The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 329 - Of Course Bernie Is A Millionaire

Episode Date: April 10, 2019

Why are socialists always so interested in accumulating wealth? Then, Candace Owens humiliates Democrats in congressional testimony, Bibi wins in Israel, Ilhan Omar says more awful things, and the bloom is off the Pete Buttigieg rose. Date: 04-10-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After years and years of vilifying millionaires, socialist gadfly Bernie Sanders prepares finally to release his tax returns he's a millionaire. We will analyze why socialists always seem to be so interested in accumulating wealth. Then Candice Owens humiliates Democrats Ted Lou and Jerry Nadler during congressional testimony. B.B. Netanyahu wins an historic third term in Israel. Ilan Omar says more awful things. And the bloom is off. The Pete Buttigugugug. go rose. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Noel show. Wait until you hear Bernie's explanation for why it's okay that he's a

millionaire, but it's not okay that other people are millionaires. I actually have a personal connection to Bernie's explanation, and I can tell you it is not really cutting it. It's not really that convincing. But first, let's make a little bit of money, honey, with ExpressVPN. Admit it. You think that cybercrime is something that happens to other people. You may think that no one wants your data. Hackers can't grab

your passwords or credit card details, but you would be wrong. Stealing data from unsuspecting people on public Wi-Fi is one of the simplest and cheapest ways for hackers to make money. When you leave your internet connection unencrypted, you may as well be writing your passwords and credit card numbers on a huge billboard for the rest of the world to see. That's why I decided to take action to protect myself from cyber criminals. I have ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN, security. and anonymizes your internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address. ExpressVPN has easy to use apps that run seamlessly in the background of your computer, phone, and tablet. Turning on ExpressVPN protection only takes one click. Using ExpressVPN,

I can safely surf on public Wi-Fi without being snooped on or having my personal data stolen. For less than seven bucks a month, you can get the same ExpressVPN protection that I've got. ExpressVPN has rated the number one VPN service by TechRadar, comes with a 30-day money-backed protect your online activity today. Find out how you can get three months free at ExpressVPN.com slash Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-V-P-N dot com slash Michael for three months free with a one-year package.

Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Michael, M-C-H-A-E-L to learn more. The time finally comes for Bernie Sanders to come clean. If you had to describe Bernie Sanders' campaign, Bernie Sanders's entire political career in just one word, how would you describe it? Billionaires, millionaires, millionaires, millionaires, and billionaires at the same time. Millionaires and billionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires and billionaires.

Enough is enough. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. Enough is enough, Bernie. Enough of the lies. Guess what it turns out. Bernie Sanders is a millionaire. Of course he's a millionaire. He did an interview with the New York Times, and he says that now as he's preparing to run for president in 2020, he is finally going to release 10 years worth of his tax returns. Now, you might say, Michael, Bernie Sanders ran in 2016.

They all made such an issue about the tax returns. Surely Bernie Sanders has already released his tax returns, right? wrong. No, no, no. As with everything, when it comes to socialism, it's always different rules for you than they are for me. Tax returns for thee, but not for me. So Bernie Sanders, while he's been running for president now since, what, 2015, basically nonstop, he has released not even one tax return. He released a two-page summary of one year of his tax returns. That's all we know about Bernie's tax returns right now. By the way, I don't care about tax returns. I don't care at all what any of the candidates have done in their tax returns. It does not interest me in the least. I don't think

candidates should release their tax returns. There's just no reason for it. Now, why don't I care? I don't care, because I don't care if you're really wealthy and want to run for office. I think that's a noble thing that you've made a lot of money and then decide that you're going to stop making money for a period of time. You're actually going to lose some money to serve your country. I think that's a wonderful thing. I don't ever discourage rich people from running for office. Now, for the Democrats, of course,

especially for socialists like Bernie Sanders, they ostensibly hate when wealthy people run for office. They're oligarchs. They're millionaires. They're billionaires. Until it turns out that you're one of those millionaire,

billionaire plutocrat oligarchs as well, aren't you, Bernie? So now the Democrats have made tax returns a big deal. Bernie Sanders is in this corner. He has to release his tax returns. So he's now trying to let it leak a little bit slowly. Bernie is a millionaire. I always knew Bernie was a millionaire. There were a number of reasons. In a very personal way, I know that Bernie Sanders has three houses, his three homes. It's hard to have three homes if you're not a millionaire. I guess by definition you're a millionaire, especially where

Bernie Sanders is living if you have three homes. But the excuse is what's really incredible. So he says, I'm a millionaire. Yes, I'm a millionaire. Quote, I wrote a bestselling book. If you write a bestselling book, you can be a millionaire too. First of all, by the way, I have to say not to tell tales out of school or anything. I did write a bestselling book. I wrote a number one bestselling book. It was number one on Amazon total charts everywhere for a week and a half. I haven't made a million dollars on that book. Bernie Sanders has made more money on his books than I have. Now, I assume his books were were just bought by various Democrat political action committees and that sort of thing to float his presidential campaign. But still, the statement he made is not true. I wrote a bestselling book.

If you write a bestselling book, you can be a millionaire too. I guess you can be. But how come that's okay for Bernie, but it's not okay for other people? How come it's okay when Bernie makes a million dollars on the private market, or in the open market, rather, in private enterprise, but it's not okay when other people do? It's okay, if you write a write a best-selling book, then it's okay to be a millionaire. But if you start a company that makes widgets, then it's not okay to be a millionaire. If you're a plumber who has a successful plumbing company, then it's not okay to be a millionaire. If you work in finance and you add liquidity to markets, then it's not okay to be a millionaire. Any other field, it's not okay,

it's terrible. The millionaires are destroying this country, too many millionaires and billionaires, unless you write a best-selling book. What is it about best-selling books? Let me tell you something. There are a lot of best-selling books. Most of them are completely worthless. Bernie Sanders' book is completely worthless. He has added very little to society by producing that book. He's probably just damaged some forests by wasting trees. Does anyone really believe that Bernie Sanders' book

has made a greater contribution to society, has improved the lives of people more than the car company, or the vacuum cleaner company, or any of the other companies, any enterprise that allows people to thrive and buy goods and services for their friends and family, that's an amazing excuse. So I knew Bernie was a millionaire.

I mean, I knew he wrote the book, so I knew he was a millionaire. But moreover, I knew Bernie was a millionaire because he just protests a little too much about socialism. This is the funny thing with socialism. We were talking about this. I was talking to Sweet Little Elisa about. this. And she said, but Mac, if Bernie's a big socialist, shouldn't he give away all of his money?

Of course he should. Sweet, sweet, sweet little Elisa. Of course. You're thinking too rationally. You're thinking too logically. You're accepting the premises of socialists at face value and following their ideas to a logical conclusion. That's not what socialism is about at all. That is certainly not what socialism is about. Socialism is not about giving away wealth. Socialism is about the acquisition of wealth. It is never about sharing wealth. Sharing wealth is called charity. People who want to share their wealth give money away to charity. They give it to the bum on the street. They give it to their church. They give it to non-profit organizations and charities. Socialism is about accumulation. It's about the accumulation of wealth and the accumulation of power. It's about

saying, too many people have too many things out there. We are going to, not give any thing away, we're going to take that wealth away from them and concentrate it in the hands of a small number of people, also known as the government. That's socialism. Conservatives think there is some contradiction with millionaire socialists. No, of course a socialist is going to be a millionaire. All a socialist is concerned with is taking money, bringing in money, accumulating money. You'll notice most of the people who are pushing socialism are extremely wealthy. Bernie Sanders is a millionaire. All of the leaders of the Democrat Party are millionaires.

Hillary Clinton, multi-multimillionaire, huge slush funds, basically used a nonprofit organization as a personal slush fund. How about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? She's just 29 years old. She was a bartender living in her parents' house not three years ago. And she has already, she's been in government for two months, she's already, taking one million dollars out of her campaign and funneling it to her own uses. She is already embezzling a million dollars. She's been in office for two months.

That's what socialism does. It's about taking in, bringing in. That's not even an irony. We know it from the beginning. This is what Winston Churchill said. He said that socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's all about greed.

It's not about charity at all. If you like charity, then you give to charity. You actually don't want someone stealing your money because you know that they're not going to put it to nearly as good a use as you are going to put it to. Socialism at no point engages the faculties of charity or empathy or generosity. None of those things.

It exclusively engages avarice greed and envy and acquisitiveness. the great example, Dinesh D'Souza used to use this example all the time. If I'm walking along the street, I'm walking on the sidewalk here, and I see some bum, and he's some just degenerate, drug-addled, lazy bum, and I'm eating a sandwich.

And he says, hey, can I have that sandwich? I like my sandwich. I've got my sandwich here. But I say, you know, here, here's half my sandwich. Now, I am glad that I have done some charity. I've treated you with compassion. You have a gratitude toward me

because I've given you a sandwich that I didn't need to give you. And there's a nice moral exchange that happened. On the flip side, I'm walking down the street, do-to-do-to-do, eating my sandwich. Then millionaire Bernie Sanders comes up on his white horse and he points a gun at my head

and he says, give him that sandwich. Say, you give him your sandwich. You're the millionaire. You give him a sandwich. No, no, you'll give him your sandwich right now. So then I've got to give the bum my sandwich. I resent the bum for taking my sandwich. I certainly resent Bernie Sanders for making me do it.

The bum isn't grateful to me. The bum, I guess, is sort of grateful or at least dependent on Bernie Sanders. And he feels entitled to my sandwich. His only attitude toward me is one of entitlement, as though he deserves my sandwich. And Bernie Sanders, it cost him nothing. Millionaire Bernie. That's socialism for you.

And Bernie is exposing it. And by the way, it is not going to change one single voter's calculation. People who think, ha ha, yes, now Bernie is exposed as a millionaire. Yes, this will show that he's a hypocrite. No, it won't. In a narrow way, it will. But socialists don't care about that. Socialists do not want to share the wealth.

Socialists want to take the wealth. and Bernie is a prime example of that. Take the wealth by any means necessary, even if it means contradicting your public statements for 40 years. When the leftists are not exposing themselves, as Bernie Sanders is doing, Candice Owens is doing it for them. Candice Owens testified, our friend Candice,

we've had her on the show a number of times. She testified before Congress yesterday. It was so beautiful. she was testifying on white nationalism. You might say that's a little strange. Why is Candace Owens testifying on white nationalism? Well, I think it was a masterstroke by Republicans. She can tell you why she did it.

But the question of white nationalism is totally ginned up by Democrats. What is white nationalism? What is it? A white nationalism actually does have a meaning. It means that you advocate for a white ethnic state. and specifically in America. That's what white nationalism in America means. Okay, that has a specific meaning.

You want a white ethnic state. Depends on exactly the definition of white, but broadly speaking, we know what we mean by white people. You want a white ethnic state. You want everybody else to leave. How many people in this country actually advocate for that? Like five? Maybe a dozen people in this country.

How many people actually are advocating? for a white ethnic state and the deportation of everybody else in the country. Nobody, virtually nobody and statistically nobody in this country is advocating that. It is not a problem. It is a non-issue, except the Democrats need to make this an issue. So the Democrats are using this phrase all the time. I'm telling you, white nationalism actually does have a precise meaning, except in our popular culture today, it has no meaning. It has been totally robbed of meaning. Whenever anybody says it to you, it means nothing.

It means, well, you're a meaning. You're bad. You're bad. You're bad. It's the new racist. Racist used to have a meaning. Now it doesn't. White supremacist used to have a meaning.

Now it doesn't. Because they call everybody to the right of Hillary Clinton, a white nationalist or a white supremacist or a white racist or this or that or the other thing. Elon Omar called Stephen Miller a white nationalist. Stephen Miller, I will remind you, is a Jew. White nationalists, generally speaking, not huge fans of the Amika. But she'll call Stephen Miller a white nationalist, and why does she do that? Because what you really mean by white nationalist, when the left uses it, is somebody with whom I disagree on basically anything. That's white nationalism. So they bring this term up. They've made this term very popular. They've been popularizing it a lot since 2016. and they bring Candace Owens before Congress.

Democrats did not know what hit them when the tornado of Candace Owens tore through the Capitol. There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist or a more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up. And yet we're hearing these terms sent around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared,

which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election. Here are some things we never hear. 75% of the black boys in California don't meet state reading standards. In inner cities like Baltimore, within five high schools in one middle school, not a single student was found to be proficient in math or reading in 2016. The single motherhood rate in the black community, which is at 23% in the 1960s when my grandfather was coming up, is at a staggering 74% today.

I'm guessing there will be no committee hearings about that. There are more black babies, born, there are more black babies aborted than born alive in cities like New York, and you have Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo lighting up buildings to celebrate late-term abortions. I could go on and on. My point is that white nationalism is not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did.

Let me be clear. The hearing today is not about white national. or hate crimes. It's about fear mongering, power, and control. Absolutely devastating. And such a brilliant tactic. So she acknowledges the issue here, which is that white nationalism barely exists in America. It is virtually non-existent as an ideology in the United States. They're holding a big hearing because Democrats want to pretend that Donald Trump, is some anti-black bigot or anti-Hispanic bigot or whatever. She goes up and she doesn't just refute their argument.

She doesn't just say, no, but it's not because of this, because of this. And no, and then Trump did this and see, so it's not that. No. What Candace understands is what Ronald Reagan used to say, which is that when you're explaining, you're losing in a political battle, in a political debate, when you are explaining, you're explaining yourself away. you are losing. So what she does is she goes on the attack. She says, why is it the case that out of wedlock births, single motherhood among black Americans was 23, 25 percent decades ago,

now it's 74 percent? Why is, is that white nationalism's fault? Why is it that in New York city today, more black babies are killed in the womb than are. are born and white liberals are cheering on that policy. Oh, they're donating millions to plan parenthood. Kill those black babies. We don't want too many of those young, poor black babies running around. Kill all the, what is that white nationalism? Or is that the policy of the Democrat party? And is that the policy of leftists? Is that white national? I don't think so. She goes on and on. Obviously, she could go on and on and on. Thomas Sol has written several books on this exact point, which I suspect is where she got her arguments from.

And Candace has all of the rhetorical abilities to convey this message. She obviously is black. She has a certain ethos here. She has a certain credibility because she's speaking from the black experience in America. She has the pathos. She's very good at connecting emotionally to people. and she has the logical side of the argument too. She's just pointing to statistics.

She's pointing to different periods of history. She's showing before and after. She's saying, what's the difference? Is the difference the Ku Klux Klan? Is the difference David Duke? Is the difference Richard Spencer? Or is the difference left-wing policies from the federal government, from the federal level,

all the way on down? And particularly accentuated in cities that are run by left-wing Democrats, such as New York. Brilliant opening, totally shuts it down, and she just comes out swinging. She's just punching, punching, punching. So now the Democrats are on their toes. They did not expect this. So now they start to go after her.

The biggest scandal, this is my last sentence, in American politics, is that Democrats have been conning minorities into belief that we are perpetual victims, all but ensuring our failure. Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democrat Party platform. They need blacks to hate whites, the rich to hate the poor. And soon enough, it'll be the tall hating the short. Oh my gosh. We'll get to the Democrats hitting her in a second. That last line, that is they want the blacks to hate the whites, they want the rich to hate the poor and the poor to hate the rich. They want the tall to hate the short. They want to divide

everybody and it's Democrats who have done it. She is taking the fight right to them. She's not speaking in nice, polite, political campaign terms. She's speaking in blunt terms. This is a lesson that a lot of people can learn from Donald Trump. Before that, they could learn it from Ronald Reagan, actually. Ronald Reagan spoke in blunt terms. He spoke actually in these exact terms. He said, well, we've gotten to a point in our society where, I'm paraphrasing, obviously, we've gotten to a point in our society where you can't look at a rich, a fat man and a skinny man, and not think that the fat man got that way by taking from the skinny man. Well,

Nancy, I'll get fat on jelly beans. That's from a time for choosing, right? Not the jelly bean part. This is from Ronald Reagan's most famous address. It's what launched him as a national political figure. And Candace is learning this exact rhetorical

lesson. And by the way, she has the advantage of being correct. So she's right about that point on Democrats. So now the Democrats they just have to use everything they've got on her. The one thing they've got is at one of these campus speaking events, Candice Owens was asked a question about nationalism and Nazism and Hitler. And if you're a nationalist, aren't you a Hitler supporter? And so Candice Owens here draws a distinction between nationalism and

Nazism. And this went viral. It was taken out of context. The Democrats honed in on a few words, that were not cautiously arranged to try to pretend that Candace Owens is some Nazi or something, to try to pretend that she's defending Hitler or something like that. Here is the clip that Ted Lou played on his cell phone, Democrat Representative Ted Lou, before the entire committee to try to shut down Candace Owens. I actually don't have any problems at all with the word nationalism. I think that the definition gets poisoned. by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. So when you think about,

whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist. But if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism. So in thinking about how we could go bad down the line, I don't really have an issue with nationalism. I really don't. Okay.

There it is. There's the big line. Now, we will explain what she was actually saying in just a second. We'll get to the rest of her excellent testimony. But first, you've got to go to DailyWire.com. You know what you get. You get all the shows, the Andrew Clayman show, the Ben Shapiro show, my show, the Matt Wohl's show. You get to ask questions in the mailbag.

Get those in for Thursday. You get to ask questions on backstage. You get another kingdom. you get everything. You get the leftist tears tumbler and you need this baby. Before we get to the rest of Candace's testimony before Congress, you need this tumbler or you will drown. Stick around. We'll be right back. Okay. So Ted Lou plays this. This is supposed to shut it down. Oh, you saw what Candice said about Hitler? This person, she talked about Hitler. what did she actually say?

Let's because what Ted Lu wants to do is say, see, she said the word Hitler, she's awful. What did she actually say? What she said was, the overall point that she's making is that nationalism is different from imperialism. This is the point that Yoram Hazzoni makes in his recent book, excellent book, The Virtues of Nationalism. She's saying very often when we use the word nationalism, what we really mean is imperialism.

and a good example of this is Hitler in Nazi Germany because we use nationalism to describe the Nazi movement but in fact the movement is better described as an imperial movement. What did they do? They took over Czechoslovakia, they took over Poland, they took over Austria, they took over France. It was entirely about conquest and so what Candice is saying there

is that there is a difference between those two things. We are reversing the two terms. We're inverting the two terms. And actually, what I oppose is imperialism or globalism, which actually better describes Nazi Germany. That's what she's saying. Fair point. Now, where she misspeaks,

where she could have phrased her language better, is she said, look, if Hitler just wanted to stick around Germany, that would have been fine. But it's only because he tried to expand beyond Germany that it was bad. Now, what that statement ignores is, of course, the effect of Hitler's policies on religious and ethnic minorities in Germany itself. Yes. She missed that. She ignored that. She misspoke. Unless you think that Candice Owens is advocating for the night of the long knives, and she's advocating for anti-Jewish policies all throughout Germany, if she's advocating for oppressing the Jews and other minorities in Germany, unless you think that,

I think you have to conclude, she misspoke. She's making a point that domestic policy is different than international policy. And the issue, by the way, she actually sort of addresses this point later, which is that the issue for Hitler is, that the issue for Hitler is, you know, is that the domestic policy is inextricable from the international policy. The domestic policy is an international policy. It's about expanding the size of Germany. That is the broader point. And by the way, when we think of the essence of the Nazi agenda, what do we think of?

Do we think about certain policies within Germany? No, we think about the international policies. All of Nazism was fueled by imperialist ambitions. When you think of the Holocaust, what do you think of? of the smokestacks of Birk now. You think of Auschwitz. Those places are not in Germany. Those places are in Nazi-occupied Poland. Some of the worst, most

notorious concentration camps were in Poland, Czechia, France, Austria. Some as far as Ukraine, right? Some as far as Latvia. Right? Those are quite far away from Germany. That is the point she's making. No one on earth believes that Candace Owens is defending Hitler. And yet, this is the best argument that the Democrats on this committee had against Candace Owens. And she, oh, I mean, obviously, she didn't have time to kind of explain it as we just did. She shuts this guy down

in a way that really only she can. Nobody does this better than Candace Owens. I'm sorry, we just started a recording. Would you like time to respond to that? Yes, I think it's pretty apparent that Mr. Liu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety. He purposely presented an extracted clip. Witness will suspend for a moment. It is not proper to refer disparagingly or to a member of the committee.

The witness will not do that again. Witness may continue. Sure, even though I was going to. called despicable. Witness may not refer to a member of the committee as stupid. I didn't refer to him as stupid. That's not what I said. That's not what I said at all.

You didn't listen to what I said. May I continue? Please. As I said, he is assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two-hour clip, and he purposefully extracted, he cut off and you didn't hear the question that was asked of me. He's trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact, the question that was asked of me, was returning to whether or not I believed that Hitler was a, whether or not I believed in nationalism

and that nationalism was bad. And when I responded to was that I do not believe that we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. Oh my gosh, he's the best part of it, really. So, again, this is such a lesson. You have to learn this from Candace. Ted Liu goes up, he's got his best shot. He's got this little tight clip where he's trying to make it look like Candace Owens is going out, giving a speech defending Hitler. And instead of trying to explain and explain and explain right away,

she said, well, I think it's pretty apparent that Ted Liu thinks blacks are stupid. I think that's pretty apparent. Devastating. He also does. She's completely right. He is assuming not just that black people are stupid, but the American people are stupid. He's at least assuming that his constituents are stupid because they're not going to go look up the clip. They're stupid or they're lazy, I guess, is what he thinks. And so she calls him out on that, puts him on the defensive. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the committee has to come out and say, no, no, no, I've got to defend Ted Liu here. So he comes out and he says, you, you can't do that. You can't, you can't, that's not appropriate to use words like that. You can't disparage people. She says, I was just called despicable.

What are you talking about? Is it appropriate to call a witness despicable? Oh, you just can't call a Congress. Okay. And he says, well, you can, you called him stupid. Hey, Buster, you got, you got wax in your ears. When did I call? him stupid. Stupid is as stupid does, Jerry Nadler. Show me on the tape where I called him stupid. She didn't. She said, Ted Lou clearly thinks black people are stupid. And Nadler said, you can't call Ted Lu stupid. Now, you have to wonder here, is Jerry Nadler stupid or is he just being obtuse? Is he trying to conflate those two things? And I'm not sure. Jerry Nadler is a local New York politician. Jerry Nadler is

not the brightest bulb in the pack. Okay. His entire career, he just came up through local corrupt machine politics in New York, this guy is not one of the leading lights of statesmanship. We'll put it that way. So he actually may just not understand the difference. If I say, that person thinks that that person is stupid, he might not understand how that is different from saying, you are stupid, even though they're obviously completely different things. But then Candace, because she's really good at this, she actually lets him sit there. She's like a good, good prosecutor. She, she puts him in the place where he has to answer and she's willing to tolerate some silence. So she goes, that's not what I said. You, you are

misrepresenting what I said. You're lying about what I said. And then she just sits there silently, staring at him. And Nadler is staring back, like, you know, Weeble's wobble, but they don't fall down. He just looks like this sad little doll. And he just looks at her. And you couldn't see the clip. He just sort of was there. He's kind of. He's kind of. slumped over and he just goes, and he kind of just shrugs. Which is, by the way, I mean, that actually, I guess, is the answer to the question of whether he's being obtuse or whether he's a little slow, is that actually he's just a cynic. He doesn't care what the truth is.

That's what the shrug is. She said, you are lying. You are lying about what happened not 10 seconds ago. And he goes, uh-uh, what is truth? I don't know, give us Barabbas. I don't know. What is truth? That's what that shrug is.

That shrug, we did that whole show yesterday on Democrat BS, on what BS means. Why the left spews BS. It's not that they're necessarily intentionally lying or intentionally talking. They don't care about the truth. And then she goes on. You can look up the rest of it. It's a fabulous exchange. She does very, very well.

Some people are nitpicking little points here and there. She should have said this better. You know, listen, you're under a lot of pressure here to testify before these committees. They're throwing in her face these little answers completely out of context from campus speeches. I thought she handled herself extraordinarily well. It really was a great advantage to conservatives around the country. Great testimony. And a great call, by the way, from Republicans on that committee to bring her in to testify.

Because the thing that people also don't really remember about her, she herself was the victim of what you would call a hate crime in high school. This was kind of a well attested to, well-reported story. And then she came out, obviously she's much better known now for the Blexit movement for her conservative commentary, for her conservative speeches. But she really, A-plus, A-plus outing for Candace Owens. It really humiliated Ted Lou and Jerry Nadler, two guys who deserve. to be humiliated. Speaking of nationalism, turning not to our own nation, but to a nation in the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu wins again in Israel. Bibi Netanyahu wins an historic fifth term as prime minister of Israel. Bibi is the right wing prime minister of Israel. He's the image of conservatism in Israel, the image of nationalism in Israel, and we were told he's going to lose. Bibi's going down. Oh, first of all, you'd think he should at this point. He's already had four terms. Oh, he's going down. The media, they were so sure. Oh, it's going to be, B.B.'s going to lose. Trump's going to lose. Hillary's going to win. Oh, it's guaranteed. Guaranteed. Then they start

reporting. Oh, it looks like Bibi's losing. Beebe's about to lose. Then, oh, no, it's kind of evening out. No, then both candidates, B.B. Netanyahu and his opponent, Benny Gans, both declare victory, but only one of them actually gets victory. So, Bibi declares victory because he actually won. Benny Gantz declares victory because leftists BS all the time. And here is Bibi celebrating. Taking it back this evening. It's an amazing success that we've had.

And we have come to this time. Big win for Beebe. Big win for Beebe. He goes on, but if you don't speak Hebrew, you know, it gets a little tedious. The mainstream media tell us that everyone is so sick of Trump. Trumpism, conservatism, nationalism, right-wingism. They're so sick of it. Nobody wants that anymore.

There's no way nobody wants Trump. Nobody wants Bibi. Nobody wants. any of the right winger who have won in Europe, then how come all the right wing candidates keep winning? How's that? Doesn't? It's so weird, because I read about how everyone's so sick of the right. And yet the right wingers keep winning at home and abroad. This is another big loss for the media. By the way, Bibi Netanyahu campaigned on Trump and he campaigned with Trump. big photos of him and Trump smiling, big events geared right around election time with Trump,

very much hitching his wagon to Trump, and he won. By the way, by the way, let's not forget this. We talk about collusion, we talk about nationalism. We talk about collusion in other people's elections. Let's not forget that Barack Obama used taxpayer money to try to oust BB Netanyahu when he was president. Not that he used his own campaign money, not that he used his own personal money. Barack Obama, while he was president, used taxpayer funds to try to kick Netanyahu out of office in Israel. Where's that investigation into meddling in people's elections?

Barack Obama did a lot more to meddle in that election than the Russians did to meddle in the U.S. elections. At least in terms of spending money on, what did the Russians spend $100,000 on Facebook ad buys? Barack Obama spent $350,000 of taxpayer money through the State Department. He funneled it to a group in Israel called One Voice, ostensibly a pro-peace group, BS, as always. That group, One Voice took 350 Gs from the American taxpayer, used that money to build a voter database, to train activists, and to hire a consulting firm that worked for Barack Obama in 2008 to hire that firm to oust BB Netanyi. from office in Israel. That's not some crazy conspiracy theory. That's not right wing fake news. That's not looking down deep in the internet. That's according to the Senate subcommittee on investigations. And still we hear from these BS Democrats that interference in a foreign election, oh, heavens to

Betsy, let me clutch my pearls. Oh, oh, the horror, I can't even imagine. Oh, the collusion. Oh, my goodness gracious me. Oh no. And by the way, guess what? Netanyahu won. Barack Obama used the force of the most powerful state in the history of the world and the wealth of the most prosperous state in the history of the world to try to oust this guy from office in Israel. And the guy won. And Obama lost. And then years later, you'd think people would be tired of this guy already. Bebe Netanyahu wins running on Trump and with Trump with the guy who beat Obama, he wins an historic fifth term. Great, great stuff. Speaking of the Jews and people who don't like the Jews, we have to mention Ilhan Omar. Why do we have to mention her? I'd prefer not to mention her. I don't

like her very much. But we have to mention her because Newsweek just gave her another magazine cover. This is really an amazing thing. All of these freshman congresswomen who have accomplished very little in their lives. Magazine cover after magazine cover after magazine cover. So she's on the cover of Newsweek. And by the way, this video just surfaced of Ilan Omar discussing the September 11th terrorist attacks. Care was founded after 9-11 because they recognized that some people did something. and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

Wow. First of all, I can't believe that this video hasn't made the rounds before. I guess whoever had dug it up was waiting on it. This marks the first time a member of Congress has referred to the September 11th terrorist attacks as some people did something. Could we play that again? Care was founded after 9-11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. Some people did something.

3,000 American civilians killed in a terrorist attack, biggest terrorist attack in the history of the United States. Civilians going around just doing work, said goodbye to their kids in the morning. morning didn't come home. Some people did something. That woman, that horrible, horrible, horrible woman is in Congress. Some people did something. And it's even worse than that because she describes as the victim. The victim of 9-11, according to Ilan Omar, is Ilan Omar. She said, some people did something. Who cares about that? What thing? What is it? 3,000. people, 3,000 American civilians died. Oh, something happened. And then I lost my civil liberties. By the way, no, you didn't. You're a member of Congress. You didn't lose any, you didn't lose

one scintilla of a civil liberty. You lost nothing. Some people did something. Ilan Omar. What a horrible, horrible woman. I can't, I should stop speaking about her because I'll say something that maybe I'll regret or something. That is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard from an American politician in my lifetime or in history. And I'm a student of history. That is so outrageous to hear that. And this woman is being pushed, advocated by the left. She's being raised the cover of glossy magazines. She's a spokesman for the Democrat Party for the left wing. She is doing it to defend the Council on American Islamic Relations, which has been defined and categorized by the government of the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist group.

It's got ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It's got ties to Hamas. There she is, defending terrorists again. Again, she's done this before. She's defended people who tried to join ISIS, tried to get them lenient sentences. She defends terrorists, and then she describes the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. 3,000 American civilians dead as some people did something. Behold the Democrat Party.

Behold the American Left. Behold the Democrat Party. That's the face of it. You know, when you watch Candace Owens speaking, giving congressional testimony, you think, wow, this woman's really fired up. Oh, why is she so fired up? And then you watch her. you watch Ilhan Omar, you watch someone say something like that, and you think, wow, the stakes really are pretty high. Wow. There are some really wicked, wicked people saying vicious, evil things, wicked things. Behold the Democrat Party. That's our show. I'm flying out to Kansas City, Missouri. I'm going to be giving a speech tomorrow night at University of Missouri, Kansas City. Come check it out. The title is going to be men.

are not women. You would think you wouldn't have to defend this sort of thing these days, but you do because it's 2019. So come check it out if you're there. Hopefully we'll be able to stream it. But if you're in town, I'd love to come see you. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knolls Show. See you then. The Michael Knoll's 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 Domego. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. assistant, Nick Sheehan. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

Hey, everybody. It's Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. The left says white nationalism is on the rise. I say their real object is silencing conservative speech. We'll talk about that. And we've got the mailbag on the Andrew Claven show. I'm Andrew Claven.