Ep. 1452 - Massive Arrest For Absentee Ballots Voter Fraud In Wisconsin
A Wisconsin election official was arrested for faking absentee ballots, a creepy preschool teacher says her biggest allies are 3 year olds, and a horde of migrants break through the Texas National Guard.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Ep.1452
- - -
DailyWire+:
Shop Jeremy’s Razors deals here: https://bit.ly/3vl8c6M
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! http://www.PureTalk.com/Knowles
Pivotal Debt Solutions - Learn how to get out of debt today! Visit http://www.zapmydebt.com
PragerU - Have your donation TRIPLED at http://www.PragerU.com
Hallow - Join Hallow’s Pray 40 Challenge! https://hallow.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
A Wisconsin election official was just found guilty of voter fraud after she produced ballots for fictional military servicemen during the 2022 elections.
The election official in question is former Milwaukee Election Commission Deputy Commissioner Kimberly Zapata.
Who was convicted of felony misconduct and three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement to obtain an absentee ballot.
According to Zapata's lawyer, the election official sent the fraudulent ballots to the home of an elected official who had been calling attention to the issue of voter fraud.
And she claims she did this to prove the ease with which the lax ballot laws could be exploited to rig the election.
So it's not just that she was trying to rig it for her own nefarious purposes.
She says she was a whistleblower.
But while the election official intentions might be relevant to the severity of her crime and punishment, they don't really matter when it comes to the political point.
Either way, Whether the prosecution in this case is right or whether the defense is right.
The whole incident proves the point that voter fraud can easily happen and is virtually impossible to catch.
Even in swing states like Wisconsin.
Even very recently, like the last election cycle.
Even, potentially it would seem, in 2024.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
There is a really distressing video of illegal aliens breaking through the Texas National Guard and them doing nothing about it.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
With inflation on the rise, 20 bucks barely gets you anything these days.
In most restaurants, you can't get a burger and fries for less than that.
What about at the gas pump?
You can get maybe a quarter tank of gas, but do you know what it will get you from my cell phone company?
Not that I own the cell phone company, but I have the plan and the phone.
PureTalk, you get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost.
I want to ensure that you heard that.
This is the top-tier coverage on America's most dependable 5G network for half the cost of other carriers.
The average family saves almost a thousand bucks a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
You can switch to PeerTalk with the phone and phone number that you currently use, or you can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Making the switch is incredibly easy.
Their U.S.
customer service team can help you join PeerTalk in as little as 10 minutes.
Let's go spend your money with a company that shares your values.
Don't spend another day spending ridiculous amounts of money on your phone playing.
Go to PeerTalk.com slash Knowles.
Right now, our listeners can get an additional 50% off their first month.
PeerTalk.com slash Knowles.
Joe Biden's former White House press secretary has identified a major threat to Biden's reelection in 2024.
This is the biggest challenge.
There is unquestionably Trump has a broad support in his base, as we've just been discussing.
And we've seen that play out in the primary.
That's the only piece, though, we know at this point.
He has problems among independents and problems with an expanded electorate.
But these third-party candidates are a huge, huge, huge problem, and there's a number of them.
If you look at RFK Jr., it's the name recognition issue, as Tom was just talking about.
And there are still states in this country, obviously, I mean, Georgia is one of them, I will name, where the Kennedy name is beloved.
right, where people may just not still, where they may just not know a lot about the fact that he is an anti-vaxxer who's a conspiracy theorist.
Right?
They don't know that yet.
So this is something, there is an aggressive effort that the campaign has been working with the Democratic National Committee on to run on this, but it needs to be broad.
People need to be shouting it from the rooftops because this is one of the biggest threats to Joe Biden being reelected, is these third-party candidates. - Jen Psaki is totally right.
She's totally right here.
I hate to say I told you so.
I've been predicting this for some time now.
Early on, when RFK Jr.
said he would get into the race, some people feared that he would take more votes from Trump or the eventual Republican nominee who everyone knew was going to be Trump.
I never thought that.
Even now, RFK Jr.
is talking about maybe running as a Libertarian Party candidate.
And you think, well, the American right is made up of traditionalists and libertarians and all the rest of the groups, so the libertarian candidate might pull from the right.
No.
No.
Bobby Kennedy is a Kennedy.
His name is Kennedy, for goodness sakes!
That is Democrat Party royalty.
He's been a liberal for most of his life.
He still holds mostly liberal positions.
He just happens to agree with us that Anthony Fauci is a big jerk.
That's not enough to pull votes from Trump.
So this is a big problem for Biden.
The other big problem, though, for Biden is that he is declining.
He's senile.
So as a public relations matter, he doesn't look up to the job.
And we now have one term of his performance, and it's been terrible on every front, and people are unhappy with it.
So, what is he going to do?
They're trying every old line, every old excuse, spaghetti at the wall.
They're now resurrecting this one.
Where is it?
Yes, Washington Post, one day ago, Biden's stutter surges into the presidential campaign.
First time I ever heard about Joe Biden's stutter was during the 2020 presidential campaign.
They said, yeah, the reason that Joe Biden kind of digresses and goes off on flights of fancy and seems to lose his place in a conversation and repeats himself and starts talking about corn pop and mumbles.
And the reason for that is since childhood, he's had a stutter.
It's not his old age.
It's just how dare you make fun of a child's stutter.
And I thought, you know, it's 2020.
Joe Biden has been in public life since 1972 when he got elected to the U.S.
Senate.
I've seen Joe Biden on TV for my entire life, and I've never once heard him stutter.
But now the libs are telling me that he's had a stutter for his whole life, and it has nothing to do with old age, and if we make fun of it, we're just mocking the disabled.
That's what, I mean, this article, I don't even think they've updated it since 2020.
It was the same kind of excuse that they had back then, coming from really one of the biggest house organs of the liberal establishment, the Washington Post.
So I said, okay, maybe, look, maybe I'm wrong.
I don't know.
Maybe they're gaslighting me, but maybe I'm wrong.
So let's go back.
Let's roll the tape.
Back in, let's say, 1987.
This is after Biden's first election to the Senate, right in the middle of his political career.
Did Joe Biden sound like he had a stutter then?
There'll be other presidential campaigns, and I'll be there, Oliphant.
I'll be there.
There will be other opportunities.
There'll be other battles, in other places, other times.
And I'll be there.
And I'll be there, seeking to share with all Americans, and those who will stand with me, the promise proclaimed in the communion hymn you heard me recite all across this country.
And he will lift you up on eagle's wings, and bear you on the breath of dawn, and make the sun to shine on you.
This country is going to be lifted up, and I'm going to play a big part in doing it.
Not one um, not one uh, not one single stutter.
Like he was cast in the movie role of a politician.
Listening to that clip, watching that clip, he reminds me of Gavin Newsom.
You kind of forget now because Biden's 150 years old.
But in his prime, Biden was never much of a conviction politician.
I don't think there was ever a whole lot going on in between the years.
He's never really accomplished anything in his political career.
But The guy sounds like a politician.
You gotta give credit where credit's due.
He looks, he sounds, well, listen, I'll be there on a bright, shiny new day for America.
I promise you, America, that I'll, and he sounds, and he kind of even looks like Gavin Newsom, but he sure doesn't sound like he has a stutter because he didn't.
That was just totally made up.
And it's just being promoted by the mainstream, supposedly credible liberal establishment to cover up for the fact that the man is in extreme cognitive decline.
I don't think that one is going to work very well.
I think people will have some memory of Joe Biden's political career since 1972.
I think they'll probably remember that he didn't have that stutter for 40 years, and then it just sort of appeared.
Now, turning to people who don't stutter, people who say exactly what they think rather quickly, gotta give a hat tip to Libs of TikTok here.
There is a preschool teacher who identifies as trans who says that her biggest allies It's not the Democrat politicians.
It's not the liberal activists on the streets.
It's three-year-olds.
I posted that video on my Instagram as well, and it got an insane amount of hate, so I'm gonna share more positive interactions with the preschool-aged kids I work with.
For context, I'm a trans person who does not pass as the gender they identify with.
Yesterday, one of the other staff came up to me, and she was talking to me, and then started talking to the kids about me, and she used she-her pronouns for me, and one of the kids interrupted her and went, um, he's a boy.
So, you know what?
Pop off.
My biggest allies are three years old.
I bet that's true.
So she's a girl, but she says she's a boy, even though she doesn't sound like a boy and she doesn't really dress like a boy, but she says she's a boy.
Who knows what happened in this woman's life to make her...
believe that she is a boy or really wants to be a boy, probably nothing great.
But in any case, that's where she is.
And no one really believes her, including her ostensibly liberal co-workers.
The only people who believe her are three years old.
That's a bad sign.
If the only people who agree with your conclusions about the world, about anthropology, about reality, about metaphysics, about anything really— If the only people who agree with you are three years old, 100% of the time you will be wrong.
Because three-year-olds, by definition, are totally uneducated, and they don't know anything, and they can't really separate fantasy from reality, and we now live in a country that Previously, we used to educate three-year-olds to turn them into fully formed wise adults.
Now, we uneducate adults and try to turn them into three-year-olds.
This is not good.
It's good, as you grow older, to maintain childlike wonder.
That's good.
Childlike innocence, if you can.
But you don't want to be childish.
Just like it's good for a woman to be womanly, it's bad for a man to be womanish.
That's just like the bad version.
One is good, one is bad.
You want the innocence, you want the wonder, but you don't want to be diluted.
You want to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove.
That's the kind of childlike innocence that we should seek after.
Here though, you have childish...
Corruption.
The opposite of innocence is what you really got here.
And it points even further to just the inversion of education broadly.
We now view kids...
As a nice little ornament for adults, something I want and I have a right to.
And if I can't conceive a child because, you know, I'm a man in a relationship with another man, don't want to get married, or just because I suffer infertility, or for whatever reason, or because I waited too long and I got married in my 40s or something, and for whatever reason, people now say, well, I have a right to a child.
So I'm going to go buy that child.
I'm going to go, you know, to the baby store and order a custom order child.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
The parents are supposed to give of their love and then that creates a child and then you sacrifice your own desires for your child, for the good of the other person.
Teachers would sacrifice some of their desires and they would take on what's actually a very difficult job, which is educating people, especially young people.
Now it's the opposite.
Now the teachers are demanding something of the students.
The teachers are dependent upon the little three-year-olds to affirm the teachers' delusions, which I bet even most of the three-year-olds know are crazy.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to zapmydebt.com.
Does your debt keep you tossing and turning at night?
It's like you can't get away from it.
The truth is the system is designed to trap you in debt.
These insanely high interest credit cards and loans make it nearly impossible to pay off your debt.
Thankfully, there's a new way out of the debt trap with Pivotal Debt Solutions.
Pivotal Debt Solutions is not like the old-school debt relief companies that string your debt out for years.
They have new aggressive strategies to end your debt faster and easier than you thought possible.
Pivotal Debt Solutions can cut or even eliminate interest.
They will help find programs to write off your balances so you owe less.
They can stop those threatening phone calls.
The bottom line is that they find every solution possible to end your debt permanently.
Before you do anything, contact Pivotal Debt Solutions at zapmydebt.com.
Talk to them for free and find out how fast they can help you get out of debt.
That is zapmydebt.com.
Head on over there right now.
Zapmydebt.com.
The other thing you got to check out.
The famous smells and bells candle.
This candle, a Lenten special, made for your home to smell like a 12th century monastery, this candle is going away after Easter.
Because it's Lent.
It's a Lenten candle.
You're not going to have a Lenten candle after Easter.
That'd be crazy.
So, if you want to get yours, if you want to stock up, because it is the best-selling candle ever in the Daily Wire shop, and the best-smelling one, I think, of all of them, Go to dailywire.com slash shop right now and we will stop selling them.
So get yours before they are gone.
Speaking of social problems, there's a study out.
That is totally unsurprising to me, but might be surprising to some people.
Loneliness is worse for health than obesity, alcoholism, and even smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
This, according to researchers from the Reagan Strafe Institute and the Indiana University School of Medicine.
This is a major biopsychosocial stressor.
Worse, especially for older people, than being a booze hound, being fat, and smoking 15 cigs a day.
This was just published in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
No surprise.
Also, 53% of older adults, according to this It's because, as I've said before on the show, and I'll say it again, man is a social creature.
So, we are designed to be in society.
We are not designed to be alone.
Modern society tells us that we are supposed to be alone.
and cigs and drinking too much and stuffing our faces with McDonald's.
It's because, as I've said before on the show, and I'll say it again, man is a social creature.
So we are designed to be in society.
We are not designed to be alone.
Modern society tells us that we are supposed to be alone.
The left and the right tell us this.
The left says, we don't need society, man.
We don't need We don't need our families.
Yeah, we don't need these institutions, man.
We're gonna drop out, you know?
We're gonna go our own way, man, whatever.
But then the right says similar things, which is, I don't need the collectivist economics and social policies of the left.
No, no, I'm my own individual.
I don't need anybody, and I'm not gonna rely on anybody, and I'm gonna go be Henry David Thoreau or something in the woods, even though he was kind of a fake because he had relatives bring him groceries.
In any case, That's not how mankind is meant to be.
We're social creatures.
So when you undermine probably the most basic aspect of human nature, you're unhappy.
Happiness, contrary to what many modern liberals will tell you, is not just something we can prescribe for ourselves.
And I'm just going to do me, and you're going to do you, and maybe that'll make you happy, and that'll make me happy.
I'm not saying there's no variety.
Diversity is the spice of life, sure.
But there are broad rules that govern happiness.
Happiness is rational activity.
Done excellently, in accordance with virtue.
That's what it is.
When you do certain things, you're much more likely to thrive.
If you get married, have kids, participate in your community, go to church on Sunday, immerse yourself in culture, the culture of your civilization, if you perform acts of charity, if you do these things, The likelihood that you were unhappy plummets to pretty much zero over a long period of time.
Obviously, everyone suffers to some degree at different times, but over the long haul, you will be happy because you are doing things that are rationally known and knowable to be good, and you're doing them, one hopes, with excellence in accordance with virtue.
You'll do it.
If you just live for yourself, you will be miserable.
That's going to happen.
And I'm not saying that these old people who are reporting loneliness are intentionally living for themselves.
We live in a culture now.
That pushes old people to the margins.
We kill babies, we kill old people, we're not so nice to the people in the middle either.
It's a very cruel society that is suffering from a dearth of charity and it's dreadful.
It breaks my heart, especially with old people.
It's really not how it's supposed to be.
That's what we do, so we basically ship granny off to a home somewhere, and that's that.
And we don't feel that we have any obligations or responsibilities on the left or on the right.
The left because they hate the older generations, and on the right because we think that everything can be resolved with a check and a little bit of money, and we think that selfishness is a virtue, at least since the 1980s.
And none of those things are true.
And you can't really commoditize everything.
You can't commoditize human life, and you can't privatize society.
We live in society.
It is, by its very nature, a public matter.
We live in a republic, a res publica, you know, like public things, and we need to start acting like it.
Speaking of society.
And social breakdown.
Migrants have just broken through a barrier of the Texas National Guard.
It was caught on video and no one really did anything.
You can see this is in El Paso.
Just a ton of people.
Doesn't look like a lot of women.
Doesn't look like a lot of kids.
It's mostly fighting-age men.
Just busting through.
And there are these armed National Guard troops.
And they're doing pretty much nothing.
They're trying to stop the migrant, the young men.
But the young men are not afraid of the National Guard.
They're busting through.
They're running.
Then they make it to a fence.
They try to get through that.
There's another barrier, but they will be allowed through.
They'll probably just cue, you know, they'll get in line and then they can scream and yell and they can throw punches at the National Guard.
It won't matter.
They'll probably just be allowed in because that's what Joe Biden wants.
So you look at this video and the gut reaction of a lot of people is, don't those guys have guns?
You know, don't they?
And the thing is, I don't want the National Guard to shoot these people.
I don't.
I would actually feel bad if the National Guard were shooting these migrants.
Even though they're not asylum seekers, even though they're not little beautiful ten-year-old dreamers, they're fighting-age men who are just coming over here to make some money.
But even so, I don't want the National Guard to shoot them.
The problem is, if these guys feared getting shot by the National Guard, which is Carrying guns.
If the National Guard were not carrying their guns in vain, then these guys would be much less likely to run to the border.
And they're therefore much less likely to put themselves in a dangerous situation where they could get shot.
So what do we do about that?
I don't know.
I guess the National Guard could start beating them with clubs or something.
You know?
Some sort of middle ground between shoot them and just roll out the red carpet and let them break our basic laws and enter into the country and compromise our whole political system.
But there has to be something.
The reason that we feel it would be unjust to just start shooting these people, even though they're coming over with the help of some of the worst criminal cartels in the world, the reason we feel that way is because we have had a de facto policy of open borders for so long, it seems unfair.
So like these, hold on, these are the poor schlubs who get caught.
We've had a decades-long policy of just letting these guys in, and so that seems kind of unfair.
But right now, there's absolutely no disincentive to come across the border.
So it's even more humiliating than if we just tore down the wall and actually rolled out a red carpet.
Because we send our tough-looking National Guard guys down there in armor, in camo, with weapons, and they can't do anything.
You present an image of the United States military But then, what unfolds from that image is a totally impotent military, totally impotent law enforcement.
A totally impotent American political order that gets rolled by criminal cartels every single day.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to PragerU.com.
Is the future of America doomed?
A majority of Gen Z supports left-wing policies such as open borders and socialism.
If we don't reach them and change their minds, the country we know and love will be lost forever.
PragerU is the leading nonprofit when it comes to influencing young people.
Their educational, entertaining, pro-American videos meet young people where they are and open their minds to the truth.
But they need our help.
Go to PragerU.com, make a tax-deductible donation.
Whatever you give right now will be tripled and have three times the impact.
Donate $10, triples to $30.
Give $100, it triples to $300.
PragerU is 100% free to everyone with no fees or subscriptions.
They don't rely on ads or clickbait headlines.
Contrary to what the left says, PragerU is not funded by a handful of billionaires.
It's funded by people just like you.
To keep making great content, reaching millions, and changing minds, PragerU needs our help.
Go to PragerU.com to donate today.
PragerU.com.
While you're over there, check out my five-minute videos and the book club with Michael Knowles.
PragerU.com today.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Hard Boiled Entertainment.
This question, what is a crime?
Answer, I don't know.
I'm not law enforcement.
I don't, I don't even know where that comes from.
Is that a reference to AOC?
AOC who's a legislator who doesn't know about laws and crimes?
Might be.
Or is that a reference to just the liberal mode of argument?
You've probably heard it.
Which is, they'll say, well look.
I, having not experienced what it's like to be an illegal alien, they don't say that, they say an undocumented future dreaming American.
Having not lived, I don't know, to be a black person, I can't possibly weigh in on the struggle.
And you think, no.
You do have reason, right?
You do have a couple of brain cells to rub together.
A doctor doesn't need to have cancer to know something about oncology.
I think we have some objectivity.
Maybe.
Maybe we once did.
I don't know that we do anymore.
Speaking of our government, speaking of really obtuse and contrary political takes, The New York Times has just run a big headline and a big special The headline, it turns out the deep state is actually kind of awesome.
Take it away.
Donald Trump is obsessed with the deep state.
The deep state.
Deep state.
The deep state is destroying our nation.
Either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state.
And many Republicans are widening his paranoia.
These unelected bureaucrats are ruining this country.
From a cabal of security agents to... The sick political class that hates our country.
If elected, Trump's vowed to gut the federal government.
Reinstate the Schedule F executive order and quote, fire rogue bureaucrats.
But who are these bureaucrats?
And what makes them so dangerous?
Meet Scott Bellamy.
And he may have quite literally saved the planet from annihilation.
Potentially.
This is Radhika Fox.
I am the Assistant Administrator for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency.
I am the Acting Director of Enforcement for the Wage and Hour Division for the Midwest Regional Office for the U.S.
Department of Labor.
I had to take a breath, yes.
Ha, ha, ha.
Ha, ha, ha.
That first guy they referenced, he works in Huntsville on one of the space programs.
They say, well, this is the deep state that Trump's so afraid of.
He's just building rockets.
And, oh, this lady, she's just an EPA administrator.
Deep state.
Come on, Trump, you're so paranoid.
So, worth pointing out, the libs did the meme here.
The meme conservatives sometimes state is that the libs claim XYZ is not happening and it's good that it is.
This, you guys are so paranoid about XYZ.
XYZ is not real and I love it and it's terrific and so they'll contradict themselves.
Well, they've done that here.
They open up the video, they say, Donald Trump is so paranoid about the deep state.
They've spent years and years telling us the deep state doesn't exist.
And now they say, and actually, it's kind of awesome.
That's that's the headline.
So they open up with the least objectionable aspect of the deep state of the federal bureaucracy, which is this scientific space research that might have some kind of public policy implication.
When we talk about the deep state, though, that's not really what we're concerned with.
When we're talking about the deep state, we're concerned with the agencies that interfere with our lives, without accountability, that in effect write most of our laws, that tend to be capricious, and tend to exert a left-wing political pressure on the country, regardless of who wins elections.
And that's the problem.
And so, the EPA actually manages to do that.
Some of some of those other regulatory agencies do that.
The intelligence agencies really do that.
I mean, we've seen so many memoranda and text messages and exchanges between members of the intelligence community going back now eight years trying to undermine Donald Trump illegally to spy on his campaign.
To cook up a plan with Hillary and the Democrats and Russian intelligence, ironically, to try to either prevent him from getting elected or throw him out once he is elected.
To spy on him.
To throw a wrench in the gears of his administration.
Those are all from unelected guys who are undermining what the American people want in what is putatively self-government.
And that's what we're talking about with the deep state.
But even so, even though the New York Times, I think, is being rather obtuse with this I'm glad first they're admitting that the deep state, the federal bureaucracy exists, that it wields some power.
But also I agree with the point that they say it's actually kind of awesome.
It isn't presently kind of awesome, but it could be.
There are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who rightly observe that the development of this massive federal bureaucracy was unfortunate, and it was brought about largely by liberal presidents, notably FDR and LBJ.
And that it advances really left-wing policy priorities, and this is really bad.
That's true.
And it's a little different from the constitutional structure and I'm a bill up on Capitol Hill that you learn about in school.
That's all true.
But, I think those conservatives go too far.
They get a little utopian when they say, and that's why we're going to tear down the federal bureaucracy.
That's what gives the New York Times the opportunity to mock them.
Say, oh, you're going to, what, you're going to fire this random rocket engineer in Huntsville?
You're going to fire, what, the two million people by some counts that work for the federal bureaucracy?
I don't think so.
It won't happen.
To give the devils their due, part of the reason that the federal bureaucracy developed in the first place Was, well, because the American people elected very liberal presidents, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, who designed it, FDR, who first implemented it, LBJ, who perfected it, but also because we became a global empire.
And it just happened.
And you can complain about that, and you can say, well, we shouldn't have any entangling alliances, and we shouldn't have military presence everywhere in the world, and we shouldn't be the leader of the free world, and we shouldn't have waged the Cold War, and you can say whatever you want.
We're a global empire.
The U.S.
military has something called AFRICOM, okay?
The Command of Africa, alright?
And that's kind of far away from Palookaville, isn't it?
Yeah, because we're a global empire, and global empires require bureaucracies.
This has been true for all of history.
It's been true in every major empire, going back to Rome and before Rome, and it will be true in every major political entity.
It just happens.
It wasn't foisted on us from outer space.
It wasn't some alien or some demon who came down.
I mean, I don't know, maybe the demons influenced people, but it was men who did this.
It was members of Congress who outsourced their responsibilities, their power, to the executive agencies.
And they did it legally.
You know, the conservatives will sometimes beg for the overturn of Chevron deference.
Chevron being a Supreme Court decision.
That a lot of libertarians especially really hate because it empowered the executive agencies and gave them the ability basically to interpret their own statutes.
It did empower the executive agencies.
I believe Antonin Scalia actually was in favor of it at the time, though later in his life he turned against it.
But he might have been right the first time in the sense that it's not going away.
It's just not going to go away.
You can cry and scream and yell, but it's not going away.
So the question for the conservatives is, are we going to try to make the best of what we've got?
Are we going to try to turn this thing to our advantage?
Or are we going to just surrender it to the left?
Because there are some purists out there who say, surrender it to the left.
Surrender the schools to the left.
Surrender the media to the left.
Surrender the bureaucracy to the left.
Just forget about it.
We don't want any part of this.
Okay, well that's a great way to lose forever and become a permanent minority.
But what we could do, Is, if we get Trump elected, he could go in there, he could reinstitute the president's ability to fire these guys.
A lot of these bureaucrats can't even be fired by the president right now.
So, you reassert the presidential power to fire a lot of these guys.
And then you fire, not all of them, you fire about 40,000 to 50,000 of them.
By some counts there are 2 million people in the federal bureaucracy.
Most presidents turn over 4,000 to 5,000 of them.
You would really have to do about 10x.
So fire 40,000 to 50,000 of them, put in really solid guys there who are really, really hard to fire, and then have them wield what we all acknowledge is the actual law-making power of the United States.
Wield that to conservative ends.
Because if all we do is just keep electing some charming, loud-mouthed members of Congress who aren't going to get anything done, then it's all for show.
But we're not actually going to accomplish conservative policy goals.
The Deep State is actually kind of awesome.
You know, New York Times, I think you're right.
Certainly could be.
Let's put that theory to the test.
Now, speaking of the Deep State, you know, the bureaucrats and some of the elected officials at the state level and just everyone is coming out against Trump.
So they're prosecuting him in DC, prosecuting him in Georgia, going after him all over the place, and they are trying to take his properties in New York.
So there's this civil fraud judgment, we've been talking about it for a couple days.
It is almost half a billion dollars.
The Attorney General of New York, who campaigned for her office by saying she would destroy Trump, she's trying to seize his properties.
Now, Kevin O'Leary But more importantly, the message about the American brand.
You think about America, the reason this is the number one economy on earth is that we have laws, and we have due process, and we have property rights.
This is a threat to the American brand. - But more importantly, the message about the American brand, you think about America, the reason this is the number one economy on earth is that we have laws and we have due process and we have property rights.
It attracts foreign capital from all around the world.
All of that is being shaken to the core here.
The concept of seizing assets in 30 days on a bond number that's never been issued.
No insurance bond companies ever issued anything near this, so there was no chance it was going to happen.
And only giving 30 days notice in time.
That's a really bad message.
And I think New Yorkers should think well past Trump, whether he's president or not, or whether this attorney general is gone in four years or not, it's irrelevant.
This is case setting against the American brand, the most stable country on earth.
Anywhere to put capital work over a long period of time, particularly in real estate, is the United States of America.
This is an assault on what we believe to be core.
Spot on.
It is an attack on the American brand.
It makes us look as unstable as any banana republic or tin pot dictatorship, which is not only undignified, it's not only disturbing as a reputational matter, but it could be an existential threat to the country because the American brand is pretty much all we've got.
The brand is the reason that we are the global hegemon.
The brand is the reason that an American can go pretty much anywhere on earth and not worry about being accosted or hassled all that much.
The American brand is the reason why we're so rich.
The American brand is the reason why we still have so much relative prosperity and social success.
America's position as the global hegemon is predicated largely on dollar supremacy, on the fact that people view the United States as a stable place to put their money.
They're going to invest in America.
They're going to use the American currency.
If we start teetering, if we, at the behest of Democrats, start becoming like some Latin American dictatorship, we start imprisoning our political opponents, that all goes away, and we all get broke, and our enemies start moving around, and the American empire falls very, very quickly.
America has more resources, theoretically, than just our brand.
We've got great natural resources.
The Democrats won't let us use them.
We've got, we had for a long time, very strong social cohesion.
The Democrats won't let us have that anymore.
That's why they're flooding the country with foreigners.
We have had strong religiosity, which has all sorts of great terrestrial effects as well.
Good work ethic, productivity, neighborhoods, strong law and order.
Again, that also in decline.
So all of the other resources that America has, Have been diminished intentionally.
The brand is what we've got left.
Lose the brand, you lose everything.
And O'Leary's observation here, that the prosecution of the former president and current leader of the opposition, that is a major threat to the brand for everyone.
You know, spring break is here, and Jeremy's Razors is all set for the journey with the Precision 5 Go Bag.
Inside this travel essential is everything you need to look great on the go.
The Precision 5 handle, 4 cartridges, Jeremy's body soap, all neatly packed into a waterproof travel bag.
These products altogether would normally cost almost $37, but right now you can get the Precision 5 Go Bag for $19.99.
Leave the woke behind.
Join the alternative economy with a company that aligns with your values.
Jeremy's Razors!
Head on over to jeremyrasors.com to get your Precision 5 Go Bag today.
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 Canada WLAS to get an additional 50% off your first month.
Take it away!
Hey Michael, I know that you are a big fan of the conservative populist movement and that you've presented it as this movement that has done nothing but good for conservatives and republicans here lately, but I honestly have to disagree.
I think conservative populism has its place, and populist movements are always useful for when you need to shake things up and deal with an elitist class.
My problem is, I feel we are getting to the part where we are going too far, because right now I'm seeing a lot of prominent people in the party who are less concerned with principle and less concerned with sticking by what we actually have believed in for the longest time, and instead are just about beating the Democrats, saying that anybody who disagrees with them is a traitor or a Democrat, and
pushing for everybody to conform to their specific idea of what it means to be conservative and I don't feel that that is conducive for us going forward in a party.
I look at the conservative populist movement and I see that we've gone from being a party that always talked about fiscal discipline but never did anything to being a party that never does anything for fiscal discipline and now doesn't even Act like it's important.
I've seen us go from a party that says the best way to prevent government overreach and attacking of political dissidents is by denying government power to saying the government can do whatever it wants as long as we are the ones in control.
And I see many more people who are demagogues and showboaters rather than people who are actually there to get things done.
So, I'm having a little trouble seeing the bright side of the current conservative populist movement.
And I don't like that anybody who is not all for the populist movement is suddenly labeled as establishment, squish, or elitist.
A really good question, though I think, ironically, you've undercut your own point.
So just a slight correction, I've never said that the populist movement on the right is entirely good and there's nothing bad about it and it's wonderful.
I think it's broadly a good thing, but I've never suggested that there are no downsides to it at all.
What you're saying here, though, Is that you like the excitement of conservative populism.
You like that it brings more people in to vote for the Republicans against the Democrats.
But you don't like the populists actually getting what they want.
So ironically, you're accusing the populists of forfeiting principle in favor of just racking up political electoral wins.
But that seems to be exactly what you want.
You say, no, no, I don't want these populists to actually have their principles.
I don't want them to follow their principles.
I just want them to come into the party and keep voting for the same old things that the pre-populist Republican Party was voting for.
But I want them to, you know, wear crazier hats or something.
But you don't actually, you don't want the populism.
A populist movement is not just aesthetic.
A populist movement is political.
It has goals that are at odds with whatever the prevailing status quo was before.
That's what makes it populist.
That's what makes it insurgent.
That's what makes it novel.
So ironically, you're saying, but I don't, these people don't have principles.
They just want to win elections.
No, it sounds like you just want to win the elections and you want to kind of just use them as instruments to do it, but without allowing them to actually achieve their goals.
Now, I might be being a little harsh on you right now, but I think this is, there are a lot of Republicans who think this way.
And they'll use the same kind of language.
They'll say, look, I, a free trade purist, small government libertarian with some neoconservative leanings, I am the principled conservative.
But you people, you have no principles.
When you say that you want tariffs, you have no principles.
When you say you want to restrict all immigration, you have no principles.
No, they have a different principle.
There are some principles held by some Republicans, which is that We ought to not wield government power, even in a just way.
We ought to just totally diminish our wielding of government power.
That we ought to cut government spending dramatically.
That we ought to reform or outright obliterate the entitlement programs.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, that we ought to permit legal immigration, but not illegal immigration, that we ought to have total free trade, right?
Let's just, that handful of things.
Those are principles.
It's also principled to say we should have tariffs.
It's also principled to say we should restrict all migration, because we just have too much and most people want to do that.
It's also principled to say that you're never going to get lasting fiscal reform until you get social reform.
That the Tea Party was wrong.
That Paul Ryan was wrong.
He might have had good intentions, but he just didn't understand how politics actually works.
And so you've got to get the social reform first.
That's principle two.
It's just a different principle.
And the fear for people who like the status quo in the Republican Party is that The populists, who are the reason that all of a sudden you're winning elections, who are the reason that all of a sudden you're getting new demographics to enter the party, well, those guys might have some ideas of their own too.
They're not going to just bring you their votes and then not get anything in exchange.
So there's always a hazard to those kinds of movements.
But broadly speaking, I think that the populists, so-called, even the term is a term of derision, but the populists were much needed, and many of their, not all, not all, but many of their policy prescriptions are superior to those that we had heard from the Republican but many of their policy prescriptions are superior to those that we had heard from the We're going to get to some more voicemail back in just a second.
First, though, go to hallow.com slash Knowles.
We are in the midst of Lent, the 40 days leading up to Easter.
It Many Christians are choosing to give up alcohol, social media, and other distractions to focus more on prayer, fasting, and giving.
Hallow's annual Pray 40 Challenge is one of their most popular.
This year, there are over 1 million people praying as a part of the challenge.
The Pray 40 Challenge focuses on surrender and includes meditations on the powerful book, He Leadeth Me, by Father Walter Chizik.
The series follows Father Cizek, an American priest and missionary, through his imprisonment and subsequent enslavement in the Soviet Union during World War II and the Cold War.
His story is one of ultimate surrender, and participants in the challenge are called to surrender their worries, anxieties, problems, and lives to God.
Our very own Dr. Jordan Peterson's wife, Tammy, was recently featured in Pray40, where she shares her story about being diagnosed with terminal cancer and how she surrendered her fears to God.
The Halo app is truly transformative and will help you connect with your faith on a deeper level.
What are you waiting for?
Join Halo's Pray40 challenge today.
Halo.com slash Knowles.
You'll receive an extra three-month free trial and hear Tammy Peterson's story of faith.
Halo.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Next question.
Hey Michael, I have two questions.
The first question is when Democrats talk about abortion and trans rights and the LGBT movement and even basic things like the border crisis and inflation, do you think their viewpoint is they actually believe a man is a woman or you could cut a baby up to birth?
Or are they just saying it because it's part of the socialist agenda and they want to reform and they want to tear down society, like Martin Lennon wanted to do?
And second thing, I was watching your debate with Per and I agree with you a lot more than Per.
But for me, as a conservative, and more importantly, as a follower of the law and saviour of Jesus Christ, there are incentives to get married.
But I look at sort of my liberal friend, there are no incentives.
So what are the incentives to get married we can do from a government level?
Oh, really good questions.
So, you're right.
Right now, the way the... I'll take the second question first, I guess.
The way that the marriage laws work...
All the incentives are against marriage.
Not all, but many of them are now against marriage, and against a lifelong marriage, and against having children, and all the rest of it.
So, what we could do is just copy the family policy from Hungary.
If you have more than three kids, you don't pay taxes.
I would love to do that.
That's perfect.
What we could do is define marriage accurately in our law.
And say, look, nothing against guys who are a little light in the loafers, you know, do what you got to do.
We're not going to send the purity police around.
But marriage is a real thing.
It's different from any other union.
And it's, you know, the point of it is the begetting and educating of children, the mutual support of the spouses.
So we're going to define that.
The thing that's always been everywhere and is by nature, that's what marriage is.
And we're going to encourage it because it's good for society because it's the fundamental building block.
And other people can have their own arrangements and No one's going to stop you from doing it, but marriage is a good thing.
And then you would discourage divorce, outlaw no-fault divorce, reform the family courts, you know, you could do all of that as well.
As to the motivations of the left, you're asking Do they really not know that a man can't be a woman, or are they just being cynical to tear things down?
I think they're probably largely deluded.
I think people can very easily be deceived.
And this is especially true when they are led into vicious actions.
The thing that happens when you sin, the first thing that happens is you just go kind of crazy.
There's some poem, I forget who wrote the poetry, but that sin was so stupid because it was such a waste of time, you know, it's so contrary to reason.
So, virtue is in accordance with reason.
And it just, people who kind of have their lives together and are kind of doing the right thing, talking to them, they tend to be more sane.
Whereas if you talk to some drug addict, you know, who's going to orgies, who's just a complete maniac, serial killer, those guys are not going to sound sane.
They're going to seem kind of off the wall.
And because their reason will be skewed, in no small part because of just the way that they live.
They're going to have greater trouble discerning truth from falsehood or convincing themselves to even care about that.
We got through, what, two voicemail-back questions today.
We have more voicemail-back questions to get to.
We have written mail-back questions to get to.
We have the iPad to get to.
And we have Fake Headline Friday.
The rest of the show continues now.
You do not want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code NOLESKIN at WLAS at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
