Ep. 118 - National Women For Trump Day! ft. Tana Goertz
Happy National Women for Trump Day! We’re going to be joined by a wonderful national woman for Trump, Tana Goertz. Tana is a business woman, television star on The Apprentice, and Senior Advisor and Spokesman for the Trump 2016 and 2020 campaigns. Tana led President Trump’s campaign efforts in Iowa, which he won despite the state going twice in a row for Barack Obama. We’ll discuss the campaign, staff shakeups, and Republican chances in the next election. Then, my favorite international women, and finally the Mailbag!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
We are going to be joined by a wonderful national woman for Trump, Tana Gertz.
Tana is a businesswoman, television star of The Apprentice, and senior advisor and spokesman for the Trump 2016 and 2020 campaigns.
Tana led President Trump's campaign efforts in Iowa, which he won despite the state going twice in a row for Barack Obama.
We will discuss the campaign, staff shakeups, and Republican chances in the next election.
Then, my favorite international women, and finally, the mailbag.
I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
So much to get to today.
Before I offend every person in the audience, we should probably thank our sponsor, our sponsor, Skillshare.
Skillshare is wonderful.
They help us keep the lights on in this place, and it's the perfect tool for 2018, for the modern time and for modern people.
The Michael Knowles Show is brought to you by Skillshare, which is an online learning platform with over 18,000 classes in design, business, technology, and more.
You can take classes in graphic design, social media marketing, illustration, mobile photography, you name it, they've got it.
It's not just, I mean, I know you think of those, those are kind of the main industry ones, but there are also classes on time management, there are classes on hypnosis, I think.
There are a lot of classes where you might just say, I'm a little interested in this thing, not to help my career, but just because it seems interesting to me.
But of course, it's 2018, and you are no longer going to work at the mill.
And do that for 40 years and then get a pension.
That's not how the economy works anymore.
You need a lot of skills.
You need a side hustle.
I've always worked in show business and politics where there are no discernible or marketable skills for anybody.
And so it's always important if you want to be able to make money and be able to pivot in an ever-changing economy to pick up some skills on the side that can make you useful to an employer or for your side hustle.
You know, I really like using this platform.
I know a lot of people have written in on Twitter and all of that.
They said they have signed up, too.
It's so simple.
It's just, you can either stare at the TV for half an hour or an hour a day and just kind of like that.
You know, just let nonsense pass through your eyeballs.
Let Hollywood insanity pass through your eyeballs passively.
Or you can actually better yourself and develop some skills and also cultivate interests.
A lot of times, if people ever say, oh, I'm really bored.
Oh, I'm so bored.
I don't know what to do today.
I think, well, what have you?
You clearly haven't cultivated something in your life.
You should never be bored.
You should be constantly cultivating yourself and interests.
You can do that on Skillshare.
Join the millions of students already learning on Skillshare today with a special offer just for my listeners.
Don't say I never did nothing for you.
Get two months of Skillshare for just 99 cents.
For those of you who aren't great at math, maybe you need to take a math course on Skillshare.
That is basically free.
You get two months of this for 99 cents.
That is unlimited access to over 18,000 classes for just 99 cents.
This is free skills that I'm giving you.
This is basically free skills that I'm giving you.
Go over there to sign up.
Go to Skillshare.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Again, go to Skillshare.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. That's not how they spell it at coffee shops, but that's how you are supposed to spell it.
To start your two months now, that's Skillshare.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Happy International Women's Day, everybody.
You know, sometimes on this show...
I'll admit, I can be a little bit dismissive of hashtag activism, this day, that day, Kony 2012, Je suis Charlie, that sort of thing.
So instead today, in the spirit of International Women's Day, I will name just a few of my favorite international women.
Jewish.
Jewish women I really like.
Obviously, for obvious reasons.
English women are great because they have that cute little accent.
And also, don't let anybody tell you that English cooking is no good.
A nice slice of beef wellington with that flaky little dough, mm-mm-mm.
There are a few things better.
And then, of course, the third, Brazilian.
Brazilian women, because they're tall and tan and young and lovely, There you have it, my favorite international women.
That's a really wonderful way to start the day.
Happy International Women's Day, everybody.
This is the top hashtag on Twitter.
I'm sure you've seen it.
Of course, nobody knows anything about the day.
You just see these things on Twitter.
You say, oh, yeah, it's International What and What Day.
Okay, great.
Yeah, okay.
Well, what is the history of this?
As with most things that begin with the word international, International Women's Day is socialist nonsense.
And it's particularly nefarious socialist nonsense, but we'll get to why later.
It changed the 20th century in some ways, so it's really bad.
The first National Women's Day was held in 1909 in New York.
Guess who organized it?
The Socialist Party of America.
Not surprising.
In 1910, the International Socialist Women's Conference created International Women's Day, finally, one year after New York's.
Following the October Revolution in 1917, Vladimir Lenin made it a national holiday in the Soviet Union.
He made International Women's Day a national holiday.
I wonder why communist thugs made International Women's Day a national holiday.
It's because on International Women's Day, on March 8th in 1917, an international women's demonstration actually started the Russian Revolution.
It started the Communist Revolution that just destroyed the 20th century.
It's a true story.
A protest of women textile workers in Petrograd took place.
This is commonly cited as the inciting incident of the Russian Revolution.
Leon Trotsky admitted that he'd helped plan the protest, but even he was surprised at how widespread its effects were.
He wrote, quote, The holiday International Women's Day was celebrated almost exclusively by communist countries and socialist activists until 1975 when it was adopted by the United Nations.
But maybe that wasn't very much of a change, was it?
Maybe there's a lot of continuity there.
Enough about International Women's Day.
On to a serious matter.
For that, we spoke yesterday with Tana Gertz.
Tana is the former star of The Apprentice, senior advisor to President Trump's 2016 and 2020 campaigns.
Let's bring her on.
Tana, thank you for being here.
Thanks for having me.
So you led the Trump campaign efforts in Iowa, which President Trump won in 2016, and it was a big win because Barack Obama won that state in both 2008 and 2012.
How did you and he do it?
Wow.
Well, hard work, that's for sure.
We worked so, so hard.
We left no stone unturned.
It really came down to we needed to educate the people of Iowa about this man.
And in Iowa, we don't have real stars.
Because we don't have professional teams like a lot of states do.
So they're not used to having celebrities like Donald Trump come into town and take over.
And so it was a process of sort of teetering back and forth with, you are this huge star, but we're going to just water it down for a little bit until they get to love you.
Then we'll show them really what you're capable of.
And so I've known him for a couple of, well, almost a little over a decade.
So I knew...
how to strategize that relationship with him because I went from being unknown, an unknown Iowan to being on his show, then being a known Iowan.
And I know how I had to tread a little lightly because they don't really, you know, they're not used to that.
Right.
And that's so interesting.
Your experience of him probably made it so much easier for the campaign to work.
I see in campaigns all the time, they bring in the professional crew from DC, the whole consultant class.
And usually, usually those guys are full of it.
I mean, they don't know anything about the district.
Right.
No, they don't have a clue.
Actually, that's what happened originally where let's come on in and the bravado of Trump and all this and all that and bring in the bells and the whistles.
But at the end of the day, no, we need to tread lightly.
Then we'll amplify it.
So it was a process, but regardless of all of that, that was just a small part of it.
What my role was because I don't have a political bone in my body.
I don't have a gene.
My parents weren't political junkies.
So this was a decision that I had to make deciding, do I want to walk into this arena that I'm not interested in, never had an interest in, but I want to make history with this man and I know I can sell him to the American people, not only the people of Iowa.
So I had to say, you know, I'm going to approach this like it's a business.
And that's exactly what I did.
So I more or less said to all those political, what they thought were gurus, move over because I'm coming in and there's a new sheriff in town and I know this man and you don't.
That's probably why you were successful, I'm sure of it, because I've seen it on the races that win are the ones where the operatives and the workers know the candidate, they know the district.
The idea of a political guru, I think, is totally nonsense.
And you say you never worked on a political campaign in any capacity.
So what made you jump on Trump 2016?
Why Donald Trump?
Well, I was on his show, and so the only reason is because I knew him.
I knew what he was capable of.
It'd be like your best friend, somebody going, do you think Michael could, you know, do you think Michael could make that call or what?
And they're like, oh my gosh, like, I know this man so well, of course.
So you were a true believer.
You really thought he was the solution to America's problems.
Let me tell you what, the minute he came down that escalator, I said, it's over.
Like, he's our next president.
I bet the farm...
And literally, I won.
I won huge because I knew he was capable of it because I'd seen him in his boardroom.
I'd seen him with his employees.
I'd seen him with his family.
I know him.
Stayed in touch with him.
I know how smart he is.
I know what an executor he is.
I knew everything that I needed to know to say, hey, do I want to put my professional speaking career on hold now?
radio show on hold to go make history with the president of the United States.
Duh, of course I do.
And then I knew if I could get him the win in Iowa, well, first off, he told me I have to win Iowa or I will not be the next president.
And I knew if I got him the win here, I'd have a Trump card forever.
Right.
Pun intended.
Pun intended, yeah.
It is a huge accomplishment.
Iowa is the state.
You've got to win Iowa.
And what I really like about your story is that you've known this guy for a long time.
because it seems to me there's this extremely tedious debate started by Trump's critics on the right, really, over whether Donald Trump is a complete nincompoop.
He's a total dolt, as the Never Trump crowd disingenuously mocks.
He's playing 4D chess.
Those are the two options.
His critics on the right, they say he's either a dolt or he's playing 12D dimensional chess.
I, for one, don't think it's either.
And I am a Trump supporter, and I don't know any Trump supporter who thinks he's playing 12D chess.
I just think he's quite good at the media.
And I suspect that the guy who has remained relevant for 40 years and succeeded at the highest levels of four extremely competitive industries might be smarter than your average You have known him for a long time.
How would you describe the man personally?
He's actually the smartest man that I know, and my husband follows right underneath that.
And my husband's a scientist, graduated magna cum laude at Florida State.
He's a meteorologist.
Brilliant.
So when I say he's Trump is the smartest man I know.
That's not throwing that around lightly.
He is three steps ahead of everyone.
He predicts what's coming.
I was on TV, I can't tell you how many times, defending his, quote, conspiracy theory.
And I'm like, oh, imagine that.
That came to fruition.
Right.
About the FBI, you mean?
About the Obama administration using the government to attack his political opponents?
Yeah, I mean, everything.
It was like, Michael, it went back to back to back.
Like, do you think that, you know, he was taped, wire taped?
Do you think this?
Do you think everything that he said and they said they killed me for on national television?
And I'm like, no, honestly, it'll come to fruition.
It does.
So he's not only the smartest man that I know, but he works so hard.
And the other thing that I love about him is he does his homework.
So If he was going to be on an interview with you, he would know everything about you.
He would know where you're from, where you live, if you're single.
I mean, he'd know everything about you.
So he'd come into my state, and he'd be like, okay, so who am I going to see here today?
And I'd be like, oh, you're going to meet with Governor Branstad.
And he'd be like, oh, yeah, yeah, he really likes China, right?
Okay, and what else about him?
And he's done his homework.
And the thing else that I love about him is I would also give him cliff notes, literally on the back of a business card.
This, do this, do that.
Watch the swear words.
This, that.
And I go, oh, and here was another thing.
I was on his plane with him once and he told me that he spends...
And it was, I believe, $15 million on John Deere equipment for his golf courses.
And I'm like, oh my gosh.
Okay, stop right there.
This is agri-land.
You got to say that out there at that rally.
The place will go nuts.
And he's like, okay.
And he trusts me because I'd never blow him up, right?
And he gets out there and he goes, y'all like John Deere?
And the place, rah!
And he's like, well, you know, I spent $15 million in John Deere equipment.
The place went crazy.
And guess what?
Like overnight, I started Farmers for Trump.
We had so many men juiced up about the fact that he spends all that money on John Deere because he trusted me.
I told him to say it.
He did his homework.
And that's the thing.
I mean, he's not only super smart, he works super hard.
He puts in the time and he really wants to make a difference.
And the other thing that I love about him that maybe nobody has figured out yet is that And I've learned this being a nobody and then becoming famous because of the show The Apprentice.
If the media doesn't make you, the media can't break you.
And guess what?
The media never made Donald Trump.
So there's no way they're going to take him down.
He made him himself.
All the schmucks that were never known – and you can even put me in that category.
Media is never going to break me.
I would never call you a schmuck, Tana.
No way.
Right.
Thank you.
But like some of these people who were on the campaign that were just taking a paycheck, didn't even probably vote for the man, and I also told them about all those losers, took a paycheck, didn't even care about him, didn't even work their butt off for him, probably didn't even vote for him.
Just another job.
Just another job, don't care, chalk it in halfway, cash it in, do the lazy man way out or whatever.
They're on CNN every night trying to keep their 15 minutes of fame.
Well, guess what?
The media will put them on, let them implode themselves, and now, oh boy, now they're spiraling out of control because why?
The media built them.
That's right.
This reminds me of an Andrew Klavan quote about Donald Trump, which is, he who Donald Trump would destroy, he first makes mad.
They do seem to all just blow up and spiral down.
And on the hard work, you know this, especially leading the efforts in Iowa, if anybody's worked on any political campaign before, I've worked on a lot at all different levels, even if you're working on a dog catcher campaign, it is exhausting, grueling, thankless work.
And to watch Donald Trump At the highest level and with unprecedented in modern history, unprecedented opposition.
Do it with a grin.
Do it with that kind of Trumpian smirk and seem to have inexhaustible stores of energy.
It really makes you question all of these news reports on CNN that he isn't in good health or he's rambling or senile or whatever nonsense that they also said about Ronald Reagan.
Right.
It's so true.
Let me tell you what.
When we were towards the end, and I knew he was going to win this, when he became the candidate and we went to the convention, I was like, oh my god, the RNC convention was unbelievable.
His family was so amazing.
He was so amazing.
And then when I knew, oh my gosh, this is in the bag, we were wrapping up like Iowa.
And we had maybe three rallies in one day all across the state.
So we were flying in Trump Force One.
And we were so hungry.
I mean, I know all I had to do was get people there, get volunteers there, hype up the crowd and hand the mic over to the star and he wowed everybody, right?
So my energy was on a 10.
His was on a 12.
I only had to do, you know, maybe five minutes where he had to do an hour.
We get on the plane.
All I wanted was that damn Big Mac that he was putting in front of me.
And you know what?
Everybody gives him a hard time about the Big Mac.
I'm like, you're so hungry.
You've exhausted all of You'll want to eat your Big Mac and your fries, and you just want people to just shut up and let you eat.
So this man is taking grief about eating Big Macs.
He's working his butt off.
He is putting us, like, I mean, he's got a couple decades on me.
I got three decades on some of these kids that are in the campaign that are just like, what the hell's going on?
And I'm like, get out of the way, because this man's blowing people down, and we are going to take this all the way to the White House.
More energy than even me, and I just looked at him like, I know what it's like being a professional speaker.
When you get on that stage and you see your crowd, man, you just light up and it's not work.
You're absolutely right.
And I want to know how you think that's translating to 2020.
You're on the campaign in 2020.
Clearly, you think he's doing a good job in office.
I also think he's doing a good job.
What do you think the people of Iowa will think?
Has he lived up to his promises?
Has he lived up to expectations?
Are they going to go for him in 2020?
Obviously, I know it's early on, but at this rate, are they going to go for him?
They are.
You know why?
Their 401ks are growing.
Promises made, promises kept.
I keep saying that.
When he just came out to Iowa recently, the bottom of the stage, big sign, promises made, promises kept.
And he's telling them, this is what I've done.
I've told you farmers I wasn't going to do this.
I told you I was going to save the renewable fuel standard.
I told you this.
I told you that.
And it's all about like He's keeping his promises.
We love the fact that we have more money in our 401ks and in our pocketbooks, bank accounts.
Also, what about jobs?
What about the jobs that he's bringing back to America?
He is, like, standing up for us, and we needed somebody who had a set, you know, that could say, like, hey, man, guess what?
No more.
We are not going to be taken advantage of.
It's funny because those who have been in the conservative movement a long time or worked on a lot of campaigns or just have their heads in politics, we think, oh, man, Trump has been great.
We've gotten all these originalist judges on the courts.
We've gotten...
There's deregulation at this agency and a pivot at this agency.
But for, I think, a lot of Americans, as James Carville said, it's the economy stupid.
And what it comes down to is this guy is a pro-growth president.
He's a guy who's going to deregulate.
He's going to do what works for the American economy.
And he's going to prioritize not...
What kinds of bathrooms people have to use in this state or this?
He's going to focus on what Americans care about, which is how their wallets are doing, how much disposable income they have to spend on their families and to plan for their future.
And also, Michael, one other thing I want to add is He also wants to keep America safe, and that was a huge, huge point for a lot of women, and I started up the Women for Trump coalition here in Iowa, and women wanted to know, like, I don't need to worry that somebody's going to come, ISIS is going to come and steal my kids and hurt my family, so safety.
And that's another thing that, you know, he's not going to back down.
And anybody that thinks that President Trump is going anywhere is sadly mistaken.
If anybody thinks that President Trump is going to weaken or kind of get worn out, he's not.
He's Teflon Don, is what I call him.
You know, just rolls right off of his back.
And you know what?
He's kind of like, I'm the same way.
If somebody wants to say, yeah, I don't know, Tana, if you could do it.
Oh, really?
To me, that's a dare.
Right, yeah.
Tell me I won't.
Right, tell me I won't, and I will show you that I will.
And so it's going well.
People are really excited about him.
They'll vote for him again.
And really, we're only one year into this, and people are already excited about the fact of what he's done.
Give us three more years.
And he'll have so many people that are excited about him that I don't have any worries.
We'll do the exact same thing, and what I'll do is sort of be scoreboard, scoreboard.
Oh, yeah, remember that?
Oh, yeah, that was that.
Oh, do you remember that?
Yeah, he did that, you know?
I will say I was so pleased looking at the returns from the Texas GOP primaries, from both primaries, Democrat and Republican.
They told us Republicans weren't going to turn out.
It was going to be a low turnout.
Yeah.
Big blue wave.
What happened?
Record high GOP turnout.
Now, Democrats turned out, too, at a much lower rate.
So we still should be a little careful.
We've got to make sure Republicans go out to vote.
But it was really excellent to see that there's still a conservative exuberance.
And I have one last question before I have to let you go.
Tana, when are you going to run for office?
You'd be very good at it.
You have everything it takes.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
I'm not politically correct and I don't ever want to be because I agree with President Trump.
You know, there's a lot of wimpy people in offices that just don't, like, they're not strong.
I like strength.
I have that same strength, but I don't ever see me doing this.
I'm loving what I'm doing and I'm really excited about my new business, the U.S.-China Exchange Group.
Really excited to help Push President Trump's agenda, but from the outside.
And what does the US-China exchange group, what is it working on right now?
Right now, we're trying to get agribusinesses to sign up to go on a mission trip, and we're taking 10 companies, U.S. companies that want to grow and improve their trade relationships with China.
We're taking them over to China, and we're going to introduce them to their counterparts over there and help sort of be the project managers for getting through the red tape and making that a seamless process.
That's excellent.
Well, that's a worthwhile activity.
I'm glad you're doing it.
I totally understand why you wouldn't want to run for office.
I will say, though, I think one thing that Donald Trump has showed us is that politically incorrect is the new politically correct.
It clearly works politically quite well, and we can probably thank President Covfefe for that.
So, hey, listen, maybe...
Maybe there's a chance that if you run for office, you don't have to become one of these mealy-mouthed, boring politicians.
You can remain true to yourself and project strength.
I think it's worked out pretty well.
And Tana, thank you for being here.
We'll let you go.
Thank you so much!
Thanks for having me!
How cool is she?
I love her, Tana Gertz.
So I'm sorry, guys.
I know if you are watching us on YouTube right now, get yourself some clinical help because you're having illusions, hallucinations.
You're probably stumbling around drunk somewhere on drugs.
Maybe a few of you are still able to see us on YouTube, even though they're censoring the rest of it.
If you're on Facebook, I'm sorry, you have to go to dailywire.com right now.
What do you get?
If you go to Daily Wire, it's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me, you get the Andrew Klavan Show, you get the Ben Shapiro Show, you get to ask questions in The Conversation.
That is going to be Tuesday, March 13th at 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 Pacific.
Look, anybody can watch, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
Many are called, but few are chosen.
If you want to do that, you'll just tune right in.
It'll be streaming all over the place.
You go into the Daily Wire to the conversation page.
You ask questions in the chat box.
Ben will answer them in the order that they come in.
But none of that matters.
We don't really care about that, do we?
What we really care about.
This leftist tears tumbler.
It's already filling because of the Texas primaries, because the results came out and Republicans trounced Democrats in turnout.
Democrats were 50% lower.
So, look, if you want to protect yourself and your family, obviously there's a lot of talk about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
You need to defend yourself.
This is the only FDA-approved vessel for salty, delicious leftist tears, so make sure you get it at dailywire.com.
We'll be right back.
We have a lot of mailbag today and I'm gonna bulldoze through them.
I don't care.
I'm going to make it happen.
From Michael.
Michael, if a main role of the government consists of preservation of life, could it not be argued then that government has the duty to fully fund a universal health care?
I think by that you mean socialized medicine, socialist health care.
The government fully funds a police force in order to preserve life against the threat of criminals.
Why not then against the threat of sickness or disease?
It seems to me that if we have a right to police protection, then we should have a right to health care.
This is not putting a gun to a police officer's or a doctor's head and forcing their labor.
Police officers sign up knowing that they have an obligation to protect people.
Why can't doctors sign up knowing they have an obligation to treat people?
I agree with limited government, but if nothing else, shouldn't it exist to provide things such as this?
No.
No, thank you for your question.
This is a common misunderstanding, but no.
The purpose of the federal government is outlined for us by the framers.
It is, quote, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
So I know what you're thinking.
You say, well...
Getting free healthcare, that would benefit my general welfare.
It definitely would benefit my welfare.
That's right.
But the trouble is, healthcare never gets so expensive as when it's free.
So there have been many experiments in socialist healthcare throughout the world, and it creates a lot of dissatisfaction.
We have the Best healthcare system in the world in this country when all the rich people in the world want to get good healthcare.
They don't do it in their terrible countries.
They come to the United States for it because we have the best.
And because we're innovators, all of the other countries actually benefit from our innovation.
The trouble with socialized medicine, too, is that it dramatically decreases liberty.
In this country, we have a Second Amendment to protect your life and liberty in pursuit of happiness from a tyrannical government.
Our government actually tells you, you get to keep a gun so that you can shoot us if we start to take away your guns.
Socialist health care puts your life in the hands of the government.
Your very health care, your medicine, your doctor visits, your surgery is in the hands of the government.
That is a lot of power that not even a gun can protect against.
This is why in all countries with socialist health care, they...
There are long, long waits to get surgery and people die on waiting lists.
I went down to Cuba last June and I got to talk to some people in Cuba.
And one of them pointed out to me and said, that's the big famous national hospital.
Cuba touts its socialist health care system.
It says, look, everybody has access to this.
And they send their doctors abroad and everything.
They're 100% of coverage in Cuba.
So, okay, so anybody can walk in?
And my pal in Cuba turned to me and he said, yeah, yeah, anybody can walk in.
There won't be any medicine, but anybody can walk in.
And you have to bring your own toilet paper and your own food and sometimes your own needles.
And what really happens in that country and in a lot of socialist countries is that there are private back doors so that people can actually get the medicine they need.
So every person with any money who cares about their health in the UK also has private health insurance.
And in Cuba, they just pay doctors on the side.
All serious healthcare in Cuba is taken care of on the black market and people pay for it because that's the way to get the best care at the lowest price.
Socialist medicine, in a way that is unacceptable, intolerable, abridges our liberty.
It also makes the cost of healthcare increase dramatically.
It also makes the quality of care decrease dramatically.
Doesn't promote my general welfare, I don't think.
Next question from Andy.
Hey Michael, I'm a college sophomore and one of the classes I'm taking is basically a crash course on postmodernism.
It's probably all of the classes you're taking.
For example, last week our classes were about the myth of meritocracy and white male privilege.
These people genuinely hate and look down on the idea of individualism and being able to improve the circumstances in your life through your own effort.
They really believe that we live in a society that only benefits rich, white, straight, and Christian males.
I probably missed some.
How do I push back on these ideas?
It seems like a very dangerous ideology to buy into because they're obsessed with their own perceived power dynamics.
Also, are there any books or articles that you would recommend for me?
Yeah, absolutely.
It is a horrible ideology.
Ideology in general isn't something that we should look toward or that we should embrace, but this is a particularly rough one.
We are the only society, we in the West, that hates itself, especially America.
We hate ourselves and our history.
On history, we are also the most frequently wrong and least often in doubt.
You don't see China hate itself.
You don't see Japan hate itself.
You don't see a lot of countries and a lot of places around the world hate themselves.
And yet, in the West, we judge ourselves.
We are judged by our worst moments, whereas other societies were told we have to judge them by their best moments.
So they always say, in the way they say, well, you know, there was the Spanish Inquisition in the West.
There were the Crusades in the West.
Mind you, they don't know anything about either of those two events, both of which are entirely defensible, but that'll be a separate episode.
But then they'll say, oh, but the Muslim civilization, they had Andalusia, didn't they?
Oh, they had the Neoplatonists.
They had, oh, isn't that...
They only talk about these fine moments, and they say, oh, well, when Muslim terrorists blow...
You can't mention that.
That has nothing to do with Islam.
That has nothing to do with their civilization.
How dare you?
And yet they're holding us accountable for a crusade that happened 800 years ago, which is defensible.
It's totally insane.
The way to avoid this and to avoid this awful ideology is to read the originals.
The reason that your class seems like a crash course in postmodernism is this awful trend in liberal education.
Where no longer are we reading the people that we're reading.
No longer are we reading the great books, Aristotle and Plato and Cicero and Thucydides and all the way, Aquinas and Dante and all the way up.
We're reading books about those books.
And books about those people.
And it's what Harold Bloom calls the school of resentment.
It's books trying to take it apart, trying to deconstruct all that and tell you why it's so awful.
Forget that.
Forget that nonsense and that stupid ideological lens.
Read the originals and you'll get a much better view of things.
From Stephen.
My Lord Knowles, if I may post a query to you that has been causing me great anguish in many sleepless nights, it would bring me joy to my heart and solace to my immortal soul to be illuminated by your light.
Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Why can't someone who murders a pregnant woman be charged with two counts of murder?
Why can they?
while abortionists are paid to legally commit one of those murders, often with our tax dollars via Medicaid.
Do our friends on the left ever acknowledge this obvious moral and legal contradiction?
And if so, how do they square that circle?
Also, if abortion were made illegal by a clear law or constitutional amendment, would you support murder charges for doctors who continue this barbaric practice?
Many thanks and God bless you, Steve.
Yeah, there is a willful ignorance, I think.
And the lefties who want to square that circle, I do think there's a willful ignorance.
I do understand how someone could honestly support abortion and not think that it's murder.
And the way that they could do that is by saying, it's not murder.
No, a woman needs autonomy over her body.
It's unfair that women have this particular issue and men don't have that, and that's unfair.
And so it's not murder.
Are you sure?
Yeah, no, I'm sure.
How is it?
It kind of looks like murder.
No, no, it's not murder.
It's a willful ignorance.
It's like in The Giver by Lois Lowry.
There's this scene in the movie, too, and in the book, where they're talking, the people, these automatons in this utopian society without any history, they kill babies.
They kill what they consider to be defective babies.
And you see, I remember in the movie, you see the person look and say, oh my, how are they killing those babies?
And they say, they don't know they're doing it.
They don't realize they're killing babies.
They're just doing it.
That's how they don't square that circle.
As for murder charges for abortionists, yeah, if it were against the law, if there were a constitutional amendment defining the beginning of life, or acknowledging the beginning of life, or a law or something, not only would I support murder charges for those people breaking the law and committing murder according to the law, Everyone would have to support that, right?
Basically, the law is defining this as murder or as morally similar to murder.
So if that is how the law is defining it, you would have to support law enforcement.
And the reason that it's important to bring this up is this is like the Dred Scott decision.
This is why the abortion issue is a lot like the slavery issue.
The central premise for the American nation is natural rights.
So the Dred Scott decision is actually a great decision.
It's the wrong decision, but it throws the issue into stark relief, which is freed blacks can't become American citizens if there is slavery that is tolerated in the country.
The country is premised on natural rights, that we're endowed by our creator with natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But those come in nature.
Those are innate.
So either blacks have natural rights or they don't have natural rights.
If they do have natural rights, you can't tolerate slavery.
It's an intolerable evil.
If they don't have natural rights, then they could never attain to American citizenship, which is premised on natural rights.
You can't gain something which is natural.
Same thing with abortion.
Either human life is sacred from the beginning.
Either humans have dignity from the beginning, or they don't.
And if they don't have dignity from the beginning, then when do you get it?
I don't know, maybe around 27 or something, 29?
Only smart people have dignity.
Only retarded babies, they don't have dignity.
Oh, if they're missing a couple limbs, they don't get dignity.
Oh, no, when you're sleeping, you lose your dignity.
It doesn't make sense.
They either have human dignity or they don't.
They either have...
Right to liberty or they don't.
And so by throwing that into stark relief, I think you'd end up with a logically necessary conclusion.
From Ronald.
Hi, Michael.
I have a dating question.
Bring it on, baby.
I am subscribed to Catholic Match.
Just a side note, I have been dating sweet little Elisa since before these apps were necessary, so I did miss this whole area, but now there are matches for everything.
They're Catholic, Jewish, gay, straight, polygamous, I think, so that's cool.
Catholic Match sounds like a good one as far as they go.
Where we can compare our temperaments with those of other subscribers.
Should I look for someone with a similar temperament to mine or should I look for someone with an opposing temperament who can balance out my negative traits?
Thanks.
I think you should look for someone who has a similar outlook and different temperament.
Who sees the world with similar premises but has a different temperament.
And it's because men and women are not supposed to be the same.
Men and women aren't the same.
They're not identical.
That's why there are men and there are women.
If they were the same, we wouldn't have two words for it.
They would be the same thing.
So you want to be complementary.
The sexes are complementary to one another.
I can say from personal experience, sweet little Elisa has in many ways a different temperament than I do and does balance out a lot of things and gives me another perspective.
But you do want a similar premises.
You don't want someone who sees the world fundamentally different than you do.
That doesn't really work, I don't think.
That's just you need to begin from the same place, and you'll disagree and you'll compliment one another.
But I do think it's much easier if you, for instance, you don't need to date someone who's conservative, who likes Donald Trump or something.
But you might want to date someone who is dispositionally conservative, you know, who has, who kind of, small C or something like that, shares those premises with you.
It'll just make it a lot easier, especially with the raising of children.
Next question from Marg.
I knew it.
Hearing what Juanita said about Bill telling her not to worry, that he was sterile, proved what I said all along about him not being Chelsea's father.
His medical records were never released and I knew it was to hide something like that.
My brother and I were roundly criticized for making that claim.
We both said that Webb Hubble is her father.
Hill and he were tight at the law firm she worked in and he died under interesting circumstances just a little too soon, like so many people she and Bill know.
Great interview with Juanita.
May her book sell multiple millions of copies and bring you all...
Bring all you little crumb catchers, crumb crunchers up to speed on how evil these people are.
She was absolutely correct that the atmosphere that existed at that time, victims didn't say squat.
They assumed guilt for what happened to them.
The perps got away with it and became further emboldened because we didn't speak up.
Love your show.
Keep the covfefe coming.
Marg.
Thank you, Marg.
To begin on this, it is a wise child that knows his own father.
To quote Telemachus regarding his, ostensibly his father, Odysseus.
It is a wise child that knows his own father.
Second, Bill Clinton is a liar.
He's a famous liar.
Lying is like the defining feature of Bill Clinton.
So here's the trouble with the Bill isn't Chelsea's father story.
One, I don't care.
I truly don't care.
If I don't hear from the Clintons ever again in my life, that's fine by me.
That'll be too soon.
But, in so much as we're talking about it, the thing we're basing Bill not being Chelsea's father on is something that Bill told the woman that he just raped.
And Bill Clinton, the biggest liar, telling a woman that he just violated, as he's saying other vile things.
So even if Bill were telling Juanita Broderick the truth, we just can't take his word for it.
His word isn't credible at all.
And I don't know, I mean, it's, you know, Bill Clinton...
Is a liar.
So, actually, his telling Juanita Broderick that he was sterile makes me almost certain that he is Chelsea's father.
But who knows?
I don't know.
The Clintons are very depraved people, so her father might be like some alien from outer space, for all I know.
From Kelly.
Nolls, you are incrementally converting my husband to Catholicism.
Cut it out!
Just kidding.
But in all seriousness, my husband and I are evangelical Christians.
Last night we had a long talk about whether or not we should move to Catholicism because of you.
That's very nice to hear.
But here is my hesitation.
I had Peter Kreeft as a philosophy professor in college, and he explained to us that he converted to Catholicism because for him the choice was life or death.
If he did not convert, he knew he would die.
I took this seriously and do not feel that I am incomplete without the Catholic faith, and so I should not convert.
Does this seem accurate to you, or is this position more extreme than is warranted?
Thanks, Kelly.
The latter.
It's more extreme than is warranted.
I'm very pleased to hear, though, that you're considering coming on over.
You know, I also, when I reverted to Christianity, I read a lot of Protestants, and it was in many ways Protestants, who pulled me closer to And then I went whole hog into the Church Universal.
To paraphrase an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine to the problem with your dilemma here, theology doesn't care about your feelings.
I don't know.
There's some guy I know who wanders around the halls here who says something similar to that.
I'm reading a book right now that coincidentally Drew Clavin also happens to be rereading by a philosopher named Alistair MacIntyre called After Virtue.
And in it, MacIntyre correctly identifies emotivism as the dominant moral framework of our age.
And emotivism is feelings.
It's the feelings of the facts don't care about your feelings, right?
It's the idea.
It's In some ways it's the facts too, but that's for another episode.
It's the idea that ethical and value judgments aren't really statements of fact.
Murder is wrong isn't really a statement of fact, but rather they're merely expressions of feeling or preference or attitude.
You say murder is wrong.
I say murder is wonderful and fun and exhilarating.
Who's to say who's right?
Who's to say?
So the emotivist says when we say things like murder is wrong...
What we're really just doing is using a rhetorical technique to mask what are nothing more than our individual preferences.
Here's how this ties in to Christianity in America and Catholicism.
It seems quite clear to me that in America it is the individualistic character of Protestantism that has brought emotivism to the forefront of popular culture, this feelings-based pseudo-moral framework.
McIntyre coincidentally agrees with this, actually, as do a great many other observers of cultural and intellectual history that we on the right all love, Jacques Borgeson among them as well.
This is why you can observe it.
This is why so many Protestant churches keep changing their minds on foundational moral issues.
Not just among the countless evangelical churches, but even mainline Protestant churches.
Huge splits within just the past few decades.
Within the Presbyterian Church in America...
The Episcopal Church, McIntyre, I'll also point out, converted to Catholicism not long after he wrote his book, fairly shortly afterward, in a way that's reminiscent of G.K. Chesterton, who took a little bit longer but also converted to Catholicism after writing Orthodoxy.
I hope that helps.
I hope that helps guide you in your dilemma.
From Nathan.
Michael, huge fan of your show.
Our wives were dorm mates back in the day, and I was wondering if you would help spread the word about a piece of compromise legislation.
I'm hoping to make catch on to shift the gun control bait in our favor.
First of all, I remember your lovely wife.
I do remember her.
And I remember hearing about you.
And so thanks for watching the show.
I appreciate that.
I won't say your names or what you do because I don't want...
I don't want your boss to find out you subscribe, but very nice to hear from you.
He says, As with rental car purchases, unless having completed a weapons safety course as the Canadians require.
I've been calling it the well-regulated militia bill because the extra training is the desired outcome and not necessarily having to wait until 25.
The second part of this bill would be the concealed carry reciprocity for all honorably discharged veterans.
Cheers, Bubba.
P.S. Get Jeff Durbin on your show to help set your heretical ways straight.
Ha ha ha.
I'll try to do that.
You know, Jeff sounds like a perfectly nice guy and everything, but whenever I want a Protestant to come on this show and punish me for my potpourri, I usually call Allie Stuckey because that's the closest that I ever get to Fifty Shades of Grey.
So don't deprive me of that.
As for the bill...
I like the second part.
I don't like the first part.
There is no constitutional right to rent a car.
That's why companies can restrict it to 25, although some don't.
I rented cars at a younger age.
There's a great company called Rent-A-Rec, which rents to people below 25.
A lot of states like my own already restrict handgun ownership to age 21 and above.
California is an example of this.
The vast majority of gun deaths are from handguns, though, of course, two-thirds of those are just suicides.
They're not homicide.
They're suicide by middle-aged men well over 21.
Double 21.
Triple 21.
The media make hay about semi-automatic rifles, but there is no crisis or epidemic in America on this.
Semi-automatic rifles are involved in a relatively small number of homicides each year.
Mass shootings have been on a steep decline since the early 1990s, as have school shootings, despite what the media would tell you.
The mainstream media pretend there's a crisis, that these shootings and these deaths are increasing, that semi-automatic rifles are the cause because they want to take away your guns.
They want to take guns from Americans.
They'll do it any way they can.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect liberty.
When the zombie apocalypse strikes, young men are going to be doing the fighting.
So they probably should have some experience with guns.
As for the suggestion that they can bump the age back down if they just take some safety course or take some gun shoot marksman course, I actually don't see the logic of that because what we're saying is that The only way that potential mass shooters can get guns is if we teach them how to shoot them better.
But I don't want to teach them how to shoot them better.
I'd much rather they be bad shots and not clean their guns and have it blow up in their face.
That's fine by me.
I think we should bar those people from taking safety courses.
Largely, the mainstream media premises just aren't true.
So my question is on this bill, why?
Why give them an inch?
There is a declining problem.
What we have done for the last 10 years is working.
The American people hate gun control.
They've always hated gun control.
Democrats always lose elections when they harp on gun control.
All of the crime numbers are declining and the guns that they want to ban are not the issue.
Forget their premises.
Keep common, covfefe.
Keep your constitutional rights and covfefe.
As for concealed carry reciprocity for honorably discharged vets, yeah, sounds great.
Let's do it.
Tell your wife I said hello.
From Nathan.
Future Saint Michael.
How much more time do we have?
We got time for one more?
We got time?
You can read one more.
All right.
From Nathan.
Future Saint Michael.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
That's very nice.
My question might be more appropriate for Ben, but I want to give you a chance to answer a question that doesn't have to do with Catholicism.
That's a first one in a while.
My wife had a traumatic brain injury 13 years ago.
She's physically fine, but her communication ability is severely impaired.
She receives federal disability benefits, probably will for the rest of her life unless entitlement rules change.
In the early years of her receiving benefits, they were a great help to us.
But as my own salary has grown, the benefits are no longer critical to our financial well-being.
It's not a lot of money, but it does give us some breathing room in our budget.
We have three kids.
She's obviously a stay-at-home mom.
Even if she never had the injury, by this point in her life, she would most likely not be working outside the home in order to raise our children.
In principle, we think a safety net is an okay idea, but only in a society with a flat tax.
In our opinion, the current tax and entitlement arrangement is a transfer of wealth instead of being a fair social contract.
So my question is, how do we justify receiving benefits from an entitlement program we disagree with?
The ever-expanding entitlement programs are a huge problem.
How do we justify being part of the problem?
Even if we are legally entitled to the current benefits we receive.
What are your thoughts on this ethical dilemma?
We will always vote in ways that would reduce entitlement spending, but should my wife voluntarily discontinue the benefit?
Also, since we have children, this is no longer a question that only involves us.
Turning down money could be irresponsible on our part.
Thanks, Nathan.
P.S. I know you will one day be declared a saint because every passing day that Ben has not fired you is another miracle.
Ha!
That is too true, man.
That is evidence of grace and providence.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife's injury.
To your question, it's not an ethical dilemma at all.
I don't think it's even close to an ethical dilemma.
You're probably a better man for agonizing over this, but no, it isn't at all.
Do you pay taxes to support entitlement programs that you disagree with?
Then you should take the benefits.
Of course you do.
You're taking the money because you're entitled to it.
The problem with entitlements is not that people aren't entitled to it.
It's that people are entitled to it and the spending gets out of control.
You shouldn't unilaterally disarm.
That isn't going to do anything.
Because then you're just paying into it.
You're going to continue to pay and fund these programs for other people to take out.
Other people are going to take it out.
I promise you that.
And the problem still won't be solved.
This is a tactic of the left they do somewhat frequently.
They try.
Because we have standards and they have nothing but double standards.
So, you know, we have standards.
They say you have to live up to that standard even if the framework of the country, even if the framework of policy undercuts that.
But you should do it anyway.
And it's of no benefit to anybody.
It's just a tactic used by lefties.
Absolutely not.
Take the benefit and continue to vote for entitlement reform.
We need entitlement reform.
I'm not sure if this would even affect really your family's situation here.
But we do need Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security reform.
That's not going to happen because you punish yourself and your family and decide not to take money that you've already paid into.
Absolutely not.
I understand the feeling that you don't like taking money from the government, but that's what's so insidious is we live in a country with this massive expanding entitlement program.
The problem isn't that you're getting a check.
The problem is that we have a massive entitlement program.
Attack that.
Don't create separate rules for you that other people don't have to follow.
It won't help anybody.
Hope that helps.
That is our entire show.
Make sure over the weekend that you listen to Another Kingdom, Andrew Klavan's narrative podcast that I perform all the roles in.
It is all out there.
You can binge the whole thing, all 13 episodes.
We are hard at work on season two.
And by we...
I mean, Drew is writing it, and I am smoking cigars and drinking.
But he's writing it, and we're a team, so I'm smoking a lot of cigars and drinking a lot.
So go over there, make sure you listen to all of that, and I will see you on Monday.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire forward publishing production.
