Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Joe Biden becomes a Puerto Rican, spike proteins from a COVID vaccine “unexpectedly” show up in a dead man’s brain, and the libs rig more elections.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join the Jeremy’s Razors Contest For The Car at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/play. See terms and conditions for complete details at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/referralterms
Become a DailyWire+ member today to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Over the years, Joe has changed his views on just about every issue under the sun, from crime to abortion to foreign policy to marriage to pretty much everything else.
Unprincipled politicians such as Joe Biden sometimes refer to this kind of flip-flopping as evolving.
And now it seems Joe Biden has evolved into a Puerto Rican.
I was sort of raised in the Puerto Rican community at home politically.
And so we came here for a long time, both for business and pleasures.
Richard Levine is a woman.
Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.
Joe Biden is a Puerto Rican.
And I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
You know, it's amazing, actually.
I was going to say I'm the only one who's remained consistent here.
Everyone else is turning into something.
But that's not true.
Last night, I actually was Candace Owens, because Candace was supposed to give a speech at the University of Delaware, and instead she flew to Paris to Chicago.
Set the internet on fire with Kanye West.
Okay, Joe Biden's a Puerto Rican.
Liz Warren's an Indian.
I'm Candace Owens.
My favorite comment yesterday is from David McAllister, who says, I'm so glad YouTube added abortion context to this video.
Otherwise, I would have just kept believing it was doctors killing defenseless babies for profit.
I actually had a few other people write in to me about this.
So in my episode yesterday, which touched on a ton of subjects, though it did mention abortion and AOC's stupid commentary on abortion, YouTube added a warning, a sort of a context warning.
And it just shows you that COVID was not a unique emergency that required extraordinary measures.
COVID was a test run for all new sorts of power grabs by the left.
Because during COVID, the Libs said, well, we need to add warnings about medical misinformation and the masks and the social distancing and the vaccines.
So they would add these little context bubbles to our videos to basically just push the liberal line on COVID and discourage people from listening to different points of view.
But now COVID's over, and they're doing it on topics...
That are completely unrelated to COVID. Now they're doing it on abortion.
So I come out and I say, yeah, AOC said a dumb thing about abortion.
They say, abortion actually is really great and you shouldn't have any questions about it.
It's a perfectly fine medical procedure.
And okay, right.
They're going to do it.
They're going to do it with, anytime anyone criticizes Joe Biden pretty soon.
Actually, Joe Biden's a really great guy and you should stop insulting him.
That's not nice.
It's crazy.
I don't think that people believe that Joe Biden is a Puerto Rican.
I don't think people believe Joe Biden, period.
I think Joe Biden is not persuasive.
And I think the reason that he and all the other libs are not really persuasive is because they keep being proven wrong.
It's the fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Or as George W. Bush put it, fool me twice.
The point is you're not going to fool me again.
And with the libs, it's fool me three times, fool me four times, fool me five times.
COVID certainly accelerated that trend.
And so it's just, it's not persuasive, especially when you compare Biden and the Democrats with the political alternative.
You want to talk about persuasive.
You want to talk about in charge.
Ron DeSantis down there in Florida, in the wake of this horrible hurricane that destroyed so much of Florida, killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot of property, CNN is using this as an opportunity to really grill the governor and make it seem like he's not competent, that this is somehow his fault, which of course is absurd.
Listen to how Ron DeSantis knocks this CNN reporter down.
Why do you stand behind Lee County's decision to not have that mandatory evacuation until the day before the storm?
Well, where was your industry stationed when the storm hit?
Were you guys in Lee County?
No, you were in Tampa.
So they were following the weather track, and they had to make decisions based on that.
But 72 hours, they weren't even in the cone.
48 hours, they were on the periphery.
So you've got to make the decisions the best you can.
I will say, you know, they delivered the message to people.
They had shelters open.
You know, everybody had adequate opportunity to at least get to a shelter within the county.
But, you know, a lot of the residents did not want to do that, I think, probably for various reasons.
Some people just don't want to leave their home, period.
They're island people, whatever.
But I think part of it was so much attention was paid to Tampa that I think a lot of them probably thought that they wouldn't get the worst of it.
But they did, and I think it's easy to second-guess them, but they were ready for the whole time and made that call when it was justifiable to do so.
By the way, this goes on for about another minute, and DeSantis goes, he's just citing facts, he's citing hour-by-hour weather trends, he's pointing out that CNN also thought that the storm was going to move in a particular way, and then after the storm shifted, then Florida shifted resources down.
And so you just, you leave that conversation with the impression...
This guy knows what he's doing.
If they had asked Joe Biden that question, what would he have done?
He would have started drooling.
He would have started talking about corn pop in the Delaware public pool.
You can't even compare the two.
It's not that Joe Biden might not have been able to cite all of those facts.
Joe Biden wouldn't have known what state he was in.
And so when people are comparing Republican leadership right now to Democrat leadership, It doesn't take a political nerd, someone following all the trends, to see, oh, the Republicans basically have their act together.
The Democrats have no idea what's going on.
You can see this.
There was a video that went viral yesterday of a guy who, I don't think he's a political consultant.
I don't think that this is a guy who's constantly keeping up, refreshing the page on Real Clear Politics every day.
He's a regular Florida citizen who says, look, I'm a Democrat.
I've always considered myself a Democrat.
But DeSantis seems so competent, I'm voting for that guy.
That guy is here in Arcadia.
I don't know why the rest of y'all, but it's here in Arcadia.
So y'all know who we vote for.
I don't know why the rest of you, I'm voting for DeSantis.
And I'm a Democrat.
So y'all can call it where the y'all want to call it.
We got children out here.
Okay, I'm sorry, ma'am.
There's just a real persuasive aspect to competence.
To just a basic degree of competence.
We tend to think of politics as this ideological struggle between the leftists and the conservatives and the Marxists and the fascists and the thisists.
But for a lot of people, politics comes down to, hey, are you going to show up Can you just show up when bad stuff happens and try to make it better?
Hey, can you reduce crime in my neighborhood?
Hey, can you keep the economy kind of going along?
Hey, can you fill my potholes?
Fill my potholes is a really important political tactic.
Okay, fill my potholes goes a long, long way.
And DeSantis is doing it.
He's doing it on every single level.
You even heard in that clip, DeSantis, he said, you know, there are misleading narratives.
You guys are pushing misleading narratives.
And I've noticed that Ron DeSantis, I don't know if it was in that specific clip, it was certainly in the CNN interview.
And he keeps coming back to this misleading narratives.
Why?
Because misleading narratives is the Ron DeSantis version of fake news.
Donald Trump says, you're fake news.
Ron DeSantis is saying the exact same thing, but he uses a synonym because he doesn't want to just be seen as a copycat of Trump.
He adopts a lot of Trump's characteristics and habits.
He uses the Trump hands, sort of like New York Italian hands, really.
But he uses the Trump hands.
He uses some of the Trump diction and cadence.
But he changes it.
He makes it his own.
And I think that competence goes a long way, especially if DeSantis does choose to run In 2024, presidents tend to be the opposite of their predecessors.
You think of...
George W. Bush.
Go all the way back to George W. Bush.
Bill Clinton is marked by this kind of liberal, skeezy, completely irreligious, immoral White House full of scandal.
And then George W. Bush, whatever you think of the guy, he's a pretty upright man, born-again Christian.
There's no sex scandals coming out of the George W. Bush White House.
Then after Bush, what do we get?
We get Barack Obama.
So the Bushes, old, white, establishment, vaguely conservative.
Barack Obama, young, fresh, newcomer, leftist, first black president.
Then what do you get after Obama?
After Obama, who's this young, fresh, radical, we're gonna fundamentally transform America.
We hate the old America.
Obama's wife says, the first time I was ever proud of my country was when it elected my husband.
What happens?
You get Donald Trump who says, now, we're bringing back the old America.
Make America great again.
Right?
Donald Trump, this older guy, kind of more old school, right wing style.
Then after Trump, who was...
Relatively pretty effective, actually, even in just one term in office, even with the deep state trying to undermine him.
What do you get?
You get, and this guy who's a total populist, bull in a China shop, upending the establishment, what do you get?
You get the most establishment, boring guy in the entire world, Joe Biden.
So what comes after Biden?
Maybe you get Trump again?
But DeSantis is putting himself in a position where he could be a good alternative.
There's no question about it.
And it's not just DeSantis, by the way.
You're seeing Republicans around the country who are showing this kind of energy and clarity and competence.
Carrie Lake, we haven't gotten to talk about her very much on this show, but we absolutely should.
Carrie Lake running for governor of Arizona.
Listen to how adeptly she fends off a reporter's dishonest, ridiculous question on abortion.
Abortion is effectively banned in the state right now.
Tell me, is that something that you support?
I support saving as many lives as possible.
And what I really want to know, and I've been waiting, I tune into you guys all the time, I want to know where Katie Hobbs stands.
But I never hear you guys ask for that.
I'm pro-life.
My plan would be that every woman who walks into an abortion clinic know that there are options out there.
They don't have to choose that.
There's families who would love to adopt a baby.
And right now, the way it's been going, They go in and they only have one option.
That's it.
Nobody tells them that there's other options.
We want to help our women.
If they're afraid, we want to help them.
We want to give women health care.
And I want to help people.
But I really challenge you, and I'm happy to get back to you on this, when you find out where Katie Hobbs stands, because let me tell you where she stands.
She supports abortion right up until birth and after birth.
That's right.
She supports if a baby survives a botched abortion, that that baby die on a cold metal tray.
True.
And none of you ever try to get her to talk about her stance.
So get back to me after you do.
And tell her.
Fabulous.
Exactly how it's done.
Okay?
Carrie Lake obviously is on the right side of the issue.
She's on the pro-life side of the issue.
But it's not just about ideology or political views or policies even.
There is a role for just a basic political confidence.
And we kind of forget this because we're living in the Biden era.
But this woman expertly flipped this question back on the reporter.
This dishonest question said, hold on, what you're pushing me on all this ridiculous kind of these cases that barely ever happened, that you're framing the issue from this ridiculous place.
Why don't you ever ask my opponent this?
I'll tell you what she thinks.
She wants to let babies born alive die in cold metal trays.
That's the way to do it.
And after such dysfunction and incompetence for the past couple of years now, I think voters are hungry for people who can actually do the job.
Don't just have the right opinions or the opinions that they prefer, but can actually do a job.
As the elites prove themselves to be incompetent, people begin to look elsewhere.
People begin to doubt the authority of these elites.
Look no further than the federal bench.
Federal Judge James C. Ho, who is on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has just said that he will no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School.
He's right to do it.
He says that Yale Law School is not what it once was.
He says, Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views, it actively practices it.
Starting today, I will no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School and I hope that other judges will join me as well.
He's smart to say that.
Some people are complaining, well what about the good kids at Yale Law School?
Yeah, maybe, but...
Yale Law School is considered the top school in the country.
Yale Law School sends all of its students out to extremely prestigious posts.
If you have Yale Law School on your resume, you can pretty much go wherever you want.
Why?
Well, because of the prestige and the tradition that goes along with that name.
But does a Yale Law School degree today represent what it used to represent 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago?
No, I don't think it does.
The caliber of students who are coming out of Yale Law School is inferior today than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago.
The things that they're being taught at Yale Law School are inferior.
They're less true.
They're less good than the things that they were taught 20, 30, 40 years ago.
And so if you're a judge hiring clerks, I think it's perfectly rational to say, look, I know this place has a good reputation.
I know it's been the top of the heap for many years now, but it's just decayed, okay?
And the libs have gone in, they've cut it open, they've emptied out the body of Yale Law School like that monster in the first scene of The Empire Strikes Back, right?
They've just taken the guts out of Yale Law School.
And then they've crawled inside of Yale Law School and animated it like Night of the Living Dead.
And they kind of hobble around in it, but it's not actually what it once was.
And so I'm going to stop giving it this special privilege of we always hire the YLS people.
And I'm going to start looking around to other law schools.
Of course.
And it's not just about law clerks.
It's not just about Yale.
It used to be, again, 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, that if you had Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, these big fancy schools on your resume, that really meant something, and employers really looked for that.
Is that still true today?
I'm not so sure.
Certainly, if I were hiring people, maybe I'd say, okay, maybe that means you got a decent SAT score, though maybe it doesn't.
I'm not even sure.
I mean, the schools for a while weren't even looking at SATs.
And we're not even giving high priority tests.
I don't even know that it means you've got a basic level of intelligence.
Forget about if you know anything or have the right opinions or have the right values or anything like that.
But does it mean anything anymore?
I don't know.
If I got a resume today from a kid from Hillsdale and a kid from Princeton...
I'm probably going to just immediately suspect that the kid from Hillsdale is better educated than the kid from Princeton.
The kid from Princeton could surprise me.
But this would be an unthinkable opinion 20 years ago.
The authorities, the elites, can't coast on their reputation forever after they have done their damnedest to destroy that credibility and to destroy that reputation.
The clearest example of this is COVID. Before COVID, I generally believed what the public health authorities said.
Not 100%, but I thought, okay, they probably know more about epidemics and stuff than I do.
So I guess I'll generally follow their advice.
I'll generally believe what they think.
Whether they're talking about vaccines, whether they're talking about epidemics that come around.
I don't know anything about it.
I guess they probably do, so I'll believe them.
After COVID, I don't believe a word they say.
After COVID, if Dr.
Fauci came up to me and said, we've got an epidemic coming and you all need to take this shot.
And then I had an African shaman witch doctor come to me and say, actually, we just need to boil three kidneys of goat and the eye of newt, and then the pandemic will pass.
I will believe the African witch doctor shaman.
I think he's got more medical credibility than Dr.
Fauci.
After these people in our public health establishment have lied to us and intentionally deceived us, and furthermore, when they weren't intentionally deceiving us, just were completely incompetent and made stupid errors and got things wrong.
Going all the way back to the origin of the virus, by the way.
So, they've squandered their credibility.
They continue to squander it, by the way.
By the way, I don't know if you caught this doozy of a headline.
So, there's a new report out, new scientific medical report.
An mRNA spike protein has been detected in the brain and the heart of a dead man.
This is a case report published in Vaccines, which is a really top, well-respected journal.
Quote, I'm quoting from the report, So what do we take away from this?
One, The vaccines cause myocarditis.
We already knew that.
Well, initially we were told that's horrible scientific misinformation.
There was a big banner warning every time you would talk about this on the video.
Sometimes they would take my shows down for saying things like this.
They're probably going to put a banner on YouTube right now.
But nevertheless, the CDC now admits that the COVID vaccines do cause, in some cases at least, myocarditis.
Apparently they cause encephalitis as well.
So problems not just with the heart, but with the brain.
But we were also told that the spike proteins remained localized.
We were also told the way these mRNA vaccines work is they go in and you get this little shot.
And then your body produces spike proteins to kind of mimic the COVID virus.
And this is supposed to give you an immunity to the virus.
And it's actually supposed to stop you from getting the virus, which is what Biden and Fauci and Walensky, the CDC director, all told us.
And then that didn't happen at all.
So then they had to change their story entirely.
But anyway, that was the theory of what it was going to do.
But they said, don't worry.
These spike proteins that are being produced, they're not going to go all over your body.
They're not going to end up in your ovaries.
They're not going to end up in your brain.
They're not going to end up in your heart.
They're just going to stay where they're supposed to stay.
And at the time, I said, that's obviously BS. They're completely lying to us.
And they said, no, that's medical misinformation.
Well, here it is.
Here it is.
They found the spike protein there.
They didn't find any other part of the COVID virus there.
You can't blame it on the virus.
They said, no, we found the spike protein from the vaccine in this dead guy's brain and heart three weeks after he got the shot.
So we were right.
We were right.
You know I hate to say I told you so.
And it's not just that I told you so.
You told lots of other people so as well.
We were right.
And yet, and this gets back to what we were talking about a little bit yesterday...
Nothing's going to happen to the Fauci's and the Walensky's and big pharma especially.
Nothing's going to happen.
These guys are totally protected.
Nothing's going to happen to the big tech social media oligarchs who censored all of this true information a year ago.
Nothing's going to happen to the politicians who downplayed these risks.
Nothing's going to happen.
They're completely protected.
Legally, politically, too bad because they've got the power, and now not only do they have the power to mandate these kinds of shots, in a lot of cases still, even after courts have struck it down, not only do they have the power to encourage people through the culture to take all these shots, even if they don't necessarily need the shots.
They have the culture to censor the information, and they have the power to erase some information at least, or make it much harder to find information that was previously out there.
They can rewrite all the records.
I know the word Orwellian is overused, but it is Orwellian.
They can rewrite the records.
They can retcon the past.
We were totally right, though.
Don't forget that.
And speaking of being right, I've gotten a lot of flack.
I've gotten a lot of flack from a lot of quarters since the beginning of the war in Ukraine because I have refused to approach the issue of the war in Ukraine as a kind of simplistic moral crusade with the clear good guy and the clear bad guy.
And it's so totally clear, even if there were a clear good guy and a clear bad guy, it's so totally clear exactly what we should do in this war.
I am My opinion on the war in Ukraine, I've gotten flack from the people who have the Ukraine flag in their bios because they think I'm not sufficiently pro-Ukraine.
And then I've gotten flack from the people who are fairly reactionary and who are actually supporting Russia in the war.
And they're saying, Michael, you're a shill for the decadent West because you're You're too pro-Ukraine.
So I don't know.
I'm too pro-Ukraine.
I'm not pro-Ukraine enough.
But you know what my opinion has been on the war from the beginning?
This is my shocking hot take.
It's complicated.
That's my opinion.
It didn't start six months ago or eight months ago.
At the very least, it started eight years ago when there was a color revolution called the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine that ousted a pro-Ukrainian leader and installed a more pro-Western leader.
And we know that there was American support for this kind of thing.
And we know that CIA officials, including the top dog at the CIA, landed in Ukraine not that long after that occurred.
And okay, that's fine.
All sorts of big, powerful countries interfere in the affairs of all sorts of nations and pursue their own interests.
Of course, that's what happens.
But we do know that Russia saw that as a provocation.
Russia saw the expansion of NATO as a provocation.
And so Russia used that as an opportunity to do what it had wanted to do for a while and exert more influence over Ukraine.
And so that was a situation that America and the West could not tolerate.
And so you've had this steadily escalating war.
Well, everyone's been yelling at me because I'm not sufficiently simplistic about my view of this war.
Turns out Elon Musk agrees with me.
Because Elon Musk just tweeted out, quote, Ukraine-Russia peace.
Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision.
Russia leaves if that is the will of the people.
Crimea formally part of Russia as it had been since 1783 until Khrushchev's mistake.
Water supply to Crimea assured.
Ukraine remains neutral.
That is almost exactly what I have suggested from the beginning of this war.
Certainly, before the war even broke out as a sort of way to maybe stave off a war, that has been, largely speaking, my view.
And now you've got Elon Musk, who everybody seems to love.
He's got exactly the same view.
And the reaction from some prominent Ukrainians has not been so nice.
Now, do you want to win a McLaren or a quarter million dollars in cash?
I'm talking to all the dads right now as a father.
We all want what's best for our children and their education.
That's why we, sometimes begrudgingly, But still enthusiastically.
Participate in school fundraisers.
From buying magazines to baking cookies to paying a bunch of kids to half-wash our vehicles at the team car wash.
Well, what if you could spearhead the biggest fundraiser in your school and community's history with less effort than a walk-a-thon?
By now you have heard of Jeremy's Razor's contest for the car, where you might become the winner of Jeremy's McLaren.
Now, sure, you could add a 592 horsepower Super Roar to your school's bus fleet, or you could opt for the quarter million dollar cash prize instead.
You and all the other dads and moms could do a lot of good for your kids with that money just by referring a few non-woke raisers.
Imagine a quarter million dollars to resurface the gym, build a computer room, put up some Friday night lights.
Right now, most of the top players in the contest still have not hit the 10 referrals mark.
So the field is wide open for you to win it all.
Go to the principal's office, get him or her involved.
Just head to jeremysrazors.com to get your referral link and get in the game.
Elon Musk proposes a solution on the Ukraine conflict.
And it's a solution that would not make Ukraine totally happy, would not make Russia totally happy.
But it's a solution that he says is probably the most likely resolution to it anyway, and would in fact deescalate the war, which is just steadily increasing toward now.
We've got people in the press trying to normalize the prospect of tactical nuclear weapons being used.
So Elon puts out a suggestion that I think is extremely moderate and reasonable.
There's this guy named Arrestovich.
Restovich, who's a blue check on Twitter, and he's a retired Ukrainian colonel and intelligence officer.
And he tweets out a picture of a guy being tortured.
I think it was probably a Russian soldier or something.
He's plugged in.
He's handcuffed.
He's got some wires all around him sitting in a small chair.
And it's...
Elon Musk's face superimposed on this poor guy being held prisoner.
And it just says, we work promptly.
That's the translation, we work promptly.
So it's a threat against Elon Musk saying, we're going to arrest you and probably torture you if you suggest...
Any kind of moderate resolution to this war, which is not great.
That's not the kind of behavior you want to see from our allies, the people that we're funding.
You don't want them to threaten to arrest and torture our citizens, okay?
Especially someone like Elon Musk, who has helped Ukraine, who has given lots of millions and millions of dollars worth of Starlink equipment to the Ukrainians to help fight this war.
Kind of complicates the picture of this war.
But more importantly than that, I'm not even paying particularly close attention to the war in Ukraine, which, despite really bubbling up in the press and accelerating in recent months, has been going on for years now.
And there's been some kind of conflict between Ukraine and Russia for about a thousand years now.
So I'm not paying granular attention to it.
However, I wish I had my Nostradamus hat in my desk right now.
We were talking about this, what, yesterday and two days ago?
The idea that corporations now can wage war.
Ian Bremer, a very well-respected foreign policy writer, he said that specifically with regard to the war in Ukraine, corporations are becoming literal belligerents in the war.
Google, gigantic corporations, can play a role in the war.
And he referred to Elon Musk specifically.
But then the hazard here, of course, is that if corporations and CEOs can become literal belligerents in the war, then they become literal targets in the war.
Just as this Ukrainian military blue check dude proved.
Because he says, yeah, you're a target, Elon Musk.
We're going to arrest you if you keep suggesting that we wind this war down right now.
Along lines that we don't favor or that I don't favor.
That's what he's saying.
He's saying you corporations are going to become a target.
So what do we do then?
What do we do then if the corporations can literally wage the war, become the targets of the war, hard military targets?
China's looking at American corporations as hard and soft military targets too.
What does that mean?
And if the corporations can make the policies about the war, and if the corporations can censor people willy-nilly as they've censored this show very often in the public square, what does that mean?
It means the corporations are the government.
That's what it means.
It means that we've privatized ourselves all the way out of self-government.
And it wasn't just the liberals that did that.
It was the conservatives who did that, too.
And conservatives did that with some good reason.
In the latter part of the 20th century, the conservatives wanted to revive the economy.
The conservatives wanted to draw a clear distinction between us in the West and the communists in the Soviet Union.
And so we moved toward an intense campaign of privatization.
Well, that's all well and good.
But if you privatize too much, well, then you've just privatized away your whole government.
And now you've got people who are, frankly, just as bureaucratic as the deep state.
We only talk about the bureaucracy of the government.
Have you ever tried to call and change your cell phone plan?
You call AT&T or Verizon or something?
I'd rather deal with the DMV than I would deal with AT&T and Verizon.
But those are private companies.
What about the airlines?
No, those are private companies.
What about, I don't know, even just Walmart or something?
You call these companies...
You end up in this business.
Oh my gosh, a bank?
Oh, calling the bank.
That's the worst bureaucracy I've ever dealt with.
That's way worse than the DMV. So it's not as though bureaucracy is just a problem of the government.
It's a problem of privatization, too.
The only difference is that a lot of times when you give your government away to the corporations, the corporations are even less accountable to you than Washington is.
And that's damning with faint praise because Washington's barely accountable at all.
So then where is the line?
Where do you draw the line?
Again, it goes back to my unsatisfying answer on the Ukraine war and Elon Musk's identical unsatisfying answer on the Ukraine war.
But it is the normal response.
I think it's the response that the vast majority of people would understand if they're not political eggheads who are refreshing the crazy political blogs all day long.
They would realize that we need prudence.
How do you decide the limits between the government and the private sector and the limits to privatization?
How do you decide?
Prudence.
Be reasonable.
Be normal.
That's how you decide.
How do we decide exactly how to resolve this war in Ukraine?
Oh, the first major war in Europe since World War II. A war that has already had threats on both sides to go nuclear.
How do you resolve that?
Delicately and carefully.
And you use your prudence and you be normal.
Goodness gracious me.
Goodness gracious me, ideologues are going to have a lot of trouble with that answer.
But that's what you do.
Of course that's what you do.
Speaking of private interests taking over our government, another told-you-so moment.
There's a report out now that the Libs...
Worked with the feds through state-backed but still technically kind of private means to rig the election.
As we've said for a long time, there's probably going to be another warning banner because I said that.
This episode today is going to have, what, like seven warning banners under it on YouTube?
I don't know if they have the technological infrastructure to put that many warning banners.
This report just came out.
There's a coalition of NGOs and sort of nonprofit organizations and academic institutions and a private company that worked with arms of the federal government and with Democrat activist organizations to censor news websites in the run-up to 2020.
They also plan to do that again in 2022.
How did they do it?
Do you think they censored the libs just the same as they censored the conservatives?
Of course not.
They all teamed up.
The government and the academy and private business and the non-profit organizations that are usually just the enforcement wing of the American liberal empire, they all teamed up to rig the election against the conservatives.
Great report by Alam Bakari.
I don't know why I called him.
I actually really like the guy.
He's a friend of mine.
But Alam Bakari...
It has a great report.
I suggest you read it at Breitbart.
It's called the Election Integrity Partnership.
And this is made up of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Grafica, a social media analytics company.
And then it teams up with things like Common Cause and the NAACP, which are really just front groups for the Democrat Party.
Teamed up with the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department.
The whole point of it was...
To censor conservatives on Twitter and to censor conservatives on Facebook and Google and just the whole social media platform.
We're talking about the New York Post, Epoch Times, Charlie Kirk, Tom Fitton, Jack Posobiec, who I was with last night, Mark Levin, James O'Keefe, Sean Hannity.
The list goes on and on and on.
Donald Trump, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr.
And they flag these posts.
And sometimes they delete the posts.
And sometimes they just put a little warning label on it.
According to this report that came out, the EIP, the Election Integrity Project, which is just the Censor of the Conservatives Project, was pretty successful.
In 21% of cases, the social media platforms labeled content identified by this group Who elected these people?
Who elected Common Cause and the NAACP and the Stanford Group?
I didn't elect these people.
Who elected Mark Zuckerberg?
Who elected Jack Dorsey?
Who elected Google?
No, nobody.
But this is the way our government is run now.
They just don't call it a government.
But if my rights are being taken away, if my traditions and my way of life is being taken away by some woke, unholy alliance of corporations and non-profits, it doesn't make me feel better because I say, well, at least it's not the government that's doing it.
No, in a way, it is the government.
The people who govern are the government.
Now, speaking of a rules-based order...
This week I was playing Mr.
Matt Walsh at a game of fantasy football.
And we made a little bet beforehand.
And the bet was that whoever...
He loses.
He has to do certain things, right?
And so Matt said, and you can go back to Matt's member block, Matt said that if he loses, he would have to call me Sweet Daddy Knowles.
I would have to take his title in perpetuity until he beats me again at Fantasy Football.
And if I lose, I would have to eat some disgusting sort of food or something that the audience picks.
Now it would appear...
Not only is Joe Biden identifying as a Puerto Rican, Matt Walsh is identifying as Welsh because he's trying to welch on his bet.
Jake says, Matt, what did you and Michael decide for your bet?
Yeah, we talked about this in the members block on Friday.
We were going to have, because we're facing off against each other for fantasy football this week, and we were trying to figure out what our bet would be so the loser would have to do something, and we never decided on it.
So I don't think we ever decided what the bet is, which is good because I believe I lost.
And we never decided on what the bet is.
I don't have to do anything.
I'm off the hook.
He's off the hook.
We never made a bet.
Is that true?
Is that true, producers?
That's not what I saw in the member block.
I think we need to go back to his tape.
And I think what all of you need to do, all of you faithful listeners out there, you need to tweet at Matt Walsh.
And you need to get him to start calling me by my properly well-earned, hard-fought title.
Sweet Daddy Knowles.
That's what I am now.
That's my title.
I didn't ask for that title.
I earned that title.
That title was given to me because I triumphed in the fantasy football battle.
So I learned this morning when I came into work.
So make sure you check that out.
It's crooked.
Matt is crooked if he's not going to make good on his bet.
Speaking of crooked plans, crooked plans to reorder the political system, a great boast just came out from a Democrat voter mobilization specialist.
His name is Antonio Arellano.
He's a blue check on Twitter.
He says, quote, New U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that Hispanic Texans are now the state's largest demographic group.
Latinos can turn Texas blue.
Do you see what he's saying?
He's saying that the more Latinos there are in Texas, the greater the chance that Texas will become a Democrat state.
And because the Democrats are flooding Texas with Latinos intentionally by opening up the borders, this is really good news for Democrats, and the Census Bureau data reflect that.
As they show that Hispanic Texans are now the largest demo group in the state.
Great news.
We're about to go blue.
This echoes something Joe Biden said at the Hispanic Heritage Reception.
He said, think about it.
No joke.
When in American history has there been a circumstance where one ethnicity has the potential to make such a profound impact on a country?
26% of every single child who's in school today speaks Spanish.
We've had large waves of immigration before, but the thing is, you just have enormous opportunity to make this country so much better.
I really mean it.
As my father would say, let's go get him.
Come on, Jack, let's go get him.
So what's he saying?
He's saying, look, we've had big migration before, but never like this.
And it's all the Latinos, and that's really going to help our political agenda.
It's going to make the country better, by which we mean it's going to make the country more Democrat.
It's going to make the country more liberal.
It's going to make the country more leftist.
Kind of sounds to me, and I don't want to...
Kind of sounds to me like a theory that if you replace...
The population of the country with Latino immigrants in a really big way, like a really large way, like a really great way, that then the Democrats will have an enduring political advantage.
What could we call this theory?
So it's a theory that's being posited by well-known established Democrats, not just Democrat strategists, but even the president himself.
It's a theory being advanced by About how if there were some sort of great replacement of the people in America with immigrants from Latin America, that the Democrats would get a lot more power.
I can't think of a name for this theory.
If you think of a name for this theory about how there could be a great replacement, just let me know maybe in the comments, because I can't...
I don't know, maybe I just haven't slept very well this week, but I think...
Whatever we call it, that's the theory that the Democrats are advancing.
Now, of course, the Democrats think this is good.
And so, if you observe this trend, the idea that mass migration is intended to displace the people of the United States and give the Democrats more of an advantage, if you say that's good, Then the theory is true, and you are allowed to say it.
But if you think that's bad that that is happening, that what the Democrats are saying is happening is happening, if you think that's bad, then it's not true.
It's false, it's a dangerous conspiracy theory, and it's got to be censored.
It's the same thing.
You'd be saying the same thing.
But if you say...
Democrats are flooding the country with migrants to gain a political advantage.
Woo!
They'd say, okay, very good.
Yes, very good.
Let's promote that post on social media.
Yes, you're right.
You could say that on the morning shows.
But if you say, Democrats are flooding the country with foreign nationals to gain a political advantage.
They'd say, no!
False!
You're a racist!
You're a racist Nazi!
You're a white supremacist bigot conspiracy tinfoil hat!
I said the same thing.
I just changed my cadence at the very end.
Yeah, right.
That's what makes all the difference.
Speaking of things you're not allowed to say, I mentioned earlier that I was in Delaware last night, pinch-hitting for Candace Owens at her speech she was supposed to give, because Candace flew to Paris to open a fashion show with Kanye West, which is the sort of thing that Candace does.
And so, I didn't hear any more details than this, other than I get a call, Candace is on the tarmac, she says, okay, this is what's happening, and that's it, okay?
Then I tune in, I wait for the international trending news, and I see it.
The shirt that Candace and Kanye wore, This is a shirt.
You can see the photo from the back.
It says, White Lives Matter.
Candace there with a white shirt and black print, White Lives Matter.
Kanye there, black shirt, white print, White Lives Matter.
I love it.
I absolutely love it.
They're getting some pushback.
Obviously, they're getting pushback from the libs because the libs want to say black lives matter.
And they're getting some pushback from the people in the middle because they say, oh, you shouldn't say black lives matter or white lives matter.
You should just say all lives matter.
But Kanye and Candace get it.
Okay, they get it.
Obviously, they're being intentionally provocative.
It's a fashion show.
That's what you do at fashion shows.
But they get the point here.
Why would you say white lives matter?
Well, from a racial standpoint, as long as we're talking about black lives or all lives or white lives, from a racial standpoint, what they're saying is, I think, I don't want to speak for candidates, but this is just my interpretation of the shirt.
Right now, we have been told for years that black people are marginalized and discriminated against and insulted and pushed to the margins of society.
And that's why we need to say black lives matter.
But that's not true.
Actually, there is no legal discrimination or systemic discrimination or...
Really discrimination at all, certainly not at a large scale, against black people.
In fact, there's discrimination in favor of black people through things like affirmative action, through certain applications of the civil rights laws, through the culture certainly, through the popular media.
The only group that you are actually both legally allowed to discriminate against and culturally encouraged to discriminate against and insult and mock and push to the fringes of society.
The only racial group is white people.
That's what happens.
It's the only group you're allowed to make fun of on TV. White people and Asians you're allowed to discriminate against in college admissions.
It's unfortunate for the Asians that they got lumped in with the white people.
But that's in jobs, in employment, in all sorts of things.
It's the white people.
And so Kanye and Candace are coming out there and provocatively saying, putting racial issues aside, they're saying, as they frequently have, the narrative that you are being fed by the liberal establishment is not only false, it's the opposite of true.
If they're actually presenting a vision of reality, the LeBron James, black men can't walk out their doors without being hunted down by racist cops.
It's just completely made up.
The only people who are being hunted down by the government right now because of their identity are white conservatives.
They're like Midwestern grannies who have the audacity to raise some questions about the 2020 election.
Or pro-life activists on the sidewalk.
Or parents of all races who don't want their kids to be taught CRT and transgenderism in schools.
But then it's even more interesting with the Kanye shirt, because you couldn't see it in the picture, but on the front of the Kanye shirt is a picture of John Paul II. And it says, we will follow your example.
John Paul II. So, what?
White Lives Matter on the back, John Paul II on the front, and then it hit me.
Again, maybe I'm reading too deeply into it, but it hit me at a higher level than just this kind of silly talk about race.
Is the point that Kanye is making a little deeper than that?
Because the Pope wears white.
John Paul II wore white.
Benedict wore white.
Francis wears white.
The Pope wears white.
A white zucchetto, a white mozetta, a white cassock.
That's the symbol of the Pope.
And is he suggesting something a little deeper here?
That when we're talking about white lives matter, we're not just talking about race.
We're talking about Something deeper.
We're talking about a symbol, not of a particular racial group, but of purity.
A symbol of the soul.
A symbol of the soul after baptism.
And a symbol of a soul wearing a sort of white garment.
These images that we see in paradise.
We know that Kanye has had a conversion or reversion sort of experience to Christianity.
We know he talks about religious themes a lot.
We know he has an album called Jesus is King.
Is there maybe a suggestion here on this provocative shirt that actually not only is the BLM narrative bogus, we're going to debunk and own that with facts and logic and provocation, but the whole racial narrative is kind of a distraction from what we should really be talking about.
Which is deeper.
Not just cultural, but actually ultimately religious.
Because ultimately all human conflict is theological.
That's my read on it.
Again, I don't know.
I don't know that that's what was going through Kanye's head.
I actually don't really care.
Very often the greatest artists are not critics of their own work.
Very often the greatest artists don't even consciously know what they are doing.
And this has been written about going all the way back to ancient Greece.
the idea that the artists are just sort of receiving inspiration from the muses, and then they're just doing stuff.
And the reason there's a difference between artists and critics is because very often the artists couldn't even articulate exactly what they're doing.
They're producing the art, and it's up to the critics to interpret that sort of art.
Speaking of lives mattering, speaking of a popular disregard for human life, new details are emerging in the I mentioned this a few days ago, maybe last week, this shooting of the 84-year-old pro-life lady in Michigan, this retired nurse, Joan Jacobson.
And shot by this crazy man, a 74-year-old guy named Richard Harvey, who says he fired off a warning shot from his.22 caliber rifle when he heard his wife arguing with this pro-life canvasser lady.
And then he says he tried to push away Jacobson's clipboard and said he accidentally shot her in the front of her shoulder.
Accidentally.
Fires a warning shot.
He knows the gun is loaded.
He's brandishing his gun and pushing this 84-year-old lady away and shoots her in the shoulder.
And she says, I do think that he knew what he was doing.
She says, I think it was intentional.
This woman is 120 pounds and 5 feet tall.
She says she didn't refuse to leave their property when they asked.
She says she didn't threaten anybody or anything like that.
Certainly, though, there is no reason to be brandishing a gun at an 84-year-old woman who's 5 feet tall.
Ever.
Even if she's coming at you with a hammer.
There's no reason to have a gun.
Certainly not a loaded gun.
Why do I bring this up?
You want to make sure you're getting the full story here.
We still don't really know the full story.
But...
What we do know is, as the full story is coming out, it is continuing to look terrible for this guy.
And the way you know this, by the way, is that the left-wing media are not covering the story.
If the story really were, you know, this awful woman was threatening them, you'd be hearing about it from the media.
But you're seeing the media cover up this story.
And so, as the details come out, yeah, maybe there's some complication here.
Maybe the pro-life lady was arguing with the woman.
No, I'm not even sure that that's the case.
But as the details come out, we continue to look right.
Okay?
Right and right and right and right.
I do think people are starting to notice that.
Whether they can take that noticing and take that desire and channel it into better government, that remains to be seen.
The rest of the show is continuing now.
You do not want to miss it.
If you are not a member, click the link in the description and join us.
We have a great interview coming up.
It's with Michael Schellenberger.
Michael Schellenberger is a really, really important voice on environmental issues.
And Michael Schellenberger is shedding some light on what I think are not only the ludicrous but downright offensive Democrat claims about Hurricane Ian and all the destruction down in Florida.
Which they blame on global warming and those mean old conservatives who don't want to recycle or whatever drive Teslas.
And Schellenberger brings a little bit of science to that.
