The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 454 - Quid Pro No

Episode Date: November 21, 2019

Another day, another impeachment witness affirms that President Trump committed no quid pro quo with Ukraine. Of course you wouldn’t know that from the front pages of the NYT and the Washington Post. We will parse the spin and lies. Then, speaking of spin and lies, the Democrats return to the stage for this month’s presidential primary debate, a high school girl cries after her district forces her to undress in front of boys, and finally the Mailbag. Date: 11-21-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Another day, another impeachment witness affirms that President Trump committed no quid pro quo with Ukraine. Of course, you wouldn't know that from the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. We will parse the spin and lies. Then speaking of spin and lies, the Democrats returned to the stage for this month's presidential primary debate, and I watched every agonizing moment of it. A high school girl cries after her school district forces her to undress in front of boys. progress. And finally the mailbag, all that and more. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Noles show. Okay, here's what you've read in the newspapers today. Well, you haven't because you don't read the New York Times in the Washington Post because you are an educated person, but this is what most people are reading in the newspapers today. New York Times, Sondland

says he followed Trump's orders. The Washington Post, Sondland links Trump administration to pressure campaign on Ukraine. Diplomat says there was a quid pro quo, a White House meeting if Ukraine opened probes into Joe Biden. Sondland's bombshell testimony leaves Trump's GOP allies scrambling, scrambling they are, like scurrying like mice on Capitol Hill. Of course, none of that is true. None of that is true. If you read those headlines, What you would conclude from that is that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo, whatever that is. That's been the latest accusation that they've hurled at Trump. Really, all we've had for this whole impeachment probe is that there's been sort of nebulous wrongdoing.

No one can point to a crime. Nobody can point to a high crime or misdemeanor. But they just, he did something wrong. He's got to leave office. If you read those headlines, it would be impossible not to conclude that Trump committed an impeachable offense unless you had greater context. or unless you had actually watched the testimony. So let's look at it. Unvarnished, no interpretive lens of the mainstream media.

What did Gordon Sondland, the big ambassador to the European Union, the big witness yesterday for the Democrats, what did Sondland actually say about Trump? He said repeatedly and explicitly that Trump told him not to engage in a quid pro quo with Ukraine. Here he is. testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections. So you never heard those specific words. Correct. Right?

But never heard those words. Again, I don't recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance, ever. Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? No. Okay. So the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? No. The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting. Personally, no. But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?

And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood. And he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. something to that effect. That last clip, by the way, was to Adam Schiff, who's running this whole charade, and Adam Schiff is just there devastated. He's obviously crestfallen. The only contradiction in there worth noting is that at the very beginning of the clip, Sondland said, I never heard those words quid pro quo from the president.

And then later on he says, I actually did hear those words when later he told me explicitly do not engage in a quid pro quo. I do not want a quid pro quo. So that's it, right? That's it. That's the whole thing. The Democrats, at least in the latest iteration, obviously they've been trying to impeach him for three years. But the latest version is Trump committed a quid pro quo. No evidence of that. A quid pro quo is an impeachable offense. No evidence of that. Therefore, we need to remove President Trump from office. Okay, if that's the Democrat's argument, then you just heard from the guy from the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, Trump told me, explicitly do not engage in a quid pro quo. And that was only after I testified that we didn't even talk about security concerns. We didn't even talk about the aid. But then when the aid was brought up, he said, do not engage in a quid pro quo. So that's it. It's over, right? Okay. That would be the conclusion of any reasonable person. So what's the conclusion of Democrat

Adam Schiff? Here he is. Because I think today's testimony is among, the most significant evidence to date. And what we have just heard from Ambassador Sondland is that the knowledge of this scheme, this conditioning of the White House meeting, of the security assistance to get the deliverable the president wanted these two political investigations that he believed would help his re-election campaign was a basic quid pro quo. That's your conclusion? That's your conclusion.

after he says Trump never told me to engage in a quid pro quo I never heard those words we never discussed security assistance there never were preconditions for the White House meeting and oh by the way he told me explicitly no quid pro quo your conclusion is yeah there was basically a quid pro quo basically when you really think about it

when you really look deep deep down it looks like there was a quid pro quo he's lying right to your face Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff is going on television, and what he is relying on is that no one is watching the testimony itself. What he is relying on is that no one's going to play those clips so that you hear it unvarnished. What he's hoping is that people are just going to watch clips of politicians talking about the testimony on CNN. And for most people, that's true.

Adam Schiff is not a stupid man. Adam Schiff realizes that the majority of Americans are not paying attention to this. A huge number of Americans, I think it's like 35% haven't heard anything about the impeachment. They don't read about it. They don't hear about it on television. So he is going to try to convey his narrative, which contradicts reality. Now, he did get one good clipping yesterday. We will examine that and see if that gives an ultimate PR win for Democrats, if they can keep this hoax going on a little bit longer. But first, speaking of security assistance, we have got to thank our friends over a ring who helped make home security so, so safe. This season can be a whirlwind of deliveries and visitors and holiday travel, so it's

the best time of the year to upgrade your doorbell. And you can keep an eye on your home from anywhere in the country, whether you're in your bedroom or whether you're at grandma's house across the continent. No matter where the holidays take you, ring helps you stay connected to your home from anywhere. So if, you know, the guys, you know, the guy's house. from the store drops off a package there, an early Christmas present, or your mother-in-law shows up unannounced to bring over who knows what, you will be able to see here and speak to them all from your phone. And if it's your mother-in-law, you can just stand in place really quietly and not keep the lights off and just hope that nothing happens. If you're on the go this season,

whether it's across town or whether it's across the country, you can check in any time for some much needed holiday peace of mind. I love my ring doorbell. I just feel safe. especially when I go on the road. You know, sweet little lease is a pretty good shot, but it's nice that you can be able to check in. I also give out ring as a housewarming gift to my friends. So, like, for instance, one friend of mine, they just bought a house.

This was a few months ago. I give them a ring doorbell. And this was a new neighborhood. They were a little nervous. They heard things going on outside. They check their ring device because it uploads straight to the cloud. They see it was just a possum. Just a cute little possum.

Now, they like the possum. If it were me, I probably would have taken that good old firearm that I've outfitted Sweet Little Lisa with and gone out and taken care of the possum. They're nicer people than me. Ring will give you peace of mind. As a listener, you have a special holiday offer on a ring starter kit available right now

with a ring video doorbell 2 and motion-activated floodlight camera, the starter kit, has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home, no matter what this holiday season brings. By the way, I would suggest Ring is a great Christmas present because it's so cool, it's so impressive, it's so helpful, and the price is really, really, really,

good, so you'll get a lot of credit for a great, great gift, but you don't want to, you won't have to shell out an exorbitant amount of money. With Ring, you're always home. Just go to ring.com slash knolls, KNAWLAS. Ring.com slash Noles, K&WLAS. Additional terms may apply. So there is at least, there's one clip. There's not at least one. There's at most one clip yesterday from the testimony that Democrats are hanging their hats on and saying, see, there's evidence of a quid pro quo. We got to throw the price. out of office. Here it is. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters

at the express direction of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President's orders. There it is. We followed the President's orders. They worked with Mr. Giuliani. They followed the President's orders. They didn't want to work with Mr. Giuliani, but they did. So what's the problem here? The implication, what Adam Schiff is using to say,

that there was a basic quid pro quo is that the employees of the federal government, the diplomats, were forced to work with the president's personal lawyer. Therefore, the president obviously had a personal interest in getting Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Therefore, this is evidence in and of itself of a quid pro quo. Okay. When we're talking about the role of Rudy Giuliani here, I think it's perfectly valid to raise the question, why is the president sending his personal lawyer here?

that's perfectly valid. Obviously, he's got an interest in it. When we're talking about the role of Rudy Giuliani, through Joe Biden being investigated, I think it's perfectly valid to say an investigation of Joe Biden could potentially give some help to Donald Trump. Now, I'm not totally convinced of that because I don't think Joe Biden is anywhere near the actual front runner in this race for the Democratic primary. I don't think there's a very good chance that Joe Biden is going to get the nomination anyway, so I don't think would provide Trump a lot of help. But let's just go with all of that. Compare that information to what we've seen in the past, not just two weeks, not just two years, but really since Trump started running for office, there is a concerted effort in the federal bureaucracy, the deep state, to undermine the president's policy agenda. You heard Lieutenant Colonel Vindman yesterday say that he's, Vindman is the one who makes policy, the interagency makes policy, and the president better just go along. long with it. And if the president's not going to go along with it, we're going to throw them out of office. So you've got this attempted coup that's been going on for three years to overturn the

presidential election and overturn the policies of the president of the United States duly elected. Don't you think it makes sense that President Trump would put his own guys in there just to oversee things to make sure that everything's going all right? To me, that makes perfect sense. Now, is that how the government should operate? No. But should the, should the, you know, but should deep state bureaucrats also be overturning the policies of the president of the United States? I don't think so. I don't think that should be happening at all. Now, even further, if you want the absolute end of it all, Sondland says, look, there was no quid pro quo, I was told not to engage in a quid pro quo, but I was told to work with Giuliani and that's sort of a quid pro quo. If that's an issue here,

why did Sondland not clarify all of this in his opening statement? If there is any question at all of improper conduct of a quid pro quo, why did Ambassador Sondland not put it in his 23-page opening statement and just say, hey, by the way, guys, I did have a conversation with Trump. He told me not to engage in a quid pro quo. Jim Jordan nails him on it. Why didn't you put that statement in your opening statement? And I think you said you couldn't fit it in.

Is that right? Said we might be here for 46 minutes instead of 45 minutes. It wasn't purposeful, trust me. Wasn't purposeful? No. Couldn't fit it in, a 23-page opener. The most important statement about the subject matter at hand, the President unites in a direct conversation with you

about the issue at hand, and the President says, let me read it one more time. What do you want from Ukraine, Mr. President? I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want this new guy, brand new guy in politics, his party just took over. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to run on and do what he ran on, which is deal with corruption.

And you can't find time to fit that in a 23-page opening statement. Okay, this line of Sondland's that he just didn't have time. You know, he was busy, he had to go run to the gym or something, so he didn't have time to put that in there. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What I suspect here, and again, this is pure conjecture, is that Sondland didn't like the idea that he had to work with Rudy Giuliani. Maybe he didn't like the way that the Ukraine issue was being handled. Maybe the Ukraine issue wasn't being handled in the same way as as as as you would see in typical State Department policy. And so he's pushing back against the policy.

I think that's what's getting at the heart of it here. When you're talking about the left-right divide, when you're talking about the left-right divide, when you're talking about the bureaucracy versus elected divide. I think you are getting down to an argument about policy. And some people don't like the way that the president is conducting policy. All right, too bad. You can run for president. And then you can get elected and you can have whatever policy you want.

The American people need to be able to run their own government. And the American people run their government through their duly elected representatives, not through bureaucrats, not even through the appointed guys. if there were evidence that the president committed an impeachable offense here, I think we would have heard it. I think we would have heard it by now after what, the fifth or sixth, star key witness. But instead, what we heard from Sondland exonerates the president. This should be the end of impeachment.

And yet, I guarantee you it's going to go on and on and on. It's actually fine by me. I think this helps Trump in the 2020 election. I think the debate last night among the Democrats helps Trump in the 2020 election. I think they want this to continue to go on because the more this impeachment charade goes on, the more the Democrats are showing you, they have nothing to run on in 2020, and the more the federal bureaucracy is showing their cards. Fine by me.

We have got to get to the debate, by the way, absolutely disastrous for Joe Biden. Before we do that, though, I've got to thank our friends over at ZipRecruiter. Could you imagine? Oh, if only we could apply ZipRecruiter to our political elections, our presidential election, then maybe we'd get some really good candidates out there. But unfortunately, we're not able to do that. But you can apply it to your business. Cafe Altura's CEO, Dylan Miskowitz, needed to hire a director of coffee for his organic coffee company. But he was having trouble finding qualified applicants. So what did he do? He switched to ZipRecruiter. ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you. It finds them for you. It's technology identifies. people with the right experience and invites them to apply to your job. So you get qualified candidates fast. Dylan posted his job on ZipRecruiter and said he was very impressed by how quickly he had great candidates apply. It's not just like throwing spaghetti at the wall. Goes out there brings candidates to you because he used ZipRecruiter's candidate rating feature to filter his applicants. He could then focus on the most relevant ones. That's how Dylan found his new director of coffee in just a few

days. I guess if we were to apply this to politics, we'd find the director of cofefe, but you can't do the evil. Be happy that you can at least apply it to your own business. With results like that, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. You know, one of the main ways that the Daily Wire has been able to grow is because we have the ability to find the right people. And it's hard. It's hard to find the right people, especially when you're in an industry such as ours in a city such as ours. Luckily, we have ZipRecruiter. See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes. ZipRecruiter. Right now, right now, for free at our web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash knolls, K&WLES. That is,

ZipRecruiter.com slash NOLES. And make sure when you go to try it for free, you type in ZipRecruiter. com slash NOLS because we don't want to let Shapiro get all the credit. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. You got the whole charade on impeachment, basically a distraction to try to hurt Trump in 2020. Then you've got the affirmative case for Democrats being made at the Democratic presidential primary debates. A sort of frontrunner, erstwhile frontrunner, Joe Biden collapsing on stage, not quite literally, almost literally. He had nothing. So Biden opens up the debate, making the case, his case for the presidency, as it has always been, is that Joe Biden is the most. electable. Joe Biden is the most appealing. Joe Biden is the best candidate to beat Trump.

Unfortunately, he was barely able to get the words out. Well, look, the next president of the United States can have to do two things. Defeat Donald Trump, that's number one. And number two, it's going to have to be able to go into states like Georgia and North Carolina and other places and get a Senate majority. That's what I'll do. you have to ask yourself up here who is most likely to be able to win the nomination in the first place

to win the presidency in the first place okay I would suggest humbly respectfully the candidate most likely to get the nomination in the first place and then beat Donald Trump is going to be the candidate who can form a coherent English sentence and Joe Biden can't do that

I don't know whether it's because of his age that's what people are blaming it on he's also just kind of a dufus and has been a dufus for his whole political career as early as the 80s. You can't blame age in 1988 when Biden was still a young man. So the whole argument saying, look, I'm the most electable candidate. It only works if you can speak. It only works if you have any energy on the campaign trail.

It only works if you can actually make your case. Joe Biden was not able to do that. When he could speak, it was even worse than when he couldn't speak. Joe Biden was asked a question about domestic abuse, what we're going to do about domestic abuse, women getting beaten by their husbands in America. I kid you not, his answer was he was going to punch the issue hard and hard and hard. If you turned that in to a Hollywood producer and said, this is the script. If you turned it into Lauren Michaels, you're writing for Saturday Night Live and said, this is my impression of Joe Biden.

They'd say, that's so ridiculous, we're not even going to use that. And yet here is Joe Biden himself saying he is going to viciously beat the issue of domestic violence until it's a submissive pulp. No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger other than in self-defense, and that's rarely ever occurs. And so we have to just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it and punching at it and punching at it. It will be a big, no, I really mean it. It's a gigantic issue. Oh, Joe, what are you doing? We need to change the culture.

That's the only way we're going to stop domestic violence. We need to change the culture, and the way we're going to change the culture. And the way we're going to change the culture is we're going to viciously beat that culture. We're not going to talk to it reasonably or respectfully. We're just going to punch it. We're going to punch it until it does what we tell it to do. And punching at it. We're going to punch at it.

We're going to punch at it. Awful. Awful. And he actually, in Joe's defense, went into the debate with a serious handicap, which is he got bombshell news about three hours before the debate that his son, Hunter Biden had fathered a child out of wedlock with a 26-year-old woman in Arkansas, I believe. DNA testing established with scientific certainty that Hunter Biden is the father of an Arkansas baby. This is according to court papers in Arkansas. Hunter Biden had met this young woman, London Alexis Roberts, while she was a student at George Washington University.

while Hunter Biden was dating his late brother's widow and while Hunter Biden was still not divorced from his own wife. Now, why does this matter? Am I just mentioning this to point out what an absolute degenerate Hunter Biden is? Partially, but that's not the only reason. I'm mentioning this because Hunter Biden, a guy who squandered his family's money on hookers and drugs and strip clubs,

that's according to divorce papers, Hunter Biden, who while he was still married to his wife, began sleeping with his dead brother's widow. Hunter Biden, who while he was doing both of those things, also fathered a child out of wedlock with a 26-year-old student at GW, Hunter Biden, who went on a Coke-fueled drunk drive from Los Angeles after getting into a fight at an L.A. nightclub all the way to Arizona, they find a crack pipe in his car and the cops don't press charges.

that guy managed to land a position making $600,000 a year on a Ukrainian energy company board. The whole story just underscores how crooked this deal was with Hunter Biden in Ukraine. And Joe Biden knew about it. And Joe Biden said, you better know what you're doing. This has been a major hit for the Biden campaign. It's been, the impeachment story has been a major hit for the Biden campaign. You know, it actually all relates to impeachment because Ambassador Sondland was asked by this congressman, Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat, who I actually know. I worked on a campaign against him back in olden years. Sean Maloney, pretty good politician, little oily, little unctuous, but he's very good at being a politician. It's about the worst thing you can say about somebody. Sean Patrick Maloney

asks Gordon Sondland. He said, who would have been helped by a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden? And Sondland is expected to say, and he does say eventually, that this would help Trump.

I don't know that it helps Trump. I think Joe Biden is doing a good enough job destroying his campaign on his own. I don't think an investigation would really help them that much. I think Joe Biden's campaign is intrinsically flawed. And his other candidates on the stage, the other Democrats,

actually had a pretty good night at Joe's expense. We'll get to that in a second. We'll get to a, I'm like so excited. I'm throwing things all over the studio here. We'll get to a story about a transgender policy in a school district that is making a young girl cry. We'll get to all of that and the mailbag. But first, I've got to thank a new sponsor.

The new sponsor is Root Insurance. What is the premise of Root Insurance? It's a very basic one. Right now, good drivers have to subsidize bad drivers. That's how car insurance works traditionally. And that doesn't seem very fair, especially if you're a good driver. Well, what if good drivers did not have to pay for bad drivers? Root insurance thinks the old way of pricing car insurance is unfair,

so they developed a mobile app that measures driving behavior. What I love about this is it's just using new technology in a way that can help save you money. They're bringing a new way of thinking about car insurance. to the market. So they take bad drivers out of the equation and therefore Root saves good drivers up to 52% in 2019. 52% off car insurance. Imagine if you could save that. It is the fastest growing direct insurance company in the United States. Root is the world's first mobile first car insurance company. They base their rates primarily on how you drive, not who you are. So look, if you're a terrible driver and you're listening to this, I guess you should tune out. But

If you're a good driver, then think about this as a way that you could save more than half on your car insurance. Root insurance card will be available right from your phone. And if you get into an accident, you can file a claim directly in the app. Not all that crazy hassle, not that crazy paperwork that you are used to. It makes a whole lot of sense. All you have to do is download the route insurance app, drive normally for a few weeks during the route test drive, and see how much you can save.

Give Root a try. Go to the App Store, download the root insurance app right now, sign up and less than a minute to start your test drive today. That is R-O-O-T. Again, download the Root app today or visit join root.com to learn more and see how you could save. Root reserves the right to refuse to quote any individual premium rate for the insurance advertised here and savings based on national reviews reported by actual customers. Not available in all states. This product is unfortunately not in California for me. But whenever I get out of this Godforsaken state, then I'll get to use route and I get to save a lot of money. Okay, Joe Biden had a very bad night. Elizabeth Warren had a

pretty good night, but even she wasn't so great. She is now pushing her wealth tax where she wants to steal money from billionaires, but she won't admit that she's trying to steal money from billionaires. She is saying, look, according to my health care plan, the way I'm going to pay for this $52 trillion plan, I just want billionaires to contribute just a couple cents. Just give up a couple cents and we'll be able to pay for everything. Here she is. You know, I have proposed a two cent wealth tax. That is a tax for everybody who has more than 50 billion dollars in assets. Your first billion is free and clear. But your 50 billionth and first dollar, you got to pitch in two cents. And when you hit a billion dollars, you've got to pitch in a few pennies more. Two cents.

It's just two cents, right? She uses that word throughout the debate, two cents. I don't think she knows what the word cent means. she's saying is there will be a 2% wealth tax. She also keeps confusing millionaires and billionaires in there. But two cents is not two cents when you're talking about, say, a billion dollars. Two cents is 20 million dollars every single year. And what's difficult about this is that people don't just keep piles of cash. What they do is they have their money in different investments. So what you could get into a situation here is that these millionaires and billionaires have to start liquidating their assets, actually selling off their assets just to pay the government,

which has come into their door with a gun in their hands and saying, give us your money, stick them up. The trouble is also, you've got a $52 trillion health plan, Liz Warren is pushing. The total combined wealth of every billionaire in the United States, there's 621 of them, the combined wealth is like $3.3 trillion, something like that. So you could confiscate all their wealth, take the shirt off their back, you wouldn't be able to pay for one year of Liz Warren's health plan. You'd get through 65% of one year. Then what? Then what do you do?

It's not just two cents. You've already taken all their money. Now what are you supposed to do? Obviously, those taxes are going to hit the middle class. She had a relatively fine night. She didn't really improve, but she's a decent candidate compared to the other jokers on the stage. Corey Booker had an okay night. He did better than he usually does.

Still probably not going anywhere. Pete Buttigieg had a very strong night. He didn't make too many mistakes. He got into a fight with Tulsi Gabbard and basically won it. He's moving up the polls in Iowa. He's moving up the polls in New Hampshire. He said a while ago that the race was going to come down to Bouda, Judge and Warren. I think there's a fair chance he might be right.

We will get to a really disturbing story about transgenderism. We will get to the mailbag. But first, I've got to thank our friends over at the Daily Wire. Daily Wire, 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 the Mount Walsh show. You get to ask questions on the mailbag coming up.

You get another kingdom. And by the way, if you're craving more of my soothing, sultry voice, then you haven't been listening to another kingdom. Andrew Claven's fantasy podcast, third and final season performed by me. You need to go to DailyWire.com, subscribe right now because on Monday, November 25th at 7 p.m. Eastern, 4 p.m. Pacific, Drew and I will be sitting down together

to discuss this final season. We will take subscriber questions live from the fans. This live event will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube, but only subscribers will be able to ask the questions at DailyWire.com. So you can listen to this newest season on Apple Podcasts. Go check it out. Don't miss another kingdom live discussion. Monday at 7 p.m. Eastern, 4 p.m. Pacific. Go to Dailywire.com. We'll be right back with a lot more. Really disturbing story coming out of Palatine High School in Northwest Illinois.

Board members voted to give unrestricted locker room and restroom access to transgender students. The board voted this way in a meeting attended by 500 people. Why did they do this? because a transgender student, meaning a boy pretending to be a girl, he identifies as Nova May Day. That's his name that he created. He filed one of two lawsuits against the high school in 2017. We actually have some video of the scene after the vote was taken. This young man was all smiles, grinning ear to ear,

so happy that he will now be able to go into the girls' locker room and the school will now force young girls to undress in front of this man, in front of this post-pubescent man. You get the video of him gloating about it, and you get a video of a girl crying, because she will now be forced to get naked in front of boys in her school. This is where transgenderism ideology has led. Check it out.

I'm really hoping they vote for it. It's definitely going to be a step forward in progress. I'm really excited if they vote for it. A bit nervous though, as always, just you never know. But it's definitely a first step forward in many more steps. It's a great policy. Unfortunately, it's not everything we want, such as talking about even the small things like changing the name

on your student ID, which you're required to wear at all times. So I'm really hoping that the district makes the right decision here and votes it. Yeah, it passed. It passed. And how does it make it feel? Oh, I'm ecstatic. I'm just... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Uh... I feel uncomfortable that my privacy is being invaded as I am a summer. summer, I do change multiple times naked in front of the other students in the locker room. And I understand that the board has an obligation to all students, but I was hoping that they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself. This is so profoundly screwed up. This is so disturbing. This is exactly what we all predicted. We talked about this yesterday. Conservatives always predict what will happen on the so-called slippery slope,

and then leftists tell us that we're just hysterical, we're crazy, it's not going to happen, and then it happens, and they say, oh, come on, get over, it's no big deal. Men should not be allowed into the girls' locker room. Girls should not be forced to get naked in front of men. This is a fact. this is simple enough. This is a gross miscarriage of justice that's going on at this high school. So much for feminism.

And I don't even like feminism. So much for traditional social norms. So much for chivalry. The age of chivalry really is gone when a man is going to force his way in to watch women get naked in a locker room. Adults are permitting this. Adults are enforcing this. All of these adults on the school board and the school administrators who push for this, all of them should lose their jobs.

All of them should be ostracized from polite society. This is profoundly wrong. The law is clearly moving in this direction because leftism is advancing. So-called social justice. There's no actual justice here. There's only injustice. We must push back against. this through all social means that we possibly can. What has happened here is horrible. Every school board

member should be absolutely deprived of belonging to polite society. All of them. They should not be permitted in polite society. We need to keep up the pressure campaign. What the left wants to do is just say, look, we got it. We got this win here. We got this win there. Go along. It's okay. Be inclusive. Be nice, be tolerant. No, don't give up on this issue. This issue, this is outrageous what's going on. These issues are going to make it up to the Supreme Court. We need to make sure that when it does get up to the Supreme Court, we've already got a few cases like it at the court, that the right decision comes out. The court follows public opinion. The court pays attention to elections. The court looks at the protests that are going outside the courthouse on those very days.

If you adhere to this gender ideology, then you are forced to. young girls to get naked in front of post-pubescent men in locker rooms. And every one of those tears that those little girls are crying, justifiably so, is on you. All right, let's get to the mailbag. First question. From Ashley, Michael, if you could construct an arc to preserve man's greatest works of art and literature, what would be the first three things that you would put in there after the Bible. I would put in Shakespeare, I would put in Dante, and I would put in Homer. Those would be the first three works of art and literature. I would put in other, if we're including philosophy and nonfiction works and histories, I would put in other works, but Shakespeare,

Dante and Homer. By the way, if you read those three things, you will have a very good sense of Western literature. From Bryce. Michael, how do you distinguish between patriotism and jingoism? What can conservatives with temperance do to balance love of country with mindless crowd think? By jingoism here, you mean this extreme excessive patriotism. Another word that could be used for this is chauvinism. There's a big difference between love of country and chauvinism or jingoism. Chauvinism comes from a real person, or at least a real apocryphal story. I know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, but from a person that a French person,

people believed was real, though he might have just been a legend, Nicholas Chauvin. They believe he was born around 1780. He enlisted in the military at age 18. He served honorably. He was wounded 17 times in the service of his nation. He didn't care. They're blown off his limbs. He's going to go back out there and fight. And he had severe disfigurement in maiming, but he loved his country so much. And the story goes for his loyalty and service, Napoleon himself gave the soldier the saber of and a pension of 200 francs. Did this really happen? We're not sure. But the story of it is this story of excessive love of country, sort of single-minded love of country. You don't want that. Love of country is a beautiful thing. And this would typically today be referred to as nationalism.

But I don't even really use that term so much. I just think love of country is justified just like you love your father and you love your mother and you love your community. So too do you love your family, but you should not ground your identity primarily in your country. You need to, you can't ground your identity in anything that is merely temporal and ephemeral. You've got to ground your identity ultimately in something metaphysical, ultimately in God, who is the source and summit of all identity. If you do that, then all those other natural loves will follow. Natural love of country, natural love of family, natural love of everything. If you try to grounds your identity in something

ephemeral, it's going to pervert all of those other identities and you're going to get bizarre, extreme obsessiveness like jingoism and chauvinism. From Jasmine, hello, Michael, I saw the men's conference panel that you were on. This is a reference to

whose panel was that? So, the, gosh, his name escapes me. I was on a men's panel with a moderator. Gosh, totally forget his name. I'll remember it right after the show is over and I'll tweet it out. He said, oh, Jesse Peterson, thankfully.

Okay, good. I finally came to me. Jesse Peterson, good friend of mine, a little eccentric character, but I like him. He asked, if it was not for sex, would men have anything to do with women? The letter goes on. You and most of the other panelists all said, no. A few reasons were given, including beauty and procreation. As a woman, I was put off to say the least.

If those are the only benefits to women, what point or purpose are left for the ugly or fat women or women unable to bear children. I look forward to your response, thanks. I did not say no. I'll go back and look at the tape, but I believe what I said was that if not for sex differences, there would be no such thing as women,

which is a very different answer. If Jesse's question was, if not for sex, would you have anything to do with women? My answer is, if not for sex, there would not be women. What is a woman? A woman is sexually complimentary to a man. The reason that there is a difference between men and women

is because there is a sexual difference between men and women. So the question, if not for sex, would you have anything to do with women, is a nonsensical question. It's like saying if there were no women, would you have anything to do with women? I guess not because there wouldn't be women. Then everyone would just be the same category,

which we could call either men or women, but there wouldn't be both. So that is my answer. Now, obviously, I'm not just talking about physical sex. I'm not just talking about, you know, that fun thing that people do at night. I'm talking about everything else that flows from sexual difference, our personality differences, our domestic differences, the way that men and women complement each other from the very beginning of time. I totally stand by that answer, and I think so much of gender ideology today stems from a misunderstanding of the fact of sexual difference.

The confusion about marriage stems from a misunderstanding of the fact that sexual difference is essential to human life. Within the first few chapters of Genesis, you see the importance of that sexual difference. And that's a wonderful thing, not to be resented, but to be celebrated, and I certainly celebrated. From Thai. Hello, Michael. Do you think another kingdom would translate well to the silver screen, or if it would require too many special effects for the amazing scenes within? And would you be willing to play Austin lively if the role were offered to you? Or do you have anyone you would recommend for the role?

Of course I would play the role. And I think it would be great on the silver screen or really in a TV adaptation. Drew received a number of requests to bring this before Hollywood, especially after the first season, which was a pretty big hit. We're talking about very large production companies. Trouble was, once he got into the room, maybe the night before, they actually Googled him. And I think because of his politics, maybe because of my politics,

it was basically not serious. seriously considered for Hollywood. It's too bad. I think it would be a great project. It's obviously been very, very successful as a podcast if it were created by a left-wing novelist. There is no doubt in my mind it would already be in development at a studio. That's the way it is in Hollywood. That's why we've got to make our own stuff. From Walter. Hi, Michael. Love the show. Please help me understand why so many, if not all of the roads to dismantle this once great country always lead back to Yale. not only the actors, but Yale also is the keeper of many secrets. For instance, the records from that immoral twin study among others. Recently, there have even been rumors of a connection

to Jeffrey Epstein, who, parenthetically, didn't commit suicide. I'd love to hear what you think. Fair question, I don't actually know the details about the examples you mentioned, but it is true. There are a lot of, a lot of nefarious things in American history that have led back to Yale. Well, for instance, the recent breakdown of the American category of universities started in the courtyard at Yale, where a young girl screamed and yelled at her professor, and you saw that then take over universities around the country. The reason for this, I don't think, is some great conspiracy. I think it's because Yale is very, very old. It was one of the first universities in the country. It's significantly older than the nation itself, and Yale has always been

a sort of elite institution. It wasn't always even the most intellectual. intellectually rigorous for a long time. It was considered at just a sort of finishing school for gentlemen. When JFK gave a speech there, he got an honorary degree and he said, now I have the two greatest things you can have from the American Academy, a Harvard

education, and a Yale degree. That was sort of what he was alluding to. But it's because it's very old and it's because it's got a reputation as elite. By the way, this is why the left has infiltrated it. That's why they made such a point of taking over Yale so that now you have something more resembling

zombie Yale. On the outside, it basically looks the same, but on the inside it has been rotted out by leftism. It doesn't only happen at Yale. It happens in so many institutions. The deep state, you know, the federal bureaucracy, the left has gone into that federal government, taken so much power for itself, rotted it out from within. And so you see a lot of conspiracies develop there. I don't know if it's exactly the fault of the institution. I think that the institution had prestige and power. And that's why the left has gone into it. it's not going to stop at Yale. It's not going to stop at the State Department. It's going to, the left is always going to go into those institutions. The key for conservatives is we can't abandon

them. We can't just say, okay, you can have it, but we're going to have our own institutions somewhere else. The left is going to go for that too. They're going to do it at the churches. They're going to do it at your civic associations. You have got to fight back. From Danny. Hi, Michael. My boyfriend and I have been dating for close to four years now. As of late, I've been struggling with the idea of abstinence and wonder what your thoughts might be on walking back that part of the relationship. It might be a part of my spiritual reawakening, as cliche as I truly know that sounds. I feel like it's important right now in our relationship to build on stronger ties and focus on the sexual avenues after marriage. Any advice you might have on talking to my boyfriend about

this would be helpful. Thanks. So what you're saying is you're already in a sexual relationship. Now you're having a spiritual reawakening and you think it's time to be. to dial that back. I think that's a great idea. I think it is a great idea. And this is an issue that a lot of young people are dealing with today. I told you I was an atheist for 10 years, and I behaved like one when I was an atheist. A friend of mine actually who experienced life as a millennial does during his teenage years and in his 20s. He's had a spiritual reawakening, a religious reawakening, and he's actually now dialing back what was a fairly prodigious sex life of his and attempting to be, to abstain from sex.

until marriage. I think it's a good idea. It's kind of the opposite of what the boomers went through in the 60s. Our parents' generation was told, you've got to have a traditional sexual morality. They rebelled against that, and you got the cult of free love. Now millennials and Gen Z are seeing where that has led us, and it's led us down some pretty dark paths. And so what millennials and Gen Z are saying is, hold on, we should dial back the free love. We should dial it back to a traditional morality. I think that makes a whole lot of sense. And I think your boyfriend, if he's worth his salt, will be amenable to that. Because even men, there's this ridiculous caricature at that we're just sort of grunting buffoons and all we want to do is have sex all the time. Maybe that's 90% true, but there is a 10%

of men, 10% of our inner lives that recognize that there is a transcendent moral order. and I think that if the women in our lives were to say, hold on a second, maybe we shouldn't do this, then we would listen. This has traditionally been the role of women. Men pursue, women resist, and then you get married and you have a good life together. That is my advice for you, and I wish you luck. And that is our show. Have a good weekend. I'm Michael Knowles.

This is the Michael Knowles show. See you Monday. If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Claven Show, and the Matt Walsh Show. 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. Assistant Director Pavel Weidowski, edited by Danny D'Amico. Audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera, and our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.

The Michael Knoll Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019. If you prefer facts over feelings aren't offended by the brutal truth and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro Show. We'll get a whole lot of that and much more. See you there.