Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 29, 2020 - The Michael Knowles Show

48:58

Ep. 637 - The “Country Over” Party

Liberal Republicans endorse Biden to support “country over party,” Big Tech execs humiliate themselves in Senate testimony, and the anti-Trump “Anonymous” author outs himself just days before the election. 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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The handful of disgruntled Republicans who are still making the case for Biden over Trump have one last plea.
	They want you to vote for country over party.
	I've been voting since 1984 when I proudly cast my first ballot for Ronald Reagan.
	I've been a conservative Republican my entire life.
	I've never before voted for a Democrat for president.
	But this year, principle and conscience require me to do just that.
	I'm voting for Joe Biden.
	When you fill out your own ballot, ask yourself, who will best restore decency and civility to the White House?
	Who can I be proud to tell my children and grandchildren I voted for?
	My fellow Republicans, it's not easy going against the head of our party.
	Believe me, I know.
	But I also know that character, moral leadership, and integrity are values that we cannot put aside when we cast our vote for president.
	If we hold onto these values, our country will be better for it.
	And so will our party.
	And please, don't let anyone tell you that by casting your vote for Joe Biden, you are somehow not being conservative.
	This year, the most conservative thing you can do is to put country over party.
	That's what I'm doing.
	I hope you'll join me.
	Country over party, one of the stupidest, most meaningless platitudes in our national discourse.
	You join a political party, you support a political party because you believe it will help the country.
	Jeff Flake and all of the seven other never-Trump Republicans are not putting country over party.
	They're just switching parties because they are libs.
	And Joe Biden does not have more integrity, more moral leadership, more character than Donald Trump.
	Actually, he has much, much less.
	And if Biden wins, we are going to have a country over party.
	It's going to be the country over party because the country is going to be over, for goodness sakes.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is the Michael Knowles Show.
	I'm Joe Biden, and I'm running in the country over party.
	That's right.
	You have enough of this country?
	Well, then vote for me because then it'll be over.
	So enjoy.
	Enjoy.
	That's what I promise you that.
	He's probably going to flip-flop on that too.
	I guess we can hope.
	My favorite comment from yesterday from Scott O'Brien.
	Schumer, generations of yet unborn will suffer the consequences of this nomination.
	Conservatives.
	But they will be born.
	This is true.
	It is better to be born than not to be born.
	It's so creepy.
	I have friends, I kid you not, who are dressing their daughters up as Ruth Ginsburg for Halloween.
	This obviously, what is Ruth Ginsburg most famous for in her judicial philosophy?
	Not letting those little children, better to not in the womb, not good.
	Doesn't make a lot of sense.
	Doesn't make a lot of sense.
	Like the statement, country over party.
	You know, I'm being a little hyperbolic, I guess, when I say that the country will be over if Joe Biden wins.
	But in some ways, I'm not being...
	Earnest enough, because this has been building for a long time.
	I don't think Joe Biden started the problem, but he is a symptom of the problem, which is losing our constitutional government.
	This goes back at least to Woodrow Wilson, probably goes back even further than that.
	We're losing so much of our political control in this country, and you see social violence beginning.
	I mean, you're seeing cities lighting on fire.
	you're seeing a lot of unrest, as they call it, around the country.
	So you got to be prepared.
	Now is a better time than ever to be prepared with long-term nutritional food options.
	ReadyWise has many options, such as emergency meals, freeze-dried fruits and vegetables for convenient on-the-go nutrition, new adventure meals for hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities.
	Obviously, I don't do a whole lot of hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities, but they are very delicious.
	If you go out there, you can enjoy those adventure meals.
	When government resources are strained, it can be days, if not weeks, before fresh food is available.
	Don't put yourself in a situation when you need food during an emergency.
	Prepare today.
	ReadyWise uses the finest ingredients, the latest food prep technology to ensure optimal taste and freshness.
	Meals are packed into durable, long-lasting pouches designed to keep food fresh for up to 25 years, which, you know, should last a pretty long time.
	Plus, Plus, it tastes great.
	This week, my listeners can get free shipping at ReadyWise.com when entering Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, at checkout or by calling 855-453-2945.
	ReadyWise has a 90-day, no questions asked return policy, so there's no risk taking the initiative to get yourself and your family prepared today.
	That is R-E-A-D-Y-W-I-S-E.com.
	Promo code Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to get free shipping.
	They do this all the time, this country over party thing.
	Every election, there is some number of disgruntled Republicans who, for whatever reason, they can't get a job as campaign strategists.
	That's what happened with the Lincoln Project.
	Or they got booted out of the Senate because they were libs and the more conservative guy exposed them like Jeff Flake.
	Or whatever reason, they come out and they say, listen, I'm a Republican, I'm a conservative Republican, but I can't vote for this man.
	Not him.
	I mean, this goes back at least to the Barry Goldwater campaign.
	I don't know just why they wanted to call this a confession.
	I certainly don't feel guilty about being a Republican.
	I've always been a Republican.
	My father is.
	His father was.
	The whole family is a Republican family.
	I voted for Dwight Eisenhower the first time I ever voted.
	I voted for Nixon the last time.
	When we come to Senator Goldwater, now it seems to me we're up against a very different kind of a man.
	This man scares me.
	Now, maybe I'm wrong.
	A friend of mine has said to me, listen, just because a man sounds a little irresponsible during a campaign doesn't mean he's going to act irresponsibly.
	You know that theory that the White House makes the man.
	I don't buy that.
	I don't buy that.
	No, no, I'm a Republican.
	I'm a conservative Republican, but I hate those Republican candidates.
	Every year something like this crops up.
	So what is the threat that we're facing?
	Joe Biden has said, and the Democrats who are behind him have said, they want to add two new states to the country.
	That alone takes the Republicans out as a national governing party.
	They say they want to pack the courts.
	Or term limit the justices on the court and put them on lower court so that you can add new judges to the court.
	That would destroy any conservative judicial movement if there is one at all.
	They have said they want to curtail the First Amendment.
	They've said they want to curtail the Second Amendment.
	They have said they want to upend the energy industry.
	There are so many.
	I'm not even discussing the tax hikes or something like that.
	I'm talking about the structural damage that even just this election could do, particularly if the Democrats win the House and the Senate as well.
	They are proposing things.
	That would eliminate the Republicans as a governing party.
	So, if you support your country and you're a conservative, probably that means you don't vote for the leftist party.
	You vote for the conservative party, which is the Republican party.
	And if you do that, if you really believe those things and you want to support your country, there is no argument to voting for Joe Biden.
	You cannot do it.
	Because of the mean tweets, Joe Biden is way crueler than Donald Trump.
	Joe Biden perpetually refuses to acknowledge two of his grandchildren because he's embarrassed by them.
	So he won't acknowledge them, even when he's corrected about it.
	Donald Trump's a liar.
	Joe Biden's been lying since the 80s.
	Joe Biden had to drop out of the 1988 presidential race because he was a liar and a plagiarist.
	And even the mainstream media made him drop out.
	Donald Trump is corrupt.
	How is he corrupt?
	Joe Biden has been corrupt since he got into the Senate in 1973.
	Right away he got his brother Jim Biden's sweetheart deals when he got a chair on the Senate Banking Committee.
	He would call up the bankers when the bankers would pressure Jim Biden to pay.
	He would also let Jim Biden peddle influence in the 1990s.
	He would also let his brother get a $1.5 billion contract for construction in Iraq when Joe Biden was a senator.
	And later then the vice president, which is when the contract went through during the Iraq War.
	Jim Biden didn't know anything about construction or about Iraq.
	Obviously we've seen the evidence of corruption with Hunter Biden.
	Talk about corruption.
	Joe Biden makes Donald Trump look like a school child.
	And then talk about moral leadership.
	Joe Biden sues nuns and he thinks you ought to have abortion on demand paid for by taxpayers.
	And he believes that we ought to send pallets of cash to America's enemies.
	And he believes we shouldn't respect our commitments to our allies.
	And he wants to take our property.
	That's moral leadership.
	Or you got the other guy who does what he says he's going to do and has a good moral vision.
	It's not even close.
	Just look at the consequences around the country.
	We had more riots in Philly last night.
	Country over party.
	You had rioters tagging a Bank of America with graffiti that read, Death to America.
	Right there.
	Death to America.
	These are BLM rioters.
	Kind of ironic because there's one guy in the bank who is a black guy and he seems like a little worried about these fellas out here who are causing all the trouble.
	Setting fires, smashing windows.
	Death to America though.
	How many of those rioters do you think are voting for Donald Trump?
	How many do you think are voting for Joe Biden?
	Jeff Flake is on the same side as the people who are spray painting death to America on buildings and setting cities on fire.
	Country over party?
	I don't think so, Buster.
	Beverly Hills right now is on full alert.
	Why is Beverly Hills on full alert?
	It's a pretty nice area, usually.
	Beautiful weather, pleasant people.
	Why is it on full alert?
	because they are worried that between Halloween and election day, there could be more riots.
	They are shutting down Rodeo Drive, the most famous, the most famous roadway in Beverly Hills on election night because they are afraid that leftists, not conservatives, leftists will burn the place to the ground if they don't get their way.
	When you side with them, are you choosing country over party?
	No, you're choosing a banana republic.
	You're choosing a tin pot dictatorship.
	over your country when you side with these left wingers.
	And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
	Because there's an entire edifice led by big tech that sits underneath this, that is pushing this establishment left-wing view.
	You know, it gets people really agitated.
	Sometimes you need to relax, and I would recommend Thompson Cigars to relax.
	With over a century in the business, these guys know their stuff.
	I have been a customer of Thompson Cigars for half of my life.
	I still have the first box of cigars that my mother bought me from Thompson when I was 16 years old for Christmas.
	I love these guys.
	They've got the best prices on the biggest brands in the business.
	They've got My Father.
	They've got Monte Cristo.
	They've got Cohiba.
	They've got La Flor Dominicana.
	They've got Oliva.
	They've got everything that you want.
	There are over 12,000 different cigar options available with new in-demand brands added weekly.
	Looking to try new, rare, top-rated blends, but you don't want to splurge on the boxes?
	Well, this is where Thompson really, really shines.
	They've got the Thompson Cigar Tour, a smattering of five different blends delivered to your doorstep each month.
	They also have insane cigar deals via email daily with personalized email preference options.
	You sign up to receive them all or just the days you feel like it.
	They give you the choice and they are the number one choice for premium cigars in the USA because they deliver the very best customer experience.
	For a limited time, Thompson is offering 15% off orders over 75 bucks or 20% off orders over 99 bucks.
	To take advantage of these incredible savings, you simply go to ThompsonCigar.com and use promo code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, when you are ready to check out.
	That is T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N, Cigar.com.
	Use promo code NOLS. Sometimes people ask me for recommendations.
	I'll give you my top shelf recommendation for this week is the Armada Man of War.
	And then my lower, more, you know, budget-priced recommendation would be the Illusione Rothschildes.
	I don't even know quite how to pronounce it, but it's that little tiny Illusione.
	It's really great.
	I've been smoking them all week.
	Go check it out.
	ThompsonCigar.com.
	Promo code NOLS. Yesterday, the big tech giants testified before the Senate.
	And we knew this was going to happen.
	It's because Twitter was suppressing the New York Post story that was damaging on Joe Biden.
	It's because Facebook was suppressing that as well.
	So they get hauled before the Senate.
	I was discussing the logistics of this last week with Senator Cruz on our show Verdict.
	And he gave me a little behind the scenes, which is there were two options here.
	Either the big tech guys could have testified before the Commerce Committee or before the Judiciary Committee.
	Two different issues.
	And Senator Cruz was saying he hoped that it was before the Judiciary Committee because the Judiciary Committee is a little tougher and they've got more bulldog senators on the panel and they thought they could have gotten more information.
	Senator Cruz also said he hoped that they would testify in person.
	Unfortunately, neither of those things happened.
	Whoever was calling the shots back there gave the big tech guys a little bit of an out.
	They were before the relatively meeker Commerce Committee and they got to do it Out of state.
	They got to do it virtually, so it reduced the virality and the tension of these moments.
	That's too bad.
	I hope they get hold before the Senate again and have to testify in person and before the Judiciary Committee.
	Still, we got some good hits in.
	Still, we got some good information.
	The best hits did come from Cruz.
	I don't say that just because I'm friends with the guy and I host a podcast with him.
	He shines in these moments and he cut to the art of the issue.
	He had Jack Dorsey, this creepy, long-bearded, nose-ring-wearing, hipster CEO of Twitter who tried to kill the New York Post Hunter Biden story.
	He had him in front of him and he said, Jack, Does Twitter influence the political elections?
	Very simple question.
	Does Twitter influence the elections?
	Mr.
	Dorsey, does Twitter have the ability to influence elections?
	No.
	You don't believe Twitter has any ability to influence elections?
	No, we are one part of a spectrum of communication channels that people have.
	So you're testifying to this committee right now that Twitter, when it silences people, when it censors people, when it blocks political speech, that has no impact on elections?
	People have choice of other communication channels with which...
	Not if they don't hear information.
	If you don't think you have the power to influence elections, why do you block anything?
	Well, we have policies that are focused on making sure that more voices on the platform are possible.
	We see a lot of abuse and harassment, which ends up silencing people and having them leave from the platform.
	What a bogus non-answer Jack gives to that question.
	You can really see how Cruz is a master at this kind of questioning.
	I remember one time he was grilling Zuckerberg on the Hill.
	And you saw Cruz shine as a prosecutor here.
	You saw him as a solicitor general in his previous life before the Senate.
	And you could see that shine.
	He lured Zuckerberg in and goes...
	I don't remember the questions.
	Mark, what color is the sky?
	Well, the sky is blue, Senator.
	Yeah, and Mark, two plus two.
	What does that equal?
	Well, that equals four, Senator.
	Why did Palmer Luckey get fired?
	He off-foots him a little bit.
	Palmer Luckey was ostensibly a political firing because he was conservative.
	And Zuckerberg didn't have an answer for it.
	Same thing here.
	Does Twitter influence the elections?
	No, man.
	Jack Dorsey is this, like, ridiculous hipster.
	No, not at all, man.
	It doesn't influence the elections at all.
	No, it has no political effect.
	Okay, then why do you suppress the political stories?
	Oh, whoops, yeah, I did just admit that I did that.
	We suppress people's voices so you can hear them better, and whatever non-answer that was.
	Then, because that was not sufficient, Cruz ripped Dorsey.
	Mr.
	Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?
	And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?
	Let's give Mr.
	Dorsey a few seconds to answer that, and then we'll have to conclude this segment.
	Well, we're not doing that.
	And this is why I opened this hearing with calls for more transparency.
	We realize we need to earn trust more.
	We realize that more accountability is needed to show our intentions and to show the outcomes.
	Thank you, Senator.
	So I hear the concerns and acknowledge them, but we want to fix it with more transparency.
	But he's obviously not hearing the concerns.
	He's not answering the questions.
	Cruz raises a great point.
	There are still like three bizarro freshman year libertarians who say, well guys, come on, Twitter's a private company.
	Google's a private company.
	First of all, like not really.
	And second of all, they control the flow of information.
	They control the public sphere, which by the way, they have gained access to by fraud.
	They told people they were getting one product and they actually gave them another.
	They got legal liability protection through section 230 because they pretended to be one product and actually they were another.
	This is a question about...
	You know, the individual operations of these businesses or self-government.
	And by the way, no grown man should have a nose ring.
	I know this seems tangential.
	We should pass a constitutional amendment in this country that grown men are not permitted to wear nose rings.
	It is a national humiliation, particularly when coupled with that beard, which should land Jack Dorsey on the no-fly list.
	It wasn't only Senator Cruz who was going after him.
	Mike Lee did a great job too.
	Mike Lee, you know, was a pretty hardcore guy.
	He's brilliant at constitutional law.
	Mike Lee first goes after Mark Zuckerberg.
	And it was another one of these simple questions that they couldn't answer.
	We know that many conservatives have been censored.
	We know a lot of conservative stories have been censored.
	So Lee says, okay, you guys say it's not a partisan issue.
	It's not an ideological issue.
	Can you name me one lib that's been censored on your platforms?
	Can you name for me one high-profile person or entity from a liberal ideology who you have censored and what particular action you took?
	Senator, I can get you a list of some more of this, but there are certainly many examples that your Democratic colleagues object to when a fact checker might label something as false that they disagree with, or they're not able to...
	I get that.
	I get that.
	I just want to be clear.
	I'm just asking you if you can name for me one...
	High-profile liberal person or company who you've censored.
	I understand that you're saying that there are complaints on both sides, but I just want one name of one person or one entity.
	Senator, I need to think about it and get you more of a list.
	Oh my gosh, it's so embarrassing.
	Zuckerberg usually is a little quicker on his feet than this.
	He goes, well, look, we have a list.
	We can get you more of a list.
	He goes, no, you didn't give me anything, so you're not giving me more of it.
	You're giving me anything at all.
	But it's okay, Mark.
	You don't need to give me the full list.
	Just name like one guy.
	Just one, because I could name a ton of conservatives.
	Name one guy.
	Uh, uh, uh, I don't know.
	So then Lee moves on.
	He goes, okay.
	Jack Dorsey, same question to you.
	Name me one liberal who has been censored on your platform.
	What about you, Mr.
	Dorsey?
	Well, we can give a more exhaustive list.
	But again, we don't have an understanding of political ideas in our accounts.
	I'm not asking for an exhaustive list.
	I'm asking for a single example.
	One.
	One individual.
	One entity.
	Anyone.
	We've taken action on tweets from members of the House for election misinformation.
	Can you identify an example?
	Yes, two Democratic congresspeople.
	What are their names?
	I'll get those names, too.
	Pathetic.
	Pathetic.
	Dorsey thought that he, like, he was anticipating this question.
	Or he's just making it up on the spot.
	But assuming someone briefed him and said, look, there actually were a couple times you took down a couple tweets from Democrats.
	Make sure you have that in your head.
	No, no, we had some liberals.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	What are their names?
	Well, first he tries to say, we're unaware of the ideological views of our users.
	Like, oh, really?
	Are you?
	You're unaware of what Donald Trump thinks versus what AOC thinks?
	But then he contradicts himself.
	He says, no, we took down some liberals.
	Yeah, who?
	A couple Democrats.
	Yeah, where were they?
	Their congressmen Yeah, what are their names?
	Yeah, no, my boyfriend, he lives in Canada.
	No, you can't meet him, guys, because he lives in Canada.
	I'm starting to think he doesn't exist.
	If our country is being led by that hipster jihadi over there, then something tells me that the State of the Union is not particularly strong at this moment.
	You know what that means?
	Always a good time to diversify your investments into gold.
	Something new for you and I think very useful.
	The price of gold has been skyrocketing lately, but it's difficult to buy gold sometimes because gold is expensive.
	We don't always have like thousands of dollars lying around to go buy bars of gold.
	Well, luckily now there is a new company called Acre, which allows you to buy gold for as little as $30 a month.
	How does that work?
	We know that gold costs more than $30.
	How do you do it?
	You subscribe to gold bars for as little as $30 a month.
	Then you pay each month.
	And once your gold stash reaches the price of their gold bars, good, you're paid off, they discreetly ship Acre Gold to your house.
	Acre lets you invest in physical gold without it coming out of pocket all at once.
	Because that's a lot of money.
	Acre keeps you updated on your gold stash every month and ships once you reach the price threshold.
	With Acre, taking physical delivery of your gold means it is safe and sound in your hands.
	Acre ships your gold directly and, most importantly, discreetly to your door.
	Acre just recently introduced their new $100 per month subscription for their 5-gram gold bar.
	I have invested in precious metals.
	I have enjoyed doing so.
	Visit GetAcreGold.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Start investing in physical gold today.
	Make sure you go to this URL because Acre is giving away a gold bar.
	To qualify for that giveaway, tweet or post why you should be the recipient and mention at Get underscore Acre Again, that is getacregold.com slash Knowles.
	Thank you, Acre Gold, for supporting the show.
	All right.
	I've pretty much had it with these tech guys, but there was one last moment that I think is worth pointing out.
	Marsha Blackburn, my new senator.
	I'm leaving California.
	I'm moving to Tennessee.
	I'm very pleased to be trading Kamala Harris for Marsha Blackburn.
	Marsha Blackburn does a great job, and she did an especially great job yesterday during these hearings because she caught Jack Dorsey in a lie.
	Jack Dorsey says that he doesn't censor world leaders.
	Why did he bring this up?
	Because...
	You've got tweets from the grand poobah of Iran, of the Ayatollah, that are vile, vicious tweets, and he doesn't take those down.
	So that's the rule, right?
	You're going to take down the New York Post, but you're going to leave up the Ayatollah of Iran because you don't censor world leaders.
	Problem is, Jack has censored Trump.
	So, Mr.
	Dorsey, is Donald Trump the world's leader?
	Yes.
	Okay, so it would be important for world leaders to have access to your platform, correct?
	Correct.
	And so, why did you deny that platform via censorship to the U.S. President?
	We haven't censored the U.S. President.
	Oh, yes, you have.
	How many posts from Iran's terrorist ayatollah have you censored?
	How many posts from Vladimir Putin have you censored?
	We have labeled tweets of world leaders.
	We have a policy around not taking down the content, but simply adding more context around it.
	Okay.
	And the U.S. president you have censored 65 times.
	Just to be clear, we have not censored the president.
	We have not taken the tweets down that you're referencing.
	They have more context than a label applied to them.
	And we do the same for leaders around the world.
	So everything about that is a lie.
	He censored Trump.
	He censored Trump multiple times.
	Now what he's saying is, no, all I did was block out what he tweeted and then make you click through to a separate page so that you could see what he read.
	That's not censorship.
	Yes, it is.
	That is censorship.
	You don't have to formally, permanently delete something to censor it.
	If you slap a big label over it such that you can't read it until you click through to another page, that is censorship.
	And he has done that to Trump.
	Then he tries to pretend that he's done that to the other world leaders.
	Maybe he has in some isolated cases, but not all the time, not even in the most egregious examples.
	Iran's leader denies that the Holocaust happened, says there was no Holocaust.
	He is called to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth.
	Seems kind of violent to me.
	Not only are those tweets still up, there's no extra context around that.
	Jack Dorsey and Twitter have censored Trump much, much more significantly than they have censored the leader of Iran.
	I said that was the last one.
	There's one more I have to get to.
	Cory Gardner.
	Cory Gardner also grills.
	At least Zuckerberg.
	I think he was just glad to be out of the line of fire.
	He said, yeah, okay, you take it, Jack.
	Jack Dorsey just absolutely crumbled under pressure, and Cory Gardner called him out for the double standard.
	So somebody denying the murder of millions of people or instigating violence against a country as a head of state is not categorically falling in any of those three misinformation or other categories Twitter has?
	Not misinformation, but we do have other policies around incitement to violence, which may – some of the tweets you mentioned or the examples that you're mentioning may fall afoul of.
	But for misleading information, we're focused on those three categories only.
	So, somebody who denies the Holocaust has happened is not misinformation?
	It's misleading information, but we don't have a policy against that type of misleading information.
	Millions of people died, and that's not a violation of Twitter.
	Again, I just don't understand how you can label a President of the United States.
	Have you ever taken a tweet down from the Ayatollah?
	So he crumbles.
	And Cory Gardner points out this double standard.
	It's beyond that, though.
	It's beyond just big tech.
	Consider the mainstream media.
	Do you remember a couple years ago, the mainstream media published the anonymous op-ed.
	This was about the resistance within the Trump administration.
	And there were questions.
	Did Pence write this op-ed?
	Did Nikki Haley write this op-ed?
	Did the then-chief of staff, John Kelly, write this op-ed?
	There was a book, anonymous, all published anonymously, about the deep state Overthrowing Trump, which in itself, by the way, is a vicious, awful thing.
	We elected Trump.
	We didn't elect this anonymous person.
	It is wrong.
	It is immoral.
	It is anti-constitutional to undermine the president that you are ostensibly serving and enacting his agenda.
	It's a betrayal, not just of the president, but of the American people.
	Well, we found out.
	We found out who the anonymous was.
	What was it, Pence?
	Was it Haley?
	Was it?
	No, it's some schmuck, some guy we've never heard of, and we'll forget his name in 10 seconds.
	Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote the op-ed.
	He's just some guy who wanted to make a name for himself, make some money, felt that he was more important than the president, felt that the American people were really looking to Miles Taylor for leadership.
	Not Trump, not the guy they elected, but Miles Taylor, because he knows better than the people and than the constitutional system.
	So he came, obviously, just shows you the lies and the dishonesty of the times.
	Because...
	That's not a story.
	Low-level staffer at some agency.
	I guess he's relatively high at one of the agencies, but there are a zillion agencies.
	In the broad administration, he's a low-level staffer.
	He's disgruntled at his boss.
	That's not a story.
	There's no reason to publish a big anonymous op-ed.
	That doesn't mean anything.
	They just did it to try to create the insinuation of some nefarious plot.
	Or I guess they would have considered it a righteous plot to overthrow the Trump administration.
	But it's fake.
	It's dishonest.
	And this kid is dishonest too.
	He actually lied about it.
	He was asked point blank by Anderson Cooper on CNN, are you anonymous?
	And he lied and he said no.
	There was an op-ed, there was a book by someone calling themselves anonymous.
	Are you aware of who that is?
	I'm not.
	Look, that was a parlor game that happened in Washington, D.C., of a lot of folks trying to think of who that might be.
	I've got my own thoughts about who that might be, but I want my folks to be on the president, and I certainly don't want to.
	I wear a mask for two things, Anderson, Halloweens and pandemics, so no.
	What a lame denial.
	It's too bad though, because he had this kind of too clever by half answer when he said, are you anonymous?
	He goes, well, Anderson, I'm going to answer a completely different question that seems sort of cute, but it's obvious that I'm evading the question.
	But it didn't work because he had already flatly denied it.
	So he'd already lied.
	Are you aware of who anonymous is?
	No, I'm not.
	But you are.
	So you're a liar and a traitor and a schmuck.
	And everyone's going to forget your name in two seconds after I finish reading the story.
	Is that country over party supporting that guy?
	How about Ilhan Omar?
	Ilhan Omar and all the rest of the squad calling to defund the police.
	And why did they say defund the police?
	Well, it would cause mayhem and violence and death immediately.
	That would be the first proximate effect of it.
	But, but beyond that, the police are a symbol.
	The reason they go after the police is because the police are law enforcement and the police are themselves a symbol of the law, of the order, of the constitutional system.
	You attack the police because you oppose the entire system.
	I was at a rally once covering it for the, the revolutionary communist party.
	This was about a year and a half ago.
	And the, that they talked about this explicitly.
	They They said, this is the symbol of the system and we're going to tear it down.
	And I was shocked at the time.
	And then I was even more shocked because later on you heard this exact same rhetoric from elected representatives.
	Ilhan Omar was just asked about this on Axios.
	And she said, there's no question about her support for the police.
	I get...
	I'm very frustrated when people talk about what the polls say in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement, or when I hear people say law and order, I support our law enforcement, which is not even something that people are questioning,
	but are not willing to aggressively speak to what it means for us to care about The black individuals in our community as they care for everyone else.
	Yeah, nobody's questioning your support of the police because you have said multiple times you don't support the police and you've called to defund them.
	So you're going to support that?
	Are you going to support the law and order?
	The law enforcement?
	The law?
	The constitutional order?
	Or are you going to support that lawlessness?
	Country over party?
	And how about right back to Biden?
	There's a new leaked tape from Hunter Biden where he was caught talking, it's ostensibly from Hunter Biden, talking about how deeply mired in corruption, particularly in China, the Biden family was.
	I get calls from my father to tell me that the New York Times is calling, but my old partner Eric, who literally has done me harm for I don't know how long, is the one taking the calls because my father will not stop sending the calls to Eric.
	I have another New York Times reporter calling about my representation of the, literally, Dr.
	Patrico, the f***ing spy chief of China.
	Who started the company that my partner, who was worth $323 billion, found it.
	It is now missing.
	The richest man in the world is missing, who was my partner.
	He was missing since I last saw him in his $58 million apartment and signed a $4 billion deal to build the largest LNG court in the world.
	And I am receiving calls from the Senator District of New York, from the U.S. Attorney himself.
	My best friend in business, Devin, has named me as a witness without telling me.
	In a criminal case and my father without telling me.
	So this goes on.
	I misspoke earlier.
	I said that it shows the kind of deep corruption that the Biden family was mired in.
	It's not was.
	It is.
	It is mired in this corruption right now.
	And it appears to go all the way to the top.
	That's country over party.
	Is that what that is?
	I don't think so.
	That's the country over party.
	It's what we're going to rename the Democrats, the country over party.
	You know, a couple years ago, maybe more than that at this point, I was asked to be in a political commercial.
	And it was a little too much for the focus groups.
	It was a little edgy.
	So I didn't see the light of day then.
	But this has been repurposed into a commercial that I think not only fits in with the tenor of 2020, it certainly fits in with the tenor of today's show.
	These are the stakes of the election.
	Five months in office and Democrats are in full control of Washington, D.C. I'm not on a timetable.
	I'm on a mission.
	Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote, confirming six new Supreme Court justices today.
	We have a chance to change the course of history.
	COVID czar Andrew Cuomo tells us about severe new penalties for...
	Democrats implement free health care for all illegal immigrants.
	Where is Joe Biden?
	The president hasn't been seen in public for three weeks.
	It's Washington's worst-kept secret that Kamala Harris is calling the shots.
	Washington's newest parlor game is who will be Kamala's vice president.
	It doesn't have to be this way.
	There's still time to stop the zombie apocalypse.
	That's basically what we're talking about.
	And the zombie might not be all of us.
	It might not be actual zombies where you've got to shoot them right in the heart and they're coming around and just eating you.
	It's a zombie constitutional order.
	It's a zombie country.
	It's a zombie mainstream media apparatus.
	It's a zombie educational apparatus.
	It's a zombie country that has been hollowed out from within, deprived of its vitality.
	It is now staggering along.
	Kind of looks like Joe Biden while it's staggering along.
	Are we going to preserve the life of the country or are we going to let it get sucked out even more?
	Potentially, if the Democrats get their way, such that conservatives will not have the opportunity to win at the national level anymore, which is what they are openly, explicitly promising.
	We'll find out November 3rd.
	By the way, our live stream is going to start Tuesday, November 3rd at 3 p.m.
	Eastern, 12 p.m.
	Pacific.
	We're going to have special guests, live interviews, and much more, leading to a very special episode of Backstage, where we'll be covering results with you in real time.
	And even better now, you join Daily Wire.
	Get 25% off with code ELECTION so that you can watch all of our election coverage live on Apple TV, on Roku, anywhere you want.
	So watch the election with us at dailywire.com.
	Get 25% off.
	Your Daily Wire membership with code ELECTION when you sign up today.
	We'll be right back with the mailbag.
	I'm running late as always with the mailbag, so I'm going to fly through these four, First question from Jacob.
	Hey Michael, my brother recently brought up a point that the rate of abortions has experienced a greater decrease in years in which Democrats were presidents.
	He argued, why should we vote for a Republican if our main priority is voting for a pro-life country?
	He argued that even if they don't pursue policy in line with us, the results speak for themselves.
	This has me confused also why rates of abortion decreasing faster under Democrat presidents.
	Came for Ben, stayed for Michael.
	I've seen this meme going around.
	First of all, the premise is not true.
	The chart that you're referring to that's going around is fake.
	Even PolitiFact and the CDC admit that this is fake.
	The reason that it is fake is that states voluntarily report their abortion data, and some states do and some states don't, and the reporting varies from year to year.
	So you can't even rely on the chart.
	But let's just say it were true.
	Let's say that abortion dipped down more under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents, which isn't true.
	There's no evidence that it's true, but let's say that it were.
	Even if that were legit, correlation is not causation.
	It may well be the case that abortion rates tick down when mercury is in retrograde or something, but that doesn't mean that mercury being in retrograde is the cause of the decrease in the abortions.
	Why do abortions decrease?
	Well, it can be because the economy is doing better.
	Well, when does the economy do better?
	It It did better under Trump than it has under basically anybody in American history.
	So, okay, there's one mark in our favor.
	It's often because there are more restrictions on abortions.
	Who puts more restrictions on abortion into place?
	Conservatives and Republicans.
	But sometimes there's a lag on that.
	A policy will go into effect.
	Let's say you're talking about fifth grade education.
	That's not going to have an effect on the abortion rate probably until a few years down the line, into teenage years and into 20s and 30s.
	Why else are there lower rates of abortion?
	Well, because more judicial rulings have circumscribed the breadth of Roe versus Wade and ridiculous judicial decisions that have permitted abortion.
	Well, how long is that effect going to be?
	A Republican appoints a judge.
	A judge might not get a case like that for 5, 10, 20 years.
	So that effect is going to be...
	There's just no connection between the president and the abortion rate.
	And also the chart is fake.
	From Allen.
	Do you like pumpkin spice flavor?
	Alan, I feel like I'm going to make myself into a little Jack Dorsey here.
	You know, it's like the hipster.
	I love pumpkin spice.
	I love it.
	It's great.
	It's too sweet when you order it at the coffee shop, so you've got to reduce the amount of sweetness.
	But it's terrific.
	I look forward to it every year.
	If that makes me basic, I don't know.
	Based and basic.
	That's what I say.
	Pumpkin spice.
	From Travis.
	Hey, Michael.
	Would it be fair to claim the Federalist Party eventually became the Republican Party while the Democratic-Republican Party became the Democrat Party?
	Or were the divisions between the Republican and Democrat parties completely separate and distinct from those of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties?
	Many thanks.
	Yes.
	The answer to all of that is yes.
	The first political party in the United States begins after Washington.
	If you supported Washington in those early years of the country, you were pro-administration.
	That was your part, but there weren't really parties yet.
	Then you had the rise of the Federalist Party.
	There was the Federalist Party, that's like John Adams, and then in response to that, you had the Democratic Republican Party, or the Jeffersonian Republican Party.
	Those were...
	You can't even call them more liberal or more whatever.
	They were kind of different parties.
	Then the Federalist Party goes away as a national governing party and you have only the Democratic-Republican Party.
	This is the era of good feelings.
	Then the Democratic-Republican Party progresses, progresses, progresses, and then you have the Democratic Party, the current Democratic Party, break away founded by Andrew Jackson.
	As a result of that founding by Andrew Jackson, you have a response to it, which is the Whig Party.
	The Whig Party persists for a few decades, then the Whig Party goes the way of the dodo and you get the Republican Party founded with some anti-slavery Democrats and Northern abolitionists.
	The Republican Party founded to abolish slavery.
	And then the Republican Party opposes the Democratic Party in the Civil War.
	The Republican Party wins.
	The Republican Party becomes a national governing party.
	But the Democratic Party doesn't go away, and that's where you get our two systems.
	Now, if you were to ask me, Michael, you could get in a time machine and transport yourself back to the Adams administration.
	Who do you support?
	I would probably support a Federalist.
	And I suppose some Democrats would support the Jeffersonian Democrats.
	But a lot of them probably wouldn't like the Jeffersonian Democrats too much because they were too small government.
	I'm trying to use the terms that we use today to talk about our government.
	But they're not perfect...
	They are all different political parties.
	And I think it's a trap to try to look back in history and say, oh, if I lived then, it would be exactly this.
	No, these were different historical questions.
	Politics changes over time.
	There are eternal principles.
	These people understood the principles perhaps a little differently than we do.
	But that is a brief history of American political parties.
	From Colin.
	My little 11-year-old brother is wearing nail polish.
	What do I do?
	I try to convince him it's for girls, not boys.
	But my mom, dad, stepmom, and half-sister all support his decision.
	How do I help him?
	You probably can't because you're not raising him.
	He's not your kid.
	He's your brother.
	It's bad.
	That's not good.
	They shouldn't be encouraging it.
	This is bad parenting on their part.
	They're doing it because there's a popular mania that we need to indulge any sort of curious or unusual instinct or delusion among children, especially children.
	That's what's creepiest about it.
	But you don't.
	One thing you could point out to them, because we're often told, let children be children.
	Just let them be them.
	There is some truth to that.
	You want to encourage their better inclinations and their natural passions and talents, if they're ordered rightly.
	But when I was a kid, I wanted to be Batman, right?
	I told people to call me Batman.
	My mother did not tolerate that for very long, because I'm not Batman, and it would have been wrong to indulge the idea that I am Batman.
	So All education is coercive, and education means upbringing.
	It's not just book learning.
	It's how you are brought up, how you are raised, the manners you have, the way that you engage with society.
	All education is coercive.
	You will tell people to do some things and not to do other things.
	To indulge in this kind of delusion is a sort of coercion, because you are steeping them in a very radical liberal ideology.
	You could also steep them in a more conservative philosophy.
	You could also steep them in religion.
	You could also steep them in whatever.
	It is a choice that your parents are making, and I suspect they just don't want to make the choice.
	Also, let him do what he wants to do.
	Can't let kids do what they want to do.
	Read, what's that book?
	The one where they kill piggy.
	Read Lord of the Flies.
	Read that.
	Letting children do what they want to do all of the time is not a great idea as a rule.
	Perhaps the nail polish is harmless.
	Perhaps it's not.
	Perhaps it will confuse him.
	And that would be very sad.
	And I don't think they want to have to answer for why they messed up their child's psychology when he was so young.
	So you could present it to them in that way.
	But really, ultimately, you don't have much of a say in the matter.
	From Josh.
	Oh, swarthy one!
	Why is it that in conversations about hotly debated subjects, liberals will often interject, right?
	Right?
	As a filler.
	As though by merely speaking the word, you will hypnotically be swayed to their position.
	Does this tactic actually work?
	I've always found it to be intellectually a turn-off.
	P.S. Love the Show came for Noel, stayed for Clavin.
	Wait a second.
	I don't like that last part.
	Right?
	Right?
	They do this.
	It's a tick.
	We all have verbal ticks, but we should work to eliminate them.
	And the left has more verbal ticks, I've found, than the right.
	It used to say...
	We used to say...
	This is my position.
	Two plus two equals four.
	You know?
	You know?
	Now we would say two plus two equals four, right?
	The reason you do it is to establish your premises along your line of argument so that it becomes more difficult to disagree in the end.
	Now, if the argument were really, really strong, probably they wouldn't have to do this.
	Or if they were more in command of their rhetoric and oratory skills, they would not have to do this.
	I suspect the other reason that they do this so frequently is because they're not confident in their premises.
	So they'll say, we all know gender is a social construct, right?
	So gender is a social construct, right?
	And therefore, men can be women, right?
	Because gender is a social construct.
	Quod erat demonstrandum.
	You know, there it is.
	There's my proof.
	But I don't grant the premise of a right.
	I don't do that.
	And There are all these different tics that come up.
	People used to state their opinions.
	Then they started to say, I think.
	I think this.
	I think that.
	Then I think became I believe.
	I believe this.
	I believe.
	Then it became I feel.
	I feel.
	I just feel like.
	I feel.
	I just feel like.
	And that entire rhetorical progression takes you further and further away from making claims, from making truth claims.
	When I state an opinion, I say Men are not women, to use the example we've been using.
	Men are not women.
	That is my opinion, and it's a statement of fact, and my opinion happens to be correct, because opinions are a statement of fact from one's point of view.
	Then I can say, I think.
	That's granting that there could be disagreement.
	Then I believe.
	Because people don't take belief or faith seriously now, that's taking it even further.
	That's bringing it out of the realm of fact and opinion into the realm of preference.
	Then it's, I feel like.
	Well, that's just a sensation.
	You can't disagree with a sensation.
	The like.
	Even the use of like, like, like.
	The valley girl.
	Well, it's just like, like, like, like.
	That is taking statements away, even beyond metaphor, into simile.
	So you can't disagree with it.
	Everything is just like something else.
	It's all just a comparison.
	You're not making any statements of fact.
	It's because we're afraid of making claims now.
	Because we're told, you can't disagree about anything.
	You're erasing someone's lived experience.
	You're denying their oppression.
	You're claiming that there's an objective reality, but we know everything's relative.
	These little ticks reflect the ideological framework that we're all moving around in.
	Like fish moving through water.
	They're unaware of that water.
	So watch it.
	In your own speech.
	Don't use these frivolous, meaningless expressions such as country over party.
	Don't do that because then, in that case, we will all just be sitting here with our dunce hats on, blowing our streamers at the country over party.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is the Michael Knowles Show.
	See you on Monday.
	See you on Monday.
	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.
	Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Our Technical Director is Austin Stevens.
	Supervising Producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Assistant Director, Pavel Wadowski.
	Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
	Audio Mixer, Robin Fenderson.
	Hair and Makeup, Nika Geneva.
	And Production Assistant, Ryan Love.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
	I think there are enough of those already out there.
	We talk about culture because culture drives politics and it drives everything else.
	So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
	Those are fundamental and that's what this show is about.

▲