The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 3 - Affirmative Action: Warm And Fuzzy Race Discrimination

Episode Date: August 2, 2017

The DOJ has affirmative action on the chopping block. Plus, the Dow hits record highs, Trump sidesteps environmental regs on the border, and NASA defends the planet. Louder With Crowder's Not Gay Jared, Roaming Millennial, and Zo Rachel join the Panel of Deplorables to discuss. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The tweets are in at real Donald Trump, cutting college affirmative action, which is actually racist. I wouldn't want extra SAT points for my race. Why not? Hashtag affirmative action is just a fancy term for reverse discrimination. We need to end discrimination in all forums against all people. Good idea. Good. It's about time we eliminate the soft bigotry of low expectations. Hashtag affirmative action. I'm confused liberals. Is it okay or not to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. Wednesday wisdom. It's good wisdom. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a day when people weren't judged by the color of their skin. End affirmative action. Leftists. Dismantle systemic racism now.

Right. Okay. Let's end affirmative action. Leftists. Well, wait, well, let's some systemic racism is okay. Sorry, Libs, we will no longer give privileges based on race, but rather on the content of people's character. Hashtag affirmative action is a racist cancer, paternalistic whites who think blacks can only get ahead if they're given a head start. Toxic. You tell them. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is preparing to investigate and sue universities over affirmative action admissions policies, which discriminate on the basis

of race on the meager grounds that those policies discriminate on the basis of race. What bigotry? Plus, roaming millennial, Zoe Rachel and Louder with Crowders, not gay Jared, join the panel of deplorables to talk about the stock market's predictable drop to an historic high the president's running rough shot over environmental regulations to build the wall and speaking of aliens NASA's new planetary protection officer to save Earth from ET. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. So Attorney General Sessions at DOJ is reportedly about to target the affirmative actions policies at universities and in employment, but specifically on campus at universities. And we are

really lucky because here at the Michael Knowles Show, we have obtained exclusive footage of former Obama administration officials reacting to the news. Do we have it? It is really gory. That's too bad for them. Well, they're at least out of office now. You know, before his head exploded, the Obama DOJ employee, Vanita Gupta said this about the reported policy change. Yet again, the Sessions Justice Department led by the political leadership and marginalizing the career employees is changing course on a key civil rights issue. Now, he's making a point about affirmative action. But it's really interesting the other point he makes, which is that the political leadership, you know, the people put in place by our elected representatives, are undermining the career

bureaucrats who have been governing us with no accountability for decade upon decade, because apparently there are benevolent betters. They're the technocrats who can tell us how to live our lives better than we can live them ourselves. But then he's also making the point that this is a terrible change for civil rights and so on. Let's allow Attorney General Sessions to speak for himself on the issue. I couldn't have put it any better myself. That screaming dog, of course, or the lefties and Obama-era officials who were raising a ruckus about this.

And he does sound a lot like foghorn, leghorn. But he's a great American and a good attorney general. But that is basically what he's telling him. He's telling him to shut up. And we can go a little bit more in depth on the subject. In 2003, the Supreme Court sent a very confusing message on the issue of affirmative action. In the case Gratz v. Bollinger, they decided that affirmative action was not okay. It was unconstitutional.

But then in Grutter v. Bollinger, they decided that it was constitutional. One case was about the undergraduate admissions policies at the University of Michigan. The other was about law school admissions policies at the University of Michigan. And it was a complex case. I think even Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the opinion of the court, understood that she was making a very complex and gray point. What she said was, the United States Constitution, quote, does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race and admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in a diverse student body. But she went on, the court expects 25 years from now the use of racial

preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. So I don't know why she picked the number 25. I think it's because she understood this is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional now, but it will affect a social change that we would like, or apparently will affect a social change we would like, so let's just do it for a while, and you can overturn it in 25 years. And there is some precedent for this. Even Bill Buckley, who's credited with founding the modern conservative movement, he advocated, quote, a pro-negrod discrimination policy in employment to make up for historical injustices and inequalities and the exclusion of blacks in America. Clarence Thomas, the only black justice on the Supreme Court at the time, vehemently disagreed with this opinion.

He said, quote, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. Quote, our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Now, he agreed with the 25-year structure that was set up by Sandra A. O'Connor, but he agreed, because, quote, these policies will clearly have failed to eliminate the perceived need for any racial or ethnic discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there. So is the academic credentials gap still there? We're not quite 25 years out, but we are a number of years out from this, not too far behind. I think Clarence Thomas put it even more succinctly in another talk. Do we have it? I have never understood the notion that we could continue to focus on.

race in order to get over race. I've never understood that, that we have to continue to identify us in a, you know, to be race conscious in order not to be race conscious. What a virulent racist and clearly so uneducated, isn't he? So there are these two arguments. There's this constitutional and American ideals argument. How are we supposed to not be race conscious if we're, how does being extremely race conscious, get us to being not raised conscious, and this constitutional argument that we shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of our racial background. Now, there are also more tangible reasons to oppose affirmative action. The first argument is reverse discrimination. This is the reason that even that socialist utopia of the United Kingdom got rid of the policy,

is that clearly it discriminates against some racial groups, but not on others. A Bush administration, Department of Education, Civil Rights Official, said this in 2005. She said, quote, these policies dismiss the very real prices paid by individuals who end up injured by affirmative action. And those individuals, by the way, are not just the much maligned straight white male. There are a lot of other groups as well. Adam Carolla explains his experience here. Geez, I want to talk about my white privilege so badly. I graduated North Hollywood Highland, the 1.7 GPA.

I could not find a job. I walked to a fire station in North Hollywood. I was 19. I was living in the garage of my family home. My mom was on welfare and food stamps and I said, can I get a job as a fireman? And they said, no, because you're not black, Hispanic or a woman. We'll see in about seven years. And I went to a construction site and dug ditches and picked up garbage for the next seven years. I got a letter in the mail sent to my father's house saying, your time has come to do this. the written exam for the LA Fire Department. I took it, and I was standing in line, and I had a young woman of color standing behind me in line, and I said, just out of curiosity, when did you sign up to become a fireman? Because I did it or person seven years ago, and she said, Wednesday.

That is an example of my white privilege. I think it's an economic privilege more than it is the color of your skin. There's Adam Carolla, a fellow cis-sexual, heterosexual, Italian, American man I identify very strongly with him, but the notion that Adam Carolla, not a fairly burly guy, would be overlooked for seven years and a smaller woman would be in line right the next day is quite interesting. There are these two other arguments. There is the class inequality

argument. There's the mismatch theory argument. The mismatch theory argument is what got Antonin Scalia in a lot of trouble in the year before his death. The class inequality argument is easy. the idea that these programs don't actually help the people that they're intended to help, poor ethnic minorities, poor blacks who should be able to climb up out of poverty and go up into social mobility, but it actually helps the already upwardly mobile, the middle class and the upper middle class. And here's Thomas Sol explaining both of these ideas. Particularly since the net effect of the preferential treatment, which is preferential in intention more so than the results, is that those blacks who are particularly disadvantaged,

have fallen further behind under these policies, that such policies have typically benefited those blacks who were well off, who became better off, blacks who have relatively less work experience, lower levels of education, black female-headed families, all these groups have fallen further behind during a decade or more of affirmative action. Don't you feel the racial hatred pouring out of that noted brilliant economist, Thomas Sewell? The other point he makes in another clip somewhere else is that the racial hatred, pouring out of that is that affirmative action encourages people to continue to separate themselves into smaller and smaller and more specific groups because preferred groups then or rather people who come from non-preferred groups want to appear as though they come from preferred groups, which is why I am a Palermo, Sicilian, American, and so on and so forth.

And this ultimately leads to that intersectionality hierarchy where we need to decide if a black, transgender, Jewish Muslim is more oppressed than a Persian pygmy. who rides horses or something to that effect. Now, Richard Sander explains the effects of mismatch theory, which Thomas Sol just explained. He explains some interesting statistics that come out of this. UCLA law professor who points out black college freshmen who aspire to STEM careers at a rate that's significantly higher than whites,

but they dropped out at double the rate because of a mismatch, the idea that students are going into these schools, but they're unprepared, and because there is an advantage given, based on racial preferences, maybe they would do better off at a lower tier school where they could succeed and then go on to advanced degrees. On that point, black students who attended a college at which they're mismatched were two times

as likely to be derailed from pursuing advanced degrees if they intended on doing that when they got there. One half of black college students rank in the bottom 20% of their classes, the bottom 10% in law schools, also explained in part by mismatch. Black law grads are four times as likely to fail the bar. exam and Sandra says that the mismatch explains at least half of this gap. Campuses with lower academic mismatch are also significantly more likely to be socially integrated because people tend to be attracted to people of their intellectual peer group.

And so campuses where people are of roughly the same academic caliber tend to be more socially and created across all criteria, including race and ethnicity. And then here's the craziest statistic of all. After UCLA dropped its affirmative action, the total number of black and Hispanic students who received bachelor degrees was exactly the same for the next five years as it was for the five years before the change. There was no change. And the explanation for this is, while there may have been fewer students from certain demographics, the dropout rate dropped significantly.

So you had the same number of students actually graduating. And obviously, there are a lot of other factors that come too, which is saving lots of money, not taking out needless student loans, being productive during those work years. So with that, we bring on our panel of deplorables. Do we have them? We have not gay Jared from Ladder with Gratter. We have roaming millennial from everywhere else on the internet. And we have the one and only Zoe Rachel.

Now, fortunately for us, we have a member of a much persecuted minority on our panel today. So I'd love to hear from him. A not gay Jared as a not gay American, do you think it is time to finally end affirmative action? I think it's fine, time. I think it's mind-boggling that people are just now waking up and realizing this is a issue. You know, we've talked about that on our show for a long time.

People get screwed the most are whites and Asians, almost indefinitely. Poor roaming. I would never. I would count mine. I was not discriminated against. But my ovaries, so it bounces. Oh, that is true. I forgot you had those persecuted ovaries.

you lucky duck. Yeah. That's very interesting. I mean, Zoe, what do you think? Do you think there's a role for affirmative action in 2017? Has it served its purpose? Has it done absolutely nothing? Has it made things worse? Here's the fix for affirmative action. Here's how you make it go away. Any white person who's concerned about affirmative action is what you got to do or if you want to get your job or you work at the fire department or anything like this is what you do. All you got to do is just tell them that you're a black woman. I don't care who you are. Just tell you are they going to use the application of objective biological science to prove that you're not you know that's that stuff doesn't work that is so smart so because i've been tanning a lot i go to the

beach very frequently in l.a and because i'm sicilian i can become almost Hispanic i can become trans-Hispanic but i don't even need to do any of that i can just become a black woman uh yeah see there you go you know it's simple fix man that's what we try to do is make things simple but if i could say really quick man the funny thing is about affirmative action is that i have never met a black person yet who claims would needed it. Yeah, right? It's like, oh, you got this, you got in the school that you got this job because you're black.

No, I didn't. I got this because I'm talented because I'm smart. Now the rest of the Negroes may have needed affirmative action, but I didn't. But not me. Now, you know, there's also this amazing side to it, which is, you know, when I was at college only five years ago, and at Yale, some of the, you know, 10, 15th, smartest people there

were from ethnic minorities, but there was this awful cloud over it, because you think, well, possibly they got where they are because they're black or because they're Hispanic or something. And it really isn't that fair to these people who are really smart and talented, but they have this cloud hanging over them because of legalized discrimination.

Absolutely. No, roaming, I'm sorry, go ahead. Oh, I say it's not fair to the people who didn't deserve to be there, who you're essentially setting up for failure. Yeah, that's failure and debt. Dropout rates and debt, a tremendous amount of debt. Yeah, that's a great point.

roaming. I mean, you know, there were a debt crisis in the United States, particularly among young people with these awful student loans, quarter million dollar loans. Don't we think that compassion here is clearly misguided? Yeah, and exactly. And you bring up a really good point talking about the average graduation rates of some of these minority groups. The last thing you want to do to someone who is from an underprivileged background is saddle them with a bunch of debt for a degree they're never going to end up completing. Right. And the U.S. already, I think, has a little bit of a problem when it comes to the global economy, you know, in context, with skilled labor, right? And, you know, these university spots, they're important. We need them. So we need to be giving them to the students who are most likely to finish, most likely to go enter in the workforce with their degrees and be skilled workers, right? I mean, this social justice in universities is one of the most damaging things I can think of to the American economy. Listen to Richard Spencer over here, spouting her racist clap trap. You know, if affirmative action isn't achieving the results it was attended to achieve, Jared, why do Democrats insist on perpetuating it? You know, I think the real problem is that it goes back to government trying to fix bad government policies with more government. So, you know,

you see this just very much so with the, you know, the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac situation, the market crash in 2008. They're trying to fix overregulation with more overreach and overregulation. So, you know, I think if you were to wind the clock back for some of these students who maybe did stand a shot at getting into these universities on their own merits, you know, school vouchers, for instance. You know, Stephen and I talk about this on the show all the time. We've yet to hear a real solid argument against school of vouchers. So say these students could get out of the ghettos, get out of the places,

go to schools that actually provide real education and real training that aren't, you know, in the dumps and claiming to be underfunded all the time. You know, more money will fix these schools, right, in the ghettos. You know, they stand a chance to think of actually earning their merit to get into this college and actually set themselves up to be much more successful than just as we talked about, you know, failing, dropping out and being stuck with a crap ton of suit of loans. That's right. This happened in my own hometown, Mayor de Blasio of New York in a payoff to the teachers unions, tried to target the charter schools. And there was vicious pushback because it was

the only shot for mostly black, you know, heavily impoverished areas to get out of poverty and to have a shot of going to a good school and getting a good career and so on and so forth. Yeah, that is really incredible. So it's just, you know, the government creates a problem, and then there's more government to solve the problem, and then there's more government to solve that problem. So where does it end? Well, it doesn't end because the issue adds up mainly to two things, money and votes. So as long as we keep this affirmative action, there's a narrative going, as long as we keep this racial strife narrative going, that's what you're going to get. You're getting money in votes, and they know how to keep this thing going. Yeah, that's really interesting. And what do you think? though about these awful racist Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sol you know it is it is pretty incredible to watch to watch both of these guys some of the smartest guys in the country saying very much as Frederick Douglass said leave us alone stop

trying to help that's really what it comes down to you know the thing is is a you know if they would just leave us alone you know we would we would have a we'd have a pretty good chance to catch up you know I don't know if you might have seen some of us sprint sometime we've got some pretty explosive nature to be able to catch up if you just get out of our way you know that's that's all we ask or really that is that would be always asked but unfortunately there is a system that keeps pro programming us to believe that you know what you have to keep asking you need this this

all I need the cycles of dependency you have no no will or talent of your own yeah absolutely now we have to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube I know you want to watch more I know you want to hear more from these guys but you're too cheap so what you need to do is go over to daily wire.com right now and subscribe. It's only $10 a month or $100 a year. Very, very little. It's more money that I make here, but it's not a lot of money for most of the population. And you'll get the leftist tears tumbler. The leftist tears, it keeps your leftist tears hot or cold, always salty. Plus, you'll get to hear us talk about all of the important news of the day. But only if you go over there. So go and

subscribe right now. Dailywire.com. We'll be right back. So the mainstream media all predicted before the 2016 election that if Donald Trump were elected president, the state, stock market would absolutely collapse. I just Googled stocks if Trump is president. CNBC, NBC, New York Times, CNN. They all predict one quote, the stock market would almost certainly tank. Do we have right now a live view from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange? Wow, those coins just keep dropping. That's great. The Dow Jones Industrial Average broke $22,000 for the first time ever, in no small part because of a 4% surge in Apple stock. The U.S. added 178,000 jobs last month.

Zo, is this what President Trump meant by getting sick and tired of winning? Are you sick and tired of winning yet? Man, why you got to ask me about the start? Do I look like Charles Ping? Hold on. Hold on now. Charles, when did you get here? That's a spitting image.

Hey, you know what? Honestly, I don't pay that much against the stock because I'm afraid I'd be one of those people like sipping like milk and magnesium lattes and sprinkling it with. I remember, but you know, it looks like, I don't know, I guess Boeing is doing pretty good. And Trump talked about Boeing or the aircraft industry doing well under his administration. And it looks like with Boeing, that's reflecting that. But, you know, I think the bottom line, though, is that if this sustained, if this trend sustains, hopefully people will start to feel it.

They can look at it. They can look at it, tick and all that sort of stuff. But they have to feel it in their own account. They'll say, oh, this is great for, you know, for Wallace G. and the holders and stuff like that. But, you know, when am I going to feel it? That's a great. I'm sorry, I did get a little distracted

because I was thinking about milk of magnesium lattes. But I think I got most of your point. You know, that is a really great point. Romney, is this, say, Genzo? Was there a point in there? Did I make a point? Somewhere in there. I think you may have made a point.

Roaming, is this just a lucky break? It's just caused by Apple surging 4%. Or are the fundamentals of our economy? me right now? Are they strong? Are they headed in the right direction? I think they definitely are headed in the right direction. I think this goes to show that no matter how much you call someone sexist, racist, a bigot, and an Islamophope, turns out markets don't really care, right? And if we look at President Trump's, his initiative toward jobs, I think that's one area where he has, he's really, you know, made an effort to keep his campaign promises. I mean, we see that he's

repealed, I think it's 16 regulations for every new one introduced toward businesses. And I think that's definitely a step in the right direction. And what's funny is that all of these new news outlets who were so keen to get the message out that if Donald Trump is elected, it's going to be economic doomsday. Now that we're actually seeing successes in the markets are seeing great job creation, lowest unemployment. We've had a long time. They're very silent on the issue. They are very quiet. That is a great. Why are they so quiet? You know, they all got it wrong, almost to a man. Not gay Jared. Is it because they are deceptive or are they just extremely stupid? Well, they're one and the same, I think, on this issue.

It's not an either or question with the mainstream media. Why you pick if you don't have to? But, you know, it's really hard thing to comment on because it's just so volatile. You know, it could be up today, down tomorrow, and it's kind of hard to, wait, does that say EP of Latter with Crowder on my lower third? I'm the morning grinder, so.

Latter the Criter is just a side. What is the? I've never even heard of Latter with Crater. I only subscribe to Morning Grinders. Exactly. Marshall. This is a huge oversight. Jared, I'm sorry.

I just really shocked, actually, that, you know, Apple's doing well. That's actually more shocking than me. anything else in this study. That's true. Do we have a live view of Twitter stock? Is it still just burning and burning? Yeah, it's actually through the bottom of the floor, I think.

Yeah. Right when I get verified, Twitter's going to go out of business. That's terrible. I guess, you know, I got verified for not writing a book. So that's, yeah. See, I've applied to them like three times that have been rejected each time.

You're kidding me. No. Roaming millennials is way more famous than me. That's, well, all right. Now I see why that company's failing. Okay. We got to move. on. The Department of Homeland Security says it will waive more than three dozen laws and regulations,

most related to environmental review and the protection of wildlife as it pushes to build the border wall with Mexico. We go now to Sarah McLaughlin for a reaction. Thank you, Sarah. That was a stirring report. Nakejared, is this an example of President Trump cutting through red tape? or is this lawlessness from the White House? Here's the thing. There's always going to be just mountains of mountains of red tape with this. And I think when the leftists realize they can't make arguments on the immigration front,

it's just a natural shift to say, oh, but their climate change reasons to shift away from the border wall. I remember Jeff Corrin, like a month ago, is saying, if you build this wall, it's really going to mess up the birds. I don't know if you know what happens when birds encounter objects in the wilderness. as a wall, but they tend to fly over them. They fly, are you, I have never heard that. Are you a science deny or not Gajer? I've never heard of that.

I'm not a birdologist. I'm not heard about that. I think that's the word. I guess the right word. Experience tells me they'll be all right. So this is just leftists get in their own way. I mean, it's perfect for them, right? Because it's something they oppose and they can relate to the time and change.

It's just a tactical shift. Yes, exactly. You know, but they get in their own way with this kind of stuff as well. You can't build solar panels in the Mohawai desert because of some stupid endangered turtle. So tortoise, tortoise, man, that was rude to me. Speciesist. It's a huge, you rampant speciesist. It's my greatest crime against humanity. But no, I don't think, I think Trump's

going to have to do some of these things to cut through the BS, or at least, you know, maybe talk about some of the funding for these programs and these people who want to just, you know, rail on the climate change issue for the wall, because I think you're going to find most of it's unfounded and it doesn't make any sense. I have to push back on your species as a NACA Jared. Roaming, if securing our borders might endanger half a dozen chupacobras, shouldn't we just completely abandon the project? Well, I mean, that's a great point, right?

This is about priorities. We have arms traffickers, arms traffickers, drug traffickers, documented criminals who we've sent back and keep coming over. But, you know, places like the EPA, oh, well, there's this species of rabbit that that likes to hop back and forth this area, therefore we shouldn't do it. Really, is that a legitimate argument against this? And I think, you know, if nothing else,

it proves the point that, hey, Wals do work and restricting population movement, right? That's a very good point. You know, one time I was working in local politics, I was advising a company on how to build in this middle of nowhere, New York, and we had to halt the entire project, would have brought a lot of jobs in

because of a rattlesnake, which last time I checked, we don't want, we don't get rid of them, We want to kill them. Apparently, we had to stop the whole process. They are a nuisance. They are a pest. So does Trump? I'm sorry, go ahead. I was going to say, if you remember, though, a lot of times when they do this and push these proposals, right? The climate change we can't do it because X, Y, and Z. Have you noticed they don't really tend to name the actual species they're trying to save these.

They speak in the most generic terms possible. I remember there was a bridge in California, like two years ago. They built a new one because the old one was rusted out, and they had to tear down the other one. but the other one was housing like home to like 800 something birds and it was going to be like a $33 million project to remove these birds I cannot find in any article where they specified the birds I didn't even know there were 800 different birds yeah like no no 800 of the same kind of bird mounted up into this this old bridge 33 million dollars to remove them that's like

$40,000 a bird you know you know why they can't be too specific though they can't be too specific just buy new birds that you can just buy new birds No, the reason they can't be too specific is that global warming might cause new bird species to go and live there. So they have to prepare for that. I mean, these shifts really affect the biosphere. If they're bald eagles, you might get people on board. But if you were to tell people like, hey, actually they're just pigeons, they'd be like, well, screw the pigeons. You know, they do that in L.A.

They do that in L.A. They divert a ton of our fresh water because of the Delta smelt, which is just an anchovy. There are these anchovies that are sucking up more fresh water than Californians are. Terrible. But I mean, all of these environmental regulations, I think, they're just the greatest symbol of, I think, white upper middle class privilege that I can imagine. Right? Like, with this border wall, you have, like, low-income, let's say, African-American communities in places like Los Angeles and Texas, whose jobs are being undercut by legal immigration. But it's like, sorry, guys, there's an owl. Yeah, we don't care if you can feed your family.

Just the owls. The owl needs to feed its family. That's true. Do you think Trump has to do this? Zoh, does Donald Trump need to build the wall if he doesn't want to lose his supporters? You know, I think I'm going to get a lot of people mad at me when I say that. I haven't really been a big deal of the wall guy. I'm not against it.

Yeah. My whole thing is just like, look. You care more about the owls. I understand. I'm with you, Zoe. They're cute and cuddly. You know, despite, you know, who, who, who. Anyway, you know, my thing is, stop.

giving out the goodies that they come over for you know the education the the health care the the jobs and stuff like that stop leaving out the sugar so you know that way you know you they stop losing the incentive to come over and if you do see some people trying to sneak into our country from there with even though they know they're not going to get anything chances all that person trying to sneak in is probably trying to blow something up or it's sneaking in a kulo full of cocaine that is a good test one of those very bad one very good i'm kidding they're both terrible they're terrible Roaming, does he have to build the wall? You know what? I'm kind of like Zoe, right?

I mean, I'm not someone who thought like, oh, wall would be a great idea before it was mentioned. But, you know, when you think about it, it does kind of make sense like, hey, you have this border. It's very porous. You have a lot of movement going back and forth unauthorized. Why not? And to me, it's not just about the actual physical wall. It's about, you know, hey, patrols, a greater monitoring, things like that. I think Trump does need to build it.

You know, it's something that he campaigned on greatly. I think it's something that a lot of people who are feeling. like rule of law doesn't apply in in America anymore. It's something that they're counting on. And you know what? There's a lot of that portion is already walled anyway. It's not as a, I think, as huge a project as some people are making it out to be acting as if there's like no separation at all going on. I think, I think he does need to do it.

Well, you know, speaking of the threat from illegal aliens, NASA is currently seeking to hire someone with a secret security clearance and quote, quote, advanced knowledge of planetary protection to lead the agency's planetary protection capability. Now, this appears to be a change in course from NASA's primary duties under President Obama. Do we have that interview? When I became the NASA administrator or before I became the NASA administrator, he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math. He wanted me to expand our international relationships. That's really important.

So, which poses a greater danger to the United States, extraterrestrials or Muslim terrorists? Muslim extraterrestrials. I've forgotten that third category. And I like having George Jefferson as a dude who's going to do that for him. Wee's A! We say they're coming! Here comes E.T. to bring us his space aides. It is really reaching across the aisle, a real melding of the Obama and Trump and Trump

administration priorities. Nagay, Jared, we're making nice with Muslims. We're protecting against the Martians. But the last time that humans traveled out of low Earth orbit was 1972. Why aren't we exploring space anymore? Is it because of fear of the Muslim extraterrestrials? It could be. But if you've got a protector of the universe out there as they're planning,

and I can only picture at this point Al Gore with spandex and green mullet, I wouldn't want to leave the earth either. That's something you don't want to encounter. That's a making of a horror movie you can't take back. That is a fair point. What a job to have, by the way, protector of the planet, that is a pretty good time. Are these the kind of jobs Obama was adding when he was inflating the work numbers? Because this is a reach.

I want to go back and look at those jobs numbers under the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's paid well. From what I saw, this person is paid well. It's true, actually. The salary is almost... 187,000 or something like that. Yeah, that's right. Almost $200,000 a year to protect the planet, which, you know, rightly.

Are they getting funding from Ted Turner? Yeah, it might be. To fund Captain Planet? Are they getting funding from Ted Turner to protect for Captain Planet? Well, because of Citizens United, we can't look into all this dirty money in government, but we'll have to look into it. Roaming, when we ventured out to explore the moon, all we found was dirt and rock. The same is true of Texas.

Does our apathy about imploring imply that we have gone soft as a civilization? You know what? I've heard that argument, even from conservatives, the fact that, you know, Russia is making gains against the U.S. in the space race. And you know what? As someone who likes space, I like science, it's still really hard, I think, to justify that amount of spending just in general. We have such a huge deficit when we have so many problems, you know, on Earth in the country. But, you know, I think the biggest question here is that if it's a planetary protector, why is only the U.S. looking into this, right? I mean, shouldn't other countries be kind of going into this? And I'm not saying we build some sort of death star. But, you know, if we're actually thinking of protecting the whole planet, why is it always the U.S. that's taking on these initiatives, right?

I mean, if it's just an American job for NASA, I think we, you know, a sort of protective bubble just around the U.S. is more feasible, in my opinion. Other countries can fend for themselves. You know, roaming, you might not go this for. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Jared. Right. I'm open-minded. I support the Death Star. I agree with you. I agree with you. Let's not be cowardly here. Imperialism. Hey, but I got to, I got to ask.

It's infrastructure. It creates jobs. But I've got to ask, you know, because when they keep looking out in the space and they're always saying this planet could potentially support life, it's always could potentially support life. They haven't substantiated that there is organic material out there or something that is supporting life out there. So why are they worried about some sort of organic material coming here? when they haven't really proven that there's something else that supports life out there. Yeah, well, we can't focus on protecting from terrestrial life until we first protect against the evil Martians. You have to get your priorities in order. I mean, the idea of making another planet habitable is cool.

But, I mean, if you look on Earth, we still haven't figured out a way to make, like, sub-Saharan Africa habitable. Or Chicago or Detroit, yeah. Right, I mean. Dang. That's true. You're right. Maybe we could turn our view in. inside and make our own societies better.

That's a really wholesome point to end on. Get out of here, you. It was great to have you. Roaming Millennial, not gay Jared and Joe Rachel. Now it's time for final thoughts. Like so many government initiatives, a legal structure that began with apparently good intentions has wrought unintended consequences that are unjust, not merely to certain disenfranchised groups, but even to the people it intended to help.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These statistical, moral, and legal arguments to end affirmative action are overwhelming, but here's the simplest. The Justice Department is entrusted with the responsibility to stop discrimination and protect civil rights for everybody. Perhaps finally it ought to be able to do just that. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show.