Ep. 1117 - CNN Attempts To Drag The Corpse Of Failed Democrats To Victory
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
Last-minute midterm polls and endorsements break for Republican candidates, the PA Supreme Court deals a major election win to Republicans, and Big Tech sets the stage for a stolen election.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch Matt Walsh’s “What Is A Woman” and access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog: https://bit.ly/3SsC5se
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Bambee - Type in 'Michael Knowles' when you sign up with Bambee: https://bambee.com/michael
Good Ranchers - Use code "KNOWLES" at checkout and get two Black Angus New York Strip Steaks FREE: https://www.goodranchers.com/knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In his closing argument to voters before the midterms, John Fetterman spoke for all Democrats when he explained his plan to combat record inflation.
Well, let's talk about inflation because that's a big concern for voters.
What do you think the biggest cause of inflation is?
And should the Biden administration be doing more?
I just do.
I think that simply is also, Leah, let's talk about the trillions in massive tax cuts to the corporate tax structure as well.
True.
You know, trillions of dollars that have added to the deficit.
And now they still want to support those as well.
True.
I think in terms of being very serious about addressing inflation is making sure that those rates are brought back into a line with what they should have been, where they're able to fight the deficit.
Mm-hmm.
Hmm.
Now, in Fetterman's defense, that answer was no less coherent than anything we've ever heard from Kamala Harris.
So perhaps there is a political future for John Fetterman after all.
And by the way, that answer, I'm not joking, that answer is no worse than Joe Biden's answer on the very same question.
Assuming that the Democrats don't steal this thing, and unfortunately that is far from certain at the moment— The Libs will soon be blaming their election losses on everything under the sun.
Fetterman's health and Putin's invasion and the mean old conservative media and on and on.
They're going to blame everything but what the polls and the voters are telling them.
Namely, that the Democrats are poised to lose because their policies, every single one of them, have failed.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Charles Shaw, who says on the Harvard-UNC affirmative action case, the question should be, where in the Constitution does it stipulate that diversity supersedes equal protection under the law?
The answer actually is the Civil Rights Act.
So, there's a great book on this subject by Christopher Caldwell called The Age of Entitlement.
But that actually is the issue, is that in the 1960s, you had this massive piece of legislation that in some ways has superseded the Constitution and set up a kind of parallel Constitution.
And a lot of our political troubles right now seem to be trying to reconcile these two different constitutions.
So...
That is where it comes from.
It's kind of a funny comment, but there is a really deep answer to this that does explain a lot of our current political turmoil.
And it's why a lot of people, they just want to tune out of politics, take the grill pill, come hang out with their family and their friends, just grill up some great, delicious meat.
When you want to do that, where are you going to go?
You're going to go to Good Ranchers, of course.
While grocery store meat prices continue to rise, Good Ranchers' inflation-proof model locks in your price the day you subscribe for the life of your subscription.
Plus, you can pause your subscription for up to 90 days or cancel anytime you want.
But you won't want to.
Good Ranchers ships 100% American meat, born, raised, and harvested in the U.S. right to your door.
All of their beef is prime or upper choice.
Those are the two highest grades.
Superior steakhouse quality.
Good Ranchers not only supports American agriculture, they're also big fans of The Daily Wire, which I love.
They sponsor all of our shows.
I just love them.
I opened up my Freezy the other day.
My heart sunk.
My stomach dropped because I realized I was starting to run low on Good Ranchers.
I've got to check the time, the date.
I said, when is my next batch going to arrive?
I love this stuff.
Go to goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles at checkout to get two Black Angus New York strip steaks for free.
That's an incredible deal.
You can subscribe to lock in your price and recession-proof your meals for life.
That is goodranchers.com slash Knowles.
Use code Knowles at checkout.
John Fetterman's answer on inflation was not particularly persuasive because the man has brain damage and he can't speak English properly.
Don't think that's the only reason why the Democrats can't answer this question.
Don't think it's just, oh, John Fetterman's health.
Okay?
Because I am not joking when I say John Fetterman's answer on that question, which was something vaguely relating to corporate tax rates, Was more coherent than Joe Biden's answer on the very same question yesterday.
And they talk about inflation.
You know, we're dealing with it for a whole second.
Inflation is a worldwide problem right now because of a war in Iraq and the impact on oil and what Russia's doing.
I mean, excuse me, the war in Ukraine.
And I think of Iraq because that's when my son died.
Because he died.
It has to do with the war in Iraq.
I mean, no, it's not the war in Iraq.
It's the war in Ukraine.
I was thinking of Iraq because that's where my son died.
There's so much wrong with that answer.
The main thing is, Iraq is not where his son died.
Joe Biden's son died in America.
He was the Attorney General of Delaware.
And this is not the first time Joe Biden has made this flub.
And I don't know if it's because Joe Biden is senile and obviously is exhibiting the symptoms that many of us have seen in our grandparents and elderly relatives of just his memory is gone.
He's saying things that are completely delusional.
Or if it's a facet of Joe Biden's political career, which has always involved...
Intentional dishonesty, where Joe Biden for decades now has just lied.
He's lied about his educational record.
He's lied about his record in the Senate.
He's lied about family tragedies.
He lied about the way that his wife was killed.
I mean, really bizarre lies.
And so I don't know which it is.
But does he think that people don't have Google?
Does he think that people don't remember this?
Is he genuinely confused?
Does he really think that his son Beau died in Iraq?
I don't know.
Either way, though, the guy obviously not fit for the job.
And then if you even take the kernel of a real answer that he's giving here, which is that, well, inflation, it's not my fault.
It's a global problem because of the war in Ukraine.
You would have to say, yes, it is.
And the war in Ukraine is your fault.
According to not just me, according to not just the Republicans, according to Vladimir Zelensky, according to the president of Ukraine, he said that if Biden had not taken the sanctions off of Putin's pipeline, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
Zelensky rightly observes that if Joe Biden had not actually invited Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine and said if it were a minor incursion then there wouldn't be major consequences then you probably wouldn't have an invasion of Ukraine.
Why is it that Donald Trump's presidency is the only one in my lifetime or at least since the rise of Vladimir Putin to power where Putin has not invaded a sovereign country?
George W. Bush invades Georgia.
Barack Obama he invades Ukraine.
Donald Trump Joe Biden, he further invades Ukraine.
Why is that?
Donald Trump was the harshest president on Russia, again, in my lifetime.
He bolstered NATO. He got NATO to start paying more money into its own defense.
And reportedly, but it's coming from decent sources, Donald Trump told Vladimir Putin, if you invade Ukraine, I'll hit Moscow.
And if you're Vladimir Putin and you hear that, then you've got to think, okay, chances are he's bluffing.
Chances are Donald Trump do it.
Let's say there's a 5% chance that Donald Trump, because he's erratic, because he's unpredictable, let's say there's a 5% chance that he actually will bomb Moscow if I invade Ukraine.
Well, that's an unacceptable risk.
That even if it's just 5%, that is an unacceptable risk.
Which is why I think you had relative world peace.
I mean, for goodness sakes, Trump brought relative peace to the Middle East.
No one thought he was going to do that.
He had North Korea backing down.
He had even China on its heels.
How did he do that?
He had Iran on its heels.
Because his foreign policy was unpredictable.
Because he would say, I'm a dove, I'm running against war, the George Bush wars were terrible.
And then out of the blue, he goes and takes out the top Iranian general.
Well, I'm not going to fight.
I'm not going to launch this missile.
I'm not going to respond to an attack on Saudi's Aramco.
I'm not going to.
And then out of the blue, he drops the mother of all bombs.
It's just that unpredictability does it.
Joe Biden was easily predicted.
Vladimir Putin played him like a fiddle.
So yeah, sure, you can even blame inflation on foreign policy.
You can also blame it on Joe Biden shutting down American domestic oil and gas production, not issuing new federal leases, shutting down the oil pipelines.
You can definitely blame it on that.
Of Biden-specific domestic policies.
But sure, you blame it on foreign policy.
That's still Joe Biden's fault.
So they've got nothing going into this election.
The voters know it.
Dr.
Oz in Pennsylvania, this is going to be one of the pivotal races that determines the balance of power in the U.S. Senate, just picked up a big endorsement, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which was for a long time a left-wing paper.
Now the editorial page is a little more right-wing.
Well, they've come out, they've endorsed Dr.
Oz.
They say despite a turbulent Senate race, Oz is better prepared to lead.
And they say, by the way, it's not just Mr.
Fetterman's health.
They write, Mr.
Fetterman's health, he suffered a serious stroke in May, is not the issue.
His lack of transparency, however, in refusing to release his medical records is troubling.
It suggests an impulse to conceal and a mistrust of the people.
All candidates for a major elected office should release their medical records, as did Mr.
Oz.
If you want privacy, don't run for public office.
And then they point out that Mr.
Fetterman's life and experience and maturity are also concerns.
He's never held a real job.
He's been getting an allowance from his family his entire life.
He was the mayor of a tiny little town of 2,000 people.
He isn't prepared for this.
He's not ready for prime time.
And it's a really good point here because...
I think that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette overstates it.
I do think that if a candidate suffers a major stroke, that is a very serious concern.
If your brain isn't working, then you shouldn't be in the U.S. Senate.
You should go and get better if you can get better and then maybe try again.
But they are right that it's more troubling even than Fetterman suffering a stroke is the cover-up.
The cover-up is almost always more troubling than whatever the actual incident or accident or crime, even in some cases, is.
Because had Fetterman come out, had the campaign said, yeah, this guy had a stroke, he's recovering, we're going to keep him off the campaign trail, but Democrats need to hold the Senate, and Dr.
Oz is a slimy Republican, and he's friends with Trump, and he's really, really bad.
I actually think Fetterman probably would have had a better shot in this race.
But the fact that the campaign just lied and pretended the whole time, oh, Fetterman's fine, his recovery's been amazing, and then they put him on stage and he can't speak English, well, that's a shock to voters.
And probably one of the reasons why Fetterman, at least today, is probably poised to lose.
I think that it's pretty clear at this point, the liberals at least, believe that they're going to lose in the midterms.
Here's my strongest evidence for this yet.
It's not just the polls.
It's not just the preemptive excuses for their losses.
It's something I saw yesterday.
I was driving up to Kentucky.
I was giving a speech last night at the University of Kentucky on all the crazy conspiracy theories conservatives have believed, all of which turned out to be true.
You can catch that speech on the YAF YouTube channel.
It's the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is the name of the speech.
Answer, of course, about three to six months.
So I'm driving up there, and I'm scrolling through my Twitter, and I see a big warning pop up.
And the warning says...
It takes time to count all the votes.
Don't expect results on election night.
I thought, here we go again.
Here we go again.
They're going to try to steal it.
It's really, really frustrating because we're just trying to send good people to Washington, D.C. When you want good people for your business, when you want to take care of all the HR concerns that come along with personnel, you've got to check out.
Right now, go to Bambi.com slash Michael.
When running a business, you get hit with all kinds of interesting scenarios.
Let's say an employee doesn't show up to work on time, or you get a wrongful termination suit.
One complaint can destroy your entire company.
The problem is HR managers are expensive.
They can easily cost We're good to go.
With Bambi's HR autopilot, you can automate the most important HR practices, such as setting policies, training, and feedback.
In fact, Bambi clients are four times less likely to have a complaint filed against them.
Really good news.
Go to Bambi.com slash Michael right now.
Type Michael Knowles when you sign up.
That will really help the show.
That is B-A-M-B-E-E dot com slash Michael.
Type in Michael Knowles.
Here we go again.
Here we go again.
It takes time to count all the votes.
It's expected to take multiple days to count the votes, so the projected winners of some elections might not be announced yet.
This means you could encounter unconfirmed claims that a candidate has won their race.
Find out more is the button underneath that post, and then learn how voting by mail is safe and secure.
This is what Twitter is telling me already.
Because Twitter knows that the conservatives are poised to win.
Nothing that Twitter said in that post is true.
That whole post is fake news.
It doesn't take time to count all the votes.
Brazil was able to count all the votes in one night.
On election night, they got the results.
They know who won the presidential election.
For my lifetime...
Pretty much every election was settled on election night.
There were some exceptions when it was really, really close.
But right now, according to the polls, a lot of these elections are not going to be really, really close.
So why is it going to take forever and ever to count?
How come it's only since 2020?
How come it's only since the Democrats became fanatically obsessed with keeping Donald Trump out of political office by any means necessary that America can't conduct elections?
Oh, it just takes days and weeks.
Oh, it always takes days and weeks to count all the votes.
How come it never took days and weeks for my whole life until 2020?
And then they changed all the voting rules, and now it takes a little while, because Democrats need to, you know...
Well, first, the Democrats need to count the votes.
And then they need to figure out how many more votes they need.
And then it's going to take days and weeks and a few broken water pipes to figure out how they can get those votes in.
And then magically, all of a sudden, the numbers change and the Democrats win.
It's so transparent.
And yet, if you raise any questions about that, you're the crazy conspiracy theorist.
Because, as I mentioned in my speech last night, all conspiracy theorist means is just shut up.
It's the same as racist.
When people call you a racist, they're not saying that you have any particular views on race that are disreputable.
They're just saying shut up.
Shut up.
I don't like your opinion.
Shut up.
You're criticizing Barack Obama?
Shut up.
You're a racist.
You're criticizing George Soros?
Shut up.
You're a specific kind of racist.
You're an anti-Semite.
Hold on, you think that just because we changed all the election rules to advantage the Democrats, in some cases illegally, and then we actually bragged about how we rigged the election in a Time magazine article, you think that we rigged the election?
Oh, you're a conspiracy theorist.
Oh, you think that we ought to be able, in America, allegedly the greatest democracy in the history of the world, you think we ought to be able to conduct our elections and know who won the elections on election night?
Oh, you're a crazy conspiracy theorist.
No, the Democrats are trying to steal the election.
That's what it is.
Let's call it like it is, folks.
It's not even election day yet.
We're a week out, and they're already pulling this stuff.
Why?
Because they know that they are losing.
But they've got bad news on this.
There's bad news specifically coming out of Pennsylvania because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just dealt a real big blow to the people who want this election count to go on for weeks so that they can stuff it with Democrat ballots.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just ruled that the state must not accept undated mail-in ballots.
So this was one of the big issues in 2020.
A big point of contention is you had the Democrats make a big deal out of COVID so that they could shut down the economy and get rid of Donald Trump and change all the voting rules to make it easier to get rid of Donald Trump.
And one of the big issues was, okay, we're going to have widespread mail-in ballots.
In the case of Pennsylvania, it was unconstitutional, but we're going to do it anyway.
And then people are going to mail in their ballots or they can drop them off at these completely unsecure drop boxes in the middle of nowhere in some cases.
And then we're going to count all the ballots and it's going to take days and weeks.
But the problem was in some cases the ballots didn't have a postmark.
So you didn't know if the ballots were actually cast by election day.
Even if you believe that we should have widespread mail-in ballots, which is absurd, and Barack Obama was talking about how this was an opportunity for fraud ten years ago.
Now he's pretty quiet about that.
But even if you believe in the widespread mail-in ballots, surely you don't think that you should be allowed to cast a ballot after the election.
Right?
Unless you're the most corrupt Democrat in the world, and you legitimately believe that Democrats should be allowed to vote until a Democrat is elected.
We have to say, okay...
Election Day, that's the end.
What happens when you get mail-in ballots that don't have a date on it?
Well, the Libs say they have to be counted because those ballots are very likely fraudulent and are just intended to stuff the box for the Democrats.
But if you're a reasonable person, you say, okay, those can't be counted.
So now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said no.
The state cannot count those ballots.
Are they going to do it anyway as the Secretary of State and the corrupt liberals who actually are running the elections?
Are they going to count them anyway?
Maybe.
I don't know.
I mean, crazier things have happened in elections.
But at the very least, we now have a voice from the highest court in the land in Pennsylvania saying, no, you cannot do this.
But it's a line from FDR that FDR, and it's outlined in Robert Caro's excellent biography, sort of gigantic biography of LBJ. LBJ was running a race.
He thought he was doing very well.
At the last minute, he loses the race.
And FDR said, you did everything right, but you forgot to sit on the ballot box.
It's an amazing moment because it's one Democrat president who made himself essentially a monarch, a guy who was king, who upended the precedent of only serving two terms going back to Washington, ended up serving four.
And speaking to a future Democrat president, LBJ, and saying, you didn't cheat well enough.
You didn't realize that what decides elections is not so much who votes as who counts the votes.
So that's what they're trying to do.
Fortunately, you're seeing a little bit of a holdup for that right now.
Meanwhile, you look at the polls, you look again at who is voting.
It's breaking overwhelmingly for the Republicans.
Here's a new poll out by Trafalgar, backs up a previous poll, which shows that in New York, in liberal New York, the Republican candidate, Lee Zeldin, is leading Kathy Hochul.
Again, it's not a gigantic lead, but we're talking about New York here, folks.
The Republican has a 48.4% over 47.6% lead, 4% of voters still undecided.
So it's anybody's race, but the undecideds are breaking Republican.
Before you tell me that this Trafalgar poll, oh, it's right-wing propaganda, Trafalgar is a conservative outlet, the Trafalgar poll oversampled the Democrats in a line with the New York voter base.
But they were very, very generous to the Democrats here.
Democrats made up more than half the sample and outnumber Republicans, self-identified Republicans, nearly two to one.
Independents make up the other 18.9% of this poll.
According to Pew Research, which is not a right-wing outlet, those numbers roughly track with the demographics of the state.
And what is it indicating?
It's indicating that it's not just the undecideds that are The independents, rather, that are breaking for Zeldin and the Republicans breaking for Zeldin.
It's even undecided Democrats.
Undecided Democrats are breaking for Lee Zeldin.
So what do the Democrats have to say about this?
If we know that they want to pull some shenanigans, if we know that they want to drag out the voter count like Twitter is already telling us, then...
How are they going to do it?
Well, the way they're going to do it was exemplified by Joy Reid on MSNBC. They're going to doubt the polls.
They're going to say, all these polls that you're seeing talking about this red wave looking more and more like a red tsunami, they're fake polls because the Republican polling firms are running a lot of last-minute polls to skew the polling averages, and so it's a grand conspiracy.
Here in the United States, we're a little over a week away from our own midterm elections.
And if you believe the recent headlines, you would think that MAGA fascism is ascendant.
If you get past those headlines and dig a little deeper, you uncover an insidious and seemingly intentional campaign by Republican-backed polling firms to flood the zone and tip the balance of polling averages in favor of their candidates to create a narrative that Republicans are surging and that a red wave is imminent and inevitable.
Our friend and Democratic pollster Simon Rosenberg has been sounding the alarm for weeks about this wave of polling, noting that if the roughly 40 of the roughly 40 polls taken in key battleground states, more than half, half, are from Republican firms or groups.
Hold on.
You're telling me that half the polls in a country where half the people are conservative, that half the polls are conservative?
Wait, what?
Oh my goodness.
I thought that all the polls were supposed to be super liberal.
That's actually Joy Reid's argument.
Joy Reid is saying, this is unfair.
The Republicans are cheating and they're pulling shenanigans because in a country where they split basically 50-50 between the libs and the conservatives.
Actually, if you look at political self-identity, conservatives actually outnumber self-identified liberals and progressives by a lot, because a lot of people who break for liberals and progressives call themselves moderates or centrists or independents.
That's a digression.
She's saying that in a country that's split roughly 50-50, it is wrong for roughly half the polls to come from right-leaning outlets.
That's amazing.
It's such a confession that the liberal ruling class believes that they are the only legitimate voice.
It's the same thing Joe Biden said.
Half the country is illegitimate.
The MAGA Republicans are illegitimate.
Their very presence in the country poses an existential threat to our sacred democracy.
Our sacred democracy threatened by the very existence of half the people.
And you think about what kind of stupid commentary you're getting from Joy Reid right now.
The mega-fascism!
Oh my goodness gracious.
You hear this kind of stupid hyperbolic commentary from some people on the right too.
Where everything they don't like, it's communism!
Everything I don't like is communism!
But that's not true.
That's why I just call them the libs.
They're libs.
Some are more radical than others, but they're just kind of the libs.
The MAGA fascism!
It's just such stupid commentary.
And then they get caught up in these own really dumb arguments, because I guess they don't hear themselves.
Joy Reid's argument is that we shouldn't have polls that reflect the voter makeup of the country.
Why?
Because they don't believe that, ultimately, they don't believe that the voters really should have a say over the direction of the country because, as Joy Reid says, half the country is fascist and they have no role in our sacred democracy.
Is it any wonder that their campaigns are not connecting with voters?
Is it any wonder that the polls, which are, by the way, even the right-wing polls are oversampling the Democrats, is it any wonder that the polls are reflecting a potential red wave?
The real answer here, the real answer as to why the Democrats are doing so bad a week before the midterms is that their candidates are bad.
And their platform is bad.
And it's not resonating with voters.
Kathy Hochul, who's now losing to the Republican in New York, isn't that crazy?
Kathy Hochul got in hot water because during her debate with Lee Zeldin, she...
Couldn't answer any of his questions on crime.
Why is crime going up in New York?
Why are you not getting harsher on crime?
And Kathy Hochul said, who cares about crime?
She said, Lee, why do you keep going back to crime?
Why are you so concerned with locking up criminals?
Completely tone deaf.
Can you imagine if you were a New York voter hearing that?
Forget about Republican or Democrat.
You're just a regular New York voter who's concerned about your kids not getting shot on the way to school, who's concerned about your business not getting looted.
And you hear the governor of New York begging you to elect her say, come on, who cares about crime?
What's the big deal?
Let's talk about transgenderism.
Come on, let's talk about things that matter, like chopping off your kid's genitals.
It's so tone deaf.
And Kathy Hochul's doubling down on this.
Kathy Hochul goes on Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC. I didn't realize he still had a show.
Okay, whatever.
She goes on Al Sharpton's show, and she says that the concerns about crime are a Republican conspiracy.
These are master manipulators.
They have this conspiracy going all across America to try and convince people that in democratic states they're not as safe.
Well, guess what?
They're also not only election deniers, they're data deniers.
The data shows that shootings and murders are down in our state by 15%, even in New York City, down 20% on Long Island, where Lee Zeldin comes from.
And it's the Republican states.
Where they have almost no restrictions on guns, because of the abundance of guns, people are killing each other with more frequency.
The safer places are the democratic states.
Okay, lots of deceit in Kathy Hochul's answer here.
So first she says, these concerns about crime, it's a total conspiracy because the data don't back it up.
She says actually, shootings and murders, they're down in New York.
Now, that could be true, but it's kind of like when Joe Biden says inflation is down this month.
Hold on, inflation is still up.
So what do you mean, what does he mean when he says inflation is down this month?
Oh, you mean it's down from the all-time record high last month?
Okay, well if gas is down, I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but they're reflective of the broader trend.
If gas is down five cents this month over last month, but it's up a dollar over when you took office, then you can't tell me inflation is down.
Inflation is still up.
And so if you're telling me shootings and murders are down from the past couple of years when BLM and Antifa were just running roughshod, committing acts of terrorism all over the country, I might believe that.
But if you're telling me that crime is not a problem right now in New York, that's just insane.
By the way, it's not as though shootings and murders are the only crime.
You just look at robberies, for instance.
Robberies are up 33% in New York this year, year over year, according to police statistics.
And she makes this point.
She says that actually crime is a red state problem.
You're only seeing the murders and the shootings really spiking in the red states, which technically is sort of true, but it's missing the point.
Because it's not that they're up in the red states.
They're up in the bright blue cities in the red states.
Rafael Mangual at the Manhattan Institute has a good analysis of this.
In 2019, where we have the data from the FBI, the report showed the state of Louisiana as seeing 544 murders.
That gives it a murder rate of 11.7 per 100,000.
Okay, so what does that say?
Does that say we've got a big murder problem in the red states?
No, because New Orleans, which is extremely lib, saw 121 of those murders.
Baton Rouge, super lib, had 70 of those murders.
Shreveport, super lib, had 35 of those murders.
All had Democrat mayors.
So when you take that into effect, just those three cities had a murder rate of 28.1 per If you take those cities out, then the Louisiana murder rate drops by 29%.
So it is a Democrat issue, and of course it is.
You don't need to be an egghead going through all the accounting books and all the statistics to know that the Democrats came out, and where the Democrats had political power, they defunded the police.
They said they were going to defund the police.
They said they wanted to defund the police.
Then they did defund the police, and guess what happened?
Crime went up.
Big surprise.
Big surprise.
It's amazing that people very often get exactly what they ask for.
And this became a huge problem, and the Democrats knew that defund the police and spite crime and let the criminals out of prison and bail out the rioters like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden staff members did during the BLM riots, that that is not going to play in Peoria.
That's not popular with anybody.
Anybody.
Because people, no matter their race, no matter their geography, no matter their political ideology, they don't want crime in their neighborhoods.
They don't want their families being threatened.
They don't want their property being threatened.
So the Democrats had to run away from this.
You see this now in one of their really terrible candidates, Stacey Abrams.
Stacey Abrams has been hammered on this issue of defund the police, just like all the Democrats have.
And she's just denying it.
She says, I've never wanted to defund the police.
I've always been completely opposed to defunding the police.
The record doesn't reflect that, though.
I did not say and nor do I believe in defunding the police.
He is lying again.
And I've never said that I believe in defunding the police.
So yes to some defunding.
We have to reallocate resources.
So yes.
There it is.
So yes to defunding the police.
Yeah, we need to reallocate resources.
So yes, defund the police.
I've never said I would defund the police.
Lady, we have videotape, okay?
And I know the Democrats try to memory hole all of this stuff, but we still can get access to it, all right?
We can work a little wizardry on the internet.
We can pull it up.
The people are not going to be fooled forever.
So it's no wonder.
Why are the Democrats looking like they're losing right now?
It's the polls!
It's the polls!
It's the misinformation!
It's the Russians!
It's the Macedonian click farms!
No, it's you.
It's you guys.
It's you and your terrible policies.
That the people are well aware of, that you've been promoting for years, that have failed, and that people don't like.
And they don't like the policies, and they don't like you, and they want to boot you out of office.
And the only way you're going to hold on through the midterms is if you cheat, which you're also clearly trying to do, which you are broadcasting on all the social media platforms, Twitter specifically, but which you've been broadcasting with your extremely tight relationship between big tech and federal government, federal government working on behalf of Democrats, as they have for many, many years now.
You're trying to do it.
I hope it doesn't succeed, but don't pretend to me that you're the voice of the people.
The people don't like you.
Speaking of clueless women, such as Stacey Abrams, The View expressed this total disconnect with ordinary voters, with what's actually happening in the country.
I know, shocking, right?
When The fake Republican on The View mentioned the congressional baseball shooting to make a point defending Democrats, of course, because that's all she ever does.
And the Democrats on The View appeared not to even know what she was talking about.
What is on the rise is political violence.
And I want to say unequivocally, political violence, left, right, center, is wrong.
To those in my party who are not calling this out directly, shame on you.
This is an 82-year-old man.
He's being charged with elderly abuse for what he did.
And really quickly, I was working for the Freedom Caucus when the 2017 congressional baseball shooting took place.
What is that?
My bosses were actually targeted at the time.
Ted Cruz was part of it.
No, it's actually just House members, but Steve Scalise was nearly killed in that shooting.
The difference is every Democrat roundly condemned it, and they rooted for his recovery.
Okay, so that's not true.
There were very prominent Democrats who didn't roundly condemn it and root for his recovery.
One of them is the Wisconsin Democrat Senate candidate right now, Mandela Barnes, who made fun of Steve Scalise for getting shot and tweeted out a picture of Steve Scalise on a little scooter, you know, as he was recovering.
And it said, taking one for the team.
I question how people vote against self-interest, but this is next level.
He literally almost died on this hill.
You know, ha ha ha ha.
Steve Scalise almost got shot.
He should abandon the Second Amendment.
So, Alyssa Farah's point is an extremely dumb one, but not as dumb as her colleagues, who, when she says, you know, I was working in the Freedom Caucus during the congressional baseball shooting, and Joy Behar goes, what's that?
And it's unclear from the clip.
Sonny Hostin thinks that Joy Behar was asking, what is the Freedom Caucus?
But it's unclear from the clip.
It might be that Joy Behar was asking, what was the congressional baseball shooting?
I'm not surprised.
I think if you pulled 100 Democrats right now on the street, you said, hey, what do you think of the congressional baseball shooting?
Probably 97 of them would not know what it is because it was downplayed by the media because it involved a leftist trying to murder conservatives.
But even if she asks, what's the Freedom Caucus?
What do you mean, what's the Freedom Caucus?
That's the main Republican outlet in the House of Representatives.
What do you mean you don't know what that is?
And then the co-host, who's supposed to know anything about American politics, says, that's the thing Ted Cruz was in.
And the poor fake Republican has to correct her and say, no, actually, it's just in the House, and Ted Cruz is in the Senate.
So there's, okay, hosts of a major public affairs show.
There's...
There are two houses in the Congress.
There's the House of Representatives and the Senate.
And then there's three branches of government.
There's a legislature.
And they just don't know anything.
They don't know anything.
And they can get away with not knowing anything because the libs have all of the power, so it doesn't really matter.
And because they've destroyed American education, the people don't really call them on it.
But they can't get away with it forever.
People recognize eventually when things are going wrong, when something is wrong in their government, when the people running the show have no idea what the hell they're doing.
And that's happening right now.
Even people who don't study political philosophy and you don't have very fancy degrees and haven't worked on Capitol Hill, they can look around and say, crime is going up.
The economy is in the gutter.
They're trying to chop off my kids' genitals.
The border is completely unsecure.
Millions of foreigners are flooding in.
We're on the brink of World War III.
Whoever is running the show, I don't want to hear any of your stupid excuses about, It's Putin's fault.
It's the Republican.
It's the misinformation.
Whatever it is, the buck stops with you.
You guys have done a terrible job, and we're going to vote you out.
While radical gender ideologues decry the harms of The girls' room and the boys' room and comedy specials and dead-named celebrities and all the rest of it.
Kids are the ones who are actually suffering.
Just recently, the FDA issued a warning that prescribed puberty blockers, the ones that transgender activists claim are harmless and reversible, can actually cause vision loss and brain swelling.
The experimentation on children has to end.
To fight back, we must expose and defend the truth and As my pal Matt Walsh has done in his breakout documentary, What is a Woman?
With over 5,000 audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, What is a Woman is pushing back against the left's dangerous narratives.
Help us to keep the momentum going by watching and sharing the movie.
Go to dailywire.com slash Knowles today to become a member and watch it.
Speaking of the decline in American education...
Harvard is on the ropes.
Harvard and UNC, they've been dragged before the Supreme Court because a group has sued them for their racial discrimination in admission practices.
And this is going all the way up to the highest court in the land.
And they're saying, look, Harvard, you discriminate against Asians.
You discriminate against white people.
You give an unfair advantage to black students.
You give an unfair advantage to Hispanic students.
And this is wrong.
And it certainly should be.
It seems like it should be unconstitutional.
Seems like it is unconstitutional, but we've tolerated this for many decades in the country, and it's just wrong.
It's wrong that people are discriminated against on their race.
It's wrong that a white kid or an Asian kid or some Vietnamese immigrant who works really hard and doesn't come from a lot of money and doesn't come from a lot of privilege and just works really, really hard is disadvantaged because his facial features look a certain way and his skin is a certain color.
That's wrong to do, and we all know it, and you've got to stop it.
And the Supreme Court seems poised to accept that argument because it's obviously true.
So Harvard is fighting back.
They're fighting back.
They have no argument.
I played it yesterday where the lawyer for UNC was asked by Clarence Thomas a simple question.
What is the educational benefit of diversity?
And he couldn't answer that question.
He said, well, the diversity is good because everyone says it's good.
There's a consensus that it's really good.
And Clarence Thomas says, okay, but you're not...
You're telling me what's popular, but you're telling me what's fashionable in certain liberal circles.
You're not answering the question, what is the educational benefit?
The guy couldn't give an educational benefit.
And so now Harvard's trying to run away from this.
Harvard is simultaneously trying to argue that they discriminate on the basis of race and they need to protect their right to discriminate on the basis of race.
But they also don't discriminate on the basis of race.
So Harvard tweets out a fact check.
It's so amazing.
It's so pathetic that Harvard, which once was a prestigious academic institution, is now resorting to the same stupid political tactics of online leftist commentators.
You know, fact check.
Whenever they do the fact check, all that means is it's a leftist opinion column that is presented with the facade of scientific certainty and objective truth.
But it's not.
It's just...
An opinion over a contentious political issue.
So it's like, fact check!
Harvard has engaged in race-neutral strategies to achieve the educational benefits of diversity for decades.
Hashtag SCOTUS, hashtag Defend Diversity.
So I just want to take that on for a second.
Because that is a meaningless sentence.
What does that mean?
By diversity, Harvard means deciding which races should be more represented and which races should be less represented in the class.
That's what they mean.
They're talking about race when they talk about diversity.
That's what the whole case is about.
And Harvard's supposed right to determine which races they want more of and which races they want less of.
But then they're saying they have race-neutral strategies to determine which races they want more of and which races they want less of.
It's not possible.
That is a semantically impossible sentence.
It is simultaneously arguing for things that are in direct conflict with one another.
But then it gets even funnier, because I clicked on this stupid fact check leftist opinion column from Harvard, and you go in there, and it says, you know, blah, blah, blah, we're totally constitutional, we're following Supreme Court precedent.
They say Harvard's consideration of race-neutral alternatives follows the law.
race neutral.
For several decades, Harvard has engaged in race neutral strategies to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, which they never list, by the way.
They never can explain what the educational benefits are because there aren't any, including several suggested by the expert in the group bringing the case.
Harvard eliminated and then reinstated its early action program when it found that the elimination of early action was hindering efforts to achieve racial diversity.
But that's not race neutral.
That's obviously taking race into consideration.
And then here's the key.
If Harvard stopped taking race into consideration as one factor in its admissions process and adopted the race neutral alternatives that the...
Organization bringing the lawsuit suggests.
The result would be a class that fails to achieve the diversity and excellence that Harvard seeks.
So there you have it.
It's misrepresented in the tweet.
Harvard is saying, of course we have race-neutral policies.
But then when you click the link, they're saying, we tried race-neutral policies and we don't like them because we want racist policies.
If the word racist means anything, it means this.
It means what Harvard is doing.
We're going to advantage certain races and we're going to disadvantage other races on the basis of their race.
They say, we don't want that because then we won't get the racial diversity and excellence that we seek.
But which is it?
Which do you want?
Those are separate categories.
Diversity and excellence.
They're separate.
Harvard is trying to argue that they're the same.
If they're the same, you would use the same word.
If they were the same, you wouldn't need to list two different categories.
They're obviously distinct categories.
If diversity were synonymous with excellence, then Harvard wouldn't need to worry about diversity because if they just prioritized excellence, you would get the exact racial makeup that Harvard wants for whatever reason.
That's not what's happening.
That's why they have to disadvantage the Asian students and the white students.
That's why they have to effectively Give them a handicap on their SAT scores and give other races a boost on their SAT scores to achieve the racial social engineering that Harvard wants.
But they can't make the argument because they know that it's racist.
So they have to simultaneously...
It's just the same thing that the libs do on virtually every issue.
They say, this thing that you object to is not happening and it's really good that it is.
That's what it's about.
Not very convincing.
I don't think it's going to convince the Supreme Court.
Speaking of identity politics, there's a transgender activist, Jeffrey Marsh.
He's gone viral.
I think he thinks he's a woman, or he thinks that he's neither a man nor a woman, but he dresses sort of like a woman.
Jeffrey Marsh has gone viral with a TikTok addressed specifically to little boys and girls in which he makes the argument that there is no such thing as boys and girls.
Hi kids!
There's no such thing as a boy or a girl.
And I can prove it.
So gather around the family, the parents, everybody, answer my questions.
You either say boys or girls.
Who's usually taller?
Oh, boys?
Okay.
But you've met some short boys, right?
You've met some tall girls.
So usually boys are taller, but not always.
Okay.
Who likes the color pink?
Girls?
Okay, but you've met girls who don't like pink.
And you've met boys who do like pink.
So usually girls like pink, but not always.
Everything you can think of that makes a boy or makes a girl is usually, but not always.
And some of them are not even usually.
Where does that leave you?
Free.
You get to like what you like.
You get to be who you are.
Maybe you're even like me, and you're not a boy or a girl.
So, obviously a very confused man and a very creepy man, and he should not be allowed within 300 yards of children.
But his argument is not coherent either.
His argument is ultimately self-defeating.
It's a nice bookend of the show.
You open up with John Fetterman and Joe Biden, you end with this guy.
I'm not sure who the least coherent one is.
The reason his argument is self-undermining is not because he's wrong about the color pink.
He's right about that.
Some boys like pink, some girls don't like pink.
It's not because he's wrong about height.
It's true.
There are some short boys, and there are some tall girls.
That's all true.
The reason his argument is self-undermining is because he addresses it to boys and girls.
And he doesn't just say, hey, boys and girls, I'm going to show you that there's no such thing as boys and girls.
Because that could be sort of ironic or with a little wink and a tongue-in-cheek.
It's the fact that throughout the whole argument, the argument relies on the categories of boys and girls.
The very fact that he says there are some short boys and there are some tall girls presumes that there are boys and girls.
The very fact that he says some boys like pink and some girls don't like pink presumes that there are boys and girls.
The very fact that these people refer to trans women as a distinct category from women shows you that there is a distinction between the boys who think that they're women that call themselves trans women and the girls who think that they're men who call themselves trans men.
And boys and girls are different.
The very fact that there are these ontological categories.
The libs are right that there is such a thing as gender expression.
Of course there is.
But the thing they can't get away from is that ontological reality that there are boys and girls.
And even if a boy likes pink, and even if a boy is a little bit short, and even if a little boy likes to play with Barbies or has the sort of disordered sexual desires that that guy has, they remain boys and girls.
Because if they didn't, then his argument wouldn't mean anything.
The entire point he's trying to make relies on the very existence of boys and girls and then denying and transgressing that thing that we all know, that we all can see before our very eyes.
It's a very shallow argument that he's making.
But it's an argument that cannot be made.
Because if we even have meaningful language, then there's no way to even refer to the things that he's referring to without granting the very existence of boys and girls that he's trying to deny.
It cannot happen.
You can't run away from this reality.
And it's a problem.
You see it in its absolute extreme absurdity on the transgender argument.
But it's on...
Basically every big claim that the Democrats are making leading into the midterm elections.
They're making arguments that just are not resonating, and they're not resonating because they're incoherent.
Their argument on energy.
We have to shut down American energy because American energy is really bad because it's destroying the environment.
But that's destroying the economy and it's causing record inflation, so we need to convince Saudi Arabia to produce more energy.
And we've got to sanction Russia so he stops the war in Ukraine so that we get more energy and so that the global oil prices go down.
But oil's bad.
But oil's bad in America, but it's not bad overseas.
It doesn't make sense.
It's where you get John Fetterman on the stage.
He says, I support fracking.
Previously, you said you oppose fracking.
Yeah, I support fracking.
There's just no answer for the Democrats on any of these issues.
We have to shut the country down.
It's important.
COVID's going to kill us all.
We have to keep the schools closed.
I never said the schools should be closed.
I never said that COVID was that bad.
The Fauci-ouchie, it's totally safe and totally effective.
No, I never said that the Fauci-ouchie was totally safe and effective.
No, it just, it's...
They've run out of arguments.
And the people know it.
And unless they steal this thing, the people are going to tell them very clearly on Election Day.
You know, the rest of the show is continuing now.
You do not want to miss it.
This is Woke Wednesday.
My producer Ben Davies has lined up an extremely woke PSA. That's really all he's told me about it from Forbes.
