Ep. 1647 - BREAKING: Devastating Fires Destroy Los Angeles
Facebook uncensors conservatives, California catches fire, and President Trump reclaims the Panama Canal.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1647
- - -
DailyWire+:
Kick off 2025 with 25% off your new DailyWire+ annual membership. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today!
Matt Walsh’s hit documentary “Am I Racist?” is NOW AVAILABLE on DailyWire+! Head to https://amiracist.com to become a member today!
Order your Mayflower Cigars here: https://bit.ly/3Qwwxx2 (Must be 21+ to purchase. Exclusions may apply)
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code KNOWLES for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
PureTalk - Switch to Pure Talk by going to https://PureTalk.com/KNOWLES and save an additional 50% off your first month!
- - -
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
As President Trump's return to the White House reorders world politics, from killing corporate DEI policies to toppling governments, Mark Zuckerberg makes a major announcement about the future of conservative speech on Facebook.
And it's good news.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show, Los Angeles is on fire.
Los Angeles is often on fire, but this time Los Angeles is really, really on fire.
From Pasadena all the way over to Malibu.
So we're all praying for the people in L.A. However, these fires are not just caused by natural elements.
There are a lot of political elements going on here, too, that underlie the severity of the fires.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to balanceofnature.com.
Use promo code Knowles.
Balance of Nature fruits and veggies is the most convenient way to get whole fruits and vegetables daily, especially if you've centered your New Year's resolutions around creating a healthier lifestyle.
Nature is pretty good at giving us the nutrients we need through our fruits and veggies.
So Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, freeze dries them, turns them into a powder, and then puts them into a capsule.
You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and then your body knows what to do with them.
Balance of nature is just one ingredient of a balanced lifestyle.
It has no intention to replace a healthy diet, exercise, sleep, or any other healthy habits.
It is intended to be used in concert with other healthy habits.
I love balance of nature, especially I'm on the road a lot.
Sometimes I'm not eating all that well.
So Balance of Nature makes it super easy to get the nutrients that you need.
The only problem with it is that the hyenas around the daily wire can just grab them before I even get mine.
Go to balanceofnature.com.
Use promo code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S.
For 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That is balanceofnature.com, promo code Knowles.
Mark Zuckerberg comes out yesterday in t-shirt, gold chain, gold.
A watch that I think costs upwards of a million dollars.
He's in his rapper era.
He's hip.
He's cool.
He's so hip and cool that he realizes which way the political winds are blowing.
And he is not only acknowledging that Facebook has been censoring conservatives, he promises that Facebook is going to stop censoring conservatives.
And we've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship.
The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.
So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.
More specifically, here's what we're going to do.
First, we're going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X, starting in the U.S. After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote non-stop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy.
We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth.
But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S. So over the next couple of months, we're going to phase in a more comprehensive community notes system.
We're going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.
What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas and it's gone too far.
Better late than never, I guess.
I remember when these conversations were starting up between Facebook and content creators and news outlets.
Eight years ago?
Nine years ago?
I remember being involved in some of those conversations.
And at the time, Facebook said, no, no, we've got to take serious action here.
They were getting a ton of pressure from the left.
In a way, I kind of pity Mark Zuckerberg.
They were getting pressure from Elizabeth Warren.
They were being blamed for allowing the Mango Mussolini to win the 2016 election.
So Facebook clamped down on conservatives.
The Daily Wire was the...
Biggest thing on Facebook.
We were the biggest news commentary producer on Facebook.
We were absolutely crushing.
And then one day, Facebook decided to kill our reach by 90%.
That was not some organic change that happened because of new market desires and forces.
That was a decision top-down at Facebook.
Kill conservatives, specifically kill Daily Wire.
And now Mark Zuckerberg is saying, yeah.
Our fact-checkers were too politically biased, to the left, anti-Trump.
And yeah, we probably should allow people to talk about immigration and the crazy trans stuff and all the rest of it.
We weren't letting you do that before, but now we're going to have to.
Why?
Because Trump won.
Why did Trudeau resign?
Or why is he planning to resign?
Because Trump won.
Why is Mark Zuckerberg...
Donating to the Trump inaugural fund, why is Mark Zuckerberg changing the policies to stop punishing conservatives?
Because Trump won.
And he didn't just win an electoral college landslide, he won the popular vote.
Mark Zuckerberg needs to do this in order to serve the market.
Most people want Trump to be president.
Also, Trump is president, Trump is in power, and he's not afraid to wield that power.
And Mark Zuckerberg wants to be on the right side of the regulators.
So, some people are saying, this isn't good enough.
Mark Zuckerberg's been going after conservatives.
And Facebook's been suppressing conservatives.
And this isn't fair.
And we shouldn't let him off the hook.
He's not being sincere.
I don't know.
Maybe he's sincere.
Maybe he's not.
I don't think Mark Zuckerberg's some radical leftist.
He's empowered radical leftists.
But I don't think he's some radical.
But I don't really care.
I don't care.
Whether this guy's sincere, if he's seen the light.
I don't care at all.
I care about what happens.
I care about what he does.
I'm elated.
In fact, if Mark Zuckerberg is being disingenuous and cynical here and he's just trying to go where the wind is blowing, all the better.
Because that is further evidence, proof positive if you ask me, that the political winds are blowing in the favor of conservatives.
Of real conservatives, of the kind of conservatives who don't just advance the position of Democrats, of the kind of conservatives who voted for Trump.
We're winning.
Exhibit Z. Exhibit number 3052. Things are going in our direction.
Now, speaking of social media content, an extremely disturbing video made the rounds yesterday.
It is a porn lady showing up to a Five Guys burger restaurant and propositioning the young man behind the counter.
I just wondered, I can't see it on the menu, but where do I get the Five Guys from?
The Five Guys.
I didn't know if it was like a special room where you can take me out back.
No, I don't think that's happening.
What, but after your shift?
I mean, I'd want to give you, you know, a good rating.
I'm a pussy man and I'm witnessing myself man.
I'm asking for what's on the menu, that song.
Genuinely, I feel like I'm doing that now.
I can hold your menu if you want.
Are you on it?
No, I'm not.
Oh, that's a shame.
Oh, that's a shame.
Yeah, isn't it?
Yeah.
Where can I get the five guys?
Ha ha ha.
What a groaner.
First of all, great on that young man.
Great.
He says, I'm a Christian.
I'm waiting until marriage.
Had I been his age, what is he, a teenager, early 20s?
I was an atheist, agnostic in my teenage, early 20s.
Had I been that guy, some lady walks in and propositions me?
I don't know that I would have had the strength and maturity to say, no thank you, lady.
I'm a Christian man.
I'm waiting until marriage.
So, huge props to that guy.
This woman should maybe be arrested for soliciting fornication.
She should, at the very least, be institutionalized because she's nuts.
She could be prosecuted or otherwise discouraged for...
There should obviously be many more regulations around pornography.
This is a really gross woman, a really disgusting woman whose behavior should be curtailed by the culture and by the law.
But that's not the most distressing aspect of this little video, of this whole phenomenon.
It's not just this woman, it's not just this video.
There's another porn lady who went viral, we talked about it on the show, for having slept with 100 men.
In one day, and she says she wants to sleep with a thousand men.
But we should be clear here.
That woman didn't go viral for sleeping with a hundred men.
She went viral for talking about sleeping with a hundred men in a documentary.
And for talking about how in the future she might sleep with a thousand men.
In this case, this woman didn't go viral for creating some pornography.
She went viral for going into a burger restaurant and debasing herself.
The most depraved aspect of this whole new genre of reality show pornography, of only fans or individual kind of social media influencer porn, is that it has nothing to do with nudity.
It has nothing to do with sex acts.
It's even creepier than that.
It's even more depraved than that.
The content that's going viral, there's no shortage of naked ladies on the internet.
The reason this woman and the woman previously who slept with 100 men, the reason they've gone viral has really very little to do with them taking their clothes off.
It's them just talking about ways in which they have debased themselves.
That's the porn.
And it makes sense that in a culture...
In which nudity and obscenity is ubiquitous, totally saturated with porn, that people need something even more bizarre, even more depraved.
And so what titillates here is the personal debasement of these women to walk into a Five Guys and proposition the kid behind the counter.
That is a culture that is too obscene.
And we need some guardrails back.
And this is happening in my own state of Tennessee.
Regulating pornography.
I mean, this is normal stuff.
The libertarians and the leftists will raise a ruckus about it.
Say it's a bad idea to regulate pornography or something.
We've always done that.
And a culture that doesn't regulate this kind of obscenity is going to get to the point where we're so perverse that what really gets us going is just watching some depraved women.
Talk about the various ways in which they might in the future or in the past have debased themselves.
Gross.
There's so much more to say.
First, though, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
You voted wasteful big government out and efficient government in.
Well, now it's time to trim the fat from wasteful big wireless.
If you were still on Verizon, ATT, or T-Mobile, why?
PureTalk, my cell phone company, gives you the exact same service.
Listen to me carefully.
I'm not saying similar service.
I'm saying...
The exact same service on the exact same towers with much better customer service, because they're based right here in the U.S., all for half the cost.
That's it.
It's that simple.
There is no need to spend $85 or $100 per month per person on your wireless bill when you can get unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with mobile hotspot for just $35 a month.
Friends, the average family of four, saves $1,000 a year with PureTalk, all while enjoying America's most dependable 5G network.
Cut the fat out of your wireless bill.
Switch to PureTalk by going to puretalk.com slash Knowles.
That's puretalk.com slash Knowles.
You'll save an additional 50% off your first month with PureTalk, America's wireless company.
Speaking of moral questions, there is a new Archbishop of Washington, Just as President Trump is entering office, the Vatican has appointed a new Archbishop to Washington.
This would be...
Robert Cardinal McElroy.
Cardinal McElroy is the former auxiliary bishop of San Francisco.
He is considerably to the left of many people, certainly of prelates in the Catholic Church and the Catholic tradition.
He is radically liberal and pro-LGBT. And he's just come out and said that mass deportations of the sort that President Trump is proposing are antithetical.
To the Catholic moral vision.
He said, quote, Christopher
Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, which also marked the end of something known as the Reconquista.
The Reconquista, which was the campaign of Spanish Catholics to retake land that Muslims had conquered about 781 years prior.
The argument in America from the Libs is we can't deport people en masse.
Some of these people have been here for decades.
Spain, led by Catholic monarchs, one of whom is in the process of being canonized, who is a servant of God, Queen Isabella, managed to boot out a whole lot of people.
Who had been in the country for not just years or decades, but for 781 years.
Just booted them out at the end of the Reconquista.
Because the Muslims invaded Iberia in 711 AD. And they gained a lot of ground.
They tried to conquer all of Europe, but happily Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, booted the Muslims out at the Battle of Poitiers.
Tours 150 miles outside of Paris.
But the Muslims had Iberia for a very long time until the Christians started to take the land back.
This all ended in 1492. And they gave him the boot.
And then there were further waves of deportations of Muslims in the century that followed.
Now, famously, Jews got caught up a little bit in the mix there.
They also got the boot in 1492. Though the Catholics mitigated this a little bit by allowing Jews who had been booted out of Iberia to settle in the Papal States.
It's a long story.
But they reconquist it broadly, targeted at Muslims.
And in any case, one does not even need to.
Defend the Reconquista, a very important event in the history of Christendom and Western civilization.
But one does not even have to defend it to point out that what Cardinal McElroy is saying here is simply not true.
To say that mass deportation is not in line with Catholic doctrine.
One of the pivotal events in the history of Christendom, a policy undertaken by a servant of God, a woman who was put on this path to canonization recently, in 1974, by a relatively liberal pope, Pope Paul VI, one of the two popes whose pontificate coincided with the Second Vatican Council.
She undertook the policy.
Very important policy.
I don't know.
I'm a little skeptical.
Not of the position within the Church of Cardinal McElroy, but of the political and moral claims he's making here.
It doesn't seem to jive with Catholic history.
Now, speaking of ages past, I was making this point yesterday on social media that in modernity we seem to have gotten a few things wrong.
Maybe we need to look.
And someone said, well, Michael, are you kidding me?
You want to look back to the Dark Ages?
The Dark Ages is a polemical term that's come up in modernity, mostly to attack Christianity.
But it's unclear even what Dark Ages refers to.
Some people use Dark Ages to refer specifically to the centuries immediately after the fall of Rome, so the latter half of the first millennium AD. Some use Dark Ages to refer to the whole Middle Ages.
But I was thinking about it.
People have this animus, this prejudice against the dark ages, and they think that we live in this enlightened, new modern era.
And the chief evidence that they posit is that we live longer today.
During the early middle ages, people only lived into their 20s, maybe 30. Then in the later middle ages, they'd live into their 30s, maybe 40. And if you take infant mortality out of it, they might live into their 50s or even 60 or a little higher.
But today, we live to what?
To our 70s?
I looked this up.
The global life expectancy today is about 73 and a half years.
I thought, okay, 73 and a half years, that's considerably longer.
That's twice as long, maybe, as people lived during the Middle Ages.
But then I said, well, hold on.
What about abortion?
Because...
In the Middle Ages, there was infant mortality.
We've reduced infant mortality in principle today, except not really, because now we just murder lots and lots of babies en masse.
There was a number reported last week that 45 million babies are killed each year through abortion, but the World Health Organization reports the number is much higher.
It says it's about 73 to 75 million babies killed each year through abortion.
So hold on.
We count infant mortality when we're thinking about the life expectancy in the Middle Ages, but we don't count infant mortality in modernity because we want to pretend that infant mortality isn't really infant mortality because we want to pretend that infants aren't really infants.
So what happens when you add in the abortions?
A little tricky to calculate, but the global life expectancy today, without counting the abortions, is 73 and a half years.
The global life expectancy with abortion?
About 47 and a half years.
And could be significantly lower even than that.
Life expectancy by the high middle ages, 30 to 40. And if you survive childhood, 50 to 60. Which means the average life expectancy in modernity with all of our advantages is only slightly higher than it was during the high middle ages.
What else do people say?
Well, back in the middle ages you just had to toil every single day.
You never got any days off.
It wasn't as luxurious as it is today.
That is also just not true.
People during the middle ages had much more time off work than we do today.
During the Middle Ages, people had up to half a year off because of the liturgical feasts that were actually mandatory.
You were not allowed to work on big feasts.
So you could have up to half the year off.
Today, what do people get off?
Two weeks?
I don't even really take vacation.
We're not just talking about workers or people in the salt mines.
We're talking about executives.
We're talking about everybody.
No one takes time off.
Everyone's working all the time these days.
So you can't point to days off or vacation time.
Well, people didn't get to travel.
That's not true.
People traveled a lot.
Well, Canterbury Tales opens up with the time of the year when people would go on pilgrimage.
So they wouldn't go to St. Croix, but they would go to pilgrimage to see some of the most beautiful works of art and architecture ever created.
Much more beautiful than anything people are making today.
Well, people in the Middle Ages, they had no hope.
What are you talking about?
People in the Middle Ages had much more hope than we do today.
We're a despairing society.
People today are taking depression pills.
They're so without hope.
One in five women takes depression pills because of the despair that she feels.
In the Middle Ages, people had hope because the Middle Ages were not disenchanted, because the Middle Ages were not atheistic and materialistic and so damn confused.
Don't tell me that people in the so-called dark ages didn't have hope.
They had significantly more hope than we have today.
It reminded me that...
What most people think they know about the so-called Dark Ages or the Middle Ages broadly is just nonsense.
And it's a cope.
It's a way for those of us in modernity to pretend that we're living in the greatest time ever.
You always hear from the liberals that we're living in the safest, least violent, most prosperous time ever.
If you just look at people killed, especially if you include abortion, we live in the most violent, barbaric time ever in the history of the world.
Okay?
So when we're considering policies, and even when we're thinking about morality vis-a-vis public life, please don't tell me that in the past everyone was so barbaric, but we figured it all out.
Frankly, it seems that people in ages past understood things a lot better than we do.
I'm not saying I want to go back to medieval dentistry, but there are things we can learn from our ancestors.
Now, speaking of leisure and a little bit of fun, I want to tell you about.
The Yes or No Game.
You've seen the show.
Now you can join the fun.
Yes or No.
The Yes or No Game.
Not just a show on the internet, but a game you can play with your friends.
Mr. Davies, are you ready?
Oh, I'm so ready.
Here's a prompt.
Protestants are doing more to push back against the radical left than Catholics.
Wow, that's a loaded question, huh?
How would I answer?
I will like to say that Professor Jacob did pick the card.
Wow.
And it is a good one.
I think you would say no.
You're right.
I would say no today in the year of our Lord 2025. If you had asked me that question 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago, I probably would have said yes.
Because the evangelicals were much tougher on the left than the Catholics who were politically relatively disengaged.
But I don't know.
These days it seems like the evangelicals got a little bit...
Squishy during 2020, George Floyd, all the rest of it.
Not all of them, but a lot of them.
I agree.
And the Catholics are getting a little tougher.
Would you agree?
I do agree.
You do agree.
There you go.
All right.
You've got to figure out how you know your friends by getting the Yes or No game.
Last year we released the Conspiracy Expansion Pack.
Some have called the card game MKUltra.
We did not stop there.
We then unveiled the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Expansion Pack, which others have described.
As like walking on foot from the Acropolis to Mecca with an ayahuasca IV drip while listening to a Jordan Peterson lecture all while fasting.
Who writes this stuff?
Wait, there's more!
We're teasing an even wilder expansion pack coming in 2025. Stay tuned.
But to play any of these, you need the OG, the original yes or no game, the game.
Play with up to nine people.
Test your friends and family's knowledge and opinions.
DailyWire.com slash shop.
Get your game today.
Speaking of light and darkness, California is on fire.
There's a video, really scary, came out yesterday on social media.
Some guy in his home, his glass modern home in L.A., just surrounded by fire.
You would hope that, in this case, he could find a way to get out and not be filming around there, but I don't know, he's just filming his house.
I hope he survived.
See a dog there?
I hope the dog survived.
But this is scary stuff.
I lived in L.A. for six, seven years.
And fires happen regularly.
This is not just a regular California fire.
The whole city practically is on fire, from Pasadena to Malibu.
It's just engulfing everything, and there's like no containment.
I texted a friend of mine who lives in Malibu last night.
I said, how's it going?
He said, I'm evacuated.
I said, is the fire contained?
He goes, no.
I think it was 0% contained.
The city going up in flames, another friend of mine out in LA, Kira Davis, says, it's been so dry, we can't clear brush.
We can't clear brush near power lines.
Homeless encampments with open flames everywhere.
Four years of defund the police.
This is the perfect storm.
And this gets to the political aspect of all this.
This is not just nature.
This is not just what happens in LA. This is not just climate change or whatever.
This fire is the result of specific policies.
There are reports now that the LA Fire Department is out of water, that fire hydrants don't have any more water.
That's a political problem.
The mayor of Los Angeles is reportedly not even in the city right now, might not even be on the continent right now.
That same mayor cut the fire department budget in this fiscal year by almost $20 million.
President Trump, when he showed up to California some years ago, scolded Gavin Newsom, said, you need better forest management practices here.
This is a disaster waiting to happen.
Just the homeless encampments.
Guess who starts these fires?
I don't know who started this specific fire or how many of these specific fires that we're seeing burn right now.
The homeless start the fires, generally, because L.A. allows the homeless people to live up in the very dry hills, and they have open flames, and often they catch on fire, and they burn zillions of acres of land.
That's a political problem.
That's not a natural problem.
The fires in California, we've got to pray for the people, hopefully they can contain this.
The political takeaway here is that lots of little rot can lead to big, sudden fires.
Lots of little rot.
Little literal rot in wood, in brush, but lots of political rot.
We're going to defund the fire department.
We're not going to manage our forests.
We're going to build in places maybe we shouldn't build.
We're going to let vagrants have open flames in dangerous places.
We're going to do this, we're going to do that.
Lots of little rot.
We're not going to manage our water properly.
We're going to drain reservoirs.
The list goes on.
Can lead suddenly to really big fires.
So I felt about BLM, which literally burned cities to the ground.
BLM was the result of lots of little rot.
Lots of little rot on how we talk about race in America.
How we educate people.
How we deal with criminals.
How we let a lot of criminals off the hook.
How politicians indulge racial grievance.
So on and so forth.
How we don't defend our police officers.
How the establishment media lie about a criminal who was killed during an arrest.
On and on and on.
All that little rot.
It goes on for a while and you barely even notice it.
And then something ignites.
And then the country burns for eight months while BLM rioters are looting footlockers and torching cities.
That's how these things work.
And then the fire grows so large that you think, it couldn't have possibly been because of this political decision or that little political decision or this or that, but it is.
It's the accumulation of all of this detritus, the accumulation of all of this just rot, sparks up.
So if you don't want the big fires in the future, you've got to deal with those individual little tiny problems as they come up.
Now, turning from California.
Turning a little bit southeast.
President Trump wants to rename the body of water that we presently call the Gulf of Mexico.
President Trump, according to Washington Post and other news reports, has proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.
And democracy dies in darkness, Washington Post asks in the headline, can he do that?
The president-elect told reporters Tuesday that he wanted the body of water called the Gulf of America, but he provided no details on how the change would be enacted.
Can he do that?
Yeah, he can.
Why not?
Why couldn't we do that?
The Gulf of Mexico is presently called the Gulf of Mexico, in no small part because that's what we call it.
Yeah, we can rename it.
Sure, why not?
It's at least as much our Gulf as it's Mexico's Gulf.
And we're America, and Mexico is Mexico.
Mexico is barely a real country.
Yeah, we could do that.
When you travel to Arabia, I remember this.
I was visiting a friend of mine in Arabia, and I pulled out my phone, and I saw the Persian Gulf.
Except the Persian Gulf wasn't called the Persian Gulf.
It was called the Arabian Gulf.
Because Arabia doesn't like Persia, now known as Iran.
So that body of water that we call the Persian Gulf, they call it the Arabian Gulf.
It's easy enough.
We're America.
We can do things.
We have some power.
We have some influence.
We're a pretty big act.
This is Trump's point.
When he says things like, I want to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the left and the squishes write him off as being frivolous or silly or proposing something that can't even be done.
Can he do that?
In fact, the question, can he do that, is why Trump is proposing it.
It is a reminder, all this stuff, the proposal to buy Greenland.
The jokes, are they jokes?
About taking Canada.
The big parades.
The 250th anniversary of America parade.
The big military parade during his first term.
They're all answers to the question, can he do that?
He wants these reporters to ask, can he do that?
To remind people, yes we can.
We are America.
We can do things.
We don't need to just take orders from the rest of the world.
We don't need to go quietly into the night.
We don't need to just throw up our hands and concede the greatness of our country.
We can do things.
Can we rename a gulf on our coast on a map?
Yeah, duh!
We're the global hegemon!
Yes, of course you can do that!
Good grief!
Well, what will the UN say?
Who cares?
Also, the UN does what we say they do, because we're the global hegemon.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, will the companies that produce the maps and the textbooks go?
Yeah, how about we produce them?
Yeah, we're America!
Yes, we can do that.
We can do a lot more than that, too.
Are we going to buy Greenland?
I don't know.
Don Jr., the president's son, has just posted a video.
Where he's flying on Trump Force One into Nuke, Greenland, just to pay a little visit to our neighbors to the Northeast.
Guys, where are we heading?
We're heading to Greenland.
Talk to the locals.
Talk to people.
See what they think about America.
Have a good time.
The whole town is showing up, I think, at the airports.
Let's go to Greenland.
Let's do it.
- Let's do it. - I mean, this is sort of my world as an outdoorsman, as someone who sort of travels to remote parts of the world.
I love it.
What do you need the help with?
Wrestling, social, everything, everything.
So you like the U.S.? I like the U.S. Awesome trip to Greenland.
Super warm welcome.
People excited about Trump.
They're excited about America.
I'm definitely looking forward to coming back and getting to spend a little bit more time on the ground myself.
Love it.
I love this whole video.
It was really smart to send Don.
You saw sitting right next to Don is Charlie, Charlie Kirk.
Really kind of young, exciting people in the Trump movement.
And just after President Trump's talking about buying Greenland, they just happen to take a little trip.
Why not?
You know, just a little boy's day in Greenland.
And when Don comes out there and he says, look, I'm an outdoorsman.
This is the sort of thing I love to do.
It's sincere.
It's not totally contrived.
Don really is a hunter.
He's an outdoorsman.
He's an authentic guy.
And when he goes and meets with the people of Greenland and they come up and they say, oh man, we love you, we love Trump, we love America, we want help from America, that's authentic too.
And why did they take this trip and why did they release that video?
To counter the liberal narrative that Greenland hates us.
You're seeing this develop now.
Greenland does not want to be controlled by America.
Why wouldn't they?
Greenland's currently controlled by Denmark.
If you had the choice to be controlled by Denmark or America, the global hegemon, probably you'd go with the latter, right?
America can offer you more.
And you know, things are tough for some of us in Greenland, and we'd love support from America, and we like Trump.
And so, it's a brilliant video.
I don't know who came up with this video, but whoever did is a genius, and Don does a fabulous job in it, which is just to show, hey, we're going to cut through the media BS here.
We're going to cut through the dishonest leftist media.
That is presenting an image to you.
We're just going to go straight to Greenland.
Hey, what do you guys think of Trump?
Oh, you like him?
Cool.
That's awesome.
Great.
Yeah, we can just go to Greenland.
We can do it.
We can bypass the establishment media.
We can go visit Greenland, have a nice boys weekend in Greenland.
We can maybe buy Greenland.
The U.S. State Department's been talking about it for over 150 years.
We've made a couple offers on it.
We can.
We in America can do things.
And we can grow, and we can expand, and we can be strong, and we can throw our weight around, and maybe we can even be great again.
That's the message.
Now, of more immediate concern beyond the Gulf of Mexico, sorry, Gulf of America or Greenland, is the Panama Canal.
President Trump has proposed reasserting control of the Panama Canal, and the libs are losing their minds over this.
Just a reminder.
The Panama Canal is ours.
We built the Panama Canal.
We controlled the Panama Canal entirely until Jimmy Carter gave it away in the 1970s for no reason.
During that time, conservatives were a little bit split.
There was a famous debate between William F. Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan over whether or not to give the canal to Panama.
Buckley was in favor of giving the canal to Panama.
Reagan said it would be a bad idea to give the canal to Panama, and Reagan was right.
And also, we are within our legal rights to retake that canal.
And here's why.
Paul Du Canoy at the New York Post has a really good article about this.
When we gave the canal back to Panama, this extremely crucial strategic commercial national security matter, we did so with treaties.
And the treaties gave various stipulations, including that Panama has to continue to operate the canal.
Panama cannot just give the canal away to someone else, but that's exactly what Panama did.
Panama gave the canal away, and not just anyone, they gave the canal away to China, possibly our biggest geopolitical adversary.
In 96, Panama decides, it's like 20 years after the Panama Canal Treaty, Panama decides to outsource management of the entry ports to a Hong Kong-based company.
Now, at that time, in 96, Hong Kong was controlled by the British.
So he said, okay, the British, they're sort of an appendage of the American empire anyway.
It's the motherland, no big deal.
Problem is, in 1997, I remember it clearly, the Brits gave Hong Kong back to China, which was also a stupid thing to do, but they did that.
So now, all of a sudden, you've got the Panama Canal being controlled by an entity that is controlled by China.
Now, this was a 25-year lease.
However, in 2021, they renewed the contract.
That means China effectively controls the Panama Canal.
That is an unacceptable national security risk.
It violates the 1977 treaty, which demanded Panamanian operational control of the canal, which is to say that Trump's policy here is extremely mainstream.
Trump's threat to retake the Panama Canal is not lawless, quite the opposite.
It's just following the law.
It's not a fringe idea.
It's a very mainstream idea.
So much of what Trump suggests, you know, we're going to take Greenland.
We're going to reclaim the Panama Canal.
It's being reported in the press as the crazy ravings of a madman who knows nothing about American law or American history.
Quite the opposite.
Trying to buy Greenland is as American as apple pie.
We've been trying to do it since the 19th century.
And the Panama Canal is as American as apple pie, too.
And pretty soon the Gulf of Mexico is going to be as American as apple pie.
Kickoff 2025. My favorite comment yesterday is from Christian Solid,
1702, who says, It's that they normally vote liberal.
Do we need that?
No, no, no.
They don't need to be 51st state.
They can just be a territory.
They can be snowy Puerto Ricans.
It's fine.
We can control them, but they don't have any vote.
Maybe we could go further.
Maybe we could just use them as a tax base.
They'll be like the helots of our civilization.
How about that?
Someone posted on social media yesterday.
Why are we talking about Greenland?
We need to be talking about how the 1% don't pay their fair share of taxes.
You've got to expand your imagination, man.
What if the Greenlanders just pay all of our taxes?
It's kind of serfs or something.
Now the Canadians, why don't they do that?
Those Canadians have a lot to pay for up in America's evil top hat.
They've done a lot of bad things.
At least that's the starting point of our negotiation.
I think that's the art of the deal.
The Democrat line is to pretend that all of this is frivolous.
All this talk about resources in Greenland or the Panama Canal.
They say this is all frivolous.
Eric Swalwell, a man who briefly ran for president and is most famous for allegedly sleeping with a Chinese spy and making strange noises during a cable news interview.
Eric Swalwell tweets out, I don't care if Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland.
I just want to know what he's going to do to lower the cost of groceries.
This is a stunning, stunning tweet.
Because it's an admission that the Inflation Reduction Act that Eric Swalwell voted for three years ago didn't work.
This is a stunning admission.
It seems almost sincere.
Usually in politics, a question like this is not sincere.
Usually in politics, a question like this is just a kind of rhetorical jab.
Here's what I want to know.
What is Donald Trump going to do?
Except, in this case, Eric Swalwell's party has been running the government for four years.
In this case, Eric Swalwell voted for a piece of legislation that was supposed to fix the problem that Eric Swalwell is admitting is still going on.
In this case, the question almost seems sincere.
It's like, hey, can you please tell me how to lower prices?
We said we could lower prices, but we didn't.
Actually, prices got a lot higher.
Mr. Trump, sir, can you please lower the cost of my eggs?
I don't.
I can't afford eggs.
Please?
Because Congress hasn't had a raise in nine years.
Can you please?
More than nine years.
I think it's been 15 years now.
The libs have given up the game.
I think they've given up the game.
They've got nothing.
They're throwing their hands in the air.
They're saying, um, huh.
We can't say this is an upending of democracy because Trump won the popular vote.
We can't.
Say that he's racist because one in five black guys voted for him and half of Hispanics almost.
We can't even really say he's sexist because he won huge numbers of women.
He won 40% of women under the age of 30. All right, man, what are you going to...
Are you going to lower inflation, I guess?
Please?
And I suspect he'll do it quite well.
Or he could do it quite well.
The hardest hit of all these people, all these losers, are the former Republican turncoats who have been supporting liberals.
For the past four or even eight or nine years.
There is an outlet called the Dispatch.
There are two of these outlets.
One is called the Bulwark, one is called the Dispatch.
And no one really reads either of them, but they serve as welfare programs for ousted former Republicans who now just do the will of Democrats.
The Democrats don't really read them, the Republicans don't really read them, but they're usually funded by leftists and Democrats.
And it's a jobs program for ousted, squishy GOP consultants and writers.
So, the editor-in-chief of one of these outlets, The Dispatch, came out.
And he's quoting Ala Pundit, which is a former right-wing writer who now, I guess, writes for these guys.
He's whining about Mark Zuckerberg.
He says, Free of state persecution,
fear of state persecution, not respect for the marketplace of ideas, led him to change this approach.
All these guys, all these guys lost their positions of prominence.
They lost their jobs, they lost their sinecures, they lost their prestige when Trump took over the Republican Party.
And they didn't like Trump, mostly because they felt that he was too vulgar for them.
Or because he didn't like them.
Or because he wanted to shake up their comfortable lifestyles.
In some cases, because Trump wanted to change policy, Trump tended to be right and they tended to be wrong.
But in any case, they never got over it.
You want to talk about a personal grudge?
These guys have such a personal grudge against him.
They said all sorts of things.
They said Trump will never appoint pro-life judges.
Trump will never get Roe v.
Wade overruled.
Trump will never get his tax bill passed.
Trump will never...
Establish world peace.
Trump will lead to World War III. Trump will do this.
Trump will do that.
And they were just wrong.
They were just totally wrong.
So there were some people who opposed Trump in 2016 who, when they realized that they were wrong in their predictions, they did what any reasonable person would do.
They changed their minds and they supported Trump.
But there's still this group of people, the Lincoln Project, these guys here at the couple of outlets that are funded by Libs.
They're supposed to be fake conservatives.
They just can't get over it.
It's so personal.
A lot of what it comes down to is these guys lost their jobs.
Trump walked up to them and indirectly said, you're fired, and they've never gotten over it.
This was a changing of the guard.
And this is a reminder, especially this change from Facebook that we opened the show with.
This is a reminder that personnel is policy.
Why did Zuckerberg change the policy?
Is it because he had some massive change of heart?
Because he read some books, some philosophy books?
Because he read a good column about political ideology in some newspaper?
No.
He's doing this because now Trump has power, and Zuckerberg fears that power.
In some ways, I agree with the analysis from the dispatch.
But while they're whining about this, I'm thrilled about it.
Or at the very least, I accept that this is how politics works.
This is a changing of the guard.
Personal is policy.
If you want to move the ball down the field, it's not enough to persuade your opponents in the abstract to give you what you like.
You need power.
You need leverage.
You need to get your guys into office.
In the words of Cocaine Mitch, the winners go to Washington and the losers go home.
That's what happens.
And when you do win, when you do have power, you can do things.
You can actually get some things done.
Now, I'm very excited to have a guest on the show, Laura Becker, from Identity Crisis, a new movie that we're releasing, partnering with TPUSA.
The rest of the show continues now.
You do not want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code NOLSK at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
I have often said that gender affirming care is health care.
It is mental health care, and it can actually be suicide prevention care.
Oh!
I think I'm gonna take some medicine so I can kind of, like, transform into a boy, get surgery.
After the surgery, I didn't really feel any better.
When it stopped being a thing for adults and it started to be a let's teach this to kids.
Total lie.
Manipulation.
It's gaslighting.
Please stop.
He's a boy, not a girl.
How could she do this to my son?
What they're talking about is hormonal therapy or sex reassignment surgery on children.
I thought fixing me externally would fix me internally.
But of course I was wrong.
The fact that the state thinks that they're more important and have a better say in what happens to your child over the actual parent's opinion is egregious.
Puberty blockers, surgeries, big money makers for hospitals, for physicians.
All I want to do is hold my son.
Are you asking me to lie to parents?
And he said yes.
This is a weaponized use of a parent's sympathy and caring and concern by the left to destroy your child.
Let's tell kids that maybe they can be the opposite sex.
Maybe they actually are the opposite sex.
It is an evil thing to tell children that happiness lies on the other side of puberty blockers or double mastectomies.