The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 357 - Why Trump Is Going To Win In 2020

00:00:00.000 Movie starting, kiddo. Streaming service, $20. But mom, popcorn. Grocery bill, $120.

00:00:07.500 Sorry, your account has insufficient funds. Farber Debt Solutions, licensed insolvency

00:00:12.860 trustees, get the truth about debt. Betting markets, election models,

00:00:17.120 and a political scientist who has correctly predicted nine presidential elections all say

00:00:22.680 President Trump is headed for victory in 2020. We will examine why. Then, Liz Warren gets wrecked

00:00:28.880 on the radio. The world's tiniest baby ever is born. Elton John hates his own country. And a

00:00:34.700 conservative writer, Saurabh Amari, opens up a major fight on the right. I'm Michael Knowles,

00:00:40.180 and this is The Michael Knowles Show. So a political scientist and an American university professor

00:00:52.640 with an extraordinarily good track record of predicting presidential victories is predicting

00:00:59.400 that President Trump will win in 2020 unless Democrats do this one weird trick, this one

00:01:07.220 thing that he suggests will help them to win in 2020. We will uncover what that is in just one

00:01:13.220 second. But first, let me tell you why I look so good and feel so rested. You already know the answer

00:01:18.860 to this. It is Purple Mattress, my favorite bed that I have ever slept on. The Purple Mattress will feel

00:01:26.000 different than anything you've ever experienced because it's not quite an innerspring. It's not

00:01:29.900 quite a memory foam. It is this proprietary technology developed by a rocket scientist. What is it? I

00:01:36.440 couldn't really tell you. It feels firm and soft at the same time. I know that sounds impossible. When I

00:01:43.440 first read it, I didn't believe it. I almost didn't even want to take the bed when it was shipped to me.

00:01:49.120 Then I tried it out for one night and I became an evangelist for Purple Mattress. It is the greatest

00:01:55.360 bed I've ever slept in and you will love it. Also, what's really nice as we get into summer

00:02:00.300 is it breathes. So unlike a lot of other beds, it doesn't get really, really hot. It sort of sleeps

00:02:05.240 cool and, you know, you can throw on whatever blankets or sheets that you want. It is fabulous.

00:02:09.940 It feels like you're floating, zero gravity. 100-night risk-free trial if you're not fully satisfied.

00:02:14.720 You can return your mattress for a full refund. Backed by a 10-year warranty, free shipping and

00:02:18.600 returns, free in-home setup, and old mattress removal. You will love it. I've been telling

00:02:23.920 you this for a long time. You have to try it. Right now, my listeners will get a free purple

00:02:28.320 pillow with the purchase of a mattress. That's in addition to other great gifts they offer

00:02:31.820 site-wide. How do you get that free purple pillow? You text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to

00:02:36.220 84888. The only way to get this free pillow is to text Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 84888.

00:02:43.540 K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 84888. Message and data rates may apply. So the good news is President

00:02:50.320 Trump is going to win in 2020 according to not just one, but multiple election models

00:02:55.500 from a lot of people who have accurately predicted a ton of presidential elections. That's the good

00:03:00.620 news. The bad news is Democrats have an opportunity to take that away from him, according at least

00:03:06.100 to Alan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted nine presidential elections. His model shows

00:03:13.380 that Donald Trump is going to win in 2020 unless the Democrats impeach. So this is a sort of

00:03:21.220 interesting model because what we've been told is that Democrats impeaching President Trump

00:03:27.860 will destroy their chances in 2020 because the people will rally around Trump. They'll see it

00:03:33.480 as a Democrat overreach. They'll see it as them trying to overturn a presidential election. 0.88

00:03:37.540 They'll rally to his side and give him re-election. This is the conventional wisdom for the Clinton

00:03:43.740 96 election, that all of the Republican investigations, moves towards impeachment, were overstepping their

00:03:50.580 bounds, and the people rallied. You know, they had just swept the Republicans into the House

00:03:56.300 in 94, but then they rallied around Bill Clinton in 1996 and gave him re-election. Okay. The reason

00:04:01.940 Alan Lichtman says that's wrong is that impeachment happens in 1998. And what that gave to the Clinton

00:04:09.260 administration was the whiff of scandal. So as a result of this whiff of scandal, Al Gore lost the

00:04:17.520 2000 election because people were sick of the ugliness and the scandal of the Clinton administration.

00:04:23.360 George W. Bush ran on restoring dignity to the White House. And so they kicked out Al Gore and they gave it to

00:04:29.240 George W. Bush. Possibly. Okay. I see the argument there. The trouble is that the Trump administration

00:04:35.320 already has the whiff of scandal. It has the whiff of many scandals, actually. They're all kind of stupid

00:04:41.240 scandals. It's all a porn star payment or he hired this guy who was no good and then this guy or he had a real 1.00

00:04:48.600 estate deal in the 80s. I think there are scandals that people don't care about, but the mainstream

00:04:53.540 media have tried to make this the scandal administration. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who

00:04:59.340 legitimately had serious political scandals, he politicized the IRS to go after his political

00:05:05.060 opponents. Dinesh D'Souza went to jail basically because he made a mean documentary about Barack Obama.

00:05:11.020 He weaponized the DOJ under Loretta Lynch. He had the Fast and Furious scandal gun running under Eric

00:05:18.680 Holder into Mexico. There were a lot of real scandals under the Obama administration. Obviously, if you

00:05:25.460 like your doctor, you can keep your doctor lying to the American people. Donald Trump doesn't have

00:05:29.500 that, but he's got, according to the mainstream media and the popular culture, more public scandal

00:05:35.840 than Barack Obama did. So I don't really see that as being the issue. And it's not just Alan Lichtman

00:05:40.760 who has this model, though he has a very good one. The New York Times, unfortunately, probably had to

00:05:45.980 choke on it as they were typing it out in their article. The other day, the New York Times showed

00:05:51.520 three election models, all of which show that Trump is going to win. So Steve Ratner writing in the New

00:05:57.480 York Times, he described the fair model. This is for Ray Fair, a professor at Yale. Ray Fair found that

00:06:05.400 the growth rates of GDP and inflation have been the two most important economic predictors in presidential

00:06:11.340 elections. And obviously, President Trump is doing very well on those fronts, and the economy is exploding.

00:06:18.200 And especially after the sluggish, awful economy of Barack Obama, things are looking very good there. On top of

00:06:25.620 that, what Ray Fair found is that incumbency is an important determinant of presidential elections. And President

00:06:30.860 Trump, obviously, is the incumbent. So he has that going for him, too. When you add those together,

00:06:35.400 very good shot that Donald Trump gets reelected. Mark Zandy, who is the chief economist at Moody's

00:06:41.760 Analytics, looked at 12 different presidential election models, and Trump won all of them.

00:06:50.460 It's important to note there's a difference here between an election model and election polls.

00:06:56.020 So polling is just when you go out and you ask a bunch of people, who are you going to vote for,

00:06:59.560 this guy or that guy? A model is when you take in all these sorts of various factors. Perhaps it

00:07:05.080 includes some public polling. It includes a lot of economic data. It includes foreign policy data.

00:07:09.260 It includes all of these things. You plug it all in together, and a computer then comes up with who

00:07:13.700 is going to win. And Zandy, who's a serious guy at Moody's, looked at 12 different models. Trump

00:07:20.280 wins all of them. Then Donald Luskin at Trend Macroanalytics, or Macrolytics, rather,

00:07:26.440 looked at the Electoral College. So he had a model that specifically looked at the Electoral College,

00:07:31.640 came to the same conclusion. Trump wins. This is very bad news for the left, very good news

00:07:38.080 for the right. Why do people think Trump won't win? It's because he has a relatively low approval rating.

00:07:46.820 That said, his approval rating, somewhere between 44, 46, let's say, it's still on par with or higher

00:07:54.060 than Barack Obama's at this point in his presidency. And don't forget, Barack Obama got reelected.

00:07:58.260 Now, the other side of this is polling, looking at certain key states, looking at key demographics

00:08:04.240 that President Trump is going to have to win if he wants re-election. So the suburban white women 1.00

00:08:09.100 or certain areas of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera. Still, all of that aside,

00:08:17.520 look at these models. These models have been fairly accurate, and Trump wins it. So that's pretty good

00:08:23.540 news. I have another theory on why President Trump is likely to win in 2020, which is that

00:08:28.580 there isn't even one single candidate on the other side who can beat him.

00:08:34.560 People have been saying possibly Joe Biden. You got to remember, Joe Biden's been hiding out now for

00:08:39.100 weeks. He got his post-announcement bump, and then he's hiding away because he knows he's weak when he

00:08:43.740 goes out in public. Bernie Sanders, possibly. I don't really see that happening. At least Bernie stands

00:08:49.280 for something, so maybe he can make a serious play. I don't really buy it. Elizabeth Warren surging in

00:08:55.560 the polls. People counted her out. She was barely registering in polls a few weeks ago. Now she's up

00:09:00.800 8%, 9%, doing pretty well. She's still nothing. And this has not been clearer than when she was on

00:09:09.240 The Breakfast Club, this excellent radio show, yesterday morning. And they called her out for

00:09:15.740 the eternal weakness of her campaign. Your family told you you were Native American?

00:09:21.520 Yeah. Charlemagne tells me I'm Dominican, but I don't believe you are. How long did you hold on to

00:09:26.480 that? Because there was some reports that said you were Native American on your Texas bar license and

00:09:29.720 that you said you were Native American on some documents when you were a professor at Harvard.

00:09:33.500 Like, why'd you do that? So it's what I believe. You know, that's, like I said, it's what I learned

00:09:39.260 from my family. When did you find out you weren't? Well, you know, it's, I'm not a person of color.

00:09:47.520 I'm not a citizen of a tribe. And tribal citizenship is an important distinction. And not something I am. 0.97

00:09:56.000 So. Were there any benefits to that? No. Boston Globe did a full investigation. It never affected,

00:10:03.700 nothing about my family ever affected any job I ever got. Um. You didn't get a discount in college?

00:10:09.420 You're kind of like the original Rachel Dozo a little bit. Rachel Dozo was a white woman pretending 0.94

00:10:14.100 to be black. Well, this is what I learned from my family. Yeah. Yeah. He was just waiting. Talk

00:10:22.380 about a really masterful radio interview. He kind of lures her in. He seems kind of nice. He's,

00:10:28.320 he's playing cool. Oh, so you, but you're not. And okay, you didn't get any benefits from

00:10:33.620 pretending to be Native American. You're kind of like the original Rachel Dolezal, huh? 0.90

00:10:38.720 And she, you can see the fire in her eyes. And then he says, you know, she's a white woman 0.76

00:10:45.280 pretending to be black. And Liz Warren, what can she say? She said, well, look, that's,

00:10:49.440 that's what I was told by my family. And he goes, uh-huh. And she goes, uh-huh. Oof. Nothing more to say.

00:10:57.680 This issue is not going away. She has tried to dismiss it. She's tried to do the Clinton playbook,

00:11:05.320 which is you have a scandal, then you hide from the scandal for six months. And then someone brings

00:11:10.300 the scandal back up and you say, it's old news. Even though you never answered any questions about

00:11:14.260 it, you can say, well, it's old news. I'm not going to do it. This isn't working for Elizabeth Warren.

00:11:18.320 She has had to answer for this for years and years and years. She has tried every strategy

00:11:23.920 on answering it. She has doubled down. She got the Boston Globe, which is her personal Pravda,

00:11:30.040 to do a whole big expose. Liz Warren took a DNA test and she is Native American, 1.00

00:11:36.420 even though it's only one one-thousandth and probably not even that. And she said, see, look,

00:11:40.400 I'm Native American. And she was roundly mocked by everybody in both parties. So then she got rid of

00:11:45.240 that. And she said, okay, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to pretend that I was a Native American,

00:11:48.480 but I never got any advantage from it. And I never did it myself. It was just Harvard telling me,

00:11:54.540 telling people that I was a Native American. Well, then that wasn't true because she signed

00:11:57.740 her name as Native American on a Texas bar application. Okay. That was, she tries all these

00:12:02.140 different strategies. None of them are working. If she wasn't able to come up with an answer for this,

00:12:10.020 when she was running against Scott Brown in the Senate race, she certainly should have come up

00:12:14.880 with an answer before she got into the presidential race. Trump has called her Pocahontas for three

00:12:18.560 years. She still didn't have an answer when she got into the presidential race. Now, so much later,

00:12:25.360 she still doesn't have an answer. The Breakfast Club asks her about it. She doesn't have an answer.

00:12:28.800 She's not coming up with an answer. The issue is not going away and she's not going anywhere.

00:12:33.960 Before we get to the next reason why President Trump is probably likely to get reelected,

00:12:39.300 I'd like to mention that support for The Michael Knowles Show comes from our friends at

00:12:42.380 Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans. Finding the right house is not easy. Let me tell you,

00:12:47.980 especially in Los Angeles, finding the right house is not easy, but finding the right mortgage

00:12:52.440 can be easy. Rocket Mortgage is doing more to help you understand the home buying process

00:12:57.620 so you can get exactly what you need because it's not just a mortgage. It is your mortgage. They have

00:13:02.800 found a better way. I know a lot of completely useless things. I've spent years and years and years 0.54

00:13:08.020 accumulating useless knowledge. I have absolutely no practical knowledge whatsoever, which is why

00:13:13.620 Quicken Loans is great. Their team of mortgage experts is obsessed with finding a better way.

00:13:18.660 It means that their number one goal is to make the home buying process smoother for you,

00:13:22.320 easier for you. In fact, Rocket Mortgage is there with award-winning client service

00:13:26.400 and support every step of the way. Quicken Loans has helped millions of Americans to achieve their

00:13:32.260 dream of home ownership. When you are ready to purchase the home of your dreams, they can help you too.

00:13:36.220 And when you work with them, you get more than just a loan because Rocket Mortgage is more than

00:13:39.800 just a lender. Get started online. You will not regret it at rocketmortgage.com slash Knowles,

00:13:45.740 K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Make it easy for you. Equal Housing Lenser, licensed in all 50 states, 0.67

00:13:51.980 NMLSconsumeraccess.org, number 3030, Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans, push button, get mortgage.

00:13:58.080 So they don't have any really strong candidates on the Democrat side. Liz Warren is currently the 0.98

00:14:03.960 surging candidate. She's only surging because she hasn't been in the public eye. People basically 0.98

00:14:09.580 counted her out. President Trump said a few weeks ago she was done. So then people stopped paying

00:14:13.220 attention to her and she starts to surge. Then the Breakfast Club points out that she's a total 1.00

00:14:17.980 fraud and her entire life is a lie. She's going to fall down again. Joe Biden is still very high up in 1.00

00:14:24.420 the polls right now. He's high up because nobody's heard from him. Nobody's seen him. When he finally

00:14:28.140 gets back out there, goes on a debate stage, he's going to drop. And maybe he's got the best chance

00:14:33.620 against Donald Trump. Maybe Bernie sort of has a chance against Donald Trump. Maybe. But where's

00:14:40.020 the strong killer candidate? I just don't see them on that side. And that's the biggest issue because

00:14:44.720 elections are not only about the economy. They're not only about models. They're not about generic

00:14:49.100 Republicans or generic Democrats. They're about real people. Maybe the Democrats could have won in 2016,

00:14:54.800 but Hillary was a terrible candidate. Maybe the Republicans could have lost in 2016, 1.00

00:15:00.400 but Trump was the perfect candidate to beat Hillary. That's going to be a major issue. 1.00

00:15:05.940 The other issue is even, let's say, that first model is correct, the Alan Lichtman model,

00:15:11.540 and they've got to impeach to create more scandal in the Trump administration and hurt him in the

00:15:18.260 election. What are they going to impeach over? That you had Bob Mueller come out and give his report.

00:15:25.700 No collusion, and he didn't make a decision on obstruction, but he said there wasn't

00:15:31.500 sufficient evidence. Then Barr and the Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General

00:15:36.720 Rod Rosenstein look at the evidence. They say, there is absolutely not sufficient evidence here.

00:15:42.080 Then Mueller comes out and he says, yeah, but I didn't exonerate him. And Barr says, yeah, right.

00:15:46.140 That's what I said in my letter too. Nothing. It just ends up with nothing. So we had Mueller's

00:15:51.140 press conference yesterday, pathetic. And then William Barr is not staying silent. So the 0.97

00:15:55.860 Attorney General came out to respond to Mueller's criticisms.

00:16:00.660 We saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement. He analyzed 11 instances where there

00:16:07.020 were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn't make a decision. Do you agree

00:16:12.060 with that interpretation?

00:16:13.620 I personally felt he could have reached the decision.

00:16:15.980 In your view, he could have reached a conclusion.

00:16:18.060 Right. He could have reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president

00:16:23.580 while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.

00:16:29.080 But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained. And I'm not going to argue about

00:16:35.640 those reasons. But when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and I felt it

00:16:41.880 was necessary for us as the heads of the department to reach that decision.

00:16:48.400 Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this, and that was Congress.

00:16:53.260 Well, I'm not sure what he was suggesting, but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn't use

00:16:58.060 our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress.

00:17:02.080 So William Barr is saying, I'm not backing down. I'm not going away. I behaved absolutely

00:17:10.360 appropriately. And then the interviewer on CBS brings up the question of Mueller's press

00:17:16.860 conference. And what Mueller said in his press conference was bewildering. He said, we investigated

00:17:22.580 obstruction, but we can't come to a conclusion on obstruction, which raises the question, why did

00:17:29.700 he investigate it then in the first place? Actually, that investigation exceeded his bounds anyway,

00:17:34.900 because he was only tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

00:17:40.260 And then by saying he couldn't come to a conclusion, he's sort of admitting that he

00:17:44.280 overstepped his bounds. But then William Barr says, yes, he could have reached a conclusion,

00:17:49.300 probably should have reached a conclusion. And what the interviewer then says is, well,

00:17:55.500 it looks like he was just teeing it up for Congress. He did that investigation to give Congress a lot of

00:18:02.680 ample fodder so that they could begin impeachment proceedings. And what William Barr says is, he sort

00:18:08.960 of tacitly agrees with that. And he says, sure, but the DOJ does not exist to do investigation work

00:18:17.200 for Congress. That's not the role of the Department of Justice. So I think at the end of all of this,

00:18:21.940 the DOJ under William Barr and ultimately under President Trump comes out looking a lot better

00:18:28.680 than even than the Mueller team. And by the way, the Mueller team more or less exonerated the

00:18:34.780 president. I mean, very practically speaking, they did exonerate the president, even if in the wording

00:18:40.260 of the report, they say they won't reach a conclusion on the question of obstruction. So not a ton of scandal

00:18:47.420 here. Not a whole lot that is, I think, really able to gin up the impeachment fury against Donald

00:18:56.380 Trump. Judge Napolitano on Fox, who I really like, but I think he's wrong here. He comes out and

00:19:02.280 questions this, questions Attorney General Barr and basically defends Bob Mueller.

00:19:07.600 Well, it's not uncommon for two prosecutors looking at the same evidence to come to different

00:19:11.720 conclusions. I mean, this happens every day in every prosecutor's office. But I think you hit the

00:19:17.020 nail on the head when you said it is up to the attorney general to make these decisions.

00:19:22.440 I think the reason Mueller did not come to a conclusion on obstruction of justice is not

00:19:28.240 because the evidence wasn't there. It's there. There are 10 crimes outlined. There's enough there

00:19:32.880 to get an indictment on any of them if the defendant were not the president of the United States.

00:19:37.940 I think the reason is because he knew that the attorney general would never give him permission

00:19:42.880 to do so. And he's a soldier. He's a he's a Marine. He doesn't want to challenge and take on

00:19:48.700 his his boss. You think that the argument breaks down there at the end. So what Napolitano is saying

00:19:54.780 is there is a ton of evidence that he could have been used to indict if he weren't the president of

00:19:59.060 the United States. However, Bob Mueller is a loyal soldier and didn't want to overstep his bounds.

00:20:05.500 That's demonstrably not true. Bob Mueller has contradicted his boss, Attorney General William

00:20:10.300 Barr, multiple times in public through that grandiose and ridiculous letter he sent. And 0.94

00:20:16.520 then in that press conference that was totally gratuitous and unnecessary yesterday. So he's

00:20:21.920 obviously willing to contradict Attorney General Barr. And beyond that, the point Judge Napolitano is

00:20:27.200 making is that he didn't reach a conclusion because he, he felt it was overstepping his bounds somehow.

00:20:40.400 He's a guy who already oversteps his bounds. Well, he didn't reach a conclusion because

00:20:44.400 he felt that Attorney General Barr wouldn't act on it. So what? His job isn't to just do whatever

00:20:51.300 Attorney General Barr wants to do. He could have easily put his conclusions that Trump committed a crime

00:20:56.720 in that report and waited for the AG to make his move. He's been combative already. He staffed the

00:21:01.960 investigation with never Trumpers. I don't think that's why. I think Mueller was bloodthirsty to, to show

00:21:07.380 evidence of a crime and to come to a conclusion and he just wasn't able to do it. And so if you had a

00:21:15.480 weaker Attorney General, if you had an Attorney General who is more concerned about his own future

00:21:21.240 political career, I think he would behave in a more partisan way here. But actually what's happening

00:21:26.560 is you have this guy, William Barr. He's only the second guy in history to serve as Attorney General

00:21:30.800 twice. And William Barr basically says, look, I have nothing to lose. And so I am going to call it

00:21:39.220 like it is. I'm going to be a straight shooter and I'm going to follow DOJ protocol.

00:21:44.000 You're now someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president,

00:21:49.600 lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in?

00:21:52.900 Well, in a way I did expect it because I realized we live in a crazy hyper partisan period of time.

00:21:59.540 And I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling

00:22:06.240 him as I see him, that I'd be attacked because nowadays people don't care about the merits or

00:22:11.620 the substance. They only care about who it helps, you know, who benefits, whether my side benefits or

00:22:17.060 the other side benefits. Everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that's antithetical to

00:22:23.080 the way the department runs. And any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing

00:22:28.480 a lot of political capital. And I realized that. And that's one of the reasons that I ultimately was

00:22:33.940 persuaded that maybe I should take it on because I think at my stage in life, it really doesn't make

00:22:39.800 any difference. Really an admirable statement here because he is so right. This guy has been

00:22:45.580 in Washington for a very long time. He's operated there a long time. And he knows that anybody who

00:22:51.320 steps into that role, if he has the most unimpeachable record ever, which William Barr

00:22:56.480 basically does, if he steps into that role right now, he is going to have his reputation tarnished.

00:23:02.560 He is going to have his career destroyed. And Barr's basically saying, I'm at the end of my career,

00:23:09.400 so I can do it. A younger guy would not be able to do it, would not be able to withstand that,

00:23:14.460 would have his career ruined, would maybe make questionable decisions to try to save his career

00:23:19.240 or save public face. Barr doesn't need to worry about that. He's the most liberated man in Washington.

00:23:24.200 And the only thing that they can hold over him is his legacy, is his reputation. And even on that,

00:23:30.120 he says, who cares? I'm at the end of my career. I've, you know...

00:23:35.160 Does it... I mean, it's a reputation that you've worked your whole life on, though.

00:23:38.880 Yeah, but everyone dies. And I'm not, you know... You know, I don't believe in the Homeric idea that,

00:23:45.220 you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know.

00:23:51.100 So you don't regret taking the job?

00:23:53.400 No.

00:23:54.700 That is the right attitude, not just for the attorney general, but for every one of us.

00:24:00.900 Everybody dies. Just go for it. Just do the right thing.

00:24:07.340 Your life is not going to be measured in the odes that are sung to you after you die.

00:24:14.380 You can't just do everything for public approval. Just do it. Just go for it. I love that attitude.

00:24:22.620 That is an attitude of a very dignified man. And it's a great thing that he is the attorney general

00:24:28.920 right now. We have got to get to a few more fabulous stories. The world's tiniest baby

00:24:34.620 was born, and yet in many states in this country, that baby could be killed. And not just killed

00:24:38.960 now, could be killed for many, many more weeks. We will get to that. We will get to the major 0.99

00:24:44.380 fight on the right between So Rob Amari at First Things and David French at National Review. And if

00:24:51.340 we have time, we'll get to the Steven Crowder tweet storm that YouTube right now is trying to

00:24:58.320 de-platform our pal Crowder. We'll get to all of that. But first, got to go to dailywire.com.

00:25:03.280 It is 10 bucks a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, you get the Andrew Klavan show,

00:25:07.080 you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get the Mount Wall show. You get to ask questions in the mailbag.

00:25:10.360 That is yesterday or next Thursday. You get to ask questions backstage, and you get, most importantly,

00:25:16.280 the Leftist Tears Tumblr. Delish. Love them. Go to dailywire.com. We'll be right back with a lot more.

00:25:23.640 The world's tiniest baby has been born. This is a wonderful, so the baby weighs basically nothing,

00:25:42.400 23 weeks old, born, and has survived. A wonderful feel-good story. Obviously, this raises some

00:25:49.960 serious questions about the abortion discussion that we've been having for weeks, because in many

00:25:55.020 states in this country, that baby could be killed. And in many states in this country, people deny

00:26:00.860 that that baby is a baby. But the baby was born, and the baby is now alive. And listen to how the

00:26:06.360 mainstream media covers it. Tonight, an amazing announcement from San Diego, what doctors are

00:26:11.400 calling the world's tiniest surviving baby, just 8.6 ounces when she was born prematurely at 23 weeks.

00:26:18.520 Well, after five months in intensive care, the little girl named Sabie is now healthy,

00:26:23.740 and she's headed home. And we are so happy for her family. 8.6 ounces, half a pound.

00:26:31.400 This baby apparently was the size of an apple. Born at 23 weeks. Now going home, happy, healthy, all alive.

00:26:41.300 Good thing for that baby. That baby wasn't born in Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania,

00:26:47.160 Rhode Island, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,

00:26:52.240 Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, or Virginia to parents

00:26:57.440 who wanted to kill it. Because if that had been the case, she would be dead. It wouldn't even be

00:27:04.280 admitted that she was a baby. In all of those states in the country, you can kill babies who are at least 0.96

00:27:11.380 as old, if not significantly older, than that baby. And those states want to pretend that the baby isn't

00:27:18.440 a baby. But you just heard it. You just saw it. The baby is a baby. This should end the abortion debate. 1.00

00:27:27.740 Those pictures should end the abortion debate. Or at least what they should do to the abortion debate 1.00

00:27:32.760 is take it into honest terms. Naomi Wolf, who we were talking about last week, Naomi Wolf

00:27:38.660 in the mid-90s came out and said, abortion rights mean that we need to kill the baby in all of its

00:27:45.940 humanity in order to have equality for men and women. At least she was honest. What people who

00:27:53.860 support abortion at 23 weeks need to say is, they look at little baby Mabel, was that her name? Look at

00:28:00.060 that little baby and say, you should die because of my political ideology. My political ideology means 1.00

00:28:08.600 that you must be killed. That's just the cost of it. That's the end of the argument. That certainly 1.00

00:28:19.740 should be the end of the argument. We'll see what those states do on abortion. Something tells me

00:28:23.060 they're not going to be protecting babies anytime soon. There's a major fight breaking out in the right

00:28:28.120 right now, in the conservative movement in so much as it still exists. The fight is being launched by

00:28:36.060 a traditionalist conservative writer named Sohrab Amari at the journal First Things. And he wrote a

00:28:42.340 piece called Against David Frenchism. You know David French. David French, very nice guy. He is a lawyer.

00:28:50.240 He served in Iraq. He is a writer at National Review. And he was a leading never-Trumper. Bill 0.98

00:28:55.560 Crystal tried to get him to run for president. He's one of the few remaining never-Trumpers. Bill

00:29:00.980 Crystal is another one who's still remaining. And what Sohrab is saying is that the conservative

00:29:06.780 movement in America needs to stop being like David French and start being a little tougher.

00:29:13.740 What this is really a debate between is not these two guys. I mean, the article is not called

00:29:19.160 Against David French. It's called Against David Frenchism. What this is really a debate between

00:29:23.860 is liberalism and traditionalism. Conservatism and liberalism in America are not opposite things.

00:29:31.600 In some ways they are, but in some ways they aren't. Because what we mean by liberalism is

00:29:36.040 maybe classical liberalism. You've heard the phrase classical liberalism. People forget a lot that in

00:29:41.200 the old days, liberalism had something to do with liberty. Now liberalism opposes liberty. Now it's all

00:29:46.500 about equality. But it comes from the same place. Libertarians, liberalism, classical liberalism.

00:29:51.940 And there is a version of conservatism that is really just a sort of liberalism. It accepts all

00:29:58.620 the premises of liberalism. It just doesn't take them as far as the progressives do. And then there's

00:30:04.320 an alternative to this, which is tradition. Actual conservatism. So Sohrab identifies David French

00:30:14.280 as the embodiment of a conservative movement frozen in time. As the embodiment of a conservative

00:30:21.920 movement that is trying anachronistically to cut and paste solutions and attitudes of the 1980s,

00:30:28.220 of the Reagan revolution, into the Trump era. As a movement that has not caught up with the times,

00:30:36.020 that has not accepted the changing circumstances of the world, that has not admitted its own failures.

00:30:41.600 There were many great things that happened during the Reagan era, but it wasn't perfect.

00:30:46.360 And in politics, you've got to adapt. You've got to acknowledge your own flaws and change them and

00:30:51.240 try to fix them. So he writes, so Rob writes, what is David Frenchism? As Irving Kristol said of

00:30:56.900 neoconservatism, Frenchism is more a persuasion or a sensibility than a movement with clear tenets.

00:31:04.300 Fair enough. That's true. The reaction to this though, is that that's also true of the kind of

00:31:11.040 conservatism that Sohrab is advocating. It's true. This idea that conservatism is more a persuasion

00:31:17.580 or an attitude than it is a clear ideological movement. I think that's true of all sorts of

00:31:22.800 conservatism. That's certainly true of the traditional conservatism that I think about.

00:31:28.140 It's a little bit more of an inclination. It's a little bit more of an intuition,

00:31:31.400 as the conservative philosopher Russell Kirk said. But fair enough point.

00:31:35.560 David Frenchism, as Sohrab defines it, the key here is that it exalts individual autonomy above

00:31:43.200 all else. Individual liberty above all else. And David Frenchism, according to Sohrab,

00:31:50.880 says that the primary, if not the sole aim of government is to maximize individual autonomy.

00:31:57.520 And the argument for maximizing individual autonomy is that on the one hand, it's true,

00:32:03.400 you'll get a lot of decadence and you'll get porn and you'll get cultural rot, but you will also

00:32:08.200 then carve out a space in the culture for religious conservatives to practice virtue and to do what

00:32:14.140 they want to do. Now, the objection to that version, the David French version of conservatism,

00:32:20.020 which is just an older version of liberalism, is that true liberty cannot survive the sort of

00:32:29.040 libertinism and decadence that follows from maximizing individual liberty.

00:32:34.140 So the objection to David Frenchism is that if you just maximize individual liberty and you say,

00:32:39.720 okay, you're going to have your space to be decadent pagan degenerates and we're going to have our space 1.00

00:32:43.860 to be religious conservatives, eventually that maximizing of individual liberty will create a

00:32:50.820 libertine culture that will not tolerate the religious conservatives. And we're certainly seeing

00:32:55.820 this in the culture today. We're seeing, obviously, prayer in schools has not existed for over 50

00:33:01.080 years. That was rooted out. We're now being told that if you object to gay marriage even, that you're

00:33:06.940 some sort of bigot, the redefinition of marriage. If you object to curious sexualities, you're some

00:33:13.240 sort of bigot. If you object, you are no longer tolerated. You're deplatformed. You're censored.

00:33:18.040 You're kicked out. You're not allowed in the culture. Same thing with a good analysis of,

00:33:23.340 or a good analogy rather, would be drugs or porn. So the idea being, let's legalize all drugs.

00:33:30.860 And if you want to do drugs, you can do drugs. And if you don't want to do drugs, you don't have

00:33:35.100 to do drugs. And it'll be fine. That's a totally neutral culture. Except that isn't neutral because

00:33:40.360 drugs take away your liberty. So when you do drugs in the name of liberty, the drugs enslave you.

00:33:49.280 You lose some of your individual autonomy. You become addicted. You become a slave to

00:33:55.080 the drug. And so what you were doing initially in the name of liberty totally erodes your

00:33:59.500 liberty. Same thing with porn in our culture. There are a zillion men in this country who

00:34:03.540 are addicted to online pornography. And the argument for porn is that everybody should

00:34:08.380 have their maximum individual liberty. But then the argument against porn is it takes

00:34:12.080 away everybody's liberty because it takes away your, because it enslaves you. So on the

00:34:17.940 one hand, you've got this conservatism, this traditional conservatism that Saurabh is writing

00:34:22.940 about. And that says that society should primarily be focused on the good, on virtue, on good stuff.

00:34:31.440 On the other hand, you have the classical liberalism that he calls David Frenchism, which says that society

00:34:36.800 should primarily value liberty. Not just as a means to the good or to virtue, but as the good unto

00:34:43.860 itself. And this is a big difference. I, for one, I love liberty. A few people love liberty more than I

00:34:50.120 do. But I like liberty because it is an instrument to the good. Liberty isn't the be-all and end-all.

00:34:56.340 If some guy uses his liberty to do a bunch of drugs and waste his life, that's terrible. That's an awful

00:35:01.200 abuse of liberty. Liberty has to be geared towards something, which is the good. So Rob writes,

00:35:06.660 only the libertines take the logic of maximal autonomy, the one that French shares, to its

00:35:13.420 logical terminus. They say, in effect, for us to feel fully autonomous, you must positively affirm

00:35:18.820 our sexual choices, our transgression, our power to disfigure our natural bodies and redefine what it

00:35:24.160 means to be human. And your disapprobation makes us feel less than fully autonomous. So one example of

00:35:35.020 individual autonomy that So Rob actually cites is a drag queen reading session at a public library. We

00:35:40.620 talked about this about a week ago. Some public library, they have a drag queen reading session

00:35:45.980 for little kids. Now, this is obviously an example of maximizing individual liberty. The drag queen gets 1.00

00:35:54.200 to dress however he wants to. He gets to show up and read at this library. The parents can choose to

00:35:59.640 take their kids there. That's all, it's all just individual liberty. It's horrific and should not

00:36:06.200 happen, but it's, that's just individual liberty. The issue that So Rob identifies is the only way to

00:36:12.680 sustain drag queen reading sessions at libraries is with some level of moral approval by the community.

00:36:18.400 If the, if the community didn't approve of, of the drag queen reading session, it would not be

00:36:22.680 permitted to happen. So when you open this whole door to maximizing individual liberty as much as

00:36:28.740 you want, you end up getting drag queen reading sessions. And then you in the community are

00:36:34.020 complicit in the moral approval of it. And you're seeing this around the culture. And now, if you

00:36:38.300 don't approve of drag queens, if you don't approve of certain sexual relationships, you are, it's not, 0.84

00:36:44.080 you're not just told, okay, you do you, I'll do me, live and let live. You're told you're a bigot.

00:36:48.600 You're, you're, should be ostracized from society. It is not just neutral to maximize individual

00:36:55.980 autonomy. It is normative. It has moral consequences. It changes how the community views morality. And

00:37:04.780 ultimately, it becomes hostile to the traditional choices that people might use their individual

00:37:10.020 liberty to choose. So you say, okay, it's just a big, open, neutral playing field. You can make your

00:37:14.360 crazy, wacko, radical choice. We'll make our traditional choices. Ultimately, the wacko choices 1.00

00:37:19.100 will overpower the traditional ones. And a good example of this is religious liberty, religious

00:37:24.740 liberty. So that was established in this country to protect all the various sects of Christianity from 0.99

00:37:30.120 hating each other and warring with each other. No one ever expected religious liberty to be used as

00:37:36.400 an argument for taking down a statue of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse or at a state

00:37:42.380 capital. No one ever expected that. Likewise, no one ever expected it to be used as an argument

00:37:47.500 to put up a statue of Satan at a courthouse or a state capital as the American atheists are trying to 0.95

00:37:53.220 do and have been trying to do for decades. No one ever expected religious liberty to be maximized in

00:38:01.420 that individual way. Because let's take it to its most absurd extreme. Let's say someone was a religious 1.00

00:38:07.180 devotee of Hitler. They think Hitler's a god. They're Hitlerites and they worship Adolf Hitler.

00:38:15.240 Does that mean that we should be forced to build statues of swastikas at public courts or at public

00:38:22.440 state houses? It's not just a political statement. They worship Hitler as a religion. There's the religion 0.76

00:38:28.840 of the Hitlerites. Should we be permitted to do that? No, no one would say that. So why would we have a 0.97

00:38:34.420 statue of Satan? It's because people get this backwards. Religious liberty taken to its extreme is 0.51

00:38:40.420 incoherent because liberty relies on religious ideas. Our idea of liberty presupposes certain

00:38:47.960 religious foundations. Other places in the world don't have religious liberty like we do. Why? Because

00:38:54.220 they don't come from the same religious culture that we come from. The idea of liberty that we have

00:38:58.380 comes from Christianity. The religion in religious liberty comes before the liberty. So a liberty that 0.85

00:39:04.480 undermines that religion is totally incoherent. Now we're getting this debate, we're getting a little

00:39:09.420 into the weeds, but the reason we have this debate at all between the traditionalists and the classical

00:39:13.920 liberals is because during the Cold War, individualists and traditionalists came together

00:39:18.980 against the Soviet Union. And the traditionalists opposed the Soviet Union because it was atheistic

00:39:25.440 and the classical liberals and libertarians opposed the Soviet Union because it was communist and

00:39:31.260 collectivistic. I'm simplifying a little bit, but you had the cultural guys were upset about the cultural

00:39:36.460 questions. The economic guys were upset about the economic questions. And so they joined together in

00:39:41.680 something called fusionism, which William F. Buckley Jr. started basically after the Second World War.

00:39:47.700 After we won the Cold War, this debate opened up between the traditionalists and the classical liberals.

00:39:53.360 And 2016 blew that, that debate wide open in particular. This is an extraordinarily important

00:40:00.940 debate to have. It's important that conservatives of all stripes have this debate. But the very

00:40:07.240 important thing for David French, for Sohrab Amari and for everyone in it, we have to not engage in the

00:40:13.260 debate by alienating each other because the, the conservative, the conservative coalition such as it is

00:40:22.320 will be destroyed and leftism will, will take over if we allow this to totally crack us apart. I side with

00:40:30.160 Sohrab on this question in so much as we should keep things in their proper place, in so much as we

00:40:37.760 should pursue good and not just liberty for its own sake. We also must defeat the left. And we are

00:40:45.840 debating right now how best to defeat the left and what it means to defeat the left. But we certainly

00:40:50.780 shouldn't alienate permanently our allies and our potential allies for this. Very quickly, I have

00:40:57.620 to get to Steven Crowder. Steve Crowder is being targeted by some wacko schmuck at vox.com who is 0.96

00:41:07.440 trying to get his channel taken off the air. He's getting the channel taken off the air because he 0.88

00:41:11.860 says Steven Crowder was mean to him and Steven Crowder used, was making fun of his sexual preferences and

00:41:18.180 therefore he should lose his gigantic YouTube channel. What did Steven Crowder say about this

00:41:22.780 guy Carlos Maza? Here's what he said.

00:41:25.020 Before we get to the video, uh, with our favorite, favorite lispy sprite from Vox. It's ridiculous? 0.76

00:41:31.860 It's bonkers? You're being given a free pass as a crappy writer because you're gay? 1.00

00:41:36.200 That's the center line on his little queer graph there. What is that line? 1.00

00:41:39.860 Well now the graph is queer? Violence? Filth? 0.99

00:41:43.080 Okay, so the little queer can eat his chips all nonchalantly. 1.00

00:41:45.680 It's code for rape, Mr. Queer Eating Chips on the Vox channel. 0.99

00:41:49.320 Mm-hmm, chip, chip, chip, chip, bet you can eat just one. Like dicks. 1.00

00:41:52.360 This is what Mr. Gay Vox wants to do. Mr. Lispy Queer from Vox. 0.99

00:41:56.300 What were you holding, gay Latino from Vox? 0.99

00:41:59.400 Even his hand movement in fast motion is gay. 1.00

00:42:02.260 Now we're here with a short-haired, angry lesbian on Skype. 1.00

00:42:04.940 In cable news, cable news bitching. Two gay guys sitting there eating a banana. We get the symbolism there. 0.99

00:42:08.460 Truth is hiding in a closet two weeks later, probably along to his next Pride Parade outfit.

00:42:13.280 But this guy on the gay, semi-Latino Vox. 0.99

00:42:16.040 Oh, okay, so you really are just an angry little queer. 1.00

00:42:17.840 All right, I can't deal with this Sprite anymore. 0.97

00:42:19.120 Okay, he just sashays across without, like just, oh! 0.97

00:42:21.880 The gay Vox Sprite is wrong! 1.00

00:42:24.680 Now he could be a dranny, Your Honor! 1.00

00:42:26.580 How many lispy, angry Sprites Vox sashay across your screen and try and tell you otherwise. 1.00

00:42:32.960 Or you, by the way, the gay Mexican guy. 1.00

00:42:34.540 The gay Latino v-neck. 1.00

00:42:35.880 Gay Mexican. 1.00

00:42:36.520 The Mexican gay guy used to work. 0.99

00:42:37.860 Mexican gay Latino there at Vox. 0.97

00:42:39.800 Gay Latino from Vox. 0.99

00:42:40.820 The token Vox gay atheist Sprite was surprisingly, surprisingly flaccid chess, considering how thin he is. 1.00

00:42:46.760 It's very bizarre to me. 0.97

00:42:48.360 Okay, so...

00:42:49.820 Stephen Crowder, you know, never let...

00:42:53.280 Will not let one joke go without, you know, just really taking it to its extreme.

00:42:57.780 So he's calling this guy a bunch of names and he's making fun of them.

00:43:01.820 This guy, Carlos Maza, deserves a lot of criticism and should be made fun of. 0.95

00:43:07.140 I think what he's misunderstanding here, though, is this guy thinks that Stephen Crowder is calling him queer because Crowder hates gay people. 0.90

00:43:17.360 Which is not the case. 0.53

00:43:19.620 Stephen Crowder is calling this guy queer because Stephen Crowder doesn't like him.

00:43:24.940 And he's calling him queer because that's one way, among others, to make fun of him.

00:43:28.920 It would be like with me. 0.61

00:43:31.260 If some guy comes up to me and says, hey, Knowles, you're a Dago Guido WAP. 0.99

00:43:36.620 I don't... 0.59

00:43:37.240 He wouldn't say that because he hates Italian people, probably.

00:43:39.940 He would say that because he doesn't like me and I am of Italian descent.

00:43:43.520 And so one way to make fun of me is to call me a bunch of slurs for Italians.

00:43:47.680 That's what's actually going on here.

00:43:49.240 That's what he doesn't get.

00:43:50.600 This guy just went on a 5,000 tweet...

00:43:52.920 I don't have time to go through all the tweets.

00:43:54.360 But he just exemplifies the worst parts of the whiny left here.

00:43:58.500 So I'll go through a few.

00:43:59.520 Carlos Mazi says,

00:44:00.720 So I have pretty thick skin when it comes to online harassment.

00:44:04.200 But something has been really bothering me.

00:44:06.420 When you say, I have thick skin, but what that means is you don't have thick skin.

00:44:11.140 So you know you're in for just a huge wine fest.

00:44:15.060 He says,

00:44:15.340 Since I started working at Vox, Crowder has been making video after video debunking my videos.

00:44:20.040 Every single video has included repeated overt attacks on my sexual orientation and ethnicity.

00:44:25.520 Such as that.

00:44:26.240 Okay.

00:44:26.800 Okay, fine.

00:44:27.400 Yeah, you're right. 0.96

00:44:28.100 Steven Crowder made gay jokes about you. 0.96

00:44:32.420 How many times does the left insult straight white men? 0.99

00:44:37.260 How many times does the left talk about how awful straight white men are? 0.98

00:44:39.940 I mean, it's become a cliche to say straight white man. 0.99

00:44:43.860 The left is also insulting people by referring to their sexual preferences.

00:44:47.500 The left does exactly what you are observing Crowder doing.

00:44:52.720 He goes on, 0.76

00:44:53.240 I've been called an anchor baby, a lispy queer, a Mexican, all these sort of names.

00:44:57.820 I wake up to a wall of abuse on Instagram and Twitter. 0.59

00:45:03.120 I was doxed.

00:45:04.480 It scared me.

00:45:05.580 They make me the target of harassment.

00:45:07.640 It makes life miserable.

00:45:08.860 I waste a lot of time blocking abusive Crowder fanboys. 0.98

00:45:12.400 And this derails your mental health.

00:45:14.360 Dude, everybody in public life gets hate mail.

00:45:18.520 Everybody.

00:45:19.200 I get a zillion messages.

00:45:21.340 Threatening messages, mean messages, insulting messages.

00:45:24.340 Do you know what I do?

00:45:25.080 I ignore them.

00:45:26.340 Because I'm an adult and sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

00:45:30.580 If you think that getting hate mail derails your mental health, get a new profession.

00:45:38.320 Go work in some private accounting office somewhere, far, far from the public eye.

00:45:43.780 Don't be in the public eye.

00:45:45.380 People in the public eye have always and will always get hate mail.

00:45:49.360 Grow up.

00:45:50.380 Goodness gracious.

00:45:51.640 And this is what they do.

00:45:52.480 They say it derails your mental health as a way of trying to claim that they're really victims.

00:45:56.340 They're not just regular victims.

00:45:57.860 They are super special victims.

00:45:59.840 As though the rest of us don't get hate mail.

00:46:01.720 Everybody in public gets hate mail.

00:46:03.820 That said, I'm not mad at Crowder.

00:46:05.700 There will always be monsters in the world.

00:46:07.540 I'm just angry at YouTube for not banning him.

00:46:10.760 Okay, you're not mad at Crowder.

00:46:11.760 You just want him to be completely silenced.

00:46:13.660 This has been going on for years.

00:46:15.620 And Crowder is still not banned.

00:46:16.720 All of this to say, I work my effing back off to create smart, thorough, engaging content

00:46:23.980 for YouTube, a company that claims to give an S about LGBT creators.

00:46:28.460 And it's miserable to have that same company helping facilitate a mind-melting amount of

00:46:33.580 direct harassment.

00:46:34.840 Oh, you make YouTube videos and you don't want to get negative comments.

00:46:38.420 Every YouTube video is filled with abusive, mean comments.

00:46:42.040 That is the definition of a YouTube video.

00:46:43.860 But you think because you're really special and you, you make really good videos.

00:46:48.320 So you shouldn't get any mean comments.

00:46:50.320 All the rest of us get mean, but no, you, because you're so special, you shouldn't get

00:46:54.440 any mean comments.

00:46:55.720 Grow up, dude.

00:46:58.060 Oh my gosh.

00:47:00.040 My family sees this.

00:47:01.560 Yeah, right.

00:47:02.000 If you're in public, your family sees everything.

00:47:04.060 Yeah.

00:47:04.180 They see how people react to you and they see what you do.

00:47:06.520 That's what being in public is.

00:47:07.680 Your family is part of the public.

00:47:09.680 This isn't about silencing conservative.

00:47:11.780 It's about enforcing an anti-harassment policy.

00:47:15.980 I'm sorry.

00:47:16.520 He said, but it's about enforcing an anti-harassment policy. 0.82

00:47:19.640 When you say, but you negate what you've said before it.

00:47:22.920 So then he tells people to go over and flag Crowder's videos.

00:47:26.580 By the way, sure.

00:47:27.280 It'd be a shame if someone went over and flagged his videos.

00:47:29.320 His name's Carlos Maza.

00:47:30.360 Sure.

00:47:30.540 It would be a shame.

00:47:31.160 They shouldn't do that. 0.60

00:47:32.320 And then he goes on and says, YouTube does not give an F about queer creators.

00:47:36.540 YouTube does not give an F about marginalized creators.

00:47:39.000 YouTube does not give an F about diversity or inclusion.

00:47:42.040 First of all, nobody is more marginalized on YouTube than conservatives or on social media generally.

00:47:46.660 Second of all, nobody is a greater example of diversity on social media than conservatives.

00:47:54.020 That is the diversity.

00:47:55.320 Right now you have homogeneity.

00:47:56.880 When you add another point of view, you have diversity.

00:47:59.460 Wah, wah, wah.

00:48:00.200 What he's saying is, if you are not totally in agreement with me, if you ever would criticize 0.99

00:48:05.960 my thoughts or ideas or how I behave, you are a horrible bigot. 0.93

00:48:10.680 That is what the left does. 0.99

00:48:12.060 They're going for Crowder.

00:48:12.940 Now, some people are going to want to abandon Crowder because they themselves would never

00:48:16.900 make a gay joke. 0.81

00:48:17.820 Of course, not you. 1.00

00:48:18.980 You are lily white.

00:48:20.000 You're like the newly fallen snow. 0.98

00:48:21.820 But because you would never make a gay joke, you won't defend Crowder. 0.98

00:48:25.400 Crowder is just very prominent.

00:48:27.240 And they're going after him because they haven't come around to going after you yet.

00:48:30.660 It's outrageous.

00:48:31.680 This guy should be ashamed of himself.

00:48:33.500 And we stand with Stephen Crowder.

00:48:36.380 All right.

00:48:36.980 That's our show.

00:48:37.840 We got a lot more, but too bad.

00:48:39.440 We'll get to it on Monday.

00:48:40.160 In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.

00:48:41.160 This is The Michael Knowles Show.

00:48:42.120 I'll see you then.

00:48:48.120 The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner,

00:48:52.720 executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay,

00:48:56.240 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

00:49:01.300 Edited by Danny D'Amico.

00:49:02.820 Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.

00:49:04.740 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

00:49:06.920 And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.

00:49:09.000 The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:49:11.360 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:49:13.580 Hey, guys.

00:49:13.980 Over on The Matt Wall Show today.

00:49:15.200 You know, I've been called racist because I did a segment on the show yesterday discussing

00:49:19.020 some very troubling accusations about Martin Luther King Jr.

00:49:23.700 So I want to address that claim today.

00:49:27.280 Also, the HBO series Chernobyl is a damning indictment of socialism.

00:49:33.300 But the left says that, no, it's actually more about Donald Trump.

00:49:36.540 So we'll try to figure out.

00:49:37.780 Is it about Donald Trump or is it about socialism?

00:49:39.480 And Old Town Road is quite possibly the worst song ever recorded, but it's a huge hit.

00:49:45.820 Everyone seems to like it.

00:49:47.360 Is everyone just pretending to like it as some kind of joke?

00:49:51.260 But we'll try to get to the bottom of that today on The Matt Wall Show.

The Michael Knowles Show - May 31, 2019

Ep. 357 - Why Trump Is Going To Win In 2020

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript