Ep. 1005 - American Baby Formula Shipped To Illegals At The Border
Biden’s new press secretary laughs at the baby formula shortage, a Maryland elementary school has students pledge allegiance to the gay pride flag, and Josh Hawley tries to strip Disney of its copyright protections.
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:
With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text KNOWLES to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Stop funding woke corporate agendas. Switch to PureTalk instead. Save 50% off your first month at https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/knowlespodcast.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Our nation's supply of baby formula has fallen by 40%.
This is now an acute problem throughout the United States, and after several days of stonewalling, the White House is finally weighing in on it.
Who's running point on the formula issue at the White House?
You mentioned the White House as a problem.
I mean, at the White House, I don't know.
I can find out for you and get you a person who's running point, but I don't have a person in there.
Okay, maybe the starving babies you want to talk about?
Sure, yeah, I guess I can ask.
That's Corrine Jean-Pierre, the incoming White House press secretary, who already has us longing for the days of Jen Psaki.
I would gladly take endless circling back over laughs and giggles and guffaws at starving babies any day.
But it looks like we have already identified the White House point person on baby formula.
Looks like the person who is the point person is the Secretary of Homeland Security, according to Republican Congressman Kat Kamek.
Absolutely have to share with you right now is the craziness of the empty shelves Biden movement and the fact that they are sending pallets, pallets of baby formula to the border.
Meanwhile, in our own district at home, we cannot find baby formula.
This is a picture from a Target.
Oh, it's upside down.
Sorry.
Okay.
We literally are struggling to find baby formula around the country.
Moms are struggling going from store to store to store.
And then the stores are actually capping the amount of baby formula that they will sell them.
But, and this got sent to me by a Border Patrol agent this morning and said, this is disgusting.
You will not believe this.
They're receiving pallets and more pallets.
of baby formula at the border.
This was taken at Ursula processing facility where thousands are being housed and processed and then released subsequently into the United States.
This is so deeply offensive.
The White House is sending baby formula to foreign nationals who are in the process of breaking our laws while American mothers are driving for hours to try to find some for their own babies.
I'm not suggesting that we let the little illegal alien babies starve.
But to give the baby formula to foreign criminals before law-abiding citizens?
What are we going to do?
How about we expeditiously send the illegal aliens back across the border to their own countries so that they can get what they need over there?
This administration is pursuing a policy of completely open borders, the largest migrant influx in history.
So that's probably not going to happen.
Fine.
Then if the Biden administration is just going to release the illegal aliens into our country, why doesn't he at least do it quickly so that they can get online and buy baby formula like all the actual Americans?
Why do they get to cut the line?
Why is Biden giving special priority, diverting the American supply of an essential product to foreign criminals and away from his own citizens?
Two reasons.
One, our ruling class hates its own citizens.
If starving our own babies doesn't prove that to you, I don't know what will.
And two, our rulers think they can get away with it because they think that they will never have to answer to the citizens.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Thought Criminal who says, David's answer of I'm not a lawyer is just as feeble as certain women who say she is not a biologist when asked what a woman is.
Yes, I thought that was a pretty weak answer too.
But it did satisfy the point that I have at least in bringing liberals on the show, which is I do not generally bring the libs on the show to own them with facts and logic, though sometimes that happens as a byproduct.
I bring the libs on the show To hear the opposing view, I want to hear the strongest version of the opposing view.
I want to see if I am just deluding myself in an echo chamber or if they've really got some strong argument against me.
So when David comes on the show...
Very kind of him to come on.
And he says, what the protesters are doing outside the Supreme Court justices' houses is not illegal.
And then I say, no, it is illegal.
Actually, I'll cite you the exact statute.
It's 18 U.S.C. Section 1507.
And he says, well, I don't know.
I'm not a lawyer.
So I don't believe you.
I don't believe that statute.
That's fine.
We don't really need to talk about it much further than that.
When one says, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a biologist, what that person is expressing, whether it's David or whether it's Ketanji Jackson, is, you got me.
You got me.
I'm not going to give an answer here.
All right, whatever, moving on.
So that confirms something that I had already suspected, but I'm glad to know, which is the libs have no defense of this.
And David actually had the honesty to say, yeah, I'm not...
I do not encourage Democrats to do these.
There's no defense of it, legally, politically.
It's just a big, big mistake.
It's just wrong, and the libs should absolutely admit it, okay?
Now, when you want to engage in these kind of conversations, not just virtually, but in person, you've got to check out Daily Wire backstage live at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, June 29th.
It's going to be a ton of fun.
We will see you there.
And in the meantime, you can talk to me.
You can talk to me through my voicemail bag with Pure Talk.
Right now, go to puretalk.com.
Use code KnowlesPodcast.
Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, they're making it clear.
They care more about wokeness than wireless.
And they are making you fund their agenda with overpriced contracts and hidden fees.
Why are you still giving these people your money?
I have great news for you.
You don't have to trade in what you believe to get good phone service.
You can choose Pure Talk instead.
dead.
Just like we here at DW are offering alternatives to woke media, woke entertainment, Pure Talk is offering alternatives to woke wireless networks.
Pure Talk's CEO is a US veteran.
Their service team is located right here in the US of A.
You will never have to compromise on service because you will be on America's most reliable 5G network for about half the cost.
You can get unlimited talk, text, and six gigs of data for just $30 a month.
There is no reason not to switch.
Switching is super simple.
You keep your number, you keep your phone, or you can get a huge discount on the latest iPhones and Androids.
They've got a 30-day risk-free guarantee.
You've got nothing to lose.
Go to puretalk.com.
Shop for the plan that's right for you.
That is puretalk.com.
Use code knowlespodcast to save 50, 5-0 percent off your first month.
Code knowlespodcast, K-N-O-W-L-E-S-P-O-D-C-A-S-T, all one word.
PureTalk.com.
PureTalk is simply smarter wireless.
Go check out Pure Talk today.
All of these things that were called conspiracy theories weeks ago, months ago, within the last two, three, four years, Turns out that they're all true.
The food shortage was one of them.
They said, oh, there's no food shortages.
Don't worry about any of the problems at the food plants.
It's all a conspiracy theory.
Well, it doesn't look like a conspiracy theory now.
Forget about a food shortage.
We're talking about food for the most vulnerable people among us.
And what does the White House do?
They laugh about it.
They guffaw and they giggle.
Ha ha ha.
Tee hee hee hee hee.
My other favorite conspiracy theory, this one, I think the White House thought they were just going to brush this to the side and ignore it.
Do you remember, was it a month ago, a month and a half ago, when the Biden administration said that they were going to send out drug safety kits to a bunch of drug addicts around the country?
They said that they were going to send out drug safety kits that included crack pipes.
And we said, hold on, these things include crack pipes.
You're using taxpayer dollars to send crack pipes to crackheads?
And they said, we're not.
That's a crazy conspiracy theory.
What are you talking about?
The White House is still maintaining that position.
In February, that no money from a $30 million harm reduction program would fund distribution of crack pipes in safe smoking kits.
The Washington Free Beacon reported that they went to harm reduction facilities in five cities and all of those facilities had crack pipes in their kits.
HHS would not say which programs had applied for funding and the recipient list is not out yet.
So I'm just wondering if the White House can say if any taxpayer dollars paid for these No federal funding has gone to it.
And is there any oversight to ensure that when that money goes out for the program that these organizations will not use federal dollars for crack pipes?
This policy does not allow for crack pipes to be included.
I would just note that this is a bit of a conspiracy theory that's been spread out there.
It's not accurate.
There's important drug treatment programs for people who have been suffering from what we've seen as an epidemic across the country, and money is not used for crack pipes.
This is a conspiracy theory.
It's a total right-wing conspiracy theory.
Did you hear the question, though?
The question was, the Washington Free Beacon has gone out to cities all around the country to lots of these drug centers, the likes of which will receive the government money to create these exact sorts of kits.
And they have crack pipes in them, just like I said when this story first came out.
When this story first came out, I said they're obviously funding the crack pipes.
And they said, no, no, that's not true.
And I said, well, I just googled safe smoking kit.
And you saw all the fact check left-wing articles.
No, safe smoking kits don't include crack pipes.
So then I changed the search parameters.
And I said, okay, only show me results up until a week ago before this scandal broke for the White House.
What is a safe smoking kit?
And then what do you know?
The results all show crack pipes.
Because how could you have a safe smoking kit that does not include something through which to smoke?
The point of a safe smoking kit, quote-unquote safe smoking kit, is to give crackheads the materials that they need to smoke.
If a safe smoking kit does not include something through which to smoke, it is by definition not a safe smoking kit.
So the Washington Free Beacon has this great story out.
They went up and down the East Coast, They went to Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Richmond, Virginia.
They went to every single organization that they could find that gave out the safe smoking kits.
They all had crack pipes.
And what happened?
They wouldn't answer any questions about the program.
And Jen Psaki says, no, no, nothing to see here.
Ignore, ignore, ignore.
It just, they're never going to admit when they're in the wrong, so the fact that they can't come up with a better answer gives you everything you need to know.
It's kind of like when I talked to David Pakman yesterday on the show, and he said it's not illegal to protest in front of judges' homes.
And I said, well, here's the law.
Here's the federal statute, 18 U.S.C., Section 1507, says explicitly it is illegal to protest outside of the judges' homes.
And he says, well, no, no, look, I don't know.
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a biologist.
I'm not a lawyer.
So, the White House is not going to admit this.
The prominent Democrats are not going to admit when they're wrong.
But the very fact that they can't come up with an answer gives you everything that you need to know.
It tells you that we were right, not a conspiracy theory at all.
You know another conspiracy theory?
Is that the schools, not just colleges and high schools, but middle schools and elementary schools, are indoctrinating our kids into weird, creepy sex stuff.
That's a conspiracy theory.
It's not happening.
It's good that it is happening, they tell us, but also it's not happening at all.
Well, I have a report out from the Daily Caller.
Maryland Elementary School invites kids to pledge allegiance to the pride flag.
In elementary school, PTA invited students to be recorded pledging allegiance to the gay pride flag, according to a post on the school PTA page.
This is the Montgomery County Public Schools Cedar Grove Elementary School.
They announced that the school, quote, will be celebrating love, respect, and tolerance with a video compilation of students holding the pride flags and saying the words love, respect, freedom, tolerance, equality, and pride.
Some conservatives are going to say, this is crazy, this is nuts, get all the sexual talk out of the schools.
Get all of the talk about belief systems out of the schools.
Get all the religion, get all of the values, get all of that out of the schools.
But of course that's not possible.
It's not possible to do that.
Because there's no such thing as neutrality and education doesn't happen in a vacuum.
The whole point of education is that you teach people things.
Not just reading, writing and arithmetic, but about what's good and what's bad and how they should behave and what's normal and what's natural and the kind of behaviors that they should pursue.
Frankly, even the conversation about sex education, it doesn't always have to be the creepy stuff that they teach in the modern sex ed classes.
Even when a teacher reads a little book about mama bear and papa bear and little baby bear, they are teaching you something about family, about sex actually.
They're teaching you something about the way that boys and girls and men and women relate to one another.
And so no one would object.
I mentioned this on the show a few weeks ago.
No one would object to a kindergarten teacher reading their students a story about Mama Bear and Papa Bear and Baby Bear.
We would all object to a teacher reading his or her students a story about Mama Bear and Papa Bear and Papa Bear's boyfriend and Papa Bear's boyfriend's three-legged goat that he has a relationship with.
We would all object to that because it's the substance that matters here.
The kids are going to pledge allegiance to something.
They can either pledge allegiance to the American flag and traditional American views and beliefs and traditions, or they can pledge allegiance to the cultural revolutionaries and the gay pride flag and diversity, equity, and inclusion and all the cultural radicalism.
But you've got to pick one.
They are going to believe something.
And right now, because we all believe all sorts of crazy stuff, our economy is going to pop, which is why you've got to check out Birch Gold.
Text Knowles to 989898.
It happened.
It finally happened.
The Fed has realized the dire straits that our economy is in, thanks to our loose monetary policy.
Turns out, you're going to be shocked to hear this, you can't just spend trillions of dollars every year with no repercussions.
Now, to play catch-up, the Fed has been raising rates and plans to seven times this year.
You are already starting to see those ripple effects in the housing market as people's buying power is collapsing.
Have you considered what could happen in the stock market if the economy stalls out?
Do not wait till that happens.
take some of the profits from the stock market now and solidify them with gold from Birch Gold.
Throughout history, gold has maintained its value better than any other investment in the world.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898 for a free zero-obligation info kit on holding gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
Join the thousands of happy Birch Gold customers with countless five-star reviews and A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau.
I trust the professionals at Birch Gold.
Text Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
I've always enjoyed investing in precious metals, especially gold.
Secure the gains you've made while you can.
Go check out Birch Gold today.
A conspiracy theory.
There's a crazy conspiracy theory that students are being exposed to pornography in schools.
Not just pledging allegiance to some weird sexual ideology, but their actual pornography.
That's not true.
That's not happening.
You right-wingers are making this up.
There was a parent at a Colorado school board meeting who pulled out a book.
It's a very popular book.
It's in school libraries across the country.
The book is called Gender Queer.
Take a listen.
These two books that are on the poster are Lawn Boy and Gender Queer.
I will say that I do not favor book banning.
I want to tell you that off the bat.
But I do want to tell you that pornography does not belong in our schools or accessible to our children.
I got a new strap on harness today.
I can't wait to put it on you.
It will fit my favorite dildo perfectly.
I can't wait to have your in my mouth.
I'm going to give you the job of your life.
Then I want you inside me.
Sorry, you're out of order.
This is your first warning.
This is a book that is accessible in Adams 12.
Kindly refrain from further reading here, please.
Thank you.
This is what you allow in our schools, and this is what you allow for our kids to have access to.
This is pornography, and this is grooming for pedophilia.
Please give me my time back.
It's in the schools.
It's in the schools.
They say you're out of order.
Well, if I'm out of order, why?
Because I'm reading the book.
Well, then the book is out of order.
If it's out of order for adults, why on earth would you expose this to kids who are in our schools?
Well, I'm not going to answer you.
It's just that's out of order.
The reason that the school board is upset here is Is not because of the obscene content of the book.
It's because the parent is exposing the obscene content of the book to the people, to the parents of this district, who are shocked and appalled by this, as they obviously should be.
That's just a conspiracy theory, though, right?
I don't think so.
It's all a crazy conspiracy theory.
This weird sex stuff is a loser for Democrats.
The reason that they're so keen on saying it's a conspiracy theory and shutting it up and censoring it and taking away the microphone at the school board meeting is because they know that this is a loser at the ballot box.
It's a winner in the long term.
If the left can totally reshape sexual mores and can push, especially their sexual radicalism, because sex is so important to human nature, then it can really help them to reshape society.
So it's a good long-term strategy if they want to upend society.
But it's a really crappy short-term strategy because people hate it and it's weird and they want to protect their kids.
This is true not just on the transgender stuff or the education stuff.
It's true in abortion as well.
Joe Manchin just proved me right on this.
Joe Manchin, who is a centrist Democrat, he refused to go along with the Democrats' new abortion law, which failed two days ago in the Senate.
The law, we were told, simply tried to codify Roe v.
Wade.
And they kept using this phrase, codify Roe v.
Wade, because Roe v.
Wade is a popular enough expression.
Abortion is not very popular.
Late-term abortion is not popular at all.
Only 6% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy.
94% oppose that.
But the phrase Roe vs.
Wade, because people don't really know what it means, and we've heard it a lot, and it seems fine.
That phrase is fine.
So the left says the law is going to codify Roe vs.
Wade.
I told you a few days ago, I said the law does a lot more than codify Roe vs.
Wade.
It actually gets rid of virtually every abortion restriction in the country.
It's extraordinarily radical.
Joe Manchin just admitted that I was totally right.
The bill we have today to vote on, the Women's Health Protection Act, and I respect people who support, but make no mistake, it is not Roe v.
Wade codification.
It's an expansion.
It wipes 500 state laws off the books.
It expands abortion.
And with that, that's not where we are today.
We should not be dividing this country further than we're already divided.
And it's really the politics of Congress that's dividing the country.
It's not the people.
They're telling us what they want.
And it's just disappointing that we're going to be voting on a piece of legislation which I will not vote for today.
It obviously expands Roe v.
Wade.
Just look at the text of the bill.
It's not complicated.
The text of the bill refers to transgender men or women or whatever.
It refers to, even beyond what it does to abortion itself, it just uses language and accepts concepts that are so much more radical and modern than whatever the Supreme Court said in 1973, part of which was actually already overruled in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
So much more.
This is an expansion of abortion.
It's a loser for Democrats.
Why is Joe Manchin voting against it?
Maybe because he thinks it's the right thing to do to vote against it.
But also, as he says, the people have told him what they want.
They don't want this.
The abortion bill failed 49 to 51.
The majority of people don't want this.
The majority of people don't want abortion on demand without apology.
Virtually every American wants some restrictions on abortion.
And what the radicals will tell you, what the libs will tell you, Is they don't care.
Whoopi Goldberg made this point on The View just yesterday.
Whoopi Goldberg said, I do not care what you think, you the people, think about abortion.
71% of Americans believe there should be some limitations on abortion.
This is forcing a conversation that's an uncomfortable conversation we have to have.
At what point does a baby in the womb have rights separate from a mother?
It doesn't matter what you think.
When you think it is.
I don't think that that's when it is.
Is it the ninth month?
Is it the third trimester?
Listen, I don't have to tell you.
It's none of your business.
It's your decision, what you do with your body and how your family works.
And for me, I don't care what your religious beliefs are.
But it's not even religion.
But it is.
This is all based in religion.
I don't care what your beliefs are.
Okay, Whoopi, well, I don't care what you don't care about because this, last time I checked, is still something resembling a self-government.
And I get a say because I'm an American citizen.
We get a say in how our country is governed.
This is always what the libs do.
Ultimately, the libs, who are the most...
Most emphatic about stressing their commitment to democracy and our democracy.
They do not care about democracy when democracy runs up against liberalism.
This is why in Eastern Europe, whenever Eastern European countries elect leaders that the libs don't like, they always say it's a threat to democracy.
When the Hungarians elect Viktor Orban, they say, this is a threat to democracy.
What the hell are you talking about?
Democracy is when the people vote on something and the majority of them vote for something and they get it.
That's a threat to democracy when the majority of people vote for something that the liberals don't like.
Because the liberals, when they say democracy, really just mean liberalism, leftism, progressivism.
The liberals will cry crocodile tears about the threat to our sacred temple of democracy when the horn hat guy shows up and dances around the Capitol Rotunda.
That's a great, terrible, dire threat.
But then the moment that the people say, no, we actually don't want radical abortion laws, all of a sudden democracy goes out the window.
And Whoopi says, I don't care what you have to say.
I don't care what you think.
And that's always been the issue with abortion.
Going back to 1973, when the courts took abortion out of the legislatures and said, no, we're going to pretend that there's a constitutional right to it.
And ever since then, up to and especially including today...
The small group of radicals say, we don't care what you think.
And they're willing to upend all of the institutions of our democracy to do it.
Big, big loser for the libs.
But it reminds us of how we have to react.
Because for a long time, conservatives backed away from democracy.
For a long time, conservatives backed away from the political order.
And we said, okay, we're just going to fight our battles in the private sector.
We're just going to fight our battles in the marketplace.
We're not going to wield the government, by which has meant politics, by which has meant our actual democracy, by which has meant the political power that the framers gave to us, the people.
Some Republicans are beginning to wake up and figure out what time it is.
Josh Hawley is one of them.
Josh Hawley, a US senator from Missouri, is now threatening to remove Disney's special copyright protections and to remove Major League Baseball's special antitrust protections.
And he is doing that explicitly because those two companies are going very woke.
So Hawley proposed the Copyright Clause Restoration Act, which would limit new copyright protections to 56 years and retroactively change protections for companies like Disney that, quote, have been granted unnecessarily long copyright monopolies.
You saw this copyright term extended in 1998.
This was when Sonny Bono was a congressman.
It was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
It was commonly known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
And Disney got a sweetheart deal on their copyrights.
Major League Baseball has gone super duper woke in recent years.
And Major League Baseball most recently removed the All-Star Game from Georgia because they wanted to protest Georgia's election integrity laws.
So, Josh Hawley says that MLB should lose its long-standing antitrust exemption, which no other industry enjoys in the same way.
There are going to be some people who whine and complain and say, this is the use of the government to target private corporations.
This is terrible.
This is awful.
This is...
Politics, folks.
This is self-government.
There's nothing anti-conservative or unprincipled or un-American about it.
This is we the people saying, no, we're not going to let giant, usually multinational corporations, wield their massive political power to completely upend the American way of life.
When you're talking about something like copyright, when you're talking about the Mickey Mouse Copyright Protection Act or something, and Josh Hawley trying to get rid of some of Disney's special protections, There's an argument for it and there's an argument against it.
I think reasonable people can disagree over copyright law and how long copyrights should exist and what copyrights should be in movies compared to books.
I think reasonable people can disagree about that.
I think reasonable people can disagree about what sort of special protections big sports leagues should get.
This is not just a purely ideological matter where you just write down three bullet points on the back of a napkin and this is true conservatism and this is true progressivism.
No, it's politics, folks.
Politics is a big sphere where we can discuss how we want to live and where we, the people, can push back against the extreme radical predations of business leaders who are frankly acting like oligarchs.
But here's what I'll tell you.
Here's what I will tell you.
When the people, even when they just saber-rattle a little bit, when we the people say we are willing to go after woke corporations, it works.
Breaking news at a variety, the trade paper in Hollywood.
Netflix updates its corporate culture memo, adding anti-censorship section, and vowing to spend our members' money wisely.
So they came out, Netflix has said, look, we're not going to go woke, okay?
We're not going to...
And especially, they said, we are not going to cave to our woke employees, which is what happened at Disney over the parental rights and education law.
They said, artistic expression...
We have a new section called Artistic Expression.
They will not, quote, censor specific artists or voices, even if employees consider that content harmful.
They say, if you'd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.
So they're telling their woke employees, go pound sand.
We are not going to deal with this.
This is in part because there was a giant woke Netflix uproar over a Dave Chappelle special last year.
But I think what this is really about is Disney.
I think that if the Florida legislature and Governor Ron DeSantis had not gone after Disney and not taken away Disney's special tax exemptions and not specifically gone after Disney after Disney specifically went after the voters of Florida, I don't think you would see this from Netflix right now.
I think if you weren't seeing political actions like Josh Hawley saying, you You done messed up.
Disney, you just pushed it a little too far, Disney.
And now we're going to make an example of you.
Because we are not going to stand idly by while you groom our freaking kids in your weird LGBT LMNOP transgender nonsense.
We're going to use everything that we the people still have.
We don't have the media.
We don't have the educational institutions.
We don't have big tech.
We don't have anything.
We don't have the government bureaucracy.
We have very, very little, but we do still have a little bit of a vote in our legislatures, and we're going to use that power, and we're going to say no, and we're going to make life real unpleasant for you.
And if you're Netflix over here, frankly, the CEO of Netflix is probably happy to see that happen to Disney because this gives the CEO of Netflix some cover.
Say, yo, guys, we're just not going to do it, okay?
We can't afford to do it.
We're getting way too much pushback.
The reason that the libs cave all the time, the reason that the woke corporations cave, rather, to the libs is because they say, look, we just can't take the pressure.
We can't take the threats.
We can't take the boycotts.
We can't take the walkouts.
Well, how about we conservatives bring a little bit of pressure, too, in a completely moral and principled and political way.
I think that's a great idea.
This is great news from Netflix.
Good job, Florida Republicans.
Good job, Josh Hawley.
Keep it up.
When we see the culture, when we see private enterprise, private business doing this woke virtue signaling, It's more than just silly.
Sometimes it's just disgusting and disordered and needs to be discouraged as best we can.
Calvin Klein did this today.
Calvin Klein used to put out ads that were kind of saucy, kind of scintillating.
I don't think they were exactly obscene, but Calvin Klein...
Make underwear, right?
So obviously they want to put forward an image of men and women that is attractive.
Until recently, until they've gone woke.
And now they are selling their products by posting a picture.
It's become the meme.
It's the meme of that emoji.
It's a pregnant man.
Ostensibly.
It's an image of what looks like a woman.
Lying with what sort of looks like a man, it's someone with a beard and a buzz cut, but a big pregnant belly.
And so you realize, oh no, this is a woman who has cut her breasts off and is now exposing her mutilated breasts and taken a bunch of cross-sex hormones and is pregnant with a baby.
And so we're going to show you this topless, confused woman in our ads to sell...
Underwear.
The caption is, Today in support of women and mothers around the world, we highlight the reality of new families.
Kay Vensel is a South African painter and mother to Wild.
Erica Fee and Roberto Beat are expecting parents from Brazil.
Roberto is due to give birth to his and Erica's son, Noah, any day now.
Venenda Carter is a prominent fashion consultant.
Her family is Bobby and Weston.
This is wrong.
Can we say it's wrong?
I know it's not politically correct to say that.
We're supposed to keep our opinions to ourselves and we'll be called bigots and phobes.
It's wrong.
It's disgusting.
It is disgusting.
That our culture is celebrating women mutilating their own bodies and then redefining all of the most basic human institutions and putting children in a very bad position and depriving them of their natural mothers and fathers in many cases all to satisfy our sexual delusions and desires and fetishes.
It's wrong and disgusting and the culture should discourage it and stop it and say no.
Are we allowed to say that?
I know that's contradicting every woke orthodoxy that we're now told, and yet we all know it's true.
We all know it.
If you showed that picture, that advertisement, to 100 Americans at random, 99 and a half of them would say, stop this.
What on earth are you doing?
And what does the ad say?
It says, today, in support of women and mothers around the world, we highlight the reality of new families.
I don't accept this new definition of family.
Do you?
One, there's no limiting principle on it, so there's no definition at all.
If we can redefine the family in this way, if we can redefine the family away from what it actually is, which is mommy and daddy love each other very much and do that thing that married people do and that creates a baby.
If we can redefine it away from that to say, well, it's mommy and mommy and mommy, daddy and daddy, daddy and daddy and daddy's friend and a goat.
What's the limiting principle?
There isn't one.
And it totally throws open the question, what is a family?
What is a family for?
What does a family do?
What distinguishes a family from a town or a city or a nation?
Well, the complementarity of the sexes and the possibility of creating life, that's what distinguishes it as a natural fact.
Do we have the right in this country to stand up for that?
The Supreme Court tells us no.
I think we still have some political rights.
And Whoopi Goldberg and Karine Jean-Pierre and the people who run our country and who speak for the people who run our country, they're going to laugh at us and tell us that they don't give a damn what we think.
But I think we still have some political rights and I think we have not only the right but a responsibility to assert those rights.
It is the most infamous Supreme Court case in memory.
It's the deadliest decision in history, even 50 years after Roe v.
Wade.
Few people know the truth behind the landmark decision.
The decision that has enabled the slaughter of 64 million babies since 1971.
Daily Wire is taking a wrecking ball to the four big lies that the abortion industry was built upon.
With our original documentary, Choosing Death, The Legacy of Roe, we will uncover the inside story of how Roe v.
Wade came to pass and why it needs to pass away.
Some of this content is hard to take in.
Few subjects, if any, are more important.
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.
Of course!
- Help us to expose the truth.
Help us to expose the truth.
Tell your friends to watch.
If you've not already done it, become a Daily Wire member.
Tune in today to watch our documentary on abortion, choosing death, the legacy of Roe.
Go to dailywire.com slash choosing and join the fight today.
We will be right back with The Mailbag, sponsored by Pure Talk.
I am so excited to debut our brand new segment, The Voicemail Bag.
Oh boy, we are catching up with the technology folks.
Pretty soon we're going to have a fax machine in here.
This is, I love that we have got, I'm going to get to hear from you in your own voices.
And the reason that we can do this is because of Pure Talk.
Get unlimited talk, text, and six gigs of data for just $30 a month.
Go to puretalk.com, enter promo code NOELSPODCAST to save 50% off your first month today.
Let's get started.
Give me the first voicemail.
Hey, Michael, my name is Brayden, and I am a pro-left conservative just like you.
How would you respond to somebody that challenges you on abortion when they say that if Republicans care so much about the baby when they're in the womb, why don't they give just as much care to that baby when they're out of the womb?
Basically, what do we do to prove to mothers and parents that we as Republicans or we as conservatives do care about the baby even after it's born just as much as we care about the life when it's in the womb?
Thanks.
I love the show.
Great question.
You actually can't do anything to prove it to them because they don't want it to be proved to them because they don't even really mean what they're saying.
Because the answer to the question is, we do care about the babies when they get out of the womb.
We care about them much more than the Democrats do.
Republicans and conservatives are much more likely to adopt than Democrats are.
Republicans and conservatives are much more likely to give to charity than Democrats are.
So that's self-evident.
Second, the two questions have nothing to do with one another.
Your views on government welfare, your views on private charity, your views on schooling for children, your views on how to reform the welfare system, those are important questions, but they have absolutely nothing to do with your views on whether or not it is right to kill a baby.
They're totally separate issues.
It would be like saying, hey, look, you guys keep talking about how we should have laws against murder, right?
You think it should be illegal to murder people.
But you don't want to even increase that other tax credit that I want.
So if you don't want to increase a tax credit that I want, then we can't have laws against murder.
What are you talking about?
Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
But I go back to my first point.
I don't think the argument is really worth engaging because it's just a way to distract people.
It's just a way when you say, hey, Democrats, we shouldn't kill babies, right?
They're like, look over there!
Hey, is that a butterfly?
Hey, what's going on?
It's just, it's a complete distraction.
And so you can gently brush it aside.
You say, Republicans care very much about babies.
Actually, whatever statistics we've got on it shows we care more than you guys do.
I mean, just look at what we're in right now.
The Republicans are trying desperately to pass laws and to get answers as to why there's a baby formula shortage and how to fix it.
And the Democrats are laughing about the baby formula shortage and then sending what little baby formula we have down to the border to give to foreign nationals.
So there you have it.
You've got your answer right there.
Next voice mailbag.
Hello, Mr.
Noel Stradamus.
This is Camille from your mailbag.
I am honored to be heard on your show if this were to get played.
My question is yet again about dating.
I'm still single guys if you're out there.
Anyway, my question is I was talking to a guy friend of mine about how long a guy is willing to wait.
To sleep with a girl.
And he said that he wouldn't wait any longer than a month.
And I used to think that maybe we'd be more than friends.
But after hearing that, is that something that is a deal breaker?
Is it something that could be reconciled?
Because I definitely would like to wait.
So I would just love to hear your thoughts if that is a deal breaker or if you think that maybe he can be changed or things could be changed down the road.
Thanks.
Love the show.
I can change him.
You can change him.
It's up to him as to whether or not that's a deal breaker.
It's up to you to just say no.
And I've got a little secret for you, Camille.
Men like to be told no.
We don't like when it's just easy to get whatever we want.
Forget even outside of dating, in professional life, in anything.
We like a little bit of a challenge.
We like to be told no.
We don't like when things are easy.
I don't think they really use this phrase anymore, but girls used to be called easy, and guys liked girls that were easy for a night or two, but didn't like girls that were easy to think of in the long term.
So tell them no.
Say like, well, alright, listen, you degenerate.
No, you're not going to get me that easy, and if you want it, then you should have put a ring on it.
So if you want to date, we can date, but if you don't, then okay, go enjoy your hussies and see what he says.
I bet he'll probably be interested.
And if he's not...
And too bad for him.
Good for you that you've avoided this derelict.
And maybe he'll reform, and I suspect he will in the long run, but that's not your problem.
In the short run, what you've got to do is what is right.
In the short run, what you've got to do is not only what is right, but apparently what you want to do as well.
And don't let some dirtbag try to pressure you.
Alright, next voicemail bag.
Hey Michael, my name's Johnny.
I was wondering what your opinion is on women in combat arms.
Great short question.
Wow.
And a really good question, too.
I'm against it.
I think it's a bad idea.
I am not against it.
Merely because women are not capable of fighting in combat.
I suspect there are lots of women who are capable of fighting in combat.
Not as many as the libs would have us believe.
The libs want us to believe that men and women are exactly the same.
And so, therefore, there's no reason to prevent women from doing anything in the military.
But I suspect that there are some women who could do certain jobs in combat.
Especially now that combat is...
It's still about it, but it's less about brute strength and there's more nuance to combat because we live in a very technological age.
But I'm against it for a different reason.
I'm against it because it's just wrong.
It's just disordered.
It's just unseemly.
Because men are supposed to protect women.
Because I think men and women are different and men have a role to protect women.
And women have their own roles.
And women are more nurturing than men are.
Women have roles to, obviously, to take care of the family, to take care of the community in a different way.
Because when men see that women are in danger and in trouble, they just naturally are going to go and protect that woman.
And even if that would compromise perhaps some aspects of their mission and their operation and what they're actually trying to do.
Because of the intractable, you're simply not going to get over it or redefine it, difference between men and women.
Women have different places.
You always hear now about rape in the military.
And I have no doubt that there is a problem of rape in the military.
One of the reasons that there's a problem of rape in the military is because Men and women are being put in these extremely close quarters all the time and women are being exposed to the danger of rape in the military.
And I don't think that's a good idea.
And what the feminists will tell you is, well, just teach men not to rape.
Or, on the other side, just teach men not to go give special protection to women.
Or just teach men not to care that men and women are different.
Well, that...
All I'm telling you is, these are facts of human nature, and some of them are ugly facts and some of them are beautiful facts, but these are facts of human nature.
If it's raining outside, you should use an umbrella.
Well, just tell the clouds to stop raining.
I'm just telling you a fact of things that are going to happen.
And some of them are ugly facts, like sexual assault that could occur in the military.
Some of them are beautiful facts, like the fact that men are generally more protective and aggressive in the face of a foe, and women are more nurturing.
That's a beautiful thing, too.
It all boils down to...
Men and women are different.
It's not evil and wrong for them to have different roles in society, certainly in the military.
And it is simply not the case, as the feminists contend, that the only way for women to be strong and important and virtuous is to pretend to be men.
I just don't think that's the case.
Next, voicemail back.
Hey Michael, my name is Heather.
Myself, along with my husband and three small children, are going to be moving to Nashville in the beginning of June.
We're super pumped, and hey, maybe we'll run into you at Trader Joe's sometime.
But my question is in regards to this Roe v.
Wade ruling of the Supreme Court, which I really hope goes through.
But anyways, I've got some more liberal friends on social media that are obviously trying to say that this is going to make abortion illegal across the United States.
And it's going to be such an attack on women and women's rights, even though it was their choice to engage in sexual activities with the possible outcome of having a child.
Anyways, you know, how do I respond to those same women who are so gung ho on killing children when they finally get pregnant and then want to call this thing growing inside them a miracle baby that they get to have with their family because now they want it and it's convenient. how do I respond to those same women who are I'm obviously always happy for new life to come into the world, but I've been getting very bitter about this entire situation.
So I'd love for you to shed some light on how to handle all of this with love.
Thanks, Michael.
Really good question I have heard from a number of my female friends and female relatives who are furious at their other friends and relatives who have babies.
Who will post a picture on social media of them with their babies playing with their cute little babies.
And then the very next picture they'll post is how we need to defend Roe v.
Wade and how we need to defend a woman's right to choose.
And they get really angry.
About the obvious disconnect between how they view their own baby and how they view other people's babies.
And they get really angry.
I don't get really angry about it.
It's preposterous.
It's absurd.
It saddens me.
Sometimes it even kind of amuses me in a dark way that people could be this stupid, this obtuse.
But I don't really get that angry about it.
When it comes to the issue of abortion, people are defending killing little babies.
It is no surprise that people who are defending killing little babies might be kind of confused, might not be seeing things very clearly.
And so I just remain calm about that.
I think this is a fallen world.
I think that the world has practiced human sacrifice from the very beginning, so I'm not surprised.
I feel some moral outrage about it, no question about that.
I would like to do everything I can to stop that, but I don't allow myself to get angry.
This is just a fact of the world.
Ignorance, moral confusion, frankly, even human sacrifice.
These are facts of a fallen world.
And so, accepting that, I think we can calmly just, if you even want to have that conversation, if your friend is not just spouting off on some stupid little Facebook tangent, but is actually interested in this issue, just say, hey, when was your baby a baby?
And very often what the women will say is, well, look, I would never get an abortion.
I would never get an abortion.
But I understand that other women would and should have that right.
But I would never get one.
The next question is, why would you never get one?
Because the answer really deep down is, well, I would never kill my precious progeny, but all those poor black people in the inner cities, they should.
That's what they're saying.
Oh, well, you know, people who are like poor...
Or, you know, they kind of, they live in bad places, or they are disproportionately racial minorities.
They definitely don't want to admit that part.
Yeah, they should.
Because it's like, ugh, yucky, you know?
Ugh.
It's bad.
It's bad to live in the bad places, and they're not going to, you know?
So, let's just...
No, that's what they're saying, and they're not aware that they're saying that.
So I think if your friends are not particularly philosophical or not thinking about this in a really objective way, and you do want to have that conversation, maybe just start with them.
Why would you not do it?
Well, if you would not do it because you don't want to kill your own baby, why shouldn't we have a law about that?
We have all sorts of laws about...
That's what a law is, right?
It's telling people how to behave.
So if we have laws about where you can park, why shouldn't we have laws about who you can kill?
Alright, next voicemail back.
Hey Michael, listen, I'm not a misogynist.
Let me put that out of the way first, but I just want to know, what is your opinion as to why women have gotten so picky and entitled when it comes to finding a man?
Some of them will say that they won't date anyone who's under 6'5", some won't date anyone that makes under $20 billion a year, and some won't date anyone that doesn't look like Leonardo DiCaprio.
Why have women become like this?
I think it's kind of unfair where if I say I don't want to date a woman that's fat, I'm all of a sudden a misogynist, and that is my only parameter of women I'm not going to date.
So, yeah, why do you think women became like this, and how can we kind of change that?
Because there's too many women on my timeline complaining about not finding men, but doing this at the same time.
Thank you.
I knew this was going to be a good question when it opened with, look, I'm not a misogynist or nothing, but...
How come I can't say that a woman's fat and I don't want to date her, but she can...
You know, I think men and women have always had a little bit of a problem understanding one another.
They've wanted different things.
It's always good first to take a look at the man in the mirror and see if there's maybe something wrong on your side.
But you are identifying a real problem that I think is actually particular today.
You see people delaying getting married.
You see people dating lots more people before they ever settle down.
I think the reason for that is swipe right culture.
I think the reason for that is not just women but men too are viewing one another as expendable, are viewing one another as replaceable.
And of course, because the way we date now is we just look on a phone and everyone looks pretty much, you know, they're all in the same context.
And we just go boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and there's an endless supply of them.
And so this is one of the, and it's how people date now, so I'm not discouraging it entirely, but this is one of the perils of online dating.
Is that you just, you reduce people to their individual features.
Their height, their looks, their hair color, their whatever, their resume even that they put on some of these personal ads on the dating apps.
And you don't look at a human being as a cohesive whole, as something special, as something and someone that is unique and get to know them.
And so it's just, I got a one date Monday, one date Tuesday, one date Thursday, and you keep moving on.
No, you're talking to real human beings.
Recognize that you're dealing with eternal people and you're going to have to see those people in heaven someday.
If you're lucky, buster.
Okay, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Show.
See you Monday.
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.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moons turn to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
