All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2022 - The Michael Knowles Show
54:10
Ep. 970 - What Is A Woman?

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Jackson praises the radical African Hebrew Israelite cult, Joe Biden promotes a “new world order,” and Russia wants to take back Alaska. Check out my shop page to purchase shirts, stickers, and books (one with words, one without) https://utm.io/uedo1 I’m exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Jackson has been in confirmation hearings for three days, during which time she has refused to say when she thinks life begins, she pled ignorance when she was asked what a woman is, and she defended her extremely light sentencing record for pedophiles.
It has not been a great first week for her.
And Democrats are now scrambling to stop the bleeding, as the chairman of the proceedings, Dick Durbin, demonstrated yesterday when he refused to let the judge answer a simple question from Ted Cruz.
Your child pornography possession crime was egregious in the court's view.
Okay, so this is a bad one.
If you're actually sentencing defendants, you said this was egregious.
What did you sentence Stewart for?
The guidelines said 9,721 months.
Prosecutors said 97 months.
You said it's egregious.
6,700 images.
You come in at 57 months.
Why did you sentence them to just 57 months in the Stewart case?
Do you want to address that?
Does she want to address that?
No, she does not want to address that.
Judge Jackson had already lost her temper as Republicans focused in on her strange record of letting pedophiles off the hook.
But she didn't even have the chance to address the record by responding to Cruz's question because Dick Durbin started talking over both her and Cruz and did everything that he could to move on.
You're not recognized, Senator.
Senator Coons.
You don't want her to answer that question?
You wouldn't allow her anything.
Mr.
Chairman, she may answer the question.
I've asked her why she sentenced Stewart.
You've gone over the time, Senator, by two minutes and a half.
Because you've interrupted me for two minutes, Mr.
Chairman.
Will you allow her to answer the question, or do you not want the American people to hear why, with someone she described as an egregious...
There comes a point, Senator, where you get a little bit...
Chairman Durbin, will you allow her to answer the question?
You won't allow her.
I will happily allow her to...
Why are you not allowing her to answer the question?
There's not another senator here that you've not allowed her to answer the question.
I'm not asking another question, but allow her to answer the question, Chairman Durbin.
Thank you, Chairman Durbin.
Why do you not want the American people to know what happened in the Stewart case, or any of these cases?
Chairman Durbin, I've never seen the chairman refuse to allow a witness to answer a question.
You can bang it as loud as you want.
I can just tell you, at some point, you have to follow the rules.
Okay, will you let her answer the question?
You've been interrupting, and by the way, with Senator Graham, it went ten minutes over.
You've taken a big chunk of the time.
Will you allow her to answer the question?
You've given her...
Why are you afraid of her?
She's welcome to answer it right now.
Will you let her?
Senator Coons.
This is really masterful stuff here from Cruz.
You can tell, if you didn't already know it before, the guy has stagecraft.
You can tell that he's argued cases before the Supreme Court.
Every time Durbin tries to get the last word to insinuate, dishonestly, that Cruz doesn't want Ketanji Jackson to answer the question, Cruz cuts back in.
No, you won't let her answer the question.
No, you won't let her answer.
No, you won't.
No, you won't.
And it's back and forth and back and forth, and it sounds like a middle school playground, but Cruz is doing it for a reason.
After Cruz makes a scene and the clip goes viral, there's no mistaking it.
Cruz wants her to answer the question.
He wants to give her time to do that.
Durbin wants her to keep her mouth shut.
And Durbin's right to do that because he knows that Ketanji Jackson's answers on pedophiles, on life, on womanhood, they are not going to play very well in Peoria.
In just three days, Ketanji Jackson has proven herself to be either the stupidest nominee in the history of the court or the most radical.
She will be confirmed.
There is almost no question about that.
But she'll be exposed, too.
As will every Democrat who votes for her.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
My favorite comment yesterday is from William C. who says, Interesting that someone whose nomination rested almost entirely on being a woman cannot define what a woman is.
That's not fair.
That is not fair.
Her nomination also rested on her being black.
That is not fair to...
Biden made it very clear.
He said, I will pick a black woman.
So it is ironic that someone who was nominated half because she's a woman cannot explain what a woman is.
But the identity politics went a lot further.
This clip has gone viral.
We played it yesterday.
Let's just play it again.
Marsha Blackburn, Republican senator from Tennessee, asked Ketanji Jackson...
Can you give a definition of the word woman?
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition?
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?
She can.
She's not a biologist.
This clip has gone viral.
It's gone viral in part because this gender issue has taken over the country.
You see it with the NCAA controversy.
There's a man named Will Thomas who beat all the girls in the girls' swimming match, and he gets the trophy, and everyone's supposed to be okay with that.
You see it with the bathroom bills.
You see it with all sorts of new legislation.
And conservatives are flabbergasted by this.
We think this is so beyond caricature.
It's so beyond absurdity.
But I am worried sometimes that we are not giving the best argument for the other side or that we simply don't understand what the other side is saying.
So in the interest of actually hearing out the other side, I'm very pleased to bring on David Pakman, who is the host of The David Pakman Show.
It's a nationally syndicated progressive TV show and radio show.
I'm always really grateful to progressives who come on this show.
We invite lots of them on.
Very often they say no.
Sometimes they come on.
So just to make sure we're not straw manning anything, let's bring on David.
David, thank you so much for coming on the show.
It's a unique pleasure to be here, Michael.
Thank you.
So, David, you saw the clip.
You've been watching the Ketanji Jackson hearings.
Am I crazy or should a twice Harvard educated nominee, federal judge nominee for the Supreme Court, who is a woman, be able to define what a woman is?
I can't say if you're crazy.
That would be for a mental health professional.
For my doctor.
You're either dishonest or ignorant, and we can maybe figure out which.
So here's the deal.
We're just meeting each other.
I'm sort of kidding around.
But here's the deal.
There are no instances where when issues come before the Supreme Court, It comes down to the dictionary definition of a word.
When it comes to who counts as a woman or what is discrimination or what is negligence, it's always in very narrow circumstances where dictionary definitions do almost nothing for you.
So, she was very smart not to play into these kind of rhetorical black holes because whatever definition she gives Michael, she then is going to be pushed into some corner with some case or article or book she hasn't read, by the way.
And there's no upside to it.
So if we're just having a good faith conversation about strategy, she did the right thing.
Almost 60% of Americans believe she's qualified and she is.
And that's really all there is to it.
It's kind of boring.
Well, I agree with her.
I don't agree with you that it's boring.
I think it's one of the most interesting questions in the country that we're now at a point where we can no longer even define man or woman.
But I do agree with you on strategy.
She's in a very tough spot because her side of the aisle, and she's relatively leftist, even by the standards of the Democratic Party.
So on her side of the aisle, there is a new strategy.
Well, they haven't given the definition of woman, but it's not the old definition of woman, which is a person who's not a man.
That is out because of the transgender movement.
And so she knows that if she gives this new definition, which is a woman is...
I don't know.
A woman is someone who says that he or she is a woman.
That's going to alienate, I think, the vast majority of Americans.
If she gives the old definition that a woman is a female human being and a female is of or denoting the sex that can bear children and reproduce and produce eggs, for instance, she knows that that will alienate her base.
And she knows that that now is apparently controversial in the law, after the Bostock decision, after other transgender decisions.
So I understand the strategy.
But what about the law?
What about the definition?
You say she shouldn't be quoting the dictionary.
Well, fine.
Shouldn't she at least be able to give the legal definition of a woman?
Shouldn't she, a woman, have some sense of what that is?
I'm not a meteorologist.
I can tell you if it's raining.
Yeah, there is no legal definition of a woman and that's exactly the point.
The point here is when it comes to the court, the court is in a position or will be in a position or might be in a position to decide for the purposes of a particular set of facts.
I think we're good to go.
It's an irrelevant question, and by her qualifications, she's more qualified than any of the nine justices currently on the court.
There's no way to deny that.
I think you can, because I think all of the nine justices on the court can tell you what a woman is.
They've never been asked to do that.
Nobody's ever been asked to define words in this way during hearings, so you could speculate that, but they've never been asked.
So it's literally impossible.
As a gambling man, I would bet the farm that Justice Alito could tell you what a woman is.
But you're right.
They've never been asked because it's never been controversial before.
But I want to get to a point you just made.
You said there's no legal definition of a woman.
But there must be because there are legal protections specifically for women.
So if we don't know what a woman is...
Yeah, this is the same Title III thing.
And Title IX. And Title IX is quite controversial.
I just don't know if you want to have a good faith conversation or one that's in some way productive, you know?
You're saying you and I, or you're saying Ketanji Jackson?
You and I, yeah.
I don't know if, I mean, listen, the Republican senators obviously didn't want to have a good faith conversation.
I was talking about you and I, Michael.
Yes, well, I do want to, I mean, this is why I'm granting you the, you're making the point on political strategy.
I totally grant you that.
That was the right move for her to make if she wants to avoid it.
And legal relevance.
But then bring up Title IX. I mean, there are legal protections for women.
This is coming before the court.
It's come before the court in the last term.
There are going to be a lot more cases coming before the court coming up.
It seems extraordinarily relevant that we know what this woman thinks of these issues and of a basic question of biology and human nature.
What is a woman?
I mean, I don't think that's a bad faith question for the senators or for me to ask.
No, it's so it's not necessarily bad faith, but we have to be able to, as I what I hope are reasonable people, Michael, understand that in the context of her role as a Supreme Court justice, it doesn't come down to a biological opinion.
Like, is that can you at least grant that piece?
Well, it's true that for what the Supreme Court decides, these are narrow issues where when it comes to Obamacare's constitutionality, which Amy Coney Barrett never, you know, would refuse to weigh in on or that what with all of these things, these are really narrow legal decisions.
And there is no way in which a dictionary definition of definition of terms does anything for us.
Well, it might do something, but I grant your point a little bit, except that Marsha Blackburn didn't ask for the biological definition or the dictionary definition.
That's what Ketanji Jackson added.
She said, I'm not a biologist.
But all Marsha Blackburn asked was, just tell me what a woman is, from a legal perspective, a constitutional perspective, a philosophical perspective.
That's literally not what Marsha Blackburn said.
I would encourage you to pull the clip and identify the time at which she said that.
She said she didn't mention biology and she didn't mention the dictionary.
But you just asserted that she said she wanted the legal and philosophical.
No, I didn't say that.
No, no.
I just said Marsha Blackburn asked for the definition, any sort of definition that Ketanji Jackson could give of woman.
She didn't specify biology.
Now you're backtracking.
I'm not backtracking at all.
That's dishonest now.
I'm not back.
How am I backtracking?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on a second.
Let's be clear.
30 seconds ago, you said Marsha Blackburn didn't ask for the biological.
She asked for the legal.
No, no, no.
Let me finish the sentence.
Okay, but you're misrepresenting what I said.
No, I'm not.
I would encourage the audience to rewind.
I would encourage that as well.
But can I even get it out?
Sure, sure.
You just said Blackburn asked for the legal definition, and I said, no, she didn't.
And you said, no, that's true.
She actually just asked for the definition.
I'm sorry.
Well, then, if either you misheard or it seemed that I misspoke, I'll be very clear.
Marsha Blackburn just said, what's the definition of a woman?
She didn't specify anything else.
Now, you then said that biology has no place here or that the dictionary definition has no place.
But that's not what Marsha Blackburn asked for.
She just asked a simple question.
In these Supreme Court hearings, the senators can ask the questions however they want, and the nominees can answer them however they want.
Or not answer them.
My opinion is, this is my opinion, and you can have a different one, and that's the great thing about America, Michael.
My opinion is that if you're interviewing for the job of Supreme Court justice, it's reasonable to assume the questions have a legal bearing as to your role on the court.
Given that, Judge Jackson was right.
To understand the point of the question is to back her into a rhetorical corner about legal definitions.
And she was right to say it's not something I can answer.
These are narrow definitions.
issues when they come before the court and there's no reason that she would ask such a question.
Do you know this guy Jesse Lee Peterson?
Have you heard of him?
I know Jesse Lee Peterson.
When I was on with Jesse, he said to me, David, define what love is and what a man is.
And it's a really common rhetorical technique for the bad faith right.
To start with, just pick a word and define it, and use it to back someone into a rhetorical corner, it's a waste of time, Michael.
Let's talk about real issues, please.
I think that as a philosophical issue, but certainly as a legal issue, too, the definition of a woman does matter, has mattered recently, and will matter soon.
But I at least agree with you on the strategy.
You have not convinced me of Judge Jackson's good-faith Confirmation hearing, but you have convinced me that she is a wise politician and that she is playing her hand the best that she can.
Before I let you go, David, we're like way over.
Please.
I am really not playing the game of giving you some impossible thing to define.
But since the question of woman is up in the air, everyone's arguing over what it means these days, do you have...
Either you yourself or you speaking for the progressives, do you have a working definition that you would use?
No, I don't do, like I told Jesse Lee Peterson, and there's so many, this interview is feeling a lot like that one, interestingly enough.
I don't do dictionary, I do politics.
And so, no, I just, I don't spend time defining words.
And here's the, in all seriousness, Michael, let's now talk philosophically.
Really, we're talking, you know, man to man now.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.
Well, they're prescriptive sometimes, too.
But they can be descriptive.
They are descriptive and prescriptive as well, right?
By definition, humans decide what to put in the dictionary, right?
So these are descriptive definitions of what humans at the time believe.
Yeah, I mean, we could go down a tangent on prescriptivism versus descriptivism, and that might be good for a future appearance.
I don't know if it's a tangent.
No, it would be a very good discussion, and I think it would be great to have you back.
I truly, truly appreciate your coming on and giving the progressive perspective on this, and I hope to have you back on the show.
Where can people find you in the meantime?
DavidPakman.com, and it's been my unbridled pleasure to provide you these insights.
Thanks.
Thank you, David, very much.
I appreciate it.
We need to get more progressives to come on this show full time.
And when I want to hire someone, you know where I go?
ZipRecruiter.
Right now, head on over to ziprecruiter.com slash Knowles.
According to the latest research, 90% of employers plan to make enhancing the employee experience a top priority in 2022.
Well, if you need to add more employees to your team, you've got to check out ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter is the way to hire.
We love ZipRecruiter here at The Daily Wire.
We've gotten lots of great employees through ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter is different than the other job sites.
You're not just throwing spaghetti at the wall.
You're not just posting some job on a board and then hoping for the best.
ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology finds and matches the right candidates up with your job.
Then it proactively presents those candidates to you.
You review them, you find the recommended candidates, and then you can invite your top choices to apply for your job.
This encourages everything to move a lot faster.
Time is money and personnel is the most important investment you can make.
Find the right employees right now for your workplace with ZipRecruiter.
You can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Knowles.
That is ziprecruiter.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Ketanji Jackson has had a really tough time on the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
She, as we just discussed, can't define what a woman is.
She cannot define when life begins.
She has this tough issue where she's been light on sentencing pedophiles.
There's another issue that almost no one is talking about.
It's not the most radical thing she said, but it's pretty out there.
Ketanji Jackson...
While she was describing various cases that she has heard as a judge, she praised a really radical cult called the African Hebrew Israelites.
Even areas of the law that you might think apply only to businesses impact real people at times.
So this case involved a small community, a cultural community, Of people who believe in vegan lifestyles.
They call themselves the African Hebrew Israelites, but it's not a religious community.
It's a cultural community around healthy living.
And they have created a restaurant and a series of restaurants here in the Washington, D.C. area with menus involving really, I'm told, terrific vegan foods.
And in this community, there was a member who was the one who created the recipes and who was responsible for the restaurant.
The whole community had other aspects to it.
It's a cultural community.
It's a vegan community.
It's not religious.
The African Hebrew Israelites, this got my ears up because I have heard of the African Hebrew Israelites, sometimes called the black Israelites, sometimes just called the Hebrew Israelites.
And there are different groups of them, but they're in New York, they're in DC, they're all over the country.
They're actually all over the world.
And it's a group of black nationalists who believe that the Jews are not really the Jews and that black people are actually the Jews, the Israelites described in the Bible.
And And when you meet them in New York and D.C., they're usually hurling all sorts of vicious racial and sexual slurs at people.
Actually, the Covington kids, you remember the Covington pro-life kids who were yelled at by the crazy Native American man banging the drum?
Well, the group that first started yelling at them was a group of the Hebrew Israelites.
Ketanji Jackson is saying, one, they're not religious.
Two, they're this nice, wonderful community.
Seems very strange to me.
The left is already running interference.
They're saying conservatives are confusing black Israelite sects in labeling Ketanji Brown Jackson as soft on anti-Semitism.
And they're saying, well, lots of people like townhall.com and Ben Dominich and other conservatives are confusing them.
Yes, there are the Hebrew Israelites that are vicious and anti-Semitic and racist and terrible.
But then there are the nice Hebrew Israelites.
And there are different groups.
And you're an idiot if you're confusing them.
So I just did about five minutes of Googling, and that's not true.
It's true that there are different associations and different sects of the Hebrew Israelites.
But it's not true that they have different views on who the real Jews are.
And it's not true that they're not a religious group.
You just go to the specific group that was involved in Ketanji Jackson's case.
You go to their website, the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, about us.
They talk about their religious views.
The very first line is, most of the time around the world when men speak of the kingdom of God, they do so metaphorically.
But we do not.
We're talking in real life.
So the very first line is a religious line.
The historical background is that they are the ancient Israelites, and then they were driven to Africa.
And then from West Africa, they were brought by the Europeans on slave ships.
So this is the group.
This is the group that believes that the Jews are not really the Jews and the black people are the real Jews.
They're obviously a religious community.
It's not just a group of vegans.
It's not just like your hippie sister who decides she's not going to eat meat for a while.
This is a group, if they eat a vegan diet, it is coming out of their religious underpinning.
And so it brings us back to this point about Ketanji Jackson.
Either she's the stupidest nominee that's ever come before the court, she doesn't know a damn thing about any of the cases she's worked on, or even what a woman is, or she's a liar and the most radical.
Which is it?
I fear that it is the latter.
Not great stuff.
When you want to reach people, you can do it.
Look, Katanji Jackson's reaching a lot of people right now from her Senate confirmation hearings.
We're reaching a lot of people here on this podcast.
When you want to reach people for your business, I would strongly recommend you check out Right now, go to Podium.com slash Knowles.
If you have ever owned a business, if you've ever worked for a business, you know that time is money.
Time is one of the most important assets that you've got.
So don't waste all day playing phone tag.
Podium will help you reach your customers.
The list of customers that you need to reach is not going to get any shorter.
That's why local businesses everywhere are turning to Podium.
Podium makes every interaction as easy as sending a text.
So everything that makes your business great can get done faster.
Not just a better way to communicate.
It's a better way to do everything for your business.
Gather reviews, collect payments, even market to your customers.
Makes it all as easy as pressing send when you use Podium.
With Podium, you will close more deals with more customers before the competition, even as a chance to call them back.
Join, right now, the more than 100,000 businesses that already use Podium to streamline their customer interactions.
Get started for free at Podium.com slash Knowles or sign up for a paid Podium account and get a free credit card reader.
Restrictions apply.
That's Podium.com slash Knowles.
So Ketanji Jackson has been having this terrible, terrible week in her confirmation hearings.
And then it finally came back to this issue.
After the Hebrew Israelites, after the what-is-a-woman thing, after on and on and on, it finally came back to what many consider the most damning argument against her confirmation, that she's soft on kiddie porn and child pornographers.
And she got a little hot under the collar defending it.
In comes the internet.
On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands.
You can be doing this for 15 minutes and all of a sudden you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison.
Good.
Good.
Absolutely good.
I hope you are.
Good.
Allow her to finish, please.
I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you're on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation.
See, you don't think that's a bad thing.
I think that's a horrible thing.
That's not what the witness said.
That's not what the witness, I mean, I guess it is sort of what the witness said.
But anyway, moving on, moving on.
Gavel, gavel, gavel.
This was an expertly laid trap and Ketanji Jackson fell into it because this is what she really believes.
She says, look, now it's so easy to spread child pornography.
And so if you apply the same sentencing guidelines from before the internet to the internet, people are going to go to jail for a really long time.
And Lindsey Graham says, yeah, good.
Isn't that good?
Don't you want child pornographers to go to jail for a long time?
And she says, oh, oops, I just revealed I don't.
And I don't think it's because Ketanji Jackson's a pedophile.
I think it's because she's a radical.
I think it's because she's an ideologue who believes that criminals should face much lighter sentences and who believes that we have an over-incarceration problem and who believes that we need criminal justice reform and it's society's fault and we need to go lie.
So whatever the reason, I mean, you're talking about some of the More heinous offenders out here.
And even for them, she's saying we're going to go a lot lighter.
So lots of red flags in this woman's...
I'm sorry, I'm not a biologist.
I can't call her a woman.
Lots of red flags in this person's hearing.
And yet the establishment left loves her.
Joy Behar on The View says, this woman is perfect.
Here you have a woman, Katanji, who reminded me of Obama a little bit because he was also perfect.
He had nothing wrong going on.
So what you have here are 50 senators who are going to vote against this woman who is above reproach.
And the first black woman in that position, that is going to be on their record.
And that's why they're asking these dumb questions, so that they can have something to bring back to their constituency when they go home and say, well, look at, you know, she doesn't believe that babies are racist or whatever the hell they were talking about.
Who even knows what they're talking about?
But they need something because it's an embarrassment to the country to vote against a woman of this caliber.
She's perfect.
She reminds me of Obama.
She reminds you of Obama because she's black.
That's what you're saying.
And she brings it back to race at the end, too.
So first she goes, this woman, she reminds me of Obama.
And then I think Joy Behar realized that she was making a comment that was extremely condescending and obviously very racial.
So she said, because they're both perfect.
But then she brings it back to race at the end, right?
She says, and black people need to be perfect for these awful racist Republicans to get by.
That's preposterous.
A white person in Ketanji Jackson's, with her record, with her background, would not be, she wouldn't even be nominated for the Supreme Court right now.
We know that because Joe Biden explicitly said, I'm only going to pick a black woman.
We're going to get a diversity hire.
There might be qualified white guys or Asian guys or Hispanic guys or other women, but only a black woman.
She says, well, you're at a disadvantage if you're black.
No, not according to Joe Biden, not according to affirmative action, not according to the law.
So, no.
And because she's perfect.
Well, let's see.
She can't define what life is.
She's defending pedophiles and she doesn't know what a woman is.
She herself a woman.
Doesn't sound all that perfect to me.
Just like Obama.
He was perfect.
Barack Obama is this Chicago machine politician.
One of the more corrupt presidents.
Not the most corrupt.
One of the more corrupt presidents we've had in recent memory.
But he's perfect.
No drama Obama.
No scandals on his watch like the IRS targeting scandal, channeling the federal bureaucracy against your political opponents.
Like the Fast and Furious scandal.
Like the Benghazi scandal.
Like, no, he's perfect.
Forget about it.
Hear no evil.
See no evil.
No way.
The whole motivation.
The whole motivation here to support this woman is for her race and for her sex.
Her sex that she cannot even define.
This brings me to, speaking of women, and speaking of perfection, Nancy Pelosi, devout practicing Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy has just come out to defend what we are told is the women's issue now, abortion.
And she says she is defending abortion as a devout, practicing Catholic.
Again, it isn't about what is your religious belief.
It's what is the right of people to make their own decisions about the sizing in time or if they're going to have a family.
This really gets me burned up, in case you didn't notice.
Because, again, I'm Very Catholic, devout, practicing, all of that.
They would like to throw me out, but I'm not going.
Because I don't want to make their day.
Ha ha ha ha.
They want to throw me out of the Catholic Church, but I'm not going anywhere because I'm a devout practicing Catholic.
If you're a devout practicing Catholic, why do they want to throw you out?
Because you're not a devout practicing Catholic, because you don't believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, you don't practice the Catholic faith, and because you, Nancy Pelosi, are in a state of public, scandalous, grave mortal sin that imperils your eternal soul with every breath that you waste, every unrepentant breath that you waste defending the slaughter of babies.
That's why.
I know that we're living in this postmodern world now where we get to define anything as anything else and words have no meaning.
That was actually part of what David and I were talking about.
He said, words are just whatever we say they are.
That was the descriptivism-prescriptivism debate.
If I say I'm a woman, I'm a woman.
Well, how do you define that?
Well, I can't define it because it's just whatever I want it to be.
That's a very new, very silly, very modern idea.
Whatever else you want to say about the Catholic Church, it's not a new and modern institution.
You don't just get to say, I'm a Catholic.
There's a group called Catholics for Choice.
It's a group of pro-abortion apostate Catholics, I guess.
They're obviously not practicing.
They say, I can be a Catholic if I say I am.
No, you can't.
Catholicism, Christianity traditionally, relies on The sacrament of baptism.
And you're practicing the faith.
And you can be excommunicated.
And you can be in a state of grave mortal sin.
And Nancy Pelosi's either got to get right with her faith or acknowledge that she doesn't really adhere to the faith of Catholicism.
She adheres to the faith of leftism.
She's happy to use Catholicism and Christianity when it suits her purposes.
But when push comes to shove, when those rival gods come into conflict, she's going to choose Christ.
The gods of her own desires and whims and political ideology of leftism.
Now, when you want to store up treasure, not merely in heaven, although that's ultimately where you should store up treasure, but you also want to take care of your treasure here on Earth, I would strongly recommend you check out Alto IRA.
Right now, go to altoira.com slash Michael.
A lot of people are getting really interested in crypto right now.
Cryptocurrency might represent the future of money, especially with our dollar basically being worth nothing these days.
It's one of the most exciting investment opportunities to come around for a long time.
But what about taxes?
Some people like me are dealing with this right now because tax season rolls around and no one really knows what to do with taxes and crypto.
Well, now we have the answer.
With Alto Crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin and you can avoid or defer the taxes.
Get into investing in crypto.
Do it in a tax advantaged retirement account.
Alto's Crypto IRA is the easy way to get crypto into an IRA.
Trade all you want, no tax headache, create an account in a few minutes and invest with as little as 10 bucks and no setup charges.
You get secure trading 24-7 through Alto's integration with Coinbase.
There are more than 80 coins available.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, you know.
Open an Alto Crypto IRA account with as little as 10 bucks.
Go to altoira.com slash Michael.
That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A dot com slash M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
Start investing in cryptocurrency today.
That is altoira.com slash Michael.
This issue of what is a woman?
Has become a national phenomenon.
I was just debating with David Pakman.
He couldn't give the definition.
It's not that he couldn't.
He wouldn't give the definition.
Because, as he admitted politically, this is a total loser for the left because they don't have a definition for it.
Marsha Blackburn asked this question.
Well, our very own Matt Walsh has been...
Working stealthily for many months now on a secret mission, on a movie, a man going all over to answer one simple question.
What is a woman?
I have traveled all over the world for the past year asking one simple question.
What is a woman?
What is a woman?
What is it?
What is it?
I don't know.
People are laughing.
Is that a dumb question?
I've been asking everybody this, and almost nobody can answer it.
What is a woman?
What is a woman?
That's a great question.
If one person could tell me what a woman is.
Congressman, thank you for being here.
I think this interview is over.
Let's try off the cameras.
I just wanted to know what is a woman.
And you're not going to find out.
It's not a complicated question.
It's not a complicated question, but it is a very, very complicated answer, apparently.
And Matt has...
I don't think he's gotten it yet.
We'll see.
The movie's coming out soon.
It's going to be absolutely terrific.
We as conservatives need to be able to give an answer.
Because Matt kicked off this trend.
Now a lot of people are catching on to it.
Senator Blackburn and others.
But what's the answer?
There is an answer, you know.
Despite David not giving it earlier, despite Ketanji Jackson not giving it earlier, there is an answer.
A woman is an adult female human.
But Michael, what is a female?
That would be the next question.
A female is of or denoting the sex that can bear children or produce eggs.
But Michael, you say, not all women are fertile.
Not all women can bear children.
That's true.
Michael, not all women can even produce eggs.
That's exceedingly rare that a woman can't produce any eggs, but sure, it can happen.
That still doesn't change the definition because those women are still of the sex that can bear children and produce eggs.
They are not men.
What is a man?
A man is an adult male human being.
This is amazing that in the year of our Lord, 2022, we have to give these definitions because America has forgotten it.
A man is an adult male human.
What is a male?
A male is of or denoting the sex that produces mobile gametes, small mobile gametes, especially sperm that can impregnate a woman that can fertilize an egg.
Well, what about a man whose swimmers don't work?
They remain of the sex that can do those things.
They are not women who have a different definition.
This is what happens when you open the dictionary and you just look at the definition.
For now, the definition is going to change.
This is where David Pakman makes a very good point.
He says, sometimes definitions just change based on describing how we use words.
That's true.
But the definition that has existed from the dawn of time until five minutes ago, and it's still in the dictionaries because the libs haven't changed them yet, says that that is what a man is and that is what a woman is.
Why does the dictionary say that?
David, as he pointed out in his descriptivism comments, would say, well, it just says that because that's what human beings agreed upon.
But that's not true.
Thank you.
It is true that sometimes words evolve over time and the politically correct try to change words to contradict their meaning.
But also, words have definitions because they refer to something that is actually real.
A word is a symbol and it refers to the symbolized, which is a real thing.
And a man is a real thing.
And a woman is a real thing.
And that definition really, really matters.
This is not just some frivolous joke.
This is not just some bad faith discussion.
This is not just Matt Walsh getting some lols by making a movie.
This is not just Republicans scoring cheap points by asking an unfair question during a Senate hearing.
This is a bedrock question for our law and for our self-understanding.
There are a lot of laws that refer to protections for men and women.
If the definition of woman suddenly becomes man, those protections completely go away.
If we as a society can't even agree on what any words mean, we can't communicate and govern ourselves.
But surely if we can't agree on the most basic definitions of the most basic aspects of life, then we don't have a society.
Then we are just babbling in a cacophonous void.
And increasingly, that's what our country feels like, which is not great, okay?
It gets my blood up.
It gets me hungry for political action.
And when I'm hungry for real food, I turn to Tessa Mays.
Right now, go to tessamays.com, promo code Michael.
What if eating healthy also tasted great?
These seem like they are completely in conflict with each other, but they're not thanks to Tessa Mays.
Tessa Mays found a way with their award-winning ranch dressings and vinaigrettes to make healthy food taste great.
Tessa Mays is an American-made company started by three brothers with a dream to share their mom's recipes with the world.
Tessa Mays tastes great.
They put flavor and quality above all else.
And because of that, they quickly became the number one organic dressing brand in the country.
All of their products are manufactured here in the U.S. of A, which I love.
And they have a wide variety of anything you want.
Kosher, Whole30, keto products.
You want it, they'll have it for you.
Whether you're in the mood for a creamy avocado ranch or a light, refreshing lemon-garlic dressing and marinade, there is a Tessa Mays product for every occasion.
Kids, parents, and grandparents can all agree on one thing.
Tessa Mays dressings are good on everything.
Dipping wings, pizza, pouring it on a salad.
Tessa Mays makes every meal better.
These guys are the embodiment of the American dream.
They're bringing manufacturing back to America.
Their products, most importantly, taste great.
Go to tessamays.com.
Use promo code Michael for 15% off their terrific products.
T-E-S-S-E-M-A-E-S.com.
Promo code Michael.
I've talked to you.
We've got a lot of projects at Daily Wire.
I've talked to you about what I think is now...
I think it's the most popular content we've ever put for The Daily Wire members.
This is Fauci Unmasked.
This is my three-part series streaming now exclusively at The Daily Wire.
The true story of Dr.
Fauci.
Check it out.
He's the highest paid employee in our federal government.
And beginning in the spring of 2020, Dr.
Fauci began to set national policy that affected the way that 330 million Americans lived their lives.
For goodness sakes, I'm telling you, wear a mask, keep social distancing.
There's nothing political about that.
But who is Anthony Fauci?
People who have conspiracy theories.
Those are people that don't particularly care for me.
In this short series, we will do what the establishment media have refused to do.
We will give you an unvarnished look at the career of the most powerful politician in America.
Dr.
Anthony Fauci.
Don't you think it's time that you step down and let someone else who has a more effective message?
Actually, no.
No.
The series, Fauci on Masked, is screaming now at dailywire.com.
Go check it out, dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Head on over there today.
Today, we'll be right back with a lot more.
It seems like our whole culture is changing, being upended, being reset.
The World Economic Forum has called for a great reset, specifically around the COVID lockdowns.
You've heard for years conspiracy theories, crazy tinfoil hack conspiracy theories about a New World Order.
Those nuts who mentioned the New World Order, which President George H.W. Bush talked about, which lots of leading statesmen have talked about in our history, and which President Joe Biden mentioned just the other day.
You know, we are at an inflection point, I believe, in the world economy.
Not just the world economy, in the world.
It occurs every three or four generations.
As one of the top military people said to me in a secure meeting the other day, 60 million people died between 1900 and 1946.
And since then, we've established a liberal world order, and that hadn't happened in a long while.
A lot of people died, but nowhere near the chaos.
And now is a time when things are shifting.
There's going to be a new world order out there.
And we've got to lead it.
We've got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.
New World Order.
So when you hear this phrase, everyone's eyes open, everyone's ears perk up, what are you talking about a New World Order?
I thought that wasn't real.
I thought that was a crazy conspiracy theory.
Well, Biden is referring to one.
And what is it?
I don't think that the New World Order is reptilians from Mars dressed up in human suits.
Maybe Hillary, maybe Bill, maybe Fauci.
I'm not sold that they are not reptilians dressed up in human suits.
But for most of the people talking about this, I think they're ordinary people with utopian and terrible goals.
When George H.W. Bush was talking about the new world order, what was he talking about?
He was talking about the end of the Cold War, this new period of American hegemony all around the world, we're the sole superpower, we're going to run everything, and things are going to be great.
And how are they going to be great?
Basically through the expansion of global markets.
So we're going to spread neoliberalism, we're going to spread globalism, we're going to spread the American economic and political order all the way around the world.
There are...
Regimes are going to have to get much more democratic, much more open to free trade.
If they're not, well, there might be some problems for those regimes.
You might have to topple those regimes.
And that'll be unpleasant.
There'll be some wars.
But once that happens, once we topple all the autocrats, then we're going to have this free, flourishing, liberal, democratic world, and we're all going to live in peace and harmony, kumbaya.
And we pursued that policy for a very long time.
A lot of the wars in the Middle East had that idea underpinning them.
A lot of the economic policies regarding China, allowing China into the World Trade Organization, really normalizing relations with China.
The idea was, well, if we open up trade with China, that's going to make the regime less autocratic.
How has that worked out?
Not very well.
How did the predictions that Joe Biden specifically made that a rising China would be great for the world, great for China, great for everyone, that didn't work out very well.
but they keep pushing it because they believe that unless the entire world is basically operating under the same kind of political regime and economic regime, then there's going to be war.
And so we need war so that we can prevent the war in the future.
That was the idea.
It's a very utopian kind of idea, and it hasn't worked out very well.
I would humbly recommend, rather than continuing to pursue the new world order, Maybe we look at some of the older world orders.
Maybe we make our goals a little more realistic.
We have a little bit more humility in our goals.
Because if we get a little too ambitious and we want to remake the entire world in the image of America, we might end up losing America.
We might end up losing our borders.
We might end up losing our culture.
We might end up losing our solidarity and our love of country.
We might end up losing our minds to the point that we can't even define what a baby is and what a woman is.
Oh, that's all already happened.
Right.
Maybe we need a little less ambitious of a foreign policy and a little more care and attention paid, not to the global citizens of the world where borders don't matter, but to the citizens of the United States.
And recognize you're not going to get rid of wars.
You're not going to get rid of autocrats.
You're not going to solve...
Centuries, sometimes millennia-long conflicts with some platitudes that came out of a 1960s economic textbook from the United States.
That maybe these long-simmering issues in the Middle East, in Africa, in Eastern Europe, in Crimea for that matter, that these are a little more complicated.
And they require a little bit more humility.
Because now things are really spiraling out of control.
There's a politician who wants to go back in time, but to a very specific period of time.
This is a Russian politician, Parliament Member Oleg Matvechev.
Who usually speaks on behalf of the Kremlin, and he dropped this idea during an appearance on Russian state TV, according to the Daily Mail.
He wants to take back Alaska.
See, Alaska used to belong to the Russians, and then America got Alaska, and now this guy wants Alaska back for Russia.
He says he demands the return of all Russian properties, those of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and current Russia, which has been seized in the United States, and so on.
That was my next point.
Alaska, we want Antarctica.
We discovered it, so it belongs to us.
This Russian parliament member, Mr.
Oleg, sounds pretty much indistinguishable from an American liberal, an American campus liberal, who signs their emails, you know, signed so-and-so.
I acknowledge that I am on the land of the Chicani tribe and this is their land that was taken unjustly.
We need to give the land back to the Indians or back to the Mexicans or back to the French.
I don't know.
Whoever else was here before us, anyone but America gets the land.
My favorite part is when they say we have to give the land back to the Indians.
The question is, well, which Indians?
When they put it in their signatures, they say, I acknowledge I'm on the land that formerly belonged to the Apache and the Comanche and the this-she and the that-she.
And you say, okay, well, how did the land belong to all of those people?
They all just shared it?
They were all kind of just one?
Oh, no, the land belonged to those tribes at different times.
Well, why did the land change possession?
Why?
Oh, right, because the Comanche came in and took it from the Apache.
Oh, okay.
So are we going to give it back to the Apache or are we going to give it back to the Comanche?
Or are we just going to keep it ourselves because we took it from the Comanche?
How come the Comanche get to take it, but we don't get to take it?
How come the law of conquest works for every other group in the history of the world except for us?
Are we going to give it back to the Russians?
No.
The American left after simping for Russia for a hundred years.
Now they are pretending to hate Russia and accusing the conservatives of being pro-Russia.
But what are we going to do?
Are we going to give it back to the Russians?
I don't think so, Mr.
Oleg.
I think there's something called finders keepers and buyers keepers and Secretary of State Seward bought that land for us and we're going to keep it.
And good luck if you want to invade the land.
Your invasion of Ukraine is...
Which everyone thought was going to be so swift and, oh, here come the Russians.
Well, you're bogged down in that.
So good luck.
Go invade Russia.
Bring it on.
Bring it on, buddy.
I don't think so.
If we're going to return to a more stable, sane, humble foreign policy, then we should be a little more realistic.
This Russian parliament member seems more ambitious and crazy than Woodrow Wilson, than George W. Bush in his most Wilsonian initiatives.
But far crazier than all of that.
Where's the justification?
You know, Pope Francis...
I do want to get to this before we go.
Pope Francis says, not only is the war in Ukraine not just, but there is no such thing as a just war.
And far be it for me to contradict Papa Francesco, but let's not forget that the Pope is only infallible when he's not being fallible.
He's infallible on a narrow range of issues.
And Pope Francis has said, war is always, always the defeat of humanity, always there is no such thing as a just war, they do not exist.
This would contradict millennia of Catholic teaching.
Thomas Aquinas in particular, the great saint and doctor of the church, says there is such a thing as a just war.
Of course there is.
The justice, though, relies on a few things.
It relies on authority.
The person waging the war has the authority to do so.
It relies on a just cause.
You can't wage a war.
Even if you're an authority, you can't wage a war just because you want to.
There has to be a just cause for the war.
Self-defense would be one example.
And there has to be rightful intention.
So those are the criteria there.
So...
It's true that war is a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that there's never a purpose to war or that war taken for just aims is not justified, is not legitimate.
It reminds me of the people who say, violence never solves anything.
You think, well, it solved the Second World War.
It solves crime when the police come and do violence upon criminals.
That solves that.
We seem to have forgotten that.
The left seems to have forgotten that.
Ketanji Jackson maybe never knew that in the first place.
These are really, really basic things.
What is justice?
There's a definition.
What is justice?
It's giving to each what he deserves.
What is a woman?
A woman is an adult female human being.
What is justified?
What is life?
When does life begin?
These are really basic questions.
Contrary to what the left is trying to confuse you into today, the definitions of those questions are The definitions of those terms matter.
We will have a definition.
We will operate according to some definition.
The left wants to radically change the definition.
We will have some definition or other.
If we have the wrong definition, that is not going to lead to a flourishing society.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Production manager, Pavel Vidovsky.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Associate producer, Justine Turley.
Audio mixer, Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup by Cherokee Heart.
Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on the Matt Wall Show, over the last year I've been on a secret journey spanning the globe, pursuing an answer to the ultimate question, the question that defines a generation.
Today I'm finally ready to begin to reveal what I uncovered.
We'll talk about that.
▲
Export Selection