Ep. 1781 - CNN: 4 Killed in NYC by a “Possibly White” Black Man
One of the viral homosexuals who purchased a child is discovered to be a pedophile, a gunman opens fire in a NYC office building killing four, and Trump scores a sweet trade deal with the EU.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri
Ep.1781
- - -
DailyWire+:
My new series, The Vatican Files, premieres Wednesday, August 13th, exclusively on DailyWire+. https://DailyWirePlus.com
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
GET THE ALL-NEW YES OR NO EXPANSION PACK TODAY: https://bit.ly/41gsZ8Q
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Old Glory Bank - Go to https://OldGloryBank.com/Knowles to open an account and make the switch today!
Select Quote - Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS, and save more than 50% at https://selectquote.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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Before we get started today, I'm very excited about a new project that we've been working on, an original docuseries that uncovers one of the most distorted historical narratives of the 20th and 21st centuries.
This series is called The Pope and the Führer, The Secret Vatican Files of World War II.
For decades, Pope Pius XII, one of the most consequential men of the 20th century, one of the best men of the 20th century, has been slandered and maligned.
He has been condemned for his supposed silence during the rise of Hitler and Nazism.
The narrative was always false.
It was total BS.
It was peddled by enemies of the church for a very long time.
Now, with unprecedented access to the Vatican's wartime archives, we uncover what really happened, why the truth was hidden for so long.
The series premieres Wednesday, August 13th, exclusively on Dailywire Plus.
Here's a little look at the trailer.
History is written by the victors.
But what if the victors got it wrong?
For 80 years, the world has condemned one man as the Pope of Silence, the man who stood by in the face of shocking evil.
But can we trust the popular narrative, even after all these years?
This is not just a story about Hitler and the Holocaust.
One of the worst lies ever told about the Catholic Church is what she did or did not do in one of modernity's darkest hours.
Now, for the first time, the Vatican secret archive is open and the truth is far more shocking than the fiction.
Propagandists have peddled one story for decades, but now we can definitively know better.
Join me in this four-part series, where we will discover the true story of Pope Pius XII, Hitler, and the Second World War.
The Pope and the Fuhrer, four episodes, nearly an hour each.
Not one second wasted.
Dailyware Plus members can start streaming August 13th.
If you're not a member yet, you're out of your mind.
Go to dailywareplus.com.
Now into the news.
Might want to, if you've had breakfast recently, sit down.
Try not to lose it over this.
If you're driving, pull over.
A homosexual couple has gone viral on social media for showcasing their surrogacy journey to purchase a baby boy.
And just 24 hours after the two men collected all the likes and shares and retweets on their video kissing the little child, one of the men has been revealed to be a registered child sex offender.
Distressingly, the men appear still to have custody of the child.
Even more distressingly, at least from a political standpoint, many people continue to defend gay adoption and surrogacy based on supposedly scientific claims that have been completely and repeatedly debunked.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
This is Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Terrible news for the Panicans.
Wonderful news for Americans.
President Trump has just inked a trade deal with the EU.
And I'm not just saying this because I support the guy and I'm inclined to like him and celebrate his wins.
This is a phenomenal deal.
This is better than even the most bullish Trump supporters thought we were going to get.
I have many, many more pearls of wisdom to give you.
First, though, you need to go to oldglorybank.com slash Knowles.
Here's an uncomfortable truth.
Most big banks in this country are not just neutral.
They're actively working against you.
They take the money you deposit and use it to fund agendas that oppose faith, family, and freedom, gender ideology, abortion activism, ESG mandates, you name it.
You are unknowingly helping them do it.
I recently had an issue with this where a major financial processor debanked me.
Now, they ultimately came up with a good explanation for this as to why they were impelled to do it by this company and this government and this, that, and the other thing.
It was all resolved.
It was all a big mistake, but I didn't even know.
Consumers don't even have a right to know.
You can be debanked and not even be told why.
Don't deal with those banks that are going to do that to you.
Open an account at Old Glory Bank.
I love Old Glory Bank.
It's an FDIC insured bank built by people who fear God, love this country, still believe in right and wrong.
They don't fund evil.
They don't cancel people for standing up for truth.
They protect your money and your values.
It's super easy.
The minute I found out about Old Glory, I could go over there, set up the account super duper quick, and then you know you're banking with someone that will support you.
If you believe stewardship matters, put your money where your heart is.
It only takes minutes to switch.
Stop letting your money serve the wrong side.
Join me with their tens of thousands of customers on the right side of banking at oldglorybank.com slash Knowles, oldglorybank.com slash Knowles.
So much to get to.
The Trump deal, this horrific story about the homosexual couple purchasing the baby through surrogacy.
Really important scientific information you need to know to debate this issue at the water cooler.
First, though, another terrible story.
Really, at least thank goodness we have the Trump story in the news today because really tough stuff in the news.
There was a big shooting in New York yesterday.
This was in Midtown East, very mainstream part of New York where a lot of tourists go, where a lot of people work.
There was a shooter killed at least five people in a Midtown office building.
He's identified as a 27-year-old Las Vegas man.
He killed himself.
I guess that was the relatively happy outcome at the end.
But in the meantime, he killed a number of people, including at least one New York Police Department officer who was trying to stop him.
It's a terribly, terribly sad story.
When these stories happen, no matter if they're in New York or LA or anywhere, Palocaville, they're very, very sad, but they're not all that surprising.
Democrats treat them as though they're surprising and as though there were some policy solution on guns, say, that could stop this stuff.
And that's not really true.
There are certain policies that could reduce the likelihood of these terribly violent incidents, like being tougher on crime, like securing our border.
In this case, it might not have done anything, but it would stop a lot of violent crime because you have unvetted people, many of them criminals coming across the border.
There are common sense policies that you could do to maybe reduce the likelihood of these incidents, but you're not going to stop them entirely.
And in fact, when it comes to the gun control laws, there's really no gun control law proposed in my lifetime that would have stopped these incidents.
So there's nothing really to do other than pray for the dead and pray for the living as well and try to work around the edges to limit the possibility of these crimes.
But there's no silver bullet solution to this kind of problem.
And it's very unsatisfying to liberals.
And the liberals will get angry when you say that and they'll mock you even for praying.
They don't have any better solutions.
So they'll mock you and say that's ineffective to pray.
How dare you suggest such an impotent solution?
But they don't have any better answer.
So really, the only two reactions are you've got people generally on the right who pray and who grieve with people.
And then you got people on the left who just express wrath.
But that's it.
Those are really your two options.
Humility, prayer, grief, compassion, on one hand, or wrath.
There's not much of a political conclusion to draw from this.
You could even say, some people on the right say, well, these shootings wouldn't have happened if people had been permitted to carry guns in the office.
Maybe that's true.
People tend to be a little more polite when you don't know if the guy next to you is carrying a gun.
But even that, the research on that is a little bit mixed.
So there's no simple political solution to the fallenness of the world.
There's no simple political solution to Cain killing Abel.
You know, it's just kind of a fact of a fallen world.
So we want to identify threats earlier.
We want to pray for the dead.
We want to pray for the people who are grieving right now.
What is political, what can be addressed politically, is the reaction of many, including in the media.
CNN went viral yesterday for this reaction, which is also not surprising, by the way, but it probably should be.
Here is how CNN covered the story.
Deputy, former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andy McCabe, is with us as well.
And Andy, I just want to ask you, you talk about a 40-floor, a 44-story building, as Brian is reporting.
And what John Miller just said, there were a few things that really stood out there.
Among them that they did get, they do know what he looks like.
Sunglasses, mustache, male, possibly white.
Male, possibly white.
Okay, so we're getting info now.
We don't know very much, but we do know he's possibly white.
Do we have a picture of the picture of the suspected shooter, alleged shooter?
He is the least white-looking person you've ever seen in your entire life.
This guy, I won't even say his name.
If you're just listening right now, he ain't white.
He ain't white.
But CNN, which never wants to speculate, if there is an Islamic terror attack committed by a guy named Muhammad Muhammad Muhammad Abdul Muhammad, they will not speculate on any of the motives or the background of the shooter.
But in this case, where they know nothing about what's going on, they immediately speculate to say, well, he's possibly white.
And I guess technically that was true.
He was possibly white from the standpoint of CNN because CNN didn't know anything.
So from the standpoint of CNN's ignorance, it was possible that he could turn out to be white, though he wasn't and there was no evidence that he was.
What is politically effective, the sort of thing that we can act on politically from this reaction is just a recognition of something that we already knew, which is that the political order does harbor, as the left argues, it does harbor certain racial biases and religious biases and sexual biases and all the rest.
That is true.
When the libs argue and they say, this is not merely a tablo rasa, this is not merely a neutral political order that treats everyone equally.
Some people are treated better than others on the basis of race and religion and sex.
That is true.
It's just the opposite of what they say it is.
So a non-white person will always be given every single benefit of the doubt.
A white person will always be considered guilty until proven innocent because of the sin of whiteness.
A non-Christian will always be given the benefit of the doubt.
A Christian will always be suspected of harboring hatred and bigotry and all manner of egregious sin.
A straight person will always be suspected of all manner of evil.
Anyone who can identify as an LGBT LMNOP person will always be given every single benefit of the doubt, even into the realm of the farcical and the implausible.
That's just how it goes.
I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but when the establishment media reveal themselves to be what they are when they expose themselves, it's important to pay attention.
Just to remind yourself, they're good sometimes at hypnotizing you.
Just pay attention.
You look at this.
There's not even really much of a conclusion to be drawn from the race of the shooter in this particular instance in a mass shooting.
The only political conclusion to be drawn is about our media and about the broader political order.
Just a little reminder, tuck that one away for next time.
Okay, speaking of horrifying stories and the LGBT element OP community and contradicting liberal narratives is a video that's gone viral of two homosexual men who purchased a child and are kissing the child, I guess on the child's birthday or something like that.
And it's supposed to be heartwarming and they're getting all the likes and the retweets and the shares.
And some people were making snide comments.
Some people were assuming that these men were sexually depraved and that bad things could befall this child.
And when those people made those claims, everyone else on social media rushed and said, that's terrible.
That's prejudiced.
That's bigoted.
How dare you?
It's phobic.
24 hours later, you're not going to believe what we've uncovered.
I have many more pearls of wisdom to drop.
First, though, go to selectquote.com slash Knowles.
With everything going on in the world lately, it is no wonder people are focused on protecting their financial future.
One option you might not have considered recently is life insurance, which gets significantly more expensive as you age.
The difference is dramatic.
What you would pay in your 20s or 30s could easily double by your 40s.
That is why it's time to look into SelectQuote.
Life insurance does not have to be complicated.
SelectQuote has been helping people like you for over 40 years find the right coverage at the best price from top-rated companies.
Here's how it works.
Their licensed agents do all the heavy lifting.
They compare plans that fit your health, lifestyle, and budget completely free.
You could even get coverage the same day up to $2 million with no medical exam required.
Got pre-existing conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure?
No problem.
Select Quote works with companies that cover people with health conditions.
Just head to selectquote.com and an agent will call you with options tailored specifically for you.
They shop, you save.
I think this is really, really important.
Life insurance gives me a huge peace of mind.
It can do it for you as well.
Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today.
Get the right life insurance for you for less.
Save more than 50% at selectquote.com slash Knowles.
Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.com slash Knolls today.
To get started, that is selectquote.com slash Knolls.
Two men have gone viral for this video.
Only listening right now.
Two homosexuals wearing t-shirts, holding up a poor little baby, kissing him on the head, blowing out cupcakes.
I guess it's birthdays or something, wearing Christmas outfits.
Two giant homosexual men who somehow have acquired a baby and who keep kissing the baby.
Okay, I've seen enough.
So this video is going around and it's wrong.
If you knew nothing else about the video, you would say it's just wrong because a baby has been deprived of a mother.
And if you think that women contribute anything to the world at all, if you think that men contribute something to the world, that women can't quite contribute and women contribute something to the world that men can't quite contribute, if you think there's a purpose for the existence of women, then you have to be nauseated at that video.
Because what that video represents is that two men went to the baby store, spent money to create a child with the express intention of depriving that child of his natural mother, one of the most important bonds that a human being will ever have, that especially little babies have, the most important bond that a little baby has in this world, intentionally being severed for the selfishness of sexually deviant men.
So already absolutely nauseating off the top if you didn't know anything else.
But we do know something else because Redux is reporting, I'll use their exact words, this is their reporting, not mine.
Just 24 hours after the video went viral on social media, it has been confirmed that one of the men in the video is a registered child sex offender.
Brandon Keith Mitchell is a tier one sex offender in the state of Pennsylvania and was arrested in 2016 after attempting to solicit a 16-year-old boy for sexual abuse.
He was a 30-year-old teacher at the time, reportedly.
According to records released by the Chester County District Attorney's Office and the Downington Police Department, Mitchell solicited the boy to send him nude photographs.
He also told the victim he wanted to watch him perform a sexual act and sent the victim approximately 20 nude photographs of himself.
I think those two men still have that baby.
I think, shockingly, and presumably this was known.
He was already a registered child sex offender eight years ago, nine years ago now.
Somehow he got the baby anyway.
Because our political order says that he's a married man.
Maybe he made a mistake in the past, but he's a married man.
He's totally in a real marriage.
And married people are allowed to adopt.
And married people are even, in our depraved culture, allowed to go to the baby store and purchase babies like their handbags.
And we're not allowed to judge or discriminate or come to any conclusions that every society for all of history would have come to.
Now, I can already hear the chorus of my critics on the left and some on the squishy right.
They're going to say, Michael, you're honing in on one really unfortunate example of homosexuals adopting or purchasing a child where one of them is a sex offender.
But that is not the norm.
You're focusing in in a way that's unfair.
In fact, Michael, and this is going to be the kicker, they're going to say, scientific studies show that children raised in same-sex households do just as well as children raised in households with a mother and a father.
The science shows it, Michael, and you're bigoted and you're a science denier.
This is a claim.
And the claim, like a lot of these political propaganda claims, has a little tiny kernel of apparent almost, but not quite truth to it.
It comes from a 2010 study by Michael Rosenfeld from Stanford.
And the study finds, this is the conclusion, its own words, the prior literature has found no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples suffer any important disadvantages.
There it is.
And you'll hear every LGBT element of P activists talk about this, and you will hear everyone defending that video cite this study.
The problem is that conclusion is false, and the study is bogus, and all of the other studies show the opposite.
I don't know if literally all of the other studies, but many, many, many studies, for all intents and purposes, all of the other studies show the opposite.
There might be some other bogus study too.
Here's the reality.
There's a study, 2013, out of Canada by Douglas Allen, Simon Fraser University, analyzed data from a very large population-based sample, found that children of gay and lesbian couples are 65% as likely to have graduated from high school as are the children of married opposite-sex couples.
65%.
That's a failing grade.
Last I checked.
The children who are raised by two fellas or two lesbians are 35% less likely to graduate from high school.
Now, this backs up a study that was conducted quite a while prior, 1996 out of Australia, Soterios, Sarantakos, Cambridge University Press, published it.
Study of 174 primary school children in Australia compared the social and educational development of 58 children living in married families, 58 living with cohabitating heterosexuals, man and a woman living together, not married, living in sin, and 58 living in homosexual unions.
The authors found that married couples offer the best environment for a child's social and educational development.
So the normal married actual couple, mommy and daddy, followed by cohabitating heterosexual couples, followed by homosexual couples.
Without question, the kids raised by two daddies or two mommies do the worst.
Without question.
Now you might say, well, that was 96.
That was before the gay rights movement.
There has been so much progress since then.
No.
2007, Abby Goldberg out of Clark University has a study of 36 adults raised by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents.
15 of them, this is 42% of adults raised by LGB parents, described challenges relating to their ability to trust other people.
42% of these people raised by two mommies or two daddies or just otherwise sexually bizarre parents, 42% say they have a difficulty trusting other people.
Now you might say, well, that's just a small sample size.
Okay.
2009, Theodora Sirota, Seton Hall University, a study of 68 women with gay and bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers found that women with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty in adult attachment areas.
They were, one, less comfortable with closeness and intimacy.
Two, less able to trust and depend on others.
Three, experienced more anxiety in relationships compared with women raised by heterosexual fathers and mothers.
Okay.
Well, Michael, that's still a small sample size.
Okay, let's keep going.
2012, Daniel Potter, American Institutes for Research, a study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that, quote, children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers living in married two biological parent households on two academic outcomes.
And then we got a really, really big study.
If you want just one really big study to shut down this ridiculous argument that two mommies or two daddies is exactly the same as a mommy and a daddy.
And everyone turns out the same.
Something that we all know intuitively is not true.
If you think that men or women contribute anything to the world, you intuitively know that isn't true.
There was a 2012 study out of the University of Texas at Austin.
This found that young adult children ages 18 to 39 of parents who had same-sex relationships before the subjects had reached the age of 18 were more likely to suffer from a broad range of emotional and social problems.
This is the kicker.
The children of lesbians and gay men fared worse than those in intact heterosexual families on 77 out of 80 outcomes.
77 out of 80, almost all of them.
And the exceptions, by the way, related to relatively minor points like voting habits.
Do you vote?
Or alcohol use by children of lesbian mothers.
So there were these little minor exceptions.
Otherwise, the kids of straight normal couples did better on everything.
2013, should I beat this horse into the ground?
I think I will.
I think I will, because there are people on the left and on the right, horrifyingly, even on the right, who will defend that video.
Even after it comes out that one of the guys is a child sex offender.
They'll defend it.
Oh, no, Michael.
It's just one exception.
The science says otherwise.
The science says otherwise.
How many more studies do I have to cite?
2013, Susan Golenbach at Cambridge.
This actually pertains to the IVF because the only way that two fellas or two ladies can have a child, if you've passed seventh grade biology class, is if they adopt or if they go to the baby store and engage in in vitro fertilization and then hire a surrogate.
Well, what happens then?
Let's just focus in on the surrogacy aspect.
There was a study in 2013.
Children gestated by a surrogate had higher adjustment difficulties at age seven than other children who came about the old-fashioned way.
What does that mean, adjustment difficulties?
They had aggressive or antisocial behavior.
They had emotional problems.
They had anxiety.
They had depression.
That's just if you're born via a surrogate, which heterosexual couples can use too.
That's also very, very bad for children.
It's wrong for other reasons as well, but it's also very bad for children.
Last study I'll cite.
2015, Donald Sullins, British Journal of Education, found that emotional problems were over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents as for children with opposite-sex parents.
I don't have that long a show.
How many more studies do you need me to cite?
This is horrifying.
It's a crime against children and against nature and against common sense.
Obviously, little babies need their mommies.
And you know what?
Kids need their daddies too.
And they're not going to do as well if they're being raised by two men who are selfishly purchasing kids or two women or a single parent who is intentionally depriving a child of a parent.
Obviously, look, it's a fallen world.
Sometimes spouses die.
Sometimes divorce even happens, though we want to discourage that as much as possible.
It's a fallen world and we make do with what we can.
But to intentionally set a child up for failure in this way, to feed the delusions and selfishness of adults, is horrifying, okay?
Now, there's one question probably lingering, which is, well, how did the Rosenfeld study, the one study that the LGBT people cite, how did that study conclude that the kids turn out just as well?
Because they cooked the data.
That's how.
This study from Rosenfeld out of Stanford, 2010, excluded children who had changed domicile during the preceding five years of the analysis.
So they said, okay, well, we want to just measure stable households.
So we're going to exclude kids who changed homes in the previous five years.
When they did that, they significantly reduced the sample size of the homosexual households because the homosexual households are intrinsically less stable.
So he just, he basically begged the question in the survey and came up with the, I'm not accusing him of doing it intentionally, but it's bad science and it came to a false conclusion that has been disproven by Countless studies and by common sense and by right reason and by everything.
This is completely unacceptable.
I know this is a hard saying.
You know, listen, I grew up in New York, LA, and I went to the gayest university in the world.
A disproportionate number of my friends over the years have been, you know, of eccentric sexual desires and things like that.
So I really don't say this from a position of irrational animus or hostility or anything like that.
This is just wrong.
It's wrong by every measure, and it's really horrible for children.
Even if one of the so-called daddies isn't a registered child sex offender, as he is in this case, it's just wrong.
It's just bad.
This is completely unacceptable and should be banned immediately, period.
We will look, mark my words.
If you're a lib, there are plenty of libs who listen to this show.
If you're a squishy Republican, there are plenty of them who listen to this show too.
We will look back on the experiment of so-called gay adoption and IVF and surrogacy with the same moral horror with which we are already beginning to look back on transing the kids.
We were transing the kids.
In some places, they're still transing the kids, but it's clearly falling out of favor.
We were transing the kids in a robust and excited way two years ago, three years ago.
We are already beginning to look back on that experiment with abject moral horror.
We will look back on gay adoption and surrogacy and IVF in exactly the same way.
And it's not because all the men and all the women have terrible intentions and terrible desires.
Many of them have very good desires and very good intentions.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the evidence is clear.
And to deny the evidence is deeply sinful and we need to cut it up.
Now, I want to get to some good news because there's a lot of rough news in the news.
And there is some good news, which is that President Trump has just scored a sweet trade deal with the EU.
We'll get to that momentarily first.
So speaking of trade and commerce, folks, you know, I restocked my Mayflower Dream.
This is the third in the trilogy.
Mayflower Dawn is the Connecticut smoke, the nice, little bit lighter, more medium, mild, medium-bodied.
Then there's the Mayflower Dusk.
That's a little more robust, a little more of your evening smoke.
And then to complete the trilogy, there's a lot of Trinitarian imagery in the Mayflower series, a lot of pilgrim imagery.
There's the dream, the Mayflower Dream.
That's our double Maduro.
I told you we're running low.
Well, now I want to put a real number on that.
We're running real, real low, like barely any left.
We have 56 boxes of Mayflower Dream Robusto left.
We have one box of the Toro Gordo dream left.
I actually had a dream about the Toro Gordo last night.
It's kind of funny.
That's it.
57 boxes total of the Mayflower Dream.
Most in the Robusto, which is actually the best size of it, and one left in the Toro Gordo, which some guys really love.
In any case, get them now if you want it.
MayflowerCigars.com.
You must be 21 years old or older to order some exclusions.
Apply.
If we run out, when we run out, don't blame me.
Great deal.
Great.
Talk about the art of the deal.
Some have doubted the art of the deal.
This is amazing.
Trump has finally come to a trade deal with the European Union.
The EU is going to be charged 15% tariffs on its exports to the U.S. They will commit to charging zero tariffs on U.S. imports into the EU.
15% tariffs.
15% is lower than the 30% Trump was threatening, but it's higher than the 10% baseline that Trump instituted back in April, I think it was.
So you've got 15% tariffs.
So we're going to get paid.
America's getting paid for those exports.
We're not going to have to pay to export our goods.
The EU is agreeing to invest $600 billion in the United States.
The EU will purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment.
And the EU will buy $750 billion worth of expensive U.S. liquid natural gas, specifically $250 billion for each of the next three years.
It is good stuff.
Is there any panican left?
There were many people who said when Trump's tariffs came out, they said, this is going to tank the economy.
Did it?
The economy has recovered.
This is going to destroy the bond market.
The bond market's recovered.
This is going to upset global trade.
Global trade's recovered.
This is going to alienate our allies.
Our allies are doing just fine.
People wondered what Trump was aiming at with the tariffs.
Could have been one of three things.
Could have been trying to get better trade deals.
Could have been trying to reshore American jobs.
Could have been trying to raise revenue, just get the money from the tariffs.
You can't effectively do all three.
You got to have compromises and you have to prioritize some.
Obviously, as I called at the time, obviously Trump was trying to get better trade deals.
And that will raise a little bit of revenue.
It won't.
It's not going to reshore all of American manufacturing, but certain goods, you're not going to reshore.
And it is going to be good for American manufacturing in as much as, and American agriculture and all the rest of it, in as much as now we're going to have fewer trade barriers to get our goods out there to the marketplace.
This is great.
I don't care if you hate Trump.
I don't care if you're on the left.
I don't care if you're one of the Trump haters on the right.
What is the argument that this is not a phenomenal trade deal?
What's the, can anyone make it?
Make it for me in the comments if you can make that argument.
I can't see it.
There's some policies from Trump where I say, okay, here's the plus side.
Here's a little bit of the downside.
You know, you take the good with the bad.
This one, what's the downside?
Who could have gotten a better trade deal?
Who has gotten a better trade deal?
How could this trade deal be better?
Can someone explain it to me?
No?
Okay, then maybe when Trump proposes policies, domestic, foreign, economic, national security, immigration, whatever, how about before we all blow our tops and have steam coming out of our ears, how about we just take a deep breath?
We look back at history.
We realize that the reasonable conclusion to reach is that probably it's going to turn out fine.
Not every time, but probably it's going to turn out fine.
Speaking of the Trump administration, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was just asked if he is running for president in 2028.
Rubio, considered one of the top contenders.
He's been given, I think, half the jobs in the Trump administration so far.
Rubio's answer, shocking many people, surprising even me.
Final question.
You just brought up your run in 2016 for president.
You are talked about quite frequently as a possible contender in 2028.
Do you have your sights set outside of the State Department?
Well, I think J.D. Vance would be a great nominee.
And if he decides he wants to do that.
And so, you know, I think he's doing a great job as vice president.
He's a close friend, and I hope he intends to do it.
I know it's kind of early, but being in the role that I'm in here at the Secretary of State, I really don't play in politics.
There's actually rules against me being involved in domestic politics.
And I want to do this job as long as the president allows me to do it and stay in that job, which would keep me here all the way through January of 2028.
I feel, honestly, you never know what the future holds.
You never rule things out or anything like that because you just don't know.
Things change very quickly.
But that said, I believe that if I am able to be here through the duration of this presidency and we get things done at the pace that we've been doing the last six months, I'll be able to look back at my time in public service and say I made a difference.
I had an impact, and I served my country in a very positive way.
And I would be satisfied with that as the apex of my career.
Okay.
I don't believe that last part.
I don't believe that at all.
I think he wants to be president.
Now, I'm not calling him a liar.
I think that answer was very, very good, very interesting answer, but he wants to be president.
There was talk that Rubio was going to run for president in 2012.
I remember that.
Talk all around DC.
And then 2016, he obviously ran, did pretty well, ran against Trump.
Then didn't run in 2024.
Now he's Secretary of State.
But the really interesting part of his answer is, he says, are you going to run in 2028?
He obviously wants to.
He says, I think J.D. Vance would be a great nominee.
Now, in the pecking order of the White House, at least as it's understood today, J.D. Vance outranks Rubio.
But Rubio's pretty close up there to the top.
It's kind of like the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state.
In past ages, the secretary of state has outranked the vice president in terms of political relevance, in terms of political future.
Now that's not so much the case.
But he says, I think JD would be a great nominee.
He couches it with all sorts of caveats.
Obviously, things change.
We'll see how it goes.
But if he wants to run, I think he'd be a great nominee.
Which suggests something really important about the Trump administration.
Not even about Rubio's career.
Rubio has been preparing for the top job for a very long time.
So he would be a strong presidential candidate.
But what it shows you about the Trump administration is this thing is cohesive.
The first term was not that cohesive.
The first term, there was a lot of infighting, a lot of rivalries.
You look at these two guys, JD and Marco Rubio are the two most eminently nominable, they're the most eminently presidentialable people in the administration for 2028.
They should be at each other's throats, you would expect, in a less disciplined administration.
This is a highly disciplined administration.
Rubio, on the surface here, is setting himself up for a VP spot in 2028.
So it could be Vance Rubio.
Be pretty good.
I bet a lot of people would like that, especially if the administration continues to be successful.
And he's setting himself up to get JD's support if for whatever reason the vice president doesn't want to run, though presumably he will run in 2028.
But what is most impressive about this answer has nothing to do with Vance's political career or Rubio's political career or anyone else in the admin.
What's most impressive is this is a buttoned up administration.
You are not, the libs and the squishes are always trying to find cracks and ways to break the admin apart.
If you can't pit the vice president against the secretary of state, if you can't pit Vance against Rubio at this moment for 2028, now you've got it on record.
You got that video clip.
If Rubio ever turned on Vance, Vance gets to play that on TV constantly 2028.
I think JD would be a great nominee.
He gets to play it ad nauseum.
If you can't break these two guys apart, you are not going to break this administration apart.
Okay, now we've got a lot more to talk about on foreign affairs, but first, want to talk about breaking people apart and close relationships, because I just sat down with one of P. Diddy's escorts.
That's right.
Often in high-profile cases and conspiracies, all we get are a few redacted documents from a litany of theories from sources close to the story that never totally pan out.
Other times, you get to sit down face to face with someone who is there, like in this latest episode of Michael and where I sit down with a former P. Diddy escort who was named in the trial.
Graphic stories that will blow you away.
Check out this teaser.
So I don't know who I'm seeing.
And so I show up to the address, I go up to the door, knock, and she opens the door.
So you say it's very performative.
She's like, okay, sit there.
She puts the towel down.
She's like, hey, just don't pour the baby oil all over me.
I see like the little slit in the room.
There were times in the sessions where I saw that demon, the demon that she talked about.
Personal demon, you know, these are the demons that are afflicting me.
Or Diddy.
Yeah, Diddy.
You actually did this stuff.
Your name and your picture were revealed in court.
Revealed in court, and then it was sort of mainstream when 50 posted that picture.
So this guy is a sex crazed animal.
She was under his control.
Because there's video of him beating her in a hallway.
I was supposed to be there that night.
It's not explosive.
It's not explosive.
Watch the full episode now on the Michael Knolls YouTube channel for the uncensored ad-free version.
Subscribe to Daily Wire Plus.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Guy Ford who says, just because something isn't woke, that doesn't automatically make it good.
Thank you.
That is my thesis.
That is my thesis on the Sydney Sweeney Jeans ad.
And I know it's an unpopular position, especially on the right, because we're all so sick of woke.
But it's why I had to say two cheers for American Eagle.
Two cheers.
Not three cheers.
Two cheers for American Eagle and the Sydney Sweeney Jeans thing.
Because it is better to sell sex in a normal way.
Sex sells in marketing, and that's been true since antiquity.
it's better to promote normal sexual desires in your advertising than abnormal, aberrant ones like we've seen with all the LGBT ad campaigns.
But it's still not good.
You don't want to arouse lusts.
You don't want to appeal to the prairie and interest.
So it's better.
It's an improvement, and I'll take an improvement.
But if 2020 was the high mark of wokeness, it's good that we've gone back in a way to 1998.
That's good.
But 1998 was not the peak of civilization.
Wasn't the be-all and end-all.
Wasn't all that in a bag of chips like we used to say in 1998.
You got to go a little deeper.
Just because this is like when the conservatives are arguing with the socialists and the progressives and the lunatics.
And then someone comes in and says, well, I'm a classical liberal.
And the conservatives say, oh, finally a sane person.
That's great.
Yeah, classical liberalism is better than socialism and wokeness and progressivism.
But it's not great.
It's still kind of liberal.
You know what's better?
It's conservatism.
That's what I would say.
Okay.
Speaking of foreign affairs, a lot of people are beginning to change their views on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
I'm not talking about the Israel haters.
I'm not talking about the anti-Semites.
There are those people who are pathologically opposed to the state of Israel or who just hate the Jews.
Those people do exist.
They're real.
And I'm not talking about them.
I'm talking about even people who have been broadly supportive of Israel, who are phylo-Semitic, even people like President Trump.
President Trump has a town named after him in Israel.
No greater political friend of the Jewish state than President Trump.
And even President Trump has said, Israel's conduct in this war has gone a little bit too far.
There is a real starvation in Gaza.
He's going to be working with the United States.
We'll be helping with the food.
And we're going to bring it over there.
We're also going to make sure that they don't have barriers stopping people.
You know, you've seen the areas where they actually have food.
And the people are screaming for the food in there.
They're 35, 40 yards away.
And they won't let them because they have lines that are set up.
And whether they're set up by Hamas or whoever, but they're very strict lines, so we have to get rid of those lines.
But we're going to be getting some good, strong food.
We can save a lot of people.
I mean, some of those kids are, that's real starvation stuff.
I see it.
And you can't fake that.
So we're going to be even more involved.
We did some airlifts before, some airdrops, and the people are running for it.
And the prime minister is going to help us.
They're very effective with that.
You've done that before and for many, they've done that for 100 years very well.
So it's not very hard to do, actually.
Okay, so there you have it.
This is significant.
For Trump to come out and say, look, there is real starvation in Gaza.
In some cases, out of the state of Israel, you're hearing people argue, there's no starvation in Gaza.
It's all fake.
It's all propaganda from Hamas.
But then you have some people in Israel saying, no, there is starvation, but it's Hamas's fault.
And you even have some people saying, yeah, you're darn right there's starvation because they attacked us on October 7th.
And now, you know, this is just the consequence.
These people elected Hamas.
And the consequence is war is ugly.
So you're seeing a range of reactions to this.
But Trump is coming out and saying, no, no, there is real starvation.
And there is an international outcry.
And Israel does play a part in that.
And Trump's view, he's not going totally out on a limb here.
This is the same view articulated by Ross Douthett, one of the most thoughtful public commentators, pundits out there.
He writes for the New York Times, but don't hold it against him.
Very thoughtful commentator.
He wrote this piece, how Israel's war became unjust.
So it didn't start out unjust, but its conduct of the war right now is unjust.
Sorab Amari, who has been very supportive of the state of Israel, Zionism even, over the years, he wrote a very thoughtful piece on this.
I forget what outlet published it.
I was just reading it yesterday.
Very good piece.
Because there's reporting in The Guardian here.
It says, the Israeli effort has continued even as one of its own government ministers, the far-right heritage minister Amihai Eliyahu, appeared to describe an unapologetic policy of starvation, genocide, and ethnic cleansing that Israel has denied and said is not official policy.
So Israel's saying Hamas is stealing the aid.
But a separate U.S. assessment, even beyond what Trump is saying, says that isn't true.
Reuters is reporting an internal U.S. government analysis, found no evidence of systematic theft by the Palestinian militant group Hamas of U.S.-funded humanitarian supplies, challenging the main rationale that Israel and the U.S. give for backing a new armed private aid operation.
So Israel says, well, we can't let this aid in because Hamas just steals it.
A U.S. assessment says that isn't true.
So I don't know.
I'm not an expert on it.
But I also, I caught a little bit of flack for nuancing my view of the Israel-Gaza war just a week or two ago when the only Catholic church in Gaza was hit.
Israel said it was hit accidentally.
The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem was a little more circumspect on its analysis, but it killed three Christians, injured 10 people, including a priest.
And it caused a lot of people to wake up and think, this war has gone on for a long time.
For goodness sake, you have Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, very, very pro-Israel, threatening to accuse Israel of discriminating against Christians because of a visa issue among American evangelicals.
So even you're seeing a tide turning, not among the Jew haters and the Israel enemies, but among people who have been very supportive of the state of Israel for many years, myself included.
People who are quite phylo-Semitic.
You know, I'm a New Yorker and I had a Katzu's deli pasrami sandwich just last week.
I promise you I love the Jewish people very much.
But the facts are the facts.
The war has gone on for a very, very long time.
And even that would not be dispositive in determining the justice or injustice of the war.
But the question is, what is the end of the war?
What is the upshot of the war?
And is the conduct in the war right now justifiable?
To Ross Douthet's point, you know, he asked the question in the headline here about whether or not Israel's war has become unjust.
No one has more vigorously defended the state of Israel's justice in going to war than I have.
And I don't know that anyone has much more rigorously defended Israel's justice in the conduct of the war than I have.
But justice in going to war is different than justice in the conduct of a war.
This is, you know, just war theory is a phrase that's been thrown around a lot.
It comes from antiquity, and it's been developed by thinkers like Cicero all the way up through Thomas Aquinas and into the 20th century and 21st century.
But there are two aspects.
Jus ad bellum, justice in going to war, and use in bello, justice in the conduct of the war.
And there are some different criteria.
And what's very important to the question of justice in the conduct of a war are discrimination and proportionality.
Discrimination meaning, are you discriminating your attacks between civilians and militants?
Here, it's become a little less clear.
There's a lot of suffering among civilians.
There are some people even who argue that there's really no distinction between militants and civilians in Gaza because they all support Hamas.
I mean, there was a prominent commentator who said even after the attack on the Catholic Church that, you know, there's really no distinction here.
All these people support Hamas, as if to insinuate that it's all kind of the same and they could be just targets.
That would not be acceptable from the viewpoint of just war theory.
And then proportionality, which means that proportionality is not just you kill one of mine, I kill one of yours.
That's how a lot of people misinterpret it.
Proportionality means that military actions cannot be excessive in light of military aims.
So if the military aim is to take out a certain commander or to destroy a certain facility, then the military actions cannot be to nuke the entire country.
That would be excessive in light of the military aims.
And here, it's difficult to see how proportionality is really being upheld because in many ways we don't even know what the ultimate military aim is.
Is it to get the hostages back?
Is it to destroy Hamas?
Is it to decapitate the Iranian regime, which funds Hamas?
Is it to occupy southern Syria, which also has fought in this war?
Is it what is it?
These are very serious questions.
And it's one thing to kind of dismiss them when the only people who are raising them are actual anti-Semites and people who just, in principle, oppose the state of Israel, even from the standpoint of the modern Westphalian system.
But for people who like the Jews and broadly support the state of Israel, when Donald Trump, who has a town named after him and who has Jewish grandkids, comes out and says, hey, this is kind of unacceptable, this has to cause real introspection.
And there's nothing unjust or knee-jerk about that.
There's nothing really knee-jerk that happens after two years.
It should be a real cause.
It feels as though things are turning and the war needs to wrap up.
Now, today is Tehe Tuesday.
What a show.
Murder, abuse, war.
It was really at least a little Tehe Tuesday for a refresher.
