The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 345 - The MSM Are The Dumbest People On Earth

Episode Date: May 8, 2019

The New York Times has obtained 10 years of President Trump’s tax returns. We will examine how mainstream journalists became the stupidest people on earth. Then, a great pro-life bill in Georgia, a fake apology in Philly, and executive privilege at the WH. Date: 5-08-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Breaking news. The New York Times has obtained 10 years of President Trump's tax return information and discovered, wait for it, from the late 80s to the early 90s, the president suffered major business losses, which the New York Times could also have learned if they had read the entire book that Donald Trump wrote about that in 1997, or read all of the tabloid newspapers from the early 90s that reported on those business losses or watched even one episode of Trump's hit network TV show in which he described at length all of those business losses. We will examine why mainstream media journalists

are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. All that and more. I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show. He did it again. He did it again. And these stupid, gullible people at the New York Times, they took the bait because they just can't help themselves. Rachel Maddow, remember, Trump's tax information leaked from 2005, big breaking news, and then it turned out he paid a lot in taxes. Now, he did it again.

We will examine this in New York Times investigation. But, you know, Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer. And you probably already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere. Why do you know about it? Because I talk about it all the time. because I love my ring, because when you have ring, you feel like you are living in the Jetsons. You feel like you are living in the future. You can talk to anyone who rings your bell, goes up to your home. You can talk to them from anywhere in the world. If there's a package delivery, if there's a surprise visitor, you will get an alert.

You'll be able to see here and speak to them all from your phone. That's thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on ring devices. I love it. It makes me feel safer. It makes sweet little Elisa feel safer. our senior producer Jay Hay. The other night was woken up in the middle of the night because someone rang his doorbell and he pulled out his ring and he's looking on the camera

and it was these two drug-addled weirdos who were basically casing the joint trying to see if anyone was home so they could go rob him. So he said, hey, why are you here at three in the morning? And then they ran away because Ring kept his house safe and it makes me feel safe.

It'll make you feel safe. 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 knolls, K-N-O-L-E-S. Ring.com slash Noles.

This was the top trend on Twitter yesterday. This is the moment, you know, the left for two years, three years now, has been trying to get Donald Trump's tax returns. He hasn't released them. Now the New York Times breaking story, and it turns out what they uncovered is everything that we have already known for 35 years now. The headline on the New York Times was

decade in the red. Trump tax figures show over $1 billion in business losses. Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump's businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known. Now, what they mean is they were in bleaker condition. They were in bleaker condition than was previously known to the New York Times. Because anybody who's actually paid attention to Donald Trump since the 80s, it knew all about this. But the New York Times, they finally cracked the cover on one of Trump's books and they, gosh, oh, my, breaking news, we've got to run this.

So the article begins. By the time his Master of the Universe memoir, Trump, the Art of the Deal, hit bookstores in 1987. Donald J. Trump was already in deep financial distress, losing tens of millions of dollars on troubled business deals, according to previously unrevealed figures from his federal income tax returns. The data, printouts from Mr. Trump's official IRS transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, for the years 1985 to 1994, represents the fullest and most detailed look to date at the president's taxes, information he has kept from the public

view. The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million dollars, from his core businesses, casinos, hotels, retail space, and apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade. Wow. Where did they get that from? They might have gotten it from a book called Trump, The Art of the Comeback, which was published in 1997 by Donald Trump. So they're saying from the mid to late 80s to the early to mid-90s, Donald Trump had major business losses. Donald Trump literally wrote an entire book about this

and the New York Times, because they are so oblivious, because they live in their own little bubble, because they are so desperate not to talk about the actual news of the day, which is evidence that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. Because of all of these factors, they are running this as though it is breaking news. He literally wrote the book on this. The description of the art of the comeback is,

Trump's story begins when many real estate moguls went belly up in what he calls the Great Depression of 1990. Trump reveals how he negotiated millions of dollars in bank loans and survived the recession, paving the way for a resurgence during which he built the most successful casino in Atlantic City and this and that and the other thing and all of his successes. It was published in 97. The recession hit in 1990s. So for real estate developers who were a little weak going into 1990, it took a lot of them out. So the premise of the book is by the late 80s, Donald Trump's business was not doing so hot.

It almost went out in 1990. He was like a billion dollars in debt. And then by the mid-90s, he recovered. And then he published the book in 1997. This time frame exactly matches the tax returns that the New York Times appears to have found. But let's say they didn't read The Art of the Constitution. comeback. Maybe, maybe the New York Times could have learned this scintillating bit of information by watching even one episode of the hit network TV show that Trump starred in and executive

produced for 12 years. My name's Donald Trump and I'm the largest real estate developer in New York. I own buildings all over the place, model agencies, the Miss Universe pageant, jetliners, golf courses, casinos, and private resorts like Mar-a-Lago, one of the most of the most. most spectacular states anywhere in the world. But it wasn't always so easy. About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt. But I fought back and I won big league. I used my brain. I used my negotiating skills and I worked it all out. Now my company's bigger than it ever was, it's stronger than it ever was, and I'm having more fun than I ever had. I've mastered the art of the deal and have turned the name Trump into the high.

highest quality brand. And as the master, I want to pass along my knowledge to somebody else. I'm looking for The Apprentice. That's the whole premise of the show, is that Donald Trump had terrible business performance in the early 90s, and then he came back and fought his way back. That's the whole premise of the show. But just pay attention here, because while we're making fun of the mainstream media, which I love doing, just remember the, the, the head. headline of the New York Times article. Decade in the Red, Trump tax figures show over $1 billion in business losses. A far bleaker condition than was previously known is what the New York Times

writes. You just heard Donald Trump 15 years ago say that he was billions of dollars in debt. If anything, Donald Trump was exaggerating how bleak his business life was in the early 90s. The New York Times found one billion in business losses. He says he says he was. was billions in debt. And the New York Times hears that and says, we've uncovered. It was far worse than previously known. Actually, if you'd watch The Apprentice, the conclusion would be, Donald Trump was actually doing a little better than he was bragging about in the early 2000s. But where else could the New York Times have heard about this? Maybe the New York Times could have heard about this by reading all of the newspaper articles when this was actually happening.

In New York Post, in 1990, Donald Ducks, with a dollar sign for the S, defaults on 30 million dollars, creditors ready to pounce. Another New York Post headline, around the same time. Trump slump, again, with a dollar sign, because it's the New York Post. He's not a billionaire, says Forbes magazine, says net worth nosedives to $500 million. Mathematical mistake, says the tycoon. So you've got these headlines, say, as wealth is nosediving, he's not a billionaire, he's losing all of his money. And then Trump is fighting back. He's saying, I'm actually richer than you're saying I am. So this has been going on. now, for what, 30 years, the media and Donald Trump bickering over what his net worth is?

Trump's saying he's richer, perhaps, than he is. The media saying he's poorer than he is. Now, I guess the script has flipped a little bit. Now that he's president, the New York Times is trying to exaggerate the scope of his business losses. Maybe, by the way. Even if you didn't read those newspapers, maybe he didn't watch The Apprentice, maybe if you didn't read that book, The Art of the Comeback. Maybe you would have learned this of Trump's major business losses in 1990 in the late 80s and the early 90s.

By listening to every one of his critics for the past 30 years, it's not just the media that are writing about this, not just New York tabloids. Do you remember that one of the biggest media battles of the last 20 years was Donald Trump versus Rosie O'Donnell? How did that fight begin when Rosie O'Donnell said this on network television, on the view? on ABC. This is the thing, you know, you say what you want to say about it. You said that his father gave him his money. It's true. Well, listen to the fact of the manager says what I want to say, but he's a businessman.

Yeah. He's a master of branding. There are a lot of kids of inherited money from their parents, and you can't see anything about it except a car or a house that's defunct. He had inherited a lot of... ...so many times where he didn't have to pay. A lot of people have been bankrupt, but he's got back. But he got to, again, try again, and again, and you know what saved him the second time?

After his father died with that he had to pay him, but he got to pay him. died with that money, he paid off all his bankruptcy. This isn't that a self-in-a-year. This is the line of attack. This is the line of attack against Trump for decades and decades. By the way, did you hear Rosie O'Donnell just contradicted herself? She just said he went bankrupt a bunch of times, but he got out of it. He didn't actually have to pay his debts.

He just screwed over his creditors, and he made the little guy pick up the tab, but he didn't pay for it. And then not five seconds later, she says, and then his father died and he used that money to pay off all his debts. So did he pay off his debts or did he not pay off his debts? Did he pay off his debts using his inherited money? Or did he screw over his creditors? It can't be both ways. But the media want to have it both ways. They want Donald Trump to be this billionaire plutocrat who's a corrupt and he's made all of his money and he's cheated the system.

And they want him to be a total loser. They want them to not have that much money at all. And they're trying to advance these arguments at the same time. And by the way, the way they're doing it is bringing up information that has been so public for the last 30 years that Trump himself has made it a key part of his own narrative. So who leaked it? That's the other question. Who leaked these documents?

You'll notice in the article, it says, breaking investigative. New York Times, and it's got these two authors that I haven't really heard of. And then at the very bottom of the article, it says, Maggie Haberman contributed reporting. Very little note at the bottom. A lot of people didn't pick up on this. Maggie Haberman, you might remember, is one of the favored journalists for the Democrat Party. You can't even really call her a journalist at this point because she just carries water for the Democrats. There was a 2015 strategy document from the Hillary Clinton campaign that got leaked. It described Haberman as a friendly reporter. It said that the Hillary campaign always used her to tee up stories for them

and that they were never disappointed by her coverage. So where did this come from? I don't know. That little note at the bottom, Maggie Haberman contributed reporting does seem to give away a lot of the story. Now, when I saw this last night, this was the breaking news on Twitter, I could not stop laughing. If you were following the whole show on Twitter last night, I just could not stop laughing about this because I just thought these journalists are the stupidest people on earth. Only mainstream media journalists could be so oblivious, could get so whipped up in their frenzy of hatred for the president, that they could cover a story that they think is going to attack the president and actually ends up totally destroying their own credibility. I wondered. I'm not sure. I mean, maybe this is.

is a little too clever by half. I wondered if Donald Trump leaked these tax documents himself. Seriously, because you'll remember a year or two ago, Rachel Maddow had this big breaking news exclusive. We have Donald Trump's 2005 tax return. We're going to open it. We're going to find out that he didn't pay any taxes and, oh, he paid $38 million in taxes that year. Okay, never mind. And she almost cried on air. She was so upset. And this, at the time, I just thought, man, Trump and his campaign just destroy the media. They play these guys like a fiddle. Then fast forward now, almost any period of Donald Trump's tax returns could be used to hurt him.

If they got his returns from the 70s or the early 80s, maybe the early 2000s, kind of before the Apprentice really took off. I don't know. Just coincidentally, they were only able to get his tax returns from the early. exact period of time that he always brags about losing money. It's a boast at this point that he wrote a book about, did a TV show about. They get just that exact amount of time. It seems almost too perfect. So what are the conclusions of the documents? The conclusions are, for a little under a decade, Donald Trump paid a low tax rate. When you take into account losses, deductions, all these sort of things, he basically didn't pay. He didn't, he didn't, he didn't,

He didn't have a tax liability. So the charitable view of that is that Donald Trump took major business losses. We know there was a huge downturn in New York real estate at that time. We know that the tax code was favorable toward real estate developers, toward people who are building things. So that seems pretty fair. The uncharitable read of that document is that Donald Trump cheated on his taxes, that he paid a rate that was too low. But this one is kind of hard to believe because Donald Trump is under audit currently, I believe. and he certainly was under audit two years ago.

This is a very wealthy guy with a lot of business interests who has been audited. So if he really underpaid on taxes, one would expect that that would already be discovered by now. Now, what's another takeaway? Another takeaway is that Donald Trump had less money than he said he did for many years. Duh.

Yeah, of course. Where have you been? Of course. This has always been the knock on Trump. that he brags about having more money than he does. So is that news? The New York Times thinks this is a big story. They've been lobbying this attack on him for three years, much more than three years. Then you've got to wonder, what do the Democrats get out of this? First of all, nobody cares about Donald Trump's taxes. Nobody cares about any politician's taxes. This is just an attack that has come up

over the past few decades for opposition research firms to launch more assaults on other candidates. nobody cares. Public opinion shows this. People care about immigration. They care about jobs. They care about the economy. They do not care about the tax returns of some politician from 10 years ago. We have too much to do. We got too much on our minds. This does not really matter. Now, what else do Democrats get from this? They now get to highlight how Donald Trump fought his way back from a billion dollars of debt, a billion dollars of losses.

Is that bad? Democrats get now to push the narrative that Trump has tried to push for 30 years. People like that. It exposes a lot of the elitism of the mainstream media. When this came out, one of the trends that was going on on Twitter was they said,

Donald Trump shouldn't have hosted the apprentice. He should have hosted the biggest loser. Ha, ha, ha. They're making fun of Trump, because he took some big risks in business and had some big losses and then made a lot of his money back. First of all, does anyone actually believe Donald Trump is not a wealthy man right now? I know some people try to say that. Say he's not as rich as he says he is.

Okay, fine. Certainly we all can agree. Donald Trump is a very wealthy man right now and has been for at least, I don't know, the last 15 years. So what the New York Times do, they say, ha ha, ha, ha, he wasn't a billionaire for 10 years. Oh, yes, Jeeves. Jeeves, pour me a little more port, please. We're making fun of how Donald from Queens, you know, he has that outer borough accent. He wasn't even a billionaire for the early 90s. This is how we're going to win votes from those plebeians in New York City.

No. I mean, that's what they're portraying themselves as rich Uncle Pennybags over here. They're portraying themselves as the guy on the monopoly box. not a good way to connect to the American people. Totally botched it. Whoever leaked it really does seem to have backfired here. And I don't know. I mean, I like to think that it was Republicans who leaked this document because it's a great troll.

And, you know, at this moment in time, Republicans are really good at trolling the media and Democrats. If it wasn't the Republicans who leaked this, if it wasn't Trump himself or something, somebody, if it wasn't like kind of a media dirty hit, if this actually was leaked from the government, this is a major crime. To leak someone's private tax return information is a very serious crime. So certainly an investigation should take place. And whoever is responsible for it should be held to account. Unless it was, you know, unless it was Trump himself, whoever actually committed a crime of stealing this information should be held to account. This is really bad. I mean, we attack WikiLeaks for hacking into the government and, you know, releasing information that should not

be released, and rightly so. How is this that much different? You have somebody going into our federal government stealing information, leaking it to the media and publishing it to damage not only a politician, not only a candidate, but the president of the United States. That's a big deal. That's a very big deal. Moving on over to Georgia. We got some very good news in Georgia as well. Governor Brian Kemp just signed a bill that will ban abortions

if a heartbeat can be detected in the baby. So this means it could be as early as six weeks. This is excellent news. And look, there have been many restrictions on abortion over the last 10 years, and they're all good. This one is especially good. And the left is super angry over this. Hollywood threatened to boycott, pull all of its film industry out of Georgia because of this potential bill.

You've had celebrities constantly ranting about it, giving speeches going on social media about it. Why? The left is so angry about this Georgia bill because it is extremely consequential. This law, it's being referred to as the heart. heartbeat law, this law gives away the whole abortion argument. Why? It says that you cannot abort your baby after a heartbeat has been detected. Now, why a heartbeat? Is a heartbeat what makes you a human? I don't know. I mean, heart's a very important organ, but it's just an organ. Why not a brain stimulation? Why not fingernails? Why not a nose? Why not the features of a face?

The reason it's a heartbeat is because we associate, just in our minds, in our culture, we associate the heartbeat with life. We associate the heartbeat with the essence of what it is to be a human. Little clumps of cells don't have heartbeats. Random piles of DNA don't have heartbeats. What has a heartbeat? A baby has a heartbeat. If you can't have an abortion after a baby has a heartbeat, that means that the baby has a heartbeat. that means that the baby has a heartbeat.

And if the baby has a heartbeat, then the baby is a baby. That's why this is so consequential. It's a very good law because it both pulls on the heart strings, literally I guess. It pulls on, it gives us this image, the heart. What is a heart? The heart is human life. And it takes abortion to its logical conclusion. We all agree.

everybody listening agrees that you shouldn't be able to kill a baby a day after he's been born, right? We all agree on that. We all agree you shouldn't be able to kill a baby as he's being born, you know, 10 hours prior. Well, if those two things are true, you probably shouldn't be able to kill a baby a day before he's about to be born. Does a baby really change a day before he's going to be born to the day he's born? No. How about a week before he's born? It's the same baby.

How about a month before he's born? Same baby. Four months before he's born, it's the same baby. Now, further and further back, the baby stops resembling a baby as much, doesn't have fully formed features. So just in our, in our minds, not an objective reality, but in our imperfect perception of things, we see the early stage baby and we say, oh, it doesn't look totally like a baby, so I guess we can kill it. but now we go all the way back, we get to six weeks or eight weeks. This is pretty early in a pregnancy, month and a half, two months. And we say, but even that little thing, which doesn't totally look like a baby, has a heartbeat. Gosh, I guess it's wrong to kill a baby at all. Not just to 20 weeks, not just 26 weeks.

I guess it's wrong at all. The left is furious over this. AOC, of course, objecting. She tweeted out, one of the coldest things I have ever seen tweeted, which is really saying something. She tweeted out, quote, six weeks pregnant equals two weeks late on your period. I guess that's true. Kind of missing the point. A one-month-old newborn baby lying in its crib equals 40 weeks late on your period. That is not to say that the sum total of what a one-month-old baby is, newborn baby is, is just, yeah, I'm just 40 weeks late on my period. Likewise, a six-week-old baby, unborn baby, is not just a missed period.

A six-weeks old unborn baby is not just a little morning sickness. A six-weeks old unborn baby is not just a little bump starting to form in your belly. A6 weeks old unborn baby is a baby. AOC goes on, typical demagoguery. Most of the men writing these bills don't know the first thing about a woman's body outside of the things they want from it. It's relatively common for a woman to have a late period and not be

pregnant. So this is a backdoor ban. It's not a backdoor ban. It's a baby. It's not a clump of cells. It's a baby. I also love most of the men writing these bills, don't know anything about a woman's body.

Well, what about the men who support abortion rights? What about Governor Ralph Northam in Virginia who said we should be able to kill babies after they've been born. Does he know about a woman's body? What about Andrew Cuomo, who now, in New York, it's now legal to kill a baby as it's being born? He signed that law. Does he know about a woman's body? They're so selective with their sexual discrimination here. They say, men can't say anything about abortion, unless they support it, in which case,

great, sign all the laws you want. But the whole point is ridiculous. Just because I am a man, doesn't mean I can't understand aspects of womanhood. And do you know why? Because I have a brain and I have faculties of reason so I can reason through things. And I have evidence and I have the scientific method and I have all sorts of resources at my disposal. Just because a doctor hasn't had cancer

doesn't mean a doctor can't operate on cancer. Just because I've never been to Tahiti doesn't mean I can't form a picture of what Tahiti looks like. I can't read about Tahiti. I can't look at a photograph of Tahiti. Of course, the men signing these bills, voting for these bills, and the women voting for these bills, understand what is at stake. And what is at stake is not six weeks of pregnancy.

What is at stake is a baby? Of course, the left won't concede this. And you had a man, not a woman, a man, Chris Cuomo on CNN, who was moderating one of the stupidest panels on abortion I have ever seen, but it shows you how desperate the left is. They've lost this argument, and they are steadily losing this argument, and so they get shriller and shriller and shriller. We'll get to it in a second. Then our old buddy in Philadelphia, Brian Sims, that wacko, weirdo, local representative there who stalks little teenage girls and elderly women at Planned Parenthood. He issues a fake apology. We'll get to all of that in a second,

but I've got to say about a Facebook and YouTube. Go to DailyWire. It is $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, you get the Andrew Claibon show, you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get the Mount Wall Show, you get to ask questions in the mailbag. Mailbag's coming up tomorrow, by the way, so get your questions in. You get another kingdom. You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr. By the way, tomorrow, I am going to be in Missouri.

I was invited by State Senator Eric Berluson there to give a speech at the state capital, Missouri, on the importance of free speech on campus. This was after I was physically assaulted at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, after an invited speech there. And that was after the chancellor of that university. Instead of condemning the assailants and the hecklers, he condemned me as some sort of bigot and smeared me and did not stand for free speech or liberal education. So I'm going to go to the state capital tomorrow and call for that man's resignation and

his firing and a vigorous defense of free speech on campus. So if you're in Jefferson City, Missouri, come on out. It should be a good time. Otherwise, I'll see on the show at DailyWire.com, because you will need the Leftist Tears Tumblr as we bring free speech back to Missouri. Go to DailyWire.com. We'll be right back with a lot more. So Chris Cuomo yesterday on CNN was moderating a panel between a debate between Rick Santorum,

former GOP, presidential candidate and senator, and Christine Quinn. Christine Quinn was New York City Council. She ran for mayor there. This woman was almost the mayor of New York. And she gives the shrillest, stupidest defense of abortion, maybe that I've ever heard. Here is the panel. When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It's part of her body.

And this is about a woman having full agency and control of her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals. Those are the facts, and that is the law of the land. Listen. So at least Christine Quinn is not making the argument that the baby is not a human, therefore it's a platypus. The baby is not a human, therefore it's a giraffe. No, the baby is, it's human. But what she says is it's not an individual human.

It's not a separate human. It's just part of the woman's body. Now, this is demonstrably false. The baby has individual deemps. The baby doesn't grow organically out of the woman's body. The baby is conceived by the combination of the woman's egg in the man's sperm. So another human being has to come together in an act of love or, I don't know, an act of drunken revelry, come together with the woman and conceive this baby, which then grows in the woman, but is separate from the woman. Genetically distinct, physically distinct. And then of course, will be born unless, someone like Christine Quinn kills it in the womb. So if the baby growing in the mother's womb were just a part of her body, then it would probably be pretty weird when that baby is born and starts running around on its own. That'd be pretty, it would make us like starfish or octopuses

or something. You know with a starfish, you cut off one of its little legs and then it just grows another starfish? You say, gosh, that's pretty. That would basically humans would become starfish as if that were true. Don't try this at home. But imagine if you just went out and you cut off your arm. You said, oh my gosh, what's happening? Cut off my arm. No, no, don't worry. It's okay. It'll just grow another person. It's just, you know, it'll just grow another person and run around. That's what happens with babies, and babies are just part of the mother's body, except the baby's not part of the mother's body. It's a separate body. Now, she then goes on, so she stops making this stupid argument, which is going nowhere, and then gets to the real question, is it okay?

This is about a woman's body. Listen, you can argue. They can do whatever they want. They can torture the baby. The debate is fine. You're so desperate here. You're so desperate here. No, no, no.

We're bringing up fake stories. You're not. You're asking provocative things that are trying to make people angry about what's done. And that's okay. So Chris Cuomo is just, I don't know, Chris Cuomo is just not fit morally or intellectually for this conversation. So he's just rambling nonsense. Rick Santorum raises a great question here. This is a brilliant question that a lot of times you don't really hear in pro-life advocacy.

What Christina O'Donnell says is, the baby is part of the mother's body. Therefore, you can kill it. That's kind of a weird argument to make, by the way. My arm is part of my body. Can I kill my arm? First of all, I literally can't kill my arm. You can't kill it. You can sever it, and then all of the cells will die.

But it's not like I can kill. my arm. I can't abort my arm. But even if you could, even if that were conceptually possible, would you suggest that? Would you say, oh, it's part of your body, therefore cut it off and chop it up and kill it? No, if it's part of your body, you probably want to preserve it because it's part of your body. So, so Rick Santorum sees the flaw in this argument here, and he says, okay, Christine, you can't hear it over Chris Cuomo's stupid yapping, same with Christine O'Don, or Christine Quinn, but what Rick Santorum says is, okay, whatever that baby is, whatever you want to call the baby, if you can kill it because it's morally insignificant, it's morally irrelevant.

If you can kill that baby, then you can do anything to it, right? And then Christine Quinn says something to the effect of, and so you just have to try to tune that out because it's so grating on your ears. But follow Rick Santorum's logic. If you can kill the baby, then surely you can torture it, right? If you're able to murder it, surely you can go in and kind of poke it around and maybe mess up its brain cells a little bit. It's morally irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

No, don't worry. It's not a human. So you can torture it. It's fine. Why is it okay to kill an unborn baby, but it's not okay to torture an unborn baby? but it's not okay to torture an unborn baby. Now, the real answer is because even pro-abortion supporters have some intuition on some gut level

that that baby has moral significance. And the reason that they are willing to kill it is not because of some real philosophical conviction that it doesn't matter, but because it's convenient. And they don't want to be parents and they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions. and they don't want to even give up their baby for adoption. In the United States, 36 couples waiting for every American baby

that is born and put up for adoption. 36 couples waiting for every one baby born and put up for adoption. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt your baby. But you don't want to put the baby up for adoption. Why? Because maybe it's uncomfortable for nine months. And more importantly, because you don't want to give up your kid because there's a part of us deep, deep down, our conscience,

that says, I don't want to give up my kid. And parents who decide to give up their kid rather than kill it, they're making a heroic and courageous decision. But the cowardly decision and decision that Christine Quinn is trying to defend is to just kill it. Because la, la, la, la, la. I mean, actually, the way that she's holding this debate is indicative of the argument about abortion. Because if you just have a common collected argument about abortion, which is what Rick Santorum is doing, what that probably means is that you've thought about this and your confidence, your opinion. But if you're just saying a lot of contradictory and emotional and untrue things

about abortion, then probably instead of having a cool and collected discussion where you let your debate partner get in his points, what you have to do is just scream and shout and la la la la, I can't hear you, I can't hear you, which is what Christine Quinn is doing. No, you can't torture the baby. Why can't you torture the baby? Why is it wrong to torture the baby? Why is it wrong to torture the baby because it's a baby. Therefore, it's also wrong to kill the baby. And here's where Chris Cuomo has to come in because Chris Cuomo has a personal stake here. Chris Cuomo's brother, Andrew Cuomo, is the governor of New York, and he just ratified and celebrated one of the most radical abortion laws in the country. This abortion law legalizes killing babies as they are being born,

and it actually changes the penal code, such that if a guy, goes up and kills a pregnant woman. In the old days, he would be charged with double murder. But now, after Andrew Cuomo's abortion law, he'll only be charged with a single murder because that legal protection for the baby was taken away. So Chris Cuomo has a lot at stake here. He swoops in to try to make the argument and it fails. I'm angry about what's done and that's okay. All I'm saying is, you guys go too far when you pervert the facts and we have the President of the United States saying that a baby is born at the end of full term, swaddled in a blanket, and then decide whether or not to execute it.

You know that's obvious. It divides people. Nobody said it. It's not the law anywhere in this country. It's homicide. One person said something stupid, and you want to make it something that you can use for advantage. That doesn't help your cause. So did you see Chris Cuomo just contradicted himself because he said nobody in this country

has ever called for a baby who has been born to be killed? know it's BS. Rick Santorum, nobody is called for that. Rick Santorum very commonly says Ralph Northam, the Democrat governor of Virginia, not just an activist, not just a congressman, not just a state representative, the governor of Virginia explicitly called for that on the radio. Here it is. There are, you know, when we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way. And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's non-biable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell

you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mothers. Did you hear that if the baby is born? Maybe he's got some deformities. Maybe he's kind of ugly. I don't know. Maybe he comes out and not looking the way you want him to look.

So then the baby would be kept comfortable. Maybe resuscitated if, you know, he had some problems and maybe the mother wanted him to be resuscitated. And then, then once the baby has been resuscitated, sitting there on the table, swaddled in clothing, then the doctor and the mother would talk about whether or not to kill it. Governor of Virginia said this. So Chris Cuomo says, nobody ever said that. Then Rick Santorum says, the governor of Virginia did. And Chris Cuomo says, okay, one guy said it. Okay, yeah, one, right, one major American political figure of your political party said that. And Rick Santorum held back here because what he really should have said is actually, Chris, your brother, Andrew Cuomo in New York, is leading the charge. This is the law, lest you think that I'm being unfair here. This is the law in New York. It permits abortion.

when, according to a medical professional, it is, quote, reasonable, a medical professional is, quote, reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case. And when the patient is within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, so legal abortion in the first 24 weeks, okay, that's true virtually everywhere. But listen to this part. Or there is an absence of fetal viability. What is fetal viability? I mean, does it mean, does it mean the baby's actually dead? Or does it mean the baby's probably, he's got some condition, it means he probably won't survive very long, he won't live very long,

how long, how old will he live to two, he'll live to three, I don't know. And then, listen to this. Or when the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life, okay, so this is also the law in a lot of places, if the mother's life is at risk, you can have an abortion. Now, there is virtually no case in which an abortion is the remedy to save a mother's life. There are some cases in which treating the mother's condition will kill the baby as a consequence of that, but there is virtually no condition in which the abortion is the solution.

That's the medical solution to saving the mother's life. But then listen to this last word, the devil's in the details, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health. and health here. This is the big floodgate because health is being described not just in terms of your physical health, but your mental health, your psychological health, your financial health, anything. As long as you get a little doctor's note that says, yeah, it's going to be really detrimental to Susie's feelings if she has this baby, you can kill that baby in the state of New York, thanks to Chris Cuomo's brother, Andrew, up until the moment he is born.

That is what Christine Quinn is defending. That is what Chris Cuomo is defending. And that is what our good buddy over in Pennsylvania, that state representative, Brian Sims, is defending when he goes and stalks teenage girls and tries to docks teenage girls and tries to harass and demean and mock elderly women. in, who were just protesting outside of Planned Parenthood there, that's what he is defending. So Brian Sims, one of the schmuckiest politicians in America, he has just been eviscerated in the press and on social media, in the right wing press, for those videos that he's been posting that we've played over the last couple days. Now, by the way, the CNN is not written about him.

CNN wrote a story about a positive story about him a few years ago. So it's not like they won't talk about this guy and the state representative. They have not covered Brian Sims at all. Brian Sims, one of the hottest news stories in the country right now, but they have to cover it up because they have to carry water not only for Democrats, but specifically for defenders of abortion. Brian Sims, of his own accord, released an apology video yesterday on his social media account. Now, see if you can figure out which word is missing from his apology video. Hi, everyone. Representative Brian Sims here and I'm actually up in our capital for this week's legislative session, but I stepped off the floor for a moment because I've received a lot of feedback about a video I posted last

week and I want to provide some background. You see, I've lived across the street or next door to this particular Planned Parenthood, one of the most heavily protested Planned Parenthoods in America for the last 15 years. I've seen men and women and teens try to go there for routine health care, for checkups, for PAP smears, for breast exams, for STD screenings, and yes, for abortions. In fact, it's where I even treat for my own life-saving prep medication, and I'm grateful for the services that they provide. I've also spent the last seven years serving as a volunteer patient escort at this Planned Parenthood, and I have seen firsthand the insults, the slurs, the attacks, and the racism that those protesters aim at mostly young girls going there for clinical care. Care that those of us in the outside can never understand, and last week was no different.

I fully understand, respect, and appreciate the non-engagement policy that they have, and I would never want to do anything that interfered with the care that they're providing to their patients. As an activist and an advocate, I know why pushing back against harassment and discrimination are a must, even when they're uncomfortable. But last week, I wasn't a patient escort. I was a neighbor and a concerned citizen, and I was aggressive. I know that two wrongs don't make a right, and I can do better, and I will do it. do better for the women of Pennsylvania. Did you catch which word was missing from that apology?

Sorry. Sorry was missing. Another word that was missing is apologize. Because he's not apologizing. He's defending his actions. So he begins by saying that the people who protest abortion, who protest the killing of children are bigots. He accuses them of racism somehow. Plant parenthood kills three times as many black babies as it does white babies. More black babies in New York City are killed in the womb than are born. The most dangerous place for a black person in New York is in his mother's womb. And he accuses those of us who don't want to kill all of those black babies of racism. So that's how he starts. Now, why does he do this? This does underline a pretty eternal truth of leftism, pretty eternal

truth of political debate. When a leftist calls you a racist, you know you've won the argument. That's all they can do. That's all this coward, bully schmuck can do is pretend to be a victim. And then he defends Planned Parenthood, defends killing babies, defends his actions, his aggression, defends stalking

and doxing underage girls, defends harassing and mocking and ridiculing an elderly woman. And then that's his apology. Well, I'm going to Philadelphia this Friday because my friend and colleague Matt Walsh launched a major pro-life rally there that's going to take place at the Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia, the same one that this guy stalks, the same one that this guy volunteers at because he's just so so covetous of abortions. He's just so desirous. He has such a hunger

that more babies be killed that he volunteers his time to walk women in and encourage them to kill their children. And then in his free time, when he's not volunteering there, he goes and harasses underage girls and elderly women and intimidates them and threatens them and doxes them. So I'm going to go there to this wonderful pro-life rally on Friday. I hope if you're in the area, you come on out. And Brian Sims, I hope you come on out. I think you won't because you're a coward. And because Brian Sims can't pick on someone his own size, he's got to stick to stalking young, underage teenage girls and elderly women. He thinks that's a fight that he's more more able to win. But I hope he comes out. Look forward to seeing him there and look forward to

seeing all of you. In the meantime, I'll be in Missouri. If you're in Jefferson City, come on out to that speech tomorrow at the state capitol. And I'll also see you on the show. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. 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. Hey, everybody, it's Andrew Claven. Host of the Andrew Claven show. The New York Times is writing about the fact that Donald Trump was in debt in the 80s, which no one has ever written about before

except for Donald Trump. The New York Times is writing about anything it can to keep from writing about the one thing it doesn't want to face. Barack Obama was an incompetent and corrupt president. I'm Andrew Claven. We'll talk about it all on the Andrew Claven show.