Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 16, 2020 - The Michael Knowles Show

49:48

Ep. 563 - The Judges Won’t Save Us

Gorsuch betrays conservatives, transgenderism is now a protected class, and CHAZ changes its name to CHOP. If you like The Michael Knowles Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: KNOWLES and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/knowles Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Originalism is dead and Neil Gorsuch killed it.
	Originalism.
	You know, we've heard this word so many times in recent years.
	The judicial philosophy of Antonin Scalia.
	So important when the great Scalia died that we replace him with an originalist judge.
	And we got an originalist judge and that judge was Neil Gorsuch and Neil Gorsuch just stabbed us in the back.
	And Antonin Scalia is rolling over in his grave.
	We got a terrible decision yesterday out of the Supreme Court, and it was all Gorsuch's fault.
	This was a 6-3 decision, so it was the three conservatives.
	It was amazing, because you would expect from everything we'd heard in the media that Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's second pick, would maybe be the squishy guy, but he wasn't.
	He was with the conservatives.
	He was with Clarence Thomas.
	He was with Sam Alito.
	Then you had Neil Gorsuch, who was supposed to be more conservative.
	He sides with the Swiss John Roberts and with the liberals to deliver a terrible decision on transgenderism.
	This was legislating from the bench.
	It was redefining sex to give credence to this whole crazy gender ideology now as part of the Civil Rights Act.
	It's hard to remember a worse decision than this.
	Worst of all, worst of all here, because this is going to have wide effect beyond the Civil Rights Act, beyond transgenderism.
	This is going to have effects on our whole judicial process and theory.
	Gorsuch defended his stupid opinion with the judicial philosophy of Antonin Scalia.
	So broadly speaking, what this judicial philosophy says is that we should interpret the words in laws to mean what they meant when they were written.
	And this is very difficult for the decision that we got yesterday because the whole gender theory that goes into this decision didn't even exist when the law was written.
	So there's no way to make that argument.
	This was a really, really major setback for President Trump.
	This was a major setback for the Constitution.
	This was a major setback for conservatives.
	And it was a warning, because we have relied on the judges, right?
	We have relied on the courts.
	And the message we got yesterday from Gorsuch is, the courts ain't gonna save us.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	We will get into this case.
	We will get into Sam Alito's excellent dissent.
	And we'll get into why this matters.
	Why does some random case about transgender employment that theoretically is going to affect like 12 people in the country, what does that mean for us?
	It means a lot.
	This is going to change our judicial culture, our legal culture, our interpretation of the Constitution.
	It's going to affect every business in the country.
	It's going to affect sports.
	Oh man, it's so bad.
	Have I mentioned that this is bad?
	Also, before we get to this very important case, I've got to thank our friends over at Rock Auto.
	Rock Auto, man.
	You know how much I love these guys because I don't know anything about auto parts.
	So I go to the auto parts store, the brick and mortar.
	They never have the part I need.
	Then they go online.
	They probably go to rockauto.com.
	They order the part that I need.
	Then they charge me double.
	I don't like that very much.
	Rockauto.com is so much easier than doing all of that.
	You don't need to get these crazy answers like, hey, is your Odyssey an LX or an EX? I don't know what my Odyssey is.
	Then, you know, they usually order the part online.
	So rockauto.com is a family business.
	It's been in business for 20 years, which is pretty much the whole history of online.
	Their catalog, super easy to navigate.
	Even for me, I don't know anything about cars.
	You always get the best prices on rockauto.com.
	They're reliably low, and they're the same for professionals and And do it yourself or so.
	Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	I really trust these guys.
	Go to rockauto.com right now.
	See all the parts available for your car or truck.
	Write Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S in there.
	How did you hear about us box?
	So that they know we sent you.
	The case before the Supreme...
	There were a number of cases.
	The big one is Bostock v.
	Clayton County, Georgia.
	That's how you're going to hear this decision referred to.
	In Bostock, the case revolves around this county.
	Clayton County firing Gerald Bostock for conduct unbecoming a county employee after he began to participate in a gay recreational softball league.
	So the question is...
	Can you discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual behaviors or if they're a man wearing a dress or something like that?
	Now, you might say, I don't want to discriminate against gay people.
	Yeah, okay, I don't think anybody wants to discriminate against anybody, but the question is, is there a law about this?
	Now, Congress in recent years has tried to pass laws to broaden the Civil Rights Act to protect people on the basis of their sexual preferences or on the basis of their sexual identity, meaning transgenderism.
	Those...
	Attempts have failed.
	Okay, so Congress has acknowledged that there is no current protection for that in the law.
	That's why they've tried to pass new laws, and they've failed because people don't want to protect that.
	It obviously leads to a lot of difficult questions.
	Are we now saying that a church can't?
	Can't fire people based on certain behaviors that maybe contradict their moral codes?
	Well, currently there are some religious protections.
	We'll see how long that lasts.
	But what about religious business owners?
	You know, people who practice their faith, their faith is integral to their business, but they're not a formed church.
	Now they're going to be forced to engage in behaviors that they deem immoral or that they deem objectively untrue.
	So that's why these attempts to pass this law have failed.
	There were other cases associated.
	Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda days after he mentioned that he's gay.
	RG&GR Harris Funeral Homes fired Amy Stevens, who is a guy, and then one day Amy Stevens shows up in a dress, and the funeral home says, look, we've got grieving families around here.
	We can't have this distraction of an obvious man wearing a dress.
	And so all those cases went up.
	We're actually going to speak very Very briefly at the end of the show with the lawyer who argued the Harris Funeral Homes case.
	So the question is, do protections on the basis of sex protect sexual preferences and sexual identity?
	You know, a good way to think about this, we talk about Title IX and girls' sports, you know, are boys allowed to play in girls' sports leagues or not?
	Well, Title VII is about employment.
	So, you've got protection on the basis of race, you've got protection on the basis of religion, you've got a lot of different protections, and you've got protection on the basis of sex.
	But does sex mean sexual preference, sexual behavior, sexual identity?
	No.
	I mean, the simple answer is no.
	Nobody, when this law was passed in 1964, thought that that's what it meant.
	The gender ideology that we now refer to as transgenderism didn't even really exist in 1964.
	Certainly not in the way that we think about it.
	So certainly not by any plain reading of the law.
	This was not protected.
	And yet, Neil Gorsuch came around and he said it is protected.
	So what was his argument?
	His argument is that Even though sex, you know, male and female, biology, even though that is a distinct category from...
	Sexual preferences or sexual identity, sure, those are distinct categories, but you can't get a sexual preference without reference to sex.
	You can't get a sexual identity without reference to sex.
	Meaning, if I am, you know, the big, bad, religious ink, and I want to not hire people who are practicing homosexuals, then I can't fire someone for being a homosexual without also firing him for his sex.
	I can't fire a guy.
	If you're a man and you're attracted to men and you're living with a man and you're doing all sorts of stuff with a man, I can't fire you for doing that unless I know that you are a man and therefore I'm discriminated on the basis of sex.
	This is a pretty weak argument.
	And Sam Alito, who's an actual conservative, explained why this is a weak argument in his excellent dissent.
	So he points out a great example in this dissent.
	You don't have to go read the whole thing, though I would recommend it.
	A great example is he says, okay, you've got a model employee at your company, right?
	And you love this employee.
	She's doing a great job.
	Man, she couldn't be a better employee.
	And then you, the boss, show up to the Christmas party and you meet the employee's wife.
	So you find out that she is a lesbian.
	And then the next day you go and fire her because you're a mean, bad, terrible guy.
	Question is, is it It's legal for you to do that.
	Well, in that case, as Sam Alito points out, it's pretty clear that you are not firing her for her sex because you already knew her sex when she was a model employee, right?
	It's not like she was hiding that she was a woman from you.
	You knew she was a woman and you gave her all sorts of promotions and you thought she was a great employee.
	You're merely firing her for engaging in this homosexual relationship, which, regardless of what you think about that and whether you think the employer's a mean guy, Is not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	Most of Alito's dissent, though, is actually not even about this question.
	Because, look, if you think that employers shouldn't be able to discriminate based on sexual preferences or sexual identity or whatever, fine, go ahead and pass a law about it.
	That's what we do here in America.
	That's what our republic is based on.
	Go persuade your fellow citizens and pass a law.
	But you can't pass a law because people actually don't want to change the law.
	So one robed lawyer in particular, Neil Gorsuch, a pretend conservative, a traitor, came around and said, I'm just going to rewrite the law.
	And the worst part about it was he did it in the name of originalism.
	He did it in the name of pretending to be reading the text as it would have been understood when the text was written.
	So most of Alito's dissent was actually about Scalia.
	And the reason it was actually about the judicial philosophy and defending Scalia and originalism is because the credibility of originalism is on the line.
	Originalism, interpreting the text to mean what it meant when it was written, is the creed of the conservative legal movement.
	Now it's been used to justify changing the very meaning of sex.
	The very meaning of sex.
	I don't want to sound hyperbolic here with Neil Gorsuch, but the guy was brought in to replace the most conservative member of the Supreme Court.
	He has now not only legislated from the bench, he has fundamentally redefined the fundamental aspect of our nature, which is sex.
	There is no way now that conservatives can view Gorsuch as anything but one of the worst jurists in the history of the United States.
	Not to put too fine a point on it.
	What has the conservative judicial movement gotten us?
	We've gotten a couple good decisions.
	We got Heller, which protected our Second Amendment rights.
	Citizens United, I guess, allows people to donate to political campaigns and allows businesses to donate to political campaigns.
	What else?
	We've got Obamacare, still.
	I was a conservative judge who gave us that.
	We've got a radical redefinition of marriage from the bench.
	We've not overturned Roe versus Wade.
	We've upheld it.
	We now have a fictional Civil Rights Act, right of men to wear dresses at work.
	What has the conservative judicial movement got us?
	I thought the judges were so important.
	What happened to the judges?
	There is one positive thing I can say.
	It's not even really positive, but it at least helps us understand this decision.
	Which is, the way we talk about the Civil Rights Act, the way Neil Gorsuch talked about the Civil Rights Act, is very similar to the way that we talk about the Constitution.
	That might tell us something.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, though, I've got to thank our friends over at NetSuite.
	You know, the last few months have been a little difficult for people who are running businesses.
	And I think they've taught a lot of people that being on top of your numbers is an absolute must.
	You need NetSuite by Oracle, the world's number one cloud business system.
	Finance, HR, inventory, e-commerce, everything you need all in one place.
	So you save time, money, and headaches.
	Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite gives you visibility and control.
	So you can manage every penny with precision.
	Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence.
	NetSuite surveyed hundreds of business leaders and assembled a playbook of the top strategies they're using as America reopens for business.
	I mean, this is actually a great opportunity, especially as we're trying to all pull ourselves out of this difficult few months.
	Get your free guide and give it a read.
	Seven actions businesses need to take now.
	Schedule your free product tour at NetSuite.com slash Knowles.
	Get your free guide.
	Schedule your free product tour right now at NetSuite.com slash Knowles.
	That's NetSuite.com slash Knowles.
	Let's say that you come down on this question and you say, look, sexual preferences, sexual behavior, sexual identity, surely, are not protected characteristics, alright?
	I should be able to determine if my employee is a man wearing a dress.
	Let's say you come down on that side of the equation.
	Let's say you come down on the other side and you say, no, I think it's outrageous.
	People should have protections for their sexual preferences and their behaviors and their identity.
	Men should be allowed to wear dresses at the office.
	And how dare you say otherwise?
	Let's say you come down on either side.
	I don't care.
	Surely, we can all agree that one robed lawyer on the Supreme Court should not be the one deciding that with his gavel for the whole country.
	I'm reminded of Scalia's dissent in Obergefell, the gay marriage decision, where he said, the question of marriage is not what primarily interests me.
	What I'm interested in is who rules me.
	Who rules me?
	Am I ruled by the Constitution?
	Am I ruled by some other law?
	Or am I ruled by some traitorous, backstabbing, robed lawyer named Neil Gorsuch?
	I hope it's the Constitution, but I don't know.
	This is the one thing I can sort of say, to put a button on this, about Gorsuch's opinion.
	He's writing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a similar way that people would write about the Constitution.
	And I've noticed that we do this a lot.
	We refer to the protections in the Civil Rights Act It's like they're almost another kind of constitution.
	And this is the thesis of a very popular book right now.
	I actually just got to the last chapter this morning on this book.
	It's very good.
	It's by Chris Caldwell.
	It's called Age of Entitlement, America Since the Sixties.
	Very important to read because basically the thesis of that book is that the Civil Rights Act and the tumult of the 1960s created a new parallel constitution and much of our political rancor is arguing between the old constitutional order of the late 18th century and the new constitutional order of the 1960s.
	One defense of Gorsuch, sort of, that I can think of is that he's telling us in this decision that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually much more radical than any of us want to believe it was.
	Because we all say, okay, we like the Civil Rights Act, we want to give civil rights to people, we don't want people to be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race, that's really what the Civil Rights Act was about.
	But then, was the law written in such a way that it went far beyond that scope And it took far more power than any people thought that they were giving when they were trying to address this very specific racial question.
	In the same way that Black Lives Matter isn't really about Black Lives mattering, is it possible that the Civil Rights Act isn't really about civil rights, at least not in the way that we're thinking about it, but it was rather a more radical leftward lurch of our constitutional order.
	Either way, either way.
	Huge blow to Trump.
	And it's not Trump's fault.
	We all thought Gorsuch was fine.
	Remember, we were all worried about Kavanaugh.
	We thought Gorsuch was the rock-solid, rock-ribbed judge.
	So I don't blame Trump for this at all, but it's a big blow because Trump is campaigning on the judges, right?
	That was a big part of the 2016 campaign.
	And now one of his judges ends up being one of the worst jurists in American history.
	Trump also has some more trouble coming down the pike.
	And I think this is because he's getting some bad advice from some of his advisors.
	So, you know, there have been these crazy riots.
	There's been the looting.
	There's been the coronavirus lockdown.
	And every time there's one of these incidents with a police involved killing, there's this impulse for the president to speak out about it, to give an opinion.
	The press were always asking questions.
	So there was this shooting in Atlanta.
	We went through it yesterday of a drunk driver who was being arrested for being a drunk driver.
	He then attacked the police, stole their taser, ran away, pointed the taser, fired the taser, and then the police discharged their weapons and killed him.
	President Trump was asked about this scene, and his take on it was similar to his take on other really dark-looking moments, you know, really dubious moments of interactions with the police and civilians.
	He says, very disturbing.
	I thought it was a terrible, I'm not going to compare things, but I thought it was a terrible situation.
	I studied it closely.
	I'm going to get some reports done today, very strong reports, and we'll have a little more to say about it tomorrow, but certainly it was very, to me, it was very disturbing.
	Very disturbing.
	It's very disturbing because shootings are very disturbing.
	I agree.
	Of course it's very disturbing.
	You can see the video of this guy getting shot.
	Even if he's a no-good, terrible guy, even if he's a criminal, even if the killing was justified, it's disturbing to watch a guy get shot.
	But does anybody think it wasn't justified?
	The police try to de-escalate the situation.
	They try not to use too much force.
	He was able to wrestle them off him because they weren't using very much force.
	They steal his weapon.
	They run away.
	He runs away.
	They still don't discharge their weapons.
	The guy then turns, aims at them and fires the taser gun.
	Then they have to discharge their weapons.
	Very sad.
	But it's not justified?
	The strongest argument I've heard, actually the only argument really I've heard as to how the cops could have gotten out of this situation without discharging their weapons is they could have let the drunk driver, now in possession of one of their weapons, just drive away.
	Because people say, well, they had his home address.
	They could have picked him up later.
	So now you're telling me the best argument you've got is go let the drunk man get in a car.
	That'll be safer for everybody.
	With one of the cops' weapons.
	I don't think so.
	And go home?
	By the way, most people keep their weapons at home.
	Everyone I know who has weapons keeps most of them at home.
	You're seriously saying that?
	No.
	Nobody's seriously saying that.
	Very sad situation, but clearly justified.
	And Trump, I just don't think he should be stoking this fire.
	I think he's getting some bad advice from people.
	Okay?
	And going into this election, you've got to be strong, especially when you've got former allies stabbing you in the back like Neil Gorsuch.
	You've got to be strong.
	There was another police officer who, he was not involved in a killing.
	He himself was shot in the head.
	He was paralyzed on June 1st.
	You probably haven't heard very much about him.
	Where are the people coming out saying that's very disturbing?
	I don't see very much of that.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	We'll get to what it means for law enforcement.
	But first, I've got to thank our friends over at Honey.
	You know...
	In the old days, back in, this was so long ago I can barely remember.
	You used to go shopping and you'd have to search for coupons.
	You'd say, okay, I'm buying a t-shirt.
	T-shirt coupons, you know, and then you go get 10% off and you use the code and it doesn't work.
	And you go back and it took too long.
	Come on, guys.
	Honey does that for you.
	Honey is PayPal's new money-saving shopping tool.
	Did you know that with Honey, you just go, it's in your browser, it automatically applies coupons to your cart.
	It's a way to save and get free gift cards to some of your favorite stores.
	Right now, our listeners can join, can head to joinhoney.com slash Knowles.
	Get 500 bonus gold points.
	And that's only if you use our special URL. I've been using these guys since before the Daily Wire existed.
	I've used them to, I mean, I'm trying to think of the last time I didn't use Honey.
	I use Honey for everything.
	I was just buying some clothing.
	I saved, I think it was like 25%, something like that.
	It's very, very good stock.
	I couldn't tell you.
	I probably saved thousands of dollars over the years on Honey.
	Go use it.
	Not using Honey is passing up free money.
	Add Honey to your computer or laptop for free at joinhoney.com slash Knowles.
	Get 500 gold points.
	joinhoney.com slash Knowles.
	This cop, Shea Mikolonis, was a Las Vegas police officer who was shot in the head during a protest that turned violent.
	They always say this.
	Suddenly turned violent.
	Mostly peaceful protest where they're shooting cops in the head.
	This happened on June 1st.
	He's paralyzed from the neck down.
	Obviously never going to be able to work again.
	He's lucky to be alive.
	He's not the only one.
	700 federal, state, and law enforcement, local law enforcement officers have had injuries during clashes with all those peaceful rioters, according to Justice Department data.
	700.
	Where are we going to see that that's very disturbing imagery?
	Where are we going to hear about that?
	The left is pushing an outrageous propaganda battle right now.
	I mean, you see it happening all the time because they call rioters and anarchists and communists peaceful protesters.
	We cannot give in, not even one little inch.
	There is a lot at stake here, folks.
	The conservative judge, quote unquote, just redefined sex from the bench, okay?
	The stakes are very high here.
	We cannot give an inch to the leftist narrative.
	What's happening around the country?
	Police are quitting, and they should quit, because they've got no backup whatsoever from any of the elected politicians, and they could have their lives ruined just for doing their job.
	Down in Florida, in Hallandale Beach, Florida, the entire SWAT team just resigned.
	They're going to remain on the force, but they just resigned.
	They resigned because their department and their elected officials aren't going to back them up.
	They sent a memo of grievances to Chief Sonia Quinones of the Hallandale Beach Police saying that, look, no hard feelings, but you're not going to back us up.
	We can't risk our lives like this and our livelihoods and our reputations.
	They're totally right.
	Now, luckily, there is some good news on the other side.
	Some people at least are going after some of the rioters and the criminals.
	The DOJ has charged $50.
	Of the peaceful rioters with crimes.
	A lot of these crimes include arson.
	It includes aiming a laser at a police aircraft.
	It includes tossing Molotov cocktails into law enforcement vehicles and the windows of stores.
	It includes toppling historically significant statues on federal land, right?
	So they've now charged 50 people Looking around at those riots, looks like there were more than 50 people doing bad things.
	So good.
	50 down, that's a good thing.
	50,000 to go.
	That's the situation that we're in right now.
	It's only going to get more intense through the election.
	And maybe even after the election.
	You know, they always say, don't worry about what's happening on campuses, because what's happening on campuses, it's just these silly snowflakes.
	When they get to the real world, things will change.
	I don't think so.
	I think actually the real world is acquiescing to the crazy snowflakes.
	And we had another incident on campus.
	There's a guy at Oklahoma State.
	His name is Chubba Hubbard.
	He's a football player, I take it.
	I don't know anything about Oklahoma State football.
	I don't know anything about Chubba Hubbard.
	But Chubba Hubbard was very upset because the coach for the team was photographed wearing an OAN t-shirt.
	You know OAN. I go on OAN all the time.
	OAN is a conservative news channel.
	President Trump loves OAN. He tweets about how much he likes it.
	Liz Wheeler is one of the hosts on OAN. You know we've had Liz Wheeler on this show.
	So he's wearing the t-shirt of a conservative news channel.
	And this player, this 21-year-old punk, Chubba Hubbard, Tweets out, quote, I will not stand for this.
	This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society, and it's unacceptable.
	I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things change.
	Good.
	I hope you don't.
	I hope he doesn't do anything.
	I hope his resignation from the team is not only accepted, but requested, because his behavior is outrageous.
	And we're now at a point in this country where 21-year-old punks can demand that their coaches get fired for wearing t-shirts that say, what, I like a conservative news channel?
	That could happen to any of us.
	Any person who mentions, oh, you know, I watched Fox News the other day.
	Oh, I watched OAN the other day.
	Oh, I watched The Daily Wire the other day.
	Right?
	It could happen to any of us.
	Of course, that's not really what happened, though.
	They refused to take a hard line on this.
	I thought they were going to fire the coach.
	They didn't do that.
	By the way, the kid, I don't even think he's American.
	He's a Canadian.
	He might also be American, but he grew up in Alberta, Canada.
	So you've now got this Canadian guy coming down and trying to get Americans fired for liking conservative TV channels.
	You got a kind of forced apology from the coach yesterday.
	This part was really humiliating.
	In light of today's tweet with the t-shirt I was wearing, I met with some players and realized it's a very sensitive issue with what's going on in today's society.
	And so we had a great meeting and made aware of some things that players feel like that can make our organization, our culture even better than it is here at Oklahoma State.
	And I'm looking forward to making some changes and it starts at the top with me and we got good days ahead.
	Well, excuse me, sorry, I just had to try to keep my morning coffee down watching that pathetic, pathetic example.
	Now, at least the coach didn't apologize for wearing the t-shirt of a conservative news channel.
	I guess then we'd all have to apologize, any of you.
	Anybody watching on the Daily Wire or listening on the Daily Wire or reading the Daily Wire would have to apologize like they did something wrong.
	But so fortunately he didn't go quite that far, but he said he's going to change and he realizes it's sensitive.
	What's sensitive?
	Wear the t-shirt.
	There's nothing sensitive about wearing that t-shirt.
	You don't need to change anything about wearing that t-shirt.
	What needs to change is this presumptuous punk trying to get you fired for having a political view that he disagrees with.
	Now, that presumptuous punk, for his end, did also sort of apologize in the second part of this video, which was much better than the first part of this video.
	I'll start off by first saying that I went about it the wrong way by tweeting.
	I'm not someone that, you know, has to tweet something to bring change.
	I should have went to them as a man, and I'm more about action.
	So that was bad on my part.
	But from now on, we're going to focus on bringing change, and that's the most important thing.
	Okay, until the last, like, three words, I actually really liked this.
	He's right.
	He shouldn't have sent that tweet.
	If he had a problem with the coach, he should have gone to the coach like a man.
	It's bad.
	That's on him.
	Okay, I actually, I give the kid credit for saying all those things.
	Not sure he wanted to say those things.
	Clearly someone was filming it, but at least he did it.
	He gets credit for that.
	But then at the end, he goes, we're going to make change.
	What change?
	That's the most important thing?
	No, the most important thing is for you to play football and maybe go to class a few times and get your degree.
	You're a student-athlete.
	Do that.
	Be a student.
	Learn things.
	Throw the ball.
	Then, when you graduate, if you want to run for the Senate, go run for the Senate.
	That's fine.
	These days, frankly, that kid is probably better than half the Senators, which is really unfortunate.
	But college football, college sports...
	It's not the place to do that.
	Not every aspect of society needs to be hopelessly politicized and ginned up to level 11.
	Not everything you do, not wearing a stupid t-shirt of a TV channel you like, needs to be a major political statement where you could lose your job for it.
	Okay?
	The way they've left this is basically at a truce.
	They should have left it if we wanted to actually have a decent effect on the culture where the coach was totally right and the kid was booted from the team.
	But that's probably not going to happen because we're living in a radical place.
	So radical that Chaz, the autonomous zone of Seattle, is now changing its name to CHOP, which really gives me a lot of French Revolution vibes.
	I don't know about you.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	We'll get to more radical proposals.
	But first, I got to thank you for, one, making my Michael Noles Show YouTube channel shoot way past Clavin.
	Because a lot of people watch this on the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
	Fine, whatever, that's great.
	Give Ben the views.
	But you've got to go subscribe to the Michael Knowles Show YouTube channel.
	So thank you for doing that.
	By the way, speaking of my friend Andrew Clavin and my friend Ben Shapiro, we're going to have a backstage on Thursday.
	So come check that out.
	And then, you know, go back to that Michael Knowles Show YouTube channel.
	And you will get bonus interviews, segments, breakouts.
	Two brand new interviews, one with my friend Maddie Kearns, and we've posted some interviews with her before, and with John Bursch.
	I'll play a little bit at the end of this show, but we will have the full interview with the lawyer who argued the case, this huge Supreme Court case that came out yesterday.
	We will have him on my YouTube channel.
	By the way, you know you're getting lies from the mainstream media, so get a Daily Wire Reader's Pass.
	It's usually three bucks a month.
	I'm going to, for you, just for you, my friend, my friend, Take that price down two-thirds.
	So it'll be 99 cents for your first month.
	You get a lot of in-depth analysis that you are certainly not going to get from the mainstream media.
	Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	Chaz, the autonomous principality of Chaz, which is that the autonomous principality of Chaz, which is that six block anarchist zone in Seattle, which is that six block anarchist zone in Seattle, stands for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, has changed its name to CHOP, which is a little more honest to me
	CHOP stands for Capitol Hill Organized Protest.
	Why did they change the name?
	I kid you not.
	They changed the name so that they could keep getting welfare checks.
	People familiar with the situation have said this was a big reason why they changed the name.
	Because if you're an autonomous state, an autonomous country, then you're not allowed to get welfare checks from other countries.
	I guess you could get foreign aid, which is sort of a welfare check from our country, and we give it to way too many people.
	But Probably Chaz wasn't going to get too much foreign aid.
	So they changed it to CHOP so they can keep getting their welfare checks and their food stamps and all the government goodies from the United States, all the while protesting the United States.
	They also were a little worried that by declaring themselves an autonomous country, it would give the federal government more of an opportunity to crack down on them.
	Whereas if they're just saying it's a protest, then the government won't crack down.
	Government should crack down.
	This has gone on too long, okay?
	But conservatives always play it slow.
	They play it soft.
	I'll give you an example.
	In the courts.
	The left says we're going to put up leftist judges who are going to give us leftist outcomes, and we're going to ask them case by case how they would rule, and we're going to get good leftists.
	Leftists never put up a judge and then accidentally get a conservative.
	Conservatives often put up judges and accidentally get leftists and liberals.
	Because we do it, we go so backwards.
	We say, okay, we're going to put up judges who, they're not conservative, but they're going to give us an outcome that is, you know, it's based on this other judicial philosophy, and we might not always like the outcomes, but it'll be good, and we actually can't ask them about any cases and how they would rule, but hopefully they'll be okay, and so anyway, let's hope everything works out for the best.
	And then you get David Souter, a turncoat, Republican-appointed judge who became a liberal.
	You get Sandra Day O'Connor, ditto.
	You get John Roberts, ditto.
	You get Kennedy, ditto.
	You get Neil Gorsuch, ditto.
	It happens time and time again.
	We don't use force.
	We get this radical movement like BLM, which is openly founded by Marxists.
	BLM, which is based on a lie, the lie of Ferguson, that Michael Brown was executed in Ferguson with his hands up saying, don't shoot.
	Completely contradicted by grand jury, by eyewitnesses, by black eyewitnesses, by the multiple autopsies, by everything.
	Still based on this lie.
	And some conservatives say, well, we should try to come to an understanding with it.
	No, there's no understanding.
	You're buying into the lie that BLM is about black lives mattering.
	It's not.
	You're buying into the lie that these are peaceful protesters.
	They're not.
	They're rioters who created their own autonomous country.
	You're buying into the lie that it's an organized protest.
	Go in there with force and stop them from occupying streets.
	We're now getting word that they're running an extortion racket on businesses in the area.
	That's not fair.
	We know that they're using unjust force on other people.
	We know that these rioters have been attacking people, burning down buildings, murdering people.
	Stop it.
	Stop allowing this to happen.
	Use force.
	No middle ground.
	Stand in the middle of the road, you're going to get hit by a truck.
	A lot more radicalism coming down the pike on other policies as well.
	Here's one proposal.
	This one, this might be the stupidest proposal I've seen in weeks.
	In weeks of many stupid proposals.
	Which is to reduce the work week to four days.
	Because Americans right now, you know, they're just too overworked.
	Well, we have thousands and thousands of people pouring out into the streets, just burning stuff because they've got nothing else to do.
	Well, you've got millions and millions of people who were thrown out of their jobs.
	Some people on the left, some geniuses, like Andrew Yang, think that the bigger problem in America is that we are overworked.
	Here's Mr.
	Yang's proposal for a four-day work week.
	Right now, our work week is getting longer, not shorter.
	And it's having a disastrous set of effects on millions of people where we have this mental health crisis that we talked about last week.
	We have this worship of work, workism.
	And we're sleep deprived.
	I mean, you can name it.
	They're like all these stacked effects.
	And it's getting worse now.
	Economists like Keynes projected we'd have a 15-hour workweek by now because we'd be so wealthy.
	And it turns out he was right about the level of wealth.
	That line was correct.
	But he obviously got the number of hours in the workweek very wrong because it's been getting longer, not shorter, here in the U.S. And Barack Obama actually said to me that we should be looking at a shorter workweek because firms aren't going to employ people in the same way that they have previously.
	So here's my tip off that this is a bad idea, is that Barack Obama is wrong about everything.
	And then my next tip off that this is a bad idea is that John Maynard Keynes, the economist, is wrong about everything.
	And then my third tip off that this is a bad idea is that Andrew Yang is wrong about everything.
	What they get wrong is they think it's bad for man to work.
	They think work is this awful punishment, and if we could cure work, if we could fix having to work, that would be so much better for human flourishing.
	And they're wrong.
	We were made to work.
	We were made to work.
	The earliest chapters of Genesis, we work.
	By the sweat of our brow, we shall earn our keep.
	Even before Adam was kicked out of the garden, he is working.
	He's gardening, you know, he's naming things.
	We have to do things.
	When you don't do things, you become a couch potato and you get depressed and you get a little radicalized maybe and you go out into the street and burn things.
	If anything, we need a longer work week, okay?
	But I think we can settle on the compromise of keeping the current work week we have and getting people back to work.
	Because a lot of the civil unrest, as it is called, a lot of the riots and the burning and the arson, I think is because we've told people that they can't work now for three months.
	Idle hands are the devil's playground.
	And it's no surprise to me that Barack Obama would be encouraging that kind of thing.
	A lot of other left-wing groups pushing this idea.
	NBC was pushing this idea that the four-day work week is what we need.
	It's not.
	I think part of the reason they're pushing it in some ways is so that they can keep the economy depressed until the election.
	But part of it is because they misunderstand human nature.
	And we can't permit that.
	We got CHAZ, now CHOP. We got CHOP not because people are overworked, but because they are underworked.
	I don't think those guys running CHOP right now are slaving away at the coal mines too often.
	We got this stuff.
	We got these riots because we are indulging vagrants and radicals.
	Some people need a stern talking to.
	A lot of people need a stern talking to.
	Like the people in CHOP. Like that student athlete.
	Like Neil Gorsuch in the conservative judicial movement.
	We need to get a little tougher, folks.
	Okay?
	The answer right now is not to go weak at the knees.
	There was a woman in CHOP, actually, who showed this perfectly.
	This woman, I want her to run for Senate.
	I don't know who she is.
	I don't know what her name is.
	I love her.
	She's inside the CHOP neighborhood.
	She's a black woman.
	She's talking to a white liberal woman.
	And this white liberal woman, presumably, before the cameras turned on, was espousing her stupid radical ideas.
	is.
	And then this young black woman was just slowly explaining to this white liberal woman why everything she thought is wrong.
	I know people don't like Trump.
	I understand that.
	But let me tell you something.
	If I had to pick between him and Joe Biden, I'm not voting in Joe Biden.
	These Democrats, and I'm sorry to say this, I'm not trying to be racist, but they hate black people.
	These are the same people who have fought to keep slavery in.
	These are the same people who built the KKK. These are the same people who hated us from the beginning.
	But all of that history has been torn away.
	People say, oh, there was this big switch.
	There was never a big switch.
	So the same Democrats who hated black people from the beginning are the same ones who hate us now.
	And they use our cards.
	How did Black Lives Matter turn into something about LGBTQ when blacks really don't support that?
	We're conservative.
	We're really not about that.
	Not only that, we don't support abortion.
	We're about working.
	This is the black culture.
	We ain't even about that.
	Not only that, we're not about feminism.
	Black women marry their husbands and respect their husbands.
	That's what we're on.
	We're not on this, oh, I do what I want.
	We don't do that.
	That's not our community.
	And you understand.
	I know you understand what I'm saying.
	We don't do that.
	But yet these people are hijacking our movement and the Democratic Party.
	They're trying to hijack ourselves.
	No.
	Be still my beating heart.
	Oh my gosh, when she gets to the sexual revolution and feminism, be still my beating heart.
	She makes a really great point here.
	I mean, I encourage you to watch, there are a number of videos of her.
	We don't have time to play the whole thing.
	She makes this really great point, which is white liberals and white leftist radicals are foisting a lot of radicalism on the black community, so-called, that really historically has no place there.
	Think about the LGBT movement, getting back to our Supreme Court decision earlier in the show.
	Don't forget, the way that we got gay marriage, meaning the radical redefinition of marriage from what it had never meant to now this new thing, we didn't get it through voting.
	Why didn't we get it through voting?
	They tried to do it through voting.
	Remember, they did Prop 8 in California.
	And part of the reason that the redefinition of marriage was defeated on that ballot initiative is because black voters overwhelmingly turned out against it.
	For many, many years, black voters did not support redefining marriage.
	They did not support the kind of radical sexual revolutionary leftism that you saw mostly from white activists.
	Same thing with feminism.
	I love when she goes, yeah, listen, white liberal ladies, your whole thing of like feminism's great and, you know, I'm going to do what I want and we're not going to have any sort of respectful relations between the sexes.
	We don't do that.
	That's not what we do.
	And her point is well taken.
	I don't know if it's well taken by the white liberal lady, but it is well taken by everyone else.
	This point she makes on abortion.
	It is true, but black women are disproportionately likely to have abortions now.
	But that is by design.
	There, the, the abortion movement that began in the early 20th century in earnest specifically targeted black communities.
	There is a reason why Planned Parenthood disproportionately sets up shop in black communities.
	There has been a plan.
	Okay.
	And I, I, what this woman is recognizing, she says, this is bad.
	We should not, I don't, we don't want to be killing our children.
	This is a bad idea.
	This has been bad for our community.
	A little tough talk goes a long way.
	Trump made this point in the 80s.
	He took out a whole ad in the New York Times, I think it was, in the Times or the Post, or maybe both, where he said, he was actually criticizing Reagan's foreign policy, and he said, you got to get tough.
	A little bit of toughness goes a long way, okay?
	it solves a lot of problems.
	Now is not the time for conservatives at the federal, state, or local, at the legislative, executive, or judicial level to go soft.
	We are at a fever pitch right now, and it's going to get even tougher through November.
	Do not go soft.
	Buckle down.
	This is the fight.
	And every time we lose one of these episodes, we cede that ground very likely forever, at least for the foreseeable future.
	That's why this ruling from the Supreme Court was so devastating.
	We sat down for quite a while with my friend John Birch, who was the lead lawyer on the Harris Funeral Home case.
	We sat down with him yesterday.
	Here's just a quick clip of that.
	You can see the rest of it in my YouTube channel.
	The point, I guess, of that case is that there's a conflict between traditional sexual protections and gender ideology, meaning if you've got protections on the basis of sex, then that could be interpreted to protect women from, say, men interfering in their institutions.
	But if you interpret sex to mean sexual identity— I mean, it seems like we can't have two standards running against one another forever.
	No, you can't.
	And you can bet that activists are going to take this ruling and try to apply it in the Title IX context and in other cases.
	For those of your listeners who aren't familiar with some of that litigation, there's a number of cases pending.
	But the first one, the one that's farthest along in the federal court system, is in Connecticut.
	Where three women sued because two men identifying as women have won 15 state track and field titles in the girls' division over the last two seasons.
	Now, shocker there, that when boys are allowed to run against girls, they typically win.
	And when they went to Title IX officials, they were told that girls have the right to participate, but not the right to win.
	Now, no one who enacted Title IX as kind of the penultimate law to ensure equal opportunity for women and girls in sports would have ever thought that's what Title IX meant.
	And yet, under the court's ruling today, that's exactly where we are.
	So now this question of sex is all of a sudden in question.
	Which no one would have imagined when these statutes were passed.
	And what's so tragic about this is that in real life, you don't see very many cases at all of businesses or schools or anybody else using their ideas about marriage and sex to punish people.
	It's always the other way around.
	Activists take these laws, they weaponize them, and then they use them to punish anybody who has a different view.
	And we should all be able to agree that biology is not bigotry and believing that a man based on physiology, biology can't change is not discrimination.
	And similarly, that marriage between man and one woman is not discrimination.
	In all other areas, our culture purportedly embraces diversity.
	But in these areas, people are continually trying to shut down those views.
	And this court decision is only going to add to that conflict.
	Biology is not bigotry.
	That is a very good line because one thing I've noticed today is you see a lot of left-wingers, and frankly even some people who would call themselves on the right, saying, oh, who cares about this?
	You know, I'm sorry for you that now you can't discriminate against homosexuals and transgender people, but get with the program.
	It's 2020.
	Stop being so hateful.
	Stop being so bigoted.
	What are we supposed to say to accusations like that?
	Well, they love to pull out the hateful and bigoted thing because that gets people to their opinion and it also forces others who are worried about public recriminations to just be silent when they really shouldn't be.
	Despite what the Supreme Court said today, it said in Obergefell that people who hold the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman is honorable and has been logical and based on sound principles for thousands of years.
	Likewise, someone who believes that sex is immutable and based on physiology.
	That's a common sense, science-based proposition.
	Don't even get me into the left and how they embrace science while rejecting science at every step of the way.
	When it's convenient.
	When it's convenient.
	So what we need to do is do a much better job explaining to the rest of society, the rest of culture, why we hold those beliefs.
	Why men who are born men remain men.
	The same for women.
	Why marriage is between one man and one woman.
	And when we can communicate the logic behind those ideas, People will hopefully start to understand that we come from those positions out of sound, reasonable thinking, out of natural law principles, out of science and biology, and ultimately what's best for every human individual.
	That if you hold those beliefs, it's all about protecting human dignity, not about rejecting it.
	And so we have to just dismiss those who malign those views as being hateful and bigoted Because it's their views and their attempt to shut down everybody from talking about this in the public square that is the real hatred.
	Biology is not bigotry.
	Except now, according to the Supreme Court, according to the conservative judge who replaced Antonin Scalia, it is.
	Big setback.
	Very tough time for conservatives.
	And with judges like that, you have to wonder, what are we conserving?
	And how much longer will there be anything to conserve?
	Lots of important questions as we head into November.
	And as we head into tomorrow, we'll have a lot more in the meantime.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	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.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Supervising producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
	Assistant director, Pavel Widowski.
	Editor and Associate Producer, Danny D'Amico.
	Audio Mixer, Robin Fenderson.
	Hair and Makeup, Nika Geneva.
	Production Assistant, Ryan Love.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
	We'll get a whole lot of that and much more.

▲