All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 30, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
48:03
Ep. 243 - What's Wrong With Birthright Citizenship

President Trump has vowed to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Then, leftist pots call conservative kettles black on anti-Semitism in America, GQ’s Julia Ioffe says Trump radicalizes more than ISIS, and two lesbians carry the same baby to term. Date: 10-30-2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump has vowed to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a loophole by which foreign nationals game the U.S. immigration system.
Critics on both the left and the right are calling foul, but the strategy is both just and brilliant.
I'm telling you, I will explain why.
Then, the leftist pots are calling conservative kettles black on anti-Semitism in America.
GQ's Julia Eoffe Accuses the president of radicalizing more people than ISIS, and two lesbians carry the same baby to term.
That's it.
I'm leaving.
I'm out of here.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
That last story really snuck up on me.
I forgot that was in the show today.
Oh, we'll save that for dessert.
That'll be a nice dessert on our political dinner that we're all having together.
It's nice to be back.
It's very nice to be back here in the broom closet.
I was on the road for a little over a week.
We went to Grand Canyon University.
We went to Augustana University.
We went to the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
It was a ton of fun.
Stopped by New York and did Fox& Friends.
It was a great time.
The students were fabulous.
I had a cigar with the students last night right in front of the no smoking sign on campus.
That was really enjoyable.
We talked about a few things.
We did speeches on the culture.
We did speeches on economics.
We're going to be having a lot more speeches coming up.
Again, if you want me to stop by your school and cause mayhem.
You should do it through YAF. The store is all being hosted by the Young America's Foundation.
And it's been a ton of fun.
And now I come back and President Trump is giving the United States one of the greatest civics lessons in a very long time by threatening to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship.
We will get to that in one second.
But first...
I am so, so pleased to, well, make a little money, honey, and thank this wonderful new sponsor, Operation American Gratitude.
How often do we talk on this show about the dearth of patriotism and gratitude, especially among millennials, especially because they're just not raised with an appreciation of their country.
They're raised to protest their flag, to protest their country.
Operation American Gratitude is terrific.
It was founded when the founder heard a Vietnam veteran say on a podcast that he had never been welcomed home in 50 years since returning from Vietnam.
The goal here is to deliver thank you cards to 2 million Vietnam veterans over the next 5 years and place a you are not forgotten card on every Vietnam War Memorial in America.
My own grandfather is a Vietnam veteran, Purple Heart, and so it's a cause that's near and dear to my heart.
This is really important.
So what this does, when you sign up at RaisingAmericans.com slash Covfefe, C-O-V-F-E-F-E, you'll get thank you cards for five Vietnam veterans in your hometown.
an interview of Vietnam veteran card, a you are not forgotten card, a POW MIA card, a 58 to 20 card to honor all those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
If you don't know any, no problem.
You can see the Vietnam veteran hats on the street.
100% of the profit from Operation American Gratitude goes toward building the Freedom Never Sleeps business training center in beautiful Eagle, Idaho, which is on site, a six month paid entrepreneurship training program for veterans, underprivileged youth.
I could go on forever.
It's a wonderful thing.
Make life better for a Vietnam veteran and teach young Americans gratitude all for less than 20 bucks.
Better yet, participate alongside Operation American Gratitude makes you 50% more likely to meet George Washington That's a true story.
That is proven.
Go right now.
RaisingAmericans.com slash Covfefe.
C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Buy your Operation American Gratitude kit.
RaisingAmericans.com slash Covfefe.
C-O-V-F-E-F-E. And God bless America.
Terrific, terrific sponsor.
You should definitely do it.
So...
I come back.
I actually didn't even get to come back for this.
I was just on the airplane this morning on my airplane Wi-Fi, one of the miracles of modern free market capitalism and our economic system, and I saw that President Trump is now threatening to end birthright citizenship.
Of course, the left is up in arms.
Some critics on the right are up in arms.
They're saying, oh my gosh, This is the end of the American experiment.
Our founders and our framers, they started this country.
They rebelled against British rule so that the children of foreign nationals can access the modern American welfare state.
That's why we fought the war in 1776, baby, is so that people could come here on birth tourism, enter our country illegally, have children, and access American welfare programs.
That's what Patrick Henry said.
He said, give me birthright citizenship for the children of foreign nationals to access welfare programs or give me death.
Is that what he said?
I forget.
I don't remember.
It's been a while since I've read the history books.
Here is President Trump explaining his proposed policy to Axios on HBO. On immigration, some legal scholars believe you can get rid of birthright citizenship without changing the Constitution.
With an executive order.
Exactly.
Right.
Have you thought about that?
Yes.
Tell me more.
It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment.
Right.
14th Amendment.
You don't.
You don't.
Number one.
Number one, you don't need that.
I mean, that's in dispute.
That's very much in dispute.
Well, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress, but now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.
Now, how ridiculous?
We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits.
It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
And it has to end.
Have you talked about that with counsel?
Yeah, I have.
So we're in the process.
It's in the process.
It'll happen.
With an executive order.
That's what you're talking about, right?
Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about.
I didn't think anybody knew that but me.
I thought I was the only one.
Jonathan, I'm impressed.
I've got a good guess.
I'm impressed.
Terrific.
Excellent timing, excellent strategy for a few reasons.
One, some conservatives are calling foul.
They're saying, you can't do this through an executive order.
He has to do it through legislation or a constitutional amendment or this or that.
Or the courts have to decide.
Yes, I agree.
The answer is the last one.
But what is this all about?
This entire executive order is not about actually changing the law of the land.
This executive order is about asking the courts to finally define birthright citizenship.
So the concept of birthright citizenship, the concept of anchor babies, it comes from the 14th Amendment.
Specifically this line.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Okay, what was the purpose of this amendment?
To make slaves, former slaves, citizens.
That's the purpose of it.
The purpose of it was to revise, to undo the Dred Scott decision, which said that blacks can't be citizens.
And this says, Now, the key phrase here is, meaning that this excluded Native Americans.
Very specifically, it excluded Native Americans who were subject to their own jurisdiction.
This excluded the children of diplomats who happened to be here.
If a diplomat was visiting the United States, his children were born here.
They did not have birthright citizenship.
This excluded foreign nationals.
Certainly the foreign nationals who come to the U.S. from Mexico or Guatemala or Honduras or wherever, certainly they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
They're subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign entity.
So at no point during the ratification of the 14th Amendment Did its authors or the public believe that this was to give birthright citizenship to foreign nationals who just happened to be in the United States at the time?
The trouble is, this has never really been challenged.
There was a court case, I think, in 1898, which defined birthright citizenship for a Chinese national.
I think the parents had legal status in the U.S., but they weren't citizens.
And the kid who was born got birthright citizenship.
And this has accelerated in recent years, but it's never really been defined.
So President Trump said he's going to take away birthright citizenship through an executive order.
This is probably the best way to do this.
I think it's better than legislation.
This is the best way to do it.
Because ultimately...
Because this is a matter of constitutional interpretation, this is going to come down to a court case.
This is going to be defined by the Supreme Court.
This is why it was very important to elect Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, because President Trump and Cocaine Mitch have gotten a zillion federal judges on the bench and two excellent Supreme Court justices.
So we've now got conservative, originalist justices on the bench and at the federal courts who could define this.
If President Trump tried to Go through the legislative process to take away birthright citizenship, which should be taken away.
We'll go into that in a second.
But to take away this fictional right to birthright citizenship, first of all, it would bog down the Congress forever.
They'd get nothing else done.
We wouldn't get more tax cuts.
We wouldn't get what is being hinted at as the possibility of entitlement reform.
We wouldn't get any of those things.
It would bog them down.
We would probably lose certain legislators in swing districts that It would be demagogued constantly.
It would be demagogued as taking away citizenship from Americans, as taking away citizenship from poor little kids or something.
It would be a real mess, and it would ultimately be challenged in the courts anyway.
So it wouldn't actually get us any further than this executive order will.
At least by doing this executive order, first of all, it's immediately going to be challenged and probably...
Be stopped or suspended by a left-wing court and then it's going to work its way up and eventually make it to the Supreme Court.
That's probably what has to happen.
You know, 150 years later, you know, a century and a half later, it's probably time that we define what the 14th Amendment has to say about birthright citizenship.
There's an argument to be made for either side, fine, but...
Certainly at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, it was not considered that the 14th Amendment gave birthright citizenship to Guatemalan nationals who happened to be in the United States, or Chinese nationals for that matter.
So I can't wait for it to go through the courts.
It's also great timing because the midterms are coming up.
Illegal immigration is a big winner in the United States.
Sovereignty is a big winner issue in the United States for conservatives.
And so even the timing is great, but obviously...
Obviously, if Donald Trump knows anything about politics, it's about the media of politics.
It's about the cameras of politics.
I will point out even in that clip on HBO, he's wearing a gold and green tie.
I've been advocating this for years.
I've been advocating the green tie for years for Republicans.
I hate that we have to wear red ties.
They stuck us with it.
It was really Tim Russert who did that.
They used to alternate between blue and red for Republicans and Democrats.
Then sometime around the year 2000, they decided, I think it was, I actually sort of blame Tim Russert for this, that Republicans were red and Democrats are blue.
But red is awful.
We have bad associations with red.
Red is the color of communists.
Red is the color of stop signs and stoplights.
Red is the color of danger, of fire.
And it's associated with Republicans, which is absurd because the reds, the commie pinko reds, are now the Democrat Party, which has embraced socialists, 40-plus socialist candidates across the country, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now running as Jenny from the block, even though she's from Westchester.
So I actually even love that he's wearing that because green is the color of money, gold is the color of...
Donald Trump, I guess, so it's a fine combination.
This is a sidebar, but I really hope that conservatives embrace that in the future.
I also want to point out, by making this announcement on HBO, not on Fox News, not on Fox and Friends, but on HBO, you're triggering a huge lefty audience.
And you're teaching a civics lesson.
I've long said that President Trump, whether he knows anything about our Constitution, anything about our system of government, or checks and balances, or what the various branches do, I don't even care if he knows about those.
He is the greatest civics teacher that we have had, certainly in my lifetime, probably in modern American history.
Because he is forcing people to debate fairly basic aspects of our government that have been neglected.
Before this, what percentage of the population would you say knew that there is a long-standing debate over what the 14th Amendment says about birthright citizenship?
Two people?
Three people?
The people in this room and the people watching this show maybe?
Very few people knew that.
And now when Trump says it, you know, President Trump, I love this strategy.
I love it when other conservatives do this too, to stake out the extreme position and And then you trigger the other side into losing their minds and taking a much more extreme position on the other side and then figuring out where the reality lies.
And in that situation, it lies more on the conservative side.
The argument for birthright citizenship is pretty weak.
And if there was an argument in the bygone days of yonder...
Now there's much less of an argument because there's a much more robust welfare state.
So birthright citizenship implies a certain monetary value, a certain property value that comes at the expense of native-born citizens or of naturalized citizens.
So I'm really glad we're having this debate.
This gets back to the classic Trump move that really started to win me over even during the primary campaign when I was very skeptical of him.
He was talking to a reporter about the question of anchor babies.
Here he is.
You mean it's not politically correct and yet everybody uses it?
So you know what?
Give me a different term.
Give me a different term.
What else would you like to say?
You want me to say that?
Okay.
I'll use the word anchor baby.
Excuse me.
I'll use the word anchor baby.
Oh, you want me to say the future undocumented bird?
Yeah, you want, okay, no, I'm going to say the word anchor baby.
And it threw it into stark relief.
We've all used the term anchor baby.
Donald Trump didn't invent this term.
We've used it for decades to describe the process of people who come to the United States while they're pregnant, when they're just about to give birth, to have the baby, to get one of the most valuable things on earth, which is American citizenship for their child.
In part for what it'll do for the child, and in part then because it can stir chain migration and bring the rest of the family over when the kid has a U.S. citizenship.
And because you can't then deport the kid who has U.S. citizenship, and you're probably not going to deport his parents.
So the left has been euphemizing this forever.
Say, oh no, we've got to use this, we've got to use this.
And he says, no, it's anchor babies.
This is really happening.
You know, this is not, President Trump sometimes exaggerates things.
Conservatives can exaggerate things.
This is not being exaggerated.
There is such an industry as birth tourism, specifically among Chinese women, especially here in California, we see it.
There were articles going back way before the Trump era, way before Trump was running for president, which described these compounds for birth tourism.
And one article about it described them, quote, like a brothel in reverse, which is a very charming description, I think.
It really does explain what it is.
It's these women.
You get a dozen, two dozen women in a dirty room, a filthy room.
Can you even imagine this?
You get a dozen or two dozen six-month pregnant women.
Oh, dear God, what hell on earth that must be.
And they're all just in this room together in these shabby conditions, dirt, filth everywhere.
And they're paying a ton of money to do it.
In 2015, a year before the 2016 election, there was a big article about this, quote, the tourist baby boom bringing Chinese women to the U.S. to have their babies as a growth business and homeland security is cracking down.
That wasn't homeland security under the Obama administration.
That was homeland security under, or rather, it wasn't homeland security under the Trump administration.
It was under the Obama administration.
It was under a Democrat government.
Because it's highly immoral to have these women living in the shadows, living in filthy conditions, just to exploit a loophole in the present non-enforcement of our immigration regime.
It's also criminal.
It's not criminal to come to the United States if you're pregnant.
That one you still can do.
But it is visa fraud to lie about your intentions.
It is visa fraud to lie and say you're going on vacation when really what you're doing is staying in the U.S. for two or three months or four months to have a baby and get U.S. citizenship for that baby.
It is lying when you say that you're just going for the tacos or something when really you've paid an agency to set up a living condition for you to have your child and exploit this hole in the immigration system.
As of 2012, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 36,000 pregnancy tourists would come from around the world every year just in 2012.
36,000.
That's not nobody.
I know that in a country of 300 million, that doesn't seem like very much.
But for a relatively new industry, that is a pretty shocking number.
It shows that there are pretty entrenched business interests here.
And obviously, this doesn't only apply to Chinese women.
And Taiwanese women, this applies to Latin American people who have been exploiting the porous border with Mexico for decades.
And not just them exploiting it, it's actually the left in America and Democrats in America who are exploiting those people who desperately want to make it to the U.S. and encouraging them to commit crimes, to skip the line, to undermine our immigration laws, and to make it over here knowing that we're not going to kick them out.
This creates very, very perverse incentives.
And this empowers really bad hombres.
To borrow a phrase from our current immigration debate, really bad people get empowered by this because all, we were talking about this yesterday, all we see, all the left wants us to see is the cute little baby shot at American Future, cute little woman wants her son to be pregnant.
We'll get to that story later about the two pregnant lesbians who carry the same child.
The woman wants her son to have an American future, American citizenship.
Right, I understand.
I love being an American.
It's one of the greatest blessings one can imagine on earth.
But the country can't support everybody and we need to have laws.
We need to be a country of laws that governs ourselves, that also allows people who are citizens to run this country.
So when you've got these awful incentives, especially with a welfare system such as ours, which is so, so generous everywhere, and an immigration regime that isn't enforced, You encourage these predators, these human traffickers, these coyotes, to bring pregnant women across, to bring young girls across.
And we know from that study, from Fusion and from Amnesty International, that 60-80% of women and girls who are brought across that border illegally are raped or sexually assaulted.
That is a horrible thing that you're encouraging, but you are encouraging it.
And even birthright citizenship, even just that, is encouraging the breaking of this law.
So you've got to think, who is birthright citizenship helping?
It's helping illegal aliens who are cutting the line, who are damaging, who are undermining our immigration system, who are disadvantaging people who are doing their part and following the rules and waiting in line.
It's benefiting...
Illegal aliens of another sort who are these birth tourists who fly in from China, have the kid, and fly back.
It's benefiting coyotes and human smugglers and drug traffickers who use these humans that they're ferreting across the border to carry drugs and to bring crime in and to empower the cartels down there.
And it's encouraging Democrats who want to flood the country with illegal aliens because they think statistically, eventually with an amnesty, they'll get more of those voters.
So, you know, I'm not saying that's in any particular order, by the way, in order of how heinous that is.
But it's really benefiting pretty terrible people.
Why would we continue that?
Why would we continue to leave that incentive there when we could correct it when it's not in the Constitution itself?
Um...
I mean, this is a topic of serious concern.
You know who's not concerned, though?
Shepard Smith.
I sometimes, my friends who are on the left, they say, oh, Michael, I hate Fox News.
I never watch Fox.
When they refer to Fox News, they're really referring to every right-wing outlet.
Fox is just the one that's on cable.
They say, oh, you know, but I kind of like Shepard Smith.
Say, right, you like the one, the Democrat.
Yeah, you like the left winger at the network.
That's why.
No, no.
He's at Fox.
No, he is a left winger.
And he's really, really going out pretty far these days.
Here is Shepard Smith talking about that caravan that's making its way up through Latin America, now whittled down to 5,000, from 14 down to 7, now down to 5.
Here is Shepard Smith's hot take on it.
Tomorrow.
The migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away, if any of them actually come here.
But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about.
There is no invasion.
No one's coming to get you.
There's nothing at all to worry about.
When they did this to us, got us all riled up in April, remember?
The result was 14 arrests.
We're America.
We can handle it.
Yes, that's right, Shepard.
There were only 14 arrests, which is a terrible thing because we have 1,000 people at least crossing the border every single day.
That is something to worry about.
That is, one, because of everything we just spoke about, all of the perverse incentives of illegal immigration.
Two, because of the cultural question of assimilation.
We like to bring in a lot of people into America.
We want people to send their best, to quote the president.
But assimilation is very difficult under the best of circumstances.
Right now we have the highest foreign-born percentage of the population since 1890, I think, 1880 or 1890.
And that's very difficult when you have half of the country discouraging assimilation, discouraging becoming Americans and entering into that melting pot.
Also, we'll see when they get here.
Right now, some of these migrants, apparently, the leaders of them, are demanding that Mexico pay for fast transportation up to the United States.
They're demanding, quote, safe and dignified transportation from this foreign government to bring them to another foreign government so that they can violate their immigration laws up there.
So certainly this group of illegal aliens is not their best.
They're trying to pretend that it's a bunch of cute little children who just want a better life.
All of the people that I've seen interviewed, and I've watched a lot of footage over the last week or two, these are guys.
I mean, these are grown men who are angry.
There was a dispute at the Mexican border, the southern Mexican border the other day.
People were injured.
It turned violent.
So, Shepard Smith is preening here.
He's saying it's no big deal.
We should just have open borders.
We're America.
It doesn't matter.
We're America, so therefore we don't need an immigration system.
We're America, so therefore we don't have the right to control who enters our country.
So he's preening about this.
I wonder, every time that Shepard makes one of these comments, how many votes does he win for the Republican Party in the midterms?
Every time he says, come on, stop complaining about open borders.
Like, well, all right, another 10,000 for the GOP. Oh, come on, stop it.
It doesn't matter if foreign nationals invade your country and lower wages, particularly for unskilled labor.
That doesn't matter.
Okay, another 20,000 votes for the GOP. Chalk it up.
Keep it up.
I really enjoy it.
When the left is honest about what they really think.
At least Shepard Smith.
One, he's a pretty entertaining broadcaster.
And two, he's honest about what he thinks.
He says, yeah, it doesn't matter.
Open borders.
Cross the border.
It doesn't matter one little bit.
I don't care about the law.
I don't care that you care about the law.
I don't care how you want to govern the country.
I want lawlessness.
Alright, at least you're honest.
That's an argument.
Would that the entire Democrat Party were as honest as Shepard Smith?
It's a really unpopular point of view, but that's the one that they're holding now.
And if only we could go up to every Democrat running for office and say, what will you do about the caravan?
I think Claire McCaskill would be the only one at this point who would actually say, no, keep them back, keep them back.
But so many are now held hostage by the base of their party, the far left base.
And speaking about how everything is Trump's fault, that's just the theme of today's show.
Several weeks of shows, probably until the midterms, we're going to talk about how everything is Trump's fault according to the left.
President Trump is being criticized and blamed for anti-Semitism in America in the wake of that shooting in Pittsburgh.
Now, where is the anti-Semitism in America?
We know that President Trump is the most pro-Israel president probably in American history.
They have a train station dedicated to him in Jerusalem.
You know, his daughter is a convert to Judaism.
His son-in-law is being put in charge of Middle East peace.
We know that this guy is very, very pro-Israel.
Where is anti-Semitism in America, though?
It's all on the left.
It's in the boycott, divest, and sanction movement, which holds that the Jewish state is an apartheid government, which encourages students on campuses across the country to have their universities divest, pull money out of Israel, not participate in academic conferences in Israel.
I think Stephen Hawking, before he died, pulled out of an academic conference because he hates Israel that much.
The left, the academic and political left, despise the Israeli state.
Recently at the University of Michigan, there were two professors Who refused to write letters of recommendation for students to study in Israel.
Why?
Because they hate the state of Israel.
They don't consider it legitimate.
They want it to disappear.
At UC Irvine, which is not very far from us in Los Angeles, at UC Irvine, they have an anti-Zionism week.
Weak.
Imagine if you went down to Irvine wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
Probably they would shut down the campus.
There would be a hate crime alert.
You'd be expelled if you were a student at the university.
But for a week, they have Anti-Zionism Week, which portrays Jews and the Jewish state as monsters, as tyrants, as oppressors.
That's where the anti-Semitism is.
How about Louis Farrakhan?
Remember, I don't...
I mean, there is the occasional lunatic...
Fringe on the right, who would call himself on the right, who hates Jews and hates Israel.
This guy who shot up the synagogue in Pittsburgh probably would call himself on the right.
Though it's worth pointing out, he hates Donald Trump and spoke at length about how he hates Donald Trump and opposes Donald Trump and didn't vote for Donald Trump.
But, you know, probably in some broad sense he would consider himself on the right.
What about on the left?
They associate with one of the worst hate mongers in recent American history, Louis Farrakhan, in his own words.
The satanic Jews!
They control everything and mostly everybody.
You are not the chosen of God.
You are the chosen of Satan.
I'm talking about the wicked ones in the Jewish community that run America, run the government, run the world, own the banks, own the means of communication.
They are my enemies.
I just can't tell.
I just can't.
What does Louis Farrakhan think about the Jews?
I just can't tell.
The other day he went out and he said, I'm not an anti-Semite.
I'm anti-termite.
You get it?
Do you get it?
That guy posed for pictures with Barack Obama smiling.
Oh, hee hee.
There's Obama smiling right next to him.
The media covered that picture up, by the way, for a long time.
He was just in an event.
He was at Aretha Franklin's funeral on the stage with Bill Clinton.
That is the mainstream of the left.
That's the mainstream of the Democrat Party.
And the party itself has turned against Israel in recent years.
The GOP has full-throatedly embraced Israel, wholeheartedly embraced Israel, and more so even in recent years.
Why is that?
One, they're reliable allies in that region, probably the only reliable ally in that region.
Two, it's in our interest because we get good intelligence from them, they help fight terrorism over in the Middle East.
And also because of justice, because the Jewish state has a right to exist.
And where is it going to exist?
It's going to exist in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.
That's it.
That's it.
That is justice.
Some people think it would be justice if the Jewish state were wiped off the face of the earth.
I don't think that would be justice.
And I don't think the people who claim to have a right to that land have a right to that land.
But it's certainly just for the Jewish state to exist, and it seems that it should exist in the historical homeland of the Jewish people.
That's the position of conservatives.
That's the position of Republicans.
Not the position of the left, which seeks to destroy the Jewish state.
And yet, they spout this idiocy all the time.
And then they turned it up to 11.
Right before the midterms, you know, they're so angry.
They really thought that after Kavanaugh, the GOP polling was going to decrease.
It didn't.
It went in the opposite direction.
They were really hoping that there would be something that would stop the Republicans from still having momentum.
And so Julia Eoff, is it Eoff or Eoff?
I only ever read her name.
Joff, is that how you pronounce it?
I don't know.
Loff, Koff, I don't know.
Julia, though, Julie, was on CNN. She's a writer for GQ. And she decided that she was going to turn her hot takes up to 11 right before the midterm elections.
I'll let her say it.
I think, you know, this president, one of the things that he really launched his presidential run on is talking about Islamic radicalization.
And this president has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.
I mean, the way he talks, the way he...
The way he talks, the way that he allows these people, the way he winks and nods to these groups.
What?
So how many people do we think ISIS radicalized?
How many, like, more than one?
Then they radicalized more than Donald Trump.
And probably Donald Trump didn't even radicalize one.
She obviously doesn't mean this literally.
How many countless Islamic terrorists are roaming the earth, killing the innocent, slaughtering the innocent in evil acts?
How many?
How many thousands?
Over the course of history, how many millions?
Very many.
How many has Donald Trump radicalized?
What does she mean by that?
What she's trying to do is link Donald Trump to acts of violence.
So we just had this Pittsburgh shooting at the synagogue.
The guy hated Donald Trump.
That guy hated Donald Trump.
What about the guy in Florida, the most incompetent pipe bomber in all of human history?
Didn't even get one of them to go off.
We still don't really know anything about the guy other than he's an ex-stripper homeless person.
Was he radicalized by Trump?
I don't know.
He seemed to be pretty loony tunes before Donald Trump ever came along, but I guess he liked him.
So how many were radicalized by Bernie Sanders and shot up the congressional baseball game and almost killed Steve Scalise?
How many was that?
How many people were radicalized by them?
I don't know.
How many people have been radicalized by the left?
How many of those mobs, those screaming mobs in the streets, the ones who go to Republicans' houses and restaurants, How many were radicalized by the left?
Far more.
Far, far more.
And what's amazing is that on CNN, which says, facts first, I'm a banana, apples are bananas, whatever their slogan is, they have on this woman, Julia Ioffoff, and they're presenting her as the serious person.
I bet she went to a good school.
You know, she has credentialed.
She has a good credential.
She writes for magazines.
She's a really serious person.
And she says something that if a ninth grade student said it, you'd smack them and say, don't be so stupid.
What a stupid thing to say.
And she says that on CNN. They say, oh, wow.
Wow, yeah.
You said words.
Yeah, wow.
Really impactful.
Talking about stupid words, impactful.
So that's the left.
They've got nothing.
And obviously they're the boy who cried wolf here.
They told us.
They told us the sky would fall if Trump were elected.
Everything's gotten better.
So now they're saying he's worse than ISIS? Okay, what else you got?
What else you got?
I can't wait until they tell us more.
And they try to say that he's a white nationalist.
I Well, we've got to get to that once I get back from...
I've got to send people over to dailywire.com.
I'm sorry, I have to do it.
We've got that, plus we've got the lesbian couple that both carried the baby, and we've got goop.
We're going to talk all about goop and conscious uncoupling from Gwyneth Paltrow.
But you can only get that if you go to dailywire.com.
If you're on Facebook and YouTube...
I'm amazed that they haven't kicked you off yet.
Go to dailywire.com.
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.
You get all that stuff.
It doesn't matter.
This is what you get.
This is a special collaboration between the Daily Wire and Goop, the Leftist Tears, all super porous, organic, zen crystal tumbler.
It's made out of healing crystals that, well, they heal you, but the way that they heal you is from the little salt crystals from Leftist Tears that are inside the tumbler.
So go to dailywire.com to get the special Goop edition tumbler.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
I just like saying goop.
We're going to move on to the Goop story just so I can keep talking about Goop.
Goop is the company that Gwyneth Paltrow founded and it's all natural.
It's really good for the spirit and soul and it's all linked, man.
Anyway, they are getting sued into oblivion right now because they're damaging people's lives and lying blatantly on their website.
The Good Thinking Society Which is a watchdog, has identified 113 misleading claims on the Goop website.
Goop, you know, it's this hippy-dippy modern thing.
And Gwyneth Paltrow, by the way, has already settled a lawsuit over the porous jade and quartz egg, which was used by women, by very, very gullible and or stupid women, to treat endometriosis.
If you don't know what that is, don't Google it.
Putting porous jade eggs into your body is not terribly hygienic.
You know, this is a family show.
I don't want to scar children who might be watching it.
Anyway, she was able to settle that lawsuit, and now they're getting dinged with a lot more misleading claims.
I really like this story because it just goes to show you how...
How hypocritical the apparently pro-science left is?
You always hear, we're the party of science.
We believe in science, whatever that means.
They're the same people who put crystals on their chakras and read their horoscopes and put jade eggs where jade eggs do not belong.
And the reason for this is that everybody's got to serve somebody and that there is a metaphysical basis for our physical sciences.
So, you know, all of the pioneers of science...
were devout Christians, virtually all of them.
Newton spent decades interpreting scripture, Francis Bacon, on and on and on.
If you don't ground your physical science with a metaphysical foundation, with a strong traditional metaphysical foundation, you're going to wander into these bizarro world metaphysics of crystals and chakras and witchcraft and whatever. you're going to wander into these bizarro world metaphysics of Mysticism.
You You know, there was another story that came out that witchcraft is on the rise among millennials.
And anecdotally, we know this because there were the Brooklyn witches who put a hex on Kavanaugh and all of these, Vox.com was encouraging people to practice witchcraft.
Apparently, though, the statistics bear this out that millennials are leaning toward witchcraft.
Why is that?
It's because you've got to serve somebody.
People have a natural religious longing, a longing for the divine, a longing for the transcendent.
And when they've rejected the religion of their civilization, the religion of their culture, the religion that created their culture, Christianity...
They're going to fall for something else because that longing will not go unsatisfied for very long.
So here is from the Goop website.
Here is from Our Values.
Quote,"...we believe that the little things count, that good food is the foundation of love and wellness, that the mind slash body slash spirit is inextricably linked, and we have more control over how we express our health than we currently understand." Now, I will point out that is technically a true statement.
We do have more control over our health than the people at Goop understand.
That is absolutely true.
And they're also identifying something true, which is that our bodies and our minds and our spirits are inextricably linked.
Some people, some modern people, want to pretend that we don't have a spirit, or we don't have a mind, that we're just a physical thing.
And other modern people want to pretend that we're modern-day Gnostics, that the body is nothing, it's meaningless, all that matters are ideas.
But we know that actually we're both soul and body, that we're both flesh and metaphysical.
And the Goop people understand this, they just take it in a completely kooky direction.
They go on, quote, Our values.
We know who we are.
Our words and actions are aligned.
And we take a curious, unbiased, open-minded, and service-centric approach to what we do.
We test the waters so that you don't have to.
God help whichever member of the Goop staff tested the jade egg.
I hope they got good workers' comp for it.
I want to focus on one word here.
They say that they are open-minded.
They're curious.
They're unbiased.
They're open-minded.
They are biased.
And they are closed-minded in some way.
To be open-minded, you have to be closed-minded.
To be unbiased, you have to arrive at certain judgments and conclusions.
To be open-minded, you have to be willing to conclude that certain ideas are wrong.
It doesn't just mean if you're completely open-minded.
If you're open-minded and you won't make any judgments, then you'll be so open-minded that your brain falls out of your head.
You have to make certain judgments.
To be open-minded is to entertain many ideas, but ultimately you have to reach conclusions.
That's the only way you can move on to other ideas.
But they're pretending that they don't have to do that.
They're saying we're not biased.
Well, what does that mean?
Does that mean you don't reach judgments?
Certainly they reached some judgments.
They decided that the jade egg was better than the, I don't know, crystal egg.
I don't know if it really is, but probably the crystal egg would have been better.
Who knows?
They've reached that conclusion.
They've reached that judgment.
They're pretending that they haven't.
People are a little too closed-minded, open-minded in modern society.
They're so close-minded about their definition of open-mindedness.
They're not very open-minded.
They're so tolerant that they don't tolerate anything that disagrees with them.
You've got to be able to reach conclusions.
That's not wrong.
That's not harmful.
That's not hurtful.
To say this is true and this is false and moving on, I'm not going to put a jade egg where a jade egg should not be.
This brings us, of course, to the Texas lesbians who are both carrying the same baby.
How did they do it?
I'll let them tell you themselves.
I wanted to be pregnant for so long and so bad.
I always wanted to have a child.
I just didn't want to carry the child.
Ashley and Bliss knew welcoming their own biological child would require a sperm donor and some creativity.
Obviously, us being two women, we were like, how can we make this happen?
We felt like, you know, there has to be a way.
Turns out, there is a way for both women to carry the same baby.
Alright, I'll spare you the rest of that and I'll give you the Cliffsnose version, which is that when people get in vitro fertilization, the way it happens is that they'll go to a sperm bank, they'll get some sperm, they will incubate the sperm and the egg in a little incubator for a little bit and then they'll implant it into the mother.
What this new process has done is taken the sperm and the egg, They've incubated the sperm and the egg in a little contraption inside one of the women.
And then at the point when they would typically implant this into the mother, they've taken it out of the first woman and put it into the second woman.
So the first woman really gets off pretty easy here because she's only got to carry the baby for like five minutes and then, you know, for a week or however long it is.
And then after that period, the other woman carries the baby for nine months and they've both carried the baby.
I'll tell you what I like about this story.
What I like about this story is the story acknowledges that the baby is a baby.
Because they're saying, we've both carried the baby.
We both carried the baby in our wombs.
Well, wait a sec.
You only carried the baby for a week.
You carried the baby for a very small amount of time.
The first woman only carried the baby for a much shorter period of time than the pro-abortion left wants to pretend that the baby isn't a baby.
And with this process, these women are admitting that one week, that two week old baby is a baby.
Then it goes into the other woman.
That's the only good thing I can say about this.
But I will observe that this is totally indicative of our culture, which is utterly self-adoring.
It is looking inward at oneself.
It is only looking at one's personal desires and personal needs.
To begin, in vitro fertilization results in multiple eggs being fertilized, multiple infinitesimally small human beings being begotten.
Being created, being begotten, really more precise to say begotten, and then those are discarded.
The ones that they don't want are discarded.
They're either frozen or they're killed.
So you've got brand new human life coming together, independent human life, and then being snuffed out.
That's the essential problem with in vitro fertilization.
The other problem here is that This baby is being begotten for the desires of these two women.
And that baby is being denied the right to his father.
It's one thing to say we're going to adopt a baby who's been abandoned by his parents or the parents don't think that they can care for him or that the father ran out because he's a degenerate or for whatever reason we're going to adopt this baby.
That's taking a situation and making it better.
In this situation you are intentionally begetting a child who will not know his father Who will be deprived of his father.
Who will be deprived of his natural right to his parents.
That's awful.
That's a terrible thing.
And we shouldn't encourage it as a culture.
I understand why some people are confused about this.
We should stop being confused, and we should speak clearly about it.
Then, the entire aspect of this is a woman says, oh, I really wanted to be pregnant, but I didn't want to have to be pregnant for that long.
Oh, well, I was willing to be pregnant for a little bit as long as we could be pregnant in this way and that.
And I want this and I want this.
And all through the night, I'm my, I'm my, I'm my, I'm my.
But getting a child, having a child is not about you.
It's about the child.
It's about passing on human life, this great gift of human life that we have been given from God through our parents.
We're giving it to somebody else for them, for them to have life.
Not for you, not for your enjoyment.
Not so that you can design a baby whole cloth.
Say, oh, it should look like this because that's where we're getting to with, well, we've had selective abortions for a long time.
Sex selective abortions, abortions that are designed to snuff out disabled populations.
And very soon, particularly with the advance of gene therapy, we'll be able to choose eye colors.
We'll be able to choose hair colors.
We'll be able to choose this or choose that.
And the way we'll choose it is by killing the babies that we don't want and keeping the babies that we do want.
And that's a morally repugnant situation.
That's a situation where the baby is a pet for the parents.
When parents do this, because we all know parents who treat their children as little pets, as little playthings just for them, especially, you know, you see it in Hollywood with the stage parents who are living vicariously through their kids who are almost always miserable and screwed up because of it.
And we criticize it when we see it in parents day to day and yet we're encouraging it in this new technological and cultural advance.
It's a really scary thing.
It creates pretty funny little bizarre clips on news shows, on the evening news.
But, you know, this which is now being seen as bizarre now will be mainstream within six months or a year.
I mean, it's going to happen really quickly.
And we've got to speak with clarity against it because it is all we look at here Oh, that's so nice.
Those two women love each other and now they can have this experience together that they both wanted.
In the beginning of a child, but we're not talking about the child and the rights that the child should have and how the child should be brought up and what the purpose of having a child is and what the process for having a child is.
Okay, I'm getting off my soapbox.
I went straight from LAX when I got in from all those speeches to my soapbox here, and now I'm getting off my soapbox and going to my purple mattress and going to bed.
Ha ha!
Because I've been awake for about eight days straight now and feeling a little delirious.
And I'll probably be just as delirious tomorrow, so tune back in.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
I'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection