The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 182 - The Deepest Bias In American History

Episode Date: July 11, 2018

We will analyze the sudden return of anti-Catholic bigotry, from CNN to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Then, CNN runs an entirely fictional segment on illegal aliens. Finally, we recall the last time demagogues attacked a Federalist this severely as Aaron Burr kills Alexander Hamilton on This Day In History! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Democrats have found us out. Just as we American Catholics were on the cusp of rising up, dissolving the government, instituting theocracy, loyal to Rome, instituting mandatory dress codes of albs, cassocks, Zucetti, and mitres, just as the Opus Dei were finally going to replace the U.S. Constitution with the catechism of the Catholic Church, the Democrats found us out. We would have gotten away with it, too. If it weren't for you meddling Democrats, we will analyze the sudden return of anti-Catholic bigotry to American public discourse

through attacks on the Federalist Society from CNN to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Then, speaking of CNN, the cable news network airs a segment on illegal aliens that seems to lose a little bit in translation. This clip is too good to miss, and nobody's talking about it. Wonder why. Finally, speaking of the Federalists,

we will analyze the last time demagogues attacked a Federalist this severely, as Aaron Burr kills Alexander Hamilton on this day in history. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Knowles Show. It's time to join the conversation again. On Tuesday, July 17th at 5.30 Eastern, 2.30 Pacific. Andrew Claven answers your questions, moderated by the beautiful and dauntless Alicia Krauss.

The Q&A will stream live on YouTube and Facebook for everyone to watch, but only subscribers can ask Drew questions over at dailywire.com. Check out the pinned comments on this video for more information. Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by Andrew Claven, the Supreme Lord of the Multiverse, Tuesday, July 17th, 530 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 Pacific, and join the conversation. We've got a shocking clip to play for you before we get started from the Ben Shapiro show. It really is going to knock your socks off. Before we get to that, though, I've got to make a little money, honey, and we've got to thank Peter Millar. I know what you're thinking. You're saying, Michael, gosh, look at that shirt. You look so, wow. I know. I know. That's why. It's because I'm wearing Peter Malar, my favorite clothing company.

Peter Miller actually solves a real problem, which is they have this very high quality, excellent menswear, a lot of clothing, not just golf wear anymore, but they've got polo shirts and pants and shorts, and it just looks really, really good, clothing for everybody. But it also solves a problem for me, a Gavon of Sicilian descent, which is that you don't really, it doesn't sweat through very easily. It's really good quality. I was founded in 2001 with a single cashmere sweater, and it's grown into a premium American lifestyle brand featuring a whole range of casual sportswear, tailored menswear, and luxury performance golf apparel. It's comfort, fit, quality, style, all setting the standard in menswear. So right now I'm wearing the performance polo, but I've got a ton of their clothing, and I'm getting more of it.

I'm not joking. It's actually my favorite clothing company in the country. It is like so because the fit. is all really nice and it just, you know, it allows a man to move around. It's like got a little stretch to it and also, you know, you don't like sweat through it instantly as I do through every other piece of clothing. What I love about Peter Milar polo shirts is they offer comfort and style. So, you know, it's perfect for golfing and it's, but it's also perfect for going to the office. Even, you know, even this place. I mean, most people are walking around here wearing like tank tops and like cutoffs and, you know, potato sacks. But this is, you know, really ups the quality of the place. The performance polo I'm wearing is the most comfortable

shirt I've ever worn. I can say that about the performance shorts. I can say that about the pants. Everything else I've worn from there. Right now, head over to petermalar.com slash cofefefe C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Check out some of my Peter Malar favorites. Be sure to use my link you will receive. Complementary shipping and a free hat. That's very important. Summer's on the way. You can get a sunburn on your scalp. Wear a hat. Get a free hat today. Don't say I never did nothing for you. Peter Millar, M-I-L-L-A-R-com slash co-fefefe-F-E-E, Peter Milar.com slash co-fefefefe. We have got to get to the

anti-Catholic bigotry that is just bubbled up in the last two weeks. Before that, though, before we get to Catholicism, I have to talk about an Orthodox Jew. Ben Shapiro said something really shocking on his show today. It was broadly about Yale Law School. Just play the clip and we can talk about it. Yale law school is, let's face it, a second-rate law school. I mean, I went to Harvard, so I should know. And the Yale law students are proving themselves to be inferior law students, just as Yale proved itself in inferior college by accepting my friend Michael Knowles into its school. The reality is Yale law students seem not to know exactly how judicial appointments work.

I know. It's absolutely shocking. To say that sort of thing publicly on air, he called me his friend. Can you believe that? I can't. My jaw dropped when I saw. that clip, incredible. It is, you know, the story that Ben is referencing is that these Yale law students, these very recent Yale law students the last few years, are very upset that a Yale law graduate, Brett Kavanaugh, is now going to be on the Supreme Court. And they're very upset that Yale law issued a press release and said, hey, we're proud that one of our graduates has been nominated to the Supreme Court. That's pretty good. And they said, how dare you, it's people are going to die. And it is really sad because a number of the people on that list were contemporaries and

classmates of mine in undergraduate. So I do know a bunch of them, and they were pretty, uh, they were eccentric. They were not great at parties, you know, they're kind of like, wow, wow, I don't know, nothing's fun. Everything's terrible. I mean, really far left, radical left people. So, uh, you know, okay, guys, you signed your name to the petition. I bet that will stop Kavanaugh. I bet that'll stop him from going to the court. Very funny. And, and Ben called me a friend. Okay, so let's move on to the main story, which is the anti-Catholic bigotry. It really is bubbling up like crazy here. This is not a new experience in the United States. CNN ran this piece today. The question is, why do Catholics hold a strong majority

on the Supreme Court? Simple enough question. There are a lot of Catholics on the Supreme Court. Byron Wolfe wrote this piece in the Chris Saliza section of CNN, the point. He says, quote, there's only ever been one Catholic president and Catholics are a declining portion of the U.S. population, but they're holding a strong majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. When President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court Tuesday night, Kavanaugh described his Catholic faith and the importance of the church in his life, from the high school he attended to the Catholic Youth Organization basketball teams he now coaches. Ooh, Catholic Youth Organization Basketball, ooh, right?

You're getting very nervous as you read this. If confirmed, Kavanaugh will replace Anthony Kennedy, who is Catholic-ish. Trump's other nominee, now Justice Neil Gorsuch, replaced Catholic Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch attends Episcopal churches now, but was raised Catholic. CNN's Daniel Burke has written that about Gorsuch's faith, which he keeps private, and it is a complicated matter. So, all right, ooh, he's got faith. Ooh, he might believe in God. Oh, this is complicated.

This is scary, aren't you afraid? Every other Republican appointed justice, he writes, on the court, is Catholic. and Democrat appointed Sonia Sotomayor was raised Catholic during her nomination. She described herself as a cultural Catholic. So let's just take that part for a second. It's all this insinuation. And this is what the left has been adding to the conversation for weeks now. I'm not being anti-Catholic, but isn't it strange?

Isn't it strange all of these Catholics show up on the court? He actually goes on in this piece. A justice's religion does not, nor should it matter. But it is certainly a curiosity. of modern politics that Catholic and Jewish justices have found such success. Yeah, it's a very curiosity on the court

that's it have so many Catholic and Jewish justices. Yeah, yeah. I was doing, that was my Martin Luther impression, by the way. I don't know what you thought that was. But there is a perception, he goes on, that male Catholics on the court are more likely to vote against abortion and perhaps plays a role

among conservatives looking to chip away at Roe v. Wade. Just that language. There is a perception. That says it all. This is the mainstream media trick. I would say critics say that George W. Bush is a terrible mean monster. Critics say, some people say, and that's the phrase, there is a perception. There's a perception among whom? What perception? What do you mean there's a perception? No, you think that. You are insinuating that. There is an insinuation by CNN that that Catholics are going to throw away the Constitution and judge cases based on what the Pope tells

them to do. That's what CNN is saying. That's what, but there is, there is a perception. And of course, a justice's religion should not matter in how they read the constitution. But very often, the fastest growing religion in the country, atheism, does affect how people view it. The final piece of this, he says, an abuse survey from 2014, the fastest growing religious group is unaffiliated, which grew from 16.1% in 2007 to 22.8% eclipsing Catholicism in the U.S. in the process. So he's saying, on the one hand, these kind of personal aspects of our character, they shouldn't affect how we interpret the text. We should interpret the text as it's written. On the other hand, the Supreme Court should reflect the population broadly. But the Supreme Court's

not a popular institution. The Supreme Court isn't the legislature. It's not supposed to represent the people. You're supposed to interpret the law. It's the logos, the logic of the country, not the pathos, not the emotion of the country. And so he wants to have his case. taken into two and it's all just insinuation. This is nothing new. Anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States has always been this way. Arthur Schlesinger, the 20th century historian, he said that anti-Catholicism is, quote, the deepest bias in the history of the American people. We don't think of it that way. Popularly, we think the bias is racism or sexism or anti-American Indian or whatever. Anti-Catholicism from the very beginning has been a defining feature of the United States, but it's kind of taken different

forms and now it is bubbling up on the left. Thomas Nast, the great political cartoonist, he drew a cartoon in the 19th century of Catholics, little bishops as crocodiles on the American Ganges. It was Catholic crocodiles climbing up the river Ganges to subvert the United States. We actually got public schools in America because of anti-Catholicism. That's where a lot of our public education comes from, because there was a senator from Maine, I believe, James Blaine, who was so worried about the proliferation of Catholic schools in the United States. You know, for all of Western history, just about the Catholic schools have played a role in educating the elite and have educated so many people in the last two millennia. So he was worried about the proliferation of them in the U.S.

And he said that we need public schooling that is non-sectarian. U.S. Grant, same thing, was afraid of Catholic schooling. So he came out and he said, he feared a future. where patriotism and intelligence was on one side, and superstition, ambition, and greed was on the other. All of that referring to Catholics. He said he wanted schools unmixed with, quote, atheistic pagan or sectarian teaching.

This is U.S. Grand. This is a good general, good president. Sectarian was the euphemism used for Catholic. So you see this, even on the Republican side, bubbling up for a while. Before we get to where it's going now on the left, got to make a little money, honey, make a little money with honey.

Honey is a product that I've been using. forever. I've been using them for years and years, long before the Daily Wire ever existed, and it's coming. It's coming. It's upon us. You know this. I know this. Anybody who's married, who has kids, who has parents, who has selfish desires to buy your own products, the biggest shopping day in the universe is coming. Amazon Prime Day. This is an epic day of the year. There were gigantic savings across the biggest marketplace in the universe. Did you know that there is such a thing as Prime Day every day? This is true. There is always, you can install, all this little add-on to the browser, Honey, and it will automatically find you the best deals while

you're shopping. You don't have to go searching for coupon codes. You don't need to check multiple websites. It just will do it for you with Honey. Honey is the free browser extension that helps you get the absolute best deals possible on sites like Amazon. So I go on Amazon. I buy a lot of books, for instance. You know, I'm always on Amazon. And it will say, oh, you can get better price here. You can get it here. This will go down. It just went up. It just applies everything for you. If there's a better price, Honey will find it in seconds. You might remember in the bad old days when you'd go buy something online, you'd search and type in the coupon code, and then it wouldn't work.

And it'd say, like, only 50% of these have worked today. You think, well, then I don't think I'm going to be in the winning 50% of that. Ooh, you got to look, do it, look, save your time and money. Honey will automatically find you the best deal. It is free. There is no reason not to install it. Do it right now. It's that good.

I couldn't tell you the last purchase I made with Honey because I make all of my purchases with honey. I use it constantly. I mean, it is, I don't even know how much money it saved me over the years, but I'm certain it's thousands of dollars, because I've been using it at least, I don't know, five, six years at this point. It's free. It takes two clicks to install. Consider yourself prepared for the best Amazon Prime Day ever with Honey. Start saving today, Prime Day, and every day. Get honey for free at joinhoney.com slash cofefefefe. C-O-F-E-F-E-Joney.com slash cofefefefe. So that's where you get. You can thank anti-Catholicism for public schools, you know, that great institution in America public schooling, because there was a fear of

Catholics. This used to be a big issue among the Republicans. You actually had this Reverend Samuel Bouchard, who was a Republican. He had this quote. He said, we are Republicans and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. And I only like two of those three, by the way. I only like two of those three. Rum Romanism and rebellion. Now this, it wasn't only Republicans. The KKK was anti-Catholic. That was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. Now the Democrats are the anti-Catholic ones. But they've been the subject of a lot of a lot of bigotry in the U.S. In 1891, the largest mass lynching in American history was against Sicilians, was against Catholic Sicilians.

In 1921, Father James Coyle was assassinated in Birmingham by a method. minister. I'm talking about fire and broomstone minister. That goes out there actually kills a Catholic priest. And where this really came to a head, the last time we had a real bubbling of anti-Catholicism in America was JFK. And JFK being just a crass, degenerate Democrat politician, took exactly the wrong approach on this. The question when JFK was running for president in 1960 was, if you have a Catholic in the White House, is he just going to take his orders from the Pope? What if the Pope tells him to do something, is he going to do that? Does the Pope then control the United States? And we laugh at that now, but this was the anti-Catholic fear then. The way JFK approached this

really has poisoned religion in American politics in many ways since. Here's JFK. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. I believe in a president whose views and religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office. So what he says is, look, I'm a Catholic running for president. The way that I'm going to

Catholic Catholicism is going to inform my presidency is not at all whatsoever. I don't even really think about it that much seriously. I'm not that Catholic. That's his response. But that's crazy. Of course our views, our religious views, inform our views of other things in the world, politics is downstream of culture. Culture comes from the cult. It comes from what we worship. So this shouldn't affect how we view the Constitution. We shouldn't want to rewrite the constitution into the catechism of the Catholic Church. But of course it affects our views on the

world. We view the world in a certain way, through this lens. We think that human life has dignity and purpose because of our religious views. Some religions don't believe that. Some people think human life doesn't have any dignity. That we can kill it and it doesn't matter at all. That life doesn't have a purpose. It's just about giving ourselves pleasure all the time, that we don't really have any sort of free will. We're just a bunch of bumbling sacks of cells and neurons walking around like zombies pretending that we're individual people. Your religion informs how you think about everything. There's this ridiculous canard. They say, well, you can't legislate morality. All legislation legislates morality. What do you think Obamacare does? What do you think

forcing certain people off their health care plans and taking money from them to pay for other people's health care plans if they don't? What do you think that does? Of course, that's legislating a moral point. What do you think low taxes are? What do you think raising taxes? That's a moral point. They say, we need to take from the 1% and give it to the 99%. That's a moral statement.

What do you think foreign policies? You're making moral claims about which people we're going to protect, which people we're not going to protect, what interests we're going to fight for. These are all moral questions. Politics is the affairs of men, and men are moral agents. So, you know, when we interact with each other, those are moral transactions.

So of course, legislation has a moral component. It's just a lie from people who take a very shallow view of religion. And that shallow view of religion is where this anti-Catholicism is coming from. Because, by the way, it's not just anti-Catholicism. We're seeing that with the Supreme Court nominees. It's really anti-Christianity. It's really anti-Western religion. And so you've seen it in the media a lot recently.

Four priests showed up to a Donald Trump rally. Great moves. Great work, Padres. Really like it. Sometimes there are a couple streams in the media. public Catholic life, there's the one that believes in Catholicism, and then there's the one that's like a little more hippie-dippy and kind of gets a little more heterodox in their views. So good job, Padres. I really liked to like he's sticking up there. When Amy Barrett was being considered for this seat on the Supreme Court, there were major news stories that said she was in a

cult. Is that? The Catholic Church is a cult now, right? Or she was, you know, she was in this little religious group that held each other accountable and, you know, read the Bible and stuff. They said that's a cult because they have a shallow view of religion. Daily Beast writer Jay Michelson said that Donald Trump is, quote, carrying out the agenda of a small secretive network of extremely conservative Catholic activists. The secret agenda. The opus day is coming. And he's referring to Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society. And the guy, first of all, what's so incredible is that the Daily Beast writer doesn't know, he doesn't know anything about Catholicism. He said, this guy, Leonard Lee,

He's so crazy. He goes to Mass every day. And actually, he didn't even say he just goes to Mass. He says he says Mass, which isn't true. Priests say Mass. So he just doesn't even, even the very basic thing of what the mass is. This guy has no idea whatsoever. Isn't that crazy?

He goes to Mass? He probably prays too. I heard he even reads his Bible. Ooh, right? I mean, he goes on. To be sure, none of this is to repeat the odious claims of anti- Catholicism of papist conspiracies and dual loyalty. Of course, though, you know, when you say, it's like when you follow a sentence with but, when you say but it negates the sentence,

I don't want to negate, I don't want to repeat any of that anti-Catholic papist conspiracy stuff, but he goes to mass, boo, be afraid, you know. CNN's Dean Obidala said that there are this cabal of people trying to push Christian Sharia law. And obviously when it comes to the Supreme Court, this is anti-Catholicism. They're talking about, and of course there is the irony, right, because they're saying that Christianity is so terrible because it's like Islam. And meanwhile, they're telling us how great Islam is. Where all of this comes from is an interview that Antonin Scalia gave to the New York magazine a number of years ago, this actually highlights all of it very well. And what it

highlights is that people are biblically illiterate in this country. And because you have a whole generation now, which has been raised without religion, it's just utterly other to them. They can't engage in religious questions. They don't understand how religion works because they've been raised by postmodern superstition rather than a traditional religion. In this interview, I'll just read you a fair little chunk of this interview. This girl at the New York Magazine, she asks him about his views on religion. Do you believe in hell? Oh, yeah, I believe in hell. And he's so, Scalia is very charming and funny, and he's so surprised that she is asking him these questions. He leans in with a stage whisper and says, you know, I even believe in the devil.

And the New York Magazine lady goes, isn't it terribly frightening to believe in the devil? And this is the line, the takeaway. You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My God, are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil. It's in the gospels. You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil. Most of mankind has believed in the devil for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil. And that line, when I read that, that really stuck with me.

Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil. At the time, I wasn't even, I probably wouldn't have called myself a Christian. I wouldn't have really thought of myself in a religious sense. But that really stuck with me because obviously that's true. And this really gets to the heart of what this new anti-Catholicism is. It's a defense of modernity. The reason that this anti-Catholicism is bubbling up is because Catholicism opposes modernity. You know, theoretically, all of our churches should be opposing modernity.

But we've seen these stories in recent weeks where churches are getting a little weak need, aren't they? The Episcopalian Church, which has been crumbling for a long time now, they have women priests, they fly gay pride flags outside of the church. Now the Episcopalian Church in the U.S. wants to give God a different gender. So they're going to, God's gender neutral now. They're trying to neuter God. Good luck, buddy. If you read the Old Testament, it doesn't go very well when that happens. So that's fallen away. A lot of sort of mainstream evangelical Protestant churches in America have become left wing, have become a little social justicey, have become a little soft, have become very modern. And in part, this makes sense, because the Protestant Revolution is what began the modern era,

and that followed a certain logical course. The Catholic Church ain't modern. Even though we have some acoustic guitar churches here, it is pretty rock solid and is defending 2,000-year-old dogma. That is why the left absolutely despises it. The left is a jealous God. Leftism is a jealous God. When Diane Feinstein looked at Amy Coney Barrow, and she was being nominated for the federal court, and she said, I'm very afraid of this because the dogma lives loudly within you.

All of the religious conservatives thought, that's crazy, that's a religious test. You can't do that. What Diane Feinstein's fear was, wasn't that Catholic dogma lives loudly within Amy Barrett. It's that leftist modern dogma, therefore, does not live within Amy Barrett. Because if you hold these Catholic views, you're rejecting, in no small part, modern views, the views that came up in response to the Catholic Church, in opposition to the Catholic Church, and they don't like that. So you're allowed to be a JFK Catholic.

You're allowed to say, oh, I go to church, I like the smells and the bells. You know, I like the kind of silly hats and the clothing and everything. But I would never reject modern orthodoxies. I would never reject, I don't know, the redefinition of marriage or abortion or I would never reject. Those things are the modern sacraments. But the minute that you come out and you say, no, I actually believe in the dogma, then they hit you.

And it's going to come back. I mean, right now we're seeing a huge backlash to modernism. We're seeing it fall apart in many ways because of its illogical ends, because of the craziness of choosing your own gender. Just a few years ago, I'm old enough to remember, there were only two genders. Now there are 56 and they're multiplying.

A few years ago, it was lesbian, gay, and bisexual. now it's LGBTQP, L-M-N-N-O-P, L-WX-Y-Z, and it goes on and on and it gets crazy. There is a reaction that's going on to this. And you're going to see a lot of the same themes of anti-Catholicism that are coming back. You know, Hilaire Belloc, the great French, English, Catholic writer, he said that to reject the Catholic faith is to write yourself down forever as suburban.

And he's a very elitist, sort of snobbish statement. But there is something to it. The analogy could be that in political conservatism as well, there is this kind of rock-ribbed bedrock thing that hasn't been brought off onto the rails of modernity too much. And that's what the left is reacting to. And that's what some people on the right are reacting to as well, unfortunately. People like Tommy Lauren, I've been very mean to Tommy Lauren recently,

and I'm going to have to be a little bit mean in my last few minutes of this segment today. Without further ado, oh, I feel so bad hitting on Tommy. about hitting on Tommy, you know, when I was single, but I feel bad attacking Tommy because she's on the right. I think to hit rightward is basically grave mortal sin, but sometimes you've got to do it. Here is Tommy Lauren doubling down on her pro-abortion fanaticism on Fox News. I think that it's important to clarify my statements there, because first and foremost, I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a constitutional conservative, not a religious judicial activist, which is exactly what we want. My problem is with some of my fellow conservatives who have

put it out there that we are, quote, coming for Roe v. Wade. That is a mistake because we are putting it out there and implying that we are sending a justice to the bench to carry out religious judicial activism, which is a mistake and is unconstitutional. And if we as conservatives are going to imply that, if that's going to be our messaging, we might as well spit on the Constitution. That is not what we stand for. If we are not going to uphold the Constitution on its merit, who will? That is up to us to do. So that my real problem here, regardless of my views on abortion, pro-life, pro-choice, is the messaging of our Supreme Court justice and how he will handle Roe v. Wade if it comes to that point. She just doesn't know anything. She just doesn't know. She is saying words, which we recognize. So we are mistaking that for an opinion. But that isn't, it's just words mashed together conveying nothing. to take her main point.

I'm going to, you know, I actually invited Tommy on the show to see if she wanted, so that I could correct some things. But she responded with something of a firm no. So I don't know, maybe if people on Twitter want to try to get her to come on the show, that might be nice. Because really, what she's saying now can't go without a response. It's so wrong and stupid that it needs to be responded to because she's got these millions and millions of viewers on Fox News where she's regularly spouting this nonsense. So it does demand a response. I fear, while she's spouting things like this,

I fear that she's going to end up just becoming one of these ex-Republican lefties or on every other news channel, you know, the Steve Schmidt types and Anna Navarro's and David Frum and whatever, you know, they go on and they bash the Republican Party. I fear that because what she's saying doesn't make any sense. The religious judicial activism,

what is the judicial activism? The question is on Roe versus Wade, and cases that immediately preceded it and cases that followed from it. Is Roe v. Wade decided constitutionally? Is there a constitutional right to an abortion? Is there, more broadly, a constitutional right, a general right to privacy? What do you think, Tommy Lauren? Is there? No. The answer is no, and most lefties will even admit that to you. So if the Constitution does not enshrine a right to abortion, if the framers in Philadelphia didn't think that they were saying, Okay, and thank goodness we fought that bloody revolutionary war against the Brits so we can finally kill our babies. Hooray! HIP! Hib! Hore! General Washington! If that wasn't what the framers were thinking, which I don't think they were,

then that case was unconstitutionally decided. If we want to overturn an obviously anti-constitutional case, that's not judicial activism. That's returning the judiciary to interpreting the law as it says, to interpreting the words of the law by what they mean. That's the opposite of judicial. activism. I suppose you could call it activist in the sense that you're actively undoing something that was activistically done. It reminds me of the Chesterton quote. There's a thought that stops thought. That's the thought that ought to be stopped. She uses the phrase religious, though. She attaches that here because she thinks there's no non-religious reason to overturn Roevi-Wade. Regardless of anyone's religious views, we should overturn Roe v. Wade, it's not constitutional.

It's anti-constitutional. It rips apart. It spits on the Constitution. Then she's hung up on this religious thing. It says when people, because some people do have religious motivations for overturning Roe v. Wade, a million babies die a year in the United States. And that number is down now. I mean, that's a relatively lower number. Million babies die a year in the United States because of that decision. So there are religious motivations. People who don't like worship Molok or something or Baal, you know, want to see that stop. But overturning Roe v. Wade, first of all, wouldn't legalize abortion everywhere. There'd be a lot of states that still preserve abortion laws. It's a,

it's a constitutional question. And just because there are religious motivations, that doesn't negate the merits of the argument. Plenty of good overturning of cases have been motivated for religious reasons. How about Dred Scott? The Dred Scott decision was motivated for religious reasons, wasn't it? Dred Scott, which said that black people can't be citizens of the United States. They're not entitled to rights, even free blacks. That decision in 1857 was that that was motivated by almost exclusively Christian abolitionists to overturn that. Does that negate it? They say, oh, you have religious motivation,

so no, okay, black people should still be barred from citizenship and any protections in the United States. How about Buck v. Bell? Buck v. Bell is a lesser-known among the general population Supreme Court case from 1927 that allowed for the forcible sterilization of the mentally unfit and of criminals. And there was one dissent.

There was a lone dissent on that. And it was the Catholic judge in that case that was the lone dissent. That was motivated. The dissent in that, to overturn that ruling was motivated in part by some religious views. Does that mean that we should still forcibly sterilize the mentally unfit? I don't think so. How about Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal? How about all of the abolition movements in history and the movements for liberty have been in large part motivated by Christian feeling? Does that mean we should get rid of them? I don't think so. I don't think so at all. It's a bias, I think, of coastal Republican types, the ones who want to be. cool, the socially liberal but fiscally conservative. You know, that's like, that's the only way that you can go along to get along now. But it's crazy because politics is downstream of culture. And to go on television and try to spout this stuff is so, I don't blame her for being

ignorant. A lot of people are ignorant. What I blame her for is not having the curiosity to even look into this, to crack the spine of a book, the humility to maybe not shout this ignorance on national television. That's the trouble here. I wasn't always pro-life. I didn't always realize how awful abortion is. In fact, I remember vividly, I had a conversation.

While I was in college, I was doing a summer fellowship with some bioethicists. And I had a conversation with a female bioethicist at lunch. I said, oh, I think abortion. I don't think it's that big a deal. People are so worried about it. I don't know. And she said, well, why is that, Michael? I repeated all of the freakonomics arguments.

Oh, you know, which are largely bogus anyway. It lowers crime and it's this and they're not morally significant, blah, blah, blah. And she said, okay, so which of those arguments doesn't also apply to kill ethnic minorities, young male ethnic minorities? Because they commit a crime, you know, they're disproportionately on welfare. Shouldn't we just kill them? And I thought, oh, yikes, okay. And then I, like, cracked the spine of a book. I thought about this for more than five seconds, and I realized the moral gravity of it. She hasn't done that. And so it's fine. She doesn't have to. I'm not going to make Tommy Lauren read. But if she's, other than my book, I recommend she does read my book,

because that is a good starter, you know, on the path of political philosophy. But if she's not going to do that, she really should stop spouting this ignorance. Nobody's trying to shut her up. We're trying to educate her and stop the spread of such nonsense. Really frustrating. But I only attack because I love, because I want the people who go on Fox News to be better and stop spouting such nonsense. I attack CNN because I don't love. And there's this great clip you've got to see.

Do we have time before we go? We have maybe a little bit of time. Before we go, you've got to see this clip. A pal of mine who has to remain anonymous because his career will get ruined. He was watching this live on CNN, and they were translating. CNN was talking to the relatives of, you know, illegal aliens who came over and the kids were detained or whatever. And they were asked, how are the kids doing? What's going on with the kids?

And here is what CNN played. He says he wants me to be with him, she says, and praise to God, to make him. the day shorter so we can be together. And I don't know how many of you speak Spanish out there. My Spanish isn't great. I mostly have Italian, a little touch of French. But I think what I heard is the woman said, Diseke estamui bien,

which roughly translates to, yeah, he says he's doing very well. But what did CNN, can we play that clip again? What did CNN say, she said? He says he wants me to be with him, she says, and praise to God to make the day shorter so we can be. come again it's like in those you know in those movies like with the bad dubbings it'll be a

japanese movie you know and they'll say like you see the mouth moving like blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and then they'll dub it over and he'll just say like yes you know he said wait that it sounds like he said more than that did he'll this is the opposite here disiqista mu bien he says that he's doing terribly and trump's a criminal and hashtag resist and breckavanaugh is a catholic and so he shouldn't be on the court what all right Are you sure about that? Unbelievable stuff. And somehow nobody caught this.

I think it's because nobody watches CNN. It's like one conservative. Every day, like one conservative in the country has to self-flagelate and watch CNN to pull all the stupid clips. So I guess today that's me. Now maybe other people will play it too. It's really egregious. But that is how dishonest these people are. I mean, that is how when you turn on CNN, which only exists because of airports, because they made a deal with the devil and with airports,

It's sometime in the 1990s, so CNN has played there all the time. They're not reporting news. They are a fiction company making a narrative. There is somebody who was writing the script to this, and there was like the background. It's a di Cuehastainui bien. It's like, okay, well, what? There's no way to translate that cockamamie language.

How are we ever going to find that? It's like, okay, well, I think it sounds a little bit like Donald Trump is a monster, and I hate him, and Hillary should have been elected, hashtag me too. I just wanted to call that to your attention. Anytime you're tempted to think that we should watch or listen to CNN, don't do it. I've got a second bye to Facebook and YouTube. We've got a great this day in history coming up today, and it really ties back into our theme of federalism.

For only $9.99.99.9.9.9.9.9 cents per month, you can get a subscription to the Daily Wire. You've got to go over from Facebook and YouTube. You'll get me. You get the Andrew Claven Show. You get the Ben Shapiro show. You get to ask questions in the mailbag. That's coming up. Get your mailbag questions in for tomorrow.

because it is coming up. I'm going to start answering those questions right after this show today and you'll be able to ask questions in conversation. None of that matters. Mm. I mean, mm, Iiko that's am very bien,

these leftist tears. Mm-mm-mm. No, no. I'm certain that grammar was completely wrong. But the leftist tears are really good these days. That really popish papist variety, you just know, they catch a whiff of that popery and they just start pouring out all their tears.

Go to Dailywire.com. We'll be right back with this day in history. We're back to federalism. We're back because on this day in history, in 1804, the federalist Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr. What do we take from this? This is such an American story, by the way. Alexander Hamilton is so good.

Even though, you know, I know when people think of Alexander Hamilton, now they think of like a millennial hip-hop star because that's just the cultural representation now. But he was unbelievable. He was so, so good. He was born on a Caribbean island of Nevis in either 18, 1755 or 1757. We don't know because he was this orphan kid from this Caribbean island. He makes it to the mainland of America in 1773.

He joins the Continental Army almost immediately. And he rises up quickly. I mean, this is a kid, you know, an orphan from a Caribbean island. And he rises up, he becomes aide-de-camp to President Washington, then General Washington. he's with them at Valley Forge. He's all over. Then after the Revolutionary War, he becomes a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and crafts our Constitution. He writes the Federalist papers. He crafts our idea of what the country should be. And at all times, all these, like whenever kind of crazy radical factions come up, he swoops in and just makes it all better. He then is

appointed First Secretary of the Treasury by President Washington. And he crafts a monetary system for us that basically prevented us, prevented the government from collapsing early on, prevented the mean the government from collapsing. Really brilliant. In his spare time, he founded the Federalist Party, he founded the Coast Guard, and he founded the New York Post. Talk about a wide variety. One of the best tabloids in America founded by the great federalist Alexander Hamilton. He also, this poor kid from the Caribbean, was educated at King's College, which is what now would be at Columbia University. In Aaron Burr, it's really hard to deny the existence of God and providence in history because you get these bizarre coincidence, these bizarre parallel stories. Aaron Burr born around the same time, 1756,

so either a year after or a year before, Alexander Hamilton, he has like the opposite life story. He's born into wealth. He's born into privilege. He's, you know, he just grows up as a rich kid in New Jersey. He attends what is now Princeton, then called the College of New Jersey. And he too joins the Continental Army. Kid comes from nothing, goes to Columbia. Kid comes from everything, goes to Princeton, they join the Continental Army. After that, though, he didn't distinguish himself in the way that Alexander Hamilton did. So he goes back to New York, not New Jersey, but New York, and is elected to the New York State Assembly. And this is how I know that Aaron Burr is a, monster and a sociopath, because with few exceptions, people that go to the New York State Assembly

are just totally corrupt. There are a few exceptions. I actually have a pal who's in the New York State Assembly. He's one of the most honorable people I've ever met in politics, Kevin Byrne, Everyone else up there is just a devil. You know, I think by the time of the indictments finally end in the New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, Kevin is going to be the only one left up there. It's the only one of any dignity. Right now, you've got one of the heads of the New York State Assembly is like throwing his son under the bus and an indictment and investigation, just the most corrupt place

in the country. So that's where Aaron Burr goes. He's then elected state attorney, and then their lives intersect when Aaron Burr beat Hamilton's father-in-law for a U.S. Senate seat. So now you've got Aaron Burr in the U.S. Senate. You've got Alexander Hamilton leading the federalists crafting our Constitution and his Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton early on, he had a good gut, and he realized that Burr was a monster.

He hated him with a fiery passion. He viewed Burr as a dangerous opportunist, and he said, quote, I feel it is a religious duty to oppose his career, which brings us back to religion, too. but he just saw this early on. Alexander Hamilton was a busy guy. He was doing a lot of things, starting our monetary system,

founding parties, writing the Constitution, winning the Revolutionary War. He was a very busy guy. He took time out of his very busy schedule to try to destroy Aaron Burr's career. Why did he do that? So Adams wins the presidency and after George Washington.

And at this point, Aaron Burr, who would run for vice president, he was a running mate of Thomas Jefferson with the anti-federalists, he left the Senate and returned to the New York Assembly. leaves the federal, the U.S. Senate, goes back to the New York State Assembly. Not good.

Then Burr, to destroy Hamilton, leaks documents of Hamilton criticizing fellow federalist John Adams. This may have played a role in John Adams losing re-election in the Federalists losing and Thomas Jefferson coming to power. Just to, you know, talk about the deep state. This is Aaron Burr, the first deep state leak, this damaging document on Alexander Hamilton.

Helps him win, helps Jefferson win the 1800 race. So in those days, it's not, the president and vice president were not elected as they are today. The guy who got the most electoral votes would be president. The second most would be vice president. Jefferson and Burr each received 73 electoral votes. So they should have decided this pretty technically easily. It goes to the House of Representatives. But the federalists in a move to try to screw everything up and get back at Jefferson through their support behind Aaron Burr. So you ended up in the situation where the running made, the VP, nominee could have become the president over Thomas Jefferson. At this point, and Hamilton has no great love for the anti-federalists led by Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton gets a bunch of federalists

to throw their support behind Jefferson and break the deadlock and prevent Aaron Burr from being president. Why? Because he viewed Aaron Burr as a dangerous demagogue. So at this point, Aaron Burr has a falling out with Jefferson. They don't get along that well. So he goes back to New York again and seeks the federalist nomination for the governor of New York. He wasn't anti-federalist. Now he's a federalist. And how many of the last governors of New York haven't just gone to prison? I don't know. Is there, like, you've got all these awful governors. You had Spitzer, you know, the sex pervert criminal spitzer. Cuomo definitely has a ton of skeletons in his closet. You've got Patterson wasn't great. So all of these guys. He goes there. He wants that job, too. It really fits his character.

He loses the race for governor. He loses the nomination race. He loses the independent race for governor. At this point, he's extremely angry. He and Hamilton duel. They duel because Hamilton has destroyed his entire life's career. Now, at these duels, very often, you'd fire it into the air, you'd resolve it peacefully. Hamilton was a fiery guy.

He'd been in multiple duels in his life. Nobody ever died. It was very, in a court of, decided among gentlemen. Aaron Burr was having none of it. He aims right in the center of Alexander Hamilton's body, blows him away, shoots him through the stomach, hits his spinal cord, kills Alexander Hamilton. And there was a public outcry at this point, because duels were common, but killing a man like Alexander Hamilton is a big deal. So what is Aaron Burr do, the little coward? He goes back and stays, as vice president,

he's immune from prosecution. He then flees, because he doesn't want to be prosecuted, go west young man, and plots with James Wilkinson, who is the commander-in-chief of the army, to try to take over part of the continent, take over part of the country, and start their own empire, because Aaron Burr apparently proved Alexander Hamilton right. At this point then, they try to get help from the British, that's despicable. They then try to take over part of Spanish America when it didn't work out to take over other parts of America. And then Burr leads an army charging into New Orleans, into the Louisiana territory, and he's put down and he flees to Europe. Now, why do I bring all of this up? Well, one, it's an interesting story from early American history, but the real takeaway that you have to remember is always

listen to the Federalists. Listen to the Federalist Society. Listen to the Federalists at the founding of the country. They have got it right. Read the Federalist. We were talking about how it's important for people who are conservative to read books. They should read the Federalist. The Federalists are always right. And people who oppose the Federalists are murderous traitors. I guess that's, is that the takeaway? Let's make that the takeaway. Get your mailback questions in. We will take on all of them tomorrow. in the meantime. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Noel Show. I'll see you then.

The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Sennia Villa Reel. Executive producer Jeremy Borey. Senior producer Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover. And our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Jim Nickel. Audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing Production, Copyright Forward Publishing, 2018.