The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 198 - The Modern Day Blackface

Episode Date: February 14, 2019

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats accuse Republicans of “sabotaging” the green new deal… by voting on it. Also, with “drag queen story hours” popping up at libraries across the country, here’s my question: isn’t drag a blackface-style mockery of womanhood? How have drag queens escaped criticism? Finally, a college newspaper tells white boys to “stop talking.” Date: 02-14-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall show, Democrats accuse Republicans of sabotaging the Green New Deal by voting on it. Also, with drag queen's story hours popping up at libraries across the country, I have a question. Isn't drag just a blackface-style mockery of womanhood? How is it that drag queens have somehow escaped that criticism? And finally, a college newspaper tells white boys to stop talking at all. They're not allowed to talk anymore. We'll talk about all that today on the Matt Wall Show. Happy Valentine's Day, everybody. Let me begin, if I could, with a quick tip, a little bit of advice for all the guys out there. You know, I've been married for seven years.

I have three kids. So I think I'm kind of an expert at this point. I'm certainly in a position where I can dole out advice, I believe. So if you haven't gotten a gift yet for your wife or your girlfriend and you're kind of panicking because it's the last minute, well, don't worry about it. I'm here to help you out. Okay. Now, first, a warning. You're going to hear a lot of people claim that a good gift for your wife on Valentine's Day might be like a handwritten love note and maybe a gift card to a spa or something. But no, no, no. See, that's not, let me tell you, women enjoy practical gifts. The first thing, when they get a gift, the first thing I think it is, what can I do with this? How can I use it? So you can't go wrong with a nice pack of new sponges, let's say, or a really high-class, high-end laundry detergent. And I'm talking about, I'm not talking about $15 laundry detergent.

I'm saying you could even go out and splurge, spend $25 on the really nice laundry detergents, the kind of laundry detergent that you get for special occasions like Valentine's Day anniversaries and so forth. Of course, a mop is always a good choice. but be creative, be thoughtful about it. Maybe think, like, what is your wife's favorite color? Well, get a mop in that color. Another idea is a gift bag or a kind of a gift basket with all different kinds of cleaning supplies.

You got your wind decks and your, you know, your different kinds of bleach and so on, Clorox and all that kind of stuff. What I'm doing, just, and you can steal my idea if you want, that's fine. I am, I got my wife a very nice, beautiful dustpan. and I wrote a little note on the dustpan with suggestions about what areas of the house she could clean. So anyway, it's going to be great. She's going to swoon, I'm sure, over it. So that's my suggestion.

It is, if you follow this suggestion, it is guaranteed to get a reaction, a big one, a big reaction. That I can be sure of. All right, I want to, so let me mention this quickly at the top here. Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell, speaking of Valentine's Day, the ladies love Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell doesn't get enough credit, I think. Especially from conservatives. And he certainly has earned his share of criticism over the years.

I'm not going to deny that. But he also is someone who knows how to play the game. And I think he should get a little bit of credit for that. Sometimes he makes a move on the chess board that we just have to stop and appreciate. So yesterday, McConnell announced. that the Green New Deal resolution proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that he's going to put that resolution up for a vote in the Senate.

Now, obviously, the resolution has absolutely no chance of passing through the Senate, but the idea here clearly is to take this insane, incoherent, barely legible, jumbled mess and force Democrats, especially Democrats who are running for president, force them to officially put their name on it and vote for it so that it can be used against

them on the campaign trail. And now during debates and everything, they're going to be forced, they're going to have to answer for the Green New Deal and explain all the different facets of it. Like, hey, by the way, how are we going to get rid of all the farting cows? How are we going to replace every building in America? All of that stuff. So it's a great tactic on McConnell's part. On the other hand, what the Democrats could do is they could vote. against it, but then they're going to anger their base. So it's a lose-lose situation for them, which is why it's a brilliant strategy on McConnell's part. It's also why Senator Ed Markey, I almost really just accidentally called him Ed Mularky. Ed Markey, who's one of the guys who

wrote the Green New Deal, he said this yesterday. He was very upset. He said, don't let Mitch McConnell fool you. This is nothing but an attempt to sabotage the movement we are building. He wants to silence your voice so Republicans don't have to explain why they are climate change deniers. McConnell wants this to be the end, but this is just the beginning. Did you get that? McConnell is sabotaging them by putting their resolution up for a vote. So usually it goes the other way around. If the Republicans won't vote on something that the Democrats want, then they'll say that it's sabotaged. They're being blocked. They're being, you know, they're being interference or whatever. Obstructionist.

So usually it's obstructionist if you don't vote for it. It's sabotage if you do. But the thing is, Markey is, of course, right in a way. McConnell is trying to sabotage them, and as well he should. The Green New Deal should be sabotaged. But he's doing it simply by voting on it. So he's just voting for the proposal and that's how you sabotage it. So what does that tell you? It tells you that the proposal is insane. The proposal is so insane that the best way to defeat it and punish anyone who supports it is simply to vote on it. And you find this a lot with Democrats. You find this complaint quite a bit, especially recently these days. They'll accuse Republicans of or conservatives of

sabotage or deception or dishonesty just for taking them seriously and quoting them verbatim. Of course, think of Trump at a, he was at the rally a few days of ago. And at the rally, he said that Ralph Northam wanted to make it legal to execute babies after they're born. And liberals freaked out. They said he's lying. This is outrageous. Fake news. Blah, blah, blah. But no, he was actually quoting Ralph Northam almost verbatim. But liberals support such heinous policies and such terrible vile ideas that all you need to do is quote them and it will sound like you're making it up. So yeah, if you didn't know any better and you heard that line from Trump where he's talking about Ralph Northam executing babies, if you didn't know any better

and you hadn't been paying attention and you heard that line, you would say, well, that's crazy he must, he's making that up. That's a terrible thing to make up. But no, that is. actually what Northam said. He didn't use the word execute, but that's obviously what he was implying. So the liberal strategy is to say heinous things and then accuse anyone who quotes them of lying. Another example, the undercover Planned Parenthood videos from a few years ago. They were, the Planned Parenthood was caught on tape trying to sell the body parts of aborted babies, which, again, if you did know any better, and you hadn't been following it, and you heard some conservative saying that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts, you might just kind of

viscerally react to that and say, no, there's no way. That's crazy. You're hallucinating. There's no way they were doing it. But yes, that is what they were doing. They're on tape. All you have to do is go watch the video. There's hours and hours, dozens of hours of videotape. that you can watch where they talk about this. But the left said, it's a doctored. They doctored the footage. No, they didn't. It's not doctored.

In fact, Planned Parenthood did their own investigation of the footage, and even they said in their own report, which you can go Google it and find it online, that Planned Parenthood did their own report, their own investigation of these undercover videos. And even they said, they admitted that the footage is not doctored. That's according to them. Because it wasn't. This is just what they said. This is what these planned-parridden employees were caught on tape saying. It's as simple as that.

So that tells you everything you need to know about leftist policies. That in simply repeating them verbatim, it sounds like you're lying. All right. So, Here's something else. Speaking of vile, horrible, atrocious things, you know, in our, in our increasingly decaying culture, there is a popular sort of event that I'm sure you've heard of by now. The event is called a drag queen story hour. Okay. And I was just reading about another one of these that was held in, or it's going to be held in Greenville, South Carolina. Originally, it was canceled because of protests from the community, people in the community said,

we don't want this at our library, but now it's back on. And caving to PC pressure, the library in Greenville, South Carolina, they're going to hold the event anyway, like so many other libraries across the country have. And as I said, there have been events like this across the country.

And it is exactly what it sounds like. A drag queen comes in and reads stories to children dressed in drag, which means that parents, actual parents, actual alleged parents, choose to bring their kids to the library, bring their kids to the library so that a drag queen can read them books. That means actual parents have to say to their kids, hey, let's get in the car and drive to the library because a man in a dress wants to read you a story. Why do you need a drag queen to read your kid a book? Why does the man need to dress like a woman before he reads the book?

How does this enhance the book reading experience at all? Well, who knows? I do know, actually. The idea, of course, is indoctrination. That's the point. To shove this stuff into the faces of kids. early and often in life so that they never think it's weird or strange. When I was a kid, we inherently recognized as kids that it is strange. It is unhealthy. It is not good for a man to go

parading around like a woman. When I was in a kid, when I was in fourth or fifth grade, if a guy dressed as a woman had come to read us a book, we would have all just laughed at it. We would have seen it as this really weird, funny, bizarre, strange thing, which it is. That is the appropriate reaction. When a child sees a man dressed like a drag queen, the appropriate reaction is laughter. A kind of disturbed, confused laughter. That's how you should react. but what the left is trying to do with the cooperation of many parents is to brainwash these kids early in life

so that they don't have that natural reaction. And they see perversity and they see things that are debauched and deranged. And they think, well, that's perfectly normal. But I want to focus on another aspect of this issue. In fact, let me just, I'm going to put a, I'm going to put a picture up on screen for those of you watching on YouTube or on Facebook, this is an image from a drag queen story hour in Palm Springs. And this isn't even the worst one that I could find. But here's a drag queen reading a story to the kids. So you can see he looks like some kind of R-rated Dr. Seuss character,

completely gratuitous, ridiculous, outlandish, disturbing. And there are much creepier ones than that. This is a, let's look at another one. This is from a drag queen story hour at the Boston Public Library. So look at this. It is literally like something out of a horror film. Grotesque, disturbing. I mean, that is.

It looks like something that you would see. It looks like maybe if you were on LSD or something like that, it's something you would see. So, and not only is that, is then, we'll talk about this in a second, this is my point, not only is that last one offensive to women, but also to Catholics as well, because this is someone dressed up like some sort of caricature of a nun. And there is a whole, by the way, there's a whole group of drag queens that do a lot of these story hours. And they're called, I'm trying to remember what they're called.

They're called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. and their whole thing is to make fun of nuns to dress up like these kind of acid trippy caricatures of sexualized nuns and to go around reading stories. Here's my question. Leaving aside the trauma that's being inflicted on children with this nonsense, not that we can really leave that aside, but focusing on something else for a moment, my question is how is it that drag queens have escaped the blackface backlash? I mean, all of these people upset about blackface, about people dressing as blackface, especially Democrats in Virginia,

dressing in blackface. Well, we're told that that's offensive and demeaning and all of that. Okay, fine. But isn't dressing in drag, isn't that just a female blackface? drag shows are essentially female minstrel shows, men dressing as exaggerated, sexualized caricatures of women. Female traits are parodied, satirized to the point of absurdity. Okay, this is not, you look at that, you look at that guy dressed like a Dr. Seuss character. That's not a tribute to women. Drag queens are women turned into cartoons. and you'll notice always sexualize. That guy's in like a little mini skirt. I mean, it's always,

there's always a sexual element to it always. So tell me this, ladies, I'll throw it to you. You could tell me for yourself, do you feel like your femininity, like your womanhood is celebrated by a drag queen? Or is it more so appropriated and aped and mocked? I can tell you this, if it were a woman dressed like some dumb, absurd character of a stupid frat boy or something, I wouldn't look at that and say, wow, she totally gets me. I feel so celebrated. That's a tribute to manhood. I would say, okay, she's obviously making fun of me. I wouldn't cry about it, but it would be clear that this is insulting, not uplifting. Everything we could say about Blackface, it all applies to the drag queen thing too.

And even if I were to agree, which I certainly don't, that the dressing and drag is a tribute to women, but even if I were, that excuse doesn't fly for white people dressing like black. Ralph Northam says that he dressed as Michael Jackson, did the moonwalk, and this was meant to be a tribute to him. He was a fan of Michael Jackson. He wasn't trying to make a fun of him. But we're told that, look, even if you do it as a... a tribute, even if you try to, I mean, Megan Kelly got fired from her job for even suggesting that it may be okay to darken your face in an effort to pay tribute to a famous black person. So we're told, no, that's, you can't, you can't, tribute or not, no, it's offensive,

it's degrading, it's imitating, mocking, it's just no. Okay, fine. I understand that. well it's the same exact thing with this that even if it isn't even if it is supposed to be a tribute that's not how you pay tribute to someone by dressing in an exaggerated sexualized ridiculous

costume and parading around on stage reading stories to children that's not a tribute but of course it's not even supposed to be a tribute anyway that's not even we all know that's not the idea here and what about appropriation?

I brought up this point plenty of times in the past, but everyone is worried about appropriation. People are appropriating cultures. Well, that's what this. Womanhood is really actually being appropriated by this drag queen stuff, by transgenderism. You have womanhood being appropriated, stolen, taken. you know, taken over by men in a way that is, that is, again, degrading and demeaning.

I just, I think it's about time that the, the LGBT community stops getting an exemption from all this stuff. It seems like they're exempt from all this. All, you know, appropriation, blackface, all that stuff. exempt. They can do what they want. And no one's allowed to be offended. No one's allowed to complain. And especially women aren't allowed to complain. Because there are plenty of women who would agree with everything that I'm saying. And there are even feminist. They're even liberal feminists. Not very many who are willing to say it out loud, but there are there are some. There's a substantial number of liberal feminists who are just trying to draw the line in the sand and

say, no, enough of this. This is crazy. Enough of this. You know, you're a man. You're not a woman. You can't pretend to be one. There's a difference between us. And you're not the same. I'm not going to treat you like the same. And what happens to those feminists when they say that? There was a liberal feminist got kicked off at Twitter for simply saying that men are men and they're not women. Kayak gets my flight, hotel, and rental car right. So I can tune out travel advice that's just plain wrong. Bro, Skycoin, way better than points. Never fly during a Scorpio full moon.

Just tell the manager you'll sue. Instant room upgrade. Stop taking bad travel advice. Start comparing hundreds of sites with kayak. And get your trip right. Kayak, got that right. I just think it's time we start holding everyone to the same standard. Speaking of which, last thing before we get to some of your emails, trying to pull it up.

Give me a second here. So I got, someone sent me this a few days ago. I've been wanting to talk about it and just other subjects have gotten in the way. So let me mention it now. Someone from Dickinson College sent me a editorial, if we can call it that, that was in the Dickinsonian College student newspaper. And there's been an article about this on the Daily Wire now. But the title of the article is, should white boys still be allowed to, talk. And the article in this student newspaper is just one long attack against all white boys,

suggesting that they shouldn't even be allowed to speak anymore. Let me read a little bit of of this to you, written by Lita Fisher, or Leda Fisher. I'm not sure I pronounced the name. When you ask a question at a lecture, is it secretly just your opinion ending with the phrase, do you agree? If so, your name is something like Jake or Chad or Alex, and you were taught that your voice is the most important in every room. Somewhere along your academic journey, you decided your search for intellectual validation was more important than the actual exchange of information. Now, how do you expect to actually learn anything? American society tells men, but especially white men, that their opinions have merit and that their voice is valuable.

But after four years of listening to white boys in college, I am not so convinced. In my time at Dickinson, I have listened to probably hundreds of white boys talk. It feels incessant. From classes and lectures to the news and politics, there is an endless line of white boys wanting to share their opinions on the state of feminism in America, whether the LGBT population finally has enough rights, the merits of capitalism, etc. The list of what white boys think they're qualified to talk about is endless. something very few of them seem to understand is that their ill-informed, uncritical opinions

do not constitute truth. In fact, most of their opinions aren't even original. I won't read the whole thing. So on and so forth, you get the idea. And it goes on like that for four or five paragraphs. Concluding with the proposal that white boys should not be allowed to talk anymore. Now, I mean, this is, I get that it's just a student newspaper, free speech and everything like that as well, although she obviously doesn't believe in free speech. She thinks that she's complained. She's like, well, white boys have been raised with this idea that their opinions are worthwhile. Well, yeah, I mean, we're supposed to raise everybody with that idea, that they're allowed to express their opinions. So she doesn't believe they should have First Amendment rights. but speaking of a worthless, stupid, ugly opinions that have no value and do not need to be expressed and should not be given a platform, well, there you go. This is just a woman having a racist, hissy fit, spending four or five paragraphs, complaining about all white boys and just insulting them.

and saying none of their opinions are worthwhile, none of them should be able to talk. And the newspaper said, the student newspaper said, yeah, let's run that. No, again, see, we need to stop making exemptions for people. This is just sexist, racist idiocy. It has no value. It has no worth. It is totally stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it whatsoever.

We don't have to even stop to consider this person's opinion or perspective. on this subject for even a second. And obviously, if a white boy had written an article like that, targeted at women, targeted at black people, targeted at any other group, there would be protests in the street, there would be outrage across the country, I mean, they'd be shutting the school down over it. But, of course, the article never would have been run in the first place. because the editor of that newspaper would have looked at it and said,

no, this is just racist, stupid garbage. Why would I put this in the paper? Well, yes, exactly. All right, let's read a couple of your emails. You can email the show at Matt Wall Show at gmail.com. This is from Mike. He says, I really enjoyed your explanation on tax refunds and how deceptive it is in the way that it's structured by the IRS. What is your position on a business?

abolishing the IRS. I've heard from several conservatives slash libertarians, including Ted Cruz during the 2016 election, saying they're in favor of this, but I am unclear how exactly it would work. Presumably, if you did abolish the IRS, it would have to be replaced with something else in order to collect revenue and hold those accountable attempting to evade taxes. I hope you can explain this in a way I can understand better. Mike, yeah, I mean, personally, if they're going to abolish the IRS, you're not going to hear any complaints for me whatsoever. This, of course, will never happen. But in a fantasy world where it did happen, I think most people who favor getting rid of the IRS would prefer to replace it with a consumption tax, with something like the fare tax. The fair tax is,

the idea behind the fair tax is let's get rid of all the income tax. Let's get rid of all the payroll taxes. Thus, we don't need the IRS anymore. And then we replace all of that revenue with a national sales tax essentially. And I read a book on the Fair Tax Proposal years ago. I don't know if it's been updated since then, but from what I remember, the idea was to replace those taxes with, I think it was like a 25% national sales tax on not every kind. I think things like groceries would be exempt, but on various kinds of items. Now, the way the proposal was written, the idea is to replace the income tax.

So this isn't even like cutting the government's revenue at all. Looking at how much the government makes with income tax and how can we replace all of that. Well, it would mean a 25, 30% sales tax. I would take that over the income tax. I would take pretty much anything over the income tax. I think the idea of, we're so used to it now, we kind of take it for granted, but the idea of your income itself being directly taxed, I think is tyrannical. It's the kind of thing we only accept it because we're all used to it, and it's always been this way. But when you really stop to think about it

for a minute, why should the government have a right to just automatically take whatever money you make, especially in what's supposed to be a free country. So even though a 25, 30% sales tax is extremely steep, and I think you could cut it down to like, I don't know, 10 or 15% or less, and the government can make due with less money, because I think that should be part of the point here. But either way, at least with a consumption tax, then you are in some ways controlling and deciding where you spend your taxes, how much tax you pay in a way. You can control that by controlling what you buy. So that's the, I think that's a basic idea for most people that want to

abolish the IRS. This is from, well, there's no name provided. Says, hello, Matt, I was listening to you ramble yesterday about getting rid of the withholding system. I often suspect you have no idea what you're babbling about. And now those suspicions are confirmed. Wait, they were just now confirmed? You've been listening to me all this time and you just now realized I have no idea what I'm talking about? Without withholding, the government would have to actively collect taxes. Most people wouldn't pay. There would have to be a whole elaborate mechanism put in place for collecting from people. The whole system would collapse and the country along with it under the weight of this system. It's a terrible idea, one of many from you. First of all, thank you so much

for your support. Second, you're being dramatic, of course. How do you know that most people, wouldn't pay if there was no withholding system. Where are you getting that from? Do you have some sort of study that you conducted over the last 12 hours? And anyway, even if that were true, how would that precipitate the end of civilization as we know it? Are you really so subjugated? Are you really so submissive as to think that life as we know it would end if the government had trouble collecting income taxes. Dear Lord, man, you should be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you. You think the country would collapse if they had trouble collecting the income tax? How do you think we got by without an income tax, which we did for many decades and which many governments have figured out a way to do?

over thousands of years governments have figured out a way to get by without a withholding system. How do you think they did it? Look, the government brings in about three and a half trillion dollars a year in revenue, okay? Three and a half trillion. Now, so it has to subsist on a measly three and a half trillion. To put that in perspective, there is only around four. $5 trillion of physical money that exists in the world. Now, obviously, when we talk about the government bringing in $3.5 trillion, we're not talking about physical money. It's not like they've got, you know, we're mailing them bags of money or something for the income tax. But I'm just trying to put it into perspective.

So their revenue is technically $3.5 trillion. And there only exists $5 trillion worth of physical money in the world, meaning the government every year collects almost as much money as exists in the world. And half of that is the income tax. So even if the government couldn't collect any income tax from anyone, they would still have $2 trillion to work with every year. You're telling me that if the government only had $2 trillion every year, the whole world would collapse, the civilization, the country would be over.

you're telling me the government couldn't possibly figure out a way to make due on two trillion a year. But of course, they still would be able to collect. It would just take some effort. And it ought to take effort. Yes, if you didn't have a withholding system, the government would actually have to physically go out and collect the taxes just like governments did for thousands of years of human civilization up until the 19, 40s or 50s or whenever the withholding system began. And that's how it should be. It shouldn't be so easy that they can just dip right into your paycheck and say,

I'll take that, thank you, and just put it in their pocket. That's not how it should be. Yeah, it's easier, but that's not, think about it. The way it stands right now, okay, the government gets a hold of your paycheck before you do. They get it first, and then they give you whatever. the leftover is. Do you think that's the way it really should work in a free country? Do you think the founding fathers who revolted, you know, who were so upset over a tax on T that they overthrew their government? Do you think they would be, they'd find that acceptable?

Now, I know that there was more to it than the tax on T, but the tax on T was a big part of it. And taxes in general is a big part of it for them. You think they would, you think they'd be fine with that? With a system where the government could just go right into your paycheck, bypass you completely, and take whatever they want. It's, uh, it is a, it's a shame. All right, from Joel. He says, hi, Matt, in my U.S. history class, um, my teacher says,

walls don't work. He says, uh, the 38th parallel separating North and South Korea is, is one of his examples, saying that people still find a way across it. Oh, it's really so easy. Well, maybe your history teacher should go and try to cross the... Go ahead, history teacher. Go try to cross the wall down there in South Korea and see how it works out for you.

If it's really so easy to just waltz across it. Go ahead, give it a try. And his other example, he uses as the Berlin Wall, also saying it didn't work and that people still got around under and over it. He's obviously referring that the southern border wall wouldn't work. I wanted to ask him, why would they have needed to take down the Berlin Wall if it didn't work?

And wouldn't the wall at least discourage a majority of people from trying to get across the border? Thanks for defending Christian morals and values and real masculinity by having a real beard. You're welcome. Love the show. Joel, I think you have exactly the right idea, and I would encourage you to say that to your teacher. The next time he launches in to his stupid little rant about walls showing, I mean, it's sad that he's a history teacher. apparently doesn't understand much about the way the world works or about history, I would encourage you to absolutely challenge him and bring that up.

Oh, is that true, Mr. Smith? So the Berlin Wall was totally ineffectual, didn't do anything. So why did they take it down? But why not just keep it up then? Now, you notice something else, though. For his examples of walls, he's using negative examples. There's a reason why he uses the Berlin Wall and the wall separating North and South Korea. Okay. Because that's the association he wants in your mind for walls.

And he's also, your teacher here is setting up a clearly unattainable standard for what works. He's basically claiming that unless a wall stops everyone from crossing all the time, then it doesn't work. Well, then ask him this. Does he think that the locked door on his house could prevent anyone and everyone from entering. He's heard of burglary, right? People, burglars are able to bypass locked doors all the time. Yet, yet he still has a door, doesn't he? And he still locks it.

Why is that? I would ask him that question. Why do you, if it doesn't do anything, why do you, why do you shut your door at night? Why do you even have a door? You know, why not just put a big, you know, a big blanket or something down or, you know, just have a big curtain? or your doorway is, but you know, you actually have a door and you lock it, knowing that it's not 100% effective, but you do it anyway. Why is that? Oh, it's because it's better than nothing, right? Well, exactly. Let's see. I've got some other

great questions that I can't get to today because I'm running out of time. But I will get to those tomorrow. I had some emails about ectopic pregnancies and a couple about aliens. So those are that, but that's going to take more time to get into. So I'll just end with this from Kyle. He says, I just farted in my car while listening to your show. It stank very badly. I said without thinking, now there's some toxic masculinity. Very good, Kyle. Poetic, insightful. And I deeply thank you for sharing. And thank you for watching, everybody. We'll talk tomorrow. Godspeed.

I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show. The left cheers as DOJ and FBI officials are exposed for trying to subvert our Republican overturn a presidential election. Then they cheer a vicious anti-Semite and terrorist apologist as she smears an American patriot. Finally, the mailbag. Check it out at Dailywire.com.