The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 274 - Oh No! Everything Is The Same!

Episode Date: January 3, 2019

The Dems take Congress, the government remains shut down, and everything feels exactly the same. The first two Muslim women elected to Congress take the oath on a Qur’an, NY Gov. Cuomo makes a 2020 endorsement, and an abortion activist defends killing children to children. Plus, the Mailbag! Date: 01-02-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Democrats officially take control of the Congress, and the government remains partially shut down, and everything feels exactly the same. Hmm, what should that tell us about congressional Republicans and the federal government? We will analyze. Then, the first two Muslim women elected to Congress take the oath of office on a Quran belonging to Thomas Jefferson. Apparently, they didn't read the terrifying things Thomas Jefferson wrote about Islam. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo makes an early 2020 presidential endorsement, an abortion activist defends killing children to children, and finally the mailbag.

I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show. Oh, the horror, the horror of everything being exactly the way it was a month or two ago. We will get to all of the radical sameness. But first, let's make a little money, honey with Express VPN. With all the recent news about online security breaches, it is hard not to worry about where my data goes. Making an online purchase or simply accessing your email could put your, private information at risk. Everybody is watching, and if you're watching this show, something tells me you watch pretty weird stuff on the internet. You don't want that to get out,

do you? You need to take your privacy back with ExpressVPN. I love it. It has easy to use apps that run seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone and tablet. Turn on ExpressVPN. It just takes one click and you're protected. It secures and anonymizes your internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address, rather, protecting yourself with ExpressVPN costs less than $7 a month, and then people won't know that you visit weird, crazy, wild websites such as DailyWire.com. You can get your three months free at ExpressVPN.com slash Michael, M-C-H-A-E-L. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-V-P-N dot com slash Michael, M-C-H-A-E-L,

for three months free with a one-year package. ExpressVPN.com slash Michael. to learn more. Oh, what a crazy start to the new year. Isn't it? Everything's different. The federal government is shut down. The Democrats just took control of the Congress and nothing feels different at all, does it? Does it? This is the very good news. This is a wonderful thing to find out. What has changed in this government shutdown? I was actually thinking, I woke up today, I asked sweet little Elisa, said, what should I talk about today on the show? What's big in the news? she said, Mac, you should do the government shutdown. And I said, well, I would, except there's

nothing to talk about. What is there, what has changed in your life during this government shutdown? It's, uh, what, first of all, it's not a full government shutdown. Only part of the government is shut down. But here's what's shut down. The IRS is partially shut down. Is that, is anybody shedding a tear for the IRS being partially shut down as we approach tax season? I don't think so. The EPA is partially shut down. So now, I don't know, the, Delta Smelt might not be able to get their spa treatments every week. They'll only be able to get them every month, except that's not even true because the states are funding environmental protection as well. I can't really name anything else that's actually shut down.

Is our military shutdown? No, of course not. Is law enforcement shut down? No, of course not. What is being shut down? Are our embassies shutting down around the world? No. What is remaining open?

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Biggest drivers of our debt and deficit, biggest portion of the federal budget, all remain open. The thing that actually could drive people crazy, if senior citizens were not able to get their social security checks, then maybe you would see a political push to end the shutdown, but not going to happen. The Mueller investigation remains open. If we're going to shut down the government, shouldn't we shut down the Mueller investigation? Maybe then, that would be pretty motivating for half of the country. Air traffic control.

I was just flying all around the country between Christmas and New Year and all of that. I had my TSA pre-check shut down one time for one flight. And frankly, it was enough to get me on the phone to call President Trump and say, do it cave. I don't care about the wall. Let me get my pre-check. Other than that, everything's running fine. Your traffic control.

All the flights are going great. Veteran benefits? Veterans are still getting all of their benefits. Food stamps remains open. Child nutrition programs remain open. Even Native American food subsidies for reservations, all remaining open. The violence against the violence against. Women Act expired during the government shutdown.

This was a big, they thought this was going to be a big political issue on the left. Even those programs are still funded. Even in the thing expired, they're still all being funded through the Justice Department through health and human services. The shutdown isn't changing anything. It doesn't matter. And therefore, the longer this shutdown goes on, the better. Why?

Because what are the headline? There's no headline about the shutdown. But what we can say, we can point to this shutdown and say, look, such and such percentage, of the federal government was shut down for weeks. I don't know, maybe a month, maybe a month and a half. And nothing about your life changed. This is what Ronald Reagan was talking about when he said that you will never, you will always be surprised at how much government you won't miss. You could lose 30, 40 percent of the federal government. You wouldn't miss it at all. You could fire half of the bureaucrats in this country. You would miss no government. There's no suffering to this shutdown.

You know, Barack Obama, when he shut down the government during his administration, he tried to make it really mean. He tried to make it really hurt. He would shut down veterans memorials just as veterans groups were trying to see them. He was really trying to make it painful. National parks largely are not shut down right now. They still have some funding. People are still working, some without pay, some with pay. It's fine. It's going just fine. Keep this shutdown going on. Even if we get the border wall funding, keep it shut down. This is going just fine. and it underlines this very important conservative position, which is that all of this government that the left tells us, without this bureaucrat, without this agency, the country will fall apart, children will starve, people will die. Nope. No, no, no. Just shut it down.

It's all fine. Life is going on, just fine. Maybe we can make, you know, we always talk about making tax cuts permanent, making this law permanent. Maybe we can make this partial government shutdown permanent. I think it would go a long way to advancing our agenda. Maybe that's the 4D chess that President Trump has been playing, playing, rather, all along.

The other big news, the other shocking news of the day, the Democrats officially retake Congress. Oh, here we go, Nancy Pelosi, rising up, becoming the new Speaker of the House, the blue wave, it was really sort of a purple puddle, but never mind that. They are taking the Congress, and nothing is going to change. Nothing is going to change.

What could change? Right now, one representative, Brad Sherman, is making moves to file articles of impeachment. on day one. That's cute. He's not even going to get Democrats in the House to support that. Not yet, not before the Mueller investigation is over. And even if they did magically get all the Democrats to vote to impeach, which they won't get to do, at least in the near future, they still wouldn't get a conviction in the Senate. So none of that will change. It's just a grandstanding Democrat making a fool of himself. Fine by me. Nothing new about that. What will happen now as a result of the Democrats

having the Congress? We won't get more tax cuts, probably. Frankly, though, maybe we will get some tax cuts. Barack Obama was able to cut certain taxes or maintain certain tax cuts for people, although he did raise taxes on others. We won't get entitlement reform, that's true. But we were never going to get entitlement reform anyway. President Trump has made it a key aspect of his platform that he wasn't going to touch Social Security, wasn't going to touch Medicare or Medicaid.

So that, I think, was probably always more of a pipe dream for conservatives. What legislative accomplishments that we could have gotten are we not going to get now? Are we going to repeal Obamacare? We had our chance to repeal Obamacare and John McCain shut it down. So a nominally Republican senator voted to kill Obamacare repeal, didn't get that.

Are we going to get the wall? We had the House and the Senate for two years. We didn't get the wall. Maybe we'll try to get some wall funding now because of this government shutdown. But the Democrats taking the Congress, that doesn't change anything.

Actually, one of the few major pieces of legislation we were able to get through when we had the unified government was letting a bunch of prisoners out of prison. That was the big, the first step act. This was major legislation signed into law, or passed rather, just before this government shutdown. Whoopty-do, great. Oh, I'm so glad we elected our conservative Republican

and we elected Republican congressmen so that we can let a lot of prisoners out of prison. That's what we want. That's the number one on the conservative agenda. Let a bunch of criminals out of prison. great. Good, I'm glad. And that was also, by the way, a bipartisan law, so we'll get that anyway, unfortunately. What changes, though? So the legislative stuff doesn't matter. President Trump, all of the good governance that he's given us, which is excellent governance and much better

than most of his predecessors. All of that was from the executive. That was from judicial appointments, aided by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, that was on issues of foreign policy, that was on issues of the executive bureaucracy and the executive agencies. So, okay, we lost one house of the Congress. Woo-ty-do. Okay, that's fine. Now, though, President Trump has an adversary. Now, President Trump has Nancy Pelosi.

This is pretty good. When Donald Trump has total control of everything and no one's fighting him, he does fine. He's okay at maneuvering, but he really shines. His best moments are when he has an adversary. You know, just today, after Liz Warren announced her, exploratory committee to run for president yesterday, or two days ago, rather. Was it, oh, it might have even been earlier than that. Oh, gosh, all the days are running together.

But we covered it at least yesterday. President Trump sent out this tweet today, which was the meme that we at the Daily Wire came up with of Elizabeth Warren's campaign, and it says one slash 2020th. And President Trump tweeted that out with our little Daily Wire watermark on it, which was just terrific. Excellent job, Mr. President. That is when he shines. He shines when he has an adversary that he can just pummel into the ground like Jeff Bush or Marco Rubio. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton. He really shines when he's got an adversary and he's going to have one now in Nancy Pelosi. Good. Okay, fine.

It means we don't lose that much on the legislative side, but maybe we pick up a little bit more in exuberance and looking forward to 2020. That's a win for me. There is something new in that we now have the first two Muslim Congress. women being sworn into office, and this is being heralded by the left as such a wonderful moment, because the left loves Islam. The left doesn't know anything about Islam. The Islamic religion opposes essentially so many tenets of the intersectional left, but they don't care because they view Islam as contrary to Western civilization, and they view themselves as contrary to Western civilization, and so they will unite in an intersectional hierarchy to oppose

intersectional civilization, or, pardon, Western civilization, the man, the straight, cisgendered, white male, whatever, the guy with the mustache, they're going to oppose Big Daddy, and this is why they're heralding this. These two Muslim Congresswoman, Ilan Omar

and Rashida Tlaib, are now being sworn in on a Quran that was owned by Thomas Jefferson. And the left loves this. They think, oh, yeah, see, all those Christian Americans, they think of the founding father. as Christian or daistic. But really, Jefferson owned a Quran. Ha ha, you see, how about that?

Islam is just as essential to the American founding as Christianity. Now, of course, the left doesn't know anything about history. So the irony here is really enjoyable. I'm very glad that these two Congresswomen were sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Quran, because Thomas Jefferson had his Quran to learn about the Islamic religion, which was our first war, when he was president, our first war as a country was against the Barbary pirates

against Islamic states. And it was because they were seizing our ships and seizing our goods and seizing our sailors. So in 1801, just before President Jefferson ascended into power, the Congress gave them the authority to wage war

and to attack these Barbary pirates. And then he went in and sent ships in to stop them, and he refused to pay tribute to the Barbary pirates. And his comments about the Quran, they could not be more explicit. He wrote to John Jay, quote, it was written in their Quran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them whenever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim, or Muslim, who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise. Fair enough. Okay, that's true. So he has these notes written down. And actually,

even at the founding of our country, Christopher Hitchens pointed this out in an excellent essay for City Journal in 2007. At the earliest moments of our country, Thomas Jefferson in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence wrote, he condemned the slave trade and, quote, the Christian king of Great Britain for engaging in this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers. He condemned the slave trade in this early draft of the Declaration of Independence for being unchristian. And he was condemning the hypocrisy of the Christian king, George III, comparing it to the slave trade which continues to exist throughout the Muslim world, and which certainly existed at that time, and which existed for a millennium before that.

This is the actual founding history. This is the founding history that you see in that Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson, which the left is now touting to swear in the first two Muslim Congress women. Unless you think I'm Islamophobic, I would never want to be accused of being Islamophobic. I actually don't know what that word means, but if someone could tell me what it means, even if they can't, I don't want to be accused of it. These people are quite radical, Ilan Omar and Rashida Tlid. Elon Omar, this new Minnesota representative, tweeted quote, or, yes, Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. Hashtag Gaza, hashtag Palestine, hashtag Israel. She tweeted this in 2014 during a particularly hot moment of Israel's hostilities with Hamas, Hamas, the terrorist organization. She supports the boycott, divest, and sanction movement against Israel.

She wants to starve Israel, cut it off from the rest of the world, and prevent it from continuing in the international order as a state. How does the New York Times react to these women? The New York Times writes, quote, that the election of Ilan Omar and Rashida Tlaib is, quote, a vehicle for the hopes of millions of Muslims and others who feel touched by her life story and for the fears of those who feel threatened by her.

Now, they're trying to make this big inspirational story and an indictment of the West and all of these things. Just look at these people like Ilan O'Maris, Somali immigrant, gets elected to Congress at the age of 36. What a wonderful country would do that. What an incredible country? What other country on earth in the history of the world could such a thing happen? I'll wait.

Name me any. Of course, what a wonderful. That's a wonderful thing to say about this country. They're trying to use it, however, as an indictment. And it is all, it is not based on reason. We talked about this a little yesterday. with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Often on the right, you'll hear conservatives say,

well, we should point out to the intersectional left that the Islamic religion is harsh on gay people or is harsh on women, or it's illiberal, or it's intolerant, or it calls for non-believers to have their necks chopped off. No, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you point that out. That's not what it's about.

It's not about Islam. It's not about women's rights. rights. It's not about women. It's not about racial minorities. It's not about helping any of those people. It's not about supporting any of those things. It's about attacking Big Daddy. It's about attacking the top of the ideological, ridiculous pyramid that they have constructed in intersectionality, which is the man who is white, who's probably Christian, who thinks that he's a man, who's straight, He's attracted to women. It's all about going after that one person.

Logic be damned. It's not logical. You're not going to attack them in this way. This is why there was an article that I did an interview for the Washington Examiner, and they were asking what the best way to go after the left is in this day and age. And the best way to do it is humor. That's the best way. You're not going to get them and show them the error of their ideological ways.

by just debating them, by just pointing out history or philosophy or theology or whatever, you're not going to get them that way. But one thing that is irresistible as humor, you can't help but laugh. Even the most humorless people, if you hit their funny bone the right way, they can't help but laugh. Laughing is an involuntary response to reality. And we could go on for hours and hours about what makes something funny, what theories of humor are. But to use just one example, when you see inconger, congruous things when you see juxtaposition of absurdity and reality, of fantasy and reality,

it does provoke laughter if it's delivered in the right way. This is the way that we attack them. This is the way that we hit them on this because they're so ideologically far gone. They're so enraptured with their own fantasy world. You're not going to get them in an earnest way. You've got to make them laugh. And we are going to get so much laughter out of this new Congress. I'm actually fairly happy. And this is why I can't be so upset. Nothing is really going to change on the legislative front. You're going to get more investigations of Donald Trump. Okay, we knew that was coming. You're going to get threats of impeachment. You're going to get all this kind of crazy stuff. You are going to see infighting. You are going to see craziness. You are going to get 30 second

Twitter video clips. You are going to get great stuff from this new Congress. They're already fighting. There was a big move led by the farthest left faction of the incoming congressional class to attack the rules being made by Nancy Pelosi yourself. It is going to be a lot of fun. Enjoy it. Don't complain. This is just fine. I'm like the little dog where everything is on fire around him. It's fine. It's going to be fun. Look at that fire around you and light your cigar on it. We're going to have a good time. Speaking of looking ahead to 2020, there is a new presidential endorsement that's come around. So Liz Warren makes her really pathetic announcement. She does that really pathetic beer swilling video that was going around the internet. She goes, hello, hello,

regular people. I'm a regular person. Glug, glug, glug. I'm Liz Warren, a regular person. Glug, glug, glug. It was just pathetic and everyone is mocking her candidacy. Donald Trump obviously sent out the Daily Wire meme about it one 2020. Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, has a different idea for 2020, and I have to say, kills me to say it, he's half right. I think of all the names that are out there, I think Joe Biden has the best case. I think Joe Biden has the best case because he brings the most of the secret ingredient you need to win for a Democrat, which is credibility. You know, where this country is, is they don't believe anyone. Trump was elected as a rejection to the entire system.

They just don't believe the Democrats, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this. You haven't done anything. And every idea you've come up with has backfired. And what have you done to help me in my life? You know, you don't hire an airline pilot who has never flown a plane. where is the credibility in your argument? Joe Biden can say, I was there.

I was not the president, but I was the second seat. Okay, this is actually half right. It's funny because Cuomo starts to undermine his argument. He says, look, you're not going to hire an airline pilot who hasn't flown a plane. Well, Joe Biden hasn't flown. Well, yeah, but he was there. He was there. He was there.

He was in like row five. He was in economy plus comfort. Okay, maybe he hasn't flown a plane, but he paid $150 more to be an economy plus, and he got a little extra leg room and he got free booze on the plane. Okay, it's a muddy argument. But he's making the case that Joe Biden has a lot of experience, and he does have a lot of experience. He was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, senator for a long time. He ran for president about 75,000 times, vice president under Barack Obama,

fairly popular as vice president. That's true. He points out that Donald Trump was a rejection of the system. All so true. One of the reasons, there are many reasons why Donald Trump won, but one of the reasons why he beat out 16 regular old Republicans, then beat out Hillary Clinton, is they were fed up with lying politicians who talk like politicians,

who look like Mitt Romney, who sound like Mitt Romney, who turn around and switch their positions and have no ideological core like Mitt Romney, who stab their allies in the back like Mitt Romney. Can you tell him still a little upset about this Mitt Romney Washington Post op-ed yesterday, just a little bit. But it was a rejection of that. You know, Mitt Romney was our previous GOP nominee. And we looked around at this guy and we said, not him. Anything but that,

can we have the opposite of that, please? And we got, and you get Donald Trump. And the general election turned out that way too. They said, we don't need Clintons. No more Clintons. Stop. We don't want you. We want Donald Trump. That's true. He was a rejection of the system. Unfortunately, Joe Biden is the system. He's been in the system now forever. Andrew Cuomo's right that Democrats have no credibility. What sort of credibility do they have? I mean, I'm trying to think of it. You can't think of a negative. That's the trouble.

What have they done? What was the legacy of the Obama administration? Part of Obamacare? Because not even all of Obamacare exists anymore. The mandate's gone. The central feature of Obamacare is gone. What did the Obama administration do? It was like eight years just vanished.

vanished before my eyes. What does that mean? I mean, who cares? And they no longer like the Clinton administration because he was too conservative and because he's been accused of rape and because he was a sexual predator. So they don't like that.

So where is, what have they done? What credibility do Democrats have over the last 30 years? Not very much. So you've got Joe Biden. Okay, you've got some credibility there and the credibility is that he's got experienced. trouble is, experience doesn't really matter.

Was Donald Trump experienced in politics? No. What office did Donald Trump hold before? Nothing. No office at all. And experience doesn't really seem to matter to the voting public. They picked Trump over Hillary. Hillary, way more experienced, Trump won.

Good thing, Trump won. They picked Barack Obama over John McCain. McCain way more experienced. Barack Obama, still won. They picked George Bush over Al Gore. Al Gore was more experienced. He was in the number two seat. He was the vice president before he ran for president in 2000,

and they picked Bush, and good thing the Bush won. Obviously, George H.W. Bush was more experienced than Bill Clinton. That goes without saying. Jimmy Carter was more experienced than Ronald Reagan. We don't care about experience. Richard Nixon was much more experienced than John F. Kennedy. I think the experience thing is just a total canard. I mean, it's just a total far.

It's one of those things in politics that we think should be true, but it isn't true. We don't care. If anything, experience might be a disadvantage in politics. And so that's really going against Joe Biden. He's also four years older than Trump. Trump is already not young to be the president, and so Biden is already that much older. And the big issue, we were talking about intersectionality, Joe Biden is big daddy. He's a straight white guy who's been in power forever and he's old, and he just really is really going to be hard for the left, which has put all of its money on intersectionality to then nominate and vote for a straight white guy who's old.

It's just I can't really see it happening. I agree with Cuomo. Biden would be the best candidate right now that the Democrats have, but they're not going to nominate him. I just don't. I mean, maybe Barack Obama tries to come out and convince everybody to do it. It's just going to be really hard.

They've set themselves up to fail, and they've set themselves up to fail with their best candidate. We've got a lot more to get to the most disturbing video I've seen in a very long time. And then, of course, the mailbag. But first, you've got to go to Dailywire.com. It's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me. You get the Andrew Cleven show. You get the Ben Shapiro show.

You get to ask questions in the mailbag. You get to watch the backstage and ask questions in the backstage. That's coming up today. Don't miss it with Ben Shapiro, Andrew Cleven, Elisha Kraus, Daily Wire, God King, Jeremy boring and little old me. We'll be ringing in the new year while drinking tumblers of melted leftist snowflakes. So be sure to tune in. As always, only DailyWire subscribers get to ask the questions. So make sure to subscribe today. And then you can catch all of your delicious snowflakes in the Leftist Tears Tumblr and giddy up. You're going to need these.

Otherwise, you will die in the avalanche brought up by the new Congress. Go to DailyWire.com. We'll be right back with both the mailbag and the most disturbing video I've seen in a long time. So there's this woman named Amelia Bono, and she started a movement called the Shout Your Abortion Movement. This is a turn in the left's ideological language. Some of us are old enough to remember when Hillary Clinton 2008 running for president says, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Now, of course, this doesn't make any sense. If abortion is morally similar to murder, then it shouldn't be legal.

If abortion is no different than getting your tonsils taken out, then it shouldn't be rare. But this was her line, and hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and at least she was acknowledging that there is a moral gravity to an abortion, even if she's saying we should have them anyway. Fast forward to now, and you've got the shout your abortion movement being pushed by this woman, Amelia Bono, and she has just released this video of her talking to little children about why abortion is great and why logically, if you follow it to the logical conclusion, their parents should have had the right to kill them. Do you think that sometimes it's not okay to have an abortion?

I want to say if you're being reckless, if there's nothing wrong going on. I don't know. I just don't agree. When you have an abortion, what exactly do you do to have the abortion? You go to the doctor and they put this little straw inside of your cervix and then inside of your uterus. and then they just suck the pregnancy out. And it was like a crappy dentist appointment or something. It was just like, ah, this is like a body thing that's kind of uncomfortable. But then it was over, and I felt really just grateful that I wasn't pregnant anymore.

I felt really, really great. Can't you see how great I feel to bet? That's why I have to talk about it all the time is because of how great I feel. And it's not that my soul is being ripped to shreds from. within me. No, I feel great, kids. I feel great. Don't you want to be like me? That's, you know, there's this, I can't believe they actually included it in there. They included the reaction of a little girl talking to this woman. And she said, what's, what happens in abortion? She said, well, you know, you stick a tube in there and you suck the

pregnancy out. What is the pregnancy? It's the baby, of course. And she says, suck the pregnancy out. And it cuts to the little girl, and the little girl goes, yeah, of course. That's what we all did. You actually, it's pretty dark humor, but you, it actually, it actually prompts laughter because you see that the little kid has it right and this woman is diluting herself to pretend that abortion is okay. What that little kid has is something called the wisdom of repugnance. There are some things that just the, when you just look at the sight of it, something disgusting, something awful, something grotesque, a dead body, you look at it and you just immediately withdraw. It's so disgusting to you. That's the wisdom of repugnance. And that little

girl is showing that when we're talking about killing a baby in the womb, which is abortion. And I'm not going to attack this woman, Amelia Bono. I mean, she should put out more videos. It's the best advertising the pro-life movement has ever had. Also, because this is clearly a deeply disturbed woman. We saw, we did a video on this show. We played it a little while ago of a woman who was at a pro-abortion rally and she was talking about how when she was about to kill her baby, she had this vision of the baby singing a lullaby to her. And then she sang the weird lullaby about how it was okay for the mother to kill her.

She talked about her religious views of how death is not different from life. And it was really creepy. It was really creepy and sick and twisted. And that's what this woman has going on. I mean, that's why if you're confident in a point of view, you probably don't need to go out and sit down with a bunch of children

and try to get little children to affirm your point of view. And fail at it, actually, and not really, because all of the kids said, well, weren't you a little reckless? I mean, maybe you shouldn't do that. Maybe that's not a great idea. And so I really feel for this woman. It's pretty sick and twisted stuff, but this is the logical conclusion. When you wipe away all of the euphemisms of this, sucking out the pregnancy, it's a weird little body thing. It's like an unfund dentist appointment.

When you take out all of the euphemisms, you can always judge how true something is by how many euphemisms and how much jargon is being used to describe it. When you take all of that away, what do you have? You have a woman trying to justify two children why she killed a child. And you look at the kid's reaction and they know it's wrong. And they know innately that it's wrong, intuitively that it's wrong. And she knows that it's wrong too. And she's trying to justify it with lies.

And she's failing. And I think she's probably failing even to herself. The lady doth protest too much. She thinks. She's trying to wipe out that damned spot like Lady Macbeth. I don't know how many more Shakespeare illusions I can use. She knows that it is wrong. It is gnawing at her.

It is keeping her up at night. And she can change her mind. It's not too late. Sometimes when people go down paths of sin and paths of evil and paths of terrible decisions, they say, I'm so far gone. I could never possibly come back. You can. You could do it in two seconds.

You have free will. It's a new day. live in time. You can do it in two seconds. But it's hard for people to admit that they're wrong. It's hard for people to turn around, even though it's totally open for them. Let's get to the mailbag. From Grant. Hi, Michael. I'm 25 years old, and I've had intercourse with two women in my life, my current and my ex-girlfriend. I ostensibly regret doing so with my ex-ex because I've recently come back to serving God and Jesus in my life, and I plan on marrying my current girlfriend of four years after I graduate from university. Should I be feeling regret for the first

time with my ex? What is your stance on no intercourse before marriage? I'm deeply in love with my girlfriend. We talk about marrying each other off and love your work. Thank you for expanding my knowledge, helping get me on the track of Jesus. P.S. Came for Ben, stayed for Michael. Yeah, good man, Grant. Cheers. Okay. Should you regret having sex with your ex-girlfriend? Do you? Do you regret it? I think you do in part. You seem to in part. I mean, I can't tell you if you regret something, but you're writing to me. This is kind of bothering you. Okay, so you clearly regret it in part. But then you said, used this word ostensibly. Apparently, it seems to be. You ostensibly regret having sex with your ex-girlfriend. What do you mean by that? I actually know exactly what you mean by

that. You know, I was an atheist for about 10 years. And I know, and, and, and, and, and, and, I, and, and, I, And some of the great saints in history know exactly what you mean by this. St. Augustine wrote, but I, miserable young man, supremely miserable, even in the very outset of my youth, had entreated chastity of you and said, grant me chastity and continency. But not yet. Lord make me chaste, but not yet. What you're saying is that in a spiritual and intellectual way, you regret having sex with your ex-girlfriend because you know that it's wrong.

And yet, in a physical way, in a way that satisfies the very, real passions that you feel in your very real physical body, you don't regret it because it felt awesome and you really liked it and it was a lot of fun. That's what you're saying. Okay. Yeah, right. That's my opinion. That's exactly right. The fact that you enjoyed having sex with your ex-girlfriend in a very physical way does not change the fact that in an intellectual way you regret having sex because you realize it may have demeaned certain relationships and it would have been better if you had waited to have sex and you might have used somebody just for sex rather than for some better relationship. And it also doesn't change the fact that intellectually, you know

that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. It doesn't change that at all. I don't know if it should keep you up at night. That is the human condition. We are always striving against our flesh, which has appetites that our intellect doesn't have. So you did it. And now you want to get married and you know that it's wrong, okay, life goes on. The one thing you should not do and you should really seek to avoid, but our culture does it all the time, is we say my body desires one thing, and so I need to change my mind to agree with the lusts of my body,

or else I'm a hypocrite. That doesn't make you a hypocrite because you think it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, and yet you had sex with your ex-girlfriend. It makes you a human who's fallen and has desires and can't always control his desires. That makes you human, not a hypocrite. hypocrite. Now, if you're constantly going out and carousing and doing it anyway, then, you know,

if you make a habit of it, then you would be a hypocrite. But it would be far, far worse to change your mind and say, no, because I had sex before marriage, it's okay to have sex before marriage or outside of marriage. That would be the wrong thing. And that would be the most dishonest thing, because something tells me that your intellect is thinking more clearly than, you know, a young man's body speaking from experience. That doesn't, young men's, bodies don't always think in the clearest kind of way. From Eric, Dear Michael, aka dapper lib-triggering troll, can you explain the key differences between conservatism and, as Dave Rubin would say, classical liberalism? Yes, this is an excellent question. Well done. This is confusing because in the

United States, conservatives largely seek to preserve a classically liberal tradition. And the classical liberals would call these universal truths. I, as a conservative, would not call these necessarily universal truths. I would call it a classically liberal tradition. The difference here is that conservatives like Alexander Hamilton or like Edmund Burke, while defending a classically liberal tradition, remain skeptical of those universal truths and prefer a series of trial and error, whereas classical liberals are so enthusiastic about it and they embrace it entirely. This, I think, would be difference. It's a subtle difference, but a major one. Classical liberals tend to talk about the enlightenment as if history began in the late 17th century. History began just after Thomas Hobbs,

and all of history that matters has happened in the modern era. They are thoroughly modern, whereas conservatives think there's a lot more to history and to the world than that. There's a lot more than just John Locke. John Locke is not the be-all and end-all of political philosophy. We've had many more things that matter. Institutions matter. This is another difference between the classical liberal and the conservative. The classical liberal tends to always speak in rationalist terms. He's always standing for something. And it's only about principles, usually universal principles. And in institutions be damned. And who cares about candidates or elections or dates or times or political parties or none of that matters? All that matters are the ethereal rationalist

abstractions and ideologies that stand up here and they just kind of float in the air and whenever you try to touch them, you corrupt them. Whereas the conservative would say, hey, buddy, look down here, come here, come back to reality. There are institutions that transmit these ideas and we can arrive at some of the same conclusions. Classical liberals and conservatives, especially in America, arrive at many, many of the same conclusions. But we do so because we say these ideas have been transmitted through time, through the tradition, through constant trial and error on the local level, on the state level, on the federal level, in religious institutions, in the military, in all everywhere, all around the culture. And they have been

tested, they've been tried, they've been refined, and they have lasted, and they've endured, and perhaps they've endured for a reason. And therefore, we can support the idea, but we remain skeptical of pure rationalist abstractions. You can tell which side of this I come down on. I come down on the conservative side, not the classical liberal side. But I think that a lot of the anti-Trump stuff, the schism on the right between the never-trumpers and the people who either reluctantly or enthusiastically embrace Trump, I think it's about this argument because a lot of classical liberals will tell you that all that matters, there's no difference between conservatism and classical liberalism, but there is. You'll hear some people say, I'm a conservative because

I'm a liberal. I'm a real liberal. Bill Crystal, who is probably the leading never-trumper, says, we should rename the Republican Party, the liberal party, and we should just have a liberal party. That's fine for liberals, for classical liberals. But for those of us who think that history began before the late 17th and 18th century who like other ideas, who have other senses of things, who don't want to just float in the abstract, who like institutions, who like the ideas that are embodied in them, who like culture, who like the things that can't be written down in a philosophy textbook, that's not going to cut it. And we're not to totally married to rationalism. And so I endorse conservative thought over classically liberal

thought. But it's confusing in America because when you just look on the surface, it's very often almost the same thing. Dave Rubin and I, if you look at precise political issues, don't disagree on too much. We disagree on some things, but probably we agree on more than we disagree on. But when you look at the foundations of those thoughts, they're probably quite different. From Mary, hey, Michael, as a Catholic, why do you believe in the death penalty? Don't you, agree with the Catholic Catechism, updated version even before Francis, that says it is immoral unless in extreme circumstances in which the public is at risk if the person is not killed, it est, if jail systems are insufficient, et cetera? No, not at all. And the catechism doesn't say that.

The catechism even still refuses to say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. Pope Francis has all but said that. He's said that it's an attack on the inviolability of the dignity of the human person or some such language. But that isn't true. That's just wrong. It is certainly the tradition of all of Christendom that the death penalty is perfectly fine and defended. St. Paul defends it in his letters.

It is defended in the Gospels. As the civil authority, having civil authority, is defended in the Gospels. In fact, our salvation comes through the crucifixion, which is an example of the death penalty being instituted by a civil authority. Thomas Aquinas defends this, the church fathers defend this endlessly. The point I'll make on this is that all shallows are clear.

A lot of people look today and they say, oh, the death penalty seems bad. And a couple popes, one pope has said it's really, really bad. So therefore it's bad. No, it goes a little deeper than that. You have to think a little bit more deeply. All shallows are clear and profound things are murky and a little more complicated sometimes, but that's their nature. From Brett,

O cofefefe sensei, Osu, cofefefei sense. In my endless debates with a family member of mine who identifies as a democratic socialist, I stumbled upon a hurdle I cannot quite clear. The military police and border security

are all socialist programs, and if we do not have a problem with these socialized programs, and more than that, we love them, then why am I so staunchly opposed to the socialist health care and socialism in general? Thanks, Mike.

Well, I wouldn't call them socialist. They're for the common defense. Everything you name is for the common defense, our military, border security, law enforcement. And that's the purpose of the government. We have a government to defend law and order and to defend us from threats outside and threats inside. And they do it well, but there are mistakes. You know, the left constantly is talking about how awful the military is, how awful the police are. They want to demilitarize the police, meaning they want the police to be even less like the military.

So it's a little disingenuous for them to then gum, around and say how great the military and the police are. The point is that when you give the government that power, it's very hard to get it back. You can't really take it back from them. And the police and the military make mistakes, too. I mean, we give them that power and they do a wonderful job for us and they protect us and they defend our liberty. But we only want to give the government, the amount of power that is minimum to protect us and to protect our liberty and to protect our civilization. Why would we give them any more than that? The government isn't very good at doing things. The government isn't very good at managing huge bureaucracies

and huge power on the national scale, especially, can really corrupt people. So if you give the government control over your health care, all of a sudden, in a very practical way, you're going to see quality go down and the costs go up. But in a spiritual way, and in a matter of political rights, you're going to see that you're not going to have as much control over your body, over your family, over your liberty, over your life. You're going to have, like in England, You're going to have parents begging to take their little baby and get medical care outside of the UK. The Pope interjecting on the baby's behalf and saying, bring him to this hospital. The United States saying, bring him to this hospital.

And the government's saying, no, we own your baby, we own your life, deal with it. You gave us that power. That's why you have to stay away from socialism. One more before we go from Augustine. Michael, I have been talking to a girl for a while now. We're finally ready to go on our first date. We've not yet discussed politics. So I was curious of how you brought up the topic.

with Sweet Little Elisa and any other dating tips you have, any other dating tips you have. Well, when I first met Sweet Little Elisa, I was 11 years old, so it didn't come up right away. I mean, I did come out of the womb smoking a cigar and reading Edmund Burke, so there is that parting my hair. But it didn't come up right away. No, we talked about other things, certainly when we were 12, and politics comes up when you talk, and you talk about culture, and you talk about personal things, you talk about whatever. But I never made a point about it. I wouldn't worry about it. I mean, here's my main advice on dating. You should enjoy it. It's very fun. It is a great pleasure and privilege to be in the company of a woman, having a drink, having a meal, what are, you know, going on a walk. This is a wonderful thing. This is one of the great joys of life. Enjoy it. Talk to her. Find out what she thinks. Find out what her points of view. Make her laugh.

little bit. Show her something she hasn't seen. That could be taken in a very bad way. I'm talking about a sunset or something. Be romantic. Be charming. Enjoy. If you're not enjoying the date, she's not enjoying the date. I promise you that. And don't make it, it's not a job interview. You're not like, okay, are you going to be my wife? Are we going to get married tomorrow? Okay, do you check this box? No, come on, man. She's a human being. She's a woman. This is one of the great consolations of life. Enjoy it. Have a good time. If you don't, let me know how it goes. Then I'll try to give you more advice. All right, that's our show. We've got a backstage coming up, so I've got to get out of here. But tune in for that. It's going to be a lot of fun. In the meantime, I'm Michael Noles.

This is the Michael Noles show. I'll see you soon. The Michael Nolz 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 Nicol. Audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing Production. Copyright Forward Publishing 2018. Hi, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. The new senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, is auditioning for John McCain's slot as a media darling by attacking Donald Trump. We'll look at the implications of that on the Andrew Claven show. I'm Andrew Claven.