Ep. 1067 - Trump Declassified The Democrat's Corruption
Click here to join Member Block: https://utm.io/ueR8M
The libs move the goalposts on the justification for the Trump raid, the New York Times gets caught running op-eds by Chuck Schumer for approval, and Boston Children’s Hospital claims that toddlers know they’re “transgender.”
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access movies, shows, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at ihateharrys.com.
—
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!
TUVU is a social media app that breaks the mold of advertising-based revenue. Claim your FREE annual subscription at https://www.tuvu.com/knowles
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Most political issues come down to first principles, our premises, the basic lens through which we view the world, interpretive principles, philosophy, theology even, things that reasonable people might disagree over.
But sometimes, unfortunately, these debates are much dumber.
Sometimes these political debates hinge on sheer ignorance over basic facts.
That is where the debate stands at the moment on the Biden administration's raid of President Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago.
When it comes to the Mar-a-Lago raid, putting aside all of the complex issues that it raises, many libs don't understand or don't want to admit that they understand the most basic relevant fact, which is that the president has the absolute authority to declassify material.
A former president has never been, and very likely can never be, convicted of mishandling classified material because the president can declassify whatever material he wants wherever and whenever he wants to do it.
I thought that was common knowledge, but apparently lots of people don't actually understand it or want to admit it.
I was on two TV shows this past weekend, one on C-SPAN, the other on Fox, and I was shocked, genuinely shocked to discover that the libs that I spoke with did not seem to know that.
So it bears repeating once more for the people in the bleachers.
The president has the absolute right to declassify whatever he wants.
Even the most super-duper extra top-secret material, whatever he wants to.
There are processes for declassifying material.
Even so, the president is not bound by those processes.
The president doesn't need to check with some middling bureaucrat at the DOJ or at any other agency to declassify information.
The middling careerist might have some authority in some circumstances to declassify material.
But the middling bureaucrat doesn't outrank the president.
The president doesn't need a special stamp to declassify material.
The very moment that the president decides to declassify material, that material is declassified.
The very best argument that the libs can make for rating Trump over classified material is that we just don't know for sure if it's legit or not because it's unprecedented.
That's the best spin that the left-wing fact-check quote-unquote website PolitiFact could give it.
Politifact writes, quote, We're in uncharted territory on the issue of criminally prosecuting a former president over mishandling classified documents.
There is no legal precedent to look to for guidance.
It raises all sorts of constitutional implications, and it is anyone's guess how it would play out.
Same goes for the New York Times, which admits that the classification system is not really enforced by criminal law, but rather just bureaucratic punishments, demotions, the loss of security clearances, that sort of thing.
Nothing that could possibly affect a president.
On whether presidents have to obey the usual procedures, the New York Times admits, quote, And finally,
the New York Times can't even deny that the president's ability to declassify without leaving a written record is clear, as Trump claims he did.
He said that he didn't leave a written record, but he just said it was declassified.
That's the way it goes.
Instead, the New York Times calls the question, borderline incoherent.
Because if there's no directive memorializing a decision to declassify information and conveying it to the rest of the government, the action would essentially have no consequence as departments and agencies would continue to consider that information classified and so would continue to restrict access to documents containing it.
But of course the action would and does have a consequence.
In one crucial area, it determines whether or not a president, such as Donald Trump, mishandled classified information, which the president cannot do because he is the president.
The only reason there is any ambiguity to this question at all It's because no president has ever been investigated or prosecuted for mishandling classified information because the very thought of it is absurd.
Because the president can declassify whatever he wants.
And because that right comes absolutely from the Constitution and is not established by some bureaucratic process, he cannot be punished for not following any particular process.
And by the way, for anyone out there who for whatever reason may still remain skeptical, the way that you can know that I am right about this is that the libs are already beginning to change their tune just days after defending the raid on that basis.
They're beginning to see that the mishandling classified material defense of the raid is going absolutely nowhere.
That's why they're already beginning to move the goalposts because the raid was never about classified documents.
Here it is, New York Times right here.
Trump claims he declassified all the documents.
Even if that's true, probably doesn't matter.
Yeah, because it was never about that.
It was never about the Presidential Records Act.
It was never about nuclear secrets or any other serious national security matter.
It's all about getting Trump.
It's about stopping him from running in 2024.
It's a punishment in search of a crime.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show, Mike.
My favorite comment Friday is from The Color Sage, who says, I remember watching Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd as a kid.
I'm pretty sure that the Dems are Elmer Fudd and Trump is Bugs, and we're just going to keep living reruns for eternity.
Oh yeah, we've got you now.
We've got you now, Mr.
Widow Twump.
Oh yeah?
Yeah, what's up, Doc?
No, I'm sorry, that was Fauci.
Listen, what's up, Doc?
I've got to work.
It's very difficult.
I'm trying to combine a cartoon with politicians.
It's very hard.
I need a little bit more energy to do it.
You know, I need my iron pumping through my blood.
You know what I need?
I need Good Ranchers.
Right now, head on over to goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
Regardless of what this administration defines as a recession, Americans are worried because we're in a recession.
Food and gas prices are higher than I've ever seen in my lifetime.
That is why I am so grateful for my favorite meat delivery service, Good Ranchers.
Good Ranchers offers a recession-proof subscription model that lets you lock in the price the day you subscribe.
So not only is it recession-proof, it's inflation-proof too.
It's absolutely a ridiculous deal.
I have no idea how these guys are going to stay in business because they've got top quality meat.
They're giving you ridiculously affordable prices, and you can lock it in as inflation turns us all into Zimbabwe.
We're gonna have wheelbarrows full of trillion-dollar bills soon, but you'll still have great meat.
Good Ranchers is also currently running a back-to-school give-back program with the goal of donating 100,000 high-quality meals to children in need.
To help out, I am offering 10 lucky listeners the chance to win 30 minutes with me via Zoom on September 30th, where you can ask me anything.
We're calling it a meet and greet, good.
Get it?
Go to goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles at checkout.
You'll get $30 off plus free shipping.
You can subscribe to lock in your price and recession slash inflation proof your meals for life.
Plus, you'll be automatically entered to win 30 minutes of all access with me September 30th.
It's a meet and greet.
This offer ends August 31st.
Go to goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles at checkout.
And maybe I'll see you at the meet and greet.
There it is.
Here are the goalposts moving already.
We've got Trump.
We had to raid the home of Biden's chief political rival and the former president because he had classified documents.
Yeah, but that doesn't matter.
Yeah, okay, you're right.
It doesn't matter.
But whatever.
It's good that they raided him anyway.
That's what we're getting right now from the New York Times.
Doesn't matter.
Who cares if it was declassified?
Moving on.
Moving on.
This should not surprise us.
The libs have been doing this since 2016.
I love that comment about Bugs Bunny.
That's what we keep seeing.
They've got him now.
Oh, the walls are closing in.
It's Mueller time.
Yeah, we got Trump.
We got him because he colluded with the Russians.
Yeah, we got him now.
Oh, that didn't work.
Okay.
Well, he...
May have slept with a porn star!
And that's really bad for some...
I don't know why...
I mean, that's bad.
That's morally bad.
But we're gonna get him on that, I guess.
No?
Okay, we're not gonna do that.
Okay, well, okay, he didn't collude with the Russians.
Oh, I know, he colluded with the Ukrainians!
Yeah, we're going to impeach him for that, because he colluded with the enemy of Russia after he colluded with...
No?
Okay, all right, we're not going to get him on that, are we?
Okay, well, he launched an insurrection!
Yeah, oh yeah, we got you now, Trump.
You dirty, no?
Okay, all right, we got him off the...
Okay, well now we go.
But you didn't pay some of your taxes, maybe.
Do we have you on that?
No?
Okay, we don't have you on that.
It's just going to go on.
It's just going to go on forever.
And I hope that Trump remains bugs and remains one step ahead of the Elmer Fudd Democrats.
I hope.
I hope that the Dems don't finally get him by throwing the entire weight of the liberal establishment.
Behind them.
But That's all this is.
This is a prosecution in search of a crime.
I think we're on crime number eight that they've tried to throw at this guy.
The punishment is always the same.
The punishment is always you don't get to be president.
That's all they really care about.
You're disqualified from running for president.
You're getting impeached and thrown out of office.
Your campaign gets killed in the cradle.
That's always the punishment.
Why?
Because it has nothing to do with any of the crimes or even non-crimes that they're accusing him of.
It's all about stopping him from becoming president.
They want to stop him from becoming president.
Not even because he sends mean tweets.
He's off of Twitter right now, so there's no fear of the president sending mean tweets.
They want to stop him because he wants to change our trade regime.
He wants to stop illegal immigration.
He wants to take power away from the liberal globalists who are giving away our national sovereignty.
He wants to change the structure of the political order that the libs have gotten away with for the better part of three or four decades, maybe more.
That's what this is all about.
It's just about stopping a conservative from going in and messing up all of the liberals' plans.
That's what this is all about.
Now we find out the FBI apparently seized documents that were covered by attorney-client privilege and executive privilege.
The FBI took documents that were protected not only by the rights of presidents to keep certain information, but even by the right of any client to keep information private between him and his lawyer.
This is no surprise.
They're going to break all the rules.
They've committed so many crimes.
Going back to 2016, the FBI lawyer lied to a FISA court judge, completely made up evidence so that they could spy on the Trump campaign.
There is no law they will not break.
There is no law that they will consider too important that they have to respect it.
They're going to use everything they can to get this guy.
And the most frustrating part of it all is not that the libs are doing this.
It's not that our institutions of government and law enforcement are extremely corrupt.
The most frustrating part of all, as far as I can tell, is when the squish fake Republicans applaud and go along with it.
You know, it just makes me want to take a break from all the intensity of the news cycle, get into a nice digital community where we're free of the bots, free of the trolls.
We get to just share good stuff that doesn't melt our brains.
That's why you gotta check out Tuvu.
Tuvu is the photo-sharing community app built on family values, data privacy, and freedom of opinion.
It's time to move our communities, our families, and our churches to a better place online, where big tech is not pushing its woke agenda, its vice, its addictive content, and its damaging mental health accessories.
Tuvu is ad-free, so they answer to you, the subscriber.
On Tuvu, your data will never be sold to advertisers and data miners.
Instead, Tuvu sells social media freedom to those who use it for just $2.99 a month, or $22.99 per year.
He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune.
That right there weeds out the fakes and the bots and the trolls.
Are you hesitant to try a new platform?
For the next seven days only, Tuvu is giving our listeners a free annual membership when you go to www.tuvu.com, T-U-V-U.com slash Knowles.
Get all the details and your free annual subscription for a limited time only at tuvu.com slash Knowles, T-U-V-U dot com slash Knowles, or look for the Tuvu app on Google Play or the App Store.
The squishes are still defending the FBI and the DOJ, even after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
This is a great rule of thumb as to how you can tell a conservative from a squish.
Are they defending the FBI? Are they defending the DOJ? Even after six, seven years of this, but especially after the Mar-a-Lago raid, Asa Hutchinson, who's the squish Republican governor in Arkansas, he says, look, FBI was just doing its job.
The American public is operating without sufficient information.
I think we all have to take a deep breath and say we're going to have to wait to see the facts that come out.
There is some urgency in it because this is unprecedented.
The search of a former president's home, the American public wants to understand that.
And right now you mentioned the circling of the wagons around Donald Trump, and it's simply because they see the establishment as going after Donald Trump, and they question whether that was the right move and whether it was less intrusive means to accomplish the same purpose. and they question whether that was the right move and We're going to have to be a little patient.
Attorney General did the right thing by getting information out this week.
Well, the GOP is going to be the party of supporting law enforcement.
Law enforcement includes the FBI. The FBI is simply carrying out their responsibilities under the law, a lawful search warrant that a magistrate signed off on.
And they didn't go in there with FBI raid jackets.
They tried to constrain their behavior carrying out that warrant.
I really think that the Republicans ought to thank the regime secret police for going in and raiding the home of the chief political rival to the president, the former president, unprecedented.
We should be thankful.
They didn't even wear their FBI jackets because they were so ashamed of what they were doing.
Because they wanted to hide the fact that the Biden administration was wielding the FBI to attack the political opponents.
Listen, if we're going to be pro-law and order, we need to support extremely corrupt law enforcement agencies.
Do we?
I don't think that's true.
What are you talking about?
No, I support the FBI when the FBI is acting in a just and proper manner.
I don't support the FBI when it's corrupt.
And there is no question that the FBI has exhibited extremely corrupt behavior in recent years.
Don't forget, it wasn't Obama.
It wasn't the White House.
It wasn't even just the DOJ. It was the FBI that made up evidence to get the FISA court judge to allow the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign.
It was the FBI, Kevin Kleinsmith, FBI lawyer that did that.
I'm not saying it's the regular agents on the ground.
I don't think that's true.
I know a handful of FBI agents who are good, patriotic, strong, conservative Americans.
But Kevin Clinesmith, he's not.
That guy's worse than dirt.
That guy's a complete rat who's undermining the integrity of our law enforcement agencies and faith that we have in the system.
That guy doesn't deserve our support.
Are you kidding me?
Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, who's just operating as a complete hatchet man for the Biden administration and wielding jackbooted thugs to go attack Donald Trump.
That's not back the blue.
That's not the thin blue line.
That's corruption.
We support the police.
We don't support crooked cops, right?
The most hardcore defender of the police, the really good policemen themselves, they're going to be the most outspoken against the crooked cops because the crooked cops give them a bad name.
Same goes for the FBI. Same goes for the DOJ. Don't forget Asa Hutchinson, this governor of Arkansas, he's the one who defended transing the kids.
He refused to sign a bill that said you can't trans the kids anymore.
So this guy is just the clowniest of fake Republicans.
This guy is the court jester in the kingdom of liberalism par excellence.
You don't want to be on his side.
You can notice right now some of the moderate Republicans who had been leaning in that direction of let this play out.
We've got to just whatever the FBI and the DOJ do, that's totally fine.
They're starting to walk that back now because they realize they don't want to be on the same side as Asa Hutchinson.
Tim Scott, who I like personally, I think he's a very nice guy.
He really stepped in it last week when he said that we need to let the situation play out and not rush to conclusions when the Biden administration is raiding Trump's house.
And he got a lot of criticism for that, rightly so.
Now, what's he doing?
He's walking those comments back.
Sean, this is absurd.
Think about it.
This has been a witch hunt for six years.
Think about the Steele dossier, the Russia collusion, two failed impeachment attempts, and even more.
I can't imagine how anyone in our country doesn't look at this with eyes of suspicion.
There's no question in my mind that this is an overreach at best and frankly asking for a criminal warrant that gives you a space of time between August the 5th and August the 19th because they're looking for national security sensitive information.
There's nothing that comes to the conclusion that you would ever give someone two weeks to go through that process.
This is devastating.
We're in uncharted waters.
It is stunning to our country.
And frankly, this is something we have to continue to dig into.
We got to win the majority, Sean, so that we can actually go through the oversight in the majority of this process.
Okay, that's really well said.
I couldn't have said that better myself.
I really like that Tim Scott.
I'm going to vote for that Tim Scott.
That's great.
That's a 180 degree turn from what he said on, I forget which liberal news program on which liberal network it was last week, but that's a 180 degree turn.
Last week he said, well, you know, we've got to let this play out.
We don't want to rush to conclusions.
And then what's he doing on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News?
He rushes to conclusions.
And he says, this is ridiculous.
And he's right.
He's right.
The second clip is correct.
So I'm glad Tim Scott gets total credit.
He made a mistake.
He went back.
He corrected himself.
Now, we've got to make sure, especially when it comes to Republican politicians, I'm not just singling out Tim Scott, that they're not just saying one thing to the liberal audience and another thing to the moderate audience and another thing to the conservative audience.
We've got to make sure they're consistent.
What Tim Scott said on that show is absolutely right.
He makes a great point.
He says, why would the magistrate judge that authorized this raid give the FBI two weeks to undertake it?
This is supposedly, I mean, now the libs have even dropped this kind of argument, but previously they were insinuating through anonymous sources, Trump had the nuclear codes.
This is urgent, sensitive information.
That's why they had to raid Trump.
They couldn't wait for the lawyers to work it out.
Okay, well, if it was so urgent, why did the judge give him two weeks to do it?
Furthermore, if it was so urgent, why did the FBI get the warrant on August 5th?
And then they didn't undertake the raid until August 8th.
I was on a show on Fox over the weekend with a liberal, Brian Tyler Cohen.
And he said, oh, Michael, you know, come on, it was the weekend.
It was the weekend?
Hold on, are you telling me that this is urgent, national security-sensitive information?
We could be on the brink of nuclear war if the FBI doesn't get these codes.
But, well, you know, I've got to crack a few ones and have a barbecue with the family.
I'll get it on Monday.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
People know the FBI looks terrible here.
Terrible.
John Ratcliffe, who's the former director of national intelligence under Trump, he's suggesting that very possibly, because of how egregious this action was by the FBI, that Christopher Wray could be the last FBI director.
He said, Ratcliffe says, Ray already admitted that the FBI fraudulently obtained multiple warrants to illegally spy on Trump as a candidate and during the presidency.
If yet another FBI warrant to raid Trump's home doesn't stand up to scrutiny, Ray may be the last FBI director.
This seems kind of hyperbolic, but I don't really think it is.
The FBI, as we know it today, as the FBI, only began in 1935.
It's not that old.
Christopher Ray is the eighth FBI director.
Okay, it's not...
It's not as though this institution's been around since 1776, folks.
This is a relatively modern institution.
Before we had the FBI, we had a different version of the FBI, but structurally it was quite different.
That only even began in 1908.
So yeah, this could change.
The only reason that I don't think Christopher Wray will be the last FBI director is because the Republicans are cowards and they don't want to wield power.
And you're even seeing right now some of the moderates in the Republican Party.
They're saying, oh no, we can't talk about ending the FBI. We can't talk about radically restructuring the FBI. No, that's crazy.
That's not...
Well, what's the alternative?
You're telling me that the alternative is we're going to let the FBI just make up evidence and start raiding the homes of political opponents to go on fishing expeditions to stop them from running for president next cycle?
That's better?
That's more law and order?
That's what serious people do?
I don't think so.
It'd be one thing if this were a one-off incident.
This has been a consistent pattern of behavior for seven years now, at least.
Forget about other abuses that the FBI has undertaken.
It's not even only against Trump.
Let's not forget that the FBI contrived an assassination attempt, kidnapping attempt, rather, against Gretchen Whitmer, the Michigan governor, the Democrat governor of Michigan, who now, when the people were being prosecuted for this, the criminals who were kind of entrapped and set up, a number of them got off the hook.
The ones who didn't confess to the crime got off the hook because it was such a bungle by the FBI. And so you're telling me we're going to allow that to continue?
Of course not.
I wouldn't.
If I were in office right now, I think your only responsible option is to radically, radically restructure the FBI. You've got to fire, I'm not even saying the regular agents on the ground, a lot of whom do a great job, but you've got to restructure the political leadership that is perverting this institution of law enforcement to only attack one party, to only go after one party on behalf of the other party, because the other party, the Democrats, constitute the semi-permanent ruling class in the United States.
Many conservatives don't want to admit how politics actually works in this country.
Forget about the liberals.
They're the ones wielding the power.
Even many conservatives, the squishy types, they don't want to admit how politics actually works.
They want to pretend that we still have neutral institutions.
It's just neutral, and we play out in the fair marketplace of ideas, and it's okay.
And then sometimes we win, sometimes they win, and that's that.
And yeah, I know, the New York Times is a little liberal, but you know, look, we've got to respect them.
No, we don't.
No, we don't.
There's no such thing as neutrality.
It doesn't exist.
Lock that one away with unicorns and Bigfoot, okay?
It's not real.
We got more evidence of this just over the weekend when Barry Weiss, who formerly worked at the New York Times, came out on her podcast and told a story that should be shocking to the squishes.
Probably not so shocking to conservatives who know what's up.
Here's what happened.
I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill and why it fell apart.
And this is the part I'm not sure if you know.
There was a discussion about the piece and whether or not we should run it.
And one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?
Wow.
And the more junior colleague said, I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.
And then, and here's the pretty shocking part, the more senior colleague said, let's check with Senator Schumer before we run it.
Wow.
And the colleague, the younger one, refused because that colleague said it wasn't an ethical thing to do.
So you can hear the man who's responding, coincidentally, is Tim Scott.
And Tim Scott had submitted a kind of police reform, also coincidentally, had submitted a kind of police reform, BLM-type bill, but a Republican version of it.
And he submitted an op-ed to the New York Times.
And according to Barry Weiss, the New York Times editors said, hmm, we've got to check this one out with Chuck Schumer.
You know our boss.
We've got to run this one by our boss, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, because we're the gray lady, all the news that's fit to print.
Except not really.
The New York Times, I think undeniably at this point, is simply an advertising agency for the Democrat Party.
So much so that they actually run editorial questions by the Democrat Senate majority leader.
Now, of course, the Libs denied this, denied, denied, denied.
Nate Hockman over at National Review has sources that are affirming Barry Weiss's account.
I totally believe it.
Of course you believe it.
How can people believe in neutrality?
The false notion of political neutrality is what has gotten us into this mess.
This is the subject of my book, Speechless Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
I think that thesis is proven more and more correct every single day.
The notion of neutrality in the public square is what gave us Drag Queen Story Hour.
The conservative quote-unquote defense of Drag Queen Story Hour was, well, we need politically neutral spaces.
And then what happens?
Five seconds after we allow Drag Queen Story Hour in the libraries, it goes to the elementary schools.
Five seconds after that, the elementary school administrators are allowed to transgender the kids without asking the parents' permission, without even notifying the parents.
And by the way, if you refuse to do this, if you refuse to assent to transgenderism, transvestitism, drag queens, all of that, you will be punished.
You will be ostracized from the public square.
You can get in trouble at school.
You can get in trouble at work.
There is no neutrality.
There are only standards and taboos.
You can't live politics in a vacuum.
There is no totally neutral paper.
There is no totally neutral outlet.
There's none of that.
The only people who might be totally neutral are the squish Republicans who have nothing but wind blowing in between their ears.
Because they don't believe anything.
They don't know anything.
They don't have two brain cells to rub together.
But everyone else on the left and the right, they are not neutral.
They have opinions.
They have premises.
They have a basic view of the world.
All neutrality has done is give cowards an excuse to surrender.
Even science, we're told politics, okay, maybe politics isn't neutral, but science is neutral.
Even science is not neutral.
If you didn't understand that before, if you haven't understood that after two and a half years of Dr.
Fauci changing the science based on his personal political preferences at a whim, sometimes multiple times within a couple of weeks...
Check out Boston Children's Hospital, which has a pediatric transgender department, which is offering pediatric hysterectomies.
That means cutting out the wombs of little girls.
Now they're going even further.
The Boston Children's Hospital is not just talking about cutting out the sexual organs of teenagers.
No, no.
They're claiming that even toddlers know that they are transgender.
A child will often know that they are transgender from the moment that they have any ability to express themselves, and parents will often tell us this.
We have parents who tell us that their kids, they knew from the minute they were born practically, and actions like refusing to get a haircut or standing to urinate, trying to stand to urinate, refusing to stand to urinate, Trying on siblings clothing, playing with the quote opposite gender toys, things like that.
There is more and more a group of adolescents that we are seeing that really are coming to the realization that they might be trans or gender diverse a little bit later on in their life.
So what we're seeing from them is that they always sort of knew something was maybe off and didn't have the understanding to know that they might be trans or have a different gender identity than the one they had been assigned.
So that is a growing population that we are seeing and that's being recognized as being trans and able to be treated.
Did your kid have any trouble being potty trained?
Yeah, probably you should chop off his genitals.
Did your...
A little girl sometimes plays with basketballs or maybe G.I. Joe.
Did she ever pick that up?
Yeah, you should probably pump her full of cross-sex hormones.
Get her on some testosterone.
She's transgender.
Because the parents are telling the doctors this all the time.
You see, these parents who come in with children who, in many cases, can't even talk, Because they're toddlers, and toddlers can't really talk that well, if at all.
They come in and they say, I know.
I've known since the moment my child was born that my little boy is really a little girl.
How did I know?
I just knew.
Because my child said, goo-goo-ga-ga.
I could tell that the child was kind of lilting his voice.
I know he's a little boy, but he's just a gaga.
It just sounded like he wanted to be a girl.
It has nothing to do with me.
I'm not just a psycho who wanted a different sex child.
It's not that I want attention from all my liberal friends and I want to feel like a super special parent.
No, no.
It's my 18-month-old is really a category of being That we didn't acknowledge as being ontologically sound until about five minutes ago.
That's got to be what it is, right?
No, I don't think so.
That lady in that video, she's not a politician.
She's a scientist.
She's at a very prestigious scientific institution, a medical institution called Boston Children's Hospital.
If you still say, well, I trust the doctors.
I trust the scientists.
I trust the experts.
You're not going to make it.
I can't help you.
I can't help you.
This reminds me of, Drew Clavin talks about this.
When you read the newspaper and you see some article about Syria, and you say, I don't know about Syria.
Okay, I guess I believe that.
You open up next, it's an article about the stock market.
You say, I don't know anything about the stock market.
Well, okay, I guess I believe that.
Then you open up the next page.
It's about the New York Yankees.
And you do know about the New York Yankees.
And you say, wait a second, that article's BS. They don't know what they're talking about.
Huh?
They don't know that.
Then you move on.
Next article, it's about immigration.
I don't know about immigration.
Okay, it makes sense.
And you just believe.
The one thing you know about, you know that the experts and the geniuses and the opinion setters, they're wrong about.
And yet, you continue to accept their opinions and all the things that you don't know about.
That's what it's like with the medical establishment.
I've said this on the show multiple times in the last few months.
I... I'm much more inclined today to trust an African shaman witch doctor when it comes to medical advice than I am to trust a prestigious senior fellow at the NIH, or than I am to trust anybody on the staff at Boston Children's Hospital.
You can't possibly trust them.
You can't trust their judgment.
And this is happening not just with our scientific institutions.
You're certainly seeing it with the FBI. I can't trust the FBI. I can't trust the DOJ. When they come out and you hear, oh no, so-and-so, he's a by-the-books kind of guy.
No, he's a careerist at the DOJ. He's always played it straight.
I just can't believe that now.
Because I've seen the corruption.
I've seen the terrible judgment that they've exhibited and the malice and the attacks on their political opponents.
So that's gone.
And you can lament, oh no, we've lost faith in our institutions.
Okay, that's not my fault.
I'm doing the only rational thing I can do, which is approach these institutions with such a radical skepticism that pretty much anything they say, I'm going to believe the opposite at this point.
Anything Dr.
Fauci says, I'm going to believe the opposite.
Certainly anything that woman says at Boston Children's Hospital...
The woman who says that 18 months olds are transgender if they have trouble potty training.
Whatever she says, I have to assume the opposite is true.
Speaking of kids' health, CBS News!
Is taking on this real problem that we have in our country, which is that young people are not as physically fit as they once were.
They're not going out, they're not playing around, they're not playing sports, they're just getting kind of fatter and softer, and this is a big problem.
CBS has uncovered why that is.
The answer, of course, climate change.
A new study showing how climate change, specifically higher temperatures, is making our children more inactive and more obese.
The study published in Journal Temperature found today's children are 30% less aerobically fit than their parents were at their age.
Fewer children are reaching the World Health Organization's recommendation of 60 minutes of exercise a day.
Now listen, it has been a lot hotter and the weather has been crazy, but I think it also has to do with technology.
It's one thing not to go outside, but these kids don't go outside because they can stay inside, be on their phones, play video games, and be social without having to go outside and be social.
Even the CBS guy cannot do this segment with a straight face.
The powers that be sent them this segment.
They said, you got to talk about how kids are fat and unhealthy because of the sun monster.
That's why.
And that guy, I don't even know his name.
He's on CBS. He's like, okay, I read all the stuff that I'm supposed to read about the sun monster, but...
It's just video games and iPads, right?
Hold on, you're telling me that because of the allegedly.001 degree Fahrenheit that it's hotter today than it was some time ago, that's why kids are all way fatter and less healthy?
It has nothing to do with all the extremely processed, poisonous food they're eating.
It has nothing to do with all the drugs that their parents are putting them on.
It has nothing to do with the iPads and the video games and the TVs that they're all glued to 24-7, just doom-scrolling through life.
No, it has nothing to do with that.
It's because of global warming.
And so the guy, he says, man, come on, this is too much even for me, and I work for CBS News.
But still, but still, as patently absurd as this story is, the people who set the editorial agenda at CBS, it's probably Chuck Schumer too, these guys are still going to at least present this propaganda.
They're going to get it out there.
You'll notice something if you've been following meteorological charts, you know, the weatherman on news.
You'll notice that they've changed the colors in recent years.
It's pretty jarring.
But for the very same temperatures that you've seen 10 years ago, even 20 years ago, heat waves happen.
It's the summer, okay?
Heat waves happen in hot places, especially.
You'll see, instead of in the old days, it would be yellow, it would be the color, or green.
Now it's always red.
It's bright red because it's a climate emergency.
Because when it's hot in the summer, that's evidence that you need to stop eating meat and stop driving your car and stay in the pod and And eat bugs and don't go anywhere.
Meanwhile, of course, John Kerry and Prince Harry and all the rest and Leonardo DiCaprio, they're going to fly around on their private jets and sail on their yachts.
But you, look, the color is red.
Kids are getting fat and unhealthy because you're eating meat, so you've got to stop.
Global warming is, ooh, global warming.
And even this guy, he says, guys, come on, can't you be a little more subtle than this?
No, kids are fat because of iPads and drugs and crappy food.
They're not fat because of the sun monster.
Good grief.
Regardless, though, of why it is, Americans are not exactly in fighting form, especially young Americans.
There is a man who has been around foreign policy and statecraft for, I think, 700 years at this point.
Henry Kissinger.
Henry Kissinger was the Secretary of State for Richard Nixon.
He's now, I believe, 99 years old.
He's got his 18th or 19th book out.
And the book is worth paying attention to.
I don't agree with Henry Kissinger on everything, but he's really good on realpolitik.
He's really good on taking the kind of idealism and platitudes out of foreign policy and just talking in terms of cold, hard interests.
And Henry Kissinger believes that we are on the brink of war in the United States.
And the really bad news here, beyond the fact that our young people are not in fighting form, and I don't think that America right now, with one of the worst economies we've ever had in our nation's history, and with people who are not exactly patriotic, and with people who are physically not very fit.
The other problem is, Henry Kissinger believes we're on the brink of war, not just with one power, but with two.
Kissinger believes that we are on the brink of war with Russia and China.
And furthermore, he agrees with me that a lot of it is our fault.
Not our fault, but the fault of our stupid leaders.
Are you still giving your money to woke razor companies that hate your values, that see masculinity as toxic, and that think you should teach your daughter to shave her beard?
There is a better way.
Jeremy's Razor's 100% real, 100% woke free.
The premium matte tungsten handle has more heft than the left.
The razor head pivots without caving, and has six blades that are sharper than truth.
When you buy Jeremy's razors, you aren't just making Jeremy richer.
You're making the woke left poorer.
75,000 people have already made the switch.
Visit IHateHarrys.com to get your Founders Series shave kit today.
That is IHateHarrys.com.
Jeremy's razors, shut up and shave.
Henry Kissinger says we're on the brink of war because our stupid leaders have made a lot of bad decisions.
I have been saying this for months now, and I have been smeared as a pro-Putin puppet and all sorts of dumb left-wing slogans because of it.
But Henry Kissinger says that I'm right.
Kissinger makes this point.
He says, quote...
Americans resist separating the idea of diplomacy from that of personal relationships with the adversary.
They tend to view negotiations, he tells me, in missionary rather than psychological terms, seeking to convert or condemn their interlocutors rather than to penetrate their thinking.
From the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the approach that I have had to it is from the perspective of what does Putin want?
Why is he doing this?
What does he want?
Why does he think this benefits him right now to do this?
The libs and the squishes.
Have approached it from Putin bad.
He's the most bad man.
The baddest most bad man ever.
And Zelensky, he's a good man.
Very much the good man.
And not bad man.
You say, okay, maybe all of that's true.
I don't know.
But it's not going to help you understand anything about the war in Ukraine.
It's not going to help you understand how we got here.
Certainly not going to help you understand how we get out.
Kissinger says, we're at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it's supposed to lead to.
I said from the beginning, I said NATO bears a lot of responsibility here for creating a provocative situation.
NATO doesn't bear moral responsibility for invading Ukraine, obviously.
Depending on how you think of the Maidan revolution in 2014.
But it's not as though tanks are rolling in from the West into Ukraine.
That's not what they bear responsibility for.
But NATO and the United States leading it bears some responsibility for misplaying our hands.
That's what I said.
When I said that, you're a pro-Russia stooge puppet.
I guess you're saying the same thing.
He says, we're at the brink of war because of issues that we've partly created.
Kissinger said that incautious policies on the part of the US and NATO may have touched off the crisis in Ukraine.
He sees no choice but to take Vladimir Putin's stated security concerns seriously and believes that it was a mistake for NATO to signal to Ukraine that it might eventually join the NATO alliance.
He said, I thought that Poland and all the...
I won't do a Henry Kissinger because you want people to understand a word I say.
He said, I thought that Poland, all the traditional Western countries that had been part of Western history were logical members of NATO. But Ukraine, in his view, is a collection of territories.
Once appended to Russia, which Russians see as their own, even though some Ukrainians do not, stability would be better served by its acting as a buffer between Russia and the West.
He says, This is exactly my perspective on Russia and Ukraine.
Border states are good.
Rather, buffer states are good.
States between great powers and rival powers.
It's good to have a little buffer in between them that plays each side off of the other one.
Doesn't make you a Putin stooge.
Doesn't make you a anti-American or anything like that.
The people who were urging caution on NATO expansion after the fall of the Berlin Wall were George Kennan, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Sam Young.
Really mainstream people.
Somewhat liberal people, actually.
They were cold warriors who were really tough on the Soviet Union in the Cold War, but they realized that our foreign policy has been really, really stupid.
And you're seeing this right now, even with the FBI, even on the domestic front.
You are seeing bad political actors let their emotions get away with them and destroy hard-won peace and hard-won stability in our country because they want to get Trump.
They hate Trump so much.
And we've got to get Putin.
And we've got to antagonize Putin.
And we've got to go with this guy and get the other guy.
And they're not thinking strategically.
And they're not thinking from the perspective of what is best for Americans.
Before we go, there's a little glimmer of hope here that I want to get to that might improve our state in this country and in the world.
A major Democrat congressman, Carolyn Maloney, We're good to go.
Carolyn Maloney, when asked, should President Biden run again?
Also by the New York Times, she said, off the record, he's not running again.
And then the Times responded, not off the record, on the record.
You're on the record right now, you're not off the record.
And she goes, on the record?
No, he should not run again.
He should not run.
Hold on, wait, I thought you just said off the record, he is not running again.
So Biden is going to say that he's running, because he has to say that he's running, because he doesn't want to be a lame duck.
But you've now got really top in the know Democrat elected officials saying he's not running again.
Which means that as you are seeing all sorts of shenanigans play out from the left to the right to try to take out Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.
You are about to see a shiving, the likes of which has not been seen in quite a while, between Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, and whichever other Democrats are going to try to throw their hat in the ring.
Before we go, also a line from Al Gore.
Speaking of presidential wannabes, Al Gore, for some reason people still ask his opinion.
Al Gore goes on a news show and Al Gore says that the FBI and the Attorney General Merrick Garland acted entirely appropriately.
What is your reaction to all we've learned?
Does this make sense to you, why a former president would have such documents in his Florida mansion?
No, it doesn't.
But I want to hasten to add, I don't know the facts.
I'll tell you what I do know.
I know Merrick Garland, and I don't know that our nation has ever had an attorney general who is more committed to doing things according to the book, according to the proper order, It's unthinkable that he would take any kind of rash step or violate the regular order.
I have tremendous confidence in him, his probity, and everyone who knows him and has worked with him feels the same way.
So I'm sure the Justice Department and the FBI have acted entirely properly.
I'm sure.
I mean, why would anyone doubt that?
It's not as though they've been caught violating the law when it comes to Trump for seven years.
Of course.
Of course.
And it's so funny coming from this guy's mouth.
Because we talk about resisting the peaceful transfer of power.
We talk about how Trump undermined our democratic institutions and undermined an election.
This freaking guy refused to concede the 2000 presidential election after he lost.
He brought this thing all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States totally needlessly because he couldn't take the fact that he lost the election.
Made us a global laughing stock.
The United States' greatest democracy in the world can't conduct its own elections.
I'm so glad Al Gore is getting his voice back out here because it's a reminder to you that all the things the Libs accuse us of doing, they themselves have committed up to and including and most especially not accepting the results of elections.
Whatever they say about Trump, no matter how much they move the goalposts, they'll probably change the justification for the raid five different times today.
Don't believe it.
It's just totally fake.
They have no credibility at all.
And Most important of all, most important, take this lesson to the bank.
Do not be a squish.
Do not be like Asa Hutchinson.
Do not be like any of these toadies, these court jester conservatives who are on the same side as that guy.
We're on the same side as the New York Times.
We're on the same side as Boston Children's Hospital transing the kids.
That's not the side you want to be on.
And there's no neutrality either, folks.
The rest of the show is going to continue now.
What do you mean the rest of the show?
I thought this was the end of the show.
No.
We've got more show coming.
We've got a new feature here from the Daily Wire.
It's the member block.
It's not for you hoi polloi, okay?
It's not for you filthy, unwashed masses out there who refuse to sign up and become a Daily Wire member.
No, no!
This is for the Daily Wire members over at dailywire.com.
There's one more story I have got to get to.
This is actually...
Kind of wanted to get to it in the main show today, but all right, we'll get to it in the member block.
The Atlantic...
Is now claiming that rosaries, you know, like rosary beads, like Christians pray, that that is now an extremist symbol.
So I want to get to that story.
I also want to get to a real-time music video reaction to compliance by Muse.
I do some of these kind of things over on my YouTube channel sometimes.
Now we've got a lot more in the member block.
If you're not a member, click the link in the description to join us.
