Ep. 1045 - Warning: The COVID-Midterm Variant Is Here!
Fauci and Biden try to bring COVID back before the midterms, a Berkeley professor (rightly) accuses Republicans of denying that “trans people exist” during Senate testimony, and Trump gets some “January 6” support from an unlikely source.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to watch Matt Walsh’s Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” and access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog: https://utm.io/ueIZt
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Get $250 when you join Ramp: ramp.com/knowles
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Democrats are doing terribly in the generic midterm ballot.
They're underwater on almost every single issue.
So you know what that means.
That's right.
COVID is making a comeback.
Many Americans are under-vaccinated, meaning they are not up to date on their COVID-19 vaccines.
Not all people over the age of 50 have received their first booster dose.
Of those who received their first booster dose, only 28% of those over 50 have received a second booster dose.
And of those over the age of 65, only 34% have received their second booster dose.
So my message right now is very simple.
It's essential that these Americans, as Dr.
Jha said, get their second booster shot right away.
It is essential, says the director of the CDC, that you all get your fourth shot of the totally safe and effective vaccine that was supposed to stop you from catching and transmitting COVID the first time, and never throughout all of the various boosters ever actually did either of those things.
Now, some intelligent people might be thinking, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, thrice...
Quadrice, shame on me.
But for anyone who might be tempted to have an independent thought here, question these genius experts, Dr.
Fauci is here with an important message.
Shut up!
Everybody wants to put this pandemic behind us and feel and hope that it doesn't exist.
It does.
Don't hope.
Stop hoping.
He is actually telling you to stop hoping at this point because he and Walensky and most of all Biden realize that people are finally seeing through their nonsense and pushing back against their power grab.
But as a certain Mr.
Nostradamus may have predicted...
Hate to say I told you so, but as I may have predicted on this very show last week, COVID is the only issue on which Biden and the Democrats are even slightly above water.
And it's also the key issue that allows them to mess around with all of the election rules.
So you can bet your bottom dollar that this is going to be the issue that they hammer harder and harder as we approach what they fear will be a wipeout in the November elections.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from the Drummer's Workshop at Norm's Music, who says, When asked for comment on the First Lady's insensitive taco blunder, Joe Biden replied, Come on, man!
Actually, my favorite comment I've ever read on the show.
It's a really great dad joke.
It's a great padre joke.
And I'm absolutely going to steal it.
Biden is trying anything.
It is spaghetti at the wall.
If COVID is the only thing that even slightly works for him, he's going to go with COVID. The numbers are absolutely devastating for this guy.
I'm not talking about among Republicans.
Obviously, I'm not talking about among independents or moderates even.
Among Democrats, according to a new poll from the New York Times and Siena College, just 26% of Democrats want Joe Biden to be the nominee in 2024.
One in four Democrats wants the incumbent Democrat president to be the nominee in 2024.
Absolutely devastating.
A full 64% of Democrat voters actively want someone else to run in the 2024 presidential campaign.
And then 10%, I guess, just have no idea what they're talking about.
Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, had a really great point on this the other day.
You'll notice the way we're talking about Joe Biden, and the way we're talking about Hunter Biden in particular, is with a great deal of sympathy.
We're saying, ah man, Hunter Biden, what a degenerate he is.
Yeah, he's a criminal.
He's done terrible things.
He should be held accountable.
Poor Joe Biden.
He's falling off a bicycle.
Oh my gosh.
He can't say his own words.
He can't read the teleprompter.
He doesn't know where he is.
No one wants to talk to him at the White House gatherings.
They have someone in an Easter bunny suit walking around to try to guide him places so he doesn't wander off.
This is sad.
I feel sad for Joe Biden.
This is what Scott Adams calls the Dole turn.
He's referring to the 96 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton versus the Republican Bob Dole.
And at a certain point in the campaign, Clinton started talking about how he respected Bob Dole's military service.
And he started saying sort of nice things about Dole.
And what Scott believes is that's the moment when Clinton stopped fearing Dole.
When Clinton thought, Dole is done, there's no way he's going to win, so now I can say nice things about him.
And that's the way people are talking about Joe Biden.
No matter what happens in 2024, I'm not saying the Republican is definitely going to win that presidential campaign, but at the moment it just seems so unlikely that Biden even gets the nomination.
That people are talking about him now.
Oh, poor Sad Joe.
Oh, man, this old, demented, poor Sad Joe.
That's really bad news for Joe Biden.
Even though his opponents are saying nice things about him, they're saying nice things about him because they don't fear him at all anymore.
Now, compare and contrast the way the Democrats are talking about Biden with the way Republicans are talking about Trump.
The way Republicans are talking about Trump, they want him to run again, and they expect him to run again, and many expect him to win.
According to a morning consult Politico poll, so this is another left-wing poll, two-thirds of Republicans want Trump to run again.
They took this poll last October, and they asked Republicans, how many of you want Trump to run again?
The number was 67%, fully two-thirds.
And they've been hammering the sky.
And they've had the January 6th committee.
And you've seen other candidates position themselves in a strong way, especially Ron DeSantis in Florida.
And even with all of that, even with all of that, do you know what the number is today?
It was 67% in October.
Today, 66% of Republicans want Trump to run again.
Even after this deluge of negative press, booting Trump out of the public square, off of social media, even with all of that, he's lost one percentage point.
This guy, if Donald Trump runs for the nomination right now, he wins it.
It's not even close.
It's not even remotely.
No matter, Ron DeSantis is amazing.
He's the greatest governor in Florida.
Maybe the greatest governor in America of my lifetime.
Doesn't matter.
It's going to be very, very hard to close that gap.
And it's funny.
The way that this was all presented to us a year ago, two years ago, you have Joe Biden, this unifier, the adult in the room, the man who's going to bring us together, return to normalcy, and here's Trump, a terrible, awful insurrectionist who's not even a true Republican, not even a true conservative.
And what do you have now?
You've got the Democrats throwing Biden overboard, and you've got the Republicans essentially rallying around Trump.
Trump is even getting support from unlikely places.
This is my favorite My favorite defense of Trump that we've seen so far.
You know, the January 6th committee is still rolling along, and they're so close.
Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, they're so close.
They've got just one more week, and they're going to prove that Donald Trump is secretly Hitler or something.
Donald Trump secretly tried to overthrow the government.
And they're just not proving it.
They've never proven this case.
They had an impeachment trial, didn't do anything.
They had two impeachment trials, didn't do anything.
It's not real.
John Bolton, who was Donald Trump's national security advisor, then he kind of turned against Trump.
He wrote a book that was highly critical of Trump.
He's gone on a lot of TV shows critical of Trump.
He's broadly supportive of people like Liz Cheney, a lot of people who...
John Bolton has a lot of bona fides these days with the libs.
He goes on CNN. He goes on MSNBC. So he's on CNN. And Jake Tapper says this was an insurrection.
Donald Trump led an insurrection.
And John Bolton says, actually, Jake, not so much.
It's not an attack on our democracy.
It's Donald Trump looking out for Donald Trump.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.
I don't know that I agree with you.
To be fair, with all due respect, one doesn't have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.
I disagree with that.
As somebody who has helped plan coup d'etat, Not here, but, you know, other places.
It takes a lot of work.
And that's not what he did.
It was just stumbling around from one idea to another.
Ultimately, he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol.
As to that, there's no doubt.
But not overthrow the Constitution to buy more time to throw the matter back to the states to try and redo the issue.
And if you don't believe that, you're going to overreact.
And I think that's a real risk for the committee.
I absolutely love it.
It's marvelous.
I know John Bolton is not the most popular guy in conservative circles these days.
How do you not love that?
No, actually, John, we had you on this show to criticize Trump, and I'm pretty sure, listen, this was a coup d'etat, Jake.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
It's hard for me.
I can't even get the John Bolton ethos because I don't have that giant walrus mustache.
But he's just standing there looking tough as nails.
He goes, Jake, you don't know what you're talking about.
As somebody who has planned plenty of coup d'etat around the world, I know what I'm talking about.
Listen, listen, Jake.
This is not a coup d'etat.
Coup d'etat was a friend of mine.
I knew coup d'etat.
And January 6th was no coup d'etat.
And he's right.
He's right.
And if January 6th had been a coup d'etat, we would have a new government right now.
Because the insurrectionists, so-called, they made it into the heart of the Senate, into the heart of the House of Representatives.
They could have declared a new government.
But what happened?
What happened?
The Horn Hat guy walked in to the chambers and He's being escorted by police, and then he stood up and he kind of danced around a little bit, and the various people showed up and they kind of made a mess of Nancy Pelosi's office, and then they went home.
And they had a Coors Light in the Capitol Rotunda, and then they left.
There was no plan to overthrow the government.
There was no plan to rip up the Constitution, declare a new government.
It was rowdy.
It was a riot, sure.
It was not a coup d'etat.
You heard it from the horse's mouth.
Now, speaking of really important true things, you've got to go check out Ramp.
Right now, go to ramp.com slash knolls.
Do you want a better way to simplify your business finances across expenses, payments, accounting?
If so, Ramp could be a complete game changer.
Ramp is a corporate card and financial software suite designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.
Ramp gives finance teams unprecedented control and insight into company spend.
With Ramp, you are able to create budgets, issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions, and automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month.
Ramp's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you don't have to.
I absolutely love this software.
The time you will save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books in days, not weeks.
Ramp saves you money.
Businesses that use Ramp save an average of 3.3% the first year.
That's a lot of money.
Ramp is easy to use.
Get started, issue virtual and physical cards, start making payments in less than 15 minutes, whether you've got 5 employees or 5,000.
And now, get $250 when you join Ramp.
Go to ramp.com slash knolls, R-A-M-P dot com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Cards issued by Celtic Bank, members FDIC. Crazy things going on in the Capitol.
I'm not talking about January 6th.
I'm talking about the most bizarre hearing that I have ever seen take place in the United States Senate.
And I had to check myself on this.
I have not spent a lot of time around the U.S. Senate.
But I spoke last night to Senator Ted Cruz.
And I said, hey man, you were in that hearing today.
That was pretty nuts, right?
And he said, Michael, in my decade in the Senate, I have never seen anything crazier.
The hearing was about abortion.
There was one person in particular who was testifying, Berkeley law professor Kiara Bridges.
Who had the entire testimony descend into a debate over whether or not men can get pregnant.
This occurred in particular during an exchange with Senator Josh Hawley.
This exchange is a little bit long.
Trust me, it's worth it.
You've referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy.
Would that be women?
Many women, cis women have the capacity for pregnancy.
Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy.
There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy.
So this isn't really a women's rights issue?
We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups.
Those things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley.
So your view is that the core of this right then is about what?
So I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence by not recognizing that.
Wow, you're saying that I'm opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can have pregnancies?
So I want to note that one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide.
So I think it's important...
Because of my line of questioning?
So we can't talk about it?
Because denying that trans people exist and pretending not to know that they exist...
I'm denying that trans people exist by asking you if you're talking about women having pregnancies.
Do you believe that men can get pregnant?
No, I don't think men can get pregnant.
So you are denying that trans people exist?
Thank you.
And that leads to violence?
Is this how you run your classroom?
Are students allowed to question you?
Absolutely.
Or are they also treated like this?
No, no, no.
They're allowed to question me.
They're opening up people to violence by questioning.
Oh, we have a good time in my class.
You should join.
I bet.
You might learn a lot.
Wow, I would learn a lot.
I've learned a lot just in this exchange.
I know, absolutely.
Extraordinary.
What an extraordinary, magnificent exchange.
Senator Hawley deserves an award for patience.
You can tell.
You look at that woman's eyes and the crazy is there.
You're denying that trans people exist.
He goes, what?
How did I do that?
Do you think men can get pregnant?
No.
Well, anyway.
You're denying that they exist.
And she keeps using this phrase.
She uses this phrase, people who can get pregnant, people who are capable of pregnancy.
All of these euphemisms because she doesn't want to say the word woman.
And she believes the word woman, I guess, is transphobic.
The real irony here is in the Harvard Law Review, this woman, Kiara Bridges, has an article from just a couple of years ago.
This is January 2020.
In which she uses the word woman 45 times and the word women 349 times while talking about abortion.
She's specifically an expert on abortion.
And in just two years, she has completely changed her mode of speaking, her mode of thinking about human nature.
And now the word woman changes.
With regard to pregnancy and abortion, is considered transphobic.
So I endorse this woman for the Democrat nominee for president.
I think that Kiara Bridges, the more that we play of Kiara Bridges on TV, on the internet, we put her out on the campaign trail, I think that Republicans are going to win all 57 states if we put this woman out there as the face of the Democrat party.
The Democrats seem fine with this.
They call this Berkeley law professor to come testify.
They agree with a lot of her premises.
And to her credit, by the way, I haven't seen a lot of conservatives defending this point, but we really should, to be fair.
When she says that conservatives believe that trans people don't exist, she's right.
She's correct.
Conservatives do not believe that trans people exist.
They don't.
They don't exist.
Transgender is not a category of being that is real.
You can't be that.
Some people might say, well, listen, I believe that trans people exist.
I believe that people think that they're the opposite sex.
They're not really the opposite sex, but I think they think that...
Right, so you're saying people with...
Gender identity disorder exists.
You're saying people with gender dysphoria exist.
But transgender people do not exist.
They can't exist.
Because to be transgender, or to even accept the category of transgenderism, is to accept the premise that a man really can be a woman.
That's why there's a different term for transgenderism and gender identity disorder.
This is why the people who are men who think that they're women identify themselves as transgender.
They don't identify themselves as people with gender identity disorder.
Sort of like saying a skinny person who thinks that he is a fat person is anorexic.
Yes, he is anorexic.
He is not a secretly fat person.
He is not an invisibly fat person.
In this analogy here, anorexia and gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria, those are all medical conditions that ought to be treated and corrected.
Transgenderism, male to female or female to male or a transitioned person, would be analogous to a really skinny, very fat person.
It's just, it's a logical impossibility.
It's not a real category.
And conservatives don't want to say this because one will be deplatformed.
If you tweet that out, if you say transgender people do not exist, I think that is a direct violation of Twitter's rules.
And so you could be taken off the platform for that.
So we're not allowed to say that.
And we also feel kind oficky.
We've accepted the left's premise that it's somehow bigoted to say that transgender people do not exist.
No, people exist.
Confused people exist.
Sexually eccentric people exist.
But transgender people do not exist.
They cannot exist because that is not an actual ontological category.
Not to put too fine a point on it.
Until recently, not even the libs thought that transgender people exist.
Look no further than the woman who created the TV show Friends.
Friends is the absolutely Liberal sitcom par excellence from the 1990s.
These people living in New York, living kind of liberal, decadent lives.
It pushes a broadly liberal, not exclusively, but broadly liberal message.
And one of the jokes in the show is that Chandler's father is a transvestite.
That was one of the jokes in the show.
And now the co-creator, Marta Kaufman, has had to apologize for this.
She says, we kept referring to Chandler's father...
To Helena, the character, as Chandler's father, even though Chandler's father was trans.
She suggested that they ought to have referred to Chandler's father once he had transitioned as Chandler's mother.
She says pronouns were not yet something that I understood, so we didn't refer to that character as she.
That was a mistake.
So the whole reason that they had this character of Chandler's father, who was a transvestite, is because it's funny.
Because men aren't supposed to do that.
It was funny.
And so the juxtaposition, the incongruity there, is funny and it's supposed to make you laugh on the situational comedy.
Yeah.
But now we're living in a world of absurdity.
We're living in clown world.
And so the things that were funny, even to the liberals, 20 years ago, are now very somber and serious.
And now this woman, Marta Kaufman, the things she's saying on her apology tour are much funnier than anything that ever aired on Friends.
The idea that when a father pretends to be a woman, that he all of a sudden becomes your mother, that is much crazier even than saying that a man can become a woman.
Chandler's father, on Friends, I can't believe we're spending this much time on Chandler's father and this stupid TV show, but Chandler's father, even if he puts on a dress, even if he calls himself Helena, even if everyone accepts that he is now actually a woman, still would not be Chandler's mother.
Chandler's father did not bear Chandler in his womb.
Chandler's father did not give birth to Chandler.
Chandler's father, even if he forces everybody to accept the absurd notion that he is now a woman, Chandler's father cannot possibly ever have been or be now Chandler's mother.
A mother is an actual role that involves having done something.
To be a mother is to define yourself in a relationship to another person, namely your child.
And if you do not have the relationship of mother and child, then you can't be that mother.
This is the logical, illogical conclusion of radical individualism.
But it reminds us, I'm sure Marta Kaufman did not sign up for this when she went on her apology tour about the transvestite jokes.
But it actually shows you why the leftist and hyper-individualist, even you sometimes see it on the right, why these views of humanity are ultimately insufficient.
The view that we're just living for us, just me, me, me, all hyper-individualism.
On the left, they talk about it socially.
On the right, they tend to talk more economically.
But the idea that we are just individuals born as free-floating atoms, that's ridiculous.
The way that we view our identities in society are relational because man is a social creature, the political animal.
We define our roles in life in relation to one another.
If you're a wife, that means that you have a husband.
If you're a mother, you have to have a child.
You cannot be a mother without having a child.
If you're a child, a son or a daughter, it means you have to have a mother or a father.
We are relational beings.
That's why you have to have some grasp on reality.
Because if we're all just living in our own deluded fantasy lands, we sever the connection that we have to one another.
We can no longer even communicate.
We can't even use the word woman.
Now, while the left's celebration of pride has ended, What is a Woman?
is still one of the most popular movies at home on Rotten Tomatoes.
It's got a 97% audience score from well over 5,000 ratings.
It is still getting talked about, even if mainstream reviewers will not touch it.
A Daily Wire is known for creating fearless documentaries such as What is a Woman?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg of delicious, delightful treats that you will get when you subscribe to Daily Wire Plus, which is everything you love about the Daily Wire and so much more.
As a member, you get exclusive access to new shows and content from Jordan Peterson, plus the entire PragerU library, plus original movies and documentaries, plus animated and live action kids content coming soon.
We are building the future that you want to see because Come join us.
Head over to dailywireplus.com.
Become a member.
That's dailywireplus.com today.
Use code Knolls for 25% off.
Also, make sure to check out Craning Company, Daily Wire's new sports show.
Yours truly will be there on All Access tomorrow morning.
So tune in to see if my Nolstradamus powers of prophecy and prediction will help me with my sports knowledge.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
I discovered a contradiction on deadnaming.
I did.
On behalf of the transgender community, I discovered a great travesty that has gone on in Hollywood of all places.
Ellen Page, she who must not be named, she who if you name her on Twitter, you will be kicked off of Twitter and booted out of the public square.
Ellen Page, the actress who now says she's a man and goes by Elliot Page, is being deadnamed.
Deadnamed, that's when you call someone by their real name, not their new crazy fake name.
She's being deadnamed by Hollywood, by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, by the Oscars.
If you go on the Oscars website...
You will notice that they still list Ellen Page under their nominees because she was nominated for that movie, Juno.
And we all laugh because, yes, of course, even if you think that she's a man now, which she isn't, she obviously was a woman in Juno.
It's a movie about a woman getting an abortion.
Though I guess you could talk to that Berkeley professor and she'd say that men can get abortions too.
We all look at that and we say...
Ellen didn't call herself Elliot in those days.
Ellen called herself Ellen and knew that she was a woman.
She's called herself Ellen for 33 and for 35 years on earth.
But the new rule on Wikipedia, on social media, on Twitter, on Facebook, on YouTube, on all these places is if someone now identifies with a new name and new pronouns, you have to refer to that person by that name and by those pronouns immediately.
When referring to their entire life.
And here, we see an example of a contradiction.
The Academy, we're now halfway into July.
The Academy still has its pride flag up on its social media profiles.
So it says, we're the LGBT, as LGBT as they come.
Well, they are deadnaming Ellen Page.
Are they going to be kicked off of Twitter?
Are they going to be booted out of the public square?
Probably not.
They're probably not going to face any consequences at all.
But it is rank hypocrisy.
The Academy gets to deadname Ellen Page.
Jordan Peterson does not.
What's that about?
Well, what that's about is there's two sets of rules.
Speaking of popular films, I hope that you have not watched too much of Hunter Biden's oeuvre.
Hunter Biden's laptop was exposed and his cell phone was exposed and the guy filmed himself committing all sorts of disgusting acts.
I'm not sure that the guy has ever committed a crime that he did not film.
Lots and lots of hookers, lots and lots of drugs, lots and lots of creepy stuff.
It's all out there.
We have video evidence of the guy committing all sorts of crimes.
We have documentary evidence of him committing what are probably more serious financial crimes, evidence of lots of financial corruption.
And now they're saying, it is being reported that Hunter Biden could face charges.
Not for the financial stuff, not even for the drug stuff, just for the hookers.
But according to experts in the mainstream media...
Joe Biden's son Hunter could face federal charges related to prostitution while he's under investigation for other stuff.
He could face charges, according to the experts.
But according to people who know how the political system actually works, he won't.
He won't.
He's not going to face any actual consequences.
Do you really believe that Hunter Biden is ever going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit?
No, you don't.
But he should.
Yeah, sure.
And it's unjust.
But do you believe right now that Hunter Biden is ever going to face actual consequences for his brazen criminality?
No.
And why won't he?
Because we know that there are two tracks in the justice system.
Just as there are two tracks for ordinary people on the street, Just as there are two tracks for the LM goes out and burns down buildings and kills people and robs stores and they get a slap on the wrist and usually get their charges dismissed.
Meanwhile, the Horn Hat guy goes in and dances around the Capitol.
They throw him in solitary and throw away the key.
Two different tracks for political dissent and protest.
So, too, there are different tracks for people who are connected.
Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son.
He just won't face consequences.
Now, speaking of crime and punishment, this is really important because when crime begins to spread, it has effects all throughout society.
There are actually three kinds of criminality that we're talking about here.
We're talking about crime, like regular thug on the street goes and robs a liquor store.
Then we're talking about lawlessness in the enforcement agencies, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, when they don't enforce the law and they let criminals off the hook.
That's another kind of lawlessness.
And then there's the third kind that you see typified by Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family, where people who are connected to the government, the people who are supposed to be setting the better example, who are either directly or indirectly involved in law enforcement through family ties, when they are the ones committing the who are either directly or indirectly involved in law enforcement through Those are three different types of lawlessness.
The latter is the most scandalous.
And when one spreads, they all kind of spread.
When the law enforcement agencies stop enforcing the law, what happens?
You get more crime.
When the people at the top who are supposed to be in charge and setting the example, when they commit crimes themselves, that sends a message to the rest of the law enforcement agencies that now we're not going to take these things so seriously.
No one really believes Biden's FBI and Biden's DOJ are going to go after Hunter Biden.
No one really believes that.
By the way, when Kamala Harris is out raising money to bail out the BLM rioters, that's a message to the BLM rioters and to Antifa and just regular street thugs that they're not going to get in trouble as long as they check a few different boxes.
They're going to be just fine.
And so the lawlessness spreads.
You see it all the way down to little kids.
There's a video that's just gone viral of little kids in Minneapolis screaming at, cursing at, and actually hitting police officers.
So you see this little kid, two little black kids, yelling profanities at these cops and swinging at them, punching the cops.
Now they're what, they're like three years old or something, walking around in their underwear.
And you've got some older people, you've got some adults behind them.
Or at least older teenagers.
Maybe adults.
Also shirtless.
Not wearing all their clothing, pants down below their underwear, allowing this to happen.
How do you think life is gonna turn out for those kids?
Not great.
What are the cops gonna do?
One, the cops are not going to arrest little kids.
The cops are not even going to stop little kids from hitting them.
And especially they're not going to stop them because they're black kids.
And because this is Minneapolis and we're living in the era post-George Floyd where, Ben Stein made this point the other day, where you have explicit calls from people in political authority to let black people commit crimes.
Let black people off the hook for crimes.
Punish people of other races, specifically white people.
To a greater degree for crimes and have a two-tiered system.
And they justify it with all sorts of piffle about systemic oppression and history and all this other stuff.
But what they're saying is, even during the BLM riots, they said, we just need to let people vent their emotions by stealing Gucci handbags and Nike sneakers.
We just need to let people let it out by torching the city, but only for a night or two.
Then we're going to bring law and order back.
Do you think that's good?
Yeah it's good for black people.
That's good for anybody.
I don't think that's good at all.
Do you think these little kids, who obviously have complete deadbeat degenerate parents, if they have parents at all, I'm not even sure if the parents are around, whoever those older adults are in the frame, though, they're sort of just slightly out of frame.
You can only see part of their bodies.
But whoever they are, they're completely irresponsible.
They're neglecting the education of these kids.
The kids are statistically very likely to turn out bad.
I mean, they don't even put the kids in clothing.
The adults themselves aren't wearing clothing.
Do you think that's going to set these kids up for success?
No.
The best thing that could possibly happen to these kids is, and there's really no way politically for it even to occur right now in Minneapolis, is for those cops to grab the little kids and say, hey, stop it.
Naughty, naughty, naughty.
Don't do that.
You're not allowed to hit police officers.
Shut your mouth.
Don't use that kind of language.
I'm going to wash your mouth out with soap.
Your parents, if they're even around, need to be punished a little more severely than you.
I'm just giving you a stern talking to.
But stop it.
You're not going to have a successful life if you do that.
It's wrong for you to do that.
Wrong for you to speak to your elders that way.
Wrong for you to speak to law enforcement that way.
And if you continue down this path, you're going to have a terrible life and you're going to wind up like Hunter Biden.
So don't do it.
It's a bad idea.
That's not harming a kid.
That's not oppressing a kid.
That's loving a kid.
It's tough love, but people need a little bit of tough love sometimes.
And the parents could use really tough love.
The parents could use a little bit more than a stern talking to.
The parents should be told, get your life together, get your kids in line, or else.
Or you're going to be wearing the orange jumpsuit that Hunter will not be wearing.
Speaking of getting tough, the 2024 race is heating up on the Republican side, and you are seeing now a battle happening.
of the two biggest, brashest billionaires on social media.
You are seeing a battle between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Another one of our highest priorities under a Republican Congress will be to stop left wing censorship and to restore free speech in America.
And go out, by the way, while I'm here and sign up now for Truth Social.
It's hot as a pistol.
And you see that?
I pulled that one right.
Leon, I tell you what.
Elon, Elon is not going to buy Twitter.
Where did you hear that before?
From me.
From a fake account.
She says fake.
A lot of them.
Nah, he's got himself a mess.
You know, he said the other day, oh, I've never voted for a Republican.
I said, I didn't know that.
He told me he voted for me.
So he's another artist, but he's not going to be buying it.
He's not going to be buying it.
Although he might later.
Who the hell knows what's going to happen?
He's got a pretty rotten contract.
I looked at his contract.
Not a good contract.
He's rotten.
So he's really going after Elon Musk here.
And he's doing it in the way that Trump always goes after people.
He lets the other guy hit first.
This is not an aggressive...
This is not a preemptive attack on Elon Musk.
Elon hit him first, in Trump's mind, by saying, I've never voted for a Republican.
I've never supported a Republican.
What that means is, Elon's like, I didn't support Trump.
So Trump says, okay, well, you told me you did when you came and groveled for more government handouts, Elon.
So suck it, Elon.
You're a jerk.
You're not buying Twitter.
It was all a scam in the first place.
I told you it was a scam.
Elon's terrible.
I'm the man.
Forget about Twitter.
Sign up for Truth Social.
And he just unleashes in that very Trumpy way.
That wasn't all of it.
He then went on Truth Social, because Trump is not allowed on Twitter.
He went on Truth Social.
Posted a picture of Elon posing with then-President Trump.
And says, Because Elon did strike first.
Now, you might say, Elon has every right to say that he's not a Republican and hasn't voted for Republicans before.
Trump doesn't need to take this so personally.
But this is how Trump plays politics, and everybody knows it.
Frankly, I actually don't think that this attack on Elon Musk is designed as a message for Elon Musk.
I think this is a message for Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz and Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence and Nikki Haley and anyone else who might run for president in 2024.
The message is, I'm going to be really nice, we're going to play nice, until you, in even the slightest way, come after me.
And then I am going to go nuclear on you.
And Elon happens to be the object of that ire right now.
But the message is not for Elon.
The message is for the people who could challenge Trump.
And it's a message that DeSantis and all the rest of the potential 2024 people should take very seriously.
Because right now Trump is so far up in the polls.
He's got the support of the Republicans.
Even though I know a lot of Very politically active, aware, very online conservatives are saying, you know, I liked Trump, but he's had his time.
It's time to move on.
That's what Elon said.
You know, well, maybe we should move.
I think Elon said something to this effect.
You know, it's sort of time to move on.
And that's not where the Republican base is right now.
That's not where the polls are right now.
And so, you're now in this position.
Actually, I think the way Elon phrased it was, he said, there should also be an age limit for president.
You shouldn't be able to run for president over the age of 69.
And I think it was just so he could make a joke about the number 69, which is kind of the way that he plays social media as well.
But this is a game.
This is a high-level game.
And people down in Florida, people down in Texas, people up in all over the place, all over the country who might be considering a run for president, I think there is a chance for some Republican candidates to beat Trump.
2024 is a long way away.
Other people, though, are delusional.
One of whom is the governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, who, in an interview that was just published yesterday, told CBS News that more and more people are encouraging him to run for president.
Who are these people?
Are any of those people out there?
Where is the nationwide wave of Hoganmentum coming around?
I don't quite see it in the polls.
One of the ironies for the people who are most critical of Trump is that they themselves embody all of the tics and even the worst eccentricities that they accuse Trump of having.
So you'd have the Lincoln Project.
Remember the Lincoln Project?
Speaking of pedophiles and sex crimes, the Lincoln Project was this group of Republican consultants who got pushed out of the game because Trump didn't want to hire them.
And so, because they're absolute prostitutes, they just went and worked for the Democrats and raised a lot of money from Democrats, and then said, we're principled Republicans, right?
We're not like that unprincipled, boar, vulgarian Donald Trump.
We're principled.
And then they ran the most vulgar, boorish, disgusting campaigns you can imagine.
We're not like this terrible man, Donald Trump, who has no character.
Meanwhile, the Lincoln Project gets caught as being a bunch of pederasts, homosexual pedos, who were trying to groom young kids and offer them the prospect of jobs if they would engage in sex acts with them while these guys cheated on their wives.
Whatever they could accuse Trump of, On the sex front, on the rhetoric front, on any front, they themselves were embodying much worse behavior.
And you're even seeing hints of that here with Larry Hogan.
He says, listen, more and more people are telling me to run.
Look, look, everybody's talking about it.
They're all saying Larry Hogan.
We really want Larry to run for president.
It's like a really sad caricature of a guy trying to do a Donald Trump impression.
And obviously, nobody wants this guy to run for president.
Probably most of his own family doesn't want him to run for president.
Hogan's argument is there's a diminishing number of folks that are wanting the former president Trump to run.
There's a growing number of people that are looking for our kind of successful, bigger tent politics.
Even this, even this line.
Successful, bigger tent politics.
Donald Trump is the biggest tent Republican.
The most successfully big tent Republican I've ever seen in my lifetime.
Donald Trump expanded the Republican Party's reach to Hispanic voters.
Donald Trump expanded the Republican Party's reach to black voters.
Donald Trump expanded the Republican Party's reach to working class voters who were previously Democrats, Union Democrats, blue-collar workers.
He greatly expanded the Republican Party's reach to that demographic.
Donald Trump expanded the Republican Party's reach to gay voters, for goodness sakes.
Donald Trump, he was the first presidential candidate to ever launch his campaign supporting gay marriage.
Joe Biden didn't start his political campaigns supporting gay marriage.
Certainly not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, all of whom said that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Now, you might say, well, I wish Donald Trump did defend the traditional understanding of marriage that prevailed everywhere for all of human history until five minutes ago.
Maybe you say, I wish that were the case.
But one thing you can accuse him of is not being big tent.
The guy's a very, very big tent.
Is Larry Hogan a big tent Republican?
What's his base of support?
Does 66% of the Republican Party want Larry Hogan to be president?
I don't think so.
Speaking of governors that I don't like very much, Democrat up in New York, Kathy Hochul.
Who is trying to take away New Yorkers' Second Amendment rights?
This clip came from a week or two ago, but I really want to get to it because it shows you the kind of hubris that you're seeing from the ruling class.
So you had a major win for the Second Amendment in New York thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in the New York Pistol and Rifle Association case came out and said that New Yorkers have a right to keep and bear arms.
And they can carry weapons, and that's that.
So New York is really upset.
Some of their gun laws were struck down.
They're trying to institute new gun laws.
And a reporter asked this Governor Hochul a question.
He said, hold on, do you have any evidence that the guns that you're banning and the people you're banning from owning guns are actually involved in the homicide problem in New York?
Here's Hochul's answer.
Do you have the numbers to show that it's the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes?
Because the lawful gun owner will say that you're attacking the wrong person.
It's really people that are getting these guns illegally that are causing the violence, not the people going and getting The permit legally, and that's the basis for the whole Supreme Court argument.
Do you have the numbers?
I don't need to have numbers.
I don't have to have a data point to point to to say that this is going to matter.
All I know is I have a responsibility to the people of this state to have sensible gun safety laws.
And this one was not devised by the Hochul administration.
It comes out of an administration from 1908.
I don't need a data point to make the case that I have a responsibility to protect the people of this state.
Sure, that's true.
You don't need statistics to know that you have a responsibility to protect the people of the state.
But the question is, do you have any evidence that your law will protect the people of the state?
Hochul is using a clever rhetorical device here, because I also think that statistics are generally bogus, and statistics come about in the last, really only in the last...
150, 200 years or so, and it comes as part of this big expansion of the technocratic state.
The very word statistic refers to the data that go into the management of the state, and it has all sorts of problems for conservative political philosophy, and it really feeds into the progressive project broadly.
So I'm also not that interested in citing statistic after statistic, but you do need evidence, don't you?
Yes, it's true.
Your job, Kathy Hochul, is to pursue justice.
Your job is to protect the people of your state and ensure the common good.
Okay, what is your evidence that these gun laws will do it?
She says, I don't have any evidence.
I don't have a statistic.
I don't even have an anecdote.
I don't have a philosophical argument.
I don't have any evidence whatsoever.
I just want to do it.
I'm just going to do it.
And that is a kind of governance without logic.
We've got two faculties we can use when we're talking about government here.
When we're talking about even our own personal lives.
We've got our will and we've got our intellect.
Intellect without will, you're not going to do very much.
Will without intellect, you're not going to do very many good things.
Ideally, you combine the two and you allow your intellect to inform your will and then you act in a way that is in accordance with right reason and with the good.
That's when politics is functioning best.
And the Founding Fathers wrote about these sorts of things at great length.
That's kind of what this government was supposed to be about.
When you divorce the will from the intellect, then you get tyranny, essentially.
Then you just get people, a politics that devolves to people just pursuing their own basest, immediate, unreasonable interests.
And desires.
And that is not very good government at all.
There you can't have civil dialogue.
There you can't have reasonable debate.
There it's just two teams clubbing each other until one side wins.
And unfortunately, it's not the troglodytes with the big thick eyebrows who look like Neanderthals dragging clubs around who are pursuing this kind of politics.
It's all the geniuses who went to all the really good schools who wear the really fancy lab coats who tell you get your 17th booster shot because this one's going to be very safe and effective and that's going to do whatever we say even when what we say contradicts what we said just yesterday.
Even when there's no logic to it whatsoever, you will do what I tell you to do You will comply or else.
That's the kind of politics we're looking at.
That's why we've got to get really, really tough here if we want to return in any way to a politics informed by reason.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Production Manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate Producer, Justine Turley.
Audio Mixer, Mike Coromina.
And Hair and Makeup by Cherokee Heart.
Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
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.
