Ep. 1116 - The Power Is Shifting And The Libs Want A Truce
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
The libs ask for a “pandemic amnesty” now that Republicans seem poised to retake Congress, the Supreme Court prepares possibly to overturn affirmative action, and a new report reveals that Facebook and Twitter have regularly conspired with the federal government to censor conservatives.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Stay informed by listening to Morning Wire and Election Wire on DailyWire+, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch the brand new DailyWire+ series “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson On Marriage”: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/knowles
- - -
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
Now that the Republicans are poised to retake the House, very likely the Senate, and probably many governors' mansions, the liberals who have tormented us over the past two years, who shut down our businesses, Who made our relatives die alone.
Who kept our kids out of school.
Who forced us to choose between keeping our jobs and injecting ourselves with a dangerous experimental drug.
The liberals who called us idiots and murderers for not wanting to destroy the global economy and turn our kids into lab rats.
Those liberals are now calling for a truce.
What are the odds?
Isn't that so weird?
Headline in the Atlantic.
Let's declare a pandemic amnesty.
We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID. We just all did some things.
Some of us kept your kids out of school and forced your relatives to die alone.
And some of us had our kids kept out of school and had our relatives forced to die.
It's just like...
It's just like we're all kind of the same here, right?
Some of us destroyed the global economy and injected everyone forcefully with an experimental and dangerous drug.
And some of us had that done to us.
And so it's like kind of all the same, right?
And we all just need to move past it, don't we?
I won't read the entire article.
You should.
Just some highlights.
While discussing the social distancing and the stupid hankies on your face and all that, they say these precautions were totally misguided.
In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking.
Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare.
Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn't have done anything anyway.
But the thing is, we didn't know.
We didn't know.
Some of us knew.
I knew.
You knew.
But, no, we just didn't know.
Some people thought that the hanky was going to stop the global pandemic.
You know, we just didn't know.
In spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information.
Reasonable people, people who cared about children and teachers, advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.
They didn't.
They didn't.
All the people who were completely wrong and who often had very bad intentions were on the side of keeping the schools closed.
And all the people who had mostly good intentions and who were correct were on the side of reopening the schools.
The people who got it right for whatever reason may want to gloat.
Those who got it wrong for whatever reason may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn't accord with the facts.
Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.
No.
No.
You are preventing us from moving forward.
You, you people, you libs who got everything wrong and who inflicted a great deal of pain, usually intentionally, usually with a lot of glee on people.
You, by refusing to acknowledge your transgressions, uniquely your transgressions, you are preventing us from moving on.
Because you won't let us learn a damn thing from the last two years.
You won't acknowledge anything.
You won't admit anything.
You won't say that you're sorry.
We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty.
Moving on is crucial now because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.
Yeah, right.
The first problem we need to solve is you people.
You're the problem.
You're the one who inflicted all the problems on us.
The pandemic, such as it is, the virus was just a virus.
There are viruses.
There are epidemics.
There are pandemics.
That was not the trauma of the last two and a half, three years.
The policies that you all forced on us, the hideous anti-human policies, global economy, global political order destroying policies that you inflicted on us, that was the problem.
Pretty big change of tune, wouldn't you say?
Because last year, you didn't get all this kumbaya, let's all get along kind of stuff.
Last year, they were laughing at the thought of our deaths.
LA Times.
Mocking anti-vaxxers COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes, but it may be necessary.
It's necessary to mock the deaths of conservatives who are skeptical of the dominant regime.
They were making the moral case for mocking our prospective deaths.
But that was then...
You see, and this is now.
That was back then when they had all of the power.
But now, we conservatives might have even a little tiny bit of power.
So let's just call it a day and move on, right?
I don't think so.
I think the best that I can offer in response to let's have a pandemic amnesty is military tribunals.
I want these monsters arrested and tried and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, frankly.
That's my initial negotiating position.
And it damn well had better be the position of the Republicans that we're about to elect.
Because anything less than a full accounting of the lies and deceit and outright crimes of the COVID era will be nothing more than an invitation for the libs to do it all again.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Abraham Cardenas, who says, it's very nice of Michael to dress up as Rachel Maddow and to have a picture of Joe Biden on his desk.
Yes, that's true.
It was very spooky when I had that bust of Joe Biden there, that skeletal bust.
And yesterday, of course, it was Maddow Monday.
It leads right into Noel's Vember, baby.
And so I think a great way to kick it off is I've lost my lesbian glasses for today.
I'm back as my own man, here, ready to say true things, to protect my country, to protect my wealth and yours, which is why you've got to check out Birch Gold.
Right now, text Knowles to 989898.
Inflation continues to plague our economy.
The current administration's irresponsible spending patterns continue to exacerbate the problem.
Now is not the time to have all your money tied up in the stock market.
Do not let your savings wither away.
Hedge against inflation with gold from Birch Gold.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on protecting your savings with gold.
Birch Gold is giving out a free gold bar with any purchase made by December 22nd.
This offer must be claimed by Black Friday.
With almost 20 years of experience in converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals IRAs, Birch Gold can help you too.
Do not sit around while the Fed devalues your hard-earned money.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 and learn how you can convert at least part of your savings into a precious metals IRA.
If you place an order by December 22nd, Birch Gold will send you a free gold bar. Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
It has been a rough few years, hasn't it?
But this year, it seems like things are kind of turning around.
I am not totally depressed and despairing and blackpilled, okay?
I think this year's actually been pretty good.
One, we're almost certainly about to elect a ton of Republicans, hopefully get some accountability for the last few years, hopefully move the country in a good direction.
But just the Supreme Court would be enough to say that 2022 is one of the greatest years in American history, despite Joe Biden, despite the potential of World War III, despite the record high inflation, despite all of that.
Just the Supreme Court, let's not forget 2022 is the year that we overruled Roe v.
Wade and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
And there's an analysis that just came out from 538, which is the sort of center-left polling outlet.
538, by Nate Silver, has new data which indicate that at least 10,000 women were unable to get an abortion in July and August because of the Dobbs decision.
Now, of course, 538, because it's left-wing, is presenting this as a terrible, awful thing.
Oh no, 10,000 women were denied that medical care and the reproductive rights, and isn't this terrible?
And that was just in two months.
Imagine later on when even more of these pro-life laws are implemented.
I look at that number and I think, oh my goodness, this is some of the greatest news in American history.
Because you're finally seeing 850,000 people a year are killed through abortion or were during the reign of Roe and Casey.
And now that's turning around.
10,000.
It's very difficult for human beings to conceive of numbers greater than 100.
But 10,000 people is a lot of people.
It's a lot of people.
My graduating high school class was about 330 people.
So that's three times my high school class is a thousand people.
So 30 times my high school class is 10,000 people.
30 times my graduating high school class, that number of people will be alive because five justices on the Supreme Court had courage.
We think of these court decisions and these laws in very abstract terms, what they mean for society or humanity or the culture or whatever.
We're talking about individual people.
How many friends do you have?
Like five, maybe?
People don't have a ton of close friends.
Think about how valuable every single one of those people is to you.
What you wouldn't give to make sure that that person gets to live, gets to be, if they were in danger, if they were in danger of death, to be rescued.
Now multiply that person by 10,000.
There will be, in 10 years from now, 15 years from now, people will be doing interviews.
Maybe 20 years from now.
They'll be doing interviews saying, I am alive today.
Because Amy Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas had courage and moral clarity.
That's incredible news.
Now, there's even, I'm not going to say better news, but there's more great news coming down the pike from the Supreme Court.
The hits seem poised to keep on coming.
Because now this term, the Supreme Court is going to take on another major social question that conservatives have fought in vain for, for many decades.
And that even conservative appointments on the court, people like Sandra Day O'Connor and other people have kind of squished on.
And so our hopes have been dashed on this before.
The Supreme Court is going to take up the question of racial discrimination in college admissions, better known as affirmative action.
But the idea that certain students will not get into college because of their race, and other students will have an unfair advantage in getting into college because of their race.
There's really, really good news on this front.
The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in two cases taking on affirmative action in college yesterday, and the signs are very, very promising.
So the Supreme Court hears the oral arguments yesterday in these two cases about affirmative action in college being brought by a legal group that is challenging this on behalf of Asian students.
You know, Asian students and white students are put at a disadvantage, and black students and Hispanic students get an advantage.
Now, We have a conservative court.
It's at least a 5-4 conservative court because Roberts is a squish who will usually side with the liberals on really contentious issues.
But you've still got then 5-4, you know, you can at least kind of count on the conservative court.
And then there's even better news because the newest justice, Ketanji Jackson, the justice who doesn't know what a woman is, she's had to recuse herself from these cases because one of the cases involves Harvard and And she was just recently on one of the boards at Harvard, and so it's a conflict of interest.
So she's out.
So the deck is even more stacked in the direction of the conservatives.
There was an amazing poll that was done.
Pew Research polled Americans and said, should race and ethnicity be a factor in admissions?
75%, three-quarters of Americans say, no, absolutely not.
And don't forget, the Supreme Court watches the polls.
The Supreme Court reads the newspapers.
So the fact that public opinion is now with the conservatives and with justice when we're talking about affirmative action, this is a really, really good sign.
So the cases are students for fair admissions versus Harvard and students for fair admissions versus the University of North Carolina.
The most telling part of the oral arguments yesterday was when Clarence Thomas, the OG, the Mac Daddy on the court, Mr. Conservative, oldest conservative member there, was grilling the lawyer for UNC about diversity. was grilling the lawyer for UNC about diversity.
Because the Libs say we need affirmative action because we need diversity, because diversity is really good for education.
And so it's in the interest of the university to have diversity, by which they mean giving extra points to black students and taking points away from Asians and whites.
And Clarence Thomas, black man on the court, it's very difficult to call the guy racist.
He says, okay, judge, I'm following your line of argument.
Now, what is your, okay, counsel, okay, lawyer for UNC, I'm following your line of argument.
Now, what is the evidence that diversity is good for education?
Here's a question.
Mr.
Park, I've heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don't have a clue what it means.
It seems to mean everything for everyone.
And I'd like you first, you did give some examples in your opening remarks, but I'd like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina.
And I'd also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of So Clarence Thomas, very good lawyer, he says, look, this word diversity is really slippery, so I need you to give me a definition of what diversity actually means, because I can't quite nail it down.
And then after that, I don't want to hear about the social benefits of diversity, the political benefits of diversity.
I don't want to hear about the benefits to the black students or the Asian students, or obviously it doesn't benefit the Asians very well, or anything else.
I want you to tell me what educational purpose is served by diversity.
Now, this should be a layup.
If...
The UNC and Harvard have any case at all for their unjust racial discriminatory practices in college admissions.
This should have been the first answer that they figure out and memorize.
It should be so easy, right?
But here's the answer.
Yes, Your Honor.
So, first, we define diversity the way this Court has and its Court's precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race.
And there's a factual finding in this record, PEDAP 113, that there are many different diversity factors that are considered as a greater factor in our admissions process than race.
On the educational benefits question...
Your Honor, I don't think it's actually disputed here that there are real and meaningful educational benefits that come with diversity of all kinds.
SFFA's own expert, this is on JA 546, conceded and agreed enthusiastically, in fact, on the stand that A racially diverse and a diversity of all kinds leads to, quote, a deeper and richer learning environment, leads to more creative thinking and exchange of ideas, and critically reduced bias between people of different backgrounds and not solely for racial backgrounds.
You still haven't given me the educational benefits.
I love Clarence Thomas there, just in that really slow plotting.
He's almost like the Norm MacDonald of the court, which is that he's an extremely intelligent man, but he kind of plays dumb sometimes, and Scalia did this to some degree as well.
So he says, okay, it's a simple question.
What's the educational benefit of diversity?
And the lawyer says, well, there's actually a total consensus among all the really smart, fancy people that diversity is really, really good.
And they all say that it's really, really good.
And they've said for years, actually, that diversity is really, really good.
And that's why diversity is really, really good for education.
And Clarence Thomas there goes, um, maybe I'm a little slow.
Maybe I'm a little thick.
I don't know.
But, uh...
You didn't answer the question.
You're telling me that other people agree with you, but you're not telling me why.
You're not presenting any sort of evidence.
Even the definition of diversity he doesn't really address.
He just says a lot of jargon and gobbledygook and says, well, there's all different types of diversity.
I think Clarence Thomas, I hope he never retires from the court.
If he does, he's got to come straight to Daily Wire so we can make a Walsh-esque movie.
What is diversity?
What is a woman starring Walsh?
What is diversity starring Clarence Thomas?
The answers are going to be completely nonsensical in both.
This was really devastating, I think, to the UNC and Harvard and pro-affirmative action argument here.
On their most basic question, they don't have an answer.
What good is diversity in education for education?
They don't have an answer.
Because the answer is obvious.
Diversity in itself is not always or even often a good thing.
Explain to me why diversity, take the word however you want to take it, because it's hard to pin down, like Clarence Thomas says, why is diversity a good thing?
On our money, does it say, out of many, even many different things?
Out of many, more.
Out of many...
Far greater distinction and difference and individualism.
No, it says, e pluribus unum, out of many, one.
We are not the diverse states of America.
We are the United States of America.
Unity is a strength.
Diversity is not a strength.
It's a weakness.
So when you bring in people of different backgrounds or different experiences or different whatever, that can be all well and good, but it has to come with a unity.
So if we're going to have a country made up of lots of different types of people, we need to all speak the same language.
We have to broadly believe the same things.
We have to be It's a university.
It's right there in the very word.
Absolutely devastating to the case.
And so I think if the UNC and Harvard team can't muster better arguments than that, hard to see how affirmative action survives 2023.
Really, really good news to look forward to.
Speaking of attacks on diversity, big news from Apple.
Apple has just announced that the iPhone is going to be getting USB-C ports.
So right now it's got that lightning port, but it's going to change the port.
And they're changing it.
They're really irritated they have to change it.
They're changing it because the European Union forced them to.
The European Union passed a law that requires all phones and tablets sold in the EU to use USB-C by 2024.
And because it's such a huge market, they can basically force Apple to give that to everybody.
And I mentioned this story not because I care about tech or Apple or anything like that.
But this is the kind of story that's going to split people on the right.
Because you're going to have the libertarian types who are going to hate this.
And they're going to say, this is big government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, and Apple has a right to use whatever charging ports it wants, and this is a terrible thing and a great threat to freedom.
And then you're going to have the conservatives who say, okay, who cares?
That's fine.
People have the right in our political community to decide how we live.
And the phone is now essential to how we live, specifically the iPhone.
And so we have a right to say, okay, we're going to use this charging port.
The charging port itself doesn't really matter.
But the broader issue of how we view politics actually does.
And I think from, I don't know, the year 2010 to 2015, that more libertarian view really dominated.
Let the corporations do whatever they want.
Come on, don't let the government get in the way.
And you heard kind of an undertone of that really even for two or three decades now.
I think that is changing.
And I think conservatives are beginning to realize that.
The government is not always our enemy, and the corporations are not always our friend.
And sometimes it's actually a little bit tricky to tell the difference between where the public sector ends and the private sector begins, where the government ends and the corporations begin.
And we need to wield political power where we can and when we can for justice.
Does it matter with the charging ports?
I don't really think so.
But on bigger questions, on the kind of questions that the libs are trying to call a truce on now.
On education, on healthcare, on drugs, on big pharma, on all of that.
We must wield our power.
Totally fine.
Totally fine with that.
Speaking of government tyranny, a really important new report just came out from The Intercept.
Haven't seen it going around as much as it should.
Read this report from The Intercept.
Truth cops leaked documents outlined DHS's plans to police disinformation.
So what did we learn from this report?
The report shows that basically big tech has been colluding with the government to censor right-wingers.
And they've been doing it not just in a kind of vague way where maybe Zuckerberg and some big lib in the government go out and have a drink, and they kind of come to an agreement.
No, they did this in a very formal way.
Facebook and Twitter set up special portals for the government to rapidly request the takedown of content.
So if I go out there and I start posting some questions about the 2020 election, let's say, or I go out there and I start posting some questions about the vaccines or posting questions about the origin of the COVID virus or anything like that, The government could go in there and rapidly request that that content come down, and we know that that content has come down.
I mean, we saw it happen during 2020 just with one story.
The New York Post posts the Hunter Biden laptop story.
It instantly comes down.
You see big tech almost uniformly not only censor the story from being posted, but in many cases stop it even from being sent through private messages.
When you logged onto a lot of social media sites in 2020, you couldn't even privately send that story to your friends.
Why did that happen?
We now have it because of these leaks in this report.
FBI agent Laura Demlow was in communication with Facebook that led specifically to the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story because the FBI told Facebook that it was disinformation.
And then just this year she met with Twitter and DHS to stress, quote, we need a media infrastructure that is accountable.
We find out now because of emails and documents that have come out that Vijaya Gaddy, she was that Twitter apparatchik who censored Donald Trump, booted the duly elected sitting president out of the public square, that Vijaya Gaddy met monthly with the Department of Homeland Security to discuss censorship that Vijaya Gaddy met monthly with the Department of Homeland Security One Microsoft executive even texted the Department of Homeland Security and said, platforms have got to get comfortable with government.
Okay, so this is not just, oh, there's one bad actor.
Oh, there's a little bit of corruption here.
The whole system is extremely corrupt.
And it finally makes sense now why the libs are losing their freaking mind over Elon Musk taking over Twitter.
First of all, shouldn't they be happy that Elon Musk is taking over Twitter?
We're finally getting more diversity.
Big tech is finally—one platform is owned by an African-American.
They should be thrilled about this.
And an immigrant, for that matter.
Gosh, it checks every box, right?
But— Elon Musk is not some far-right-wing conservative.
Didn't he vote for Obama?
I mean, he certainly holds a lot of positions that Obama would have held.
I always thought he was kind of a center-left guy.
He has some kind of right-wing positions.
But most importantly, they can't totally control him.
He does things that they apparently do not like.
I don't think that he is going to be allowing the federal government to come and run roughshod over our speech rights.
He took over Twitter on the promise That it will be much more open to all speech, and especially to conservative speech.
And the libs don't like that, because the libs never, ever want you questioning the narrative.
That's why they're so worried about this.
Right now, they have a total lock on the narrative.
You know, I'm giving a speech tonight at the University of Kentucky.
I'm going to be giving it on conspiracy theories.
Because, you know, it's one of the two worst things you can be called in the country.
Worst thing you can be called is a racist.
Because that means you're just the absolute embodiment of evil.
Racism is just a synonym for evil.
And the second worst thing is a conspiracy theorist because it means you're the dumbest, kookiest quack out there.
And so those combined are the two worst things.
And yet, the strange thing with the conspiracy theories is, well, one, just like racism, it's hard to figure out exactly what that term means.
But two...
Plenty of conspiracy theories have been proven true.
Like this one.
Like the conspiracy theory that the government is colluding with the social media platforms to censor the public square and to boot out conservatives.
That's a conspiracy fact.
That's a conspiracy theorem.
We've proven it.
It's true of so many other conspiracy theories.
I mean, we know that the federal government, the bureaucracy, has been involved in controlling the media for many decades in this country.
You think about something like Operation Mongoose, which I'll talk about tonight.
Well, this is just a continuation of that, except with far greater efficacy, because here it's so technologically advanced, you can actually just go in and say, nope, that person's silenced.
Boop, you're gone.
Nope, that story, nuked.
You can't even privately talk about it.
Boop.
And so much more highly targeted.
This is why you have people in the popular culture who you might not expect who are questioning the narrative.
One of them is Kyrie Irving.
I'm not the biggest basketball fan, as you might know.
Not the most athletic fella out there.
Kyrie Irving, I was just watching his interview, his press conference, and I expect the press to be talking about basketball and stuff like that.
And instead, I find all the press wants to talk about is the fact that Kyrie Irving posted a generally innocuous, seemingly innocuous Alex Jones clip once to his Instagram.
Kyrie, while we're on the topic of promotion, why did you decide to promote something that Alex Jones said?
That was a few weeks ago.
I do not stand with Alex Jones' position, narrative, court case that he had with Sandy Hook or any of the kids that felt like they had to relive trauma or parents that had to relive trauma or to be dismissive to all the lives that were lost during that tragic event.
My post was a post from Alex Jones that he did in the early 90s or late 90s about secret societies in America of occults.
And it's true.
So I wasn't identifying with anything of being a campaignist for Alex Jones or anything.
I was just there to post.
And it's funny, and it's actually hilarious because out of all the things I posted that day, that was the moment post that everyone chose to Chose to see.
It just goes back to the way our world is and works.
I'm not here to complain about it.
I just exist.
And to follow up on the promotion of the movie and the book...
Can you please stop calling it a promotion?
And it goes on.
That was the nice part of it.
This reporter just keeps going, but why do you like Alex Jones?
Why are you promoting Alex Jones?
Why do you, come on, stop.
You can't promote Alex.
You can't talk about Alex Jones.
You can't, why, why, why?
And Kyrie Irving is saying, look, I don't, man, I don't know about the Sandy Hook thing or whatever.
I don't care.
I'm not saying anything about that.
I posted a clip from 30 years ago.
By the way, here's the clip.
The facts and common sense are in.
Yes, there have been corrupt empires.
Yes, they manipulate.
Yes, there are secret societies.
Yes, there have been oligarchies throughout history.
And yes, today in 2002, there is a tyrannical organization calling itself The New World Order pushing for worldwide government, a cashless society, total and complete tyranny.
By centralizing and socializing health care, the state becomes God, basically, when it comes to your health.
And then by releasing diseases and viruses and plagues upon us, we then basically get shoved into their system, where human beings are absolutely worthless.
That's just true.
That's just a fact.
What's he saying?
There have been oligarchies in history.
People sometimes conspire in small groups to seize power.
And there's a popular phrase called the New World Order that certain people are advocating for.
Today, we would probably call that more the Great Reset.
And it's the same thing.
You still have very prominent people using this phrase saying, we need a Great Reset.
We need a New World Order.
That's just a fact.
So why...
Even, by the way, so Kyrie Irving, right, he's very quick to say, you're trying to talk to me about a Sandy Hook shooting.
I'm not saying anything about that.
I think that's bad that he said that.
Okay, bad Alex Jones.
But why can't I post this clip about how political power is often different than it appears to be?
No, you're not allowed to post that.
I mean, it makes you wonder.
The fact that they're punishing Alex Jones this way, you've now got a court order that he pay upwards of a billion dollars for getting a story wrong on the air.
Yes, he got the story very wrong.
Yes, it was horrible what he said.
Yes, he's the worst person in the world.
Okay, fine.
Sure.
I mean, let's just grant all that.
A billion dollars for getting a story wrong on the air, followed by now the demand for $2.75 trillion.
It's just so bizarre when you think that many other people in our culture have said way crazier things, way more harmful things that have had much more of a harmful effect in the real world.
I mean, I mean, just talk about the kind of lies and misinformation that went on during COVID from the libs who are now demanding a truce and an amnesty and pleading for it.
I mean, those lies resulted in much more actual real-world harm than anything that even Alex Jones has said.
And sure, he's said totally wacky things.
Okay, sure, fine.
But...
In terms of real world harm, it hasn't been more harmful than what Anthony Fauci said.
It hasn't been more harmful than what Rochelle Walensky said or Joe Biden said or any of these other people.
So why do they go?
Because when Kyrie Irving, I haven't spoken to him about this, but when Kyrie Irving sees...
The kind of multi-trillion dollar requests, billion dollar judgments against someone for saying something.
When he's just being inundated at his press conference by these questions about this one random clip he posted that was basically anodyne in and of itself.
That is going to give him and other people more reason to believe, huh, maybe there is a kind of oligarch political power here.
I wasn't totally convinced of it before, but now...
But now I wonder, conspiracy theories such as they are grow during periods of a lack of trust in our political institutions.
And that's not the end of the story.
People lose trust in our institutions because of corruption and conspiracy that actually takes place.
We've got the evidence of it in black and white.
You know, the corporate media agenda means that the news is presented in a biased way.
You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
Thankfully, there is a way to get the most important news of the day without their narrative.
That is by listening to one of the top news podcasts, Morning Wire.
New episodes are available every morning, seven days a week, and they cover stories other media outlets won't touch.
Every Sunday until the midterm elections.
You can also tune into Election Wire for in-depth coverage, candidate interviews, and more.
It's the most important midterm election in recent history.
It's coming up soon.
You'll want to be informed.
You will find Morning Wire and Election Wire on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Daily Wire Plus, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
I'll see you next time.
Speaking of the deep state attacking conservatives, Lee Zeldin, he's the Republican candidate for governor in New York, and all of a sudden he's under investigation for super PAC violations.
Here he is being reported by the Hill.
Lee Zeldin, the Republican candidate for governor in New York, is under investigation by the State Board of Elections over allegations that he coordinated with two super PACs supporting his campaign.
What does this mean?
According to our current silly election laws, candidates can raise an unlimited amount of money.
That is, people who support Can donate an unlimited amount of money to support that candidate.
But the election laws, for some stupid reason, say you can't donate the money directly to the candidate's campaign.
You have to donate it to something called a super PAC, which is a totally separate group that, according to the law, can have absolutely no coordination or anything whatsoever with the campaign.
Now, the super PAC only exists to support the candidate.
Or some con men have exploited this law to pretend.
They say, I've got a super PAC. I've got the new super PAC to support Donald Trump.
And they've really never talked to Donald Trump.
And they really have never coordinated with Donald Trump.
And they really have no intention of giving any money to help Donald Trump.
They just use it to make money for themselves.
And you saw a lot of these crop up since this stupid super PAC happened.
Aspect of the law has gone into effect.
But when it works perfectly, the idea is yes, you've got two entities, the campaign PAC and the super PAC, both of which are designed to get this candidate elected, but they're not allowed to coordinate with each other one little bit.
So...
That's the background.
Did Lee Zeldin coordinate with his super PAC? I don't know.
What does that even mean?
Was he at an event that his super PAC was also at?
Well, that's true of every candidate of both parties in the country.
That sort of has to happen because that's where the action is.
That's what the money is for.
Now, is it that Lee Zeldin or one of his staff members coordinated on a TV commercial or a mailer?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't really care.
I know the Democrats do this sort of thing all the time.
And I know that New York is one of the most corrupt states in the country when it comes to the government.
It's New York.
Illinois is really bad about that.
California is not so hot itself.
But New York in particular, Albany is really, really corrupt.
And so why are they doing this?
Well, they're doing this, of course, because Lee Zeldin is not supposed to be leading in this race.
Because New York's a Democrat state, and Kathy Hochul is supposed to glide into re-election, and that's that.
And the fact that the people now seem to be supporting Lee Zeldin, that's a big problem.
And so, the state, the bureaucracy, the corrupt powers that be, are going to have to come in and kind of tilt that back for the Democrats.
Would you call that a conspiracy?
If you talk about that, would you call that a conspiracy theory?
I guess so.
It's a theory about a conspiracy, but there's some evidence for it.
And especially in light of everything else that we're learning now about how the government is putting its thumb, its boot on the scales for the Democrats, the theory seems to have a fair bit of credibility.
Speaking of people breaking the law, there's an update to the Paul Pelosi story.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband...
Ends up in an altercation with this Berkeley nudist who was in the Green Party, but now he's being portrayed as a right-wing MAGA Republican.
But if you look at the house he was staying at, it's got rainbow flags and BLM signs.
He's in the Pelosi house at 2 a.m.
How did he get there?
It seems kind of weird.
I mean, listen, people have broken into Buckingham Palace before, so I'm not saying it's impossible.
Wouldn't you expect the Speaker of the House and the second person in the line of succession of the President to have some home security?
Surely she has cameras all over her.
The whole thing is just really...
Weird.
Then on the dispatch tape, the person relaying this dispatch says that Paul Pelosi says he doesn't know the guy, but he names him, he calls him David, and he says that he's a friend, and so that doesn't add up.
Anyway, the whole story's really weird.
And now it's gotten even stranger, because the guy who attacked Pelosi, David DePape, apparently is an illegal alien.
And I... I'm not going to laugh.
Michael, don't laugh.
I'm very happy that Paul Pelosi is going to make a full recovery.
It's good.
Even if he's married to the Wicked Witch of the West, he's a fellow human being.
I don't want to laugh about anything.
But he's an illegal alien.
The Republicans have spent decades...
The conservatives, at least, have tried to stop the illegal alien problem.
Liberals like Nancy Pelosi encourage illegal immigration.
It actually is completely expected by people who look at this political situation.
And the liberals do it, too.
The liberals know that illegal immigration is really bad and dangerous for a lot of people.
They just think they're protected.
This is why they threw such a hissy fit when DeSantis sent the plane loads of illegals up to Martha's Vineyard.
They said, this is a humanitarian crisis.
This is awful.
It's a drain on our resources.
It's dangerous.
They shipped them off to a military base within 48 hours, okay?
Why?
It's not because they suddenly realized the reality of illegal immigration.
They've always known that it's dangerous and bad for the communities that have to deal with it.
They just said, okay, it's just for those poor people on the southern border.
It's for those Texans and those Arizonans.
It's not for us in Martha's Vineyard.
It's not for us, the Pelosi's.
Pelosi's dealing with it now, too.
Speaking of crazy people, there was another attack on a painting.
There have been all of these attacks.
I actually was in London.
There was this attack on a Van Gogh painting where these lib environmentalist types threw a bunch of soup on it and superglued themselves to the wall.
And then a day or two later, I got to see the painting.
I brought a spoon.
There was no soup left.
They cleaned it up, which I guess was good.
Well, there have been more and more attacks.
And now another one.
This maniac is supergluing his head to a painting.
Take a listen.
What's a stupid man doing?
Come on!
Come on!
The painting that he's super-gluing his head to is A Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer.
I mean, this is a very, very famous, very important painting.
Do you feel outraged?
Well, you should be more outraged about the destruction of our Earth.
That's the point.
That's the thesis of this stupid protest.
As you're saying, you're outraged.
And this happened at The Hague, by the way.
They're saying, you're outraged that we're attacking this work of art on a canvas, but you're all attacking the great work of art that is the environment with your pollution and your plastics and all.
And they're just going to keep this up.
It reminds me of that scene in The Jerk with Steve Martin, where the guy is sniping and trying to kill Steve Martin, and he's at a gas station.
He keeps hitting all the cans of oil.
He says, this guy really hates these cans!
These environmentalists really hate these paintings!
Eventually they're going to destroy one of them and it's going to be very, very annoying.
But that's the argument.
And they are getting the attention that they so desperately crave.
And they are shedding a light on environmentalism.
Which could be a good thing, actually.
Because the more we look into these radical environmentalists, the clearer it becomes.
They're not helping the natural environment.
There was a study, it's being promoted by Greenpeace, which is the environmental nonprofit.
Though I think it's actually a kind of self-undermining study from Greenpeace.
Turns out that plastic recycling is totally fake.
It's so fake.
So the study shows of the 51 million tons of plastic waste that US households generated in 2021, just 2.4 million tons, just 5% of that was recycled.
And it's not because...
The people don't put it in the little blue bin.
I mean, I generally don't.
But some people...
People are very meticulous, generally.
I've got to put this bottle in the blue bin, or else I'm committing a sin against Mother Gaia and Mother Earth, and so blah, blah, whatever.
But part of the reason is just there are so many different types of plastic.
The plants are not very efficient at processing all of them.
And so only 5% of it ever gets...
It's just fake.
You're performing a kind of ritual in the religion of Mother Earth, but you're not really doing very much to help the natural environment.
So it's obviously totally fake and stupid.
But there is a kind of conservative insight here, and I think conservatives are going to have to come to terms with the natural environment because for the past several decades where we've just had this kind of Ayn Rand, you know, sort of political view where everything's just about money and, you know, Wolf of Wall Street, greed is good, like that 1980s kind of political views.
We're coming out of that hangover right now, and the ethos of that political view was...
Who cares about the environment?
Whatever.
I'm just going to throw these little soda can holders into the ocean, see how many bottlenose dolphins I can nab, and I'm just going to set a bunch of tires on fire, and I'm just going to, whatever, who cares?
It's funny, and it's reactionary, and it's reacting to these lunatics and nuts who are gluing their heads to Vermeer paintings, but it's not...
Actually all that conservative.
It's not conservative to trash our surroundings.
That's what hippies do.
That's what libs do.
They trash their surroundings and they make it look like the Woodstock campsite.
That's not what conservatives do.
We like beautiful things.
But the key here toward a conservative environmentalism or conservationism.
Don't forget, Teddy Roosevelt is one of the first conservationists.
The key to it is the focus.
Is it about Mother Earth and Gaia and the Delta smelt and the rocks and the whatever?
Or is it about human beings?
The libs basically think that we are the pollution.
They think that we are the virus and we need to just get rid of humans and stop building things and stop doing things and stop living.
And then that'll be really good because then we can serve the Delta smelt.
The conservative view of it is Yeah, we want to take care of the natural environment, and we don't want to kill off all the species, and we want the air to be nice for us, because we are stewards of the creation, and we want to flourish.
It is not the end.
It's not that we need to orient our industry and our economy and our way of life towards serving the end of the rocks and the trees or whatever.
It's hugging the trees and crying when they cut one down.
It's that we need to govern and steward our environment.
For our society, so that we have a good, flourishing society, and so that we can go out and go shooting those birds and chopping down those trees in beauty and peace.
So we've got the Love Don't Judge Challenge today.
It's very spooky.
It's a spooky post-Halloween Love Don't Judge Challenge.
