Ep. 1379 - Libs Accuse A Kid Of "Blackface" During NFL Game
The libs accuse a kid of wearing blackface at a KC Chief game, former speaker Kevin McCarthy says America never fought wars for land, and Romney says he’d vote for a Democrat over Trump or Vivek.
Ep.1379
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the official Lady Ballers movie trailer now: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Save an additional 10% off the December Sale! Use promo code KNOWLES at checkout. https://bit.ly/43G8p0P
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 to check out Birch Gold’s Holiday Deals! Get FREE Silver today! https://birchgold.com/knowles
EnviroKlenz - Save 35% off your EnviroKlenz home air purification unit.
Promo code KNOWLES35 at http://www.EKPURE.com
PragerU - It’s Giving Tuesday with PragerU, have your donation matched today! http://www.PragerU.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
The Libs are trying to cancel a kid at a Kansas City Chiefs game for allegedly wearing blackface.
Yesterday, Deadspin demanded, quote, the NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface native headdress.
They're doubling up on racism, the outlet wrote.
Are you going to say anything, Roger Goodell?
The fan in question was a little kid, and while the picture that the outlet used showed him in profile with black paint on his face, a picture from the front shows that he had painted his face half black and half red.
That is, in the team's colors.
He also wore a headdress, because it's the Kansas City Chiefs.
The journalists who ran this are obviously totally awful, despicable, little left-wing cretins for picking on this kid.
But the conservatives are missing something, too.
Because the conservative defense of this kid thus far has largely been confined to the observation that he wasn't actually wearing blackface!
That is weak sauce.
Because the deeper error in the Libs' attack is that, contrary to what the left selectively argues today, there is nothing inherently wrong about blackface at all.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
This episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers.
Head over to goodranchers.com to find all your gifts this year.
Use code NOLS to save a bonus of 10% today on top of their December sale.
Mitt Romney would rather vote for a Democrat than for Trump or Vivek Ramaswamy.
We'll get to that in a second.
First, though, I don't want to move on too quickly from what is almost guaranteed to be my Media Matters highlight clip of the day, which is that there's nothing inherently wrong with blackface.
And it's just a fact, and I think it's ridiculous that anyone even pretends to contradict this today.
You don't need to take my word for it.
Here is proof that there is nothing inherently wrong with blackface.
Care of, I don't know, the last however many decades you can possibly remember from Hollywood.
Sammy!
Sammy, great to see you.
There we go, there's Billy Crystal as Sammy Davis Jr.
Great impression.
Man, I got to tell you, man.
My body is my temple.
There's Jimmy Kimmel as Oprah.
I've seen who wants to be a millionaire, and guess what?
Not a lot of black folks on the show.
Jimmy Fallon as Chris Rock.
Hilarious, it's a great impression.
You know why?
Because black folks don't like to answer questions.
You're serious?
You don't know?
One of the great performances ever, Robert Downey Jr.
Everybody knows you never go full retard.
I look like the beautiful Queen Letty.
Sarah Silverman, not as great a performance, but she's doing a blackface kind of joke there too.
You're a genius, Eddie.
John Slattery and Mad Men doing a full-on swanny, blackface, minstrel performance.
And then Dan Aykroyd.
The game.
I certainly want enough spears on the train for me.
With Eddie Murphy.
Nenge, Nenge Yomboko from Cameroon.
Do you remember me?
It's Lionel Joseph.
Lionel.
So a lot of times conservatives will point to these clips when Whenever some lib calls us racist, we point to these clips and we say, so no, you're the real racists because you did blackface.
But I actually don't see anything wrong with any of those performances, any of them.
Not one.
They were all fine.
Even from the libs.
Even Jimmy Kimmel making fun of Oprah.
That was funny.
Even Sarah Silverman, which is the edgiest one there because she's doing actual, like, grease, blackface minstrel show performance.
It's obviously ironic what she's doing.
She's obviously making a commentary on it.
It's totally fine.
Now, people draw a distinction.
They will say, well, there's a difference between doing an impression of an actual black person and doing blackface in the old minstrel tradition.
And I agree, and certainly Jimmy Fallon doing an impression of Chris Rock is much more easily defended than someone doing, you know, an old Al Jolson number.
But I wouldn't even write off the Al Jolson numbers so quickly.
Here's why.
Most people who attack blackface do so in a really convenient way to score some cheap political point like they're trying to attack a kid at a Kansas City Chiefs game.
But how many know the actual history of it?
People think that blackface was merely a performance of white people to make fun of caricatures of black people.
That isn't true.
So if we're going to cancel blackface, even the most difficult to defend, the old minstrel theatrical tradition, are we going to cancel Billy Kersan's?
Billy Kersans is a name, if you've ever heard it, you've probably only ever heard of it on this show.
Billy Kersans was one of the most famous minstrel performers ever in American history, and he was a black guy.
And he did blackface, but he was a black guy.
And very successful thespian, writer, comedian, performer.
He came up with the Aunt Jemima character, which also got cancelled later on by liberal white people because they said it was racist or something.
Cancelled a black character portrayed by a black woman written by a black comedian.
Nope, has to go away because the white liberals don't like it anymore.
Should we cancel Billy Kersanz?
Should we cancel an entire major form of the American theatrical tradition?
Are we going to cancel the jazz singer?
It's the first talkie ever.
Starring Al Jolson because it has a blackface performance in it?
Now, let's say that you're a big lib and you want to do that.
You say, okay, yeah, well, we actually do have to cancel that whole genre of character.
Including the black performers who put on a kind of blackface show because it's offensive and portrays negative stereotypes and whatever.
Are you going to cancel Tracy Morgan?
Tracy Morgan, great comedian.
His characters throughout the years have been hilarious.
One of the great characters on 30 Rock, which is one of the great sitcoms.
He is effectively doing a minstrel performance.
And in fact, they even allude to that on a later episode of 30 Rock, where Alec Baldwin, as a white guy, does a performance of Tracy Morgan's family, which is largely in the minstrel tradition.
Are we going to cancel that?
Maybe.
They're probably going to cancel that episode.
We're going to cancel Tracy Morgan?
How about a lot of those shows in the 1970s that were great shows, but which were sometimes accused of minstrelsy?
Shows like Good Times, The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son.
Are we going to cancel those?
I don't know.
Just seems to me kind of crazy.
One time, I was in a Cadillac Uber in LA.
And it was a Cadillac, so I had a feeling the driver was a conservative and that the driver was a black guy.
And there was one of these Controversy non-troversies over blackface that came on and it comes on the radio or whatever he was listening to podcast and he said, oh man, that's that's crazy And I said, what's crazy?
Wearing blackface?
He goes, oh, blackface is fine, man.
It's fine, as long as it's all in good fun.
I don't care.
You want to dress up like some other guy of the opposite race?
Who cares?
That's all fun, as long as it's in good spirits.
And I think that's actually the distinction here.
But the Libs are not doing anything in good spirits or good faith.
They're attacking a little kid for wearing his team's colors to a football game.
A football game that's already going to have a lot of cameras on it because Taylor Swift's boyfriend plays for the team.
Absolutely despicable.
Speaking of sports journalism, Sports Illustrated is in hot water.
Sports Illustrated is in hot water because Futurism, another outlet, has just done an investigation and accused Sports Illustrated of publishing articles generated by AI.
That's right.
Futurism then asked Sports Illustrated about the alleged AI written articles, and then they deleted everything.
Ooh, they got him, right?
It's a long exposé.
I didn't read the whole thing.
I don't really see why I would, because I don't see why I would care.
I hate to defend Sports Illustrated.
Sports Illustrated has gone super lib.
Why do I care if some computer wrote up content?
If I like the content, I probably don't, I don't read Sports Illustrated, but if the content itself is fine, why do I care if it was written by a computer or by a human being?
I'll go further.
I bet that AI is capable of writing much more interesting, instructive, edifying articles than many so-called journalists today.
Many so-called journalists are just effectively inferior robots.
What do they get?
They get their talking points, they were indoctrinated in some lib school, and they know five things, and they repeat the same tired cliches, and they just use whatever phrases are fashionable on the woke left, and they ram it all in there into some stupid article.
Okay, if I'm gonna read robot-generated journalism anyway, why wouldn't I go for the real robot that's got the latest AI rather than the robot who was churned out of some liberal university?
I see no problem with it whatsoever.
I almost could maybe start to see a problem if we're talking about some great work of literature.
Even there, I don't really care that much.
But if we're talking about some magazine that you read in the dentist's office, why do I care?
Why is this some big expose?
It's gonna put liberal journalists out of work.
Awesome.
Great.
Three cheers for AI.
Where do I donate?
Now, speaking of donations, speaking of your wealth, you gotta check out Birchgold.
Right now, text NOLS to 989898.
Diversify your savings with precious metals while stockpiling silver in your home safe with Birchgold Group's Special of the Year now through December 22nd.
For every $5,000 you spend with Birchgold, they will send you a one-ounce Silver Eagle coin for free.
Text KNOLLS, K-N-O-L-L-E-S to 989898 to claim your eligibility now.
You can purchase gold and silver and have it shipped directly to your home, or have Birchgold's precious metals specialists help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
Keep it for yourself or give something with real value.
As a stocking stuffer this year, just text the keyword NOLS, Canada WLAS, to 989898 to claim your eligibility.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, now is the best time to buy gold from Birch Gold.
Text NOLS, Canada WLAS, to 989898, claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases before December 22nd.
That's NOLS, Canada WLAS, to 989898.
Yes to 98. 98. 98. Stock up now, baby.
Speaking of robotic narratives, Kevin McCarthy was just giving some debate.
I guess this was at the Oxford Union Society.
I guess that makes sense.
He's wearing a tuxedo, bow tie's a little askew.
But he made an argument that is the sort of thing you've heard from every Republican congressional candidate for your whole life.
This is the sort of thing that they teach you in how to be a young Republican school.
And it's an argument that former Speaker McCarthy made with great passion.
The problem is it's not true.
Peace without freedom is meaningless.
Think for one moment.
It is human nature that we all crave peace, but we never attain it unless we have freedom.
In every single war that America has fought, We have never asked for land afterwards except for enough to bury the Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for that freedom we went in for.
No problem.
No problem.
But the basis of their definition is wrong.
Intervention is not just military.
You see, I believe the greatest strength of America is not the aircraft carriers, is not the precision weapons.
America is more than a country.
America is an idea.
Okay, we've all heard this.
This is very strong 2010-2011 energy, but we've heard this for many decades now, especially from members of Congress.
And the problem is, it's obviously false.
America has fought many wars for land.
We fought our first war from land, and we took this land from the Brits.
Then we fought subsequent wars for land.
We fought wars for land against the Indians.
I think totally justifiable wars.
We fought a war against Spain, and then we got a lot of land from Spain as a result of that.
We've fought a lot of wars for land.
Okay, and I'm actually going to be going into that tonight.
I'm going to be speaking at Vanderbilt, right here in my own town.
If you're around, I think the speech is at 8 o'clock central.
It'll also be broadcast on the YAF YouTube channel, so you can go check that out as well.
But if you're in Nashville, come on by.
We are going to be defending such wars.
And we're going to be defending something that's really under attack these days.
And it's the notion of colonialism.
The notion of settlement.
We just celebrated Thanksgiving.
I celebrated it, you celebrated it, a lot of libs did not celebrate it.
Thanksgiving is when we give thanks to God for his many blessings and we commemorate a time when settlers came over here and settled this country and took land from people in some cases and set up important alliances and fought wars in some cases and then got the land and that's the country that we have today.
The reason that McCarthy's speech is frustrating here is one, it's so saccharine.
We've never taken one square inch of land from anyone other than to bury our dead for the totally selfless wars that we've fought every single time.
That's a little saccharine.
It's a little overstated.
But the other reason that this is frustrating is because if this is really what conservatives believe about our history, then we're sunk.
Because it means not only does the left misunderstand history, but the right does as well.
And so, you then have no party in America that's actually grappling with history.
And that means also that you're not grappling with reality.
And if you're not dealing in reality, ultimately you're not going to win.
You're not going to be able to defend against left-wing attacks on colonization and settlement and this-ism and that-ism.
You won't be able to do it.
In a way, the left understands history better than the conservatives do.
Because the left has, for better or worse, their own intellectual leaders who, I guess just for worse, where I'm talking about communists, I'm talking about people like Angela Davis, I'm talking about Herbert Marcuse, I'm talking about the Frankfurt School, I'm talking about Antonio Gramsci, I'm talking about even more recent people like Saul Alinsky, I'm talking about all the leftists who dominate the universities.
Do you want to talk about history?
I'm talking about Howard Zinn and the so-called People's History of the United States.
That's revisionist history.
It's a bunch of nonsense.
In the words of Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana, then president of Purdue, he said it's a bunch of excreble trash that should be banned from classrooms.
True.
But in order for Howard Zinn, in order for the leftists to rewrite history as they have, They had to at least have some inkling of the real history in the first place.
And when we repeat platitudes, nonsense, fantasies, like Kevin McCarthy is saying here, we've never fought any war for any land whatsoever, then we are absolutely vulnerable to the left-wing intellectual attacks.
We are defenseless.
We have no way of fighting them off.
When the libs come in and they say, America, you've just taken a bunch of land from other people.
And the best the conservatives can muster is, no, we can't!
America's not even a land, it's just an idea floating in outer space!
We're a pure abstraction, how dare you!
And then the libs can say, well, okay, you're completely wrong.
Hey, how about that?
How about the Spanish-American War?
How about the King Philip's War?
How about the Battle of Little Bighorn?
What happened after the Battle of Little Bighorn, guys?
Did you just give the Black Hills to the Lakota Sioux, or did you take it?
Oh, you took it, right?
Okay.
How about this war?
How about that war?
Oh, uh, yikes.
Hmm.
Uh, well, never mind, then.
Hey, guys, if America's just an idea, why do you want to build a wall on our southern border?
Uh, hmm, hummina, hummina, hummina.
You won't have an answer to it.
It's too bad.
I don't mean to knock McCarthy.
He seems like a nice guy.
And this is just what they teach you in how to be a congressional candidate school.
But it just isn't true.
Really, really weak sauce.
Now, speaking of schools, by the way, and speaking of not knowing anything, the Education Secretary, Mikel Cardona, has just stepped in it by quoting a Republican president, but getting the quote just a little bit wrong.
You know, we're going to set up follow-up calls with every governor we met with to make sure we're available.
As I think it was President Reagan said, we're from the government, we're here to help.
There are resources there, there's technical assistance there, and there's a playbook that could support the work you're doing.
Count on us as a partner in this.
Our students are waiting.
Thank you.
Was that the quote?
Did Ronald Reagan say, we're from the government and we're here to help?
Or did Ronald Reagan say, it's probably one of the most famous Reagan quotes, did Reagan say, the nine most frightening words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
I think it was the latter.
The meaning of which is obviously the opposite of what the education secretary said.
And a politician getting a quote wrong, even perfectly, totally wrong, a politician not knowing anything is scandalous enough.
But it's especially scandalous and ironic when it is the head of the Department of Education that tells you everything you need to know about the state of American education.
By the way, this guy wasn't just some random know-nothing congressman who got elevated by Biden as a political favor, which sometimes happens.
This guy was previously the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Education.
Before that, he was an elementary school principal.
He's been in education his whole life.
He's got four degrees.
He's got a Bachelor's, a B.S., an M.S., an S.Y.C., which is apparently some education specialist degree, and a Doctor of Education, an Ed.D.
And he exhibits a stunning ignorance.
And I don't want to attack him too much.
It's probably not his fault.
He got all these silly degrees.
The degrees don't mean anything anymore.
He went to a bunch of schools.
The schools don't really mean anything anymore.
And he's running a department that hasn't done anything productive basically ever.
And now people are making fun of him because he doesn't know anything about anything.
The Reagan quote was the opposite of what he said.
Reagan was also somewhat wrong in his quote.
How's that for a cliffhanger?
We'll get to that in one second.
First though, I've got to talk about my friends over at PragerU.
Right now go to PragerU.com, give a tax-deductible donation.
Today is Giving Tuesday, a national day of giving.
If you want to support an organization that shares your beliefs, now is the perfect time to give to PragerU.
Generous PragerU donors have committed to matching all gifts made today Your gift will ensure that PragerU continues to reach millions of young people with our educational, entertaining, pro-America content.
You know, I'm a PragerU host.
I host the book club over at PragerU.
I have done a lot of five-minute videos with PragerU.
I've written and been in a whole lot of PragerU content, and I just absolutely love it.
As they've expanded from the five-minute videos to different series, to influencers, to hit the youths, to PragerU's educational content, kids' content.
Did you know that 70% of young viewers change their minds on an important issue after watching a PragerU video?
Right now on Giving Tuesday, you can not only donate, but your donation will be doubled.
One Giving Tuesday donor will be selected to visit the PragerU headquarters in Los Angeles, watch a live taping of an upcoming PragerU video, and meet the team that makes the work possible.
This Giving Tuesday, please support PragerU.
All gifts will be matched.
PragerU.com.
Make a tax-deductible donation.
PragerU.com today.
I love Reagan!
I've visited the ranch.
I have read the Reagan books.
I quote Ronald Reagan regularly.
I have a Ronald Reagan belt buckle.
I love the guy, okay?
Please don't.
I have strong Gipper bona fides, but the man did get a few things wrong, okay?
And in his defense, he lived at a different time.
He was fighting a different enemy.
He was a cold warrior.
Now, we live in a different time, and we need to recognize that We can't just dig up the corpse of Ronald Reagan, try to reanimate him like a zombie and have him solve all of our problems.
And one thing, one little bit of Ronald Reagan wisdom, that if it was sufficient in the 80s, is no longer sufficient, is this quote that the Biden education secretary was trying to repeat, unsuccessfully.
The nine most frightening words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Not necessarily.
Government is not always bad.
Government exists for a reason.
Government exists.
It's a natural institution.
A man is the political creature.
We're a social animal.
It exists to enforce justice and to facilitate our all living together.
And the purpose of government is not merely to just totally leave us alone.
That would be called anarchy.
That would be the negation of government.
The purpose of government is Uh, to do good and avoid evil.
It's just like our own individual purposes.
And government can overstep.
This is why we have another principle called subsidiarity, which is the notion that decisions ought to be made at the most familiar and local level possible, where they can be efficiently and properly made and done.
But there is a role for government.
Okay, and the fact that conservatives have treated this funny little Reagan quip as, you know, the gospel truth, as the 11th commandment or something, is one of the reasons why we've lost.
Because we've ceded the political power to the left.
And then the libs wield that political power, and we stand on the side and we snicker.
And we say, you libs!
You unprincipled, tyrannical libs!
You think the government's going to solve your problems?
Yeah, the government's solving their problems.
We're their problem.
The conservatives are the liberals' problem and their use of the government is solving their problem by kicking us out of the public square and harassing us and surveilling us and taking away our rights and showing up at our homes and arresting us for nonsense.
Yeah.
The solution to that problem is to wield government properly with justice And not just cede the whole public square to the Libs.
Now, speaking of limits on government, there's a clip that just went viral of some lady in Ireland, this would be Irish Green Party Senator Pauline O'Reilly, discussing the battle between good on the one hand and freedom on the other.
When you think about it, all law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom.
That's exactly what we're doing here, is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.
You will see throughout our constitution, yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good.
Everything needs to be balanced.
And if your views on other people's identities Go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.
Okay, obviously Conservatives recoiling at this woman who is ultimately totally wrong.
But let's not allow her wrongness to lead us into another error, which is to reject the common good.
We hear this, we say, oh no, here comes some left-winger with their common good talk.
The common good, it's totally bogus.
We need to forget about the common good.
We just need freedom!
Freedom!
Unrand!
Freedom, baby!
Uh, no.
No.
The error that this woman is making is not in suggesting that We ought to recognize a common good and pursue it.
The error that this woman is making is not recognizing that some limits on our choice ought to be placed by the government in service of the common good.
That's been true in every state ever throughout all of human history.
The error that this woman is making is in believing that freedom, true freedom, And the common good, the true common good, are in opposition to one another.
They are not.
They are not in opposition to one another.
True freedom is, as Lord Acton has said, and I've mentioned it many times, even Lord Acton, beloved of the Libertarians, has pointed out that true freedom is not the ability to do whatever you wish, but the right to do what you ought.
Donoso Cortes, the counter-revolutionary philosopher, has pointed out that true freedom consists in the perfect will, being able to perfectly will something.
And being able to perfectly will something, which is, in a way, to do what you want, is contingent upon perfect intellect, perfect knowing.
This is why.
This definition, which is probably foreign to a lot of people who went to Kevin McCarthy had to be a young Republican school, which leads people into all sorts of errors, unfortunately.
This definition is probably a little bit foreign, but it's obviously the right one.
Because, as Stenoza-Cortez points out, if freedom is merely the ability to choose between opposites without any prejudice or preference whatsoever, with total neutrality And total, as like that lady would be using it, total freedom to choose.
If that were what freedom really were, then God would not be free because God cannot sin.
So, that is obviously not what freedom is.
It's certainly not what we in the West have thought that freedom has been for the vast majority of our history.
Only God is perfectly free because only God has perfect The perfect ability to will contingent upon perfect intellect.
Only God has that.
We can get a little closer to that.
That's through something called sanctification.
But this understanding of freedom is what explains that famous John Adams quote.
When John Adams says our Constitution's only built for moral and religious people, this is exactly what he's talking about.
Our Constitution, which secures for us the blessings of liberty, Only works if we are moral and religious.
That is to say, if we have disciplined our will as perfectly as we can, which is contingent upon educating ourselves and increasing our intellect as much as we can, of knowing the right things and thereby subsequently Doing the right things.
That's the only way we can have freedom.
Without that, our Constitution is totally worthless.
So says John Adams.
So say our Founding Fathers.
What this woman is really trying to say, this Irish woman, she's trying to say that we need to, or the good version of what she's saying is, we need to limit licentiousness in pursuit of people flourishing.
Which is obviously true.
The error that she is really falling into here Is, she is saying we need to limit actual rights that people have to support a vision of the common good that is totally wrong.
Namely, stopping, I don't know, transphobia or something, whatever the new liberal hobby horse is.
In order to preserve error, in order to allow people to further degrade themselves in society and fall into fantasy and confusion, We need to limit your actual rights to learn, to know, to speak, to live in the right way.
That's what's wrong.
She's got it completely upside down.
But the principle that there are limitations on our ability to choose that must be placed in service of a good which is worth seeking in a political community, that part is obviously true.
We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's amazing how sometimes a half-truth can come out to a total wrong, as that woman is proving.
Now, here's a good example of using the government to fight back.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has survived a major impeachment attempt on him, Has just initiated an investigation into my publicists over at Media Matters.
This following allegations of potential fraudulent activity related to the Media Matters hoax that it perpetrated on X and Elon Musk that could very well take down the whole social media platform based on a lie that Media Matters promoted.
Now, The moment that that hoax came out, Elon Musk said, I'm going to file a thermonuclear lawsuit on Media Matters.
And I tell you I'm torn on this because, well, Media Matters is obviously in the wrong and they've probably violated the law.
They also publicize a lot of my best content.
So, you know, I'm torn here.
We'll see.
Maybe I can just directly hire my Media Matters assignees and they can just work here out of the Daily Wire office.
I love that Ken Paxton is doing this because He's showing that politicians are not just going to rely on private businessmen to fix political problems.
The total domination by the left, by the unaccountable activist, largely private sector left, working hand-in-glove with the Biden administration so that the liberal establishment can have the private entities, so-called private entities, do their dirty work, like we found out in the Facebook files and thanks to Elon Musk's releases when he took over then Twitter.
Okay, that is a political problem.
And the conservatives who have followed the usual three bullet points of how to be a young Republican school that lead you into all sort of historical and philosophical error, they say, well, we just, we don't want to get the government involved.
Can you imagine if we use the government, then the left might also use the government to attack us.
Yeah.
Gee, you think, you think they'll do that?
Wow.
What a scary hypothetical.
If that had not already been happening for 60 years.
Yeah, that would be scary then, wouldn't it?
But I'm not worried about that hypothetical because it's been happening for a long time.
So I think maybe we should fight back.
The option is not between, you know, mutually assured destruction and not mutually assured destruction.
They're destroying us.
That's happening already.
The question is only are we going to fight back or not?
I really like this.
Ken Paxton doing this is a great corrective to something that we'd heard for a long time.
You know, we hear this phrase, politics is downstream of culture, which was popularized by Andrew Breitbart, and there's a lot of truth to it, and that's why The Daily Wire, we...
Live that out, because we're in the private sector, and so we make movies, and we make cigar companies, we make razor companies, we attack left-wing corporations, and we rally, and we persuade the public to get laws changed, and to elect different people, and so we do all that from the culture, absolutely.
But, unfortunately, that phrase has been used in recent decades by lazy, cowardly Republican politicians to shirk their duties.
The Republicans, they get elected and they say, hey, no, politics is downstream of culture.
You all fix everything, not me.
Hey, buddy, what did we elect you for?
Just to sit in an office and collect a decent salary?
And do nothing and tell us that we need the private sector to fix everything?
I don't think so, Buster.
Elon Musk is doing his part.
He's filing the thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters.
He bought Twitter for $44 billion.
Yeah, he's done a lot, okay?
The least that the politicians can do is follow up and investigate and use their government agencies in the pursuit of justice to help out the private sector, which is leading the way.
That's the very least they can do.
And Ken Paxton's doing it, and I want to see the rest of the Republican politicians do it, too.
Okay, we gotta clear the air.
And when you wanna clear the air, you gotta check out EnviroCleanse.
Right now, go to ekpure.com, use code NOLS35.
EnviroCleanse just announced a massive Black Friday discount.
It has extended their sale this week.
The best way to fight a cold or flu is to not get it in the first place.
That is why we got EnviroCleanse for the office, the new science of air purification.
With their limited-time extended Black Friday sale, you will save 35%.
EnviroCleanse is an in-home air purifying unit proven to capture and destroy flu viruses, bacteria, toxins, mold, and allergens from your home.
See?
By the way, I went on the road for Thanksgiving.
What happens?
I had been sounding just fine.
I go on the road.
I come back.
I've got the little sniffles.
I should have taken EnviroCleanse on the road.
EnviroCleanse technology is so powerful, it was chosen to purify the air systems onboard Navy ships and subs.
EnviroCleanse helps keep our servicemen and women healthier.
It can keep you and your family healthier, too.
EnviroCleanse is the only home air purifier that promises better health by keeping your home free of cold and flu viruses.
Right now, it's saved 35% during their extended Black Friday sale.
Get fast, free shipping.
EKpure.com.
Code NOLS35.
35% off.
EKpure.com.
Code NOLS35 for 35% off.
EKpure.com.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Jeremy Smith 8825 who says, My great, great, great grandchildren will still be watching the Michael Knowles Show just as he looks and sounds right now.
Thank the Lord for AI.
It's true, you can be thankful for AI.
Also, you should be thankful for GenuCell.
That is going to be the real reason why your great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will see me looking just as I do now at GenuCell.
This stuff really works.
Now, turning away from conservatives who get it, toward conservatives who have not gotten the memo, Mitt Romney says that he would prefer to vote for a Democrat than two Republican presidential candidates.
Who do you like in the Republican field?
Anybody.
You know, I'd be happy to support virtually any one of the Republicans.
Maybe not Vivek, but the others that are running would be acceptable to me, and I'd be happy to vote for them.
I'd be happy to vote for a number of the Democrats, too.
I mean, it would be an upgrade from, in my opinion, from Donald Trump, and perhaps also from Joe Biden.
Look, I like President Biden.
You know, I find him a very charming, engaging person.
There's some places I agree with him, but most places I disagree with him.
I think he's made all sorts of terrible mistakes, but I would like to see someone else run.
Okay, he's done?
He's done?
Okay, that's good.
Mitt Romney, former GOP nominee for president.
We nominated this guy for president, and he says, That he would consider voting for a Democrat over two of the candidates, including the leading candidate in the GOP field.
He says, look, I like all the candidates in the GOP field except Vivek.
I wouldn't vote for him.
But then he adds another candidate there.
He says, and I think a lot of Democrats would be preferable to Trump.
Trump's the leading candidate, whether you like Trump or not.
Clearly the likely nominee.
And so is Mitt Romney here saying that he will vote for a Democrat over Donald Trump?
Maybe he is.
I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.
And a lot of people are trying to figure out why.
Why is Mitt Romney such a squish?
Well, in part, he's from Massachusetts.
Do you remember when he ran in the 90s against Teddy Kennedy for that Senate seat and he renounced Ronald Reagan?
He said, I wasn't a Republican during the time of Reagan-Bush.
I was an independent during the time.
I don't want to return to Reagan-Bush.
You know, and he did that and he invented Obamacare.
And, you know, he's certainly a liberal.
His father was a liberal Republican, George Romney.
And so he comes from that strain of things.
But does that explain it?
Does that really totally explain it?
Donald Trump In many ways, he's much more conservative than any Republican we've seen in my lifetime, but he's also a rich guy from New York who has certain liberal positions, and you would think it's not Totally out of the realm of possibility that Mitt Romney could vote for him in the abstract.
Until you remember that Mitt Romney hates Donald Trump because Donald Trump made fun of Mitt Romney.
Don't forget, Mitt Romney endorsed Donald Trump in 2012.
Or rather, Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012.
And Romney was thrilled to have Trump's endorsement.
He said, well, I just end up doing Phil Hartman's impression of Ronald Reagan when I try to do Mitt Romney.
But in any case, Mitt Romney said, you know, Donald, you're a more successful businessman than I am.
Thanks for your endorsement.
Then, fast forward, he says, Donald Trump's the biggest threat to America.
He's awful.
He's the worst guy ever.
We can't vote for him.
Don't vote for Donald Trump.
Why?
I think what this actually boils down to is one never gets over losing the presidency.
I think that's it.
I don't usually get into psychobabble, and I admit that Romney is kind of a lib anyway, so maybe that explains it.
But I think there is just this fact that one never gets over losing the presidency.
One time when I was a student, I got to meet Michael Dukakis, who ran for president against George H.W.
Bush in 88.
We chatted with him a little bit.
I was going to ask him what it was like to be governor.
We were going to ask him just what it's like to have a career in politics.
And right away, he starts talking about losing the race.
And it was clear it still bothered him deeply.
And what would have happened, how much better the country would have been had he beaten Bush in 88 and things would have been so much different.
Bill Clinton ended up beating him in 92, wasn't it?
And George H.W.
Bush was kind of liberal.
Wasn't the end of the world here, was it, for the liberals?
But I just think you never get over it.
You never get over that kind of a loss.
You know, in some cases it's not justified.
I think these guys have to move on.
But in some cases it is justified.
Like, if you're a woman, and you compete against a man in a woman's sporting event, and the man wins, I wouldn't get over that so quickly because it's so deeply unjust.
Which is why The Daily Wire has a new movie coming out.
Perhaps you saw the trailer yesterday.
If you did not, here it is.
In a world where women's sports is being transformed, The Daily Wire calls foul with the most triggering comedy of the year.
Guys, this is serious.
Sports can be your pathway to a better life.
More like yours.
Please don't steal my catalytic converter again.
Winning matters.
It's the key ingredient to becoming a winner.
Maybe you should try it sometime.
Are you gonna move?
I am not.
Let's cut to the chase.
I know you're not a woman.
Do you know how he identifies?
If you can beat them.
What do you know about the U.S.
Opens for the Global Games?
You want us to compete as women.
$5,000 prizes.
My lover says you were a great coach back in the day.
Join.
This is the way the world is now.
So I don't know how we kept a lid on this.
There were a couple news reports that came out, but we filmed this movie about six months ago, and I can't believe how quickly the editors were able to put it together.
Jeremy sent me the script, whenever it was, seven, eight months ago, and I read it, and I instantly said, I said, hey man, this is a masterpiece.
This screenplay is a masterpiece.
It's just so out there.
People, the libs are going to lose their minds over this movie.
I said, no, this has never been done.
I mean, this reminds me of like all those great comedies of the mid 2000s that you don't see anymore because everyone's so offended by everything and no studio will put it out.
And he said, exactly.
We're the only people who can put it out.
So we got to put it out.
So we did this movie.
You'll see some familiar faces in there.
It's a masterpiece.
I don't know how else to put it.
It's a masterpiece.
It will be premiering for us in person on Wednesday.
I'm very excited to see it in a little theater.
I haven't seen the whole cut yet.
I've seen little dailies and things like that.
I've obviously read the script.
I'm in the movie, but I can't.
I'm going to see it myself on Wednesday and then all of you will get to see it.
at the live premiere event exclusively on Daily Wire Plus, Friday night, 8 p.m. Eastern.
Join Daily Wire Plus.
Get 50 bucks off your new membership right now.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to sign up for exclusive access.
This is, to my mind, the most Daily Wire thing that Daily Wire has ever done.
And it's going to be an absolute blast.
So check it out.
You have to be a member.
Subscribe.
We also need you to subscribe so that you can give us your money so we can keep making movies like this and keep doing all the stuff that we're doing in the culture, which is not cheap.
And we very much appreciate all of you who have funded that and allowed this thing to really, really grow and have such an impact on our culture and our politics.
