Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 5, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

48:01

Ep. 410 - Democrats’ Climate Catastrophe

The Democratic presidential candidates face off in a 7-hour long town hall on climate change. The White House gets good news from the NYT, Walmart bans guns, and finally the Mailbag! Date: 09-05-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Last night, the remaining Democratic candidates for president faced off to debate climate change in a seven-hour-long town hall that released so much hot air into the atmosphere that climate change is now real and we're all going to die from it.
	We will examine the winners, the losers, and the most disturbing answers of the night.
	Then, speaking of climate change, it must be a chilly day in hell because the White House has received good news from the New York Times.
	Walmart bans guns from its stores and finally the mailbag.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Seven hours of climate change.
	Seven hours of listening to Democratic candidates talk about climate change is much worse than any possible effect of climate change, including the end of the world.
	Mass starvation, mass environmental, it doesn't hold a candle to watching CNN and the Democrats for seven hours.
	This was a very, very bad night for the Democratic Party.
	So let's jump right in because we have a lot of ground to cover.
	Let's start with the most radical answer of the night when Bernie Sanders, the oldest candidate, I think, in the history of all of politics, Bernie Sanders endorsed eugenics to combat climate change.
	Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years.
	The planet cannot sustain this growth.
	I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians but it's crucial to face.
	Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact.
	Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?
	Well, I think the answer is yes.
	So he gives the answer yes right away.
	Craziest question of the night, of course.
	And also, this brings up a question for law enforcement.
	Who let this member of the Manson family run away from prison and ask a question at a CNN town hall?
	I mean, the voice, the look, the topic that she's bringing up is sociopathic.
	It is something out of the nightmare of the late 60s and early 70s.
	It is like helter-skelter on CNN. So, so creepy.
	She's saying...
	There are too many people.
	There's a problem with too many people.
	Overpopulation with the climate.
	It's harming Mother Earth, so we gotta kill all the people, don't we?
	Now, you notice what's so interesting about this.
	If she really thinks there are too many people on Earth, Why doesn't she do something about it?
	You know, they always suggest we kill babies or we kill the elderly or we kill the sick.
	The people who say we have overpopulation never look at themselves as the cause of the overpopulation.
	I think G.K. Chesterton mentioned this.
	It's never like me.
	No, no, it's just those vulnerable people, the little babies and the sick and the elderly.
	Those are the ones we have to kill off, but not me.
	I'm not causing the overpopulation.
	First, even before you get to Bernie's real answer, look at how the terminology has evolved.
	We talk a lot about political correctness, how if you control the words, you control the culture, because you basically smuggle in whole premises with the language that you use.
	So we went from, in the 1970s, the environmental problem was global cooling.
	That was the term they used.
	Then in the 80s and 90s, it became global warming.
	Then, in the early 2000s, it became climate change.
	Then, just a couple years ago, it became the climate crisis.
	It's really speeding up.
	Now, tonight, as this woman is talking, it becomes the climate catastrophe.
	What is the catastrophe?
	There are weather events.
	I mean, weather events, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, but that's happened forever for all of human history.
	What about right now is catastrophic?
	Nothing's happening.
	It's all fine, right?
	It's not a catastrophe.
	It's not a crisis.
	I guess you could say the climate's changing because the climate always changes.
	It's not really getting warmer.
	It depends on what time periods you're looking at and what measures you're looking at.
	It's not really getting cooler.
	Again, it depends on what time periods and measurements you're looking at.
	But it becomes catastrophe, and we're also supposed to buy that premise.
	Then she gets to the question itself, which is, Are you willing to sacrifice children to appease the weather gods?
	That's the question, right?
	The question she's asking that she is implying is should we control the population?
	That's the euphemism.
	Should we encourage abortion?
	Should we encourage killing babies to stop bad weather events from happening?
	This is exactly the same as in any pagan religion when you sacrifice babies to the weather gods.
	There is no difference whatsoever, except the scale here, in this case, is a little bit larger.
	What is Bernie's answer?
	He immediately comes out.
	He says, yes.
	Here's the rest of it.
	Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?
	Well, Martha, the answer is yes.
	And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.
	And the Mexico City Agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd.
	So what's so amazing about this answer from Bernie Sanders is how he goes right for it.
	He just goes right for the abortion question.
	A sensible politician, a more rational or moderate politician, would have...
	Deftly, one hopes, evaded this insane lady's bonkers question by pretending that she's talking about contraception or birth control rather than about abortion itself, right?
	So he could have said, yes, well, we need sex education in schools.
	We need to make sure that people aren't having children that they can't take care of.
	That could have been the direction that he went in, but he doesn't.
	He just goes straight for abortion on abortion.
	Its own terms.
	And he doesn't even just stop at abortion in the United States.
	He says that we need to export abortion, promote abortion, pay for abortions all over the world.
	So we're not even content to kill a million of our own babies a year.
	We got to go out and pay to kill the babies of people all around the world to appease the climate gods so that we have a good harvest or something.
	When conservatives point out that the Democratic Party has embraced eugenics, remember this moment.
	We'll get into this and we'll get into even the worst night.
	The worst performance of the night was not even Joe Biden.
	Or was not even Bernie Sanders, rather.
	It was Joe Biden.
	Bernie Sanders embraces eugenics to appease the weather gods.
	Somehow Biden still had a worse night than that.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	But first...
	We'll talk about an actual problem, which is credit card debt.
	Credit card debt is a very serious problem that a lot of people struggle with because it's just so easy.
	You got that little piece of plastic, you go in, you can put anything on it, you can buy a car on a credit card these days.
	And what you forget or what you ignore when you do that are those high interest rates that you are paying.
	You know, you've got this buy it now, pay for it later kind of mentality.
	That's how credit card companies rope everybody in.
	And they leave out the part about paying later with interest, not just interest, high interest.
	Thanks to Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
	Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed rate personal loans.
	That means no trips to the bank, Very important for me as a millennial because I don't want to leave my chair.
	No high interest credit cards.
	You just go to LendingClub.com.
	You tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow.
	You pick the terms that are right for you.
	If you are approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
	Let really, really good technology work for you.
	I know people can be a little lazy about these things.
	Say, I'll just keep it on the credit card.
	It's no big deal.
	It is a big deal.
	You're losing money needlessly.
	Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform.
	Over $35 billion in loans issued.
	Go to LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Check your right minutes.
	Borrow up to $40,000.
	That is LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. LendingClub.com slash Knowles.
	All loans made by WebBank member FDIC, equal housing lender.
	Now back to the horrific solutions to imaginary problems at the Democratic climate change town hall.
	When conservatives point out that the Democratic Party has embraced eugenics, this is the moment that you need to remember.
	Bernie Sanders is not just some random person on Twitter.
	Bernie Sanders is not just some fringe guy.
	Bernie Sanders is the number two leading Democratic candidate for president.
	And by the way, he was the number two Democratic candidate for president last time around, too.
	This is a major political figure.
	This is a major leader in the Democratic Party.
	And he's saying that we need to sacrifice our children to appease the weather gods.
	Well, not our children, specifically your children.
	He's not going to do it to his own children, but he wants to do it to your children or disproportionately black children because black women have much, much higher rates of abortion in the United States and this is encouraged by abortion hustlers like Planned Parenthood and, as you can see, by the Democratic Party.
	This is, I cannot stress it enough, no different from what the Aztecs did.
	When the Aztecs would slaughter scores of people, you know, in 1487, five years before Columbus sailed across the ocean, the Aztecs slaughtered an estimated 80,000 people, men, women and children, at the consecration of the Temple of Tenochtitlan.
	And actually, you know, there is a little bit of a difference between what we do and what the Aztecs do.
	The Aztecs sacrificed all those people to appease their gods, their pagan gods.
	We're sacrificing way, way, way more, way, way more innocent people every single year.
	We're sacrificing a million babies a year in this country, killing them to appease a number of false gods.
	Credentialism.
	You're in college and you don't want to have a kid, but you're pregnant, so you kill it.
	Your career.
	You're not ready to have a kid right now.
	Your personal freedom.
	You want to go out and be able to go to the bar more often, not be responsible to a kid.
	We sacrifice our children to plenty of false gods, and in this case, we are being encouraged by leading Democratic presidential candidates to sacrifice our own babies in this country and abroad to the weather gods.
	I don't know.
	The rains will come and we can yield a good harvest this year.
	That's the kind of stuff that we are seeing here.
	And even with that absolute lunacy, Bernie did not have the worst night.
	Joe Biden did.
	Joe Biden was the biggest loser of the night at this town hall.
	Why?
	A couple reasons.
	To begin, you can't ignore it.
	He did say crazy things.
	Maybe not quite as crazy as Bernie, though.
	I mean, they weren't as evil as Bernie.
	They weren't as evil as sacrificing your children to the weather gods.
	But they were as crazy.
	Joe Biden at one point in the town hall blamed cancer and the Darfur genocide on climate change.
	And so where are we?
	Look what happened in Darfur.
	What's Darfur all about?
	Darfur is all about the fact that the sub-Saharan desert, because of the change in climate, no longer had enough areable land.
	Look what's happening in Indonesia.
	They're talking about moving their capital because it's going to sink.
	What happens if you get 10, 12, 13, 15, 100 million people on the move?
	It causes wars.
	And so it's well beyond whether or not it affects me personally, which it does, and it did my family and still does, just like your families.
	This is personal.
	Every one of you probably have a story that can talk about what's happened to something you care greatly about, whether it's a species or it's your son or daughter coming down with cancer because of it.
	Coming down with cancer because of climate change?
	Because of what?
	What are you talking about?
	I mean, that has nothing to do with anything.
	And then genocide is because of climate change?
	Amazing how he ignores the political.
	He ignores the cultural.
	He ignores all of human agency, all of the choices that people make when they kill one another, and he blames it on...
	The sky gods.
	On the weather gods.
	I mean, this theme that we see recurring is not just coincidental.
	It's not just accidental.
	It is a sort of fatalism that denies human agency, which means it denies human freedom.
	And this is a through line from the left.
	This is a through line from the Democratic Party.
	It's not even just on this one particular issue.
	You see it cropping up all over the place.
	The left increasingly denies our humanity, our human dignity, Our, you know, human dignity, obviously, by slaughtering all of these people.
	It denies our freedom.
	It denies our free will.
	It says we're just matter.
	We're just stuff.
	We're all just clumps of cells, and we are moved along by impersonal forces outside of ourselves.
	It's a real sort of fatalism.
	Genocides, including the genocide in Darfur, are caused by people choosing to commit genocides, by governments choosing to do that.
	This language, this religious kind of language, is exactly what we were talking about yesterday.
	Climate change is not about science.
	It's about religion and it is specifically about a false religion.
	It actually shows us this issue of climate change, we think of this as a very modern issue brought about by science.
	Actually, this is the oldest, most primitive issue in the world in all of politics.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	But first, I've got to thank our friends over at Wise Foods.
	Because if you actually have an emergency, I'm not talking about the imaginary emergencies that politicians try to sell us, but a real emergency, you need to be prepared.
	Wise Foods can help you.
	They're the best ones to help you.
	Wise Company takes an innovative approach in providing dependable, simple, and affordable freeze-dried food for emergency preparedness and outdoor use.
	When government resources are strained, it can take days, if not weeks, We're good to go.
	The thing I like best about it is it just gives me peace of mind.
	I don't need to worry.
	I don't need to have this constant simmering stress of what am I going to do if something goes wrong?
	We've got to get out of Dodge.
	We don't have access to food or water.
	Don't put yourself in a situation where you need something that you don't have.
	Get prepared today.
	Wherever you live, an emergency can strike.
	Whether that's a weather emergency, it's a hurricane, it's a tornado, it's a wildfire, it's where I live, you know, in LA, it's an earthquake.
	Anywhere you live, an emergency can strike.
	It can be a political emergency, it could be an attack.
	Be prepared.
	Just have peace of mind.
	This week, my listeners can get any Wise emergency or outdoor food product at an extra 25% off the lowest marked price.
	You can only get that at wisefoodstorage.com and enter Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S at checkout, or you can call 855-453-2945.
	Shipping is free.
	Wise has a 90-day no questions asked return policy, no risk in taking the initiative to get yourself and your family more prepared today.
	Wisefoodstorage.com, promo code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
	Get any Wise emergency or outdoor food product at an extra 25% off and free shipping.
	This climate change issue, the way that they're talking about it, sacrificing their children, that climate change is causing genocides, that climate change is causing cancer, the way they're talking about it is not modern.
	And it's not scientific.
	This is ancient.
	This is primitive.
	This goes back to our most pagan roots.
	And it tries to explain religious questions without true religion.
	What Joe Biden is doing is he's using climate change to try to answer the eternal question that his Bothered mankind as long as we've been conscious, which is why is there suffering in the world?
	Why is there pain?
	Why do bad things happen to good people?
	And the traditional answer, well, I say traditional, let me be more specific.
	The Christian answer, the Jewish answer, the Muslim answer is that man disobeyed God and so sin entered the world and so with sin, death pervaded the world.
	There is a fall of man.
	We were kicked out of paradise, and that fall of man pervades the whole world.
	Now, the secular left, which doesn't believe in true religion, has updated this view for a world without God.
	So sin and death enter the world not because we disobeyed God, but because we disobeyed Mother Earth, because we disobeyed Gaia, which is a term for nature, by polluting.
	Not that we disobeyed and we ate the apple from the tree.
	I guess it might be because of our interactions with trees, but it's because we polluted.
	So in the religious view, in the view of true religion, we cannot save ourselves.
	We cannot reconcile ourselves to God.
	Instead, we need a savior.
	In the modern secular view, we can save ourselves.
	We can do it.
	And the way we do it is not even by moral improvement or by living out the virtues.
	It's by recycling.
	It's by not fracking.
	It's by killing our babies.
	In many ways, it's the opposite of the virtues.
	And here we see how this view, this new religious view, what the left would call its kind of new metaphysical view, its new way to answer this eternal religious question, is not modern after all.
	It's not new.
	It's just the pagan view.
	We sacrifice people, you know?
	I mean, it's like actually the pagan view.
	We sacrifice people, even blood sacrifices, even sacrifices of our children to appease the gods and save ourselves.
	Even beyond Joe Biden, listen to the way that Julian Castro, who, by the way, he's still in the race.
	I don't know if you knew that.
	I don't know if you ever knew that he was in the race, but he was the former HUD secretary.
	And for some reason, he's still in the race for president.
	Here is Julian Castro talking about We need to get climate change ideology into schools really, really young.
	We have to teach kids.
	He's not speaking in academic or scientific terms.
	He's speaking in religious terms, and he's speaking with greater zeal than any advocate of teaching the Bible in school that I've ever heard.
	Give a listen.
	Our beliefs and habits start at an early age.
	Should climate change be taught in schools?
	And if so, how should climate education be implemented in the school curriculum?
	Yes, I believe that it should.
	In fact, I believe that it's essential if we want to raise a generation of Americans that will do right by our planet, make the little decisions in life.
	Listen to those phrases.
	Do right by our planet.
	Get where we need to get.
	Make the right decisions in life.
	How do you do right by the planet?
	The planet's a rock.
	The planet is a rock that has some animals and trees on it.
	You mean do right by the planet?
	We are moral creatures, human beings.
	We have the capacity to reason.
	That's what separates us from the brutes and from the animals and the rocks.
	What does it mean to do right by the planet?
	He's speaking in religious terms.
	And Biden is buying into this too because he knows the only way that he's going to get through this primary is by running to the left.
	So now, he runs so far to the left, he is asked about the Green New Deal, $93 trillion, a ridiculous pie-in-the-sky plan that would be horrific if it were enacted and that doesn't even really address the climate or the environment in any way.
	He is now saying the Green New Deal doesn't go too far.
	In your plan, you say that the Green New Deal is, quote, a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
	You say it has two basic truths that we need to combat the climate crisis with what you say is ambition on an epic scale, and that the environment and economy are, in your words, completely and totally connected.
	You're not saying that you support everything in the original Green New Deal.
	Do you think it goes too far?
	Is it unrealistic, promising too much?
	No, it's not.
	Here's what it is.
	It doesn't have a lot of specifics.
	It doesn't have a lot of specifics about exactly what we'll do with regard to greenhouse gases.
	Okay, fair enough.
	It doesn't have a lot of specifics, but he says it doesn't go too far.
	I mean, these are pretty wacky answers.
	And Biden had the worst night, not just because of what he said, not just because of these wacky answers, but more importantly, because of how he said it.
	He just seems too old.
	Here's just one little quick example of Joe Biden stammering incoherently for 10 or 15 seconds.
	Look what's happened in the Midwest.
	We have a number of significant military bases that relate to our national security that, in fact, were rendered almost useless, including, I can't go into the great detail to say it, but my point is it significantly reduced our national security.
	I want to bring up an example, but I'm not going to bring it up.
	What was the question again?
	Could you get to the question?
	And then things really went downhill from there when Joe Biden's eyeball appeared to explode.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	I don't mean to laugh at it.
	He's fine.
	He seems to be doing okay.
	But it is, in fact, the case that the Democratic frontrunner's eyeball appeared to explode on stage.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, most importantly, if you have bought a timeshare, you know the pitch.
	Oh, it's a great investment.
	You can stay whenever you want, wherever you want.
	It's so great.
	Come on, just give us your money.
	It'll be great.
	It's like you'll be on vacation all the time.
	Well, guess what?
	None of that is true.
	The ugly truth is that with a timeshare, you can never tell how much it's really going to cost.
	You can never tell when it's going to end.
	Many owners are trying to sell their timeshares online and they find out the hard way is not an investment when you can't get a dollar for it.
	And with those rising annual maintenance and assessment fees, buying a timeshare is like giving the timeshare company a blank check for life.
	Even when you die, your family gets stuck with this burden.
	So stop the insanity today.
	There is a way out.
	If you are stuck in a timeshare nightmare, I have a couple relatives who made this mistake.
	It is so important to go use the best to get out of these timeshares.
	It's really hard.
	Go to icanceltimeshare.com Tell them that I sent you.
	Wesley Financial Group guarantees they will legally get you out of your timeshare contract permanently or you pay nothing.
	It can be very difficult to get out of these timeshares.
	Wesley Financial Group makes it as easy as it gets.
	Get your free information kit telling you all about how it works.
	Go to icanceltimeshare.com.
	That is icanceltimeshare.com.
	So Biden's performance really went downhill, not with the wacky answers, but when his eyeball appeared to explode.
	So here's a question from a kid who says he's an ex-Republican.
	Now he's asking him a question about climate change.
	And Joe Biden's eyeball just starts to fill with blood.
	China is currently the largest emitter of CO2. How, if at all, would you try to get China to lower its emissions as president?
	I would make it real clear.
	That's why we have to bring around the rest of the world.
	We have to reconfigure.
	Okay, he goes on.
	If you haven't seen the clip or you can't see it, go check it out online.
	Actually, it's a pretty good question.
	You know, leave it to the ex-Republican to ask the one normal question of the entire night.
	But the question didn't matter because no one listened to the answer because everyone was looking at the blood pooling in Joe Biden's eye.
	He had something called a subconjunctival hemorrhage.
	That's when the blood vessels explode in your eyeball and it fills with blood.
	The man is simply too old.
	He's too old to be president.
	Look, Reagan was a fairly elderly president by presidential standards.
	Trump, not exactly a spring chicken.
	Those guys looked young.
	They acted young.
	They had a lot of energy.
	Biden has had health problems for years.
	In the 80s, Biden had two brain aneurysms that he suffered.
	They didn't pop, fortunately.
	If you've ever experienced brain aneurysm in a family-type way, I have up close.
	I mean, that is a serious, serious problem.
	Usually it leads to death.
	If it is caught before it bursts, you know, one, it can still burst and leave you dead or it can leave you mentally impaired.
	Luckily, Biden survived that in the 80s.
	But he's had major health scares like this since the 80s.
	And it kind of reminds me of Dick Cheney.
	You know, Dick Cheney had his first heart attack in like 1978 or something.
	Does anybody believe that Dick Cheney is up for being president of the United States?
	No, nobody did.
	What Cheney could do is be the vice president to a younger president.
	So he kind of has the elderly statesman role.
	The elder statesman role and also a bit elderly.
	Joe Biden more or less filled that role for Barack Obama, the younger president.
	But no one really believes that this guy is fit enough to be president.
	And then Biden, not just Biden, but other candidates too, demonstrated my favorite aspect of it, of the whole debate, which is the rank hypocrisy of the whole thing.
	You know, Biden, by Anderson Cooper, gets called out for preaching climate change on one night, you know, how urgent it is, how we need to stop it, and then attending a fossil fuel fundraiser the next night.
	There is a fundraiser tomorrow night.
	It's given by a guy named Andrew Goldman.
	He does hedge funds and stuff, but he also has a company called Western LNG. And their biggest project, which I think was announced in like 2018, is a floating liquefied facility for natural gas.
	It's off the coast of British Columbia.
	And it's going to provide Canadian gas to parts of Northern Asia.
	So what Andrew is saying is, if you're going to a fundraiser that's given in part by this guy who has a company that is pulling up natural gas, are you the right guy to go after these people?
	Well, I didn't realize he does that.
	Classic Biden answer.
	I mean, I assume Biden doesn't really care getting money from the fossil fuel industry, but in his defense, he is losing his marbles and he may well have not realized that the guy does that.
	Another area you see this hypocrisy last night is not just the kind of would-be moderate Joe.
	It's even in one of the most openly radical candidates, Julian Castro.
	He gets called out for completely changing his mind on climate change when it suits him.
	Ports warn that we only have 11 years to get off fossil fuels to have a safe, livable future.
	But as mayor of San Antonio, you welcome the fracking boom.
	Why should we trust you as president to transition our economy to renewables, given your past middle ground approach?
	I appreciate the question from Scylla, and I want to commend the Sunrise Movement.
	As you know, they've been pushing for a democratic climate debate, which I hope happens.
	I'm glad that we're having this conversation.
	I'm glad that we're having this conversation today.
	So, first of all, she's right.
	When I was mayor of San Antonio, I did believe that there were opportunities to be had in fracking that was going on in South Texas.
	The thing is that back then, which was, you know, almost a decade ago, we had been saying that natural gas was a bridge fuel, right?
	We're coming to the end of the bridge.
	Yeah, okay, buddy.
	You said it because it was convenient, because you wanted the jobs, and you wanted the money, because it was helpful to you then, and now it's not helpful to you, so you're trying to come up with a bogus answer.
	When candidates thank someone for a question, and then spend like 20 seconds talking about how important it is to have that question in this conversation, you know that they got nothing.
	They ran out.
	So, total hypocrisy.
	That's fine.
	I mean, it's like Prince Harry.
	You know, Prince Harry, one day he says, climate change is the most important issue in the world.
	No one can go on vacation anymore.
	And then you look and he flies on a private jet four times in 11 days.
	It's just bogus.
	People don't believe it, but they're hypocritically paying lip service to their false religion.
	The funniest moment of the night came from Cory Booker.
	You forgot he was in the debate?
	Me too.
	You forgot that he's running for president?
	Me too.
	But here is the single funniest moment of the night when Cory Booker said that he will be president.
	So my plan says that we need to be at a zero carbon electricity by 2030.
	That's ten years from the time that I will win the presidency of the United States of America.
	Oh, it's 10 years from February 31st, 20 never?
	Okay, well, then I'm not too worried about those 10 years.
	There was another hilarious moment of the night when it came to plastic straws.
	We'll get to the big winner of the night.
	Not just the big loser, which was Joe Biden, but the big winner.
	Then we'll get to, quickly, the New York Times and Walmart, then the mailbag.
	But first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
	You get everything.
	You know what you get, and you get everything.
	Plus, you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	You need it.
	For that seventh hour of the climate catastrophe catastrophe, you need that Tumblr.
	Otherwise, you're going to drown from another climate catastrophe.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back.
	Second funniest moment of the entire debate.
	I have to just get to Kamala Harris.
	Because Kamala Harris said, she finally addressed the central climate issue.
	Forget fossil fuels, forget sacrificing our babies to the weather gods.
	The central issue, the plastic straws.
	She said, we need to ban the plastic straws.
	She then admitted the paper straws are terrible.
	She then laughed nervously, which is her tell when you can tell she doesn't want to answer a question.
	Do you ban plastic straws?
	I think we should.
	Yes.
	I mean, look, I'm going to be honest.
	It's really difficult to drink out of a paper straw when you had, if you're just, like, if you don't gulp it down immediately, it starts to bend.
	And then, you know, the little thing catches it.
	And then, you know, so we got to kind of perfect that one a little bit more.
	Make me please.
	I don't know what I'm supposed to think.
	Really bad.
	She's such a bad candidate.
	She could have been so good, but she's just really bad on stage.
	So funny though.
	Would you ban plastic straws?
	Yeah, sure.
	Doesn't explain why.
	By the way, people don't know this.
	The whole plastic straw thing was started by a nine-year-old boy named Milo Kress in 2011 who came up with a completely baseless, evidenceless, bogus number that the U.S. uses 500 million plastic straws a day.
	And then the way he found that number was he just called a few companies and tried to put a number together like for a fourth grade report.
	And then he...
	Put this out there, and now leading Democratic candidates for president are touting it, and we're now not allowed to use our plastic straws.
	We now need to use those sippy cups, which use more plastic, which is almost certainly just as bad, if not worse, for the environment.
	Neither here nor there.
	Big winner of the night, Liz Warren.
	I didn't show any clips from her.
	Why?
	Because she played it safe.
	This is a big loser issue for the Democratic Party.
	The Democrats should not have agreed to this town hall.
	Climate change is a bad issue for them nationwide.
	It's good with their most fervent supporters.
	It makes them look like absolute lunatics to the rest of the country, to the soft left, the center, and obviously to the right.
	Liz Warren knew that going in.
	She's a really clever candidate.
	She played it really safe so she doesn't get any of these pull-out stupid moments.
	Even more bad news for Democrats, who are, I guess, overall, the Democratic Party is probably the big loser and Joe Biden is the face of it.
	More bad news for Democrats.
	We're not heading for a recession, according to an economist in the New York Times.
	Very quickly, I guess it's a chilly day in hell on that climate change headline, a recession is not inevitable, the case for economic optimism.
	They show in the New York Times the worrisome leading indicators on the economy are real, but so are the sources of resilience that could keep the expansion going.
	And the guy concludes, there are a lot of risks out there and it makes sense for CEOs and ordinary consumers to be wary of what the future could hold, but for now a gloomy economic future remains a far from certain possibility.
	Very important news for Trump.
	He just, in the last few days, getting funding for the border wall has just shored up a major vulnerability.
	The other major vulnerability is the economy.
	If even the New York Times is admitting that we're not necessarily heading for a recession, they're trying to tamp down expectations for a recession, great news for the White House.
	Other crazy news, we just have to get to it quickly.
	Walmart is now banning guns, banning the sale of guns, the sale of ammo, and they're discouraging customers from bringing guns into their own stores to protect themselves.
	Walmart is a massive, massive corporation, such an American company.
	Sam Walton creates Walmart, good old American, dies in 1992, I believe.
	The reason I bring up this story is not to show Anything about Walmart.
	I don't care about Walmart.
	It's to show that in just a generation after the death of the founder, Walmart has so dramatically changed that it is unrecognizable.
	Sam Walton is probably turning over in his grave.
	The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.
	It's pretty important.
	It's right there in the Constitution.
	and even Walmart, that most American of stores, is now ditching it because of public pressure from the left.
	It just shows you how fragile institutions can be, how good the left is at going in and hollowing out institutions, how little protection there is for them.
	We need to be careful of that.
	And when we look, as we've been looking at the 2020 presidential election...
	We need to be very protective of those institutions of our government, which can change on a dime and increasingly can change radically.
	Let's get to the mailbag.
	Very quickly, we're going to fly through them.
	First question from Richard.
	Michael, President Trump was elected to expose the media bias.
	He was also elected to expose the squishy Republicans.
	Who do you think would be the best Republican candidate to maintain that level of confidence in 2024?
	Look, Trump was elected for a It's simply too early to predict who the candidate will be in 2024.
	If you had asked five years out in 2016, you know, in 2011 who the candidate would be, no one would have said Trump.
	Even the hardcore conservatives were pretty skeptical of Trump because he donated to Democrats and espoused Democratic views, left-wing views, for a lot of his life.
	So, just to use a recent example that was floated in the media.
	It was floated across a few articles that Tucker Carlson could run for president.
	I'm not saying that's a good idea.
	I'm not saying it's a bad idea.
	I'm saying...
	That would be the sort of candidacy that you would expect in a post-Trump world where you no longer need to have held political office for your whole life, where you can be a little more hardcore, where you don't need to be conciliatory and go to all the fancy lunches and be friends with Democrats all of the time.
	You could see something like that happening.
	You could see Kanye West running for president.
	I'm definitely not saying that's a great idea, but you could see that sort of thing happening.
	And I think what is important, whoever the candidate is, is that we not...
	Buy the lie of the left wing and the squishes that the candidate needs to have gone to exactly the right schools, gone to the right law school, then worked on the hill or something, then been a fellow at a think tank, and then, you know, speak really nicely about everybody and be really moderate and conciliatory.
	Use the example of Marco Rubio.
	All the smart class, whether it was cable news or the kind of coastal media types who are conservatives, thought that Marco Rubio was the great candidate in 2016.
	When you looked at election analysis, the only people who liked Marco Rubio for president were conservatives and Republicans who live in left-wing places.
	But that's a losing strategy.
	Doesn't matter what those guys vote for.
	Because their votes are going to go through the Electoral College to the Democrat.
	We need to stop falling into that trap.
	And I suspect that in the post-Trump future, whoever the candidate is, I don't think we have any idea what that name is going to be yet.
	It's going to have to be a candidate that bucks that party establishment, that bucks all of the false niceness and false politeness in the way that, in recent memory, only two candidates have done, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.
	From Brian.
	Michael, I'm 32 with a 7-year-old daughter.
	I was not raised with any religion, but over the years I've begun to understand the importance of religion and community.
	We want to begin to practice religion, but where do we start?
	It feels strange to just Google a religion or drop in on a local church and say, we chose this one.
	Do you have any advice?
	Yeah, you know where I ended up.
	I mean, I was an atheist for about 10 years, and then I was convinced of the existence of God in part because of a Calvinist philosopher named Alvin Plantinga.
	I was friends with many, many Orthodox Jews and would go to a lot of Shabbat dinners.
	I read the Koran, I think, at age 14.
	Mostly because I suspected it was being misrepresented in the mainstream media, and then I ended up now as a Catholic.
	I returned to the Catholic Church in 23, 24, and I now attend the Latin Mass, and I'm pretty into it, pretty into practicing Catholicism.
	So I've run the gamut, and you know where I landed.
	I landed on the Catholic Church, so of course I would suggest that.
	You might begin by reading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.
	This is a really good introductory apologetics book.
	I would recommend, if you are going to try out different churches or try on different aspects of religion, go figure out the differences.
	If you conclude that God exists, which...
	Is the correct conclusion, then you have to grapple with the person of Christ.
	Is Christ who he says he is?
	If he is, then you get to the next question.
	What is the nature of his church?
	This is a question that was uniform for the first at least thousand years of Christianity.
	There were different heresies that would pop up, the Arian heresy, the Marcian heresy, various aspects, which were rejected by the church.
	Figure out why the church rejected those heresies.
	Then you get to the question of the great schism between the East and the West, which wasn't really theological, so you don't need to grapple with that as much.
	Then 500 years later you get to the Protestant Revolution, and so you can examine those arguments, and then you can examine the arguments against those arguments.
	I've gone through all of that, and again, you know how I landed.
	But I think that's the order that you've got to progress in.
	In the meantime, as you're grappling with that Those intellectual questions and those questions of the constitution of the church.
	You need to pray.
	You need to behave as though God exists.
	And you should find a church.
	And if your views change, then I guess you can change your church.
	But the most important thing is don't just keep it in your head.
	Don't just stew on it in the abstract.
	You gotta do it.
	From Mitchell.
	Michael, I teach in a public middle school and there is a poster in our teacher's lounge that explains how gender and biological sex are completely distinct from each other and are not connected in any way.
	I've also been told that I need to call one of my students by male pronouns when she is a girl and I disagree with this message.
	How do I address this in a public work setting?
	What are some tips for supporting my argument?
	Thanks.
	Love the show.
	Well, I'm curious to see what that poster would say.
	About how sex and gender are completely different and not connected at all.
	I suspect it just asserts that without actually giving any argument for it.
	Because there is no argument for it.
	It's merely an assertion.
	The whole concept of gender as being applied to human beings is a very new concept.
	And it was really only popularized during the rise of post-modernism.
	Gender is a grammatical concept.
	It refers to The nature of words.
	So they're masculine words and feminine words.
	You know, in Italian, a good rule is a word that ends in A is feminine, like pizza, la pizza, and a word that ends in O is masculine.
	So like cannoli, that's masculine.
	That doesn't refer to people.
	Now, gender was applied to refer to people as separate from sex, specifically because of an ideological agenda to separate sex from gender.
	But that is simply an assertion.
	That is an assertion of the will.
	That is not a reasonable argument.
	Now, if you're being told to refer to up as down or black as white or a woman as a man or a man as a woman, I couldn't do that.
	I would not do that.
	If you don't do that, you might lose your job.
	That's how far we are into this coercive gender ideology.
	That's a decision for you to make.
	You know what I would do, but I'm in a different line of work and I'm in part in a different line of work because I refuse to make those decisions.
	I would always ask questions if you really want to change minds.
	So I'd ask somebody, hey, how is it that gender and sex are different?
	I'd say, well, because gender refers to your identity and sex refers to your biology.
	I'd say, okay, alright.
	So if gender is just kind of your identity, then it's just like how you feel, right?
	I'll say, no.
	I actually had this debate with someone at an event in Michigan.
	I'll say, no, no.
	It's not just how you feel.
	It's how you identify.
	You know, some people are women born in men's bodies.
	You say, okay, well, if they're born that way, then it's biological, too, right?
	Then gender is biological.
	They'll say, no, no, no.
	Gender is how you identify.
	Sex is your biology.
	You say, okay, well, then where is this identity?
	Where is the How can you prove to me that you're a woman in a man's body?
	And one of the arguments they bring up, which is not scientific, but it's become a sort of pop science term, or pop science notion, is that really if you examine the brains of men and women, and transgender men and women, they're very different, and the brains of men who identify as women are closer to women, and the brains of women who identify as men are closer to men.
	Again, so much of this is mealy-mouthed language because the brains of men and women just aren't that different to begin with.
	And this is based on very small sample sizes to even suggest this.
	And even if it were, what would that mean?
	Am I simply my brain or am I more of my body?
	What is my identity?
	But even just take them on the premises.
	Say, okay, so their brains are women's brains.
	But their bodies are men's bodies.
	So then you are saying gender is biological, not merely emotional or psychological.
	Then you are saying that that distinction you made between sex and gender doesn't really exist.
	The hard distinction between how you identify and your biology.
	And they're going to get confused by this, and then they might realize that the whole separation of sex and gender is a distinction without a difference.
	Try to get to one more from Leanne.
	Dear Michael, podcaster, giant, and philosopher.
	Wow, what a title.
	Thank you.
	Growing up in my time, there were women who stayed home with their kids full-time, and today the children are all in daycare because more women are working.
	I've been told, if I'm a stay-at-home housewife or a stay-at-home mom, that I'm not fulfilling my potential.
	How did this change and why?
	Well, this changed in part because of World War II when women started to enter the workforce.
	This changed in part because of the women's lib movement, which then became known as second-wave feminism.
	This changed in part because the more honest feminists over the past 50 years have said not merely that women should have the choice to work or to stay at home.
	The more honest feminists have said women can...
	I think it was Gloria Steinem, but I could be getting that wrong.
	It was one of the very prominent feminists of the last 50 years said, if women have the choice to stay at home, then too many of them will.
	And this will compromise other women's ability to go into the workforce.
	So you actually have to discourage the choice to stay at home.
	I mean, what is your potential?
	Depends.
	Some women thrive in professional environments and some women thrive at home.
	Some women sort of can do both.
	You can't have it all, but you can do two things at once.
	So what is your potential?
	I mean, if the potential is you can be a loving housewife and have a beautiful family and take care of your husband and be involved in your community and be involved in your church and all those things, that seems like rather fulfilled potential.
	And if the alternative is that you're a middle manager at the widget factory and you make a lot of widgets and then you die and your husband is on his own and if you have kids, you know, the kids don't get taken care of or they go to some daycare, that doesn't seem like fulfilled potential.
	It changed because of coercion and it changed because of the lies of feminism, which said that men and women are exactly the same, but also men and women are completely different.
	But also that now, now that we're back at the gender ideology, that men and women are exactly the same again.
	I mean, it's an incoherent ideology based merely on the will.
	Part of that will was coercing women into not being able to stay at home anymore and having to go to the widget factory.
	But if you don't want to go to the widget factory, then you stay home.
	You'll be a housewife.
	You'll have a great life.
	Worked very well for a long time for a lot of women.
	That's our show.
	Come back on Monday.
	We'll have a whole lot more.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	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 Dobkiewicz.
	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.
	If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.

▲