Joe Biden asks voters to choose freedom over democracy, a Spanish politician resigns after videos show him doing something disgusting, and the Kennedy family endorses Biden over their own flesh and blood.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1472
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/49kXXgI
Watch the brand new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! http://www.PureTalk.com/Knowles
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order of Fruits & Veggies + $10 Off Every Additional Set. Use promo code KNOWLES at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
A political gaffe is a phenomenon whereby politicians accidentally say what they really mean.
President Joe Biden is prone to them, and he just fell into perhaps the biggest one of his career.
Are you ready to choose freedom over democracy?
Because that's America.
That's America.
You're ready to choose freedom over democracy?
Many on the left and the right will say that he misspoke.
I think this perfectly sums up what the liberals are pushing.
We know that they don't care one little bit about democracy.
The way that we know that is that every time they lose an election, they say it's a threat to democracy.
Which makes no sense because democracy is government by the people.
By definition, whatever the people vote for is a triumph of democracy.
But when the liberals say democracy, they don't really mean democracy.
They mean liberalism.
When liberals say democracy, they really mean...
Freedom, or at least their own specific, modern, perverted conception of freedom.
They don't mean the classical conception of freedom, which is the right to do what we ought to do.
Mumford and Sons summed up the classical understanding of freedom in their song, The Cave.
I need freedom now.
I need to know how to live my life as it's meant to be.
The liberal conception of freedom explicitly rejects living life as it is meant to be.
It's not about conforming to a norm.
It's about deviating from it.
That is what the liberals are pushing, whether voters like it or not.
Most voters want to stop transing kids.
Democracy says we should stop transing kids.
Liberal freedom says we must trans kids.
Guess which side Biden goes with?
Biden sides with transing the kids.
Most voters want to secure the border.
Democracy says shore up the border.
Liberal freedom says we shouldn't have a border.
Biden opens the border.
Most people want secure elections.
Democracy says we need election integrity.
Liberal freedom does not care about elections at all.
Biden and the liberals gut election integrity.
Lots of conservatives, by the way, would also choose freedom over democracy.
Not the fake freedom that the liberals offer, but real freedom.
Natural rights kind of freedom.
Voters want to overturn the Second Amendment?
Well, most conservatives aren't going to care.
We are still going to defend our rights.
We're still going to defend our freedom.
Which makes this Biden gaffe perhaps the strangest one of his career.
Because everyone is pretending that his statement is totally crazy.
But everyone's answer to Biden's question deep down is yes.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Can a sexless marriage be a happy one?
That's what the libs are asking in an article that is going all around the internet.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
$20 barely gets you anything these days, but you know what $20 will get you?
From my cell phone company, which I don't own.
I don't own the company, but I have the phone and I have the service.
You can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
PeerTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost.
The average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
Making the switch is incredibly easy.
Their U.S.
customer service team can help you join PeerTalk in as little as 10 minutes.
Choose to spend your hard-earned money with a wireless company that shares your values, supports our military and veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on fake news networks.
Do not spend another day Spending ridiculous amounts on your phone plan.
Go to puretalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Right now our listeners can get an additional 50% off their first month.
puretalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Get the cell phone that I have and love.
puretalk.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
You know what else I want to talk about?
Great news!
The Mayflower Cigars 8 Cigar Sampler is back in stock.
This is not the 8 Cigar Sampler, this is a nice box of Mayflower Dawn.
The best selling product in the Mayflower Cigar launch has been the 8 Cigar Sampler that is pretty much every size of both blends of Mayflower Cigars, Mayflower Dusk and Mayflower Dawn, and it's sold out Instantly when we launched, and then every time it's come back in stock, it's sold out almost instantly.
It is the perfect gift.
It's a perfect gift for yourself if you just want to try the cigars in pretty much every size we've got, and it's a really great gift.
It looks beautiful.
I gave one to a friend of mine yesterday.
They've been out of stock for a really long time.
If you want to get the perfect gift for Father's Day or any, I don't know, just like Tuesday, you know, gift for your boss, gift for your friend, gift for your son, graduation gifts, go To Mayflowercigars.com right now.
I don't know how long they'll be in stock.
Probably not very long.
They're terrific and somehow they're under 100 bucks a box.
Probably should check with the old CFO on that because that seems a little bit low.
But in any case, go get them now.
Mayflowercigars.com.
You have to be 21 years or older.
Some exclusions apply.
Not to put too fine a point on the liberal preference for freedom, their version of freedom, over democracy.
Some Princeton professor, Eddie Glaude, just went on MSNBC and explained that if Donald Trump is elected, if the people choose Donald Trump to be the next president, then democracy is over.
Democracies require certain kind of people to work.
And we just gotta be better.
Better people.
So we have to understand who we are, right?
And what I'm looking for is a politics of tending.
A politics of tending where we tend to each other's everyday ordinary lives on the ground, close to the ground, Nicole.
I'm looking for a coalition of the decent.
A coalition of the loving and caring folk who want to finally whip us away, you know, finally untether us from this nonsense that has produced this.
I feel like the other part of it is there's no more sort of private self.
Like everything that you do is this desperate, I think, need to connect to other people who want to be part of what you just call the coalition of the decent.
Because we're racing against time.
It feels like this election will be decisive if we can come back from this.
Yeah, if, you know, if Trump wins, I think democracy is a wrap in the country.
Okay, so that statement from a Princeton professor, supposedly, is nonsensical.
It's of course a contradiction in terms.
What the people vote for cannot be the undoing of democracy.
It necessarily has to be the triumph of democracy.
If you're electing a Democratic leader who is, even if the Democratic leader is not the preference of the liberals.
So they're talking about liberals here.
But then the whole rest of this segment, it sounds like a late night freshman year pothead bull session.
You know, man, I just want...
A coalition of the decent, man, to untether us from all the stuff, the nonsense, man.
I know, I feel you, professor.
We need, it's a race against time for the, you know, in the private and the public and my inner self and my outer self and without going out of my mind.
You're waiting for the sitar to come in.
What are they talking about?
The point that I think the Princeton professor is trying to get to is that democracies and republics require virtuous citizens.
But he can't use the language of virtue because that's the language of the conservatives.
If that's the case, then we should allow the conservatives to shape our democracy.
So he has to use this liberal hippie language.
You know, we need to be kind and empathetic and big libs, basically.
Nicole Wallace, I have no idea what she's even talking about.
But the upshot of everything they're saying is, the problem is not that we have too little democracy, but too much.
Because Donald Trump might actually get elected.
The people might actually get their wish, and they might be able to make this man the president again.
And that would be really terrible.
So their complaint here is not that our democracy is crumbling, their complaint is that we have a democracy and they don't like the American people and they don't want the American people to get what they want.
Because what the American people seem to desire right now is something that is more conservative and not particularly liberal.
So they would happily just choose the liberal freedom regardless of what the people want.
So what does liberal freedom look like?
Viewer discretion advised.
This is a report from the Publica.
A gay politician in Spain has abruptly resigned from his post after photos began to circulate showing him eating his own excrement.
This is Daniel Gomez del Barrio.
He was a counselor with the governing left-wing party.
You'll be shocked to hear he's a left-winger.
It's always the ones you most expect, isn't it?
But the story actually isn't even that this guy has a weird sexual fetish and he's resigned his position.
The story is the people who are defending him.
So, Peter Boghossian, you might remember Peter Boghossian, he's been on this show before.
Peter is an atheist and a philosophy teacher, and he really came to prominence because he and James Lindsay put out the Grievance Studies Hoax, and it was really, really funny.
James Lindsay, mathematician, who now is a political speaker as well, They made up a bunch of fake grievance studies, academic papers, you know, but on total nonsense, and then got them published in peer-reviewed journals to show what a farce academia had become.
It was really, really funny.
So that's how Peter Boghossian got onto the radar of a lot of conservatives.
But Peter is not a conservative.
Peter is an atheist, for one, and is a liberal.
He might call himself a classical liberal or not exactly a progressive modern liberal, but he's still a liberal.
And it's stories like this that show the huge chasm between the so-called classical liberals and the actual conservatives.
Boghossian responds to this story about the excrement-eating left-wing politician in Spain and says, unpopular opinion, mind your own business and leave the guy alone.
Leave them alone.
Who cares if our elected representatives film themselves eating their own excrement?
That's none of your business.
Stop policing other people's behavior.
Get out of other people's bedrooms.
I don't know.
I don't know, man.
I agree we're not going to send the purity police around to look into people's windows.
If a statesman is eating his own excrement, that would seem to be a sign of lunacy.
It would seem to be a good sign that he should not be representing me, that he's not fit for that job.
And so some people pointed this out in the comments, and Peter doubled down.
And he said, the comments here are not merely authoritarian.
They demonstrate pervasive normative rigidity that comes from Christian fear of judgment, the downside of Western supremacy mindset.
So this is not only authoritarian, it shows you what happens when you have a Christian society.
You know, these Christians, the moment that you give them a little bit of power, all of a sudden, they're going to outlaw eating your own excrement on camera.
Well, they might not even outlaw it, but they won't even let you sit in the House of Parliament if you film yourself eating your own excrement.
These Christians, they need to loosen up.
You know, man, live and let live a little bit.
That is classical liberalism for you.
It is a reminder that even the American right is still kind of stuck in the language of the mid to late 20th century when liberals tricked all of us into thinking that America was a liberal democracy.
That's when that term really skyrocketed in usage.
That's when we started to describe ourselves that way.
George Washington would not have described America as a liberal democracy.
Andrew Jackson would not have described America as a liberal democracy.
That is a second half of the 20th century kind of thing, and it's convinced even a lot of right-wingers.
So we say, we're the true liberals.
We're the real liberals, okay?
Those leftists, those progressives, they've betrayed liberalism, but we're the true liberals.
I ain't a liberal.
I'm not an old liberal.
I'm not a new liberal.
I'm not a middle-of-the-road kind of liberal.
I'm a conservative.
I think liberalism is wrong.
I think it's got a false anthropology.
I think it has a false conception of freedom that is totally in contradiction Of the classical conception of freedom, which will actually set you free because the classical conception of freedom, the Christian conception of freedom, is grounded in truth and the acknowledgement that we can tell the difference between good and bad and right and wrong.
And we have a political freedom, not just an individual freedom, but a political freedom to live in a flourishing society.
And that means stopping Our politicians from eating their own excrement, okay?
It's weird because this is a literal thing that has happened.
It's a real fact of a news story.
But it's such a great, it is such a great analogy for how our politicians leave today.
Which way, Western man?
Classical liberalism or Something other than liberalism.
Maybe a real kind of freedom.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code NOLS.
Balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies is the most convenient way to get whole fruits and vegetables daily.
They are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, and added sugar.
The only thing in Balance of Nature's fruit and veggie capsules are fruits and veggies.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
That sounds miserable and time-consuming.
With Balance of Nature, there has never been an easier way to ensure that you get your daily dose of fruits and vegetables.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code NOLS, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to get 35% off your first set of fruits and veggies, and an additional $10 off every additional set you buy.
That is balanceofnature.com, promo code NOLS, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, today.
Get them Very, very popular.
You can look like Ben Davies, that monster who just steals all the delicious Balance of Nature.
Balanceofnature.com, promo code K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Speaking of disordered romantic lives, this is the most important article I've read all week, and I meant to get to this yesterday and the day before, but I have to get to it now because it is the most important story of the week.
Can a sexless marriage be a happy one?
This is a very, very lengthy article.
It's really pretty good journalism, actually.
I recommend you go check it out.
It's trending on all sorts of news sites all over the internet.
It's about the increasing fad of not having sex with your spouse.
Just a few little passages.
Will and Rose.
This is the first line of the story.
Will and Rose met online 10 years ago.
His screen name was Professor Parsley, and he looked the part.
Tall and thin, with glasses, features that Rose found attractive.
On their first date, Rose learned that Will was a college student living with his mother, and his handle came from a nickname given to him by a child at an art camp where he worked.
They laugh about it now, as they do most things.
Rose was drawn to how stable Will seemed, so unlike the other men she had dated who dreaded commitment.
Their relationship survived multiple moves, about a year of long-distance dating, and the challenges of finding time to be together while living with parents and roommates.
Now here's the rub.
As much as Will grounds her, Rose feels that the familiar calm of their relationship also shuts her down sexually.
They go months without sex, but they don't lack intimacy.
Hold on.
I think we might be hearing Rose's perspective here a little much.
Something tells me that if we were to talk to Will about going months and months without having sex with his wife, he might say that their intimacy is a little bit lacking.
But what's going on?
The story goes on.
Rose's mother, now divorced, of course, felt obligated to have sex with Rose's father once a week.
That's not the kind of relationship Rose wants.
To get into a sexual mood, Rose relies on a set of rituals to help build anticipation.
Blah blah blah about the rituals.
Will doesn't need to do anything to feel ready for sex, and Rose sees this as another way in which they're different.
Over the years, they have accepted that this is what their sex life looks like, and will look like, if they want to be together, which they do.
Oh, man.
Poor, poor Will.
And poor Rose, for that matter.
They've just accepted this.
No, no, no.
They haven't accepted anything.
Rose is denying her husband sex, and her husband is going along to it because he is being nagged to death and sort of cuckolded by his wife.
Not really cuckolded in that she's not sleeping with other men, but she's denying him the marital right.
This poor guy just can't stand up for himself and say, hey, you know, lady, I think we should do the things that married couples do.
And she says, no, no, that's what my father said to my mother, and she divorced him for that.
Because my father wanted to sleep with his wife once a week, for goodness sakes.
And I just don't think, in this modern day and age, that spouses need to sleep together.
How did we get to this point?
How on earth?
You know, I guess in this modern day and age, probably most people don't think that married couples have to sleep together because we don't know what marriage is anymore.
We've so divorced marriage from its purpose, which is the begetting and education of children, and also the mutual support of the spouses.
We now deny both of those facts.
Now we say marriage is about two people who Live together?
Well, if you're two people who live together, you don't necessarily have to be married.
Increasingly, people are just concubines or cohabitating.
And if you're married, you don't necessarily have to live together anymore, actually.
So, I don't know.
I actually don't really know what modern people think marriage is.
And you certainly don't have to be the opposite sex from your spouse.
You don't have to have kids, and you don't really have to support each other, and it's not a lifelong commitment, and so we don't know.
Marriage really doesn't mean anything at all in the public conception.
But marriage is a natural institution, and it does have a meaning.
And part of the meaning of marriage is you sleep with your spouse.
Where did this error come from?
I think it comes from the first sentence.
Will and Rose met online 10 years ago.
They met online, meaning their bodies did not really have anything to do with how they came together.
It was just virtual.
They were just kind of ideas to each other.
And increasingly, we live in a disembodied virtual world.
So, is it any surprise that we downplay the importance of the body to the relationship?
Not at all.
So no, we don't need to actually be physically intimate.
We're just avatars.
He's Professor Parsley.
He's not my husband.
He's Professor Parsley.
He's just a, he's a screen name and gives me a sense of comfort.
But I don't have any obligations to him.
And he doesn't have any obligations to me.
He has an obligation to put up with not having sex if he doesn't want me to divorce him.
Because if our marriage is going to work, if our marriage is, if we want to be together, that's what is going to happen.
No.
Women.
Women.
You know I love women.
There are some people on the right, they don't love women.
They are misogynistic.
That's not me.
That's not me, ladies.
You know I love women.
Women, you need to sleep with your husbands.
You have to.
You have to do it, unless there is some grave reason.
I'm not saying there aren't grave reasons sometimes why you got to go a while with that.
Unless there is some grave and unusual reason, you have to sleep with your husbands.
And husbands, you have to sleep with your wives.
The rest of this article goes on.
All these other couples, how they just, you know, they look at porn separately now, and they don't really, they don't have to be together.
They just, you know, cultivate their lusts for other women and men, and they just do things separately.
And I guess they're under the same roof a lot of the time, but that's not, that is not marriage, man.
The term that used to be used, you're not allowed to even mention this anymore, is the marital debt.
The notion that when you get married, you have a right to sex.
The man has the right to request sex of his wife, and the wife has a right to request sex of her husband.
And in fact, there was, I forget where I was reading this, there was actually a case made during the Middle Ages, during the Crusades, that a wife could prevent her husband from going on crusade by claiming the marital debt.
Say, look, we got married, we signed a contract, and you owe me sex, husband, so you're not going to the Holy Land.
Sorry, you're not gonna go out fighting.
Where does this come from?
It comes from 1 Corinthians chapter 7.
And the full verses are, for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.
Let the husband render the debt to his wife and the wife also in like manner to the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband.
And in like manner, the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
So the libs and the feminists are going to say, this is misogynistic.
No man has the right to demand sex of his wife.
It's her body, her choice, you know, but no, that's not the classical conception.
That's not the Christian conception.
And it's not just one way.
It's not just that the man can claim the woman's body.
It's that the woman can claim the man's body, too.
It's that you become one flesh.
And you no longer just have your total individual autonomy.
That's the point of marriage, is that man is a coupling creature, and we come together and form the basic unit of society, which is not one person, but two.
With a love that's so real that it produces people, or at least it used to when we had sex with our wives.
And with our husbands.
Have I put too fine a point on it?
Can a sexless marriage be a happy one?
Well, barring some grave reason, it can't really be a marriage.
That's a pretty, we used to understand, back when we knew what marriage was, we knew that, you know, the thing that married couples do was a pretty important part of it.
Now, who knows, you take that away, what's a marriage?
I don't know, maybe that'll be the next Daily Wire blockbuster documentary.
What is, what is marriage?
It's been two years of fighting the left with great products from Jeremy's Razors.
They are only getting better.
Jeremy's 2nd Generation Razor is here.
You will notice the reconstructed, ergonomic handle for superior durability and improved coated stainless steel blades that last longer.
Plus, enjoy more flexibility for a close shave without nicks or cuts for those who meticulously craft their masculine look.
Introducing Jeremy's new Precision 5 Razor, completely transformed with a precision trimmer and enhanced comfort thanks to the improved lubrication strip.
If shaving feels like a chore, meet the brand new Sprint 3 with open blade geometry for a swift, clean shave, allowing you to get back to your manly pursuits in no time.
Razors not made in China.
Razors made right.
Progress that is not progressive.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to upgrade to your new second-generation razor today.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Chris Brooks 6965, who says, Mr. Knowles is right.
Those are always my favorite comments.
Mr. Knowles is right.
Nobody can be impartial to Trump.
Yeah, of course.
We now have a jury in the Trump trial in New York, but no one's going to be impartial.
And it's not even just Trump.
People have strong opinions about Trump, but no one can be impartial to any president.
Obama, Bush, Clinton.
When you're the president, everyone has a strong opinion of you.
That's one of the reasons why, for the first 250 years of American history, we did not prosecute presidents until the liberals blew up that aspect of our constitutional order.
Speaking of men and women, there's a clip going viral right now.
And everybody on the internet is dunking on it.
This is from some church somewhere.
I don't even know where the church is or remember what the name of it is.
It's the Stronger Men's Conference.
These kinds of events have been cropping up in recent years.
Conferences for men.
Hundreds, thousands of men to go to and just become more manly and learn the art of manliness.
And before I comment on it, I'll just play the clip for you so you can form your own opinion.
Welcome to the Stronger Men's Conference.
When you're in the presence of the Lord, powerful things happen.
God, whatever you have for me, I want to hear it.
Help me to grow because I want to be a stronger man.
That was crazy!
What God did in your life, it's meant to impact the world around you.
It's meant to be multiplied.
That's the plan of God for you.
We can change and impact the world because we serve the strong man, Jesus Christ.
He says, I will go with you.
Behold, I'm with you always.
I'm going to give you strength.
Never leave any warfare the same way as you entered it because you've been through something with Jesus.
You've had an encounter with the Most High God.
He's changed you and transformed you and renewed you.
Okay.
Everybody is dunking on this clip and on this conference.
I am not going to join the ruckus of dunking on it.
Some of it might look a little bit cheesy.
Some of it looks pretty fun, though.
I don't know.
I'd like to go see boxing.
That looks kind of cool, and it's great to pray, and you know, as some of the speakers, Josh Hawley was there.
It's kind of cool, and the monster trucks might be a little overboard, but the problem with this, to me, Does not seem to be any of the particular acts, which is really what most people are dunking on.
The problem with this to me is not even with the notion that men need to have some instruction in manliness.
They do.
They do.
We have a dearth of manliness.
The popular culture is attacking manliness.
The problem is not that this is connected to a church.
In fact, that's probably the best part of it of all, because true manliness is rooted in God.
That's, you know, God made man, and God is I am that I am, and so when you ground your identity in God, then you know who you are, and when you don't, you have no idea who you are.
So, all of that in principle is fine.
What seems unfortunate about this event to me is that the appeal of it is entertainment.
It's really entertaining.
This is crazy, right?
The appeal of it is its kind of informality.
Just people kind of moshing around with monster trucks and, you know, bands playing and, you know, just having a casual fun time.
Is that really what we're lacking in our culture?
We're lacking for entertainment?
We're lacking casualness?
Informality?
No.
No, no, no.
We are drowning in entertainment.
Everything is entertainment now.
Education is entertainment.
College is like Disney World.
News is entertainment.
Everything.
It's all around us.
We're saturated in it.
The moment that you're not watching a TV show or playing some kind of game in what should be an educational institution, you're just on your phone being entertained again.
We need sobriety, I think, is what we need.
We need study, is what we need.
We need seriousness.
Is the problem with our culture that we're too stuffy and formal?
No, we're not formal at all.
We've lost all sorts of formality.
And a facility with formality is a part of manliness.
You need to know how to address people the proper way.
You need to know how to dress.
Properly.
You need to know how to behave.
You need to know how to comport yourself.
You need to connect with some of the traditions in your culture that built up a flourishing culture before we tore it down in large part through informality.
That to me seems to be the problem.
It's not that this conference... I would go to this conference.
I would show up, at least go to the boxing match.
Probably kind of fun.
The only real problem I see with it Is it's not addressing the real heart of the crisis of manliness, which is that right now men are too silly and soft and flabby and frivolous and informal.
So we need a new men's conference that's grounded in something a little sturdier and realer.
If we want our men to be like the men, the men used to be, the men who built this civilization.
Now speaking of men and family, Fifteen members of the Kennedy family have endorsed Joe Biden in Philadelphia.
Very awkward because one of their family members, one of their most prominent family members, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is running for president himself against Joe Biden.
Here's what the Kennedys had to say.
My name is Terry Kennedy and I am the seventh child of Robert and Ethel Kennedy.
I'm joined here today with my sisters, Kathleen and Rory, with Joe and Chris and Max.
And with my hero, President Joe Biden.
Okay, so that's...
That's Bobby Kennedy's sister coming out saying, I'm not endorsing my brother, I'm endorsing this corpse who calls himself the President, Joe Biden, and I'm here with all these other members of my family, and we the Kennedys, we're endorsing Biden, not Kennedy.
Who cares?
Who is this woman?
Carrie Kennedy, right?
She's one of the few Kennedys whose names I even recognize.
I couldn't have told you what she looked like, couldn't have told you what she sounds like, All these other Kennedys behind her, I can't name a single one of them.
I can name some of the other Kennedys, like Carolyn Kennedy, a couple of her kids I recall, but I can't name any of these guys.
Because the only Kennedy who matters these days is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
It ain't 1965 anymore, lady.
The Kennedy name has kind of passed a little bit.
It has prominence.
The name Roosevelt has prominence.
But the day of the Roosevelt's dominating democratic politics is kind of over, and the day of the Kennedy's really dominating democratic politics is kind of over.
We've had new dynasties since then, the Clintons for one, and Obama came in.
We'll see if any of the other Obamas run for office, but it's kind of There's one Kennedy who still matters.
There's one Kennedy who's still relevant in politics.
And it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Love him or hate him.
He's the one.
He's the one challenging the political establishment.
He's the one who Joe Biden is really afraid of.
That's why he's trotting out all of Kennedy's relatives to endorse him over their own flesh and blood.
But it doesn't really matter.
Do you think that's going to move one single vote away from Bobby Kennedy?
I do not think so.
Now, speaking of threats to Democrats, House Democrats from the January 6th Committee are really, really worried that Donald Trump is going to put them in jail.
The January 6th committee, not just the House Dems who were on it, but also people who testified, this DC cop, Michael Fanone, who testified before the committee, and now he works for CNN, he told CBS News, quote, Trump's going to weaponize the Department of Justice and use it to go after people like myself.
He's telling us exactly what he's doing.
Trump go after the January 6th Committee?
Well, because they lied.
We now know that the January 6th Committee lied by omitting testimony that President Trump did, in fact, request troops to protect the U.S.
Capitol on... Sorry.
January 6th!
The worst day ever in the history of any republic ever!
So, we know that he did that.
We know that witnesses testified to the J6 Committee that this happened.
And we know that the January 6th Committee covered this up.
Liz Cheney covered this up.
We know that it was a big farce, a big hoax.
We saw the tapes from January 6th after the fact that were suppressed by the committee.
So is Trump going to throw these people in prison?
Probably not, but maybe he should.
I don't know.
That's what they're doing to him.
Is Donald Trump going to weaponize the Department of Justice against his enemies?
Probably not.
He probably won't.
But maybe he should.
That's what they're doing to him.
Why are they accusing him?
There's no evidence whatsoever that Trump would ever do anything like this.
Barack Obama weaponized the agencies against his enemies.
Joe Biden has weaponized the agencies against his enemies.
The agencies themselves have weaponized themselves against their enemies, the conservatives.
There's no evidence that any right-wingers, least of all Trump, would do that.
So why are they accusing him of that?
Because they have a guilty conscience.
And when you have a guilty conscience, you start suspecting people of doing the very things that you have been doing.
That's what this is about.
This is pure projection.
It shows us their own guilt, and it reminds us that maybe Trump actually should do these things, even though he almost certainly will not.
Our mailbag is sponsored by PeerTalk.
Go to peertalk.com slash knolls, scan the W-L-E-S, because right now, right now, our listeners get an additional 50, 5-0% off their first month.
Take it away.
Hi Michael, RJ here.
I enjoyed your speech at the University of Illinois on Tuesday.
I ended up being too far back in the line to ask my question, so here it is.
I'm 21 now, but when I was 18, I ran for city council in Newton, Illinois, and won while I was still in high school.
I mention this because you frequently stress the importance of prudence and wisdom in not just politics, but in life.
What is your opinion on young politicians?
Obviously, young people should get involved in politics where they can, but should they be politicians?
Would it be better to leave the actual act of governance to wiser, older people?
By the way, Ben Davies, thanks for the picture.
As always, huge fan of the show.
Thank you!
Great question.
Yeah, generally speaking, you should.
It's okay.
For some local race, maybe it's okay just to, you know, where the stakes are relatively low, you know, cut your teeth in politics.
Maybe.
It's true, the Founding Fathers were rather young, but, you know, also it was a different age.
They were much better educated than we are today, both in the moral virtues and in the intellectual virtues.
So, I don't think it's really comparable.
Yeah, people should Accumulate some wisdom, book learning and practical learning, and then run for office.
I was approached when I was in college to run for the city council seat.
There was one city council seat that usually went to a student in New Haven, and I was approached to run for it as a conservative, so the odds that a Republican could ever win in New Haven were very, very low.
But I considered it, I strongly considered it, and I ultimately decided against it.
I didn't feel the juice was worth the squeeze.
There wasn't enough that I could get done to make it really worth going out there on a limb at such a young age when I was so green, when I didn't quite yet know totally what I thought, when I didn't quite have the political skills to do the job very well.
I just felt it wasn't really worth it, even for a job that often did go to a student.
So, no, I think wisdom is good.
We often now mock the idea that politicians are kind of old.
People mocked Reagan for that.
Reagan said, you know, I will not make age an issue in this campaign.
I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience.
And it was a good line and there was a lot of truth to it.
Next question.
Hello, Michael.
Before I started listening to your show, my wife and I did IVF and we were very successful.
We now have several cryopreserved babies that we pay for annually.
Since listening, I found your comments on IVF to be quite compelling.
I'm now seeking some advice.
The way I see it, there are only three options on how to deal with our offspring.
Destroy, which to me is morally unacceptable.
donate, which legally speaking my wife needs to agree to, and she refuses to bury another child or give them to someone else.
The only other option I see is delay, paying the annual cost of cryopreservation.
Although I don't understand the spiritual implications of a baby being cryopreserved indefinitely, this seems like the most prudent option to honor my wife.
She has said that she's open to the eventual possibility of donating to one of our own kids who may struggle with infertility in the future, or even donating them to a Christian adoption agency upon our deaths.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks.
Really good question.
I'm also really gratified to hear that I persuaded you on this issue, especially because you had already done it.
You know, sometimes, obviously it speaks to your reasonableness and maturity.
But for a lot of people, if they've done something...
That they then come to believe is wrong.
They can't admit that it was wrong.
They just can't bring themselves to do it.
Even if they strongly suspect it, they can't.
They just feel such guilt from their own actions, and we all have done terrible things that we regret, that they can't bring themselves to admit the thing that their intellect sees to be the truth.
So, hats off to you.
That's great.
What should you do?
Well, you're right.
It would be wrong to kill the kids.
And in terms of the donation, in terms of the Either, you know, your wife having another one or especially donating it to someone else.
It's bioethically and morally dubious.
So I think you're right.
I think you just delay.
This is a relatively novel bioethical issue.
It's only come up in recent decades and so I would...
Just keep paying the fee and wait for some bioethical ruling to come down from a serious authority.
There's no way to totally fix it.
The bad thing has been done and, you know, you did it.
Presumably, somewhat innocently.
You didn't realize the implications of what you had been doing.
But now you do, and so we're just trying to, you know, do our best in a broken world, in a tough situation.
So I think your intuition is probably right.
We delay until a better answer becomes clear to us.
Next question.
Hey Michael, I hope you had a great Easter.
And regarding religion, because you guys at the Daily Wire talk about religion a lot, but you have some disagreements.
So of course I know Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew, and I'm wondering if you ever talk about religion with him and ever tried to talk about the Gospel with him, try to evangelize.
Do you think Ben might ever become a Christian?
Do you pray for Ben's salvation?
And another person might be Jordan Peterson.
I don't know how often you talk to Jordan, but his spiritual journey is pretty interesting.
From what you know from him, where's he at in his spiritual journey?
How close is he to knowing Jesus?
What do you think?
Well, his wife, Jordan's wife just converted to Catholicism, so that's very exciting.
I don't know, I have seen Jordan a fair bit relatively recently, but I'm not sure exactly where he is.
He certainly seems to be more religious today than he was when I first met him years ago.
You know, years ago, I interviewed him, and I said, okay, Professor Peterson, do you believe in God?
He said, well, you know, it depends on the meaning of the word believe, and what do we mean?
Do we believe in and in God?
And now I think he probably would say, yes, he does, and it's all he ever talks about is religion, so he's clearly moved a bit.
As for Ben, yes, We have talked about religion many times over the last decade, and talk about it all the time, you know, a whole lot of the time.
Certainly would pray for Ben's salvation, and I do.
There was one time he and I were on an airplane, and I forget how it came up, but I was going on about incarnation.
And the importance of incarnation to religion.
And Ben starts rolling his eyes, and Ben's taking it seriously.
He's read St.
Thomas Aquinas, and I think St.
Augustine, and C.S.
Lewis, and all sorts of writers, and he said, ah, Knowles, here we go, I'm gonna have to hear a lecture for the rest of this flight about incarnation, and I said, and you know, enfleshment and all that, and I said, okay, all right, I'll lay off Ben.
But, if we hit a little bit of turbulence, I had a cup of water, so if we hit a little bit of turbulence, you know, I might have to, I might, just to be safe for you, I'm gonna maybe do a little splashing, and we left it at that.
So, you know, at some point, maybe, who knows?
I was an atheist for 10 years.
Ben is not an atheist.
He's got a different religion, but who knows, you know?
Kind of crazier things have happened.
Next question.
Hi Michael, I had the privilege to attend your talk at U of I. I hoped to ask you in person, but you talk a lot about issues of the American college and university system, but you also mention how that age group impacts change in our culture.
What are some practical ways, if there are any at this point, that conservative students like myself can make some impactful changes in such a liberal culture?
I am fed up with feeling silenced on campus about my Christian beliefs and conservative views.
I look forward to hearing your response.
Thank you.
What can you do?
And we already said at the top, don't run for office.
Or, you know, only in rare circumstances should you run for office.
What could you do?
Well, start out just by talking to your colleagues.
Colleagues.
Your classmates, rather.
When I was a freshman, I came into college an atheist.
My randomly assigned freshman year roommate convinced me that God exists.
That was a pretty big change in my life.
That was pretty significant.
That was a conversation over a drink in the dorm.
Okay?
Especially when you're that young, your conversations with your classmates can have huge, life-lasting effects.
That's probably where I would begin.
You know, we have obligations in order of charity.
So you have more obligations to the people closest to you than the people further away from you.
And especially when you're 18 and you don't have a huge platform and you're not established in the community, that's a good place to start.
Alright, let's get to some written mailbag before we move on to the Membrane Segmentum.
From Jeff, King Puff, my question is about family devotions in an effort to destroy the lib notion that teaching your children is an endless conversation and simply teaching them how to think and not what to think.
Bonkoff, I am starting to develop regular patterns of spiritual formation in my own family.
For now I have a four-year-old and a one-year-old and we read and discuss a story Bible every night.
Yes, I do have thoughts.
story probably, as well as having family meetings at dinner where we discuss spiritual, moral, biblical issues my four-year-old can understand.
I want to implement a more official family devotion time at the dinner table every night.
Do you have recommendations on where to start or how you have done something like this?
Or is there a book guide you have seen to reuse yourself?
Keep it creamy, brother.
Yes, I do have thoughts.
It's good to teach your kids stuff.
You should do that in your actions.
this.
You can do that explicitly through lessons.
But it's really important for your kids to see you learning.
Not just you as the teacher, not just you as the master, but you as the student, you learning, and you on your knees praying.
So I think actually probably the best spiritual exercise you could do is all pray together.
Preferably on your knees, I guess.
One of the best ways that you can instruct your students is by you getting on your knees and attending Mass or, you know, some kind of church service.
I don't know exactly what your religious background is.
It would be you in a position of prayer and supplication and of being willing to listen to a spiritual authority, be it a priest or deacon or whoever.
That can be very, very helpful because It shows that you're living it out.
You're not expecting him to do something that you will not do.
You're not in fundamentally different positions here, but you're both sinners, you know, who need grace and who turn to God with your prayers, you know.
Miserere nobis.
Have mercy on us sinners.
From Jordan, Michael Bigfan here.
I'm writing to find out if you have yet heard of the court case Tickle vs. Giggle.
As ridiculous as the names of the opposing parties may be, the subject matter is quite serious.
Essentially, a transgender woman named Roxy Tickle is suing a website named Giggle, which operates as a women-only platform for refusing to allow a biological man into the community.
It appears the implications of the case outcome could be significant, even internationally, as the case will attempt to define the word woman legally for the first time.
I would love to see you follow this case.
Thanks again from a loyal parasocial fan.
Tickle vs. Giggle.
I absolutely love it.
I had not heard of the case until now, and I look forward to following it.
I will give you the best reporting on Tickle vs. Giggle I can muster.
The rest of the show continues now.
You do not want to miss it.
It is Fake Headline Friday.
I need your help to discern the fake headline.
Become a member.
Use code NOLESKIN at WLAS at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
