Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 12, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show

46:17

Ep. 183 - We’re Winning On Every Front

The executive, the legislature, the judiciary; foreign policy, government policy, civil rights, even battles of religion! A banner week in which we’ve been winning on everything. We will analyze. Then, the Mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The executive, the legislature, the judiciary, foreign policy, government policy, civil rights, even battles of religion.
	We're winning on every single front.
	This has been a banner week, and we have been winning on everything.
	We will analyze why and how.
	Then, the mailbag.
	A lot to get to.
	to.
	I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	It's time to join the conversation Did you know that?
	The Supreme Lord of the Multiverse is up on Tuesday, July 17th, 5.30 Eastern, 2.30 Pacific.
	Andrew Klavan answers your questions.
	Moderated by whom?
	By the beautiful and dauntless Elisha Krause.
	The Q&A will stream live on YouTube and Facebook for everyone to watch.
	Only subscribers can ask Drew questions over at dailywire.com.
	Check out the pinned comments on this video for more information.
	We're making it easy, serving it up to you on a silver platter.
	Look at those pinned comments.
	Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by Andrew Klavan, Supreme Lord of the Multiverse, on Tuesday, July 17th.
	That's 5.30 Eastern, 2.30 Pacific, and join the conversation.
	Banner Week, folks.
	We are bathing in leftist tears all week on every single front.
	We'll explain why before we get to that.
	Let me make a little money, honey.
	Let me keep the lights on in here.
	You know Ben has been chomping at the bit to fire me since the day I met him.
	I didn't even work here before he wanted to start firing me.
	Please go and check out Software Advice.
	Software Advice is a really great solution, if you have a small business especially.
	when you're dealing with a real head-scratcher, having your go-to person on call, that's a no-brainer.
	That's why you've got to find out about software advice.
	You might know this if you're a small business owner, if you've ever worked in a small business or a startup developing business.
	There are a lot of problems that you need to solve right away, and you need to have software solutions for them.
	Now, there are a lot of clients and softwares that you can use, and when you kind of look at the reviews, you say, oh, I don't know, should I pay...
	Because a lot of times they're pretty expensive.
	You know, should we pay this much for this per month?
	What's really the best tailor to my business?
	Forget about all that.
	You now have someone in your corner can give you all of the research that they've done.
	Their team of advisors at Software Advice can point you in the right direction.
	You can start working more effectively right away.
	How much does it cost, Michael?
	How much do I have to pay for all this incredible advice?
	I knew you'd ask that.
	It's free!
	People tell you that nothing in this life is free.
	Well, software advice is, and it's really helpful.
	It will save you a ton of money, and maybe more importantly, a ton of time.
	When you're getting a business started, you just need some expertise right away.
	Otherwise, you'll be spinning your wheels.
	Go to softwareadvice.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, just like Beyonce.
	Answer a few short questions about your business.
	You'll be connected to an advisor to discuss the best software options for your needs.
	Talking to an advisor takes just 10 minutes or less.
	I'm a millennial.
	I don't do anything that takes more than 10 minutes.
	It's really good.
	Whether you're a medical professional, construction manager, or HR pro, you name it, software advice will save you time and help you make a more informed decision.
	End the software struggle today.
	I have done this in my own business experience, and it's cost a lot of money and time.
	Go to softwareadvice.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to get started.
	I wish I had known about Software Advice a few years ago.
	It would have saved me a lot of time and money.
	That is softwareadvice.com slash Knowles.
	Connect with an advisor for free.
	Softwareadvice.com slash what?
	Slash Knowles.
	What a week.
	What a banner week for winning on every single front.
	And you've got to balance it all.
	I know some cultural conservatives were worried.
	They're still a little bit worried about Judge Kavanaugh.
	Is Judge Kavanaugh sufficiently originalist, sufficiently pro-life, meaning that he'll interpret the Constitution as it actually is written, which does not have a right to abortion?
	Is he sufficiently rock-ribbed?
	These are some worries.
	I will, I think, lay out the case that on every single front this week, we are winning, even on Judge Kavanaugh.
	To begin...
	The greatest video, the greatest moment in this presidency all week.
	Every week there seems to be a new one, but this is so beautiful.
	Donald Trump talking to a bunch of freeloading Europeans, as well as the German nation, the worst nation in the history of the world, which has destroyed civilization on multiple occasions.
	Here is Donald Trump talking to our NATO, our freeloading NATO allies.
	Never been allowed to have happened.
	But Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline.
	And you tell me if that's appropriate, because I think it's not.
	And I think it's a very bad thing for NATO, and I don't think it should have happened, and I think we have to talk to Germany about it.
	On top of that, Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent, whereas the United States, in actual numbers, is paying 4.2 percent of a much larger GDP. So, I think that's inappropriate also.
	You know, we're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting everybody, and yet we're paying a lot of money to protect.
	Now, this has been going on for decades.
	This has been brought up by other presidents, but other presidents never did anything about it because I don't think they understood it or they just didn't want to get involved.
	But I have to bring it up because I think it's very unfair to our country, it's very unfair to our taxpayers, And I think that these countries have to step it up, not over a 10-year period.
	They have to step it up immediately.
	Germany is a rich country.
	They talk about they're going to increase it a tiny bit by 2030.
	Well, they could increase it immediately tomorrow and have no problem.
	I don't think it's fair to the United States.
	So we're going to have to do something because we're not going to put up with it.
	We can't put up with it.
	Oh, we've got to get another batch just for those Bavarian tears or those Prussian tears or something.
	Very good.
	Only Donald Trump could do this.
	Only President Trump could do this.
	And, you know, I'm a little harsh on Germany.
	I'm probably, you know, 1.5% kidding.
	I'm 98.5% serious.
	But, you know, a little bit tongue-in-cheek.
	But he's so right on this point.
	Only President Trump could do this.
	Every other president...
	We say, you know, NATO's supposed to be paying more, just 2% of GDP. They're not even doing that, though.
	We're paying 4% of GDP. You know, maybe they should, because we're protecting them, and they're undercutting us at every turn.
	And then also, they're importing oil from Russia, so they're buying oil from Russia.
	We are paying to protect Europe from Russia.
	Europe is using all of that money to pay Russia.
	This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
	Past presidents can't do that, because they don't want to rock the boat.
	This is an emperor-has-no-clothes This is a situation where all of the presidents come in and they say, well, this is NATO. NATO's been around for decades and decades and decades and, you know, that's just the way it works.
	And they don't pay.
	They're not fulfilling their commitments.
	But, you know, well, we should pay.
	This is how it's always been.
	Oh, they're giving out money to Russia.
	Well, you know.
	No, that's not good.
	But that's how it's always been.
	We can't change.
	Can't touch NATO. We can't.
	NATO's been...
	By the way, the Cold War's been over for, what, 30 years now?
	But, oh, no, we can't touch NATO, this relic of the Cold War.
	No, no, no, we can't do that.
	And President Trump comes in.
	He looks at it.
	He says, hold on.
	I'm sorry.
	Maybe I'm a little thick.
	Maybe I'm a little stupid because I haven't been in Washington for my entire life.
	But the way it looks to me is that we're paying more money than we're supposed to be paying to you, and you're not paying the amount of money you're supposed to be paying, and then you're giving all that money to the people we're supposed to be protecting you from.
	Tell me how that makes sense.
	And all of the smart people, all of the educated people, all of the expert people, they say, oh, what a stupid question.
	Why would he ask that question?
	And then you say, well, what's the answer?
	Well, because that's the way it is.
	Well, the way it is isn't going to work, is it?
	President Trump is so, it's so lovely, it's so refreshing to have somebody who's from outside the political process, who's from outside Washington, who's from outside the decades and decades and decades of minor little changes, small little things adding up to this big nonsensical situation.
	He comes in and he says, doesn't make any sense.
	I got some fresh set of eyes, it doesn't make any sense.
	A beautiful thing.
	The left says Donald Trump is treating our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies.
	That's not true at all.
	President Trump is just looking and he's saying, you know, it's not a friendship if you're being taken advantage of.
	If one friend is taking advantage of another so-called friend, that isn't a friendship, right?
	You've got to be on even footing and you can't play soft with these people forever.
	World War II ended 70 years ago.
	We don't need to keep walking around the situation.
	So President Trump comes in.
	I think it's a beautiful thing.
	It's not like, by the way, they're trying to pretend that President Trump is being really nice to Russia.
	The example he's using here is that Europe should stop buying oil from Russia.
	That's actually what the ask is, isn't it?
	Stop buying oil from Russia.
	Start buying oil from—not start spending money on NATO.
	Start spending money on your own defense.
	And this is possible, by the way.
	Poland doesn't buy oil from Russia, do they?
	There are plenty of places.
	It's certainly possible not to buy oil from Russia.
	He's saying, this situation doesn't make sense.
	That's a beautiful thing, and the arguments against it don't make a whole lot of sense either.
	So on foreign affairs, we really are winning.
	Just look around the world.
	ISIS is defeated militarily.
	North Korea has come to the table.
	Now, who knows?
	It looks like they're backing out of that pretend deal.
	Okay, nothing really ventured, nothing really gained.
	That's fine.
	We still have the bigger button that actually works and offers a credible threat of violence in North Korea.
	The Middle East is doing far better.
	We've finally come back to our ally Israel, whom Barack Obama gave the one-finger salute to for eight years.
	And we've fulfilled an American promise that's gone on for decades to move the embassy to That's pretty good.
	We're allowing Russia to help us in the Middle East in so much as they can help us, but without any illusions that we're somehow allies now and we have the identical strategic interests.
	We don't.
	We're finally confronting China.
	China's been stealing our IP for years, making aggressive military action in the South China Sea.
	Presidents have been whining about it, but they haven't done anything.
	President Trump is finally forcing them to the table to negotiate on trade.
	These are huge wins on foreign policy.
	Foreign policy I don't know could be going really any better than it is right now.
	How about on domestic policy?
	The federal bureaucracy has been Growing and sprawling and undercutting the democratic process for years and years and years.
	And this is not some new Trump talking point.
	Conservatives have been talking about this for years.
	Antonin Scalia said before he died that the administrative state is the greatest threat to liberty in the United States.
	So are we taking them on?
	Here we go.
	We've got Republican Trey Gowdy taking on a bureaucrat extraordinaire trying to undercut a democratic election in 2016.
	Peter Strzok.
	Here is the committee hearing.
	You got another text from your colleague, Lisa Page.
	Trump's not ever going to become president, right?
	Right?
	And you replied, no.
	No, he's not.
	We'll stop it.
	By the time you promised to stop him from becoming president on August the 8th, how many interviews had you conducted?
	Mr.
	Gotti, so two answers to that.
	One, with regard to how many interviews had or had not been conducted.
	I've been directed by counsel for the FBI not to answer that question.
	Second, sir, I think it's important to take those texts in the context of how they were written and what they meant.
	And someone may ask you that question, Agent Strunk, but I didn't.
	I asked you how many people you interviewed before you wrote it.
	If you want to get into context, let one of my other colleagues do that with you.
	Here's what I want to know.
	Who's the he and he's not?
	He is then-candidate Trump.
	So, when you said, no, Donald Trump's not, in connection with the question, going to become president, what's the it?
	We'll stop it.
	Chairman Gotti, that text needs to be taken in the context of...
	I'm asking, look, if you want to have a debate over a two-letter word, we're going to have to do that some other time.
	What and who did you mean by it?
	Mr.
	Gowdy, as I've stated, that text was written late at night.
	In shorthand, I don't care when it was written.
	I don't care whether it was longhand, cursive.
	I don't care about any of that.
	I want to know what it meant, Agent Strzok.
	It would be his candidacy for the presidency and my sense that the American population...
	It's not that tough.
	The important thing here is not that we get answers from Strzok.
	We're not going to get answers from Strzok.
	He's going to say, I need to talk to counsel.
	I need to talk to the...
	I don't know.
	I'm not...
	You know.
	But...
	At least we're exposing them.
	This is something that we're finally able to do because of technology and because of the new political climate.
	The left was trying to use the mainstream media, the federal bureaucracy, whatever, any tool at their disposal, to overturn a presidential election.
	We'll explain how in just one second.
	I've got to talk about movement.
	You know how I know that we have to do that?
	Because I'm wearing my movement watch.
	I love movement.
	I wear this watch every day.
	You've heard me talk about movement many times.
	Those two college dropouts that started their own watch company, this company has grown like crazy.
	Even just in the time that we've been talking about them on the show, they now have sold almost two million watches in 160 plus countries.
	They continue to revolutionize fashion on the belief that style shouldn't break the bank.
	Occasionally, they'll send me a freebie and I'm really hoping they send me more freebies because they have even cooler watches out now.
	They're unrolling a few new collections.
	This one came out a little while ago, the Revolver collection.
	I can't tell you how many compliments I get on this watch.
	It's really cool because it's both sleek and modern, but it's got this real retro look.
	It's not too busy.
	It's got a million things going on.
	It's just a really slick-looking watch.
	It's come a long way from being crowdfunded out of a living room.
	They also now have expanded to sunglasses, fashion-forward bracelets for her or him.
	You know, it's 2018, man.
	That's cool.
	Get with the program.
	Get with your preferred pronoun.
	Movement watches are all about looking good and keeping it simple.
	I really, everywhere I go, I was up in Santa Barbara over the weekend, people were complimenting me on this watch.
	And it's across the spectrum of people.
	So, like, sort of traditional, you know, Thai blazer-wearing conservatives compliment it.
	And also, on rare occasion, when I'm hanging out with, like, Cool guys in LA who have, like, spiky hair and man buns and whatever.
	They compliment it, too.
	It just is really broadly appreciated.
	Movement watches, by the way, start at just $95.
	At a department store, you would pay $300, $400, maybe $500 for a watch of this quality.
	But Movement cuts out the middleman.
	They sell direct online, so you don't have that retail markup.
	And that retail markup, by the way, can be 5X, 4X. I mean, really high.
	Classic design, quality construction, and styled minimalism.
	Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns.
	Don't say, I never did nothing for you.
	Celebrate this banner week for American liberty.
	Go to movement.com slash cofefe.
	M-V-M-T dot com slash cofefe.
	C-O-V-F-E-F-E. You only put the vowels in after the slash.
	Before that, it's only consonants.
	Then you get vowels after the slash.
	CY Movement keeps growing.
	Check out their expanding collection.
	M-V-M-T dot com slash cofefe.
	C-O-V-F-E-F-E. And join the movement.
	Seriously, it's so, so nice.
	Back to how the left is subverting a presidential election.
	They did this to Richard Nixon, the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
	Nixon won in a landslide.
	They used every tool at their disposal, the press and the bureaucracy, the deep state, to overturn that election.
	They've been trying to do it again.
	So what they do is they have this facade of a scandal, the Russia collusion.
	It's just a facade of a scandal.
	Explain to me how Trump colluded with Russia.
	Just have a minute.
	Explain to yourself.
	Think for a second.
	How did Trump collude with Russia?
	We've been talking about this for two years now.
	What do I know?
	How did Trump collude with Russia?
	You probably can't explain how, right?
	Because there's no evidence.
	It's just the facade of a scandal.
	And what this does, what these hearings do, when you get Peter Strzok, one of the FBI agents investigating this, who clearly had an anti-Trump bias, who was saying, I'm going to use the power of the state to stop Trump from becoming president.
	When you bring them up there, you cut through that facade and you expose the American people to directly what the so-called scandal is.
	They see it clearly.
	This is the great change in 2016, 2017.
	You've got a president who is skipping the mainstream media, talking directly to the American people, largely via Twitter.
	You can cut through that with congressional testimony.
	You can cut through that with live streaming.
	You can cut through that with tweeting.
	You can just cut through the facade and see it for what it really is.
	This is all about optics, and the optics look really bad for Peter Strzok here.
	You can watch the testimony.
	I wish we had the clip of him stammering like an idiot.
	But he looks arrogant.
	He looks...
	He looks like he's hiding something.
	He obviously is hiding things because he won't answer very direct questions that there is no reason that he shouldn't answer them other than he's going to make himself look like more of a dirtbag than he already does.
	So you get to see that directly.
	This is a beautiful thing.
	It's the same thing, by the way, with the Stormy Daniels arrest.
	You might have seen that Stormy Daniels was arrested in a strip club in Ohio for violating state law.
	That's fine.
	She's a stripper.
	This wouldn't be the first time somebody who works primarily in vice gets arrested for something like that.
	But what is it about?
	It's all about the optics.
	Do I really blame Stormy Daniels for the crime of rubbing up on gentlemen at a strip club?
	No, that's what she does, right?
	That's her job.
	But we get to see it now.
	We actually see what's happening.
	What the left wants to paint is that Stormy Daniels is this heroic feminist victim of Donald Trump's aggressiveness.
	No, she's a professional stripper who gets paid to have sex on camera.
	That's what she is.
	Now, that doesn't mean, you know, that she can't be victimized, but she isn't victimized here, that's for sure.
	And you're just seeing it.
	If you were just to watch the mainstream media, you say, oh, Stormy Daniels, this heroine, Joan of Arc, you know.
	But then you see, no, she gets arrested for rubbing her body all over men in a strip club.
	That's the reality of her life.
	She's still working to have sex on camera.
	She's still working as a stripper, off-camera, perhaps.
	She's still...
	She's still doing that.
	That's the reality of it.
	She's being paid to degrade herself.
	And when you look at what all of these scandals are, it does seem like they're people who are getting paid to degrade themselves.
	You know, Michael Avenatti is the real prostitute in this situation because he's glommed onto these fake scandals and these facades of scandals to get himself on CNN 27 hours a day.
	I mean, even the left is finally knocking him for it.
	They're saying, Michael Avenatti is taking down Trump one CNN hit at a time.
	You know, this guy really seems to like the camera.
	The most dangerous place in the country is between Michael Avenatti and a TV camera.
	But you're finally seeing it.
	That's a very important thing.
	Because the more that we can show the American people the reality of this, the less likely they are to buy the left's ridiculous narrative.
	If all the American people are exposed to is the narrative, they might be duped by it.
	But luckily, the reality is on our side.
	So all we have to do is just shine a light and expose it.
	You saw yesterday, I played that clip of CNN. CNN was talking to an illegal alien woman, you know, who said her child was gone, who was separated from her.
	And they asked her how the kid's doing.
	And the woman said, He says he's doing very well.
	And CNN translated it and said, Oh, everything's terrible and Trump's a monster and they're crying and it's awful.
	But when you see the reality, the reality is on our side.
	When you see the fake narrative, then people get confused.
	How about on the economy?
	So that's just on the bureaucracy part of it.
	On the economy, the economy is doing so, so well.
	People ask me, they say, you know, the lefties will try to say, well, it's really secretly the economy is doing very poorly.
	But even though it seems like it's doing great, the economy has basically never been better.
	Unemployment is at an 18-year low.
	There is a labor shortage right now.
	That's good for two reasons.
	One, there are more jobs to fill than people to fill them.
	And two, it means wages are going to go up.
	Wages have stagnated for a long time at this point.
	Over a decade, largely, they've stagnated in the middle class.
	And now wages are going up because there's a labor shortage.
	That's wonderful.
	Jobless claims were at a 44-year low, just about.
	All excellent news on the economy.
	This also ties into the immigration issue, because when you flood the country with immigrants and illegal aliens, wages tend to go down.
	Especially in certain sectors, they can really destroy the labor market.
	So, in that respect, Donald Trump is winning both on the main issue of his presidency and on the economy, which is what people care about because they see it so viscerally.
	It affects their pocketbooks.
	On civil rights even.
	This is one that nobody on the left is reporting on, but even this week, we are winning tremendously.
	The DOJ under President Trump is reopening the case of the murder of Emmett Till.
	This murder happened in 1955.
	It's when a bunch of murderers killed 14-year-old Emmett Till.
	J.W. Milam and his half-brother Robert Bryant, they killed him for allegedly flirting with a white woman.
	There's no evidence, really, that he flirted with a white woman, but they killed him for that.
	Emmett Till came into town from Chicago, and he was killed, brutally murdered, and ripped apart.
	And his mother actually demanded an open casket funeral to show the world how gory and awful this was.
	And by the way, after they were acquitted, Milam was acquitted within an hour, I think.
	They said the all-white jury would have acquitted him sooner except they took a break to have a soda.
	I mean, this was no trial at all, a total show.
	And Milam confessed.
	This is what he said, the murder of Emmett Till in 1956.
	A year later, he said, what else could we do?
	He was hopeless.
	I'm no bully.
	I never heard a...
	I'll use the word ninja.
	Let's just say ninja.
	I never heard a ninja in my life.
	I like N-words in their place.
	I know how to work them.
	But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice.
	As long as I can live and do anything about it, N-words are going to stay in their place.
	N-words ain't going to vote where I live.
	If they did, they'd control the government.
	They ain't going to go to school with my kids, and when an N-word gets close to mentioning sex with a white woman, he's tired of living.
	I'm likely to kill him.
	Me and my folks fought for this country.
	We got some rights.
	I stood there in that shed and listened to that N-word throw that poison at me, and I just made up my mind.
	Chicago boy, I said, I'm tired of them sending your kind down here to stir up trouble.
	Damn you.
	I'm going to make an example of you just so everybody can know how me and my folks stand.
	And then he viciously killed him and tied his body to a weight and killed him in a river.
	That was the admission.
	Now, the DOJ has new information.
	They haven't released any information on what that information is, but they have reopened the case under President Trump.
	And that is a very good thing.
	So it's ironic that President Trump is being called a racist based on nothing, by the way.
	Nobody called him a racist before he ran for office as a republic, and now all of a sudden he's a big racist.
	They're calling him a racist.
	This guy is focused pretty clearly on civil rights.
	The example of this is not too long ago, President Trump issued a pardon for Jack Johnson.
	Jack Johnson, probably, what is it now, almost a hundred years later, almost a century later, Jack Johnson was the first black heavyweight champion boxer.
	I'm not talking about the pop guitarist that only suburban white girls like Jack Johnson.
	I'm talking about the heavyweight boxer, the first black heavyweight champ boxer.
	Jack Johnson was serving a 10-month stint at Leavenworth.
	In 1921.
	And his crime basically was traveling with a white woman.
	What he was convicted on was the Mann Act for bringing a prostitute across state lines.
	The Mann Act was to stop human trafficking.
	But Jack Johnson had a checkered past with women.
	I'm not saying this guy was a saint, you know.
	But it was a consensual relationship he was in with this woman.
	And he was basically arrested for the racial crime of traveling with a white woman.
	And Woodrow Wilson, of course, wouldn't grant him the pardon.
	Both President Bush and President Obama were asked to pardon Jack Johnson posthumously and they said, no, we're not going to do it.
	What's the point?
	It's a little dicey because he had a checkered past himself and we don't want to do it.
	President Trump heard about this and he said, yeah, let's do it.
	Of course, that's justice.
	It was injustice that he got arrested.
	It was obviously a racial thing and we're going to pardon him.
	This is only the third posthumous pardon by any U.S. president.
	And President Trump did it.
	Why is this apparently strong focus on civil rights?
	That's a pretty good thing.
	I've got to say goodbye to Facebook in a second, but I do want to clear up some questions on the court, because this is the real area that we're winning, and I think there's a little misinformation out there.
	A lot of conservatives were very excited about justice.
	Or Judge Amy Coney Barrett, because she seemed so rock-ribbed, worked for Scalia, very pro-life, but more importantly would be a textualist, and therefore the pro-life cause probably would win.
	And this guy, you know, he doesn't seem quite as rock-ribbed to some people.
	That said, he's pretty good.
	First of all, they have nothing on this guy.
	The Washington Post found the big scandal on him.
	The scandal is, Supreme Court nominee piled up credit card debt by purchasing Nationals tickets.
	And by the way, he paid off the credit card debt.
	So basically the headline is, Brett Kavanaugh used credit cards ever and went to America's favorite pastime.
	He also likes...
	Brett Kavanaugh piled up credit card debt eating apple pie.
	Okay, sure.
	And they said he doesn't have a lot.
	He's not rich.
	He only has assets between $15,000 and $60,000.
	Brett Kavanaugh has spent his career in the public sector as a judge.
	If he were rich, that would throw up red flags, wouldn't it?
	But what they're saying is breaking.
	Brett Kavanaugh, apparently too upright a citizen.
	Too dignified a judge to make a lot of money on the side.
	This is a very good thing.
	So everything they try to throw at him, it just doesn't work at all.
	And he's got a ton of pro-life credibility.
	That's the other thing.
	People are trying to say he won't overturn Roe v.
	Wade.
	Who knows how he'll rule?
	Who knows if a court with Kavanaugh on it will overturn Roe v.
	Wade?
	It certainly seems it will whittle away at it.
	But he's got a lot of pro-life credit.
	He did say, he did ruling Garza v.
	Hargan, as the ACLU tried to argue, that an illegal alien has some right to an abortion on demand.
	He said that was ridiculous and that was right.
	He ruled for the Priests for Life in Priests for Life v.
	HHS on the question of religious liberty and whether they have to provide abortifacient drugs.
	Abortion drugs to Chuck Schumer in 2006.
	He did say that Roe v.
	Wade is binding precedent, but a lot of pro-lifers are saying, this is scary, this is the big red flag.
	They said it's binding precedent.
	That's not a big deal.
	Only because he prefaced it, he said, if confirmed to the D.C. Circuit.
	Sure, as a lower court judge, he can't overturn Roe v.
	Wade.
	Of course not.
	But you have to watch the precise language here.
	Judges use very precise language.
	That's like their job, you know?
	They said the same thing about Gorsuch.
	Gorsuch said similar things, and nobody is saying that he's a weakling on abortion or on Roe v.
	Wade.
	And then during AEI's speech, American Enterprise Institute, Judge Kavanaugh said...
	He alluded to the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
	He's talking about Roe v.
	Wade.
	And that's pretty strong language.
	The judicial creation of rights that were not rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
	Taking a pretty hard swing.
	And he's talking about it.
	it.
	If you read the speech carefully, he starts talking about it right after he talks about slavery as this great flaw, this great oversight, this great American crime.
	And I think that juxtaposition is important because the argument against abortion is the argument against slavery.
	You don't have a right to do something to another person, to kill another person, to steal their liberty, to take their life.
	The argument for overturning Roe v.
	Wade is a constitutional one.
	The argument for pro-life is the same argument for abolition.
	It's the same one.
	You don't have a right to oppress people, tyrannize people, kill them, take their labor.
	And the fact that he's juxtaposing those two things is a very good sign.
	And then finally, alright, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
	I'll talk about how we're winning the religious war.
	Then we'll have to get to the mailbag.
	But before that, before that, if you're on Facebook and YouTube, go to dailywire.com.
	You're probably not on YouTube because YouTube's clamping down on us now.
	YouTube actually is manipulating the subscription feed to curate your choices.
	You might have seen this news article to curate your choices to put all the lefties up at the top and bury conservatives.
	That means that users might not get notified if a channel goes live, even if you subscribe to our channel.
	So in order to make sure you still get notifications, go to not only subscribe to Daily Wire on YouTube, but also ring the little bell so that you will get subscriptions when we post content.
	$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
	You get me, The Andrew Klavan Show, The Ben Shapiro Show.
	You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
	You get to ask questions in the conversation.
	None of that matters.
	A banner week.
	Everything going well.
	And drink the...
	You're going to need this to drink the Peter Strzok vintage right now.
	I know he's not talking a lot on camera in this testimony, but he...
	Ooh, are those tears flowing behind the camera, offstage.
	Make sure you have this, or you might drown.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back.
	back.
	A lot more of the show to go.
	We're winning the religious war too.
	The This is the final, this is kind of the foundational part of how we're winning so hard this week.
	You've seen a lot of religious conversations come up.
	It was spurred by this Supreme Court nomination fight because you had the fight over Roe v.
	Wade.
	You had the fight over people who are Catholic who are being nominated for this court.
	You know, they're members of cults, according to the left.
	So, the New York Times ran this piece today called, When Politicians Determine Your Religious Beliefs.
	And there's this religious divide in America.
	And what they're trying to say, well, here's what they write.
	At first glance, President Trump's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court would seem a perfect reminder of why so many religious white Americans vote Republican to promote conservative moral values, religious values, their values.
	The values that, the story goes, devout white Protestants and Catholics want to see in Washington.
	Before we go on, what?
	What does white have anything to do with it?
	And really, what does religion have anything to do with it?
	I don't know if the New York Times is being obtuse here, or if they're just that stupid.
	It's one of the two.
	They're either being really obtuse, or they're just being stupid.
	The fight is over constitutionality.
	The fight is over whether there's a fake...
	Right to abortion in the Constitution.
	There's obviously no right to abortion in the Constitution.
	That's what the fight is about.
	Are we going to interpret the Constitution by what it says?
	Or are we going to interpret it by what lefties fantasize it could say?
	Are we going to have a rule of law?
	Are we going to have a rule of nine robed dictators in the country?
	Leftist dictators.
	That's what it's about.
	It's nothing about religion, really, and it's certainly nothing about being white, but the New York Times has to throw that in there because either they don't have any idea what they're talking about or they're being really cynically obtuse.
	The piece goes on, though, because there are some interesting parts in it.
	Quote, It's not just that our religious beliefs affect our politics.
	It's that our politics affect our religious choices.
	We don't just take cues about politics from our pastors and priests.
	We take cues about religion from our politicians.
	Analyzing these data, I find that 20-something Democrats and Republicans were equally secular.
	You know, when they're young, teenagers, 20-somethings, they're equally secular.
	Most had pulled away from religion after high school and Democrats and Republicans did so at similar rates.
	But nine years later, Republicans had become much more likely to attend church than their Democrat counterparts.
	In contrast, even those who bucked the secular trend and remained religious in their 20s were no more likely than less religious members of their cohort to join the Republican ranks in their 30s.
	Okay.
	Why is that?
	Because I actually do sort of grant them that premise, that Republicans and Democrats fall away from religion largely in their teens and early 20s.
	They come back to it, and Republicans come back to it more easily and more quickly.
	Why?
	Well, for one, New York Times, perhaps this hasn't occurred to you, that in your teens and 20s, what are you doing?
	You're exploring questions.
	You're finally fully rational or approaching full rationality.
	You're finally a little bit educated at least.
	And you start questioning the world around you.
	You're no longer a little child.
	You're becoming an adult.
	You're figuring out what you think.
	Is it possible that people are analyzing religious questions and political questions at the same time?
	When you were a young person, did you analyze religious and political questions at the same time?
	Duh!
	Of course you did.
	That's what people do.
	They question everything around them.
	They didn't say, okay, I'm going to solve this question, the political question, then I'll have religious views.
	Not at all.
	They both want to deny free will and rational choice and then say that one leads to the other necessarily.
	It doesn't quite work.
	And why else might this be the case?
	Well, there is some social proof.
	You know, if you're a lefty and you think, oh yeah, I really like Obama, you see all these other lefties mocking religion and people that you might respect mocking religion, you say, okay, well, I guess that's true.
	I'll take a shortcut.
	I won't think about the question too hard.
	I'll just take this shortcut.
	There's certainly that.
	Maybe you're compelled by the arguments of those you associate with.
	I was agnostic, bordering on atheism in my teens and early 20s, and I would talk to people whose views I respected on politics, and they might explain to me why I was wrong about religion.
	And I might say, oh, well, if you're right about all these other things, maybe you're right about this too.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	It's called humility, New York Times.
	I know you know nothing about this, but it's called intellectual humility, and it's called intellectual curiosity, nothing of which interests the New York Times.
	And, of course, the final reason is that for leftist Democrats, politics supplants religion.
	Dianne Feinstein is worried that the dogma lives loudly within Catholics because the dogma supplants the leftist dogma.
	It means that there's no room for the leftist modern dogma to be there.
	And Democrats who have...
	Everybody's got to serve somebody.
	So if you don't serve God, you're going to serve something else and you're going to serve idols of politics.
	Be it environmentalism, be it social justice, redistribution, Marxist ideology, whatever.
	You're going to serve something.
	And unfortunately for people on the left broadly and the Democratic Party now broadly, that's a question that's a void that's filled by shallow politics.
	Although, the way we're winning on this, too, is that among the Coalition of the Ascendant, to use the Democrats' phrase, blacks and Hispanic voters are more likely to agree with Republicans on questions of religion.
	So it's splitting their own base.
	It's splitting their own party.
	Very good news.
	And maybe it'll bring them to the good Lord.
	All right.
	We've got a little bit of time left for mailbag.
	I was running late today, so let's jump right into it.
	From Anthony.
	Hey Michael, I'm a big fan.
	While doing research into the case of Roe v.
	Wade, I was reading up on the 14th Amendment, which states all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
	My question is if the text specifically says born or naturalized, would a child in the womb meet this standard as it's not yet born?
	No, I don't think it does.
	I don't think abortion is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment.
	The language is clear.
	Born or naturalized in a child in the womb, I don't think yet.
	It certainly hasn't been born, and I don't think it's been naturalized.
	I don't think the way that we should stop abortion is by pretending that there's a constitutional prohibition against abortion.
	There's certainly no constitutional right to abortion, and there's no constitutional law.
	So Roe v.
	Wade should be overturned because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
	And then the question should be decided by the people.
	And, you know, freedom is scary because people might decide to legalize murder and something morally similar to murder in certain states, in New York, California, wherever.
	But I think you'll get much more of an ethic of life.
	And by the way, if this is debated freely and we don't just pretend that there's either a right to an abortion or a prohibition of abortion in the Constitution, our side is going to win.
	I said this earlier in the show.
	When you show reality, we win.
	Because unlike leftist ideologues who say, who cares if it works in practice, does it work in theory?
	I think the reality is on our side.
	There's something about the conservative disposition that really favors the real, the tangible, what we see before us.
	And we don't really doubt our lion eyes so much like the left does.
	I think we shouldn't be afraid of freedom, and we shouldn't play the game of the left of perverting the Constitution.
	I think we're going to lose that one in the long run.
	Next question from Garrett.
	Lord Knowles!
	I've heard an argument that we have no free will because we can't control our desires, and all of our actions are based on what we want to do.
	If you reply with examples of you acting against your desires, a defender of this argument would reply that you only did that because you wanted to go against it, and therefore we are back to square one.
	What are your thoughts on this?
	To me, it seems like all it did was prove that we can create an ad hoc justification for any of our actions that means it's related to desires.
	I'm unsure if this is a logical fallacy.
	Thanks and love the show.
	Yeah, it's ridiculous.
	It's what they're saying is unfalsifiable sentiment and nonsense.
	Obviously, you can think of times that you act against your desires, namely all of the time, because there's a moral order, you know?
	If I'm walking down the street and I see a cute little lass, you know, well...
	I would never feel any desire at all because sweet little Elisa listens to this show.
	So I've got to make clear I don't even see other women.
	It's like people who say they don't see color.
	I don't even see them.
	I just want to say, what are you?
	Hello, sir.
	Nice to meet you.
	I'm a lady!
	Yeah, well, sir, I'm sorry.
	I don't see gender.
	But obviously people...
	Why don't we stop their sort of basest animalistic desires?
	Because we have higher desires.
	We have love for our wives.
	Why don't we just go cheat with every single woman we see?
	Because there's this base animalistic sexual attraction, but then we have this higher love for our wives.
	We have a moral order that we have to follow.
	Why don't we murder people that we don't like?
	Because there's a moral order that we follow.
	Obviously, we butt against that.
	Now, they say, well, really your desire is to follow the moral order.
	Sure, but if what you're saying, by the way, Ultimately, everything is just determined by this animalistic thing.
	Then you have no rational faculties.
	You have no faculties of reason to have judgment, to discern between a base desire and sort of higher calling or the right thing to do.
	And if you have no faculties of reason, then what you are saying is not reliable.
	Because you're not accessing truth, you're just motivated by your natural desires.
	If that's true, you're an animal.
	Your lefty friend might be an animal, but you're not an animal.
	And if they say, yes, we have no rational faculties, then what they're saying has no meaning.
	They're not actually making a rational statement, they're just saying...
	It's like when people say there's no free will, and I start punching them in the face.
	And they say, stop doing that!
	I say, I'm not doing it, I have no free will.
	This was just...
	It's preordained to happen.
	I'm not even sorry because it's not my fault because I have no moral culpability.
	It's a ridiculous argument and they're just making unfalsifiable sentimental claims.
	From Alicia, do we have time?
	We have time for like a few more.
	From Alicia, Mikolo, I don't know what language that's in.
	What are the chances that the Dems would come up with a new candidate?
	Who would you pick for a Democrat nominee in 2020?
	That's easy.
	Jim Acosta.
	No question.
	Jim Acosta.
	One, because he looks like a generic president.
	You know, he's just like a sort of glib guy with silly hair, you know, perfectly coiffed hair and everything, which looks good on some people.
	But Jim Acosta would also be a great choice because, first of all, he's a mouthpiece of Democrats.
	All he does is repeat Democrat talking points on like automatic.
	He's just on this automatic function.
	And he's already on the Democrat mouthpiece of CNN.
	He's already on their main communications platform, so that would be pretty helpful.
	And also, it would really rile up the Democrats, because he's a straight white man, as far as I know.
	So they would say, oh gosh, he is the avatar of Democrats, but we have to hate straight white guys now.
	So what do we do about it?
	And they would rip them apart, and it would be really good.
	The simpler answer is Hillary Clinton, and it looks like she may run.
	It might be more likely that she runs again, but who knows if the Democrats will successfully reanimate that corpse in time for 2020.
	Otherwise, my money's on Jim Acosta.
	From Misty.
	Hi, Michael.
	One quick question.
	Good, I'm glad.
	I'm glad this is a quick question.
	What is the quick question?
	What does the Bible actually have to say about purgatory and whether or not it does exist?
	Spoiler alert, this is not a quick question.
	This will be a long question.
	As myself, I'm a Protestant and don't believe in purgatory and wanted to know a Catholic's view on it because it doesn't give me a direct answer.
	I don't have a direct answer.
	Okay, thanks, James.
	Sure.
	Happy to do that.
	This is going to be a longer one.
	Long story short, purgatory is rooted in scripture and in sacred tradition, and it exists.
	We see this, where are some places in scripture?
	In Maccabees, you see a quote.
	He turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out.
	He also took up a collection and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering.
	In doing this, he acted very well and honorably.
	Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
	So this is a clear example in Scripture of...
	Of people praying for the dead, that the dead, after they are dead, might be delivered from sins that they had committed while they were alive.
	So I think that's a clear allusion to purgatory.
	Now one trouble with the Protestant Revolution is after the Protestant Revolution, various denominations just started taking out books of the Bible.
	Martin Luther did this.
	He said, we're only going to rely on scripture, but only the scripture that I like, and all the one that I don't like I'm going to pull out of the Bible.
	I don't know if that's sola scriptura, buddy.
	We also see this in the New Testament, if you're not compelled by Maccabees.
	In Matthew 12, whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
	This is an enigmatic scripture.
	I'm not going to explain or try to explain why speaking against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
	But I will point out it says either in this age or in the age to come.
	So our Lord is presenting a clear case that sins can be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.
	So that seems to validate what we saw in Maccabees.
	I don't think Jesus misspeaks.
	He doesn't really misspeak.
	He speaks perfectly.
	And there is a premise here that you can be forgiven for your sins in this age or in the age to come.
	Some sins.
	Then in Matthew 5, it's a little clearer.
	Make friends quickly with your accuser while you're going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.
	Truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.
	Now, I don't think our Lord is being clever by half here.
	I don't think he's saying, and you'll never pay the last penny, ha ha ha.
	But he is saying, you will pay for this.
	You will have to, there will be some consequence for your sins, but you can get out.
	I don't think he's saying, you can never get out.
	You can get out from certain sins in certain cases.
	Tertullian, writing not long after the death of Christ in 208 AD, describes that exactly as such, and as parabolic.
	But the clearest example If I haven't convinced you so far, I hope I have, is in 1 Corinthians, which reads, For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
	Now, if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work will become manifest.
	for the day will disclose it because it will be revealed with fire and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
	If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
	If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
	And the image of purgatory is as a cleansing and saving fire that purifies you, or a refining fire that purifies you for heaven.
	I know that certain denominations took out books of the Bible, but I don't think they took out Corinthians.
	So there's a scriptural evidence for that.
	I'll take this one last quick one, then we've got to sign off.
	From Noah.
	Had an argument with two of my co-workers, and they said Obama's economy was better than Trump's.
	Six of the tax cuts, my co-worker has said thousands of people lost their jobs.
	He showed me a Vox article.
	Stop right there.
	He's going to show you occupied Democrats.
	He showed me this meme on the internet.
	He showed me a Vox article.
	It was a list of 12 companies that were laying off employees because of the tax cuts.
	Overall, are the tax cuts good?
	Why did these companies lay off so many people?
	Okay, here's what you need to know.
	We have a massive labor shortage in the country.
	There are more jobs than people to fill them right now.
	Do companies sometimes fire people?
	Yeah.
	Do they fire people because they've just gotten more money to spend?
	No, that doesn't make any sense.
	No company fires people because they now have more money through tax cuts.
	Uh, No, just look at the numbers.
	We have a massive labor shortage.
	I think I mentioned this earlier in the show.
	Jobless claims are at an almost 44-year low.
	We have the lowest unemployment in 18 years.
	No, it helped.
	And the IMF admits, by the way, that the global economic boom is in part caused by President Trump, and it's directly attributable to him.
	So I think the main mistake your friend made was reading Vox.com and not treating it like everyday feminism or whatever other ridiculous lefty dishonest sites there are.
	Okay, that's all the time we have.
	We have other great questions to get to, but not enough time.
	Have a good weekend, everybody.
	I hope you can make it through and swim some laps in all those leftist tiers.
	And then I'll see you on Monday.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Jim Nickel.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲