Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 23, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

46:50

Ep. 354 - Are We Ever Going To Build The Wall?

Barely any wall has been built. Meanwhile, UK PM Theresa May's to secure her borders has her premiership in free-fall. Is Trump headed for the same fate? Then, Quentin Tarantino rejects feminism at the Cannes Film Festival, and finally the Mailbag! Date: 5-23-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The White House pushed back on news reports Tuesday that just 1.7 miles of wall along our southern border had been built, with $1.6 billion allocated by Congress.
	But even the real number reveals that barely any wall has been built.
	Meanwhile, in the UK, the failure of Prime Minister Theresa May to secure her national borders has her premiership in freefall.
	If the US doesn't get immigration under control, is President Trump headed for the same fate?
	Quentin Tarantino rejects feminism at the Cannes Film Festival.
	Love it.
	And finally, the mailbag.
	I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	1.7 miles of wall with $1.6 billion dollars.
	That was the allegation.
	The real number is better than that, but it's not much better than that.
	Sarah Sanders will explain and we will analyze what it means for 2020.
	There are a lot of things in life that just aren't right.
	Like spending that much money on that little wall.
	A couple other things that aren't right are carpet and showers.
	Eating dip with your fingers.
	Chunky style milk.
	That doesn't make sense.
	You know what makes even less sense?
	Paying too much for your phone bill.
	That is just not right.
	And I was doing it for a very long time.
	And you almost certainly are doing it too.
	And you shouldn't.
	Because thanks to Mint Mobile, you don't have to overpay for wireless anymore.
	With Mint Mobile, you can cut your wireless bill down to just 15 bucks a month.
	And by the way, if you're like me, I was probably paying between 5 and 10 times that before with big wireless.
	Well, Mint Mobile has reimagined wireless, making it easy and online only.
	It means they pass along significant savings directly to you.
	You can save thousands of dollars a year using Mint Mobile without sacrificing quality service.
	Mint Mobile makes it easy to cut your bill down to just 15 bucks a month.
	How do you do it?
	You use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
	You keep your old number along with your existing contacts.
	So how does Mint get all those savings?
	Because it allows you to choose between 3, 8, or 12 gigabytes of 4G LTE data.
	So you can stop paying for unlimited data that you are never going to use.
	That is how big data and big phone comes and takes all your money from you.
	Every plan comes with unlimited nationwide talk and text.
	If you're not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their 7-day money-back guarantee.
	Ditch your old wireless bill.
	Start saving with Mint Mobile.
	Get your plan for just 15 bucks a month.
	Get the plan shipped to your door for free.
	MintMobile.com slash Knowles.
	K-N-O-W-L-E-S. This is a game changer.
	MintMobile.com slash Knowles.
	Cut your wireless bill down to $15 a month.
	Get free shipping on your Mint Mobile plan.
	MintMobile.com slash Knowles.
	Alright, I wish our federal government was that interested in cutting costs and saving money and actually getting something effected here.
	There was a report out on Tuesday that outlets were saying that the Trump administration had built only 1.7 miles of border wall in two and a half years in office.
	And they had used $1.57 billion from Congress to do that.
	Now, because I read that in the mainstream media, I knew it wasn't true.
	Just sort of assumed.
	However, just looking around, looking at the pictures on the border, I don't see a whole lot of new border wall.
	And if the Trump administration had built a whole lot of new border wall, you know that we would have heard about it.
	He would have been tweeting it all the time, tweeting pictures, tweeting videos, giving rallies down there.
	So what is the reality of this?
	Sarah Sanders went on Fox and Friends to discuss.
	Here she is shooting down the reports from the mainstream media.
	Hey, Sarah, just building on the wall comment.
	First story in the drudge today, it looks like the wall, we only have two miles built of the wall.
	What's going on there?
	And does the president still think he can get 400 miles done of the wall by the end of the year?
	Absolutely.
	And that's an incorrect figure.
	There's far more than two miles that have been built.
	We're still on track to get close to 500 miles built by the end of the year.
	The Army Corps of Engineers working with DHS and DOD are putting a tremendous amount of effort into not just building a new wall, taking down some of the barriers that have existed that are completely ineffective and putting in the very effective border wall that they've been building over the last couple of months.
	That's going to continue, and we're making great progress on that front.
	Okay, so you notice the language shift that Sarah Sanders has.
	They say, look, they've only built 1.7 miles of new border wall.
	And she says, listen, there is plenty of border wall that is going to be built.
	And so what's missing in that statement is, is it old border wall or is it new border wall?
	They're going to build 500 miles, she says.
	First of all, it's in the future tense.
	So she's not saying we've built 500 miles.
	She's saying by the end of the year, by the day after tomorrow, we're going to build 500.
	But then she's also saying we're just going to build wall.
	Okay, is it replacing old broken down wall or is it actually new border wall?
	We already have wall along our southern border.
	Good, we want to update that.
	We want to build a lot more, though.
	And so you've got to look to customs and border protection to actually get the real numbers here.
	So CBP reports that thus far...
	$6.1 billion has been allocated to building the wall, or the slats, or the really strong fence, or whatever you want to call it.
	It estimates that this will result in a total of approximately 336 total miles of border wall over the next couple years.
	So the White House is saying 500 miles by the end of this year.
	Customs and Border Patrol, which is actually going to be affecting a lot of this, is estimating about 336 miles over the next couple of years.
	Okay.
	How much of that is new wall?
	Reports from Customs and Border Patrol are saying...
	Customs and Border Protection, rather, are saying 86 miles of new primary wall.
	So...
	You got 86 of that, 24 miles of new levee wall, 68 miles of updated primary wall, 144 miles of updated vehicle wall, 14 miles of updated secondary wall.
	So you're going through all of these numbers, the primary, the secondary, the new, the updated.
	What does that mean?
	It means that ultimately only 110 miles of this 336 mile promise is going to be new wall.
	226 of it is going to be updated.
	Now, when President Trump promised the wall, I think a lot of us had in our minds that there would be 2,000 miles of wall built.
	Maybe you don't need 2,000 miles of wall.
	Maybe you just need it at the hot spots or where people are actually crossing.
	Okay.
	But that's a far cry from 110 miles of new wall over the next couple years.
	It gets even worse than this.
	So 20 miles of new border wall has been constructed through this traditional funding process during the Trump administration.
	And additionally, there are about 40 miles of new wall in place of pedestrian fencing that was funded by the fiscal year 2017 budget.
	But the fiscal year 2017 budget comes from 2016, before President Trump was in office.
	So now even that number of 110, you get down to what do we have now?
	We have 60 miles total.
	And about 40 of it was funded under Barack Obama.
	So then you have to ask how much of it was built under Barack Obama.
	Even, let's say, none of it.
	Even if you're just looking at funding, the majority of the new wall that we have was funded by Barack Obama in the last few months of his administration, rather than in two and a half years of the Trump administration.
	This is a major political loss for the Trump administration.
	This is really bad.
	Ann Coulter.
	One of the earliest Trump supporters has been complaining about this for months now, over a year now, and saying Trump's not really building the wall.
	Trump's not really building the wall.
	Trump fires back and says, yes, I am.
	I'm totally doing it.
	And you've had this political fight.
	And she said, no, it's really not happening.
	Some of President Trump's supporters have started to believe her.
	I didn't want to believe her.
	I thought, no, I'm sure they've got this under control.
	60 miles of border, 40 of which were funded under the Obama administration?
	That's a total failure on the promise of building the wall.
	There have been so many other wonderful aspects of the Trump administration.
	It has vastly exceeded my wildest dreams for how great it would be.
	When you just compare conservative domestic legislation, he's done better than Reagan.
	But what about the central promise?
	Where is the wall?
	I'm not just asking because I want the wall to be built.
	I'm asking because if that was a central promise in 2016, how is President Trump going to face voters in 2020 and explain why the wall hasn't been built?
	This is not just an American problem.
	The demand for border protection is not just an American phenomenon.
	This is going around all over the Western world.
	In the United Kingdom, right now, as we speak, the UK is voting in the European elections.
	So the UK has its own government, and then the European Union has its government.
	Now, you probably remember three years ago, the UK voted to leave the European Union.
	So why are they still voting in the European elections?
	They're still voting because Brexit never happened.
	We were promised Brexit.
	Initially, the date that the United Kingdom was supposed to leave the European Union was March 29th of this year.
	Yep, that's gone.
	Okay, so then it was pushed back to April 12th of this year.
	Is that...
	Nope, that's gone too.
	Now we're being told that they'll leave on October 31st.
	And if you believe they're actually going to do it, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
	A major issue.
	Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
	For now, she very likely won't be Prime Minister for long because she has failed to affect the Brexit vote.
	She has failed to secure her national borders.
	Polling shows that support for Theresa May and her leadership of the Tories of the Conservative Party has collapsed.
	What is surging in her wake?
	Nigel Farage, the guy who used to be the head of the UK Independence Party, he was one of the main forces behind Brexit, he has now founded a Brexit party and polling shows they are surging in the EU elections.
	And Farage said that he's got over a thousand candidates, thousands of candidates, ready to stand for the UK elections the next time that those will be up in a few years.
	How did this happen?
	Why?
	on the status of Theresa May today or on the EU elections and the Brexit party because in the United Kingdom they have laws to prohibit reporting on elections during election day.
	So if you're wondering why this isn't trending globally on Twitter or something, it's because the British press legally cannot report on these elections until the elections are over.
	But the mainstream media are stunned by this.
	The mainstream media in the UK and in the United States.
	The New York Times wonders...
	They have their big explanation.
	How Farage's Brexit party is crushing its opponents.
	They completely get it wrong.
	But the mistake that the New York Times makes, the mistake that the elites in Britain make, could spell serious political trouble for Donald Trump if he doesn't fix it.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	But speaking of safety, Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
	You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
	You might know because I talk about mine all the time and how it makes me feel so safe.
	Security is a big issue these days.
	It's a geopolitical issue.
	It's a national issue.
	And, of course, it is a personal issue.
	Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
	If there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you will get an alert and be able to see, hear, and speak to whoever is at your door all from your phone.
	That's thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
	I can be connected to Ring to whoever's coming to my home from anywhere in the world, whether I'm in my bedroom, whether I'm at the office, whether I'm on a beach in the Caribbean.
	Our senior producer, Jay Hay, the other night, he's lying in bed with his lovely wife.
	They're sleeping.
	It's three in the morning.
	Two wacko drug addicts show up to his door, ring the bell.
	They were casing the joint.
	They wanted to see if anyone was home.
	He starts talking to them right away.
	He sees them.
	He says, what do you want?
	They say, oh, um, or um, hummina, hummina, nothing, and they run away.
	Because they, now he could have done that whether he was on vacation, too.
	It just makes you safer.
	As a listener, you have a special offer on a Ring starter kit available right now.
	With a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight camera, the starter kit has everything you need to start building a Ring of Security around your home.
	Go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Ring.com slash Knowles.
	Really makes you feel much safer.
	The New York Times, the mainstream media, still somehow years later don't understand this issue of border security and this issue of immigration.
	This is what they wrote.
	How Farage's Brexit party is crushing its opponents.
	They're describing the Brexit rally scene.
	The candidates walk down the ballroom aisle to loud ovations and corporate rock, taking turns at the lectern delivering pitches for the Brexit party.
	A deep-pocketed Tory known for churning through managers at his soccer club.
	An ex-labor voter and son of a coal-miner whose hometown despised Margaret Thatcher.
	A dental surgeon who said in an interview that she believed the European Union was indoctrinating children like Stalin's kids and Comme Sommel and Hitler Youth.
	One by one, they let loose with a bare-bones populism largely bereft of any demonstrable political ideology or, for that matter, any detectable policies save one, taking Britain out of the European Union promptly and, if necessary, with no deal.
	No issues.
	You see, the New York Times, they just can't understand why is the Brexit Party surging in the polls?
	They have absolutely no issues whatsoever.
	Oh, yeah, well, except for pulling Britain out of the European Union.
	But they have no real issues.
	You see, according to the New York Times, border security, immigration, that's not a real issue.
	A real issue would be something like raising taxes or lowering taxes.
	A real issue would be changing some aspect of the health care system.
	A real issue would be the Green New Deal because the sun monster is going to destroy the world in 12 years.
	And so we need to outlaw planes, trains, and automobiles and knock down every building in the country.
	That would be a real issue according to the New York Times.
	But securing national borders, protecting national sovereignty, protecting self-government, immigration, legal and illegal, those are not real issues.
	This is the mistake they make.
	This is the mistake Democrats and Republicans have made in the country.
	And frankly, if the Trump administration cannot build more wall, it's a mistake that the president is going to be making as well.
	This is a big issue.
	This is not just a big issue.
	This is the big issue because it touches on so many aspects of politics.
	One, security really matters.
	If people don't feel secure, they don't care about anything else in politics.
	So it touches on a question of personal security.
	It touches on questions of culture.
	You've got people coming in and out of countries in the United Kingdom, in Europe, in the United States, who aren't speaking the languages, who are not engaging in the political customs of those regions, who are not respecting local laws.
	I mean, they're literally not respecting laws when they come into the country illegally.
	And then at a really basic bedrock level, the question of immigration, illegal and illegal, gets to the question of self-government.
	All of our Western countries, all of these developed countries, have a political tradition of self-government.
	So that people get to decide who governs them, what their laws are, how they're going to live, what rules they're going to follow. - Yeah.
	When a small cabal of elites decides to flood the country, either legally or illegally, with immigrants, Who will then eventually, they or their children, will have the right to vote and shape that government.
	You are getting into the question of sovereignty.
	Who gets to rule?
	Who gets to decide?
	On this Brexit question, who gets to rule and who gets to decide?
	Some elites in Brussels or the British people?
	Who gets to decide who goes in and out of the United Kingdom?
	Some elites in Brussels or the British people?
	The mainstream media want to convince you that somehow it is wrong or immoral to care about immigration.
	You see, it's okay to care about health care.
	It's okay to care about any other political issue.
	But for some reason, caring about immigration policy is wrong.
	You know, in the United States and in various parts of Europe, there were very strict immigration policies in place at different times until very recently.
	In the United States, until 1965, until Ted Kennedy's immigration law...
	We really controlled our immigration system pretty well.
	Since then, our immigrant population as a share of the total U.S. population has tripled or quadrupled.
	We have the highest foreign-born percentage of the population in the United States right now that we have had since the 1890s.
	It is perfectly reasonable for people to be concerned about that.
	This isn't just some bigoted reaction to a trivial issue.
	This is a major change in national policy.
	It poses serious problems for the culture and for politics.
	And so it's perfectly natural for people to respond.
	You know, in the United States, we're talking about low-skilled illegal immigration from Central and South America.
	In The European continent, we're talking about whole masses of Muslim immigrants coming over who are hostile to the culture, who don't speak the language, who don't follow the faith that crafted Europe, who are hostile to many laws and customs.
	And what we are told, not just by the elites, not just by the mainstream media, but even by our own religious institutions, we are told you have to let them in, you can't do anything, you can't oppose it.
	This is true.
	In the faith that crafted Europe, in Christianity, this is true of virtually every Christian denomination.
	This is true, perhaps especially, of the Catholic Church.
	There is one guy, as far as I can tell, there is one major figure in international Christendom.
	He's a Catholic cardinal named Raymond Burke, who is...
	Very conservative cardinal, very sharp guy, really has a great deal of moral clarity on these questions.
	He came out and he said, listen, folks, you don't have to support open borders to be a good Christian.
	Here he is.
	The fundamental question here is someone who resists large-scale Muslim immigration committing an immoral act and therefore should be, let's say, denied Holy Communion or in some way recognized as a public sinner.
	To resist large-scale Muslim immigration My judgment is to be responsible in the sense of making sure that those who are immigrating to the country remember that the definition of the church's teaching is that the individuals are not able to find a way of living in their own country.
	And this is not true of immigrants who come, who are opportunists, And in particular in the case of Islam, which by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world,
	coming in large numbers to countries, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's happened, for instance, in Europe, in countries like France and Germany and also here in Italy, and it's also happening in the United States.
	It is happening in the United States.
	Cardinal Burke would know that because he's an American.
	He goes on to say that it is not just not immoral to oppose unfettered immigration but actually it's responsible.
	It's a responsible act of patriotism.
	It's a responsible act of prudence.
	Charity is a virtue.
	It's wonderful to have charity.
	Prudence is also a virtue.
	And not letting huge, limitless numbers of people who are hostile to you, your culture, and your system of government to flood into your country, especially countries that have a system of self-government, so eventually they'll be able to change the government over time.
	That's perfectly prudent to oppose that.
	Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is probably never going to make Cardinal Burke Pope.
	I don't think that's going to happen.
	But if he keeps talking like this, he could probably run for president in the United States in 2024.
	He could probably run for the prime minister of the United Kingdom.
	Because even if the elites don't understand what he's saying...
	The people in both of those places do.
	This is a major issue.
	Poll after poll shows this.
	The majority of Americans, according to an ABC Washington Post poll, feel that too little is being done to prevent illegal immigration.
	That's not the majority of Republicans, not The majority of conservatives, the majority of all Americans.
	Only one-third of Americans believe our border is secure enough.
	Gallup polling shows that 77%, more than three-quarters of Americans, want to stop the flow of illegals.
	Totally.
	A Harvard-Harris poll last year showed it's not just that people want to radically reduce illegal immigration.
	They want to radically reduce, in the United States, legal immigration as well.
	The majority want to reduce legal immigration.
	By upwards of 60%.
	Why?
	Because of the very real fear that immigrants pose a threat to our cultural traditions and system of government if they do not assimilate, and if they come in in huge numbers and are not made to assimilate.
	This is not just about speaking English rather than Spanish.
	This is not just about watching baseball rather than soccer.
	This is about self-government.
	And there's such an irony today when you look at prominent immigrants in the United States.
	Ilhan Omar, Democratic Congresswoman, freshman in Congress, she is an immigrant herself.
	She fled a horrible country.
	A country that was wrecked by a socialist dictatorship.
	She fled Somalia.
	She was finally able to come with her family in 1992 to the United States.
	And what is she doing now?
	She is advocating the same policies that helped to ruin the country that she fled from.
	If she wanted to continue to live under those policies, why didn't her family stay in Somalia?
	Why did they escape to something better only to turn that better place into the same rotten political culture that...
	She fled.
	You see this a lot with the question of illegal immigration on our southern border.
	There's an organization, they've since changed their name because they were getting bad PR, called La Raza.
	It means the race.
	This was on virtually every college campus in the country.
	It started here in Southern California, and it's a Hispanic supremacist group.
	I don't know how else to say it.
	Now they've restyled it Unidos, because it's very difficult to say you oppose racism when your group is called the race.
	At a lot of La Raza marches and protests, at a lot of immigration protests, at a lot of illegal immigration protests that I have personally witnessed from sea to shining sea, from Washington, D.C. to Southern California, you will see people waving the Mexican flag.
	You will see illegal aliens waving the Mexican flag.
	If you want to live under the Mexican flag, go back to Mexico.
	Problem solved.
	Good, we agree.
	People who oppose illegal immigration want you to go back to Mexico.
	You, yourself, just say you want to go back to Mexico.
	Go back to Mexico.
	Why are you here?
	Now, they don't really mean it.
	Nope, they don't want to go live in Mexico.
	They fled these places.
	They don't want to live in Somalia.
	They fled those places.
	They want to come to the United States because it's much, much nicer to live in the United States.
	And yet, when they're here—and it's not just their fault, by the way.
	This is being encouraged by the popular culture.
	It is being encouraged by the left not to assimilate.
	It's being encouraged by a leftist culture in America that hates itself, that hates the West, that hates our traditions, that hates our system of self-government, that rewrites and lies about our history, that says we are the worst place on Earth, and everyone should—we shouldn't support immigration to be nice to the people living in squalor and living under threat of death.
	We shouldn't support immigration to give them a better life.
	We should support immigration so that they can come here and erase our own culture and bring over their obviously superior culture from Honduras and El Salvador and Somalia.
	That's the argument, when you boil it down, that they are making.
	Obviously, it's ridiculous.
	It's exactly the opposite of reality.
	But you're seeing that play out, and it is really driving people from the U.S. to the U.K. to Europe up a wall.
	This issue caused Theresa May to have the worst premiership ever.
	It very likely will get her thrown out of office.
	Will the failure to build the wall get President Trump thrown out of office?
	Hard to say.
	He has some advantages over May.
	May was only in there to effect Brexit.
	That was her whole job.
	President Trump was not just elected to build the wall.
	He was elected to fix the economy, to create a lot of jobs, to bring some manufacturing back.
	He was to give us good conservative judges, originalist judges, He has done all of that.
	He's succeeded very well on that.
	So he does have an advantage.
	Still, a major pillar of that campaign was securing the southern border.
	And that has not happened.
	We have 3,000 illegal aliens per day pouring across a totally porous border.
	I get that it's hard.
	Being president is hard.
	And the American people are not going to reward you for trying.
	If this remains a top issue or the top issue, it doesn't matter how hard you tried.
	I get it.
	The Democrats and the bureaucracy are shutting this down at every turn.
	Doesn't matter.
	The buck stops with the president.
	We have a lot more to get to.
	We will get to Quentin Tarantino shutting down feminism at Cannes, and we will get to what that says about the left and the right.
	We will get to what that means for the emotional appeals that the left and the right have, because they each have a special tool in their toolbox, and we're going to have to make sure that we use the one that we have if we want a chance in 2020.
	Plus, we got the mailbag, but first, go to dailywire.com.
	Ten bucks a month, hundred dollars for an annual membership.
	You get me.
	You get the Andrew Klavan show.
	You get the Ben Shapiro show.
	You get the Matt Walsh show.
	You get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up.
	You get to ask questions backstage.
	You get another kingdom.
	I could be here all day telling you what you get, but what you get, most importantly, is the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Get it.
	This is as important as anything as we head into 2020.
	As the 2020 Democrat primary heats up, you're going to need it or you're going to drown.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back.
	Shifting gears just slightly.
	We go to the European continent.
	We go to the Cannes Film Festival.
	Quentin Tarantino...
	He was asked a question about his new movie, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
	But it wasn't asked a question really about the movie or about the story or about his legendary career in film.
	He was asked a question about why he isn't feminist enough.
	And he handles it beautifully.
	Quentin, you have put Margot Robbie, a very talented actress, actor, in your film.
	She was with Leonardo in Wolf of Wall Street.
	I, Tonya, this is a person with a great deal of acting talent, and yet you haven't really given her many lines in the movie.
	And I guess that was a deliberate choice on your part, and I just wanted to know why that was, that we don't hear her actually speaking very much.
	And Margot, I wanted you to also comment about being in the film in this part.
	Well, I just reject your hypotheses.
	Like I said earlier, I always look to the character and what the character is supposed to serve to the story.
	I think the moments that I got on screen gave an opportunity to honour Sharon and the lightness.
	I don't think it was intended to delve deeper than, like Brad also mentioned, I think the tragedy ultimately was the loss of innocence and to really show those wonderful sides of her I think could be adequately done without speaking.
	First of all, what a stupid question from this.
	They both handled this wonderfully, this answer.
	But what a stupid question from that reporter.
	I mean, obviously she doesn't know anything about film.
	So, hey, filmmaker, how come you didn't write the movie that I wanted you to write?
	How come you wrote the movie that you wanted to write?
	Hey, hey, hey, Star Wars.
	I thought that Boba Fett should have been the star of the movie instead of Luke Skywalker.
	Why didn't you do that?
	Oh, because I made my movie and not your movie, and if you want to make a movie, you can make your own movie.
	The premise, though, is even more ridiculous than that, because Quentin Tarantino...
	Has created probably the strongest female characters in the history of cinema.
	Just a quick look down his history.
	You've got Broomhilda in Django Unchained.
	You've got Arlene in Death Proof.
	You've got Jungle Julia in Death Proof.
	You've got Abernathy in Death Proof.
	You've got Kim Mathis in Death Proof.
	Death Proof literally ends, spoiler alert, with a group of women punching a man to death.
	You've got Alabama Whitman in True Romance.
	You got Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction.
	You obviously have The Bride in Kill Bill.
	The entire Kill Bill franchise is about a woman killing a man named Bill.
	Also, spoiler alert, I guess it was in the title.
	Quentin Tarantino has stronger female roles than any other filmmaker.
	But it's not enough for the left, is it?
	That's the takeaway.
	This is actually how this ties in to our story on open borders, illegal immigration, and ultimately the elections that are coming up.
	It's never enough for the left.
	You can't give them enough.
	Appeasing the left is like appeasing a militaristic dictator.
	Things might go fine for a little while.
	Eventually, he's going to turn on you.
	Eventually, the left is going to turn on you.
	And why?
	Because beyond the arguments, the left doesn't really have any arguments left.
	But beyond the arguments, the left and the right both have tools at their disposal.
	And the tool at the left's disposal, it only has one, it's resentment.
	Resentment for countrymen, resentment between races, resentment between sexes, resentment for your history, resentment for your institutions.
	That is what the left uses.
	Resentment.
	And so here, to effect her leftist agenda, this Journalist, if you can call her that, tries to gin up resentment where it obviously doesn't exist.
	To try to portray Quentin Tarantino as some anti-woman filmmaker.
	All of his films star women in really strong roles.
	But that's the way they do it.
	The main emotional tool of the right, we make a lot of arguments, but the main emotional tool that we have is actually the opposite of the left's tool.
	Our main emotional tool is affection.
	So the left has resentment, division, resentment between every class of people, every group of people, every sexual preference of people, every country, every state, every community.
	What the right has is affection, affection for your neighbors, affection for your institutions, affection for your traditions.
	Affection for the rituals that you do.
	Affection for your country.
	This is why when you go to a right-wing political rally, it's like the 4th of July.
	They talk about patriotism.
	They talk about love of country.
	They talk about love of family.
	They talk about love of God, love of our political traditions, love of freedom.
	And when you go to a left-wing political rally, it's screeching and whining and complaining and vilifying and saying, this person is bad and this person is the cause of all of our problems.
	This person is an oppressor.
	America is a horrible place.
	We should ruin our past.
	We should forget our past.
	We should pull down monuments.
	We should erase our history.
	We should bring in everybody else from everywhere in the world, and we should take on their culture because our culture is so awful and I hate everything.
	That's what the left says.
	What we have is affection, and affection is really strong.
	Affection is what gave us the Brexit vote.
	Affection is what gave us the Trump 2016 election.
	Affection is what can propel the right to what I think is a quiet conservative movement sweeping throughout the Western world.
	That's what we've got to focus on.
	And we don't have time to check in on the 2020 race, but if you just take a look around those candidates, you'll see obviously they can't pull that tool out of their belt.
	They can't talk about affection.
	They just have to talk about resentment.
	People are sick of that.
	People don't like it.
	Make that difference stark.
	Make that difference clear, and I think we'll have a fighting chance.
	Let's get to the mailbag, late as we always are, from Mark.
	Michael, as a member of the youngest part of the millennial generation and or the oldest part of Generation Z, I'm 21, how do you recommend I start going about finding a suitable girlfriend who shares my views?
	Specifically, starting a family, working hard to provide them, raising them in the faith, etc.
	Thanks.
	First thing you gotta do, I give this advice to people who write in about love questions all the time.
	You've got to change your language.
	How to find a suitable girlfriend.
	It's so clinical.
	It's so sterile.
	That doesn't sound sexy at all.
	That doesn't sound fun.
	I wouldn't want to do that.
	Don't be so intellectual about it.
	Don't be so clinical about it.
	Go out and find a girl.
	Fall in love.
	Have a good time.
	I want to be with them, want to go find them, chase them.
	Get them.
	That's what you want to do.
	The joke is Cole Porter never sang, let's do it.
	Let's be in a relationship with a girl who shares some of my views and aspirations.
	It's, let's do it.
	Let's fall in love.
	That's what it is.
	Go fall in love.
	That's the first thing.
	Now, you're saying, when I put myself out there to fall in love, where am I going to be able to do it with someone that isn't going to be some purple-haired wacko that I don't want to spend my life with?
	Well, you say you want her to share your views on faith.
	Maybe you meet her...
	Around church circles.
	I'm not saying, you know, during the Holy Communion, you've got to start some pickup lines with the girl next to you in the pew, but a lot of times after church, the churches that I attend, they'll have a little coffee or donuts or something afterward.
	Maybe hang around there.
	Maybe see how that works.
	Maybe get involved in some groups at your church.
	If you want to meet a girl that you agree with politically, go to some events that are a little more politically minded.
	I'm a member of probably a dozen political organizations and you're not always there just debating tax policy.
	Usually what you're doing is having drinks and talking about things that matter and having a good time.
	That's a good place to meet people as well.
	Obviously the dating apps do exist.
	I've been to multiple weddings of people who met on those apps.
	I think they can be used for ill and they can be used for very good, just as freedom can always be used for ill or can be used for good.
	So maybe if you want to meet a girl who's Christian, you go on Christian Mingle.
	If you want to meet a girl who's Jewish, you go on J-Date.
	That's the one, right?
	J-Date.
	If you want to meet...
	I don't know if that exists, but if it doesn't, it should.
	There are ways to put yourself in a situation where you will be around like-minded people.
	Probably you just do that naturally.
	We want to be around people that we enjoy and that enjoy us.
	But when you're there, don't be planning too far ahead.
	It's the only way that you can make love and sex boring.
	And don't do that, because, you know, at that point, what's the point?
	From Tommy.
	Dear Michael, what is your argument for Christians to be pro-life?
	I've run into a lot of professing believers who support abortion strongly.
	Thanks for all your historical insights and your hard work.
	Um...
	Yeah, I've noticed this too.
	People who say that they're Christian and then say that they support abortion.
	There is simply no way to be Christian and support abortion.
	I can't speak to the other religions because I don't practice them and I don't know a tremendous amount about them.
	But certainly in Christianity, there is no way to be Christian and to support abortion.
	It is not possible.
	What are some...
	Scriptural arguments.
	Well, the phrase conceived and bore appears repeatedly in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
	In Psalms, the psalmist says he was knit in his mother's womb and he traces his identity back to his moment of conception in Psalm 51, verse 7.
	Luke, in the Gospel of Luke, uses the same word in Greek to describe children before and after they are born.
	Obviously, we're talking about the same people.
	And the Apostle Paul writes, quote, God from my mother's womb had set me apart and called me through his grace.
	From my mother's womb.
	God knew us before we were born, as we were formed in the womb.
	Hairs on our head, right?
	This is throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament.
	Father Frank Pavone, I think it is, who is the National Director of Priests for Life, he has a great article on the internet outlining some of the religious arguments against abortion.
	There's no religious argument for abortion.
	The closest that anyone I've ever seen come up with is a mistranslation of one verse in the book of Numbers, Which suggests, in one bad translation in the NIV, it suggests that a command from God could lead in certain circumstances for an abortion to be committed.
	But no other major translation renders it that way.
	And no other major translation suggests that miscarriage or abortion are implied at all in the text.
	So there's just none.
	It's just a totally bankrupt argument for people who are following the church of themselves.
	Say, reading the Bible without any interpretive scheme, without any context, historical or exegetical, or from tradition or the Church Fathers, which is what it's like is staring down a deep, deep, dark well, and when you look down into that well, all you see is yourself on the surface.
	You're just seeing your own reflection.
	You're reading into the scripture whatever you want it to say.
	You're following cafeteria Christianity, taking a little bit here and a little bit there and ignoring all of the rest.
	You say, well, it's so clear from this one verse that I'm choosing to interpret how I want to.
	Don't forget, as Dr.
	Johnson famously said centuries ago, all shallows are clear.
	Shallow thinking is clear.
	Shallow interpretation is clear.
	and profound things are a little more complicated than that.
	They have a little more context than that.
	Obviously, this is true in Divine Revelation.
	From Jack.
	Hi, Michael.
	You recently talked about Jay Inslee, governor of Washington and presidential candidate, and his composting program, composting dead bodies.
	People who aren't religious might not care about that form of respecting the dead.
	I think that there's some sort of beauty in using a dead person to give life to something else.
	It's certainly not worse than burning them and keeping their ashes in a jar.
	My question is, why is this bad exactly from a non-religious standpoint?
	Well, the composting our dead idea is bad from a public health standpoint in so much as...
	This is going to lead to bubonic plague.
	This very likely could lead to awful public health outbreaks.
	If you compost a dead body, a rotting body, and then you use that compost to grow other crops, you're really threatening public health.
	This is not terribly sanitary.
	That's just one reason.
	The reason that it is offensive, though, just from an ethical or philosophical standpoint, is that we revere We revere human beings.
	We have reverence for human beings.
	They don't lose that the minute that they die, because humans are not just their minds or their spirits.
	We are our bodies as well.
	We're a unit.
	There is a unity between our bodies and our souls.
	And so it is offensive to humanity, per se, to desecrate a body.
	I mean, just think about this very practically.
	Let's say a very close family member of yours died.
	And then you said, okay, now I'm going to dispose of the body.
	And someone came in and took the body and started throwing it up in the air and juggling it and stabbing it and urinating on it and graffitiing it and doing all manner of horrific things.
	Would you just say, well, it's just a dead body.
	It's nothing.
	No big deal.
	No, you'd kill the guy.
	You'd be so angry because it is disrespectful to the person who has died.
	Nevertheless, it is disrespectful to the person.
	And so, in the same way, letting dogs or bugs or something eat the dead is also disrespectful.
	It says that human beings are no different than any other animal, just to be thrown out and discarded.
	But we're not.
	We have dignity.
	We have an inherent dignity by virtue of the fact that we are humans.
	Therefore, we should treat each other with dignity while we are alive, while we are dead, before we are born, on the whole spectrum of human life.
	From Reagan.
	Great name.
	Excellent Michael Knowles.
	Thank you for getting that right.
	Some people think that people are referring to me around here as ex-cripple Michael Knowles, but I'm pretty certain it's excellent Michael Knowles, so thanks for getting that right.
	Excellent Michael Knowles.
	In an American history class, I am to give a presentation on either the most effective or the least effective political advertisement in American history.
	Any thoughts?
	Thanks.
	Yes.
	I'll give you just, there are so many great examples.
	The Daisy ad that LBJ used against Barry Goldwater was pretty effective.
	He used this in the 1960s, and it implied that Barry Goldwater was going to blow up the whole world.
	He was a radical, and he had his finger on the nukes, and this was at the height of the Cold War, and by all measures, it was very effective.
	Many other.
	The Willie Horton ad was very effective.
	Ronald Reagan's Morning in America ad was very effective.
	There are so many good ones that we can think of, and I can think of some pretty awful ads.
	There was one from a candidate, Christine O'Donnell, running for Senate in Delaware, who said, as the thesis of the ad, I am not a witch.
	Because there was some accusation that she had practiced Wicca or witchcraft in her past.
	And rather than just ignore this or laugh about it, she made a whole video where she said, I am not a witch.
	I am you.
	I am nothing you've heard.
	I'm not a witch.
	And all people heard is, oh my god, was this woman a witch?
	Oh dear, I didn't even know that someone suggested she was a witch.
	That was pretty bad.
	That was a pretty bad political ad as well.
	A few examples for you.
	And there are certain things that, I mean, negative ads do work.
	When you attack your opponents, they do work.
	Ads where you are defending, ads where you are explaining, tend not to work.
	Because as Ronald Reagan said, when you're explaining, you're losing.
	So you've got to push hard, boast on your successes, ride that success, give people something to aspire to.
	But when you defend yourself, that's probably not going to work very well.
	We've got a whole lot more to get to.
	But we're out of time.
	This is what happens.
	We just get too excited.
	That's our show.
	Have a good weekend.
	Tune in on Monday.
	I want to just quickly say our thoughts and prayers are with the people in Missouri and especially in Jefferson City.
	I was just out there a little while ago and a major tornado has blown through there.
	So we're thinking of you and praying for you, hoping everything turns out all right there.
	And then I'll see you on Monday.
	Come back here.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Show.
	I'll see you then.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike 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.
	And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey guys, over on the Matt Walsh Show today, NPR has issued an Orwellian language guide for discussing abortion, telling us all the words and phrases we should avoid or use when discussing it.
	Well, I've got my own language guide that I'd like to offer up for as a suggestion.
	Also, Quentin Tarantino has been accused of sexism because the women in his latest film don't spend enough time talking, apparently.
	Jeff Daniels says that democracy is coming to an end.
	Our democracy is coming to an end if Trump is re-elected.
	And finally, Michael Avenatti has been charged with fraud.
	We'll take a trip down memory lane and remember all of the time that the media spent hyping this guy up.
	Hyping him up as the savior of the republic, literally.

▲