NBC News has accused myself and the Daily Wire of "fake news" for reporting on a potentially dangerous drug being given to gender-confused children. But the fake news, of course, is all on their end. Also, more Trudeau black face footage. This is the worst one yet. And a jaw dropping report about the true scope and severity of the child porn problem on the internet. What can really be done to stop it? I've got one idea. Date: 09-30-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The questions of slavery and states' rights cause the first civil war.
Will Joe Biden's son's degenerate business dealings in Ukraine cause a second one?
We will examine the likelihood of Civil War II electric boogaloo.
Then...
A puberty-blocking drug used in transgender treatment has killed 6,000 children.
Nothing to see here, folks.
And New York City outlaws the phrase illegal alien.
They don't outlaw illegal aliens.
They welcome illegal aliens.
They just outlaw clear language.
We'll get to all that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
Here comes the Civil War, proving Karl Marx's adage that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
We will get into all the farcical aspects of it, from Rudy Giuliani's excellent performance on George Stephanopoulos' show, to the Ukraine, to the White House, to Joe Biden, to everything in between.
But first, I've got to thank our friends over at Mint Mobile.
Oh, how I love Mint Mobile.
Mint Mobile, I'll put it very bluntly.
They can cut your cell phone bill down to $15 a month for the same premium coverage.
That's it.
That's pretty much all I should need to say.
But I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking what I thought when I heard about Mint Mobile, which is this is too good to be true.
There's something here.
It's not real.
There's going to be all these hidden fees.
No.
Mint Mobile knows what they're doing.
Your old wireless bill pays for Expensive retail stores, they pay for overhead, and they charge you, they upcharge you for unlimited data that you're never ever going to use.
Think of all the times that you're on Wi-Fi all day.
You're on Wi-Fi at home, you're on Wi-Fi at the office, you're on Wi-Fi in a lot of other places too.
So you're just not using that data and that is what they're upcharging you for.
Mint Mobile reimagined how to buy wireless, made it all online, passed the savings on directly to you.
You can cut your wireless bill down to 15 bucks a month.
Every plan comes with unlimited nationwide talk and text, plus insanely fast 4G LTE data.
That's everything.
That's all you need.
It's not like you're only going to get two minutes of talk per month.
Unlimited talk, unlimited text, crazy fast 4G LTE data.
You use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
You keep your same phone number with all of your existing contacts.
If you are not 100% satisfied, don't worry about it.
It's not like you had to get locked into some lifetime eternity plan.
Mint Mobile has you covered with their 7-day money-back guarantee.
But you are going to love it.
It is incredible.
Get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month.
Think about how much you're paying right now.
I can't even imagine.
When I think about my old cell phone bills, it...
Makes me very angry because it was like setting money on fire.
Get your plan down to $15 a month right now.
Get the plan shipped to your door for free.
Go to MintMobile.com slash Knowles.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S. That is M-I-N-T. MintMobile.com slash Knowles.
Cut your bill down to $15 a month.
MintMobile.com slash Knowles.
Alright, now on to less important matters than saving money on your cell phone plan.
The Civil War.
The Civil War is coming, isn't it?
Why are we talking about the Civil War?
The proximate cause is President Trump on Twitter, it's always on Twitter, quoted a Southern Baptist pastor named Robert Jeffress who said, quote, If the Democrats, this is quoting both the pastor and President Trump's tweet, If the Democrats are successful in removing the president from office, which they will never be, it will cause a civil war-like fracture in this nation from which our country will never heal.
A civil war-like fracture.
Trump didn't put the hyphen in there.
Okay, that's fine.
Pastor Robert Jeffress said it on Fox News.
The left lost their mind over this tweet.
They lose, I don't know, how do you lose your mind if you don't have your mind anymore?
They've lost their mind a thousand times.
It's not their mind anymore and they don't have it.
But they really got upset about this.
President Trump didn't say we're headed for civil war.
Robert Jeffress didn't say that we're headed towards civil war.
I'm beginning to wonder if leftists in this country are not just misguided, but illiterate too.
In fact, I know they're illiterate.
The way that they pervert language, the way that they call men women and women men and say that some people don't have any gender and use they, which is the plural pronoun, to refer to singular people.
And now in New York City, you can't even say the phrase illegal alien without incurring a criminal fine.
So yeah, I guess they are illiterate.
Never mind.
Let's look at what they actually said, Jeffress and Trump.
In the tweet, they say, it will cause a civil war-like fracture in this nation, on and on.
But the premise is, if the Democrats are successful in removing the president from office, they're not going to be.
I'm not saying this is wishful thinking.
I'm saying this because even if they impeach Trump, which they currently don't really have the votes for in the House, even if they did, they don't have the Senate.
So they're probably not even going to take it up for a vote on whether or not to convict Trump if the House impeaches.
Even if they did take it up for a vote, even if there was not one Republican in the Senate, even if the Senate was all Democrats, according to a morning consult poll from last week, not even two-thirds of Democrats in this country support impeachment.
They're pretty close.
It's about 66%.
You would need 67%.
To convict the president and remove him from office.
So even if he got rid of every Republican in the country, and specifically every Republican in the Senate, they still wouldn't remove Trump from office.
Not going to happen, which is why Jeffress and then Trump quoting him said, even if the Democrats are successful, parentheses, which they will never be.
Nevertheless, Democrats very upset about this, and both the pastor and Trump bring up a question worth talking about.
Karl Marx observed that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
Karl Marx was wrong about many things, but it seems he was right about that.
There are some parallels between the Civil War and what we're looking at now.
What are those parallels?
What caused the Civil War, the actual first Civil War in 1860?
Most importantly was the moral question of slavery.
Americans were divided over the question of slavery.
This was a profound moral question.
The founders of this country were debating it in the late 19th century when we wrote the Declaration of Independence.
The first draft, one of the grievances that we were complaining about to King George was about this awful institution of slavery that the English foisted upon the incipient United States, the growing United States.
So the question of slavery was there from the very beginning of the country, and then that was largely the cause of the war.
After that was the constitutional question about the relative roles of the federal government and the states.
Can the states secede if they want to?
Are they allowed to leave?
You know, they stay in the Union when it's beneficial to them.
Once they think it's not beneficial anymore, are they permitted to secede?
I mean, practically speaking, the proximate cause of the Civil War was the election of 1860, the presidential election, and the refusal of the South to recognize Abraham Lincoln as president.
Or, I suppose, they did recognize him as president.
They said, we don't want any part of this, and they got out of the Union.
What happened?
What happened in 1860 to cause the Civil War?
Abraham Lincoln won just 40% of the popular vote.
He won more than the other candidates, but he didn't win the majority of the popular vote in the United States.
He didn't win more than 50%.
Lincoln hadn't even been on the ballot in most of the southern states.
He wasn't there.
Of the 11 states that seceded upon his election, only Virginia had any votes cast for Lincoln at all.
And do you know how many votes were cast for Lincoln in Virginia in 1860?
A little under 2,000 votes.
1,929 votes, which is 1.15% of the total number of votes cast.
It gets even worse than that.
Of those 1929 votes, 1832 of the votes came from territories that would become West Virginia, so they were politically not even really associated or recognizable with Virginia as a whole.
Why were there so few votes cast?
Forget about the other states where Lincoln wasn't on the ballot or there weren't ballots to vote for him because presidential election voting in 1860 looked significantly different than it does today.
One of the reasons that there were so few votes cast for Lincoln is there was no secret ballot in the United States.
We didn't really have a secret ballot before the 1880s, 20 years later, 25 years later.
So that was one reason why you saw a little more homogeneity with the votes is you had a public ballot.
So if you cast your vote for Lincoln, you would certainly be socially ostracized, if not worse.
So you actually can understand the argument of the South to secede.
If you put slavery aside, don't even consider that for a second.
Just look at the practical matter with regard to the federal government and the local governments.
The South felt that they had no say in their federal government.
So what's the point of being involved in it?
If you're part of an organization that you don't think is serving you in any way, why would you be a member of that?
So the cause of civil war, this is the big point, and this is where the relationship comes up today.
The cause of the civil war Is, generally speaking, an erosion of faith in institutions and systems of government.
This is true by definition, which is that once you pull out of those institutions, once you clobber those institutions, once you storm them and take them down, obviously you don't have faith in them anymore.
We are looking at a similar crisis today.
And on the surface, it's the farcical version.
So in 1860, the great debate is over human dignity.
It's over It's over slavery.
It's over man being made in the image of God.
Now, in 2019, the great debate is how much Joe Biden helped get his crackhead son and no-show job in Ukraine.
These are not exactly the same weightiness to those questions.
But there is an institutional question.
We'll get to that in a second.
We'll get to the prospect of civil war.
First, I've got to thank our friends over at Ashford University.
I'm so glad to welcome this new sponsor.
Ashford University is providing huge opportunities for people and a huge opportunity to take a step forward in your career with an MBA without having to totally stop your life, put your life on hold while you do it.
If you've been feeling stuck, I know a lot of people who feel this way.
You feel stuck.
You feel like you've hit a glass ceiling.
You feel like you just can't go any further in your career.
Earning an MBA could be the thing to help get you moving forward.
And I'm here to tell you that earning your MBA is easier than ever thanks to Ashford University.
We have talked a lot on this show about how the educational establishment has been rotted out, hollowed out from within, and it is causing too much trouble for people.
It's not offering the same value.
It's not offering to give you the personalized kind of education you need.
For over a century, for over a century, consider this, Forbes has been one of the top names in business by partnering with Ashford University.
They have built an incredible online MBA degree program that helps prepare students to become leaders in business.
This is the Forbes School of Business and Technology.
It is led by a faculty of practicing business professionals who bring their years of experience to the classroom.
With Ashford University courses, you'll learn by doing.
There are courses led by industry experts that use interactive business simulations and innovative strategies, such as gamification, which I love in education.
I use a lot of my own, and to enhance your learning experience.
Ashford University's online MBA allows you to learn at your own pace, Six-week courses allow you to take one course at a time.
This is fully accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission.
If you want to make a change, if you want to pursue your ambitions, if you want to pursue not only your passions but your career, build your life, do it on your terms, Ashford University can be a great way to do it.
You can achieve your master's degree while balancing work And home life.
Start earning your master's today.
Enroll now by going to ashford.edu slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, ashford.edu slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to start your master's degree today, ashford.edu slash Knowles.
Really terrific opportunity.
Okay, so in 1860, you've got this debate over human dignity and the nature of man.
In 2019, you've got this question over whether Joe Biden's degenerate son, who squandered his family's money on prostitutes and drugs and got mugged while he was buying crack in downtown LA, whether he should be able to keep his grifter board member job on a Ukrainian energy company.
Not exactly the same thing, but the institutional question is...
Has the bureaucracy become so entrenched that they can overturn a US presidential election?
Has the federal government taken so much power that it doesn't matter who you and I elect president?
Doesn't matter who the people want to be president.
Doesn't matter who the people through our constitutional systems want to elect.
The bureaucracy is going to tell you yes or no.
Because there is a real parallel there.
In 1860, the South felt that they had no say in their federal government anymore.
If the American people are going to be disfranchised by a growing bureaucracy, our benevolent betters who know how to run our lives better than we know how to run them ourselves, just ask them.
Then you are going to see some civil strife.
What did we learn?
We have just learned that between last May, May of 2018, and August of 2019, keep that last date in mind, the intelligence community secretly got rid of a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.
Why does this matter?
Because this whole impeachment inquiry was spurred by a whistleblower complaint.
But what's so strange about that whistleblower complaint, and we'll get into that in a second, is the whistleblower doesn't know anything about what President Trump did or didn't do in Ukraine, said or didn't say to the Ukrainian president on the telephone.
He just heard about it from a few people, and then he sent it over, and there was an investigation, and Trump was cleared of violations from the DOJ. But it was all based on hearsay.
It was all second or third hand.
Now, under the old rules, you weren't allowed to file a complaint just based on hearsay.
So what changed?
Well, coincidentally, shortly before this whistleblower filed his complaint, the intelligence community changed the rules.
And that's what a coincidence.
What are the odds that the intelligence community would do that at the very time?
You know the intelligence community, which tried to overturn the 2016 election, which was against Trump from the very beginning?
I don't want to disparage the whole IC. There are some great people in the intelligence community, but there are some really bad actors out there who were really upset that Trump got elected and they decided to grossly abuse their power and try to overturn the decision of the people.
Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Grambo, we call him.
Gram 2.0, ever since he became this real bold face of conservatism.
He brought this question up on Face the Nation, and he made the only conclusion you can draw, which is something about this whistleblower complaint stinks.
Every American...
Deserves to confront their accuser.
So this is a sham as far as I'm concerned.
I want to know who told the whistleblower about the phone call.
I want to know why they changed the rules about whistleblowers.
The hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed.
The complaint sounds like a legal document.
Who helped this guy write it or this girl write it?
We're not going to try the President of the United States based on hearsay.
Every American has a right to confront their accuser.
Of course.
Every American has the right to confront their accuser.
We're not going to throw a president out of office because some random guy in the CIA or any other intelligence agency decides that he doesn't like Trump and he's going to write up this complaint.
There's a lot that's weird about the complaint.
Lindsey Graham has been very good about talking about this on TV, about distilling this down to its basics.
The other one who's been really great is Rudy Giuliani.
And I know that Rudy gets a lot of flack because sometimes he oversteps or he misstates things or he says things on TV that he shouldn't have.
On this issue, on Ukraine, this is Rudy at his best.
He is doing an excellent job here.
He's doing an excellent job of shutting down all of the objections from the mainstream media.
Don't forget, the media are not a neutral body when it comes to Ukraine.
The media have been complicit in shutting down this story about Joe Biden's corruption.
They've been complicit since 2014.
They haven't talked about this.
They've been complicit in pushing the Russia hoax.
They've been complicit in pushing this impeachment nonsense.
And so Rudy Giuliani goes on George Stephanopoulos' show.
George Stephanopoulos, he's the head of political news over there at ABC. And people forget, because we have a short political attention span, George Stephanopoulos was Bill Clinton's communications director.
In the White House, on the campaign, this guy was in the war room.
He was Bill Clinton's hack and hatchet man.
And now that same guy is the head of news for ABC, political news for ABC. Rudy Giuliani goes on there and he makes the first point that we should all ask ourselves.
Whenever there's a political scandal, you should ask yourself, if it were the other side doing this, would it bother me as much?
What would I say if the shoe were on the other foot?
Now, that doesn't mean that you have to treat both sides equally.
Both sides are not equal.
They're trying to get different things.
The two teams are playing for different goals.
But you should at least ask yourself so that you have some real political perspective and some intellectual honesty.
That's what Rudy Giuliani asked George Stephanopoulos.
He says, if the shoe were on the other foot here, and we weren't talking about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, but Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., would you still say, there's nothing wrong, there's nothing to see here?
Of course the answer is, absolutely not.
I also support everything I say with affidavits.
I have an affidavit here that's been online for six months that nobody bothered to read from the gentleman who was fired, Victor Shokin, the so-called corrupt prosecutor.
The Biden people say that he wasn't investigating Hunter Biden at the time.
He says under oath that he was.
But as you know, I know he says that.
We don't even know him.
He must not be telling the truth.
We know that Vice President Biden was part of an international effort, was part of a government-wide effort to help push the prosecutor out.
The name here was Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
And it said that the president of the Ukraine asked me to resign due to pressure from the U.S. presidential administration.
The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings.
There it is.
And by the way, importantly, Rudy Giuliani isn't just using hearsay third hand from some CIA hack who got his pals in the intelligence community to change the rules so he could put a rumor out there to try to get Trump impeached.
Rudy is holding a sworn affidavit.
Rudy is starting to deal in real evidence, real facts, the real words of the people who were involved here, not just the mainstream media gossip mill and rumor mill.
And he's asking, what if the shoe were on the other foot?
It is not just conservatives who are raising this prospect, no less a liberal than Bill Maher.
Bill Maher hates Donald Trump.
Bill Maher said he's hoping for a recession just so that Trump doesn't get reelected.
He's got real liberal bona fides.
Bill Maher goes out, says exactly the same thing, that if this were not Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, but Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., that is all the leftist media, it's all Rachel Maddow and everybody else would be talking about.
The more I read about this, no, I don't think he was doing something terrible in Ukraine, but it's just so...
Why can't politicians tell their f***ing kids, get a job?
It's too swampy.
Get a goddamn job.
It's too swampy.
I mean, this kid, this kid was paid $600,000 because his name is Biden by a gas company in Ukraine, this super corrupt country that just had a revolution to get rid of corruption.
I don't...
It just looks bad.
It does sound like something Don Jr.
would do.
And if Don Jr.
did it, it would be all Rachel Maddow was talking about.
I do like when Bill Maher does this, because Bill Maher still gets his snide, left-wing insinuations in there.
He says, look, Don Jr.
would totally do this.
I don't see any reason to conclude that Don Jr.
would do something like this.
There is no comparison between Don Jr., who has made some missteps in life, sure, so have we all, and Hunter Biden, who got discharged from the Navy after a month for testing positive for coke, squandered all his family's money on drugs and hookers, then went to Skid Row in L.A. and bought crack and had a gun pulled on him, then drunk then went to Skid Row in L.A. and bought crack and had a gun pulled on him, then drunk drove to Arizona, where he would have been arrested for possession of a crack pipe and drunk driving, except the cops declined to pursue charges and then grifted $600,000 a year
And got a billion and a half dollars in loans from the Chinese government, also trading on his father's name.
No comparison, okay?
but Bill Maher will get his snide insinuation in and then say, if it were Don Jr., it's all Rachel Maddow would be talking about.
And of course, that's true.
This is why I want to talk about this shoe on the other foot, calling balls and strikes.
If Trump does it, you've got to call him out the same way that you would call out a Democrat.
I'm more than willing to criticize things that President Trump says and criticize things that President Trump does. - Thanks.
I'm at the same time willing to support him politically, even while I criticize him for those things.
Why?
Why will some conservatives defend President Trump when he does things that are objectively objectionable?
They will defend him in those cases if what he is doing is contextually defensible.
Those are slightly complicated terms and it's a little bit of a nuanced point.
So what do I mean?
President Trump goes out and he talks about civil war.
I think it's bad to do that.
I don't like that he does that.
I don't want other people to go out there and talk about civil war.
I certainly don't want the President of the United States to do that.
What he is doing when he says that is objectively objectionable.
However, he didn't start this fight.
He's not the one pushing for civil war.
He's not the one clamoring for it.
He's not the first one suggesting it, and he's not the second one suggesting it, and he's not the 5,000th person suggesting it.
What Trump is doing when he suggests that we could be on the verge of a civil war He's showing the double standard.
He's showing the hypocrisy.
He's not just talking about this double standard and the hypocrisy.
He, by making these statements and showing us the reaction that they get, is actually showing the hypocrisy of the left and the media.
And I think that's a great thing.
And I hate it when conservatives unilaterally disarm.
David French over at National Review, whom I like, I feel like I have to call him David French, whom I like, because sometimes I criticize what he says, particularly his opinions on Donald Trump, but he's a very nice guy, so I want it to be clear that I like him personally.
But David French, whom I like, called out President Trump for exactly this reason.
He says, it's awful when Trump does this, and we would call him out if he were a Democrat, and here's what French said directly, quote, I know I know, but let's do this anyway.
If a Democratic president had accused a GOP committee chair of treason and approvingly quoted a threat of a second civil war from an unhinged religious leader, then I think we know exactly how Republicans would respond.
Okay, that's what he says.
See?
You hypocrite Republicans.
You hypocrite Trump supporters.
The problem with David's point is we don't need to imagine this.
We don't need to imagine that the leaders of the Democratic Party called for civil strife and accused Donald Trump of treason.
They've been doing it for three years.
That's the whole point.
That's why Trump did it.
That's the effect of Trump doing it, is you calling the hypocrisy and us seeing the hypocrisy.
President Trump is not going to unilaterally disarm.
He's not going to just go along and allow us to be bullied by the left in this way.
It happened.
You switch a couple roles, obviously, because Trump is the president now, but it did happen.
For three years, the left and the mainstream media have called Trump a traitor, explicitly.
They're still doing it today.
Just last week, Bill Weld, who's a liberal Republican running against Trump in the 2020 Republican primary, called Trump a traitor and said he should be publicly executed.
When he did that, he was cheered on by portions of the mainstream media and the left.
When the ones who didn't want to cheer him on stayed silent, they were complicit.
The Democratic establishment was complicit in that.
So Trump comes right back, throws it right back, and calls Adam Schiff a traitor to his country.
What happens?
Was he cheered on by the left and the same people who cheered on the calls that he was a traitor?
No.
There was outrage from the mainstream media, outrage from the left, outrage from the anti-Trump right.
They're not playing by the same rules.
And President Trump has this unique ability to draw the hypocrisy out of his opponents because he's a showman and he's putting on a show.
And that's what Twitter is all about.
Twitter is about performance.
TV is about performance.
What he is showing us is the hypocrisy.
So keeping the hypocrisy in mind.
Then we have to ask the central question here.
Because that's what impeachment is all about, what the question of the Civil War is all about.
Where's the corruption?
Where's the crime?
Rudy Giuliani on those shows gets to the heart of the matter.
Who was corrupt here?
Joe Biden says it was the old prosecutor in Ukraine who was corrupt.
And that Joe Biden demanded that that prosecutor be replaced by someone else because...
He really cares about Ukrainian domestic criminal justice or something like that.
This is where the Joe Biden defense falls apart.
He says, that old prosecutor, he was the corrupt one.
And the one that I threatened to withhold American aid to the tune of a billion dollars if they didn't replace him, the one that I picked, he was the good one.
And that's why we got to withhold that aid and it was so important and he had to do it fast.
What does Joe Biden care?
This is unprecedented that a vice president would have the ability to approve or disapprove of the prosecutor in some foreign country.
He just really cares about fighting corruption in Kiev?
I don't think so.
Something tells me there's something else going on.
The Trump story, the story the conservatives are a little more inclined to believe, is that Joe Biden forced Ukraine to ditch that old prosecutor because that old prosecutor was looking a little too closely into Joe Biden and his son.
Now, it's not just hearsay.
It's not like we just have to rely on our own fantasies and our own imaginings and third-string gossip from the CIA. We have a sworn affidavit.
From the old prosecutor saying exactly that.
Now look, he could be lying.
Alright, that's what investigations are for.
But Rudy Giuliani goes on and provides even more evidence.
That was done as a matter of record in October of 2016, after the guy got tanked.
He also dropped a case on George Soros' company called Antac.
Antac is the company where there's documentary evidence that they were producing false information about Trump, about Biden, Fusion GPS was there.
Go back and listen to Nellie Orr's testimony.
Nellie Orr says that there was a lot of contact between Democrats and the Ukraine.
Well, I have all the contacts.
And John, when the rest of this comes out and we look at China and the 1.5 billion that the Biden family took out of China while that guy was negotiating for us, this will be a lot bigger than Spiro Agnew.
They have fallen into a trap.
They've fallen into a trap.
There it is.
We will get to Even if you're disinclined to believe that Rudy Giuliani is telling the truth here, that Rudy Giuliani is the one, you don't need to just trust Rudy.
You don't need to just trust the sworn affidavits.
We've got Joe Biden contradicting himself.
We've got Jay Carney, Obama's former press secretary, alluding to some corruption here.
We've got even Elizabeth Warren showing that this looks crooked.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to what this means for 2020, Hillary Clinton's role in all of this, and whether we're really headed for a civil war.
Then, of course...
The negative effects of transgender ideology already, already apparent.
6,000 kids have been killed because of puberty-blocking drugs.
We'll get to that.
And we'll get to Bill de Blasio.
Now that he's left the 2020 presidential race, he's back to destroying New York City as its mayor, now banning the word, imposing fines, if you say the phrase...
Illegal alien, which is a legal term that precisely describes a legal concept.
We'll get to that, all of that and more, but you've got to go to dailywire.com.
Check out our new website.
Looks really great.
We've fixed some of the glitches over the weekend.
It looks really sleek and really cool.
$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan show.
You get the Ben Shapiro show.
You get the Matt Walsh show.
You get all those things.
And let me tell you something.
Subscriptions are more important now than ever.
When we go out and we speak the truth on this show and we say things that maybe are not politically correct, but they are politically crucial to taking back our country from the left, there are whole organizations out there that exist to watch our shows.
It makes me kind of funny.
I think it kind of makes me laugh a little bit that those people exist and their job is to watch our shows.
But what they want to do is get us canceled.
That's why we need subscribers.
That's why we need supporters.
Because the left fears outspoken conservatives in this country.
They can't argue with us.
They can't fight on the points, so they have to shut us down and shut us up.
Please head over to dailywire.com.
We appreciate all of your support and all of the people who have already subscribed.
It really means a lot and helps us stay on the air.
Head on over there.
We got another kingdom dropping this week.
We got questions in the mailbag, which you could ask as a subscriber.
All of that and so, so much more.
Dailywire.com.
We'll be right back.
So on the actual point, who was corrupt?
Is this impeachment inquiry against Trump legitimate?
We know that there was corruption on the part of the Bidens in the Ukraine.
We got the affidavits.
We got the testimony.
We've got Joe Biden contradicting himself and lying about it in public.
Joe Biden was talking to Peter Doocy the other day on Fox News.
I actually coincidentally was on Fox News while this was happening, so we saw it in real time, gave our instant reaction.
I immediately knew what he was saying was a lie, and it has since been proven that he was a lie.
Doocy asks Joe Biden, have you ever talked to your son about his overseas business dealings?
Joe Biden says, no way, no how.
Mr.
Vice President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
That's a lie.
We knew it was a lie at the time.
Now we can prove it.
Hunter Biden himself contradicted this.
He told New York Magazine, no, I'm sorry, The New Yorker, back in July, that he did speak to his father about Burisma.
And his father said, quote, I hope you know what you're doing.
Because he's a Biden, he didn't know what he was doing, and he walked into that trap and Joe Biden's lying about it.
What's he lying?
What's he trying to cover up?
We know it's crooked.
John Carl of ABC News, at least one journalist out there, asked the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about this in 2014.
This is Obama's spokesman.
When he asked about the Biden issue in the Ukraine, The White House spokesman didn't leap to Joe Biden's defense, didn't say there's nothing going on.
He distanced himself, he stammered, and he referred it to the Vice President's office.
Here he is.
Hunter Biden has now taken a position with the largest oil and gas company, holding company in Ukraine.
Is there any concern about at least the appearance of a conflict there?
I would refer you to the Vice President's office.
I saw those reports.
Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens, and where they work does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the vice president or president, but I would refer you to the vice president's office.
Oh, that's pretty bad.
Jay Carney is usually pretty slick, and even he couldn't muster anything here.
He started to almost defend Hunter Biden.
What he was about to start saying, you could hear it, is Hunter Biden is a private citizen.
Now, what the expected conclusion of that is, and therefore the jobs that are held by private citizens are of no business of yours.
They have nothing to do with politics and stop asking about them.
He didn't say that.
What he ended up doing was trying to protect the White House, actually.
So he said, Hunter Biden is a private citizen.
And so whatever job he has does not reflect an endorsement by the president.
We had nothing to do with it.
Don't blame us.
Even Elizabeth Warren, 2020 presidential candidate, just accidentally admitted that this is corrupt.
The Biden dealings in Ukraine.
Before, she realized that she had admitted it was corrupt, and then she tried to walk it back.
She was asked the question in a hypothetical, is it okay for the vice president's son to get these slick deals out of foreign governments?
And she initially says, no, of course not.
And then she realizes what it means, and she had to try to walk it back.
Too late.
For two ethics plans, could you say whether or not under a Warren administration would your vice president's child be allowed to serve on a board of a foreign company?
No.
Why not?
I don't know.
I mean, I'd have to go back and look at the details on the plan.
Do you think that could be a problem?
I have to go back and look.
Oh, she's a real Indian giver on that answer, isn't she?
Because she gives the obvious answer.
She gives the correct answer, which is under a Warren administration, so Warren's in President Warren mode here, she says...
Would your vice president be permitted to take bribes from foreign governments?
She goes, no, of course not.
Absolutely not.
And then she realizes what the question means, and the question is, do you think that Joe Biden is a crook for allowing his son to do this?
And she's not ready to pounce on Biden.
Obviously, she wants to beat Biden for the nomination, but very bad idea for her to do that now.
Biden's falling apart.
She wants his support, and she doesn't want to be seen as having caused his demise, or even worse, siding with Trump to help facilitate Biden's demise.
So she says, no, absolutely not.
And then the reporter, good question, says, why not?
Why would you not allow your vice president's child to get bribes from a foreign government?
She goes, I don't know.
What do you mean you don't know?
You're pretty quick on that answer.
He said, no, obviously not.
And the obvious reason is because that's corrupt and crooked.
But then she says, I don't know, and you have to, I've got to think about it.
Bye.
See ya.
And then there's a Liz Warren-shaped hole in the wall.
A lot of people, including Rudy Giuliani, have uncovered a lot here.
So, can this stuff be trusted?
Can what Rudy Giuliani is saying on television be trusted?
Is it serious or not?
The best argument that it's serious is that Joe Biden wants to shut up Rudy.
Joe Biden wrote letters, his campaign wrote letters to the TV news network saying, quote, We're writing today with grave concern that you continue to book Rudy Giuliani on your air to spread false, debunked conspiracy theories on behalf of Donald Trump.
False?
He's got sworn affidavits.
Conspiracy theory?
What are you talking about?
He's got hard evidence on all these shows.
They go on.
Giving Rudy Giuliani valuable time on your air to push these lies in the first place is a disservice to your audience and a disservice to journalism.
So you're telling me that totally uncorroborated hearsay is enough to get the President of the United States kicked out of office, but during an impeachment inquiry, sending the President's lawyer on television with hard facts, with sworn affidavits, With serious investigative work, that is a disservice to journalism.
Up is down, black is white, north is south.
They go on.
While you often fact-check his statements in real time during your discussions, that is no longer enough.
Okay, the Biden campaign is going to give their lackeys in the media their marching orders.
It's no longer enough, journalists.
Do what we say.
By giving him your airtime, you're allowing him to introduce increasingly unhinged, unfounded, and desperate lies into the national conversation.
It is always the case that when they can't Democrats argue with your facts, with your evidence, with your logic, with your arguments.
They try to shut you up.
They try to get you kicked off television.
They try to shut down your show.
They try to get you canceled from your Netflix special.
They try to get you thrown out of office before the voters have a chance to re-elect you.
Democrats are talking like they want civil war.
They are.
That's why Robert Jeffers brought it up on TV. That's why Trump tweeted about it.
The RNC put an ad together with a lot of these cases.
We're not just talking about loony fringe lefties.
We're talking about Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, all fanning the flames in recent years of violence and uprising.
They go low, we kick.
And if you see anybody 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.
And you tell them they're not welcome.
Sex and freezes, anti-state.
We believe survivors.
I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country.
maybe there will be.
You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.
It goes on and on.
I mean, that is reckless, reckless rhetoric.
That is far more reckless than anything Trump says.
You know, you hear him go, oh, the tweets, the tweets are so terrible.
Not at all.
What Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton are saying is far more reckless, far more damaging to public discourse in the country.
Hillary Clinton, just one on television.
And she lost the election in 2016, and she's calling the current president of the United States illegitimate.
I believe he knows he's an illegitimate president.
He knows.
He knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did.
And I take responsibility for those parts of it that I should.
But, Jane, it was like applying for a job.
And getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado.
And so I know that he knows that this wasn't on the level.
I don't know that we'll ever know everything that happened, but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day and history will probably sort it all out.
We'll never know.
We'll never know.
It was the Macedonians.
It was James Comey.
It was, I'm the president.
I'm really the president.
She's wandering around Chappaqua in a straitjacket.
Hillary, Hillary, come back.
Come back.
You forgot your medicine, Hillary.
Say what you will about Mitt Romney.
He didn't call Barack Obama an illegitimate president.
John Kerry, even, didn't call Bush an illegitimate president.
Bob Dole didn't call Clinton an illegitimate president.
Bush, one, didn't call Clinton an illegitimate president.
But recently you've seen this increasing.
Al Gore more or less suggested that George W. Bush was illegitimate.
Hillary is outright saying it.
That's the sort of talk that leads to civil war.
You know, there's a video going around of Antifa.
It's actually a video from Canada, but Canada's just America's hat, so, you know, it's pretty much the same thing.
And it echoes scenes that we've seen from Antifa in the United States, especially in Portland, but all over the country.
It's Antifa physically threatening a little old couple trying to cross the street.
Here they are. - Scum off our streets!
Nazi scum off our streets!
Nazi scum off our streets!
Nazi scum off our streets! - Off our streets! Nazi scum off our streets! - Nazi scum off our streets! - This is the kind of stuff that leads to civil war.
If you can do that to a little old couple, you've lost the narrative.
If you think half the country is deplorable and irredeemable, you've lost the narrative.
If you are willing to question the legitimacy of the President of the United States or a Supreme Court Justice like Brett Kavanaugh or anybody else...
You have lost the narrative.
You are seriously diminishing faith in our institutions, especially if you were former senator, former secretary of state, former Democratic nominee for president like Hillary Clinton.
Unbelievably reckless.
I don't think we're headed for civil war.
But if we are, it's because the left has whipped itself up into a frenzy.
And if we are...
Then, I guess the proximate cause of it will be this stupid nonsense about Hunter Biden being a crook in Ukraine and Joe Biden being a crook.
But there are great moral questions here.
We can't just write this off as some totally frivolous, farcical nonsense.
There are serious moral questions.
A central question would be abortion.
You've got half the country.
They're digging in their heels.
Half the country says we need to be able to kill babies as a federal right and you need to pay for it.
Half the country...
Understands the reality, which is that it's bad to kill babies.
That's a central question.
That is certainly as big a question as slavery was in 1860.
A lot of the questions we're talking about are about the relationship of local communities to the federal government.
So there was a little bit of a truce, at least, on the abortion question because local communities could have their own abortion laws.
Different states could have their own abortion laws.
Roe versus Wade ended that, and the left has been digging their heels in ever since.
The other reason why I could see us heading down a path to civil war is if we've just become too shallow.
This isn't about both sides.
This is primarily a leftist issue.
The left does not understand what the right is saying.
You see this time and time again.
Social science shows this.
The left actually doesn't understand the arguments that the right is making, whereas the right does understand many of the arguments the left is making.
The left is much more likely to unfriend people for having different political views.
You know, the first civil war was not caused by shallowness.
Whatever it was caused by, Lincoln said in the second inaugural, we all knew somehow the cause of it was slavery.
And it was about union and about disunion and this peculiar institution.
But the Second Civil War could be caused by a serious question.
Any question that causes war is, by definition, it's serious.
It could be caused by a serious question.
It won't be caused by serious people.
It will be caused by frivolous people frivolously throwing away the greatest country in the history of the world.
Farcical indeed, electric boogaloo is the Civil War II.
On the surface, everything is going great.
Below the surface, there are major cultural questions.
To use just that one popular issue, we're talking about transgender children.
And when you go out there, believe you me, when you go out there and you attack the leftist exploitation of children, vulnerable children, What the left does is twists that and pretends that that's an attack on children themselves.
Well, let's look at one example of that.
We are now told, if you do not want to shoot little kids full of hormones and block them from going through puberty, that you are hateful, you're bigoted, you're transphobic, you're hurting these children, you're responsible for their suicide rates.
Well, let's look at just one of those drugs.
Puberty-blocking drug, luprolide acetate, which goes by Lupron, is a drug to block puberty in children.
By definition, if you're blocking puberty, you're blocking puberty in children.
We have just learned that this is resulting in tens of thousands of serious adverse reactions in recent years, including 6,000 deaths, 6,000 dead children because of a drug that blocks puberty.
Between 2012 and June 30th of this year, 2019, the FDA has documented over 40,764 adverse reactions to Lupron, And more than 25,500 reactions in just the last five years were considered serious, including 6,370 deaths.
That's according to the Christian Post.
That is a shallow society.
That won't even take up that question.
That won't even look at the harm they're doing because they are so misguided by fantasy and ideology.
Same thing, look on a completely different issue in New York.
New York City is now banning the phrase illegal alien.
They're not banning illegal aliens, which they should because illegal aliens are illegal.
They're not here.
And a self-governing people has a right to determine its own immigration policy.
They're now Banning the phrase illegal alien, if you use the phrase illegal alien, you could be fined up to a quarter million dollars per offense.
This is according to the City Hall's Commission on Human Rights.
This is what they write.
This is from the memo.
Alien, used in many laws to refer to a non-citizen person, is a term that may carry negative connotations and dehumanize immigrants, marking them as other.
They are other.
They're not American citizens.
The purpose of language is to distinguish between different concepts and different ideas and different people.
Obviously, if they were American citizens, there wouldn't be the term illegal alien, because they wouldn't be other.
If you use a different term to refer to people, it's other.
If you use the term they want, non-citizen person, you are othering them as well.
Why?
Because they are other.
The use of certain language, including illegal alien and illegals, with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.
So now the City Hall is not only going to abridge free speech, is not only going to stop people from using the correct term.
It's not offensive, by the way.
It is the most clinical term you can use.
It's not like you're calling them some racial slur.
You're calling them illegal aliens.
Alien means a foreign national, and they're here illegally.
They're not here legally.
There's no nicer term to use unless your goal is to deceive people, which is the point of politically correct language.
Now they're going to read your mind, too, and see if you really hate them, if you're really going to humiliate them or to demean them.
That is a shallow and frivolous and farcical society that doesn't understand each other, that won't be allowed to communicate.
We're not even allowed to use words.
Words are the way that you can communicate in civil society.
I just gave a speech about this on Saturday at TPUSA in Philly.
Speech is politics.
Animals grunt.
Only human beings have the capacity for speech, to communicate with each other about objective reality which is outside of us.
If we are no longer permitted to do that without being shut down, without being cancelled, without being told that precise language is against the law, There is no civil society.
There is civil war.
A farcical civil war, but a civil war indeed.
That's our show.
Let's hope it never comes to that.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Come back tomorrow.
We've got a lot more to talk about 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 and directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.
edited by Danny D'Amico.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire, 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, everyone keeps saying that impeachment is a serious business.
But nothing is serious if it's not done seriously.
The Democrats know that President Trump isn't going anywhere.
So who's the target of their so-called impeachment probe?
