The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 93 - Burger King: Home of the Woke-er

Episode Date: January 24, 2018

The popular drug deal terminal and homeless shelter Burger King has a new marketing campaign. The Home of the Whopper no longer boasts about its bigger beef. Now the fast food giant is relying on leftist politics to sell hamburgers. We’ll analyze their latest ad and what it means for the culture. Then, Benji Backer tries to convince me that conservatives should care about the environment. Finally, Jacob Airey joins the Panel of Deplorable to talk about that sexual deviant Barney the Dinosaur, illegal aliens screaming at Chuck Schumer and for some reason not being arrested and deported, and why half the country wants to investigate the FBI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Popular homeless shelter and drug deal parking lot Burger King has a new marketing campaign. The home of the Whopper no longer boasts about its bigger beef. The bigger the burger the burger to the burger, the burger's bigger at Burger King. No, now the fast food giant is relying on leftist politics to sell hamburgers. We'll analyze their latest ad and what it means for the culture. Then Benji Backer tries to convince me that conservatives should care about the environment. Finally, Jacob Erie joins the panel of Deplorable to talk about that sexual deviant Barney the dinosaur. or illegal aliens screaming at Chuck Schumer

and for some reason not being arrested and deported and why half the country wants to investigate the FBI? I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show. Before we get into Burger King and the culture, get ready. On Tuesday, January 30th, our president will speak to the nation in his second State of the Union address, a very exciting event,

and you should watch it with us here at the Daily Wire. It starts at 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific. We will be hanging out with you for the whole time leading up to during and after the address. We'll be there for every wild hand gesture, every off teleprompter remark, and of course the hilarious and ridiculous rebuttal from Democrats. Catch live streams at Dailywire.com, Dailywire Facebook, or DailyWire YouTube to spend the evening with Ben, Drew Claven, DailyWire God King Jeremy Boring, and me as we comment on the address and relentlessly mock our government and our political leaders.

We'll also be joined by special guests at various points in the evening, so tune in to find out who will drop by. Again, that's next Tuesday, January 30th, 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific. Follow us on Facebook and YouTube and get notified when we go live so we can spend every absolutely forgettable moment together. It's a party you will not want to miss. Okay, and look, I want to get into this, but first, before I can, look at that shave. Look at that nice shave here. And I rarely even use shaving cream. I just kind of, and I walk out of the shower, my eyes are half closed.

I haven't had coffee or cofefefe yet. So I just kind of go boom, boom, boom, boom. But the reason that I don't rip up my entire face and have, you know, blood everywhere is because of Dollar Shave Club. You have heard me talk about the amazing shave that I get from Dollar Shave Club, especially when I use their Dr. Carver's shave butter. This shave butter, I don't really know how to describe it. It's not like one of those big shaving creams, and it's not like that gel, which is, not for cool guys to say the lead. No one wants that gel. It's so millennial.

They want the shave butter. It is really, really good. I'm here to tell you that I'm never going to give up that membership. I'm actually adding more Dollar Shave Club products to my daily routine. So, Dollar Shave Club makes products for your hair, your face, your skin,

your shower, everything. And it's all really good stuff. You know, one aspect of doing this show is I never get paid anything. I don't get a salary or, you know, really anything. Sometimes they'll give me an extra fluffy cardboard box to sleep in on the sidewalk outside of the studio. But one advantage is that I'll occasionally get some freebies from sponsors. This dollar shave club stuff is so good.

It is the best razor I've ever used. They use only the finest premium ingredients, and they deliver it to you, just like they do to your razors. So, you know, this means no more annoying trips to the store. In the old days, I would use the same razor blade for about 27 or 28 years in a row. So this, you don't need that anymore. You just go, you know, order it. It's very modern, very 21st century. You pay a low rate every month.

They'll send everything right to your door. You don't have to cruise up and down the aisle, looking up at the shelves and figuring out where everything is. They have everything. Razors, body cleanser, hair gel, and how do I put this? You know, in Europe, they'll have a bidet when you're having a little alone time. you're digesting your meal, and it'll have a little bidet to be a little cleaner about that. In America, we don't usually do that, but they have wipes such that you can achieve the same effect.

So do that. Dollar Shave Club has you covered head to toe. Now is a great time to try it. You will get your first month of their best razor, along with travel-sized versions of shave butter, body cleanser, and yes, that extra special European jolt for your dairy air for just $5. dollars. After that, replacement cartridges ship for just a few bucks a month. It is the DSC starter set. Okay, yours today for just five bucks. That is basically free. Go do it. I get it exclusively at dollar shaveclub.com slash cofefefefefe. C-O-V-FeeFeeFee. What is it, Marshall? Dollarshaveclub.com slash cofefefefe. Okay, let's get right into this. Today I want to talk about politics infecting every aspect of our culture. What it's

says about the millennial generation, what it says about our culture, what it says about the new slew of woke corporations. Here is Burger King's latest hamburger ad. Got a number one? Hey, how you doing? Do you know what? Number 98, what's going on all of it? Number 98, uh, you got the Wopper? Yeah. So you got the slow access Wopper pass? Wait, what? It's on the menu right there with the fast medium and slow. Slow MbPS, fast MbPS, or hyperfast MbPS. MbPS, of course, standing for making burgers per second. So if we're not a lot for now, we have to pay $26.

Well, that's how you get it fast. That's the highest priority. This is like a lane system? It's like 15, yeah, fast lane, slow lanes. So maybe like 15, 20 minutes. What are you talking about? Burger King Corporation believes that they can sell more and make more money selling like chicken sandwiches and chicken fries, so now they're slowing down the access to the walker. Were you given an option of chicken sandwich or...

Yeah, I don't want a chicken sandwich, but I don't want a wopper. You get the point, right? Isn't that clever? Isn't that clever? And that's how they're... By the way, they wouldn't make any more money doing this. They'd go out of business. They are trying to make more money, though.

That's why they have this ad. What's sort of strange about this hamburger ad, you'll notice, is that it doesn't at any point try to sell hamburgers. Instead, it sells smug-g-g-glib attitudes toward political issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with its business or its product, or really even its... customers. It's trying to use government regulation of the internet, so-called net neutrality, to make hamburgers more appealing. That is horrifying. This is what Burger King ads used to

look like in the good old days. This is the Vanishing American. The Vanishing American hamburger. It's been getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Well, Burger King is out to save the hamburger. Oh. With the Whopper. A hamburger is so big, it takes an extra big toasted bun just to hold it. And we top that with pickles and chopped onions and fresh tomatoes and crisp lettuce. The Whopper. The king-sized burger you only get at Burger King.

Groovy. Take the tribe to Burger King. Home of the Whopper. The burgers are bigger at Burger King. The burger, the burgers are bigger at Burger King. The bigger the burger, the better the burger, the burgers are bigger at Burger King. The bigger the burger, the burgers are bigger at Burger King. That ad was so effective because it actually sold hamburgers.

That ad was so effective that I was born 20 years after that ad played, and I know it. I know, I remember it. I think a lot of people remember it too. But these days, they don't talk about, you know, the Vanishing American, and you have an American Indian looking all perplexed at the tiny little hamburger patty. These days, advertisements instead prattle on about obscure federal regulations. Of course, Burger King does not actually care about net neutrality. It didn't make any public statement in 2015 when the FCC imposed rules to regulate the internet.

Burger King does not currently lobby for government regulation of the internet on Capitol Hill or at the FCC. CMO of Burger King Fernando Machado said, we believe the internet should be like Burger King restaurants, a place that doesn't prioritize and welcomes everyone. That is why we created this experiment to call attention to the potential effects of net neutrality. Which, that isn't true. They did it to call attention to their hamburgers.

It was exactly the opposite of what he just said, but it worked. The mainstream media loved it. The Verge had a headline. Burger King made a surprisingly good ad about net neutrality. Reuters, Burger King tweaks, U.S. regulator in new net neutrality advertisement. Entrepreneur.

You want fries with that? Burger King explains net neutrality in less than three minutes. Fast company. Burger King uses the Whopper to teach a valuable lesson on net neutrality. Marketing land. Burger King Whopper explains net neutrality's repeal in new ad. Ad week. Burger King deviously explains net neutrality by making people wait longer for whoppers. The thing is, it didn't deviously explain net neutrality. The explanation had all the same.

subtlety of a hand grenade or a Trump tweet, but I repeat myself, it was not devious. What it did deviously was pretend to agitate for net neutrality. First of all, the analogy is total nonsense. Not a lot of people, we did a whole episode on net neutrality, not, so a lot of people still don't understand it. There was an incredible infographic sent around by a Democrat candidate for Senate, Ro Kana, a pro-net neutrality Democrat running for Congress from Silicon Valley. This tells the whole story.

So last November, Ro Kana, this Democrat pro-Net neutrality in the heart of Techland, posted an infographic on the internet, comparing the cost of the internet with government regulations, commonly called net neutrality, and without government regulations, no net neutrality. With the regulations, he showed you could get video, email, gaming, and social media all for one price, $54.99 per month. Without the regulations, he warned voters, you would have to pay different prices for each. So that could be $17.99 per month for video, $8.99 a month for email, $1499 for gaming, $1299 for social media, and you could opt out of certain platforms and pay a little bit less, so maybe you only pay for Netflix video but not YouTube video, so it would be cheaper than all a video, so on and so forth. The trouble with Rokana's argument here is that the net neutrality version, without the customer choice, cost $549 a month, and the no-net neutrality version,

The deregulated one cost 5496 a month. So it's actually three cents cheaper. He made the exact opposite point that he was trying to make. You know, the argument for government regulation of the Internet made the case against a government regulation of the Internet. Not very smart, Rocana. So you'll notice, by the way, that I'm stumbling on my words a little bit here that I keep saying government regulation of the Internet instead of net neutrality.

That's because net neutrality is a meaningless euphemism that is, bandied about by the left to sugarcoat the reality of it, which is giving the government more control over the internet, making the internet less free, taking away consumer choice, both as to how they use the internet and as to how they pay for the internet. But this is what the left always does. They rely on these euphemisms, these subtle little lies that most people think are not worth fighting about, so they just use them. And in so doing that, they can see the whole premises. So I'm not going to do that. It's tedious to use precise language, but it's also the most effective way to shut down their ridiculous arguments.

Say LaVee, that's how it goes. Anyway, back to net neutrality. Why is a fast food burger company suddenly agitating on behalf of rules governing consumer choice on the internet a month and a half after the regulations were repealed and two and a half years after the rules were instituted to begin with? A fast food burger company, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of internet regulation, it's because of a sad and tedious fact about our culture. This stunt from Burger King was exactly that, right?

was a marketing gimmick, and it was geared toward a specific demographic, Millennials. For years, millennials have been turning away from fast food, leaving chains like Burger King or McDonald's or whatever, scrambling. According to a 2014 survey by Brand Keys, baby boomers are reporting an 18% drop in fast food visits and an 11% drop among Gen Xers. The worst news is from millennials. Millennials are expected to replace baby boomers as the nation's largest consumer buying group within just two years by 2020. Millennials hate fast food. I don't. I love fast food. It's one of my guilty pleasures. Also Stoogis and booze and fatty Italian meats and yada yada yada yada. Also fast food. I really like it.

That said, most of my fellow millennials hate it. According to the 2014 survey, 89% of millennials prefer fast casual chains like Chipotle, even if those places cost more, which is absolutely insane. Arby's Wendy's McDonald's McDonald's are about 7 million times better than Chipotle or whatever fru-frou, rice and beans, faux, sophisticated millennials are willing to pay for. Also, they don't give you Ebola. Do you remember? They didn't Chipotle give everybody Ebola a few years ago, or E. coli or something, one of those

things, yeah. So fast casual places like Chipotle usually aren't even more expensive than fast food places. It's the same thing. You see the same thing on the coasts and in the country. It's people who prefer Dunkin' Donuts to Starbucks, because Starbucks is supposedly too fancy. or expensive, and Dunkin' Donuts, that's for the American Joe. But the two places cost the same amount of money, actually. So Starbucks just makes stronger coffee and has, you know, 12-year-olds drinking milkshakes

and a bunch of wannabe screenwriters on laptops and stuff. Duncan Donuts has more construction workers and donuts and things. They cost the same. So Robert Passacoff, the founder and president of Brand Keys, which did that survey, he agrees that the price doesn't actually matter. He explains, you don't build brands or loyalty on the basis of price. price, that only works for commodities. So, facing an existential threat from millennials not eating in their restaurants, not able to

manipulate them on the basis of price or really even food. You know, it's going to take a lot to turn a place that has boasted for 50 years, the bigger the burger, the better the burger is bigger at Burger King into some artisanal, bespoke salad restaurant. So they tried to make the king look like a Brooklyn hipster with the big beard and the jewelry and the curls and everything. I'm not sure that worked either. So they have one tool at their disposal

that sadly says a lot about our culture and in particular the culture of millennials. They can virtue signal and sloganeer on politics. Sociologist Richard Florida explained. Advertisers used to wonder how a spot would play in Peoria. Now they wonder how it'll play in Brooklyn. Rob Biaco, a creative executive at a major ad agency, he admitted the same thing.

Marketers are increasingly relying on woke issues. ads to target millennials. In a phrase, he says, creatives are trying to make their toilet paper save the world, even though sometimes a Pringle is just a Pringle. But for millennials, a Pringle can never just be a Pringle. Everything has become politicized and activist. Obviously, mainstream journalism, that was the first to go, the universities, now even the NFL, even Pepsi, even Burger King. It's a sad state of affairs. It says a lot about our culture. C.S. Lewis put it well, he said, a sick society must think much about politics, as a sick man must think about his digestion. To ignore the subject may be fatal cowardice for one as for the other, but if either comes

to regard it as the natural food of the mind, if either forgets that we think of such things only in order to be able to think of something else, then what was undertaken for the sake of health has become itself a new and deadly disease. Our society is without question sick, and so, we have to think a lot about politics. But we're only thinking about politics so that we can think about culture and art and philosophy and building things and eternal questions and our nature and our creator,

among other things. But advertisers have rightly determined that millennials are obsessed with politics, shallow politics at that, not as a means, but as an end. And I think it's because they're using politics as a stand-in for something else. They're trying to place all of their identity

and all of their hopes in politics, St. Augustine wrote about this. He said, You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee, O Lord. Pascal put it in other words, there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace. This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there, the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled. filled only with an infinite and immutable object in other words by God himself.

Speaking of false religion and millennial obsessions, we have to bring on Benji to talk about environmentalism. But before we bring Benji on, we have to talk about my boudoir. That's what we got to talk about my betting baby. That's what we got to get to because we have a new advertiser. We have Bowling Branch sheets. I told you, look, I probably got more value in my bowl and branch sheets than I will ever be paid by Ben or the Daily Wire. These sheets are so nice. I just tried them out. You know, I've told you for a long time now, my fiancé and I have different opinions about bedding. I prefer beds that are a little firm and sheets that are nice and soft, and sweet little Elisa prefers beds that I'm not in. But she does like these bowl and branch sheets.

So we're never going to agree on anything, but we could all use more sleep. Some nights I'll only get 12 or 13 hours of sleep, not my requisite 16. And Bowlen Branch sheets are helping me to correct that. Getting a great night's sleep is easier and more affordable than you think. You don't need a new expensive mattress or sleeping pills. You just need to change your sheets. And that's why you've got to check out Bowlin Branch. So everything Boland Branch makes from bedding to blankets is made from 100% pure organic cotton, which means they start out super soft and they get even softer over time. Before Bowling Branch, I I would only buy betting that was in like the discount rack on the side of the highway.

And I would just buy the cheapest sheets I ever possibly could. And these, I never understood why you would buy expensive sheets. Now I do. I am totally a believer. And Boland Branch will give you a great deal on it. So you buy directly from Boland Branch. So you're basically paying wholesale prices. Luxury sheets, I've learned as I do my wedding registry, can cost up to $1,000 in the store.

You can pay $1,000 on sheets. But Bowlen Branch Sheets are only a couple hundred bucks for the same quality. So everyone who tries Bowling Branch Sheets loves them. That's why they have thousands of five-star reviews. Forbes, the Wall Street Journal Fest Company, are all talking about Bowling Branch. Even three U.S. presidents sleep on Bowling Branch sheets. Three U.S. presidents and one presidentially endorsed best-selling blank book author, sleep on Bowling Branch Sheets.

So that's four somebody. You know, four of a certain kind of people. Shipping is free. You can try them for 30 nights. If you don't love them, send them back for a refund. There is no risk here. But you are not going to want to send them back, I assure you. There is no risk.

There is no reason not to give them a try. And you can say that you slept on the same sheets as a bunch of presidents. Hopefully not Bill. I don't know if let's, I'll do some research into that. But three U.S. presidents, it's got to be good quality. To get started, right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bowl and branch.com promo code Michael. That is $50 off.

That is a good deal. You've got to go do that right now. Bolandbranch.com promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Go to bolandbranch.com today. $50 off your first set of sheets. B-O-L-L-L-Branch.com. Promocode. What's the promo code, Marshall? Michael.

Michael. promo code Michael. Okay. Let's bring on Benji. Benji Backer is the founder of the American Conservative Coalition. He has been a conservative activist, I think, since he was in the womb. and he is a wonderful college kid, but he's going to try to convince me

that conservatives should care about the environment. He's spoken at CPAC. I'm sure you've seen him elsewhere as well. Benji, let's get right into it. Why should conservatives care about the environment? Michael, great to be here. There's a few reasons. First of all, it has immense economic impact.

If the environment's doing well, the economy's doing well, and that's just the truth. Another reason for conservatives to really care about the environment is that it's the number one issue that millennials think about when they go to the voting booth. Some polls show it as number two,

but either way, it's a really important issue for the youth demographic when they go to the polls. And the truth of the matter is Republicans haven't done an amazing job making it a priority

over the past 10 or 15 years. Why is that, by the way? I'm sorry, before we go on, because I agree with you. I see that talking to millennials. They really care about the environment and they're always worried about global warming

and things like that. Why? Why is this the number one issue for millennials? Does that reflect some kind of agenda in our schooling, or is there some more legitimate reason as to why we're so concerned about it? Yeah, I think part of it is in the schooling. Obviously, we get taught about climate change and other environmental issues from a young age. That being said, I just think that young people have an inclination to change environmental policy because they can see environmental changes happening, no matter if it's caused by man-made climate change or not. They see that environmental changes have benefits if it's done the right way. And they also know about the economic impacts of being pro-environmental, especially if you're conservative who knows environmental policy, you know that being pro-environmental can have immense economic benefits.

And so I think all those together have kind of made it a priority. Obviously, the schools have pushed climate change into a lot of people's minds, and so that's probably the first and foremost, but there are other reasons. as well. Absolutely. And do you see any distinction here? Because I do think these schools have kind of made radicals out of conservatives like me, where all I want to do is throw those little six-pack can plastic things onto schools of dolphins

because of how ridiculous the left is with its pro-environmental agenda. Do you see a distinction between environmentalism and conservationism? I do. And I think that they should be the same thing. I just think that the left has pushed it so far to the left that people have gotten turned off by the environment. And as a result, conservatives have kind of dropped the subject. And so I think both sides are at fault that it's gone so far to the left. And we've gotten to this huge divide where the right goes so far to say, okay, let's drill on national parks, let's not even care about the environment at all.

And then the left has gone as far to say, you have to bike to work. Otherwise, the world's going to blow up. And obviously that's an exaggeration, but that's kind of how it seems sometimes with the left. And so what we try to do at the American Conservation Coalition is put it more in the middle, where you talk about some of the economic impacts, you talk about some of the things that private people can do, private businesses can do, local governments can do. It's not all big government. And I think big government has turned away a lot of conservatives as well.

It's just been turned into this thing where you expect the government to handle every environmental problem. and that's not how it used to be. Republicans used to embrace these things on a local level. Sure. There used to be, I think, before the environmental conversation became so hysterical with Al Gore suggesting that if we don't do exactly what he wants, the world is going to end, and then the world doesn't end, and he has even less credibility.

Before that, conservatives were more open to it. But the distinction I see between conservationism and environmentalism is that environmentalism posits that little animals and deer, somehow have rights that need to be protected. They have the right to not be shot or the right to, I don't know, free health care or something. And conservationism says that we have to preserve the animals so that we can keep on shooting them. You know, basically that we need to conserve our natural environments because it's very beautiful. And we enjoy seeing these nice animals and looking at beautiful parks.

But for the conservationist, it seems to me, it's all about the human. The human is ultimately what matters in this relationship between the human and the environment. And for the environmentalists, I wonder if it's a sort of pagan worshipping of an environment, a kind of anti-humanist point of view that puts the little delta smelt in California above human beings. For some reason, we pour a huge percentage of our fresh water to feed these little anchovies in California rather than using them to water golf courses so that we can have a lot of water. a better time on the weekends or something. Is there anything in that messaging where you think the environmental movement could get a little bit more focused on human beings and a little less

concerned about sardines? Yeah, actually, so the first thing I'll say is that I think everything's related. You know, if you look at the study of science or just the environment in general, everything has an effect on one another. But the fact of the matter is that conservationists are the best environmental stewards out there. If it wasn't for hunters and fishers, we'd have overpopulation, The life cycle wouldn't happen between all the different animals and plants. And so when the environmental left goes after hunters and fishers, they just don't realize that they're imperative and so vital to keeping our environment going. It's a matter of understanding the life process and how they all have to work together. It's not just punishing humans.

There needs to be a cycle that goes around. And I think that the environmental left needs to realize that. On the right, people need to realize that at the same time, animals, plants, places of land, those all matter as well. And if you do it the right way, which conservationists tend to do, hunters and fishers tend to be conservatives and really care about the environment, it can have immense economic benefits. I mean, you look at hunting and fishing and how much it adds to the U.S. economy.

You look at clean energy and how much that adds to the U.S. economy with jobs and revenue. I mean, there's so many ways to reap the benefits of these positive environmental impacts. How do you think the Trump administration is doing on environmental matters? We've loved seeing Scott Pruitt deregulating, firing, I think, half of the EPA. Not so much for whatever impact that would have on the environment. We haven't seen much of one, but because he's slashing these awful bureaucrats who think that they can run our lives better than we can. Does Trump get a passing grade so far from green conservatives like you guys,

or does he have work to do? I think he has a little bit of work to do. The administration itself actually has been pretty good, in my opinion. There's been a lot of good things that have been done. Ryan Zinke just did a hunting and shooting sports conservation council, which is very imperative to the future environmental success of the country. Actually, Congress, a lot of Republicans have put forward some really good legislation to help de-backlog the national parks for funding.

They put together a few acts as well. Rex Tillerson has actually done some good things as well on the environment. There's 33 Republicans on the Climate Solutions Caucus who kind of basically say that it needs to be a priority. Those are congressmen and women from all walks of the conservative aisle. So I think that that's really key. I think Donald Trump needs to make it a focus of his to focus on the environment. Otherwise, one, he's not going to be able to get the youth vote as easily in 2020. But additionally, I think that with him as president, conservatives have an opportunity to show that it's not big government that can solve these problems.

it's private businesses, it's local areas, it's state governments and local governments, and just citizens in general that can do the right thing. So making it a priority, I think, is going to be important for him. And I think that it'll be something that conservatives can kind of prove that they can lead on if he makes it a priority. And that's such a nice point at the end. If the environmentalist left or more likely the conservationist right, it made the point that we need to protect our... environment ourselves at a very local level, I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking

him to make a change, and municipal governments, local governments, private organizations, conservation organizations, or corporations, that would be a much easier way to do it. That'd be a much easier way to build consensus on the issue rather than saying we're going to staff up some crazy federal bureaucracy, sign on to absurd international agreements, take more of your tax money, fund more private jets to Brussels or Davos or whatever Al Gore thinks he's going to do to save the world this time. If it became a little bit more focused on a local level and on how it relates to your own life, I think it's a great way to build consensus on it. And I wish you luck on that regard. Anything that will shut up Al Gore and get him out of the room is good for me. Benji,

will you stick around for the panel? Can you stick around another maybe 15 minutes? Sure. Sounds great. All right. I love it. We have got to bring on our panel to talk about some news, and by our panel, I mean our Jacob, or Jacob Harry, will join us. But before that, listen, Marshall is a tyrant. You know this. He's a sadist and a tyrant. We have so much to talk about. We've got Barney, the dinosaur, running tantric sex rings. We've got to talk about illegal aliens, and we've got to talk about investigating the FBI. But if you're on Facebook or YouTube, I'm sorry, Buster, you've got to go over to dailywire.com. If you're already there, thank you very much. You keep the lights on. You keep Cofife in my cup.

You keep my bedding very nice with Bowling Brand sheets. But if you don't go over there already, you've got to do it. What will you get? Well, you'll get me. You'll get the Andrew Claven show. You get the Ben Shapiro show. You'll get to ask questions for the conversation. I think I'm up next for that one, so you can do that.

Ask questions in the mailbag. You can hang out with us during the State of the Union. That will be broadcast for everybody to see. But, you know, we give special care to the Daily Wire members. But forget all of that. None of that matters. This is what matters, guys. The leftist here's Tumblr.

This is what matters. You need to protect yourself. Forget the natural environment can be a very scary place. And regardless of whether Al Gore is right or not, we are all headed for massive flooding, either because Democrats lost the government shutdown or because the polar ice caps or something are going to melt. Make sure you protect yourself and your family

with the leftist tears tumbler. This is the only EPA approved vessel How's your radioactive leftist tears? So you can have them hot or cold, always salty and delicious. Make sure to go to DailyWire.com right now. We'll be right back. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

Barney the Dinosaur now runs a tantric sex ring. Isn't that just the perfect symbol for our generation? What in childhood was soft, cushioned, saccharine, shallow, has grown up to become a sexually decadent trans reptile. That's it. That's our generation, baby. The actor who played Barney the Dinosaur for 10, 10 years, David Joyner has since 2004 run a tantric sex business where he treats about 30 clients

whom he refers to his goddesses. Let's take a look at some footage from that new business. Yuck. There's a lot of continuity there, at least. He's clearly formed a career himself. So, okay, I don't really want to talk about Barney. I do want to talk about sex. There are not great numbers on this, but there are lots of cultural indicators. that millennials are both less monogamous and that they have less sex. One study showed millennials having significantly less sex than gen Xers. That said, millennials watch a ton of porn. Pornhub.com, which is just one porn site,

reported an audience that watched 4.4 billion with a B hours of pornography in 2015, with 60% of its audience comprising millennials. Jacob, what does all of this say about millennials? Hooked on porn, bizarrely open attitudes towards sex, and yet not having very much of it. To me, it shows that they're buying the feminist narrative about what sex means, because as far as third wave feminists are concerned, you know, women are just, they see sex the same way as men, but that's not true.

No matter, but they keep, the feminists keep pushing these oddly male values, right? The whole point of becoming an adult is you want to temper yourself and you want to be a I just celebrated four years with my own wife. And I- Congratulations, she's clearly a saint. Yes, and a perfect tin, whereas I am a four. But anyway, the whole point of this is they want cheap gratification and even amazing television shows like that.

They push that onto our millennial culture, where sex is just a cheap thrill that you get, oh, and maybe it's a little extra special if you're married to the person, but not really. And I think the millennials have just bought into this. Yeah, you would think that people might grow up after a while. I frequently say there's a time and a place for everything, and that place is college, but you kind of got to move on.

Benji, you're a college kid. Now, obviously, college is a little different thing, so don't necessarily think that your current environment reflects the real world. But do you foresee the situation getting any better for millennials, or is our culture going to just keep all of these trends right on track? Yeah, I think it's kind of on track to keep going. I think there's a couple of reasons. One, you've got the super religious folks who kind of push their views on their kids or whoever,

and it kind of pushes people away from those types of beliefs. And then you've got the feminists who really push the anti-religious beliefs on people. And I think that accommodation is going to force it into the near future unless some things change. I think you hit it right on the nail on the head when you talked about the instant gratification. I think millennials are really looking for that. It's just something that they've kind of been trained to do. I mean, I look for instant gratification and almost anything. You're kind of expecting it as a millennial because you've got phones.

You've got everything kind of right at your fingertips. And so it's made it a little bit harder to kind of have that same patience as other generations have. And then I think the media and both sides from the far, you know, far religious right to the far feminist left, you know, I think that they both play a big role in kind of how millennials are being shaped right now. That's true. I do, I don't disagree with your observation. I do wonder, though, if there is some reason to hope. Only from my own personal experience on this show, every question I get in that mailbag is about some aspect of tradition or about Christianity or about returning to religion. And often they're from millennials and they're from people who were raised without any serious engagement with the eternal questions and the eternal questions about human nature and our relation to our creator and how we got here and how the world got here. And I don't know, I guess it could be a bubble, but I just see it a little bit.

I've always lived in pretty liberal places on the coasts and universities. And I do wonder if the smartest people in the world right now are talking about God and the future generations are talking about what was lost when we pretended to ourselves that God is dead and what we threw away with modernity. I don't know. Obviously, it is the case that religious parents are going to tell their kids, one thing and the feminists are going to tell their kids another. But I wonder if maybe the children of the religious

will be less turned off than the children of the feminists. If we haven't hit a snag on the road, I hope so. But that's just, that's my wishful thinking, man. Let's move on to something much funnier. A bunch of illegal aliens descended on Chuck Schumer's home last night, chanting, if Chuck won't let us dream, we won't let him sleep. Here it is. So, first thing, no one's stopping you from dreaming.

This is the trouble with euphemisms, right? But also, those people look like they're 30. I thought the dreamers were these cute little six-year-olds who didn't do anything wrong and they're really nice. Those are just adults. Those are adults who haven't figured out their own legal status and their own immigration situation. Jacob, why don't we just round these people up and deport them? They're clearly in violation of the law. They're boasting about being in violation of the law.

They're rubbing our faces in it. Look, keeping Chuck Schumer up at night is almost enough for me to offer them full amnesty. But on a larger point, it's so disrespectful of America. law of the American government, of a country that has been so good to these people, giving them free education, handouts, health care. Why don't we just round up all of the rabble-rousing ones and send them back to whatever Godforsaken country they fled from in the first place? This is the question of the hour. And I think that, you know, the fact that they protested Chuck Schumer, who's been probably their biggest advocate in the Senate, maybe with a couple of exceptions,

but he wasn't even home that night. So obviously, that that group, protesting at his house weren't the best and brightest of the dreamers. But I think that we should look at it in stages just to round everyone up. They'll just come right back. I think first off, we got to get the border secured, and then we can say, okay, is this person worth giving a citizenship test? Or is this person a criminal deviant that we should send back? Either way, it's going to be a struggle as far as policy goes, especially. as long as the media keep giving them headlines, you know, these children.

That's right, the 30 or 40-year-old children. And on that best and brightest point, the data that we have, what the mainstream media would have you believe is it's all six-year-olds with seven degrees from MIT who are really grateful and love their country and they're just the most all-around apple pie people in the world. But the data we have is that 25% of them are illiterate, half of them don't speak English. In demonstrations like these, we see deep in gratitude and entitlement from a country that's been very good to them.

Benji, if Schumer won't give Trump the wall and an end to chain migration, will we just let DACA expire and start shipping these people home? Who is going to blink first? Well, I think, I'll answer that question a different way. I think that conservatives need to embrace the dreamers who are here and doing good things.

Now, there are people who are here doing bad things, but that can be said about any population. The fact of the matter is, is that a lot of these dreamers had no control over whether or not they got here, and they're just trying to live their lives in peace. And I don't think that that protesting group kind of showcases what the entire population is like. So that being said, there is a population like the people who are protesting Chuck Schumer, which I think that you made a really interesting point talking about how Chuck Schumer is kind of the biggest advocate of these folks.

And, you know, when Black Lives Matter or the dreamers protest basically everyone and alienating, everyone that's not going to get anything beneficial done, and it's fairly frustrating, and it makes their case look a lot weaker. And I think that that's unfortunate because there are a lot of good dreamers here who didn't have a choice to come here and should be given the opportunity to succeed and be successful, and it's not their fault that they're here. So I think that conservatives need to differentiate, and this is something that a Republican congressman said the other day, was that you have to differentiate between the dreamers who could be very good people who had no intention of coming here whatsoever and are just trying to live their lives and the illegal aliens

who are crossing the border. I think that there's an important distinction there and it's, you shouldn't lump them in on both. I worry that it's a distinction without a difference because they use this term, they use the most loaded term imaginable, dreamer. What on earth does what does dreaming have to do with the essence of this issue, which is illegal aliens, resident illegal people? What does that have to do? They seem to be ossified in time, as Victor David Hansen wrote eloquently a couple days ago. So we're talking about a group of people from only this period to this period who were brought over below the age of 18.

Now some of these people are almost 40 years old. As I had mentioned earlier, half of them don't speak English, a quarter of them are illiterate. Does the category of the dreamer, as the Democrats call it, I will not use that terminology because it's such a deceptive, insidious euphemism. But of this category of people, the DACA people, the Democrats admitted this in a memorandum two weeks ago that they're relying on these people for their electoral strategy because they know that if they're granted amnesty, they will trend overwhelmingly to vote for Democrats. So should Republicans embrace a group of people who don't share a lot of, as a category, don't hold together very coherently and who, you know, don't appear to have any advantages over other immigrant groups? or other immigrant groups from Latin America who have come here legally

and who are gonna legalize a million new Democrat voters. I just don't see what the advantage is for the Republican Party to say, yes, we need to grant amnesty to them. Even the vast majority of the country doesn't want to give them amnesty and 56% of Democrats don't even want to give them amnesty. I think this is a total game being played by Democrats.

They're trying to fool us, and I wouldn't do it at all. I'm more than happy to, to keep people in the country who will benefit the country and who really are little children or really don't have any means to support themselves. But some 40-year-old who's out there screaming at Chuck Schumer because we haven't given him enough,

absolutely not. Send those people back, especially, and this is the most important thing if they're going to vote for Democrats. If the so-called, if the DACA people will agree to vote for Republicans for 25 consecutive elections, give them blanket amnesty. at Amnesty. I'm all in. I think we've reached a grand compromise.

If I may, though, I think the Republicans, just speaking as a conservative, have really dropped the ball on outreach to Latina families because they have this fake perception by the fake news media that, oh, the Republican Party is the party of old white men. But that's not true anymore, but Republicans have been very bad at sending out that messaging. really if you talk to Latin American families, they have a lot of values. Like they are pro-life, they are pro-marriage, they are hard-working people who have good work ethics and they can and will benefit society. So I think that if the dreamers are DACA recipients, as you call them, if they were to change

and switch sides and say, hey, we're not going to vote for Democrats, we're going to vote for Republicans and we're going to show you how we can be a benefit to American society, I think I think that they could see a turnaround as far as that goes, but I think that Republicans need to be better at messaging to that particular community. Sure, they work hard and go to church, so hopefully it won't be hard to get them to agree to vote for Republicans for 25 consecutive elections.

Benji, did you have a final point on this? Yeah, and first of all, I don't know if it's even a political issue, and I don't really care if they vote Democrat or Republican. To me, it's a human issue. To me, it's not political at all. Politics is the affairs of men. Politics, as Aristotle defines it, it's how men interact with one another in cities.

To me, I care more about these people's lives than I care about who they vote for, but I think it's up to Republicans to reach these people through our ideologies that can click with their personalities. And I think that that's incredibly key, and I think it's an important point that was just made, that Republicans need to do a better job

of reaching out to these folks and not making the differentiation between dreamers and illegal aliens and also lumping all the people who, you know, all the dreamers into the category of the protesters outside Chuck Schumer's house, I also just don't think that that's fair. So I think that there's a few key distinctions to be made there. Sure, they're all illegal aliens. That is the, there's no distinction between a dreamer and an illegal alien.

But you're right. Some of the illegal aliens are wonderful people who are patriotic and like America and work hard and go to church. And we should keep those people, especially if they vote Republican. And some people are awful and they're gangsters and they commit crime. a net drag on the population and they won't assimilate and they won't learn to read English and they won't learn to speak English and to lump those people in with a good patriotic people who came here through no choice of their own and who have who love their country and are dedicated to it that we shouldn't lump those two people together I absolutely agree I agree

I agree on the final point here speaking of our government and how we the people relate to it a new poll conducted by Rasmussen reports shows that half of likely U.S. voters believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate whether senior FBI officials handled the investigation of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in a legal and unbiased fashion. That is a whopping number. Benji, do we need to investigate the FBI? Man, oh man, I think we actually do. There's just been so many fishy things going on over there. And if there's nothing to worry about, what's the problem in hiring some investigators? That's the way I look at it. If they weren't acting in a biased fashion, they shouldn't have anything to worry about, in my opinion.

That's right. And you know, all those text messages went missing. There is a lot of strange stuff going on at the bureau. Jacob, are we at the point now where we have to investigate the FBI either as a defensive measure if the FBI really has been politicized by Democrats or just to rout out corruption generally in the in the federal government? I think it's kind of ridiculous. So we have this Russia collusion investigation going on. And so now we're going to have another investigation to investigate whether that investigation is okay, How about, no, we just end all the investigations and that if there is corruption within the FBI, let's fire those people, and if they are treasonous, let's bring them up for treason. That is what we're supposed to do.

All these investigations, all they do is create more red tape and they waste more time. No, enough is enough. Let's end all these useless investigations and let's root out corruption where it is. Because it's not fair to malign all of the FBI. There are fantastic agents. They're great agents of the FBI. Absolutely. Absolutely.

And so we need to be, so if there is corruption within the agency, which there could be, there could be corruption anywhere where there's a little bit of power, then let's root it out. But as far as an investigation into the investigation of this investigation, no, that's absolutely ridiculous. But I will say, yes, we should investigate Hillary. Yeah, and throw in jail. That's the only one to keep going. Of course.

Yeah. And you know, you make this point, I'm sick of all the investigations too on principle, but if we are in a position now where a lot of evidence shows that all of the investigation. into Donald Trump were intended at the highest levels of the FBI to subvert a democratic process, to subvert this presidential election, to undo it, to weaken this president, to weaken the choice of the American people, then I think we might have to just flex our muscles on that and make sure that we aren't being taken for a ride by our self-appointed benevolent betters in D.C. who think they can run the country better than we can ourselves.

Gentlemen, this has been a lovely discussion. This is one of my favorite panels we've had in a while, and I never say that about all-male panels. I have never once said that. If we don't have Allie or Roaming or Cassie or whoever, I don't believe it at all. But this has been great to have you both here. Thank you very much.

Benji Backer and Jacob Erie. We'll have to have you back again. That is our show. Get your mailbag questions in so that we can just change all of our lives together in the mailbag tomorrow. And until then, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls Show.

Come back tomorrow. We'll do it all again. The Michael Noles show is produced by Marshall Benson. Executive producer Jeremy Boring. Senior producer Jonathan Hay. Supervising producer, Mathis Glover. Our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Alex Zingaro.

Audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is by Jesua O'Vera. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production. Copyright Forward Publishing 2018.