Ep. 1564 - First Kamala Harris Interview EXPLAINED In 2 Mins
47:41 Share

Kamala Harris sat down for her first interview since stealing the Democrat presidential nomination from Joe Biden. The purpose of the interview was to demonstrate that she's steady, she's stable, she's ready to lead. Kamala's values do not change.

The most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed. Cool, cool. Great news. So, Kamala, where do you stand on the important issues like, say, energy? When you were in Congress, you supported the Green New Deal.

And in 2019, you said, quote, there is no question I'm in favor of banning fracking. Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania. Do you still want to ban fracking? No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020. Kamala's values do not change. Well, except for that one. Except, and this is where her answer gets even weirder. Kudos to Matt Whitlock for digging up this clip. Except...

Kamala didn't even change her values even when she said she did. Do you still want to ban fracking? No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking. There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking. So, yeah. So it changed in that campaign?

In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I've not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word. There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.

Kamala's values do not change. Yes, she changed her values on energy, on a really key energy question. But listen, don't worry. She's not changing them now. She changed her values in 2020, except when you go back and look at the debate stage in 2020, she actually didn't change her values then. She's changed her values now. Kamala did not inspire confidence. And the interview did not get any better from there. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.

Thank you.

Welcome back to the show. The Acolyte, which is the extraordinarily expensive TV show, latest iteration of some of the most expensive, valuable intellectual property in all of Hollywood, has been canceled. And everybody is shocked except for the audience and people with two brain cells to rub together. We'll get to that in one second. First, though, folks.

Oh, don't let the political season get you down. Because this political season, sure, it's also PSL season. Pumpkin spice may exist outside of time and space. Does it? Who writes this stuff? But it now also exists in my personal collection at The Candle Club. That's right. You can get my sweet signature PSL candle right now when you go to thecandleclub.com.

Join The Candle Club for 20% off plus free shipping on every order. As a founding member, you get an exclusive box worth $115. These candles are free of toxic ingredients and woke ideology, making them safe for the whole family. Limited quantities. Head to thecandleclub.com to shop now while supplies last. Kamala was asked a lot of very easy questions.

You saw there was a pretense of asking her tough questions. You've changed your views on fracking. Well, what do you say about that? It's not the hardest way to phrase that. It's the minimum that Dana Bash, the CNN journalist, could do to even remotely seem like a serious reporter. Kamala should have had answers to all of these questions prepared, and she didn't. On the fracking question, she lied.

And then on probably the most basic question that any presidential candidate could be asked in an interview. Incredibly, she didn't have an answer. You have less time to make your case to voters than any candidate in modern American history. The voters are really eager to hear what your plans are. If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House?

Well, there are a number of things. I will tell you first and foremost, one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class. When I look at the aspirations, the goals, the ambitions of the American people, I think that people are ready for a new way forward.

in a way that generations of Americans have been fueled by hope and by optimism. I think sadly, in the last decade, we have had in the former president someone who is

really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans, really dividing our nation. And I think people are ready to turn the page on that. So what would you do day one? Right. But what about my question that I asked you? What are you going to do on day one? She doesn't have an answer.

Day one, I'm going to repeal this executive order. Day one, I'm going to walk over to the EPA and do this thing. Day one, I'm going to propose this piece of legislation. It's not difficult. Every president has that. Kamala Harris never thought about what she's going to do on day one. And then she goes on this rambling diatribe about

Well, I will strengthen the middle class. That's not a day one thing. That's a whole administration thing. That's a grand vision. But how are you going to do that? Well, because we're going to be fueled by hope and optimism. This is a woman who...

has never grown past BS essays in the seventh grade. In the seventh grade, when you don't read the book and you're told to write an essay about it and you just try to use flowery language to get around your lack of knowledge and lack of a thesis, that doesn't cut it in middle school. This woman thinks it's going to cut it at 1600 Pennsylvania.

She memorized whatever that gobbledygook was. She memorized it. She's used that kind of that. That's, you know, we're going to be unburdened by what has been. Think of yellow school buses. So that's that's campaign fluff. What's most appalling to me here is that she didn't even anticipate this basic question. What are you going to do on day one? That is that is presidential campaigning 101. She didn't even prepare that she's that unprepared. She didn't even prepare an answer to that basic question.

Question. Go to preborn.com slash Knowles. When a woman experiences an unplanned pregnancy, she often feels alone and afraid. Too often, her first response is to seek out an abortion because that's what left-leaning institutions have conditioned her to do. But because of the generosity of listeners like you, that search may lead her to a preborn network clinic where she will choose life. Preborn offers God's love and compassion to hurting women and provides a free ultrasound to introduce them to the life growing inside them. This is how preborn saves 200,000 babies every day.

Thanks to the Daily Wire's partnership with Preborn, we are able to make our powerful documentary, Choosing Life, available to all on Daily Wire+. This film serves as a crucial counterpoint to the left's narrative on abortion and is available to you now, free of charge at dailywire.com. Join me in thanking Preborn for bringing this important work out from behind our paywall

and consider making a donation today to support their life-saving work. You can sponsor one ultrasound for just 28 bucks. If you have the means, you can sponsor Preborn's whole network for a day for 5,000. Go to preborn.com slash Knowles to donate today. That's preborn.com slash Knowles or dial pound 250, say the keyword baby. That is pound 250, keyword baby. Now, Tim Wall's got some questions too. Here is Tim Walls receiving a question on his stolen Valor.

The country is just starting to get to know you. I want to ask you a question about how you've described your service in the National Guard. You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?

Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud. I've done 24 years of wearing the uniform of this country. Equally proud of my service in a public school classroom, whether it's Congress or the governor. My record speaks for itself, but I think people are coming here to know me. I speak like they do. I speak candidly. I wear my emotions on my sleeves.

I speak especially passionately about our children being shot in schools and around guns. So I think people know me. They know who I am. They know where my heart is. And again, my record has been out there for over 40 years to speak for itself.

the idea that you said that you were in war. Did you misspeak as the campaign has said? Yeah, I said we were talking about in this case, this was after a school shooting, the ideas of carrying these weapons of war. And my wife, the English, she's telling my grammar is not always correct. My grammar is not always correct. These are the weapons I carried in war.

Oh, oopsie daisy, I just got my syntax wrong. What I meant to say was I've never served in war ever. But you know me, duh, Tim Walls, ooh, I guess I didn't study my English textbook so well. Gotta go back to Strunk and White. This is my favorite new euphemism for a lie. Oh, yes, I don't always use the right grammar. Reach into the cookie jar, eat a cookie, have chocolate all over my face. Mama comes into the room. Michael! Michael!

Did you steal a cookie from the cookie jar? No, I did not, mama. Michael, I have proof that you took that cookie. Oh, sorry, mama. I just don't always use the right grammar. I meant to say yes, I did. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? And then it's another. There are two great excuses for lying here. One, I don't always use the right grammar. And two, look, I speak like ordinary Americans do.

You know, ordinary Americans who lie about their military service all the time. You know, all those ordinary Americans who steal valor every day. Yeah, I'm just like them. I don't know. I know a lot of ordinary Americans and they don't talk like that, actually. He's still lying about his military service in this answer. What does he say? He says, I wore the uniform for 24 years. He served in the National Guard, though he quit immediately before he would have had to deploy to a war zone. But he did serve in the National Guard. That's great. That's fabulous. Love it when people do that.

But that's not wearing the uniform for 24 years. That's wearing the uniform, what, about once a month and then a couple weeks during the course of the year. I have friends in the National Guard. I think it's fabulous. It's wonderful patriotic service. I think it's great. I really applaud everyone who does it.

But, you know, my grandfather was a Navy captain. He served in the Navy for 30 years. He wore a uniform for 30 years, meaning consistently for 30 years that was his job. Tim Walz has been called to something else. He was a public school teacher. Then he was a terrible governor and he was a terrible member of Congress. OK, so he was called to do other things.

And he stole valor, and he said, I carried weapons in war, and he got caught lying about it. And as J.D. Vance has pointed out, he retired immediately as soon as he found out he might have to deploy to a war zone. And so, okay, people are raising all sorts of questions about that. But he shows no regret whatsoever for lying about his actual military service. He's trying to sneak out of it, and he continues to lie.

There's so much more to say. First, though, text NOLS to 989898. Global markets were throttled at the beginning of the month as a sharp slowdown in hiring and a weakening in consumer spending led to worldwide panic that the U.S. may be headed to a recession. Here's a thought. Just as it is a good idea to put on your parachute before you jump out of the airplane, it might be a good idea to invest in some gold from Birch Gold as a safety precaution for your financial health.

If our train wreck in the making of an economy doesn't give you enough motivation to convert an IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA with Birch Gold, let me give you one more reason. Back by popular demand now through the end of the month, you can get your very own 24 karat gold plated truth bomb on qualifying purchases.

The only way you can get it is by texting Knowles, K-N-W-L-A-S, to 989898. Get your free info kit. Learn how you can own gold tax sheltered. Then put that parachute on and...

then you can stare at your beautiful golden truth bomb as it sits in its place of reverence, reminding you of the great decision you made to protect your savings with gold. Text NOLS, K-N-W-L-A-S, to 989898 to claim your eligibility and make your purchase before August 31st. Now, all of that criticism of the Kamala interview, still, it worked. I hate to say I told you so. This one, though, was pretty easily predicted. I said...

The Kamala interview is not going to help her. It might hurt her a little bit for people who are paying attention. You know, she's not going to sound good. She's not good at talking. Speaking is the one skill you have to have if you're a politician, and she's not good at it. So even with a soft interviewer on a friendly network, she's not going to do great. She might hurt herself a little, but overall, it'll be fine. She just has to show up and check the box. And that's true. The Associated Press has this headline.

The interview, Kamala Harris's inaugural sit down was most notable for seeming dot, dot, dot ordinary. That was it. I'm sure they wrote that headline before the interview ever took place. That was the point of the interview. Oh, yes, of course. Oh, Kamala is not avoiding the press. Kamala hasn't consistently avoided the press and sitting down for an interview since she stole the nomination from Biden. No, no, no. No, it's this is all just so ordinary. No, there wasn't a palace coup.

Kamala didn't become the Democrat nominee without winning a single vote in the primary. No, it's just, it's so ordinary. No, no, this is all normal. Yeah, don't watch, you don't need to watch the interview, but it wasn't disastrous. And anyway, it's just so, it's just so ordinary. Okay, okay. You want to see media bias? Let's turn away from the Associated Press. Let's turn away from CNN. Let's turn to NBC.

Here is Ana Cabrera of NBC News reporting on the exact same policy from Trump versus Kamala. This by way of the excellent video editor Mays.

It's not even something that all Republicans agree with, this idea of not taxing tips, Susan. In fact, several Republicans telling NBC News that they're skeptical of the idea, citing the rising national debt and questioning whether this would be fair to earners who don't make

So do you think it is realistic or is this something, Susan, more akin to Trump saying he's going to build the wall? Last part, Trump previously announced a similar plan when it comes to taxing hospitality workers and their tips specifically. Obviously, that one policy that Trump had put out there was pretty popular, Brendan, and Trump still leads on the economy. But a series of recent polls show that gap is narrowing.

Yeah, and look, obviously it's really, really popular now that Kamala supports it. Back when Trump supported it, it was really unpopular and stupid and terrible and unjust. But now look, Kamala, look, she's just, yeah, of course it's a popular policy and she's going to do it a lot better than Trump anyway. So, you know, you want to see another example of this? So Time Magazine runs a piece. This is January 9th of last year. Headline, why ultra processed foods are so bad for you. January 9th of last year. Then

August 27th, so just a few days ago, Time Magazine runs another piece. Why ultra-processed foods? What if ultra-processed foods are not as bad as you think? Same magazine, about a year, year and a half apart. What changed? Well,

January 9th, 2023 to about a week or so ago, nothing really changed. So you got, you know, why ultra-processed foods are so bad for you. Then August 23rd, Bobby Kennedy Jr. endorses Trump and he endorses Trump specifically on a platform of making America healthy again. He called out specifically the dangers of ultra-processed foods and other aspects of big agriculture and big pharma that are contrary to Americans' health. And then four days later,

No, ultra-processed foods are good again. Because back when opposition to ultra-processed foods was a left-wing thing, that was good and wonderful and important. Now that opposition to ultra-processed foods is a right-wing crunchy thing, well, now that's actually, no, that's stupid, that's dumb, that's ignorant. It might even be dangerous. Ultra-processed foods are great. Eat McDonald's and Twinkies for every single meal. We can't have anyone thinking that Bobby Kennedy might know something. No, sir, we can't have anyone thinking

in any way inclined to vote for Donald Trump. It doesn't matter. I hope conservatives take this conclusion from all the media stuff. It doesn't matter what the Republicans say. It is always wrong if the Republicans say it. That's it. I'm not pointing out the media bias just to, you know, bemoan the hypocrisy and say, if the shoe were on the other foot, can you imagine or whatever? That's that way lies the death of conservatism. I show it to remind you

that when Republicans receive criticism from the establishment media over various policies, over various running mate choices, over various neckties, for anything, the media are never criticizing the conservatives because what the conservatives have said and done is objectively wrong. Sometimes Republicans say and do things that are objectively wrong. We'll get to that in a moment. But that's not why the media are criticizing them. It's the other way around.

whatever the Republicans say and do must be wrong because they are Republicans. That is how the left, that is how the media, but I repeat myself, is going to report on it. Now,

Speaking of public health matters and right and wrong, President Trump just unveiled a new policy yesterday. His promise is to not only support IVF, in vitro fertilization, not only to make it legal, perhaps even wider spread, but to involve the government in it, to have the government through taxpayer dollars support IVF.

And furthermore, to mandate that private insurers cover IVF, meaning Trump's policy proposal, his promise is to mandate that every single American through their taxpayer dollars and through their private health insurance premiums support IVF.

I'm announcing today in a major statement that under the Trump administration, your government will pay for or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment, fertilization for women, IVF treatment. Because we want more babies, to put it very nicely.

And for this same reason, we will also allow new parents to deduct major newborn expenses from their taxes so that parents that have a beautiful baby will be able... So we're pro-family. Nobody's ever said that before. Okay. But the IVF treatments are expensive. You know I love the guy. You know I love the guy. I have supported Trump since 2016 consistently. I love him, so...

This observation comes very much from a place of love and wanting to help President Trump. You can tell sometimes when President Trump's speaking, he's just going off the cuff. He's, you know, kind of moving around. He's looking everywhere. In this case, he's reading this directly from the teleprompter, which leads me to conclude that this policy promise is coming from some staff member, some advisors on the campaign. I would just observe.

The two largest religious groups in America, the Catholics and the Southern Baptists, both formally oppose IVF. The Southern Baptists declared their opposition quite recently, actually, just two months ago. Catholics are politically split between the Republicans and the Democrats. Southern Baptists are not. Southern Baptists are overwhelmingly Republicans, about 64% Republican, only 26% Democrat.

It would seem ill-advised for a political campaign to mandate that the two largest religious groups in the country, to say nothing of the many other Americans who are not Catholic, not Southern Baptist, but who nevertheless have some moral objections to in vitro fertilization, to mandate that they support it. It's...

It's difficult to see what the political upside is here. Some people have asked, what could be the opposition to IVF? Because IVF is great. Couples who want to have a baby and who are struggling, it allows them sometimes, actually not nearly as effective as the IVF industry would tell you. Sometimes it allows them, though, to have a biological child. Or they'll say, well, more babies is always a good thing. So what could the opposition be?

The broadest opposition to IVF is that, practically speaking, the vast majority of persons who are created through IVF are destroyed or frozen indefinitely to be destroyed at a later date. The vast, vast majority.

That's probably the broadest opposition to IVF. Other moral reasons to oppose IVF are, one, it establishes the domination of science and technology over the origin and destiny of human life. This is why you're seeing...

all sorts of lawsuits because, you know, scientists swap the test tubes. So they create a human being with the sperm from one couple and the egg from another couple. And oopsie daisy, mom and dad have never met each other. They don't know each other. Whose baby is it? Who's, you know, which leads to a kind of commoditization of human life because now there will be some lawsuit over a product. You know, you go and, I mean, it's an industry. And so there's a question of, do we want human beings to be the product of an industry? Like you go to the, you know, that's one opposition to it.

Some other reasons to oppose it is that it separates the unitive from the procreative act. Some other reasons to oppose it is it asserts a perverse right to a child, as though people have a right to a baby. But of course, you can't have a right to another person. It's the same reason we don't support slavery, because people are not objects to be owned and traded and purchased, but are proper subjects with rights in themselves.

You might agree with one of those objections. You might agree with all of those objections. You might agree with none of those objections. I'm just making the political observation here that this is an extraordinarily fraught, novel kind of bioethical issue where increasingly you're seeing people coming out against it. The opposition to IVF is growing. If you look at, you know, the Catholics have been opposed to it for a very long time, but the Southern Baptists have just come along to it, the largest Protestant denomination in the country, that maybe...

There's no political upside here. This is an issue on which the Catholics, the Southern Baptists, the traditionalists, even the libertarians who don't want federal government mandatory funding for this sort of thing can all agree. What's the upside? To say nothing of the fact that if this policy were to go into effect, it would then mandate that people pay for IVF for homosexual couples. I think a lot of people are going to have some opposition to that.

It would, that's just under our current law, following our current jurisprudence, following Obergefell and the logic of the Bostock decision at the Supreme Court. It would, it would probably mandate that single individuals, unmarried individuals have the right to create a child paid for by you with all of those other problems. It just, it raises a lot of questions. And so I get, I totally get why people support IVF. I agree.

have a rather firmly established opposition and religious opposition to IVF. Sweet little Lisa and I struggled for two years with our first child. I was tempted by it. I totally get it. I get why people support it. I get why politicians do not oppose IVF. I don't think the Republican Party should be running on a platform against IVF as a top-of-the-ticket issue. I think probably Republicans shouldn't even mention IVF, certainly in this election and probably for the foreseeable future.

I grant all of that. And therefore, at the same time, it seems to me prudent, seems to me politically advantageous, to say nothing of being morally advantageous, to just kind of let the issue go, hold off a little bit, and debate it as it remains a very hot issue. Can anyone explain to me the political upside here of President Trump mandating that some of his biggest supporters...

engage in something that they consider to be gravely immoral? I don't, what's, what new voters is this policy going to win over by mandating this at the government and the private level? It's, I say this totally from a place of love because I've supported, I've got pretty good bona fides on supporting Trump here. I've done it for his entire presidential political career since 2015, I guess maybe even earlier since he, since he was running. This is

probably is ill-advised. And if he's reading this so closely off the teleprompter that maybe this is something that was cooked up in a committee of advisors, maybe those advisors ought to be reconsidered. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to PragerU.com. Is America headed in the right direction? The majority of Gen Z supports left-wing policies like open borders and socialism. If we do not 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. Daily Wire has a rather close relationship with PragerU. I have been in many, many PragerU videos. Jeremy and I have helped write PragerU videos, Jeremy for many years. In fact, I have a show over at PragerU called The Book Club, which you should all check out. It's just great. And actually, PragerU was for a long time in our old offices in LA. So we absolutely love the organization.

PragerU's educational, entertaining pro-American videos meet young people where they are online and open their minds to the truth. But they need your 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, it 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 clickbaits.

My favorite comment yesterday is, Braun do the thirst mutilator.

Hmm. Who says they've been suing to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot. Now they are forcing him to stay on the ballot. That's true. It's almost as though the machinations against Bobby Kennedy Jr. have nothing to do with the law or election procedures and everything to do with who he seems to be helping at any given moment. That's almost as though that were the case. Speaking of things that are ill-advised.

The Acolyte has been canceled. What is The Acolyte? The Acolyte is the Star Wars show that is extremely expensive, comes from after Disney bought Star Wars. Star Wars is some of the most expensive intellectual property in the world. I, of course, have not watched The Acolyte. I've not watched Star Wars in some time. I liked it when I was a kid. I haven't watched it much recently, but my associate producer, Professor Jacob, is a huge nerd, so he gave me the skimmy on it. How did this thing get canceled? Well, the tomato reader, if you look on Rotten Tomatoes,

Puts the acolyte at about 78%. So you say, well, that's not bad. It's a C+. Not great. Not a B or an A or an A+. But okay, you know, it's not 78%. But that's the critics' rating. The audience rating is 18%. The audience hated this show. Huge flop. Disney spent $180 million on the show. If you break that down according to the length of the episodes, that's about $630,000 per minute of screen time.

Disney and all of these other lib outlets kept insisting for the duration of this season that the viewership was great. And forget about Rotten Tomatoes, forget about the audience numbers, because this was just being flooded by right-wing trolls who hate to see strong people of color spouting brave left-wing ideology on the screen. And don't believe your lion eyes. People love the show. It's got strong people.

Well, okay, if it really had strong viewership, why would they cancel it? Doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't even need to watch The Acolyte if you just want to get a sense of the people who are working on The Acolyte. Here's the lead actress, Amanda Stenberg, who released a diss track against the fans of the show. Here's what she had to say.

Are you so bored, don't you? Go discourse. She's kind of jiggling around like she's doing some kind of pagan ritual or something. Huh? All you people are racist. I want white people to cry. That's my goal. You people are silly racists. I've been oppressed for 400 years. I, some young Hollywood starlet. Yeah, can't believe it didn't work, huh? Can you imagine? Can you even imagine?

They tried. Rolling Stone posted a piece. This was just a few days ago. Can the best of Star Wars survive the worst of its fans? It's the fans' fault. It's like Principal Skinner in The Simpsons. Is it possible that I'm out of touch? No, it's the children who must be wrong, of course. This is all good news. Maybe not good news for a nerd like Professor Jacob who wanted to watch more lightsaber people swinging the sword at each other. But this is good news for conservatives in the culture. The good news here is

whether you like Star Wars or don't like Star Wars or whatever. The good news is it reminds us that ultimately the libs can't take over things. The libs can't just appropriate things and take it as their own and succeed with it. The libs can destroy things. They're very good at destroying things.

The Libs were given Star Wars, some of the most valuable intellectual property in Hollywood on a silver platter. They said, here you are. You've got this built-in fanatical fan base, this beloved franchise for half a century now. Here you are. And they blew it. They blew it in one season of this stupid show. They can't.

Because the audience understood that what they were doing was not Star Wars. They took Star Wars. They took Star Wars and like Han Solo with that tauntaun on Hoth, they cut open its guts. They spilled out all of its innards. Then they crawled inside of the tauntaun like Luke Skywalker did when he was half asleep. But the libs were very much awake. They were woke, I guess you might say. And they kind of danced around.

wearing the skin suit of Star Wars and said, ah, Wookiee, Wookiee, Jabba, Jabba, we're Star Wars. Vote for Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or whatever. White people are terrible. Make them cry. Waka waka. Mishi gushi gashi. Jar Jar Binks or whatever they say. And the audience didn't buy it. The audience said, wait, this isn't Star Wars. This is just some stupid left wing political lecture. This is just they thems and LGBT ideology and politically correct racial grievance. We don't want this.

We're going to give it low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. We're not going to watch, and we're going to make you blow 180 million bucks. Sorry. Give us Star Wars. We'll watch Star Wars. But the left can't do Star Wars. The reason that Star Wars worked in the 70s and continued to work throughout subsequent decades is because it's a story about the fight between good and evil.

And good ultimately is going to triumph over evil, even though evil can be very tempting sometimes. And often it looks like evil is going to win. But the good is ultimately going to win. That's a good story. It's a traditional story. That's not a story the Libs like. The Libs say there's no difference between good and evil. The Libs say we got to play with this yin and yang, man. We got to embrace sometimes the evil within us, man. It's all blurry, you know. We're non-binary. Come on, man, you know.

And that doesn't work. So good news. Bad news for Star Wars fans in the short term, but good news for the culture in the long term. The libs can't continue to be libs and take away beloved stories. Now, speaking of institutions that the libs are destroying, I mentioned last week on the show that the Young Americans Foundation called to my attention that the University at Buffalo, this is a public university in New York,

devoted a considerable amount of space on one of their academic department homepages to denouncing me. The second paragraph on the University of Buffalo Media Study Department homepage was dedicated to me. It was three or four sentences denouncing me and accusing me of calling for genocide and inciting violence and all sorts of crazy things. I

I mentioned I'm not a graduate of the University of Buffalo. I've never been employed by the University of Buffalo. I gave one speech there on a different topic. It had nothing to do with transgenderism. I mean, it had something to do with transgenderism in as much as it had to do with feminism, but it wasn't even specifically on that topic. And they had this permanent denouncement of me on the homepage, uh,

But for a different speech I gave more than two years ago in a totally different location, not even on a campus, it was really, really weird. So we were all laughing about this, but I pointed out this was defamation of me. And I also pointed out that this was actionable defamation. They were lying about me. I obviously have never called for genocide. I'm not a huge genocide kind of guy. So the media study department here, I discovered, has removed me from the homepage.

And I can't help but notice it was up there for almost 18 months. And then I tagged the chairman of the department and I observed that what they had up there on this public schools homepage was defamatory and actionable. People might be legally liable for that. And then I don't know, less than 48 hours later, they took it away. Maybe they got a call from their lawyers. I don't know what it was.

I do know that we won. I do know that these libs at the University of Buffalo folded like a cheap suit. And I didn't even send them a letter. Okay, I just posted a tweet with a vague legal threat and they folded. This is a reminder to the right. There is still something akin to the rule of law in America. Lawfare does work.

These people, they pretend to be very strong and serious. They don't have logic or reason on their side. Often, they don't even have the politics, the support of the people, at least, on their side. And frequently, they don't have the courts on their side. If we fight back at all, at all, even the slightest little inkling of fighting back, we can win. The libs are not omnipotent.

You know, our Labor Day sale is here. Right now, you can get 40% off new annual DailyWire Plus memberships at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code LABOR40 at checkout. Here's what you get with DailyWire Plus. Uncensored ad-free daily shows from the most trusted names in media, live breaking news, hard-hitting investigative journalism, plus comprehensive election coverage. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe now. Use code LABOR4040 for 40% off new DailyWire Plus annual memberships.

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 today. Switch to a qualifying plan and get one year free of Daily Wire Plus Insider. Take it away. Hello, Michael. My name is Jordan. I live in Little Rock, Arkansas. And my question today concerns the three branches of government. I find it fascinating that the three branches are all simultaneously different.

making radically different decisions. You have an executive branch run by radical people, super hyper-liberal people, heading in a very dangerous direction. And yet at the same time you have the judicial branch that is making some fairly conservative decisions, like dropping some cases against Trump, overturning Roe v. Wade, things like that. And then of course in the legislative branch you have kind of a mixed bag.

My question then is how do you explain all of these radically different decisions being made all at the same time? Thank you, Michael. Have a wonderful day, and God bless you. Thank you so much. Really good question. The way that that is possible is because we have a system of government in which there is a triple sovereignty. So we call it the separation of powers. There are checks and balances, but it means that there is real sovereignty there.

established within each of the branches. None is really supposed to be subservient to the others. Right now, the legislature and the executive are trying to make the judiciary subsidiary to at least the legislature and probably the executive too. This is the court packing threats, the insistence on a new code of conduct, erasing life tenure for the justices. So they're trying to destroy that triple sovereignty, but it nevertheless, for now at least, remains

The reason we have this triple sovereignty comes from Montesquieu. Montesquieu, the 18th century writer who probably had a far more significant effect on the American Revolution and the form of government we got afterward than, say, John Locke, who was given a lot more credit for it. So Montesquieu divided, in the spirit of the laws, the government between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

Uh, and, and this has worked out relatively well for us for more than a couple centuries now. Uh, it's, it's unclear though, if this is the ideal form of government in that I was reading a good essay on this somewhat recently on a, on a blog. I think the blog's called Throne and Altar or something like that. Uh, but it, it points out that, um,

St. Augustine, when he's thinking of the Trinity, he compares it to the mind, the mind which has three aspects. When you think of your mind, it's a unitary thing, but it also has three aspects, which is memory, intelligence, and will. All three of those things are functions of the mind, but they're different. They're distinct from one another.

And so you can understand a government as embodying these three things. The memory, you could imagine the memory embodied in a monarchy. You know, King Charles in the United Kingdom is a symbol of memory, of tradition. He, in his very person, is an expression of historical political memory. Then you've got intelligence. That would be...

in the legislature probably, you know, the understanding in the legislature that's crafting all the laws and deliberating. And then you would have the will, which in other forms of government would be in the bureaucracy, say, in the administrative part of the government.

In America's government, it's a little more confused. The memory is not really, the executive is kind of like the American monarch, but he's the head of state. But actually, the memory is more in the judiciary, not really in the executive. And the intelligence is also probably in the judiciary. I mean, maybe you could say it's in Congress. And the will, the will is in the executive through the administrative agency. So it's a little bit

Confusing. But in any case, that's a long-winded answer to a relatively simple question. It's because our sovereign is really divided into three. All sovereign. Next question. Mr. Michael Knowles.

I'm calling regarding your opinion in a matter of prudential judgment regarding my family's reading through of the Bible. We've been reading a chapter of the Bible every night at prayer for years. And that was fine until we turned the page and realized the next book was the Canticle of Canticles. Now, my children are aged 2 to 13. And while my husband and I appreciate and understand the beautiful allegory about God's love for his people, I'm afraid my children might find it a little salacious.

My question is, should we skip this book? And if we do skip it, what can we say to our children to help them understand when we haven't skipped anything else in the Bible up until this point? Thank you so much for your opinion. Have a great day. You can skip it if you like. I don't think you have to skip it. You know, I think you can read Song of Songs, Song of Solomon, Canticle of Canticles. There's a lot of names for this book.

rather evocative and even erotic book of the Bible. You know, I would recommend reading the Bible liturgically. So rather than straight through, I've started reading it many times going straight through. I find reading it liturgically is a little better. So that way you see the figures in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament, you know, with relevant Psalms in there. But I think you're okay if you wanted to read Song of Songs to your kids.

I mean, the parts of the Bible you would have already read do include episodes of rape, incest, murder. There's a lot of pretty saucy stuff in there, too. But the Bible is not obscene in any way. So, you know, if the Song of Songs appealed to the Prairian interest or something, you know, that would be one thing. But God forbid. I mean, we're talking about the Word of God here. So that's not how it works. Next question.

Hi Michael, my husband and I are huge fans of your show. We are also mackerel-snapping Papists and are invigorated by how you speak about the Catholic faith. We would love your help navigating the following: About one year ago, my sister married my husband's cousin. They dated for around two years prior to getting married and have known each other for a while through mine and my husband's relationship.

My husband's cousin is in the army and my sister unfortunately has a chronic illness and cannot work but worked previously in fashion. After only three months of living together he has asked her for a divorce. It has been awful for my sister and for our families. My sister does not believe in divorce and thought that he shared this belief as well as they are both Catholic.

The reason he gives is that they do not value money the same way and he believes she should be working and isn't contributing unless she is, even though he knew about her condition and not working since day one of their relationship. He unfortunately wasn't willing to try longer or participate in more than a few sessions of counselling before ending it. Although many conversations have been had between us with him,

No change of mind has occurred and a divorce settlement is proceeding. We have found this very disturbing to witness and want to do our best to support my sister and advise my husband's cousin while also standing by our beliefs.

Thank you, Michael. Keep up the good fight. Really, really sorry to hear all that. What a disgusting reprobate. He sounds just absolutely awful. And if he were my family, I'd probably take him, take him out back and have a tough conversation with him, you know, maybe, maybe a real tough conversation with him. That is completely disgusting.

and derelict behavior. So I don't know what to do. I mean, I'd tell him, I'd probably shake him a little bit and tell him to act like a man and stop sounding like a whiny feminist cock, you know. But if he's not going to do that, if he's going to insist on divorce...

It shows that he obviously did not understand, especially if you're, you know, you guys are mackerel snapping papists, you're Catholics. I mean, we don't, we don't permit divorce. We don't, we don't acknowledge any sacramental reality to divorce. So, you know, I suppose the consolation here would be this might be cause at the release for an annulment inquiry to, you know, I would speak to a priest about it and say, you know, was, was this man withholding something at the, at the wedding? Did he, was,

was there something that invalidated the sacrament before? Because that, you know, it wouldn't be a divorce. You can't get divorced if you're Catholic, but it's unclear maybe if this was a valid marriage in the first place, if he's going to behave this way. But, you know, I suppose ideally what you do is just tell him that he sounds just like a complete modernist, feminist, whiny Catholic.

I mean, just, you know, it's an important term. I know the term, that word, which is short for cuckold, has become popular in recent years. But for those of us who are children of the Mezzogiorno Cornuto, the word cuckold is a very old insult. And I think it's apt here. I mean, this is just, he's willing to just give his wife away and live in adultery. What a completely disgusting thing. So anyway, maybe show him this clip.

You know, tell him to shoot me a message if he wants any advice. And otherwise, I'd talk to a priest about an annulment inquiry. I don't know. I'm not qualified to say that an annulment would be merited here, but I'd at least look into it. Okay, it is...

Fake headline Friday. I have more voicemail bag to get to. I have written mail bag to get to. Sunday, 7 p.m., Crane & Company is going to have a college football live stream. And the rest of the show continues now. Go to dailywire.com, promo code Knowles. Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn. I'm on this journey. I'm going to sort this out. I need to go deeper undercover.

They all say I'm racist. Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certifications. What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. This is more for you than this for you. Is America inherently racist? The word inherent is challenging there. I'm going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. America is racist to its bones. So inherently. Yeah, this country is a piece of shit.

White. Folks. White. Trash. White supremacy. White woman. White boy. Is there a black person around here? There's a black person right here. Does he not exist? Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. Never be too careful. They gonna say you racist! Buy your tickets now in theaters September 13th, rated PG-13.