Ep. 279 – Washington Goes Insane mocks media obsession with Kellyanne Conway’s sofa kneeling while dismissing Russian collusion hysteria, framing Trump’s wiretapping claims as a reaction to Obama-era FISA leaks and Benghazi deceptions. Michael Knowles’ satirical Reasons to Vote for Democrats—a blank book except for a bibliography—exposes Democratic contradictions on civil rights, eugenics, and economics, while the host ties leftist "crime think" to Orwell’s 1984, citing Middlebury riot violence against Charles Murray over IQ research as proof of ideological censorship. The episode ends by branding progressive free-speech hypocrisy: buying 1984 ironically while policing dissent. [Automatically generated summary]
American journalists are absolutely livid that their reckless and irresponsible charges that President Trump colluded with the Russians have been interrupted by President Trump's reckless and irresponsible charges that the Obama administration bugged his phone.
According to the media, reckless, irresponsible charges are their job and the president should not interrupt them while they're trying to destroy him.
To keep from being drawn into this vortex of charge and countercharge, we here at the Andrew Clavin Show are determined to report only on the one administration scandal that is wholly supported by proof.
The case of Kellyanne Conway's shoes.
Photographic evidence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that presidential counsel Kellyanne Conway knelt on the sofa in the Oval Office while trying to take a photograph of President Trump meeting with the heads of historically black universities.
While she knelt, her shoes were pressed into the sofa's cushions.
Now, you may say, wow, a Republican president making inroads in the black community.
Why, that would leave the Democrats with no voters except illegal immigrants and dead people.
But according to the news media, you're missing the whole point.
The shoes.
Concentrate on the shoes.
As former President Bill Clinton remarked, quote, I think it's absolutely shameful that a woman should kneel in the Oval Office just to take some sort of stupid photograph, unquote.
Congressman Keith Ellison, who serves on the Democratic National Committee as deputy chair in charge of anti-Semitic crypto-Islamism, told reporters, quote, this administration has time and time again engaged in dirty tricks like honoring a fallen Navy SEAL hero on national TV while I was not applauding and thus trying to make me look like a bitter, unpatriotic radical who wasn't applauding a fallen Navy SEAL hero.
And now this Conway hussy has the unmitigated gall to kneel on the sofa, burying her seductive knees and displaying her shapely figure with her flowing blonde hair completely uncovered.
She should be flogged and then stoned to death.
Metaphorically speaking, of course, unquote.
Leftist commentator Keith Olbermann also commented on the incident, breaking from his restraints and escaping his handlers long enough to tell reporters, quote, during my recent electroshock treatments, messages were injected directly into my brain, revealing that Kellyanne Conway's shoes have had repeated contact with Russian shoes, who are hell-bent on undermining what was once, I dare say, the greatest bastion of free shoes in the entire Venusian Galactic Confederation, unquote.
According to journalists, the shoe incident underscores the chaos in the Trump administration, largely caused by journalists running around in an hysterical panic looking for scandals that aren't there.
As one CNN reporter put it, quote, no act of good governance, inspiring speechmaking, or wise policy by Donald Trump can receive news coverage until every legal and harmless meeting with Russian officials has been exposed and the bust of Martin Luther King is returned to the spot in the Oval Office where it never left, unquote.
Jeff Sessions Spy Allegation00:15:37
And we here at the Andrew Clavin Show say, yes.
Fight bravely on, mainstream media journalists.
Now that Ringling Brothers Circus is closing, you are our last source of irrelevant clowns.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Life is tickety, birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dee-dee.
Shitty-shitty, tipsy-topsy, the world is zippity-zing.
It's a wonderful day, hooray, hooray, it makes me want to sing.
best-selling cultural correspondent Michael Knowles is here to speak about his new book reasons I have it here.
Reasons to vote for Democrats.
It's a startling, startling study.
Very thorough, says Ben Shapiro, and he'll be here after the break to discuss it.
But if you are watching on Facebook and YouTube, you'll have to come over to thedailywire.com.
And while you're there, hey, subscribe to the site.
Don't just sit there.
Subscribe to the site and then you can be in Wednesday's mailbag and everything.
And also, you get, we're still giving away the Arroyo?
You get the Arroyo, a movie, excellent movie made by, what's the guy's name?
Oh, yeah, Jeremy Boring, the God-King of the Daily Wire.
I'm going to stop making that joke because he actually is the God-King of the Daily Wire, and he does hit people with lightning and stuff like that.
All right.
So Democrats say that now that Donald Trump is absolutely finished because he insulted John McCain.
Oh, no, wait.
Democrats say that Donald Trump is finished because he made rude sexual comments.
No, wait, wait.
It's Democrats say Donald Trump is finished because he tweeted that Barack Obama is bugging his phone.
That's the one we're on now, right?
Okay, so that's, I just get confused.
They all run together in my mind.
So here's the thing: Donald Trump, I'm beginning to realize, has this absolute mastery of narrative, of affecting the flow of narrative, which is good and not so good.
It's good because we really need a Republican president to destroy the narrative of the Democrat mainstream media, because the mainstream media is purely Democrat.
There are no Republicans in the mainstream media.
It is a Democrat propaganda operation.
That's all it is.
So we need someone to destroy the narrative.
It's not so good because while he's doing that, who's the president?
Who's being president?
It's like, it's all so strange.
I mean, Washington is going out of its mind.
Here's the narrative as I see it, okay?
Here's the way I think things shook out.
Donald Trump made a fantastic speech last week, right?
Was that Tuesday?
All right, Tuesday.
He makes this fantastic pseudo-State of the Union address, joint session of Congress.
Not only is it a great speech in and of itself, it catches the Democrats looking like what they are: bitter, unpatriotic, entitled, small-minded, nasty people who can't even get off their butts to applaud for a Navy SEAL who was killed in the line of duty, who won't applaud for American jobs, who won't applaud for American greatness.
These guys, they just look terrible.
And they were so expecting Donald Trump to go off and do his usual kind of dark, you know, rambling speech.
And instead, he delivered this real barn burner of a brilliant speech.
They were caught looking terrible.
All right, so what happens?
The Democrats and their mainstream media toadies, by which I mean the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the toady, just Democrats, Democrat operatives with press cards, as Glenn Reynolds says at Instapundit.
Absolutely accurate description.
They leap on Jeff Sessions, who said, you know, when asked if, as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, had he discussed the campaign with the Russians and said, no, I never did that.
I never met with any Russians.
When he meant as a surrogate, obviously, but of course, as a senator, he had met the Russian ambassador in his office and after a speech in a group of other people.
So in his office, this makes Jeff Sessions a spy, right?
He's sitting in his office with the Russian ambassador and he's on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
That makes him a spy.
So now that means, oh, you know, Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General, has to recuse himself from any investigation into Trump colluding with the Russians to destroy our electoral process.
Okay.
So that is to take the narrative away from this speech that Donald Trump made.
And it's nonsense.
I mean, it really is nonsense.
And Sessions recuses himself, which they think is like a prelude to, oh, there's blood in the water, right?
But in fact, it just reminds people that Eric Holder never recused himself from anything, even after he was found in contempt for covering up information in Fast and Furious.
He wouldn't turn over the information in the Fast and Furious scandal, and he was held in contempt of Congress.
And then Loretta Lynch never recused herself, even though she's caught meeting the subject of an investigation on a tarmac.
She's having a secret meeting with Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton is under investigation.
Doesn't recuse herself.
So it kind of reminds people, like, oh, yeah, this is the way a public official is supposed to behave.
Jeff Sessions, excellent public official.
I really, really like him.
I really think he's done a good job.
I think he's a great pick for AG.
He recuses himself.
So they're stuck kind of like in mid-breath.
So the press just keeps hammering.
Oh, this Russian story.
Just take a look.
Here's Kim Strassel, right?
An excellent reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
She's been on the show.
Just a terrific reporter commenting on this Russian thing.
And listen to Chuck Todd's reaction to what she says.
There's no evidence.
I mean, this is, I mean, I just heard Chuck Schumer suggest exactly what you did today.
We know that this is the case.
Look, there's nothing there, especially this recent discussion about Jeff Sessions, which is the kind of height of the ludicrousness of this, okay?
If Jeff Sessions really was a mole working for the Russian government, he probably would have found a better place to have met with him than his public Senate office surrounded by his aides.
So the meetings are not necessarily what matter.
They don't prove anything.
The question is.
But the one thing, Kim, I will say this on these meetings, is, is there any substance?
Why do they, they do have this pattern of, oh yeah, I forgot I have this meeting.
I mean, it is.
Because many people in Washington have suddenly forgot, Mr. Schumer, for instance, about the single Russian ambassador.
Exactly.
That's the story.
There's a pattern of people forgetting.
Schumer forgot, Pelosi forgot, Claire McCaskill made fun.
She was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, too.
And she said, well, I never met with the Russian ambassador.
She met with him twice.
You know, it's like they just, maybe the guy's just not that memorable.
Maybe he's not that memorable a guy.
But I think, you know, it's easy to forget this stuff.
It really is.
You meet with 100 people.
And then if somebody asked me if I had met someone that I just shook hands with or even sat down for a couple of, you know, a couple of conversations with, you know, you just forget.
These guys meet people all the time.
Let's remember, too, what Obama did.
Okay.
Obama sat down with the then Russian president Medvedev.
A lot of D's and V's, I can't remember his name.
And said, tell Vlad after I finish lying to the American media.
Tell Vlad that after this, this is my last election, and then I'll be more flexible on the matter of weakening America's defenses in Europe, basically.
That's basically what he said.
You know, let Vlad know.
He did that.
He helped the Iranians.
He's eased the process by which the Iranians or the Russian allies are eventually going to acquire nuclear weapons.
He's made peace with Cuba.
And meanwhile, Trump is building up the military.
Oh, and Obama gutted the military.
So meanwhile, Trump is building up the military.
He's fighting with the Russians in the UN.
His people are fighting with the Russians in the UN.
You know, I mean, it's just, it's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
There's no way that Vladimir Putin knew that Donald Trump was going to win for the simple reason that no one knew or thought that Donald Trump was going to win.
He was spying on the Democrats as a way of undermining what he thought would be the next president of the United States, right?
I mean, that is what he was doing.
So the entire story is just the fact that it's getting, you know, look, I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated.
The Russian meddling with the DNC shouldn't be investigated.
Yes, it should.
But it's not a big story.
I mean, this idea that it's collusion, that it's spying, it's a wholly Democrat-made and manufactured scandal.
And the press works for them.
And they work for them.
So finally, Trump, who, let's face it, has the impulse control of a six-year-old.
And that's kind of an insult to six-year-olds.
He's finally had it.
And Trump's response to this is all the time is, I'm a Russian spy.
No, you're a Russian spy.
No.
So he sends out these tweets.
So here are his tweets, okay?
This is Saturday morning.
Terrible.
Just found out that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory.
Nothing found.
This is McCarthyism.
Just out, the same Russian ambassador to the Metzf, Jeff Sessions, visited the Obama White House 22 times and four times last year alone.
Is it legal for a sitting president to be wiretapping a race for president prior to an election turned down by court earlier?
A new low.
I bet a good lawyer would make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October just prior to the election.
And this one was the big one.
How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process?
This is Nixon/slash Watergate, bad or sick guy.
And here is my favorite of all of them.
Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't voluntarily leaving The Apprentice.
He was fired by his bad, pathetic ratings, not by me.
Sad end to a great show.
For Trump, there is absolutely no difference between accusing the former president of tapping his phone and that rotten Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He ruined my apprentice show.
All right, so this is how this comes out, right?
And Obama's spokesperson, spokesman Kevin Lewis, puts out this statement: all right: A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.
As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.
Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.
Now, if you listen to that carefully, it is a non-denial denial.
First of all, the Obama administration never had to tell the people in the Justice Department who were Chicago Democrat hacks, never had to tell them to do anything.
The meddlesome priest rule was in effect.
You know, the meddlesome, they all knew what Obama wanted done, and they got it done.
So he didn't.
But did he know that they did it?
Of course he knew.
Of course he knew if they were tapping the phone.
So that's the first thing.
Also, just while we're talking about it, just so we know who we're dealing with, President Obama also said he never heard Jeremiah Wright make anti-American statements during 20 years at his church.
The terrorist Bill Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood rather than a political ally.
The use of chemical weapons would be a red line in Syria.
I never drew a red line in Syria.
There's not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.
If you like your plan, you keep your plan.
Benghazi was caused by a video.
The guy's a liar.
The guy lies, and he lies at the drop of a hat.
Trump, who is a BS artist of the first water who exaggerates everything and grabs onto stories without really examining the truth of them, he's honest Abe next to Obama.
Look, I wouldn't put any of them on my big, you know, great tellers of truth charts.
But like, you know, compared to Obama, the things that Trump does are nothing.
Okay, let's take a look at CNN's headlines on this story, right?
So we've got a non-denial denial from Obama.
We've got weeks of unsubstantiated Russian nonsense.
Okay, here's how CNN reports the Obama story.
Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping him.
What's the other one?
Trump falsely Trump's baseless wiretaps claim.
I mean, you know, they don't even, it's like there's no CNN's baseless Russian claims.
There's no, you know, CNN falsely attacked.
Just before we cut away from Facebook and YouTube, I have to play, you know, CNN is just completely on Obama's side, going to completely sell the Obama news.
Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe is crying about it.
You got to play this.
This is unbelievable.
When you are out speaking for President Trump, I would urge you not to laugh at yourself because this is not funny.
This is really bad.
Just for the record, we're all really nervous.
So if people out there feel nervous, we do too.
We don't think this is funny.
Journalists are crying.
Journalists are crying.
Donald Trump hooded journalists are crying.
We got to cut away from Facebook and YouTube.
I can't make this stuff up.
Come on over to TheDelhiWire.com and hear the rest of the show.
Okay.
So now Chuck Schumer, Chuck Schumer's got the best spin.
He is now, the guy, you know, he's morphing into a weasel as you watch him.
He's like his nose, you know, his face is getting longer.
He's going to start to sprout gray fur in a little while.
Here's his take on Trump's tweets.
Either way, Chuck, the president's in trouble if he falsely spread this kind of misinformation.
That is so wrong.
It's beneath the dignity of the presidency.
It is something that really hurts people's view of government.
It's civilization warping, as Ben Sass, a conservative Republican, called it.
And I don't know if any president, Democrat or Republican in the past, has done this.
It shows this president doesn't know how to conduct himself.
On the other hand, if it's true, it's even worse for the president because that means that a federal judge independently elected has found probable cause that the president or people on his staff have had probable cause to have broken the law or to have interacted with a foreign agent.
Now, that's serious stuff.
So either way, the president makes it worse with these tweets.
So that's Chuck Schumer giving me the press its marching orders, and you can bet that's the way they're going to cover it.
So either Trump was telling a horrible, horrible lie that Obama would tap his phone or Obama tapped his phone because he's a Russian spy.
I mean, that's basically, that is basically the thing.
So, you know, did Obama tapama tap Trump?
Well, remember, this is an old story that comes out of the New York Times.
Where it suddenly got into Trump's mind, I don't know, maybe Mark Levin was talking about it, I understand, and he was talking about the big conspiracy and all this.
But this was reported a long time ago in the New York Times.
Here's Andy McCarthy saying, reporting indicates that prior to June 2016, this is Andrew C. McCarthy, I should call him at the National Review, reporting indicates that prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates and perhaps Trump himself based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions.
Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved.
Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This is the FISA courts you keep hearing about.
FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance, which would include wiretapping, monitoring of email and the like against those it alleges are agents of a foreign power.
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified, i.e. we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, which is a felony.
Fisa Courts And Trump00:04:06
So all of this, remember, this is Michael Flynn.
Remember when everybody's being shocked, oh, would Obama tap somebody?
How did we know that Michael Flynn had had this conversation with the Russians?
How did we know?
I mean, it was a private conversation.
We know it comes from intelligence gathering sources who were tapping his phone.
So, you know, it's not, you know, what Trump is saying is not outlandish at all.
I don't think, I'm not sure Trump knows what he's talking about.
I'm not sure.
And Trump is apparently furious at the way this is being reported, according to the Newsmax, Chris Ruddy at the Newsmax, who's a friend of his, he says he's just furious and he's sure he'll be proved right.
But here's the thing.
Here's the thing you've got to remember.
In January, January, right, as Obama realizes that he is not only is he leaving office, but Donald Trump is coming into a race, bringing the big pink eraser to erase all his executive orders, which is the only legacy that Obama has and Obamacare, that's it, and the mess in the Middle East.
As he realizes this, he changes the rules of who gets to see this surveillance information.
He changes the rules to allow, I think it's 17 agencies to look at this.
So essentially, he's throwing this stuff to the winds.
So if you have been tapped now, it used to be there was a very restricted idea of who could look at that information.
Now, in January, Obama changes the rules so that a lot of people can see it.
More possibility of leaks.
I mean, endless possibilities of leaks.
No protection for your privacy or anybody's privacy, including Donald Trump's.
This was a minefield that Obama created to wrong foot and hurt the next president who was coming in because he knew that his legacy is written in sand.
He knows his legacy is written in sand, and to slow this guy down, he left these minefields.
And of course, his willing media goes after it.
Now, look, Donald Trump, Donald Trump risks giving these people credence when he acts irresponsibly.
But the old playbook, the old playbook was for the president to act presidential while the opposition destroyed itself, sending out all, you know, making all this noise and making all these false claims.
But when the media is so pervasive and when the media is so one-sided, I don't think, as we saw with George W. Bush, you simply can't do that anymore or the media will accuse you of causing hurricanes, which they did with George W. Bush, right?
And, you know, so this is what Trump is fighting back against.
This is what, and he doesn't have a lot of impulse control and he gets furious and he just throws the charges back in their face.
I think it is going to have the effect.
I mean, we don't know what effect it's going to have because we don't know what's going to come out.
There's going to be investigations.
I think the one thing this administration should not do is appoint a special prosecutor because once you appoint a special prosecutor to examine the lint in your pants, he can examine anything he wants and it goes on forever.
We have an investigating committee that Tom Cotton is on.
They should investigate, let them figure out the facts.
But really, really, if Trump has been irresponsible, he has only been as irresponsible as the press.
And you can say, well, he's the president.
He should rise above it.
But the problem is the media is so pervasive.
There is no above it.
There is no above it.
So if Trump is warping our culture, as Ben Sasse says, if this is cultural warping, he didn't start the fire.
That's the only thing.
The only thing I will say about that.
An amazing, amazing story.
I think what we should do is probably just turn off the TV.
Just listen to the show.
And speaking of just listening to the show, best-selling cultural correspondent is here.
Michael Knowles is here with his new book, Reasons to Vote for Democrats.
Michael Knowles, can we bring him in by the satellite that brings him in from 15 feet away?
This amazing technology now that he looks almost as if he's sitting in the same room, and he is, which took us a long time to perfect that.
And I like the, so that's your Yale tie, is it not?
That's right.
You are an IV.
You're a Yale mug actor.
Don't forget to give me my Yale mug back at that.
Thank you.
So you are, in fact, a Yale historian.
This is true.
Fact-check true.
Yeah, fact-check true.
Democrats and Civil Rights00:11:14
And you've written Reasons to Vote for Democrats, a comprehensive guide, which no less than an expert than Ben Shapiro calls thorough.
I'll give us a blurb, Thorough.
I mean, this is a large undertaking with all your cultural correspondent duties.
How did you go about doing the research for this?
Well, it was a labor of love, Drew.
And I'd like to thank you, by the way, for actually reading the book.
It's so frustrating.
When you go on a book tour and the interviewer hasn't read the book, but you told me that took you over 15 or 20 seconds to read it.
I preached it.
Well, we do our homework here.
You know, my other fellow Yale historian of American history, David McCulloch, writes that to write well is to think clearly, and that's why it's so hard.
And what I've really set out to do in that book is to write the clearest book imaginable, just a totally clear book.
It's polluted.
I think it is, you can see.
Well, let's take a look at some of the subjects, because what you do is you divide the reasons to vote for Democrats into several different subjects.
So you have, for instance, values.
Values is one of the things.
And I noticed the pages on values are completely blank.
They're entirely blank.
Yeah, totally blank.
Now, what is that saying?
Why did you leave those pages blank?
Well, I thought values would be a good way to enter into my subject.
And the first thing I thought about was: what does this party think about God, the ultimate source of values and principles?
And well, the first clip I saw actually was from the 2012 Democratic National Convention when they were debating whether or not to include God in the platform.
Do we have that clip?
All those delegates in favor say aye.
All those delegates opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative.
The motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended is showing up.
They were booing God.
They booed God.
Not a good value.
That's not good.
But then I thought, maybe I'll look a little bit further back.
So I looked back to 2009 when the most recent Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, accepted Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award.
And she said it was a great privilege.
And she said, quote, I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.
I am really in awe of her.
So I thought, okay, let me look back and see who this Margaret Sanger person was.
Turns out she was a terrible, terrible lady.
Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger is probably best known for the quote, We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.
But in really not good.
But then in her book, Woman and the New Race, she has a chapter on the material of the new race.
And she said, We've been told times without number that out of the mixture of stocks, the mixture of peoples, the intermingling of ideas and aspirations, there is to come a race greater than any which has contributed to the population of the United States.
What is the basis for this hope that is so generally to be indulged in?
And she actually said the campaign for birth control, which she pioneered, is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of eugenics.
Oh, that's so good.
So I decided to just leave all these things.
You left the values blank because they're booing God and they're killing people in order to weed out black people and people that they don't like.
And the feeble-minded is the term they use a lot here.
All right, well, then let's turn to civil rights here because that is something that obviously the Democrats are very strong on civil rights.
And yet I noticed on the civil rights section, you've left those pages blank too.
There's actually no words on the reasons to vote for Democrats, civil rights, just blank pages.
All those pages are blank.
That's right.
The reason for that is, of course, I'd always heard, just sort of social situations and popular culture, that Democrats were the party of civil rights.
Turns out that isn't true.
Actually, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery, which was being promoted by the Democrat Party.
So the Democrats were the party of slavery.
They were the party of slavery.
There's not a lot of civil rights there.
And they actually fought a gigantic war because of this issue, because the Republicans elected President Abraham Lincoln, who generally opposed slavery.
And they fought this massive war, the highest number of American casualties in any war relative to the population.
So then after the war, they supported something called Jim Crow, which was massive.
The Democrats warned the Democrats.
Massive, widespread discrimination against blacks throughout the South.
And so the first black congressmen and senators for a very long time, they were actually Republicans.
They were not Democrats.
Yeah, because the Democrats were forming the KKK.
That's right.
Yeah.
There's not a lot of civil rights reasons.
But then, even if you fast forward a little bit into more modern history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act in spite of Democrat obstruction.
It was actually the Democrats who were opposing the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans who were supporting it.
So that came as a big surprise to me.
Then when you get to other matters of civil rights, gun control laws, freedom of speech, it's always the Democrats who are pushing laws to abridge your Second Amendment rights.
Hillary Clinton made it a major plank of her campaign to overturn the Citizens United decision, which protects your First Amendment rights to free speech.
And it's also worth noting the effects of these civil rights laws that came out in 1964 and so on.
Poverty among blacks fell from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960.
That's a 20 percentage point drop before the Democrats passed civil rights legislation and worse, the Great Society.
So even their civil rights legislation doesn't give you reason to vote for...
It gives you the opposite.
It gives you a much worse society for the people it was intended to help.
So you've left that blank entirely.
I left that entirely.
Let's just look at one more here.
I mean, the research you've done on this is really amazing.
I mean, you've really gone in-depth, as we can tell just from talking to you.
But reading the book, I think it just becomes all the clearer.
Obviously, you can't get, from our discussion here, you can get a little bit of the sense of things, but I think we've got a way to go.
Because I noticed you deal with economics, and we'll have to end with this, but you deal with economics.
I notice you've left these pages completely blank.
There's no reasons to vote for Democrats.
Yeah, not a single word out there.
Not a word in here.
So what is that supposed to tell us?
Well, I started looking at the Democrat Party's record on economics and what its policy prescriptions offer.
So it turns out that the government actually cannot create wealth or long-term jobs or income.
It's not part of the productive economy.
It can't do anything.
It also turns out they're always talking about income inequality these days.
But it turns out income inequality does not actually affect the growth of the entire economy.
And on that point, I also learned that the economy is not just a static pie.
The economy actually grows over time.
And it gives us something called national, pardon me, GDP.
So GDP is the total production of a country over the course of one year.
Now, the trouble is that President Barack Obama actually doubled the debt relative to what he inherited, and that debt is a massive strain on GDP.
So, you know, this is really an amazing book.
You know, it makes a great gift for your friends who might be thinking about voting Democrats.
It has the reasons to vote for Democrats.
And, you know, the entire book is completely blank, except for the bibliography, which does have all the sources for this information.
It's a very extensive bibliography.
And it took the longest.
Really, it makes a great coffee table book, a great conversation starter, reasons to vote for Democrats, a comprehensive guide by cultural correspondent Michael J. Knowles.
You can get it on Amazon, right?
It's available wherever fine blank books are sold.
So you can get it today on Amazon.
And be sure to leave a review.
Make sure you leave a review on Amazon.
Leave a review because those are very helpful to all authors.
Thank you, Michael Knowles, our cultural correspondent and now a best-selling author.
I think last I looked, it was like number five on political satire.
That's right.
We're just behind Gary Trudeau, and I really, really, really want to beat out Gary Trudeau, so please go buy this book.
Anyway, thanks for being here.
Stuff I like.
You know, I have to say, today, this week I want to do political fiction.
And one of the reasons I want to do it is since the election of Donald Trump, 1984 has become a bestseller.
And this is one of the strange but true facts about left-wingers is that just in the same way, in the same way that Democrats were the party of slavery and now think of themselves as the party of civil rights, Democrats, leftists, are the party of 1984.
And they are now buying 1984 in droves because a Republican has been elected.
1984 by George Orwell was written as a critique from a man of the left of socialism and communism, basically of Russian communism.
It takes place in England of the future, and England is being ruled by INGSOC, which is English socialism, okay?
And the descriptions of it, I mean, it's a really good read, a fascinating read.
But one of the things that it has in it is this language as a glossary at the end of the novel for newspeak.
It has a vocabulary of newspeak, and these are words that the party that is the left-wing party that has taken over England and the world is allowed to say and how you speak.
And one of those words is crime think.
And these are things that you think, that even by thinking them, you are committing a crime.
Now, the other day at Middlebury College, Charles Murray, the sociologist, very interesting sociologist, who's really written something, he wrote a book called, I think it's called Coming Apart, which is just fascinating and worth reading.
But he also wrote this book called The Bell Curve.
And in one little piece of this massive study, The Bell Curve, he's talking about the fact that blacks, this is not his research, this is research that was already there, that black IQ scores are lower than white IQ scores in all economic realms.
And he is wondering why this is true.
And he puts forward a number of reasons.
And he says at one point in this kind of offhanded way, you know, there may in fact be some genetic reasons.
He doesn't say there is.
He says he doesn't know.
He's just trying to explain this thing away.
So now he's a white supremacist because that's crime think, right?
And he goes to Middlebury College.
They riot.
They force him to be silent, as they frequently do to our guy, Ben Shapiro.
You know, they attack somebody.
The female professor who was escorting him was injured so badly she had to go to the hospital, had to get a brace on her neck.
You know, who is 1984?
1984 is the left.
Big Brother, all this, you know, it's entirely possible Obama wasn't spying on Trump, but he was spying on a lot of people, including James Rosen and the Associated Press.
He did a lot of spying and a lot of watching people.
1984 And Beyond00:01:08
These are the people who think they should be able to control everything you say.
These are the people who think there's such a thing as crime speak, as crime think.
No one on the right believes that crime think exists.
No one on the right believes there is such a thing as a thought crime.
Or even a hate.
Most of us don't even believe there's such a thing as a hate crime.
If you kill somebody, you kill them.
You know, it's none of my business what your motive is.
You're going to prison.
That's it.
But they want to control.
The left wants to control what you think, what you say, how you speak.
And if you don't sign on, they will shout you down and they will riot and they will attack.
They will attack in their masks with their sticks and then they go out and buy copies of 1984 to find out what the Trump administration is about.
These guys, they take off their balaclavas and they put down their sticks and their mace and they stop shouting people down and censoring people and they go and buy 1984 to find out about Donald Trump.
I mean it's completely insane.
So we're going to look at some other fictions about politics and about oppression and how the left has reacted to them in stuff I like this week starting today and following again tomorrow because we will be back tomorrow.