Ep. 868 - Hypersonic Nuclear Missile Vs Transgender General
A man without any military experience becomes the nation’s first female four-star general, the CDC accidentally admits that abortion is infanticide, and the Washington Post tells you to stop complaining about the supply chain crisis.
My new book ’Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,’ is now available wherever books are sold. Grab your copy today here: https://utm.io/udtMJ
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
A man without any military experience has just become our nation's first female four-star admiral.
According to the news media, Dr.
Rachel Levine has become the nation's first female four-star admiral.
The only problem with those news reports is that he is not a four-star admiral and he isn't a female and he isn't Rachel.
He's Richard.
But our news media and our government have little to do with reality these days.
So according to them, Dr.
Levine has just shattered the glass ceiling.
You go, girl!
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday from George Rapko who says, In August, we mocked the Taliban for not being able to run an airport.
In October, we applauded the Secretary of Transportation in America for not being able to run a shipping dock.
Yes, that is true.
It would seem that before we start throwing stones and mocking other people, we ought to take a look at our Have a little introspection.
One of my favorite ways to engage in some introspection is to go sit outside and light up a delicious cigar.
You know where I get my cigars?
Thompson cigar.
I have been a customer of Thompson cigars since I was 16 years old, since my mother bought me my first box of cigars for Christmas that year.
There were not supply chain issues that year, so it was...
And I still have part of that box.
They've got the biggest brands, the best brands.
They've got even some smaller brands that you might not have heard of.
They have absolutely the best prices.
They're a wonderful, wonderful company to work with.
I am more than happy to offer you my recommendations on what to go out there and get.
That first box that my mother got me was the Oliva Series O, the little Perfecto cigar.
It's absolutely great.
But it's my favorite hobby.
I take as many opportunities as I can to sit out with a good book, And a nice drink and a good cigar, especially one from Thompson.
Sit back, take a break from all the craziness with a cigar from Thompson Cigar Company.
They rarely do offers quite like this, but right now they're offering our listeners 15% off orders over $75 or 20% off orders over $99.
To take advantage of these savings, go to ThompsonCigar.com slash Knowles.
Use promo code Knowles at checkout.
T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N Cigar.com slash Knowles.
Promo code Knowles.
Levine.
Rachel Levine, as he is now called, but whose real name is Richard Levine, is a man who believes that he is a woman, and he is the Assistant Secretary for Health.
That fact alone is an indictment of our country.
Okay, I don't want to be mean here, but this is a very, very confused individual, and this very, very confused individual...
Who is deluded about very basic aspects of reality is the Assistant Secretary for Health in the United States.
And no longer just the Assistant Secretary for Health, but technically a four-star admiral.
Now this is a little bit confusing because you're expecting, when you think of an admiral, you think of...
John McCain, Sr.
or something like that, right?
When you think of an admiral or a general, you're thinking of MacArthur or Patton.
But Mr.
Levine is an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Services Commissioned Corps.
So this is much more an honorary title than it is, you know, this guy storming the beaches of Iwo Jima or something.
He is the nation's first openly transgender four-star officer across any of the eight uniformed services, the five military services and then the other ones.
This according to an HHS press release, Health and Human Services.
And what they also say is, quote, today's historic announcement builds on the accomplishments of LGBTQ plus history month and is a major step forward as we work to create a more inclusive society.
So Dr. Levine is not being given this title because of anything he has done.
You can read it just in the press release.
He He's being given this because of what he represents, because he identifies as a woman, and this is part of the LGBTQ umbrella.
And this month, and I know this part's confusing too, is also LGBTQ month.
Now, you might have thought, Michael, I thought LGBTQ month was back in June, back when we had all the pride parades.
That month is also LGBTQ month, so we now have a full one-sixth of the year dedicated to unusual sexual desires.
I assume there's going to be a third month added at some point in the near future.
Pretty soon it will just be LGBTQ year and it'll just be every single month of the year.
Dr.
Levine, for his part, says, quote, I am humbled to serve as the first female four-star officer of the U.S. Public Health Service.
And first openly transgender for a star officer across the uniformed services.
This is a momentous occasion and I'm pleased to take this role for the impact I can make for the historic nature of what it symbolizes.
May this appointment be the first of many like it as we create a more inclusive future.
We are living in clown world, folks.
This is not something that a serious society does.
But we are no longer a serious society, and we no longer have even the tenuous grasp on reality that we have in recent years.
That's gone.
That's totally severed.
When you have a dude as the first female four-star officer, and it's not even really a four-star officer, it's a public health role, you've lost the thread.
You've lost it.
And it's no knock on him.
He's a confused person who should receive help.
But it is a knock on us, because...
That is not inclusive or diverse or equitable or compassionate to anybody when you have a society that is living in lies and fantasy and delusion.
And it's also disrespectful even of this guy, because even he is acknowledging his appointment has basically nothing to do with his accomplishments or his unique abilities, and it has everything to do with the fact that he mistakenly believes himself to be a woman.
Also, what about the women?
What about the women?
Wouldn't it be nice if a woman were the first female whatever?
You would think that if women deserve anything, the women deserve to be the first woman whatever.
But they're not.
Now the men are the first women whatever.
Margaret Atwood, who is the author of, what is that awful?
Handmaid's Tale.
So, Margaret Atwood wrote Handmaid's Tale, and that's what the TV series is based on.
This dystopian future in which women are oppressed and everything's terrible.
Margaret Atwood has come out and questioned some of this madness.
Some of this transgender madness.
Not directly speaking to Dr.
Levine or any of these people individually, but just retweeting a column.
It was in the Toronto Star.
Headline is, why can't we say woman anymore?
We're not allowed to say woman.
We have to refer to person with a cervix.
We need to refer to person who menstruates.
We need to refer to birthing people, but we're not allowed to say woman.
And Margaret Atwood says, hold on, wait.
Why can't we say woman?
Woman.
You know, what this shows is something ironic.
It's something conservatives have known for a very long time, but the libs have deluded themselves as they want to do, which is that the real handmaid's tale, by which we mean the real oppression of women such as it is, It does not come from the right.
It doesn't come from conservatives.
It doesn't come from Christians.
It comes from the libs.
It comes from the libs who are, in this case, erasing women from the public square and giving women's jobs to men and pretending that men are women.
But it's been going on for a long time from the left side of the political equation.
It's been going on since the second wave feminists said a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
At least since that time.
Just look at the public opinion surveys.
It's very difficult to measure happiness and I'm skeptical of social science.
But every survey of women's happiness since this gender bending second wave of feminism has shown that women's happiness has declined.
It has not increased, it's declined.
Both relative to the happiness of men and in absolute terms.
Why is that?
Because it turns out that having men behave, or having women rather, behave like men in the workplace, in their personal relationships, in every aspect of society doesn't actually make women happier.
The lib view of men and women, going back at least to the second wave feminists and really earlier, is that men and women are identical.
The conservative view of men and women is that men and women are complementary.
So in the lib view, the only differences between men and women are superficial.
Any differences that may result in society between men and women are obviously the result of oppression, and women need to just do whatever men do.
The Christian conservative view is that men need women and women need men and we go together and that's what forms the family and that's what forms society and it's a wonderful thing.
And there will never be a war between the sexes because everyone is sleeping with the enemy.
It's the Christian view and it happens to be correct.
And it turns out that that view, the idea that men and women are different, is actually not the oppressive one.
The oppressive one comes from those who would deny the differences between the sexes.
Speaking of men taking jobs from women, Pete Buttigieg remains on paternity leave.
I think he might be winding it down, though, because he's getting a lot of negative flack for this.
So Pete Buttigieg goes on CNN, he goes on Jake Tapper's show to address the preposterous fact that he has been on paternity leave for two months amid a major transportation crisis.
And he says he's not going to apologize.
This is the first time you've been on the show since you and your husband, Chastin, welcomed twins Penelope and Joseph into your family.
You just returned from paternity leave, which Congress is debating right now.
Some conservatives have been citing your experience in an effort to mock the very idea of paternity leave.
Take a listen.
Pete Buttigieg has been on leave from his job since August after adopting a child.
Paternity leave, they call it, trying to figure out how to breastfeed.
No word on how that went.
What's your response?
As you might imagine we're bottle feeding.
And doing it at all hours of the day and night.
And I'm not going to apologize to Tucker Carlson or anyone else for taking care of my premature newborn infant twins.
The work that we are doing is joyful, fulfilling, wonderful work.
It's important work.
And it's work that every American ought to be able to do when they welcome a new child into their family.
It is joyful work.
It is important work to raise a baby.
It is.
And families should do that.
Cabinet secretaries don't get to play stay-at-home mom forever.
They don't get to do it.
You can do either one.
You can either be a cabinet secretary and do your job, or you can play stay-at-home mom.
You can't do both.
You actually can't have it all.
I agree with Buttigieg.
Frankly, I think that being a mom and raising a baby and being the hand that rocks the cradle and rules the world, I think that's much more important than being the transportation secretary.
I actually don't think it's that cool or great a thing to be the transportation secretary.
But if that is your view, then quit, buddy.
Because someone does actually have to do that job.
So quit, let somebody do that job, and you can play stay-at-home mom and play with your kids.
And that's fine.
But you can't have it all.
And it's not just Buttigieg.
It's a lie that our society has told ourselves, that we can do everything, we don't have to make any sacrifices, and we never have to have any limits or make any choices.
And that is just a fantasy.
When you want to limit the number of people who are coming into your house unannounced, I would strongly recommend you check out Ring.
You know, I was on the road last week with my friend Senator Ted Cruz for our Verdict live tour, and it was a whole lot of fun, but I know that sometimes my wonderful wife and cute little baby...
Get a little bit nervous when I'm not in the house, okay?
This is why I am so thankful for Ring.
Ring Alarm will allow you to see and speak to whoever is at your door.
You're very well aware of their wonderful doorbell and camera.
But they'll let you keep an eye on every inch of your home, inside, outside the home.
You can control it all from an app.
If things go bump in the night, you don't need to be too worried.
The house starts creaking or something.
Or if you've got someone showing up to your door, a delivery man or a pizza guy or your in-laws.
And who knows how you're going to react to any of those things.
Ring makes it really easy.
It's so simple to install.
Even I can do it.
And it's extremely inexpensive.
Protect your home anywhere, anytime with Ring Alarm.
Go to ring.com slash Knowles for a special offer on the Ring Alarm Security Kit today.
Build a system that's right for your home.
Have it up and running in minutes.
Ring.com slash Knowles.
Ring.com slash Knowles.
Speaking of babies...
The CDC has just accidentally admitted that abortion is infanticide.
How did they do this?
Well, the way they did that is by admitting that an unborn baby is, in fact, a baby.
The left tries to pretend now that unborn babies are not babies.
They say, oh, it's a fetus.
They don't know that the Latin word fetus means offspring.
It means baby.
They'll say, it's an embryo.
Okay, well, what is an embryo?
An embryo is a small little baby.
It's a...
They'll use kind of silly terms that they don't even really know what they mean.
They'll say it's a zygote.
A zygote meaning that very earliest version of an embryo, which no babies that are aborted really are.
But sure, it's a baby.
It's a baby, it's a baby, it's a baby.
So the CDC tweets out, quote, Did you know that after receiving a Tdap vaccine during pregnancy, your body creates protective antibodies and passes some of them to your baby before birth?
Yes, we did know that, but what does this mean?
It means that your baby is a baby, and it's not just a baby after birth, it's a baby before birth, which means that if your baby is a baby before birth, then killing that baby is infanticide.
This is not very sophisticated logic here, folks.
We're talking really basic stuff.
And I think the reason the CDC tweeted this out, and I think the reason that it hasn't gotten more play, is that everyone knows...
At least on some level, that babies are babies.
And we like to delude ourselves and we like to deny it.
I mean, this is the thread that's running through our entire culture now.
It's just a deep level of denial based on preposterous ideologies that have no relation to reality.
But I think we all know, deep down, that the baby actually is a baby.
This is why, in at least many states, if you kill a pregnant mother, you are charged with double murder.
But, if that mother goes to an abortion clinic and a doctor kills that baby, it's a wonderful choice.
It's a wonderful, free, reproductive health, women's rights choice.
But it's the exact same action.
And the same action can't be two contradictory things at the same time.
The CDC, follow the science, the great authority of the CDC is admitting that this is the case.
And the question for us politically is, okay, we know the science, we know that the baby is a baby, and anyone who is being honest with himself will admit that.
So what are we going to do about it?
Naomi Wolf, the feminist, but at least she's something of a more honest feminist.
Naomi Wolf came out some years ago and said, look, we need abortion and abortion's good and we should support abortion, but we need to admit that we're killing a baby in his full humanity and we're doing it for the autonomy of women so that we can pretend that men and women are exactly the same and they won't have any unique constraints or limits or responsibilities.
So, okay, at least that's a somewhat honest argument.
The left can't bear that argument because it's so deeply immoral.
I think the first step to recovering from a problem is admitting that you have a problem.
The first step is acknowledging reality.
We're pretty far gone there, so I think that's the first thing we've got to establish.
Speaking of kids...
Terry McAuliffe.
Terry McAuliffe, the former governor of Virginia, wants to be the future governor of Virginia.
He's a Democrat of the very slimy Clinton model.
I wouldn't call him the most idealistic Democrat.
He's just kind of a sleazeball, corrupt politician, has very little respect for his constituents.
Terry McAuliffe got in trouble.
Because Terry McAuliffe said that parents should not have any say in their kids' education.
Take a listen.
You said you don't believe parents should be telling schools what to teach.
What did you mean by that?
Well, first of all, parents should be telling schools that they want their teachers to be vaccinated.
Do you think parents should have a say in the curriculum?
You don't want parents coming in in every different school jurisdiction.
You alluded to parents staying out of this.
We just want to make sure that we're understanding you correctly.
What is your stance on that as far as what school agendas have to say for the kids?
First of all, this is determined by the State Board of Education and local school boards, and that's where it should be.
Do you still stand by your position that parents should not tell the schools what they should teach?
You do not want 25 parents picking books.
Recall us, reply.
We have a Board of Ed, and we have local school boards who make the decisions about teaching.
I'm not going to let parents come into schools.
I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.
I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.
There you go.
Okay, so that's an ad from Glenn Youngkin, who is the Republican running against McAuliffe.
McAuliffe could not possibly be clear.
He said it on multiple occasions in multiple places.
Parents should have no say in how their kids are brought up and how their kids are educated and what their kids are learning.
That one line is very possibly going to cost him this election.
Virginia is a blue state.
Terry McAuliffe has already been the governor there, and yet they're running a pretty tight race right now, and it's because of this line.
It turns out parents don't like being told that they have no role in bringing up their kids.
So now what is McAuliffe doing?
He's denying that he ever said it.
As parents, Dorothy and I have always been involved in our kids' education.
We know good schools depend on involved parents.
That's why I want you to hear this from me.
Glenn Youngkin's taking my words out of context.
I've always valued the concerns of parents.
It's why, as governor, we scaled back standardized testing, expanded pre-K, and invested a billion dollars in public schools.
I'm Terry McAuliffe, candidate for governor, and I sponsored this ad because working together, we can give our kids the education they deserve.
What?
Did you not listen?
Maybe he didn't listen to the first clips where he says parents should not be involved in the kids' schools.
Parents should not be picking books.
The State Board of Education should pick everything.
Absolutely, the parents should have no role here in the schools.
Glenn Youngkin, my opponent is taking my words out of context.
There were like ten contexts and they all said the exact same thing.
I love parents.
It's good for parents to be involved.
Please vote for me.
Please.
I didn't realize.
My comments are out of context.
Out of context is increasingly the way that Democrats try to wiggle out of lies.
Okay, when you catch a Democrat in a lie...
They'll try to weasel out of it.
Look, a lot of people try to weasel out of lies in politics, but Democrats in particular get a little cover here because they control the media and the education system and the fact checkers and big tech.
So they've got a lot of cover to kind of weasel out of lies and twist everything.
But when you've got them dead to rights, do you know what they say?
They say it's missing context.
And you see this in all of the quote-unquote fact-checker left-wing outlets, and you see it in all of the little warning signs on big tech posts when a Republican catches a Democrat in a lie.
They'll say, no, it's missing context.
And the context is, you shouldn't worry about this because the Democrat is good.
The context you're missing is Terry McAuliffe good, Glenn Youngkin bad.
So you might think, because you're listening to the words of Terry McAuliffe, that maybe he's bad and Youngkin's good, but the context you're missing is Democrat good.
That's it.
What other context could there be here that they're missing?
Nothing.
Terry McAuliffe is lying.
You can see it.
You listen to the words yourself.
But the question is, do the libs have enough of a lock on the media and on the power structure that he'll be able to get away with it?
Speaking of schools, there's a story very few people are talking about, but I think it's important because it gets not just to this battle between the Dems and the Republicans or the libs and the conservatives or whatever.
It gets to a kind of structural problem in our system.
Public schools in Baltimore right now are monitoring student activities using software that recognizes certain words and phrases and then alerts school officials that a student might be in this case contemplating suicide.
So it's not that the school is looking for students typing in some naughty words to look at images they shouldn't be.
It's not that the schools are monitoring students looking for other naughty words that are suggesting that students are looking at political websites that they shouldn't be.
It's not even that.
It's specifically on this issue of suicide.
Now, the Baltimore Sun is calling the system controversial and pointing out they were added to laptops during the lockdowns.
When the students were using school laptops at home.
And now some people are pushing back against it.
Some people are fine with it.
And the issue doesn't cut exactly down party lines.
I don't think this issue is quite so simple as privacy versus safety.
Much like I don't think our debate over free speech or political correctness really is so simple as free speech versus censorship.
For starters, if you're going to use the school laptop, you're going to have to deal with the school surveillance.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Now, also, kids need some breadth to make mistakes and explore some crazy ideas and recognize that everything a kid types into a search bar is not something that they're seriously considering or seriously going to do.
Kids also, however, need supervision.
And so I just think this is a great issue to show.
And also, it's not like kids have absolute total rights against their teachers coming in and controlling what they do.
The teachers are standing in the place of the parents.
That's part of their job.
And they're helping to educate and raise the kids.
And that involves some degree of coercion.
I think what is helpful here is not ideology, not five bullet points on a napkin, not just these slogans, privacy versus surveillance.
I think what's important here is prudence, okay?
What are the schools looking at?
What are they trying to stop?
What are the limits?
I think if conservatives engage in this issue, but really in politics broadly, from less a perspective of these absolutes, these slogans and bumper stickers, and we get a little bit more prudential.
Let's not talk about vaccines in general.
Let's talk about this vaccine.
Let's not talk about lockdowns in general.
Let's talk about this lockdown.
Let's not talk about surveillance in general.
Let's talk about this surveillance.
I think we're going to have a much better argument to make and a much better chance at winning.
You know, Ben is going to be talking today about how to defeat the authoritarian left.
That's the title of his show, so go check that out today.
Also, go check out Morning Wire.
You can subscribe and start listening to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
You may have noticed that things cost a little bit more money these days, Gas costs more.
Eggs cost more.
Milk costs more.
You may have noticed it's harder to get things that you want to get.
The stores are increasingly bare and the authorities are telling you, get ready because the stores are not going to be that well stocked.
You might not be able to get Christmas presents for your kids.
Well, the Washington Post is here to tell you to stop complaining about that.
This was an amazing opinion piece from Micheline Maynard in the WAPO. Headline, Don't rant about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes.
Goes on to set up the issue and says, American consumers, their expectations pampered and catered to for decades, are not accustomed to inconvenience, Customers' persistent whine, why don't they just hire more people, sounds feeble in this era of the great resignation, especially in industries such as food service with reputations for being tough places to work.
Rather than living constantly on the verge of throwing a fit and risking taking it out on overwhelmed servers, struggling shop owners, or late arriving delivery people, we do ourselves a favor by consciously lowering expectations.
Okay, so first, just in general, it's always good to be polite to people.
It's always good to be charitable and compassionate.
That's not what this column is saying.
What this column is saying is just the latest and most extreme expression of something that the left has been telling us for decades.
Lower your expectations.
Lower your expectations.
Don't drive as much.
It'll harm the environment.
Don't work as much.
It's bad to work.
Stay home.
Don't worry.
Use government programs.
Don't expect the same political rights you once had.
We can't have that anymore.
You're going to lose some of those political rights.
Don't expect as prosperous a future as we once had.
Look, the 20th century, there was a lot of prosperity in America.
You're not going to get that anymore.
Don't expect the same freedoms that you once had.
Just lower your expectations.
This is the cry of a regime that knows that it's in trouble.
The regime saying, stop criticizing us.
Stop questioning us.
Just shut up and deal with it.
Okay?
And don't raise any questions about it.
This is the best things could possibly be.
Everything's right.
We've made all the right decisions.
So even though everything's falling apart around you, just know that you have no right to criticize us.
This reminds one of the Soviet Union, doesn't it?
Obviously, the gas lines and the food shortages.
I mean, that very directly reminds one of the Soviet Union.
And it raises some questions about the stability of our regime.
There were three big ideologies in the 20th century.
Fascism, communism, and liberalism.
And fascism was the first one to fall.
That one fell after the Second World War.
Communism was the second one to fall.
That one fell after the Cold War.
And then we were told that liberalism has won.
We have reached the end of history.
Liberalism is going to be the dominant ideology in perpetuity until the earth fizzles and the sun explodes.
We were told that about 30 years ago.
And only 30 years later are we seeing liberalism begin to crack up a little bit.
The timing is pretty interesting.
You have fascism destroyed in the 1940s.
Then, 40 years after that, you have communism destroyed in the 1980s.
And now, 30 to 40 years after that, you're seeing liberalism having some real problems here.
So what does that mean?
It means that we haven't really reached the end of history.
It means that we haven't reached the final technocratic utopia where we can suspend everybody's political rights in the ordinary process of politics, where we debate things and figure out how we want to run our country and what we want to do.
And it means that maybe we're going to have to change course.
The one thing I know right now is that anyone telling you that we should just keep the status quo, whether they are on the left or even some people on the right, the ones who regurgitate the same stupid platitudes from 30 years ago, the people who tell you just keep doing the status quo, everything is fine, nothing is abnormal, nothing's going wrong, we don't have any food on the shelves and gas is going through the roof and we no longer have faith in our elections and our secretary of health is a man who thinks that he's a woman,
But everything is totally normal and fine and your kids are learning radical racial ideologies in schools and that little boys can be little girls and the family is collapsing.
But don't question anything because the status quo is perfect.
If you're hearing that from someone on the left or on the right, I think you've got to stop listening to that person.
Because that person has fallen all the way into ideology and is engaging in a kind of delusion that is not going to help us fix our problems here in reality.
What are we doing about this supply chain problem?
Well, if you ask the White House, if you ask our inept ruling class, they'll scoff at the very question.
Just a question on the timing on the supply chain issues, actions that the President has taken.
It was clear in March of 2020, when COVID hit, that the supply chains across the world had been disrupted.
Even as the sort of work to fight back against COVID proceeded, people, it was crystal clear that things were not improving on the supply chain.
People couldn't get dishwashers and And furniture and treadmills delivered on time, not to mention all sorts of other things.
The tragedy of the treadmill that's delayed.
The tragedy of the treadmill that's delayed.
That's what's going on, right?
Families who are going to struggle to heat their homes this winter, people whose money is not worth what it once was, where inflation is going through the roof, people who can't afford to buy things at the grocery store, can't afford to buy their kids Christmas presents, can't afford to fill up the car.
It's just the tragedy of the...
What Saki is implying here is that the supply chain issues and the inflation, it's a high class problem.
This is what the White House Chief of Staff said, Ron Klain.
Of course, the opposite is true.
Not only does inflation not disproportionately hurt the rich, it disproportionately hurts the poor.
And this has been true for a very, very long time.
This is...
Pretty ugly.
I don't think this is going to play very well in Virginia or anywhere else in 2022 or even 2024.
This flippancy, this glibness.
Oh, it's not a big deal.
Oh, come on, suck it up.
Oh, stop it.
We're doing great.
How dare you criticize what we're doing?
Here's what I know.
Before Donald Trump...
It was sort of backed into a corner, I think, and allowed Dr.
Fauci and the libs to shut down the world.
It's not as though Trump shut down the world.
He allowed it to happen, but he wasn't exactly pushing for it, and he was trying to end that lockdown early.
And then a lot of Republican governors did end the lockdowns early.
But before that, things were going pretty great under Trump.
They actually were improving.
Manufacturing was improving.
The economy was improving.
Real wages were growing for the first time in a very long time.
We were defending the American border, at least early on, when we thought that was possible before the court struck down a lot of those protections.
The international relations were improving.
Things actually were getting better in a very basic way.
And under Biden, things actually are getting worse.
They're getting worse on the economy.
They're getting worse on foreign policy.
They're getting worse across the board.
And there needs to be a consequence for that.
I don't think you need a PhD in political philosophy or foreign relations or economics to just recognize when things get better under a certain set of policies and things get worse under another set of policies, we should use the former policies.
We should defer to that.
But the people who are pushing the bad policies refuse to acknowledge it.
And they'll laugh and they'll mock the question.
You're seeing this ruling class constantly moving the goalposts, and they never have to answer for it.
You know, we are told, follow the science, trust the experts, do whatever they want.
There was an incredible video that was put together.
I didn't put this together, but someone put this together, put it out on Twitter, pointing out that the ruling class has been walking back its claims, just specifically about vaccine efficacy, One percentage point at a time.
So now we have two vaccines that are really quite effective.
The mRNA vaccine, highly effective.
Extraordinarily efficacious.
94 to 95 percent for mild to moderate disease and virtually 100 percent efficacious.
Okay, study finds, highly effective, see all these headlines, 100% effective, 100% effective, 100% effective, 100% effective, and all of these, now 96.6, now 95, now 94.
You just see all of these headlines popping up.
Now 90.
Now 89.
Now 88.
Now 87.
Now 86.
And you can find it.
Just Google any number.
Percent.
Vaccine effect.
Now 58.
Now 56.
It just keeps going down.
Now 51.
Now 50.
Oh my...
47.
They just...
40.
39.
38.
Now you'll need an extra booster.
Now you'll need an extra booster.
You can Google.
I'm sure the way that this person put this video together was he just Googled vaccine effectiveness followed by every single percentage point.
And you will find a news article for just about every single one.
Now, that seems pretty weird, doesn't it?
I guess the vaccine could become less effective the longer you've had it.
But then why not tell you that from the very beginning?
From the very beginning, we were told 100% effective.
And then just every day, just about, it became less and less and less.
And they're just going to keep moving the goalposts again.
They're going to tell us, well, once you get the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh jab, then it's 100% effective.
But it won't be.
And there will be no answering for this.
And by the way, even after the coronavirus, they're just going to keep up the public health dictatorship on some other side.
Pretext.
You're seeing this right now with the allegedly conservative leader in the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, who has come out and said, look, OK, this COVID thing, it's bad.
And that's why we took all this power and locked everyone up and took away their rights.
But, you know, COVID is going to go away.
And actually, there's a far greater danger around the corner.
We face a challenge that is even bigger for humanity, a threat to our way of life that is ultimately far worse than COVID. In just a couple of weeks, The world will assemble in Glasgow.
And I hope that many of you, all of you, will be there.
Because the lesson of COVID is absolutely clear.
We have to listen to the scientists.
They're very often right, you know.
We need urgent government action.
But we must mobilise the markets.
We must bring in the private sector.
Because I can deploy billions, with the approval of the Chancellor, obviously.
But you, you in this room, you can deploy trillions.
Indeed, I'm given to understand that there is $24 trillion represented in this room.
And we need to do...
This is an existential threat from the sun monster.
My British accents have really not been good in recent weeks, but that's the argument he's making.
This is the allegedly conservative leader.
Oh, COVID is really bad, and that's why we upended society and standards and took everyone's rights.
But...
Once that goes away, it's climate change.
That's the big one.
And notice what he's saying here, too.
He's saying it's not just enough for the government to focus on this.
The quote-unquote private sector needs to as well.
The corporatist, public-private partnerships, we all need to push the same radical agenda that takes away people's rights, takes away their traditions, upends their way of life, and tells them to lower their expectations of what they can do, where they can go, how they can behave.
And it's never going to end.
And some of us have been telling you from the very beginning of the lockdown and the epidemic on COVID that this is never going to end.
It won't really be 15 days.
It's going to go on forever and ever until we take that power back.
And people have said, oh, it's a conspiracy theory.
Oh, you're just worried.
Oh, you're hysterical.
Well, there it is.
There's Boris Johnson telling you.
And he's not even the lib candidate.
He is ostensibly the conservative.
It's not really right versus left here.
It's the whole system.
You are seeing a crisis of the regime.
It's sometimes called neoliberalism.
That's where you're seeing the crisis.
It's not just one party or another.
I mean, I'm all for owning the left and I'm all for, you know, smacking down and destroying the Democrats or whatever.
But it's really bigger than that.
It's really the whole system.
Meanwhile, when you look outside of the West, the situation is even bleaker because our enemies...
The people who are challenging our global hegemony, the people who come from different cultures in a different civilization, are eating our lunch.
Speaking of foreign nations and trusting the experts, China has just launched a hypersonic missile that can be fitted with a nuclear warhead.
And what this means, in layman's terms, as I understand them, I'm no rocket scientist myself, is that you've got some missiles that can fly through the air.
And then you've got some missiles that can fly up and up and up higher so it's a little easier to move and then it comes back down, right?
And you have missile defense systems to deal with these.
But then you've got some missiles that go way, way up, really, really high, where they can then fly, you know, outside the intense pull of Earth's gravitation.
They can fly really, really far distances, really, really quickly, and then come right back down and hit their target, even if their target's on the other side of the world.
And missile defense systems are not particularly effective against this type of warhead.
And China just tested one.
They tested a drive-by, you know, trial nuclear missile and it was quite effective.
We are here in the United States, worried about germs, and germs that, by the way, China sent to us.
And we are here in the West broadly, worried about the sun monster and trying to shut down our way of life because of the sun monster.
And we are here in the West, throwing parties for ourselves to celebrate the fact that a man is the first woman admiral, even though he's never been in the military a day in his life and how wonderful this is and creating now multiple months to celebrate people's sexual desires and diluted even though he's never been in the military a day in his And we're just so happy about it.
And we just, man, we couldn't, we couldn't pat ourselves on the back any harder.
I'm going to have a bruise on my back from how much I'm patting myself on the back here in the West.
Meanwhile, while we are twiddling our thumbs and worse, our enemies are testing out hypersonic Hey, White House.
Hey, Jen Psaki.
What do you think about this development that our number one enemy is testing out these extraordinary weapons that could pose a serious threat to our interests and even to our nation?
What are we supposed to do about that, Jen Psaki?
Can you comment on reports that China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile over the summer, to the surprise of U.S. officials?
Are they accurate, and do you raise concerns about China's nuclear capabilities?
Well, I know General Secretary Austin, I should say, was asked this question this morning and addressed it, but I'm not going to comment on the specific report.
I can say, and would echo what he said, which is generally speaking, we've made clear We are concerned about the military capabilities that the PRC continues to pursue, and we have been consistent in our approach with China.
We welcome stiff competition, but we do not want that competition to veer into conflict, and that is certainly what we convey privately as well.
We welcome stiff competition.
Your answer to our greatest geopolitical adversary developing a weapon that we can't quite beat at the moment, a weapon that could land a nuclear warhead in the United States very, very, very quickly, your answer is we welcome stiff competition.
What planet are you living on?
This kind of talk, it sounds like it's just more of the same glib and flippant talk that we've become accustomed to from Jen Psaki, and to a degree I suppose it is, but it's deeper than that.
It comes from the rot of this liberal regime that believes that people don't really go to war all that much and that people don't really have fundamentally opposing interests and cultures, but that we're all just trying to make a buck.
Look, once we get some more jobs and iPhones for people in Afghanistan, they're going to stop warring against one another.
That's what Barack Obama told us.
Once we open up a few more markets, once we send a few more movies over there to China, once we buy a few more sneakers from their Nike factories, we're not going to go to war.
Look, we're all just trying to make a buck.
It's just the free marketplace of ideas, the free marketplace of literal markets.
We just welcome that stiff competition.
I do not welcome nuclear competition from our chief enemy, okay?
I don't.
At least, I don't.
I guess I view the world a little bit differently.
These are not serious people.
Jen Psaki and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg and all the rest of them, they are not serious people.
They are living in a fantasy land.
Biden, in particular, has spent the last 30 years cheering on the rise of China.
As recently as, what, 10 years ago?
He applauded the rise of China, the entrance of China into the World Trade Organization, the entrance of China really into the world marketplace.
Oh, it's wonderful.
A rising tide lifts all ships, right?
Well, I don't know.
Looks like our ship is possibly going to capsize if we don't stabilize it.
No, it's great.
It's wonderful.
We're going to take six months paternity leave during a crisis.
Take ten months.
Why would you come home?
You're doing that joyful work.
Of staying at home with your baby.
So why would you have to come in and run our ship of state?
Joe Biden doesn't need to campaign.
He doesn't need to pay attention really to anything at all.
Why do we need to do any of it?
Jen Psaki doesn't need to give real answers to the Americans.
We don't need to do any of it.
We're all just pretending.
And we're being told that delusions are compassionate and that there's nothing more wonderful and charitable than pretending that national security threats are not a threat or pretending that hordes and hordes of migrants being brought over by criminal cartels are not a problem.
Enforcing our laws is not a big deal.
And...
Pretending that men are women, that's totally fine.
We're being told that's actually compassionate, to live in those lies.
Well, the consequence of living in those lies is that your civilization collapses.
The consequence of living in lies is that people who are more in touch with reality are going to eat your lunch.
And that's what's going on right now.
In this country, we can no longer even reliably conduct our own elections.
Stacey Abrams just came out.
We're going to run a little late, but I've got to play the clip.
Stacey Abrams just came out to once again suggest that she is the legitimate governor of Georgia.
Just because you win doesn't mean you're won.
We've got folks who are ready to take back what they think is theirs, but they are not entitled to our progress.
They are not entitled to our justice.
They are not entitled to our votes.
But either we use them or we lose them.
I come from a state where I was not entitled to become the governor.
But as an American citizen and a citizen of Georgia, I'm going to fight for every person who has the right to vote to be able to cast that vote.
And here in Virginia, you need to cast that vote for Terry McAuliffe.
She's saying just because you win doesn't mean you really win.
I was not entitled to be governor.
She's pushing this whole thing that the election was rigged.
Now, I was reliably informed that if you question election results, you're an insurrectionist terrorist threat to our democracy.
So these are, obviously, whenever people bring up January 6th or the insurrection, whatever, I mean, just mock them, just laugh at them.
They're not being serious.
They're being very disingenuous.
But furthermore, it's worth pointing out that since at least the year 2000, if not sooner, We have not been able to conduct elections where we trust the results.
The left didn't trust the results in 2000.
The left also didn't trust the results in 2016.
The right didn't trust the results in 2020.
That is a joke.
And if we just keep pretending that everything's going fine and everything's normal and stop complaining and the status quo is great, we are going to see the rot progress and progress and progress.
The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that you have one.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
I'll see you tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Production manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate producer, Justine Turley.
Audio mixer, Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup by Cherokee Heart.
Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Netflix employees stage a walkout in protest of Dave Chappelle's comedy show as the CEO of the company begins to cave.
Also, Jen Psaki has a good laugh over the supply chain crisis.
Texas passes a bill banning biological males from female sports, and the media reacts in predictable fashion.
And is there systemic racism in the zookeeping community?
