House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally agrees to hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry at the behest of—wait for it—Republicans. We examine Pelosi’s impeachment bind and the Democrats’ biggest mistake: they believe their own press releases. Then, a group of Indians attacks black girls in New Jersey because of white supremacy or something, according to the NYT in the Dumbest Article of the Internet Today. And finally, more bad news for Joe Biden as the nominally Catholic nominal Democratic presidential frontrunner is denied the Eucharist at a Catholic church in South Carolina because he supports killing babies. Date: 10-30-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally agrees to hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry at the behest of, wait for it, Republicans.
We examine Pelosi's impeachment bind and the Democrats' biggest mistake.
They believe their own press releases.
Then a group of Indians attacks black girls in New Jersey because of white supremacy or something, according to the New York Times in the dumbest article on the Internet today.
And finally, more bad news for Joe Biden as the nominally Catholic, nominal Democratic presidential frontrunner is denied the Eucharist at a Catholic church in South Carolina.
Why?
Well, because he supports killing babies.
That's no good.
All that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
The one thing we can say about the top story and the bottom story today is at least, finally, people are following their ideas to their logical conclusions.
Nancy Pelosi has been talking about the super-official, formal, totally serious impeachment inquiry for weeks and weeks now, even though she's never held a vote on the subject because nobody actually wants the political accountability on impeachment.
Now we're going to get that.
Same thing with the Catholic Church.
This priest down in South Carolina should be given a lot of plaudits because...
He's following the ideas of the Catholic Church to their logical conclusion and saying if you support killing babies, you are not in communion with the Church.
We will examine what both of those stories mean because the story for the left, not so great.
The story for the Catholic Church and for the culture, pretty good news.
Before we get to that, I have got to thank our friends over at Honey.
You know how much I love Honey because I've been using Honey since long before the Daily Wire even existed.
You know what happens.
You go, you buy something online, and you find out later, it could be two hours later, it could be two days later, it could be two weeks later, that you missed a discount.
I don't have to overspend anymore thanks to Honey.
Honey is so good.
Honey is the free browser extension that saves you time and money when shopping online.
It scans the internet for coupon codes and other discounts.
Then, like magic, it automatically applies the one with the biggest savings to your cart at checkout.
You might remember, like, from five, six years ago, you would go online, you'd want to buy something, and there's a little section for coupon codes, and then you'd scour the internet, and you'd try to get a coupon code, and none of them would work, and you'd probably download seven or 25 viruses or something.
It was just a mess.
You don't need to do that anymore.
Honey does all the work for you, getting you the absolute best deal.
It knows about every coupon code sale or discount at over 20,000 sites like Amazon, Macy's, J.Crew, Domino's, Sephora, Target, much, much more.
Honey has found its 10 million users, including me, over a billion dollars in savings.
You just go on, you shop like normal, and Honey, working in the background, finds you the savings.
It feels fabulous.
I use Honey all the time.
I don't remember even the last time I used it.
It would be harder to remember the last time I didn't use Honey.
You go on there.
I mean, even I saw one of these sunglasses.
They were like $300, $400 sunglasses.
Honey just goes online immediately.
Saves me, I don't think I saved like $250 or $300.
It's just fabulous, fabulous browser extension.
There is no reason not to use Honey.
It's free to use.
It installs on your computer in two clicks.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash covfefe. C-O-V-F-E-F-E.
That's a throwback, huh?
joinhoney.com slash covfefe. C-O-V-F-E-F-E.
It's absolutely fabulous, and you will love it.
So, Nancy Pelosi had her bluff called on impeachment, and she is finally going to take an actual vote, put people on the record on whether they want this impeachment inquiry.
Now, she's not voting on impeachment itself.
Nobody would be willing to do that right now.
But she is willing to have a proper vote to authorize impeachment.
Why does this matter?
Because, so far, this impeachment has been absolutely lawless.
In the history of our country, We impeached President Johnson, we then were about to impeach Richard Nixon, though he resigned, and we impeached Bill Clinton.
In all of those cases, when the impeachment inquiry was taken up, the House went on the record and had a formal vote on it.
Except this time.
Why not this time?
Because this one is so obviously ridiculous.
How do we know that this one is ridiculous?
Even without looking into the details of the case of the phone call to Ukraine.
We know it's ridiculous because the Democrats have been trying to impeach President Trump since before he took office.
Since, right after the election, before Trump took office, Senate Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren and others, tried to set the stages for impeachment.
Then, after Trump took office in 2017, Representative Al Green, the Congressman, not the singer, put forward a resolution for impeachment.
That resolution failed.
Then they tried to impeach him for Russian collusion.
That was the premise of the Mueller investigation.
Then they threatened to impeach him over Stormy Daniels and paying off a porn star.
Now they're trying to impeach him over colluding with Ukraine, the sworn enemy of Russia.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
That alone shows you how lawless the impeachment is.
So Pelosi doesn't want to get people on the record.
Her caucus doesn't want to go on the record for this.
But Lindsey Graham, Republican and Trump ally in the Senate, very forcefully went on TV and said, we need to take a vote where this is absolutely lawless.
And Pelosi eventually agreed.
This is an unfair process being driven by sore losers and there's not one vote in the United States Senate to impeach President Trump based on this phone call because he did nothing wrong.
In the history of the country, we've never had the Intelligence Committee participate in an impeachment inquiry.
Under the resolution they're going to pass tomorrow, the President's Council cannot Participate in the Intel Committee inquiry, so the president's denied right to counsel, and Republicans can't call witnesses without Schiff agreeing, so this whole thing is a sham.
The backlash is going to be wide and deep because what they're doing to President Trump is unfair.
Sore losers can't accept the consequences of losing an election, and this process in the House is a joke.
President Trump is being treated unfairly, and most Americans are going to say so when they understand what's happening.
So Lindsey Graham has a lot of clarity on this.
He's showing not just the irregularity of not voting to initiate the impeachment inquiry, but all of the other irregularities.
Why does Adam Schiff get to do whatever he wants?
Why is the House Intel Committee Chairman, who has voted We've very publicly lied before about this president who has dealt in a very improper way with the intelligence community and with the media.
Why does this guy get to do anything and the White House has no right to fight back, the president has no right to face his accuser, all of the so-called whistleblowers We haven't seen them, even though the IG has determined that the whistleblowers have an anti-Trump bias in three different ways.
It's so murky, I think, when most Americans hear about this, their eyes glaze over.
They just don't understand it.
Their opinions have been made on this months and months, if not years ago.
And so what Lindsey Graham is trying to do is bring some clarity to this, bring it all out into the open, not just on the witnesses, not just on the investigation, but the premise of the investigation itself, who's calling for it and who is.
Is not.
So he comes out there and he passed this resolution.
He said, Lindsey Graham calls on the House of Representatives prior to proceeding any further with its impeachment investigation into President Trump to vote to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry.
calls on the House of Representatives to provide President Trump, like every other American, with due process to include the ability to confront his accusers, call witnesses on his behalf, and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment, and calls on the House of Representatives and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment, and calls on the House of Representatives to provide members of the minority, that's the Republicans, with the ability to participate fully
So those last two are important as well.
Trump needs to be able to call witnesses on his behalf, and Trump needs to have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment.
Let me ask you, this is kind of similar to the Syria question.
When President Trump redeployed those troops from Syria, everyone had a lot of strong opinions about it, and very few people had any knowledge about the situation.
So I'll ask the same for impeachment on this front.
Close your eyes.
Tell me what they're trying to impeach Trump for.
Can you do it?
Specifically.
Something with Ukraine, right?
Specifically, what are they trying to impeach Trump for?
What we've heard is they're trying to impeach Trump for a quid pro quo with Ukrainian military aid.
Well, what specifically?
What aid did he withhold?
What evidence is there against them?
What law did he violate?
Now, many Democrats are admitting that he didn't violate any law.
That's why you have pieces in USA Today saying it doesn't matter if he didn't commit a crime.
You can impeach the president for not committing a crime, which is false, and it's unconstitutional, and it's very clear from the debates that took place at the founding of our country.
It's the same thing.
And they're just, the media and the left, but I repeat myself, are trying to run roughshod over this process with a lot of insinuation and not a whole lot in the way of specifics.
So Lindsey Graham is trying to get specific here.
And he's trying to get the Republicans to participate much more fully in this.
Democrats are making a huge mistake.
What is the mistake?
The Democrats are starting to believe their own press releases.
This is true not just in the impeachment.
This is true of the left broadly.
The problem with the left right now is not that they're hurling some unfair or opportunistic attacks.
That's politics.
The problem is they're starting to believe the nonsense that they're spewing.
I remember, this is some of the best advice my mother ever gave me when I was a young man.
I don't know, I was probably 11 or 12 years old.
And I was always very good at school, you know, top of the class, all this.
So there's a little 11 year old Michael and I was just getting a little full of myself.
My head was getting a little too big.
And my mother turned to me and said, Michael, Yeah, you did great on that test or yeah, you got that award or whatever.
She goes, very important.
Don't ever believe your own press releases.
Meaning, it's true that we all present an image to the world of some kind of success or achievement, but just remember, The image you're putting out to the world is not necessarily the reality of the situation, or it's certainly not the sum total of the situation.
Same thing with social media.
On social media, we put out a highlight reel of our lives, but that's not the totality of our lives.
We also make mistakes.
We also sin.
We also have imperfect information.
We also are lazy.
We also glut ourselves.
There's a lot more to life than this best of reel.
And for the Democrats, if they're going to go out there and they're going to say, all right, we caught Trump using Joe Biden's name on a phone call with the president of Ukraine, therefore we need to remove him from office.
I think they know deep down, or at least they knew, that that is not sufficient basis to throw a president out of office and to overturn a presidential election.
But they're beginning to buy it.
They're trying to make a meal out of a cupcake.
And it doesn't look good.
Here's another example.
President Trump, within just the past few weeks, he redeploys the troops out of northern Syria.
The Democrats say ISIS is going to be reformed.
Then, days later, President Trump announces we've killed the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Totally undercuts the democratic narrative.
They double down.
They say, well, it doesn't matter if you kill al-Baghdadi.
Some other guy is going to take over in his place.
Two days later, we announce we killed the other guy.
We killed the guy who was going to take over for al-Baghdadi, the spokesman for ISIS. Doesn't matter.
They double down.
You still have left-wingers at academic conferences and elsewhere who There was actually one the other day who came out and said, President Trump has aligned the United States and aligned himself with ISIS. The inspiration of leaders who are going to put people first is so important, and that's going to make people vote.
Another reason why people are going to vote?
Because Donald Trump is manipulating the White House And has aligned himself with ISIS and Saudi Arabia.
I have to say that that is not true.
That is not true.
The most important thing that we can do today is vote for civility, vote for a president who's not going to align himself with the most dangerous foreign nations that are the reason why we had 9-11.
Okay, so that was the Arizona Democratic Party chairman, Felicia Rotellini.
Obviously, she's on a panel there.
They're discussing foreign policy.
And she says Trump has aligned himself with ISIS. How does that make sense?
That makes sense in a world where you believe all the BS that you're spewing.
That does not make sense in a world where Trump just killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, and the next leader of ISIS, the spokesman for ISIS, and took out ISIS in the first place, something that Barack Obama was not able to do.
It doesn't make sense in that world.
And it doesn't help politicians to just follow their opportunistic hack attacks forever.
You've got to ballast yourself a little bit with reality.
Otherwise, nobody is going to believe you.
It's not going to serve them very well.
You know, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, Scarborough hates Trump because Trump makes fun of him fairly regularly and said that his girlfriend has an ugly face.
And so Joe is on there with his girlfriend on MSNBC.
And he was listening to President Trump announce the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a great thing, and he couldn't give it to him.
He He said, Trump, it was so awful the way he talked about killing the worst terrorist in the world.
Trump actually, he sounded like a terrorist.
He sounded like Saddam Hussein.
The raid that killed bin Laden was a seminal moment in the Obama administration.
How will Baghdadi's death shape the Trump presidency?
That's the question we're looking at this morning.
That is a question we're looking at.
And of course, Richard Haass, the President of the United States, went on talking about how Baghdadi died like a, quote, dog, a coward, a whimpering, whimpering and sniveling.
He sounded not like a President of the United States.
He actually Sounded like Saddam Hussein after torturing people.
Sounded like Muammar Gaddafi after he would torture people.
It was, again, just like the chance of lock him up last night at the game.
It was deeply un-American, deeply troubling.
So what Joe did is the same thing the left does when they call right-wingers Nazis.
They draw a moral equivalence between opposite things.
So, what Joe is saying, this is something that I've noticed left-wingers do.
It's a very post-modern kind of tactic.
They'll say, okay, you've got a terrorist who killed a lot of people and raped, killed, pillaged, and burned.
And if you kill that terrorist, you're the same as the terrorist.
You're not.
If you kill that terrorist, you're the opposite of the terrorist.
If you've got a...
Really, why?
Because...
To exact justice is not the same thing as to inflict injustice.
You might do the same act or a similar act.
I mean, in the case of Baghdadi, that's not the case.
Baghdadi was personally a rapist, a murderer, an absolute monster, and a dog who was tracked down and eaten by dogs before he blew his guts up all over the walls of a cave.
But Let's say what we're really getting Baghdadi for is because he just killed people.
Take all the rape and all the things that make it even more vicious out of it.
He just went out and killed a lot of people.
And then we go in and kill him.
The acts themselves look exactly the same.
But they're not the same act.
Because the killings that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was committing...
We're unjust.
And the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is just.
The justice is the thing.
I'll give you another example from American history because what the left is banking on is that you have no sense of history.
I mean, forget 200 years ago or 300 years ago, they want to hope that you have no sense of history 50, 60 years ago.
So they say, listen to Trump.
He said...
That Baghdadi died like a dog.
That makes him pretty much the same thing as a terrorist.
Why?
Because he used very evocative language?
Here's an example from the Second World War.
A war I think we can all agree was a good just war.
The best war ever.
You know, we were the good guys and the other guys were the baddies.
During the Second World War, his very famous speech.
Patton's speech to the Third Army.
General Patton.
Nobody would call him a terrorist.
Here's just a little sampling of the speech.
He said, I don't want to get any messages saying I am holding my position.
We are not holding a GD thing.
I'm going to abbreviate all of the copious swear words that Patton used, because this is a family show.
Let the Germans do that.
We are advancing constantly, and we are not interested in holding on to anything except the enemy's gullioni.
You know what I'm talking about.
Down there.
We are going to twist his colloni and kick the living S-H-I-T out of him all of the time.
Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy.
We are going to go through him like crap through a goose, like S-H-I-T through a tin horn.
We're not going to just shoot the sons of female dogs.
We're going to rip out their living GD guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.
We're going to murder those lousy hun dogs.
People who deal with male genitalia by the bushel effing basket.
War is a bloody killing business.
You've got to spill their blood or they will spill yours.
Rip them up the belly.
Shoot them in the guts.
When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt, it's the blood and guts of what was once your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do.
It's a little more evocative than Trump saying that a terrorist died like a dog.
That's a little more gruesome and bloody.
Are we going to say that General Patton is the same thing as Hitler?
No.
General Patton is not the same thing as his enemy.
Because General Patton was advocating just killings.
He was on the right side of that war.
He was fighting for our country, which was not just in the right because it's our country, it was morally in the right.
Same thing here with Trump.
But if Joe Scarborough were on the air in the Second World War, he'd say, oh, this General Patton, he's pretty much Hitler.
I mean, we're pretty much a Nazi country.
I mean, he sounds like the worst person on Earth.
No, there is a difference here.
There is no moral equivalence.
Now, I think if you got Joe Scarborough out for a beer or a wine cooler or whatever Joe Scarborough drinks, if you got him out at a bar and you said, hey...
I know that Trump made fun of your girlfriend and said that she has an ugly face.
Putting the personal stuff aside, do you really think that Trump is the same thing as Saddam Hussein?
Do you really think there's a moral equivalence?
I think he would have to admit, no, I don't believe it.
I'm just getting a little carried away with my rhetoric, but it's okay because my audience buys it and I've whipped them up into a frenzy and so I'm just going to keep it up.
This is not going to end well because the people are a lot smarter than the left thinks.
And the people can see a nonsensical impeachment for face value.
They can see it for what it is.
The people can see that Donald Trump is not the same thing as Saddam Hussein.
The people can see, this is my favorite one of the whole day.
Katie Hill, Katie Hill is that Democratic congressman who was caught in a throuple with a 22-year-old female staffer and her husband taking nude photos, ripping bong hits.
She has this weird Nazi tattoo on her.
I don't even know how to begin.
Then she decided to not only have this sexual relationship with a staffer, which is an ethics violation in and of itself, not just to cheat on her husband, but Or with her husband, I guess.
But she then dumped the staffer and her husband for her male finance director.
Katie Hill is pretending to be the victim here.
She's pretending to be the victim of sexual oppression and abuse and a patriarchal society because she dumped her female 22-year-old staffer and her husband for some other guy on her staff.
She's pretending that this...
Now, how does she get away with this?
Because in the Me Too era, we have to believe all women.
In the Me Too era, all men bad, all women good.
Even women like Katie Hill, who are engaging in extraordinarily inappropriate relationships with young staffers who work for her.
But she's banking on this MeToo era, widespread blanket rule that women can do no wrong.
Nobody really believes that.
Nobody believes that women are biologically incapable of lying.
Nobody believes that women are biologically incapable of exploiting their staff members.
This is Katie Hill announcing her resignation as though she were the victim.
I'm Katie Hill and last night I announced the most difficult decision of my life, that I would be resigning from Congress.
I made this decision so that my supporters, my family, my staff and our community will no longer be subjected to the pain inflicted by my abusive husband and the brutality of hateful political operatives.
This coordinated campaign carried out by the right-wing media and Republican opponents, enabling and perpetuating my husband's abuse by providing him a platform, is disgusting and unforgivable, and they will be held accountable.
But I will not allow myself to be a distraction from the constitutional crisis we're faced with and the critical work of my colleagues.
And so I have to take my personal fight outside the halls of Congress.
Too many Americans are counting on Washington to fulfill our promises of quality health care, housing we can afford, and a government that works for the people.
And I cannot let this horrible smear campaign get in the way of that work.
To my supporters in our district and across our great country, please know that we did something incredible.
We proved that an imperfect woman, the 31-year-old daughter of a nurse and a police officer, who never planned to run for office, No, she doesn't.
She didn't prove that at all.
She's resigning right now because of her abuse of power and exploitation of her staff and extraordinarily poor judgment.
She proved the opposite of what she's saying.
And then she brings up her husband's abuse.
How did her husband abuse her?
Has she ever named a single actual instance of abuse?
I guess she's saying her husband abused her by not just allowing her to leave him consequence-free without ever giving any of his side of the story for her other staffer.
She didn't prove anything.
She proved that she has committed abuse.
Abuse of power.
She's abusing her power to exploit her young female staff members.
She's abusing her Her marriage bond, she's abusing that marriage vow.
Obviously, that didn't mean very much.
Who knows for how long?
She's abusing her power to do illegal drugs.
Actually, I don't know.
Pot now is being legalized everywhere.
We'll get into the specifics of that because it actually ties in with the exact theme of today's show.
But she abused that.
She was found to have a Nazi tattoo in the naked photos that she unbelievably irresponsibly allowed to be taken.
And now she's pretending to be the victim.
She proved that she's a derelict and that even left-wingers have some sense of shame because they forced her to resign.
But she can't admit it because facts can never get in the way of the narrative.
Time magazine covering this whole story.
If I were a left-winger, I would just let her go away quietly.
She's obviously a kook and a lunatic.
Get her out of there.
Get some bland Democrat politician in office.
No big deal.
Don't blow it up.
Time Magazine can't help themselves.
They can't help but believe their own press releases.
They have a headline, quote, Katie Hill is the first millennial lawmaker to resign because of nudes.
She won't be the last.
She's not resigning because of nudes.
She's resigning because she exploited a young female staff member in a bizarre sexual relationship and then exploited another staff member in a relationship.
That's why she's resigning.
Time Magazine doesn't matter.
Facts can't interrupt the narrative.
Last year, Hill was one of 20 millennials, most of them women.
Who won seats in Congress, increasing the generation's representation six-fold in one cycle and giving voice to the second-largest block of eligible voters.
This week, she resigned after nude pictures of her throuple relationship with a female campaign staffer were released online without her consent.
And after, she came under a House ethics investigation for an alleged relationship with a male legislative staffer.
Hill's case lands smack in the middle of the three-way...
Is that a pun?
...
I didn't even notice that when I first read it.
Hill's case lands smack in the middle of the three-way intersection between tech, sex, and power.
Technology has changed sex.
Sex has changed power.
And power is newly vulnerable to strains of disgrace that didn't exist a decade ago.
Hold on.
Stop.
None of that is what's going on here.
This isn't a totally arbitrary, random intersection of technology which changed sex.
No.
This woman violated her marriage bond with a young female staffer and then left both her husband and the staffer for another staffer.
There's nothing new here.
There's nothing about technology that changed that.
She committed very immoral acts and exercised extremely poor judgment, and now she's being thrown out of office for it.
I'm not judging her.
I'm not even throwing stones at her.
I'm just saying there's consequences to your decisions when you sleep with your staffers while in public office.
This isn't like cancel culture even.
This isn't even that tweets or photos from a decade ago showed up and therefore what you're doing now, you have to stop doing that.
I guess that would be an example of technology changing the nature of sex.
It's not that.
She has a sex scandal that is currently going on and she got thrown out of office for it.
That's the oldest story in politics.
Time magazine goes on.
Technology provides new and humiliating ways to document sexual encounters.
And all sexual encounters, especially when they involve a public figure, are now subjected to brutal public dissection.
Sex scandals have always been part of politics.
That's gone on since time immemorial.
Let's not forget, in the founding days of our republic, Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers, got caught in a major sex scandal where he was cuckolding some guy and then the guy and the wife decided to extort Hamilton for it.
Major sex scandal.
John Adams said there weren't enough whores in Philadelphia to contain Hamilton's secretions.
Very new.
And what are we saying?
Is the new technology photographs?
Photographs have been around for a very long time.
Hill may be the first millennial lawmaker to have to grapple with this particularly thorny 21st century code of conduct, but she won't be the last.
Hill is a totally passive person in this entire story.
She's not.
She committed the acts.
She decided to sleep with her staffers on the campaign.
She decided to bring her husband into it for some reason.
She decided to leave her husband and the staffers.
She made those decisions.
She's not a totally passive creature.
She has moral agency.
And if you took Katie Hill out for a beer, well, I don't know what would happen if you took Katie Hill out for a beer, but if you took her out for a beer and just asked her very specifically, you said, Congressman Hill, did you do something wrong?
Should you maybe not have done that?
I think she would say, yeah, yeah, you caught me.
I shouldn't have slept with my staffers and I shouldn't have left my husband for it.
Yeah, it was my mistake.
But they can't allow that honesty to get in the way of their narrative.
That narrative is just not believable to anybody.
And the left has a choice here.
They can continue to pursue their narrative relentlessly or they can speak to the American people.
They're not going to be able to do both.
And this is going to affect the presidential campaign because the people are a lot smarter than the left thinks.
We've got to get to the dumbest article on the internet today.
I mean, talk about not letting the facts get in the way of narrative.
In the New York Times, they are actually making the argument with a straight face that an attack by Indian people on black girls is an example of toxic whiteness.
I have many Indian friends.
None of them are particularly white.
The New York Times invented the white Hispanic in the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
So I guess now they've invited the white Hispanic.
They've invented the white Indian.
We will get to that.
We will also get to a lot of BS on pot and Joe Biden being refused communion.
But I have got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Head on over to dailywire.com.
$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan show.
You get the Ben Shapiro show.
You get the Matt Walsh show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up tomorrow.
You get to ask questions backstage.
You get another kingdom, and you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
So important these days.
As all the narratives collapse, make sure you have your Tumblr, or you will drown.
Dailywire.com will be right back with a lot more.
A racist attack shows how whiteness evolves.
That's the headline from the New York Times.
What's the story?
The story is police in Lawrence Township, New Jersey, arrested two 17-year-olds and charged them with a lot of harassment and intimidation because this group urinated on black girls and hurled racial slurs at them.
This was obviously a racially bigoted attack.
That was the story.
New York Times already said, those are the facts they got.
New York Times said, oh great, we're going to run a story about white supremacy and white bigotry and toxic whiteness.
And they said, hold up, hold up, New York Times.
Problem is, the people who did the attack are Indian.
They're not white.
They're like very much not white.
New York Times said, huh.
Okay, give me a minute.
Let me work with this.
So the mainstream media didn't cover the story for a few days.
And then the New York Times realized, they said, oh wait a second.
An attack doesn't need to be perpetrated by white people to be the fault of white people.
Whiteness is still the problem here, even if the people are very, very brown.
Here's the New York Times.
While it's tempting to see the reported ethnicity of the boys suspected in the assault as complicating the story and raising questions about whether the assault should be thought of as racist, I looked at it through a different lens.
Instead of asking what the boys' reported racial identity tells us about the nature of the attack.
By the way, I love, they keep trying to muddy up the waters here.
They say, look, the reported ethnicity.
It's their, they're Indian.
Okay, it's their ethnic identity.
It's, it's not just how they identify.
They are Indian, okay?
Well, can, can someone who's not white commit a racist act?
Yes, they can.
Of course they can.
Any race can commit a racist act.
The piece goes on.
Instead of asking what the boys reported racial identity tells us about the nature of the attack, we should see the boys as enacting American whiteness through anti-black assault in a very traditional way.
So, they're not white.
But they are enacting whiteness because, according to the New York Times, any racially motivated attack is white.
Even if a black person attacks a black person on the basis of race, if that were possible, they would still be performing a white supremacist, white bigoted attack because any attack on black people is white somehow in the bizarre logic of the New York Times.
They go on.
It gets even better.
Race is something we perform, not just something we are in our blood and in the color of our skin.
Hold up, full stop.
Race is your skin color.
It is.
I know this is like what happens when people pass around the pot.
They take the Katie Hill bong and they just go...
You know, man, what if race isn't really about our race?
You know what I mean?
Like, if you really think about it, you know, and you really think, no, it's just your race.
Times goes on.
In the New Jersey incident.
The heritage or skin color of the boys suspected of the assault doesn't matter.
What matters is that they were participating in this pattern and thus enacting whiteness in a very traditional way.
One potent way of being American, no matter where you or your parents are from, is enacting anti-blackness and traditionally acting out anti-blackness has meant acting white.
Wow.
So...
The Times gets the story completely wrong.
They're very upset that the perpetrators of this crime are not white.
They have the opportunity to expand their thinking.
They have the opportunity to perceive something about the world that they didn't perceive before.
They have the opportunity just not even to cover the story, but they can't do it.
They can't let the facts get in the way of their narrative because they are actually starting to believe their own narrative.
Imagine if you took those New York Times editors out for a Zima after work and you said, hey guys, they're sipping on their Smirnoff ice or whatever.
You're going to say, guys, do you really believe that when Indians attack black people, that's white supremacy?
After a couple sips, they'd probably say, nah, you're right.
You're right.
Okay, that's obviously absurd.
So no, we don't believe that.
But in public, They are clinging so desperately to their own narrative.
They're saying, yes, this, no, it is, it is white.
La, la, la.
I won't let the facts get in my way.
I will believe the story that I am pushing.
People know better than this.
This is why the New York Times readership is down.
This is why people are making fun of the New York Times.
This is why they've lost their credibility.
What the left believes, ultimately, is Is that there's really no such thing as objective truth.
It's that same cynicism that you see in Pontius Pilate who asks, what is truth?
It's the same cynicism that you see in intersectionality.
There's really no such thing as race or gender or it's all fluid.
It's all intersecting identities.
The only thing that is real is my subjective perception of my own suffering, of my own oppression.
And if I can convey that oppression, that is the actual power and core of my identity.
That is the only reality.
So all that matters is the narrative that I spin.
It's the same thing in 1984 by George Orwell.
It's the same thing as Big Brother.
If Big Brother tells you that 2 plus 2 equals 5, you have to believe it.
If Big Brother tells you that 2 plus 2 equals 5, then 2 plus 2 really does equal 5.
And you have to not just say that.
You have to believe it.
They've worked themselves up into this belief.
But it isn't true.
There is objective reality.
Two plus two does not equal five.
Two plus two equals four.
The American people know this, I think.
I think.
I think that's what explains the 2016 election.
The fact that you had this very flawed candidate in Donald Trump.
You had the entire media political establishment, really on the left and the right, pushing for Hillary Clinton.
And still, and still, they picked Trump because they just knew something was wrong with Hillary.
They just didn't want to be lied to.
This is James Burnham's major law.
The political philosopher James Burnham had these ten laws, one of which is everybody knows everything.
People are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
You know, I'm always wary of proclamations where we say, the American people believe...
X, Y, and Z. The American people believe everything that I want them to believe.
Look, I'm not saying that I'm the spokesman for the American people here.
However, I think that the American people can see reality most of the time.
I think they're a lot smarter than politicians and media elites believe that they are.
I think they see through this.
They see that Katie Hill is not a victim.
She's the perpetrator.
They see that Indians attacking black people is not white supremacy.
They see that an impeachment inquiry in search of a crime is not a legitimate impeachment.
They just see that, even if they don't know all the details exactly.
Same thing on...
This is obviously slightly less relevant to these intense political fights, but it's the same sort of thing with the legalization of marijuana.
People ask me this sometimes when I'm out on the road.
Michael, what do you think about the legalization of pot?
I don't like it.
Why don't I like it?
Because...
Not because I've never smoked pot.
I've smoked pot a number of times.
Never cared for it as much as stogies and a good drink, but...
The main reason that I oppose the legalization of pot is because of the people who are clamoring for it.
The people who are clamoring to legalize marijuana, they're just so annoying about it that I don't want to give it to them.
And one of the things they do is they say, Actually, marijuana is really good for you.
Actually, it solves every problem.
If you're depressed or anxious or if you have anything that's wrong in your life at all, a pot will solve it.
The CBD oil, you just basically take a bath in that and all your troubles melt away.
And that just isn't true.
There's a new study out that actually debunks pretty much all of that.
It shows that the use of cannabis, THC, the active agent in marijuana, the use of that to treat people with depression, anxiety, psychosis, other health issues, can't be justified because there's no evidence that they work.
There's no evidence that they're safe.
Actually, this new study, which was published in the journal Lancet Psychiatry, concludes that the risks very likely outweigh the benefits.
That actually, it shows that there's very low quality evidence that THC helps these problems, and there's a fair bit of evidence that it actually makes the problems worse.
Anxiety, depression, and psychosis.
And having been friends with a lot of potheads over the years, I can say firsthand, I've sort of seen that happen.
So, not for everybody, but a lot of the time.
It's...
All that narrative.
When people have a real interest in pushing a narrative, they're much more likely to ignore relevant facts.
Okay, this is true of everybody.
But the left is taking that right now to a...
Radical extreme.
To an absolutely outrageous extreme.
And those of us who are not there, those of us who are not puffing on the Katie Hill gange, you know, we're not smoking that Haitian oregano like the soon-to-be former congressman, we're not believing our own press releases.
We just have a little bit more clarity, and I think it's why the left is so screechy.
It's why they're so screamy.
why they're so emotional right now is because the reality of what's going on in politics and culture is colliding with their narrative.
And they're realizing that those two things, reality and their storyline are not very well connected and they are having a breakdown because of it.
Same thing, this just happened to Joe Biden.
Happened to Joe Biden.
He's on the campaign trail in South Carolina.
Biden says he's a practicing Catholic and yet Biden supports abortion.
Pretty radical abortion support too, and Now he's saying he supports forcing people to pay for abortions.
Within the Catholic Church, there's a lot of disagreement on public policy issues, and this is mostly tolerated.
Abortion is sort of where the rubber meets the road because in abortion you're just killing babies and the Catholic Church cannot support the killing of babies.
So it has been the position of the Catholic Church that the Church is within its rights to withhold communion or to excommunicate you, to keep you out of communion with the Church, to withhold the body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
But so many priests and bishops are wishy-washy on this.
They don't want to do it.
They want to be seen as cool.
They want to be liked by politicians.
They're afraid that politicians are going to attack them if they do it.
So they'll allow people who openly advocate killing babies, they'll allow them to receive the Eucharist.
This began with Chris and Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario Cuomo, when he was governor of New York.
He pioneered the Catholic leftist line, which is, look, I oppose abortion personally.
But I support the right of people to have them.
It's like saying, I oppose murder personally, but I don't think we should have laws against murder for some reason.
Can't quite explain why.
And it's this wishy-washy way of having both sides of the issue and getting out of a tight spot.
This priest in South Carolina denied Joe Biden the Eucharist.
He was almost certainly referring to Canon 915 of the Canon Law, which says, Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
This was the right thing to do.
One of the reasons it's the right thing to do, the most important reason from the pastoral point of view of the priest, is to save Joe Biden's soul.
Joe Biden needs to be aware of the grave sin of supporting infanticide.
That is a grave matter that imperils his eternal soul and will have him roasting down below or greatly increase the chances that he's roasting down below if he doesn't correct his ways.
That's the rehabilitative, that's the medicinal effect of withholding the Eucharist is to clarify the reality, to take away that leftist narrative and just give Joe Biden a little dose of reality.
You're not supposed to receive the Eucharist if you have committed a grave mortal sin without going to confession.
So you'll see very often in Catholic churches, people just stay in the pews if they haven't gone to confession.
Joe Biden out there refusing to acknowledge the reality of that sin.
It's the same situation here.
Joe Biden, I think after decades and decades of Democrats pushing this line that, look, I oppose abortion, but I also support abortion, that that could somehow be okay, that that in any world makes sense, we're now seeing the collision of that narrative and that reality.
Some people who are a little more wishy-washy and squishy think that we should downplay those differences between reality and the leftist narrative.
That somehow that will bring them back.
It won't.
We need a choice, not an echo.
We need to draw a stark distinction.
When we're debating the left, we don't need to be cruel.
We don't need to be mean.
We shouldn't do any of those things.
But we should make clear the stark differences to wake them out of a stupor A stupor that has been brought on by arrogance and pride and cynicism and dishonesty for decades and decades.
The stupor that causes them to believe they're on press releases.
We need to shake them a little bit, and we need to tell them the truth.
That's our show.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Get your mailbag questions in.
See you tomorrow.
See you tomorrow.
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.
Hey everyone, I'm Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
California's burning down, burning down.
Its city streets are paved with homeless.
Its lights keep going off.
And California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, and California Congressman Adam Schiff are busy with an impeachment charade.
Their state is going down the drain because of their bad ideas.
Trump's good ideas are making the country better.
The whole situation is absolute madness.
Madness.
Madness.
We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show, plus the mailbag, All Your Problems Solved.
