All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2021 - The Michael Knowles Show
50:59
Ep. 685 - Liberal Loyalty Oaths

Prominent leftists demand Republicans repeat after them, Donald Trump floats a third party, and Chuck Schumer gets tumescent. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Prominent left-wingers have now gone from not letting conservatives speak to forcing conservatives to say what they want us to say.
Nicole Wallace on MSNBC laid out the plan.
It would be my policy that a Republican must...
Assert the truth before they're allowed to share any other views.
And Lindsey Graham, I understand, appeared somewhere today and refused to really go far enough in beating down the lie.
I want to read you something Tom Friedman wrote, though, about social media companies.
He writes this, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg have to surprise us by once and for all stopping the elevation for profit Of news that divides and enrages over more authoritative, even-handed news sources.
That does not seem out of reach.
If we can protect against counterfeit dollar bills, we should be able to protect against fake news that we now know has the potential to kill people as it did two weeks ago.
Fake news has the potential to kill people.
Conservative, right-wing fake news.
Never mind the fake news concerning, I don't know, for instance, the alleged slaughter of innocent black men by racist cops.
You remember that fake news?
It's a complete lie.
It's not backed up by any sort of reality.
And that sort of fake news would have appeared to lead to the BLM riots that we saw all summer.
Killed a lot of people.
A lot more people than were killed at the Capitol Hill riot.
Is that fake news going to go away?
No, I don't think so.
I think what is happening here is that prominent leftists want to not only censor conservatives, including conservative senators like Lindsey Graham, but they want to force them to repeat their talking points.
We went from censorship to the coercion of speech.
We're not even five days into the Biden administration.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
My favorite comment from Friday is from Randall Jacobs, who says, Fauci doesn't like contradicting the president, but apparently he doesn't have any problem contradicting himself.
This is true.
Maybe if he were a little...
We're a little more concerned about not contradicting the president than he'd find himself in a better position because all of those ignorant, rude conservatives that Fauci and the rest of the technocratic establishment seems to look down on, they seem to have been much more correct over the last 10 or 12 months than Fauci and the rest of those doctor-dictator experts.
I'm trying to remember back to those halcyon days 10 or 11 months ago.
If I really want to remember back, I'm gonna have to check out Legacy Box.
Legacy Box is an effortless way to digitally preserve your home movies and photos so that you never have to wonder where they are or whether they're safe.
Start the new year off right.
Give your aging home movies, photos, and film reels a modern update so that they're organized and easy to share with friends and family.
I don't know if you know this.
I did not know this for a while.
Videotape recordings were not made to stand the test of time.
They start diminishing after 10 to 15 years.
So the sooner you digitally preserve them, the better off they will be.
Legacy Box makes reconnecting with your past as easy as pressing play.
I love them.
I was in this bad situation, unfortunately, where a dearly beloved family member who had died, I had all the photos of her in one place, and I lost them.
Seriously, luckily I did get some more photos then finally from a relative.
Send them to Legacy Box.
Now they are preserved in perpetuity.
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Knowles to take advantage of this limited time offer and get 50% off.
This exclusive offer won't last very long, so order their kit right now.
Send it in whenever you're ready.
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Knowles and save 50%, 5-0, while supplies last.
Preserve all of those wonderful memories well, well into the future.
Head on over to Legacy Box.
I never thought that I would miss censorship.
Who would have thought?
The censorship regime, it's been bubbling up for a while.
I actually just finished writing a book on this topic, which is called Speechless, and it'll be out, I think, in June.
You can pre-order it now.
It's about how this process of the left censoring conservatives evolved over about 100 years.
But we've only seen it really in the last, I suppose, four to six months where big tech companies are actively not letting you share certain articles, even in private messages, if those articles are disadvantageous to the left, where you are not permitted to state certain basic truths on the internet or you will be shut down, deplatformed, censored.
The president of the United States was deplatformed by hipster Rasputin and his other buddies in Silicon Valley.
So that really has ramped up.
But no sooner had that censorship ramped up, then the left went further.
You are now hearing an open call, not just to censor.
In fact, it would be better if they just censored us.
They now want us, like little Charlie McCarthy dolls, like little marionettes or something, to just parrot and puppet what they have to say.
Before we're even permitted to speak in the public square, we have to assert their talking points.
That's what Nicole Wallace has to say.
And it's not just some radical mouthing off on MSNBC.
You heard similar kind of language from George Stephanopoulos on ABC news, speaking with Senator Rand Paul.
Senator Paul, let me begin with a threshold question for you.
This election was not stolen.
Do you accept that fact?
Well, what I would say is that the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur.
We never had any presentation in court where we actually looked to the evidence.
Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question.
There were several states in which the law was changed by the Secretary of State and not the state legislature.
To me, those are clearly unconstitutional.
And I think there's still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court.
Courts traditionally and historically don't like to hear election questions.
But yes, were there people who voted twice?
Were there dead people who voted?
Were there illegal aliens who voted?
Yes, and we should get to the bottom of it.
I'll give you an example.
In my state, when we had a Democrat secretary of state, she refused, even under federal order, to purge the roles of illegal voters.
We got a Republican secretary of state, and he purged the roles.
It does make a difference, and those things do have to occur.
I have to stop you there.
No, no, Senator, Senator, I have to stop you because you're making too much sense and citing too many facts.
So I have to stop you.
You need to say, right now, you need to say the election wasn't stolen.
Say it.
You need to say it.
Before we can talk anymore, you need to say it.
Well, George, I'm just reciting.
I don't know, I'm doing like a Jimmy Stewart.
My Rand Paul's not very good.
Rand Paul going out there, he is citing not only examples of irregularities, right?
The Secretary of State not purging the roles of ineligible voters, even under federal order, won't do it.
The election officials in other states illegally changing election laws, obviously unconstitutional.
He's citing, and then saying, by the way, we haven't heard out a lot of these claims of fraud because they were not heard by the courts because courts don't want to interfere in the elections.
Stephanopoulos doesn't want to hear that.
He cuts off Rand Paul because he doesn't want to engage in any of these questions.
He simply wants him to parrot this democratic line, the election wasn't stolen.
No election is perfect, but there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court.
All were dismissed.
Every state certified the results after investigations counts and recounts.
The Department of Justice, led by William Barr, said there's no widespread evidence of fraud.
Can't you just say the words, this election was not stolen?
What I would suggest is that if we want greater confidence in our elections, and 75% of Republicans agree with me, is that we do need to look at election integrity, and we do need to see if we can restore confidence in the elections.
Can't you just say it, Rand Paul?
Notice he's talking over him.
Because he's using this line, and we hear this line a lot from Democrats.
They say, Trump filed 7 million lawsuits and they all got thrown out.
And Rand Paul says, yes, they did get thrown out.
They were thrown out generally for lack of standing.
Which, fair enough, but that's just a procedural measure.
It's not like they were thrown out because the evidence was...
Always so weak, in many cases the evidence wasn't even heard because it was determined that the Trump team didn't have standing to even bring the lawsuit.
Which is an important point when you're going to repeat that talking point.
However, George Stephanopoulos doesn't care.
He cuts him off.
He just keeps talking right over him.
He says, say this line.
The election was stolen.
We were discussing this.
Finally, we had a new episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz over the weekend.
And we'd gone about a month just with Christmas and the baby and everything.
It got kind of busy.
But we had a lot to go back over.
And we discussed this distinction here between a stolen election and a rigged election.
It's one we've talked about at the Daily Wire a lot.
Was the election stolen?
Well, like Rand Paul says, like even George Stephanopoulos says, I haven't seen the evidence of that.
That evidence hasn't been presented when it was presented in court or when it was attempted to be presented in court.
It didn't have standing.
However, I think it is perfectly safe to say, you're going to say, okay, I don't have evidence of the stolen election.
It's perfectly safe to say it was a rigged election.
Perfectly safe to say, as Rand Paul does, people voted who shouldn't have voted.
We know that.
How widespread was it?
I don't know.
We should find out.
We know that election officials changed the rules right before the election.
He got rid of many election integrity measures.
Notably, same day voting, you know, election day voting, not election season voting.
Of course, voter ID, the Democrats have been trying to undermine that for years.
The ubiquity of the widespread mail-ins, unprecedented, unsolicited widespread mail-ins.
We've never seen that sort of thing.
It violates state constitutions in certain places.
So yeah, it certainly was rigged.
It certainly undermined election integrity.
Barack Obama was voicing concerns about these sorts of things years ago as a threat to election integrity.
New York Times was acknowledging these as threats to election integrity years ago.
But now, because a Republican says it, no, you've got to shut down that speech, and you need to begin with the left's premise, nothing wrong here, no irregularities.
I'm glad Rand Paul is pushing back.
I would much rather be shut up than forced to say something that I don't believe, okay?
And I mentioned, this was a few weeks ago now, I said, things are about to start happening very quickly.
The left has unified government right now, and they are going to start pushing things very, very quickly.
And when the left has unified government, by the way, it's not just that they have the House, the Senate, and the presidency.
They also have the entire establishment.
So they also have technology.
They also have education.
They also have the media.
They also have all of these aspects of our society.
And so things are going to ramp up.
Things are going to accelerate.
I mean, you see this in an unprecedented action that's going on right now.
The impeachment of an ex-president.
The impeachment trial of a president who's no longer the president.
And Rand Paul, I've got to give him credit, this guy is on fire lately.
He has an op-ed in The Hill.
It says, boycott the sham impeachment.
And this obviously is a sham impeachment.
Paul calls the impeachment a farce.
He calls it a sham.
He says, quote, the Constitution says two things about impeachment.
It is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Now, this is important because when the President is being impeached, the Chief Justice leaves the Supreme Court, he goes over, and he presides over this trial.
But Trump is not the President.
Therefore, John Roberts should not preside over the trial.
Therefore, it's not an impeachment.
It's a subtle argument, but it's an important argument that Rand Paul's alluding to.
He says, if Justice Roberts is not presiding over this, then it is not impeachment.
This charade is nothing more than bitter partisanship and political theater.
We're going to hear a lot of questions about this.
We actually talked about this on Verdict a little bit, too, with Senator Cruz.
The question is not even going to be should Trump be impeached or should he not be impeached.
The question is going to be is this an impeachment?
The Democrats have been clear the reason they want to impeach him and convict him is not to remove him from office.
He's already gone.
It's to prevent him from running for office again.
Because even though the Democrats say that Trump is so unpopular and everyone hates him, they're clearly terrified he's going to run for office again.
Why?
Because he's unpopular?
No, I think because they know he's very popular.
And the question is going to be, is this an impeachment?
If John Roberts is not presiding over this trial, it's not an impeachment.
Now, they might try to vote to bar him from running for public office again anyway.
But that would very clearly violate, I don't know, the 14th Amendment, many, many other legal protections.
You can't just vote and say that dude isn't allowed to run for office.
That's as discriminatory as it could possibly be.
So that, I think, you're not going to just see the argument over Trump and his actions here.
You're going to see this meta-argument.
What is the impeachment?
Rand Paul making a very, very strong argument that the whole thing is BS. Now, you know what else I find to be BS? When you go to an auto parts store and they charge you too much for a part that they don't even have in stock.
Usually what they'll do, they'll go on the internet.
They'll probably go to rockauto.com.
They'll order the part and then they'll charge you twice as much.
Do not deal with that.
Go straight to Rock Auto.
Great company.
Rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years, which by my calculations is basically the entire history of online.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low.
And the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
Do not pay twice as much for the same parts.
The catalog is unique.
It is remarkably easy to navigate.
So easy that even I can do it.
And what do I know about cars?
I don't know anything.
But they make it so that even I can manage it.
Reliably low prices, all the parts that your car will ever need.
You've got to head on over to rockauto.com.
You don't want to be in a position, this happens a lot, where you go into the auto parts store and they say, hey, do you want the doohickey or the gizmo for your Honda CV or XV? I don't know.
I don't know any of that.
I got much better.
Do it from your computer.
Do it from your phone.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Knowles in there, how did you hear about us box, so that they will know that we sent you.
Very simple way.
Even I can do it.
I can get auto parts on Rock Auto.
Head on over there.
Let them know that we sent you.
Not just Rand Paul is standing up against this sham impeachment.
Even Marco Rubio.
This is a second guy that Trump vanquished in the 2016 primaries, right?
No love lost between any of these guys.
But Rubio came out too.
He said the impeachment is ridiculous.
It's very stupid.
And we should move on from it right now.
First of all, I think the trial is stupid.
I think it's counterproductive.
We already have a flaming fire in this country, and it's like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire.
Second, and I look back at the time, for example, Richard Nixon, who had clearly committed crimes and wrongdoing.
And in hindsight, I think we would all agree that President's pardon was important for the country to be able to move forward.
And history held Richard Nixon quite accountable for what he did as a result.
In terms of the rules, I think the president is entitled to due process.
I think he's entitled to have a defense.
I think he's entitled to present, you know, testimony and evidence if necessary.
And, you know, the House doesn't have much of a record of witnesses and so forth because they frankly rammed it through very quickly.
So I think obviously fairness is important no matter who it is we're talking about.
But I just want to repeat, I think this is going to be really bad for the country.
It's gonna take us, not just is it gonna keep us from focusing on really important things, but it's also just gonna stir it up even more and make it even harder to get things done moving forward.
Good argument from Rubio.
I agree with basically everything he said.
The reason it matters that he's coming out so strongly against impeachment It's because Rubio is not the most right-wing senator, right?
He's a little squishy on certain issues, especially immigration.
So the fact that we have a more moderate Republican senator coming out and saying, this is BS, I'm not going to vote to impeach.
The fact that we also have this very libertarian senator, Rand Paul, saying, this is BS, I'm not going to impeach.
We already have most of the conservative, traditional conservative senators, are not going to vote to convict him, rather.
It looks like Trump is in pretty good shape.
Probably Schumer and the Democrats do not have the votes to convict, even if it were possible to convict an ex-president, which is the new precedent that they're trying to set.
So why is that?
I think these arguments are on the level.
I think it's legitimate.
I don't think that anything that Rand Paul or Rubio have said is untrue.
However, there is some politics at play here.
There's always some politics at play.
First of all, the Democrats have no argument for impeachment.
I mean, you'll remember, this is the second time they've impeached Trump.
This is the third time they've tried to impeach Trump.
And the arguments seem to have gotten worse and worse over time.
Now the best argument that they've got for the impeachment, I think, is Rashida Tlaib's argument, which is no argument at all.
It's just a kind of vague grievance and then playing the race card.
I hope that there's an awakening in the Senate.
But I've been waiting for that awakening to happen for quite a while.
For Leader McConnell and many others to finally say enough is enough and impeach and convict the forever impeached twice President Donald Trump.
What he did was pretty unprecedented.
And Amy, I have to be honest.
If it was somebody that looked like me, if it was President Barack Obama, there would be no question that he would be held accountable.
He would be convicted.
He would be removed from office.
He would never, ever be able to run again.
He wouldn't ever be able to get public benefits.
He has truly sent us a dangerous path that I don't think is going to go away very easily, even after he leaves office.
You see, if Donald Trump were brown-skinned, if he were black like Obama, he would be impeached.
But because of his white privilege or his orange privilege or whatever kind of privilege he has, he's not going to be impeached.
And as evidence for this, I'll point out that Obama was never impeached, but Trump was twice.
Huh?
Huh?
What?
Come again?
Let's see.
Of recent presidents, we got Trump, we got Obama, we got Bush, we got Clinton.
Half of those guys were impeached.
And the only ones who were impeached, and one of them was impeached twice, the only guys who were impeached were white guys.
Now, at least one other of those presidents committed crimes.
Barack Obama.
Barack Obama abused his power to spy on his rival, Donald Trump, the guy who got impeached twice.
Barack Obama abused his IRS to punish his political opponents.
Barack Obama did a lot of nefarious things.
And he never got impeached.
So this racial argument that Rashida Tlaib is making would seem to me not only wrong, but backwards.
But of course, this is the joke of intersectional politics.
This is the joke of woke politics.
Use whatever word you want.
Is that what is said to be a disadvantage is actually an advantage.
I mean, this is what affirmative action is based on, right?
Affirmative action is based on this idea that if you are black or Hispanic, among other categories, if you're black or Hispanic, you are at a disadvantage.
Therefore, you should get an advantage in college admissions.
So in practice, what that means is if you're white or Asian, you are at a disadvantage.
There is structural, systemic, legal racism that is harming your chances to get into these colleges.
This is why a group of Asian students sued Harvard University.
And I believe is suing Yale, or at least there's a DOJ civil rights inquiry into Yale, because Yale does the same practice.
They limit the number of Asians who can get in.
Why?
Because of the immense privilege of coming from a family of Vietnamese immigrants who work really hard in some not so nice neighborhood in New York.
That's the great privilege.
That's why you should be discriminated against when you're applying to university.
I guess.
I guess that's the argument.
Doesn't work quite the way that these guys say.
Rashida Tlaib, not the brightest bulb in the pack, and so the nearest thing to an argument she can summon is the race card.
And it's the best they've got in the whole impeachment thing, so it's probably not going to go anywhere.
The reason, though, I think, that these senators, these Republican senators, are so eager to say, I'm supporting Trump here, Is in part because the other side has no argument.
And so there's no even plausible way that you can try to support this impeachment trial.
You know, they say it's an insurrection and Trump incited violence.
So all the video shows Trump saying, be peaceful, don't be violent, go home, be peaceful.
So that wouldn't work.
Also because Donald Trump is threatening to start a third party.
And or primary, the squishy Republicans who work against him.
And they know that the Trump base is still really strong.
Because regardless of how irregular the election was, we can at least say with certainty, at minimum, 74-75 million Americans voted for Donald Trump.
And those people really like Donald Trump, okay?
It's not like the Romney voters.
I voted for Romney in 2012.
I'm not a diehard Romney voter.
You know, I worked for two of his primary opponents.
When he got the nomination, you know, I bought the t-shirt.
I voted for the guy.
He was better, I felt, than Obama.
But then Romney lost and I never cared about Mitt Romney again.
Same is not true of Trump voters because Donald Trump offered something different.
He offered a different set of policy prescriptions.
He pointed out the real weaknesses in the GOP establishment and he accomplished quite a lot more than any Republican president in my lifetime.
So His voters really like him, and they really might listen to him.
He had initially proposed this idea of a third party, of a patriot party, but I never took this very seriously.
Everyone was saying, oh no, he's going to form this new third party, and then they're going to run in these elections, and I thought, no, because first of all, it cuts against his real leverage here, which is that he can primary, he can put up candidates to primary the squishy Republicans, but to do that, you have to be within the Republican Party.
And I also thought, organizations, Political organization is not the Trump campaign's great strength.
Marketing is a great strength.
Communication is a great strength.
Frankly, even putting together policies is a great strength.
Those are all the key Trump campaign strengths.
But in terms of the on-the-ground game, they were outmatched even in the 2016 Republican primary.
It's just that the strength of Trump's candidacy was such that he was able to overcome that.
So I never viewed the Patriot Party idea as being a formal political party.
I viewed it as more akin to the Tea Party.
I remember.
I'm old enough to remember when the Tea Party came about.
Tea Party wasn't a formal political party.
It was a grassroots political movement.
And, you know, in those days, the big issues were fiscal because you had Obamacare, you had that jobless stimulus under Obama.
And so you had this, regardless of how the left wanted to portray the Tea Party and call them Nazis and fascists and whatever, the same stuff they always call us, it was a primarily fiscal economic movement.
It stood for taxed enough already, right?
It was very focused.
And, you know, there was a lot of imagery from the founding fathers, but a lot of it was economic.
I think an idea of a patriot party makes a lot of sense now because I think what we've learned in the last 10 years since the Tea Party is we got to deal with the fiscal issues, but the fiscal issues will follow from the cultural issues.
It's not that we need to take a break from the cultural issues to fix our fiscal problems.
It's the opposite.
You're never going to fix the fiscal problems if you don't deal with the cultural problems.
And that goes all the way down to our love of country itself.
It goes all the way down to the question of patriotism.
You now have the left disrespecting the American flag, the right embracing the American flag.
That's the question.
The idea of a patriot party, especially with a guy like Trump at the helm of it, Trump who famously is hugging the American flag and kissing it at campaign rallies, that could be a serious, winning, and grassroots conservative movement.
You know, speaking of the culture, Daily Wire is taking back the culture, starting with entertainment content.
Earlier this month, we released our first film, Run Hide Fight, exclusively for Daily Wire members.
We picked up Run Hide Fight after Hollywood Studios turned down the, quote, distasteful subject matter.
Because it didn't include leftist talking points.
It wasn't pro-gun control.
And it celebrated heroic bravery instead of glorifying mass shooters.
So you've got to check them out.
You've got to read the early critic reviews for this movie, which were extraordinarily negative.
However, once we released it for you guys, the audience scores exploded.
So Run, Hide, Fight right now, I think it's at like 93% audience rating.
It's got over 2,000 reviews, and it's got like a 0% critics rating.
No, it's not 0, but it's something like 27% critics rating.
I think it's actually gone up a little bit.
You can watch it over at dailywire.com on our mobile app or on our streaming apps at Apple TV and Roku.
I kid you not, when sweet little Lisa and I are looking to go watch a movie, especially if it hasn't come out yet, we will look, and we want that ratio.
We want the low critic score.
We want the high audience score.
That's how you know you got a good movie.
If you're not a member of Daily Wire, use promo code RHF to get 25% off.
That is RHF for 25% off.
off.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Speaking of Trump world and people within Trump world running for office, we've got some, I think, excellent news that is being leaked right now.
Nothing formal has been declared, but NBC News citing, quote, two people familiar with her plans are reporting that Sarah Sanders will announce her candidacy for Arkansas governor.
And that's supposed to happen today.
This is really, really good news as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know who the other candidates are.
I obviously don't live in Arkansas.
But I do know Sarah Sanders a little bit.
And I'm so impressed with her.
She was one of the toughest, sharpest figures from the Trump administration.
She's generally just a very nice person.
A very, very serious person, down to earth.
And...
Very sober-minded.
You know, I think very much the sort of person who ought to be in public life more.
I was hoping when she left the White House that she would consider running for office, I guess probably in Arkansas.
And so assuming those reports are true, I think it's fabulous.
I think this is going to really upset the GOP establishment.
Actually, in many ways, like her father upset.
You remember when Mike Huckabee was running for president, the establishment GOP did not like that guy very much.
And obviously, Sarah Sanders is coming now out of this Trump administration.
It just reminds you, the MAGA thing is not going anywhere.
Even after Trump leaves office, the MAGA thing is not going anywhere.
People like that.
Don't forget the Make America Great Again slogan has been around since Reagan.
It was Reagan's and then no one used it again.
And then Trump said, well, that's a pretty good slogan.
This idea that we've got to get rid of some of the shallow, you know, ideological talking points, the shallow slogans and bumper stickers and get back to first principles, get back to basic elements of politics, love of country, love of our communities.
Love of the American people.
That sort of thing, I don't think is going anywhere.
Nor should it.
And it's not just we conservatives who ought to be happy about this.
The left is happy about this too, in a way.
In a way, the press are happy about this too because they've loved beating up on Trump.
They've loved it so much.
It is the only way they've made money and put food on their table.
It is the greatest show on earth.
And now you'll notice politics is a little more boring.
Behind the scenes, radical, insane things are happening, but the mainstream media aren't covering that.
You've got to tune into conservative outlets like this one if you want to even hear about it.
But on the surface, politics is very, very boring.
And the left, I think, is missing them.
Brian Stelter took this question on head-on.
Are they missing Trump?
He says no, but I think he protests too much.
Is President Biden making the news boring again?
People are always asking what the media will do post-President Trump.
This week, after Biden's inauguration, they've been asking, are reporters going through withdrawal?
Are they missing Trump's tweets?
Are they lost without outrages to cover?
These headlines from Axios and other websites point out that Biden's plan is dull by design.
So is he making the news boring again?
Let me answer all of those questions the way Biden would.
Come on, man!
No way.
The Biden White House is clearly a break from the chaos and incompetence of Trump world.
But we are living through history right now.
January alone has been one of the most tumultuous months in all of American history.
The follow ups will take many months and maybe years.
There is so much to report.
And there is nothing boring about the COVID-19 crisis.
Nothing boring about this national emergency as Biden has rightly identified it.
So The evidence that Brian Stelter is citing that Joe Biden is not making politics boring again is that the media are still talking about a bunch of Trump stories.
He says, Biden's not making politics boring again.
Look at all those awful Trump supporters.
Yeah, those Trump supporters, you know, they're tweeting and they're storming places and they're, yeah.
So anyway, Biden's not making it boring.
And COVID. Which Biden is calling a national emergency, unlike Trump, who obviously also called it a national emergency many, many months ago.
But COVID, too.
You remember that thing?
Remember that thing that the liberal establishment exaggerated the lethality of because they hated Trump so much?
Remember that virus that we shut down the entire globe for in no small part over political considerations because we all hate Trump so much?
Look, that's evidence that Joe Biden's not making it boring again.
Anything we're still talking about that is at all interesting in national politics has to do with Trump.
Even the nefarious Biden administration policies are a reaction to Trump, right?
They're undoing so much of what Trump did in his executive orders and going back to that old, awful, liberal, progressive normal that we rejected in 2016 and that many people rejected in 2020.
Of course, they're missing him.
And some people are missing him even more than Brian Stelter.
You know, Brian Stelter basically saying, no, you know, it's like he got dumped by his girlfriend.
He said, no, I don't, I never even think about her.
What are you talking about?
No, not at, I don't think, I don't lay awake at night every night thinking about her.
Well, some people miss Trump even more than Brian Stelter does.
Namely, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer, who made a little Freudian slip on the floor last week.
It will be a fair trial, but make no mistake, there will be a trial, and when that trial ends, senators will have to decide if they believe Donald John Trump incited the erection, insurrection, against the United States.
Oh, he did, Chuck.
Truer words have never been spoken, certainly have never been spoken by Chuck Schumer.
If Donald Trump incited anything, he incited that among Democrats, among the press.
They had very complex ideas about it.
It was a little bit of a sadomasochistic kind of situation, but he did incite that among them and among many other people.
That is a Freudian slip.
Where, of course, you say one thing but mean your mother.
And Chuck Schumer is not alone in his party.
They're going to drag this out.
We're going to be talking about Trump through February, through mid-February, probably.
They're going to impeach him.
And you know what they're going to do once they acquit him?
They're probably just going to impeach him again.
I'm not predicting that will happen.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
They have to do it.
And in a way, it's sort of sad.
Because the reason that Trump was so interesting is not just his personality, which of course is very eccentric, and he's a TV star, and he's been a pop culture figure for 40 years.
So obviously that's part of the reason we're all fascinated by him.
But another reason we're fascinated by him is that he offered something different than the status quo, which had been offered by, certainly by the progressive left, by the Democrats for many decades, but even by the Republicans, who were just sort of the flip side to that progressive coin.
They were sort of the court jesters in the kingdom of liberalism.
They all, you know, all Republicans could really offer would be to cut taxes.
But on the substantive cultural issues, they basically just rolled over.
It was all kind of the same.
Then Trump offers something different.
Now, what Trump was offering, protect our borders.
Don't let grown men go into the little girl's room at the public pool.
Support jobs.
Defend a foreign policy that puts America first before other countries.
These kind of things.
Very, very basic.
Defend our constitution, right?
Totally common sense.
What the left is offering Is not at all common sense.
It's absolutely radical.
Censor half of the country.
Force little girls to change with grown men.
Redefine bedrock social institutions.
Radically redistribute wealth.
Institute a new racial caste system.
Give a lot of our money to foreign powers and give a lot of our sovereignty over to them as well.
All that sort of stuff.
Slaughter a million babies a year.
All that kind of stuff.
Completely radical stuff.
But because...
It's been going on for so long, we're used to it.
We're used to it, and that seems like what is normal.
I'll give you an example of this kind of normalcy.
Dr.
Fauci, who I think now is the Supreme Chancellor of the United States, and if not the world, Biden campaigned on giving Fauci more power, more power than he's already had, and he's got a lot of power to craft our public policy and our foreign policy.
Dr.
Fauci announces at a board meeting of the World Health Organization, which we've now rejoined, essentially a Chinese front group these days, but we've rejoined, we're now back on board with the new global order, the liberal world order, Fauci announces, quote, President Biden will be revoking the Mexico City policy in the coming days as part of his broader commitment to protect women's health and advance gender equality at home and around the world.
The Mexico City policy protects US taxpayer dollars from going to kill little brown babies in third world countries.
That's what it does.
The Mexico City policy says we are not going to pay for abortions around the world.
Simple enough.
Dr.
Fauci comes out and says, no, money's coming again, guys.
Go kill all those babies.
Go to every poor country on earth and go kill all those babies because we are going to get U.S. taxpayer money.
This I mentioned, it's a very sad thing in the policy itself.
But I also want to point it out as a reminder that science in political rhetoric is nothing more than a slogan used by demagogues.
There's nothing scientific about revoking the Mexico City policy.
There is no reason that Dr.
Fauci should be the spokesperson for this or that he should be celebrating this policy change.
Which he manifestly is celebrating, right?
He's saying it's going to protect women's health.
It's going to advance gender equality.
It's not going to do either of those things.
It's going to kill a bunch of babies.
Which obviously is harmful to health.
And it doesn't help gender equality.
I mean, the way abortion is practiced in a lot of these poor countries and developing countries is that women are aborted at higher rates than men.
Little girls are aborted at higher rates than little boys.
But what Fauci is doing here is making an ethical argument.
He's making a moral argument.
He's making a political argument.
And he shouldn't be making any of those arguments because he's ethically, morally, and politically idiotic.
He's very good at working the levers of power.
But as a matter of understanding a true and good political philosophy, moral philosophy, he's completely bankrupt.
I never elected the guy.
You never elected the guy.
He should not be in office.
If only Trump, in one of his final acts, could have not only fired Fauci, but exiled him to some faraway island, we would all be much the better for it.
We just celebrated the anniversary of Roe v.
Wade.
I didn't celebrate it.
I suspect Fauci did, though.
I suspect Joe Biden did, devout Catholic Joe Biden.
I was thrilled about the anniversary of Roe v.
Wade.
And at the very least, I guess we can say that the Biden administration's policy on genocide is consistent across the board.
The Biden administration is willing to encourage genocide in certain places through abortion.
But the Biden administration is also willing, even where it can't actively encourage it, to just look the other way.
For instance, at China's genocide against the Uyghur people.
The previous administration on their way out the door declared that China's human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims were, quote, crimes against humanity and, quote, a genocide.
Does the president agree with that determination and will he keep it?
Well, I know that our Secretary of State is just about to get confirmed, or so Senator McConnell tells us, and I'm sure he will be reviewing.
I know he will be reviewing a number of the decisions and assessments that have made.
Obviously, the President has spoken before to the horrific treatment of Uyghurs, but I don't have anything more for you on it.
I can check with our national security team and see if we have a more up-to-date statement.
This lady is so weak as press secretary.
It won't matter.
It won't affect the way she does her job because the press will never follow up on those sorts of questions.
But this is pretty weak sauce.
She's done this repeatedly now, and she's only been in the job a few days, where she will get a question, a totally easy question, a question that she should have the answer to, and she'll say, oh, yeah, I don't know.
Oh, yeah, what do we think about that genocide that China's committing?
You know, that very important, often talked about foreign policy question?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe I'll check.
I'll check with the guys.
I'll get back to you.
Can you just leave me your number?
I'll text you or whatever.
Text you later.
I'll get back to you.
Don't call me.
I'll call you.
Pretty weak stuff.
Now, the reason that she's got a punt on this question, of course, is that China is committing genocide against the Uyghurs.
We have photos of it.
We have photos of these guys being blindfolded and actually loaded onto boxcars, right?
And Joe Biden isn't going to do nothing about it.
Joe Biden wants to suck up to China.
He believes, as he's said for many years, that it is good for China to rise, that a rising China is good for the whole world.
He wants to give them advantages in the national sphere, and he's not going to call them out.
He's going to go very, very soft.
At this point, the press is just completely gaslighting us.
The press is just completely trolling us.
Even when they ask a little question like that of Jen Psaki, they'll say, what about the genocide thing?
Please tell me you have an answer for that.
Because it's a little awkward when I have to defend Biden.
And she'll say, yeah, no, we got an answer.
I'll get it.
I'll get it to you later.
Okay, thank you.
That's good.
Wow, Biden, he's so great.
Meanwhile, they write their fluff pieces.
There was one piece, there were so many pieces that came out over the weekend.
There was one in the New York Times talking about how Joe Biden was wearing a Rolex at his inauguration.
And I thought, oh, maybe they're going to attack him for wearing a watch that's too nice when he's talking about, you know, how we need to redistribute wealth and he's Joe from Scranton.
No, basically it was just an article about how handsome he is and how fun and cool he is.
It's a very, very silly article.
That took a lot of shots at Trump and had a completely incoherent thesis.
But they're upping the gaslighting and the trolling and making it much, much worse.
They have a new theory on how we can protect ourselves from the coronavirus.
You remember initially, Fauci told us, masks don't work.
Don't wear masks.
The Surgeon General said, do not wear masks, people.
Stop buying them.
Eric Swalwell.
He is me.
He is you.
We are him.
Eric Swalwell, former future president.
He came out and said, don't wear masks.
Then, all those guys changed their mind.
They said, no, you have to wear masks all the time, and if you don't, you're going to kill people.
And when Fauci was asked about his change of heart, he said, oh, well, it's because I was making a political decision.
I wanted the masks for special people, and I didn't want you plebs to have the masks, so I told you not to wear them.
So I lied to you, but now listen to me now.
And you gotta wear it.
It's very important.
But then you look, and whenever Fauci's photographed in private, you know, even if he's around people, but he doesn't think the cameras are on, he doesn't have the mask on.
So very difficult to take him seriously.
Well, now he's got a new, he's got, he's got a new theory.
The whole left, rather, not just Fauci, but the entire left has this new theory.
You should wear two masks.
New York Times, two masks are the new masks.
Double masking is a sensible and easy way to lower your risk when you have to spend more time around others, in a taxi, on a train, or a plane, or at an inauguration.
So they...
We have seen time and time and time again that the masks seem to be a little less effective than we were told they were.
We've seen studies to this effect that have come out and said the masks don't do very much.
We've had major health officials, epidemiologists from Colombia and Fauci himself, come out and say the masks don't do very much.
We just know the way the masks are implemented.
We're touching our faces.
People aren't wearing them right.
They're not doing much.
As Fauci said, they make people feel good, but they don't accomplish a lot.
So what does the New York Times do?
Do they finally admit to us?
Do they let the mask slip, to use an apt metaphor, and say, okay, yeah, you got us.
It was just kind of, whatever, it's BS, but we're making you do it.
No.
They look at us and they say, hey, yeah, where to?
Yeah, where to?
Oh, yeah, we told you 15 days to slow the spread 11 months ago.
Yeah, no, just 15 more days.
And the masks, they're really important.
Maybe we're three.
Put them on.
Wear the mask.
Say what we want you to say.
Do what we want you to do.
I made this point maybe a month or two ago.
No, I guess it was earlier than that.
During the virus, as it was really surging and everyone was taking it very, very seriously, I said, what they're doing to you with the masks is basically saying, put this donut on your head.
Right, because the argument with the masks was, okay, maybe they don't work, maybe they don't do very much, but it can't hurt.
Or maybe it can hurt a little bit if you don't wear them correctly, it actually can increase the spread.
But yeah, and you wear certain masks, but it won't hurt that much.
Just do it.
Come on, it's not a big deal.
It's not a big deal.
Just wear the masks.
And they could make the same argument and say, look, hey...
I know that this donut, it's probably not going to do very much or whatever, but it'll make everyone feel better.
Dr.
Fauci wants you to do it.
Joe Biden wants you to do it.
Just put the donut on your head and then jump up and down on one foot.
I know, look, maybe it won't help, but just do it.
Just do it.
It's all about the imposition.
It's not about the thing itself.
When they tell you don't wear masks, and when they tell you do wear masks, and when they now tell you to wear two masks, none of that is about the masks.
It's about the imposition.
It's about your submission.
It's about you doing what they say to do.
When they come on television and they say, hey, Before you make your argument, say what we want you to say.
No, I know your argument is going to address that.
Say it.
Use the exact words that I want you to say.
Say it.
Say it.
Do it.
Do it.
I don't think so.
I don't think I want to do that.
And that wasn't even the trolliest article in the New York Times over the past few days.
That honor goes to Elizabeth Diaz.
Who writes, quote, in Biden's Catholic faith, an ascendant liberal Christianity.
That's the headline.
Okay.
What's the tweet?
New York Times tweets this out like as if that wasn't enough.
Quote, President Biden is perhaps the most religiously observant commander-in-chief in half a century.
A different, more liberal Christianity grounds his life and his policies.
Just for those who are not, you know, religiously inclined.
A different, more liberal Christianity is a code word for a heresy.
Now, what's funny about this, though, look, it's a different, more liberal Christianity.
You might say, okay, well, it's one of the maybe more liberal Protestant denominations, and there are plenty of them.
However, Joe Biden pretends to be a Catholic.
So that's not a different, more liberal Christianity.
It's Catholicism.
There's one holy Catholic and apostolic church.
That's in the creed that Joe Biden is supposed to believe in.
And the left doesn't like Catholicism.
Do you remember when Amy Coney Barrett was up to be not even a Supreme Court judge?
She was just up for her first judgeship.
And Dianne Feinstein worried out loud.
She said, I think the dogma lives loudly within you.
Then when she was put up for the Supreme Court, there were all these fears.
Oh, she's too Catholic.
She's too devout.
Uh-oh.
You're an orthodox Catholic.
You can't be orthodox.
What's the opposite of orthodox?
Heterodox.
It means you're heretical.
It means you contradict the faith.
Remember when President Trump, during those riots, when the left tried to burn down one of the most famous churches in the country?
Remember Trump walked over there and held that Bible up high?
The left furious, rending their teeth, rending their garments, gnashing their teeth, screaming, what have you to do with us?
Well, now they love Christianity because Joe Biden is a devout Catholic, the most devout Catholic.
Joe Biden was denied the Eucharist at a church in North Carolina because he is publicly and unrepentantly living in grave mortal sin.
The sin of supporting abortion materially as president, but also the sin of scandal because he's the most prominent Catholic now in the country.
And he is contradicting the faith very, very openly.
They're just trolling us.
They're just trolling us.
But in a way...
They're trying to project their hopes into the future.
They're hoping that if they can say it enough, it will become true.
That's the premise of political correctness, which also is less about the words and more about the imposition.
Political correctness doesn't matter.
Sometimes they'll say, you need to call black people African Americans, or you have to call them people of color, or you have to call them this, or you have to call them that, whatever word for whatever group you want to bring up.
The words always change, but the imposition remains the same.
Well, this is what the left wants.
They want this new Christianity.
They don't want it to be Christianity.
They want it to be a Christianity without Christ, a people without sin going into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross, to quote other religious thinkers.
They want that new Christianity to just be progressivism.
That's the new religion.
That is a totalizing force.
And they are not just going to censor you from saying what you believe.
They are going to force you to recite their creeds.
They're going to coerce that speech out of you.
Things are happening very, very quickly.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
show.
We'll get into more 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 coordinator, McKenna Waters.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
A school district rushes to reopen in response to a surge in childhood suicides.
Joe Biden admits that nothing we do will change the trajectory of the virus.
An MSNBC analyst tries to make a profound point by quoting a Nicki Minaj lyric, and another TikTok parent is on the slate to be canceled.
▲
Export Selection