The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 618 - Glorious ACB

Episode Date: September 28, 2020

President Trump officially nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Democrats attack her children, and we may finally have a chance for a fair election. If you like The Michael Knowles Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: KNOWLES and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/knowles Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Forget about the Supreme Court. The presidential race has now completely shifted, and it is shifted because of the court, because President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett. Now we gather in the Rose Garden to continue our never-ending task of ensuring equal justice and preserving the impartial rule of law. Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution,

Judge Amy Coney Barrett. I do not know how Amy Coney Barrett is going to rule on any particular case. That's not the point. I do know that the glorious, ACB is the single best chance that President Trump has being reelected. And that is for two major reasons. I'm Michael Knowles.

This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to the show. My favorite comment from Thursday from West Brown says, I'm always confused as to why the clips you use of Slow Joe have him speaking in a perfectly normal tone and cadence. Then I remember that I'm listening at 1.75 speed. Oh, that'll do it. That's true.

Everything else is speeding around, you know, going a mile a minute. And then Joe Biden is speaking in a slightly slow, but still a little more intentional cadence. But no, that's because you've spent them up almost 2x. You know, this presidential race, this Supreme Court filling, they are very complicated. We're going to get through all the little things that are so complicated about it, what it means, how one interacts with the other. But they're very complicated. You know what doesn't have to be complicated? Shopping for auto parts.

That's what. And that's why I want to thank our friends over at Rock Auto. RockAto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Best thing of all, rock auto.com prices are reliably low. They're the same for professionals and do it yourselfers. And believe it or not, even I can navigate their website. I don't know anything about cars. I can barely change my oil, especially when you look into a car and you You see, you got this Gizmo over here and this computer over here. Even I can navigate that catalog.

You can quickly figure out which parts are available for your vehicle. You can choose the brands, the specs, the prices that you prefer. And I love, it's not gimmicky. It's not like, you've got to buy this now and this price and this and that and the other thing. No, always reliably low. Family run business. Head on over right now to rock auto.com. You can check out all those parts available for your car or truck.

Then write Knowles, K&W-L-E-S, in there. How did you hear about it? box and they will know that we sent you and you will be able to navigate the website because even I can. President Trump officially nominates Judge Amy Coney Barron. Did you hear what he said there? When he nominated her, he didn't say, and she's going to be a fighter and she's going to rule the way we want her to rule all the time and she's going to pass legislation for the bench. I mean, usually the left isn't that obvious about it. But they do say these things. She's a fighter. She's standing up for this. She's standing up for that. Talking about judges.

as though they're activists and politicians. Trump didn't do that. He said she's going to ensure justice. She's going to be impartial. She's going to follow the law. And the left is now saying, no, she won't. She's a threat to the Constitution. She could never be impartial.

And what's funny about that line of attack that you're hearing, we'll get into a few lines of attack that they're using right now on the glorious ACB. But what's funny about that one is, they're attacking her for not being impartial and for not supporting the Constitution. when the left doesn't believe in impartiality. And they certainly don't believe in the Constitution.

But even just that idea of impartiality, they don't believe in that, right? They're denying the idea that you can be outside of your own interests, outside of your own biases. They do this on race. They do this on sex. They do this on all sorts of grievance. That's the point of intersectionality. That's the point of all this grievance mongering and saying, we can't actually access justice. we can't actually communicate about objective reality.

All we can do is express our own interests and desires. And if you're a white man, you need to shut up and you can't have your opinions anymore. And if you don't have this lived experience, then you can't have an opinion about it. So there's an, the idea of impartiality doesn't exist on the left. Because for the left, politics is not about using reason with great deference to the tradition and our forefathers to understand justice and how to live together. for the left politics is all about interests. As far as I can tell, there are four ways that they can attack Amy Coney Barrett.

And the most beautiful thing about her nomination is all of these ultimately fall flat. But there are four ways. I've been analyzing all of the attacks on her. First one is to call her dangerous. This is the Kavanaugh. The Kavanaugh attack is to say that this person who seems perfectly polite and nice and milk-tonged, and, you know, if anything, maybe a little bit boring, you know, at dinner parties, that this person is actually a criminal, a thug, dangerous, they're going to attack you. You won't feel safe.

This is what Iona Presley, the wringo of the squad, you know, it's AOC and the other ones, and then Iona Presley is kind of the, not as prominent member of the squad. She used this line of attack. She said, quote, Barrett is dangerous and unfit to serve on the highest court. The appellate judge mom of seven whose worst and most controversial vice, according to the popular culture, is that she praise too much. That's what they say. They actually say like the worst thing this woman does is she praise a lot and goes to church and is part of a Christian group. That woman's dangerous. Are you afraid of that woman? We've all seen pictures now of Amy Coney Barrett. She's actually been a little bit of a political celebrity for a few years now since her name was floated last time.

Now, obviously, she's a worldwide, well-known celebrity. Does she make you nervous? Does she look scary to you? Does she look dangerous when you see her seven children, five biological, two adopted, husband, all smiling, all happy? Does that seem dangerous to you? I don't think so. That one's going to completely fall flat because it just so strains credulity. There's no way to convince anybody that this mild-mannered Midwestern mom who goes to church a lot,

that she's dangerous. Number two attack is to attack her judicial philosophy. So this is one of the usual attacks. It was the one that they used when they first started this acrimonious Supreme Court confirmation process going all the way back to Ted Kennedy and Judge Bork and then moving later throughout the 80s and really then it shifts in the 90s. But the first attack on Judge Bork, you'll remember, was not on his personal life, didn't call him a rapist, didn't call him dangerous. Ted Kennedy in the 80s said that Judge Bork's judicial philosophy was terrible for black people and women and all sorts of people. But it was an attack on originalism, on the ideas, not on the person. Then you get into Clarence Thomas and to Joe Biden's hearings of Clarence Thomas. Then it became,

again, he's a rapist. He's a dangerous person. He's a terrible person. But before that, it was the judicial philosophy. So how is Amy Coney-Barrick going to do? Leaning right into it. I was lucky enough to clerk for Justice Scalia, and given his incalculable influence on my life, I am very moved to have members of the Scalia family here today, including his dear wife, Maureen. I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute and setting aside any policy views they might

hold. She's a Scalia originalist. I had the privilege of meeting Scalia twice when I was a student, and he described his political, or his judicial philosophy, rather, as being different than partisanship, as being different than interests. And the one maybe defining feature of Scalia's originalism is when he said, If you're a really good originalist judge, you will not always be happy with the decisions that you end up with. Meaning, I have this personal interest. I have this political preference.

But if I'm actually applying originalism, then sometimes what the Constitution and the law actually say are different than what I would prefer that they say if I were a legislator, for instance. When Bork was up for the court, it was all too new, this idea of applying the law. law fairly, this idea of reading the Constitution and figuring out what it actually means, not just what we would like it to mean. It was too new, and so they got rid of him. But Scalia has done such a great job of explaining originalism over the years that that is now the mainstream conservative legal philosophy. And so Amy Coney-Barrick comes out there and says, that's my philosophy. That's not going to be controversial. It is now at least, it's at least acceptable in illegal circles to say, I'm not going to push my partisan interest. I'm not going to

to legislate from the bench. I am interested in justice. You know what's unjust? Paying too much for your cell phone bill? Oh my gosh. Amy Coney Barrett with such a great setup on that ad. My friends at Pure Talk USA can help you here when you're overpaying for your cell phone. I'm going to be extremely blunt about this because I think people don't understand what I'm saying. Let's say your cell phone plan is with Verizon, ATT, TMO. You're paying way too much for the exact same coverage that you'll be getting with Pure Talk. Not similar coverage. I'm not saying it's like they use towers that are kind of similar to the other time. It's the exact same coverage. You're just paying maybe twice as much. The average person who switches to Pure Talk is using

less than four gigs of data a month. The big carriers are charging you for unlimited data. That's like paying for an entire row on an airplane and then you just need one seat. That's not very smart financial decision. That's how Pure Talk saves the average person over $400 a year on their wireless service. Unlimited talk, text, two gigs of data, you get it all for just $20 per month. Get your mobile phone right now. Right now. Well, maybe not right now if you're driving or something. I don't know. But very quickly, grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250 and say Michael Knowles. When you do, you'll save 50% off your first month. Dial pound or hashtag, that's the modern, that's the cool new modern way to say. Hashtag 250, say keyword Michael Knowles, Pure

talk. Simply smarter, wireless. So the judicial philosophy is out there. That is now mainstream. I'm not saying the left likes it. I'm not saying they're not going to still try to go after the judicial nominees. Actually, the judicial philosophy is ultimately what they're after. But they're not open about that anymore. So she leans right into it. She says, yep, I'm with Scalia. I'm an originalist. Nothing really to criticize her scaremonger over yet until she gets to her family. And ACB goes straight from her judicial philosophy into her family structure. Sounds wonderful, sounds wholesome. How on earth could you attack her for it?

The Democrats find a way. The president has asked me to become the ninth justice. And as it happens, I'm used to being in a group of nine, my family. Our family includes me, my husband, Jesse, Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, Liam. Juliet and Benjamin. Vivian and John Peter, as the President said, were born in Haiti, and they came to us five years apart when they were very young. And the most revealing fact about Benjamin, our youngest, is that his brothers and sisters unreservedly identify him as their favorite

sibling. Our children obviously make our life very full. While I am a judge, I'm better known back home as a room parent, carpool driver, and birthday party planner. When schools went remote last spring, I tried on another hat. Jesse and I became co-principals of the Barrett E-Learning Academy. And yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long one. Our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep. So they try to attack her as dangerous. That's not going to work.

They try to attack her philosophy. The people aren't going to buy that anymore. I know what you're thinking. You say there's no way they're going to go after her. family. She's got this beautiful family. She's got this wonderful story. She and her husband have apparently a very nice marriage. Five biological kids. They adopt two kids from Haiti. Everybody gets along. It's so wonderful. What a beautiful thing to do. The left is attacking her for it. They are. There is this, I guess now somewhat famous, maybe infamous, anti-racist author and

diversity consultant, Ibram Kendi. Now, maybe you've heard this name, Ibram Kendi's come up a lot in the BLM stuff. It should be clear, when you hear these terms, anti-racist author or diversity consultant, what that really means is con artist, means fraud. That's all he is. This guy is a complete huckster who is scamming people out of money. He's technically a professor of Boston University's founding director of the Boston University Center for Anti-Racist Research. What is anti-racist research? What academic discipline is that part of? None. He's a contributor for the Atlantic and a CBS News correspondent. So he's just another leftist media hack. And even on the academic front, he's a professor, right? He's got to be a real academic, right? He's

not. He has a PhD in something called African American Studies, which is a fake academic discipline, just like all the other critical studies disciplines. They're not real. They have nothing to do with actual scholarship or actual academic disciplines. They are ideology in the university. That's all they do. They just take a very shallow, modern ideological view and they make an entire academic department out of it.

But it's not academic. It's pseudo academic. Obviously, the study of ideology has something to do in, a university, but typically you would study that through philosophy, right? That's an actual academic discipline, or even history, how these different ideologies have cropped up. But the ideology itself is not an academic discipline. It's just too shallow. There's not enough scholarly meat there. And so this guy has a fake PhD. He writes for a couple hack outlets. He's the founding director of some fake academic center at Boston University, and he milks people out of money

as a diversity consultant. He's a scam artist, and then he has the gall to attack this woman's family. He says, some white colonizers adopted black children. They civilized these savage children in the superior ways of white people while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. adopting poor kids, orphans from, from bad areas is now a bad thing. Now, of course it's not. And what he's saying, by the way, is white people shouldn't adopt black people, right? That's what's lying at the bottom of what he's saying. And he's the professor of anti-racism. Makes you think, huh, maybe this anti-racism thing isn't really what it sounds like. maybe this anti-fascism thing isn't really, really what it sounds like.

This is, I mean, there's no reason to ever listen to this guy. He's a total fraud and what he says is worth less than nothing. But the reason I pointed out is because it's a very bad look for Democrats. He's saying what a lot of them are thinking, but a lot of professional Democrats, you know, elected people, operatives, they realize this is going to be a bad line of attack. I don't think it's going to play in Peoria. People are not going to like it when you attack this one. woman's children and attack this woman for adopting children from a bad place, you know, in a

bad situation, and giving them a loving home and raising them and bringing them to the land of the free. If you attack a woman for that, not going to be a good look in November. So this brings us then to the fourth attack. First two, they can't lob. The third one, they do lob, but it looks really bad. The fourth one is attacking her religion. You know Diane Feinstein already did this, said that the dogma lives loudly within Amy Coney-Barrot because she's a Catholic. Same thing. Dick Durbin said to see. He goes, what? You actually believe Catholicism? You're Orthodox in your religion. That's so weird. What? I've never heard of that before. And then Bill Maher put it in less polite terms.

But apparently the pick is going to be this Omi, Amy Comey will all be saying this name a lot, I'm sure, because she's a f***in nut. Religion. I was right about that would do. Amy, sorry, but Amy Comey Barrett, Catholic, really Catholic.

I mean really, really Catholic, like speaking in tongues. Like, she doesn't believe in condoms, what she has in common with Trump because he doesn't either. Also a terrible look for Democrats. First of all, when Bill Moore speaks,

doesn't he just remind you of that, like, smug 13-year-old you knew in middle school, whose arguments for atheism were more or less, I can't see God. Where is he? I can't touch him. Checkmate theists. Yeah. If God is real, then why won't he manifest himself physically when I demand it? Checkmate, Christians. It's just so shallow. As if people hadn't been thinking of these questions before. As if St. Thomas Aquinas never existed. As if the Summa Theologia didn't exist. As if St. Augustine didn't exist. As if the great geniuses of history, the great doctors of the

church, because then Bill Markhams and says, wait a second, I can't see God, or whatever his dumb arguments are. You say, oh, my, okay, well, you're right, there goes my Summa Theologia. Time to set it on fire. Even, think about Pope Benedict the 16th, Pope Emeritus Benedict the 16th. maybe the greatest living theologian, a brilliant scholar who has been writing and thinking about God for his entire life. Who do you think has a better handle on these things? Who do you think has more brain cells rubbing together? Who do you think has spent more time in serious contemplation of this question? Pope Benedict or Bill Maher.

And yet Bill Maher, with the arrogance that only a true leftist can muster, says it's so, I don't even need to consider this question. I know sometimes Bill Maher says things we like, so he's not on the left, but he is on the left. He just, he likes telling dirty jokes, too, so he's not totally politically correct. But that's not a good argument. You remember about a week ago when Democrats were saying that Joe Biden is a devout Catholic and how wonderful it is to be a devout Catholic? We said, no, he's not. He was actually refused communion because he's, He's in a state of grave scandal, and he's supporting abortion on demand, taxpayer funded up until the moment of birth. So he actually is not, he's not in good standing right now with the Catholic Church.

They say, he's devout, how dare you? But now you get an actual Catholic, an actual practicing Catholic. And they say she's an effing nut. This leaves only one option for Democrats. One option, which the smart ones are taking. It's the only safe option. And speaking of safety, you need to make sure that no one steals your information on the internet. You do. You have got to be very responsible right now because people are working from home,

people are doing your school from home, and the cybercriminals know that, and they're going to try to steal your identity. Identity theft is a big time crime. There are whole criminal gangs operating units dedicated to it. It's very important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft affect our lives. Every day, we put our information on the internet, right? You could miss certain identity threats, if you're just monitoring your credit. That's why you need a life lock, which detects a wide range of identity threats like your social security number for sale on the dark web. This one in particular. If they detect your information, they will send you an alert. Now, no one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses,

but you can find out if your information is out there on the dark web. You can find that out right now, and you should, because it can cause a lot of headaches down the road. Get your free dark web scan. at Lifelock.com slash Knowles, CanadaWLS. Pick the plan that's right for you. Save up to 25% off your first year with promo code Knowles. I rely on these guys. I'm now totally, I used to think no one's after my data. They are. People are after your stuff.

I wouldn't go on the internet without this kind of protection. There's a free scan at Lifelock.com slash Knowles, CanadaW.LES, 25% off with promo code Knowles. Can't call her dangerous. Can't go after her judicial philosophy. They are going after her family. doesn't look good. They are going after her religion and it doesn't look good. There's one thing left they can do and that is retreat. They can run away from this because there's no way that

this works well for Democrats attacking Amy Coney Barrett. Hearings tentatively scheduled for October 12th. The Democrats are planning to boycott. At least some Democrats are planning to boycott. Two senators, Maisie Hirono and Richard Blumenthal, say that they will not meet with Amy Coney Barrett beforehand. They haven't said that they won't meet with her if the hearings take place, but they're saying they're not even going to sit down with her beforehand because it would, quote, legitimize President Trump's decision to nominate the glorious ACB. I think this is Democrats' best chance is to just not show up to the hearings. Do you remember what Kavanaugh did to the Democrats? Do you remember what that did? It gave us such a boost.

It so helped Republicans. And it will do that again in November. And I'm even willing to give this free advice to Democrats. One, because I like to call it like I see it, even if I don't want to let the secrets out for the Democrats. But two, they're not going to be able to resist. Democratic senators, senators of any kind, cannot resist a TV camera. They always say this about Chuck Schumer, the most dangerous place in New York, is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera. They can't resist the cameras.

They're going to have to do it. And it's going to look really bad because, as we pointed out, every line of attack they have on this woman is going to hurt them. Now, Amy Coney-Barrid is not just changing up the Democrats' election strategy with regard to, say, hearings or public appearances. She's completely changing their electoral strategy in November. The nomination is changing everything. And nobody's talking about this. So the strategy previously was promote mail-in ballots, hire a lot of lawyers, challenge the results of the election on election night. There's going to be a red mirage.

going to win on election night, but then you're going to get enough lawyers to challenge the results and wait for the mail ends and maybe find a few boxes of mail ends. I don't know, hiding out somewhere. And then bring it all the way up to the courts. And then at the Supreme Court, they're going to give it to the Democrats. That was the strategy. But now they can't rely on the Supreme Court because the most stalwart, partisan, democratic judge in the Supreme Court is no longer there. They cannot rely on Ruth Ginsburg. So now they've got to change their strategy. They've got to pull the election back out of the courts. And if they're going to pull the election back out of the courts and actually try to win it fair and square at the ballot box,

then they're going to have to back down on pushing for widespread mail-in, and they're going to have to back down on refusing to concede the election. This is not some wild crazy conspiracy theory. Okay. They actually told us they were going to do this. Do you remember a couple weeks ago when Hillary Clinton said, Joe Biden should not under any circumstances concede the election. Do you remember that? And then they attacked Donald Trump for not respecting the results of the election. They did this in 2016, too. Hillary said, Trump's not respecting the results of the election. And then what happened? She loses and she doesn't respect the results of the election. So she comes out and says it. And a lot of Democrats cheered her on. Well, now they're realizing,

goodness gracious, if we can't even rely on the court to steal this election for us, maybe we should back off that plan. Dick Durbin, second highest-ranking Democratic Senator, Senate Minority Whip, came out on ABC talking to George Stephanopoulos, who is a former employee of the Clintons, and said, I disagree with Hillary. I disagree with Hillary Clinton. I respect her, I like her, but I think she's just flat out wrong.

The election itself is going to be announced. The winner will be announced at some point. It'll take longer with all the paper ballots that are being cast. But at some point, I hope my choice, Joe Biden is elected president. But if we are going to maintain a democracy, peaceful transition through an election is the only way to do it. Great. I'm so glad to hear that you've changed your mind, Dick. I'm so glad to hear after hearing Democrats tell me for weeks that they were not going to concede at all, even if Trump won. I'm so pleased to hear that now you'll respect the results of this election.

But it's not just that. They're also backing off of the widespread mail. votes. So you remember, Democrats had been pushing for everybody to use mail-in, almost every single person. They were expecting 80 to 100 million mail-in votes this election. That was in part because they said COVID is so dangerous. You can't possibly show up to the polls on election day. It's outrageous to expect people to show up to the polls. They can and should show up to BLM riots all over the country, but that's okay because COVID doesn't spread there. They just can't go to the polls because that's where you get COVID. We know that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. How do we know this? Well, there was an experiment done by a news affiliate in Philadelphia. They mailed in 100 mail-in ballots,

dummy mail-in ballots. They mailed it to a PO box. What happened? They got two birthday cards in the mailbox, so somewhere the wires got crossed. They took days and days so much longer than anyone expected to get the mail. And then by the end of it, three of them were missing. Three percent. guess what sway is an election? 3%. We know that. We've seen examples of voter fraud going on in New Jersey, in particular recently. We saw news reports coming out of Texas.

Kaylee McInney, White House Press Secretary, gave us examples of voting fraud and voting irregularities just last week. The president wants to get rid of mass mail-out voting, and that's not because he said clearly that that could go either way, could damage either candidate's chances because it's a system that's subject to fraud. In fact, in the last 24 hours, police in Greenville, Wisconsin found mail in a ditch, and it included absentee ballots. And also, I can confirm for you that Trump ballots, ballots for the president were found in Pennsylvania, and I believe you should be getting more information on that shortly. Here in the last 24 hours, they were found cast aside. So weird, because we're being told by everybody that there is no problem with mail and

There's no problem with widespread mail-in. There's no evidence that widespread mail-in in any way leads to fraud. Now, first of all, that statement is, in a sense, a truism because we've never had widespread mail-in ballots like this. So, of course, there's no prior evidence. This is a new political strategy. But moreover, what do you say about the Trump ballots that were found to have gone missing and showed up a little bit later?

What do you say about that in Pennsylvania? Whoopsy, Daisy. That, well, that's undeniable. What do you say about the box of ballots that was found in a ditch somewhere? What do you say about that? And what's going to happen in all of the counties, in all of the states around the country? So what changed? Why are they now completely shifting their argument on mailing?

Is it COVID? Did something change with COVID? Did the virus mutate? I don't think so. They just know that they can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to give them the election. There is one way. There is one way that the Democrats are trying now to sway public opinion on Amy Coney-Barrant.

It's not necessarily an attack on her. It's not talking about the big issue that we're all talking about, Roe versus Wade and abortion. It's not talking about that. There is one way that the Democrats are going to try to do it. It's a traditional election strategy.

They've been using it for 30 years. I still think it's not going to work. We will find out in just one second. First, got to thank our friends over our rad power bikes. You know, the weather's pretty nice outside today. at least it is over here where I am, you might want to try to take advantage of it

with rad power bikes. Whether you want a new way to get around town or you want to get out in nature, even with the kids in tow, you've got to try rad power bikes. Rad power bikes is a cross between a traditional bike and a moped. Here's the key, though.

It doesn't require a special driver's license like a moped would. So you can go up to 20 miles an hour without peddling. You can get out and about without getting sweaty. Rad power bikes are, affordable. Most e-bikes are in the $3,000 range. Rad power bikes start at just $999. Most of them are

under $1,500. They're really, really high-end stuff. A great way to take advantage of the lovely weather and getting around. I love this sort of thing. Dedicated U.S.-based customer service, customer support seven days a week, will answer any questions or concerns that you have. It makes the perfect gift for someone who loves being active and outdoors. And I have to tell you when I'm traveling around town, especially even when I'm traveling around cities or suburbs, I love these bikes because you can get around so easily. It's so efficient. Check them out right now. Can't recommend it highly enough. Rad power bikes offer flexible financing for as low as zero percent APR. Now for a limited time, get a free accessory valued at up to $100 with the purchase

of a bike. Okay, that is a free gift of up to $100 in value with your purchase. Free shipping to the lower 48 states to get this special offer, text the word Knowles to 64,000. That is, Canada WLS to 64,000. Text NOL to 64,000 right now. Just find out, get that sweet deal. Also, tomorrow night is fight night. Are you ready? 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific, Donald Trump and Joe Biden face off in the first of three presidential debates. Will Joe Biden fall asleep? Will Donald Trump wear a mask? Join us for an all new episode of Daily Wire backstage to watch the debate with us, get our immediate live reaction to this major political event and better, joined, DailyWire now is an insider all access member.

Get 20% off with Code Debate so that you can watch all the debate coverage live on our Apple TV or Roku app. They are putting us on the big screen. And you will get not one but two leftist tears tumblers with your membership as well as early and sometimes exclusive access to new DailyWire products. DailyWire.com right now you will get 20% off with the code debate. We'll be right back with a lot more. The issue that Democrats always demagogue is health care. That's the one they keep coming back to. And they keep coming back to health care because there's no answer to it.

There's no answer. It's obviously disingenuous and ridiculous. Do you remember how Obamacare was supposed to solve our health care problems once and for all? That's how it was sold to us. They said, look, one big fix. It's going to be very expensive. It's going to totally change health care system. But then we'll have fixed health care in America and it's all good.

Except it wasn't because we got Obamacare and then they still complained about and the uninsured and this and the that and the this and the that. And the promises of Obamacare were lies. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I think that was the Politi Factor lie of the year that year. And it was a rare occasion where a Politi Factor actually hit a Democrat. So that one was at. How about premiums will go down? They didn't go down.

They went up. It was a total lie. But they always demagogued because Democrats can always push a bigger and bigger plan to take more and more power over the fundamental question of life and death from people. That's why the Democrats always move in. to health care. It's why they move into education, too. If you control education, you're shaping the future of the country. If you control health care, then you control questions of life and death. So they push for health care. And what's the Republican answer? There isn't one, because the

Republican answer is, I think we should have more of a decentralized system with a little more consumer choice and focus on quality and make sure we take care of the people who are in need, which we already have, by the way. Nobody is told that they have to die in the street in the United States. This idea, they say, what about the poor? We already have so much. We already have so many health care programs for the poor. Medicare for elderly people, Medicaid for poor people. We've got the children's health insurance plan. We've got this health insurance plan.

We've got that health insurance plan. It's never enough, though, because they always say, what? You want people to die? So it's a good one to demagogue on. And that's the only way they're going to try to sway public opinion about Amy Coney-Barrant. Now, how are they going to relate Amy Coney-Barrant to health care? Hillary Clinton speaking with Joy Reid at the Texas Tribune Festival. with MSNBC made the public relations pitch.

And she did it in exactly those terms. She was saying these are the talking points that we need to be on. Ultimately, this fight, it seems to me, is about healthcare. Remember? Health care is literally before the court. Trump and the Republicans led by Mitch McConnell

have been trying to get rid of healthcare for years ever since President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act. For reasons that escape me, they want to strip away the rights of people with preexisting conditions, about 130 million Americans from getting affordable health care. They want to totally take away the coverage for 22 million Americans who get their health care through the Affordable Care Act. They want to take away all the protections that were passed by the Congress,

like being 26 and still being able to stay on your parents' policy, and the list goes on. So let's be sure we understand that what the Republicans are doing is rushing an appointment to the court to repeal the Affordable Care Act and strip away health care from many millions of Americans. That's the issue, is it, Hillary? Now, of course, she gives away the game in that language there.

She says they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Courts don't repeal things. they can overturn decisions. They can rule that certain laws are unconstitutional. And that's always been the issue with Obamacare. The issue with Obamacare and the courts is not whether the courts like Obamacare or not. It's not whether they like that particular health care plan or this particular health care plan. It's is the plan constitutional?

Can the federal government force you to buy a product from a private company? And in the original Obamacare decision, John Roberts, the chief justice, decided that he was going to try to have his cake and eat it too and say, well, the individual mandate of Obamacare is a tax for this reason, but it's a penalty for this reason, and therefore it's constitutional. It was so ridiculous, Scalia made mincemeat of his stupid opinion, but he was just doing it basically to give the libs a win because he felt that people would revolt and burn down the Supreme Court if he, if he overturned and deemed unconstitutional Obamacare. But that's the issue. It's not about legislation. And do Republicans really, we want to take health care away from millions and millions

of people? Is that really what happened? Is that really what you believe, Hillary? No, of course not. But they are making that pitch because they think that they can tie health care to abortion. Really what this Amy Coney-Barrant thinks about is what all of the Supreme Court nominations have been about going all the way back to Judge Bork, and it's what that one was about to. Abortion, because of this stupid decision, Roe versus Wade, that invented a fictional constitutional right to abortion. Get your magnifying glass out. Look at the Constitution. Find it. me the right to an abortion. You won't find it. It's nowhere. And the people who wrote that

stupid decision, Roe versus Wade, didn't even pretend. They didn't even try to say they found it. They said there were penumbras and emanations and this and that. And if you look secretly in the invisible ink, it's all BS. They felt that they needed there for the social upheaval of the country. They just wanted there to be a right to an abortion. And so they made it up at a whole cloth. And they know it's indefensible. And honest liberal jurists will tell you that it's indefensible. And that's why all of these decisions have been so contentious. That's why all these confirmations have been so contentious. Hillary admits it. She says, look, without mentioning abortion, she says, this health care issue, that's the case we've

got to make if we want to hold up this nomination. There is no mistake about that. You know, there are other issues that we'll look at down the road. But right now, the Democrats need to make that case There are other issues that we'll look out down the road, sure. But right now, the case the Democrats have to make is about health care. Why? Because you know that if you hold up this woman who's very attractive. She's very attractive in her resume. She's physically attractive. She's attractive as a nominee. She's attractive constitutionally. If you hold up this nominee over your maniacal, sociopathic obsession with killing babies, that's not going to look great for the 2020 presidential election. So you've got to pretend that this is all about health care when it's actually about the opposite of health care. It's actually about killing people. So it couldn't be more opposite for health care. And Hillary Clinton describes the Republican efforts to do what the Constitution requires an appointed judge. She describes them in religious terms, but not the good religion, not in the bright, light, heavenly terms.

She describes it in hellish terms. This could not be more diabolical. And I think that Democrats need to be absolutely clear at the federal level in this fight with McConnell and Trump, but also in the Senate races, that any vote for any Republican is literally a vote to cost you money to make your health care more expensive. And maybe to eliminate the possibility you'll be able to afford it at all. Anyone else notice how happy Hillary Clinton looked when she said the word diabolical? she goes, yes, it's really. It's diabolical.

Oh, it's sort of stirring whatever is in her cauldron. Yeah, Hillary Clinton certainly gets a thrill by that word diabolical. But diabolical is a good word to use, not for what the Republicans are doing, but for what the Democrats are doing. You don't need to take my word for it. Take the word of the Huffington Post. Women writing for the Huffington Post. Jamie Smith writes,

the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushed me to join the satanic temple. It's forgotten there's a picture of like Baphomet or something, some kind of satanic symbol. I'm a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls. I'm not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times. Are they not normal times? I actually think these are normal times. We always say we're living in such crazy times. I mean, they're interesting times. But the times are interesting generally. The world is very interesting.

And I have to disagree with this woman. I think that she's exactly the type of person who would become a Satanist. The type of person who thinks she doesn't really have strong religious views. She actually says here that the satanic temple, they're atheists. It's not like they're believing in some spiritual thing. They're actually atheists. They don't think God exists. They don't think the spiritual world exists, okay?

but they just think these damn Republicans are so crazy. They're they're they're they're they're awful and we should all be afraid. She says, I fear that American citizens are inching closer to living in a theocracy or a dictatorship and that the checks meant to prevent this from happening are close to eroding fundamental despair. And the satanic temple, they just believe in fundamental tenets such as the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions and that one's body is inviolable, subject to one's will alone. And you know, these are things that we

believe. Plenty of people believe in them. This is exactly how Satanism operates. You think a Satanist is just like scary people in robes doing all sorts of things? No. No, the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing people that he does not exist. That's always how the devil has operated. The greatest trick that the devil has up his sleeve, the greatest temptation, is to distract you with the things of this world. Don't need to take my word for it. That's the gospel truth. To distract you, to tempt you with things, such as power, which is what this woman is talking about, or filling your physical desires, or indulging your appetites. Christ's temptation by the devil in the wilderness is that, right? That is how it operates. And when we use these

terms, diabolical, they really are getting at something. Don't you think it's a little weird that all of these people who are, who come from, I guess, different backgrounds, different geographical backgrounds, different political backgrounds, all the political issues on the table, the one that is holding them up, the one that is going to create this chaos for the Supreme Court nomination, is whether or not we have the right to kill a million babies. This should not, this is not a complicated issue. The issue of abortion is not complicated. We pretend it's complicated. There's a new movie out on HBO Max called Unpreignant. I'll do a review of it coming up. But it's about, it's like a buddy trip about going out and killing a bunch of babies. This is not a complicated issue. Do you think a

country should allow its citizens to kill a million babies a year? No, nobody thinks so. And then there are all these tricks. They say, well, it's not really a baby. It's not really human, not really alive. Yeah, it's all of those things. It's very clearly all of that. I have a sonogram. I can show you. I can show you that it's all of those things. Forget about even the philosophical arguments, which are all very clear. Don't you think that's a weird coincidence? I don't you think that's like an odd. Shouldn't we be arguing about taxes or foreign policy or actual health care or no? Because these diabolical influences, these diabolical people, these people actually joining the satanic temple, they know not what they do.

There's a big political endorsement that just came out. Big meaning that the person who endorsed is very big. He's one of the biggest muscular people in the world. His name is The Rock. The Rock, who I was heard was a kind of moderate Republican. He's endorsing Joe Biden. And he's endorsing Joe Biden in the stupidest political endorsement I have ever heard. Take a listen to the Rock's reasoning.

You know, look, I've got friends in all parties. But the one thing that we can always agree on is the conversation and the dialogue and where that conversation lands is always the most critical part. Now, this is something that I've certainly not done in the past, so I'm going to go big. You guys know me. If I go, I go big. So, guys, I had the opportunity to sit down with Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris to talk about a number of important issues that we're facing as a country.

I thought it was a great and extremely productive conversation that we had. and as a registered independent for years now with centrist, excuse me, ideologies, I do feel that Vice President Biden and Senator Harris are the best choice to lead our country, and I am endorsing them to become president and vice president of our United States. The Rock is endorsing Biden and Harris because he likes conversation. Now, first of all, which party right now do you think is encouraging? conversation, dialogue, civil discourse. Is it the one nominating a Supreme Court justice and calling for hearings and debate over that? Or is it the one burning down the country? Burning, rioting,

looting, killing people, encouraging all of that? Which one do you think it is? The Democrats are not permitting conversation of any kind. They are censoring people. They are deplatforming people. they are physically intimidating people with violence if they say things that they don't like or don't say things that they do like, that image of that mob screaming, say Black Lives Matter, say BLM, say it's screaming at that woman in the restaurant. You remember that a few weeks ago? They don't even believe the conversation can exist because the left is now saying that we can't getting right back to the top of the show. We can't be impartial. There's no such thing as objective justice, objective reality. There's just subjective reality. There's just subjective. objective experience, my lived experience, which you can't talk about. And I can't talk about your lived experience. So you got to shut up. And politics is not about the rational pursuit of truth that is outside of ourselves, which is essential to communication. Because when we communicate,

we're just using symbols, which are called words, and I say one symbol, and you hear that symbol. And if there's not something outside of both of us to which that symbol refers, then it can't mean anything. Right? They're saying, yeah, none of that can exist. It's just my interests. It's just my feeling. The only thing I can know is real is my suffering and you can't know anything about that. So just on the philosophical point, not that I think that the rock is the greatest living philosopher, what he's saying doesn't make any sense. But secondly, enough conversation. I like conversation as much as the next guy. I like it a lot more than the left does. Conversation is not an end unto itself. Conversation is a means to an end. We don't, we don't engage in conversation without a purpose.

idle chatter is not conversation. Grunting and noise is not conversation. The purpose of conversation is to get a little closer to the truth, to dust off the truth, to see things more clearly, to come to an understanding of something. There is a purpose, there is an end to conversation. In a civil society conversation is about dusting off the truth a little bit, persuading our fellow citizens to see the truth as we see it,

and then governing ourselves. That's the purpose of it. If you're not doing that, if you're writing off half the country is deplorable and irredeemable, if you're writing off the possibility of conversation, the possibility of justice, the possibility of impartiality and objective truth, then there's no purpose to that conversation. We hear that sort of nonsense so much from the left-wingers. They don't believe it themselves. They don't believe in the ability to persuade one another, to have reason, to converse.

And so without that, and even with that, we have to pursue discrete ends. It's not just about the form of politics. We have to have substance. It's not just about the form of having the judge. The judge has to be able to read the Constitution. And when we're talking about substantive moral claims, we have to realize that killing a million babies a year is bad. You think you'd be able to say that in a country. There's a difference between notorious RGB and glorious ACB.

There's a difference between those things. I love, by the way, they're very upset that now conservatives are using the phrase notorious ACB, or we've changed it to Glorious ACB. Because they're saying we stole that from RBG. As if Biggie Smalls didn't exist. You remember, you know, she took that from regardless. There's a difference.

Do we want to be notorious? Do we want to be glorious? Do we want to kill a million babies a year? Do we want to not kill a million babies a year? Do we want to live in a country where our governance is defined by rioting and looting and violence? Or do we want to live in a country with civilians? We want to live in a country where we are civilized people and can discuss and govern ourselves.

That's the choice. The Rock made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The rest of the choice is up to us. And I have to tell you, the outlook as we look at the next two months, has just become much more glorious. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Knowles Show. See tomorrow. 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 Noles show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer, Jeremy Boring. Our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producers, Mathis Glover, and Robert Sterling, assistant director, Pavel Wadowski, editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico. Audio mixer, Robin Fenderson, hair and makeup, Nika Geneva, and production assistant, Ryan Love.

The Michael Null Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020. You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics. I think there are enough of those already out there. We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else. So my main focus is our life, family, faith, those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about. I hope you'll give it a listen. Thank you.