The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 340 - There Are No 'Fine People' In Antifa

Episode Date: April 30, 2019

CNN’s Chris Cuomo defends Antifa, the mainstream media fail to report on a foiled Islamic terror plot, and leftists embrace the hijab. Date: 04-30-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

CNN's Chris Cuomo defends Antifa. The mainstream media failed to report on a foiled Islamic terror plot and leftists embrace the hijab. I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show. There are very fine people on both sides of left-wing terrorism, I guess. That's what seems to be the case according to CNN and Chris Cuomo. No minor media figure, by the way. Chris Cuomo, whose brother is Andrew Cuomo, Democrat governor of New York, whose father was Mario Cuomo, major Democrat governor of New York, Chris Cuomo coming out in favor and defending Antifa. He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He says, I'm not defending Antifa, but come on, these guys are pretty good. We'll take a look at that in one second and explain, as always,

why the left gets things exactly backwards. They get it backwards on violence. They get it backwards on dirty tricks. They get it backwards on the media. They even get it backwards on popular culture, on the hijab, on sports. It's a really crass moment right now for the left as they go on the attack against conservatives for being violent. But first, Wise Company. Oh, you know that you need to be prepared in any sort of emergency. Wise Company takes an innovative approach in providing dependable, simple, and affordable freeze-dried food for emergency preparedness and outdoor use. Wise Company meals are designed to protect your most valuable assets.

your family. When government resources are strained, it can be days, if not weeks, before you can get to fresh food and water. You cannot rely on someone else. You have to rely on yourself. You can't know what tomorrow may bring, but you can have peace of mind knowing that you'll be ready with all you need. You've been reading the news. A lot of pretty scary events out there. Violence, political uncertainty. Don't put yourself in a situation where you need something that you don't have. Get prepared today. Not only is wise emergency food excellent. It tastes very good. The quality is, unmatched. They don't just slap their name on some other product that someone else gave them. All their ingredients are chef prepared internally by Wise Company. By doing this, they cut out the middle

man. They pass the savings on to you. There is no excuse in waiting until it is too late. There's no better time to prepare than now. Wise Emergency Food is an investment in peace of mind for your family. This week, my listeners can get any Wise Emergency or Outdoor Food product at an extra 25% off the lowest marked price at Wisefoodstorage.com. when entering Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S at checkout, or by calling 855-45-45-2-9-4-5. Plus, shipping is free. Wise has a 90-day, no questions-asked return policy. So there's no risk in taking the initiative to get yourself and your family more prepared today.

That's Wisefoodstorage.com, promo code Knowles, get any Wise emergency or outdoor food product, extra 25% off, and free shipping. We have been hearing for weeks now. Actually, we've been hearing this for years, but it's ramped up in recent weeks. How awful it is that Donald Trump and Trump supporters defended the neo-Nazis at Charlottesville. Now, you know, that never happened. He never defended them. Well, we've been told it's awful that he drew a moral equivalence between peaceful protesters and neo-Nazis. He never did that.

Well, it's awful that he said that there were fine people among the neo-Nazis. He never did that. We've been hearing this ramping up for weeks and weeks and weeks. Meanwhile, Chris Cuomo on CNN defends Antifa, a domestic terror organization. Here he is. You can talk about Antifa. I've watched them in the streets protesting in different situations, okay? There are certainly aspects of them that are true to a cause.

That is a good cause. They want social justice. They want whatever they want in that context. You tell me when that is ever happens. You tell me when that is ever happens. happened with neo-Nazis. Where they have ever been doing the right thing? Just Antifa is not a good cause.

Antifa does not have good aims. Antifa wants power, wants political power taken through force. That's what Antifa is all about. I mean, they are the inheritors of Nazis and brown shirts. I am not here to espouse Antifa or any group on the political spectrums. It sounds like it. No, because you want it to be like that because you want it to be simple. No.

And you want to be able to run away after something like this and say, Cuomo loves the alt. He loves them. And you know it's not true. You know it's BS. What I'm saying is this. You don't draw a moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and the people there to fight against them.

You don't do it in that context because it's not what we are about in this country. First of all, it is simple. Antifa are terrorists. They are domestic terrorists who use violence to affect their political ends. It is simple. He says that his people on the people

on the panel want this to seem like a simple discussion. It is simple. Antifa are terrorists. Also, Chris Cuomo at the beginning of that clip and at the end of that clip, defends Antifa. At the beginning of it, he says, look, there are elements in Antifa which are really good. You know, they want really good things. No, there aren't. They are terrorists. They wear black face masks and they go out explicitly and exclusively to commit violence. They're not good people. None of them are, there are no very fine people in Antifa. Then at the end, he says, no, no, that's not really what I'm saying. I'm just saying that you can't draw a moral equivalence between Nazis and the people fighting against them. Between fascists and the people fighting against fascists. By the way,

Antifa are fascists. They use the tactics of fascists. They have fascist goals. They even dress like fascists, they wear the black shirts, which are the mark of Italian fascists, the people who invented fascism. So not only can you draw moral equivalence, they are equivalent, but what Chris Cuomo is saying is actually a little, a little bit of a grander claim than that. He's not saying that they're equivalent. What he's saying is that Antifa are better, because there are some good people, because there are some very fine people on both sides. according to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, Antifa are domestic terrorists. It's not just a term we're throwing around. That's according to the federal government.

What have we seen Antifa do? Well, you saw one of those guys bust in and attack me when I was trying to give a speech at the University of Missouri, Kansas City a few weeks ago. You saw this at Tucker Carlson's house, a group of Antifa terrorists show up at his house, try to bust in his door, break up. his front door, chase his wife so she has to hide in the pantry until someone can come home until the cops can get there. And then outside of his house, they chanted, quote, Tucker Carlson, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night. Tucker Carlson. What crime has Tucker Carlson committed? He hosts a television show on cable that they don't like. So they go, they break his property, they deface his property, they drew big anarchist symbols and paint on his house, and they terrify his wife, and then they threaten him where he sleeps at night. But according to

Chris Cuomo, there are some good people, they have some good aims, they have some good goals. Now we're just learning, there's a new FBI report out, that Antifa has been coordinating with a Mexican cartel leader to try to start a rebellion, a violent rebellion on the border, and attack our border patrol agents and attack our military and attack our federal officials. So they were working with a Mexican cartel leader named Cobra Commander, whose other nickname is the Mexican Rambo. They sound like good people, don't they? Good people. I'm very fine people on both sides. What they were working with this cartel leader for, according to the FBI report, is to get weapons for their group from a Mexican cartel

and then use those weapons to kill cops and to kill border patrol agents and to cause disruption along the border. Antifa, working with Mexican cartel leaders to buy guns to kill cops. Very good people, very fine people on both sides.

The FBI report writes, quote, they were working together to set up camps to train activists and become, quote, community defense militias. What does that mean? mean. Goes on. Organizers planned for the camps to be used as staging platforms from which five-person units would form to train anarchists in fighting, combat, and conducting reconnaissance and then launch to disrupt U.S. government operations along the border. Very fine people. Specifically,

one of the people that apparently was behind this was an activist named Evan Duke. So you've got one of the biggest voices in the mainstream media, and one of the most mainstream, this guy, Chris Cuomo, is at the heart of Democrat politics. You also have major figures in academia, and not just some fringe lunatic professor from Cal State, L.A., you've got a professor at Dartmouth College, one of the oldest colleges in the country, older than the United States, Mark Bray going out and saying the same thing Chris Cuomo just did, except even a little bit more clearly. Antifa, yeah, they can be pretty good people. The question, if we take a big step back, historically and say, all right, when was it legitimate to stand up and defend oneself against

fascism in the 20s and 30s? How bad did it have to get? Now, today is not the same as the 20s and 30s, but there are enough parallels for us to be having this conversation. And so the question is, how bad does it have to get to defend oneself, anti-fascist, argue you don't let it take the first step. You stand up to it sometimes in a preemptive self-defense. And that's sort of something that people have trouble grappling with, but they argue don't let it grow powerful enough until it's actually at your front door. Well, I mean, that's a fairly controversial thing to say. Preemptive defense, meaning you hit first, that's going to rub some people the wrong way, obviously. Preemptive self-defense, if that is not the most Orwellian phase you've ever heard.

Violent peace. Peaceful war. Preemptive self-defense. Speaking of safety, Ring's mission is to make neighborhood safer. You know about Ring. I talk about it all the time. Ring has a smart video doorbell and camera that can protect millions of people everywhere and does. Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world. So if some wacko antifa guy with a weird mask on his face shows up to your door, you'll be able to see him, you'll also be able to communicate with him, you'll get an alert and you will talk to them all from your phone, whether you're in your house, whether you are at the office, whether you are on vacation, wherever you can talk to them. That is thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on ring devices. I will say, as somebody

who gets threats with some regularity as, you know, as somebody who, when I go to these colleges, occasionally gets physically assaulted, it makes me feel a lot safer to have ring. I give ring out to all my friends as housewarming gifts. Our senior producer, Jay Hay, has ring. Two wacko, drug-addled people showed up to his house at three in the morning. He spoke to them from his bedroom. Let them know somebody was at home. They skedaddled because they didn't want to have to deal with somebody. They didn't want to be seen, and that video gets uploaded to the cloud, so you'll be able to identify whoever that is. Even if they steal your ring, by the way, it'll already be in the cloud so you can send it to the cops. As a listener, you have a special offer on a ring starter kit available right now with a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight camera.

The starter kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home. Go to ring.com slash Knowles, K-O-L-E-S, ring.com slash Knowles. that professor Mark Bray, professor at Dartmouth, wrote a book encouraging Antifa called the anti-fascist handbook. Mark Bray comes up with a clever little defense of the Antifa terrorist tactics. He calls it preemptive self-defense. Now, it's one of those phrases, it sort of, if you're not paying attention, it sounds, oh yeah, okay, that's preemptive self-defense. Okay, that makes sense. Self-defense can't be preemptive. It's like when people talk about violent speech. Speech is not violence. Speech does not commit violence. It's when people equate speech and

violence. No, no. There's violence and then there's speech. There's self-defense and then there's preemption. Preemptive self-defense means aggression. It shows as we notice a lot that the left always wants the appearance of the thing, but they don't want the reality of the thing. They want all the trappings of the thing. They don't want the essence of the thing. They want to seem like they're just playing defense. They're the victims. They're being attacked. And they are just defending themselves. But they're not going to wait until they get attacked because nobody's really attacking them. So what they do is they go out and they commit violence unprovoked, unjustified, and then they say, no, it was self-defense?

How was it self-defense? You went up to that conservative speaker and sucker-punched him. Oh, well, no, you don't, that was preemptive self-defense. Preemptive self-defense. Why did you go up to that conservative speaker and sucker punch him? Oh, well, because he actually committed violence on me with his words. Well, from my vantage, it looks like conservative speakers are there talking, and then leftist thugs go up and physically attack them.

No, no, no, no, no, no. it's preemptive self-defense. That's what they're saying. Now, the left is not peaceful at the moment. The left is not advocating for peace. The left is advocating for violence in their rhetoric. And in these cases where violence erupts, usually it's on the left. Not all the time, but usually it's on the left. They want to appear primarily peaceful, but they're actually eager and encouraging of committing violence. This brings us to another important rule to keep in mind when you're watching the mainstream media, when you're in class, when you're looking at politics. The left accuses the right of doing what the left actually does. You can bet on it. This is always true.

They accused President Trump and Trump supporters of praising neo-Nazis or of drawing a moral equivalence between peaceful protesters and neo-Nazis. Trump never did that. The left did that. You just saw it happen twice by fairly prominent figures. Whenever the left, whenever the right rather accuses the left of something, or rather when the, I'm sorry, this is very confusing. There's the left and the right. There's violence. There's Antifa. There's moral equivalence. When the left accuses the right of something, you can bet that it is not. the right that's doing it. It is the left that is doing it. For instance, you look at Joe Biden. Joe Biden accuses conservatives of being racially divisive. He's going on this whole spiel now

about how we need to make America moral again because Trump is so racist and bigoted and awful. Joe Biden said in 2012 that Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains to a predominantly black audience. Joe Biden has been a racial huckster his entire career. And then he goes out and launches his campaign, his entire campaign, on a lie that Donald Trump called neo-Nazis fine people in Charlottesville. Didn't happen. Supporters of the Clintons, supporters of Bob Menendez, supporters of Elliot Spitzer, of Anthony Weiner, of all sorts of Democrat sexual degenerates are accusing Republicans and conservatives and Trump supporters of being unfair to women, of being harsh on women. misogyny, sexism. They ran Hillary Clinton last election, the woman who smeared all of her husband's victims.

They were going to return Bill Clinton, a sexual assailant, to the Oval Office. He was going to be on the couch. He wasn't going to be behind the desk, but they were going to return that man to the White House. How about when Democrats accused Republicans of colluding with the Russians for two years? They said that Republicans and Trump colluded with the Russians for two years. They went out, they made a deal with Vladimir Putin. They rigged the 2016 election. They robbed it from Hillary Clinton.

It's an illegitimate presidency because it was bought and paid for by Vladimir Putin and Trump rather is a puppet of Vladimir Putin. What do we find out? The only people, the only people who colluded with the Russians were the Democrats. How did they collude with the Russians? Because they paid Fusion GPS. to commission an APA research file written by Christopher Steele, which used information procured from, you guessed it, the Russians. Where else could that information have come from? Now, it turned out

to have been disinformation. The Democrats literally colluded with the Russians. The federal government, too, because the federal government then, under Barack Obama, used that steel dossier as a cheap excuse to get surveillance warrants for the Trump campaign. So the federal government, those deep state agents, as they're called, and the Democrats spent two years accusing Donald Trump of doing something that not only he didn't do, that they did themselves. This is also, it comes out in how they report on it. So, any time an act of violence can be tied to the right wing, you are going to see right away in the headline, right wing violence, conservative violence, Trump supporter violence, You're going to see that reported on breathlessly for weeks, if not years.

Charlottesville is a good example of this. Charlottesville was radical right-wing. I guess they share some views of the left, but they probably would call themselves right-wing, those neo-Nazi types. Radical fringe, there were probably 200 of them in the entire country. They go out, they commit violence. Donald Trump explicitly condemns them. Two years you hear the left.

Right-wing violence, Trump supporter violence, conservative violence, conservative. violence. Anytime an act of violence can be tied to the left wing, it's buried. It's totally buried. There was a terrorist attack that was foiled over the weekend. A left wing, Islamic, domestic terrorist attack. Have you heard about that? Have you read about, has that been all over the mainstream media? Did you see that on the evening news? Did you read about that in the New York Times? Probably not. If you did, it was probably just a little story, and probably it left at a lot of details. This guy, Domingo, was, according to prosecutors, making posts online that expressed support,

this is from the prosecutors, expressed support for violent jihad, a desire to seek retribution for attacks against Muslims, and a willingness to become a martyr. He had considered attacking Jews, churches, and police officers. But instead, he decided he was going to detonate an IED at a Long Beach, extreme, right-wing rally on Sunday morning, but the rally was called off. He posted a video last month, expressing his belief and support for Islam. Okay, this is a, not only a left-wing guy, he's targeting right-wing groups, he's targeting conservative institutions, he's targeting religious groups, Jews, churches. How do you think this is covered by the mainstream media?

Do you think it was Islamic terrorist plot foiled? Left-wing terrorist plot foiled. No, probably not. This is how CBS reports it. Quote, Army vet arrested in foiled terror plot apparently wrote, America needs another Vegas event. Look at the brilliance. Look at how clever the left is in writing that headline. So they lead with Army vet. I guess the guy was, had been in the Army. When you hear Army vet, do you think right-wing guy or left-wing guy? Probably you think right-wing guy. Look, there are plenty of Democrats in the military. But when you read that, you just assume he's a military guy, he's probably on the right.

Then, terror plot. This is also coming in the wake of that awful synagogue attack last Friday. And you hear, America needs another Vegas event. What was that Vegas event? We actually don't really know much about the motivations for that Las Vegas shooting. But what we do remember are the responses to the Vegas shooting. We know that the left wing made a major push for gun control after that, to ban guns that would not have stopped the attack,

and we know the right defended those guns and the Second Amendment. So just even setting up that paradigm, we need another Vegas attack. Well, what do I remember about Vegas? I remember the right was fighting for Second Amendment rights. Okay. And Army veteran, okay, so I don't, probably not a left winger. How do they then open up the article, quote,

a U.S. Army veteran is being held without bail, accused of plotting an attack to avenge the killing of Muslims. That's the first sentence in the article on CBS. CBS. So he's not doing it because he's a terrorist. He's not doing it because he wants to kill innocent people. He's not doing it to advance his political agenda. No, he's doing it to avenge. That's the verb they use, avenge. See, it's defensive. Self-defense. It's not preemptive. I guess it is preemptive self-defense. defense. Because he's going to avenge. Imagine if it were a right winger. Would they use the word avenge? How did the Boston Globe report on this? California terror plot by Army veterans stopped, U.S. officials say. Not by Muslim, not by left winger. No, no. Army veteran. Here's from,

also from the, this wasn't the Boston Globe. I don't have the source here. Another, mainstream news source. Los Angeles terror plot. Law enforcement prevents attack aimed at mass casualties. Oh, that was the subtitle of the Boston Globe. It's an attack aimed at mass casualties. What kind of attack? Whose attack? Who wants it? L.A. Terror plot? It was a left winger. They don't say that. How about after that shooting at the synagogue, after the Poewe shooting? There was a white supremacist who committed that shooting. That white supremacist in his manifest so condemns Donald Trump, condemns conservatives explicitly. How does the Daily Beast report on that?

Quote, why conservatives keep getting anti-Semitism wrong? Conservatives are getting it wrong. It's really probably it's conservative's fault, even though the terrorist who shot up that synagogue explicitly said he hates conservatives and he's not a conservative. They go on in the Daily Beast. By detaching anti-Semitism from its nationalist ideology, The right dodges responsibility over and over again for its fellow travelers.

Anti-Semitism on the right, that's what the left is going to talk about. The left just ran in the New York Times a cartoon of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, as a dog leading a blind Trump who's hunched over like a caricature of a Jew on the internet, a classic trope of a Jew with a yarmulka on his head. You can compare that cartoon to propaganda published by the Nazi Party in 1940. They are identical. There's a similar cartoon of Jews leading Winston Churchill, like a dog, walking him right in front of them. The same imagery.

you've got Elon Omar, an elected Democrat congresswoman, who is engaging in anti-Semitic tropes all the time, accusing Jews of being disloyal to the United States, saying the only reason to support Israel is because it's all about the Benjamin's baby, because Jews are bribing everybody, saying that Israel has hypnotized the world and praying to Allah to wake people up to the evil deeds of Israel, laughing at, Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, associating with groups tied to Islamic terrorist groups, defending Islamic terrorists from receiving their just punishment in the United States. And then the left is going to accuse the right of widespread anti-Semitism. Case in point. This is the case and point.

This domestic terrorist arrested after a foiled terror attack, and it just won't be reported. That is what the right is up against in this country. The endorsement of violence by a CNN anchor, the endorsement of violence by an Ivy League professor, and then smears, baseless smears from the entire mainstream media. That's what the right is up against. And this leads to some dirty tricks in politics.

Dirty tricks on the right, dirty tricks on the left, a big distinction between how the right uses dirty tricks and how the left uses dirty tricks. We'll get to that in a second. We also have to talk about the latest with poor old Joe Biden. Joe Biden's having a real rough go of it. And we'll talk about Democrats embracing the hijab and transgenderism. But first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube. Head over to dailywire.com. 10 bucks a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, you get the Andrew Claven show, you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up on Thursday. You get to ask questions backstage.

You get the Another Kingdom podcast, and you get the leftist tears tumbler. They taste just as good as ever and as 2020 heats up, they're only going to get better. Go to DailyWire.com. We'll be right back. There's even a big difference on the left and the right in dirty tricks. So dirty tricks is it happens in every political campaign. They dig up dirt or they make up dirt entirely and they try to sling it on candidates. and people on both sides do it. However, there's a big difference in how we do it.

There's a big difference in how we engage in politics. When Republican dirty tricks are exposed, the GOP tends to acknowledge it and back off. When Democrat dirty tricks are exposed, they double down. They get even more intense. Here's a good example of this. It was trending yesterday. Is this guy Jacob Wohl, who I guess is an internet troll, basically. I only know him as a Twitter account, and he's vaguely right-wing, and he likes Donald Trump,

and apparently he tried to sling a dirty trick at Pete Buttigieg. The idea was Jacob Wohl cooked up this plan to paint Pete Buttigieg as some kind of sexual assailant. Frame Butta Judge for rape because he allegedly considered Butta Judge a terminal threat to Donald Trump. The most ridiculous part of this whole story, by the way, is the notion that Pete Buttigieg is the terminal threat to Donald Trump. Pete Buttigieg is like 12 years old and he currently governs a city of about 15 people. This guy is going to be the end of Donald Trump's political career. Not quite so sure about that. But here's what happened. Allegedly, it was Wohl who was behind this. This kid, Hunter Kelly, published a piece on the website medium saying, quote, my name is Hunter Kelly. I'm 21 years old.

This is by far the hardest thing I've ever had to do for the past three nights I've not slept even the single hour I vomited eight times. I was sexually assaulted by Mayor Pete Buttigieg. I didn't know who he was back in February, only that he told me he was an important politician. When I started seeing him on television three weeks ago as a presidential candidate, I thought about coming forward. I'm a gay man. I've been grappling with my identity for a number of years. I live, work, and attend college in rural Michigan. I know that by coming forward I will make a hard life even harder, but I must do so. I must do so for my country, for other gay men like me. And most importantly to stop a very bad man from becoming president of the United States. I must confess

that this is the toughest thing I have ever had to do. For two weeks now, I have been contemplating suicide. I see myself jumping from a building or a bridge. I know that years and years of counseling may lie in front of me. All right. If this is a hoax, which it appears to be, it's not very well written. Now, this kid, Hunter Kelly, comes out. The next day he says, I was not sexually assaulted by Pete Buttigieg. I did not write that piece. Somebody else wrote that piece. It was tweeted out by Jacob Wool's father. It was not me. A little bit of advice. If you're going to play a political dirty trick, do it well, execute it well. This guy, Jacob Wool is the same guy who's being accused of trying to frame Bob Mueller for rape. Back during the special counsel investigation

before we knew that it would exonerate Trump, there was an attempt to frame Bob Mueller. Mueller for rape. If you're going to play a dirty trick, maybe don't go after the former head of the FBI. Maybe that's going to be a tougher one to pull off. If you're going to do it, maybe make sure that the mark you're using doesn't come out and contradict you the next day. Just so ridiculous. Also, this is very immoral. This is very wrong to sling this accusation of people. For one reason, because it's a very, very, very serious crime. It's not like this guy accused but a judge or smeared but a judge as having had an extramarital affair,

which is also terribly immoral, but it's not as serious a crime. That's the kind of old-school political slander. You would say, oh, he's sleeping around, he's cheating on his wife or cheating on her husband or whatever. This is, this guy raped me. That's a very serious crime. crime and it needs to be treated seriously. Unfortunately, the left has slung these accusations

all over the place. There have been so many hoaxes, especially on college campuses, proven hoaxes, demonstrated hoaxes, admitted hoaxes, that now people look on accusations of rape and sexual assault with a lot of skepticism. The left did that. The right should not exacerbate that. That's a really awful thing. It's the worst thing you can be accused of. I can really think of of very little that would be worse to be accused of than rape or some kind of sexual assault. Very bad idea. Really awful stuff.

At least the right is calling it out. When this started trending yesterday, everybody was dunking on this guy, Jacob Wohl. There were even memes going around about it, how the left and the right are only united in dunking on this guy, Jacob Woll. Now, you'll notice this is the first time basically anybody is reporting even on the suggestion

that Pete Buttigieg raped somebody. Why? Hadn't really heard about it. Nobody takes these things that seriously, these kind of sensational accusations. It didn't seem to be true. And we don't want to get down in the dirt on something like this. It's a really horrific thing. What about the left, though? The left has been using fake sexual assault allegations as a cudgel for decades. How about Anita Hill? Joe Biden is getting a lot of flack right now. for how he handled the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas when he was being confirmed to the Supreme Court. And he's getting flack from the left because he wasn't able to successfully torpedo Clarence Thomas's nomination on Anita Hill's accusations. But it's worth going back and revisiting Anita Hill's allegations because she lied. And we know that she lied. There were discrepancies between her FBI interview and her congressional testimony, her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Major discrepancies, even though the interviews happened right

back to back. And what Anita Hill tried to lie about, eventually it came out, is that she was told that if she gave her testimony, it would torpedo Clarence Thomas's confirmation. Now, it didn't, fortunately, but there was clear motivation. What she was saying was being contradicted by many people who worked for Clarence Thomas for a very long time. And by the way, Joe Biden himself, thought that Anita Hill was lying. He said this. This just came out. This was in Arlen Spector's book, so take it for what it's worth, but this is at least according to Arlen Specter, who was there. He said, quote, after this exchange, Biden recessed the committee. Biden told me in November 1998, it was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, she was lying.

At that point, I truncated the hearing and recessed it early for lunch, Biden said. I turned to my chief of staff and said, go down and tell her lawyers that her for her Recollection is not refreshed by the time she gets back, I will be compelled to pursue the same line of questioning the Senator, Specter, did, because it seems to me she did what he said. Obviously, this is true. Anybody paying attention to this at the time or anybody who's looked at the history of it knows that Anita Hill lied in multiple instances, including Joe Biden. Now Joe Biden goes out and he says, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I should have been nicer to Anita Hill.

Because what the left does is doubles down on their dirty tricks, even among the worst accusations of all sexual assault and rape. How about Christine Blasey Ford? They went after a guy. They just pulled the Anita Hill stunt almost scene for scene again decades later against Brett Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh, an unimpeachable record, federal judge for a dozen years, no allegations, no accusations against him of any sort of sexual impropriety. all of a sudden they bring up Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses him of some vague crime that she kept changing her story on as some many decades ago she couldn't even remember when it happened. Contradicted herself multiple times about key aspects of the event, the left doubled down.

They still say that. If you asked people on the left today, is Brett Kavanaugh a rapist? Probably most of them would say yes. The honest ones among them would say, we don't care if he's a rapist. we're going to say that he is anyway. That's a major difference. There's no moral equivalence. Chris Cuomo opens up, he says,

there's no moral equivalence between Antifa and neo-Nazis. There's no moral equivalence here between the left and the right in how they're engaging in violence, in how they're engaging in politics, in how they're engaging, even in dirty tricks. There's no moral equivalence. Now, what is motivating the left?

How did the left get to such a degree of extremism? Because when you look around at a lot of the left-wing campaigns, you see they're a little bit contradictory. There was a story that just came out over the weekend. Four women's powerlifting world records were shattered over the weekend. Wow. Oh my goodness. World records in squat, bench press, deadlift, and the world total record. Oh, my goodness.

This woman must be really, really strong, right? She must be like the strongest woman ever, right? Or she's a man, which is what she was. It's this guy who calls himself Mary Gregory. He's biologically a man, and he thinks that he's a woman, and he wants to be a woman, and he's pretending to be a woman. He has destroyed all of these world records, obviously, because men are physically stronger than women. And the left is cheering. The left is cheering this on, with some exceptions. Some feminists realize the threat that is posed by this transgender ideology, and they're talking out against it. By the way, when they speak out, there was a woman the editor of the feminist current,

a feminist journal in Canada. She spoke out against this sort of thing. She was banned from Twitter. The left broadly is cheering this on. Why on earth is the left, which has championed feminism and women's lib, women's identity politics for decades and decades? Why is the left cheering on the total destruction of women's sports? Because that's what this means.

If transgender people, if men who think that they're women or who present themselves as women are allowed to compete in women's sports, women will never win another sporting event ever again. Ever. It's not close. I think millennials think that men are, yeah, maybe men are stronger than women, but they're only a little bit stronger. And some women are a lot stronger than men. No, that isn't true. Men are much, much, much physically stronger than women.

and transgender ideology in competitive sports means that women will never win anything again. So now the left, which previously championed Title IX, women's sports at colleges, women's professional sports, are now cheering on the destruction of women's sports. Why is that? Ties into another story. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, as a young man, one of my favorite issues of literature that was ever produced all year long, is now coming out and celebrating their first model wearing a burkini and a hijab. Apparently, apparently Sports Illustrated forgets what the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is and what it's all about. But anyway, they're excited.

They're they're now posting the first woman in a burkini and a hijab. Here she is explaining the issue. Growing up in the States, I never really felt represented because I never could flip through a magazine and see a girl who was wearing a hijab. I keep thinking to a six-year-old. I keep thinking to six-year-old me who in the same country was in a refugee camp. So to grow up, to live the American dream, to come back to Kenya and shoot for SI in the most beautiful parts of Kenya. Like, I don't think that's the story that anybody could make up. Just a quick question to clarify, how many six-year-old girls living in refugee camps are just thumbing through the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? Is that a common occurrence? I've, I've, I've,

I've never been there. I've never walked a mile in those shoes. It just seems to me that refugee camps don't get a steady stream of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue in. And even if they did, that six-year-old girls are not usually thumbing through it. Six-year-old boys, on the other hand, sometimes take a little peek at the swimsuit issue, but not six-year-old girls. So I'm a little skeptical of all of that. But she's obviously promoting this and being used to promote this idea, but what is the hijab? The hijab is the head covering. They're varying degrees of these sort of facial coverings. There's the Abaya, there's the Burka. Now, what is it? Because this is being heralded. In Sports Illustrated, they write, Halima Aden makes history as the first model to wear a

hijab and burkini in Sports Illustrated swimsuit. The hijab is a tool used to keep women down in many countries on earth. It's not exclusively what it is, but it is certainly partially that. In Saudi Arabia, women can be lashed for going outside without wearing their hijab. And this happened in 2016.

There was a woman who went outside without a hijabia, actually without an abaya. That's the full body covering. And not only was she lashed for this, not only was she punished by the government, there were many calls for her execution. On social media, A lot of posts said, quote,

The least punishment for her is beheading her. Another one, kill her and throw her body to the dogs. Another one, we want blood. Another one we demand utmost punishment for the state has rules that she did not respect. It is a tool of telling women what to do, keeping them down, and oppressing them in many countries on earth.

Now, that's not all that it is, because their head coverings are popular in every culture. everything from shawls to mantillas to baseball caps. There are head coverings. Women wear hats. Right. But what is the purpose of it? When it's used even in religious settings, the purpose is a sort of modesty.

Or a recognition, in the Catholic Church, for instance, when you wear a mantia, it's a recognition of women's particular holiness. Okay. Modesty, holiness, sanctity, even giving the hijab, the most charitable reed you, possibly can. When has the left been interested in modesty and holiness and sanctity? The left hosts slut walks. They host events called shout your abortion. They mock the church. They boo God at their party conventions. Are we now really supposed to believe that just in this one example, the left is interested in modesty and sanctity and holiness? No. No. What is this all about?

These two stories in particular, the transgender ideology, obliterating women's sports, and the left embracing women wearing the hijab, what they show is that the left is not interested in any sort of positive or constructive agenda. They are only interested in a destructive agenda. The way to dictate their agenda is to come out in favor of something. If you're on the right, come out in favor of a tradition or an institution or a law or some aspect of order, physical order or divine order or moral order, and then the left will oppose it. How has the left become so radicalized in recent years?

You had Chuck Schumer voting for the border wall in 2006. Now the left is saying walls are immoral, ineffective, too expensive, awful, terrible things. How did that happen? of his Donald Trump is for the border wall. And the border wall is as traditional as anything. Walls are the most traditional defense in the world. There's a book that just came out. There's a book that just came out called Walls. It's by a guy named David Fry. It's a history of civilization and blood and brick. Walls are about the oldest thing in our civilization. Tradition itself. Tradition embodied. And so the left hates it. The nation, quite traditional.

The left hates it. the distinction between men and women. Now the left has to oppose that. But if there's no distinction between men and women, then there's no separate category for women. There's no such thing as feminism. There's no such thing as women's sports. Doesn't matter.

The left just has to oppose as radically as possible the tradition. The left has to oppose the established order. Yeah, we want to go out to slut walks. We want to shout our abortion. Yeah, we want to free the nipple. You remember the free the nipple campaign? That was like six months ago. A big campaign on the left to allow nipples and completely exposed breasts on social media platforms.

And now, six months later, yeah, we love the burkini. Yeah, that woman needs to cover up every inch of her body. Yeah, lash her, lash her. We want blood. We need to execute. No, I don't mean, it's hard to tell which are Saudi Arabian mobs and which is the American left. Because there's no guiding principle. There's no bedrock.

There's no positive agenda that's being promoted. It is just opposition to tradition, opposition to the established order. And there is no moral equivalence there between the people who want to build and the people who want to burn things down. That's our show. We've got more to get to, but we'll have to do it tomorrow. Come back, get your mailbag questions in. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. I'll see you then. The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner, 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. And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan. The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019. Today on the Ben Shapiro show, Joe Biden launches his campaign, Democrats target President Trump with endless investigations, and The Clown Princes of the Right botcha hit on Pete Buttigieg. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show.