Democrats’ pro-abortion law fails to win even a simple majority in the Senate, the nationwide baby formula shortage worsens, and young people now identify as “cake gender.”
The Daily Wire will take a wrecking ball to all the lies the abortion industry is built upon. Become a member and tune in to our documentary on abortion “Choosing Death: The Legacy of Roe”: https://utm.io/uezgd
I’m exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Manage your family's financial future like a parenting pro. Try Fabric today, RISK-FREE 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee: MeetFabric.com/knowles
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
Last night, the Associated Press reported that Senate Democrats' bill to write Roe v.
Wade into law blocked by GOP-led filibuster as Supreme Court weighs abortion case.
That was the AP headline.
MSNBC similarly reported that a GOP-led filibuster derailed the bill to codify Roe v.
Wade protections.
And since the AP and MSNBC reported it, you will not be surprised to find out that that is not true.
The Democrats' abortion bill failed by a vote of 49 to 51.
I don't know.
I obviously do not put it past MSNBC and the AP to lie, but in their defense, I also wouldn't be surprised if the geniuses running those news organizations simply didn't know what the word filibuster means.
The bill did not fail because of any strange rules, any chicanery.
It failed because most senators voted against it.
And most senators voted against it because it would have outlawed virtually every abortion restriction in the country.
It actually did not seek to codify Roe v.
Wade into law.
If that's all the bill had sought to do, the bill almost certainly would have passed because squishy Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski almost certainly would have voted for it.
The bill went further because Democrats have adopted an extreme position on abortion that has absolutely no basis in the American legal tradition and almost no currency among the American people, just 6% of whom support it, which is why they're taking to the streets and throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows of pro-life pregnancy centers and screaming in front of the houses of Supreme Court justices and scaring their kids in the middle of the night.
The pro-abortion movement cannot seem to gain any more power.
It can't seem even to hold on to the power that it already has in the ordinary political process.
So now they're looking outside the political process to mob justice in residential neighborhoods.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Kevin Springer.
A leftist says, this country is not a Christian nation, to which I say, our money literally says, in God we trust.
Yes, it does.
Not just our money.
We have a Pledge of Allegiance.
We say I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
One nation under God.
Our earliest national holiday in this country is Thanksgiving.
To whom do you think they were giving thanks?
It's pretty clear.
Actually, later on, George Washington tells us to whom they were giving thanks.
Our other national holiday, the 4th of July, what does that commemorate?
It commemorates the Declaration of Independence.
What does the Declaration of Independence say?
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator.
Who's that creator?
We're talking about the big guy.
We're talking about God.
It's a completely ahistorical argument to say that America is not a Christian nation, to say that Christianity is not the animating nation.
Spirit of America.
It has been from the very beginning.
And so what the Libs try to do is they take one or two lines from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson or the Treaty of Tripoli where we were trying to convince Muslim pirates to stop stealing our sailors and they take them completely out of the historical and philosophical context of the country and it leads people astray.
It's lots of wish casting from the secular left.
Now, speaking of very zealous leftists, You know, we've had this scourge of protesters outside of the Supreme Court justices' homes yelling, screaming, doing all sorts of nasty things, waking up the justices' families in the middle of the night.
We've seen violent pro-abortion demonstrations in the rest of the country, Wisconsin, Oregon, Maryland, throwing Molotov cocktails, vandalism, graffiti, all sorts of things.
I want to make sure that we're not just in an echo chamber here.
We're not just talking to ourselves.
So I'm bringing on someone who I suspect is more reasonable than Joe Biden.
I hope he's more reasonable than Joe Biden.
This would be David Pakman.
David coming back to the show.
Nationally syndicated progressive talk show host on TV and radio.
David, thank you for coming back to the show.
The first time went so well, I had to come back for seconds.
I knew it.
That's why we invited you back.
And listen, I... I was disheartened to see that Joe Biden and Jen Psaki would not condemn the protests at all hours outside of the justices' homes and residential neighborhoods before their families.
I suspect, I mean this sincerely, I'm not being facetious at all, I suspect you are more reasonable than the staffers at the White House now.
Can we at least agree this is bad, it is bad to protest outside of Supreme Court justices' homes?
Well, so I suspect you want to have a good faith conversation about this.
Is that a fair assessment so we can speak freely here?
You're not just looking to play gotcha here.
I'm not.
No, I'm not.
That's not what we do on the show.
So let's see.
This is not a protest technique I would employ, right?
But I have...
A large platform online where I'm going to reach way more people than going to anybody's house.
So like my personal thing is this is not a protest technique I would employ.
Let's go through like legality, morality, ethics, etc.
Yeah.
Anything that is a criminal act like a Molotov cocktail, destruction of property, whatever, it should be reported.
If there's a crime, people should be charged.
If you can get a guilty verdict, they should be sentenced.
Fine.
Very, very good.
In terms of the speech aspect of this, there's this case from the 90s, Madsen v.
Women's Health Center, which found That it's okay for anti-choice protesters to go and protest outside the homes of just random workers at abortion clinics.
Okay?
Now, that's not my opinion.
That's a decision that exists.
Those are quite literally private citizens.
They're just like medical workers, right?
So if that's okay and we have a First Amendment, certainly showing up and protesting isn't against the law.
Are you and I on the same page about that piece?
No, because in the U.S. Code, 18 U.S. Code, Section 1507, the law, the federal law, explicitly prohibits protesting outside of the homes of judges with the intention of influencing their decisions.
So if they were- The decision has been done, though.
No, it hasn't.
The decision hasn't come out.
There was a leaked draft of the opinion.
So I would agree with you.
It's not clear that they were in violation of the law if the decision had already come out and they were just expressing their anger.
But because the decision has not come out, because it seems clear to me that the protesters are trying to change the course of how this decision is going to come and try to bring political pressure, to me it seems quite clear this is a violation of federal law.
No, no lawyer I've spoken to says that this is against any law unless some specific, you know, even something as relatively benign as a noise ordinance.
Let's say there's a noise ordinance that starts at 10 p.m.
If it's 11 and you're being loud, okay, now we have something to talk about.
But I'm not spoken to any lawyer who says there's any law being broken here.
That is the law.
I mean, the viewers are free to go check it out.
But that is a very specific law.
There's actually a Virginia statute, too.
But I'm just talking about the federal law.
18 U.S.C. 1507.
You can look it up.
Now, you might say, well, I don't like that law.
I don't think it's just.
I think it's a violation.
I just don't think it's applicable at the homes of these individuals in Virginia based on lawyers I've spoken to.
Neither you or I are lawyers, so we may just be...
But I can read the law.
I mean, the statute is plain.
Are you saying that you don't think that the protesters are seeking to influence the decision?
I haven't spoken to them, so I really can't say.
You can hear what they're saying, right?
What's that?
You can hear the sort of things that they're chanting.
They're not saying...
I actually have not heard what they're chanting.
I don't know what they're...
What are they chanting?
You tell me.
They're chanting, my body, my choice.
They're chanting, you know...
My body, my choice isn't change the decision.
Of course it is.
That's just their opinion, right?
My body, my choice.
They're chanting in support of the ruling that will be overruled by the Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization case.
Listen, I think that if we want to get into the minutia of this at the legal level, I think you would have a hard time arguing that legally saying my body, my choice is equivalent to saying change your decision.
So I don't know that this is the best path for us.
David, what would they be doing outside of the justices' homes before a decision comes out, after a leaked opinion?
Expressing their opinion.
I mean, listen, legally I don't think you're going to win on that.
I don't think you're going to win on legally they were breaking the law because they said my body, my choice.
It seems very weak.
No, David, they're not merely saying my body, my choice, and they're not merely posting some opinion online.
They're going to the homes of these people.
Actually, the group that sent them, it's called Ruth Sentus, they said that this is an unacceptable attack on women and LGBT, and we need to force them, right, that was the key word, we need to force them to change their views using a diversity of tactics.
And we would acknowledge that peaceful protesting is just one tactic, so it seems like they're calling for other things.
But even that word force, what is that word force?
But now, Michael, Now you're blending, now you're saying, well, they've used peaceful protesting, but they're calling for other things, and so they've broken the...
That isn't my problem.
No, no, I mean, I think that that is a separate issue, but the very fact that the organization...
But you brought it up.
I'm sorry?
But you introduced it in this conversation.
That's a problem as well, that they're calling for a diversity of tactics.
But the chief problem that we're discussing here is that the organization that is taking responsibility for sending the mobs to the justices' homes says we need to force them to change their minds.
We need to force them to not attack women and LGBT and all of the other minority groups that they're discussing.
So even the word force would suggest to me that they are attempting to influence the decision and therefore are in violation of this law.
Yeah, I'm not trying to skirt the main point you're trying to make, which I am unsure I can identify, but I haven't seen that specifically said, so it's just hard for me to comment on it.
You're pleading ignorance on this point.
No, I'm not pleading ignorance.
What I can speak to is...
If any crime has been committed, charge them.
I'm totally with that.
I'm totally with that.
Yeah.
Okay, that makes sense.
Do you think now, from your perspective, as a reasonable Democrat, if you were advising Democrats...
I'm not a Democrat.
I've never been associated with a Democratic Party.
Really?
Are you in any party, or you're just independent?
No.
Yeah, I'm just independent.
Would you...
You would generally vote for Democrats, I would assume.
I vote for more Democrats than Republicans.
I don't care about parties, though.
I see parties essentially almost like corporations that justify their own existence to just continue existing in opposition to the other party.
Do you really vote for Republicans?
I voted for many...
There's lots of nonpartisan local elections where I later found out some of the people were not Democrats.
But, I mean, it's kind of neither here nor there.
Okay.
But you're not formally in the Democrat Party.
If you were advising a Democratic candidate, or any candidate for that matter, who is on the left...
Would you advise them to continue running on this issue of abortion, on this issue of, well, for instance, the bill that the Democrats last night tried to pass, it failed in the Senate.
They said it was to codify Roe v.
Wade.
It actually went further to create even more abortion protections.
Would you advise them to run on this issue in the midterms or to back away from it in the midterms?
So, run on it.
I think that there's two, from a political strategy standpoint, there's two options.
One would be run on the bill that failed yesterday.
That doesn't seem like a good idea to run on that.
I think where there is, based on public opinion about abortion being as in favor of it as ever before during the Roe v.
Wade era, public polling is now in the 60-70% of Americans believe abortion should Generally be legal in most cases that that's not in every case but in most cases based on that it seems to me it would be prudent to run on we need to get the government Out of medical decisions between women and doctors.
I mean, and again, you and I are never going to agree on something like, when does life begin?
That's a different...
We might agree on that.
You know, I had a gal who came...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
But let me at least finish my sentence.
Sure.
You asked me about strategy.
It seems to me that since most Americans think abortion should be legal in most cases, the right strategy thing would be We need to get the federal government out of the middle of these medical decisions.
But right now, let's say that the leaked opinion actually ends up being the final decision.
Let's say that Roe v.
Wade is overruled.
Instantly, as Elizabeth Warren says, abortion is severely restricted, if not outlawed, in more than half of the states.
Instantly, you're in a very different situation.
Knowing that there are all sorts of polls.
There's polls that show that 94% of Americans reject the absolutist view of abortion held by some Democrats.
There are polls, as you cite, that show that when you ask the question, do you support Roe versus Wade broadly, then there is some majority of Americans that broadly want some abortion liberality.
Yeah, but Michael, that's very mealy-mouthed.
It is very mealy-mouthed, you're right.
Let's just be honest.
Ask the same way, over the last 50 years, support for Roe v.
Wade has continued to go up.
Fair?
Well, it depends how you ask the question.
Ask the same way, over the last 50 years, it has gone up.
If you ask the question in a way that is...
I think hiding the reality of abortion and is just talking about the decision Roe vs.
Wade, then sure, there's broad support for it.
But if you ask the question and you say, do you support this type of abortion?
Do you support this type of abortion?
Then the support is much, much smaller.
This is why the bill failed yesterday.
You're creating distinctions only to create doubt when the point I'm making is...
Over the last 50 years, generally, overall, should abortion generally be legal in most cases?
Support has gone up.
You can admit that and still be against it.
No, but David, the problem is the devil is in the details.
Because, I mean, I've got a poll right here that goes into depth on different aspects of abortion polling.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Depending on how you phrase the question, you get very different answers.
So I guess my point is this.
According to some of this polling, very few voters and very, very few independent voters support abortion as a top policy issue.
It does not seem to motivate a whole lot of people to go to the polls.
Oh, fair.
I would agree with that.
I agree with that.
So therefore, in that case, if you were advising these candidates, you know, you might say, okay, just keep using the same lines that Democrats have used since Roe versus Wade.
But if you were talking about focusing a campaign, I think there are a lot of Democrats right now who say, we're going to run on this.
This is going to motivate everyone to go to the polls.
Make your campaign about abortion.
Would you say that's a good strategy or would you say, hey, maybe back off a little bit and talk about, I don't know, gas prices?
No, no, no.
I don't think that's a good strategy.
I mean, again, This is less about my opinion, but it's about what the facts show.
The facts show that economic issues are far more important when it comes to running national campaigns.
So, I mean, no disagreement there.
These are just strategy questions.
Yeah, absolutely.
Sure.
There was polling that came out yesterday that showed that on the abortion question, in as much as it does motivate people, it's actually the Roe v.
Wade overruling seems to be propelling Republicans at almost 2x the rate as Democrats.
So, anyway...
Listen, David, I knew that you would be much more reasonable than Joe Biden.
David, that's all the time we have.
Thank you very much for coming on.
Oh my God, it's over.
We haven't even talked about anything yet.
Well, no, I think, as I gave you a compliment, but thankfully that's missing too.
I think that you've presented a more reasonable view than the White House has.
I think you've presented better political advice than the White House has for their own party.
And so I appreciate you for coming on.
Where can people find you?
DavidPakman.com.
I can't imagine a more meaningful compliment and praise than that coming from you, Michael.
Thank you.
David, thanks for coming on.
Now, listen, folks.
We need to protect not just our families, not just our rule of law, not just our institutions.
We've got to protect our homes.
That's why you need Ring.
Right now, go to ring.com slash Knowles.
You know how much I love Ring.
I've been talking about Ring for years.
They have been supporting this show basically since the very beginning.
And it started with that Ring video doorbell, which is great.
You get to see and speak to whoever is at your doorstep, whether you're in your home, at the office, on the beach somewhere.
Then I told you about Ring Alarm.
So So Ring Alarm allows you to protect your whole home.
The windows, the doors, you can protect from freeze, fire, flood, all the bad guys.
Well now, my friends, now, you've got to go pro.
Ring Alarm Pro does not just protect your physical home.
You live in your physical home.
We've got physical bodies.
You've got to protect that.
It protects your digital home, too.
We live so much of our lives online in the virtual reality that you've got to protect that Wi-Fi router.
Ring Alarm Pro, according to CNET, is a giant leap for home security.
You're going to find out why.
Be a pro like me.
Go pro with Ring.
It's absolutely great.
It makes me feel so comfortable when I'm in the home, when I'm away from the home.
To learn more, go to ring.com slash Knowles.
That's ring.com slash Knowles.
You know, David wouldn't give me the point, and he kind of pled ignorance on this aspect of the federal law, which is pretty clear, by the way.
It says very explicitly, you cannot protest outside the judges' homes to influence the decisions.
But I think he conceded the broader point, which is, yeah, I wouldn't use this tactic.
Yeah, I don't think this is very effective.
Yeah, I don't, if they broke a law, you know, let's arrest them and sweep them to the fringes.
It would probably be wise for Democrats to do this, because this is a loser for them.
They thought leaking the opinion was going to galvanize support.
It hasn't.
It's had the opposite effect.
They thought protesting outside the judges' homes was going to galvanize support.
It's had the opposite effect.
I think the purpose of leaking that opinion was to codify Roe v.
Wade into law and pass a national abortion bill.
They tried that.
that.
It failed.
And it didn't even fail because of the filibuster.
It failed because they couldn't even get a bare majority of people to vote for it.
And so now they're left screaming into the void.
There was a, I don't know his name.
There was a guy who popped up, dash something.
He popped up on Twitter.
He went viral yesterday.
Some people said he looked like a deep fake of me, like a kind of bizarro world version of me.
And he expressed what I think is the very common anger and very incoherent anger of the libs over Roe v.
Wade.
I have a question for the Department of Justice.
When Amy Coney Barrett said she'd uphold Roe v.
Wade in her confirmation hearing, she lied.
Lying under oath is perjury, and perjury is a federal crime.
Why didn't you take any legal action against her?
When Neil Gorsuch said he'd uphold Roe v.
Wade in his confirmation hearing, he lied.
Lying under oath is perjury and perjury is a federal crime.
Why didn't you take any legal action against him?
When Brett Kavanaugh said he'd uphold Roe v.
Wade in his confirmation hearing, he lied.
Lying under oath is perjury and perjury is a federal crime.
Why didn't you take any legal action against him?
Merrick Garland, your decision not to prosecute is going to cost women in America their reproductive rights.
How dare you call yourself the Department of Justice?
Do your job.
Prosecute the Republican Justices.
Mr.
Garland, how dare you call yourself the deprived?
Does he call himself that?
I don't think he does.
Well, they committed perjury.
No, they didn't.
Do the libs not know what basic words mean?
What basic legal concepts are?
They don't know what the filibuster is.
They don't know the political concept.
They don't know what perjury is.
But this is a common refrain now that you're hearing from the libs that Amy Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch perjured themselves because of what they said in their confirmation hearings about Roe v.
Wade.
Well, what did they say?
I've got it here.
I've got it from factcheck.org, which is sort of a...
Isn't that the left-wing organization?
I think it is, but they have the exact words here.
And what did they say?
Gorsuch said that Roe was precedent.
He wouldn't even say that it was super precedent.
He said, this is precedent.
Senator, I would tell you, Roe v.
Wade decided in 1973 as a precedent of the United States Supreme Court.
It has been reaffirmed.
The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered.
It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992.
So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any others.
And Kavanaugh and Barrett did the same thing.
They didn't say, I will uphold Roe v.
Wade.
I will uphold Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
They said, it is precedent.
It should be treated as other precedents are.
And sometimes you uphold precedents and sometimes you overrule precedents.
And all the senators during their confirmationaries wanted the judges to say, I hate Roe v.
Wade.
But they wouldn't say that because they were smart and they wanted to get on the court.
So they just said, yes.
It would be as if they said, Roe v.
Wade is Roe v.
Wade.
Yes.
And Planned Parenthood v.
Casey is Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
And Roe v.
Wade has three words in it, Roe versus Wade.
And one of those words starts with an R and the other with a V and the other with a W. And that is my opinion of Roe versus Wade.
And that's what they said, and now they're going to overrule it.
It was a precedent.
Might not be a very important precedent for much longer.
This issue, I got into a little bit with David.
This is a loser, not just in terms of where the support is.
David made the point that Roe v.
Wade, the concept of Roe v.
Wade is popular enough.
But abortion itself is not very popular, which is why you've got to go into the details and why you've got to change the wording from the way Democrats have in the polls to the way Republicans do in the polls.
And then you've got the motivation factor.
People are simply not motivated by this issue at all.
Only one in five independent voters are According to new polling by the RNC obtained first by the Daily Wire, one in five independent voters say abortion is the main factor for them in determining a candidate.
Only 16% of independent voters said abortion should be allowed at any time during the mother's pregnancy for any reason.
When you add Republicans to that number, then that number goes down to 6% of the electorate.
So it's the top issue for only 9% of voters.
It's a loser, Democrats.
I mean, keep it up.
You're only winning votes for...
For Republicans at this point, you're only winning support for the overrule of Roe versus Wade, but you are not helping your own side.
All right, now speaking of life and death, you've got to go check out Fabric.
Right now, go to meetfabric.com slash Knowles.
Do the responsible thing, parents, okay?
Time to finally cross off one of the most important things on your to-do list.
That's life insurance.
Fabric makes getting a great term life insurance policy for your family quick, easy, surprisingly affordable.
Fabric was built specifically for parents to help you manage your family's financial future like a parenting pro, stress-free.
Fabric's new lower prices mean significant savings over other providers with great policies like a million dollars in coverage for less than a dollar a day.
Everything is on your schedule with Fabric because it's all online.
Less than 10 minutes to apply, you could be offered coverage instantly.
No health exam required.
Just personalize your quote to fit your family's needs.
You will be set with high quality affordable protection for your family.
You will sleep easier at night.
You will have done the responsible thing.
It's backed by Vantus Life.
Really, really important to do right now.
You got a 30-day money back guarantee.
Protect your family with term life insurance now in just 10 minutes.
Apply at meetfabric.com slash Knowles.
That's meetfabric.com slash Knowles.
How do you spell it?
M-E-E-T, fabric.com slash Knowles.
Fabric insurance agency policy is issued by Vantus Life, not available in New York and Montana.
Price is subject to underwriting and health questions.
The weird sex stuff does not play for Dems.
Whether we're talking about abortion or whether we're talking about gender or transgender or orientations or all sorts of sexual issues.
You know that the number of genders has multiplied in recent years from 2 to 56 to 75.
Now there's a new gender.
I found one yesterday.
I had never heard of it before.
That would be cake gender.
Okay, I would describe xenogenders as a gender that could not typically be described with terms such as masculinity, femininity, neutrality, androgyny, things like that.
It's more of not how you relate to a particular gendered experience, but more of how you relate to things.
For example, cake gender.
I know a few people who personally use this.
It's typically described as them feeling light and fluffy or sweet and warm, and it's not something that you could typically describe with the terms masculine, feminine, androgynous, etc.
Another example of cake gender would be if someone feels like they have different layers or flavors to their particular gender.
I'm cannoli gender.
I'm a little prickly on the outside maybe, but really soft and sweet in the middle, you know, and full of chocolate chips actually too.
Every gender identity other than man and woman is a euphemism for narcissism, I have come to realize.
Every single one.
You can be a man, you can be a woman.
Before you become a man or a woman, you can be a boy or a girl.
Every other Gender identity is just a case of people thinking about themselves too much.
It's not that they think too much of themselves, necessarily.
It's that they think of themselves too much.
And a man wrapped up in himself makes a small package, indeed.
Cake gender, the way that this lib, brought to us, of course, by Libs of TikTok, the way that she describes cake gender...
Is to say, yeah, I think that I'm sweet.
I think I'm a nice person.
I think I have some levity to me.
And therefore, that's a special gender identity that makes me really special and unique.
No, you know, most people are kind of nice, at least some of the time.
Most people can be sweet some of the time.
Most people have some levity.
Most people laugh occasionally some of the time.
That doesn't make you...
Super-duper special, okay?
It's a good thing.
It's good to be encouraged.
But stop.
If you just think about yourself and all the ways that you're so super-duper special and so different from everybody else, there will be no end to that.
All you will do, like Narcissus, is just look down at the mirror and just see yourself.
And you won't be able to see all the other beautiful stuff around the world.
You won't be able to lift your eyes to heaven.
You won't be able to look around at your community.
You're just going to be thinking of you.
And that's not good.
That's going to drive you crazy.
And the people who fall into this stuff are crazy.
And they're behaving in a really crazy way.
And the way to stop it is to just stop thinking of yourself so much.
You are born with the facts of your sexual identity.
Namely, you're a boy or a girl, a man or a woman.
That's that.
Just accept that and move on.
You do not need to discover or invent or develop your sexual identity.
You've got it.
There you are.
Those are the parameters.
Those are just like a sonnet has limits, just like all great art has limits.
Those are your limits, and you have unique aspects to yourself, and you can develop your own personality, but you don't need to reinvent everything.
Actually, when you think about other people in the world, and when you can accept the basic facts of life, That will free you to think about more important things.
It will help you to grow up, which is really what so much of this sexual revolution stuff is about.
It's a bunch of people who are stuck and stunted in their maturity at, I don't know, the age of 12 or something.
And all they're thinking about is the very base-level, titillating kind of fleshy things.
Move on, guys.
At a certain point, we have to grow up, or we're going to have a society of overgrown children, which is unfortunately what we have, and it's not leading to lots of great things.
This is, by the way, I don't just want to beat up on the people with the weird sex stuff.
We all fall into this sometimes.
This is why personality tests are so popular on the internet.
Am I an EPDJ or an IFP? What am I? You're such a Pisces.
You're such a Capricorn.
Yeah, no, I took this test and you're just...
People do that.
The reason that advertising agencies put those tests into websites is because they know that you're extremely self-absorbed.
And they know...
Probably not you.
You're the creme de la creme.
If you're listening to this show, you're focused on broader things.
But for a lot of people out there, they're extremely self-absorbed and they click those links because they don't really care about art or literature or politics or things outside themselves.
They really just care about themselves and they want to talk more about themselves.
Don't do it, folks!
It's super...
Boring and silly and embarrassing.
Don't do that.
Speaking of narcissism, one of the biggest Hollywood...
Hollywood?
One of the biggest Broadway stars, Patti LuPone, just got caught on audio berating an audience member at one of her shows because the audience member was not wearing his mask in exactly the way that Patti LuPone wanted him to.
I just want to address one thing.
Please...
Put your masks over your noses.
Oh, do you want me to go put a mask on right now?
Did I have a mask on during the show?
Do you want me to put a mask on?
Because I will.
Your mask protects me so that I can perform.
I can do things like you all the time.
Just use a new shirt right next to her.
Push your mask over your nose.
That's why you're in the theater.
That is the rule.
If you don't want to follow the rule, get the out!
Woo!
Get out!
Woo!
Leave!
Who do you think you are if you do not respect the people that are sitting around you?
Salary.
You pay my salary?
Bullshit, Patti LuPone!
Who do you think you are?
Who do you think you are?
Do you think you're like me, the person not wearing a mask?
The best part of it, of course, is that she is not wearing a mask.
She's not supposed to wear a mask.
She's a special person.
She's famous.
Even though she's just a Broadway actress, she's probably fairly wealthy.
She goes to very fancy parties.
She's celebrated.
She doesn't have to do it.
Biden doesn't have to wear a mask.
That's why he gets caught without a mask all the times, even when he's making everyone else wear one.
Dr. Fauci, he doesn't have to wear a mask.
All the celebrities at the Met Gala or anywhere else, they don't need to wear masks.
Only the dirty, filthy, disgusting staff who might spread their peasant germs to the beautiful elite people, they need to wear the mask.
And usually, usually the elites have the common sense, the common basic political self-preservation instinct to not scream at the unwashed masses Patti LuPone, like a lot of Broadway actresses, doesn't have a ton of control over her emotions.
And so she goes and just shrieks at this person and says, Who do you think you are?
Do you think you're me?
Yeah, I think that we have at least as many political rights as you are.
At least I think we should.
And if you were really so concerned about the Wuhan flu, then you just wouldn't perform in the first place.
You'd either wear a mask on stage or you just wouldn't show up if this were really such a grave threat to you.
But it's not, and you know it's not, and it's just a power trip, and it might have a little to do with neurosis too.
But we're not going to take that anymore, okay?
And I give a lot of credit.
The guy in that audience is the kind of guy who would go see a Broadway show.
So we're not, I don't think that this was some rock-ribbed, radical, right-wing Republican or anything.
This is the kind of guy who will go to very left-wing cultural events.
And he just said, look, I'll put them, but I'm not going to have it over my nose, and I'm not going to back down to you, Patti LuPone.
I don't think so.
The libs are totally, totally Disconnected from reality at this point.
Do you remember a few weeks ago?
A few weeks ago, we heard that there might be some food shortages in this country.
We had an inkling that this was true because, well, for one, our grocery stores have had some weird stocking issues.
Supply chain hasn't been great.
To say nothing of prices going through the roof.
And when we suggested that, what happened?
The Libs called us conspiracy theorists.
The Libs said we were spreading far-right misinformation, disinformation.
Oh, whoops.
Not only do we have a food shortage, we have a shortage of baby formula.
40% of all baby formula products nationwide are currently out of stock.
That's according to CNN. The libs are blaming this on a recall of products from this one Michigan plant that's run by Abbott Nutrition.
There's a question, why was it shut down for so long?
Why couldn't they just resolve this issue and then reopen it?
The baby formula shortage is a big problem, because one, not every baby can breastfeed, not every baby can latch, not every mother can produce milk.
Sometimes the mother can produce milk, but not enough milk.
So this is a real problem.
When you've got a little three-month-old baby, the baby's got to eat.
If you don't have formula, that is as acute a problem as there can be in a country.
The timing of this, though, really throws it into stark light.
The conservatives right now are very, very worried that America won't be able to feed its babies.
The conservatives are trying to pass bills.
The conservatives are writing to the heads of the agencies, like the FDA, saying, what's going on?
We need to make a more efficient process.
We need to pass some emergency legislation.
We need to get formula to the babies.
That's what the conservatives are worried about.
The liberals are worried, deathly afraid that they won't be able to kill as many babies anymore.
The conservatives want to feed the babies.
The libs want to kill the babies.
The conservatives are proposing legislation to feed the babies.
The libs are proposing legislation to kill the babies.
Actually, to kill more babies even than you would see in a framework of Roe vs.
Wade.
Which do you think is more popular?
Well, we know.
We know because the abortion bill failed.
So we know that that's not particularly popular.
Why are they doing it?
Why are they doing it?
I think, one, they're really trapped by their own ideology.
I think, two, they're captive to their radical, radical base, which wants abortion on demand without apology.
And three...
I think it's just kind of the devil, folks.
I think, you know, it's kind of like that bell curve meme where at the very bottom of the bell, like the really dumb people on the bell curve, they're just like, duh, bad people collude with the devil.
And then in the middle, it's like, well, no, actually, you know, it's because of all of these rationalist reasons that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then at the very top of the IQ bell curve, it's like, no, it's probably just the devil.
I think that's kind of what it is.
When you see people crazed, like Elizabeth Warren was, fire in her eyes, fingers itching for the tomahawk, saying, I'm so angry about Roe versus Wade.
We're going to stop it.
We're going to kill all these babies.
We're going to fight back against these babies.
The only way that I can explain that mania, ultimately at a really deep level, is that evil is real.
There's a personification of evil, and people collude with it.
That's it.
Do I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist?
No, I think I sound like Pretty much every wise person throughout the history of the world, all of whom knew that good and evil are real things and have real personalities, and we have some relation to them.
Okay, there is a former Ohio State Senator, a blue check on Twitter, Nina Turner, who is actually, she's actually taken it all the way to its logical conclusion and has said, Look, there's a baby formula shortage and Roe v.
Wade might be overruled.
This just shows you, right, if you were a conservative, you'd say, this just shows you we need to feed the babies.
She said, this just shows you how important it is to kill more of the babies.
We got a baby formula shortage.
What's the answer to that?
You can either make more food or kill more babies.
And this woman actually says, quote, there's a national shortage of baby formula.
That means babies are going hungry.
Instead of taking care of our nation's children, conservatives are worried about banning abortions.
Sickening.
And this is, actually, in her defense, this is the left's argument for abortion.
The left's argument for abortion is, if a baby might suffer ever, if a baby might have any hardship in his life, it would be better to kill that baby.
Than to let him live and be adopted by parents or whatever.
Their argument is that suffering of any kind is worse than death.
And it explains the Libs' reaction to abortion.
It explains the Libs' reaction to suicide.
It explains the Libs' policies on drugs, actually, for that matter.
It explains the Libs' reaction to questions of life.
Now, you know, tomorrow is the mailbag.
I'm very excited.
We've got this new, wonderful process where I get to hear from you in the mailbag.
Not just read your questions, but I will get to hear from you.
You can leave voicemails in my mailbag.
We will play them on the show.
So make sure you become a Daily Wire member to go do that.
Also, it is the most infamous Supreme Court case in history.
It is the deadliest decision in history.
And even 50 years after Roe v.
Wade, few know the full gruesome truth behind that landmark decision.
This decision that has enabled the destruction of over 64 million babies since 1971.
Well, tomorrow, May 13th, the Daily Wire will take a wrecking ball to all the four big lies that the abortion industry is built upon.
Tune into the world premiere.
of our original documentary, featuring yours truly, called Choosing Death, The Legacy of Roe.
Uncover the inside story of how Roe v.
Wade came to pass and why it needs to pass away.
Here's the trailer.
Many times when we did this, as we started, patients would begin crying and protesting.
But once we had begun dilating the cervix and passing instruments into the uterus, it was too late to stop.
I was handing hush money to women who we had left pieces of their baby.
We had put these women's lives in jeopardy.
We had put their lives at risk, and we were literally giving them a check for $800.
And for a poor woman, $800 is a lot of money.
I mean, there have been so many moments in the last decade plus of going undercover in abortion clinics myself and seeing just heartbreaking things.
Women vomiting in the hallway of an abortion clinic, crying out in pain.
The late-term abortionists talking casually about how they would literally leave a born-alive baby to die.
Or if you deliver the baby in the toilet, then you pick it up and stuff it in a plastic bag and bring it to us.
Babies are being born alive and the backs of their necks are being slid.
They are being drowned.
Their necks are being snapped.
It's happening more often than people want to think about.
These abortion facilities, these abortion providers, these doctors, they don't care about these women.
And you're just, you're realizing you're watching in front of your own eyes play out America's greatest horror story, which is how we butcher children in the name of choice.
I'm walking on the ground!
Oh, God!
Please help us to expose the truth to Tell your friends to watch.
If you are not already a member, become one today.
DailyWire.com.
Tune in Friday to the documentary, Choosing Death, The Legacy of Roe.
DailyWire.com slash choosing.
Head on over there right now to join the fight.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
We've got food shortages.
We've got inflation at record highs.
We've got gas prices at record highs.
We've got immigration, especially illegal immigration, at record highs.
We've got the first major war in Europe since World War II. We've got lots and lots of problems.
Nothing is going right for Joe Biden.
And yet Joe Biden insists that this is his strength.
And I agree with what Chairman Powell said last week, that the number one threat is the strength, and that strength that we've built is inflation.
Now, I'm I think that might be true.
I think fact check true.
The number one threat is the strength.
Okay, what is it?
Strength isn't a threat, right?
Okay, what do you mean by strength?
You're saying the strength that you have built is inflation.
Well, you did build inflation.
You are one of the principal drivers of the inflation crisis we have right now.
And that is the number one threat.
So I guess he's telling the truth.
Probably unwittingly, probably because the teleprompter was too difficult for him to read or something.
But I think Joe Biden actually may have just accidentally said the most honest thing he's ever said in his entire career.
Yes, this is the threat.
This is a major threat to the country, disproportionately to people at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, and it's a big threat to his presidency.
And it's why the Democrats are running scared here.
I think it's why, in large part, they tried to shift away from the economic problems to a cultural issue like abortion.
And then abortion didn't work for them.
Then it turned out that was actually a loser too.
So now they're trying to shift and say, Republicans want to get rid of contraception.
They're making this argument.
They're saying, if we overrule Roe v.
Wade, then they're going to overrule the Griswold decision, which found a constitutional right to contraception.
They're going to outlaw interracial marriage.
They're truly grasping at straws because they know that this is a loser.
They know that the midterms right now, unless there is widespread voter fraud, which there might be, is a great new movie out by Dinesh D'Souza called 2000 Mules.
I actually haven't seen the whole movie yet, so I want to wait to comment on it until I can finish the movie.
But there is, you know, as we've said, especially on this show, as we've said from the very beginning since election night 2020, lots of questions about that election, lots of weird stuff, lots of obvious violations of the law in certain states and how the election was conducted.
Huh, that's not good.
If we don't get our election security under control, then it's not going to matter how much momentum we have going into the midterms or into 2024.
But assuming that we can get that under control, which we have in certain states at least, it's going to be a blowout.
Assuming nothing changes, it's going to be an absolute blowout for Joe Biden and for the Democrats.
I think a lot of people right now are looking back on those Trump days, those days of Republican rule, quite fondly.
I think people want Trump back.
If not in the White House, probably that too, but if not in the White House, certainly on Twitter, which is why Elon Musk is now saying, this is really breaking news, Elon Musk is saying he will, he would gladly reinstate Trump's Twitter account.
I guess the answer is that I would reverse the perma ban.
I don't own Twitter yet, so this is not a thing that will definitely happen, because what if I don't own Twitter?
But my opinion, and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares his opinion, is that we should not have perma bans.
Okay, great.
Great.
Done.
Why is he doing this?
One, because it's the right thing to do.
Elon made this point explicitly.
He said, I think it was morally wrong to ban Trump.
But he's also doing it.
This is a real message.
If you're not a true rock-ribbed conservative, constitutionalist, patriot, whatever word you want to use, at least let me appeal to your self-interest right now.
The issues that conservatives are running on are winning issues.
Having the ability to speak freely on social media, that's a winning issue.
The Libs have a losing position on that.
The Conservatives have a winning position.
Pro-life, pro-life or pro-abortion, look at that vote yesterday in the Senate.
The pro-life side is the winning argument here.
The restricting immigration, that is a winning argument.
Poll after poll after poll shows it.
The stop printing money and sending it to all people all over the world and actually maybe focus your resources at home, that's a winning argument.
Stop letting Dr.
Fauci govern the country, get rid of all the stupid COVID stuff.
That's a winning argument.
All the conservative arguments are winning, even just from yourself.
You should be siding with the conservatives.
If you're in the middle, if you're a squish, if you're an independent, it is in your interest to side with the conservatives.
For goodness sakes, even Whoopi Goldberg agrees on this point, especially on the point that Elon just made.
Whoopi Goldberg, on the view, she is a very left-wing lady.
She just said, yeah, if Elon wants to put Trump back on Twitter, that's probably the right thing to do.
Listen, Donald Trump wants to be on Twitter.
If people want to listen to him, fine.
Fine.
Because that's what it is.
That's where we have said to people, you have the right to say whatever you want to in this place.
We've let it go.
And when it suited us, it was fine.
And when it doesn't suit us, it's a problem.
So right, Whoopi.
You tell him.
That's right.
Yes, if people want to listen to Donald Trump, who is, by the way, who is not some fringe, radical, extremist, dangerous, he's a former president of the United States, for goodness sakes.
He's been a celebrity for 40 years.
He's a very well-known cultural figure.
If people want to hear from him, they should be able to hear from him.
It's not just crazy right-wingers who think that.
A lot of liberals think that, too.
A lot of Democrats think that, too.
That's why the Democrats are getting crushed in the polls right now.
You want to talk about issues of freedom?
Senator Cruz just proposed a phenomenal new bill.
This is the...
Wait for it.
It's the Allowing Military Exemptions Recognizing Individual Concerns About New Shots Act of 2022.
Also known as the Americans Act.
That, boo!
Boo, Senator Cruz!
That acronym is too good.
It's too good.
You know, politicians love acronyms.
That's a really good one.
And it's a really great bill.
Senator Cruz and a group of 13 GOP senators, so 14 total, have introduced this bill to protect military service members from punishment for declining to get the Fauci ouchie.
This is a good idea because Joe Biden wants to punish conservatives Largely conservatives, but anyone who has an opposition to taking this experimental drug that doesn't do what everyone told us it was going to do to protect against the virus, which isn't nearly as bad as everyone told us it was going to be, which is just to protect people from having medical experiments done on them, especially our service members.
It seems like really basic stuff.
And there have been lots of military members who have been discharged already over this issue.
So this bill would protect them, allow them to go back into the service.
This bill would protect people who are still holding out in the service, who don't want to take this dumb shot.
Really great stuff.
It's the right thing to do.
Senator Cruz, I mean, I know this personally because we host a show together and we've been talking about this from the very beginning.
He has always been on the side of this issue.
He's always been saying, no, no one should be forced to take this shot, but definitely not the service members.
Now there might be, with the elections coming up, there might be an opportunity to push this through, certainly by the time the next Senate rolls around.
Every Republican should be running on this.
Every Republican.
Not only because it's the right thing to do, but because it's a winning issue.
The reason I brought David Pakman on the show today was not to debate abortion.
We debated abortion with Bronte Remzik last week.
You can go watch that debate.
It's online.
I felt she gave a very honest view of her ghastly side of the argument, and I appreciated her coming on.
The reason I brought David Pakman on today is because I know that he's got some at least reasonable political instincts here.
And I wanted to see, David, are you going to defend people showing up at judges' homes and screaming and shouting?
Are you going to defend this extra-political kind of, you know, vandalizing pro-life centers?
Are you going to defend Democrats running on the issue of abortion?
And to his credit, he said, no, I'm not.
I'm not.
It's a bad idea.
Don't do it, guys.
Come on.
Back off it.
I hope that the Democrats don't get the message.
I hope Republicans hold firm.
I hope a lot of people in the middle catch what's going on right now and see these two visions of the country and side with the people on the right.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
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.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
