Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 21, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show

49:43

Ep. 221 - Help Us, Cocaine Mitch. You’re Our Only Hope

The latest from the hearings, and reassurance from Cocaine Mitch. Then, Merriam-Webster adds a new fake word, Joseph Nicolosi Jr. explains the facts and fictions of "gay conversion therapy," and Arby’s offers to tattoo their corporate logo on your body in exchange for nothing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	He said, she said, will she, won't she, whodunit, who cares, just confirm Kavanaugh.
	The latest from the hearings.
	And a reassurance from Senate Majority Leader Pablo Escobar, Cocaine Mitch himself.
	Then Merriam-Webster adds a new fake word to the dictionary.
	That should be a lot of fun.
	Joseph Nicolosi Jr., Dr.
	Joseph Nicolosi Jr., stops by to explain the difference between gay conversion therapy and his own work.
	And Arby's offers to tattoo their corporate logo on your flesh for absolutely nothing.
	All that and more.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Oh, so much to get to today.
	So, so much.
	I hope this is the final...
	Cocaine Mitch, you're our only hope moment, and this chaos ends with Kavanaugh.
	Before we get to all of that and why I think that the American people are on our side, we've got to thank Ring.
	Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
	You know Ring.
	I've talked about Ring a long time, and all of your cool friends have it.
	I actually was having dinner with another friend of mine the other night who also has a Ring doorbell.
	And you go up, and it's got a two-way camera, and they can see you, and they can talk to you, whether they're inside the house or whether they're at a beach in Boca somewhere.
	It is security for the 21st century.
	There used to be Neighborhood Watch.
	That is old.
	That is not the way of 2018.
	This is super cool.
	They have the floodlight cam, which is great too.
	So, you know, when you're trying to break into somebody's house and that floodlight hits you, they have one with a camera in it.
	It's two-way.
	It's uploaded right to the cloud.
	You can share it to your neighbors.
	You say, hey, there's some suspicious-looking Sicilian fellow wandering around my neighborhood.
	Yeah.
	You've got to watch out for him.
	And he looks a little bit like Rachel Maddow.
	And the technology is out of the Jetsons, and it's really, really affordable.
	You should get this ASAP. It's the ultimate in home security.
	Powerful HD camera.
	Put security in your hands right now.
	Save up to $150 off a Ring of Security kit.
	And you go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, like Beyonce.
	That is ring.com slash Knowles.
	Guess what's in the news today?
	Do you think it's that the economy hit an all-time high?
	No.
	Do you think it's that unemployment has hit an all-time low?
	Maybe not an all-time low, but certainly since 1969.
	Is it that?
	No.
	Here's what's in the news.
	It's Brett Kavanaugh, who allegedly groped a girl when he was 17 or something, and she can't really remember when or how, and she just started talking about it five seconds ago, and it might have not even been the same guy.
	I am...
	Here are the Democratic senators just utterly making a farce out of this whole process.
	Take it away, Senator Gillibrand.
	Under oath.
	And so I believe her.
	I stand with her.
	Do you hope she shows up on Monday?
	Do you hope that she testifies?
	I don't think she should be bullied into this scenario where it's a he said, she said, where many members of the committee have already made up their minds.
	Without the benefit of an FBI investigation where it's nonpartisan and objective, and without the benefit of corroborating witnesses being able to testify, it's a sham hearing.
	And I don't think she should participate in it.
	Did you catch that?
	Did you catch that 180 degree spin?
	I'm nauseated just by watching it.
	Can we play that again?
	Listen to that again.
	Under oath.
	And so I believe her.
	I stand with her.
	Do you hope she shows up on Monday?
	Do you hope that she testifies?
	I don't think she should be bullied into this scenario where it's a he said, she said, where many members of the committee have already made up their mind.
	Without the benefit of an FBI investigation where it's nonpartisan and objective, and without the benefit of corroborating witnesses being able to testify, it's a sham hearing.
	And I don't think she should participate in it.
	In case you didn't hear it even that second time, she said, I believe her.
	I believe the accuser.
	I stand with the accuser.
	And then she immediately says that this is a sham hearing because there are no corroborating witnesses and many members have already made up their minds.
	Did you...
	You made up your mind.
	You just did that.
	You did that exact thing.
	And Gillibrand, she's a snake in the Senate because everyone thinks she's laying low.
	You always think of Chuck Schumer when you think of senators from New York.
	You don't think of her.
	But she's worked her way up into that Senate seat.
	She is a...
	She is a serpentine senator.
	And you see that here.
	I mean, she is able to say two utterly contradictory things with a perfectly straight face.
	And obviously, Jim Acosta can't tell the difference at all.
	I mean, he's just...
	Actually, all he's thinking about is the mousse that he put in his hair this morning.
	He's like, well, yeah, yeah, Jim, I think that looks pretty good.
	Is it too voluminous?
	I don't know, Jim.
	And then she spouts all of her nonsense.
	So she exposes that to be the sham.
	The Democrats are exposing this to be a sham.
	They're saying it with their own words.
	Donald Trump comes in.
	President Trump comes in.
	He finally is weighing in.
	He had been so good.
	He had been saying, oh, I hope she testifies.
	Oh, we'll see what she has to say.
	Okay, okay.
	Now he's gone after her.
	All bets are off.
	He tweets out, quote, I have no doubt that if the attack on Dr.
	Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local law enforcement authorities by either her or her loving parents.
	I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place.
	Now, is it...
	Is it perfectly logical?
	Is it necessary that if this attack took place, meaning if drunk teenagers groped each other at a party, and we don't really have any more details than that, if that took place, would she have reported that?
	I'm not convinced of that.
	I'm not totally sure that she would have.
	I know people who have been truly sexually harassed in their work.
	And they don't come forward because you just kind of want to forget about it and move on.
	So on that point, that isn't fair.
	But on the broader point, this is a totally fair tweet.
	We don't know the date.
	We don't know the time.
	We don't know the place.
	We don't really know the people there.
	We don't know the circumstances.
	We don't know the year.
	We don't know anything about this.
	It is a totally uncredible allegation, and it's about time that she either puts up or shuts up.
	Then Trump tweets again.
	He says, quote, The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved now.
	Why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago?
	Of course, on the specific point, this doesn't make sense.
	Why would she have called the FBI? Maybe this would have been a local law enforcement matter.
	Maybe not even that.
	Depending on how this thing actually went down, it might not have even been that.
	So the FBI wouldn't have been involved.
	But on the point of the tweet, the tweet is perfectly fair.
	And the reason is, when people are watching this, they're seeing FBI, accuser, assault.
	And so what President Trump is doing, because he's very good at the media, is just using those No.
	Does it make sense as a matter of law or law enforcement?
	No.
	But what President Trump is doing now is not making a legal case.
	He's now joining a media assault on Trump.
	And that's perfectly fine.
	This actually should have happened a while ago.
	I thought it was a really dangerous game to play footsie with all of this and play along and try to be a little too clever by half.
	It's an absurd allegation.
	It's not credible.
	They should have shut this up days ago and they should have voted to get Kavanaugh through.
	Punto e basta.
	Nothing more.
	Get it done.
	Now, some people on the right are up in arms over President Trump's tweets because he's getting involved.
	I'm not saying the tweets are that helpful, but they don't hurt.
	Who cares?
	Whose mind has been changed on this issue by those tweets?
	Nobody.
	Not a single person.
	And I really, really suspect that most Americans don't put any stock into these claims.
	They might say that they put stock into these allegations because they don't like Donald Trump and they don't like Republicans and they don't like Brett Kavanaugh and they don't like the Constitution and they want to get this guy and railroad him and keep him out of the Supreme Court.
	So they might say, they might play along, they might be hacks, but their pseudo-opinion, their public opinion is not going to be changed because Donald Trump tweets about it.
	It doesn't matter.
	People say, oh, but the optics, oh, but how it looks.
	Who cares?
	We are so past that.
	We are so past how it looks.
	We elected Donald Trump.
	That should have put the end to that question of playing by these polite little rules.
	The American people are not interested in playing by these polite little rules anymore.
	We're not interested in this meta-strategy of politicians saying one thing and then we have to decipher what they really mean.
	Because when you say this, it really means that.
	And then he said this to him.
	No.
	We're in a much more direct political moment and people are being much more direct about their partisan hackery.
	Kirsten Gillibrand is a great example of this.
	She comes out, she says, I have made up my mind before any hearings, before any investigation and senators who make up their minds before any investigation are shams and scam artists.
	She actually said that in the same sentence.
	We're in a very direct moment of Power on power.
	This is power politics here.
	And what is at stake?
	Who cares?
	What happened 36 years ago?
	Who cares?
	Not me.
	Don't care one little bit.
	Is Brett Kavanaugh a really nice guy?
	Yeah, it seems like he is.
	Also, I don't really care.
	What I care about is protecting the Constitution, protecting liberty, and having a serious justice who is willing to apply the framework of our country as it is written.
	And as it was...
	By the definitions and by the meanings that it had when it was adopted.
	That's what I want.
	That's what I care about.
	It does not matter.
	The scintillating, gossipy, tabloid aspect of this truly does not matter.
	It does not affect my life one little bit.
	It happened four decades ago.
	I just don't care.
	And you shouldn't care either.
	But Donald Trump tweeted this.
	Doesn't matter.
	We are in power politics time right now.
	Do you support the Constitution?
	Do you not support the Constitution?
	Do you support...
	Due process and the rights of the accused to face their accuser and statutes of limitations and not just ruining people's lives on apparently baseless allegations.
	Do you stand with that?
	The rule of law or partisan hackish anarchy?
	Those are the two options that you've got.
	Guess which side the celebrities fall down on.
	I'll let you see.
	Dear Professor Ford.
	Dear Professor Ford.
	We know how difficult it is to stand up to powerful people.
	We want to thank you for publicly sharing your story of sexual violence.
	As members of the Senate determine whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
	This context is critical.
	The behavior you described was wrong and runs directly counter to upholding the law and promoting justice.
	He should not be confirmed.
	He should not be confirmed.
	We can also imagine how shocking and overwhelming it must have been to have your truth shared on a national stage without your permission.
	You should be the decision maker about how your story is shared, if ever.
	We applaud your courage in coming forward.
	For the public good.
	And we will be with you as you face the inevitable backlash.
	The inevitable backlash.
	The inevitable backlash.
	You are strong.
	You are strong.
	And you are not alone.
	You are a survivor.
	This is a tired cliché.
	Tired, tired, tired cliché.
	We don't know anything about this, about this case, case.
	So we're going to repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, simple words and slogans, words, words, words, and, and, slogans, slogans, because we're saying nothing.
	And this is a parody of the early 2000s.
	P.S.A.'s, S.A.'s, S.A.'s.
	A's.
	A's.
	This could have been on The Onion.
	This could have been on ClickHole or something.
	I'm Julianne Moore.
	Moore.
	Julianne.
	Ann Moore.
	Okay, great.
	But you believe her.
	Okay, Julianne.
	Well, if Julianne Moore believes her, all right, he's out.
	Get Kavanaugh out of there.
	Julianne Moore has weighed in, and a bunch of other people that I've never seen before have, but I guess they're celebrities to some people.
	Who knows?
	Absurd, right?
	And they do this all the time, and it always is meaningless.
	And the American people don't care.
	They hate this.
	They hate these things.
	We don't want to be told by celebrities what we think.
	We don't want to be told by actresses like Julianne Moore.
	We rejected this in 2016, and we mock all of these ads.
	These ads never do well, and yet the left just keeps making them because they're living in a fantasy past that no longer exists.
	All of this is why Cocaine Mitch is our only hope.
	Cocaine Mitch, give me hope, baby.
	You've watched the fight.
	You've watched the tactics.
	But here's what I want to tell you.
	In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court.
	So, my friends, keep the faith.
	Don't get rattled by all of this.
	We're going to plow right through it and do our job.
	I've got one message for all of the Democrats who are trying to stop Brett Kavanaugh from going on the court.
	Say hello to my little friend!
	That is what we're getting from Cocaine Match, and he's exactly right to do it.
	He's exactly right.
	I wish he'd done it a week ago.
	That is exactly correct.
	This is absurd.
	These allegations are childish.
	They are not credible.
	We shouldn't give them one second's airtime.
	We shouldn't have any hearings.
	We shouldn't have nothing, nothing.
	Nothing.
	Not at all.
	Confirm him.
	Get it done.
	All that this air can do is suck up a whole news cycle, which should have been about how the economy has never been better, thanks to President Trump.
	All of the experts told us the economy would crash under Trump.
	It's never been better.
	Lowest joblessness, highest market highs.
	And it's been sucked up by this stupid Kavanaugh insinuation nonsense.
	Get rid of it.
	Cocaine Mitch, give it to me.
	And, by the way, the reason Cocaine Mitch is right here is because, as we could probably intuit from those Julianne Moore videos...
	The American people don't believe this.
	I really don't believe that the American people think that this woman is legit and that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist.
	Or like a groper or whatever when he was a teenager.
	I don't know.
	They might say that.
	They might say that in certain, depending on how a question is asked, depending on how, who knows.
	But I really just don't think it's the case.
	And CNN just learned this when they had a panel of people that they were talking to.
	You know, regular old American civilians.
	And they said, do you believe that Kavanaugh did it or that Kavanaugh is innocent?
	A show of hands.
	How many of you believe Judge Kavanaugh when he says this didn't happen?
	I believe him.
	I do believe him.
	I believe him.
	How can we believe the word of a woman or something that happened 36 years ago when this guy has an impeccable reputation?
	There was nobody, nobody that has spoken ill will about him.
	Everyone that speaks about him, this guy is an altar boy.
	You know, a scout.
	Because one woman made an allegation.
	Sorry, I don't buy it.
	But in the grand scheme of things, my goodness, there was no intercourse.
	There was maybe a touch.
	Can we really?
	36 years later, she's still stuck on that?
	Had it happened?
	I mean, we're talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect.
	You know, I'm a woman.
	I respect.
	We're talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high.
	Tell me what boy hasn't done this in high school.
	Please, I would like to know.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, ladies.
	Thank you.
	Five out of five say they believe Kavanaugh.
	Duh.
	Duh.
	I mean, come on.
	Regardless of what happened or what didn't happen or who remembers what or who was there, this is so...
	It's so beyond the pale.
	It's so out of left field.
	It's so out there.
	This is not to be believed.
	It is so transparently a political ploy.
	Get rid of it.
	Get it done.
	Please, Cocaine Mitch, I hope you're right.
	You're our only hope.
	We've got to turn now because we've heard so much in 2016 and in recent years about gay conversion therapy.
	And there are movies out about this where Mike Pence apparently wants to electrocute gay people.
	I don't know where the left got that from, but that's what they say.
	And so you hear these stories about parents making their kids go to, they call it, pray away the gay or something like that.
	And it sounds really awful and it seems like child abuse and that's bad.
	There is a doctor, there are a few doctors, who practice something called reintegrative therapy, which is considered the same thing by the left, but Dr.
	Nicolosi, who's one of the people who does this, draws a distinction, and his version of the therapy is that the patients are in charge, they come to him and they say, I don't want to have same-sex attractions anymore, is there anything you can do to help?
	He says he has a way to help, so we decided to hear him out.
	Here is Dr.
	Nicolosi.
	Dr.
	Nicolosi, thank you so much for being here.
	It's great to be here.
	So we have heard in the popular culture a lot of things about gay conversion therapy, reparative therapy.
	For some reason, the left is all upset at Mike Pence.
	They say that he electrocutes gay people.
	I don't know where they got that from, but they seem to be obsessed with this.
	There's even a movie coming out called Boy Erased with Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman, I think, about this gay kid whose parents reject him and He's abused at some Protestant anti-gay camp or something like that.
	I haven't seen the movie, as you can tell.
	You are a proponent of reparative therapy or therapy for people who are gay and they don't want to be gay anymore.
	How does your work differ from everything that we're seeing in the popular culture?
	We need to differentiate between two things.
	One term is conversion therapy.
	Now, conversion therapy is a term that's broad and It's ill-defined.
	There's no ethics code, no governing body, and it's practiced by unlicensed individuals.
	This is the stuff that we're seeing from Hollywood.
	But in the work that we do, in our work in reintegrative therapy, the client is in the driver's seat.
	The licensed psychotherapist uses evidence-based mainstream treatment approaches, the same treatment approaches used in other clinics throughout the world, to treat trauma and sexual addiction.
	And as those underlying dynamics are resolved, the sexuality changes as a byproduct.
	Our clients notice significant and lasting decreases in their same-sex attractions I know your father was a leader in this field.
	He's worked with a lot of clients.
	There's this question that the popular culture has been debating for years now, which is whether homosexual attraction is biological or genetic, or whether it's the product of environmental factors, or whether it's the combination of both of those things.
	Now, obviously it can be the product of environmental factors, early exposure to Cole Porter music, for instance, many of those sorts of things.
	But there does seem to be some evidence, as far as I can tell, that there are biological, innate genetic factors for a homosexual disposition.
	Have you found that?
	Is that what the literature says?
	What have you found in your own work?
	There is no so-called gay gene, but that's science fiction.
	Here's the science.
	We know that the brain is capable of something that we call neuroplasticity.
	In fact, there's a new study released by Basically every week demonstrating that the brain has this neuroplastic capability.
	Neuroplasticity is the idea that the brain can wire and rewire itself based on our life experiences.
	And with neuroplasticity in mind, why would everybody's sexuality be set in stone?
	So we see that there's further evidence to this.
	And we also know that the regions of the brain that are responsible for sexual preference are the same regions of the brain that we know change over time.
	I can tell you this.
	The hundreds of men that I've worked with, In our clinic, they tell me very remarkably similar patterns in their childhood experiences that they believe relate to their same-sex attractions.
	That's interesting.
	And I wonder too if there is some sort of spectrum here of people who their same-sex attraction is so hardwired that it isn't going to change and it would be fruitless to try to change it.
	And people where it's a little bit in the middle.
	We always hear from Lefties and proponents of the sexual revolution that there's a Kinsey scale and everybody's a little bit gay and whatever they're saying now.
	One in four maybe more at my dear alma mater of Yale University.
	And who knows?
	But is that the case?
	What percentage of patients would have success with this therapy?
	Which percentage of patients would not have success?
	And to address the concerns of the popular culture, could these therapies be damaging to people or is that a fiction of Hollywood?
	Okay, well, let's start with can people change?
	What percentage of people change?
	There's some new data that's going to be coming out soon that's going to give us more precise information on exactly that topic.
	But we need to look at what's most important, which is that we've got to look at the motivations of individuals who are saying, look, homosexuality isn't for me.
	And there are three reasons that I see in my practice.
	One, individuals who were sexually abused by someone of the same sex when they were young.
	Resulting in conflict and confusion and lingering effects of the abuse.
	And these are individuals who as adults say they want to resolve this.
	And we see that with standard trauma therapy, when we focus on treating the sexual abuse memories, these adults often describe their sexuality changing on its own.
	The second is individuals who, because of their closely held beliefs, maybe they're Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, these are all people who say, I believe I was designed heterosexual.
	And the last is individuals who, they're not religious.
	They don't have a deeply held belief.
	They weren't traumatized, but they're here for pragmatic reasons.
	They say, look, I tried homosexuality.
	I came out 10 years ago.
	I find homosexuality and homosexual relationships compelling, but at the end, not really fulfilling.
	And they wish to explore heterosexuality.
	And I believe no one should interfere with that.
	That's their right to pursue if they choose.
	Well, this is the irony of the sexual revolution is they say everybody should be free to pursue the sexuality they want to pursue unless I say that you can't and then you can't.
	And it's the second one, that religious objection, that to me seems like the most obvious one.
	If people have any variety of creative sexual preferences, say, you know, a little slap and tickle here and there or a same-sex attraction or whatever, You can choose not to pursue that.
	This has been true throughout the history of the church.
	It's certainly true in other religions as well.
	So it's that aspect, the patient coming to you and saying, I want to change this about me.
	Is there any way to do it?
	That seems compelling.
	How do you answer the charges of these Hollywood movies like Boy Erased that portray reparative therapy or, you know, I forget the technical term.
	What is the technical term that you use?
	Reintegrative therapy.
	Who say that this is just a way to abuse children who are confused about their sexuality.
	Is there only one age group that goes through this therapy?
	Has that age group changed over time?
	What do you see with your patients?
	Okay, so what we see in reality is very different from Hollywood.
	So Hollywood has all sorts of depictions.
	That's true of everything, by the way.
	Yes, yes.
	If people are interested not in watching a fictional Hollywood film, but watching an actual real-life documentary, we just released a film.
	We commissioned a skeptical Hollywood filmmaker to get to know the actual clients who've gone through this therapy.
	The movie is called Free to Love.
	It's on freetolovemovie.com.
	And this filmmaker goes in and he asks these individuals who went through this therapy, the real-life people, what they went through, what was their success, And what he found is shocking and surprising.
	It's freetolovemovie.com.
	That's interesting.
	I think people should definitely check it out because Hollywood is certainly making their own movies on this and it would be interesting to see the other side of it.
	The other question is about the public policy of it all.
	I know that you were very helpful in having California pull back on AB 2943, which was going to ban all of these therapies that would have therapies that cover what you do.
	And why did that get shut down?
	What was the process of that?
	And what does it have to do with religious liberty?
	And what does it have to do with individual liberty in the country?
	Those are quite a few questions.
	I'll do what I can.
	So we don't know the exact reason.
	We may never know the exact reason why AB 2943 was pulled by the bill sponsor on the very last day.
	We don't know exactly, but it probably had a lot to do with a lot of individuals saying, look, I was sexually abused when I was young.
	Don't take my right away to walk away from homosexuality.
	I don't want to be kept in homosexuality against my will.
	Or other individuals who say, well, wait a second, the client should be in the driver's seat of their own psychotherapy, not the government.
	And this is not the kind of legislation that would pass, I think, in court.
	I think it would get torn to shreds.
	So what we really need to focus on is that the clients are in the driver's seat and the reality that sexuality is fluid and not fixed.
	These are the most important points for us to know.
	There's neuroplasticity.
	The brain can change.
	It changes based on our life experience.
	Sexuality is not fixed for everyone.
	That's a very interesting point.
	And it's funny too because it seems that the movement against your form of therapy and the sexual revolution more broadly keeps changing its mind on this.
	It says either sexuality is entirely biologically determined.
	That's the I was born this way version of it.
	And then the other is we can change whatever we want, become whatever we want.
	I can become a woman or you can become a man or whatever.
	When they talk about child abuse with reintegrative therapy or all of the bastardizations that are unlicensed that Hollywood takes on, I wonder how come they never talk about the transgender hormone therapy being used on little children?
	We have on the other side of this political debate Left-wing activists who are advocating that we chemically castrate children before puberty, how come that is never brought up as child abuse?
	What are the politics of this debate and how long has this been going on?
	Okay, so the heart of what you're talking about right now is ultimately the hypocrisy that we are seeing on the hard left.
	So let's talk about this.
	In this particular case, there are three examples of real hypocrisy on the hard left that we're seeing related to these bills like AB 2943.
	There are these individuals who say, this is different between the LGBT movement and the hard left leaders of the LGBT movement.
	These hard left leaders had been telling us, look, in terms of gay rights, people should just have the right to love whoever they want.
	But with this legislation, they're now trying to take away the rights of individuals to love whoever they want.
	My clients are men who want to love women.
	No one has the right to deny them that.
	The second is that the hard left has been telling us, no, LGBT individuals should have equal access to all forms of healthcare.
	Well, what about clients who want to see me as a licensed clinical psychologist?
	The third, and perhaps the most stunning, There are individuals in the hard left who welcome people into the gay community, but they will try to block those same individuals when those people want to leave the gay community.
	That's bullying.
	That's wrong.
	And in the name of anti-bullying, the hard left have become the real bullying.
	That's the point, I think, that is totally mistaken.
	Mistaken by the left, I mean.
	Because when you watch the trailer for Boy Erased, your heart is just ripped out of your chest.
	You say, these bastards trying to shame this boy and ruin his life or something.
	But you have to ask yourself, is that what is really happening?
	In your practice, do teenage boys come in and say, I really want to be gay?
	And you say, well, you can't be...
	Is that the reality that we're talking about?
	No.
	We use mainstream evidence-based approaches to treat trauma and underlying sexual addictions.
	And as we do that, the sexuality changes on its own.
	I'll give you a quick example of this.
	In fact, I'll summarize.
	So many of my clients who have never met one another, they describe remarkably similar backgrounds in their childhoods, things that are not being addressed by Hollywood.
	My clients consistently report having distant, detached, critical fathers Higher anxiety, sometimes intrusive mothers, and they themselves were boys who were temperamentally sensitive.
	If you put these factors together, it seems to increase the probability that the boy will have difficulty making that gender identity shift away from the mother and toward the father that is typical in young childhood.
	Oftentimes, my clients had a bullying older brother.
	If you put these factors together, it makes it harder.
	These individuals, my clients, when they were growing up, girls were their closest friends.
	They knew girls like the back of their hands.
	But boys in roughhousing and my clients felt scared.
	They felt intimidated by these kinds of behaviors.
	They didn't know how to connect with other guys.
	And their childhoods were filled with getting female attention, affection, approval, but no male attention, affection, approval.
	Eventually in puberty, those underlying desires became sexual.
	This story is happening again and again and again.
	And the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge these individuals and their stories.
	But they can only do it for so long because the internet, the proliferation of information, the traditional gatekeepers of information, the mainstream media, are now being abolished.
	And films like Free to Love and other people's testimonies are coming out.
	They can't contain this story forever.
	Well, I can't wait to see the film because we've seen the other side.
	So I look forward to seeing that film.
	And it is a funny irony that for years and years we've been told by the left, do whatever you want as long as you don't do it in the streets and scare the horses.
	And that's kind of been the mantra of the last century or so.
	And yet, now we're being told by those very same people.
	Unless you want to do this, unless you want to change sexual behavior, unless you want to, for whatever reason, stop living in the sexual way that you're currently living.
	So I think that really helps to clear things up.
	And it's also funny, too, because there are people who call you a quack, you know, say the science isn't in, the science isn't settled.
	And yet those are the same people who are saying that a little boy who says he's a little girl should have Dr.
	Nicolosi, thank you very much for being here.
	Thank you, Michael.
	Hollywood never shows that guy, I notice.
	It's always some, like, wackos in some 20-person town whipping little kids and stuff.
	Very interesting to talk to him.
	You know, my one bit of skepticism on innate factors is that I always remember loving girls and being attracted to girls, you know, from, like, probably when I was two years old.
	But who knows?
	In a culture that is willing to chemically castrate children because of I think?
	Maybe take a look in the mirror before you start throwing stones.
	The reason I have my laptop up, you know that I hate having laptops up when I'm talking to people on screens and everything, but there is breaking news.
	I want to read it right now from the New York Times.
	Headline, Rosenstein, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, suggested he secretly record Trump and discussed the 25th Amendment.
	This just came out.
	The story says, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment.
	To remove Mr.
	Trump from office for being unfit.
	Story goes on.
	He was just two weeks into his job at this point.
	He had begun overseeing the Russia investigation, played a key role in the dismissal of James Comey by memo.
	He made the remarks in conversations with other Justice Department and FBI officials, the people who have I've divulged this to the New York Times, obviously, have been insisting on anonymity.
	So here's the other side of anonymous sources, as occasionally they turn on the bureaucrats themselves.
	The people were briefed on the events themselves by FBI officials, including Andy McCabe, then the acting bureau director that documented Mr.
	Rosenstein's actions and comments.
	This is what we've been saying all the time.
	This is what we've been saying since the beginning.
	When people are talking about the deep state, What they're talking about is that.
	It's bureaucrats, career bureaucrats, unaccountable, unelected officials who decide that they know better than the American people and they're going to overturn a presidential election.
	That is what we're talking about.
	That is not a conspiracy theory.
	That is real.
	Now, for his part, I think Rosenstein denies the report.
	But that's the report.
	Who knows what it's worth?
	It's in the New York Times, so take it with a grain of salt.
	But it is surprising that they would go after their own guys like this, that they would run a story that would seem to benefit President Trump if it weren't true.
	That is some incredible news, using, wielding the power of the state to undo a presidential election.
	Those are the two groups that we see here.
	We see it in the Kavanaugh hearing.
	We see it on every public policy debate.
	We see it in the election.
	We see it in the deep state conversation.
	There is one group that wants to uphold the rule of law, that wants to uphold our Constitution and defer to people as being able to govern themselves in America.
	That is one group.
	Even if the election doesn't turn out the way that you want it to, even if it's 2008 or 2012 all over again, Want to uphold the rule of law.
	There is another group that wants to totally subvert the rule of law, that hates the rule of law, that hates the Constitution, that hates the country, that hates the American people.
	They love humanity in abstract, but they don't like humans when they meet them.
	That does not trust the American people, doesn't trust us to govern ourselves.
	Those are the two groups.
	And so they're going to come up and support 36-year-old vague quasi-accusations to torpedo unimpeachable Supreme Court nominees.
	They're going to try to wield the power of the federal government to undo a presidential election, to try to kick out a duly elected president.
	They're going to do everything they can.
	Those are the stakes.
	And we're sitting here talking about Stormy Daniels.
	That's the national conversation.
	Stormy Daniels, Mario Kart, whether the girl 36 years ago had a beer like Kavanaugh, and was it Kavanaugh or this guy?
	Who cares?
	Those are the stakes.
	Those are the stakes that we're up against.
	Incredible story.
	If there's anything more, we'll try to cover it before the end of the show.
	now we've got to move on to the culture.
	Because while perhaps in the politics we shouldn't focus on frivolous things, in the culture we have to focus on frivolous things because that's all the culture is these days.
	Merriam-Webster's Dictionary has added a new fake word.
	They add fake words every so often.
	They've added a new one, which is Latinx.
	L-A-T-I-N-X. Latinx.
	Latinx.
	I've heard it pronounced both ways.
	Either way, it's unpronounceable.
	And this is because the word Latino, which refers to Hispanic people, that's sexist.
	Because Latino, in Romance languages, in Spanish and Italian, the gender-neutral gender is the masculine gender.
	So, this is true.
	In Italian, you could have Libro as a book, right?
	Libro.
	That's a masculine word.
	It ends in O. Typically, if it ends in O, it's masculine.
	If it ends in A, it's feminine.
	That isn't always true, but that's because those languages have genders.
	The social justice left in America, liberal white people in America have decided this is unacceptable.
	So to help those benighted, poor, Hispanic, Latinx people down below the border, we're going to go in and totally change their language because their language isn't acceptable anymore.
	The first time anyone even mentioned this was about 10 years ago, 15 years ago.
	No, I think it was 2004, so 14 years ago.
	And there were a few options.
	There was Latin A at, Latin at sign, like, you know, an email address.
	But that's absurd because that's just a random symbol.
	So then they added an X, which is a way that Spanish people would not end their words.
	That's just not how the language works.
	We will explain the silliness behind all of that and talk about sexy handmaid's tale and discuss tattoos and the greatest fast food restaurant in America.
	But, unfortunately, you've got to go to dailywire.com You can't just keep getting everything for free.
	This is a capitalist country, for now.
	Though it might not be for much longer.
	Go to Daily Wire.
	It is $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
	You get me.
	You get the Andrew Klavan show.
	You get the Ben Shapiro show.
	You ask the questions in the mailbag.
	This is what matters.
	This is what matters.
	The Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	The...
	Hmm...
	That was like the original recipe for Coca-Cola, if you know what I'm talking about, Mitch.
	If you know what I'm saying.
	Senate Majority Leader McConnell.
	Thank you for that batch of leftist tears.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	I have two distinct thoughts on the Latinx.
	On the one hand, it's absurd.
	It's absurd and ridiculous to try to remove gender from language.
	Because when we try to remove gender, when we try to abstract gender from sex, when we try to say that there's no such thing as sexual diversity, it butts up against reality.
	We know that isn't the case.
	We'll get to this in a second, too, in The Handmaid's Tale.
	We know that isn't the case.
	We know that there is sexual difference.
	It feels so tedious and politically correct, and like you're living in a fantasy.
	And you see this with people who are PC all the time.
	They have to constantly preface every single thing they're going to say.
	Say, well, I want, and by the way, I just want you to know that I'm a da-da-da-da, but that isn't to say that I'm a da-da-da, and I also, and I'm sorry if ba-ba-ba-da-da, and you're like, shut up, just spit it out.
	I don't have that much time.
	Tell me what you're going to say.
	So we know that this is an absurd fantasy world because sexual difference does matter and it inheres in these languages.
	But then my second thought on the Latinx is I love it.
	I love it because it exposes the left for what they are, which is imperialists.
	They are imperialists.
	What they are saying is these liberal white wackos with purple hair in America are saying, hey, Hispanic people, you're anti-Hispanic.
	Stop using that language of yours and use our language to describe you because we're compassionate and we're supporting you.
	I say, what?
	Well, then stop telling us how to do our language.
	I don't know.
	That's not a great Latinx accent.
	It's crazy.
	By the way, if you want to refer to it in English, it's Latin.
	That's it.
	It's not Latino.
	It's Latina.
	It's not Latinx.
	It's Latin.
	Because we speak English.
	Latino and Latinx are not English words until Merriam-Webster wants to pretend that they are.
	It's Latin.
	That's fine.
	I don't refer to Italianos.
	I don't say like, hey, yeah, so I was down in the Bronx the other day and I was hanging out with some of my Italiano friends.
	I don't do it.
	I say Italian friends.
	Siciliano friends.
	No, nobody does that.
	Oh, I was down there hanging out with les Français.
	No, it's so stupid.
	But when it comes to Spanish, when it comes to issues of Hispanic people or Latin people, we have to all of a sudden affect these crazy accents and pretend that we're speaking another language, which we're not.
	And then pretend that that other language is even a separate language, which exists only in fiction.
	It's crazy.
	They only do it when it comes to Latin Americans because it's all about political ideology.
	I talk about this all the time.
	The way they use these words is 1,000% political ideology.
	We should reject it and we should laugh at it.
	Speaking of rejecting and laughing at political ideologies, this is the greatest story of the day.
	There is a shop on the internet.
	I think it's called yandy.com, something like that.
	Which is selling a Handmaid's Tale costume just in time for Halloween.
	But you know the Handmaid's Tale.
	It's those big, frumpy, red...
	They look like burkas, but they wouldn't call them burkas because they don't want to be anti-Islam.
	So there's giant potato sacks and the bonnets and everything.
	But the difference with this Halloween costume is it's super sexy.
	So it's this little slip, you know?
	You get a lot of leg.
	It's nice and form-fitting.
	And the left is so upset about this because of the whole point.
	They're saying, we live in Trump's America where women have to wear potato sacks and it's like a Muslim country, even though we wouldn't say it's like a Muslim country.
	We just can't.
	It's awful.
	And then, meanwhile, the actual version of this, which is selling, is this, like, sexy little number because women can wear whatever they want and they can dye their hair purple and who cares?
	It's America.
	It's free.
	Do whatever you want.
	Yeah.
	It totally cuts against their narrative.
	I'm probably going to wear this for Halloween, so you might want to shield your eyes now, keep them closed for the next month and a half or so.
	Just a wonderful thing.
	Go out there, get that costume.
	I love these moments where the left, they're so insistent on a narrative, and then reality just punches them in the face.
	That could be the...
	The history of the 2016 election.
	You know it's amazing now, too, because the left still wield cultural power.
	So it's not like we can just show them and we punch them in the face and that's it and we win.
	Because the left wields this awful power such that they made Yandy pull it off their sight.
	Now look, the thing is popular.
	It's funny.
	We're having a good time.
	It's a Halloween costume.
	All that craziness at Yale a few years ago started because a professor said people can wear whatever Halloween costume they want.
	And the student said, how dare you say you can wear any Halloween costume?
	We're 20-year-old Yale students.
	We can't dress ourselves.
	And it became this huge deal.
	Professors lost their jobs.
	Now, so Yandy, this company, I hope that's what it's called.
	It is what it's called, right?
	Yandy.
	They caved and they pulled it off of their site, which means, by the way, the ones that have already been ordered are going to be selling for like $500 on eBay pretty soon.
	But we can't let the left get away with this.
	We can't let them get away with this.
	I think the whole country is like that panel on CNN, you know, or at least a lot of the country, which is...
	Hey, do you guys care about this Kavanaugh thing?
	Raise your hand if you don't.
	Nope, don't care.
	Move on.
	But the left, even if there are only 10 of these wacko lefty activists, they are enough to get people to pull it off the website, to get Rod Rosenstein trying to get people to throw the president out of office for no reason at all, using the 25th Amendment.
	They're really potent, so you've really got to watch out.
	Of course I'm running late today.
	I don't even care because I have one more story that I want to talk about.
	This is a big deal, so I don't want you to miss out on a great deal if you're by Long Beach, California tomorrow.
	Tomorrow, one day only, Arby's, one of the great fast food franchises, perhaps the greatest, Arby's is offering you an incredible opportunity.
	You can go to a tattoo parlor and have them brand the Arby's corporate logo on your body in exchange for nothing.
	You'll get absolutely nothing at all.
	That's it.
	That's the deal.
	You brand their logo on your flesh and mutilate yourself, and that's it.
	Just because.
	I bet people are going to do it.
	I bet people are going to do it.
	This follows on the heels of Domino's in Russia.
	Domino's Pizza doing the same thing.
	Or doing a similar version, which is they said, if you get Domino's tattooed on your flesh, we'll give you free pizza for life.
	They figured like three insane people were going to do this.
	The promo was going to run for two months.
	They had to shut it down after only a few days because everybody in Russia was doing it.
	They said, oh, free pizza?
	Yeah, I'll destroy my body.
	There was a Russian woman, she was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Russian Millennial.
	She said, oh yeah, they would have had a million people demanding pizzas.
	They had to stop it.
	Now, this requires a little bit of nihilism, I think.
	A little nihilism to trade your flesh for a piece of cheap pizza that isn't even that good.
	But we shouldn't be surprised to find such nihilism in Russia, which is renowned for its multiple suicide games.
	In fact, one of the most famous suicide game in the world is called Russian Roulette.
	Perhaps we find it there.
	Now we're seeing it even in America, though.
	I would not be surprised if Arby's gets a few takers.
	Because among millennials...
	Nearly the lion's share, nearly the majority are getting tattoos.
	I think it's about 40% now, depending on where you put the age brackets.
	But for ages 18 to 29, 38% of those Americans have at least one tattoo.
	And this causes us to go into the history of tattoos a little bit.
	Tattoos have always been around humanity.
	I think it was the Iceman, the 5,000-year-old guy that we plucked out of the ice a number of years ago, had tattoos on him.
	The Lombards, the invading Lombards in the 8th century, I think.
	They had tattoos on them.
	In the 4th century, Emperor Constantine banned tattooing the faces of prisoners because he found it to be unchristian.
	Now prisoners tattoo their own faces, so it doesn't matter.
	They put those little teardrops and things like that.
	And in popular culture, it's always been acceptable for soldiers and criminals to have tattoos.
	And the reason for that is because If you're a warrior or if you're a criminal, then hyper-masculinity, a sort of brutality, a sort of sheer force and violence and tribalism is required for the job.
	For either good or bad.
	If you're a soldier, it's for good.
	If you're a criminal, it's for bad.
	But that makes a lot of sense.
	Then in more recent years, we've added cultural acceptability for tattoos that have some kind of meaning to you.
	So, you know, a kid is born and you tattoo the name or...
	I kind of see the argument for that.
	I'm not the most hyper-masculine, brutal guy on earth, so I don't have any tattoos.
	Never served in our armed forces or committed a felony, so I've never been able to do it.
	But I do get the argument for that.
	The thing that worries me, though, with millennials is I see a lot of them just getting random tattoos that mean nothing.
	So I've seen...
	I was at a store the other day, and a retail worker had the phrase, a four-letter word that starts with S, cray, written in cursive on his index finger.
	That was his tattoo.
	I've seen millennials get citrus fruit tattooed on their joints just like an orange or something or a grapefruit or who knows, whatever.
	I've seen friends get just random geometric shapes Tattooed on their arm.
	Why?
	I don't know.
	Just because.
	That really worries me.
	The other tattoos I kind of get, but the ones that are just nothing is a celebration of meaninglessness, and it's a really aimless activity.
	Does indict our generation.
	You know, this generation has an increasing number of religiously unaffiliated people, people who don't see any objective meaning in the world, only subjective purposes that you can give and sort of fly away.
	That's a problem.
	I mean, who cares if they've got a tomato on their elbow?
	I don't really care.
	But what it says about the culture is that we're really losing a sense of purpose.
	And you're going to see that reflected in your politics.
	You're going to see that reflected in your culture.
	And, you know, there's only more of the younger generation coming.
	There are only more entering the workforce and even younger than that.
	So we really should straighten out this issue.
	And we're going to do it, baby.
	We're going to straighten everything out next week.
	This was a long news cycle week.
	All of this Kavanaugh nonsense.
	I'm sure it will continue.
	So we'll try to start the next week on the right foot.
	That's our show.
	Have a good weekend.
	Binge season one of Another Kingdom because we've got season two coming up and it is going to be really, really good.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	I'll see you on Monday.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Jim Nickel.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲