Barack Obama is convinced that women are better than men. At an event in Singapore, he declared that women are “indisputably” better than men and everything would be much better if women were in charge. Meanwhile, in Washington, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez complained that she couldn’t figure out how to enroll in any of the 66 taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plans she’s eligible for. We will examine how little Barack Obama understands. Can't get enough of The Michael Knowles Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS member TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Knowles
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Barack Obama is convinced that women are better than men.
They're just better.
At an event in Singapore, he said women are indisputably better than men and everything around the world would be so much better if women were in charge.
Meanwhile, testing his hypothesis in Washington, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez couldn't figure out how to enroll in her health insurance plan.
We will examine how little Barack Obama understands about men and women.
Then, Hallmark goes lesbian, and the Huffington Post gives us the dumbest article on the internet today.
All that and more.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show.
Obama, you say that women are much better world leaders than men.
Exhibit A, to prove you wrong, is actually exhibit AOC, you might say.
Barack Obama was at this event in Singapore.
Unfortunately, we don't have video of it, so we'll just have to read it.
I can try to do my best Barack Obama voice.
He said, quote, Now, women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect.
But what I can say, pretty indisputably, is you're better than us.
Better than men.
Women are better than men.
I'm absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything.
Living standards and outcomes.
And then he was asked if he was ever considering going back into political leadership.
And what he said was he just wanted to step aside because he's a man.
And he's getting older.
And old men shouldn't be in politics.
quote, if you look at the world and look at the problems, it's usually old people, usually old men not getting out of the way.
Obviously, he doesn't believe what he's saying about men and women.
The evidence of that is if he actually believed that women are better leaders than men and that men should step aside and let women lead, he would not have run for president in 2008.
He would have endorsed Hillary Clinton, the woman who was about to become the first woman Democratic nominee and the first woman president, and then he beat her pretty unceremoniously.
So he doesn't really believe it.
It's, It's just pandering of the highest sort.
And so he's getting a lot of flack for this because it's so disingenuous.
There are few people in this world more unctuous than male feminists.
They're just so ingratiating.
They're just so flattering.
They're just so oily.
And that's what you're seeing here.
And it's obviously untrue.
But we'll get to what that means broadly for our culture in a little bit.
For just right now, I want to focus on an aspect of this that nobody's really talking about, which is his comments in Singapore are, sure, just regular leftist boilerplate.
Men bad, women good, women need to take over the whole world, fine.
They also seem to have a very practical application to the 2020 Democratic primaries.
From the very beginning of this 2020 primary, people have asked Joe Biden why Barack Obama hasn't endorsed him.
Joe Biden was a loyal vice president for both terms under Obama.
It seems like Obama should come out and endorse his guy.
He hasn't done it yet.
Reportedly in the early stages of Biden's campaign, Obama called him and said, Joe, you don't need to do this.
Really, Joe, you don't need to do this.
Just go back, have corn pop, massage your leg hair, ride off into the sunset.
You don't need to try to become the President of the United States.
Here, he might be sending a message to Joe Biden.
Nothing that Barack Obama does in politics is accidental.
This is one of the most calculating politicians that we have seen, certainly in our lifetimes, and I think in recent history.
Every aspect of his career was geared toward achieving the next goal, making it to become president.
I mean, this guy became president before he had accomplished really anything.
He wrote two books, both about his favorite subject, and he gave a A couple of okay speeches and a bunch of not that great speeches.
He barely showed up for his job as state senator in Illinois.
He was a U.S. senator for about five minutes and then he runs for president and he wins.
This is a pretty calculating guy and he's pretty good at the game of politics.
He's not just accidentally making this last comment.
If you look at the world and look at the problems, it's usually old people, usually old men not getting out of the way.
Who is the most prominent old man in politics right now?
Joe Biden.
He even seems older than Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is also an old man, but Joe seems tired.
He's losing his train of thought.
His teeth are falling out at debates.
His eyeballs are exploding at debates.
He seems very old.
And it would appear here that in this whole comment about men and women, what he's really saying is I'm leaning toward Elizabeth Warren.
I know that I can't come out against Joe Biden just yet, but the times are coming when I might have to do that.
So get out of the way, Joe.
Just a little psychobabble that I'm reading into this.
Also, let's not forget Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to signal that she wants to get back into this race.
So the men and women comments, while they're kind of stupid in the universal application, Barack Obama is very likely sending a pretty pointed message here.
We will get to test his general theory.
Of women being greater statesmen than men across the board.
We will test that theory by chatting with Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
That should be illuminating.
But first I've got to thank our friends over at Wise Foods.
You know, when government resources are strained, it can be days, if not weeks, before you can get to fresh food and water.
I live in Los Angeles, where we live on a fault line, more or less, and so earthquakes can happen.
We're always waiting for the big one.
That's pretty scary.
And no matter where you are in the country, looking around the political scene, you're probably thinking to yourself, gosh, this can't last much longer.
Probably need to get prepared.
And when, when all that stuff hits the fan, you can't rely on someone else.
You have to rely on yourself.
Don't put yourself in a situation where you need something that you don't have.
Get prepared today.
The thing I love about Wise Foods is they have very, very high quality stuff, chef prepared internally.
And you get it, you put it in the pantry, then you don't think about it, okay?
Because all you'll need is four cups of water.
It doesn't even need to be hot.
You take the contents of the pouch, you pour them into the water, you stir it, you cover it, and that's it.
About 15 minutes later, you're ready to go.
Your family's ready to go, no matter the situation.
I'm hoping that this stuff never hits the fan.
We don't need to worry about it, but I'm just glad that I can take down my stress levels, let that simmer.
Until the end of this month, Wise is clearing out inventory to make room for the redesigned packaging in 2020, which means that there are huge savings available.
We'll go to wisefoodstorage.com to take advantage of this clearance.
save up to 70% off.
As always, shipping is free for my listeners when you use the code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S at checkout.
That's wisefoodstorage.com.
Use the code Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
Get up to 70% off and free shipping.
Now is the time to do it.
Get prepared today.
Alright, Barack Obama says women universally are better than men.
And if women were controlling global politics, everything would be so much better.
Let's test that theory.
Maxine Waters was just on CNN. How stable and how wise did Maxine Waters come off?
Let's take a listen.
I believe, even though I don't have the facts to prove it, I believe that Putin wanted to lift the sanctions.
He's always wanted to lift these sanctions that were placed on him because of his interfering with and incursion into Crimea.
And so I believe that they wanted to elect President Trump.
And Trump, I believe, agreed, I will always believe this, that he agreed that if he got elected, he would lift those sanctions.
Churchillian.
Really, Periclean, you might say.
The oratory, the probing insight, the grand strategy from great, great stateswomen like Maxine Waters.
I want to point, I mean, I mostly just played that clip to make fun of Barack Obama's point and Maxine Waters.
But I also want to point out that virtually nothing of what Maxine Waters just said there is true.
And she even kind of recognizes it.
So she comes out and says, look, I don't have the facts.
But here's my opinion, which I love.
I actually like how guileless that is.
Look, I don't have any actual evidence of my accusations, but Trump is a bad guy, okay?
And even though I don't have the facts, I know that he conspired with Vladimir Putin, alright?
And yeah, I know we had a two and a half year, $32 million investigation into whether that happened or not, and we determined conclusively that it didn't happen, but I think it did, and I don't have the facts anyway.
But let me tell you something, American people...
Putin wants those sanctions taken off and that's why Donald Trump got elected and actually he's been harsher on Russia than Barack Obama was.
But never mind that.
Orange man bad.
That is the argument.
That's the argument that Maxine Waters just made.
And I'm not even really exaggerating it.
So it would appear that Barack Obama's theory is incorrect.
But let's look at another prominent stateswoman in America, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been grilling people testifying before Congress.
she's been trying to push the greater intrusion of the government into employment and she's been trying to get the government to force employers to guarantee much more time off for new mothers and new fathers.
Here is the incredibly insightful argument that she makes to push her policy.
So, And similarly, your view on parental leave is to let the market decide.
And I think what we've seen here is that the market has decided.
Ms.
Schabo, 80% of families don't have access and workers don't have access to paid parental leave, correct?
Paid family leave.
Paid family leave.
So care for a child or a, seriously, family member, about a half of moms don't have access to paid leave.
So the market's decided.
And what is the most common length of parental or paid family leave that you have seen?
In general, it's like six to eight weeks, but it really depends and there's not a great sample that tells us.
Six weeks.
Do we know how long puppies are allowed to stay with their mothers after a dog has given birth?
I don't.
Eight weeks.
Wow.
So the market has decided that women and people who give birth deserve less time with their children than a dog.
And I think that that at its core has shown that the market has failed to treat people with dignity and with basic respect.
And so when that happens, I think it's our job as the public to I think there might be a few flaws here in the analogy.
AOC's argument is, if companies are only giving people six weeks to We're good to go.
The question is, what happens after the six or eight weeks?
After the six weeks, the mother goes back to work and still gets to keep her child.
In the case of the puppies, the puppies are sold and given away.
And also, dogs don't really raise their puppies because they're animals.
So there's that problem with it as well.
But let's take AOC's suggestion to its logical conclusion.
She says six weeks is not enough time to raise your child, so you give birth to a kid, you get six weeks off, and then you've got to go right back to work, and the kid is left on his own.
You've got to pay for childcare or something.
Yeah, I think that's a horrible situation.
I think that's a pretty bad problem.
So what would AOC prefer?
Would she prefer eight weeks?
Okay, I mean, if we're going to change the regulation to go from six weeks to eight weeks, that's not a huge deal, so fine.
Okay, that's okay.
Now, Is eight weeks enough to raise your child?
Of course not.
Why not 12 weeks?
So you get three months, you get 12 weeks parental leave, and then you have to go back to work.
Is 12 weeks enough?
No, 12 weeks is not enough.
That's three months.
What would be enough then?
I think what AOC is trying to reach for is saying, I think it should be the case that women should be able to raise their children and be financially stable.
That's fine.
That's what we used to have.
We used to have single-income households.
But then there was a movement.
I mean, for many economic and social reasons, there was a movement to have double-income households.
Okay.
You can't have both at the same time.
You can't simultaneously stay home with your child for the entirety of that child's adolescence and work full-time during that period.
You can't have both.
What AOC is acknowledging is there is this conflict here.
People want to stay home with their kids, and they also want to have this career, and they think that they can have it all, and they don't need to make any compromises.
Of course you have to make compromises.
That is life.
These are finite goods that we're talking about.
Money is a finite good.
Time is a finite good.
You have to make that decision.
And you're not going to be able to fix that with some government regulation.
Unless you just regulate that one parent can't go back to work.
Or unless you're going to regulate that the employer has to pay one parent for the next 18 years.
But I don't think that's going to work out economically as well.
or legally or constitutionally.
She wants to have both sides of it.
Not, not a very good argument that she makes.
She is raising an interesting question, but I point that out also to just knock down Barack Obama's argument.
She then tweeted out her inability to purchase health insurance.
So AOC tweeted, quote, members of Congress also have to buy their plans off the They are gold plans that are partially subsidized.
That means I get to choose, she puts it in quotes, between 66 complex financial products.
This is absurd.
No person should go without healthcare and no one should go through this either.
No one should go through the absolute torture of getting to choose between lots of different subsidized, inexpensive, modern, advanced healthcare plans.
ads.
It's just awful.
This is a woman who needs more problems than she has.
She doesn't have enough problems and so she's complaining about privilege, privileges that she has, including cheap, good, abundant, varied health insurance.
Now, I fully grant that our health insurance system is not completely simple, but if you are a leading American statesman as AOC somehow has become, you should be able to get health insurance.
You should be able to purchase health insurance.
And she can't.
Seems to be another piece of evidence against Barack Obama's contention that women are in all cases at all times universally better than men.
And our politics would be so much better if she let it.
But then...
I even have to use an example from the Republican side to argue against Barack Obama's point here.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, I've got to thank our friends over at NHTSA, and I've got to give an important reminder for this Christmas season.
Everybody knows about the risks of driving drunk, right?
You could get into a crash, people could get hurt or killed.
Almost 29 people in the United States die every single day in alcohol-impaired vehicle crashes.
That is one person every 50 minutes.
Don't do it.
Just don't do it.
I know people who have been killed in drunk driving crashes.
I know drunk drivers who have been involved in those crashes.
We all do, right?
We've all known at least one person like that since high school.
Don't do it.
It can ruin your life.
For what?
Because you wouldn't take a cab?
Because you wouldn't call a rideshare?
For the $10 it's going to cost you to get a cab, you're going to risk your life and someone else's life?
Don't do it, especially this time of year when everyone's drinking and full of frivolity and merriment.
Even though drunk driving fatalities have fallen by a third in the last three decades, that's great news, drunk driving crashes still claim more than 10,000 lives a year.
Don't be part of that.
Don't be a cause of that.
Don't be involved.
Many people are unaware that driving while high can be just as dangerous.
In 2015, 42% of drivers killed in crashes tested positive for drugs.
And from 2007 to 2015, marijuana use among drivers killed in crashes doubled.
Okay, driving while high, it's Just like driving while drunk, it's deadly.
So stop kidding yourself.
If you're impaired from alcohol or drugs, do not get behind the wheel.
It's very easy to call a ride.
Do it.
Don't put yourself in that position.
If you feel different, you drive different.
Drive high, get a DUI, drive sober, or get pulled over.
Okay.
I think we've pretty thoroughly debunked Barack Obama's argument, but just before we go away, I have to identify a very bad argument that a Republican woman made on television.
This was made by Carly Fiorina, who I actually really like.
I don't think it's a very good argument.
Carly Fiorina says we have to impeach President Trump, but she might vote for President Trump.
Here's the first part of that argument.
Do you believe President Trump should be impeached and removed from office?
I think he is going to be impeached.
And I think he won't be removed from office.
Should he be removed from office?
If you ran for Senate?
If you were in the Senate?
It's a hypothetical.
I think it is vital that he be impeached.
Whether removed this close to an election, I don't know.
But I think the conduct is impeachable.
Okay, he has to be impeached, but maybe not removed.
That doesn't make sense.
If he should be impeached, it's because he committed an impeachable offense.
If he committed an impeachable offense, he should be convicted of that impeachable offense.
The whole point of the Senate trial is to see whether or not he actually did the thing that the House is accusing him of doing.
If he actually did the thing that the House is accusing him of, he should be convicted, and therefore he should be removed from office.
There's no world in which you say he should be impeached but not convicted.
Then you're saying the House should lie about him.
The House should put up completely false charges and then the Senate should knock them down.
That doesn't make sense.
I understand that there might be a personal aspect here because Donald Trump was very harsh on Carly Fiorina during the 2016 campaign.
So that is important context.
But the argument she's making doesn't make sense.
And then it makes even less sense a little bit later when she says it is vital that Trump be impeached.
I don't know if he should be removed.
Oh, and also I might vote for him again.
Did you, Carly Fiorina, vote for President Trump?
Yeah, I actually did, and I've been very disappointed.
I felt that Hillary Clinton also was corrupt.
Will President Trump get your vote in 2020?
Honestly, it depends who the Democrats put up, and I won't go any further than that.
So impeachment comes about if a president commits treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
These are very, very serious offenses that are directly related to his conduct as president.
And what Carly is saying here is, if he committed that, that's really bad.
It's so important that we...
We charge him for it and we convict him, but then not convict him for it and then also I'll probably vote for him again.
It doesn't make sense.
It's an emotional argument.
And Donald Trump evokes strong emotions in a lot of people, but as a matter of the Constitution, as a matter of the law, as a matter of philosophical and political coherence, that argument does not make a whole lot of sense.
And I really like Carly Fiorina.
So that's my knock against Barack Obama's theory.
Oh, and also the fact that he beat Hillary Clinton in 2008, so he just does not believe the thing he's saying.
Why is Obama's statement dumb?
It's dumb for a few reasons.
It's dumb because he doesn't believe it.
It's dumb because it's untrue and it's immature.
This is the second point.
It's not true that women are universally better than men.
It's also not true that men are universally better than women.
We can go all the way back to the foundational story about the difference between the sexes in Genesis.
You have Adam.
Adam is created and then Eve is created.
How is Eve created?
Eve is created in Genesis when God pulls out one of Adam's ribs and she is made from Adam's rib.
This is an important aspect of the story because if Eve had been pulled out of Adam's head, if Eve had been like a piece of hair pulled out of his ear or something, that would put Eve above Adam.
She's from the top of Adam.
If Eve had been pulled from Adam's toe, so on his ankle or something, that would put Eve below Adam.
But she's pulled from the rib, from the center of Adam's body.
Women, therefore, have equal dignity with men.
A crucial aspect of the story to tell you about the relationship between the sexes.
There have been great men throughout history.
There have been great women throughout history.
Men are not universally better than women.
Women are not universally better than men.
I mean, the argument that Obama's making is the kind of argument someone would make in elementary school.
Boys are better than girls.
Girls are better than boys.
Except what he's doing is he's making the opposite, right?
He's not saying that I'm a boy and therefore boys are better than girls.
He's saying I'm a boy and boys are really bad.
I'm really bad and therefore girls are so much better.
And this brings us to the third reason it's a dumb statement.
Because this sort of statement is white guilt for the postmodern age.
All right?
It's guilt about some immutable characteristic that you have taken to the most absurd postmodern extreme.
It's male guilt.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, we'll get to a lot more, too.
First, I've got to thank our friends over at Daniel's.
Christmas is coming, all right?
It is right on the doorstep.
You need to get a Daniels briefcase.
I've had a lot of really nice briefcases in my life, ostrich skin and all kind of crazy stuff.
Daniels is my favorite briefcase I've ever had.
It's designed in New York City with working professionals in mind.
It is a bag built for real life.
It is made from high quality, durable Italian leather.
They've even upped their game.
I didn't think that was possible, but recently they've upped their game.
The leather is so, so good.
The design is so simple.
There's no flashy logos.
You're not going to walk around looking like you're a hip pop star or something.
It is a timeless style that works with you wherever you are in your career.
I love this bag because the price point is really, really accessible.
It's fantastic.
Far less expensive than a lot of name brand designer bags.
And yet, the Daniels bag is better.
It looks better.
It functions better.
You could get this right when you're out of college.
Alright, please do not show up to the office with a backpack on.
I'm begging you.
Don't put yourself through that.
Don't degrade yourself like that.
Use a briefcase.
You're an adult.
You could use it at the early part of your career or you could use it when you're well established.
I love this thing.
And they've got really cool designs on the inside, just that classic East Coast style.
Now, as modern design makes everything look hideous, there is Daniel's that still looks terrific.
This week, my listeners can get $50 off their Daniel's briefcase at DanielsNYC.com by using promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L at checkout.
That is 50 bucks off one of their leather briefcases, plus they offer free shipping, free returns, and free exchanges.
Treat yourself, treat a friend or a loved one this holiday season with a one-of-a-kind gift That is DanielsNYC.com.
Promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, I almost misspelled my name, for $50 off a handcrafted high-quality leather briefcase with free shipping.
All right.
The third reason Obama's line is so ridiculous here is because it's white guilt for the postmodern age.
I've always thought white guilt is so ridiculous.
You feel bad because of the color of your skin.
That's just as dumb as feeling really proud because of the color of your skin.
It's just a fact that you were born with, and you move on, right?
This is taking that to a logical extreme and saying, because I'm a man, I'm really bad.
And forget, let's say Barack Obama actually did believe it.
Let's say Barack Obama actually did drop out of the 2008 presidential race and back Hillary Clinton because she's a woman and he's a man.
That doesn't make any sense.
Men are important.
The world wouldn't function without men.
Men are half the population.
Men have accomplished plenty of good things.
They have something to bear, to bring to the table.
They have physical strength and their brains work a little differently than women.
That's just the way it is.
I know that for a long time, liberals would not allow you to grant that men and women have different personalities, generally speaking.
But actually now, because of the transgender movement, they are admitting that again because they're saying that one proof of transgenderism is that transgender men's brains function differently than regular men's brains or women's brains.
They make very complicated arguments.
We know that men and women are different.
The world needs both of them.
You can either have a politics that looks at difference, that looks at variety and says, if two things are different, one of them must be bad.
Or you can have a politics that embraces variety, that loves the world, that loves the diversity of the world, and says women have something to offer and men have something to offer too.
But Barack Obama is simply too immature in his politics or too shallow.
Speaking of shallow politics, This impeachment thing could not be working out better for the president.
We've been talking about it a bunch this week, so I only want to get to a couple points here, but I have to mention them.
Carly Fiorina summed it up.
She said, I think Trump is a terrible guy.
I think he should be impeached.
But yeah, I might vote for him.
I think a lot of people agree with that.
According to a Quinnipiac poll, which is a notoriously left-leaning poll, President Trump now has the highest approval rating.
That they've ever recorded for him since he entered office.
And that is after all of this impeachment business.
They could impeach him in the House tomorrow.
Democratic Representative Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan.
She's a Democrat who's supporting impeachment.
She just went down to do a town hall.
Here's how her constituents greeted her.
They weren't too happy.
I'm going to walk you through my logic, and I know it's clear that we don't all agree, but I'm going to walk you through my logic in an attempt to be transparent.
And I know, I knew from the very beginning that this was going to be a controversial decision, right?
That was something I understood from the very beginning, but for me it was something that was important to do as a matter of principle.
In September, I'm just going to keep on rolling, folks.
She's just going to keep on rolling.
They're just going to keep on shouting.
By the way, this wasn't just one or two people in the audience.
It's not one of those kind of staged protests.
It doesn't look like, looks like this is a huge swath of the audience, if not the majority.
Support for impeaching President Trump is down.
We talked about yesterday how it's down in the general electorate.
According to CNN, it's also down among Democrats.
That's even according to the CNN poll.
According to that poll, support for impeaching and removing Trump is now down to 45%, down from 50% in a poll that was conducted just a couple weeks ago.
CNN says opposition to impeachment removal stands at 47%, up from 43% in November.
And among Democrats, support for impeachment and removal has dropped from 90% to 77%.
So you've got a double-digit drop in support for impeachment and removal among Democrats.
Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, they could not have blown this.
How are the mainstream media reporting on this?
Here's just from Yahoo News.
I love this quote from Yahoo News.
They're saying that Trump is Teflon.
Despite all this scandal, he keeps surging in his approval ratings and support for impeachment keeps dropping.
They say, inoculated by scandal.
From Andrew Johnson, who got impeached in 1868, no president has exactly enjoyed the notoriety of being impeached.
Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate affair just before he could be impeached, while Bill Clinton fought bitterly To avoid being convicted by the Senate in 1999.
But Trump, a veteran of scandals, comes into the ordeal uniquely ready.
After all, he's already written out allegations of sexual assault and other misconduct by two dozen women over the years.
He has withstood a two-year probe by a special prosecutor into whether he was wittingly or unwillingly getting election help from Russian agents.
The article goes on.
I just want to show you the language here.
He's withstood all the scandal.
He's somehow made it past all of that scandal.
Let's rewrite that more honestly.
A bunch of women have accused Trump of things that none of them have ever proved, despite decades of trying.
A bunch of bureaucrats tried to overturn the 2016 election and Democrats abetted this process by spending $32 million over two and a half years and they still had no evidence that Trump committed any crimes with Russia.
It's not that Trump has somehow miraculously survived all these scandals.
It's that the scandals were made up.
They had nothing.
They had nothing on the guy.
But of course, if Trump were a Democrat, the article would read very, very differently.
But I think articles like that, reactions like that from the mainstream media are why you're seeing those numbers drop, even among Democrats.
They just don't want the dishonesty.
All right, we've got to get to Hallmark going lesbian.
We've got to get to Megan Fox raising her children non-gendered and vegan.
And we will get to the dumbest article on the internet today.
First, I've got to say goodbye to our friends at Facebook and YouTube because we've got a whole lot more to get to.
We've got a few cultural stories here that tell us something about the nature of liberalism.
We've got so much important work to get to, but you've got to go to dailywire.com.
You get me, the Andrew Klavan Show, the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Walsh Show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
You get another kingdom.
By the way, the mailbag's coming up on Thursday, so get your questions in.
And you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Most important of all, especially as we get into the Christmas season, as we move into winter, because those Leftist Tears are going to freeze and they're going to turn to hail and sleet, and you do not want to be caught out without your Tumblr to catch all of them.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Hallmark has gone lesbian.
And it tells us something about liberalism.
It tells us something specifically about supposedly value-neutral liberalism.
What happened?
The Hallmark Channel on Sunday decided to reinstate an ad...
Featuring a same-sex couple getting same-sex married on the network.
So there's this wedding planning company named Zola, and they were featuring a same-sex marriage ceremony in the commercial.
And Hallmark Channel is very conservative, very traditional.
The whole audience is traditional, family values.
It's, you know, absolutely milquetoast, 1950s kind of values.
And so they said, we're not going to run this commercial of People redefining marriage.
And this created a big backlash, and they've since apologized.
Hallmark issued a statement.
They said, quote, Hallmark will be working with GLAAD, the gay and lesbian alliance against defamation.
They will run the commercial featuring these two women kissing and walking down the aisle.
Everybody's so happy on Zola.
They will better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands.
The statement goes on.
The Hallmark Channel will be reaching out to Zola to reestablish our partnership and reinstate the commercials.
Our mission is rooted in helping all people connect, celebrate traditions, and be inspired to capture meaningful moments in their lives.
Anything that detracts from this purpose is not who we are.
We are truly sorry for the hurt and disappointment this has caused.
And did Zola say, oh, thank you so much for putting our commercial back on?
No, they pushed the issue harder.
They said, we were deeply troubled when Hallmark rejected our commercials for featuring a lesbian couple celebrating their marriage.
And we are relieved to see that decision reversed.
We're humbled by everyone who showed support, not only for Zola, but for all the LGBTQ couples and families who express their love on their wedding day every single day.
What this shows us is that liberalism is not neutral.
So much of the debate we have going on right now in the conservative circles between the conservatives and the libertarians is over whether liberalism is neutral.
The libertarians tell us liberalism is neutral, it's a neutral playing field, and the conservatives can fight it out, and the leftists can fight it out, but at least we'll have neutral liberalism.
And what the conservatives are saying is liberalism isn't neutral.
Liberalism has a very specific and radical set of values.
Some of which we disagree with.
And so if we're playing on the playing field of liberalism, we're going to lose because we're playing by the other team's rules.
They make the rules and we will end up at their conclusions.
And the conservatives here are right.
The disagreement is over the definition of marriage.
In all places, everywhere on earth, throughout all of history, until about seven or eight years ago, people believed that marriage was between husbands and wives.
They believed that sexual difference had an important role in the definition of marriage.
And there are plenty of other important relationships that you'll have in your life, but they aren't marriage.
Marriage is a specific one.
Then we decided to radically redefine marriage at the level of the Supreme Court to include monogamous same-sex couples.
So it still has to be monogamous, but sexual difference goes out the window.
That's the disagreement that we're having here.
And the Hallmark Channel, more than any other channel on television, is this really traditional...
Normal, conservative, family values kind of...
Use whatever euphemism you want.
They're a conservative channel, and they're not allowed to be a conservative channel anymore because liberalism will not tolerate it, because liberalism is not neutral.
Okay?
And that is a dishonest premise to begin with.
I think about it even in...
In the schools, right?
In the schools, they say, public schooling is going to be completely value neutral.
We're not going to instill values on people.
We're just going to teach them the facts, okay, and teach them how to think, and then they can come to their own conclusions.
So we're going to get the Bible out of schools.
We're not going to permit people to pray in schools, and that's going to be neutral.
That isn't neutral.
Because what you're saying is atheism is neutral.
That's not the neutral position.
It's a very small minority view held by people throughout all of history, and And it's the opposite of theism.
It's the opposite of, say, a broadly Christian worldview.
You could call it the Judeo-Christian worldview.
You could call it the theistic worldview.
Whatever you want.
To believe in God and not believe in God are opposite opinions.
To say that not believing in God is neutral is to basically give the argument to the secularists from the beginning.
To believe that marriage has a definition and it involves sexual difference is the opposite of saying marriage does not involve sexual difference.
If we now have to play on the playing field of marriage has no sexual difference, then there's no disagreement.
The left has won before the debate already began, even began.
That is what we've seen the left do time and time again, and it's why there's a conservative reaction against this.
If we can't have the Hallmark Channel, If we're not allowed to express our completely mainstream opinion, our opinion that everybody has always held everywhere, if we can't express that on the Hallmark Channel, if we can't express it in Chick-fil-A, The one stalwart conservative fast food company, then the whole culture is lost.
It shows you that corporate America is just going to follow liberalism along as long as we accept liberalism to be neutral, which it is not.
Another great example of this, Megan Fox.
Megan Fox is raising her sons non-gendered, gender-undefined, and vegan.
She's raising her three sons that way.
And she just talked about this with People Magazine.
She has three boys, three, five, and seven years old.
And she says she's raising them to be, quote, who they were born to be.
She goes on.
It's about releasing control, right?
That's all it is.
It's allowing them to be who they are and relinquishing control because they were born to be who they are.
It's my job to support that process, not to get involved and micromanage and mold them into what I think they should be.
But this isn't about releasing control.
That's the lie of value-neutral liberalism.
What the left wants you to believe is we're not coercing you into anything.
We are simply letting you be and make your own decisions.
That's what the liberals believe.
That's what the leftists believe.
That's what the libertarian right-wingers believe.
Just back off and we're just letting you make whatever decision you want.
That's not really how it works.
It's just coercion in another form.
First of all, a parent's job is not to just let her kids run around and do whatever they want.
A parent's job is to raise the child, to educate the child, to teach the child right from wrong, to teach the child how to behave.
If you let the kid run around, that's just a dereliction of that duty.
But moreover, if you raise the kid and say, I'm I'm going to tell you you're neither a boy nor a girl and you can make your own decision.
Those are two forms of coercion.
One is coercing them to believe the truth.
One is coercing them to believe a fantasy.
Same thing with veganism.
If you cook food for a kid, you make him a turkey dinner, you are coercing the child to eat meat.
If you refuse to make meat for a kid and you have him eat kale and avocados for dinner every night, you are coercing the child to be a vegetarian.
But either way, this involves some coercion.
That's because all of education involves coercion.
That's because this liberal and libertarian and classically liberal and whatever term you want, fantasy, that we're just atoms floating in space and we can never have our preferences impinged upon, is a fantasy.
We live in society.
There is no such thing as the state of nature.
There is no such thing as wandering around without any ties to community.
You were born into a family.
That will involve some coercion.
You are educated.
Education is an intrinsically coercive action.
You live under a government.
The government will coerce you.
It's the definition of government.
And the question that conservatives are asking is, if there is going to be coercion, is it going to be toward reality or is it going to be toward unreality?
Are we going to force conservative TV channels to take on radical leftist ideology?
Or are we going to insist upon a more traditional definition of marriage?
You have to define your terms.
And when you define something, you are necessarily excluding other options.
We've got to get to the dumbest article on the internet today before we head out.
This is from the Huffington Post.
It's actually right on our theme.
It's on the same kind of theme.
Huffington Post, I am choosing not to have kids because I care about the environment.
It's by an author named Mariana Keene.
The article begins, many people believe it's their duty to have children, but for me, the opposite is far more accurate.
I feel it's my responsibility not to have children as part of a collective effort to respond to an unsustainable population size.
We've heard this story for decades and decades.
We heard it especially in the 1970s during the environmentalist movement really gaining steam during the Earth Day movement.
You had major scientists, some of whom are still working at Stanford University right now, who said within 10 years there will be mass starvation.
The population will just get too big.
Financial resources will not be there and people will die off in the millions every single year.
And then guess what happened?
Between 1970 and today, the world population has doubled.
Guess what else has happened?
Poverty has dropped dramatically.
We are richer and fatter than ever.
There are abundant resources.
We're doing great.
It was just debunked.
But it hasn't been debunked by these left-wing ideologues who are writing at the Huffington Post.
They say, the world population is growing by approximately 83 million people every year.
Due to a high birth rate and a falling death rate.
And this is having a devastating impact on the planet.
So first of all, in the West, the birth rates are falling.
I mean, if this woman is living in the West, if she's living in America, as it would appear she is...
Our birth rate is well below replacement levels.
So she not only can have kids, she definitely should have kids if she wants the population to even remain the same as it is.
But she doesn't.
It would appear she wants it to decline.
The conclusion of her argument, though, is if she's really worried about the populations that are exploding all around the world, she's saying that brown people in Africa shouldn't have kids.
She's saying that people in East Asia and South Asia shouldn't have kids.
She's saying ethnic minorities in the United States Outside of the United States should not have children.
That's a pretty weird argument.
It's a pretty awful thing to say.
But the left always does this.
They want to stop human flourishing.
They want to use less.
They want to work less.
They want to consume less.
They want to live less.
She writes, this is something I've been ruminating over for a long time, but the intense pressure I felt as a woman to have children has still etched away at my thoughts.
It's a pressure that is biological, and it comes from your conscience, and it comes from society, of course, and it comes from our tradition, and it comes from our nature.
You want to have kids.
The left does this all the time.
They want to decrease the human population through abortion, through euthanasia, through population control, through contraception.
You're seeing a theme here.
When you realize that we're spirits, not animals, when great forces are on the move in the world, to quote Winston Churchill, you realize there might be a spiritual component here.
If there's one political ideology that's constantly saying, Kill people before they're born.
Kill people when they get too old.
Kill people if you find them a little bit defective.
Don't have children.
Don't give birth.
Don't procreate.
That is probably a pretty wicked ideology, and it gets the moral situation exactly backwards.
Why would you not have children?
What she says is, I'm not going to have children to save the planet.
The planet's just a big rock.
The planet is here for us.
We're the ones who enjoy the beauty of the planet.
We're the ones who enjoy the beauty of this whole world.
Do you think that the deer are going to worry about population control?
Do you think that animals running around in the wild, that bunny rabbits are worried about population control?
Absolutely not.
Do you think the trees are worried?
No, the trees don't have fears.
It's us.
It's about us.
We are stewards of our environment.
And that is how we're going to lead.
I would say also, I'm just checking this writer's sex.
Ah, yes.
Would appear to also disprove Barack Obama's argument universally and across the board.
You know, just before we go, I have to get this other point in here.
In 2008, Barack Obama was running against John McCain and Sarah Palin.
It was a ticket of two men versus a man and a woman.
He didn't give it up then.
I think, if I had to draw one conclusion from all of this, I think that these leftists don't really believe the thing that they're saying.
I think maybe they have ulterior motives.
I think they might be getting the world wrong.
That's our show.
Come back tomorrow.
We'll have a whole lot more.
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 Ben Davies.
Director, Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Assistant director, Pavel Widowski.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Audio mixer, Robin Fenderson.
Hair and makeup, Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, McKenna Waters.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire, 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, they say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
It's also a good description of leftism.
What a coincidence.
We'll talk about impeachment and cancel culture and all the things the left keeps doing over and over on The Andrew Klavan Show.
