bartender.
I know plenty of bartenders who are a lot smarter and wiser than graduates of Stanford Law School.
What's the excuse of the people from Stanford Law School?
It doesn't make you feel very confident about the future of our political order and our economy and our supply chain, for that matter, which is why you've got to check out Jace Medical.
Right now, go to jacemedical.com, promo code Knowles.
I'm going to give you a scenario, okay?
Imagine this.
It's not very difficult to imagine.
China invades Taiwan.
There goes your supply chain, and America is extraordinarily reliant on that supply chain and on China.
It's not just China, though.
It could be any major event pops off in the world.
Pandemic, natural disaster.
In that case, even the basics can be hard to come by.
You've got to be prepared for anything.
Jace Medical is here to help.
Jace Medical helps you get a long-term supply of prescription medication.
Their mission is to empower you to be better medically prepared.
A great way to start preparing is with the Jace case, a pack of five different courses of antibiotics that you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses, including UTIs, respiratory infections, sinusitis, skin infections, and more.
All you've got to do is fill out a simple online form and in some cases, jump on a quick call with one of their board certified physicians.
From there, you can ask your physician treatment related questions on an ongoing basis.
Be like the Knowles's, okay?
Be prepared for anything.
Go to jacemedical.com.
Enter code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S at checkout for a discount on your order.
That's jacemedical.com.
Promo code Knowles.
Do it today.
The experts are not so expert.
Which brings me to a story a little bit close to home.
I was the subject of a hit piece yesterday.
That's right.
Yours truly...
Welcome to my show!
It's called Audible Reckoning, How Top Political Podcasters Spread Unsubstantiated and False Claims.
In February 2021, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his co-host Michael Knowles, a Daily Wire commentator, recorded a live episode of the Verdict podcast in conversation about his former Senate opponent, Beto O'Rourke, Senator Cruz described his rival support base as primarily reporters who act like, quote, groupies at a Rolling Stones concert throwing their underwear.
Offhandedly, he added, if they wore underwear.
With a smirk, he leaned into the mic and asked Knowles, too edgy?
Knowles replied, quote, it's a podcast, you can say whatever you want.
And then that's the intro.
And they say, yep, that's it.
Since the advent of the medium, podcasts have generally offered a space where, in the words of Knowles, you can say wherever you want.
And now all these people get their news from podcasts and do in large part to the say-whatever-you-want perceptions of the medium.
Podcasting offers a critical avenue through which unsubstantiated and false claims proliferate.
There it is.
That Knowles...
He gave up the whole game.
He admitted that these podcasters, they just spread recklessly, carelessly, spread lies and false claims.
And although the author here tries to make it sound like she's being really balanced, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that she is accusing conservatives of spreading much, much more false information than the liberals.
At one point, I think she says that conservatives spread something like 11 times the false information that liberals do.
And that because the conservatives produce more podcasts than the liberals do, this is really, really dangerous because...
It leads to lots of unsubstantiated and false claims in podcasting.
Okay, so I'm reading through this.
A friend of mine had texted it to me earlier.
I'm reading through this.
And I noticed something a little bit weird.
I noticed there is a graph that says, top conservative podcasts, buy the number of podcasts that have been produced.
And this is a print-ready copy, so it doesn't have the graphics in here.
But...
Among the top political podcasts, I'm honored to say, I was listed among them, a number of the Daily Wire shows.
Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Matt Walsh.
I'm looking at all these shows.
And it ranked us, not by the ratings, not by daily downloads, just by the number of shows produced.
And it said, there are X number of shows that have produced more than a thousand episodes.
And I looked at it and I said, wait a second.
Drew and Matt are both ranked higher than me in terms of episodes produced.
But I know, as of today, that isn't true.
I have produced more episodes than they have.
This is not a hard statistic to look up.
You just go to the Daily Wire website or your podcast app.
You look episode number X, whatever.
And I have produced more episodes.
So I looked and I said, okay, well...
This seems like a really just basic statistic that was totally wrong.
The reporter responded and said, no, no, Michael, you idiot.
I stopped collecting data on January 22, 2022.
And so you just don't understand all my really transparent and high-end methodology.
So I said, okay, well, I'll just...
I have always produced more episodes than Matt Walsh.
My show started before Matt's show.
So I look back at January 22, 2022, and there it is.
It's the data, the really basic data in this long Brookings report that allegedly took years and years to produce about how the conservatives are recklessly, carelessly spreading false information on the internet.
The data on just one point, just one that I happened to see in a graph, the basic data are completely wrong, which is ironic.
I guess it's not ironic in that I never expect these people to have their data correct because I just don't believe a word that they say and I don't think they're particularly careful and meticulous in what they do.
I think they're just trying to smear conservatives.
And it turns out that was the case.
And the author of the piece is so upset about it.
She keeps trying to justify her really, really basic error.
The same kind of basic error that AOC makes when she gives a whole impassioned speech about how Congress has no right to control D.C. And then you say, lady, look at Article 1 of the Constitution.
It says Congress has the right to control D.C. and to pass the laws there.
It's really, really basic stuff.
There's not much arguing with it.
January 1st, 2022, the Michael Knowles show had 927 episodes out.
The Matt Walsh show had 878 episodes out.
Take Drew out of it for a second, because his show had different...
It was daily at one point, then it turned to weekly.
But even just those two.
The fact that this author at the Brookings Institution could get just that really basic element of data wrong...
Makes you realize, oh, I can't trust a word in this report.
Drew actually makes this point about the newspapers.
He says, people are very funny in that they'll open the newspaper and they'll read an article about Syria.
We'll say, well, I don't know anything about Syria, so I'll trust what the author has to say.
Then they see a piece about the oil industry.
They say, I don't know anything about the oil industry, so I'll trust what the author has to say.
Then they'll open it to a piece about the New York Yankees.
And they'll say, oh, I do know about the New York Yankees.
They'll read the piece.
They'll say, oh, the author's completely wrong about the New York Yankees.
Then what happens?
You turn the page.
To an article about banana prices.
And you say, well, I don't know about banana prices.
I guess I'll believe the author.
If you can point out, and you say, well, I know for a fact, the one thing that I know about in what these people are talking about, I know that that person is wrong.
Why would you believe anything else that they have to say?
Now, the ignorance, I won't ascribe to malice that which is explained by incompetence and ignorance.
The ignorance that you see in this kind of piece is relatively trivial.
I know that it's being used as a justification to censor all of our podcasts, I guess mine in particular, but There are more consequential sorts of lies and deceit and expressions of ignorance.
A clear one would be the CDC telling you that the Fauci ouchies were completely effective and completely safe.
Remember, the CDC and Dr.
Fauci and Joe Biden said, I'm just going to put them all together in Fauci's voice.
If you get the shot, you won't get COVID. You won't transmit COVID. And then that turned out not to be true.
People saying, these shots, you have nothing to worry about.
They're totally tested.
Very, very, very safe.
And then it turns out, actually, some young people are getting myocarditis.
Women are getting blood clots, dying of blood clots.
There would seem to be some nerve damage that comes along with these shots sometimes.
And now we have the CDC director of the Immunization Safety Office just a couple of weeks ago acknowledging Openly, finally, the health problems that have been attributed and associated with these vaccines.
We take vaccine safety very seriously.
With respect to reports of people experiencing debilitating illnesses, I mean, we are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems we are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems following
In some cases, the clinical presentation of people suffering these health problems is variable and no specific medical cause for the symptoms have been found.
We understand that illness is disruptive and stressful, especially under those circumstances.
And we acknowledge these health problems have substantially impacted the quality of life for people and have also affected those around them.
And we hope for improvement and recovery.
And we will continue to monitor the safety of these vaccines and work with partners to try to better understand these types of adverse events.
Now, the fact checkers out there are already trying to push articles saying that you did not hear what you just heard from the man who just said it.
The man who is Tom Shimabukuro, the CDC director of the Immunization Safety Office.
You just heard what he said.
I'm not even going to add commentary to what he said.
Lest the fact checkers have any opening to lie.
All I did, all I just did was play his words.
Words that had you or I said those words...
Had you or I said those words today, we would be called fact-checkers, spreading misinformation, murderers, probably kicked off social media.
Certainly, had we said those words two years ago, as they were rolling out those vaccines, oh my goodness.
You might have been arrested.
You would have been thrown in Guantanamo Bay.
This is a danger to the public health.
How dare you?
Now you're hearing that from the director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
That's a pretty big error, then, it would seem, to hear that the vaccine's totally effective, totally safe.
That's a pretty big error, pretty consequential error.
When you hear him talking about people who are living with persistent health problems as a result of deceit, as a result of lies, as a result at the very least of ignorance.
Don't do it.
Don't allow yourself to be a victim.
Don't allow yourself to be a victim of a bad economy.
Diversify.
You got to check out Birch Gold.
Right now, text Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
The U.S. blew through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling last month, and still the White House refuses to reduce spending.
If you're worried about the future of this nation's economy, you've got to consider diversifying into gold with Birch Gold.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Text Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold, and then talk to one of their precious metals specialists.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, you can trust Birch Gold to help protect your savings.
Right now, text Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
Protect yourself with gold today.
I have really enjoyed investing in precious metals today.
I am of Italian extraction, so you know we particularly love gold.
There's a reason that conservatives generally like to diversify into gold.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 today.
Many prominent people who had previously pushed the vaccine are now regretting it.
One example would be Nancy Mace.
I mentioned her yesterday.
Nancy Mace is a liberal Republican who came out.
She said, I regret getting the vaccine.
I feel I was lied to.
I now have vaccine injuries that I've got to deal with as a result of this.
And I was impressed because Nancy Mace is a liberal Republican.
She's not a conservative Republican.
And she had previously pushed the vaccine.
She had peddled the vaccine on CNN. She was opposed to the mandates, as far as I can tell, but she still encouraged people to get it, and now she is regretting it.
I said, okay, at least good on Nancy Mace for admitting she was wrong.
But she still continues to double down on her opposition to the conservative Republicans.
She still spends most of her time attacking the more controversial people in her own party.
And she spends a lot of her time sucking up to the liberals.
She did this yesterday at the National Press Club.
Nancy Mace was invited to go there and tell some jokes.
It was supposed to be a roast, kind of funny, telling jokes at the Press Club.
Here's the performance.
I know George Santos hoped to deliver tonight's keynote, but organizers, our lovely, beautiful organizers, wanted someone who could tell a joke, but not actually be one.
Come on, George, you've given Republicans a bad name, and that's Lauren Boebert's job.
Just kidding, Lauren, don't shoot.
I mean, really, like who lies about being a, about playing college volleyball?
Who does that?
If you're gonna lie, at least make it about something big.
Like you actually won the 2020 presidential election.
I was one of the first Republicans, I know there's some New Yorkers in here too, Republicans, who said Santos should resign.
Santos should step down to show people you can't lie, cheat, and steal to win an election.
Unless, of course, if you're Donald Trump or Joe Biden.
I said this so this can air on Fox News and CNN. I go both ways.
I mean, come on.
You got it.
You got it.
It's like watching a bad imitation of Mean Girls.
Republican Congress lady Nancy Mace, she says, Hey, I'm not a regular Republican.
I'm a cool Republican.
Hey, press, come on.
I'm not like those bad Republicans.
I'm a cool mom.
Yeah, okay, right.
Are you?
Are you?
That's never cool, unfortunately.
Even making fun of George Santos, that's fine.
It's funny.
I've made plenty of jokes about George Santos.
But it sort of depends on the spirit in which one makes the joke and the type of person who makes the joke.
In that, I can make fun of my brother.
You can't make fun of my brother.
If I make fun of my brother, I don't even have a brother.
I have a stepbrother.
If I make fun of my stepbrother, that's fine.
That's okay.
But if you make fun of my stepbrother, that's offensive.
So the question is, what is the perspective Nancy Mace is coming from?
Nancy Mace is coming from the perspective of a liberal Republican who, at every chance she gets, attacks conservative Republicans and tries to curry favor with the liberals.
You could say, well, this was a roast.
People are telling jokes.
It's fine.
Get a sense of humor.
You know, I'm all for that.
I think that's a great idea.
But Nancy Mace never once told any self-effacing joke.
She never made a joke about her own side.
Because her side is not Republican.
She opposes conservative Republicans.
Her side are the liberal squishy Republicans.
And she didn't make any jokes about them.
That's really pathetic.
I play that to remind you, there are still a number of those types out there.
We think that the conservative party, the Republican party, now is being run by the conservatives, not by the squishes, not by the moderates.
But there are still a lot of centrists out there.
Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, Is floating the idea of a presidential campaign?
I know, it's very silly.
Most people have never even heard of Chris Sununu.
It's probably not going to happen.
But he certainly wants to run for president in 2024.
And the way that he is positioning himself is specifically as a centrist.
A lot of the folks that you mentioned and a lot of folks that we all know who are likely to run for president on the Republican side are more conservative.
You're more moderate.
How so?
Well, president, you know, former president.
Really?
Because I'm ranked the most fiscally conservative governor of the country.
I'm number one in personal freedoms, right?
I'm sorry, Ron, you're number two.
Sorry, Florida.
I would challenge anyone on Second Amendment rights.
We're far and away the best, you know, because we believe in those individual freedoms.
Regulatory reform, I'll challenge any state on it.
So, am I more moderate on the social issues?
Yeah, maybe.
But that's not what...
I got in this game for management.
I'm a manager.
I'm a CEO. I like to manage and redesign systems.
But I would tell you on those social issues, we get better results than almost anywhere else.
There it is.
Got to give the guy credit for honesty.
He says, I want to be a manager.
Mike Bloomberg, this was his pitch to run for president in 2020 as a Democrat.
He said, look, I'm a manager.
I just want to manage things.
That is...
The exact opposite of what we need in this country.
I do not want to manage the decline.
I think our country is in decline.
I don't want to just manage the decline.
I don't want my president, my Republican conservative president to manage the decline.
I want him to fix things.
Well, you probably do think the country's in decline.
But some liberals out there, they might say, no, the country's not in decline, even if it's not in decline.
I don't want you just to manage the liberal establishment.
I want a conservative to go in there and advocate for good things and pursue good things and oppose evil things.
Pursue truth and avoid falsehood.
Pursue beauty and avoid ugliness.
That's what I want.
He says, look, I'm very conservative.
I mean, maybe not on those cultural issues.
I don't even know what that means.
It's like saying, I love coffee, I hate caffeine.
You're pretending that you support a thing, but then you oppose the essence of that thing.
Oh yeah, I'm just not conservative on the cultural issues.
Well, that's the whole story.
Okay, you can cut taxes.
I'm very conservative.
I can conserve...
Tax cuts, maybe.
I'm even questioning whether certain conservatives can do that.
No.
No managers.
No managers.
No squishes.
There is too much at stake.
Our government is being run by people who don't know the first thing about the Constitution or our political order or the law or anything.
And it's not just the infamously ignorant people.
It's even the ones with the fancy degrees from the fancy law schools and the fancy think tanks.
They don't know anything.
They are so ignorant.
Our genius experts, whose job it is to be genius expert nerds, get the most basic aspects of their jobs wrong and make us all take experimental drugs that often don't turn out very well.
We're in a really tough spot.
I do not want someone to just manage the status quo.
The status quo is very sick, and we need to fix it.
Governor Sununu, you're not going to be the president.
You're certainly not going to get my vote if you want to manage this desiccated, degraded status quo.
To celebrate President's Day this year, Daily Wire is launching our Presidents for Sale Sale with 40% off new annual memberships.
The big guy got 10%.
We're giving you 40%.
Get access to the world of Daily Wire Plus with fearless documentaries, gripping movies, Dennis Prager's master's program, the entire library of Dr. Jordan Peterson's work, including new productions, Exodus, Logos and Literacy, On Marriage, all available to watch right now, coming down the pipeline to a TV or a laptop near you.
New episodes of Ben Shapiro's The Search, Exodus Part 2, our much-anticipated DW Kids content, and Pendragon later this year.
To sweeten the deal, we're also giving you up to 40% off select items in the Daily Wire shop.
Take advantage of our Presidents for Sale sale today.
You We're going to be getting to the member block, obviously after the mailbag, but just want to let everyone know a lot of people are talking about how...
James O'Keefe appears to be out at Project Veritas.
There seems to be a coup taking place within Project Veritas to put James O'Keefe, who, to my mind, is Project Veritas.
I think the two are synonymous.
They're going to put him on leave, I guess, right after this amazing expose on Pfizer.
He's getting a lot of heat for that.
So anyway, we have a...
A former Project Veritas undercover journalist who's going to give us the behind-the-scenes scoop because James has not been making a public statement about it.
So we'll get the inside story.
That will be on the member block.
First, though, the mailbag, sponsored by PureTalk.
Go to puretalk.com, select a plan, enter code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to get 50% off your first month.
Let's take it away with the first question.
Hey Michael, I'm Kate, a happy little introvert who works from home, and as such, I look forward to watching your show every morning, so thank you for everything that you do.
I have two questions for you today.
For some context, when my husband and I first met, it was deemed improbable at best and dangerous at worst to pursue having children.
Therefore, my husband married me knowing that our family would grow and evolve into something a bit different.
Through the years, we've developed a huge passion, not for kids, but for young adults, specifically in that 18 to 25 year Peter Pan phase of destructively extended adolescence.
Right now we have a 19-year-old living with us.
He is the eighth young adult to spend a transitionary and equipping season in our home, many of whom have never learned how to perform basic functions or had ever witnessed healthy dialogue and familial relationships.
Now that the doctors say I could start trying for children, we found that this would create a conflict with our desire to foster these young adults into true adulthood.
For how could we responsibly house potentially wayward men in a home with little vulnerable children?
So my first question is this.
Given that you believe having children is a command from God, do you allow for the notion for his church to target and meet a multitude of needs in a broken world?
This might have to take on different forms.
Because in many ways, my husband and I do have children.
Many, in fact.
They are just big, lovable knuckleheads traipsing in and out of our home at any given time.
Here's my second question, and one you might enjoy.
In that same vein, we are involved in a couple different organizations, hosting events all the time, from deep theological study nights to informal community fellowship.
Every weekend, we now have roughly 12 to 30 young adults at the house, often staying close to midnight, discussing topics of all kinds.
So, if given the same opportunity, what would you want to impress most upon the elder Gen Zers?
Thank you so much.
Can't wait to hear your answer.
Bye.
That's a lot.
I'll try to keep it pithy.
What you're doing for those young men is unbelievably charitable.
I'm not sure that I could muster that.
I barely like talking to the 19-year-old men that I am related to or relatives of my friends.
That's a tough period.
To invite them into your home, that is incredibly charitable.
And you're right.
If you have young children, you can't just invite these strange men of fighting age into your home.
That would be irresponsible.
I don't know your specific medical situation or what the doctors have said.
If the doctors previously said, you'll die if you have kids, that raises certainly all sorts of dilemmas for you.
And if the doctors are now saying, you can have kids, no big deal, go ahead and have children, then I would do that.
You've done your good charitable work.
Having children is a wonderful thing.
And you're called to do it.
You were called to do it within the context of marriage.
So, you're married.
You can have kids.
Do it.
I've got two kids.
I want to have a hundred more kids.
I think it's a great thing.
So, go for it.
That's what I would recommend.
And if it doesn't work out, plenty of couples struggle with infertility.
Who knows?
No one has the right to a baby.
If it doesn't work out, you can go right back to the charitable work you're doing, and that sounds great.
As for the...
Youth groups that are coming through your home, hanging out until midnight.
What would you want to talk about?
I would flip it.
I would allow them to propose the topics of discussion.
And the reason for this is an important part of education is desire.
And we often don't think about this when we talk about education, because we think of education as sit down, do what you're told, copy the things that we want you to copy.
And learn the facts that we want you to learn and then go out and go to the next grade.
But a key part of education is desire.
A soul that does not wish to be educated cannot really be educated.
This is a point that Plato makes in Book 7 of The Republic.
So see what they bring up.
And then whatever they do bring up, you should pursue that train of thought All the way through its various levels.
Through its literal meaning, through its allegorical meanings, political implications, cultural implications, and then ultimately up to the highest level of knowledge, which would be theology.
And then you can go down a really great journey, but I would allow the desire of the people in the conversation to guide that, and I wouldn't make an organized lesson plan.
Okay, next question.
Hey Michael, I have a couple of friends who are agnostic and or atheist.
I want to show them the truth of the Bible, and I believe the events of the Bible are true, but I feel like if I were to cite the Bible to prove my point, it would be like an evolutionist pointing to different parts of a textbook and claiming fact.
We wouldn't have an agreed upon piece of evidence that we could further debate.
I'm really curious to know if I should use the Bible to prove itself, and if so, what passages should I cite, or use another book or historical record that proves Christianity or at least makes it more believable.
Thanks.
Well, the Bible is inerrant and it is the Word of God in a textual sense.
Christ himself is the Word of God, the divine logic of the universe in that larger sense.
But the Scripture is a great place to convince people and persuade people because you're using the very words of God.
But I think you're starting a little down the line here.
And this is a common...
Mistake, I think, in our modern age, especially an age that has divorced the Bible from all sense of history and authority.
But the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, don't forget.
The Bible was compiled and agreed upon in a canon by an ecumenical council of the church.
So the church predates the Bible.
And what is the church?
The church is...
The body of Christ, instituted by Christ here on earth.
And who is Christ?
Christ is the incarnate second person of the Trinity.
And what is the Trinity?
Who is the Trinity?
The Trinity is God, three persons in one divine unity.
And who is God and does God really exist?
I think you've probably got to start there.
And the existence of God can be known with certainty by the light of human reason.
Within the context of the natural world, you don't need the Bible to prove that God exists.
The Bible illuminates aspects of God, but it is not a requirement to know that God exists.
So I would probably start there.
That's where you would have to start.
If you were proposing a science textbook, let's say that you wanted to persuade your friend of something Charles Darwin said.
Not that I'm encouraging that necessarily.
But you wouldn't just begin with the origin of species.
You would begin with who is Charles Darwin?
What observations did he make?
What experiments did he undertake?
What was the historical context in which Charles Darwin came about?
What was he reacting against?
That's probably what you would do.
If you were to show a science work on, say, the Big Bang, you would say, who is George Lemaître?
And you would find out that George Lemaître is actually a Catholic priest, the man who discovered the Big Bang.
And the term was actually a term of derision by atheists who wanted to make fun of the idea that this priest had discovered something about the origin of the universe that seemed to accord perfectly with the Genesis account.
So anyway, that's where you would begin.
I would begin there.
Does God exist?
If God exists...
Who is God?
What is God like?
What does the incarnation mean in the light of who God is?
And then what do we know about the incarnation?
And at that point, I think you get to the Bible.
Next question.
Hi, Michael.
I am wondering why you prefer the Latin Mass over the English Mass, but criticize the Spanish response to the State of the Union.
As you've said, once or twice, culture is downstream of politics, and our Catholic identity is part of our culture, so I'm curious to see what you think about this.
I thought this question would be extra relevant this week, because in case you haven't heard, there is a football team representing the Cradle of Liberty playing in a big game this weekend that you may want to catch.
Go Eagles!
Have a nice weekend, Michael.
I actually hadn't heard that.
Like, I knew the Super Bowl was happening, but I am so tuned out of football, especially since all the BLM stuff, that I didn't even know that the Eagles were playing.
But that's cool.
Alright, that's good on the Eagles.
As for the question of the Spanish State of the Union versus the Latin Mass, one, if the State of the Union response were in Latin, that'd be a completely different story.
Because at least then you're speaking the language that once united all of Western Christendom.
But...
We don't have that anymore.
We don't have a unified Christian empire or anything even resembling that.
We have nations.
And here we have the American nation.
And the purpose of the State of the Union is to describe the state of our nation.
One nation, under God, indivisible, a pluribus unum, out of many one.
And so it is contrary to the very idea of the State of the Union address to give it in multiple languages.
Because those multiple languages suggest a division.
And specifically, the insertion of Spanish into the State of the Union is an acknowledgement of mass migration and the failure of assimilation, specifically from a handful of Latin American countries.
And so, the medium can become the message.
A lot of people are saying, well, why can't we just get the conservative message out to Spanish people?
I think that's a great idea.
I have nothing against Hispanic people.
I have nothing against the Spanish language.
I speak...
I look fairly Hispanic myself, so I've got nothing against any of that.
But I'm recognizing here that if you give a deeply conservative message to In a medium that is not very conservative, that is radical, that goes along with the premises of the liberals, then you're not really presenting a conservative message at all.
That's a bad idea.
The question is, what is it for?
I find Latin is better suited to the mass.
One, the traditional Latin mass is...
A little bit confusing because it's not just about the language.
It's a different mass.
The liturgy is different.
The orientation of it is different.
I find it to be much more reverent.
It's obviously much more traditional.
And I think it's more conducive to worship.
But...
The Latin, the language, is also better suited for the Mass because it shows a unity, a universality, a Catholicity.
It's Catholic in the sense that until the last 50 years or so, you could go anywhere on Earth.
You could walk into the Mass.
They would be speaking the same language.
It shows you something about the universal church.
If you look at the State of the Union, the purpose of it is to express the state of our American nation.
And so it should be conducted in the language of the American nation, which is English.
Next question.
Hi Michael.
You were talking I think it was yesterday or the day before about embryos and having them frozen and how that was wrong.
So I have an older sister and she had some infertility issues and her and her husband just were not able to get pregnant but thankfully through IVF they've been able to get pregnant and they have several embryos frozen for their future plans for future family and anyway I was asking her what they're gonna do because they have more than they want children wise and anyway I was curious what your thoughts were on what
to do with those frozen embryos I know you don't like the embryos but I just the fact of you have them and I was just curious what your thoughts were on What you would do in that situation.
My husband and I just, we could not figure out what to do.
And yeah, do you destroy these people, these babies?
Or do you let someone else have your, essentially your child and have that child never know you?
And yeah, I just thought that was a very thought-provoking question that I knew you would have a very good answer for.
So anyway, love the show.
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
I hope I have a good answer for it.
Just one slight correction there.
You said, Michael, I know you don't like the embryos.
I like the embryos very much.
In fact, that is why I don't support these forms of artificial contraception.
The question you bring up of embryo adoption is a difficult one and I think remains an open one.
It is such a modern phenomenon.
It's such a recent phenomenon that bioethicists are still debating this.
The Church has not rendered any judgment one way or the other.
It would...
It is tempting to say, well, people should just adopt these embryos.
I don't think we should destroy them.
I think that would be wrong.
But we also need to recognize that procreation is to take place in the context of a marriage within the conjugal union of husband and wife, and children have a right to their natural mother and father bound together in marriage, which is for the good of the spouses and the sake of the generation and education of children.
So there is a temptation to say, okay, well, we are where we are.
This is a bad scenario.
So we're not going to kill the embryos, but maybe we'll take them and implant them in other people.
I don't know that that's quite the right idea.
It exacerbates another problem, which is the establishment of the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of human life.
That is not acceptable at all.
It separates procreation from the conjugal act.
That is not acceptable.
So what does one do?
I think what one does is not rush to judgment.
There is an impulse, especially in the modern world, to the moment that some new technology comes out and becomes popular, we have to render a for all and eternity sort of bioethical judgment on it.
And this can lead to really bad consequences.
I think of Lambeth, you know, the notion where Protestant churches came out and endorsed aspects of the sexual revolution, endorsed artificial contraception and the like.
I think a lot of that came out of a sense of urgency, along with other mistakes, but it led to so many more problems down the road.
Whereas what I would do in this case is I would allow the bioethicists, the real bioethicists, the people who are trained in this regard, to debate this for some period of time.
And what I would do in the meantime is proceed with caution and And follow the first advice of the Hippocratic Oath.
First, do no harm.
All right, we've got the real scoop on Project Veritas coming up.
We've also got a Super Bowl watch party this weekend.
Crane& Company will be hosting a live Super Bowl watch party this Sunday for Super Bowl 57.
Who's playing?
I don't know.
Apparently the Eagles, right?
That's what the guy just said.
So join the live stream at 6 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Central on YouTube and Daily Wire+.
Here we go.
We've got Cassandra Spencer, former Project Veritas employee and whistleblower over there at Facebook.
The rest of the show continues now.
You don't want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code Knowles at dailywire.com slash Knowles for two months free on all annual plans.
