All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 12, 2021 - The Michael Knowles Show
49:42
Ep. 678 - Expel Kamala

House Democrats try to impeach Trump, Cuomo finally promises to open up New York, and Kamala graces the cover of Vogue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
House Democrats are promising to impeach President Trump, even though he has about, I don't know, 15 seconds left in office.
They want to impeach the guy.
House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy is pushing back against this, suggesting maybe they censure President Trump.
Instead, I have a different idea altogether.
I think that the Republican-controlled Senate should censure, or better yet, expel Kamala Harris.
We will make the case.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Old Schooled, who says, you can't censor a dictator.
The ones doing the censoring are the dictators.
Thank you.
That is a very good point.
Everyone is calling Trump a fascist dictator.
Not everyone.
Everyone on CNN. Not everyone generally.
But, you know, the left is calling Trump a dictator.
He's an authoritarian.
A dictator, right, related to the word diction, dictionary, right, these sort of things that you can say and you can govern through your speech.
Trump can't even send a tweet right now, much less is he a dictator.
And who is controlling the words of the duly elected sitting president of the United States?
Hipster Rasputin over in Silicon Valley.
Jack Dorsey.
Mark Zuckerberg.
Who else?
Who else is controlling it?
Doesn't sound like a dictator to me.
It's these guys who control the internet and sometimes who are good at collecting a lot of data.
If you want to make sure that your data are not exposed and collected all the time, you've got to check out ExpressVPN.
Let's talk about censorship on social media sites and what you can do about it.
The left wants to silence and remove any voices that they don't agree with.
Twitter was supposed to be an open platform.
Remember that?
Well, I would prefer if their content moderators would stop acting like the op-ed section of the New York Times.
Instead of letting social media sites revoke your right to free speech, how about revoking their right to your data?
Now, you could just deactivate all your social media accounts, but that would just be giving the left exactly what they wanted in the first place.
Instead, I prefer ExpressVPN.
I know that you're always thinking, they're not going to come after my data.
That doesn't matter.
They don't want to get my stuff.
They don't want to see what I'm doing.
They do.
They do.
It's all open, folks.
It's finally time to say no to censorship and take back your online privacy at ExpressVPN.com.
By visiting my special link, you will get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service For free.
That is expressvpn.com slash Michael.
Expressvpn.com slash Michael to protect your data today.
Go do it.
You know how much I love ExpressVPN.
You know that I love protecting my online privacy.
I'm sure you do as well.
Go check it out.
I'll get to the Kamala of it all in a second because this is both, I think, something worthwhile for Senate Republicans, but I think it's also an attitude shift that Republicans generally need to understand.
But first, I actually want to take seriously the Democrats' contention that Donald Trump should be impeached in his last 10 days or so in office.
President Trump, they want to impeach because he led an insurrection by On the government at Capitol Hill.
And he urged his mob to go become violent and invade the Capitol and scare off all the legislators.
And this is unacceptable.
It's a threat to the Republic.
And therefore, we've got to impeach him.
That's the charge.
Now, what are the facts?
President Trump called his supporters to D.C. for a big rally.
He went out and addressed that rally.
He told people to be strong.
And he even told them, or I guess described how they were inevitably going to, March to Capitol Hill.
And therefore, it's an open and shut case, right?
Well, let's listen to what President Trump actually said.
We're gonna walk down, anyone you want, but I think right here, we're gonna walk down to the Capitol.
And we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.
And we're probably not gonna be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you'll never take back our country with weakness.
You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated.
Lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building.
To peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country.
Okay, now you've probably heard the first part of that clip before.
You might not have heard the second part, where President Trump explicitly says, you're going to go there and peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
So, it doesn't sound to me like he's inciting an insurrection.
It sounds like quite the opposite, right?
He's explicitly saying, do not be violent, be peaceful.
Now, you might say, look, he sent a mob of extremely angry people over to the Capitol and said, be tough, you gotta be tough, you can't be weak.
So therefore, I don't know, we gotta censure the President.
I actually, I understand the argument of House Republicans who want to censure the President.
Probably wouldn't vote for it, but I at least understand that argument.
I don't see the argument for impeachment.
He didn't do the thing that they are saying that he did.
And you can play the tape and listen to it.
Not that evidence is going to matter all that much in an impeachment trial, which certainly an impeachment trial of a president who is days away from leaving office is purely political.
There's no legal basis for it at all.
So this is basically where Republicans and conservatives are fighting the issue right now.
Should we impeach Trump?
Should we censure Trump?
Should we do nothing at all?
What are they going to do to us?
It's all very defensive.
I'd like to propose an alternative.
I think that the Democratic-controlled House is going to try to impeach Trump.
I think that the Republican-controlled Senate should censure, or better yet, expel Kamala Harris.
Last I checked, Kamala Harris is still a senator, right?
And will remain so until she becomes vice president.
And I guess even if she weren't, the Senate could still pass a resolution to censure her.
So why won't they do that?
Kamala Harris did not merely encourage the peaceful protesters at the Black Lives Matter riots all over the summer.
Kamala Harris posted a fundraising link for the rioters in Minnesota who were arrested to bail them out of jail.
That's not saying go over there and peacefully protest.
That's saying we are going to subsidize your violent actions.
We played a little bit of this briefly yesterday on the show.
Kamala Harris went on The Colbert Show and said, these rioters, they ain't going to give it up.
I know that there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States.
I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks.
That's right.
But they're not going to stop.
They're not going to stop.
This is a movement, I'm telling you.
They're not going to stop.
And everyone beware, because they're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day.
And everyone should take note of that on both levels, that they're not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.
They're not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.
Now, you might say, Michael, Kamala's not talking about the rioters.
Kamala's talking about the mostly peaceful protesters.
I'm not so sure of that because there was a lot more violence, a lot more widespread violence during the BLM riots than anything that happened at the Capitol, bad as it was.
But moreover, if you're going to say that about Kamala Harris, certainly you have to say that about Trump.
If you're going to say BLM was mostly peaceful, surely you have to say that Capitol Hill was mostly peaceful.
Donald Trump went out there and said, you have to do this peacefully.
Kamala Harris didn't say anything like that.
Not in that clip and certainly not in the fundraising link.
The fundraising link subsidizes the violence.
Anything they're going to accuse Trump of, anything they're going to bring up in this impeachment trial, Kamala Harris is far more guilty of.
The Democrats control the House, rather.
Republicans control the Senate.
How come it's only ever House Democrats who are aggressing?
How come it's only ever the left who are doing anything?
Why is the right always on defense?
Why won't Mitch McConnell go out there and, at the very least, censure Kamala Harris?
And better yet, expel her.
If they're going to try to impeach Trump, expel Kamala Harris.
I don't think that what Trump did, giving a rally, say, go be peaceful...
I don't think that's an impeachable offense.
Little questionable to send a mob down to Capitol Hill, but nothing that he did is impeachable.
So if you're going to impeach the guy for that, surely, surely we have to apply even something close to the same standard to the Democrats who did far worse.
But that's not going to happen.
Mitch McConnell's almost certainly not going to do it.
I mean, call your congressman, call your senator rather, try to make it happen.
But it almost certainly will not because of this systemic problem on the right.
Which is that we play defense and we roll over and the left aggresses and aggresses and aggresses.
All we're talking about here is following legal procedures.
Even that the right is not willing to do.
Kamala Harris says, yeah, it's not going to stop.
It won't stop.
Bail out the criminals.
We're going to have a great time.
No consequences whatsoever.
Might not even need to wait, by the way, for these impeachment proceedings.
If any of you were checking the State Department website yesterday, I know it's not exactly my homepage.
I don't go there all the time.
But if you did check the State Department website yesterday, if you checked under President Trump's heading, you would have read, Donald J. Trump's term ended on January 11, 2021, at 7.49 p.m., I assume Eastern Time.
Now, this went up.
Before 749 Eastern Time.
The Vice President's biography was edited to say Michael R. Pence.
His term ended on January 11, 2021 at 744 Eastern Time.
The timestamp on the President's page changed multiple times, and it was removed in the late afternoon and replaced with a 404 reading that said, sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties.
When a lot of us saw that, given all the shenanigans that have gone on in this entire presidency, we thought, gosh, Does the State Department know something we don't know?
Is this impeachment thing really happening or worse?
I mean, what is going on here?
Then it was floated, it was being reported, I guess baselessly, that this was a hack.
Now, the story that we're being told by the State Department is it was not a hack.
It was a disgruntled employee.
There's no way to hack into the very highly secure State Department website.
Then it later came out that the infrastructure for the State Department website is WordPress.
Is, you know, the blogging platform that a lot of websites use.
It's very, very good software.
But you think, I figured the State Department would have something super-duper advanced, not like the blog that I had when I was 15.
Yeah.
I bring this up.
One, it was a very strange thing.
They're saying it's a disgruntled employee.
There are plenty of leftists at the State Department, so I wouldn't be surprised at all.
But I bring it up actually for a sort of tangential point, which is we're all very taken with these kind of conspiracy ideas these days.
The left ran with it for four years on Russia and whatever, Ukraine, all this nonsense.
But the right enjoys conspiracies, too.
We all want to be part of the secret knowledge.
The State Department website runs on a very basic, popular web service.
To me, that dispels a lot of conspiracies.
Because we think that it's all these super geniuses that are working in all these, you know, agencies of the government.
It's mostly incompetent bureaucrats.
There are bad dudes, too, who do lots of bad things and abuse their power.
I'm thinking of guys like Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok.
There is a lot of bad stuff.
I'm not downplaying that at all.
But I guess it's a sort of consolation how incompetent much of this bureaucracy is.
It does quash a lot of these theories.
A lot of these guys can't do very much.
They don't even avail themselves of the tools at their disposal.
I would recommend, however, that you avail yourself of tools at your disposal.
With HIMSS, if you care about men's wellness.
4himss.com is all about men's wellness.
Need help with ED, hair loss, or have a cold?
Are you interested in mental health or COVID-19 home tests?
HIMSS is here for you.
Through HIMSS, you can get the prescription medication that treats ED. Real science, real solutions.
HIMSS makes it easy.
HIMSS connects you with a licensed medical professional online who can prescribe FDA-approved prescription medication to treat ED. You get the same active ingredient as that expensive little pill but without the expensive price tag.
No more searching online for answers to questions about ED or sexual wellness.
Just go to your HIMSS account and ask a medical professional you can trust.
If there is a simple solution available to a problem that a lot of people face, maybe you should avail yourself of that solution.
Try HIMSS today by starting out with a free online visit.
Go to 4hims.com slash Michael for your free visit.
That is 4hims.com slash Michael, F-O-R-H-I-M-S dot com slash Michael.
Prescription products are subject to medical provider approval and require an online consultation with a medical provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate.
See a website for full details and safety information.
Remember, that is 4hims.com slash Michael.
Go check out HIMSS. Very good stuff.
Very incompetent people in the government.
One of the great ways to dispel these conspiracy theories.
Do you think there could be some super arch conspiracy in the state of New York?
I don't think so.
Do you know why?
Not because they wouldn't want to.
They're very, very corrupt people, generally speaking, especially in the Democratic Party up in Albany and New York.
I just don't think they're competent enough.
Andrew Cuomo He has now handled the virus worse than any governor in the country.
He has kept the state closed.
He sent six people into nursing homes.
He's wasted the vaccine.
He didn't prepare correctly.
He called in resources they didn't need.
Cuomo is now saying, after being closed up, closed up, closed up, all to no avail, leads the country almost in the top three for death and death rate.
On coronavirus, Cuomo now says, fellas, we can't stay closed.
We simply cannot stay closed until the vaccine hits critical mass.
The cost is too high.
We will have nothing left to open.
We must reopen the economy, but we must do it smartly and safely.
Did President Trump write Cuomo's speech there?
Did a Daily Wire writer write Cuomo's State of the State?
What have we been saying now for months and months and months?
We've said, you have to reopen.
If you don't reopen, soon there's not going to be anything to reopen.
It kills me.
I'm a New Yorker myself, born and raised.
Many of the great establishments of New York are not going to reopen.
It's expected that the majority of restaurants in New York are not going to reopen.
Very sad what he's done to a, generally speaking, beautiful and vibrant city.
And now Cuomo says, now we've got to reopen.
Yeah, because your policy didn't work.
Because your lockdown policy didn't work.
Because your vaccine rollout certainly didn't work.
It was a complete disaster.
Andrew Cuomo, because of his stupid policies, not only got grandma killed, you know, not only got, thankfully not my grandmother's, but lots of people's grandmothers killed in New York.
But Andrew Cuomo is now wasting the vaccine because he put policies into effect that said that if healthcare workers did not follow his guidelines for exactly who to give the vaccine to, they could be fined, they could face very steep punishments.
So do you know what was happening?
Healthcare workers were throwing out the vaccine because they didn't want to face the state government penalties.
Finally, now Cuomo is lifting that.
It's extremely idiotic regulation, too.
But while everyone's focusing on that part of the state of the state, I actually want to focus in on another statement, which I think did not get the kind of coverage it should, but it tells you exactly what the left is after with these onerous and draconian lockdown policies.
Today, I'm speaking in person with a small group, but broadcasting, Zooming, and streaming, and in this new and different world, the audience is actually larger, not smaller.
Technology and technology-based relationships, work from home, these are new realities that will have dramatic consequences.
This next year, we will see economies realign and reset around the world.
We see the risk and the peril, but we also see the promise and the potential.
The question to be answered is what will we make of this moment?
Is it positive or is it negative?
Do we move forward or do we move backward?
Is America, is New York stronger or weaker in the post-COVID world?
Those, my friends, are the questions that we alone will answer in 2021 because the future is in our hands.
America and New York will be stronger in the post-COVID world if we run these lunatic sociopath politicians out on a railway line, and they will be weaker in the post-COVID world if we follow what these people want to do.
The left does not want to go back to normal.
The left wants this to be the new normal.
Andrew Cuomo just stated it explicitly.
He said, look, usually we have an audience.
Usually I'm accountable to people in the audience.
Usually I have to answer questions from people who are live, but now they're all on Zoom.
It's, Isn't that so much better?
I'm reaching more people.
First of all, I don't really see how that's the case.
You could easily have a Zoom camera going while having people in the room.
You're just giving people more opportunities.
And not everybody uses Zoom.
I assure you my grandmother does not get on Zoom every single day.
Does not know what Zoom is.
My grandmother in New York doesn't use a computer.
And I think that's true for a lot of people.
So no, I don't think it's...
The way forward is to limit spaces that people get to interact with their politicians.
No.
What about working from home?
He says this is the new reality.
You're all going to start working from home.
Say business is a lot of money on office space.
You just work, work, work.
It worked very well.
I read one study that said that people are working more actually.
You think that when people work from home they would work less.
Actually productivity has increased in many places.
That's the new reality, is it?
You know, there's a theory going, or speaking of all these sort of Gnostic theories going around the internet, they say that COVID is the great reset.
And this is supposed to be some grand conspiracy theory.
It's not a grand conspiracy theory.
The guy's talking about it right there.
He says we're going to reset.
The economies are going to realign.
They're going to reset.
Based on what happened with COVID, we're going to have new norms for society, and that's it.
We're not going to gather as often as we want to.
We're going to be on Zoom.
We're going to be wearing masks.
Certainly when we travel, we're going to be wearing masks a whole lot more.
We're not going to see people's smiling faces.
We're going to muzzle ourselves out in public.
We're going to work from home much more.
Not going to go in and see people at the office.
Not going to go have human interaction.
Just lock ourselves away in our rooms and Zoom all day long.
Does that sound like a fulfilling life?
Does that sound like the kind of society you want to live in?
Not me.
Not me.
This actually relates to another issue.
Kind of, on one hand, silly story that's going around, but people are missing the real meat of the story.
Kamala Harris is on the cover of Vogue.
Kamala Harris, not even yet the vice president.
She's the vice president-elect.
She's on the cover, and it's not a flattering picture.
And apparently the left is very upset about this because she's wearing some kind of rumpled pantsuit and Converse sneakers, and it isn't framed very well.
I understand why the Kamala Harris team would be upset about this.
The conservatives should be upset about this because we have an actual international model for a first lady, and she's never been on the cover of any of these magazines.
And we've got extraordinarily impressive women that have appeared throughout the Trump administration.
Our current press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, would be the second choice.
You know, if Melania Trump, who is just very, very beautiful...
And an actual model.
If she can't be on the cover, I don't know, how about like Kayleigh?
How about Kellyanne?
How about all these very impressive women who have been in the Trump administration?
No, they're not going to be on.
You're only going to put Democrats on.
Okay, that's fine.
But then you look at what it says on the cover.
The cover, it says Madam Vice President Kamala Harris, and then in small print at the bottom, and the New America.
I don't really care about the picture of Kamala Harris.
I care about those words, those four words, and the new America.
What if you like the old America?
What is the new America?
Can you describe to me what that is?
It's different, right?
This is something that we've seen from the left now for years and years, when Barack Obama said that he's going to fundamentally transform the country.
Well, if you're going to fundamentally transform it, that means it's going to be completely different than it was before.
Right?
It's going to be different, not just in degree, it's going to be different in kind.
You are going to fund, essentially change the country.
Why?
Because you don't like the country.
If you like the country, you don't want to fundamentally transform it.
If you love your wife, you don't want to fundamentally transform your wife.
So what is this new America that we're talking about?
We saw a little bit of it yesterday.
Remember Joe Biden came out and he said, we're going to build back businesses.
We're going to build back businesses by prioritizing black, Latino, and women businesses.
What does that mean?
That means white guys, they're not going to get any help.
We're going to build back better by instituting a racial caste system in America.
Equality, and Biden says it's in the name of equality.
That's the new America.
The president-elect is saying it.
The vice president-elect has that moniker on the cover of magazines.
Expect a lot more of this.
Expect to be gaslit.
There was a headline in the Washington Post that is very embarrassing for the Washington Post, and it should worry everybody in this country, not even because of the political issue it's talking about, but because of the way that language is being manipulated.
You make these subtle changes in language, then you change thought, and then you change culture fundamentally.
Which is why, here at Daily Wire, we're trying to make culture, we're trying to push back against that.
You know, we've got a backstage coming up Thursday, 7pm Eastern.
Even before that, the actions of big tech last week make it abundantly clear that they will do everything they can to silence opposing voices.
They are completely out of control.
Many of you have reached out to us to ask what you can do to help.
We've told you about our ambitious plans this year with investigative news entertainment content.
We're going to get some of that entertainment content very soon.
But with the actions of Big Tech last week, we cannot just stop there.
We have to take action to build or buy technology to protect ourselves from the attack that is coming so that we can continue to deliver new content to you and fight back.
It is coming.
We are seeing it coming down the pike.
It's already happened to other guys in the space.
We're exploring all of the possibilities, new data centers, payment gateways, a lot more.
Our team has been working very hard on this.
We can't do all of that with our current budget.
Simple as that.
We need more of your support.
We are very grateful to everyone who's become a member already.
This is going to ramp up.
This kind of censorship is going to ramp up very, very quickly.
Biden is not even in office yet, and it's already happening.
So we really appreciate it.
Head on over.
Become a member of The Daily Wire.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Joe Biden has ambitious plans, or at least the people around him have ambitious plans.
Joe Biden probably doesn't know what day it is or, or what he had for breakfast.
But the people around him, his administration has ambitious plans.
This according to the Washington Post, which had a headline so, it was so offensive.
But it's, we're gonna get so much more of this.
It says, quote, Biden's ambitious LGBT agenda poises him to be nation's most pro-equality president in history.
You know, if I had to think, who are the nation's most pro-equality presidents?
I think...
I mean, Joe Biden, he's going to, like, make some bakers bake cakes for gay weddings or something, right?
He's going to make some baker...
They always keep targeting these bakers.
Jack Phillips and...
I think he's in Colorado.
There are other bakers, though, that have been targeted by activist groups.
In the case of Jack Phillips, there are actually plenty of bakers, bakeries all around, but these left-wing activists go specifically to his because they know he's Christian and say, you've got to make a cake.
They wanted him to make one cake once.
They had all this kind of heretical and blasphemous symbolism on it.
It involved gender ideology and all this kind of stuff.
But sure, Joe Biden, he's going to make those guys bake the cakes.
Fine.
Does that make him more pro-equality than, say, Abraham Lincoln?
Joe Biden makes some bakers bake cakes for religious ceremonies that violate their religious views.
Okay, that's one type of equality.
Another type is freeing the slaves.
Who do you...
Who do you think is the most pro-equality president in history?
It is amazing how they did it.
It was one very left-wing LGBT group called the Human Rights Campaign that appropriated for the gay rights movement the equality symbol.
So now, when we talk about equality, I thought we'd talk about racial equality, you can talk about equality of the sexes, you know, men and women.
You can talk about equality, spiritual equality before God.
No.
Now the word equality itself, Is beholden to this very niche interest group that is focusing on this very niche sort of question of sexual desire and sexual ideology.
That's where equality is now.
Now, of course, it won't remain there for long because the minute that the left believes they can advance their agenda through racial grievance rather than sexual grievance, you know they're going to ditch the LGBT group then.
They're going to move on to the racial question or they're going to move on to some other question.
But it's just so offensive.
The Washington Post, I think, used to be sort of a real newspaper.
Maybe, I don't know.
Maybe not.
Maybe it wasn't.
Maybe it was always just this rag.
But what a ridiculous headline.
Biden's ambitious LGBT agenda poises him to be the nation's most pro-equality president in history.
By the way, I mean, equality word aside, the argument here, I think the premise is that Donald Trump was anti-LGBT. Donald Trump appointed the first openly gay acting cabinet member in American history, right?
Rick Rennell.
Donald Trump waved a gay pride flag.
So even if you're going to make the argument that conservatives are really anti-LGBT and Biden's really...
Donald Trump sure isn't.
Donald Trump...
But they're going to erase that.
I mean, you saw headlines after Biden said he would appoint Pete Buttigieg to run the trains or whatever.
He said, historic!
Pete Buttigieg, first openly gay cabinet member.
As if Rick Grinnell didn't even exist.
This is a total perversion of language.
It's a total perversion of the way that we communicate.
And it results in censorship.
So this is what political correctness or whatever kind of, you know, whatever word you want to use, whatever term you want to use for these speech codes.
They try to force you to say certain things, use certain words, don't use other words.
Then when you don't go along with it, they censor you.
They've been censoring a ton of conservatives.
This is through big technology, of course, up to and including the President of the United States.
And now when they say, go build your own Twitter, then Dan Bongino goes and builds his own Twitter, and they kill that Twitter.
They kill it from the Google Play Store.
They kill it from the Apple App Store.
Then when you can only look at it on a browser, they kill it from the web services, Amazon Web Services.
Devin Nunes goes on television and he says Republicans are being cut off from their ways to communicate.
What was likely Parler is likely a billion dollar company.
Poof!
It's gone.
But it's more than just the financial aspect of that.
Republicans have no way to communicate.
Republicans have no way to communicate.
That was Devin Nunes' claim and the left made fun of him.
They were laughing.
They said, oh my, Devin, you have no way to communicate.
You're on Fox News right now.
You're talking to millions of people, you liar.
You idiot.
You're communicating.
I don't think that's exactly what he meant.
I don't want to speak for Devin Nunes, but it seems to me what he's saying is, obviously we can communicate.
They haven't put tape over all of our mouths, right?
We can still pick up the telephone and call people.
We can still write letters to one another.
We can still write emails for now.
We can even still go on Fox News.
How many people is he going to talk to on Fox News?
The biggest audience Fox News has is what, 4 million?
Between 3 and 4 million?
It's a country of 320 some odd million?
Fox is a giant network.
It's not that big.
It's not as big as...
NBC, plus ABC, plus CBS, plus the New York Times, plus the Washington Post, plus CNN, plus MSNBC, plus NPR, plus PBS, plus, plus, plus, plus, plus.
Not nearly as big as that.
And moreover, to Nunes' point, while conservatives are permitted, I'm still on Twitter, I've seen tens of thousands of my followers removed, and we'll get into why that is, because I was speculating on this yesterday in contradiction of what Twitter was saying, and it would appear that my speculation was closer to the truth, but we'll get to that in a second.
Sure, I'm still on Twitter.
Some of the other tech platforms haven't been too tough on us.
Been very tough on Trump, but not too tough on us.
So we can still communicate to a degree, but we can only communicate with the permission of the leftist censors.
In medieval Europe, if you wanted to publish something, you needed to receive the imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
There were censors, right?
As I've been pointing out on this show, I think conservatives are a little misguided to always just be talking about how censorship's always bad and free speech is good, as though that's a real dichotomy, when in fact all free speech regimes involve some degree of censorship because we have standards, and this has always been true even in the United States, even in the most hardcore defenders of free speech have insisted on some boundaries.
But in medieval Europe, in renaissance Europe, there was, you needed to receive the imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
Today, you need to receive the imprimatur of hipster Rasputin and his buddies in Silicon Valley.
You need to receive the imprimatur of a very small and powerful, liberal, radical ruling elite.
If you want to reach a large audience.
And sure, there are some groups.
I mean, this guy, Tommy Vitor, who is...
He's like the Ringo of the liberal pod bros.
He's on that show, Pod Save America.
Tommy Vitor said, quote...
Don't miss my comments on how conservative voices are being silenced on Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, The Federalist, The Washington Examiner, Fox Business, Sinclair, The Daily Caller, Red State, The Daily Wire, National Review, The American Spectator, Town Hall, haha, get it?
Because conservatives have all of these outlets.
Billionaire radicals censored the duly elected sitting president of the United States.
Tommy Vitor and these other liberal people can giggle all they want and say, no, look, the Daily Wire is still permitted to exist for now.
Well, come on, what are you complaining about censorship?
Yeah, you've given us some crumbs in the ability to communicate.
But then whenever there's any sort of threat to your power, anything that just irritates you a little bit in the liberal regime, you nuke it.
You're going to kick a ton of people, including the president, off of Parler for various reasons, perhaps.
Reasons we'll get into, or off of Twitter, rather.
Reasons we'll get into in a second.
Okay, they're going to go over to Parler.
No, they're not, because you're not going to let them.
The President of the United States.
These are such bad faith arguments from guys like the Podbros.
I expect that from the Podbros.
It's hard for them to string a coherent sentence together.
Much less make a persuasive and serious argument.
But I don't want to hear about National Review and The Federalist and Fox Business.
If these oligarchs can censor the President...
Then there is really no limit to the censorship regime.
And the rest of us are just around because they haven't gotten around to us yet.
Or maybe they don't feel they quite need to in a way that they do need to go out and take out the president because he's a real threat to them.
I was pleased to see.
I'm never pleased to see anything out of Germany.
You know, as Norm MacDonald famously said, I don't know if you guys are history buffs, but that country Germany really scares me.
They've done some things in history.
I'm rarely...
I mean, I... Germany has contributed in other ways to the world, but Angela Merkel really has not their leader.
And she hates Trump and she's not a great leader.
But even she came out and admitted that this Twitter ban on the President of the United States is, quote, problematic.
Obviously, the spokespeople choosing their words carefully, but said that the permanent ban is really a big deal and it potentially undermines the, quote, fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Alexei Navalny.
Alexei Navalny is the opposition leader in Russia.
He is the most prominent critic of Vladimir Putin and has been for a very long time now, at least a decade.
And I don't think he's any great fan of Donald Trump.
But Alexei Navalny came out, he said, quote, I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship.
The election is a straightforward and competitive process.
You can participate in it.
You can appeal the results.
They're being monitored by millions of people.
The ban on Twitter is a decision of people we don't know in accordance with the procedure we don't know.
That's a great argument.
Much more precise and thorough than Angela Merkel saying it's problematic.
Though both of them are on the right side of this question.
Navalny...
He's going out there and defending the American election.
He's then defending Donald Trump's right to appeal the results of that election in court, which obviously the Trump campaign did.
Then he's saying, you know, maybe it's an imperfect process, whatever, but, you know, it is being looked at by lots and lots of people.
And so whatever you think about the elections, there's something there you can kind of rely on compared to Twitter's decision, which was made by a handful of people.
We don't know anything about their decision.
They don't need to tell us the truth.
We don't have any oversight, no democratic accountability whatsoever.
That is very worrisome.
And Alexei Navalny came out and said that the idea that Trump violated the terms of service of Twitter sounds like BS. And it does.
There's a good article on the Daily Wire right now about how that excuse doesn't seem to hold up in light of the evidence.
Now, there's a separate issue, which is conservatives have been seeing their followers drop a lot.
I think I've lost over 30,000 followers at this point.
Some people have lost more.
Ben's lost like 100,000 or more.
But it's all conservatives.
If you look at the preliminary analyses of this, the conservatives are the ones who are losing and prominent liberal accounts are the ones who are gaining followers.
So Twitter yesterday, they came out and they said, the reason you're losing followers, this is just routine maintenance.
Go in.
We want to make sure it's not bots.
We want to go in and make sure it's real people who are actively using these accounts.
So no big deal.
I pointed out that this seemed to strain credulity.
Because if Twitter's excuse were correct, then it would seem they would go in and take out all of the accounts, right?
Again, as Alexei Navalny says, we don't know the exact details of this process.
But if they're saying there are a lot of accounts, it's routine, and we just take them out of the follower accounts until they confirm it.
Then the way that the numbers would have to move is all the accounts that they removed from the follower accounts would disappear all at once, right?
As Twitter did it.
And then as people, presumably some people, are going to confirm their accounts, then the numbers would increase.
But actually the way it worked was they were all decreasing.
Twitter today seemed to change the story.
Then they came out and they said, the reason conservatives are losing tens of thousands of followers is that they've removed 70,000 accounts that had promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory in recent days.
And they're cracking down on this kind of content.
And because of QAnon, which is this conspiracy theory, they were going to take away all of those accounts.
So that's a little different than this is routine maintenance.
You know, this happens all the time.
We just want to make sure people are using these accounts.
Now they're coming out and saying, no, we're targeting this one specific thing that's called QAnon.
Again, just buttressing Navalny's point that these decisions are being made behind closed doors.
We can't really check on any of it.
And these are the people who now have the ability to censor the sitting president of the United States.
So QAnon is being kicked off of Twitter.
70,000 accounts gone.
These accounts were engaged in sharing harmful QAnon-associated content at scale and were primarily dedicated to the propagation of this conspiracy theory across the service.
What is QAnon?
I don't really know much about it.
I haven't looked really too far into it.
But as far as I can tell, the edges of it are that there's a global pedophile ring of elite people that involve, you know, royalty and heads of state and billionaires and business leaders and they're involved in sex trafficking and we got to stop them, you know.
And When people ask, and I don't really know any of the other details, but that's at least the kind of description I've read.
When people ask, how could anyone fall for that crazy theory?
You do have to remind them that Jeffrey Epstein happened, you know, and there are photos of him with like Prince Andrew and multiple U.S. presidents and Bill Clinton flew on his plane a lot of times.
And so I'm mostly blaming liberal elites for the spread of these kinds of theories.
And now, I don't know exactly how the QAnon thing relates to the Jeffrey Epstein thing.
I assume they're related, right?
It seems like too much of a coincidence for it not to be.
But in any case, fine.
It's Twitter's prerogative.
They want to get rid of people who are spreading this theory about the Q person.
Fine, fine.
How about BLM? How about BLM? Because Twitter's argument seems to me goes like this.
QAnon is a dangerous conspiracy theory and in part it helped motivate people who went to Capitol Hill and rioted and therefore it's our right and responsibility to take it off of our platform.
Okay.
What about the BLM conspiracy theory?
What about the conspiracy theory being spread by very prominent people?
LeBron James famously said black men can't walk out of their doors in this country without being hunted down.
Many, many prominent Democrats, elected Democrats, have said that there is an epidemic in this country of racist cops hunting down and slaughtering innocent black men.
For no reason.
And that is not true.
There is no evidence of that whatsoever.
We've gone through on this show ad nauseum the actual numbers on officer-involved killings, black men, with regard to many of the data points here.
Location, race of the cops, relation to other officer-involved incidents, just the total number, right?
It doesn't hold true.
But that's the premise of BLM. And BLM did inspire a lot of people to go not just on one day to a government building, but on many days for weeks and months to many government buildings and torch courthouses and torch police stations and torch businesses and loot and kill people, dozens of people, with the encouragement to go out there and protest and don't stop and we won't stop.
Of elected people, including Kamala Harris.
And don't you tell me that she was only encouraging the peaceful people.
Because Kamala Harris raised money to bail them out of jail.
The people who were arrested.
Now, what they're going to say is, well, no, but they were arrested unjustly.
Because BLM good, and whatever right-wing thing there is, bad.
Did Twitter kick off BLM? No.
Obviously, they didn't kick off Kamala Harris, and they didn't kick off the BLM account.
And do you know what Twitter did?
They changed their bio.
The actual bio on Twitter said, hashtag Black Lives Matter.
They associated themselves with the movement.
Those are just the standards that we're living under now.
And we can complain about it.
We can point out the hypocrisy.
They don't care about the hypocrisy.
To them, They'll read about the QAnon thing and they'll say, this is completely crazy.
Fair enough.
I'm sure it is.
Really kooky.
I just haven't gone too far into it.
But they won't even acknowledge.
The Jeffrey Epstein thing was kind of weird, wasn't it?
Did he really, he just happened to be permitted to kill himself in prison and all this, got off the hook.
And then Alex Acosta, the US attorney said he belonged to intelligence and his associate, her family's got connections to international intelligence.
It's just a little weird, isn't it?
No, can't acknowledge that.
However, we will believe a far more ridiculous conspiracy theory than anything about Jeffrey Epstein or his private They'll believe that there's an epidemic in this country of racist cops slaughtering innocent black men.
They don't need to present evidence for that.
That will be not only tolerated but promoted by the censors and anything else.
From the kookiest conspiracy theories all the way to just like pointing out something about Jeffrey Epstein.
That will come under suspicion.
Bernie Sanders is now following the logic of this censorship.
He says, quote, Let's be clear.
If Trump is too dangerous to send out a tweet or a Facebook post, he's too dangerous to be commander-in-chief.
Donald Trump must be removed from office immediately and held accountable for his horrific acts of sedition, violence, and chaos.
He has not committed an act of sedition.
He has not committed an act of violence.
I suppose he has committed acts of chaos.
That's kind of why he was elected, was to mix up the system.
But the system doesn't like getting mixed up.
Listen to the logic, though.
Billionaire oligarch radicals censor the duly elected sitting president.
Millionaire radical leftist in the Senate takes this action as evidence that Trump, if he's too dangerous to be on Twitter, is therefore too dangerous to be president.
He must be removed from office immediately.
So if you follow that trail of logic, the reason he must be removed from office immediately is Is because the billionaire radicals say so.
Do you see how quickly this moves?
We got to censor him.
We got to kick him off social media, says the oligarch.
Well, if he can't be on social media, he can't be president, says the senator.
Now they try to remove him.
We're going to impeach the president, says the Speaker of the House.
And Republicans, I hope they don't roll over on impeachment, but they'll probably roll over on something like censure or something like that.
This is the way the regime works, the liberal regime.
It all works in accord.
The media and technology and the bureaucracy and the elected people and higher education, it all works together.
When are we going to push back through all legal channels, grow a spine, and go up against the system?
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this episode, 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, production manager Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny D'Amico, audio mixer Mike Coromina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production assistant McKenna Waters.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today, check out the Ben Shapiro Show, where we'll be talking about the FBI's concerns about the possibility of new riots and attacks, Democrats pushing toward a second impeachment, and Democrats saying they're all for unity, but they have just a few conditions.
Check out the show.
▲
Export Selection