A new study links the COVID vaccines to menstrual changes in 42% of women, Joe Biden begs the Saudi Crown Prince for oil, and BLM makes an idol of another thug.
Become a DailyWire+ member today access the extensive content catalog: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Check out Morning Wire on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, DailyWire+, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Use Promo Code 'KNOWLES' at EpicWill.com for 10% off your will.
Helix Mattresses are made to match your unique sleep preferences. Go to HelixSleep.com/KNOWLES and get up to $200 OFF + 2 FREE pillows with all mattress orders!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
A new study out of Washington University has found that a full 42% of women who have received COVID vaccines have experienced changes to their menstrual cycle, which is, of course, impossible because the public health authorities assured us that the vaccines could not in any way affect women's cycles.
We're going to turn now to our Dr.
Jen Ashton, who has some answers to some of your more pressing medical questions.
We'll start with the first one, Dr.
Jen.
Is there a relationship between the vaccines and menstrual cycles?
We've definitely talked about this.
Oh, we sure have, you guys.
And this is really spreading like wildfire on social media with zero scientific or medical basis for this.
Remember, in medicine, every time we talk about a study, a finding, what is the first thing we say?
Big difference between association and causation.
So yes, women can get the vaccine and then experience changes in their menstrual cycle.
That does not mean that one causes the other.
And in fact, if you look at the biology of how these vaccines work, there is zero hormonal interaction.
So please, let's put that to rest.
Yes, this got a lot of attention because a school actually in Florida was telling teachers that they cited this as a reason for not being vaccinated.
It defies science.
Defies science.
So let's put that to rest because it defies science.
Not only did the vaccines not affect menstruation, according to the public health establishment, but it was scientifically impossible for them to affect menstruation.
Social media companies censored and deplatformed people for suggesting that they did.
And then something really weird happened.
Women started noticing that the vaccines were in fact affecting their menstrual cycles.
And eventually enough women noticed that phenomenon that it became undeniable.
So the establishment completely changed its tune, loosened up the language a little bit.
And starting in January of this year, they started to admit small changes, huge Here we go.
This is from ABC. It's funny, this is from the same network as Good Morning America that we were just watching.
COVID-19 vaccine linked to small, temporary changes in menstrual cycles, study finds.
So the very same outlet, the very same network, the very same show...
Went from scientifically impossible defies science to, yeah, okay, some small changes.
Very small, very temporary, nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Now, of course, they're admitting to slightly larger changes.
The researchers behind the Washington University study observed that many of the study participants experienced changes to their cycles lasting more than a week after vaccination, which is important because that is beyond the period in which adverse symptom reporting is closely monitored during vaccine trials.
How much longer than a week?
We just don't know.
Now the medical establishment insists, okay, fine, the menstrual changes do occur, but they won't have any long-term consequences.
And of course, the public health gurus don't have any proof to back up this claim, because the vaccines have only existed for a year and a half, and there are no long-term data, period.
They just don't exist.
So now you've got a choice to make.
You can either believe the fancy credentialed genius, powerful public health officials in the white lab coats, you know, the people who told you that the vaccines would prevent infection and would prevent transmission and could not possibly affect women's menstrual cycles and on and on.
In other words, the people who've gotten pretty much everything about COVID wrong from the start.
Or you can believe the knuckle dragging conspiracy theorist deplorables who urged caution from the beginning and though they don't generally possess fancy medical degrees or positions of public authority, have pretty much gotten everything right.
That's your choice.
I'm Michael Knowles.
It's The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment Friday is from DetSlimJim12, what a name, who says, Speaking of child abuse, the CDC is definitely a top-tier Michael Knowles transition.
Yes, thank you.
I appreciate that.
I'm sorry that that is a top-tier transition, but that's what we've come to expect because nobody has any respect whatsoever anymore for the CDC and the rest of the public health authorities.
It's very difficult.
It makes us anxious to think about these people lying to us.
So when I want to try to get some sleep at night, you know what I need?
I need my Helix mattress.
Right now, go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles.
I have had my Helix mattress for a little under a year and a half, and I absolutely don't.
Love it.
I adore it.
One, it's super easy to unbox.
They bring it right to your house.
Boom, boom, boom.
It opens up super easy.
You sleep like never before.
It's just so wonderful, tailored exactly to your sleep preferences.
The way they do that...
They've got a quiz that takes two minutes to complete, matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
With Helix, you're getting a mattress that you know will be perfect for the way that you sleep.
Everyone's unique.
Helix knows that.
They have several different mattress models to choose from.
Soft, medium, and firm mattresses.
Mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot.
Mattress is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains.
I just love it.
Absolutely cannot recommend these guys enough.
You do not need to go to the mattress store ever again.
Go to helixsleep.com slash knolls.
Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
They will match you to a customized mattress, give you the best sleep of your life.
They've got a 10-year warranty.
You can try it out for 100 nights, risk-free.
They'll even pick it up if you don't love it, but you will love it.
For a limited time, get up to $350 off all mattress orders, plus two free pillows.
For our listeners, it's their best offer yet.
I have such little respect at this point for the public health establishment that if I were sick or a family member were sick and I were given two choices of doctors, let's say that the choice is between Dr.
Harvard Yale Princeton, Dr.
Harvard Yale Princeton with his stethoscope and his white lab coat, and Dr.
Alex Jones who is standing naked eating vitamin supplements with a tinfoil hat on.
And those are my two choices.
It's not even a question.
It's not even a question.
I go to Dr.
Jones.
10 times out of 10.
Because legitimately, if you're comparing someone like Alex Jones, I mean, I use him because he's the most clear example of this.
Someone derided as a crazy and a kook and deplatformed and everything for raising questions about what the establishment is saying with regard to COVID and all the rest of it.
You know, you look at that guy and then you look at Dr.
Fauci.
Fauci has a way worse record.
It's all of them.
It's the whole public health establishment.
Why?
Why do you think people might be losing some faith in the public health establishment?
One picture tells you the whole story.
This is a picture from over the weekend.
This is a picture of Dr.
Richard Levine, who calls himself Rachel, and Sam Brinton.
These are two dudes showing up to a party at the French ambassador's residence.
Richard Levine is the assistant secretary of health.
Sam Brinton is in charge of nuclear materials at the Department of Energy.
And both of these men showed up wearing dresses and women's shoes.
And then they took a photo together.
Sam Brinton posts week four on the job champagne and celebration with the French ambassador in his residence for Bastille Day.
Also amazing opportunity to connect with one of the only other transgender government officials.
Admiral Levine, not going to lie, felt great to commiserate with a fellow trans person facing the hate.
I don't know that they get hate.
I don't think that Levine and Brinton get hate.
They do get criticism, legitimate criticism, which is, hey, you're men, you shouldn't dress up like women.
Hey, you're men, you shouldn't pretend to be women.
Hey, Admiral Levine...
Dr.
Levine, you shouldn't be promoting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and mutilation surgeries for tiny little kids.
It's very abusive and wrong.
That's criticism.
It's not hate, though.
It's legitimate criticism.
Because they're doing bad things and they're doing wrong things.
And in the case of Sam Brinton, he has not just committed private sexual sins that got out.
He has made a big show of his sexual degeneracy.
He's apparently a puppy fetishist.
Which apparently is different than bestiality, but it's where he and his homosexual lover dress up like dogs and then do all sorts of strange things and leather and whatever, whatever it is.
It's not like this is some private sin and scandal that was uncovered.
He gives lectures about this.
He goes around and parades these kinds of behaviors in public.
And the consequence of that is that these guys are a national embarrassment.
It is embarrassing.
These guys are representing the United States.
They are a public face of our country.
And they're doing things that are shameful and embarrassing.
And I don't even mean to wag my finger and blame them and try to humiliate them or anything like that.
Or expose some private sins.
They're doing this publicly.
They're the ones humiliating us.
It's not the conservatives who are being graceless and cruel here and harsh and mean-spirited.
We would be more than happy to live and let live and whatever, you know, if they want to do weird puppy stuff in the bedroom and don't tell anybody about it.
I guess that's not our business.
We're not going to find out about it.
But when you parade all of this stuff in public...
And then when you take it even further, like Richard Levine does, and says that my own disorders and perversions, I'm now going to foist on little kids and advocate transing the kids.
Well, that's a big problem.
That's a national embarrassment.
It's a national scandal.
And we don't want it.
And I know that there are, I think probably the vast majority of America feels this way.
When they see this as the public face of America, they feel humiliated and ashamed.
You know the rest of the world is laughing at us.
But a lot of people don't feel that they...
Ought to express that legitimate sentiment.
Because they feel that it's phobic or mean or something.
It's not.
There's nothing phobic about that.
We're talking about politics.
We're talking about public life.
And these people in public life are an embarrassment.
And there's nothing wrong with people not wanting to be embarrassed at the national level.
There's absolutely nothing wrong or phobic or irrational with saying, Hey fellas, you're clearly going through something right now.
And so you need to go deal with your own problems, and then if you want to come back into public life, maybe you can.
But you've got to make a choice.
You can either engage in very degrading actions that are humiliating and for whatever reason they get your rocks off, or you can suppress those degrading and debasing behaviors and be a public face for the United States.
But you can't do both.
We, as Americans, have a right to some national honor.
We have a right to some national dignity.
We have a right to some integrity from our public health officials.
And if we're not going to get that, the criticism is totally legitimate.
It's not hate.
It's not mean.
I don't think any one of us wishes these people ill or harbors some deep-seated hatred for them.
We just want our public officials to make us proud, to make us stand a little straighter, to look at them and say, yes, I'm glad those guys are representing us.
And it's not just Sam Brinton and it's not just Richard Levine.
The problem of national embarrassments representing us goes all the way up to the top.
And the guy at the top, one of the big problems with him is that he's extremely old.
And when you get old, you get close to shaking off this mortal coil.
And when you do that, you want to make sure you have a will.
That's why you got to go check out Epic Will.
Right now, head on over to epicwill.com.
Use code Knowles because you will die.
I have news for you, my friend.
You will die.
Do you go skydiving?
You will die.
Do you breathe oxygen?
You will die.
No one here gets out alive.
Not in this world, my friends.
So you need to have a will, okay?
A will is not about you.
It's about your loved ones.
It's about the really difficult decisions they will face if something happens to you.
Excuse me.
When something happens to you.
Do yourself a favor.
Do your family a favor.
Make those decisions now so that they don't have to face them later without you.
Epic Will makes it so, so easy to get your affairs in order.
I just finished up my will about a month or so ago.
Epic Will is taking care of a ton of people here at The Daily Wire.
Go to epicwill.com.
Use promo code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Save 10% on Epic Will's complete package.
Right now, you can get a will in as little as five minutes.
Super-duper easy.
Well worth $119 to secure your family's future.
Without a will...
You might as well wrap up all your money and your assets and your kids.
Hand them over to the state.
Do not do that.
You probably don't want that to happen.
Right now, go to EpicWill.com.
Use code Knowles.
Take you five minutes.
Square away the rest of your life and you can move on.
EpicWill.com.
Code Knowles.
You want to talk about a national embarrassment.
Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is making his Beg for Oil tour around the Middle East.
And Biden really irked a lot of people, not just on the right, but especially on the left over the end of last week, because he shows up to Saudi Arabia and basically just begs the crown prince for oil.
The reason for this is that Joe Biden shut down new oil and gas production in the United States and shut down new oil pipelines, even though he gave the green light to an oil pipeline for Vladimir Putin.
He's giving the green light.
He's actually begging the Middle Eastern oil states to produce more oil, but he's just not producing American oil.
I guess Saudi Arabian oil doesn't pollute the environment in the way that American oil does.
It doesn't make sense to me, but that must be the premise here.
I don't know why it's okay for Saudi Arabia to produce oil and profit from that, but it's not okay for Americans to do the very same.
So he's going around, he's begging people to get more oil, and the thing that really irked the left was he goes to Saudi Arabia, and he gives a fist bump to the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
Now, this is embarrassing.
I want, again, it gets to this issue of national dignity.
I want my leaders to not behave like teenagers.
You know, a bit nice.
Handshake would be good.
Sturdy handshake.
But okay, it gives the fist bump.
Fine.
Whatever.
The reason the Libs are upset by the fist bump is that for the past...
Three, four years or longer, they have been painting Mohammed bin Salman as the worst, terrible, murderous, monster barbarian in the entire world.
And the reason they've done that, or the reason that they've been able to make this argument, is because the head of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, killed, assassinated that disinterested symbol of journalism, Jamal Khashoggi.
Do you remember Jamal Khashoggi?
Maybe you don't remember it.
I mean, the news cycles move so fast now.
Jamal Khashoggi, here is the story that was presented about Jamal Khashoggi.
He was a journalist, a reporter, a columnist for the Washington Post who was just minding his own business in Turkey and the Saudi crown prince sent his thugs, his assassins, to the residence where Jamal Khashoggi was staying and they chopped him up and they tortured him and they killed him.
Because he was speaking truth to power, and he was a disinterested journalist, and this was an attack on the Fourth Estate, and the free press everywhere!
And that's not what happened.
That's not what happened at all.
The Jamal Khashoggi story was just complete propaganda.
Jamal Khashoggi was a political operative and a spy.
He was not, in any reasonable use of the term, a journalist.
Jamal Khashoggi had been a spy for Saudi Arabia.
He had been a spy for Saudi Arabia's enemies.
He had palled around and worked with Osama bin Laden back in the early days of al-Qaeda.
He was on the payroll of Qatar.
He would have these foreign interests draft, sometimes write whole portions of the columns that he would submit to the Washington Post and other publications.
He was an influence peddler.
He was a political operative.
He had been on the good side of parts of the Saudi royal family.
Then he fell on the bad side of parts of the Saudi royal family.
He was working for some of the Saudi enemies.
So the Saudis did what the Saudis do.
What a lot of states do, and they went out and assassinated their enemies.
I'm not defending the assassination of the enemies of Saudi Arabia, but I am saying this is kind of par for the course.
And it's very different than the story that had been presented, which is that Saudi Arabia was attacking the free press.
That's not it at all.
What you saw playing out there with the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, and really the subsequent media spin around it, is you saw two competing interests, especially in the United States.
The Libs went crazy over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi because the Libs hate Saudi Arabia.
They want us to back away from Saudi Arabia and our relationship there.
And they want us to cozy up to Iran.
The conservatives tend to think that we're better with the devil we know than the devil we don't.
And they prefer that we remain allies with Saudi Arabia and that we don't cozy up to Iran.
And we don't give Iran pallets of cash.
And we don't give Iran a nuclear weapon.
And there are a lot of other regional powers at play there as well.
So the Libs pounced on the Jamal Khashoggi killing to try to generate worldwide opposition to Saudi Arabia and to get people to cozy up more to Iran.
It was just a propaganda operation to shift certain geopolitical alliances.
And the reason I mention it is because a lot of people fell for it.
The Washington Post is still...
Going crazy over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi as some attack on the press.
And a lot of people fell for it because they violate the first rule when you are reading any news story.
I talked about this a couple weeks ago, but it's really important to keep in mind.
When you are reading a news report about any story, domestic, foreign, economic, crime, immigration, whatever, the first question you have to ask yourself before you even get to the facts, the who, what, where, when, why, You have to ask a why question about the story itself.
You have to ask, what is the angle?
When you're reading the New York Times, when you're reading the Daily Wire, when you're reading anything in between, you need to ask yourself, okay, what is the angle here?
Why is this story being reported now by this news outlet?
Why?
Journalism costs money.
People are putting their resources in a certain place, so people are going to make decisions on how to deploy those resources.
And there are always political considerations that come into that.
So you've got to ask yourself, and it's just particular, it's true across the political spectrum, but it's particularly egregious when we're talking about the Washington Post or the New York Times where there are huge, entrenched, corrupt interests that fund these papers.
What is the angle?
Why is this being reported now?
Why am I being told that the assassination of an ex-Saudi spy is the worst attack on a free press in the history of the world?
And you realize it actually has nothing to do with Jamal Khashoggi.
It has nothing to do with the press.
It has nothing to do with Washington Post.
It has everything to do with giant political forces trying to restructure the world order.
Speaking of death, there's a new BLM idol that's out there.
You might have missed this one.
If you were having a barbecue with your family this weekend, you might have missed that a new BLM idol dropped.
This person is Teklay Sundberg.
Tekle Sundberg was a young man who, according to investigators, fired multiple gunshots inside a sewered neighborhood in Minneapolis inside this apartment building on Wednesday night.
And so the police were called.
They were trying to talk this guy down.
They were trying to get the guy to surrender.
The guy just would not surrender.
And eventually the cops killed him.
And now there are BLM demonstrations, people showing up.
Justice for Tecle.
He was killed by the racist Minneapolis cops because he's a black man.
And they were making their demonstrations, which were interrupted by a really inconvenient person for the BLM crowd.
The inconvenient person would be the victim who was almost murdered with her two little kids by Tecle Sundberg.
You guys are celebrating his life.
It was a terror.
I'm sure it was a terror.
This is not okay.
It's not okay.
You're alive.
Shut up.
Let me go.
Breathe in silence.
This is not okay.
This is not a George Floyd situation.
George Floyd was unarmed.
He was unarmed.
You're alive.
This is not okay.
You're alive.
The bullet missed you, so stop complaining.
My kids have to Of course the kids are traumatized.
There's bullet holes in my kitchen because he sat in the f***ing hallway watching my move.
Stop complaining.
You didn't die.
You almost did.
I wish it never happened either.
Now I don't have a place to call home.
I can't see you said that.
She's obviously going through a moment.
This is not okay.
Going through a moment, yeah.
She and her two kids were almost killed.
Now you're complaining that the guy who shot him got shot.
Go home!
Go home!
There's none of you guys knocked on that man's door to check his house!
Shut up!
He comes to my office.
Shut up!
Shut up!
You guys did not come!
He did not!
You guys did not come and visit that man!
This is not the time!
This is not the time we're the place to stay!
I don't matter!
I don't matter!
This woman comes up, guessing.
My black kid is in the car!
He tried to kill me in front of my kids!
He tried to kill me in front of my kids!
Imagine you're a mother.
And you say, I mean, you really, you totally feel for this when she's saying, this guy tried to kill me and my children, but me in front of my kids or my children in front of me or all of us at once.
And you are all dead.
crying because this guy was taken out by police before he could successfully kill me and my children and now you're really upset that he wasn't allowed to keep shooting.
Do you see how that's kind of offensive to me?
And BLM doesn't care.
You heard the protesters out there say, shut up.
You're fine.
There's bullet holes in my wall.
Yeah, there's not bullet holes in you.
Shut up.
It's not about you.
It's about our narrative.
According to our narrative, this guy who was shooting you through your walls and almost killed your kids, he was a poor innocent victim.
He was probably unarmed.
I don't know where those bullets came from.
And you need to shut up and stop contradicting our narrative or else.
If you ever thought to yourself, I bet working at The Daily Wire is a fantastic experience.
You're insane!
What are you talking about?
No, I'm joking.
You're in luck!
We are growing.
We are hiring.
Legitimately, I walk around this place.
I've always prided myself on being pals with most people around The Daily Wire.
You know, I've been here since pretty much the very beginning of the company.
We're hiring so many people.
I look every two hours.
They say, when did you get here?
Oh, you got here 20 minutes ago.
Okay, all right.
Nice to meet you.
You might be the next person to join us.
We are expanding our in-house ad sales team.
There were several new open positions, including digital sales representative, senior ad operations manager, and client success manager.
Prior experience in digital and audio sales is a must.
This is an incredible opportunity to be a key player in the Daily Wire business.
These positions are based here in Nashville.
For more details and to apply, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
What's most interesting about the Tekle Sundberg story, which is he's the newest BLM idol in Minneapolis, which is he's the newest BLM idol in Minneapolis, which is epicenter for BLM.
What's most interesting is not the divergence between reality and the BLM narrative.
BLM narrative, he was this poor man, this poor innocent man, the cops shouldn't have shot him.
The reality is...
He was shooting at his neighbors, almost killed a woman and her two kids.
The cops came in and put him down like old Yeller.
And they even gave him a long time to surrender, but he had to be put down.
He was put down.
The cops did the right thing.
Okay, easy enough.
What's most interesting to me is not that BLM lies.
BLM always lies.
What's interesting to me is when that woman, who was almost killed with her kids by Teckley Sundberg, when she was justifying Her anger at the demonstrators when she was trying to persuade them not to protest the cops for saving her life and her kids' lives, she had to justify it on racial lines.
She kept saying, this is not a George Floyd situation.
As though the cops were completely, had no right to interfere in George Floyd.
George Floyd, totally innocent victim, seems to be implicitly buying into the BLM narrative on George Floyd.
And then she says, my kids were almost killed.
My kids were traumatized.
My kids are in the car.
And that's not working.
She says, my black kids, they're not like those evil white kids.
They're not like those terrible white kids.
If they got shot, that'd be fine.
Or if the white kids were traumatized, who cares?
We hate those white kids.
They're black kids.
And because they're black kids, surely then you have to have some sympathy with me.
And it's really sad and ugly that that's the place we're at.
But it does seem to buttress something that we've talked about on this show for a long time, which is that the civil rights racial narrative is the narrative in American politics.
Everything has to fit into that narrative.
One of the primary arguments in the pro-life movement, in the anti-abortion movement, has been that abortion...
One was begun as a political program in America largely to target blacks and that it disproportionately kills blacks and it's racist.
They make abortion about race.
So many of the economic arguments we make about taxes, about economic growth, we make on racial lines.
This disproportionately hurts black people.
This disproportionately is racist.
So many of the arguments we make about education come down to race.
So many of the arguments we make about immigration come down to race.
This is mass migration reduces wages for people at the lower end of the income spectrum, which disproportionately affects racial minorities.
Almost all of the arguments come down to that.
This has been building for a long time in American politics.
But even here, you just see it at its most absurd extreme.
A woman who is justifying anger that her kids were almost killed by guns.
By this maniac just popping off bullets through the wall and then the cops take them out.
She's trying to justify why she thinks the killing of the shooter was okay.
And she has to justify even that on racial lines.
Oh, my kids are black!
They're not white.
Come on, you'd have a point if they were white, but they're black.
Really, really bizarre and really, really sad.
And you see it not even just in America.
This racial political narrative as the dominant thread in Western politics.
It's true in Britain, too.
On a completely different sort of story, but the same theme here.
A British dance school has just dropped ballet from its audition process.
And it's dropped ballet from the audition process because it's, quote, built around white European ideas.
Britain, historically one of the whitest countries ever, is not allowed to have ballet at its dance school because ballet is too white.
One, non-white people can dance ballet, last I checked.
But two, why are...
Why are white dances terrible?
Why are we not allowed to have white dances?
Britain's Northern School of Contemporary Dance dropped ballet from that process because not only is it too white and European, but it's too gendered as well.
And this is being reported by the Telegraph.
It's got a potentially contentious nature.
Here is what The head of undergraduate studies at the dance school says, it is essentially an elitist form.
Young people need to pay to take ballet classes as a general rule, and for a vast number of potential students, they've not had access to ballet, and so we've got to get rid of ballet when we're considering who should come into the dance school.
She's saying it's elitist.
You have to pay, you have to train, it requires a lot of skill, and so we've got to get rid of that.
One, the argument is kind of racist, right?
They're saying, oh, this thing that requires a lot of skill and time and effort, and it's really beautiful and intricate and sophisticated, yeah, that's just for white people.
That's just for white people.
All the non-white people, they can just kind of stomp around without any skill whatsoever.
That's fine for them.
But we, you know, listen here.
We're so progressive.
We're so woke that we're going to get rid of all of the sophisticated, beautiful dances because those are clearly just for white people.
The black people could never dance ballet.
That's crazy, crazy talk, don't you think?
So there is a kind of irony here that they are embodying the very thing that they're pretending to attack.
But two...
I like ballet.
I like things that require skill.
I like things that require training.
I don't think that only white people can do things that require skill and training and that are beautiful.
Why is it that in the name of racial equity, we have to bring everything down?
Why can't we bring everyone up?
I have faith that we can bring people up, regardless of their race.
I have faith that we can...
Train people and teach people to look for the good, the true, and the beautiful and do all sorts of things.
I have faith that that can happen.
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that that has happened in the past.
What here, though, is they say, nope, sorry, because of racism, because of racial politics, you no longer get ballet.
I think this really doesn't play for the libs who are pushing it.
In the long run, it's been an effective strategy for them, but when people see it too clearly, in the short run, when they go a little too far, a little too fast, there's a huge amount of backlash.
I mean, you're getting this right now.
You can see it.
You don't have to take my word for it.
You're seeing it in the public opinion polls.
And you're not just a public opinion polls, but public opinion polls from the libs.
One of the national teachers unions just did a battleground state survey asking what people thought about Ron DeSantis' education policy positions and specifically on critical race theory, racial lessons in schools.
And they realized this stuff is a total loser.
By a 32 percentage point margin, the poll said, voters rather in the poll said that they were more likely to vote for candidates who believe public schools should focus less on teaching race and more on core subjects.
32 points.
That's a poll pushed by the libs.
By 27 points, voters said schools should be banned from teaching sexual orientation and gender identity to kids in kindergarten through third grade.
Which, like, duh, it's pathetic that we even need to frame the question that way.
Fourth graders, let's teach them about ball gags and puppy play with Sam Brinton and the rest of the weirdos in our national sexual revolution.
But third grade, that's a little too young.
And then by 28 percentage points, they say that transgender athletes should be banned from competing in girls sports.
This is an obvious loser for the libs.
And it's why DeSantis is being talked about as...
A major Republican presidential candidate for 2024, if not very nearly the presumptive nominee.
Trump really throws a wrench into all of those plans.
But DeSantis is being talked about at the presidential level in a way that I have rarely seen candidates talked about.
And it's because he's just doubling down on this message.
He did it again earlier this month.
You can't put a price tag on opportunity for kids and making sure parents have the ability.
And of course, separate from the budget, you know, we believe that when parents send their kids to school, it's for education, not for indoctrination.
And we're going to hold that line in Florida.
Now, this line literally is not the most meaningful line in the world.
When people say this, it's for education, not for indoctrination.
They're really saying, we support my kind of education, not their kind of education.
Education and indoctrination mean essentially the same thing.
It's just that one has a positive connotation and one has a negative connotation.
It's a little more complex than that because education involves freeing people up, making them more human, teaching them to make sense of their freedom and their rational will, whereas indoctrination is considered less thoughtful.
And more akin to brainwashing.
But broadly speaking, what we're really talking about is the substance here.
We think kids should be taught good and true things, and they shouldn't be taught critical race theory and weird sex stuff and puppy play and transgenderism.
That's what we're really saying.
But I get why Ron DeSantis is using the line.
I think it's a very effective line.
It is true that slogans are always wrong and shallow, and they can never get to the entirety of a political view.
But When you're in politics, you've got to use slogans.
Politics is made of slogans, and Ron DeSantis has hit on a good one.
And when you look at what that means in practice for Ron DeSantis, he's done an excellent job on the issue, and the libs are losing on that issue.
Speaking of the sexual revolution...
My friend, my favorite taco, Senator Ted Cruz, got in big trouble over the weekend.
And it was actually on my show with Senator Cruz, Verdict, but it was on a little bonus content.
You know, we have our friend Liz Wheeler come in and do some bonus content for the...
Super-duper inner circle, subscribe to the Verdict Plus community type crowd.
And so they did a bonus video, and Liz asked Senator Cruz about the Obergefell decision, which redefined marriage.
And Senator Cruz made what I thought was a perfectly ordinary, unsurprising observation about that, and the Libs lost their minds.
In Obergefell, the court said, no, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage.
I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided.
It was the court overreaching.
Of course, this is obviously true.
He's saying that the court's decision in Obergefell was wrong.
And the libs lose it.
They start tweeting about it.
Big headlines everywhere.
Oh my gosh, Ted Cruz opposes the Obergefell decision.
Of course, of course that is the conservative position.
The conservative believes that the thing that everyone believed until seven years ago is still true and doesn't believe the wild, radical redefinition and innovation that took place seven years ago because Anthony Kennedy wanted to write romantic poetry on the Supreme Court.
Oh my gosh, shocking.
Can you believe that?
The libs really have no idea what we believe.
Of course Obergefell was wrongly decided.
Of course there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.
Let's say you support redefining marriage.
Let's say you support all, and you're even happy about the court decision.
Do you really believe that gay marriage was hiding out in the Constitution Through the end of the 19th century, I'm sorry, through the end of the 18th century, through the entirety of the 19th century, through the entirety of the 20th century, and then only 15 years into the 21st century did we realize that it was there all along.
You really believe that there was a definition of marriage in the Constitution that no one had seriously considered until like five minutes ago, that that just happened to be there all the time?
No.
Nobody believes that.
Nobody believes that James Madison...
Put gay marriage into the Constitution and it just lay dormant for 200 years, 250 years.
No, nobody believes that.
What about the other decisions?
If you guys are shocked, if you libs are shocked by what conservatives believe about Overgefell, just wait until you hear about what we think about other Supreme Court cases.
Other Supreme Court cases like Lawrence v.
Texas in 2003 finds a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.
You might like homosexual sodomy.
You might think it's a perfectly fine thing to do.
You might think that we ought to have a legal right to it.
Do you really believe that that right is in the Constitution?
Show me the right to homosexual sodomy in the Constitution.
You're not going to find it.
And conservatives and honest liberals were united in that opinion until at the very least 2003, really much later than that.
Go back a little further.
The Griswold and Eisenstadt cases, those were the cases that found a constitutional right to condoms in the Constitution.
Griswold was 1965, found a constitutional right to condoms, but only for married couples in the Constitution.
And then seven years later, 1972, you have the Eisenstadt case, which found a constitutional right to condoms for everybody, including unmarried couples.
Maybe you like condoms.
Maybe you think condoms are perfectly fine.
Maybe you don't even like them for sex.
You just like to use them to blow up and make balloon animals.
I don't know.
Whatever you think.
Do you seriously believe that condoms are in the Constitution somewhere?
Especially when you're talking about Griswold, where it was only condoms for married couples.
Can you please point to me to the clause of the Constitution, which is the condoms but only for married couples clause of the Constitution?
Where is that?
Just show me that text wherever you can find that.
And then explain to me how the Supreme Court took them seven years, but then they discovered, no, it's actually not just, there's condoms for everybody, not just for married couples.
Where is that clause in the Constitution?
Not everything that people want is in the Constitution.
Not everything that even some people think is right is in the Constitution.
No, of course not.
Of course there's no right to that.
I'm so pleased to see that Senator Cruz said this.
It's just so obviously true.
Of course, conservatives should oppose the Obergefell decision.
I have liberal friends who oppose the Obergefell decision.
I have gay friends who oppose the Obergefell decision.
I have gay friends who get gay married, who nevertheless, because they're honest...
Believe that the Obergefell decision was ridiculous, because of course it was ridiculous.
And some people, the one that drives me the craziest is some people try to get out of the question entirely.
And you know what they say?
They say, listen, when it comes to marriage, I just think government should get out of the marriage business entirely.
And they say this as though this is some noble or clever third way on the issue.
It's not.
It's not.
Government, quote unquote, government has always and everywhere regulated marriage in every single society ever.
And the reason for that is that marriage is the fundamental political institution.
It's not just a private institution.
It's not just one person.
It's multiple people, and it's the bedrock of all political society, which is why all governments, all political communities have had something to say about marriage, inevitably.
When you hear people say, well, listen, please stop asking my opinion on gay marriage.
I just want to get government out of the marriage business entirely.
That is not some noble or clever third way.
That is a surrender.
That is a surrender of the institution to the people and the radicals who want to redefine that institution.
That's all that it is.
You have to stand up for something.
You have to have some vision of marriage.
The government is going to say something about it.
The only question that matters is not will the government say something about it?
It inevitably will.
The only question that matters is what is marriage?
What is it?
That was always the question.
It wasn't do we hate gay people?
Should people have the right to get married?
No, the I believe that everyone has always had the right to get married.
Because marriage necessarily involves someone from the opposite sex.
So the question that you have to ask is now, do you have the right to get married?
The question you have to ask is, what is marriage?
That's going to be the next Daily Wire hit film.
I've got to go walk into Jeremy's office today and pitch that.
Because it's an important movie.
We already did What is a Woman?
Now I guess we have to do What is Marriage?
That's the debate that should have been had.
That's the debate that should be had right now.
I think it was so great that Senator Cruz made this totally common sense.
I haven't even talked to him about this yet.
Don't tell him I'm complimenting him, please.
Listen, I don't want to make a habit out of this.
But this was a really, really important thing.
And watch the squishes now.
The people who run away from this point, to me, they are not worth their salt as conservatives or Republicans.
Someone asked, by the way, on this issue, okay, so...
Even if people like condoms and even if people like gay stuff and even if people like some legal recognition of gay unions or whatever, even if we can grant that none of that stuff is in the Constitution, all those cases were wrongly decided, what about Loving v.
Virginia?
Loving v.
v. Virginia is the case that recognizes a constitutional right to interracial marriage.
Why isn't that one going to disappear too?
And in the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas, who is himself in an interracial marriage, said we need to revisit Griswold, we need to revisit Eisenstadt, we need to revisit Obergefell.
But he left out Loving v.
Virginia.
So someone wrote in to me and said, I'm in an interracial marriage.
Why is this line of thinking I'm not going to threaten my marriage.
It's because Loving v.
Virginia is based on different constitutional principles than those other cases.
All of those other cases rely on what's called substantive due process, which is a contradiction in terms.
Due process is a process.
It's a procedure.
You know, you commit a crime and you're brought up and you have your right to due process in the justice system.
Substantive due process is this idea that you have certain rights to process that don't involve a process.
And it's just a bunch of legal gobbledygook, made-up legal gobbledygook that was Mentioned a little bit in the early 20th century and really, really exploded in the middle to late 20th century when our legal system went kind of kooky with all of these cases.
And they said, well, certain rights that you can't see anywhere and you can't find them in the Constitution, you've got them, they're in between the emanations and the penumbras, and those rights are going to include condoms and weird sex stuff and abortion and all the rest of it.
Substantive due process is very silly, and Clarence Thomas made fun of it in his Dobbs concurrence.
Loving v.
Virginia is, one, is based on the Equal Protection Clause.
It doesn't hinge on substantive due process.
It hinges largely on the Equal Protection Clause.
And also, it observes, just as an historical matter, that prohibitions against interracial marriage, against miscegenation, come out of the institution of slavery.
And you can see this in the law.
You can see this in the earliest arguments and statutes prohibiting interracial marriage.
So they come out of this issue of slavery.
Slavery is abolished.
That makes a very good historical case to abolish those kinds of arguments for anti-miscegenation laws as well.
They're not the same.
You're going to see the Libs, as conservatives become more aggressive, keep pushing the envelope a little bit further now, you're going to see the Libs try to make this about race because, as we mentioned earlier, race is the dominant theme in Western politics, not even just American politics, but Western politics entirely.
Don't fall for it.
It's just completely made up and the Libs are making really, really bad arguments.
You're seeing this too before we go.
There's this last story.
Jennifer Gray, who was this actress from the 80s, she wrote in the LA Times.
She gave them an interview.
And she was lamenting the Dobbs decision, the overruling of Roe v.
Wade.
She said, it doesn't feel real.
She says, I wouldn't have my life.
I wouldn't have had the career I had.
I wouldn't have had anything if she, and she acknowledges, she had an abortion.
Had she not had the abortion, she says, I wouldn't have anything.
Wouldn't have my career.
Wouldn't have all of it.
To which I would ask, what career?
What career?
Jennifer Grey.
A lot of people listening to this show probably have no idea who Jennifer Grey is.
Jennifer Grey was in three movies, three popular movies.
One of which was Dirty Dancing, which people don't even really watch anymore.
And the main line from Dirty Dancing is nobody puts baby in a corner.
How ironic that she says, in order to have the Dirty Dancing movie, I had to kill my baby.
Nobody puts baby in a corner, except for me.
I do a lot worse than that.
She was in Ferris Bueller.
She was in Red Dawn.
That's kind of it.
Was it worth it?
It was worth killing your kid?
And Jennifer Grey would say, I've had a great, amazing Hollywood career.
I'm famous, I'm rich and all this.
Then she got a nose job and no one ever heard from her again.
But she says, you know, I got everything for this abortion.
I say, was it worth it to be in three notable movies 35 years ago and then to be completely forgotten that was worth killing your kid?
I don't think so.
That seems like some pretty medical misinformation to me.
We got at the top of the show, we were talking about all the lies that you've heard from the medical establishment.
Well, how about this one?
The lie that a baby's not a baby.
A political medical establishment.
Don't forget, public health is necessarily political.
That's what the word public means.
Public and political mean the same thing.
A public health establishment that tells you boys are actually girls and they got everything about this pandemic wrong, and that tells you even more basically that a human being, a little baby, is not a baby.
That is not a public health establishment that is ever going to inspire trust.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Production Manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate Producer, Justine Turley.
Audio Mixer, Mike Coromina.
And Hair and Makeup by Cherokee Heart.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, after promising that their expertise would guide Americans through economic hardship, foreign policy chaos, and global pandemics, the experts have destroyed their own credibility, but they still insist you mimic their values.
