Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 30, 2021 - The Michael Knowles Show

50:26

Ep. 731 - No Time For Compromise

Biden wants a new round of mask mandates, Kristi Noem won’t go all the way to fight gender ideology, and Guatemala teaches the U.S. how to deal with caravans of foreign nationals. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	As we reach the 380th day of 15 days to slow the spread, President Joe Biden is beginning to lose his grip on power, as are the left-wing technocrats around the country.
	So the president is pleading with us, please, please, institute new mask mandates.
	I'm reiterating my call for every governor, mayor, and local leader to maintain and reinstate the mask mandate.
	Please, this is not politics.
	Reinstate the mandate if you let it down.
	And businesses require masks as well.
	The failure to take this virus seriously, precisely what got us into this mess in the first place, risks more cases and more deaths.
	Look, as I do my part to accelerate the vaccine distribution and vaccinations, I need the American people to do their part as well.
	Mask up.
	Mask up.
	It's a patriotic duty.
	It's the only way we ever get back to normal.
	To cheer together in stadiums full of fans.
	To gather together on holidays again safely.
	Go to graduations, weddings.
	This is not politics.
	It's just me, the president, telling the mayors and the governors to institute a policy mandating that you all wear that filthy rag on your face.
	Because I said so.
	It's not politics.
	No thank you, Mr.
	President.
	I don't think I'm going to do that.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is the Michael Knowles Show.
	Welcome back to the show.
	50 years in politics and Joe Biden does not know the meaning of the word politics.
	Or maybe he does and he's just lying to you.
	Maybe that seems a little more in keeping with his career.
	My favorite comment yesterday from Olivia Vee who says, Breaking news!
	Fauci says once we achieve zero deaths from any cause whatsoever, then we can all go outside.
	Basically that is what he's saying.
	The public health apparatus broadly just keeps moving the goalposts forever and ever and ever.
	So it was slow the spread, flatten the curve, find a cure, get vaccines, and then what?
	Rinse and repeat.
	And then, well, there's new variants.
	Well, you know, just to be safe.
	Well, the flu's pretty bad too.
	Well, just...
	Obey, obey, obey.
	This is true.
	The only way it's going to stop is if you stop going along with it.
	One great way to have a hedge against some of the madness of politics is to invest in physical metals.
	One way to do that, Acre Gold.
	You know how the price of gold has been skyrocketing lately.
	Well, now there's a new way to buy gold through a company called Acre.
	Acre lets you subscribe to gold bars for as little as $30 a month.
	You pay each month.
	Once your gold stash reaches the price of their gold bars, They will discreetly ship Acre Gold to your house.
	Just recently, Acre introduced a new $100 a month subscription to a 5 gram gold bar.
	And my favorite product, there's an ammo shortage going on right now.
	So Acre crafted a solid gold 24 karat 9 millimeter bullet for you to buy right now.
	They're only making a thousand of these.
	It should tell you probably not a good investment if you get it and then shoot it out of a gun, unless you're shooting at a werewolf.
	That would make a lot of sense.
	Really great stuff.
	It's hard to invest in physical gold all at once unless you've got a good amount of money hanging around in those couch cushions.
	I think it's a really terrific way to do it.
	Getacregold.com slash Michael.
	Head on over there, start investing in physical gold today.
	Make sure you use that URL because Acre is giving away a gold bar.
	To qualify for the giveaway, tweet or post why you should be the recipient and mention at get underscore Acre.
	That is getacregold.com slash Michael.
	And thank you, Acregold, for supporting the show.
	Joe Biden, he's a liar and he's not the brightest bulb in the pack.
	So you don't know exactly which it is.
	What are you saying?
	It's not politics.
	Does he really?
	Maybe he really thinks that.
	Maybe he's lying.
	It's really hard to tell.
	And yet, somehow, I still prefer Joe Biden to the alternative.
	Here are some high-soaring rhetoric from the would-be future president, Kamala Harris.
	More people are seeing that, yeah, affordable childcare is a big deal.
	More parents are seeing the value of educators when they had to bring their kids and say, we're not paying them nearly enough.
	And then they'll say more.
	And then she just flies off on a broomstick.
	This is weird.
	This is weird stuff.
	It's a strange nervous tic that she has.
	I guess people have nervous tics.
	A friend of mine coughs when he gets nervous.
	Some people laugh when they get nervous.
	So I guess this is hers and she cackles like a witch.
	But the stranger thing is not that this is her particular nervous tic.
	It's that this woman who has reached a very high position in politics...
	Has so many nervous tics, or rather falls into her nervous tics so often.
	The strange thing about Kamala Harris to me is what a bad retail politician she is, and yet what a good behind-the-scenes politician she is.
	People don't like her.
	That's why she was booted out of the Democratic primary so early on.
	She's really not good at communicating with voters, at appealing to voters.
	But she is really good at working the system.
	As it were.
	She began her...
	How do I say this without being rude?
	She began her political career in the old-fashioned way, I suppose, in the really old-fashioned way.
	And she worked her way up in politics.
	And then she made it to AG, then Senator...
	I guess a little bit public in California, but still she was kind of working the machine system.
	Then she tried on the national stage for president.
	They didn't like her there.
	But I said at the time, don't count her out.
	This woman is a really slick politician.
	And she did.
	She managed to make it all the way to vice president while being so unappealing.
	Which is why I think when Republicans look at her and say, oh, she would be easy to beat, let's say in 2024 maybe or 2028, I wonder about that.
	Sure, she's weird on stage and she's not really likable, but she's a pretty talented politician, no question about it.
	Joe Biden's kind of the opposite.
	He's really, really likable.
	And yet, he's made it very far, obviously, in politics.
	He's made it to the top of his profession.
	But he really is a vessel of the establishment.
	In a way that, you know, he's kind of got the whole package, whereas with her, it's just this behind the scenes kind of thing.
	But maybe that could take her even further in 2024.
	And 2024 is on a lot of people's minds right now.
	Who are the Republicans going to put up?
	One of the candidates that's often talked about is Kristi Noem in South Dakota.
	People are a little upset with me because I've been harsh on Kristi Noem the last couple of weeks.
	Well, I don't care.
	I'm going to keep being harsh on Kristi Noem because I think she could be a very interesting candidate.
	I think she did very, very well on COVID. And now I think she's going squishy.
	And I understand that she's making certain somewhat plausible arguments for going squishy, but I just don't think they cut it.
	I think she's missing the moment.
	She should reverse course.
	Had her legislature put up this bill to protect women, to protect the sexual distinction between men and women, and specifically to prohibit men from participating in women's sports.
	And she wouldn't sign the bill.
	She said she would sign the bill for K-12, that she would kick men out of women's sports at the Elementary, middle, and high school level.
	But she didn't want to do so for the college level because this would upset the NCAA and this would upset the corporations that are putting pressure on her.
	And her argument was, well, look, I don't have a ton of control over the colleges.
	This involves other states.
	And so I'm just going to go for the thing that I have control over and then maybe we'll work the college thing a little bit later.
	Her exact line was, Unfortunately, as I've studied this legislation and converted with legal experts over the past several days, I've become concerned that this bill's vague and overly broad language could have significant unintended consequences.
	I'm also concerned that the approach House Bill 1217 takes is unrealistic in the context of collegiate athletics.
	I get her argument.
	If she wants to be a leader, though, she has to lead.
	If she wants to be the governor of South Dakota and that's the end of it, okay, fine, whatever, she's doing her job.
	If she wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, it's not enough to, you know, do pretty good stuff and tinker around the edges, but really just let the NCAA and corporations and other states call the shots.
	And look, if they want transformational gender ideology, if they want that kind of radical ideology, Leftism that will put men in women's sports.
	She'll try to fight in her own little corner, but she's basically going to let them run roughshod over her on the national stage.
	Well, then she's not going to be a viable national candidate.
	That's just the way it is.
	And if she does want to be a viable national candidate, then lead.
	Then lead.
	She knows that she should do this.
	That's why when she won't sign the bill, she's issuing these executive orders.
	One, to deal with the K-12 issue.
	Good.
	My hat goes off to you, ma'am.
	But then the second one was this weaker way of trying to get around the college thing.
	It's not going to work.
	You're not going to defeat something so radical as the left's redefinition of sex, of human nature itself, by tinkering around the edges and dealing with what you know for certain you can deal with in your state.
	But we don't want to go too far because then we might get sued by colleges or we might lose college sports games in my state.
	Maybe other schools won't come here and that's not great.
	Okay, I guess then we're just not talking about the same thing.
	Because if you're just going to fight within your own little corner and not push back against the broader narrative and the much more powerful forces at play on the national level, then you're not trying to win the issue, you're just managing the decline.
	And I don't want managed decline.
	Managed decline is what we've gotten for 20 years, really more than 20 years, in the Republican Party.
	I don't want that.
	I'm glad that you're fighting back, you know, in your own little corner, but on the national stage, you got to do a little bit more.
	Kristi Noem says the right stuff, so I hope that she reverses course here.
	She just went after that rapper Lil Nas X. She said, our kids are being told that this, you know, he's the one with the Satan shoes and with a drop of human blood in it and the pentagram, and it's obviously a publicity stunt.
	That will only cost the rapper his soul.
	So, you know, that's a small price to pay, right?
	To sell some sneakers.
	She says, our kids are being told that this kind of product is not only okay, it's inclusive.
	But do you know what's more exclusive?
	They're God-given eternal soul.
	We're in a fight for the soul of our nation.
	We need to fight hard and we need to fight smart and we have to win.
	Great.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Good talk.
	Good talk.
	That sounds great.
	When push comes to shove, though, Are you really gonna stand firm?
	Are you really gonna fight hard?
	Are you really gonna push back on the issue where it counts?
	Because it doesn't just count as a matter of the public schools in South Dakota.
	It counts certainly at the college level, and the governor has some say over that, and it counts more so at the corporate level.
	It counts in the private sphere, so-called, where corporate America is just blasting these insane radical messages to American students and the people more broadly.
	So what?
	We're going to say, okay, we're going to deal with the stuff in our state and these certain governments, but hey, we're going to back away when the corporations and the colleges and the college organizations push back too hard.
	No, that's not how you win.
	Not a chance.
	If you're not even going to stand up to them, that's just not...
	Not going to work.
	Lil Nas X, by the way, responded to the governor and said, You're a whole governor and you're on here tweeting about some damn shoes.
	Do your job.
	Obviously, so many people taking the bait on Lil Nas X. I have a piece up at the Daily Wire today actually discussing the things that I think we can learn from Lil Nas X. Not the stupid shoes, but from the music video.
	I talked about it a little bit yesterday in the show as well.
	Kristi Noem's got to change course if she wants to be a viable candidate because other governors around the country are doing so and it's having great effect on their 2024 prospects.
	If you want to understand what's going on here, if you want to increase your perception and your abilities in this increasingly incoherent world, it's good to pay attention to the news, think about these things.
	Also, Learn the classics.
	Check out the great courses.
	I love the great courses.
	Bishop Odo, wielding a club, comforts his boys by smacking them on the head and telling them to run back into the Battle of Hastings.
	This scene is depicted on the very famous bio-tapestry.
	And you can learn all about it with The Great Courses Plus.
	The Great Courses Plus has my favorite class on there, which is 1066, a year that truly changed everything.
	But you can get unlimited streaming access to thousands of video lectures on virtually anything that interests you.
	You can learn chess from an expert.
	You can explore the cosmos.
	You can even get tips on how to train your dog.
	You can even learn about medieval battles in England, which to me is much more interesting.
	I want you to experience that aha moment of really learning something new, of spending your time wisely, of filling your time up with things that are really going to edify you.
	So, you right now will get a free month of unlimited access to The Great Courses Plus.
	Show your support of the show and sign up through my special URL, thegreatcoursesplus.com slash Knowles.
	Do not miss out on this.
	Sign up for your free trial now at thegreatcoursesplus.com slash Knowles.
	Christy Noem seems to be squandering her 2024 prospect here, which is pretty significant.
	There's another Republican governor down in Florida who is, I think, increasing his chances dramatically.
	Governor DeSantis was addressing the issue of vaccine mandates in Florida.
	DeSantis has handled the rollout of the vaccine better than, I guess, just about any governor in the country.
	But what about this question of forcing citizens to get the vaccine, as we've heard recently?
	DeSantis says, no way.
	It's completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society.
	That is completely unacceptable.
	Now what does that mean though?
	Does that mean that Ron DeSantis is going to say, look, all I do is control the government, so the government's never going to do this.
	But if, you know, the private sector wants to do this, why, it's the absolute height of conservatism, capital C, to let corporations force you into whatever radical leftism they want.
	That's true conservatism, and we never can, through our politics, rein in that kind of craziness.
	Now, is he saying that?
	No.
	Because he realizes that's a bunch of bunk, and so what he's doing is doubling down on a message that he sent earlier this month.
	He's had clarity on this issue for quite some time, specifically with regard to the idea of vaccine passports, that you're not going to be able to go to businesses, you're not going to be able to go to the bar, you're not going to be able to engage in commerce unless you prove that you got the vaccine that was developed over the course of six months.
	Governor DeSantis says, no way.
	The vaccine passport is a terrible idea.
	We are definitely not going to require anything from the state's perspective.
	That is totally off the table.
	If I have businesses that want to do that in Florida, I think that that's more than just a private decision.
	I think that impacts our society.
	I think that impacts people, particularly disadvantaged people, in a way that would really be negative for our state.
	So what form that would take?
	I'd have to discuss it with my folks.
	I'd have to discuss it potentially with the legislature.
	But I think it's a very, very bad idea.
	Look, if you want to go to a movie theater, a concert, all this stuff, go.
	If you don't, don't.
	But to require somebody to show some type of proof of vaccination, I think, is completely unacceptable.
	And it's not something that we're going to support here in any way in Florida.
	Love this.
	Love this answer.
	Because he recognizes that there are two parts to the question, and he's got the right answer on both.
	So he says, yeah, from the government perspective, it's not even a question.
	I'm not even considering the vaccine passport thing as a matter of using state services or anything.
	But when you're asking me about the private businesses, now we've got some debate.
	You've got the people who worship at the altar of the market or something who say, yeah, let the corporations do whatever they want.
	And there are some people who consider themselves conservatives who believe that.
	And then there are the other conservatives who say, no, if I'm being coerced into getting the jab to participate in society, I don't care if it's the government telling me to do it or some middle manager at Amazon.
	I just don't want to do it.
	And he's saying, yeah, it seems to me that if a business...
	Is forcing you to expose your medical history, to get injected with certain things?
	That goes beyond just the private sector or the free market or something.
	I don't think we're going to do that.
	Now, he doesn't spell out exactly how he would prohibit it.
	It's kind of a newer idea or it's the return of an old idea on the right that perhaps we can interfere in certain market dynamics when those market dynamics completely upend our way of life and our constitutional order and our way of life.
	And so he's like, well, I'm going to think about this.
	I'm going to talk to my people.
	We'll see.
	But we're not going to let that happen.
	This is right.
	We need to go farther on the right than we have gone in the past.
	Because for the past, let's just call it 20 years, even though it's been a little longer than that.
	On the right, we have pushed back just hard enough to lose, to lose, to lose on every major issue, except occasionally tax cuts, which then the taxes go right back up when the Democrats win.
	So we just lose, lose, but we lose kind of slowly.
	We lose sometimes in a gradual way, though increasingly it's accelerating.
	So that means you've got to push back a little bit harder.
	Which brings me to two guys that I really, really admire who I just think we disagree on this issue.
	Professor Robbie George, legendary conservative professor at Princeton.
	I actually hosted an event or moderated an event at the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation with Professor George a few weeks ago.
	He was tweeting out about the issue of critical race theory.
	And he gave what I think has been the kind of Conservative consensus opinion of the last 20 or so years, where he said, I know I'm old-fashioned, but I can't help thinking that what makes sense in academic institutions is not to ban critical race theory or any other view or approach, but also not to give it a monopoly or privileged position over other views and approaches.
	What's wrong with that?
	Pause there for a second, because I think there is something quite wrong with that, but we'll pause there.
	Christopher Ruffo, who's doing superb work in City Journal exposing critical race theory, he responds, respectfully, professor, nobody is suggesting a ban on critical race theory in academic work or the classroom.
	We're suggesting a ban on mandatory workplace trainings that force people to accept the values of race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation.
	So...
	I will respond here first to Chris Ruffo.
	I am suggesting a ban on critical race theory.
	I am not merely suggesting that we ban the mandates in workplaces or anything like that.
	I am suggesting in public schools and public colleges an outright ban on this stuff in the classroom and in private colleges and universities.
	I'm encouraging the faculty and the students and the parents and the Fund the endowment.
	I am suggesting that these people force this trash out of the classroom.
	Not to open up the classroom to other ideas and we're all inclusive.
	No, I'm saying exclude that trash.
	And the view that I'm espousing, I think, is the old-fashioned view.
	That's the old-fashioned view that has reigned until very, very recently.
	That's the old-fashioned view that William F. Buckley Jr.
	articulated in God and Man at Yale, subtitle The Superstitions of Academic Freedom, which is widely credited with beginning the post-war conservative movement.
	I know it's very fashionable on the right right now to embrace academic freedom and to say that in the classroom, all views should be heard at all times.
	That is not a conservative view.
	That is a liberal view that the left has tricked us into accepting and specifically did so in the 1960s and 1970s through the extraordinarily dishonest Berkeley free speech movement, inaptly named because look where that free speech movement led us.
	Now Berkeley has more censorship of conservative views than anywhere else in the country, practically.
	It is a trap.
	It is a trick that we fell for.
	This is the exact trick that I describe in my book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, which is available now for pre-order.
	Who knows for how long, but thank you to all of you who have pre-ordered already.
	It seems that a lot of people have done that.
	Bill Buckley, in God and Man at Yale, calls academic freedom a hoax.
	It is a farce.
	First of all, it's not possible to discuss all views in the classroom, and we wouldn't want to do that even if we could.
	In the classroom, we do not discuss, for instance, how 2 plus 2 can equal 5.
	Some people might think that 2 plus 2 equals 5, but it doesn't.
	That's wrong.
	We exclude that view from the classroom.
	We do not include the view that the Holocaust didn't happen, just to use a popular example.
	There are actually quite a number of people who hold that view, but we don't teach that because the historical evidence is that the Germans committed atrocities against the Jews and other people in the Second World War.
	We do not include the view in the classroom that the moon is made of green cheese.
	Some people might hold that view, but we don't include it.
	The truth is exclusive, and curricula are exclusive.
	When you go to a liberal arts college, you're probably not going to learn how to be a mechanic.
	You'd have to go to a different college.
	That's not what that college is for.
	Colleges have missions.
	They are teaching towards something.
	Now colleges seem to have lost their sense of purpose.
	Though they only really seem that way.
	The colleges were begun as seminaries.
	Harvard and Yale were seminaries.
	They are seminaries still.
	They're just seminaries of subjectivism, of leftism.
	You have to exclude certain views, and I think we need to do that because I think falling for the trap of the free speech movement at Berkeley, what did it get us?
	It got us the same exact limitations on speech we always had.
	It's only now the speech that was being excluded was ordinary, truthful, conservative speech, and the only views that were being included were liberal views.
	Critical race theory must be excluded from the classroom because it and associated academic movements deny reason.
	Critical race theory and associated pseudo-academic movements reject objective truth for narrative.
	They say it's all just kind of words, words, words.
	So the people who developed this thing, who I described in my book, Speechless, describe it as a radically different academic sort of movement.
	It's meant to foment a radical ideology to upend our traditional culture.
	It is an example of what Chesterton would call the thought that stops thought, which of course is the only thought that ought to be stopped.
	I hope, I hope I've made my point.
	Even though I greatly admire both of these men.
	I think what Professor George and what Christopher Ruffo are describing is an opinion that is very, very popular among conservatives.
	But I don't think it's the old-fashioned traditional opinion, and I think we've got to be able to push a little bit further.
	By the way...
	Speaking of pushing further against the narrative, Ben is going to be pushing much further against the narrative today, describing why you've heard the name George Floyd, but you haven't heard the name Muhammad Anwar.
	He'll be getting to that in his show later on.
	Also, the Candace Owens Show has great guests, including Jocko Willink, Brandon Tatum, John Rich, just to name a few, and a couple other great guests.
	I don't know, some really handsome people with mellifluous voices.
	I I don't know.
	You'll have to watch the show to find out who I'm talking about.
	Candace is the first Daily Wire show to appear in front of a live audience.
	But do not worry.
	If you can't attend the show in person, tweet your questions to The Candace Show for a chance to have Candace answer your question at the end of the night.
	Candace Owens does not shy away from addressing the truth about a matter, no matter how controversial.
	She's famously known for her strong voice in defense of our country and holding our culture to a higher standard.
	The show is available exclusively to Daily Wire members, so if you're not a member already, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	Use code Candice to get 25% off.
	That's Candice for 25% off.
	Join now so you can tune in Friday night for a closer look at her hot takes.
	takes.
	We'll be right back with a lot more.
	Other countries are so much more politically astute than the leaders of our country.
	I didn't think that I would say that.
	When I was a little kid, I never thought I would say, you know, Guatemala understands politics and government better than the leaders of the United States.
	But it turns out they do.
	Yesterday, the Guatemalan president, Alejandro Giammattei, declared a, quote, state of prevention at the border with Honduras as new reports emerged about a potential migrant caravan getting ready to enter the country from Honduras.
	The AP reports that in January, Guatemalan law enforcement and military officials used tear gas, batons, and shields to prohibit a mass of 2,000 Honduran migrants from continuing at a roadblock.
	That is what the police and the military are supposed to do.
	When you have massive foreign forces entering your country illegally, I think there's a word for that, isn't there?
	You have to repel them.
	That is what the law requires.
	That is what self-government requires.
	That's what any basic polity would require.
	Here in the United States, we throw up our hands.
	The strongest country in the history of the world.
	Well, what can we do?
	What can we do?
	And then, by the way, when we let them in, we don't even know what to do with the foreign nationals then.
	President Trump at least created disincentives for that awful journey.
	Joe Biden's creating massive incentives for that journey, according to the migrants themselves and according to the president of Mexico.
	So what do they do?
	They then make a bad situation worse.
	They cram all these people into tiny little cages, to use the popular word.
	And then they prevent the journalists from going in and exposing it.
	And, and it creates a horrific situation.
	Maybe Joe Biden should fly down to Guatemala, fly down to a much poorer, less developed country, To just learn the basics of politics.
	But of course, he doesn't want to do that because Joe Biden knows his policy is not good for the migrants.
	It's not good for the country, but it is good for his political party because it's going to help them, in their view, get future voters.
	So they're going to open the floodgates and give a mass amnesty.
	Speaking of the rule of law, Georgia has passed this new voter law.
	That's going to try to tighten up some of the ridiculous shenanigans that the Democrats foisted on that system leading up to 2020.
	So the big headline here is that in Georgia now you're not allowed to bring food and water to people waiting in line to vote.
	Shocking.
	Oh, this is to suppress the vote.
	This is a white supremacist.
	I don't know why, but everything's white supremacist now.
	No, it's common sense.
	There are very strict rules around polling places.
	At least there used to be.
	Now I guess we've gotten rid of election day.
	We've gotten rid of in-person voting as the primary way to vote.
	So now, you know, it's up for grabs.
	Usually being grabbed by Democrats.
	But in the olden days of a couple years ago, we had strict rules around polling places because we know that voting is so susceptible to fraud and it's very important in our country and so we want to protect it.
	There were rules about how campaign workers can interact with people as they wait in line to vote.
	Namely, they can't.
	There were rules around where signs for candidates can go near polling places.
	They can't be very close because you want to keep this area protected from the machinations of party politics.
	In the old days of the Democrat machines, Tammany Hall, Boss Tweed...
	You would have operatives go up to people waiting to vote or grabbing people to vote and they say, hey, I'll give you a free drink if you go vote for my guy.
	Hey, yeah, show up to the bar later.
	You get a free drink if you vote for my guy.
	Hey, here's a little food.
	Hey, here's a little drink.
	Hey, here's a little...
	You're just buying votes.
	So George is reiterating a view that has been widely held, reiterating laws that have been on the books for a long time and saying, yeah, you can't do that.
	You can't buy votes.
	That's the rule.
	Let's say...
	That when you go to vote, it takes more than half an hour.
	Generally, when I've voted, it takes about half an hour.
	Maybe it's a little bit longer.
	It's taken up to an hour, maybe in California.
	Let's say it's even longer.
	Let's say it's two hours.
	Let's say, I'm going to give the crazy left the benefit of the doubt.
	Let's say it's three hours waiting in line to vote.
	First of all, if you really get famished during that time or you really get thirsty, bring a bottle of water.
	Shove a granola bar in your pocket.
	But let's say you forgot.
	If you cannot go three hours without stuffing your face, something is wrong with you.
	You need to put the cupcake down if you cannot go three hours without having a little nibble.
	Our bodies were made to go more than three hours without a muffin.
	You will survive.
	I promise you, you will survive.
	But of course, these are not the real concerns of Democrats in Georgia or the national Democrats looking at Georgia.
	They want to be able to buy votes and to get really close to the polling place when they can't pry people away from the polling place in the first place and get them to vote by mail.
	And maybe get a few of their dead cousins to vote by mail too.
	It's all about race.
	You know, it's white supremacy to prevent Democrat operatives from bribing voters with drinks and candies and things.
	CNN's Dana Bash was shocked, horrified.
	It's too bad.
	I actually kind of like Dana Bash.
	She's done some pretty good interviews recently.
	But she just goes back to that typical Democratic narrative very often.
	She was shocked and appalled that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp would sign this new vote integrity bill in a room of that, of the worst beast that has ever roamed the earth, white men.
	Joining me now is Democratic Georgia Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock.
	Senator, Reverend, thank you so much for joining me this morning.
	I want to put up that picture of Governor Brinkamp signing this law in a room full of white men.
	A room full of white men.
	He's saying that we can't send our operatives to go give people slices of pizza at the polls in a room full of white men.
	Everyone knows white men don't need to eat.
	Everyone, it's just basic science.
	White men don't need water to survive.
	That's so all these white men.
	They know.
	They know that if they deprive voters of color of snacks at the polling, they know that they will suppress the vote.
	Imagine, I mean, it's become cliche.
	I almost don't want to say it, but imagine if somebody went, forget on CNN, let's say somebody on a conservative news channel went out and said, you know, I can't believe that this, well, we'll refer to the true governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams.
	I still think she hasn't conceded that race from a couple years ago.
	If a conservative went on TV and said, Can you believe that Stacey Abrams signed this bill into law in a room full of black women?
	Ugh!
	Makes me sick!
	Terrible!
	Could you imagine the reaction?
	But of course, they're not playing fair, so it's almost pointless even to mention it.
	Everything, even the least racially relevant questions, need to come down to race when it is in any way convenient.
	People don't need to have any idea what they're talking about.
	They just know that that's a trump card, and usually it's going to work.
	Occasionally it doesn't work, as we saw last night on Bill Maher.
	Heidi Heitkamp, the former senator from North Dakota, not the brightest bulb in the pack.
	There was one time a friend of mine was going down to serve in Congress, and we were talking to a longstanding U.S. congressman.
	And we asked, hey, what should we know about Congress?
	You know, what should we know about the halls of Congress?
	And this longstanding congressman whose name I won't mention said, well, you're going to The IQ, on average, is not so high there.
	And Heidi Heitkamp, in her comments last night, I think proved this point, though fortunately she's no longer in the Senate.
	She went on Bill Maher's show, and they were addressing my colleague here, Gina Carano, the movie star and MMA fighter.
	And Heidi Heitkamp, just casually, just said, Gina Carano, she's a Nazi.
	Everybody knows that.
	I like this picture.
	Who was the woman in the Mandalorian?
	What did she do?
	She liked something?
	She was a Nazi.
	Oh, that's different, right.
	I'm thinking of somebody else.
	Well, she's not a Nazi.
	She's a white supremacist.
	She's called other people Nazis.
	Right.
	She's the Nazi.
	Okay, everyone's a Nazi now.
	She does hang with white supremacists.
	It's like a Mel Brooks movie.
	Yeah.
	She does?
	Hangs with white supremacists?
	I suppose I'm now subject to defamation.
	I don't know.
	I mean, it depends on what your definition of white supremacist is.
	The goalposts there changed a lot.
	Used to be a guy in a Klan hood who...
	But I think we have to be really careful.
	There's two things the Republicans think they're going to get Biden on.
	Cancel culture and this whole Dr.
	Seuss stuff that's going on where they're reading Green Eggs and Ham proving that some of these senators can actually read.
	And immigration.
	And so we can't ignore the fact that we got Donald Trump was in part because of political correctness.
	Oh, I hope Gina does sue her for defamation.
	I don't think she will, because defamation suits are just really, really hard to win, and you spend a lot of money on lawyers, and if you're a public figure, it usually doesn't work.
	But I hope she does, because what Heidi Heitkamp here is saying is just completely indefensible.
	And worse than the slander of it all is the laziness to say, this woman doesn't know a thing about Gina Carano.
	This woman has probably never Googled Gina Carano.
	But she read some Facebook post from, I don't know, her like blue haired niece or something that said Gina Carano's a Nazi and that's all, that's all it takes.
	So yeah, no, she's a Nazi.
	And then Bill Maher, he goes a little light on her, but at least he calls her out.
	He says, what?
	Wait, I think he thought she was kidding at first.
	He goes, oh yeah, yeah, everyone's a Nazi.
	Wait, are you really saying that?
	Heidi?
	Wait, hold on, you, she's a Nazi.
	And then Heidi realizes, she's like, uh-oh.
	I thought I could just get away with this casual, this drive-by slander.
	Now I'm being called out on it.
	Now I actually have to defend my views, but I can't because I have no idea what I'm talking about.
	Oh, and then she tries to dial it back.
	So she dials it back from Nazi, from literally Hitler, to...
	Well, you know, but she's...
	No, she's a white supremacist.
	I'm not...
	Yeah, no.
	Oh, yeah, everyone knows that, right?
	Please let me get away with this, Bill.
	Please...
	What?
	You're a...
	How's she a white supremacist?
	And then Bill tries to dig her out of it a little bit.
	Well, I guess it depends what your definition of white supremacist is, but what?
	How do you?
	And then Heidi tries to bring it back even further.
	She goes, no, she hangs with white supremacists.
	Who?
	What do you know about anything, Heidi?
	Nothing.
	And then the other guy, the libertarian guy, whose name I forget at the moment, but he defends Gina, I think, quite well and says, no, she compared the actions of some other people to some actions that the Nazis did.
	She made a comparison.
	She's not...
	She didn't even call anybody Nazis, and she certainly, if you accuse someone of being a Nazi as though that were a terrible thing, you yourself probably wouldn't embrace the label Nazi, right?
	It's just so stupid.
	It's just so incredibly lazy.
	And then I love the button on the whole interview.
	She goes, yeah, no, but Bill, you know, hold on, I can't defend my views.
	So I think we need to be really careful You need to be really careful.
	You just called a woman a Nazi without any evidence whatsoever, without knowing a thing about her.
	And we need to be careful.
	And then she pivots and tries to talk about something else.
	She got caught in the way...
	I keep going back to this because it was so funny.
	A black Democrat lady called in to David Webb's radio show once, and he made a good point.
	And she said, well, you only think that because of your white privilege.
	And I guess she didn't know.
	She never met David Webb.
	And so David Webb goes, ma'am, I don't think you would say that if you knew me.
	She goes, no, you are.
	It's because of your white privilege.
	David Webb, of course, is very much a black man.
	And so he goes, ma'am, I'm a black guy.
	And she says, oh, okay.
	Well, anyway, you know, it doesn't matter.
	The claim, the charge of white supremacy or Nazism or whatever, that's not the conclusion of an argument.
	That's the premise.
	That's where they're starting from.
	And then if the premise is proven wrong, too bad or I will try something else.
	But usually they don't get called out on the premises, so they just get to continue the smears.
	By the way, this is not just affecting these radical Democratic senators or media people.
	This kind of stuff is going on in the military.
	U.S. Special Operations Command has an office of diversity and inclusion.
	They appoint a guy to that, Richard Torres Estrada, and it turns out that this guy, the diversity and inclusion officer at the U.S. Special Operations Command, at least once, compared Trump to Hitler.
	Did the same thing that Heidi Heitkamp did.
	Except this guy is not, at least apparently, he's not a Democrat operative.
	Obviously, in practice, he's a Democrat operative.
	But he's a member, he's a leading figure within a certain segment of the military.
	It's even infected that.
	Military is investigating this incident.
	There's no need to investigate this incident.
	What's the reason to investigate it?
	I think anybody...
	I'm willing to make this claim.
	Every single person who serves as a diversity and inclusion officer in any position in this country has at some point compared Trump to Hitler.
	I would bet a lot of money that that statement is true.
	The real issue here is not that this one diversity and inclusion officer made this ridiculous comparison and smeared the president.
	The issue is that we have diversity and inclusion officers in our military.
	I don't want diversity in the military.
	I mean, I don't care what race they are or anything like that.
	I want unity in the military.
	And here's the unity I want.
	Love of country, the willingness to kill our enemies, and the ability to kill our enemies.
	That's what I want.
	Those three things.
	I want that unity.
	I don't want diversity in that some people who want to kill our enemies and some people who want to hug our enemies.
	That's bad diversity.
	I don't want that.
	It's a bad idea.
	Mission drift has set in here.
	But we let this happen as conservatives.
	We just, well, okay, maybe we can have a diversity and inclusion officer, but, you know, they can't compare Trump to Nazis.
	No, just get rid of it.
	It's ridiculous.
	Why on earth is what has been and what ought to be the most lethal, formidable fighting force on earth wasting our precious resources and their precious time on this ridiculous nonsense of Diversity and inclusion officers.
	Get rid of it.
	The guy should be fired whether he did it or not because the position should not exist.
	This sort of radical racialism, the exaltation of diversity and inclusion, whatever other PC terms you want, is not unique to the United States.
	It's going on all around the Western world.
	Down in Australia, way down under, There is a school in Victoria, Australia, that is having their young teenage boys at an assembly stand up and apologize to girls on behalf of their gender.
	Some parents were pretty outraged by this, that 12-year-old boys were made to apologize for just being boys.
	And so I think the school finally did apologize.
	This is going on in a lot of different places.
	I'm sure the boys were apologizing.
	They're like, I'm sorry that my male sex picks up the check for dinner.
	I'm sorry that my male sex historically has fought all the wars ever.
	I'm sorry that my male sex dies a little earlier on average because we work a lot.
	I don't know.
	What are we going to apologize for?
	I'm sorry that we've...
	Yeah.
	We could go on and on and on.
	The diversity and inclusion thing...
	And whatever other politically correct initiatives that are being foisted on us are not about equality.
	They're not about fairness.
	They're not about restoring some neutral ground where we can all sing kumbaya.
	They're about punishment.
	They're about castigating men, the patriarchy.
	They're about castigating white people.
	They're about castigating...
	I guess straight people now, I guess that's part of it.
	I guess people who know that they are the sex that they are, now with the advent of trans ideology, it's about, to use a popular left-wing term, otherizing a very small group of people and saying that they're the source of all the evil in the world,
	and that even when racial minorities attack other racial minorities, the cause of that is white supremacy, which left-wingers actually have said in the And reordering society away from any semblance of justice, equality or fairness.
	It is not enough to just sort of mildly push back against that.
	It is not enough to say, we will hear all views and tolerate all...
	No.
	You need to assert an alternative political vision, an alternative moral vision.
	The left is asserting political and moral vision.
	It's immoral and it'll destroy our politics, but got to give them credit.
	At least they have the courage to make that vision.
	What are we doing on the right?
	We just get lost in these abstract, ridiculous, procedural arguments about defending free speech in the abstract, totally divorced from the actual American tradition of free speech.
	Very often we make arguments that are contrary to the actual tradition of free speech here in America.
	We need academic freedom.
	We never talk about the actual academic tradition in the United States and in the West.
	We don't talk about the substance.
	We only talk about the procedure.
	Not good stuff.
	You know, I explained this problem and outlined a way out in, I don't know if I've mentioned it before, my upcoming book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, which is available now for pre-order.
	This probably will not be put on many high school curricula, certainly not in public schools, maybe not in many private schools.
	But I do hope that people read this book.
	Whether it's in public or private school, I promise you, the Democrat governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear, did not read it.
	Because Andy Beshear is showing us the double standards that the left is always using.
	The left right now is very focused on maintaining the support of teacher unions, and so they're very opposed to reopening schools, and they're also very opposed to school choice.
	So for a lot of kids...
	The only way that they're going to escape, or by far the greatest chance they have to escape poverty, bad conditions, and even just bad culture, and even just bad interpersonal relationships, is through education.
	That's the way out.
	Never met a guy at the top who doesn't read a lot, who hasn't educated himself.
	Very, very few, very few people who've made, I guess there are a few exceptions, especially in like, you know, Hollywood or some of the crazy liberals out there.
	But generally speaking, the people who make it to the top of the heap are pretty, pretty well educated.
	So this governor, this Democrat governor is, sends his kids to private school, but he himself will not allow other students to have that same school choice.
	When he's pushed back on about this, he says, well, yeah, I send my kids to private school, but I am a public school graduate.
	But in your most precious investment, your own children, they go to private school.
	Why don't they go to public school?
	And is that kind of a, is that hypocritical that your children go to private school?
	I'm a public school graduate.
	I believe in public schools and my kids will be going to a public middle school.
	So he's been saying a lot, a lot, a lot.
	I'm a product of the public schools.
	Well, it turns out, there's a report just came out, that Andy Beshear, at least for some period of his schooling, went to private school.
	And he's never disclosed this when he talks about how much he loves public schools.
	This is not surprising.
	This has happened to other politicians, too.
	They get caught up in this lie.
	They want certain privileges for themselves.
	They want to exclude those privileges from other people.
	And this is especially true during the coronavirus.
	How many times has Dr.
	Fauci been caught in close proximity to other people without his mask on after he told everyone to wear masks?
	Countless times at this point.
	He's been photographed doing it.
	Filmed doing it.
	And then he sees people have cameras on him and he pulls the mask back up.
	Certain rules for the peasants and certain rules for the elites.
	Now they want to extend this forever and ever and ever.
	You might have thought I was being hyperbolic when I said this sort of thing a year ago.
	I said, oh, Michael, it won't be two weeks, but it'll be two months, three months.
	We'll get back to normal.
	Three hundred and eighty days, my friends.
	And now they're calling not to start letting up.
	They're calling for renewed mask mandates.
	The President of the United States wants renewed mask mandates everywhere in the country.
	And then they want you to put your medical history on an app to prove to people that you've gotten their shot that was developed quickly.
	Seems to be doing well, but still, you know, it's developed pretty quickly.
	They want to force you to To get that shot, to engage in commerce.
	And it's not just that one shot.
	It'll track variants.
	It'll track boosters.
	The power will not go away.
	They will not give up that power unless we stop allowing them to have it.
	I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	See you tomorrow.
	See you tomorrow.
	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, production manager Pavel Vidovsky, editor and associate producer Danny D'Amico, audio mixer Mike Coromina, hair and makeup by Nika Geneva, and production coordinator McKenna Waters.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
	Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, a Pakistani-American man is murdered by two female black teenagers, but that's not national news.
	Meanwhile, the Derek Chauvin trial begins, and the left's agenda is obvious.
	That's today on The Ben Shapiro Show.

▲