The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 925 - Smoking Weed And Criminalizing Truth

Episode Date: January 19, 2022

Canada outlaws the truth, a Waukesha judge bans ballot drop boxes, and a Democrat Senate candidate puffs the sin spinach in a campaign ad. DW members get special product discounts up to 20% off PLUS access to exclusive Daily Wire merch. Grab your Daily Wire merch here: https://utm.io/udZpp  My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ  Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u Matt Walsh is now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of his new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb  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

You may have seen headlines over the past few days, particularly in conservative outlets, claiming that Canada has just banned conversion therapy, which is a political slogan that refers to counseling that focuses on changing a person's sexual desires. But the headlines aren't true. Canada has not banned all conversion therapy. It is still perfectly legal in Canada to try to change a person's sexual orientation so long as you are trying to make that person homosexual. That's very legal. It is legal to try to change a person's gender identity so long as you are trying to make that person transgender. There are going to be a lot of quotes today, a lot of air quotes. It is perfectly legal in Canada to, this is a real quote from the law, repress or reduce

a person's heterosexual attraction or behavior, as well as to repress or reduce a person's cisgender gender identity. All of those conversion therapies are still legal in Canada. What is illegal is to try to change or repress anyone's sexual desires or identities in the other direction. In other words, if you try to convince your son that he's really a little girl, that is protected by the law. But if you tell your little son that he is not a little girl, you could be sent to prison. You could be imprisoned for five years. Many religious liberty advocates point out that this legislation effectively outlaws Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in Canada, which is true. But the issue runs far deeper than mere religious liberty. The legislation outlaws the truth. And it's not just our

centric neighbors to the north up in America's hat who have to worry about that sort of madness. Because a similar law has already been passed here, right in the U.S. of A. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment yesterday is from Kalathiel, who says, I haven't been getting notifications from this channel lately. YouTube realizes that you're doing the right thing and is trying to stop you. Thanks so much for speaking the truth and keep up the good work. Thank you very much, Kalathiel. We have heard similar reports from a number of people, that they, if they subscribe, it'll, they'll be unsubscribe, that they're not getting notifications for our videos. We're seeing this in our analytics. Something seems to be afoot,

friends at YouTube. I wonder why that is. A reminder that if you want the uncensored version of the show, that seems to have the least shenanigans going on in big tech, a head on over to Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play, get the audio podcast, type in the Michael Null show, subscribe, leave a five-star review, and you should be okay. You know, that will help you, I think, to sleep at night when you know you're getting those notifications. And when I want to sleep at night, you know what I do? I check out Helix. You know about Helix. I've talked about Helix for years. They make these great beds. Well, now Helix is moving beyond just mattresses. They are starting to make sofas. And they've just launched a new company called All Form. They're making premium, customizable sofas and chairs,

shipped right to your door. So what makes an all-form sofa really cool? Well, for starters, it's the easiest way you can customize a sofa using premium materials at a fraction of the cost of traditional stores. You can pick your fabric and it's spill, stain, scratch-resistant, really great fabric. You pick the sofa color, the color of the legs, the sofa size, the shape. You make sure that it is perfect for you and your home. Tailored exactly to your tastes. They've got armchairs and love seats all the way up to an eight-seat sectional. so there's something for everyone, and you can always start small and buy more seats later on. All-form sofas are also delivered directly to your door. They've got simple quick assembly,

no tools needed. If getting a sofa without trying it in store sounds a little risky, you do not need to worry. You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it. That's more than three months. And if you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free and give you a full refund. They also have a forever warranty. Literally forever. And All-form is offering 20% off all orders for listeners at allform.com slash knolls. To find your perfect sofa, check out allform.com slash knolls. We already have a similar law in America. This law was passed in Canada. In California, sorry, I get confused. Canada is the avant-garde. California is not so far behind. The law in California stated that health care workers who refer to men who think that they are women as men,

and who do that willfully can be prosecuted. That that's a crime in California. That law was passed about five years ago. Thankfully, it was challenged in the courts, so it's not on the books anymore. But this is what the left wants, not just in other countries,

but right here in our own country. They don't want to ban all forms of sexual social engineering. They only want to ban the forms of sexual social engineering that go in the traditional direction. They want to ban the forms of social engineering, sexual social engineering that tells confused boys that they're not actually girls. But they will encourage all the other forms of social sexual and they'll encourage all the other forms of conversion therapy as long as it goes

in the direction of radicalism and very often fantasy. The law in Canada, just like the law in California when it was passed, it's not a valid law. It's not. I know it's on the books. I know it's going to be enforced. I know that the political system in Canada is going to do everything it can to make this the law of land. But it's not a valid law. The reason for that is that human law is only law by virtue of its accordance with right reason. It is manifest that it flows from the eternal law insofar as it deviates from right reason. It is called an unjust law. And in such a case, it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence. That's the description. by St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most intelligent people ever to live, and it has been

repeated by people throughout the ages. Martin Luther King actually said similar things. It was Martin Luther King Day just a couple of days ago. Unjust law is no law at all, because human law is only law in its accordance with right reason. And so when you have an unjust law, that is not a law that is a species of violence, what they're doing in Canada is committing violence on parents, on kids especially, and it must not be followed. Evil, evil stuff. We got into this problem, not just because the left let us there, but because the right let us there as well. This is being talked about as a religious liberty issue. It is a religious liberty issue, but that's not the primary problem. It's a truth issue. It's a truth issue. We got into this problem because we

deny the truth. The left obviously denies the truth. They say that falsehood is truth. They say that falsehood is truth and truth is falsehood. But the conservatives do it as well, or at least the libertarians do in the conservative movement, because very often you will hear people on the right say, well, how do we know? How do we legislate morality? Who's to say? Who decides? Maybe the thing you think is good, I think is bad. Shouldn't we all be allowed to just make up our own understanding of what's good and bad, man? You know, hold on. Let me just, yeah, you know, man. And it's like, what if the color you see as green, I see is blue, and it's this radical skepticism that sounds no different than what Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where he found somewhere in the

Constitution, I guess in Invisible Inc., a right to define your own concept of existence. Those are the ramblings of some aged hippie, but they're often repeated by right-winger's. And so when we deny the truth, when we deny that we can know the truth with some some reasonable degree of certainty, then we open ourselves up to this kind of madness. The problem here is not just that the left has completely lost its mind and is peddling insanity and child abuse. The other problem is that the right is not willing to stand up for the truth and doesn't have the confidence to articulate the truth. If you oppose transing all the kids like they're trying to do in Canada, you will today be called a far right extremist.

everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton today is a far right extremist. Even some people who are to the left of Hillary Clinton, but opposed the dominant ruling class, the liberal establishment. They will also be called far right extremists. A great example of this is Glenn Greenwald. Glenn Greenwald has been, for most of his career, a leftist, a left-wing activist and journalist. Glenn Greenwald has had contact with WikiLeaks, with Edward Snowden. I think he's a gay guy, I'm not sure.

He worked in some weird sexual industry type jobs earlier in his career, according to reports. He's not what you would call a traditional rock-ribbed conservative. I suspect most of his views are not particularly conservative. But Glenn Greenwald, opposes the liberal establishment. Glenn Greenwald is willing to do the job of a journalist, at least some of the time. And so as a result, the ruling class has labeled him a far-right. Right-wing no longer means what it used to mean. These phrases, these terms change over time. The left and the right, the very words left and right in our political discourse,

come from the French Revolution when the right-winger supported the monarchy and the left-wingers wanted to plunge the country into madness. And the left-winger is obviously one. But today we don't necessarily think of right-wingers as monarchists. So the words change quite a lot over time. And now far-right means you oppose the ruling class. So we're all far right now, guys. Okay? We're all... It just means bad. It's just... It's what the liberals did to the word racist. Racist no longer means that you have animosity for people on the basis of their race. Racist just means bad. So if you're a bad person, if I don't like you, if you're someone that the dominant power

structure doesn't like, you're a racist, or you're far right, or you're a white nationalist or whatever. This is the politics of politics. This is the Overton windows, sometimes what it's called. The left, by manipulating all the terms, which I write about in my book, Speechless, controlling words, controlling minds, by changing the limits of acceptable discourse, every society is going to have some discourse that's off limits, doesn't matter how much you love your first amendment, certain things you're just not allowed to say in every society. If they can shift that all the way

over to the left, then even leftists are going to appear to be far right wing. There's another part of the politics of politics, though, beyond the issues, beyond immigration and pro life and the economy, there's the politics about how we do politics. And you see some of that in the discourse, And you see some of that in how the elections are run. And we got some really good news on this out of Wisconsin, out of Wau, Wisconsin. A judge in Waukesha just came out and said that election drop boxes are not permissible. So election drop boxes are one of the tools that the left used in 2020 to change all the election rules to push their guy, Joe Biden through, Joe Biden, the most popular president ever, even though those approval ratings are in the 30s.

He got more votes than anybody. How dare you? If you question that, you're an insurrectionist, far right terrorist. They changed all the rules. One of them was you have these very insecure ballot drop boxes. The judge in Waukesha says, absolutely not. We're not going to do that. So great news for Republicans looking at 2022 and 2024. Great news for you and your family looking at your next dinner. Good ranchers. You know how much I hate being lied to. And we have been lied to. a lot, especially in the past couple of years. Well, you're being lied to every time you go to the grocery store. It turns out that 85% of the grass-fed beef in the United States is imported from overseas. But it's often labeled product of USA. How do they get away with it? Because they do

minimal processing while they're here. And so they say, yeah, basically it's a product of the USA. Don't buy that cheap imported beef that lacks true flavor. Go to good ranchers.com slash knolls to cut through the misinformation. Get 100% American beef delivered to your door today. Good Ranchers only sells beef that is born, raised, and harvested in the USA. They're 100% American in steakhouse quality. Plus, you can save 30 bucks right now with my code Knowles, CanadaWLAS at checkout. That's 30 bucks off any box that is the biggest discount they have ever offered. Today is the day to do it.

Save big on your new favorite steak. They're the exclusive meat company of the Daily Wire for good reason. Head on over to good ranchers.com slash Knowles to save 30 bucks. I just had their strip steaks the other day. It was absolutely magnificent. Then I actually had their burgers two days later. Just phenomenal. Make 2020 your most flavorful year yet.

Good Ranchers, American meat delivered. Conservatives are not going to win elections if we do not make sure that the elections are fair. A lot of Republicans don't think the 2020 election was fair. And even higher percentage of Democrats don't think the 2016 election was fair. Now, their claims are not equal because in 2016, the election was run like it always is, and the reason Democrats don't think it was fair is because our intelligence agencies made up a bunch of crap about Trump colluding with the Russians, which wasn't true. The reason that people don't think the 2020 election was fair was because Democrats changed all the rules and in some cases violated state constitutions when they cheated to get their guy across the finish line. So I'm not saying it's all equal here. However, it is a political problem that both sides don't think that the elections are fair.

So what are we going to do? We need to make sure that the elections are fair, are just, are equitable, and are not being stolen by the Democrats, or are advantageous to Republicans and to the rule of law and to justice. Because right now they're skewed so much in the direction of the Democrats. We've got to do that. I don't care how popular your view. on immigration is. I don't care how well you're doing in the polls and how terribly your opponent is doing in the polls. If you don't have some semblance of a fair election, then that and a buck 50

will get you a cup of coffee. You've got to make sure. So the first battle for Republicans is make sure that the drop boxes, the no ID voting, the election month, election season, all of these ridiculous cheats that the Democrats have instituted, that you got to make sure that those go away. Then you've got to work on the cultural front on moving the Overton window, which political actors can play a large role in. Then you work on the policies, but you're not going to get to that third part unless you take care of the first part. Speaking of confusing, the left and the right, the left is still pushing the Russia hoax. The Russia hoax has been so completely discredited. We know that it was based on an unverified false dossier.

that was paid for by Hillary Clinton, that was used as an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign and then later to undermine the Trump presidency with the overt collusion of not just our intelligence agencies, but international intelligence as well. It was based on nothing. The best they could find was that Russia spent 100 grand on Facebook ads in the 2016 campaign. That was pretty much the best evidence available to them. Okay. And they're still pushing it. They're still saying that Republicans are shilling for Russia. Take a listen to MSNBC. So they're asking Joe Biden to unilateral disarm.

I'm going to defend the rhetoric that the language that the president used in Georgia with you, Chuck. I think that right now our democracy is imperilible. John Tester, who is not somebody who's given to hyperbole, a moderate to Montana, said this is the most important thing that he's going to face while he's in that Senate. So I think that both ban Chenpa and Sinai to recognize. telling Democrats right now to disarm is like telling Ukrainians to disarm with Putin at the border. If Mitch McConnell had the 50-50 Senate right now, the ability to break a tie, he would have gone up the filibuster a long time ago.

Here we go. So you still hear this Russia analogy. This guy, the head of the Center for American Progress, he's not saying Trump colluded with Russia. He's not saying that the Republicans are selling out America to Russia. But he is making a comparison, and in the comparison, the Republicans are the Russians, which is a little awkward right now, because right now, the Biden administration is helping to facilitate the Russian takeover of Ukraine. It's actually the Republicans who are opposing it. Very few people know this, because no one really cares that much about foreign policy, but that's what's going on right now. Democrats are supporting Putin in his ambitions, specifically because Vladimir Putin is trying to complete an oil

pipeline that will allow them to cut out Ukraine. It's called Nord Stream 2. Once Putin completes that pipeline, which Ted Cruz and the Republicans are opposing and which the Democrats and Biden and the State Department are supporting, then Putin has no reason not to go in and expand his influence into Ukraine. So the comparison here is pretty weak. But it's even more complicated. It's even more complicated than all of that because when you think of Republicans colluding with the Russians and that's bad Putin bad and Republicans bad and they're taking over a sovereign nation, Ukraine, it gets even weirder because Ukraine has been an independent nation for a very short period of time in world history. Ukraine has been conquered by basically everybody.

It was conquered by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was conquered by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was conquered by the Ottoman Empire. It was conquered by Zoroist Russia, the Russian Empire. It was conquered by the Soviet Empire. It was conquered by Poland. Poland is one of the most conquered countries in the history of the world. And Ukraine managed to get conquered by Poland. Ukraine almost certainly derives from the Slavic word

for borderland. It means borderland. It's always going to be this area of conflict. The Russians are looking at it as a border to protect them against NATO in the West. The West is looking at Ukraine as a border for Europe against Russia's ambitions. And so they're going to fight over it. That's what's going on.

And we still have to believe that Putin is the greatest enemy of America and that it's still 1986. Putin wants to expand his influence. Of course he does. There's no question about it. But is Vladimir Putin really our greatest threat? I don't think so. I think we face a far greater threat from China right now. China, which has a lot more money, a lot more people, owns a lot more of.

of America owns our debt, owns a lot of resources here. So, okay, you've got an enemy in Putin, you've got an enemy in China. Don't you think it might make a little bit of sense, and hear me out on this, to try to collude with the Russians? When Democrats accuse Republicans of colluding with the Russians, I get very sad because I think, no, I think we should collude with the Russians, but we're actually not colluding with the Russians right now. Because I think it would be very wise as we're trying to stave off arising China to maybe

do what we did in the Cold War in reverse. During the Cold War, we were trying to stop the Soviet Union, so what did we do? We warmed up relations with China. We got a little cozier with them, and we tried to play the Chinese off the Russians. Well, why don't we do the same thing here? Now that Russia's not the threat, and China's a much bigger threat, why don't we cozy up to the Russians and play the Russians off with the Chinese? What the liberal establishment has done is alienate both of those guys and push Russia and China closer together than ever. Both the Russians and the Chinese are saying their relationship is extremely, extremely tight right now, tighter than it's ever been before. There are still wedges. There are wedges on trade. There are wedges on resources.

You actually could play them off one another. But not if we keep using this dumb rhetoric that the establishment in our country has been using for decade upon decade and decade far after its usefulness. Furthermore, furthermore, when we're talking about expanding American influence, what are we even talking about? If expanding American influence throughout the world, throughout Ukraine and even encroaching on other people's territories. If that means spreading truth, justice in the American way, the traditional American way of life, well, that's one thing. But if expanding American influence means raising pride flags in Kandahar and transing the kids, frankly, I don't want to spread that influence. I think it would be bad to spread that kind

of influence around the world. And I don't blame other nations for wanting to resist that influence. So what is it? What is it? What is it that we're actually spreading? Because right now, What Russia is doubling down on is national cohesion, nationalism. It's doubling down on Christianity. Vladimir Putin is funding a beautiful cathedral, the military cathedral, that is one of the most gorgeous buildings built in the last century. He might not believe a single word of Christianity. But as a political matter, that's what the country is focusing on.

Russia, which is a very expansive, multi-ethnic country, is focusing on that. and it seems to be working pretty well. Russia, which is facing a problem of the country literally dying, just like America, the birth rates are below replacement. Well, Russia actually implemented some policies to turn that around. Only two countries in the West have done that, Russia and Hungary. I'm not saying we copy what they're doing necessarily, but maybe we could learn some lessons from that.

And maybe, as we're looking at the threats to American influence abroad, maybe we get a little bit smarter about it and recognize where the threats really lie, which is not. not in that frozen country up in Eurasia that we beat in the Cold War, but a little further south in China. The only thing more complicated than foreign policy and trying to make sense of what we are usually presented with as these extremely oversimplified caricatures of foreign policy issues, the only thing more complicated is trying to make sense of the New York Times.

There was a New York Times article just came out about the crime surge that we're dealing with right now all throughout American cities. Crime is going through the roof. And the New York, they just can't understand why. It doesn't make, you know, they, the left last year defunded the police, tried to abolish the police in some cases, let criminals off the hook for their crimes, let a lot of criminals out of jail, and said that they wouldn't enforce the law. And now crime is going up. It's a real head scratcher. I can't, hmm, what, what, maybe it's something about the virus. I don't know. Maybe it's, maybe that's a symptom of COVID as people get more violence. So the New York Times.

can't make sense of this. The closest they get is they say, quote, the fallout from the 2020 racial justice protests and riots could have contributed to the murder spike. Police officers, scared of being caught in the next viral video, may have pulled back on proactive anti-violence practices. Is anyone out there, maybe if you're writing in the comments, could anyone translate that into English for me. The police may have pulled back on proactive anti-violence policies. I guess every word there is English, but when you put it all together, that doesn't seem to make a coherent sentence. It's just a bunch of pretentious jargon in mealy-mouthed language trying to avoid something. I guess, oh, they're trying to avoid the obvious, which is if you want crime to go

down, I'll simplify this as best I can, want crime down, arrest criminals. Crime go down, criminals go prison. Is that simple enough for the New York Times? I don't know if they can get it through their heads. Ben today is going to be talking about how just one year in with the crime with the terrible economy, with the lockdowns, with the threats to our rights. Just one year in, Joe Biden is already the worst president ever. He's going to be talking about that on the show today. Don't miss it. I'm Michael Knowles. We will be right back. The New York Times can't figure out why crime is going up after we defunded the police and let all the criminals off the hook. So they've got, they're on to something, though. They've got a lead. Here's their lead. They say,

these three factors could have played into each other. The pandemic might have driven more people to violence. You know the pandemic. You know that virus when someone says, oh, my body's aching. I got this cough. I really want to just rob a Nike store. Oh, yeah. I just, oh, gosh, with all these aches and pains and I lost my sense of smell and taste. Let me go stick up a family on the street. Yeah, that, I just, I don't know, I'm just, I feel impelled to do that. So they say it's the pandemic. It could have done it. The police. might have been able to prevent at least some of the violence if they had remained proactive or had worked better with the public. So if the police had just done their jobs, like we

wouldn't let them do, then we probably wouldn't be in this mess right now. Well, you're the ones, New York Times and liberals, you're the ones who said the police shouldn't do their jobs, but now you're blaming them for not doing their jobs. You wouldn't let them do their jobs. Well, they have an answer. You see that. That's in the last part of the sentence. They say, or if they had worked better with the public. So if the police, Police hadn't forced us to force them to stop doing their jobs, then they could have done their jobs. It'd all be better. It's their fault. Police, if you just hadn't made me so angry, if you hadn't made me so angry, then we wouldn't be in this position.

Uh-huh. Seems a little unfair. Seems, I don't think that reason and argument quite works. And then finally, they say, without so many guns, what violence did occur could have ended up less deadly. That's the gun's fault. It's the guns. It's the virus's fault. It's the cop's fault. It's the inanimate object's fault. What's the only group that the New York Times is not blaming for the surge in crime? It's, um, hold on.

Oh, the criminals. It's the criminals. It's not, the criminals bear no responsibility. And the leftist politicians who let all the criminals off the hook and out of jail, they bear no responsibility. It's the cops and the in. inanimate objects and a coronavirus from China. I don't know. Listen, I'm not one of these geniuses who works at the very fancy New York Times. I do not have advanced degrees in criminology or anything like that. But it seems simple enough to me. The New York Times actually has gotten into this

trouble before. I think it was Fox Butterfield, their reporter who would have headlines decades ago. We'd have headlines in the New York Times that would say things like, the crime rate, the crime rate continues to fall despite prisons filling, despite, as though this would be unexpected that when you throw criminals in jail, the crime rate goes down, as though maybe there's no way that these things could have anything to do with one another. Speaking of crime, there's a Democrat candidate running for Senate right now, who is smoking a fat blunt in his campaign ad and running on the platform of letting other people puff on the devil's lettuce.

Every 37 seconds, someone is arrested for possession of marijuana. Since 2010, state and local police have arrested an estimated 7.3 million Americans for violating marijuana laws. Over half of all drug arrests. Black people are four times more. likely to be arrested for marijuana laws than white people. States waste $3.7 billion in forcing marijuana laws every year. Most of the people police are arresting aren't dealers, but rather people with small amounts of pipe, just like me. I'm Gary Chambers, and I'm running for the U.S. Senate, and I approve this message. I so hope that that guy got arrested. I assume he didn't, but I just, I have this dream that that guy is sitting there spreading complete lies about drugs and the criminal

justice system, just complete made up nonsense. He's sitting there smoking is blunt and he's filming and he's saying, yeah, you got to vote for me because the most important issue in America, the reason I'm running for Senate is so that people can just smoke up that Peruvian parsley every day. That'll make America great. And then they finish, they say, cut, okay, we're good, we're good Senate candidate guy, and then you just hear like, woo, woo, and then the guy goes into the clink. This guy is not telling the truth about drug laws in America. We are told by the pothead contingent. Now, it's not even just the pothead contingent that I have any problems with, and it's not even marijuana that I specifically have a problem with. It's the people who insist on the legalization of

marijuana as a cure, is something that will make America so great and it'll improve society. It's those people, the obsessive pro-legalization people, they are the reason that I want to ban every joint from America because they are so annoying and dumb and wrong that I don't want to hear them anymore. And that's one of the reasons I want to do it. What this man is saying is not true. We're told that the prisons are just full of poor men, usually black men, by the way, who were arrested for simple possession. They had a joint. They were just smoking a little bit.

Now they're going to jail for years. They're being probably 90% of the prison population. It's just these poor men who were just trying to puff on a little sin spinach and they got arrested. That's not true. According to the Hudson Institute, which did a great review of this, just 3.6% of state prison inmates are in jail for possession offenses of any kind. We're not talking about marijuana here. We're talking about heroin. We're talking about fentanyl. We're talking about really bad stuff that kills a lot of people.

For possession of any kind, it's just 3.6%. When you go up to the federal prisons, the number is even lower. It's 0.9%. So why this confusion? Well, it's actually not even just the 3.6 and the 0.9%. The numbers are actually even lower because drug traffickers usually plead down their cases. So someone who's in prison for possession very often is in prison for drug trafficking and they just plead it down. And so then you see them there for simple possession. In 2014, which is the most recent year for which the Hudson Institute has compiled its data. The number of inmates sentenced to federal prison for marijuana possession, take a guess. If that pothead Senate candidate is to be believed, you'd think what? 50,000 people, 10,000 people. Certainly at least you'd say seven or eight thousand people, right?

Because the prisons are just filled with this. Probably you'd think even more. No, the number was 75 people, not 75,000, not 75,000, not 75 hundred, 70, 700, 70s. 70s. 70s. 70. people in 2014 were sentenced to federal prison for marijuana possession. 97% of federal inmates who are in for drugs are in for drug trafficking. Add to that, that last year, 100,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, leading cause of death for young Americans. That was up 30% over the previous year. And these idiots think that the way to deal with that are fellow Americans poisoning themselves to death. The to deal with that, historic surge in drug overdoses is to legalize drugs because of a problem

that doesn't exist, namely the problem of mass incarceration for simple possession, which is just a fantasy. Lock that away with the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. I don't know how that Senate candidate could have come up with such stupid, fantastical ideas that are so divorced from reality. Oh yeah, I know, because he's super high. That's probably why he came up with it. good grief. If the smoke clouds would clear away, not from the air in front of him, but from his brain, he could look at the real numbers and realize that what he's selling is a really bad idea. And it's unfortunate because so many conservatives who are under the sway of the libertines on the right, maybe the libertarians even who say, well, it's not the government's right to stop you from doing drugs.

They think this is fine too. If you believe that giving that dude his way, that pothead Senate candidate who thinks that puffing a drug is the most important issue in American politics. If you think that doing what he wants is going to make America better, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Speaking of our justice system, all the way up to the Supreme Court, some of the justices are not happy with one another. One in particular, Sonia Sotomayor, who refuses to appear in the chambers with the other judges in person because Justice Neil Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask. We are now in the second year,

no, we're now entering into the third year of the two weeks to slow the spread for a virus that doesn't pose a great threat to most people. We're now in the surge of Omicron, which is equivalent in its symptoms, usually to a cold. I just had it. I just recovered from it. It wasn't nice, but it's fine.

And Sonia Sotomayor says, no, she is not going to appear if Justice Gorsuch won't wear a mask. Now, some people are saying this is a problem. Seems to me this is a solution to the problem. If I can get rid of all of the Sonia Sotomayor's simply by breathing and not putting a secular kefia over my face, I think we're good. I think we figured it out. Good stuff. Great job.

Thanks for sticking firm on this issue, Neil Gorsuch. The question that it raises is, should Gorsuch wear masks to be nice to Sonia Sotomayor? Should all of us? Should we wear masks indefinitely to be nice to the people who are neurotic about the virus? No, that's not nice. Generally speaking, there might be some exception. If your aged grandma is really insistent that you wear a mask around her, then out of filial piety, maybe you do it. But generally speaking, no, we should not indulge this stuff.

It is not merely because the virus is not as dangerous as the experts told us it was. It is not merely because we're two years into two weeks to slow the spread. It's because it is bad for society for us all to mask ourselves up. It's bad for human development. It's bad for kids. It's bad for babies. It's bad for all of us, though. We should be able to see one another smile.

We should be able to breathe the fresh air. We should be able to read the emotions on other people's faces. We should not be living in terror of a little tiny virus and cowering in our homes, looking on our fellow man whom we should love as our brothers as walking bags of disease who are out to kill us. It is disordered for a society to mask itself up. And it's bad for these individuals like Sonia Sotomayor and others who are allowing neurosis to cripple, to cripple them. We should not encourage that. That's very wrong. Rachel Maddow, my doppelganger, over on MSNBC, has a different take. She wants to know how Neil Gorsuch can live with himself. She writes, quote, it's folly to try to

get inside anyone else's head. I know, but I just can't shake this. Does Justice Gorsuch revel in everyone now knowing that he's keeping her Sonia Sotomayor from being able to come to work? Or is he embarrassed? I mean, How do you live with yourself? I will tell you, doppelganger, I will tell you, Ms. Maddow, because I do this too. I refuse in any circumstance that I possibly can, I guess with the exception of going on airplanes, I don't wear the mask and haven't for the entirety of the lockdowns. The way that we live with ourselves is like normal people. We just live normally and not abnormally.

and we live like people who are in command of their reason and not like people who are under a mass delusion and psychosis. That's how we live. How do you, how can you walk out the door without covering your face in a cloth mask that now even the public health experts tell us don't work? How do you do, well, we did it for all of human history until two years ago. And so that's how we do that. But you might get someone sick. How do you, walk around in a world teeming with germs and not have that cripple you into staying in your closet for two years. Well, because that's how human society has always existed. And that's how we have to live because there are germs in the world. And you're not going to get rid of the germs. And you might get COVID. And you might get the flu. And you might catch a cold.

And you might get mono. Hey, if you're in school, I don't know. sharing a Coca-Cola with a friend, you might get mono, you might get all sorts of things. And you'll almost certainly be fine. You know what? You might get really sick. You could go get a really bad flu. You could die. You might die from the germs that you're encountering in the world. That's life. That's the cost of living. That if you don't, if you don't want to do that, then you're not going to get along very well. And how do you live? How do you live, Rachel? How do you live with yourself? I hope that you're not trapping yourself in a closet,

cowering in fear of the little virus. The question for all of us is how do we want to live? What we have done is outsource that question for two years to some egghead twerp named Dr. Fauci, who is going to tell us exactly how we should live. Based on absolutely no expertise, he's not particularly philosophically or theologically sophisticated. He is not supposed to to be holding a position of making these kind of broad sweeping policies, he's supposed to be an infectious disease expert, but we've given him the authority to make all of these decisions that he's not qualified to make and really has no right to make. How do we want to live? I want to live in a world where we don't dress up like mummies all the time and live in fear of one another. How do you want to

live? A great example of this question for society that we have to ask ourselves. How do we want to live. Not just how do I want to live? Do I want to chop my body up so I look like a different sex and smoke pot all the time and dress up? Not just how I want to live, but how do we want to live in a society? Because no man is an individual atom floating in free space. A great example of this just happened on American Airlines. Olivia Colpo, who was Miss Universe, she is one of the most beautiful women on planet Earth. Olivia Colpo showed up to a flight to Cabo San Lucas. wearing a very skimpy outfit. She was wearing a little, looked like just a bra and some extremely tight kind of leggings. And I think she had a sweater, but it was open. And she shows up.

And she looked hotter than a $2 pistol. There's no question about it. And the stewardess on the flight said, you got to cover up lady. You got to put a shirt on. Or we're not going to allow you on the flight. And she threw a big hissy fit, or her sister or someone in her family threw a big hissy fit about it. I can't believe, I can't believe I'm saying this. 12-year-old Michael would be very upset with 31-year-old Michael for saying this. American Airlines was right. Olivia Culpo should cover up. People have the right not to be constantly titillated.

Every man listening to this show, almost every man listening to this show, has a part of them that would really like to see Olivia Culpo wear extremely tight, scandalous clothing to the airport on their flight. There's a part of man that wants to see that. But at least the men who are not just complete degenerates have another part to them that don't want to see that. Because we want to read our book or we want to do our work or we want to have a conversation. And we don't want to be completely distracted by this bombshell who's sitting next to us on an airplane wearing her underwear. Because you want to do other things in your life. But we have forgotten that.

Because we now live in a culture where women actually just wear leggings as though their pants and wear bras as though their shirts. And so we're constantly titillated all the time. And it is not conducive to a flourishing society. I remember thinking this when I would take exams sometimes. And girls would show up wearing this kind of clothing. And I think, this is unfair. Because I'm going to do worse on the exam now because I'm distracted by this hot girl wearing very little clothing. And she's never going to be distracted by me. It's not as though I could walk in. to an exam wearing my birthday suit and all the girls would say, oh my gosh, wow, I can't, no, they'd probably just ignore it. This is not conducive to a good society. This is why we have laws against indecent exposure. This is why I'm actually not allowed to walk around in my

birthday suit and people are generally happy about that. I don't know. Maybe some people, maybe it titillates them too. But we live in a society. And so the individual right to wear your underwear in public, it must be suppressed for the broader collective right, the community right, the political right, to not constantly be titillated. This is something that the libertarian version of the right wing in America doesn't really get or doesn't really go along with, but the conservative version of the conservative movement in America obviously gets. If a woman, if a woman dressed like this in the days of our founding fathers, she would probably be run out of town on the rail. She would probably be called a witch. She'd be run away. They wouldn't, what I'm saying, I'm not saying Olivia Culpo is a witch. She seems like a lovely lady. But this would not be tolerated. Even those great defenders of freedom, the founding fathers, the great men who built our country. That's not what freedom is. Freedom to be distracted all the time is no freedom at all. The reason this stuff should be encouraged is not because men don't like them, but because men do like them.

And we live in a society and we like them a little too much. And we can't have that. Speaking of younger people, Belgium. Belgium is committing a grave act of COVID misinformation. They are because Belgium and the health ministry in Belgium is no longer recommending that young people take the Moderna vaccine. People under the age of 31. So we're not even just talking about 12-year-olds. We're talking about under the age of 31. Belgium says no. Don't take the Moderna vaccine because there is a risk of heart inflammation, myocarditis. This was announced by the Belgian Vaccination Task Force.

This is very confusing because we were told that there were no safety concerns with the vaccines. And actually, we, communicators, broadcasters, were told that if we ever say that there are any safety concerns with these vaccines, we are liable to be banned from YouTube or Twitter or Facebook, receive a strike, be shut down. My show has been censored many times for saying very basic things like what the Belgian health ministry is saying now. According to the Brussels Times, Danish studies indicate, quote, that vaccination with Moderna resulted in an increased risk of heart inflammation in young men following the first or second dose in comparison with the Pfizer.

So first we were told there were no safety concerns. by all the experts. It's completely safe. Then we were told there are safety concerns, but you should get it anyway because the risk from the vaccines is less than the risk of having heart inflammation, say, from COVID. Now we're being told by the public health officials, no, actually just don't get this vaccine. This is bad. It would be better for you not to get this vaccine. Do the public health officials realize why we don't believe them? They have told us things that are not true, and they've said they're 100% certain about them. In some cases, they've told us things that they know are not true, by their own admission, like Dr. Fauci on the

masks, or the public health officials on the lab leak theory from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They'll tell us things that they, that they themselves don't believe are true, but they think that we should know them. And now they tell us things with 100% certainty, and they say, believe us now. It would be madness. It would be absolute madness to believe them now. very short story before we go. There's a headline from the AP that Kamala Harris is struggling to define herself. That based on this reporting that they've found talking to people around Kamala Harris, she's very frustrated because she's tried to reset her public image multiple times now and it hasn't worked. She can't define herself. The reason she can't define herself is because she doesn't

stand for anything. My advice to Kamala Harris is that she should believe in something. Ideally, the truth, but anything at all would be a good start. She's tough on crime, she's weak on crime. She's a far leftist, she's a moderate. She's a racial grievance person. She's a come-together kumbaya person. She just licks her finger, puts it in the air, tries to figure out

which way the wind is blowing. Don't be a Kamala politician. It's pointless. She will be completely forgotten at this rate. No one generally remembers vice presidents in American history and she is one of the worst ones ever, so I guess she could be remembered in that sort of infamy. She will have accomplished nothing. She's never

accomplished anything in her political career other than winning elections or more usually, I guess, being selected and appointed. Don't be a Kamala politician. It's weak. You don't gain anything from it. Stand for something. Ideally, the truth, which is now illegal in the Western world. Up to our neighbors to the North and increasingly in America as well. I'm Michael Knowles as the Michael Knowles Show. See tomorrow. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Claven Show, and the Matt

Walls Show. The Michael Nulls 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 Danny Dami. Miko, 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 2022. Today on the Ben Shapiro show, Joe Biden is one year into his presidency, and it is a gigantic failure on every single level. Can he pull out of the tailspin? That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.