All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 20, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show
47:28
Ep. 453 - The Deep State Must Be Defeated

An insufferable, power-hungry bureaucrat testifies before Congress, the ACLU celebrates menstruation on International Men’s Day, the UK’s first “gay dad” is dating his daughter’s boyfriend, and the Governor of South Dakota is on meth. Date: 11-20-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
An insufferable, power-hungry bureaucrat testifies before Congress.
We examine the most nauseating highlights and get to the heart of this impeachment battle, which is not really about left versus right or Democrat versus Republican.
It's about slavery versus freedom, technocratic tyranny versus constitutional self-government.
If we want to keep our liberties, there's only one option.
The deep state must be defeated.
Then, the ACLU celebrates International Men's Day by tweeting about menstruation.
The daughter of Britain's first gay dads explains why she's happy that her boyfriend is now dating her father.
And the governor of South Dakota tells the nation that she's on meth.
All that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.
We have so much to get to.
Let's get this out of the way first, because I don't want to harp for too long on impeachment.
I do want to get the highlights out here, though.
So let's get this out of the way.
If you haven't been paying attention, and I know you haven't because nobody has been paying attention to this stupid impeachment battle...
There were another two major witnesses yesterday, and there were another two witnesses that testified that Trump did not engage in a quid pro quo.
So right now Democrats are batting, what, 0 for 5?
Conservatives in the Trump administration batting a thousand.
The two people who testified yesterday were Kurt Volcker and Tim Morrison.
Kurt Volcker is a diplomat, U.S. special representative for Ukraine.
Before that, he was ambassador to NATO for Barack Obama.
So this is a guy who's had a career in diplomacy.
That's Volcker.
And Tim Morrison was the, or is, the senior official on the NSC who is testifying.
He was the boss of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who's going to play a big role in this testimony.
So you got Volcker, you got Morrison.
Both of those guys admitted, clear as day, on television for all the world to see if anybody were paying attention, that Trump did not engage in any quid pro quo or any bribery or any treason.
Here they are.
Did Ukraine open an investigation into the abidance, Mr.
Morrison?
Not to my knowledge, ma'am.
Ambassador Volcker?
Not to my knowledge either.
Did either of you ever have any evidence of quid pro quo?
Mr.
Morrison.
No ma'am.
Ambassador Volker.
I did not.
Any evidence of bribery?
No ma'am.
No ma'am.
Any evidence of treason?
No ma'am.
No evidence of treason.
With that I yield back.
There it is.
Whatever headline you see today, and I know that you're going to see a lot of headlines in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The walls are closing in.
Trump's days are numbered.
Wrongdoing.
Whistleblowers.
Just remember that testimony, okay?
Another two key star witnesses, Volker and Morrison.
Did the president engage in any bribery?
No.
Did he engage in any quid pro quo?
No.
Did Ukraine even investigate the Bidens?
No.
Was there any treason?
No.
Nothing.
Nada.
Nula.
Throw it away.
Got nothing.
So they admit in their testimony that Trump didn't commit any impeachable offense.
Also, by the way, same day, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Vice President Pence's National Security Advisor, he released a statement yesterday saying that he was on President Trump's phone call with Ukraine on July 25th, That was the call with Ukraine President Zelensky, and he said he heard nothing wrong.
He heard nothing improper there.
But that doesn't matter to the Democrats' favorite witness yesterday, a gentleman by the name of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
We will get to him.
Not even what he has to say about impeachment, because he has nothing interesting to say about impeachment.
What he has to say tells us everything about the deep state, which is really the heart of this impeachment battle.
Before we get to that, I've got to thank our friends over at Honey.
You know how much I love Honey.
What is Honey?
Honey is a free browser extension that automatically applies the best promo codes whenever you shop online.
This means that you are always getting the best deals without even trying on over 20,000 That's Amazon, that's eBay, that's Target, that's pretty much wherever you are going to shop.
It's very simple.
It's as simple as it comes.
Honey saves you money.
Honey has found its over 10 million members, over a billion dollars in savings.
Honey supports over 20,000 stores online.
It has over 100,000 five-star reviews on the Google Chrome store.
I've been using Honey since before the show existed.
I've been using Honey since before the Daily Wire existed.
And when it comes time for that holiday shopping, that is when you are going to especially love Honey.
Honey.
You know, honey's been with us so long on this show that they still use promo code COVFEFE. C-O-V-E-F-E. If you are buying gifts this holiday season, you need honey.
If you're not buying gifts, somehow, I don't know how, you probably know somebody who is.
Do a masala.
Let them know about honey.
The best way to get the best price.
It's free to use.
It installs in two clicks.
Get Honey for free right now at joinhoney.com slash covfefe.
Get a little nostalgia and throwback this holiday season with that promo code.
joinhoney.com That's what you've got to type in.
joinhoney.com slash covfefe.
C-O-V-F-E-F-E So Everything you need to know on the heart, the meat of whether Trump committed an impeachable offense, we already got to.
We've already heard the testimony.
We've heard it yesterday.
We heard it the day before that.
We've got that, okay?
No quid pro quo, no wrongdoing.
But let's look at the impeachment itself.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who has been talking to the lawyers and he's been talking to the whistleblower and he's been one of these operatives who's been trying to stir up impeachment the whole time.
He's testifying before Congress and Representative Nunes...
He begins to grill him, but Vindman won't have any of it.
Vindman cuts him off and says, excuse me, Mr.
Representative, you better use my proper military rank.
Mr.
Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower.
Ranked member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know Who the whistleblower was?
I do not know who the whistleblower is.
Give me a break.
First of all, I don't believe him for a second that he doesn't know who the whistleblower is.
I think we all know who the whistleblower is.
I think it's Eric Charamella, as was reported by Real Clear Investigations.
And I especially think that guy knows who he is because that guy talked to him.
Allegedly.
Reportedly.
I have to couch all of my assertions here.
It certainly would appear to be the case.
But let's get to this military rank.
It's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman!
By the way, in Congress, all of the congressmen are referred to as representative.
That's their official title.
And yet, when you hear them speak to one another, it's always Mr.
and Ms.
and Mrs., This military rank thing, it's pathetic.
I mean, no disrespect to the military when I say that.
Actually, a number of very high-profile soldiers and sailors and SEALs and special operators called out Lieutenant Colonel Vindman on this and said it was ridiculous what he did.
Tim Kennedy, active Green Beret Special Forces sniper, tweeted out, quote, correcting a civilian about how to be addressed is a for-sure way to make everyone in the military think you are a...
Then he uses a little profanity, which I'll refrain from here, but it's a hygiene product is what he's referring to.
Mark Geist, who fought the Battle of Benghazi, said that Vindman is a disgrace.
Robert O'Neill, who's a Navy SEAL credited with firing the shot that killed Osama bin Laden, said, quote, I wish the left wouldn't use his uniform to make him a saint.
He's an operative with an agenda.
Jim Hansen, former U.S. Army Special Forces, said, That's Jim Hansen.
It is true.
I mean, he is a lieutenant colonel, so, you know, thank you for your service, lieutenant colonel, and you deserve to be referred to by your military title.
But I've got a lot of friends and family in the military.
They would never do anything like that.
I mean, I just, I think of my grandfather.
You know, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is an 05.
That's his rank, right?
My grandfather was a captain in the Navy, 06, outranks Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I've never heard him correct anybody who would refer to him as Mr.
or anything else.
It's just so unseemly.
It's so unbecoming, especially of an officer in the military.
Anyway, that kind of sets you up with who this guy is.
Even before he testified, we know that he's one of the people at the heart of stirring up this whole impeachment controversy.
We know he's a jerk.
Turns out he's also a slimeball.
What happened here?
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman disagreed with the President's policy on Ukraine.
So, instead of bringing up his concerns to his immediate superior, his boss on the NSC, instead of bringing his concerns up to the President, what Lieutenant Colonel Vindman decided to do is go around the constitutional order, go around the President of the United States, go around his own boss, go straight to a lawyer who And tee up this whole impeachment charade.
Don't take my word for it.
Here is Tim Morrison.
This is Vindman's boss on the NSC. And by the way, Morrison has made it clear he doesn't want to run down Vindman.
He's been very reticent in his testimony.
But here is Morrison admitting while he's being grilled that Vindman went around him and stirred up this whole thing.
Here's Tim Morrison.
You indicated in your deposition that when you took over the portfolio for Dr.
Hill July 15th, you were alerted to potential issues in Colonel Vindman's judgment?
Yes.
Did she relay anything specifically to you?
Why she thought that?
Not as such.
It was more of an overarching statement from her and Her deputy, who became my deputy, that they had concerns about judgment.
During the deposition, I asked you, Mr.
Morrison, whether others raised the concern that Colonel Vindman may have leaked information.
You did ask that, yes.
Yeah, and your answer was?
Others have represented that, yes.
Okay.
And I asked you whether you were concerned Colonel Vindman did not keep you in the loop at all times with his official duties?
Yes.
And in fact, when he went to the National Security Council lawyers following the July 25th call, he did not first come to you.
Is that correct?
Correct.
There you have it.
So we know that Vindman, he had some problems with this policy and he went around everybody, went to a lawyer.
There were concerns that were represented to Morrison that this guy had bad judgment, that this guy was a leaker, that this guy was really abusing his office on the NSC. And what I actually love about this exchange is you can tell Morrison doesn't want to run the guy down because he's asked...
Were there...
He actually has asked, did I ask you, when you were testifying previously, if there were concerns that he was a leaker?
And Morrison leans and he says, yes, you did ask me that.
Well, okay, were there concerns that he was a leaker?
Yes, that was represented to me.
He's being very cautious in his testimony, but the message is clear.
This guy, Vindman, was rogue.
He was a political operator.
He was undermining the policy of the president.
Because, as we're about to find out...
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman didn't care about the policy of the president.
He doesn't think it's the president who makes policy.
He thinks it's him.
We'll get to that in a second.
First, I've got to thank our friends over at First Leaf.
I love First Leaf.
You know that I love drinking high-quality wine.
I'm a man of simple tastes.
I'm easily satisfied by the very best.
And I'm Italian, so I've been drinking wine since I was six years old.
I have been a member of other wine clubs before.
Some of them have been a little disappointing sometimes.
So I went into First Leaf.
I had modest expectations.
You get started by, you take a First Leaf wine quiz.
And so you can assess your exact wine drinking preferences.
And I've got very particular preferences.
So you can do it from sweetness to wine styles, how adventurous you are, that sort of thing.
So okay, I clicked on all of that.
First Leaf then created an introductory six-pack of wine for me, all for just $29.
So at this point, my expectations were quite low.
I thought there's no way that you're going to get good wine for $29.95, that they're going to be able to decide what you like.
These wines, by the way, normally go for like $20 a piece.
So the bottles arrive.
I try them.
The wine is superb.
The wine is excellent.
I'm not even saying excellent by my usual, I buy a cheap bottle of wine standards.
I mean, these wines are excellent by expensive bottle of wine standards, especially the reds.
I found the reds were really good.
What I love, too, about First Leaf is it doesn't even just take your word for what you like.
I mean, it does.
It plays with your tastes.
But very often, I know this is true for me, I use words to describe wine that don't even really apply to the wine.
So what you do is you try all the wines, then you go on and you rate them and you say what you actually ended up liking.
And then FirstLeave uses all that data to send even more wines that you're going to like even more.
So the more you use it, the better the wine becomes.
In fact...
First Leafs sends out more than 17,000 unique shipments of wine every single month because everyone's tastes are different.
Try First Leafs Wine Club today.
I absolutely love it.
It is where buying great wine is simple.
Sign up right now with my link and you will get an exclusive intro offer.
Six bottles of wine.
Very, very good wine for only $29.95 plus free shipping.
Do it.
Enjoy one on me.
Have a toast to me.
This is the website.
TryFirstLeaf.com.
All one term.
TryFirstLeaf.com slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S. Six bottles of wine for only $29.95 plus free shipping when you go to TryFirstLeaf.com slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S. I needed a few glasses of that while I was watching these impeachment hearings.
Why didn't Lieutenant Colonel Vindman express his concerns to his boss?
Vindman was the Director of European Affairs on the NSC. His boss is Tim Morrison on the MSC. Why did he go to a lawyer?
Why did he go around the official process?
Jim Jordan, Republican Congressman, as usual, nails him.
Why didn't you go, after the call, why didn't you go to Mr.
Morrison?
I went immediately, per the instructions from the July 10th incident, I went immediately to Mr.
Eisenberg.
After that, once I expressed my concerns, it was an extremely busy week.
We had a PCC just finished, we had the call, and then we had a deputies meeting, which consumed all of my time.
I was working extremely long days.
Oh yeah, is that right, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman?
So the reason that you didn't go to your superiors and follow the chain of command here when you wanted to change U.S. policy single-handedly, the reason that you went to a lawyer instead but you didn't have time to go to your boss is because you were really busy that week?
Are you joking?
This is like a freshman in college who didn't finish his term paper on time making an excuse to his professor.
You had time to go to the lawyer.
You had time to gin up this whole conspiracy, this whole impeachment hoax, which we've heard is a hoax based on now, what, five major witnesses called forth by Adam Schiff to testify?
So you had time to do that, but you didn't have time to go to your boss.
Give me a break.
You had time to talk to somebody, and it wasn't even just...
The lawyer, he didn't have time to talk to his boss, but he had time to talk to the lawyer, and he had time to talk to somebody else in the murky deep state intelligence community.
Jim Jordan pulls that out of him.
So the lawyer, you not only didn't go to your boss, you said you tried, but you didn't go to your boss, you went straight to the lawyer, and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss?
No, he didn't tell me until...
Why didn't you go to your direct report, Mr.
Morrison?
Your response was, this page 102, because Mr.
Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him.
Then I ask you, did Mr.
Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around Mr.
Morrison?
And you said, actually, he did say that.
I shouldn't talk to any other people.
Is that right?
Yes, but there's a whole, there's a period of time in there between when I spoke to him and when he circled back around.
It wasn't that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to...
Enough time to go to talk to someone that you won't tell us who it is, right?
I... I've been instructed not to, Representative Jordan.
Well, here's what I'm getting.
The lawyer told you don't talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to Secretary Kent, and you talk to the one guy Adam Schiff won't let you tell us who he is.
Is that right?
Representative Jordan, I did my job.
Oh, what a little weasel this guy is.
I love they say, so, Jim Jordan says, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, The lawyer told you not to talk to your boss?
Well, no, no, no.
He didn't tell me not to talk to my boss until he told me not to talk to my boss.
Oh, okay.
And you didn't have time to talk to anybody, right?
Yeah, that's right.
I didn't have time to talk to anybody other than your brother and other than the secretary and other than the whistleblower and other than all that.
You had time to talk to them, right?
And obviously at this point, Vindman has nothing to say, so he just comes out and says, Mr.
Jordan, I did my job.
No, you didn't do your job.
You did the opposite of your job.
You know, what Vindman refers to so much throughout this mindless testimony is how he did go to the bureaucrats.
He did go to the interagency.
The interagency, that's the term that keeps coming up.
He did go to the federal bureaucracy.
But he didn't go to his boss.
He didn't follow the chain of command.
He didn't follow the president's policy.
The interagency, that's the battle here.
The president, the elected guys, the American people, versus...
The decisions of the interagency, the federal bureaucracy, the deep state.
This guy, Vindman, is an operative with an agenda.
He's just admitted it himself.
Let's put, not to put too fine a point on it, but let's see if this weasel can just finally come right out and say what he really wants to, which is that he believes it is the job of Himself, the job of the interagency, the job of the entrenched bureaucracy to make policy, and it's not the job of the elected President of the United States.
Is there a process to determine official U.S. policy?
Yes, my job is to coordinate U.S. policy.
So throughout the preceding year that I had been on staff, I had undertaken an effort to make sure we had a cohesive, coherent U.S. policy.
And as you listened to the call, did you observe whether President Trump was following the talking points based on the official U.S. policy?
Counsel, the President could choose to use the talking points or not, he's the President, but they were not consistent with what I provided, yes.
The temerity of that response.
That response, by the way, is to the Democratic Council.
The temerity.
Of the Democratic Council asking if Lieutenant Colonel Vindman made sure that the President of the United States was following his talking points on official U.S. policy.
Just the question itself.
The question itself basically boils down to who makes U.S. policy.
And Vindman doesn't wait one little second.
He says, I make U.S. policy.
No, you don't, dude.
You know who makes U.S. foreign policy?
The president of the United States.
You don't get to dictate to the president of the United States what the policy is and you don't get to dictate to the president of the United States what he should say about what the policy is.
You are a functionary.
You work for him.
You should keep your mouth shut and do what the president of the United States tells you Because guess what?
None of us elected Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
And after that testimony, none of us really seemed to like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
Not a very likable guy.
He's a power-hungry bureaucrat.
And a pris about it, too.
We elected Trump.
Maybe you don't like Trump.
Too bad.
That's your job.
Do your job.
Vindman thinks that he makes policy.
Him and the interagency.
Here's what he said.
The interagency policy was to support security assistance for the Ukraine.
Hey, you know what I think of the interagency policy when it comes into conflict with the policy of our duly elected representatives?
This.
I think I flick off underneath my chin.
That's what I think.
He says, in my position, I coordinate with a superb cohort of interagency partners.
How about you coordinate with the President of the United States and shut your mouth and do your job?
He says, quote, I'm the point man for coordinating the interagency.
I don't care who you are and I don't care what your title is.
I don't care about you, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
I care about the American people having control over their own government and you following the orders of the elected representatives.
Nobody elected this guy.
He wants Representative Nunes to have more respect for his military title.
How about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman show some respect to his civilian superiors?
Namely, Devin Nunes.
Namely, his boss on the National Security Council.
Namely, the President of the United States.
In this country, the civilians run the show.
Not the military.
I have great respect for the military.
I don't have a ton of respect for Vindman, but I have a lot of respect for the military.
And by the way, most of my pals in the military know that in this country, the civilians run the show.
How about the interagency?
I got friends who have worked at the interagency.
The good ones are the ones who know that the civilians run the show.
In particular, the elected representatives.
Not some technocrat tyrants in the deep state.
Okay, do you know who runs the show in this country?
Not any of the punks like Eric Charamella, allegedly, who are shredding our Constitution because they don't like that the American people elected the wrong candidate in 2016.
This is not even about the left versus the right.
This is not even about Democrat versus Republican.
I mean, it is in so much as the left likes the entrenched bureaucracy a lot more than the right tends to.
But, you know, Republicans like the bureaucracy sometimes, too.
If a Democratic president right now We're threatening the technocratic status quo.
You can bet that the deep state would be going after them too.
This is a major threat to the country.
This is a major threat.
Because it actually transcends partisan differences and the partisan divide.
And it gets right down to the heart of who we are.
Are we going to be a country that's run by good experts with nice ties all well tied up and good looking jackets on?
Nobody elected them and they don't have any real powers designated in the Constitution.
But hey, they know better for us.
So they're going to make U.S. policy and the president, he just better go along with it.
And by the way, if he doesn't go along with it, we're going to throw him out of office.
And who cares what the American people say?
There's that possibility or there's self-government.
We get to decide.
Obviously, people like Lieutenant Colonel Vidman have made their decision.
I think we should probably make another decision.
The only way that this is going to resolve itself is if the deep state is defeated.
The deep state, it's a real thing.
It's called the bureaucracy.
You just saw a major representative of it right now.
The deep state does not want to voluntarily give up power, because what the deep state thinks is that the electeds come and go, political winds change, and We need to seriously deplete their power.
I actually like a lot of the agencies in the bureaucracy.
I think they do some good work.
But they have become far, far too powerful.
And if they are going to try to take sovereignty, if they're going to try to take the control of making policy in the United States away from the American people, they must be defeated.
There was the line in ancient Rome, Carthago, Delenda Est.
Carthage must be destroyed.
The deep state, Delenda Est.
It must be defeated if we are to preserve our self-government.
All right, we've 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.
But if you are craving more of my soothing, mellifluous voice, then you clearly haven't been listening to another kingdom.
That's Andrew Klavan's fantasy podcast.
It's performed by little old me.
You need to go to dailywire.com.
Subscribe right now to catch up, because on Monday, November 25th at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 Pacific.
Drew and I will be sitting down together to discuss the final season.
Also, we will be taking subscriber questions from the fans.
This live event will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube, but only subscribers will be able to ask the questions at dailywire.com.
Plus, subscribers exclusively can watch the entirety of the series.
Or, you can listen free to the newest episodes on Apple Podcasts.
Go check it out right now.
You do not want to miss another Kingdom Live discussion.
It's happening Monday at 7 p.m. East Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific.
Dailywire.com.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Much more important than a corrupt bureaucracy trying to steal the government of the United States is a story that came out of Great Britain, See if you can wrap your head around this.
The daughter of Britain's first gay dads says that she is now happy that her ex-boyfriend is dating her dad.
There are a lot of parts of this that you're going to have to try to work out in your head.
First of all, What it means to have Britain's first gay dads.
These are two dads on the birth certificate of a daughter.
Now, look, I'm no expert on biology or something.
I know these things change every day now.
But something would suggest to me that these two men cannot come together and produce a daughter.
It seems like some strange gender ideology has entered here.
But then, let's even just say you could do that.
So this daughter somehow has two dads...
That the daughter had a boyfriend, and then she broke up with the boyfriend, and the dads broke up with each other, so much for the happy ending to Britain's first gay dads, and then one of the dads starts dating the boyfriend.
It's going to be a very awkward Thanksgiving this year.
I guess they don't have Thanksgiving in Britain, so they'll probably be okay.
Saffron Drewit Barlow, that is the 19-year-old daughter.
She is openly bisexual, and she dated Scott Hutchinson, 25-year-old.
And she says it was just a big ploy to keep his sexuality secret.
And she wrote on Instagram that her boyfriend is now dating her father, Barry Drew Barlow.
But Barry Drew Barlow is only one of her fathers, according to her birth certificate.
Her other father is Tony Drewet Barlow.
So Barry Drewet Barlow is 50 years old.
Tony Drewet Barlow is 55 years old.
They were the first couple in England, same-sex couple, to be named on a birth certificate as parents, even though that's obviously impossible.
That was 20 years ago.
The men...
Tony and Barry, they were the first same-sex dads, still live happily under one roof with Scott, the 25-year-old ex-boyfriend of the daughter, and the daughter, and actually all of their four other children in the family's Florida mansion.
Okay.
Okay.
Tony, one of the first gay dads, has had some deteriorating health since a cancer diagnosis in 2006, and this apparently led the two gay dads to drift apart into a platonic relationship.
And then for this other guy, Barry, to bring Scott, the 25-year-old ex-boyfriend, into the relationship, and they're all somehow living together.
We are seeing two narratives collide here on the left.
Two distinct narratives.
The first narrative, which is the one we've heard for a long time, is that we must redefine marriage.
Marriage for all of human history everywhere in the world has had a meaning, which includes sexual difference.
We're now told that we have to redefine marriage to include monogamous same-sex unions because marriage is the best.
And marriage, as we understand it, is so wonderful and so to be desired that we actually, in the name of inclusion, must construct or rather reconstruct marriage to accommodate same-sex couples.
Marriage is so good, so exclusively to be desired, that we actually have to kind of tweak marriage, which has always included sexual difference, to not include sexual difference, but to still sort of look like marriage, to accommodate people with same-sex attractions, because that's the only way that they can really prosper and thrive in society.
That's the one narrative the left told us.
That's how they redefine marriage.
The second narrative, which is what we're starting to hear now, is that there is nothing...
Better about traditional marriage.
And a daddy can boink his daughter's very young boyfriend and that's a beautiful, wonderful thing and it's brave and special and how dare you judge another man's family!
Yeah, hold on.
You're telling me you think it's weird that two guys who presented themselves as America's first gay dads live under the same roof with the daughter's ex-boyfriend who's now dating one of the dads and their other four kids?
Is that what you're saying?
You can't have both of those narratives.
You can't have both.
What this shows...
I really want to point this out.
You know how much I hate saying that we told you so.
We told you so.
Conservatives were right the whole time.
What was the conservative argument against redefining marriage?
Well, according to the left, the conservative argument is, we hate people!
We hate people with different sexual preferences!
We're mean old conservatives!
That's what the left thought.
But of course, that wasn't the argument.
Here was the conservative argument against redefining marriage.
It was not in any way disdainful of homosexuals or people with any sort of Odd sexual preferences.
It just said that marriage has a meaning.
That sexual difference is essential to marriage.
Always has been, always will be, everywhere in the world.
If you radically redefine marriage, this was the conservative argument, if you radically redefine marriage, you're not actually improving marriage, and you're not actually making marriage more inclusive.
What you're doing is destroying marriage.
Because you're cracking the essential definition of it, and then you're watering it down so much that it doesn't mean anything anymore.
The conservative argument is that the redefinition of marriage would not make society more orderly, would not bring people into the institution of marriage, but it would actually just weaken what is the fundamental basis of social order, which is marriage.
And we were right.
We were right.
Told you so, but the left doesn't care about the consistency here.
What the left does is they just move right down along that slippery slope, and then they pretend that it's crazy to think there'd be a slippery slope in the first place.
Okay, the first gay dads, as they're known in England, just split up in a profoundly troubling way.
This is not an indictment of all homosexual relationships or couples, not by a long shot, but it does raise questions about the redefinition of marriage.
When these two gentlemen decided to shack up and redefine marriage and childhood and all these things, we were told that we had to think this was a fairy tale ending, happily ever after.
These two men just want to be together and brought into the institution of marriage and have a family together, just like you and me.
Isn't that so beautiful?
Brings a tear to my eye.
Didn't happen though, did it?
That's not what happened at all.
And they didn't even just divorce like normal people in modernity.
Which I think divorce is terrible too.
But it's not even like they just kind of split up and went their own way.
They're like living together in this bizarre arrangement that is profoundly disorderly.
And the left doesn't care.
The left doesn't care.
Okay, so the left has pretty much wrecked marriage successfully at this point.
I'm not blaming homosexuals for this.
I'm only blaming the left because it didn't begin with redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
It began with free love and it began in particular with no-fault divorce.
That was a pretty serious blow against marriage.
Then you got the redefinition of marriage.
That finished it off.
Now the left is on to destroying sex itself.
Not even the act of sex, but the meaning of sex, biological sex, which brings us to International Men's Day.
How do you think the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, ironically named, How do you think they celebrated International Men's Day?
The one day to celebrate men, or at least international men.
I don't know if that means, you know, we're talking about sort of exotic types of men.
This is what the ACLU tweeted, quote, There's no one way to be a man.
Men who get their periods are men.
Men who get pregnant and give birth Are men.
Trans and non-binary men belong.
International Men's Day.
They celebrate International Men's Day by talking about menstruation.
And I, you know, I've actually, they inspired me.
So I'd like to just point out right now, once and for all, standing up for civil rights, standing up for inclusion and tolerance.
There's no one way to be a human.
Okay?
Humans with eight arms and three hearts Are human.
Humans who choose to scurry along the sea floor so that they don't swim and stop one of their hearts from beating are human.
Okay?
Humans who are octopuses belong.
Happy International Human Day.
And how dare you?
How dare you suggest that octopuses aren't real humans?
Because they are.
Okay?
That's what this is about.
This is why I point out that so much of the left's plans Are not about improving or making more inclusive the institutions that they go into.
The left destroys the institutions it goes into.
When it comes to Destroying men, I'm not blaming people with gender dysphoria, and I'm not blaming women.
When it comes to destroying marriage, I'm not blaming homosexuals.
I'm not blaming anybody else.
When it comes to destroying other institutions, like the university, for instance, I'm not blaming liberal education.
I'm not blaming the university itself.
I am blaming the left, because that's what the left does.
The left crawls into institutions, like little octopuses, without any vertebrates, you know, just kind of no bones.
It just sneaks into these institutions, and all of its little tentacles go out, and it hollows them out from within, so that what you have is a facade, and you can kind of tell it's a cracked and broken facade of the institution, but within it's totally rotted, like the universities.
When we look now to the elite universities in this country, They might look sort of like what the universities were.
They are no longer the universities.
When we look at the institution of marriage, sort of looks like marriage, but not really.
When we look at men, look, if you celebrate international men's trade by celebrating periods, you've lost the narrative.
We are not talking about men anymore.
It is so destructive.
And what we need to do as conservatives is get rid of this absurd lie that the left pushes forward, that they're trying to improve and make more inclusive these institutions.
They don't give a damn about that.
They don't give a damn about homosexuals.
They don't give a damn about transsexuals.
They don't give a damn about education.
What they want is power.
And something that stops them from taking power are these institutions that keep us away from being just atomized individuals, totally helpless before an overly powerful government, tyrannical government, you might say, institutions. tyrannical government, you might say, institutions.
Institutions like marriage.
Institutions like biology, frankly.
Parts of our nature.
Human nature.
They want to break human nature itself.
That's been the goal of the left since Karl Marx.
It's all just about power and we have to resist that.
I mean, look, you can see it politically.
You can see it in the name of impeachment.
They're saying we need to overrun all of our norms of government, our constitutional order, We need to run roughshod over centuries of American history to unprecedented actions such as the removal of this president for anything, first of all, much less a phone call with Ukraine where he said nothing wrong according to the key witnesses.
The left tells you we have to do that in the name of inclusivity, in the name of righteousness, in the name of virtue.
They don't care about any of that.
They're willing to wreck the foundational pillars of the country If it'll just give them a little bit more power, and we've got to stop them.
They must be defeated.
Before we go, I have to mention the South Dakota governor.
South Dakota governor Christy Noem has identified a key problem in this country.
Actually, a key problem that is taking away a lot of our liberty and making us more vulnerable.
I'm not talking about political activities.
I'm talking about drugs.
I'm talking specifically about meth.
There is a meth epidemic in the country.
And Christy Noem, Republican governor of South Dakota, wants to do something about it.
So she's launching a public awareness campaign.
The public awareness campaign is called I'm on Meth.
Here she is.
This campaign is going to be about solutions and hope and how every single one of us in South Dakota can partner to be on meth.
Really, the tagline is, I'm on meth.
And what it's talking about is that each one of us, no matter who we are, that we're on the case of meth.
That we're protecting our family, we're protecting our friends, we're protecting our communities from this epidemic that we see and that we're all going to be taking some responsibility and battling it and making sure that it's not going to have a place here in our state.
The campaign is called I'm on Meth.
This is something so hilarious it's out of a Parks and Rec episode.
If you scripted that in a Parks and Rec episode, they'd say, that's too on the nose.
Come on, you've got to back off a little bit here.
On the one hand, this is a hilariously outrageous tagline.
It is, I'm on meth.
You have the governor of South Dakota saying, hey guys, I'm on meth.
And you know what?
We're all on meth.
And that's a good thing.
So it's ridiculous and hilarious.
On the other hand, it worked.
I actually think it's a pretty great tagline.
It worked because we are talking now about meth because the governor of South Dakota did something outrageous and hilarious and now we're talking about it.
We should be talking about it.
You know, all of the focus in this drug epidemic in the country has been on opioids, which are a major problem.
They are a huge problem in the country.
But most law enforcement agents actually think that meth is the bigger threat.
Across the country, overdose deaths involving meth have more than quadrupled Since 2011, actually just between 2011 and 2017.
It's probably up even more now.
Admission to treatment facilities for meth are up 17% in that time.
Hospitalizations related to meth jumped by about 245% from 2008 to 2015.
245%.
Throughout the West, throughout the Midwest, there was a survey of law enforcement officials.
70% of law enforcement agencies say that meth is their biggest drug threat, a bigger problem than opioids.
So we should pay attention to that.
I actually give this governor a lot of credit for an inventive way to do it, especially in South Dakota, which I've visited South Dakota before.
It doesn't get the most attention of all U.S. states, small population kind of tucked away up there in the North.
And so I think she did a great job.
I tip my hat to her.
I'm glad that she's on meth.
I'm glad that we're all on meth.
And hopefully we can fix the meth problem.
Before we go, also, good news for Pete Buttigieg.
Big news for Pete Buttigieg.
So we talked yesterday about how in Iowa...
First in the nation, first caucus state, Pete Buttigieg is now leading by nine somehow.
Not only is it not Biden anymore, not only is it not Warren, but it's Pete, Mayor Pete, Pastor Pete Buttigieg, the fake pastor who tells all Christians that they're not Christian if they believe in Christianity.
Pete Buttigieg is up, according to one poll, which, by the way, is an outlier poll, in another very important early primary state.
That is the state of New Hampshire.
So, again, take this with a little bit of a grain of salt.
This is the St.
Anselm College Survey Center poll of only 255 likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire.
Only 255, but you've got to remember it's New Hampshire, and I think there are only about 256 people in New Hampshire, so it's, you know...
It's probably like almost the whole state.
Showed that Pete Buttigieg is supported by 25% of the Democratic primary electorate there.
Now holds a 10-point lead in New Hampshire over Joe Biden and Liz Warren, who were tied for second at 15%.
The sample size is too small to draw serious conclusions here, but it does show that all of the momentum is with Pete Buttigieg.
That's where all the momentum is going, in even the Democratic primary field.
Why is that?
It comes back to what we've been talking about all day.
It comes back to this power grab.
It comes back to the radicalization of the left.
It comes back to impeachment, because there are people, even on the left, even among Democrats, who say that the left has gone too far.
That they don't want their institutions to be completely destroyed.
Pete Buttigieg is gay married, but Pete Buttigieg is portraying himself, now at least, as the traditionalist candidate, as the more moderate candidate.
He's going for that Joe Biden lane.
And the left is saying, okay, alright, we need to slow this down a little bit.
We don't want to completely run roughshod over our institutions, including our federal government, including the presidency.
We don't want to just...
We have these coups d'etat, these coups in all of our fundamental institutions in America.
We want to slow down a little bit.
This is why very few Americans are watching the impeachment proceedings.
This is why very few people are tuning into that at all because it's just gone too far.
The narrative is so divorced from reality at this point that even among the left, you're seeing the more moderate candidates come out.
Now, can we survive this?
Can we survive the attempt to destroy the building blocks of our society?
We're seeing that play out right now 24 hours a day on cable news during these impeachment hearings.
If we want to preserve anything like our constitutional order, anything like our self-government, anything like our constitutional liberties, these technocratic tyrants must be defeated.
This destructive left, this destructive bureaucracy must be taken down.
Hope we can do it.
That's our show.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Come back tomorrow.
I'll see you then.
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.
On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.
▲
Export Selection