Ep. 1702 - Conservative Student ASSAULTED with Bike Lock

When conservatives want to get one over on leftists, what do we do?

We come up with zingers for debates on YouTube. We destroy them with facts and logic.

Sometimes we even win elections. When leftists want to get one over on conservatives,

they beat us in the head with a bike lock, as the TPUSA chapter president at UT Dallas

just found out.

That's a bull assault.

Go, go, back up.

Yikes.

It is also being reported, it's not, I don't know if it's been confirmed,

that that person who smacked the conservative girl in the head with a bike lock is actually a fella who dresses up like a woman.

I don't know.

That's what people are saying on Twitter. Apparently he's got a man's name.
In any case, even if it's a gal, it's not good, and that's not an aberration. Leftist violence against conservatives is an increasingly common occurrence.
I have personally been attacked twice while giving speeches, physically attacked. There is a leftist in prison right now because he injured a police officer while he was trying to blow me up.
Had he just tried to blow me up and exploded something outside of his school, he probably would have been let go. But he did injure a police officer.
He's in prison. And I'm not the only conservative who's been physically attacked in public.
Far from it. This should not surprise us.
The left being more radical is generally more prone to political violence than the right is. That has been true since the origin of the political terms left and right, since those terms were invented in the French Revolution.
But violence is especially likely to appear during major shifts in the political order. You don't see a ton of political violence in the boom times when everyone basically just kind of agrees and we all get along.
but when there are shifts in the political order. You don't see a ton of political violence in the boom times when everyone basically just kind of agrees and we all get along.
But when there are shifts in the political order, then you see political violence spike. You saw this in our own country in the 1770s, the 1850s, the 1930s.
1770s, obviously, it's the revolutionary era. The 1850s is the lead up to the Civil War.
We saw a lot of political violence before that. The 1930s, you have major instability.
You've got fights between unions and law enforcement. You see fights between fascists and communists, anarchists.
Then in the 1960s, you see a lot of political violence. And if right now we really are in the midst of a political upheaval, if we are witnessing the end of the liberal consensus and we're living in the dawn of a new golden age, then what that means is expect more violence, specifically more violence from the people who don't want their own power to come to an end.
I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show. I do not know what is in the water in Durango, Colorado.
There is an, after I covered a school district in Durango, peddling crazy kinds of trans policies, even after President Trump is now trying to clean all of that up. Now there's a story.
Our own Daily Wire reporter, Marede Elordi, have you ever heard a more musical name than that? She just wrote a great piece about this of a teacher taking in an underage student against the will of the student's parents to live with this weird teacher who had a trans-identifying partner.. There's so much more to say first, though.
Go to livegood.com slash Michael. Feeling like my best self means that I am vibrant, energetic, clear-headed, chiseled, sexy, mellifluous.
There are a lot of words that I could use. That's why I love hydration amplifiers and therapeutic great essential oils from LiveGood.
With LiveGood, I always feel like I am at my best. And what is better than that? LiveGood delivers premium supplements without the outrageous markups created by a team of natural health experts.
Their high-quality formulations include organic super greens, multivitamins, collagen, weight management solutions, protein powder, creatine, detox formulas, hormone support, and skincare, all at affordable prices. By eliminating middlemen, they've made premium wellness accessible to everyone.
It is no surprise they've become the fastest-growing supplement brand globally, now serving over 1.5 million satisfied customers and expanding rapidly. Especially good if you're up late, you travel a lot, you don't sleep very much, especially if you have a couple of Coca-Colas with the fellas.
Are you ready to make the switch and start saving? We will make it even easier for you. Click our link and you can save an additional 10% off your first order on top of the already low prices.
Go to livegood.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L to save 10 percent on your first order. That's livegood.com slash Michael.
Don't miss out on this opportunity to invest in your health without overspending. Speaking of violence, good news out of Utah.
Utah just passed a law to protect kids from YouTuber parents, specifically not just from abusive parents generally, but specifically from parents who would exploit their kids to put them on YouTube and other social media platforms to get clicks. So the new law says that online creators who make more than $150,000 a year from the content that they make that features children will be required to set aside 15% of those earnings into a trust fund that the kids can then access when they turn 18.
Now, this is just the latest iteration of laws and efforts to protect child actors. You remember, I remember the 90s, this was a big story.
These poor child actors who were dragged from audition to audition, from job to job by their parents, kids who were often abused by directors and producers and casting directors, they would make all this money and their families would live high on the hog managing the little kids.

And then by the time the kids turned 18, 22, there was no money left.

Kids were just exploited, used as a cash cow, and then they usually don't end up very well. So this is the latest version of it, spurred in part because of the story of Kevin and Ruby Frank.
They had a YouTube series called Eight Passengers. They would post videos with their kids up to five times per week.
They had two and a half million subscribers by 2020. And then Ruby Frank went completely insane and shacked up with her therapist, some other woman, and she took some of her kids with her, her younger kids.
And then there was this big police bust and the kids were found extremely malnourished, overworked, bleeding. I mean, it was really horrifying, like true horror movie level stuff.
And she's the spurring on of this law to protect the kids of YouTubers. But even though Ruby Frank quite visibly abused her kids, it's important for us to remember right now, all exploitation of children for social media clout is child abuse.
And this law doesn't go far enough as far as I'm concerned. It's a good start, but you got to make $150,000 a year from social media that features kids.
I don't know. What if you make $149,000? You got your kids working five days a week, making videos for you, and you're coming in just under that threshold.
You don't need to set aside any money for them. Even beyond that, even if you do set aside 15% for the kids, I don't think it's worth it.
I don't think we should tolerate that. I hate when I see people post pictures of their kids for social media clout.
I know there are some people who don't have a lot of followers on Instagram, don't have a lot of friends on Facebook, and they post a picture with the kids because they think that's mostly very close friends and family who are watching this. Even that, I would say, be careful.
There are creeps on the internet. What's on the internet is on the internet forever.
I wouldn't post pictures of your kids even, but then I understand it. However, I also see people, and it's not just celebrities and it's not just YouTube stars.
It's not just influencers. It's people who aspire to be influencers and Instagram stars.
They will post pictures with their kids or of their kids for clout. And I hate that.
I hate that. And the people who do it should be ashamed of themselves and stop.
And frankly, we should maybe pass laws against it. That is wrong of you to do.
Your kid did not consent to become a celebrity. You have an, even beyond the politics of consent, which I think are overrated, frankly, you have a duty as a parent to protect your kid.
Posting pictures of your kid all over the internet does not protect your kid at all. It makes your kid vulnerable.
Don't do that. That's very tempting because your kids are very cute and you'll get a lot of likes.
Don't do that. Resist that urge.
Really dark stuff. Do not hear me now.
I forget about what Utah said. I am issuing a full fatwa.
No pictures of your kids on social media for clout. Cut it out.
Maybe delete social media altogether if you struggle with that. Nihil Obstat, you heard it here.
Speaking of women desperate for attention, Meghan Markle. Meghan Markle, she just flits from one public failure to another.
Meghan Markle is launching a new podcast because all of her other projects have been so successful ever since she broke up the British royal family. Meghan Markle is launching a new show called

Confession of the have been so successful ever since she broke up the British royal family.

Meghan Markle is launching a new show called Confessions of a Female Founder.

This is Meghan Markle's podcast to share all of the great business acumen she's developed.

I'm Meghan, and this is Confessions of a Female Founder, a show where I chat with female entrepreneurs and friends about the sleepless nights, the lessons learned, and the laser focus that got them to where they are today. And the kind of advice that turns small ideas into billion-dollar businesses.
And of course, we're going to get some girl talk.

Are you saying you're not single now?

Have I missed something in the past couple of weeks? What's happening? Can we stay focused, please? And through it all, I'm building a business of my own and getting all sorts of practical advice along the way that I'm very excited to share with you. I might watch it just in the same way

that I turn my head to see a car accident.

I might, or I guess it's just an audio podcast.

I might listen to it maybe to one episode

just to see how bad, that trailer,

that seems like the worst show that I've ever heard of.

The nearest thing Meghan Markle ever had to a billion-dollar idea was marrying a prince. And even that didn't work out.
Because she decided she didn't want to be a real princess. Because to be a real princess involves duty and responsibility and caring about other people.
And so she just wanted to be a pretend princess in Hollywood. So she split her husband off from his royal family and then inked a zillion dollar deal with a bunch of media companies and then all her projects flopped.
So naturally, she's going to start a podcast about business. But there's a little girl talk in there too.
I don't mention it only to make fun of Meghan Markle. I mention it to point out the Joe Rogan problem.
The Joe Rogan problem that the left has encountered. Trump goes on Joe Rogan.
It's a huge hit. Zillions of views, very popular, probably moved votes.
Elon Musk can go on Joe Rogan. It's great.
J.D. Vance, he can hang on Joe Rogan.
Go for however many hours you want. It helps him.
Kamala Harris can't go on Joe Rogan. Joe Biden certainly can't go on Joe Rogan.
Couldn't stay awake for more than 15 minutes. The libs can't handle podcasting.
The right has dominated podcasting. It's not that there are no left-wing podcasts.
There are some. But the right and the center and the center- own podcasting why because podcasting requires one systematic thought and the left these whatever systematic thought has ever existed on the left it has just absolutely crumbled under the weight of its own inconsistencies and the right is able to sustain that but but even beyond that even for people on the right who don't have particularly systematic thought, the right can hang.
The right does not feel that it needs to put up artifice all the time. That's what's most offensive about Meghan Markle's podcast is it sounds so artificial.
We, you know, we love girl power. We're going to learn from these female business leaders.
There are women in business. Statistically, 100% of people who have succeeded in business have been men, including today.
So it's not about business insight. It's about pushing this ideology of feminism, which is false.
And we're going to have a little girl talk too. Does anyone believe that Meghan Markle has girlfriends? Women generally don't have girlfriends because women generally kind of hate each other.
I'm just, the left can't talk about that kind of stuff. See, on the right-wing podcasts, we can say things that are not totally politically accepted or politically correct.
But one can speak authentically about those things. The left can't do it.
We have girl talk, tee hee hee. And you know, it's a lot of fun.
Hey girl, you're still single. It's just so inauthentic.
Why would I watch it? With podcasting, podcasting can be weird. You can lose your train of thought.
You can sometimes say things that are offensive or whatever, but it's a much more intimate medium. And the left has lost its intimacy with the people because of its artifice.
The right has increased in intimacy with people because it has embraced common sense. And there is no greater expression of that than Donald Trump and the 2024 election, the vindication of Trump's political career.
But you see it. It's not just Trump.
You see it everywhere, in the media, in corporate America, in politics. Not expecting Meghan Markle's show to get many views, though it might get one view, at least from me.
There's so much more to say. First, though, go to prageru.com slash dw.
I want to tell you about my friends at PragerU, the conservative nonprofit fighting to educate the next generation and win back the culture. Now you might know, I've been with PragerU in some form or other for almost 10 years now.
I think I was the first face of PragerForce. I've written on a lot of the PragerU videos.
I host a show at PragerU called the Book Club. Conservatives won big in November, but the fight is far from over.
The libs still control our schools and are undermining our faith, family, and freedom. One election will not fix that.
That's why PragerU is making real, lasting change. They're reaching young people like never before with pro-American religious content, nearly 2 billion views a year, with 65% of their audience under 35.
PragerU is getting into classrooms. Nine states have already partnered with them to bring PragerU videos and books into schools, with more states on the way.
But they can't do it alone. Right now, every dollar you give is triple matched to help push back against radical indoctrination.
Do not wait. Go to prageru.com slash DW.
Make your donation today, which will be triple matched. Together, we can keep the momentum going and stand strong for our values.
PragerU.com slash DW. Also, go to TheCandleClub.com.
Get one of the last remaining Smells and Bells candles. Our best-selling candle.
I love it. Listen to that chant in the background.
That's lovely. Make your home smell like a 12th century monastery.
Can we just,

I just kind of want to sit here silently and listen to that beautiful chanting. Mr.
Davies,

am I permitted to do that? Can I? I call the shots around here. I'll do it if I want,

but I know we have to move on with the show. We're going to turn away from Meghan Markle,

but we are going to stick with insufferable women in media. We turn to the CEO of NPR, National Public Radio.
That is Catherine Marr, who just testified before Congress.

And Representative Brandon Gill, the Republican freshman class president in Congress,

first-termer, up-and-comer, really sharp guy, really has his finger on the pulse. He obliterated this woman with her own words.
It's interesting because a lot of your thinking, as expressed by your public statements, is deeply infused with economic and cultural Marxism. Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy? I believe that I tweeted that, and as I've said earlier, I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade.
It has evolved. Why did you tweet that? I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't be able to say.
Okay. Do you believe that America believes in black plunder and white democracy? I don't believe that, sir.
You tweeted that in reference to a book you were reading at the time, apparently, The Case for Reparations. I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.
You tweeted about it. You said you took a day off to fully read The Case for Reparations.
You put that on Twitter in January of 2020. Apologies, I don't recall that I did.
Okay. I have no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall that.
Okay. Do you believe that white people inherently feel superior to other races? I do not.
You don't? You tweeted something to that effect. You said, I grew up feeling superior.
How white of me? Why did you tweet that? Put a pause right there. This is just an absolute master class.
So he hits her. She knows that he's going to hit her.
And she says, my thinking has evolved, which can be a true statement. Our thinking, I guess, is always evolving.
Doesn't mean you're changing your opinions to contradict what they previously were. They might be deepening.
Her opinion might have started out as, I don't know, white people are evil, men are evil, and her opinion might have evolved to white people are even more evil than I thought they were. Men are even more evil than I thought they were.
But then she gets caught in a lie, which is, he says, okay, you read this book, right? And you really liked this book. She goes, I don't think I've ever read that book.
And he says, well, you tweeted about it. You said, I just read this whole book in a day.
Now I've read a lot of books actually, not bragging. It's a little humble brag, I guess, but I've read a lot of books.
I don't remember the content of every book I've ever read, but I generally remember that I read the book, even a book I read 10 years ago, 15 years ago, certainly a book I read five years ago, certainly a book I would have posted about having read five years ago. So either she's lying now or she was lying then and she didn't actually read the book.
Or I don't know, maybe it was some staffer who tweeted this and she's pretending that it's her. But either way, this is a dishonest woman, and Gil doesn't let up.
He keeps going. Why did you tweet that? I think I was probably reflecting on what it was to grow up in an environment where I had lots of advantages.
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior. I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir.
I was just reflecting on my own experience. Okay, that also doesn't make any sense.
She said, you know, this was my experience as a kid, you know, and I wasn't aware and how superior I felt and blah, blah, blah. How white of me.
So she says, how white of me. All of a sudden, she can't be referring just to her personal subjective experience.
She's making a claim about white people. Oh, I just did a thing that is characteristic of white people.
So he says, oh, that's how you think about white people? And she says, no, I'm just talking about myself. That is contradicted by the plain text of what she's saying.
This woman is, in principle, the head of a major journalist organization. She doesn't know how the English english language works maybe she doesn't know i'm not talking about arcane and obscure political devices i'm talking about like the basic functions of grammar and the basic meaning of words she doesn't know yikes probably shouldn't be in that job then or she's lying.
And Brandon finally finishes his absolute clobbering of the head of NPR. You think the white people should pay reparations? I have never said that, sir.
Yes, you did. You said it in January of 2020.
You tweeted, yes, the North. Yes, all of us.
Yes, America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt.
Yes, reparations. Yes, on this day.
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir. What kind of reparations was it a reference to? I think it was just a reference to the idea that we all owe much to the people who came before us.
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay, how much reparations have you personally paid? Sir, I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations.
Okay, just for everybody else. I'm not asking anyone to pay reparations.
Seems to be what you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting is morally wrong? I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to it as counterproductive.
I think it should be prosecuted. Do you believe it's morally wrong, though? Of course.
Of course. Then why did you refer to it as counterproductive.
I think it should be prosecuted. You believe it's morally wrong though? Of course.
Of course. Then why did you refer to it as counterproductive? It's a very different way to describe it.
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive as well as being illegal. You tweeted, it's hard to be mad about protests in reference to the BLM protests.
Okay, so this is what I don't get about this woman. She knows what's coming.
She goes, oh, I called it counterproductive, and I obviously think they're perfectly moral, but I'll say now that they're immoral. She saw it coming, but then when it comes to a remark about reparations, she said, I've never endorsed reparations.
She knows that Brandon has the receipts. She knows he's a smart guy.
He's got all the receipts, her own words, and yet she goes so brazenly. Says, no, I've never said that.
He says, okay, well, here are your own words. Reparations are awesome.
I love reparations. Let's have more reparations.
Not a verbatim quote, but that was pretty much what she was saying. And she has the temerity to look him and really all of us right in the face and say, oh, no, I didn't mean financial reparations.
When I was talking about reparations, a word is almost exclusively used to refer to financial reparations in the context of a book called The Case for Reparations, which is explicitly about financial reparations. No, I didn't.
Where'd you get the idea I meant financial reparations? And he starts laughing. He says, okay, if you didn't mean that, what'd you mean? She goes, I just mean we should be grateful to our forebears.
He laughed. What do you say you're going to do but laugh? She's lying.
And she's not even lying effectively. That's what's most offensive about it.
She's not even lying plausibly. We need to defund NPR.
Period. Full stop.
Defund it. If NPR had any wisdom whatsoever, they would have fired this woman a long time ago.
But regardless, we should fire all of NPR. Defund NPR.
And you know what the libs are going to say. They're going to say, Michael, you've fallen for the disinformation because NPR is not really funded by the government.
What the left is going to say is only 1% of NPR's budget comes from the government, specifically from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That's not quite true because NPR does get a lot of funding from its stations, which pay programming fees, which are much higher than 1%.

They're more like 10%.

So the stations get around 10% of their funding from the government, and the stations pay the programming fees to NPR.

So how much does NPR rely on the government for its budget?

I don't know, maybe it's more like 3%, 4%.

And the libs are still going to say, well, that doesn't matter. That's not a lot.
Okay, well, then what I say is, great. We agree.
We say that NPR doesn't need to get government funding. We say it with an angry tone.
We say NPR does not need to get government funding. But you libs, when you're defending NPR, you say NPR doesn't need to get government funding.
NPR would be just fine on its own without government funding. The government funding is negligible to NPR.
Great. Well, it sounds like we agree.
How amazing. In our polarized world, we have found one issue on which we agree, which is that NPR does not need that government funding.
The Republicans should end every red cent that goes to NPR tomorrow, which will actually be harder to do from the perspective of government funding of the stations, which pay the programming fees. But we should defund NPR.
Let them make it on their own. Unless you think your taxpayer dollars should go to a group that is led by a woman who thinks that white people are terrible and we should pay racial reparations to black people and believes a whole bunch of other nonsense that congressman brandon gill just masterfully exposed crazy there's so much more to say first though go to simplerhaircolor.com nulls.
For those of you who have not been blessed with the Sicilian genes for dark, luxurious hair, there's still hope. If you're tired of those science experiments just to cover your grays, Simpler Hair Color gets it done without the mess or the mixing.
Just gentler ingredients that work and make covering grays simple. Simpler Hair Color was created by Snehal Patel and Mitch Brown,

two guys who were fed up with messy dye kits

and expensive salon trips.

They made something far better,

and it is specifically formulated for men.

One can does it all.

Hair, beard, and touch-ups,

giving you the same coverage

as four boxes of drugstore dye.

It's proudly made in the USA

with over 9,500 five-star reviews.

Simpler Hair Color has a full variety of shades to match any guy's hair and beard. Go to simplerhaircolor.com slash

Knowles. Use code Knowles for 10% off your order.
Simplerhaircolor.com slash Knowles. 10% off.
Make

sure you use promo code Knowles so that they know without any question, beyond a shadow of a doubt,

that I sent you. Speaking of Trump initiatives, I hope it becomes an initiative to defund NPR.
Right now, though, we're getting some really good ones. President Trump has just issued an executive order requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
Also in the executive order, it requires that all ballots be received by election day. that's it.
That should not be a news story. No one should care about that.
That should be boring. It should be a fait accompli.
There shouldn't be an executive order for that because there shouldn't need to be an executive order for that. But the left makes it controversial.
Go out on the street, ask 100 people. Do you think that, since we're going to have mail-in ballots anyway, which even that is a little outrageous to me, but if we're going to have widespread mail-in ballots, then should all of them be counted by election day? Or should we, should you just be able to mail it in whenever you want? You know, like the elections in 2024 and people go to vote and Trump wins and becomes the president, But you don't really like what he's doing.
So maybe somewhere around mid 2025, you mail in your ballot finally and you say, no, I actually don't like him. Do you do what do we do then? Do we just remove Trump from office? Do we what's the limit on mail in ballots? Well, we have a limit, a natural limit is called Election Day.
And there are a small number of people who rely on mail in ballots. I don't think we need them to be as widespread as they currently are.
But I think 100% of people almost would agree with that. I think 100% of people almost, not quite 100, but let's call it 80% believe that people should have to prove that they're citizens of the country in order to vote in federal elections.
In fact, I know that 80% of the people believe that because I've seen the consistent public opinion polls on voter ID. So this is some political brilliance here from Trump.
Trump issues the executive order, which will have a direct effect on elections, at least federal elections, not state and local elections. Maybe state and local elections in as much as people want to vote for everything at once.
So it's going to encourage more people to register to vote, discourage more people, encourage more people to present their proof of citizenship, discourage more people who are not citizens from voting. But what the libs are going to say, this is what you're going to hear when you mention it at the water cooler tomorrow.
The libs are going to say, well, the amount of voter fraud is negligible. The number of non-citizens voting, it's negligible.
First of all, you don't really know that because you don't know what you don't know. Voting is so diffuse in America, especially with mail-in voting, it's virtually impossible to track fraud.
So you don't know. You don't know what you don't know.
We hear about high-profile cases. That's enough for me to say, okay, we got to prove it.
And just the principle is enough for me to say, you need to prove that you are a citizen in order to vote. But then the libs are going to say, well, we didn't always require this.
This is a novelty in America. We don't traditionally require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.
Yeah, you're right.

We didn't always have 16 million illegal aliens in America either.

But you forced conservatively 11 to 16 million illegal aliens on us by opening the borders and inviting them in.

So now we have to react.

If we're going to continue to have a democracy, if we're going to continue to have self-government, the bare minimum that we can do is require proof of citizenship to vote. And guess what? 80% of Americans agree with us.
So why would Democrats oppose this kind of a measure? Because they think it is that politically helpful to them to allow the conditions for illegal aliens to vote. It's the only way to explain it.
There's no principle of justice that says that illegal aliens should vote in elections. There's no principle of law that says that illegal aliens should vote in elections.
And it's politically very unpopular to say that illegal aliens should be permitted to vote in elections, that we shouldn't have voter ID laws. So the only reason that Democrats would possibly oppose this would be because they think they rely on it.
I don't know. And that fact alone, I think, could tick this from an 80-20 issue to, I don't know, 85, 15, 90, 10.
So the libs are in a bad spot. The best way they can hit Trump right now is the Signal group chat, top boys of the Trump admin texting about the Hootie terror strikes story.
You remember the story? We talked about it yesterday. It's probably the biggest story in the country right now because the libs control the media.
There is a group, and because it is a legitimately pretty bizarre story. There's a group chat between J.D.
Vance, SecDef, Pete Hegseth, NSA, Michael Walls, John Ratcliffe, head of the CIA, was in there. I think Rubio might've been there been there secretary of state so there were a lot of real top dogs in the trump administration and jeffrey goldberg the editor of the atlantic a liberal magazine how did he get in there he publishes this article he says the trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans it's unclear it seems as though the national security advisor mike, Mike Waltz, added Jeffrey Goldberg inadvertently.

It's unclear.

In any case, it's caused a lot of trouble in the press for the Trump administration.

And he's doubling down.

So Hegseth came out.

The admin came out and was trying to tamp down the story.

The Atlantic says, here are the attack plans that Trump's advisors shared on Signal. So they've changed it now.
You notice it's not, no longer calling it war plans. They're calling it attack plans.
So that's a shift in the Atlantic's rhetoric. Maybe they're trying to tone it down a little bit, but they're trying to counter Pete Hegseth, who said, no one texted war plans.
So, okay, we'll call it attack plans, but still we were in these texts and the texts were pretty weird. And it's a weird story.

It's notable. Not good.
Nobody would say it's good that they added this lib journalist. And some people are saying it was 5D chess and actually they wanted it to leak because they wanted to signal to Europe how upset they were that Europe wasn't ponying up for defense and opening the shipping lanes in the Middle East.
And I think that's all too clever by half. I don't think administrations usually leak information in a way to intentionally make themselves look bad in order to send a message.
I don't buy that. It was probably a mistake.
But no one really cares. No one really cares.
All of the libs trying to get Pete Hexeth to resign are the same libs who were fighting tooth and nail not to confirm him in the first place. Their hatred of Pete Hexeth has pretty much nothing to do with this.
Pete Hexeth wasn't even the guy who added Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat. The people now who are making a big hullabaloo about classified information being stored improperly, all these people on the left supported Hillary Clinton, who stored classified information in a far less proper way.
All these people on the left calling this the worst foreign policy blunder, national security blunder in recent memory. Susan Rice did that recently.
These are people, Susan Rice actually in her defense was not actually involved in the Benghazi attack, but she became the fall man in the face of the Benghazi attack. These are people who totally bungled Benghazi.
These are people who in more recent memory totally bungled the pullout from Afghanistan, gave billions of dollars of weapons to our enemies, saw American troops killed. I mean, you know, give me a break.
Give me a break. No one really cares.
The left, obviously, is being ridiculous about this. But even on the right, no one really cares because our politics right now is simply too polarized to care.
There was a time when politics seemed a little bit more kumbaya. After the tumult of the 1960s, the political establishment kind of congealed a little bit more in the 1970s.
And you had a situation where Republicans would help Democrats to oust Richard Nixon, which was absurd, but it's because there was a little bit more of a consensus. But as I mentioned at the top of the show, during periods of political shift, a changing of the political order, you don't see that kumbaya.
In fact, sometimes it can bleed over into political violence. We're in one of those moments right now.
And no one is going to turn on Trump or Pete Hegseth or J.D. Vance or even Mike Waltz or any of these people over a group chat.
It's not going to happen. The stakes are too high.
If the Democrats were more reasonable, if the Democrats weren't transing little kids and slaughtering babies and opening our border to a mass invasion of face-tattooed criminals. If the Democrats were

a little more normal, maybe the Republicans would be more willing to slap their own on the wrist. But with stakes like this, uh-uh.
We ain't turning on our own over a group chat, okay? It's going to take a lot more than that. Maybe there's pretty much nothing that would get us to relax our fists, reconsider our position in this kind of a pitched battle of the culture war.
You know, the Daily Wire gives you the facts and our unapologetic opinions. While we report on the administration's recent immigration policies that are finally making the border safer, legacy outlets downplay the numbers and ignore the obvious.
Why did it take record-breaking chaos to get here? Who is accountable for the damage of the last four years? This is why the Daily Wire exists. No spin, no censorship, just the truth.
Join us at dailywire.com slash subscribe. My favorite comment yesterday is from Nathan by Water, 3888, who says, to be fair, I've called governor Abbott hot wheels for years.
I've also voted for him multiple times. I think he's doing a great job.
The bros understand that's so true. That is so true.
You can, I'm going to, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. You can make all sorts of nasty, offensive, politically incorrect jokes.
You can make sexist jokes, racist jokes, all sorts of jokes, if they're jokes, if they are done with charity toward your friends, it's fine. I'm sure Governor Abbott's buddies make jokes about his wheelchair too, and it's all fine.
The problem is Jasmine Crockett was just making a very nasty comment, mocking a man for his disability because he's been a paralytic since he was a young man. And people don't like that.
Even many Democrats don't like that. Not a good look.
Not a good look. You know what else is not a good look? When LGBT activist teachers with their trans-identifying husbands invite minors, teen girls, into their home against the wishes of the teen's mother.
I know I'm being very specific here. This is a very specific news story.
Written by Daily Wire's very own Maraid Elordi. Maraid, thank you so much for coming on the show.
Michael, thank you so much. Maraid, I want to, whenever I say your name, I want to say it like a leprechaun with a little bit of a little, it's just a beautiful name.
I really like it. And I wish we had more beautiful musical names like that at the Daily Wire, but we don't.
We just have clunky nonsense like Ben and Matt. Anyway, we need more marades.
I digress. Tell me about this story.
So this story, you can almost hardly believe it when you read it, but I spent a few weeks reporting on this. It's a vulnerable 17-year-old girl in Durango, Colorado.
She identifies as a boy and she had a fight with her mom. She went to her math teacher's house, now her former math teacher, and this teacher is married to a trans-identifying man who ran for state senate as a democrat in Colorado.
These two people, they're both, you know, they're the teachers Facebook pages full of LGBT activism posts. They took in this 17 year old girl and her mother would like her to come home.
She's, she actually has turned 18 now, but when she was 17, her mother wanted her to come home. She even called the police to this teacher's house to try to get her child to come home with her.
And the police say there's nothing we can do. They did a welfare check.
Basically, they say tough luck. And now her child is 18.
There's nothing she can do. And the child is still

living. Well, now an 18 year old is still living with her former math teacher and this trans identifying man who is married to the teacher.
So it's just an example of a vulnerable teen. Things were tough at home when she decided to start identifying as a boy.
Her mother had cancer a couple of years ago, and her mother thinks that that really made her become withdrawn from the family. She also has several diagnoses, depression, anxiety, and eating disorder.
She's autistic. I think we've seen a lot of autistic kids identify as trans in the last few years.
And this is just from what I know, and I've reported a lot on these transgender issues and especially the public school issues. This to me is one of the most serious cases I've seen of what happens when a child identifies as transgender.
They end up living with their teacher and their teacher's trans-identifying male husband. And for some reason, the police can't do anything.
So this town, I covered a story just a few weeks ago out of Durango, Colorado. The school's promoting all this radical LGBT nonsense.
They hate the American flag, but they love the rainbow flag, want to plaster it everywhere. It seems like there's something in the water in this town.
What I don't understand what this town's police department is, or Child Protective Services, or whichever agency went over to actually get this girl. How do the cops not have the ability to take a minor out of someone else's home, some teacher's home, a teacher who obviously engages in aberrant, deviant sexual desires, and return the minor.
I get it at 18, you can't do anything, but the mother doesn't have any recourse. The law says, no, your child wants to go live with some sex freaks down the street, one of whom was her teacher.
Sorry, our hands are tied. What? Well, I asked the police department, I don't understand why were you not able to bring her home with her mother? Her mother's at the bottom of the driveway saying, can you please go get my kid? And the police department said to me, well, our policy is for juvenile non-offenders.
We can take them into custody if they're under the influence, if they're, you know, situations like that, but not this. And we got the police body cam of this incident and the officers who show up they tell the mom well minor and child are not the same thing so and they tell they told the girl when they spoke to her things get a little more complicated when we're 17 years old and we can decide who we hang out with so I really am still confused to be honest I guess they have decided that 17 is basically an adult, and we're not going to physically remove her from this home.
Well, bully for the cops that they've decided this, that's not what the law says. I mean, that's what's so bizarre.
I remember when I was 17, I sure felt like an adult. When I was 12, I felt like an adult, but I wasn't.
So it just, I don't know, this whole, they need to film a horror movie in this town or something because something is clearly deeply wrong here. That even the cops are in on this, even the cops are promoting this bizarre, sexually abusive ideology and behavior, totally insane.
The teacher has been fired i hope she doesn't work for durango high school anymore but she was the girl's math teacher i'm not sure if she was let go or how that happened but she doesn't work there anymore totally gross freaky scary and i don't think it's just durango i mean you've covered these sorts of issues for a while. How pervasive is this kind of stuff in schools?

Well, I think it really blew up under the Biden administration of public schools having policies that interpret Title IX in a way that includes gender ideology.

So I remember a couple of years ago when I first started reporting on how pervasive kids being exposed to gender ideology is in classrooms and public schools, people were very skeptical and they thought, oh, surely it's, you know, this is just in liberal cities. This is not every public school, but it really was appeared to be virtually every public school.
It's every public school. We're getting exposed to this ideology.
Now, before I let you go, just to be fair to the libs, or to give them more than is their due, actually, in this case, I understand the lib perspective. Here's the lib perspective.
You're going to say this poor LGBT child, LGBT youth, was being raised in an oppressive conservative household that would not allow her to be her true self. And she sought comfort and freedom in the home of one of her open-minded teachers who would allow her to explore her true identity and live.
And actually they'd say him. They would say him.
That's right. They would call her a him.
And they would say this. And this, even among people who are kind of centrist, this ideology has a certain appeal.
The poor beleaguered LGBT youth with the evil oppressive parents who probably deep down want to subject the child to conversion therapy. All therapy is conversion therapy, but if there's conversion therapy, and who knows, they'll probably use electrodes or something.
How do we combat that myth? Well, I think we have to start looking at the results of children who went down that road. And we are seeing that with detransitioners, obviously.
But there's also more research coming out about what happens to people after the newness of a trans identity wears off. Because we really didn't have that for a while.
You know, all this research saying, oh, it improves people's depression, anxiety. They were looking at very short periods of time where, you know, oh, I've got a new identity.
It's new. It's exciting.
People are affirming me. I'm getting attention.
And now I think we're starting to see research that looks at over 10 years, over 15 years, what happens to these people, and it doesn't look good so far. So I think just results are powerful.
And I think hopefully more of that will come out. That's a great point.
How do you puncture this mythos, reality? Reality is a good way to do it. Maraid, thank you so much for the report and for coming on the show and for allowing me to pronounce your name, which has improved my day after all of these new stories.
Good to see you.

Thank you so much, Michael.

See you next time.

I'll see all of you next time.

I can't do the member of segmentum today.

I have to fly to Washington.

I have to go to the White House, which is cool.

Maybe I'll try to get a glimpse of the great man himself, the great President Covfefe.

But we'll have much to report on anyway next time I see you.

I'm Michael Knowles.

This is The Michael Knowles Show.

See you tomorrow.