Ep. 1139 - The Georgia Senate Runoff Already Looks Shady
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
It’s election day (again) in Georgia, DeSantis overtakes Trump in the 2024 betting markets, and the Supreme Court prepares to determine the fate of marriage and religious freedom in America.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off by using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Gift Bundles: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Boll & Branch - Shop Boll & Branch’s Black Friday Sale. Use promo code "MICHAEL" at checkout for 25% off your first set of sheets: https://www.bollandbranch.com/
Ring - Live a little more stress-free this season with a Ring product that’s right for you: http://bit.ly/3VnIQMK
- - -
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
One recent poll had Republican Herschel Walker just narrowly beating Democrat Raphael Warnock.
Other polls have Warnock up slightly over Walker.
An estimated 1.85 million ballots have already been cast because Democrats changed all the voting rules in recent years to give themselves the advantage of early voting.
Experts predict over 1.9 million absentee ballots will eventually be counted by the time that final tally comes in.
And because we have become a laughingstock banana republic, the media are already reporting that we likely won't know the winner tonight.
Let's talk about Election Day.
Do you expect we're going to have an answer on Tuesday night?
Or is this going to take extra time to determine the winner?
What are you preparing for?
Listen, we're preparing for, you know, it being a very tightness.
I anticipate we may not know on Tuesday night.
It just it really depends because it's up to the voters and they're showing up in droves.
So happy Election Day.
We will keep you updated whenever the Democrats find the votes that they need to win.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Hunter who says, Michael said it's Iran.
But then Michael said, so anyway, Iran, I know this is a problem because it is pronounced Iran.
That is how Americans ought to pronounce the name of the country.
But I've just heard it so much.
I've been inundated with the Iran pronunciation from the liberal media and Barack Obama and all the like.
It's the same with Pakistan.
You know, the Libs pronounce it Pakistan, and then they somehow convince you that that's how you're supposed to pronounce it.
They get in your mind.
They control your words.
They control your mind.
This would be the topic of my book Speechless, which is a number one national bestseller, makes a great Christmas present, a wonderful thing to put in the stocking in your home or in someone else's home.
And when you want to protect those homes, you've obviously got to check out Ring.
With Christmas right around the corner, many of us will be traveling to see our families and loved ones very soon.
You may find yourself away from home more often than not.
That is why I've decided to team up with Ring.
With Ring security products, you can rest easy knowing that your home and family are safe when you are not there.
The Ring doorbell notifies you when guests or packages arrive.
Ring's indoor cameras let you keep an eye on kids and pets while you're away.
Ring alarm will alert you of any motion detection while the house is empty.
Plus, if you add smart lighting around your home, you can turn lights on or off while you're away.
Ring's home security products don't just help keep your home and family safe.
They make perfect gifts for everyone on your list.
Head on over right now to ring.com slash collections slash offers to find out how you can live less stressed this season with a Ring product that is right for you.
That is ring.com slash collections slash offers.
Tight race in Georgia.
We'll find out who won whenever they fix the pipes.
They might have some pipes bursting because even though they thought Walker was going to get completely killed with that October surprise about his complicated and unsavory love life in the past, that didn't quite happen.
It remains neck and neck.
So the liberal media are predicting that they're just going to keep counting for days and days and days.
When you look at the presidential race for 2024, you are seeing much more interesting dynamics going on.
Right now, Donald Trump has fallen to the number three most likely guy to win the presidency in 2024, according to the betting markets.
So this is not according to public opinion polls.
This is not according to the expert pundits.
This is according to people who put their money where everyone's mouth is and who are staking real cash on who is going to win.
So according to the betting markets right now, Trump is in third place.
He's got a 20% chance of returning to the White House with four to one odds.
Joe Biden has a 22.2% chance of being reelected in two years on seven to two odds.
Ron DeSantis.
Ron DeSantis.
The Vegas betting markets are giving him 30.8%, 7-2 odds, to win the White House.
So right now, Ron DeSantis is leading the pack.
And people have to take this seriously.
I know that no one believes any polls, especially two years out from a presidential election.
But we're just seeing all the signs move in DeSantis' direction.
So yes, two years is a long time.
The race hasn't even really begun in the sense that Ron DeSantis hasn't announced that he's running for president.
There will be some brutal primary process.
But if you're just looking at the trend lines right now, Ron DeSantis is trending up in pretty much every category.
He's got the support of pundits, and he's getting more support from the pundits.
He's got support in Iowa and New Hampshire and Florida, those early primary states.
And he's getting more support in those early primary states.
And now you look at the GOP big donors who are having meetings with the candidates.
The reports are showing that Ron DeSantis is doing great with those GOP donors.
And then now you've got the Vegas betting market.
So this is a big problem for Donald Trump.
I think part of the reason why Trump announced that he was running so early was to clear out the field.
And the common sense consensus view was that if Trump announces he's running, no one else runs.
Right now, Ron DeSantis would be crazy not to run for president.
He's got the wind at his back and...
Politics is about timing.
I know a lot of people say, well, Ron DeSantis can sit this one out, let Donald Trump have his second term, and then he can run in 2028.
But that's not how politics works.
First of all, Ron DeSantis is not going to be politically relevant in 2028 because he's going to have to leave the Florida governor's mansion in 2026.
That's going to be the end of his second term.
And so then he'll be in political no-man's land for two years before the 28th That's not going to work.
Also, he's having this moment now.
It's because of a lot of factors.
It's because of COVID. It's because of the great job that he's done as governor in Florida.
It's because of what the other governors and senators are or are not doing in the GOP that has allowed Ron DeSantis to really rise to the top of the pack.
Ron DeSantis was an unremarkable backbencher congressman, okay?
The guy's been in Congress, or the guy's been in politics, rather, for a long time.
And this is true of everybody in politics.
You're just kind of there until maybe you get your moment, and And when you get your moment, you've got to strike.
Think about Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson has been in political media forever.
Tucker Carlson's been in political media since the 90s, okay?
I don't remember watching TV news when Tucker Carlson did not have some kind of presence.
But he wasn't considered the big power player until just a few years ago.
And now all of a sudden this is his moment in political media.
Same thing for Republican politics.
And right now, if I'm Ron DeSantis...
Now, as you know, I don't really get too involved.
I know that every pundit in the country seems to have picked a candidate already.
I have not done that.
I love Donald Trump.
He's my favorite president of my lifetime.
I think the guy is just fabulous.
I really admire what Ron DeSantis has done down in Florida.
I think that there are plenty of other candidates who could make good GOP 2024 candidates as well.
Whoever it is, though, we've got to win the presidency because even though the president doesn't have anywhere near the power that he used to and even though the administrative state runs a lot of the government and even though the President, especially you see this in the Biden era, is kind of just a ceremonial role sometimes, where even a man who doesn't have two brain cells left to rub together is able to just be sort of guided around by his handlers, and the government continues to function.
But one of the big areas where the president matters is judicial appointments.
And we are seeing a major, major court case right now before the Supreme Court that could determine the future of marriage and religious liberty in the United States.
The case is called 303 Creative versus Elenas.
This is a case about a woman named Lori Smith, who is a Christian website designer.
And so Lori Smith decides that she's going to get involved in making websites for wedding announcements.
You know where this is going.
She is based in Colorado.
You know where this is going.
It's the same state that persecutes Jack Phillips, who's the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, because he doesn't want to participate in so-called gay weddings.
Well, Laurie Smith decides, okay, I'm going to make wedding announcement websites, but I'm a Christian, and so I am not going to participate in a so-called gay marriage, which violates my religious beliefs.
The Libs sue, the LGBT lobby sues, and now this case makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
There was a very telling exchange between Justice Neil Gorsuch and the lawyer for Colorado, the Solicitor General there.
Take a listen.
I'm looking for the distinction between the two cases.
One you say is okay, the other one not okay.
Because the company, unlike our first example of the speechwriter, The company here says, in no uncertain terms, will they ever sell a company, a product or a service to a same-sex couple?
No, what they say is we will not sell to anyone, anyone, a message that I disagree with as a matter of religious faith, just as a speechwriter says, or the press release writer, the freelance writer says, I will not sell to anyone a speech that offends my religious beliefs.
But here, they are defining their service by excluding someone based on their...
That's their religious belief.
You can't change their religious belief, right?
No, but...
And you protect religious beliefs under the statute, right?
That is one of the protected characteristics, in theory.
And in practice.
If it wasn't in practice, we had heard about it over the past several years, and my friend has pointed to no example where this has been applied.
To me, the most telling part of that exchange is when Justice Gorsuch says, look, it's this woman's religious belief.
You can't change people's religious beliefs, right?
And Eric Olson, the lawyer for Colorado, says, no.
Well, well, actually, that is kind of what we're trying to do.
And you see the framing of the argument.
The Colorado lawyer defending this ridiculous LGBT law against Christians, against Jews, against Muslims, against Any reasonable understanding of marriage.
He says, this woman's...
He's got kind of an interesting voice.
This woman is denying service to people based on their sexual desires.
She's excluding a group of people and saying they can't buy her product.
And Neil Gorsuch says, no, she's not.
She's not telling any group of people that they can't buy her product.
She's just not offering a product that violates her religious beliefs.
It's not Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cake Shop owner, didn't say that gay people can't buy my cakes.
He said, I am not going to create cakes that violate my religious beliefs.
And to create a cake for a so-called gay wedding violates my religious beliefs.
So it reminds me of the debate over gay marriage.
Which is you had the libs saying that we want gay people to have the same rights to marriage as everybody else.
And the conservatives and the reasonable people said everybody has the right to marriage.
Everybody has the right to marriage.
But marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the good of the spouses and the sake of the generation and education of children.
Everyone has the right to that.
You don't have the right to radically redefine that against what everyone ever, practically, has always believed.
And then the oral arguments got even worse from there.
It almost kept me up at night.
It would have kept me up at night if I weren't so comfortable in my Bowling Branch sheets.
Right now, go to BowlingBranch.com.
Use promo code Michael.
Christmas time.
Gosh, isn't it everybody's favorite time of the year?
If you want to enjoy that time to the fullest, you need to get the best sleep you can every single night.
That is easier than it sounds, actually, because you just need the softest, most luxurious organic cotton sheets from Bowling Branch.
I love Bowling Branch.
They are just simply magnificent sheets.
Bowling Branch acted to me kind of like a drug dealer, actually, because they gave me the sample.
When they first came on the show years ago, they gave me the sample.
I said, okay.
Then I got a taste for it.
I start buying more for me.
I start buying more for my friends and my family.
I just 100% stand by Boll& Branch.
100% organic cotton.
Absolutely wonderful signature hemmed sheets.
They're made with threads so luxurious that three U.S. presidents have slept in them.
But who cares about the presidents?
your favorite beloved podcaster has slept in them too.
And they're just so wonderful.
Give the gift of a better night's sleep this Christmas season with Bowlin Branch for a limited time.
Get 20% off your first set of sheets, plus free shipping when you use promo code Michael at BowlinBranch.com.
That is BowlinBranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, Branch.com, promo code Michael.
It's this very, very important case up at the Supreme Court, 303 Creative versus Elenas.
business.
Is hinging on this issue of whether or not you can force people to violate their religious beliefs and participate in something that they find immoral and unconscionable.
And so, Justice Gorsuch brings up the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop and having to bake the cake and participate in the gay wedding.
And he says, wait a second, didn't you send that guy to a re-education camp?
Here's what the Colorado Solicitor General says.
Mr.
Phillips did go through a re-education training program pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr.
Olson?
He went through a process that ensured he was familiar with...
It was a re-education program, right?
It was not a re-education program.
What do you call it?
It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law.
Someone might be excused for calling that a re-education program.
I strongly disagree, Mr.
Gorsuch.
Thank you, Mr.
Olson.
No, it wasn't a re-education program.
It was a new instruction seminar.
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
But it totally wasn't a re-education program.
And Neil Gorsuch says, yeah, okay, I think I'm going to call it a re-education program.
I think I'm going to stick with that.
It reminds me of when Donald Trump was arguing about the illegals during 2016.
And someone said, you know that term is very offensive.
He says, what's offensive about the term illegals?
He said, well, it's wrong.
What should I say?
You should say future undocumented dreaming.
I think I'm going to stick with illegal, actually.
And that's what Neil Gorsuch says, which is amazing from Neil Gorsuch, because Neil Gorsuch was the deciding vote in the Bostock case, which found preposterously that civil rights law protects Sexual orientation and gender identity.
That when you see protections for sex in the civil rights law, that also implies a protection for gender identity, which is distinct from sex by the very nature of this gender category, right?
The gender ideologues say, well, you can have some sex, you can be a male as your biological sex, but you can be a female as a matter of your gender.
So, Neil Gorsuch has been far from rock-ribbed on these issues, and even he is sitting there saying, are you kidding me?
Colorado, are you kidding me that you're going to force people to do this?
And especially when we're talking about creating a wedding website.
Because there, you're talking about forcing someone to engage in speech that they find immoral.
An example of this would be, I've worked on political campaigns, I've written political speeches before.
Now, let's say I've got Michael Knowles Speechwriting, LLC. And I'm a business and I write speeches for conservatives.
And then one day a communist walks in and says, Michael, I want you to write a speech for me.
I'm running to be the communist nominee for president.
And I say, well, sorry, Mr.
Communist, but I'm a conservative.
And so I'm not going to write a speech extolling the virtues of communism.
And then I get dragged before the Supreme Court.
And they say, this man has discriminated against me.
He has refused me service.
This is a horrible example of bigotry.
And then the Libs, the Lib justices say, Michael, you're forced to use your speech, use your faculties of reason to participate in this communist campaign.
That's what we're talking about here.
You are forced to use your speech and your skill and your time and your labor to violate your conscience at a very, very deep level.
And so Neil Gorsuch is calling this out.
Unfortunately, the newest justice on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Jackson, did not call it out.
She was clearly on the side of Colorado.
What I'm asking you is I have a public business.
I'm a photographer.
My belief is that, you know, I'm doing It's a Wonderful Life scenes.
That's what I'm offering.
Okay?
I want to do video depictions of It's a Wonderful Life.
Knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product.
I'll give to everybody else, I'll sell them anything they want, just not the It's a Wonderful Life depictions.
I'm expressing something, right, for your purposes, that's speech.
What about, what's the other step?
It's speech, and I can say anti-discrimination laws can't make me sell the It's a Wonderful Life package to non-white individuals.
I'd like to apologize.
Previously on this show, I have said that I thought that Ketanji Jackson is a smart woman.
And I've said this because she has two degrees from Harvard.
That should have been my first warning, actually.
And I've said this because she was a federal judge.
And I've said, you know, she's very, very confused, this woman.
But I bet she's intelligent.
I retract that statement.
Hearing that...
Babbling nonsense, masquerading as an argument, I can no longer defend the claim that I am confident that Patanji Jackson is an intelligent woman.
I thought she was, but maybe not.
I guess my other clue should have been when she couldn't define the word woman during her Senate confirmationaries.
What is this woman saying?
She's saying, well, this case...
Where a woman doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding.
Quote-unquote gay wedding.
I shouldn't even use the phrase because it's a contradiction in terms.
And this is how the libs control your mind.
They control all the words you use and they force you to accept their premises as a matter of your own speech.
But this woman is being forced to participate in an activity that she finds immoral and to do so with her own speech.
That is not the same as saying...
Hey, gay people, you can't buy my pictures.
Hey, black people, you can't buy my pictures.
This is the silly notion.
That Justice Gorsuch disabused the Colorado Solicitor General of.
When he said, you're excluding customers based on some group characteristic.
He said, not at all.
You're just refusing to participate in an activity.
Now, if Ketanji Jackson had said, you know, you're a photographer, you want to create realistic depictions of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, and you recognize that George Bailey is a white guy, so you're only going to cast white guys in these pictures to be recreations of It's a Wonderful Life.
I guess then you would be discriminating on people based on their race and But one, that's already protected.
It's called casting.
Of course you can cast...
If I go in to audition for the next Black Panther movie and they don't give me the part, I can't sue them and say, this was discrimination based on my race.
How dare they not cast me, an olive-skinned Sicilian-American, as the role of whatever the guy, I don't know what the guy's name is.
It's not my cup of tea, okay?
But no, of course that is already protected.
And in that case, of course, by the way, the person you would be casting is not a customer, he's an employee, and you are allowed to Discriminate when it comes to employees, especially if their appearance matters.
And no one's arguing otherwise.
It's just the argument, either Ketanji Jackson is much, much less intelligent than I thought she was, or they're not even attempting to make a convincing argument.
It could be the latter, because this was at the heart of the gay marriage so-called debate, was the Libs never had that debate.
The debate was always over, what is marriage?
And the Libs never had that debate.
They just begged the question.
They assumed their own conclusion.
And they said, marriage is the union of any two people that I say it is a union of.
And so now the question becomes, who has the right to get married?
And it seems that Ketanji Jackson is doing exactly the same thing here.
Now, speaking of weird sex stuff, there are protests right now.
In 20 cities, over, not over the redefinition of marriage...
Not even over the transgender stuff, which is the next stage of that part of the sexual revolution.
Over Balenciaga.
You remember the Balenciaga campaign?
We've talked about it on this show, and I keep bringing it up because I don't want this story to get memory hold.
Balenciaga, a very, very high-end luxury fashion house.
That has celebrity relationships with every famous person under the sun, certainly all the big prominent libs who go to the elite parties.
They pushed advertising campaigns that sexualized children.
Little kids in them, frowning, looking unhappy, holding S&M teddy bears.
And in another advertising campaign, you had the text to a Supreme Court decision about child pornography, referencing another Supreme Court decision about child pornography.
And the decision that it was referencing in that very meticulously placed court case, the decision it was referencing was one which held the...
Alleged constitutionality of simulated child pornography.
So the whole thing was super weird.
You saw satanic references, references to Baal, one of the most prominent demons ever worshipped in one of their advertising images.
So the whole thing was really sick, really weird, and it involved sex stuff and kids.
And people are rightly furious about it.
So what is happening?
Well, Balenciaga is apologizing.
Balenciaga tried to do damage control right away.
And this was a little awkward for the liberals, who reacted to the conservatives observing this weird sex stuff by saying, this is nothing, this is not a big deal.
You guys are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.
What are you talking about?
And then Balenciaga goes, wipes their social media networks...
Instagram, all gone other than a major apology, says that they were going to seek a lawsuit against the person who put the photo shoot together.
So that really undercut the libs who were saying this is nothing burger, it's no big deal.
But then Valenciaga otherwise was largely silent about this until now.
Demna Gavazalia is a Georgian fashion designer.
He's currently the creative director for Balenciaga.
Super tight with Kim Kardashian.
He's collaborated with Kanye West before.
Kanye, oddly enough, during his sort of performance art presidential campaign, continues to wear Balenciaga clothing.
And I think actually defended this guy, Demna Gavazalia, Even amid his seemingly extremely super-duper far-right campaign, he's defending Balenciaga and all these kind of weird liberal creative types who are pushing the kids' sex stuff, which is very, very strange.
But regardless, that's just a little bit of a footnote, but a strange footnote on the story.
Demna says...
I want to personally apologize for the wrong artistic choice of concept for the gifting campaign with the kids, and I take my responsibility.
It was inappropriate to have kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them, the 41-year-old posted.
Okay, just want to push back a little here.
They were holding teddy bears.
So the teddy bears happened to be wrapped up in this weird S&M leather sex stuff.
But you can say that the object they were holding had nothing to do with them.
The object they were holding was a teddy bear, which has a lot to do with little kids.
Part of what's so creepy here is not just that there were kids in the ad, but that the kids were holding a kid object that had been sexualized.
It's weird that the kids were in the ad at all, but just the fact that a little teddy bear was being so sexualized, that is also weird.
So that's already making me think, hold on, wait, what?
You want to apologize?
For the artistic choice of concept.
But now, it doesn't seem like you're being totally honest if you're saying an S&M teddy bear has nothing to do with kids.
He says, as much as I would sometimes like to provoke a thought through my work, I would never have intention to do that with such an awful subject as child abuse that I condemn.
Period.
Now, this is another little weird thing.
I just noticed this now in the way the sentence is written.
He says, I would never do it with such an awful subject as child abuse that I condemn.
He doesn't say, I would never do it with child abuse, comma, which I condemn, which would say, I condemn child abuse per se.
He says, I would never engage with an awful subject as child abuse that I condemn.
The difference being that because he's not condemning child abuse as a category, there might be some kind of child abuse that he does not condemn.
It would be like saying, I'd hold up a blue M&M and I'd say, these are the M&Ms that I love.
I love the blue M&Ms.
The other M&Ms, the jury is out.
Or I could say, these are the M&Ms, which I love.
That would say, I love these M&Ms.
Is Demna Gavazalia thinking that deeply about the syntax here?
I'm not so sure.
But that is just kind of weird, taken in the context of the whole statement.
Then he goes on.
He says, Again here, you see kind of a fake apology.
I apologize to anyone offended by...
That's...
The lamest kind of apology you can make.
When you say, hey, I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said.
No, that's not an apology.
You can't apologize for the way someone feels.
You can only apologize for your own actions.
So you can say, I apologize that I put this together.
I apologize that I did a thing that is offensive.
We didn't say that.
Apologize to anyone offended, and I guarantee we'll take steps to protect this in the future.
And then, in conjunction with this announcement, Balenciaga said that it would drop its $25 million lawsuit against the marketing agency North 6, which put this together.
This, too, shows you that Balenciaga bore much more responsibility for the campaign than they wanted to admit.
Why are they dropping the lawsuit?
They're dropping the lawsuit because it wasn't just some random marketing campaign that they hired that went off on their own and did this crazy thing that Balenciaga condemns.
They're dropping the lawsuit because they know that Balenciaga was itself involved in the campaign.
They're dropping the lawsuit because Balenciaga's creative director is saying, yeah, I had an artistic vision and it wasn't great.
That's why they're doing it.
If Balenciaga really thought they could get $25 million from this marketing firm, North Six, they would do it.
But Balenciaga's not going to bring the lawsuit.
Why?
Because they don't want to go through discovery and because they think that they're going to lose the case.
And now Balenciaga says, we're going to donate instead to organizations focused on protecting children.
Oh yeah, and also, this whole apology comes two weeks after the fact.
Two weeks after the fact, because the controversy hasn't died down, because there are protests in 20 cities.
I do not accept this apology.
I do not believe this apology.
I think this is crisis communications, major damage control.
It does not seem sincere to me at all, and it seems like there is a lot more going on behind the scenes at Balenciaga, and I think people should keep pulling on that thread, because...
Every single day, it seems, we learn something new about what's going on behind the scenes there, and it's really weird and creepy and freaky, and we should figure it out.
Speaking of weak apologies...
The incoming Democrat minority leader in the House of Representatives is issuing a sort of apology for being himself after two years of Democrats whining about the evil election deniers who are a threat to our democracy.
The man himself is a denier of the election of Donald Trump.
The newly elected incoming leader of House Democrats is a past election denier.
Who basically said the 2016 election was, quote, illegitimate.
And suggested that we had a, quote, fake president.
Suggesting an equivalence there with Donald Trump.
What's your response?
Well, you know, it's unfortunate that Republicans have chosen to focus on me.
House Democrats are going to focus on solving problems for the American people.
But you did say that history will never accept Donald Trump as a legitimate president, and the Republicans are making quite a big issue out of that.
What is your response?
Well, here's the Republican playbook.
Facts don't matter.
Hypocrisy is not a constraint to their behavior.
And in many cases, they believe that shamelessness is a superpower.
My view of the situation has been pretty clear.
I supported the certification of Donald Trump's election.
I attended his inauguration even though there were many constituents and others across the country pushing me and others to do otherwise.
Well, hold on.
Is Trump a legitimate president or not?
Because I'm not getting an answer out of Hakeem Jeffries.
He won't even answer the question now.
He...
He said when Trump was elected, this was an illegitimate election, he's an illegitimate president.
Then he points out, well I voted for the certification anyway.
But then he continued to call Trump an illegitimate president.
So which is it?
If Hakeem Jeffries seriously believed that Donald Trump was illegitimately elected, then he should have voted against the certification of the vote.
Right?
Right?
Or, if Hakeem Jeffries believed that Donald Trump was actually elected president, then he should have stopped being an election denier.
But he's trying to have it both ways.
And you can see this.
You can tell the man has no convictions whatsoever.
Because he says, listen, I attended the inauguration even though...
Even though what?
Even though my better judgment told me not to.
Even though I had a principled stance against it.
Even though...
No, he says, even though some of my constituents didn't want me to.
Okay, so this is a guy who blows in the wind and who is, as the Democrats so often do, projecting his own vices onto his political opponents.
When he says, preposterously, in answer to the question, do you think Trump's a legitimate president or not, do you regret dying that election?
He goes, the Republicans, they're hypocrites.
They're They don't have principles.
And he just goes on some stupid campaign platitude, you know, automation.
He just goes beep, beep, boop, and he just spits out all these stupid empty talking points.
But he himself is the one who is blowing in the wind here, who doesn't have principles.
I still, after that interview, I still don't know whether he thinks that the 2016 election was legit or not.
And fine, if he thinks it wasn't legit, produce the evidence.
I don't see any.
The Democrats tried really hard to do that.
But he's just trying to have it both ways, and he's not actually apologizing.
Really, really weak stuff.
Now, speaking of rigged elections, you know that the Twitter files just came out about the ways in which the social media companies, Twitter in particular, in this case, worked with the Democrats to rig the 2020 election.
According to certain public polls...
Show that they may have played the decisive role by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.
So Corrine Jean-Pierre, White House spokesman, is asked about this.
She says it's old news.
We see this as an interesting or a coincidence, if I may, that he would so haphazardly, Twitter would so haphazardly push this distraction.
That is full of old news, if you think about it.
And at the same time, Twitter is facing very real and very serious questions about the rising volume of anger, hate, and anti-Semitism on their platform, and how they're letting it happen.
And, you know, the president said last week, more leaders need to speak out and reject this.
And it's very alarming and very dangerous.
Huh?
Yeah, I get it.
You don't like Elon Musk.
You don't like the conservatives get to speak on Twitter.
But what about the expose, which shows that the Democrats colluded with Twitter to censor the content that was damaging for Joe Biden?
What did she say?
She says, oh, that's old news.
This is the Clinton playbook.
This is going back to the early 90s, going back to the 80s.
The Clintons, whenever they were confronted with a scandal, which is frequent for the Clintons, even by Democrat standards, what would they do?
They would deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny.
Oh, it's old news.
They would deny it for years, and then when it was undeniable, they would say, oh, it's old news.
Yeah, it's old news that you've been lying about for years.
You've never actually had to confront any of this.
So you don't get to just slip away.
That's what they're trying to do.
And this is the strongest evidence that what was exposed in the Twitter files is not a nothing burger.
The fact that Democrats did their best for two years to cover it up And now they're trying to say, well, it's old.
If it was old news, if it's no big deal, then why didn't you deal with it at the time?
Because it is a big deal.
And there's much more to come, by the way.
I think that that Twitter gate, Twitter files thread that the journalist Matt Taibbi posted the other day, I think that was not the full story.
I think that was the tip of the iceberg.
Are you the conservative uncle who showed up to Thanksgiving?
Well, now you're back for Christmas, right?
And you are bringing the new range of Jeremy's Razor's hair, body, and skin care products.
I've actually got them from right here.
And not only do I have them, I have them here on my desk and I have them in my shower.
And let me tell you something, these products are amazing.
So obviously they've got the razors and they've got the new five-blade razor that's awesome, fabulous, fabulous razor.
But they've got the shampoo.
They've got the body wash.
They've got the body soap.
They've got this nice brush thing.
They've got all of these products.
And I'll tell you, I just was using the shampoo.
So I was a little skeptical.
I would have used it anyway even if we were just made of pure poison chemicals because I love Jeremy's Razors.
I think it is a mission.
I think it was an actual crucial to the conservative mission that we support Jeremy's Razors over the woke companies that want to trans all our kids.
But it turns out The ingredients in Jeremy's razors are extremely high-end, natural, crunchy ingredients that sweet little Alisa makes me use all over our house.
So none of this stuff is that really awful, synthetic, dangerous, kind of poisonous stuff that you see.
Really, really wonderful, natural ingredients.
Very high-end stuff.
Our executive, who is running Jeremy's Razors day-to-day right now, happens to be, much like sweet little Elisa, an absolute obsessive about all of the natural good ingredients so the libs and the woke corporations don't poison us and turn the frickin' frogs gay and all that sort of stuff.
So anyway, you've got to go check it out.
Jeremy's Razors right now.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com.
You get 30% off razor gift bundles, tea tree and peppermint shampoo and conditioner, bamboo charcoal facial cleanser, the Precision 5 blade with a flip black trimmer.
They've got everything, okay?
30% off gift bundles right now.
If you order before December 15th, go to dailywire.com slash knolls, K-N-W-L-E-S, dailywire.com slash knolls.
The Matt Taibbi thread was the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned because we already know that the other social media networks have been pressured by Democrats to censor their content, to give Democrats an advantage and to harm the Republicans.
One of the criticisms of the Twitter files thread is the Libs are saying, well, there's no evidence that the government Forced Twitter to do any of this stuff.
It was maybe the DNC. It wasn't a government.
Well, now we've got some evidence that the FBI actually was involved.
We know that Mark Zuckerberg said on Joe Rogan's show that the FBI called up Facebook and told them that there was this Hunter Biden laptop story and they should be very, very skeptical of it.
And it was a big warning about allowing this story to spread.
It was basically the FBI saying, shut down this story because it's going to hurt the Democrats.
Well, it turns out On another story damaging to Democrats, the FBI got involved as well.
Do you remember the story of Tara Reid?
Tara Reid is the former Hill staffer who accused Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her some decades ago.
Apparently, Twitter now reveals, the FBI asked Twitter for this woman's personal information.
Daily Caller has this report.
The subpoena was obtained by Daily Caller, and it shows the DOJ asking Twitter to testify in front of a grand jury to provide, quote, all subscriber information for Reed's accounts.
So that includes, obviously, name, logins, where she was logging in from, time on the site, credit cards if she was subscribed, say, to Twitter Blue or something or any of the other subscriptions where you would spend money on Twitter to promote ads or things like that.
Very, very personal information.
Why?
Tara Reade says she has no reason why.
She has no idea why, other than because she was going after Joe Biden.
We know this is happening.
We know that the FBI has been weaponized by the Democrats against the Republicans.
That's what the Russia hoax was about.
That's what happened when the FBI illegitimately spied on Donald Trump's campaign and then undermined his presidency.
We know this is happening.
And so I suspect Elon Musk is a pretty sophisticated player.
You don't become the world's richest man by accident, okay?
And so, Elon Musk does the big Twitter files release, and it shows that the conservatives are not crazy.
It shows evidence of corruption.
But it's not some big, huge bombshell with stories we didn't know about.
And then the libs laugh about it, they mock it.
Do we really think that's all that there is here?
I don't believe that for one second.
Okay, it's corruption.
It's corruption from the Biden administration.
So the Biden administration, they're not going to fix our economy.
They're not going to secure our borders.
They're not going to prevent the breakout of World War III. They're not going to do anything that the American people really want.
But they are taking one really bold stand.
Joe Biden, he just came out.
He took a courageous stand against Hitler.
Yeah, that's right.
Against Hitler and the Holocaust.
Wow.
Wow.
Wow, amazing.
What courage.
Those are the issues.
The war that occurred 70 years ago that statistically 100% of people, with maybe a few exceptions, agree on.
That's what he's going to take the stand on.
He says, I just want to make a few things clear.
The Holocaust happened.
Hitler was a demonic figure.
And instead of giving it a platform, our political leaders should be calling out rejecting anti-Semitism wherever it hides.
Silence is complicity.
This reminds me of a Norm MacDonald bit.
Norm would do a lot of Hitler jokes.
He did one famously on David Letterman's last episode.
Of his network show.
And the jokes were always that, of course, everybody agrees on Hitler, you know, but he would say that it's some sort of controversial stance.
He'd say, you know, the more I read about this Hitler fella, the more I don't like him.
That Hitler, you know, I don't know if you're a history buff, I was reading about this guy Hitler, seems like a real jerk.
But the reason I bring it up is not because this is newsworthy at all.
This is about the most boring statement you could possibly make.
But it's interesting in one regard, which is that Joe Biden just proved my point about Hitler.
When I was discussing the Kanye West interview heard around the world on the Alex Jones show, Some people were confused because the headline was Kanye West says, I love Hitler.
But then Kanye West also said, I love Mao.
I love Stalin.
I love all of these other terrible dictators who had a much higher body count than Adolf Hitler.
But why is it that that doesn't resonate as much for people?
That doesn't offend people as much?
If someone comes out and says, I love Mao, no one really cares.
You hear this on college campuses all the time.
Kids will wear t-shirts with Che Guevara's face on it.
Or any other communist killer.
But if anyone ever said anything like, I like Hitler or something like that, they would be taken away in a straitjacket.
They would be severe disciplinary measures.
So why is that?
And what I said was, the reason that there is a double standard when it comes to Hitler and Stalin or Hitler and Mao is because Hitler in the popular consciousness is actually synonymous with the devil.
Actually, in a way, he is more evil than the devil, because a lot of people don't believe in the devil, but everybody believes in Hitler.
Hitler was incarnate.
The devil is pure spirit, but Hitler was a person with flesh and blood who moved around in time and space.
He has taken on, in our language and in our perception, this synonymous character with the very devil himself, which is not true of Stalin and not true of Mao.
You could say that Mao and Stalin were worse.
You could say that they killed more people.
But that doesn't matter.
That's not how we understand these figures in our collective consciousness.
And Joe Biden just proves that.
He says Hitler is demonic.
But he wouldn't say that about any other evil leader in the world.
And so that is why.
And that is why Kanye's statement, I said, was in keeping with the three troubles that he's had in his public life.
Which is, Kanye West obviously has mental disorder.
He has said and done things that are disordered going back decades now.
And Kanye West is so deeply contrarian that he always has to violate the next biggest taboo.
You actually see this going back to Kanye West's music.
When Kanye West entered the scene in hip-hop, all the hip-hop was this gangster rap, really violent, tough stuff.
And then Kanye West comes in with those songs, 18 years, 18 years, good morning, doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo, right?
It's all this kind of poppier, lighter stuff that was a violation of the The culture of hip-hop at the time was very contrarian.
Then he goes up to Taylor Swift, who's accepting an award.
Taylor Swift, the most popular woman in the world, practically.
He goes up and takes her trophy away and says, I'm going to give it to Beyonce instead.
Huge violation of a taboo.
Then you saw it when Kanye West said slavery was a choice.
Then you saw it even more so when he put on the MAGA hat, which at that time was akin to saying, I support the devil, or I support Hitler, or something.
And then now you see it with Kanye West going out and saying, I really like Hitler, or I love Hitler, whatever he said.
The trouble for Kanye West now—oh, and then obviously the third trouble he's got right now is this very public collapse of his marriage, which is the sort of thing that makes anybody go crazy.
And especially if you've got other problems, it just is very, very challenging, which is why I said, reaction to Kanye, I'm not going to just castigate him and scold him and preen and virtue signal.
I'm going to just say, pray for Kanye.
He's obviously having a tough time.
But right now, as Joe Biden is showing— What's the next thing for Kanye?
He has violated the ultimate taboo.
There is no further taboo to violate in our popular culture.
So what does one do?
What does one do when the shock value runs?
There is nothing left to do that is more shocking in our popular culture.
Now speaking of Hitler, I do have to...
What a segue.
I have to get to the story about Time Man of the Year.
Because there's a lot of talk about who will be the Time Man of the Year.
The potential candidates right now that were just floated on the Today Show, Ron DeSantis, Liz Cheney, Elon Musk, Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine, the Supreme Court, Mackenzie Scott for some reason, that's Jeff Bezos' wife or ex-wife, the Iran protesters, and gun safety advocates.
Who is it going to be?
Liz Cheney.
Okay, give me a break.
First of all, how's Liz Cheney going to be the man of the year?
That doesn't make any sense.
Although, they've renamed it.
Now it's the person of the year.
Well, since I was the 2006 time person of the year, I would like to place my bets.
Ron DeSantis should have a good shot at it.
He's had a better year than anybody in American politics.
Liz Cheney, of course not.
Elon Musk probably deserves it.
He has been a figure of chaos and And very important change to America's political order.
He comes in and he says, we are going to reinstate Donald Trump's account.
One of the biggest shifts in our political order was this idea that oligarchs in Silicon Valley were able to silence the duly elected sitting president of the United States.
It's a major shift to the way American politics works.
Elon Musk comes in and corrects that.
I think he's got a really good claim to it.
Yellen, no.
Xi Jinping, I don't think so.
The U.S. Supreme Court, maybe because of Roe v.
Wade.
Mackenzie Scott, of course not.
Iran protesters, no.
Gun safety advocates, what is that?
Who's not a gun safety advocate?
Who's a gun danger advocate?
Nobody, so no.
The one they're probably going to give it to, though.
Zelensky, right?
They're probably going to give it to Vladimir Zelensky.
He's lost some public favor in recent weeks because he keeps trying to instigate the West into starting World War III. And he also fired those missiles into Poland and blamed Russia, and then it turned out it was Ukraine.
So that didn't work.
But if I had to bet, I would bet, I guess I would bet...
Now, we've got to talk about all sorts of manly things on the member block.
Notably, we've got to talk about sperm.
We have to talk about sperm.
I didn't really want to talk about sperm, but my friend Cabot Phillips.
You know Cabot Phillips here from the Daily Wire.
He said, Michael, I want to come on the show and talk about sperm.
