The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 749 - Your Lying Eyes

Episode Date: April 23, 2021

NBC gets caught doctoring footage of the Columbus police shooting, House Dems vote for anti-constitutional DC statehood, and a surprising new study sounds the alarm on masks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I think for a lot of people, the most jarring aspect of this Columbus shooting story where the girl tries to stab the other girl and then the cop shoots the girl with the knife. The most jarring aspect of it is how this is in any way controversial. We are seeing this with our own eyes. You see the girl with the knife, inches from the other girl. The cop waits until the very last minute, but then he blows away the threat, rather. How on earth could anybody deny this? How could anybody not trust what they're seeing with their own eyes? And the answer is very simple.

The establishment media, the left-wing media, the mainstream media, will not let you see that reality with your own eyes. NBC News just got caught doing this. Lester Holt at NBC introduced the story, said, here is what happened. You've got to check out this footage. Plays the footage. And then NBC edits the footage so you never see it. the knife. Just before yesterday's verdict, a police officer shot and killed a 16-year-old black girl in Columbus, Ohio, saying she was threatening others with a knife. Police body cam video

was quickly released. Our Kevin Tibbles has that story, and they need to caution you. The images are difficult to watch. Police body cam video shows Makaya Bryant's final moments. When a Columbus, Ohio police officer, responding to a call gets out of his car and seconds later, fatally shoots the 16-year-old girl. Authorities say Bryant was threatening two other girls with a knife. It's a tragedy. There's no other way to say it. It's a 16-year-old girl.

Reden fires his weapon four times, striking Bryant. Officers are seen and heard performing CPR. Body camera footage shows a knife on the ground. No, body camera footage shows the knife in the girl's hand inches away from the other girl's throat, and then you edited it out. You can see the way they paused the frame so that the knife is out of frame, so you can't see it, but they kept the audio going so you just hear the gunfire. Officials say the girl was hold. No, not officials say. The video shows that the girl had the knife at the other girl's throat, but they edit it out

because they won't let you see it. Is it any wonder there's controversy? Anyone who would see the footage, anyone who would acknowledge the footage would know, the cop was completely justified. So what's the left guy to do to push their narrative? They can't let you see that. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment yesterday is from Fred, who points out, everyone's ignoring the fact that a guy almost removed the head from that woman's shoulders with that kick. Yeah, and people aren't paying very close attention because everyone's focusing on the girl stabbing the other girl. But there's also a grown man kicking a woman in the head who's on the ground here. So this is not a great situation. You've got a man

kicking a woman in the head. You've got a girl stabbing another girl and you've got a cop trying to keep the peace and neutralize the threat. And who's the bad guy in the situation? The cop, of course. Why? Because he's a white guy. He's a white. He's a man and he's a police officer. So he's the bad guy here. He's the only person in this situation in any way trying to bring about justice. And so he is the bad guy, according to the left. Pretty upside down, topsy-turvy. When things are crazy, I've found it's a good idea to invest in physical gold. It's a good hedge against all the craziness of this world. If you want to invest in physical gold, a great way to do it. Acre. Acre lets you subscribe to gold bars for as little as $30 a month. You pay each month and once your

gold stash reaches the price of their gold bars, they will discreetly ship acre gold to your house. Just recently, Acre has introduced a new $100. a month subscription to a five gram gold bar. It's just a brilliant way to invest without coming out of pocket all at once because you say, well, look, gold costs a little bit of money and more than I've gotten the couch cushions. Well, that's fine. If you just invest every month in this gold stash, once you, that stash hits the price of the gold bars, you get the bar discreetly. It's great. Also, they have a tremendous new product. You know, there's a nationwide ammo shortage. So Aker has created a solid gold 24-carat 9mm bullet for you to buy now. I would not recommend

shooting it exactly. That would be a very expensive day at the range. They're super duper cool. I really like this. Head on over. Brilliant way to invest in physical gold. Go to getacregold. com slash Michael. Start investing in physical gold today. Make sure you go to that URL because acre is giving away a gold bar to qualify for the giveaway, tweet or post why you should be the recipient and mention at get underscore acre. That's getacregold.com slash Michael. And thank you acre gold for supporting the show. So the footage shows the girl with the knife inches away from the other girl that she's about to stab. NBC News edits that out. No, that's not part of it. Their excuse probably is we didn't want to show footage of the girl actually being shot. Well, then why did you edit it so

perfectly where the knife is just out of frame? Body cam footage is not the only footage we have, by the way. There is more footage from across the street where someone was not intervening, not trying to help, just filming the thing, but at least now we have this footage of the knife wielding girl screaming just before she is shot, screaming, I'm going to stab the F out of you, blank. And there it is. It's a little bit hard to hear obviously in the melee and the audio's further away, but she does say, I'm going to stab the F out of you blank. It's, but you couldn't, you couldn't script it any more clearly. If you were, if you were making a, a TV show about this.

You said, how do we script a totally justified police intervention? You would say in the moments before, I'm going to, I'm going to commit this crime. I'm going to do, I'm going to use deadly force on you. Innocent person, bang, bang, bang. Not just that. We have more footage from the cops of girl who was attacked saying, yes, the girl with a knife was coming after me. She came out with a knife earlier? No, she just, that's what the guy, that's what the police did.

That's the lady on the floor? She came after me. With a knife? Yeah, so she, so he got her. Yeah, she came after me with a knife. And it's the woman who's wearing the really bright pink outfit that you can all see in the video. And you see the cop is walking up. Doesn't, doesn't sound like a white guy cop, by the way, either.

And the woman says, yes, she was coming after me. She was coming after me. According to the Columbus dispatch, a neighbor said that these, this cop, this cop, saved lives. Donovan Brinson, who's a neighbor to Mackey Bryant's foster home, says, quote, and this is being reported now by the Columbus dispatch. While what happened is tragic, Brinson said, it all happened so fast that he didn't see how the officer could have had time to have done anything else. He referenced the girl seen in both police body camera footage and on his own camera footage, who was wearing pink, who was the second female engaged with Brian in the scuffle.

Brinson said he really thinks more people might have died had police not taken action. Okay, clear as can be. The one thing I want to say before we move on to the media, which is actually what I'm interested in talking about here, is the circumstances of this are deeply, deeply sad. The cop did absolutely the right thing. He's a hero. He should win awards for what he did. And he saved lives very likely, as this neighbor says, as the Columbus dispatch is reporting as the woman who was about to be stabbed is saying, right? He did that. He did that. However, it is a very sad thing that this girl, Mackeya Bryant, did not have good parents. It's a very sad thing that this girl, Mackey of Bryant, was put into the foster care system.

I was thinking about this last night. I was thinking about this story a lot, obviously, because I'm looking at my cute little baby boy, my newborn baby. And I'm thinking, this kid, at least now, I think we're all healthy, we're all here, has these two loving parents who are giving him every single advantage. they possibly can. I think about myself when I was a little kid, how important it was that I had loving parents around me all the time, devoted parents who would give anything for me. And this girl, Mackey Bryant, did not. She had bad parents, and she was raised in a bad culture around bad people in a bad system. And that's not the fault of the patriarchy or the white

supremacy, it's the fault of her bad parents and her bad family around her. That's whose fault it is. And that's really sad. And they failed her. And they, they deserve, she does not deserve all the blame for her situation. She chose to do what she did with the knife and she faced the consequences for that. Her family bears quite a lot of blame too, though, for putting her in this, this awful upbringing for not educating her correctly, for not taking care of her, for not loving her. They, they deserve blame too. And I think you're going to see a lot of people who you're going to see like the second cousin twice removed of Mackey of Bryant now coming in and trying to milk this situation for some money from the state, which is even more degrading and pathetic. But really,

they should all be looking inward at themselves and what they have done here. Even, I can't believe I'm saying this. Even CNN. Even Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo. Tweedled D and Tweedled dumb or admitting that this cop was totally justified in his actions. People are very emotional right now, but we've got to be fair about what happens when police arrive at scenes. It is tragic that is a 16-year-old girl, just as it is tragic that it's a 13-year-old in Chicago. When police are chasing people, they don't know how old they are. And they don't run and say, hey, how old are you? Oh, I'm 13.

You know, my mom let me, you don't know that. Or I'm 16. When they roll up on a scene, they see people tussing around, someone has a knife, and their job is to protect and serve every life on that scene. And if they see someone who is in the process of taking a life, what is that decision? What decision do they have to make? And I know that people say, well, you know, you could do this, you do that. Tazers don't work the way guns work.

Not at that distance. Not at that distance. And now with that amount of time. time. That, all right. Tazers, then they don't always connect. So you've got to get, you know, two prongs or what have you, and it's got to connect or whatever.

Absolutely. They go on, actually. They describe it even more. I'm impressed, though, that they even, it's not just like they're saying, yes, the use of force was justified here. They're acknowledging for all these armchair quarterbacks who know nothing about firearms, who say, well, he should have used a taser. First of all, tasers don't work.

They work sometimes, but they're not particularly reliable at that dissonable. at that distance, they would not be really reliable. With the knife that close to the other girl's body, it would not be that reliable. And you would be staking the likely victim's life on something that is just not that trustworthy. Why didn't he shoot the knife out of her hand or something? Because life is not the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because life is not a spaghetti western, and that's not how firearms work. And that's not how moving targets work. And they acknowledge that because there's There's really no argument here. But some people don't want to acknowledge that.

Ilhan Omar, absolutely crass politicians, shameless, at an event with career extortionist and race hustler, Al Sharpton says this was an absolutely tragic killing. Salam alaikum, everyone. Thank you, Reverend Al Sharpton, for being here and for that beautiful eulogy. Most of us in this room, including myself, look at you as a guardian and are blessed to be in your presence.

And may Dante Wright serve as a guardian for all of us. Joyce Beatty was going to be here and speak on our behalf as the chairwoman of our caucus. but just like we've been visited by tragedy here in Minnesota often, she in Columbus, Ohio, was visited by a tragedy of a young woman whose life was taken by Columbus police. Ilhan Omar says that Al Sharpton, he's a guardian, he's a hero. Al Sharpton is a shakedown artist who launched his career on the Tijuana Brawley hoax, who has done nothing but try to grab power.

money by exploiting divisions and tragic events, and in some case, contriving them out of whole cloth, and that's what Ilhan Omar is doing as well. That's what a lot of politicians are going to be doing as well. None of us knows when the end will come, but you should be prepared for that. I would strongly recommend you check out trust and will. It is very important to have a will, okay? At trust and will.com, setting up an estate plane is simple, convenient, and secure for as a little as $39 you can nominate guardians for your children, determine who gets your stuff, and plan for future medical care, all from the comfort of your home. Trust and Will documents are designed by estate planning experts and customized for the state you live in. And with live customer support

seven days a week, trust and will.com's team is available to answer any questions you have while setting up your plan. Trust and will is a trusted name in online estate planning, the category leader on trust pilot, and they've helped hundreds of thousands of people protect their families, assets and legacy. Strongly recommend this, guys. I did have a loved one who died without a will, and it was an absolute mess. I really love these guys. I really trust them.

Get peace of mind at trust and will. com slash Knowles. Get 10% off plus free shipping on your customized legal documents. Don't wait. Do it right now. Very, very important stuff. Just do it. It's peace of mind.

Your family will be set. 10% off plus free shipping at trust and will.com slash knolls. Trust and will.com slash Knowles. A lot of politicians. Notably on the left, politicians generally, but notably in this case on the left, are going to have no shame in exploiting genuinely sad events and contriving crises to steal more power. And the left is much better at this than conservatives. And they are wielding power right now in a way that the right has not done, maybe ever. and in a way that the left has not done in many decades. The Democrats in Washington are trying to turn Washington, D.C. into a state.

D.C. statehood passed the House of Representatives yesterday in a party-line vote. This would make D.C. the 51st state. Now it will be sent to the Senate. It's called the Washington D.C. Admission Act. This is anti-constitutional. I don't even say unconstitutional. It's more than that. It's anti-constitutional.

The entire purpose of the federal district is that the federal government not be held in any one state. That's why you take a little land from Virginia, take a little land from Maryland, you create the federal district. That's where the federal government will be. It is entirely for the purpose of not keeping the federal seat of power in one state. Democrats know that. However, they realize that because D.C. is a Democrat. area if you make DC a state, then Democrats get two new senators, they get one new representative in the House, they will get an advantage in the electoral college, they will hold the Senate

possibly forever, and they'll very likely hold the presidency. They have a very good shot of holding the presidency forever or just nearly so. So they're pushing for this. A lot of it will come down to whether or not the filibuster is broken, whether Joe Manchin goes squishy, how the Democrats hold Manchin now, the most powerful man in Washington, D.E. You hear Republicans now saying, you know, this is outrageous Democrats. We've never made a paragraph. We've never tried to pack the court and steal a permanent majority in the Senate, upending constitutional norms. We've never done that. Right. The Democrats know that. They know that Republicans don't wield political power even when they have it because the Republicans are not a serious governing party. And they know that they will wield political power when they have it. And so they're going to do it and they're going to get even more power. Right. But it's unconstitutional to make DC a state this way.

Yeah, they know that. They know that. You don't need to tell them. They know they just don't care because Democrats are playing to win. Because Democrats have a purpose as a party that is more than just changing the marginal tax rate. They know where they want to go. They have a progressive vision of politics. Republicans don't. Republicans are this weird hodgepodge of traditional conservatives, libertarians,

who very often disagree with one another, neocons, who are basically just Warhawk liberals. You know, on domestic policy, they're kind of indistinguishable from center Democrats, but they also want to take over countries in the Middle East. You've got the populists, you've got the paleo conservatives, You've got the this, you got the this, you got the this, you got the that. No one can agree on anything other than cut taxes a little bit. So that's what they do when they have political power. And then Democrats get power and they make big, big wins. Conservatives don't even know how we feel about something like masks, right?

So you got a Republican president, Republicans holding the Senate. And the left, the Democrats are still able to upend the whole culture. locked down the whole country over the woo flu, force everybody to wear those filthy masks. And Republicans barely say boo about it. With few exceptions, they kind of just go along with it. There's a great woman. She's gone viral now.

She was speaking at a government proceeding about the mask itself. Because there are two views on the masks. There's the left-wing argument on the masks, which some squish Republicans went along with. And then there is the proper understanding. of the masks. What the left said was the masks, look, just common sense. We're all going to muzzle ourselves. We're all going to, for the first time ever, wear this ridiculous face covering. And that's going to ease us all back into society. It's going to make us all feel better.

When you walk around and you see everyone covering up their face like a bunch of banditos, like secular burkas, does that make you feel better? Does that let your anxiety go down? No, of course not. The proper view of the masks was this was always a symbol to keep everybody agitated, to keep everybody even more ready. to give away their power to the government and to the experts in particular because they just have this visual cue. Oh, gosh, we've never been in this situation before. I've never seen this before. This pandemic must be super duper serious. Wear the mask sheep. God, give the power away to Dr. Fauci, everybody. Right. And so the psychological effect of that is really insane. A woman has gone viral for

pointing this out and demanding take off the masks. This is not March 2020 anymore. We have three vaccines. Every adult in the state of Georgia that wants that vaccine is eligible to get it right now, and every one of us knows that young children are not affected by this virus. They're not. And that's a blessing. But as the adults, what have we done with that blessing?

We've shoved it to the side and we've said, we don't care. You're still going to wear a mask on your face every day, five and six-year-olds. You still can't play together on the playground like normal children, seven and eight-year-olds. We don't care. We're still going to force you to care. a burden that was never yours to carry shame on us. It's April 15th, 2021, and it's time. Take these masks off of my child.

We chose you to make decisions that would be in our children's best interest and forcing five, six, seven, eight, and nine-year-old little children to cover their noses and their mouths where they breathe for seven hours a day, every day for the last nine months, for a virus that you know doesn't affect them. that is not in their best interest. And this has to stop. Preach, sister, preach. Love it. What can I vote for that woman for? What can she run for where I can vote for? Because she gets it. She gets it more than certainly the experts. And the experts know how to use the masks to wield political power.

But she gets it much better than any of the conservatives who went along with this. The masks have always been a terrible idea. I'm speaking as a political matter right now. Because you know, you know what happens. If I were to come onto this show and say that as a scientific matter, the masks are really a bad idea, they're terrible. Now, I'm just speaking hypothetically here, right? Big Tech would take down this show because big tech follows the science and the experts. And how dare you, Michael, use your political judgment to describe a scientific matter. We can't do that. You're going to come down from YouTube. You're going to come off of Apple

podcasts. You're going to leave Spotify. You can't say that. You can't question the masks. Okay. I'll tell you what then. Let's have a little experiment on the show today. I have here from the National Institutes of Health a peer-reviewed scientific study from medical hypotheses. This was published online November 22nd of 2020. This was published in the journal itself, January 2021. This is from Baruch-Vine-Shall-Boim, who had been affiliated. He was a fellow, I believe, at Stanford University. He has published the headline, face masks in the COVID-19 era, a health hypothesis. I'm just reading from the peer-reviewed scientific study on NIH. If you take me down for this, big tech, I think the mask has fallen off.

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical face masks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease 2019. Although scientific evidence supporting face masks efficacy is lacking, adverse, physiological, psychological, and health effects are established. That's from the abstract of the paper. The current article reviews the scientific evidences with respect to safety and efficacy of wearing face masks, describing the physiological and psychological effects, and the potential long-term consequences on health. It is not clear, however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing face masks as protective strategy,

given the fact that face masks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia, and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination, and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions. Data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbate existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself. Here we go. Here we go. Say goodbye because they're about to take me off. I'm just quoting from the peer-reviewed scientific study. face masks has adverse physiological and psychological effects. Long-term consequences of

wearing face masks on health are detrimental. That from the hypothesis of the paper. Love following the science. Now, you know, I don't think our politics should be based primarily on the science. I think it should be based primarily on the politics and the philosophy and the eternal questions and our right of self-government. And I don't think that we're we should outsource our government to egghead experts. However, even by that premise of the left, that every time we get, we find one scientific paper in the journal, especially the NIH putting it out there, then we need to do whatever that says, okay, well, there we go, follow the science and take off the stupid face masks.

One issue with the face masks is that it makes people, it makes them really itchy if they've got beards. Well, you can take care of your beard either way with beard supply. Now, we all know that the absolute manliest men keep a nice, clean face so they can show off their swarthy skin on their face. But the second, right below those manliest men, very manly men, grow beards, they grow meat, they drink handcrafted booze. Thanks to the manliest giveaway ever, some lucky guy will be doing those things for free.

Enter to win a stash of goods from beard supply, meat church, desert door, Haller Brothers, and more. Extremely cool brands for the red-blooded American male. One lucky bearded winner will get a stash of beard oils and grooming essentials from beard supply, tools for grilling and leather care and a $200 shopping spree with outdoor menswear brand Howler Brothers. Up your game with the stash of goods. Sorry, I'll keep it together. To enter the beard supply spring giveaway, go to beard supply.com slash giveaway.

That's beard supply.com slash giveaway. More like stash giveaway. Good luck. after simply reading a peer-reviewed scientific study questioning, actually contradicting the efficacy and safety of face masks, if Big Tech will still allow me to speak after I've simply read a peer-reviewed study that is posted on the NIH, I still probably will not be able to promote my book, speechless, controlling words, controlling minds. Available now for pre-order. But for how long, I'm not so sure. I've said this from the beginning. I said that this book is pretty spicy.

This book raises a lot of questions for the left that I haven't really seen raised in popular books recently. They're not going to like it. You know, the left only takes down certain books. They don't take down all the books. They specifically take down books. They question the gender ideology like my friend Ryan Anderson's book when Harry became Sally, but other books as well. And I thought this book might fall into that category, so I've said pre-order why you still can.

Well, just heard from my publisher that YouTube, Google Ads, is not permitting the publisher to promote this book right now. The ad was rejected for, quote, election advertising in the United States, which is very strange because the election, I guess in question, it took place six months ago, right? More than six months ago. So what are we taught? Because it talks about certain political issues, Google Ads will not allow the publisher to promote this book. We're still getting more information. We're going back and forth with Google. The book is not even due to be published for two months.

We're almost exactly two months out from publication, and they are already pushing the shenanigans. This is why, by the way, we're selling the book through basically every channel we possibly can. Most books in the United States, most books in the world are sold on Amazon. But we know that if Amazon just clicks a button, then it goes away. So, yes, you can pre-order on Amazon.

It's also on Premier Collectibles, for an autographed first edition copy. It's also on all sorts of other places because I do fear that you're going to see a big push to take it down. And the thing about it is, if the book were to get banned, you'd see a very brief spike in sales on other places. That happens generally when things get canceled. But the reason the left cancels is because in the long run, it works. The reason that they go for this sort of thing is, yeah, you see a short spike and popularity for a few days, but in the long run, because they have the positions of influence and because they have the willingness to wield political power, they will get their way in the long run. And this is

coincidentally, actually the thesis of the book, which tells me that they're going to, they're going to focus on that quite a bit. All of that. Not just a plug, but actually a news story. And I suspect that you're going to, you're going to see more of this as we get as we get closer. Does that count as a plug if it's part of the news? I guess it does. Okay. Bing, Bing. Democrats want to tightly control this narrative.

That's what they want to do. That's all that this is about. And so, Jen Saki the other day at the White House was asked a question. You know, Joe Biden throws out accusations of racism left and right. He called the sitting president, Donald Trump, a racist on the debate stage. If you could even call that a debate during the 2020 election. He regularly, he started his campaign on the false premise that Donald Trump called white supremacists, very fine people at Charlottesville, never happened. He, like all leftists, loves throwing around the term racism.

So, a reporter threw back at Jen Saki and said, you know, a lot of the policies that are now being called racist, mass incarceration, that sort of thing, were created by Joe Biden. So does Joe Biden want to apologize for his own racism according to his own premises? President Biden yesterday responding to George, the George Floyd case verdict, said that George Floyd's death, quote, Rick the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism in the United States. But he's an architect of multiple federal laws in the 1980s and 90s that disproportionately jailed black people and contributed to what many people see as systemic racism. The activist Cornell West said that Biden was, quote, one of the core architects of mass incarceration. and that, quote, I think Biden is going to have to take responsibility and acknowledge the contribution he made to mass incarceration.

To what extent does President Biden acknowledge his own role in systemic racism, and how does that inform his current policy positions? Well, I would say that the president's, one of the president's core objectives is addressing racial injustice in this country, not just through his rhetoric, but through his actions. Does he believe it's important to accept his own culpability? I think I've answered your question. I think I've answered your question. more, so you certainly didn't answer the question. The question was Joe Biden says that, and the left broadly, he says that all these sorts of policies are racist. Joe Biden hurls the term racism around left and right. Joe Biden created many of the policies that are now called racist. So is he sorry?

Does he regret that? She says he, now he's doing good things. Yeah, that's not the question. The question is, if all these things really were racist and Joe Biden, created them, does he regret, does he take responsibility for his own past racism, according to your own definition? She's, I've answered your question. She's not going to answer the question. They don't need to answer the question. They don't need to. NBC doesn't need to apologize for editing that video. The left doesn't need to apologize for any of this. Google doesn't, they don't need to explain why they're not going to let the publisher post an ad for my book. They don't need to explain. Amazon doesn't need to explain why it took down Ryan Andrews.

book, scholarly book about the transgender movement. They just don't need to because they've got the power and they're willing to wield the power. Very few politicians are willing to speak up against these sorts of things. One of them is, my friend Senator Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz yesterday held up an anti-Asian hate crime bill. Oh my gosh, no, huh? What, what, Cruz is for anti-Asian hate crimes? No. Senator Cruz held up the Democrat Asian hate crime bill. that was making its way through the legislature because he wanted to expand it. He said, okay, you're passing this bill,

which doesn't have a lot of teeth to it. It's just kind of a PR thing for you Democrats. Okay, well, if you really want to stop anti-Asian policies, then you need to expand the bill to prohibit colleges from discriminating against Asians in their application process. Right now in this country, by the law, this has been approved by the Supreme Court even,

Colleges can discriminate against Asians and whites in favor of blacks and Hispanics in the admissions process. And that's considered totally fine. So he says, okay, you want a bill that brings justice to Asians? Stop the discrimination at the college level. And what are the Democrats saying? Oh, absolutely not. We like that discrimination. Frankly, I just wish Republicans would go even further and say, by the way, you want to stop the discrimination against the white kids too.

Do that. if we're really going to talk about racial justice, stop discriminating against Asians and whites in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Because we're all for racial justice here, so good, let's have that racial justice. But at the very least, if you're doing the Asian discrimination bill,

at least get rid of the most conspicuous anti-Asian discrimination in the country, Democrats won't do that. They won't let you see that. They don't want to talk about it. And they don't need to answer for it because they've got the political power and they're willing to wield that political power.

And Republicans don't have the political power and even when we do, we're not willing to use it. Ben, today on his show, we'll be talking about how trashing the cops gets black Americans killed. He's going to be talking about it, so make sure you tune in. And also, don't forget, we have a wonderful new episode of Candace tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central only at the Daily Wire. Candice is fired up about the events of this week, as you might imagine.

She's got a lot to say, especially about these issues. To get the full-un censored version of what she's got to say, you've got to become a Daily Wire member. Join in time to catch tonight's live stream. You get 25% off a new membership with Code Candice at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Also, Candice is going to be joined by another ultimate fighter, Dana White, president of the UFC. Subscribe Ness to stream Candice tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central. Only on DailyWire, 25% off a new membership with Code Candice.

DailyWire.com slash subscribe. We'll be right back with the mailback. Welcome back. First question from John. Hey Michael. What is your view on limiting legal immigration? There are multiple cities in the United States where there are more immigrants than natural born citizens. In these cases, assimilation does not seem possible. What's your take on this? I strongly favor, drastically limiting legal immigration. I have long favored this view. This is not some brand new view that's on the fringes of the right. Bill Buckley was debating this sort of thing on his firing line program in the 19th. 90s, okay? This is not some shocking new idea. Conservatives have long, real conservatives have long favor dramatically reducing, not just illegal, but also legal immigration. And it's not because we hate the Mexicans. I mean, first of all, it is a little strange that we have this current immigration policy that gives total deference toward Latin America to the exclusion of people elsewhere in the world.

But even beyond that, to your point, it is very unlikely, if not impossible. to assimilate these kinds of people in these numbers right now with the current political atmosphere that discourages assimilation. It's just not possible. We're taking in two to three million people a year in this country. It's hard because you don't know exactly how many illegal aliens are coming in. But millions and millions of people, far more than any other country in the world. Next highest, it would be Germany. And then in terms of immigration numbers, the rest of the countries aren't even close. Over the last 60 years, the movement of people, into the United States has been the largest mass movement of people in the history of the world.

Too many people, guys. I think we have something like 51 million immigrants in the United States right now, record highs in terms of a percentage of immigrants to the native-born population. You just can't do that. I'm not, I am not saying we should always forever stop immigration totally. That's, I think, not a prudent policy. I don't think that acknowledges the change of circumstances of politics. Likewise, I don't think that, oh, the more the merrier, yeah, come on in. We want the highest levels of immigration ever, just as long as it's illegal immigration. No, that's not a real policy either. A nation also is its people. You know, it's not just the idea, and it's not just the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Shenandoah River or whatever. You know, it's also the people.

And we got a lot of people in this country, and they all look different, they've come here different ways and they've got different family stories. But there is a real distinction between people who are born in this country and people who choose to come in. And if you want to preserve anything like your traditional culture, then you've got to be cautious about immigration. So yes, dramatically lower legal immigration, totally. And eliminate illegal immigration from Brad. Dear Michael, in regard to the recent UFO confirmation by the Pentagon, what would the discovery of intelligent life on other planets mean for the Christian faith? As Christians, how should we react or think about this possibility. Thanks and love the show. People ask this question a lot. C.S.

Lewis wrote about this and said, you know, basically it doesn't change anything. So he's totally open to the prospect of life on other planets and what it would mean for Christianity. To me, it just, it doesn't interest me at all. I don't, I don't think it would change anything. I don't know what, what would it change if there was, there was some other kind of life found on some other planet. I also will tell you, I know that we're talking about the UFOs and everything, I suspect that these UFOs, like previous UFOs, are just military technology, maybe from a hostile power or something, but I don't see any reason to believe that it's ET, you know, or some really hyper-intelligent form of alien life. I just don't see the evidence for it. I'm not convinced that

there are aliens in the universe. I know people get, they say, but it's, yeah, universe is so big. okay, what does that have to do with anything? That doesn't, we don't, we don't know anything about the scientific origins of life. Here's what we know about life. Man is made in the image of God. That's basically all we know, okay? Well, but we know about the microevolution on the islands in the Pacific. Okay, fine, but no one has any materialist scientific theory of how you go from not life to life that is in any way persuasive or credible. So I just, You know, it doesn't particularly interest me, and I don't think it would have much to say, much effect on my theology or my understanding of religion.

But it'd be great. You know, wouldn't that be cool? If we could have even more saved souls throughout the universe, even if they look kind of creepy and wrinkly and weird and great. From Chris, my question is about religion and friends. Everyone at the Daily Wire is a different denomination, Catholic or Jewish. Have you all had a serious debate on these religious differences, or does this? the Daily Wire team keep religion separate from the workplace. Thanks. No, we've talked about this all the time. It's basically all we talk about. You know, we'll occasionally talk about politics, but,

you know, ultimately all human conflict is theological, as Cardinal Manning said. And if you are devotee of the Breitbart doctrine, you know, politics is downstream of culture. Certainly, we could acknowledge that culture is downstream of religion. Cult and culture come from the same root word, and that's why what a culture worships will define that culture. So that's ultimately. all we really do want to talk about. And, I mean, we're respectful about it. Relative, I mean, I'll still, you know, I'll call Jeremy a heretic and he'll call me a papist Pelagian heretic. And, you know, we'll do that, that sort of thing a bit. But yeah, that is, that is mostly, I would say when we're having a real serious conversation, that's mostly what we're talking

about is ethics and morality and, of course, ultimately religion. From Jacob. My question is, should we bring the gladiating bring back the gladiator games why can't two consulting and consenting adults fight to the death thanks great question I assume your question is it tongue and cheek

but maybe not maybe it's not so but either way it's a brilliant question we live in a culture now where we are told that the highest maybe the only

moral question regards consent If two people consent to do something, then it's good. Do it. There's no reason why we would ever impede that. If an adult wants to mutilate his body, he's consenting. So do it. If an adult wants to do a bunch of heroin, he's consenting to that. It's his free choice. How dare you tell him he can't do that? Now, of course, in order to believe this very shallow view, you have to conflate liberty and licentious. You have to believe that freedom is really just pursuing your basest appetites, your lusts wherever they lead you instead of actually tamping down those appetites and developing and cultivating your higher will and disciplining that will and your intellect, which is what the Founding Fathers in every wise person in thrall of human history has understood liberty to be. But we have that degraded view of liberty, which leads to a degraded view of consent, which leads to a degraded view of morality.

But no, we should not watch people actually kill each other in a ring. That would be wrong to do because we respect human dignity. We frown on cockfights because we say, oh, it's wrong to let the chickens, little chickens stab each other, you know. We frown on pit bull fights. It's how it's wrong to put the dogs in that situation. We're a poor little dog is going to die. But I bet there are great many people in this country in our society who would say, well, the problem with the cockfight and the pit bull fight is they can't really consent, you know,

because they're animals. But adults can consent. So if they want to go out and kill each other or do any other degrading act to one another, it's totally fine. But it's not totally fine, even if people pretend that they have consented. From Ben, howdy, Michael, given the premise that big tech is a private company, yeah, or private companies, and they can do what they want, should public entities like municipalities and schools and universities be allowed to use, say, Facebook as their only source for announcements. It seems to be a legal point that public entities cannot use a private medium to provide

info for the general public, especially if some of that public can be banned and not have access to the information. Does that leave some of us speechless? Controlling words, controlling minds? Wow, man, you've got a smoother plug-in for my book than even I have done. I didn't even see that one coming. That was very impressive. Does he get...

Like, I don't think that bell should count for my count. You've got to make it for his count. Anyway, yes, excellent question and excellent plug as well. What you're hitting on and what you're implying here is that these private companies, gosh, they just don't seem that private. And they're not, of course. This was actually why the Trump administration was not permitted to block people on Twitter. It's because the president would be using his platform to cut certain people off from this information. Even though it's a private company, even though it's a private account, not allowed to do that.

The distinction that was very fashionable in the 1980s and 90s in sort of shallow conservatism was, there's the public sector and the private sector. And public sector bad, private sector good, government bad, companies, good. Even if the companies are big, woke multinational corporations that are destroying your country and exert more control over your life, than the government does. That good, we love that, good, shill for big corporations, government, even when the government is citizens using their legitimate political power and wielding it in a way to craft their own society. Bad. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense. You hear the term a lot among sort of neoliberals, which is public-private partnership. Aren't public-private partnerships great?

The government outsources a lot of their work to private companies, semi-private companies, and then the companies make a bunch of money from the government, and, you know, things are more efficient that way. Isn't that great? I don't know. I'm a little skeptical of that because also the public is more than the government. Our public square, which is the way that we communicate and in a republic, that is politics, right? Because in a republic, speech is politics and politics is speech. We just persuade each other and try to govern ourselves. So if you control the public sphere, you control the politics. And who controls the public square right now? Google, especially Google, Facebook, and to a lesser degree, Twitter, but Twitter has so many people of influence in the media

that it exerts a disproportionate influence with respect to. its size. Those seem like public entities to me. And any conservatism, capital C with a trademark over the M, that suggests that we have no right to regulate the people who are dominating our politics, doesn't seem very conservative to me. From Matthew, Michael, speaking of standards, what is your take on the metric system? I'm a proponent of our English system in general, but as an engineering professor, I find the metric system has merit, especially when it comes to calculations. I hate metric system. I hate it. Do you know why I hate it? I hate it for the same reason that you as a scientist probably would like it, which is that it's very standardized. It's very clinical. It's very rationalist. So it just makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Except it seems a little too contrived for me.

I, first of all, do not, if the argument is that it's really good for certain scientific measurements, fine. I don't mind if certain scientific disciplines defer to the metric system. That's fine. I don't like the idea that because it's useful for certain scientific material measurements, that therefore all the rest of society must adopt it. To me, that seems to be a symptom of the problem of all of society exporting all of our political power to scientists. so I don't like that idea either. But I like traditions.

I like quirky things. You might say in a way, I sort of like diversity, meaning I like that cultures have their own unique traditions and rituals. I like that the English system is different than the metric system. And it's funny because the English don't even use the English system anymore, but we do here in America. I like that. I don't want the whole world to look exactly the same.

I want us to recognize that there are a term. truths, I want us to have some kind of unity, right? I'm a Catholic. It means universal. I like that kind of universality. But that doesn't mean that I want the whole world to be governed in exactly the same way and behave in exactly the same way and look exactly the same way. I don't think so. I might be the last guy in the world calling for diversity, but it's a very specific kind of diversity that is not contrary to unity. It's simply not rationalist and contrived. from Sarah. Seeing LeBron James docks and basically call for violence against the Columbus police officer got me thinking, does the officer have a similar legal argument to sue LeBron James as CNN's new boss Nick Sandman did against CNN? He was that kid who was smirking at the Indian who was bashing a drum in his face.

LeBron is a public figure and told his 20 million followers that this guy was a horrible person and ruined his reputation. Do you think the police officers have a shot? Thanks. No, I don't because the cops are also public figures. Obviously they're not as famous or wealthy as as LeBron James is. but they are in very public roles and they serve the public and they're part of the government. So, no, I don't think he has a case. But I am hopeful that now that the real footage got out, in part thanks to the body camera stuff, because that's permeated, even that force field of the mainstream media, even CNN's admitting it, I am hopeful that this cop is not going to have his life ruined. But it is a warning sign for lots of other people in that public position. And I think it's going to discourage a lot of cops.

And I think you're going to see more crime and a lot of bad things going on in the cities. I think you're going to see people moving out of the cities because this kind of bad behavior has consequences. And if you don't have justice, you're not going to have peace. That's just a fact. And so people are going to flee that, I think, for safer grounds. I'm Michael Noles. It's the Michael Nulls show. See on Monday.

If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-stress. our review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Claven Show, and the Matt Walls Show. The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producers, Mathis Glover, and Robert Sterling, production manager, Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer,

Danny Domeico, audio mixer, Mike Coramina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production coordinator, McKenna Waters. The Michael Knoll's show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. Hey, everybody, this is Andrew Klaven, host of the Andrew Klaven show. You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood. But on the Andrew Klaven show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Klaven show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me. Andrew Claven.