All Episodes
Previous Next
April 8, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show
46:18
Ep. 327 - Learn To Code-Switch

AOC inexplicably transforms into a black southern preacher! Then, 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg shows why Democrats are obsessed with Mike Pence, and some radio host calls Ben the Antichrist. Date: 04-08-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
At an event before Al Sharpton's National Action Network, freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez inexplicably transformed into a black southern preacher.
We will learn to code switch.
Then 2020 presidential candidate Pete, but a gu, gu, gu, gu, gu, gu, gu, gu, gu, shows why Democrats are obsessed with Mike Pence and some radio host calls Ben the Antichrist.
I've been saying it for years.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
We are going to do a show today.
We are going to talk about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I forgot who I was talking to.
I was code-switching.
We will explain what code-switching is in one second.
But first, let's make a little money, honey, with Lending Club.
If you are carrying revolving debt, what are you doing?
It means you're not paying off your card every month.
You could be paying thousands of dollars in interest every year that you don't have to.
With Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank, no high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
It's the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
LendingClub.com slash Knowles.
Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to 40 G's.
That's LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Do not allow high-interest credit cards to ruin your finances.
Act responsibly.
Take advantage of tools that are available to you.
LendingClub.com slash Knowles.
All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lender.
If you missed it over the weekend, you must have been sleeping underneath a rock.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez last Friday speaking before Al Sharpton's group.
It's called the National Action Network.
She tried out a new accent that we have never heard from her before.
See if you can pick up on this really subtle change to her diction.
This is what organizing looks like.
This is what building power looks like.
This is what changing the country looks like.
It's when we choose to show up and occupy the room and talk about the things that matter most, talking about our future.
You know, Reverend, you bring up a funny anecdote, and I'm proud to be a bartender.
Ain't nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with working retail, folding clothes for other people to buy.
There is nothing wrong with preparing the food that your neighbors will eat.
There is nothing wrong with driving the buses that take your family to work.
There's nothing wrong about elongating all of the vowels in your statements.
Ain't nothing wrong with that.
You might not have been able to hear it, but she's clapping as she's saying it.
This is what organizing looks like.
It's like that tweet, that emoji on the tweet, this meme that goes around where you punctuate every word with a clap.
This is supposed to be a very, I don't know, I guess it's supposed to be ethnic pandering.
That's what she's doing.
She's speaking in front of a primarily black audience and she's affecting what she imagines to be the accent of a black person.
This Obviously, immediately drew comparisons to Hillary Clinton, one of the...
I can't even watch it.
I don't like Hillary Clinton.
I know that she's a terrible politician.
I know that she's a total panderer, completely disingenuous.
Even for me, this is so difficult to watch.
In 2007, Hillary Clinton is speaking before a predominantly black audience, and she decides to change her accent.
I don't feel no ways tired.
I come too far from where I started from.
Nobody told me that the road would be easy.
I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me.
It was so difficult for me to watch to the end of that clip.
But I did think, you know, I've come too far from where I've started from.
Nobody told me that watching Hillary would be easy.
Absolutely not.
What is AOC's excuse?
What is Hillary's excuse?
AOC had a better excuse than Hillary did then.
She said that what she was doing is an example of code switching.
This is a brilliant excuse.
It doesn't hold up.
It's totally flat.
But it's basically the only thing she could have said.
code switching is when you speak one way to one group of people, and then you speak a different way in your personal life.
So it's the idea that because you come from a cultural minority or a racial minority or a linguistic minority, that when you speak in public, you have to speak in a more formal way, in a more linguistically correct way.
But then when you're speaking among your own people, among your own culture, then...
Then you revert to your more authentic, more casual language.
Now, all of us, to a certain degree, have to speak more formally in public.
It's better, it's more civilized for us to speak more formally in public.
I've talked about how when I go to a bar, I'll talk like a sailor.
But when I speak in public, regardless of the venue, I really try not to because I think it degrades discourse and it's disrespectful and it's undignified.
Now, is that code switching?
I don't know.
When I go down, everybody to a certain degree does this kind of code switching.
Here's an example.
Half of my family is waspy in English.
The other half is Italian.
I grew up in New York.
I went to school in New England.
When I would be at school in New England, I would speak a certain way among people who also speak that way.
When I would go down to the Bronx on Arthur Avenue to buy Supersat when I was growing up at the Italian marketplace, I would speak a different way.
Just a little, you're pronouncing certain words a little differently, certain Italian words a little differently.
That, I guess you could call that code switching.
That's what AOC is trying to say that she did.
Everybody does this to a certain degree.
However, what she did is not code switching because...
It's not the case that she has learned how to speak in a more formal way publicly, but her actual, personal, authentic speech is as a black Southern preacher.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not naturally and authentically and genuinely a black Southern preacher.
She's not code-switching.
She's pretending to be someone else.
Politicians and actors do this naturally.
They do it all the time.
She might not even have been aware that she was doing it.
This is the only skill that you need as a politician or as an actor is you have to have a keen and even unconscious sense of empathy, such that when you're talking to the butcher in the Bronx at the Italian market, maybe you pronounce things a little bit differently, just naturally, because they're pronouncing things a little bit differently and you're relating to them.
And then when you're in a poetry seminar in New England, you're speaking a little differently as well.
Okay.
That's the natural thing.
This is when actors are on stage.
Actors are reacting to imaginary circumstances.
The difference for the politician is the politician is supposed to live in reality.
The politician isn't supposed to just be putting on a show.
And in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's case, The notion that the way that she was speaking was really just her code-switching and reverting to her authentic speech is demonstrably false for a few reasons.
She wrote on Twitter, she said, quote, It is so hurtful.
To see how every aspect of my life is weaponized against me, yet somehow asserted as false at the same time.
The reason that this is false is because one, she did not grow up in the Bronx.
She did not do that.
Also, even if she did grow up in the Bronx, that is not how people talk in the Bronx.
How do I know this?
How do I know all of this?
I do have a unique vantage here in that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I have, in certain ways, parallel lives.
We're basically the same age, born within a year of each other.
When we were both very little, our families lived in the boroughs.
She lived in the Bronx.
I lived in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, all the way out.
Before elementary school, both of our families moved up not just to the suburbs, not just to Westchester, not just to northern Westchester, but to towns right next to each other, right across the New Croton Reservoir from one another.
She grew up in Yorktown Heights, which is relatively more affluent and relatively less ethnically diverse.
And I grew up in Bedford Hills.
The median household income in Yorktown Heights is about $99,000 a year, $99,000 or $100,000.
The median household income in Bedford Hills, about $68,000.
Both very affluent places.
However, she grew up in the more affluent place.
And when she's talking about code switching, worth pointing out that Yorktown Heights, where she grew up, is between 80 to 90 percent, 82 and 90 percent white.
Do you know how black it is?
Do you know what the black percentage of the population is?
Between 0.99 and 2 percent black.
So something tells me she didn't just learn this.
She didn't just hear this growing up.
This was Don Lemon's defense of her.
He said, look, she's from the Bronx.
She talks, she knows a lot of black people.
This is how she talks to black people.
She's done it a lot.
No, she didn't grow up in the Bronx.
She grew up in a place where basically there aren't any black people, and that is not her authentic voice.
Now, maybe you might say, okay, AOC would visit her friends or relatives in the Bronx on the weekends.
Maybe she picked it up there.
Again, here, personal experience tells me this isn't true.
I was down in the Bronx every single weekend, grocery shopping, seeing friends.
I never magically transformed into a black preacher.
I went down countless times to the Bronx.
Somehow it never transformed me into a cartoon and a caricature of a black preacher.
She says she's code-switching.
Which code is she switching to?
She's not code-switching.
She is not reverting back to her authentic accent.
She is performing a caricature of what she thinks a southern black drawl sounds like.
And it sounds nearly as fake as when Hillary Clinton did it.
And then what does she do?
She immediately refers to her allegedly hardscrabble upbringing and her false claim that she grew up in the Bronx.
This is a lie.
On her campaign website in 2018, she said that her life was defined by the 40 minute commute between her family in the Bronx and school in the suburbs.
Not true.
In the state of New York, you don't just get to commute from a bad neighborhood in the Bronx to whatever public school you want to go to upstate.
That's not how it works.
You get districted into your school.
If that were the case, everybody in a bad school district in the city would just commute up to the suburbs.
She did not commute.
She lived there.
She lived there from the age of five all the way until 2016, according to Westchester land records.
According to Westchester County land records, until a year or two before she ran for Congress from Queens, she lived with her parents, not just in Westchester, but in a very ritzy part of northern Westchester.
That is not her upbringing.
It's not being weaponized against her.
The only thing that is being used as a weapon against her is her obvious lie about where she comes from.
And some people have said to me, Michael, Michael, stop it.
Don't talk about her obvious fraud.
Just talk about the craziness of her proposals.
No, this is You have to point out that she is a fraud through and through.
Look, there's this conspiracy theory, it's sort of half a conspiracy theory, that AOC was cast in the role of being a congressional candidate, that actually she's just an actress.
This is half true in so much as she did audition for a political action committee, which were her and remain still to this day her backers in her political career.
Doesn't mean she's just an actress.
She might have had an interest in politics.
And the difference between politics and show business gets blurry sometimes.
But it's so important to focus on this fraud because this is what she always goes back to.
She says, you're just attacking me because I grew up in an underprivileged environment.
You're just going after me because I'm from the Bronx.
You're just going after me because, listen, I don't know how to use the English language properly because I grew up in this bad neighborhood in the Bronx and we had bad schooling.
No.
The way to expose all of those lies, to cut off all of her defenses at the knees, is to point out that she is a total fraud through and through.
She, for her entire conscious life, grew up in an extremely wealthy, privileged area of Westchester County She attended a very good school district, Yorktown High School.
She then went to a very expensive private college in Massachusetts, Boston University, which costs $72,000 per year to attend.
And then she moved right back to her mother's house after college and lived there until basically she decided to run for Congress.
She had as privileged an upbringing as you can possibly have on Earth.
In the grand scheme of all of human history, virtually nobody has had a more privileged upbringing than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
She was taught the English language perfectly well.
She does not have a southern drawl, a cartoon drawl that she thinks is going to pander to her audience.
It's just a lie.
Which code was she switching to?
You know there was that hashtag that was going around on Twitter for a while, learn to code.
This is what people said to the journalists who lost their jobs, who for years told coal miners to learn to code.
We need to tell AOC to learn to code switch.
This is not credible.
And by the way, look, we're still talking about her.
She's still getting herself in the headlines.
She's beginning to...
I think she's no longer the left's Trump.
I think the left liked her because she was sort of their version of Trump.
Very media savvy.
Outrageous.
Was able to really rile up her opponents.
But she keeps losing.
And Donald Trump hasn't lost yet.
If he loses in 2020, that'll change the calculus.
But he keeps winning.
That's sort of the defining feature of Donald Trump.
AOC keeps humiliating herself.
And we should shine a spotlight on that.
Not just on her crazy policies, but on this silly grievance premise.
Because it isn't true.
And if you don't...
Listen, not everyone knows what Westchester's like.
Not everyone knows the inner politics there.
Not everyone knows what Yorktown High School's like, okay?
I am from there.
I grew up eight miles away from where she grew up.
I am telling you...
It's so funny.
Because people come up to me and they say, Michael...
You, you're such a rich kid.
You're such a spoiled rich kid.
You're such a patrician.
And I don't answer these attacks.
I find it undignified.
I find it distasteful.
I will not get into a tit-for-tat saying my mother cleaned more floors for less money than your mother, as Mike Bloomberg famously described.
I will not do that.
I find it so ugly and awful.
I find it so ugly to boast about experiences of poverty as though this were something to be proud of, some metal to wear on your chest.
The only time I will inject personal experience is simply to point out I lived almost the exact upbringing that AOC did.
And she is pretending constantly to be Jenny from the block.
Now she's pretending to be Mrs.
Al Sharpton.
And it just is not the case.
I come from that neighborhood.
I come from the same block that AOC came from.
This does not mold you naturally into some caricature in a cartoon of what the left thinks grievance politics should look like.
Speaking of grievance politics...
We've got Pete Buttigiegaga.
He's the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who's now running for president, because mayors of South Bend, Indiana, I guess, run for president.
And he is openly gay.
He's gay married.
He's making this a big part of his campaign.
And he was speaking at some left-wing fundraiser, and Pete Buttigiegaga highlighted one of the bizarre Democrat obsessions over the last three or four years, which is that Democrats are obsessed with Mike Pence.
You think that...
Republicans are obsessed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't hold a candle to the way that Democrats are obsessed with Mike Pence, specifically Mike Pence's sex life.
You'll remember, there was a big story, this was big news.
Mike Pence won't have dinner alone with women unless his wife is present.
This was big news.
He was raked over the coals for this.
I got into long backs and back and forths with my Democrat friends who said it's so awful that he won't have dinner alone with women.
How sexist?
How misogynist?
By the way, about three months later, the Me Too movement happened, and then all these men who were having private dinners with women, turned out they were all sexual predators, turned out they were virtually all Democrats.
But no, no, they kind of forgot them.
Then they go back to Mike Pence, and they think that he hates gay people.
There is no evidence for this whatsoever.
None at all.
The one bit of evidence is that he once voted for a giant bill, or advocated voting for a giant bill, among all the zillion bills he ever voted for in Congress.
And this bill would have permitted some of the healthcare funding to go toward certain therapy techniques for gay men who go to therapists and want to try to change their sexual preferences.
And this was transformed into Mike Pence wants to electrocute gays and hates gays.
Olympians, gay Olympians, I'm going to shake Mike Pence's hand.
Yeah, that'll show him.
Oh, yeah, they're going to dig up.
Yeah, this lesbian is going to go shake Mike Pence's hand.
That'll show him.
Mike Pence doesn't care.
I promise you Mike Pence does not care.
Mike Pence is a politician.
He shakes everybody's hand.
He's been a politician for a very long time.
He has met gay people.
I think it's just fine.
But Pete is pushing this line in his 2020 presidential campaign.
Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that if me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade.
And that's the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand.
That if you've got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me.
Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.
Okay, a lot to dissect here.
Yeah.
He uses the phrase, the Mike Pence's of the world, presumably as a stand-in for anti-gay bigot.
And so here is the premise.
The premise is the same premise that Anthony Kennedy had in Obergefell in the gay marriage case.
The premise is that if you object to redefining marriage from what it has always meant for all of human history and every single culture everywhere in the world until about five minutes ago, to now also include monogamous but not polygamous same-sex unions, if you object to that in any way, you are a hateful bigot who has a, quote, irrational animus for gay people.
The Mike Pence's of the world, more broadly, it's the idea that if you take the traditional view of sexual morality, which holds that sex outside of marriage, including gay sex acts, is to be held in moral opprobrium, This is the traditional view of Christianity, of Judaism, of Islam, of all the theistic religions, and of just about every society in the history of the world.
If you take that view of sexual morality, you are a hateful, vicious bigot.
This is the view that Pete Buttigiegieg is espousing.
This is a very modern view.
Regardless of your opinion, by the way, on gay acts or gay sex or gay inclinations or gay preferences or gay marriage, regardless of your view on that, you must at least concede that Pete Buttigiegieg's view is extraordinarily modern.
Hillary Clinton ran in 2008 and said that marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman.
Barack Obama said the same thing until 2012.
Until seven years ago.
This was the prevailing view even among the far left of the Democrat Party.
And now we are told that if you don't hold the view that homosexual acts are not just not to be held in moral opprobrium, not just morally neutral, but actually morally good, if you don't hold that view, you are a hateful bigot.
Very modern, very minority point of view.
But that is what Pete Buttigieg is saying, and he's saying it to smear not only Mike Pence, but anybody who holds to the traditional teachings of any of the theistic religions.
And it's a cynical attack, because they go after Mike Pence.
I wonder, what does a practicing Muslim think of gay sex or gay marriage?
What is a practicing Muslim?
What is Ilhan Omar?
I know Ilhan Omar has won the support of certain gay rights groups because she says that she'll be a left-wing vote in the House.
Ilhan Omar is a practicing Muslim.
Islam holds homosexual acts in moral opprobrium.
How come no one's going after Ilhan Omar?
How come no one wants Ilhan Omar to clarify her stance on homosexuality?
Mike Pence has never voted to discriminate against gay people.
Mike Pence has never voted to outlaw gay sex.
Mike Pence has never done any of that.
Mike Pence and Ilhan Omar are basically exactly the same in their actual record on the so-called gay issues.
Issues specifically pertaining to homosexuality.
How come Pete Buttigieg isn't going to say, Ilhan Omar, will you condemn your religion's traditional view on homosexuality?
You know what?
I want to ask the Ilhan Omars of the world if they believe that my creator made a mistake.
And this is the second part of his argument, which is a bad faith argument.
Which is funny because there are many meanings to that phrase and all of them are correct.
This is a bad faith argument to say that there is no discussion to be had on sexual morality because I'm born this way.
Right.
That isn't the point.
The traditional theistic argument against homosexuality is that, yeah, people are born all sorts of ways, but it's an imperfect and fallen world, and therefore we can hold certain behaviors and natural inclinations and moral opprobrium.
That's the traditional view.
You might disagree with that view.
You might disagree with the view that homosexuality is a part of the fallen nature of man.
You might say it's a prelapsarian aspect of human nature.
Okay, have that argument.
But if you're saying that by virtue of the fact that I was born with certain inclinations and certain desires, those desires are therefore good, therefore instituted and blessed by God, that is not a legitimate argument.
It's a bad faith argument.
That's an argument designed to obfuscate the question.
And it's a question, by the way, that only Pete Buttigieg is bringing up.
You'll notice nobody in the GOP, no conservatives, are saying that Pete Buttigieg is unqualified and not a legitimate presidential candidate because he's a gay guy.
Find me one person who said that.
One mainstream or prominent Republican or conservative who said that.
Nobody is bringing up that issue.
The only one who's bringing it up is Pete Buttigiegaga.
And he's not doing it to defend against the Mike Pence's of the world.
He's doing it to attack the Mike Pence's of the world.
And to say that unless you agree with me 100% on an extraordinarily new, radical, extreme view of sexual morality, you're a hateful, awful bigot and you're not fit for polite society.
Outrageous bullying.
Outrageous radicalism.
And all on the offense.
None on the defense.
That's going to be Pete Buttigieg.
And why is Pete Buttigieg doing it?
It's because that's his only chance to win the Democrat primary.
Pete Buttigieg is a white guy.
An Ivy League educated white guy.
Who was in the military.
That is not going to play very well in the intersectional Olympics of the Democrat 2020 primary.
There was a piece the other day, I think it was in the New York Times, that said...
Does Pete Buttigieg's homosexuality count as diversity or is he just another white male?
So he's going to have to play up.
The fact that he's gay.
A fact that I don't think anybody really cares about.
And he's going to tilt at windmills and pretend that there is some massive oppression in the country that we have to fight against because he's so terribly underprivileged and oppressed.
What a tedious argument.
What a disingenuous argument.
What a totally bad faith argument.
We have got to get to Kirsten Nielsen.
The DHS secretary is out over the border crisis.
We will also get to lies from CBS.
We'll also get to Chelsea Handler's midlife crisis.
And if we have time, we'll get to Ben Shapiro as the Antichrist.
But first, 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 the Matt Wall show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up on Thursday.
You get to ask questions backstage.
You get all sorts of things.
And you get the Leftist Ears Tumblr.
This is very important.
Thank you.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, yeah.
Some people say that drinking all these leftist tears is exhausting.
But I don't feel no ways tired.
I come too far from where I started from.
Nobody told me guzzling these tears would be easy.
Go to dailywire.com.
Get your Tumblr.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Got the whole second half of the show.
I don't feel no way he's tired.
I'm going to have that in my head all day like it's a bad song.
Kirsten Nielsen, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is out.
She's been on shaky ground for a long time.
President Trump has been criticizing her for a long time.
People thought she would be fired or resign in December or earlier.
She lasted this long.
She was apparently an ally of John Kelly, I believe, the ousted chief of staff.
Once he was gone, there was some question as to whether she would remain.
And now she's finally out.
What is she out over?
It's all about the border crisis.
Apparently, President Trump is not pleased with her handling of the issue of illegal immigration, which is a central issue for his administration.
So she's out.
We got a new guy in.
We'll see if he'll do any better.
I'm not really interested in her tenure, which was fine.
Whatever.
We've been talking about illegal immigration for a long time.
You've seen how she's handled it.
You've seen how she's been stymied by the courts.
You've seen how she's been stymied by certain laws.
So the question is, what is the reaction to her tenure?
What is the reaction to her leaving?
Richard Blumenthal, the senator from Connecticut who lied about serving in Vietnam, and President Trump now refers to him as Da Nang Richard.
Da Nang Richard goes on MSNBC on Casey Hunt's show, and he lambasts Kirsten Nielsen in a totally unfair attack.
and she leaves behind a legacy of separating families, caging children, and lying about those policies.
But in addition to that legacy, she still leaves behind a strategy.
One of conscious and purposeful cruelty, seeking to deter and discourage people from coming to this country, making that trip of hundreds of miles across impossible terrain with children in their arms, knowing that they faced cruel conditions here on their arrival.
There are many, many lies in that statement.
But there's one truth, which is at the end.
They said people are coming hundreds and hundreds of miles with children in their arms trying to get into this country.
Right.
There are many coyotes who are coming into this country trafficking children.
There are many people bringing children who are not their own children.
Because of illegal immigration, we can't vet them.
They don't have papers.
We don't know who the children are.
We don't know who their parents are.
We don't know where their parents are.
We don't know who is coming into this country.
It's a very dangerous situation that leaves, according to Fusion and Amnesty International, between 60 and 80 percent of women and girls who come into the country illegally.
It leaves them raped and sexually assaulted, and 70% of the people who cross into this country illegally suffer violence on the perilous journey.
That is happening because of the open borders policies that Danang Richard is advocating.
He's lambasting people for trying to get those numbers under control, trying to discourage what is causing all of that Widespread misery.
That's on the people who are promoting that policy.
Now, he says that Kirsten Nielsen's legacy is one of disgrace and caging children.
This is what the New York Times said the same thing.
They said that her legacy is enforcing cruelty at the border.
She caged children.
You remember the photos of those poor children being caged during Kirsten Nielsen's tenure in the Trump administration.
Right?
Wrong.
Those photos that went viral, everyone blamed Kirsten Nielsen and Donald Trump for, were from 2014.
Who was president in 2014?
I know it feels like Trump has been president forever.
There was a man in 2014 who was president named Barack Obama.
Barack Obama caged children.
Now, no one cares.
Nobody actually cares.
Because it's this awful situation.
What does it really mean by cages?
It means putting them in prisons, putting them in certain holding areas.
And no one actually cares.
Because where are you going to put them?
At a certain point, you run out of places to put illegal aliens.
You run out of places to put even kids who need to be taken care of, who don't have people to look after them when they enter the country illegally.
You put them somewhere.
I actually don't even really blame Barack Obama's administration for this.
But it was Obama who caged the children.
And cynical Richard Blumenthal didn't say so much as a peep when that was happening.
Because he doesn't really care.
He's using something that Barack Obama did as a cudgel to attack Kirsten Nielsen.
But it isn't the case.
How about separating the children from the parents at the border?
That's Donald Trump's fault, right?
That's Kirsten Nielsen's fault, right?
No.
It's actually not even Barack Obama's fault.
It's the fault of the courts under Bill Clinton.
The Flores Agreement, the much-discussed Flores Agreement, which is responsible for separating kids from their families at the borders, was decided in 1997 during the Clinton administration.
And why was it decided?
It was decided because you can't imprison children.
So the parents come into the country illegally.
They've committed a major crime.
You have to hold them.
So they're processed by the criminal justice system.
But what about the kids?
You can't hold the kids in prison indefinitely.
That's a horrible idea.
So, what the Flores Agreement decided was that you could only put kids in prisons with their parents for a short period of time.
Then they have to be handled not by prisons, but by the Department of Health and Human Services.
They have to go to nicer places than jails and prisons.
Okay, fair enough.
Therefore, they have to be separated from their parents.
The only way not to separate them from their parents is to let everybody go.
Which is to say the only way to not separate them from their parents, the only way to not engage in cruel behavior, as Democrats selectively refer to this, is to say the borders are open.
Anybody can come in without any vetting.
That's the only way.
Or you close the border entirely.
Or you have open borders, which is why at the very bottom of this immigration debate and all of the demagoguery over the kids being caged and families separated and cruelty, at the very bottom, you have a debate over having borders and enforcing the laws that have been on the books for decades and decades or not enforcing the laws at all and having effectively open borders.
Those are the two positions.
That's it.
And what Richard Blumenthal is saying and what the New York Times editorial board is saying, what they're all saying is we...
We would rather that the Secretary of Homeland Security not enforce the law.
We would rather that President Trump not enforce the law.
We think it is just and fair and wonderful and good and equitable.
If we do not enforce our laws, we do not allow the people of the United States to govern themselves through their representatives, through their representative institutions, we want to overturn the right of the people to govern themselves.
Because we think that random bureaucratic czars enforcing our preferred policy according to their own whims is more just.
It is an assault on our republic.
It is an assault on our representative democracy.
It's an assault on the law.
Are we a nation of laws or a nation of the whims of individuals?
Are we a nation...
With borders, the definition of a nation, or are we not a nation?
It's a radical attack that the Democrats and the left are engaging in.
It's not just about have compassion for the kids at the border.
It's not just about that.
That is the sentimental demagoguery plucking on your heartstrings to push through a radical, radical proposition, which is that we must cease to be a country of laws.
We must cease to be a country of self-government.
We must ultimately cease to be a country at all.
And surrender our national sovereignty to supernational, transnational, international organizations and arrangements that are utterly unaccountable to the American people.
That's what they want.
That's what they're pushing for.
More dishonest politics in history from the left wing comes in the way of CBS. CBS was running a piece on the Civil War, Reconstruction, before and after the Civil War.
See if you can notice something about how they organize their Civil War maps.
And how about this for a second act?
After returning home to Beaufort, South Carolina, Robert Smalls was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, one of more than a dozen African Americans to serve in Congress during the period known as Reconstruction, when the formerly rebel states were reabsorbed into the Union and four million newly freed African Americans were made citizens.
This is why you've got to subscribe because you could hear, I bet you know exactly what they did.
First of all, they don't mention that that gentleman, as did all of the black people now representing their constituencies in the Congress, they were all Republicans.
They don't mention that.
But then they show the map of the United States and the former rebel states being reabsorbed into the country.
Guess what colors they use?
They represent the North in blue and they represent the South in red.
And then those red rebel conservative Republicans were absorbed into the Union.
Oh, except, wait a minute, that's not what happened at all.
That's not what happened at all.
The Civil War was a war between Republicans and Democrats.
The Republicans fighting to free the slaves and maintain the Union, Democrats fighting to maintain the institution of slavery and secede from the Union.
But they have to flip it.
And one of their lines is, they say, well, the two parties switched at some point.
When did they switch?
When did the Republicans and the Democrats all just sit down at a table and they say, okay, I know for a hundred years you've been Democrats and we've been Republicans, but now we're going to switch for some reason, so you're going to be the Republicans, we're going to be the Democrats, okay?
And why are we going to do this?
Absolutely no reason at all.
And what date is this going to happen on?
We're not going to know because nobody's ever going to be able to point to it.
Okay.
Did not happen.
Now, do political questions change over time?
Do political movements change over time?
Yes.
Of course.
Is the Republican Party of today exactly the same as the Republican Party of 1865?
No.
Is the Democrat Party exactly the same?
No.
Are there certain similarities?
Yes, there are.
And what the CBS News is trying to do is what the left has long tried to do, which is rewrite the history of the United States such that the horrific history of the Democrat Party, and it is a brutal and horrific and disgraceful history, I mean,
even down to the fact that they won't mention that all of those representatives were Republicans.
They just won't mention it.
They can't mention it.
Cuts too much against their narrative.
It's so dishonest.
And it does remind me.
We cannot trust the mainstream media for anything.
I know this seems like an obvious point.
Conservatives have known this for a long time.
The problem is so much worse than even I thought it was.
These lies, these casual lies, are the entirety of mainstream media reporting on all the news networks and on CNN and MSNBC and the New York Times and the Washington Post.
They have no credibility at all.
Just consider I mean, this is one good example, but the biggest news story of the last two years, the Russia hoax, collusion, investigation, they all got it completely and consistently wrong for two years.
All of them.
How about the biggest story before that, that Donald Trump could win the presidential election?
They all got it completely and consistently wrong the entire time.
How about the biggest story before that, which was ostensibly Russian interference in the election, and more importantly, Barack Obama's administration's interference in the election, FISA abuse, surveillance, collusion.
They all got that completely and consistently wrong from the very beginning.
They continue to get it wrong.
The biggest stories, what are they good for?
All they do is pump out lies.
And they get into tens of millions of homes every night to pump out more lies, just like this.
It's a big problem.
Speaking of crazy leftists, There was actually a beautiful clip that came from Chelsea Handler on Bill Maher's show.
I know this is shocking.
I know one could not imagine.
She's the alleged comedian who admits to doing depraved and bizarre acts in her own personal life and is certainly a little mentally unbalanced.
She admitted that this unbalance played a role in her reaction to President Trump's election.
On Bill Maher, I think this is painfully honest and I think that a lot more leftists should talk as bluntly as she is.
You know, I'm reading your book and I'm feeling like a bad friend because I didn't realize you were suffering so much.
Everybody took the 2016 election hard.
But I didn't know it really knocked you down like that.
And you came back stronger.
That's what the book is about.
Yeah, I had a midlife identity crisis once Trump won the election because I had never had my world feel so unhinged, I think.
And I had to pay a psychiatrist to listen to me bitch about Donald Trump.
For about the first three weeks.
And then once we got past that and we got to the real stuff, I realized the parallel there was my world becoming unhinged when I was a little girl.
My brother died when I was nine years old.
I had never related the two, but for me, as I can imagine, it must have been for so many people.
It was a huge emotional trigger of everything being destabilized.
And I realized just how spoiled and privileged I'd been all my life to realize to be this upset and this out of 10 every day and the outrage and the anger.
I just wanted to fight people, you know, and I was like, I got to go see a psychiatrist.
Yes, you did.
It's good that you saw a psychiatrist.
It's good that you're realizing this.
Maybe the whole left should go see a psychiatrist.
Maybe a psychologist.
I don't think they need any more drugs, but certainly a psychologist.
What Chelsea Handler is admitting is that the left's reaction to President Trump, Trump derangement syndrome, is a psychological reaction.
It's not a political reaction.
It's not a philosophical reaction.
It's not an historical or economic reaction.
It is a psychological twitch that has very little bearing in reality.
She is saying...
That President Trump got elected, this sent her spiraling down into this crazy depression crisis because it reminded her of childhood traumas.
Basically saying it was all daddy issues, which I've been saying for two years since Donald Trump got elected.
They're not reacting to the reality of the Trump administration.
They're reacting to their own weird daddy issues.
Look, people have a lot of daddy issues these days.
I mean, I get it.
I get it.
Our country has exploding rates of anxiety, exploding rates of depression, exploding rates of stress.
Maybe we'll get into this a little bit tomorrow.
I have an op-ed examining why that might be.
But we have total family breakdown.
We have people being raised without religious moorings.
We have a lot of social ills in the country.
And so, people are reacting to...
Relatively trivial or ordinary political events as though they are the end of the world.
It's a weird psychological twitch in many cases.
She's admitting it.
I applaud her for her honesty.
I wish more left-wingers would be more honest, but I guess that's probably asking a little bit too much.
Okay, that's the show.
It's been a long show.
I feel some ways tired.
I've come too far to keep doing this show.
So, come back tomorrow.
We've got a lot more to talk about, a lot more we should have gotten to, but, you know, that's how it goes.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
show i'll see you tomorrow the michael old 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, some students and faculty at Baylor are now saying that my presence on their campus for my speech on Tuesday night poses a threat to their physical well-being.
What does that even mean?
We'll try to figure that out.
Also, AOC humiliates herself by adopting a fake accent, and Gillette is now celebrating morbid obesity.
Is that enlightened and progressive, or is it dangerous?
▲
Export Selection