The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 935 - The Pledge To Take Down Our True Enemy

Episode Date: February 2, 2022

New studies suggest the usefulness of ivermectin and uselessness of lockdowns, the DHS refuses to deport a drunk-driving illegal who killed a Texas teen, and Georgetown Law students demand a space to cry on campus. Check out my shop page to purchase shirts, stickers, and books (one with words, one without) https://utm.io/uedo1 Candace interviews Dr Malone on the Covid-19 vaccine, tonight only at dailywire.com. If you’re concerned about the handling of the pandemic and the ongoing campaign against misinformation — this is the interview for you. https://utm.io/uee7n  My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A couple of days ago on this show, I was discussing how terrible Dr. Fauci is. And I just sort of off the top of my head said that I wanted every candidate for federal office to sign a pledge. I wanted them to sign the Michael Knowles Public Health Protection Pledge. And that pledge would have to include two things. One, if you are elected to Congress or the Senate, you will vote to subpoena Dr. Fauci and investigate him. And then, using the power of the purse in Congress, you will zero out his salary. So you can't fire him if you're in Congress, but you can get rid of his salary. Very simple. Just two things I pledge that I will do this.

Mentioned it on the show. We moved on with the rest of the show. Then yesterday, I see a message from a congressional candidate, Bo Hines. Bo Hines is running for Congress in North Carolina. And he said, Michael, I heard the show. we had our staff draft up the pledge. I am honored and proud to be the first candidate to sign this pledge. I said, Bo, that's really funny. He posted it to social media. All of a sudden, a ton of different congressional candidates, Senate candidates, candidates all over the country start posting their photos of the pledge and they're signing it. Here it is. I've got the pledge right here in my hands.

It's very simple. Michael Knowles Federal Public Health Protection Pledge, I so-and-so, pledge to the taxpayers of the state or Commonwealth of, whatever the place is, and to the American people that I will, one, vote to subpoena, Dr. Anthony Fauci in order to investigate any corrupt activities to which he may be party regarding the COVID pandemic, as well as the numerous and demonstrable lies that he has told to the U.S. Congress and the American people regarding the virus, its origin, and the efficacy of public health measures to fight it. Two, I will sponsor and vote for legislation that reduces the salary of the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, and Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the United States, Dr. Anthony Fauci, to $0.0.00. Candidate signs here, witness signs here. Very simple. Okay, a ton of candidates have already signed this pledge. I need you. I need your help to get every other congressional candidate, Senate candidate, incumbent sitting politician at the federal level to sign this pledge. I want you to tag your congressman, your senator.

I want you to tweet this at them. I want you, I want them on the record. I want this Anthony Fauci gone. I want him cast out of public life. I don't want him to have any more political power in this country. I will not vote. or a candidate at the federal level in 2022, who does not sign this pledge, and you should not either. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to this show. My favorite comment yesterday is from Steve Robson, who says, what most protects people from COVID-19, turning off the TV. That is true. That is probably the best protection you're going to get from the truly negative side effects of COVID-19, which have nothing to do with the virus itself, in verse.

virtually all cases and have almost everything to do with the policies that that power-hungry politicians have put in place ostensibly to fight the virus. There's been a ton of downsides the last couple of years. It just seems like downside after downside after downside. So when you want to get upside, I'd really recommend you go check out. Get Upside. Gas prices are through the roof, as you very well know. Well, I've got a little gift for you. you. That would be Get Upside. You download the free Get Upside app and you can get 25 cents cashback per gallon every time you fill up your car. That's not quite true. There's a little caveat here. If you use promo code Knowles with the free Get Upside app, you can actually get 50 cents per gallon

cashback on your first fill up. People who drive a lot are saving $2 to $300 per year. They're getting it in cash back. There's no catch. Only cash. Only cash back. Goes to your bank account, goes to PayPal if you prefer, goes to an Amazon gift card or some other shop if you like. It's very simple. You download the free Get Upside app. Use promo code Knowles to get 25 cents per gallon or more cash back on your first tank. That is code Knowles, K-O-W-L-E-S. Do not let this very difficult economy and all these gas prices get you down too much. Get that cash back. Get upside. Code Knowles. Why do we need to get rid of Dr. Fauci? Because almost every single thing he has said is wrong, kind of by definition, on every issue at least, he has said the wrong thing. And one of the ways that

I know this is because he's held both sides of virtually every issue. He said, we shouldn't have lockdowns, and he said we should have lockdowns. He said, we shouldn't have masks. Then he said, we should have masks. He said, we don't need to double mask. He said, we do need to double mask. He said, this, that, and the other thing. The lockdowns in particular have been killers. They've been killers. Deaths of despair are through the roof, especially drug overdoses. I think they jumped something like 30% in one year. Why? Because people were kept away from their support networks. They were kept away from what was considered to be elective medical help, various tests, screenings, counseling. They were locked up in their rooms and they had very little to do.

What are you going to do in that world? there are lots of other negative effects of the lockdowns. These poor kids, you know, the kids who aren't allowed to see their friends, who aren't allowed to develop normally, you're just locked up. You had teen anxiety. You had all sorts of teenage problems going through the roof. Well, turns out that the lockdowns, very likely, were completely pointless from a medical perspective.

There's a study out of Johns Hopkins that says, here it is, studies in applied economics, something like a 70-page study. Here's the first part of it. Studies in Applied Economics, a literature review, and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality. It says the lockdowns were pointless. Quote, while this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to know public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded. Goes on, the evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none. The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics in the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion. Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument. What the left has been telling us from almost day one, certainly since they started to endorse these

lockdowns is look it's unpleasant no one wants to do it it's tough it's hard but you need to do it to flatten the curve and slow the spread and save you a fellow man it's patriot it's patriotic they told us to lock down yes it's hard but we're sacrificing we're sacrificing for the greater good except we're not we were sacrificing for the bad we were sacrificing for the greater bad because according to this study, this meta-analysis of many other studies from Johns Hopkins, the lockdowns had little to know public health benefit or really affect at all, and lots of devastating consequences from society by many other metrics. Yeah, of course. Of course, we knew that. We knew. This is nothing new. I'm not telling.

I am very few people who listened to this show did not already know that the lockdowns were medically pointless. Maybe some, maybe some of the wonderful Democrats and moderates and independents who listened to this show were on the fence. But I would estimate most people who listened to this show already knew the lockdowns were pointless. But you weren't allowed to say that. You weren't allowed to say that. You could be censored. You could be contradicting the expert opinion of the geniuses at the CDC and Dr. Fauci and Joe Biden, you know, all those experts and geniuses. You could be kicked off of social media for saying that.

if you pointed out that the lockdowns were politically very useful for the people in power, medically not very useful at all. So the question now is not, ha ha, how right were we? Oh, how good do we feel that we were right? The question is, what are we being censored for now that is going to be proven, where it will be proven that we are correct in six to nine months? We frequently say now, at this point, the difference between the truth and a conspiracy theory is about six to nine. months. The conspiracy theories seem to get proven true. Well, we won't even have to wait that long. Here's one, here's one thing that we're not allowed to say now, where I, maybe I'll be censored if I say

this. And if I am, we'll put a sensor bar over me on YouTube or something. Ivermectin probably has some antiviral effect when it comes to COVID-19. I'm willing to say that. I know I'm violating all the rules of Dr. Fauci, but I bet that Ivermectin called a wonder drug by all the expert geniuses just five or six years ago, a wonderful antiviral probably has some kind of antiviral effect on COVID-19. Ivermectin is not horse paste or hors dewormer any more than aspirin is a horse drug. Ivermectin is a human drug. can be used for animals too, but it's a human drug. And I bet that it has, even though you're not allowed to say it, I bet that it's going have some anti-bide, oh, actually I don't need to wait that long.

A Japanese company has just come out. It's a Japanese pharmaceuticals company, Kawa, has been doing research on Ivermectin, and they have found an antiviral effect. Quote, this is from Reuters. So Reuters, this is not some far right-wing outlet. This is from Reuters. The company, which has been working with Tokyo's Kitasato Unimilar, on testing the drug as a potential treatment for COVID-19 did not provide further details,

but they did find an antiviral effect. Here's what the Washington Post said. This is some months ago. How those Ivermectin conspiracy theories convinced people to buy horse dewormer. Ha, ha, ha. Remember, CNN mocked Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan's eating horse drugs. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

A bunch of media figures suggested that ivermectin overdoses were killing people and sending them to Oklahoma hospitals. was completely made up. That was just a 100% fake news story as the, as the Daily Wire debunked. The FDA even said it. They said, quote, you are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all, seriously, y'all, stop it. We're the geniuses. We're the experts. Stopped it. That Ivermectin has no, there's a zero percent chance that has any antiviral effect. Oh, whoopsie daisy, just one Japanese pharmaceutical company that has the hoodspot to look into it. It says, oh yeah, it looks like, looks like it might have antiviral properties. What are we

Cold now is impossible. What are we censored for saying now? That's going to be proven true in six months. I don't know. You're going to hear it on this podcast whenever it is proven true. Another great podcast to listen to Jordan Harbinger. Have you still not checked out the Jordan Harbinger show? This is a top shelf podcast named Best of Apple in 2018. Jordan dives into the minds of fascinating people from athletes to authors to scientists to mobsters to spies. Harbinger has a talent for getting his guests to share never heard before stories and thought-provoking insights without fail. He pulls out tactical bits of wisdom in each episode, all with the noble intent to make you more informed, make you more critical thinker, better able to operate in today's world. He's got a strangely relatable weekly segment called Feedback Friday, where Jordan covers advice on everything from psycho family situations to relationships, to networking. You can't go wrong by adding the Jordan Harbinger show to your rotation. It's a great show.

There's never a dull show. Search for the Jordan Harbinger show that is H-A-R-B as in boy, I-N as in Nancy, G-E-R as in really. Go check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. That is the Jordan Harbinger Show. Do you know how I knew that the lockdowns were going to be proven to be medically pointless. Do you know how I knew that the cloth masks were going to be proven to be medically pointless as now all of the health experts admit, as the CDC admits, as the CNN medical analyst admits. Do you know how I knew that there were going to be side effects, at least in some cases, and some number of cases from the vaccines? Do you know how I knew all of those things were eventually going to be proven true as they have been proven true? Because of the pushback,

because they were perfectly reasonable questions that had been voiced by plenty of very well-respected sorts of people, including Dr. Fauci. Remember, Dr. Fauci made fun of the masks and said they were stupid? And then all of a sudden, you weren't allowed to say it. And if you did say it, you were a murderer, and you were a danger, and you had to be censored, and you had to be ostracized. The minute that happened, I knew it was very likely going to be proven true. Dr. Fauci, Dr. Fauci, where's my pledge? Don't forget the pledge. Get your candidates to sign the pledge, the public health protection pledge to fire Dr. Fauci. Why? Why? On just this question of Ivermectin, which just this Japanese pharmaceutical company has been researching, has found that it's got some antiviral

properties. Okay. Why would the government suppress the use of certain drugs, such as, let's say, Ivermectin, but others too, and promote the vaccines and promote really only one drug, remdesivir. Hmm. Well, let's think about it. Let's take off our scientist hats for a second, because we're talking about a political question. Now, let's put on our politician hats. Don't forget, Dr. Fauci, he plays a scientist on TV, but he is primarily a politician. He gets his paycheck from the federal government. He answers to political pressures. He's one of the most powerful politicians in America. why would the government discourage the use of certain therapeutics? There's two reasons I can see.

Money and power. When you're talking about politics, usually it's going to boil down to those two things. Money and power. Dr. Fauci has always been a big promoter of vaccines. I'm not even saying it comes from a place of dishonesty. He just believes that vaccines are the best way. to improve the public health. This was true during AIDS. This was true during the 2000s, during some of the bioterrorism scares. That is true today. He's all about vaccines first.

So if you're promoting the vaccines and the widespread adoption of vaccines, it would stand to reason that you might want to discourage the use of therapeutics. Because if there's a very simple therapeutic to deal with some kind of epidemic, then people are going to be discouraged from getting the vaccine. Why would I take some experimental vaccine or some experimental drug that even doesn't have all the properties of a vaccine when I could just get the virus. If the virus isn't that bad, I can just take a therapeutic and I'll most likely be fine. So you've got to suppress the use of longstanding well-known therapeutics. But then, okay, in this case, the public health establishment is really pushing one therapeutic above all and almost exclusively. That would be remdesivir.

Remdesivir is this drug. It's the one drug that the federal government seems to be really pushing. Why might they be pushing it? I guess it could be because in their medical opinion and they're totally unbiased medical opinion, remdesivir is by far the best drug, except there have been a lot of articles in mainstream outlets, including ABC, NBC, Forbes that have suggested that remdesivir doesn't really work that well. Might it have something to do with the fact that some of these older long-standing treatments that we've all heard about cost, I don't know, 10 bucks a shot. And remdesivir costs $3,500 per treatment. Remdesivir produced by Gilead, which spent almost $2.5 million lobbying the federal government

in the first quarter of 2020. Who knows how much since then? Might it have some, I'm not even suggesting some massive conspiracy where people are hiding out in bunkers and smoke-filled rooms cooking up, way. to take over the world. I'm just suggesting basic politics. Power and money. Those are very important things. If you're a politician and you are offered a way to increase or maintain your power and to be influenced by some amount of money, that's going to have an effect. That almost always does have an effect. Maybe that has something to do with it. Are you even allowed to

Are we even allowed to ask about money and influence in politics anymore? Or is that, that's a conspiracy theory too? Because the left was babbling on about that for many, many years, many, decades. But now that they're the ones who are trying to maintain their influence and their money, all of a sudden we're not allowed to talk about it. Okay, makes sense, right? Speaking of really bad Democrat policies and actually the public health as well, there is a crime epidemic through this country, The crime epidemic, which if it gets a hold of you, is going to be a whole lot deadlier than any kind of virus. Bullets tend to be a lot deadlier than most viruses. You've got this crime spreading all around the country.

Jen Saki was just asked about this because the Democrats are widely perceived to be soft on crime. She laughs off the answer. If you look at Fox on a daily basis, I mean, do you remember the four boxes that we had on all the TVs, right? Which is on my TV right now. So right now, just to give you a sense, so CNN Pentagon as many as 8,500 U.S. troops on heightened alert, okay, true. Same on MSNBC. CNBC is doing their own thing about the market. And then on Fox is Janine Piro talking about soft on crime consequences.

I mean, what does that even mean, right? So there's an alternate universe on some coverage. What's scary about it is a lot of people watch that. It's like, what does that even mean? soft on crime? What does that even mean? Does it mean that violent crime is up 23% nationally? I guess that's what it could mean. Does it mean that homicides are up 58% in Atlanta, Democrat-run city, or that homicides are up 533% in Portland, Democrat-run city, or that homicides are up 37% Philadelphia, Democrat-run city, or that shootings are up 54% in New York? Is that a, just want to

check, oh, it's a Democrat-run city? Or does that mean that shootings are up 18% in Democrat-run Chicago? The shootings were already so high in Chicago. It's hard for them to go any higher, but they managed to go a little bit higher, 18%. Or that they're up 51% in Los Angeles, a Democrat-run city. Maybe that's what it means. What does that even mean, soft on crime? Jen Saki probably doesn't know what it means. Jen Saki probably doesn't know what it means because she doesn't live in bad neighborhoods. She lives, I imagine, in a pretty nice neighborhood. I bet everyone who works for the Biden administration lives in a pretty nice neighborhood.

They never have to deal with the consequences of their policies. And what are those policies? Abolish the police, defund the police, install. soft prosecutors who simply refuse to prosecute violent criminals, who let them out of jail when they're in jail and don't send them to jail in the first place when they have the opportunity. Direct policy, these aren't my words. Abolish the police is not my phrase.

Defund the police is not my phrase. Abolish prisons is not my phrase. Overincorceration is not my, these are Democrat phrases, Democrat campaigns and policies that have led to a massive crime surge. That Jen Saki and Joe Biden and not, of these people are ever going to deal with because they live in really nice neighborhoods. And so they're focused on things that really matter to them, like Ukraine, which no one, not one person

in actual America who isn't working for the liberal establishment in the media, in the elite echelons of government. Not one other person cares about Ukraine. Do we need to make sure that we defend certain allies and oppose certain threats at the level of geopolitics? Yeah, sure. Okay, fine. I'm not disputing that. But people care much, much more about their own neighborhoods in New York and Chicago and Los Angeles than they care about freaking Kiev, much, much more. And this glib dismissal of people's concerns is the reason why the Democrats' approval ratings are in the gutter right now, why Joe Biden is at 30%. And by the way, he's basically the most popular person in his administration. Everyone in the administration is in the 30s right now. And the policies are continuing.

What does soft-in-crime look like? Here's one story. This is from DHS. Department of Homeland Security has decided not to deport a man named Heriberto Fuerte Padilla. Heriberto Fuerte Padilla is an illegal alien. He was not deported for the long period of time that he has. lived in America. He got drunk, drove a car, and killed a teenager in Texas, an American teenager in Texas, killed her. Oh, and then he fled the scene. So it was a hit and run. He fled the scene. He was arrested. They were going to deport him finally, too late, apparently, but they were going to deport him. And then DHS decided, nope, we're not going to deport him. We're not even going to deport a drunk, driving illegally alien who killed a teenager. That's what soft on crime means. Jan Saki.

Really, really frustrating stuff because when you are relying on the people that we've traditionally trusted to help you out, help you fix up things in your community, you're going to be disappointed. So you've got to fix things yourself. When you want to go fix things yourself, when you want to get auto parts yourself, you really should go check out. Rock Auto. A lot of people may New Year's resolutions. I'm going to work out. I'm going to eat less. I'm going to drink less. I'm going to, okay, right, whatever. Here's one for you. Spend less time at the brick and mortar auto parts store. Well, you can just go to rock auto.com. They've got an incredibly easy to navigate catalog. They've got reliably low prices. It's not gimmicks. It's not 20% off on

Tuesday at 11 a.m. It's reliably low. It's a family-owned business. They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. They've got the same prices for pros and do it. selfers, and you're just going to save a lot of money. You're going to save a lot of money. You can save 50% on an auto part. But you're also going to save a lot of time, which is money, because you're not going to have to get in the car and drive to the place and wait in line, and then the guy goes on the back. He pepers, you know, he first peppers you with questions. He goes in the back. They don't have the part. He tells you, you got to wait. You got to drive back. You got to wait two week. Don't do it. Go to rock auto.com right now. See all the parts available for your car or truck.

And then write Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S in their, how did you hear about a Spox? So they know that we sent you. The final part of Candace Owens' exclusive interview with Dr. Robert Malone aired last night and is now streaming only at The Daily Wire. DailyWire.com. Get ready for part two. It's airing tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central. Take a look at the preview. In order to evaluate any vaccine, you want to hear both sides of an argument. All media and information that we are currently encountering is manipulated. I want to jump in and talk about when your interview with Joe Rogan started going viral. Not only was Google triggered, a whole range of legacy media were triggered.

It's an entire ecosystem of illegality and corruption. You should be and you are appropriately outraged about this. You can judge the value of society by how it treats its children. Our treatment of our children has been atrocious. This is the red line, right? This is the line. What is it that drives you to keep going toward truth? I've been given the gift that I might be able to make a positive impact.

How can I walk away from it? You can watch both parts of this interview exclusively at dailywire.com. Remember, part two is premiering tonight, 9 p.m. Eastern, 8 p.m. Central. If you do not already have a DailyWire membership, head on over to DailyWire.com slash subscribe right now. Use code science, S-C-I-E-N-C-E. Science. Follow it. You get 25% off. We'll be right back with a lot more. The Department of Homeland Security is refusing to. to deport a drunk driving illegal alien who killed a Texas team. Furthermore, U.S.

Customs Enforcement ICE has told Texas that it's canceling more deportation requests. These are detainers on other illegal immigrants, including some people who pled guilty to felony charges of evading arrest or had convictions, not even just arrests, convictions for drunk driving drug possession or domestic assault injuring a family member. They're not going to deport even those people. They're just going to let them stay. Where is this coming from? Is this coming from the ICE agents? They're the ones who say we don't want to deport them? I doubt it. Usually the rank and file guys are interested in doing their jobs. It's usually not their fault when their jobs are not being done. It's usually their boss's fault, the political's faults. So is it Alejandra

Mayorkas's fault? The Secretary of Homeland Security? I actually don't even think it's his fault. I don't particularly care for that guy. But he was just caught on a hidden microphone just, just the other day, complaining about this. He said, the border situation is the worst it has been in at least 20 years, if not ever, which looks really bad for him. I suspect Mayorkas probably wants enforce the law, at least a little bit more. I think this is coming from Biden. Well, I don't think anything's coming from Biden. I don't think Biden knows what day it is, but I think that this is coming from the White House. I think this is coming from the radical leftist Democrats who are surrounding the president and running the White House. And I think the order is coming from on high

to DHS, to ICE, don't deport these people. And it's having really devastating political effects for non-radical leftists. It's really ginning up the base, but the base is not going to win them elections. Really, really bad stuff. And Mayorkas looks absolutely terrible. Now, this guy, Harry Berto, Fuerre Pidea, he would be an example of a very bad Hispanic person in America. turning to a very good Hispanic person in America, of which there are many, I have to give a huge amount of credit to Attorney General Jason Mierrez. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. He is the new Attorney General in Virginia. He was brought in with the Yonken administration. This guy is absolutely crushing it. He's been in office for what, five minutes now. Already, already three Virginia University. universities, big universities, are choosing to end their vaccine mandate. Why? Why? Because they're afraid of big bag Jason? Yeah, actually, that's why. Because the attorney general sent out a legal opinion, just sent it out to all of his colleagues, all of his constituents. He said,

it is my opinion, quote, that absent scientific authority conferred by the General Assembly, public institutions of higher education in Virginia may not require vaccination against COVID-19, as a general condition of students' enrollment or in-person attendance. That's my opinion, guys. So, students, if you decide to sue, if you decide to make this illegal matter, just letting you know here that the attorney general is on your side and not on the side of the administrators and the leftists and Dr. Fauci. And so what happens?

The universities say, okay, we give up. This is a great example of culture being downstream of politics. I don't want to make fun of Breitbart's motto too much because the point that he was making is true enough. You know, politics is downstream of culture, the idea that the movies affect the way that our society works and artwork and civil institutions. Yeah, sure. Of course, that's obviously true. That's not the whole story, folks. That's not an excuse for cowardly Republican politicians not to govern, not to do their job, not to wield the political power that we the people give them. You, politicians, you still have to do your job. One of your jobs, by the way, sign the public health protection pledge that you will investigate Dr. Fauci and get rid of his salary. Very important for all candidates for Congress or the

Senate this year to do that. But we need to recognize that at every level of the government, people can wield political power, and that political power is going to have cultural effects. When this guy, this attorney general, says, here's what the law says now. Here's my interpretation of the law. And I'm willing to take this to court. And I'm going to fight very hard for my interpretation of the law. Then the cultural institutions, like the universities, which are not purely private sector, by the way, right? They get public funding, but they're also kind of in the private sphere. Like most things in our society, Google, it's not just a private company. It's not just the government. It's kind of a little bit both. It's a little bit blurry. Politics and culture get blurry sometimes. Public and private.

get blurry sometimes. They are going to answer to what the politics, what the government has said. Very important. Good news out of universities in Virginia. There's some bad news out of universities in Washington, D.C. One university in particular, Georgetown Law School. There's a big dust-up at Georgetown Law School. The dust-up is this, Ilya Shapiro, who is a liberty, lecturer at the Georgetown Law School, and he's the head of the center for the Constitution, Ilya Shapiro said that Biden is doing the wrong thing by limiting his selection for the Supreme Court to a black woman, by excluding effectively 94% of Americans from consideration. Ilya Shapiro suggested that an Indian woman, who is a judge, be Biden's pick.

he said that she is the best candidate and every other candidate would be a lesser candidate. And the way he phrased it, I guess it was a little inartful, but he said, it should be this woman, but Joe Biden, because he is playing this identity politics thing, is going to instead nominate a lesser nominee who is a black woman. And this has been, I think, willfully misconstrued by leftists to sound as though Ilya Shapiro is saying that black women as a category are lesser than, some other group, which obviously is not what he's just literally not what he's saying, and it's

quite clearly in context, not the point that he's making. So what happens in this case? Students are disagreeing with a professor, whether because they've misunderstood what he's saying, because these students are, they're not the creme de la creme, as we will come to see, or because they are willfully trying to misunderstand what he's saying so that they can get rid of him. What do you do? In a good flourishing society, You would just argue your point, calmly, rationally, say that this professor is wrong and he should face X, Y, and Z consequences. But because we're not living in a reasonable time right now, the students are instead huffing and puffing and throwing a temper tantrum and dragging the dean of

the law school into a struggle session where they say they need a place to cry. A place to cry, seriously. Georgetown law students, this is a good law school. And these students are saying, we don't have enough places to cry on campus. And the craziest part about the whole story is, the dean is indulging them. It's really hard to walk out carrying. It is really, really hard to walk out of class or are leaving in tears. And you should always have a place on campus where you can go and feel like you're not then also under people's eyes and observation. Maybe you don't want to answer a question of what's going on or what's wrong.

And if you're finding that you're not getting the person you want to talk to or not getting a space that you need, reach out to me anytime. So we will find your space and we will find you the right side. These students do not need places to cry. These students need to shut up, get themselves together, and then behave like adults, behave like future lawyers. There is no crying in the law. There's no crying in baseball. There's no crying in the law. They do need comfort these students, but they don't need a box of tissues for comfort. They need comfort like we see on the biotapestry. Biotapestry, very famous work of Western art, where there is an image of a bishop holding a club, swinging the club at his soldiers. And it says, here Bishop Odo, wielding a club comforts the boys. I'm not saying we literally need to start clubbing students who cry a lot. But I am saying that we need comfort in that sense, meaning to give strength, to toughen them up, saying, get back in the fight, fellas. No way.

Sorry. You can't behave like a six-year-old if you want to be a lawyer. If you want to be at a prestigious law school, if these students can't hear an opinion that they disagree with without bursting into tears, they should be expelled because they're not up to snuff. They're not competent. They're not educated. Maybe they're intelligent enough, maybe not. they're certainly not educated enough to be in law school. And so they need to leave. They need to go away from law school for a little while and grow up. And then maybe they can be at the level where they can attend a prestigious law school. But right now, they're not there if they're bursting into tears because some libertarian makes a perfectly fine point. They're not there. The crazy part is not even the students. I feel bad for these students. They're not well prepared. They're not well educated.

they shouldn't be at Georgetown Law School. It's the administrators that I really blame. At one point, one of these students, you gotta almost give her credit, she brought up, out of nowhere, she said that there is, people talk about reparations for black people in America.

And so she wants reparations to begin right now by having the dean bring her some snacks. And the dean acquiesces. Coming back to these reparation things because like this is great, but we have to do so much work to catch up for all this stuff that we missed. All I'm saying is, I don't know if it's a couple dinners or lunches or lunch.

But that would help us because we, like, we can't, I can't go home for lunch now because I need to study. I have to make up for this class that I lost. So it's little things like that. It doesn't have to be something that takes a year to figure out. It's like, we know our black students or whatever group is hurting and we're going to give them things today, whether it's not, whether it's counseling, whether it's whatever. but the part of that trust is to see an immediate reaction to what we are saying.

But who will be great. We have food on the way. That's the most pathetic part at the end. I hope this girl is half joking. I think she's half joking. But she's half not joking, too. She's saying, we need snacks. I missed class, and I got to make up that class now because I cried,

because I couldn't stand it. I wasn't able to make it through class, because I'm obviously not prepared for this law school. And so I had to go cry. And so I need snacks. And I need you to bring me some dinner. And I need you to bring us dinner on the basis of our race. The white kids don't need dinner. The Asian kids don't need dinner. But the black kids need dinner. She's saying we don't, we're not capable of getting our own dinner and our own snacks. I don't think that's true. I bet that girl can probably get her own snacks. In fact, I bet that girl doesn't even really need to cry. I bet she is wielding vulnerability as a mask for her own viciousness and her own desire to beat her political opponents into submission. That's what I think this is really. I don't think, I think these are crocodile tears of very vicious people who have been very badly educated. But, and I bet she can get her own snacks and I bet she can get her own dinner.

She seems perfectly capable. She's capable of bringing the dean of the law school to his knees. I think she can probably go get a bag of potato chips. The craziest part about it is that the dean of the law school says, of course, snacks are already on the way. We're already doing it. We already agree with you.

We already agree with your deeply offensive premises, and we've already done it. The issue is not that these students are entitled and uneducated and radical. These students must, might be particularly all three of those things. But students, since the dawn of time, have been entitled, uneducated, and radical. That has been true in not just in Washington, D.C., but around the world. This is true of every race, of every sex, of every type of person.

Some more, some less, but that's always true. The issue is that the administrators are indulging it. It used to be the case that when students would do stupid things, the administrators would smack them on the wrist and say, don't do that. None of that. It used to be that when students would do stupid things, they would be punished for it. Now they are rewarded for it. And the only person who is going to be punished in this situation is the professor, Ilya, who made a perfectly innocuous point, an obvious point, frankly. Even if it was inartfully said, no one, I don't think anyone

really thinks that this guy hates black women or something like that. He's making a point, he's actually making the point that we shouldn't discriminate against people on the basis of their race and sex. And they're saying, well, because you won't discriminate against people on the basis of their race and sex, you are a racist and a sexist.

And one student asked the most radical question of all, at this struggle session. And it's, the conservatives are pouncing to use the verb that is always used in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Conservatives are pouncing on this comment. But it's actually a good question. This guy, Ilya Shapiro, directs the center for the Constitution.

He's an originalist interpreter of the Constitution. And the student asks, why do we need a center for the Constitution at all? student at Georgetown Law School asked the dean, Treanor in the wake of this Ilya Shapiro non-traversy, this professor who has an originalist view. It says, why does this center exist at all? Now, don't forget, the struggle session we're talking about here was supposedly all just about how a professor made a racist comment. The professor didn't make a racist comment. It was all supposed to be just about race, right, and working through that. But it's really not about race. And it's really not about students being offended by a professor's views of race and sex,

which are views he doesn't even hold. This is about something much deeper. This is about kicking conservatives off campus. Nothing to do with race, nothing to do with sex, everything to do with politics and philosophy. Finally, this one student asks the dean, why does this center for the constitution exists at all. So Ilya Shapiro, I'm sorry, I misspoke. He doesn't direct the center, but he's affiliated with these views, right, originalism and with this center. So the director of the center, Randy Barnett, also holds these same views. And the student says, why was it created? Because so far it seems like it has done more harm than good. You can do as much diversity training as you want with staff, but I feel like that center has a certain ideology. So I really want you to

defend why we really need it beyond like, you know, free speech and beyond diversity of opinion. I really want us to think critically about why we still need it. This is a great question. This is a great question. I'm glad she asked, I don't think it's a stupid question. Why do we need it? Beyond, you know, free speech or diversity of opinion. Right. This, obviously, this student has no respect for free speech, whether in the absolute or in the actual American tradition. Obviously, has no respect for diversity of opinion. But why do we need it? Why do we need an originalism institute at Georgetown law? What I think most conservatives would say is because we need diversity of opinion on campus. Because we need free speech

on campus, right? They would defend it in the abstract. But we don't need every single view on every single subject represented on campus. I don't think that conservatives would necessarily, maybe they would these days, unfortunately. But I don't think we need a Satanist in the Institute on campus, do we? I don't think we need a pedophilia institute on campus, do we? I don't think we need a torture little puppies institute on campus. Do we? Well, if Dr. Fauci had his way, we probably would have a torture puppies institute. Another reason to sign the pledge, the public health protection pledge that you'll investigate and get rid of Dr. Fauci's salary, make sure you get all of your candidates to assign that. But we don't need those things. There is no

even semi-plausible reading of academic freedom that says that we need pedophilia and Satanism and torturing little puppies on campus. Right. Certain things can be excluded, of course. So why do you need the originalism institute? Because originalism is a plausible, decent, substantive way to interpret the Constitution. Because there's something good about it. Because there's something edifying in teaching students about originalism. It's not, it's not, the reason for it is not academic freedom or freedom of speech. It's because it's good. It's a good thing to learn. I went back. I found this going around Twitter. I'm mean to give credit to whoever posted it, but it was Matthew Schmitz at first things. whoever, I'll give him credit, even if he didn't boast it, came back and found an earlier president of Georgetown University in 1950

writing about academic freedom. We were told these are the good old days of academic freedom, right? Except he makes fun of it. He calls it the sacred fetish of academic freedom. He says, if the United States, he says in the educational world today, we are witnessing the foolhardy attempt either to bring into being or to understand a thing which has neither form nor matter. Is subject to no standard or norm as an either limitation nor definition, the sacred fetish of academic freedom. This is the soft underbelly of our American way of life, and the sooner it is armor-plated by some sensible limitation, the sooner will the future of this nation be secured from fatal consequences. Two test questions, which imply limitation, come to mind at once when the matter of academic freedom is discussed. The first is the

matter being taught true or false. And the second, if it is false and presented as such, may one prudently suppose that a good and not evil end will eventuate from its exposition. The true and the good, this is that, write this one down, highlight this one. The true and the good then are the natural limitations of freedom. This is not an area for opinion because opinion does not delineate for by its very nature it packages the false with the true. Nor is this a matter for experimentation because the prudent man does not experiment with suicide, suicide, that we're seeing academic suicide happening on our campuses. We're seeing national suicide happening in Washington, D.C. The president of Georgetown, we should take note because Georgetown is no longer sending us their best,

okay? Older presidents of Georgetown had much more correct. If the United States is to continue in the Western tradition, which made it great, it behooves those of our citizens interested in the present and future of this nation to search out and support the education. institutions which are still striving to maintain that tradition, a tradition which was grounded on freedom limited by a belief in God, by faith in the omnipotence of truth and the beneficence of justice. In a word, a tradition that freedom springs from truth, but the truth is rarely freedoms offspring. If our educational systems are going to make any sense, they're just a microcosm of the country, you can really expand it out, if our country is going to make any

sense. And we know we're going to have limitations on our freedom. There are always limitations on freedom because this is a limited world. Are we going to have the leftist limitations, which are anything that's good and true and beautiful you've got to get rid of and anything that's filthy and perverted and false and ugly you're going to exalt? Or are we going to have these limitations? Limitations, belief in God, as our founding fathers believed, as John Locke believed, as John Milton is all these great thinkers of the era in which our country was founded, limited by truth, that there is such a thing as truth, and we can know it. I bet these Georgetown law students don't necessarily agree with that, that there is such a thing as justice.

Are we going to have a country limited by truth, justice, and the American way to quote Superman? Or are we going to have the opposite? I for one would like that good old, I want the Superman country. I want the truth justice in the American white country. Whatever we've got now, people don't really like it. You can tell it by the polls. So let's go back in the other direction. And that's going to involve telling the students who are crying and rending their garments to keep their mouths shut, to go listen to heaven for offend, educate themselves so that we are all capable of freedom. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls. Shall see you 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 Walsh Show. The Michael Noles show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producer Mathis Glover, production manager, Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny Damiko. 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, Whoopi Goldberg gets suspended from The View for two weeks. A new study from Johns Hopkins finds that lockdowns had no impact on COVID-19 deaths and the U.S. national debt. It's $30 trillion. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.