Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 4, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

47:27

Ep. 409 - We May Get Trump’s Wall After All…

The White House announces plans to divert $3.6 billion to build wall. A new poll spells bad news for Biden, the UK’s Prince Harry gives a hypocritical speech on environmentalism, and finally, some hope from Hollywood. Date: 09-04-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Great news from the White House today.
	Just as President Trump's supporters had nearly abandoned all hope for a wall on our southern border, the White House announces plans to divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects to build the border wall.
	We will examine how likely it is that the money makes it to the southern border and what it means for 2020.
	Then, speaking of 2020, a new poll spells bad news for President Trump, but it also spells bad news for Joe Biden, which is good news for Elizabeth Warren, which is good news for President Trump.
	How does that work?
	It's a complex poll.
	We will break it down.
	Over in the motherland, the UK's Prince Harry gives a hypocritical speech on environmentalism.
	The speech tells us a lot more about the state of Western religion than it does about science.
	Finally, some hope from left-wing Hollywood.
	All that and more.
	more.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.
	We have a new sponsor today that I have been waiting to tell you about.
	I've been so excited to tell you about it because I simply love the product.
	The product is Daniels NYC, beautiful, exceptional, a luxury leather briefcases at an incredibly affordable price.
	Classic New York style.
	I'm a New Yorker pretty much my whole life.
	And it's just the best of New York style.
	It's got sort of fun little patterns on the inside if you want to get them.
	Really nice high quality leather.
	It just looks great.
	It feels great.
	It's really, really high quality.
	The reason I feel passionately about this, I have always...
	I've had briefcases for a long time.
	I've had really expensive briefcases that I've gotten as hand-me-downs.
	I've had all sorts, laptop bags, and none of them really worked.
	I mean, they're just, the old laptop bags are way too big now and bulky.
	They're like meant for computers from the 90s, not for new laptops, which are much smaller.
	Those hard back, you know, I have a beautiful like ostrich briefcase that's really hard.
	It looks like it's out of the 50s or 60s.
	Just doesn't work for the way that we work Today, Daniel's comes in with the perfect design.
	It's unbelievably slim.
	It's really sleek.
	It's really smart looking.
	And yet you can fit a ton of stuff in there.
	It's got a special laptop case.
	Even the buttons and things that fasten are just really exceptionally high quality.
	I had been using, I'm sorry to say...
	A backpack until I got my Daniels briefcase.
	Because like all millennials, I just didn't want to pay $500, $600 for a nice briefcase.
	And I couldn't find one that really looked good and worked for me.
	So I was carrying around a backpack like I'm a 12-year-old schoolboy.
	Daniels fixes that.
	New York City-based men's leather briefcase brand.
	It's a brand you can afford before you land the big job.
	It actually may help you land the big job.
	By cutting out the middlemen, they sell directly to you.
	You can get a high-quality luxury leather briefcase for the incredibly reasonable price of $195.
	You're not going to find that anywhere else.
	You can compare that to luxury brands that cost $500 or even more.
	I just love this product.
	I simply love the thing.
	This week, my listeners can get $25 off their Daniels briefcase at DanielsNYC.com by using the promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, at checkout.
	$25 off one of their leather briefcases.
	They are just superb, plus you get free shipping.
	Again, get it right now.
	It's so good.
	DanielsNYC.com, promo code Michael, $25 off a handcrafted high-quality leather briefcase, free shipping.
	Ditch that old backpack, start looking like a grown-up, kiddos.
	DanielsNYC.com.
	I love them, and you will too.
	Great news beyond our briefcases and how great we all will look with them.
	Great news from the White House today.
	It actually came out yesterday in the evening, but the news is finally hitting this morning.
	President Trump has announced plans to divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects to build the border wall.
	This is the most significant news on building the border wall that we've had so far.
	There, you know, President Trump had been telling people that he'd built a lot of wall.
	There's a lot of new wall, not just replacing old wall.
	Then there was a report that came out just a few months ago from Customs and Border Protection, which showed that he hadn't built a single inch of new wall.
	He had replaced old walls, but in terms of new wall, there had been nothing.
	A huge embarrassment, a huge vulnerability for the 2020 election campaign.
	Then, within the past few weeks, we got news from the Supreme Court that President Trump's cash grab to take about $2.5 billion from military construction was allowed to go through.
	It was a 5-4 decision.
	It shows you how important getting good judges on the Supreme Court can be.
	And this even dwarfs that.
	So what is going to happen?
	Of this 3.6 billion, half of it will come from projects overseas.
	You know, we have a ton of military construction that we do all around the world.
	So half of it will come from that.
	Half of the money will come from domestic projects, which means that certain congressmen are going to be extremely ticked off because they're losing their earmarks.
	And the White House is going to need to massage that and work with Congress, which they've not been extremely successful at so far.
	But perhaps that is already in the works.
	I should hope that it is, because otherwise Congress is going to raise a lot of trouble about this.
	Either way, the White House is empowered to do it.
	Still a very good start here, particularly after that SCOTUS ruling in July that Trump could use $2.5 billion to build the wall as well.
	So, what did the $2.5 billion get us?
	That first move that came in July, 2.5 billion permitted about 100 miles of new border wall.
	So that's in addition to all the wall that's been built over the past few decades.
	Now, if 2.5 billion got 100 miles of new wall, then you just do the math.
	This 3.6 billion should get us another 144 miles of wall.
	So in the past two months or so, we're looking at an additional 244 miles of border wall.
	What does that mean?
	Obviously, we're looking at an almost 2,000 mile border with Mexico.
	244 miles doesn't sound like a whole lot, but you've got to think of it in the perspective of the wall that we already have.
	I mean, we have been trying to build this wall since 1990.
	We've been trying to build this wall since the first George Bush administration.
	And then that proceeded, beginning with George H.W. Bush, through Bill Clinton, through George W. Bush, who really ramped up efforts to build the wall and actually got some bipartisan buy-in, even from Chuck Schumer, who was for the wall before he was against the wall, just like a lot of Democrats who were for proposals before Republicans were for them and now they're against those proposals.
	So all the way up through that, you got 649 miles of wall.
	In the course of about 30 years, you got 649 miles of wall.
	Now, you're also not going to build 2,000 miles of wall anyway, right?
	You're not going to build wall over water.
	You're not going to build wall in certain places that are not trafficked areas and are not hotspots for traffickers and coyotes to come through.
	So 649 so far.
	If you build an additional 244 miles of wall, then you're looking at a 38% increase in We're good to go.
	To get 649, then you get a 38% increase over that in just one term with just one president.
	That is a pretty good pitch.
	You know, we've said on this show for a long time that the absence of the wall, of the new wall, is a major campaign vulnerability.
	And I like to think that President Trump heard that.
	We know that he likes to watch Fox and Friends.
	I hope that he likes to watch this show, and I hope that his aides listen to this show as well.
	Either way, other people have been saying it too, and it appears that the White House has listened.
	It's very difficult for him to make his pitch in 2020 to his base, to his supporters, if a major campaign promise like build the wall, which everybody was chanting through the whole 2016 campaign, if he totally flops on that.
	If President Trump can now go to the public, In 2020, and say that he has expanded the wall by 38%, or he has laid the groundwork such that we're right on track to expand the wall by 38%.
	In the face of hardcore obstruction from the left and from many people on the right, that is real progress.
	It's not a big, beautiful wall that's 10 feet higher that Mexico paid for that goes from coast to coast, sure.
	But I mean, his critics will use that as a way to try to jab him and say, he didn't give you everything you want.
	Trump supporters don't really care about that.
	I think Trump supporters are very realistic and realize that this is a very difficult task.
	You're talking about a huge architectural endeavor, a massive political endeavor with nearly unprecedented obstruction.
	If you get a good chunk of it, upwards of 40% additional wall, that's pretty good.
	That's a pretty good start.
	Good news, thankfully, for the White House.
	Bad news for the Democrats.
	And actually, there's bad news for the Democrats that looks like bad news for the White House that is bad news for the White House, except it's also bad news for the Democrats, which means it's good news for the White House.
	How does that work?
	There's a new poll out that shows that Joe Biden's lead in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary is shrinking.
	This is a poll from IBDTIPP. LMNOP, WXYZ, no, there's a lot of alphabet in there, but this is a pretty reliable poll.
	IBDTIPP was the poll that most accurately predicted the 2016 general election.
	And this poll has Biden's lead diminishing and other candidates rising.
	And the poll has Biden up 12 points on President Trump.
	Now, this is a complex poll and it has complex implications, so let's break it down.
	If Biden is diminishing in the poll, he's been the frontrunner the whole time since he announced, even since before he announced.
	If he's diminishing, Liz Warren is surging.
	So she's up, in just the month of August, I think she's up seven points or something, according to this poll.
	That puts Liz Warren within four points of Joe Biden.
	But the poll still places Biden as the best choice against President Trump.
	According to the poll, Biden is up 12 points on President Trump.
	Warren, however, when you look at her head-to-head against President Trump, is only up three points on the president, which is not terribly significant.
	I mean, that's basically a dead heat.
	And it's even more confusing, it's even more difficult, because while the IBD-TIPP poll was the most accurate in the 2016 general election, It wasn't actually accurate.
	It predicted that Trump would win the popular vote by two percentage points.
	He didn't win the popular vote at all.
	He actually lost the popular vote, but he won the electoral vote.
	So you've got to take this poll, even a good poll, with a grain of salt, as you do, of all polls.
	So what does this mean in terms of how we should view the general election polls, how we should view the Democrat poll?
	And the question that's being debated in the media right now, in the left and right media, is...
	Is this poll good news for Trump or bad news for Trump?
	It actually is both, but there is a correct answer in the end.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	But first, support for The Michael Knowles Show comes from our friends at Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans.
	I live in Los Angeles.
	This is a very difficult place to get a house in.
	Why?
	Because you're walking through the neighborhoods and you say, oh, that little cottage looks pretty nice.
	Maybe I'd, oh, it's $10 million.
	Okay, all right, never mind, keep looking.
	Very difficult to find a good house, particularly when you're being paid these Shapiro wages and you're living in a broom closet.
	When I do find the right house, however, at least getting the right mortgage will be easy because Rocket Mortgage makes it easy.
	For most people, virtually everybody, getting a mortgage, buying a home is the most difficult, most important, most complex financial decision they're ever going to make.
	And because I'm a millennial and I don't know anything practical, it's even more difficult for me.
	But fortunately, their mortgage experts' number one goal is to make the home buying process smoother for you and for me.
	They have industry-leading online lending technology.
	Rocket Mortgage is there with award-winning client service and support every step of the way.
	When you go into this, when you go into a decision that is so important for your financial future and just for your life generally, We're good to go.
	At RocketMortgage.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, equal housing lender licensed in all 50 states, NMLSconsumerAccess.org, number 3030.
	Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans.
	Push button, get mortgage.
	Is this poll good for Trump or bad for Trump?
	First of all...
	I will put my cards on the table in terms of how I view these polls generally.
	I am skeptical of the general election polls.
	Specifically, I am skeptical of the polls that show Trump losing in the general election.
	Is that because I think Trump can't lose the general?
	Absolutely not.
	I think he's vulnerable and he could lose the general.
	Is it because I like Trump?
	No, I do like Trump, but that's not why.
	The reason that I'm distrustful of these general election polls is, first of all, the campaign has barely begun.
	Forget the general campaign, even the Democratic primary campaign has barely begun.
	We're about to look at what, the third Democratic presidential debate?
	There's going to be 12 total.
	We are not even scratching the surface of where this campaign is going to go.
	So far, the Democratic candidates have pretty much not attacked one another.
	Kamala Harris got to dig in at Joe Biden and Tulsi Gabbard got to dig in at Kamala Harris.
	That's pretty much it.
	Otherwise, they've all been nice and they've all been going after Trump.
	They've said a lot of crazy things, but they've been nice to one another.
	The main reason that I don't trust these general election polls is not even all that.
	It's because a little while ago there was a poll out that showed that head-to-head, Cory Booker would beat President Trump by a significant margin.
	And I don't know a whole lot in this life, folks.
	I'm not, look, I'm not Nostradamus.
	I can't predict the future.
	But Cory Booker is not going to beat Donald Trump for president.
	He's not going to beat any of the Democrats to get the nomination for president.
	If he's lucky, he'll get to keep his Senate seat.
	Cory Booker ain't going to the White House in 2020, folks.
	And if a poll tells you it is, that tells you more about the poll than it does about 2020.
	It is very, very early.
	These polls are very, very wacky.
	So I'm pretty much putting the general election polls off to the side for now.
	Doesn't mean they don't worry me.
	Doesn't mean that they don't tell you something.
	But it's just so remote at this point.
	Much more interesting than the general election polls are the primary polls.
	The primary polls right now, especially this IBDTIPP poll, is pretty much showing what we've been saying the whole time.
	The poll is saying Trump has vulnerabilities.
	I've been shouting that from the rooftop.
	The poll is saying a more moderate Democrat, or at least a Democrat who is perceived as more moderate, could possibly beat President Trump.
	I've been saying that the whole time.
	And it shows that the Democrats are radicalizing, which is the key here.
	Biden is tanking.
	Warren is surging.
	Biden is the old guard.
	Biden has really held virtually every position throughout his entire career, and he doesn't have any actual beliefs, and he'll say whatever he wants to say if he thinks it's politically convenient, and he has no regard for the truth.
	So there's that part.
	But at least for most of his career, he felt it was convenient to be perceived as a moderate.
	Liz Warren is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive.
	She's been a progressive for her entire public career.
	And she spent most of her career in academia, at very left-wing universities, which tends to make you even more liberal, even more radical.
	And more radical Democrats will have a much more difficult time beating President Trump.
	This is reflected in all the polls.
	This is why Democrats are having a big debate right now over electability.
	And you've got the Democrats who want to beat President Trump saying, we need somebody like a Joe Biden who might be a total schmuck and a doofus, but at least he could beat President Trump in the general.
	And then you've got the progressive saying, who cares about electability?
	What's electability?
	That doesn't mean anything.
	Poll after poll after poll shows it.
	And you don't need the polls to show it.
	You just have your common sense.
	If the Democrats are going to be running on open borders, abortion up until the moment of birth, and maybe even after the moment of birth, if you live in Virginia under the Democratic Governor Ralph Northam, or up until the moment of birth in New York under the Democratic Governor Andy Cuomo, If they're going to be running on abolishing ICE,
	if they're going to be running on soak the rich, spend $93 trillion in the Green New Deal, which virtually all of the major Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed, if you're running on that kind of stuff, that's not going to play in Peoria.
	That's not the way to win a majority of Americans, or a plurality of Americans and a majority of voters.
	That's not good news.
	It's bad news, especially in this case, in particular, for Joe Biden.
	And You don't need to just look at the poll and we don't need to read the crystals and the tea leaves like we're Marianne Williamson or something.
	We don't need to just do that.
	You can see from the Biden campaign, he is terrified.
	They are more nervous than any presidential campaign I have seen probably in my lifetime.
	How do I know that?
	Because they're already downplaying expectations in the early primary and caucus states.
	They're already saying...
	Don't expect us to win Iowa.
	So a senior advisor to the Biden campaign told a group of campaign reporters on Tuesday in a background briefing.
	So it's on background.
	The advisor doesn't want his name out there, but he does want to be quoted directly.
	And this wasn't just some guy speaking off the cuff.
	This was a senior decision from the Biden campaign.
	He said, quote, Where have we heard that?
	We heard that from Rudy Giuliani.
	We heard that from a campaign that I worked on from a very good man named John Huntsman, but a campaign that did not end well, and part of that was because of poor decisions by the senior campaign staff to give up Iowa.
	Campaigns that are not doing well say, well, we're going to give up Iowa.
	Campaigns that are really not doing well say, we're going to give up New Hampshire.
	Guess what Joe Biden said?
	Not only did he say we're giving up Iowa, he said he might not win New Hampshire.
	This same senior advisor who was talking to the campaign reporter said, quote, as you all know, historically, there's an incredible home field advantage for a Massachusetts candidate or a New Englander, meaning Elizabeth Warren, who is surging, who is eating Joe Biden's lunch.
	Really tough news for them.
	You know, this whole, hey, maybe we're not going to win Iowa.
	Hey, maybe we're not going to win New Hampshire.
	First of all, you rarely get the two at the same time.
	But this is the sort of thing candidates say two weeks out when they know that they're losing and they want to tamp down expectations.
	This is not the sort of thing you say five months out from the Iowa caucus.
	Especially when you are the frontrunner.
	Because Joe Biden is only the frontrunner on the perception of his electability against President Trump.
	And the trouble, reflected in this poll, reflected in a lot of other polls, reflected in every crazy soundbite you see on TV and on Twitter, is that the Democrats are radicalizing.
	The problem is, the minute that the electability argument goes away, the minute he doesn't win Iowa, doesn't win New Hampshire, he has nothing else because the Democrats are not where Joe Biden is.
	The Democrats are where Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris and all the rest of those second-tier people are.
	Bad news for Biden.
	Bad news for the moderate Democratic contingent.
	And this is especially bad news as President Trump seems poised and committed to taking care of one of his biggest weaknesses, which is the wall.
	And making matters worse for Democrats is...
	At least if you've got Biden in the picture, you've got a guy that we've all known for 50 years who seems kind of acceptable.
	You know, he's served at high levels of government.
	Whatever.
	People could get past it.
	We're not terrified that he's going to totally destroy the country.
	Once you take him out of the picture...
	Then you've got to look at what these people are actually saying.
	Because even Liz Warren or Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke or any of these people, they're relatively new faces in the American political scene.
	They haven't been around since the 1720s when Joe Biden first ran for dog catcher in the colonies, you know.
	When you listen to what they're saying, you see that the leading Republicans right now are saying we need to build the wall.
	We need to support our border patrol.
	We need to defend our borders.
	We need to renegotiate trade deals.
	We need to grow jobs.
	We need relative peace abroad.
	What are the leading Democrats saying?
	Not just the fringe Democrats, not just the random people on Twitter.
	The leading Democrats.
	Well, one of the leading Democrats, who the Democratic National Chairman said is the future of the Democratic Party, AOC, and her friends, are calling for bailing domestic terrorists out of jail.
	One party is saying, let's build a wall, let's support our laws, let's keep us safe.
	The other party is clamoring to bail domestic terrorists out of jail in the form of the Antifa thugs who were arrested, 36 of them, over the weekend because they were attacking police officers and they were attacking regular old patriotic people who were waving American flags in a kind of ironic, trollish, straight pride parade.
	That's AOC, leader of the squad, and that's Ayanna Pressley, the Ringo of the squad.
	Ayanna Pressley tweets out, quote, Join me right now in making a contribution, a contribution to a fund that would bail these Antifa violent thugs out of jail.
	She goes on, Thank you to the allies and accomplices who stood in the gap and laid their bodies on the line today in a front hashtag LGBT hate march.
	Doesn't seem like accurate syntax, but, you know, that's the squad for you.
	To everyone feeling unseen and vulnerable today, we got you equitable outrage.
	Our destinies and freedoms are tied.
	Just to remind you, there were 20 patriotic Americans who were engaged in this kind of trollish straight pride parade to make fun of the left.
	There were thousands of people protesting them and getting violent with them and attacking them.
	The only people who were unseen and vulnerable were the 200 people who were supporting President Trump and waving American flags, as well as the police officers who were being attacked by these thugs.
	Antifa was not unseen.
	They were everywhere.
	They vastly outnumbered the conservatives.
	And then AOC, same thing, called for money and support for these organizations.
	It was, quote, So now the straight pride parade, which was really just a kind of patriotic parade, is now being rebranded by AOC as white supremacist because she thinks that everybody who isn't her is a white supremacist, including Nancy Pelosi.
	AOC goes on, contribute to the bail fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community, protecting them against violence.
	Memes?
	Protecting them against American flags?
	By the way, in the Straight Pride Parade, one of the main photos of it was of a transgender woman, which is a guy wearing a dress, but he's a Trump supporter, he's a patriotic American, and he's marching along in the Straight Pride Parade because it was just people who loved their country and liked their president and support making America great again.
	AOC goes on.
	on any money left over goes to the Massachusetts Bail Fund in Boston Glass, which is an LGBTQ LMNOP organization.
	Bailing domestic terrorists out of jail, build the wall, keep us safe.
	Between that debate, who do you think is going to win in 2020?
	And still the left insists that they are against violence.
	Very hard to make that argument when you're bailing violent people out of jail.
	So how do you make that argument with a straight face?
	How do you say, okay, we want you to give us money to bail domestic terrorists out of jail, but we're against violence.
	The way they do it is they say that they're against assault weapons, which is a completely fictitious category of weapons because all weapons are assault weapons because you use them to assault people.
	Even on this, the hypocrisy is totally cracking.
	TPUSA, Charlie Kirk's organization, we talked to him a few weeks ago, and I give talks for TPUSA a fair bit.
	They just put out a terrific video exposing how hollow this argument is.
	This argument, we're against violence.
	We support violent people, but we're against assault weapons.
	TPUSA approached virtually every Democratic candidate on the campaign trail and asked them a simple question.
	They asked them, what is an assault weapon?
	You will love their answers because it is high-larious.
	Then the hypocrisy breaks down even with our friends over in the United Kingdom, even Prince Harry, even environmentalism, even what is essentially becoming not a political debate based in facts and evidence and logic.
	But a religious debate based on a false religion.
	We'll see what all of that means for 2020.
	Then maybe if we have time, we'll get a little bit of hope from even left-wing Hollywood.
	But first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
	Head on over to The Daily Wire.
	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 coming up on Thursday.
	You get to ask questions backstage.
	You get everything.
	You get it all, and you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	This is very important.
	Yeah, this is what you're going to need.
	When Biden falls apart, when he says five months out he can't even win Iowa, Democratic frontrunner, you need this vessel or you will drown.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	So the left says, sure, we're bailing domestic terrorists out of jail.
	Sure, we're intimidating conservatives, stopping them from speaking, getting them disinvited from places, using the threat of brute force against them.
	But really, we're against violence.
	Why are we against violence?
	Because we oppose assault weapons.
	Okay, if that's your argument, fair enough.
	Just one simple question posed by TPUSA. The question is, for all of the Democratic presidential candidates, what is an assault weapon?
	I will narrate because it's kind of a little hard to see in the video who's talking.
	It's kind of hard to hear exactly who it is.
	So I'll just give you little pointers on which candidate is speaking.
	Here is the Democrat candidate's answer on what is an assault weapon.
	Talking to Joe Biden.
	Talking to Joe Sestak.
	Probably haven't even heard of this guy.
	He's one of the candidates.
	His best answer is an assault weapon is when you go...
	There's Julian Castro.
	What is an assault weapon?
	I would say the AR-15 definitely qualifies.
	Guys, he's only going to sign one of those.
	But what is an assault weapon?
	He gives an example, but he can't define it.
	Because it's an AR-15.
	What makes an AR-15 an assault weapon?
	Talking to Mary Ann Williamson.
	Assault weapons are everything that are military assault weapons.
	I'm talking to Amy Klobuchar.
	She says, "I think you know what it is." An assault weapon is the weapon that killed nine people, nine people in Dayton in 30 seconds.
	Can you define it though?
	An assault weapon's ban since 1988.
	Now talking to Joe Biden's wife.
	Joe Biden's wife is Joe Biden, or not Joe Biden's wife, Bernie Sanders' wife.
	Bernie won't even turn around to look at the TPUSA reporter.
	And so Bernie Sanders' wife says, there's been an assault weapons ban since 1988, which is not true.
	So, not a single one of them.
	I mean, that is a huge representative sampling of Democratic candidates.
	And actually, if you go over to the TPUSA video online, there are many more Democratic candidates.
	We don't have time to go through all of them.
	Not one of them has an answer.
	An assault weapon is...
	Well, I don't know, but the AR-15 qualifies.
	Right.
	Why does it qualify?
	Well, I don't...
	An assault weapon is anything that is an assault weapon.
	Circular logic for you.
	They don't have an answer.
	It's not reasonable.
	They're not making an argument based on data.
	Now, why are they not making an argument based on data?
	Amy Klobuchar came the closest, and you can hear what she said.
	She knows it's a trap.
	She's a smart woman.
	And so she says, well...
	If you want to know what the AR-15 is, look at Dayton, Ohio, killed nine people there.
	It's true.
	The weapons that she's talking about, the AR-15, which is the semi-automatic rifle, it did kill people there.
	But...
	22 times as many people each year are killed by handguns as any kind of rifle, including the AR-15.
	More people are killed by hands, feet, bats, and hammers than by any rifle, including the AR-15.
	So if you're talking about the actual assault weapon...
	Hands, feet, bats, and hammers are responsible for many more assaults.
	Handguns are certainly responsible for many, many times more assaults.
	Multiples.
	Orders of magnitude more assaults.
	So why aren't those the assault weapon?
	Because they know they're not going to ban handguns.
	Then you'd have to completely abolish the Second Amendment.
	They don't have an answer.
	It's just their will.
	It's just their virtue signaling.
	It's nearly a sort of religious argument.
	There are good religious arguments and there are bad religious arguments.
	This is sort of a bad religious argument to signal an intimation that there is some moral universe, but not actually to engage with it in any real way.
	It just rings so hollow.
	I mean, when you've got major Democrats like Maxine Waters, let's not forget, actively calling, a sitting congresswoman calling for violence against Republicans, As she did just this year, it's very difficult to make that same argument that you're the ones who are opposed to violence.
	Here's Maxine Waters.
	If we can't protect the children, we can't protect anybody.
	If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.
	And you push back on them.
	You get out there, you make a crowd, you go to their homes where their children sleep and you threaten them.
	But we're the party against violence.
	We want to stop violence by inciting violence and bailing violent criminals out of jail and taking away your only way to protect yourself against violence, which is your guns.
	It just rings so hollow.
	And I don't even want to call them malicious or frauds or deceivers.
	I mean, they're very likely maybe all of these things.
	But I think it gets down to a confusion about fact and fantasy.
	To a confusion even about science and religion.
	Or at least between science and false religion.
	Nowhere does this ring truer than on the issue of climate change.
	Another top 2020 issue for Democrats.
	Everybody on the left, virtually everyone in our culture, speaks about climate change as though the sun monster is going to kill us all.
	And yet, no one behaves as though climate change and the sun monster are going to kill us all.
	Everyone speaks about all of these issues.
	They say one thing, but they do another, and their behavior tells you a lot more.
	Over in the UK, Prince Harry has made environmentalism one of his central issues, and yet the same month where he said environmentalism is going to be my main issue this month, climate change, Prince Harry also took a private jet four times in 11 days.
	But he talks about climate change, so it's okay.
	He was called out for it.
	Here is Prince Harry's response, rings hollower than ever.
	Just because it is such a massive undertaking doesn't mean we can't all play our part.
	Sometimes the scale of the conservation crisis feels overwhelming and that individual actions can't make a difference.
	I've certainly felt that.
	But I've learned that we cannot dismiss the idea of trying to do something just because we can't do everything.
	We can all do better.
	And while no one is perfect, we all have a responsibility for our own individual impact.
	The question is what we do to balance it out.
	So today, after two years of behind-the-scenes conversations and planning, we're going to start with the tourism industry.
	So let's first define the problem at hand.
	The negative impacts of mass tourism and unsustainable tourism are increasingly in the news, thanks to the reporting of many of you in this room.
	You've seen it.
	I've seen it.
	And here we are in the city of Amsterdam, which joins a growing list of places like Venice and Barcelona that have become overwhelmed by crowds.
	Oh, this is so pathetic.
	This is so pathetic.
	It rings so hollow.
	And why does it ring hollow?
	First and foremost, his hypocrisy.
	Right?
	He says, it's so important.
	We need to do something.
	We need action, Britons.
	We can't keep this up.
	Climate change is going to kill us all, and also I'm going to take my private jet four times in 11 days.
	Okay, so you don't really believe what you're saying.
	And it's not even just the hypocrisy.
	Roche-Foucault said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, meaning I can acknowledge a moral standard and yet fail to live up to that.
	I do that all the time, so do we all.
	So it's not even just that.
	It's There's the hypocrisy aspect, but then there is the blatant disregard for the facts, for the reality, for the logic.
	Here are the scientific facts about the climate crisis, climate change, all of these terms.
	China pollutes so much more than the United States and the United Kingdom.
	Poor countries, especially in East Asia, pollute so much more than we do that there is nothing that the developed countries, that the rich countries could do to fix it.
	It rings so hollow because even forgetting the hypocrisy, what the left is addressing is not a scientific problem.
	It's not a factual problem.
	It's not a problem in reality.
	They're addressing their own religious longings, but they're denying the reality of true religion, and so they're trying to fix it with politics.
	Here's what I mean, because that's a sort of complex idea that Prince Harry is trying to figure out, and the whole left is trying to figure out, and they're not doing it very well.
	This is not a scientific question.
	The pollution and climate change, the way that Harry is talking about it is not a scientific way.
	If this were a scientific question, we would invade China and take over their government, slaughter the political party that runs the country and stop them from polluting.
	If this really were, we have 10 months left or the world's going to end if we don't stop polluting, we would have to invade China tomorrow.
	China releases 27.2% of all the carbon emissions That is double what the United States releases, and the U.S. is the number two largest emitter of carbon.
	That number that China releases is 25 times what the United Kingdom releases.
	It does not matter if Prince Harry takes private jets.
	He should take private jets.
	He's a prince.
	That's what princes do.
	That's what the royal family does.
	They live a luxurious lifestyle because they are the dignified symbol of the country.
	And if you don't want your royals to do that, then you shouldn't have royals in the first place.
	It doesn't, forget Prince Harry, it doesn't matter if every single Englishman in the entire island takes private jets.
	Wouldn't matter at all.
	China releases 25 times more carbon emissions.
	And actually, forget about the carbon.
	Look at the plastic.
	China dumps 8.82 metric tons of plastic into the ocean per year.
	And that's actually sort of an outdated number.
	I think the new number is significantly higher.
	That number comes from 2010.
	The next biggest polluter into the ocean is Indonesia at 3.22%.
	Metric tons.
	Next is Philippines, 1.88.
	Next is Vietnam at 1.83.
	The United States doesn't even show up on the list, much less the United Kingdom doesn't even show up on the list.
	But from the language that Harry is using, you would think that Prince Harry is saving the world by getting his countrymen to stop going on vacation.
	This man's family, Prince Harry, they used to run the Church of England.
	I guess titularly they still run the Church of England, but that church has collapsed in recent years.
	And before Henry VIII established the Church of England, Henry VIII was called by the Pope a defender of the Catholic faith.
	These guys used to defend the church, the moral order, and that's what they're supposed to be doing.
	But as you've seen the church collapse in that country, particularly the national church, That role, that religious duty, has morphed into the religion of leftism, the religion of environmentalism.
	Now, Prince Harry is talking about airline carbon that would scientifically do nothing to help any sort of climate change, global warming, whatever.
	He's talking about it in such a way as to alleviate his religious anxiety.
	It's the same thing with Democrats and the assault weapons.
	We know that banning all the assault weapons, getting rid of them, would not...
	We know that gun control laws, none of them proposed in recent years, would have done anything to prevent the mass shooting incidents that we've seen, or any of the other more prominent shooting incidents, or more prevalent, rather, shooting incidents.
	We know that the language they're using is moral or quasi-moral and not scientific.
	But the left, just like all of us, needs to grapple with eternal questions.
	Eternal problems that mankind has always dealt with.
	The problem of pain and suffering.
	The existence of evil.
	Our feeling and longing and need for salvation.
	Our need to do penance and to atone.
	So, the way that we've dealt with this for most of the history of our civilization is with religion.
	That makes claims, that seem quite credible if you ask me, to all of those things.
	But now, because the church has cracked up in the West, you have Prince Harry who's saying, regardless of whether or not it helps the earth, stop going on vacation just to punish yourself, just to discipline yourself, just to teach you how bad you are for committing the sin of pollution.
	Won't do anything to stop climate change, but you'll feel bad.
	Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke say, regardless of whether or not it reduces gun deaths, give up your favorite weapons, most popular gun in America, the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
	Give up your most cherished rights, your Second Amendment rights.
	Joe Biden says he wants to ban all guns that have more than one bullet in them, which is to say, virtually every gun, except for silly 19th century Derringers.
	It won't stop gun deaths.
	It won't get our life expectancy to tick back up again, even after it's been ticking down because of suicide and drug overdoses.
	But at least, even if it doesn't accomplish anything real, it will make you feel bad.
	This is a bad pitch in 2020.
	You know, one of Trump's superpowers is something that people criticize him for.
	A little bit on the right, mostly on the left is evidence of hypocrisy, which is that Trump doesn't seem very religious.
	You know, he's not a guy who really goes to church a lot.
	Obviously, he's been thrice married.
	He has a complex relationship with religion.
	Let's put it that way.
	Trump prefers things that are more tangible.
	He likes to build buildings.
	He likes money.
	You know, the Trump game.
	I have the Trump board game from the 80s.
	And it says, Trump the game.
	It's not whether you win or lose, but whether you win.
	And so because of this, he talks about building the wall, cutting taxes, fixing trade deficits, very tangible things.
	Now, we know, you and I know, there is no conflict between faith and science, that science rests on religious premises and principles, and that the smartest people in the history of the world have spent very long time as exegetes of the Bible and apologists and defending.
	particularly, Christianity.
	St.
	Thomas Aquinas, one of the smartest men that ever lived.
	St.
	Augustine.
	Isaac Newton spent the last years of his life interpreting the Bible.
	Blaise Pascal, the inventor of the calculator, one of the great geniuses of the modern era.
	George Lemaître, Father George Lemaître, the Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang.
	The man who discovered genetics.
	All of these people.
	There's no conflict between true faith and science.
	But there is a conflict between false faith, false religion, and science.
	And what the left is peddling this election is false faith on guns, on the environment, on immigration, and on crime, which puts Trump in a good position to make a tangible case to the American people.
	The economy is booming, unemployment is low, we have relative peace abroad, and the wall is being built.
	He's got to get it done though.
	He's got to actually take the steps in that direction.
	It looks like he's doing it.
	He's got to keep it up through 2020.
	And some evidence, I'll leave you just with this.
	I'll leave you with Whoopi Goldberg, which sounds like a threat, but it's actually a good thing to hear.
	Some evidence that the left is going too far.
	Is that even for well-known liberals, well-known supporters of left-wing policies, they're saying enough is enough.
	Stop it.
	We talked yesterday about how Hollywood left-wingers Eric McCormack and Deborah Messing from Will& Grace are calling for a blacklist and an outing of conservatives in town.
	Whoopi Goldberg, a left-winger, was asked about this on The View, a left-wing show, and in no uncertain terms she said, this is dreadful.
	Your idea of who you don't want to work with is your personal business.
	Do not encourage people to print out lists, because the next list that comes out, your name will be on, and then people will be coming after you.
	No one.
	Nobody.
	We had something called the blacklist, and a lot of really good people were accused of stuff.
	Nobody cared whether it was true or not.
	They were accused, and they lost their right to work.
	You don't have the right in this country.
	People can vote for who they want to.
	That is one of the great rights of this country.
	You don't have to like it.
	But we don't go after people because we don't like who they voted for.
	We don't go after them that way.
	We can talk about issues and stuff, but we don't print out lists.
	And I'm sure you guys misspoke when you said that because it sounded like a good idea.
	Think about it.
	Read about it.
	Remember what the blacklist actually meant to people.
	And don't encourage anyone, anyone to do it.
	The polls are showing us, the candidates are showing us, the culture is showing us that the left is moving further left.
	This is not a cause necessarily for alarm.
	Obviously, in the long run, that's a bad thing.
	When you look at the short term, when you look at the elections, when you look at how this could affect our politics in the near future, you see that the left is even losing, dyed-in-the-wool liberals, like Whoopi Goldberg.
	All of that is good news for us who want to restore a little bit of sanity to our culture and to our country.
	That's our show.
	We've got a lot more to get to.
	Got to do it tomorrow.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	I'll see you then.
	If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
	And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
	We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
	Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz.
	Director, Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Our senior producer is Jonathan Hay.
	Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
	Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
	Editor, Danny D'Amico.
	Our audio mixer is Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

▲