Trump aimed to disrupt the status quo by placing a prominent critic of Big Pharma and the industrial food complex in a key position to address public health issues and chronic disease epidemic in America.
MSNBC labeled Pete Hegseth, a Fox News commentator and Secretary of Defense nominee, as a white supremacist, reflecting the media's tendency to defame and misrepresent conservative figures.
Oprah acknowledged that her production company, Harpo, received a million-dollar fee from Kamala Harris's campaign to cover production costs for a joint event, clarifying that she personally did not take any fee.
The FDA mandated the recall because the butter packages did not specify that they contained milk, a requirement for food labeling despite the obvious nature of butter as a milk product.
Tyson dismissed the idea of legacy as an ego-driven concept, emphasizing that life is transient and that people should focus less on leaving a lasting impression and more on living in the present.
Right now, go to silencershop.com slash Knowles. The Second Amendment safeguards our freedom from tyranny. As responsible gun owners, it is our job to stay sharp and protect those rights. That is where Silencer Shop...
comes in. America's leading provider of firearm suppressors. Silencers are completely legal. Silencer Shop makes getting one easier than ever. They offer the largest selection of top brand suppressors. Their expert team handles all the paperwork for you. Are you ready to enhance your firearms? Visit silencershop.com slash Knowles today. Silencershop.com slash Knowles. Silencershop, the easiest and best way to get your suppressor.
This is the final weekend for our presidential deal, 47% off new Daily Wire Plus memberships. It ends on Sunday. Watch Am I Racist, the number one documentary of the decade. Access our daily uncensored shows and investigative journalism only with Daily Wire Plus. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code Trump. Lock in 47% off before the deal is gone. You thought Pete Hegseth was a wild pick for Secretary of Defense, huh?
But that probably seemed pretty run of the mill after you heard about Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, right? Yeah, yeah, that was real shocking.
Until yesterday, when you found out about the final boss of all cabinet picks, big pharma smashing, vaccine hating, status quo disrupting, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., first secretary of health and human services. Whoa, baby, we've got all the latest from President Trump's totally unleashed transition. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. ♪♪
Welcome back to the show. Oprah Winfrey finally fessing up to the million dollar payoff that she took from Kamala Harris. She wasn't the only celebrity to take big payoffs from the Harris campaign all for nothing. There's so much more to say first, though. Go to coin, C-O-I-G-N dot com. The
Thank you.
of earning cash back rewards while fighting the liberal agenda. That's the power of Coin. Coin works everywhere Visa is accepted, comes with a 100% U.S.-based customer service guarantee, and...
consumer protections, not to mention it is a great looking credit card you will take pride in using. It's bright red with we the people on the front. You know, a lot of people, they don't want to give their money to the woke lib corporations, but then they'll use a credit card. They'll use it for multiple transactions every single day and they're funneling money to those lib corporations and
Those corporations are then sending money to liberal nonprofits. How about you switch that up and use the conservative card for your purchases? C-O-I-G-N dot com. Join the wait list. Be sure to select Daily Wire in the how did you hear about us section. Terms apply. Go to coin dot com slash disclosures for full details. Biggest news of the day. Biggest news in a while. I don't know. Biggest news since two days ago when Trump made other shocking picks for his cabinet.
Bobby Kennedy, Director of Health and Human Services. Bobby Kennedy.
lifelong Democrat from the most prominent Democrat family in the country today. Bobby Kennedy decides he's going to run for president as an independent against the Democrat, against the Republican. Then he decides, no, he's going to endorse the Republican. He endorses Trump. He says, vote for Trump in the swing states, but not in the non-swing states. Then he says, nah, forget about it. I'm going whole hog in. I'm campaigning with Trump. And so you had to assume there was some deal made here that Bobby Kennedy would be a part of the Trump administration. But I think a lot of people thought, okay, maybe he'll be
a health advisor. Maybe he'll have some role in White House policy. Maybe they put him, I don't know, at FDA. That would be totally crazy. Wow, Bobby Kennedy at FDA. But very few people expected that Trump would go all the way, put Bobby Kennedy in charge of one of the most important agencies in the entire government,
the Department of Health and Human Services. And that's exactly what Trump did. Trump posts yesterday to social media, I'm thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to public health.
The safety and health of all Americans is the most important role of any administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping to ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming health crisis in this country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these agencies to the traditions of gold standard scientific research and beacons of transparency to end the chronic disease epidemic and to make America great and healthy again.
You want a shock to the system, this is the way to do it. Oh, you wanted disruption, didn't you? That's what people voted for. Okay, you want a shock to the system, here's how you do it. You put Bobby Kennedy at HHS. And yet, I'm sensing in here a little bit of that Trump cleverness, a little bit of that Trump negotiation, a little bit of what we saw, I think, in the nomination of Matt Gaetz. What's really going on here? He says that Bobby Kennedy is going to protect us from harmful chemicals and pollutants in the environment. Okay, well, hold on.
If that's really what he was going to focus on, Bobby Kennedy would be at the EPA. The HHS is not really in charge of pollutants and chemicals in the environment, pesticides. Now, what about food additives or pharmaceutical products? Well, hold on. These are all the things that President Trump's listing. If he were really just going to focus on pharmaceutical products and food additives, he'd be at the FDA. He wouldn't be at HHS. What's going on here?
HHS is by far the more prominent and influential and powerful agency. HHS is in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, for goodness sakes. But what exactly is Kennedy's role here? There's no doubt Big Pharma is reacting negatively to this nomination. Big Pharma stocks dropped immediately after this was announced. And yet...
It's not as though from this perch, Kennedy can totally just smack down the big pharma companies or the big food companies or, you know, that would really be more FDA or, I don't know, Department of Agriculture or something like that. It wouldn't, or the EPA, as I mentioned. Seems to me this is part of a Trump negotiation. He's going all the way here. There are going to be a lot of people who don't want to confirm Bobby Kennedy. There are going to be a lot of entrenched interests who don't want to approve Bobby Kennedy at HHS.
Just as there are going to be a lot of people who don't want to approve Matt Gaetz as attorney general. Right now, the betting markets have Matt Gaetz's approval for attorney general at under 50%, well under 50%. I think it's at 28% or something like that. Seems to me what Trump is doing here is he's going whole hog. He is doing what Scott Adams said is talking past the sale. He's asking for 75% more than he'd be willing to settle with.
But he's going for it because, look, he's got a mandate. The voters gave him a unified government and they elected him running ahead of the down ballot races. So this guy knows he has got power. He's flexing that power right now. And he's saying, yeah, I'm going to ask for everything and then some and the kitchen sink. And then, OK, if I've got a wheel and deal and negotiate a little bit, well, then I'm going to ask for recess appointments.
And I'm going to let the Senate Democrats fight me or Senate Republicans rather fight me on recess appointments. And then, okay, if I can't get that, maybe I'll walk it back a little bit. Maybe if I have to, okay, I'll put Matt Gaetz in a slightly different post. Again, this is just my speculation. I have no reason to believe that Trump is thinking this precise thing other than my own observations of how the man operates and my own thought that that would be a smart strategy. Okay, maybe I'll cave a little bit. I'll put Matt Gaetz in a slightly different post.
But you got to give me Pete Hegseth at defense. You got to give me Tulsi as DNI. You got to give me Kennedy as HHS secretary. Oh, you don't want Kennedy as HHS secretary? Okay, maybe I'll put Kennedy somewhere else, FDA or something. But then you got to give me Matt Gaetz as attorney general. Then you got to give me Hegseth. You got to give me Tulsi. I think this is something that President Trump has talked and written about a lot. This is the art of the deal. But then also think about these particular picks. Dan Bongino made this point to me yesterday. Dan is incredibly insightful.
On well, on a lot of matters of politics. But this one this one hit me. I was I was chatting with him on his show yesterday when I was we're talking about all the picks. And he said, you know, Michael, it just occurs to me. The knock on Trump is that he demands loyalty tests and he only rewards his sycophants who are totally loyal to him all the time. And yet think about the people he's been appointing here.
He's been appointing the vague Ramaswamy. He's appointing Marco Rubio, Secretary of State. He's appointing Bobby Kennedy at HHS. He's appointing Tulsi Gabbard, DNI. What do these people have in common? They all ran against him for president. What are you talking about, loyalty? He is disproportionately appointing people who not only have opposed him, but who have run against him for president. Seems to me, this was Dan's point,
He said, seems to me he requires people who are loyal to a mission, people who are loyal to an agenda, but not people that are personally loyal to him. He actually and this is something I've observed about Trump for years now.
He doesn't seem to take things all that personally. He doesn't seem to be all that petty. He's willing to bury the hatchet easily. Think about what he did with Ted Cruz. He and Ted Cruz had a brutal, brutal primary in 2016, called him lying Ted, said all sorts of things about his father. But then when they bury the hatchet, he says, okay, he's not lying Ted anymore. He's beautiful Ted. Yeah, I love him. He's great. We work together. He's great. It's about politics. It's about the mission. It's about what we all do together. It's about the common good. It's really not about this petty personal stuff.
And it's a little bit about the art of the deal. Given Trump's starting position on these cabinet picks, it seems like the Democrats are really, the Democrats and the squish Republicans are really about to be outflanked. Chuck Schumer knows this as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. That is why Chuck Schumer all of a sudden is begging for bipartisanship. Now let me turn to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Another closely contested election now comes to an end. To my Republican colleagues,
I offer a word of caution in good faith. Take care not to misread the will of the people and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We've seen that happen over the decades and it's consistently backfired on the party in power. So instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it's bipartisan.
If we want in the next four years the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation. Democrats will be ready to do what we have consistently done, work with both sides when the opportunity arises. Oh yeah, Democrats known for working with both sides when the opportunity arises. First off, he says, after a closely contested election, closely contested election, that was a blowout. That was a landslide. Trump won everything.
He won the Rust Belt. He won the Sun Belt. He dominated the Electoral College, 312 electoral votes to what, like 230 or something from Kamala. And then he dominated the popular vote.
And then he won one in five black guys. That's shocking for a Republican. And then he won almost half of Hispanics. And they won 40 percent of women under 30. Closely contested election. It was a complete blowout with a mandate for Trump's leadership because they gave the Republicans unified government. So the premise completely off here.
But then he says, I don't, parties shouldn't go to the extremes. Shouldn't go to the extremes. In the last 15 years, you people have abolished marriage and pretended that men can become women. You have moved abortion from something that ought to be safe, legal, and rare to an exalted sacramental right that ought to occur at the moment of birth or even after birth. And you castrate little children as a matter of public policy, at times attempting to evade even the parents' knowledge of that.
But don't go to the extremes. Don't go to the extremes. You're right, that does backfire at some point. But the left has been pursuing that extreme policy. And in the long run, it seems to have served them pretty well, despite setbacks in certain elections like this one. That's why we need a spirit of bipartisanship. That's why we don't want to become extremists. Hey, do you remember Chuck Schumer's bipartisan conciliatory language when he was threatening Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court?
I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. You won't know what hit you. And then Kavanaugh did go forward with a good decision. That was a decision to stop pretending that there's a right to murder kids in the Constitution. And then shortly after that, a leftist tried to murder Brett Kavanaugh and possibly his entire family in his home. You've released the whirlwind. You know Chuck Schumer can't even be making a political threat there. He can't even be speaking publicly.
rhetorically about some election or something because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.
This is a direct threat, and there were many protests outside the Supreme Court justices' houses, also in violation of federal law, federal law which was not enforced. But let's be conciliatory. We're going to threaten to murder Supreme Court justices. Three weeks ago, these guys were talking about packing the Supreme Court. They were talking about abolishing the filibuster. But then they got completely walloped in the election, and all of a sudden, we need to remember to be bipartisan. Yeah, you know what, buddy? I don't want to hear it. You know what I want to hear? I want to hear Republicans following through on the mandate that the voters gave them.
And I want Chuck Schumer to keep his little mouth shut for at least two years, see what happens in the next election. But until then, I've heard enough from Chuck Schumer. I've heard enough whining and screaming. I've heard enough threats against Supreme Court justices. I've heard enough promises to completely upend American political and legal traditions. So that's okay.
That's all right, Chuck. We don't need to hear anymore. You can keep pleading for bipartisanship all you want. I want President Trump to go full steam ahead, and I expect Senate Republicans to get in line. That's my recommendation. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to publicrec.com. Use code Knowles. Let's talk about a fundamental truth regarding modern menswear, traditional dress pants.
have become unnecessarily restrictive. Have you noticed that? They've gotten the tailoring in recent years. It's gotten a little, uh, mm-mm. And then the casual alternatives look sloppy and disgusting. But I've discovered something remarkable, and that would be
Public Rex dealmaker pant. It has achieved what some said was impossible, combining the comfort of athletic wear with the refined appearance of traditional trousers. As someone who values both tradition and taking advantage of some of the luxuries of modernity, I tell you these pants are revolutionary. Whether I'm at the Daily Wire studio or meeting with colleagues, the dealmaker pants, formal five-pocket style and proprietary workday fabric provide both sophistication and comfort. What sets these pants apart is
is their precise sizing system. No more settling for arbitrary, small, medium, or large sizes. You get the exact waist and length measurements, ensuring a perfect fit the way men's clothing ought to be. Also, they have really nice shirts too, and they just have really nice, very comfortable clothing. Stop suffering in regular pants. Give the gift of comfort this holiday season for a limited time.
Our listeners will get 20% off when you use code Knowles at checkout. 20% off code Canada, W-L-E-S, publicrec.com. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and say that you heard about them from Michael John Knowles. Give yourself or someone you love the gift of comfort this Christmas. Now, the Democrats are not going to go quietly. They don't have a lot of power right now. They've really been dealt a tough blow. Not
Not only within the government, but also in the media. MSNBC might be sold for parts within a month. CNN has been obliterated in the ratings. The Washington Post and the New York Times are admitting streamers and podcasters are totally eating their lunch. Washington Post called this the podcast election. So even one of their biggest centers of power, the media, really, really feeling it right now. And they're lashing out. They're whining and they're screaming. MSNBC defaming the Secretary of Defense nominee, Pete Hexeth.
And the secretary of defense nominee, Peter Hegseth, the Fox News commentator as well, because this is someone who we can host. Important distinction. This is someone who, you know, is known to be a white supremacist, known to be an extremist. Pete Hegseth is known to be a white supremacist.
It's so ridiculous that I should not even be offended by this kind of nonsense on a network that very few people are watching that is probably just going to be abolished. And who knows, maybe I'll take Rachel Maddow's spot and then the viewers might not even notice in a matter of weeks. But...
I am offended, actually, on behalf of Pete. Pete can take it. He's a tough guy. But I've known Pete Hegseth for many years at this point. Pete is one of the first people I met when I first came onto the scene in political media. Pete Hegseth is one of the most mainstream conservatives there is in the country.
It's not merely offensive to Pete Hexeth and his character that this woman would make this hideous defamatory claim. It's offensive to the intelligence of the audience that she would say something like this based on nothing. This reminds me one time, David Webb, the conservative radio host,
what was talking to some lunatic Democrat on his show. And she was losing the argument, so she accused him of exploiting his white privilege. And David Webb started laughing. And you might be laughing too if you hear that, if you're familiar with David Webb, because David Webb is a black guy. The woman just had no idea, had no familiarity. Obviously, this woman has no familiarity with Pete because Chris Hayes has to correct her. She didn't even know what show he's on on Fox News.
It's so outrageous. I mean, so part of me really, really hopes that Pete Hegseth sues this woman for everything she's worth. I don't know that she's got two nickels to rub together, but she might. She's obviously peddling some kind of grievance nonsense on television. That can be pretty lucrative. So part of me wants Pete Hegseth to sue this woman for defamation, take her for everything she's worth. It's really, really hideous stuff. However, it's worth remembering
that the defamation law in the United States is such that it's actually very difficult to win defamation cases if you are in any way a public figure. So I'd like for Pete to do that. I don't know that he will. It's probably a waste of time. But given that, this is why President Trump needs to be able to threaten recess appointments. Pete Hegseth is the nice guy on the Fox News morning show, okay? And this woman is calling him a white supremacist.
This guy is, is like, I mean, he's got a, he's got a very serious background as well in the military, Princeton, Harvard, all the rest of it. But he's like a nice guy on a morning show. Okay. And if, if the MSNBC is willing to defame that kind of guy, American hero serves his country, clean cut, nice guy on a morning show. If, if MSNBC is willing to defame that kind of guy's a white supremacist, they are, they are not going to hold anything back on any of these appointments.
And I don't want to deal with that. I don't think the American people want to deal with that. No, thanks. Not after Democrats have spent four years trying to imprison us, successfully imprisoning us in some cases, trying to kick the Republican nominee off the ballot and justifying his assassination, which nearly occurred twice, one time leaving a hole in his ear. I'm not interested in wasting time and playing games with these people. If they're going to do this kind of stuff for Trump's totally mainstream nominees, I
No, thanks. Sorry. Recess appointments. Put them through. I don't want to hear it. I am not in the mood to play around. Now, a lot of people are thinking right now about President Trump's legacy. And on the point of legacy, Mike Tyson, the great boxer, has gone viral for what people are saying is some kind of wacky advice. I think it's 90% very, very good advice on the question of legacy. Advice that he offers to a very young girl.
Well, in your return to the ring for this fight, you are setting a monumental opportunity for kids my age to see the legend Mike Tyson in the ring for the first time. So after such a successful career, what type of legacy would you like to leave behind when it's all said and done? Well, I don't know. I don't believe in the word legacy. I think that's another word for ego.
Legacy doesn't mean nothing. That's just some word everybody grabbed onto. Someone said that word and everyone grabbed onto the word, so now it's used every five seconds. It means absolutely nothing to me. I'm just passing through. I'm going to die and it's going to be over. Who cares about legacy after that? What a big ego. So I'm going to die. I want people to think that I'm this. I'm great. No, we're nothing. We're just dead. We're dust. We're absolutely nothing. Our legacy is nothing.
Well, thank you so much for sharing that. That is something that I have not heard before someone say that as an answer. Can you really imagine somebody say, I want my legacy to be this way when I get debt? Why do you think I really want to think about you? How was that? I think I want you to think about me when I'm gone. Who cares about me? My kids, maybe a grandkid. Thanks, Mr. Tyson. Thanks for that advice. You're welcome, little girl. You're totally welcome. Yeah, very much.
It's 90% good advice. 90%. It's a memento mori. It's what you hear when you go to church on Ash Wednesday. Remember, man, you are dust, and to dust you will return. Seek transit gloria mundi, thus pass the glories of this world. It's all going to come to nothing in this world. The reason I say he's only 90% right is that there is a legacy in the sense that we are eternal. We have souls.
And our souls are eternal, and there will be an eternal destination. There will be a final destination beyond this mortal coil, which is why we should strive not for earthly glory, which will turn to nothing, which will just decay and be eaten by worms, but...
we should look for eternal glory. We should endeavor for holiness, not just the fleeting fame of this world. So he's 90% right. But that 90%, really, really good stuff. And no surprise to get a memento mori from a man who could kill probably anyone that he swung a fist at. There's so much more to say. First though, go to ramp.com slash Knowles. Are you feeling trapped by outdated finance software? I personally have felt imprisoned by such things. Well, I've got news for you. It's
It's time to ramp up your financial game with Ramp. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Ramp gives you control like you wouldn't believe. They allow you to issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions that you set. So I can give really tight restrictions to Professor Jacob. Expense reporting is automated. No more wasting time at the end of every month trying to piece together who spent what.
Let's talk about the accounting side. Ramp software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time. You'll be closing your books eight times faster. Ramp is not just about saving time. It's about saving money. On average, businesses using Ramp save 5% in their first year. Best part is Ramp is so easy to use. Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you've got five employees or 5,000.
Now get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to ramp.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-A-S, R-A-M-P.com slash Knowles, ramp.com slash Knowles. Cards issued by Sutton Bank member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply. My favorite comment yesterday is from Shan Pasta Flock. Michael Knowles has single-handedly added good grief lady to my regular vocabulary. I'm glad to hear that. You know, often...
People are not aware of their idioms that they frequently use or verbal tics or inflections. I've started to notice some of them because I have little kids. And when you have little kids, they copy everything you do. And so you become aware of things that you didn't know you do. But that is a phrase. I guess I use that a lot. Good grief, lady. It expresses my exasperation and bemusement. That's so much that goes on. Speaking of ladies...
who have caused much grief. Oprah Winfrey has just been confronted about a million dollar fee that her production company received from Kamala Harris. Now you remember, I mentioned this on the show a couple days ago, she was confronted by a guy just on the street. She was walking around Santa Barbara or LA, somewhere in Southern California, and she denied that she took the million bucks from Kamala. Hey, Oprah, good morning. How are you, darling? You're looking very good. How do you think the election went?
Not talking about the election. Thank you very much. Oh, is it true that they paid you a million dollars for the endorsement for Kamala? Not true. Not true. OK. I was paid nothing ever. What do you think about all the celebrities with their mass exodus? Do you think do you think Prince Harry's going to lose his visa now that Trump's president? Thank you, Oprah. Thank you, Oprah. Not true. I did not take a million dollars from Kamala Harris. OK, well, now Oprah's changing her tune. We have a report out now.
Oprah finally explains the controversial million-dollar fee. What happened? She said, usually, this is something Oprah herself posted to Instagram, usually I'm reluctant to respond to rumors in general, but these days I realize that if you don't stop a lie, it just gets bigger. My production company, Harpo, was asked to bring in set design lights, cameras, microphones, crew, producers, and every other item necessary, including the benches and chairs we sat on, to put on a live production. This was for a joint event between Oprah and...
And Kamala, Unite for America live streamed out of Michigan in September. So she said she did not personally get one dime from the campaign. She said, I did not take any personal fee. However, the people who worked on that production needed to be paid and were. End of story. Okay. That's her explanation, huh? Yeah. So she's admitting that she lied or at the very least misled.
Nobody seriously thought that Oprah Winfrey took a million dollar handout under the table in cash from Kamala Harris. Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire. She doesn't need a million dollars from Kamala Harris directly. And she's too smart to take a payoff directly. Everyone knew, everyone who read anything about the story knew, that the payoff went from Kamala Harris to Oprah's production company. But that is highly unusual. I have interviewed many prominent people
And when I interview prominent people, I don't ask them to pay for my sets and my cameras and my crew. I pay for my sets and my cameras. Well, I actually don't pay for it. Jeremy Boring pays for it. But it's our company that pays for it. It's highly unusual for a supposed journalist of any media figure to be interviewing a presidential candidate and then send the bill to the presidential candidate, especially when the media figure in question is a billionaire. This was a payoff, simple as.
This was Kamala Harris renting out Oprah's credibility, renting out Oprah's
crew, and purchasing Oprah's endorsement. That's what this was. And it's not only Oprah. Same thing happened with Al Sharpton. Kamala Harris paid Al Sharpton half a million dollars. He goes for a little bit of a lower rate than Oprah does. Half a million dollars weeks before Sharpton gave her a glowing interview. And Al Sharpton has been doing this for years. He is a shakedown artist par excellence. That is his job.
Sharpton's National Action Network, which is Al Sharpton's slush fund, got a bunch of money from the Kamala campaign, received two payments of $250,000 September 5th and October 1st. Then two days after the second payment on October 3rd, Al Sharpton aired a video from Kamala Harris wishing him a happy birthday on his MSNBC show. That's coincidental timing, just two days later. And then 70 days after that,
Al Sharpton aired a glowing interview, just a real happy, friendly interview with Kamala Harris in which he described her campaign as extraordinary and historic and attacked Trump as being hostile and erratic. Half a million bucks, that's not bad.
If I were a complete con artist, I would take half a million bucks to say something nice about Kamala Harris. But make no mistake, that's what was going on here. And the million to Oprah and the half a million to Al Sharpton, that was a small piece of a larger, nearly five and a half million dollar campaign to pay off various grievance groups, black advocacy groups, Latino advocacy groups. Funny because it didn't work. Kamala knew she had a problem with black male voters and ultimately she lost 20% of them.
Kamala knew she had a problem with Hispanics. She lost almost half of them.
She thought, okay, the way that she's going to win them back is by paying off their grievance groups, their self-appointed leaders who like to mouth the flat catchers. And that didn't work because ordinary black people and ordinary Hispanics don't follow people like Al Sharpton. And then on the celebrity endorsement broadly, someone like Oprah, I just don't think that works anymore in the way that it used to. And that's because of something I've been talking about on the show for a few days now, which is a major media change.
New York Times and Washington Post are whining about me. The establishment media are complaining, forget about me. I'm small potatoes compared to someone like Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan, whose interview with President Trump and his interview with J.D. Vance were both far more significant media events than anything any candidate did in the old establishment media.
which is the secret story of this campaign. It's kind of below the surface. We're all talking about the big appointees, Pete Hegseth or Tulsi or Bobby Kennedy, but the big revolutionary opportunity here really is to reset the relationship, not merely between the citizen and the government, but between the citizens, specifically conservatives and Republicans, and the press, which has wielded so much power. The media wielded so much power for Democrats in recent decades, and that power seems to be cracking right now.
The whole Kamala campaign was totally contrived. All that joy we heard about was completely contrived. It was pushed up there in nothing more than a thin facade because Kamala paid off various celebrities to pretend to be excited about her. And it ultimately did not work. Now, speaking of wastes of money, there's a story I said I would get to earlier on in the week. And I really want to make sure I get to it because it's so deeply stupid. The FDA...
is forcing Costco to recall 80,000 pounds of butter. 80,000 pounds of butter, that's a lot of butter. They are recalling it because the butter packages did not say two words, contains milk. Because butter doesn't specifically label the milk that is required to make any kind of butter, 80,000 pounds of perfectly good butter. This is Kirkland brand butter. This is the butter that I use
Okay, I'm very pro-Costco. This excellent butter, it's at a good price. Can I just have the butter? I don't know. Can I write to the FDA? It's not up to Costco. It's up to the FDA. Can I get 80,000 pounds of butter? These days, in the Biden economy, that's worth a lot of money. Both unsalted sweet cream butter and salted sweet cream butter because the agency wants people to know that there's milk and butter. Okay, I understand why there are labels on packages and things, but maybe...
Could we have a little carve out here? Maybe a little exception. People who shop at Costco, they know what butter is, okay? The Costco shopper is a sophisticated shopper. The Costco shopper knows. And it seems like a huge waste. But this news story, I love this news story because this news story is the perfect setup. It seems providential to Elon and Vivek and the Department of Government Efficiency. You got the FDA wasting butter.
80,000 pounds of perfectly good butter at a time when it's very difficult to afford buying groceries because of a technicality. They want people to know that a milk product contains milk. This, what a perfect, the butter is being sacrificed in order to further government efficiency. And frankly, I am perfectly fine with that. Now, folks, I want to tell you about a deal, an area where we will not have waste, where we will have extreme efficiency. That is the 47% off Daily Wire Plus membership deal.
It ends this weekend. We've had this deal for the election. Very exciting. The president, you know, it's the 47th president and the 45th president. Well, you can join Daily Wire Plus right now. You can get access to movies such as Am I Racist? You get uncensored daily shows from the most trusted voices in America, investigative journalism, so much more. You go to dailywire.com slash subscribe today. Use code Trump for 47% off.
That is how you can watch Am I Racist, the number one documentary of the decade. The Academy Award submitted cultural phenomenon that brought DEI to its knees. The only way to watch it, Daily Wire Plus membership. Dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code TrumpLockin47% off before the time runs out. Deal ends this weekend, as I may have mentioned. Join now as we fight the left and build the future. Finally, finally, we've arrived at my favorite time of the week when I get to hear from you,
Hi, Michael. My name is Katie and I am getting married in January. I'm pretty young. I'm 20 and my fiance is 22. I'm going to be married in January.
which is really exciting. The only thing about a January wedding is how close it is after the elections, and there is a lot of division because of that. The day after the elections, long story short, I posted a photo. It was a cartoon image of Jesus washing both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's feet.
and I have a gay cousin who's very liberal and he's 29 and he commented, did you vote for him? And I know if I answer that question, it's going to cause all kinds of division. He's going to blow it up in my family who's pretty much a lot of them are liberal. So I don't know how to approach that. I ignored the message, but I don't want to compromise my morals and lie. So I don't know what you think I should do to avoid tensions leading up to this wedding.
And if you think I should just continue to ignore it, thank you. And I love all the work that you do. Thank you very much. It's very exciting with this wedding. If it were me, I would ignore it. I think that's an inappropriate question. I don't see much benefit to answering that question publicly. I just don't think it's a pertinent question. However, if he asked you directly, you should give him an answer and you shouldn't feel bad about your answer at all.
Very, very silly, especially that it's in response to this picture that you put up, which is conciliatory and charitable, real charitable. Given the absolute perfidy of Kamala Harris and the wickedness of her campaign and the things that she was promoting, notably murdering children and castrating kids, I think you were being very gracious and charitable. So I wouldn't, if anyone asks you, say, yeah, I absolutely voted for Trump.
I think, I understand that people voted for Harris. I understand why they voted for Harris, but I think it's absolutely unconscionable and they should seriously examine their conscience. I would, and this is true in a lot of areas, I would, if confronted about this,
double down. I would put them on their heels. I would say, look, I understand. I think you did something really, really evil by voting for Kamala Harris, but I love you anyway, and I understand why you would do it. I get the rationale for it. It was very, very evil, but don't worry, I forgive you. That's what I would do. They want to put you on your heels. How could you possibly have voted for Trump? No, no. You have nothing to be ashamed of in voting for Trump. They do have something to be ashamed of in voting for Kamala Harris. Doesn't mean you should write them out of your life, as they probably would like to do to you.
But I would put them on, I would not be squishy about this at all. No, no, no. What you did by voting for Kamala Harris is very, very evil. But you probably didn't do it intentionally and, you know, all fall short of the glory of God. And so I totally, I forgive you for it. I don't judge you for it.
I look forward to seeing you at the wedding, but yeah, you shouldn't have done that. That's what I would do. Forget about that. This is your wedding day. You've got some lunatic 29-year-old cousin who wants to whine and cry because he doesn't get to kill enough babies and castrate enough kids. Give me a break. Next question. Hello, Michael. Big fan of the show. My question is coming to you from Kansas City, Missouri, where during the election, we had a couple of constitutional amendments up for a vote, one of which included legalizing sports gambling.
Virtually everyone close to me in the lead up to the election was adamant about voting yes. They argued that Missouri residents frequently had to cross state lines into Kansas or Illinois to place bets, so we might as well collect the revenue from Missouri if it's happening anyway. It's also guaranteed money for the schools, even though the language said it would not guarantee increased school funding, etc.,
While I'm not completely opposed to gambling on sports, I argued that since gambling is a vice and which could easily be abused, we shouldn't necessarily make it easier to access. I'm seeing the rise of gambling websites being advertised all over the place these days. It seems the promotion of gambling has increased dramatically in recent years. And my concern is that if we simply allow people to log into an app and bet thousands of dollars, this one will certainly be abused by those that are susceptible to addiction.
I think I'd prefer to legalize sports gambling but only allow it in casinos and things like that to limit its accessibility.
Again, nearly everyone close to me I've spoken to seems to disagree with me dramatically on this. What are your thoughts on this or gambling in general? And do you see merits on either or both sides? Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks for all you do and looking forward to hearing from you. I totally agree with your take. I think you could legalize it to some measure as long as you severely restrict it. I generally hate gambling and sports gambling.
Which is ironic because I gamble frequently, but I gamble in a very modest way. And the way I gamble is when I go out to have lunch or a drink or something with a few friends of mine, they're all specific friends that I do this with. I will, we will play rock, paper, scissors, shoot for every single bill.
And so over, you know, this has been going on for over 10 years now. So there is actually a lot of money being exchanged, but you know, it kind of evens out a little bit. It's a little fun. It makes it interesting. And maybe you pick up a $50 tab or a $100 tab or maybe even more. But
I, you mentioned gambling thousands of dollars. The thought of gambling thousands of dollars really troubles me. Uh, I've, I've seen it. I know gamblers. It's not, it's really bad. It can be really bad. It can really damage families more so than even many other vices. Um,
Or in more pronounced ways even than other vices. So I guess it's okay in certain limited ways. But I wouldn't make total widespread unrestricted gambling some great cause for the conservatives. I don't think it's good. I think here, as Aristotle would tell us, prudence is the chief political virtue. And so...
Not everyone, as Thomas Aquinas says, not everyone is as advanced in virtue, so it's not that you want to totally tamp out everything. This is the Thomistic argument for permitting prostitution even in certain places, but it's about making sure that this is highly regulated so that the worst effects of it are mitigated. Next question.
Hey, Michael. I'm a 31-year-old Christian man who's been looking for a nice Christian girl for a few years now. Unfortunately, I've come to some irreconcilable disagreements over things such as abortion with the past couple girls who I've dated, despite meeting them in church. Totally against abortion, by the way, no exception. My question is, how do we single Christian men convince nice single Christian ladies to put themselves out there a little more?
I'm on a couple of Christian dating apps, but the dating pool is sparse. I don't really want to go to a bar. I try to go where the ladies are, but there's not a whole lot around where I am, unfortunately. By the way, I am in Oklahoma. Throwback to that question from last week. Love your show. Hashtag came for Ben, stayed for Michael. And I am hoping to meet a girl who leaves me speechless.
Excuse me. Oh, there we go. Okay, good. I was waiting for it. All right, that's good. Many such cases as you, sorry, you're having trouble finding a nice lady, but that happens. And even you meet a girl in church and it turns out she's a huge lib. Isn't that so crazy these days? Now, you might have more luck in certain parishes and ecclesial communities than others. However,
how do you do it you know the apps aren't really working for you because the apps are intrinsically liberal even if you can meet good conservative people on there both of those things are true so what i would try to do is lean into your real network of people again maybe easier said than done depending on how big your family is how big your work community is you know if you're living in the middle of nowhere in oklahoma that's going to be different than living a little closer to a city just in terms of the number of people
However, I would lean into that a little bit. Hey, do you know anyone? You ask your family members, you ask your colleagues, you ask your friends, you ask people you know from church, not just gals you're going to meet at church, but hey, can you set me up? This is the way it was done traditionally. And I think it's good because that's really what a dating app tries to do. It just uses a digital network instead of a more incarnate, historical, tangible network. But
You know, you're going to have more reliability, I think, if you can say, okay, well, actually, it's my friend at work. His cousin's roommate is single and is good, and she's been vetted by like three people. So, okay, that's what I would lean into a little bit more than just throwing yourself out there on an – it's the same thing with getting a job, actually. Yeah.
If you want to get a job, I find it, they say it's not what you know, but who you know. Well, it's actually both. It is what you know, but it's also who you know. I find getting a job is better and more inclined to work out if you go through people you know. And so you can vet the company, you can vet the work culture, you can vet the kind of work, you can maybe get a leg in rather than just submitting an application to a slush pile on a website.
The apps are a little bit like the slush pile. So I would lean in a little bit more to who you know. Next question. Hey, Mike, there was a moment in the Trump campaign that when it happened, a lot of conservatives tried to ignore out of fear that
But because Trump won so overwhelmingly, I think it actually represents one of the most important moments of the campaign. And I'm talking about the Tony Hinchcliffe endorsement at Madison Square Garden. He said some jokes that night that a lot of people on the left deemed were offensive, but weren't really that offensive by historical standards. And...
If Donald Trump lost, it might have represented the final nail in the coffin of comedy in America. But because he won and because he won so overwhelmingly, more importantly, I think this moment represents a sort of watershed moment for a rebirth of comedy in America. Comedians all over the country can look to that moment and say, it's okay to say jokes that I think are funny again.
But what do you think? I would love for this to be the case, but what do you think? I was in the room for that joke. That was at MSG. And I know some conservatives were saying it was a bad joke because he said, we're talking about the island of garbage, you know, that people talk about in the ocean. He says, yeah, yeah, well, we know that it's Puerto Rico. It was just a Puerto Rico joke. In New York, there's a lot of Puerto Ricans. And conservatives said it's a bad joke. I don't think it was a bad joke. It was a funny joke.
Obviously, Puerto Ricans and Hispanics were not particularly offended by it. I don't think that other people should be offended on their behalf by it. It was a perfectly funny joke. You got to remember, though, which this wasn't clear if you saw it on TV, but in the room, Hinchcliffe was the opener. He went on at like 1230 or 1 p.m. Trump wasn't going on scheduled until five. He actually went on at seven o'clock.
So Hinchcliffe was working with a crowd. It was probably a quarter to a third full in MSG. I didn't even pay. I didn't even hear that joke in person. I heard his set made fun of Republicans and made fun of Democrats. It was a funny set. But to pretend that this was some consequential moment in the campaign was totally ridiculous. And then on the flip side, to pretend that he was telling these awful jokes or that he bombed or that. No, he was he was doing a pretty funny set. People were still entering the hall. People weren't paying very close attention. It was fine. It was cool, man.
And so I like to your conclusion, yeah, people would have maybe blamed the joke had Trump lost or lost narrowly. But here, it's not that we have to say it was the greatest comedy set ever. It was perfectly good. And we don't have to say that it was this terrible, awful misstep. We can just say like, yeah, yeah, how about that? A guy told a joke and it was fine. And it actually didn't affect people's behavior at all.
And today is Fake Headline Friday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Head on over to dailywire.com. Use code Knowles. Get two months free on all annual plans.