The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 880 - Kyle Rittenhouse Is The New "The Trial of the Century"

Episode Date: November 5, 2021

Dr. Fauci tries to dodge responsibility by redefining “gain-of-function research,” the prosecution falls flat in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and the FBI arrests the main source for the Democrats�� Steele dossier.  Read the Daily Wire’s bombshell Loudoun County exposé here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/loudoun-county-schools-tried-to-conceal-sexual-assault-against-daughter-in-bathroom-father-says | Support the Daily Wire’s investigative journalism for only $4/month — use discount code REALNEWS for 25% off your membership: https://utm.io/udQ0u 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

After the big win in Virginia on Tuesday, you may have thought the week couldn't get any better. But you would be wrong, as the last few days have seen the collapse of not one, not two, but four major fake news narratives pushed by the left over the past few years. Beginning with good old Dr. Fauci. Gain of function is a very nebulous term. We have spent not us, but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise

definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation. You are aware of that. That is called P3CO. We're aware that you deleted gain of function from the NIH website. Well, I can get back to that a moment

if we have time, but let's get back to the operating framework and guide wells of which we operate under. and you have ignored them. The guidelines are very, very clear. EcoHealth Alliance took the virus, S-H-C-014, and combined it with WIV1 and caused a recombinant virus that doesn't exist in nature,

and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells. You're saying that that's not gain of function research. According to the framework and guidelines... So what you're doing is defining away gain of function. You're simply saying it doesn't exist because you change the definition on the NIH website. No, no, Senator Paul, that's not gain of function research. That is, that is a function gaining inquiry. They're very, very different, okay? And basically, gain of function research is whatever I don't do.

Okay, that's, and that would be bad, okay? But, but function increasing line of questioning, that, that's what I did and that's totally fine. Ran Paul Scott Fauci dead to rights. So Dr. Fauci retreats to the oldest left-wing trick in the book. He tries to redefine the words to redefine the reality. And unfortunately, for the exalted doctor, the strategy does not seem to be working. Meanwhile, the stories we've been told about Kyle Rittenhouse and the BLM riots, the steel dossier and Russia Gate, and critical race theory all are collapsing this week, too. Because in the long run, no matter how well-crafted the lie, the truth will prevail, at least in the end. I'm my Michael Knowles is the Michael Noll show.

Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment yesterday from BLD, who says, I've died on a thousand hills, a thousand times, and yet I live. This is so true. When the libs tell us, what, you want to die on this hill? You know, whenever you oppose the libs, they say, what, you're going to, are you really, this is the hill you're going to die on? First of all, no, I have no intention of dying on any hills. But yes, I am going to take a stand on a hill or two because if I don't, I'm going to run out of hills to fight on. And when you're out there, standing strong and fighting firm, it's important to look good. It's important to dress well, which is why I would really recommend you check out. Misen and Maine. I love Misen and Maine.

I love Mizzen and Maine primarily because it makes me look really, really cool. Their shirts, their Oxford shirts, their polo shirts make me look really, really cool and sleek and hip and cool. But there's another layer here, which is. They combine the comfort and flexibility of your favorite athletic wear with the fit and style of a custom dress shirt. Lightweight, breathable, moisture wicking. I am of Italian extraction. We perspire a little bit. Okay, this is not great with some other dress shirts and some other polos.

With mizzen and Maine, not a problem at all. I don't need to worry about that kind of thing. The dress shirts are also machine washable so you can skip the trips to the dry cleaner. Think of all the time. Think of all the money you'll save. They've got 30,000 five-star reviews. You know they make a great product. I love them.

I love them. Whether you're updating your wardrobe to head back to the office or just looking for a new fall flannel, we've got really good news. Right now, if you go to Mizn and Main.com, use promo code Knowles. You'll get $35 off any regular price order of $125 or more. $35 off when you go to M-I-Z-E-N-A-N-D-M-A-N.com.

Use promo code Knowles. Fauci is embarrassing himself at this point. Fauci, I always would at least give him credit for being a slick politician who was able to pull a fast one and move the goalposts and people either did not notice or they let him get away with it. But this is really embarrassing. He perjured himself months ago to Rand Paul and said that we are not funding gain of function research. We're certainly not funding it in Wuhan, but we're not funding it at all. And then it turns out they were funding it and they were funding it in Wuhan. And so now Dr. Fauci is deleting the gain of function definition from the NIH website. And he's trying to weasel his way out of it, and it's pathetic. It's just falling apart. I don't think people buy that anymore. But beyond Fauci, beyond coronavirus, look at the case, look at the trial that's going on this week, the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. You remember Kyle Rittenhouse? During the BLM riots, as the left was torching the country and killing people and setting things on fire, and we were told it was all mostly peaceful, there was a young man, Kyle Rittenhouse, who was armed, he was protecting

himself, but he was going just trying to clean up the neighborhood, trying to help the shop he was working at. And some left-wing terrorists were coming after him, and Kyle Rittenhouse shot them, quite apparently, in self-defense. So now, because Kyle Rittenhouse is a right-winger, and the people who were chasing him and threatening him were left-wingers, the left is trying to portray him as a murderer. They're trying to throw him away for a long time. So the trial's underway, and it's really not going well for the prosecution because regardless of what the media told us, regardless of the narrative that they were spinning, even the witnesses that the prosecution is calling are ultimately defending Rittenhouse.

I mean, you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point in his life. You have never been inside his head. You never met him before. You don't know. I've never even, I never exchanged words with him if that's what your question is. So your interpretation of what he was trying to do or what he was intending to do or anything along those lines is complete guesswork, isn't it? Well, he said, fuck you, and then he reached for the weapon. Rose and Mom is one of these guys that Rittenhouse killed.

And apparently in self-defense, he was, so you have no idea. You don't know. Maybe he was reaching for his weapon to give it to Kyle Rittenhouse as an early birthday present. Maybe when he said F you, maybe that was just his love language. Maybe that was just his, you have no idea. You can't get in the mind of another person. Yeah, well, he screamed FU and reached for his weapon. So, you know, I don't know. I'm no Sherlock Holmes here, but something tells me he wasn't trying to wish me a happy birthday. Another witness, the prosecution grilling this witness, the facts really not looking good for the left. I stepped in and told everybody, chill out, calm down, stop doing that. I turned and had an exchange with one of the protesters. And I kind of explained to that protester, hey, you know, I get what you're trying to do, but like, not this. And when I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming.

And I would say, dude, back up. Just like, chill. I don't know what your problem is. And he goes, you know what? If I catch you guys alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you. And he said that to you. Correct. Did he say that to the defendant as well?

The defendant was there. So yes. Oh my gosh. Look, I think from the facts that we know, it's been clear from the earliest stages of this that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. He certainly should not be convicted of any crime. And this is basically a witch hunt.

But if the state is going to prosecute this, I think they need a better lawyer. Or maybe it's just the case that all the facts are on the side of the right here and they're on the side of Kyle Rittenhouse and they're against the media and the leftists and the government. But I repeat myself. The guy said to their faces, if I catch you alone tonight, I'm going to kill you. Is there any clearer justification for acting in self-defense? Probably not. The narrative, the left-wing narrative can last for a very long time. I don't mean to downplay it. But eventually, eventually, the truth is going to peek out. Okay, it's going to sneak out there. We're seeing this, not just with Rittenhouse, but with the Russia hoax.

So there was a big development in the Russia hoax yesterday, which is why you're probably not hearing about it, very much in the media is because they want to cover it up. Igor Dancensko was just arrested, indicted by John Durham, who was leading the investigation of the origins of the Russia hoax, and arrested Igor Danchenko. Who is Igor Danchenko? He was the subsource. He was one of the main sources for the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier was the fake dossier compiled by British Spook Christopher Steele that was used as the excuse to let the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign. And it's what set the stage for the Trump impeachment. And it's what set the stage for undermining the entire Trump administration, practically. It got the FISA warrant to use

against Carter Page, which was just a way of bugging the Trump campaign. Who funded the dossier? Hillary Clinton funded the dossier. The DNC. And this guy, you know, Igor Danchenko just got arrested. Why? He got arrested for misleading the FBI about his relationship with a major Democrat operative who was working for Hillary Clinton. He also fabricated the details of a phone conversation with someone who he said had a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation, knew about a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Meaning he lied to the FBI about the whole thing, which was a hoax. It was a setup.

It was an op. And it's unclear exactly how much of it was set up by the Obama administration and exactly how much of it was set up by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. There's very possibly some combination of the two. But this was a hoax and a set out. And even now, years and years later, after Trump is out of office, at least for now, the truth is coming out. Okay, and for years, remember, for years and years, it's Mueller time. Trump, he's a Putin stooge. He's a traitor. You're any, all of you who support him or are insurrectionist traitors selling out your country to Vladimir Putin. It was all a complete, not just a lie, it was a complete op. It was a political operation by the very Democrats who were pushing.

it. And they got away with it for now. By the way, they got a Trump's out of office, right? So they did, get away with it. It's, it's a slight consolation that at least maybe someone will go to jail. Maybe. But politically speaking, they got away with it. People need to be fired over this sort of stuff. And when people get fired, you need to replace them. And when you need to replace them, I would recommend ZipRecruiter. When you have a job opening, you want the best candidate. It's the most important investment that your company is going to make. Okay. You want the ideal candidate. Well, what if you could pick your ideal candidate before they even apply? That's where ZipRecruiter's invite to apply comes in. It gives you, the hiring manager, the power to pick

your favorites from top candidates. Right now, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Knowles, KNAWLES. How does Invite to Apply Work? Well, when you post a job on ZipRecruiter, they send you the most qualified people for your job. Then you can easily review the candidates and invite your top choices to apply for your job. It's just so high-tech, so cool, so easy, and it will really help you make sure that when you're looking at the best investments, the most important ones you can make in your company,

you're making the right choice. See for yourself, go to ziprecruiter.com slash knolls, KNAW-L-A-S. That's ziprecruiter.com slash knolls to try ZipRecruiter for free. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. You got hoaxes for... falling apart from Dr. Fauci, from the BLM people over Kyle Rittenhouse, from the Russia hoax people over the Steele dossier. But there's a hoax going on right now. Okay, there's a, there's a hoax that the left is trying to perpetrate right now. They are trying to convince everyone

that critical race theory is not being taught in schools. What you're, what you're being told right now is that critical race, well, for a while they were telling you critical race theory is awesome and we need to have it in every school. But then they're realize that wasn't a good strategy. So they said, no, critical race theory, uh-uh, it's, it's only being taught in Harvard Law School. You idiots, you rubes, you probably haven't even read Kimberley-Krenshaw. No, critical race theory is not being taught in schools, and the Republicans are lying to you about it, and they're doing it because they're racists and they don't want to teach about slavery or whatever, right? So an administrator at the largest school district in

Indiana has just released a video. It's a really terrific, concise description of how the left is in fact teaching critical race theory in schools. I'm the science coach and admin in the largest public school district in Indiana. I'm in dozens of classrooms a week, so I see exactly what we're teaching our students. When we tell you that schools aren't teaching critical race theory, that it's nowhere in our standards, that's misdirection. We don't have the quotes and theories as state standards per se. We do have critical race theory and how we teach. We tell our teachers to treat students differently based on color. We tell our students that every problem is a result of white men and that everything Western civilization built is racist. Capitalism is a tool of white supremacy.

Those are straight out of Kimberly Crenshaw's main points, verbatim in critical race theory, the writings that formed the movement. This is in math, history, science, English, the arts, and it's not slowing down. If students of color have lower reading scores, it's because of inequity. Therefore, we take from the white students and give to the color students. That's Richard Delgado, straight out of CRT in introduction. All teaching is political, with reality and facts taking the back seat. That's Dr. Gloria Ladson Billings, who outlined how she saw critical race theory flushed out in public schools in 1995. When schools tell you that we aren't teaching critical race theory, it means one thing.

Go away and look into our affairs no further. No, but it's not critical race theory. It's inquisitive ethnicity idea. Yeah, no, so we're not teaching critical race theory. We're teaching all the tenets of critical race theory, like that we need to abolish whiteness and that America is hopelessly, irredeemably bigoted and racist because of white supremacy. And this pervades even the economic system, which is hopelessly unjust, which is why we need to end free enterprise and enact some form of socialism. and it's why we need to radically upend our system of government.

So, yeah, it's all the critical race theory stuff, but it's not, we don't call it critical race theory anymore. What they're doing, it's the same thing Dr. Fauci tried to do to Rand Paul. They're just trying to redefine reality by redefining all the words. It's a retreat into, to use the technical term, nominalism to say, oh, what does that name even mean? Oh, what really is critical race theory? It's the thing you're teaching. That's what critical race theory is.

So what's the answer to all of this? You're seeing an answer right now in Texas. And it's going to make some of the squishes a little uncomfortable, but it's the right answer nonetheless. Let me see. I think I have an article somewhere here. Yes. So this is how NPR is portraying this in Texas. Headline. A Texas lawmaker is targeting 850 books that he says could make students feel uneasy. Oh, you know what he, I bet he's a book banner, a book burner who is just trying to protect the feelings of the white evil people and he's ignoring the truth and we can't ban books and we, how dare you? It's not exactly what's going on here, but this is, this is really good stuff. The lawmaker's name is Matt Krause. Matt Krauss has a list of books that ought to be,

that he believes ought to be investigated and potentially removed from curricula at schools. because they're filling students' heads with a bunch of crap. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is now getting behind this movement. What is really going on here? Is this banning books? Is this regressive sort of, well, yes, in a way it is kind of banning books. And I know that on the right in recent years we've adopted this attitude, that we should never ban books.

We should just have all the books. If it includes hardcore porn in schools, we should just have all the books, right? But no, I don't think we should. I really don't think we should. First of all, every political community has limits even on books. Some people, every political community throughout history has at some point burned books, okay, not even just ban them, but burn them. And some of the people who have burned books have been perfectly wise and right to do so.

Do you know who, Plato would be an example of someone who burned books. he advocated burning the books of one of his philosophical rivals. The apostles in the acts of the apostles. In the Bible, you see burning books, burning sorcery books when the Christians come in and evangelize. This is portrayed, and it's portrayed as a very good thing. I don't particularly care for Martin Luther. Martin Luther, you know what he did? He burned books.

So it's not just the old, terrible, back-minded Catholics, the Protestants have burned books, the pagans have burned books. The liberals burn and ban books. We currently ban books in school, at least one book. And it's been pushed by the liberal. What is the one book that we ban in schools right now? It's an obvious answer, but we don't think about it. The Bible.

That's the one book you can't be taught in schools because of a ridiculous Supreme Court decision pushed by the left. So I hope the left spares me their pearl clutching over the idea that we're going to kick certain books out of the curriculum. Yes, we are going to kick Ibram Kendi's idiotic nonsense out of the curriculum, if we can. Yes, we are going to kick Robin DeAngelo's race hustling idiocy out of the classroom. Frankly, I think we ought to put the Bible back in the classroom. The Bible, the most important book ever written, the font of all wisdom, all of all of all of Western thought and literature. That we're not allowed to teach, but the idiotic ravings of

Ta-Nehisi-Coots, that we have to teach. That would be an affront to liberal education if we got written. Give me a break. It's so disingenuous. Okay. There's only so many weeks in the semester. There's only so many books that you can read. Okay. And so the purpose of education to make us free requires that we read the best books, the books that are best going to help us understand the world, cultivate our deepest resources, and bring our base passions into accord with our rational will. And so you're going to be able to do that

by reading the classics, by reading serious works, and you're actually going to undermine that by reading porn and by filling your head with lies and propaganda, like Howard Zinn, like Robin DiAngelo, like Ibram Kennedy. And so those books should be kicked out of the curriculum. There is nothing hypocritical. There is nothing dangerous. There's nothing illiberal even about that. The left has been doing it for a very long time. There are plenty of reasons to circumscribe books. And it's a long past time that conservatives started taking a stand in this arena as well. Now, there is some confusion on this because the right has adopted a lot of the language of

the left. And I'm afraid that even Winsome Sears, the newly elected Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, is doing this a little bit as well. I really like what little I know about Winsome Sears. She is, she's really having a moment right now on the internet because her social media team is pretty strong. So they're calling her based and they're doing meme contests and they're sending photos of her just holding like a giant gun. And she just seems great. However, she said something that is not true, and so though I like her a lot, this is coming from a place of love, it's mostly directed at her speechwriters and her social media director. she tweeted out, quote, let's teach our children how to think, not what to think. And this is a line that countless right-wingers have used in recent years, and it's a nonsensical phrase. It doesn't mean

anything. I know people think it means something, but it doesn't, because it is not possible to teach someone how to think without also teaching someone what to think. It is not possible to teach someone how to think about English history without teaching them that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1060s. You need to teach them that. And if the student says it was 1065, then you've got to punish them. You got to mark them wrong. You got to give them a low grade. You have to teach them what to think in order to know how to think about certain. If you don't teach someone that two plus two equals four, you cannot teach them how to think about mathematics. This is true in ethics and morality too. If you don't teach someone that it is wrong to murder. You can't teach someone how to think about morality. very, very hippie-dippy, left-wing notion that we should just teach people to come to their own conclusions about every single thing, no matter what the answer is, is preposterous. Well, I taught my student how to think, and now he thinks that it's good to commit murder. But he came to the decision.

He did it himself. No, he got it wrong. He learned how to think the wrong way because the things he learned what to think were not true. Okay. And we need to get a little tougher about that. And we're not going to sound really liberal and hippie-dippy and nice and open-minded and everything. We're going to sound in a way a little bit closed-minded.

But sometimes you need to be a little closed-minded. Skepticism has utility only when it leads to conviction. We've got to put limits on our gas prices these days, too. It's going through the roof, which is why you've got to check out. Get upside. Christmas has come early for you. You are welcome. It is my pleasure to bring to you the timeliest advertiser, maybe that we've ever.

ever had, get Upside. Right now, my listeners are making up to 25 cents on every single gallon of gas, every single time they fill up. Download the free Get Upside app in the App Store or Google Play right now. Use promo code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Get a bonus 25 cents per gallon on your first fill-up. That is up to 50 cents cash back. Do not pay full price at the pump anymore. Get cash back using get upside. Just download the app for free. Use promo code Knowles, K&WLAS, to get up to 50 cents per gallon cashback on your first tank. Some people who drive a lot are making as much as $2 to $300 per month cashback. There's no catch. The cash gets added right to your bank account or to PayPal or to an e-gift card for Amazon or wherever you want. Other than that, it's so easy. Just download the free

Get Upside app. Use promo code Noles, KnaWLAS, to get up to 50 cents per gallon cash back on your first tank, Code Knowles. Just a little cherry on top of the Sunday of this wonderful week. There was a race in New Jersey for a state rep race, right? And the state rep race, no one was really paying attention to it because it had the top Democrat lawmaker in New Jersey, guy by the name of Steve Sweeney. And so he was super powerful. He was that no one was going to really challenge him. And so there was just this guy, this Republican truck driver named Edward Durr. He was. He was, He spent $153 on his campaign, quite a lot of it on donuts. It's not a joke.

And so it's going to be a throwaway, whatever. You know, we'll get him next time. And then the truck driver won. The top Democrat went down. And this guy, Edward Durr, who spent $153 on his campaign, he won. Now, look, I don't know anything about Edward Durr. I hope he's a good candidate. I love that he beat the Democrat. I hope he is a good politician. I hope he learns to become a good politician. I just, I really don't know. Nobody really knows a lot about him right now.

But I love the victory. And I love the victory because what it shows is people are really sick of this ruling class. Okay. And they just, they want. anything but this ruling class. And it shows that we can, at least sometimes, boot this ruling class out of power. The vote for Edward Durr, look, he might be the greatest candidate in the world, but the fact that you've got such a low-funded, sort of unknown candidate comes in and beats the top Democrat, that's probably more of a protest vote. It's a protest vote against something. And even in New Jersey, even in Blue, New Jersey, that's a great sign. Ron DeSantis is showing this in Florida. Ron DeSantis, he's a very talented politician and he's very good at using applause lines.

But take a listen to this applause line that he just used at an event down in Florida. This shows you a little bit of a shift in the focus for the Republicans this year and going into 2022 and 2024. Sometimes people will ask me, oh man, how come Florida 84,000 jobs the rest of the country? You know, what could be done to help the rest of the country? And I say, well, you know, the saying that I always think back, and it's a little bit of a flourish on how it's been used previously, but a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours. A recovery is when Dr. Fauci loses his. Yeah, now this is an old formulation. You know, a recession is this, a recovery is this. A recession is this, a depression is this, and recovery is this. Ronald Reagan made great use of it many decades ago talking about Jimmy Carter. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his. Great line. I love you as the line myself. But notice the shift here. In the 80s, it's Ronald Reagan using the line against the elected president Jimmy Carter. Today, we're using the line against some bureaucrat, Dr. Fauci. In the 80s, the chief political opponent was the Democrat Party. Today, the chief political opponent is the blob.

It's the ruling class, the deep state, the permanent government, call it whatever you want. It seems like a subtle shift. That's a major shift. It shows you where the power has moved in the country. and what people are rebelling against right now is not Joe Biden. If Ron DeSantis had used that line against Joe Biden, it would have probably fallen flat. Yeah, we don't like Biden. We joke about him.

Let's go Brandon. Ha, ha, ha. But no one thinks the guy is with it. No one thinks the guy is really pulling the strings. Someone like Fauci, though, he's been around for what, seven presidents now? Highest paid employee in the federal government? He's the problem. It's a regime issue, not so much a partisan issue.

Speaking of this ruling class, there was one of the creepiest corporate presentations I've ever seen in my life just came out from Microsoft. Listen to how these software spokesmen begin their presentation. Hello and welcome to Microsoft Ignite. We've got a big day ahead and lots in store for you. First, we want to acknowledge that the land where the Microsoft campus is situated was traditional. occasionally occupied by the Samamish, the Duwamish, the Snow Qualmi, the Sioux Quamish, the Muckleshoot, the Snow Homish, the Tulalp, and other Coast Salish peoples since time immemorial, a people that are still here, continuing to honor and bring to light their ancient heritage. My name is Allison Wines. I'm a senior program manager in our Developer Tools Division. I'm an Asian and white female with dark brown hair wearing a red sleeveless top. And I'm Seth Wares, program manager in the AI Platform Group. I'm a tall Hispanic male wearing a blue shirt, khaki pants.

Today we kick off two days of learning more about the latest solutions, exploring how these key innovations can empower you to do great things and connecting with peers from around the world. Huh? What? What was that? First, okay, let's take it backwards from the end to the beginning. They say, I'm an Asian lady, and I'm a...

sort of white guy. And I, why do I care? Why do I care about your race and you're talking about the clothing you're wearing? Oh, it's for, I think it's for blind people. I think they're doing this for blind people because identity politics doesn't work for blind people because they can't see and they genuinely don't care. They literally don't see color. But that doesn't work for the left because the left needs to make every single thing about race and these kind of physical attributes of identity. And so they've actually got to tell you. Be like, hey, hey, hey, I'm a black guy. Treat me differently. Hey, I know you can't see me and you don't care, but I am, you should treat me differently based on my race. Okay. And they open up, they say, we're here on the land of the Shumatami muskotuzi people and they,

and it goes on this whole list. Who cares? When I go to the Bronx, I do not often hear, you know, the Puerto Rican guy in the Bronx say, hi, I'm a Puerto Rican guy wearing, you know, jeans and a t-shirt. And I am acknowledging that I'm standing on land that was once inherited by black guys. And before that, by Sicilian guys. And before that by the Irish. And before that, that, who care? What do I care? You're in America. You're standing on, you're standing on the Microsoft campus. Land now run by Microsoft. But it's this, it has to be this constant preening sort of guilt. By the way, I don't think this little acknowledgement makes the Muscatoozy feel any better that they lost their land hundreds of years ago. Let's move on, buddy. This is,

this is a world. This is how the world works. It's so, the reason I even bring it up is to show, though, this is not about, this is not about the government, big government. You know, One of the big unfortunate events that came after the big Virginia win is that the establishment Republicans tried to make this all about socialism. It's all just a rejection of socialism. Socialism did not play a single role in the Virginia election. Okay, it was about culture. It was about critical race theory.

It was about transgender ideology in schools. It's not even just about the government. It's about micros. I don't want my corporations pushing this crap and upending my traditions and my society and ripping America apart at the seams. And so if it's the government doing that, then let's go after the government. If it's corporations, I'm happy to go after the corporations too.

And that's a big difference between the impotent talking points of the Republican Party for the past 20 years and what's going on today. As you may or may not be aware, the Daily Wire filed a lawsuit against the federal government yesterday. Why? Because the Biden administration, the anti-American Biden administration, ordered that large employers must require their employees to be vaccinated against the wooflew

or submit to regular testing. The Daily Wires lawsuit was filed by the Dillon Law Group and Alliance Defending Freedom in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration lacks constitutional and statutory authority to issue the employer mandate and that the mandate failed to meet the requirements for issuing a rule taking effect immediately without the normal process of considering public comments. This mandate is unconstitutional. We are not standing for it here at the Daily Wire. Our employees deserve to keep their medical history private, have some control over their own bodies, and honor any of their religious beliefs. And there are plenty of reasons not to take this vaccine, moral and

prudential. We stand with our employees' rights. We do do this also with the rights of every single American. The Biden administration has warned that any companies that do not comply with this federal overreach could be fined as much as $136,000 per violation. Per violation. No company really can withstand this in the long run. This is why we need your help. If you are not a member yet, please consider joining us today. If you go to dailywire.com slash subscribe enter code. Do not comply at checkout. You'll receive 25% off your membership. You will be fighting this unconstitutional mandate with us. We appreciate your help and we will not comply. We'll be right back with the mailbag. Welcome back to my favorite time of the week.

The mailbag. First question up from Vincent. Michael, I have a situation in which I require some advice. I am in my college play, and I believe that the costume designer is a girl who says she is a boy. I have not confirmed this, but if this is the case, how should I talk about this person in their presence and in the rest of the cast's presence? Should I make my position known or should I stay silent so as to not alienate anyone? as the show is in a week. I appreciate any advice you give and thanks. Well, you know, you don't know.

I mean, this gets back to the old, the old S&L gag about Pat. Some people are just sort of sexually ambiguous and you don't know. It's Pat. That's like, it's Pat a boy or is Pat a girl? I don't know. And some people, so you don't want to insult this person. You said it's a girl who's pretending to be a boy. So you don't want to be in a position. where you make a big issue out of this. And then someone's not even trying to make an ideological point. It's just a girl who seems kind of tomboyish or a boy who's kind of feme, you know, or whatever.

You don't want to do that. Certainly I wouldn't buy into the transgender ideology. The good thing of going for you, though, is that when you are in someone else's presence and you're talking about that person, it's rude to use their pronouns. It's just generally rude. If you're standing next to Sheila from the office, you go, you know what she said to me the other day? You know what this broad said to me?

No, you would say, Sheila made this good point. And so I think that's how you would get around it. I don't know. I assume this person has a sort of sexually ambiguous name as well, you know, Tyler or something, Skyler, I don't, whatever. You would probably just use the name. If you're in a theater community, the odds that there is some sexual confusion going around or about 150%.

So, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's going on. But there are ways to stand your ground and to not give in to gender ideology without being necessarily offensive, you know, without going out of your way to do so. And this is actually the harder thing to do is, you know, rather than showboating, I'll take your situation out of it for a second. Let's say you're talking about Bruce Jenner. And you're talking to someone and someone refers to she, you know, she, Caitlin Jenner. And you say, yeah, well, what Bruce said was da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

You can do it in a way that is quiet and subtle and confident in not saying, he's not a she. He's a he and how dare you? You know, you can just kind of hold your ground firmly, quietly, politely. That's what I would recommend doing. From Jim, I asked what the point in a high school relationship was a week ago. I might be getting into a high school relationship soon. because of your answer. Oh, yeah, because I said, I met my wife in high school. We split for college, which I think is now a statutory requirement for millennials. Wish we hadn't. Wish we'd gotten married

sooner. But yeah, I think high school relationships can be great. So, Jim goes on. Now I have to ask, what would I do in a high school relationship? I'm not very good in these types of things. So I thought I would go to an expert. Thanks. This is a family show, buddy. I don't, you know, I don't know what you want me to say. No, I can tell you. when I was a youth teenage boy into my early teens, I was, I was an atheist, okay. I did not adhere to Catholic teaching, theology of the body, chastity, all the things that you're really should be doing. And so I behaved in a way that I would not recommend, okay? I, but I think you certainly can have a relationship as a teenager or in college or in high school or whatever that is a very serious

relationship and remains chaste. Does this mean you can never hold the girl's hand? You can never kiss the girl. You can never go. No, it doesn't mean that. But it does mean that you ought to respect certain boundaries. And our culture is really bad at that. And I think a lot of people, I hear this a lot from people like me who are reverts, you know, who lived like atheists for a long time and then reverted to the faith. And they feel or converted rather also. They feel lied to. They feel like they were told, I mean, they were encouraged in high school and college that you need to sleep around and break every sort of social and sexual and sexual convention that existed even 50 years ago and you need to just take things on date a million people and, you know, swipe right and swipe right and swipe right and you just have to do that. That's just what the culture is. And you don't. You don't, actually. You also don't need to sit at home in your room and never speak to a girl, right? That would be the complete other side. But What you can do is recognize that men and women are made for each other. They're complimentary.

We think they're cute. We're attracted to these other people. We can express that attraction. We can engage in that while still respecting the other person and respecting ourselves. Moderation actually is a virtue. And chastity is too, but have a good time. From Andrew, Hey, Michael, I hear you speaking about how the problem with marriage is how we allowed our society to have gay marriage

and thus redefining what marriage is. Well, it's not the problem. There are a lot of problems, but sure, that's part of it. I agree with all this. However, I think marriage was ruined from making it a legal thing in the first place. It ruined its value. It's part of our relationship with God, not people. Therefore, I believe marriage should be overseen by our religious institutions. And if a church or synagogue wants to approve a gay marriage or two, two random guys decide to say they're married, they can. Curious your thoughts on this. Thanks. Love your show and all that you do. I'm afraid, Andrew, I appreciate the compliment, but I'm afraid you are wrong about this. Marriage is an oath before God. That's true. Marriage is also an oath to this other person, your spouse, and marriage is also an oath before the public. It is a public act. It always has been.

Because marriage is not merely a private institution, but a public institution. This is why divorce was not permitted in most places in the Civilized West for a very long time, until very, very recently, actually. you're making an oath, you're signing a contract, and it's not just an oath between two people who can consent to do whatever they want, and if they decide to break the contract, it's totally fine. You're making a vow to society because marriage is the bedrock political institution. The family is the bedrock. It's the local community, the township, is not the smallest political institution. It's not the basic one. The family is. Okay. Likewise, if two people decide to say that their relationship is a marriage. They don't have the right to do that if the relationship is not a marriage. No more than I have the right to call my leftist tears tumbler a bicycle.

Well, what's the big deal? Who's it hurting if you say that your leftist tears tumbler is a bicycle? Well, it's just not true. That's the problem. And we don't have the right to say things that are not true. We have an obligation to pursue the truth. Okay. And so, but I don't, you know, to your point, I don't, I don't just blame the gays or something like that. The institution of marriage has been weakened for many, many years. No-fault divorce was really the beginning of that, at least in modern times. And so my answer to that is not to weaken marriage further, and just like Dr. Fauci did with gain of function research, redefine it into nothingness, my answer to that would be to more clearly define it. Say, no, marriage does involve sexual

difference. And two fellows who like each other and two women who like each other, that's fine. They can like each other. They can have a relationship. But it just is not marriage. And no amount of, you know, messing around with the words is going to change that. And furthermore, if you are married, you can't just get out of it. You can't just break it willy-nilly because you are fracturing, you're hurting children to do that. But you're also fracturing society and you're undermining our trust in one another and our trust in oaths. And the very notion of a public oath itself to say nothing of your obligation to God. So I would say, yes, marriage is in a great state of disarray. The answer is not to make it even more subjective, make it even more personal,

make it even more relative. The answer is to make it more objective and clearer. From Matthew, good day, Mr. Knowles. Would you please explain the differences between the philosophies of Edmund Burke and John Locke. Thank you under the omnipotence. Matthew. Yes. Burke broadly is a conservative. Locke broadly is a big lib. That would be the difference. Edmund Burke once said that John Locke's second treatise of government is one of the worst books ever written.

And I know a lot of American conservatives these days really like John Locke. That's kind of a more recent development that they're really into John Locke. But John Locke is the father of liberalism. Now, on that, I will say John Locke was way more based than people give him credit for. He did say that we should ostracize atheists from society and things like that. So he was pretty tough-minded, too. But his philosophy, I'm not going to be able to do justice to the great conservative tradition and the great liberal tradition right now.

But Locke's idea of society is just a bunch of contracts that, therefore, can be dissolved basically at one's whim and caprice is ultimately a very liberal idea. The idea that we're, you know, the basic unit of society is the individual. That's a very liberal idea. Edmund Burke's idea. And don't forget, Edmund Burke was a defender of the American Revolution. So it's not as though he were just, he's completely unrelatable to the American experience. But Edmund Burke's idea is, no, we are born not primarily with rights and entitlements, but with obligations, with oaths,

with duties, with loyalty, and that the bonds of society really cannot be broken willy-nilly. They ought not to be broken willy-nilly. That we ought to look to our great tradition and recognize we have an obligation to the people who came before us and that there are higher things than just personal autonomy. Edmund Burke refers to that exalted freedom, which can ennobble even servitude itself. that generous loyalty to rank and sex. I could go on and on about him all day. But basically, Burke was right.

Worth reading Locke, but if you're going to read just those two guys, Burke was more correct. From Andrew. Hello, Michael. As a former New Yorker, do you believe that New York City will ever get back to being a city that is actually desirable to stay and raise a family in? It's too expensive. And with the election of Eric Adams, the Democrat,

is there any hope of seeing a Giuliani-type mayor return? Should I look into the right flight? Or stick around and hope for the best. P.S., the Vax mandate shut down 26 fire stations and thousands of cops are pending exemptions. They will probably get denied thanks to de Blasio. Yeah, I'm a New Yorker, as you may know, and I did leave New York. I left New York originally for California, and then Daily Wire, which was based in California, moved to Tennessee, and I'm very happy that I moved to Tennessee.

And I like going back to visit New York, but I think New York right now is in 1970s. Could there be a Giuliani type? Yeah, I hope so. I hope so. I really love New York, and I think that New York has a kind of, it has a kind of base level conservatism that a lot of people who are not New Yorkers don't really get. It's got the conservatism of the Italian immigrants. It's got the conservatism of the cops and the firefighters. It's got the conservatism of just being an old place, you know, being a tough old place. So, yes, there could be some kind of semi-renewal, but really depends what you want to do.

You know, if you want to, if your family's there and you want to stay near your family and, you know, and you love the city and you just want to go to the places in the city and really just continue to build your life there, I think that's all well and good and just know you're going to have a tough time. If you want to build and grow a business, if you want to, you know, rally the troops, the the right-wing troops and have an effect on national politics. If you want to do that sort of thing, I think you got to leave. It's really, it just depends on what you want. From Kenneth. Hey, Mike, if all the nominations for science awards are only for white guys, what does this

mean when the left says to follow the science? They're actually saying, listen to the white guys. Seriously, just another white guy. As a slightly off white guy, you know, tote maybe, or beige or whatever you'd call this sort of swarthy skin, I would agree. And I think they should follow me. I think it's a good idea. They should do that. That's true. But they're not, you know, but in fairness, the story you're referencing where the science award committee wouldn't give the award to people because they're white guys, the logical conclusion of that is that if a scientist is a white guy, then he's just not really a scientist, so you shouldn't follow him. If he shouldn't win an award, certainly you shouldn't

follow him. From Samantha. Michael, I'm 21 years old. I've felt truly born again by the good book. I'm studying the Bible coming closer to God. I felt in my heart that I want to be baptized. However, my husband does not share the same enthusiasm. He's 23 in active duty military. His relationship with the Army has shaped his relationship with God. This has put us in a position where I'm waking up every Sunday and pleading with him to come with me. I have about a 50% success rate of getting him to come with me. What should I do to motivate him to try again with God?

And should I wait on getting baptized until he supports me? Thanks. No, you should get baptized. But it's a big change for him, probably. You know, this has happened with me. I've dated my wife long before I was practicing Christian. So it can be jarring when people feel a call to faith. So I try to bring him along, ask him, you know, be, show him the fruits of your faith.

Certainly I would get baptized at the very least. And, you know, recognize that things happen in God's good time. But one word of caution here, I would not allow anyone to get between your relationship. with God. Okay, that's our show. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Nulls Show. See you 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 Walsh Show.

The Michael Noles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our Technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producer Mathis Glover, production manager, Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer, Justin 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 turn to blood. But on the Andrew Claven show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Claven show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Clavin.