Ep. 1302 - Mia Khalifa's Feminist Plan To Destroy Marriage
Biden gets caught pressuring Facebook to censor Michael, the Secretary of State whines about foreign political prisoners as hundreds of J6ers spend time behind bars, and a porn lady encourages divorce.
Ep.1302
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 25% of your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/Knowles
Genucel - Genucel 3-Step Dark Spot Luxury System for 70% off today at https://genucel.com/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
So yesterday, we pointed out that Joe Biden is a crook.
Today, the hits just keep on coming as Biden's White House is revealed as having abused its power to pressure Facebook to censor us.
Little old me.
Can you imagine that?
Little old me, whom everybody loves so.
The White House, we know the White House doesn't like us.
We know that Facebook doesn't like us.
We had a sense that Facebook was censoring and suppressing us.
Now we have the proof.
This is care of Jim Jordan, Facebook files.
This is a note from Rob Flaherty, who was Biden's White House digital director, to Facebook.
From Rob, if you were to change the algorithm so that people were more likely to see the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, any authoritative news source over Daily Wire, Tommy Lauren polarizing people, you wouldn't have a mechanism to check the material impact.
We want New York Times, we want Wall Street Journal, we want anything other than Daily Wire.
We hate Daily Wire, suppress Daily Wire.
This is as clear a violation of the First Amendment as it gets.
You know me.
I'm very cautious about saying such and such is a First Amendment violation.
The First Amendment has all sorts of constraints put on it.
But when the White House is pressuring the company that controls the public square to censor us, specific people, that's it.
Even if it's not the government itself doing the censoring, even if the government just uses a private company, semi-private company, as an instrument, that is a First Amendment violation.
This is not some low-level staffer.
They're not going to be able to kick this away and say, look over there, nothing to see here, move along, move along.
This guy, Rob Flaherty, was a senior staffer in the White House, led the Office of Digital Strategy.
When he left the White House not that long ago, June 16th of this year, Biden sent out a statement, a presidential statement, on how important this guy is.
He says, since day one, Rob has helped us meet people where they are, keeping a constant eye toward reaching new and different communities and censoring people that he doesn't like.
Under Rob's leadership, we built the largest office of digital strategy in history.
With it, blah, blah, blah.
I'm grateful to Rob for his service over the last three years.
The integration of the digital team into our senior White House leadership shows just how important Rob's team is for our daily engagement with the American people and suppressing conservatives daily engagement for the American people.
This is a top advisor to the president.
Did Joe Biden not know about this?
Was this not a strategy that was agreed upon by the White House senior staff?
Was this some rogue?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
So what does this do?
I'm sick and tired of discovering things and discovering how unfair the system is and how there's two tiers of justice and then nothing happens.
That drives me crazy.
Republicans are really, really good at pointing out injustices and really, really bad at doing anything to fix them.
So I'm not pointing this out to suggest that anything is actually going to be done or this guy Rob or Joe Biden or anyone's going to be held to account for it.
The reason that this strikes me...
Other than explaining why our Facebook views dropped off pretty significantly all at once when Biden took office.
The reason this sticks out at me is it raises an important question.
The question is not, why are they censoring conservatives?
We know that because they hate us and they're lawless.
The question is not, why are they breaking the law?
We know they don't really have any respect for the law and they think that the law is nothing but the caprices and arbitrary whims of however they're feeling that day.
That's how they operate.
Nothing new there.
The real question is, Why is this coming up now?
Why is the liberal establishment allowing this information to seep out now?
And the next question is, if one concludes that it's because the liberal establishment is slowly giving up on Joe Biden, they think Joe Biden is going to lose to the likely nominee, Donald Trump, they think that maybe they could begin to replace him.
Then the question is, who replaces Biden if he's too weakened to run?
I'm Michael Knowles, this is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Speaking of authoritative sources, a porn lady has gone viral for giving advice on marriage and why it's very important for young women to divorce their husbands.
We'll get to that brilliant advice from a porn lady.
First though, more people trying to censor us.
And me specifically, but us broadly.
I had quite a semester this past semester.
You know I speak on a lot of college campuses every semester.
And this year we had two really big ones.
One was at Pittsburgh where Antifa tried to blow me up.
The other one was at the University of Buffalo.
And the University of Buffalo was an earlier speech where the university, SUNY, the entire State University of New York school system, tried to shut this thing down.
Politicians tried to shut this thing down.
Didn't work.
The First Amendment demanded that I'd be permitted to speak and the University of Buffalo students be allowed to invite me.
But then, after that, the school said, okay, Young America's Foundation, you yaffers on campus, your club is gone.
You don't get a club anymore because you had the audacity to invite Michael Knowles, and he's a meanie, and he doesn't agree with our crazy ideologies, so your club is gone.
Okay, hope it was a good event.
Bye.
No more conservative representation on campus.
So what happened?
Yaf sued, said this is a First Amendment violation, this is completely unfair and unjust, and looked like things were going pretty well for the conservatives until University of Buffalo tries another way to get rid of the club.
The University of Buffalo is now requiring that when clubs sign up to become officially university registered clubs, that they surrender their right to file a lawsuit against the university in order to maintain club status.
These guys, they just don't give up.
They're saying, okay, you're not allowed to be a conservative at Buffalo, we're going to get rid of that club.
So you can't do that, we're going to sue you.
Okay, we're going to pass a new rule, you can't ever sue us.
You can't.
Okay, and we're going to pass a new rule.
You're never allowed to question the rule that says that you can't sue us when we kick you on campus for being conservative.
We're going to pass another rule about a rule about a rule about a rule that says that if you've ever owned a MAGA hat in your life, you have to be in prison.
That's, well, we'll get to that in a second.
They never give up.
They never give up.
The Libs, even if we win in court, even if we pass a law, even if we conservatives win an election, they will never give up.
I suppose that's the way politics is.
You're never totally lost in politics because you've never totally won anything.
But the Libs are particularly persistent here.
They won't accept their losses, lick their wounds, and move on.
They're just going to keep pummeling ahead.
They will not allow this group back on campus, no matter what some judge says, no matter what the school rules say, no matter what the First Amendment says.
They won't give up.
They're shameless about it.
You want to see how shameless they are?
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, one of the least reputable people in the Biden administration, which is really saying something, he just comes out with a straight face and complains about nations around the world who are holding political prisoners.
The State Department's latest human rights report contains evidence of more than 65 countries holding political prisoners.
So many of these individuals are their country's best and brightest hope for a future that's marked by democracy and respect for human rights.
Through imprisoning political prisoners, autocrats are quashing democratic hopes and ambitions.
That's why it's important that all countries stand firmly against the detention of political prisoners, no matter where they are held, and work together to free them.
Let me share a few ways that we do this, and urge other countries to join us.
We call for the release of political prisoners.
We meet with their families and colleagues.
We monitor trials.
We publish reports to share information about individuals and their cases.
Can you stop it right there?
You know what else they do?
They lock up Midwestern grannies who had the audacity to go into the Capitol to express their support of Donald Trump.
That's how we, that's how we in the United States, Deal with this terrible issue of autocrats imprisoning political dissidents.
We raise awareness, and we give speeches, and we call out those 65 countries around the world, and we lock up the Hornhat guy for 41 months in solitary confinement because he took some pictures and got a private tour of the Capitol.
Wait, what?
Wait, hold on.
How many?
So it's some Midwestern grannies.
There's that nice Florida guy.
I remember he was holding Nancy Pelosi's lectern.
Yeah, they threw him in the can.
The Hornhat guy, who was welcomed around the Capitol, escorted by police.
So they threw him in the can for 41 months.
Why?
What crime did they commit?
Did they burn the country down like the BLMers?
No.
If they had done that, they would have gotten completely off the hook.
Not even a slap on the wrist.
Did they loot and riot and kill people like the BLM people?
No.
No, they didn't do that.
They just supported Donald Trump, for which people are still today being indicted and prosecuted.
People in Michigan, just ordinary Republicans who had questions about the 2020 election, being brought up on charges, looking at a very long time in prison.
That's how we deal with this awful scourge of political prisoners.
No one ever sees himself as the bad guy.
Which we'll talk about in a second.
When you want to talk to your friends, you've got to check out PeerTalk.
Right now go to PeerTalk.com slash Knowles.
You know a company is looking out for you when they actually upgrade your service and don't charge you for it.
This is great news for new and current PeerTalk customers.
Pure Talk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever.
If you've considered Pure Talk before but have not made the switch, take a look again for just 20 bucks a month.
You will get unlimited talk, text, and now 50, 5, 0% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.
This is one of the many reasons I love Pure Talk.
It's veteran-owned, They only hire the best customer service team located right here in the US of A. That alone is worth a switch.
Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network in America.
Remember, you vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting woke wireless companies that don't support you.
When you go to puretalk.com slash Knowles, you will save an additional 50, 5-0% off your first month because they value you.
Go to puretalk.com slash knows pure talk wireless for Americans by Americans.
The United States has political prisoners.
I guess basically every country in the history of the world has had some political prisoners at some point.
But they never seem to be all that honest about it.
If you go to Russia today, there's a political prisoner, the leader of the opposition.
What is that guy's name?
I forget.
He's vaguely pro-Western.
He's been locked up for quite some time.
He's a political prisoner because he's the leader of the opposition against Vladimir Putin.
Navalny, Alexei Navalny.
But if you asked a Russian who supports the regime, if you asked a member of the regime, why is Alexei Navalny in prison?
They'd tell you why, because I'm sure he committed some crime.
You can indict a ham sandwich.
If you ask a liberal today, or even some sadly naive conservatives, does the United States have political prisoners?
They'll tell you no.
No, absolutely not.
That's something that awful, terrible dictator autocrats do.
Say, okay, well what about the January Sixthers?
They'll say, oh no, they were insurrectionists.
You point out, well, they were never charged with an insurrection.
Yeah, well, they killed people.
You point out, no, they didn't kill anybody.
The only person who was killed in the political violence that day was one of the Trump supporters, killed by a trigger-happy cop.
You say, well, I'm sure they did something, and I'm sure they did do something.
They were charged with trespassing.
They were charged with disrupting an official proceeding.
There were crimes they were charged with.
That doesn't mean they're not political prisoners.
To have the Biden administration, which has clamped down on political dissonance and Opposition in an unprecedented way in the United States.
I was gonna say in a way that we haven't seen since Woodrow Wilson, in a way that we haven't seen since Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate for president, was imprisoned.
But it's worse than that.
We've never seen a former president imprisoned while he's the leader of the opposition, while he's the chief political rival to the sitting president.
We've never seen anything like that.
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself, guys.
Absolutely no credibility whatsoever to talk about political prisoners.
Speaking of bad guys, there's a porn lady.
Her name is Mia Khalifa.
Mia Khalifa is a political activist, but she's also a porn lady.
I don't know if she still does porn, or if she only previously did porn, but she has all sorts of opinions that are not very good, and she spouts off on politics sometimes, and she's just given her worst opinion yet.
This is her opinion on divorce.
Oh, we're comparing stats.
Baby girl doesn't know that I am Tom Brady at this game.
Married at 18.
Divorced at 21.
Second marriage.
Married at 25.
Divorced at 28.
Third engagement.
Engaged at 29.
Ended it at 30.
But I kept the ring.
I'm still keeping Tom Brady on his toes.
We should not be afraid to leave these men.
We are not stuck with these people.
Marriage is not a sanctimonious thing.
It is paperwork.
It's something, it's a commitment you make to someone.
But if you feel like you're not getting anything from that commitment and you're trying, You gotta go!
You gotta go.
You have to go.
I know it's difficult to fill out paperwork and to make appointments and to do all of these things, but this is your f***ing life.
Do you want to be stuck with someone?
Period.
So, not great advice.
Generally speaking, probably not the wisest thing to take advice on marriage from a prostitute, or even forget the prostitute for a second, probably best not to take advice on marriage from people who have had multiple failed marriages.
I'm not knocking her.
We live in a messed up culture.
She's made all sorts of bad decisions, but we also live in a very pornographic culture that just seduces women into this kind of a lifestyle.
You see this especially with the democratization of porn through things like OnlyFans.
You see it in the Andrew Tate case.
This guy Andrew Tate, whatever charges he was brought up on in Romania, I don't even really care.
He's a pimp.
He's a pimp who brags on camera about seducing women, which in a wiser, older age, seduction was considered not only not less severe than a physical violation like rape, but actually more egregious because while rape violates the body, rather egregious, seduction violates the soul and the intellect.
So now we just think that's all fine because our only moral criterion for political judgment is consent.
But no, we live in a culture that seduces these young girls into all of this nonsense in the way that we see, particularly with Andrew Tate, who says, oh yeah, I'd trick these girls into falling in love with me, and then I'd pimp them out and have them do tricks so I'd make a lot of money, and then I'd rip them off and put them in a house in Romania and have them film videos of themselves.
And he's bragging about it.
At least you see that kind of transparency.
I mean, to paraphrase Norm Macdonald, the more I hear about this Andrew Tate fellow, the more he sounds like a real jerk.
But our whole culture does that.
It's not just Andrew Tate, he's just one guy.
It's the whole culture seduces women into porn.
And so I'm really not knocking this gal, Mia Khalifa, but this is a weird thing in society today where we take advice from people who have no credibility on these issues.
We've just lost our sense of authority.
Even, you see this in the reflexive response against authoritarianism on the left and on the right.
We just hate all authority.
And so we just, we recoil into our own individualism.
We exalt individual conscience and judgment above all things.
This is a product of the Enlightenment and the liberal age.
It's a product that we see on the left.
It's a product that we see on the right.
But it's wrong.
There are legitimate authorities to whom we should listen.
Our parents, wise teachers, the traditions that have endured throughout the ages, the moral law, the natural law, the church.
There is authority that we ought to recognize.
Authority is not a bad thing.
I know the A word is very nasty in our modern culture, but authority is not a bad thing.
And you can't escape it.
You're going to make a judgment somewhere.
So either you're going to follow good, wise, just, prudent, legitimate authorities, or you're going to listen to your own extremely imperfect moral reasoning with your very imperfect faculties of reason.
Or you're going to listen to people who have no credibility at all, like porn people, on marriage and political crooks like the Bidens on corruption and our sacred democracy and our justice system, and so on and so forth.
You're not going to fix this problem at the very basic political level of marriage or at the macro political level of the state by Neglecting by denying legitimate authority.
Now speaking of people who don't have authority on lots of things, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
The popular edutainment scientist guy.
He has just come out in support of a thing that I'm not allowed to talk about on YouTube.
Transgenderism.
My point is, apparently, the XXXY chromosomes are insufficient!
Because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.
Either the one you're assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever it is!
And so now, here, so, so now just to tie a bow on this, I say to you, somewhere I read, somewhere, I think I read that the United States was a land where we have the pursuit of happiness.
Suppose no matter my chromosomes, today I feel 80% female, 20% male.
I'm gonna put on makeup.
Tomorrow I might feel 80% male.
I'll remove the makeup and I'll wear a muscle shirt.
Why do you care?
What business is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum?
I don't follow Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Maybe he has.
Does he have incoherent thoughts on science?
Maybe.
I don't know.
I just can't speak to it.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.
But this guy sounds like a high school sophomore spouting off on politics for the first time because he just watched his first political news program ever.
This is a guy who has not spent five seconds of serious thought on any political matter.
This is why he just moves from incoherent thought to disconnected incoherent thoughts.
You know, we wake up in the morning and maybe you feel 80% male and 20% female, you know?
Do you do that?
I don't do that.
And then you just, so what we do, man, you know, is we just like exaggerate one of those things or another.
Your gender, which isn't real, but it's real.
It's in your, you're born, you're assigned it, and so you exaggerate.
I don't, I don't.
I like to think I fulfill my duty, which is implied by my nature.
I try to do that.
Sometimes I fail at my duty, but I don't accept.
What are you talking about?
Exaggerating.
And then, and why do you care?
Why do you care?
Hold on, wait, I thought we were having a conversation about the nature of sex and gender.
No, man, why do you, what's it to you, man?
We have a pursuit of happiness.
Well, that's actually not what happiness means.
That particular political content doesn't mean just do whatever you want.
No, man, what do you care?
Well, because I'm a citizen and I live in a society.
Well, and you know, man, it's like we just...
Sometimes this is described as people who have credibility and authority in one realm creeping out of their realm of authority and credibility and speaking to things that they don't know anything about.
Often Noam Chomsky is accused of this because he's a really interesting linguist, an important linguist, but then he spouts off on the Vietnam War.
He doesn't know anything about Vietnam, and people say, oh, you're reaching too far.
You see this especially with someone like Sam Harris, who maybe possesses some kind of expertise, but he spouts off on politics.
He doesn't know anything about it.
I think the problem goes deeper than that.
My issue is not that the scientists aren't sticking to science.
My issue is with science, capital S, entirely.
I think the worldview that has come to predominate since the scientific revolution was always going to end in this kind of incoherent nonsense, even from otherwise potentially intelligent people.
It's not a good look.
When you want to look good, you've got to check out Gen Yourself.
Right now, go to Genucel.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Is that a dark spot on your face?
Hmm?
Is it?
Is that what I see over there?
Is it still bothering you?
What about those liver spots on your hands, neck, and chest?
Well, now, you can watch them disappear safely and quickly in just three minutes.
Introducing the Genucel Dark Spot Corrector.
The three-step, three-minute dark spot luxury system does exactly what it sounds like.
By using their Crystallis Micro Dermabrasion before the Dark Spot Corrector and finishing with a touch of Collagen Building Genius L15, you will see the dark spots disappear before your very eyes.
Instantly, smoothly, luxuriously.
I also just love this company because the founder is a Coptic Christian.
Who left Egypt for the American Dream.
Head on over to GenuCell.com slash NOLS.
Order the new Dark Spot Treatment System today.
Say goodbye to those pesky spots tomorrow.
GenuCell.com slash NOLS.
You can get your GenuCell bags and puffiness serum also included right now in GenuCell's most popular package for 70, 70% off.
GenuCell.com slash NOLS.
My favorite comic is from Robert Paul Gass who says, that Sikh guy who dished out that beating is going to get a lasting lesson.
There's no way the libs are just going to let a video of that being done to a black man go viral without punishment for the vigilante.
Maybe, certainly if the Sikh guy in the shop had been beating the robber with a stick.
If he had been a white man, he would already be behind bars.
He'd probably be at Guantanamo Bay being tortured.
But because he is, I think, sufficiently brown, sufficiently an immigrant, sufficiently religiously diverse, he's got the turban on, I think he might get away with it.
I haven't checked the hierarchy of race and religion recently, but I think I think he might get away with it.
It was a very satisfying video in that we keep seeing these robbers come in and just commit all sorts of injustices and they get away with it.
You heard the guy in the video.
He said, oh, you got to wait until the cops get here or you're not allowed to do anything.
And that would have worked on Americans who know how the liberal establishment works.
But this immigrant guy, this C guy said, no, I think I'm going to just pick up a stick and just start caning him until he gives me my property back.
Really, really smart stuff.
When a Neil deGrasse Tyson or any of these people who say that they're very scientific, when they go off and blabber about nonsense, that's not just a flaw in their character.
It's not just an expression of pride.
It's not just them going beyond their scientific expertise.
It's a problem of science because the scientific worldview says that All we can ever really know is physical.
And it implies that reality itself is fundamentally physical.
Maybe there are other aspects of reality, illusory or otherwise, but fundamentally what reality is about is atoms and molecules and physical stuff.
And that isn't true, that's false.
And that view, the scientific revolution worldview, pushes out All other more important modes of thinking, and it's why even the really smart people in the lab coats are pretty much always wrong about everything.
They might be right about a few particular things sometimes, but ultimately in the big questions, they're wrong.
You see this throughout the academy.
On exactly the same issue, Richard Dawkins Who's, I guess, a sharp guy within his field of biology, maybe?
I don't know.
I've never been a huge Dawkins fan.
Dawkins, though, he always likes to spout off on religion, and he never sounds all that smart doing it, even though he's an Oxford Don type of fellow.
But now he's spouting off on transgenderism in the opposite way that Neil deGrasse Tyson is.
Sex really is binary, there's no question about it.
You're either male or female, and it's absolutely clear.
You can do it on gamete size, you can do it on chromosomes.
To me, as a biologist, distinctly weird.
People can simply declare, I am a woman, though I have a penis.
Helen, what do you think lies behind this odd distortion of reality?
So I get a kick out of Richard Dawkins because though he's wrong about a lot of things and he's a hardcore atheist, he's so polite and genial and certainly sounds much more intelligent and educated than someone like a Neil deGrasse Tyson.
But his point is wrong too.
His point when he says, well, you know, biology is perfectly clear.
There are men and there are women.
There are two sexes.
Biology is perfectly clear.
No, it isn't.
That's also wrong because that's also a worldview that says that reality is fundamentally physical.
He's saying if we want to get to the truth of the matter of gender and sex, we need to consult biology.
That is, we need to consult the physical world.
Biology isn't clear about anything because biology alone doesn't have any meaning.
If we're only consulting biology, then Male and female don't really, nothing means anything, because we're just talking about physical stuff.
Meaning goes deeper than biology.
When you only talk about biology, this is how the libs and the transgenderists can say, well, what about someone with XXY chromosomes?
What about someone with Turner Syndrome, only has a 1X chromosome?
What about people with genital anomalies?
What about people with this, this, this?
And if you're only examining the physical body, things start to get a little ambiguous and confusing.
You've got to get Metaphysical.
You've got to consult philosophy.
Science is the handmaiden of philosophy.
And you've got to consult theology.
Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
Like, at least with Neil deGrasse Tyson, half the country stupidly believes in what he's saying.
With Richard Dawkins, nobody believes what he's saying because he's a liberal of an earlier generation.
So the libs have already moved on and they believe all sorts of crazy things about transgenderism.
And the conservatives don't agree with him because his worldview is fundamentally atheistic and materialistic and wrong.
You can't.
It's not just that these guys are stepping out of their comfort zone.
Their whole worldview is wrong.
They just don't have authority.
They've got about as much authority on these matters as Mia Khalifa does on marriage.
Speaking of a lack of consensus, there is a report out from New York Times' Siena College that it might be the most shocking poll in presidential politics that we've seen yet.
It's not about Trump or DeSantis or Vivek or even Biden.
It's about Kamala.
The strongest argument against impeaching Joe Biden has always been Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris, according to this poll, is more popular among Democrats than Joe Biden, according to this New York Times-Siena College poll.
26% say they would be enthusiastic about Kamala Harris at the top of the presidential ticket, compared with only 20% who say they're enthusiastic about Biden at the top of the presidential ticket.
So this, again, ties in with what we were talking about right at the top of the show.
More and more evidence, not of Biden being a crook, we've known that all the time.
Not of Joe Biden being a marionette held up by strings who doesn't know what day it is.
We've known that the whole time.
It's evidence of the Democrats souring on Biden.
When you get a Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times saying Joe Biden's a mean guy, he's cruel, he's heartless, because he won't acknowledge his grandkid.
That's a sign of that.
When you get leaks from the White House, damaging leaks from the White House, that's a sign of it.
When you get these polls saying, oh Kamala, she's actually She's more popular.
Democrats are more enthusiastic about her.
Now, I don't believe this poll for a second, by the way.
Kamala Harris is a singularly bad retail politician.
The only reason that Democrats might think that they're enthusiastic about her right now is because they basically never see her.
Kamala Harris pops up once a month, she gives some babbling, incoherent speech, makes Neil deGrasse Tyson look like he's reciting Shakespeare, and she cackles a little bit, and then she goes back into the shadows.
This is just like Hillary Clinton, who had really good poll numbers until she hit the campaign trail and people remembered that they don't like her.
This is true of all sorts of politicians who, when they're out of the public eye, their approval numbers increase.
But the minute you see them again, you forget that you don't like them.
Complete BS.
Democrats might have soured on Joe.
They might think they've got a better shot.
But in reality, Kamala Harris has a way lower chance of being elected president than Joe Biden does in 2024.
Speaking of unpleasant women, the gal who's playing Snow White, or as I now call her Sand Taupe, Sand Beige, the Snow White who is upending all the traditions of Snow White.
She's got another viral hit.
If I'm going to stand there 18 hours in a dress of an iconic Disney princess, I deserve to be paid for every hour that it is streamed online.
So she's out there protesting with SAG-AFTRA, the actors' union, and she's saying, you know, I need a better contract.
Why do I need a better contract?
Because I'm working this terrible, hard job and I'm not being paid enough for it.
Yeah, I'm the star in the new Snow White movie, but if I've got to go out there and wear that stupid dress, I've got to go wear that dress all day long, I've got to be on set.
And I gotta dress up and play pretend, and I have to be a little girl's dream, and I need to make-believe for my job, and I need to receive adulation and praise and lots of money.
If I have to do that, dammit, I'm gonna make even more money.
Boy, my life is so hard.
A person with that attitude is incapable of happiness.
Neil deGrasse Tyson misinterprets the meaning of the phrase, pursuit of happiness.
That gal, she should just give it up.
If that's going to be her attitude, she will never achieve happiness.
Some people can be perfectly happy in even the worst of circumstances, and other people Can not be happy even in the best.
Think about what she's saying.
She's not saying I gotta go, you know, to the coal mines all day long.
She has what is considered the most glamorous, fun, silly, light job in the world.
She's not only in entertainment, she's an actress.
She's not only an actress, she's a successful actress.
She's not only a successful actress, she's playing a Disney princess.
The most famous one of all.
And she's complaining about it.
We all do this from time to time, even I do it.
Where we just say, I'm just so frustrated, I'm really angry, my job is so hard.
You need to gut check.
You need to take that as a warning.
Because this woman, every time she opens her mouth, she says something more offensive than the last time.
But we all fall into that sometimes.
I gotta take my kids to the park today, I hate Living this wonderful dream and spending time with my precious children.
Ah, I hate that.
Oh, I've got to go do my job that pays me well and is generally pleasant.
I like my co-workers.
And ah, man, I hate having to do that.
Don't fall into that.
It's very easy.
People can complain about anything, especially on movie sets.
That's one of the weird things about movie sets.
People complain all the time.
And so no surprise that SAG-AFTRA is whining about it.
Do not be like that woman.
Despite the lackluster economy, The Daily Wire is thriving.
Not only that, we're hiring.
We are currently looking for a production assistant to join our fast-growing production department.
Believe it or not, this show does not run itself.
I mean, I would say I carry 97% of this show and at least 96% of the entire company on my shoulders by myself, but there are other people around here who also occasionally do things.
Behind the scenes, you will find our production team hard at work.
Our production assistants are key components of a successful show.
We're currently looking to add another PA to the team.
If you've got production experience, thrive in a fast-paced, high-demand environment, and are looking to grow your career in the field of production, apply on our careers page today.
The position is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
If you're interested in joining our team, go to dailywire.com slash careers.
dailywire.com slash careers today.
Finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week, when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
This mailbag is sponsored by PureTalk at puretalk.com slash Knowles.
To get 55.0% off your first month, take it away.
Hey Michael, I need some help making a life decision.
I'm 22, and I'm originally from Western New York, but I dropped out of college one and a half years ago to move to Montana.
I've always had a desire to start a business, and my best friend and I since high school have been talking about it.
We now finally have the time, ability, and money to get something off the ground, but it would obviously require me leaving a good-paying job and stable life in Montana.
I was already supposed to move back last month, but something in my gut told me to stay here.
I can't stop second-guessing any decision I make and it's led to a world of confusion.
Did I make the right choice in staying?
Should I move back?
Any advice would be helpful.
Thanks.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both and be one traveler long, I stood and looked down one as far as I could to where it bent in the other growth.
Then took the other as just as fair, and having perhaps the better claim, because it was grassy and wanted wear, though as for that the passing there, left them really about the same.
And each that morning equally lay in leaves, no step had trodden black.
Oh, I saved the first for another day, but knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted that I should ever come back.
And I shall say this with a sigh, somewhere ages and ages hence, two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.
That might not have been totally word perfect.
I memorized that poem in high school.
People misunderstand the poem because they think it's called The Road Not Taken or The Road Less Traveled, but it's called The Road Not Taken because the two roads both look pretty good.
They look almost indistinguishable in how good they look.
And it's only ex post facto that we say, oh, I took the one less traveled.
That made all the difference.
Because you can't go down two roads at the same time.
And I don't know for you which one you should go down.
You say you have the ability to start a business.
Do you?
I don't know.
You're quite young.
How much money do you have?
Where'd you get the money?
Are you frivolously going to squander that money away or is this hard-earned money with a solid business plan with something that's likely... I just don't know any of those things.
Maybe you don't know those answers either.
Are you the kind of fellow who's going to be an entrepreneur or are you more the kind of guy who's going to work your job and... I don't know.
I just don't know.
Only you could tell me that.
Maybe your friends can give you some advice on that.
In politics, I do trust my gut very often, because if anything, I'm a little too risky.
In my professional life, I've been in all sorts of very risky fields.
Show business, politics, I've moved all over the place.
So I trust my gut if my gut says, hey, you should be a little more risk averse here.
Is that the same for you?
I don't know.
I think of Caleb Robinson, one of the founders of The Daily Wire.
He gave up a pretty decent, high-paying job when he had six kids to go risk it all to start this business.
It's paid off very well for him.
But it's a risk.
And you're asking me to tell you, well, what's the most prudent thing to do?
I don't know.
Sometimes you've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, when to run.
I'm really quoting a lot of poetry here today.
You just need to be prudent about it and you need to recognize that you might get down the road that you follow and have regrets.
And not even know what the other, the problem is you won't even know what the other road looks like and you'll tell yourself all sorts of stories but you don't know how it would have been.
And right now you really can't, you just, you just have to make all your preparation, make all your calculations, be as prudent as you can.
And then walk down a path.
You gotta do it.
You can't just hem and haw forever.
Next question.
Hi, Michael.
This is one of your based listeners, and I'm based because I'm Greek Orthodox.
And because I'm Greek Orthodox, I wanted to ask you your thoughts again on whether or not animals go to heaven.
I know you believe that they don't as a Catholic, but I would like to reference Revelation 21.5 that says, God will make all things new.
And I was wondering if that would have any role to play in your belief in whether or not animals go to heaven.
So I hope that you change your mind.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I'm sorry my dear, Fido does not go to heaven.
Fido does not go to heaven because Fido does not have a rational soul.
Fido has a soul proper to his nature, but his nature is not rational and his soul is not eternal.
There will be, I suspect, animals in the new creation.
There will be a new heaven and a new earth.
But it won't be Fido.
I'm sorry to say.
We love our pets while they're here, and they provide us all sorts of comfort.
I'm told.
I don't really like pets.
I'm a people person, as you know.
But no, they don't.
Sorry.
Sorry.
As a friend of mine has said before, facts don't care about your feelings.
Facts don't care about your Fido.
Next question.
Hi Michael.
My sister relinquished her parental rights to my niece who has extreme special needs.
She's 13 years old, non-verbal, she can only eat formula, she's still in diapers, and as she gets older she becomes more and more immobile.
She also has violent tendencies from time to time.
She's cognitively around the age of 2.
However, this kid is the sweetest and happiest kid in the world and I absolutely adore her.
I can't explain how all of that works together, but you have to believe me, she's wonderful.
My mom is her primary caregiver, but I definitely put in my hours.
When my mom had a medical crisis, I became full-time caregiver to both my niece and my mom, which is incredibly tiring, time-consuming, and lonely.
My problem is that I'm single, and I would just love to be married.
I'm 38 years old, I want my own kids, and I worry that my lifestyle and my life are not compatible with a relationship, especially a brand new one.
I just don't have time for finding and maintaining a relationship.
Also, I work at a Catholic Church, and trust me, single men my age who are Catholic are of short supply.
Any advice?
Yes.
On that last point, my advice is go to a traditional Latin mass and you'll find a lot of eager young men who are traditional and quite orthodox and right minded.
And they'll be a little bit weird.
A cousin of mine once described dating in Alaska, said, if you're a woman, you go to date in Alaska, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.
And that's true at the traditional Latin mass as well.
You'll find great right minded young men, but you're gonna see a lot of bow ties and a little bit of awkwardness.
Of course, you know, to reject the modern culture in that way.
The odds are good, but the goods are odd.
So, anyway, that's a very practical piece of advice if you want to meet a man and you're Catholic.
As for this difficulty of balancing your heroic, loving relationship with your sister's disturbed child and your personal life, It's very hard, and obviously your personal life is going to take a hit.
I wouldn't totally sacrifice that, though.
You know, I suspect, especially if you're in the modern culture, of course, you know, on Tinder culture, it's going to be very hard to explain to a man why it's important to care for your family, even your family that's very developmentally disabled and, you know, has all these problems, and why that matters and why you shouldn't just abort people who, you know, who have any problems or defects at all.
In your community, among traditional Catholic Christian people, that part won't be so hard to explain.
You'll just have to be a little more conscious of it.
You'll just have to be a little bit more intentional about how you spend your time, the limits that you place around caring for this person, and also making sure that you're going on with your own life as well.
I don't think it's impossible.
It's just often when we have great obligations like that, we do really heroic things like you're doing.
Sometimes we just put everything else aside.
It's not just that you're doing.
It's very easy to do that, and then we just sleepwalk through life and end up in a place one day where we'll regret having not prioritized other things as well.
So I think you've just got to be quite conscious about it, quite intentional about it, and you're going to have to make more efficient use of your time and energy than the ordinary person will, but you're doing it for a very good reason.
Next question.
Hi Michael, I hope you're doing well.
I wanted to criticize your Coke and New Coke analogy of Trump vs. DeSantis, provide a more suitable analogy, and then get your thoughts on it.
Sticking with the soda analogy, I think Trump is like going through the drive-thru at McDonald's, ordering a Coke, but actually getting a Sprite.
In 2016, I was very enthusiastic about his promises of building a much-needed border wall, making Mexico pay for it, and draining the swamp.
Unfortunately, he failed to do all three of those things, he was only able to build part of a wall, and we paid for it.
He did not drain the swamp by any means.
In fact, he elevated the biggest swamp monster of them all, Dr. Fauci, into power and allowed us to stay locked down much past the two weeks to slow the spread.
The biggest quality about Trump's presidency is his Supreme Court justices, but that wasn't really anything he personally did.
Any Republican could have filled those seats.
So I'm happy to get the soda, at least, but I didn't get what I wanted.
With DeSantis, he's actually distinguishing himself by making the promise to actually get the Coke you ordered, and the fact that he has a really good track record in Florida supports that.
What do you think of this?
Thanks again, and God bless.
I disagree with the analysis on the candidates somewhat.
It's clear you support DeSantis.
And so what happens is when one is actively supporting a candidate in a race, one looks at the rest of the field and highlights and exaggerates, perhaps even, the defects of those candidates and dismisses or minimizes the great achievements.
Clearest example, I think, is, yeah, okay, he got Roe v. Wade overruled, but, you know, whatever.
It's just because he picked judges.
Anyone would have picked those judges.
I don't think anyone would have picked those judges.
I think that George W. Bush nominated Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court, okay?
I think that George H.W.
Bush nominated David Souter for the Supreme Court.
I think even Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court, who was kind of a squish and a lib.
I think that Trump's picks were particularly good.
They've got their own problems, too, but they were particularly good, especially on this issue.
And I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.
And it's true he failed on some of his promises.
Some of it he didn't quite have enough time.
Some of it, you know, he flubbed himself.
Some of them I think are debatable.
I mean, the way that he was rearranging trade deals with Mexico, and especially with China before the COVID nonsense, I think he deserves more credit for in terms of, you know, This country will pay us, you know, whether it's through tariffs, whether it's through renegotiating trade deals, whether, you know, these are fungible complex economic questions.
But all of that to say, I think my analogy still holds up regardless of whether you love Trump or hate Trump.
I have made clear.
I have no intention of endorsing a candidate in a primary.
I like these guys.
I have interacted personally with all of the top candidates in the race.
I love Trump.
He's the best president in my lifetime.
I think Ron DeSantis is a terrific governor of Florida, and Vivek is a buddy of mine, and we go back to college together.
I'm even friends with some of the other candidates in the race.
I just, it's not that I don't have a dog in this fight, I do in that I have preferences of this candidate or that candidate or this quality of this candidate or whatever, and I want the GOP to win.
So yeah, I'm all about that.
But I think I've got a little bit of a remove from the people who are actively campaigning for Trump, actively campaigning for DeSantis, or actively campaigning for someone else.
The reason this holds up is everyone knows who Trump is.
You say, well, I was deceived in 2016.
Okay, did you vote for him in 2020?
Sounds like you probably did.
I don't think you voted for Biden.
So you knew.
You voted for him in 2020 knowing that he didn't build as much of the wall as you hoped and he didn't do this and he didn't do that.
So we know who he is.
And a lot of people didn't expect him to fulfill all the promises that we got in 2016.
Some people, such as myself, were shocked we got as much as we did.
And yes, he pursued some other policy, like the jailbreak bill, the crime thing, let the criminals out of prison.
I thought that was insane.
But all in all, it was a great presidency.
Even if you think all in all it wasn't a great presidency, there's no ambiguity with Trump.
We know who this guy is.
We've known this guy for 40 years.
I think you're actually proving my analogy because you're saying, Trump, you're saying old Coke is actually not that good.
And new Coke actually tastes better than old Coke.
Maybe it does.
I don't know.
So says you.
I've never tasted new Coke.
But maybe new Coke does taste better.
That's what people said in the blind taste test.
But I'm telling you, 10 out of 10 times, every single time, That someone takes that blindfold off, even if the new Coke tastes better and you can make a really good rational logical argument for why the new Coke is better, people are going to want the OG.
Which is why if DeSantis, and he's starting to do this actually, if DeSantis wants to have any shot at getting the nomination, he's got to run as something other than the new and improved Donald Trump.
Because when you put that against the OG Donald Trump, warts and all, People are going to pick the original.
We've got a lot of mailbag to get to, the written mailbag.
We'll have to get to it in the member block, okay?
So if you're a member of the Hoy Poloi over there on YouTube, come on over.
Join dailywire.com slash knolls right now.
Use code knolls at checkout.
You get two months free on all annual plans.
You can become a member of the Chaim de la Chaim and then we can get into Fake Headline Friday.
