The Vatican’s former ambassador to the United States is publicly accusing Pope Francis of covering up for an abusive cardinal, and he’s calling on the Pope to resign. We will analyze what this means for the future of the Catholic Church. Then, Eric Eggers stops by to discuss his new book, Fraud: How The Left Plans To Steal The Next Election. Then, the mainstream media, which savaged John McCain in 2008 when it actually mattered, are now rolling out the panegyrics after the Senator’s death. We’ll explain why. Finally, an update on the socialist gift that keeps on giving, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The Vatican's former ambassador to the United States is publicly accusing Pope Francis of covering up for an abusive cardinal, and he's calling on the Pope to resign.
We will analyze what this means for the future of the Catholic Church.
Then, Eric Eggers stops by to discuss his new book, How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election.
Then, the mainstream media, which savaged John McCain in 2008 when it actually mattered, Are now rolling out the panegyrics after the senator's death.
We'll explain why.
Finally, an update on the socialist gift that keeps on giving.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
So much to get to today.
You know, sometimes I actually try to limit my flagrant potpourri and papism to the mailbag because I get a lot of questions about it so I don't want it to be the whole show.
And then the Catholic Church becomes the biggest news story in the entire world.
So this is one area where I think my potpourri will really serve because the mainstream media are totally getting this wrong.
This is way, way bigger even than they are reporting.
Before we get to all of that...
We've got to thank our wonderful sponsor, Ring.
Ring is very, very cool.
It will make you safer.
It will make you look cooler.
It will make your friends respect you more.
It is great.
It is the future.
They make this video doorbell that connects to your phone.
So they have totally changed the game of home security.
There used to be the neighborhood watch, which was inefficient and ineffective.
Now you've got Ring.
You can see the guy.
Who's coming up, you can talk two-way, see it on your phone, whether you're on a beach in Boca or you're in your house or apartment.
It's really, I'll just set this up, because they send me these clips, and they're amazing to watch.
So this guy runs away here, but it's only because he had a ring.
He's probably on drugs or some whacked-out guy.
Let's just play the clip.
Hello?
Hey!
Are you okay?
Leave my house or I'm calling the police.
Okay, what you need to do...
Hey, leave my house.
Stop now or I'm calling the police.
Why would you tell me that?
Because you're trying to push my door in.
Leave now.
Girl, I'm about to smash what's in there.
I'm calling the police.
Okay.
I am the police.
Kind of handed to him for the amount of drugs that that guy is certainly on.
It was pretty quick thinking.
Like, I am the police.
You don't look like the police.
Ring is unbelievable.
You can see what's going on at your front door.
You can really stop crime.
That's very empowering.
It'll help you protect your family.
And also, you can just track who's coming to your house.
Delivery guys, it gets uploaded to the cloud.
You know, even if someone, even if the burglar steals your ring doorbell, you'll have all of that video on the cloud.
You can share it instantly to neighbors.
Get it.
This is the future, and it's pretty inexpensive.
Thieves just can't hide with a ring.
Save up to $150 on a ring of security kit at ring.com slash Knowles.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Don't say I never did nothing for you.
These things are already very, very low priced, and you'll save $150 on a Ring of Security Kit.
Ring.com slash Knowles, $150 off when you go to Ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Okay.
I'm going to break this down for you, this Vatican Catholic Church scandal.
And we'll see.
There are going to be new things that come out, but I want to give you the basic outlook because the mainstream media are lying about this.
First of all, there are very few things that are unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Church.
You know, there have been multiple empires, popes being kidnapped by tyrants and invaders and this and that.
This is unprecedented.
A top Vatican official is accusing the Pope of covering up for an abusive priest and he's calling on that Pope to resign.
This is utterly unprecedented and this poses serious questions not only for Francis' pontificate but for the state of Western Christianity and Western civilization.
The significance of this letter that came out from the Vatican's former representative to Washington A 11-page letter outlining all of this.
It cannot be overstated how significant this is.
So let's get through it very quickly, because then we've got to talk about election fraud and how the left is going to steal the next election.
The cardinal to write this testimony.
It's the former nuncio to Washington, the Vatican's representative to the United States.
For some context, the United States and Germany basically fund the Catholic Church.
So this is the Vatican's rep to the United States.
That's what the word nuncio means.
Some people are pronouncing it nuncio.
Nuncio is the name of my Italian uncle who lives in the Bronx.
Nuncio is the representative to the United States.
His name is Carlo Maria Vigano.
In his 11-page testimony, he outlines abuse and he names names.
Specifically, we saw a guy named Cardinal McCarrick step down.
He was the first guy to step down from the College of Cardinals in almost 100 years.
He stepped down just a couple weeks ago amid allegations of abusing not only minors, but a lot of seminarians and a lot of priests.
I've talked to priest friends about this.
I I've talked to sources about this.
They say this was widely known, not that he was abusing kids, but that he was abusing seminarians and priests, and it was allowed to persist by bishops who were covering it up, including his successors, including his pals in the Catholic clergy.
Including Cardinal Wuerl, by the way.
So this is from this testimony, which outlines all of the abuse.
Quote, So one thing that's being really misrepresented here in the mainstream media,
I think the Washington Post did this, is they said that according to this testimony, both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis, both of them knew about the abuse of Cardinal McCarrick.
And that's technically true.
What is left out here, the lie of omission, is that Pope Benedict punished Cardinal McCarrick.
He sent this bad, abusive cardinal who abused a lot of priests and some minors.
He sent him into seclusion.
Pope Benedict had defrocked a number of abusive priests, laicized them, took them out of the clergy, and he said McCarrick has to not appear in public.
He can't live in the seminaries.
He needs to be punished while these things are being investigated.
When Pope Francis came to power, he reinstated McCarrick.
He gave him all of his old privileges back, and the cardinal who replaced him allowed him to live at the seminaries where he had been abusing priests before.
This is high corruption, rank corruption.
This was reported also directly to Francis.
So the author of this testimony is saying, I spoke to Francis directly.
I know that Francis knows about this.
I told it to him with my own lips.
So, one example here is this guy, Viganot, was speaking to Francis.
And Pope Francis apparently asked him, what do you know about Cardinal McCarrick?
Viganot said, there's a dossier this thick on Cardinal McCarrick outlining his abuse of priests and seminarians.
Again, not little boys, but of other people in the clergy.
This big, and you should know about that.
And when he left, he later found out, according to this testimony, that Pope Francis knew McCarrick, had spoken previously to McCarrick, and perhaps was just trying to suss out what Vigano thought about McCarrick in order to figure out who to promote and who to demote.
But we do know that Francis empowered McCarrick.
He let him go to China as a representative of the Vatican.
He let him go all over, live in seminaries, and basically have free reign in the exact opposite of what Pope Benedict allowed him to do.
So, the issue here is that Pope Francis won't respond.
At the end of this testimony from Cardinal Viganò, he says the Pope should resign.
The Pope knew the Pope should resign.
And this is not some power play here, because the Cardinal who wrote this is retired.
He doesn't have anything personally to gain from this, and he's been a top-level official for a long time, including under Pope Francis, and he just is a credible guy, according to all of the other sources.
So what does Francis say to this?
Nothing.
Nothing.
He was asked by the press what he's going to say and respond to these calls for resignation, unprecedented in the history of the church.
And Francis responds, quote, I read that statement this morning.
I read it and I will say sincerely that I must say this to you and all of you who are interested.
Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves.
I will not say one word on this.
I think the statement speaks for itself and you have sufficient journalistic capacity to reach your own conclusions.
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
This is utterly unacceptable.
These are serious allegations, but made by a very serious person.
And he says, posh, pish posh, I don't owe you an explanation.
No thanks.
And this is very much in keeping with the Francis pontificate.
He has done this time and again.
The theological undercurrent, which is not really being reported on, is that, as Pope Francis has said things that seem to be in direct contradiction to 2,000 years of church doctrine...
There were four cardinals, including the considered conservative cardinal, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who sent what are called a dubia to Pope Francis.
Five questions about statements he's made to clarify what he's saying and make sure that he's not promoting heresy.
Again, a serious document given respectfully, hand-delivered to the papal residence, Francis said, I'm not going to respond.
Wouldn't respond.
To this day, does not respond.
In fact, those dubia were only published two months after Francis refused to admit that he received them.
Just know he just will not answer his critics.
This is very much in keeping.
And another aspect of the Francis pontificate is he has seemed to dismiss, if not denigrate, younger Catholics who are more serious about orthodoxy and more serious about traditional liturgies than he is.
He's denigrated them.
He says they're too rigid.
Oh, don't be too rigid.
Why are you young people too rigid?
Just dismissing and dismissing and dismissing them.
You know, one wonders if Pope Francis will take his own advice here because he's called for transparency constantly.
We need transparency.
We need the end of clericalism.
He's always blaming this abuse on clericalism.
well, clericalism referring to all of these corrupt bishops and taking their offices, you know, and making idols of their offices and abusing their offices.
One wonders if he'll take this seriously too.
Do we need transparency?
Do we need, are we going to have transparency from Pope Francis?
Are we going to have an end to clericalism?
I don't know.
More on that in a second.
A lot of other people are implicated in this.
A lot of other Americans are implicated in this testimony.
One of whom is Cardinal Cupish.
Cardinal Cupish is Cardinal in Chicago.
He was appointed by McCarrick and Worrell, two other guys who have been seriously corrupted, who we know have been corrupted.
He was appointed apparently because of their influence.
Another little bit for those of you who are not in the Catholic know, Cardinal Cupish is referred to in some quarters as Cardinal Cupcake.
By a more conservative...
Certainly I wouldn't use that phrase.
It's so uncharitable.
But they do call him Cardinal Cupcake.
So anyway, Cardinal Cupish then responds to these allegations against him.
He said, quote, To that expectation and collaboration, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
He just refused to do it.
And he says the nuncio is confused.
The nuncio doesn't seem to be confused.
If anybody is confused, it's Cardinal Cupish, who has time and time again confused Catholic doctrine and confused people by playing politics, by leaning toward leftism, and by playing the press.
He called for absolute clarity.
These are the words of Cardinal Cupish.
There's absolute clarity that he would ban guns from churches and parishes while he's archbishop.
But then he's a little less clear on other aspects.
When he was the bishop of Rapid City, he was less clear on abortion.
He said, well, you know, we have to consider both sides.
And when there was an anti-abortion bill up to the legislature, well, we have to, I don't know, it's not that clear, you know, blah, blah, blah.
No, Are you kidding me?
That's very, very clear.
When he was the Bishop of Spokane, he clearly prohibited the traditional liturgy, traditional liturgical books.
He also was very clear when he said that priests and seminarians shouldn't protest against Planned Parenthood.
He's very clear about that, but now he seems very confused about things that matter.
He seems very confused.
He's unclear about same-sex marriage.
He said, oh, well, you know, do-do-do-do-do.
Very, very unclear.
I hope we get a little clarity because these people who seem to call for clarity all the way up the Vatican hierarchy then seem to be very unclear when the light shines on them.
They seem to be a little unclear on doctrine too.
So I hope this is a moment.
This has been a very challenging pontificate for the church because there have been so many confusing statements.
So many statements that seem to contradict the Catholic doctrine.
And apparently now, so many cover-ups of abuse.
So many cover-ups.
If you have two pontificates, you have Pope Benedict responding to an abusive priest by punishing him while he's being investigated.
And you have the next pope essentially promoting him.
Those are two very different views.
And to stand there and say, we need more transparency, less clericalism, more honesty, while you're covering that up, raises serious, serious questions of integrity.
So the question is what to do, because we've got to get to our interview.
But I know people are going to be wondering, not just Catholics, but Christians generally, what do we do about this?
The first answer is don't flee the church.
The church has been through a lot of bad things before.
I'm speaking even to the Protestant denominations.
They've been through a lot of scandals before.
The answer isn't to leave the church.
You know, whenever there's a big issue in politics or in the church...
I've noticed this week after week.
Very often the reading from scripture that week speaks directly to it.
Call it providence, call it coincidence, what have you.
This week on Sunday, it was a reading from, I think it's John 6, which is right after the Bread of Life sermon.
Christ says, I'm the bread of life.
This is a hard saying.
You have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.
And he says to the disciples, people leave him.
It's too hard for them to hear this.
And he says, will you leave too?
And Peter responds and says...
To whom shall we go?
To whom shall we go?
Say, will you leave the church now because of all these scandals?
Will you leave this church or that church?
To whom shall we go?
To whom shall we go?
If this is the truth, then we have to follow this.
We have to look toward Jesus.
Another reading this week was from Ephesians.
Now, these days, in some of the more liberal Catholic liturgies, They omit the part about wives submitting to their husbands, and they only include the part about husbands loving their wives.
The reading says, wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives.
And you'll see in brackets on the first part now, they'll say, you don't have to read this.
No, you don't.
No, it might be a little touchy.
Yeah, it's a little touchy.
These are hard sayings.
But, you know, the church is the bride of Christ.
Christ is the bridegroom.
And an issue here, Francis wants to talk about clericalism, is that people are not looking to their husband, which is Christ.
They certainly need to do that.
What can you do?
In very practical terms, you can vote with your wallet.
If you're a Catholic, don't give to...
It's bishops' collections, the Bishop's Appeal, Catholic Relief Services, organizations that are tied to the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.
I once had a priest say to me that he liked my book, Reasons to Vote for Democrats, a comprehensive guide, completely blank.
And he said he was considering one called Reasons to Listen to the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.
So that's one way.
You can vote with your wallet, and I recommend you do.
The question that everyone's asking is, should Francis resign?
The top diplomat, Vatican's diplomat to the United States, is calling on him to resign.
We need to find out if his testimony is true.
It's been corroborated by other people, by other high-ranking Vatican officials who have said, quote, Vigano is telling the truth.
That's all I'm going to say.
That seems true.
There is some precedence here where Pope Francis said in May that bishops should retire.
They shouldn't die in office, including the Pope.
This was kind of a shock.
It seemed that he might give up the pontificate willingly.
Pope Benedict did that before him.
He resigned the papacy.
Under what circumstances, we're not sure, but he did retire.
And so, using Francis' own logic, perhaps he should listen to his own words.
If it comes to that, if these allegations are true, if Francis really believes that the Pope can retire and should retire, if he supports transparency, if he supports an end to clericalism, then this will be very important.
I really wanted to go through this because I know to outsiders and even to Catholics...
The details of the Catholic Church and the Vatican and Catholic hierarchy are a little murky and a little strange and seem like they're out of the 7th century or something, because often they are.
But this event is...
Earth-shattering.
I mean, if I weren't told by Scripture that the Church will exist until the end of the world, I would be raising an eyebrow right now.
But the Church will endure until the end of the world.
If the Church is the Church, the Church will endure until the end of the world.
And we're going through a very, very rocky period.
Don't let anybody tell you that this is some minor question.
The Pope could resign over this, and we'll see if that happens.
Okay, Speaking of spiritual wickedness in high places, let's talk about corruption in bureaucracies.
I spoke with Eric Eggers, a terrific guy and the author of Fraud, How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election, where he goes through all of the history of voter fraud, and now we're told all the time by the left, there's no such thing as voter fraud, it's not real, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
He lays it out.
This is an excellent book, and here is what Eric has to say about how the left is going to try to steal the midterms in 2020.
Thank you so much for being here.
There is no election fraud.
It never happens.
We never try to steal elections.
And if you pass any laws to stop us, we're going to murder you.
We're going to go in and kill you guys.
How extensive is this problem in reality?
Well, I think all you have to do is take a look at the reaction anyone gets anytime they suggest that voter fraud might be a problem.
As you noted, I do steer a little clear of accusing anyone of outright murder in the book, although that was an editorial decision at the end.
Right, right.
But at the end of the day, no, the stakes are very serious.
I mean, it's not actual murder, but it might as well be a professional murder because if you do do anything that might try to make elections more secure, at the least you're going to be called a racist.
And at the worst, you'll be subject to never any lawsuits by Soros and DNC funded Hydra.
So it's an incredibly pervasive problem.
So like how widespread is it?
Well, how vigorous is the protestation and the effort to stop anyone from trying to do it?
Look at what happened to Ohio recently.
You're still having a contested election there.
And imagine what would happen if the state of Ohio had been unsuccessful in its efforts to fight Soros-funded efforts to do two things, right?
Make elections more secure by removing illegal voters from the voting rolls and requiring people to show a voter ID. Both those things are common sense.
Yet they had to fight, throw in front of people at every turn.
That's right.
And, you know, I want to go back to the racism accusation, because this is what we hear.
We hear if you want to have voter ID laws, you want people to show the same idea that they need to get a pack of cigarettes when they go vote, that that's racist somehow.
It disfranchises black voters or something.
But you cite specific instances in the book that show that this is not true, that these laws are not unpopular with minority voters, and that it doesn't suppress the minority vote.
Yeah, for whatever reason, it's not considered racist to suggest that there's entire classes of people that are incapable of doing things that other classes of people are doing.
You know, Michael, if you wanted to buy an alcoholic beverage, if you wanted to get on an airplane, if you wanted to go to the Democratic National Convention in 2016, you didn't need a driver's license.
I guess they're racist.
So, no, I mean, in the state of Alabama, they passed a voter ID law before the recent election when Roy Moore was on the ballot, and they saw an increase in minority turnout.
The state of Ohio and the state of Georgia have seen similar things.
So, the reality is there is no evidence to suggest that requiring an ID in any way suppresses or oppresses minority turnout.
The Washington Post did their best to suggest that that was the case, but they were actually rebuked very quickly after they published the study by academics from Ivy League institutions.
There is no evidence to support it, and in fact, we've seen the opposite outcome.
That's right.
I think the New York Times actually even admitted, they said, you know, this surge in minority voting in Alabama does throw a wrench in our narrative, basically.
And it's so absurd.
It's basically saying, it's always white liberals, and they're saying, oh, no, no, black people can't get IDs.
We can't expect them to do that.
It's like another species of people.
Black people, they're smart.
They're just as smart as you are.
They can go down and get their own ID and go buy a pack of cigarettes or a drink or vote or, God forbid, go to the Democrat National Convention.
And also, these voter ID laws are not unpopular with minority voters.
Isn't that right?
No, that's right.
The majority of people don't think that there's anything wrong with requiring that they should have to show an ID. Yeah, I think This myth of voter ID being oppressive, it's like the equivalent of, you know, kind of claiming the wrong height on your driver's license.
Like, I wish I was six feet tall, but there's just no evidence to support it.
So that's exactly the same case with anybody that claims that voter ID laws are unpopular or oppressive.
So, the Democrats deny that voter fraud happens, even though we've uncovered these instances.
There was that precinct, several precincts, I think, in Philadelphia in 2012 that recorded zero votes for Mitt Romney.
You've got other pretty dodgy instances of thousands of absentee ballots being written in the same hand, showing up last minute in races that are decided by a few hundred votes, possibly.
So the people who deny that voter fraud happens now, what do they say about all the past examples?
Because you take us in the book through this great journey of all of the wonderful methods and instances of voter fraud going back to America's earliest days.
Thank you.
It's like the Oregon Trail of voter fraud.
I think that's a blurb I'm going to attribute to you from my website.
No, I think that there's a key thing you're touching on, right?
And that's this, that the left, which is the Brennan Center and other Soros-funded groups, They define voter fraud in very specific terms.
And they define it in what's called, you know, an under-inclusive way.
And so they define it only as an act of intentional impersonation on behalf of an illegal voter, right, who's impersonating a legal voter.
And there's evidence to say that that's actually quite easy to do.
But the two instances that you just referenced, the things, the 18 precincts in Philadelphia in which Mitt Romney received zero votes in the 2012 election, which is a statistical anomaly.
It's impossible for that to happen, even just through sheer error or the hundreds of ballots that had the same signatures, actually hundreds of ballot request forms in which the supervisor of elections in South Florida was basically powerless and had to send the ballots out for them.
Wow.
Those are both actually those are actually both things that are legal.
And so they don't qualify or classify as voter fraud.
And I think that really touches on an important point.
What the left considers to be voter fraud is that very narrow definition that I shared.
But what I think you or I or the majority of people that are watching this podcast or even just common sense Americans, they would define voter fraud as anything that robs the true weight of an honest American vote.
And the real crime of it is, and I try to lay this out in the book, is that a vast majority of those things are legal.
And so that's why these two sides sort of speak past each other.
The left says, oh, voter fraud is very rare.
It's because they defined it so narrowly.
And the right would say, well, voter fraud is actually quite pervasive.
And they're right because things that most people would consider to be a voter fraud does happen.
I mean, we talk about this in the book as well.
At GAI, the Government Accountability Institute, for whom I work, we commissioned a study as part of the process of this book.
And we said, all right, let's take a look at actual ballots cast in the 2016 election.
We compiled all the publicly available voter rolls we could get.
We have 2,100 instances of double voting in the state of Florida alone.
That means 2,100 people cast a ballot in the state of Florida, where I live, and then cast a second ballot somewhere else.
So that's illegal, but the left wouldn't consider that to be voter fraud.
There's nearly 3 million people, by the way, that are registered to vote in more than one state in this country.
Up to 24 million voter registrations are highly inaccurate or completely wrong.
The Supreme Court cited those stats recently.
So we've got major problems in the system, right?
There's a million illegal immigrants that have driver's license in California.
There's 248 counties in this country with more registered voters than citizens of legal voting age.
So it's not a question of, is the system flawed?
The left just tries to couch and get very cute in terms of, well, does that mean there's an actual disimpersonation?
And most people would say, listen, where there's opportunities for fraud or where the errors occur, and we know that there's errors all over the place.
Of course.
And you see, I mean, there are so many instances now, especially these motor voter laws, where you can illegally register to vote and then legally vote, right?
You should never have been registered to vote in the first place, but once you're registered, then you're registered.
Then you can show up to the polls and vote.
Or you can do it by absentee or whatever.
The left wants to pretend that we've got...
We're talking about when people break into an election place and go and stand in line.
There's so many other ways to do it.
You talk about 2,200 votes in Florida.
That could have thrown the 2,000 presidential election multiple times, several times over.
And a lot of times, by the way, people might not know that they're ineligible to vote.
You talk about this in the book.
Yeah, it's a key point.
And this is another area where I think the left says one thing And it's sort of beggar's belief.
They're right that there aren't millions of illegal immigrants getting a bat signal somewhere from George Soros and then running to the polls.
The Soros signal.
That's true.
I'm willing to admit that, right?
But what's absolutely true is that the vulnerabilities that the left fights to protect, like every time they fight against the voter ID law, or every time they fight to try to keep the voter rolls from having illegal voters removed, They actually end up exploiting the population that they would claim to be wanting to protect.
It was actually the leftist immigration attorneys that turned me on to this as part of the research for the book.
And I talk about several examples in the book of people that are, you know, these are non-citizens.
They even in some instances work for polling places, but they don't know that they're not supposed to be voting.
And the law prevents the DMV officials, who is the only safeguard between the non-citizen and the voter rolls, The DMV official is not allowed to give any guidance and say, well, are you a citizen?
Are you not a citizen?
So you've got people whose command of English isn't terrific.
Their command of civics probably could use a bit of scrubbing.
And so you get these people that they get up on the rolls and then you've got...
So now they're a registered voter, whether they should be voting or not.
And they shouldn't be.
And it's actually a crime for them to be a registered voter.
And then them registering to vote actually precludes them from ever becoming a naturalized citizen and in some cases may cause them to face deportation.
But then once they're on the voter rolls, now they're a target for these groups of politically motivated, source-funded people.
They're called bolateros in South Florida or politiceros in Texas.
And there's people that they get told that they should sell their vote.
And they say, well, I guess this is how it's done.
Because in some cases, they may come from countries in which that is the way it's done.
And so, absolutely, you've got numerous examples of non-citizens that didn't realize they were violating the law and now are caught up That's right.
And to say nothing of another aspect that's built into this, which is the census, you know, representation in Congress is based on the population of the state, not the legal population of the state.
So already, illegal aliens in the country are skewing the American electorate and the American vote just by their virtue of being counted in the U.S. census.
Yeah, I believe it's five electoral votes are considered to be given to non-citizens in California.
Wow.
Which basically makes non-citizens the equivalent of at least 14 states from an electoral math standpoint.
And the tell on this, so there's two things.
One, you're absolutely right.
And the second piece of it is that, as we know, Tom Perez and the head of the Democratic National Committee, their whole goal is to expand non-citizen voting rights.
And I think the tell on this was, when there was all this discussion about the census and whether or not we should include this question of non-citizenship on the census, what happened?
You saw Tom Perez invoke voter intimidation and violating the Voting Rights Act.
But what does inquiring about somebody's citizenship have to do with violating the Voting Rights Act?
And it's because, and we've seen this in San Francisco, where illegal immigrants are now able to cast ballots in local and municipal elections.
Tom Perez used to work for a group that is also on the tail end of service funding called Casted to Maryland, like an acorn in the Raza type group in the state of Maryland.
And their big push was to advocate for non-citizen voting rights.
Tom Perez's hometown of Tacoma Park, Maryland, has been allowing voting rights since 1992 for non-citizens.
So it's sort of insane.
That was actually one of the things I was most floored by when I wrote the book.
I was like, wow, I didn't realize non-citizens were able to legally cast ballots in this country.
Luckily, they're not able to cast ballots in federal elections.
But for the first time, Democrats believe that illegal immigrants who pay taxes should be able to vote in elections.
A majority of Democrats, 53% of self-described liberals, 54% of Democrats believe illegal immigrants who pay taxes should be able to vote.
So this is clearly the future.
And yeah, it's only a matter of time before we start to see an argument about, well, why can't non-citizens vote in federal elections?
That's right.
It's a shocking number.
And of course, you know, the minute that anybody who happens to be here gets to vote, then the whole idea of a nation disappears.
Which is Soros' goal.
And, you know, I think sometimes people, even on the right, but certainly people on the left, they think that we're boogeymanning George Soros a little bit.
This sort of evil, wicked guy.
Coincidentally, I actually, when I was a young actor in New York, I was hired to be a sommelier at George Soros' wedding.
I kid you not.
So I actually got to see these speeches firsthand, and it was really pretty nefarious left-wing stuff.
I got to see the man.
I was several feet away from him.
And so I... I've heard from the guy's own mouth.
I've heard the goals of the Open Society Foundation.
If they ever found out I was a Republican there, I would have literally been tarred and feathered, you know, or maybe ritually sacrificed.
Well, you're a good actor, right?
Yeah, it's true.
I was wearing my pink hat, you know, and looking real cool.
I already have my Maddow glasses on.
And so I do want to ask, just in the last few minutes here, about the Soros of it all, where he's got his tentacles, And what we have to look out for before the next election.
Right.
And it's a great question, Michael.
So one of the things that people need to realize is that the Soros-funded groups do two things, right?
They fight against any effort to increase election security.
So the state of Ohio, which I mentioned previously, they had to fight against, you know, Mark Elias, who was the Clinton campaign attorney, ahead of 2016, filed a lawsuit to block Ohio's implementation of their voter ID law.
Well, he was filing that on behalf of, he was actually paid by George Soros to file that lawsuit.
The state of Ohio also has had to fight against its efforts, as I noted, to remove illegal voters from their voting rolls.
Well, Soros was behind that as well, Soros money.
So this is what they do.
So they fund organizations to fight against any effort to increase election security.
At the same time, he then funds groups like La Raza and ACORN, who then go out and rouse up as many voters as possible And funnel these voters through the gaps that the other organizations fight to make sure still exists, regardless of whether these voters are legal or not, right?
I mean, why have ACORN and La Raza actually changed their name?
Because of how chronically affiliated they were with voter registration fraud or voter fraud.
One of the groups on behalf of Mark Elias, who was working for this group called Ohio Organizing Collaborative, they actually had an employee arrested and sentenced to jail for registering dead people to vote.
So it just speaks to sort of the nexus of the organizations and the efforts.
And yeah, so I think it's actually quite insidious.
Kind of intelligent if you weren't concerned about the ramifications for the country.
Right.
Well, you know, President Trump has made inroads in a lot of formerly Democratic demographics.
You know, blue-collar workers, and he's increased his support among the black vote, and he's done very well.
Maybe we can also get some of the dead vote, too.
You know, that's been a solid Democrat lock for decades.
But who knows?
I mean, miracles seem to be happening, so...
Well, just to give you an idea of why the voter rolls, like whether there's dead people on the rolls or felons or people that no longer live in that state, and I know we have to go, but just to give you a quick example of how easy those vulnerabilities and errors can be exploited by motivated political groups, the city of New York sent in, or the state of New York actually, sent in undercover agents into New York City elections because they wanted to see, all right, we know there's problems here.
And so they said, we want to see how easily these problems are manipulated.
So they sent in undercover agents to vote on behalf of felons.
On behalf of people that are dead, on behalf of people that no longer lived in the state.
And they tried to cast a total of 63 ballots.
61 of those 63 attempts were successful.
And this includes a 26-year-old undercover agent voting on behalf of somebody that's nearly 80 years old.
So it's not real matchy-matchy.
But one of the only people that was stopped was trying to vote on behalf of a felon.
Oh my gosh.
Unbelievable.
So, I mean, I think that speaks to that.
So they keep the errors in place, and then the errors are incredibly easily exploited.
And that's basically the recipe for how it happens.
Well, people have to read the book because it gives a lot of hope in that the law is on our side, the history is on our side, the public opinion is on our side, and it looks like we can protect the integrity of our elections a lot better in the future, but you've got to know where the problem is.
So you've got to read the book.
Eric, I will let you go.
Thank you so much for being here.
Great.
Thanks, Michael.
It's great to be here.
Eric Eggers, very terrifying.
I highly recommend you read Fraud.
It reads very quickly.
It's really easily written.
You know, it's not like you're going to be laboring over it all the time.
It just lays out the case.
It lays out the facts really well.
You should read it before the midterms.
Fraud.
I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
We have a lot more to get to, and I want to talk about John McCain, the first presidential candidate I ever voted for at age 18.
But, if you're on Daily Wire, thank you very much.
You help keep the lights on.
If you're on Facebook and YouTube, go to Daily Wire.
What are you doing?
You're about to be censored anyway.
I'm sure they're tracking all your data.
You're going to have, like, a team of thugs from one of the big tech companies come and invade your house.
Get off there.
Go to Daily Wire.
It's $100 for an annual membership.
It's $10 a month.
You get me.
You get the Andrew Claven show.
You get the Ben Shapiro show.
You get to ask questions in the conversation.
It's coming up Thursday.
You get to ask questions.
No, I'm sorry.
The conversation's coming up later.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
You get a lot of stuff, is what I'm saying.
You get a lot of stuff.
You get this.
You get the leftist tears tumbler.
Perhaps we should have a clerical edition of this.
Perhaps we should have a bishop's version, a bishop's vintage for all those bad left-wing bishops who are implicated in abuse.
Maybe we should...
We'll have a lot of different vintages for you.
Make sure you get your leftist tears tumbler because also we're not going to let them steal the elections.
You'll need this, otherwise you'll drown.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be back to talk about John McCain and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
We're going to find out one day that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is actually constructed by Republican strategists to give us something to talk about.
To give us something to make fun of.
I mean, oh my gosh.
She's got another one which is really great.
I'm going to explain to her why her latest statement also proves she's not the expert.
She made one of the stupidest statements she's ever made.
Before that, let's talk about John McCain.
John McCain died.
He, you know, an American war hero.
He was shot down over Vietnam.
He served his country.
He was held as a prisoner of war for years and years.
He refused early release.
He didn't want to jump the line.
He could have jumped the line because his father was a very important admiral, and he didn't do that.
That alone is worthy of admiration.
Even though people have political disagreements with John McCain, conservatives do.
But regardless, that alone is worthy of admiration.
We shouldn't lose sight of that.
The thing I want to talk about, really, John McCain doesn't need us to talk about him.
He's lived a very consequential life in American politics.
Plaudits are flying in.
His service speaks for itself.
What I do want to talk about is the mainstream media.
Because the mainstream media, they are loving John McCain right now.
They are, article after article, attacking people for not saying enough about John McCain.
And I am reminded of how the mainstream media treated...
John McCain in 2008.
Do you remember this?
Because I'm old enough to remember when John McCain was racist, he was old, he's senile, he's stupid, he's an adulterer.
This was what the mainstream media said.
This was what the left said in 2008.
Now all of a sudden, he's Saint John.
He's the greatest American who's ever lived.
And it's so awful.
All those unctuous mainstream media vultures who politicized this guy's death.
What should be said about John McCain is he has a distinguished record of service to the country.
He was a prisoner of war.
He chose to remain, which was very courageous, loved his country.
His record speaks for itself.
They just have to politicize everything to attack Donald Trump or to attack John McCain when he posed a threat to them.
Here's just an investigation, a sort of special about John McCain that ran in 2008 when he was running for the president.
Here's how CNN treated John McCain then.
McCain wrote in his memoir that he began dating Cindy after he separated from his wife Carol.
In fact, his own divorce filing shows they dated for nine months while he was still living with Carol.
And records show he applied for a marriage license in Arizona before his divorce was final.
The chronology that is presented publicly doesn't necessarily match the chronology of the documents that you had applied for a marriage license in Arizona at a time when your divorce wasn't final yet.
Done, done, done.
The music that McCain revealed like this guy is the worst person who ever lived because he cheated on his wife.
Mind you, this is the cable news network that defended Bill Clinton vigorously during all of his sex scandals.
Vigorously defended him.
But now, bum, bum, bum, we're going to get John McCain revealed.
They were awful to this guy.
They savaged him.
Barack Obama aired a commercial that said McCain was too old to know how to use email.
And the networks ran with this story.
He's too old.
He's senile.
He's racist.
He's an adulterer.
He picked Sarah Palin, who's an idiot.
Mind you, Sarah Palin, much more qualified to be president than Barack Obama.
Much, much more qualified to be president.
All of these things.
They ruined this guy's life and reputation when he posed a threat to them.
And then when he stopped posing a threat and when it was convenient politically for them to embrace him, that's when they embraced him.
It's really disgusting.
I can't even...
I can't even think about it.
Vox.com, which is not the most honest media site out there, at least they were honest about this.
They were honest about their disdain for John McCain.
They said, John McCain, he created Trump.
Basically because he chose Sarah Palin as a running mate.
They say that because of that he advocated populism which allowed Trump to come in.
At least Fox was honest though because they don't like John McCain.
They don't like Republicans to them.
You know, if John McCain were still alive and running for president again, they'd do the same thing.
They'd say he's a racist and a sexist and all that kind of stuff.
And this is where I'd like to make an observation about the hysteria around Trump's response to McCain's death.
At least Trump was being sort of consistent here too.
John McCain sent out this tweet, and his tweet said, quote, My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain.
Our hearts and prayers are with you.
And he's being pilloried because he didn't give a nice eulogy to John McCain or a panegyric or something.
Donald Trump ran basically against John McCain.
John McCain opposed the Trump agenda.
Donald Trump said mean, nasty things about John McCain.
He said he wasn't a war hero.
He's been running against him.
John McCain was the vote that killed the Obamacare repeal.
They've got a lot of bad blood between the two of them.
What was Donald Trump supposed to say?
I actually was predicting weeks ago.
I said, what are the odds that we get through the death of John McCain without a horrifically offensive statement from Donald Trump?
What are the odds?
And then we did.
We made it through.
He said, I respect and condolences to the family.
Perhaps this is just an aspect of me having low expectations.
What more do you want?
What more could we have asked for?
What if he said, what if he came out and said, John McCain is a great hero and he was a wonderful man and I love John McCain.
Then what would the press be saying about him?
He's a liar.
He's a hypocrite.
How dare he talk about John McCain?
You're not fit to shine John McCain's shoes.
Anything he said, they'd be ripping apart.
I thought as far as the potential responses that we could have gotten from President Trump, this was pretty good.
He didn't say anything mean about him.
He didn't rehash old battles.
He just said, my respect and condolences go out to the family.
That's fine.
Chalk it up as a win.
How should conservatives feel?
We're running out of time, but we should talk about this.
How should conservatives feel?
We didn't always agree with John McCain on many important issues.
We disagreed intensely with John McCain.
He passed McCain-Feingold, which was that campaign finance legislation that was then overturned by the Supreme Court because it was a violation of free speech.
He was always a maverick as he was styled in the media.
He wasn't a conservative.
He wouldn't have really called himself a hardline conservative.
He would cross the aisle frequently.
He touted his relationships with Democrats in the Senate.
I believe he wanted to choose Joe Lieberman to be his running mate in 2008.
So, sure, conservatives don't agree with John McCain politically a lot of the time.
Still, the guy died.
The guy just died.
He served his country.
His war service alone should be enough to say he was a man who loved his country.
I didn't see eye to eye with him, but he loved his country, he served his country, and rest in peace.
That's what conservatives should say.
We can re-litigate certain policy differences later on, especially as they become more important again.
These things always crop up.
But, you know, salute John McCain.
I realize technically he's not the first president I voted for because when I was six years old, my mother let me go into the booth with her.
I convinced her to vote for Dole and she let me pull the lever.
So maybe I committed election fraud.
Maybe I'm going to be in Eric Eggers' next book.
But John McCain is the first guy I voted for when I turned 18.
And I got to actually do it myself and pull the lever.
So, rest easy, Senator McCain.
And before we go, I guess we've just got a couple more minutes now.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she's back.
She's back.
The gift that keeps on giving.
Ocasio tweeted out this, quote, Hashtag abolish ICE means not having an agency that incarcerates children and sexually assaults women with impunity.
It does not mean abolish deportation.
Also, I have no problem saying white supremacy has no place in this country It's the GOP that struggles to say that.
GOP, founded to free the slaves.
Founded to free the slaves from the Democrats.
Just a question for all the Republicans watching.
How many of you struggle to say that white supremacy is bad?
Any?
Zero?
Zero people say that?
Okay, that's what I thought.
But I would like to make this point clear for Ocasio-Cortez.
I know she watches this show.
I know she watches it every day, religiously.
She is caught here because ICE just deported an actual Nazi from the country.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement went in and deported a Nazi war criminal back to Germany.
Some deportations are good, aren't they, Ocasio?
And she's saying, no, abolish ICE does not mean abolish deportation.
So I'm going to lay this out for you.
ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Immigration enforcement means deporting people who have immigrated illegally, who are in the country illegally.
Therefore, and see if you can stay with me, abolishing immigration enforcement means abolishing the mechanism of immigration enforcement, which is deportations.
QED. Is that fair?
I feel like I'm a crazy person now because you've got a major star of the Democrat Party saying that that's not what it means.
That's clearly what it means.
This is a big loser issue.
She knows that.
She's saying these slogans because she doesn't know anything because she's not the expert.
To put it mildly.
And so they're saying abolish ICE. Only a quarter of Democrats want to abolish immigration enforcement.
And the only reason they want to do that is because they don't know.
They know even less than Ocasio does.
So she's got to walk this back.
But let's just be very clear.
I don't want to let her off the hook.
Abolishing ICE means abolishing deportations.
If you don't want to abolish deportations, then you don't want to abolish ICE. If you do want to abolish ICE, you want to abolish deportations.
She should give an answer on this.
We should hold her feet to the fire.
I don't know why she keeps going in public.
I don't know why she keeps going on television.
The race is hers.
Just shut up and you'll win the race.
The only risk you have of not winning this race somehow is when you open your mouth.
But we should get an answer from her on that.
I hope she keeps opening her mouth because she's just a joy.
What a delight.
That's why I wake up in the morning and think, oh, what did that little socialist lady say today?
Okay, that's our show.
Tune in.
We've got a lot of good stuff to talk about this week.
We'll get to more of it in the meantime.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Bory.
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.
