Ep. 1565 - Dead Democrats Are Furious Trump Did This
48:14 Share

Reuters is reporting that ABBA, of Mamma Mia fame, has joined some 30 musical artists demanding that President Trump stop playing their music at his rallies. Now, I don't doubt that liberal musicians don't like Trump, but I also don't trust establishment news reporting. So I decided to take a look at who's on the list. First on the list, Prince. So I immediately began to doubt this whole story because I recalled that Prince has been dead for eight years.

Then we have Adele, R.E.M., Neil Young, all checks out. Queen, the main guy's been dead for decades, but the other guys are around. Brian May's a big lib. Okay. Lynyrd Skynyrd, hold on a second. Not only did three of them die in a plane crash almost 50 years ago, but the last surviving original member died last year. So there is no Lynyrd Skynyrd is still alive.

Then we have right after that, David Bowie. David Bowie also died eight years ago. Kenny Rogers, he's been dead for four years. How did any of these people demand that Trump stop using their music? But then it hit me. These people are all campaigning from beyond the grave, which is exactly the way that so many Democrats vote. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show. ♪♪

Welcome back to the show. I have a headline here that I'm sorry to read to you. Burning Man attendees unveil truth of uncomfortably moist orgy dome. We will get into the significance of that in just a moment. First, though.

The fall is here, baby, and you got to go to thecandleclub.com. I'm going to light my delicious autumnal PSL candle with a new little lighter I got this weekend. I went to Louisville with the family, picked up this very swanky Bucky's lighter. Bucky's lighter to say goodbye to summer, Labor Day trip. We're now getting into PSL season, baby.

You can, of course, get the Wise Man Candle, Old Soul. You can get Crème de la Crème. You can get the Mayflower line of candles, all of them at thecandleclub.com 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, unlike those other big brands out there, making them safe for the whole family. Limited quantities. Head to thecandleclub.com to shop now while supplies last.

Speaking of voters, when we turn to living voters, there's some very good news for Republicans. Republicans are leading Democrats in voter registration in Pennsylvania. This is according to Axios, which is a left-wing outlet. On Tuesday...

It was last Tuesday. Republicans added 19,127 new voters to their rolls in July. Democrats only added 17,495. So it's close, but usually the Democrats are way better at this stuff than we are. The Republicans are doing very well in Pennsylvania, which is a must-win state. Overall, we're outpassing the Dems by...

About 7,000 new registered voters, according to the state. This is the first time

in 15 years that the GOP is leading Dems in Buck County. This is according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. So, you know, we all make the joke. It's not even so much a joke that the Democrats are really good at winning the votes of dead people and non-citizens and ineligible voters, meaning, you know, felons and things like that. But they are pretty good at that. And what really matters is not even so much who votes, but who counts the vote. You got to you got to

Get all your people to go out there and vote. That's very important. And the Republicans are doing a pretty good job, at least in Pennsylvania on that. But then we need to have an army of lawyers. We need to have an army of poll watchers. We need to keep the pressure up a lot of media to make sure that pipes don't burst in the middle of the night, that the accounting is not blocked out from scrutiny. You know,

It's something that FDR joked with LBJ about two Democrats who were presidents who were fairly corrupt in their own respective ways. We got to make sure that we vote and that we get the votes counted. So there's very good news on this front. Turning to Washington, D.C., Mike Johnson, Republican speaker of the House.

might attach something called the SAVE Act to a short-term spending bill. So the SAVE Act was proposed by Chip Roy, good conservative Republican out of Texas. Chip Roy's SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship to vote. Simple, simple as. The federal government is going to run out of money. The federal government is always on the brink of running out of money. The federal government will shut down on September 30th if Congress does not pass a stopgap spending bill.

This happens all the time, and the Democrats bully Republicans into giving up everything they want because they say that the Republicans are going to be blamed for the shutdown. And the media will blame the Republicans for the shutdown, and maybe that will convince some low-information voters. Okay, all of that's true. So then the Republicans cave, and we get nothing, and the Dems get everything they want, and it's a perpetual crisis, and the Democrats exploit that crisis. They never let one go to waste. This is a brilliant idea. This is a brilliant idea.

The only thing Republicans should be adding to the stopgap spending bill is the SAVE Act. The only ask that we should, we should not ask for cuts to the Department of Education, although we probably should cut that department. We shouldn't ask for a brand new immigration bill to go. We shouldn't ask for some new change to our Ukraine policy. We shouldn't ask for any of that.

Not because those are not worthy goals, but because we don't want to muddy the waters here. Republicans should make this very simple. Okay, Democrats, we'll get you through a short-term spending bill so the government doesn't shut down. We have one request. Make sure that only citizens are voting. It's right before a presidential election, so that's it. And force the Democrats to say yes or no on that issue alone.

If you start adding in another issue about the border or Ukraine or the economy or the administrative state or whatever, then the Democrats are going to say, no, this was too much. We can't abandon our allies in Ukraine or whatever. We can't abandon our allies at the Department of Education. It gets too muddy. Make it very simple. The Democrats want non-citizens to vote. That's one reason that they flood the country with foreign nationals and have allowed millions and millions of people in recent years to come into the country.

And then even beyond that, they think that their mere presence in the country and the children they have will lead to a permanent electoral majority. But they also, they literally want non-citizens to vote. And they want voters who are today ineligible to start to be eligible because the Democrats do very well among foreigners and felons and the dead. So I love it. Don't worry. Yes, the media will try to blame a shutdown on Republicans. But if it's simple, if it's clear enough,

The Republicans will be able to say, look, we had one simple ask. Let's let only citizens vote. You wouldn't do it. So it's the Democrats who shut down the government. That's that's pretty easy to sell. Also, because if we don't secure our elections, if we're not willing to expend political capital to secure our elections, then, yeah, we're probably going to lose elections. If the Republican fear is.

well, look, we can't fight with the Democrats here because then the government might shut down and we might be blamed for it and then we might lose the election. Yeah, well, if non-citizens are voting, you're going to lose the election too. So might as well go down swinging, guys. And I don't think you'll go down. I think this is actually a very winnable issue for the GOP. Now, part of the reason I think that is the Kamala team is getting nervous. Kamala tweeted this out over the weekend.

You know, they've been bickering over this this debate. Trump agreed to a debate with Joe Biden. He won so decisively that Biden is out of the race. Kamala comes in. Kamala insists on the same debate terms that Trump agreed to with Biden. Trump said, look, I didn't agree to any debate with you, Kamala, but OK, if you really want it, I'll accept those terms. And then Kamala all of a sudden comes in and says, well, I want to change the rules now. I want to change the rules somewhat so that they benefit me even more than the previous rules.

would have benefited Joe Biden. So here's what she says. Donald Trump is surrendering to his advisors who won't allow him to debate with a live microphone. You recall in the debate, the microphone is muted while the other person is talking. If his own team doesn't have confidence in him, the American people definitely can't. We are running for president of the United States. Let's debate in a transparent way with the microphones on the whole time. This is the clearest evidence yet

That Kamala is really scared because she's trying to prod him like a bully does in the schoolyard. Oh, yeah, you're too chicken to give me everything I want. Yeah, that's what it is. You're not a man if you don't for no reason give me every single thing that I'm asking for. What? Huh? Why would he do that?

The rules worked out pretty well for him last time. And by the way, he agreed to the rules when everyone believed that they would benefit the Democrats. But why? Well, you're just too chicken. You're afraid of your advisors. This is an absurd accusation on its face. Kamala's advisors don't trust her to speak to anyone, including the friendliest reporters. The one sit-down interview she's had since she got the nomination, she had to tag team it with her teddy bear, Tim Walz. Nobody believes Kamala wrote that tweet.

There's the proof. That's all the proof you need that this is an absurd accusation. Say what you will about Trump. The man writes his own tweets. Kamala didn't write that. That was some advisor who wrote that. That was some staffer who wrote that. Kamala doesn't write her own tweets. She doesn't write her own speeches. Very few people do. I doubt she edits them. Kamala doesn't give press conferences. Kamala doesn't sit down for solo interviews. Kamala doesn't

agree to multiple debates, only the one on the friendliest network that she can find. Donald Trump's scared. No, lady, I think you're scared. I think that's why you're trying to prod him like you guys are in third grade right now. That's why I think it's fabulous that Trump accepted the debate.

It was a game of chicken. It was a game of chicken when Biden did it. Biden proposed that debate because he was declining in the polls and he had to show that he was strong and he was hoping that Trump would say no. And Trump called this bluff and Trump destroyed him. And the same thing is happening here. I'm glad Trump is calling common list bluff. Can't wait to see the debate. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to ExpressVPN.com slash Knowles. The problem with these huge tech companies, they don't just want your money.

They want to know everything about you. Shadowy data brokers are making a killing by compiling detailed profiles of your online activity and selling them to corporations that want to control you with targeted ads. They are not selling a product. They're selling you. I guess you are the product. Well, here's the good news. You don't have to let them. There is a way to keep your browsing history truly private. It's called ExpressVPN.

I use ExpressVPN because one of the easiest ways for these data vultures to track you is through your device's IP address. It's like a digital fingerprint that also reveals your location. But with ExpressVPN, I know my IP address is hidden by encrypting 100% of my network traffic, making it that much more difficult for data brokers to monitor, track, and monetize my online activity. Not to mention, ExpressVPN works on all devices.

My phone, laptop, tablet, you name it, ExpressVPN has me covered. It's super easy to use. You click one button, boom, you're good. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com slash Knowles. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Knowles. You get an extra three months free. Expressvpn.com slash Knowles. Kamala is not looking great on the issues.

When this debate happens, it's going to be tough to find issues on which Kamala's views are more popular and her record is more impressive. We've heard in recent weeks that Kamala wants to tax unrealized gains, meaning you invest in your 401k, say. And some years it goes up a little bit, some years it goes down a little bit. But if it goes up,

As it currently stands, you don't need to pay anything on that because you haven't actually made any money yet. You don't have any cash. It's just kind of numbers on a computer screen. You got money out there in the market. Kamala wants to force you or at least force people above a certain wealth threshold to sell their investments in order to pay taxes to the government. Kamala has really not said boo yet.

on the issue because she knows that it's a really touchy issue. However, we've just gotten confirmation that this is what the Harris campaign is talking about because her economic advisor, Bharat Rama, went on TV on CNBC, so it's a relatively friendly network, to defend this policy.

Unrealized gains, taxing unrealized gains just doesn't seem fair in any sense of the word. In the very best sense, if you are taxing unrealized gains, all you're doing is pulling forward the taxes that would be paid later when someone actually sells the stock.

I think that this reaction to unrealized gains is a little funny given that I bet that the majority of people watching right now are already paying a tax on unrealized gains. It's called a property tax. When the value of your home goes up, you pay higher taxes even if you don't sell your home.

The value of your home never moves the way the stock moves, the way something else moves. That's always the go-to answer. It's also property tax is a use tax. You're paying for the schools. You're paying for emergency services. Those are things that make absolute sense. And sure, and all the revenue that comes in from these unrealized gains taxes and the other taxes in the Harris plan are going to go to creating what she calls more opportunity. It's to make sure that every newborn born in this country gets $6,000. But it's not a use tax for the people who are actually using the services.

Well, look, you're arguing that this is some sort of foreign concept that's completely unknown. It's probably unconstitutional. And it was never in anyone's intent to tax. It's not an income tax. And it's never going to happen. Yikes. That's CNBC. That isn't the Daily Wire. That isn't the Blaze. That isn't Fox News. This is a network that is at the very least friendly to the left. And they just they.

to eviscerate this guy for defending the Harris. And before it was a Harris plan, it was a Biden plan because Kamala doesn't have any original ideas at all to tax unrealized gains. And so this is, you're going to hear the rejoinder, which is, well, what about property taxes? Property taxes are a tax on unrealized gains. But as the CNBC hosts point out, it's apples and oranges. When you're paying property taxes, you're paying for property.

You're paying for the school district. You're paying for the local community services. You're paying for you're not you're not paying because in a six month period, your house jumped 20 percent. And so now you've got to go sell some other kind of property to go make up the unrealized gain. And by the way, next year, your house might depreciate.

But also that was their point during this brutal segment, so that your house doesn't move in value the way that a stock might. And so then the next thing you're going to hear, which didn't come up in this CNBC interview, is that this unrealized gains tax, it's not going to affect the middle class. It's not going to affect ordinary investors. It's going to affect only the billionaire class, only the super wealthy who have X amount of money in equities, say.

Even if that's true, this policy is still completely idiotic because it will force people. Rich people don't just have.

cash stuffed in their mattress. Okay. We probably have this. I don't have this image. You don't have this image, but I guess the libs have this image of, of the wealthy being like rich uncle penny bags from monopoly. And he's just got dollar bills coming out of his pocket. And that's not how it works. When you have money, you invest it in things. You invest it in companies, you invest it in treasury bills, you invest it in all sorts of invest gold, I don't know, whatever. And so you don't have access to all of that capital. If under the Harris plan,

Every single year, the CIA, the CIA, the CIA is probably going to knock on your door too. But the IRS is going to come knock on your door and say, money, please. That is going to force people at whatever wealth threshold it is to sell off their investments, which is going to crash the economy every single year in a predictable way, in a stupid way. It's not going to even probably increase revenue to the government. Because if you keep destroying the economy every year as a matter of national policy, probably

probably you're not going to be producing quite as much. So the plan is shockingly radical, as you heard even CNBC journalists point out. It's probably unconstitutional. No one has ever seriously suggested this before. It's shockingly radical and completely idiotic. And I think that sums up the Kamala campaign really well.

Shockingly radical, much more radical than any Democrat nominee that we've seen in history. Someone who takes the sacramental view of abortion. This is the daughter of a Marxist economist, a fairly prominent Marxist economist. This is a woman who campaigns on the most extreme left-wing policies. When she was in the Senate, she was to the left of Bernie Sanders. But also completely incoherent, completely incompetent.

So one thing, there are ideologues who are really smart. You know, I think of like Herbert Marcuse, a father of the new left. That guy, extremely radical, but very intelligent and within his domain of expertise, quite confident. But Kamala Harris, forget about all the crazy ideology. Point me to a single accomplishment. What has she ever done?

She's basically not done anything. In as much as she has done things, they haven't gone very well. And then, of course, you look at her recent record in the Biden-Harris administration. Everything they touch turns to ash. It's all the radicalism, all the extremism with none of the fruitfulness of it. I suppose radical policies in principle could produce good results. She has never produced one, which leads to President Trump's new nickname for her,

The new nickname, he's batted around a few, Comrade Kamala. President Trump floated this in a Truth Social post, and I've held off commenting on Trump's nicknames for Kamala. I felt he was workshopping. He was figuring it out. They did swap the Democrat nominee, and then Trump got shot in the head. So I figured, let's give him a few weeks to work this one out. Comrade Kamala, I really like.

My colleague, Mr. Walsh, suggested at Backstage Live, Kami Kamala or Kamila or something. You know, other people have suggested it too. Something tying her to extreme leftism. But it didn't quite, I liked the substance of it, but it didn't quite land for me. Kamala does. And I was trying to think, why does Kamala work for me in a way that Kami Kamala does not? Because it's more precise.

And it plays more on sense memory. And then this got me thinking, maybe I'm overthinking Trump's nicknames, but I don't think I am. It got me thinking of a lecture by Jory Graham, who is an American poet. She is a Harvard professor. She holds the chair at Harvard that Seamus Heaney, the late great poet, once held. She gave a lecture on description. And she was explaining why Walt Whitman is a bad poet, but Wallace Stevens is a good poet.

And she recites these lines, one line from Whitman, Song of Myself, which is the sniff of green leaves and dry leaves. And she points out that line, the sniff of green leaves and dry leaves, it doesn't

any, I don't know what green leaves it is. Is it a marijuana leaf? Is it a pine leaf? Is it a maple leaf? Is it a tobacco leaf? I don't know. That doesn't give me any sensory information. And she compared that to a line from Wallace Stevens, who writes, in autumn, when the leaves made sharp air sharper by their smell, in

In autumn, when the grapes made sharp air sharper by their smell, that gives you a real picture. You can kind of get the temperature. You can kind of get the smell. You can kind of, it's just much clearer. It gives you a sensory experience. It's a line from a postcard from the volcano. Trump is a poet. I know Media Matters is already waiting to mock me for making this point, but I've been making this point since 2016. Ever since Trump

used the phrase make America great again, which I pointed out is really beautiful poetic diction. It's firm, strong Saxon language. It gives you a picture. Then all of the nicknames, low energy Jeb, it just creates a picture for you. It's very, very evocative. Even Lion Ted and Little Mark, Crooked Hillary, it creates a picture. It's rather precise. The man, like him or not, this man

has a great command of poetic diction. So, commie, commie, I don't know, is commie like a, you know, a college fashionable communist, you know, some like bougie white girl who doesn't like her dad? Or are we talking about Fidel Castro, you know? Are we talking about some hardened communist guerrilla radical? I don't know. It doesn't...

I don't have a picture of it, but Comrade Kamala. Now you're picturing, I don't know, someone in like a gray hat with a hammer and sickle on it with a little bit of an accent like Boris and Natasha. It's very good. It's very good. I think we've landed on the right one. Comrade Kamala, I'm in. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to policygenius.com slash Knowles.

Every big election gets me thinking about the future. Not just the next four years, but decades down the line. What kind of America will we leave for our children and grandchildren? It's a sobering thought. While we fight the good fight politically, we also need to take care of our own family's futures. That is where Policy Genius comes in, the country's leading online insurance marketplace.

A lot can happen over the next four years, let alone the next few decades. Policy Genius helps you find the right life insurance policy at the best price so you have one less thing to prepare for in these uncertain times. Let me tell you, their prices might surprise you. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for $1 million of coverage. Some options even offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams. I have got life insurance myself. Knowing that my family is taken care of,

gives me the peace of mind to focus on the cultural battles that we are fighting every day. Policy Genius makes it easy. Their technology lets you compare quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks. Plus, they've got real licensed agents to help you out if you need it. Be ready for the future with Policy Genius. Go to policygenius.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That is policygenius.com slash Knowles. All

All right, folks, the mailbag is coming up on Friday. And if you want to send in a mailbag question, two ways to do it. There's the written mailbag and the voice mailbag. Either way, you go to the Daily Wire, you go to dailywire.com, you click on the watch button, then you go to my show. You click on my show, you click on the submitted mailbag question. Okay, then you can either type it in there or you can record a video.

audio question. You can do it on any app that you use to record audio, and you just attach that as a file. All I will ask you is keep the questions to under 60 seconds. Some of you people, you send me your life story in an audio book that is 12 hours long. I can't play that on the show. Less than 60 seconds. Got to be sent it in. We'll get to it on Friday. Speaking of sense memory, a headline out of the Daily Star,

Burning Man attendees unveil the truth of uncomfortably moist orgy dome. Burning Man is not a festival for the faint-hearted, and for good reason. Attendees of the crazy festival unveiled some steamy traditions in the orgy dome tent. I'm not going to read the rest of this article, either privately or publicly on this show. It's a family show, but there's a great lesson to be learned, even just from that headline.

I know a lot of Burning Man types. I know a lot of Burning Man types, meaning the type of people who go to Burning Man. And I know people who literally go to Burning Man and have gone to Burning Man a number of times. The people who go to Burning Man are, they're people who would call themselves seekers. You know, they're seekers. They're open-minded. You know, they're spiritual, but not religious, man. You know, they're, I'll tell you something, they're distrustful of organized religion, you know, but they're seekers, you know.

If you think organized religion is bad, just wait till you learn about disorganized religion. Because this stuff, this stuff, the burning man, where these people actually go to the desert to worship a burning effigy, like a giant flaming idol, straight out of Exodus. They do this, okay? And the orgy dome and the whatever and the drugs and the everything and

But there's so much more to it. There's the Burning Man. There are the crystals. There are the horoscopes. There's the Reiki. There's the this thing. There's the that thing. It's really open-minded, man, you know?

That is disorganized religion. And disorganized religion can really lead people astray. Some sort of organized religion, if it's heretical or schismatic or has errors in its premises, organized religion can lead people astray too. But disorganized religion basically always leads people astray because organized religion

is applying rigor and logic and reason to our spiritual intuitions. This is why I've joked, though I guess it's not really a joke, I've just quipped, I suppose, on the show that

spiritual but not religious is the definition of a demon. I don't mean this to malign anyone who identifies as spiritual but not religious. Many such cases these days. But I mean that in a really technical way. Religion is a habit of virtue that inclines the will to give to God what he deserves. It's like a kind of a justice, but it's just giving God what he deserves. And spiritual means, well,

Not corporeal, right? If you're purely spiritual, that means you don't have a body. And so angels are spiritual. That is, they don't have bodies. And they're religious. They give to God what he deserves. Demons are spiritual. They don't have bodies. But they explicitly do not give to God what he deserves. They are irreligious. That is to say, they are spiritual but not religious. And I know people, when they use that phrase, they don't mean to say, you know, I am...

engage in demonic activity. But it is kind of an odd coincidence, isn't it? I once saw a great meme posted by a lawyer here at The Daily Wire, which is, it was a little fish in a fishbowl. And then the fishbowl was in the ocean. And the meme said, it had the picture of the ocean and it said, spirituality. And then on the fishbowl, it said, religion. And my friend here pointed out, he said, spirituality.

ah, this is a really good observation. Religion is a lens that allows you to more clearly understand spirituality. It's not a prison. It's not something that traps you. It's just a way to see things clearly and rationally and to take all of the sometimes incoherent, sometimes contradictory, sometimes just simply inaccurate spiritual inklings and inclinations we have and to see if they actually make any sense.

And something that doesn't make sense is going to the desert to worship a burning effigy of a man and then go to a moist orgy dome. That doesn't make sense. If you're doing that, then your spirituality has led you astray and you ought to consider some religious rigor. Just my two cents. Speaking of drug culture, President Trump has raised eyebrows by coming out in support of the old devil's lettuce, Mary Jane.

Talking about the Peruvian parsley. You know what I mean? The Haitian oregano. You catch what I'm talking about? I'm talking about pot. Trump posted on Truth Social, law and order.

As everyone knows, I was and will be again the most respected law and order president in U.S. history. We will take our streets back by being tough and smart on violent and all other types of crime. In Florida, like so many other states that have already given their approval, personal amounts of marijuana will be legalized for adults with Amendment 3. So he's talking about this ballot initiative that is certainly going to pass, almost certainly going to pass, which would legalize pot.

Whether people like it or not, this will happen through the approval of the voters, so it should be done correctly. We need the state legislature to responsibly create laws that prohibit the use of it in public spaces so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go like we do in many of the Democrat-run cities. So true. You walk through New York, Nate, you walk through L.A., certainly everything smells like pot. At the same time, someone should not be a criminal in Florida when this is legal in so many other states.

Okay, hold on. The first part of it I totally get. I'm going to be a tough law and order president. I'm going to get tough on crime. The second part I understand, which is in Florida, the voters are going to vote to legalize pot. And it's just going to happen and you might not like it, but it's going to happen. And it would be better to do this in a way that minimizes the fallout than a way that just allows the fallout to go everywhere. So I at least understand that. But then,

He says, someone should not be a criminal in Florida when this is legal in so many other states. So here, this is shifting from this is going to pass to it is good that this, it is right that we decriminalize pot. Now that's, that's a strange shift in argument. Yeah, I know, we probably don't like it, but it's going to happen, so let's do it responsibly to this is good, we need, it is a matter of justice that we legalize pot. We do not need to ruin lives and waste taxpayer dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them. Uh,

Okay, that's part of the same argument. I don't know. First of all, most personal amounts of marijuana, when people plead guilty to that, when people are actually prosecuted for that, it's drug dealers pleading down. And I don't think we should go soft on drug dealers at all. But then he gets back to a good argument again, which is no one should grieve a loved one because they died from fentanyl-laced marijuana. So this is a totally different argument now and much more persuasive, I think, certainly than the second one and maybe even than the first one, which is

Look, marijuana is illegal now. People buy it from dirt bags on the street, and the dirt bags sometimes have it laced with fentanyl such that, you know, you take one puff of the devil's lettuce. Ordinarily, you know, you'd probably be basically okay just in that one instance. But if there's fentanyl in it, you'll die. And then a parent loses a kid because of a laced joint. You know, that seems so crazy. It would be better.

to buy the joint from a place where you know that's not going to get fentanyl. At least that's the argument, and it's much more persuasive. And then Trump says, we will make America safe again. So he ties it back in, starts out law and order, ends with safety. So there is a symmetry, there is a through line to the post, even though there are arguments that don't necessarily go together here. I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments President Trump is making. I think some of them are pretty good. I think some of them are a little weaker, at least from my perspective.

My only question is, this is going to split President Trump's supporters. There are going to be Trump supporters who are maybe a little bit more libertarian, who are into legalizing drugs, at least legalizing marijuana. And they're going to love this. They're going to say, yeah, man, here we go.

But then there are going to be supporters who are conservatives and traditionalists and new right, religious right, this right, that right, who don't think it's good, who don't think that at the time that we're facing the worst drug crisis in American history, we don't necessarily need to make more drugs legal. That seems like contrary to reason. So I think Trump is totally right in observing this amendment's going to pass and it is what it is. But

If an issue is going to split your own supporters, why bring it up? And why bring up a relatively minor issue, recreational marijuana, when there are so many bigger issues, including the one that he does bring up at the end there, which is the overdose crisis, the crisis of fentanyl, which is really coming across our border, which ties into a much bigger issue, which is the open border and mass migration.

As well as then the economy, as well as foreign affairs. You know, personal marijuana seems so low on the list. That last line about the fentanyl was probably insightful, but I just still question whichever advisors are telling President Trump to focus on this.

I don't know. There's something odd that's gone on within the Trump campaign in the past few weeks where it just seems to me he's brought up issues that are needlessly divisive.

among his own supporters. I am about as big a Trump supporter as there is. I have supported the guy since 2016, happily voted for him in 16 and in 20 and in 24. I know there are a lot of Johnny-come-latelys to the Trump movement. So some people, they didn't vote in 2016, then maybe they did in 2020, then they campaigned for other people in the primary. So I understand that the Trump campaign doesn't necessarily want to take advice from people who have opposed it.

But I voted for the guy in 2016, happily. And I voted for him in 2020. And I don't, you know, I didn't publicly endorse any candidates in 2024. But I really like Trump. I'm happy to vote for him in 2024. So this comes from a place of love. I just don't see what the point is in bringing up issues that are this divisive. I don't think Trump is going to gain any meaningful votes from coming out swinging in defense of Trump.

And for every vote that he would win from that, I think he might lose a vote from people who really think the drug crisis has gotten horrible in America and who will be less inclined to vote for him as a result. I have my own views on this issue, the IVF issue, all these other issues that have been just popping up out of nowhere in recent days. But even beyond the matter of I support this side of it rather than this side of it, I just don't see why we need to bring it up.

Kamala is losing on every major issue. In as much as we're talking about issues at all, it seems to me the campaign would be better served focusing on those. And whichever advisors think this is a good idea, I don't know. I don't know if I'd listen to those advisors as much anymore. I'd start listening to me. That's what I would do. But hey, that's me. I have to listen to myself all the time. Speaking of Law & Order, huge, huge story that will affect this very show, actually.

We'll get to that in one second. First, though, we're just 10 days away from our first ever theatrical release, Am I Racist? Premiering on September 13th. Theaters are selling out across the country, which means more screens will show the film. Go to amiracist.com today to get tickets and showtimes at your theater. My favorite comment, wow, again, I told you, I don't look at the names. I just look at the comments. Again, probably this person has had more favorite comments on this show than anyone else.

And I have not done it intentionally. This is the Drummer's Workshop, Norm's Music says, I thought Kamala Harris would say on day one in the White House, she would walk up some stairs. That's really great. On day one, that would be the honest answer. Because everyone's pretending like Kamala Harris doesn't know anything about the White House. Kamala Harris doesn't have any power, no influence. She's the vice president. And on certain key issues like the border, she's imbued with presidential authority and has been for three years. We don't need to believe a single thing.

that she would say she'll do on day one. She's already there. She's been there for years. On day one, she'll walk upstairs. That's going to be the only difference in her experience of the White House. A judge has just ruled against Media Matters for America in its request to dismiss a lawsuit from Elon Musk and X.

What is Media Matters, you say? If you're a longtime listener to this show, you know Media Matters is, practically speaking, my publicity agency. But officially, it's a left-wing operative organization that seeks to get conservative commentators and journalists fired. So,

So to put this in perspective, there is someone working for Media Matters right now who is watching this show. And I'm speaking, you know, we air the show first for the Daily Wire members. So you got to go to become a member at dailywire.com. Then, only afterward, does my show go out on YouTube. It goes out on X. It goes out on terrestrial radio syndicated around the country. And so people can hear the show later in the day. But Media Matters pays for a Daily Wire subscription.

Because the way I know this is they will break out clips of my show while I am still on the air doing the show live, which means they would have to be members watching at dailywire.com, which is great. And I appreciate the support and I appreciate the publicity. This is why I'm really torn on this. Because Media Matters in its own mind exists to get me fired. But in reality, Media Matters

gives me the best publicity that I get and breaks out the best parts of my show. And they post stuff. They say, Noel said this. And I watched it. I said, man, that was a good, that was a great segment. Oh, I got to do more on that tomorrow. That was good stuff. Thanks, Media Matters. So I'm very torn on Elon coming in and saying, I'm going to destroy Media Matters. Why does he want to destroy them? Because Media Matters lied. Media Matters ran a report that was intentionally deceptive and financially damaged X.

by saying that big advertisers' ads were appearing alongside all sorts of hateful, terrible, bigoted, disgusting content on X. And then it came out that Media Matters cooked the report. They used an extraordinarily small data set. It was rather selective, and they were trying to get a certain result. So they gamed the Twitter algorithm, but it wasn't reflective of how the Twitter algorithm really works. And as a consequence of that,

media or corporate entities started to boycott advertising on X, which very nearly destroyed the company. And Elon held firm and he ended up then busting up the big advertiser conglomerate, GARM, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which was this super lib woke kind of operation to weaponize corporations to destroy right wing media. And now he's going after Media Matters. How is this being reported?

NBC News says, because of U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor's decision, X's lawsuit against the nonprofit media watchdog and two of its staff members will proceed to trial on April 7th. Nonprofit media watchdog. That's according to NBC. That's what Media Matters is.

NBC reporting on Jeffrey Dahmer could say a local chef, local culinary expert Jeffrey Dahmer is being maligned in the media. Same thing, nonprofit media watchdog. It's a leftist activist organization that seeks to destroy anyone who in any way contradicts the liberal establishment. So I'm torn because I...

have great affection for the Media Matters employee or employees who are watching my show live right now and seeking to publicize my show and get more viewers for me. However, Elon is right. It has to be destroyed. Media Matters and the, not even just Media Matters, but the groups like Media Matters, they have to be destroyed. The left has to be destroyed as an organized, effective political machine.

And the reason for this is a basic political rule that a lot of squishes don't understand. One wins by winning. I remember I was just talking about in 2016, there were conservatives who didn't support Trump and they had all sorts of reasons why they didn't support Trump. And some were more persuasive than others, but their fundamental mistake was they thought we could win by losing.

The argument for Never Trump was, if we lose this election and the Democrat wins this election, we'll have a better chance of winning next time. But that's not really how it works. You don't have a better chance of winning by losing. You win, and then you wield power, and you wield power to make the political conditions more favorable to your holding power

And then you win again and you gain even more power. That's how it works. That's how it really works. So we're not going to win by letting the left continue to have and wield all sorts of power. You're going to win. Think of just a presidential administration.

A presidential administration goes in and then starts to change some of the rules in the administrative state and then starts appointing judges who are going to defend the liberal interpretation or whichever side's interpretation of the law. And then they're going to start amassing popularity. They're going to start giving handouts to their friends. This is especially true on the left. They're going to start crafting powerful financial and lobbying and...

intellectual and media organizations that are going to serve and be served by the patronage of that political power. And I mean, this is the Republicans have tried to do this a little bit, mostly unsuccessfully. But this is the story of the Democrat Party going back to the days of the machine of boss tweed. And actually long before that, you win by winning. So we're going to win by breaking down left wing organizations that are behaving in a way that's illegal and unjust. And we're going to break those down and then we're going to win more power.

And then we're going to win in the media. And then we're going to go win in retail and just regular consumer goods, corporations. We're doing this here at The Daily Wire. Then you're going to win in popular entertainment. Then you're going to go win in elections. You've got to win those elections. And then you're going to go win here and there and there. That there's no substitute for victory. Now, what is Kamala's strategy to win, according to NBC News?

aforementioned flax for the left. Kamala is going to focus at the debate on personal attacks on Trump rather than policy substance. I'm just reading from NBC News. Source told NBC News that while Harris's team is preparing to talk about a variety of topics, the campaign very much views the optics of the debate as critically important. To that end, the source said Harris and her team were focusing on homing in on how to needle Trump, to rattle him. In that sense, the source said, it's going to be less about substance than

and more about showcasing Harris as a woman who isn't scared and isn't going to cower and who's standing up to Trump and holding Trump accountable. So it's all going to be personal attacks, no substance. Duh, I don't need NBC News to tell me that. What's she going to run on in terms of substance? She can run on killing babies, her one fanatically held policy view that I think she really does believe in.

And that'll alienate about half the voters. But she can do that. Maybe that gets her base to come out a little bit more. And then what? She could run on transing the kids. Especially her running mate is really, really fanatical about that. But she herself is too. She could run on that.

That's not a winner politically, though. For goodness sakes, that issue flipped Virginia into the Republican column. So that's not going to work. That helped get Ron DeSantis reelected overwhelmingly in Florida. So that's not going to work. What's she going to run on? The economy, migration, foreign wars? What? Inflation? They got nothing. Education? They got nothing. So, of course, it has to be personal attacks. It always is, which is, again, every...

Every Democrat accusation against Trump does seem to be a kind of confession. Trump wants political violence. Meanwhile, they maraud, they rape, kill, pillage, and burn across the country and then set the stage for Trump to be shot in the head. But no, Trump is the grave threat to safety and security. He's the threat of political violence. Or here, you know, Trump is a threat to democracy. Meanwhile, the libs change all the voting rules, in some cases unconstitutionally. And then here, Trump, he just focuses on personal attacks and invective. No, what are you talking about?

Trump's out there talking about a ton of issues, some of which are controversial. He's out there talking about IVF. He's out there talking about marijuana. He's out there talking about the border. He's talking about some things that his supporters probably don't even support. But he is talking about issues. What issues is Kamala talking about? Kamala is talking about how evil Donald Trump is. And then she's talking about school buses and Venn diagrams and coconut trees.

It's Tee Hee Hee Tuesday. This is one really nice thing about it being Labor Day, or the day after Labor Day now, is we skip Music Monday, we go straight to Tee Hee Hee Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code NOLS at checkout 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.

Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certification. 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? What'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.