The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 285 - Walls Work

Episode Date: January 23, 2019

President Trump has a new governing theme: Build A Wall And Crime Will Fall! Then, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar doubles down on smearing the Covington boys, Nick Sandmann goes on the Today Show, and the culture of death kills Holland. Date: 01-23-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump has a new governing theme. Bill DeWall and Crime Will Fall. If the glove doesn't fit, I don't know, there are a lot of things that rhyme. Do Walls work, or are they merely a symbol of security? We will analyze. Then Democrat Representative Elon Omar doubles down on smearing the Covington boys. Nick Sandman goes on The Today Show and the Culture of Death kills from America to Holland. I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.

This is the greatest evidence yet that Donald Trump is listening to Alan Dershowitz, that his new governing theme is build a wall and crime will fall. Alan Dershowitz famously on the dream team defending O.J. Simpson, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit and build that wall, which will be good for all. And the president is really tall. I don't know. I like, rhymes actually do work as they stick in people's minds. And President Trump is absolutely right about this theme.

Build a wall, crime will fall. We'll go through all of the evidence. But first, let's make a little money with a. new sponsor, Untuck it. Oh, how I love Untuck it. Here is a tip. Listen, you know, the Vanity Fair called me a dapper, lip-triggering troll. I try to take a little care for my appearance, and no guy looks good if he has a button-down shirt or an Oxford shirt that's all bulky and it's untucked

and it's hanging down to your ankles. That doesn't look good. That's called a nightgown, fellas, don't wear it. You might think it looks casual. You might think, oh, I'm really cool. I'm epithetic. It looks awful. It looks very sloppy. because the shirts were never meant to be worn that way. They were meant to be tucked. Those are tucket shirts. These are untucket shirts, which are made especially to be worn untucked.

And they look super sleek. I first found out about them. I saw some ads maybe on Facebook or something. Oh, that looks interesting. Then Jeremy Boring, the God King, is an evangelist of Untucket. So he starts wearing these shirts. I said, wow, that's a good looking shirt. He said, oh, it's Untucket, Michael, because I'm a cool guy.

So, okay, great. So I knew I had to get them then. Not too long, not too short for that cleaning. casual look that you can wear even at the office. They have more than 50 fit combinations. They look great on tall, short, slim, and athletic guys of all ages. Go to Untucket.com or visit one of Untucket's 50 stores across the U.S. and Canada. I actually went to an Untucket store here in L.A. It's great. They'll size you up. They'll fit you into a shirt. Fabulous product. promo code MK.S. for 20% off your first purchase. If you want the perfect fitting shirt,

regardless of your shape and size, try the original Untucked shirt. Remember to use promo code M-K-S for 20% off your first purchase. You will love them. Build the wall and crime will fall. So the left is saying, walls don't work. This is their new line. Walls don't work. Walls don't work. Walls are immoral. Walls are ineffective. Walls are really terrible. Walls are too expensive. They don't work. This is what they all say. But they do work. Obviously, this argument doesn't make any sense. They say, They say walls don't work and they're immoral. Well, why are they immoral? They're saying they're immoral because they keep people out, but if they keep people out, then they work.

They say that walls are too expensive. The president's only asking for $5 billion, which is statistically zero of the federal budget. But do they, let's just take on that. We know that walls are perfectly moral. We know that walls are not terribly expensive. Do they work? Do they work? Well, let's look at some of the walls that work.

do they work, according to DHS secretary, former DHS secretary, Elaine Duke. They work not only around the world, but in the United States. On Yuma, they built, right by Yuma in the United States, agents were arresting 800 people per day. Trucks were crossing in with a lot of drugs, not through ports of entry, but through little vanishing points where they could disappear really quickly and you couldn't catch them. So around 2005, you had this huge number of illegal aliens pouring in. In 2006, Democrats and Republicans came together for the Secure Fences Act of 2006. This is back when Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and everybody was supporting building a wall before they hated building a wall because Donald Trump wants to build a wall. When they built that wall within one year, apprehensions across that border dropped 90%.

They were one-tenth of what they were before 2005 as of 2016. Customs and Border Patrol have saved nearly. 4,000 near-death individuals who were lost in that desert. AEI has even more examples. AEI showed a great list of these, the American Enterprise Institute. In Israel, they have a border wall with the West Bank. They didn't build the border wall 60 years ago or 50 years ago. They built it in 2001, 2002, after a campaign against Israel terrorist campaigns. How did the wall work then? Well, successful terrorist attacks dropped 90% after they built that wall. Same number that we're seeing in Yuma.

How about also in Israel, the border with Egypt in 2013. Again, not ancient history, but relatively recently, Israel reinforced their wall. It cut illegal crossings into Israel to almost zero. A massive drop in illegal crossings. Outside of Israel in Morocco, there's a wall between Morocco and Algeria. Morocco was fighting off terrorist campaign during the Cold War by Algeria's proxy, the Polisario Front. Polisario Front lost strength after Mexico built a 1,700-mile wall. So we hear it's impossible.

You can't build even 200 miles. Well, they built a 1,700-mile wall, wall, fences, minefields, ditches, all these sorts of things. What happened? It worked. It stopped the attacks. It kept the country safe. How about in Cyprus? So now we're moving a little closer to home.

the claim that we hear it now on the immoral side is that walls are illegal, walls are immoral, walls violate international law, except they don't. They don't violate international law. In Cyprus, the United Nations built a wall. They built a wall in Cyprus, dividing Cyprus between the northern Turkish population and the Greek section after Turkey invaded in 1974. Was that against international law? No, the international lawmaking body is the group that built it. India Pakistan, India Pakistan have been fighting for a very long time. Wars in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1999 killed millions of people. India built a wall along its border to deter Pakistani terrorist attacks, and it has worked. And it's very important there. We would know if it doesn't work because those countries have nuclear weapons and they could send us all up in smoke, but the wall worked. How about Turkey and Syria? So in Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers Party was from Syria was attacking Turkey. Turkey decided to reinforce its border. What did they use? They used all the things everybody else used. They used fences. They actually used minefields. They used no man's land.

And for the next 15 years after they built that wall, everything remained relatively peaceful and quiet. And actually, the attacks only picked up again after Erdogan, the current leader of Turkey, started removing parts of that wall and dismantling parts of that border security. How about in Europe? How about Hungary? Hungary built a border wall because they were being inundated with migrants from the Middle East. Inundated constantly. They were a port of entry. They built that wall.

It dropped illegal crossings down to just about zero. And again, back to the beautiful old United States in El Paso. They built the wall, a section of border fencing along there. During the five-year period after they built that fencing, illegal crossings dropped 89%. And there's been a recent uptick because the Trump economy has been so good, even with the recent uptick, illegal crossings are still below pre-fence levels? Where do other walls work? Other walls work at homes, prisons, schools, the Vatican forts, castles, movie studios, and gated communities. They work in all of those places. So why can't they work here? What's the problem? We've already done it. It has

already worked here. Some conservatives, I think, they have this line, which I understand, I used to say things like this, which is, well, the wall, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really matter. It matters from a symbolic point of view. It matters because Donald Trump needs to show that he's keeping his campaign promise. It shows because as a symbol, it is keeping people away and it's saying we're not going to tolerate illegal aliens. All of that is true. Also, it works to deter migrants. It actually keeps them out. These numbers that keep popping up, 90%, 89%, 90%. There's a reason why people have built walls for all of human history. Because they do. work. And this last

example, this gated community, you know, gated communities have walls. This, I think, is the analogy for the United States. The United States is the gated community of countries. We're the nicest country. We've got the nicest people. It's all really pleasant there. Everyone's basically happy. We've got

a ton of money. And people want to come in and rob us. People want to come in and get some of that sweet, sweet loot. And people in gated communities don't have gates. they hate everybody on the outside, because they don't want to talk to everybody on the outside, because they never want to leave their gated community or anything, do business with people outside

the gate. Of course not. They have the gate up because people are posing a threat to them on the inside, because they have really nice stuff and they want to keep it, because they've got a nice little community. We are the gated community of countries. We should build the gate. We should build the wall. Now, how do we get out of this shutdown? Because this is the problem. We're still in this shutdown now. I think we're on day 475. It's the longest shutdown in American history. No, what are we on? We're on 34 maybe, something like that. How do we get out of this shutdown? The current suggestion, apparently being floated to the president, reportedly from Jared Kushner, is to give green cards to 700,000 DACA or Dreamers, the people who

were brought here when they were under the age of 18. Some of whom now are 40 years old. I mean, the people continue to age. They're not all cute little kids, you know, sitting around saying Google Gaga, over time, this problem's been unaddressed, and so you've got these older people here now. 700,000 put on a path to legalization. That's a lot. That's a lot to pay for a wall that Democrats voted for 10 years ago. It doesn't seem like a great idea. In fact, it seems like a terrible idea. It's the sort of idea, I think, that would be embraced by the Wall Street Journal kind of Republicans, it would be embraced by liberal Republicans, moderate Democrats. They say, okay, it's fine. We don't really care about immigration. Walls don't even really work.

We're just doing this to kind of get out of a tight jam politically. It's a symbol, blah, blah, no. The reason we want the wall is because we need to be able to control our country. We need to be able to control our electoral system. We need to be able to control our government. There was a poll that showed that the majority of Americans do not simply want to end illegal immigration. They want to dramatically reduce legal immigration. Currently, our immigration regime permits 1.2 million people to come into this country every year. The majority of Americans, according to polling, want to drop that number to about half a million, which is still pretty good. We take in so many more immigrants in this country than anybody else

in the world. So I don't think it's insane to say, okay, we'll take in half a million people a year in a country of 300 million people. That's still a lot of people every year, rather than more than double that. But the reason we want the wall is because when we all take people in, that's all well and good. When the people come in, though, in order for that not to destabilize our country, that they need to assimilate. They need to speak English. They need to like our culture. They need to like our customs. They have to get on board with the project that we're all doing together. The other reason is Democrats realize that a great many immigrants, the majority of immigrants from a lot of places, identify as Democrat. They continue to vote in blocks. You know, the Italians when they

came here. They came to America. They were ashamed of where they came from. They quickly learned English, and they assimilated. They assimilated so much so that you can't predict an Italian-Americans' political views. I descend from Italian immigrants on my mother's side. Nancy Pelosi descends from Italian immigrants. Andy Cuomo descends from Italian immigrants. Antonin Scalia descends from Italian immigrants. We have very different political views, Justice Scalia and I compared to Cuomo and Nancy Pelosi because you can't predict how someone's going to vote by that ethnicity. Unfortunately, because we've got a multicultural regime that is encouraging people to flood into the country and not assimilate, and actually not just not assimilate, but de-assimilate.

People who are assimilating now should revert to some other culture that isn't actually theirs, according to the left. Because of that, you can predict with near certainty where the way that people from certain countries are going to vote. That's a bad thing. It means that our culture isn't doing a very good job of bringing them in. Whose fault is that? That's the left. Nevertheless, that's the problem. So Democrats see that opportunity. And they say, oh, great. So we can't win elections with Americans, but if we just import huge numbers of people, more than twice as many people as the country actually wants to take in every year, then we can get them to vote for us, flood the

country with our voters, and then we can do whatever we want. That's quite unjust. There's nothing American about that. There's nothing, obviously, there's nothing. Obviously, legal about it because of our illegal immigration problem, but there's nothing fair. There's nothing democratic about that. There's nothing liberal about that. So the wall matters in a very tangible, practical way. The reason it matters is so that we don't flood the country with people who the country doesn't want to be here. And if in exchange for building the wall, you legalize nearly a million people who Democrats are hungry to legalize because statistically they're going to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats,

then it's a Pyrrhic victory. What have you accomplished? You've built the wall, but you've legalized all of the people that the wall is meant to discourage. What's the point of that? Oh, great, we built the wall. I mean, Anne Coulter had that funny tweet yesterday.

She said, okay, if we give amnesty to a million people in exchange for 200 miles, if we give amnesty to a billion people, maybe we can get the whole wall. That'd be great, but what's the point there? You bring a billion people in, and then you don't have a country. anymore. It's a very bad idea. I hope the president doesn't take it seriously, and I hope that

it's being floated out there to get the opinions of President Trump's base in which I find myself, let's make it clear. This is not what we want. The Democrats will fold on this. Nobody cares about this shutdown. It's hurting some federal workers. That's sad. The vast majority of Americans don't care about it. Many people don't even know that the government is shut down. It's not affecting their the president was elected to build the wall and stop illegal immigration. The majority of Americans want to reduce legal immigration. This is a winning issue. Don't fail.

Don't flop on it. What's the point of that? They would have elected Democrats if they wanted you to do this. So, I mean, Democrats do this all the time. Because they control the media, they're able to make it seem like there's this huge public pressure to give them exactly what they want. No, they want you to pass what will end up being a very unpopular policy. It's a trick. It's a trap. Don't fall for it. Very bad idea. We've got to get to these Covington kids, too. These Covington, there are more, there are new developments. You thought you'd seen it all with that absolute media hit job. Well, now we see there was initially this very short video floating around the internet. And then this Twitter account, this mysterious Twitter account posted it and said, these kids are harassing a Native American. The Twitter account is now gone. It turns out it was.

a fraudulent account. We don't know if this account was from some foreign agent trying to stir up trouble. We don't know who it is, but it's been taken off of Twitter. When all of the video came out, we found out that narrative was completely false. It was completely flipped on its head. But that was not before. The mainstream media, parts of the Catholic Church, a ton of Democrat politicians, even many conservative pundits, piled on these kids with no evidence. Most of the conservatives at this point have apologized. Most of the other people have not apologized. Now, Ilan Omar, that freshman congresswoman from the Democrats, is doubling down. She tweeted out, quote, the boys were protesting a woman's right to choose and yelled, it's not rape if you

enjoy it. They were taunting five black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants. Sandman's family hired a right-wing PR firm to write his non-apology. Yeah, it's a non-apology because he's got nothing to apologize for. You have something to apologize for. Ilan Omar has hypnotized the Democrats, I pray that video footage will awaken them to the evil doings of Ilan Omar and points to those of you who caught that reference. So the boys were protesting a woman's right to choose. Okay, they were protesting the slaughter of millions of babies, 60 million babies since Roe v. Wade. That's what they were protesting. Why were they protesting it? Because, well, because it's the wholesale slaughter of 60 million babies since Roe v. Wade. Also, because

because they're Catholic, but the Democrat Party despises religious freedom and particularly Catholicism these days. We see this in Diane Feinstein trying to disqualify judges for being Catholic, Kamala Harris trying to do exactly the same thing. Umar alleges that they were shouting it's not rape if you enjoy it. There's no evidence of this. There was some video of some other people around them because other people obviously came into the melee and someone made have said that, but it seems to have been in response as a joke, albeit maybe a bad joke, to some of the black Israelis.

But we don't even know, now it's being alleged that that person doesn't go to Covington Catholic. The reason that we have to believe the kid didn't go to Covington Catholic is because there were a lot of girls around there too. Covington Catholic is in all boys' school. So, I don't know where this kid was from. Certainly that wasn't, by the way, that wasn't in the original

video. So the fact that Ilan Omar is doubling down on this is absurd. They're just trying to distract because they can't admit that they were wrong. Now, Bon Omar, while not apologizing and while not apologizing for that tweet, did delete the tweet because she knew it was a terrible look. I mean, just a terrible idea. The other new information we've gotten in the last few days is that Nathan Phillips, you remember

that Native American, elder, Vietnam veteran, how dare these kids disrespect him. They approached him, they harassed him. Turns out none of that's true. He approached them. He harassed them. He banged a drum in their face. And it turns out he's not a Vietnam veteran. He didn't even fight in Vietnam, which was the headline blared on every newspaper for the past three days.

Washington Post, a Vietnam veteran. Where are those retractions? He's a veteran. He served, I think, 1972 to 76, something like that. But he did not serve in combat. He did not serve in Vietnam. And I bring this up, I mean, good for him for serving at all. But I bring this up because he's using this phrase, Vietnam Times veteran.

And he's allowing this misinformation to go around all the mainstream of Vietnam veteran, Vietnam veteran. The phrase Vietnam Times veteran, when you use it to boast about yourself, is an intentionally misleading phrase, which is crafted to imply wrongly that you served in combat in Vietnam. That's what it's about. If he had said, look, I'm a veteran. Say, okay, you're a veteran. Good for you for putting on the uniform. That's a great thing. Thanks. say, I'm a Vietnam Times veteran. So what was that? What was that? What was that second word? And I called it. I knew it. I said the first show back. I said, he uses this strange phrase. I wonder what that is.

I didn't want to accuse him, obviously, without evidence, because I'm not a member of the mainstream media. So if I had been for the Washington Post, I would have immediately had a giant headline, this guy's a dirty, rotten monster who didn't serve in Vietnam. But then I waited. This is what journalists are supposed to do. You wait for the information to come out. It turns out our hunch was right. He didn't serve in Vietnam. He also is a huge jerk. We now know that as well.

He's a gigantic jerk. It turns out that he led just around the day of this incident, 20 Native Americans to disrupt a vigil mass that was occurring. This was just reported from the Catholic News Service. He tried to break into a church and disrupt a vigil mass because he's a huge jerk. They said it was scared. the people inside. They said, unfortunately, the guards were basically able to keep him out.

He's a lunatic. He's a lunatic and he's a liar. And the mainstream media are lunatics and liars. I don't know which they are most of the time. I guess they're not mutually exclusive. Now we're seeing the replay of this Brett Kavanaugh incident. We're seeing the replay almost exactly with this kid, Nick Sandman, who was the leader of the Covington students. He was the one sitting there, standing there while the Native American banged a drum

his face. So now he's getting the full Kavanaugh treatment. He was brought on the Today Show to discuss his experience. Do you feel from this experience that you owe anybody an apology? Do you see your own fault in any way? As far as standing there, I had every right to do so. I don't, my position is that I was not disrespectful to Mr. Phillips. I respect. I, I respect. him. I'd like to talk to him. I mean, in hindsight, I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing. But I can't say that I'm sorry for listening to him and standing there. This morning, 16-year-old Nick Sandman standing by his actions in this moment gone viral. The junior at Kentucky's Covington Catholic High School, now the face of this Lincoln Memorial

confrontation with Native American elder Nathan Phillips. Confried's the face of the confrontation. First of all, no. he isn't. Nathan Phillips is the face of the confrontation because he started the confrontation. He marched up out of nowhere and started banging a drum in some poor kid's face. He is the face of the confrontation. The victim of

the confrontation is Nick Sandman and this kid. But I love his answer. I would not have had the restraint that he has. I wouldn't have had the restraint on the National Mall. I wouldn't have had the restraint on the Today Show. So do you apologize for your actions? Do you feel bad for what you did? He said,

No, I don't feel sorry for standing and having a Native American bang a drum in my face. I'm not sorry for, that's not a sin. I don't know how familiar you are with mortal and venial sins, but this is not a sin to stand there and take abuse from some lunatic Native American activist banging a drum in my teenage face, you freaking hack. So he handled himself with incredible maturity, incredible responsibility, restraint. You'll remember, by the way, the comparisons between this and Brett Kavanaugh, I would have gone the Kavanaugh route. I would have gone out there guns ablazing. No, Savannah,

I'm not sorry. I still like beer. I like beer. Sometimes I drink too much. When I drink too much, I don't bang drums in teenagers' faces because I'm a normal person. I'm not a lunatic actor. I don't disrupt vigil masses. This is the Kavanaugh incident. They might as well call it Kavanaugh-Noveington High school at this point in Kentucky. The parallels are exact. And there are people, by the way, members of the media, who posted pictures of the two of them. Because for some people, what this is really about is how much they hate white guys, specifically conservative white guys. Nathan Phillips is Christine Blasey Ford here. He's even a little kookier of it. Just a little bit. That's what it is. He's Christine Blasey Ford. Nathan Phillips is a demonstrable liar whose story keeps changing

and who the mainstream media keep giving cover to, even after the story changes and changes and changes. Sarah Sanders put it perfectly. I've never seen people so happy to destroy a kid's life. When that becomes the norm in the media in America, simply because they're associated with this president, that is disgraceful, and that should never happen. Let's hope that this is a lesson to all of the media, to everyone.

Let's focus on getting things right, not getting them first. I've never seen people more excited to destroy someone's life since Brett Kavanaugh, since they were begging to destroy. Brett Kavanaugh is not a teenager, though you would have thought he was a teenager from everything they were talking about, what he did when he was 16, what he did,

what was written in his high school yearbook. It's unbelievable the parallels. And they really wanted to destroy this guy, Brett Kavanaugh, who had unimpeachable character, federal judge for 12 years, no one ever questioned his integrity, until Donald Trump appointed him for something. What about this poor kid?

What did this kid ever do? Oh, he wore a make America great again hat. He associated with a symbol that Donald Trump uses. And so they had to destroy him. The only honest take on this was from the left-winger's on the view. Many people admitted they made snap judgments before these other facts came in. But is it that we just... We just to say that's what it is based on what we see in that moment,

and then have to walk stuff back when it turns out we're wrong. Why is that, why is, do we keep making the same mistake? Because we're desperate to get Trump out of office. That's why. Not everybody, though. What does that have to do? I think that that's the reason. I think the press jumps the gun a lot because we just,

we have so much circumstantial evidence against this guy that we basically are hoping that, you know, Cohen's got the goods and what have you. And so it's wishful thinking. Right, but let's talk about the kids in this particular. All right. Confrontations, since that's the question at hand. You also have Trump supporters that also jump to judgment, too. So I wouldn't say it's all to get Trump out of office.

I think a collective, we as a society, jump to judgment today, and you believe whatever you want to believe. If you see that video, and it helps the narrative that you believe, that you believe in, then I think we're quick to jump on that. That's right. That's exactly what. Joy Behar is right. The reason that they jumped on this is because the left is so desperate to get Trump out of office. And Abby, the one sort of more right-leaning person on the view, Megan McCain, I guess, is there too, but Abby certainly is that way.

She says, look, you see what you want to see. You see what you want to believe, which is half right. That's certainly true of the left. The left saw that video, and they saw what they wanted to see, and they ran with that narrative. And some right-wingers saw what they wanted to see. The right-winger who opposed Donald Trump saw these MAGA hat-wearing kids, and they immediately condemned them. National Review said they should have, might as well have spit on the cross. So really reactionary stuff. Luckily, at least the conservative ones apologized.

I'll tell you what I did, though. When I saw that video, I didn't see what I wanted to see. I didn't react to having seen what I wanted to see. I just kept quiet for like 12 hours. Like 12 hours. It wasn't like I stayed quiet for a week. I said, hmm, this is inconclusive. I don't know what this means.

Maybe I'll keep my mouth shut for like 12 hours and see what happens. And I'm really glad I did that because 12 hours later, an hour of video came out and flipped the entire narrative. It's basically the left that saw what they wanted to see. Broadly, the right and independence didn't see what they wanted to see. They saw a video. They didn't know what they were. looking at because it was a very quick video that was very inconclusive. Then they waited for 12

hours and then it was fine. This is not a, oh shucks, it's all of our fault. Oh gosh darn it. We all have to do better. No, the left has to do better. And some trigger happy people on the right have to do better too. But broadly speaking, the right, broadly speaking, people in the middle independence. It's not that they have to do better. It's the left. It's the mainstream media. It's politicians. It's parts of the Catholic Church. It's everyone who piled on those kids and didn't apologize. Okay, we've got to talk about how New York is now legalizing abortion

up until the date of birth. If you, you know, you're nine months pregnant, you're thinking, oh, oh, I might be going into labor pain soon, time to get an abortion. You can now do that in New York State because of the sick governor there, Andrew Cuomo. We will analyze that. We will analyze the case for life

and the case for death, how it affects New York, how it affects all the way over to the Netherlands. But first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook in YouTube. Coming up next Tuesday, January 29th, tune into our next episode of Daily Wire backstage. State of the Union edition. Maybe, you know, if they have the state of the union. Daily Wire God King, Jeremy Boring, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Claven, Alicia Krause, and myself,

little all me, will be smoking Stogies, breaking down Trump's speech, separating the MAGA from the non-Maga. I will be just hoarding all of the MAGA. I will be bathing myself in it and enjoying those sweet, sweet leftist tears. As always, only DailyWire subscribers get to ask the questions, so make sure to subscribe today. Ten bucks a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, the Andrew Claven Show, the Ben Shapiro Show. You get to ask questions in the mailbag. Coming up tomorrow, by the way, get your mailbag questions in.

You get to ask questions on backstage. You get another kingdom. You get everything. You get everything. And you get this. You get that, mm, mm, this blend makes me smirk. This one makes me smirk.

This is the Covington High School Blank. blend. This is the entire mainstream media apparatus humiliates and destroys itself blend. Oh, I've never wanted to smirk more. Somebody start banging on a drum. I want to smirk even more. Go to dailywire.com. We'll be right back. New York is

legalizing abortion up until the date of birth, which I think at the date of birth we can all agree that you just call that infanticide. So now the day before birth, do you call that infanticide? No, the left calls it abortion. It calls it. a women's health or a woman's right to choose. This is a pretty sick governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. How do you kick off the press conference, Governor? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

How exciting is today? First, let's give Barnard and the leadership a big round of applause. Thank you for having us here today. How exciting is today? We're going to kill a lot more babies. We're going to kill them right up until the day of birth. How exciting. and then all everybody in the press, yay, yay, yay. It's almost comical if it weren't so tragic. It is farcical. That's certainly the case. It's crazy.

How exciting is today we now get to kill eight and a half month old babies in the state of New York. That's all this is about. Reproductive justice. That's all that this is about. I've met Andrew Cuomo on two occasions. I was his waiter one time when I was in high school. And then I was wandering around New York right as Hurricane San. Andy was happening, and I ran into him walking around the street. This guy is a pretty tough

ombre. This guy is a pretty no-nonsense bulldog-like character. He clearly has higher political ambitions. His father didn't run for president, though he was expected to. They called him Hamlet on the Hudson. Andrew Cuomo says he's not going to run for president this time around. He clearly wants to be the president. He's been in politics his whole life. Cuomo initially positioned himself as a sort of moderate Democrat. Now he's running far to the left, and that's what this is all about. This is about his future political ambitions in a Democrat party that no longer believes abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It believes that you should be able to kill a baby on the very day that he's about to be born. That's what they believe now.

At least they're honest. Andrew Cuomo is an old Hillary Clinton guy. He went with the transition team in 1992 to help out the transition. He never left. He stuck around Bill Clinton's administration until the very end of it. He's been close with Hillary for a long time. He invited Hillary to the stage while he announced the new reproductive law where the ironically named reproductive law because it's about the opposite of reproduction. It's about killing a baby that's about to be born. He goes on. The only woman, Deborah Glick was a pioneer and a crusader for women's rights and LGBT rights before many of the people in this room were even aware of the fight. Deborah Glick,

God bless you. you, probably a poor choice of words from the governor. Just a rule of thumb if you are announcing that you're going to kill many, many, many, many more babies. Best not to invoke God. I don't think he takes kindly to that sort of thing. It's also ironic how he's talking about that. He says, this is all about women's rights. What about the 30 million baby girls who were killed between Roe v. Wade and today? What about them? Is it about their rights? 30 million. I bet a lot more people would have turned out to the women's march if those 30 million women were still alive if they hadn't been killed before they were born. Only a few thousand people, maybe 10,000

people turned out to the women's march across the country over the weekend. But 30 million more women would have really helped. But too bad, not about women's rights. LGBTIQ rights. He says, oh, it's all about LGBTQ. We're already seeing sex selective abortion in the United States, sex selective fertility, certainly, in the United States. We're already seeing gene-edited babies around the world. We see a lot of selection when it comes to abortion and fertility around the world. When they identify the gay gene, this is what scientists are looking for. This is what the left's premise, you know, you're born this way. This is what this leads to, that there's a gay gene. Do we really believe that people won't select against the gay gene? The whole argument from the

LGBT left is that it's it's stigmatized, that it's looked on with opprobrium to be gay or transgender. If that is true, and if people are also editing their babies from whole scratch, if they're designing their babies, do we really think that they're not going to select against that? They already select against women. They already prefer men to women. They already prefer baby boys to baby girls. This has been borne out in a lot of public opinion surveys. They already kill people with mental disabilities. Iceland laughed about this. They said, this is so wonderful. They bragged. They said, we have eliminated Down syndrome in Iceland. No, you just kill all the Down syndrome babies. You haven't eliminated a thing other than their lives. So the irony here, it's for women's

rights, it's for LGBTQ rights, baby girls and gay babies are going to be selected against by this eugenicist agenda. It's already happening, and it's already being discussed as a real possibility. He goes on. We have an extreme conservative agenda in Washington.

It's their morality. It's their interpretation of religion. It's their interpretation of ethics. And they're going to impose it on you. Which, by the way, in this upside-down world, is a total repudiation of conservative theory. Because remember where the conservative said,

limited government, limited federal government, because the federal government, they don't know anything. State government, local government, people's rights, but limited government. Right. Uh-huh. That's true. There's nothing anti-conservative about laws against murder. This is such a straw man. I don't know if Andrew Cuomo is stupid or about,

obtuse. It could be either. I don't think he's a stupid man, but he's making a stupid argument. Does any conservative think that laws against murder are wrong because it's big government? Are there conservatives marching saying, we need to repeal laws against murder? Get the government out of our killing. No, of course not. The government exists to protect life. Primarily, that's its first charge. Even libertarians to protect life and liberty. You can't protect liberty without life. This is such a stupid argument. There are laws against protecting life are not contrary to any conservative or even libertarian point of view. He says, oh, well, it's contrary to conservative philosophy,

conservative ideology. What are you talking about? He says, they're trying to impose their morality on us. Right. And you're trying to promote your immorality and impose it on us. Right. Politics is about moral questions. One of the stupidest lines you ever hear in politics is, you can't legislate morality. Get morality out of politics. That doesn't even mean anything. That is a statement that

has the same semantic value as that that's what it means. It has that meaning value. Politics is the affairs of people. Politics is how people live together and govern each other, govern themselves, live in civil society.

What people care about are moral questions. What people do has moral value because there is a moral law and we are moral beings. So if I took this mug and I drink my leftist tears, if I take this leftist tears tumbler

and hurl it at Colton's head and knock him in the head, that is immoral. It has moral value. What we do has moral value as people. When we say we need to raise taxes on the rich because the rich have too much money, you're making a moral argument. When Andy Cuomo is standing there saying, we need women to have the right to kill their babies, he's making a moral argument.

We're always making moral arguments. But really, he's making an immoral argument. He's saying we need to kill babies. What the right is saying is we shouldn't kill babies. Those aren't morally equivalent. That's not a relativistic question. One is right and one is wrong. He's on the wrong side of this.

He says conservatives have the world upside down. I talk about this all the time. It's true. The conservative worldview must look upside down. to Andrew Cuomo, who is a leftist, because leftism gets everything exactly backwards. It gets it so backwards that now strength is weakness, that now justice is injustice, that now stealing money from somebody is compassion and generosity, and keeping your own money is greed. That's a crazy upside-down world.

And there's a line from, I think it's Euripides in the Backeye. He says, talk sense to a fool, and he calls you for. foolish. Andrew Cuomo must think that this entire conservative worldview is upside down because he is standing with his feet firmly planted on the ceiling. He's looking at it the entire world, and he thinks that the ground is the sky. So he goes on. I want to pass this year a constitutional amendment that rights into the Constitution a provision protecting a woman's right to control Heron's reproductive health. We'll pass it next year.

We'll put it on the ballot. We'll write it into the Constitution. And we'll be able to say we have protected women's rights in a way no one else has before. That's what we're going to do this year. Thank you. God bless you. Is there anything creepier than a man

advocating abortion? Is there anything on her? It's a yeah, we, oh come oh, yeah, women, I can't wait to kill all of those babies that we've given you and take away all of our responsibility. Yeah, isn't this great? I'm a great guy. So, so creepy. The way that you know he's wrong, though, after all of this, after all this creepy press conference he's given, with Hillary Clinton there sort of stirring her cauldron, she's directly stage right of Andrew Cuomo right now. And if you can't see it, I know she's not on screen in this clip, but what you can't,

can just imagine is her sitting there, you know, with a giant spoon, a ladle in her cauldron, like, wah ha ha, yes, yes, up until the day of birth. So she's doing that right after the press conference, she hopped, she turned that stick into a broomstick and then flew right out of the area. The way that you know that this is all wrong is that he can't just say abortion. That's how you know he's wrong. That's how you know that on a deep level, he knows that he's wrong. He can't just say We're going to make abortion legal up until the day of birth. He can't say that. He says, we are going to give women control of their own bodies.

The baby's not their body. It's genetically unique. It's another human. It's spiritually unique. It's got its own face. It's got its own little hands. It's got its own little fingers. It's got its own little heart.

It's a different person. It's your child. It has a connection to you, not just an umbilical cord. It's your child. It does have a connection. Right. You're not supposed to kill your children. That's wrong.

In nature, sometimes animals kill their children. You're a person. You're not supposed to do that. That's immoral to do. He says, oh, it's reproductive justice. It's not reproductive. It's the opposite of reproductive. It's not even contraceptive.

It's just infanticide. He just can't say abortion. If abortion's fine, then shout it. I give that one woman credit. The shout your abortion woman. Please, she's honest. Shout your abortion. If you're so proud of it, if you think it's a good thing, shout it. Shout it from the rooftop.

And don't use these ridiculous euphemisms. Uphomisms are the way that you know that someone is being dishonest, that someone is trying to deceive you. Yesterday was the 46th anniversary of Roe versus Wade, which made abortion legal threat to the United States. We are talking about a slippery slope here. Obviously, there's the immediate, tangible effect of Roe versus Wade. 60 million babies have been killed in the United States since 1973. killed before they were born. 60 million. And don't think that that's a scare number from some conservative site.

That's from the Gutmacher Institute that was part of Planned Parenthood. That's a pro-choice, choice, pro-abortion organization that gives that number. It's a conservative lowercase C number. What is the conclusion of that? The conclusion of that is it's no longer safe,

legal and rare. The conclusion is Andy Cuomo saying, hey, folks, isn't this exciting? And the conclusion of that you see in the Netherlands, is a culture of death. Today, in the Netherlands, 25% of all deaths come by forms of euthanasia and suicide. And euthanasia is just a euphemism for suicide. It's got the EU right in it. Euthanasia, euphemism. In 2015 in the Netherlands, 431 people were killed by doctors

without asking for it, which is no longer suicide. That's murder. this now this slippery slurp of assisted suicide compassionate suicide allowing people to escape suffering has now been expanded

to making it legal for the government to kill people who have dementia to kill people who have mental problems 83 people in 2017 were killed

in the Netherlands because they had mental deficiencies babies with diseases are regularly killed in 2018 last year a Dutch doctor killed a 74-year-old woman

who was begging him not to kill her. Seventy-year-old woman, she had some dementia, he gave her a cup of poison coffee, and she would not drink it. She said, no, I don't want to die. I don't want the coffee. He made her drink it. She pushed it away.

She wouldn't take it. He then told the woman's husband and daughter to hold her down while he administered the poison, murdered her right on that bed, euthanasia, compassion, assisted suicide. Isn't it better? Isn't it better? That's the culture of death. That's what Roe v. Wade gives you. That's what the left is celebrating.

46 years of that. And can you only imagine what the country will look like 46 years from now if we don't overturn it? That's our show. Tune in tomorrow. Get your mailbag questions in. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls show. I'll see you then. The Michael Noles show is produced by Robert Sterling. Executive producer Jeremy Boring. Senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Danny Domeco. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case. Production assistant, Nick Sheehan. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.

Copyright Daily Wire 2019. Hi, everybody. It's Andrew Claven, a host of the Andrew Claven show. Remember in your Bible that chief priests and Pharisees who moved among the crowd, getting them angry at Jesus so they would call for his crucifixion? Well, guess what? They're back, only this time the chief priests and Pharisees are in the news media and their religion is leftism. That's on the Andrew Claven show. I'm Andrew Claven.