Ep. 1726 - Michelle Obama Admits She's a Man?!

Summary

The Michael Knowles Show: Episode 1726 - Michelle Obama Admits She's a Man?!

Host: Michael Knowles
Produced by: The Daily Wire
Release Date: May 1, 2025
Description: Bask in the simple joys of being right. The Michael Knowles Show cuts through the madness of our politics and culture, analyzing the top stories of the day. Monday through Friday.

---

1. Introduction to Conspiracy Theories and Political Corruption

Michael Knowles opens the episode by addressing the prevalence of conspiracy theories in today's political landscape. He criticizes the corrupt political elite, highlighting their dishonest practices, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Knowles asserts that while some conspiracy theories have merit, others are unfounded and harmful.

Notable Quote:

[00:00] Michael Knowles: "Because our corrupt political elite has been caught lying to us spectacularly in recent years, especially during COVID."

2. The Controversial Theory: Michelle Obama as "Big Mike"

Knowles delves into a specific conspiracy theory claiming that Michelle Obama is actually a man named "Big Mike." He vehemently rejects this notion, emphasizing the inappropriateness of mocking someone's appearance, particularly that of women.

Notable Quotes:

[00:53] Marlon Wayans: "I wanted to talk, Marlon, a bit about, you know, just so proud of how you are being a role model for dealing with a child that's transgender. Absolutely."

[02:00] Michael Knowles: "I still think it's wrong to make fun of her appearance. I think it's wrong generally to make fun of people's appearances, especially the appearances of women."

3. Critique of Michelle Obama's Language and Educational Background

Knowles critiques Michelle Obama's grammar and communication skills, suggesting that her elite education at Princeton hasn't prevented her from making poorly structured statements. He interprets her comments on transgender issues as indicative of broader intellectual and moral corruption among the political elite.

Notable Quote:

[04:09] Michael Knowles: "Unfortunate wording from Michelle Obama. If you graduate from Princeton, you should know how to use parenthetical clauses in sentences."

4. Analysis of the BRICS Summit and Economic Implications

Transitioning to international affairs, Knowles discusses the upcoming BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro. He warns of the BRICS nations' attempts to undermine the US dollar's dominance, urging listeners to consider diversifying their savings into precious metals like gold to protect against potential economic downturns.

Notable Quote:

[02:30] Michael Knowles: "As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for US dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollars in your savings."

5. Donald Trump's Presidential Address on Corrupt Elites

Knowles features a segment where Donald Trump addresses the nation, condemning the corrupt political class for exploiting America. Trump boasts about his administration's economic achievements and promises to continue defending the nation's borders and interests.

Notable Quotes:

[06:19] Donald Trump: "We're taking back our country from a sick political class that got rich selling America out and bleeding America dry."

[06:59] Michael Knowles: "The real distinction is between elites who govern out of private interest versus elites who govern for the common good."

6. Trump’s Vision: Nationalism vs. Globalism

Knowles analyzes Trump's rhetoric, clarifying that Trump's stance isn't a simplistic choice between nationalism and globalism. Instead, it's a critique of elites acting out of self-interest rather than prioritizing the common good. He praises Trump's balanced approach, which respects international interests while focusing on America's prosperity.

Notable Quote:

[07:30] Michael Knowles: "Trump's political argument is more basic than these kind of wonkish debates. His political argument is you crooked blood-sucking elites have been pursuing your own private interests on America's dime."

7. The Decline of Rock Music’s Political Edge

Addressing cultural shifts, Knowles laments the transformation of rock music from a subversive force to a medium that now supports corporate and liberal interests. He attributes this change to the inherent destructiveness of the genre, which struggles to contribute positively to societal building.

Notable Quote:

[10:43] Michael Knowles: "Rock and roll was developed to tear down the established political order. That's true. That was the purpose. But now these aging rockers are victims of their own success."

8. Treasury Secretary’s Economic Deal with Ukraine

Knowles highlights a recent economic partnership between the United States and Ukraine, orchestrated by the Treasury Secretary. He interprets this move as a pragmatic approach to foreign policy, focusing on realpolitik and America's national interests rather than ideological battles.

Notable Quotes:

[14:55] Treasury Secretary: "Today's agreement signals clearly to Russian leadership that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term."

[15:58] Michael Knowles: "We're not going to write a blank check for a regional war that could become a serious global conflict because of Ukrainian democracy, which basically doesn't exist."

9. Critique of Conservative Candidacies and Media Outlets

Knowles critiques conservative media outlets like The Dispatch for promoting ineffective political platforms. He references an article proposing a presidency based solely on constitutional adherence without active governance, labeling it an unviable strategy that fails to resonate with voters.

Notable Quote:

[18:00] Michael Knowles: "Give me power and I'll do nothing with it. Doesn't work. What happens when you behave that way is then you get voted out of office."

10. Examination of LGBT Ideology and Societal Impact

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to critiquing LGBT ideology. Knowles argues that it represents a disordered collective identity intertwined with leftist politics. He expresses concern over societal shifts, such as same-sex couples raising children, viewing them as consequences of technological advancements and moral degradation.

Notable Quotes:

[30:48] Michael Knowles: "The problem with LGBTism is broadly that it is a collective identity that is disordered. It's not even necessarily tied to these actions because a woman who is ostensibly straight says she's part of the LGBT community."

[37:48] Jennifer Coolidge: "I think my life would mean nothing without the LGBT movement."

11. Social Media and Modern Parenting Criticism

Knowles comments on viral social media content featuring same-sex couples celebrating their babies' birthdays. He criticizes the portrayal of such families, arguing that they lack traditional parental structures and moral grounding, thereby posing societal risks.

Notable Quote:

[30:47] Michael Knowles: "These guys have absolutely no business with a baby. How did they acquire the babies? It should be illegal."

12. Political Commentary on Tim Walls and Democratic Strategies

Knowles discusses Tim Walls' assertion that Kamala Harris selected him as VP to "code talk" with white voters. He uses this example to illustrate the Democrats' flawed strategies in reaching out to key demographics, contrasting it with Trump's successful communication approach.

Notable Quotes:

[36:44] Michael Knowles: "He had the strategy. She needed someone who could talk to white guys because Democrats have told white guys in particular for decades that they hate them."

[36:44] Michael Knowles: "Trump picks a white guy, like a real white guy, and wins over an historic number of black guys and Hispanics. It's the talking that's the problem."

13. Conclusion: The Return to Normalcy and Future Outlook

In his concluding remarks, Knowles expresses optimism about a societal return to "normalcy," emphasizing rationality and objective reality overcoming divisive ideologies. He encourages listeners to join the movement towards a more stable and morally grounded America.

Notable Quote:

[35:31] Unknown Speaker: "It's a new day. The sun is rising, the birds are singing, and things are returning to normal."

[36:44] Michael Knowles: "Reality, objective reality is making a little bit of a comeback. This is not a glitch in the matrix. This is what happens when the fever breaks. Welcome to the return of normal."

---

Final Thoughts

Episode 1726 of The Michael Knowles Show navigates through a myriad of contentious topics, from debunking conspiracy theories about Michelle Obama to critiquing contemporary cultural and political trends. Knowles consistently advocates for a return to traditional values, rational discourse, and pragmatic governance, positioning himself as a counterbalance to what he perceives as the overreach of corrupt elites and destabilizing ideologies. The episode reflects Knowles' commitment to conservative principles and his skepticism of progressive movements shaping modern American society.

---

Disclaimer: This summary is based on a fictional transcript and intended for illustrative purposes only.

Transcript

[Michael Knowles]

Because our corrupt political elite has been caught lying to us spectacularly in recent years, especially during COVID Because certain so called conspiracy theories have turned out to be true. Lots of kooky ideas have gained traction. Ideas about historical events, politicians, racial groups, religious groups, even geology. Some conspiracy theories are more compelling than others. But there is one that has been floating around for a while that I have always rejected and which I actually thought was downright mean. Namely the theory that Michelle Obama is a man called Big Mike. I don't like this theory because I think it's wrong to make fun of people's appearances, especially the appearances of women. So I've never really touched that theory. And then Michelle Obama said this.

[Marlon Wayans]

I wanted to talk, Marlon, a bit about, you know, just so proud of how you are being a role model for dealing with a child that's transgender. Absolutely. And that's, you know, that warms my heart, particularly as a black man, you know. Would you care to share that journey of.

[Donald Trump]

Well, I learned.

[Michael Knowles]

I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. Tim Walls that you remember him, the former future president could have been. There was a chance he could have been the second woman president. No, I'm joking. Tim Walls claims that Kamala picked him because he could code talk with white guys. Just another piece of evidence for the Democrats political confusion. I have much more to say, but first you need to text Knowles. K N W l e s to 989898 this July there is a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro. The bloc of emerging powers including China, Russia, India and Iran are meeting with the goal of displacing the US dollar as the global currency. They're calling this the Rio Reset. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for US dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollars in your savings. While this transition will not happen overnight, the Rio Reset in July marks a pivotal moment when BRICS objectives move decisively from theoretical possibility toward reality. Learn if diversifying your savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard earned savings into a tax sheltered IRA and precious metals. Claim your free info kit on gold by texting my name. Knowles Knes to 989898 with an A rating with the Better Business Bureau. Thousands of happy customers. Let Birchgold arm you with a free no obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio Reset. You know, I've been very happy to have a fair bit of gold in my portfolio. Tex Knowles K&WLAS to 98. 98. 98. It's so great to see you raising a trans kid. You know, for me, particularly as a black man. Care to comment on that, Mr. Wayans? There are three scandals here. One scandalous fake. Two of them are real. I still don't think Michelle Obama's a man. I still think it's wrong to make fun of her appearance. I think it's wrong generally to make fun of people's appearances, especially the appearances of women. I don't think she's a fella named Big Mike. Okay. There is a real scandal, though, which is that Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton and she doesn't know how to use English grammar. Can you play the clip again, please? I want to get the words exactly right.

[Marlon Wayans]

I wanted to talk, Marlon, a bit about, you know, just so proud of how you are being a role model for dealing with a child that's transgender. Absolutely. And that's, you know, that warms my heart, particularly as a black man. You know. Would you care to share that journey of.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, I learned that warms my heart, particularly as a black man. Unfortunate wording from Michelle Obama. If you graduate from Princeton, you should know how to use parenthetical clauses in sentences. You should know what pronouns in such clauses would insinuate. You shouldn't say, it warms my heart, particularly as a black man. Now, I think she was referring to him as a black man, but still. Get it together, people. We clearly have falling standards in our elite universities. The third scandal here, the greatest scandal of all, is the intellectual and moral corruption that is displayed when a former first lady of the United States encourages the mutilation of little kids. And that's really what people are sick of. Okay, she might be on the level here. She might think that it's a really good thing to cast straight little kids and to pump them full of cross sex hormones and to give them bone disease and to increase the likelihood that they kill themselves. She might think all that because she might think that a boy can really be born in the wrong body. And she might think, alternately, that it's good to lie to people and that the truth is cruel. And she might think all of these things, but that's a national scandal. That someone who has gone to elite institutions, who has risen to the very heights of political power, first lady of the United States. That such a figure could think these things is a national scandal. It is a sign of a deeply corrupt elite. It actually goes all the way full circle. This is why people believe in conspiracy theories. And why some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true. Because our political elite are extremely corrupt. They might not even wanna be corrupt. They just. If you think it's good to castrate a little kid. There has been a corruption of your intellect or your will or your moral perception or all three. That is how Trump got elected. And that is why, to celebrate his hundred days, his first hundred days of his second term, he talked about that very corrupt elite.

[Donald Trump]

We're taking back our country from a sick political class that got rich selling America out and bleeding America dry. We don't let that happen anymore. And we had four great years. We had the greatest economy in the history of our country. The stock market went up 88%. We did great. And we're going to do better now, because now we're really. We learned a little bit after years of leaders who sent your money to defend the borders of distant foreign nations. That's what we did. We'd fight for other nations, but not for ourselves. You finally have a president who is defending our borders and our nation.

[Michael Knowles]

Now, the way a lot of analysts are going to view the dichotomy Trump is drawing here is between the nation and the world. Nationalism and globalism. They're gonna say those are the two paths that Trump is offering to you. They are the globalists, we are the nationalists. They care about other countries in the world. We only care about ourselves. I don't think that's the distinction Trump is drawing, because Trump clearly has interests in the rest of the world. He wants to acquire Greenland. He wants to invade Canada. He wants to solve the Gaza war. He wants to solve the Ukraine Russia war. He wants to trade a lot with China but get a fair deal with China. He's obviously interested in the rest of the world and in promoting American interests around the world. The real distinction Trump is drawing, he gets to. At that first part, he said, we have corrupt political elites who have been bleeding our country dry. The real distinction is between elites who govern out of private interest versus elites who govern for the common good. It's not that trade is necessarily bad. It's that our crooked elites sold out middle America to get trade deals that would line their own pockets but hollow out the country. It's not that being involved in other areas of the world is necessarily bad for America. Trump's trying to resolve two wars right now. It's that crooked elites have been promoting war all around the world to line their own pockets at the expense of the American treasury and America's families and America's children. That's his argument. And people misunderstand that. Which is why there's so much confusion when Trump decides he wants to be involved elsewhere around the world. When Trump bobs and weaves on trade policy and actually does encourage more free trade rather than merely trying to have protective tariffs and reshore all the manufacturing here. That's why people don't really understand what he's talking about. But this is the message and this is why it appeals to so many people. This is why his message appeals to isolationists and war hawks. This is why his message appeals to some free traders and to protectionists. Because his political argument is more basic than these kind of wonkish debates. His political argument is you crooked blood sucking elites have been pursuing your own private interests on America's dime and with the American authority for decades. And we're gonna reorient that. It's not even basically a reorientation from world affairs to national affairs. It's a reorientation from the private interest of a crooked, morally bankrupt elite toward governing for the common good. That's how you get so many people to come vote for you. That's how you assemble this new coalition that won the popular vote. I have much, much more to say. First though, you need to go to Jeremy's razors.com knowles if your razor company can't say what a man is, why let the company near your face? Jeremy's gives you a close clean shave. No confusion. Five stainless steel blades that destroy stubble with facts and logic and steel. And they also destroy corporate pandering. A precision trimmer for clean lines. A lubrication strip with argan oil and aloe. Plus they offer a 30 day money back guarantee. You try it, you don't like it, just send it back for a full refund. But you will like it. Go to jeremyrazors.com knowles or use code knowles K W L E S at checkout for 20% off your first order. That's jeremyrazors.com Knowles code knowles at checkout. Not everyone likes recent political changes, including aging boomer rock stars such as Neil Young.

[Neil Young]

If you're ashes, get a Tesla. It's your length rain. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat. Taste your freedom. Get whatever you want. Taste your freedom. Now. China's win. Some days are like that. It doesn't matter. Come on. Come on, gm. Come on.

[Michael Knowles]

If you're a fascist, buy a Tesla. If you're a Democrat, enjoy. Taste your freedom. Come on, Ford. It's wonderful. Neil Young's ignorance because by the end, he ends up promoting Ford, which means I don't think Neil Young has ever googled a fellow by the name of Henry Ford. Had some fairly right wing leaning, some would say extremely right wing. Some would say a little bit too right wing for comfort. Vote for Ford. Did you ever know that his buddy was Hitler? Oh, wait, hold on. Whoops. Man needs a maid. He. It doesn't rhyme. It has no rhythm. Oh boy. It's also tedious. How did this happen? How did this happen? So many people observe that rock and roll was born to subvert the political order. You know, it was meant to go after the man, but now it just defends all these corporate interests. Go buy Ford. Go buy gm. How did that happen? It was totally predictable. Because you're half right. The 60s and 70s rock music was developed to tear down the established political order. That's true. That was the purpose. That's what all these rockers like. Neil Young, who's a Canadian, by the way, he's not even an American. That's what they were after. That's what Woodstock was about. But it succeeded. And now these aging rockers, I think, are victims of their own success. Because that kind of art, such as it is, can only do what it's designed to do, which is to tear things down. It can't really build up anything new. So when it attempts to now defend Ford and GM and the liberal political order and the Democrats who have had power for decades and decades in most areas of our public life, it just seems weird and discordant. Literally discordant. His pitch is terrible. So some new kind of art is required to build something new. Rock and roll is dead. Rock and roll will never die. It died. You killed it. Neil Young. Amazing how everything seems to come full circle. But it won't succeed at building up something new. The leftism, the purely destructive leftism of the 60s and 70s, has succeeded. It is now a victim of its own success. And now that they have subverted the established political order in order to edify, in order to build things up, we need something else. Which is why the kids ain't tuning in to Neil Young anymore. Now, speaking of building something new, Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, has just announced a new economic deal with Ukraine. And I think that's going to leave a lot of right wingers vaguely happy, but a little bit confused as to how we're supposed to feel about it. Do we like Ukraine? Do we not like Ukraine? Do we wanna be more involved with Ukraine? Do we wanna just completely get out of Ukraine is this. Well, here's the deal in the Treasury Secretary's own words.

[Treasury Secretary]

Thanks to President Trump's tireless efforts to secure a lasting peace, I am glad to announce the signing of today's historic economic par Partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine establishing the United States Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund. This partnership allows the United States to invest alongside Ukraine to unlock Ukraine's growth assets, mobilize American talent, capital and governance standards that will improve Ukraine's investment climate and accelerate Ukraine's economic recovery. The Development Finance Corporation will participate and help to establish this fund in collaboration with the government of Ukraine. Today's agreement signals clearly to Russian leadership that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine over the long term. It's time for this cruel and senseless war to in.

[Michael Knowles]

I agree with every word that the Treasury Secretary just said, and he's showing here the Trump administration's smart alternative to the stupid, false dichotomy that we've been presented with over the past five years. Are you pro Ukraine or pro Russia? Why would I be pro Ukraine? Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on earth. It has been conquered by just about every people. It was conquered by the Poles, for goodness sakes. It was part of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's been part of Greater Russia for a long time. But it also kind of. They also sort of hate the Russians. And anyway, why do I care? Why do I care about Ukraine? That's on one side. On the other hand, why would I be pro Russia? They have a lot of intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed right at our heads. We fought a war with them for 50 years. We, we have had longstanding hostilities with Russia predating the Cold War. And the Russians don't really view themselves as part of the west, and the west doesn't really view Russia as part of the west either. And in fact, in Tolstoy, in War and Peace, there's a famous line from Anna Pavlovna speaking in French because the Russians would speak French. And there's always been this tension of whether or not the Russia's in the west. But she has this great line, le roppe ne seura j'aimer notre allier sancerre. Please excuse my terrible French says Europe will never be our sincere ally. The whole book is about Russia fighting Europe and making alliances with parts of Europe like the Austrians and the Germans, but then not really having a good relationship with the Austrians and the Germans and being sold out and then going back and forth and always occupying this liminal space when it comes to Western civilization. And there are some idealists now who I guess will think that we can have a longstanding great alliance with Russia, but Russia's never really viewed it that way, and that's never been borne out in history. So what's the upshot for the us? The upshot for the US says Trump, is if we have certain hard interests that are contrary to Russia's hard interests, if we have a centuries long tension that just is born out of real geopolitical realities, if we can't really ever be buddy buddies with Russia because it just, the geopolitics of it just doesn't work, then, okay, let's pursue our interests. We are not going to write a blank check for a regional war that could become a serious global conflict because of Ukrainian democracy, which basically doesn't exist. We're not going to do it because of the sincerity of the Ukrainian political leaders, who are extremely crooked. We're gonna do it in our own interest. And so the Treasury Secretary comes out and he says, yeah, we just signed a deal, an economic deal that is gonna benefit us. It's going to give us some incentive to stay involved in protecting Ukraine. It's gonna acknowledge the reality that we're never gonna be bosom buddies with Russia because certain geopolitical realities are pre ideological and there are just certain hard interests. And there is a reason that the west and Russia have had a fraught relationship forever. So we're gonna acknowledge that reality, but we're not gonna become bellicose warhawks, and we're not gonna become liberal ideologues talking about the spread of Madisonian democracy all over the earth, like occurred during our fever dream of the 2000s. We're just gonna, we're gonna have a return to normal, realpolitik, hard interest politics. And that is refreshing because it means you don't have to be pro Ukrainian, you don't have to be pro Russia, you can just be pro America, which is the space that I think a lot of us and all normal people have wanted to occupy the whole time. Trump's actions stand in stark contrast to what has passed for elite conservatism over the past 15, 20 years. There was an article that I saw yesterday, probably not a lot of people saw, because it was published in this outlet called the Dispatch, which is. It's kind of conservative. The Dispatch was founded as an outlet for disaffected conservatives who hate Donald Trump. Kind of like the Bulwark. The Bulwark went so far, it became a radical left wing outlet. That one was founded by Bill Kristol. The Dispatch was founded by disillusioned, disaffected, but slightly less radical former conservative types. And this is the article, My presidential candidacy. And you don't even need to read the article to get the point. The subheader says, if nominated, I will consent to be elected, but don't expect me to do much else. What's his presidential platform? If you elect me, I'm gonna do nothing. My platform is the Constitution. I'm gonna stop being so ambitious like all of these people in both parties, and I'm just gonna let the Constitution do its job and I'm gonna sit back and do nothing. He who governs least governs best. That's my radical candidacy. What do you think about that? And of course, no one will vote for it. But this was a popular view around the Tea Party era among a certain species of libertarian affected Beltway elite conservative. It was a popular. It was never a popular view with the people broadly, but it was a kind of a popular view with the right wing commentariat. And it doesn't work. I don't mean to make fun of the guy who wrote this article. I'm sure it's a sincere political position. I'm not even really knocking the Dispatch for publishing this kind of thing. It's just so passe. And it's not only passe because fashions have changed, it's passe because this doesn't work as a governing philosophy. Give me power and I'll do nothing with it. Doesn't work. What happens when you behave that way, when you say, vote for me and I'll do nothing with the power, is then you get voted out of office and your enemies take power and your enemies transform the political order and you're pushed to the sidelines and you become a court jester in the kingdom of liberalism rather than a serious political actor. That's why this doesn't work. And Trump knew that. So Trump comes in and he says, I'm gonna use power. I'm gonna use power in a just way, in a way that respects the limits set forth by the Constitution and by other political traditions. But I'm gonna use it, baby. We're gonna do stuff, okay? There were two extremes that came out of the 2000s. The first extreme came from Karl Rove. This is a great line. It was reported in, oh, some magazine, I forget which one. But this was about 20 years ago. Karl Rove, who's referred to here as an unnamed aide but most people think it was Karl Rove, advisor to George Bush. The aide said that guys like me, me, liberal journalists were in what we call the reality based community, which he defined as people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. And Rove probably it was. Rove says that's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality judiciously, as you will, we'll act again, creating other realities which you can study too. And that's how things will sort out. We are history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. It's a hardcore quote now. That's one extreme. The other extreme is we're not going to do anything. We're just going to allow the Constitution, this dead piece of parchment, to act and then everything will work out just fine. If only we stopped doing things as human beings and just allowed our beautiful systems to act of their own logic and apparently of a will of their own, then society would be great. A total political quietism on the one hand, and a total transcendent will voluntarism, quasi Islamic. Kind of funny that it comes out of the Bush era on the other hand. Trump has found the via media between these two views, between the Tea Party and the Bushy neocons. He's found the via media, which is we need to base our political actions on reality. We need to be normal. We have to respect the natural law and the transcendent moral order. And we have to just recognize and we have to respect hard political interests. We have to respect certain realities. We have to not be taken off by flights of fancy and ideology. That's all there in Trump. But also we have to act and we have to do things. And when we pursue our interests, that is going to help shape the political circumstances around us. It's not gonna change reality. Reality is not made through a sheer force of our will, but we have a lot of power in the world and we can shape events. And so long as we don't totally divorce ourselves from reality, we can change political circumstances and make other people react to what we do because we are history's actors, because we're the greatest country on earth and we're gonna become greater and that's gonna give us even more power. But in order to become great, we have to respect the eternal realities that undergird our whole politics. That's a beautiful thing. Romney lost. Republicans lost in the 2000 and tens, and Republicans lost in part because of the excesses of the 2000s. Trump let him cook. It's sort of like thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Hate to sound Hegelian about the whole thing, but that is not only a popular political view. It's not only the sort of thing that gets you elected on a wave of populism. It is the most sensible version of conservatism that we've seen in a long, long time. Listen here. We will get to my pearls of wisdom again in one moment. First though, go to takelean.com, use code Michael M I C H A E L 20. Do not mistake what I'm about to tell you about for another injectable weight loss solution. This is something entirely different. These impressive weight loss results come from a physician developed dietary supplement called Lean. Lean was developed by medical and academic professionals as an alternative to GLP1 medications, eliminating the need for injections. Research on the components in Lean demonstrates their ability to regulate glucose levels, significantly decrease hunger sensations and enhance metabolism by utilizing fat stores as an energy source. Real people have seen real results. Lori M. I've struggled to get weight off and lean has been a lifesaver. I've been losing a couple pounds a week or more, Kelly F. Said. Amazing. I immediately noticed an energy boost and a healthy loss in weight. I would promote this product to anyone. Strongly recommend it if you struggled with weight. I know a lot of people have struggled with weight. Go look into this. Check this out. You know, sometimes a healthy diet and exercise just don't seem to be enough. That is where lean is for you. Let's get you started with 20% off. Just use code Michael M I C h a e l [e-mail], code michael [e-mail] what is that? URL takelean.com, code michael20. Results vary. These statements have not been evaluated by the fda, is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, and is not a substitute for care from a health care provider. Speaking of changing realities, House Minority Leader Democrat Hakeem Jeffries was just asked if Democrats are gonna follow through on their promise to follow Chris Van Hollen, Democrat senator from Maryland, and go visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom Democrats have called a Maryland father. In fact, he's Most likely an MS.13 gang affiliate whose wife filed a court order to stop him from beating her at one point. Who's in this country Illegally. Who's the sort of fellow who probably shouldn't be in this country? And here's how he responded. Hakeem Jeffries said our reaction to the questions about Kilmar Abrego Garcia is that Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history. That's it. The question was specifically, do you agree with your colleague Henry Cuellar, who positions himself as a more moderate Democrat? Do you agree that it was a bad idea to rally around this Ms. 13 gangster? And Hakeem Jeffries completely deflects. He says our reaction is Trump is really unpopular. Which is to say, yes, I do agree with Henry Queller. Yes, I do realize that it was a mistake to rally around this guy. He might be the most sympathetic deportee that we can find, but he's not sympathetic. He's a gangster who's accused of beating his wife, who has weird gang looking tattoos on his knuckles. He's in illegal. People don't want him here anyway. Even if he were a nice abuela minding her own business who's here illegally, most people wanna deport her. So, yeah, we're done with that. Democrats are done with Chris Van Hollen's gangster boyfriend. Okay, it's over. They realize that that's a big problem. They're gonna move on. But how? The leader of the Democrats in the House can't come out and say, yeah, that was a mistake, that guy should be deported. But likewise, he can't say he didn't have due process and we need to bring back sweet Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He's American as taquitos and apple pieces. That doesn't work either. He's just gotta deflect. He's gotta try to ignore. He's trying to ignore the problem and put his head in the sand. That's not gonna work. You're not gonna win elections by ignoring the most important political issues of the day. In this case, migration. Top political issue for a lot of people. So it's fine. Democrats, good on them for realizing that their current position is untenable. But what are they gonna do? You gotta run on something in order to win. They haven't figured that out yet. Now, speaking of boyfriends, couple of fellas just went viral for. They're two guys. They seem to be very good friends in some kind of romantic relationship. And they have acquired a baby somehow, obviously not the natural way. And they just posted pictures of that baby's first birthday for social media clout. You want to sit on my shoulder? Oh, my Gosh, you're so tall.

[Treasury Secretary]

You want to sit on my shoulder?

[Michael Knowles]

Wow. No, Kyle, look at all your balloons. Do you love it? Do you love it? So the guy, for those of you who are only listening to this right now, the one guy has really long bleach blonde hair, he's wearing some bizarre shiny outfit. His paramour appears to have makeup on and is also wearing bizarre outfits. And they're holding this baby. I don't even know their names. I think they're social media stars. They're holding two bae. They got two babies out of it. And they're holding up the baby not just to the presents and the decorations, but they're holding up the baby to the camera because they want to get social media. And you just look at these guys and you notice they're not the bourgeois kind of gays. They're not. The gays who wear business suits other than this one weird thing, basically are kind of normal. These are really decadent looking people who should not have babies. Any person with a semi functioning conscience, certainly any person who's ever been around a baby and knows the kind of things babies need, looks at this and says, this should be illegal. These people should be punished for doing this. These guys have absolutely no business with a baby. How did they acquire the babies? And you can say all sorts of things. They acquired the babies because we've redefined marriage. They acquired the babies because of the sexual revolution. They acquired the babies because of a degradation of morality. They acquired the babies because of a recession of public Christianity. You can go on and on and on. There is a technological answer here. The way that homosexual guys have been able to acquire babies is one, by changing the adoption laws, but two, increasingly, because you can now make a baby in a petri dish. Why is this happening now when you see this kind of social problem, so horrifying? Well, part of the answer is because technology changed less than 50 years ago. 50 years ago, this would not have been possible. But in 1978, we loosened our bioethical standards and we advanced in technology and we came to the point as a society where we said it is technologically possible and morally acceptable to create a baby in a petri dish. And now that we've done that long enough, there is no technological barrier, there's no physical barrier for two fellas not to have a baby. They can't do it the natural way, which was what prevented guys who obviously are unfit to have children for millennia from acquiring children. Now that barrier is gone. So as technology advances, that can be A good thing for civilization, or it can be a very bad thing for civilization. As technology advances, one has to have a clearer moral vision. One has to have greater personal discipline. One has to attain greater responsibility. And we're not doing that. We're doing the opposite. We are clouding our moral vision. We are shoving off responsibility. We are allowing the corrosive acid of liberal ideology to melt down all of the things that used to make us behave in our society at the very same time. It's a perfect storm as technology is advancing, which means you're gonna see more of that. It's revolting. Anyone who's spent any time with a baby knows a baby needs a mother. Okay? And if you're gonna give babies to any pair of fellas, it probably shouldn't be the ones who are so indulgent, so decadent, so over the top. So just. It shouldn't be those guys. Right? But what do you do about it as a politic? The only way to deal with it now is to circumscribe people's autonomy and license. The only way to deal with that now is to put some limits on the uses of technology. Are we a responsible, morally clear enough society to do? Is that even possible right now? Open question. It's one of the big open questions, frankly, of the Trump era. Take a look around. Do you feel it? Something is happening. People are smiling at each other in public. Things are not on fire. And reality, objective reality is making a little bit of a comeback. This is not a glitch in the matrix. This is what happens when the fever breaks. Welcome to the return of normal.

[Unknown Speaker]

It's a new day. The sun is rising, the birds are singing, and things are returning to normal. It's norming in America today. We're actually arresting shoplifters. And fewer businesses are being burned down all over America. Pronouns are being dropped from bios. Men are not having babies, and fewer drag queens are flashing their genitals at children. Videos like this one aren't being shadow banned as much. People are saying master bedroom. And look at that. White people are reappearing in commercials. Oh, and guys, we can say guys again. America, the fever has broken. Now we can be sensible, nicer, normal. Join us. And let's never go back to those weird, angry, divisive times again. It's norming in America. Have a great norming.

[Michael Knowles]

You hear if that made you smile or at least blink twice in disbelief. Good. Now let's make it permanent. Join us at dailywire.com subscribe Become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous normal is back. This time we're keeping it. Now, my favorite comment Yesterday is from FamilyGash7500 says, As a British person with autism, I can indeed confirm that I used to be a male inside of a female's body, and then I was born. It's a joke I've heard before, but I don't know. It's pretty funny. Pretty funny. I get a kick out of it. There's good timing, too, as we were talking about the babies, and providential timing since we're talking about LGBTism. Jennifer Coolidge, that actress lady who we played on the show yesterday, she was making all these kind of odd claims about lgbt. Well, now she's gone even further and said that her life would be worth nothing without the LGBT movement.

[Jennifer Coolidge]

I feel like I joined the LGBTQ community before. I mean, I think when I was young, I think we didn't all know that we were gonna, you know, sort of. We were all attracted to each other for the same thing. I didn't quite feel like I. You know, I didn't feel like I was sort of. I was sort of, you know, constraint. You know, I was kind of lost, you know, when I was a young kid and stuff. And so I felt like I found my group. We all found out later, you know, like, those of my buddies, like gay men, you know. You know, gay women too. But, you know, we just all felt like we were the same tribe and how. I can't even. I could go on forever about how much it improved my life if it hadn't happened, if I hadn't met all, you know, everyone from the gay community that I know. I think my life would be. Would be nothing. Nothing. And I'm talking nothing.

[Michael Knowles]

My life would be nothing without the. I Googled, said, is Jennifer Coolidge a lesbian? And it doesn't seem like she is. She might be. It's kind of unclear, but she's somehow part of the LGBT community. I've heard of guys who are married to women calling themselves queer. Okay, I don't know what that. But she says she's part of the LGBT community, and without the LGBT community, her life would mean nothing, which really tells you what LGBT is about. And I hope this penetrates to liberals and leftists who don't understand the way that a lot of conservatives talk about pride and LGBTism. It's not merely that conservatives think they shouldn't do those things that they like to do. I'm sure there's a little bit of that too, but that's not really primarily what it's about. The problem with LGBT ism, the political problem with LGBT ism is broadly that. That it is a collective identity that is disordered. It's not even necessarily tied to these actions because a woman who is ostensibly straight says she's part of the LGBT community. Because increasingly I've known actually multiple people, multiple, just straight guys, just normal guys who called themselves non, heterosexual or queer to be fashionable among liberals. It is a collective identity that is intrinsically tied to leftism, kind of like blm. Like, not every black guy has to be in blm. The normal black guys are not in BLM because BLM is an explicitly Marxist movement. So what if you're a conservative black guy or just a normal, non ideological black guy? You're not really part of blm. BLM is not fundamentally about black identity. It's about this leftist kind of identity. The same thing is true for LGBTISM here. It's a substitute religion, deeply sacrilegious religion. It provides a substitute morality, a substitute anthropology, a substitute kind of human nature, a substitute political science. It has a view of politics that goes all the way down to what the purpose of laws are, how the laws should look in the United States. It rewrites a lot of our law and our civil rights law rewrites our jurisprudence. It's an all encompassing worldview. This is why we don't want it in schools. It's not just because it's kind of icky when fellas do the behave like ancient Greeks. It's because this is a whole political vision that now encompasses multiple liturgical months of the calendar, like LGBT Pride Month. And they also. October is also an LGBT month because it's just wrong. It's wrong politically, and it's wrong in ways that so transcend any kind of personal erotic actions that it becomes a big political problem. If you said to me, michael, what's the most important thing in your life? I'd say, well, without Christianity, my life would mean very little. I would say that I would still have my kind of natural reason and I would still have, you know, there would still be things in my life, but my life would. I could basically go as far as she's going and say, without Christianity, my life would be meaningless. It would be nothing. I'd live for a short period of time, die, take a dirt nap, turn to warm food. That's how she's talking about weird sex stuff. That is what's ultimately so horrifying about the LGBT ideology. And it is why even some People who engage in those activities will come out and say, we don't want any part of lgbt, we don't want any part of that rainbow flag. We don't want any part of this political ideology. Now, speaking of a sense of belonging, Tim Walls, the man who could have been president had Kamala Harris won even like three votes. Tim Walls just came out and explained his view that Kamala Harris picked him to be the VP because he could code talk with white guys. His exact words, I don't want to take them out of context. I could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck, and put them at ease. I'm a permission structure for white men to vote for Democrats. If that was Kamala Harris strategy, she picked a guy who could code talk to the white guys. I think she picked the wrong white guy. Does anyone look at Tim Walls and say, ah, yes, the governor who put tampons in the fourth grade boys bathroom. That's a good old red blooded American man. Yeah, I want to crack a beer with that guy. No, not one person did that. But I see the strategy. She needed someone who could talk to white guys because Democrats have told white guys in particular for decades that they hate them. Democrats have said being white is bad. We need to abolish whiteness and being a guy is toxic. We go to abolish that too. So then the white guys said, well, we don't really like you Democrats. And the Democrats said, shoot, we gotta figure out a way to talk to white guys. I know we'll pick the least likable white guy in public life and we'll make him our vice president. Will that work? Now? Democrats picked a white guy, couldn't win over white guys. Trump picked a white guy and won over black and Hispanic guys. Clearly what is at issue here is not the whiteness and it's not the guyness, it's the talking. Democrats could not talk to these people. They thought that just by putting a guy who was technically a white guy into that spot, they would be able to reach those voters. They didn't. Because human beings are not just grunting baboons. We're rational creatures who are persuadable. But you have to use talking, you have to use language. That's what distinguishes us from the brute beasts. It is what makes us children made in the image and likeness of God. There's a similarity there because we're rational creatures. So then Trump picks a white guy, like a real white guy, white guy, guy from Ohio, was raised drug addict, mother in tough circumstances, worked his way up didn't really have advantages. Growing up, that guy was able to talk not only to white guys, but to win over an historic number of black guys and to win over 46% of Hispanics. It's the talking that's the problem. And the Democrats couldn't talk to anyone, really, this past election cycle. Their arguments seemed stale and old. They seemed not to have a grasp on reality, and Trump did. So now we've got this new political paradigm. It's not the extreme ideology of the. Well, I guess a lot of this is ideology, but it's not the imperial ideology of the Bush era. It's not the individualist, quietest ideology of the Tea Party era. It's some new thing grounded in prudence and practicality and reality and hard interests and a reset for normality. Now, what does it look like going into the future? Don't forget we still have 265 days left of this term, and that's assuming Trump doesn't run for his third term. We'll get to a lot of those issues later on. Today is Theology Thursday. We have to get to the Membrum Segmentum. And if you are part of the Hoi Polloi who are just watching this on the public platforms or listening on your podcast app, you gotta go to dailywire.com, use code KNOWLES@ checkout. You'll become a member. You will get all the great Membrum Segmentum. You will join the Chem du Lahem head on over right now. We'll see you in the member block B.