All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show
42:30
Ep. 269 - All I Want For Christmas Is $5 Billion

The government may shut down, and the Trump Foundation does shut down. An 11-year-old boy dances in drag for dollar bills at a gay bar in Brooklyn, a man almost becomes Miss Universe, and the New York Times calls for the extinction of the human race. Date: 12-18-2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Nancy baby, slip five billion under the tree for me.
Nancy, I've been an awfully good boy.
Nancy baby, or we're gonna shut down the government tonight, and we absolutely should.
We will analyze the stakes of the impending Government Christmas shutdown.
Then, speaking of shutdowns, the Trump Foundation dissolves amid accusations of improperly spending funds.
An 11-year-old boy dances in drag for dollar bills at a gay bar in Brooklyn.
What else is new?
A woman almost becomes Miss Universe.
I'm sorry, a man almost becomes Miss Universe.
I know that's confusing.
And the New York Times calls for the extinction of the human race.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
Talk about a confusing day of news.
We've got so much to get to in the week before Christmas.
But first, let's make a little money, honey, with Mint Mobile.
There is nothing better about the holiday season than unwrapping a brand new phone.
Until you get hit with a brand new monthly phone bill.
You didn't see that one coming.
Big wireless providers can really suck the joy out of the holiday season.
So this year, don't just upgrade your phone.
Upgrade your wireless provider and switch to Mint Mobile.
For a limited time, Mint Mobile is offering the best holiday deal in wireless you've ever seen.
Three months of service for only $20.
This is a limited time offer.
Three months for $20.
That is significantly less than you're paying now, I bet.
It's only here for a limited time.
$20.
Three months of wireless service with 5GB of 4G LTE data each month, plus unlimited talk and text.
Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
You can keep your old phone number along with all your existing contacts.
Mint Mobile runs on the nation's fastest, most advanced LTE network if you're not 100% satisfied, but you will be.
Mint Mobile has you covered with a 7-day money-back guarantee.
Ditch the old wireless bill.
Start saving with Mint Mobile.
Get 3 months of wireless for $20.
Get the holiday deal before it's gone.
Get the plan shipped to your door for free by going to mintmobile.com slash covfefe.
That's mintmobile.com slash covfefe.
Covfefe.
C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Three months of service for just $20 at, you guessed it, mintmobile.com slash covfefe.
All I want for Christmas is $5 billion and a wall.
Is that so much to ask?
Is that so much to ask for?
Christmas is right around the corner.
I've been an awfully good boy, Santa baby.
We're looking at a very real possibility of a government shutdown.
This is interesting timing for a shutdown because everyone is tuned out of the news.
Christmas is around the corner.
New Year's is around the corner.
People aren't doing work.
Half of our staff is probably on a beach in Boca right now.
And so this timing isn't the best time to draw attention To the stakes of a shutdown.
But it might be the best time to shut it down because people won't really care.
You won't catch a lot of political flack.
And President Trump might be able to get his wall.
That's what this is all about.
There have been two distinct responses from the White House about this.
As always, you know, the White House is sending different people out on TV, and they have very different tactics on the shutdown.
You remember President Trump was arguing with Chuck and Nancy on the best reality television show in the world, and he said to Chuck Schumer, I'll own it, I'll take responsibility for the shutdown, I will shut down the government to protect our border.
And Democrats were thrilled because they got Trump to say that he was going to shut down the government.
The question is, do you take responsibility for it or do you try to say that it's really the Democrats' fault and really the Democrats are shutting down the government?
Stephen Miller clearly favors the former approach.
Here he is on Face the Nation.
To this question of the border wall, which I know you're a huge advocate for.
We are about five days from potential government shutdown, and Republican leadership says there's no plan.
What is the president's plan, and will he shut it down to get this $5 billion in border wall funding?
We're going to do whatever is necessary to build the border wall to stop this ongoing crisis of illegal immigration.
And that means shutdown?
If it comes to it, absolutely.
This is a very fundamental issue.
At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country, whether or not we can establish and enforce rules for entrance into our country.
The Democrat Party is a simple choice.
They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration.
You can't do both.
Is there...
Totally comes out swinging this guy, one of the best people in the administration, and he's coming out and saying, yep, we'll shut it down.
We own it.
That's what's going to happen because we want to protect the border.
Now, here is White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders giving the opposite approach.
The president wants $5 billion.
Would he take $2.5 billion?
Would that be an acceptable number?
We would take, we have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion that we will work with Congress if they will make sure that we get a bill passed that provides not just the funding for the wall, but there's a piece of legislation that's been pushed around that Democrats actually voted.
26 to 5 out of committee that provides roughly $26 billion in border security, including $1.6 billion for the wall.
That's something that we would be able to support as long as we can couple that with other funding resources that would help us get to the $5 billion.
So you see there when Stephen Miller is on the show, he says, I'm not going to negotiate.
I'm not going to try to figure out this negotiation on live television.
We're going to get the money or we're shutting down the government.
Sarah Sanders goes on TV and says, well, you know, there are other ways to get the money for the wall.
And well, maybe we don't need to shut down the government.
Well, I'm not so sure.
We'll see what happens.
And then Kellyanne Conway, a senior advisor to the president, gives the clearest version of this, which is she says, we do not want to shut down the government on Lou Dobbs.
Well, with the ultimate dealmaker in the Oval Office, Lou, I believe that there is a much better chance of getting a deal than not.
But look, the President wants to keep the government open.
He just doesn't want the borders to remain open the way they are.
He wants there to be full funding for the government, but that funding must include adequate funding for border security.
I don't know if he can be any more clear on this issue.
And I don't know if we can see any more excerpts from Democrats in the past who voted for Secure Fences Act in 2006, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and the whole lot of them.
And then of course you've seen all the video clips of them supporting borders and security before.
So they need to come up and vote.
The president doesn't want to shut down the government.
He couldn't be more clear.
Now, of course, the president did say, I will own the government shutdown.
I will shut down the government.
He said it in the Oval Office.
Stephen Miller said just about the same thing.
But what Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway are doing is taking the much more traditional approach, which has been the longstanding conventional wisdom, which is you don't want to...
Bear responsibility for a government shutdown.
Voters will punish you for that.
It won't do you well at the ballot box in the next elections.
What President Trump and Stephen Miller are doing is taking the new Trumpian, more assertive, more masculine approach, which is, yup, you're darn tootin' that we're gonna shut down the government and we're gonna do it for a good reason and you should be thrilled that we're gonna do it.
I favor that approach.
I think that is the right approach.
I think the conventional wisdom is wrong.
I think people, especially in this political moment, don't want to hear mealy-mouthed people.
Don't want to hear about how we want to have conciliation with Democrats who are advocating for open borders.
We really want to keep the government open.
Shut it down.
Who cares?
Most of the government is already funded.
People are forgetting this isn't a total government shutdown.
Most of the government is funded.
There are a few departments, Department of Homeland Security, Justice, I think State Department still needs some funding.
So those areas may have a partial shutdown.
Okay, fine.
Who cares?
So what?
Essential employees will remain on the dole.
They will remain on the job.
They will keep working.
And non-essential employees won't be working for now.
They'll ultimately be backpaid.
And we can make a point to get the wall.
I mean, this is a big winning issue.
The reason I favor this Trump and Stephen Miller approach, one is I don't think voters actually punish politicians for shutting down the government.
We had a big government shutdown in 2013, and then Republicans took the Senate in 2014.
They blame the Republicans in 2013.
A year later, they win the Senate.
I don't see evidence of that throughout recent history, but This is the approach that Ronald Reagan took.
There was a famous moment during the Reagan presidency where the air traffic controllers, federal workers, decided that they were going to go on strike.
And this was illegal.
It was illegal for these guys to go on strike.
It disrupted the nation's airways.
It disrupted a lot of travel.
And they're federal employees.
They're not allowed to do that.
They went on strike anyway after a long time negotiating with the government.
Everyone thought Reagan was going to cave in.
Well, you know, Nancy, we want to keep everybody on the job, but well, well, you know, he didn't do that at all.
Ronald Reagan stood firm, he gave exactly the same approach, to great effect.
It is for this reason that I must tell those who fail to report for duty this morning, they are in violation of the law, and if they do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.
Why not some lesser action at this point?
What lesser action can there be?
The law is very explicit.
They are violating the law.
And as I say, we call this to the attention of their leadership.
Whether this was conveyed to the membership before they voted to strike, I don't know.
But this is one of the reasons why there could be no further negotiation while this situation continues.
Classic Reagan, and this is where that great acting training that Reagan had came into play, where the reporter says, isn't there some lesser action you can undertake?
What lesser action can there be?
They violated the law.
And he was absolutely right.
They're violating the law.
They forfeit their jobs.
They will be terminated.
That was the right approach.
It broke that union, as it should have.
It certainly should have broken the federal union.
He stood for them, and he won.
This is a winning issue for Republicans.
CBS poll shows 51% of Americans, the majority of Americans, want a border wall.
Think about that.
They mocked us for years about the border wall on the left.
The majority of Americans, according to CBS, want it.
54%, according to a Harvard poll, want an electronic and a physical structure, which is to say, a wall.
There was this terrible story over the weekend.
Of this seven-year-old Guatemalan girl crossing the border illegally with her father.
She's apprehended.
She dies in custody.
And immediately the left blamed Border Patrol for this, blamed Republicans.
There's, of course, no evidence for that.
This poor girl's name was Jacqueline Cal Makin.
She and her father were arrested.
She started vomiting pretty quickly.
She was immediately airlifted by the United States government to a hospital in El Paso, Texas.
She had 105.9 degree temperature when she got to the station.
The agents revived the child twice.
They initially thought dehydration.
Now it looks like it was sepsis that did it.
The girl's father said the border agents did everything that they could.
It's not that he didn't feed her for days.
is that she couldn't eat food.
She couldn't drink.
She couldn't eat food.
They did everything they could to revive her, but she died anyway.
What did she die from?
She died from illegal immigration.
That's what she did.
This is the cause of, this is the effect of illegal immigration is this seven-year-old girl dies.
This is the effect of creating an incentive structure that gets people who are desperate to cross the border illegally, put their whole families at great risk, and die despite all the best medical care in the world, immediate medical care provided by the federal government.
We know the Fusion and Amnesty International studies show 60-80% of young women and girls who cross the border illegally are sexually assaulted or raped.
That is the moral argument against illegal immigration.
And it's the people who are incentivizing this awful system that have to take responsibility for this strategy, not the American government.
We've got a lot more to talk about, but first, we've got to make a little bit more money with Robinhood.
Robinhood is an investing app that lets you buy and sell stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptos all commission free.
This is a wonderful sponsor.
I love these guys.
It's simple and intuitive, clear design with data presented in an easy-to-digest way.
I like this.
I am financially mostly illiterate.
And what's great about Robinhood is you open up the app and it asks you all of these pertinent questions about what you want, what you're getting, who you are, what your age is, this, that, and the other thing.
And it will really shape how you invest in your financial strategy.
It's really good.
No commission fees.
Other brokerages charge up to $10 for every trade.
Robinhood doesn't charge commission fees.
You can trade stocks and keep all of your profits.
It is easy to understand.
There are charts and market data.
You can place a trade in just four taps on your smartphone.
This is very important.
You know, like you think of the old-timey guys, like, buy, buy, buy, sell, sell, sell.
You just go, tap, tap, tap.
It's really nice.
It really lets you channel your old-timey stock trader.
And you can learn by doing.
You learn how to invest as you build your portfolio.
This is my favorite part of Robinhood, is it actually teaches me how to invest just by the fact of doing it, by leading me along.
Robinhood is giving listeners a free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint to help build your portfolio.
Imagine if they'd given you that Apple stock in the 80s.
Gosh, you'd be a zillionaire by now.
Sign up at knowles.robinhood.com.
That is knowles.robinhood.com.
Do it now.
Speaking of things shutting down, the federal government may shut down, the Trump Foundation has officially shut down.
The left is so excited about this, and it's because they've never looked in a mirror.
It's because I think the left, collectively, they don't have any mirrors, so they're really thrilled about President Trump's charity, the Trump Foundation, shutting down.
They don't realize how poorly this reflects on them.
It's being shut down over a deal with the New York Attorney General.
The whole investigation into the Trump Foundation is because of the New York Attorney General.
A shocking pattern of illegality.
And they said that the foundation's decision to shut down was, quote, an important victory for the rule of law.
Yes, this Democrat New York Attorney General, she got her scalp.
You know, if the federal government won't overturn the 2016 election and take down Trump, the New York corrupt politicians will.
And okay, fine, they're trying to get Trump.
What is missing in this story, what they fail to mention, is that President Trump tried to shut down this foundation two years ago.
Actually, the only reason he didn't shut it down two years ago is because the AG was dragging it out for this investigation to try to embarrass Trump.
Now the AG says, yes, in 2018, we've got Trump to shut down his foundation.
No, what you did is you got it to take two years longer than it should have.
The reason that they're shutting it down is that they found that the foundation used some funds for business interests, and one claim is that they misused funds because the foundation settled claims against the foundation.
Which is perfectly reasonable.
That's not a misuse of funds.
That's not legitimate.
Now, they're saying they used foundation funds to resolve disputes against the Trump Organization, against the business.
Okay, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
I don't really know.
They say that the Trump Foundation promised to donate a lot of money to veterans, but then they only donated a lot of money to veterans.
This is actually a claim.
You remember in 2016, President Trump, there was a dispute over a debate or a candidate for him, and Trump said he would hold a rally and donate the money to veterans' charities.
They said, well, he didn't donate money to veterans' charities.
But then also, we do know that in 2016, the Trump Foundation donated a ton of money, millions of dollars, to veterans' charities.
So which is it?
They're trying to have it both ways.
It's very unclear.
Clearly, the foundation donated some money to charity.
Was it used improperly?
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
The left has two options here.
They can either compare it to the Clinton Foundation and say, see, you have a foundation too.
You guys are just as bad as our 2016 presidential candidate.
You guys are just as bad as the Clintons, the most important family in the Democratic.
Okay, never mind.
Maybe that doesn't work so well for them.
The other option is to say, look how corrupt President Trump is and not to draw any comparisons to the Clinton Foundation.
Obviously, there is a comparison.
There are two political family foundations that maybe misused money in some way.
Maybe they didn't.
They've had investigations into them.
Okay, there's that comparison.
But on substantive matters, there's really not much of a comparison between the Trump Foundation and the Clinton Foundation.
President Trump, when he was elected, decided to dissolve his foundation.
The Clintons, while Bill Clinton was president, created their foundation.
President Trump saw there might be a conflict of interest here, dissolves this foundation.
The Clintons create one, specifically at the end of Bill Clinton's term, 1997 I think it was founded, while Hillary is planning a run for the Senate, before she becomes Secretary of State, specifically to encourage bribes and corruption in her foundation.
Now, why was Trump's foundation's money misused?
It looks like it was sloppy mismanagement, basically.
I don't see evidence of some grand conspiracy here.
Why was the Clintons' money misused?
Because of a specific, deceptive campaign to take money from foreign governments in exchange for government favors.
The entire thing was set up to solicit bribes.
Obviously, the Trump Foundation wasn't set up to solicit bribes.
He wasn't in office for the vast majority of the Foundation's existence.
And then the main issue here is there's no comparison in the media treatment.
How did the media cover the Clinton Foundation?
Have they?
I don't know.
Have they covered the Clinton Foundation?
Not very much.
And this, they're spiking the football.
They're so excited.
We should actually be happy about this media treatment.
This is why mainstream media attacks against Trump don't work.
This is why conservatives are rallying around this guy.
This is why Christians, conservatives, why we're all defending the payments to the porn star.
Rightly so defending the payments to the porn star.
It's because of the abject hypocrisy here.
Because it is so unfair...
For the media and apparently the federal government and the state governments to go after President Trump for things that they completely let Democrats off the hook for.
You know, Marx, I think quoting Engels, said that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
And that's what we're seeing here.
That's what we're seeing playing out in the Trump Foundation.
We see the tragedy of the Clinton administration, the tragedy of Hillary Clinton's awful career in public service, all the damage she's done to our country.
And then you see it play out in the farce of President Trump.
And the thing about farces, we can admit, even supporters of President Trump can admit, a lot of his administration is funny.
A lot of it has given us great joy and laughter.
The tweets are funny.
Even a lot of the policies that overturn so many Democrat policies are very funny.
The farce can be a good thing.
It is, in some ways, born out of the culture that the Clinton administration created, and this is just the funny, good version of that.
The left simply can't take that joke.
So, moving on from farce, moving on from a happy story, we've got to talk about the most disturbing story in the news, maybe all year.
I actually don't know that there's a more disturbing story all year long.
There is an 11-year-old boy, Desmond Naples, who has the worst parents in the history of the world.
Maybe not like the history of the world.
I mean, some parents have eaten their children before.
I don't know.
I mean, that might be slightly worse.
This is pretty bad, though.
On December 1st, an 11-year-old boy named Desmond Naples, dressed up in drag, went to a gay bar in Brooklyn called the $3 Bill, and started dancing on the bar dressed as Gwen Stefani while the adult male patrons threw dollar bills at him.
And this was encouraged.
This was celebrated.
And the bar, by the way, the bar in Brooklyn, the $3 bill, doesn't allow any cameras, doesn't allow any cell phones in there because obviously they're up to some pretty weird stuff if they're inviting 11-year-old drag queens up there and throwing dollar bills at him.
I'm not going to play the video of this, obviously, because I assume that's illegal.
I assume it's so bizarre that I don't want...
I mean, actually, frankly, given the current state of social media and conservative discourse, they'd probably let that video stay up.
That one would do just fine on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube.
But if I start talking about the traditional definition of marriage, they'll shut me down, say it's hate speech, it's awful, it should be illegal.
What I will play, though, is the treatment...
Of this story in the mainstream media.
Because the treatment by major outlets like the Today Show is probably just as disturbing as the video itself.
Desmond Napolis is smart, self-assured, talented.
He loves to dress up and work the runway in drag with dramatic makeup, but only if his homework is done.
That's because Desmond is just 10 years old, but he's already a social media star, and he says he wants to use his platform to inspire other kids to love and accept themselves.
Sunday in the park with 10-year-old Desmond Napolis.
This is one of his favorite playgrounds.
Desmond is amazing!
Alright, I'm going to cut it before they actually show the kid on the drag carpet.
Isn't that so wonderful?
It's his favorite playground.
One of his favorite playgrounds is the playground for children where they play, and then the other one is a highly sexualized runway where old creepy men can leer at him and throw dollar bills at him.
Isn't that so nice?
Isn't that so sweet?
How wonderful.
This is the logical conclusion of left-wing tolerance.
Tolerance is not a great thing.
You know, Bishop Barron, who's this Catholic bishop and a social media store, was on Ben Shapiro's Sunday special, and he talked about how tolerance is the virtue of the modern era, but it's not a traditional virtue, it's not a classical virtue, it's not a Christian virtue.
We should not be tolerating an 11-year-old dressed up in drag dancing on a bar while adult men throw dollar bills.
That's not something we should tolerate.
There's nothing good about that.
There's nothing compassionate about tolerating that.
What's really bizarre...
Well, there are many bizarre aspects to this story.
But what's especially bizarre is the Democrat treatment of sex.
Because it's calling into light this...
An essential lie at the center of the left-wing treatment of sex, which is that we should affirm exotic sexuality at all times, at all ages.
Not just the 35-year-old gay guy who lives in the village, not just the adult drag queen, but for teenagers, for young teenagers, for children.
You know, Owen Benjamin, the conservative comedian, was kicked off of social media.
Because he said that parents should not be allowed to shoot their toddlers full of hormones to make them resemble the opposite sex.
He said it's a bad idea to castrate your children.
And he was booted off of social media for being a hater.
But that's what it's come to now.
We're now, they talk about how at all stages now, including a 10-year-old, 11-year-old kid who is being totally exploited by his horrific parents, and he's got a website up and he's going on television.
We should totally affirm all of this provocative, bizarre sexual behavior.
But then on the other hand, the left tells us that the most important thing in the world is consent.
Everything about sex is fine, except it has to be consensual.
It has to be so consensual that every single step of the way, you need to sign a written form that says, I consent to do this.
I can be kissed.
I can be touched.
I can be hugged.
I can do this.
I can do that.
We're so focused on consent that baby, it's cold outside is being banned from radio stations.
Because they think that the song, well, one, because they completely misunderstand what that song is about, but because they think that the literal words in a couple of the verses imply that there isn't 100% consent.
They say it's all about consent.
That's the main aspect of sexual relations between people.
And also, young children should be able to explore whatever sexuality they want.
Young children are not capable of giving consent.
This is why we have statutory rape laws.
This is why we have the age of consent.
Now, is the age of consent 17 or 18 or 16, depending on the state?
Maybe.
I don't know.
Can you give consent when you're 15?
I don't know.
Maybe you can.
You certainly can't give consent when you're 11.
We know that that's the case.
And the left is caught up in this because they want to affirm.
They want to make an idol out of sexual bizarreness.
They want to make an idol out of exotic sexual behaviors.
But they also have made an idol out of consent, clinical consent.
The two can't go together.
They're totally in conflict.
And they're in conflict on this transgender issue just as much as transgenderism and feminism are in conflict.
This is one of the most enjoyable parts in a sort of schadenfreude way of looking at the left right now is the left by embracing intersectionality.
The idea that all of these disparate groups who might disagree with each other or have different interests but they can band together to oppose the straight white male who thinks that he's a male.
Because of intersectionality you have the feminists and the transgenderist movement butted up together.
But they make opposite claims.
On the one hand, feminism talks about women as women.
Women as different from men.
Women as having different interests than men.
Women as having been oppressed by men over time.
And then the transgenderist ideology says, oh, there's really no such thing as women and men.
Men can be women.
Women can be men.
There's no such thing as an innate sexual difference or a fundamental sexual difference at all.
This came out most hilariously in the Miss Universe pageant over the weekend in Miss Universe A man almost became the Miss Universe.
I would love if I could be a fly on the wall of feminists now who are so confused.
Say, oh, this is great because we're affirming sexual.
Well, but it's a man.
A man in a bikini?
And that's a good...
Women in bikinis are bad.
Men in bikinis are good.
Here is a little bit of the coverage of Miss Universe.
And we are back now with that groundbreaking night at the Miss Universe pageant.
Miss Spain making history just by being there and Miss Philippines winning the crown.
Lara's got all the details.
Good morning.
Good morning to you all.
Yes, it was quite a night.
Lots of pomp and pageantry.
A few stumbles along the way as well.
But it was also a night of firsts.
The first all-female judging panel as well as the first transgender contestant.
Overnight, history made at Miss Universe.
Spanish model Angela Ponce becoming the first transgender woman to compete in the 66-year-old pageant.
The audience greeting her with a standing O. That is groundbreaking.
That is definitely a groundbreaking thing for a dude to become Miss Universe.
It is.
At the very least, it's groundbreaking.
It's completely illogical, but it's groundbreaking.
The other aspect of this story that no one is covering is that Donald Trump used to run Miss Universe.
And when Trump ran Miss Universe, this was a theme of the 2016 campaign, the left tells us that was really bad.
Oh, it was so bad.
Miss Universe is so bad.
It objectifies women.
It exploits women.
It makes women, that pig, that pig misogynist Donald Trump makes women trot out onto the stage wearing bikinis for our sexual pleasure.
That's so terrible, unless a man does it and then it's beautiful.
Unless Trump doesn't run it anymore and then a man wears a bikini and then that's good.
Are we to conclude from that that it's perfectly fine to sexually objectify men who think that they're women, but it's very wrong to sexually objectify women?
I thought trans women are women.
It's very, very confusing.
Good luck trying to wrap your head around that.
What this shows you Is this underlying fact of the left, which is they don't really have a problem with the bikinis.
They don't really have a problem with beauty contests.
What they really have a problem with is Donald Trump.
What they really have a problem with is men.
What they really have a problem with is the patriarchy.
What they really have a problem with is Western civilization.
That's what they don't like.
That's what they hate.
They hate norms and they hate traditions.
I mean, the bizarre story of exploiting an 11-year-old to do a sex act or a sexual dance for adult men throwing dollar bills at him, that is obviously awful and offends every person of right reason.
But the reason that the left will embrace that sort of thing is because it subverts our traditional culture.
It subverts the mores of our society.
It subverts our civilization.
And the same thing is true of this transgenderism pageant.
The left doesn't care about, certainly they don't care about the child sexual abuse per se, that drag queen kid tells you everything about that.
They don't care about the alleged misogyny of these beauty pageants.
They don't really care.
What they care about is undoing tradition.
I mean, the fact that Donald Trump ran this thing is the greatest demonstration of this at all.
They hate that.
It's a sort of like, I don't like you, Dad.
I'm really angry at you, Dad.
It's a cultural rebellion because this universe didn't change last year to this year, two years ago to this year.
Nothing about it changed except this time It was a dude wearing the bikini, and the dude wearing the bikini is bizarre because he's not Miss Universe.
He can't be Miss Universe.
I guess he could be Mr.
Universe, even though he looks a little bit more like a Miss Universe.
That's what they're after.
They're after upending our society.
They're after getting us all riled up and getting us angry.
It's a silly rebellion.
It's a frivolous rebellion, but it really shows the nihilism of the left.
It shows that they're not really after anything.
You can't think of a unifying message right now among Democrats or on the left.
They don't have a proactive program.
They're not saying, we should do this, we need to do this.
It's just, I hate Trump.
F Trump.
F this.
Resist.
Resist.
Break down.
Smash the patriarchy.
This, that, and the other thing.
We see this explicitly, by the way, on some of the other social issues, on abortion, on euthanasia.
The left has just a negative agenda at this point.
It's an inverted, backwards agenda, and there's no way clearer than watching a man strut down a stage in a bikini.
We have got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
If you are on thedailywire.com, thank you very much.
We appreciate it.
It keeps the lights on.
It keeps covfefe in my cup.
If you are not, go to dailywire.com right now.
What do you get?
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.
And tomorrow at 5.30pm Eastern, 2.30pm Pacific, Ben Shapiro will be taking all of your questions and blowing your mind with all of his wisdom.
Live on the air.
Did Ben write that?
Ben put that in there, I think.
I don't remember writing that.
Alicia Krauss will be there to collect all of the leftist tears so that the Great Flood doesn't happen again.
That'll be a lot of fun.
You get a lot of other stuff, too.
You get to ask questions in Backstage.
You get another kingdom, which is getting great ratings, huge ratings, killing it in the ratings, folks.
So go over there.
You get a ton of stuff.
But this is what you really get.
You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Because I'm dreaming of a white Christmas.
On Christmas Day, when the federal government has shut down so that we can get Santa Claus to bring us a $5 billion border wall that's 10 feet higher, you're going to have those Leftist Tears freeze in the atmosphere, and they're going to create beautiful, fluffy snowflakes.
And you'll need your Leftist Tears Tumblr, or you'll be crushed in the avalanche.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
I have long said that the left's agenda is an agenda of destruction.
It's not a constructive agenda.
It's not about building something new.
It's about tearing down everything that we have in our society, in our families, in our civilization.
This became explicit.
This actually surprised me today.
In the New York Times, they ran an op-ed about how human extinction would be a good thing.
True story.
Clemson professor.
This was written by an academic, somebody teaching your children.
His name is Todd May.
Of course his name is Todd.
You know, of course a guy like Todd would talk about how we have to exterminate the humans so that the Delta smelt can swim a little easier.
It's a total Todd move.
The headline is, would human extinction be a tragedy?
And you won't believe the answer.
The subheader says, our species possesses inherent value, but we are devastating the earth and causing unimaginable animal suffering.
So Todd, you know which side Todd comes down on, he says that human extinction would not be a tragedy.
This is just the first paragraph or so.
Todd writes, Let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and upon reflection uncontroversial.
Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it.
This is happening through at least three means.
First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in the Times exemplifies.
Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact.
Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways.
Mmm, delicious.
There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish anytime soon.
Quite the opposite.
Humanity then...
It's the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.
I wish I could get Ben in here to play the violin while my fingers rub together one to the other.
It's not difficult to comprehend at all.
But what is difficult for a lot of people, even for conservatives to comprehend, is this recurring theme of leftism, which is to discourage life and hasten death.
You see it in abortion.
Killing incipient human life.
You see it in the redefinition of marriage, trying to break down the building block of society and discourage procreation.
You see this in euthanasia.
The left is so happy, giddy, to kill people who are suffering in some way or who are old and deemed unuseful to society.
And now you see this in a call for the mass extinction of the human race.
They don't love the environment.
They hate humans.
That's what this is about.
They don't really care about the Delta smelt.
They don't care about the little baby cow who makes the delicious veal.
They hate humans.
That's what it's about.
They don't care about child abuse.
They Want to undermine our basic civil and cultural institutions that sometimes interact with that.
This is what it's all about.
It's a negative agenda.
We should identify that source.
It's really bizarre.
It's really...
We like to think that we're just having two rational political conversations.
Well, I want this policy.
Well, I want this policy.
Well, I want to pay a little more in taxes.
I want to pay a little less in taxes.
But there is a philosophical and a spiritual basis to these two visions of the world.
And the philosophical and spiritual basis of the left is perverse and really awful.
It is anti-life.
It is anti-flourishing.
It is anti-production.
You know, I hate to make it too...
I don't want to seem hyperbolic in discussing the spirituality of this, but evil does have a persona.
It has a personality.
I'm not saying that leftists are evil.
I'm not saying leftists are consciously evil.
But...
They are indulging in ideas which are ultimately wicked, which are ultimately nihilistic, which says that the Delta smelt exists so that I may serve the Delta smelt.
That isn't true.
We love animals.
We want to protect animals.
We want to protect them so that we can enjoy them and they're beautiful and we like to look at them.
And ultimately, we want to serve them to each other on dinner plates.
That is what it's for.
We do not exist to be the slaves of the natural environment.
The natural environment is there for us to enjoy.
They're also, by the way, only loosely related, there is a groundbreaking study that came out today.
You might have seen it.
It came out from Amnesty International.
It showed that Twitter is a mean place.
I know, but I should have warned you.
I should have said pull over your car before you hear this.
Turns out Twitter is mean.
Amnesty International, this big wide-ranging survey, showed that Twitter is, quote, a toxic place, quote, the world's biggest data set of online abuse targeting women.
Online abuse, especially toward women.
The thing is, there's no actual abuse on Twitter because there can't be any abuse on Twitter.
What is abuse?
The word abuse actually means to misuse, to use something in a way that it's not intended for.
So, you can emotionally abuse people.
You certainly can do that.
You can emotionally abuse family members at the dinner table.
You can do that.
There isn't abuse on Twitter because Twitter is a place that exists to incentivize abuse.
It's a place where you say really mean things and you do it usually from an anonymous account so you don't have to show who you are and you direct it at people that you don't know that you're not really interacting with in a personal way.
What the left really means is that Twitter inspires violence.
That's what they're really saying.
They're They're saying it's a place of violence against women.
They're trying to conflate abuse and speech with violence.
And this is what they always do.
They conflate speech with violence so that they can go after us and censor us.
This study used the quote troll patrol of 6,500 volunteers.
They analyzed millions of tweets.
Milena Marin, the senior advisor for tactical research at Amnesty International, said in a statement, Twitter's failure to crack down on this problem means it is contributing to the silencing of already marginalized voices.
Okay.
Here, they're using the word silencing to mean not silencing.
What are they saying?
Twitter's failure to censor people who say mean things and who defines what's mean, who defines what's abuse, Twitter does.
Is it abuse to say that men are not women?
Because there was a major feminist writer who just lost her entire Twitter account.
For saying that men are not women.
Is that abuse?
Yeah, of course.
Twitter defines that as abuse.
So what they're saying is Twitter's failure to censor these people means it is contributing to the silencing of marginalized voices.
Who's silencing anybody?
If you say something mean to somebody, or really more likely, you say something disagreeable to somebody, you aren't silencing them.
You're saying something.
And then they can say something to you.
Or they cannot say something to you.
Or they can say something to somebody else.
At no point are you silencing anybody.
It is such Orwellian language that Amnesty International is using.
They are using silencing to mean the opposite of silencing.
And they're using that threat to say that we should really silence other people.
They refer to marginalized voices.
Who are the marginalized voices?
Is Jake Tapper a marginalized voice?
No, I don't think so.
I think that people who are marginalized are the ones who are being threatened with censorship.
Or who are being threatened.
It is true.
Twitter is contributing to marginalizing many voices in the country.
The trouble is, what they're marginalizing are conservative voices.
Alright, that's our show.
That's the whole thing.
We've got to get out of here.
I know, we run late.
We always run late.
Tune back in.
I know, I was on the road yesterday.
I'm going to be on the road later this week, too, by the way.
I'm going to be taking a trip down to Palm Beach.
I don't know why.
I don't know if it's been announced why I'm doing that, but I'll just be going down to Palm Beach.
What's in Palm Beach?
I don't know.
We're going to be having a good time down there, but I'll keep you posted on when that is.
In the meantime, I'll be back here just in the same seat tomorrow.
I will see you then.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Jim Nickel.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire forward publishing production.
Copyright Forward Publishing 2018.
Coming up on the Ben Shapiro Show, a philosopher says humans should maybe kill themselves, an 11-year-old drag kid makes a trip to a bar, and Democrats focus again on Russian interference.
▲
Export Selection