The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 348 - Time To Pay The Barr Tab

Episode Date: May 14, 2019

AG Barr appoints a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. Then, Rashida Tlaib rewrites history while referring to the calming Holocaust. Finally, Biden dominates the 2020 field as Beto tries to reboot before it’s too late. Date: 5-14-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mueller time is over. Now it's time to pay the bar tab. Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and any potential wrongdoing on the part of Democrats or federal government officials. We investigate the investigation of the investigation. Then, Democrat Congresswoman Rashida Taleb rewrites history while referring to the calming Holocaust. Because nothing says calming quite like the Holocaust. Finally, Joe Biden dominates the 2020 field as Beto tries to reboot before it's too late. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Knowles show. Time to pay the bar tab.

I am going to find any excuse I can to recite that pun and that meme. That is my favorite meme of the last year when all those Mueller time T-shirts that were being sold are now being sold for about 75 cents in the used clearance bin on Amazon. It's all over. Now we are in the era of William Barr, and this investigation just got more interesting. People aren't paying a lot of attention to it right now because everyone's so happy that the Mueller report is over. It exonerated the president on collusion. But this is where the real investigation begins, and we're going to see where that's leading. But first, we're never going to agree on everything, are we? You and I might, but in the whole country, we're not going to. The one thing we can all agree on so that we can use more sleep.

Getting a great night's sleep is easier and more affordable than you think. You don't need a new expensive mattress or sleeping pills. You just need to change your sheets. That's why you should check out bowl and branch. This is a very true story. I woke up today. It's, I don't know, 6 o'clock or something. I said, I'm going to, I'll snooze my alarm.

So I thought I snoozed my alarm. I didn't. I woke up about an hour and a half later because sweet little lease was, Mac, Mac, Mac, you got to go do a show? But I just felt so comfy on my bowl and branch sheets. Sorry, you can't blame me for it, can you? From betting to blankets, everything Bowling Branch makes is made from pure 100% organic cotton,

which means they start out super soft. They get softer over time. You buy directly from them, so you're basically paying wholesale prices. Instead of paying $1,000 for really nice sheets like you would in a department store, you're buying the same quality for only a couple hundred bucks from Bowling Branch. Shipping is free. You can try them for 30 nights. You're going to feel like you're staying at the fanciest hotel you ever stayed at.

That's my favorite part of it is I'm in my little apartment, but I feel like I'm staying at a five-star hotel. If you don't love them, send them back for a refund. You won't want to send them back, though. No risk, no reason to not to give them a try. To get started right now, my listeners, get $50 bucks off your first set of sheets. That's a lot of money. Bolandbranch.com, promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.

Go to Bolandbranch.com. 50 bucks off your first set of sheets. B-O-L-L and branch.com. promo code of Michael, M-C-H-A-E-L, Bollanbranche.com. promo code Michael. Time to pay the bar tab. Have you asked yourself this? Why are Democrats right now going so hard after Attorney General William Barr? Remember, they went after Jeff Sessions. He's a hack. He's a Trump hack. Then they went after Matthew Whitaker, who was in the Attorney General position after Sessions, briefly, interim. And then now they're going after William Barr. William Barr has a sterling track record. William Barr was the Attorney General 30 years ago under George H.W. Bush. You know, the first the Bush, the Bush that all the Democrats are pretending that they really like now because he just

died. Remember that, he was the Attorney General for that guy. Very well respected. But now they're pushing very hard against him. And the reason for it is that William Barr is threatening to expose Democrat wrongdoing during the Obama administration, specifically with the opening of the Trump Russia investigation. William Barr has been signaling this for a little while now and the more he signaled it, the harder Democrats are going after him. We saw the preview here during those hearings that Barr had with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here's where he promised that he was going to get to the bottom of this Trump-Russia investigation. Do you share my concerns about the FISA warrant process? Yes. Do you share my concerns about the counterintelligence investigation,

how it was opened and why it was opened? Yes. Do you share my concerns that the professional lack of professionalism and the Clinton email investigation is something we should all look at. Yes. You can't see it on camera here and you can't even hear it. I guess the microphones weren't turned on, but there were

Democrat heads exploding when Attorney General Barr was saying this because all of a sudden we're no longer talking about the Mueller investigation. We're no longer talking about Trump collusion or Trump obstruction or the thing that Donald Trump did 35 years ago or whatever.

Now we're talking about how did this investigation start? How did the Obama administration start spying on the Trump campaign? Why did they do it? What was going on? Who acted wrongly and who acted in a criminal manner? Finally, we're going to get to the bottom of that. Attorney General Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of that investigation. The attorney is charged to see if the investigation was lawful and appropriate, to see if the spying

was lawful and appropriate. This is not a special counsel, but it might as well be. There's practically no real difference between whether Barr had appointed a special counsel or if he just tasked this U.S. attorney with it. And so the investigation will focus on how the government collected intelligence

on Trump-Russia collusion. It'll focus on the spying. It's being led by a guy named John Durham. John Durham is a U.S. attorney from Connecticut. he has got truly a stellar reputation. I mean, I think this is a big part of why he was appointed. He has served as a special prosecutor investigating wrongdoing by the national security officials, by the agencies, FBI, CIA. He's been a DOJ lawyer since the early 80s. And this is the important part. He has conducted investigations under both parties. So in 1999, Attorney General

Janor Reno had him investigate the FBI's handling of, Whitey Bulger, Whitey Bulger, the famous Massachusetts mob boss who was an informant for the FBI. He investigated that, so that was during the Clinton administration. Then during the Bush 2 administration in 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey had him investigate the CIA's destruction of torture videos in 2005. So that was under the Bush 2 administration. Then, following year, under the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder had him investigate whether the CIA broke laws regarding the abuse of detainees. So this guy has total bipartisan credibility. Now the question here is, why did Barr appoint this U.S. attorney to investigate it when we already have another investigation

going on? There are now two investigations of the investigation going on. I know that sounds confusing, but we have this U.S. attorney investigation that just began. We also have the Inspector General investigation into how the Trump-Russia investigation started. So we have this U.S. Attorney investigation started. So we have the watchdog for the DOJ is also investigating this. This is Michael Horowitz. And Barr says that this report from the Inspector General is going to be done in May. So why have the second one? We know, by the way, that the Inspector General report is going pretty well. We know it's already turned up some dirt on the FBI. This IG report by Michael Horowitz helped to get that crooked official Andy McCabe.

fired and possibly prosecuted for wrongdoing, specifically for delaying the investigation during 2016 of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the Hillary emails that turned up on Anthony Weiner's laptop when he was brought in for sending weird messages to young girls. See how far deep this goes? See how many layers they are to these investigations? This is how the Democrats win. This is how the so-called deep state wins is there are so many layers to these investigations that most people just can't keep it straight in their heads. So they say, oh, I don't know, they're all crooks, never mind, we'll move on. But this is important. You've got the watchdog at the DOJ looking into all of this, already finding dirt, already finding improper actions, possibly criminal actions

taken by these Obama administration officials with regard to the 2016 election, possibly influencing the 2016 election. You've got him, sources say, describing James Comey as insubordinate. You've got him criticizing Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch for meeting on a tarmac with Bill Clinton and coming up with some possibly crooked deal. So you've got that going on with the IG. Now you have this separate investigation. Why? Two possibilities. One, Attorney General Barr already knows what's coming in the Inspector General report. The other one is that, the Barr knows that John Durham, this U.S. attorney, is extremely credible on both sides of the aisle. And what I think it is is both. I think probably, I mean, look, if you and I already know that the IG report has turned up dirt on these people, obviously the Attorney General of the United States already knows that.

So he might be getting a lead on the findings of those, of that report and looking a little further into these guys. And the other one is, the Democrats have already gone on the offensive to tar William Barr as some sort of partisan Trump hack. So probably they'll go after Michael Horowitz when that report comes out. So he's saying, I'm going to get a guy who is so, he has such a pristine record that Democrats cannot possibly try to smear him as a Trump hack. And the thing with John Durham, this U.S. attorney, is that. Democrat senators, Dick Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, have come out in great support of him.

They've called him a fierce, fair prosecutor. So the minute they try to go after this guy for uncovering dirt on the Obama administration, they're just going to play all those clips of these Democrat senators talking about what a great guy John Durham is. I think that's why we have two investigations. The other one is we want to be very thorough here. Broadly speaking, we don't want to make the same mistakes that Democrats did. We don't want the Trump administration to make the same mistakes the Obama administration did. We don't want conservatives to make the same mistakes leftists did. This is the main takeaway here. How did Democrats handle the Mueller investigation? They put all of their eggs in that basket. They prattled on for two years, three years about how

Trump was a Manchurian candidate. He was a secret stooge for Vladimir Putin. He's a criminal. He's a traitor. then the report turns up nothing, and then they look like a bunch of idiots. We don't want to make that mistake. Look, already the investigation into the investigation, the investigation into wrongdoing under the Obama administration, already that has turned up much more evidence of wrongdoing than the Mueller report into Trump and collusion did. There is way more dirt on the hands of Obama administration officials and Democrats than there ever was on the Trump campaign for colluding with Russia. We already know that, but we don't

want to overpromise and under-deliver here. We've got these two guys on the case, the IG and this U.S. attorney. It's a long way until 2020. There's a lot of time for new dirt to come out. We don't want to overplay our hand. I think in part, William Barr might have been motivated by that. He doesn't want this to become this awful political mess like you saw during the 2016 election. He doesn't want to become the next James Comey or the next Loretta Lynch or the next, he doesn't need that on his hands. So before the IG report comes out, let's say the, let's see the IG report comes out. And it says the Democrats acted totally improperly. The Obama administration was illegally, criminally spying on the Trump campaign. It's all awful. At that point, you're going to have

Republican senators, the president, all their GOP activists, calling for a new special counsel, calling for a new investigation, calling for more probes. So maybe what we're going to William Barr wants to do is get ahead of that. Not for partisan reasons, but just actually to maintain the integrity of the DOJ, to say, we're not launching this new investigation. We're not launching this U.S. attorney investigation because of pressure from Senate Republicans. We're doing it because that's where the evidence is leading us. I think it's really sharp. I got to tell you, I feel very comfortable with William Barr at the helm. Not that I feel ideologically comfortable like he's going to agree with conservatives on everything. I just feel this is a guy who is extraordinarily intelligent.

He is extraordinarily experienced and practiced, not just in the ways of Washington, not just in the ways of the DOJ, but with the office of the Attorney General. He's already done the job before. I feel, finally, for maybe the first time in the Trump administration, I feel that the DOJ is settling into good hands. And so I think we should let this play out. I don't think we should get too far out ahead of it. It's going to be very enjoyable as evidence starts to dribble in of all of the wrongdoing that the Obama administration engaged in. Let it happen. Don't let your anxiety get the better of you. Patience is a virtue. It's going to be a very enjoyable way to 2020. Specifically, because the Democrat Party is exploding. The whole left wing is totally falling apart.

over in D.C., over in Congress, Rashida Taleb, a rising star of the Democrat Party, has now referred to the Holocaust as a calming event. She is not only said that phrase, which is so outrageous, she is rewriting the history of the Holocaust and the creation of the state of Israel. Now, this has nothing to do with investigations of Russia or collusion or whatever. this is just purely the Democrat Party and the ideological left collapsing in on itself.

And specifically on this issue of Israel, here you see two major leftist strategies at play. If Rashida Talib does them both at the same time, she does the performance of victimhood and she does the rewriting of history, both at the same time, both central to the left-wing agenda. Here she is speaking both sides of her mouth. about the Holocaust. And there's, you know, there's a kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks. When I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of a Holocaust and the fact that it was my

ancestors, Palestinians who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, the human dignity, their existence in many ways have been wiped out and some people's passport. I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews post. the Holocaust, post-the-tragedy and horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them. So none of that is true.

Nothing she just said is true. Either she's a profoundly stupid woman or she's lying. And I don't think she's stupid. So I think she's lying. None of what she just said is true. First of all, this is just a note of rhetorical advice. When you are describing the Holocaust, it is best to avoid the word calming. Of all the many words in the English language, calming is not the best one to describe the Holocaust. Eric Swalwell, the sort of presidential candidate, just did this the other day when he compared Russian election interference to September 11th. Again, another piece of advice, it's best not to compare things to September 11th. You now have two rules for rhetoric.

Don't compare things to 9-11. Don't refer to the Holocaust as calming. But then she rewrites history. Everything she said that the Arabs in British mandatory Palestine, they welcomed the Jews in. They said, Jews, please come in. Please establish the state of Israel. We like you so much. We want you to be here.

they were so, how happy Rishita Taleb is that her ancestors, the Arabs in mandatory Palestine, they welcome, except none of that happened. That did not happen. Arabs in British Palestine did not want the Jews to come in. What is my evidence of this? Well, for one, they allied with Hitler. So the leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Haj Amin al-Husani, allied with Hitler. He was led. living in Germany in Berlin from 1941 to 1945. He not only allied with Hitler, he called for the massacre of Jews in the Arab world. He not only called for the massacre of Jews in the Arab world, he did it on Nazi radio stations

all throughout Berlin. He called specifically for an anti-Jewish jihad. He then aided the Nazis, because he was friends with Hitler, he aided the Nazis in recruiting Muslims from the Balkans for the SS and for the Vermecht. he launched a revolt. These are the Palestinian Arabs. They launched a revolt between 1936 and 1939 to deter European Jews from coming into the region of Palestine.

When we use the word Palestine, by the way, we have to be clear. We're not referring to a country called Palestine. There has never been a nation state called Palestine. That nation state might as well exist between Narnia and Wakanda. It is completely imaginary, completely fictitious. There is a region that was named by the Romans Palestine. So when we refer historically to Palestine, we're referring to a region named by the Romans well after the nation of Israel inhabited that land.

So there's Palestine. And then when the British took over the area, there was the mandate of Palestine. It's referred to British Palestine or mandatory Palestine. So that's a region. not a nation state. So the Arabs who are living in British mandatory Palestine launched a revolt to stop Jews from coming into the area and eventually they petition the British

to stop the refugee Jews almost altogether from entering the region. Rashida Taleb completely reinvents that history and here is how that history is being described by scholars on both sides of the question. Supporters of a Palestinian state, supporters of the state of Israel. This is according to the left-wing Israeli paper, Horat's. Professor Benny Morris, a scholar of British mandatory Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel, said, quote, Rashida Tlebe is either completely ignorant of the history

or is a deliberate liar. That's my reaction entirely, and I think Professor Morris is probably a little too kind to her, because I don't think she's just a total idiot. He goes on, though, He said, Taleb's ancestors, quote, did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Jews at Nazi hands. Rather the opposite. The Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine during the whole period, and supported by the neighboring Arab states, did all they could to prevent Jews trying to escape Nazi hands from reaching the relatively safe shores of Palestine. That is a Jewish historian. An Arab historian, Dr. Adelmana said, quote, I don't know what she meant. It was natural that when the Palestinians thought that the danger to their existence was real,

they started to resist the Zionist project. Fair enough. Israeli historian Tom Segev, quote, I have never heard anybody say that before. I really can't imagine that any Palestinian shares that noble sentiment of welcoming all of the Jews into the area. He goes on, I really want to give her the benefit of the doubt that she really meant it,

but to me, and maybe I'm cynical, it sounded like an attempt to be ironic or sarcastic. Now, I don't think she was being ironic or sarcastic. I think she was lying. I don't think she was making a joke. I don't think she was using verbal irony. I think she was lying. And she was reliant on Americans' historical ignorance.

And specifically, the historical ignorance of her left-wing base, which is manifest. It's obvious that her base is historically, ignorant. Most Americans don't know very much about history. Most Americans can't name the three branches of government. The ignorance epidemic in this country is terrifying. One third of young Americans think George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. You probably don't believe this because if you're listening to this show, you have an interest in current events and history and culture and religion. And so you read about these things a lot.

The vast majority of this country does not. It's not exactly their fault. They've been failed in education by their parents. They've been failed in education by their teachers K through 12 and then through college as well. You can now graduate from Yale with a degree in English and graduate summa cum laude and never have read Shakespeare. This is a profound problem. And this is what the left relies on. They rely on historical ignorance.

So when she gets called out on this, does she admit? They say, okay, you're right. I misrepresented the history. I'm sorry. You're right. I lied about it. I'm sorry. You caught me.

You all know the history. And I tried to get one over on you. No. Because people don't know the history. So instead, what she does is she reverts to the classic leftist strategy of calling her critics stupid racists. The tragedy of the Holocaust. I mean, the reason why Israel was created is create a safe haven for Jews around the world. And there is something, like, in many ways,

beautiful about that my ancestors, many had died or had to give up their livelihood, their human dignity to provide a safe haven for Jews in our world. And that is something I wanted to recognize and kind of honor in some sort of way. But I also think it's important because I want policing people also to find some sort of light in this kind of what's happening, but also, you know, in the end, I said, I want all of us to feel safe. All of us deserve human dignity, No matter our backgrounds, no matter ethnicity, no matter even our political opinions, we all need to deserve that kind of equality and justice. And, you know, for me, I wanted to uplift that and bring that to light. And it was unfortunate.

You know, I got a text message from a friend who's like, hey, next time, you know, really clarify, maybe talk like a fourth grader because maybe the racist idiots would understand you better. So it's just, you know, I will continue to speak truth to power. The racist idiots. That's maybe the racist idiots. See, if you disagree with Rashida Talib's complete rewriting of history, the only explanation is that you're a racist idiot. Now, ironically, what she's relying on to spread her lies are racist idiots, right? She's relying on people who don't know the history,

and she's relying on people who have a sympathy for Arabs, a racial sympathy for Arabs and a racial antipathy for Jews. because if you knew the history, you couldn't possibly agree with what she said, because what she said is demonstrably false. So what she's just relying on is a growing problem in the Democrat Party, which is a lot of Democrats these days don't like Jews. They have an antipathy for Jews, and they have a racial preference for Arabs in the region. This is what these movements, students for justice in Palestine are, which is one of the most ironically named groups, because it's It's not led by students. It isn't about justice, and there's no such country as Palestine.

You could put every part of it in quotes. Or the boycott, divest and sanction movement of Israel, which is basically to starve Israel and stop it from being a nation state. That's what she's relying on antipathy for Jews, antipathy for Israel, and historical ignorance. So how is this playing out? Lest you think that I'm only presenting one side here. I don't think I am.

I'm presenting Arab historians, Jewish historians, her own words. But lest you think, I'm only playing one side. Let's turn to the leftists par excellence, the typical leftists on CNN, even that network, even John King on CNN, can't defend what she said. Yes, as she said, Palestinians lost land in the creation of Israel, but she ignored the fact that Palestinian leaders at the time allied themselves with Hitler. and the total war was how the Arab world reacted to the Declaration of Israeli Independence. Simple as that. I mean, you've got to give the left some credit here. There is a photo of Arab leaders from the region of Palestine sitting face to face with Hitler,

having a grand old time, with Adolf Hitler himself. And then they have the audacity to go on television and say, yes, my ancestors, they welcomed the Jews with open. arms. They laid down their lives. They laid down their lives to give the Jews a safe haven. Either that or they allied with Hitler and started years of uprisings and tried to kill all the Jews. It's one of the other. I forget. It's one of those two. So CNN, kudos on them for at least, for I think 14 seconds exactly reporting the actual history here. How is this playing out at the elected Democrat level. So you got the media, okay, they're being not fair, but at least

briefly presenting the other side. At the elected level, the level of Nancy Pelosi, the politicians are defending Rashida Taleb. At that elected level, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, leader of the Democrat Party, Nancy Pelosi, she's defending the total historical revisionism of Rashida Talib. She tweeted out, quote, Republicans' desperate attempts to smear Representative Rashida and misrepresent her comments are

outrageous. President Trump and House GOP should apologize to Rep. Talib and the American people for their gross misrepresentations. In the face of that inversion of reality, in the face of

a lie, so egregious as that, I lose my capacity for indignation. How am I supposed to respond to that? Rashida Taleb, according to every historian, completely inverted the history of that region and of that moment. She lied through her teeth. And then Nancy Pelosi, the head of her party, calls on all of us to apologize to her for misrepresenting history. You can't even get upset about that. You just sort of sit back and say, huh, all right, I guess the Democrats are living in a perfect fantasy world that has no bearing on history, no bearing on historical textbooks or documents

or words. Words lose their meaning in the face of that sort of defense. Now, why is Pelosi doing it? And what effect will this have on 2020? We'll get to that in a second, but first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube. Go to DailyWire.com. It's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, you get the Andrew Claven show,

you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get the Matt Wall Show, you get to ask questions in the mailbag coming up on Thursday, you get to ask questions backstage, you get another kingdom, you get all this stuff, and you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr. This is very important. Oh, this is very delicious. The Leftist Tears Tumblr serves this wonderful purpose

of just refreshing you, reawakening your mind, to real history, to real politics, and it's a great, delicious beverage to watch the entire left collapse. Go to dailywire.com, get it. We'll be right back with a lot more. Why is Pelosi defending Rashida Talib? Why is she defending obvious historical lies? Why is she doing that? She's doing it? Because she's having a tough time keeping this fractious house caucus together. She's also having a tough time dealing with the growing anti-Semitism on the left. So you remember Elon Omar, the other Jew-hating freshman Democrat, she made all of these comments about how awful Jews are and they're hypnotizing the world and they're just buying off American politicians and you can't trust them because they have no allegiance to America. She made all these comments. And Pelosi tried her best to keep quiet. At the time, they were saying, Nancy, come on, speak out against her. And she said, I can't because our party hates the Jews now. So I've got to kind of go with them. You had Democrat congressmen like Elliot Engel and Needle Lowy saying, we need a resolution to condemn

anti-Semitism. Come on, Nancy, at least do that. Nancy said, oh, that's really going to upset all of the anti-Semites in our party. So they watered down that resolution, made it about all sorts of hatred, a total cave. Now with Talib, she's defending her. There are two major takeaways here, specifically for Democrats. One, this is why Democrats hate history. It's why they hate historical education. It's why they rip down statues. It's why they rip down murals. It's why they rip down monuments. It's why they rewrite high school history curricula. It's why they support taking courses out of historical curricula in college. They hate history because history is an obstacle to their political program. Historical knowledge is an obstacle

to their political program. One of the issues now on the left is boycotting Israel, divesting from Israel, and establishing another Arab state in Israel. That is now a platform that is endorsed by huge swaths of the left around the world and in the United States. Now, there are many good arguments against this course of action. One, the Arabs in that area elected Hamas, a terrorist group to be their government. Two, they allied with Hitler during the Second World War.

Three, they have no historical claim to the land. The Jews do have some historical claim to the land. What are the arguments for the establishment of a new Palestinian nation state in parts of Israel? Wah, wah, racism, idiot, I don't, whatever smears. No, the or not, the or not. argument that Rashida Talib is trying to make is that the Palestinian Arabs welcomed the Jews in and they were so good and there was a misunderstanding and they had a totally made up. But the argument for that agenda is a fictional narrative. The argument that right-wingers tend to make for their

agenda is a historical narrative. The argument that the left tends to make is a fictional narrative. Why should we get rid of male and female bathrooms? Why should we have an all-gender 56 gender bathroom. The reason that the right wants to keep different bathrooms for different sexes is because there are two sexes, men and women. That's a fact. That's a biological fact and a fact of nature. The reason the left wants to get rid of

male and female bathrooms is because of a fantasy that there is no such thing as gender, or there are 56 genders, or there are 58 genders, or whatever they're saying now. The reason that the right wants to have borders security and wants to build a physical barrier on our southern border is that foreign nationals are not American citizens, is that nations have to have borders, nations have sovereignty, nations get to decide who comes in and out, our immigration law decides who comes in and out. The reason that the left wants open borders is because they deny even the historical

legitimacy of the nation state. They deny the reality of our immigration laws. They deny the atrocities that happen along that journey. They deny the drugs that are coming in. They deny the gangs that are coming in. They have a fantasy that they're pushing. That's the difference. It's why we have to learn history. It's why it is so important for right-wingers to learn history. People ask me what they should major in in college. Major in history. If you're debating between Polly-Sai and this and history, history is important. It is the best scholarly tool that we can use against the left-wing agenda. That's the ideological takeaway from this. The major political takeaway, Democrats are now the anti-Israel party.

You got the Republicans or the pro-Israel party. The Democrats are the anti-Israel party. This is a serious tension between the old Democrats and the new Democrats, in part because most American Jews are Democrats. So you have a lot of a little older school Democrats now who are saying, gosh, I can't be part of a party that hates Israel, that hates the Jews. Now, if you've got these more old-schools, slightly more moderate Democrats. You have these new Democrats like Rashida Talib and Ilhan Omar and

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which side is winning out? If 2020 is any indication, voters across the country prefer the old Democrats. Why do I know that? Because Joe Biden is absolutely killing it in the polls. He is dominating this entire race. If the election were held today, there is no question that he would be the nominee. He might be the winner with the majority of votes in a field of 20 candidates. I mean, he is, he is killing it that much. In the South Carolina field right now, Joe Biden is leading by 31% of the vote. He's not leading with 31% of the vote. He's actually got 46% of the vote. The next highest candidate is Bernie Sanders, who has 15. So Joe has triple Bernie's support in South Carolina. After Bernie in South Carolina is Kamala Harris

with 10%. After that, you've got Buttigieg and Wurne. Warren with 8%. After that, you've got poor Cory Booker, 4%. After that, there's a name I haven't said yet. It's a name you've probably forgotten. Poor old Beto O'Rourke, he's some Irish guy from Texas. He's only got 2%. These old Democrats, Joe Biden,

it's not even close between Biden and Sanders, triple. And poor Beto trailing at the bottom of the pack. So what is Beto going to do? Beto is trying to reboot his campaign. He has leaked this to reporters. He's going to reboot. You're going to get Beto 2.0.

He's showing up to events in New Hampshire and getting crowds of 30 people. I mean, this is not going well for him. The reboot is not going to work. There's no reboot. He got the best boot in the whole world. He got glossy covers, vanity fair. You remember that. I'm in it.

I'm in it to win it. And this should have told us that he wasn't going to really go anywhere. because whichever candidate Vanity Fair likes is not going to be the candidate. I was on the Huntsman campaign in 2012. I love John Huntsman, our ambassador to Russia. I think he's a tremendous guy. Vanity Fair gave him a great glossy treatment. I said, no, don't let no, vanity fair should not do that

because in some ways it's the kiss of death. If the media likes you too much, you're going to have a harder time on the campaign trail. That happened to Beto. And then the main thing that happened to Beto is Buttigieg. Because Pete Buttigieg is in every single, way, the better Beto O'Rourke. In every way, he's smarter, he's better

educated, he's got executive experience. Beto O'Rourke was just a congressman. At least Mayor Pete has been the mayor of a small town. Buttigieg checks off more boxes on the intersectional victimhood

hierarchy. He can say he's gay. They're both privileged, wealthy, white men, but he's at least gay, so he can play that card in the Democrat primary. And most importantly of all, Budajedge is a winner and Beto is a loser. Buttigieg won his races. Buda judge is the mayor of this small town in Indiana. Beto's a loser. We forget he's a loser because the media treated him as a winner. The media, after he lost a Senate race in Texas, they basically treated him like he won.

But he's a loser. And you don't get to lose and then immediately become president. He almost took Texas from Ted Cruz. Great. Oh, cool. Almost. And a buck 50 will get you a cup of coffee. Almost means nothing in politics. John Boehner used to make this point. The winners go to Washington and the losers go home. Doesn't matter if you lose by 50% or you lose by 2%. 3% like Beto did in Texas. He lost.

Do you remember John Ossoff? No, of course you don't. John Ossoff was the old Beto O'Rourke. John Ossoff was this guy that they were running, I think in the Georgia's sixth congressional district, Newt Gingrich's old seat. He was running then also in Tom Price's old seat when Tom Price was appointed by the Trump administration

to run health and human services. And this was going to be the big, the first referendum on Trump and the Democrats are going to win. They poured millions and millions, tens of millions of dollars into this race. And he lost. Same thing.

The media sort of treated him like, a winner. They said, oh, it was a moral victory. Oh, he came close and then he's done. He's over. He's not going to have to deal with that now, unfortunately, for him. Bado has one play left. Beto's only play is that he needs to convince Iowa voters that he can win Texas in a general election. How many electoral votes does Texas have? 32 or more, electoral 38 or something? That's a lot of electoral votes. You win Texas as a Democrat. The election doesn't matter what else happens. You win the election. So what Beto O'Rourke is going to try to do is say, listen, Iowa voters, you might not like me, I might be a loser, I might be creepy and weird, I might dress up like

a furry, I might wear dresses in my band and I might skateboard around Waterberger parking lots, but I can bring you Texas. That's a long shot because that's a really unsatisfying political message. If you're only campaigning on some crass political message, I'll do really well in this state. You're not inspiring people. You're not getting people out to the polls. Also, it's just not true. Beto isn't going to win Texas against Donald Trump. It's not going to happen. He was going up against Ted Cruz in an election where I love Ted Cruz. I think he's a great guy. He's not the best retail politician in the country, and he was going in damaged from the primary campaign against Donald Trump. So you had some Republicans, some Trump voters who didn't like Ted Cruz going into that election.

That ain't going to happen in a presidential year. So even the case if Beto could make it is pretty weak. I think he's probably done. I think Buttigieg is eating his lunch. And Buda Judge also, very unlikely to be the Democrat nominee, but he might have a better play for vice president. before we go, I have to talk about this issue in the United Kingdom because we're talking here broadly, I guess, about these two strategies that the left and the right entertain. You've got the left pushing fantasy and relying on ignorance, and you've got the right pushing history and relying on education, relying on knowledge. probably Democrats, in speaking in electoral politics, Democrats have the easier chance. It's always easier to bet on ignorance and to push fantasy than it is to rely on reality and people's knowledge of reality when you're talking about democratic politics. But there's this case right now in the

United Kingdom. It shows this difference between reality and fantasy so clearly. There are these parents in the UK who transitioned their seven-year-old biological son. into pretending that he's a girl. Seven-year-old kid, he either decides he's a girl or his parents tell him that he's a girl, then he starts dressing him up, they start dressing him up like a girl.

Okay, that's bad. But who knows, families are weird, who knows? Maybe there's something here we don't know about. Then these parents transitioned a three-year-old foster child in their care into pretending that he's a girl. Not a biological child,

a foster child. Now it's come out that a third child that they fostered also suffered gender issues. If it were just one child, I'd say, look, they're bad parents for indulging in this delusion, but maybe the kid really does have this condition.

Maybe the kid really does have gender dysphoria, and he really is just uncomfortable with his biological sex. We know that about 0.2 or 0.3% of the population suffers from gender confusion. So maybe it's their kid who has it. Now, what are the odds? Let's say these parents had two biological kids. What are the odds that both of their kids would have gender dysphoria? infinitesimally low. But you might say, well, it's biological, so maybe it's just something in the genes that gives the kids in this family gender confusion? What are the odds that if they had three biological kids, they would all have it, again, so infinitesimally low. But again, you could say,

well, it's in the genes. Maybe it's in the genes, okay. But only one of the kids was biological. The other two were foster kids, completely different genes. The only thing in common was how they were raised. The only thing in common were these sick parents who should never be allowed to be anywhere are near children. Because obviously it is the parents pushing this sick ideology on them that causes poor little helpless boys, a three-year-old boy, to think that he's in some way a girl, sending him to school in dresses. And the school asked the parents, they said, please stop sending your son in dresses. The parents said, no, we're going to do it. These sickos, these perverts, these child abusers, obviously there's nothing biological.

here, the second kid and the third kid are not biologically related to these parents. And yet they all have gender confusion. Guess how a UK judge ruled in the question of whether these were fit parents. The judge said, no, it's totally okay. Nothing wrong here. Nothing to see here. And actually, if you question whether this little boy is actually a little girl, you, you're the bigot, you're the racist, you're the trans homophobic, whatever men. made up word they have, because fantasy is winning. In our governing class, in our political class, in our politically correct class, in our media class, fantasy is winning. Historical fantasy, biological fantasy, legal fantasy is all winning right now. Now, I think the people realize this

isn't true. I think that's how you get elections like the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit election. you get this popular revulsion at the gender ideology being pushed on us by the left. But that is a battle. It's an example clear as day between

people who have some relation to reality and those self-appointed elites who want to tell us reality is not as it is. That's going to be a defining, overwhelming feature not just of the 2020 election, but our politics for the foreseeable.

future. We'll see how it plays out. We've got a lot more to get to, but, you know, hey, we always run late. Come back tomorrow 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 Ulvera, and our production assistant is Nick Sheen. The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire. production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

Hey everyone, I'm Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. The Democrats have been living off their own facts for a while now, and they've built themselves a protective wall made of the press and the entertainment industry and the academy to keep those facts safe. Well, now the real facts are building up outside the wall like the zombies in World War or Z outside the walls of Jerusalem. It's not going to be pretty. That's on the Andrew Claven show.

I'm Andrew Claven.