Ep. 1447 - Kamala Harris Plans For Grotesque Abortion Clinic Photo Opp
America's evil tophat gives life sentences for social media posts, The Vice President visits an abortion mill, and Zoomer Dems worry the TikTok ban could hurt Biden.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1447
- - -
DailyWire+:
Enter to win a year’s worth of Jeremy’s Chocolate: https://bit.ly/3Pmel9I
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Food For The Poor - Donate Today! Text ‘knowles’ to 51555 or visit https://www.foodforthepoor.org/knowles
Helix - Get 20% off + 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/Knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Hot on the heels of Belgium jailing a former member of parliament for sending spicy memes to a group chat, America's Evil Top Hat is proposing life sentences for tweets.
Canada's Online Harms Act, which was introduced last month with the backing of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, would allow judges to imprison adults for life if they advocate genocide online.
And would further allow provincial judges to impose house arrest and fine people if they perceive reasonable grounds that a defendant will commit an offense in the future.
Huh.
Who do you think is going to be prosecuted as a result of this law?
Is it going to be the prominent liberals in media, politics, and academia who regularly call for abolishing whiteness?
That sounds pretty directly genocidal.
Or is it going to be the conservatives who say that men and women are different and are consequently accused of advocating genocide?
Which group do you think is going to be prosecuted here?
And what exactly constitutes reasonable grounds that a person will spread hate in the future?
Perhaps being found in possession of a Leftist Tears tumbler?
Is that evidence?
Perhaps liking a few too many Jordan Peterson tweets?
What's the reasonable grounds in Canada for the future crime of being conservative?
The Online Harms Act is designed to protect the Liberal Party from electoral harm from conservatives online.
It's about criminalizing conservatives, not only for what they say, But before they even have a chance to say it, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
The liberal media are continuing to exploit the death of a teenager who identified as non-binary to try to attack conservatives, even though the facts of this very sad death totally contradict their narrative.
We will get into The political lesson from that in just a moment.
First, though, a few things.
One, subscribe to the Michael Knowles YouTube channel.
Smash, ding-dong, ring, hit the thing, do whatever you want to do.
Second, while you're smashing and ringing and dinging, you might want to light up a beautiful smells and bells candle.
Look at that, baby.
You go to dailywire.com slash shop.
You can get your smells in Bell's Candle.
We've sold about 50 bazillion of these.
And speaking of combustibles that we've sold 50 bazillion of, we do still have some stock of Mayflower cigars.
You know, we launched in, whenever it was, October, November, we sold out in 24 hours.
Biggest cigar launch probably in history.
Then a lot of you wrote me angry letters because you couldn't get any more cigars.
A few little supplies trickled in.
We finally got a humongous batch.
That we still mostly sold out of.
There are some boxes, some packs left.
If you want to try Mayflower, dawn, dusk, whatever, before, I don't know, Father's Day, as the weather gets a little nicer, if you want it in the next few months, get it now.
Go to mayflowercigars.com.
You have to be 21 years old or older to order.
Some exclusions may apply.
Okay, speaking of Neighboring governments descending into tyranny.
Have you been following what's going on in Haiti?
What's going on in Haiti right now is that the government has collapsed.
Haiti is officially a failed state, and it is currently being run by a lot of different little gangsters, but the most prominent gangster is a warlord named Barbecue.
That's his name.
And the gangs in Haiti are going around eating people.
It's cannibal gangs now governing the country.
Not great.
According to New York City Mayor Eric Adams, however, we should have a lot of empathy for what's going on in Haiti because I'll use his exact words, quote, we call New York City the Port-au Prince of America.
We feel the pain of our Haitian neighbors, feel as the situation grows dire.
To the people of Haiti and our own Haitian community here in New York City, know that we stand with you today and always.
So, okay, that's nice to, we stand with you, we support you, whatever.
The first sentence, it was a little confusing to me.
We call New York City the Port-au-Prince of America, capital of Haiti, right?
I was born in New York.
I grew up in New York.
Lived in New York for a very long time.
I never heard anyone call it the Port-au-Prince of America.
And there's a great community note that was added to this tweet.
It says, not one person has ever said this before Eric Adams.
And you can check it out.
You can Google it, look at it over there.
No one had ever said that until the New York City mayor.
However, while everyone is mocking Eric Adams for this pandering and ridiculous statement, I want to defend it.
Because while no one has yet, had yet, called New York City the Port-au-Prince of America, Eric Adams is doing such a bad job as mayor, they might soon call it that.
We don't yet have cannibal gangs terrorizing New York most of the time, but we might soon.
That's how terrible a job Eric Adams has done.
And actually, in Eric Adams's defense, it's been imposed on him largely by the Biden administration through this mass influx of illegal aliens, which Adams has called out until he was threatened with a corruption investigation and then he kind of dropped the issue.
This is not good.
We don't want failed states in America, even in New York.
We don't want failed states in the Caribbean.
We don't want failed states anywhere.
There's a lesson from this for conservatives, which is, one, you know, keep a little order here.
I mean, let's not allow the voodoo and the, you know, gangs and everyone to kind of run roughshod over your society.
Another lesson would be that revolution is usually not that great.
I mean, people now are blaming the problems in Haiti on recent government policies.
I saw someone preposterously try to argue that the problem in Haiti was DEI policies being imposed.
Like that's it, that's the problem.
Haiti had been just terrific until those woke World Economic Forum liberals went in there with their DEI.
No, Haiti has been pretty much hell on earth ever since the slave revolt that led to the Haitian Revolution.
There was so much promise, there was so much hope at the moment of that revolution.
This is the only successful slave revolt in the history of the world, led to this revolution.
But then The hope never paid off because Haiti has been a hellscape ever since then.
The United States had to occupy Haiti for something like 15 years or more in the early 20th century and every so often they get some dictator who keeps a little bit more peace but it's always been just absolutely terrible and now it doesn't even have what little government it once had.
The real lesson for conservatives here Is not just that revolution is usually terrible, and it's not even just that we probably don't want to import a lot of pathologies from around the world that could create problems in our own country.
The lesson to me is government is good.
I know conservatives are not supposed to say that.
We're supposed to say government is the most evil thing ever, and we want to get rid of the government, and we just want to privatize everything.
Government is good, in principle.
Government can go bad.
Government can become too big and overbearing.
Government can become too centralized and unresponsive to the real needs of people.
But government, in principle, is good.
We are the political animal.
We live in society.
And when we figure out how to live in society, we call that politics.
And part of politics is a civil authority.
We call that government.
And the civil authority does not bear the sword in vain.
the civil authority, protects people's rights and maintains order and administers justice.
And that is not just something that we have to deal with.
It's not just a sad fact of life that we individualists have to put up with.
That is a good thing.
We want justice.
None of us wants to live in Haiti.
We don't want to live in the Port-au-Prince of America, and we don't want to live in the Port-au-Prince of Port-au-Prince.
Speaking of politically sanctioned violence, Kamala Harris is about to make history by being the first vice president to ever visit an abortion clinic.
This will be the first visit by a vice president or a president to an abortion clinic.
She's going to go visit a Planned Parenthood in Minnesota.
This is part of her Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour, which started in January, and the point of it is to promote abortion.
I just got back from Madison, Wisconsin.
Had a really fun time there.
If you missed my speech, it was on this topic.
It was on abortion.
It's called The Case Against Murder.
I lay it out in ways that sometimes are missing from the pro-life movement.
So if you want to hear a relatively dispassionate historical and legal and philosophical account of why Abortion is bad.
I think I laid it out as pithily as I possibly could, but the Q&A was what was really, really fun in Madison because we had a transvestite Man, a student come up and, you know, object to the things that I have said.
And we had a relatively, I think, respectful exchange that's gone a bit viral.
Then I had some Looney Tune gal come up and scream at me about abortion and then call me Matt Walsh.
And so anyway, it was wild.
It was all over the place.
I guess it came at a good time, though, because the vice president now is not only saying what Democrats used to say, which is, You know, abortion, it's a very sad thing, a very tragic thing.
We've got to keep it safe, legal, and rare.
Now she's saying it's a good thing.
And so, when you just think of the mechanics of what's going to happen on this tour, the sitting Vice President of the United States is going to go into a place where babies are being murdered.
Where extremely predatory evil doctors are taking money from poor women to murder their children.
These desperate poor women, many of whom are being pushed into killing their children by their boyfriends, or by their families, or by the social expectations.
Some of the women want to kill their children and they're happy about it.
Most of them don't, though.
Most of it are just being duped into this.
Virtually all of them are going to live with a lot of regret and psychological trauma as a result of it.
And this psycho vice president, Kamala Harris, is going to go in there smiling.
There's a lot of tears in abortion clinics, okay?
And those tears are indicative of the moral repugnance that's going on, the great, great evil that's going on.
Lots of babies are actively being murdered in these places.
Lots of women are being forced to commit a crime that is Just about as horrific a crime as one can imagine for a human being, the murder of a child by his mother.
And this woman's going to go skipping through there with her Kamala Harris cackle, giggling about it, saying it's a positive thing.
How did we get here?
How did we get to the point where abortion should no longer be safe, legal, and rare, but it's a wonderful thing that the vice president's going to go celebrate?
There is so much more to say.
First, though, go to foodforthepoor.org slash Knowles.
It's important to realize For most of the global community, the question of where their next meal will come from is a constant pressing problem.
This urgency is a reality for many, even if it's not a thought that crosses your mind or my mind often.
Beyond the staggering statistics about food insecurity among the most vulnerable, the children, there are individual stories like Brandon's.
Little Brandon and his family live in a rural city in Guatemala.
His mother tries to care for him and his little brother as best she can, but it's not enough.
Earning a living is hard where they live, but accessing food is even harder.
This is the predicament for children like Brandon.
When these children get sick from hunger, their bodies become weak, and something as simple as a bronchial infection or a cold could be devastating.
Every dollar you give translates into meals, nourishment, and a chance for a better tomorrow.
Thanks to a meal-for-meal match, a donation of 80 bucks can feed two children for an entire year.
160 bucks would feed four children, and 320 bucks would feed eight children.
When you donate to Food for the Poor, you are not just giving, you are joining a collective effort.
It's a shared responsibility to ensure that no one, like Brandon, goes to bed hungry.
Donate now by texting Knowles to 51555 or by visiting foodforthepoor.org slash Knowles.
That's Knowles to 51555 or foodforthepoor.org slash Knowles.
The Democrats had to resolve the tension of safe, legal, and rare.
Ideas have a momentum of their own, and we had to reach the conclusion of this.
We had to work out the conflict and the contradiction.
If abortion is no different than getting your tonsils taken out, then there's no reason that it should be rare.
If abortion is in any way morally similar to murder, then it shouldn't be legal.
Period.
It's simple as.
So the Democrats had to pick one.
Which one did they pick?
They picked legal, and they picked to give up rare.
And so to do that, they have to grit their teeth, even if they're aware of just the profound evil of going into a building, the purpose of which is to slaughter babies.
They gotta go in there, and even if they feel uncomfortable with it, they gotta grit their teeth and smile.
Because the only alternative would be to say, this is barbaric and evil and we're gonna ban it.
But they've decided, they're the party of abortion at all costs.
The Vice President's going on a tour about it.
And so she's gonna go and she's gonna take that tour all the way to the infanticide factories themselves.
Speaking of taboos, really, really interesting article in Vice.
Or not Vice, Vox.
I think Vice is gone now.
It's the other left-wing outlet, Vox.
Vice at least sometimes was kind of funny.
Vox is just a pure establishment liberal journalism.
And the headline is, why the blank does everyone swear all the blanking time?
Curse words shift a lot over time.
They're in the middle of a big shift right now.
You know I'm interested in words and how words change over time, and I wrote a book about this called Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
Thank you.
And we're plugging a lot of products today, aren't we, on the show?
But they're relevant, and this conversation is especially relevant when we're talking about the major political shift that's going on.
Major political shifts will coincide with cultural shifts, and cultural shifts will always coincide with standards and norms and taboos changing.
What the Vox author is recognizing is something I've recognized, I'm sure you have too, which is that people swear much more casually these days.
It used to be that there were seven words you couldn't say on TV, that was George Carlin's special.
It used to be that Lenny Bruce would get arrested for saying what we would today consider very mild curse words if we considered them curse words at all.
And now you can say pretty much anything, anywhere, to the point that it's banal.
And so, the author here at Vox says that swear words have undergone major shifts.
Back in the Middle Ages, when people were religious, the real taboo words were blasphemous.
You know, GD or different versions of that, words that we don't even say anymore that reference the wounds of Christ or other religious imagery in a way that would be in vain or sacrilegious.
That was really taboo.
Now, bodily functions, that wasn't really considered taboo, according to the author of this article, because, you know, people didn't have a lot of privacy.
They all lived together.
They didn't have, you know, indoor plumbing in a lot of places.
So, you know, that didn't really bother people.
As you shift later on, especially culminating in the Victorian era, all of a sudden the bodily functions, that became very taboo.
So, you know, the F word, the S word, the this word, the that word, all the kinds of things that until pretty recently you weren't really allowed to say.
The C word, it's one of the last words that's still even semi-taboo in that category.
That sort of stuff you couldn't really say.
But what about now?
What is the swear word now?
According to the article, the last one is the C word.
Which is just another bodily part, you know, refers to certain bodily functions.
That's the last one you can't really say.
But you kind of can.
People use it more more flippantly now.
I think a lot of this article is smart, but it's missing the point.
I can say any of those words on this show, if I want to.
I don't want to, because I think swear words are vulgar, and we try to class up the joint a little bit.
This is a family show.
But I could say that.
If I wanted to, I could use all sorts of sacrilegious terms on this show.
There would be no cultural taboo today.
If I wanted to, I could use all sorts of nasty words to refer to bodily functions and fluids and acts and all sorts of things that were banned from TV for the 20th century.
I could do that, no problem.
The only words that I truly could not say on this show are racial and sexual epithets.
That's it.
It's the N word, right?
And other words like that.
I can't do that anymore.
Not that I would exactly like to do that on the show.
I'd like to class the place up, you know?
And this is a family show.
I'm just talking about the taboos.
There's no real taboo around sacrilege.
There's no real taboo around the F word or even the C word.
The taboos are around racial and sexual epithets.
Why?
Because that's now what is considered sacred.
In the Middle Ages, God was sacred.
God remains sacred, but God was considered widely to be sacred and off-limits for casual conversation.
As we got a little bit later on, these kinds of bodily functions, they were considered to be taboo, unmentionable.
They're just fascinating, but you want to keep them in an arm's length.
Now it's just race and sex.
We have made an idol out of race and sex.
This is like when the Libs say, you know, we need to read banned books.
You don't really want to read banned books.
If you really wanted to read banned books, you would not be reading To Kill a Mockingbird.
Okay, To Kill a Mockingbird is not banned.
Books that are banned today are like, you know, Mein Kampf, Holocaust Denial, I don't know, you know, like really sort of vicious books.
That's what's banned.
The Bible actually is banned in schools.
That's on a completely, you know, different category of book bans.
But it's not to kill a mockingbird.
It's not even genderqueer or any of these books that I would like to ban from schools.
That's not really it.
You can get access to these things in Frankly, in most schools over the country, but certainly in most libraries and most bookstores.
That's not an argument to say that no books should be banned.
I have no problem banning certain books.
I have no problem banning certain words.
I have no problem having societal standards and taboos.
But let's be honest about what those are.
The libs, though, what they say like, ooh, we're so naughty, you know, we said the F word on TV.
There's no taboo around that anymore.
That's not how our society Functions.
Now, speaking of taboos in politics, President Trump is avoiding a major taboo, the third rail of politics.
President Trump says he will never do anything to harm social security.
He says, I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare.
We'll have to do it elsewhere, but we're not going to do anything to hurt them.
There's so many things we can do.
There's so much cutting and so much waste in many other areas, but I'll never do anything to hurt Social Security.
This brings up a major political battle that has roiled the right for many years now, but DW has come under fire for it because Ben and Matt suggested that Social Security is going to go bankrupt.
And so I mentioned on the show a couple of days ago that Ben and Matt obviously have a financial point.
They're observing a fiscal reality.
But what Trump is observing here is a political reality.
And it's the reality that I think Conservatives came to see from the Tea Party era into the Trump era.
In the Tea Party era, there were conservatives who said, we need to have a social truce to get our fiscal house in order and deal with our national debt.
The only way to deal with the debt really effectively is to reform the entitlement programs.
And then that didn't work.
And it didn't work because we live in society and you can't fix the economic problems without fixing the social problems.
It's the other way around.
So I totally get it.
I understand if you're an actuary or something.
I understand if you're an accountant and you're looking at the numbers and you say, well, the easiest place to make the cuts is here because it's the biggest part of the federal budget.
I totally get it.
I'm not denying that at all.
But what Trump is saying is that that's not really how it works.
It looks bad optically.
It's not going to win over enough voters to actually go in and govern at all.
And in principle, it's not true.
It also doesn't work in principle because we're not just economic agents moving about, you know, trying to maximize our income as our primary goal.
We're human beings, flesh and blood, living in society.
And so if you want to change the way that we treat money, if you want to change the way that we treat our inheritance, if you want to change the way that we treat our wealth, you've got to change the way that we treat all these other aspects of culture.
Are we going to have kids?
Are we going to get married?
Are we going to be responsible in other ways?
Are we going to have a stable functioning border?
Are we going to care for the common good rather than our own private interest?
You got to transform all of that before you ever even have a hope of dealing with the fiscal situation.
Trump, I believe, He gets it.
Whether it's conscious or not, he's come to the right answer.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to HelixSleep.com slash Knowles.
I have had my Helix mattress for years.
I absolutely love this thing, and not only do I get to love my Helix, but you want to talk about how I spoil my child.
My eldest son is moving from a crib to a bed, and his first bed is a beautiful Helix mattress.
That is so good.
I want my kid to have the very best!
And that is very much Helix.
So he's got a twin bed.
You probably, maybe you want more of like a queen bed, maybe even a king bed.
If you've not checked out the Helix Elite Collection, you need to.
Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you are nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress.
Why buy a mattress made for someone else?
Don't get my bed.
Get out of my bed.
I'm a happily married man.
Get your own bed.
Helix has a 10-year warranty.
You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They will even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
Helix right now is offering our listeners 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
Go to helixsleep.com slash knolls, helixsleep.com slash knolls.
This is their best offer yet.
It won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts right about now.
My favorite comment yesterday is from CoolPapaJMagic, who says, it's not identity politics, it's anti-white-ism.
They're not dividing and pitting us against each other.
They're uniting all other groups against white people.
You're partly right, Cool Papa J Magic, but you're not totally right.
It's true, the libs hate white people.
I'm not denying that at all.
They have campaigns to abolish whiteness, as I mentioned at the top of the show.
But they also hate men, and they also hate Christians, and they also hate people of normal sexual behavior who engage in traditional customs.
So it's not as simple as all that.
I agree.
In as far as the liberals' identity politics are racial, and they are largely racial, then it is directed against white people.
No doubt about it.
You and I both agree.
But there's more to it.
And at the heart of it, really, is religion.
All human conflict is not ultimately racial.
Race can play a role in it, but all human conflict ultimately is theological.
It gets down to how we view ourselves and our place vis-a-vis other people and all of our place in the creation relative to our creator.
It gets down to that fundamental point, and I don't think there's any question that the secular libs hate Christianity and are trying to take it out of public life.
Speaking of electoral politics, Zoomer Democrats are worried.
They are worried that Joe Biden's TikTok ban, or that the Republicans' TikTok ban in coalition with the Democrats, unclear if Biden will support it, could hurt Joe Biden's re-election chances.
According to Representative Maxwell Frost, Democrat from Florida, who is the first Zoomer member of Congress, he says, this legislation I think is a mistake.
We need to regulate social media, not just TikTok, but all of it.
And so he voted against the bill.
He said it should be a political concern for Democrats because the Democrats need to not exactly win over the young voters.
They already have a lot of young voters, but they need to convince them to show up to the polls.
And the way that they do that is to get in their faces where the Zoomer eyeballs are, and the Zoomer eyeballs are on TikTok.
TikTok is used by two-thirds of Americans under the age of 30.
So there's another Democrat strategist who was speaking to the liberal media who said, these voters are not going to say, this is my guy.
You know, they're not going to all of a sudden become Trump voters overnight.
They might also not say that Biden is my guy.
If they're not getting constant Democrat talking points and Biden propaganda, they might just remain somewhat disillusioned and stay home.
And if they do that, Trump wins, which is probably true.
This gets to my basic suspicion that the TikTok ban is a fine idea.
But there's one hesitation I have with the TikTok ban.
It's not government overreach.
It's not that they're going to come after the other social media platforms.
Quite the opposite, actually.
My fear is that the direct beneficiary of the TikTok ban will be Mark Zuckerberg.
My fear is that the direct beneficiary of the TikTok ban will be the other woke, radical, big tech CEOs who are far more responsible for rigging our elections and manipulating the American population to do bad things than TikTok and the CCP are.
Mark Zuckerberg spent a lot of money in 2020.
Putting it into left-wing groups specifically to change voting laws and practices such that Zuckerberg pretty directly was responsible for installing lots of ballot drop boxes, in some cases illegally, far away from county clerk offices.
This guy rigged the election, and he admitted it before he ever did it.
He said, I am going to spend a ton of money, a ton of money to kick Trump out of the White House.
Legislation does not happen in Washington D.C.
because of some pie-in-the-sky idealism.
It happens because of bare-knuckle, often monetary interests.
You've got to ask yourself when you're looking at a piece of legislation, who benefits?
Who benefits here?
As far as I can tell, it's Facebook and it's Google.
Maybe Elon and X benefit too.
I guess that would be good.
I would be fine with that.
But Zuckerberg and Google, that's not good news.
Now does that weigh out the benefits that conservatives get, which is that you're killing the main social media channel that the Zoomers are on?
Maybe it does.
Or maybe those Zoomers just go to Instagram Reels and they get even more propaganda controlled even more tightly by American liberals in the lead up to 2024.
However you consider this legislation, I wouldn't consider it as just a pie-in-the-sky ideological matter.
Ask yourself.
What's this going to mean practically in American politics?
Now, speaking of Zoomers, I mentioned this story yesterday, so I won't go into too much detail on the lead-up to this conversation, but Nex Benedict was a teenager who identified as non-binary, and this teenager died.
And we were told by the liberal media initially that, I think that she was a girl?
That she was beaten up by awful, terrible bullies, and it was the fault of all the evil right-wing transphobes, and specifically libs of TikTok.
And then that turned out not to be true.
The medical examiner's report is out, and she died of a drug overdose, and this has probably been a suicide.
All tragic, everything about this is just terribly sad.
But it isn't what the liberal media told us it was.
This wasn't caused by lives of TikTok, or the evil right-wingers, or even the gang of people that was beating up this girl, or whatever was reported.
It was a drug overdose, likely a suicide.
Some of us suspected that that would be the case, or something like that would be the case.
How did we get it right?
And the liberal media and the liberal media consumers, even more so, got it wrong.
Because of a simple rule in politics.
This is just a little rule of thumb, and before you call me a hypocrite, before you accuse me of having double standards, just hear me out.
When a story, when a news story favors liberals, you can assume that the story is at least somewhat false.
When a news story favors conservatives, you can assume that the story is true.
Why is that?
Because the liberals control the media.
Simple as.
So, it's not... Sometimes the liberals will accuse us of saying, well, hold on, when the news is good for you, you believe it.
When the news is bad for you, you don't believe it.
Right, because the Democrats have every incentive to paint Republicans and conservatives in a terrible light.
So when, on a very rare occasion, a news story paints conservatives in a good light, it means they just couldn't do it.
There was just absolutely nothing that they could even sort of possibly try to twist to make us look bad.
So it means that that story is very likely reliable.
Whereas, when it comes to stories that promote the libs, There's really no reason to believe it's true, because they have all these kind of crazy puff pieces all the time, and then when their lies to build themselves up are proven, they retract the story, you know, three months later on page Z2000 of the newspaper.
That's why.
It's not hypocrisy.
It's not a double standard.
It's not picking and choosing.
It's not saying, oh, you just want to believe the news that's positive for you.
No, I'm...
I am just objectively looking at the news media and realizing it's all libs and recognizing the incentives and the patterns and how the stories come, and then coming to a rule of thumb because of that.
Ann Coulter has a similar version of this.
She says, when there is a mass shooting, the longer the media don't report on the race of the criminal, the more likely the criminal is not white.
The more you know.
If it goes two days, you don't know what the race of the shooter is.
That shooter is not white.
Every time.
When the shooter is white, they report it immediately.
When the shooter is a straight man, they report it immediately.
When the shooter is a trans-identifying person, they cover up that story for years.
We're still waiting to get the full story on the Nashville trans-shooter.
Of course.
If the shooter is black, that's, you know, a youth, or an individual, or a young man, or whatever.
When the shooter is white, or even not white.
When a killer is Hispanic, like the case of George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman looks extremely Hispanic, but he had a name that sounded almost like it could kind of plausibly be white.
So the news media, they said, he's a white guy.
They got him, he's a white guy.
Then they found out he's not a white guy.
And so they didn't want to totally walk it back.
They said, he's a white Hispanic!
He's a white Hispanic.
He wasn't even all that white.
Anyway, that's the rule of thumb, and Ann Coulter's version of it is right, and I think this version at a general level is right, too.
Now, speaking of libs and women, this is a story I wanted to get to last week.
I do want to touch on it now.
Kyrsten Sinema is out of the Senate at the end of this year.
Sinema has announced this, and if you don't know who Sinema is, she was a Democrat, but she's kind of moderate, and she's been relatively independent in the Senate, and has been a big problem for the liberal Democrats who want to ram through their agenda.
Here she is saying she's out.
Through listening, understanding, and compromise, we deliver tangible results that make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Yet, despite modernizing our infrastructure, ensuring clean water, delivering good jobs and safer communities, Americans still choose to retreat farther to their partisan corners.
These solutions are considered failures, either because they're too much or not nearly enough.
It's all or nothing.
The outcome, less important than beating the other guy.
The only political victories that matter these days are symbolic.
Attacking your opponents on cable news or social media.
Compromise is a dirty word.
We've arrived at that crossroad, and we chose anger and division.
I believe in my approach, but it's not what America wants right now.
I love Arizona, and I am so proud of what we've delivered.
Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done, I will leave the Senate at the end of this year.
She's out.
Okay.
Sinema's out.
It's sort of unfortunate because she was one of the two even semi-reasonable Democrats in the Senate, the other one being Joe Manchin.
But in a way, it's not the worst thing because it raises the stakes.
Not only are we looking at the presidency being up this year, but this raises the stakes for 2024 considerably.
The one of the two kind of moderates in the Senate, she is gone.
So now the race is going to be between Carrie Lake, the Republican, and Ruben Gallego, who's the Democrat.
The election could determine which party controls the Senate.
Now we're going to see who controls the White House, who controls the Senate, Who knows, we've got a razor-thin majority in the House.
The whole government is up for grabs.
This could potentially be the biggest swing election in our lifetimes, at a time when the Democrats have become extraordinarily partisan.
Openly encouraging an invasion across our southern border, visiting abortion mills, and celebrating infanticide.
They are as plain and out in the open as it possibly comes.
Republicans finding their voice, too, finding a little bit more of a coherent vision, too.
What's it going to be?
One hopes it'll be a fair election.
At the very least, it'll be a clear choice.
One year ago, Hershey's announced that a man would be leading their Women's Day campaign.
Our response?
In 24 hours we launch Jeremy's Chocolate.
Because you should be able to buy delicious chocolate from a company that does not hate your values.
To celebrate one year, Jeremy's Chocolate is giving one year's worth of chocolate away.
To enter, simply purchase one Jeremy's Chocolate product from Jeremy's or The Daily Wire shop.
But hurry!
Today is your last chance to enter to win one year of Jeremy's Chocolate.
Go to Jeremy'sChocolate.com or any Jeremy's Chocolate.
Uh, section of the Daily Wire shop.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash shop today.
No purchase necessary.
Void.
Wear.
Prohibited.
Finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
Our mailbag is sponsored by Pure Talk.
Go to puretalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S, to get an additional 50% off your first month.
Hey, Michael.
My sister's now-fiancé finally proposed after about a year and a half of dating.
He is very smart and very sweet and kind, but he considers himself a Democrat.
I think it is because he is very kind and non-confrontational.
Maybe he doesn't like the thought of imposing moral standards on people.
I have tried talking to him about how things like gender confusion are not good for society, and he doesn't disagree, but he still identifies as a Democrat.
I haven't found the root of his political leanings, but I'm not too concerned because his dad is a Republican and he is going through the RCIA program.
My sister and my family are already Catholic.
Plus, as he gets older and has kids, I think he'll lean more right.
My question is, can you recommend a good book for me to get for him for baptism and confirmation present?
I'm looking for something that will be appropriately religious for the occasion, but something that would also help shape his political views.
Thank you for your advice, and I appreciate all that you do.
Absolutely, marvelous question.
I was a little nervous at the beginning.
Then you said, okay, he's an RCIA, so he's becoming Catholic, he's taking that kind of seriously.
I mean, if you're Catholic, practically speaking, you just can't really be a Democrat today because the abortion issue is non-negotiable.
And the nature of the human person, the nature of sex, the so-called transgender ideology, that's a non-negotiable.
and many more bioethical issues just basically prohibit a faithful Catholic from practically being a Democrat.
So hopefully he'll come to that conclusion.
You could get him the Catechism of St. Pius X.
It's a pretty good catechism.
In terms of political books, I would say here, maybe lean a little toward Chesterton.
Chesterton's Orthodoxy.
He actually wrote it before he was Catholic, I think.
But it's quite Christian, obviously religious, but it gets to a lot of political issues.
Maybe some Hilaire Belloc books could be good.
Lewis is always fine, though I would maybe lean toward Chesterton or Belloc for the occasion, and then just kind of slowly push him a little bit more and more and more.
If he's going to raise his kids as Faithful, you know, to the church.
Practically, he's gonna have to ditch that Democrat stuff.
That's good.
Okay, next question.
Hey Mr. Knows, my name is Eli, I'm 21, and you are my favorite out of the Daily Wire cast because of how well-spoken you are.
Every sentence you speak is laced with philosophy, history, theology, and virtue.
Truly, the Holy Spirit lives in you.
My question is, how can I get like you?
Well-spoken, educated, with wisdom.
I am a Christian.
I know wisdom comes from the fear of the Lord, so I go to church, listen to sermons, and seek guidance from my church elders.
I read when I have free time, perhaps a book list from you your fans would appreciate.
I'm considering going back to school.
I had dropped out to learn a trade so I could always have a skill in demand.
I know your view of college is to educate yourself and not to get a job, so I'm not sure what major is best for me and if it's the best choice because of how crazy expensive it is, but I'm thinking the education will pay itself off.
Any advice?
Thank you.
Well thanks man, really nice.
Appreciate that.
You forgot how handsome I am, but that's alright.
The other ones were very nice.
It seems like what you're focused on in particular is trying to cultivate your ability to speak, which expresses some of the other things that you've touched on there.
If you can speak well, if you can argue well, especially if you can write well.
What that implies is you've probably read a fair number of books, and you've thought about things, and you've taken education at least somewhat seriously, and that's what you're asking, right?
So, what I would recommend is, I don't need to give, I mean, I can maybe give you a book list, but you can even look, Harold Bloom, the late literary critic, has a great book list, it's huge, and it's a list of great books, going back to antiquity all the way to the present.
I would go through that.
I wouldn't go through it in any particular order.
Maybe if you want to start at the beginning, I'd read a little Plato and Aristotle first, and then maybe I'd read a little Homer, you know, so you get your philosophy.
Plato's going to be a little saucier than Aristotle.
Aristotle's going to be a little more nuts and bolts than Plato.
And then you're going to get your blood and gore and guts and poetry with the Iliad and the Odyssey, maybe the Aeneid too, which is sort of the Bible of empire as Dante considered it.
And then maybe you jump to the Middle Ages, you read some of those tracts.
Obviously, you know, speaking of Dante, I'm a big Dante fan.
You toss in some great, you skip it way ahead, you toss in some great novels there, maybe the Russian novelists.
What I'm saying is you don't need to go in any particular order, follow your desire.
And then as you read, as you educate yourself, your desires will I don't know how old you are, I don't know your circumstances, so use your prudence here.
And so I wouldn't make it just so rigorous that you have to start at the beginning of the Western tradition and finish at the end because you'll just get tired of it and probably give up.
Desire is a very important part of education that we downplay now.
In terms of going back to school or whatever, I don't know how old you are.
I don't know your circumstances.
So use your prudence here.
I wouldn't take out a lot of debt if you're not in a position to do that right now to get a degree that maybe you won't be able even to use in your leisure time.
Don't forget, you know, a liberal education is about cultivating your ability for leisure ultimately because it's not about learning a trade.
You go to trade school to learn a trade or you get an apprenticeship or you just start working and train at your job.
So there I would just use prudence.
And then if you are working, you say, in between this time I can read a little bit.
I would listen to Spencer Clavin's podcast.
I have a book show over at PragerU.
You could listen to that.
I would listen to lots of free lectures.
You can get them open courses, they're great.
And I would follow your desire.
Then practice it, formulate your arguments, say those arguments out loud, bring them up in conversations with your friends, and then find other friends who are interested in this too, because education is a group activity.
Next question.
Hey Smokey Mike, it's Isaac, longtime listener and huge fan.
Back in July, I was involved in a hit-and-run motorcycle accident that left me paralyzed, and I was hoping that You would consider asking the creme de la creme, who are believers in Christ, to please pray for my healing.
Appreciate everything you do, man.
Bye.
I certainly can.
Simple enough.
Very sorry to hear of the trouble you've gone through.
We were just talking today, a friend of ours, mine and sweet little Alisa's, underwent a kind of a trauma, you know, a real tragedy.
And we asked how she was doing, and she said, oh, you know, there's just been so many graces, and it's been wonderful to suffer along with Christ.
I thought, wow, that's an amazing, saintly way of dealing with things that are so horrible.
So, you know, you're dealing with a lot of suffering.
And really the only consolation that can possibly come from that is binding it up, you know, drawing you closer to God and binding you closer to our Lord who suffers the utmost.
And then we can also pray for your healing.
Absolutely.
So encourage everyone to do that.
Next question.
Hello Michael, I'm a fellow Roman Catholic.
I love your show.
On one of your recent shows, you brought up an informal rule of thumb that if everyone who supports a given X tends to be wrong about everything else, then there's a good chance that there's something wrong about X too.
And I bring this up because in my hobby, Dungeons & Dragons, I have very much struggled to get any interest from my Catholic friends.
And when I kind of go into the D&D community, everyone is left-wing and weird sex stuff, you know, big libs, etc.
So my question is, why is it that it seems sometimes that Christians hate and distrust fantasy?
And how does your rule about if everyone that supports this tends to be wrong about everything else.
They're probably wrong about this too.
How does that play out in the current rejection of fantasy by Christians?
Thank you very much.
I love your show.
Thank you very much.
I don't think Christians reject fantasy.
I kind of do.
I don't really like fantasy stories and, you know, it's just a taste of mine, but Christians don't.
I mean, the most famous fantasy story of the last several hundred years is a deeply Christian story written by a devout Catholic named Tolkien, right?
The Lord of the Rings is extremely Christian.
Same with Narnia, right?
Written by Tolkien's buddy, who's another obviously extremely prominent Christian.
The very genre of fantasy We see, you know, its origins in, well, the Pendragon Cycle, we're making that here at Daily Wire, and then those early Arthurian legends, Shretien de Troyes, you know, all of these, all of the medieval literary tradition, which is obviously very Christian.
So, I don't think it's that Christians don't like it, but maybe Christians don't like Dungeons & Dragons.
I don't know.
I don't know anything about Dungeons & Dragons, so I'll have to defer to some other experts, but if you're noticing Even within fantasy, that the Christians who like fantasy, like all these other parts of fantasy, but they don't necessarily love D&D, then yeah, I don't know, maybe something about D&D is just not, just doesn't totally jive with the The sort of things Christians want to do.
And in that case, I don't know, I mean, look, I'm not telling you you got to quit your Dungeons and Dragons club, but in that case, probably just naturally over time, you might lose interest in it.
That's just how these things go.
Okay, we have a mailbag question from Alex.
Michael, so many are determined to get the Michael Knowles stamp of approval for a divorce.
Here is my attempt.
My wife watches Love is Blind and won't watch Die Hard should I cut my losses.
Thanks.
You know, sometimes people have suggested there might be an exception to the hard and fast Christian prohibition on divorce, and if there were to be, I'm no theologian, what do I, but if there were to be.
Love is blind.
That's ugh, yikes.
There's much more mailbag to get to.
You probably shouldn't divorce your wife.
I don't, I mean, you know, look, I'm, this is going to occupy me.
I'm going to, as we transition into the member block, I'm going to have to give this even greater thought and then we will have even more mailbag questions and then we will have Take headline Friday.
Head on over.
If you are not a member, go to dailywire.com right now.
