A leaked document suggests that the SUPREME COURT HAS VOTED TO OVERRULE ROE V. WADE!
Join the Daily Wire and get 20% off your membership with code KNOWLES: https://utm.io/uewve.
Order your copy of Julio Rosas’ new book Fiery but Mostly Peaceful: The 2020 Riots and the Gaslighting of America: https://utm.io/uexhZ.
I’m exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Skip the grocery store & choose Good Ranchers for 100% American meat. Visit goodranchers.com/KNOWLES or use code KNOWLES at checkout for $30 off any box.
Ring Alarm is an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe. Learn more at www.Ring.com/KNOWLES.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Politico is reporting a leak of the Supreme Court's opinion in Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health.
This is the decision that could potentially overrule Roe v.
Wade and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
This is the decision that could potentially obliterate the completely fictional national right to an abortion that was established in 1973.
The leak itself is shocking.
Unprecedented.
You've never seen this kind of a breach of trust from the Supreme Court.
But from the decision that we've got, this is just a 98-page draft of Justice Sam Alito writing the opinion of the court.
According to this leak, if the leak is legit...
The Supreme Court is voting to overrule Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
The court is voting to overrule national abortion.
Most important decision in my lifetime, if this is legit, from the draft.
Rowe was egregiously wrong from the start.
Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Rowe and Casey have inflamed debate We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
But any such right must be deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
The right to abortion does not fall within this category.
Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law.
The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.
Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.
We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
Obviously, if this is legit, obviously, this is the right decision.
It's right constitutionally.
It's right legally.
It's right morally.
There are two theories now on how this got leaked.
One theory is that it was a liberal activist who was working for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor is the furthest left member of the court.
And so a lot of the chatter is surrounding her staff.
The second theory is that this may have been a hack.
This went to the Politico National Security So maybe it wasn't a leak from the court.
Maybe it was just someone going in and finding it in the court emails.
I, for one, suspect it was the former.
I bet this was a leak.
This is the sacrament for the left.
Killing babies on the altar of progress is their highest sacrament.
We are not talking about safe, legal, and rare.
We are talking about Abortion on demand without apology shouted from the rooftops.
People are shocked at the leak.
They're shocked, they say, that you would have this kind of breach of trust on the court.
I'm not shocked at all.
Of course they leaked the opinion.
These people kill babies.
Okay, if you're willing to kill a baby, you're probably willing to leak a document.
The only purpose, the only purpose to leaking this right now.
The secondary purpose will be to pressure Democrat legislators into making Roe vs.
Wade the law of the land.
But the chief goal here is to intimidate the conservatives on the court.
Do not let them do it.
We knew there were going to be shenanigans now more than ever.
Not just in my lifetime, probably in the last 50 years of politics.
Now more than ever is the time Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday from Spaghetti Noob, who says, Hey Michael, how do they know that there are 150 female skulls in Mexico?
How did they know how those skulls identified?
That's a great question.
How do the leftists who are currently losing their minds, how do they know that women's rights are being threatened?
Isn't that so strange?
A lot of biologists these days.
When you want to know for certain that your home is protected, you've got to check out Ring.
Right now, go to Ring.com slash Knowles.
You know about Ring's video doorbell, where you can see and speak to whoever's at your doorstep, whether you're in the home or at your office or on the other side of the world.
You know about Ring's alarm system.
I absolutely love Ring alarm.
Well, then the question is, have you gone pro?
You need...
To go Pro.
I absolutely love this product.
CNET calls it a giant leap for home security.
With Ring Alarm Pro, you are protecting not just your physical home from the bad guys, from freeze, from fire, from flood, your windows, your doors, all that stuff.
You're also protecting your digital home because increasingly we're living our lives online in the digital world.
So you've got to protect that.
You've got a lot of very valuable data coming in and out.
You must protect The real world and the digital world.
You can do it all with Ring.
It's extremely simple to set up.
It's a great deal, by the way, on their subscription.
You get professional monitoring for the ultimate peace of mind.
They have the professional monitoring call you.
You can request emergency services.
Worry-free security.
Right now, to learn more, go to ring.com slash Knowles.
That is ring.com slash Knowles.
Protect yourself with the guys that I trust.
Ring.com slash Knowles.
If this opinion is legit, if the court is voting to strike down Roe v.
Wade and Planned Parenthood B. Casey, then Donald Trump has already secured his spot as one of the greatest and most consequential presidents in the United States.
Ever in American history.
This takes us all the way back to election 2016.
The big debate over, well, should we support Trump?
Well, Trump's got some problems and he seems to have been kind of liberal in the past.
But, well, but the judges, but Roe versus Wade, but getting those conservatives on the court, well, it's not worth it.
I don't think he's going to really do it.
And the judges won't hold firm.
If this opinion is real, this resolves the question.
This resolves the question because, one, Trump ended up being a very relatively conservative president, much more conservative than anyone thought.
Trump did not turn out to be the crazy maniac who was going to overthrow democracy.
He didn't do any of that.
But more importantly, he will have been the guy.
Who got Roe v.
Wade overruled by getting three judges onto the court.
Now, what the Libs want to do is leak this so that, one, they can cause riots in the streets, two, they can get death threats to the conservatives on the court.
That's what they're doing.
That's what they're out for.
It's the only thing that they could be out for.
As part of that pressure campaign, they'll be pressuring the liberals in the House and in the Senate to pass a national law saying that abortion is a protected right.
Now, they don't have enough votes for that right now.
Because you'd have to get over the filibuster.
You'd need 60 votes in the Senate.
That doesn't exist.
You're not going to get Joe Manchin to vote for this.
I don't think you're going to get Kyrsten Sinema to vote for this.
So then they'll have to get rid of the filibuster, all in order to serve up more innocent little baby sacrifices to their...
Idle Moloch.
That's what it's all about.
They just are trying to kill more babies.
When you put it in those terms, it's so sick.
It's so sick, but it's a mania and it is their most deeply cherished right, quote unquote, in the country.
And so they're going to try to do that.
And they think that this will help them in the midterms.
That's the long game here.
They think that turning this election into an election about abortion is going to help them.
I think they're wrong about that.
I don't think there's any evidence that this is going to help them.
I think infanticide plays not nearly as well in Peoria as they all think that it will.
I mentioned yesterday on the show, I said, I'm not making any predictions here, but I'm a little worried about the Dobbs decision.
The reason I was worried is because John Roberts suggested that he was not going to write the opinion of the court.
And I said, I'm not making any predictions here about how the case is going to turn out, but it seems like some things are a little off here.
It seems like something...
So, if this is the case, that Sam Alito is writing the opinion of the court...
We don't know.
This very well might be a 5-4 decision.
We just don't know.
Maybe Roberts is going to side with the liberals.
We're not sure.
The thing we know right now, though, is this draft was written in February.
February 10th is what it stated.
If this is the opinion, it will be the most important political development in my lifetime, really, of the last 50 years.
We're talking about 60 million babies.
We all use euphemisms when we talk about abortion and women's health care and reproductive rights.
We're talking about 60 million babies.
The number is unfathomable how many people in this country should be walking around right now and are not because of this decision in 1973.
This is absolutely earth-shattering stuff.
Actually, even beyond the question of abortion, this leaked draft of the court opinion has achieved another shocking goal, which is all of a sudden everyone's a biologist.
All of a sudden you're seeing memes again, no uterus, no opinion.
This is a war on women.
You're seeing all these arguments from 10 years ago.
I thought we didn't know what a woman was.
Ketanji Jackson, now will soon be on the Supreme Court, said that she can't tell what a woman is because she's not a biologist.
All of a sudden everybody's a biologist.
Sam Alito can tell you what a woman is and all the people reading Sam Alito can tell you what a woman is.
Absolutely earth-shattering stuff.
And I won't let the libs get me down.
They're trying to gum this up.
They're trying to pressure the conservatives to switch.
What the conservatives need to do right now, just come out with the opinion.
I don't know if it's in its final draft.
This goes all the way back to February, so presumably it's in much better shape.
Come out with the opinion.
If the opinion is substantially different from this draft, then we will know that the libs have succeeded.
At pressuring, at threatening violence.
That's really what this is about, right?
You whip up all of the riots.
You're going to have a whole lot of mostly peaceful demonstrations coming out with Molotov cocktails and rocks and all the rest of it.
And it will make a mockery of our system of government.
I never want to hear about the norms.
Our norms are sacred, cherished democratic norms.
I don't want to hear it from the left anymore.
I never want to hear the stupid phrase, January 6th.
This is so much more egregious an attack on our democracy than January 6th ever was.
It's not even comparable.
It's not even comparable.
The leaking of this document.
I don't want to see any more crocodile tears from the libs.
If I see them, I'm just going to collect them in my leftist tears tumbler.
The opinion is phenomenal news.
The leak is really scary news, especially for the judges who are going to be threatened now.
So now is the time.
Stand firm, guys.
You can do it.
Stand firm.
This is the moment.
This is what we're all here for.
And then we can celebrate with a nice, big, delicious plate of good ranchers.
Right now, go to GoodRanchers.com, use promo code Knowles.
You know what I had for dinner last night?
I'll give you one guess.
It was Good Ranchers.
I loved it.
It was the Good Ranchers Better Than Organic Chicken with the nice garlic rub.
Sweet little Elisa put it in a nice chicken chili.
It was absolutely fabulous.
But you know my favorite thing from Good Ranchers?
It's the Wagyu Burgers.
You've got to try the Wagyu Burgers.
They're the best burgers you're ever going to try.
And right now, you can get two pounds of your new favorite burger for free.
For free with code Knolls.
What is American Wagyu?
It's some of the best beef you're ever going to try.
And by the way, you don't just need to use it for burgers.
I mean, it makes phenomenal, rich, buttery, delicious burgers.
But you can use it for anything.
You can use it for tacos.
You can use it for chili.
You can just eat it.
Just the meat, which is something that I do.
Being of Italian extraction, sometimes a little fatty meat just tastes wonderful.
Really phenomenal, delicious stuff.
But all their stuff is great.
The steaks, everything.
You want two pounds of free Wagyu burgers and zero inflation?
What are you waiting for?
Use my code Knowles or visit GoodRanchers.com slash Knowles.
If you don't buy the meat in your house, then tell the person who does to grab two pounds of free American Wagyu burgers today before they're gone.
Promo code Knowles at GoodRanchers.com slash Knowles.
The White House is really, really focused on disinformation and misinformation and censorship and propaganda.
They're really focused on controlling the narrative.
Last week, the White House announced the creation of this new censorship agency called the Disinformation Governance Board.
And the announcement came just days after Elon Musk made it clear that he was intending to buy Twitter specifically so that he could give conservatives more freedom of speech on social media.
You think that was a coincidence?
I don't.
it's a little, that's a little too much of a coincidence for me.
On top of it, the new director of the new censorship agency is a woman named Nina Jankiewicz, who is not only a partisan leftist Democrat, but she's also ironically, or maybe expectedly, we should say, one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation in the country, specifically regarding Hunter one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation in the country, specifically regarding She covered up for evidence of the Biden family's crimes.
And yet, despite all evidence to the contrary about this woman and about this board, the White House is still insisting that the new censorship agency will not be partisan.
There's this woman, Nina Jenkins, who is going to be in charge of the board.
She has said that she thinks the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation.
So, should we look forward in the future to her censoring internet traffic about the Hunter Biden laptop?
I think I noted exactly what the objective of the board is, including continuing the work of the prior administration.
And the woman you noted has extensive experience and has done extensive work addressing disinformation.
She has testified before Congress, testified in Europe.
She has worked closely with the Ukrainians and has unique expertise, especially at this moment we're facing.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Good.
Well, that sounds great.
Look, this is just totally business as usual.
Don't worry about it.
But if the disinformation board is not around specifically to censor political disinformation, what exactly is it going to do?
The mandate is not to adjudicate what is true or false online or otherwise.
It will operate in a non-partisan and apolitical manner.
It's basically meant to coordinate a lot of the ongoing work that is happening.
And what their focus is, the focus is on disinformation and threatens the homeland, as I noted, which things like inciting things that would incite violent extremism, you know, human traffickers and other transnational criminal organizations.
Any efforts that malign foreign influence, anything that would endanger individuals during emergencies.
So a lot of this work is really about work that people may not see every day that's ongoing by the Department of Homeland Security.
It's just, the censorship agency is just going to coordinate the ongoing work that's happening, whatever that means, whatever ongoing work is, and it's just going to prevent violent extremism and it's just going to stop foreign influence.
Who could object to that?
Now, of course, the Democrats have been baselessly accusing Republicans of all of those things for years.
They made up narratives about January 6th, and they had a years-long witch hunt based on a hoax about Russian collusion, and they used all of that to shut up conservatives, stop us from speaking on social media, and ultimately to silence a president, try to undo the 2016 election.
So in practice, the point of the board is simple and obvious.
It's to keep conservatives from gaining political power.
The tactic they're using is even simpler.
They're going to shut up conservative communicators, people with big shows, people with big platforms, and also just individuals, regular, everyday conservatives who share their opinion on social media.
They're going to shut up all of us before we can ever even get the message out.
That's what they're doing.
So they'll do it to regular Joe Schmo on the street with regard to his Twitter account and his Facebook account and his Google account.
And they're going to do it all the way to the people here on social media, in the podcasting world.
And they're going to do it on cable news too, which is why they're launching a major attack on Tucker Carlson.
The New York Times has just published a three-part, I think seven bazillion word expose, shocking, undercover reporting on Tucker Carlson.
To expose the shocking fact that Tucker is conservative.
So when the Libs come out and they say, we've got a disinformation board, we're not going to stop conservative speech, we just want to stop disinformation.
The problem is they define disinformation and misinformation as conservative speech.
So I'll give you an example.
The New York Times is giving up the whole game here.
The New York Times says they've identified five areas of disinformation, misinformation, misinformation, Where Tucker Carlson is spreading dangerous fake news.
Okay, what are the five claims that Tucker has allegedly made that are such shocking disinformation, misinformation that the libs want to censor?
Number one, we've got it right here.
This is right from the New York Times.
Accusations that there is a ruling class intent on controlling the lives of normal people and censoring anyone who stands in its way.
They're saying that's misinformation.
Right?
The observation that there is a group of people who have political power who are trying to censor us, which they just told us there is, if we repeat back to them what they just told to us, that's dangerous misinformation.
That's the first thing Tucker said.
Second one, replacement through immigration.
Assertions that there is an intentional effort to replace native-born Americans with immigrants, that immigration takes away the resources and power of native-born Americans.
Is that controversial?
Is that even up for question now?
The liberals brag about that.
There was a famous piece, infamous piece in the New York Times written by Michelle Goldberg saying we can replace them.
The New York Times and other liberal outlets have been bragging for years about the demographic problem for Republicans because Republicans do much better among native-born Americans and they do a whole lot worse among immigrants.
And so as the immigrant portion of the population explodes because we're taking in a million legal immigrants per year and two million illegal immigrants per year, probably more actually this year, that the consequence of this is going to be bad news for Republicans and it's a demographic demise for them.
They've been bragging about this for years.
Even though the majority of Americans, not just of Republicans, but a ton of Democrats too, want drastically less immigration, legal and illegal, the ruling class keeps pushing it because it benefits them politically.
The big corporations get cheap labor, the Democrats get easy votes, and that's that.
Is that a shocking, dangerous conspiracy theory?
No, that's...
That's their published, self-professed strategy.
Shifting gender roles.
This is the third horrible, dangerous idea that Tucker has allegedly talked about.
Arguments that feminism and challenges to gender norms have diminished masculinity, contributed to falling birth rates, and led to the demise of traditional family structures.
They redefined family.
They redefined marriage, and now they're chopping off kids' genitals.
I don't think that's a conspiracy theory.
You now have Democrats from the lowest level all the way up to the White House crying.
Jen Psaki was crying on camera because the Republicans might not let all of these perverts pump little kids full of cross-sex hormones and sterilize them.
She was literally shedding real tears over that.
Shocking, dangerous misinformation.
Discrimination against white people.
Instances in which Mr.
Carlson speaks of racism against white people and plays down racism against people of color.
There is only one race of people that you...
Sort of one and a half races of people that you are allowed to legally discriminate against in America.
It is white people primarily, and for whatever reason, sometimes Asians get lumped into this specifically when it comes to college admissions.
Asians get white privilege when it comes to college admissions.
But the only group that it is not only legal but socially acceptable to discriminate against is white people.
It's called affirmative action.
That's the policy.
The policy is treat white people more harshly than other people.
Whatever you think, you can defend the policy, you can oppose the policy, but that is the policy.
That's all that it is.
And furthermore, if you go on television right now and you say, black people are terrible, I hate black people, or Mexican people are terrible, or Asian people are terrible, you will be ostracized from society.
But if you go on television and say, white people are really bad, they're evil, they need to apologize for their skin color, you'll get a show on CNN or MSNBC. As a matter of social mores, it's the only group you're allowed to insult and encouraged to insult.
So it doesn't seem like a shocking conspiracy theory to me.
And then furthermore, This is number five that they accused Tucker of.
Destruction of society.
Warnings about the destruction of society, civilization, and traditional values.
We are transing little children.
I think we're there.
I think we're about...
Wherever Sodom and Gomorrah were, I think we're about...
I think we're turning that up to 11 now, okay?
If that was 10, I think we're turning it up to 11.
I mention this not just to dunk on the New York Times, not even to defend Tucker, though.
He's doing a great job.
I do it to point out this is what they call disinformation or misinformation or malinformation or whatever other euphemism they want to use to shut us up.
This is what they call it.
And this is what they're considering.
So when we say these things, which are all obviously true, they are going to censor us.
They're telling us that they're going to censor us.
And yet when we say that they are telling us that they're going to censor us, that's considered misinformation too.
The New York Times is furious, and they're focusing in on Tucker in particular.
This is no accident.
This is no coincidence that they're focusing in on Tucker.
there was a woman from the New York Times, Karen Urish, who just went on MSNBC to talk about her shocking, deep investigative report, which is that she watched Tucker's show a few times.
This is the most popular cable news show in prime time.
But she went in because she's the only liberal who's ever watched Tucker.
She went in and she said, what Tucker is saying is much more dangerous than she thought.
It's just, we're getting waves in politics, okay?
We get waves of political change.
And sometimes in your life, if you want to feel better, you need real waves.
You need one more wave.
I'm so excited to talk about a company that is really making a difference for our nation's veterans.
That is One More Wave.
One More Wave uses surf therapy to help veterans stay active, engaged, and connected.
The founder of One More Wave, Alex West, is a retired Navy SEAL who noticed that for many veterans, especially those with adaptive needs, Standard off-the-shelf surfboards, say that 10 times fast with Sally selling seashells by the seashore, standard surfboards were not working, okay?
Well, what did he do?
He created a team of surfboard artists and surf instructors to work with grant recipients to design custom equipment for their experience, level, and physical needs.
One More Wave connects veterans to their global network of surfing volunteers who empower them to heal through surf therapy from coast to coast.
Fresh salt air, sunshine, and the exhilaration of flying down the face of a wave to keep more veterans coming back for more.
Since 2015, One More Wave has empowered over 500 veterans to find healing in community through surf therapy by providing customized surfing equipment and community.
They need your ongoing support.
Help fund 10 new surf therapy grants by going to 1mwave.com slash dailywire.
Sign up to become a monthly sustaining donor.
The average veteran grant costs $2,500.
Every tax-deductible donation counts.
Help us continue to support those brave men and women who have given so much for this nation.
One, the number 1mwave.com slash dailywire.
Become a sustaining member today.
One more wave is a 501c3 and your donation is tax-deductible.
1mwave.com for more information.
When the world goes broke, the Daily Wire builds alternatives.
That's why we've started our own publishing company called DW Books.
We're proud to announce that one of the first books that we're putting out is fiery but mostly peaceful, The 2020 Riots and the Gaslighting of America, finally available for purchase today.
The book is written by Julio Rosas, who exposes the Black Lives Matter riots that broke out across the country in the aftermath of George Floyd's death for the sham that they were.
Check out the trailer.
The media gaslit the American people for all of 2020 as the riots unfolded.
They did not give you the full story.
I was there.
George Floyd, Kyle Rittenhouse, Rayshard Brooks, Chaz in Seattle.
I saw all the riots with my own eyes.
Windshields being smashed, giant rocks that were being thrown, businesses that were starting to be looted.
The crowd started to become hostile.
All the cops were trapped and surrounded.
Police were being ordered to retreat.
I experienced the tear gas.
I experienced the smoke.
This was very real to me.
The mainstream media, they were trying to call them protests.
CNN with that chyron saying, fiery but mostly peaceful.
They're trying to push a narrative of don't believe your lying eyes because they were trying to appease a very dedicated Antifa movement that's there.
When you read my book, Fiery But Mostly Peaceful, you will get the full story.
You will learn what actually happened during the riots of 2020 and what the media did not want to tell you.
Buy my book, Fiery But Mostly Peaceful, everywhere books are sold.
The book is available for purchase on Amazon or anywhere you buy books online, so go order your copy today.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
The intrepid reporter for the New York Times, Karen Urish, just went on MSNBC to give her report about watching Tucker Carlson's TV show a few times.
She says it's way more dangerous than she expected.
Karen, I want to ask you what it was like for you to watch all these hours of Tucker Carlson's show.
It was...
Revealing in a way that I can't even describe.
I mean, I had no idea.
I had not watched the show before this project.
And once I did, I realized that what we wanted to do would be to create an immersive experience so that The people who read the New York Times who most likely don't watch the show on a regular basis could feel what it's like because I think it's easy to dismiss To dismiss what he's saying as,
you know, just another cable TV news host, but he's way more powerful and the content is way more dangerous than, I think, what anybody realizes unless you're watching the show on a daily basis.
Way more dangerous.
This is an important word.
What do they mean by dangerous?
Do they mean it's going to threaten people's physical safety?
Probably not.
The Democrats are not generally so worried about that.
They just leaked, for instance, this court opinion, the purpose of which was to threaten the physical safety of the conservatives on the Supreme Court.
We just spent two years of mostly peaceful riots where the Libs not only They rioted, but encouraged the riots.
We're not just talking about street thugs that were going out throwing Molotov cocktails.
We're talking about Democrats in the highest echelons of power supporting, with their own money and with their own voices, the rioting.
Maxine Waters saying, this was even years ago, this was at the beginning of the Trump administration, get up in their faces, go find Republicans when they're out in public, go to their homes where their children sleep and yell and push back on them and say you're not wanted here, encouraging them.
Elected Democrats.
You had plenty of Democrats going in and supporting the BLM rights.
Kamala Harris, who's now the vice president of the United States, allegedly.
Kamala Harris comes out and tweets out a fund to go bail out the rioters, not to bail out the mostly peaceful protesters.
The mostly peaceful protesters didn't get arrested to go bail out rioters.
Staffers for Joe Biden did the same thing.
So I don't think it's that.
Why are they freaking out now?
They're freaking out now because they might not be able to kill babies wherever they want in America.
So it's not that kind of danger.
We're not talking about real physical danger.
We're talking about danger to the political order.
So why are they going after Tucker?
Why aren't they going after other conservative hosts on television?
Because Tucker is a little bit different.
The liberals are fine to tolerate the old order of conservatives using a very small array of talking points to kind of seem like they're pushing back on the liberals, but not actually threatening their power.
They're fine with that.
The liberals are happy to have court jester conservatives.
They actually need the court jester conservatives.
They need the squishes.
They even need the people who put up a good show, but then when push comes to shove, when the battle is really getting intense, kind of back down a little bit.
They like that because if they have court jester conservatives, it legitimizes the liberals' power.
But they don't like it when the conservatives actually threaten what they're doing.
This is something that Tucker does really well on TV.
This is something in the world of podcasts that I really try to focus on in this show.
This show is not simply owning the libs.
I like owning the libs.
I drink out of my leftist tears Tumblr.
My first book was a blank book called Reasons to Vote for Democrats.
I am not above owning the libs.
I think it's very fun.
But we've got to do more than just own the libs.
And frankly, if we want to own the libs, actually own the libs, and actually get some political power back, We can't just use the same old Republican talking points.
We've got to think a little bit differently.
Maybe about trade.
Maybe about immigration.
Maybe about the way we use language.
Maybe about the way we wield political power.
We've got to think a little bit differently.
We need some tough love for our side.
My book with words, Speechless, is in many ways tougher on conservatives than it is on liberals.
Because I think conservatives have been playing into the left's hands.
And we've got to change that.
We've got to go in and change our tactics.
That's the same kind of thing.
What I'm saying on podcasting, it's the same kind of thing Tucker's saying on TV, and he's saying it to about 4 million people a night, which is why the Libs are so upset.
That's why they're going after it.
That's what the danger is.
It's the danger to their political hegemony that Tucker is really threatening.
They go after us, too.
I mean, Media Matters has tried to get me canceled for years now.
But it's something that Tucker is doing.
Tucker right now just has the spotlight on him.
He's the biggest guy on cable news.
So they attack him.
Dangerous.
They're not talking about physical danger.
Here's my proof that the New York Times is not worried about physical danger.
The New York Times just ran an obit for a terrorist who died, an American domestic terrorist who was associated with the leftist group, the Weather Underground.
This is Kathy Boudin.
Here's the first tweet about the obit from the New York Times.
Kathy Boudin, who was a member of the Weather Underground, took part in the murderous 1981 holdup of a Brinks armored truck, died on Sunday.
She was 78.
Okay, fair enough.
That pretty much sums it up.
But then they deleted that tweet and they changed it.
Here was the new tweet.
Kathy Boudin, a member of the Weather Underground, imprisoned for her role in a fatal robbery, but who later helped former inmates, died at 78.
That's a little softer.
So they deleted the first one and put up the new one because the New York Times readers and leadership and editors felt they were being a little too harsh on the felon murderer domestic terrorist.
A woman who participated in this robbery that killed two police officers in New York, one security guard, and seriously injured another security guard.
I'm not saying that we need to spike the football on this woman's grave, but she was a domestic terrorist and now she's dead.
A lot of people die.
A lot of people get obituaries.
I think the New York Times got it right the first time.
But they couldn't.
It was too harsh.
The left has too much of a soft spot for domestic terrorists, especially the weather underground.
They've been fetting the weather underground for decades now, including this woman.
This woman, after she got out of the can, for some reason she was permitted out of prison.
I don't know why.
If you kill multiple people and you're convicted of felony murder, I think you should, at the very least, stay in prison for life.
But they let her out.
And she became a professor at Columbia University.
And she became, I kid you not, the co-director and co-founder of the Columbia Center for Justice.
For Justice.
A radical leftist terrorist who actually acted on her radicalism and killed people became the director of the Center for Justice.
Lives fine with that.
Soft on that.
The danger for the libs is not having leftist terrorists running around on the streets.
The danger for the libs would be not having the leftist terrorists running around on the street.
The danger for the libs would be changing the power structure such that leftist terrorists don't get out of prison, don't get to teach at our schools, don't get to do whatever they want.
That's the threat to them.
And they always focus on education.
Do you notice this?
Bill Ayers ends up around education.
Another Weather Underground guy.
Kathy Boudin ends up in education.
All the focus, all the fight is on education.
Why?
Because classrooms are crystal balls, and they tell you what your society is going to look like in 20 years.
This is why the New York Times right now is up in a tizzy over the plan of Republicans to ban a book from the classroom.
The book is called Gender Queer.
Here it is.
New York Times, how a debut graphic memoir became the most banned book in the country.
Genderqueer, what's it say?
Maya Kababi's book, Genderqueer, about coming out as non-binary, you know, a thing that you can totally do because that's totally real and not just made up, landed the author at the center of a battle over which books belong in schools and who gets to make that decision.
Then it goes on to talk about what a great book this is and how awful it is that it's being banned in schools.
Why is this being banned in schools?
Because it's weird, creepy, gay, pederast porn.
That's why.
It's not that it deals with difficult themes.
That's fine.
I don't mind dealing with difficult themes even in school, even in high school or middle school.
Frankly, even in elementary school, depending on how it's done.
But this book, this is a comic book.
That does not have literary value, that furthermore includes a scene about a 14-year-old boy daydreaming about a little kid having sex with a grown man.
And it's a graphic novel, so it's drawn out.
That's just obscene.
That's just porn.
It's weird, creepy pederast porn.
It has no business in schools.
Well, are you for banning books?
Yeah, duh.
I'm certainly for banning books in fifth grade.
In elementary schools, I'm definitely for banning books.
The Libs are for banning books.
They've banned the Bible from schools for half a century now.
More than half a century.
But of course I'm for banning some of these books.
I don't know who needs to hear this.
I know this really runs contrary to a lot of talking points now, especially on the right.
It is good to ban some books in some circumstances.
Here are people in history who have been for burning books.
The apostles in the New Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles, they burn books.
They burn witchcraft books, sorcery books.
Plato.
Plato was for burning books.
Plato was for burning the books of Democritus.
Who else was for burning books?
Martin Luther was for burning books.
Martin Luther is not exactly my favorite guy in the world, being a Catholic as I am, but he was for it.
And then the Catholic Church was for banning Martin Luther's books.
Oh, right.
Every civilization, every country in the history of the world, including and especially the United States, has banned certain books in certain circumstances.
It was the libs who embraced this idea that we should never ban any sort of books in any context whatsoever.
If you want weird gay comic book porn in kindergarten, that's your right, darn it.
We're a free and liberal society.
They were the ones who pushed this idea.
It was always insane.
And the great victory for the left is they convinced conservatives to adopt this language.
We have never believed this.
There is nothing conservative about it at all.
Don't do it.
It's absolutely insane.
Societies have the right to To standards.
And if we're not gonna stand up on this standard...
If we're not going to stand up on no illustrated pederast porn in elementary schools, then there are no standards.
Then we're not conserving anything.
Then to be a conservative doesn't mean anything at all.
What is it with the libs and the kids?
They just have this sick obsession with the kids.
They want to kill the kids.
When they can't kill the kids, they want to castrate the kids.
When they can't castrate the kids, they at the very least want to pervert the kids' minds and fill them with all sorts of weird pornographic sexual confusion.
What is it?
It's weird.
It's just weird.
I'm not trying to take cheap shots here.
If you're just an onlooker, taking a look at the political scene, it is weird how obsessed the Democrats are with screwing with kids' heads.
It's really strange.
There was a tweet going around for a while that had gone viral, and it said, it's really not that complicated.
They're just bad people who want to diddle the kids or something to that effect.
And I think it's not quite that simple.
Unfortunately, it's more ideological than that.
And in a way, I think it makes perfect sense.
The Libs realized that in order to transform society, You need to shape society.
In order to shape society, you need to shape people when they are most malleable, when they are most impressionable.
And the way to do that is when they're really, really little.
You're physically malleable, you are psychologically and mentally malleable, and that's what they're going after, and we should not let them do it.
If our ideology, if our version of free speech is such that it defends weird pederast porn in kindergarten, something's gone wrong with our idea of free speech.
They keep doing it.
Tyra Banks is doing this.
Tyra Banks, the former Victoria's Secret model, is now producing a drag show for kids.
Here it is.
This is from Deadline.
This is the Hollywood trade paper.
Tyra Banks to executive produce teen drag series for Discovery+.
Discovery Plus is entering the world of teenage drag shows with Tyra Banks.
The Dancing with the Stars host and EP is to executive produce this thing for the streaming service.
The series follows five teens and their families as they anticipate their biggest drag performance at Dragutant, a drag show designed as a platform for LGBTQ plus teens to express themselves.
It goes on.
Every adult associated with this should be in prison.
If we lived in a sane society, then all the adults associated with telling 13-year-olds, little 13-year-old boys to put on a dress and stiletto heels and dance sexually before a bunch of grown pervert men, all of those adults would be in prison.
Okay?
And not that long ago, the adults would be in prison, actually in practice in America.
I'm not suggesting that we turn America into Mussolini's Italy or something.
I'm saying we turn America into America six years ago, when we understood this kind of stuff.
Six years ago.
When conservatives were saying, you know, I think there might be a slippery slope.
If we normalize all this kind of strange sexual behavior, next thing you know they're going to be sexualizing the kids.
And what happened?
The left said, oh, you're crazy.
You're a paranoid, crazy conservative.
Here we go again with your slippery slope fallacy.
Well, here we go.
We're slipping.
We're slipped, I think.
I think we're at the bottom of the slope.
Are we?
Except whenever I think we're at the bottom of the slope, we keep slipping down even further.
Now, We're not merely seeing this out of Hollyweird, which before we left LA, Jeremy would refer to Hollywood as Gamora by the sea.
Okay, we're not just seeing it out of there.
We're seeing it out of the halls of political power as well.
We're seeing this being pushed from the top of our federal government.
Richard Levine.
Who is a man who thinks that he's a woman who is the assistant secretary of health in America because we're living in the upside-down world, because we are through the looking glass.
A dude who doesn't know what sex he is and is pretending to be the other sex is one of the top health officials in the country.
Richard Levine is coming out with full-throated support of transgendering little kids.
Not just adults.
He shouldn't do it to adults either.
But now he's pushing this for little kids.
And his argument for it is that medical professionals agree about gender-affirming care for kids.
And gender-affirming is an ironic phrase because it means gender-denying.
Gender-affirming care is when you tell a little boy that he's a little girl, according to the libs, which of course does not affirm anything.
It only denies reality.
Here's what he said.
He says, and this is in an interview with NPR, In medicine, there's an evidence-based standard of care for the evaluation and treatment of trans individuals, whether they're youth or adults.
The standard is set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Oh, okay.
So hold on, you're telling me that the standard of what a man is and what a woman is, is being set by the transgender lobby.
Um...
Does that make a lot of sense?
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The last formal standards of care were released in 2011.
And we expect the new standards of care in 2022.
So they're saying 10 years ago, 11 years ago, maybe they didn't quite think that we should trans the kids yet.
But now, look, it's the current year.
It's the current moment.
The past is always evil.
The present is always a crisis.
The future is going to be great.
And so now it's 2022 and we've decided to mutilate little kids' genitals.
Okay?
And that's just, if you question that, you're a bigot and an idiot.
There are many other standards set by organized medicine.
For example, the Endocrine Society, which is an international organization of hormone specialists and endocrinologists that has a standard of care.
There have been comments from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, from the American Medical Association, the American blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all in support of evidence-based standards of care for gender-affirming treatment.
There's no argument among medical professionals, he says.
About the value and importance of gender affirming care.
If the entire medical establishment is now suggesting that we should conduct experiments on little tiny girls and boys and pump them full of unnatural hormones and chop up their genitals, if that's the opinion of the medical establishment, All that tells you is that the modern medical establishment needs to be dismantled.
That doesn't tell you anything about the little girls and boys.
Doesn't tell you anything about sex, about the difference between men and women.
Doesn't tell you anything about medicine.
It tells you everything you need to know about the political lobbies that constitute the modern medical establishment that need to be dismantled brick by brick by brick.
And these people need to get help.
They need to not be making healthcare policy and they need to get help.
If you're a man who thinks that he's a woman, you need to take a pause, not be making healthcare policy for the country, and go see a psychologist.
And work this out in your head.
I say this actually with a great deal of sympathy and with as much compassion as I can.
Something's not right with you.
You're sick in the head and you need to get better and you need to not force your psychological problems on the country.
And especially, you need to not force your psychological problems on little kids.
We just need to say no.
We've got to say no to the pederasty illustrated porn in kindergarten.
We've got to say no to the sexually confused people trying to transgender the kids.
We've got to say no to killing the babies based on a completely made-up constitutional right from 19...
We've just got to say no, okay?
And there's nothing fascist or illiberal or a threat to democracy about that.
No matter what the New York Times wants to say.
No matter what the thugs who are about to be mostly peacefully protesting with Molotov cocktails have to say about it.
We need to stand firm.
The fact that we're getting a lot of pushback right now from the left on really basic stuff.
Don't kill babies and don't trans the kids.
We're getting so much pushback from the left on that.
That is going to impel a lot of squishy conservatives to say, hey guys, can we just give it up?
Do we have to fight about this?
This might hurt us in the midterms.
Spoiler alert, it's not going to hurt you in the midterms.
It's going to help you.
Look what happened in Virginia.
Look what happened in Florida.
No one cares about cutting your stupid corporate tax rates.
Everyone cares about protecting their kids.
This is actually a winner for conservatives, but that's a political calculation that's actually secondary to the moral calculus.
What we're doing is the right thing to do, and what the libs are doing is the wrong thing to do, and the fact that they're pushing back so hard tells you everything you need to know that this is the fight we've got to fight.
Well, what?
Are you really going to die on the hill of...
Are you willing to die?
I don't intend to die on any hills, by the way.
Are you willing to die on the hill of not having pederast porn in kindergarten?
Yeah, I guess so.
I'm certainly willing to fight on that hill.
I don't intend to die on any hills.
You're willing to die on the hill of not killing over 800,000 babies a year through abortion?
Yeah, of course I am.
Come on, Michael.
You're going to die on the hill of not letting extremely disturbed, sexually confused men make health care policy for all of America and try to pump little kids full of cross-sex hormones?
Uh-huh.
Yeah, I am.
Why aren't you?
Well, because we need to focus on the more important battles, like tariffs.
Like, oh, okay, alright.
Sorry, okay, alright, fine.
No.
That's the old way.
That's the old way of fighting the political battles that the New York Times was basically fine with.
You know, they would push back a little, but that was fine.
That all worked within the framework of liberalism.
They didn't really call that dangerous and a threat to democracy and try to upend elections and try to pull threats on the members of the Supreme Court for that stuff, okay?
They would complain.
They would whine.
No, no.
Citizens United is going to change campaign finance law.
Even D.C. versus Heller is going to change gun control law.
You didn't see this stuff, okay?
You didn't see activists on the court releasing opinions, trying to put a target on the heads of these justices.
You didn't see seven bazillion word long New York Times exposés trying to go after people for stating basic truths about reality.
The only thing, this is a rule of show business.
The The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
And in politics, the only thing worse than being attacked by the really bad people is not being attacked by the really bad people at the New York Times or in the White House or anywhere else.
The fact that it's getting so hot right now tells you how important an issue this is.
These issues that we're fighting right now are of such importance.
Don't go squishy now.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
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.
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 2022.
Hey there, this is John Bickley, Daily Wire editor-in-chief and co-host of Morning Wire.
On today's episode, crime in major cities spins out of control, the newly formed Disinformation Governance Board comes under fire, and the Supreme Court hands down a unanimous decision on free speech and religious liberty.
