Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
The media warned us yesterday, the left told us that Republicans were going to start to attack Kamala Harris in personal, sexist, horrible ways and oh, we didn't have to wait very long. The president of the United States, Donald Trump, already digging in to Kamala. Take a listen.
Well, she lied when she said things that were untrue. She is a person that's told many, many stories that weren't true. She's very big into raising taxes. She wants to slash funds for our military at a level that nobody can even believe. She is against fracking. Fracking is she's against petroleum products. I mean, how do you do that and go into Pennsylvania, Ohio or Oklahoma or the great state of Texas? She's against fracking. Fracking is a big deal.
She's in favor of socialized medicine, where you're going to lose your doctors, you're going to lose your plan. She wants to take your health care plans away from one hundred and eighty million Americans. One hundred and eighty million Americans that are very happy with their health insurance and she wants to take that away. So she was my number one pick.
She was my number one pick. I love her. I'm rooting for us as President Trump. Was that sexist? Was that personal? No, it wasn't. Not at all. Notice, all of the comments were about her policies and her dishonesty. Now, the left has been going after Trump personally for years. But notice Trump isn't going personally after Comilla.
It's not it's not a personal thing. It's about her, her fitness for the job and her policies. Why? What's because Trump is a person, right? That's why they go after him personally. And Kamala Harris isn't. She's nothing. She's just a vessel for the administrative state. She's just a vessel for the liberal establishment. She doesn't have any deeply held beliefs. She doesn't have any convictions. She doesn't she's just she's just there. That's what this is about.
Trump is going after something bigger than just one person or two people. He's going after a system that is a perversion of American democracy. He's going after the holes that the media, the administrative government, and that's why they're all gunning for him. That's what this race is going to be about. It's not Trump Pence versus Biden Harris. It's Trump Pence versus Deep State. We'll get into it. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back, my favorite YouTube comment yesterday from Ezra, when Harris mentioned being a little girl, Joe immediately knew he would choose her as his VP.
You remember that?
That was that was the big hit that Comilla made on Joe, where she said, when I was a little girl, I was bused to school because of good policies that Joe Biden opposed because he's a racist, even though now I really like him and I'm so honored to be his running mate. Everyone has been changing their tune on Biden, on Comilla, because it doesn't matter. It's not about them. It's about this power grab. Obviously, the Trump attacks were not sexist, as we were all warned to brace yourself for the sexist attacks.
The only person is even coming close to being blamed for a sexist attack is Tucker Carlson. Why is Tucker Carlson brought up the inconvenient fact that Kamala Harris began her political career in sort of dodgy, not so nice ways?
Take a listen. Harris clearly wasn't picked for her personal charm more than 30 years ago. She dated a man called Willie Brown. He was later the mayor of San Francisco. She was twenty nine years old at the time. Brown was 60 and still married. Brown launched Harris's political career. He knows her very well. Last week, Brown publicly urged Joe Biden not to pick Kamala Harris as his running mate. But it turns out Willie Brown's opinion no longer matters in the Democratic Party.
Jeff Bezos is opinion matters so to the opinions of his fellow Bay Area tech titans.
So this you're not allowed to mention, even though Willie Brown, who's a Democratic politician, mentioned this months and months ago, the fact is common law, Harris dated this much older married man and then he launched her political career.
And now nobody is allowed to talk about that. But is that sexist, even though that's that's the line.
I mean, that's the sort of attack that the left is calling. What's sexist about that? You can attack a man if a man did the same thing but can be a little bit stranger situation. If a man had a relationship with an older married woman and then she launched his political career, you could bring that up. That wouldn't be called sexist. It's just acknowledges that she did. But the reason it's called sexist and this is a broader point, even beyond this race is because the left is not looking at these politicians as individual statesmen with individual visions and policies and accomplishments.
It just looks at them as vessels for itself. That's why the left divides up the country into, you know, black, Hispanic, Asian, American, different sexual groups. The reason it does that is because it doesn't care about singular vision, singular accomplishment.
It's all just about. The establishment, it's all just about the vision, it's about the administrative state. It's not individuals that are governing us, it's not politicians who are governing us for the left, it's just this kind of bureaucracy that has no accountability for all that's been the left wing project in America, the Democratic Project in America since Woodrow Wilson. It's been going on now for over a hundred years. So it doesn't really care that you're going to hear these sexist, racist, whatever.
Obviously, it doesn't mean anything. I think importantly here, it's very good that Tucker and Trump, most importantly, is not attacking Harris for being tough on crime. That's one kind of meme that we've been joking about as Connell as a cop, she put people in prison and that's bad and that's racist. And that's such a weak line of argument. It's good to put criminals in prison. I'm glad comilla criminals in prison. It's basically the only thing I like about her.
It's good. And conservatives should not take up that left wing line of argument. That's not going to serve us very well. In the end, the left already has enough problems to deal with Uncombed let go after the things that count because it raises this question. If Kamala Harris is this wonderful person, it's historic. It's so much better, actually, that we've got a black woman on the ticket. Then this white man, she is the one who gives us hope.
Why didn't they nominate her, she ran for president, why didn't they pick her if she's so wonderful and she's going to bring all this hope to Joe Biden's campaign? We'll get to why in a second. There is an answer.
But first, got to thank our friends over at first leaf. You know you know, this image. This is something maybe this has happened to you. I'm sure you've seen this in your nightmares. You're at home, you're finishing a glass of wine. It was such good wine. I can't wait to reach for the bottle. It's empty. We call this phobia. You don't want to be in that position, OK? You don't you don't want to live that nightmare.
That's why you need first lady first leave. We'll send you personalized boxes of excellent bottles of wine shipped right to your door. And here's how you can get this incredible one without leaving your home. You just you go on you take a quiz to assess your drinking preferences. This is something I really liked because I sort of thought I knew what I like to drink. And I feel that in the first leaf took that into account. But they knew Michael.
What does he really know? So they've maybe thrown one wine or maybe two wines to say maybe try this, see how this is. Then you try when you say, oh, my gosh, this is excellent. OK, I want a little bit more of that. You rate the wines and then based on your ratings, they will send you more or less of different types of varietals. It's great. You know, they sent me a box or two as freebies when when we got first live on the show.
And so I tried it. It's so good, I, I just keep paying for it again.
I can't give it up. I want the highest level package. It's great. They're very flexible. You can choose when and how often to get shipments. So if I'm traveling or something I'll slow it down and I'll do every other month. And they have one hundred percent satisfaction guarantee. I really love these guys. Sign up today to get six bottles of wine for a ridiculously low price. Twenty nine, ninety five plus free shipping. Go to try first leave Dotcom's Knowles.
That's six bottles of wine for only twenty nine.
Ninety five at my first leaf dotcom signals can rid you. S all right. Why didn't the left not nominate Comilla, nominate Malala? Why didn't they nominate her New York Times headline Kamala Harris is the Future. So Mike Pence may well be history. And what they mean by that, I mean, this is classic liberal stuff. It actually is racist and sexist. When they say this is what they always say is that white guys are the past and all the other races are the future and white guys are bad and all the other races are good and white guys have privilege and they're terrible and all the other guys are good.
And this is just a classic oppressor, oppressed kind of left wing narrative. Same thing on sex. They'll say women are the future. You actually see t shirts as if women are the future men of the past. What does it mean, women of the future? Obviously, it means nothing because if you don't have men, you're not going to get any future of the of these species at all. But they just have this view because everything has to be oppressor or oppressed.
And then they have this view of history, which is that the past is very bad in the future is very good. And there's a science of history and we know what the future is going to be. That's how The New York Times can make that claim. See how they get on the wrong side of history with white male evangelicals, straight Christian. I mean, Mike Pence checks every terrible box for them. Or you get on the right side of history with Kamala Harris, who they do not view as an individual.
She is not an individual. To them. She is simply an amalgamation of her racial, sexual, physical characteristics. As New York Times. She's the future. If she's the future, why didn't they nominate her?
Another headline, Kamala Harris, a political fighter shaped by life in two words. There are a lot of punch lines to that joke, but I don't want to get in trouble, so I won't I won't say them.
And then the final one, New York Times excited again about a woman on the ticket. Excited again. You could have picked her to be the nominee, and was anybody really excited about Hillary Clinton? No. Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Oh, my gosh. Talk about a woman on the ticket, those two.
When they ran, they did not run as individuals, they ran merely as a vessel for the establishment, the liberal establishment, we're getting that again.
By the way, was The New York Times excited to have a woman on the ticket in 2008? Sarah Palin. And I don't I don't remember that. I don't remember their excitement because, again, it's not even about about a woman. Right. It's just about an empty, empty vessel. The left is doing jumping jacks. They are doing gymnastics. They are bending over backwards and leaping all over the place to try to make sense of their past criticism of these people.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I mean, I'm talking about the radical side of the left. I'm talking about Shaun King, Shaun King, a very active Black Lives Matter activist. He's on the left of the Democratic Party. Here's what Shaun King tweeted out during the Democratic primaries. He says, I'll be frank and tell you to Democrats that I'm ninety nine percent sure I won't be supporting, primarily because of their dismal history on criminal justice reform over the course of their entire careers.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they both helped build and advance mass incarceration. That was during the campaign. Couldn't be clearer.
Until Joe Biden gets the nomination, Kamala Harris gets picked as VP. Here is what he says without without a hint of irony, without any shame, he says among current US senators, I would rank Kamala Harris in the top three unjustice reform issues. He previously said he would 99 percent not vote for her, specifically because of her dismal history on criminal justice reform for her entire career. Now he says she's in the top three on justice reform issues. That's it for me.
I am incredibly proud to see a brilliant black woman and BCU grad, historically black college, chosen as a vice presidential nominee. I've done political work my whole life. It's rarely things dreams are made of. Kamala Harris is the most progressive VP nominee in American history. So at the very top, it's just a clear line he's got. He says she's one of the worst on criminal justice reform. Now, he says she's one of the best on criminal justice reform.
But then at the end, look at that. Kamala Harris is the most progressive VP nominee in American history. Now, how can that be the case if he's previously criticizing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for being among the least progressive in the race? What he said there at the end, she's the most progressive VP nominee in American history. That's true. He's actually it's not it's not a lie. I mean, he's obviously a shill and he'll shill for for the Democrats regardless.
That's embarrassing for him. But what he's saying is true. And it's not because of her. In another universe, she could be somewhat conservative. She doesn't believe anything. She's just an empty, empty vessel. But because of how much the left has advanced progressively since at least Woodrow Wilson for the last hundred years, she is the most progressive nominee because they're all on the same page. They are marching with the tides of history.
They will change their opinions and move them to the left simply by virtue of time. Remember Joe Biden? Joe Biden ran in 2008. By today's standards, he would have been very conservative. Same thing in ninety nine. He would have been very, very conservative. Same thing in the nineteen seventies. He would've been very, very, very conservative. But he doesn't believe anything. What is moving to the left is not him. He, he and Camilla don't.
They're not people, they're not individuals in the political sense. They just go along with the party. They just go along with the progressive movement. So what does that mean? If it's not about Joe and it's not about Comilla, what does it say about the system? Donald Trump gets the system and we'll get into one move. That's not getting a lot of attention, but it should it should give us a lot of a lot of excitement, I think, about his his campaign in twenty twenty.
But first, I think our friends over at Pier talk, you know how much I love your Cureton. So right now, who's your wireless provider? Verizon, T-Mobile, what if I told you the pure talk USA uses the exact same network as one of those carriers, same towers, same exact coverage, but literally costs you have. So when I say I know no one believes this, when I say it's the same network, people think, oh yes, it's a comparable network.
That's it's the same one. It's the same exact one. Eugene from Granbury, Texas, says, Good service. Haven't had any problems in our travels. We move around the state pretty much since giving up AT&T. We really don't feel there's any difference in the level of service, quality or accessibility. We're ready to put this service on our iPads. Switching is very easy. You keep your phone, they'll send you a SIM card so that you get the same great service you currently have at half the price.
You can get unlimited talk text in two gigs of data for how much? 20 bucks a month, 20 bucks a month. The average person is saving four hundred dollars per year. So why is it so much cheaper than at Verizon and T-Mobile? No retail stores, no billion dollar a year. Ad campaigns it just so easy. The customer service, by the way, is right here in the US, something I really, really love. Here's the deal.
Unlimited talk of unlimited text, two gigs of data for twenty bucks a month. All you need to do is grab your mobile phone, dial pound two fifty and say keyword Michael Knowles. That is pound two five zero. Or to use the modern lingo, hashtag to five zero, say keyword Michael Knowles. When you do, you will save fifty percent off your first month. Go check it out. You're welcome. Saving you money. So. It's not about these individuals, it's not about Connellan, Biden, it's about the system notis everything is about Trump.
Trump is this unique guy. Trump has this unique personality. Trump has these kind of unique policies even compared to Republican presidents. So it's about the system. What is the system is the bureaucracy. It is the administrative state. It is the deep state. It is what I call it, whatever you want. That's where the laws get made. People still don't understand this. Even on the right, your laws are not made in Congress or in the Senate.
And they're not signed into law by the president sometimes, occasionally some changes made there, but very, very little and usually especially now with divided government, the House and the Senate and different parties, basically no legislation is going to get done. Your laws are made by bureaucrats who you have not elected. Who are not accountable to you, who will do whatever they want. Bureaucrats who, even when the president changes, right, the bureaucrats or are part of the executive agencies of the executive should be able to change them.
The executive, the president, whoever gets elected, can barely make a dent into this. The politicians come and go, the bureaucrats remain there, and the bureaucrats pass all of your laws, we are ruled by people who we do not vote for. That is a simple fact. Sometimes, though, if you get the right administration in there, they can try to cut this back.
So one way Trump has done this, as you said, for every new regulation we have to cut to very simple thing, it's been able to reduce the size and scope of the administrative state, at least a little bit. Another thing is not replacing people after these bureaucrats quit through as the sizes reduce through attrition. That's another good move he just recently that went after a rule, it's the A f f h rule. You know, all of this administrative government, everything is just letters, CDC, the FDA officials, they all say, what is the official rule?
The Fage rule is affirmatively furthering fair housing. This rule comes from twenty fifteen from the Obama Biden administration. That's now this way. Republicans, they used to only talk about the Obama administration. But now, because Joe Biden is the nominee for the Democrats, always the Obama Biden administration said, OK, it's the Obama Biden administration.
He passes this rule in twenty fifteen. It's it's part of the Fair Housing Act. What this rule does basically is set up a national system that takes zoning rights away from local areas in the suburbs in particular, and makes it a national issue. So bureaucrats at the national stage can now basically take all the power away from these local communities and rezone. And what this was about was shipping in low income people from the inner cities into nice suburbs. Now, the reason for this, they always they always make this a matter of race.
Right. You remember Joe Biden said, look, I think poor kids are just as smart as white kids that poor and black are synonymous to the Democrats. Right. Rich and white are synonymous to the Democrats. They've never they've never been to parts of Appalachia, for instance, other other areas in America. It's not it's a it's a racist thing to say, but that's how they look at it. And by conflating those two things, by the way, that's how they bully you into accepting these sorts of rules.
So it was it was a lawless power grab. It it it took so much power from the local, brought it up to the national.
But what's worse, what nobody is talking about is a big key to this rule from twenty fifteen was that the Democrats knew they could count statistically on those inner city votes. So they wanted to ship those Democratic voters up to the suburbs to turn red or purple districts blue. This was a huge part behind it. It was it was a ridiculous rule. It was an outrageous power grab. Trump rescinded that. OK, so he's fighting back against radical social engineering by the Obama administration, directing the bureaucrats this power grab and he pushed back against stealing the elections.
That is a very good thing. And he's not going to get a lot of credit for it because it's it's just one of these orders.
It's an executive order, right? It goes to the agencies. And this actually brings up another point. A lot of times Republicans will criticize a Republican president like Trump for using executive orders. They'll say, no, we need our laws passed by Congress, an executive order that's that's ridiculous. That's not the way our framers intended for laws to be passed. Hey, buddy, if the executive agencies are the actual people writing all of your laws, then the only way you can govern is by executive order.
That's not Trump's fault, it's not even Obama's fault. That's that's just the way the government runs. And I actually want more executive orders because at least it's first of all, it's an elected person grabbing hold of the administrative state, at least a little bit. But it's also an acknowledgement that Congress does not rule us anymore.
They should. That's the constitutional system. The legislature should write the laws, but they don't. They really don't. It's just this administrative state. So if we're going to be ruled that way, at least want the executive to have some control over it in the way he does that is by signing executive orders. And if you have a problem with that, your problem is not with Trump or with Obama. Your problem is with reality and the way that the progressives have stolen our government away from us and shredded our Constitution.
This is rationalized rule of the elites. And you see it even in language. You see it even in the way that they make the minority groups that they invent refer to themselves, including most recently, let thinks that's no, you can't say Hispanic or Latino. It's lettings. We'll get into how few Latinos actually know what that word is. In one second verse, though, got to thank our friends over at NetSuite by Oracle, the world's number one cloud business system.
Finance our inventory, e commerce, everything you need all in one place. So you save time, money and headaches. Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite gives you visibility and control so you can manage every penny with precision. Join over twenty thousand companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence. NetSuite surveyed hundreds of business leaders. They assembled a playbook. The top strategies they're using as America reopens for business. Now is the time to read it.
This is a free guide. Seven actions businesses need to take now. I know a lot of businesses are struggling right now. This is the time. Read it. It is for free. You can schedule your free product or NetSuite dotcom less. That is your free guide. You can schedule your free product tour right now. And NetSuite, dotcom, Noles, NetSuite, dotcom signals. Lettings, lettings, that's the word that's the word that the white liberals are telling us we have to use.
So maybe you've seen this somewhere, especially if you've been in college or high school recently. I don't know.
I guess they put the X because they don't like that Latino ends in an O because that's masculine and and male is bad and that's the past and women of the future. So now it's X, it's gender neutral.
They could just use the term Hispanic, but now they're trying to differentiate between the term Hispanic and Latino, both of which, by the way, are just completely ridiculous jargon invented by the left about 50 years ago, invented specifically or propagated specifically by the Ford Foundation, other radical left wing influence groups.
So in any case, they took a survey. This came out from the Pew Research Center on Tuesday. They found out that only one in four adults in the United States who identify as Hispanic or Latino have ever even heard the term lettings. Three quarters of Hispanics have no idea what this ridiculous term lettings is, and only three percent of Hispanics actually use that term to describe themselves. Ninety seven percent do not. And yet what you are going to be told now, especially if you're in a university or a K through 12 for that matter, or in corporate America or just about anywhere, you're going to be told that if you don't use this word lettings, you're a racist, you're outdated, you're in the past.
If you don't use a word.
That ninety seven percent of the people that word is supposed to describe don't use if you don't use a word that seventy five percent of people who are supposed to be that word don't even know about, don't even know what it is. Then you were a racist. That's what they're going to say. This is not grassroots. We sometimes think of the progressive movement as being grassroots, it springs up from the people crying out for a more progressive, it's not it's completely contrived and it's contrived by mostly white liberals and it's been enforced mostly by the white liberal establishment.
And it just marches onward. And we've all got to catch up because it's got so much power. The one consolation, though, you know, we talk about the conservative constellation on this show a lot, it's that reality reasserts itself sometimes sporadically, eventually. These liberal elite schemes are not popular with the actual people, you see it in the word lettings, but you see it in the in the more tangible policies all around us, things like defunding the police.
The left is now no longer even saying that we need to allow these peaceful protesters who are burning down the country, that we need to allow them to kind of run its course, you know, have some of the radicals of the BLM organizers coming out and and defending the looting as justice.
They're defending this theft and this vandalism as a positive. Good. Take a listen. I don't care if somebody decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy's or a Nike, because that makes sure that that person eats, that makes sure that that person has clothes that make sure that that person can make some kind of money because the city obviously doesn't care about them. Not only that, that's reparations. That is reparations. Anything they want to take, take it.
Because these businesses have insurance, they're going to get their money back. My people aren't getting anything.
That's it. They're not getting anything that. How oppressed is that woman? Look, she's so oppressed. It's so awful that she's got to be in modern America. Welfare sort of well protected by the cops she wants to defund on television, running roughshod over the entire country, stealing stuff, defending theft without any consequences. What she's oppressed. You know, she's getting she's getting what's hers. It's not even just at this personal level. It's not even these peaceful protesters stealing Gucci and Nike sneakers, you know, for justice or something.
This is happening in a systematized way. It's happening all the way at the political level, AOC just tweeted out the other day, said, Billionaires need the working class, the working class does not need billionaires, which is a very funny statement to make. Well, you are clamoring endlessly to take the billionaires wealth.
We are told ABC is simultaneously telling us that people will die, the world will fall into chaos if we don't get the billionaires wealth.
So that's why we need to expropriate it and steal it. Theft at the bottom level of looting a store, theft at the top level of taking taking people's wealth from the government through the government. Rather, we're told that. But we're also told we don't need those billionaires. That sounds like you do. If you're saying we're all going to die if we don't steal all their money, it sounds like we need them, huh? The whole argument is we do need them.
So give us your money. That doesn't that doesn't mean no. One thing I've asked myself because I've never understood this. Why on earth would these oligarchs, these bureaucrat oligarchs, why would they want to encourage this kind of system, this kind of chaos in the streets, this lawlessness, this injustice, this theft, don't you think they'd want to just keep all their money right? Wouldn't it just be all the billionaires? No. Because the more that law breaks down, the more law and order breaks down, the more property rights break down, the ability to own your own wealth.
The more. Local attachments breakdown, the more attachment to family breaks down, the more local government breaks down, the more all of these things break down, the more power the progressive administrative state gets. Never let a crisis go to waste. You need to foment this kind of chaos, it's why the left does it every election year to grab a little bit more power, more and more and more and more power to the point where you've got the national government telling people how they can zone their neighborhoods, where you've got the federal government coming in, telling people exactly how much money they're allowed to have and how much they're in.
And it's going to be arbitrary. It's going to change all the time. You've got the administrative government, which issues all sorts of rulings on what words to use, what language to use. If you don't use it, it'll be a civil rights offence.
You'll get hauled before an administrative tribunal telling. Ninety seven percent of people who who don't want to use this term, that they have to use this term to describe themselves. Even if they flaunt their power in such outrageous ways. And this comes right down to this, this very contemporary issue of the masks, I've been telling you for months that the masks are not about protecting public health. There is very little evidence that the masks work at all. There is a lot of evidence that the masks don't work at all.
There's a disclaimer on every mask that you buy right now that says this mask does not prevent the spread of any viruses. And that's a disclaimer that was put there by the same administrators who tell you you have to wear the masks. The head of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Just told his employees. Wear your mask, even if you are home to participate in a virtual meeting that involves being seen, such as on Zoom or another video conferencing platform by people who are not in our staff.
This was Preston Cole, head of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Set the safety example, which shows you as a DNR public service employee about the safety and health of others shows a couple of things. The masks are a symbol, obviously, if you're at home alone, you don't need to wear the mask, but it's not about preventing the spread of a virus. It's about a political symbol. The left cannot allow for prudence. That's what a basic.
What do I think about the masks?
If you're in a really high risk category and you've got a really good mask and you're going to be around a lot of people, maybe you should wear it.
Probably it won't do anything but couldn't hurt. Right. And then if you're healthy and you're at home and you're on a conference call or you're young, whatever, you really don't need to wear the mask. That's prudence. That's using judgment. That's the individual assessing the situation, figuring out what's right, taking the inherited wisdom of my ancestors, looking around, just being practical, using common sense.
There's no common sense in the administrative state. It's all about highly rationalized rule, there's a rule for everything. One day we're told you cannot wear the masks. We're all going to die. If we wear the masks the very next day, we're told you have to wear the mask. We're going to die if you don't wear the masks. And there's no they don't blink. They just look straight at you, they tell you that with a completely straight face because they're the experts and you damn well better do what they say to do that.
That is the more important thing. Forget about the masks, the most important thing is you listen to them, these unaccountable bureaucrats who have usurped our government. We've got to get into the mailbag. We will do that one second.
First, though, got to thank you. Thanks for going over to our YouTube channel. Subscribing, liking, sharing it. Really appreciate that.
Also, all access members, you know, that's the highest tier membership. They get to join all access alive. There's a lot of other great stuff you get not one, but two leftest years temblors with your membership, as well as early exclusive New Delhi wire products, which you saw last week with our limited edition baseball bat that not even I got to get. It was only available to all access sold out within 48 hours. Go to Delhi Wired.com Noles right now get 20 percent of all access with coupon code access, daily Wired.com coupon code access, get 20 percent off.
Your membership will be right back with the mailbag. All right, let's get to the mailbag, first question from my dear Michael, I am nearly 30 and have strong Catholic beliefs. I have always dated Cradle Catholics, but they were never really believers as I am. Sometimes, you know, they're little more just cultural about it. They don't really believe it. I believe in waiting until marriage for sex, which gets increasingly difficult when trying to date the older I get.
I met a great guy and I really thought we were perfect for each other and we had plans to get married and for the future against what I knew was right.
I slept with him and we're no longer together. Whoever I meet next, I would still want to wait until we are married, but I'm afraid I messed up and another good man may reject me because of my transgressions. I feel lost and hopeless that having a family may never happen for me. Do you have any theological perspective or advice on how I handle any of this? Thank you. Yeah. Go to confession. Confess your sins. Pray Rosary and you'll be fine.
Thanks. I don't I don't mean to be flippant about it. People make mistakes, especially that everyone makes that mistake these days.
I mean, we're in a culture that saturated by sex where we're told that having sex before marriage is essential to do. And you're a weirdo if you don't do it and you just have to. There's a lot of pressure.
I mean, there are actually circumstances here that that I think do mitigate this sin a little bit. But sure, you did it. It's wrong. It is wrong.
Even though everyone does it, even though a lot of people do it, it's wrong. And you feel sorry about it. Move on. You know, your redeemer lives, your save your lives. There is a way for your sins to be forgiven, your sins are forgiven. You'll be fine. We live in a very broken culture, too. So if you're worried that everybody else is so perfect and you're not perfect, so you're never going to find a husband.
Come on, give me a break. You'll be all right. These things happen. I'm sure. I'm sure you'll meet a very nice man. By the way, I'm nearly 30 these days. I'm. I'm thirty two. That's like young to get married according to the culture. I know that it's not in traditional standards. I wish I had gotten married much younger. I'm sure you do, too.
But you've also got to recognize these kind of cultural realities and give yourself a little bit of. Grace, a little bit of a little bit of breathing room here, you know. Now, maybe if this last guy you dated was a jerk, maybe it wasn't a jerk. Sounds like he was kind of a jerk. But regardless, find a better guy the next time it's OK. Bring your save your lives. God forgives your sins. You can forgive yourself from Nick.
Hey, Michael. I'm very confused and would appreciate it if you could clear my head. Joe Biden has announced Kamala Harris as his running mate. Joe promised he would pick a woman. And I have to assume he made his choice the same way he picks every girl. But by grabbing their shoulders from behind and taking a long, deep sniff, judging them based on scent. This is where I get confused, though. By all accounts, convalesced fragrance is less than alluring, reportedly being somewhat of a blend between the marijuana she smoked while locking up thousands of black teenagers mixed in with leftover traces of Willie Brown's cologne.
Here, get me in trouble. So with his normal discerning methods off the table, what do you think are Biden's real reasons for picking her? I think we got to stop reading comments from Nick is what we've got, Nick is going to get my show cancelled, but they're very good observations. Nick, I got to tell you, you are an astute observer, even if you are going to get me fired from Elona. Dear Mr. Caffé, I've been an atheist most of my life, but lately I find myself listening to mostly Christian conservative podcasts and media.
So as a twenty five year old, I've dated around a little bit, not too much. And now I really just want to get married and have a family.
My question is, how do you know when you found the right person? I'm torn between the notion that the effort you put in matters put in more than the person you choose in fear of choosing the wrong person and subjecting myself and my children to a bad marriage. Thanks. I'm a huge and long time fan. I think. I mean, I think what you've said sums up what a lot of people think, which is this stupid hookup culture is really dumb.
And maybe maybe I've been around a bit. But actually the thing I want to do is the thing that is being discouraged by the culture, but by the way, to serve political ends, that there is a reason that the left and the administrative government is pushing a progressive, bizarre radical sex policies on you. That's not an accident and it's not about your freedom. The reason they do it is to break down the family, which is the bedrock institution, stopping them from grabbing all of their power.
So they do want to do I mean, even drink COVA, they always say don't don't have sex with people, have sex with yourself. You're your safest sex partner. You remain alone, be empowered, live in a pod, go just work all the time, serve the system. Life of Julia during the Obama campaign, they just imagine this woman cradle to grave. She never has any meaningful relationship with anybody other than the government. They said she chose to have a child.
That's one stage in this progressive utopian dream life, she doesn't fall in love and get married and have a father for her child. She chooses to have a child and then the big government is there to take care of you, so. On your specific question, that's the preface, your specific question is, should I just marry the next guy I see or should I really spend a lot of time thinking about who the right person is?
I think you're right that in this culture, people are too slow to act to get married. This happened to me, too. This happens to a lot of friends. I know they'll just date for a long time because we're so nervous about picking the wrong person. That said, though, I think my life would be worse if I married someone other than sweet little Alisa. I could do it and it would be it would be fine, maybe, maybe it wouldn't be so fine.
But I think generally you marry someone, you can make it work because marriages, marriage is an institution. It's about the other person, obviously. But you together, you and the other person are forming a new thing, which is an institution. So you can make that work. But I got to tell you, I do think my life would be. Significantly worse, if I had married someone other than sweet little Alisa, the person does matter to how do you know when you found the right person?
Well, whenever people ask me this question, I say, are you attracted to that person or are you excited by that person? Does that person make you want to go spend time with them? Do you like something about them that's got to be there? I mean, that's very important. But then you will grow together. You'll grow together or you'll grow apart, so that shared experience is very important to ask my my grandfather this, he and my grandmother have been married.
Now I don't. Sixty five years, something like that, maybe more.
And I said, what are the keys to a good marriage? He said, well, shared experience. They've known each other since high school. My grandmother was pregnant, I think, for fifty four months. Lots of patients obviously need lots of patients for the other person and frequent absence.
My grandfather was in the Navy, so he would deploy for a bit. I don't know. You don't need to go away for nine months at a time, but you do need to be able to at least have your sort of separate spaces every now and again. But but those those things make a lot of sense to me. And had shared experiences which you're getting in, if you like this guy, if you love this guy, if you have a good time together, if you have the same view of the world, if you see the world the same way and you recognize objective reality.
Then you'll grow a lot more together once you're married, regardless, then you have to spend all this time thinking and making sure it's rationally perfect to do it right, right before you pull the trigger from Alex.
Michael, I'd like some advice on tithing. Would you consider donating to political activist campaigns? The best example being pro-life organizations as being an acceptable inclusion in the 10 percent? I don't mean exclusively donating to political campaigns, but simply putting part of the 10 percent tithe toward politics. I ask this because I don't make a lot of money and I think donating beyond 10 percent of my earning would be bad financial stewardship.
Sure, I think that's fine. I don't think that you're obligated anymore as a Christian to tie the exact right 10 percent. You should give alms. But Saint Saint Paul, I think, is clear in first and Second Corinthians. Give what you have, give what you can give, but you are not bound by precise 10 percent anymore. I know some people may disagree with me on that, but I say all of that to just say it is good to give to pro-life organizations.
That's a good thing. And if you do that, I think that would be very good and I don't I don't think you need to give 11 or 12 percent to make that happen for a melody.
Dear Mr Knowles, my friend's daughter, Florida, with a statement she made recently that the pyramids were not built by slaves. I immediately thought to myself, where on earth is she heard this nonsense? I then began looking up articles on the subject, one article in particular by Jonathan Shaw, who built the pyramids. SRAW states the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by privilege laborers. He goes on to say that the notion of a vast slave class in Egypt originated in the Judeo-Christian tradition and has been popularized by Hollywood films like Cecil B.
DeMille Ten Commandments. Is this yet another attempt by liberals to erase history and gaslight Americans into thinking we invented slavery? I think what it draws on is this highly reductive view of slavery that's overly simplistic, slavery has meant different things at different times, even in America. Slavery in the 17th century, first of all, was not racialized to the degree that it became in the 19th century. So so in this kind of ironic quirk of history, the first legally recognized owner of an officially declared arbitrary slave for life, the precursor to what you would call American slavery, was a black guy who was the first officially declared slave owner, Anthony Johnson.
And he owned another black guy, John Kacer. Obviously, this developed over time and by the 19th century, you have this highly particular racialized kind of slavery, but even in America was different. So different kinds of labor existed. You see slavery in the Bible, you see slavery going all the way back. A lot of historians now say that slaves did not build the pyramids, but some some system of labor did. And regardless of the specifics of that, we know slavery long predates the West.
You're actually Western explorers and merchants bought slaves from slave markets in Africa. There already was slavery in Africa for a long time.
There is still slavery today. And by the way, liberals are often participating in it because a lot of that slavery is in East Asia. So as with everything, I would I would suggest the real history is just complicated. Life today is complicated. So obviously, history is two from Derek. Michael, would you smoke a black and mild gas station cigar with cigar over pipe? I guess I will. Depends how desperate I was. I usually like it maybe a little notch above that.
But why? Cigar pipe cigars are just much better. The tobacco is usually much better quality, it's long filler, so it burns better, it's more complex. There's there's a more intricate creation process because you get the blending, then you get the role. They're easy. You just clip it, light it. Pipes, take a lot of work, a lot of effort. I like a pipe every now and again, but I've once heard tobacco compared to different parts of our soul.
So you've got like the the appetite, the emotional part. That would be cigarettes. Right. Cigarettes. You just it's you're feeding an addiction. Cigars are the spirited part. You know, it's it's you think of big guys with big chests puffing outward, but most of the smoke goes out eventually. And then you have the pipe, which is the sort of philosophic logical part. I'm more for the spirit. I think we need a lot more spirit here.
And I like the logic to it, but I want some spirit. All right. That's our show. I'm going to go have a cigar, clear up my nose, but that'll be us for the week. We've got more cool stuff coming out, otherwise. I'll see you Monday. I'm Michael Noles. This is the Michael Nunzio. If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't. 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 podcast Spotify and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other daily WYO podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Claiborne Show and The Matt Walsh Show. The Michael Noles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Bori, supervising producers Mathus Glover and Robert Sterling, technical producer, Austin Steven's Assistant Director, Hovell, Widow City Editor and associate producer. Danny D'Amico audio mixer. Robin Fenderson Hair and Makeup Neka Janiva Production Assistant Ryan Love.
The Michael Knowles Show is a daily wire production copyright Daily Wire 20 20.
Everyone is Andrew Klavan, host of the Andrew Cleveland Show. The press is pulling out all the stops to depict radical Kamala Harris as a moderate. But as far as I'm concerned, Trump should go after her real weak spot, which is that she's corrupt. We'll talk about that and we'll talk to Pastor John MacArthur and Jenna Ellis about their fight to reopen their church on The Andrew Sullivan Show.