Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists (except for all the times he’s condemned white supremacists), a leftist TV host calls presidential debates “a threat to black life,” and a professor is forced to apologize for liking college football.
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
Can you believe Donald Trump won't disavow white supremacists?
It's shocking.
It was so easy, and he just couldn't do it.
He just refused.
In case you missed the debate, this is the biggest story from that whole debate the other night.
Here is just a little taste of President Trump.
I don't even want to play it.
Here is just a little taste of President Trump, that racist, refusing to condemn white supremacists.
Racism is evil.
And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal.
We are equal in the eyes of our Creator.
We are equal under the law.
And we are equal under our Constitution.
Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
How many times do I have to reject?
I've rejected David Duke, rejected David Duke.
I've rejected the KKK, the Ku Klux Klan.
From the time I'm five years old, I rejected them.
Now, I have been asked this question so many times.
I have rejected it so many times.
Oh, wait a minute.
Sorry, my mistake.
I guess he's condemned white supremacy and racism a zillion times.
Huh.
I guess the media is just lying about it.
I wonder what else they're lying about.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Gosh, those people, those editors at the news organizations, they might need to hire some new people because it looks like their reporters are lying, just lying right through their teeth about the president.
And hiring can be very, very difficult.
That's why I always prefer to use ZipRecruiter.
You see, ZipRecruiter does not depend on candidates finding you.
ZipRecruiter goes out, finds the candidates for you.
ZipRecruiter's technology identifies people with the right experience for your job and actively invites them to apply, which is why you should try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Knowles.
That is how Monica found Lamont Jenkins.
She said that ZipRecruiter sent Lamont's profile to her around five minutes after she posted her job because he was such a great match for the role.
Through ZipRecruiter, Monica's company has hired everyone from accountants to project managers to field scientists, but Monica's not the only employer who loves ZipRecruiter.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within, what, the first month, the first week?
No, the first day.
See for yourself as ZipRecruiter makes hiring faster and easier.
Try it now for free.
That is for free, totally zip zilch, not a free, at ZipRecruiter.com slash Knowles.
That is ZipRecruiter.com slash Knowles.
So my favorite comment from yesterday from Sean Murphy.
Democrats say a 19-year-old who committed double murder should not be executed because his brain isn't fully formed.
Democrats also say 16-year-olds should vote.
I know, this is the big issue.
There's always this contradiction here with the Democrats, which is the Democrats focus on consent, consent, consent rights.
That's the only moral standard they have with consent.
And yet, they're trying to extend consent over voting, over Over sexual matters, over gender identity, to people who are below the age of consent.
I mean, even beyond the voting, sure, they're saying a 25-year-old or 40-year-old can't be executed for murder because when he was 19 his brain wasn't formed, but a 16-year-old can vote, and a 5-year-old can choose his own sex.
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Lots of false information going around, notably on this issue of race, where it's the same old trick they use against every Republican that used it against Donald Trump, even though he's condemned white supremacy a zillion times, including in the debate.
But then I guess what he had some issue where he didn't then totally condemn this one group that we're being told is a white supremacist group.
Joe Biden's already got an attack ad out about it.
Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland?
Sure, I'm willing to do that.
Are you prepared to specifically do it?
I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing.
So what are you saying?
I'm willing to do anything.
I want to see peace.
Then do it, sir.
Say it.
Do it.
Say it.
You want to call him?
What do you want to call him?
Give me a name.
Give me a name.
White supremacists and white supremacists.
Stand back and stand by.
The proud boys, the white supremacists, I mean, the Proud Boys, they're the successor organization to the Ku Klux Klan, right?
They're a bunch of skinhead neo-Nazi white supremacists, right?
Right?
That's what I've been told by the mainstream media, aren't they?
It turns out they're not.
It turns out they're not.
And do you know how I figured that out?
A simple Google search.
And then the first article that comes up is USA Today.
So I click on USA Today.
They're left-wing, but they're a little more balanced, obviously, in the New York Times or something like that.
And I see right there at the top that the Proud Boys have ties to white supremacy.
Okay, well, all right, they're white supremacists.
That's it, right?
But luckily, I didn't stop there.
Luckily, I read two paragraphs down where I found a fact that was very confusing to me.
Apparently, the leader of the Proud Boys is a guy named Enrique Torrio.
And Enrique Torrio is an Afro-Cuban.
He's a black Cuban.
And then Enrique Torrio, the Afro-Cuban leader of the alleged white supremacist group, has come out and said that there are, quote, long-standing regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist, or violent activity.
This, according to the group's lawyer, Ronald Coleman.
He's also a spokesman, it turns out, for the Proud Boys.
Now, Tarrio, the leader, the Afro-Cuban leader, says through Coleman, quote, We do not care what color you are or what your background is.
If you love America, we consider you a brother.
And then the group condemned racism, fascism, communism, and socialism.
So, okay, we got the white supremacist crowdboys run by an Afro-Cuban condemning racism, fascism, communism, and socialism.
Then you've got the left.
Then you've got the left.
BLM, in particular, BLM, using explicitly racist language and forget condemning communism and socialism, openly embracing it.
The leader of BLM went on television, Patrice Colores, and said, we are trained Marxists.
Once again, I should have known the left is accusing the right of the very thing that the left is doing and the thing that the right is not doing.
Look around the country at the destruction, the violence, the looting, the arson, the statues toppling down.
Is that being done by white supremacists?
I don't think so.
I don't see that.
Show me.
Show me them.
I don't see that.
I see Antifa.
A lot of those guys are white, but I don't think they're white supremacists.
I think they're anarchists and communists.
I think they're leftists.
A lot of it's being done by BLM. I don't think those guys are white supremacists.
All of that is being done with the encouragement of elected Democrats.
It's just a lie.
It's just another lie.
Now, I had a hunch about this.
Because I remember, I followed the Proud Boys a little bit.
I don't really know the group very well.
But I remember Gavin McGinnis founded it.
Gavin McGinnis, a comedian.
He's a little edgy, right?
He gets in trouble.
I think, I don't know.
I only know him a little bit, but I've never known Gavin to be a white supremacist.
And Gavin's not running in anymore.
It's this other fellow, Torrio.
And then I thought, because I've seen it at different, you know, big political rallies, and there's a left there and a right there, I have seen some Proud Boys, and the thing that's a little weird when you see the Proud Boys, if you're told they're white supremacists, is you see a lot of black Proud Boys, and you see a lot of Hispanic Proud Boys, and then it turns out their leader is an Afro-Cuban guy.
Just another lie.
Speaking of Hispanic guys, by the way, I think I know why the left is pushing this lie.
Because there was a poll that came out after the debate.
This was a poll done by Telemundo.
So for a Spanish-speaking audience, two-thirds of the Telemundo audience that was watching that debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, two-thirds thought Trump won the debate.
Now my view of this was that that was because these people didn't speak English.
They were just looking at body language or something like that.
But I think that's actually a little unfair.
I don't think anybody won the debate.
I think it was more or less a draw.
I thought Trump scored better points in terms of the issues.
But because Chris Wallace kept bailing out Joe Biden, I didn't think it was such a clear win.
But the Spanish-speaking audience thought that.
Only 34% of the Telemundo audience thought that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump.
That's pretty interesting.
I don't know what that means in terms of how they were watching the debate, but I do know what it means in terms of how Democrats are watching that poll.
Democrats are very afraid that President Trump is making some inroads with Hispanic voters, possibly even black voters, two groups that the Democrats rely on.
Don't forget, Donald Trump doesn't need to win a majority of these groups.
He's just got to make inroads to crack the left's monopoly.
And it looks as though he might be doing this.
The left has never understood how they thought when Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015 and said, we're going to end illegal immigration because drug cartels are sending rapists and murderers across our border and we're not going to do that.
And some people are probably good people, but there are a lot of bad people crossing the border.
They said, oh yeah, he's a racist.
Did you see that, Hispanic Americans?
He's a racist.
He's saying that drug cartels are sending rapists and murderers.
And then a lot of Hispanic Americans turned to them and said, he's right.
He's right.
Obviously, they're doing that.
And we don't support rapists and murderers just because of, what, our skin color or something or the language we speak?
How dare you say that?
How dare you do that?
And this is the same issue that's gone on as the Democrats have taken the black vote for granted.
President Trump goes out.
He makes a pitch.
He says, what have you got to lose?
What have you got to lose?
Well, it seems that that is making some inroads.
Will that translate in November?
I don't know.
But the Democrats are certainly going to continue to try to gin up those racial tensions.
What they're now saying is that debates themselves.
This is how I know they think President Trump did fairly well at the debate.
Or they're at least afraid of how he'll do it the next debate.
Because now we're being told by the left that debates themselves are a, quote, threat to black life.
Threat to black life.
That is some hysterical stuff.
I don't even know what that could mean.
You know what else I don't know?
I don't know...
How to fix my own car.
I don't know it very well.
But luckily, Rock Auto makes the process much, much easier.
RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
Best of all, prices at RockAuto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
RockAuto.com catalog is unique, remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands, specifications, and prices you prefer.
They have a great selection, they have reliably low prices, and my favorite part of it, even I can understand the catalog.
And then you don't need to go into the brick and mortar, and then they don't have your part, and then they go online probably to RockAuto.com.
Order it, charge you twice as much.
You don't have to do any of that.
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 that we sent you.
That is rockauto.com.
Makes the process so easy that even I can do it.
Debates themselves.
We are now told are a, quote, threat to black life.
This is from Melissa Harris Perry.
She had a show on MSNBC. She's been a prominent left-winger for some time.
She was responding to someone who said if the presidential debates are just going to give Trump a platform to mobilize white supremacists, cancel them.
Cancel the white supremacists.
I guess they're talking about the Proud Boys.
But as we just said, look, the Proud Boys, they might be no good, terrible, rotten, dirty, horrible people.
I don't know.
I don't know anything about the Proud Boys.
But here's what I do know.
By definition, they can't be white supremacists.
Right?
Because, like, their leader is not a white guy.
And a lot of their members are not white guys.
And they explicitly condemn racism and white supremacy.
So at least I know that.
So I know that tweet is a lie.
And then Melissa Harris-Perry responding says, Yes, cancel them.
The debates are now a danger to public safety and a threat to black life.
Cancel the debates.
This is what you hear a lot now from the left.
They say...
It's not that I need to shut you up because I can't bear to hear some hard truth that you're saying, or I can't bear to refute some lie that you're saying.
You're saying your speech is a threat to my life.
It makes me unsafe.
I need a safe space.
That's where safe space comes from.
How is the debate a threat to anybody's life?
Well, because it's going to gin up violence, right?
President Trump's ginning up white supremacist violence, except all the violence of the last six months has been from the left.
All of it.
Look around the different cities.
Minneapolis, Portland, New York, D.C., Chicago, always Chicago, Los Angeles, every, all over the place.
That's not right-wing violence.
It's not conservative violence.
It's not white supremacist violence.
It's not any of that.
It's all leftist.
It's all these left anarchists who are being encouraged by the Democratic Party.
When Joe Biden comes out and says, we can't take four more years of this, he's saying, vote for Trump, don't elect me, and we're going to burn your country to the ground for another four years.
That is a threat.
That is a threat.
Maybe that's the issue.
Maybe Melissa Harris-Perry is worried that Joe Biden is ginning up his base, which is actually committing the violence.
All I know is that this white supremacist thing, this idea that America is a white supremacist country, is a bizarre fantasy.
It's like a national fetish.
It's so weird and it's so obviously contrary to reality.
We have one law in this country that does discriminate on the basis of race.
That law is called affirmative action that discriminates on the basis of race, but it gives an advantage to people who are black or who are Hispanic, and it gives a disadvantage to people who are white or Asian, most notably in the college application process, which is why Asian students have been suing Harvard and Yale.
This is why...
The Department of Justice is investigating places such as Yale for this very matter.
That's not white supremacy.
That's the opposite of white supremacy.
Show me the white supremacist law.
Point to it in the books.
Where is it?
Doesn't exist.
College campuses are probably the craziest place for this sort of thing.
And things just got even crazier.
There is a college professor, a guy named Matthew J. Mayhew, who just wrote a piece about how he likes college football.
It's called Why America Needs College Football.
Brings us together, distracts us, you know, we can fight over silly things like football teams, and we can all just sit down, maybe grill up some steaks, crack a cold one, be Americans again, right?
Well, he now has to apologize for that.
Apparently that was white supremacist.
College football is white supremacist.
Who knew?
Apparently it is.
From Inside Higher Ed.
Matthew J. Mayhew apologizes for an article that he recently wrote for Inside Higher Ed and describes beginning a long process of anti-racist learning.
Anti-racist, by the way, is the scariest Orwellian term that has been invented since anti-fascist.
Ha!
Because, obviously, it doesn't mean what it pretends to mean.
It means the opposite.
America doesn't need college football.
I was wrong.
And even worse, I was uninformed, ignorant, and harm-inducing.
I am sorry for the hurt, sadness, frustration, fatigue, exhaustion, and pain this article has caused anyone, but specifically black students in the higher education community and beyond.
I'm struggling to find the words to communicate the deep ache for the damage I have done.
I don't want to write anything that further deepens the pain experienced by my ignorance related to black male athletes in the black community, all capital B, by the way, at any time, but especially in light of the national racial unrest.
Unrest.
That's another Orwellian term, isn't it?
Unrest?
You mean violence.
You mean BLM violence burning down cities?
Yeah.
I also don't want to write anything that suggests that anti-racist learning is quick or easy.
No, it ain't quick or easy.
Man, they're going to torture you until you finish it and figure it out.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Here's my favorite line.
I learned that black men putting their bodies on the line for my enjoyment.
See, this is the new thing because they're all materialists, so it's all about black bodies, not black people.
They don't have souls, according to the left.
They just have bodies.
And any time you have a body and it's used in sports, for instance, that's evil because there could be violence to the bodies.
I learned that black men putting their bodies on the line for my enjoyment is inspired and maintained by my uninformed and disconnected whiteness.
And, as written in my previous article, positions student-athletes as white property.
White, lowercase w.
Black, capital B, white, lowercase w.
This is obviously really pathetic, really racist, really condescending, and really, really wrong stuff.
All because some wimp, weirdo, creep professor...
Made the completely obvious statement that college football is fun.
He expressed his preference for college football.
You want to see how crazy this national mania over white supremacy has become?
Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor Patrick Bateman over here in California, just signed legislation yesterday that will establish a nine-member state task force to study slavery and explore the potential avenues for reparations for black people.
The law does not say should we or should we not have reparations, take money from some people and give them to black people today, some of whose ancestors were slaves, maybe, many of whose ancestors were not slaves, some of whom descended from slave owners like Kamala Harris or Barack Obama.
It's not should they or shouldn't they.
It's how much and to whom.
Reparations for slavery in California.
I don't know how many of you are history buffs.
A lot of people are missing the greatest irony of this California reparations bill.
The reparations argument is completely ridiculous.
But a lot of people are missing the biggest irony here.
California was a free state.
Was not a slave state.
Was a free state.
Actually, the entrance of California into the Union was one of the causes of the Civil War.
California entering the Union, the Compromise of 1850, is a moment where the United States is grappling with the fact that slavery is untenable because you're always in this tense situation where you have to introduce a slave state and a free state, both at the same time.
You can't have these two things running forever and ever.
Ultimately then, by the end of that decade, you have the Civil War, which as far as I can tell was pretty good reparations for slavery.
National tearing apart 700,000 people, Americans, dead, grappling with this issue, grappling with this problem.
And then, obviously, plenty of racially discriminatory laws that came up, Jim Crow, right, that actually were racially discriminatory on behalf of whites in certain areas.
And then, after, to rectify that, you had laws that tried to...
And this is Sandra Day O'Connor describes it this way.
You had to discriminate back on the other side to rectify that.
But now, all of that, none of that, all of that, including the Civil War, means absolutely nothing.
Because California is going to take money from some people and give it to other people?
How are you going to do that?
Let me just give you one of the ironies of history that shows how crazy this reparations issue is.
The first...
Officially recognized slave owner of an arbitrarily declared slave for life, a guy who would be declared sort of the first slave owner in the system that became American slavery, was a black guy.
He was a black Angolan named Anthony Johnson.
His slave, who a court just declared, you're a slave for life, not because you committed a crime, not for some offense, not for debt, you're just a slave now, you're his property for life, John Kasor.
Another black guy.
Do the descendants of Anthony Johnson, the slave owner, do they get reparations because of the color of their skin?
What about the descendants of John Kayser?
Do they, can they go back to the descendants of Anthony Johnson and say, give me money because your great-great-great-great-granddaddy owned my great-great-great-great-granddaddy?
Or is it going to just be based on race?
If it's based on race, that's going to be pretty weird.
Because There's an irony when Barack Obama became the first black president that he wasn't descended from any American slaves.
His father is from Kenya.
He was actually descended from a slave owner on the white side of his family.
Is Barack Obama entitled to reparations?
Does Barack Obama need reparations?
It seems like he's doing pretty good.
This is not to say that there isn't historical injustice.
It's actually to say the opposite.
There's always historical injustice.
There's injustice right now.
I'll give you one example.
We're killing a million babies a year.
Obviously, they won't have ancestors to receive reparations.
Would that they did.
Wouldn't that be so wonderful?
The problem here is not a representation of historical injustice.
The problem is a complete misunderstanding of what the world is, right?
This is a fallen world.
It's not perfectible.
You cannot, you actually cannot make up for every injustice in history.
Couldn't possibly be done.
There is a way to get out of this cycle.
The way to get out of this cycle, this is going to be the most shocking thing of all, is Christianity.
Because the Son of God comes down to earth and dies for your sins and gives you redemption.
That is the whole point of Christianity, is to solve this problem that American leftists, Western leftists now, have rejected, right?
They've totally rejected that religion.
And so all they have is the injustice.
All they have is the sin, the original sin, as we would call it.
People call slavery the original sin.
I call original sin the original sin.
But all you have is that, right?
All you have is this sense that we are fallen, we are broken, this world is not perfectible.
But when you get rid of the Christianity from the civilization, there's no redemption.
There's no way out.
There's just burning the whole damn thing to the ground.
And that is, at bottom, the philosophical issue and the theological issue and the anthropological issue that we've been struggling with for not just the past six months, but since our sense of religion has ebbed from our society.
And it's not going to get better until we recover that.
A reparations bill isn't going to do a damn thing.
Now, the good news.
I do have some good news here.
Even as the left has totally rejected redemption.
I do have some good news.
People are beginning to turn on the left.
Minnesota, right now, there was a poll, the NPR News Star Tribune KARE 11 Minnesota poll was just released on Saturday about views on Black Lives Matter, an avowedly Marxist organization that exacerbates this very issue we've just been talking about.
People were asked, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement?
46% of poll respondents said they have an unfavorable view compared to 42% who say favorable.
More people dislike the BLM movement now than like it.
I wonder why.
Turns out when you burn down people's cities, they don't like you very much.
They don't think that's particularly productive.
Doesn't help anybody, obviously.
BLM says we need to defund the police.
Four out of five black voters say we should not defund the police.
There's a chasm opening up here between what the ideologues think people should want and what people actually want.
One One statistic has me a little worried, though.
I like those statistics.
I like that the Hispanic viewers of Telemundo thought Trump won the debate.
I like that more people in Minneapolis and Minnesota are turning against BLM than support BLM. But there's a number that worries me.
According to Deadline, the debate the other night drew just 27.3 million viewers, which is a 36% drop from 2016.
Why does this worry me?
This worries me because...
I fear that there will not be the same enthusiasm to go out there and beat Joe Biden as there was to beat Hillary Clinton.
People tuned in in 2016 because Hillary Clinton is so, so, so unlikable.
She is a liar.
She's a cheat.
She's a crook.
She's just...
People have not liked this woman for a very long...
Ever since she tried to destroy our healthcare system the first time.
There were bumper stickers in the 90s.
It said, impeach Clinton and her husband.
Remember that?
They don't feel that way about Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is a joke.
He's a punchline.
He's a doofus.
He's a plagiarist.
He's a liar.
He's a cynic.
Sure.
But he's just much, much more likable.
And if people are not willing to tune in to watch Trump smack down Biden, right, in the way they were willing to smack down Hillary, they might not be willing to go show up.
And by the way, we're still litigating the 2016 election.
This hasn't ended.
This is all just one long process here.
The Democrats still haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election.
They cheated.
The administration spied on President Trump's campaign.
And then those bureaucrats, those holdovers, those Democrats, tried to launch a coup to overturn the election.
And a lot of this came down to James Comey, the former FBI director, who our pal Senator Ted Cruz Absolutely slammed on the hill yesterday.
This investigation of the president was corrupt.
The FBI and the Department of Justice were politicized and weaponized.
And in my opinion, there are only two possibilities.
That you were deliberately corrupt or woefully incompetent.
And I don't believe you were incompetent.
This has done severe damage to the professionals and the honorable men and women at the FBI because law enforcement should not be used as a political weapon.
And that is the legacy you have left.
So which is it?
Is Jim Comey incompetent or corrupt?
Obviously, obviously, it's the latter.
Jim Comey, for all of his many flaws, does not appear to be a stupid man.
It is not possible that the amount of lies, the amount of cover-ups, the amount of illegal activity that took place during and around the 2016 election, just whoopsie-daisy passed without his notice.
That is not credible.
You saw during the debate, President Trump said, we're going to get to the bottom of what happened.
And by the way, by the way, Joe, you signed off on a lot of those activities and you could see Joe Biden, he didn't know how to respond to that.
He kind of, he didn't know how to respond to a lot of things, but he didn't get one of his barbs and he just kind of let that one go.
We will be speaking to Senator Ted Cruz.
You know, I speak to Senator Ted Cruz a lot because we have this show together verdict, but I had Senator Cruz come over to my channel.
We filmed an interview.
It will be available on the Michael Null Show YouTube channel.
Look, I didn't want to talk about all that really important stuff about whatever, the Supreme Court and the Constitution, whatever.
I had something else that I needed the senator to talk to me about, which is I needed him to teach me how to write a book with words.
You know I'm writing a book with words right now, but it's much more difficult than writing a book without words.
So the senator came over, gave me a couple lessons.
Head on over to the YouTube channel and check it out.
In the meantime...
Get the Senator's book, One Vote Away, How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History.
I gotta tell you, my big plug for this book is that most politician books are incredibly stupid, and they're all like, it's like the courage to be.
The courage to...
Have courage.
The leadership of leading politicians and leading and being a leader.
And they're all just dumb and they don't even write it themselves usually.
They didn't read it themselves and they're just not worth reading.
The Senator's book, very much worth reading.
I do know that he did this book.
I know it because these are his stories.
They're his stories from consequential Supreme Court cases that...
Hinged on one single vote, you'll actually leave learning something.
So I'm really enjoying it, reading it right now.
Also, just another little plug, a new pro-life movie is coming out called The Order of Rights, starring my producer, Ben Davies.
That's right, Ben Davies and Emma L. Roberts.
It's going to be released tomorrow, October 2nd, on streaming platforms, so go on and check that out as well.
We'll be right back with the mailbag.
Let's get into it.
From Jeremy.
Dear fiery yet mostly peaceful Catholic cult member and podcaster, Knowles, in whom, I should note, the dogma lives loudly.
I have a question about the I paid more taxes than Trump stickers.
Why would leftists be proud of this?
Using their own arguments, the stickers should read I paid more taxes to a system of white supremacy and minority oppression than Trump.
Is there a fault in my logic on this?
Thanks.
P.S. Reclaiming my time.
Yeah, it's the same issue that you hear from the left on guns, for instance.
They say, Trump is a Nazi, so give the government all your guns.
Well, hold on.
Trump?
Trump is the head of the government.
And Trump is a Nazi.
So you're telling me to give all my guns to Nazis?
Doesn't matter.
Because they don't pay attention to their logic.
And at a base level, they don't believe in logic.
I'm not saying that, oh, they're dumb.
Oh, they don't have facts and logic.
I'm actually saying something a little more radical than that.
They don't have faith in logic.
They think that logic, and they've said this recently in popular pamphlets that have gone out, they think logic is a social construct that was invented by human beings to prop up white supremacy and patriarchy.
They'll say that.
They'll say reason, logic, objective, truth.
These are terms that are about white supremacy.
And so, obviously, if they don't have any faith in logic, they can make an argument, but then they'll make the opposite argument out of the other side of their mouth, and it doesn't matter to them because it's all just fake anyway.
This is a very simple example of sophistry.
When you're like, he's a sophist.
He's using sophistry.
That's what it is, where it's all about the rhetoric.
It's all about the sound of the argument and the emotion and the passion, but it's not about the logic of the argument itself because there is none.
From Andrew, hey, Michael, it came to mind that the government having marriage, whether it be gay or straight, is against the First Amendment, freedom of religion.
Being that marriage is a religious institution, this should have to be something for the people on their own to have to sort out, not something the government even has a right to intervene in.
Curious what your thoughts are on this.
Am I misreading this?
Thanks, love your show and all you do.
You are, in fact, misreading this.
Murder is prohibited by the Ten Commandments, right?
Murder.
That's a religious institution.
Statement that murder is evil.
Thou shalt not commit murder.
That's a religious statement.
It's a moral claim.
So therefore the government has no business in murder laws, right?
Wrong.
You shall not steal.
That's another religious claim.
So the government has no right, right?
You shall not covet your neighbor's ox.
That's also a religious claim.
I don't know that we have laws against coveting one's neighbor's ox, but perhaps we should.
All laws are moral laws.
I think what you're, you're kind of getting to this very, take your hands off kind of approach to government, kind of a libertarian approach, maybe, even though there's, there are a lot of problems with libertarianism, but it's a hands off, hey, you know, I don't, I don't want to be willing to make any claims about, substantive claims I don't want to be willing to make any claims about, substantive claims about the good because we can never So I'm just going to back off.
And that doesn't work because all laws necessarily are moral laws.
And when you get to the extreme of libertarians, they basically say it's all just about consent, right?
So basically marriage is just a contract, right?
So as long as you enforce contract law, it's fine.
Or business, right?
No, it's just about consent.
But none of us actually believes that, right?
If I, for instance, let's say I'm going to start a business.
I'm going to start a huge prostitution ring.
And I contract with people.
It's all consenting adults.
And I start a huge prostitution ring.
That would still be illegal.
Let me take it one step further.
I start a huge prostitution ring and I put it next to your home in the suburbs.
Right?
Zoning laws.
Forget about the zoning laws.
This is my consent.
Government has no right to come in and stop me from doing that.
Because I've consented to it.
You're good to go.
world.
Your idea, most importantly, that there shouldn't be prostitution rings in your neighbor, that's a religious idea.
That gets down to your weird religious hangups about sex and stuff, right?
So anyway, government has no right to die.
Of course not.
And by the way, the marriage issue, there are even some quote unquote conservatives who say government should get out of marriage.
Not possible.
You Because marriage is a religious institution, I guess, sometimes.
But it's primarily a political institution, actually.
Marriage predates Christianity.
Marriage predates...
There are plenty of marriages that happen outside of a religious sphere.
It's a political institution.
It's actually the bedrock political institution.
So the debate over same-sex marriage, as it became called, was not a debate over who should have rights.
At least, if we're being honest about it, it's not a debate over who should have rights.
The debate was over what is marriage.
And for all of human history, the marriage, the term marriage, has had, at its essence, sexual difference.
Husbands and wives have Then, like 10 years ago, it was suggested that we redefine that pretty radically to say sexual difference has nothing to do with marriage.
But for some reason, monogamy still has to do with marriage.
I don't know why.
So if we can redefine it so radically to take out the sexual difference aspect, why does it have to be monogamous?
If one man loves three women, that certainly has much more historical precedent than taking out the sexual difference piece.
So I think it's disingenuous.
Obviously, the state has a great interest in children, in propagating the next generation, regulating that, child abuse, all these sorts of things.
There is a role for the child protective services to come in.
State has a role in all of that.
And if our politics is to have any meaning at all, it must be able to discuss and establish a definition for the bedrock political institution.
But we never got to have that debate because the left just begged the question.
The left just assumed its own conclusion, namely that marriage is the monogamous union of any two people who love each other.
For a lot of history, love was not the central consideration in marriage.
At least not romantic love in the way that we think of it now.
Okay, but they just assumed.
They said, okay, that's it.
And so sexual difference goes out the window.
And now we've assumed our own conclusion and therefore we've proved it.
So we're going to do it.
We never had that debate.
And sadly, as our national presidential debate showed us the other night, we might not be serious enough anymore in this country to have real debates.
So maybe the left was right.
From Danny.
Hey, Michael.
I consider myself a recovering leftist.
I was converted to conservatism by my wonderful husband.
When you often describe the crazy purple-haired feminist, that was me.
Oh, hey.
I'm glad we got a former purple-haired feminist to watch the show.
I recently posted something about Breonna Taylor's case on social media.
And my old college roommate, who I haven't seen in years, flat out called me a racist.
Yeah, that's what they do.
They do that a lot.
All because we didn't agree.
My position to you is in two parts.
How do you handle personal vitriol from those you may have once considered friends?
And how does it end for America?
Came for Ben, stayed for Knowles.
This is a fallen world, Evil happens.
Going back to what we were discussing earlier with regard to the only possibility of redemption, Christ comes into the world.
And he doesn't say, hey, I'm the way and the truth and the life, and when you proclaim me, and when you are with me, then everybody will be really nice to you.
He does not say that.
Yeah, you'll be treated so well in this world.
He who thrives in this world for my sake will keep thriving.
No, he doesn't say all of that.
People don't like the truth, right?
You want the truth?
You can't handle the truth.
So, very often people would rather live in darkness and shadows and not be in the light and not talk about the truth.
And this is just baked into it.
Look at what they did to Jesus.
Just not to put too fine a point on it, but that actually is an example for us.
That is what happens.
Pick up your cross.
Pick up your cross and bear it, right?
So, Obviously, we're just talking about a very narrow example here, which is over some political debates.
But it gets to a broader example, which is that very often when you proclaim the truth, you will be persecuted for it because it's a fallen world.
That's the cost of it.
That's the cost of preferring the truth to lies.
That's the cost of having courage to being a coward.
That's the cost of the virtues.
I think the benefits of those virtues certainly outweigh the costs.
It's a good investment in the long run.
But in the short run, your former friends are going to say all sorts of nasty, horrible things about you.
That's just the way it is.
I'll give you an example of this.
My first political campaign I ever worked on was for a friend of mine.
She was running for Congress in my district.
I was 18 or 19, so freshman or sophomore in college.
In my hometown, I had been the golden boy my whole life.
You know, top of the class, class president, always all the parents were very nice to me and everything.
And very sort of, I don't know, I was very well liked.
And the minute that I started working for a Republican, totally mainstream Republican candidate, just as an intern on a campaign, half the town called me all sorts of horrible things.
I said, wait a second, two weeks ago you were saying I was a nice guy.
Well, yeah, but now you're a Republican, so sorry.
Sorry, you're a terrible, racist, awful, vicious, terrible, no-good person.
Comes with the territory.
Comes with the territory.
And Dick Cheney had a point on this.
He was asked, does it bother you that people call you Darth Vader?
And he said, when I was Secretary of Defense, I was the most popular man in the country.
90 plus percent approval rating.
When I was vice president, I was one of the least popular men in the country.
If I wanted to be popular, I would have been a movie star.
Sometimes it's more important to be successful than to be popular.
From Brian, it's clear at this point that we are two nations.
At what point do we split?
Is it peaceful?
Do we try to preserve the union?
Wouldn't splitting be better for us?
You can tell I'm Catholic in this answer because I don't think divorce is acceptable.
Divorce is never acceptable.
Now, sometimes when there is a threat of, say, bodily harm or something like that, a separation is important.
You need to stay apart might even be required.
But a divorce, no.
So I think, yes, there are some ways that we should lay off each other here in the United States.
I think there are some ways that there should be a little bit more separation, perhaps.
You're actually seeing this happen, which is conservatives are going to red states and leftists are going to bluer states.
But a divorce, no.
First of all, it's completely unworkable.
What's going to happen?
The coasts are going to break off, and then the middle of the country is going to stay, so we're not going to have any seaports or anything?
We're not going to let that happen.
What?
Certain cities are going to...
But what about the people in those cities?
It's not going to work.
National divorces, like...
Familial divorces are evil, evil things, and bad things happen when that occurs.
So I wouldn't support that, just like I wouldn't support throwing my hands up in a marriage.
Don't do it.
Do not do it.
Sometimes it happens because, again, fallen world, right?
So I'm not saying that that won't happen, but I certainly wouldn't cheer it on.
From Arun.
Dear Dr.
Koffefe, most professional of Daily Wire podcasters.
My employer is hosting a live virtual session on anti-racism with none other than Dr.
Ibram Kendi.
Ugh.
This session is optional, and as someone who is morally opposed to racism, I'm considering...
By the way, I'm just going to pause there.
Everybody's opposed to racism.
Racism, right?
Racism, what does that mean?
To judge unjustly on the basis of race, which is an offense to human dignity, right?
And human solidarity, because all men are made in the image of God.
So yes, everybody opposes that.
It's like, I don't even want to say that anymore, that I'm opposed to it, because it gives them the premise that there are all these people who are super-duper racist.
I guess the left is, but the right, not so.
Very few people.
Very few people.
I'm considering not attending this session since I wouldn't want anyone to misconstrue my presence for assent to Dr.
Kendi's racist philosophy.
On the other hand, I do want to be informed about what my coworkers are being taught by this man, and since no one is compelling me to attend, I'm somewhat more willing to give the other side a fair hearing.
Should I go to this thing, or should I spend the hour doing what my employer actually pays me to do?
It will be a waste of your time in the sense that...
That man, Dr.
Kendi, has nothing but poison to spew, and he's just a complete huckster.
He's a pseudo-academic, a pseudo-scholar.
He's a con artist who is milking companies such as yours for money by selling racial grievance based on lies.
But I probably would still go, especially if it weren't compulsory, because I want the information and I want to know how to refute it.
So yeah, I would say maybe go.
See if you can bear it.
Speaking of Barrett, last question from Julia.
Hey Michael, love this show.
Are you at all concerned that Justice Barrett will turn out to be a more moderate judge and fall short of a lot of conservatives' expectations?
Or do you think she'll be like Scalia and Thomas?
Thanks.
No way to predict the future, and she hasn't been on the bench that long, so I don't know.
But here's what I do know.
The markers are good.
She's at least written extensively about her views, and her views seem pretty solid.
She clerked for Scalia.
That's a good sign.
Apparently, Scalia really liked her.
That's a good sign.
She's super-duper Catholic, so she is living her faith, a conservative faith, right, just by definition.
That's a good thing.
Like all of that, she seems judicious.
That's a good thing.
And what's the alternative?
We're not living in a world where I just get to pick any justice I want.
There's one justice up.
One justice could possibly be confirmed here.
That's Judge Barrett.
The alternative is let the Dems have the court or leave it open, which will exacerbate the constitutional crisis that I suspect we're already in.
So I'm all in for Barrett.
I don't know.
I'm totally saying right now we can't know the future, but there's no other option.
Three cheers for ACB. All right, that's our show.
I will see you on Monday.
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.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Supervising producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Assistant director, Pavel Wadowski.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Audio mixer, Robin Fenderson.
Hair and makeup, Nika Geneva.
And production assistant, Ryan Love.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
The debate is over, thank heavens, and now the battle for your imagination begins.
