Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 7, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

48:54

Ep. 427 - On Eating Babies (And Other Modest Proposals)

A constituent at an AOC town hall suggests eating babies to curb climate change, Warren gets caught in another biographical lie, and the SCOTUS prepares to hear a case that could determine the future of sex and gender identity in the U.S. Date: 10-07-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A constituent at an AOC town hall suggests eating babies to curb climate change.
	While everyone is outraged at the remark, we examine what exactly is wrong with this modest proposal and whether or not it's any worse than what we've heard from Democratic presidential candidates.
	Warren finds herself embroiled in a major sex scandal.
	No, I am not talking about Jacob Wall's accusation that Warren bedded a 20-something Marine.
	I'm not talking about that.
	I am talking about Warren's latest lies about sex discrimination and how they fit in with a broader pattern of biographical dishonesty.
	Finally, we prepare for a Supreme Court case tomorrow.
	That could determine the future of sex and gender identity in the United States.
	And on that point of sex and gender identity and all of the social issues, the New York Times finally runs openly, honest, fictional op-eds.
	At least they're honest.
	All that and more.
	more.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show.
	I am about to give apparently a So, look, Media Matters, Sleeping Giants, any of the left-wing operatives who watch this show, for my controversial opinions, here it is.
	Get ready.
	I don't think we should eat the babies.
	Okay?
	There, I said it.
	And if it costs me my show, so be it.
	But I don't think we should eat the babies.
	You're going to see a lot of headlines now, but Knowles!
	Wants to destroy the climate because he won't eat the babies.
	Well, we're going to get into this modest proposal for eating babies to stop climate change.
	But first, while we still have them, I want to thank our wonderful sponsors over at NetSuite.
	It is very important if you are starting a business, if you are growing a business, if you are working for a growing business.
	You need to know your numbers.
	I've been involved in a lot of startup businesses, including this one right here, the Daily Wire.
	It is so important.
	The biggest problem, probably, that growing businesses have, I think this is a bigger problem than any of the others, is they have this hodgepodge of business systems and they can't know their numbers.
	That's where NetSuite comes in very handy.
	NetSuite by Oracle is the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy-to-use cloud platform.
	This gives you the visibility and control that you need to grow.
	With NetSuite, you save time, you save money, and you save unneeded headaches.
	And by the way, time is money.
	Again, people forget this when they're starting a business.
	Time is money, okay?
	And so what they'll do is they'll have all these different business systems, and one manages sales, one does finance, one does accounting.
	None of them are talking to each other.
	You can't access them all, and you lose a lot of Don't make that mistake.
	NetSuite by Oracle.
	You can handle sales, finance, accounting, orders, HR, instantly, right from your desktop or phone.
	That is why NetSuite is the world's number one cloud business system.
	Right now, NetSuite is offering you valuable insights with a free guide.
	Seven key strategies to grow your profits.
	That is at netsuite.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Do me a favor.
	If you've got some business aspirations, you're working for a growing business, you have a business yourself, do me a favor.
	Go right now.
	Cost you nothing.
	NetSuite.com slash Knowles.
	K-N-O-W-L-E-S. You will get your free guide, Seven Key Strategies to Grow Your Profits.
	NetSuite.com slash Knowles.
	They want to eat the babies.
	They want to eat the babies.
	This was a constituent at an AOC town hall.
	They were talking about climate change.
	And she offered her modest proposal for how to really stop the impending climate crisis.
	We've been here for much longer because of the climate crisis.
	We only have a few months left.
	I love that you support the Green Deal, but getting rid of fossil fuel is not going to solve the problem fast enough.
	A Swedish professor saying that we can eat dead people, but that's not fast enough.
	So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this.
	We've got to start eating babies.
	We don't have enough time.
	There's too much CO2. All of you, you know, you're pollutant.
	Too much CO2. We have to start now.
	Please, you are so great.
	I'm so happy that you're really supporting the nuclear deal, but it's not enough.
	You know, even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people, too much pollution.
	So we have to get rid of the babies.
	That's a big problem.
	Just stopping having babies is not enough.
	We need to eat the babies, and this is very serious.
	Please give a response.
	Okay, so this is obviously a stunt.
	Some people are saying the woman is a little kooky.
	Some people are saying it's just a political stunt that opposes AOC. The answer is actually it's both of those things.
	This woman is a little kooky and this is a stunt and it is satire and it's very, very good satire.
	The one report that is just a complete lie from the mainstream media, some people are saying that this woman is conservative or they're insinuating that she's conservative.
	She's not.
	She's a member of a group I called the LaRouche Pack.
	These are followers of Lyndon LaRouche.
	For those who don't remember, LaRouche is pretty out there.
	The LaRouche movement, though, is not a conservative movement.
	It grew out of the 1960s radical left.
	Some of the things that the LaRouche people want are they want to regulate Wall Street and they want to change our system of exchange rates.
	So they oppose free-floating exchange rates, which began in the 1970s.
	They support massive federal infrastructure spending.
	One big issue for them is they want a Eurasian land bridge, so a land bridge connecting, you know, Super-duper highway from Europe all the way to Siberia.
	They support colonization of Mars.
	They support a different system of tuning for classical music.
	This is an important issue for the LaRouche PAC. And they support certain defense initiatives, but not others.
	For instance, they support laser-based defense initiatives, but not...
	So, not easy to categorize on the right or the left.
	It's a little bit of a kooky political movement.
	Lyndon LaRouche himself ran for president eight times.
	The first time was with the U.S. Labor Party.
	The next seven times were with the Democratic Party.
	This was as recently as 2004.
	So, anybody who's telling you this is a conservative or even right-wing political group that she's with is not telling the truth.
	That's it.
	It's very good satire.
	Because I think now the LaRouche PAC supports Trump.
	I'm not sure.
	I wouldn't be surprised if they support Trump.
	I think they oppose the global warming alarmism.
	So, you know, it's not easily categorized.
	But in so much as this is satire making fun of global warming alarmism, it's really, really good satire.
	What the left is trying to say is, oh, give me a break.
	This woman's so crazy.
	This isn't even close to what we think.
	It is.
	It's really close to what we think.
	The argument that the woman is making is that babies expend too much carbon dioxide and they use too many resources and they're hurting the public and society because of climate change, so we need to eat the babies.
	That's the whole satire.
	Who is the satire directed toward?
	The left.
	This is not just coming from fringe people.
	This is coming from candidates for president.
	In a recent CNN town hall talking about climate change, Bernie Sanders, the number two candidate in the race, according to some polls.
	Now he's fallen most polls down to number three.
	But you're talking about a top-tier candidate.
	Bernie Sanders was asked explicitly if we should kill babies To curb climate change.
	His answer was immediate and emphatic.
	Yes.
	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, 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 I think, especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies.
	And where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have.
	Something I very, very strongly support.
	How is Bernie's argument any different from the woman's argument?
	The woman said we should kill and eat babies.
	Bernie said we should just kill the babies.
	We should do both of those things because of climate change.
	What this is based on is a satire by Jonathan Swift called A Modest Proposal.
	Specifically, it's called A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country and for making them beneficial to the public.
	And this was a satire by the Irish writer Jonathan Swift, the idea being that you've got all these poor Irish babies and they're a burden to the public and they're taking up too many resources, so what we should do is feed them.
	Feed them to rich people and we should eat the babies.
	Bernie, when he, now Bernie's not talking about eating babies, he's just talking about killing babies, but he does say specifically, we need to expand abortion in poor countries.
	He says, especially poor countries.
	We don't need to just kill the babies here in the United States to fight climate change.
	Especially in poor countries, with all those bothersome poor people who are taking up too many resources.
	They're in the poor countries.
	Most especially, we need to Now, today, when he's talking about poor countries or third world countries, he's talking about Africa and parts of Asia, which brings in this whole racial aspect to it.
	If he were writing in the 18th century, like Jonathan Swift, we'd be talking about the Irish babies.
	We need to go in there and kill these poor babies.
	But it gets even better because you could say, well, look, he's just talking about killing them, and the lady at the AOC event was talking about killing and eating them, and for some reason those are completely different, and it's good to kill the babies, but it would be really bad to kill and eat the babies, and no one's talking about eating the babies.
	Therefore, Michael, the analogy is not a good one.
	Except, except the left is talking about eating people too.
	Last month, a Swedish scientist was speaking at a Swedish scientific summit and suggested that cannibalism is a great way to fight climate change.
	This guy was not engaging in satire.
	This guy was dead serious.
	The Stockholm School of Economics professor Magnus Söderlund, what a name, said that eating human meat It's a great way to help save the human race if society would simply, quote, awaken the idea.
	He's talking about eating dead people.
	So he says, people die, and we've got all this good meat that we're just putting underground.
	What a huge waste of that.
	If we could just eat that meat, then we wouldn't have to grow so much food and raise cows, and then we could help save the world.
	When this came out, this was referred to as the Soylent Green New Deal, based on the Charlton Heston movie, where the food is people.
	You remember Soylent Green.
	Soylent Green is people!
	Soylent Green is people.
	So you have a scientist suggesting that cannibalism is a good way to fight climate change.
	You have a Democratic presidential candidate suggesting that killing babies is a good way to fight climate change.
	And then you have a political satirist at this AOC event suggesting that eating babies is a good way to fight climate change.
	That's not a big stretch.
	And she's not only channeling very fringe voices, she's channeling mainstream voices.
	Number three, sometimes number two, depending on what poll you're looking at in the Democratic presidential race.
	So if you say this is so ridiculous, let's say that you're in the center or you're on the left, and you say how ridiculous it is that this woman's talking about eating babies.
	Ask yourself what's ridiculous about it.
	We're already...
	It's already a mainstream proposal to kill babies to fight climate change.
	You have scientists now talking at a big summit about eating people.
	By the way, if there's no moral order, if you don't believe in a transcendent moral order, you don't believe that we're made in the image of God, and you don't believe God exists, and you think we're all just kind of meat puppets and this is a material world, why is it wrong to eat dead people?
	By that logic, By the logic of materialism and atheism, I don't really see why it's that wrong.
	I mean, it's obviously wrong because there is a transcendent moral order, but if there weren't, why would it be wrong to eat dead people?
	That's what this guy, that's what the scientist is saying.
	Now, take that logic to its logical conclusion.
	If you are willing to go so far into the realm of the absurd and the disgusting as to say that we should kill human babies to fight the weather...
	Why is what this political satirist saying, why is that so outrageous?
	It is outrageous, but it is outrageous and wrong and crazy by the logic of the left.
	That's what we're getting into.
	And so when you look at the arguments they're making, those arguments are going to be expressed in certain candidates.
	And we've already looked at Bernie Sanders, one of the top tier candidates.
	He's explicitly making that argument.
	How are the candidates doing?
	We're looking not just at flawed arguments as we look at 2020.
	We're looking at very flawed candidates.
	So Bernie Sanders, the one who suggested we kill babies to fight the weather, is the biggest fundraiser in the Democratic field right now.
	He is by far the biggest.
	He raised in the third quarter $25.3 million.
	Next up was Liz Warren.
	She had $24.6 million.
	Way behind in third place is Joe Biden at $15.2 million.
	What did Trump raise?
	Trump raised $125 million.
	Now, Trump way outpaced Barack Obama in his re-election campaign in 2011 in the third quarter.
	Obama raised $70 million.
	Trump is not quite double that, but getting close to double that.
	Now, you might say, okay, all the Democratic candidates, sure, they've raised some money, and it's nowhere close to what Trump raised, but they haven't picked a nominee yet.
	Sure, but look at the total money.
	25.3 million for Sanders, 24.6 million for Warren, let's call that an even 50 million combined, and then Joe Biden behind with 15.2 million.
	So you're looking at 65 million.
	That's combined for the top candidates, the only real candidates, I think, at this point who have a shot at getting the nomination.
	That's behind Barack Obama's re-election campaign, and it's way behind Trump.
	That is almost half, just a little over half of what Trump pulled in in the third quarter.
	So not looking good for the arguments on the left or the candidates.
	The good news for the Democrats is that Bernie Sanders' health is okay right now.
	It looks like he's okay.
	Bad news is he had a heart attack last week.
	He didn't announce that he had a heart attack.
	His campaign didn't announce that he had a heart attack.
	The New York Times got the information from his doctors, and his campaign later confirmed it.
	This is clearly a vulnerability for the campaign.
	If it were not a vulnerability, the Sanders campaign would have come right out and said it.
	But they didn't.
	You don't want a presidential candidate who's having heart attacks on the campaign trail.
	I'm very glad that Bernie Sanders is okay.
	This is bad news for his campaign.
	You know, Dick Cheney had heart attacks.
	He even had heart attacks after he was elected to be the vice president.
	But he never had heart attacks just before an election.
	And he was the vice president.
	He wasn't the president of the United States.
	People are very wary of this.
	John McCain had excellent health.
	When he ran for president in 2008, he lived for, what, another 10 years after that?
	And people said, I don't know, he's a little old, and we don't like this Sarah Palin lady, so I can't vote for McCain.
	Bernie Sanders is 78 years old right now.
	He'll be 79 on Election Day 2020.
	He'll be 83 on Election Day 2024.
	That is a big vulnerability.
	I think the public sees Bernie Sanders as too old.
	Same issue for Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden is floundering.
	His poll numbers have collapsed.
	He once had a 25-point lead over Bernie Sanders.
	He once had a 33-point lead over Elizabeth Warren.
	Now he's tied with Warren.
	He's all the way down tied with Warren according to the Real Clear Politics average.
	This is looking at all the polls.
	Joe Biden has 26.3% to Liz Warren's 26%.
	That is a statistical tie.
	MSN is now reporting that major Joe Biden donors met in Philly this past weekend to discuss the future of the campaign.
	This is being reported in left-wing outlets.
	According to an Economist YouGov poll, Liz Warren is now not just tied with Biden, she's now up four points on Joe Biden.
	26 to 24 to 14, Bernie Sanders way in the back.
	No wonder Joe Biden's funders are worried.
	I would be worried too.
	Because his campaign right now is at very serious risk of looking like the Jeb campaign in 2016.
	Jeb!
	Biden!
	Exclamation point.
	And Joe Biden is the most normal of these candidates.
	And Joe Biden is supporting radical proposals.
	Taxpayer funding for abortion.
	That sort of stuff.
	So then you've got Bernie Sanders.
	He's too old and he thinks we should kill babies to appease the weather gods.
	You've got...
	And Bernie Sanders had a heart attack on the campaign.
	Doesn't bode well for his 2020 chances.
	You've got Joe Biden collapsing.
	His poll number's gone.
	Liz Warren leading or tied in polls and in the Rookler politics average.
	So it's got to be Warren, right?
	Not so fast.
	Liz Warren's facing another scandal, major scandal rocking her world, not the Jacob Wohl sex scandal.
	To catch you up if you missed that one, Jacob Wohl, who is a right-wing troll, came out and is suggesting that Liz Warren paid a young Marine in his 20s for sex.
	I got to tell you, I don't buy it.
	I just don't.
	If Liz Warren has never had a beer, if she's awkward drinking a beer on camera, and she's kind of hugging her husband in a weird way, I just...
	Of all the scandals you're going to throw on Liz Warren, I don't think sex with a young Marine is the one that's going to stick.
	The sex scandal that she's facing is lying about sex discrimination.
	She's now facing a major lie about her biography.
	So last Wednesday during a town hall in Nevada, Liz Warren said that she once lost a job because she was pregnant.
	She said, quote, by the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant and the principal did what principals did in those days.
	Wish me luck and hire someone else for the job.
	He discriminated against me on sex and he fired me because I was pregnant.
	That's what she's saying.
	However, video surfaced from a 2008 program called Conversations with History, which might be a prophetic title if this video ends Liz Warren's presidential campaign because she will have been history.
	In that video, she said she wasn't fired because she was pregnant.
	She said she was fired because she was unqualified for the job, and she decided to do something else, and she was pregnant, and she decided to raise her kids.
	Here is Liz Warren in 2008.
	My first year post-graduation, I worked, it was in a public school system, but I worked with the children with disabilities.
	And I did that for a year.
	And then that summer, I actually didn't have the education courses, so I was on an emergency certificate, it was called.
	And I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, I don't think this is going to work out for me.
	And I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years.
	Okay, so that's it.
	She didn't have the courses.
	And then she went to try to get the qualification, and she thought, this isn't going to really work out for me.
	And then she had a baby, and she stayed home for a few years.
	That makes perfect sense.
	That's very different than the story she's telling now.
	This is a problem for her, because she already famously lied about her resume.
	She lied about being a Native American Indian.
	She, the whitest woman who's ever walked the face of the earth...
	She lied in a very bad way for her as a leftist and as a Democrat because racial identity politics really matters to the left.
	And so she lied about that.
	Bad idea.
	She lied certainly as early as when she was teaching at UPenn.
	And then did that help her get the job at Harvard?
	I don't know.
	A lot of people seem to think it did.
	Harvard certainly touted her Native American ancestry, which was not true.
	And then it turned out it was obviously a lie.
	This dogged her for a little while.
	And you know this bothered her, by the way, because she spent a long time trying to defend it.
	She took this DNA test and got her personal prov to the Boston Globe to run about how she was one one thousandth Native American.
	And this somehow vindicated her decades and decades of lying.
	That backfired on her big time.
	So she tried to fight it.
	Now she just apologized.
	Okay.
	She was just getting over this.
	Now this new scandal comes out.
	If this new lie hadn't come out, would the Pocahontas thing have stopped her from being president?
	I actually don't think so.
	It's a good hit.
	It's a very funny hit.
	Dogged her for a long time.
	I don't know that that's enough.
	It's been around for a while.
	She made an egregious mistake.
	She admitted it.
	And Americans are forgiving people.
	Now it happened again.
	And look, we believe in second chances, but do we believe in third chances or fourth chances as Americans?
	I don't know about that, because now it's not just a mistake.
	Now it's not just a lie.
	Now we've got a pattern, and it's the same kind of lie.
	You have a privileged woman consistently lying to make herself look like a victim.
	You've got her first pretending to be a victim of race discrimination, then you've got her pretending to be a victim of sex discrimination.
	This is not going away.
	And I think, I haven't seen any actual conservative who's taken her so-called sex scandal seriously that she paid off a Marine to have sex with him.
	We should take this one seriously.
	This is a good hit.
	This is a really good hit.
	She's just consistently lying about her racial privilege and her sexual privilege.
	I'm using the left's terms because she's going to have to answer to the left for those and we should hammer her for it.
	Speaking of sex discrimination, by the way, huge story.
	I'll just give you a little preview of this.
	One of the biggest Supreme Court cases...
	Possibly ever is coming up tomorrow and nobody is talking about it.
	The case is Harris Funeral Homes versus Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
	What this case is about is whether sex means sex, you know, male and female, man and woman, or whether sex means gender identity.
	So not your objective sex, but your subjective feelings about your sex.
	What's the case?
	The case is about this funeral home.
	Owned by a guy named Thomas Rost.
	For six years at this funeral home, they had an employee named Anthony Stevens.
	At the funeral home, obviously it's a very touchy, sensitive industry, and so when the people are dealing with grieving families, there's a dress code.
	Anthony Stevens, this employee at the funeral home, agreed to the dress code.
	He signed a contract saying, I will abide by the dress code.
	Six years he abided by that dress code, until one day, Anthony came in and he decided that he was Amy.
	And so he insisted on wearing a dress.
	He insisted on wearing a skirt suit.
	So he's not wearing pants anymore.
	He's wearing a skirt suit.
	And what Thomas Ross said is, look, we like you a lot, Anthony or Amy or whatever you're going by now, but you can't violate this dress code.
	You've got grieving families here and they don't need your...
	Show in your political statement and your issues to affect them.
	This is about them.
	It's not about you.
	You agreed to wear the dress code.
	You got to do the dress code.
	So Anthony, now Amy, leaves and sues.
	And so what happened is the Obama administration, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sided with Anthony Stevens, now Amy Stevens.
	Now it's the Trump administration.
	Trump's DOJ supports the funeral home.
	This all comes down to the Civil Rights Act.
	The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sex.
	But Anthony Stevens is not being discriminated against on the basis of sex.
	He's being discriminated against on the basis of his imagination.
	I mean, that's the only argument he's got for discrimination, is that I imagine myself to be a woman, even though I'm not a woman, and therefore I'm being discriminated against, and therefore you need to sue me and you need to let me wear whatever I want to wear in front of grieving families, even though I signed a contract saying I wouldn't.
	Now, the Civil Rights Act, this has actually already been interpreted.
	The Civil Rights Act bans sex discrimination, but it does not require either asexuality or androgyny.
	So sexual difference is still respected.
	Everybody in this case still respects that there can be different dress codes for men and women at the office.
	The court ruled on this in 1998.
	So the Obama administration threw this all into chaos by saying that the word sex maybe doesn't mean sex.
	You can't have both sex and gender identity protection.
	The way to really look at this is maybe not even in the employment case, but in sports.
	Title IX sets up, says that you won't discriminate in sports on the basis of sex.
	So you get women sports leagues.
	Women get to have their own sports leagues.
	They get to engage in sports.
	If you now change sex to mean gender identity, it's not just that everybody benefits and rights are expanded to more people.
	You actually completely undermine the definition of sex.
	It's not just that more people get to play sports, it's that women don't get to play sports.
	You can't have them both.
	Sex is either objective reality or it's subjective preference and fantasy and imagination.
	You can't have both at the same time.
	Ryan Anderson has a great op-ed on this in the New York Post today.
	You should go check it out.
	I'm going to be filling in for Ben's radio show later on, and we're going to be talking to the lawyer who's going to be arguing this case before the Supreme Court tomorrow.
	This is a case to watch.
	A lot depends on this case.
	It's about a lot more than pronouns.
	It's about a lot more than just making people feel good about themselves.
	This is about who gets to define reality itself.
	This is about whether women have legal protections, like in sports leagues or in bathrooms or in their own schools or anything like that.
	So much depends upon the pronouns.
	So much depends upon whether a man at a funeral home is allowed to wear a dress or not.
	So stay tuned for that.
	We'll obviously be covering it as it comes out.
	We've got a lot more to get to.
	We've got to get to Kanye West's Sunday services and Kanye West defending the Republican Party and Kanye West coming out with a new album called Jesus is King.
	We have got to get to the Joker.
	I'm going to try to get my thoughts on the Joker if we have time.
	And then we have, from the New York Times...
	The dumbest article on the internet today.
	I love this article.
	Usually when I wake up and I say, what's the dumbest article on the internet today, it kind of takes me a minute.
	No, not today.
	Because the New York Times is publishing an op-ed, not about present political issues, but it is what they call an op-ed from the future.
	The New York Times is now employing fiction writers to write actual fiction.
	On the pages of the New York Times.
	At least they're honest.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	But first, I've got to say about Facebook and YouTube.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	Ten bucks a month.
	One hundred dollars for an annual membership.
	You get me.
	You get the Andrew Klavan show.
	You get the Ben Shapiro show.
	You get the Matt Walsh show.
	You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
	That'll be coming up on Thursday.
	You get Another Kingdom, which is out today.
	Another Kingdom Season 3 is here.
	It's the final installment.
	It is absolutely fantastic.
	I love it.
	Episodes 1 and 2 dropped today.
	So be sure to go check those out.
	A new episode is going to drop every single Monday for the duration.
	If you're a subscriber, though, at Daily Wire, you get early access to them on Fridays, so don't wait.
	Subscribe now.
	First two episodes out today.
	It is my favorite season of it.
	It's getting great reviews.
	Please go check it out, Another Kingdom.
	We always talk about how conservatives need to be in the culture.
	Well, here it is.
	The conservatives are out in the culture, and I think it's great.
	This is Drew Klavan's final installment of his Another Kingdom trilogy.
	I am so thrilled that I get to be a part of it.
	Check it out.
	It's going to be a lot of fun.
	Dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	Okay.
	Pastor West is out with his new Sunday service and his I'm talking about Kanye, Priest Kanye, Father Kanye.
	How many more titles can he get?
	He always gives himself all these titles, so I guess I can give them to him too.
	Kanye West has been moving toward the right in recent years, politically and even religiously.
	He's not...
	Talking about atheism and materialism and secularism and all those religions that are affiliated with the left wing.
	He's talking explicitly about traditional religions, specifically about Christianity.
	And this has been happening for a while.
	Now it's culminating in what he's doing are Sunday services.
	And Christians and conservatives are really split on this.
	Some conservatives say we don't want Kanye's support.
	Some Christians say we hate what Kanye is doing.
	We don't want him to talk about Jesus.
	How dare you do it?
	There were good arguments on both sides.
	But I support Ye.
	I support Kanye.
	I never thought I would say those words because I'm not a huge fan of his music.
	I support what he's doing here.
	So he was doing a Sunday service to promote his new album, Jesus is King.
	And he did one in Salt Lake City where he extolled the virtues of the Republican Party for freeing slaves.
	And he condemned mental slavery.
	And the mental slavery of voting for a political party on the basis of your skin color.
	Here he is.
	Abraham Lincoln was the Whiz Party.
	That's the Republican Party that freed the slaves.
	That's the Republican Party that freed the slaves.
	Before a year, people want to call me a ****.
	Oh ****.
	Because I chose my right.
	Internet, we got the right, right?
	We got our own right to our own opinions, right?
	Yeah!
	Who I'm supposed to take as the president?
	You black, but you can't like Trump.
	I ain't never made a decision only based off my coming.
	That's a term of slavery.
	This is slavery.
	This is really terrific to see.
	It is.
	It is really terrific to see.
	There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical here.
	One is for the Christians who don't like that he's doing the Sunday service.
	Liturgical abuse is real.
	I would much rather we all do the 1962 traditional Latin mass all the time.
	I wish people would come to that.
	But that's not exactly the option that we're being presented with in the culture.
	So that's real.
	Look, Kanye West has exhibited a lot of narcissism in his career.
	All celebrities do, and he's a big celebrity.
	And also, when politics becomes the center of what celebrities are talking about, it's very annoying.
	That's not what Kanye's doing here.
	That's not exactly what Kanye's doing.
	I mean, he comes out there and he says...
	He's got Jesus Walks playing in the background, which is one of only two Kanye West songs that I like.
	Jesus Walks, and he did one with Paul McCartney called Only One, which I kind of like, too.
	I'm almost certain Paul McCartney wrote that song, so maybe that's why I like it.
	But he's got that song playing, which is pretty good, and he says, look, the Republican Party freed the slaves, and his point isn't that we all need to vote for Republicans.
	His point is...
	He says, you're going to call me a racial slur for saying that I like Donald Trump.
	I have my right to an opinion.
	And you don't get to tell me that.
	I'm going to have my opinion.
	He's standing firm on it.
	He came out a while ago and put the MAGA hat on and hugged Trump and said, I love Trump.
	And people really knocked him for it.
	And he stood tall and he says, look, I'm not going to be a mental slave.
	I'm not going to say what you force me to say.
	You, mainstream media.
	You, political correctness.
	I'm not going to do that.
	I've got my own opinions.
	I really like that.
	And I even sort of like the idea of the Sunday service.
	You know, yesterday I was in Phoenix, and I went to a fabulous Latin Mass in Phoenix, and it was really great, and then afterward we went to have brunch with a friend of ours.
	And what it means is I went to church for Christians, and then I went to church for modern liberals, because brunch is church for modern liberals.
	They, even friends of mine have put it that way.
	They say, of course brunch is church.
	That's my Sunday ritual.
	I go out and I have a mimosa and, you know, my sacraments are a mimosa and an egg sandwich.
	That's true of a lot of people.
	I like brunch and most of my friends probably are liberal atheists or liberal materialists or liberal religious but not, or spiritual but not religious.
	I mean, they're that kind of thing.
	That's what the millennial culture is.
	You've got to meet people where they are.
	You've got to be thing, all things to all people.
	And that's a little bit what Kanye's doing here, I think.
	The album is called Jesus is King.
	The album isn't called Kanye is King.
	The album isn't called Kanye is Jesus.
	He's talked a little bit that way in the past, but that doesn't seem to be the way he's talking now.
	And Kanye's not always talking about his political views.
	He's just saying that he has the right to have political views.
	And the other thing is, this is my big defense of Kanye, generally.
	Kanye West has a pretty good ear.
	I don't like his music that much.
	But I've always said he has a good ear.
	So the way I would often put it is that Kanye West is really good at listening to good music.
	He has a really good taste in music, and then he raps over it and ruins it.
	Which is not even a knock on Kanye.
	It's kind of a knock on hip-hop in general.
	But he's got a good ear for music.
	So Jesus Walks is a good example.
	The song in Jesus Walks is really good.
	Walk With Me is a really nice song.
	And then he does Jesus Walks and raps over it and makes it not as good a sounding song.
	He's got a good ear for the culture too.
	He can hear things in the culture that most people can't hear.
	That's why he's been on top for a very long time.
	He's not just following the crowd.
	He's kind of leading the crowd in the culture.
	And I think he's hearing that people want meaning.
	I think that's why he's doing these Sunday services, which is not the traditional Latin mass that I go to on the weekends.
	But it's something.
	It's showing people want meaning.
	And instead of putting that meaning into a global warming rally, which we saw a week ago, he's putting that meaning into an explicitly religious rally, an explicitly Christian rally, and he calls the album Jesus is King.
	People want meaning.
	And if they can, as they're looking for meaning, and everybody's got to serve somebody, so they're going to find the meaning in Global warming or they're going to find the meaning in Christianity.
	And if he's leading people in that direction, I think that's a great thing.
	If he can bring people around to Christ, I think that's a great thing.
	And if they can start at Sunday service and end up at church, I think that's a great thing.
	They're not going to start out at church.
	They're going to start out at brunch.
	And then the question is, where are they going to go after brunch?
	Are they going to go to a political rally for leftism or are they going to go to a Sunday service?
	And then once they go to the Sunday service and they get a little taste, I don't think they're going to be satisfied there, I think.
	I hope they're going to want to start going to church, and they're going to want to start reading the Bible, and they're going to want to start experiencing the sacraments, and they're going to want to go to Mass, and they're going to want a transcendent religious experience.
	Kanye can bring them there.
	That's a good thing.
	You know, the lyrics of Jesus Walks are pretty good.
	In Jesus Walks, I fear that I'm going to spawn a thousand memes by reading this, but it is what it is.
	Kanye says, God show me the way because the devil's trying to break me down.
	Jesus walks with me.
	The only thing that I pray is that my feet don't fail me now.
	I want Jesus.
	Jesus walks.
	And I don't think there is nothing I can do now to right my wrongs.
	Jesus walks with me.
	I want to talk to God, but I'm afraid because we ain't spoke in so long.
	I want Jesus.
	It's actually pretty complex lyrics because what he says is speaking colloquially.
	He's saying, I don't think there's nothing I can do now to right my wrongs.
	Meaning, I don't think there's anything that I can do to right my wrongs.
	But...
	What he's explicitly, what he's literally saying is the Christian message, which is, I don't think there is nothing I can do now to right my wrongs.
	You can have your wrongs righted by accepting grace.
	And this I want Jesus keeps coming through.
	Jesus walks with me.
	I want to talk to God, but I'm afraid because I haven't talked to him in so long.
	This is true of the guy who goes to mass every day.
	This is true of the guy who's always in the confessional line.
	Like, I will stand in the confession line.
	And, you know, for those who are unaware with our smells and bells Catholic rituals, we have a sacrament called confession where you go and you confess your sins to a priest and then the priest conveys the absolution of your sins and the forgiveness of your sins.
	And when I'm standing in that line, I could go every week.
	I could go more than once a week.
	You still feel this anxiety.
	You still feel this, gosh, I have to confess that.
	I feel, I haven't talked to God.
	I've been separated from God.
	And Kanye conveys that.
	And if Kanye is bringing people around, I think it's great.
	And if Kanye is showing people you don't need to only have one political point of view, I think that's great.
	And the enthusiasm with which he does it and the sort of almost innocence with which he does it, I think is absolutely terrific.
	I give him a lot of credit.
	If he lacks in some of the virtues, You can't say that he's not courageous.
	And courage is a virtue, and courage is the prerequisite for all the other virtues.
	So I give him credit.
	I tip my MAGA hat to him.
	Before we go, I'm not going to give a long review of Joker because I don't want to give spoilers, but I really liked it.
	I don't think it's the greatest movie ever made.
	I probably won't ever see it again, but I really liked the movie, and you should go see it.
	The fact that critics are giving it 69% on Rotten Tomatoes and the people are giving it 90% tells you a lot.
	The movie is very insightful.
	It's not easily categorized.
	It shows you all perspectives.
	I think the movie is pretty anti-left.
	It's a political movie.
	I mean, it's about a political movement.
	It's about an election campaign.
	So I'm not just reading politics into a movie where there are none.
	And the villain is a leftist.
	And the villains are leftists.
	Now, one problem here is that the villain is sort of the protagonist.
	The Joker is a villain, but he's the protagonist of the film, kind of.
	He's still the villain, though.
	If you look at this film with moral clarity, it's very anti-leftist.
	I mean, the people who are the clowns who support the Joker are holding up resist signs.
	The guy who's running for office is a billionaire.
	He's obviously a Trump figure.
	And it exposes our mental health hypocrisy.
	You know, the same people who say we need to destigmatize mental health, we need to talk about mental health, they're the least likely to do it, and the minute you do it, they bite your head off.
	And it also gives us a good eye into free will.
	It doesn't just say, oh no, these poor people are destined to misery their whole lives if you have mental health issues, or if you're poor, or if you're born in a tough family circumstance, you're just destined to have a tough life.
	It permits free will in a pretty sophisticated way, in a pretty complex way.
	I think it's a perfect movie for right now, for this moment.
	Because one of the songs that keeps coming up in the previews, and it's in the movie too, is Send in the Clowns.
	This is a Stephen Sondheim song that is so misunderstood.
	It's the send in the clowns, where are the clowns?
	And the last line is, they're already here...
	Send in the clowns is, people are wondering what this song means.
	They've always asked Stephen Sondheim, and Sondheim did an interview.
	He said, it's not an esoteric song.
	The idea is that the clowns are us.
	Clown is a word for fool, and it's the song sung in a musical between two people who have variously loved each other, but they've always screwed it up.
	And the joke is, send in the clowns.
	Let's bring a little laughter into this difficult moment.
	And, oh, wait, we don't need to send in the clowns.
	We're the clowns.
	We're the fools.
	We're the clowns.
	The fact that that song is being used to market the movie tells you a lot about this moment.
	We are the clowns.
	All of us.
	We are the ones.
	We are the fools.
	We are behaving foolishly.
	And the vision, the bleak, nihilistic vision that's presented in the movie is a vision embraced by a lot of people, but it's a crazy vision.
	It's a dark one.
	It's one we're living in right now.
	And the movie takes up the question of comedy.
	The Joker.
	What is the joke?
	What is comedy?
	And there's one view of comedy, which is that it's farce, it's absurd, it's all about nothing, it's all just a big joke.
	And then there's another version of comedy, which is like the Divine Comedy.
	In the opera Pagliacci, Pagliacci says, la comedia, you hear la comedia finita, the comedy is finished.
	And Pope Benedict XV apparently said this on his deathbed, he said the comedy is finished.
	It's not him saying my life was a big joke, a big farce, it's him saying...
	Life is a comedy.
	It has a happy ending.
	And Joker explores that question.
	It allows you to see it.
	I recommend it.
	Maybe next week we'll be able to talk about more thoughts on this because I don't want any spoilers.
	But go see it.
	Go see it right now so that I can go give you my thoughts on it.
	Before we go, I need to talk about the stupidest article on the internet today.
	It's from the New York Times.
	It's called It's 2024...
	We need to keep abortion legal in New York.
	Thanks to a landmark ruling that overturned Roe v.
	Wade, abortion is now illegal everywhere except New York and Hawaii, but a new bill threatens the legal status of abortions.
	So, you'll notice right away it's not 2024.
	The editor has a note.
	This is part of the op-eds from the Future series in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers, and scientists write op-eds that they imagine we might read 10, 50, or even 200 years from now.
	So, the Times is admitting that they are now a work of fiction.
	We already knew that, but now they're admitting it.
	Because they can't complain about what's happening.
	I mean, right now, the Trump presidency is pretty good, so it always has to be hypotheticals, imaginary, what if, fiction.
	So it opens up.
	It says, I would like to offer my thoughts as a gynecologist who still provides that rarest of services, abortion.
	Our legal status is under threat as our lives have been for decades.
	More important, the legislators for this passage of this bill are dishonest in their motives and willfully blind to the consequences of its probable passage.
	So what they don't understand is Roe v.
	Wade.
	They actually don't know what Roe v.
	Wade is.
	The op-ed goes on and it says, Ever since a case in 2022 overturned Roe v.
	Wade, 14 states have outlawed abortion.
	And then...
	Seven states began prosecuting women for abortion, and now it's illegal everywhere except pretty much New York.
	If abortion is popular, if people want abortion, then it will be legal in a lot of places.
	Roe v.
	Wade being overturned won't outlaw abortion.
	It will just allow states to make their own decisions, as they should, because there's no such thing as a constitutional right to abortion.
	Then it goes on.
	They say, most so-called abortion states have adopted legislation restricting access to publicly funded abortions.
	Legally, we don't currently have publicly funded abortions.
	So, obviously, this New York Times writer doesn't understand the law, but we do have publicly funded abortions because money is fungible and we give taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood and we say it's only for non-abortion services, but if they get the money, they're going to use it for whatever they do and what they do is abortion.
	This op-ed doesn't even know that.
	So they don't know that.
	They don't acknowledge that.
	Then they go on.
	They say these laws disproportionately affect black women.
	We know this from 70 years ago.
	It disproportionately affects black women.
	You mean because it allows more black babies to be born?
	Black women are much more likely to have abortions, and the abortion proponents push for this.
	I mean, you just heard Bernie Sanders say, we need to go into poor countries, by which he means African countries, and make sure we kill more babies.
	And this is true in the United States.
	In the United States, more black babies, in New York, more black babies are aborted than are born.
	It just goes on in this sort of nonsensical way and exposes the left's opinion of abortion.
	It just reveals a couple things.
	One, they don't understand the law.
	They don't understand the Constitution.
	Two, abortion is a sacrament to the lefty.
	It does come down to abortion.
	The Kavanaugh stuff came down to abortion.
	So much of their political activism comes down to the right to kill babies.
	That's what they fear more than anything.
	That's what they're writing in the New York Times.
	It is wicked.
	It's illogical, and you can see the illogic of it in the op-ed, but it brings us right back to our first story, which is...
	That girl at the AOC town hall screaming about how we need to eat babies.
	Everyone said it was so crazy.
	It was so ridiculous.
	It's not.
	It's satire, and satire tells you the truth.
	And we're seeing that truth, which is fiction, on the cover of the New York Times, the leftist paper par excellence.
	The truth, it seems, is stranger than fiction, and we're getting a lot of truth out of that fiction from the left, and the truth is pretty appalling.
	That's our show.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is the Michael Knowles Show.
	I'm going to be filling in for Ben's radio show today, so you can listen there.
	Otherwise, I'll see you tomorrow.
	If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
	And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
	We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
	Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz 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.
	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.

▲