Ep. 1539 - The Olympics Embrace the Rainbow

Michael Knowles
Right now. Go to silencershop.com. knowles the second Amendment protects the freedom of the people from tyranny. Without the right to keep and bear arms, the people are ultimately powerless to fight political persecution. But as much as it is our right to keep and bear arms, it is also a great responsibility. You've got to get the proper safety and use training, and you have to get out on the range every once in a while to sharpen your skills. Fortunately, my new partners over at Silencer shop can help make going to the range a lot more enjoyable. They offer the largest selection of top brand silencers, which makes shooting significantly quieter and cut out a lot of that recoil and concussion. Their dedicated team will help you find the perfect fit for your firearm. Especially for me. I really try to protect my ears, especially because I work in the media. I absolutely love silencer shop. Silencer shop has helped more american gun owners get suppressors than anyone else because they make the process so much easier than anyone else. They'll help you submit a all the paperwork. They don't just support your second amendment rights, they fight for them. They spend a lot of time and money aggressively lobbying, fighting lawsuits, supporting pro second amendment legislation across the country. You got to check them out. Let Silencer shop help make your guns better. Silencershop.com Knowles let Silencer shop today help to make your guns better. Silencershop.com Knowles Kamala Harris has released her first presidential campaign ad, and it tells you everything you need to know about her campaign.

Kamala Harris
I need freedom to the freedom not just to get by, but get ahead. The freedom to be safe from gun violence.

The freedom to make decisions about your own body. We choose a future where no child lives in poverty, where we can all afford health care, where no one is above the law.

We believe in the promise of America, and we are ready to fight for it. Because when we fight, we win.

So join us. Go to Kamala harris.com and letheme get to work.

Michael Knowles
I'ma keep em running cause the winners don't quit on themselves.

Freedom notice Kamala only gets specific on two issues, guns and abortion. Two issues to rile up the base. And crucially, two issues that don't require any actual record of achievement. There's always another gun to steal and another baby to kill. Otherwise, the rest of the ad is about some vague kind of freedom.

And why?

Because when it comes to specifics, Kamala loses, either because she's too far left on an issue like transing, the kids say, or because she's a failure on an issue like immigration. When Kamala repeats vague nonsense about imagining what will be unburdened by what has been, the ambiguity is intentional.

Freedom can maybe win. Kamala's actual agenda, agenda loses. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show.

Welcome back to the show.

The Olympics has now had a transvestite carry the Olympic torch on the way to Paris or something. I don't people, the conservatives are freaking out over this. I actually think it makes perfect sense. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to hillsdale.edu Knowles history, economics, the great works of literature, the meaning of the US constitution. Did you study those things in school? Probably not. Especially if you're young. You certainly didn't study those things in school. Even if you did, maybe it's time for a refresher. Time and technology have changed a lot of things. They've not changed basic, fundamental truths about the world and our place in it. That is why I am so excited, excited that Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses on the most important and enduring subjects. You can learn about the works of CS Lewis, the stories in the book of Genesis, the meaning of the US constitution, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, and the history of the ancient church, with Hillsdale College's online courses all available for free. That's right, for free. I personally recommend you sign up for american citizenship and its decline with Victor Davis Hanson. An urgent course, and it's an eight lecture course. VDH explores the history of citizenship in the west and the threats it faces today.

Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations. The course is self paced, so you can start whenever and wherever. Start your free course. American citizenship and its decline with VDH today hillsdale.edu knowles it's free, easy to get started. Hillsdale.edu Knowles and speaking of learning things, you might be wondering, Michael, why is there so much ambient noise? If you are listening to this right now, you might say, michael, where are you? Why are there people walking around behind you? It's because I'm at the bitcoin conference, and I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.

I don't really know what bitcoin is.

Like, I kinda know. I know it's a thing. I know the words. I know blockchain, decentralized future currency. I know, like, I know all of that. But it's not really.

I don't really know what that means. So anyway, maybe I'll learn what bitcoin is. I know a lot of right wingers really like it, a lot of libertarians really like it, but some conservatives, too. And so anyway, who knows? We will get into what the bitcoin conference is. The reason I'm here is because it seems that every prominent politico in the country is coming to this. Trump is going to be here. Bobby Kennedy Junior is going to be here. Oddly enough, last night I was the corner man for a karate combat fight for Smilin Sam Alvey, a member of the creme de la Creme.

And Bobby Kennedy junior came into this fight here in Nashville. So it's raucous. It's wild. Well, Kamala Harris has announced she is not coming to the bitcoin conference. Initially she was going to do, but now she's not going to. And the reason she's not going to is because she would have been booed back to Kentucky. So anyway, we will check in on that throughout the day and we'll check in on Kamala right now. Corinne Jean Pierre, the White House press secretary, was just asked a question about Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris was put in charge of the border by her boss, Joe Biden. And then the Democrats when, when Kamala became the presumptive nominee, wanted to deny that she was ever put in charge of the border. And here is poor Corinne Jean Pierre squirming around to answer.

Karine Jean-Pierre
Democrats on Capitol Hill are being handed this card with talking points about the vice president and the border. Do you know whos handing this out?

Karine Jean-Pierre
I have no idea. You probably should ask her campaign.

Karine Jean-Pierre
So the first one says Vice President Harris was never appointed border czar. Theres never been such a position. It doesnt exist.

Why are Democrats so sensitive about the vice president and the border?

Karine Jean-Pierre
Why are Republicans so sensitive about actually not owning up to them, getting in the way of a border deal?

Why? Why won't they own up to that? Why won't they own up to, the last president told them not to move forward. It was a bipartisan deal on just right there available to them, and they voted twice against it, twice against it. Why are they so sensitive to moving forward and actually dealing on an issue that majority of Americans care about?

Michael Knowles
Yeah, I mean, like, come on. Like, I know you are, but what am I? You know, like I am rubber and you are glue and what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. That is the substance of Karine Jean Pierre's answer here.

I will quote March 21, 2024. These are the verbatim words of Joe Biden. I've asked her, the VP today because she's the most qualified person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico and the northern triangle and the countries that help are going to need to help in stemming the movement of so many folks stemming the migration to our southern border.

It's not her full responsibility and job, but she's leading the effort because I think the best thing to do is to put someone who, when he or she speaks, they don't have to wonder about, is that where the president is? I'm going to put a pause here. This was three years ago and Biden already was struggling greatly with the english language. But I think you get a, the point of what he's saying. If you were confused. Here he is. Next sentence.

When she speaks, she speaks for me.

He imbues her with presidential authority on the issue of the border and migration.

Keeps going. Doesn't have to check with me. She knows what she's doing. And I hope we can move this along. But. So, Madam vice President, thank you. I gave you a tough job and you're smiling. And there's no one better capable of trying to organize this for us. So that's what happened. Biden put Kamala in charge of the work.

There's no real, there's no position of border czar. Yeah, there's no position of czar in the government. There's no formal position of czar. Czar is an imperial title that derives from Caesar. So, no, we don't have a formal position named Caesar or Czar. But if you look to Wikipedia, or if you looked at Wikipedia before, a couple days ago, you could type in Biden administration czars and you'd get a whole list of them, including Kamala Harris as the border czar.

It's an informal term to refer to the person who has been put in charge of a particular subject.

That's what it means.

You get energy czars, climate czars. John Kerry was a climate czar. And the Democrats are now arguing this point over addiction. But it's so preposterous because if they insist in this, I guess, nominalist way on saying that there is no such thing as borders are, then you would ask them, okay, what does it mean to be the border czar? It means to be the person put in charge of the border.

When Kamala speaks on the border and migration, she speaks for the president.

No one had greater authority on the border than Kamala, and she totally failed.

So then when the nominalism nonsense doesn't work. Corinne Jean Pierre tries to redirect and says, well, the Republicans killed a border bill.

Yes, there was a border bill that the Democrats were peddling.

It was always a bad idea to consider any of the Democrats border legislation because the president was ignoring the immigration laws that were already on the books. The president already had the authority to enforce immigration law and he chose not to do it because he wanted migrants to flood into the country, because the Democrats believe that it gives them a permanent electoral majority. So if the Biden administration was ignoring the laws that already existed, why would we believe that passing one more law would help? But furthermore, Corinne Jean Pierre and the Democrats are now saying this was the strongest border bill ever. Not at all. What are you talking about?

The border bill that was proposed by the Democrats have begun to take some more significant actions against the migrants when border encounters averaged 4000 per day over the course of a week. So that the supposedly really strong border bill the Democrats were pushing would not have even been triggered to start considering increased enforcement until you had 4000 people per day per week. So 21,000 new encounters per week, that's not counting the gotaways. And then, okay, maybe if you get 8500 in one day, then you could also trigger it. So in fact, it would have weakened border security.

That was already on the books but not actually being enforced. Total nonsense. I feel bad for Karine Jamier because she's got no answers, because the Biden Harris administration has no answers, because it's been a failure. That's why the Democrats are making these last minute desperate plays to try to swap out their nominee, or to try to redirect, or to try to ignore the fact that Trump was nearly assassinated a couple of weeks ago. Corinne Jean Pierre was asked about that last minute swap by Zeke Miller of the Associated Press, who asks the press secretary, hey, misses press secretary, how is it possible that Joe Biden is unfit to run for president, but fit to serve as president?

The president believes that it's best for the country that he not be in the Oval Office for another four years. How can you assure the american people that he's up to be in the office for the next six months?

Karine Jean-Pierre
Well, first I would say is that, and I've heard these suggestions out there, this is not an answer to you. This is an answer to the suggestions that I've had.

I've heard about him resigning from office. We believe, and any suggestion of that note is ridiculous. It is not what we believe. The president, I just laid out what the president has been able to do in almost four years, and it's been successful. He's been able to do more again than any president has been able to do in two terms. He's been able to do that more in one term. And he wants to finish the job that he started and delivering more historic results for the american people. And look, he didn't step down from campaigning or from running because he didn't believe he can serve in a second term. That is not why. And what I would say, as I just finished my opening, I would say tune in, tune into what he has to say tonight and he will lay that out for you all and the american people as to why he made that decision.

Michael Knowles
Okay, so she basically waves the white flag here and he didn't step down from the. And perfect. This is a totally fair question from Zeke. This is the Associated Press, too. This is not some right wing outlethe and she can't answer it. She can't answer the most basic question. She says, just listen to whatever Biden says. Can you? I don't, she wants to say he didn't step down because he's not fit to do the job. But we all know he stepped down because he has dementia. We all know he stepped down because he's not physically or mentally able to run for president. So that obviously leads to the next question. Well, how is he mentally able to serve as president or even physically able to serve as president? And she waves the white flag. So now what the Democrats have to do is distract away from Kamala. She's not popular, no one likes her agenda, and she hasn't succeeded at the few things she's been tasked with.

They've got to distract from Biden. He's obviously not fit to be president and his brain has turned to pudding. So now they've got to focus things back on Trump. But the problem is Trump has garnered some sympathy recently. One, because the Democrats have tried to throw him off of the ballot. That didn't work. They tried to throw him in jail. That didn't work.

People tried to kill him.

Some people tried to kill him. We still don't have a lot of answers on exactly how all that went down, but we do know that Biden and the democratic leadership established the premise that would justify an assassination of Trump, namely that he poses an existential threat to the country and that he's the second coming of Hitler.

So when you look at Trump now, all of a sudden, the voters are going to feel some sympathy.

So the next Democrat strategy is they've got to take away that sympathy, and they're working overtime to do. There is so much more to say. First, though, go to preborn.com Knowles it has been two years since the overruling of Roe v. Wade. Did you know that the number of abortions has actually increased since then? New estimates show that more than 1 million babies were killed by abortion in 2023, the highest number of abortions since 2012. The overruling of Roe has unfortunately made the abortion bill more readily available, now accounting for up to 64% of all abortions. But freeborn continues to stand strong. Freeborn is the largest pro life organization in the country. It provides free ultrasounds to mothers with unplanned pregnancy pregnancies to introduce them to the precious life growing inside them. When a mother meets her baby in ultrasound and hears his heartbeat, she is twice as likely to choose life. How can you help? Everyday, Preborn rescues 200 lives.

One ultrasound costs only $28. Could be the difference between life and death. Please join the fight by sponsoring an ultrasound. If you have the means, you can sponsor Preborn's entire network for a day for $5,000. I personally support this organization. I would strongly encourage you to give whatever you can. All gifts are tax deductible. Go to preborn.com knowlesknowles. Donate today. That is preborn.com. knowles Rudow 250. Say keyword, baby pound. 250. Keyword, baby. Christopher Wray, the FBI director, appears before the House Judiciary Committee. Jim Jordan, chairman of the judiciary committee, is posing typically excellent questions to Ray about the attempted assassination. And Chris Wray confuses the story by raising the possibility that Trump was, wasn't even shot.

Where did all eight bullets go? Is I guess my question.

Christopher Wray
I don't have that in front of me. I'm happy to circle back and get that to you, assuming we have that information. Yet.

As I said, I think with respect to former President Trump, there's some question about whether or not it's a bullet or shrapnel that, you know, that hit his ear. So it's conceivable. Although as I sit here right now, I don't know whether that bullet, in addition to, you know, causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else.

But I believe we've accounted for all of the shots in the cartridges.

Michael Knowles
So let us, it's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president. Is that the very first shot or is that not accurate?

Christopher Wray
I don't, as I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we know the answer to that. I just don't have it in front of.

Michael Knowles
Okay.

The FBI director doesn't seem to know a lot of anything because you all saw on tv, what was it, 1213 days ago, that President Trump was shot in the head. And it would have blown off the back of his head except for a nanosecond earlier turn of about 20 degrees that allowed the bullet to go through the top of his ear a hair's breadth away from the man, having had his head blown off on national television.

And Christopher Wray is telling you, no, you didn't really see that. We actually, we don't even know if Trump was shot.

To show you how ridiculous this line of attack is, which I've heard before, I was on Piers Morgan show the other day and wad ja hat Ali, this left wing columnist for the Daily Beast, he raised the possibility that maybe Trump wasn't actually shot. Even the New York Times, which is doing its best to downplay the near assassination of Trump, even the New York Times is admitting, okay, he was shot with a bullet. The New York Times, but they're couching it in uncertain language. They say, I just saw this this morning. Speculation swirls about what hit Trump. An analysis suggests a bullet.

Speculation swirls about what gave me a tan when I was at the beach and analysis suggests it was the sun. Speculation swirls about how my suit got wet when I was walking outside.

An analysis, a super duper New York Times analysis suggests it was the rain. And the Times goes on. Here's the subheader. An absence of medical records or FBI findings has led to an information vacuum. But a Times analysis indicates that a bullet wounded Donald Trump. Gee, great job, Sherlock. You guys, man, get the, get the New York Times another Pulitzer. That's incredible.

They, the New York Times watched the same video that we all watched and saw a bullet go through his ear. And they concluded a bullet went through his ear. Good job. In fairness, the New York Times now is more observant, better forensic investigators than the head of the FBI doing his damnedest to downplay the near assassination of Trump.

What do we know from the FBI director? What do we know from the liberal establishment? We know that men can become women.

We know that groceries are affordable. We know that babies aren't really babies.

We know, we know that Kamala wasn't the border czar. We know that actually, there is no border crisis, so maybe Kamala should want to be the border. So that's a little confusing. And we know that Trump wasn't really shot do I have that right? I think that's basically what the libs are telling us. Don't you dare believe you're lying on now. Speaking of gas lighting, a transvestite. A drag queen has been tasked with carrying the Olympic torch on part of its journey to the Paris Olympics, and this has sent the conservative commentariat into a tizzy.

Do we have video? Yes. Yes, we do.

The first drag queen to carry the Olympic torch, Martin Namius, better known as Miss Martini. Her aim, it's a hymn, obviously, is to further the debate about weird sex stuff or something.

We're gonna have this debate. We're gonna. What's kind of weird about all this is even a year or two ago, there was this distinction between drag queens and transgenders. And the distinction was that drag queens know that they're really men, but they dress up like women, and transgenders are women, even though their bodies would say otherwise. But now I guess this is getting blurred because this left wing outlet is calling him or her. But in any case, the conservatives are really upset about this. I don't really know why.

The Olympic torch ceremony.

The Olympic torch ceremony is an overtly pagan ritual that begins with a reenactment of the vestal virgins worshiping at the temple of Hera. Okay. And then they carry the eternal flame of the Olympic torch on this overtly pagan journey toward this resuscitation of overtly pagan games. So, yeah, they're gonna do weird pagan stuff. I don't know. To me, this seems totally on brand.

You know me, I'm as rock ribbed about the trans movement as anybody. I think transgenderism ought to be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level.

But Pagan. Pagan's gonna do pagan things.

I'm not a big Olympic fan either, I think.

I didn't know the Olympics were happening this year. Mister Davies, who's kind of a big beefcake of a producer and was considering actually being in the Olympics when he was a younger man. He's really plugged into it. He even called the story to my attention, but I don't know. Yeah, yeah. Stuff that derives from weird ancient greek, especially. Oh, wow, there's a gay thing at a greek festival. Wow. Stop the presses. I don't know. I guess it takes more to scandalize me than weird pagan sex stuff at a greek thing.

My favorite comment yesterday is from Auf Skuskoshurser 1509, who says, I'm a childless cat lady, but I still support Trump and have a brain that I actually use lol. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. That no childless cat ladies who support conservatives were offended by what JD Vance said because JD Vance obviously isn't talking about you.

I'm a graduate of a very liberal university, and I studied something that is not technically practical there. Okay? And conservatives make fun of that type all the time. But I'm not offended when they make fun of that type because they're not talking about me.

You're hearing democrats now saying, oh, JD Vance, he's offended couples that struggle with infertility. No, he hasn't.

That's not the type of. The childless cat lady is not people who struggle with infertility. It's not sensible people. It's not consecrated people who are living in a consecrated kind of celibacy. It's not any of it. You know who we're talking about, Mandy? It's a stereotype. And stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason, because all stereotypes are true. That doesn't mean that the stereotype necessarily applies to every single individual.

Okay, speaking of weird sex stuff, this is troubling scientists.

According to this report, scientists have grown male genitals in a lab, and there are fears that it could make blokes obsolete. That's the headline.

This is troubling not because I think it's going to make blokes obsolete, but because that must be a very creepy lab.

Could you imagine the petri dishes? That sounds really gross.

Some scientist, doctor Nitsan Gonin, an israeli scientist, has produced these male genitals from cells extracted from mice, and she hopes that she'll be able to produce human versions within five years.

This is from the sex determination laboratory in bar Ilan, Israel.

And the goal is not to make men redundant, but to help the crisis of male fertility. But there's a fear now. Oh, no. Are you going to make men obsolete?

No.

Until scientists can develop a way in a laboratory to kill bugs or to reach things on the top shelf, men will not be obsolete.

Because sex is about more than just your go nuts.

Being a man, being a woman is about more than just your chromosomes.

And the libs think that sex has nothing to do with your biology or your gonads or your chromosomes. And so that's obviously a mistake.

But the conservatives go too far in the other direction. And they say that sex and sexual difference is all about your gonads and youre chromosomes. And it's not. Both of those are errors. One of those is a gnostic error, and one of those is a materialist error. But we conservatives, reasonable people, especially if you're religious, especially if you're Christian. You believe that man is hylomorphic, body and soul united, and that there's a physical expression of what it means to be a man, but there's also a social expression of it, and there's also a spiritual expression of it. And there's more to it than just you. Gol Yun's okay. And so I mentioned this when we were all having the debate over what is a woman. I mentioned that the conservatives are falling into the same kind of materialism that led us to this place in the first place. But no, being a man is about more than that. Once I was doing an interview with my friend Matt Fradd. I was on his show pines with Aquinas, and he said, michael, are you saying that being a woman is, you know, you're not saying that it's about wearing frilly dresses and, you know, making fancy breakfasts in the morning, are you? And I said, well, I kind of am.

It's not only about that, but that's part of it. You know, a man is one who has the physicality of a man and who does the things that men are supposed to do.

Aristotle in the nicomachean ethics tells us that virtue is excellent rational activity, rational activity done in a good way, that it's about doing something. That's where the virtues are. And what does virtue mean? Virtue comes from the latin word beer, which means man.

Simple as.

Grow as many gonads as you want in the laboratory. You ain't replacing me, baby. Now, speaking of science, another story. I meant to get to this last week, and I'm really glad I can touch on it right now.

There's a cave on the moon. There are actually many caves on the moon, but a cave on the moon has been confirmed, and according to this story, scientists suspect hundreds more like it could house future explorers, could shelter the explorers on the moon, which raised a question in my mind.

Shelter them from what?

Are there moon bears or something? Is Matt Walsh right? That there are extraterrestrials living on the moon? Now, some people, some pedantic people out there have suggested, no, Michael, it's to shelter the astronauts from radiation or the sun or whatever. Yeah, whatever. Shut up, nerd. I want to know about moon bears is what I want to know about. In any case, I like that we're talking about this.

I like that we're talking about this because it gives us something ambitious to consider in our politics. It gives us something to hope for.

Hope is a theological virtue. Hope is also a political virtue.

I'm old enough to remember, and I'm sitting here at the bitcoin conference, which is all about free markets and decentralization and property rights, and get the big government out of my life. And there's a place for that when you have increasingly tyrannical leftists trying to stick their fingers into every aspect of your life. However, that's not the whole story of politics. I'm old enough to remember when I started out in national political campaigns and political media, it was at the height of the Tea party movement. There was a lot to recommend the Tea Party.

There was also this notion, especially once the Beltway crowd got a hold of it, that the Tea party just came down to let me keep more of my money. And that's it.

The grassroots of the Tea party movement was about more than that, but the Beltway version, it said, just let me keep my money. Get the government out of everything. I don't want to do anything. Government shouldn't be productive. Government shouldn't have ambitions. Just, you know, get out of my life.

Nah, nah, man.

Maximizing individual autonomy is not the be all and end all of politics. It's not even that persuasive a political movement. And I remember even thinking back then to a year or two later, back in 2012, Newt Gingrich, when he was running for president, Newt said, I want to go back to the moon.

I want to explore more about her space. I want colonies. I want. And at the time, this seemed discordant with the just shrink the government, don't have the government do anything. Don't spend a single penny. That's extraneous.

But Newt said, no, I want a big political vision. I want something to unify America that we're working toward together. And he was prescient, actually. That's now how conservatives are speaking. And that resonates.

The right has moved beyond mere individual autonomy as an animating principle, and it has to, because political means public. This is one thing Barack Obama got right. Political is what we all do together, just by definition.

And so if you want to build a political movement, you need to give them something to hope for, to look toward. When you think about the height of western civilization, was the height of western civilization defined by just keeping lots of property to yourself and not having the political order do anything? No. The great heights of our civilization, I think of the crusades, the great heights of our civilization, I think of the exploration of the new world. 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, I think of, and which would be probably well, both of those really are good analogs for going to the moon and building things and living in caves and doing science experiments and hoping for something and looking toward the future.

I like it.

I'm not afraid of no moon bears, and I'm not afraid of the government doing something that is actually good and galvanized. Now, presently, we can't do that because we don't really even seem to have a president.

Joe Biden's brother has just gotten the Biden political apparatus in trouble because we are told time and again by Joe, by Kamala, by Corinne Jean Pierre, that Biden is not stepping down because of his health. He's stepping down, I don't know, for some other reason that they're not able to name.

But Biden's brother Frank just came out, and this was reported by CB's News, a liberal news outlet, that, yeah, of course, he's stepping down from the nomination because of his health.

Frank Biden
CB's news had a brief conversation with Frank Biden, one of President Biden's two younger brothers. And here's what he told us. I'm incredibly proud of my brother. Selfishly, I will have him back to enjoy whatever time we have left. He is a genuine hero, country over self. It sounds corny in our cynical political environment, but he nor I are cynical. The goal remains the same. Defeat Trump and continue the work that Joe has done. My hope is that our party rallies around this heroic act. We asked him whether he feels that his brother's overall health and vitality played a major role in this decision. And he says, in my humble opinion, absolutely. So a member of the president's family now confirming that the president's health was indeed a major factor in this decision.

Michael Knowles
Obviously. And so then a source close to the Biden family comes out and says, no, this is completely untrue. Frank Biden's an alcohol.

That's exactly what they said. Frank Biden suffers from alcoholism. Hasn't spoken to his brother, the president, in weeks. What he said about President Biden's health being a factor in his decision is completely untrue.

And so I forget, obviously, Biden's stepping down because he's demented. And this family, man, this family, this tells you more about the Biden political failure than just about anything.

His family's out selling his influence overseas. He denies that he's part of it. It seems like he is part of it. But even if he's not, even if he just can't control his brothers and his son, if a guy can't get his family in order. He probably can't get politics in order because family is the bedrock political unit. Look at a guy's family.

If it's falling apart, if it's fraying, if a guy's not interested in having a family, to get to a point JD made, well, okay, you know, different strokes for different folks. But that, that's probably not the guy to lead your country.

It's probably not the man or woman to lead your country. After more than two years, daily wire backstage live is making its triumphant return to the legendary Ryman auditorium August 14. Join us live in our hometown of Nashville, Tennessee. One night, one iconic stage, one incredible opportunity to witness DW history in the making. I will be there, which should be enough.

But, you know, if you want a little extra zest, you also get Ben Shapiro, Mount Walsh, and Jeremy boring. A whole lineup of surprise guests. Trust me, you do not want to miss this. Now here's the catch. The Ryman only holds about 2000 people, so this will sell out. Been two years since our last backstage live at the Ryman. Who knows when we'll do it again? Go to dailywire.com ryman. Get your tickets now.

Finally, finally, I've arrived at my favorite time of the week. When I get to hear from you in the mailbag. Our mailbag is sponsored by Puretalk. Go to puretalk.com knowles, Canada. Wlas today, switch to a qualifying plan and get one year free of daily wire plus insider. Take it away.

Caller
Hey, Michael.

Since pretty much everyone at the Daily Wire has published a book, I had a quick question. I'm currently writing a book and I wanted to know where would be a good, conservative, friendly place to publish it. It is a fiction. If that information is important for that, God bless you in the daily wire. Thank you for all you do.

Michael Knowles
Great question.

If I were in your shoes, I would self publish it.

You could. If you want to try it out first, you could send it to an agent.

And maybe an agent reads it, probably not. And then if you do land an agent, he can send it out to a publisher. And maybe the publisher reads it. Probably not. And then you can go the traditional publishing route, even as the traditional publishing industry falls apart. You can do that. You could give it a shot.

But what I would recommend, if it were me. Look, we're at the bitcoin conference. This is the height of decentralization.

Cut through the middleman. Do it yourself.

I would recommend self publishing and then getting any of your friends with a social media following to plug it. You'd have to one, make sure it's edited impeccably. There's a higher bar for self published books than traditionally published books, and you have to make sure the COVID art is extremely well done.

There's even a higher bar for that, probably in self published than traditionally published. But I would not waste all your time trying to go to the traditional route. I once asked drew if he reads unsolicited manuscripts, and he said, michael, if my mother, on her deathbed, begged me to read her screenplay, I would maybe consider it.

So that's what I would do. I mean, the fact that, look, I got my publishing deal by self publishing my first book, my fake book, the Blank one reasons to vote for democrats, was initially self published, and then it did very well, and then Simon Schuster bought it, and then I got a book deal from regnery. But otherwise, you know, there are a handful of publishers that might. But they're probably only going to not only look at established authors, they're just going to look at people who have big social media followings because they just are doing. They're trying desperately to sell books in an industry that's largely dying. Okay, next question on that. Happy night.

Karine Jean-Pierre
Long time listener, first time caller. Never been able to be in the chat due to work.

I had one question for you. How is it that the pope can be infallible if the very first pope, Peter, was rebuked by the apostle Paul due to his hypocrisy when it came to recoiling at the dining with gentiles, when he was already shown by the Lord that nothing can be unclean that the Lord has made clean. Thank you and God bless.

Michael Knowles
Great question. This is very often raised as a refutation of papal infallibility, but it's very easily answered, which is, well, you said it yourself, why does Paul rebuke Peter?

Does Paul rebuke Peter because of a definitive teaching on faith in walls?

No, he rebukes Peter for his hypocritical behavior, so he rebukes Peter for doing something wrong. But papal infallibility doesn't say, the pope can't do anything wrong. We're all sinners and we all sin frequently.

Papal infallibility, which is largely misunderstood, simply says that the pope speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra, definitively on matters of faith and morals.

So Paul's rebuke of him doesn't come anywhere close to that category.

And furthermore, people who have a problem with papal infallibility, I think they almost have a problem with the phrase, because we know that we're human beings and we're fallible because we. Usually because we do bad things, but we also think wrong things. Sometimes that's true.

I think an easier way to think of it is that papal infallibility answers a necessary question, which is where does the buck stop?

It answers the question of where does authority lie?

And that question must be answered. The authority must lie somewhere.

So if you say, you know, when there are disagreements between churches, as we see going all the way back to antiquity, disagreements between the church at Athens and the church at Alexandria, they're going to appeal to someone, the pope, to settle that dispute. So when there are disagreements between priests, you go to your bishop. When there are disagreements among bishops, you go to the a cardinal. When there are disagreements between the cardinals, you go to the pope. But someone's got to settle the dispute if the church is going to maintain its four marks, which are to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which we read in the creed. So I guess I would flip the question and say, if you don't believe in papal infallibility, and trust me, I'm the first one to tell you, we've had plenty of bad popes, questionable popes or popes who have done very bad things.

If you don't believe in papal infallibility, though, then who settles the dispute when there's disagreement? How do you resolve that?

Probably what many of my protestant friends would say is, well, you just resolve it by turning to the word of God. Okay, well, what happens when people have different interpretive principles and they interpret the word of God differently? They interpret scripture differently, as happens all the time. Well, you know, I'll just be guided by the Holy Spirit in my interpretation of it. Okay, well, the other guy says that he's guided by the Holy Spirit. So how do I know which one of you is right? I often. What it comes down to, people will say is, well, I just know that I'm right because I feel the spirit or something. Okay, so then what you're asserting is not merely a rejection of papal infallibility, what you're asserting is a kind of individual infallibility, a self turned infallibility.

But I don't really buy that. You know, I don't think in matters of disagreement that I am necessarily right.

So the question is just where does authority lie? This was a point driven home by John Henry Newman, who was an anglican theologian, quite anti Catholic. But I will point out he did convert and he became a catholic cardinal and then a saint. Okay, next question.

Karine Jean-Pierre
Hi, Michael. Thank you for your show.

One of the things I'm really thinking about specifically after yesterday's hearing with Netanyahu is why the comparisons are not being made between the destruction of the protesters yesterday in January.

Seems to me that there was at least a comparable amount of destruction that happened, and it doesn't seem like that gets pointed out. What are your thoughts?

Michael Knowles
Sure, in a world that made sense or the world does make sense, but in a world in which the liberals made sense, then yes, that would persuade them. But it's not going to persuade them.

The left has attacked the Capitol, the actual capital, not just engaged in political violence. The left has attacked the Capitol and blown up rooms in the Capitol and shot members of Congress and performed acts of terrorism there many times over the years. The January 6 attack on the Capitol probably doesn't rank within the top dozen attacks on the Capitol in american history, the majority of which have been committed by leftists. So you can argue that until you're blue in the face, the libs don't care I the attack on the capital per se. They don't care about the undermining of our democracy per se.

They hate democracy when democracy elects conservatives, they hate it when it elects orban in Hungary and Maloney in Italy and so on.

They just care about winning. They care when the conservatives are doing something bad, when BLM burns the country down, when antifa goes and attacks right wingers on campus, they don't really care. So we would do better to redirect our rhetorical efforts and the air in our lungs toward things that we can actually persuade people on. Kamala Harris was in charge of the border. The border is a big issue, and she totally failed Joe Biden. Well, we already convinced them that Joe Biden is senile, and so there was pressure to get Biden out of the race.

Donald Trump is not what the Libs have told us he is. He's actually a good guy. Things were a lot better when he was the president and he should be reelected. That's what we got to focus on. If we try to play this tit for tat game to prove to the Democrats that they're hypocritical, they're not going to care. It's going to be wasted breath. Next question.

Hey, Michael, love the show. I'm calling in to ask your thoughts on Kamala's chances of winning. Part of me believes that she couldn't possibly win against Trump. But then again, the Libs played dirty in 2020. Do you think she has a chance? If so, what would America look like under her presidency. Love to hear your thoughts.

Yes, Kamala has a chance. I would still put a modest amount of money. If anyone gives me some bitcoin here today, I guess I'd put a modest amount of bitcoin on Trump winning. It looks pretty good. I think the polls look good. There are all these doom and gloomers on the right because the conservatives love nothing more than to just be miserable and complain all the time. But I actually think that Trump looks good right now in the polls, and I think she's a weak candidate. I think the reason why people like Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom aren't begging to be her running mate is because they don't want to burn their political careers on what they view as a sinking ship. So I think is why the Obamas took a while to endorse Kamala. She's a weak candidate for sure. Could she win? Certainly if the Dems do a better job of ballot harvesting, which they very well could, depending on who Kamala picks as a running mate. Maybe if the Democrats do a good job at memory holding the attempted assassination of Trump for all of those reasons, they potentially could, you know, push Kamala across the finish line. And so what would a Kamala administration?

It would look considerably more left wing than Biden's. Don't forget, Kamala was, the Democrats are trying to memory hold this now, too. Kamala was the most left wing member of the US Senate while she was there to the left of Bernie Sanders. She is particularly left wing on issues like abortion. She prosecuted a friend of mine, a pro life hero, David Daleida, because he's so good at exposing the evils of the abortion industry. So, you know, she's hardcore on. She also supports Medicare for all, socialized medicine, you know, all the, she also was the borders are and she flooded the country with illegals. So it would look considerably to the left of Biden.

If you think the Biden administration is bad, it'll get turned up to eleven. And that's what we'd have to look forward to. Okay, on that happy note, I told you, conservatives love nothing more than to be doer and complain. I am told that there is no member block today. I was looking forward to member segmentum, but now I'm being told by Professor Jacob there is a member. So I'm being lied to in my teleprompter. Mister Davies, do you have my iPad? I'm looking off. We are doing it, baby, live at bitcoin.

The rest of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

Ep. 1539 - The Olympics Embrace the Rainbow

Primary Topic

Episode Summary

Main Takeaways

Episode Chapters

1: Introduction

2: Kamala Harris's Campaign

3: Cultural Commentary

4: Political Analysis

Actionable Advice

About This Episode

People

Companies

Books

Guest Name(s):

Content Warnings:

Transcript