All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 17, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
49:22
Ep. 218 - Another High-Tech Lynching

Democrats launch un-credible allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, Anne Hathaway spouts newspeak at a gay lobbying group gala, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slaps lipstick on a socialist pig. Finally, on This Day In History, the signing of our Constitution! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Democrats once again create a circus, a national disgrace, a high-tech lynching, this time around Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.
We will analyze the uncredible allegations against him.
Then Anne Hathaway spouts delightfully frivolous lies and nonsense at a gay lobbying group gala.
We will look at what her platitudes say about our culture.
Then, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wears expensive clothing.
Because everybody is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
We'll talk about that.
Finally, on this day in history, the signing of our Constitution.
I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
So much to get to today, and a lot of conservatives and Republicans getting things wrong, because it's a day that ends in Y.
Before we talk about all of that, I need to bring you into my boudoir, and I need to invite you to look at my lingerie.
Ooh la la.
Ooh, welcome.
Hey baby.
I'm talking about Pair of Thieves, our new sponsor, and boy is Pair of Thieves good.
So Pair of Thieves points out that, on average, men keep their underwear for seven long years, and for me, I keep them longer.
I'm a conservative.
I don't want to give you too much information.
I've got underwear probably from middle school, certainly high school, boxers, you know.
And I don't know, it's because I'm frugal, I'm a fiscal conservative, I'm a traditionalist.
Anyway, no more of that, because Pair of Thieves makes the most comfortable underwear I have ever worn, hands down.
Just get that image in your head, folks.
Me lying down on a couch, smoking jacket on, pair of thieves, boxer briefs, lying there.
They have their proprietary moisture wicking fabric.
Keeps you cool and fresh.
It's like air conditioning for every inch of your body.
It's really, really good.
One of the guys who started Pair of Thieves says all his wife ever wants to see him in is a pair of their super fit briefs.
His wife is Jessica Alba.
That is no joke.
These are the preferred...
Boxer briefs of Jessica Alba.
Try them out for a limited time this month only.
Our listeners get 20% off their first order.
Pairofthieves.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Get 20% off when you go to Pairofthieves.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S this month only.
Get those super fit briefs.
They are real good.
Pairofthieves.com slash Knowles.
Now that you have that image in your head, we are not going to stop talking about sex all day.
Now that it's in there, it's all anybody wants to talk about.
It's all Ian Hathaway wants to talk about.
It's all the gutter Democrats want to talk about is sex, sex, sex.
I'm sorry, I'm getting breaking news right now.
Yes, we are hearing reports that Brett Kavanaugh is a secret super-Nazi.
We're hearing reports.
They seem credible.
They're credible reports because somebody said it, so it's got to be credible because someone said it.
He is a super-secret Nazi.
He's unfit for the Supreme Court.
That's it.
I guess we're going to have to change our show today.
It was all about how Brett Kavanaugh would be very good on the Supreme Court, but he's a super-secret Nazi because there's a credible allegation.
Because it's credible?
Because someone said it's credible.
So it's credible.
It's credible.
It's not credible.
None of these are credible.
So they're saying that Brett Kavanaugh...
This is the allegation.
I'm sure you've seen this everywhere, but it's probably been all insinuations and, ooh, did he do this or that?
They're trying to make it out like he raped a woman or something.
The allegation is that 35 years ago, when Brett Kavanaugh was 17 and was drunk at a party, he groped another teenage girl who was also drunk.
And then he was kind of on top of her on a bed, and then she got away, and that's it.
That's the allegation.
That's the whole thing.
They don't mention where the party was, when really the party was, what the circumstances were, the story's changing.
So now the Democrats are using this 11th hour allegation to try to stop the Kavanaugh hearing.
These allegations are not credible.
Period.
Punto e basta.
No more.
Fini.
They're not credible.
Why are they not credible?
Because of all the context surrounding them.
First of all, because they came up at the 11th hour.
So not during the hearings, not when Brett Kavanaugh could have answered for himself, not when we could have actually investigated this.
Right before the vote, these come up.
The allegations were brought to Dianne Feinstein.
She sat on them.
Why did she sit on them?
One, because she...
Probably didn't believe them.
Two, because she knew they could be discredited.
Three, because she wanted to spring this at the last second for Democrats to try to undo a nomination which is certainly going to go through.
It certainly should go through.
So they do that.
Why else are the allegations not credible?
Because they were made, for the first time, publicly, like five minutes ago.
They're about an event that happened ostensibly 35 years ago, and the first time they were ever mentioned publicly in the public space against a public figure who's been a public figure for a long time was about five minutes ago, right at the very end, when they were about to confirm him for the Supreme Court.
So why else are these allegations not credible?
Well, some other evidence that these might not be credible is that the woman who made them is a longtime left-wing activist, Democrat activist, donates to Democrat causes, volunteers her time, puts her name on petitions to support the Democrat Party, is an activist against the Trump administration.
Okay.
Now, none of that proves that this didn't happen.
I'm not saying with 100% certainty this didn't happen.
I'm not saying with 100% certainty that Brett Kavanaugh isn't a super-secret Nazi.
Or that Dianne Feinstein isn't a super-secret Nazi.
I can't prove a negative.
I can't prove something that allegedly happened 35 years ago, which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable.
But these are not credible allegations.
The woman who's making these allegations is Christine Blasey Ford.
The first time she had mentioned this at all period was in 2012, so six years ago, and she mentioned it to her psychiatrist or psychologist or whatever, and the therapist that she was talking to took down the notes, and her story has radically changed since that time.
So at the time she said that there were four men who were in the room when she was assaulted, allegedly assaulted.
Now that's gone down to two men who were in the room, allegedly, when she was assaulted, which is Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, who's a conservative writer.
Okay, that's a pretty big discrepancy.
There were 100% more people when she recalled this in 2012.
But why did it take so long?
Why did it take so long for her to mention it to anybody?
She didn't mention it to any friends at the time.
She didn't mention it to any friends in 2006 when Brett Kavanaugh became a judge.
She waited until 2012, until six years after that, and until six years ago to mention anything about this.
And at that time, she didn't name Brett Kavanaugh.
If she really thought that there was a...
Would-be rapist sitting on the federal courts.
Don't you think she would have named him in 2012?
You would think so.
Now, you might say...
Why would she lie?
Why would someone bring up a false accusation?
I don't know.
I couldn't tell you.
And I'm not saying she's lying.
But I do know that people make false accusations all the time.
How many of these alleged cases of rape on campus have been proven to be hoaxes?
All the way since the Duke Lacrosse case, all the way up through recent years.
A number of them.
Why do people lie?
I don't know.
I couldn't tell you.
Ask them.
We also know that she brought this up in a session of marriage counseling.
So I'm not to denigrate anybody who has mental health issues, who has psychiatric issues, but she is in mental health counseling.
She's discussing this with her therapist.
And we have to remember that memory is very, very unreliable.
I'm not saying this woman is lying.
I don't know if she's lying or not.
But it is perfectly plausible that she is remembering something that did not happen or did not happen the way that she thinks it happened.
Memories change all the time.
They change in pretty short order, by the way.
They change between, you know, over the course of a few weeks or over the course of a few months, certainly over the course of several decades.
There's an irony here, too, though, by the way.
Because even if these, let's say that all of the allegations are true.
I don't think they're true.
I don't think there's any evidence that they're true.
But let's say that they were.
The same people now who are saying that we need to tar and feather Brett Kavanaugh are the very same people who are always pushing for lenient punishments against teenagers.
There is a movement now on the left to create another sort of juvenile court for people who are 20, 21 years old because they say, oh, those poor kids, their brains haven't developed yet.
They can't be held responsible for crimes they've committed.
Teenagers can't be held responsible for crimes they've committed.
They should be processed separately.
So all of those people, the ones crying for criminal justice reform, even for adults, they're the ones who are now saying, Brett Kavanaugh allegedly groped a girl when he was 17, so now his life has to be over.
It's absurd.
But let's say that it were true.
And let's say that this woman is being earnest.
This really happened to her.
It really had some effect on her life, even though she didn't mention it for 30 years.
Let's say all of that is true.
She would be making allegations worthy of belief if she had made them at any other time.
But she didn't.
and you don't get to do that.
You don't get to do that.
You don't get to derail a guy who has an unimpeachable career, who has no similar allegations made against him ever at any point.
You don't get to derail his career at the very last moment just because you said so.
You don't get to.
If all of this happened and you have that right to go out there and nail him, - Yeah.
You forfeited that right when you didn't do it earlier.
When you didn't do it in 2006 when he became a judge.
When you didn't do it when he was circulated as a potential Supreme Court.
When you didn't do it until the very last second.
You lose that credibility.
And the Democrats obviously have no credibility here.
If they really believed that this were an issue, they would have brought it up when they first heard about it.
They didn't.
They sent it over to the FBI to investigate.
The FBI dismissed it.
They wouldn't look into it.
They said it was not worthy of investigating.
So what we have now is another high-tech lynching.
They did this to Clarence Thomas in the early 90s.
Here is Joe Biden actually was chairing that committee.
Here is what they did to Clarence Thomas when he was up for the nomination.
They said that he sexually harassed his colleague, even though the colleague had followed him from job to job.
She said it was some awful example of sexual harassment.
And here is how Clarence Thomas put an end to the argument.
The committee will please come to order.
Do you have anything you'd like to say?
Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally, uncategorically, that I deny each and every single allegation against me today.
This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, And this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation.
This is a circus.
It's a national disgrace.
And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.
To do for themselves.
To have different ideas.
And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.
You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
Very powerful stuff from Clarence Thomas.
Guess what happened after that, by the way?
They voted for him.
They confirmed him.
What's great, too, is you have Joe Biden, just the least genuine person in America, the least sincere human being in America.
He's there presiding over the hearings.
Mm-hmm.
And then the minute that Clarence Thomas says, from my view, this is a high-tech lynching, you just see Biden's head go down.
He's like, uh-oh, get me out of here!
Duck and cover!
Can I leave?
So, the reason that this worked so well, one, it was very powerful stuff, the allegations against Justice Thomas were frivolous, and One of the reasons this worked is because Thomas was able to turn the identity politics of the left against them.
So he turned their own argument against them.
Brett Kavanaugh doesn't have the ability to do that.
He'll say, this is a high-tech lynching for privileged white men who went to Georgetown Prep.
Not going to land.
Not going to play.
So we don't know how he's going to answer this.
Already, all the usual suspects are saying, we can't vote for him, we need to hear more.
Jeff Flake, who's on the Judiciary Committee, said, oh, I don't think I can vote for him.
I'm going to go donate to Democrats in Alabama.
I'm Jeff Flake.
Just horrific.
Breaking news.
Once again, Jeff Flake proves he's the worst.
So, what is going to happen?
We don't know.
It seems that he'll still get through.
These allegations are so absurd.
If you wrote a satire of this, you couldn't write a more frivolous way of undoing the Kavanaugh nomination than 35 years ago when he was a teenager he groped me and he says, no I didn't.
And he said, well there's no proof at all because I only brought it up three seconds ago.
But please don't become a judge.
That's their argument.
I hope it's not going to work.
But this does bring up another point which is I cannot wait for the Democrats' next judge nomination.
I can't wait.
Ooh, is that going to be good?
Because they keep doing it to us.
They keep digging up this sleaze and this dirt.
And I can't wait for their next one.
Because I think, not out of anger, not out of my temper, but I think the Democrats need to learn a lesson.
And I feel real sorry for whoever that next judicial nominee is from Democrats.
I feel real sorry because it's going to get real, real ugly.
Before we get to why that is the case, why it is...
It would be very wrong to consider these allegations credible.
Let me invite you into my bedroom.
What did I tell you?
I told you there's going to be a lot of boudoir talk today because I've got to tell you about Purple Mattress.
Oh, how I love Purple Mattress.
How did you sleep last night?
Did you spend the night tossing and turning?
Not me.
I sleep like a baby.
Why is that?
It all changed after Purple Mattress.
Purple is categorically different from other mattresses.
You're thinking, oh, the memory foam.
Oh, the springs.
This is totally different.
Purple Mattress is designed by rocket scientists.
It uses a brand new material.
It is not like the memory foam or the box spring or whatever that you are used to.
It's both firm and soft at the same time.
It keeps everything supported while still feeling very comfortable.
And it's breathable.
You know, I'm of Sicilian descent, so I sweat in the air conditioning.
Welcome to my show!
I'm telling you.
Get it right now because my listeners will get a free Purple Pillow with the purchase of a mattress.
Say that 10 times fast.
Purple Pillow Purchase.
Purple...
That is in addition to the great free gifts that they're offering site-wide.
It's really, really good.
This is a brand new technology.
Go to Purple.com.
Use the promo code COVFEFE. C-O-V-F-E-F-E at checkout.
Purple.com.
Promo code COVFEFE. C-O-V-F-E-F-E. The only way to get the free pillow is to use my promo code COVFEFE. C-O-V-F-E-F-E. It is the mattress.
Get it.
Don't get any other mattress.
Get this mattress.
Purple.com.
Promo code.
Covfefe.
So, when we look at these allegations, these 11th hour allegations, I think, look, nobody wants to tell an accuser that they're not going to believe her.
Even though, you know, sometimes people make false accusations.
I'm not saying that's what this woman is doing.
All we want to say is, oh, well, who knows?
We have to delay.
We have to hear this out.
We don't have to hear this out.
We don't.
If we were going to hear this out, we should have heard this out two months ago.
We are under no obligation to hear this out.
The timing, all of the context around this makes it stink to high heaven as a political dirty trick.
It is bad for our politics for us to take this seriously, to even consider taking this seriously.
If people have genuine grievances, if people have genuinely been hurt or attacked or whatever, that should be aired.
We should investigate all of that.
It is so awful for our politics to just smear good people.
Smear them.
It discourages good people from going into public service.
First of all, everybody is tarnished.
Everyone's done bad things.
But even if you haven't done bad things, even if you've got as unimpeachable a record as Judge Kavanaugh, what this now tells you is you're going to get smeared either way.
They're going to go into your...
Distant, distant past, and either find something, exaggerate something, or make something up, whole cloth.
Imagine how squeaky clean you've got to be for the best shot for Democrats is to go back to when you were 17 and either make something up or even find something that has a kernel of truth to it, which I don't think this does.
Imagine that.
It discourages good people out of politics.
It's so below our caliber as a country and below our politics.
We should ignore it.
We should totally ignore it.
And the next time, if someone ever wants to make an allegation like this again against another judicial nominee, do it early.
Do it when there's time for people to defend themselves, when there's time to investigate.
If you're not going to do that, if you're not going to leave time to investigate, if you're not going to leave time for people to be treated fairly, then the accusation is not worthy of even investigating.
So, moving on.
Speaking of other crazy things, crazy ideology that leads to political hysteria.
Saturday night, Anne Hathaway was speaking at the Human Rights Campaign gala.
The Human Rights Campaign is a gay lobbying organization.
They're the one with the equal sign.
And she was speaking at their gala.
And she, I think this was the most incoherent oration I've ever heard.
But there are a lot of interesting kernels in here for what our culture and our politics means right now.
Take it away, Anne.
With the exception of being a cisgender male, everything about how I was born has put me at the current center of a damaging and widely accepted myth.
That myth is that gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.
She's talking about a myth.
She's talking about this awful foundational myth, and then she goes on to create her own myth.
What she's saying is that gayness orbits around straightness.
What does that mean?
What does that picture really mean?
I think what she's actually saying is that Gayness is a little bit abnormal and straightness is the normal.
Statistically speaking, biologically speaking, most people are straight.
Our reproductive systems seem to be designed for a man and a woman to head over to a purple mattress and do whatever they're going to do.
And that other more creative sexualities are a little abnormal.
Certainly that's the case.
But she's saying that isn't the case.
It's all exactly the same.
It's all exactly equally normal.
How about transgenderism?
She's saying we have this crazy idea that if you're a man, that you should think that you're a man instead of thinking that you're a woman.
That it's abnormal if you're a man to think that you're a woman.
Of course that's abnormal.
Of course that's abnormal.
And then she says that we have this pernicious belief that other races orbit around whiteness.
I don't really know what that means.
I suppose being of a different race in a country where they're founded on a race, then I guess that would make sense.
If you're a Kenyan guy who's living in Norway, that might be a little abnormal because Norway isn't full of Kenyans, it's full of Norwegians.
So if you're a Kenyan there, you're...
Not the common type of person.
Okay, fine.
Fair enough.
That isn't the case in America, though, which has every sort of color, every sort of race, all sorts of people.
It doesn't seem like there's one normal person in America.
Certainly not Anne Hathaway.
She's definitely not a normal person in America.
So she's talking about this myth.
But did you see, even at the top, she said, but, you know, I have all of this privilege.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.
At least I'm not a man who thinks he's a man, but I'm still bad.
I'm bad.
Then she goes on.
and it is a myth that keeps money and power in the hands of the few instead of being invested in the lives of the free.
So she's getting raucous applause.
She sounds like she's giving a real speech.
She said, this myth, this pernicious lie that we're founded on, keeps money in the hands of the few and out of the hands of the free.
So she's saying there's a dichotomy between the few and the free.
But her entire speech is talking about how the majority of people are actually enslaved to these privileged people.
So I don't see, how are they free?
I thought previously you were just saying that it's those awful privileged white straight people who think they're Their own biological sex.
Those are the free ones and everyone else isn't free.
So she's using language really, really loosely here.
And she's saying that, to distill it into normal, clear language, she's saying that straight people make more money than gay people.
But that isn't true.
That just simply isn't true.
There was a study that came out from the National Health Interview Surveys.
It came out of these economists at Vanderbilt University.
It showed that gay men actually earn 10% more than straight men.
That's just earnings, to say nothing of wealth.
So even on that point, that it keeps money out of the hands of this and that and this and that, that isn't true.
Actually, if you're gay, that gives you a certain privilege that allows you to earn more money according to these surveys and according to the premises of this ideology.
But it doesn't matter because the ideology of the human rights campaign, of the equal sign, of Hollywood, of the popular culture, that is the lie.
She goes on.
Authentic equality.
Authentic equality doesn't prioritize sexual orientation.
It doesn't put any one gender or race at the center.
It doesn't erase our identities either.
What it does do is centralize love.
And when love is fully centralized, every door opens for everybody.
You know, man, when you just, you just gotta really centralize it, man.
And then the chakras, man, you know.
What she has just said contradicts her first premise.
She has said that what this wonderful movement is going to do is centralize love.
But in the first premise, she said the problem that we have is that we have love being centralized and then other sorts of love orbiting around it.
Remember she said, well, this is central and then other things are orbiting around it.
So the centralization of love seems to be the problem.
Actually, what Anne should be arguing for in her speech is the decentralization of love, right?
That it's not just straight love that matters.
It's not just...
Trans love or cisgender love, whatever crazy language she's going to make up, it should be arguing for decentralization.
But this argument that she's making doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's that love wins, hashtag love wins.
It's that Anthony Kennedy in Obergefell saying, we have a right to intimacy, we have a right to love.
That has the sound of poetry to it, but what does it really mean?
What she's just said means nothing.
It contradicts the very arguments she's been making.
But then, if you were confused by her abstractions, don't worry.
She explains why you were confused by her abstractions.
Now, I know I'm speaking in abstractions and that there is privilege embedded in my ability to do so.
They're abstraction privilege.
We now have abstraction privilege.
That's a privilege, apparently, that Anne Hathaway does not possess, because she's not doing abstraction very well.
But I love this point.
She's talking about abstraction privilege.
There really is abstraction privilege.
That's true.
It's called consciousness.
It's called being a human.
That is our privilege.
I agree.
We have a privilege over the dogs and the cows and the kittens and the apes.
We do.
We have the ability for abstract thinking.
We have the ability for recursive language.
We have the ability to be conscious and think and reflect upon our own circumstances.
We have the ability to match intellect and will.
That is a privilege, but that is not a privilege only for straight people or only for white people.
Or only for people who think that they are the biological sex that they are.
That isn't.
That's what we have as humans.
That is the essential equality of humans.
That is why we are all children of God.
Because we are all endowed by our Creator with that consciousness, with that ability to know ourselves, to know our world, and to know our Creator.
A wonderful point that she is totally undercutting by the argument that she thinks she is making.
And then she turns that self-flagellation up to 11.
Here we go, Anne.
Can you imagine what will happen as each person follows the lead of this community and rejects the myth of their own unworthiness?
And more importantly, the myth that they need others to be worth less in order for them to be worth more.
The walls built in fear will crumble.
They will disintegrate.
The old world will shatter, and the pieces that no longer serve will melt.
A new world will emerge forged from this community, from your seismic imperative message that love is love.
I need a lot more if I'm going to understand that one.
I'm going to need a lot more covfefe in the old burner if I'm going to get that.
She ends with love is love because that is the truism and the platitude that this is all based on.
Love is love.
But then, in that first part, she constructs an abominable world.
And it's not that she's the first to make this argument.
People have made this argument before.
It goes back a long, long time.
She talks about how we need to reject the fact that we're not worthy, that we're imperfect.
You hear this all the time.
I heard this from my Panda Express fortune cookie the other day.
It said, you are perfect the way that you are.
But you're not.
You're not perfect the way that you are.
I don't say that to be mean.
I say that actually as a moment of compassion.
Because if you think that you're perfect the way that you are, you're quickly going to find out that you're not and you'll be left with despair.
It is a much more hopeful...
And truthful understanding of the world that we are not perfect the way that we are.
We all know this.
Even Brett Kavanaugh, who's pretty unimpeachable, I'm sure he tells a lie every now and again or he, you know, cuts somebody off in traffic or something.
I don't know.
We're all imperfect.
We're all fallen people.
And what this movement is saying, what Anne Hathaway is saying, what the Human Rights Campaign is saying with the equal sign and with the promotion of Pride Week is that we should be proud of ourselves.
We shouldn't be aware of our own unworthiness.
She also says, this is kind of ironic, she says we shouldn't have to put other people down to build ourselves up.
She just spent a whole speech putting down white people, straight people, people who think that they are the biological sex that they are.
She's putting down people throughout the whole thing and spatting off a bunch of lies.
And she says, but we shouldn't do that.
This is, Democrats do this all the time.
They're doing it in the Kavanaugh hearings.
They're doing it certainly in the Trump administration.
We'll get to that in a second.
And then she says, when she's speaking at her most theological, her most apocalyptic, she says, we're going to shatter this world We're going to create a new world.
We're not going to accept things the way that they are.
We are going to create a whole new world.
And you hear Democrats have been saying this for 50 years.
They have been quoting George Bernard Shaw's play, Back to Methuselah.
You heard the Kennedys say this.
All of the Kennedys, I think, in various speeches said, some people look at the world.
And ask why.
Some people look at things that are and ask why.
I look at things that never were and ask why not.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.
They're quoting this as though this were some great, wonderful speech.
It's not.
They are quoting George Bernard Shaw's Back to Methuselah, but specifically, they are quoting the serpent in the garden tempting Eve.
In Back to Methuselah, that is what that line does.
Some people look at things that are and ask why.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.
That is the language of Satan because reality is a beautiful thing.
Life is a comedy.
It's the greatest story ever told.
It's a grand comedy.
As Horace Walpole says, life is a comedy to the man who thinks and a tragedy to the person who feels.
Some people want to get out of the world of reality.
They're afraid of it.
They run away from reality.
So they drug themselves up or they drink too much or they lose themselves into fantasies and fairy tales.
But reality is a beautiful thing.
You should confront reality and not try to destroy the world and create a new world on top of it.
That is not a strategy for success.
But the left abuses language in this way all the time.
It sounds so compassionate.
She says, love is love.
Love is love.
The same thing with these Kavanaugh hearings.
I think we're all tempted, because we're emotionally manipulated by certain people and certain political programs, to feel, to lean into this line.
Love is love.
Love is love.
That is not grounded in truth, that is not grounded in reality, that actually, as Anne Hathaway says, is opposed to reality.
That isn't love, that's sentimentality.
And sentimentality is an awful thing.
Sentimentality can be used and abused.
It's saccharine, it's sick, it will leave you unsatisfied, and it can be twisted for very bad things, very unreal things, because it's opposed to the very nature of reality.
The mainstream media have been twisting language on and on again.
Our pals at the Media Research Center have just analyzed a study of this.
They have found the words that the mainstream media have been using most frequently to describe President Trump.
What do you think?
Handsome, competent, courageous.
Is that what they're in you?
No, not quite.
Not quite.
The words that the mainstream media have been using to describe Trump most often are angry, furious, fuming, and Outraged, venting, infuriated, livid, enraged, and seething.
Those are the words that they're using most frequently to refer to Trump.
They're probably using it more than he or the or him, you know, Donald.
They're using those adjectives to describe him.
And it creates a picture in our mind of this guy who's totally unbalanced, who's insane, who's lost his mind.
And yet when we see President Trump speaking, when we see his agenda in action, when we see how much he's accomplished in a very short period of time, it really butts up against that, doesn't it?
When you see that, you think, wait a second, that doesn't seem like a guy who's not in control of his emotions.
Anne Hathaway might not be in control of her emotions, but Donald Trump certainly seems like he is.
People who can't control their passions don't accomplish very much.
They can't because they're always lost in a torrent of passion and emotion.
Donald Trump's accomplished a lot.
A lot on the economy.
A lot on foreign affairs.
Obviously the judges.
I think he's got a record number of judges through.
He's been accomplishing so much.
He's accomplished a lot in his life.
This is not a guy who is led around aimlessly by passion.
But the media want to pretend that he is.
And they're also trying to create this image that he can't control his own thinking.
That he's childish.
That he's immature.
John Kerry, former Secretary of State and the former star of Deputy Dog, was on Bill Maher's show last week.
Here's how he described Donald Trump.
He really is the rare combination of an eight-year-old boy.
I mean, he's got the maturity of an eight-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl.
And a mean girl.
Now imagine if Donald Trump had said that about John Kerry.
What would the mainstream media be?
If Donald Trump came out and he said, look, John Kerry, okay, he's got the maturity of an eight-year-old boy, okay, and he's got the insecurity, frankly, of a teenage girl, okay?
If he had said that, it would be headline news.
This is awful.
He's debasing the office of president.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But because John Kerry sounds like Thurston Howell III, and he goes on Bill Marshall, he says, Well, frankly, he's like an angel.
What was that, John?
Mm-hmm.
Can someone pry open John Kerry's locked jaw, please?
Eight-year-old boy!
Because he does it like that, because he wears the suit so nicely, but it has his tie all the way up to his neck, then people take him, oh, he's so serious.
Oh, no, that's how respectful, responsible people behave.
That's how mature statesmen behave, unlike Trump.
They're saying the same thing.
They're saying exactly the same thing.
And it's not just John Kerry.
Here's Joe Biden doing precisely the same thing.
They're a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.
Dregs of society.
Awful people.
Dregs of society.
He's talking about Trump supporters.
Actually, at the Human Rights Campaign, the same thing that Anne Hathaway was speaking at.
He's talking about half of the country.
He's talking about Trump supporters.
He's calling them the dregs of society.
And yet, when Donald Trump calls a handful of hack journalists scum, then it's awful.
Then it's an attack on our country.
It's an attack on our countrymen.
But Joe Biden, former Vice President of the United States, refers to half the country as the dregs of society.
That's okay.
It's applause.
He's wearing a tuxedo.
Look, he's wearing a tuxedo.
He can't be immature and uncivil.
He's in a tuxedo.
We've got a lot more.
Even more Democrats are doing this before we get to it, though.
Before we get to celebrate Constitution Day.
Before we get to talk about Hillary.
Before we get to talk about Alexandria occasionally cortex.
I stole that from Steve Hayward.
I can't take credit for that.
Alexandria, occasional cortex.
Before we talk about all of that, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
If you are on Facebook and YouTube, go to Daily Wire.
Come on!
If you're there, thank you very much.
You help keep the lights on.
You keep covfefe in my cup.
You keep me sleeping soundly on my purple mattress, all snug as a bug with my pair of thieves boxers on.
You do a lot for me, basically, is what I'm saying.
If you haven't subscribed, it's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan show.
You get the Ben Shapiro show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag that's coming up on Thursday.
You get to ask questions in the conversation.
Much more importantly, you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
And we've been focusing a lot on Washington Leftist Tears recently.
And look, there are some great vintages of Leftist Tears that come out of Washington.
But now we've got that Anne Hathaway Hollywood vintage.
And those are tasty.
Those, you know...
I do think that the ground is much more fertile out here in Hollywood, the sun is shining more, and it just produces more delicious leftist ears.
So go to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back.
So that's the insulting, reckless, bitter, immature language of statesmen, former Secretary of State, former senators, former vice president.
It's also true in the left-wing pundit class, even the Washington Post, these left-wing pundits who go on TV. Here's Jennifer Rubin talking about the President.
Donald Trump has killed those people twice.
Once through neglect and oversight, and secondly, disgracing that they died at all.
And that's what death denial, that's what Holocaust denial, that's what all these denial syndromes are all about, is killing the person twice.
So Donald Trump is a murderer, he is a Nazi, he's a Holocaust denier, and he's killed people twice.
Because there was a hurricane.
That's Jennifer Rubin, a left-wing analyst with the Washington Post.
I think she pretends to be a Republican still, but obviously she's a very left-wing partisan and has been for a long time.
Because there was a hurricane...
Because Donald Trump controls the weather, I guess.
He's got even more power than I think he thought he had.
Because he controls the weather.
He's a Nazi, Holocaust-denying, double murderer.
And I don't mean double murderer like he killed two people.
I mean double murderer that he killed the same person twice.
That's what he did, according to the left.
But Trump's using crazy language, isn't he?
He's being so uncivil.
Oh, this is bad.
Oh, we Republicans should really take stock of ourselves.
Oh, no.
How could we?
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
When they talk about incivility, just laugh.
Just laugh in their face.
When they talk about Brett Kavanaugh is like a super-secret Nazi rapist murderer, just laugh at them.
Just laugh.
They have no credibility whatsoever.
It is not worth even acknowledging their stupid hysterical cries.
They're behaving like little children.
They should be treated like little children.
Hillary Clinton today has this piece in The Atlantic because she wrote a new chapter for her book, What Happened?
I think she's going to write a new chapter every month.
It's the, I don't know, it was the Macedonians before and now it's the Ghanaians.
Now it's the Nigerians.
Now, okay, whatever.
So she wrote this piece in The Atlantic on our constitutional crisis.
Because our democratic institutions, our democracy, is being undermined.
It's under attack.
That's what she's alleging.
She's alleging this as the woman who is undermining our democracy.
As the woman who is undermining our democratic election, our duly elected president.
She's saying, it's under attack, it's under attack.
It's okay.
It's okay.
She's my third cousin once removed, as you all know.
It's okay.
It's alright.
You lost.
If Mitt Romney had done this in 2012, he would be excoriated.
People aren't excoriating you because they haven't wrapped her up in a straitjacket and hauled her out of those woods in Chappaqua yet.
She's behaving like a crazy person.
She's not to be taken seriously.
They are not to be taken seriously.
Now, this doesn't mean that we should delve to their level.
Maybe their next judge candidate, you know, maybe we give them a little taste of their own medicine, but I don't think generally we should delve to their level.
It does mean, though, that we should stop flogging ourselves when a Republican uses nasty language, when Donald Trump sends out a mean tweet.
And Republicans, there are some Republicans and some conservatives who spend more time shrieking about Donald Trump's tweets than they ever would talking about Joe Biden or John Kerry or Jennifer Rubin or Hillary Clinton because they feel, oh, I don't want to be seen as one of those people.
It's okay.
It's alright.
Politics is ugly.
Otto von Bismarck, I think, said that it's much better to eat the sausage without seeing how it's made.
Politics is an ugly business.
It's particularly ugly at this moment.
It's alright.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight back.
We should fight back.
because there are actual stakes here.
There is actual freedom.
There is actual American liberty.
There is actual American Western civilization at stake.
We should fight hard to protect it.
A lot of hypocrisy on this front.
A lot of hypocrisy from the left.
I do want to speak briefly before we have to go about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
She did this interview in Interview Magazine.
Creative.
Creative title.
And in the interview, she was wearing a $3,500 outfit.
So she was wearing a blazer that was almost $2,000.
And she was wearing pants that were almost $1,000.
She was $600 shoes.
Okay.
People are attacking her because she's a socialist, self-proclaimed socialist, wearing thousands of dollars of clothing.
Now, some are saying it's not fair.
They always go after women.
Women wear expensive clothing.
Lay off.
No.
It's not fair when they go after Republican women.
It is fair when they go after socialists.
Not even all Democrats.
It's not even fair when they go after all Democrats.
But it is totally fair game when they go after socialists.
This woman is saying we need to soak the rich, take all of their money.
Wealth is bad.
Choice is bad.
Bernie Sanders, her dear pal, when he was running in 2016, one of his major talking points is that we have too many choices of deodorant.
This is no joke.
That when you go to the drugstore, you see too many choices of deodorant.
We don't need all that deodorant.
We only need one or two.
We need to centralize it and stop people from having all these nice things.
Then she wears $3,000 worth of clothing, $3,500 worth of clothing.
That is hypocrisy.
I'm not out there saying that we all need to be exactly materially equal, exactly financially equal.
She is, and she's giving that old George Orwell animal farm line We're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
That's the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez line.
And that's exactly what's going to happen if her preferred system of government is instituted.
If socialism is instituted, there will be a concentration of wealth and power and privilege among the crony class.
And she will be right there.
It's totally fair.
It is an issue of hypocrisy.
This also brings us to Chelsea Clinton I want to get to before we go.
Chelsea Clinton, over the weekend, you know, she's a big abortion proponent.
She's been talking about how great Roe v.
Wade is, how we should have legal abortion.
And why?
Because she's a Democrat.
She's a political animal.
I mean, she was created in an environment of politics.
She's been in politics her whole life.
Then she went a little too far.
Here's what she said about Roe v.
Wade.
As a deeply religious person, it's also unchristian.
So she's saying, she goes on and on in the interview, but that's all you need to hear.
She says, as a deeply religious person, it would be unchristian to outlaw abortion.
There are plenty of people who are Christian who support abortion in spite of their faith.
I think almost half of American Catholics support abortion, even though their faith clearly says that abortion is gravely immoral and intrinsically evil.
Okay.
Some people do that.
Some people have a complicated view of theology.
They're on a spiritual journey.
They haven't gotten there yet.
That's fine.
Look, I went from atheist to Catholic to a Christian revert and Over a number of years.
And it doesn't happen all at once.
Okay, that's fine.
But to pretend that your support for killing little babies comes from your Christian faith is outrageous.
That is awful.
And that is really, really a terrible thing.
She should be called out for it.
Matt Walsh called her out for it, and I think she responded to him.
That is a step too far.
It's one thing to...
We see this a lot in the breakdown of the church.
We see this a lot in the breakdown of American politics.
It's one thing to say, I understand that there is a moral order, and I'm violating it.
And I'm doing it because I'm a weak and broken person, but I still acknowledge that there is a moral order.
That's one thing.
It's a totally different thing to say.
There's no moral order.
Good is bad.
Up is down.
War is peace.
Murder is great.
That is much more pernicious.
Even if you're doing the exact same thing, to deny the very essence of an order, of a political or of a moral order, that is much, much worse.
It's much more dangerous.
That's the territory that the left is moving into.
When her mother ran for president in 2008, she said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Now, Chelsea Clinton is saying abortion is a great thing and it's very Christian.
That is a huge shift.
And this is where heresy creeps in in religion.
And this is where our constitutional order is seriously undermined and broken down.
When people undercut the very doctrines, the very philosophical premises and institutions that undergird our country.
This brings us in the last few minutes to Constitution Day.
On this day in history, in 1787, our wonderful Constitution was signed.
It's a great thing.
You can see I'm wearing my tie, my Constitution Day tie.
So, we don't need to give a lecture on the Constitution because if you're watching or listening to this show, you probably know a lot about the Constitution.
Unfortunately, most people in America don't know very much about the Constitution.
There was a poll out from the Annenberg Public Policy Center out of the University of Pennsylvania which shows that of all Americans, 37% cannot name a single right protected by the First Amendment.
First Amendment protects multiple rights.
Free speech, free assembly, no establishment of religion, right?
They can't name one.
Three quarters of Americans cannot name all three branches of our government, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.
One third of Americans can't name any branch of our government.
Which is pretty crazy, because all we talk about now is the president.
They can't even name one of them.
This is a scary thing, because our Constitution is a wonderful document.
It's a great piece of paper.
It sets up a terrific government, the greatest nation, certainly in the modern era, probably in the history of the world.
But if you don't know it, if you don't know about your Constitution, if you don't know about your government, if you don't know about the institutions created and described by the Constitution, it's not going to exist very long.
Freedom isn't passed in the bloodstream.
It's only one generation away from extinction, as Ronald Reagan used to say.
And we're talking now, coincidentally on Constitution Day, about a new Supreme Court justice.
Who's going to go to the court and interpret the Constitution?
Hopefully defend the Constitution against other judges who want to undermine the Constitution.
And now there are these crazy allegations that he's a monster, 35 years ago he groped a girl or something.
The allegations are not credible, but even if they were, we also have to remember that men are not angels.
And this was what Alexander Hamilton described about our Constitution.
He said, quote, Men are not angels.
We're not governed by angels.
There are bad guys who govern us.
I think Brett Kavanaugh is probably on the very good end of men who govern us.
Some other people might have a little spottier past.
You know, I'm not calling out our president at the moment, but he's got a little more of a checkered personal history than someone like Judge Kavanaugh.
Okay.
The guardrails hold.
The government was set up Because we're not a nation of men.
Our nation doesn't rise and fall depending on the men who are running it.
We're a nation of laws, but we need to understand those laws.
We have to understand our own system of government.
John Adams said that the Constitution is built for a moral and religious people, and it's unfit to govern anybody else.
We're seeing a huge decline in religiosity among people.
We're seeing a huge decline in knowledge of our country.
And when that happens, forget about the people governing us.
Think about the people who are being governed.
When we don't know our country anymore, when we don't know our constitution, when we can't discipline ourselves, when we can't govern ourselves, no piece of paper is going to protect us.
No piece of paper is going to help.
We can have as many Tea Party rallies as we want.
We can go out there and say, this is a great document.
You should read my tie.
Read it.
It won't matter.
Because the people have to understand their government.
They have to be educated in it.
They need to be citizens.
Being a citizen is not a passive activity.
It's not just bread and circuses and being entertained.
You have to participate in your government if you're going to govern yourself.
And if you're unwilling to participate, unwilling to educate yourself, unwilling to discipline yourself, then someone is going to run your life for you.
That's the debate that we're having right now.
I hope...
That we'll be speaking on next year's Constitution Day, and things will be looking even better.
But who knows?
It's up to us.
It's up to us to decide what kind of country we want to have.
Okay, that's our show.
We ran late, as usual.
I'll be back.
Not tomorrow.
We will not have a show tomorrow.
We're going to do a show on Friday.
So I'll be back.
I'll see you on Wednesday.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
show.
I'll see you soon.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Borey.
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.
▲
Export Selection