President Trump promises to reign in the power of Big Tech after Twitter makes unprecedented moves to interfere in the presidential election. Then, speaking of power grabs, our de facto president Dr. Fauci seems to be appointing himself pope as well by telling churches to stop giving out Holy Communion. Jimmy Fallon apologizes for a joke he told 20 years ago, Planned Parenthood gets caught lying about their baby body part business under oath, and finally the Mailbag.
If you like The Michael Knowles Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: KNOWLES and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/knowles
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
President Trump promises to rein in the power of big tech after Twitter makes unprecedented moves to interfere in the presidential election.
Then, speaking of power grabs, our de facto president, Dr.
Fauci, seems to be appointing himself pope as well by telling churches to stop giving out Holy Communion.
Jimmy Fallon apologizes for a joke he told 20 years ago.
Planned Parenthood gets caught lying about their baby body part business under oath.
And finally, the mailbag.
All that and so much more.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
Fauci is the Antichrist.
Okay, I'm not saying that.
I don't want any of you to accuse me of saying that Dr.
Fauci is the Antichrist.
But...
Is Dr.
Fauci the Antichrist?
It's just weird to tell the churches no Holy Communion.
It's weird.
I'm just asking questions.
I am not saying, however, that Dr.
Fauci is the Antichrist.
I'm not saying that.
We've got a whole lot to get to.
First, I've got to thank our friends over at Ancestry DNA.
You know how much I love Ancestry.
I have been using Ancestry since long before the Daily Wire existed.
My grandfather turned me on to this.
He's done a lot of genealogical research.
I love it.
It's just very, very cool.
You might be familiar with the major events and battles of World War II, for instance, but there are so many more stories to uncover.
In honor of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, Ancestry has just released a U.S. draft card collection from World War II with over 36 million draft cards completed by fighting age men in the United States across the country during that time.
Whether they ended up serving or not, there's a great chance that you could find your relatives in this collection and it can help you learn more about what their lives were like.
Check it out.
Uncover your ancestors' personal details in the World War II U.S. Draft Card Collection, which shows details like home address, physical description, and more.
I love it.
It's one of my favorite hobbies.
You can learn so much more about America's past, your past, and yourself.
Discover your untold stories and more.
Head to my URL at Ancestry.com slash Knowles to start discovering your story today.
That is Ancestry.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. Big tech has gone too far.
Way too far.
We talked about this a little bit yesterday.
Twitter is now fact-checking Donald Trump on this issue of voter fraud through the mail.
And the fact-check is ironic because the thing that Trump said is actually correct and is proven out by cases that the DOJ is looking into and that have been proven of mail fraud.
Of voter fraud, rather.
Including mail fraud.
And...
It's ironic because the fact check is not correct.
The fact check is this implication that what Trump said is not true and what Trump said actually is true.
Look, we've all dealt with big tech coming after us a little bit, okay?
I remember on Election Day 2016, I was barred from Twitter for 24 hours on Election Day, and it was because I shared a meme joking about Hillary Clinton and Hillary voters, and they took me off Twitter for 24 hours, just coincidentally on Election Day.
I've heard this story from so many people.
It's true not just on Twitter, but it's true on Facebook and YouTube, right?
It's happened to all of us.
This is different.
Fact-checking the President of the United States in a presidential election year on the issue of voting, especially when Twitter's wrong and Trump is right, is a big issue.
It matters because it means Twitter is going to interfere in a presidential election.
It matters because Twitter is now telling you that it will no longer be a neutral platform.
It will actually weigh in and tell you what you should believe and what you should not believe, and And it matters because Twitter has just opened itself up to an absolute nightmare of double standards.
For instance, Twitter decided it was going to weigh in and fact check President Trump's completely accurate statement about voter fraud in the mail.
But Twitter is not going to weigh in at the same time while President Trump accuses a morning TV show host of murdering a staffer.
Isn't that a little odd?
Because I'm willing to admit, okay, I'm not so blinded by partisanship.
I'm willing to admit that, you know, maybe Joe Scarborough did not murder his staffer.
Okay, I actually think it's unlikely that Joe Scarborough is a murderer.
But that's not the tweet that's fact-checked.
It's...
The other tweets.
Trump tweeted this out.
This is about poor old Joe.
The opening of a cold case against psycho Joe Scarborough was not a Donald Trump original thought.
This has been going on for years, long before I joined the chorus.
In 2016, when wacky Joe and his wacky future ex-wife, Mika, what a line.
What a...
totally landed.
Would endlessly interview me, I would always be thinking about whether or not Joe could have done such a horrible thing.
Maybe or maybe not, but I find Joe to be a total nutjob, and I knew him well for far better than most.
So many unanswered and obvious questions, but I won't bring them up now.
Law enforcement eventually will?
So if any tweet is going to be fact-checked, probably it should be this one, right?
But it isn't.
Twitter's not fact-checking this because the Joe Scarborough thing is just a total distraction.
It doesn't actually matter, right?
And the line about the wacky future ex-wife is extremely funny.
So that doesn't threaten the left.
Donald Trump pointing out that what they're trying to do to voting all across this country is illegitimate.
That does threaten the left's plans, and so they're going to try to shut it down.
Lots of double standards.
And of course, there's this overarching problem, which is that big tech Almost exclusively targets conservatives.
So what do we do?
Donald Trump has an idea.
He tweets out, Republicans feel that social media platforms totally silence conservative voices.
We will strongly regulate or close them down before we can ever allow this to happen.
We saw what they attempted to do and failed in 2016.
We can't Let a more sophisticated version of that happen again, just like we can't let large-scale mail-in ballots take root in our country.
It would be a free-for-all on cheating, forgery, and the theft of ballots.
Whoever cheated the most would win.
Likewise, social media.
Clean up your act now.
Love this.
Totally support it.
What specifically should be done?
Some people say we should do nothing in the name of some free market that isn't particularly free.
Those people are the squishes.
They're the ones that do nothing, just let social media control the flow of information and interfere in a presidential election.
That's not a serious argument.
Some people say we don't need to pass new laws.
We can just enforce the laws on the books.
This is a much smarter group of people.
This is people like Senator Ted Cruz who says this.
They're speaking specifically about a section of a law from the 1990s.
It's called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This Section 230 is what provides what you've heard of as the publisher-platform distinction.
So it was this protection for technology companies in the 90s to help the internet grow.
And what it said was, if you are a platform- Then you're not going to be held liable for the stuff, the content on your platform.
But if you're a publisher, like a newspaper or a TV network, then you can be held responsible for those sorts of things.
I think this is good.
We should maybe go down this road.
But I think the reality of it is, all of those distinctions are academic.
They're intellectual distinctions.
Intellectual games, going back and forth over what a phrase means, that basically misses the point.
That's not how laws are actually made and enforced in this country.
Do you think that the framers of our Constitution, when they were writing the Constitution, they included a right to abortion in there?
But secretly, like an invisible ink, that only a couple hundred years later did a bunch of rogue lawyers on the Supreme Court figure out?
Do you think that's what happened?
No, that isn't what happened.
Do you think...
That the founders and the framers secretly in Invisible Inc.
included a right to same-sex marriage, monogamous but not polygamous in the Constitution?
And then 250 years later, a bunch of lawyers on the Supreme Court finally read between the lines in the Invisible Inc.?
No, of course not.
Do you think that the First Amendment has always protected, for instance, pornography?
No, certainly hasn't, because for most of our country's history, there was no protection for pornography.
Do you think, moving beyond the Constitution into the law, that the Civil Rights Act No, of course not.
It included protections on the basis of sex.
There was no conception of gender identity as we think of it today, back when the civil rights law was passed.
The left understands power a lot better than the right.
Okay, that's just the point.
There are written laws and there's a written constitution on the one side.
There's also the real practical set of laws and the real practical constitution on the other side, okay?
And sometimes those have more to do with each other than at other times, but sometimes they're very separate.
This situation with big tech is unacceptable.
We cannot allow it to go on.
It is a threat to our country.
It is a threat to our democratic institutions.
We have to stop it.
However it is stopped is the way that we should stop it.
And we should worry a little bit less about the intellectual games and the academic discussions.
Speaking of outrageous power grabs, Dr.
Fauci is now, having already appointed himself president, apparently going to appoint himself pope as well.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, though, I've got to thank our friends over at Raycon.
You know, having a solid set of earbuds is an absolute must.
In 2020, everyone needs a great pair of wireless earbuds, but before you go dropping hundreds of dollars on a pair, you need to check out the wireless earbuds from Raycon.
Their newest model, the Everyday E25 earbuds, are the best ones yet, with six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass, and a more compact design that gives you a nice noise-isolating fit.
Unlike some of the other wireless options that you might call, look, we're not going to name them here, Raycon earbuds are both stylish and discreet with no dangling wires or stems to distract you during your video calls.
They're very, very cool.
They're comfortable.
They look great.
They sound great.
Now is the best time to get the latest and greatest from Raycon.
Get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com slash Knowles.
That is buyraycon.com slash Knowles for 15% off Raycon wireless earbuds.
Raycon.com slash Knowles.
Get them.
You will not regret it.
It is 2020.
You cannot have those dangling wires anymore.
Raycon.com slash Knowles.
Yes.
So Dr.
Fauci is being asked as the country begins to reopen how they should reopen.
Part of the reason the country is reopening so soon is because we the people just refused to accept the new normal and this state of lockdown for months and months and years and years.
Here in L.A. and in many places around the country, they said that churches weren't going to open up for months.
Churches weren't going to open up for years.
And then all the rest of us said, no, I don't think so.
And then Trump's DOJ said, no, I don't think so.
So now finally they're beginning to open up the churches.
But what Dr.
Fauci says is, we should not have Holy Communion.
We're not allowed to have Holy Communion.
It's, you know, it's too dangerous.
It's a direct quote.
I think for the time being, you just got to forestall that.
That's what Fauci said to America, which is a left-wing Jesuit magazine, Catholic magazine.
So now the Dr.
Fauci, the exalted Dr.
Fauci, is making not only our political decisions for us, but our religious decisions as well, all in the name of what?
You guessed it, science.
Science, the overarching political and religious structure in the country.
First of all, The lab coats have no right to make these kinds of decisions for us.
We like their advice.
We're glad that they give us advice.
They have no right to be making these kinds of decisions.
Second of all, the lab coats, the experts, the exalted scientists, Have been wrong, even in their own field.
Even in the very narrow category of concepts that they can give some expertise in.
They've been wrong from the very beginning.
They've been wrong on how the virus would spread, how bad the virus would be, who the virus would affect, how the virus and when the virus would go away.
They've been wrong about everything.
But now we're not only allowing them to dictate our politics to us, we're allowing them to dictate our religious life too.
That's because we've outsourced our politics to these lab coats and we've outsourced our religion to them as well.
That has been a project of the left going all the way back to Karl Marx.
They've wanted government by the experts so that we don't have any debate any longer because the path to history is so clear because there's a progressive utopia.
We're all on the path there's really nothing to argue about anymore.
Well, that isn't true.
That project failed.
We should take our politics back and certainly we should take our religion back.
And I hope that pastors and priests and bishops grow a spine and stand up to this kind of nonsense because while Dr.
Fauci might think that man can live by bread alone, mere bread alone, the rest of us know that is not true.
Speaking of pretending to be things you're not, Jimmy Fallon.
You know Jimmy Fallon, host of The Tonight Show, formerly on Saturday Night Live.
Jimmy Fallon is coming out and finally apologizing For a joke he told 20 years ago.
I kid you not.
Jimmy Fallon started trending on Twitter yesterday or the day before because a sketch resurfaced in which Jimmy Fallon did an impression of Chris Rock.
And when Jimmy Fallon did the impression of Chris Rock, he darkened his skin.
And so this was...
He's portrayed as Jimmy Fallon engaging in blackface, which many of his colleagues have done, but they don't get in trouble for it for some reason.
We'll get to that in a moment.
And so Jimmy Fallon had to apologize.
Here's the sketch.
Rock!
Now we're talking!
Where is he?
Man, oh man, rid this boot!
Oh!
I've seen who wants to be a millionaire, and guess what?
Not a lot of black folks on the show.
Right.
Not a lot of black folks on the show.
Know why?
Because black folks don't like to answer questions.
Or they want to be millionaires, but you've got to ask that kind of question, like, in 1981, how many grounds of crack did Rick James smoke when he recorded Super Free?
Regis, you think the only way to get a brother on the show is to name it, who wants $50 cash and a pair of poopers?
Okay, so first of all, first takeaway from this, it's a pretty good Chris Rock impression, right?
It is.
It sounds a lot like Chris Rock.
Second takeaway, Jimmy Fallon's not doing blackface.
He darkened his skin.
His face looks black.
That's not what blackface is.
Okay, there are other left-wing comedians who have done blackface in this way who don't get in trouble for it.
Jimmy Kimmel, he portrayed Karl Malone and darkened his skin and made his face look black.
That too, not blackface.
Or Robert Downey Jr., the actor, he portrayed a white guy playing a black guy in a movie, Tropic Thunder.
Also not blackface.
What's the distinction?
Blackface and the reason that people are offended by blackface is when white actors darken their skin to mock black people.
Thank you.
That is considered offensive.
It actually has a long history in the American theatrical tradition, but putting all that aside and saying, obviously nobody's going to do that anymore, that is what blackface is.
Doing an impression of Chris Rock is not doing blackface because Jimmy Fallon is not mocking black people generally.
He is doing a actually very good precise impression of Chris Rock.
Same thing with Jimmy Kimmel as Karl Malone.
Same thing with Robert Downey Jr.
Robert Downey Jr.
is not doing blackface.
He's doing a white guy wearing blackface to show the absurdity of blackface.
In that movie, Tropic Thunder.
Not the same thing.
And yet, Jimmy Fallon apologized.
He goes, In 2000, while on SNL, I made a terrible decision to do an impersonation of Chris Rock while in blackface.
There is no excuse for this.
I'm very sorry for making this unquestionably offensive decision.
And thank you all for holding me accountable.
Oh my goodness gracious.
That is so pathetic.
I get it.
Jimmy Fallon just wants to be a nice guy on TV and be liked by everybody, and so he's going to apologize for these kind of things.
Jay Leno is a little bit like that, you know, Fallon's predecessor.
Social justice warriors here are apoplectic with this, this sort of fake problem.
I don't, Chris Rock is not offended by this.
I don't think most black people are offended by this.
I think it's mostly, I'm just looking at the commentary on it.
I think it's mostly white liberals who are offended by this because it's always white liberals being offended on other people's behalf.
I love.
They go after Jimmy Fallon because he's a little bit of an easy target.
He's not as left-wing as, say, a Jimmy Kimmel.
So Jimmy Kimmel generally gets away with it.
You know, they kick Megyn Kelly off of NBC for even mentioning blackface.
She mentioned it.
But Joy Behar, who is also employed by network television, totally fine.
She actually wore blackface.
She wore a costume as, I think, Diana Ross.
Same kind of issue we're talking about here.
We did a show a week or two ago saying that we have too few problems in this country.
This would be one of them.
But actually, this itself is the problem, which is weaponizing this kind of performed offendedness to take out people that you don't like, even when this has not been an issue for 20 years.
In some ways it's like during a political campaign when assault allegations come up or racial allegations come up, whatever kind of allegations come up.
You say, wait a second, no one's heard about this for 30 years.
Now all of a sudden it pops up.
It seems a little bit convenient.
Same thing here as well.
Meanwhile, though, We have some of these fake problems.
Meanwhile, the worst villains on earth are getting away, literally, with murder.
And this ties in a little bit with what we were talking about earlier, about the written law versus the real law.
Planned Parenthood just got caught breaking the law and then lying under oath about whether or not they broke the law.
Planned Parenthood, we remember this from a few years ago, Planned Parenthood sold the body parts of aborted babies for cash.
We know they did that.
That is against the law.
That's against 42 U.S. Code 289G2, which broadly forbids the exchange of valuable consideration for fetal tissue.
First videos came out five years ago.
You might remember them.
It's Planned Parenthood executives haggling with investigative journalists who are pretending to be procurers of baby body parts, haggling over the price, one of them joking that she wants a Lamborghini.
What would you expect for intact It, um, Intact tissue.
What sort of compensation?
What sort of...
Well, why don't you start by telling me where you're used to paying?
You know, in negotiations, a person who throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?
So...
I want to land with you.
Oh, she's so droll.
She just wants a Lamborghini, and she knows the first person who throws out a dollar number in a negotiation, that's the person who loses.
The negotiation, by the way, to buy the body parts of babies that they've killed.
So Planned Parenthood initially denied this.
Even though it was on camera, they denied this.
I know that seems crazy, but they just went on TV, flat out denied it.
They sued the journalist to expose them for millions of dollars.
Then a judge who was on the board of a Planned Parenthood ruled against the journalist.
Gosh, how convenient is that?
Wonder why he might have made that decision.
The Planned Parenthood claim at that point was that they didn't actually sell the body parts for money.
Sure, they sold body parts and they got money for it, but actually that money was just a reimbursement for the costs of giving away the body parts to medical research.
Here's then-president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, making this claim and lying through her teeth.
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson has pointed out that charging a fee for this material doesn't...
It's not a fee.
It's not a fee.
It's actually just the cost of transmitting this material.
Okay, that's her story and she's sticking to it.
She made this claim in a lot of other places.
So knowing that Planned Parenthood was going to lie through their teeth about this, the journalist behind all of this, who's a friend of mine, David Daleiden, he emails Planned Parenthood documents outlining specific costs for the body parts.
So not just saying, okay, you're going to reimburse us for the costs of, or we're going to reimburse you, rather, for the costs of getting these parts.
No.
No.
Actual dollar amounts for fetal liver, for the thymus, for different parts.
Specifically, by the way, we're talking about usable parts.
So it's not even just for getting the parts and then if you can't use them too bad.
They're procuring usable parts, just like when you make a purchase from a department store and then if the product doesn't work, you can go and return it or not pay for the product.
Same thing here.
Planned Parenthood insisted then to keep the lies going to the New York Times that they rebuffed a contract to sell aborted baby livers for $750 each and $1,600 for liver and thymus pairs.
However, the head of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Tram Noyan, Now reveals that she was, in fact, looking to move forward with the deal.
So, right, even after they get caught with the dollar amounts, they say, look, we never actually engaged in the deal.
We had no intention of engaging with the deal.
We now have her under oath saying she was moving forward with the deal.
At just one affiliate, Planned Parenthood Marmonte, the clinic took in $25,000 in just three months by selling away baby body parts.
Here is Tramnoy, an under oath Admitting what she did.
Says that the fee to Blaine Perryman Gulf Coast for a fetal liver would be $750 and the fee for fetal liver and a thymus would be $1,600.
This is an email chain between you and Doe9012 who is the Regional Medical and Surgical Services Director who we understand is Diane Santos.
Is that your understanding?
Yes.
Do you say, FYI, we're still trying to move forward with this.
She responds to you and says, do you want to do this?
You respond to her and say, yes ma'am.
Do you remember that exchange?
No.
Got into it yesterday.
Okay.
So you wanted to move forward with the contract we just saw with those price terms?
Objection.
Mischaracterized in the document.
Mischaracterized in the testimony.
Fake.
I know I wanted to move forward with it.
I know I wanted to move forward with it.
We have her admitting it.
We have them under oath.
We have it in writing.
We have the dollar numbers.
We've got these guys dead to rights violating the law.
But this gets to this point earlier on.
This gets to this point about big tech and so many other facets of our politics.
Planned Parenthood is probably not going to be held accountable.
Do you think Planned Parenthood is going to be held accountable for this?
No way.
Actually, probably the journalist is going to continue to get in trouble.
The journalist is probably going to be forced to pay millions of dollars, have his life thrown into chaos even more so.
Because there's the law as it's written down, and then there's the practical law.
There's the Constitution as it's written down.
Then there's the practical Constitution.
And I think sometimes even people on the right get a little too confused about this.
They get really worked up because they say, look, the law is so clear.
Look, I can point to the law.
Sure.
Who's going to enforce it?
Who's going to enforce it?
Planned Parenthood commits crimes against humanity, crimes against the natural law, crimes against the actual U.S. Code, crimes every single day, many, many, many times a day.
They don't get in trouble for it because we as a society have chosen to embrace them through ridiculous Supreme Court decisions, multiple Supreme Court decisions, through ignoring parts of the law, and through going after people who are exposing those violators of the law.
That's an unfortunate reality, but that's the way politics always works.
We're only going to go along with the sort of laws that we want to go along with, right?
We are a self-governing people.
We live in real time and space with real desires.
Same thing with big tech.
Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act establish this condition that the social media companies have to be politically neutral, right?
Yeah, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
I don't know.
That was not the point of the law when it was passed.
Is that an effect of the law?
It should be an effect of the law.
It's only going to be an effect of the law if we do something about it.
The left gets this.
The left gets that they've got to get into the institutions, that they've got to move the levers of power, that they've got to worry less about academic debates and more about actually affecting what they want in the world.
Conservatives need to wise up to that a little bit as well because there's nothing good and wonderful and virtuous about frittering away all of our time on academic disputes while we lose the actual power to govern and affect our agenda in the country.
Speaking of the difference between the imagined world and the real world, you've got to turn to the New York Times, which is the official paper of record of the imagined world.
You know, we talked yesterday about the Karen meets Karen, that altercation in Central Park between the woman walking her dog and the creepy guy luring her dog away with treats and filming her.
So there's a piece in the New York Times that gets this situation, I think, exactly backwards.
It's called A White Damsel Leveraged Racial Power and Failed.
This is by Ruby Hamad.
Ruby Hamad is the author of White Tears, Brown Scars, How White Feminism Betrays Women of Color.
So you can kind of get this lady's perspective.
Opening line.
The symbolism is almost too much to bear.
The antagonist stares down the barrel of the camera, removing her surgical face mask.
At the same moment, she takes off her figurative face mask and offers the audience a glimpse of what lies underneath.
The woman, Amy Cooper, points her finger at the stranger behind the camera, Christian Cooper, to demand that he stop filming her.
When he refuses, she threatens to call the police and then immediately acts on her threat.
This woman is portraying this as a bad thing.
If a man is filming a woman in a park against her will, that woman should call the police.
She maybe shouldn't get so hysterical about it and she shouldn't do some of the other things that Amy Cooper did.
But the guy was in the wrong.
The guy started it.
He acted like a weirdo and a creep and he wouldn't go away and that's very bad.
So bad situation.
This woman immediately views it.
Of course it was this man's right to film this woman.
How dare she suggest that she would call the cops?
But then you get the money line at the end.
This is the real line.
Her threats to Mr.
Cooper have significance in a society that regards black men as persistent threats to women.
It's not a society we're talking about.
We're talking about this guy being a weirdo around this woman, which he undeniably was.
They are a brutal reminder that whatever the actual substance of their dispute, she knew that a single cry for help could bring down the weight of white supremacy on his body.
This is what we talk about when we talk about the violence of white women's tears.
Except that didn't happen.
What this woman is asserting is that Amy Cooper knew that with just one call on her phone, she could bring down the weight of white supremacy on this black man's body.
It's very odd.
They always talk about bodies.
They don't talk about the whole person.
I think it's because they're materialists now, and they only view the body as mattering.
But that's not what happened.
Actually, the woman made the call.
And then the weight of our actual culture destroyed her life, not his life.
She lost her job.
She lost her dog.
They took her dog away even.
She lost any reputation she had.
And the guy is totally fine.
He's fine.
He's a hero.
He is being exalted as a great man for creeping up on a woman and luring her dog away with treats and filming her against her will.
He's the good guy in the story, according to the pop culture.
And the woman had her life ruined.
Regardless of what they actually did, that's the effect on the culture.
And yet, the narrative that the New York Times tells themselves is this is a white supremacist country that is constantly hunting down young innocent black men.
LeBron James says black men can't walk out the door without being hunted down.
That isn't true.
That just simply isn't true.
There are rare incidents that become sensationalized precisely because they're so rare.
But the real culture, not the one that you read about in the New York Times, but the real culture actually is the opposite of that.
This woman's life was destroyed for her damsel in distress cries, this guy doing totally fine.
Now, you would think that this woman would actually be happy about that, right?
Because it shows we don't have a white supremacist country.
Isn't that a good thing?
No, the left can't ever be happy with any of those things that they want because the criticism, the complaining, the narrative is the whole point.
Before we get into the mailbag, I do quickly have to knock Jack Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey is the head of Twitter.
Jack Dorsey is very upset that some of us, after this fact check on President Trump, after Twitter decides to weigh in on a presidential election and interfere in it, we've pointed out that the head of Twitter's site security, a young guy whose tweets have now been coming up, hates Donald Trump, hates him, calls Trump an actual Nazi, Where's the fact check on that?
It says that the people in the middle of the country are more or less useless because they've elected a racist tangerine, as he said.
So this guy's getting a lot of play.
Jack Dorsey comes out and says, fact check.
There is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that's me.
Please leave our employees out of this.
We'll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally.
No, you won't.
You're just doing it on Trump, not on his opponents.
And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
No, you're not admitting any mistakes you make.
You're just upset that we're going after your employee, who's the head of site security.
You know whose fault it is that people are going after that employee?
Jack Dorsey's fault.
That's whose fault it is.
Jack Dorsey put that employee in that situation when he chose to weigh in to a presidential election.
I don't want to go after this kid.
I don't care.
I don't care that even the head of Twitter's site integrity, not site security, site integrity rather.
That's a sort of Orwellian term.
But he is on the department that is going after these fact checks.
I don't care that this guy hates Donald Trump.
It actually doesn't even bother me.
What bothers me is that Twitter is interfering in the presidential election.
That's not this young employee's fault.
That's Jack Dorsey's fault.
Jack Dorsey should own it.
He should change course ASAP. And then finally, there is a major story that is developing right now as we speak.
In relation to one of these awful stories about an unarmed black guy who was killed because the police appear to have been way too heavy-handed in making an arrest.
As a result of this, now there is looting in Minneapolis where the arrest occurred.
There's rioting going on in Los Angeles for some reason.
You can see the looters.
There are videos of them going all around the internet.
You can see the looters in Minneapolis just robbing a Target store.
Yeah, so just pouring in, pouring out, stealing a bunch of stuff.
I have a hot take on this.
Hot take is, looting is bad.
That's my hot take.
I know, controversial.
Looting is bad.
Obviously, police brutality, if that's what occurred here, looks like it did.
That's very bad, too.
There are investigations into that.
Donald Trump's DOJ is now investigating that.
He says justice will be served.
That's a good thing.
There's no excuse here for looting.
Doesn't look good.
And in Los Angeles, when I was looking at some of the looting, it looks like some of them aren't even the BLM protesters who are rioting.
It's actually Antifa.
I would recognize those pallid little socialists anywhere.
There seem to be other groups involved as well.
Tragic that a man died.
Good that there's an investigation.
Civil society is a delicate thing.
That's my big takeaway on big tech, on Pope Fauci, on Jimmy Kimmel almost getting canceled 20 years later, on all of these things, on the looting.
Civil society is a delicate thing.
It's not so simple as we have a constitution, we have a set of laws, everything's going to be hunky-dory.
Because there it is, it's written down.
It's not so simple as...
We've behaved in certain ways in the past, so now we'll be fine.
There's no amount that we can exert on our society that will crack it.
It's delicate.
Civil society can be broken by corrupt officials.
It can be broken by corrupt businessmen, maybe in big tech.
It can be broken by corrupt people who go looting.
It can be broken.
We are now in a position where we are being encouraged mostly by the left to break that society.
Why does the progressive left want to break the society?
Because they don't like the society that much.
That's why their presidents say they want to fundamentally transform that society.
That's why they engage in criticism all the time of that society.
Trying to progress forward into the future.
If you want to conserve any of that society...
Then, you've got to be careful.
We've got to be a little bit more delicate with our institutions, with our traditions, and with each other.
We'll get to the mailbag in one second.
First, though, I've got to thank you, and I've got to tell you to head on over to the Michael Knowles Show YouTube channel.
If you're watching this on YouTube right now, you might not be aware that there's a whole other channel, which is my show's channel.
You're probably watching it on the Daily Wire.
But on my channel, we release some bonus content, some bonus interviews, that kind of thing.
Yesterday, we released a bonus segment.
On everyone's favorite new Trump appointee, Kayleigh McEnany, absolutely wrecking a mainstream media reporter, also known as Leftist Operative.
It's a good time also to let you know You get the one Tumblr when you sign up for the Daily Wire?
Well, guess what you get now?
You get two Tumblrs, but you've got to sign up for our most exclusive membership tier, All Access.
The All Access tier is our premier level of membership.
You know, you get everything.
You get me, you get more of the Ben Shapiro show, you get Q&As, exclusive editorials, and ad-free website experience, but none of that matters.
You get...
To tumblers.
Head on over.
Get 15% off right now with coupon code Knowles.
K-N-W-L-E-S. Join all access dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Coupon code Knowles.
Save 15%.
We'll see you there.
We'll be right back with the mailbag.
Running late as usual, but there's just too much to get in.
So let's fly through this mailbag.
From Shane, Michael, do you find it a coincidence that once again during a presidential election year the media is playing...
The America and Americans are racist narrative.
Just recently, you had the Arbery and Ms.
and Mr.
Karen racist event in like a one-week stretch.
Do you see this as being artificially hyped up for the election?
And do you think it is a calculated play to make these issues borderline racists so the Dems can automatically call the people involved racist while the right waits for more information, which allows the left to call us racist?
And not for minorities.
Seems like the tried and true Democrat strategy to me, do nothing to help minorities than play up so-called racist incidents every four years to retain the vote.
Thanks.
Yeah, that is going on.
That is going on.
Unquestionably.
I mean, you saw the article, we just read it in the New York Times, which is actually concocting this narrative, which was contradicted by reality.
But consider this.
I think there are about 55 homicides in the United States every day.
Actual full-on homicides.
All of those homicides are not reported on.
They couldn't be, right?
There just isn't enough time to report on them, and it's not newsworthy when 55 of them happen every day.
Only certain stories become sensationalized into these national news stories pushed relentlessly by the mainstream media who work for the left, who work for the Democratic Party.
The selection of those stories is the key here.
I'll give you an example.
If the mainstream media wanted to be racially divisive the other way around, what they would do is play up that video that was going a little bit around social media of a black elder facility worker punching repeatedly in the head this older white man in his bed.
That was going around the internet.
Now, is that indicative of a broad systemic issue of elder abuse and specifically racial elder abuse?
Is there an epidemic of young black elder care workers beating up these older white?
I don't think so.
I don't think there's any evidence of that.
But if the mainstream media wanted to craft a narrative that there was such a thing going on, they would play that video again and again and again and again.
But they don't do that obviously because it doesn't serve their political agenda.
They do, however, take these rare sensationalized stories of racial discrimination or abuse in the other direction and play them again and again.
It is a form of political and emotional manipulation.
It is highly effective.
I mean, it's low down and rotten to do it, but it is very effective.
That is why they keep doing it, and they're not just doing it this time.
They're going to do it another four years and another four years after that.
From David.
Hey, Michael, my question is, how do you defend the national motto, which I personally agree with, in God we trust, as constitutional?
While I agree with it, I can't quite seem to be able to justify it as constitutional and within the power of the federal government.
Thanks so much.
Well, by definition, it's constitutional and within the power of the federal government in that we have, from the very beginning of our country, acknowledged God's role.
We acknowledge the role of providence on our own currency.
The very founding of our country was by Christian religious zealots on the Mayflower.
There were prayers at the beginnings of Congress, and all of our founding fathers, almost all of them, had a deep and abiding faith.
So, of course it's constitutional.
I mean, what is more constitutional?
The kind of arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution that some secular leftists have today, or the way that the founders and framers thought about the Constitution?
Obviously, the latter is.
There's a big misunderstanding about church and state in America.
People believe that the First Amendment separates completely church and state.
First of all, that isn't exactly true.
What the First Amendment does is prohibit the establishment of a religion at the federal level.
But actually, just because there's no established church at the federal level does not mean that there cannot be established churches at the state level.
And actually, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there were established churches.
At the state level, just not, rather, at the federal level.
And then, moreover, freedom of religion, freedom to have your own churches, at least as a federal matter, is not freedom from religion.
It was never considered to be that way.
That is absurd.
This country was founded as a shining city on a hill.
The founders and framers said repeatedly, John Adams very clearly, that the country is only built for a moral and religious people.
It is unfit to the governance of any other kind of people.
I'm going to take their word for it over, you know, the random neckbeard atheist who insists that his own narrow reading of the Constitution is the correct one.
Actually, this ties into the point we were talking about today.
You could, with sufficient hubris and sufficiently context-free interpretation, read almost whatever you want into the Constitution and into our laws.
But that won't do you very much good.
That doesn't actually ground you in what it means.
You've got to read it within context.
And then moreover, The real political fact of it is our constitution is going to mean what we want it to mean.
I mean, we hope that we can govern ourselves more and more like the document tells us to, and more and more with the institutions that the document sets up.
But in reality, there is the actual lived practical constitution, and it looks a That real Constitution that we live under looks like it's trending in the wrong direction.
From Ken.
Dear Mr.
Knowles, knower of all that is right, why do you and your family continue to live in la-la land?
Could you do your show from, say, Florida or Texas or some other more conservative state?
Thanks.
I suppose I could.
I don't know why I couldn't.
You know, we just build a studio and do the show from somewhere else.
I do like the idea of living in a liberal place because I'm a masochist.
I've always lived in liberal places.
New York, Connecticut, Los Angeles.
There is something that, you know, gives you a bit of an edge when you live in a left-wing place.
It just lets you see the leftist culture more clearly.
But Newsom and Garcetti and all these other people are quickly making these places unlivable.
I really like the sunshine and the nice weather and the palm trees, but if they keep clamping down on us, if they won't let us go to church or something like that, then maybe we'll have to pick up and move.
We'll have to pull an Elon Musk and get out of Dodge.
Alright, final question from Bird.
Name three people, living or dead, you'd love to interview.
Winston Churchill, certainly.
He would probably be the most fun to interview.
We could smoke cigars and get hammered while we paint and talk about, you know, all of the things that not only Winston Churchill saw and experienced, but also wrote about.
Let's not forget he wrote The History of the English-Speaking Peoples.
Probably have a lot to talk about.
Dante.
Certainly I would want to meet and talk to Dante and get his religious vision and his artistic understanding.
And then...
Probably Christopher Columbus, because he's so controversial now and he's so essential to our civilization, to the Americas, to the expansion of the West.
And he's so often misrepresented that I'd like to get his side of the story.
I think he'd be a pretty interesting dinner guest as well.
Those are the three guys, just off the top of my head.
That is our show.
We'll have other things for you.
We will have verdict podcasts.
We will have more and more over the weekend.
But that's all for this show.
So if I don't see you before then, in the meantime, I'll see you Monday.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies and directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boren.
Supervising producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
Assistant director, Pavel Widowski.
Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
Audio Mixer, Robin Fenderson.
Hair and Makeup, Nika Geneva.
Production Assistant, Ryan Love.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
