Democrat senators humiliate themselves at the confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominee Amy Barrett, the CDC finds 85% of people infected by covid wore masks “always” or “often,” and 56% of Americans feel they’re doing better than they were four years ago.
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
The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett are off to an incredible start.
And by that, I mean they have no credibility.
There is no credibility whatsoever.
And the Democrats, incredibly, are making credibility the issue, beginning with one of the least credible members of the U.S. Senate, Democrat Dick Blumenthal.
President Trump and the Republican Center are eroding, indeed destroying, that legitimacy.
They've stripped The American people of their say in this process simply to confirm a justice who will strike down in court, legislate from the bench, what they can't repeal in Congress.
Your participation, let me be very blunt, in any case involving Donald Trump's election would immediately do explosive, enduring harm To the court's legitimacy and to your own credibility, you must recuse yourself.
Da Nang Dick Blumenthal is warning Judge Amy Barrett about threats to her legitimacy.
Dick Blumenthal very famously lied about his service in the Vietnam War.
Dick Blumenthal very famously called our last Supreme Court nominee a gang rapist.
Take a listen to what he said when Brett Kavanaugh was up for the court.
This affidavit sworn under oath with immense detail and corroborating witnesses who will come forward.
This woman, a survivor of vicious sexual attack, has everything to lose.
Her livelihood depends on her security clearance.
If she is found by the FBI to be lying, She loses her livelihood.
If my Republican colleagues have any sense of morality, they will refuse to go forward on Friday.
They will demand an FBI investigation.
And in fact, the White House should do so.
If Judge Kavanaugh is really serious about clearing his name, He should demand an FBI investigation of these detailed, precise, absolutely staggering allegations.
Absolutely staggering.
Shortly after Danang Dick made those comments, by the way, the allegations completely fell apart.
Those were not the Christine Ford allegations.
Those were the Julie Swetnick allegations, which had no basis in reality, no evidence at all.
And the lawyer who pushed them is now serving hard time for fraud.
That's where the credibility is.
Unfortunately, for guys like Dick Blumenthal, who can push this all out there with a straight face, it's not even convincing their own colleagues.
The Democrats know that they are losing here, and they're going to try to get through these hearings as quickly as possible.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
My favorite comment from yesterday from Hudson Dean.
LeBron James cares so much about gender equality that the NBA now has the same ratings as the WNBA. Wow!
You know, because we've just been talking about all the racial division the left is pushing, but you're right.
That is on the level of sexual politics as well.
There are now just as many people watching the NBA as the WNBA. Well, that's That's a great value, isn't it?
You know, those two things used to have very different revenues, and now it looks like those revenues, it looks like the money coming into both of those organizations is just about the same.
You've got to make sure that you're not overpaying.
You've got to make sure you've got to level out those revenues when you are paying your cell phone bill, and that is why I would highly recommend Pure Talk USA. I'm going to be extremely blunt here.
If your cell phone plan is with, say, Verizon, ATT, or T-Mobile, You are paying way too much for the exact same coverage that you would be getting right now with Pure Talk.
Now, I know what you heard me say.
What you heard me say is if you have ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon, you can get a similar network.
You can get similar coverage for cheaper.
I didn't say that.
I said you could get the exact same.
The exact same.
The average person who switches to PureTalk is using less than 4 gigs of data per month, but the big carriers are charging you for unlimited data.
That's how PureTalk saves the average person over $400 per year on their wireless service.
Unlimited talk, text, and 2 gigs of data all for just $20 a month.
And if you go over on data usage, guess what?
They don't charge you for it.
They won't charge you for it.
It's unbelievable how much money people are throwing out the window on other cell phone companies when you can get the same service.
Grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, say Michael Knowles.
When you do, you will save 50% off your first month.
Dial pound 250 and say keyword Michael Knowles.
Pure talk.
Simply.
Smarter.
Wireless.
Now we will move into something that is simply dumber, which is these confirmation hearings that we were watching yesterday.
Even the left is admitting that this is not going well for them.
CNN cut away during the confirmation hearings.
And the reason they cut away, I don't think is because they're making some principled stand on the legitimacy of Trump nominating a judge during an election year.
They're cutting away because there's no way this is a win for Democrats.
How do they win?
They can either pull a Kavanaugh, they can viciously attack this woman and try to derail her nomination.
But how is that going to look a few weeks before a presidential election?
You've You've got this very attractive, both physically and on paper, sort of nice female candidate, part of the gentler sex, with this big, beautiful family, totally unimpeachable.
So you can have the last taste in voters' mouths of Democrats be them just destroying this very sympathetic woman.
Or...
They can fail, right?
Or the Democrats don't derail her nomination and they look feckless on screen.
Either way, it looks pretty bad.
And it looks like right now Democrats are trying to split the baby, as it were, very literally trying to split the baby by derailing Justice Barrett and trying to maintain Roe versus Wade.
So they're trying to have it both ways and it's not working very well.
Most of the hearing was just senators letting out the hot air that generally tends to fill their bodies.
But a few tried to make cogent arguments and it went nowhere.
Kamala Harris was first up.
Kamala Harris was testifying remotely and she had a picture of RBG, this kind of silly RBG children's book behind her.
And she said, the reason we can't confirm Barrett is because Barrett will undermine Justice Ruth Ginsburg's legacy.
By replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy, President Trump is attempting to roll back Americans' rights for decades to come.
Every American must understand that with this nomination, equal justice under law is at stake.
Our voting rights are at stake.
Workers' rights are at stake.
Consumer rights are at stake.
The right to a safe and legal abortion is at stake.
And holding corporations accountable is at stake.
And again, there's so much more.
So only two things she said were true.
The rest of it was completely bogus, but I do give her credit for saying the two true things.
She said a lot of silly things, like our right to vote is at stake.
I don't think so.
I think we'll be able to vote even if there's another judge on the bench.
There's a new judge replacing RBG. She says things like, corporations will finally be held to account.
Corporate America supports the left, overwhelmingly.
There's no threat being posed by a conservative judge to your consumer choice.
If anything, having a conservative judge on the bench will be a negative turn of events for corporate America and a positive thing for consumer protections and for smaller businesses.
She says two things that are true.
One, Justice Barrett could overturn Ruth Ginsburg's legacy.
That is true.
That's the point.
That's why we're nominating her.
That's why we have conservative judges.
The point of conservative judges is to undermine the legacy of left-wing judges.
The point of left-wing judges is to undermine the legacy of conservative judges.
That's it.
That's the way it works.
Kamala Harris would do exactly the same thing, so totally fine.
And I'm not even sure, by the way.
I don't know what Justice Barrett's really going to do.
Conservative judges disappoint the people who appoint them all the time.
So we're hoping, knock on wood, she undermines Ginsburg's legacy.
And then, I have to give Kamala Harris credit.
She said that Ruth Ginsburg, or Amy Barrett, rather, could undermine a right, quote-unquote, that Ruth Ginsburg protected, namely the right to abortion.
That's true.
Right.
That is the issue.
I actually give Kamala Harris a little bit of credit because so often we just hear them use this euphemism.
Women's health, reproductive rights, which are not only imprecise, but in the case of reproductive rights, the opposite of what is true.
It's the opposite of reproduction.
But that's it.
This is about abortion.
Democrats are turning abortion into a sacrament.
They're making this the central issue of their campaigns, which is pretty creepy.
And we are trying to overturn that.
Yep, and I hope Justice Barrett does it.
Not sure that she will.
That was the best Kamala could muster.
Next up was Amy Klobuchar, who was even less convincing than Kamala Harris, because Klobuchar realized there was no lane of attack.
She wasn't going to go after Barrett's religion.
She's too smart for that.
She wasn't going to go after Barrett's kids.
She's too smart for that.
She wasn't going to issue in these...
Sort of stupid platitudes about just broad issues like Kamala Harris did.
So Klobuchar decided to pivot back, get away from the court issues entirely, and for some reason start talking about coronavirus.
The daughter of Hmong refugees whose parents fled Laos to a refugee camp in Thailand before arriving in Minnesota.
Marnie and her seven siblings grew up in St.
Paul.
Their family, the American dream.
This is who this virus has taken from us.
Someone who has left behind a mother and a father and seven siblings who loved her and someone who undoubtedly would have made the world a better place.
The president could have saved so many lives.
Instead, he's been reckless.
Packing people in without masks for your nomination party, Judge Barrett.
35 people got sick.
The president himself ends up in the hospital.
And when he leaves, Walter Reed, still contagious, he defiantly takes off his mask and walks into the White House.
And then he lies and says the virus will magically go away.
The truth matters.
And the truth is America.
That this judicial nominee has made her views so clear.
And this president is trying to put her in a position of power Uh, what?
Well, she tries to bring it back there at the end to this.
This president is trying to nominate a judge who will make decisions about your lives.
You know, like all presidents who nominate judges, because that's what judges do.
This president is trying to nominate a judge, like the Constitution says he should.
So she tries to bring it back there at the end, but while she's talking about coronavirus and these very sad stories about people who have died from coronavirus have nothing to do with Washington, D.C. or Trump or Barrett, and then it's Trump's fault that there is a virus from China or something, but he's nominating a judge, and so that's bad, too.
This speech, I don't know what staffer wrote this speech, but whoever wrote it should be fired.
This would not pass a freshman writing seminar, a freshman in high school writing seminar.
This was pretty weak sauce.
But she does it because...
They have nothing else.
I felt Klobuchar's speechifying yesterday was the clearest evidence that the Democrats know they've got nothing.
The left know they are losing on this issue and they just need to move past this hearing.
They'll do the sort of perfunctory yelling and howling, but they'll just, they'll confirm her and then they'll move past it because there's no way that they gain confidence.
politically here.
Someone who was just as confused as the rest of us over Amy Klobuchar's bizarre rant was Senator Ben Sasse.
One thing you might have noticed about Senator Sass, I think one of the most persuasive aspects about the guy, is he's got very good hair.
And if you want to keep your hair, you've got to check out HIMSS.
HIMSS is helping guys be the best version of themselves with licensed medical providers and FDA-approved products to help treat hair loss.
No snake oil pills.
No gas station counter supplements.
HIMSS connects you to licensed medical professionals online, which could save you hours.
Completely confidential.
Completely discreet.
I'm not a...
I'll just say it with no...
No false modesty here.
I'm not a hulking Adonis of a man, okay?
One thing that always helped me in the lady department was that, you know, I got a nice full head of hair.
So I'd recommend you go do that today.
Today, HIMSS is giving you their best offer yet.
If you're not happy with your results after 90 days, HIMSS will give you a full refund.
Right now, my listeners can get their first visit absolutely free.
Go to 4himss.com slash Knowles.
K-N-W-L-E-S. That is 4himss.com slash Knowles.
Full refund of price paid available for the first 90 days' supply.
A refund request must be made between 90 and 180 days after product shipment is delivered.
Prescription products require an online consultation with a medical professional who will determine if a prescription is appropriate.
Restrictions apply.
See website for full details and important safety information.
Remember, what is it?
4hims.com slash Knowles.
So, Ben Sasse, who has very nice hair, was just as confused as the rest of us, and so he took the opportunity to offer a civics lesson for our obviously degraded national conversation.
Senator Klobuchar said a number of things about COVID that I agree with.
She cited a bunch of really painful stories in Minnesota and similar stories could be told from across the country.
I even agree with parts of her criticism of the mismanagement of COVID by Washington DC. I don't know what any of that has to do with what we're here to do today.
Huge parts of what we're doing in this hearing I think it
would be very useful for us to pause...
And remind ourselves and do some of our civic duty to eighth graders to help them realize what a president runs for, what a senator runs for, and on the other hand, why Judge Barrett is sitting before us today.
This was an excellent skewering of what was going on.
And actually what Ben Sasse is doing here is exactly what senators should do.
He's distilling this for 8th graders, and in there is a kind of not-so-subtle jibe at the Democrats, which is saying, you guys are behaving not even as 8th graders would.
You guys do not even possess the civic understanding of 8th graders.
And it's important to have civics education.
We no longer have it in schools.
ISI, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, did a survey of elite university students, so the top...
Top ranked schools in the country.
This was all the way back in 2007, by the way.
They surveyed seniors and freshmen.
Turned out that graduating seniors knew less about civics than incoming freshmen.
People are getting more ignorant over time.
So it's important to have that civics education.
But this is also what senators should be doing.
You know, most of our government is just run by bureaucrats.
It's not actually run by the elected president or the senators or even the judges, more so the judges, but certainly not these elected guys in Congress or the Senate.
Much of what the Senate and the House of Representatives exist to do is to communicate politics to people.
It's kind of a sad state of affairs because they actually have significantly less lawmaking power than they used to.
Most of that has been sent away to the administrative state.
So the one thing they can do is communicate and bring people in on what is happening in their government.
And that has a little bit of accountability, therefore, to their constituents.
That's what Sasse was doing.
I thought it was brilliantly done.
We could all use a good civics lesson, most especially the Democrats sitting in that chamber.
Now, he opened up by kind of It is important to note that the Democrats' narrative on coronavirus right now is completely falling apart.
It's never made sense.
The rules have been changing constantly.
Initially, we were told by the experts, by the Surgeon General, by Dr.
Fauci, the exalted Dr.
Fauci, peace be upon him, by elected Democrats like Eric Swalwell.
All these guys were saying, don't wear masks.
Masks are stupid.
You must be an idiot if you're wearing a mask.
Don't wear them.
Stop buying them.
Then we were told, you have to wear masks all the time.
Masks are super-duper effective.
If you even suggest that masks are not used perfectly all the time, then you're going to be kicked off of the internet.
Then we heard from, for instance, epidemiologists at Columbia who said this to NPR, that the masks fail in studies, but not because the masks are no good.
It's because people don't use them correctly, which I suppose makes sense, right?
People are putting the masks on, they're touching their face, they're moving it around, they're not wearing it right.
There's a new study out from the CDC. Guess which percentage, what is the percentage of people who are infected with coronavirus, according to the CDC study, who wore their masks all the time or often?
What percentage would you say?
Because you know, they're so good at protecting you from the virus.
What percentage?
2%, 3% are wearing their masks all the time or often and still get the virus.
85%.
85% according to this recent CDC study.
70.6% of respondents report that they always wear a mask.
An additional 14.4% say that they often wear a mask, which means 85% of people who have been infected with coronavirus, according to this study, habitually wear the mask.
Now, here's the kicker.
What percentage of people, according to the CDC study, report never wearing the mask who then go on to get coronavirus?
3.9%.
So for me, you know my behaviors on these sorts of things.
But look, for me, I'm an expert scientist.
So I just want to follow the science.
I want to listen to the CDC. I want to do whatever the experts tell me to do.
And it seems from the CDC study that some of what we've been told...
is not correct.
Well, we know, we know that some of what we've told about these precautions is not correct because these so-called experts have told us opposite guidance.
They've told us never wear the mask.
They've told us always wear the mask.
And now as we learn more about the way these things work, it would seem that it's even more confusing.
After this CDC study though, there's another survey that came out of Chicago, which gives us a little hint on how this coronavirus is going to be spreading throughout the populations.
You know, this is a real threat.
I don't mean to downplay the threat.
We do have to consider our safety.
Not just, by the way, in the realm of public health, also in the realm of home security and whether people are going to try to come in and steal your stuff.
That's why you've got to check out Ring.
There are a thousand reasons why protecting your home should matter to you.
Ring has security products for every corner of your home, inside and out.
And best of all, you can see it all in one simple app.
With Ring, you can keep an eye on your home no matter where you are right from your phone.
You know that I give Ring out to my friends as housewarming gifts.
So recently, I've been getting updates on some of my friends who have the Ring that I've given them.
And one couple, very close friends of mine, they have this cute little baby.
So they'd leave the, you know, they'd go out with the baby, they'd put the baby on the grass.
They'd find out, thanks to their ring, there's a coyote living in their yard.
It kind of comes in and out.
And so they see this now, so they say, okay, God, I've got to keep an eye on my kid when he's out here in the yard.
Now, what I imagine this has led to is the baby just kind of watching his ring and then turning into the roadrunner, you know, and just kind of tricking this coyote and having, like, grand pianos fall from the sky and then the coyote's teeth are the keys.
Yeah.
Just what I'm imagining.
I haven't seen this on the Ring yet.
But you can keep an eye on your home as well.
Get a special offer on the Ring Welcome Kit at ring.com slash Knowles.
Includes Ring's Video Doorbell 3 and Chime Pro.
The perfect way to start your Ring experience, plus free two-day shipping.
Go to ring.com slash Knowles.
Ring.com slash Knowles.
So, the CDC study shows the overwhelming majority of people who are getting infected with coronavirus are wearing the masks always or often.
Again, that's not saying anything about the masks per se, just telling you how this virus is actually spreading in reality.
Well, we see the same thing in Chicago.
Right now, they did a survey in Chicago of how many residents who sent blood spot samples to Northwestern University researchers tested positive for COVID antibodies.
So they had people sort of send in these samples, and they're going to see not even just how many people have the virus currently, but how many people have the antibody, so they had the virus in the past.
Do you know how many Chicagoans have had coronavirus according to this survey?
One in five.
A full 20% of Chicagoans who sent in these samples have had coronavirus.
This was my point when we were talking earlier.
I've been reiterating this almost once a week now.
The liberals think that conservatives oppose all of their kind of crazy measures to stop the spread of coronavirus because we think we're never going to get coronavirus.
But actually, the opposite is true.
We oppose them.
Well, one, because there is some dispute over the efficacy of some of these measures.
Two, now in the case of the lockdowns, the World Health Organization is actively saying, don't do the lockdowns.
The lockdowns are very bad for you.
But disputes about the efficacy of these things aside, the reason that we are not indulging this sort of thing and clamoring to throw the world into a global economy or into a global economic depression over the coronavirus measures is because, not that we think we won't get it, but because we know COVID's here to stay.
We're very likely going to get it.
WHO came out the other day and said one in ten people on Earth has gotten coronavirus.
Ten percent of the entire world population has gotten this virus in the nine or ten months that it has existed.
It's not going to stop there, folks.
It's going to keep spreading.
One in five Chicagoans has had coronavirus.
I know you think that you can protect yourself from that forever because there's some government policy, some matter of social engineering that's going to protect you from germs, that now we're on a political crusade to defeat germs.
You're not going to do it.
It's not going to happen, folks.
This is not only as foolish as, say, the war on poverty or the war on this or the war on that.
This is more foolish.
You will not defeat disease.
You can improve health.
You can mitigate disease.
You can develop vaccines that have certain efficacy.
Great.
I encourage everybody to do that.
You will not eliminate disease from the world.
You will not bring your risk down to 0%, which is what I think our utopian friends on the progressive left think that they're going to do.
And notice, by the way, our utopian friends, they always change the rules.
So first, obviously, with the masks, it was so obvious because they said, don't wear the masks, and then they said, do wear the masks.
But even with the social distancing, one of the creepiest phrases I've ever heard, social distance, together, apart.
These are opposite things.
They say, okay, if you're six feet apart, you're totally fine.
At one point they told us, if you're six feet apart, you don't need a mask.
Then we were told by some people, if you're six feet apart, you do need a mask.
Then it's become ten feet apart.
So the chief of staff at the White House, Mark Meadows, comes down, he's speaking to reporters, and the microphone's near the reporters, so what does he do?
He pulls the microphone back, ten feet away, so that he doesn't get them all upset, and then he takes his mask off to speak to them.
These wusses have a meltdown.
Tell you what, let me do this.
Let me pull this away.
And then that way I can take this off the top.
Well, I'm more than 10 feet away.
Well, I'm not going to talk through a mess.
I'll be glad to answer your question.
Damn right.
Damn right.
I'm not going to talk through a mask.
I am not going to perform whatever liturgy of liberalism you were trying to foist on me with no scientific basis that you're even trying to present.
Even if there were a scientific basis, we would still have to debate whether or not we want to engage in that sort of thing as a matter of politics and ethics.
But you're not even, what scientist is saying that if I'm standing 10 feet away, I have to wear this cloth mask or else we're all going to die.
No one is saying that.
So he says, okay, you just want to muzzle me.
You just want me to look foolish.
Some people say, well, Mr.
Meadows, why not do it?
Why not put the mask on?
Even if you're standing 10 feet away, even if when you start giving your press conference, you're going to sound like that teacher from the Peanuts cartoons.
It should be clear from how it sounds why he shouldn't do that.
But more broadly to this point of, Why don't you just do it?
It's not hard.
It's not hard.
Why don't you do it?
What if the reporters said to Mark Meadows, Hey, Mark Meadows, it would make us all feel a lot better if you put a donut on your head.
I'd say, what?
Yeah.
Mr.
Meadows, we want you to put a donut on your head.
I don't think there's any evidence that having a donut on my head is going to help you all in any way whatsoever.
Okay, maybe there's not evidence, but it would make us feel better.
So put the donut on your head.
Put the donut on your head right now.
What this has become Is, now it would seem, very separate from a scientific conversation.
This is an exercise in imposing one's political will.
The World Health Organization came out and said, do not do the lockdowns.
We still have lockdowns.
Why?
Because power-hungry demagogues Want to flex their political power and their political will on you.
It doesn't even have to have an object.
It doesn't even have to have a point, a specific point to the flex.
The flexing itself is enough.
And that is what the press corps was trying to do to Mark Meadows yesterday.
I'm very glad that he did not take the bait on this.
Now, some in the press are trying to reel this kind of stuff back.
They realize it doesn't play particularly well.
CNN. I don't know what's going on in CNN. They're actually trying to moderate in the past few days.
You had Jake Tapper.
Now you have this woman, this anchor on CNN, who is talking to Senator Mazie Hirono, one of the least impressive members of the Senate.
And CNN actually fact-checked a Democrat.
And you haven't seen that a whole lot.
You haven't seen facts really rise to the top of the conversation.
Though if you do want facts to rise to the top of the conversation, you've got to check out the Benham Brothers.
You know, small businesses have taken a big hit since March, and many of them are still feeling the effects of the lockdowns.
Jeremy Boring, you know very well, the God King over here.
Jeremy's had some troubles during this coronavirus lockdown.
Daily Wire's had a number of crises in its history, but Daily Wire has been able to weather them, not just in COVID, but before that as well.
And right now, they want to share their wisdom.
Jeremy is going to be presenting alongside a team of world-renowned business leaders at Expert Ownership Live, a two-day virtual conference about leading through crisis.
The conference features a lineup of speakers such as leadership author John Maxwell, the founders of Duck Commander and Otterbox, the Benham Brothers, and many others who can relate to what entrepreneurs and leaders are going through right now.
This conference is one of those investments that your business will thank you for in the long run.
Go visit expertownershiplive.com slash Knowles to register for $147.
And you can buy a second ticket for a friend 50% off.
And you get to see Jeremy.
I don't know if that's going to sell it.
I don't know if that's going to hurt sales.
Either way, though, you know, look, Jeremy's got a lot of wisdom.
You know, we had these very briefly, very limited run, just for all access members, and they sold out within 48 hours.
It's a very cool bat, custom painted with the Daily Wire logo emblazoned on it.
Well, it is back, my friends.
Now anyone can purchase it.
Inventory is limited though, so you gotta text BASEBALL, B-A-S-E-B-A-L-L, to 83400. That is 83,400. That is 83400.
Text BASEBALL to purchase your bet today.
We'll be right back with a lot more.
Credit where credit is deuce.
CNN actually just fact-checked a Democratic senator on the air.
Maisie Hirono was throwing around the phrase court-packing, which specifically means adding credit Justices to the court by increasing the number of justices.
It does not mean filling vacancies, which is not only a constitutional right, it's a constitutional requirement.
Court packing is a different thing when you increase the number of justices.
So she was throwing this word around.
And CNN very gently, very secretly, corrected her on the air.
I mean, obviously just filling a vacancy right now is not what is normally referred to as court packing.
It's adding seats.
But I think that you've said that you're open to that as well.
There are a number of...
Things that we can talk about to reform the courts, including, by the way, you know, we should apply strict ethics standards to Supreme Court justices.
We don't have that.
So there are any number of things that we can talk about to make sure that the Supreme Court is not an ideologically determinative body, which, by the way, if you look at their recent decisions, many, many five to four decisions that are very much partisan and ideologically based, that is not what many five to four decisions that are very much partisan and ideologically based, that is not what In fact, that is not how we want our entire judiciary to be.
They should be objective, independent, not filled, as I said, with people who have an ideological agenda. - We don't want people on the court who have an ideological agenda.
That's why we've got to keep all the conservatives off and put all the leftists on.
Maisie Hirono can't take the hint from this woman on CNN who's saying, like, hey, Maisie, maybe here's a better way to go about this.
We're all on the same team here, Maisie, but you're not doing this very well.
It's funny, too, because when she's talking about the ideological conformity of the court, let's not forget the leftist judges almost 100% of the time vote together, even on cases that are constitutionally preposterous.
Whereas the conservative judges often split apart, break away, disagree with one another.
I'm not even making a point about how the conservatives are right and the leftists are wrong.
I'm just saying, as a matter of ideological conformity, which is what Maisie Rohn is talking about, the left is purely ideologically unified, and the right breaks up and has disagreements, and someone's an originalist, and someone's a textualist, and the textualist disagrees with the originalist on this.
I mean, just in this recent Supreme Court term, you had huge disagreement on the right.
So if Maisie wants intellectual diversity on the court, I guess she's got to go for the conservatives.
But she's probably not going to do that, and she probably doesn't even understand the point.
The reason I think that CNN is willing to play this a little softer now, the reason that CNN is even willing to maybe gently correct a Democratic senator, is not because they've had some wake-up call, not because they understand that the left is harming the country.
It's because they understand that the left is losing.
They're losing right now.
Maybe it doesn't seem like that because the media is putting on a good show.
Maybe it doesn't seem like that because who knows how the presidential election is going to turn out.
But broadly speaking, on this argument, on the court argument, on the Amy Coney Barrett argument, on the radicalism argument, the left is losing.
Here's an important poll.
We've been reading some of the polls all the time.
Here's an important one that doesn't even mention the phrase Trump or Biden, but it tells you a lot, and I suspect it might have something to do with the election.
Gallup asks people, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
This was Ronald Reagan's famous line in a presidential debate.
It's up there, he goes, well, he's got Jimmy Carter over his, you've got to ask yourself one simple question.
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Because that's what you have to know.
If you're running against an incumbent, you say, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
And the answer is no, then you've got to vote for the alternative.
And if you are the incumbent, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Well, the answer better be yes.
The answer for this incumbent, President Trump, is yes.
56% of people in a survey taken September 14th through the 28th Which obviously is way into the coronavirus lockdowns, right?
This is not while the economy was still booming.
This is very recently this poll was taken.
And still, even with the country shut down, the economy, tons of people out of work, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
56% of Americans say yes, they are better off.
They are better off even in a pandemic under Trump than they were under Obama.
That's compared to just under a third, 32%, who say that they are not better off than they were four years ago.
How about on the other degrees of radicalism?
Obviously, we have BLM burning down the country.
That doesn't play very well for the left.
But even on some of these wacky sexual issues, they divide us on race, they divide us on sex.
On the sexual issues, I don't think this is playing well in Peoria.
I'll give you just an example.
There's a book review out in the New York Times called...
Are straight people okay?
And other questions about love and sexuality, based on some book castigating marriage.
Here's just a quick line.
In examining the pressure to partner with the opposite gender, we find the extortions of capitalism, the misogyny of violence against women, the racist and xenophobic erasure of non-white families, and the homophobic hatreds that pervade so much of everyday life.
This is not outlier in leftist discourse.
This is not an outlier.
This is the mainstream.
This is what you see broadcast during these crazy rallies.
This is even what you see on presidential debate stages among the Democratic Party.
Remember when Julian Castro, when he was still running for president, he said, we need to support abortion rights.
We need to support abortion justice, not just for women, but for trans women, meaning men who put on dresses, who I guess can have abortions.
Now I don't know how that's possible.
This kind of gobbledygook of leftist jargon, the misogyny of violence against women, racist, xenophobic erasure of non-white family.
I How do you, what, huh?
What is that?
Homophobic hatreds and blah, blah, blah.
Complete, complete fictive gobbledygook.
And I think a lot of Americans who are not steeped in this kind of radical ideology look at that and say, huh, I got one guy telling me make America great again.
I got one guy talking to me about the erasure of the cis, trans, non-binary, non-white, misogynistic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I think I'm going to vote for that guy.
The one who I can understand, you know, the one who's speaking simple English, who says, like, don't burn down the country?
Yeah, I think that guy.
That guy is more persuasive.
This is how President Trump, Who has many personal foibles, was able to win in 2016.
This is what the media didn't get.
A lot of the Never Trump Right never understood this.
They thought that President Trump won because he's got this mean personality.
He's a real angry, mean, cruel guy.
And he won in spite of the policy offerings and his kind of basic view of the country.
It was the opposite.
Ann Coulter wrote a great book about this with a very funny title, In Trump We Trust, De Pluribus Awesome.
But it actually was a pretty solid book and it made a very good argument, which is people voted for Trump often in spite of his personality because of his policies, because he said make America great again.
That's not a Trump original.
He took that from Ronald Reagan.
But Trump has a good ear.
He has a good ear for the culture and he realizes that that idea resonates.
They voted for Trump.
Trump might be talking about Mika Brzezinski's face, and maybe that's a little distasteful.
But he hugs the American flag and he says he's going to protect manufacturing jobs.
Other Republicans were not going to protect manufacturing jobs.
He loves the country and he says, you know, we all bleed the same blood of patriots and we should have no racial division, but also we should have a national border.
Other Republicans were not really saying that as much.
That kind of common sense rings a lot truer, I think.
You know, on this issue of the crazy sexual politics, there is a truly disturbing story just came out of Iowa.
There was a little girl in Iowa whose parents were ne'er-do-wells, and so she was going to be adopted by her great-grandparents, this one-year-old girl.
So her great-grandparents had to apply to the state just to make sure this paperwork worked because the kids' parents were not able to take care of her.
The...
United States district judge reversed this decision to allow the great-grandparents to take care of her, holding that the state...
I'm sorry, let me rewind.
You've got the kid who's going to the state, the foster system.
The great-grandparents try to adopt the kid.
It's a little bit confusing.
Then the state comes in and says, no, you can't adopt the kid because you have oppressive sexual views.
Here are some of the questions.
That they had to answer according to the political correct orthodoxy if they wanted to adopt their great-granddaughter.
How would we react if the daughter was a lesbian?
Would we allow the daughter to have a girl spend the night at our home as our girl's romantic partner?
If at 15 years old, this little girl wanted to undergo hormone therapy to change her sexual appearance, would we support that decision and transport her for those treatments?
If as a teenager, this little girl wanted to dress as a boy and be called a boy's name, would we accept her decision and allow her to act in that manner?
If you don't say that you are willing to let your adopted daughter have her lesbian girlfriend come and sleep over at age 15, if you don't say that you will allow your adopted daughter to inject hormones into herself to appear cosmetically more like a boy, then now, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, you're not allowed to adopt that daughter.
Goodness gracious.
Thankfully, as I mentioned, another government agency came in, namely the judiciary actually came in and reversed that decision for now.
For now.
How long before this is replicated all over the country?
Idaho, I thought, was a pretty conservative place.
I mean, imagine, you know, when I was a kid, if I was 15 and I said, hey mom, I want my girlfriend to spend the night.
She would have smacked me.
Are you kidding me?
But now, now this is a human right, I guess.
You're not allowed to adopt otherwise.
I think people are looking at some of those stories and saying, this is not the country that I want to live in.
And...
I don't care what Donald Trump tweets, and I don't care how nice good old Joe looks.
If those are the two visions of America, I want to go with make America great again.
That's what people are showing Joe Biden on the campaign trail.
Joe Biden was just doing an event in Toledo, Ohio.
He came out, he gave his kind of stump speech, and Trump supporters chanted four more years in the background.
Well, all kidding aside, Tony, thank you for hosting us, and thank you for Local 14.
And Kenyan...
And you can hear some horns.
In fact, it's a little hard to hear because it's off mic.
Four more years, four more years.
Who knows how big this crowd was?
I imagine it was relatively, relatively small.
So it's not looking good for Joe Biden, and some leftists are getting irritated by this.
You're seeing the radical left trying to push all this crazy gobbledygook about how you've got to trans your kid and how you've got to, you know...
Do all of these extraordinary radical measures.
And then you've got the more moderate wing, like Allison, I think it was Allison Camerota, whoever it was on CNN, saying, hey, come on, stop saying that stuff, Maisie.
Don't go that far.
Be a little bit more moderate.
We've got an election going on.
And that's the debate that's going on.
Noam Chomsky, who's a radical leftist and public intellectual for the last 700 years, he just got into a bit of a debate About this sort of issue with a radical leftist from the Bernie Sanders campaign.
And Chomsky actually played the role of the moderate here because Chomsky understands in politics you don't win by losing.
What you're saying, if you think it through, is we should help Trump win because maybe in the long run that'll affect the Democratic Party.
That's a terrible choice.
Helping Trump win as you're proposing Would mean four more years of destruction of the environment, getting possibly to tipping points, which would be irreversible, certainly making any effort to deal with it very difficult.
It would mean stacking the judiciary with young, ultra-right lawyers, top to bottom, so that nothing would be possibly done for a generation, and I can go on and on.
I don't think that's a wise choice.
Just on the hope that maybe sometime in the long term, the Democratic Party will pay attention to the fact that you're part of the 50% of non-voters.
A great point, and the woman that he was speaking with pushed back, said, no, the time is now.
We've got to take a stand and kill our chances of winning in this election, and then later maybe we'll win.
The Never Trump Right made the same argument in 2016.
And I understand the appeal of the argument.
The appeal is, okay, things aren't going the way I want them to.
So the best thing to do is to lose.
It's better to lose and then regroup.
And then in four years or eight years, then we can win.
You know, winning is a little tricky.
I like the idea that people who can't win now are going to tell us how to win in four years or eight years.
That's not how it works.
Politics is a messy thing.
The way you win is by winning.
And when you lose, you can't predict what's going to happen next.
You've got to take the wins as you get them.
That's why the smarter people in the Democratic Party realize we've really got to win this thing.
We're really on the ropes here.
We can't just count on what happens after this aberration of a politician Donald Trump goes away.
That's why I think they're going to hang back on the Amy Barrett hearings.
I don't think it's going to be a particularly vicious hearing, at least compared to, say, Brett Kavanaugh.
I think they know they've lost this thing, and they don't really care about this seat all that much.
They want to keep their eyes on the prize on November 3rd.
And the judiciary might play a role in that if they challenge it in court.
So in any case, we're headed for a mess, and I don't think any side is going to throw up their hands and say, we'll win it next time.
They know we've got to win it now.
That's our show on Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
See you tomorrow.
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.
Were you watching Joe Biden yesterday?
His mind is going, going, gone.
And meanwhile, Donald Trump has not only survived the Chinese flu, I think he's become immortal.
