The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 298 - Moral Idiots

Episode Date: February 14, 2019

The Left cheers as DOJ and FBI officials are exposed for trying to subvert our republic and overturn a presidential election. Then they cheer as a vicious anti-Semite and terrorist apologist smears an American patriot before a congressional committee. Finally, love and marriage from St. Valentine to Aziz Ansari, and of course the Mailbag! Date: 02-14-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The left cheers as DOJ and FBI officials are exposed for trying to subvert our republic and overturn a presidential election. Then they cheer as a vicious anti-Semite and terrorist apologist smears an American patriot before a congressional committee. Finally, love and marriage from St. Valentine to Aziz Ansari and of course the mailbag. I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show. Happy Valentine's Day, baby. Oh, we've got a lot to talk about today. But first, I want you to feel like when you're with me, me on this romantic holiday that you feel safe and secure. And the best way to feel safe and

secure is to secure your home with a ring doorbell. Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer. You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere. Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world. So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you'll get an alert and be able to see here and speak to them all from your phone. You could be in the living room, in the bedroom, in a beach in Boka, at the wherever you are, you can communicate with whoever's at your home. That is thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on ring devices. They are super cool.

I love mine. Ring makes me feel much more secure. I've actually given Ring as just a personal gift to friends. It is super sleek. It is so simple. It's such a good way, not only to secure your home, but also to actually be able to communicate with deliverymen, people are going to come over to work. You just feel like you've got eyes on and in your home at all times.

As a listener, you have a special offer on a ring starter kit available right now with a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight cam. The starter kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home. Just go to ring.com slash Knowles, KNOW-L-E-S. That's ring.com slash Knowles, KNOW-L-E-S. Big news coming out today. Andrew McCabe, the disgraced FBI official, the guy who we knew was. trying to subvert the 2016 election. We saw those text messages where he was texting Lisa Page. That was his lover, even though he was married at the time, Lisa Page's colleague and lover, saying that they would have an insurance policy in case Donald Trump managed to get elected in case those deplorable American people elected the presidential candidate of their choice. He would try to use the power of the state to undo that presidential election. And now Andrew McCabe is making public statements. He went on 60 minutes. He's written a book. book, and this guy epitomizes, totally embodies what the framers feared about a large

overbearing government. This guy, the framers of our Constitution, designed our constitutional Republicans such a way as to thwart the ambitions of petty tyrants like Andrew McCabe. And here he is, still defending himself, and here the left is, still cheering him on, cheering on unaccountable bureaucratic power to subvert how the American people want to govern themselves. Here is how he opens up. The interview has not come out yet on 60 minutes, but they've released some early clips of it. We're going to have to wait until Sunday for the whole thing. I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our...

most formidable adversary on the world stage. And that was something that troubled me greatly. Andrew McCabe's fantasies troubled him greatly. What troubles me greatly is his presumptuousness, his conceited notion that he not only knows better than the American people who should govern this country, but that it is up to him. He has the right.

He has the ability to go in and overrule the entire American people. It's that kind of radicalism that is so despicable. This man obviously should never have been permitted in public service. He certainly should be prosecuted for what amounts to treason. That is what this guy took part in. Treason against his own government, an enemy, a domestic enemy of the United States. There's no other way to describe him. But listen to all the fantasies here.

He said, I was talking to the man who was just elected president of the United States. and he might have done so, he might have done so, with the help of the Russian government. Is there any evidence that he had the help of the Russian government? Do you have, because we've had investigations now for two years, there's no evidence whatsoever, turned up nothing. Actually, the Senate Intelligence Committee just had its own investigation into Russian collusion, the Trump campaign working with Russia. They came up with nothing.

Not only the Republicans on the committee say they came up with nothing, Democrats too. Even MSNBC reported this. They said they talked to Democrat sources on the committee. They said, yep, came up with nothing. So that's, that is just a fantasy of Andrew McCabe. Either it's a fantasy or he's lying. And we know he's a liar. We know he is misled investigators. We know that he has lied. That's why he was fired in absolute disgrace. So he's probably just lying. But then he goes on, he says, Russia is our number one adversary. It's our most, it's our biggest, most threatening adversary. No, it's not. China is our biggest adversary. By the way, the way, the way I know this is that Republicans and Democrats agree on this. Conservatives and leftists

agree on this. Remember, Mitt Romney, who's mostly wrong about everything, Mitt Romney came out and said, Russia's our number one geopolitical foe. And Obama made fun of him during a national debate. Said, uh, uh, Governor Romney, uh, the 80s called they want their foreign policy back. Cold War's over. Okay. Actually, you're right. The Cold War is over. The Cold War is over. doesn't mean the Russians love us now, they're still an adversary, but the far greater threat comes from China. Just in terms of manpower, in terms of the military, in terms of stealing our intellectual property, in terms of encroaching on our interests in the South China Sea, and encroaching on our allies in the South China Sea, what do you fear? Do you fear a war coming

from Russia or from China? Of course, this has been the growing view since the end of the Cold War, that the next great adversary we have is China, not Russia. But Andy McCabe needs to cover up his crimes and his treason. So he has to harken back and say, this is our number one adversary. No evidence of that whatsoever. Then he gets to the heart of his crimes. I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that were I removed quickly or reassigned or fired,

that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground, and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they'd made that decision. I, Andrew McCabe, a petty tyrant bureaucrat, wanted to make sure that before I was fired in disgrace for misleading investigators, for lying, for total corruption in my job, in my job in which I have been given the public trust, before I was fired in disgrace, I would be able to wield the instruments of the bureaucracy

in such a way that the duly elected representatives of the American people were thwarted in following and carrying out the plans of the American people. That's what I wanted to do. I wanted to make sure that I, a crook, a corrupt bureaucrat, could, abuse my position in such a way as to thwart the government of the American people and our constitutional republic. What? There are many things that I could call that man that I probably shouldn't in polite company.

So what did he do? Andrew McCabe ordered the obstruction and counterintelligence probes. Why did he do it? Because Donald Trump fired his pal James Comey. So everyone was calling on James Comey to be fired. Democrats and Republicans, Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump. Donald Trump actually fired James Comey. In retaliation for the duly elected president firing the FBI director, totally his right, totally his prerogative to do, Andrew McCabe, a corrupt bureaucrat, decided to retaliate by miring

the duly elected president in ridiculous, absurd investigations for as long as he possibly could. He tried to use executive authority to subvert the republic and all. ultimately to what, to remove the president of the United States from office. So what's coming out, we don't have the full interview yet, is that according to Andrew McCabe, there were talks at the DOJ and the FBI about coming together, picking off a few of the cabinet members, and using the power of what is called the deep state, the bureaucracy,

to force the president out. There were actual open conversations among DOJ and FBI officials about a coup de table. overthrowing the government a rebellion from within, an insurrection to undo a presidential election, because Andrew McCabe, some idiot crook, knows better than the American people how to govern the country. According to Andrew McCabe, the deputy attorney general, who was apparently Rod Rosenstein, he was apparently willing to wear a wire in his conversations with the president. Now, Rod Rosenstein and the DOJ just released a statement today, refuting this.

And the defense seems to be that Rod Rosenstein was joking. It was a sarcastic remark that he would wear a wire. Andrew McCabe came back and said, absolutely it was not sarcastic. It was said multiple times quite seriously. It was so serious that McCabe had DOJ and FBI lawyers looking into whether that would be legal to have the deputy attorney general wearing a wire, bugging his conversations with the president of the United States to try to undo the election. So why did McCabe get fired?

McCabe got fired because the IG report found that he misled investigators about the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. He misled investigators about leaking. Andrew McCabe directed people to leak at the FBI, and he misled investigators about this, and he was fired, obviously in disgrace. Andrew McCabe, it's worth pointing out also, is not some disinterested, above at all, American patriot, I don't have a party, country above party, no, no, no. He is a Democrat hack.

He is a well-entrenched Democrat hack, but a Democrat hack nonetheless. His wife is a Democrat politician. His wife ran for Virginia State Senate and failed, but his wife, when she ran for Virginia State Senate, took a donation from Terry McColliffe, who is a high-place. Clinton supporter and former governor of Virginia. So you now have this total corruption. You have a situation in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are running against each other for the presidency. You've got a guy high-placed at the FBI whose wife is running for State Senate from Virginia. The Clinton campaign, a well-placed person within the Clinton campaign,

makes a donation to McCabe's wife. All these people know each other. Do you think he made that donation out of the goodness of his heart? Do you think he made it because he's, I really believe in Mrs. McCabe. Or was there something more nefarious going on? Or even if it wasn't nefarious, maybe it was just that totally bland political corruption. You scratch my back, I scratch your back. Come on, man, you've been in D.C. a long time. You know how the game is played.

What is it. Either way, what a crook. And either way, what treason? What treason to try to undo a presidential election through a coup d'et this is what the framers were protecting against. This is why they dispersed power throughout the government and not just throughout the federal government, but throughout all of our governments, local, state, and federal,

is to thwart petty tyrants like this crook. Now the question is, was this Russia investigation legitimate or was it a politically motivated witch hunt? We'll get to it in a second, but first, you know how much I love Purple Mattress. You know. This week, it's been kind of a long week, a lot of travel, lot of chance to sleep. Last night, I'm finally going to get a full night's sleep in my purple

mattress. I lay down in my mattress. I was asleep before my head hit the pillow. This mattress is the most comfortable mattress I've ever slept on. It's not quite a memory foam. It's not quite an inner spring. It's this new technology. It was developed by a rocket scientist. It sleeps both soft and firm at the same time. Whatever you think, you say, oh, I don't have a lot of money. Oh, money's a little tight right now. Always invest in the things. that connect you to the ground, always invest in things where you spend a lot of time. You know, I'd like to get 21 or 23 hours of sleep per day. Just invest in it.

You're not going to miss the extra $100 or whatever you're going to pay. This is an incredible night's sleep. Check it out right now. They'll give you 100-night risk-free trial if you're not fully satisfied. You can return your mattress for a full refund, back by 10-year warranty, free shipping and returns, free in-home setup, and mattress removal. You're going to love purple. Right now, my listeners, we'll get a free purple pillow with the purchase of a mattress.

that's in addition to the great free gifts they're offering site-wide. Just text co-fefefe-O-F-E-F-E-F-E to 47-47-4-7-4-7. The only way to get this free pillow is to text co-fefefefe-F-E to 47-47-47-47. C-O-V-F-E-F-E-4-7. Message and data rights, rates, rather, may apply. So was the Russia investigation legitimate, or was it a politically motivated witch hunt to undo a presidential election? All of the evidence points.

to the latter. You've got this hack Democrat operative working in the FBI. Now I know that we're using his wife as evidence that he's a Democrat operative. We're using the pay to play that's going on throughout all of these campaigns. But we should point out, he's also cheating on his wife with his colleague, Lisa Page, and he's texting Lisa Page and saying there will be an insurance policy. We won't let Trump win. We won't let this happen. I'm a brave white knight. So he then goes on and actually does all the things he tells Lisa Page he's going to do. He sets up his retaliation for the firing of Comey, these investigations, he sets them up in such a way that they're very difficult to dislodge. Two years of investigations, no evidence of any illegality between Trump and the

Russia campaign. Zero evidence. The networks, according to newsbusters, have spent 2,2002 minutes covering the Russia scandal, read non-traversy. Do you know how many minutes they've spent on Senate collusion, or rather on the Senate collusion report, the one that just came out, bipartisan report, or it's about to come out, but they've just released some details of it. She has no evidence whatsoever. Both sides of the aisle say that. They've spent zero minutes covering that. ABC, the closest that they've come is ABC, George Stephanopoulos, a Clinton operative, the actual top Clinton communication operative, head of the war room,

George Stephanopoulos, who pretends to be a journalist on ABC, comes out and he says, the report, it's inconclusive. The report, we don't know. It's a war of words. There's no war of words. Just look. To their credit, MSNBC actually covered this story fairly. I guess they had accidentally one real reporter walked into the room and gave

his report on what's happening. But of the actual networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, the main network news goes out, has huge coverage in the United States. They won't cover it. This is the closest they come to covering it. Look at the difference between how George Stephanopoulos, a Clinton operative, covers this, versus how MSNBC,

in their brief moment of real reporting, covered the actual story. Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and Intelligence Committee at odds over the conclusion of their investigation, the heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been working together, but this is a significant disagreement. Yeah, George, for a committee here that has managed to so far conduct a bipartisan investigation, this is now a rare public rift. The Republican chairman Richard Burr says that as a of now, they have found no factual evidence of collusion. But he notes that their investigation is not yet complete.

But the top Democrat on the committee, Senator Mark Warner, tells us that he respectfully disagrees, that he's not ready to draw any conclusions since their probe is still ongoing. Our bottom line for this story is that after two years, 200 interviews, 300,000 documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, are telling us that they do not have direct evidence proving a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, which is, after all, the the main question they set out to answer. There it is. Democrats and Republicans, they all agree. But George Stephanopla is so, so desperate. I should point out, by the way, I misspoke earlier.

I was conflating all of my corrupt, crooked FBI and DOJ officials. Andy McCabe is not the one who was cheating with Lisa Page. That was Peter struck. Now, they're all in the same investigations. They're all trying to thwart the duly elected president, so I'll excuse myself for being confused. But Andy McCabe is married to a Democrat politician and was accepting bribes, I'm sorry, accepting campaign donations from Clinton-affiliated Democrat politicians.

Peter Struck, working with Andy McCabe, is the one that was cheating on his wife and also saying that he would undo the presidential election. Easy to conflate the two. I deeply apologize. I deeply personally apologize to Andrew McCabe, a treasonous, corrupt, hack petty tyrant, I shouldn't have suggested that he cheated on his wife, like his colleague did, who was also trying to overturn the presidential election. They are very different corrupt, treasonous Democrat hacks.

I'm sorry, I apologize. This is a full unqualified apology to these traitors to our country who should probably be behind bars. That's the way it is being covered by the news. MSNBC, I have to give them credit. every once in a while, I give them credit. You know, and I don't know, maybe it's because I'm having a little influence on the network. I mean, I think, you know, when I take these glasses off, I put them on. I'm just saying you've never seen me and a certain MSNBC host in the same room at the same time.

I don't know. I don't want to take credit for it, but MSNBC actually did a pretty good job here. Now, the other big story that came out yesterday is Representative Elon Omar. Ilan Omar, the Somali American congresswoman. She is affiliated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Taleb. She's a vicious anti-Semite. She came out and, oh, she's also defended terrorists in public discourse. She came out and viciously attacked.

Elliot Abrams, who's a former Reagan administration official, an American patriot, who has been wrongly smeared by Democrats. He's been wrongly called a war criminal. He is not. We'll explain that in a second. Here is how this woman goes and speaks to an American patriot like Elliot Abrams. Mr. Adams, in 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Cortra affair, for which you would.

were later barrened by President George H.W. Bush. I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful. If I can respond to that. It wasn't a question. On February, that was not a question. That was the, I reserve the right to my time. It is not right.

That was not a question. On February 8th. Who is not permitted to reply. That was not a question. Thank you for your participation. Representative Omar seems to misunderstand our system of government here. We have a deliberative system of government. We have a constitutional republic in this country.

What we are supposed to have is civil discourse and debate. And what that means is that you are discouraged from demigod. assassinating the character wrongly and stupidly, and with great moral idiocy, I should point out, demagoguing when you are speaking to somebody. It's perfectly fine to land a hard attack, it's perfectly fine to throw a punch. It is generally in this country preferred that one is given the opportunity to respond. As Elliot Abrams pointed out, he said, what you're doing is wrong. This is wrong what you're doing. And he's absolutely right. She seems to be unfamiliar with that, maybe because she's a freshman congresswoman who has entered in

probably the most ignorant congressional class in American history, which is really saying something, by the way. She goes on. You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement. Yes or no, do you still think so? From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election, to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That's a fabulous achievement. That is a fabulous achievement. Elliot Abrams was influential in Latin American policy under President Reagan.

And this is one of these areas where the left is constantly unfairly assailing conservatives because they were very, very upset that in the 1980s, the Reagan administration stopped the spread of the poison of communism in Latin America. They were cheering on the spread of communism. They were praying. Well, I don't know if they pray. They were hoping that in Latin America, they were cheering. America, the poison of communism would spread, the misery, the untold destruction that communism brings

with it. They were really hoping that that would spread. And instead, the Reagan administration, thanks in part to people like Elliot Abrams, stopped that spread, thwarted that spread. And Ilan Omar is very upset by this. And she goes on, this was the silliest moment of the entire exchange, because not only does Ilan Omar apparently misunderstand how these proceedings are supposed to go, she apparently misunderstands the meanings of the word yes and no. Yes or no. Do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch? That is a ridiculous question. Yes or no? No. I will take that as a yes. What? No, Miss Omar. Well, I'll take that as a yes. No, no, no. So, Miss Omar, in the English

language, no means no, and yes means yes. Perhaps this is confusing. I thought, by the way, the left talks about this all the time. They talk about consent. They say no means no and yes means yes. But then I guess when it comes to our deliberative republic, no means yes, yes means no. I don't know how it goes. I don't quite follow Elon Omar's creative interpretation of our system of government. What she is referring to the massacre is that, of course, when you're looking at the politics of Latin America, very often you're choosing the lesser of two bads to put it, to put it in a diplomatic way. You've got broken systems of government, largely failed states, civil wars going on, insurrections, and so regardless of which side

you choose, there are going to be abuses. There are going to be crimes that take place. Ilan Omar said, basically is trying to blame Elliot Abrams for massacres that happened under our watch. I didn't realize, by the way, that the United States. I didn't realize, by the way, that the United States governed Latin America. I wasn't aware of that. I didn't know that we are responsible for governing them. Now, of course, do we try to help when we can? Do we try to guide the affairs of Latin America toward the good and toward liberty when we can? Yes, absolutely, as we should. We should prevent the poison of communism. But this gives moral idiots like Ilan Omar an opening to say, well, see, because we backed one side of a civil war, because we backed a side that wasn't

communist, then we're responsible for every single thing that that group ever did. Okay, can we hold Ilan Omar responsible for everything communists ever did? Great, fine by me. Killed 100 million. I guess Ilan Omar killed 100 million people in the 20th century. I didn't know that. I did. But following Ilan Omar's logic, that's the only thing that we could conclude. We can hold, that's fine. We can hold Elliot Abrams responsible for everything that Latin American strongmen have ever done. So let's called Ilan Omar responsible and the American Left broadly for everything that communists have ever done. Fine by me. I don't think that's a game she wants to play. The idea that Elliot Abrams is a work criminal is simply a calumny. This is simply a lie. There was a good piece on this at the Hudson Institute.

They referred to, by the way, one of Abrams's most vociferous left-wing critics, a guy, Ariah Nyer, who was then the head of Human Rights Watch, this man, changed his opinion on Elliot Abrams, was once one of his clearest critics, and then later on, after the dust settled from the Iran-Contra affair, the politically motivated persecution of

Elliot Abrams, he came out and said, Abrams' argument that he was chosen as a target because the special prosecutor needed a recognizable scalp following Oliver North's victory on appeal, is buttressed by the evidence of timing. This suggests a political prosecution rather than the fair administration of justice.

They always go back because the administration of Ronald Reagan was so successful. They try to invent fake controversies. So one of them is the Iran-Contra affair. The big Iran-Contra scandal, which is that the Reagan administration stopped the spread of communism in Latin America. A wonderful thing that we should celebrate as frequently as possible. As a result of Abrams's, they just went after Abrams because they couldn't get other people in the administration.

they couldn't take down the president, so they tried to grab any scalp that they could. As a result of all the prosecution of Elliot Abrams, the alleged war criminal, do you know what he was ultimately sentenced to? Elliot Abrams was sentenced to a $50 fine and two years probation that one year later immediately was pardoned by President George Bush. President George Bush, who you'll remember the left is now called a saint. Oh, how wonderful he was. Oh, because he died.

Whenever Republicans die, they become saints. When they're alive, the left decides to try to destroy their character. But St. George H.W. Bush pardoned this man immediately because it was a ridiculous prosecution. It was a ridiculous persecution. And I think we even know this, even before the pardon, because he was sentenced to basically nothing, a $50 fine and two years probation. The people who call this man a war criminal are communist stooges, communist apologists, communist sympathizers. The Reagan administration policy in Latin America is not only defensible, it is correct to prevent the spread of communism in Latin America. Now, sometimes that means backing strong men, because politics does not exist in the realm of the forms or just in the realm of the ideas.

It's a practical science. And when you're talking about places that are often failed states with civil wars and insurrections, that means that you're going to have to, you only can back bad people or sometimes good people. who are forced by situations into doing bad things. It's just inevitable in wars that this will happen. No evidence whatsoever exists that the strong men were worse than the communists. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The attacks on Abrams, attacks like Ilan Omar's, are moral idiocy at its finest. And by the way, I should point out on the moral idiocy of Alon Omar.

She is a vicious anti-Semite. And you don't need to, I don't throw that term around lightly. I really don't. I try to not use the term racist. or sexist or anti-Semite, I really try to be very careful about throwing that word around because those words are diluted to mean nothing by the left. Ilan Omar is a vicious anti-Semite.

There's no other way to put it. You don't actually need to take my word for it. Just two days ago, Nancy Pelosi, her Democrat speaker in the House, Steny Hoyer, the leaders, the whips, the Democrat caucus chairman, the entire leadership in Congress, the Democrat Party condemned Ilan Omar's anti-Semitism in a very public statement the other day.

This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. This is not some attack from the right wing. Nancy Pelosi herself led the entire congressional Democrat leadership in condemning Ilan Omar's anti-Semitism using that word. So the mainstream media are in damage control mode. Here's Jake Tapper. Jake Tapper, I don't know, sometimes he's reasonable. And then sometimes he has these little hysterical emotional fits. And this is one of them.

So he's trying to distract from Ilan Omar's vicious anti-Semitism. It's on display when she begged that Allah would open people's eyes to the evil doings of Israel. It was on display when she said that it's just Jews buying off American politicians. It's all about the Benjamin's baby. That's the only reason anybody could possibly support Israel. So Jake Tapper is trying to say that actually Donald Trump is an anti-Semite. Here he is. Because there is nothing that this White House finds more offensive.

than a politician feeding into stereotypes about Jews and Jewish money and controlling politicians, which is what Congresswoman Omar is accused of having done. Is there anybody that doesn't renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates. I want to renegotiate this room. Perhaps more than any room I've ever spoken to. Maybe more. It's okay.

I've been called in that a couple of times, too. You're not going to support me, even though you know I'm the best thing. that could ever happen to Israel. And I'll be that. And I know why you're not going to support me. And, you know, you're not going to support me because I don't want your money. You don't want to give me money, okay?

But that's okay. You want to control your own politician. That's fine. I'm sorry. That was the wrong clip. That was then candidate Trump in front of the Republican Jewish coalition suggesting that haggling Jews

like to control their politicians with their money. We wanted the clip of Congresswoman Omar. Control room. I want the Omar clip. Give us the Omar. clip. There it, wait, no, that's not it either. That's a deleted Donald Trump retweet from 2016. Wow, wow, wow, he goes on like that. Isn't he cute? Isn't Jake Tapper cute? Now, by the way,

first of all, Donald Trump makes a joke in the room. He says, hey, look, I'm a negotiator just like you guys. He's making a joke that Jewish people are good at business and negotiating. Perfectly fine joke. Making a joke about Jewish people negotiating is a very different thing than praying to Allah that Israel, has hypnotized the world will be exposed for its evil deeds. That's her words, not my words. Very different things, by the way. And then Donald Trump saying to this group, I'm not going to take your money and you can't buy me.

It's not like he only said that to the Jewish group. He said that to every donor group in the GOP class. That was one of his biggest pitches for his campaign, is that I can't be bought by donors. Very different. And he said, actually, I'm a huge supporter of Israel. Very, very different from Ilan Omar saying, And the only reason that anyone's going to back Israel is because those nefarious Jews are buying them off with their money.

Don't take my word for it. Take Nancy Pelosi's word. Steny Hoyer's word, the Democrat caucus chair, all of whom condemned her anti-Semitism. The left is upset. Jake Tapper is having his little fit because anti-Semitism is now a leftist problem. It's not a right-wing problem. They're very upset by this because they know it's true. It's so obvious even Pelosi is admitting it.

I wanted to get to Aziz Ansari in Valentine's Day, but, you know, We don't have time. We have to get to the mailbag. So head over to dailywire.com. We have a lot of mailbag questions. $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership. You know, you get everything. You also get the Leftist Tears Tumblr. This is very important. I actually pray that God opens up the Leftist's eyes so that I can get all of my delicious leftist tears. There's actually a Psalm talking about carrying one's tears in a flask because they're pleasing. I'll have to bring in the actual Psalm. I don't have it memorized. People keep sending it to me, though, and it's very beautiful. Nice, nice, a little bit of religious whimsy.

Go to DailyWire.com. We'll be right back with the mailbag. All right, let's get to it from James. Quick comment. In Tuesday's episode, you included Corey Booker as a woman in saying all the declared Democrats were women, enlisted them, and included Corey. Maybe intentional, but thought, if not, you should know.

Oh, did I do that? Gosh. Huh. From Jesse. Dear Michael, I'm sorry I missed your appearance at Emery. I would have really liked to have gone. My wife attends there, rather, and showed a flyer yesterday of another speaker showing up next week that wants to make the argument that abortion is a moral good,

who apparently is a progressive Christian who argues for reproductive justice. Kind of ironic to call killing babies reproductive justice. Isn't that the opposite of reproductive justice? I was curious to see if there was any way to steal man abortion from a Christian perspective. or if this woman is delusional. Thanks for all you do. The woman is delusional. There is no way to justify killing babies by Christianity. Christ is quite explicit on people who hurt the littlest among us and what happens to them, and it's not good. It involves millstones and drowning. However, there is one argument that I've heard disingenuous Christians say. John Fugel-Sang

talks about this. He's a left-wing actor who says, The Bible defends abortion. Specifically in Numbers 5. So when you're digging into Numbers 5, you know that your arguments are not great. You're really going pretty deep. But even this argument is not true. So the way that they do this is they quote Numbers 5. Numbers 5 says this.

If you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you've defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you, then let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman, The Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people. When the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell, may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away. And they use this as evidence that God is instructing people to perform abortions. There's no evidence of this.

The way they get away with it is because there's one translation, of all the translations of the Bible, There is one that translates that phrase, may your thigh fall away as to miscarry. That's the NIV. This is a notoriously terrible translation of the Bible. There's a reason why all the other translations don't translate it that way. I'm obviously not a Hebrew scholar, but it seems to me, I've talked to Hebrew scholars, and the Hebrew uses a metaphoric language, your thigh to rot, your thigh to fall away.

Now, does this mean it will make the woman infertile? It seems to imply that sort of thing. But there's no textual evidence whatsoever that the woman is already pregnant. There's no evidence whatsoever that the dust from the ground of the temple mixed with water is some abortive fashion drug. It's obviously not a surgical abortion. It's such a stretch, but that's the one they make. And the way that you argue against that is that they are obviously mistranslating the Hebrew. They're just rewriting the Hebrew.

But that's the one argument they'll make. and there is no other argument other than looking into a deep well, they look at the top and they see only their own reflection and what they want to see there. From Brendan, Michael, do you believe that the president is responsible for the economy? I'm in college and one of my professors said that Trump taking credit for the economy is ridiculous. What are your thoughts? Thanks, Brendan. It's very difficult to figure out who is exactly responsible at any given time for the economy.

The economy is a very big system. So always Democrats won't credit any Republicans ever for helping the economy and they'll only credit Democrats and occasionally vice versa. However, we can credit Donald Trump for consumer confidence and manufacturing confidence. We can certainly credit him for that. These are people who are producing and who are consuming who are saying that the current policies on the economy give them confidence in it. And we have seen manufacturing confidence at all-time highs, consumer confidence hitting highs. And so we can certainly credit him for that. Now, was the economy growing before Donald Trump took office?

Yes. Has it continued to be really strong, stronger than people predicted, stronger than under Barack Obama? Yes, it has. Can we credit Donald Trump for that? I certainly think we can. And I think it's disingenuous to say President Trump has had no effect on the economy. When, at least from the perspective of economic confidence, there is no one else. else you could credit. From Graham. Hi, Michael. What is your opinion on the use of the Lord's

name in vain? I've always refrained from using his name in vain, more especially saying, oh my God. What is the idea behind using the Lord's name in vain? Is there a difference between oh my God and for Christ's sakes or Jesus? Thanks. Best podcast on the web. Thank you. This is a really tough one because we use these phrases in our world all the time. what does it mean to use the Lord's name in vain? If you use the Lord's name to make a joke, is that in vain? I don't know. It depends on the joke.

I just did one, actually. I said, I made a joke about Ilan Omar praying to Allah to open people's eyes, and I flipped that and made a joke about praying to God to open leftist's eyes for their tears. Is that taking the Lord's name in vain? I hope not. I don't think so. I think it's actually making a religious point through humor. It's making a political point as well, downstream of culture and downstream of religion through humor.

It's on the border, though. I'm a little uncomfortable with it. Sure. How about people who just say it, they stub their toe and they say, ah, God. That would seem certainly to be taking the Lord's name in vain. You were using it vainly. You're using the Lord's name in a trivial manner. I really try not to do that, and yet we all do it sometimes. Sometimes something happens. You exclaim Jesus. you probably shouldn't do that. And then the much

serious, rather, offense is to use the name of the Lord blasphemously or to swear an oath to God that you can't uphold. I mean, Christ talks about that explicitly. Don't make these oaths. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. That's even a more serious offense.

But this is very important because God should not be taken lightly. Your creator, the author of the universe, the divine love and the divine intellect should not be taken lightly. You should have holy fear and humility before the Lord. That is the beginning of wisdom as well. This is why Jews don't even write out the name of God. They'll put a hyphen.

That's a good spiritual practice, and I think we should all be much more mindful of that. I do my best not to take the Lord's name in vain. I fail at it. You're going to fail at it, too, but it's probably best not to. from Aaron. Dear Michael, I would like to hear about your spiritual practices to connect with God. Other than going to church, what spiritual disciplines do you follow? Love the show and the glasses. A. A. Aaron. He spelled it out. A.A. Ron. I read the Bible, not as much as I should, but I do. I pray every night. I certainly recommend that. I try to pray the rosary, though I don't do it nearly as

frequently as I should. One spiritual discipline that I find that I need a lot, and I recommend to other people is I try my best not to complain. Now I will criticize, I will invade. It's part of my job is to do that. But to complain about, wow, wow, woe is me. There was a lot of traffic. I really do my best not to do that. It is a great temptation that I have. It's a great temptation among New York Italians. And I really try to not do that because patience is sanctifying. We should have humility and gratitude at all times, and humility is, fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And we should venerate and we should be grateful all the time. We're living, just count your blessings, folks.

We're living at the greatest time in all of human history. We have all of the advantages. We didn't create our life. We didn't invent it. It's a gift from God. We should always be grateful. Always, all of the time. Even in mourning, even in grief, we should be grateful.

And so that is a discipline that I really try to remind myself of. And you might have others. Maybe you have other sins and vices that are more likely to affect you, and so you'll have a different spiritual discipline. But that's a really practical, tangible one that I try to do a lot. From James. Hi, Michael. Thought Experiment. If you had to choose one of the Dems to be president, who would you choose?

Thanks, James. Came for the Leftist Tears Tumblr? stayed for the Leftist Tears Tumblr. Howard Schultz, no question. He's the most reasonable out of any of the DEMS. Democrats. He still wouldn't be a good president, but there's no question. The difference between him and any of the other Democrats is night and day. From Noah, hey Michael, how can we maintain the teaching authority of the Magisterium in the context of the selling of indulgences, thanks? How can we defend

the Catholic Church since it sold indulgences? First of all, the Catholic Church never sold indulgences. That was never permitted. And what is an indulgence? People don't know what an indulgence is. an indulgence is not buying your way into heaven. It's not buying time out of purgatory. It's not buying your spot before the beatific vision. An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. The temporal punishment due to sins, not getting into heaven faster or at all.

There's no selling. Now, one of the ways to get, you can still get indulgences, obviously, but there was never selling, where it got complicated, where abuses and corruption crept in, were that you could receive an indulgence for almsgiving, giving to the poor, giving to a charitable organization. You can see how this would be rife with corruption, and there was plenty of indulgences for almsgiving before the corruption crept in, but then the corruption crept in. This is what Martin Luther used as his excuse to rewrite Christian orthodoxy, and, and And at the Council of Trent in 1567, all of the grants of indulgences involved in money were canceled because of a recognition that abuses crept in.

So I think it's easily defensible. You just have to defend it based on the facts of what actually happened, the history, and not the anti-Catholic legends that have crept up over time. I'll take one more before we go from Catherine. Hi, Michael. My younger brother is in college right now. And like you, in his early teen, preteen years, he became an atheist. He's quite conservatively minded otherwise. Do you have any advice for me besides praying for his conversion?

Thank you, Katie. Yes. Appeal to his intellect. Appeal probably, really, to his intellectual pride. Give him logical arguments for God. Show him Aquinas' arguments, or Anselm of Canterbury's arguments, or give him books written by intellectuals like C.S. Lewis or Chesterton. do this because one of the reasons that precocious 13-year-olds become atheists is they get all of this soft soap silly emotivist religion and they think that there's no intellectual mooring and then people such as Christopher Hitchens who are clever come in and they have intellectual confidence and pride and so they are more likely to follow those people if that's what happened to your brother then beyond praying for him which you should do

You should try to use that intellectual pride and twist it and use it to God's advantage and ultimately to his own advantage and bring him back. All right, that's our show. We got a lot more questions, but too late. Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you all enjoy it on your Bowling Branch sheets and Purple Mattresses, you know, and, well, I hope you always enjoy your Bowen Branch sheets and Purple Mattresses. Have a very good Valentine's Day. In the meantime, I will see you next week. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show. The Michael Nolz 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. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. Production assistant Nick Sheehan. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019. Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall show today.

We're going to talk about Democrats who are very upset at Republicans, who they say are sabotaging the Green New Deal by voting on it. That's how they're sabotaging it. Also, you've heard of these drag queen story hours that are popping up at libraries across the country? Well, I have a question about drag queens. Isn't drag just basically a blackface-style mockery of womanhood? And finally, there's a college newspaper that published an article telling white boys to,

quote, stop talking. So we're talking about all that today over on the Matt. show.