Ep. 2287 - BREAKING: Former FBI Director James Comey INDICTED!
The Democrats face their most brutal poll ever, the Trump White House is prepared to seize upon an imminent government shutdown, and more information comes out about the ICE facility shooter, which the liberal media want to cover up.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1823
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com.
Go to https://dailywireplus.com to join and get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout.
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Boll & Branch - Get 20% off Bed Bundles at https://BollAndBranch.com/knowles
ExpressVPN - Secure your online data TODAY by visiting https://ExpressVPN.com/knowles and you can get an extra four months FREE.
YAF - Visit https://yaf.org/national-journalism-center/ to submit your application today.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
And as we look ahead to the midterms, two new polls show that the Democrat Party is the weakest that it has been since this polling at least began on Michael Knowles' The Michael Knowles Show.
Thank you.
Welcome back to the show.
We have more information on the shooter at that ice facility in Dallas.
Information that you will not have heard and will probably have heard contradicted if you hear anything about it at all on liberal media.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, I want to tell you about Boland Branch.
Right now, go to Bowl and Branch.com/slash Knowles.
Do you ever wonder what it's like to sleep with me?
I'll uh I'll give you a window into this fantasy.
It involves a lot of Boland branch sheets.
Their premium bedding turns any bedroom into a real sanctuary with layers made from the finest 100% organic threads that you can immediately feel.
Now, crisp nights in the fall, the autumnal season mean the kind of deep, comfortable sleep that makes you look forward to bedtime.
Transform your bedroom into a personal sanctuary with Bolan branches thoughtfully curated bed bundles.
Whether you're looking for a simple refresh with new sheets and blankets, or if you're ready for a complete bedroom makeover, these bundles take the guesswork out of creating your perfect sleep environment.
Each collection is designed with different sleep preferences in mind, so you can find exactly what you need for your coolest, coziest, and softest night's rest.
I've slept on Boland Branch sheets for years and years.
They are absolutely magnificent.
They are the best sheets that you are going to get.
Boland branch makes upgrading your bed easier than ever with curated bundles for a sanctuary of comfort limited time.
Get 20% off bed bundles at Bolin Branch.com/slash Knowles.
That's Bolin Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com slash Knowles, K W L E S to save up to 20% exclusion supply.
Barack Obama comes out yesterday.
Remember him?
He was the president a little while ago.
Barack Obama comes out, and he's upset because in Republican states, they're drawing up congressional districts in ways the Democrats don't like.
Far less egregious ways, by the way, than the Democrats are doing in the Democrat states where they're gerrymand gerrymandering until kingdom come.
But Obama's really upset.
And so he says Republicans can't win on their policies.
So they're trying to dodge accountability by rewriting the rules.
These lawmakers are going out of their way to silence the will of the people and deliberately undermine our democracy.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
He's saying that Republicans are redistricting, which Democrats are also doing.
And they're doing in a far more egregious way, but whatever.
He's saying Republicans can't win on their policies.
I have a little poll here.
This is a poll from Reuters Ipsos, so it's not, it's not a right-wing poll.
Which party has a better plan?
This poll was just conducted.
Over a thousand U.S. adults, September 19th through the 21st, 2025.
Just go down the list.
Which party has a better plan?
Crime.
40% say Republicans, 20% say Democrats.
Blown out of the water.
Two to one Republicans.
Immigration, 40% Republicans, 22% Democrats.
Republicans leading Democrats, almost two to one on immigration.
Crime and immigration, two top political issues.
Foreign conflicts.
Oh, well, here Republicans have been pretty weak on foreign conflicts.
And oh nope.
35% to Democrats, 23%.
U.S. economy, U.S. economy, that ranks right up there at the top of the list, too.
Republicans, 34%, Democrats, 24%.
Trouncing the Democrats there as well.
How about gun control?
Gun control is an issue that sometimes the Democrats edge the Republicans out on.
Sometimes by a lot.
Nope.
Republicans 32%.
Democrats 28%.
I should say there's a margin of error of three points here.
But Republicans are winning even outside the margin of error.
Political extremism, ooh, Democrats have an advantage here, right?
They always blame the far right, which they say commits three quarters of the political violence when you don't count any of the left-wing political violence.
So how are they?
Oh, nope, that's the Republicans too.
30% to the Democrats, 26%.
So also outside the margin of error.
How about, now this is this one floored me?
Respect for democracy.
This is one of those abstract issues that uses all these kind of slogans that the Democrats are gonna they're gonna win on, right?
And Democrat, Democrat, democracy, it's right there in the brand.
29% Republican, 31% Democrat.
So the Democrats did kind of edge it out within the margin of error.
This is the issue, the abstract ideological issue that the Democrats win on.
It's a tie.
It's the statistical tie.
How about corruption?
Oh, that awful, terribly corrupt.
Nope, Republicans win that 27 to 21.
Health care.
Okay, Democrats picked up health care.
34 to 25.
Because Democrats promise free health care to everyone, and then they don't really deliver very well on healthcare, but they promise it.
Okay.
Women's rights, so like killing babies in the womb.
Yeah, Democrats are winning on killing babies in the room.
And environment, you know, the sun monster killing us all with its evil raise within 10 years ago or whatever at AOC said.
Yeah, Democrats are winning there too.
So on healthcare is the only real issue that the Democrats still have an advantage on.
Women's rights is just a modern euphemism for killing babies.
So of course Democrats are going to win there.
The environment was just really a term to point to the sun monster, another leftist ideology, climate change.
So, okay, they win there.
Respect for democracy, okay, it's a tie.
Every other issue.
And more importantly, every issue that matters.
Believe it or not, uh, murdering babies does not rank at the top of the list for most voters.
Climate change does not rank at the top of the list for most voters.
Respect for democracy, which is a tie, does not rank.
You know what ranks at the top of the list?
Crime, immigration, the economy, foreign affairs, all these foreign wars, at least, all of those things rank toward the top of the list.
Republicans dominating on each of them.
But it's not just the Reuters Ipsos poll.
There's another poll that just came out from Quinipiac.
Quinipiac, not a right-wing uh poll.
30% of voters nationwide say they have a favorable opinion of the Democrat Party.
54% have an unfavorable opinion.
This is, as according to the survey's press release, this is the lowest favorability rating for the Democratic Party since the Quinnipiac University poll began asking voters this question in 2008.
On top of that, to put this in perspective, we are now well into Trump's first year.
We are now looking ahead to the midterms, the midterms, where typically the party out of the White House crushes.
And the Democrats are underwater on basically everything, and they've got their worst unfavorability rating since Quinnipiac started taking this poll.
This is a catastrophe for Democrats.
catastrophe.
I've never seen anything like it.
And Barack Obama has the temerity or the despair, I guess, the desperation to say, well, Republicans can't win on the issues.
They're winning on every issue, just about all the ones that matter.
And you know how else you can tell that Republicans are running on the issues?
The Democrats are killing us.
That's how you can tell.
You know how you could tell Trump was going to win the election in 2024?
Because the left kept trying to kill him.
They wouldn't try to murder him if they could just beat him at the ballot box.
They, on top of the assassination attempts.
They wouldn't have tried to throw him in prison had they thought they could beat him at the ballot box.
They wouldn't have tried to kick him off the ballot if they thought they could beat him at the ballot box.
All of the other attacks, the leftist attacks that even the Atlantic magazine is pointing out, are coming from the left.
The assassination of Charlie.
If they thought they could beat him fair and square in a debate, if they thought that he wasn't effective, if they thought he wasn't persuading people, if they thought he wasn't shifting the youth vote 10 10 percentage points to the right in 2024.
They wouldn't, they wouldn't have killed him.
That's how you can tell.
And the more that the Democrats double down on this awful behavior, the more those numbers are going to keep shifting.
Now, there's a little caveat here for the Republicans.
Voters trust the Republicans right now, much more than the Democrats, on crime, on immigration, on foreign conflicts, on the economy, so on.
That means Republicans have to deliver.
Not just press releases, not just commemorations, not just good clips on Twitter.
They need to round up criminals and seriously prosecute them.
They need to deport a lot of illegal aliens.
And they've done a pretty good job on it.
In fact, I think a lot of Trump's critics, including on the right on immigration, are really being dishonest because the Trump roundup efforts have been have been pretty good, all things considered.
But even just the self-deportations that have turned up in multiple uh surveys now.
What was it by a month ago by last count, 1.6 million illegal aliens left the country voluntarily?
That's pretty good.
Gotta keep it up.
Got to keep the economy strong.
You know, so obviously the Republicans still have their work cut out for them.
But as of now, the they should the Republicans, by all historical precedent, should get blown out of the water in the midterms.
Doesn't look like that's going to happen.
And Obama just doubles down on the L's.
Obama just just came out and he attacked Trump for spreading supposed medical misinformation on the link between medications and autism.
So we had the spectacle of my successor in the Oval Office, making broad claims around certain drugs and autism that have been continuously disproved.
And the degree to which that undermines public health.
The degree to which that can do harm to women who are pregnant, the degree to which that creates anxiety for parents who do have children who are autistic.
Okay, so what's he talking?
He's talking about Trump and RFK coming out and saying that they've discovered a link between acetaminophil, tylenol in the womb, and autism.
He said these have been repeatedly disproven.
That's causing real harm to women by saying they're the link between Tylenol and autism.
Repeatedly disproven, so I'm doing misinformation.
Is that so?
Because I got, here we go.
Here's a tweet from 2020, sorry, 2013, citing an article from Reuters, too much Tylenol and pregnancy could affect development.
It says acetaminophine use in pregnancy linked to children's developmental delays.
That comes from the ACOG.
That is the American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists.
Repeatedly disproved.
That's Trump's, that's just what Trump said.
Trump said the thing that the ACOG said.
The ACOG linking to an article in Reuters, same thing that Reuters said.
How about Trump saying the same thing that uh Johns Hopkins University said, taking Tylenol during pregnancy associated with elevated risk for autism ADHD?
Same thing that Harvard University School of Public Health said using acetamine during pregnancy may increase children's autism and ADHD risk.
Same thing that Mount Sinai said, same thing that Columbia University said.
Same thing, same thing, same thing.
Here you go.
There's more.
What are you talking about repeatedly disproven?
It's been repeatedly proven.
And now the Department of Health and Human Services is coming out.
And now the White House is coming out and say, forget about these guys.
Tylenol admitted it.
Tylenol, March 7th, 2017.
We actually don't recommend using any of our products while pregnant.
He's misinformation.
Saying that you maybe pregnant women maybe shouldn't be taking Tylenol.
This is very harmful to pregnant women.
Tylenol said, pray pregnant women, don't take our products.
Barack Obama graduate from Harvard.
Right.
You're your alma mater, but two of your alma maters, actually.
He started out at that college on the West Coast, but then he transferred into Columbia and then Harvard for graduate school.
Both Harvard and Columbia say acetaminophil is linked to autism.
So you're denying your own sources of academic credentials.
Why?
How?
How could Barack Obama be this dense?
I'll tell you how.
I know exactly how.
We'll get to it in one second.
First, I want to tell you about ExpressVPN.
Go to ExpressVPN.com/slash Knowles, Facebook, Google, other free services are not actually free.
You pay with your personal data.
These companies collect your activity and they sell it to advertisers, making you the product, not the customer.
Your digital profile gets sold to unknown buyers, marketers, political groups, even foreign governments trying to influence your behavior and voting choices.
To protect your privacy and take back control, use a VPN like ExpressVPN.
Without online privacy protection, your internet service provider can see every website you visit and legally sell these data in the U.S. Meanwhile, data brokers worldwide track your IP address to build detailed profiles of your activity.
ExpressVPN solves this by routing your traffic through encrypted servers so your ISP has nothing to sell, and data brokers cannot track you.
I've used ExpressVPN for, I would guess something like eight years now.
I am a Luddite when it comes to technology, and yet this is simple enough even for me.
Your phone, your tablet, your laptop, you just press one button, you're done, you're good.
You're good, you're protected.
It's the fastest, easiest VPN available.
Just one tap activates all of it.
Your subscription covers eight devices, protecting your whole household without any tech expertise.
I partnered with Express VPN because I want my viewers to have access to this important privacy protection, which is why right now you get an extra four months free.
Expressvpn.com slash knolls, EXPRESS VPN.com slash K N O W L E S to get an extra four months for free.
Barack Obama, you gotta listen to me.
I went to Columbia and Harvard.
By the way, I'm gonna be speaking at Harvard.
I'm giving a speech at Harvard on Thursday, next Thursday.
Get excited for that.
See you there.
How could he be that dense?
I'll tell you why.
Because Trump is anti-science.
Full stop.
That's just the that is the narrative.
That is the premise from which Barack Obama and the liberal media and them and the medical institutions are operating.
It it they haven't proven that.
There's no evidence of that, but that is the premise.
Trump is anti-science.
So if Trump says something, the opposite has to be the scientific view.
So you see how crazy this works.
How crazily this works, rather.
You can have the American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists come out and say, there is a link between acetaminophen and autism.
Trump will say, hey, the ACOG says there's a link between acetaminophon and autism.
The ACOG will then change its view.
It has to.
Because Trump, because Trump said it.
The group says A, Trump says A, the group says not A. That's how it works.
That's the that's the rule of thumb.
This is how the Libs could change their opinion on COVID measures and COVID vaccines based on Trump and based on Trump's supporters.
Anything he says must be anti-science.
And this plays into the caricature they believe of Trump.
They think that Trump is the character that they've invented, which is that he's just a bumbling, babbling buffoon.
Never mind that he's reached the very heights of success in like four industries.
Right?
In real estate, in uh television, network television, top on network television, in luxury brands, and oh, in politics.
The first time he he earnestly ran for president, first time he earnestly ran for any public office, he won the highest office in the world and then became the only but one of two presidents in American history to serve non-consecutive terms.
But he's just a babbling idiot.
He has to be.
And so because they believe that, they end up contradicting themselves.
Okay, that's fine.
It's funny though, because people think Barack Obama, he's this clubable erudite, literate.
Oh, boy, oh boy, he went to all the fancy schools.
He's he looks ridiculous.
He looks ridiculous, but they all do.
Okay.
Speaking of Trump's political strengths, love this one.
So we're we're looking down the barrel at the midterms.
Before the midterms, though, there's a there's a fight happening in Congress right now, and it's a fight over government funding.
And it looks like we're gonna have a government shutdown by October 1st.
The Democrats are obstructing spending, and so they're they're headed for a shutdown.
Okay.
Republicans tend to be blamed for government shutdowns.
That's the conventional wisdom.
So the Democrats are saying, all right, we're gonna shut down the government.
The Republicans are gonna take the blame, and that's gonna help us.
Okay.
Trump loves a good game of chicken.
And Trump says, okay, you want to shut down the government.
That's fine.
Not only will we furlough federal employees during the shutdown, which is to say we'll temporarily send them home from work, and then whenever we resolve the shutdown, we'll bring them back and we'll probably give them back pay and it's a little more expensive, but whatever.
The White House is saying that they will respond to the uh government shutdown by permanently firing a bunch of the federal workforce.
So reduction enforce plan that was just sent out to the federal agencies if Congress won't pass the spending bill by October 1st.
Trump's reaction, in other words, is make my day.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, make my day.
And I think it's going to work.
I think it's going to work because right now, the Democrats have nothing.
They have nothing.
Most Americans blame them.
Democrats have the highest unfavorability rating they've ever had.
Democrats are not trusted on pretty much any issue.
So go ahead.
Screw it up some more.
What?
You think you have the wind at your sails?
You lost the whole government last November.
You lost the whole government last November.
Republicans were given by the voters a unified government, and they already had the Supreme Court because of previous elections.
And you would think that your numbers would increase over the ensuing eight, nine months.
They've gotten worse.
So Trump's saying, you want to shut down the government?
Awesome.
You've you've now made it easier for me to do one of the things I promised to the voters that I would do, namely, fire you guys working in the federal bureaucracy.
So cool.
Can't wait.
It's awesome.
Okay.
See ya.
You have it gets back to what Trump said to Zelensky in the Oval Office.
He said, you don't have the cards.
What are you doing?
You don't have any cards.
You have nothing.
You are so desperate right now that you're murdering innocent non-office holders, just innocent civilians who are successfully bringing even more voters over to the American right.
And your terrorism is being acknowledged even by some on your own side, and your terrorism is making you look even worse.
So go ahead.
Go ahead and make my day.
Speaking of terrorism that seems to be coming from the left, we have some new information.
This coming out from the FBI, Cash Patel posting this.
What do we find out now?
We know that the shooter showed up to the ICE facility.
He was on an adjacent rooftop, using a rifle to shoot.
It hearkened back to the assassination of Charlie Kirk just a couple of weeks ago.
Also because we know that the shooter wrote anti-ICE, so wrote something on the bullets, much like in the assassination of Charlie Kirk from the radical leftist.
And in this case, he wrote anti-ICE.
What else do we know?
We know that the PERP, the guy who did it, downloaded a document titled Dallas County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management containing a list of DHS facilities.
So he was, he was obviously targeting DHS.
He conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the Charlie Kirk shot video between uh September 23rd and 24th.
So you might be tempted to say, well, everyone saw that horrific video.
Yeah, but he was looking at it right before he levied this attack and he was looking up ballistics.
We know that between August 19th and 24th, he searched apps that track the presence of ice agents.
Hold on, record scratch, freeze frame.
There are apps that track the presence of ICE agents.
Those need to be taken off the app stores immediately.
And if they're not taken off of the app stores, then the government needs to bring the full weight of its power on Apple and on Google for hosting those apps, which encourage forms of terrorism.
One of the handwritten notes recovered from this shooter reads, quote, hopefully this will give ice agents real terror to think is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof.
So I'm not even coming to a firm conclusion on who this guy is and what his motives are.
All of the evidence says that he was a leftist.
Ken Klippenstein has an article about this, which actually argues that he didn't have a strong political motive either way, and talks to friends and says, Oh, he was he was just kind of ironic, or he was just, I don't know, he was he was just in it for the lols or whatever.
Kind of downplaying his political motives, but even they say, no, but he he didn't like Trump, you know, and there was some sincerity even when he was joking around.
And one of his video game usernames was hashtag impeachment.
So all of the evidence that we have from the ice shooting, all of it, without exception.
We all we also know he voted in in a Democrat primary in 2020.
So all of the evidence that we have says that he was on the left.
How did MSNBC cover it?
We'll get to that in one second.
First, I want to tell you about YAF and the National Journalism Center.
It is absolutely shocking that more people have not heard about YAF's National Journalism Center.
There is not a more consequential and important pipeline from college into conservative media than NJC.
It boasts a 12-week internship program that is fully paid, gives you access to the best reporters and personalities in the business, sticks you right in a working newsroom in the first week.
You want to be at the center of the nation's biggest political stories, NJC is the fastest way to do it.
We have had reporters here at the Daily Wire who've attended NJC and launched their professional careers immediately.
Our NJC alumni have pursued stories relentlessly, from taking pictures from a helicopter to expose a dodgy Texas community development market exclusively to illegal immigrants.
Their reporting was featured here on the Daily Wire on Fox News and a host of other prominent media outlets.
This reporting from Daily Wire's NJC alum has created real tangible change and put concrete wins on the board for American Patriots.
It all traces back to NJC's internship journalism boot camp, which covers everything you need to break into media, whether you're interested in podcasting, video production, print reporting, or independent journalism.
More importantly, if you're tired of the fake news, lib media and you want to win, get off the sidelines and get into the game.
Submit your application to the National Journalism Center today, turning to very, very bad journalism.
After all of this information has been coming out about the shooter at the ICE facility, here's how MSNBC covered it.
You have Director Patel putting out information that is clearly immediately trying to assign blame.
And I don't think we know enough, and I don't think the FBI quite knows enough yet, what the motivation is here.
Does it look like there may be a political angle to this based on the recovered evidence for sure?
Do I think there's trends that are moving in that direction that we could see more violence emerging from the different uh sides of the political spectrum?
Absolutely.
But we have not seen in this case yet, and even not in the uh Charlie Kirk assassination, a really clear definable ideology or motive.
I was simply going to laugh until that last line when he says, Well, we just really don't, we don't see any motives here.
It's no cle not clear what what the shooter's politics are.
Well, I don't know, he shot up an ice facility and he wrote anti-ICE on there, and his screen name was hashtag impeachment, and he voted in a Democrat primary, and I think we can deduce his politics.
But but I'm less inclined to laugh because he said the same thing about the Charlie Kirk shooter.
The Charlie Kirk shooter who confessed his motives, reportedly, who wrote far left-wing slogans on the bullets that he used to murder Charlie, who murdered Charlie in the first place, one of the most prominent right wingers in the country, and who confessed his ideological motives, reportedly, allegedly, to his transfurry boyfriend.
And this guy, that that wasn't just some random bum.
He was a particular bum.
He's not just a random bum.
He's MSNBC's security and intelligence analyst, Christopher O'Leary, saying something so powerfully dumb that it is a wonder.
And I am, I have a low expectation of MSNBC, of course, as do we all.
But but that's shocking even to me.
Christopher O'Leary, MSNBC.
Christopher O'Leary is either completely ignorant, completely like wind whistling through his ears, does not have synapses firing, has not read anything, might not have functioning senses with which to perceive the world from which we can form conceptions and rational thought.
Either completely devoid of that, or he's a liar.
And I think the charitable conclusion is that he's a liar.
I think that's the nicest thing I can say about him in this context.
But people will believe it.
This is why it matters.
This is why we can't just totally laugh at this.
I know people who believe that.
I know people who watch the new, the news, like that kind of news, the fake news, who believe that, who are professionals who go to jobs, who pay their rent and their mortgage, who are they're not just like vagrants living on the street.
They're not lunatics and padded cells.
They're people who, by all appearances, can get along in polite society.
And they believe that complete nonsense because a guy in a suit and a tie lied to them on television.
That's a big problem.
That's a big, it's I've never seen a clearer example of it.
That's a big, big problem.
And they're I'm not saying that the government should go in and shut it down if we're talking about some random cable channel.
Broadcast television is a different story.
But I'm not, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying there has to be some consequence to that.
These people should be shunned from the political conversation, I suppose.
That guy has no place in a political conversation.
He he either does not possess the requisite knowledge or is a fraud, uh, a peddler of fraud, a counselor of fraud, as Dante would uh call Ulysses in the Divine Comedy.
No good.
So these people are so fringed out that it's being reflected in polls, like quite clearly in polls.
Meanwhile, Trump claims the center.
And this story really really got me.
Trump, on uh a prominent issue that we haven't talked about for a couple weeks, is asked a question about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and specifically whether or not he's going to allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
Not Gaza, not parts of Southern Syria, not all the other places that Israel is has taken or taken back, but the West Bank, where Israel has encouraged settlements, and which which some have suggested Israel would annex outright.
Here's his answer.
I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
No, I will not allow it.
It's not going to happen.
Did you speak with Natyahu about this?
Yeah, but I'm not going to allow it.
Whether I spoke to him or not, I did.
But I'm not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank.
There's been enough.
It's time to stop now.
Okay.
Yes, please.
What's so amazing about Trump's reaction is what he's just articulated is the least popular view on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
And it happens to be precisely my view that I have articulated for a very long time at this point, years at this point.
Namely, you've got you've got two sides.
The Israel at all costs, Zionism, do or die side, and the people who stub their toes in the morning and think it's some dastardly Jew in Tel Aviv.
Those tend to be the two sides.
The one side that says Israel is the most moral nation ever, the most moral army that's never done anything wrong and is not sus at all and that needs to conquer every nation around it, or the side that somehow manages to connect every problem that has ever existed in the history of the world to the nation-state of Israel founded in 1948.
And my view is I broadly support Israel.
I recognize that we have had uh roughly 1,400 years of conflict with political Islam, broadly support Israel, but I've got some questions about Israel's conduct.
And I uh I don't think that Israel's national interest and the American national interest are synonymous on every issue.
And I think that in some cases, the state of Israel needs to be restrained.
It's the least popular view.
Because you get hit from both sides all the time.
But that's my view, and it happens to be correct.
And it's the president's view as well.
And why does this matter, even beyond the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Because it means that Trump has truly staked out the center of American politics.
He is the center now.
Imagine telling someone that 10 years ago.
Imagine telling someone in either party that 10 years ago when Trump was seen as this radical, extreme, fringe, crazy clown show.
And then he's the center.
He's the norm.
He's the middle.
The further you are from Trump's position on at least many or most issues, I guess, the further you are to the fringes.
That's an amazing political accomplishment.
It's very good for the country.
Speaking of foreign affairs, there's just one story I have to get to.
China has uh just been caught digitally altering a film to turn a gay couple straight.
I love this.
This story is from The Guardian, I think.
Yeah, yeah.
Horror film digitally altered in China to make a gay couple straight.
And you can see right here, there's the original.
It's just a couple of fellas.
And then here they turn the shorter fella into a chick.
Actually, not a bad looking lady.
And so this was caught at some movie called Together, starring Dave Franco and Alison Bree, released into certain theaters in China on September 12th.
And in this one scene where they're where the Chinese concluded that they're Chija tropa frociagine, you know, is a little little too lavender.
They just changed it and made it a chick.
And uh this is probably not great for art in the sense that you don't want to ex post facto alter someone else's art to fit your own narrative.
But broadly speaking.
I'm here for it.
I'm here by do people still say based?
Based is like old now, right?
That's kind of defunct lingo.
But is that if we could still say it is that how do you say based in Mandarin?
Or Cheshuan?
I don't know if this is not hear me out.
Hear me out.
Before we had all this craziness in movies, we had something called the Hayes Code.
Okay, the Hayes Code existed from 1934 to 1968 in the United States.
And it was self-censorship.
It was a set of standards that the film industry imposed upon itself.
It was promoted by Catholics, by the way.
It was largely a Catholic initiative, but it spread throughout the film industry.
The films that were created during the Hayes Code were the best films ever made.
There were some good films that were made afterward, but year for year, the best films ever made were made during the Hayes Code with self-censorship.
Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Street Carnamed Desire, like the greatest movies ever made.
I guess The Godfather came later.
The Godfather and me, myself, and Irene came later.
But other than those two, the greatest movies ever made were made during this period of self-censorship.
There was a period in Hollywood before the Hayes Code.
The movies that were made then were freaky purvy trash as well.
Movies like that, movies like Freaks.
You know, there's that scene that kind of goes around sometimes where it's a bunch of like deformed people and midgets and like whores and things.
And I say, Google goggle, Google goggle, one of us is freaky.
It's really weird freaky stuff.
And it's not high art.
So I'm not saying that what China's doing here, what removing the LGBT LMNOP stuff after the fact is the best idea.
It that does compromise artistic integrity.
But it's probably the second best idea.
The best idea would be to re-establish standards in movies, ideally self-imposed standards.
The libs say we can't do that because that would limit artistic expression or whatever.
In reality, though, it would make the art better.
Who writes better poetry?
the weirdos who show up to slam poetry slams and just kind of freestyle rap.
Or um Shakespeare with rhyme and meter.
Which is which kind of poetry is better.
If you're being honest, every single person would say the poetry with limits.
Limits are what make the art.
It's true throughout our lives.
So anyway, two cheers for China.
Two cheers for China on the movie.
Maybe we could learn a lesson from them.
This October, we're giving Daily Wire Plus members more than ever before.
New films, new series, new documentaries, entertainment that exposes corruption, defends families, and fights for truth.
Take a look at what's coming to DailyWire Plus this October.
We had an opportunity to disrupt what became 9-11.
It's coming at your kids, whether you like it or not.
It wasn't if it was going to happen, it was when the United States was going to be attacked.
These people are trying to talk to my daughter.
Edward?
Edward, I'm a demon.
The whole purpose behind this is to overturn Western civilization.
Bin Laden was getting very antsy.
I'm out.
Do not miss it.
Go to DailyWare Plus.com to join.
Get 40% off new DailyWare Plus annual memberships with code FAL40 at checkout.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Adder0130 says, never not funny when Michael runs through all the nicknames of marijuana.
You're talking about.
You're talking about the old Peruvian parsley, right?
The old Mary Jane, the California cumin, huh?
You're telling me about a little bit of them jazz cigarettes, huh?
That Bolivian basil, is that right?
That all right, I've got to think up some more.
Talking about pot.
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 PeerTalk.
Go to PeerTalk.com slash Knowles, Canada WLES, switch to Peer Talk with a qualifying plan of $35.
Get a free one-year membership to DailyWire Plus.
Take it away.
Hello.
I feel that Charlie's Memorial also indicated a shift in the Republican Party by introducing Christianity into politics again.
I hope we see the party shift from focusing so heavily on fiscal policy, but how to integrate Christian charity as well.
This brings me to my question, which is what is the government's role for helping the elderly and disabled?
I am particularly interested in this because I have become the mother of a son with severe cerebral palsy.
And in my state of Arizona, services for disabled people, especially children, continues to be cut, using money as the excuse.
What is the conservative position on supporting people with disabilities?
Thank you, and God bless.
Well, the conservative position is different from the libertarian position.
And so the two get conflated because of the conservative libertarian alliance after World War II that still continues to exist.
And that I'm not totally opposed to, because there just aren't that many conservatives, and there's there certainly aren't that many libertarians, so they decided as a prudential matter to team up.
Sometimes that has good results, sometimes weaker results.
But but the conservative response is yes, of course.
Of course, we have a responsibility in political community to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves.
The only question then is not out of principle, but out of prudence.
How is that best done?
And here I think the conservative answer is through subsidiarity.
So it is better to take care of these people at the most local level possible.
But this does not preclude some kind of national program.
It's just that a national program will work better if uh the charity and the care for these people disabled or elderly or frail in some other way, uh, is taking care of it at more local levels.
At the township level, the county, state, and then federal government level.
But but yes, it The conservative response is in principle and in practice, we have a responsibility to take care of these people.
The libertarian response would be that the government absolutely does not have a responsibility and should not take care of these people, because we need to spur the invisible hand of the free market to take care of these people through charity that will be crowded out if the government does anything.
But but you know, the the invisible hand is is Providence for Atheists.
The invisible hand is actually, as Adam Smith describes it, is is not all that far off from Providence.
Um, you know, Adam Smith is uh is writing in a more clearly religious way than the secular people today who have who have made an idol out of out of free markets and individualism.
Okay, next question.
Good morning, Michael.
I'm a college student and engaged in my high school sweetheart of four years, and I was raised Baptist.
Recently I've done research into early church history to be better equipped to defend my faith.
And in doing so, I've unexpectedly realized that all roads might just lead to Rome.
I brought this up in conversation with my fiance and older and younger men in my church, and everyone is very weary about my interest in the Catholic Church.
My question is, what should I do?
Should I listen to the people I trust and avoid it or pursue this?
Obviously, if I were to convert, it could hinder my future marriage and relationships with my church friends.
However, my faith in Jesus gives me confidence that if I'm in search of the truth, I will find it.
Thanks.
Really good question, and many such cases.
A friend of mine, Joshua Charles, uh, was quite ardently Protestant, and he decided he was going to read the church fathers, the early Christian writers to prove that Catholicism was not biblical and was contrary to the spirit of the Apostolic Age and the early Christians.
And what did he find?
He found out the exact opposite.
He found out that his own religious practices were an aberration and deviated from uh early Christian practice.
And he became Catholic.
And now he runs a group called Journal Christendom, which is terrific.
So many such cases.
Just St. John Henry Newman made this point.
He also, he was Protestant.
He he was rather ardently anti-Catholic in many respects.
And uh he has a line.
It's very provocative.
This is no no offense intended to our many Protestant friends, but he said to become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
So again, I'm not saying that's what you're going to find.
I got many friends and some family members who who uh have remained Protestant, but that's what he found.
He was a Protestant, then he became a Catholic priest, and then he became a Catholic saint.
So anyway, that's what you're finding.
And I don't think anybody, anybody of good faith would tell you not to pursue the truth.
Right?
So you're pursuing the truth as you see it, and it's that's you feel it's leading you across a tiger to Rome.
So I think that's good.
Uh you're worried it's going to mess up your future marriage.
I don't think that's true.
You're going to be the head of your household.
So I think you could probably persuade your wife.
Um as for some church friends, I don't I hope it doesn't mess up your your friendships with your old church, you know, or I I hope it doesn't.
In some cases, it will.
Friends come and go sometimes in life.
It's even if we try to maintain all of our friendships, that's just what happens.
So uh I hope, you know, if they're gonna ditch you over that, they probably weren't great friends in the first place.
Uh but but you know, anyway, you're you're not asking me.
You're not asking me for permission.
I I think you've already come to your conclusion, and maybe you just want a little encouragement in that, which I do encourage you.
Okay, next question.
Hi, Michael.
I'm 21.
I just graduated college and I'm living in Utah.
My friends and I went to Charlie Kirk's event last week, and we were standing pretty close up.
Um we were obviously pretty scarred and traumatized uh by that event.
After a few days of grieving, I decided I don't want to be quiet anymore.
I want to be open and proud about my love for my country, about my politics, about my love for Jesus.
But now I feel like such a squish this week at work, a trans coworker tried to talk politics with me, and I just kind of brushed them off and left because I didn't want to get in a big huge fight at work, create a toxic work environment or get reported or anything.
But yeah, I just feel like a squish for backing down.
I want to stand strong, but also keep the peace at work.
Uh, what would you have done?
Love the show.
Thanks, Michael.
Uh good questions.
It's a tough question because, first of all, I wouldn't be too hard on yourself.
You're processing a very serious trauma that was both a national trauma and for you a personal trauma.
So, you know, it's okay to freeze up a little bit.
I I get it.
Uh however, what what should you do in the future?
Because you're dealing with a liberal co-worker and the liberals are always flamboyant about their politics and they never shut up about it in the workplace and all sorts of inappropriate places.
And on top of that, you're dealing with someone who's profoundly mentally ill and potentially violent.
So uh what do you do?
If it were me, I'll just tell you what I do.
I'm open about my politics when asked about it.
I don't volunteer it all the time.
I mean, it's kind of I have a public platform, so it comes with the territory.
But before I had a public platform, I wouldn't volunteer it all the time, but if it was asked of me, I would tell people the truth in a in a respectful way.
That can have consequences.
I just want you to know that before you go into it.
I just want you to know you could lose your job over that.
It would be unfair, it would be unjust.
You could suffer violence from a Looney Tune.
That could happen.
So you should know that at least going in.
But if you've determined that you are in fact going to be open about your views and be honest, then I do have a little bit of advice on this, which is don't try to go halfway.
I mean, I'm a Republican, but not that kind of Republican.
I mean, I just I think it's better to go all the way.
You're a Republican?
Oh, me?
I barely would call myself a Republican.
I'm to the right of Mussolini.
What are you talking about?
Me?
Oh, I'm no, no, no, I'm not just a Republican.
I'm I'm as Republican as it gets.
I find Trump to be far too centrist.
Oh, I do.
What can I tell you?
I don't want to go back to 2012.
I want to go back to 1220.
I find it's one, it stops all kind of negotiation and all kind of awkwardness because you're just laying it on the table.
You're saying there is, I am so far right.
I've so uh concluded various things about the world.
You don't try to pick me apart halfway.
I'm solid.
It's it's kind of a challenge to them.
And I think it's impressive.
But it's kind of like when you're when you're trying to pick up a chick or something.
You know, I guess it's not good advice for you because you're a lady, but with a guy who wants to take out a girl, there's two ways you can do it.
You know, you say, like, hey, um, hi, Shelly.
Uh, I think you're you're kind of I like your shirt today, Shelly.
And can you, would you sometime like to go find it?
You know, and you're kind of caving into yourself.
Or you have a little bit of that riz, you know, a little bit of that Mediterranean swag, and you go and say, Shelly, you are I can't, I don't think I can live another day if we don't get coffee.
I don't think I won't be able to sleep.
You I we have to, it must be done.
I I can't I can't think of nothing else.
And I need coffee, and you're here with me, and we have to go do it now.
She can still say no, but it's just you've got a little more confidence.
It's harder to say no.
It's hard, it's harder not to like that.
You know, it's hard, you're so open about it.
So that that's that would be my advice.
And if you ever want to pick up a chick, that's good advice too.
