Ep. 1158 - Joe Biden Stole Classified Documents & Didn't Get Raided
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Biden gets caught stealing classified files, Kevin McCarthy pulls top libs off their congressional committees, and Jimmy Fallon dances for the regime.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire content catalog of movies, shows, documentaries, and more. Use code KNOWLES and get 2 months free on annual plans: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
Get your Michael Knowles merch here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/knowles
RefundsPro - If your business experienced shutdowns, limited capacity, supply chain challenges, or reduced revenue due to COVID, you likely qualify for Employee Retention Credit. Get started today with a free, five-minute questionnaire at https://refundspro.com/
- - -
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
Hey, remember when Donald Trump took classified documents out of the White House to a private location so the FBI raided his home and the liberal press assailed him for weeks and the DOJ threatened to prosecute him?
You remember when Joe Biden called Trump's actions unbelievably egregious?
When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago, what did you think to yourself, looking at that image?
How that could possibly happen?
How anyone could be that irresponsible?
And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods?
By that I mean names of people who helped, etc.
It's just totally irresponsible.
Totally irresponsible.
Well, it turns out that Joe Biden did the exact same thing.
Welcome to my show!
That they include highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources.
And they've apparently been sitting in Biden's closet ever since he left the vice presidency seven years ago.
Which raises the only way in which what Biden did was different from what Trump did.
When Trump took his classified documents he did so as the outgoing president who has the right to declassify whatever he wants whenever he wants without any formal process.
When Biden took his classified documents he did so as the outgoing vice president who doesn't have any right whatsoever to declassify documents on his own.
Did the FBI kick in Joe Biden's door?
Are the media accusing Biden of selling state secrets and getting spies killed?
No, not quite.
The authorities have just gone ahead and collected the documents, swept the story mostly under the rug, and moved along to look out for the next big Trump scandal.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from MooseChuckle, who says, It's disappointing because I really could have gone for a complete government shutdown.
I still could.
That's true.
I guess that's true.
But the silver lining in the storm cloud of Congress getting back to business and screwing up things for the American people is that now with...
Speaker McCarthy in charge, we are seeing some very strong early signs of conservative government, which we'll get to in one second.
First, though, if you, like me, like Moose Chuckle over there, don't trust the way the government is run right now to manage the economy well and to protect your wealth and your property, you might want to check out Birch Gold.
Right now, text Knowles to 989898.
The current administration's New Year's goals are to tax, spend, and turn a blind eye to inflation.
If this is at odds with your goals, which I assume it is, and you're tired of the government playing games with your savings and your retirement plan, then you need to get in touch with the experts at Birch Gold today.
For over 5,000 years, gold has withstood inflation, geopolitical turmoil, and stock market crashes.
Now you can own gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Text to Knoll, SKNWLES, to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold, and then talk to one of their precious metals specialists.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, you can trust Birch Gold to help protect your savings.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 and protect yourself with gold today.
That is Knowles to 98, 98, 98.
We are starting off the year right in Congress.
We are starting off the year right here at the Daily Wire too, by the way, because the Daily Wire has finally gotten a piece of technology that is actually very old basic technology, but I've been yelling from the rooftops for them to get it for a long time, which is we can now take your calls on the podcasts.
And we are going to be doing that today in the live show toward the end of the show.
So if you are one of the creme de la creme inner circle Daily Wire Plus members, you can call in at 855-236-3228 and I will get to hear your mellifluous voice in real time.
And we can speak like real people, which will be really, really fun.
If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member, what are you doing?
Head on over to dailywire.com slash Knowles because Become a member today.
Goodness gracious.
Great way to start off the year here at The Daily Wire.
And a great start to Kevin McCarthy's speakership.
You know I was probably the most vocal defender in the conservative media of the 20 holdouts.
Those conservatives who would not vote for McCarthy, who were demanding more concessions from him to make sure that the conservatives really had a voice in the new Republican Congress.
That's good.
They got those concessions.
They had a great fight.
I also pointed out that Kevin McCarthy was considerably more conservative than recent speakers of the House that Republicans have had.
Relatively low bar that we're talking about here when we talk about people like John Boehner.
But still, I said you look at the issues.
Kevin McCarthy might be the most conservative speaker that we've had since the 1950s.
Well, we're seeing some good signs right now.
According to an AP congressional reporter, McCarthy is moving ahead with taking Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, and Eric Swalwell off of their committees.
You couldn't have wished this for three more fitting people.
He has said that these people need to get off of their committees, which are pretty significant committees, the Intelligence Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee.
He says, quote, Swalwell can't get a security clearance in the private sector.
I'm not going to give him a government security clearance.
Schiff has lied to the American public.
These Democrats in particular have proven themselves...
Irresponsible and not worth trusting with this kind of serious information.
Eric Swalwell slept with a Chinese spy, allegedly, reportedly.
And Adam Schiff, it was even worse, frankly, than Swalwell.
Swalwell is a bloviating bag of air.
Adam Schiff, though, has been a little more nefarious than that.
He has lied.
And he's lied on behalf of really bad actors within the executive agencies to undermine the Trump administration, to advance the Russia hoax, to undermine, as far as I'm concerned, American self-government.
And so one of the big concessions that the conservatives wanted to get out of a McCarthy speakership was, you need to go after the weaponization of the FBI and the other government agencies against conservatives.
And this is a great move in that direction.
By taking these people off their committees, specifically by taking Schiff off the committee, Kevin McCarthy is signaling that he is going to get serious about the weaponization of the agencies.
He is going to take the bad left-wing actors in the intelligence community down a peg.
And the first step is going to be taking these absolute loose cannons off of the Intel and Foreign Affairs Committee.
So, good on him.
Good start to the speakership.
And then you turn to Matt Gaetz, one of the people who was leading the charge of the 20 holdouts against McCarthy, and you say, okay, well, if McCarthy seems to be magnanimous in victory, are those 20 holdouts, are they still angry?
Is the Republican caucus still fractured?
Are the Republicans going to be able to get absolutely nothing done like the liberal media told us they would?
Matt Gaetz says it's all going to be fine.
There was a tense moment late night Friday night when Congressman Mike Rogers, expected to be the next chairman of House Armed Services, confronted you.
You guys both serve on the Armed Services Committee.
What was that all about?
And are you guys going to be able to work together on Armed Services?
Mike Rogers is going to be a terrific chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and we share a deep commitment to our national defense, to our men and women in uniform, and of course, in a late-night moment of high drama, people can have moments of frustration, but Mike Rogers and I have a six-year productive working relationship.
We're going to work together wonderfully going forward, and I don't think there should be any punishment or reprisal just because he had an animated moment.
He has my forgiveness and And certainly is someone who's done great things for our national defense and will continue to do those great things.
Great answer from Gates.
That's a great answer.
It's very magnanimous of Gates and the other conservatives as well.
It's all working out just fine, folks.
And so regardless of this incident that got a lot of play about Mike Rogers lunging at Matt Gaetz, I don't think he was actually going to punch him in the face, but he was clearly pretty animated.
It was a high-intensity moment.
As part of this high-intensity three or four days, You had the establishment Republicans calling the conservatives terrorists.
You had the conservatives saying that McCarthy was basically no different from a Democrat.
It was a moment of intense rhetoric, and the libs and the squishes, they all said, this means the Republican Party is over, they're a mess.
No.
Some of us, as this was happening, we said, this is constitutional government in action.
This is how things are supposed to be in the Congress.
You fight, you negotiate hard, you get concessions, you're not supposed to just get rubber-stamped into whatever leadership position you want, and then you move on, and you come back together after a few difficult days.
You come back together, you're stronger for it.
The Libs still want to spread this idea that there is historic chaos in the Republican Congressional Caucus.
The historic chaos in the House of Representatives this past week embarrassed not only a party, but an entire nation.
A small minority blocked the House from electing a leader or even swearing in its own members.
Vote after vote, a would-be speaker could not bring himself to stand aside in favor of a colleague.
Yes, it was only for a few days in January.
But if members of the incoming majority party can't bring themselves to support a new leader, then one wonders what happens when Congress faces tough decisions on budgets, taxes, defense, or raising the debt ceiling.
Actually, governing.
I'm Leslie Stahl.
We'll be back next week with another edition of 60 Minutes.
What happens when the congressional Republicans face real tough issues?
What are they going to do?
I guess now they're going to debate those issues.
A prospect that strikes fear into the heart of liberals like Leslie Stahl.
Oh no!
Those Republicans, they were just supposed to rubber stamp whatever the liberal establishment wanted.
But now, some of them are actually...
Debating the issues?
They're making arguments?
They're questioning the liberal agenda?
And perhaps even impeding that agenda?
Oh my gosh!
Can you imagine anything worse?
These Republican congressmen, if they're willing to put up a fight on principle and exact concessions from the establishment wing of their party, by golly...
They might not just go along with the whole liberal agenda.
Oh my goodness.
They might actually fight back and make arguments.
Oh boy.
We can't have any of that.
This is Congress.
We're not supposed to have any debates here.
Now When the government does not debate things, when they just go along blindly into unwise, imprudent sorts of policies, you get things like multi-year lockdowns.
Now, if your business was locked down for any period of time because of COVID, you might be entitled to a refund.
That's why you've got to check out Refunds Pro.
Right now, go to refundspro.com.
If you own a small to medium-sized business that kept employees on payroll through COVID, you may have a big cash refund waiting for you.
The employee retention credit is a tax credit of up to $26,000 per employee.
Right now, more businesses than ever qualify.
The experts over at refundspro.com, that's plural refunds because there's a lot of money out there for you, can help you out through the red tape and qualify for this government program.
Most of their refunds are over $100,000.
Even businesses that have received PPP funds may be eligible.
There are absolutely no fees unless you receive a refund.
There is no reason not to apply.
If your business experienced shutdowns, limited capacity, supply chain challenges, reduced revenue due to COVID, you very likely qualify.
Refundspro.com has already helped thousands of businesses.
Don't lose the refund you're owed by missing the deadline.
Get started today with a free five-minute questionnaire at refundspro.com.
That is refunds with an S, pro.com.
Speaking of COVID, speaking of establishment propaganda, Jimmy Fallon.
Jimmy Fallon was always my favorite of the new crop of late-night hosts.
He seemed to be the least overtly hostile to conservatives, the most fun, the most entertaining.
Certainly the most talented.
Jimmy Fallon has just...
Just play the clip.
There was Alpha, Ben Delta, Ben Omicron next.
But this latest variant might be the best It's XGB.1.5 Another brand of COVID-19 has arrived It's a new strain, but it isn't the same Sounds more like Elon Musk's kid's name It's XBB.1.5 Got UB40 who sings Red Red Wine Put on your mask when you're inside a facility It
could be a robot from a Star Wars trilogy It's XBB.1.5 Not OMG or MP3 or DCBY Or an eye chart made by a really high guy Sounds like the password of your parents' Wi-Fi It's XBB.1.5 XBB.1.5 So I'm
always trying to see the good in things It's hard to see the good in that absolutely cringe-inducing performance.
But are we at least now admitting that COVID is a total joke?
I guess that's what we're doing now.
Because you don't do little song and dance routines about serious illnesses.
You don't do a song and dance routine.
Some people have AIDS! HIV and AIDS, AIDS, AIDS. You don't see late night hosts doing that.
You don't see people singing songs and dance routines about cancer or about serious illnesses, but they do now sing song and dance routines about COVID. Ha ha ha, tee hee hee, there's another round of COVID, which is fine.
I think it's fine to make light, even of things that cause some suffering and inconvenience and even things that really are quite unpleasant.
But the regime, the ruling political order, locked down our country for two and a half years over this thing.
They locked down our country.
They said it was so serious that we had to take unprecedented action to destroy businesses, close churches, have our loved ones die alone, destroy your career, kick you out of the army, kick you out of your healthcare job, kick you out of school.
Because of how serious COVID was.
And then, oh, just kidding!
COVID! Ha ha!
Tee hee hee!
It's a joke, don't you get it?
Why aren't you laughing with me?
Hee hee hee!
It reminds me of when Stephen Colbert, on his own late night show, decided to do a song and dance routine about the COVID vaccine.
Remember this?
So there's Colbert.
I actually shouldn't downplay his talent either.
I was saying Jimmy Fallon was obviously the most talented.
You see, Stephen Colbert's a very good dancer.
He's actually a very funny physical performer, even though he's a tedious lib when he speaks.
Vaccine!
And it's Colbert there dancing around with people dressed up as giant syringes.
Which is a different kind of joke, by the way, than the joke that Jimmy Fallon was making.
In a way, Stephen Colbert's, though equally cringey, possibly even cringier, was more justifiable because Stephen Colbert was making light of the vaccine.
Everyone was nervous about the vaccine.
We now know rightly so because the vaccine was not Effective in the way that we were told it would be effective.
And the vaccine was not safe in the way that we were told it would be safe.
So people had legitimate fears about it.
And the establishment propaganda went into full force to convince people, oh, it's not a big deal.
So if you do a song and dance routine of, oh, tee-hee-hee, it's just a funny little vaccine.
Don't worry, it's a shot.
It's no big deal.
That makes some more sense.
Now, the establishment propaganda has become even more egregious.
Which is that they're telling you to laugh and giggle about the virus that they just recently had told you was so serious you had to lock down your whole life and put your whole life on pause or worse because of it.
Why is Jimmy Fallon doing this?
Either it means that Jimmy Fallon is just shilling the talking points that the powers that be want him to shill, which is possible.
I don't think he's some hard leftist, but he's a nice guy, go along to get along kind of guy.
He'll rub Donald Trump's hair when it's funny, and then he'll also sound like a big lib when it's funny, too.
So it could be that.
Or the scariest possibility is that libs and conservatives actually live according to totally different perceptions of reality.
If the libs actually believe that that kind of performance is funny, the performance of COVID or the vaccine dance or anything like that, then putting aside our views about A particular set of lockdown policies or anything like that.
It means that our perception of reality is just totally different.
Because there is nothing less funny.
There is nothing less intentionally funny that I've ever seen than those two performances about COVID. But for the libs, they really live in dread of, enthrall of COVID and Dr.
Fauci.
And they believed all of the propaganda and all of the nonsense.
And so it really might resonate with them.
That might be the scariest possibility of all.
Now, speaking of the science, one of the men who is held up as proof that we shouldn't always go along with the scientific consensus, he's finally striking back.
This is a man named Paul Ehrlich.
Paul Ehrlich is the man behind...
The population bomb.
This is a man behind the false idea that we were headed into a period of overpopulation in the 1960s and 70s.
And that this would cause, not might cause, would certainly cause mass famine all over the world.
This is a man who said that in order to avoid the problem of overpopulation, we needed to encourage people to use contraception and to kill their children through abortion.
And potentially to sterilize themselves.
And if we couldn't convince them to do that voluntarily, we should potentially do that by force.
This is a man on whose ideas China and India, to a degree, based their population control policies that forced the population to kill their own children, force the one-child policy in China, which they've now had to reverse because overpopulation was a complete lie, that in India caused...
Untold numbers of people to become sterilized in order to access basic things like food and water in the country.
Hideous.
Some of the cruelest, most hideous policies that we've seen in the last hundred years.
And Paul Ehrlich was proven totally wrong, and he is a punchline to conservatives.
I've mentioned him many times on this show.
Well, Paul Ehrlich is striking back.
Ehrlich says, this is in response actually to another story by 60 Minutes.
He says, 60 Minutes Extinction Story has brought the usual right wing out in force.
If I'm always wrong, so is science, since my work is always peer-reviewed, including the population bomb, and I've gotten virtually every scientific honor.
Sure, I've made some mistakes, but no basic ones.
I love this defense, because this is not the defense that Paul Ehrlich thinks that it is.
He says, look, if I'm always wrong, then so is science.
Because my work is always peer-reviewed, including the population bomb that predicted that there would be inevitably mass famines because of overpopulation by the mid-1970s and 1980s.
I've received every scientific honor.
So if I am wrong, then science is wrong.
So, okay, let me try to work out a little syllogism here.
If Paul Ehrlich is always wrong, then so is science.
That's number one.
Number two, Paul Ehrlich is always wrong.
His big claims are just wrong.
Therefore, I guess science is wrong.
And by the way, I gave a speech on this very topic just a couple of months ago at...
Where was I? I think I was at...
Was I at Franciscan or Wisconsin Lutheran University?
I forget.
Or Wisconsin Lutheran College.
It was one of my YAF speeches last semester.
You can find it online.
Science is fake.
I'm not saying that...
I'm not making any particular claim about any particular scientific theory, other than, I guess, Paul Ehrlich, because the population bomb theory was totally wrong.
He says, I've never made any basic mistakes.
Pretty sure predicting inevitable mass worldwide famines within 10 years, when in fact the opposite happened, when in fact instead of overpopulation starving everybody, the world population doubled and malnutrition fell to an all-time low.
I'm pretty sure that's a basic mistake.
But regardless, my claim...
That Paul Ehrlich appears to be demonstrating is that the scientific view of the world, the idea that the world is basically reducible just to its physical elements, that there is no metaphysical level beneath the world, and that the scientific method is sufficient for understanding the fundament of reality if the fundament of reality is physical.
That idea, the idea of That has been promoted by the scientific revolution is totally wrong, just like Paul Ehrlich.
Speaking of controversial science, the former head of Media Matters, one of the big heads of Media Matters, Parker Malloy, may have left Media Matters.
That's the left-wing activist organization that...
Putatively exists to get us all fired that has tried to destroy my career many times, but I've always considered them to be my unpaid publicists.
They always clip out some of the really best moments of my show, so I really thank them.
The former, one of the big people behind Media Matters, has apparently left, is now writing a substack, just like all of these people do when they leave their jobs.
But she had a really funny headline.
She says, the New York Times declares war on LGBTQ people with the hire of an anti-trans columnist.
I said, oh, the New York Times hired an anti-trans columnist and is thereby declaring war on LGBTQ people.
Who would that columnist be?
David French.
She's talking about David French.
You may or may not know who David French is.
David French previously was a pretty much conservative columnist, conservative libertarian type columnist who wrote for conservative outlets.
And then now he has become a liberal columnist who writes for The Atlantic and now The New York Times.
The pivot in David French's career, the reason that he shifted from being a center-right conservative person to being a liberal person is because he defended the transgender agenda.
Yeah.
The knock, the reason that David French has aroused the ire of pretty much everybody on the right Is because in a debate with So Rabb Amari, David French claimed that drag queen story hour is one of the blessings of liberty, at which point James Madison, I think, rolled over in his grave.
Not only has David French defended transgenderism, he has defended exposing little children at the public library to these drag queen perverts who are jiggling around for them and twerking and doing all sorts of depraved things that obviously he has defended exposing little children at the public library to these drag queen perverts who That is the defining feature of this man's career now.
I'm sure he wishes that were not the case.
It's sad that that defines his career, but it does define his career.
So why do I mention it?
Because I care about the Media Matters lady or because I think that David French's literary pursuits are particularly interesting?
No.
I mention it as a warning to any conservative who might want to squish.
The libs will never like you.
They will never like you.
Even if you squish like a jellyfish, they still won't like you.
Even if you head on over and you disavow all of the conservatives and you say, look, I might be on the right.
I might be a conservative person, but I'm not like those mean evil conservatives.
I'm not like Donald Trump.
I'm not like the Daily Wire.
I'm not like Michael Knowles.
I'm not like...
Insert whatever conservative person you want.
No, no, no.
I'm a good conservative.
I read the New York Times.
I'm open-minded.
I totally want to redefine marriage and let Joe Biden win the presidency.
Hell, I'll even trans the kids.
Please don't hate me.
Please like me.
They still won't like you.
They still won't like you.
They view you as the enemy.
You will never go far enough over to be acceptable to them.
They will call you, even if the defining feature of your career is going radically woke on the transgender question, they will still call you anti-trans.
They will still call you an LGBTQ hater.
Just know that going in.
If you sincerely completely change your entire view, And you're not just trying to get an audience, and you're not just trying to be acceptable at cocktail parties.
If you sincerely say, okay, I renounce my political beliefs, I renounce my faith, I renounce my friends, I renounce everything, and maybe then you've got a shot.
But if you're trying to be a CNN Republican, if you're trying to be a New York Times conservative, almost without exception, I guess Ross Douthat would be One rare kind of exception.
But all the rest of them, all the rest of them will not be able to maintain their conservative cred, as Ross Douthat sort of uniquely has.
And if you just try to be acceptable to the libs, they will not accept you.
It's just not going to happen.
Speaking of weird sex stuff, this is the most disturbing story that I have read in weeks.
If you've got little kids listening right now, maybe just skip ahead a minute or two.
Last Friday, 11 people appeared before the High Court in Glasgow, accused of operating a satanic cult which abused two young girls and a boy who were allegedly forced to engage in witchcraft rituals and subjected to sexual and violent abuse by members of the group.
The court heard testimony that the two young girls and the young boy had been forced to kill animals, use a Ouija board, or a similar sort of tool, To call on spirits and demons in witchcraft ceremonies, the children were then forced into performing satanic seances, including drinking blood and eating a heart.
One of the alleged girl victims was reported to have been locked in a fridge, a freezer, a microwave, and an oven in an attempt to kill her.
Okay, that's the disturbing stuff.
You can raise the volume back up again if you're listening with young children.
Obviously, an insanely disturbing story.
But the point of the story that is going to be discussed, if it is discussed at all, in the liberal media is that there was this pedophile ring and they abused children sexually.
That part is actually the easiest part to understand.
It's easy for people in our modern liberal decadent age to recognize that sex is a powerful motivator and some people are perverts and people can commit sex crimes.
That part, it's disturbing to anybody with even a shred of a conscience, but it's at least easy to understand.
The part that's very difficult for people to understand in our modern liberal scientific age is the satanic witchcraft Occult ritual of it all.
That part, people have a really hard time getting.
They say, look, I understand how a pervert could want to commit a sexual crime.
Why the hell did they pull out a Ouija board?
Why were they doing weird witchcraft stuff?
Why were they calling up...
That can't be real.
That doesn't...
The hard part to understand isn't the pedophile stuff.
It's the satanic stuff.
Because even the libs, even the people who are trying to normalize pedophilia, I suppose perhaps especially the people who are trying to normalize pedophilia and refer to pedophiles as minor attracted persons and all the rest of it, they believe in pedophilia.
Everybody believes that exists.
Half of the people around today, maybe more, do not believe that Satan exists.
I always go back to this amazing interview in New York Magazine in 2011, I think it was, between some young, know-nothing liberal reporter and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative.
And somehow, heaven and hell came up.
And the reporter goes, do you believe in heaven and hell?
And he goes, yeah.
And she goes, that's got to be awful scary to live in a world with hell and And he goes, you know, in a theatrical whisper, he says, I even believe in the devil.
She goes, well, boy, you got to be shaking in your boots believing in the devil.
He goes, do you know how out of touch you seem?
Do you realize that people throughout all of history have believed in the devil?
Do you realize that many more intelligent people than you or I believe in the devil?
And she didn't know what to say.
I always go back to Hamlet.
There are more things in heaven and earth, the ratio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
And I can't help but notice when you read these stories of the pedo sex rings that we were all told were total conspiracy theories until they keep being proven again and again and again, including some of the most prominent, wealthy, powerful people in the world, You can't call it a crazy conspiracy theory after the Jeffrey Epstein stuff came to light.
But I can't help but notice, it always seems to involve something more than just the physical body.
You look at Jeffrey Epstein's weird petto island, there's this bizarre pagan Egyptian temple-looking thing there.
You look at the cases of sexual abuse in religious communities, in non-religious communities, it always seems to involve weird occult rituals.
The stories one hears about this from people who have been convicted of it very often goes back to Satan.
I wonder why that is.
I wonder why that is.
Why does it always keep coming back to the same sort of imagery?
Maybe it's because many more intelligent people than you and I have believed in the devil.
Speaking of devilish things, Andrew Tate, the most Googled man on earth last year.
I don't know where this guy came from.
He seemed to pop out of nowhere, which always makes me suspect.
Always makes me a little bit skeptical and makes people seem suspect to me.
But my producers one time said, you got to watch this guy, Andrew Tate.
So I did.
I reacted to some of his videos.
And I said, you know, he's saying things that contradict the established liberal dogma.
So for that, I guess he ought to be applauded or at least we ought to entertain him.
But he's also saying things that seem pretty degenerate.
Isn't he a pimp?
Doesn't he run a weird sex online business?
And that's not good.
That's not conservative at all.
That should be discouraged.
So then Andrew Tate gets arrested for apparently running a criminal sex trafficking ring.
And some people on the right have rushed to his defense.
I don't really know what the defense is.
I mean, the defense could be he's not being arrested because he's a sex trafficker.
He's being arrested because the libs hate him.
Yeah, that could be true.
I mean, they let Epstein operate with impunity for years.
They don't go after the sexual criminals on their own side.
And they promote sex work as real work.
So they don't sincerely believe that sex trafficking is a problem.
But Nevertheless, the question is, did he do these things?
Did this guy commit crimes?
And there's a video that's just come to light of Andrew Tate bragging that his whole business was a scam.
Here's, maybe this is a bit bad.
Here's where the famoose would start.
So it'd be good, like, I had a lot of girls who worked for me, and the best was, like, the Ukrainians or the Russians.
It was amazing.
Because they'd get some guy, fall in love, they'd arrange the day to meet, all this sh**, da-da-da-da.
Ah!
I need a visa.
Okay, get a visa.
I need money for a visa.
Okay, how much is a visa?
It's $900.
No, but it's not $900 because I went to the embassy.
They think I'm a risk and I need a return flight there and back and I need a hotel.
I need to have spending money in my bank account and they won't let me come.
How much do you need?
Alright, 10 grand.
Boom.
10 G's.
Boom.
Thanks.
Wow.
Go to the embassy.
Take a picture outside the embassy.
Boom.
Come back.
They rejected my visa.
They said we have to wait two weeks.
After two weeks, they'll give it to me.
Okay, baby.
Boom.
Two more weeks of tips.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Because now he thinks he's going to f***, right?
He thinks he'll get the girls.
Now he's spending more than ever.
Two weeks, two weeks, two weeks.
Two weeks come.
Some other problem.
Whether it's Viso, whatever, whatever.
We make up some bullsh**, right?
All these OnlyFans chicks can learn from you, man.
No, this is like a free...
Free OnlyFans tutorial here in the DMs.
Yeah, people would say, why did those girls work for you?
Because the girls would work for me, and at 50%, because it was 50-50, would make millions per month.
If they worked for themselves, they'd make f**king nothing.
I was the best in the f**king game.
Me and I had a whole team of staff.
Now, one thing you always have to ask yourself with online self-help guru promoter guys like this is, are they telling the truth?
And we have no reason to believe that Andrew Tate is telling the truth because the thing that he is talking about is how he's a liar.
So if you present yourself in public as a liar, then I can't believe you.
In fact, I can't even believe any specific claim of you lying and scamming.
Because you might, though you are dishonest in other ways and claiming to be dishonest, you may actually be being truthful or dishonest about being dishonest.
You see how it gets very confusing.
But if this part is true, and he's the best in the effing game, and I'm scamming all these guys, then isn't that fraud?
Isn't that a crime?
Isn't that, should we really be surprised that you get arrested?
And even if you say, well, there's plenty of scammers, plenty of fraudsters, plenty of pimps out there, they don't get attacked by the liberal regime.
Right, but you've made a name for yourself attacking all these liberal orthodoxies.
Meanwhile, you're bragging about all the crimes that you're committing, so you're just showing your neck to your enemies.
Not very good stuff.
In any case, none of this particularly virtuous or worth emulating, I strongly suspect.
We're going to be moving on to calls.
I'm very, very excited.
We've finally got the technology.
We finally now have technology from the 1970s to receive your calls live.
And I get to talk to you and hear your beautiful dulcet tones live.
Of course, you have to be a Daily Wire Plus member right now, so you've got to call 1-855- We're good to go.
Your membership also gets you tons of other ad-free content from yours truly, such as Choosing Death, such as Fauci Unmasked, ad-free.
It is the word of the day.
It might just be the last time you have to hear me say it, because there won't be any more ads.
Right now, you can use code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to get two months free on all annual plans.
Go to dailywire.com slash Knowles to become a member and get this show and so many others ad-free.
dailywire.com slash Knowles.
Mr.
Davies, do we have callers on the line?
Excellent.
All right, let's turn first to Dean from Wisconsin.
Dean, you are on the line.
Good morning, Michael.
Thanks for taking my call.
I just was going to point out in our diocese on the day that Pope Benedict died, it was also the day that our diocese implemented a ban on the celebration of the Latin Mass.
In the extraordinary form.
So they're saying, oh, you can use Novus Ordo, but not the old Rite Latin Mass anymore.
My question, you might not have the specific answer to this, maybe you can bring on an expert in the members' block, but can each pope just flip-flop on this issue, or does some sort of a decree need to come down from the Vatican saying the Latin Mass may be celebrated Obviously,
our diocese has had quite a difficult reaction Well, Dean, first of all, I have to say, I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Not about your faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and your membership in the Holy Catholic Church, but your lack of faith in me that you think I have to bring an expert on to the member block?
Come on, man.
Though probably I should.
The short answer to your question is, Practically speaking, yes, the popes can flip-flop on this question.
Now, it's more complicated than that, because as far as I can tell, Pope Pius V gives us the right to the Latin Mass in perpetuity, as far as I'm concerned, in my limited knowledge.
Again, I'm not a doctor of the Church.
I'm not a theologian.
People don't ask my opinion on these things.
But this is the mass of the ages that has existed for basically the entire history of the Church.
And the radical liturgical reform, which may have had good intentions, maybe it didn't, but in any case, it led to a deformation of the liturgy in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s.
It did not achieve any of the things that it was intended to achieve.
It did not increase participation.
It did not bring the youths back to the mass by bringing in all sorts of electric guitars or whatever.
And so what Pope Benedict did, not being a total conservative, not being a total trad, but not being a lib either, is he tried to, in the spirit of tradition, to reform the reform and to bring that back.
And then it was...
Later on, suppressed by Pope Francis, unfortunately.
But there are still places for it.
There are still the Priestly Fraternity of St.
Peter, the Institute of Christ the King.
There are some diocesan Latin masses, depending on which diocese you're in.
So yeah, I suppose we just have to pray that the Lord will bring back this very beautiful, reverent, highest form of prayer, which is the Holy Mass in a proper liturgy.
And it reminds me of an important phrase, lex irandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
The way that we worship is going to affect the way that we believe.
It's not just the other way around.
It's not just the way we believe is going to affect the way we worship.
The way we worship is going to affect the way we believe and the way that we live our lives because we're incarnate beings in time and space.
And I do have faith, though, that it will all work out in the end.
Because to quote Hilaire Belloc, he says that he is forced to believe, as I am by faith, that the Catholic Church really is divinely instituted.
But a good evidence for its divine institution to nonbelievers is that no other institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.
So keep the faith, Dean.
Good to hear from you.
Next up is Mark from Nashville.
Mark, you're on the air.
Hey, Michael.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.
I don't know if you've heard about this story about the government trying to ban gas stoves for safety.
Do you think it's more likely that it is actually for safety or so that we can continue shipping all of our natural gas overseas to Europe in an effort to sanction Russia?
Mark, since you phrased the question that way, I think I know which angle you're coming at this from.
I had just seen the headline yesterday that all of a sudden now, I think it was in California, people are claiming gas stoves are terrible.
And I find when I cook, gas stoves are much better to cook on than electric stoves.
I've had both.
I grew up with an electric stove.
Since then, I've had some gas stoves.
It's much better to cook on the gas.
So you're suggesting...
Do you think that the big push now against the gas stoves is that the powers that be in commerce and in the government basically just want to export more of that gas?
Well, it's obviously for safety.
No, of course.
Of course, they just want to export the gas to Europe to try and stick it to Russia and to, I guess, demoralize us.
It started with the shower heads, and now gas stoves, they're so effective.
They're so great.
And now they want to ban them, just like those high-flow shower heads.
They were so great.
It's funny you mention this, Mark, because I always felt this way with the light bulbs.
We were told you had to get rid of incandescent light bulbs and use those hideous fluorescent or LED things.
Because they're better for the sun monster so that we don't get killed in global warming or whatever.
Mother Gaia will be happier if we replace our beautiful warm light with some hideous flashing light.
And for a while it was illegal.
Don't forget, Congress banned those light bulbs.
And then Michelle Bachman, great accomplishment by Congress Lady Michelle Bachman.
She comes in and she says, no, you get the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act.
And so I don't know.
I mean, I just saw the headline.
You're actually giving me a more interesting idea on it than any first reaction I had.
But I wouldn't be terribly surprised, because when you see legislation coming down the pike, it rarely happens by accident, and it rarely happens for a...
Purely abstract reason.
Very often there are moneyed interests and powerful interests behind pushing every piece of legislation.
So I keep an open mind on your theory, Mark.
Before we go, let's get to Brian from New Hampshire.
Brian, what's going on?
Mr.
Knowles, it is your favorite resident bass player in the chat slot, my bass.
What's going on, man?
Oh, I'm so glad to hear your voice live.
I am a big fan of your comments and your music, but great to hear you live.
What's up?
How can I help you?
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, I kind of had a hard time trying to pick out a topic to discuss, and I was actually going to call Ben about this, but I could never get through.
So, I guess the question I will have is...
How can we be sure to hold politicians more accountable for their actions as it seems like the current methods that we have whether it be asking our congressmen to reach out to the Senate or basically just like everybody standing on the lawns and protesting doesn't seem to be Quite as effective.
And basically, at the same time, the stormtroopers will come in and arrest anybody who is protesting the non-left.
Right.
So, do you have any suggestions for people who would like to hold their senators, their House of Representatives more accountable?
I would have almost thought, like, gather a group of people and actually go into the building.
Not, like, January 6th.
Here we go.
Here comes the horn hat.
Yeah, not like the Hornet guy.
But I mean, go in, just politely say to the secretary, hey, we'd like to speak with our governor, and almost like an in-person confrontation.
Yeah, I don't know that that is going to be terribly effective, because what that will do is that will cause your representative to view you as an enemy.
If you're physically aggressive in that way, that would be an escalation that I just don't...
I'm not opposed to it in principle.
I just think...
And I know that you're not suggesting anything violent.
You're suggesting being very polite.
But I just think the reaction to that will not be to say, okay, let me hear out the concerns of these people.
I don't think that's really going to work.
I do think that phone calls and things like boycotts actually work a lot better than most people believe that they do.
This is how Media Matters operated for years and years and years.
What Media Matters would do is they'd clip out some little bit that either I said or any other conservative figure or media host.
And then they would get their list of 20 to 100 people to call a company and say, you need to pull your sponsorship from this person.
It's not a lot of people.
We're talking often like 20 people.
But when you are that secretary and you're hearing that, it doesn't come to you as a physical threat so that you're reacting very strongly against these people.
But you do perceive that as a brand threat, and so you will take that more seriously.
But more importantly than all that, The way that you get your government to be more responsive is you need structural change.
It's not just the individuals.
Very often the individuals don't have very much power.
The problem is...
One problem in this regard is that the Congress, for instance, just delegated a lot of its power away to executive agencies that don't need to answer the phone when you call.
And so the Congress can throw its hands in the air and say, listen, I didn't do anything.
The Congress, because of the rules instituted under Nancy Pelosi, did not have a lot of ability to introduce amendments on the floor of the House or to recall a speaker if the speaker was wielding too much power in an unaccountable way.
Or to stop the debt ceiling from being wasted, or any of these other issues.
And so I mention those specific examples because those 20 holdout conservatives the other day who deprived McCarthy of the speakership for three or four days, they exacted a lot of concessions that are structural.
They're not political issues per se.
They're meta-political issues.
They're issues about how politics is conducted.
So One issue in this regard would be the border wall or immigration enforcement.
It's sort of a political issue, but it's really a meta-political issue because it's about who comes into the country and then who is going to participate in the republic.
That's where the change has to take place.
If we keep fighting it on these little individual issues or only putting lawn signs in our yard...
Got to put the lawn sign out there, but you've got to do more than that.
That's not going to give you the kind of significant change that you want.
You've got to take on the issue a level above.
Not just about politics, but the politics of politics.
