Fauci gets nailed at the Senate gain-of-function hearing, a pro-life amendment fails in Kansas, and good news finally comes out of San Francisco.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access Matt Walsh’s documentary “What Is A Woman?”, movies, shows, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Skip the grocery store & choose Good Ranchers for 100% American meat. $30 OFF your order + FREE Shipping! GoodRanchers.com/KNOWLES or use code: KNOWLES at checkout!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hey, remember when Fauci shut the whole world down for two years over a virus that he assured us did not escape from a lab in Wuhan, which he assured us did not conduct gain-of-function research, which he assured us he had not funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars until we found out that all that stuff actually did happen and Fauci had been lying about everything?
You remember that?
Well, Senator Rand Paul remembers, which is why yesterday he held the first ever congressional hearing on gain-of-function research, which confirmed what people who had been paying attention have known for more than a year.
Dr.
Fauci funded the same sort of research at the same Chinese laboratory that was at the center of the outbreak of the virus.
What are the implications of Dr.
Fauci's continued blatant dishonesty regarding NIH's funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan?
I stand by my statement.
The statements made on repeated occasions to the public, to the press, and to policy makers by the NIAID director, Dr.
Fauci, have been untruthful.
I do not understand why those statements are being made because they are demonstrably false.
Demonstrably false.
Fauci lied, our political order died, and that little Napoleon in a lab coat thinks that he can get away with it.
Whether he does or does not rests entirely with congressional Republicans, which means it is incumbent upon all of you.
To call your congressman.
Tell them not to squish.
And send a message to the legions of power-mad technocrats that we will not let them upend our entire way of life without consequence.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Mike Honcho, who says, It's amazing at this point that our White House press briefings aren't held in Chinese with English subtitles.
You make such a great point.
I'm shocked.
Forget about subtitles.
We don't do subtitles anymore.
For some reason, a couple of years ago, the Libs brought back the sign language people.
We don't need the sign language people anymore because now we have subtitles, but for whatever reason they brought them back.
So we would have needed Chinese to English hand gesture people before I go further down that line and get myself in a whole lot of politically incorrect trouble.
We'll just leave it at that.
It's true, the White House is carrying water for the Chinese.
There's no question about it.
They've been doing it for years now.
They've been doing it through the COVID pandemic.
They've been doing it on economic matters.
They've been doing it now as China aggresses in Taiwan, because China makes all our stuff, and they own a trillion dollars of our debt, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Now, when I want to sit back and listen to pipes and enjoy beautiful tunes.
I don't know.
You know what I like for dinner?
I love Good Ranchers because the food is absolutely delicious and it's American beef and it's just magnificent.
I eat it probably three times a week.
But in addition to that, the second reason I love these guys is they're really good guys.
Back to school season is upon us while many American kids are excited to get back into the classroom.
Some others are not because these children don't know where their meals will be coming from this semester.
That's why Good Ranchers has made it their mission to donate 100,000 high quality meals to kids facing food insecurity and malnourishment this fall semester.
For every box ordered through the month of August, Good Ranchers will donate a nutritious meal to a child in need.
Help them reach their goal of 100,000 donated meals by ordering your box today.
Goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
They are an award-winning food delivery service.
Ships 100% American meat and seafood right to your door.
They were just named the best food subscription service earlier this year.
I totally agree with that.
They are the fastest growing meat company in America.
The quality is off the charts.
Right now, use my code Knolls to get $30 off your order, plus free shipping.
Your purchase furthers their mission to donate 100,000 high-quality meals to children in need.
Great cause that everyone should rally behind.
GoodRanchers.com slash Knolls.
Head on over.
Use code Knolls today when you place your order.
And let's get these guys some help to hit their goal.
Speaking of science and politics...
There's a new report out.
This was brought to my attention by Edmund Smirk, one of my favorite Twitter accounts.
There's a new report out.
I just saw this in Barry Weiss's website.
Barry Weiss, the heterodox liberal journalist whose substack is far more credible and respected than the New York Times or the Washington Post.
The headline is, court documents reveal Canada's travel ban had no scientific basis.
In the days leading up to the mandate, transportation officials were frantically looking for a rationale for it.
They came up short.
This has been true of a lot of political decisions during COVID.
The scientific basis just wasn't really there.
You think about the mask orders, you think about the six feet orders, you think about vaccine mandates, and the rationale for those things just didn't really exist.
We were told if you wear the mask, it won't stop the spread at all.
And then we were told you have to wear the mask, it'll totally stop the spread.
We were told We have to stand six feet apart.
Then we were told that that just was a number plucked out of thin air.
We were told if you get the vaccine, you won't catch COVID or spread it.
Then we found out that the vaccines did absolutely nothing to stop you from catching or spreading COVID. So yes, there was no scientific basis.
And conservatives are pouncing on this sort of a headline.
There are no scientific basis.
This was all just politics.
But actually, the conservative response to this sort of a thing is...
Good.
This should be politics.
It should be a political decision when you shut down a country, for whatever reason, for a virus or for a national security threat or just because everyone wants a break on a Tuesday afternoon.
That is a political issue and it should be decided through politics.
It's not actually conservative to say, well, we just need the experts and the lab coats and the technocrats to give us all the data and the statistics, and then that will make the decision for us about how we run our lives and keep our businesses open or shut them down or close the churches or go to school or not.
That's not conservative at all.
That's liberal technocracy.
That's taking power away from the people.
That's surrendering our political rights.
A lot of times during COVID, you would have people point out, and a lot of conservatives would say, these decisions are political.
They're not scientific.
Right, they are political.
The problem with the decisions is not that they're political.
Political decisions are supposed to be political.
The problem with the decisions is that they were stupid.
The problem with the decisions is that they were contrary to the American traditional way And they were contrary to a good and flourishing society.
The problem with the decision to keep the pot dispensaries open during COVID but to shut down the churches is not that the decision wasn't scientific.
It's that the decision was radical and leftist and anti-Christian and anti-American.
And our political order should be oriented to be more pro-Christian and pro-tradition and pro-family and pro-business and pro-traditional way of life.
And anti-drugs and BLM riots and the like.
That's the problem.
Politics is good.
It's good when people engage in politics, especially in a self-government.
You've got to move past the procedural question, and you've got to get to the substance.
What kind of politics are we pushing?
You know who gets this?
Ron DeSantis.
Ron DeSantis totally gets this down in Florida.
That's why DeSantis right now is calling for a new kind of law that would allow doctors who trans little kids to be sued.
These very young kids getting gender-affirming care.
They don't tell you what that is.
They're actually giving very young girls double mastectomies.
They want to castrate these young boys.
That's wrong.
And so we've stood up and said, both from the health and children's well-being perspective, you don't disfigure They absolutely do.
So this is a good line for DeSantis.
He's also testing out now this idea.
He's...
He's saying, hey, what do you think if we made it such that you could sue doctors for transing the kids?
And it's getting some applause.
They'll see how it plays in the local press.
And then I hope Governor DeSantis will actually turn this idea into a law.
And what the libs and the technocrats are going to say is...
Excuse me, Governor DeSantis, where's your medical degree?
You don't even have a lab coat or a stethoscope.
You're not even a genius medical physician like Dr.
Rachel Levine or Dr.
Fauci or all these people who are just completely insane and wrong about everything.
You're not even one of those medical doctors.
You're right.
You're right.
Should be DeSantis' answer.
You're right.
I'm not a medical doctor.
I don't have a medical degree.
And you know what?
I don't need one.
I'm the governor.
And that, when we're talking about political matters and the law and government and how we run our society and how we treat poor little kids who are being victimized by creeps and perverts, being a governor is much more important than being some stupid medical doctor working for the public health establishment, transing the kids and killing the babies and locking us all down for two years.
That's the answer.
Oh, yeah, okay.
You've got your statistics and your studies, and okay, that's fine.
By the way, all of the actual credible studies on these sorts of issues are on our side.
There is no credible medical study that says that boys are actually secretly girls.
That doesn't exist.
Okay, so the libs are, though they claim the mantle of science, are obviously very unscientific, but that's actually beside the point.
We live in self-government, and the people of Florida have the right to say, don't trans the kids.
I don't care what your stupid medical doctors in your establishment says.
It doesn't matter to me.
We're not going to let you trans the kids.
And if you try to do it, we're going to sue you, and ideally we would throw you in jail or banish you to St.
Helena along with Dr.
Fauci and all the rest of you power-mad technocrats.
That's the right answer.
And you can have the scientific conversation, too.
You can have the scientific conversation and say, well, actually, you see, the girl has the two X chromosomes, and the boy has the XY chromosome.
And actually, if you put the kids on puberty blockers too early, then that's going to give them osteoporosis.
And actually, it's going to sterilize them.
That's all true.
It's all pertinent.
But those are secondary matters.
The first most important aspect here is our liberty.
Not the individual liberty to mutilate yourself or to mutilate your kid even.
The higher political liberty to say this is the kind of society we want to live in.
We're going to have a normal definition of man and a normal definition of woman.
And we're not going to let perverts and radicals castrate our children.
And that's that.
And you can whine about it and you can cry about it.
And if you don't like it, move to California.
But we're not doing it in Florida.
And DeSantis obviously gets this.
He's testing the waters.
I think if he goes all the way on that kind of message, it's going to serve him very, very well in a 2024 presidential election if he indeed runs for president.
Speaking of kids and science and politics, there is a little bit of bad news.
It just came out of Kansas.
We had one of the election days.
We're going to have a number of election days this year because it's a midterm election year.
Different states hold different primaries and elections on different days.
We had a little bit of a disappointment in Kansas.
There was a pro-life amendment We're good to go.
Was the first statewide referendum on abortion since the Dobbs decision came down and overruled Roe v.
Wade and overruled Planned Parenthood v.
Casey and got rid of the national constitutional right to an abortion that doesn't actually exist.
The referendum was a little bit weird.
The Kansas state constitution includes a right to abortion.
The referendum that just failed was to replace the pro-abortion amendment, the right to an abortion in the state constitution, with a right to life.
So a constitutional ban on abortion in Kansas.
And it failed.
Unfortunately, it failed by 17 percentage points, so it was not particularly close.
And the question is, why did it fail?
How did it fail?
I don't know.
I don't have the text of the amendment in front of me.
The title of the amendment was the Value Them Both Amendment.
But the issue of abortion is not simply black and white.
There can be nuance here, and don't forget we're called to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
So one way that the pro-life amendment perhaps could have been framed is...
Not even as a pro-life amendment, but as a get this crazy abortion thing out of our state constitution amendment.
In fact, the way that you just saw the pro-life issue play out at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court didn't come down and say, okay, now we have a national right to life.
The Supreme Court came down and said, it's not in the Constitution, make your own laws.
Had this been more of a legislative matter rather than a referendum for an amendment to the Constitution...
That might have worked out a little bit better for pro-lifers.
It's hard to tell with Kansas.
We're going to see how this plays.
Generally, you think of Kansas as a fairly Republican state, fairly conservative place.
We will see how this plays out throughout the rest of the country.
But it's an important reminder because I think conservatives are feeling a little like the wind is at our sails right now, and in many ways it is.
But it's not going to be a simple...
Victory after victory after victory after victory.
We're going to have to be clever.
We're going to have to tailor our message to different states.
We're going to have to know that what works in Virginia is not going to work necessarily in Texas.
It's not going to work necessarily in Florida.
It's not going to work necessarily in Kansas.
We've got to be clever and take the greatest wins that we can possibly get without letting perfect get in the way of good.
Speaking of life and death and little babies in the womb...
Chrissy Teigen.
I don't really know what Chrissy Teigen does, but she is all over social media and she's frequently in the headlines.
Chrissy Teigen is pregnant again through IVF after she had a miscarriage.
And I do remember when the story of her miscarriage came out.
So Chrissy Teigen suffered a late miscarriage.
It's very, very sad.
And she mourned the loss of her child as a child.
And this was very, very sad.
And now, what was it?
Some months later, at least, she, or some years later, I guess this was actually a couple years ago, she has become pregnant again and now she's very excited.
She said, the last few years have been a blur of emotions, to say the least, but joy has filled our home and hearts again.
One billion shots later, in the leg lately, as you see, because she's going through IVF, we have another one on the way.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Chrissy Teigen.
I can't even really imagine how terrible it is to have a miscarriage that late.
Especially that late, to have any miscarriage really, but especially that late when you've invested so much emotionally and physically into this baby and then the baby dies in the womb.
It's very, very sad.
I'm happy for her that she will get to have a baby.
Hopefully, hopefully she'll get to have a baby.
The question then you've got to ask yourself, especially if you're a supporter of abortion.
First question, why was Chrissy Teigen so sad when she had a miscarriage?
The pro-abortion people tell us that's a clump of cells.
That's morally irrelevant.
It's no big deal.
It's a parasite.
Get rid of it.
Get rid of it and then go have a party for how fun your abortion was.
If that's true, then Chrissy Teigen shouldn't be sad.
Then we should think Chrissy Teigen's really weird for being sad over her miscarriage.
Why are you so sad?
It was just a clump of cells.
It was just a random, morally irrelevant.
We have to grapple with that.
Only one of those two things can be true.
It can either be the case that this is a meaningless clump of cells, or it's really sad that Chrissy Teigen had the miscarriage.
Obviously, the latter is true, and Chrissy Teigen is sad because that's a life in the womb.
So we should discard the pro-abortion talking points.
It's not like Chrissy Teigen is some right-wing, rock-ribbed conservative.
She's a cultural figure, and I assume she's on the left.
So the left should take a minute and think about that.
The value of Chrissy Teigen's child does not just come because she likes the child or she wants to acknowledge the child.
The value has to come from the child intrinsically.
But then there's another harder question, which is, If all that is true, if Chrissy Teigen is right to be sad over her miscarriage, it is because babies are babies from the moment they are made.
Not just from the moment of birth, not just at 8 months and 29 days, but babies are babies from the very beginning.
And if babies are babies from the very beginning, IVF is not morally acceptable.
And this is a hard message, and I know there are a lot of conservatives who support IVF. And I know there are a lot of, maybe not a lot, but there are a number of pro-lifers who support IVF. And I know part of the reason for that is people have benefited personally from IVF. And people say, well, my child was conceived through IVF. Are you telling me my child shouldn't exist?
No.
I'm certainly not saying that.
It's wonderful that your child exists.
The child has value.
The value of a child is not determined by the way that the child was conceived.
This is why we don't think we should just kill people who are conceived through rape.
And I've got a podcast out right now called the Choosing Life podcast where we talk to people who survive abortions.
And you hear this throughout the pro-life movement.
People who are conceived through rape, they'll confront pro-abortion activists.
They'll say, do you think that I should be killed?
No, of course not.
The way a child is conceived does not determine the value of that child.
But, likewise, it doesn't justify rape, and it doesn't justify methods that are immoral.
Good ends do not justify immoral means.
And in the case of IVF, it's really hard to argue that it's morally acceptable.
Because IVF, there are lots of moral issues with IVF, but one of them is...
You create lots of human beings.
Lots of little embryos.
Most of which you just put in a freezer forever.
Some of which you then implant in the woman.
And then sometimes, if too many of them take, the IVF process will entail abortion to reduce the number of embryos in the womb.
There are all sorts of problems.
But even at the most...
And there are problems actually in addition to that through the method at which these embryos are conceived.
But even the ones that are just in the freezer...
You're telling me life is sacred from the very beginning and we're all pro-life and a person's a person no matter how small.
What about the babies in the freezer?
It's not acceptable.
I've racked my brain trying to figure out a way in which IVF can be morally justified.
I can't think of it.
And then there's an even broader political issue, which is that it is not a good idea, I think, to put technology, to establish the domination of technology, or any kind of power, a corporate power or a state power, to establish that domination over the origin and destiny of human life.
That seems like it could go wrong really fast.
It seems like it necessarily goes wrong really fast.
And I think most people on most political issues are kind of like Chrissy Teigen.
They hold views and they engage in behaviors that are contradictory.
Chrissy Teigen...
So publicly mourns her child who died in the womb, because a person's a person no matter how small, and then engages in IDF. And she probably has no idea that there is a conflict there, that there's a contradiction there.
But it's important for us to talk about it, especially now that we're in a post-Dobbs world.
We've gotten rid of Roe v.
Wade.
We've gotten rid of Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
We can acknowledge that babies are actually babies.
We've moved past kindergarten, the kindergarten level of talking about pro-life, and now we need to get to the second grade level.
And now we need to get to the fourth grade level.
Because it goes a lot deeper than just don't murder babies in the womb.
If you want to get rid of our culture of death, if you want to create a culture of life, it's got to go a lot deeper than that.
We've got to talk about What life means.
Why life has value.
Where babies come from.
What the relation of the sexes are.
What sexuality means to the human person.
The conversation goes much, much deeper.
And it is no coincidence.
That the moment in our history that gave us abortion, the 1960s, is also the moment in our history that gave us the entire sexual revolution, promiscuous sex, all sorts of weird gender ideologies.
It's no coincidence that those are all happening around the same time because they're all deeply related.
And we're not really going to solve any of those problems individually until we have a coherent view of what human life is and why it ought to be protected.
Now, speaking of judges, speaking of the Dobbs ruling, the Libs are still screaming, crying, rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over that ruling, the most important ruling of my lifetime, maybe in the history of the United States, which we'll get to in one second.
But on this very point, as you may have heard, much to the dismay of the left, Bill Gates, Moloch, the Sun Monster, But I repeat myself.
Sweet little Elisa and I recently welcomed our second baby boy.
You know, the Walshes are about to have twins.
They just announced that they're having twins.
Babies are multiplying all over the daily wire, okay?
And if you strive to be fruitful and multiply and thwart the libs by doing so, then look no further than the Daily Wire babies collection.
Get yourself the no leftist tears here bib or the stay napping, not woke onesie because babies and adults are best behaved when napping, not woke.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop or click the link in the description to clothe the next generation of Daily Wire Plus members today.
Jeremy can monetize anything.
You know, I mean, this guy, Harry's attacks us, and then he just instantly starts his own razor company, and now I have a baby.
Not two days later, this guy starts a baby shop.
That's really, he's good.
That guy, the God King, is a very good businessman.
The Libs are still freaking out over the Dobbs decision.
They're still so angry.
And Karine Jean-Pierre, the President's spokesman, White House Press Secretary, is going even further than just decrying the decision.
She's going further to say that the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs, the Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional.
From day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by them, a right that was around for almost 50 years, a right that women had to make a decision on their bodies and how they want to start their families.
What does that even mean?
She's saying that she could say that a pro-life law, that the Mississippi pro-life law was unconstitutional and the court got the decision wrong.
Or she could say that Roe v.
Wade was unconstitutional, which is what the court said.
But she's actually saying that the court deciding to overrule a case is unconstitutional.
Does that...
So when the court...
When the court overruled the Dred Scott decision, when the court overruled the decision that said black people can't be citizens, was that unconstitutional of them to overrule that decision?
Is it just unconstitutional for the court to overrule decisions that have been around for a long time?
Because that's the argument she's making here.
She said, this decision, Roe v.
Wade, had been around for 50 years almost.
Yeah, there have been lots of bad decisions that have gone on for a long time that the court later reversed.
You're saying it's unconstitutional for the court to reverse it?
Are you saying that it's unconstitutional for the court to make constitutional judgments to reverse laws and precedent?
Because then you would have to go back to the earliest days of the Supreme Court.
You would have to go back to Marbury v.
Madison and get rid of the court's right to constitutional review, to judicial review.
Is that what she's saying?
I don't think she's saying any of that.
I think she's just saying words.
And those words don't have any meaning.
And she's just blah, blah, blah.
And in the absence of an argument, she hopes that the cacophony that is coming out of her mouth will at least in some way resemble an argument and fool ignorant and stupid people into thinking that she is actually saying something when she is not.
It's important to note when the libs just sputter and babble and say nothing, because it is a tell that they have no argument.
Not all issues are totally black and white.
Sometimes, really, both sides can make good points, and we can try to determine who makes better points, and we can hash it out.
But when one of the sides doesn't even make an argument, just says, gobbledygook, blah, blah, Airplane, milk, eggs, onesie.
When they just say random words in a way that is not grammatical and certainly not logical or coherent, then that is a tell that they've got nothing, that actually this is a clear issue.
Of course the court has the right to overrule Roe v.
Wade.
I think they had an obligation to overrule Roe v.
Wade, and it's a good decision, and the libs are just angry.
And what the libs are going to do is just...
Neglect the logical, reasoned aspect of our politics, which is how self-government is supposed to be conducted.
And they're just going to try to enforce their own will and their own interest and club their opponents on the head without any logic or reason or discourse involved.
Speaking of good court rulings, great court ruling out of San Francisco.
So San Francisco wanted to let illegal aliens vote.
You've seen in liberal cities similar kinds of rules.
They want to let the foreign nationals vote in the elections.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer says no.
Transcendent law of California.
You can tell that I've got a four-day-old newborn, and I can barely read at this point.
The Constitution reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to the San Francisco ordinance.
The ordinance would have allowed illegal aliens to vote in the school board elections.
We talked about this a little bit yesterday.
This is part of the suicide of self-government.
When you have a nation...
You have citizens of that nation.
And not everyone is a citizen.
People who are traveling are not citizens.
Last year I went to a wedding in France.
I was in France.
I was even subject to some of the laws of France.
But I'm not a French citizen.
So I didn't have certain privileges.
I couldn't vote in French elections.
I had to leave after a certain period of time.
If you have a nation, there has to be a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
The Libs want to destroy that distinction, because the Libs want to open up our borders, because the Libs believe, probably rightly, that if they flood the country with mass migration from Latin America, that will give them an electoral advantage.
So, the Libs believe they'll get a little bit more power...
But the cost of that power is going to be self-government.
Because if the citizens don't have the right to pass the laws for their own nation, then they don't have self-government anymore.
If foreign nationals can make laws for you, then you have lost your sovereignty.
You have lost your self-government.
You have lost your country.
And a judge, even in liberal San Francisco, recognizes that.
We've seen similar rulings coming up But this is important because self-government usually does not die when the invading army comes in and, you know, rapes, kills, pillages and burns and salts the fields.
That's not really how it happens.
Self-government usually dies through suicide, through the atrophying of civic virtue, through the ignorance of the populace, through decline in education, through apathy, and through cynicism and opportunism to try to score a few cheap political points, even at the cost of your political order. and through cynicism and opportunism to try to score a That's how self-government dies.
And it's holding There have been some good moves, but it's really incumbent upon conservatives to take hold of these opportunities that some of the judges are giving us and say, no, we've got to build the wall.
We've got to deport the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are in the country.
We've got to button down our election laws.
We've got to make sure that there's a hard distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
Perhaps we need to revisit the question of birthright citizenship, which has been controversial throughout all of American history.
And it's far from clear to me that the Constitution of the United States provides birthright citizenship.
I don't think that the people who drafted the Constitution and the amendments really believed that they were giving citizenship to anyone who happened to have a kid on this soil.
If I go to France and sweet little buddy, my new little baby, happened to be born while I was on vacation, he would not have become a citizen of France.
So why is the United States like this?
Why are we interpreting our Constitution this way?
We don't have all day.
We don't have all the time in the world here.
The political order is fraying.
And the last few years of COVID have not helped anything.
They've actually accelerated the decay.
So what are we going to do to maintain our political order?
Speaking of San Francisco, even more good news from San Francisco.
Can you believe that?
That's the first time I've ever uttered that statement.
San Francisco had this radical left-wing D.A., Cheza Boudin, whose parents are domestic terrorists from the Weather Underground, and Cheza Boudin followed in the family's footsteps and let criminals off the hook, and almost single-handedly Plunged San Francisco into just a crime-ridden, drug-filled, disgusting hellhole.
And he was recalled by the voters of San Francisco.
Not the conservatives, not the Republicans, the liberal left-wing voters of San Francisco.
So now there's a new DA in there, DA Brooke Jenkins.
And what is Brooke Jenkins doing?
Brooke Jenkins is putting the criminals in prison.
Brooke Jenkins just revoked more than 30 plea bargains that Chesa Boudin had offered to drug peddlers.
This is part of a broader policy where she's going to go after the drug dealers who are arrested with more than 5 grams of drugs.
She is going to She's going to stop them from being diverted toward these really lib, slap-on-the-hand kind of courts.
She's going to make them go through the actual criminal justice system.
She's going to impose enhanced charges for dealers who are arrested within 1,000 feet of a school.
She's going to seek pretrial detention for fentanyl dealers in extreme cases.
So she's not going to let these drug dealers off on bail or bond or anything like that.
She's going to force them to sit in there, especially if they're dealing fentanyl, because it's killing people.
She says, she goes, since 2020, nearly 1,500 people have died of drug overdoses, in part because dealers have been allowed to operate with impunity, and we can't allow that to happen.
Of course.
Now, the lesson here, this is really clever how it's happening, because Brooke Jenkins, I assume, is a huge lib.
The voters of San Francisco are overwhelmingly huge libs.
They kicked out Chesa Boudin, they brought in this lady, and this lady is enforcing the law against the drug dealers.
How did that happen?
The way it happened, politically speaking, is they reframed who the victims are.
The key to understanding this crime issue, especially the crime issue but really a lot of areas of politics, is you've got to frame who the victim is.
Conservatives decry victimhood culture.
Victimhood culture is a part of politics.
Always has been.
Always will be.
So rather than throw our hands up in the air and say, we don't want to talk about victims, you've got to engage and point out who the real victims are.
Because what the libs have done is they've completely upended things and they've said that the perpetrators of crimes are the true victims and the victims had it coming.
Ironically, the libs who always talk about victim blaming are the ones who blame the victim.
So they say, the drug dealers, the poison peddlers, the people who are killing our kids, they're the victims.
They've been failed by society.
Those poor people, they were probably just a poor kid, got caught with a joint in his pocket, now he's going to jail for decades, which doesn't happen, by the way.
Nobody goes to prison for simple possession.
Even if on paper it says people go to prison for simple possession, they don't.
They go to prison because they took plea deals down from trafficking charges, okay?
A statistically insignificant number of people go to jail for possession.
And when we're talking about simple possession, then we're talking about very serious drugs that are very dangerous to a lot of people, okay?
These people, these poor, beleaguered, the society-failed-them people are poison peddlers who work with organized crime who, practically speaking, kill kids.
And they should be thrown in prison for a very, very long time.
We do not have an over-incarceration problem in America.
Obviously not.
Look around.
We've got crime going up everywhere.
When you've got crime going up...
By definition, you don't have an over-incarceration problem.
You have an under-incarceration problem.
And it's not just the gangbangers, and it's not just the serial killers.
It's the drug addicts, and it's the drug dealers.
And usually, not usually, often they're the same people, but they're all part of the same problem.
The life expectancy in the United States has declined for the first time ever, but it's now happened several years in a row.
It's declined because of deaths of despair, suicides, and drug overdoses.
This is a major, major threat.
Throw these poison-peddling jerks in prison, and if you don't throw away the key, at least hide the key for a very good long time.
It's not just me saying this.
I'm a right-winger.
I'm a conservative.
It's even the libs.
They get it because they're living in these cities, and they realize even the craziest, wildest libs don't want to live in a city.
With people overdosing on the streets trying to dodge heroin needles on the sidewalk.
And having their kids being preyed upon at school when you got the peddlers there trying to sell their stuff.
Okay?
They get it.
Conservatives should get it too.
You just have to reframe and I think accurately frame who the victims are and who the criminals are.
Speaking of out-of-touch Democrats, John Fetterman.
John Fetterman is running for Senate in Pennsylvania.
He's the lieutenant governor.
He frames himself as a working-class hero.
He dresses like a working-class hero.
You know, he just wears sweatsuits and hoodies.
He's got a kind of a goatee, and he's a real tough guy, you know.
It turns out Fetterman not only is not a working-class hero, it turns out Fetterman has never even really worked.
A news report just came out that Fetterman He lived for years and years and years, well into his 40s, Not by the sweat of his own brow.
He lived on a five-figure allowance from mommy and daddy.
This guy, this guy, who's now, he's 52 years old right now.
He was elected mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, 2006.
Left that position in 2019 after he became lieutenant governor.
And his parents were just paying his way the whole time.
In 2015 alone, Fetterman's parents gave him $54,000.
$54,000.
How much was your allowance?
When I was a kid, my allowance was $1 a week, which I thought was generous.
It was more than most of my friends.
And then it got to be $2 a week.
And then I stopped getting allowance when I turned 8.
I don't know.
I started working when I turned 14.
And then I made my own money.
And I spent my money.
I tried to do it responsibly.
John Fetterman...
Got his allowance for about 40 years longer than I ever did.
And he got about $53,999 a year more than I did.
He's being framed as a hypocrite here, and he obviously is a hypocrite.
He's pretending to be a hardened member of the working class, and he's not.
He's never worked a day in his life.
He's just a trust fund baby.
Mommy and daddy pay his way.
Okay, he's a hypocrite, sure.
However, however, Once you get past the hypocrisy, conservatives shouldn't go too far in this direction.
I actually don't mind when wealthy people enter into politics.
I think often that can be a good thing.
Sometimes you get corrupt wealthy people, but oftentimes you get corrupt poor people in politics.
Because sometimes when people who don't have their own money enter into politics, then they start taking handouts, then they start taking bribes, then they're susceptible to special interests.
Think about the greatest conservative president, certainly in my lifetime, was the richest president we've ever had in American history.
It was Donald Trump.
So I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule.
The founding fathers were very, very wealthy men, by and large.
The second wealthiest president in American history was George Washington, our actual greatest president ever.
The problem with Fetterman here is not that...
His family's wealthy.
The problem with Fetterman here is not that having money is in itself a bad thing.
The problem with Fetterman here is that he's a total fraud, just like his entire party, especially on working class issues.
I'm thinking yesterday of that New Jersey elected Democrat who ran over the Uber Eats bicyclist driver and then just kept on driving, didn't even slow down.
That's the way the left really feels about the working class, regardless of their fraudulent claims to the contrary.
Speaking of prominent 2022 candidates, meant to get to this yesterday, didn't have time.
Great news out of Arizona, the Arizona Senate race.
Blake Masters is running for Senate there.
We've had him on this show.
He won the Republican nomination to represent Arizona in the Senate.
I, as a rule, do not make primary endorsements because that's not really my job, having a show.
I really want to keep an open mind and give people a fair shake.
But I was pulling for Blake Masters.
I feel he's an excellent candidate.
I think that Republican candidates around the country should model their campaigns off of his.
I think he's doing a good job.
And I think he represents what people are calling the new right.
Getting rid of...
The stale, tired, often ridiculous slogans that have bedeviled Republican politics in recent years that have led to lots of defeats and shaking up those stale kind of platitudes and engaging with politics in a new way.
In a new way, which is actually just the old way.
One of my favorite moments of the Masters campaign, and it's when he really won me over, It was when he put an ad out there and he said, I think that Americans should be able to raise a family on a single income.
You used to be able to do that in America.
You can't do that anymore.
A lot of the reason you can't do that is because of political decisions that were made.
We in politics should reorder our political economy such that you can raise a family on a single income.
I said, preach my man!
Shout it from the rooftops!
I absolutely, absolutely agree with that kind of thing.
The old Chamber of Commerce Republican, the old squishes, the old platitudes, I don't care what you do, just leave me alone, don't raise my taxes, that kind of GOP politics, they would shudder at the thought of using the government to reorient the political economy such that you can raise a family on a single income.
But why?
Plenty of political decisions led to the moment we're at now where you can't.
Where people are not getting married because they have economic fears.
Where people are not having kids because they have financial worries.
Where people are not moving on with their lives because they're burdened with student debt and wages have been stagnant or depressed for decades.
With a brief exception during the Trump years when they started to creep back up, now they're down again.
That's a real great way of engaging in politics.
I'm not throwing Ronald Reagan under the bus.
I'm not throwing the Cold War conservatives under the bus.
I'm really not.
They fought their battles.
I really admire Ronald Reagan.
I really admire William F. Buckley Jr.
I really admire those guys that won the Cold War.
They fought their battles.
Good for them.
But it's 2022.
Folks, it's the year of our Lord, 2022.
Let Ronald Reagan sleep in the grave.
Please, this poor man, has he not done enough?
You've got to reanimate his corpse and have him come solve our problems too?
Let the man rest.
Let the man lie.
Same goes for Bill Buckley.
Same goes for so many of the conservative heroes of our past.
They fought their battles.
They dealt with their challenges.
We should deal with ours.
Politics is not just some eternal thing.
You figure out the five bullet points on the back of a napkin and there are your campaign ads for the next 25 years.
No.
No.
Politics means applying eternal principles to constantly changing circumstances.
The Republicans worth their salt are the ones who don't only acknowledge the first part, but acknowledge the second part as well.
Speaking of the new right, big vote yesterday in the U.S. Senate on whether or not to sign off on expanding NATO to include Finland and Sweden.
By expanding NATO, this would obligate the United States to defend these countries in the event of an attack.
The vote was 95 to 1 in favor of allowing Finland and Sweden into NATO. Senator Josh Hawley is the only senator who voted no on letting Sweden and Finland into NATO. Josh Hawley was right.
He was right.
I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to expand NATO. And I am not some radical...
This is not just a new Trumpian crazy idea.
This was the common sense of the people who were smartest, who knew the most, who were the most reasonable across party lines during the Cold War.
After the Berlin Wall fell, you had Cold War heroes...
Really aggressive dudes.
I'm thinking of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
I'm thinking of Sam Nunn.
I'm thinking of George Kennan, who crafted the strategy of containment to contain Soviet communism.
All of them said, okay, great, we won this victory in the Cold War.
Don't squander it by recklessly expanding NATO. That's not, you think you're projecting strength, but it's going to make the world more dangerous.
Don't do that.
That will make the world much more dangerous.
That will raise the possibility of war.
And that's what I fear is going on here.
Because there is such a thing as buffer nations.
You don't necessarily want two very powerful military alliances right up on the border with each other.
Sometimes you want buffer nations.
The role of a buffer nation is to play both sides off of one another and give a little bit of room so that you don't have the sense of an imminent security threat right along your border.
A lot of what's going on in NATO right now, or a lot of what's going on in Ukraine right now, is attributable to this mistake.
Had we followed George Kennan's advice, Sam Nunn's, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, had we not continued to expand NATO eastward after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Had we perceived what I think Josh Hawley is rightly perceiving here, I'm not sure we would be in this problem right now with Ukraine.
I'm not sure that Americans necessarily have the appetite to go to war for Sweden or Finland.
And I don't think that letting Sweden and Finland into NATO is going to reduce the possibility of some conflict with Russia.
It's very hard to stand alone sometimes, though.
The people who are seeing the future for what it means to be a conservative, what it means to be a Republican, I don't know that they're the majority right now.
But when you look at these elected officials or even some of the candidates who are saying things that are a little out of the ordinary from what we've heard for the last five or ten years, I think those are the people who are...
Seeing what's really coming for the future of conservatism.
I think those are the people, people like Blake Masters, who are saying things that while shocking today will be mainstream in the conservative movement in three years, five years, seven years.
They will be mainstream or there just won't be much of a conservative movement.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Production manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate Producer, Justine Turley.
Audio Mixer, Mike Coromina.
And Hair and Makeup by Cherokee Heart.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
