All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2020 - The Michael Knowles Show
50:18
Ep. 655 - They Can Do Anything

Leftists admit their double standards, a lesbian actress becomes a straight white male, and Ted Cruz calls for an emergency election appeal to the Supreme Court. 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
If the left did not have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
We're seeing this play out now, especially as the media are convinced that we're moving into a democratic administration.
You're seeing a huge shift in the way that the media are covering politicians, the way the politicians are reacting to the people.
Even some prominent left-wingers are admitting this fact.
Criticize her all you want, but at least she was honest.
Recently on a podcast, she was describing why it seems like the left plays by a totally different set of rules, and she admitted it's because liberals get to do whatever they want.
So what do you think is the difference between you saying it and somebody else saying it and not getting away with it?
It seems like you get away with a lot of stuff because you're so f***ing funny, but some of it's pretty dark.
I think it's the intention behind it.
Like, this is a math term, but it's kind of like the absolute power of the joke.
Like, especially back then, I always said the opposite of what I thought, you know, and that was the joke, kind of.
And then hopefully the truth transcends that I don't really feel this way, not to break it down in the least funny possible way.
But it is also interesting, too, because, like, that comedy I did...
You're right.
It was like, oh, it's okay because you know I don't mean it.
But then it also is kind of like, we're liberal, so we can say anything.
So we can say, you know, the words that are unsayable or whatever.
Like, you know I don't mean it, so I can say it.
Like, there is kind of like a liberal, like, douchiness about it, I think, in retrospect.
I mean, I don't know.
It's a weird balance.
You know, not the phrase I would have come up with, but probably totally precise.
That's what we're seeing play out right now.
This is a shifting of standards that is only going to get worse and worse and worse over the next weeks and probably the next years.
And hopefully we can still push back against it.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Speaking of shifting standards, we yesterday were talking about that gal who played on the Vanderbilt football team for like five minutes and then they lost 41 to nothing.
And I don't know, maybe those were unrelated events.
My favorite comment from yesterday from Christoph Rodriguez, who says, with the way Vanderbilt plays, I thought they always had women on the team.
That's not nice.
That's playing on old standards and stereotypes.
And it's not politically correct to say that.
The left is replacing old standards with new standards, double standards for themselves.
They're replacing the conventional standards with political correctness.
This is a point we were discussing quite a lot yesterday, because I think that the right totally misunderstands this moment.
They misunderstand how to combat these new standards of political correctness that the left is foisting on them.
I'll give you a perfect example of this.
Came out yesterday from Steve Schmidt.
Steve Schmidt is, he says he's a Republican.
He's not really a Republican.
He's a liberal Republican.
He ran a lot of squishy Republican campaigns and lost.
And his job basically as a consultant was to enrich himself by losing Republican races and then saying really nice things about Democrats.
He's a court jester conservative, you might call him, is the phrase that I've been using the past few weeks, and as we've been seeing around us a whole lot.
So...
Yesterday, Steve Schmidt decides.
He's got the strange new respect of liberals.
All the liberals are very nice to him.
He is functionally a liberal.
He tweets out one of the most vile rants against Ann Coulter that I've ever read.
And people have very strong feelings about Ann Coulter.
I really like Ann Coulter, but some people, they hate her and she's terrible and she's this and she's that.
This is what Steve Schmidt had to say about her.
To her on Twitter, you are a cancer.
You are a vile and disgusting human being who has made herself a multimillionaire preying on the weak and the stupid.
You're a racist and a fascist.
FDR said, judge me by my enemies.
I'm delighted to be yours.
Trump will lose.
He will be disgraced.
And one day somewhere, someone, hopefully many years from now, who was born after these days end, will read your obituary.
And understand what an open and fetid sore you were on our politics.
It will be a small paragraph for an unaccomplished and not long remembered lonely person who sowed hate, vitriol, and division.
You are pathetic.
You can see Steve Schmidt's very upset about hate, vitriol, and division.
What did Ann do to deserve this kind of reaction?
She tweeted out an article that criticized Steve Schmidt's career.
Not this personal kind of thing.
And this is what he says.
Imagine speaking to a woman this way.
Any woman.
Your worst enemy.
Woman you totally hate.
Imagine if you were a real man.
Not like Steve Schmidt, but an actual man speaking to a woman this way.
Absolutely disgusting.
So I made this point.
I said, this is not the way that men should speak to women.
And what I heard, first of all, obviously, if it had been flipped, if it had been a conservative man talking about a liberal woman this way, the guy would probably be at Rikers right now.
He'd probably be in Alcatraz, ostracized from the country, perhaps.
But because it's a liberal man saying this about a conservative woman, he's allowed to get away with it.
But no man should be able to say this about any woman.
So I point this out.
And the left responds to me.
And they say, a lot of liberal women, they say, oh, he's not saying it about a woman.
He's saying it about Ann Coulter.
Oh, yeah, it doesn't matter.
Ann Coulter gets whatever she deserves.
Steve Schmidt responded to me.
He said, oh, yeah, I'm glad that I said that about Ann Coulter.
Very womanish response.
Not womanly.
That's when women behave like women.
But womanish.
It's when men behave with the worst characteristics and stereotypes of women.
And one response I got broadly from the left was they said, Michael, I thought you guys hate identity politics.
Who cares if a man says it to a woman or a woman says it to a man or a man says it to a man or a woman says it to a woman?
It doesn't matter.
There's no difference.
Yes, there is.
Yes, there is.
Men should behave differently in front of women than they would in front of other men.
There is greater latitude for the way that men behave at the bar with the men and the sailors than there is for the way that men behave in front of women.
Any woman.
I don't care if you don't like her.
That's an old standard.
It's not identity politics.
That's called chivalry.
Edmund Burke, the great conservative philosopher, said in Reflections on the Revolution in France, he lamented, he said, the age of chivalry is gone.
That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.
Chivalry is the standard.
Identity politics is the new politically correct left-wing standard that the left is trying to replace chivalry with.
And a bunch of even sort of moderates or conservatives will come out and say, ah, well, we should have no standards at all.
We don't want identity politics, but if we don't want identity politics, we can't have chivalry either.
If we don't want the new politically correct standard, we can't have the old standards either.
That's BS. That's ridiculous.
We need to have those old standards.
If we don't have those old standards, if we don't have some standard at all, some understanding of virtue and behavior and the way we ought to relate to society, then we have no political vision.
Political visions require, politics just means how we all get along together.
Political vision requires that you understand and have some sense of how we all get along together.
And it's, this misunderstanding is part of the big reason that Oscar nominated actresses are becoming, are pretending to be men now and men are behaving this way in front of women.
And we're all so vicious to one another regardless of our sex and even regardless of our, of our positions in society.
be.
Because we no longer have a standard.
And when that happens, you have social collapse.
It's really difficult.
You know, you see this in certain areas of the country where maybe jobs have been shipped overseas and standards have collapsed.
You're in pretty bad straits.
And actually, a guy who was raised in one of these situations, raised in a trailer park with no clear path to success, kicked out of high school multiple times and faced with becoming a father in his teens, is Jason Waller.
The definition of a true underdog.
After hearing the words no or you can't too many times, Jason unleashed the power within to start three successful companies.
His most recent venture, rather, is Powerhome Solar, skyrocketing on a path to becoming a billion-dollar enterprise.
Join us as Waller, a four-time Entrepreneur of the Year winner, shares motivational tips and inspiring stories along with business-building lessons from the ground up.
He shares his life experiences to help others better themselves.
And as Waller will tell you, There is no elevator to success.
that climb only happens one step at a time.
Let every true underdog podcast be that step that elevates you.
Scared money won't make money.
Learn about failure.
Learn about entrepreneurship.
Learn about never quitting or making excuses.
It is real.
It is raw.
It is motivational.
There are a lot of people in our politics these days who are trying to discourage you, don't want you to keep fighting on.
You should fight on.
Check out True Underdog Podcast at trueunderdog.com or anywhere you get your podcasts.
Total, total double standard.
The new standards are the problem, but the fact that we don't have old standards anymore, we don't have any whatsoever as conservatives, is a big problem too.
I'll give you an example of this kind of, the dishonesty of political correctness, of wokeism, of whatever term you want to use.
Nike.
Nike might be the single wokest company on the face of the earth.
Colin Kaepernick, back in years and years ago when he was still playing football, decides to protest the American flag, the symbol of the country.
What does Nike do?
Well-known American company that ships job overseas and uses overseas labor and cheap labor and slave labor?
Nike hires him to be their spokesman.
Taking a stand against the American flag.
Nike was going to produce a shoe with the Revolutionary War flag on the back, the Betsy Ross flag.
Colin Kaepernick said, no, you can't do that.
The American Revolution's bad.
You can't have that shoe.
So Nike, as woke as they get, specifically in this alleged issue of civil rights, because that's how Colin Kaepernick is pretending that he is supporting.
Nike has apparently been lobbying against a bill that would ban imports of products made from China using slave Uyghur labor.
Well, that's so weird.
I thought Nike was for civil rights.
But we know that China, where they're getting a lot of their cheap products, we know that China uses slave labor.
We know that they're putting a whole population, Uyghurs, into labor camps.
So surely Nike wouldn't want to use that slave labor, right?
Wrong.
They actually lobbied against it.
Not just Nike.
Coca-Cola.
Apple also sought to weaken legislation that would bar U.S. companies from relying on the forced labor of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, in particular in China's Xinjiang region.
This is according to Business Insider.
Well, of course, because they want to pretend that they're woke, right?
They want to foist this kind of woke, politically correct standard on you, but they don't want to follow it themselves.
And Nike isn't really the problem here.
The problem is not the deeply held political beliefs of Nike and Coca-Cola and Apple.
Welcome to my show!
And so they just go along and follow the almighty dollar.
I'm all for making a buck, but you have to do that within a moral framework.
And these guys are not doing that at all.
Now the question is, when we point out this double standard, this hypocrisy, is Nike going to pay for it?
No.
No, they're not.
A lot of times conservatives want to point out and say, ha ha, the liberals say they believe in this, but then they violate that.
The perfect example, of course, is the liberals say that they're tolerant, but actually they're behaving in an intolerant way.
So much for the tolerant left, right?
This is a line that's become a cliche.
And the reason that it has no effect is that the left doesn't care.
The left knows that they're intolerant.
In fact, the father of the new left, Herbert Marcuse, Wrote an essay in the 1960s called Repressive Tolerance, where he explicitly says we should not tolerate conservatives.
We should not tolerate right-wing ideas.
We should tolerate our ideas.
And actually, the guy's got a point.
You can't tolerate everything.
This is a finite world, and we've got to have boundaries on it.
So, for instance, you can't tolerate intolerance.
Chesterton made this point.
He said there's a thought that stops thought, and that's the only thought that ought to be stopped.
There is speech that stops speech, like the heckler's veto, or sedition, actually, for that matter.
It undercuts the First Amendment.
So, obviously, there are constraints here.
The left does not care about appearing hypocritical according to other standards.
What they're trying to do is replace those standards with new ones.
The left doesn't care about the Uyghurs in China.
And we can yell about the Uyghurs until we're blue in the face.
It won't matter.
The left doesn't care about freedom, doesn't care about slavery.
The point of the new standards that they are foisting on us, from the 1619 Project all the way up to gender ideology, which we'll get to in just a second with this actress in Hollywood, the point of it is purely negative.
It is to overturn the established order.
The 1619 Project is a great example.
The 1619 Project has as its central thesis that the point of the American Revolution was to preserve slavery.
That is the thesis of the whole thing.
And the New York Times puts it out and spends millions of dollars promoting this and it goes into classrooms.
Academic historians, most of whom are left-wing, come out and say, actually guys, that's not true.
There is no evidence of that.
There's a lot of evidence to the contrary.
The New York Times finally, after months and months, has to make a correction.
It says, okay, actually, yeah, no, that wasn't the reason for the American Revolution.
But they leave the article.
They keep putting money into the 1619 Project.
Because the point of the 1619 Project is not to follow a thesis about how slavery caused the American Revolution.
The protection of slavery, rather.
The point of the 1619 Project is to get you to hate your country.
You see this with the sexual revolution, the left constantly exploiting groups of people who have sort of unusual sexual desires.
You see this notably with the homosexual movement and the transsexual movement.
Homosexual movement says there are two sexes, men and women.
And you are born with your innate sexual desires.
It's not just a preference that can change.
It is a sexual orientation.
You are born this way.
Nobody would choose this, right?
These are all the things we've heard from that wing of the sexual revolution for decades now.
And therefore, we need to accept people's varying sexual desires.
Okay, fair enough argument, right?
But then you get the transsexual or transgender argument, and they say there is no such thing as biological sex.
There are more sexes also.
There are more gender expressions.
Gender is different than sex.
How exactly?
We can't quite tell.
Men can become women.
Women can become men.
And there's nothing innate or immutable about it.
But of course, if that were the case, First of all, if transgenderism is true, then there actually have to be real categories of men and women because it's the only way to explain how men could become women.
Also, there's this contradiction within transgenderism, which is that on the one hand, sex is so essential to our sense of selves that if you look like a man but you feel like a woman, then you'll have to go through very expensive mutilations and totally try to transform your body to more closely appear like the sex that you identify as.
But also...
There's no such thing as real sex and a man really can become a woman and a woman can become a man or anything in the middle.
Well, those things don't compute.
They don't add up.
The left doesn't care.
The point of all of these ideas, all of which are internally inconsistent with the broader left-wing program, the point of it is just to smash the old standards.
So it doesn't matter.
One day, the kind of born this way argument works.
Okay, good.
Okay, we'll do born this way.
One day, gender as a social construct works.
Okay, we'll use gender as a social construct.
It doesn't matter that they don't go along together.
When you recognize that the only thing they're after, the only thing the left is after, is this kind of revolution that, as Whitaker Chambers writes in Witness, Whitaker Chambers, a famous ex-communist, he's basically the guy who turned Reagan into a conservative through his book.
He says...
The difference between freedom and communism, it's not that they're new ideologies.
Communism is the second oldest ideology in the world that goes back to the Garden of Eden when the serpent told Eve, ye shall be as gods.
Ye shall be as gods.
You can do whatever you want.
You can be whatever you want.
And of course, that's not the case because we're in a finite world.
And this brings us to our friend, Ellen Page.
I can't say that.
This podcast is going to be taken down if I use the phrase Ellen Page.
I will admit something.
I have no idea who Ellen Page is.
I wouldn't recognize her.
I couldn't pick her out of a lineup.
I don't think I've seen her movies.
Somebody told me she was in Inception, and I did see that movie, but I don't remember her.
I haven't seen her stuff, but apparently she's a famous actress, and she was a lesbian.
Apparently, by the way, there is a connection to Ellen Page.
During 2015, during the run-up to the 2016 election, Ellen Page, this very left-wing, then-lesbian actress, walked up to Ted Cruz, who also didn't recognize her, and starts picking a debate with him about LGBT rights and sexuality.
Take a listen.
It wasn't particularly coherent.
It's very funny.
You can tell she's frustrated that Cruz doesn't know who she is.
This was her perspective in 2015.
Well, what we're seeing right now is actually, we're seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted.
So, for example, one of the couples...
No, for living according to their faith.
So, for example...
I'm happy to answer your question, but not to have a back-and-forth debate.
If they were murdering people, it would be wrong.
But in Iran and ISIS, it is the governmental body that is executing them for being homosexual.
And why does the Obama administration not stand against us?
I don't know.
I would love to talk to Obama about it.
That'd be great.
Well, good.
Then we're agreed on that.
No, we're not.
Don't do that.
And eventually she just sort of walks away and says, listen, lady, you know, I've answered your questions.
And she goes away.
And she's obviously dejected that he doesn't know who she is.
She's no longer a lesbian.
Ellen Page is now identifying as Elliot Page.
Which means, according to gender ideology, she has been a man the whole time.
Nobody knew it.
She didn't even know it.
But she has been a man.
Her true self, according to this Gnostic, dualistic ideology of transgenderism, whereby your body has nothing to do with your true self.
Your true self is this purely metaphysical entity.
She was always a man.
Which means...
Because she was identifying as a lesbian.
She likes chicks.
It means that for all these years, a straight white man has been stealing the roles of women and lesbians.
That's outrageous.
That's a scandal.
You know, the patriarchy strikes again.
She is a straight white male.
She is therefore part of the problem.
She's not a man, right?
She's obviously not a man.
She's a woman.
She's actually a petite woman, as you can see in that video.
She's not particularly masculine.
Now, what is the issue here?
If she is a straight white man, is she going to be castigated in the way that straight white men are by this left-wing culture?
Now there are actually quotas.
You're not eligible for certain awards in Hollywood if you have too many straight white men in the movie.
So is she a straight white man?
That's what she's saying she is.
But not really, because everyone knows that she's a woman and she's just identifying as a man.
And she can do whatever she wants.
She can do whatever she wants.
It just doesn't matter.
People are not going to consider Ellen Page on the same sexual category as Ted Cruz, for instance, or as me.
They can do whatever they wanted.
And I think, look, we need to point out this hypocrisy.
It's a big portion of this show is identifying that.
But we have to go further than that as conservatives.
We need to recognize that they don't care if we call them hypocrites.
Some of them recognize the hypocrisy.
Most of them don't even acknowledge the existence of objective truth or an objective moral standard, right?
One of the points of this idea that gender is socially constructed One of the points of this idea that intersectionality means that only my suffering is the way that I can measure moral goodness in the world.
One of the points of progressivism explicitly is that there are no fixed laws to the universe.
The early progressives write about this in almost these exact words.
There are no fixed laws.
There is no eternally true human nature or sexuality or whatever that everything is evolving and changing.
And so they can't be held to account for those standards because the standard they're foisting on us is whatever they think.
Whatever the party says is right.
We covered on my book show at PragerU, 1984, where history is always being rewritten, standards are always being rewritten, language is always being rewritten, and whatever the party says is right.
Now that's become cliche to invoke, but there's a reason that George Orwell saw that happening, because that is what's happening right now.
And the way to fight that is not just to point out the hypocrisy.
The way to fight that is to offer our own vision of things.
The left is giving people their vision.
The conservatives are not giving people our vision.
Because we're too afraid to make claims about how we should live in the world.
How families should be recognized.
How small local governments should be made up.
The relationship between the local to the national.
How we ought to behave.
Because we've thrown our hands up in the air and said, you do you.
If it doesn't scare the horses, if it doesn't hurt anybody else, that's fine.
No.
The reason that the left is winning on the culture is because people don't want that.
People don't want to throw their hands up in the air.
people want a vision.
And conservatives have failed to do that.
We need to fight.
Actually, speaking of Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz, one of the last elected Republicans who is actually sticking by the fight and letting the legal process play out on the 2020 election, which we'll get to in just one second.
But I've got a more pressing problem, which is that sweet little Elisa deserves a very nice Christmas present.
And I'm very bad at picking out Christmas presents.
I often go for jewelry, but I don't really, I don't know that much about jewelry.
And very often, the good jewelry is too expensive to afford.
One of the most popular gifts you can possibly give for the holidays.
Very good reason for that.
And especially if you stick with the classics.
Fortunately, I've got the answer to these high jewelry prices at the Pearl Source, where you get the highest quality pearl jewelry at up to 70% off retail prices.
70% off retail.
Why?
Because the pearl source cuts out the middleman by eliminating traditional 5X markups by jewelry stores, sells directly to you, the customer.
If you've ever gone shopping for jewelry in a store, you know this.
This is one of the highest marked up and most opaque industries.
You've got to go to the PearlSource.
There's no problem over here, even if you need the jewelry quickly.
PearlSource offers fast and free two-day shipping on every order with zero contact delivery.
PearlSource comes with a no-hassle 60-day money-back guarantee, so it's totally risk-free.
And with more than 20 years in the Pearl business and nearly 10,000 five-star reviews, you can make sure you're shopping from a trusted retailer.
Do not overpay for jewelry.
Go to the PearlSource.
Save up to 70% off of retail prices.
For a limited time, listeners...
To my show can take 20% off your entire order for the holidays.
Go to thepearlsource.com slash Knowles, enter promo code Knowles at checkout for 20% off your entire order.
If you want fine pearl jewelry at the best prices online, go straight to the source, thepearlsource.com slash Knowles, and enter promo code Knowles at checkout.
And you, or your wife, or your girlfriend, can look like sweet little Elisa after this holiday season.
Ted Cruz sticking by the fight.
There have been a lot of disinformation and misinformation about this 2020 election.
2020 election was almost a month ago today.
Then, for some reason, it took them a long time to count those votes.
On election night, it looked like Trump won, pretty clearly.
Then more votes came in, and then it looked like Joe Biden won.
There have been some irregularities.
There has been some illegalities in some of these voting places.
And the Trump team is promising that they're going to prove that this was rigged and that Trump won.
Some of Trump's lawyers are saying Trump won in a landslide.
Where does it stand now?
A lot of the legal challenges have been dismissed out of court.
There have been challenges in the legislatures of these states saying, look, there's evidence of this fraud.
You can't ignore this.
You should decertify the vote.
Are they going to decertify the vote?
It seems unlikely.
Just historically speaking, it seems very unlikely.
So should we just give it up?
Should we just concede today?
I don't think so.
I don't think that we should delude ourselves and say there is a 100% chance Trump is going to be declared the winner.
I don't think that's true.
I don't think that we should, on the other hand, concede and say, no reason, let's stop all these legal challenges.
Before the electors vote on the 14th, let's just give it up.
It would be good for the country to give it up.
I don't think that's true either.
I think there is a legal process.
We should fight through that legal process tooth and nail until the very end.
And it would appear...
My friend and podcast co-host Ted Cruz agrees with that as well.
Senator Cruz just released this letter yesterday.
The statement is, today an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania.
This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the court should hear the case on an expedited basis.
What's the legal issue?
There's one in particular.
It's not the Dominion stuff or the questions about the way even certain votes were counted.
You know, some of those are more serious challenges than others.
But this is specific.
The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting.
Except in narrow and defined circumstances.
Late last year, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania constitutions express prohibition of that.
This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game.
If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.
This illegality was then compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases.
Alito Thomas Gorsuch wrote correctly concerning the Pennsylvania court's previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day that, quote, there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.
This is a very serious legal challenge to the results in Pennsylvania.
The Supreme Court absolutely should hear that out.
There is absolutely no reason, To concede the presidential election before that is heard.
Now you might say, even if Trump wins Pennsylvania, it's not enough to push him over the top.
Okay, fair enough.
Fair enough.
The Trump campaign is pursuing other challenges in other states.
But I don't even care.
I don't care if Joe Biden has every single electoral vote in the country except for Pennsylvania.
I want the Supreme Court to hear that case because the Pennsylvania election officials violated the law very, very clearly.
Maybe in multiple cases, but certainly in that case because of in-person voting.
Absolutely, it should be heard out.
Conservatives need to grow a spine.
I'm glad that Ted Cruz has one and I hope that the court takes that up.
There are a lot of people, especially in the legacy media, a lot of people are going squishy.
That's why we need to replace the legacy media.
If you are not a Daily Wire member, now is the time to join, because we've got some excellent stuff right around the corner, starting this Friday, December 4th.
Just a couple days from now.
The Michael Knowles Show is going five days a week with more content for our members to enjoy.
We're also going to radio, by the way, in January.
So that should be fun, too.
We're launching our first ever feature film under Daily Wire's upcoming entertainment channel.
We are building a new investigative journalism team to replace the establishment media cartel.
So go outside the narrative.
Come on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
We are loud.
We are opinionated.
We are having a very good time.
Also, if you haven't ordered them yet, check out our Daily Wire Christmas ornaments.
You can get a little ornament of me smoking a candy cane stogie on your Christmas tree.
Made out of metal.
They're really nice.
Designed, actually, by a longtime Daily Wire listener and friend of ours.
It's all the hosts, plus the God King Jeremy Boring as Santa's adorable little elves.
Check it out.
They're going to be a lot of fun.
Text CHRISTMAS to 83400 to get your tree decorated today.
Have us on your Christmas tree.
That is texting CHRISTMAS to 83400.
They're going very fast.
This is a limited quantity, so get yours now.
And by the way, be sure to stick around later today.
We've got programming going on all day, of course.
Ben is going to be touching on the Ellen page slash Elliot page.
And you'll remember that Ben famously, when he coined his phrase, facts don't care about your feelings, it was because he was challenging gender ideology to a very unladylike individual, transgender individual on television, who then grabbed Ben by the neck and said, if you don't cut that out talking about genetics, I'm going to send you home in an ambulance.
So I'm sure Ben will have an interesting perspective on that.
You can check that out.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
So the Pennsylvania legal challenge, totally legit.
There is no question there whether or not the Trump campaign has the goods.
You know, no one could argue that Pennsylvania did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Other places, it's less clear.
There have been hearings in Arizona.
There have been hearings all over the country.
There was a hearing in Michigan at which this issue of Dominion and the software and the voting machines has come up.
There have been some fanciful theories about what happened in the voting machines.
I don't trust electronic voting generally, but we haven't gotten specifics yet.
We haven't seen the Trump legal team prove that there was, not just that there could have been fraud, but that there was fraud.
Now we have in Michigan, the Trump team brought out a contractor for Dominion, For the software that was used in the voting machines, who insists that there was fraud.
My name is Melissa Caron.
I am a resident of Wayne County.
I have a background in IT and cybersecurity.
I was contracted by PDS staffing to work with Dominion Voting Systems assisting with IT at the TCF Center.
What I witnessed at the TCF Center was complete fraud.
The whole 27 hours I was there, there was Batches of ballots being ran through the tabulating machines numerous times, being counted eight to ten times.
Also, the adjudication process.
I witnessed numerous people walking up claiming they were both Democrats, saying they were sitting together judging ballots all night together, all day together.
I witnessed it all.
I was on the main stage with all of the city officials.
Daniel Baxter was in on the whole thing, and I am under the impression 100% that At least 90% of those workers were all in on this.
There was not a single ballot the whole night, the whole 27 hours I was there that I saw that was for Donald Trump.
Not one.
Not a single ballot.
That is scary.
There was something going on at that Department of Elections.
Alright, so the first allegation she's making...
Is pretty serious and it's pretty specific that they were just running ballots through their machine multiple times so that one person's vote, a Democratic vote, would be counted multiple times, which of course is disenfranchising Republicans.
It's disenfranchising everybody actually because, you know, every illegal vote takes away a vote from an eligible voter.
Okay, so that's a specific one.
Can they prove it?
You know, they've got this woman's eyewitness testimony.
That is not...
It's probably not sufficient to overthrow an election, but you know, it's pretty significant.
It's pretty specific.
Then there's another charge, which is that something was going on and no votes came in for Trump and all the votes were for Biden.
This, I have no reason not to believe it's true.
This sort of thing does go on.
We don't know if it went on.
Well, we don't know if it went on at all.
And if it did, we don't know that it would have gone on to the degree that it could sway thousands or tens of thousands of votes or presidential election because it happened in multiple states.
But I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm not saying it did happen.
The only issue for the Trump legal team, though, is that This charge, the second charge, more or less amounts to something's going on.
I'm telling you something's up.
Something's fishy.
Yeah, I know.
You don't say.
Obviously something's fishy.
Obviously there were tons of irregularities.
I don't mean to be angry with this woman.
It's good that she's coming forward and testifying.
That argument is not going to be sufficient.
I wish it were sufficient, but it won't be.
No court is going to hear that argument.
Frankly, I don't think any legislature is going to hear that argument and say, okay, now we're going to decertify a vote.
Now we're going to overturn an election.
That is not going to work.
And that's...
Unfortunate.
I wish it did, but, you know, there is fraud that goes on in every election, and unless you can really drill down and prove that it was widespread and you can show where it happened, then probably it's not going to hold up in court.
Another guy over here in Michigan, another guy who was a poll watcher, gets to another aspect of these irregularities that seem to have taken place in a lot of places, namely that Republicans were not admitted to watch the poll count.
Take a listen.
I'm an unaffiliated Michigan voter who was trained by the GOP to be a poll challenger on Wednesday, November 4th, beginning in the late morning until around 8 p.m.
because I was told that they needed help.
They were understaffed.
I witnessed the room erupt in thunderous applause and derogatory cheering as Republican poll workers were picked off one by one and ejected from the room repeatedly by police escort throughout the day.
By the end of the day, they had picked off so many GOP poll workers that there were probably only a few dozen left to monitor all of the processing stations in the room.
Which I'm told was between 130 and 160.
So this is very specific, right?
He's saying, yeah, these Republicans were kicked out.
A very small number were allowed to remain.
So whenever you see the PolitiFact fact check, there was a Republican poll watcher somewhere.
Okay, where were all the rest of them?
And by the way, if that poll watcher had to stand even six feet away, but certainly 25 feet away, as we've heard in some cases, then the poll watcher is not going to do very much.
I couldn't see what's on a ballot six feet away.
I could barely see what's on a ballot six inches away.
So, that challenge, very specific, means that votes were counted illegally.
We know that this happened.
We know it happened in Georgia.
We know, for instance, in Georgia, we were told they had to shut down the vote counting in certain places at 10.30 at night.
And then the poll watchers went home.
And then secretly, vote counting went on until 1.30 in the morning.
We know that they made up a story about how a pipe burst.
And that is why the poll watchers had to go home and we had to stop counting the vote.
B.S. Not true.
No evidence that that's true.
A lot of evidence to the contrary.
So that's where the challenges are.
But here's the problem.
Well, I think most of those kinds of testimonies are legitimate.
And they point to something that is legitimate.
But is it going to move the needle?
Bill Barr, the Attorney General, says, quote, to date...
We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.
There's been one assertion that that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results.
The DHS and DOJ have looked into that and so far we haven't seen anything to substantiate that.
I have no doubt that These machines could have been open to that hacking.
I have no doubt that the Democrats would cheat to do it and have cheated in certain places.
Not through the voting machines, but through other means.
But the problem for the Trump legal team, as time dwindles, we're less than two weeks out, we're 12 days out from the electoral college vote, is you've got to prove that it did happen.
I don't blame Bill Barr for saying he hasn't found evidence of fraud.
I'm sure he's looking for evidence of fraud.
I think he's a straight shooter.
I don't know, I only met the guy once, but he seems like a straight shooter to me.
His career, I think, backs that up.
And they haven't shown it.
I'm waiting.
Sidney Powell hasn't shown it.
Maybe she's showing it in court.
I hope so.
I'm just saying the time is running out.
By the way, I don't think that that is the fact that we haven't seen this hard evidence to a degree that would sway a judge to overturn an election.
I don't think that's a reason for us to suddenly trust the election officials or even to trust the election result.
We'll have to address the election result, depending on how the Electoral College votes, because that's actually the way that our Constitution sets up the election of presidents.
But in terms of the people voting at the polling stations, I think we should be skeptical of that sort of thing.
And I don't think that's conspiratorial.
I don't think that's kooky or you're wearing a tinfoil hat.
Of course we should be skeptical.
And by the way, the left gets to be skeptical.
How come the left gets to be skeptical with far less evidence, far less grounds for their skepticism of the government than we are?
You saw this just a couple nights ago on MSNBC. Joy Reid, one of my favorite people on MSNBC, My doppelganger is my first favorite, but Joy Reid is my second because she is really kooky.
Joy Reid comes out and is just talking to a guest about how they're a little distrustful of the COVID vaccine.
Here's why.
You were part of the Moderna trial, and it looks like Moderna might be the one that has the highest success rate so far.
But number one, I worry that just hearing that a vaccine is coming will make people even more lax.
They'll say, you know what, I'm going to do what I want because a vaccine is coming.
That's one piece.
And then the other piece is when it comes, particularly in our community, black people, they might be like, I don't trust science.
Tuskegee experiments, et cetera, there's just not a lot of trust.
And it was developed during the Trump era.
I'm worried about both.
Are you worried about those two things?
Yes, I'm very concerned about that.
I've been talking about this in community, and I've been very clear to say too often science has been a tool of white supremacy.
And what do I mean by that?
Too often we can look at a sordid historical legacy of medical experimentation, medical exploitation that blacks and browns have suffered, whether it's Tuskegee, whether it's Henrietta Lacks, whether it's Mississippi appendectomies or enslaved black women being forced to undergo gynecological surgery.
I can't believe I'm saying this about a Joy Reid program on MSNBC. I think they're basically right.
They're not right in the specifics.
I mean, they think that Trump is, I don't know, going to give everyone a poison vaccine.
That's crazy.
They think that white supremacy is this major, major problem in America.
That's obviously crazy.
But the point that they're making, that we should be skeptical of the government, And that science is often used as a tool for nefarious political ends.
That is completely right.
And actually, they use the phrase white supremacy.
White supremacy on the left just means bad.
You know, it's just a byword for bad or evil.
And that's true.
That's true.
Science is a quasi-religious term that is now invoked by the left.
Science, what it really means, comes from the Latin verb shire.
It means knowledge, to know.
And then throughout most of the history of the West, it encompassed all of knowledge and how we acquire knowledge.
Then for the past, I don't know, 300 years or so, it's taken on this more narrow sense of material inquiry.
So I can't pursue the science of knowledge.
Theology, for instance.
That's considered not a real science.
But I can pursue the science of what this Leftist Tears Tumblr is made of.
Obviously, it's made of just the highest grade materials on the planet.
And now, in the last few decades, maybe the last century even, really since the left developed their theories of the science of history and the science of politics, goes back to Marx, goes back to Hegel, Science has taken on this highly politicized definition,
whereby if you know the science of history, you know the right side of history, you know the arc of history bends toward justice, you know where we're going, you know what progress means, you know that utopia we're going to land at, and therefore there should be no public debate.
Therefore we should just follow science, and once we know that, you know, Andrew Cuomo in New York, the worst governor when it comes to the coronavirus epidemic, His policies directly led to the deaths of thousands of New Yorkers, violated his own policies.
New York has been affected worse than just about any other state.
But he says, believe science.
And the left, they agree with it.
They say, yes, believe science.
They don't ever worry about the double standard.
What's science?
What does he mean by science?
When we say, believe Dr.
Fauci.
Dr.
Fauci is a politician.
He's a politician who's also a social scientist of epidemiology, which is a social science, right?
It's a science that is as much about people and the way that people behave and interact as it is about viruses.
He's public health.
Public health means political health.
Public and political are synonymous.
And politics will use the facade, the guise of science to their nefarious ends.
Joy Reid and her guest, whoever that was, totally right about that.
I just wish that conservatives were permitted to make that point as well.
Because no one's going to call Joy Reid a science denier.
They are explicitly saying science is a tool of politics and we shouldn't believe it.
They are denying science, right?
And no one's going to call them that.
I just wish we could all be held to the same standard there.
Before we go, I have to get to one very, very sad aspect of the collapse of our standards.
This is the saddest article I've read in...
Many weeks, if not months.
I believe it's from New York Magazine.
There's a letter to the advice columnist.
Can I still charge my boyfriend rent once we're married?
Dear Charlotte, my fiancé and I live together.
I own the house, it's paid off, and he pays me $500 a month.
Pretty good deal.
Can I move in?
The bills for the house are very low and they come out to about $300 a month.
So essentially he's paying $200 in rent.
Oh, because I guess she's paying the bills too.
He thinks that once we get married, he shouldn't have to pay rent anymore and that we should split the bills evenly.
He's also stressed because he has accrued some debt, about 15 grand since we've been together.
Wow, since we've been together, which is partly why he thinks he should pay less.
This frustrates me because I worked so hard to pay off my house early and I feel like he's taking advantage of that.
He has made less money than me the entire seven years we've been together and it's been a constant issue in our relationship.
I think that the man should contribute a bit more than the woman.
Yeah, you think?
I'd love to split everything and own a house together, but he's nowhere near being able to do that.
What's the fair option once you're married?
Before we get to what happens once you're married, I don't know if she watches this show.
I hope she does.
Before we get to your marriage, run.
Run.
I know that you own that house.
There should be a U-shaped hole in the wall because you're running so fast.
You don't have to go to the door.
Run.
This guy is a loser.
This guy is worse than a loser.
He has no standards at all.
He probably talks to women like Steve Schmidt does.
He's not a man.
He's not behaving like a man.
Should you still be able to charge your fiancé rent?
Should you charge your husband rent?
No.
Because when you're married, you're going to be one flesh.
You're going to be one unit.
There is no his money and there is no your money.
I know that some people keep finances separate.
They sort of pretend that.
That's not real.
That's fake.
That's imaginary.
When you're married, it's all the same stuff.
And so you're taking on all of this guy's failures.
And all of this guy's vices.
And all of this guy's childish behavior.
You won't be marrying a husband.
You're going to be marrying a child who runs up all this debt while you're paying off your debt.
Who doesn't understand that he's supposed to be the head of his household.
He shouldn't be paying rent to you.
He should be paying the rent.
He should be paying the mortgage.
He should have a house.
He shouldn't not have a house and you should have a house.
You shouldn't be working hard and he's not working.
You wouldn't be marrying a man.
Now, in the modern culture, look, people once understood this, not that long ago.
In the modern culture, though, even many conservatives would say, oh, well, you know, look, he'll just...
Let's throw up your hand.
Look, you're all people.
It's not that he's a man, you're a woman, he's a husband, you're a wife.
It's, look, you're all people.
You should split everything evenly.
You should all do the exact same amount of housework.
You should pay the bills in equal shares.
You should both go to work in exactly the same way at exactly the same type of company.
No.
No.
That's not it.
Men and women are different.
I know that Ellen Page would, or Elliot Page now, would dispute that.
But they're different.
Doesn't mean he's got to, like, chain you to the kitchen and have you cooking all day.
And it doesn't mean that he's got to be working 16 hours, you know, at the office, you know, in the kind of furthest caricatures of what it is to be a husband and a wife.
But husbands and wives are different.
And you're not even going to be marrying a wife.
At least wives provide quite a lot.
This guy's not doing that at all.
You'd be marrying a child and someone who has no sense of standards at all.
When you're a child, sometimes you don't have standards if you're not raised right because you have to be educated into them.
You have to learn how to behave.
You have to learn what those standards are.
Now we've got a whole nation of these children.
They don't know if they're men.
They don't know if they're women.
They don't know what's up, what's down.
That's no way to go on.
If we want to fix that, we can't just keep throwing our hands up in the air.
We have to offer a political vision.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
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.
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.
▲
Export Selection