The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 780 - High On Our Own Supply

Episode Date: June 8, 2021

Washington State bribes potheads to get the WuFlu vax, Biden promises never to fire Fauci, and the Libertarian Party proves why we can’t have nice things. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Washington State has a new incentive to get the Wu-Flu vaccine. The state's liquor and cannabis board, yes, that's a thing, is now offering marijuana dispensaries the opportunity to host vaccination clinics in their stores and to give a free joint to customers who take the shot. They are going to incentivize you to get a shot that ostensibly protects against a respiratory virus by giving you a recreational drug that rips up your lungs. But the plan raises other questions. If the vaccine is so great, why do governments need to bribe people with money and food and drugs to take it?

If the virus is so dangerous, why aren't people crawling over one another to get the vaccine? Some new moves by the public health bureaucracy raise even more questions about what we've been told. And some top politicians are finally calling for Dr. Fauci to be fired. Now, there is some uncharacteristically good news out of the Supreme Court and out of the Pentagon. that's great, but don't fool yourself. The left just proved it still has all the power. I'm Michael Noles, it's the Michael Nulls show.

Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment yesterday from Trey Best, who says, if Jack Dorsey doesn't like Twitter being banned, then they should just build their own Nigeria. I totally agree. I absolutely agree. That's why I'm so happy that Nigeria did what it did. You censor our president, we censor your stupid website.

I love that. That's a beautiful thing. Now, the fact of the matter is, Jack Dorsey does have more power than the president of Nigeria, and Big Tech as a whole, you know, not just hipster Rasputin, but the main oligarchs in Silicon Valley, very likely have more power than conservative politicians in the United States. Almost certainly they do working in concert with the rest of the blob. It's the sort of thing that could keep you up at night. Well, you know why? I don't stay up at night because of my pillow.

My pillow products do not go flat. They don't. I think you could probably roll them over with a military tank, they would not go flat. Okay? You can wash them, you can dry them as many times as you want. They maintain their shape and they're made in the USA. For a limited time, my pillow is offering their premium my pillows for their lowest price ever. You can get a queen-sized premium my pillow, which is regularly $69.99 for only $29.98. That's $40 in savings. Kings are only $5 more. Now is the time to buy. Not only are you getting the lowest price ever, they are also the best gifts ever. 2998 for a queen-size premium MyPillow. I know a lot of us love MyPillow because of the politics.

You know, they support conservatives, so we support them. I would support my pillow, even if it were a communist company. I would. That's how good the product is. Go to MyPillow.com, click on the Radio Listeners Square, and use promo code DailyWire. You will also get deep discounts on all My Pillar products, including the GizaDream Bedsheets, the My Pillar Mattress Topper, and My Pillar Towelowel Sets. Or you can call 800951, 77163, and use promo code DailyWire.

That's MyPillow.com. Head on over there right now or call 800-951-71-61-63. They got to bribe you with drugs and cheeseburgers and French fries and millions of dollars through those COVID lotteries to take this vaccine that's apparently so great that nobody wants to take it because of the virus that is so, so dangerous that everyone's just going around with their normal lives and many people who have the virus don't even know the habit. Does that make a lot of sense to you? I don't watch a lot of professional golf, but I read the news. There's a golfer, John Rom. John Rom is a Spanish golfer. He was playing in the memorial tournament. He was doing very, very well. He was leading the tournament by six strokes.

Man, he was playing better than any other golfer in that game. But now he's got to pull out. Do you know why he's got to pull out? Because he tested positive for COVID. How do you know he tested positive for COVID? Well, he just, he took a test, he took an exam. You wouldn't know by his physical appearance, because not only does he seem perfectly healthy, he seems healthier than all the other professional golfers, but because he tested positive for the Kung flu, because maybe he has a cough, even though it doesn't even seem like he's got that, he has to pull out of the tournament, loses his chance at $1.6 million, 1.674 right now. maybe he can enter the COVID lottery

whereby states are bribing people to take the vaccine. Maybe that's his chance of making a million dollars because he ain't going to do it in this tournament. This guy's obviously fine. This virus obviously has, as a matter of what we can see, as a matter of what he can feel in his body, no effect on him whatsoever.

But we got to shut the world down for it, right? We have to go get the vaccine. don't we? It's almost as if the virus is not as bad as the libs told us it was. I know we're not allowed to say that. We're not allowed to say that. Right? Because Michael, you know, the minute you say that, sure, with our own eyes, we can see that the virus just isn't as bad as they told as it was. And for those who have experienced it, we can feel it, yeah, it wasn't as bad as they told as it was in 99.9.9% of cases, especially for people in the healthy demographics. But Michael, six zillion, thousand million people died from the virus. What's the number? They say the number is nearly 600,000,

I think, in the United States. How dare you, Michael? That's so insensitive of you to make light of a virus that's killed upwards of 600,000 people. The thing is, it didn't. It just didn't. That number is fake. Now, I'm not saying that the virus didn't kill anybody. I'm not even saying it didn't kill a lot of people. What I am saying, though, is it didn't kill as many people as they said it killed. And do you know how I know that? Well, one, common sense, because we know we've had these reports now for a year, that someone could get shot in the head, but if they are taken to the morgue and they seem to have had COVID as they were getting shot in the head, that's counted as a COVID death. And you know how else I know that? But not only because there was an incentive for overdiagnosis, given the way that

federal funding came out. But the way that I know with 100% certainty that the death number is lower than what we have been told is because even the public health officials are admitting it now. The COVID death toll in Alameda County, California just dropped. That's wow, are people rising from their crypts? How, my gosh, how did the death toll drop? It dropped because they redefined what a COVID. death is. The official total fell from 1634 to 1223 on Friday, Friday, because they changed their methodology here. So now this number includes only people who, quote, died as a direct result of COVID-19, or had the virus as a contributing cause of death, or who, for whom COVID-19 could not be ruled out as a cause of death. Okay.

That's a pretty broad definition. That's still too broad as far as I'm concerned. If you have stage four lung cancer and then you have or stage four pancreatic cancer and then you get COVID and then you die sometime later, is that really a COVID death? I don't think so. But according to these rules, it could be counted as one. Or if you die and they don't really know the circumstances, but you know, you did have COVID, but it doesn't seem likely, that still could be counted as one. So what did they take out? Well, they took out. people where they know that COVID-19 was not the cause of death. Okay, they took out people who get shot in the head, but they have COVID-19,

and previously they were counted as a COVID death. So here, just more, as if you needed more evidence, more evidence that what we have been told about this virus is not true. Studies show, and now the Fauci emails prove that what we were told about the masks was not true. What we were told about risks to certain groups, not true. What we were told about the necessity of certain precautions, not true. And even what we were told about the death numbers, not true. This is just one county in California.

How many other counties in the country would this be true for? Finally, finally, finally, establishment politicians are coming out and saying, enough is enough. This thing is rotten and we've got to axe the head of this public health bureaucracy. that man's name would be Dr. Fauci, even Kevin McCarthy, who has done a pretty good job of keeping the Republicans in the House together. You know, he's well-liked by the establishment, but he's also not totally alienated the conservatives. McCarthy just came out. He said, we got to oust Fauci. Does Fauci need to go? Does President Biden need to fire him? Does he need to resign?

Well, the number one thing that has to be for the American public. Does the American public trust Dr. Fauci, now that you've seen the email, now that you've seen the flip-flop of positions, and just now that he's requesting from China to get the information, you've got to trust the individuals to look into this. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died. And if you've taken every certain position in it, how are you able to come back with the trust of the nation to get to the bottom of it? We have to know what went on and who knew what and what and would. in. I mean, everything we're finding there, how can the president, and I know the American people don't have trust in Dr. Fauci? This is the key here. When people do not believe what the public health

bureaucracy is putting out, whether it's on the masks, whether it's on the deaths, whether it's on the lockdown measures, whatever, when the American people are reticent to get the vaccine, which is true of at least one out of every five Americans just don't want to get this vaccine or these vaccines, that's not their fault. That is the fault of the public health bureaucracy. If the public health officials, and Dr. Fauci is the prime example of this, if they had even one tenth of one quarter of one modicum of credibility left, I think a lot more Americans would go along with them. But they don't. They've squandered that because they're incompetence and alternately liars. And they have proven their incompetency and they've proven their dishonesty every single step of the way.

Now, Dr. Fauci is not taking this lying down. Dr. Fowice, how dare you? How dare you, Kevin McCarthy, question the exalted Dr. Fauci, the high priest of secular progressivism? If you question Fauci, my by golly, you're questioning the science. It's really very much an attack on science, I think, Rachel. What is the thread going through what's happening now is very much an anti-science approach. So that's a big, big difference. I mean, it is what it is. I'm a public figure. I'm going to take the arrows in the slings, but they're just, they're fabricated. And that's just what it is. But we'll just have to do our jobs, Rachel. That's what I do. All the other stuff is just a terrible, not happy type of a distraction.

But it's all nonsense. Whatever the origin is, you know, there's this concern. Is it a natural evolution? Or is it something that happened out of a lab, an accident, or what have you? It is important to understand that. But it is being approached now in a very vehement way, in a very distorted way, I believe, by attacking me. I think the question is extremely legitimate. You should want to know how this happened so that we can make sure it doesn't happen again. But what's happened in the middle of all that?

I've become the object of extraordinary, I believe completely inappropriate, distorted, misleading, and misrepresented attacks. This question is completely appropriate, okay? But if you're asking it, then you're anti-science and you're a dumb, idiot, stupid, rude, evil distraction. This guy, this guy is everything wrong with progressive politics? Because he says, look, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, am science, right? I, Dr. Fauci am science. An attack on me is an attack on the science. Now, Dr. Fauci knows he's a politician. That's his job. Public health. The health part is the science. The public part is the politics. I know that I'm a public figure, okay, but it's a distraction to attack. If you don't want to be answerable to the people, then don't be in politics. But he's not quite in politics, right? He's in progressive politics. He's in a sort of politics where he is protected

from any accountability to the people. When things get as chaotic as this, one wants to have something tangible to hold on to. And that's why I would strongly recommend acre gold. You want a bar of gold, but you don't have a zillion dollars in the couch cushions. Okay, how are you going to do this? Well, Acre has the answer. 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. Acre has a new $100 a month subscription to a five gram gold bar. Acre lets you invest in the physical gold without coming out of pocket all at once. I have really enjoyed investing in precious metals, specifically gold. I find that it's a good hedge when things

start to get a little crazy in the economy. And I enjoy investing in acre gold for that matter. I really like my bar of acre gold and hope to have more very soon. But you got to wait until your stash gets up to that price. It's just a really great way to start investing in precious metals. Head on over to getacregold.com. Start investing in physical gold today. Make sure you go to this 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 AcreGore. That is getacregold.com slash Knowles.

Thank you, Akergold, for supporting the show. Dr. Fauci declares that an attack on him is an attack on science. And he is probably unaware of the political insight that he is giving us here. He's probably unaware of how much he is revealing about leftist ideology, because I don't think he's politically very sophisticated. I think he's a doer. I think he's the mechanism of this, and we here are the ones who get to analyze it and figure out what it means. This is broadly the position of the left. It was true of Marx. It was true of the progressives in the 20th century. It remains true of leftists today. They believe that their political views are scientific.

They believe they know the science of history. They believe they know the science of politics. believe that if you stand in their way, you are merely impeding the inevitable flow of progress. And so it's just a distraction. Whenever people are impeding their wishes, that is an unnecessary and illegitimate distraction, never mind that their priorities change by the day. Never mind that Dr. Fauci has contradicted himself on the masks, on the lockdowns, on the vaccine availability, on the origin of the virus, on the culpability of China. He's contradicted himself on every single issue. Doesn't matter. Whatever he says is science. And if you contradict him, that is illegitimate. He can contradict himself, but you can't contradict him. You,

the people. You, you measly little people. And you know what? There's nothing you can do about it. There's nothing that Dr. Fauci can do that would get him fired. To quote a great man, to borrow a phrase from a great man, Dr. Fauci could walk out into Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody in the middle of the street, he would not lose a single vote of confidence from the people who decide that he stays in his job. And those people are not the American people. Those people are the Democratic hacks who run our government, namely Joe Biden. Jen Saki, White House press secretary, was asked this. Is there any circumstance in which Trump, or Trump, if only, in which Biden would fire Fauci.

Here's the answer. Since you mentioned Dr. Fauci again, can you imagine any circumstance where President Biden would ever fire him? No. Go ahead. Just to follow up a little bit on Russia. Doesn't miss a beat.

Nothing a Fauci could do. There is no job requirement. There is no basic level of competency he needs to fulfill. There is no goal that if he doesn't meet, he loses his job. He is the most, powerful man in the country. There are many circumstances in which Joe Biden loses his job. Plenty. And Jen Socky and everybody else in the government. If Joe Biden commits a high crime and

misdemeanor and we summon the political will, he'll be impeached and removed. If Joe Biden somehow manages to run again, the American people could kick him out of his job. But not Dr. Fauci, because he represents science. If Dr. Fauci is science, count me out. I guess I'm, I mean, I'm not one for the cult of science anyway, because I think it's, It's pushed by people who are extremely ignorant of the history of science and the philosophy of science. They don't know what it is that they are worshipping. They don't know what it is that they've made an idol out of. But if it is Fauci, if Fauci is the idol, count me out. Why can't we fix this? Why is it that this guy, Fauci can totally expose himself for what he is? And I'm using him in particular, but also as a representative of the broader failures of the public health bureaucracy.

Why can't we fire any of these people? Do you know why? Because we're not a serious political movement on the right. We're not. We're not. The left is a serious political movement. The left is very clever about politics. The left knows how speech works. The left knows how government works. The left knows how government works. And they use it to their advantage and they transform the whole country. I write about this at great length in my upcoming book, Speechless. Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. Available now for pre-order at Amazon, Barnes & Noble everywhere, and Signed First Edition from Premier. collectibles. The left is really smart and competent at this, and the right is completely useless at it. I'll give you an example of how the right is so useless. So the right in the last few decades has absorbed libertarianism into it. Conservatism, conservative political thought, and libertarianism are rather different things. But over the past many decades, actually, over the past six decades or so, the right, the conservatives, absorbed libertarianism. That's at least what we thought we were doing. What actually happened is that we basically just sold out all of our political positions for the views of libertarians. And the libertarians of today, the libertarian party,

I hesitate even to call them libertarians because they would be such a shame, such a disgrace to the serious libertarian thinkers, with whom I have disagreements, but they're far superior to these guys running around today. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, amid all of the craziness it's going on, lockdowns in the country, people being forced to close their businesses, people not being permitted to travel, the upending of our election laws, election integrity laws right out the window. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire decides to tweet out, quote, legalized child labor, children will learn more on a job site than in a public school. This is why we can't have nice things Because when we have every advantage When the left has totally exposed itself

As stupid and corrupt And pushing positions that are very unpopular The freaking libertarians decide to endorse child labor That's going to win elections That's a resounding issue right Child labor forcing eight-year-olds into the factories Yeah, that'll do it grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

It's not just this one kooky tweet from one kooky libertarian party. The Libertarian Party of Texas tweets out, quote, until we have open borders, we can't get rid of the welfare state. Oh, is that so? Oh, gosh, you people, you people. Please give me the patience, Lord, to abide these very misguided, squishy lunatics. We're not going to get rid of the welfare state anyway. We can do things to try to reduce it and minimize it, but we're certainly not going to get rid of it.

It's just a pie in the sky. It ain't going to happen. But also, you think the answer to this problem of the growing welfare state and creeping socialism is to erase national borders to take one terrible situation and then add a much worse situation to it? That's the problem. The majority of Americans, including Democrats, want to drastically reduce not just illegal, but also legal. immigration. And your answer, when we've got totally the upper hand in politics, is to endorse the least popular political position further to the left, even of the Democratic Party. That's the, that's the Libertarian Party answer. Reminds me of that Libertarian Party debate. Do you remember this?

This was a few years ago. Was it, maybe it was 2016. I don't really remember. Maybe it was 2012. Whatever. Who cares? It's a Libertarian Party presidential debate. My friend Larry Elder was moderating it, which was the highlight of the event. he asked a simple question, should we have driver's licenses? Here are the answers. Should someone have to have a government-issued license to drive a car? What's next requiring a license to make toast in your own damn toaster? The license to drive? You know, I'd like to see some competency exhibited by people before they drive.

Oh my gosh. Any political movement that is going to have any success, needs to forget this. Whatever this is, this first fellow who says, a license to drive, what's next? I don't know. It's like those have basically always existed to some degree or another, you know, and even if that were not the case, even if there were never any regulations on driving, you know, from the earliest days, let's say of automotives. Is this a popular issue? This is a winning political issue? This is the matter of justice that we need to fight? No.

No. Gary Johnson, not the most conservative guy in the world. He left his governorship in New Mexico to go run a marijuana company. Okay, he's not. And when Gary Johnson is the voice of reason, you know you've got a problem with your party. There are many problems with this kind of stuff. It has very little to do with the actual U.S. political tradition, right? It's not conservative, really at all.

It isn't particularly just. it's based on a false understanding of human nature and politics. But most important of all, I really need to drive this point home to the Republicans out there. This appeals to nobody. Okay, this harping on these insane libertarian party freshman year smoke up in your dorm room and have a bull session, larping nonsense appeals to absolutely nobody. Okay, you can do, if you look at the political compass test, right, or if you look at sort of political, surveys of where people stand. Nobody is in this libertarian corner of politics, okay? There are a lot of people in various regions of the left, and there are a lot of people who are socially conservative and who are

relatively moderate on broader economic issues. But nobody is in that corner, okay? So when the right focuses on that corner, it's not principled, it's not dignified, it's embracing views that have very little to do with American politics or justice that, and this is the crucial point here, permit Republicans to be happy losers. Okay, these are the positions that you can take that aren't going to offend anybody. They're not going to offend the liberal state because they don't threaten the liberal state

because nobody supports it. So everybody gets to say, well, look, I lost with dignity. You know, it's the squish wing of the party is embracing these positions. If we want to win, which I would like to win, I don't want to lose with dignity, I don't think the losers have much dignity, for that matter. Then you've got to start embracing winning issues.

And you've got, if your philosophy tells you that the most important thing right now at this moment is legalizing five-year-olds going into the coal mines, then you've got to rethink your political philosophy. Got to check out today, by the way. Ben is going to be talking about how for Biden being transgender is the new storming of Normandy. This is another great example of focusing on things that are just so preposterous. But for the left, there's a point. And it actually does give them quite a lot of political power.

Go check that out today. We'll be right back with a lot more. I've harped enough on why the Libertarian Party is driving. us to lose and lose and lose, but I want to show you the other side of that. There was a correct column in the New York Times today. I know. I hope, man, I hope you weren't driving when I said that. So you might crash your car when I would say something so shocking. But it's true. There was a good column in the New York Times. I don't want to say good. It was insightful. It was accurate. Headline. Cancel culture works. We wouldn't have marriage equality without it.

Now, one reason this is a decent column, I think. It was a guest essay. It's not from a regular column. There's no way that a regular columnist at the New York Times could ever write anything insightful. But this is by Sasha Yisenberg, who's the author of the engagement, America's quarter century struggle over same-sex marriage. And it talks about the campaign, I won't read the column verbatim, but it's worth reading. Talks about the campaign to redefine marriage. this was an extraordinarily uphill battle. You have basically one definition of marriage for all of human history everywhere in the world.

And then you have this radical liberal idea. According to the old definition of marriage, whether there was polygamy, whether there were various laws of consanguinity or whatever, at the most basic level, marriage everywhere and at all times, essentially involved sexual, difference. At the very least, it had to involve men and women together, right? The radicals in the last

10 years, this isn't very old, in the last 10 years, came along and said, you know, actually marriage does not have to do with sexual difference. What does it have to do? It has to do with romantic love. Well, romantic love actually is kind of sort of new in our notion of marriage. Yeah, well, no, it's romantic love, but only between two people. So it can't be polygamous. No, it's It's just between two people. It's a loving union. Me and my friend, we love each other, but we don't know. It's got, it's a romantic sexual. Anyway, we're going to redefine it. And if you don't hold this new radical view that's existed for five minutes now, you are a vicious bigot who has no place in society. That's what these radicals said. And you think there's no way this is going to work. There's no way. There was a ballot proposition to define marriage, as it has always been defined, but just to put it in writing in California called Prop 8.

The Democratic base is the one that shot it down because black voters did not support this sort of thing. But then the left engaged in cancel culture. So the left went in and anyone that voiced any opposition to this radical redefinition of marriage saw their life. destroyed. You remember this. I mean, there are a number of examples in this New York Times column. I think it was Brandon Ike, the guy who started Mozilla. He donated something like $800 or $1,000 to the Prop 8 campaign. Because I don't know, he's, is a Christian or he's conservative or whatever? This is the view that has been held by statistically every single person throughout history. It doesn't seem like a radical view to say men and women are involved in marriage.

His life was destroyed. He was booted from his company. And this sent a message. He said, oh, if we hold these views now, the views that everyone's always held, we will lose our livelihoods. Okay. So people stopped holding the views. And now, now it's worked. If you question this, you will be destroyed unless your job is in conservative politics. And by the way, even if you work in conservative, the view that I'm expressing right now is a very unpopular view among conservative political professionals. I think if you polled most people who are in elected office in the Republican Party or who work as staffers for politicians

or even who work in the conservative media, I suspect the majority of them support this radical redefinition of marriage. So even here, there's no guarantee that you're safe. I mention this not because of the marriage issue. That's actually not what I'm interested in at the moment. I mention it because I'm interested in cancel culture. Because cancel culture does work,

because this New York Times columnist is right. And conservatives once understood this, and we once were the enforcers of cancel culture, and that was a good thing. The current line from the left, or from the right, rather, I think we're high on our own supply here in the conservative movement, is that we say that cancel culture is strictly a left-wing phenomenon, and it's always evil, and it's always terrible because it's a violation of free speech absolutism or something. And now it's so ironic because we don't engage in this stuff, you know. But what the left is doing is they're behaving just like Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism.

Anti-communism in the 1950s. And you say, wait a second, hold on. I thought you said, conservatives never engaged in cancel culture, but now you're comparing cancel culture to that very famous example of conservatives engaging in cancel culture, which now you're saying was terrible, but which I'm saying was awesome. It was great. There were flaws with it because Joe McCarthy was politically not very adept, particularly toward the end. He kind of actually undermined anti-communism, but that's just a tactical matter. It's not a question of the rightness or wrongness of anti-communism. The point is, there will be standards. We once knew this. There will be taboos.

There will be things that you can't say. There will be things that you can't do. In the 50s, that was waving the communist flag. Today, it's waving the American flag. Those are the taboos. And we give up on the enforcement of standards at our own peril. if we will not present a positive vision, we cannot win. This is, by the way, you may have heard me mention this, the thesis of my upcoming book,

Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. I guess this thesis is very controversial on the right. I guess right now, the right is basically saying the opposite of this thesis. The current squish conservatives are insisting on the exact opposite of my view, which happens to be correct. but that's why we keep losing, guys. That's why if we want to win, we need to take a step back, maybe put down the joints that they gave us in Washington State, maybe put down the ideological joints that we've all been puffing on for the past few decades,

stop getting high on our own supply, and say, wait a second, maybe the slogans of the past 10 years, the GOP talking points, maybe they're not eternal truths. maybe conservatives of eras past have something to say. Maybe, gosh, maybe even the left understands something. Maybe we can learn from them so we can start winning like they do. That would be nice. We have so abandoned our standards in this country that we cannot even say definitively

that it is wrong for women to be forced to fight our wars for us. The Supreme Court just came out. and punted on the question of drafting women. There was a case brought up. They said, is it constitutional to prevent women from being drafted? If you would ask this question 10 years ago, certainly forget 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 200 years ago, if you'd ask this question even 10 years ago,

he said, hey, is it a constitutional obligation that women be forced to serve overseas and fight our wars for us? you would be laughed out of the room on both sides of the aisle. But today, we've become so obsessed with this idea of exact gender indiscernible. I don't even want to say gender equality. The idea that men and women are exactly the same, which, by the way, is the logic not only of transgenderism, but also of the redefinition of marriage and also of many social movements of the last several decades that the right has bought into from the left, right?

We have unfortunately adopted their talking points and their premises. So now, as the inevitable conclusion of this, we're going to have to go draft women and ship them over to Vietnam and fight the visa. I guess we're not fighting that war anymore. We're going to end up shipping women to the Middle East. And we're going to convince ourselves that that is right and just. But it's not right and just. It's simply wrong. And it's wrong because men and women are different.

And men should protect women. Because women are the weaker sex. This was not a controversial statement anywhere at any time until five seconds. ago. But we are living in such a separate ideological fantasy at the moment. Such a, such a fantasy that we believe men can become women. We believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman now. Such a fantasy that we believe babies aren't babies. Such a fantasy that we believe that men and women are exactly the same and women should be shipped overseas to fight our wars. Now, I don't want to leave you in total despair. There is some good news coming out of the federal government.

Actually, some good news coming out of the Supreme Court. There was a question brought up to the court. Do illegal aliens have the right to a green card? Now, you see, if illegal aliens have the right to a green card, then we have, by judicial fiat, completely abolished our national borders, right? if foreigners have the right to certain privileges of Americans, there's no border. There's no border whatsoever. Thankfully, you never hear this out of the court. There was a unanimous decision on what could have been a controversial issue. It's not controversial as a matter of the law,

but it is controversial as a matter of politics. In a nine to zero decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a law barring illegal immigrants from seeking green cards, is constitutional, and that those illegal aliens, who later earned temporary protected status, are still ineligible to apply for permanent residency. And Justice Elena Kagan, who is one of the court's more left-wing justices, but she's smart, at least, unlike some other justices in our nation's history and present, Elena Kagan really is a sharp cookie. Scalia apparently liked her, you know. Kagan wrote the opinion of the court and said, no, this is a step too far.

far guys. Okay, good. Finally, there's some recognition of standards. But if you asked your average leftist on the street, you said, hey, do illegal aliens, I'm sorry, future, future undocumented Americans, whatever, I don't know what the current euphemism is, people who are much more American than anybody else in the country, you know, the fellow from Guatemala who doesn't speak a lick of English, that guy, you know, he who crossed the border illegally. Does he, is it legal to bar him and prevent him from seeking a green card? Most left us on the street would say, no, that's deeply unjust. Deeply unjust. You need to permit. You need to give him amnesty tomorrow.

But thankfully, the Supreme Court at least has pushed the brakes a little bit. Same thing is true at the Defense Department. So you remember the State Department came out and they said that embassies around the world now are not just going to fly the American flag or the prisoner of war missing an action flag. They also can, and in some cases are encouraged to fly, the rainbow flag, the pride flag. flag, even at the Vatican. It seems a little disrespectful to me. So I pointed out that the pride flag is really not, it's no longer just a representation of sexual desire. That's what they want us to believe it is, but it's not. It's a representation of progressivism. It's a representation of

American empire because the American flag is a symbol of the United States, which is a real country with real people with real borders. But the rainbow flag is a universal claim. The rainbow flag is is just as true in Tunisia as it is in the United States, right? Because it's making claims about human rights most broadly. Actually, the same is true of the Black Lives Matter flag, which is why the left favors those flags, because those are universal imperialist flags, rather than a specific national flag,

because the left no longer believes in nations. So the Defense Department came out and said that they will not permit their bases to fly the pride flag. And they were very cautious about this. The spokesman, John Kirby, said, this in no way reflects any lack of respect or admiration rather for the LGBT plus community. This was really more about the potential for other challenges that could arise from that exception. And this is my point too. This actually isn't about the sex stuff.

I don't think that's really what this is about at all. I think this is about supplanting the American flag, redefining what flag symbolizes our country. For the left today, the pride flag symbolizes the country that they want, much more so than the American flag does. And it's about keeping the door closed to what would happen. If you put the pride flag up, then they're going to demand the transgender flag. Then they're going to demand the Black Lives Matter flag. Then they're going to demand the Antifa flag, for goodness sakes.

They're going to be flying the ISIS flag by the time we're through. That is some good news that at least for now, the brass at the Pentagon has put the brakes on this sort of thing. But the elected officials, not quite there. You remember, we pointed this out yesterday. Joe Biden, on the anniversary of D-Day, very important event to our nation's glory, wonderful day to remember our nation's greatness, ignores it. Instead, he focuses on a race riot in Tulsa 100 years ago that nobody remembered until very recently. And the reason they didn't remember it is it's unfortunate fact. Some historians, I'm sure, remembered it, but because

it was not important to our national self-understanding and the left wants it to be. The left wants to forget D-Day as our national identity, and they want to remember this horrible thing in Tulsa. So Jen Soggy was asked about this. She won't give an answer. President Bush, Obama, and Trump all commemorated D-Day anniversaries on D-Day, on the D-Day anniversary. Why didn't President find him? Well, I can tell you that certainly his value for the role that the men and the men who served on D-Day and the memory of them, the families who have kept their memories, alive over the course of years on this day is something the president has spoke to many, many times in the past. It's close to his heart. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's more

we would have to say on it. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more we would have to say later after the anniversary. And you know, the president keeps these memories of the families and his, huh, what? What's that babble? There's no answer. The answer is no answer. No answer whatsoever. Because they just want to ignore it because they want to reframe American. history and focus on something else. Speaking of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, it was an excellent question for Peter Ducey. Peter Ducey asks, Jen Saki, you know, Obama and Trump, very different politicians, they both recognize D-Day, but Joe Biden isn't right now. And the reason that Joe Biden wouldn't recognize D-Day is because he wants to move on. He wants to move on to the next progressive

thing. So speaking of Obama and Trump, Barack Obama was just asked. about rising anti-Semitism. Right, anti-Jewish attacks. Who do you think he blames? I'm going to give you, hold on. I'll give you five seconds. Only one guess. Who do you think he blames? Oh, you got it. You got it. It's Trump. He believes that Trump fanned the flames of anti-Semitism. Quote, when I gave that speech, it was clear that anti-Semitism was on the rise around the world. People's anger over everything from immigration to inequality was boiling over, and many of them were looking for someone else to blame. And for four years, we had a president in the White House who fan those flames. You know, my Obama's a little weak.

My Obama and my Boehner kind of bleed into one another. That's just sort of slurred and emphatic. I would remind you when we're talking about the anti-Semitism of Donald Trump. There is a town in Israel named after Donald Trump. There is a train station in Israel named after Donald Trump. B.B. Netanyahu, I think, is going to erect a gigantic statue of Donald Trump as long if he gets to hold on to power in Israel. Donald Trump was the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel president. Donald Trump's son-in-law is a

Jew, a practicing Jew. Donald Trump's daughter converted for the son, son-in-law. There has never been a more pro-Israel, pro-Jewish president in American history. Barack Obama, very anti-Israel president, very pro-Palestine, very pro-Iran president. And he just says these things. And forget about the Israel issue for a second or even forget about Trump. This is the problem to me. The left can just say things. They can say things that we know are not true.

And then when they are proven not to be true, we can call them out for it. and they will look us right in the face and they will say, don't believe you're lying eyes. Don't believe you're lying ears. And there will be no consequence. They can get away with that because they have political power and they know how to wield it. And we don't.

And so we can be self-righteous until we're blue in the face. We can say, oh, I was right. I was right. Well, okay, cool. Being right and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee in politics. If you do not have the power, where you can't do anything about it. Which brings me to a poll that just came out from Hill staffers.

These are all the legislative aides all around Capitol Hill. 78% of senior Capitol Hill aides believe that Republicans will regain the House in 2022. This is up from 12% in April, who believe this, according to a poll from Punch Bowl news. It just came out yesterday. Now, I guess it's likely. I suppose I would say it's likely that Republicans retake the House. I want to ask you, do you think that the Republicans are going to retake the House in 2022? I suspect a good number of you are going to have the same answer I have, which is, yeah, I think we'll retake the House if the elections are fair.

Am I allowed to say that? Am I allowed to make that caveat? I don't know if I am. Maybe we'll see if hipster, Rasputin and the rest of the oligarchs, let me say that. You know, the oligarchs who defend our democracy. which in the words of Angela Kudavila means their oligarchy. Because I don't even know if I'm allowed to say that. Presidents of the United States are not allowed to say certain things.

Shows you about the fairness of our elections. It is indisputable that in 2022, lots and lots and lots of election integrity laws, laws that even Barack Obama, until very recently said were essential to election integrity, were thrown out the window. And the excuse for that was the coronavirus. The coronavirus, of course, being the thing that the liberal establishment has lied to us about ceaselessly for over a year now. But that was the excuse to do it, and they changed a lot of the rules, and there were lots of

irregularities, and in some cases there was the outright violation of state constitutions, like in the case of Pennsylvania. If the elections are fair, I think there's no question that Republicans will take back the House. this is just what happens in the midterms when one party wins the White House, the other party tends to win the House if the elections are fair. The House and the Senate right now are trying desperately, the Democrats in the House and the Senate are trying desperately to rewrite the election laws even further and make their changes permanent. Why? Why is that HR1, S1, why is this the first thing that they're trying to do? Is that weird? Why that emphasis?

this. Because the virus, theoretically, I guess, is going to go away. People are going to get vaccinated, right? So you're not going to have the excuse anymore of the pandemic to change all the rules. So why are they now trying to make this permanent if this is all above board and totally squeaky clean? Because maybe, maybe it's not. Speaking of our representatives, I got some good news actually out right now. Elise Stefannick, who is the new GOP caucus leader, a GOP conference leader, rather, in the House of Representatives, announced that she's pregnant with her first child. So that's great for her. Congratulations to her. I'm really glad to see this. It's not an earth-shaking news story. But I'm glad to see it because I like when our leaders walk the walk. There's this weird phenomenon in Europe where heads of state in Europe don't have any kids. And look, not everyone gets to have kids. And that's a sad fact. And it's very hard thing to go through infertility and that sort of thing. But I think a lot of them are choosing not to have kids. I think a lot of them are deciding that they don't want kids. And it's very strange when you would lead a country if you have no stake in the future of that country or in the future of that civilization. So good for you. at least Stefanik. Also worth pointing out, some of you have written in about this. We had a mailbag question last week that a lot of you have written to me. There was a woman who was contemplating abortion and a lot of you wrote in and said that you're a stable couple and you'd love to adopt this child and, you know, here's some resources and all this. And I just think that's really terrific. I'm really, I think

it kind of proves the point, which we keep saying like, look, you don't need to choose abortion. Not just for this one woman who wrote into the show, but for women in general, you don't need to. What the left tells you, that you need to do it, it's going to destroy your life if you have this baby. It's just not true. Many, many more people want to adopt babies than there are babies to be adopted. You don't need to just even believe the statistics. We've proven it on this show. So really great stuff. I guess just one more example of what the left is telling you, what the left establishment is telling you through text. through media, through the administrative government. It's just not true. Makes you really question

all of the messages they're putting out there about just about everything. I'm Michael Nalls. It's the Michael Nulls show. See tomorrow. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star 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 Wall Show. The Michael Noles 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 Damiko. Audio mixer, Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup by Nika Geneva. And production coordinator, McKenna Waters. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire production,

Copyright Daily Wire 2021. Today on the Ben Shapiro show, President Biden salutes the bravery of transgender people, but not the veterans of D-Day on D-Day. That's today on the Ben Shapiro Show. Give it a listen.