Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 14, 2020 - The Michael Knowles Show

51:01

Ep. 628 - Dems Sexually Harass Barrett

Sen. Mazie Hirono tries to pull a Kavanaugh on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump offers to kiss his supporters, and Oreos get gay. If you like The Michael Knowles Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: KNOWLES and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/knowles Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	They actually did it.
	They did it.
	We joked about them doing it and then they did it.
	We all joked about how the Democrats were going to pull a Kavanaugh and accuse Judge Amy Coney Barrett of sexual harassment during her Supreme Court nomination hearings.
	We didn't think it was going to actually happen, right?
	But then, then they actually did it.
	Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
	No, Senator.
	Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
	No, Senator.
	There are many jokes to be made here.
	I am going to refrain from making them.
	Actually, I guess the Democrats themselves are the joke because the confirmation hearings only went downhill from there.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is the Michael Knowles Show.
	Welcome back to the show.
	My favorite comment from yesterday from Weston, who says the worst thing about Klobuchar is her voice.
	It sounds like she's constantly on the brink of tears.
	That's fair enough, but it's still better than Cory Booker, who constantly is in tears.
	So at least with Klobuchar, you know, there's just maybe it's something about the vocal quality.
	But with Booker, my goodness gracious, Spartacus was nearly crying tears of rage the whole time.
	And maybe a few droplets popped out.
	We will get to him as well.
	It was a very bad day for Democrats.
	It did not look good at all.
	Look, anything could change.
	They might have some big trick up their sleeve today, but it seemed as though, for most of the hearings, the Democrats had just sort of given up.
	You know, I know that we're all on eggshells here with these Supreme Court nominations.
	This is the issue in the presidential election, at least for right now.
	And we thought that Judge Barrett was going to have a close shave in there, but...
	But she did not.
	If you do want a close shave, however, I would recommend you check out Harry Razors.
	Harry's Razors is the best I've ever used, okay?
	I just started using Harry's, I'm going to say about a month ago, maybe a month and a half ago.
	And I've tried a bunch of razor brands.
	These are the best.
	Not even close.
	They've just come out with their sharpest blades ever.
	Unlike some other razor companies, they are not charging you for their product improvements.
	Harry's new sharper blades are still as low as $2 each.
	Now, if you're using some of the big names that have been around for a long time, you're probably paying significantly more than that for each razor.
	How do they do it?
	Harry's owns a German factory.
	They've been making razor blades for 100 years.
	They source their steel from Sweden, and they own the entire manufacturing process from the R&D to the factory floor.
	This allows them to keep prices low.
	Your eighth shave is as sharp as your first.
	How is that possible?
	I couldn't tell you, but they stand by it with 100% quality control guarantee.
	Harry's is available wherever you shop.
	You can get Harry's sharpest blades ever at the big box drug and grocery stores near you.
	You just head on over to the grooming aisle.
	And by the way, if you like to shop online, Harry's has a great offer for listeners to my show.
	Go to get a Harry's trial set.
	At harrys.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S, you get a five-blade razor featuring their newer, sharper blades, a weighted handle, foaming shave gel with aloe, and a travel cover to protect your blade when you're on the go.
	By the way, you're going to like the price that you have to pay.
	You're not even going to feel like you're paying anything.
	You're not going to feel that way.
	Go to harrys.com slash Knowles.
	Redeem your trial offer today.
	So, Senator Hirono opens up the hearings by asking Judge Amy Coney Barrett, mother of seven, Catholic...
	Law professor, appellate judge, if she has sexually harassed anybody.
	And the weird sex questions only got weirder from there.
	Democrats really do have an obsession with sex here.
	They have an obsession with sex in the way that a fourth grader has an obsession with sex.
	It's all they can think about.
	They can't raise their minds to higher things.
	So the next question from Senator Hirono involves...
	Same-sex marriage, the redefinition of marriage, which occurred in this country not through the legislatures, not through some persuasion that we citizens had amongst one another.
	It's because Justice Anthony Kennedy decided to redefine the fundamental political and social institution from the bench.
	And Maisie Hirono is very worried that Judge Barrett does not agree with Justice Kennedy's romantic poetry.
	This morning, Senator Feinstein asked you a question about the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v.
	Hodges, a case in which the court recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
	And I was disappointed that you wouldn't give a direct answer on whether you agreed with the majority in that case, or if you instead agree with your mentor, Justice Scalia, that no such right exists in the Constitution.
	Obviously, no such right exists in the Constitution.
	Does anybody seriously believe that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought that what was going into that Constitution was the fundamental redefinition of marriage for the first time in human history to not have something to do with sexual difference, to not have something to do with the difference between men and women?
	No, nobody thinks that.
	Does anybody seriously believe at the time the Constitution was ratified, the public meaning of that document was that they were going to fundamentally redefine marriage as now no longer having anything to do with sexual difference?
	No, nobody seriously believes that.
	Does anybody seriously believe that in, I don't know, 1998?
	Anybody believe the Constitution fundamentally redefined marriage?
	How about 2008?
	How about 2012?
	Barack Obama in 2012 still did not support gay marriage as any sort of political right, as any sort of legislative issue, certainly not as any kind of constitutional issue.
	At least in his public speech, maybe he was lying to us.
	Maybe in his mind he really did support it.
	But at the very least, I think we all have to admit, nowhere does the Constitution redefine marriage.
	So what happens?
	Some robed lawyers on the Supreme Court decided to take that issue away from the people and our self-government.
	And fundamentally redefine it.
	Which follows perfectly in line with Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence when in Planned Parenthood v.
	Casey he said that we have the right to define our own conception of existence.
	We have the right to redefine reality.
	Well sure if you can redefine reality certainly you can redefine reality.
	Marriage.
	Amy Barrett handles these questions very well, smacks them down, obviously isn't going to comment on individual cases.
	Then Senator Hirono gets very, very upset because Barrett is dealing with this so well she's not taking the bait.
	But Judge Barrett used a very, very offensive term.
	Do you know what that term was?
	Drumroll.
	Sexual preference.
	Not once, but twice, you use the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community.
	And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.
	It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.
	It is not.
	Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity.
	That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority's opinion in Obergefell, which, by the way, Scalia did not agree with.
	So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference, as you noted, Then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry.
	I knew that Senator Hirono was a hack.
	I didn't know that she was illiterate.
	I didn't know that she doesn't understand the basic meaning of words.
	There is nothing offensive about the term preference.
	Sexual preference is the most precise term that we can use to discuss these sexual issues that Senator Hirono is talking about.
	And there's nothing in it that suggests that a preference is a free choice.
	Preferences can be innate.
	Preferences can come to us from our very little childhood.
	I have had a preference for chocolate chip cookies over oatmeal raisin cookies for as long as I can remember.
	I did not freely choose this preference.
	I did not wake up one day and say, today I am now going to choose to prefer chocolate chip cookies.
	How about ice cream?
	People have preferences.
	Do you like chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream?
	I assume you didn't choose that preference.
	You didn't sit and intellectually decide, okay, I'm going to be a vanilla guy.
	That's what I'm going to prefer.
	No, your preferences are just that.
	Actually, this is the difference between a preference and an opinion.
	Often, though, this is one of my pet peeves, but the left does this all the time.
	They don't know what an opinion is either.
	So, for instance, they'll say, well, these are the facts, and everything else is just your opinion.
	As if to say opinions are unreasonable, but opinions are not unreasonable.
	Opinions are statements of fact from our point of view.
	So I form an opinion using my faculties of reason.
	Opinions can be true, and some opinions are false.
	But we can debate opinion because they're actually referring to objective fact.
	There's a third option, which is preference.
	And you can't debate preference.
	Degustibus non disputandem est is a Latin phrase which means there's no arguing over taste.
	There's no accounting for taste.
	I can't say to you, excuse me, Johnny, you're completely mistaken.
	Vanilla is much more delicious than chocolate.
	I can try to make some arguments, but ultimately that question is coming down to a question of taste and preference.
	Talk about Democrats reaching.
	Now they're begging, they're trying to redefine.
	This term, which is perfectly innocuous and perfectly precise, because they ain't got nothing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
	So finally, once Senator Hirono stopped embarrassing herself at the Senate, Dianne Feinstein, who sometimes embarrasses herself but is at least more impressive than Macy Hirono, she got up and she talked about the sexual question that the Democrats actually talk about, the ones that they actually want to know about, which is not...
	Sexual preferences, it's not even the redefinition of marriage.
	It is whether or not we're all going to continue to pretend that the Constitution protects the right to kill a baby.
	Dianne Feinstein goes directly after Roe.
	Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?
	So, Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can.
	I think on that question, I'm going to invoke Justice Kagan's description, which I think is perfectly put.
	When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
	And I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge.
	So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.
	So on something that is really a major cause with major effect on over half of the population of this country, who are women after all, it's distressing not to get a straight answer.
	So let me try again.
	Let me try again, since I have no idea what you just said, Judge Barrett.
	And if you could please tone down the vocabulary here to, I don't know, maybe a second or third grade level, maybe I could understand it.
	You almost feel bad for Senator Feinstein listening to that exchange.
	Because what Amy Barrett does is she doesn't just say, it's my right not to say how I would rule on cases, which is fair enough.
	She doesn't owe Dianne Feinstein an answer on any case.
	But she actually goes further and she says, you know, because these cases are hotly contested, I can't tell you which way I'm leaning on this, because if I were to do that, then that would signal to the litigants some of my preferences, and that would actually change the course of justice.
	So she's making a really positive case for why she can't answer these questions.
	The smarter senators decided just to move on, and unfortunately they had nothing to move on to.
	So you had these wacky scenes.
	Probably the wackiest scene yesterday was Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who, with a name like Whitehouse, I've always wondered why this guy wasn't going to run for president.
	Why wouldn't you run for president?
	He's been in the Senate for a long time.
	His last name is Whitehouse.
	You're ready to go, right?
	But then he opened his mouth yesterday during these hearings, and I realized why, probably not the most viable presidential candidate.
	He went on and just tried out some convoluted conspiracy theories involving dark money.
	What is the scheme here?
	Let me start with this one.
	In all cases, there's big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity.
	One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society.
	It was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo, and it's taken over the selection of judicial nominees.
	How do we know that to be the case?
	Because Trump has said so over and over again.
	His White House counsel said so.
	So we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection run by this guy, Leonard Leo.
	Then in another lane, we have again anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino, and it's doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees.
	So, by the end of this presentation, he's basically just Charlie Day at the conspiracy board, like, yeah, and then this connects to that, and this connects to that, and where's Pepe Silvia?
	There's no point that he ever gets to.
	There's no point.
	Okay, so there are conservative donors who fund organizations, and the organizations influence some of the judicial conservative movement.
	Okay.
	You know, the left has that, too.
	I mean, the left here.
	Hey, here's one.
	Molly Hemingway posted this yesterday.
	This is from the Americans for Public Trust.
	Here's Sheldon Whitehouse's dark money.
	Okay, so where's the dark money?
	You've got Sheldon Whitehouse over here, and then you've got Arabella Advisors.
	You've got some money coming out of there.
	Then you've got a guy named Eric Kessler.
	Then you've got the Center for American Progress, and you've got the Democracy Alliance.
	You've got George Soros here.
	He's funding that.
	You've got Tom Steyer.
	He's funding that.
	Then all the money flows there.
	Okay.
	Is that so...
	Does that mean Sheldon Whitehouse is an illegitimate senator?
	No.
	Big politics attracts big money.
	No surprise there.
	I was speaking to Senator Cruz yesterday.
	We covered a little bit of this on the Verdict podcast.
	He pointed out to me that of the 20 top political donors, 14 of them give almost exclusively to Democrats.
	Another three of them give to both sides.
	And then only three give mostly to Republicans.
	So if the Democrats really want to open this dark money door, fine by me.
	Most, the vast majority of the dark money is going to Democrats.
	But the point here from Sheldon Whitehouse is not to expose anything about money.
	Nothing he said implies anything illegal whatsoever.
	It's to delegitimize the court.
	It's to delegitimize this nominee so that they can try to stack it later.
	It's a cynical tactic, but overall, probably the best card they had to play.
	And when they ran out of that, we could rely on Corey Spartacus Booker to cry tears of rage, not about Judge Barrett, but about President Trump.
	He didn't even try, really, to go after Judge Barrett.
	What you saw, I would say, as a general rule here, is that these guys were just not prepared.
	Now, you will want to be prepared, and there's no better time than to do it right now with ReadyWise.
	You should be prepared with long-term nutritional food options.
	ReadyWise has options such as emergency meals, freeze-dried fruits and vegetables for convenient on-the-go nutrition, new adventure meals for hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities.
	ReadyWise uses the finest ingredients and latest food prep technology to ensure optimal taste and freshness.
	Every single recipe is crafted by a team of chefs to provide a nutritional meal during critical times.
	Each meal is a combination of both dehydrated and freeze-dried ingredients.
	Meals are packed into durable, long-lasting pouches designed to keep food fresh for up to 25 years.
	You know, people get ReadyWise foods to be prepared in case of an emergency.
	That's the point.
	But I will tell you, the taste is great.
	We actually, we got some here at the office and one of my producers, I said, what happened to all the ready-wise?
	Where's that?
	Where's it go?
	And he was eating it for lunch every day because they actually taste very, very good.
	And you get the added benefit then of them having a shelf life of 25 years.
	So you will be prepared in these uncertain times.
	This week, my listeners, get free shipping at ReadyWise.com when entering Knowles Canada W-L-E-S at checkout or by calling 855-453-2945.
	There is a 90-day no-questions-asked return policy.
	No risk taking the initiative to get yourself and your family prepared.
	That is R-E-A-D-Y-W-I-S-E.com.
	Promo code Knowles to get free shipping.
	Cory Booker, Spartacus, was not prepared with any dirt on Judge Barrett, so he went straight at Trump.
	Specifically, he asked Judge Barrett about President Trump's refusal to say that he would peacefully transfer power if he loses the election.
	I appreciate what you've said about respecting our founding fathers, about the originalism.
	It's remarkable that we're at a place right now that this is becoming a question and a topic, but I'm asking you, in light of our founding fathers, in light of our traditions, in light that everyone who serves in that office has sworn an oath where they,
	quote, swear to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I'm just asking you, should a president commit themselves Our founding fathers, I think, have a clear intention, like the grace that George Washington showed, to the peaceful transfer of power.
	Is that something that presidents should be able to do?
	Do you think that the president has the power to pardon himself for any past or future crimes he may have committed against the United States of America?
	Well, Senator Booker, that would be a legal question.
	That would be a constitutional question.
	And so, in keeping with my obligation not to give hints, previews, or forecasts of how I would resolve the case, that's not one that I can answer.
	Well, I think I agree with you.
	That it is an issue right now.
	Something I never thought would be an issue before.
	But it is an issue.
	Yeah, I agree with you, Judge Barrett.
	Yeah, isn't Trump terrible?
	Because he won't say that he'll peacefully transfer power.
	You know Trump, the guy who won in 2016, and then we refused to give up power?
	And you know, then he was president, and we, the left, tried to overthrow his presidency, and we're continuing to do that.
	You know that guy?
	Why won't he?
	You know the guy running against Democrats, our party, Which just said that Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.
	That was Hillary Clinton, the previous Democrat presidential nominee.
	You know that guy?
	Yeah, can you believe he won't transfer power?
	That's a stupid question.
	Trump should never answer that question.
	The minute you accept the premise of that question, you've already lost the idea that you might not peacefully transfer power to the left, which has spent the last nine months burning the country to the ground.
	So once he moves past that stupid hack talking point, then he moves to another stupid hack talking point and asks Judge Barrett to condemn white supremacy.
	I'm going to ask you some questions that if you had told me five years ago that would be questions asked at a Supreme Court nomination hearing, I would have thought they wouldn't be possible.
	But unfortunately, I think they're necessary to ask you.
	And I hope that you'll give me direct answers.
	You've already spoken towards issues of racism and how you deplore it.
	But I want to just ask you very simply, and I imagine you'll give me a very short, resolute answer.
	But you condemn white supremacy, correct?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	I'm glad to see that you said that.
	I wish our president would say that so resolutely and unequivocally as well.
	But we are at a time that Americans are literally fearful because their president Cannot do that in the resolute manner in which you did.
	I'm sorry that that question had to even be asked at this time.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't want it to be asked, but it has to be asked.
	It has to be.
	Judge Barrett, do you condemn the tooth fairy?
	Yes.
	Yes, Senator Booker.
	Okay, Judge Barrett, I have to ask this because this is such a real live issue, not a completely fake contrived issue.
	Do you condemn the Easter Bunny?
	Sure, Senator Booker, I condemn the East.
	Okay, I have to ask you that.
	I didn't know what your answer would be.
	Judge Barrett, who has two black kids that you adopted from Haiti, I didn't know your answer.
	Because Trump, Trump won't condemn that super real thing, that thing that's totally real, that millions of people support.
	You know, white supremacy?
	You know that thing that's totally real?
	He just won't, he won't condemn it.
	Right, Mr.
	President?
	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.
	I just wish he would give an answer.
	I just wish he could just tell us, what do you think about white supremacy?
	You know, in this white supremacist country?
	You know, that real thing?
	You know, what do you...
	So that's all they've got.
	They just make up a bunch of nonsense.
	And then Barrett absolutely, of course, smacked it down.
	She smacked it down, by the way, without notes.
	This was maybe the highlight of her performance at yesterday's hearing.
	She did it without notes.
	You are going to want to take notes, however, at this wonderful conference that is coming up one week from today, where the Daily Wire god king, Jeremy Boring, will be presenting alongside a team of world-renowned business experts at Expert Ownership Live two-day virtual conference about leading through will be presenting alongside a team of world-renowned business experts at The conference features a lineup of speakers like leadership author John Maxwell, the founders of Duck Commander, and Otterbox, the Benham Brothers, many others who can relate to what entrepreneurs and leaders are going through right now.
	They will share stories about their own businesses and startup journeys, the tough times that necessarily come with any company, even here at Daily Wire, even actually when the business was doing well in a certain sense.
	There are these huge issues that can come up that have threatened a lot of businesses, including our own.
	This conference is one of those investments that your business will be thanking you for in the long run.
	So visit expertownershiplive.com slash NOLSKNWLES. Register for $197.
	Buy a second ticket for a friend for 50% off.
	And you, come on, look, you'll get to see Jeremy, which actually may be, I don't know if that's a selling point or if that's, but look, he's got a lot of wisdom.
	Expertownership.com, I'm sorry, expertownershiplive.com slash Knowles.
	Buy one ticket for $197.
	Get another one for 50% off.
	Expertownershiplive.com slash Knowles.
	Judge Barrett knocks it all down and does it without any notes.
	A wonderful moment that was teed up by Texas Senator John Cornyn.
	You know, most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books and things like that in front of us.
	Can you hold up what you've been referring to and answering our questions?
	Is there anything on it?
	That letterhead that says United States Senate.
	That's impressive.
	Holds up a page from my own book, my own book, Reasons to Vote for Democrats, A Comprehensive Guide.
	I think that's what that blank page was.
	Speaking of which, by the way, this is just a little personal side note.
	I am selling so many copies of this blank book, Reasons to Vote for Democrats, A Comprehensive Guide, which President Trump called a great book for your reading enjoyment.
	I am selling so many copies right now that I mention it not just to tell you how happy I am and to thank you for buying the copies, But also to tell you, I consider this like a secret poll of the election.
	The fact that all these people are buying this joke on Democrats, it reminds me of some of these other kind of more hidden poll numbers, right?
	Everyone says, oh, we all hate Trump, and yet 56% of Americans, according to Gallup, say they're better off than they were four years ago.
	All these little numbers, especially in swing states, seem to be very nice for the president.
	But I In any case, Judge Barrett, wherever she got her blank sheet of paper, she held it up.
	You have senators here, the Democratic senators, who could not even ask a question without notes.
	Their heads were buried in their paper.
	Cory Booker was reading from the paper, and he still messed up his delivery.
	You have a Democratic presidential nominee who can't remember his own name.
	And we'll get to some of his stumbles on the campaign trail in just a second.
	Can't remember much of anything.
	And then you have our judicial nominee, Judge Barrett, who goes 12 hours yesterday without any notes.
	The left, the Democrats, they don't have a chance against that.
	And so things are looking very good.
	You don't want to count your chickens before they hatch.
	But right now it's looking very good for Judge Barrett.
	We'll get more hearings today.
	We do have a lot to get to though, because actually I felt the best democratic arguments or at least the most plausible, they weren't that plausible, came from one of their presidential candidates who dropped out, who's not even in the Senate, but he should be because he's much more impressive than all those other guys.
	We will get to him in one second.
	If you haven't already heard though, Daily Wire's old glory Daily Wire baseball bat is back.
	This is our limited edition, handcrafted, custom painted baseball bat emblazoned with the DW logo.
	Since we relaunched this on Monday, they are almost all sold out.
	Again, the first time we did it, it sold out in 48 hours, and it was only available to all access in that case.
	Today is the last day they will be available.
	I don't even know if they're still available right now, but you can try to get yours, okay?
	Try to get your number in.
	Text the keyword baseball, B-A-S-E-B-A-L-L, to 83400.
	That's 83,400.
	83400 to purchase your bat today.
	Today, we'll be right back with a lot more.
	The closest thing to convincing opposition I saw yesterday against Barrett came from someone who wasn't even in the room.
	This was Pete Buttigieg, who the left thinks he's making good arguments because he says things in a calm way and he's sort of polished and has some nice academic credentials.
	So they think that the arguments he's making are sound.
	They're not, but they kind of have the sound of soundness.
	And so they're calling him Slayer Pete on Twitter.
	It's kind of lame.
	It's not going to stick.
	So Mayor Pete, Alfred E. Newman, that was the nickname that Trump gave him, he goes on MSNBC and makes an argument against not just Barrett, but against her judicial philosophy of originalism.
	This is what nominees do.
	They write the most seemingly unobjectionable, dry stuff.
	But really what I see in there is a pathway to judicial activism cloaked in judicial humility.
	At the end of the day, rights in this country have been expanded.
	Because courts have understood what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution is.
	And that is not about time traveling yourself back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations as the people who write these words.
	The Constitution is a living document because the English language is a living language.
	And you need to have some readiness to understand that.
	In order to serve on the court in a way that's actually going to make life better.
	So nothing he just said is true and everything is extraordinarily radical, but because he's saying it in a calm way, it seems almost plausible.
	He contradicts himself immediately, right?
	He says, look, what I see here, Judge Barrett is talking about how she just wants to read the text by what the words actually mean and what they were understood to mean at ratification.
	That's judicial activism, okay?
	Because for decades now, the court has been expanding rights based on how they know the truth and the spirit of the Constitution.
	So some judge writing in 2015 knows better than what the Constitution says than the people who wrote the Constitution and the people who were alive at the time of ratification who wrote about the Constitution, right?
	Well, that's madness.
	How on earth could you make that argument?
	Well, he says, because it's a living, breathing document.
	Now, just as a simple matter, it is not living.
	It's dead.
	It's on dead paper.
	It's on dead trees with dead ink.
	And it's not breathing.
	It's paper, and paper doesn't breathe.
	So it's not a living, breathing document.
	He says, but the meaning of it changes as the English language changes.
	So, for instance, let's say that...
	There's a law against murder.
	You cannot commit murder.
	And then the word murder, because language changes over time, comes to mean not killing somebody intentionally, but eating chocolate ice cream.
	That's just the new, I don't know, it's kind of a weird way language evolved, but now for some reason murder means eating chocolate ice cream.
	Does that mean that it is illegal for me to eat chocolate ice cream?
	Of course not.
	Could you imagine the chaos that our laws would be subjected to, that our entire system of government would be subjected to, if we had to interpret statutes by what words mean at any given time?
	By the way, who's supposed to define how the words mean as they are changing?
	The reason we have linguistic prescription, namely saying you should use words as they are defined, Because if you have linguistic description, meaning you should use words as whatever the way people are using them now, people use words differently now.
	The very nature of language changing means that at the moment, right now, as the meaning is somewhat unclear, we can't arrive at a specific meaning.
	Which is Buttigieg's point, because what he really wants to do is just empower judges to impose their will on the language.
	Pete Buttigieg, who pretends to be a moderate, his father was a radical academic.
	He was the president of the International Gramsci Society.
	Antonio Gramsci is the first self-described cultural Marxist.
	He was the leader of the Italian Communist Party, and he wrote pretty interesting texts, actually, about how Marx got certain things wrong and we need to apply the Marxist revolutionary concepts to the culture to take over institutions and wage a war of position rather than a war of maneuver.
	This would later be interpreted by the radicals of the 60s as the long march through the institutions, basically melding the language of Mao and the language of Gramsci.
	Buttigieg's dad was such an admirer of Gramsci that he was a co-founder and president of the International Gramsci Society.
	This guy is coming from a very radical intellectual perspective, which comes down to, and Gramsci, by the way, is one of the major influences on what we now call political correctness.
	Well, what Buttigieg is talking about is political correctness, right?
	He's just saying, yeah, we're going to redefine words to mean whatever we want them to mean.
	And then however we define them, conveniently, that's what we're going to read into the Constitution.
	He then tries to defend this by citing Thomas Jefferson.
	It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said that we might as well ask a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when he was a boy.
	As expect future generations to live under what he called the regime of their barbarous ancestors.
	So even the founders that these kind of dead-hand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants, today's judicial so-called conservatives, the importance of keeping with the times.
	And we deserve judges and justices who understand that.
	What Thomas Jefferson was referring to, you don't need a crystal ball, you can just read the rest of his writing.
	What he's referring to is not how future generations should redefine basic language and usurp the power of the people to define how they're going to live.
	He's talking about the amendment process.
	Nobody says we should live under exactly the same constitution that they had in the 18th century.
	They're saying, yeah, we should change it with the times.
	Antonin Scalia said he wished it were even easier to change the Constitution, but there is a process.
	It's called the amendment process.
	But Buttigieg knows his radical ideas would never make it through the amendment process.
	So instead, he just wants to steal power.
	Even Buttigieg, who's, I guess, the most articulate of the Democratic players right now who's coming out, Nothing.
	He's offering nothing.
	He's offering just spurious, ridiculous arguments.
	So Barrett did very well.
	We're going to hear more from her today.
	The way you know that this is not going very well for Democrats is that even the mainstream media are trying to change course here.
	Nancy Pelosi was on talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. And, you know, CNN just carries water for Democrats all the time.
	But on this issue of the current process, Wolf Blitzer actually cut her off.
	And Nancy Pelosi became so enraged, she accused them of shilling for the Republicans.
	Even members of your own caucus, Madam Speaker, want to accept this deal.
	$1.8 trillion.
	Congressman Ro Khanna, for example.
	Let me just quote Ro Khanna, a man you know well.
	I assume you admire him.
	He's a Democrat.
	And he just said this.
	He said, people in need can't wait until February.
	$1.8 trillion is significant and more than twice the Obama stimulus.
	Make a deal.
	Put the ball in McConnell court.
	So what do you say to Ro Khanna?
	What I say to you is, I don't know why you're always an apologist.
	And many of your colleagues, apologists for the Republican position.
	Ro Khanna, that's nice.
	That isn't what we're going to do.
	And nobody's waiting till February.
	CNN, they're apologists for the Republican position?
	How can Nancy Pelosi say that with a straight face?
	Not even Fox is apologizing and defending Republican positions anymore.
	Much less CNN. Are you kidding me?
	Are you kidding me?
	How does she say that?
	Because occasionally they push back on Democrats and the Democrats are not used to that.
	The thing you have to remember, though, is that Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi want the same thing.
	They want more government power and they want to spend more and more money and they want Democrats to win elections.
	They want the same goals.
	But they're having a disagreement over tactics.
	When the media and the left disagree, it's never over the end goal.
	When the media and conservatives disagree, it's over the goals.
	It's over the vision of the country.
	It's over the politics.
	But the political system, rather.
	When the media and the left elected Democrats are disagreeing, Because obviously the media are the left, but when the media and elected Democrats are disagreeing, it's over tactics, not politics.
	Pelosi is saying, I'm going to play hardball with Trump and maybe we don't get a deal on COVID. Wolf Blitzer is saying, damn it, you need a deal on COVID because we're losing this election.
	So come on, Nancy, get your act together.
	It's like a little spat between lovers.
	They do want the same thing in the end, but there is disagreement now on the left about how they go about that.
	They've got no answer.
	Joe Biden was asked about that Gallup poll I referred to earlier, how 56% of Americans say they're better off today than they were four years ago.
	He was asked about what he would say to people who feel that way.
	Not only did he not have an answer, it wasn't just that, he had the worst answer possible.
	Gallup reported last week, 56% of Americans said that they were better off today than they were four years ago, would have been under the Obama-Biden administration.
	So why should people who feel that they are better off today, under the Trump administration, vote for you?
	Well, if they think that, they probably shouldn't.
	I'm Donald Trump, and I approve this message.
	I don't think that's an actual Trump campaign ad.
	I think someone just clipped that together on the internet.
	But it could be.
	I think Trump should run that ad.
	What do you say to people who say they're better off under Trump, even with a pandemic, even with an economic collapse, they're better off under Trump than they were under you?
	Well, I got nothing to say to them.
	I guess they shouldn't vote for me.
	Wrong answer.
	I mean, it's the correct answer.
	It's the true answer.
	But politically, it's incorrect.
	Politically, it's not advantageous.
	Compare that guy.
	To President Trump, who is now, he's feeling better than ever.
	He goes to a rally in Pennsylvania.
	He says he's feeling so good.
	He's feeling so safe from the virus.
	He wants to kiss everybody.
	And I could have stayed in the basement of the White House or maybe the top floor of the White House.
	I could have done that.
	But I'm the president of the United States.
	I can't do that.
	I got to get out and I have to meet people and I have to see people.
	And I know it's risky to do that.
	But you have to do what you have to do.
	You know, I'm the president.
	I can't sit in the basement and say, let's wait this thing out.
	I'm not going to do that.
	And now I'm immune, they tell me.
	I'm immune.
	I could come down and start kissing everybody.
	I'll kiss every guy, man and woman, man and woman.
	Look at that guy, how handsome he is.
	I'll kiss him, not with a lot of enjoyment, but that's okay.
	I'll kiss them all, all the men and the women, even the men.
	It won't be my favorite.
	You've got to remember, and we always forget it about this guy because he's pretty smooth about it.
	This is a showman.
	This guy is a comedian.
	I mean, he is a top-tier comedian.
	He's a top-tier Hollywood guy and has been for 30 years.
	And I'm glad he's going out there and doing rallies.
	He should be doing a whole lot more rallies.
	That is where he is thriving.
	Democrats are trying to cook the debates.
	That's the right thing.
	Compare that.
	Compare that guy on his feet.
	There was a video going around of Trump dancing the YMCA. On, you know, one of these platforms, one of these rally stages.
	There's no need to be unhappy.
	He's just, he's feeling good.
	He's feeling healthy.
	Compare that to Joe, who hasn't even had the coronavirus.
	He can't remember anything.
	You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against a senator who was a Mormon, the governor, okay?
	And I took him on.
	No, he is a senator.
	He was a governor.
	I like that Joe Biden starts this out.
	You may remember.
	No, you may remember.
	I hope you remember, because I don't remember.
	What were we talking about?
	Where am I? It's Joe Biden.
	That's Joe Biden without coronavirus.
	Donald Trump with coronavirus, much more vigorous than Joe Biden without coronavirus.
	Speaking, by the way, of Senator Romney, I mean, Biden has, you've seen these, he's had so many of these moments.
	He just recently, again, said that he's a proud Democrat running for the Senate.
	You know, he doesn't even remember what office he's running for.
	Very, very sad.
	And in the midst of this, speaking of Mitt Romney, you have the answer to the question that nobody was asking.
	Romney says, here are my thoughts on the political situation.
	It's one of these stupid, awful infographics.
	I've stayed quiet with the approach of the election, but I'm troubled by our politics, as it has moved away from spirited debate to a vile, vituperative, hate-filled morass that is unbecoming of any free nation, let alone the birthplace of modern democracy.
	The president calls the Democratic vice presidential candidate a monster.
	He repeatedly labels the Speaker of the House crazy.
	He calls for the Justice Department to put the prior president in jail.
	He attacks the government, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Then he says, does he ever get to the Democrats here?
	He does.
	Oh, yes.
	He says, Pelosi tears up the president's State of the Union speech on national television.
	Keith Olbermann calls the president a terrorist.
	Media on the left and right amplify it all.
	And, you know, it's so awful.
	He even, he gives the Democrats another message.
	He says, Democrats launch blistering attacks of their own, though their presidential nominee refuses to stoop as low as others.
	Biden, he's a good guy.
	Vote for Biden is what he's really saying.
	These attacks are terrible.
	They're dangerous.
	It's time to lower the heat.
	Oh, this guy is insufferable, Mitt Romney.
	He thinks that whining makes him virtuous.
	He thinks that sanctimony makes him virtuous.
	It doesn't.
	This is pure cowardice.
	That's what we've got from Romney.
	You know, I voted for the guy in the general in 2012.
	But in my defense, I worked for two of his primary opponents.
	I always knew Romney was like this.
	And he's proving it right.
	This is pure cowardice.
	Because what Romney's saying is, I'm a Republican, but not one of those Republicans.
	What Romney's saying is, I hate the political reality.
	Fine, I think a lot of us hate the political reality.
	Or at least we would prefer a different political reality.
	Yeah, I think all of us would.
	And he says, and I'm just, I'm so much better than our politics.
	I'm so much better than this.
	I don't want to have to do this.
	I don't want to have to vote for Trump.
	He's mean.
	Buddy, there is nothing...
	Nice and kind and virtuous about divorcing yourself from reality and choosing to live in fantasy.
	Nothing at all.
	This is where we are.
	Politics happens in reality.
	It doesn't happen in fantasy.
	It doesn't happen in ideological manifestos.
	It doesn't happen in Mitt Romney's...
	Pruned and gardened, wonderful, walled-off life.
	It happens in reality.
	If you want to do anything for us in politics, you have to do it in reality.
	And these thinly-veiled, sort of subtle endorsements of Joe Biden, who would empower all of these awful people, is a cowardly, low sort of thing to do.
	And even if he would deny that, even if he says, no, I'm not subtly endorsing Biden, which I think he is, But even if you weren't, to throw up your hands and say, oh, it's all awful.
	We've both got problems.
	We don't.
	This is something that has been pushed by the left.
	The left has degraded our language.
	The left has degraded our politics.
	The left has degraded our Supreme Court nomination process.
	The left has degraded our presidential elections by refusing to accept the results.
	In 2000, in 2016, in 2017, in 2018, when they tried to launch a coup d'etat.
	Not successfully, thankfully.
	They have done this.
	And what Romney wants to say is, oh, we're both bad, aren't we?
	Yeah, I'm a good guy.
	Don't you like me?
	Pathetic.
	Absolutely pathetic.
	It is an embarrassment that that man is in the U.S. Senate.
	It would be so much better if he were not in the U.S. Senate and if he gave that seat up to a conservative who has courage, which is a virtue and it's the prerequisite for all of the other virtues.
	I've got to get to gay cookies before we go.
	I have to.
	I want to end where we began on Democrats' weird sex obsession.
	Oreos, beginning October 9th, are...
	Shipping out rainbow-colored cookies, colored cream cookies that are given away to the first 10,000 people to share on social media their idea of allyship.
	Allyship is some newfangled word that refers to endorsing the sexual revolution, endorsing the left's view on sex.
	Specifically, they say it used to be with regard to homosexuality.
	Now it's obviously expanded much more than that to the LGBT, which is kind of the T undermines the G, right?
	Because the transgender undermines the arguments for Same-sex attraction, the homosexual orientation, because the T undermines your gender.
	So, you know, just to put it in simple terms, if you're a gay guy and you say, oh, I can't change this, I was born this way, and then you've got the transgender movement comes along and says, of course you can change your gender.
	So then the gay guy makes himself cosmetically look like a woman.
	I guess he's no longer a gay guy.
	So I guess he did change his sexual orientation.
	Or he didn't change his gender.
	Or gender is a silly concept pushed by the left and really there's biological sex, which obviously you can't change.
	Either way, this is an ideology.
	This is not a sexual preference or a sexual orientation or whatever words you want to use.
	This is left-wing ideology.
	And it's even come into our cookies.
	Cookies!
	How did we get here?
	The Democrat obsession with sex, the left's obsession with sex, It's not about guys who are sexually attracted to other guys or gals who are sexually attracted to other gals or people who are confused about their sex or have some kind of psychological issue.
	Not about that at all.
	Not about that at all.
	It is about control.
	It derives from a simple phrase that the feminist left gave us in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
	The personal is the political.
	The personal is the political.
	That basically politics has to come down to everything in our society.
	Has to enter into the bedroom.
	Has to enter into the local community.
	Has to enter into our sneakers.
	Has to enter into our food.
	Has to enter into our chicken sandwiches.
	Has to enter into our cookies.
	Everything has to be political.
	But there is a flip side to this, which is as everything becomes political, The only thing that gets depoliticized is politics.
	No longer are we permitted to have disagreements over the way our constitution should be enforced in our country and how the systems that the constitution sets up, I'll be more precise.
	We'll make the laws for us.
	We're not allowed to have those discussions anymore.
	We're not allowed to have those debates.
	Now we have to just pretend that the Constitution means whatever Pete Buttigieg says it means.
	Or whatever Anthony Kennedy says it means.
	Or whatever Ruth Ginsburg says it means.
	But interestingly, not what Amy Barrett says it means.
	Politicizing everything is a distraction and an unmooring from any kind of traditional sense of our society.
	So that we will be distracted, look away, and in the meantime, our actual political questions, eternal questions, justice, equality, liberty, all these things that we debate and we try to figure out how they should be enacted in our society.
	Those are taken away from us.
	And those are now being made by the very ideologues who are distracting us with bread and circuses.
	And we saw a circus yesterday on Capitol Hill.
	Bread and circuses and gay cookies.
	All, all to turn us away from the real political decisions that are being made far, far away from the free choice of we the people.
	That's our show.
	I'm 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.
	You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
	I think there are enough of those already out there.
	We talk about culture because culture drives politics and it drives everything else.
	So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
	Those are fundamental.
	And that's what this show is about.

▲