All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 20, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
44:10
Ep. 203 - Truth Isn’t Truth To The Left

Rudy Giuliani says, "Truth isn't truth." Or did he? A White House aide is fired over racism accusations while the Left promotes racists, drooling Joe Kennedy defends an illegal alien wanted for murder in Mexico, Twitter amps up the censorship, and Nancy Pelosi almost melts. Finally, cut it out with exclamation points! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In an interview over the weekend, former New York City mayor and President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani suggested to NBC's Chuck Todd that truth isn't truth.
Now, the left, which increasingly denies the existence of objective truth, is clutching their pearls.
They're shocked.
They're horrified.
But we will explain what Mayor Giuliani meant and what truth means to Democrat politicians and operatives.
Spoiler alert, it doesn't mean the truth.
Then, a White House aide is fired for being a white nationalist, even though there's no evidence that he's a white nationalist.
Drooling Joe Kennedy defends an illegal alien who is wanted for murder in Mexico.
Sounds about right.
It sounds in keeping with the Kennedys.
Suspected Weeble Brian Stelter eggs on Jack Dorsey to jack up censorship on Twitter.
And the best photo on the internet will be presented on This Is America.
Finally, important life advice on a new segment that I like to call How to Be a Man When You Look Like a Mad Owl.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
We've got too much to get to today.
Way too much to get to.
So before we do any of that, look, if you're watching or listening to this show, the chances are you watch some pretty weird stuff on the internet, huh?
You watch some things that probably you wouldn't want to get out.
That's why I've got to thank ExpressVPN, because you've got to protect your data and your information on the internet.
You All of the recent news about these big tech companies selling your data, they're testifying before Congress.
Right now, if you just make an online purchase or simply access your email, you could put all of your private information at risk.
And these days, with our insane political climate, I'm only half-joking when I say your political information on the internet could really mess up your life or your reputation or your job or whatever.
You're being tracked online by social media sites, marketing companies, and your mobile or internet provider.
They don't have your best interests at heart, which is why you need to take back your privacy with ExpressVPN.
It has easy-to-use apps that run seamlessly in the background of any computer, phone, or tablet.
Turning it on takes one click.
It secures and anonymizes your internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your IP address.
You can protect yourself for less than $7 a month.
I'm telling you, don't be a cheap idiot.
$7 a month is like nothing, and the value is so great.
You should not be browsing the internet without protecting your data.
Do it with ExpressVPN.
It works wonderfully, very well, seven bucks a month.
By the way, don't say I never did nothing for you.
Get three months free at expressvpn.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, three months free with a one-year package, expressvpn.com slash Michael to learn more.
Let's get right into it.
I want to talk about truth being truth, because conservatives are getting this wrong.
The left is especially getting this wrong.
What is truth?
Is truth truth?
Mayor Giuliani, take it away.
You believe this is on them, that you guys have not delayed the interviewing, delayed the negotiations with Mr.
Mueller?
Yes, each time by three or four days so we could write a letter in response.
They have taken two to three weeks to get back to us.
So what I have to tell you is, look, I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury.
And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well, that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth.
He didn't have a conversation about...
Truth is truth.
I don't mean to go like...
No, it isn't truth.
Truth isn't truth.
The President of the United States says, I didn't...
Truth isn't truth.
Mr.
Mayor, do you realize what...
No, no, no.
This is going to become a bad meme.
Don't do this to me.
Don't do truth as a truth to me.
Donald Trump says, I didn't talk about Flynn with Comey.
Comey says, you did talk about it.
So tell me what the truth is.
Don McGahn might know.
If you're such a genius, Don McGahn doesn't know.
If that's the situation, they have two pieces of evidence.
Trump says, I didn't tell him.
And the other guy says that he did say it.
Which is the truth?
This isn't even that inarticulate.
I know that they're trying to play it that way, like, oh, crazy Giuliani, there he goes again.
This isn't even that inarticulate.
Certainly the phrase, truth isn't truth, taken out of context, is absurd.
It sounds like Pontius Pilate talking to Christ.
But that's why we need context.
What Rudy Giuliani is reacting to is Chuck Todd saying, well, it's the truth, it's the truth, it's the truth.
And what Rudy Giuliani is saying, no, man, you guys are spinning the truth.
You and the Democrats and the forces that are trying to attack President Trump.
There are two narratives here.
And the question that Rudy Giuliani is asking is, who is Mueller going to believe?
His pal James Comey or President Trump?
Where is the truth?
Who's going to get hit with the truth?
How are people going to bend the truth?
How are the mainstream media going to bend the truth?
That's what's happening.
They're trying to turn Rudy Giuliani into Pontius Pilate or some Orwellian figure.
This is absurd.
Here's how you know this is absurd.
Because the left denies objective truth.
The left denies it these days.
This is why the Daily Wire exists, is because we say that facts don't care about your feelings.
Because the left says there's no such thing as objectivity.
You had those teachers in Massachusetts just a couple of weeks ago.
They said objectivity is a dangerous weapon against social justice.
There is no objective truth.
It's all subjective.
It's all about feelings.
The right is the group that says politics has to rely on objective facts and objective reality.
And the left says, no, that's from your point of view.
That's your white privilege.
That's your invalidating our experiences.
No, it's just interest groups butting up against one another.
That is absurd.
And what Rudy Giuliani is doing is calling attention to that absurdity and that abuse of truth.
This isn't, I mean, they got him, right?
This is an example of Chuck Todd having that gotcha moment, and that's the headline that is becoming a meme, just like Chuck Todd says.
But the point that Rudy Giuliani is making is actually the opposite of that, and it's very important.
It's an important point for him to be making, because in this case, the left is not interested in the truth.
Chuck Todd says, well, when it comes to the Mueller investigation, it's just the truth, right?
It's just the truth.
Okay, if you're interested in the truth, lefties, Mueller investigation, resistance, impeachment squad, if you're interested in the truth, how come we haven't looked at that Clinton email server?
Why did Hillary Clinton wipe her entire email server?
How come we haven't looked at that DNC server?
How come Paul Manafort is indicted but Tony Podesta isn't indicted?
How come the only trial that's come out of this investigation is against Paul Manafort for alleged crimes he committed long before the Trump campaign and crimes which basically amount to buying nice suits?
How come the 2016 election isn't being brought up in the trial of Paul Manafort?
How come Donald Trump isn't being brought up?
How come Russian interference in the election isn't being brought up?
If you're so interested in truth, where are the investigations of the Democrats?
Where's Tony Podesta who worked with Paul Manafort?
But Tony Podesta is a big Democrat.
He's a big Democrat operative, so he doesn't get pulled in.
Hillary Clinton, she gets off the hook.
Hillary Clinton destroyed federal records, mishandled federal records, clearly engaged in pay-to-play, though I suppose we'll never have the proof for certain because she wiped her email server.
Where are the investigations there?
It's just the truth, right?
Isn't it just the truth?
No.
The Democrats and the left here are not interested in the truth.
They're interested in taking down Donald Trump.
Which is a great point that Rudy Giuliani is making.
He's saying, no, no, no.
The thing that you're calling the truth here, that's not the truth, which is why we have to be careful.
What Chuck Todd is trying to do is lure the Trump legal defense, lure Giuliani, lure the president into playing a game on an honest playing field when they are playing dishonestly.
They're saying, no, no, we'll treat you fairly.
No, we'll treat you fairly.
Well, we've treated you fairly so far, haven't we?
There's no evidence of that.
It's been horrifically unfair.
It's gone on and on and on.
It's extended well beyond its purview, well beyond its legitimate right to investigate, and we see no end in sight.
Why would we play fairly?
That's what he's talking about.
And there are examples of this all over the place.
Mainstream media are so complicit in this that we cannot, when they say, oh, it's just the truth, we should always be extraordinarily skeptical and not buy it for a second.
Consider this story over the weekend of this illegal alien, Joel Arona Lara.
So, Joel Arona Lara.
There was a big headline.
Every mainstream media source covered this.
Immigrations Enforcement, ICE. Arrested a man, an immigrant or a man, while he was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.
Those monsters.
They probably targeted him because his wife was pregnant.
That's probably the implication of these articles, isn't it?
I mean, everywhere.
New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, everyone writing about how ICE targets man, arrests man, while he was driving his poor pregnant wife to the hospital.
Okay, that's the headline.
By the way, they usually fail to mention that he's an illegal alien.
He's not an undocumented immigrant.
He's not a future American.
He's not a dreaming, dreamer, sleepwalker.
I guess they're sleepwalkers.
No.
He's an illegal alien who clearly committed a crime.
But that's not the best part.
The best part is he's wanted for murder in Mexico.
They've left that part out of it, didn't they?
They left that part out of their reporting.
So this guy, Joel Arona Lara, was, according to ICE, targeted and arrested because he's wanted for murder in Mexico.
Here's Joe Kennedy, Joe Kennedy III. He tweeted about this.
He said, there's heartless, and then there's whatever the hell this is.
It's heartless, right?
So you have the media put out the ostensibly true headline...
Man arrested driving wife to hospital.
That is sort of true, but it's actually a lie because it leaves out the most important information, which is that he was wanted for murder in Mexico and that he's an illegal alien who broke our laws.
So the statement on its own, out of context, that statement is true.
In context, it's an utter lie.
So the mainstream media put that headline out there, and then the Democrat politician tweets it and says, this is awful, and uses it as campaign fodder.
And this is the cycle that they use, because they're working together, because the mainstream media are the communications wing of the Democratic Party.
If you don't remember, by the way, Joe Kennedy, and he's sort of a minor figure in politics, he was the guy who gave the response to the State of the Union address last year.
Here is Joe Kennedy, just to jog your memory from that.
We're going to fight.
We're going to fight for you.
And no, we're going to leave you alone.
Vamos a lejar.
Vamos, vamos, vamos.
Not the best Spanish accent, not the best command of the language, but total pandering, right?
Total pandering to the left.
And they don't tell you that.
They don't tell you that the guy was wanted for murder, according to ICE. The wife denies the charges.
This is another headline that's going on.
The wife denies the charges that this man is wanted for murder in Mexico.
She denied the charges, by the way, in Spanish.
This was noted in a couple of the reports.
CBS News talked to her, and they said the woman in Spanish denied that her husband is a murderer.
And this is good advice to illegal aliens.
If illegal aliens want to avoid being arrested or deported or targeted for crimes that they committed in Mexico, learn English.
Learning English helps.
This is a good thing.
There's nothing racist about that.
There's nothing bigoted about that.
When you go to a country, you should know the language of that country, and you should make an effort to learn that language when you get there.
Because consider the flip side of this.
Consider how many illegal aliens there are in this country.
I don't know if this man's wife is also an illegal alien.
But consider all of the illegal aliens in this country who flout their illegality, who flout their crime, and are not arrested for it.
I was at an event in Orange County.
I went to see Ann Coulter down there.
And there was a big protest by illegal aliens.
And they had big shirts.
They said, I'm an illegal alien.
They didn't use that.
They said, I'm an undocumented future, whatever, whatever.
And there were cops around there and they didn't get arrested.
Consider that.
The mainstream media and the Democrats are trying to paint this image that America is this heartless country ripping fathers away from their pregnant wives and yada, yada, yada.
People regularly go on camera, they say, I am here illegally, I am committing a crime, I am using taxpayer resources, ha ha ha ha ha, poking American citizens in the face, and nothing happens to them.
We are so lax when it comes to our enforcement.
We are so generous.
We are so charitable.
It's only these egregious cases, really, where ICE acts.
You know, you've got a man wanted for murder...
And they act, and Democrats wring their hands and try to portray law enforcement as the bad guys, try to portray American citizens as the bad guys.
I hope they keep it up, because this is a losing issue, including among Democrats.
All of the polling shows that.
This is a losing issue, certainly among Republicans, Independents, and the majority of Democrats.
So keep it up, guys.
But that is just, you've got to pay attention to these things, which are in very narrow, out-of-context situations true, but they reveal major lies of the left and the mainstream media.
Another one is the censorship issue.
So we've been talking about this now for weeks.
Big tech is censoring conservatives.
They start out censoring the conspiracy theorist shirtless vitamin salesman.
Then they move on to people who appear on Fox News.
Then they move on to who's next.
Who is next?
They tell us that they're not censoring.
Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter, says we're not censoring people based on their content.
Here he is sitting down with suspected weeble, Ryan Stelter.
Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?
And we are not, period.
We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology.
We look at behavior.
And we use that behavior as a signal to add to relevance.
We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is more left-leaning.
And I think it's important to articulate our bias and to share it with people so that people understand us.
But we need to remove all bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement.
People have these assumptions that you're out to get them or something.
You know, I feel bad comparing Brian Stelter to Weebles Wobble, but they don't fall down.
That's not a nice thing to do.
I really mean that.
I'm sorry to do that.
But he gets me so frustrated because there is Brian Stelter pretending sanctimonious, high-minded Brian Stelter.
And he is begging Jack Dorsey to censor conservatives.
And he's denying what is right before all of our lying eyes.
He's there.
He's sitting there.
He goes, you know, people think that you're out to get them.
Can you imagine that?
Go on, Jack.
Come on.
Why would they think that?
Those rubes, those idiots.
There's another clip of Brian Stelter later on.
they're talking about the Alex Jones banning and he says, well, you know, this and that and this and that He goes, yeah, but Jones won't change his behavior, will he?
He's not going to change his behavior.
The implication being, you should ban him.
You should ban all of these people that I disagree with or whatever.
And Jack, listen to what Jack said.
It's pretty telling.
He says, we don't look at content.
We don't look at the political content of somebody.
We look at behavior.
Yeah.
The only behavior you can have on Twitter is content.
Content is behavior on Twitter, right?
You can just post things.
That's it.
Post or like things on Twitter.
What you post is the content.
So he's saying, no, we don't look at content.
We just look at content.
We don't look at content.
We just look.
And actually, he's sort of right.
They don't really look at content.
They look at people.
They look at the content broadly produced by people, which is why he defended Alex Jones.
He said, we're not going to ban Alex Jones.
He hasn't violated our terms of service.
Then for a few days, he got a ton of pressure from the left.
What did he do?
He suspended Alex Jones.
What about Gavin McGinnis?
What rule did Gavin McGinnis break?
They just don't like him.
Even if it were true, we don't look at content.
That might be true.
What's worse is that they look at people.
They just look and they say, yeah, you're a conservative, or in the case of Alex Jones, you're a vitamin salesman, we don't like you.
We're going to get rid of you.
That's what they do.
There are these very narrow truths that tell giant lies.
This brings us to this White House speechwriter.
You might have seen this over the weekend.
A White House speechwriter and policy aide, Darren Beatty, or Beatty, The reason he was fired is that he gave a speech at the Mencken Club conference in 2016.
And the media are reporting this as a white nationalist conference, and he's a white nationalist, and he's a racist, and they've got to get rid of him.
And Beattie, by the way, has said, you can read my speech.
My speech doesn't have any racism in it at all.
I stand by my words there.
I'm not a racist.
You have no evidence that I'm a racist, and I'm not going to quit.
The pressure was too great and the White House just fired him.
I would like to correct the record on this, though, a little bit because I listened and read a lot of the Mencken Club writings and speeches when I was writing a piece a couple years ago on the alternative right.
So I do know a little bit about the Mencken Club.
It's named after H.L. Mencken, the satirist, pretty good writer, slightly racist fellow, a little bit of a bigot.
But it isn't a white nationalist conference.
You couldn't really call it that.
The founder of it is a Jewish guy who attended Yeshiva University.
So it's not quite a white nationalist conference.
Though they do hold hands with those guys.
Richard Spencer has gone to this conference.
I think one year, or more than one year, he was the Master of Ceremonies.
They, you know, they also deal with people at these conferences who are, they've sort of just gone a little too far.
They've gone a little unsavory.
You know, Bill Buckley kicked them out of the National Review or something.
People like Peter Brimelow or like John Derbyshire.
People who have made off-color remarks or outright racist remarks.
And so they've been sidelined a bit.
They do go to this thing.
You also have people who haven't done that who are there.
So it's a little bit murky.
But to call it a white nationalist conference just isn't true.
I think really the unifying characteristic of all of them is there are these extraordinarily contrarian paleoconservative types.
They're just ornery.
Angry, mostly white guys.
And Derbyshire, who spoke there, who used to write for National Review, he's a mathematician, wrote a pretty racist piece on Talkies magazine.
But what unites them is their disdain for the conservative movement.
So Derbyshire complained in a speech, he said, that the conservative movement just became about tax cuts and fretting over fetuses.
So you see this kind of very angry, dismissive aspect to the Mencken Club.
Not terribly religious, very old, old right.
But again, I'm trying to be as fair as I can to them.
They do let in people like Richard Spencer, so there is that aspect to it.
But to call it a white nationalist conference is not totally fair.
That said, if I were this guy, Darren Beatty, would I speak there?
No.
I wouldn't speak there knowing what the Mencken Club is.
And now also, that said, look, even I, and I broadcast from the broom closet of the Ben Shapiro show, I get a lot of speaking invitations, and you don't really vet these things.
You just say, okay, well, I'll go to Texas, or I'll go to this, or whatever, and you don't really pay a ton of attention.
So it's perfectly possible that this guy went to this conference not knowing that Richard Spencer was going to be there, or something like that.
That said, I wouldn't have done it.
It's a little dodgy.
They hold hands with these racist types.
So that's not a great thing.
Should he have been fired for it?
I don't know.
Is he a racist?
There's no evidence of that.
Did the media misreport this?
Yes.
Okay, that's all way of prelude.
Because while we have this sort of We're good to go.
I'm trying to give a fair shake to the critics of this guy, Darren Beattie, for appearing at the Mencken Club, and also to Beattie and not say he's a racist if he isn't a racist.
I'm trying to be honest about this.
What they do is they defend out-and-out racists.
Consider Sarah Jong.
You know Sarah Jong?
She's on the editorial board of the New York Times now.
She's that Asian girl who hates white people and talks about how awful white people are and they need to go extinct.
And she says she hates white men and they need to cancel white people and all that.
The New York Times was presented with all of this.
They stood by her.
They said, she's on our editorial board.
She represents what we think.
She represents what we want.
So when all of this came to light, Sarah Jong did not have a checkmark on Twitter, which used to be verification, but now it's validation because it just basically says who Twitter approves of or likes or whatever.
whatever.
It's not really about who the person is anymore.
For instance, Richard Spencer lost his check mark.
He didn't lose it because he's no longer Richard Spencer.
He lost it because he's kind of a neo-Nazi.
So Sarah Jong tweets all these awful things.
They come to light.
So what happened?
Did Twitter ban her from Twitter?
Must have, right?
They're banning Alex Jones, banning Gavin McGinnis.
Surely they banned Sarah Jong, right?
No, they gave her a check mark.
They just gave, they said, oh, Sarah, I'm so, I can't believe, listen, we've heard you public.
We have heard you.
What Sarah tweeted, we hadn't seen that before.
And in light of those tweets, we should reward her.
Great job.
We should cancel white people.
They should all go extinct.
That is what they're saying.
That's what they're saying with this.
Out and out racists defending them.
How about Shanika Johnson?
This is one that I sort of found.
I'd like to take a little bit of credit for this.
I think it had been floating around the internet, but I got her to delete her tweets.
Shanika Johnson tweeted out, quote, This is a CBS News producer, verified checkmark on Twitter, as she's tweeted these things.
Quote...
Now the white women can't keep their hands off our men, so as they continue to make mixed babies, the white man will cease to exist.
Pow!
Lol!
Next one.
So many women, black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans in Senate and Congress now.
Middle-aged white men are slowly becoming minority.
Beautiful.
And then the third one, the one that I found today that she just deleted, and unfortunately I didn't get a screenshot.
F. White America.
F white America, but without the F. With the word instead of the F. That's what she tweeted.
She has her Twitter account.
She's verified.
She's employed by CBS News.
So you're talking about this guy, this speechwriter, who maybe shouldn't have gone to this conference because the conference plays with some unsavory people.
And okay, I totally, yeah, okay, I totally grant that.
CBS News and the New York Times are employing out and out, self-outed, showing themselves to be what they are, racists.
They're just out there.
They're right out there.
And there's no kickback for this.
I've got to hurry, but we've got so much more to get to today.
Another great example of the truth being hidden, hidden like the frosting inside a cake, is this version of Jack Phillips.
You've heard this case of Jack Phillips.
He's the baker who didn't want to cater a gay wedding.
Gay couple sued him all the way up.
It went up to the Supreme Court.
State of Colorado said, you have to do it.
Forget about your religion.
No one cares about your religion.
Goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court found that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
His rights to speech and his right to religion have been violated by this political lobby that wants him to make gay wedding cakes.
So the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, another guy calls up and he says, I want you to make a cake.
Which is blue on the inside and pink on the outside to celebrate my transition from being a man to a woman.
I guess he's a man who thinks he's a woman and he's going to take hormones and mutilate himself or something to do that.
And he wants Jack Phillips to participate in that celebration.
So Phillips says, no, I don't want to do that.
Thank you very much.
I don't specialize in those cakes and I'm not going to do it.
And of course then he's being harassed by his government again.
An obvious setup, right, of course.
And the headlines are, Jack Phillips under fire again.
God, what a bigot this guy is.
As though Jack Phillips is the only baker in the state of Colorado.
This guy, man, is there no other cake shop in these states?
I don't think it appears that way.
So how does Late Night deal with this?
He's obviously being targeted by these insane political activists on the left.
They're trying to ruin his life.
They've made him fire half his employees.
He's lost 40% at least of his income.
So how is this being played?
How is this being joked about on late night?
Jimmy Kimmel, take it away.
Court case after he refused to make a wedding cake for the same-sex couple.
Well, he's back in court because of another cake he doesn't want to bake.
Jack Phillips filed a lawsuit against the governor of Colorado, this time over a gender transition cake.
It was blue on the outside and pink in the middle, and somebody wanted to have this cake.
The Colorado Civil Rights Division says he has to bake it for them, and he doesn't want to, which is really funny because this is a guy who spends all day every day meticulously designing flowers out of icing.
His whole life is gay, okay?
I don't know if he's worried the wrong cake might bring that to life or what.
And I will add, this is Jack Phillips, the totally straight cake baker.
You would think that someone who looks like the Reba McEntire version of Colonel Sanders would be more sympathetic to gender identity issues.
He's gay.
Get it?
Do you get it?
He's gay.
Ha ha ha.
It's funny to be gay because according to Jimmy Kimmel, it's bad to be gay.
That's why it's a joke, right?
Because it's bad to be gay.
And he's gay.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That's the joke.
So this one I don't really get.
Jimmy Kimmel keeps putting his foot in his mouth on this.
He did this with Sean Hannity.
He was arguing with Sean Hannity on Twitter and he said, Hannity, you're gay.
And then all of his fans said, wait a second, it's okay to be gay.
I thought, Jimmy, you're on the left, and we on the left have been talking about how it's okay to be gay, and now you're saying it's bad to be gay.
It doesn't quite make sense.
It's such an easy joke, but it's so bizarre.
Because if Jimmy Kimmel's whole premise is that gay marriage is a wonderful thing and the state should force you to participate in gay weddings and being a man who thinks you're a woman and then you're going to make yourself look more like a woman, that's a great thing, and the state should force you to participate in those celebrations, then why would being gay be an insult?
It doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it?
But he does this all the time.
And it's so cheap.
I mean, can't this baker just do his job?
Can't he just go on with his life?
Why is the left so insistent on forcing people to do what they say?
Because that's the inherent nature of the left.
It gets down to this.
What's the truth?
Truth isn't truth.
Truth isn't truth.
When there is objective truth, when people recognize truth, when they can speak openly about truth, they don't have to coerce you into following their desires.
They don't have to coerce you into doing what they say they want to do, going along with their fantasies.
Because there's the truth and we can see the truth.
But the left doesn't believe in the truth.
The left denies objective reality.
And so all they're left with is coercion.
They're just left with, I want the world to be like this.
So we all have to go along with that.
And if you don't go along with that, I'm going to go into your business.
I'm going to...
Ruin your business, your livelihood, your reputation.
I'm going to drag you through the courts.
I'm going to drag you through legal proceedings for years and years and years.
In the case of Jack Phillips, this has been going on since 2012.
It's been going on for six years.
Because the left denies the truth.
And so they have to coerce you.
They have to force you.
What about some other truths that the left keeps talking about?
How the right is uncivil.
The right is so uncivil.
Donald Trump is uncivil.
He's unpresidential.
Because he's uncivil.
He whips up the passions.
And he is just a jerk.
And he calls for violence.
I don't know that he really does any of that.
Does he do that?
What about the Democrats?
L.C. Hastings, take it away.
But I will tell you one joke that I learned from Ari Silver, whose father is a former state legislator and is a rabbi, Barry Silver.
But Ari asked the audience the other night in Palm Beach County, he said, do you know the difference between a crisis and a catastrophe?
And no one held their hand, so Ari answered for us.
He said, a crisis is if Donald Trump That's a Democrat congressman.
Imagine, imagine if a Republican congressman had said that about Barack Obama.
A crisis is if Obama falls in the river.
A catastrophe is if anyone tries to save him.
Imagine what would happen.
Do you remember there was a rodeo clown who sort of made fun of Obama one time.
Some random rodeo clown in the middle of nowhere did that.
It was an international news story for weeks.
A Democrat congressman is saying a catastrophe would be if someone saved the president from drowning.
And they say, hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee.
That's, that's the, but the incivility of the right.
But the calls to violence, the passions, give me a break.
Yes, does Donald Trump arouse passions?
Yeah.
Is he uncivil?
Yeah.
Taken out of context and just floating in the ether, that is a true statement.
But in the context of this Democratic Party, of this left, which goes out there with billy clubs and beats up people for just trying to go see a Ben Shapiro speech or something, in that context, it's a lie.
It's a total lie because it's the left pushing the violence and laughing at the violence and joking about the violence.
Perhaps the best example of this is the New York Times editorial board.
Do I have to say goodbye to Facebook?
I do.
Devastating.
There's so much more.
And I'm going to get to Fredo Cuomo.
I'm going to show you my favorite picture on the internet all day.
And then I'm going to finally, after all this talk of incivility and lies and ignoring the truth, I'm going to call for a little R-E-S-P-I-C-T. But before...
But before we get to all that, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
You're probably already gone because they're probably censoring us.
But if not, go to dailywire.com.
If you're there, thank you very much.
You help keep the lights on.
You keep Covfefe in my cup.
You keep Ben from knocking down this door and firing me, so I appreciate that very much.
Again, none of that matters.
We've got the conversation coming up.
We're doing that tomorrow, I think, aren't we?
Mm-hmm.
It's going to be tomorrow, I believe 5.30 Eastern, 2.30 Pacific.
We'll clarify that for you though.
So you've got to subscribe now so you can ask me all the questions you want.
None of that matters.
This is what matters.
This right here, the leftist tears tumbler.
This is really...
Oh, that's really good.
It's the only way to survive these days because you've got the left questioning the truth.
You've got Rudy Giuliani joking about this on TV. He says, well, you know, when it comes to you people, the truth isn't the truth.
But let me drop a little truth on you.
Those leftist tears are salty and delicious and they're going to keep flowing.
So make sure you get your tumbler.
We'll be right back.
back, go to dailywire.com.
All right.
The left is always projecting.
We've talked about that.
And in their projection, they will say a truth, which then in context becomes a lie.
Here's a great example from the New York Times editorial board, which vicious racist Sarah Jong now sits on.
Quote, Donald Trump, the payback president.
The payback president.
Okay, all right, I'm with you.
He's a pretty tough guy.
All right, what's it say?
Quote, What fun is it being president if you can't use the tools of government to punish your critics?
The piece goes on.
There is a word for an approach to leadership that features treating the tax code, postal rates, antitrust laws, and the First Amendment as weapons to settle one's personal grudges.
And that word is not democratic.
It's Obama.
That's the word.
The word is Obama.
Obama-esque.
The Obama administration.
I cannot believe that they said this with a straight face.
Just look, what are they talking about here?
The payback president.
First of all, Barack Obama was so vindictive against his opponents that when the Supreme Court unjustly redefined marriage and found a right to intimacy or something in the Constitution, he painted the White House in rainbow lights.
Just to poke his finger in the eye of his opponents.
But how about this?
There's a word for an approach to leadership that features treating the tax code, postal rates, antitrust laws, and the First Amendments as weapons to settle one's personal grudges.
Barack Obama used the IRS to target his opponents.
He targeted Tea Party groups.
He targeted right-wing groups.
He targeted conservative-leaning organizations.
He audited them.
He held them up for years and years.
I know this.
I was a member of the groups.
I was there at the time.
He weaponized the IRS. Maybe the New York Times doesn't know about that because they didn't report on it because it was only right-wing outlets that were talking about that ridiculous scandal for which people had to resign.
I mean, there finally was enough public pressure.
How about the First Amendment?
Using the First Amendment as a weapon.
Well, Barack Obama, when the Supreme Court found that you have a First Amendment right to political speech by shutting down McCain-Feingold, Barack Obama admonished them from the State of the Union where he knew that they couldn't respond.
He admonished them.
He said, this is terrible.
And he lied about what the Supreme Court decision would do.
Probably because he doesn't know very much about the Constitution or constitutional law.
But then to weaponize the agencies, look at what they did to Dinesh D'Souza.
Dinesh D'Souza, I believe in the campaign year 2010, he gave a few, like, what was it, $20,000 or $30,000 to Wendy Long, his old college pal from Dartmouth, who was running an impossible Senate race in New York.
I was working New York campaigns at the time.
We all knew Wendy Long was going to lose.
We knew there was no chance she was going to win.
And Dinesh gave her some extra money through, I think, straw donations, right?
He exceeded the legal limit of donations to her.
This happens in every campaign.
This happens in every race.
This happens all the time on both sides of the aisle.
It is never prosecuted.
Barack Obama's administration selectively prosecuted Dinesh D'Souza.
And not only did they fine him for this, not only did they slap him on the wrist, they threw him in the slammer.
They put him in a halfway house with murderers and rapists for six months.
Insane.
Absolutely insane.
They threw him there because they weaponized the federal government to go after their political opponents.
New York Times doesn't know this.
So yes, in the short context, is Trump vindictive?
You betcha.
Is this payback for eight years of Barack Obama running roughshod over this country, over our Constitution, over our federal government, and over the bitter clingers whom he so disdained in the flyover country between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean?
Yes, it is payback, baby, and it feels good.
But in the broader context...
Donald Trump is a schoolboy compared to Barack Obama.
They won't talk about that.
Talk about weaponizing the government.
Do you remember when Obama made that joke about the Jonas Brothers?
Show that clip from the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
The Jonas Brothers are here.
They're out there somewhere.
Sasha and Malia are huge fans.
But boys don't get any ideas.
I have two words for you.
Predator drones.
You will never see it coming.
You think I'm joking?
Okay, I actually kind of like the joke.
I thought it was a pretty funny joke.
But he's joking about weaponizing the federal government.
The reason that joke lands is because he did that regularly.
He boasted in 2012, he said, I have kill lists that I approve every morning and then we kill people.
Some who perhaps should have had a trial, perhaps should have had some due process.
He's zapping them.
And, of course, he weaponized the federal government against his political opponents, too.
That's why it landed.
Okay, before we go, I know we're running out of time.
I do want to point out the most Orwellian version of this, so you can all be on your toes about it.
Previously, I've been referring to Chris as Fredo Cuomo, but I think Andrew might be...
I think they're all Fredo.
It's a family of Fredos.
You know, there's not even a Sonny.
There's certainly no Michael.
It's just all Fredos in the Cuomo family, Mario included.
Mario is no veto, let me tell you.
People say Mario Cuomo would be so ashamed of his sons.
No, he wouldn't.
Mario was a total degenerate, too.
He was the guy who pioneered, I'm pro-life, but I oppose, but I support abortion.
You say, what?
He goes, I'm personally pro-life, but I support legal abortion and killing babies.
You say, well, that doesn't make any sense, Mario.
He's the guy who pioneered that.
A family of degenerates, the Cuomos.
Anyway, so Andrew Cuomo is now accusing Donald Trump of being anti-American.
That's the phrase, anti-American.
This is Andrew Cuomo last week.
We're not going to make America great again.
It was never that great.
We have not reached greatness.
We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.
So the guy who says America is not great, we're not going to make America great again, America was never that great, that guy is accusing Donald Trump, whose entire campaign is to make America great again, and constantly extols the virtues of America, to call him anti-American.
Does it get more Orwellian than that?
That is what Orwellianism is.
So when you see the left say, oh, Giuliani, he's being Orwellian.
He's saying truth isn't truth.
Give me a break.
We could go on.
I'm running out of time, so we can't keep going on with these examples.
You could go all day showing these examples from the left.
It's so outrageous.
But they say, look, he said that.
Yeah, all shallows are clear.
In a very narrow context, Out of context, rather.
The left can say true things.
In context, they're dirty, rotten liars.
Now, this brings me to This Is America.
Very quickly, I can't help but post this.
It's the greatest image on the internet all week, in the last few weeks.
It's Nancy Pelosi holding an American flag.
Have you ever seen a person look less comfortable doing anything?
No.
She's just there like, get it away.
I'm going to melt if it burns.
It burns.
America was never that great.
I'm going to make it my desktop background.
That photo is beautiful.
I don't know why she would allow herself to be photographed with the American flag as it's radiating off of her kryptonite.
Really good.
Before we go, on a quick little segment that I would like to refer to as how to be a man when you look like a Maddow.
We have to talk about exclamation points.
We have to talk about it.
The Wall Street Journal made me think about this over the weekend because they ran this piece called the tyranny of the exclamation point is causing email and text anxiety.
When I talk to people who are serious people and serious thinkers, almost uniformly they complain about the prevalence of exclamation points.
You know this.
Every text is an exclamation point.
Every email is like 20 exclamation points.
You have to do it.
As though everyone is just, like, blowing lines of covfefe and is just constantly, well, maybe I am, okay?
I can use exclamation points.
But other people shouldn't because it's too much, man.
It's too much.
Some of the greatest writers in history have despised exclamation points.
F. Scott Fitzgerald has a good one.
He says, quote, And that is what it is.
You're cueing the audience or the recipient that you've had a joke and they should laugh.
It's like a laugh track in a sitcom.
You have to do it because the strength of your language didn't make them laugh.
Mark Twain said the same thing.
He said it's like laughing at your own humor, quote, all of which is very depressing and makes one want to renounce joking and lead a better life.
That is true.
You get all these emails.
And one thing I'll notice, too, I'm as guilty of this as anybody.
I use exclamation points in emails and I have to stop doing it and you should too.
Because when you get an email from someone who doesn't use exclamation points, you just respect them more.
Because you know that they're more serious.
They're more confident.
The use of exclamation points shows that you're not very confident in your joke or in your statement or in the relationship or whatever.
It creates anxiety.
What the Wall Street Journal is talking about is now if you get an email without an exclamation point, you think, oh, am I getting fired?
If the God King sends me an email and there aren't 15 exclamation points, then I know I'm fired.
They're finally going to kick the door in.
Ben is going to drag me out of here kicking and screaming.
This gets back to this David McCullough line, which is that to write well is to think clearly, which is why it's so hard.
If you are telling a joke or trying to convey something amusing or trying to exclaim something, trying to convey something particularly important in a particularly emphatic way, you should do it with words.
You should use your words carefully.
We don't use words very well anymore.
And so now there are misspellings.
We type in text speak and all of this.
And we make up for that with this stupid punctuation and these exclamation points.
Very unmanly.
Take it from a guy like me, okay?
I've got these horn-rimmed Rachel Maddow glasses on.
I'm not exactly a giant or an Olympian or something.
I've got to find masculinity where I can, where I can access it.
And this is one simple way that everybody can do it.
To write well is to think clearly.
Cut it out with those exclamation points.
We'll all calm down.
You know, one of the complaints about our civil society today is everyone's so worked up and frenzied all the time and, you know, crazy.
Decrease.
You don't have to get rid of them entirely.
Just bring them back.
I think one way you can use them is ha!
exclamation point.
You know what I mean?
Ha!
That's because you are laughing.
Ha!
Or if you're trying to be sarcastic, you can use an exclamation point.
But in your own earnest writing, just comment down a little.
I'm going to work to comment down on Twitter, on email.
Maybe you should too.
We'll have a more relaxed, confident society.
And we'll finally respect ourselves again.
You know, so much of it is we don't really respect ourselves and our own ideas.
So in the words of my late friend Aretha Franklin, show some R-E-S-P-I-C-T. That's right.
That's exactly right, Reverend Sharpton.
You've got to respect yourself some more.
Because, you know, the journal made me think about it a little bit, but it's really you, Reverend Sharpton.
You may realize you've got to just respect yourself.
Like in the words of Aretha Franklin.
R-E-S-P-I-C-T. Period.
Not exclamation point.
Come back tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
I'll see you soon.
▲
Export Selection