Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 11, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

47:38

Ep. 311 - Why AOC Is Wrong About Everything

Democrat darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls capitalism irredeemable and America garbage. We will examine why AOC is wrong about everything. Then, the dirtbags at Media Matters try to take down Tucker Carlson, the MAGA hat smirking kid is suing CNN for $250 million, and “Captain America” is terrible even by Marvel standards. Date: 03-11-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Democrat darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls capitalism irredeemable and America garbage.
	We will examine why AOC is wrong about everything.
	Then the dirtbags at Media Matters try to take down Tucker Carlson.
	The MAGA hat smirking kid is suing CNN for $250 million.
	And Captain America, or what is the new one, Captain Marvel?
	Yeah, whatever Marvel movie number 752 is, is terrible, even by Marvel's standards.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	I hated that movie so much I couldn't even remember its name.
	Lots to get to.
	We're talking about AOC because AOC, the thing I'm very grateful to her for, is that she makes abundantly clear what the left actually believes, which is that capitalism is irredeemable and America is garbage.
	But we will explain why she gets that exactly backwards.
	Actually, it's every other economic system that is irredeemable, unsupportable.
	Immoral.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	But first, let's make a little money, honey, with ExpressVPN!
	Admit it.
	You think that cybercrime is something that happens to other people.
	It happens to everybody but you, right?
	No one wants your data.
	Hackers can't grab your passwords and credit card details.
	Except that you're wrong.
	Stealing data from unsuspecting people on public Wi-Fi is one of the simplest and cheapest ways for hackers to make money.
	When you leave your internet connection unencrypted, you might as well be writing your passwords and credit card numbers on a huge billboard for the rest of the world to see.
	I don't want your employers to find out!
	Turning on ExpressVPN protection takes only one click.
	It's less than $7 a month.
	Rated the number one VPN service by TechRadar.
	Comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
	It is very, very inexpensive and very, very valuable.
	Don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish here.
	Protect your online activity today.
	Find out how you can get three months free at ExpressVPN.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. That is E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com.
	For three months free with a one-year package.
	Visit expressvpn.com slash Michael.
	M-I-C-H-A-E-L. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was down at South by Southwest.
	Over the weekend, we saw a lot of great clips from her.
	The nice thing about her, frequently wrong but never in doubt.
	She just says exactly what she's thinking.
	She sounds like she's a freshman in college.
	Just whatever ideas pop into her mind as though she's just discovered them.
	Here is AOC's take.
	At South by Southwest.
	At maybe the...
	Pinnacle of capitalism.
	The most obvious, decadent, luxurious festival where we can talk about all the wonderful fruits of capitalism.
	She decides that that is the occasion to mention why capitalism is irredeemable.
	Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital.
	The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we seek and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost.
	That is what that means.
	And to me, that ideology is not sustainable and cannot be redeemed.
	This is that moment in 11th grade class where you didn't do the reading and then the teacher calls on you and you're going for it and you're going to keep a straight face.
	Yes, Alexandria, what is capitalism?
	Sorry, what was the question?
	Alexandria, just like in our reading last night, what did our reading say capitalism is?
	Oh, capitalism.
	Yeah, capitalism is the economic theory with capital.
	I'd say mostly it's about capital.
	A lot of capital, you know, and it's very much not about not-capital.
	So things that are not-capital, like...
	Um...
	Morality or waffles or giraffes.
	Like, things that are not capital.
	It's like, not...
	Not that.
	But capital, yeah.
	That's what I would say capitalism is.
	That's her...
	It's not what capitalism is.
	Her explanation is not correct or sufficient by any standard.
	Capitalism...
	I think a lot of people are confused on this.
	I mean, we're hearing these surveys come out that over 50% of young Americans oppose capitalism and they support socialism.
	And it's because they don't know what capitalism is.
	Capitalism, essentially, is property rights.
	That's what it boils down to.
	Some people think it boils down primarily to the free market or the invisible hand or some phrase that they learned in high school.
	No, it really essentially boils down to Property.
	Do you have the right to own and possess something or anything?
	If you have the right to private property, this implies a capitalist system.
	Private property rights.
	And now, who would oppose private property rights?
	Communists would.
	Socialists would.
	I guess Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does.
	But moral people don't oppose property rights.
	Nobody can make a moral argument really against private property.
	And why do we have a right to property?
	There are a few competing theories as to why we have a right to private property.
	There's the labor theory.
	This is John Locke's view of property rights.
	It's very popular among libertarians.
	I have the right to property because I have the right to my own labor.
	I have the right to the fruits of my labor.
	Which is sort of true, but not really true.
	Like, for instance, if I'm a winemaker, I'm a laborer at a vineyard and I make wine.
	I press the grapes and I make wine out of that.
	I don't have the right to the wine.
	Because I have the right to my labor, but I don't have the right to the grapes, I don't have the right to the field, I don't have the right to the presses, I don't have the right to any of the other things that are necessary to make wine.
	So I have the right to my wages for making the wine.
	In that sense, I have the right to the fruit of my labor, but I don't have the right to the things that are made with my labor.
	Another theory is the legal theory of property, which is that if the state says you have a right to property, then you have a right to property.
	Again, this is pretty insufficient.
	This would be Thomas Hobbes' theory of it, probably, and that isn't really defensible.
	You see how that breaks down, like for instance, once Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez runs your government.
	There is another theory called the personality theory of property, which is that, I guess this is a little closer to it, which is that private property is essential to individuality.
	It's essential to the development of the human mind, which requires things.
	In order to have individuality, to develop your human mind, you need certain things, and in order to have things, you need to have the right to have things.
	So that's close.
	It's a little vague, though, obviously.
	The real reason, the actual defense, the moral defense of private property is a biblical argument.
	It's a very basic moral argument, which is that thou shalt not steal.
	That's why.
	That's why we have a right to property.
	It's because thou shalt not steal.
	Thou shalt not steal presumes that someone has property and you have your own property.
	Or maybe you don't have your own property.
	But even if you don't have your own property, you can't steal somebody else's property just because you want it.
	And furthermore, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
	Even if you really want his oxen.
	You cannot covet that oxen.
	That's wrong.
	These are the arguments against property.
	Or rather, I suppose, they're the arguments for private property and against taking private property away from people.
	Pope Pius X in 1903 put this very clearly.
	He said, quote, Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership.
	And this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use.
	So it's not just that you have the right to own a cherry pie.
	Or a cigar, which is eaten and burned, you have the right to own instruments of capital.
	You have the right to own a computer.
	You have the right to own a leftist tears tumbler to safely store your leftist tears.
	He goes on.
	He says, quote, This is what it comes down to.
	Private property is a natural right.
	For AOC to say that capitalism is irredeemable is to say that private property is irredeemable.
	You can't morally defend private property.
	But quite to the contrary...
	You can't defend an economic system without private property.
	That is indefensible.
	Private property is a natural right.
	Our country speaks very highly of natural rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which demands the ability to own property.
	Civilization would be impossible without private property.
	You know, the pilgrims found this when they came to America on the Mayflower.
	They were sort of communists in the first couple years after they landed.
	And they quickly found out that it would lead to starvation and men wouldn't work.
	Governor Bradford wrote about this.
	He said, men don't want to work under the communist system.
	They just lay about all day because they don't want to work for another man's benefit.
	And so...
	Quickly he learned that we needed to institute some private property.
	They divvied up land in a private way.
	All of a sudden, production flourished.
	Why else?
	No family could exist without private property.
	What is having a family?
	You need to have some say over your family's affairs.
	You need to provide shelter.
	You need to provide food.
	You need to provide education.
	All of those things require money.
	All of those things require private property.
	Society would break down.
	Communist governments...
	Socialist governments.
	They say that they don't like private property.
	But of course, in practice, we've never seen a society get rid of private property.
	What happens in communist and socialist societies?
	They just steal the private property from others and they consolidate it at the top.
	That's what happens in Cuba.
	That's why the Castros are so rich.
	It's not because the private property doesn't exist.
	It's that they took all the private property.
	It's what the ruling class did in Venezuela.
	It's what the ruling class did in the Soviet Union.
	That's what the ruling class would do under AOC's system.
	She goes on to call America garbage.
	But first, let's thank We the People Holsters.
	We the People Holsters will help you defend your liberty and property.
	They make custom-made holsters all produced in the USA. They design their own holsters in-house.
	It means they don't use any third-party molds for their holsters.
	Instead, they design every unique mold in Las Vegas in order to best fit each and every firearm perfectly.
	They even have their own 3D design team, which measures every micromillimeter of their guns to ensure the perfect fit.
	Their unique and intuitive clip design allows for you to easily adjust both the cant and ride of your holster so that it will fit comfortably and securely at all times.
	Every holster has adjustable retention.
	It's signaled with that click sound.
	Custom-printed designs in-house, thin blue line, thin red line, constitution, camo, and American flag, more each month.
	We the people holsters start at just 37 bucks a piece.
	Every holster comes with a lifetime guarantee.
	Ships free.
	If it's not perfect, send it back for a refund.
	Right now, listeners of The Michael Knowles Show can go to WeThePeopleHolsters.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Enter promo code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S at checkout.
	Get $10 off your first holster.
	That's as low as $37, and shipping is free, and you get an additional $10 off using my promo code.
	You're basically making money.
	WeThePeopleHolsters.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Enter the promo code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S at checkout.
	Get 10% off.
	So AOC makes this morally indefensible point about private property.
	The reality is actually the opposite.
	This has been acknowledged by moral philosophers for all of history, going back to Aristotle.
	Then she decides to take her argument out to 11 and calls America garbage.
	I think all of these things sound radical compared to where we are, but where we are is not a good thing.
	And this idea of, like, 10% better from garbage...
	It shouldn't be what we settle for.
	It's like this, like, it feels like moderate is not a stance.
	dance.
	It's just an attitude toward life of like, she, she is so, so millennial.
	Just that the way she talks, she can't finish sentences.
	She can't complete a thought.
	So she just says, ooh, ah, ooh, kind of random gesticulations and three words here and three words there.
	Ooh, ah, ah, ee, ooh, ooh, ah, ding, dong, wada, wada, bing, bang.
	She sounds like a typical rich kid.
	That's actually what she sounds like.
	She's there in her nice designer clothing, South by Southwest, very decadent capitalist festival.
	She's sitting there being interviewed.
	She says, oh, you know, it's all so terrible.
	Oh, the ennui.
	Oh, it's just so hard to find good help these days.
	It's like I need something I'm really passionate about.
	You know, I just...
	Oh, excuse me.
	I'll have a little...
	The Chablis is a little warm.
	Could you get a little...
	Thank you.
	Oh, it's just so terrible.
	I hate my life.
	This is what rich kids do.
	This is why rich kids all do drugs in the suburbs.
	Because they don't have any real troubles.
	They don't have any struggle.
	They don't have any sense of something they're struggling for.
	And so they complain about how nice things are.
	They don't know how good they've got it.
	They don't know the value of a dollar.
	We know AOC grew up in relative affluence.
	She didn't take her studies very seriously, obviously.
	She hasn't worked terribly hard.
	She lived with her parents, according to voter records, until 2016.
	I guess she was working as a bartender, I don't know how many days a week.
	And then she's on the public dole now.
	And funneling money into private companies and things like that for her own use.
	She doesn't value what we've got here.
	This is a problem with millennials, especially those who grew up after the Cold War, because it has an attitude.
	It implies an attitude of easy come, easy go.
	Oh, this civilization, she didn't work for this.
	To quote Barack Obama, she didn't build that.
	We've inherited this fabulous civilization, this wonderful American society, where everything is really nice and peaceful and rich and just lovely.
	And we say, ah, easy come, easy go.
	Let's try something totally different.
	Let's just throw it all away.
	It's that Chesterton fence problem.
	She gets up, she sees all of these American institutions, all of these American ideas, and she doesn't know how they got there.
	She doesn't know why they're there.
	She doesn't tear it down.
	I don't see why it's there.
	Why is private property?
	Do we need that?
	No, I don't think so.
	She just tears it all down.
	It's so disrespectful.
	It is this Standing on the shoulders of giants and thinking that you're flying.
	Standing on the shoulders of giants and spitting on them.
	Saying, who cares?
	You're not so great.
	I'm so much better than you because I'm a modern person.
	I'm alive right now.
	Garbage.
	Imagine that.
	Calling your country garbage.
	Calling your countrymen garbage.
	When we say that the left hates America, this is what we're talking about.
	They protest the American flag.
	They call the country garbage.
	Her words, not mine.
	Then she goes on to explain why America is garbage.
	We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work, right?
	We should not feel nervous about the toll booth collector not having to collect tolls anymore.
	We should be excited by that.
	But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die.
	And that is, at its core, our problem.
	What society is she living in?
	Gosh, the fantasy society in her head sounds really awful.
	Fantasy America is a really terrible place.
	Of course, in real America, nobody is left to die.
	As a matter of fact, anybody can go get health care and illegal aliens go to the emergency room all the time.
	Nobody is left to die in America.
	She says that if you don't have a job, you're left to die.
	We have an extraordinarily generous unemployment insurance system.
	We have extraordinarily generous unemployment medical benefits.
	Medicare, Medicaid, all of these programs.
	Not to say nothing of the civil society, to say nothing of charities that provide these sorts of things.
	But she says people are left to die in America.
	And then think about the point on automation.
	She says, look, we shouldn't be upset if a job gets destroyed because that means that you don't have to work anymore.
	Isn't that great?
	Then you don't have to work.
	I mean, this is her doubling down.
	In the Green New Deal, the draft legislation says that they will provide money for people who are unable to work or unwilling to work.
	They can say, I don't want to work for my keep.
	That's fine.
	You just get a check.
	Unwilling to work.
	And then people said, oh, she's being taken out of context.
	She didn't really mean that.
	No, she did.
	She's saying it right here.
	Unwilling to work.
	What a good thing.
	But what it also misunderstands is the role of work.
	Because we all joke, you know, sometimes we're not joking.
	We say, oh, my job is killing me today.
	Oh, gosh.
	You know, I've been on the road for weeks.
	I'm hitting the road again, you know, later.
	I've had a headache for a while.
	Some days I just don't want to wake up and go into work.
	Except work is a very good thing.
	Adam worked in the Garden of Eden.
	Consider that.
	In paradise, man worked.
	Man is supposed to work.
	It is good for man to work.
	What would you do if you didn't work?
	I think it was Moliere who said...
	I think it was Moliere.
	Somebody said that hell is the place where you have nothing to do but amuse yourself all the time.
	That is what hell is.
	I mean, you know this.
	If you take a vacation...
	For the first day, you're just like, woo-hoo-hoo!
	Yeah, you're just binge-watching Netflix, you're drinking, I don't know, you're going out, you're stuffing your face.
	And then by day four, you're just sort of lazing around, you're just like, I don't know what to do, I don't know why I'm waking up anymore.
	We have to, it is good to work.
	Even if you could tax the rich, soak the rich, give everybody a free check, that would be worse for society.
	This is why the universal basic income is unhuman per se.
	That's why it is just wrong on its face.
	Because it is bad not to work.
	It is bad to incentivize people not to work.
	But how is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez going to pay for everybody not to work?
	One of the reasons that this ideology or questions of whether you want to call it democratic socialism or techno-futurism or like whatever it is...
	It is because our technological advancement as a society has outpaced our system for handling finite resources, because now we are approaching infinite resources.
	What?
	This sounds like one of those late night bull sessions that you have freshman year when you're really hammered.
	That's what she sounds like.
	Yeah, man, because we're thinking in a finite world.
	You know, fine.
	But imagine if it were infinite, which is where we're going.
	We're not going, by the way, to an infinite resources economy.
	Things in the material world are finite.
	This woman, by the way, is 29 years old.
	She has a college degree.
	Theoretically, she majored in economics, which is evidence to decertify the BU economics program.
	What does that mean?
	We're thinking in this minor, you know, this kind of Finite, infinite, finite, no, no, no.
	She says that Bill Gates has an idea.
	Do we have the clip of her Bill Gates idea?
	There are a lot of different solutions or a lot of different proposed ideas about how we go about that.
	You know, Bill Gates has talked about taxing robots at 90%.
	And what that means, what he's really talking about is taxing corporations at 90%.
	But it's easier to say tax a robot.
	So, not really, actually.
	It's no surprise.
	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't know very much about how taxation works.
	She thought that a tax incentive was just giving out money from a slush pile with regard to the Amazon move into New York.
	So she doesn't know what taxes are.
	What...
	Bill Gates means when he says we need to tax robots is not that we're going to tax corporations.
	We already taxed corporations and we're going to continue to tax corporations.
	And until President Trump, we had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
	What it means to tax robots is to tax capital investment.
	So if you're a business owner, you've got your money.
	Whatever your cash flow is, whatever investment you've got, whatever money you've got at your use, you can put it into one of two things.
	Capital, that is to say, renovating the store, buying robots, touchscreens at McDonald's.
	Capital, technology, or labor.
	People.
	You can hire more people, you can pay your people more, you can whatever.
	Capital and labor.
	Those are the two places that you can invest your money.
	So when you tax the robots, what you are really taxing is capital investment.
	So what you are really taxing is automation.
	So what you are really doing is creating an incentive to keep paying the toll booth operator.
	So where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez began her argument is, don't worry about the tollbooth operator.
	Let the tollbooth operator lose her job.
	We're going to automate everything.
	It'll be great.
	And how are you going to deal with the tollbooth operator?
	Oh, we're going to create economic incentives not to automate anybody so that the tollbooth operator can keep her job.
	Thank you.
	You just said it was good for the tollbooth operator to lose her job.
	Now you're advocating for economic incentives to let the tollbooth operator keep her job.
	All of this amounts to AOC not really understanding very much about economics.
	This is no surprise.
	So what does she do?
	She doesn't know much about economics.
	She doesn't know about the moral arguments for this economic system.
	She can't make any economic arguments for her own system, which is socialism or democratic socialism, whatever she wants to call it.
	So then she pivots, as they always do, and they can't make the arguments that they're trying to make.
	They pivot to a racial argument.
	I think a perfect example of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working class Americans against brown and black working class Americans in order to just screw over all working class Americans is...
	Is Reaganism in the 80s when he started talking about welfare queens.
	He's painting this really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing that were sucks on our country, right?
	Who said black women?
	Hold on a second.
	Let me rewind the clip.
	I'm going to go through.
	I have a little monitor over here of everything Ronald Reagan's ever said about welfare queens.
	Can we just go through everything?
	Oh yeah, he didn't mention black women.
	You mentioned black women.
	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mentioned black women.
	That's the subtle racism.
	That's what is revealed.
	What she's saying is that when Ronald Reagan says people who just sit at home and don't work at all and just collect a check from the government, that's not good and we should reform that.
	What AOC hears is, oh, it's just those black women, it's just those lazy blacks.
	That's what she hears.
	But he never said that.
	She just heard it.
	Why did she hear it?
	I don't know.
	Maybe that's our own prejudices or biases or bigotry or whatever.
	She is doing exactly what she accuses Reagan of doing.
	But then she switches.
	You'll see the subtle generational shift in the socialist argument.
	But for that, you've got to stick around.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	$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.
	You get the Matt Walsh show.
	You get to ask questions at Backstage.
	We've got one of those coming up.
	You get another kingdom.
	You get everything you get.
	The Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	You...
	They taste good all day.
	You know what this one tastes like?
	This tastes like that little smirking kid from Covington High School.
	You know the one with the MAGA hat?
	It tastes like just 250 million little CNN leftist tears.
	One after another.
	Nice little lawsuit leftist tears.
	And you're going to have to get multiple tumblers because you're going to need one for the Washington Post, one for CNN, one for the New York Times, one for Ilhan Omar, one for all of these people.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	So AOC is doing exactly what she accuses Reagan of doing.
	She says that what Reagan did was to pit white working class Americans against brown and black working class Americans.
	When did he do this?
	I don't know.
	I never saw it happen.
	The one example she gives is welfare queens, but welfare queens are not in the working class because they don't work.
	I think to be in the working class you have to work.
	That seems to be a very basic definition of working class.
	So she can't give any example, but she is using this racially divisive language, and she's accusing her opponents of racial bigotry, which is what the left always does.
	But this is a subtle generational distinction.
	Back when Bernie Sanders and Karl Marx were inventing communism, back in the 19th century, they would sit together and they would break down society only along class lines.
	So it was only the working man, the poor, the industrial labor, versus the capitalists, the rich guys, whatever.
	This was good for a time, this worked for them for a spell, but what intersectionality managed to do was add in all of the racial identity politics as well, and that's where AOC is.
	So it's no longer sufficient, as Bernie Sanders does, to only talk about the poor and the rich, and to demagogue the rich and to vilify the rich.
	Now you have to go a little more particular and vilify the rich white people.
	You have to say that the rich white men or the rich white straight men or the rich white straight men who think they're men, you have to get much, much more specific.
	Why is this more useful?
	Because by definition you're getting to a smaller minority.
	This is the 99% versus the 1% kind of rhetoric.
	So when you get to that smaller minority, it's easy for everyone to To get behind it.
	It's easy for...
	You know, there was one time I was in D.C. I was walking around D.C. and I walked by the Hebrew Israelites.
	Those are those black supremacists who were in the incident with the Covington High School kids.
	And, you know, they're kind of a mainstay in D.C. and New York.
	You hear them calling out, you know, you white devil and you white this.
	And I was then in a coffee shop and I hear these two girls ahead of me Gosh, those black Israelites, they called me a white devil and they said that I'm an oppressor because I'm a white woman.
	And I said, guys, are you crazy?
	Come on!
	I'm a woman!
	I've been oppressed too!
	I said, oh my gosh, oh no, here we go.
	She had the right reaction, which is, are you ridiculous?
	No, I'm not oppressed and neither are you.
	You're here in the richest country in the world.
	You almost certainly don't work, and yet you're very large people, so clearly you're eating just fine.
	One of the biggest problems among the poor in America is they're too fat.
	It's obesity.
	That's a first-world problem.
	Everyone has this lovely, decadent sort of thing.
	You can stand here on the street shouting your vicious...
	And nobody's going to arrest you.
	Nobody's going to stop you.
	This is a pretty easy society to live in.
	That's the right response.
	But instead, she has to take the response and say, oh no, I'm a victim too.
	Please, let's gang up on the white guy because we're on the same side, Buster.
	I mean, that's what AOC, that's what intersectional politics are convincing people to do.
	But this is the new generation.
	This is what the new Democrats are.
	And there was a comical display of the old Democrats, Howard Schultz, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, over the weekend, they came out, they tried to make their case for why they're better than AOC at handling these issues.
	It just falls flat.
	Here's Starbucks CEO, former Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz.
	In the Green New Deal, there is a proposal that says that by 2030, every building in America is going to be transformed to clean energy.
	Now, that's a well-intentioned idea, but it's never going to happen.
	So, my question to the people who are proposing these things is, let's propose things that are true, that are honest, that are sincere, and that are realistic.
	Just to put the math in context, that would mean that 2,700 buildings a day between now and 2030 would be transformed.
	And the government doesn't own those buildings.
	So they would have to mandate.
	And the cost to it.
	Yeah, come on guys.
	Come on.
	Hey guys, can't we just...
	Look, I'm on your side, but can't we...
	Howard Schultz is the girls in line in D.C. Howard Schultz Is that kind of, that squish who says to the lunatic, to the bully, who says, I'm on your side.
	No, no, look, I'm on your side, but can't we just...
	Howard Schultz is the kind of guy who in college says, look, communism's beautiful in theory.
	It's just that in practice, it's no good.
	No.
	No.
	No, no.
	Communism is terrible in theory.
	It's awful.
	It's anti-human.
	It's horrific and wicked and evil.
	The Green New Deal is terrible in theory.
	It's not good in theory.
	Maybe the people who wrote it have good intentions, but it's very terrible in theory.
	It's a very terrible thing to tear down every building in the country within 10 years and rebuild it so that it runs on candy canes and daydreams or something.
	That's very terrible.
	Why?
	Why is it so terrible?
	Well, because I like my home.
	I don't want you to tear down my home.
	Most people don't want their homes torn down just because you don't want them to use the air conditioning.
	Why else?
	Well, because we have historic buildings in the United States.
	We have beautiful 17th century buildings in some cases.
	Should we just tear those down?
	Some of those beautiful buildings from the 19th century?
	Just rip them all.
	All the beautiful apartment buildings in New York.
	Knock them down.
	Historic mansions in the South.
	Knock them down.
	All those great on Bourbon Street in New Orleans.
	Knock them down.
	What do you have left?
	You've knocked down your whole country.
	The White House.
	Knock it down.
	Well, you have to.
	It's not up to AOC standards.
	Knock it down.
	Build it up.
	It's terrible in theory.
	The Green New Deal is awful in theory.
	It limits your choice.
	It takes away your private property.
	I'm not saying that we need to live in some libertarian, ridiculous fantasy utopia either.
	Obviously, that's crazy too.
	But we, right here today, right now in reality, have private property.
	We have a country.
	We have buildings.
	We shouldn't rip that all to the ground.
	And Schultz thinks that by feeding that crocodile, by appeasing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she's going to eat him last.
	By feeding the radical socialist intersectional left, maybe he can compromise with it.
	No, he's just a Neville Chamberlain, like all the rest of them.
	John Hickenlooper.
	I guess he's running for president or something.
	Maybe.
	I don't know.
	I got like a Google alert, sort of.
	He's the governor of Colorado who's probably not even going to make it to the first debate.
	And he's going to run on a similar sort of thing.
	This guy thinks that by appeasing these radicals, he'll be able to eke his way to the nomination.
	He won't even say that he's not a socialist.
	You did an interview earlier in the week where you were asked three times if you would call yourself a proud capitalist, and you wouldn't directly answer the question.
	It led Howard Schultz, who's possibly a candidate, to say, if even a successful businessman and entrepreneur like Governor Hickenlooper can't openly support capitalism in the Democratic primary, it's clear this is Senator Sanders' party now.
	Why are you uncomfortable calling yourself a proud capitalist?
	The point I was making is that we define people by these labels that often have all kinds of associations and baggage with them in that sense.
	Do I believe in small business?
	Of course I believe in small business.
	I started probably more than 20 different small businesses.
	In one year, I'd have over a million customers.
	I understand that, but what's happening?
	I think it's kind of a silly question.
	We should be looking at some of the reasons...
	Behind why we have less and less startups, we should look at some of the reasons why more and more people aren't wanting to start a business.
	Oh, that is so pathetic.
	This guy, John Hickenlooper, is a businessman.
	But this is also your evidence, by the way, that corporate America, the kind of Chamber of Commerce Republicans, they're just liberals.
	They're just left-wingers because the culture is left-wing and business just wants to make money and they go along to get along and they want to minimize their exposure, minimize their vulnerabilities, minimize their political risk.
	And so they just go along with the leftist culture.
	It's why you can't really trust those guys to advance a conservative agenda.
	He won't even say he's not a socialist.
	Oh, I just think these labels are so silly.
	What's the point of all these labels?
	The point of labels is to let us know what you think.
	That's why we have words.
	That's why Adam in the garden, going right back to Adam in the garden, one of his jobs there was to name things, to give things labels so that we can discern them, so that we can differentiate between them.
	The whole process of creation is a process of discrimination and discernment and separation, separating the land from the sea, separating the light from the darkness, separating these things, so that you can name them.
	Why do we have a name for light and a name for darkness?
	I mean, isn't that just silly?
	No, it's so that we can identify it.
	That's why we use words.
	Politics is speech.
	This has been true since Pericles.
	This has been true since Aristotle.
	Politics is meaningful speech.
	And politics is using speech to convince people, to persuade people, to make arguments, to appeal to people's pathos, to appeal to people's ethos, to have spirit, to exhibit spirit.
	To appeal to people's logic, logos.
	This is rhetoric, right?
	And what Hickenlooper wants to do is weasel his way to the Democratic nomination.
	He wants to be everything to everybody, but he can't stand up for anything.
	Why would you ever vote for John Hickenlooper?
	He's just nothing.
	John Hickenlooper, in the most important matters of the day, would you say that you're X or Y? I would say I'm neutral.
	I'm a little bit more neutral.
	Is that going to work?
	No, it's not going to work.
	In the Democrat primary, Kamala Harris is the weather vane.
	That's how you know which way it's going.
	Kamala Harris is a cynical politician.
	Willie Brown, old politician, just admitted to cheating on his wife with her and then launching her political career because of that.
	She is a tough lady.
	She's pretty sharp, and she's going to say whatever she's got to say to get the nomination.
	And she's the weather vane.
	She is moving left.
	She actually endorses the basic Utopian, leftist, progressive, communist, call it whatever you want, premise in a recent impromptu campaign speech.
	It is a fact that we can change human behaviors without much change to our lifestyle, and we can save the future generations of our country and this world.
	Did you say that we can change human behavior?
	She's saying we can change human nature, is what she's saying.
	This is the project of progressivism or leftism, is to change human nature.
	Not just now.
	It might not happen tomorrow, but over time we're going to fundamentally change human nature.
	And that is going to bring us to utopia.
	What they seem to forget is that utopia doesn't mean the best place.
	It means no place.
	Utopia means no place.
	It doesn't exist.
	That is a terrible idea.
	You cannot change human nature.
	That's what makes it nature.
	That's what nature is.
	And so, when people have tried to change human nature over time, it has resulted in unspeakable human misery.
	But she admits that's their purpose.
	We're not just taxing the rich a little bit more.
	We're not just...
	We're liberalizing certain social mores.
	No, no.
	We are going to change human nature.
	That is their project.
	That's how ambitious, that's how dangerous the left's project is.
	And let me tell you, Kamala Harris has a much better chance of winning this nomination than John Hickenlooper.
	Before we go, I have to say a word about Tucker Carlson.
	Media Matters for America, which is a leftist assassination group, character assassination group.
	They're not actually going out there with guns.
	They just try to assassinate people's characters.
	It exists to get right-wing commentators taken off the air.
	It exists to censor right-wing commentators.
	That's the whole purpose of Media Matters.
	And it is disingenuously referred to as a media watchdog group in the mainstream media.
	It is not.
	It is a hit squad from the left to censor right-wing commentators because they're afraid of what we have to say.
	So they dug up some footage of Tucker Carlson...
	From 13 years ago, I think it is, when he was calling into a shock jock radio show, and they are trying to take him down over this tape.
	Actually, he's not in prison for that.
	He didn't warn Jeffs didn't marry underage girls.
	No, he's in prison for facilitation of child rape.
	Whatever the hell that means, he's in prison because he's weird and unpopular, and he has a different lifestyle that other people find creepy.
	No, he's an accessory to the rape of children.
	That is a felony, and a serious one at that.
	What do you mean an accessory?
	He's got some weird religious cult where he thinks it's okay to marry underage girls, but he didn't do it.
	Why wouldn't the guy who actually did it, who had sex with an underage girl, he should be the one who's doing life.
	I don't even understand what I'm supposed to be shocked and outraged and offended by here.
	He's calling into a show.
	What's the show called?
	Like, The Love Bunch something?
	I mean, it's some ridiculous shock jock show.
	And he's calling in, and they're saying provocative things to one another and making jokes.
	That's what this is about.
	And Tucker Carlson makes the point that You should be punished far more severely if you actually have sex with an underage girl than if you're just there at the time.
	Right?
	Like, if you're the cult leader, it's bad to be a cult leader.
	I don't think Tucker Carlson's saying it's good to be a cult leader, but it's worse to have sex with an underage girl.
	But I'm supposed to be really offended or something.
	And then, oh, they were really upset about this one because Tucker Carlson, he said a naughty word.
	Lexa Stewart, we run into her all the time.
	She seems like a...
	She seems awful.
	Yeah, she is awful.
	They're very...
	She seems extremely...
	Oh yeah, I stepped over.
	She seems...
	Now go ahead.
	She just does seem a little...
	You said it, I'm just agreeing with you.
	I don't use that word.
	Right, I'd love for Tucker Carlson.
	Tonight on MSNBC, a girl that comes across kind of...
	So the word, I guess you can't obviously hear it.
	We bleep it out.
	It's a word that rhymes with punty.
	Use your imagination.
	And so the guy who's hosting the show, he says, yeah, she seems kind of punty.
	Wink.
	And then Tucker says, yeah, she does seem kind of punty.
	Okay, that's what he said.
	Because no one, I'm sure no one at Media Matters has ever used that word, the C word.
	Nobody there has ever said it.
	No, right?
	No.
	None of them.
	Of course not.
	No.
	Now, what they would say, what Media Matters would say is, well, I think it's perfectly fine to call women that word all the time.
	But Tucker says it's wrong, but he did it one time.
	So, right.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Whatever.
	He made a joke with a guy one time on a shock jock show.
	Okay.
	Cool dude.
	Also, by the way, at least Tucker Carlson has standards, which he occasionally violates, as we all do.
	What standards do you have, Media Matters?
	These guys, I have no, I mean, there is no, first of all, Tucker Carlson will not lose even one viewer over this.
	He will not lose one, no, I mean, this is such a disingenuous hit job against Tucker Carlson.
	But they're going to try to get the right to lose their viewers.
	It's so weird.
	Because we don't really do this.
	I don't really care if Rachel Maddow has a show.
	It's double income for me.
	I don't really care if Joy Reid has a show.
	I care about the hypocrisy.
	I care that right-wingers are losing their shows and left-wingers are not.
	That's what I care about.
	I don't care if, I don't know, Chris Hayes.
	Okay, you can have a show.
	I don't watch it.
	Not a lot of people watch it anyway, but that's fine.
	But they're so offended because the left knows that they can't beat us in an actual exchange of ideas.
	So they have to censor us.
	They have to shut us up.
	It's awful.
	These people are awful.
	Media matters for America.
	They are just character assassins.
	And it would be a real shame.
	It would be a real shame if somebody went out and dug up some dirt on Madeline Peltz, for instance, who's a public writer for Media Matters for America.
	Or Christina Lopez G. That's another one of the public authors at Media Matters.
	Or Eric Hunnenkoki.
	It would be a real shame, a damn shame, if someone went out and dug up some embarrassing moments from 13 years ago on any of those people.
	Wouldn't that be awful?
	Because then, they would get a taste of their own medicine, and they would realize why a graceless society is so awful.
	I would mention a few more of the public writers, except I can't, because the cowards at Media Matters for America usually hide behind an anonymous byline.
	Frankly, at least those three people put their names on their hit jobs.
	I'll actually give them credit for that.
	The rest of them just hide behind anonymity.
	It would be a real shame, wouldn't it, if one of those writers at Media Matters for America got a little taste of their own graceless medicine.
	All right, that's our show.
	A lot more to get to, but too bad.
	We're running late.
	I will see you all tomorrow.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Danny D'Amico.
	Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, we're going to talk about this Tucker Carlson situation.
	Carlson is in trouble for saying bad things and offering bad opinions and telling bad jokes on a radio show a long time ago.
	And now the left is pretending to be outraged and calling for him to be fired.
	But I don't think he should be fired.
	In fact, I don't think he should face any consequences at all.
	And I don't even think he should apologize.
	And I want to explain why.

▲