All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show
46:46
Ep. 456 - Animals Aren’t People

Conan visits the WH, and Trump signs a dumb new animal law. The Left deems not liking Indian food “racist,” a news outlet retracts a story after learning it looks bad for Dems rather than Republicans, and Trump gets more good news for 2020. Date: 11-26-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump gives Conan the terrorist chomping canine killing machine a plaque and a medal at the White House on the same day that he signs sweeping federal animal cruelty legislation.
And while Conan is the goodest boy in the country, the law is very bad.
We will examine our broken moral compass.
Then, speaking of controversial opinions, an American professor receives international scorn for offering an unpopular opinion on Indian cuisine.
And the whole absurd episode actually has a lot to teach us about gratitude two days before Thanksgiving.
A news outlet prints news that looks bad for Republicans, only to delete the story when it turns out the news is bad for Democrats.
And finally, the campaign manager for the latest 2020 Democratic presidential entrant says Trump is headed for victory in 2020.
All that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show.
I got a spicy take.
I have a very spicy, controversial opinion.
You think that Indian food is spicy?
You think that the Indian food guy has a controversial opinion?
I have a more controversial opinion, and it has to do with animals, but I'm right.
Yesterday was Animal Day at the White House.
They invited Conan, the terrorist killing dog.
That was great.
That was the great part of the day.
And then President Trump signed this new sweeping federal legislation.
That was the not-so-great part of the day.
Let's start with the great part.
Let's start with Conan, the dog.
President Trump walks out.
He's in the Rose Garden.
He's got that little Abu Bakr chomping machine next to him.
him.
And he talks about what a great dog he is and how he won a medal, which by the way, I sort of feel we memed into existence when we posted that, that internet meme and that image of Conan getting the, the medal of pawn or around his neck.
Now we are in reality because I don't know, I guess we're living in the matrix or something.
We're just causing things to cut, flow in and out of consciousness and reality.
President Trump in the Rose garden gives Conan his due.
So, this is Conan.
Right now, probably the world's most famous talk.
I don't think I have to use the word probably.
And Conan is a Incredible.
It's an incredible story.
I learned a lot about this particular type of dog, and it's trained that if you open your mouths, you will be attacked.
You want to be very, very careful.
But Conan came over from the Middle East, just arrived, with some of the great people from the Special Forces that did the incredible flaw — it was a flawless attack.
And al-Baghdadi is gone.
But that was a flawless attack, and I just met quite a few of them.
And we just gave Conan a medal and a plaque.
And it's really — and I actually think Conan knew exactly what was going on.
But a dog that is very, very special.
Alright, I love this whole little ceremony.
I love the dog, because every image, every video of the dog, he just looks so happy.
He's smiling, he's got his tongue hanging out, and I love the idea that he's there just thinking, oh, oh boy, I can't wait to eat another terrorist, oh boy!
So he's just, it's a perfect image, he looks great.
You've got Mike Pence just leaning down, scratching him like he's a little poodle, even though he's obviously this just lean, mean, killing machine.
I also love the ceremony because it treats animals in the way that animals should be treated.
You should love animals.
You should enjoy animals.
Pets are there for our enjoyment to be treated like a member of the family because the pet is, in a way, an extension of our humanity.
So, Really?
Look, are we really giving credit to this dog for killing the terrorists?
No.
We're going to give credit to the Special Forces team that went in there and actually executed the operation.
But President Trump can't go out and honor these soldiers.
You know, on their own.
I mean, frankly, if he gives away their identity, that would put them in great danger.
And it would appear that they're still working anyway.
It would appear that they're still over in the Middle East.
So instead, what he's doing is using the dog as a symbol of the whole team and saying, we're going to honor this dog and really we're honoring the whole team.
It actually ties in pretty well with what happened later in the day on the animal front, which is the animal cruelty legislation, except that unfortunately, President Trump and even a lot of conservatives really are getting this, this whole issue backwards.
And this animal cruelty legislation is actually a pretty bad law.
We'll get to that in a second, but first I got to thank our friends over at Ashford University.
A master's degree can make a big difference in anybody's career.
Okay?
It means better jobs.
It means more advancement.
A master's degree can help you be a whole new you, and now is the best time to make it happen with help from Ashford University.
We talk all the time on this show about how the kind of stale old university system is decaying all around us, and there are some incredible, innovative opportunities You take one
course at a time.
Ashford University's six-week-long courses allow you to take one course at a time, and being enrolled in one class at Ashford means that you are considered a full-time student.
How do you enroll?
It's easy.
You got the GRE, the GMAT, and other standardized test scores are not required.
To enroll at Ashford University and accreditation.
Ashford University is fully accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission.
If you're looking to make a change, if you feel stalled out in your career, this might be the way to move ahead.
Ashford University, new opportunities are right around the corner.
Now is the time to start earning your master's degree.
enroll now by going to ashford.edu slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. That is ashford.edu slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S to start your master's degree today, ashford.edu slash Knowles.
So when you look at, at Conan, when you look at Conan, the, this barbarian animal that eats the terrorists, part of the reason we love him is because we've kind of brought him in, right?
We We've brought him in, not just into the Special Forces team, but into the consciousness of the country.
We like that he's part of the team, and he really did do a job out there in the team.
It reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said about animal cruelty laws and animal cruelty just as a topic and a mode of behavior.
Animal cruelty is terrible.
It's an awful, awful thing.
But it's awful because it deadens our humanity, because it makes us cruel.
It's awful because of what it does to human beings.
You can't sin against an animal, or against a tree, or against an inanimate object.
You can't commit a sin against them.
Human beings are the moral creatures on this earth.
There is a very modern idea that animal cruelty is wrong because animals have some kind of rights.
Now, ironically, people say that animals have human rights.
Animals cannot have human rights because they're not humans.
There's a gorilla or there's some kind of monkey that is living in Florida that is considered a non-human person.
But the monkey can't be a person because the monkey's not a human.
Nothing about that would ever excuse animal cruelty, but it shows you where your moral compass has to be guided toward.
Human beings are the moral agents on Earth.
We shouldn't be cruel to animals because it deadens our humanity.
We should be caring and loving to animals because it expands our humanity.
A lot of people miss this, unfortunately, it would appear, including President Trump.
So later on in the day, he signed a federal law, a brand new federal law, banning animal cruelty.
So it's taking animal cruelty from the state level all the way up to the federal level.
He couldn't be happier, and so many conservatives are cheering him on.
Thank you all for being here today.
I'm pleased to sign the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act into law.
Animal cruelty.
This is something that should have happened a long time ago and it didn't, but the people behind me and others have been incredible.
And I just want to congratulate you.
And I ask the same question I asked for another bill that we just sent.
Why hasn't this happened a long time ago?
And I give you the same answer because Trump wasn't president.
This common-sense legislation restricts the creation and distribution of videos or images of animal torture.
It is important that we combat these heinous and sadistic acts of cruelty which are totally unacceptable in a civilized society.
We're pleased to be joined by some of the very important people that got this done, and they worked very, very hard on it.
Okay, what's the law do President Trump just told you?
It makes a federal crime out of certain animal torture.
And what it builds upon is a law from the Obama administration that specifically looked at these really sadistic videos that were going around the internet.
I guess they pertain to different sexual fetishes where people would step on animals and crush the animals.
And so this became illegal.
And there actually was a case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and now this law is expanding that and making more forms of animal cruelty illegal at the federal level.
It would appear that Laura Trump, who is President Trump's daughter-in-law, has been really pushing this.
Laura Trump came out with a number of statements about this law.
She said...
Our companion pets are family members and our working dogs are our heroes.
There's a Democratic representative from Florida who is a co-sponsor of this law.
He said that the torture of innocent animals is abhorrent, of course, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Sure.
Signing this bill into law is a significant milestone for pet owners and animal lovers across this country.
Okay, yes.
Animal cruelty is very bad.
It should be illegal.
People who do it should be punished.
Nevertheless, this is an extremely stupid idea.
This is an extremely stupid law.
The whole episode reveals two distressing facts.
People don't know how our government works, and people don't know how the moral order works.
So let's start with the government before we get to the actual human level of this, the actual moral, actually moral order level of this.
At the government level, why should animal cruelty be a federal offense?
Why?
Why?
Well, because it's really serious.
That would appear to be what everyone who's sponsoring this bill says.
Animal cruelty is so abhorrent.
It's so bad that it needs to be punished at the highest possible level.
And in people's minds, what this means is it needs to be punished at the federal level, for the federal government.
They don't understand that we have a federal system, meaning the federal government, the states, local government, municipalities.
To put this in perspective...
Most murders are tried and punished at the state level.
Murders of human beings.
So you're telling me that I can murder a human being in cold blood.
that can be handled by the state.
The state is sufficient to deal with that.
But if I abuse an animal, if I abuse a little puppy or something, that has to be a federal offense.
The state can't possibly handle that.
They can only handle it when you murder human beings.
But when you abuse a little puppy, that has to be handled by the federal government because that is so much more serious.
Now, when you put it in those terms, nobody would agree with that.
Nobody would agree Nobody would think that you should make a federal offense out of animal cruelty but let murders be handled at the state level if really the difference here is about the severity of the crime.
But it's not.
The question that I have to ask of the people who think that this is so important it must be handled at the federal level is what makes you think that the federal government is more capable of handling this than the state government?
What makes you think that a more distant...
Government that's less accountable to you is going to be better at handling these matters than the more local government.
I do believe that most people in America now think that way.
Most people think that, yes, federal government, bigger, better.
That's where we've got to put the important issues.
That's certainly not how the founders of our country thought.
That is certainly not the idea that has allowed our country to develop for the past 200 years, 250 years at this point.
We've always thought that more local government is better able, better equipped to deal with most problems.
And you reserve only a handful of offenses for the federal government.
Well, so much for that.
So much for that constitutional order.
But then think about it simply as a question of the moral law.
How is it in this country...
That if you kill a baby at virtually any stage of development, virtually anywhere, you get off scot-free.
It's your right to do that.
The left in this country will applaud you for exercising your rights.
Kill a human being, a human baby.
Get off scot-free.
If you murder another person, you murder your neighbor, that's a state crime.
But you abuse an animal.
Anything from a kitten to a puppy to a goldfish.
That's a federal offense.
That's abhorrent.
Not even saying you kill it.
You just abuse it.
That is the worst thing you could possibly do.
It seems to me we've lost track of our priorities.
We need to get our priorities in better order.
I see it all around LA. The The way that puppies are treated is better than the way that humans are treated.
People in LA are absolutely cruel to one another.
This is a really tough town, okay?
But it's true of other towns, too.
It's true in Washington, D.C., for example.
But you see the way that people treat one another, and they use one another, they throw people away like it's nothing, and yet they put their little miniature poodle in a baby stroller and bring them into every single restaurant and order them foie gras half the time.
That is an inversion of the natural order and certainly of the moral order.
Do you remember, this was a year or two ago at Coachella, a video went around of a woman in a jeep.
She gets out of her jeep.
She's got a bag and she walks up to a trash bin and she throws out this bag.
And what people found out, it's pretty disturbing, found out that there were puppies, living puppies in the bag and she just threw out the puppies.
Obviously a sociopath, crazy, awful woman.
And when this became a public matter, it went totally viral and people wanted to adopt the little puppies.
How could you ever do this?
What kind of cruel monster would ever tolerate a woman throwing out a bag of puppies?
Meanwhile, just a few years ago, Kermit Gosnell, the worst mass killer in American history, an abortionist who was operating with the blessing, I use that word ironically, the blessing of the left in Philadelphia nationally.
Kermit Gosnell had bags of babies all over his apartment, all over his house, and nothing, no outrage.
The media doesn't cover it.
Nobody wants to hear about it.
Nobody wants to adopt those babies.
They want to enshrine it as a right.
The left right now is praying to whatever god they have.
I guess Moloch or Baal or Baphomet or something.
They're praying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an 86-year-old jurist, doesn't die before Trump is out of office because they need, they're so desperate to preserve the right to murder a million babies a year.
So we weep over bags of puppies.
We weep over...
Animal cruelty.
And we are completely dead to the suffering of human beings.
This is absolutely backwards.
And I think people are trying to separate this as a dichotomy.
Like you can only be kind to animals or you can only be kind to humans.
But the way it actually works is if you get the natural order right, if you get the moral order right, if you look with charity on your fellow man, if you treat your neighbor as yourself, You will be kind to animals and everything else.
You'll be a good steward of your environment.
You'll get things in order.
But if you disregard your fellow humans and you only love sentimental saccharine things like little animals or something, you will not be kind to human beings because you're perverting, you're inverting that natural order.
That is not the recipe for a good society.
Right now, what so much of this animal legislation is about is just about saccharine, soft soap, sweet feelings.
It's just about emotion.
We love the little puppy.
The little puppy looks cute.
The little puppy looks like Baby Yoda.
So you want to just do whatever you can for the little puppy.
Self-government doesn't operate very well when it's purely on emotion.
We need to have some logic.
We need to have some objective reality.
And the way to do that is to care about your fellow humans, to get your priorities in order.
Mother Teresa gave a speech at the UN in 1994 on abortion.
She said, abortion is the greatest cause of evil in the world.
Because if a mother can kill her own baby...
Then there is nothing that we won't do to one another.
There is no way to teach people not to be violent and to love one another.
And the way that the left wants to put a bandaid over this horrific act that they're sanctioning is by saying, sure, we'll kill a million babies a year, but we really like this puppy, so we're going to pass a law about this puppy.
No.
Dumb.
Forget about that.
Get your moral order in perspective before you can move on to those sorts of things.
Here's another spicy take.
On a completely separate issue, and the pun is very much intended.
This is one of these stories that seems incredibly dumb.
But it's actually telling us a lot about our culture.
This is a story that was going around the internet yesterday.
An American professor was asked to tweet out a controversial food opinion.
This was a hashtag, a trend going around.
Tweet out your controversial food opinion.
So this American professor, Tom Nichols, professor at the U.S. Naval War College and the Harvard Extension School, tweeted out, quote, Indian food is terrible and we pretend it isn't.
I actually like Indian food.
I disagree with him on this opinion.
But hey, look, he knew that this is a controversial opinion.
That's why he responded to the controversial opinion tweet, right?
So he says, Indian food is terrible, and we pretend that it isn't.
All hell broke loose.
Not only did he get ratioed, 16,000 replies to 2,000 retweets, this became an international incident.
This got international media coverage.
The BBC posts, quote, Indian food is terrible tweet sparks hot debate about racism.
Racism?
Does that have anything to do with racism?
The Eater magazine says, quote, controversial food opinions prompt on Twitter motivated racist comments.
It's racist if I don't like Indian food?
That's racist now?
What if I don't like Chinese food?
I love Chinese food, obviously, but that's racist if I don't like that?
Sonia Gupta, who is...
Some person with a lot of Twitter followers.
I can describe so many people in the media today.
She tweeted out, quote, White people dunking on Indian food sucks.
But...
White people fawning over it sucks, too.
It's the same feeling I had as a kid when white women would fawn over my mom's beautiful sorries while also talking to her as if she was a child.
You like our trappings, but you don't like us.
Like, my mentions are filling up with white people who are enthusiastic about my food.
Where is your enthusiasm for my humanity?
Just wondering.
This woman doesn't have enough problems.
This woman needs more problems.
I don't mean that flippantly.
I mean she actually needs to have more problems if she wants to be able to develop as a human being.
Suffering does help us.
It helps us to mature and deepens our view of society.
This woman needs problems.
Because if she's upset about this, if she's upset that white people like Indian food, she has lived simply too luxurious a life.
What does this tell us?
What this very surface-level stupid story tells us about the culture, a few things.
It shows us some people want to be angry.
They just want to be angry.
They're begging to.
They go and look for a Twitter thread called Controversial Food Opinions just so that they can find something they disagree with just so they can be angry because some people want to be aggrieved and some people really want to be offended and there's no arguing with those people.
Maybe you've seen it.
If you've watched any of my campus lectures now in recent months, I'll go and I'll give a speech that's pretty innocuous.
And the students won't know what to protest in the speech.
So they will literally set a timer.
And then 10 or 11 minutes in, they will all stand up and start screaming at me about what?
I have no idea.
They'll start screaming.
And I've asked them, I say, what are you offended about?
Let's talk about it.
They don't have anything to say.
They just want to be offended.
I don't know what it is.
If you think about some of the psychobabble, maybe they just really don't like their dads or something.
If you think about it from an academic perspective, I don't know.
Maybe they just haven't learned a lot.
Some people want to be offended.
Some people want to be aggrieved.
There is no arguing with those people.
Nothing is ever enough for them.
Here's another example.
Jeff Bezos just donated $98.5 million to help the homeless.
Almost $100 million to help the homeless.
There is no way to be upset about this, right?
Oh, you're wrong.
You're not living in 2019.
Jeremy Corbyn, who is the leftist leader in Britain, tweeted out, quote, that's 0.09% of your net worth, Jeff Bezos.
Just pay your taxes.
By the way, he does pay his taxes.
There was a few years ago, Amazon was reinvesting money in their business, so they didn't pay a lot of taxes.
They pay a lot of taxes now.
Also, how much money has Jeremy Corbyn ever given to the homeless?
First of all, how much money has Jeremy Corbyn ever paid in taxes?
Not a lot, I bet.
How much money has he ever given to the homeless?
Less than $100 million?
Yeah, I would bet so.
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself, buddy.
Ask yourself this question.
How much money did you give to charity this year?
Most likely, if you're listening to this show, you're not one of these people who scream and yell at everyone else for things that they did or didn't do.
But if you are, if somehow someone on Twitter and the Twitter world is watching or listening to this, how much money did you give to charity yourself?
Most people don't give a lot of money to charity.
Most people don't even think about it.
But the secret is you're not going to miss that money.
What this brings up...
From the Indian food story to Jeff Bezos, what this all brings up at a deeper cultural level is that there are two ways of looking at the world.
And this is very important when you were two days away from Thanksgiving.
Two ways of looking at the world.
One from a position of entitlement, one from a position of gratitude.
If you are looking at the world from a position of entitlement, you are most likely going to look at politics primarily as a matter of rights.
You're going to see every little slight that was ever done to you.
You're going to imagine, completely imagine new slights committed against you.
Like that Indian woman who says that she doesn't like that white people like Indian food.
You're going to judge others by their actions and you're going to judge yourself by your intentions.
You are going to hoard rather than to give.
You are going to be miserable.
How about the flip side?
If you look at life primarily from an attitude of gratitude you are going to look at politics primarily as a matter of duty not of rights.
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
You are going to forgive slights against you.
You might not even notice half of them.
You are not going to sit around imagining new slights.
You're going to be happy for the life that you have.
You are going to give people a break.
And you're going to be thankful that you don't get called out on all of the terrible things that you do.
You are going to give freely.
You are going to be much happier because you are going to realize that you did not invent your life.
You are not responsible for giving yourself your own life.
Life was a gift.
You should be very happy to have it.
Something to think about as we move into Thanksgiving.
And I would recommend, at least for the Thanksgiving meal, turning off Twitter.
Turn it off.
You don't need, during that moment, to imagine all of the new grievances against you.
You don't need to sit there and try to figure out a way to be offended.
Obviously, I'm preaching to the choir here, but when you're having Thanksgiving dinner with your leftist relatives, maybe you could gently suggest that to them as well.
Big story coming out of the mainstream media.
Turns out they're liars.
I know you'll be shocked.
Plus, the newest presidential candidate in the race seems to have good news for President Trump, as does the Supreme Court, has good news for President Trump, too.
We'll get to all of that and more, but first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Head on over to dailywire.com.
Dailywire.com.
It's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
What do you get?
You get me, You get the Andrew Klavan show.
You get the Matt Walsh show.
You get the Ben Shapiro show.
You get Another Kingdom.
This is the third and final season of Another Kingdom.
I did a 45-minute interview yesterday with Drew answering subscriber questions about Another Kingdom.
We love it.
I mean, it's been such a joy to work on that.
We always talk about how conservatives need to be in the culture.
Well, here we are.
Go give it a listen.
You get everything, and you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
This is going to be very, very important.
When we get some new information about the 2020 presidential race, and we get some new information about impeachment, make sure to go get that Tumblr.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be back with a lot more.
All right.
There was a story that came out from AFP, from the news outlet, AFP News Agency.
This came out about a week ago.
First tweet.
Hashtag breaking, breaking news.
More than 100,000 children in migration-related U.S. detention, according to the U.N. 100,000 children.
Now, that's bad.
No matter what you think about immigration, that's pretty bad.
Obviously, you want to deal with that.
How do you deal with that?
The left wants to deal with that by just getting rid of our borders and letting anybody into the country who wants to come in.
Compromising our national security because we have no idea who's in here.
Compromising our elections because you're just flooding the country with foreign aliens who will then...
Presumably, if they have children, those children will get birthright citizenship.
They'll be able to vote.
I mean, it creates so many social problems.
But still, conservatives are compassionate.
We say, yeah, 100,000 children.
We don't want that.
We want to cut off the flow of migrants to come into the United States.
Maybe we need to put some National Guard troops on the southern border with Mexico.
We need to renegotiate certain deals with Mexico so that they can cooperate with us better on the immigration issue.
You know, it's a serious issue.
We should take it seriously.
Okay, fine.
That was the first tweet.
Second tweet.
AFP is withdrawing this story.
The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children currently in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015.
We will delete the story.
They're not even hiding it anymore.
They're not even hiding it.
So what, what that, what that second tweet really says is, hold on, hold on.
We are withdrawing the story.
Why are you withdrawing the story?
Because it's not true?
Well, no, it, it was true, but it was true during the Obama administration.
And so, because it was true during the Obama administration, it makes the Democrats look bad.
We will not only withdraw the story, we are deleting the story.
We will delete the story.
Why don't you leave the story up?
It's a pretty interesting story.
I was interested in the story when it looked bad for Republicans, because it's an actual problem that you've got to deal with.
But the press won't let the story stand when it looks bad for Democrats.
That little incident, breaking news, oh wait, never mind, it looks bad for Democrats.
That tells you everything you need to know about the mainstream media.
They are not fair brokers in any way.
We know that.
We know that they slant stories for the left.
We know that they choose their coverage based on the left.
But it goes even deeper than that.
If they accidentally report on a story that looks bad for the left, they will apologize for that and they will go back and delete it.
You cannot trust a word they are saying.
What do we do here at the Michael Knowles show and at the other Daily Wire shows?
We put out conservative commentary.
Okay, so we have a perspective, a political perspective, we're honest about our perspective, and we report on the news, we interpret the news of the day through that conservative lens.
Even knowing that, even being honest about our perspective, we don't hide news that is bad for conservatives.
I mean, I opened my show today with a story about why President Trump was wrong to sign this law yesterday.
Just as an example.
But we do that all the time.
Because we're not interested in just carrying water like a bunch of hacks.
Okay?
We're interested in the reality of our political situation and our cultural situation.
And we're interested in advancing a better culture.
And a better politics.
Okay?
And you don't do that by ignoring reality.
And yet the so-called objective journalists of the left are doing precisely that.
They are...
Not merely slanted.
Not merely biased.
They don't merely have a perspective.
They are propagandist, water-carrying hacks for the left who will actually go back and delete their own work if it accidentally looks bad for their political puppet masters.
It is shocking, even for me.
And I spend a lot of time haranguing the media.
But that's pretty bad.
And I don't think it's going to work out for them.
This is the other thing.
If any members of the mainstream media are watching this, use this as an example.
If the media had played their cards a little closer to the chest, if they had been a little more cautious about this, they would still have some credibility.
But they've been exposed repeatedly time and time again.
Look at the Epstein story.
George Stephanopoulos.
I was talking to Drew about this yesterday in our Another Kingdom conversation.
George Stephanopoulos is the war room communications director for Bill Clinton.
He covers up Bill Clinton's sex crimes.
He silences the women that Bill Clinton abused.
He then becomes the chief political anchor for ABC News.
ABC News has footage leaked of one of their anchors saying that the Jeffrey Epstein story was killed at ABC. What happens when that story leaks?
ABC News rushes to figure out what happened by silencing the whistleblower.
They're going out and trying to find the whistleblower.
They're not going out and trying to find the person who actually killed the Epstein story.
They are so unbelievably corrupt that now they don't have credibility.
I mean, in that Conan video where President Trump has the dog in the Rose Garden...
He's joking.
And he says to the reporters, by the way, if you open your mouths, Conan is trained to attack you, so watch out.
And everyone laughs at this because...
We hate the press.
We hate them.
We hate that they lie to us night after night after night.
One of the constant applause lines that Trump gets at his very large rallies is when he says, look back there.
Those are the fake news.
They're going to smear us because they're the scum of the earth.
And people cheer.
People applaud.
And it's not just conservative Republicans.
It's independents, too, who are fed up with the lies.
If they had just played it a little better, they would have credibility.
Now they have no credibility.
In fact, the opinion people on the left and the right, in my mind, have a lot more credibility than the so-called objective mainstream media outlets.
Rachel Maddow and the Young Turks and whoever else, Vox.com, have a lot more credibility because at least they're honest about their perspective.
I can know what it is going in.
And sometimes, not always, but sometimes they'll even report on stories that are not wonderful for the left.
The same cannot be said, certainly of AFP News, certainly of ABC News, certainly of CNN and all of those.
I mean, another example, Bloomberg.
Bloomberg, major media company, not to be confused with the former mayor of New York who's now running for president, even though they're the same thing.
Bloomberg Media, because Mike Bloomberg is running for president, says that they are not going to investigate Democrats.
The idea being that Mike Bloomberg is running in the Democratic presidential primary, and so he's not going to use his organ to investigate his primary opponents.
But Bloomberg Media didn't have to put out that statement.
Bloomberg Media already doesn't investigate Democrats.
Bloomberg Media already carries water for Democrats and attacks Republicans.
There's nothing that's going to change.
And that's true not just of Bloomberg, it's true of all of the other ones.
Also, by the way, if the whole idea here is that Mike Bloomberg is not going to use his news organ to investigate his political opponents, why not also promise not to investigate Trump?
They're not going to do that because the media are done even pretending to be in any way objective.
Speaking of Mike Bloomberg, though, President Trump got some good news from him.
His campaign manager went on CNN to explain his candidates.
He explained the campaign strategy and he admitted that right now President Trump is winning.
Listen, it's obviously in the news today.
Yeah.
You know, your guest before this talked about President Chaos, and obviously Mike is going to comment on it.
Listen, Mike is getting in this race because he thinks that Donald Trump is in existential crisis, and he thinks he's on a path to victory, and he's getting in to alter that dynamic.
He is.
He is on a path to victory.
Obviously, Democrats think this, by the way.
That's why other candidates are looking at getting in the race.
Deval Patrick, that's why...
Tom Steyer got into the race.
It's why Mike Bloomberg is getting into the race.
It's why Hillary is trying to get into the race because they don't feel comfortable with Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg or even Elizabeth Warren.
They just don't think that these are serious people.
They think that at this moment Trump is on a path to victory and I think that they're right.
But if Mike Bloomberg is supposed to be the great savior of the Democratic Party...
Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to think that himself.
Let's not forget, Mike Bloomberg is 77 years old.
He's nine months older than Joe Biden.
He can, like, make his way around a stage.
You know, he can get a coherent English sentence out of his mouth.
He, in his behavior, looks like he's about 20 years younger than Joe Biden.
But he's an older guy, and he feels, as he admitted just this year, that he is too old to be the president.
I've assembled a team already to go.
But at some point, you've got to say, look, I would be 79 years old when I took office.
People say, well, Ronald Reagan was 80 when he left.
Yeah, when he was 80, they carried him out Gaga.
You know, that really is very close.
I don't mean to exaggerate it, but that's very close to being true.
To start a four-year job, maybe an eight-year job at age 79, may not be the smartest thing to do.
But I think if I thought I could win, I would have.
All right.
To start this long job at age 79, probably the smartest thing to do.
If I thought I could win, I would run.
And he now apparently does think he has a good chance of winning, which is why he's running.
But he is old.
The one thing I do notice about all these clips of him, he goes on later in that same interview to make fun of Beto O'Rourke as just a nobody.
Mike Bloomberg does, for all of his kind of billionaire sophistication, he does have this edgy New York attitude.
Obviously, if you put that edgy New York billionaire up against Trump, the edgiest New York billionaire, Trump is going to eat him alive on stage.
But Bloomberg does have a little bit of that New York attitude.
Bloomberg now is out there on the campaign trail.
He thinks he's going to at least have a good shot at the Democratic nomination, even though it doesn't appear that he thinks he's necessarily going to beat the president.
He goes out and gives his first major campaign rallies.
See how excited you get listening to Mike for America.
Protecting women's and LGBTQ rights, supporting our veterans, and reestablishing America's place in the world as a force for peace and stability.
But more than plans, I offer the leadership to turn plans into reality, to roll up my sleeves, to motivate our country, to unite and rebuild America, and make it fairer and better.
I'm ready to get to work, so let's get it on.
Huh.
Has Mike Bloomberg finished talking?
So I can finally, just two seconds of that very quiet, soft-spoken 77-year-old man, and I'm just completely out.
Amazing to compare that to President Trump.
anybody really believe that Mike Bloomberg is going to get on stage and quietly talk about the same platitudes that were sort of popular in the early 90s and that he's going to beat Donald Trump, who's the hippest guy in politics, not going to happen.
There's also a physical aspect here, which is that obviously men of a more diminutive stature have been fairly successful throughout history, namely Napoleon, for instance.
But Mike Bloomberg is really short.
I've met Mike Bloomberg I don't remember what the event was in New York.
And I was pretty astounded by how petite he is.
And I'm not exactly a basketball player, okay?
But if you look online, it says Mike Bloomberg's 5'8".
That is just a complete lie.
There is no chance the guy's 5'8".
I towered over this man when I met him.
And I'm not a particularly gigantic individual.
So it's just not believable that he is going to beat And yet Democrats, and certainly his team, think that the field is so insufficient right now that he might be the last best hope.
If he's the last best hope of the Democrats, then I wouldn't hold their breath to take the White House in 2020.
More good news from President Trump from the Supreme Court.
The Democrats have been trying to get President Trump's financial records.
They've been trying to get the financial records to just add some icing to impeachment because after all these impeachment hearings, they haven't really gotten anything on him.
Most of the testimony just said, yeah, Trump explicitly said he doesn't want to quid pro quo.
He didn't do anything wrong.
No one can even explain exactly what the crime is that President Trump committed.
So it was really a flop for For House Democrats, now they're trying to get the financial records to say, well, you know, he underpaid his taxes or he had some shady business deals, so we've got to impeach him for that too.
The Supreme Court eventually heard about this question.
And the Supreme Court on Monday, yesterday, delivered a major setback to the House Democrats who were trying to impeach Trump because they blocked a lower court decision that was going to give them access immediately to President Trump's financial records.
The Supreme Court decided, they put out a one-paragraph order that put a pause on that lower court ruling, and it said that President Trump gets to keep his financial records for now.
Now, they're going to have to keep arguing this before the court, but that's a major win for President Trump.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it would seem that even in the House, among the House Democrats, they're starting to crack a little bit on impeachment because the question is, knowing what we know now about President Trump's popularity, about President Trump's support, particularly among non-white voters, yesterday there was an Emerson poll that backed up an NPR Marist poll that showed President Trump had upwards of 34.5% support among black voters.
That is Record-shattering in recent memory for a Republican president.
He had very high numbers among Hispanic voters, too.
He was over 38%.
Knowing that the Democrats don't have anything in the impeachment probe, knowing that they're not going to get the financials at least anytime soon, Is it worth impeaching the president?
Some Democrats say no.
There's a Michigan Democratic representative, Brenda Lawrence, who is suggesting maybe Democrats shouldn't impeach Trump.
Maybe they should choose a lesser measure, like censuring President Trump.
Outright condemning him for all the terrible things that nobody can quite point out that he did.
Rather than impeaching.
Why?
Because it would seem that the momentum is with impeachment.
Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, but she was losing control of her caucus, and so she had to finally go along with the more radical members.
If they impeach Trump, then it goes to a trial in the Senate.
If it goes to a trial in the Senate, the Republicans control that house, that chamber.
If it goes to a trial in the Senate, you're not going to see the key witnesses that the Democrats wanted to bring up.
By the way, the key witnesses that the Democrats wanted to bring up, like Bill Taylor, like George Kent, like Gordon Sondland, all of those guys in their testimony were pretty favorable toward Trump.
In some cases, extremely favorable toward Trump.
Those aren't the guys that the Republicans in the Senate are going to call if impeachment goes to trial.
The Republicans in the Senate are going to call people like, oh, I don't know, Hunter Biden to testify.
The Republicans in the Senate are going to call people like, oh, I don't know, Eric Charamella, the alleged whistleblower, who had a lot of shady contacts with a lot of prominent Democrats, like Joe Biden, like John Brennan, like Adam Schiff.
Who was running the whole impeachment hoax in the House.
It's going to look really, really bad for Democrats if it goes to trial in the Senate.
President Trump said, please go to trial.
I'm begging for it to go to trial.
Because in that case, he'll very likely be acquitted.
Even Democratic analysts are admitting this now.
And if he's acquitted, he could have a lot of momentum going into 2020.
All of that is pretty good news.
Some people say this is evidence of a broken political system.
Perhaps it is.
I mean, we talked about it at the top of the show today.
We have a broken political system now because we've lost sight of the moral order.
We've lost sight of, first of all, how our government works and how our government is structured.
But at a deeper level, we've lost sight of the moral foundations for politics and That is bad news.
We are dealing with a political situation now that is pretty off-kilter.
However, we've got to play in the political realities that exist.
And as they exist right now, things are looking pretty good for conservatives.
Good news.
Something to be thankful for as we head into Thanksgiving.
We've got another show tomorrow, so don't go anywhere.
Don't get on your flights and get in your cars and go eat turkey yet.
We will have another one tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you then.
If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca 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, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Today we're going to take a good hard look at how the left infests the national discussion with lousy ideas and how that's blowing back on the Democrats while annoying the hell out of the rest of us.
That's on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection