Twitter’s top lawyer cries over Elon’s takeover, the New York Times attacks Michael with fake news, and Biden gets caught with an unaccounted-for $5 million in his bank account.
Join Ben’s Third Thursday Book Club now to get his notes for The Once and Future King by T.H. White and be a part of this month’s Q&A: https://utm.io/uejl1.
I’m exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
I thought that the Elon Musk takeover could not get any more delightful.
And then Politico reported that it made Twitter's top lawyer cry.
Cry.
And I love that.
I think that is just terrific.
The Viaha Gatti is in charge of Twitter's trust and safety, legal and public policy functions.
She is reportedly considered the, quote, moral authority at Twitter.
She's the executive in charge of banning dangerous speech.
She's the person credited with banning President Trump.
She is the person who reportedly took it upon herself to kick the duly elected sitting president of the United States out of the public square in our allegedly constitutional republic because she's a big lib and didn't like what he said.
This woman, an actual threat to our republican system of government, cried because Elon Musk said that he was going to let conservatives speak freely again.
And I love that.
I would prefer that my opponents not cry.
I would prefer that they come to their senses and cut out all of their devious schemes and tricks and see things the right way.
But if they're not going to do that, if they are going to insist on screwing up our country and upending our traditions and gobbling up all the power for themselves illegitimately, then I do want them to cry.
I want them to cry a corrective cry.
Like a little baby cries a corrective cry when he's done something wrong and mommy and daddy, they don't want to hear him cry, but they've got to let him cry it out so that he learns his lesson.
That's how I want the libs to cry.
I don't want them to cry without reason, by the way.
A lot of conservatives right now are laughing because they say that the libs are wailing over this Elon Musk takeover for no reason.
That's not true.
The libs have plenty of reason to cry.
And that is a good thing.
If they're gonna cry, I want them to cry with good reason.
I want them to cry because we have beaten them at something.
And a bad thing that they have tried to do and have done successfully, they can do no longer.
For the past several years, the Libs have insisted that they are not wielding big tech platforms as a political cudgel to silence the opposition and censor us all into submission.
They have said it's all in our heads.
The deplatforming, the shadow banning, the censoring of stories critical of Joe Biden weeks before the presidential election.
It's all in your heads.
It's not happening.
Don't believe your lying eyes.
Well, if it's all in our heads, then why are you so upset that the new owner of Twitter is promising to undo all of that?
Is promising free speech for conservatives.
Conservatives are not reveling in this week's leftist tears merely because, to quote Conan the Barbarian, what is best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
That is also very fun.
But the reason that we are, at least the reason that I am reveling in the leftist tears this week, It's because every one of those tiers is an admission that we were right all along about how the libs were censoring us and that there is now strong reason to believe that they are not going to get away with it any longer.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from PlayByEar, who says, There is a pretty good argument for those losing their minds over the Twitter thing.
I've heard it somewhere before, but if they don't like it, they can create their own platform.
That's true.
Go buy your own Twitter.
Come on, Libs, go buy your own Twitter.
I really like that comment because it's pointing out there is a good argument.
There's a good argument for them to cry.
We can throw their argument back in their face, and we can clear the air.
After all this gaslighting, after all this deception...
We can clear the air and see what is really going on.
When you want to know what's really going on, not just on Twitter, but in your home, you've got to check out Ring.
Right now, head over to ring.com slash Knowles.
You know about Ring's video doorbell.
I've told you about it for five, six years now, probably.
You can see and speak to whoever is at your door, whether you're in the house, whether you're at your office, whether you're on a beach on the other side of the world.
You know about Ring's award-winning home security system, Ring Alarm.
I've told you about that.
Now you've got to go pro.
You've got to go pro because Ring realized something that, as far as I can tell, no other security company realized.
Ring realized that you live your life in the physical world, so you've got to protect the physical world, your windows and your doors and all that, but you also live a lot of your life, increasingly so, in the digital world.
So you've got to protect your digital world, too.
So the Ring Alarm Pro will protect your Wi-Fi router as well.
So you're protecting your data, you're protecting your family and your stuff, not just from the bad guys, but from freeze, fire, flood.
It's phenomenal.
Go do it.
Be like me.
Become a pro.
You may not have known it, but Ring's got that professional monitoring that you can use.
So head on over right now to ring.com slash Knowles.
That is ring.com slash Knowles.
Whenever the left loses an argument, whenever the left gets found out, one of their devious schemes and tricks, what's the first thing they do?
When they have nothing left to legitimately argue, they accuse their opponents of racism.
Ann Coulter told me this when I was a college student.
When a leftist calls you a racist, you know that you've won the argument.
Sonny Hostin, who is one of the minor characters over at The View, she...
Launched this argument just yesterday.
She said that Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, all it's really about is about giving special treatment to straight white men.
On Twitter, it is predominantly straight white men.
So when Elon Musk says, wow, this is about free speech, it seems to me that it's about free speech of straight white men.
And so let them have it.
Let them just...
Go at it.
I enjoy the block button on Twitter.
I think it has a real outsized influence in our world because politicians and celebrities are on it.
Now, I think this is no way to talk about Elon Musk, the most prominent African-American in the world.
I mean, that's the first incoherence that we have.
I think the claim that she's making is not true.
White men, not even straight white men, just white men in general, are something like, what, 30% of America?
And significantly less than 30% of the world population?
So I just don't think it's true that the majority of Twitter users are straight white men.
But let's say that they were.
Sunny Hostin is actually saying the quiet part out loud, I guess.
She's saying, I don't want straight white men to be able to speak.
I want other groups to be able to speak, but I don't like straight white men.
I want to censor straight white men.
I don't want them to have a voice in our republic.
Well, too bad, lady.
I say this as a straight, swarthy man, a straight, slightly tan man.
We're going to speak.
We're going to speak.
And I'm sorry that that bothers you.
I'm sorry that you don't like straight white men.
I'm sorry that you want to ostracize us and kick us out of society.
But we're not going to do it.
We're not going to go along with that.
We're going to speak.
We're going to say our mind.
And if you don't like it, take it up with the African-American new owner of Twitter.
Because we're not going to put up with that kind of stuff.
We're not going to put up with a new radical caste system foisted upon us by the woke lunatics that say that if you're not LGBT... If you're not a woman or any of the other 75 genders that aren't man, if you're not a POC, then you're not allowed to speak.
We're not going to do that.
I'm already exercising my newfound freedom of speech on Twitter.
I just was sending out some test tweets the other day to test the algorithm.
I pointed out various things such as transgenderism is not a real category of being.
That's obviously true.
I pointed out on Twitter that ivermectin is a wonder drug.
And everyone called it a wonder drug until a couple of years ago when it became a political cudgel and the left denied that.
And then I pointed out something that I think is obvious.
I said the 2020 presidential election was obviously rigged.
Good news is none of those tweets were taken down.
They're not being suppressed.
We're seeing lots of extra engagement for conservatives.
But some people got very upset at my free speech.
That would be the New York Times.
The New York Times took issue with your beloved host.
On Twitter, conservatives celebrate and progressives cringe about Musk's ownership of Twitter.
When Elon Musk reached a deal to buy Twitter on Monday, he promised to return free speech and debate to the platform, saying it was the bedrock of a functioning democracy.
And then just a few paragraphs later, we have this quote.
They say...
Michael Knowles, a conservative podcaster, repeated on Monday the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was obviously rigged, receiving more than 70,000 likes.
Now, I agree in principle with the New York Times here.
We cannot allow this kind of dangerous misinformation to be allowed on Twitter.
We can't tolerate that, okay?
We cannot tolerate the New York Times spreading dangerous misinformation because they say that my claim is a false claim.
But my claim is not a false claim.
My claim is an obviously true claim.
The 2020 presidential election was rigged.
They rigged the whole damn thing.
It's just, it's so obvious.
Twitter specifically rigged it, actually, because Twitter, in the weeks before the presidential election, censored damning and damaging information about the Biden family, about corruption because of Hunter Biden's laptop.
It was a story broken by the New York Post, and Twitter shut it down.
You couldn't even privately message it.
Forget about publicly post it.
Facebook did the same thing.
Google did the same thing.
And then a poll taken after the election said that 12% of Biden voters would not have voted for him if they had seen that news story.
So they themselves rigged it, first of all.
And then they all admitted that it was a true story a year later.
We know that the Democrat operatives rigged the election by changing all the election rules in the weeks and months right beforehand.
We know that in Pennsylvania, they violated the state constitution.
We now have a ruling to that effect, that they violated the state constitution by pushing widespread mail-in ballots.
You would have to be so stupid or so dishonest.
I'm not sure which it is at the New York Times.
I lean more toward the latter, but it might be the former.
You would have to be unfathomably stupid or ignorant to pretend that that were not the case.
So you have my solemn vow.
I have not talked to Mr. Musk.
He has not approached me yet.
If I am named CEO of Twitter, then I will ban the New York Times before I finish my HR orientation.
You have my promise.
Because, look, I'm all for free speech, okay?
But I agree with the Libs, and I agree with many conservatives, and I agree with Elon Musk that there are limits.
We need to have some basic limits here, some basic standards.
And the New York Times has obviously fallen afoul of that.
The New York Times is one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation in this country.
Look at the New York Times bestseller list.
A certain book called Speechless about this very topic, written by yours truly, that came out last year, was the number one bestselling book in the country by a country mile.
It outsold the number one on the New York Times list by 40%, without bulk buys, without any shenanigans.
And the Times didn't seem to know my name.
The Times only knows my name when they want to attack me.
So I think, look...
I think it's just really, really important that we stop this kind of misinformation.
And as we reconfigure the limits to speech and moderation and all these things, I think we've got to throw out the times.
I think it's important.
It's important for our functioning democracy.
When you want to protect not just your country from, but also your home, you got to check out American Home Shield.
Right now, go to ahs.com slash Knowles.
You are going to thank me later because no one likes to think about household breakdowns.
They happen, but you don't want to think about it.
And they happen a lot more often than you want to admit.
That is why it pays to have a plan from American Home Shield to help cover the cost to repair and replace things, such as your heating system, your AC, your fridge.
Okay, American Home Shield knows that no two homes are the same That's why they've got new options to help you find just the right coverage.
If American Home Shield cannot repair the covered item, they'll just replace it.
American Home Shield members get more.
More coverage options, fewer exclusions, whether we're talking HVAC systems and plumbing to kitchen appliances.
Their plans help protect parts of up to 23 essential home systems and appliances.
Electronics coverage is available for an unlimited number of eligible items, such as Smartwatches, flat-screen TVs, and more.
Roof leak repair, pool, spa coverage.
They have pretty much everything.
And right now, you can get $50 off their most comprehensive plans ever by going to AHS.com slash Knowles.
Head on over there right now, save $50.
AHS.com slash Knowles, $50 off any plan.
Service fees, limitations, and exclusions apply.
See plan for details.
American Home Shield.
Be sure with the shield.
Speaking of election rigging...
There's a host on MSNBC, Ari Melber, who he went on a rant on his fears and the liberals' fears about the Musk takeover of Twitter that I cannot believe was anything but parody.
I cannot believe that this man and that the liberals are so unselfaware, so oblivious to their own tactics that they would make this argument earnestly.
If you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don't have to explain yourself.
You don't even have to be transparent.
You could secretly ban one party's candidate or all of its candidates, all of its nominees.
Or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else.
And the rest of us might not even find out about it till after the election.
Elon Musk says this is all to help people because he is just a free speech philosopher.
Philosophically clear, open-minded helper.
By golly, if the conservatives get control of Twitter, they might do exactly what we have actually done for years.
That's the argument he's making.
I don't know that he's being sincere here.
Again, it's this argument of, are these people just extremely stupid or extremely dishonest?
And I tend to think, when you think of the New York Times, generally the people who work at the New York Times have a pretty high IQ. They've had at least a relatively elite education.
And so I assume they're just very dishonest rather than very stupid.
With MSNBC, I don't know.
It's anybody's guess.
If he's self-aware here, if he knows that he is just describing exactly what the liberals have been doing for years, then good on him.
This is a pretty funny way to subvert the medium.
But I don't think that's what he's doing.
I think he actually doesn't get it.
If a small group of people own the means of communication in a republic, why they could use that to ban a political candidate.
Oh, you mean like the duly elected sitting president?
You mean Donald Trump?
Well, he was actually the president of the United States.
They can just kick him out of the public square.
You don't say.
They could turn down the reach of certain users and up the reach of others.
Oh, you mean like shadow banning or outright deplatforming?
There has been something that's gone on since the news of the Musk announcement came out.
Which is that conservative accounts are exploding on Twitter and liberal accounts.
There are even reports that they're losing followers.
I've gained, I think, 50,000 followers in the last two or three days.
I don't know what that is.
That could be...
That could be a good thing.
It could be that they've taken their thumbs off the scales on Twitter and they're actually allowing greater free speech now out of fear of what's going on and that Musk could come in and find all of these nefarious dealings.
They could be just shredding documents at the Twitter HQ and letting their thumb off the scales.
Or Jeremy Boring made this point, the god king of the Daily Wire.
They could be attempting to sabotage Elon Musk by flooding it with bots or something.
I tend to think it's more the former, only because since this news came out, I'm getting a ton more engagement, not just with random anonymous accounts, but with big blue checkmark accounts.
I tend to think this is more having to do with Twitter stopping the censorship and stopping the shadow banning and stopping the manipulation of the algorithm.
Stopping doing the things that this MSNBC host is so afraid the Republicans might do hypothetically or the conservatives might do hypothetically or just this eccentric billionaire who I'm not even sure is a conservative might do hypothetically.
This This is so delightful.
This is just so absolutely delightful.
Look at Senator Ed Markey.
Senator Ed Markey is a Democrat.
He tweeted out yesterday, quote, Elon Musk and a handful of billionaires now have dangerous influence over the most powerful online platforms.
They can't be trusted and self-regulation has failed.
We must pass laws to protect privacy and promote algorithmic justice.
That's a new one for internet users, especially for kids.
Hey, Ed, where were you a week ago or six months ago or a year ago or two years ago when we were raising all of these issues?
Oh, you loved it because it was your guys who were controlling it.
It was your small handful of liberal oligarchs who were controlling that and manipulating the algorithm and manipulating the elections and rigging the 2020 presidential election.
Let's just call it like we see it.
But now that a guy who just isn't a leftist is controlling just one of the platforms and the smallest platform at that, now we need to send in the Marines.
Now we've got a really, really big problem.
Algorithmic justice.
What a stupid phrase.
We hear about algorithmic justice, economic justice, reproductive justice was a phrase coined by failed presidential candidate Julian Castro to refer to the justice to kill babies or something.
Justice is justice.
Justice is the persistent will to give to everyone what he is due.
Okay, that's what justice is, and it reveals itself in every aspect of society, in every aspect of our lives.
And we've seen a perversion of justice by the left in every aspect of, we talk about the leftist perversion of criminal justice.
The real version of justice is punish criminals and protect victims.
The leftist version of justice is ignore victims and let criminals off the hook.
Algorithmic justice, according to conservatives, is within the bounds of the law, let people see the news that they want to see.
Let people say the things that they want to say.
Again, within the bounds of the law.
Not saying they can break the law, but within the bounds of that.
Don't censor people to tilt the scales from one political party over another.
That's justice.
What he means by algorithmic justice is just injustice.
That's all he's talking about.
This is a great perspective on free speech from Elon Musk.
Every day that Musk drips more information about the future of Twitter, the better I feel about it.
Musk tweeted out, he said, the extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all.
But what does he mean by free speech?
Well, he explains.
He says, by free speech, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
This is basically a good explanation of free speech.
I wrote this book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, completely snubbed by the New York Times, but still number one national bestseller, coming out in paperback in a month or two.
My argument there is not an argument for free speech absolutism.
I know a lot of conservatives make that argument.
That's not what I'm arguing.
I think that's ahistorical.
I don't think that has anything to do with the founding era or the actual history of free speech in our country or anywhere else, for that matter.
There are always going to be limits.
The question is, what are those limits?
What are those standards?
We have had plenty of them in American history.
Standards against obscenity, standards against direct threats, against fighting words.
A lot of those have been watered down by lunatic, radical politicians and judges over the past 30, 40, 50 years.
But what Elon is saying is, look, we in the political community set the bounds of speech, and then these extremely influential social media platforms, which control the flow of information around our public square, they need to abide by the law.
And they really shouldn't go much further than that.
There was a good piece yesterday in Compact Magazine by Curtis Yarvin over what the future of Twitter looks like.
Twitter does have to engage in certain moderation.
What do they mean by moderation?
Well, there's moderation.
They do engage in some censorship.
They have got to curate certain feeds.
They've got to recommend certain things.
I mean, this just goes with the social platform.
The problem with the moderation practices of Twitter is not that they're moderating things.
It's that they're secretly censoring things and calling it moderation.
Yarvin has a great description of the difference between censorship and moderation.
Moderation is preventing you from seeing things you don't want to see.
Censorship is preventing you from seeing things that you do want to see.
That's the difference.
Any platform, any civilized institution is going to have some moderation.
When we're hanging out in mixed company, I don't think that we should talk like sailors.
I don't think it's right to use that sort of language around women, for instance.
Or I don't think it's right, if you're on a nice, wholesome platform, to have porn everywhere.
I don't want to see porn all over Twitter.
I hope they moderate that.
I don't think we should have snuff films on Twitter.
That would be just enforcing the law.
You've got to enforce the law.
But what you need is transparency.
And what you need is everyone to know the rules.
And you need the political community to be able to set those rules.
And the fact that Elon Musk gets it is so terrific.
What's funny is they're talking about Elon's takeover as though it's going to get rid of all the rules on Twitter.
That was Brian Stelter's stupid point two days ago.
He said, does anyone want to go to a party where there are no rules?
No, that's not what we're talking about here.
In fact, when it gets down to the real nuts and bolts, proposals, concrete proposals that Elon Musk has made for Twitter, The only thing he's proposed is actually tightening up speech restrictions.
He's saying we have to get rid of anonymous accounts.
He's saying we need to get rid of the bots.
He's saying we need to have a little more accountability.
We need people to verify their identity.
He's not just talking about opening the floodgates.
He's saying, no, we've got to get a handle on this and bring it more in line with the American law and the American tradition and stop booting half the country out of the public square.
Absolutely the right thing to do.
Now one way to protect your political community, especially during hyperinflation, Is to go look at Birch Gold.
Right now, text Knowles to 989898.
Do not miss a second.
Do it right now.
Inflation is spiking.
It's at 7% thanks to Joe Biden's policies.
The paper money in your wallet is losing value fast, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine has worsened the market's decline.
Today, an ounce of gold is worth $1,900.
It was worth about $300 an ounce in 2000.
I have been telling you for years, You can buy gold from Birch Gold, the guys that I trust.
It's your hedge against inflation.
Well, did you know there's another way to hedge against inflation?
You can get silver from Birch Gold.
Silver is also considered real money.
Historically speaking, it is extremely undervalued right now.
It's an industrial metal that is in high demand for everything from electric cars to solar panels.
Demand is only going to rise.
And some analysts say that there is an unusual dislocation in price that may present very real opportunities for silver to rally over the next two years.
Regardless, silver, like gold, is never going to zero.
The American dollar, well, it's currently going into the toilet.
So you've got to call Birch Gold.
They're the only company I trust.
Do not wait.
Start diversifying.
Text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 989898 to get a free info kit on buying gold or No obligation to get this info.
Text Knowles to 989898 to get your free info kit now.
And if you have not signed up for Ben Shapiro's Third Thursday Book Club yet, Now's the time to do it.
It streams.
Tomorrow night, Ben will be discussing The Once and Future King by T.H. White.
The book club will stream at 8 p.m.
Eastern, and you will get to go through Ben's notes and have your most pressing questions answered.
After the stream, make sure you pick up Moby Dick by Herman Melville for next month's book club.
Check out the trailer.
I want to tell you about my third Thursday book club.
This is not your average book club.
These are the greatest books in the history of Western literature.
We're going to dive into the greatest works of all time.
These are the books that helped form the key pillars of Western civilization and helped define America.
And we're going to do it live with thousands of you, our Daily Wire members.
I'm going to be your personal guide.
I've read every one of these books.
I'm going to draw out the important lessons and themes from every book.
Plus, I'm going to be answering your questions along the way.
So we actually do read the book together.
You join the book club, you are going to get smarter.
You're going to get more knowledgeable.
because this is an investment in your most valuable asset, your mind.
The third Thursday Book Club.
It's going to change the way you think.
When you sign up, you also get Ben's notes, which is a cheat sheet to the important lessons of this book.
So sign up, thirdthursdaybookclub.com to get Ben's notes sent straight to your inbox for The Once and Future King by T.H. White.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
For the past couple of years, it's been tricky to find information about Joe Biden's corruption because sometimes our social it's been tricky to find information about Joe Biden's corruption because sometimes our social media oligarchs A lot of times it's suppressed.
It's hard to find it.
Got one number for you.
5.2 million.
$5.2 million.
That is the discrepancy on Joe Biden's financial reports.
Joe Biden always styled himself the poorest member of the Senate.
That guy's been in politics his whole life.
He's just been taking a government salary his whole life.
That's why he's not a millionaire like his counterparts in the Senate.
Now Joe Biden very much is a millionaire, and he's made money from his government salary.
He's made money from books.
He's made money from speeches.
Okay.
Okay.
But there's $5.2 million that have gone unaccounted for.
We only know about this because of Hunter Biden's laptop, which the oligarchic media suppressed.
I'm talking about the establishment news media and I'm talking about the social media.
They suppressed that information.
But we got it anyway.
And when you look down at some of Hunter's spreadsheets of his financial affairs, you'll notice that there is $28,000 in legal fees for the restructuring of Hunter Biden's joint venture with the Chinese Communist Party-controlled Bank of China.
$28,000 in legal fees.
These legal fees were paid by Joe Biden.
Now, why would Joe Biden pay Hunter's legal fees?
Well, maybe he's just a good father.
I thought Hunter Biden had plenty of money.
I think in one of his videos where he's talking with a hooker and was recording himself for some creepy reason, he talked about how he made about a gazillion dollars a year.
So you think Hunter could pay his own legal fees, but he didn't.
Joe apparently paid some of his legal fees.
And why would that be?
Well, because other documents in the Hunter Biden laptop suggest that Joe Biden was making money off of Hunter's business transactions.
Hunter's business transactions that were peddling his father's influence in the government with hostile foreign powers.
With some that are not hostile or we've had a strange relationship with, like Ukraine, but some that are hostile foreign powers, like China.
And then you look at the discrepancy on Biden's financial reports.
Daily Mail's analysis of this shows $5.2 million in unexplained income for Joe.
Huh.
That seems like the sort of thing we should maybe investigate.
That's the sort of thing that I wish we knew about before the 2020 presidential election.
That's the sort of thing that would have gotten maybe 12% of Biden's voters not to vote for him.
And that's not even counting all the dead people who voted for him.
That's just the living people who voted for him.
So that would have swung the presidential election without question.
What does the White House have?
They must have a good explanation, right?
One, they've known about this for a long time.
Two, they're going to just call it misinformation and Republican agit props.
Okay, Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary.
How do you explain...
All of the strange Joe Biden business dealings.
How do you explain that one of Hunter Biden's business partners came to the White House to meet with Vice President Joe Biden during the Obama administration?
On Hunter Biden, the New York Post is reporting, looking at White House visitor logs, there were 19 visits to the White House while the President was Vice President by Hunter Biden's business partner, including one with the Vice President.
Do you help us understand why that business partner had access and what those meetings were about?
I don't have any information on that.
I'm happy to check and see if we have any more comments.
No, they don't have any information.
Sorry.
Whoops.
This is really damning.
It's not like they didn't know about this.
This has been a major issue.
This has probably been the biggest weakness for Joe Biden since before he was elected president.
And everyone knows about it.
It's on the White House visitor logs.
They've known about this for years.
If there were any way to spin this into anything other than what it obviously is, which is a pay-for-play, high-level, multi-million dollar corruption scheme involving the Chinese government, involving hostile foreign powers, and Joe Biden, if it were anything other than that, they would have an excuse.
And they don't.
And so she punts, and we're going to have to circle back, and then they're just going to avoid the question as best they can.
Such rank corruption.
You already had Joe Biden not just on the ropes.
He was completely underwater, to mix metaphors.
He's losing on the economy.
He's losing on inflation.
He's losing on immigration.
He's losing on foreign policy.
He's losing on energy.
He's losing on COVID. He's losing on everything.
People don't have any confidence in his ability to govern.
But the one thing that Biden brought was that he's just a return to normal.
He's just good old Scranton Joe.
We know good old Uncle Joe.
That mean old Donald Trump, he's a crook.
He's corrupt.
He's mean.
He's got a bad character.
But Joe, he's got a really good character, right?
No.
No, he doesn't.
He's obviously a crook.
He's obviously a very corrupt man who has been in Washington way too long and who has sold out his influence in the American government to make a quick buck.
Not just for his kid who made a lot of quick bucks, but apparently for himself too.
Unless they can come up with any way to explain $5.2 million.
Unless they can find out any way to explain 19 visits by Hunter Biden's business partner to the White House when Joe was vice president.
And so what do they do?
The only thing Democrats can do right now is focus on Donald Trump.
The only thing they can do is focus on the guy who hasn't been president in a year and a half, Chuck Schumer now.
He was asked a question about, how are we going to deal with inflation?
Americans going to the gas pump.
Americans going to the grocery store.
They can't afford huge surges, 40-year highs in inflation.
What are you going to do?
This is a midterm election year.
Come on, Chuck.
Tell me how you're going to fix it.
Here's his answer.
Blame Trump.
If you want to get rid of inflation, the only way to do it is to undo a lot of the Trump tax cuts and raise rates.
No Republican is ever going to do that.
So the only way to get rid of inflation is through reconciliation.
The only way to get rid of inflation is by undoing the tax cuts from five years ago?
That's your best explanation of the record high inflation that we're facing right now is Trump did it five years ago.
And then it just sort of laid dormant for four and a half or five years.
And then isn't it just Joe's bad luck that that inflation just sprung up?
So the grain of potential hypothetical truth in what Schumer said is theoretically, you could try to curb inflation by raising taxes.
Because when you raise taxes, you're taking money away from people.
And when you take money away from people, they have less money to spend on consumer goods.
And if they have less money to spend on consumer goods, then the demand will decrease.
And theoretically, maybe the prices should stop soaring.
Now, the real demand for those goods won't actually decrease, but the ability of people to pay for them will decrease.
So maybe, theoretically, you could stop that.
Although, a lot of more right-wing economists would say, no, actually, you should cut taxes, and then this is going to lead to such a surge in productivity that you can deal with inflation that way.
Regardless, it's a completely bogus argument here from Schumer, because what are the real drivers of inflation?
Okay, so we got, his version is, it's tax cuts from five years ago.
Here are some, maybe some other culprits.
The Democrats insisting on recklessly printing record levels of money for years, just printing money and giving it away to people.
That might be one.
The Democrats insisting, and Republicans acquiescing, unfortunately, to shutting down the country for a couple of years.
That might have something to do with it.
The war in Ukraine that Vladimir Zelensky, leader of Ukraine, admits was caused, especially by Joe Biden taking the sanctions off of Vladimir Putin's oil pipeline.
That could be it.
The stupid energy policy, which is making America reliant on foreign oil so that when wars break out in Europe, for instance, the oil prices are going to go through the roof.
That's going to drive inflation.
All of those things would seem to be more immediate and egregious culprits of inflation than some tax cuts five years ago.
But furthermore, if Schumer even wanted to make the tax cut argument, then the argument would be we need to take money out of We've got to take that money out of the economy so people have less money to spend so that maybe prices will stop going through the roof.
So if that's the case, why are Democrats pushing to forgive student loans?
Why are the Democrats on Capitol Hill and Joe Biden pushing to forgive student loans or to put a pause on student loan payments?
All that's going to do is inject more money into the economy.
So even by the logic, the really poor logic that Schumer is trying to advance here, his argument fails.
Because at the same time that he's saying we need to take money out of the economy, he's trying to pay off his base by saying, no, we're going to give you guys, young, liberal, college-educated people with lots of debt, we're going to just give you more money to spend.
Spend, spend, spend.
Not going to do anything for inflation.
It's just completely weak.
Now, what is Trump saying about all this?
We don't really know because Trump's not back on Twitter.
I think what we were all hoping for was Elon Musk takes Twitter It breaks up the lock on conservative speech.
The floodgates open.
We can start talking about Joe Biden's corruption.
We can start talking about how men aren't women.
We can start talking about how we were lied to by the public health authorities for the past two years.
We can start talking about all those things.
But what we were really waiting for...
We're those juicy, spicy Trump tweets.
At least for me.
I want to see the Trump tweets.
They're really, really funny.
The man is a poet.
I'm not being hyperbolic.
He is a poet in the medium of Twitter.
He knows how to use words in the funniest, punchiest way in that medium.
And I just want to see the tweets again.
The fake tweet press releases are not doing it for me.
I need the tweets.
And yet, Trump has said he's not going back To Twitter.
Because Trump has his own social media platform called Truth Social.
And not a lot of people are using it right now.
But he's gone in and he's going to stick with that platform.
And he doesn't want to reward Twitter.
So he's not going to go back to them after they dissed him and kicked him off.
Okay.
I am really sad about this.
But for right now, it actually might be the best thing for our country.
That Trump is not on Twitter at this very moment.
Because the minute Trump gets back on Twitter, everything is going to be about Trump again.
And right now the Democrats are losing so badly on every single front and we're in a midterm election year.
I think it would be much better to keep all the focus on the Democrats and all the focus on Joe Biden and the failing Democrats on Capitol Hill.
This is a personal sacrifice that I am willing to make so that the Democrats lose a little bit more of their power in November.
I'm not convinced that Trump won't come back onto Twitter before the presidential election, especially if he's considering running.
I just bet he's going to have to go back onto Twitter, and then it's going to be about Trump again.
And some people don't even want that to happen.
I sort of think, look...
He's got every right to run for president.
He's my favorite Republican president in my lifetime.
You're going to have other candidates out there.
Ron DeSantis appears like he is going to be running for president.
The leading senator right now who could run would be Ted Cruz.
I think that's pretty clear.
Maybe Josh Hawley would run.
I'm not sure.
Maybe Rand Paul.
I don't know.
There could be a lot of people running.
Kristi Noem, the governor in South Dakota, might run.
So if we're talking about a primary situation, then I guess everyone should put themselves in the best position they can and duke it out and figure out who the best candidate is.
But for right now, there's no political goal achieved by Trump going back onto Twitter other than the sheer delight and humor of it all.
But I suspect that's something Democrats are actually hoping for because when your opponent is hanging himself, You should not interrupt.
When your opponent is digging his own political grave, you should not stop him from doing that.
And that's what the Democrats are doing right now.
Speaking of morbid things, and speaking of entertainment for that matter, there's a clip I have to get to from Megan Fox.
I haven't followed Megan Fox very closely.
I know she's a movie star.
She's married to someone named Machine Gun Kelly.
I don't know anything about Machine Gun Kelly.
The only thing I know about these two is that they are very popular entertainers who are into really weird, new-age, occult rituals and who drink each other's blood.
And they were like, oh, Machine Gun Kelly.
And I kind of knew the name, but didn't.
So I'm like, Machine Gun Kelly?
I look it up.
And I was like, oh.
We're gonna be in so much trouble because he's literally like my exact physical type that I've been manifesting since I was four.
I'm also four years older than him so I think I made him, my thoughts and intentions grew him into the person that he is.
Who knows what he would have looked like or been like if it wasn't for me.
I guess to drink each other's blood might mislead people or like people are imagining us with like goblets and we're like Game of Thrones drinking each other's blood.
It's just a few drops, but yes, we do consume each other's blood on occasion for ritual purposes only.
I had gotten to a point where I was like, we need an adrenaline injection of God in this relationship.
And so we went to Costa Rica and we had Peruvian shamans who administered the ayahuasca.
And we each went in with different questions that we wanted the medicine to answer for us.
Everyone is making fun of Megyn Kelly and...
No, not Megyn Kelly.
That would be the strangest mashup of those two.
You have Megyn Fox and Machine Gun Kelly.
What do you got, Megyn Kelly?
No, not quite.
Everyone's making fun of Megyn Fox and Machine Gun Kelly here because they're saying really weird, trippy, hippy-dippy, new-agey things.
They are the norm in human history.
When Megan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly say that they drink each other's blood and that Megan Fox manifested Machine Gun Kelly, manifesting is this new age term where you think that you can control the universe by your thoughts.
You think that you can bring God into submission and have him do your will just by thinking it.
It's a new age idea.
It's taking the true idea that you should think positively, you should have confidence, you should have hope.
It's taking that and perverting it and twisting it and making you believe that you are a god who can actually control all of the course of events simply through your own telepathic powers or something.
So she says, I manifested the development of this man and I turned him into my lover and for ritualistic purposes we drink each other's blood.
And then we wanted an infusion of God in our relationship, so we went to Peru and did a bunch of drugs, and a weird shaman gave us a bunch of drugs, and we did the drugs to figure out our life together and our future and the universe, man.
People are making fun of them as abnormal or weird or kooky.
They're not.
This is the norm.
This is the norm in human affairs.
The only reason that we are not accustomed to this stuff, though increasingly we are, is Is because of monotheism.
is because the ancient Israelites told the world about God.
And they went through and they conquered all of the crazy pagans along their way.
And they established themselves in the Holy Land.
And then a king and a savior was born to the Jews.
And he saved the whole world.
And the light of Christ spreads throughout the world.
And then even Islam, which Christians believe is just a It's just a sort of misinterpretation of what Christianity is.
Muslims believe that it's the final revelation of God, the same revelation that was made to the Jews and then through Christ, who they don't think is a savior but do think is a sort of prophet.
So monotheism says, stop drinking each other's blood, stop taking a bunch of drugs in the desert, stop believing that through shamans and witch doctors you can control the entire world.
That's the aberration.
That's the abnormal thing in world history.
But when you look at the Spanish conquistadors when they came to the Americas, you saw a bunch of Megan Foxes and Machine Gun Kellys doing weird cult rituals and drinking each other's blood and having all sorts of weird sacrifices and cultic beliefs.
When you look at all the tribes in the Middle East before the advent of monotheism, this is what you saw.
All of the pagan religions in the Far East, that's what you saw.
We are regressing.
We are regressing because of the West's rejection of the religion that made it, which is Christianity.
when you don't believe in God, when you reject Christianity, it's not that you believe in nothing.
It's that you believe in everything.
And so it is no coincidence that with the decline of traditional religious practice in the West, you are seeing simultaneously the rise of really weird stuff like the secret or new age or transgenderism for that matter, or the people who love the crystals or all of these weird or astrology or Or all of these weird practices.
Because man is a fundamentally religious being.
When Megan Fox says that she needed an injection of God into her relationship, she's speaking to an actual human desire.
We do want something more.
We want something more than this physical world.
And so how are you going to fill that?
You can either fill that with weird, superstitious, ultimately destructive and destructive I think pretty clearly demonic practices like drinking each other's blood or you can fill it with the highest fulfillment of those things.
When Christians go to Mass to your church service on Sunday and take the communion, you are taking...
You're taking part in a sacrament that is a representation, and if you're Catholic, you believe a true representation in that there is a transubstantiation of eating flesh and drinking blood.
It happens to be eating the flesh and drinking the blood of your Savior.
And all the modern, atheist, liberal, open-minded, free-thinking people, they say, that's so weird.
That's so weird, Christians.
Oh my gosh, I can't believe that you think that you've got this sacrament where you're eating the flesh and drinking the blood of God.
Oh my goodness, what a crazy thing.
Hey, we're going to go over to Peru and do some ayahuasca with a shaman.
Because we're normal people.
We're not weird like you crazy Christians.
Everybody's got to serve somebody, okay?
And this is why I do often bring politics back, not just to the culture, but ultimately to religion and theology.
Theology is faith seeking understanding.
It's not superstition.
It's the opposite.
It's applying rigor and logic and reason to the natural religious longings that people have.
Because the more that we reject Christianity, the more that these very misguided liberals reject Christianity as somehow unreasonable, though they never quite explain why it's unreasonable, but they have this prejudice against it and they say, oh, that's traditional, we don't like that, we're going to get rid of that.
We're going to follow science with a capital S and a trademark over the E. The more we're going to get really bizarre, kooky, superstitious pagan theories, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Which in its new guide on puberty is discussing girls with erections.
That's the phrase.
They've got a new guide on puberty called Eulogy, a puberty guide for everybody.
Targeted toward children ages 9 through 13 years old.
Explaining how some girls are actually boys and how girls can get erections and that's totally normal and totally fine.
And these people have the audacity to make fun of Christians and Jews and Muslims as superstitious.
One thing that this conveys, just on a political point, is that you really can't trust anything these modern leftist medical associations have to say.
They say, you don't believe the science?
You don't believe the CDC and the WHO and the American Pediatric Academy?
Well, no.
If they think that girls can get erections, then I don't trust anything they say because they don't understand the most basic elements of human nature.
So, no.
I don't trust them at all.
I trust a random blog I read on the internet much more than I trust these people because these people are getting something fundamentally wrong that I know for a fact is fundamentally wrong.
This is...
The kind of weirdness that is going to enter into your political society if you reject basic truths.
We are going so far down this path.
The only way out, I think, is to try to hold on to some grasp of the tradition, some grasp of reality.
Someone the other day pointed out that conservatives, they talk about free speech and this and that.
All they really want is Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism is a contradiction.
I think it was Jen Rubin at the Washington Post.
Christian nationalism is in many ways a contradiction in terms because Christianity makes universal claims, lowercase c, Catholic claims about the world.
And so Christian nationalism is a conflicting sort of statement.
But regardless, okay, let's use the phrase.
What does that mean?
American conservatives want Christian standards and Christian traditions in society.
And what's the alternative?
Pumping eight-year-old boys full of puberty blockers.
That's the alternative?
Sign me up for the Christian nation, please.
Hey, where do I get me some of that Christian nation?
Which do you want?
If we look back at the actual practical application of these things, I think we're beginning to find out that the people using their unfettered reason, the people inflicting their will on society to undo everything that has come before us, Those people are giving us a society that is unrecognizable and ugly and something we don't desire.
And now when we've got a little free speech, we're allowed to say it and we're allowed to take our country back.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
So, see you tomorrow.
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, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Production Manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate Producer, Justine Turley.
Audio Mixer, Mike Coromina.
And Hair and Makeup by Cherokee Heart.
Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
