The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 855 - Facts Are Against Their Community Guidelines

Episode Date: October 1, 2021

Fauci says we likely need “at least” a third shot to be fully vaccinated, Republican senator Josh Hawley proposes a bill that would decimate the power of Big Tech, and a major “racist” incident at a Missouri high school turns out to be yet another hoax. My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ  Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

According to the CDC, as of last Thursday, 182.5 million Americans, 55% of the country have been fully vaccinated against the woo flu. But according to Dr. Fauci, only 2.8 million Americans, 0.85% of the country have been fully vaccinated against the woo flu. Because according to Dr. Fauci, as he recently told the Atlantic magazine, it is likely for a... real complete regimen that you would need at least a third dose, end quote. At least. Do you see how this ends? It doesn't. It just goes on and on and on. And all the while, big tech will censor more and more of what we would say about the virus and the vaccines and the lockdowns. Even when we are directly quoting the public health authorities, I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Knowles. I'm Michael

whole show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite coming yesterday from intergalactic transmitter, who says, facts are in violation of YouTube's policy. That's true. That's not even hyperbole or a conservative talking point. YouTube is now censoring facts. YouTube is now censoring me from quoting the director of the CDC. It's not just YouTube, but I've been beating up on YouTube the last couple days. It's Facebook, too. Makes you want to protect your data. Makes you want to protect your identity. And when you want to do that, I would strongly recommend life lock. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that the only people who are at risk of getting hacked or having their identity stolen on the internet, they're just celebrities. They're just

very well-known people. Everyone's after your data, okay, payment apps like Venmo, cash app, apps that you use all the time. You might want to adjust your privacy settings because a recent report found that those payment apps share user data with third parties such as banks, fraud monitoring services. Some even share it with marketing firms. It's very important. to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives. LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats like your social security number for sale on the dark web. No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions, but you can keep what's yours with LifeLock by Norton. Join now, save up to 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Noles, KNAWLES.

That's Lifelock.com slash Noles, KnaW-L-E-S, for 25% off. head on over to lifelock.com slash knolls. I joked yesterday on the show that I might not be allowed to quote the director of the CDC because quoting the director of the CDC, what she had to say about the virus and the vaccines, was actually in violation of YouTube's new policy against medical misinformation. So I was sort of half joking about this. But deep down, I thought, no, I think I'm allowed to quote the director of the CDC, right? There's no way that Facebook could censor, or YouTube rather, and Facebook could censor me for that.

And then I was told, this is not a joke, I was told after my show by my social media team here, that I actually, I actually was not allowed to quote the director of the CDC that would be in direct violation of the YouTube policy. And it could get this channel taken down for at least a week, if not longer. So I thought, well, that's, that's really something else. that's really a strange state of things. So I insisted, if we are going to be censored by YouTube, I want to make it clear. I want to tell you what is going on because YouTube is not the only place that you can get this show. I know a lot of people watch it on YouTube. A lot of people watch it on Facebook. If you go to the Michael Knowles Show podcast, you can subscribe for free

at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitch, or Google Play. You can get the full uncensored version of the show. We're going to make clear when we are not allowed to say things like quoting the director of the CDC. on all of the platforms. But if you want the full thing, you can go get the free version, Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, all that, and you can go subscribe to the Daily Wire where you get the full video version for free. Uncensored, uncut. You're going to get the real deal. All that really raunchy stuff, like when we quote Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of CDC. You know, what we're hearing now is that, well, what we're hearing from the scientists is different than what we're hearing from YouTube, but what we're hearing from YouTube is the vaccine is totally 100% effective

at stopping. It's, it prevents the spread of COVID-19, right? But we're also not allowed to say that anything totally prevents COVID-19, so we're really between Iraq and a hard place here. Well, we are told, though, because obviously we all know people who have been vaccinated and gotten COVID-19. We see it on the news. We see it from the public health experts. And what they say is, well, that's just a breakthrough case. Yeah. you don't say that by definition it's a breakthrough case. If you're telling us that you can't get COVID-19 if you have the vaccine, and then someone does get COVID-19, they'll say, well, it's a breakthrough.

Yeah, right, by definition. But there seem to be a lot of breakthrough cases, don't there? And by the way, a lot of these breakthrough cases are not really being reported. A friend of mine, a colleague of mine, his wife had one of these breakthrough cases. She came down with COVID-19. She was ill from it. She then had longer term effects, even after she was vaccinated. She went to the hospital.

They've diagnosed her with some problems associated with COVID-19. And my friend asked the doctor, will this be classified as a breakthrough case for COVID-19? And the doctor said, probably not because by the time you took her to the hospital with these later-on developed symptoms, she was testing negative. So that probably won't be. So the question is, one, how many people are breakthrough cases that are not being counted? And two, how many breakthrough cases do there need to be before? we start to question, before we're even allowed to question the efficacy of the barrier through which the cases are breaking. If you ask the scientists, they're going to be a little more honest

about this, I think, than big tech, which is not permitting you to question that sort of thing. The propaganda has gotten really, really crazy. Here's a story that I think really sums it up. The story just came out yesterday, I think, right? Yeah. From the Associated Press. who survived Spanish flu and world war dies at 105 after contracting COVID-19. Darn you, COVID.

Oh, COVID. I can't this woman survived so much. She survived an epidemic that occurred more than a century ago. She survived a world war, but she couldn't survive COVID-19. Gosh, she might have lived to 106. Or how old is she?

going to live. What was the oldest person ever reportedly lived to what, like 119 or so? She's still had a lot of good years left in her. I don't mean to make light of this woman's death. She lived a good long life. Okay. Very few of us are going to make it to 105. All right. But it's COVID-19. Let's not forget that the average age of a COVID death is higher in the United States for a lot of the pandemic than the life expectancy in the United States. So, by the way, that doesn't mean that, okay, if you live longer than the life expectancy, see you, your life doesn't matter. But it is a little bit different than other epidemics where the average age of someone who's dying from is significantly lower. Okay, it does put these things into perspective.

I had one friend who died of COVID-19. He was a former teacher of mine. He was 97 years old. He was weeks away from turning 98. Did he die from COVID-19? like maybe sort of i guess technically maybe he did or did he die because he was almost 98 years old it's a little bit different it's a little bit different okay but we're not allowed to say that because the people who are demagoguing this want to pretend on the one hand that every single death

that has in any way any sort of connection to covid 19 is a covid death right you contract to COVID-19, you get shot in the head in the streets of Chicago, that is a COVID death, right? And you actually did see examples of this, especially last year. So they want to pretend that on the one hand. They also want to pretend that any infection is tantamount to death. The infection. The infection rates are rising in Florida. So what? Who cares? What are the hospitalization rates? What are the death rates? How do they compare to the hospitalization death rates throughout the epidemic in California or in New York? What's the survival rate of the coronavirus? For the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people, they face an infinitesimally small risk of death from COVID.

You see this play out in other areas. Okay, I'm not even, COVID in and of itself is a frustrating political issue, the way it's being exploited. But the reason I even mention it is to show that these issues are not so much about the facts as they are of. about the framing. Okay. The framing is the real issue here. And you see it, forget about COVID for a second. You see it with guns, right?

Guns, it's one of these issues that the left has demagogued forever. And now they're saying, you know, there's an increase in violence. We need to stop guns. Guns are the problem. We especially assault weapons. It's the assault weapons. If we just ban those, come on, it's common sense. We've got to ban the assault weapons.

Then we won't have issues with violence in America anymore. So the FBI, the uniform crime report from the FBI just came out on Monday. It shows you how many people were killed in 2020 with these various sorts of weapons. How many people were killed? Twice as many people in 2020 in the United States were killed with knives. Then were killed with shotguns and rifles, including the dread assault weapons, the AR-15s and all the other kinds of rifles combined. All the people killed with.

shotguns, all the people killed with hunting rifles, all the people killed with AR-15s, all the people killed with all the other kinds of rifles. Half, half the number as the number of people killed by knives. The FBI report shows, by the way, the numbers are important here. 203 people were killed with shotguns in 2021. 454 were killed with any kind of rifle. It's a total of 657 deaths. 1732 people were killed with knives or cutting instruments. There are also many more people being killed by hands and feet and clubs and hammers and all sorts of things, but we're not talking about banning those sorts of weapons. The reason that you're not hearing about knives or banning these lethal weapons, these two fists I had to register with the government,

the reason that we're not talking about that is it doesn't frame the issue quite so well. It's not that the left is after reducing violence. The left is after taking away your guns because that's a civil right. It's not that the left is after preventing you ever from getting germs or getting sick again. It's that the left is after taking your power, taking away your rights, your right to go to church, your right to work, your right to have election integrity measures in place. The left is after that and they are willing to use whatever they can find to justify that, including prolonging the worst pandemic and the history of the world at infinitum, 15 days to 580 days to now probably going to go on forever if we let that happen. happen. Speaking of absurd framing, a woman testified yesterday over on Capitol Hill about abortion in the United States. And the way abortion used to be framed in the way old days of, I don't know,

60, 70 years ago is that it's an evil, evil act that no one would even speak about. Right. It's killing a baby. It's obviously a very evil act. Then, starting about, I don't know, 50 years ago or so, abortion began to be spoken of as some kind of right, but a tragic right. You know, a right that people don't ever want to use, but women need to have that right. This was largely because of second wave feminism, which said that women need a man like a fish, need a bicycle, and that women and men are exactly the same, but, you know, they have this big difference, which is women conceive and carry and give birth to children. And so this is a real impediment if women and men want to have the exact same relationship to sex and want to be able to walk away,

from casual sex. So therefore, women need to have the right to kill their babies. That was the argument of the second-way feminists. But even as recently as 2008, even a little bit later, you had presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, saying that abortion should be safe and legal, but it should be rare because it's bad. It's a really bad thing, and it's tragic, and so it should be safe and legal and rare. Now that framing has gone to. Now abortion is being called an act of love. SB8 has not only caused a near total abortion ban in Texas. it has made it extremely dangerous to be pregnant in Texas, where our maternal morbidity and mortality rate is already unconscionably high,

especially for black women and pregnant people of color. Texas deserves better. I know firsthand that abortion saves lives. For the thousands of people I've cared for, abortion is a blessing. Abortion is an act of love. Abortion is freedom. We need federal protection now. now. We need laws that elevate science and evidence and recognize the dignity and autonomy of people

accessing care. Abortion is love. Abortion is blessing. Abortion is freedom. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. This abortion is a sin and it's a very grave sin. It's not an unforgivable sin, but it is a, it is a grave sin. And if you repent of it, then you're, you're a, You're getting on the right track. What this woman is doing is, is worse because she's not only defending abortion. She is blaspheming. She is committing a real sacrilege, a real heresy here. She is inverting the moral order, calling it a great blessing, an act of love.

A godly, I mean, that's what she's saying is a godly act, right? It's a blessing. Where do blessings come from? They come from God. Abortion is love. Well, God is love, right? that we hear this in the scripture. She's equating abortion with godliness, with God himself. That is some really sick stuff. Okay. It is probably the inevitable consequence of a political regime

that tolerates abortion is there's just this cognitive dissonance, right? The safe, legal, and rare thing, you just can't hold it forever. If it's murder, it shouldn't be legal. If it's, if it's not murder, if it's just getting your appendix taken out, then it shouldn't be rare. And so eventually, attention is going to have to resolve itself one way or the other. And the way the left has resolved it is that it's a wonderful good thing. And this comes from, the right actually has some responsibility in this because the right has adopted a lot of the liberal language of maximizing individual autonomy and about choice and you do you and I'll do me and I would never impose my views on you and you don't impose your views on me, which is preposterous that's never existed that is not possible in a self-government.

The whole point of self-government is we persuade one another of the way we view the world and then we create laws in accordance with that. So that was never going to work. The right largely seated the battlefield. The left took over, and now they call abortion a blessing. Woe to those who call good, evil, and evil good. But that is the framing that we're living under. She even snuck transgenderism in there.

She said that she's referring to women and pregnant people of color. That's even, you know, even that ability to claim victim was very, very important here. Abortion saves lives. The one thing, first of all, no woman has any medical condition that is cured by abortion. Okay, it's not that the, there can, there is, are, there's really just one medical condition, an ectopic pregnancy, where the treatment of that condition will result in the death of, of the unborn baby. And even that is really the sort of double effect.

It's not as though a doctor will prescribe abortion, and then that, That is the cure. It could be a double effect, though. For the rest, when you hear about the risk to the health of the life of the mother or whatever, it's just completely made up. It's just that does not exist. Okay. So that part is very silly. But then of course, even if there were something to that, abortion does not save lives. Every single abortion kills somebody. Every single abortion results in death. But that's the upside down world we're living in. And because the left controls the means of communication, that's mostly what people hear. Not because they can. control big tech because they control the media because they control the institutions, the universities. That is largely what people hear. And it's how they can be confused of that. You want to talk about ridiculous framing. Terry McAuliffe is this derelict governor in Virginia, real crooked guy, really, really crooked. And he's facing a Republican challenge from Glenn Yonkin there in Virginia. So they just had a, they've been debating, you know, they're heading into the election. And Terry McCullough says that, look, he's moderate. He's not moderate at all, but he says he's moderate.

He's got Republican support. He's got the support of the leading conservative in America. Guess who it is? I inherited an economy from a Republican governor that had a gigantic deficit. And I left a huge surplus when I left office. And that's the reason why so many Republicans have endorsed me. Over two dozen prominent Republicans, tonight I have the leading conservative in America here, Bill Crystal, who has endorsed my campaign. for governor. The leading conservative in America, Bill Crystal, Bill Crystal is a Democrat. He is a registered Democrat, I believe. Now, he was a Republican for a long time, and he worked in the kind of, mostly in the Bush world. He was involved in that. I actually have kind of an affection

for Bill Crystal. He was a teacher of mine at a summer fellowship I did once. He was sort of nice guy. But he's, he's, it's very difficult to call him a conservative now. He's, he's, he's, he's, it's very difficult to call him a conservative now. He's spent the last several years campaigning for Democrats, promoting rather left-wing policies, and attacking conservatives and Republicans and trying to impede them from winning elections and getting anything done.

So he's just not. People can change their political views. I don't be, I'm not saying Bill Crystal is just the most evil man walking the earth. But he's not a conservative. He's not a Republican. He's a now a liberal Democrat. In the end of his career, he's become a liberal Democrat,

and he spends his time working on a liberal democratic causes. And okay, people change their minds. Doesn't usually go in that direction, but that's the way it went. That's not the part that bothers me so much as Terry McColliffe saying he's the leading conservative in America. This is what a class of Republicans exists to do. There is a class of Republicans who are the court gestures in the kingdom of liberalism. And what they do is they put up a show, a charade of opposition. So it seems like we have a really tough political system where the two sides are fighting it out. But we don't really. We actually have a dominant ruling Democratic Party. And then we have some of their junior partners, the court jester Republicans, who go in and they

pretend to fight back. But they ultimately kind of have the same aims, which is why when someone like Donald Trump comes along, who is offering not just a different kind of personality, but actually a different set of policies, actually a different political vision, getting tough on trade with our, you know, not just having free trade with everybody, getting tough on immigration, not just having open borders, right? When Donald Trump comes along with a historically, much, more conservative, much more Republican in the old sense of the word type of platform, then all the court gestures go running. And then they say, no, this is terrible. This is awful. We've got to save our republic, our democracy. And they go and support the Democrats. We need real conservatives.

There's a, there's a great attack ad right now on one of the real conservatives out there, Ron DeSantis. Take a listen to this attack ad. Tell me if it makes you more or less likely to vote for Ron DeSantis. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of your cabin crew, we'd like to inform you that we have officially entered Florida airspace. Now that we're making our final dissent, please watch this short message from Governor Ron DeSantis on COVID-19. Thereafter, everyone on board will be required to comply with the state's forever purge. We are not doing any vaccine passports in the state of Florida. We trust people to make their own decisions in the state. We are not going to be

bludgeoning people with restrictions and mandates and lockdowns or any of that stuff. As Governor DeSantis stated, while you're within state line, you do not have to wear a mask. You do not have to get a vaccine. It is against the law for private businesses or schools to mandate masks or vaccines. And you have the absolute right to infect whoever you want, whenever and wherever, and wherever, with COVID-19. No, Ron DeSantis said that he trusts people to make their own decisions. No, people can't.

The fact that someone would push this out there as an attack ad, I wouldn't be surprised if Ron DeSantis secretly funded this to make him look cooler. Okay, the fact that a group put this out there and thinks that this is an attack ad, that Ron DeSantis is going to let people make their own decisions and not have everyone muzzle themselves and live in fear shows you just how radically does it. differently, the two sides see the world in this country. Speaking of good, solid conservatives, Senator Josh Hawley just came out with a bill to regulate big tech.

I really like this bill. This is a good bill. Especially the last few days where big tech companies, notably YouTube, are censoring me from stating plain facts about the coronavirus and the vaccine. facts that are acknowledged by the director of the CDC. I'm not allowed to do that because of big tech. That is how out of control they've gotten. And in a republic, as I note in my book, Speechless, in a republic, if you control speech,

you control the entire political order. And Google does that right now, Google and YouTube, which is the same company. They do that right now, as does Facebook, to a lesser degree, as does Twitter. And that is unacceptable. And I don't care if they pretend to be private companies. Google, by the way, is not a private company.

is practically an arm of the government. Facebook also has relationships with the government. But regardless, even if they were private companies, anyone who controls speech in a republic, that's a problem. Okay, that's a big problem. So Josh Hawley has this bill. It would remove Section 230 protections from these big tech companies. Section 230, it's a section of the Communications Decency Act, which is a law passed in the 1990s, had Republican support, had Democrat support. Interestingly, people forget this now. The Communications Decency Act aimed at regulating porn on the internet. It was one of the, as the internet was developing, it was, there was broad bipartisan consensus that you could regulate or limit or even ban porn outright

on the internet, and that wouldn't constitute a First Amendment violation. And then some idiot judges decided that there's nothing more American than looking at like three goats and a lady on, you know, some creepy website. That, therefore, we couldn't have any regulation of porn. There was another law that Republicans and Democrats tried to put out also in the 1990s called the Child Online Protection Act. Same thing. Had broad bipartisan support and some idiot judges shot it down.

But the part of the CDA that people are focusing on right now is section 230, which gives, you know, it was just developed at a time when the Internet was very different than it is today. But the effect of it today is that it gives these big platforms protection from prosecution, if, and civil liability, if there is some kind of copyrighted material or obscene material or things like that. Because they say, well, you can't really control what's on your platform. And so we're going to give you some protections here. You're different than a newspaper, for instance, which is making editorial decisions. But these big tech companies are acting like newspapers in that they're curating information.

limiting who gets to see what, censoring people from stating plain facts on the platform. So it's time for them to lose those protections. What Hawley's bill would do is allow parents to sue social media companies for, quote, bodily injury or harm to mental health of their children that in whole or in part that is attributable to the individual's use of a covered interactive computer service provided by the social media company. So part of this comes out because there was a report. that Facebook knew that Instagram is damaging to young people's psychological health. And we all know that. We all know that social media is in many ways damaging to our health, psychologically, spiritually, what have you. And so what this would do is, and Facebook kind of covered it up and didn't care and kept addicting kids to this stuff. Regardless of the reasoning,

you can give whatever scientific reasoning you want, I just want, I will support basically any bill that reigns in the power of big tech, okay? If you had a bill tomorrow called the Cato bill, called the Big Tech Delenda-East bill, that said that, you know, it is now an act of Congress that big tech's buildings are going to be seized, knocked to the ground, the earth will be salted where their servers once stood,

and we will hear the lamentations and wailing of their IT department. I would vote for that bill, okay, because it is... And by the way, I work, as many of us do these days, virtually all of us to some degree works in relation to these social media companies. But I recognize that this is an actual threat to the Republic. To our democracy, you always hear so much about our democracy. These guys, these three losers in Silicon Valley, led by hipster Rasputin, Jack Dorsey, but the others as well, these creeps are out there limiting what we can say,

basic statements. the fact that the CDC director says certain things about vaccines, that we're not allowed to repeat. That is unacceptable. And they need to be punished for that. And they need to have their power taken away from them. And whatever, I don't want to hear any, but my liberty, but my this, but the unintended kind. I don't want to hear it. I don't want to hear about your hypothetical worries about something that might happen in the future when it is already happening right now. Okay. I just don't want to hear about it. I want you to fix the problem now and grow a spine. And then we can, deal with the other problems that come up later. Cancel Big Tech. Cancel their power, at least. That's what we're talking about. Speaking of canceling things. This relates to the breakthrough cases that keep on breaking through, and they're breaking through everywhere, but they're just breakthrough cases. They're not evidence of a systemic

problem, according to YouTube. Aladdin is back on Broadway. Aladdin is based on the Disney movie. Aladdin is a Broadway musical. It's been closed for 18 months. It just reopened, and after one night of being reopened, it's been canceled again because of breakthrough cases. Breakthroughs. Breakthrough cases. You know, if the cases keep on breaking through, maybe we should stop calling them breakthrough cases. Maybe we should stop having such hysterical fears of this. Maybe people who are gravely at risk ought to take precautions. Maybe people who are not

really all that at risk should go on and live their lives and maybe you ought to all stop living in fear. Speaking of these sort of hysterical fears, I've got to cover this. You may have heard last week there was a racist incident, an allegedly racist incident at Parkway Central High School in Chesterfield, Missouri. I don't want you to confuse this. There was another allegedly racist incident at some other institution. This is a different one, but maybe you read about it somewhere. Racism. There was racist graffiti found in multiple bathrooms in the the high school and students took the opportunity to skip class. They staged a walkout. They cursed at the school administrators. People were crying, according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. The superintendent

wrote, he said students and staff are hurt, angry, feeling outnumbered by those who seem willing to stand by and watch without taking action to stop it. Those evil white supremacist kids, not, they were attacking the black oppressed students. Guess who, Bray painted the graffiti, or wrote the graffiti. Guess who did it? Guess who wrote the racist messages? Do you think he had blonde hair and blue eyes? You would be wrong.

It was a black student. It was a hoax as it seems almost always to be. Almost, I outlined this in my book, Speechless. I go through incident after incident after incident of these race hoaxes. And then what does one student say? What student says, who participated in the walkout against the racism that didn't exist, Yes, it was embarrassing to find out the perpetrator was black, but this didn't change the message of the protesters. And they hope that school administrators put in place a policy that keep these statements from being made.

You hear this all the time. Well, yes, the incident that we're using to justify these things was a hoax. But it gets to a greater truth. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. There's just no white supremacy, racism, all this stuff that we're told as an epidemic in America. It barely exists if it exists at all. What does exist is an epidemic. of delusion, fantasy, hysteria, and a true desire to be able to claim oppression and victimhood. That's the real virus. And we got a lot more than a lot more than breakthrough cases. Okay.

It's a widespread pandemic. You know, today you can listen to what happened to freedom land, how it became fantasy land, when the elites live in their imaginations. You can listen to that on Drew's show on the Andrew Claven show. So make sure you go check that out. And then we will be right back with the mailbag. Welcome back to the show. My favorite time of the week, the mailbag.

First question up from Arun, who says, Dear Dr. Coffe, in the Hindu religion, we believe animals have souls. Your fellow Catholics, Seamus of Freedom Tunes fame, recently commented that Catholics believe that animals possess souls, though of a different variety than humans. Could you elaborate on this? Yes, it's kind of a kind of a common. misconception. The Catholic view, and the broadly Christian view, though I think some Protestant

denominations might disagree with this, is that animals do have souls. It's not that they don't have souls. They do have souls because souls are the principle of life. They are the principle of life, but not all souls are created equal. So while animals possess souls, they do not possess rational souls, right? And this is why when your dog urinates on the rug, you might smack him with a newspaper and try to get him not to do that in the future, but you don't sob to him and try to convince him of the error of his ways and explain to him the injustice of urinating on the carpet because the dog doesn't have any conception of justice. The dog doesn't have any conception at all. They're not capable of conceptual thought. This is why, you know, if your dog bites the

little kid in the neighborhood, you don't put him on trial. Because the dog can't sin. The dog does not, has a soul, has the principle of life in him, but does not have a rational soul. And that soul is not spiritual. The soul is material. So the dog, I'm sorry to tell you, will not go to heaven. When the dog dies, the dog's soul dies as well. Human beings are different. We have a rational soul that is spiritual, and spiritual things, you know, go where the spirits are. I hope that clears it up from James. Michael, I'm getting married to a wonderful woman in a couple of months. She's kind, intelligent, knows me better than I know myself.

Is she Google? Is she Facebook? No, because she's kind and intelligent. She's relatively conservative, and we agree on 70 or 80% of issues, including general morals and religion. However, we recently had a small fight regarding homosexuals and drag queens. I recently found out she will have a drag queen at her bachelorette party, and even worse does not think it's an issue to tell our children gay marriage is equal to normal marriage. This is insane and could lead to confusion in our future children.

How do I effectively communicate the reasons why this is the case constructively and convincingly James, future Virginia? Yeah, look, I mean, your wife sounds great, your fiancé sounds great, but she's, while she's rejected quite a lot of the dominant culture, she seems to have still been brought along by some trappings of the dominant culture. Forget a second, the homosexuals and the drag queens. Even the idea of a bachelorette party is just, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion. It's feminist nonsense. It's just complete clap trap. The whole point of a bachelor party is that men have to kind of be dragged into getting married because men, you know, kind of enjoy being single.

They put off getting married very often. And so it's the last hurrah. And then the men are going to get married and hopefully reform and shape up. And the women are going to civilize them. And they're going to have a good family life for the rest of their lives. Men do not dream about their wedding day from the time that they're little boys. Okay. they don't start writing, you know, I'll be Mr. Michael Knowles, right, because we don't change

our name. But we're not, oh, yes, and I'm, you know, drawing little pictures of yourself at your wedding day. No, we don't do that. It's just because men and women are different. Women do that. Women do fantasize about their wedding day from a very young age. Women do want to get married in a way that's different than men. They generally don't need to be dragged, kicking and screaming into it. And so the idea that women need that one last hurrah, they need to go out and look at a bunch of, I don't know, male strippers or something, go get hammered at the bar. It just, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but women generally don't relate to sex and alcohol quite in that way, and they certainly don't relate to those things in the same way that men do.

Because they're different. I know this is shocking. So it just seems to me that your wife's fallen into this trap of, yes, every woman needs a bachelor party, bachelor's party because men are women are the same. And yeah, we need to do fun stuff. So we're not going to go to a strip club because we don't actually like that. But we're going to have a drag queen. Isn't that going to be wild and transgressive and crazy and weird? okay, we're going to do that. And, you know, even on the point of redefining marriage, I mean, I think you can just explain to her that we value homosexuals and think they all have equal dignity before God and, you know, our children of God. But marriage has a meaning and it doesn't, marriage has something to do with sexual difference.

And your wife just seems to probably through no fault of her own have imbibed a lot of the modern cultures nonsense that men and women are the same. And they're not the same. And so, you know, I would just clear that up. but I don't think you need to call off your wedding. It sounds like you guys are basically on the same page, and, you know, lead your family. You'll be the head of your household, and I think it'll be all right. From Tony.

Dear Mr. Knowles, I'm currently an employee at a federal contractor and with the Supreme dictator Biden's vaccine mandate. The company is forcing me to get vaxed, barring a religious exemption or disability exemption. I don't have a disability, and with Pope Francis's stance and the bishop's stance on morality of the vaccines, I'm not likely to get a religious exemption either. I don't want to lose my job,

especially since I don't have any good leads for an alternative career path, but I have serious questions about the experimental drug. Adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that my last living grandparent won't see me. I won't let me see her again unless I get the jab. I feel trapped between a rock and a hard place. What should I do sincerely? A fellow Sicilian trad Catholic, PS, thank you for your work. It always leaves me.

Speechless. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. So let's put aside for a second what your job is telling you to do to me. And let's also remember, I'm not of the opinion that getting the shot or not getting the shot is the make or break issue for your political identity or something. I don't see the reason that a great majority of people even should get the shot. I don't see why young and healthy people should get the shot. I just don't agree with the arguments that people make for that.

And I don't agree with the protestations that there are no questions whatsoever about the vaccine. And I mean, the CDC and the FDA have admitted that there are certain side effects. They had to pause one of the vaccines because of that. So I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I think that this is a prudential matter, okay? And I think you ought to, if you don't want to get it and you don't think that you're greatly at risk, you ought to resist it as best you can. And I know that none of us want to be bullied into this, especially by, you know, old pudding head there in the White House.

But the second reason you gave, to me is the better one. Your last living grandparent doesn't want to see you unless you get the shot. And you can explain until you're blue in the face that you're getting vaccinated or not, really doesn't have anything to do with your last living. grandparent because you're, presumably, at least what we're told by the public health authorities, is that your vaccine, the individual's vaccine will protect the individual from getting hospitalization or a risk of dying. So whether or not you're vaccinated is kind of beside the point. But that doesn't matter. The fact is you want to see your last living grandparent before

that last living grandparent dies. And so would you take a risk to be able to see your grandparent as an act of love and filial piety? I mean, you know, I would strongly consider that. Much more than I would the Biden mandate. The Biden mandate, if anything, I think would make everybody say, nope, ain't doing this. Sorry. And so I know that's not a satisfying ideological answer, but do you want to say your grandparent or not? I don't know. To me, of all the arguments I've heard for why people should get the shot, I think most of them are kind of bogus and I think you should just resist them. But that one is maybe the most compelling one I've heard. So, you know, it's too bad. It's unfortunate. Doesn't mean that you have to now assent to say that the shot is great or that everyone

should get it or the mandates are good or anything like that. But I understand the personal aspect here. You want to see your grandparent. Okay. That would weigh heavily in my prudential thinking, at least, if I were in your position. From Marisa. Hey, Michael, hate to be a broken record, but I'm struggling with manifesting. Oh my goodness. Manif, we brought this up on the show. We didn't bring it up. Someone brought it up in the mailbag. This is this New Age religion that if you just think positive thoughts and think of things that you want to have, that you can force God to give them to you, basically. That's the kind of the idea. So, Marissa goes on. I have friends who keep encouraging me to do it again, and they claim they're

happy or less anxious and have had great things come into their lives by focusing on certain things and doing affirmations daily. Honestly, I was less stressed and had good things happen while I was visualizing and focused on what I wanted. How can I feel that same way and have good things happen without acting as a God who thinks they can manipulate the world around me? It's so tempting to feel more at ease and have that consistent inner peace. I'm talking more about feeling content and focusing on the things I want from my life rather than giving into base desires and pleasure.

Maybe doing affirmations and focusing and visualizing isn't actually the New Age religion of manifesting. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad, right? I don't know. There are plenty of things I did in college that made me happy for a time that I don't think very highly of and that I regret, and I think they probably were that bad.

So I think that's true for probably most of us out there. So, no. Manifesting is very bad. do it. It is a kooky new age religion. It is heretical. It's sacrilegious. It's making demands of God, which is something we're told not to do. And it can open yourself up in the spiritual level to really bad stuff. It also will leave you psychologically distraught because the premise here is that as long as you think positively enough, as long as you do enough, all good things will happen to you and bad things won't happen to you. And one of the real problems with this is that when bad things do inevitably

happen to you, then it's your fault. Then you have no one to blame but yourself. A lot of the prosperity gospel type people who are another version of heretics, they can be nice people and they can smile a lot and make you feel good about yourself for a time. This is the problem with them. Because the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. This is what the book of Job is about, right? This is God saying that it's not just that good people get good things and bad people get bad things in this world, that actually very, very good people can have very, very bad things happen to them and often do. And in the history of the world, by the way, the very best people have had the very worst things happen to them, right? The saints, Christ himself, I mean, the greatest

example, the passion and the crucifixion. The very best person who has ever walked the earth had the very worst thing happened to him. So you're trying to find some peace, and you're trying to find peace in the optimism that good things will happen to you if you do certain things. I think you might find peace in the optimism that very bad things will happen. They will happen inevitably. And it doesn't say anything about your virtue necessarily. It doesn't say anything about your piety necessarily. It doesn't say anything about your salvation necessarily.

I think there is far greater peace and far greater truth in the fact that the rain will fall on the just and the unjust alike. than in whatever, kooky clap trap, some new age witches are trying to sell you. From Andrew, hey Michael, I do not pretend to be a knower of all things. However, since I have a curious mind, I'd like to know your opinion on the following. According to Google, the average person expels 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per day. On average, one cigarette contains 1.22 grams of carbon dioxide. Converted to pounds, that would be 0.002-68-964. Dividing respectively, that would mean you would need to smoke 855.1.1,000,000,000,000,000.

15 cigarettes or about 45 packs per day to achieve the same CO2 level. If smoking is bad, so is prolonged mask wearing. Hashtag trust the science. You know, you may have taken some liberties there in that scientific analysis, but certainly no more than Dr. Fauci has. You know, I would say I trust you on science, at least as much as I trust Dr. Fauci. From Camille. Thank you. Camille, you've written in before.

Thank you for taking on the role of my dating coach. Yep, that's the same Camille. I got another one for you. I was watching TikTok recently. Yes, I know. to hate myself. Perhaps that's why I'm still single. Anyway, anyway, I saw a video of a woman that said it doesn't matter what guy you meet. It's all about whether or not he's ready for a relationship. Is that true? Is it really only about timing? That's not a very romantic way to view life.

So hopefully it's not the case. As always, would love to know your opinion. Sincerely, TikTok on the clock. No, some men are better men than others and are better formed and better educated and have better intentions and fewer vices and a better sense of the world than others. and they, at a great many times, would be good to meet, and some of the men that you may have met Camille would be bad to meet at any time as well. Now, many people, many of the good guys that you meet, people you would say are good guys, have been bad guys in the past.

I would say most of them, if not all of them. And they've repented and they've kind of reformed and changed their lives and gotten a better handling on things. So in that case, timing really does matter. the case of age timing really does matter. So I do think it's both of these things, but I'm going to modify some of my advice I gave to another frequent writer into the show, Nick, who says that, you know, I told Nick to go out throw a stick and marry the first person he finds because he's getting too trapped into dating life. Well, for you, I would temper some of that advice and say,

it's not just about any guy you find as long as the timing is right. The guy actually does matter, and I think you can, it might be hard, but you can probably still find a good guy out there. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls Show. I'll 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-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 Walls show. The Michael Nulls Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring.

Director is Austin Stevens, supervising producer Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer, Justine Turley, audio mixer, Mike Coramina, and hair and makeup by Cherokee Hart. Michael Null's show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. Hey, everybody, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven 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 Claven Show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Clavin Show

and laugh your way through the fall of the republic with me, Andrew Clavon.