Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:00]
Michael Knowles
Republicans have spent the past week claiming that Democrats are shutting down the government in order to give health care to illegal aliens. Democrats have spent the last week calling that claim a total lie. So Republicans pointed out exactly where and how Democrats are shutting down the government to give health care to illegal aliens. Now Democrats are admitting that yes, they are shutting down the government to give healthcare to illegals, but it's not that big a deal. Which of course is the final stage of, before the complete flip flop, when we can expect Democrats to admit that, yes, they're shutting down the government to give health care to illegals. And that's a very good thing. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. I am going to Harvard momentarily. I'm going to be at. I haven't been to Harvard in a very long time, probably some blurry football game of many years ago. I'll be at Harvard tonight, Harvard Law School, specifically to discuss political violence, how political violence is a uniquely left wing problem. So it's, I think it's free admission. That will be at 7pm at Austin Hall 100. I'm reading on this flyer, so head on out there because I don't think we're livestreaming it, we wanna live stream it. I don't think we're able to live stream it. So if you are in and around the Boston area, show up tonight, Harvard Law school, Austin Hall 100 North. I don't know, I'm not that familiar with Harvard. And we'll be discussing a very, very important issue and a timely issue. So we'll see you there. Okay. Also, I wanna tell you about Good Ranchers. Go to goodranchers.com, use code KNOWLES K N W L E S. Between breaking news alerts, late night editing sessions, chasing stories around the clock, playing ukulele, sometimes family time feels scarce. That is why sweet little Elise and I are so excited about Good Ranchers. Back to the table challenge. Every Thursday night through Thanksgiving, we can turn off the news, gather around the table no matter what story is breaking. And here's what makes it work. Good ranchers delivers premium 100% American beef right to our door. We're talking restaurant quality steaks, pre portioned, triple trimmed, sweet. Little Elisa loves that. There's no guesswork. You just pull it from the freezer, you season it, if you like that sort of thing. And then you're eating better than most steakhouses in under 30 minutes. Every Thursday, Good Ranchers gives away a free holiday ham just for sharing a photo of your family dinner. Post it to your Instagram story, use backtothetable and tag Good Ranchers. I love Good Ranchers. I was just hanging out with my pal over at Good Ranchers this past weekend. I just love it. It's just phenomenal quality meat at unbelievable prices. Wonderful company, supports what we believe. It's just it doesn't get any better than that right now. You need to go to goodranchers.com use code knowles canada wlas for 40 bucks off plus free meat for life when you subscribe. That's knowles canada wlas for forty bucks off free meat for life goodranchers. Let's get back to the table folks. You know I love tradition and few places do tradition quite like Italy. My new fall scent from the Candle Club is officially here. I am very excited to introduce you to Siena Macaroon. That's right. It's delectable. It's delicious. It smells like your nonnie's kitchen. It is perfect for rotation with my PSL candle. Also rather autumnal. What will you get in Sienna Macaroon? I spent a summer studying in Siena. That's where I studied Dante. Just went back, visited some friends there. You will get nutmeg, you'll get almond, you'll get a splash of amaretto, making it rich, refined, absolutely unapologetic in its devotion to the good, the beautiful and the delicious. Light it up. You'll be transported to a Tuscan bakery. It smells like I feel go to thecandleclub.com you need the the in there. Thecandleclub.com knowles get yours today. Thecandleclub.com Knowles this is a good one. Sienna Macaroon okay, so if you blinked over the last day, you missed an amazing somersault by the Democrats over this issue of the government shutdown. Democrats shut down the government. Republicans did not wanna shut down the government. You look at polling, really no one has a majority that wants to shut down the government. But Democrats Much, much more likely, what was it? Something like 45% of Democrats were okay shutting down the government. At most 49. And only 5% of Republicans wanted to shut it down. Makes sense. Republicans have unified government. They have no incentive to shut down the government. They're also no longer too infected by libertarianism. So they don't want to just totally destroy the government, get rid of the government. They want to wield the government. That's the claim from the left, don't forget is that people Trump is using the government too much. So this is a Democrat Shutdown. Why are they shutting down the government? Republicans claimed that it was because they want to give healthcare to illegals. Here we have the Democrats denying that claim. The Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, saying that claim is a lie.
- [05:33]
Democratic Politician or Commentator
And under current law, undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for Medicaid, the ACA exchanges, and for SNAP benefits. Not a single undocumented immigrant in this country gets a dime in federal taxpayer dollars for any part of comprehensive Medicaid coverage. Not one.
- [05:55]
Michael Knowles
Not one. Not one undocumented immigrant gets government health care in this country. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat Senator, similarly denied it. He tweets out, health care for illegal aliens is the new immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield. The Republican playbook is simple. Make up a baseless lie, repeat it every chance you get, hope and pray that everyone blames Democrats for the crises you created. Okay, so he's saying the shit's a Republican shutdown. No evidence of that, of course. And then also, there's no such thing as healthcare for illegal aliens. It's a baseless lie. So in response, the Vice President tweeted out just simply an image from the New York State of Health website showing new health insurance option for undocumented immigrants over 65. And you might be tempted to say, well, that's just the New York State health site. That's not the federal government health site. No, no, keep reading. The new insurance is through Medicaid managed care plans with a carved out fee for service pharmacy benefit. So, sure, it's being administered by the states, but this is coming from Medicaid. This is coming from federal dollars. Ro Khanna, Democrat Congressman, then has to follow up. And this is absolutely delightful. It's pretty embarrassing, but absolutely delightful. He says, okay, okay, fine. Yeah, we are shutting down the government over giving health care to illegals, but only a little, tiny little bit.
- [07:32]
Democratic Politician or Commentator
In terms of health care. The reality is they're just not being honest. The amount of money that actually is going towards people who are undocumented is such a small portion of There we go cuts or the Affordable Care act, if at all. And so we can argue that point, but the reality that even the Vice President would acknowledge, that anyone who looks at the numbers will acknowledge this. 90 to 95% of the funding we're talking about is talking about funding for American citizens.
- [08:01]
Michael Knowles
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat leader in the House, the leader of this guy in this guy's party comes out. He says, this is a complete lie. Not one illegal alien is getting any of this federal health care money. And then Ro Khanna comes out, he goes, yeah, these Republicans are being so dishonest. I mean, we are shutting down the government to give illegal healthcare. But it's a small, it's an infant, infinitesimally small amount. Okay, let's just go with that for a second. Okay? It's an. What are you talking about? It's 0.01% is going to illegal aliens. What is it? Point. Let's give him the benefit of the, let's say 0.1% even. No, he comes out, he says, I mean, it's like 90% of it's going to American citizens anyway. 90%. So hold on. You, Ro Khanna, are telling me 10% of the healthcare dollars up for debate here are going to illegals First? You told me earlier yesterday, you all told me not one penny is going to a single illegal alien. It's a made up, baseless Republican lie. Now you're telling me it's 10%. But in 10%, that's really nothing. That's, it's like a rounding error. Are you kidding me? This is the Democrat. This is Ro Khanna. He's a Democrat. Congressman. I'm not even gonna play for you the clip from, what was it, the 2020 presidential race when you have all the Democrat candidates on stage, all of them. How many were there? 15 or something. And the moderator asked the question, say, how many of you have a healthcare plan that would include free government health care for illegal aliens? Every single hand goes up. So we know that they want this in the abstract. They then claimed they were not advocating for this in concrete policy. Now you have Ro Khanna admitting. Okay, yes, so we are. That thing that we said, the things that the Republicans said, that was true. And when we said that they were lying, it was actually we that were lying. But it's not a lot. It's really small. It's like a really tiny small amount. It's only like 10%. It's only like 10%. So this looks really bad for Democrats. And in their defense, they probably just had no idea what they were talking about. That is to say, yes, they wanted to give healthcare to illegal aliens. They didn't realize, I think a lot of them, that that's actually what they were shutting down the government to do. I'm sure very few of them actually read the bill. They don't. You know, these guys don't know the difference between a man and a woman. I don't think they know all that much about legislation. Then when it turned out that the Republicans were right, when JD Vance proved that with a single tweet, then they had to backtrack and they said, okay, yeah, all right, fine. All right, yeah, we are shutting down the government to give healthcare to illegals. But it's like, it's a tiny little bit. So now Jeffries has to go back. He goes on CNN with Jake Dapper. Jake Dapper, a Democrat. And he's gotta both admit that the Republicans were right while also calling the Republicans liars.
- [11:09]
Democratic Politician or Commentator
But they talk about the provisions, and it's right here. Subtitle E. And this has to do with the repeal of health care subtitle changes. And specifically, what it is, how they characterize it, is you want to give health insurance to undocumented immigrants. I understand that's not really an accurate depiction, but what it does do is.
- [11:28]
It's a lie.
- [11:29]
It's a lie. But what you support does bring back funding for emergency Medicaid to hospitals, some of which does pay for undocumented immigrants and people who don't have health insurance. And also, there is this provision, and it's not about undocumented immigrants. It's about people with asylum seekers and people with temporary protected status, et cetera, et cetera, but about their ability to get Medicaid. So they're non citizens, they're not undocumented, they're not illegal. Why even include that in a bill, knowing that they're going to seize right upon that and use that to message?
- [12:05]
Michael Knowles
I just love it. I love it. I love it. I love the whole dance that we just saw. That's my favorite ballet, Nutcracker out, whatever Jake Dapper just did there on cnn. That's my new favorite ballet. Hey, so the Republicans, you know, I mean, I know they're such jerks. They're such liars, and I hate them and everything. Yeah, yeah, they're bad. Yeah. Anyway, Hakeem, I know they're really bad and they're liars. So they're characterizing your position. Position as trying to shutting down the government to give health care to illegals. And that's. I know. That's, like, totally unfair and everything. Yeah, that's a total lie. Yeah, yeah. No, I know, though. I know, though. But you do that. Actually, that is exactly what you do. Like it says here, I, Hakeem Jeffries, am shutting down the government to give healthcare to illegals. Like it says it in, like, subsection five. So, like, why is it. Could you maybe change the language a little bit? Why, why do you have to, why do I have to defend that? They're. I know they're liars, but why are they totally right? Why are they completely right about everything they said? And you guys are liars. Can you please stop doing that so it's not so hard for me on CNN to defend you? That's what he's saying. L O freaking L. I have no take. Other than that. These Democrats, man, they cannot win for losing. It is pathetic. The government shutdown is profoundly unpopular with everyone, including Democrat voters. They shut it down. They own the shutdown. Not one Republican is trying to shut down the government. The Democrats shut it down cuz they're losing on every single issue with the exception of abortion, with the exception of climate change. These issues that like just don't really matter all that much. They're even tied on so called defensive democracy. Like the one big issue the Democrats are still beating Republicans on is healthcare. So I get the process. They're saying, all right, we gotta distract from crime in Democrat cities. We gotta distract from our failure on migration, we gotta distract from this. We gotta distract from our false predictions on the economy. We gotta distract, distract, distract. So I know what we're gonna do. We're gonna shut down the government, that'll distract. And then we're gonna refocus the debate on healthcare, which is like the one issue that we're still beating the Republicans on. And I know what we're gonna do. We're gonna make it a referendum on giving illegal face tattooed gang bangers your taxpayer dollars for doctor visits. I know that's a great idea, isn't it? You actually had a lane Democrats and you completely blew it. And then you said, okay, well I'll tell you what, we'll just lie about it cuz we have a lock in the media so there's no way that'll ever get out. And then I gu. Media are decentralized now and the truth does get out on social media and independent media. And so then you got Even Jake Tapper, Mr. Democrat establishment CNN, saying Yo, Hakeem, why are you doing this to me? Why are you? Incredible. Incredible. Thank you. Where do I donate to Hakeem Jeffries? Where do I donate to these congressional Democrats who are somehow doing the Republicans work for them? Okay, speaking of health and life and death, the Pope has made some controversial comments on the death penalty and other things. We'll get to that momentarily. First though, I want to tell you about Equip foods. Go to equipfoods.com michaelnols M I C H a e l K a w l e s you should do that because I hate protein bars. I hate them. I don't like their chalky artificial taste. That is why I love protein equipped foods. Delicious Prime Bar. Okay, the team here, they want a convenient way to get more clean protein in our day that keeps us energized for hours. That is where Equip foods Prime bar comes in. The first of its kind, grass fed beef protein bar with only real food ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide with 20 grams of clean protein. Starting today, our listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Bar which has become our team's favorite protein bar on the market. They pack 20 grams of that grass fed beef protein using just 11 clean ingredients like collagen, beef tallow, colostrum naturally sweetened with dates and honey. This is crunchy, approved, free from whey, free from seed oils and artificial additives and all that stuff that Bobby Kennedy I'm sure would inveigh against great flavors, chocolate and mixed berry. I particularly recommend the chocolate one. They're great. If you want to try the cleanest protein bar on the market that already sold out once you go to equipfoods.com Michael Knowles and use code Michael Knowles M I c h a e l k n a w l e s at Checkout to get 25% off one time purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time, that is E Q U I P foods.com MichaelNoles M I C h a e l k n a w l e s Use code Michael Knowles M I c h a e L Canada W l e s at check out Papa Leone. The Holy Father is in the news for a couple reasons. One, because he was at some environmental event and he blessed ice and people are very upset at him for this and I don't know why. I mean, I suppose it looks a little odd to bless ice, but you know, popes and priests generally bless water all the time. We have holy water. It's a sacramental the minute you enter a church. So I don't know, to me that seems like a tempest in a teapot. The more substantive comment from the pope that has raised eyebrows is when he was asked about this scandal in Chicago. And just to catch you up, if you haven't followed it, the Archdiocese of Chicago said that it was going to give a lifetime achievement award to Dick Durbin. Dick Durbin, major Democrat legislator who supports killing babies. And this is a big problem. This is a big problem because as John Paul II explained so beautifully, but as Catholics have understood forever going back to the apostolic age and the didache, it's wrong to murder babies. So you can't do that. There are other religious traditions, there are other groups that include baptized Christians, ecclesial communities that are fine with killing babies. But the Catholic Church, 2,000 years consistent, you can't kill babies. And this is a non negotiable issue. There are certain issues where reasonable minds can disagree, but on this issue, sorry, you can't do it. So it's a little weird for the Cardinal of Chicago, Blaise Cupich, who is a rather liberal prelate, to consider giving a lifetime achievement award to this infanticidal politician. And happily, and to his credit, Dick Durbin said, okay, I'm not gonna take it. Amid the controversy, he said, I'm not gonna accept the award. That was the right thing to do. Glad to see it. Good job on Dick Durbin. He should change his political views, certainly on infanticide, but at least in that small matter, good job on him. Very strange for Cardinal Cupich to be offering this. So the Holy Father was asked to weigh in on it, and here are his remarks off the cuff.
- [19:15]
Pope Francis
I'm not terribly familiar with the particular case. I think that it's very important to look at the overall world work that a senator has done during, if I'm not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate. I understand the difficulty and the tensions, but I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it's important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church. Someone who says I'm against abortion but says I'm in favor of the death penalty is not really pro life. So someone who says that I'm against abortion, but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States. I don't know if that's pro life. So they're very complex issues. I don't know if anyone has all the truth on them. But I would ask first and foremost that there be greater respect for one another and that we search together both as human beings, in that case, as American citizens or citizens of the State of Illinois.
- [20:20]
Michael Knowles
Okay, now right off the bat, I know that there are many people who want me to come out with some sizzling hot take to totally own the Pope with facts and logic or something like that. And though it pains me to disappoint you, that will not happen. I'm a Catholic, I'm a mackerel snapping papist And I think as a matter of not only Catholic discipline, But in the 2000 year tradition of the Church, it is good to have respect for priests, for prelates, for the Holy Father to have obedience, a kind of filial piety. That's a good thing, actually. It's contrary to our liberal and lowercase d democratic, egalitarian age. I know it's contrary to all that, the hyper individualism that typifies modernity. But too bad, I don't. We don't do that. We speak in a respectful way on this show. We speak in a respectful way about the Holy Father, even if he says things that are, raise eyebrows. Even, even if he says something that's wrong, because don't forget that the Pope is fallible, except when he's infallible. So let's get to the point that he's making here. He says, look, yeah, I don't want to, I basically don't want to smack this Democrat senator too hard. And I probably, the subtext is I don't want to needlessly go after this cardinal, this particularly troublesome cardinal in Illinois, where this issue was probably being resolved behind the scenes anyway. And Durbin said he wasn't gonna get the award and there was gonna be a denunciation by the bishops. And so there was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes. Then he comes out and he makes the point that it's actually an issue here. He says, look, plenty of people support the death penalty and they call themselves pro life. So, you know, pro life, it's a much bigger issue than just abortion. You can't support the death penalty and be pro life. And the point I would observe here is, I suppose by a certain definition of pro life, I suppose that's true, right? I mean, with a sufficiently broad definition of the term pro life, I guess, you know, if I kill a spider, I might not be considered pro life, because pro life is not a term of theology. Pro life is not a moral category. Pro life is a political slogan. And it can be useful as a political slogan. I think it's useful. I use the slogan, but that's what it is, it's a political slogan. And so I think we should be more precise about this. The objection to what was going on in Chicago is that a prince of the church was going to give a lifetime achievement award to an infanticidal politician. And, and that is wrong. And it was right for the senator to say he wasn't going to accept it. And it was right of the bishops to denounce this award from this Cardinal Blase Cupich, that that was all good. Abortion is a different kind of issue from other issues. So when it comes to the death penalty for 2,000 years, just about, I don't know, 1990 years, the Catholic Church was generally in favor of the death penalty beginning, okay, 1950 years or something. So 1970 years now, beginning with the pontificate of John Paul II, St. John Paul II, the church began to say, okay, look, in principle, the death penalty is okay, but in practice, it really should not be done. It should not be carried out, because as a prudential matter now with modern technology and modern social order, we can protect the public from criminals sufficiently with prisons, and they're not gonna escape. So we just don't, practically don't need to carry it out that much. But in principle, there's nothing wrong with it. And it was important that John Paul II made this point because one many popes had actually personally carried out the death penalty. Blessed Pius ix oversaw some 500 executions in the Papal States. He was asked for a reprieve for the last execution. He said, I do not want to gr. Grant a reprieve. I cannot grant a reprieve, okay? We see in the writings of St. Paul that the civil authority does not bear the sword in vain. That's in inerrant Scripture. In the Letter to the Romans, we see doctors of the Church defending capital punishment. So the Church cannot say the capital punishment is intrinsically evil. And so when Pope Benedict comes around after John Paul ii, Pope Benedict says, look, I personally oppose the death penalty as a judgment of my own, but that is not to say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. The Church cannot contradict herself in this way. And so he said, reasonable minds can differ on the death penalty. Pope Francis elevated this a step further. He said that the death penalty is morally inadmissible, which is a confusing phrase, but it's a precise phrase in the sense that he is avoiding saying it's intrinsically evil because he can't do that. That's not how doctrine develops. The Catholic Church cannot contradict herself, cannot contradict 2000 years of magisterial teaching, cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. So that was, again, a prudential measure. And Pope Leo here obviously opposes the death penalty and is making this point on the slogan pro life. Okay? Unlike this matter, which again, is not a contradiction. In as much as for 2,000 years, the church has said that the death penalty is permissible in certain conditions. And then more recently, they're focusing on those conditions. And Saying, well, because certain conditions exist today, we don't advocate carrying it out. Okay? Unlike the death penalty, where reasonable minds apparently can disagree, really going all the way back to Genesis, I think this is something that people mistake about the death penalty. They think that the conservatives are in favor of capital punishment because we're mean and bloodthirsty or something, when in fact it's the opposite. They think that we don't respect human dignity. In fact, it's the opposite because the original scriptural basis for the death penalty goes back to the early chapters of Genesis which say, whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image and likeness of God. So it's precisely because human beings have a kind of dignity that we see capital punishment. Okay? Unlike that issue, there is no question for 2000 years consistently going back to the didache and further back that the Church has said that it is wrong to murder babies in the womb. Outside the womb, it's wrong to murder human babies. And so I just think if we're discussing the finer points of morality and theology, I guess this political slogan doesn't necessarily work. It's not precise, it's not helpful. So, okay, we'll just be clear about it. The Church should not be giving lifetime achievement awards to infanticidal politicians. In my humble opinion, as a layman, I think that's clear. I think most bishops probably agree with that as simple enough. And the Church can offer prudential judgments about certain policies, although when those policies get into questions of efficiency or the competency of the state, sometimes that falls outside of the Church's own competency. And so therefore, sometimes those are less weighty opinions than on matters of morals and faith. Ex cathedra. In any case, you don't need to own the Pope with facts and logic. You don't need to do any. I don't think that's the right attitude. I don't think that's the right corrective to our spirit of hyper individualism and hyper egalitarianism and all the rest. We just say it's wrong to kill babies. The Church should not do that. And when it comes to the death penalty, I suppose the reasonable mind of Pope Benedict persuades me about. About how reasonable people can disagree. Okay, now you know what's unreasonable? Burdening yourself with mountains and mountains of debt. That's why I want to tell you about Done with debt. Go to donewithdebt.com Are you drowning in credit card and loan debt? You are not alone. But here's something most people don't know. Fall is actually the best time of year to negotiate with your lenders. Why fall? Credit card companies and lenders are doing year end accounting and desperately need to clear problem accounts from their books before audits begin. This creates a narrow window where they are far more willing to cut deals than any other time of the year. Done With Debt has cracked the code on this timing advantage. They know exactly which companies are most motivated to negotiate right now and use this insider knowledge to get results you cannot achieve on your own best part. No bankruptcy, no new loans, no credit damage. In fact, most clients end up with more money in their pocket within the first month because they are no longer drowning in minimum payments. This window will not stay open forever. Once Q4 hits, lenders tighten up again and your leverage disappears. Get started now while you still have time. You go to donewithdebt.com talk with one of their specialists for free. That is donewithdebt.com we've all seen how debt can really screw up people's lives and add all kinds of stress and mess up your plans. Do not let that happen to you. Take the bull by the horns. Go to donewithdebt.com Speaking of healthcare, this is a little story. I don't want it to fall by the wayside or be buried under the other news. Trump comes out. He says there's a connection between Tylenol and autism. Tylenol and neurological developmental disorders. The libs are furious. They say that's not true. This is medical misinformation. This is terrible. How dare you. And then Trump points to. He says, well, hold on. No, no, it's not just. I didn't just make that up. I got that from Harvard. I got that from Mount Sinai. I got that from Johns Hopkins. I got that from Columbia. I got that from a lot of other medical institutions. I even got it from Tylenol. And then the right started posting this tweet from Tylenol in 2017 saying, we don't recommend pregnant mothers take our product. So you see, by 2017, they already knew. Well, actually now it turns out Tylenol acknowledged the potential autism connection almost ten years earlier than that. This is calling to the Daily Caller. Leslie Schure, the head of the division of Johnson and Johnson that monitors the side effects of drugs already on the market, received an alert in 2012 about concerns about acetaminophen and autism from a concerned father. So you already in 20. Excuse the number. It wasn't 2008, it was 2012. So five years earlier than was previously reported. This is just like the healthcare for illegals claim. This is just like it. They say, no, no, no, it's not true. It's not. That's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie. Then when you show them dispositive proof, the narrative starts to change. They say, okay, well, no, it's true, but it's not a big deal. No, it's not that big a deal. Next. I don't know. Now they're going to be prescribing Tylenol to every pregnant mother. So you need to give your child neurological disorders. Speaking of acknowledging wrongdoing, really good story coming out of YouTube. YouTube has just settled with President Trump. For almost $25 million, YouTube will pay not to President Trump directly, but to groups that President Trump has identified. $25 million almost for censoring him. Remember, YouTube thought they could get away with it. They thought when Trump looked like he was out politically, all the big tech platforms got rid of him. The payment processors debanked him. The prosecutors tried to throw him in prison. The feds raided his house. They tried. The Dems tried to kick him off the ballot. But then Trump came back, and there's no substitute for victory. Now they come groveling again. YouTube has settled with Trump. They're not formally admitting fault, though they have admitted that the Biden administration was pressuring them to censor conservatives. YouTube will give $22 million to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall to help fund the construction of the White House State Ballroom at Trump's behest. They will also give an additional two and a half million to a group of his supporters, including the American Conservative Union, which puts on cpac. This is the way. So, first of all, notice Trump is not personally enriching himself here. That's what the libs always claim. He is personally enriching himself. Trump is the richest president in American history. He was very, very rich before he became president. Unlike Barack Obama, who goes in penniless and shortly after he leaves the presidency, he's a very rich man. Unlike Bill Clinton, who was a debtor actually in the White House, and then somehow magically becomes a very, very rich man after he leaves the White House, shaken down people all around the world to take bribes for his wife's presidential campaign. Unlike those guys, unlike the Democrat politicians, Trump really didn't need the money. And even here, he's saying, YouTube, you gotta pay. You have to pay to be punished for your very, very bad behavior. That was dangerous to our political order. So you're gonna pay a lot of money. You're gonna pay $24.5 million. You're not gonna pay it to me personally. We're gonna make you fund this important new ballroom at the White House. And you want to talk about the art of the deal. Trump said he's going to beautify the White House. He's donated personally. Nice big flag poles on the north and south lawns. He says we need this ballroom cuz we were not able to host state dinners. And he doesn't make the taxpayer pay for it. And he personally doesn't have to pay for all of it. At least he's going to shake down this corporation and say, you acted badly, you're gonna be punished. And I am gonna make you do the right thing by giving your money to Public Works. This is good. We're not quite at the point of Caesar Augustus, you know, finding Rome in dirt and leaving it in marble, but we're getting pretty close. Speaking of setting higher standards, the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, has just caught a lot of flack because he gave a speech to generals saying that we need high standards in the military. And if this means that we have to prioritize military readiness over social engineering, so be it. If this means that 4 foot 1190 pound women don't get to be Navy Seals, you know, that's just the price we have to pay for being able to defend our country.
- [34:55]
Pete Hegseth
But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be will also mean that weak men won't qualify because we're not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death. As we all know, this is you versus an enemy hell bent on killing you. To be an effective, lethal fighting force, you must trust that the warrior alongside you in battle is capable, truly physically capable of doing what is necessary under fire. You know, this is the only standard you would want for your kids and for your grandkids. Apply the War Department Golden Rule, the 1990 test, and the E6 test. And it's really hard to go wrong.
- [36:01]
Michael Knowles
Beautifully stated, really, this is exactly the right thing for Pete to be saying. This is as bold as it is possible to be in politics. I want to point out, in principle, it actually doesn't go far Enough. Because what Pete is saying here is, look, we just need gender neutrality. What the libs were saying was we need to lower the standards so that we can have more women in combat. We so want women in combat that we need to lower military standards, make our military fighting force less lethal, less ready in order to socially engineer and advance our ideology that men and women are the same even though they're not. And so what Pete is saying is, he's got the more conservative version. He says we need gender neutrality and if women can't meet the standards, which most of them will not, then they don't get to fight. And if women can meet the standards, all the better. But if they can't, they're not gonna be in combat, which is a huge improvement. But it's worth pointing out. I think the ideal here is, call me old fashioned, I don't think we should be sending our women, our wives and our daughters to go get blown up by jihadis. Call me old fashioned, I guess. Call me a sexist, I guess. I think it is wrong for a country to do that, to send women into combat, even if some women want to go into combat. Because I don't think that consent and the individual will and individual autonomy is the be all and end all of morality. And I think it is just kind of wrong to send our wives and our mothers and our daughters to go be stabbed and shot at and beaten and murdered by, killed, I should say, in war by terrorists and the worst people on earth. I think that's wrong and we shouldn't do that because I don't think that there's really neutrality in gender. I think men and women really are different. And we all admit that when it comes to the trans issue, or at least when it comes to transing the kids. But then we don't want to admit it when it comes to other issues sometimes like marriage or like combat, or we just don't. Then we're a little. Then we're back to being liberal, then we're back to gender neutrality. So the ideal here, I think is to say, no, no, no, let's not blow up our wives and our mothers and our daughters, actually. But I wanna be totally clear. I am in no way criticizing what Pete said. What Pete. The only politically palatable version of restoring sanity to our military right now is this. I'm not trying to read Pete's mind. I don't know, this might just be his total belief. And if so, that's fine by me. That's great. This is without question the only way to start to restore some sanity. And when you're talking about Democratic politics, you have to appeal to most people. And so when you're just talking about most people, forget your ideal view of things for a second. When you're saying, do you at least agree with this? Can anyone disagree with what Pete said, which basically comes down to we need high standards in the military and we need to prioritize strength and lethality over gender ideology. Can anyone disagree with that? I guess, look, 20% of Americans maybe disagree with that. The hard left disagrees with that. 70, 80% are gonna be on his side. How can anyone disagree? Yet again, you have the Trump administration taking the right side of an 80, 20 issue. Let the Democrats say otherwise. Let the Democrats say no. Forget about military readiness. Forget about military coordination. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on defending our homeland and protecting the men that we're sending into battle by making sure that there's cohesion and everyone's up to snuff because you're only as strong as your weakest link. No, no, forget. We gotta stop prioritizing that because we need to advance the causes of feminism or gender ideology. Let the Democrats campaign on that. Please be my guests. You great campaign on that. And healthcare for real eagles. And we'll see you at the ballot box in the midterms. Now, speaking of women with low standards, Anna Navarro just spouted some absolute nonsense on CNN at our friend, the albeit somewhat liberal Brad Palumbo. We'll get to that momentarily. First, though, the Daily Wire is growing. New talent, new shows, big things in the works. To keep up, we are hiring producers and writers. If you can take a show from idea to execution, manage crews, write sharp segments and deliver content, content that crushes on YouTube, podcasts and social, then this is your shot. Join us for the next decade of Daily Wire. Apply today dailywire.com careers when the left attacks, the answer is not silence. The answer is not to retreat. It is not to do less. The answer is to show up everywhere, to make our voices louder than ever, to push more content, more truth, more breaking news, more investigative journalism, fighting harder than ever before. That is what we're doing at the Daily Wire this October. Daily Wire plus members are getting more new films, more new series, more new documentaries, and more of everything you expect from us. Join now. Get it all with 40% off new DailyWire, plus annual subscriptions. My favorite comment yesterday is from Henry Vaughan8192, who is he's channeling his inner Jamal Bowman. Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will make us binge eat. Jamal Bowman, he says that diabetes and heart disease in the black community are caused by people saying the N word, which means that it's predominantly caused by other black people, I guess. Okay. All right. That's fine. That's one take, I guess. Speaking of dubious claims, Ana Navarro, that liberal woman from the View, goes on cnn, and she got into a debate with Brad Palumbo. For those of you who don't know Brad Palumbo, Brad Palumbo is a libertarian, and he and I have debated. We debated, actually, at the University of Pittsburgh on transgenderism. And he's a very nice guy. He's pretty liberal, but still would probably call himself a Republican or at least libertarian. So you got two people who are substantially liberal, at least in the classical sense, who are arguing on the liberal cable network. What could they possibly be arguing about? Well, Ana Navarro's problem is not so much with Brad's philosophy as. As it is with the fact that he is a white man.
- [42:20]
Ana Navarro
Also, I want to respond to you saying that I was hyperbolic when I talked about a reign of terror. No, it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man. Oh, it's certainly not hyperbolic for me as a Latino. No, I'm not being racist to dismiss.
- [42:33]
Michael Knowles
My opinion for being a white man.
- [42:35]
Ana Navarro
No, I'm not dismissing your opinion. I am telling you that what Latino. The Latino community, the brown community, disagree with you, America. Okay, well, let me speak with my voice. I mean, you said I was being hyperbolic. Let me.
- [42:46]
Michael Knowles
Racially.
- [42:46]
Ana Navarro
Sure, I'm not. You being a white man, that's an.
- [42:49]
Michael Knowles
Insult when you invoke it.
- [42:50]
Ana Navarro
To dismiss my being a white man.
- [42:51]
Michael Knowles
As an insult when you invoke it.
- [42:53]
Ana Navarro
I use. Do you think. Do you. Do you think Latinos are living under circumstances that other people may not be.
- [42:59]
Brad Palumbo
Right now we're about to have a whole conversation about that very thing. But I just want to make a point that. Brad, all she's saying is that her view of the situation is different from yours. I don't think that's an insult.
- [43:12]
Michael Knowles
Basically said, I'm wrong because I'm just. Yes, correct.
- [43:15]
Ana Navarro
I see it.
- [43:16]
Brad Palumbo
Said she said, I see it differently from you, which is not an insult. It's not. And it's also not a racial explanation. But we have a lot more to discuss on this very topic, so we'll have some time.
- [43:27]
Michael Knowles
What an absurd little mediation at the end. She's just saying that her opinion is different from yours. No, that's not what she said. She was insinuating, as our culture always does with this, that not only is his opinion different because he is a white man, but it is less valid, less pertinent, ought to be valued less because it is overvalued, because the marginalized voices of the Latino women have not been heard. That's the only reason to invoke these kind of racial and sexual categories. He comes out and he says, you know, I think you're just being hyper. I don't even remember the issue. I guess it's Iran or something. I just think you're being a little hyperbolic in your language. He goes, now listen here, you gringo. Listen here, you white devil man. I am as a beautiful, vibrant Latina woman, you will listen to me, not you, you white devil. That's what she. And that's not quite verbatim, but it's pretty close. And I think any honest observer, including on the left, will know that when Ana Navarro comes out, she goes, hey, listen, you white man. You white man. She's not saying white man as a term of praise, and she's not saying that he has a white man opinion, even as a neutral kind of term. She's saying, no, no, no, you have your erroneous white man opinion. Let me tell you my correct Latina woman opinion, because I. I am a brave, proud Latina woman. You shut your mouth, Bradley Bradon, La Palumbo. Palumbo sounds almost. Almost Hispanic, but I think it's Italian. In any case, there's been a vibe shift on this, right? Does that work anymore? Shut up, white man. I am a. You must listen to the brave, proud Latina woman from the View. I don't think that works for anyone. I don't think it works for anyone. Hey, here's the proof that that doesn't work for anyone. The Democrats ran, as they typically do in 2024, a campaign against white men, kind of making fun of white men, joking about the boring, dopey white men for Kamala or whatever. And Kamala is this proud, brave woman of color, and she makes fun of Tim Walls for not eating spicy foods or something. It's all the kind of typical. It can be perfectly mild, but nevertheless, it's the same kind of language we've heard from Democrats for decades. They run against the white man, slightly orange, but he's considered the white man. And what happens? Not only does Trump win a decent large portion of the white male vote, but he also wins an increasing number of black people, almost half of Hispanics he wins 40% of women under 30 and even higher percentages of the older women. I just don't think that works. I think what Ana Navarro's doing, that's like real mid 2000s energy and 20 teens energy. That is not post 2020energy. Even Brad Palumbo, who is very moderate, who is very polite, he's a real nice guy. And even he says he's like, hey, cut it out, knock it off. You're not going to shut me up. You're going to call me a white man. You think that's going to shut me up? Sorry. Not going to work, honey. Sorry, chiquita, not today. Now, speaking of racial politics, another one of these people, another one of these liberal, largely identitarian TV babblers, Ta Nehisi Coates took to the New York Times opinion podcast to reflect on the Charlie Kirk assassination. And how did he reflect on it? As you can expect, in the worst way possible. He concluded that Charlie Kirk was a hater.
- [47:12]
Democratic Politician or Commentator
I don't take any joy in saying this, but we sometimes soothe ourselves by pointing out that love, acceptance, warmth, that these are powerful forces. I believe they are. I also believe hate is a powerful force. I believe it's a powerful, powerful unifying force. And I think Charlie Kirk was a hate monger. You know, I really need to say this over and over again. I have a politic that rejects violence, that rejects political violence. I take no joy in the killing of anyone, no matter what they said. But if you ask me what the truth of his life was, the truth of his public life, I would have to tell you it's hate. I'd have to tell you it is the usage of hate and the harnessing of hate towards political end.
- [48:01]
Michael Knowles
That's the takeaway. That's the left's takeaway. As we've seen from the beginning, this will be largely the subject of my speech tonight at the Harvard Law School, which is the left has learned nothing. They, at best, have minimized the political assassination of Charlie Kirk and frequently have celebrated it. And you're seeing this once again, Ta Nehisi Coates, who, if you're not familiar with him, is a terribly unimpressive person. His career has been impressive, but it's impressive because he doesn't have any of the underlying skill or insight to justify his career as a supposed public intellectual. He's never had an interesting idea. He is really. I think the reason that he has been successful is he has a funny name and a funny voice, and so he plays the role of a Pundit or a public intellectual. But listen, even to that analysis. His analysis is, yeah, if you act, he says axe. He actually says axe. He says, if you ask me what Charlie Kirk's legacy is, I would say that he's a hater. That's the best you got? First of all, it's preposterous on its face because Charlie was a real nice guy who was always generous, always gracious in debates. In fact, he was murdered because he was trying to reach out to people who don't like him and let them say their piece and exchange ideas. So the point he's trying to make is preposterous. But even just the point, generally, even if you were making about someone else, yeah, he's a hater. Oh, wow. Brilliant. Golly. Are you going to put that in a book? I feel like I'm in the presence of Nietzsche or something. Wow. This is amazing. Jean Paul Sartre, is that you? Wow. At least the liberal and left wing philosophers of the 20th century, they might have been wrong about a lot of stuff, but at least they were kind of interesting. Foucault, Derrida, he was kind of interested, interesting people. The Frankfurt School, very interesting people. But this. What is this? Yeah, he's a hater. Wow. Oh, boy. Here's. Give me a. Give him. Give that man a MacArthur genius grant. Wow. Incredible. And I guess then my conclusion much, much as I would conclude with Anna Navarro, is, look, I get why people used to care what these guys had to say. Because it was very fashionable to play to racial and sexual hatreds, notably against white people and men in particular. That was very fashionable for the 2000s and the 2000s. I think that's over. I think those days are over. What does Charlie Kirk say that was hateful? Men and women are different. We should judge people on character. Colorblind. What did Charlie Kirk say that was so hateful? Even by this guy's standards? He can't give an example of it. Just that he was a Republican, he was a conservative. I just think, who cares? Does anyone care? Ta Nehisi Coates had a moment, at least among a certain class of bourgeois liberals. Does anyone care anymore? I don't know. I think we've just kind of moved on past that, which is a good thing. I think that's reflected in the poll numbers and I think it's why the Democrats are scrambling. I think it's why they can't win for losing. They don't know which way to turn. We're gonna campaign on racial and sexual animosities. Oh, shoot. That didn't work. And we actually lost the groups that we were attempting to appeal to. Okay. We lost increasing numbers of them. Okay. We're gonna. Let's just shut down the government. Yeah, we're gonna. That'll. Ah, shoot. That didn't work for us either. Okay. We're gonna focus on healthcare. Oh, man. But our view on healthcare is unpopular.
- [51:30]
Ana Navarro
Oh.
- [51:30]
Michael Knowles
We're gonna. We're gonna minimize political violence and in some cases, celebrate it. Is that gonna. No. No. I don't know. Need to try something new, guys. You gotta put on a new act. All right. Today's theology Thursday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles kwles at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.