Ep. 1569 - These SQUISH Republicans Endorsed Kamala Harris
49:15 Share

As the 2024 race enters into its final stretch, the squishes are uniting to oppose President Trump.

More than 200 former Bush, McCain, and Romney staffers have endorsed Kamala Harris. George W. Bush himself refuses to endorse the Republican nominee. Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney, has gone further and endorsed Harris. And of course, Dick Cheney's daughter, former Republican congressman, I should say former Republican and former congressman Liz Cheney, is leading the charge.

Not totally surprising. These people have all had ideological and personal beef with Trump for years. But over the past few days, Liz Cheney has taken the squish vendetta against Trump into the realm of the absurd.

If you look at Vice President Harris's speech, for example, at the Democratic Convention, it is a speech that Ronald Reagan could have given. It's a speech that George Bush could have given. It's very much an embrace and an understanding of the exceptional nature of this great nation, a love of America. Now, Saint Ronald has been dead for a couple decades.

And his memory has been used and abused by his enemies and supposed supporters alike. So let's just take a little side-by-side look to see if Kamala's DNC speech really channeled the spirit of the late, great Republican president. But America, we are not going down.

We are not going back to when he tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. We are not going to let him eliminate the Department of Education that funds our public schools. We propose to dismantle two cabinet departments, energy and education. Compare that to Donald Trump.

Because I think everyone here knows he doesn't actually fight for the middle class. He doesn't actually fight for the middle class. Instead, he fights for himself and his billionaire friends. And he will give them another round of tax breaks that will add

up to $5 trillion to the national debt. Our proposal is for a 10% across-the-board cut every year for three years in the tax rates for all individual income taxpayers, make a total cut in tax rates of 30%. If the deficit continues to grow, it will not be because the Congress cut taxes too much, but because it refused to

to cut spending enough. When Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law. We must not rest, and I pledge to you that I will not rest until a human life amendment becomes a part of our constitution. Seems like Reagan and Kamala are pretty different. Sounds to me like the Gipper.

Could not have given Kamala's DNC speech because he vehemently opposed basically every substantive point she made. Seems to me like these squish Republicans are not quite as principled and conservative as they make themselves out to be.

These people held power for decades. Conservatives, real conservatives, supported them despite their many failures and treacheries. And then the moment their power was threatened, they decided to stab us all in the back and switch teams. Is it any wonder conservatives decided to ditch that old establishment and give Trump a go in the first place? I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles Show.

That sounded like a different stinger than usual on this show. There's something different about it. Can anyone put their finger on it? Animal sacrifices are on the rise in Queens. We will get to that unfortunate story in a moment. First, though, folks...

When I drove into work this morning, I put my car seat heater on. Okay? It was a little chilly. Sicilian summer is over. It's the past. Right now, it is PSL season. You can get your PSL candle at thecandleclub.com. You know that my products are mostly combustible. I only like to sell flammable things. Well...

When you're sitting indoors with a nice Mayflower, really, you could fill up the whole house with the wonderful scent of PSL or Wise Man or Old Soul or Khem Nilekhem or the Mayflower line of premium candles all at thecandleclub.com. I'm really irritated by the George W. Bush thing. I'm not saying I'm the biggest George W. Bush fan in the country, but I'm also not one of these people on the left or the right who blames him for every problem we've had in the last several decades.

But I'm really irritated.

That this guy was supported by the Republican Party, by conservatives for decades. That this guy's family has been supported by conservative Republicans, even though the Bush family has never been particularly conservative. His family has been supported by conservative Republicans, not just for his presidency, his governorship, his brother's governorship, his father's presidency, and his grandfather's Senate terms.

This guy has been supported, the whole family has been supported by conservatives for all that time. And then the minute that he's got some personal and ideological beef with a more conservative party,

Republican presidential candidate, he takes his ball and goes home. That really drives me a little bit crazy. I get it. I understand the personal beef. Trump has said very nasty things about George W. Bush. He said nasty things about Jeb Bush. That's where the real beef was because Trump was running against Jeb in 2016. Sorry, Republican politics, all politics is a contact sport. I get it. I'm sure George Bush despises Donald Trump.

But what about party unity? What about the common good? What about coming together for your patriotic duty? Whatever happened to that? Instead, he's going to sit on the sidelines. Bush has said in 2020, he did not vote for Trump. He wrote in Condoleezza Rice. So he threw his vote away. This is a former president. This is a man whose family is supposed to be dedicated to public service, but they throw it away because of a personal gripe. And of course, the defenders of this kind of thing will say, well, Michael, you don't understand. Trump is this unique sort of character. He's not really unique.

Personally, yeah, he throws some punches. You know, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush threw some punches at each other when they ran against each other for president in 1980. Then they came together. There has been a divide in the Republican Party between the more conservative wing and the more liberal wing for at least going all the way back to World War II and really even before that.

Though when you get a little further back than that, the distinctions become more historically contingent. But certainly since World War II, you had two wings of the party. You had the Goldwater wing, the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and you had the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, which was more liberal. And, well, you saw this in the Goldwater race, but then you saw this later on. The divide was probably most clearly exemplified by the divide between Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Reagan was the conservative. George H.W. Bush was the moderate, more liberal Republican. And then George H.W. Bush, when Reagan invited him onto the ticket, he moderated some of his positions and became more conservative. Most notably, he became pro-life in order to become vice president. Previously, the Bushes had been very in favor of abortion. Prescott Bush, I think, supported Planned Parenthood. But okay, good on George H.W. Bush. He pivoted, he became more conservative, and the two sides came together.

But then, I don't know, then the moment that the more moderate liberal establishment wing of the party took over, then they demanded the votes of the conservatives, but they never really wanted to give us very much.

That's what's really frustrating to me. It just seems like for years, the conservative wing of the party has gone along with the Bushes and has gone along with the Romneys and has gone along with the more moderate establishment, chamber of commerce kind of wing of the party. And we've given them our votes and we've given them our support. Conservatives supported George W. Bush for president twice, and he wasn't particularly conservative and he wasn't a particularly good president.

He did some good things, and he was the nominee, and we needed party unity, and we felt it was for the good of the country. And so we supported him. Well, hey, man, why aren't you supporting us? Why aren't you pulling your weight in the Republican coalition? We talk about how we have this really important coalition brought together, most notably by Ronald Reagan, between the libertarians and the traditionalists and the religious right and the peace through strength kind of foreign policy thinkers, and they all kind of came together.

So long as it was what? The establishment running things? Starting in 88, you get Bush running things. Then you get kind of moderate Republicans, then the presidency of George W. Bush, then the nomination of John McCain, certainly more moderate than the nomination of Mitt Romney. And the conservatives still came out and we voted and we didn't ditch these people and we didn't certainly endorse the Democrat and we didn't.

We didn't throw all of these temper tantrums that the GOP squish establishment is doing now. We did our duty and supported the nominee of the party. But then the minute you get a more conservative presidential nominee, who was the most conservative president in my lifetime, Donald Trump, who actually used the phrase from Ronald Reagan, make America great again.

You see a resurgence of the Reagan wing of the party as opposed to the Bush wing of the party, a resurgence of the Goldwater wing of the party as opposed to the Rockefeller wing of the party. Then that's the moment when all the squishes go home and Bush gets off the field and Cheney endorses the Democrat and Cheney's daughter endorses the Democrat and a bunch of staffers for Bush and McCain and Romney. You know, it's disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting. You can't have a political coalition that way. And it's not the Trumpers who broke the political coalition. It was these squishes.

for selfish reasons. Absolutely, absolutely disgraceful. Now, speaking of President Trump, Trump and Harris face off tomorrow night at the presidential debate. We are going backstage to cover the debate live. You'll get to see reactions from the most trusted voices in conservative media. That's me. But in addition, you can also hear from Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boring for full coverage and analysis. Watch live Daily Wire Plus, 8 p.m. Eastern.

It won't belabor the point too much, but Dick Cheney, good grief, man. Dick Cheney endorses Kamala Harris. He writes, in our nation's 248-year history, there's never been an individual who's a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. Are you kidding me? He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.

He can never be trusted with that power again. As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution. That's why I'll be casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. There is something delightful about this endorsement, which is, those of you who maybe don't remember so clearly, during the Bush administration, as much as the left hated Bush and they called him Hitler and they put little mustaches on his posters,

They thought that George W. Bush was Mother Teresa. They thought he was Gandhi. They thought he was Nelson Mandela compared to Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney, they thought was truly Darth Vader. And now you have the left just giddily embracing Dick Cheney. And why is Dick Cheney doing this?

The Bushes always were a little bit politically sus. They definitely came from the more establishment liberal wing of the party. Dick Cheney, however, was a conservative member of Congress way back when, when he was a member of Congress. This guy was a real conservative. He had hardcore conservative bona fides. He was one of the first guys to come out and endorse Reagan.

in Congress. He was on a whole host of issues, domestic and foreign. He was extremely conservative, ardently pro-life. He was a successful Secretary of Defense. He did become more Wilsonian as he was vice president. But still, this guy had pretty rock-ribbed right-wing bona fides. And then over the 2000s, they started to break away. He went squishy on the meaning of marriage. Again, that seemed to have been a personal issue. Now, what's he doing? He's defending his daughter. I get it. You want to support your daughter.

But where is the loyalty to the millions and millions of conservatives who supported these people in their whole careers in public life? Where's the loyalty to us? Where's the loyalty to those people? Nowhere to be found. Now, this signals something bigger than just the Bushes and the Cheneys hating the Trumps. This signals something bigger than personal political gripes. Democrats are now fully the party of the political elite. Democrats are now the party

explicitly or implicitly, they're the party of the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bidens, the Bushes, the Cheneys, even beyond those families. They're the party of big business. Peace here in CNBC. 88 corporate leaders have endorsed Kamala Harris in a new letter. That includes the CEOs of Yelp, Box, all sorts of other stuff.

James Murdoch, 21st century Fox CEO, son of Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media mogul, all these snap chairman, Michael Linton, all these guys. If Harris wins the White House, they say the business community can be confident that it will have a president who wants American industries to thrive. This is the biggest evidence yet of a realignment.

You know, we always hear the libs say that the party's switched. The party's always switched conveniently whenever the Democrats do something really horrible. No, don't worry, then the party's switched. But, but,

Parties don't switch. The two parties don't wake up one day and say, OK, from now on, you Republicans, you're going to be the Democrats and we Democrats, we're going to be the Republicans. But political circumstances change. And so as they apply their principles to changing circumstances, sometimes the specific policies that they embrace do change and the specific constituencies they speak to change. And here you're seeing one of those shifts. Now, some Republicans are misinterpreting this.

They're saying the GOP is the party of the proletariat now or something. You know, we're the party of the lowest prestige echelons of society. You know, workers of the world unite or something. We're not that. Democrats are still that party. There's still the party of, well, communists for that point. But also, they're still the party of the very, very poor. I don't think the very, very poor are voting for Republicans.

They're also the party of the very, very rich. Republicans are the party of the middle class. Republicans are the party of the bourgeoisie. The Republicans are not the party of the big corporate leaders. The big corporate leaders vote for Democrats. Republicans are not the party of Wall Street. By and large, Wall Street supports Democrats. Republicans are the party of

small to medium-sized businesses. Not the really large ones. It's the small to medium-sized businesses. Republicans are the party not of the destitute, not of the illegal migrants who have come across the border, flown in by Democrats a lot of the time all over the country. Those guys are still going to be more likely to vote for Democrats if they do vote, and their kids are going to be more likely to vote for Democrats. Republicans are the party of the middle class, the lower middle class, of small-town entrepreneurs,

Of guys who don't hang around with this crew here, with Yelp and Box and Snap and 21st Century Fox. And that's an important constituency. I like people in the middle class, in the lower middle class, in the small business owners. But it's important to note, just so we know what the political stakes are, the ensconced political establishment is entirely Democrat. Used to be, the Dems would say, the big business supports Republicans, you know, those billionaires. That's not really the case anymore.

The political establishment up to and including Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, former vice president, guy with that kind of crazy looking grin who just invades all the countries in the world. Even him, they're all Democrats now and they have a lot of power and they can wield that power pretty effectively.

As a homeowner, some of the most tedious and easily forgotten maintenance tasks are often the most important. Take gutter cleaning. It's one of those out-of-sight, out-of-mind chores that can lead to serious issues if neglected. LeafFilter offers an investment engineered to protect your whole home.

Clogged gutters aren't just a nuisance. They can cause extensive repairs costing thousands of dollars and causing major headaches. LeafFilter's patented technology is designed to take care of everything from start to finish, making the process hassle-free for homeowners. Their professionals will clean out, realign, and seal your existing gutters before installing the LeafFilter system, ensuring optimal performance from day one.

Plus, every installation comes with a free inspection, estimate, and lifetime guarantee. By choosing LeafFilter, you're not just solving a maintenance problem. You're investing in your home's long-term health and your own peace of mind. Protect your home and never clean out your gutters again with LeafFilter, America's number one protection system. Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash build.

That's a free inspection and up to 30% off at leaffilter.com slash build. See representative for warranty details. Promotion is 20% off plus a 10% senior or military discount. One discount per household. Now, meanwhile, what's Trump up to? Trump did something yesterday that was historic, and I think many people didn't pay attention to it. Yesterday is the feast of the nativity of Mary, Mary, mother of God, mother of our Lord.

And this comes from tradition. You know, there's not much written in scripture about Mary's, the circumstances of Mary's birth. But we do have a tradition dating back to at least the second century from the Proto-Evangelium of James, which discusses the nativity of Our Lady of Mary. And anyway, Trump yesterday posts, Happy Birthday Mary! Exclamation point.

And it's a picture of Our Lady, and some people are not going to be familiar with this picture. It's a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Our Lady of Guadalupe is an image that appeared on a tilma, on a worker's garment, about 500 years ago in Central America. And the image is believed to be, I certainly believe it to be, a miraculous image.

This image appeared. Here's the story. The story is 1531, this guy Juan Diego is walking around the fields and he sees an apparition of Mary, Our Lady. And so he talks to her and he goes back and he tells the priests and the bishop, he says, hey, I just saw Our Lady. And people are a little skeptical, of course. And he sees this apparition again and again. And so then as proof of the apparition,

There are roses that appear. Roses do not exist at this point in Central America. He picks up the roses, puts them in his tilma, this worker's cloth, brings it back,

And when he unfurls the roses that fall out, the mere presence of the roses in the Americas would be one proof of the miraculous nature of this apparition. But as he unfurls it, there's this image on the tilma. And the image is this woman clothed with the sun, with stars around her, standing on the moon. So the images that come from the Book of the Apocalypse. And what's weird about it is, well, there are a lot of things that are weird about it. No one really seems to know how this image got there. So first weird thing.

There's no drawing underneath the painting. It would be completely absurd to imagine that a 16th century painter would not sketch out the painting before applying paint. There's no underlying drawing. The appearance of the lady differs by how close you are to the image. By one distance, she appears to be kind of native, indigenous. From another distance, seems to be a little bit more European. The position of the stars is astronomically correct,

based on where the stars were in the sky on the day of the apparition. The image has not really decayed. Despite being in a church with all sorts of smoke, the image hasn't really decayed at all. The tilma, which should have only lasted, just the fabric should have just lasted 15 to 30 years or so, the tilma is in pretty great shape even 500 years later. It gets even weirder. Some

Liquid spilled on the tilma. This was centuries ago. Didn't really disturb the image. In the early 20th century, an anarchist, an anti-Catholic, set off a bomb in the church where this tilma, this very, should be very delicate fabric, was held. Blew out pews. It bent a crucifix, actually, that was in front of the tilma. It bent the crucifix around as if to protect the image. The image was unharmed.

Then there was microscopic analysis done on the image of Our Lady in the Toma, and they zoomed in on the eyes. And this one is the one that really gets me. There's an image in the lens of the eye, and it's an image of men looking at the image. And the lens curves as a human eye curves, so there's some distortion to where the people would be.

And it's obviously extraordinarily, one can't even imagine how the image, how one could, if one did paint that, how one could paint that. There are so many aspects to this that are amazing. This is why millions and millions, an estimated 9 million people converted within seven years as a result of this image, which comes out to about 3,000 people a day, which is the number of people who converted on the Pentecost. All sorts of really amazing facts about this image.

And I believe Donald Trump is the first president or presidential candidate ever to post this image, ever to really embrace this image. This is the Marian apparition in the Americas that converted these people in the Americas. And he embraced that. He was real for that, man. That's odd. And what you're going to hear from Trump's critics is,

This guy's a thrice married lapsed Presbyterian. You know, he's this guy. How dare he, you know, how dare he talk about anything religious? Well, you know, God uses imperfect vessels. We're all imperfect vessels and God uses imperfect vessels for his purposes. And there's, there's just something about the guy. This is, this is profound. You want to talk about conservative 500 years, the conversion of the Americas. That's pretty conservative. Something going on here.

And as someone who signed the declaration, you know, for the Catholics for Trump, I'm glad to see that. Very glad to see, you know, symbols are very important in politics. And I'm glad to see that President Trump is embracing symbols that are extraordinarily important for our civilization and specifically for our continents, our hemisphere. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to puretalk.com slash Knowles. I'm going to let you in on a little wireless hack that can cut your cell phone bill in half every single month.

Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile want you to believe that you need unlimited data so they can overcharge you. With Pure Talk, you can choose how much data you actually want and save. For just $35 a month, you can get unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data, plus mobile hotspot on America's most dependable 5G network. Do you know what you can do with that much data? You can browse the internet for 500 hours. You can stream 3,000 songs, and you can watch 30 hours of video.

OK, if if 30 hours of video is not enough Internet for you, I don't know what to tell you. And that, by the way, that's when you're not on Wi-Fi. Here's the best part.

When you switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk, on a qualifying plan, you will get one year free of Daily Wire Plus Insider. That's access to the library of DW Plus movie series and documentaries, including Lady Ballers, What Is a Woman, Mr. Bircham, and Run, Hide, Fight, uncensored ad-free daily shows. One year free of our kids' platform, Ben Key, and a free Leftist Ears Tumblr. The only way you can get this special offer is by going to puretalk.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S,

Or call and mention my name. Stop overpaying for your cell phone plan. Go to puretalk.com slash Knoll. Switch to a qualifying plan. Get one year free of Daily Wire Plus Insider. This Friday, get ready to laugh and cringe as the Daily Wire's first ever theatrical release, Am I Racist?, hits theaters nationwide. Am I Racist? has been selling out theaters across the country for weeks. On Friday, you will finally get to see what all the buzz is about. Bring your family, friends, even those skeptical co-workers with

If your local theater was not showing it last time, you check to miracist.com. We'll look again. Hundreds of screens have been added in the last 48 hours. Go to miracist.com now for tickets and showtimes. Don't miss Am I Racist in theaters nationwide this Friday. Speaking of religious rituals, animal sacrifices are on the rise in Queens. That's not great. This being reported by the New York Post.

Animal sacrifices surging in Queens with chickens, pigs, and rats being tortured, mutilated, or killed in twisted religious rituals in parklands surrounding Jamaica Bay. The Post has learned in a little over a month, at least nine wounded animals or carcasses have been discovered in the federally managed Spring Creek Park in Howard Beach and the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in Broad Channel, including five live pigs, which partially severed ears. I believe that this stuff is happening because when I moved to L.A.,

I was walking on the beach underneath the Santa Monica Pier. This was one of the earliest times I was in LA. And I found a chicken with a severed head. And in my naivete, I thought, oh, I don't know, maybe he ran out of a kitchen or something. They were getting ready to chop up that. Of course, they don't really, they don't pluck the chickens in these restaurants. My friend said, no, I think this is some voodoo stuff. I think this is some occult kind of rituals.

And he was right. So this goes on in LA, Gomorrah by the Sea, as Jeremy calls it. And it goes on in New York. And it goes on in a lot of places, increasingly, as our traditionally religious culture, our Christian culture, is less clear in society. Well, all these other weird occult practices come in to fill their place. Now,

A certain radical sect of Hindus is apparently being blamed for these particular animal sacrifices in Queens. I don't know. That's just according to the reporting from the Post. I don't know how true it is. It could be true. But what I do know is, according to our present jurisprudence, since 1993, if people want to sacrifice animals to demons, they are allowed to do that on religious grounds. Yes.

Probably not the sort of thing that George Washington and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson envisioned, nor Abraham Lincoln, nor Teddy Roosevelt, nor any of the... Teddy was, you know, when he was going to sacrifice animals, he'd do it with a double-barrel shotgun. No, no, no. But since 1993, really beginning the peak of secularism in American law and jurisprudence, I guess you have a constitutional religious right to sacrifice goats and pigs and chickens to demons. This is...

untenable in the long run. Because if it were merely a matter of illegal aliens coming to America and breaking the law and doing their weird voodoo rituals, that would be bad enough. And we'd have to figure out what to do with all those illegal aliens. We're still trying to figure that out, these illegal aliens who cause a major threat to our political order and major disturbances to our social order. But it isn't just that.

If really this is being done by some radical sect of Hindus, it's probably not illegal aliens. It's probably legal immigrants who are just doing really, really weird stuff and littering the streets with decapitated chickens. It's not the sort of thing, listen, my family's been in New York for a pretty long time. That's not how we're supposed to do things there. That's unpleasant to the people living in New York. But what if they're legal immigrants? The problem with some of the social confusion that's set in

I think it gets scapegoated onto the illegal aliens a lot, and that's a big problem. But it's kind of just mass migration. Legally or illegally, when people come here and they don't have familiarity with the culture and they don't have the habits of Americans, which take generations to cultivate, it's going to create social problems. Aristotle knew that. All serious statesmen have known that for a long time. This is also a problem of secularism.

If you don't want decapitated chickens in your streets, well, you're going to have to put some limits on religious freedom, according to the Supreme Court.

You're going to have to circumscribe. We like religious toleration. We don't want to become, you know, a sectarian country necessarily. That would probably be imprudent, difficult or impossible even. We're a country of people from lots of different backgrounds. And so just in America's development, it's hard to imagine that we would, you know, truly become a confessional state. But, you know, we could do what we did until then.

circa 1993 and be a broadly Christian country that tolerates other religious practices to a point. And certainly one of the points that falls beyond that point up to which we tolerate things is, you know, beheaded goats in the streets of Queens. But are we willing to take that on? I doubt it. The most hawkish, uh,

where immigration restrictionists in the mainstream top-tier Republican Party, you know, winning votes, getting things done, say legal immigration is good and there should be more of it, illegal immigration is bad and there should be less of it. That's the most extreme version. Even though, depending on which survey you look at, most people want less immigration overall, significantly less immigration overall. In terms of mainstream politicians, the furthest restrictionist you're going to see

is people who say we need more legal immigration, less illegal immigration. So, okay, you're not dealing with your migration problem. And then for secularism, are you going to... How many people in the mainstream of public life are coming out and saying, we need limits to religious liberty? On the left, they're saying that. They're saying we need to spy on the Catholic churches and we need to take Christians' kids away from them. And they're saying all sorts to limit Christians' political and religious rights. But

On the right, are there any Republican politicians saying, you know, we need to dial this back a little bit. And we need to set some limits and taboos and standards and norms. No. So we can point our fingers and blame the illegal aliens all we want. It's a much deeper political problem. Now, speaking of changing taboos, here is a really sad story. Headline yesterday making its way around the internet from The Times. This is The Times of London. I wanted to donate my eggs. Sadly, it was too late.

Verity Stockdale, 34, on why she dreamt of helping a stranger to become a parent. I'm not going to read the whole piece. Here's just one paragraph. You know, she was thinking about having kids. She was thinking about freezing her own eggs. She was thinking about doing IVF later on down the road, but it's hard and it does carry health risks and it often doesn't work. So she says, it was while doing these mental acrobatics that I started to quietly fall in love.

with the idea of donating my eggs instead. To help someone to have a family now felt like I could be a part of the journey of creating one, regardless of whether or not my body would play ball to do the same for me in the future. To help a stranger to become a parent, just as someone may help me to do the same in years to come biologically or otherwise, didn't matter. Suddenly it all clicked into place. But now, you know, her eggs are not valuable on the open marketplace, so she can't do it.

This shows you the true evil of capitalism unchecked by morality. This is not a problem of communism. This is not a problem of socialism. This is a problem of capitalism. People viewing their own bodies as mere commodities to be traded. People viewing even worse than that. People viewing their children or prospective children as commodities to be bought and sold. That's a big problem.

And I can already hear the rebuttal to this. People are going to say, Michael, if there's some problem with a woman selling her eggs or even donating her eggs, but nevertheless treating her eggs like a commodity. And we're just talking about eggs here, unfertilized. So we don't even know who the anonymous father will be yet to create this child intentionally created to be deprived of his natural mother and father. Well, Michael...

then don't you have to oppose adoption? Because adoption also creates a marketplace for babies to be donated and to be, well, then to be adopted. No, no, no, no. There are similarities, so I understand why people might conclude that. The key moral distinction here is that adoption helps to rectify moral wrongs. You know, a teenage couple has premarital sex and they're not ready

To have a baby. But the mother doesn't want to kill her baby, so they put the baby up for adoption. And then a married couple adopts that baby. And that's a beautiful act of grace and charity that helps to rectify the evil of

Having the premarital sex, which created a child that will not be raised by his natural mother and father. But hey, look, there's this amazing way to rectify it where adoptive parents will take that child, bring the child into a loving home. The mother will give up the child, which is a difficult act even, and will certainly give the child the right to life. Wow, that's a beautiful, charitable way of rectifying something that had gone wrong.

In the case of egg donation and the whole new baby industry, you are intentionally doing the wrong. You are establishing a market to incentivize, to pay people to do more wrong things, namely to trade their children and potential children as commodities on an open market. That's the big difference. Adoption rectifies a wrong that has been done. The new baby industry is

creates and encourages more wrongs and a denial of the legitimate rights of the child. Well, I am actually glad that this woman can't donate her eggs because that's a terrible thing to do. Because the people who do do this will probably view it as a very charitable act. I can help someone else to have a child. People could also adopt, by the way. But

They say, no, I'm donating. Isn't this so wonderful? What a great act of charity. Well, what about for your kid? What about for your kid who you are intentionally putting in a place of never having known his or her natural mother, one of the most important bonds that a human being can have? What about the charity for your kid? How about charity starts at home? How about you consider that there are orders of charity and priorities of responsibility that you had, but no.

In liberalism, we care so much for the anonymous person on the other side of the world. Oh, we care so much for that person in theory, but we ignore our responsibilities to our kids, our families, our local communities, our friends, people down the street we don't talk to anymore because they vote for Trump or something. Our kids, we actually sell our kids down the river.

But the anonymous person on the other side of the world, oh, that's how charitable you are. That's a great perversion. And it is a perversion of capitalism, which says that all human interaction can be boiled down into monetary transactions, none of which are any more meaningful than any others. It's all just an open market and a global marketplace. Happy trading. Not good. My favorite comment on Friday is from Rat Boyd, who says, you can't just say January 6th like that, Michael.

It needs more, you're right, sorry. You can't just say it like that. It needs to sound like the kind of name that carries the weight and the significance of the worst day in the history of this or any republic. January 6th, which is now explaining why the Cheneys are endorsing

a radical socialist raised in a Marxist household and why George W. Bush won't endorse the Republican nominee for president. Subscribe to the Michael Knowles YouTube channel, smash the like button and ring that bell. Speaking of critics of capitalism and rather far left people in our politics, Bernie Sanders is coming out stumping for Kamala Harris. He appeared as a Harris surrogate on NBC's Meet the Press.

defend one of the hardest, least defensible aspects of Kamala's political life. Namely, that she, as a presidential candidate, has flip-flopped on some of her most ardently held positions. No, I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she's trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election. My own view is slightly different. I think Kamala

that in America today there are a lot of people, rural people, working class people, who no longer believe that the United States Congress and government represents their interests, who dominated by big money interests.

So I think that there is something wrong, personally, when we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all of our people despite spending twice as much per capita. That is why I support Medicare for All. Do you still consider Vice President Kamala Harris to be progressive, Senator? I do. I do, of course. Did you not hear what I just said? I said she's lying to win an election. Get the cotton balls out of your ears, lady.

I don't know. That's not a great, that's not, I used to do a better Bernie Sanders than that. Now, I don't know. It's becoming a little bit more like Rodney Dangerfield or something. You all know my doctor, Dr. Vinny Boombatz. I don't know. But, but that's the point. He says it right there in the first few lines. I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. That is, she still believes what she has said she believes for many years now when she was to the left of me in the U.S. Senate.

I think she's trying to be pragmatic. That's another word in this case. That's a euphemism for cynical and dishonest and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election. But look, I support Medicare for all. Well, Kamala supports Medicare for all. She said so explicitly. Medicare for all for illegal aliens too. She supports socialized medicine. She supports abortion on demand up until the moment of birth at least. She supports the radical LGBT policy. She supports transing your kids. She supports open borders. She supports all this stuff.

And the way that Bernie's defending her is he's saying, yeah, she's lying to win the election. But don't worry. She's still a progressive. She still holds all those ideals. She's just a liar. But that's good. She should lie to win elections because we don't believe in an objective moral order. If there is one, we're going to violate it anyway. We're going to do whatever it takes. We think the ends justify the means. So, yeah, she's going to lie. Listen, NBC, don't worry. She's a liar. But we're going to have the most radically leftist presidential administration ever if Kamala Harris wins. That's what he's saying.

It's not just Bernie saying this. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro put it in a slightly more delicate way. He, too, went on a liberal news show, The View, on ABC to defend Kamala Harris' flip-flopping. And rather...

Then go all the way with Bernie and say, yeah, no, she flip-flopped, but it's because she's a cynical liar. Don't worry. She doesn't mean anything she's saying right now. Josh Shapiro tried to spin it in a way that's probably more palatable to middle America. He said, no, no, no. Yes, she has flip-flopped, and the flip-flops are sincere. She really has moderated her views. She no longer is a progressive, and her flip-flopping is her strength.

Do you think it's a strategic mistake that she hasn't explained some of these positions she's changed on more ahead of the debate is because she's obviously gonna get challenged on some of these on a debate stage. Well, first look, I think it's a sign of strength when you evolve on a position. I agree. Clearly Kamala Harris has been listening to good people in Pennsylvania when it comes to natural gas.

It's a sign of strength when one evolves on a position. So Kamala Harris said repeatedly and emphatically for years that she wants to completely get rid of fracking. This is while she was a member of the U.S. Senate. This is while she was running for president. This is after she had been attorney general of California. This is a woman who had been in public life for a long time. She thought about the question of fracking. She said, no, I'm staking out the most radical position here.

By the way, when people stake out radical positions, it's usually because they have thought about an issue a lot. When you have a squishy, moderate, vacillating position, maybe you just haven't given much thought to the issue. When you stake out a radical position consistently over and over, that's usually because you've given it a lot of thought. Think about the people who are rabidly pro-life or rabidly pro-choice. Pro-choice, pro-abortion. Even I'm getting caught in their euphemisms. Well, the people who have really radical views on it, say what you will about them,

The pro-lifers are correct. The pro-abortion people are incorrect. But at the very least, they've both thought about their positions, usually. It's the people in the middle who have really incoherent views. Well, I think we shouldn't kill the babies at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks, we should kill the babies. And it's about when the baby can feel pain. Or no, it's about when the baby is viable. Or no, it's about when the baby is in another trimester. Those things don't make sense. Kamala Harris...

has not been listening to the voters of Pennsylvania, I promise you. But Kamala Harris has been reading public opinion polls, and that way she's been listening to voters. She's recognized that the voters are telling her, we're not going to elect you if you continue to hold this view. But I don't think the voters have persuaded her on the rightness or wrongness of that opinion. She's just a cynical politician. It's a sign of strength to flip-flop. It can be. There are certain positions over the years

that I have developed, I believe a number of things differently now than I did 10 or 15 years ago, sure. But there's been a kind of coherence to it. My views have become more coherently conservative as I've given deeper thought to these matters. And the positions I held that were really wrong, you know, I held those positions when I was 17, 18 years old, when I was some punk kid in high school or college. I didn't hold those positions when I was a member of the U.S. Senate.

I didn't hold those positions when I was vice president of the United States. So silly. It's also why I give Trump a little bit of grace when he speaks in a vague way about certain aspects of public policy. Look, you're going up against people who are cynically lying through their teeth about everything they believe to win an election. If Trump wants to be a little bit vague on certain controversial issues, it doesn't keep me up at night. I want to make sure that when he's president, he's firm on those important issues, on those matters of principle.

But give me a break. Look at how this lady and her flax are lying through their teeth. Now, the only worst defender of Kamala Harris than Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and then Bernie Sanders is, ironically, Kamala's own spokesman, Ian Sams. This guy, Ian Sams at the White House, or I'm sorry, he's not at the White House. He's now at the campaign. Senior national spokesman for the Harris-Walls campaign has come out on CNN.

was asked a very simple question. Can you defend Kamala Harris's record as vice president, the role she currently occupies, the role she's held for three years, the role that is the reason she is the Democrat nominee for president in 2024? And here's his answer.

She wants to help lower people. But she's been part of the Biden administration. I mean, she has been part of the Democratic. Democrats have been in control of the country for the last three going on four years. And you are still seeing this in the polling. I mean, these working class voters are telling us right now that more of them are with Donald Trump than Kamala Harris. Why? What is it about what you guys have been doing for the last three plus years that explains that?

Well, I think, again, we're trying to talk to the voters and explain this message. We've got 60 days until the election. You know, we don't have time to sit around and think about why over the last few years certain things may have happened or may not have happened. We've got to go win an election. And the vice president is doing that by talking about her economic vision. And it's really different. It's really different. Hey, come on. This is CNN. Why are you asking me tough questions? We don't have time.

To talk about Kamala's record in the White House, we got to make sure she wins the White House. There's no time to talk about the things she's done and the policies she currently supports. We got to go out there and win an election. And to do that, we have to figure out what voters want us to say. And then whether we support those things or not, we have to say that we do support them. Okay, come on, this is politics 101.

Why are you asking me about the candidate? We have an election to win, of course. And her views are different. Her views are different. How are her views different? How are her policies different from Joe Biden's? As far as I can tell, the only policies that Kamala Harris has embraced to distinguish herself from Joe Biden are policies she stole from Donald Trump. So, okay, I guess in that way, she's a little different from Biden. But what policy vision does Kamala Harris hold and have?

That distinguishes her from Joe Biden or Donald Trump. No, we don't have time for that answer either. We got an election to win. Okay. I have an extremely exciting announcement and an extremely important interview coming up in this member segment. One that I've been looking forward to for weeks and weeks now. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles, Canada, WLAS at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn along this journey. I'm going to sort this out. I need to go deeper undercover.

Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certification. What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. This is more for you than this for you. Is America inherently racist? The word inherent is challenging there. I'm going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. America is racist to its bones. So inherently. Yeah, this country is a piece of shit.

White. Folks. White. Trash. White supremacy. White woman. White boy. Is there a black person around here? There's a black person right here. Does he not exist? Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. Never be too careful. Buy your tickets now in theaters September 13th. Rated PG-13.