All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
49:24
Ep. 247 - Do It For Brett
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
After weeks of leftist mob violence, character assassination, chaos, and lawlessness, Election Day is finally upon us.
You might not know that if you're one of the countless conservatives who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook for posting jokes or articles or really any other silly excuse that tickles the big tech censors' fancy.
But if you are listening to this show, go out and vote.
Do it for Brett.
Do it for your country.
Do it for the California deserts that demand to be bathed in leftist tears.
If you're a conservative, a Republican, or a right-leaning independent, go vote today.
And if you're a Democrat, do not forget to go vote tomorrow.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
It's election day and you better be looking good at the polls They've got record high turnout being reported.
And the one way that I can promise you that you will look good is if you keep your hair.
We've got to thank Keeps.
We've got to thank Keeps because they can really help you.
Listen.
Take it from me.
I am not an Adonis of a man, okay?
I'm perfectly man enough to admit that.
I'm not a Hulk.
I'm not a Hercules.
One thing I've always had going for me, though, when talking to the lovely ladies of this world is that I've got a big, poofy head of hair.
Do you know that a hair loss can start when you're 25, 30, 35 years old?
You can stop that.
You can use clinically proven ways to stop that.
For just a dollar a day, or less than a dollar a day, for just five minutes.
Barely anything, but you've got to start now.
There are two clinically proven medications that help you keep your hair.
They're inexpensive, they're easy to get, and Keeps will get it to you.
It's very easy to sign up.
It takes less than five minutes.
Just answer a few questions, snap some photos.
A licensed doctor remotely reviews your information, recommends the right treatment for you, all without you ever leaving your couch.
It offers two versions of the only two, or generic versions rather, of the only two FDA-approved hair loss products out there.
You might have tried them before.
You've never gotten them this easy for this price.
$10 to $35 a month.
Anywhere from $0.33 a day to $1 a day.
And you'll get your first month free.
Quite a deal to help you keep your hair.
No reason to put this off any longer.
Stop hair loss today.
I'm telling you.
You know, when you lose your hair, a good-looking guy can really stop looking great.
So do it.
Right now, go to keeps.com slash cofefe.
C-O-V-F-E-F-E. K-E-E-P-S dot com slash cofefe.
That's a free month of treatment at K-E-E-P-S dot com slash cofefe.
C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Keeps hair today, hair tomorrow.
And then you'll be looking really good at the polls today.
I have been told from my various sources around the country that there is record high turnout.
I wake up to a call from my grandmother today in New York.
New York doesn't usually get crazy turnout because it's a one-party town.
And she says she's never seen anything like it in 50, 60 years.
Just people pouring into the polls.
Who knows which side they're for?
Some of them looked like they were shaved and had jobs and combed their hair, so we can assume that they're going for Republicans.
And then others were screeching and had purple hair and were screaming in Aramaic and Latin, so we can assume that they're voting for Democrats.
The most important thing that you've got to remember today, on Election Day, vote Republican.
I know, that doesn't sound nice.
That sounds partisan.
It's not just about ideas.
Right, you're right.
It's election day.
Election day is when we take ideas and we put them into action.
There are two parties in this country.
There are two parties.
The Republican Party, you know, it's not that it's always perfect.
It's not that it's ever perfect.
It's not that the Democrat Party is always evil or that it's the worst thing ever in the history of the world.
But there are two parties and two ideas.
Conservatives have a home in the Republican Party.
Leftists have a home in the Democrat Party.
The parties have become more polarized in recent years.
This is largely a good thing.
A major complaint in the 1930s and 40s among political scientists was that the parties were indistinguishable.
You couldn't tell which party was which.
Now you can.
If you support any basic issue, if you support law and order, you vote for Republicans.
If you support open borders and undermining immigration law, you vote for Democrats.
If you support jobs, you vote for Republicans.
If you support mobs, you vote for Democrats, as the president has driven home.
If you support our American flag, if you support the symbol of our country, You vote for Republicans.
If you protest our American flag, if you don't like our American flag, if you don't like our country, which that flag symbolizes, you vote for Democrats.
If you want freedom, you vote for Republicans.
If you want socialist slavery taking over the health care system, you vote for Democrats.
It's just that simple.
We like to speak in ideas, in philosophy, in ideologies, and okay, that's Very nice.
It's very nice to speak about ideas purely.
We can bandy about ideas all day long, but in a representative democracy where you can participate in your government, those ideas need to collapse into real actions, real behaviors, real institutions, real political parties, real candidates.
And that happens on a day called Election Day.
When you go and you vote, that's what you should do.
And I have a strategy.
If there are no Republicans to vote for, look, I live in California.
I live in la-la land where, you know, it's only Democrats or Communists or Democratic Communists.
I think those are the three options we have out here.
So for certain races, they don't even have a Republican or an Independent running.
They've only got a Democrat and a Socialist.
In that case, right in Brett Kavanaugh.
That's what you need to do.
That's what I did.
We're going to see.
If there's a wave in California, if there's a Kavanaugh wave, then Brett is going to have to step down from the Supreme Court and become the dog walker in Pasadena or something like that.
Because I think you've got to send a message.
Go out there.
Don't give them an inch.
We are winning.
You should not back off when we're winning.
We'll see what happens.
Historically speaking, Democrats should take the House tonight and should take it by a lot.
But my gut tells me that might not happen.
The reason I bring Kavanaugh up, the reason that I write in Brett Kavanaugh, and why I say you should write in Brett Kavanaugh when there's not a candidate that you want to vote for, is that the Kavanaugh experience, the Kavanaugh nomination process...
It tells you every reason why you've got to vote for Republicans right now.
Because the Democrats are lawless.
There were lynch mobs going after this guy trying to ruin his career, undermine the constitutional order, undermine a duly elected president's right to appoint his own judges.
And just this weekend, Chuck Grassley from the Senate Judiciary Committee released the findings of an investigation into all of those accusers.
And it's about 400 pages long, a little more than that.
If you didn't read it, I can sum it up for you.
All the accusations were bunk.
That's basically what you need to know about it.
We'll get into detail a little bit, but that's what you need to know.
Bunk.
Thorough bunk.
Conspiracies from Democrats, from the left, from left-wing law firms.
People are now being recommended for criminal investigations because of their participation in the disgusting slander of Brett Kavanaugh.
That's what's on the stake.
That's what's on the ballot.
The people who did that smear against Brett Kavanaugh, they're the ones running for office as Democrats right now.
You can either vote for them or you can vote against them.
So there's a new poll out from Harvard which shows that the majority of men and women think that Democrats did not actually care about women during the Kavanaugh smear campaign.
We knew this to be true.
I knew that.
I knew Democrats don't care about Christine Ford or Julie Swetnick or whatever happened in a broom closet in 1982.
I... Of course, I think we all knew that.
But what this poll shows is that it's the majority of both American men and women.
What the Democrats thought was that if they went after Kavanaugh in that way, if they accused him of sex crimes in the early 80s, then even if they didn't gain any votes among men, they would gain some votes among women.
Actually, the opposite happened.
And this is not a Republican-Democrat thing.
This is not a left-right thing.
the majority of Americans, men and women, believe that the Democrats were exploiting these women, acting politically, acting cynically, that they didn't really care about these women.
So a big takeaway from this Grassley report, no evidence to substantiate any of the claims made against Kavanaugh.
There is no evidence, any of the claims that That means Christine Ford.
Any version of the story that she presented that in 82 or 83 or 84, either two or three or four guys attacked her in a room that was next to her house or 20 minutes away from her house.
And she was afraid of spaces and then not afraid of closed spaces and then afraid to fly and then not afraid to fly.
Any of the stories, whichever one you choose to believe, put it on a dartboard, throw a dart at it.
There is no evidence to substantiate those claims.
No evidence to substantiate the claims that Brett Kavanaugh whipped it out at a party freshman year at Yale.
That was another one, Debbie Ramirez's allegation.
No evidence that Julie Swetnick or Michael Avenatti had a credible accusation against Brett Kavanaugh from other parties around Georgetown Prep.
No evidence about any of it.
So the Grassley report also shows the changing storyline that Christine Ford had.
The storyline changed constantly.
We knew that.
People who were paying attention knew that.
I think people on the left, people who didn't want an originalist judge on the court, tried to pretend that the storyline wasn't changing, but it did.
A key aspect of this, though, is that in her testimony, Christine Ford said that because of the alleged attack in 82 or 84, whenever it was, she struggled academically.
She struggled academically for four to six years afterward, had trouble socializing, didn't have a lot of friends, couldn't go to parties, couldn't get her work done in college.
This has been contradicted by people who knew her in high school and college.
One, there's no evidence that she struggled at all afterward in high school.
None whatsoever.
So then she makes the claim about college.
There was a classmate of hers who said that she had a lot of friends in college, that she frequently went to parties, that she frequently went to frat parties, that she wasn't afraid of closed spaces, that she wasn't afraid of drinking or chugging beers with the bros or whatever they did in college, that she was doing all of that, and that she wasn't afraid to be in a room with boys.
Now, do we believe this guy who's saying that he saw her do all these things during her freshman and sophomore year of college?
I don't know.
I have just as much a reason to believe him as I have a reason to believe Christine Ford.
Another thing that came out of the Grassley Report.
Two boys say that they may have, I mean now they're grown men, at the time they were boys, said that they may have been the person that Christine Ford was talking about and not Brett Kavanaugh.
So they don't describe what she described, but they describe events that could be similar and could be interpreted that way.
One of them said that a kiss happened Now, an important distinction here is that, according to this friend, she initiated the kiss.
But a lot of similar details here.
The friend jumping on the bed, the swimsuit, the party.
Does this mean that Christine Ford is lying?
Not necessarily.
She could just get it mixed up.
People mix up their memories all the time, especially when they're drinking, especially 30 years after the fact.
Another guy says that it could have been him that she was talking about.
That he made out with a girl that he thinks could have been Christine Ford at a party around the same time, around the same place, and both of these guys apparently look like Brett Kavanaugh.
Okay, that's fine.
The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Christine Ford's attorney to respond to this.
No response.
No response at all.
Because Christine Ford said she wouldn't pursue the accusations any further.
Because why would she?
Why would they pursue?
This was always about preventing an originalist judge from getting on the court.
And now that he got on the court, okay, we don't want any more attention on this.
There's some inconsistencies being pointed out in our story, so we're going to back off a little bit.
Another finding from this report.
The media reported that Leland Kaiser, that was the lifelong, longtime best friend, or close friend rather, of Christine Ford, that she said she'd never met Brett Kavanaugh.
According to media reports, Leland Kaiser then said she felt pressure from Christine Ford and her attorneys to change her story.
To not refute Christine Ford, even though she did refute Christine Ford because she said that she never met Brett Kavanaugh.
Another aspect of this we heard famously in all of this that Brett Kavanaugh likes beer and he still likes beer.
And do you like beer, Senator?
Sometimes you drink too much.
Okay.
So we know that he likes beer, but Christine Ford kept saying, I had one beer at the party and I will just tell you something.
As a guy who's been to a couple parties, you know, went to college, whenever somebody says, I had one beer, they had more than one beer.
That's what it means.
If you look up I had one beer in the dictionary, it means I had a lot of beer.
Well, what are you talking about, officer?
I just had one beer.
What seems to be the officer problem?
They definitely had more than one beer.
And so friends of Christine Ford said that she would go to these parties a lot and drink.
I'm not knocking her for it.
A lot of people do that in college and high school.
And at the time, I think the drinking age was 18, or it had just been changed.
So just pointing out an apparent inconsistency.
One of the accusations against Kavanaugh is that he whipped it out at a party in college his freshman year.
It turns out that there was another notorious flasher at Yale at the time that Kavanaugh was there.
This is according to classmates who were there at the time.
There was this notorious flasher.
Who was not Brett Kavanaugh?
And as the classmate said, if it were Brett Kavanaugh, trust me, we would have known.
The word would have gotten around, but it was not him.
And I think I pointed this out at the time when we were talking about Kavanaugh that Yale is a very naked school.
There's a lot of streaking and things like this.
It's a very naked place.
I don't know what to tell you.
But it appears that this was not Brett Kavanaugh by the best evidence that we have at our disposal.
So then this brings us to Michael Avenatti, Basta Basta, the former future president, former future Democrat nominee for president, Michael Avenatti.
His client, Julie Swetnick, apparently, this is the weirdest one of all, So there's good evidence now that Swetnick and Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements.
She's the one who said that Kavanaugh would host gang rape parties, and she saw him gang rape girls all the time, and for some reason she kept going to these parties.
That part was never explained.
Why don't you tell somebody?
Why don't you call the cops?
No, I just kept going.
I figured they'd get better after the 6th or 7th gang rape party that Brett Kavanaugh hosted.
So they're now being investigated for criminally conspiring to make materially false statements.
Julie Swetnick Michael Avenatti's client, apparently, according to this report, has a long history of making sexual harassment, legal threats, lawsuits, claims.
And during those threats and lawsuits and accusations, was represented by Deborah Katz, the same lawyer who represented Christine Ford, who was recommended to Ford by Dianne Feinstein.
Is this starting to smell to anybody?
It doesn't smell very good, does it?
That's quite a coincidence, isn't it?
Quite a coincidence.
And then finally, there was a claim by an ex-boyfriend of Christine Ford that Christine Ford coached a friend of hers on how to take a polygraph test and beat it.
That friend was a former FBI agent, Monica McLean.
The Ford team denied it.
Apparently now, Monica McLean is being investigated for this claim.
They might have changed some statements.
They might be backing off that denial.
So, it's entirely possible that this ex-boyfriend is right that Christine Ford did coach Monica McLean on how to beat a polygraph test.
Which means that she perjured herself before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she said she never coached anybody on how to beat a polygraph test.
She might seem to know a lot about polygraph tests, which makes her volunteering to take a polygraph all that more suspect.
Add this to all of the contradictions in her testimony.
She said she had to tell her whole life story.
The polygraph test took forever.
The polygraph test in reality was two questions.
She volunteered to do it.
She said she's afraid of flying.
She flies all over God's green earth.
She said that she got a second door on the front of her house because she was so afraid of being in enclosed spaces from this assault.
She got the second door on the house years ago.
Before the issue of a sexual assault ever came up.
She said it came up in 2012 when she talked about it to her marriage therapist.
Actually, they put in the request to build the door four years earlier so that she could have a separate office and so that they could rent out the room to Google interns and college interns.
It all adds up to no credibility whatsoever.
And this is why you've got to do it for Brett today.
You've got to go out on election day for Brett.
Because all of this stuff was treated as though it were gospel truth.
This woman of unimpeachable integrity, how dare you point out that her story doesn't add up?
How dare you point out the contradictions?
How dare you question Michael Avenatti or Julie Swetnick or any of these other people?
He has been slandered as a rapist, Brett Kavanaugh.
His family has been destroyed.
He's been dragged through the mud.
All for what?
To protect the sacrament of abortion.
The left's sacrament of abortion.
To protect Roe vs.
Wade.
That's what it's all about.
And it's so dirty how they played.
And they're so full of it that I really hope that we see conservative voters, reasonable, independent voters, go out there and say, no more.
This is too much.
It's too despicable.
We're not going to let this happen.
Because if they are rewarded for this kind of behavior, you're only going to see more of it.
So you may have noticed that I'm back on Twitter.
Before I explain to you how I got back on Twitter, let me tell you about software advice.
Software advice is when you're dealing with a real head-scratcher, you should have your go-to person to call.
This is a no-brainer, and it's why I've got to tell you about it.
Software advice, when you're working for a small business or a startup or you're starting one yourself, you need a lot of software just to get the business off the ground.
And you probably don't exactly know what you should be looking for.
It can be extremely costly if you make a mistake.
It obviously wastes your time.
It wastes a lot of your employees' time, and that's time that you don't have when you're starting a company.
Right now, get your own advisors that will point you in the right direction, get you working more efficiently.
Right away, go to softwareadvice.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. How much does it cost?
It's absolutely free.
Don't say I never did nothing for you.
You'll be connected with an advisor to discuss the best software options for your need.
It takes just 10 minutes or less.
If you're a medical professional, construction manager, HR pro, you name it, software advice will save you time and help you make a more informed decision.
If you're an entrepreneur or work solo, software advice is a great way to get an expert opinion Even without the resources of a big company.
Go to softwareadvice.com slash Knowles to get started.
End the software struggle today.
Softwareadvice.com slash Knowles.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Connect to an advisor for free.
Softwareadvice.com slash Knowles.
I'm back on Twitter.
Well, technically, maybe I'm not back on Twitter.
If you're following me on Twitter at Michael J. Knowles, you'll see that my new name on Twitter is definitely not Michael Knowles.
Because I'm afraid I know that they're going to kick me off again eventually.
The way that I got back on Twitter is...
You know, I was kicked off basically because Donald Jr.
retweeted a criticism that I had made of CNN. And it was so widely shared that they kicked me off.
And they used as an excuse a joke I made about the election.
In which I said Democrats should vote on Wednesday.
And so they said...
They removed the post immediately.
And then they...
When I tried to log into Twitter, they had this screen, and it said, you can appeal your suspension, or you can remove the post and waive your right to an appeal.
So I said, okay, I'm going to appeal it.
Because actually, in my post, I said, make sure you vote in this poll on whether Twitter should kick off conservatives for joking.
So it wasn't even the joke that they thought it was.
It was actually a punchline about Twitter censoring conservatives.
So I said, I'm going to appeal that.
So I appealed my suspension.
Guess what I heard back from them?
I'll give you nothing.
I heard nothing back and they wouldn't respond.
And so it's an indefinite Twitter suspension that I had and I really didn't want to be off for election night.
So they'd already removed the post and what they want you to do is waive your right to an appeal.
I'm not getting an appeal anyway.
So I clicked it and they reinstated me right away.
But I've talked to a lot of my friends.
Owen Benjamin was here yesterday.
It's only a matter of time.
Eventually, they will kick me off.
This is why I vigorously defended Alex Jones when he was kicked off of Twitter.
Not because I watched the Alex Jones show.
He might be conspiratorial.
He might be a shirtless vitamin salesman.
He might think that the freaking frogs are gay.
I don't know.
But they kicked Alex Jones off to establish the principle to kick off Gavin McGinnis.
Or on Benjamin.
They got to kick off Alex Jones because he's a conspiracy theorist.
Then they got to kick off Gavin and Owen and other people because they're comedians.
So they push things too far.
They say things that are outrageous.
They say things that are offensive.
That's their job.
They're comedians.
So they kick them off.
And we say, well, they said an offensive thing.
They shouldn't have done that.
Then they kick those guys off to kick me off.
That's why.
To kick me off.
And how are they going to get away with kicking me off?
Well, because I don't have the single fastest growing conservative podcast in the country.
Probably got like, you know, it's top three maybe, but it's not the fastest growing, I'm sorry to say.
And so they can kick off people who don't have a million followers.
Let's say they have 100,000 followers or 80,000 followers or whatever.
They can kick you and then they just bring it all the way up.
And they're going to start heating it up.
And by the way, since I got kicked off of Twitter, I've heard from a lot of people who don't have check marks, who don't have...
50,000 followers who have been kicked off for nothing.
And you see the post that they were suspended for.
It has nothing to do with anything.
It has nothing to do with the election.
And they say you're suspended for three days, seven days, ten days.
They're coming for you.
They came for Jones.
We said nothing.
They came for Gavin.
We said nothing.
They came for me.
I'm definitely not Michael Knowles now.
I've got a mustache on Twitter.
Some people said nothing.
Some people raised a ruckus.
They're going to march on and they're going to keep censoring conservatives.
And the American people know this, by the way.
There is a Pew study out that shows that 72% of Americans believe that social media censors people based on their political views.
72%.
That's not just conservatives.
That's not just Republicans.
That's the vast majority of people.
Project Veritas, James O'Keefe's organization, showed that Twitter was shadow banning conservatives in just January of this year.
A few other examples.
Google.
When you Google the California Republican Party, I think they've fixed it now.
But when you Googled it, it used to list their ideology as Nazism.
It was just a mistake, though, I'm sure.
It was probably just a mistake.
Who can, you know, just a whoopsie-daisy.
Same thing with Google.
When you would Google a North Carolina state senator, a Republican state senator, the first photo that would come up called her a bigot.
Just a bigot right across it.
And we've seen all of the bans.
So they suspended me for not even telling the joke that they thought I was telling.
They suspended James Woods for making a joke.
They suspended Owen, Gavin, all of these other people.
But on Facebook, it's not just...
Twitter conservative commentators.
It's not just people who have talk shows or political podcasts or whatever.
On Facebook, they banned major Catholic pages.
So now we're moving outside the realm of just American conservatism.
There was one called Jesus and Mary, 1.7 million followers on Facebook.
Kicked off.
Catholic and Proud had 6 million followers on Facebook.
Kicked off.
There's a lot of overlap between Catholicism and conservative thought.
There's a lot of overlap between the Christian internet and conservative internet.
I think they might have reinstated one or both of those pages, but they kicked them off for a while.
Conservative activist Grace Johnston, who's known as Activist Mommy on social media, she criticized Teen Vogue for encouraging its readers, young teenagers, For encouraging them to have very creative sex in places that you shouldn't have sex.
And, you know, it's a family show.
I don't want to get too into detail here.
For talking about things that 12-year-olds shouldn't be talking about, 13-year-olds shouldn't be talking about.
She criticized Teen Vogue.
She was then kicked off of social media.
Marsha Blackburn running in Tennessee.
She ran a pro-life ad on Twitter.
Twitter said no.
Deleted the ad.
Nixed the ad.
Kicked it off.
Facebook now censored Alveda King.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece censored her for running an ad for a pro-life movie that she was involved in.
A movie about Roe vs.
Wade.
Alveda King.
That's not Gavin McGinnis.
That's not Alex Jones.
That's Martin Luther King's niece, who's a pro-life activist.
Prager University, obviously, is suing Google.
They've been kicked off of Facebook for periods of time, had their videos censored because they talked about such controversial, outrageous topics as the Ten Commandments.
On YouTube, they had a series on the Ten Commandments censored.
You couldn't see it at universities or at high schools.
So, just remember, you'll see this on social media today, on Facebook and on Twitter.
The big headlines, big headers, it says, get out and vote!
Don't forget to vote!
Here's your polling place!
Go register!
They're not talking to you.
They're not, trust me, they're not talking to you.
They're talking to left-wingers that they want to go and get out to vote, but they don't want you to get out and vote.
In fact, they don't even want you on their platforms.
That's how you know that they're not talking to you, is they're censoring you and they're kicking you off right around an election.
And they're deleting your Facebook pages and they're deleting your communities on there.
So when they have these big campaigns, get out and vote, go to your polling place.
The question that this raises is, is this election interference?
If they are providing material support to get Democrat voters out there and vote, and if they are providing material support to kicking conservatives off of the platform, blocking them from seeing those resources, blocking them from getting their message out, is that election interference?
There was a report that came in today that the DCCC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has been pestering Twitter to delete conservative accounts and that Twitter has obliged.
I'm not sure if this is true.
I wish that I could get more verification before I report that, but Twitter never gives us verification on anything, because this is the central problem of social media, is these big tech companies are totally opaque.
They have no transparency at all.
So are they providing material support to Democrats?
Are they providing in-kind contributions to Democrats?
Are they interfering in the election?
And this is a question that should involve the FEC, because if they're giving support to Democrats and they're hurting Republicans in elections, they should have major election lawsuits filed against them, and they should be regulated as political entities or as political publishers or whatever, but not as open platforms.
That is how the social media treat the GOP. How do the mainstream media treat the GOP? This is a little gift.
This was a Christmas comes early election day gift came in.
There's a guy named John James.
He's running for Senate.
And a reporter left.
He's a Republican.
A reporter left him a A voicemail to try to get an interview with John James.
And she thought that she had hung up her phone once she finished the voicemail.
She hadn't, so the James campaign still had the rest of this.
And she starts to give her opinion to her colleague in the room while she thinks that the Republican is not listening.
Here's the voicemail.
Hi, my name is Brenda Battle.
I am a reporter with the Huron Daily Tribune in Bad Axe, Michigan.
Looking to set up an appointment with Mr.
James for some time on Wednesday for a phone interview regarding the election results.
If you'd like to call me back, my number is 989.
Thank you.
Man, if he beats her.
Jesus.
Jesus.
F*** John James.
Phew.
That would suck.
F'n John James.
That would suck.
I don't think it's going to happen.
Almost comical.
Like theatrical.
Like she's on stage.
It's overwritten.
If you had handed that screenplay in in Hollywood, they'd say it's a little overwritten.
It's a little overwrought.
I don't know about that.
But that is what you're dealing with.
Nobody should be surprised by that.
That's what reporters are.
That's what journalists are.
So-called journalists.
I don't mean to smear all of them.
There are a handful of good journalists, but not very many in this day and age.
Most of them are political operatives for Democrats who despise the Republicans that they're covering and seek to undermine them every chance they get.
We've got a lot more to get to, including the final argument moving into I'm amazed you haven't been kicked off.
If you're on Daily Wire, thank you.
You help keep the lights on in our Tora Bora cave over here.
You keep Covfefe and Mike up.
Tune in tonight.
We are going to be live starting at 5 p.m.
Pacific, 8 p.m.
Eastern for the Daily Wire backstage election special.
God King Jeremy Boring, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Elisha Krause, and little old me will be covering all the latest election news as it happens.
We will even be getting Twitter updates from our own Cassie Dillon and for some reason Colton Haas.
I couldn't exactly tell you why.
No, it should be very good.
We're very happy to have Cassie and Colton both on in Alicia's Corner to give us election updates.
You're not going to want to miss it.
As always, only Daily Wire subscribers get to ask the questions.
So make sure to subscribe today.
Also, you know, it's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me, The Andrew Claven Show, The Ben Shapiro Show.
You get Another Kingdom early and you get to watch the whole thing.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
You get conversation.
You get a ton of stuff now, actually.
But...
This is what you get.
The Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Now, I'm aware that some watching and listening to this right now are watching and listening before the midterm elections.
Some are listening after the midterm elections.
I call this Schrodinger's Tumblr.
Because it could simultaneously be completely filled or completely empty.
It is both at the same time right now as we are wondering what way, which way the election is turning.
Get your Schrodinger's Tumblr immediately so that you can either bathe yourself in leftist tears or fill it up with your own tears, depending on how the midterms go.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back.
So that's how the media treat Republicans.
F'n John James.
If he wins, that'll suck.
That's how they treat Republicans.
How do they treat Democrats?
Jorge Ramos talking to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Take it away.
Medicare for all.
Is it too expensive?
No.
No.
People often say, like, how are you going to pay for it?
And I find the question so puzzling because how do you pay for something that's more affordable?
How do you pay for cheaper rent?
How do you pay for it?
You just pay for it.
We're paying more now.
So it's not that we're saying this whole system is free.
It's saying it is free of cost at the point of service.
So that means that you're not delaying going to the dentist because you don't have the cash at the point of service.
What?
What was any of that?
So to begin, she said one thing which is true, which is that she finds the question puzzling.
That is true.
I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez finds many questions puzzling, including this one.
Then she says a bunch of things that aren't true and or are irrelevant.
So she said that we're paying more now.
We're paying more now.
For healthcare.
That isn't true.
Right now, the federal government pays about $1.5 trillion per year for healthcare.
Her proposal, Medicare for All, at the lowest end for socialist healthcare, will cost $3.2 trillion per year.
That's more than double that.
We would have to double, at least double, actually more than double, annual tax receipts to the federal government to pay for her program.
We're not paying more now.
We're paying less than half now.
We're paying way, way, way less now.
And we have way more freedom in our health care choices.
Under her plan, that will go away.
The problem, by the way, she says the problem is that people don't have money to pay at the point of receiving the service.
At this point, she is just babbling.
That has nothing to do with what she's talking about.
It has nothing to do with the role of the government in healthcare.
It has nothing to do with premiums increasing or decreasing.
We were told with Obamacare that because the government was taking over more of the healthcare system, premiums would decrease.
They didn't decrease.
They dramatically increased.
She's just spouting words.
And it's a trick that Democrats do, which especially her, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, living blissfully and blithely in ignorance, which is that she says things.
With total confidence.
Other than that time, she said she's not the expert.
When she gets called out on it by conservatives like Margaret Hoover, she says, could you explain your position on Israel-Palestine?
She goes, oh, I'm not the expert.
But when she's not called out on it, she seems confident.
So Jorge Ramos isn't going to call her out.
The mainstream media aren't going to call her out and say, you know, actually, your plan costs more than double the current plan.
Then she might have to say, I'm not the expert.
But what she's saying here is she's just filibustering.
Saying, look, it's just like paying your rent.
You know, we'll just pay for it.
Yes, but how are you going to pay for it?
Well, we're just going to.
You see, the Republicans aren't going to, but we are going to.
So I'd say the difference in our plans, we're going to.
We're the going to, we're the going to, going to, going to party.
Okay, that's fine.
And no pushback whatsoever.
No pushback at all.
Of course not.
That's what you're up against.
This is why President Trump at his rallies points to the mainstream media and he says they're slime, they're liars, they're fake news.
Because they are fake news.
The woman who called up that Republican Senate candidate and said, F him, he sucks, I hope he doesn't win, that's fake news.
Because she's not an objective news reporter.
She's not an objective journalist.
She's a partisan.
She's a partisan operative.
Jorge Ramos isn't real news.
He's fake news.
He's a partisan operative who's trying to help Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
And President Trump is right to call it out that way.
And I'd like to point out, he's making his final argument for the election.
He's making his final point, which I think is a good final argument.
But before we get to that argument, I just want to point out, Donald Trump has given everybody everything they wanted.
Everybody.
Not just conservatives or Republicans.
Everybody.
Everybody.
He has given...
So right now today, we're seeing record high turnout.
It was predicted that it would be higher than at any time in a midterm since 1966.
It might blow past 1966.
Record high turnout.
How many years have we heard, we need to get people motivated.
We need to get people involved in our civic society.
We need to get people involved in da-da-da-da-da.
Trump did it.
Record high turnout.
Record high engagement.
Record high engagement on issues.
How long have we heard...
We need the Republicans unified.
The Republicans are unified.
We need the Democrats unified.
The Democrats are unified.
How about the mainstream media?
They're getting exactly what they want.
They're profitable for the first time in a long time.
They're making oodles of money.
CNN is only in existence today because of Donald Trump.
CNN would be a cardboard box on a Facebook live stream if not for Donald Trump.
He is giving them oodles of money.
And the flip side of that, by the way, is that people are consuming much more news.
I guess CNN, because airports consume some news, I guess, because they artificially boost their numbers.
But even among American viewers, CNN is finally getting some ratings, and the new media are getting way better ratings.
Places like The Daily Wire, people like us, online news websites.
All of these sort of things are getting a lot more traffic because people are consuming the news.
Isn't that what we wanted?
Haven't we been saying for decades?
We want people to be engaged with public issues.
It's a representative democracy.
They need to be engaged with issues.
Now they're complaining because people will complain about everything.
But Trump gave them exactly what they wanted.
How about a strong economy?
We've been complaining now for over a decade that the economy lagged because of the financial crisis at the end of the Bush administration and because of the horrific recovery under Barack Obama.
The non-recovery recovery.
So what have we got now?
We've got the strongest economy in recent history, record low joblessness, relative peace abroad.
We wanted peace abroad.
We're getting peace abroad more and more every day.
And finally, protection for workers and profit for capital.
Businesses are doing very well, and workers are doing very well.
We never thought that the twain should meet.
You've had for decades and decades Democrats demagoguing on labor, saying we need to give more money to labor, unionize labor, unionize public workers, and you've had Republicans talking about just boosting GDP forever and ever, and all that matters is gross domestic product and capital, and there was always an image.
I think it's Largely unfair, but there was always an image of Republicans and conservatives as being tone deaf to the demands of labor.
And what have you got under Trump?
Finally, you have labor, real wages increasing, and you have GDP bursting, the economy booming, doing very, very well.
This is Donald Trump's final argument.
So that's an amazing accomplishment in itself, by the way, because he's reconciled two major demands of both sides of the political spectrum here.
Profits for labor, profits for capital.
And he's done it in a way that has irked both sides.
But this is his final argument.
His final argument today, he published a piece, I think, in USA Today.
He said, vote for the GOP and continue the jobs boom.
And that's different than just saying the economic boom.
And this is really important in places that have lost a lot of jobs to anything, to globalization, to increased immigration, to illegal immigration, to changing regular dynamism of the economy, is jobs.
Because jobs are different than just jobs.
Material prosperity.
Those are different.
Mankind is made to work.
There's a great book out now by Oren Cass, a right-winger, you know, he's on the right, which is called The Once and Future Worker.
And it talks about the role of work.
Adam worked in the garden.
Work is more than just the money you get paid for.
Men need to work.
When men stop working, they shrivel away.
They need to stay occupied.
They need to be productive.
They need to work.
And I think the GOP has been a little tone deaf on that.
And I think that the Democratic Party has been completely ignorant on economics.
But this is the argument.
Here we can get Real gains for workers, people back to be meaningfully employed, not Obama employed, not partially employed, underemployed, leaving the workforce, but actually employed so that we can be productive.
Because society is not just about consumption, it's also about production.
Production.
It's what makes you feel gratified in your work.
It's what makes you feel dignified.
It's what you were called to do from the Garden of Eden.
It creates stable families and stable communities and ultimately a stable economy.
And this is a major victory, and I hope that it's rewarded at the ballot box today.
When asked if he has any regrets, President Trump was...
Quite honest.
He was uncharacteristically candid.
Maybe characteristically.
They call President Trump's statements gaffes when really he's just speaking candidly and honestly.
Here's President Trump on his regret to Sinclair.
Is there anything, as you look back at your first almost two years, that you regret, that you wish on you, that you could just take back and redo?
Well, there would be certain things.
I'm not sure I want to reveal all of them, but I would say tone...
I would like to have a much softer tone.
I feel to a certain extent I have no choice, but maybe I do, and maybe I could have been softer from that standpoint.
Good answer.
And I also am ambivalent on whether he could be softer or not.
I've gotten calls from older relatives of mine who say, you know, I really like Trump, but I wish he weren't so mean all the time, so nasty, you know, frowning, that kind of cut of his jib, Mussolini look.
I wish he would smile more, he were a little softer.
How can he be soft?
How can he be soft?
Would that it were so simple.
Would that he could be soft, too.
But how can he be soft when he's being assailed from all sides like this?
When his Supreme Court nominee is being smeared as a racist, racist, rapist, baselessly, and every other one of his supporters and he himself are being smeared as racists.
How can he be soft?
I wish he could be soft, too.
I wish we could get to a point in this country, again, where people can be civilized.
Even if they're tough, even if they're hard-hitting, even if they stand by their ideas and advocate for their agendas.
Where they could be civilized and adult about things and mature about things.
But they can't right now because the Democrats are behaving like children.
And so he's behaving like the mean father.
He's saying, no.
But daddy, I hate you, dad.
But I want you to raise taxes, Dad!
No.
He's got to be mean.
He's got to be the tough father.
But it would be nice if after the midterms, if somehow history is proven wrong tonight and the Republicans manage to hold on to the House, which historically the odds are pretty low, but we're in pretty strange times, so it's possible.
It would be nice if the Democrats could realize that the resistance isn't working.
I mean, that's why these midterms matter a lot, too, is it would so deflate the resistance.
It would so discourage the resistance, these hysterical little children that maybe they would grow up.
And then he could be a genial fellow, but until then he probably can't.
On this day in history, before we go, Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860 on this very day.
I hope this bodes well for the GOP. He was the first Republican president.
The GOP was founded in 1854.
It had its first national convention in 1856, and it got its first president in 1860.
Its first GOP nominee, its first presidential nominee, was James Freeman, I think, right?
Was it Freeman?
Or Fremont.
Fremont, I think.
Which I just love that free is in the name of the first Republican presidential nominee.
Lincoln got 40% of the popular vote and he defeated the other candidates.
The reason I bring this up, a little history of the GOP before we go today, is because you'll often hear historically illiterate claims.
That the Republican Party of the 19th century, the Republican Party of Lincoln, is really the Democrat Party of today.
You say, well, how did that happen?
You say, oh, they switched one day.
They all met.
Mr.
Republican and Mr.
Democrat sat down at a table and they agreed, okay, you're going to be this one now and you're going to be the other one and we're just going to switch.
Just because.
Just for no reason.
And this is absurd.
Now, one of the arguments is that they switched because Democrats...
Embrace civil rights.
For black people.
Because they got one Civil Rights Act in their entire history.
The Democrat Party passed one Civil Rights Act in 1964.
But there have been many Civil Rights Acts.
And the people who are educators today and political activists want to pretend that there was one.
The Republicans passed every other Civil Rights Act.
They passed one in 1866 over the veto of Democrat President Andrew Johnson.
They passed one in 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1991.
Many civil rights acts.
Six civil rights acts by Republicans dating all the way up to 1991.
One ratified by Democrat President in 1964.
Another aspect that is long forgotten is that the GOP was largely founded on tariffs, on economic protectionism.
President Trump said earlier this year or last year that tariffs built America.
He's right.
They did build America.
Abraham Lincoln said, quote, give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.
It was largely a protectionist party.
The U.S. was largely protectionist.
Now, why did it change?
It started to change after the 1920s when the U.S. economy became the biggest economy in the world.
And it certainly changed after the Second World War when we were the superpower.
So, I'm not making an argument for having protective tariffs all over the place.
That's not why I bring this up.
I bring this up to point out that history is complicated.
And that when the left says that the parties switched, or when people on the right or the left, neoliberals or neoconservatives, they say, oh, there's no problem with free trade, and there's no argument for tariffs in any case whatsoever.
So, History is more complicated than that.
It's much more complicated than that.
And what we see throughout the history of the Republican Party, they've changed their mind on tariffs.
They've changed their mind on various issues of the day because political circumstances change.
Politics is not philosophy.
There is political philosophy, but politics is in real time with real people in real places that you're going to see today on election day.
And so circumstances change.
Ronald Reagan's approach to illegal immigration was different in 1980 than ours is today.
Why is that?
Well, because the circumstances are different.
There's way more illegal immigration today.
There's a much higher foreign-born percentage of the population.
There are many people flouting our immigration laws.
It poses national security threats.
And you've got a left which is insisting that we can't assimilate anybody to the culture.
Those are different questions.
Why was there so much protectionism in the 19th century, but not in the 20th century?
Because the scale and character of the U.S. economy had changed.
One thing that the GOP has stood for, though, throughout all of that, is this through line.
Ordered liberty.
Ordered liberty.
And that's what you're seeing here.
It began in the very beginnings of the party in 1860.
That was an election about ordered liberty, about whether human beings have...
Have dignity and the right to govern themselves.
Should have freedom, for lack of a better word.
And you see this constantly pop up throughout the history of the Republican Party.
A through line throughout it.
You're seeing that argument today.
And I hope that we go out there and we see a big victory today.
But I guess we'll know later on.
Make sure you tune in at 8 o'clock Eastern, 5 o'clock Pacific.
We'll be smoking cigars and hanging out with the guys and hopefully having a very good night.
Either way, we're going to have a funny night, I'm sure.
But hopefully we have a good night for the country, and I'll see you tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you soon.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Jim Nickel.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection