Lindsay Graham calls for America to bomb Iran, Biden says global warming is more dangerous than nuclear war, and California establishes “Ebony alerts” to prioritize missing black kids and adults over white kids.
Ep.1349
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEl
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Episodes 1-8 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Get your Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Get $30 off your order PLUS free expedited shipping! Promo code KNOWLES at checkout. https://bit.ly/43G8p0P
Tommy John - Get 20% OFF your first order: https://tommyjohn.com/KNOWLES
BULLETPROOF EVERYONE - Get 10% off plus a FREE bulletproof backpack with any clothing purchase. Use promo code KNOWLES at http://www.bulletproofeveryone.com
- - -
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
In the wake of the Hamas terror attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli response on Gaza, most people around the world are looking for a way to stop the escalation and restore peace before we all end up in a full-blown world war.
Most people.
But not Lindsey Graham, who suggests instead that we bomb Iran.
For every Israeli or American hostage executed by Hamas, we should take down an Iranian oil refinery.
The only way you're going to keep this war from escalating is to hold Iran accountable.
How much more death and destruction do we have to take from the Iranian regime?
I am confident this was planned and funded by the Iranians.
Hamas is a bunch of animals who deserve to be treated like animals.
So if I was Israel, I would go in on the ground.
There is no truce to be had here.
I would dismantle Hamas.
This is the best opportunity Israel has to destroy Hamas.
Take it to the Iranians.
If you harm one American in Syria by using your Iranian militia against us in Syria, if you escalate the war by urging Hezbollah to attack Israel in the north, if Hamas kills one American Israeli hostage, we're going to blow up your oil refineries and put you out of business.
It is now time to take the war to the Ayatollah's backyard.
No.
No, it's not.
That's a bad idea.
That is, in fact, the exact opposite of a good idea.
I like Lindsey Graham.
I know a lot of people don't like him.
I like him.
I get a kick out of him.
He's a nice guy.
No.
And in Lindsey Graham's defense, bomb Iran is, in fact, Lindsey Graham's answer to almost every question.
What would you like for lunch today, sir?
Bomb Iran.
Sparkling or still?
Bomb Iran.
Please enter your four-digit PIN.
Bomb Iran.
Enter.
That's one foreign policy preference, but it is not the right one.
The Hamas attack was hideous.
Israeli retaliation is justified.
And the American interest is clear.
Contain the war before events spiral out of our control.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Good Rancher's Get great meat at a secure price and 30 bucks off your order with my code NOLS.
K-N-W-L-E-S.
GoodRanchers.com.
Use code NOLS today.
We have Senator Rand Paul coming up on the show a little bit later.
We're going to get to Senator Paul even before the member block today, so stay tuned for that.
But before that, Well, we talk about Senator Paul's Senate colleague, Lindsey Graham, calling to bomb Iran.
There are a lot of voices calling to bomb Iran and escalate the war, even if they are arguing that such an action would de-escalate the war.
I just want to give you a little picture of the threat assessment capabilities of the US government right now.
Joe Biden and his spokesman, his sort of spokesman, John Kirby, ...are arguing that the biggest threat to the American people, the biggest danger that we face, is not Hamas, it's not Iran, it's not war of any kind, it's not even a nuclear bomb, it's the Sun Monster.
The only existential threat humanity faces, even more frightening than a nuclear war, is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next 20, 10 years.
Given all the nuclear players in these two areas where we are now engaged on, does the president stand by that comment?
Absolutely he does.
Climate change is an existential threat.
It can, you know, it actually threatens and is capable of wiping out all human life on Earth over time.
I mean, that's, I don't know how more existential you can get to that, but that doesn't mean that we walk away from our obligations, our national security interests, in very dangerous parts of the world.
But John, he said it was more frightening than a nuclear war.
Is that, it's more frightening than a nuclear war in this moment?
The president believes wholeheartedly that climate change is an existential threat to all of human life on the planet.
That's just science.
That's a fact, Martha.
But it doesn't mean that we turn our back on the other challenges facing this country and our allies and partners around the world.
That's just science, Martha.
That's just fact.
The sun monster is far more threatening than a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists or any of our other enemies.
That's just a fact.
It's just, read a blog.
How do you not know that, Martha?
Love Martha McCallum, just pushing back, saying, hold on, I just want to be sure, John Kirby.
John Kirby is the NSC spokesman.
He would be the White House press secretary.
If it were not politically incorrect to fire Karine Jean-Pierre, who is an absolutely awful White House press secretary, but who can claim a lot of identity politics victim points because she's a black lesbian, If not for the political incorrectness of firing her, that man would be the spokesman for the President of the United States.
And that man is defending fully the remarks of the President of the United States, who believes that the temperature, the sun monster, the climate is a greater threat to us than a nuclear weapon.
So this then brings up a question.
Even if you believe that greater U.S.
involvement in this Middle East war is warranted right now, I don't think that's a very popular position in the U.S., but if you are one of the people who believe we need to start sending troops in, we need more troops in, we need more ships in, we need to go bomb the mullahs in Iran, is this really the team that you would trust to lead that kind of a war?
You trust Joe Biden, who thinks that Mother Earth is a greater threat to us than the Mullahs, that he says we need to go bomb?
Or that at least Lindsey Graham says we need to go bomb?
This is the team you trust?
The guys who have bungled basically every foreign policy decision in my entire lifetime?
They're the ones you trust to lead this extremely precarious war?
We were already on the brink of World War III.
Because of the outbreak of the first major war in Europe since World War II in Ukraine.
Already on the brink.
Then war erupts in the Holy Land.
Already bringing in Lebanon now.
Probably going to bring in, well Iran I guess was already involved because they fund Hamas.
You think that's a good idea to have Joe Biden handling this very fragile situation?
The guy can't stand up straight.
The guy doesn't know what his name is.
The guy doesn't know what a threat means.
Doesn't seem like a very good idea.
Doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
Speaking of U.S.
foreign involvement, we mentioned yesterday that Democrat Congress Lady Rashida Tlaib has a number of flags outside of her office.
None of them are the American flag, because she obviously hates America, but she has the Palestinian flag, then she has the flag of Michigan, that's good, flag of the city of Detroit, okay, and then she has the gay flag, but she doesn't have an American flag anywhere to be seen.
And some people have taken issue with Rashida Tlaib having this Palestinian flag in particular.
I'm not so hot on the rainbow flag either, but the Palestinian flag has drawn a lot of ire, and Steny Hoyer, very powerful Democrat congressman, is defending Tlaib.
Does your colleague Rashida Tlaib still have the Palestinian flag outside of her office?
I don't know.
She's Palestinian.
That doesn't mean she's a terrorist.
It doesn't mean that she condones this, Rashida.
I fly a Danish flag at my house.
Does it mean what?
You fly a Danish flag at your house.
Okay, do you fly one at your government office?
No, you don't, obviously.
And furthermore, I want to give Steny Hoyer a little bit of credit here.
I'll even give Rashida Tlaib a little bit of grace.
It is true that flying the Palestine flag does not necessarily connote support for terrorism.
It very often does.
When BLM a couple days ago was posting the Palestine flag next to pictures of paragliders and saying, we stand with Palestine, I think they were pretty clearly supporting terrorism, the terrorists who paraglided in and slaughtered civilians.
But you're right, it doesn't necessarily connote support for terrorism.
The more fundamental issue here is not that Rashida Tlaib's flag is Palestinian.
The more fundamental issue is No American politician should be flying foreign flags in their government office.
That's very wrong.
I don't care what the flag is.
I don't care if it's a Palestine flag.
I don't care if it's an Israel flag for that matter.
I don't care if it's a Danish flag like Steny Hoyer is talking about.
I don't care if it's a Ukraine flag.
I don't care if it's an Italian flag.
It is very odd for US politicians to be flying foreign flags, the flags of foreign governments and nations, and would-be nations, in their non-diplomatic American government offices.
When did we start tolerating that?
Steny Hoyer says, well, she's Palestinian.
Oh, she's Palestinian?
I guess she's not American then, so why is she an American representative?
Well, no, she's American.
Oh, she's American?
Then lose the foreign flag, lady.
But you gotta pick one.
What a joke of a country we have become.
That we now can't even insist on our own national flag.
In the case of Rashida Tlaib, she's not even flying the Palestine flag next to the American flag.
The only flag that's missing is the American flag.
What a complete joke.
What a farce.
It's a national scandal, and that woman should not remain in Congress, so long as her allegiance is to a foreign government, a foreign would-be nation, over our own, expressed very clearly in the symbolism outside of her office.
Now, I want to make myself feel better, okay?
What do I do when I want to make myself feel better?
I sit down to a nice, juicy steak from Good Ranchers.
Right now, go to goodranchers.com, use code NOLS.
Every Halloween, you hear about the dangers in the candy that your kids will get.
But this year, the real tricks are in the meat aisle!
Good Ranchers wants to take the trick out of your meat.
Trick or meat, that's what you're going to say at the doors this year.
They're throwing in a treat for our listeners.
30 bucks off your order with promo code NOELS, K-N-W-L-A-S, at GoodRanchers.com.
Lab-grown meat is growing more and more popular, and it's gross.
Foreign meat can be labeled as a product of the United States and that mRNA creepy laboratory developed test nonsense is on the rise for agriculture.
What is in your meat is even more in question than ever before amid these taunting truths.
The real hero arises.
Good Ranchers, the number one place to get America's best pork, beef, chicken, and seafood delivered with Good Ranchers.
Their products are transparently sourced, all American, and delicious.
I absolutely love Good Ranchers.
I eat it multiple times a week when I can.
That's the only part about travel season I don't like, is I don't get to eat my Good Ranchers nearly as much as I want to, but I still eat it.
A ton.
It's the greatest.
It's the best in the business.
The prices cannot possibly be beat.
This stuff sells itself, and you can lock in your price, and it's just, it's unbelievable.
Take the mystery out of the meat aisle.
Visit GoodRanchers.com.
Use code Knolls, K-N-O-W-L-L-S, to get 30 bucks off with free express shipping on your box of America's best meat and seafood today.
Code Knolls for 30 bucks off your box of Good Ranchers.
GoodRanchers.com.
American meat delivered.
Speaking of priorities, turning to domestic affairs, California has just established a new program.
The program is called Ebony Alerts, and the purpose of Ebony Alerts is to warn people about black children.
Actually more than black children who have gone missing.
Now you might say, well that's kind of a weird program.
Why would they have ebony alerts when we already have amber alerts?
Amber alerts are designed to alert people to any child who has gone missing.
Any child of any race, you get an alert on your phone.
We've all gotten them.
Then you look out and try to match the car, match the description, and a lot of children are found this way.
California, though, has established ebony alerts to prioritize searches for missing black children.
So if a white child and a black child go missing in California, they're going to say, forget about the white child, the black child, that's the one you got to find first.
The black child is much, much more important than the white child.
But it's even crazier than that, because the ebony alerts don't only warn you of searches for missing children.
It's also for young adults.
Not even all that young adults.
So for an Amber Alert, the child has to be under 17.
Usually.
There are a few different variations of it, but it's basically for children who are under 17.
For the Ebony Alert, it's to alert people to missing black persons aged 12 to 25.
So, in California now, if a white 5-year-old goes missing, and a black 25-year-old Doesn't show up, his parents don't know where he is.
The black 25-year-old, according to the premise of the Ebony Alert, will be prioritized over the white 5-year-old.
Does that make a lot of sense to you?
If a white child and a black adult go missing, the black adult gets law enforcement priority.
Don't forget, I know it's a little confusing, Amber Alerts aren't only for white people.
Amber Alerts are for everybody, but that wasn't good enough for the libs.
They say, no, no, we need to make sure that we deprioritize white children who go missing.
We need to make sure that we give special priority to black children.
Really, really ugly stuff, but there's nothing surprising about it.
We live at a time when white people, and to a lesser degree Asian people, are discriminated against legally.
In practice, they are discriminated against.
There is de facto racial discrimination against whites, but there is also de jure discrimination against whites through affirmative action, which was just recently weakened by the Supreme Court, but then all the institutions that practice affirmative action just came out and said, oh well, we'll keep doing it, we'll just hide it.
We'll hide the racial discrimination in the personal statement or somewhere else.
So that exists.
And what's so ironic about it is that at the same time, we are told that there is de facto and even de jure discrimination against black people.
That's the premise of Black Lives Matter.
That's the premise of all of this leftist activism.
That innocent black people are being hunted down.
The LA Times published a couple days ago, black people are fleeing America.
That's obviously not true.
Three million black people have immigrated into the United States over roughly the last 20 years.
It's completely the opposite of the truth.
But that's what we come to expect.
When you hear a story from The establishment news media or from entertainment or from academia, you can be pretty confident that not only is what they are telling you not true, but the opposite is true.
Just go check out the ebony alert laws.
California going to hell in a handbasket.
That's been happening for a long time.
Even the former governor of California is admitting this now.
The governator, Arnold, is saying that the new Democrat campaign line is that they want to F up every city in America.
Here he is on Rob Lowe's podcast.
Okay, let me ask you this, and I ask people this all the time.
David Dreyer, a good friend of ours.
Of ours, yeah.
Yes, and a good man.
Surfer for many many many years he used to have the greatest What makes me a Republican and he had I think four or five things I think was in no particular strong military low taxes Less government more personal freedoms There might have been one A couple, but it makes sense to know.
Strong law enforcement.
Strong law enforcement.
And then I'd like to know what the, I always ask Democrats what it means to be a Democrat in that way.
And I think whatever anybody would say.
Ruin your cities.
What would they say?
Ruin your cities.
What's that?
Ruin your cities.
Ruin your cities.
That's what the Democrats would say.
We are about ruining the cities.
We want to f*** up every city in America.
That's what, it seems to be the theme right now.
Why is that?
I have no idea.
I have no idea, but that is, and that's it, and he's totally right.
That is the implicit campaign slogan of every Democrat.
Hey, elect us, and we're going to completely F up your city, and everything is going to go to hell, and crime is going to go skyrocketing, and your kids are going to be indoctrinated and abused, and you're not going to trust the security of your property or anything else.
We're going to F up your cities.
That's true.
And this is a fine attack.
Republicans can use this, but it's not going to be the best attack, I think, on Democrats.
And the reason for that is Republicans don't win in cities.
We had one major city in the United States, Jacksonville, and we lost that, right?
They have a Democrat mayor now.
Republicans don't win in cities.
We don't even really live in cities.
I have lived in cities.
I've lived in New York.
I've lived in LA.
I live in Nashville, which is a smaller city, but it's growing.
I do.
There are some, I'm not saying there are none, but that's not where we win.
And a lot of Republicans who live in suburban and rural areas actually kind of get a kick out of it, I think.
At some level, when the cities go up to hell in a handbasket because it confirms their beliefs about Democrat policies and about the nature of the cities.
So I don't think that's going to be the best attack.
It's a fine line, it's a fine observation, but I think the better attack is going to be on something like parental rights.
I think that is probably the best line of attack that Republicans have right now.
It's what got Glenn Youngkin elected in Virginia, it's what made Ron DeSantis, it's in part what made Ron DeSantis very popular in Florida.
It works anywhere.
It works in blue counties, it works in red counties, it works in the country, and it works in the cities.
Yeah, they want to F up your cities, those Democrats.
They also want to F up your kids.
We're seeing that right now.
We're even seeing them admit it.
You remember when Drag Queen Story Hour came around?
Am I allowed to talk about this on social media?
Well, we'll see.
We'll see if the bars of doom show up.
When Drag Queen Story Hour came around, We were told that it was just about reading stories to kids in funny costumes.
You even had pretend conservatives, who are now mostly liberals.
I'm thinking of a guy like David French, who came out and he said, Drag Queen Story Hour, it's a blessing of liberty.
It's, oh boy, James Madison just loved Drag Queen Story Hour.
And people defended this.
It's just a silly, fun little thing.
Well, now some of the Drag Queen Story Hour types are explaining what this is really about.
This is from a liberal news source.
This is from In The Know by Yahoo, promoting the Drag Queen Story Hour events.
Here's what one of the drag queens has to say.
Does anyone know what a drag queen is?
No?
Do you know what a drag queen is?
But they warm up, they get to know who I am.
A drag queen is a character you create to express your feminine side or any other side of yourself that you'd like to explore.
- I would like to be a superhero.
- Yeah, you could be a drag queen superhero.
- Yeah.
- Yeah.
- Yeah, that's what it's, hold on.
You're not reading Humpty Dumpty over there.
This isn't Make Way for Ducklings.
This is sexual indoctrination of children, of very little children, on camera, being promoted by the liberal media as a good thing, being promoted by the drag queen as a good thing.
This is always what it was about.
Obviously, obviously the point of bringing some weirdo sexual pervert guy into a classroom or into a library with little kids In costume was always about sexual indoctrination.
Even liberal parents, somewhat normal liberal parents, even people in cities, even everybody knows that this is wrong.
Everybody knows that this is wrong.
That's a much better line of attack than a lot of what Republicans are working with.
You got to protect yourself.
When you want to protect yourself from physical dangers, you got to check out Bulletproof Everyone.
Right now, go to BulletproofEveryone.com.
Use code Knolls.
Bulletproof Everyone is a premier American body armor manufacturer and supplier designed and built for everyday wear.
Their unique armor systems offer 25% more coverage than standard armor while maintaining flexibility and all-day wearability.
Bulletproof Everyone's ultra-light armor system is so light and thin, you might just forget that you're wearing it.
Your safety and discretion is their top concern.
Unless someone puts their hands on you, no one will have any clue that you are protected.
With Bulletproof Everyone, you are not a walking billboard.
There are no visible logos, no flashy designs.
Their comfortable, tailor-made clothing system goes above and beyond, adding additional security by keeping you incognito and under the radar.
Work or play, Bulletproof Everyone has got the perfect armor system to fit your everyday lifestyle and everyday budget.
People are worried about rising tensions and rising violence.
This is a great way to protect yourself.
Right now our listeners can get 10% off plus a free bulletproof backpack with the purchase of any bulletproof clothing.
Use code Knolls at checkout bulletproof everyone.com bulletproof everyone.com promo code Knolls.
It's that time of the week again.
This week's episode of Convicting a Murderer introduces an unlikely truth seeker.
A cadaver dog named Loof might just uncover the hidden secrets found on Avery's property.
Last I checked, dogs don't carry hidden agendas or ulterior motives, like perhaps a documentary filmmaker.
But as you might expect, this loyal and honest good little boy was not featured in the other docuseries because he discovers powerful and incriminating evidence against Steve and Avery.
Take a look.
Coming up on Convicting a Murderer.
Brendan Dassey had confessed to burning Theresa Hallback's clothing, but you don't see anything about her clothing or the jean rivets in Making a Murderer.
He told me to go throw it on the fire.
Throw what on the fire?
The clothes.
And it's not the only detail that they left out.
Other items were found in the burn area.
One of them was Teresa's tooth.
Her ashes, her bone fragments, were found in his backyard.
And what do you do once she's on the fire?
We threw some tires on top of her and some branches.
Also left out are the tools that were found around the pit.
There was a shovel.
There was a rake.
Do you, like, try to take the shovel and try to break the bones apart?
You know why you don't know about that one?
Because they didn't want you to know that!
Yeah, because they were showing us don't you see?
Life in prison he's gonna get, and he's only 16!
And what am I supposed to do?
I had told you all along, keep your f***ing butts up.
Episode 8 of Convicting a Murderer is now available to stream exclusively on Daily Wire+.
New episodes of Convicting a Murderer are released every Thursday exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
If you're not a member, head on over to dailywireplus.com slash subscribe to sign up and get exclusive access to this groundbreaking series and the rest of DailyWire's content.
Do not wait.
Subscribe today.
Speaking of psychos, the New York Times has just edited its description of the Hamas terrorists.
So the New York Times initially reported, Hamas leaves trail of terror in Israel as Israeli soldiers regain control of areas near Gaza that came under attack.
They're finding evidence seen in videos and photos and confirmed by witness accounts of the massacre of civilians by Hamas terrorists.
Okay, yeah, basically that makes sense.
Then they changed it.
Because the New York Times appeals to a left-wing audience, and a lot of left-wingers don't like the state of Israel, so they change it to, as Israeli soldiers regain control of the areas near Gaza, blah blah blah, confirmed by witness accounts of the massacre of civilians by Hamas gunmen.
It's gunmen.
It's not, they're not necessarily terrorists, they're gunmen.
Apparently, they changed their mind over at the New York Times that Hamas is engaged in terrorism.
Well, how can we know?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
You ever hear that stupid phrase?
Terrorism has a meaning.
We argue over these words, and, well, you know, man, what does it really mean to be a terrorist?
The meaning of terrorism is when you intentionally attack civilians to achieve political ends.
That's what it's about.
Hamas, though they did kill some Israeli soldiers, attacked civilians.
The intention of the attack was to kill civilians.
They didn't warn the civilians to get out of the rave.
They didn't warn civilians on the kibbutz to go run out of there.
They intentionally attacked civilians to achieve political ends.
When you attack ordinary civilian workers at the World Trade Center, that would be an act of terrorism.
If you were to attack uniformed soldiers, That's less clearly an act of terrorism.
If you yourself are a uniformed soldier of a legitimate authority, attacking another uniformed soldier of another legitimate authority, that's not terrorism, that's an act of war.
There are different types of fighting, different types of killing, different types of murder.
What Hamas did in Israel is not the act of a gunman with unclear motives.
That's obviously an act of terrorism.
There's a lot of confusion these days on the ethics of war.
Our friend Anna Navarro, the fake Republican who really, truly is just a liberal over at The View, she doesn't even really pretend to be a Republican anymore.
They hired that flunky from the Trump administration to be the pretend Republican, Alyssa Farah.
But Anna Navarro representing a somewhat more center-left liberal view here.
is insisting that we cannot expect the Israeli government to have any restraint in retaliating on Hamas.
On the Biden thing, you know, the speech, there was a lot of things he said which were very important.
There was also something he didn't say, which was very important.
There's been many attacks on Israel before.
There's been many issues in that region before.
And always the response from around the world has been to Israel, have restraint.
Yesterday, nobody was telling Israel to have restraint because you cannot call on Israel to have restraint when 1,200 at least of their citizens have been slaughtered in the savage, inhumane, cruel, medieval way that they have been killed.
And so, look, we're about to see much more carnage.
It's going to get incredibly painful.
The only people that are to blame for this is Hamas.
Hamas is going to be the ones culpable for what's going to happen in Gaza.
They are holding Gaza Hostage.
As usual, what Anna Navarro is saying is not true.
I love how she slips in there with what these people did.
These awful terrorists was medieval.
Lady, the modern liberal age is much bloodier and much crueler and much less coherent than what happened in the Middle Ages.
I promise you that.
This is complete revisionist history by liberal moderns to make ourselves feel so enlightened and so brilliant and so wonderful.
We say that, oh, and back in those awful dark ages that everyone was cruel and incoherent and basically an animal.
We are behaving much more like animals.
We are behaving in a much less moral, much more incoherent way than political society did in the Middle Ages.
That's a side note.
What about Anna Navarro's main claim?
She says that Israel cannot be expected to show restraint.
That is not true.
That is not true.
In war, at all times, under all circumstances, there are certain moral and ethical demands that are to be made if a war is to be just.
I'm not saying that Israel has acted in an unjust way.
Far from it.
I think Israel generally conducts war in a very just way.
Much more so than Israel's enemies, for the modern state of Israel.
There are rules.
There is a concept of just war.
St.
Thomas Aquinas outlined what just war is pretty clearly.
Just war has to be waged by a legitimate authority, just war has to have a just cause, and just war has to have the right intentions.
And a lot of people who are skeptical or moral relativists today will say, well, what does any of that mean?
What really is a just authority?
Well, what really is justice at all?
Well, what really is the right intention?
Okay, all right.
Put down the bong, freshmen in college.
You know, let's talk serious.
If we're going to talk about moral matters, if we're going to talk about right and wrong, then let's speak seriously about it and not in this very silly and sophomoric way.
Those are the rules.
Sovereign authority, just cause, right intentions.
And there are qualifying conditions as well.
A just war cannot be said to be just if the belligerent intends intrinsically evil actions.
That would not count as a just war.
The good action will have, or at least the morally neutral action, will have two effects.
A good intended And an evil not intended but tolerated.
So the evil that accompanies war has to be merely tolerated rather than intended.
And this is a key and this is a word that's going to crop up as we talk about what happens now in the Middle East.
Proportionality.
The good to be achieved has to outweigh the evils of war, which does not mean that war should be undertaken in a purely utilitarian kind of calculation.
All of those other moral demands also have to be met, and proportionality has to be met.
But proportionality is misunderstood.
Proportionality does not just mean that, you know, if they kill ten of your guys, you've got to only kill ten of their guys.
That's not proportionality.
Michael Brendan-Doherty over at National Review has a good article on this.
He writes, Once again, I don't want to be misinterpreted here.
is not in relation to the injury you received, but to the just goals you hope to secure.
That is, proportionality in just war theory licenses the amount of violence necessary to achieve a just goal.
Once again, I don't want to be misinterpreted here.
I think the state of Israel generally does a very good job on this front.
They warn civilians when they're about to bomb places.
They tell the civilians where to go.
They message people.
I think Israel is generally pretty good here.
But the people from the peanut gallery now who are saying things like we need to just totally glass Gaza, or we need to have indiscriminate war, or we need to just start randomly bombing Malas or other countries, they are not articulating a moral or just view of war.
They are articulating an extremely immoral view that is extremely dangerous.
Not very good at all.
Now, when you want to feel a little bit better, I would strongly recommend you check out Tommy John.
Right now, go to TommyJohn.com slash Knowles.
It's fall, which means cozy nights in with the family.
And thanks to our friends at Tommy John, loungewear for a night in is the absolute best it could possibly be.
It's got the perfect blend of comfort and breathability.
Tommy John loungewear has a level of softness that you have never felt before.
Their incredibly soft loungewear is designed to envelop you in a world of pure luxury.
I don't want to get a little TMI here, necessarily, but I'm just telling you, I've worn many boxer shorts over the course of my life.
Tommy John, it's the best.
The best quality.
It feels the best.
It's just absolutely magnificent.
Their loungewear is magnificent as well.
You are so much more comfortable in Tommy John that you can do everything better.
They've got dozens of comfort innovations, breathable, lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric, four times the stretch of competing brands that can keep you seven degrees cooler than cotton.
Every purchase is backed by Tommy John's best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee.
Get 20% off your first order right now at tommyjohn.com slash Knowles.
That's 20% off at tommyjohn.com slash Knowles.
See site for details.
This was the absolute perfect timing to shift over now to our guest for the show, Senator Rand Paul, who is one of the few people in public life who tends to call for restraint when it comes to questions of worry.
He's probably better known for that than any of his Senate colleagues.
Senator Paul has a new book out.
On a totally different topic that is also very important and screwed up our world for three years and a lot of people were deceived over and he was probably the leading senator, probably the leading US politician calling it out and warning about it.
That would be the COVID cover up.
This is Deception, the great COVID cover up by Senator Rand Paul.
I want to get to COVID and what happens next with COVID in just a moment.
First, I do want to open up with some of these foreign policy questions.
Senator Paul, thank you for coming on the show.
Good morning, Michael.
Thanks for having me.
So, Senator, we opened the show today with your colleague, Lindsey Graham, calling for us to bomb Iran.
I think because it's a day that ends in Y, Senator Graham decided to call to bomb Iran.
Is this likely?
Is this advisable?
What happens now?
You know, I think you do have to ask what happens next if you were to do something.
What happens if you drop a bomb on Tehran?
Currently, if you look at the public of Iran, the people of Iran, they're very restless towards the regime, restless towards Khomeini, and actually many of them pro-American.
I think the first bomb that drops on Tehran, though, the nationalism of the Iranian people, those that are upset with Khomeini, also become upset with the United States as well for an attack.
Lindsey Graham said on television, either this morning or yesterday, that even if there is no direct evidence, we should still bomb them.
I think that's rash, unwise, and also discounts what our Constitution calls for.
Our Constitution calls for debate, and it calls for the people, through their representatives, to decide war.
I have many friends whose sons and daughters are in the military, 20, 22, 25 years old, and if they're going to be marched off, and they're going to put their lives at risk for the rest of us, It's our obligation to have a full-throated debate on going to war anywhere for anyone, even our best of allies.
We have to have a debate and there has to be a vote in Congress.
And believe it or not, people think, oh, Congress is so feckless.
We should just let the president do this.
Congress will never, you know, get it right.
But after 9-11, the vote was nearly unanimous.
My father, who's about as anti-war as you can get, voted for the 9-11 authorization for force to go in to get those who attacked us on 9-11.
When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, the vote, once again, nearly unanimous.
But we also have to remember that after 9-11, many people said Iraq did it.
Everybody's like, Iraq did it!
We got to go after Iraq!
And I can remember the bombs being unleashed on Iraq, and they had so convinced our soldiers that they were handwriting on the bombs, this is payback for 9-11.
And it turns out they had nothing to do with 9-11.
Doesn't mean they were a great regime or Saddam Hussein was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but it meant they had nothing to do.
In some ways, we took our eye off of the The people who did attack us on 9-11.
So I think the first thing is first.
The first thing is if there are Americans held hostage and our allies Israelis have held hostage, that's the first priority is trying to free the hostages.
And I think the second is trying to make sure Hamas can't do this again and that they're incapacitated and that will require a military incapacitation.
But that'll be primarily from Israel.
You know, they attacked Israel and Israel will respond.
And as much as I don't want war, I'm also not one who will be mouthing off saying Israel shouldn't do anything.
I'm going to be saying Israel should do what they need to do, and only they can know best.
But I think those who believe and want to talk about the political situation of Gaza or the West Bank, they lose all credibility.
Who's going to listen to you if you're killing women and children?
A concert in the desert and mowing down unarmed people.
Who wants to listen to your argument?
So those people, I think, if anything, have unified people in support of Israel for the most part.
And those who aren't at this point, you know, the groups at Harvard or the other Middle Eastern countries around there that still blame Israel on this, I think they lose all credibility.
Before we get to China and COVID, I want to make one last foreign stop up at the other potential source of the Third World War, which is Ukraine.
You're one of the few people in Washington who very early on has urged caution in our role in Ukraine.
How does the attack in Israel change the war aims in Ukraine, the situation on the ground, the threat of a broader global war?
Are we going to keep funding the war in Ukraine?
Is there an off-ramp?
Or is this just going to go on forever?
We have no rainy day fund.
We have no surplus.
We have no money to give anyone, frankly.
We have to borrow any money we give to foreign countries.
We essentially bought from China to send it elsewhere.
But they know there's rising discussion and dissension in the Republican ranks about more and more and more money for Ukraine.
So what they're going to do, and what I understand the plan will be, is this week they will Link Israel's aid, which will be much more popular to Ukraine.
But then I've also heard they're going to put in money for Taiwan as well.
So it's like, just Katie, bar the door.
We're just going to open the floodgates of money the same way Democrats believe in flooding the domestic economy with borrowed money.
Now we're going to flood the foreign economies with printed money.
And it isn't rational or wise.
And what I've asked for each time when you do it, if you think this is in our national interest, which I frankly don't think Ukraine is, but if you think it is, let's offset it.
Let's cut spending somewhere else.
There's like $25 billion worth of semiconductor refundable credits.
It's basically welfare to billion-dollar companies in our country.
Billion-dollar, trillion-dollar chip manufacturers are getting taxpayer money.
Refundable tax credit is essentially welfare.
There's all the new money for the IRS.
There's $44 billion we could take from the IRS.
There's 1.7 billion that is going to the Taliban.
It's an Afghan reconstruction fund.
And they say they're only sending it for humanitarian purposes.
But we believe the Taliban is getting their hands on that money.
And so in one sense, we'll be saying we're fighting Hamas and radical Islam over here while funding it on the other side.
So I'm a stickler for this, even for Israel.
I'm supportive of Israel.
I've been supportive of the Iron Dome.
But I usually ask that it be paid for.
People also have to realize emotions run high.
But Israel's not short of money.
Israel's a very wealthy country.
They're the most heavily militarily stocked country in the world, probably, other than the U.S.
And we give them $3.2 billion a year on an annual basis for the last 30 years.
They've got plenty of money and plenty of arms.
In addition, last year in December, the omnibus added an additional billion for Iron Dome.
I don't think anybody's saying they're out of weapons.
And if they were, I'm perfectly willing to debate it.
But I would still ask that we take it from someplace else where we're wasting it.
The government is full of waste.
But instead of that, if you tell a Democrat this, they will respond and they will say, hmm, we shouldn't have to decide.
Everybody should get what they want.
We shouldn't have to make these choices.
And it's like, that's what legislatures are supposed to do.
Make a choice.
This is important.
This has to be less important.
And we set priorities.
But that's a real problem we have is we don't do that.
We just give everybody everything in Washington.
Including China, and including that lab in Wuhan.
I mean, I suppose this is the subject of your book that's come out.
And early on, when you called out Fauci, and you called out NIH, and you raised these questions, you were called a conspiracy theorist, and the rest of us who were not in the U.S.
Senate were called conspiracy theorists.
And then it would seem that we all turned out to be completely right, and there's been no accountability for it at all.
And add on to that, at least before this outbreak of war in the Middle East, We saw the COVID restrictions creeping up again, implausibly.
We hadn't seen this in something like two and a half years.
And then again, Lionsgate in Hollywood adds the mask restrictions.
Morris Brown College down in Atlanta, Rutgers University up in Jersey, New York City saying, when you're in public, wear the mask, social distance, like it was deja vu all over again.
Are we headed back for more COVID?
The amazing thing in the book is that we prove that everything that Fauci lied about is Disprovable, or proved to be a lie, in his own words now.
We now have emails revealed from 2020 where he's saying he knew they were doing gain-of-function research in Wuhan, and he knew that the research was dangerous, and he knew that the virus appeared to be manipulated.
He said the opposite in public.
He called everyone a conspiracy theorist.
He said it was a fringe theory.
We now have one of his chief lieutenants, this Christian Anderson, who was all in, saying it came from the lab, saying it was gain-of-function research.
Three days later, he flips and says, oh, no, you're crazy if you think that.
But in private emails, he's saying it's not a fringe theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's the most likely and logical answer is that this virus came from the lab.
But it's worse than that.
In the book, we reveal that there was a pause on funding for this dangerous research and that it was evaded by one man, by Anthony Fauci, who gave them permission to go around the rules.
And then when they set in place a safety committee that said, if you're doing dangerous gain of function, if you're mixing viruses together to make them more infectious or more lethal, that you have to go before this committee.
Guess what?
The Wuhan research, all the tens of millions of dollars that went to Wuhan, none of it ever went before the safety committee.
So we discovered in looking at these emails, one of the emails is from January 31st, 2020, and it's at three in the morning.
So Fauci at 1030 at night gets started, and it's a series of emails that runs through three in the morning.
You get this harried sense, you get this sense of fear building, and you get the sense that he can't sleep.
The last email at three in the morning is to the guy that runs the safety committee that's supposed to review this.
He's knowing in his mind, or someone has told him, this research never went before the committee.
In fact, we have the email where his assistant tells Fauci, you know what, we don't know how this could have happened because it never went before the safety committee.
Fauci knows.
He gave an end-to-run around the Safety Committee.
So it wasn't just the bad decision to fund gain-of-function research in a totalitarian country.
It was actually the decision then to cover it up because he knew he would have responsibility.
So they spent months and months, and a year later, face-to-face in committee.
He's denying.
He's denying to my face.
Under oath, he's saying, We didn't fund any gain-of-function.
We have never funded any gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
So he lied to Congress, a felony, and he's gotten away with it so far.
So the consequences that Fauci has faced, by my last count, are a nice, plushy sign of cure at Georgetown University, and his retirement from NIH, and his millions of dollars from speeches and books over the years, and other sorts of ways of making money.
He also got a million dollars from a foundation.
A foundation gave him a million dollars prize for being such a great person.
And he took that while being a bureaucrat.
But you know what?
He's not even gone yet.
He says he's not working for the government.
He said he retired.
But we cannot get the information.
They will not reveal.
But we do know that he still has a limousine and 24-hour surveillance team that is helping him.
A security team.
And we think he does go into his office.
And we do think that he's still being paid.
And our question is, if he's indicted, is the federal government going to be forced to defend him as well because he's still an employee?
So there's a lot going on here that doesn't meet the eye, but we've got nothing but resistance.
We send letter after letter to HHS and to NIH.
Is he still on the payroll?
They refuse to answer.
We know he's getting the limo because we've gone around them to find the information.
But he has a limo every day pick him up to take him to a probably a million dollar job at Georgetown.
So it's just insane and the left-wing media has continued to cover up for him.
Is there any chance, I hate to make you put on your prognosticator crystal ball hat now, but is there any chance that he will be held to account or is he just protected by the government?
You know, legally maybe not.
You know, I've referred him twice to the Department of Justice.
Merrick Garland's not exactly the most objective of prosecutors.
And it really is a double standard in our country now.
If you're a Republican, you have to be worried about being prosecuted, but he has no fear of being prosecuted.
They never will.
But as far as accountability, yes.
When this started out in 2020, he was like a god on Olympus and nobody touched him.
He used Teflon and He was in Vogue magazine, and he was modeling and having his portrait painted and gazing at his portrait in his office, saying, I am science, and if you criticize me, you're criticizing science.
All this ridiculous stuff.
But you know what?
The pendulum has swung quite a bit.
He bamboozled most of the scientific community, but a lot of them got mad when they found out that the letters saying that this was a conspiracy theory were led by Peter Dayzak.
The guy that was funneling the money.
Basically, the bag man taking the money to Wuhan is the one who organized this and did not reveal his conflict of interest.
Even among scientists of different opinions, there's typically agreement that if you're being paid for by a certain organization or corporation, if you're receiving money, you have to reveal that in your journal article.
Like, if this is done by Pfizer, you jolly well better put Pfizer's name in your paper to say it was funded by Pfizer.
And this is a real problem though, because when I challenged Fauci on the vaccine committees, I said, is anybody on the vaccine committees who's receiving royalties from the manufacturers of the vaccine?
He wouldn't answer the question and said he didn't have to tell us because the law protected him from having to reveal that.
That's not really, you know, that comforting that it's not happening when they won't tell us.
Right, right.
There's a lot more in the book.
Everyone should go get it.
Deception, the great COVID cover-up by the great Senator Rand Paul.
Senator Paul, thank you so much for coming on.
Thanks, Michael.
Wonderful to see all of you.
The rest of the show continues now in the Membrum Segmentum.
