A year in the political wilderness has united Democrats in their hatred of President Trump’s policies. From the ICE raids to the tariffs to the supposed “cover-up” of the Epstein files — a strange “cover-up” indeed, as it involved President Trump arresting Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and then carrying out the single largest declassification in American history.
No matter the facts, Democrats hate what President Trump has done. They screech their displeasure from headshot boxes on cable news to the streets of Minneapolis. Yet ask Democrats what they would do instead, and they fall mute. I learned this from my debate with the crown prince of young Democrat commentary, Harry Sisson, and his fellow traveler Chris Mowrey in the latest episode of Bar Fight.
Neither presidents Barack Obama nor Joe Biden focused a moment’s thought on Jeffrey Epstein; President Trump alone has taken proactive measures to bring justice in the case. Nonetheless, the young Democrats Sisson and Mowrey object to Trump’s handling of it. What would they do? Who would they prosecute? They can’t quite say.
Trump’s tariffs have wreaked havoc on the economy, the young Democrats claim, amid all-time stock-market highs, real wage gains, month-over-month rent price declines, low unemployment, low inflation, and a GDP that keeps beating expectations. Okay. What sort of policies would they have him pursue instead? What economic ends do they even desire? Free trade or reindustrialization? Real wage growth or mass migration? Bueller? Bueller?
The ICE raids somehow threaten our democracy, which one recalls voted for those very same raids fourteen months ago. All right. Whatever their objection to the raids, do the young Democrats at least agree that the illegal aliens must go? Yes? Or, well, no. Maybe? Harry had the good sense to change the subject, while his friend Chris simply refused to answer—a predictable evasion for which Harry still owes me twenty bucks.
Democrats are poised to make major gains in the midterm elections. They’ve honed their complaints. The only thing they lack is a sense of what they want to do instead.
You can watch our whole discussion on the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bfs-260207-sub?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel">latest episode of Bar Fight</a>, exclusively on DailyWire+.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Here’s What I Learned From My Bar Fight With Harry Sisson

CONTINUE READING

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mks-ep-1907?elementPosition=3&amp;row=6&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
There is an interesting development in the Epstein case and it comes from CBS News.
The official accounts about who did or did not enter Epstein&#8217;s jail cell on the night of his death have been contradicted a myriad of times. 
If you’ll recall, we were first told there were cameras on Epstein’s jail cell and on his floor, but that they weren’t working, so there was no footage to release. Later, officials released closed-circuit footage from the night of his death and claimed it was uninterrupted. Shortly afterward, we were told that a minute of the video was missing. That missing minute was eventually restored, and we were assured the footage was original — despite clear signs it had been edited using video software.
So what&#8217;s the latest? Well, newly released video logs appear to contradict official accounts.
This is from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-jail-cell-death-video-logs/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&amp;linkId=903657594">CBS News</a>:
<blockquote>Newly released Department of Justice documents show that investigators reviewing surveillance footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein&#8217;s death observed an orange-colored shape moving up a staircase toward the isolated, locked tier where his cell was located at approximately 10:39 p.m. on Aug. 9, 2019.</blockquote>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Questions swirl as video logs show person may have entered Epstein jail tier the night he died" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EN1TmI5F1hs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: CBS Mornings/YouTube.com
I love the way they&#8217;re describing it: &#8220;An orange-colored shape.&#8221;
 So some people, probably on the Left, are imagining that this is just Trump himself. Yes, a vaguely mango-colored, you know, blond-haired, had a very nice Brioni suit on with a slightly too-long red tie.
Or no, that would be the live version of what we on the Right all imagine.
What is probably meant is that the person is wearing an orange jumpsuit, or maybe carrying something orange.
This isn&#8217;t particularly new information. I was covering Epstein months and months ago when some of this footage came out, and we noticed the strange figures that were moving around. Okay, now we can zoom in, and we see this weird orange figure. 
CBS <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-jail-cell-death-video-logs/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&amp;linkId=903657594">goes on</a>:
<blockquote>Thomas told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cell shortly after 6:30 a.m. on Aug.10 and that he &#8220;ripped&#8221; Epstein down from the hanging position.
Investigators asked what happened to the noose. 
&#8220;I don&#8217;t recall taking the noose off. I really don&#8217;t,&#8221; he replied. &#8220;I don&#8217;t recall taking the thing from around his neck.&#8221;</blockquote>
That&#8217;s a little weird, right?
I guess what you could say is it&#8217;s always shocking to see a dead body, but it was especially shocking here. This is one of the most wanted, talked-about criminals in all of America, in all of the world and you find him dead in his cell, and maybe, who knows, your hormones are spiking. You have a surge of adrenaline, you&#8217;re shocked, you&#8217;re sick, and you forget. Maybe he just forgot.
It gets weirder.
<blockquote>Noel, who remained standing at the cell entrance, told investigators she saw Thomas lower Epstein to the floor but did not see a noose around his neck.</blockquote>
Hold on. 
So now it&#8217;s not just the guy who discovers Epstein and takes him down. It&#8217;s also the observer standing a little bit further back. 
<blockquote>The noose Epstein allegedly used has never been definitively identified. According to the inspector general&#8217;s report, a noose collected at the scene was later determined not to be the ligature used in Epstein&#8217;s death.</blockquote>
The guy who took him down never saw the noose.
The lady watching him take him down never saw a noose.
And investigators never even found the noose.
Add on at least one medical examiner saying that the breaks in his neck were more consistent with strangulation than with hanging.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1907-new-video-someone-entered-epstein-s-cell-the-night-he-died?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
Everyone is focusing on the aspects of his life — Epstein had a connection to Russia; he had a connection to Israel; he had a connection to the CIA, and so on.
Some of the accounts actually contradict each other. Was he a super spy? Was he just a sex-freak rich guy? Was he really trafficking women? Was he really trading secrets? Was he really dealing with the Arabs and the Israelis, or was it the Russians or the Americans, or was it the British?
You’ve got to put that aside for a second. We now have every theory covered. Yes, we’ve connected him to every country on earth, every intelligence agency, every vice. And that’s not getting us anywhere.
If you want to get to the heart of the Epstein story, the first thing you have to ascertain is the end of the story, not how the story begins.
Not a lot of people want to focus on how a guy who dropped out of college ended up becoming a math teacher, who was hired by Bill Barr’s father at The Dalton School, but then became some kind of trader at Bear Stearns? How? He then went on to become the money manager for Les Wexner, where he said he would only have clients who were investing over $1 billion.
And then he worked with intelligence agencies.
And then he helped this sheikh in Arabia.
And then he — 
Don’t look at the beginning of the story. That is going to lead you down a billion different trails, especially with a guy who seemed to be connected to every powerful person on earth.
I think you have to start at the end of the story. 
And curious, isn’t it, that the shadiest part, the part that has been most covered up, that has been most contradicted, is not found at the beginning of the story. No one is asking, &#8220;Did Epstein work at Bear Stearns?&#8221; &#8220;Did Epstein know Ghislaine Maxwell?&#8221; &#8220;Did Epstein pal around with Bill?&#8221; It’s none of that.
The part that has been most assiduously covered up is the end of the story.
How did he die?
Who killed him?
Why don’t we have the noose?
That’s it. I don’t think we’re going to get an answer on it. And that&#8217;s been my consistent position from the beginning. Either Epstein is who they say he is, in which case we know everything about him, or he’s something more, in which case we know everything we’re ever going to know, because they’re not going to let it out. 
But if we could ascertain who killed him, that would help us to answer: why was he killed? That would help us to answer what purpose he primarily served in world politics. That would help us to answer who, chiefly, he was working for.
That would help us to answer what the Epstein operation was really about.
But the only way you’re going to get those big answers is by going backward. You’re not going to get it by going forward.
Now we’re getting some little, little tasty hints — but nothing definitive.
And if you want me to put some money on the table, I don’t think we’re going to get much more than that.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Who Was The Orange Figure That Appeared In Epstein’s Cellblock?

The following is an edited transcript excerpt of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1906-libs-in-minneapolis-create-their-own-border-patrol?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
Liberals in Minnesota have had it with ICE raids and Border Patrol, so they’ve decided to take matters into their own hands with a novel plan to keep the people they don’t want out of their communities.
They are, quite literally, creating a system to control who comes and goes.
In the middle of the road at 32nd and Cedar Avenue in Minneapolis, activists erected a makeshift roadblock, turning the intersection into a roundabout. Cars slowed as drivers noticed. Some honked, others asked questions. One man even brought food for the people standing watch.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Minneapolis roadblock created as safety measure against ICE, residents say" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kpxvfub-gHA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: @WCCO &#8211; CBS Minnesota/YouTube.com
When asked how it felt to see a community checkpoint in his neighborhood, one local shrugged it off. It felt “fine,” he said. He didn’t have any trouble with people “helping out.”
<blockquote>Wade Haynes has been standing at that corner twice a day for one reason: to stand up against ICE activity and “keep his community safe.” He chose that corner. Others chose other intersections. He found it inspiring. “Wow,” he said. “We’ve got folks out there who are kind of taking care of us, looking out for us.”</blockquote>
Taking care of them? Looking out for them?
Some might say policing their communities.
And the way they’re doing it is by erecting structures in the street on the corners — stopping points. Some might even call them “borders,” staffed by people who check to make sure that only the right people get into the community, and that the people they don’t want stay out.
Many people, including some on the Right, have questioned President Trump’s tactics in Minneapolis. But you can’t argue with results — and the results of the Minneapolis raids are that Trump got anti-ICE liberals to invent Border Patrol.
That’s the beautiful part.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1906-libs-in-minneapolis-create-their-own-border-patrol?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
Trump actually trolled the Minneapolis Left into reinventing everything they claim to oppose: border patrol, wall checkpoints, cops, enforcement. “We need our own ICE to deport these ICE agents,” they cry, without a trace of irony.
This is what always seems to happen when utopians on the Left — of all stripes — dream up their perfect society.
They start by declaring that society as it exists is no good:
<blockquote>We’ve got markets. We’ve got people making money. We’ve got private property. We’ve got exploitation — we don’t want any of that, man! 
So what are we going to do? We’re going to move to a commune. A farm in the middle of nowhere. It’s going to be beautiful — not like this city, not like this town. We’re going to live together in harmony. Some people are going to grow the food. Some people are going to bake the bread. Some people are going to watch the kids. It’s going to be amazing. We’re going to have a diversity of labor.</blockquote>
Oh, you mean we’re going to have a market economy?
<blockquote>Well, yeah, but this time it will be perfect. And we’re all going to take care of each other, man.</blockquote>
Oh, you mean like police?
<blockquote>Yeah, man.</blockquote>
And so, without realizing it, they invent society as it has always existed — just with the assumption that this time, they’ll do it right.
<blockquote>That’s the problem with our society, they say. We just didn’t do it right.</blockquote>
And now, in Minneapolis, they’ve reinvented Border Patrol.
It’s so beautiful.
So I say: take them at their word.
Yes, we do need people to keep our communities safe. 
Yes, we do need checkpoints to keep the people we don’t want out. 
Yes, we do need a group of people to take care of the community.
If that’s what they believe, then flood Minneapolis with even more ICE agents, Mr. President.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Minneapolis Liberals Invent Their Own Border Patrol

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1905-lib-mom-threatens-to-murder-her-kids-because-of-ice?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
Five years ago, the big issue in America that showed the impaired judgment of Democrats was transgenderism. It&#8217;s not that guys playing on girls tennis teams or guys going into the girls bathroom were the biggest issues, it&#8217;s that those were the issues that most clearly showed the impairment of judgment among Democrats. You don&#8217;t know what a woman is? Then you don&#8217;t know anything. That&#8217;s why it was such a big issue.
Now, in 2026, the question is, what is an American? What is a nation?
The big issue has now shifted from transgenderism to immigration. And that&#8217;s what largely impelled Trump to a popular vote victory. It’s also what&#8217;s causing the riots in the streets, because most Americans voted for mass deportations. But the liberals don&#8217;t want to give up their mass migration strategy because they are counting on mass migration to fundamentally alter the demographics and the political order of America so that they can have a permanent electoral majority.
Which leads us to the protests over ICE.
Why are unhinged white liberal men and women going out and provoking cops to shoot them on behalf of protecting mass migration?
Why are mothers and CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/02/us/teenage-brothers-ice-watchers-minneapolis?Date=20260202&amp;Profile=CNN&amp;utm_content=1770064615&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">encouraging</a> young teenage boys to skip school, to obstruct law enforcement and put themselves in dangerous situations?
What is the political unrest all about?
Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, just told us on C-SPAN.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): &#8220;I have deep concerns about the fairness of our elections in &#8217;26 and &#8217;28…If it doesn’t scare the heck out of you, it should.&#8221;
<a href="https://t.co/kbLXQwnSD9">pic.twitter.com/kbLXQwnSD9</a>
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) <a href="https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2018754503424565342?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
Credit: @Breaking911/X.com
Senator Warner says,
<blockquote>I remember back, you know, a year ago at this time when people would often ask me when they were seeing the actions of the Trump administration, you know, do you think we&#8217;ll have free and fair elections in 26 or in 28? And my response at that point was, you know, I think you&#8217;re overreacting. I have deep concerns about the fairness of our elections in 26 and 28. Right now. I have concerns about the elections in primaries in our country. I have a lot of concerns about the elections that may take place in Virginia in terms of a redistricting referendum.</blockquote>
We were told for about five years that anyone who ever questions the legitimacy of elections is a terrible, insurrectionist traitor who needs to be thrown in solitary confinement.
And now Mark Warner, based on nothing, is already questioning the legitimacy of the 2026 and 2028 elections, including primaries.
It&#8217;s very strange, especially because when conservatives raised questions about the election in 2020, it was after the libs had changed all the election rules, in some cases illegally and unconstitutionally.
So there was this huge change. I think it was fair to question the elections in that specific, once in a lifetime circumstance where you just change all the election rules, you get rid of a lot of the protections that protect against fraud.
But before 2020, it was basically only the Democrats who questioned elections, and they questioned Bush v. Gore, taking that one all the way to the Supreme Court.
They didn&#8217;t really question in 2004 because Bush won it so handily. Then they won in 2008 and in 2012. They changed election rules in 2020. And now, just after the 2024 election, they&#8217;re already saying 2026 and 2028 are going to be rigged.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1905-lib-mom-threatens-to-murder-her-kids-because-of-ice?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
So, it means they&#8217;re probably not feeling as good about the upcoming elections as they previously did. Also, they&#8217;re trying to set the stage for political violence, for political unrest. That&#8217;s why these riots are happening now.
Notice, the riots weren&#8217;t happening in the first part of the year with the Trump administration. You had mass deportations almost immediately and they weren&#8217;t really kicking up then. Well, it&#8217;s kicking up now that we&#8217;re looking ahead to the midterms, and they probably started it a little too early. Winter is not the best time to riot, especially when the libs who are too sensitive don&#8217;t like the cold that much.
But that&#8217;s what this is about. The reason the unrest is kicking up almost immediately after 2026 begins is because this is all about the elections they want to win. They have two objectives here: First, they want to create great instability that will allow them to exert more control over elections, which always opens up the question of fraud. Second, they want to make a threat. And the threat is: we&#8217;re going to keep violently rioting if we don&#8217;t get our way.
That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re after. It&#8217;s all about elections.
We will see if their strategy works. As an issue, however, the immigration matter works well for the GOP. Republicans are completely on the right side of immigration by basically any public opinion poll.
In terms of the political violence, though, the Left just might be able to ram their way through.
That remains to be seen.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Why Are Democrats Already Questioning The 2026 And 2028 Elections?

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1904-zohran-mamdani-freezes-16-new-yorkers-to-death?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
Zohran Mamdani just made a really sad and totally predictable announcement.
When the recent winter cold front made it to New York, it was not nearly as bad as the ice storm Nashville residents experienced. There was very little ice in New York, mostly just snow. Nevertheless, 16 homeless New Yorkers died during that brief little cold snap.
Here is the new mayor of New York:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Mayor Mamdani confirms sixteen deaths during dangerously cold weather in NYC <a href="https://t.co/pQ0L9i5Yzz">https://t.co/pQ0L9i5Yzz</a> <a href="https://t.co/zHAPfvu95u">pic.twitter.com/zHAPfvu95u</a>
— New York Post (@nypost) <a href="https://twitter.com/nypost/status/2018388455508656233?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
Credit: @nypost/X.com
Mayor Mamdani says,
<blockquote>A severe cold front continues to bear down on our city. Today is our 11th consecutive day of below freezing weather, and we could very well be in the middle of the longest period of consecutive sub-32-degree weather in our city&#8217;s entire history. Without temperatures rising above freezing, snow has hardened into blocks of ice. But the greatest danger posed by the sustained cold is to vulnerable New Yorkers who remain exposed to the elements. As of this morning, 16 of our fellow New Yorkers have passed away outside during this brutal stretch of cold. In 13 of these cases, preliminary findings indicate that hypothermia played a role, and three of these deaths appear to be overdose deaths. We await final results from the medical examiner&#8217;s office and will inform New Yorkers as we learn more. Each of these lives lost is a tragedy. My heart was with the family of those mourning their loved ones.</blockquote>
Mamdani blames the deaths mostly on nature, though he admits a few of them were drug deaths. 
Unlike other areas of the country where recent ice storms knocked out power for weeks, New York City is built for cold weather. Cold weather hits New York every single year. New Yorkers knows how to deal with cold weather, especially when they have competent management and government.
The people who died in New York did not die because their power went out. New York didn&#8217;t lose power. They died because they were left to die on the streets. Why were they left to die on the streets? Is this just some immutable characteristic of New York? What can we do? Throw our arms up in the air? A long-standing problem?
No, it&#8217;s not.
They were left to die on the streets specifically because Zohran Mamdani, who has been in office for just one month now, left them to die on the streets. In fact campaigned to leave them to die on the streets.
Don&#8217;t take my word for it. Here is CBS News.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Mamdani says he&#039;ll end homeless encampment sweeps in NYC" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CWjUfoi6YCg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: @CBSNewYork/YouTube.com
The reporter states,
<blockquote>Local New York Mayor Alexander Mamdani says that he will end the Adams administration&#8217;s practice of removing homeless encampments from city sidewalks. But advocates argue it will be a step backwards for the city&#8217;s quality of life. Ali Bauman questioned the mayor-elect about this tonight. For the past three years, the NYPD has been systematically removing homeless encampments from New York City sidewalks, a practice mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani vows to end once he takes office — vows to end it.</blockquote>
This is Mamdani campaigning and saying we are intentionally going to leave the homeless — who are almost entirely drug addicts and mentally ill — on the streets. And this is supposedly going to be compassionate. That&#8217;s a change of policy from the previous administration, which just left office.
A little history of New York City during the 1970s and 80s may be helpful. Back then, there were a lot of bums, a lot of criminals, and a lot of homeless people on the streets. Then-mayor Rudy Giuliani came in in the 1990s and got rid of all that. He said, No, no, no — if you&#8217;re homeless, you need to go to shelters or we&#8217;re going to arrest you, but we&#8217;re not going to leave you on the streets.
After he was mayor of New York, Giuliani reiterated the same idea about the Occupy Wall Street protests. When people set up encampments all over the city, he said, No, no, no, you can&#8217;t do this. Sleeping on the street is a dysfunctional act which harms society and the individual.
In other words, letting the homeless stay on the street is contrary to the common good.
It&#8217;s not just that letting the homeless stay on the street is good for the homeless but bad for the rest of the New Yorkers who don&#8217;t want to see them — that&#8217;s how Mamdani is presenting it. The real argument, however, is no, it&#8217;s actually bad for everyone. Because it&#8217;s bad for the law-abiding New Yorkers who don&#8217;t want criminals and drug addicts and crazy people running around the streets all the time.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1904-zohran-mamdani-freezes-16-new-yorkers-to-death?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
It’s also bad for the homeless because they&#8217;re susceptible to crime — susceptible to being assaulted or raped or killed. And they&#8217;re also vulnerable to the elements. It&#8217;s very, very dangerous to leave them on the streets year round, especially in the winter. And now we see the results.  This is the “warmth of collectivism.”
This is the compassion that Mamdani has promised. Leaving 16 New Yorkers dead during a totally predictable, minor cold front. And he even gives away the game in his speech by trying to mitigate his culpability by saying, “In 13 of these cases, preliminary findings indicate that hypothermia played a role, and three of these deaths appear to be overdose deaths.”
They basically froze like Jack Nicholson at the end of “The Shining.”
He then seems to avoid taking responsibility by saying, “&#8230;and three of these deaths appear to be overdose deaths.”
Like that&#8217;s better. Like it’s good that they chose to die, as if they were consenting adults. First of all, you can&#8217;t consent when you&#8217;re crazy, or when you&#8217;re addicted to all kinds of vices, or when you&#8217;re underage, or when there are all sorts of things that compromise our consent.
So Mayor Mamdani&#8217;s whole policy is based on a misconception of freedom — what freedom really is. Like all liberals, he thinks freedom is just neutrality in choosing. Well, some people choose not to do heroin, but some people choose to do heroin, and who are we to say which is the better choice?
It&#8217;s a misconception of freedom. It&#8217;s a misconception of the common good. It&#8217;s a misconception of what&#8217;s good for everybody. The common good is not just the random collection of all the individual goods of people, some of which are contrary to each other. In this kind of utilitarian calculation that tries to lead to the greatest utility for the greatest number, the common good is what we all share — what is good for all of us, what is not diminished by any individual good.
It’s also a misunderstanding of compassion. It is not compassionate to just ignore people. It&#8217;s funny because the Left accuses the Right of this: you just ignore people. You retreat to your nice neighborhoods and your penthouses and your money, and you ignore your common man. You don&#8217;t think you&#8217;re your brother&#8217;s keeper.
Sometimes the Right is guilty of that, especially the more Libertarian Right. The Left is just as guilty of that. Oh, just leave people to their degradation. Leave people to their vices. Leave people to their destructive behaviors — be it sexual ideologies, be it just license more broadly, be it with regard to living on the street — just leave them there.
It&#8217;s fine. You know, who are you to intervene? Who am I?
Well, I&#8217;m a reasonable person, and I&#8217;m a member of society, and I&#8217;m a citizen. And the consequences of all three of those misconceptions from Zohran Mamdani are that 16 people die on the street, whether from drugs or from exposure. That&#8217;s the “warmth of collectivism.”
What would have been more compassionate for the homeless: Zohran Mamdani, who says all sorts of sweet things about the homeless and leaves them to die on the street, or Rudy Giuliani, who talks a little tougher, who seems a little bit meaner, but who protects those people?
Where&#8217;s the real compassion?
That&#8217;s it. We&#8217;re one month into Mamdani — one month in — and you&#8217;ve got homeless ice cubes lining the streets of New York, some of which also have heroin and fentanyl in their blood.
We&#8217;re in for a real treat with Mamdani.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

The Deadly Consequences Of Zohran Mamdani’s Homelessness Policy

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1903-the-three-million-new-pages-of-epstein-files-explained?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>. 
* * *
Christopher Nolan is doing a movie about &#8220;The Odyssey,&#8221; Homer&#8217;s epic poem, and he has cast Lupita Nyong&#8217;o as Helen of Troy — the face that launched a thousand ships, the most beautiful woman in the Greek world.
Lupita Nyong&#8217;o is a very good actress. However, let&#8217;s just say she doesn&#8217;t look Greek.
She doesn&#8217;t have any of the features that are traditionally associated with Helen of Troy. Helen is portrayed as having very, very fair skin, sometimes slightly darker hair, sometimes blond hair. So it doesn&#8217;t quite match. Some people are making all sorts of nasty comments about Lupita Nyong&#8217;o, this perfectly nice-looking lady, who is certainly a very good actress.
This does not seem to serve the story, does it?
The purpose of casting is the same as acting, directing, editing, and producing — it&#8217;s to tell a story.
To cast Lupita Nyong&#8217;o in that role is to distract from the story. It undermines the story. She&#8217;s not fit for that part.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably the greatest actor of my lifetime. He’s just absolutely magnificent. It would be a little odd to cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as Malcolm X in “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” wouldn&#8217;t it? He&#8217;s a very good actor. But there are limits.
There are limits to what an actor can do. There are limits to this entire world.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1903-the-three-million-new-pages-of-epstein-files-explained?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
There was a famous debate within the theater, by the way, on so-called &#8220;colorblind casting,&#8221; which is never really colorblind. They call it colorblind casting when they cast Lupita as Helen of Troy, but they don&#8217;t call it colorblind casting if they were to cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as Malcolm X. That would be an outrage. It would never happen.
So it&#8217;s not exactly colorblind. It&#8217;s just casting black and Latino people in white roles, and not casting white people at all.
There was a famous debate on this between Robert Brustein, who ran the American Repertory Theater, and August Wilson, who was probably the most famous black American playwright, perhaps ever. He wrote “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” he wrote “Fences,” which was a movie with Denzel Washington some years ago — a good playwright as far as contemporary playwrights go.
And Brustein, the white liberal, argued for colorblind casting. Oh yeah, anybody of any race, any background can play any part. And August Wilson, the black guy — or half-black guy — said, no, they can&#8217;t. He didn&#8217;t want white people to play roles where they&#8217;re a garbage collector in the early 20th century in black neighborhoods with black families. It doesn&#8217;t read. It takes you out of the story. It isn&#8217;t true.
And there&#8217;s obviously some wiggle room here in certain roles because actors pretend. But it is beyond the capacity of certain actors — of all actors — to overcome their natural limits.
Christopher Nolan&#8217;s a good director, but one can object to the casting without being offensive and mean-spirited; it just doesn&#8217;t make a lot of sense.
Someone on X/Twitter rightly put it, “this is now the face that launched a thousand quips because people think it&#8217;s kind of funny.”

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Why Lupita Nyong’o As Helen Of Troy Does Not Work

Opinion

Democrats

Epstein Files

Jeffrey Epstein

Michael Knowles

Michael Knowles faces off against viral liberal commentators Harry Sisson and Chris Mowrey in this heated episode of Bar Fight. The fired-up live audience in Nashville joins in the action as they tackle the hottest topics: Trump ICE raids, Epstein files, and stolen land claims at the Grammys. Expect intense clashes and unfiltered arguments in this rhetorical showdown—live at John Rich's Redneck Riviera!

Bar Fight Ep. 7

Hour 1

Bar Fight

2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Sisson & Chris Mowrey

Michael Knowles faces off against viral liberal commentators Harry Sisson and Chris Mowrey in this heated episode of Bar Fight. The fired-up live audience in Nashville joins in the action as they tackle the hottest topics: Trump ICE raids, Epstein files, and stolen land claims at the Grammys. Expect intense clashes and unfiltered arguments in this rhetorical showdown—live at John Rich's Redneck Riviera!

Bar Fight Ep. 7

Thanks for being a DailyWire+ member. This show is ad-free.

2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Sisson & Chris Mowrey [Member Exclusive]

How do you win at life? How do you navigate modern dating? These are big questions worth addressing. Earlier this week on X, I made this point: “A married person simply should not have an opposite sex friend who is not also a friend of their spouse. And even then, there's no scenario where the spouse and the friend should be hanging out alone. These are the most basic boundaries. If you aren't prepared to put them in place, and respect them, you shouldn't get married.” That’s obviously true, though not everyone agrees…

The Matt Walsh Show

Can Men And Women REALLY Be Friends?

How do you win at life? How do you navigate modern dating? These are big questions worth addressing. Earlier this week on X, I made this point: “A married person simply should not have an opposite sex friend who is not also a friend of their spouse. And even then, there's no scenario where the spouse and the friend should be hanging out alone. These are the most basic boundaries. If you aren't prepared to put them in place, and respect them, you shouldn't get married.” That’s obviously true, though not everyone agrees…

Thanks for being a DailyWire+ member. This show is ad-free.

Can Men And Women REALLY Be Friends? [Member Exclusive]

In this episode of Woke TikToks, Ben turns to the celebrity class. Which of our favorite celebs had the worst ICE meltdown?

The Ben Shapiro Show

Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Celebrity ICE Reactions

In this episode of Woke TikToks, Ben turns to the celebrity class. Which of our favorite celebs had the worst ICE meltdown?

Thanks for being a DailyWire+ member. This show is ad-free.

Menu

— Opinion —

Here’s What I Learned From My Bar Fight With Harry Sisson

Create a free account to join the conversation!