All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
36:51
Ep. 51 - Conservatives Question Obamatears, The Lying Left Weeps

Ben shows the left's hypocrisy for their indignant complaints about conservatives who don't trust Obama's tears, plus we talk Trump/Cruz eligibility Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, well, here we are.
It is a Thursday.
We are nearing the end of the week.
We're almost there, folks.
We've made it through the first work week of 2016 together, and we're going to talk about President Obama's weepy-fest a little more, how the left has gone absolutely bananas over this thing, and why they're giant, cynical douchebags.
And we're also going to talk about Donald Trump's attack on Ted Cruz's eligibility for the presidency and why I think he's being cynical.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
I'm not a politicalist.
I tend to demonize people because they don't care about your feelings.
Okay, well, as you recall, President Obama, just a few days ago, he did his gun control Tonight, he's supposed to do his town hall event with Anderson Cooper, which will be an absolute testosterone-filled masculinity fest.
And President Obama, a few days ago, he does his press conference, and in the middle of talking about how he wants more gun control, you know, the kind of gun control he didn't do in his executive orders, but pretended to do, He breaks down in tears.
For those who missed it, here's the President of the United States doing his model and crying routine, and as I said yesterday, the more I see this, the more I think that this is manipulation, that I don't think that this is authentic, I really feel.
Now, when I say that, Actors feel what they feel when they are actually in the moment crying.
If you're an actor, and if you've ever talked to an actor, actors can generate emotion in themselves that generates tears.
It's not like a physical manipulation.
It's not like they know how to make their tear ducts well up in some weird Orwellian way.
That's not how it works.
Actors get to an emotional place, they work themselves up emotionally, And then they cry.
So when I say this is insincere, what I mean is that this is planned.
The feelings are sincere, but it's planned.
So he's really sad and he's really upset.
But I don't know whether he's thinking about whether his dog died or the kids in Sandy Hook.
Maybe he is thinking about the kids of Sandy Hook.
The bottom line is, this was a manipulation specifically put into his press conference so that we could have the following logic from the left.
Obama cries because he is a pure, glowing angel.
He loves children.
He's better than you, because you're not crying.
He's better than the parents.
The parents aren't even crying.
They're standing behind him, not crying.
He's Mother Teresa.
He has the greatest, biggest heart, this demigod.
And if you are not crying with him, that's because you don't have the heart that he does, and his heart means that we should listen to him on everything else, and we should not fear him.
We should embrace him.
And then if you say, well, this seems a little bit manipulative and a little bit manipulated for me, then they say, no, no, no.
See, now you're callous.
You're just proving our point.
Because you don't understand the deep wells of emotion that spring from his gut and from his mind.
Right?
This is the idea.
So here's President Obama crying, and then we'll get to all of the response to President Obama crying.
President Obama: Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.
And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.
Okay, he's deliberately leaving the tears on his face, by the way, so that the cameras can hit him.
You hear that pause, that pause is, I mean, I was counting in my head there, one one thousand, that's it, that's a seven second pause, while the cameras, which is a long time, that's a seven second pause while President Obama looks around the room and waits for the cameras to come at him.
And, you know, and he's got the tears on his face and so we're all supposed to feel bad for him and feel bad for him because he obviously cares so much and he isn't getting his way.
When people like me said this, Andrea Tanteros over at Fox News, she made a joke about how Obama was probably rubbing onion under his eyes to make himself cry.
I don't think that's right.
I think Obama cries a lot, actually.
If you look at President Obama's history, he's cried at least 13 times in public.
He cries on a pretty frequent basis in public.
But not during press conferences.
It's a different thing during a press conference.
To cry during a speech or a press conference is a different thing.
You know the cameras are on you.
George W. Bush visited the 9-11 memorial where he was crying two days after 9-11.
That's a different thing.
President Obama has a planned press conference that he's been planning for weeks.
He knows he's going to be there.
He knows what he's going to talk about.
He knows what's happening.
And he's crying anyway.
Right?
And this is again, so here are the times President Obama has cried during his presidency.
He cried as he announced this, obviously.
He cried when he listened to Aretha Franklin sing, You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman, which is weird.
Over at the Kennedy Center Awards.
That happened back in December.
In May 2014, he was not crying, but they tried to make it out like he was crying over Benghazi.
He was not crying.
If you watch the video, he just has watery eyes.
And then in 2013, then he cried over Sandy Hook.
Sorry, he cried over the tornado in Moore, Oklahoma.
And nobody said anything about that.
Nobody thought that that was terrible.
Nobody mentioned anything.
Because again, when you're in the midst of an actual tragic circumstance, nobody is going to fault you for getting emotional.
Right?
In 2013, February 2013, he wiped a tear from his eye before presenting the Presidential Citizen's Medal to military, healthcare, social, and civil service heroes.
He cried as he listened to the Children of Gospel Choir in January 2013 during his post-inauguration service.
He cried actually twice within two days over his own inauguration because he's just that special.
He cried in December 2012 after he had the Sandy Hook press conference, right?
So during that press conference, he teared up.
Which at least that one makes more sense because that happened at the time.
It was contemporaneous, right?
It happened like right then and so he's talking about it.
He cried in 2012 when he was talking to his campaign staff.
He cried at his last campaign rally in November 5th 2012 because it was his last campaign rally ever.
So he cries about himself a lot.
He cried at the memorial for the people killed in Arizona.
That also was slightly manipulative, but he cried during the memorial service, not while he was speaking.
Again, when you're speaking, it's planned.
President Obama is the guy who has actually used teleprompters when speaking to kindergartners.
So I'm not going to believe that the first press conference of 2016 of his last year in office, his big push, he didn't know what he was going to do.
I just don't think that he leaves that much to chance.
So he cries a lot.
But this is the only one where people are really knocking him for the crying.
And there's a reason people are really knocking him for the crying, because it just doesn't seem sincere.
Now, people at Comedy Central have gone absolutely insane over this.
Comedy Central is now filled with unfunny people, unfunny leftists over at Comedy Central.
Larry Wilmore is the second least funny person in America, and he has a show on Comedy Central.
The most unfunny person in America is Trevor Noah, who also has a show on Comedy Central.
But here's Larry Wilmore slamming Fox over criticizing Obama for his tears.
But seriously, watching a sitting U.S.
president tear up over the deaths of children as he tries to effect change in a seemingly intransigent system?
Whew.
I mean, there's gotta be something really wrong with you if you find fault with that.
Or I could say, how did Fox News respond?
It's about something that feels political, that feels somewhat insincere.
It just didn't seem horribly authentic.
So I would check that podium for, like, a raw onion or some no more tears.
I mean, I just... It's not really believable.
The guy cries about dead children, and you've got notes?
I mean, first off, everyone knows if you want to make a grown man cry, you don't use onions.
You show him the bing-bong scenes from Inside Out.
You know?
Okay, there's enough of Larry Wilmore sucking at his job.
And Larry Wilmore, when he says, you know, he's crying over, a grown man crying over children?
You can't mock a grown man crying over children.
First of all, President Obama, shut down the government.
Shut down the government.
So that he could keep using your taxpayer dollars to kill 300,000 unborn children a year.
Okay, this is the guy who drones people so that he doesn't have to send troops on the ground among the many children abroad.
Okay, so let's stop with the whole he's crying about all the children routine.
Again, does he feel authentic feeling about Sandy Hook?
I'm sure he does.
I'm sure he feels authentic feeling about Sandy Hook because it's an issue for him where he feels a certain moral superiority.
Fine.
Whatever.
He feels authentic feeling.
This was not an authentic moment.
It wasn't an authentic moment, but it's crazy.
How could you criticize a man who's just, he's pouring out his soul before you.
I mean, can't you see it?
He's pouring out his soul before you.
This is terrible.
Okay, we can move on now.
So, Larry Wilmore does this routine.
And then Trevor Noah, over on Comedy Central, who is the most unfunny person in America, he does the exact same routine.
And so here's Trevor Noah being deeply unfunny and patronizing.
No matter how opposed to Obama's policies some people may be, or how cynical their politics, they have to at least acknowledge and respect the raw authenticity of that emotion.
Also, you would think.
Where was the wiping away of tears and the emotion after the Paris attacks?
He can't pull that kind of passion for anything but this, and I feel bad about those kids in Connecticut.
But it's only about this that he gets so upset about, and never about terror.
He didn't cry, I don't think, after San Bernardino.
Did he cry?
Did he cry after that?
No.
I don't think he cried.
No.
He didn't cry after Paris?
I would check that podium for, like, a raw onion or some no more tears.
I mean, it's not really believable.
Are you f***ing kidding me?
Shedding tears when you think of murdered children is not really believable?
You know what, there is something here that's not really believable.
The fact that the rest of us have to share the title of human being with you.
Oh, well, I mean, you're not a human being if you-if you doubt President Obama's authenticity at that moment.
Again, question for Trevor Noah and Larry Wilmore.
They're sitting there during the show, presumably thinking of the dead kids in Sandy Hook.
Why aren't they crying?
Are they also not human?
Are they also not authentic?
Are they also missing that deep well of human emotion and feeling?
Here's why I find this whole thing very, very cynical and very, very ridiculous.
Let's flashback just a few short years.
You're never supposed to doubt people's authentic emotion when they think about the good of the children of the United States.
The minute you think about the good of the children of the United States, all debate ends.
We are done.
We are settled.
Anybody who cries over the children, we can never doubt the authenticity of the man who cries.
The man who cries wins the debate.
The debate is over.
It's been won.
It's over.
Here is John Stewart from a recent episode, this is from last year, talking about John Boehner, who is well known for crying.
Here is John Stewart from Comedy Central.
Does he respect John Boehner's tears?
Let's find out.
And no congressional self-backed padding would be complete without a tear.
This is a happy day indeed.
Uh, thank you for your leadership.
Uh, pleased to welcome our... Keep your eyes on Boehner in the back there.
Let's see.
Ooh, ooh, Johnny, you gonna cry?
Are you gonna cry?
Oh, I just... In such a special moment, you're gonna cry?
Oh, b-b-boy.
Oh, b-b-boy.
Look, everybody, a turtle can speak English.
Ooh, looky, looky, looky.
Oh, I can't believe it.
I'm so sad but happy.
I can't believe it.
This is unbelievable.
Look at this, man.
It's unbelievable.
Mm-hmm.
That's unbelievable.
But don't worry.
It's okay to mock John Boehner and his sincerity there, right?
He must be a crazy person.
He must be just a giant loon bag, giant crazy person.
But, you know, that's different.
That's different.
Comedy Central is saying that he must not be mentally stable.
Now, if I said about Obama that a man who cries routinely at press conferences is not mentally stable, no, you can't say that.
Don't doubt his authenticity.
He's such a deep wellspring of human emotion.
Okay.
But they're not doubting Boehner's sincerity, are they?
Let's go back to 2011.
Here's Jon Stewart, 2011, with Samantha Bee, talking about the brand new Republican Congress takeover.
Of course, the 112th Congress could not begin until the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was sworn in.
Here he is, walking into the ceremony, and he- Oh, come on, dude!
For God's sakes!
Are you crying again?
What's with you, man?
I mean, election night, you were all waterworks.
Your 60 Minutes interview!
I'm not sure that these kids have a shot at the American dream like I do.
It's important.
Yes, it is important and so is your dignity.
Here's Boehner just with friends at a hockey game recently.
Here he is losing his virginity.
Like these kids who have a shot at the American dream.
Like I did.
Been there.
What a weird thing to say during sex.
What a hilarious man.
By the way, he's talking about kids, right?
He's talking about suffering children.
And John Boehner is in that clip.
When I think of these kids who are not privy to the American dream, and giving the ability to kids to have the American dream, and then he starts crying there.
Now, I'm somebody who made fun of John Boehner crying.
I don't think it's manly for men to cry in public office.
I just don't.
It's not my thing.
I think it's ridiculous.
I do think it's unstatesmanlike.
But the inconsistency here is stunning.
But we'll conclude this portion of the critique With that same segment, Jon Stewart goes to Samantha Bee.
And Samantha Bee proceeds.
What you'll see here is Samantha Bee suggesting that Republicans are cynically using tears in order to generate support for their agenda.
Why, it's almost as though Comedy Central is inconsistently attacking Republicans for the same thing that they find inhuman when anyone suggests that President Obama does it.
Here we go, 2011.
For more on the new Congress, Samantha Bee joins us from the Capitol.
Sam, how do the House Republicans... How do they think... Sam, how do the Republicans think they're gonna accomplish an agenda that seems at odds with itself?
Well, the key, John, is their leader, John Boehner.
I mean, that man can go from zero to snot in 6.4 seconds.
Yes, the Republicans are in the capable hands of Captain Blubberpants.
Sam, how does that change the fact that if Republicans exempt themselves from paying for their own pet projects and tax cuts, they're actually going to end up increasing the deficit, the exact thing they were elected not to do?
But, John... Sam, are you okay?
No, it's just... This was really important to me.
I really wanted them to repeal Obamacare without growing the deficit!
No, God, Sam, please, no.
They'll find some cuts in other areas, I'm sure.
Right?
You think so?
I'm sure.
And you know what?
Maybe the CBO estimate is wrong, and they won't even... Yeah.
See?
It's that easy.
You're winning the argument, I start crying, boom!
You fold!
Welcome to the John Boehner 112th Congress.
And there you have it.
In stark tape, right?
Nothing added, nothing subtracted.
There you have it.
All these idiots on Comedy Central, all these cynical leftists, oh, how dare you impugn the honor of President Obama?
Well, it seems like when the shoe's on the other foot, you're perfectly happy doing it to Republicans, so I'm not gonna buy your whole Obama's a demigod routine, and it shows the idolatry on the left, it really does, and it is idolatry.
Okay, how many Republicans make fun of John Boehner for crying?
Raise your hand.
Okay, I've got both hands up, because I made fun of John Boehner for crying all the time.
I thought John Boehner was a sloppy drunk who cried too much.
Right?
And that's fine.
You know?
You can say that.
I'm cynical about politicians.
But you say it about President Obama.
And there's only one reason you would say this about President Obama.
And it's because you're a racist.
It's because you're a terrible person.
It's because you don't belong in the category of human beings.
One more time, I just have to play, one more time, that Trevor Noah piece.
Because it shows you, you can hear the worship in his voice and the star in his eye when his god has been attacked.
When they took the Paschal Lamb and put the blood over the doorpost.
His god had been desecrated, and you can see the rage that rushes through him.
He even goes into his sincere voice.
His sincere voice.
No matter how opposed to Obama's policies some people may be, or how cynical their politics, they have to at least acknowledge and respect the raw authenticity of that emotion.
Or so you would think.
Where was the wiping... Sorry, I need a... Aah!
- White thing. - So I need a...
That was acting.
And so was President Obama when he was doing this crying routine.
Okay, now we can move on to more pressing matters.
But this actually is an important thing because democratic emotional manipulation is how they do things.
It's how they do things.
And if you refuse to buy into the paradigm, they portray you as unemotional.
They portray you as robotic if you refuse to buy into the emotional blackmail to which they subject the American people.
And guess what?
You don't have to be a part of it.
You don't have to be a part of it.
Trevor Noah and Larry Wilmore, all these people, they can go screw themselves.
Because they are all hypocrites and they are all liars and they are all cynics.
And if they, honest to God, if you believe for one half of a millisecond that if a Republican called a press conference about abortion and started crying in the middle of the pre-planned press conference because they didn't get their way on abortion, if you don't believe they would be all over that person, right, and saying that person was crying deliberately in order to override women's rights, Then you don't know the left as well as you should, because this is how deeply cynical they are.
Okay.
Now speaking of people who are deeply cynical, there have been a number of attacks on Ted Cruz in recent days over his eligibility.
And there are people who are trying to defend Donald Trump and company.
on the eligibility question.
So it's really, the whole thing is very silly.
Donald Trump attacked Ted Cruz over his eligibility.
And what was, it's clearly a desperation play, because if you go back, if you go back to, I think it was February of 2015, Donald Trump said, sorry, it was December 2014, Donald Trump specifically said that he had questions about Cruz's eligibility.
And Now that actually makes sense, that he has questions about Cruz's eligibility, because after all, Trump had questions about Obama's eligibility.
Now if you go back to when he had questions about Obama's eligibility and look at the legal case there, the case that Trump was making is that if you had an American citizen parent and you were born abroad, you were not natural born.
Right?
You were therefore ineligible.
So if Obama was born in Kenya, And that means, by definition, that he can't be natural born, even though his mom is an American citizen.
So if that was something that deeply bothered Trump then, you would imagine it would bother him about Cruz, because Cruz was born to an American citizen in Calgary.
So it's exactly the same thing, it's just Canada versus Kenya.
Now, realistically, you know, really, Obama wasn't born in Kenya, he was born in Hawaii, but the point I'm making is that it wouldn't have made a difference.
If he was born in Kenya, if his mom was a citizen, he was a natural born citizen, end of story.
Right, so it doesn't make it, but if you believe that that's not enough, that you have to be born in the United States, then Trump should be consistent.
He should think it's a problem for Obama, and he should think that it's a problem for Cruz, right?
Well, then, back in September, when he was friends with Cruz, he said, I think all those questions have been answered about Cruz, which doesn't make any sense.
And then, now, he brought it back up, and then he backed off of it, and he said, well, I think Cruz is okay, but I think just in case, he should probably go to court and get a declaratory judgment.
I'm really trying to do him a favor, because if I don't attack him, then certainly the Clintons will.
Certainly the Clintons will come after him.
I was talking with Jeremy Boring, managing editor of the site, and Jeremy made a great analogy.
He said, this is sort of like if I cheated with your wife and then told you that it was for your own good because you needed to find out whether she was a cheating floozy and now you know.
Right?
So the idea is Trump attacks Cruz in order so that Cruz will do the right thing and go get a declaratory judgment to protect him from the Clintons.
Yeah, right.
It's a very cynical play.
What's even more cynical is that there are other people who are jumping on top of this.
So John McCain, right?
John McCain.
There were questions about John McCain's eligibility, if you remember, back in 2008, because John McCain was born on a military base outside the United States.
He was born, I believe, in Panama.
And so there are people who said the same thing, right?
He's born outside the United States, and that means that he's not a natural-born American citizen eligible for the presidency.
John McCain rightly said, that's silly.
Today, John McCain came out and questioned Ted Cruz's eligibility for the presidency.
I do not know the answer to that.
I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the Canal Zone, which is a territory.
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory.
When he ran in 1964... But you were born on a base too, were you?
Yeah, it's a U.S.
military base.
That's different from being born on foreign soil, so I think there is a question.
I am not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it's worth looking into.
I don't think it's illegitimate to look into it.
Hilarious.
So it's not worth looking into the question as to whether if you're born in a territory like Barry Goldwater, or if you're born on a military base abroad, that's not worthy of adjudication.
But if you're born in Calgary, it is.
Somehow I have my doubts that if Lindsey Graham had been born in Canada, John McCain would have quite the same questions about eligibility that he has for Ted Cruz.
Cruz and McCain really, really despise each other.
And it's not just McCain.
The White House has jumped into this fray now, and the White House is saying, yeah, there are legit questions about Cruz's eligibility.
Not about Obama's, but certainly about Cruz.
Come on.
It would be quite ironic if after Seven or eight years of drama around the President's birth certificate.
If Republican primary voters were to choose Senator Cruz as their nominee, somebody who actually wasn't born in the United States and only 18 months ago renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Okay, first of all, the vast majority of Republicans thought the birther stuff was crazy anyway.
But Democrats like Obama wanted to magnify that to make it look as though everybody was going after Obama for his birther nonsense.
And now it's, oh look at these hypocritical Republicans, they were going after Obama on the birtherism and now they won't go after Cruz on the birtherism.
The people who went after Obama on the birtherism are going after Cruz on the birtherism.
And the whole thing is stupid and it is manipulative and I don't buy for a second the Donald Trump argument that he was just trying to help.
And this is how Donald Trump goes.
It's a window into the mind of Donald Trump.
Because here's the thing.
Donald Trump is a street fighter, which means he has no strategy.
He doesn't walk into a room with a political strategy.
We've talked about this a lot on the program.
There's no point at which Donald Trump looks around and goes, I'm gonna plan for tomorrow.
Donald Trump is always, he's just a counterpuncher.
Somebody hits him, and he hits back.
Or he sees a target of opportunity, and he takes whatever is the closest object at hand, and it could be a kitty, or it could be a literal cat, or it could be a lamp, or it could be a hammer, and he hits you with whatever is available.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, it turns out that he has a chainsaw at hand and he hits her with the your-husband-is-an-alleged-rapist routine.
And when it's Ted Cruz, the only thing that he can grab at is eligibility, so he grabs the kitty and hits him with the cat.
And it just doesn't work.
He's a politician of convenience.
There's a good way to view that and a bad way to view that.
The good way to view that is that only a politician of convenience is going to be able to defeat Hillary.
Because if we have to throw everything at Hillary, it can't be that we're going to rule out certain tactics.
I saw Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina yesterday saying that only under certain circumstances should we really talk about Bill Clinton's And I thought to myself, how many of these people have ever seen a political campaign?
If you really think the average voter cares more about Hillary's record in Libya than he cares about the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly rapes people and Hillary covers up for him, then you've never met a voter, ever.
And Donald Trump is the kind of guy, because he just uses what's at hand, he'll actually use the rape allegations.
So that's a good way of viewing Trump, is that he uses whatever's at hand.
Sometimes that means he's inconsistent, but at least he's aggressive, right?
At least he fights.
That's the rule on Trump.
The other way to view Trump is that Trump is deeply unprincipled, and that his inconsistencies, that they are They extend to his views of the Constitution, and his views of law, and his views of politics, and his views of values.
It's not just convenience with regard to hitting his opponents, it's convenience with regard to everything.
And I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Trump's positions are positions of convenience.
He switches his positions routinely, he doesn't think them out, he backs off of them, he blames the media for misconstruing him, he's constantly going back and forth on everything.
I don't think that this is a strategic Strategic chaos.
I don't think that this is... There have been pitchers in the major leagues, in Major League Baseball, who have done what they call strategic wildness, where one of the advantages a batter can have is if you really crowd the plate, if you take away the inner half of the plate, it's hard to hit a ball in baseball.
that is thrown on the interior portion of the plate, right?
If you have the batter who's, if you can't see me, you have this, why you have to subscribe so you can see my fake tears and my vomiting and my baseball limitations.
But if you're at bat and you're in a stance like this and the plate is right in front of you, if you crowd the plate, in order for you to really get a good piece of a pitch, you need to be able to extend your arms, right?
You need full extension.
That's why every home run is basically full extension.
So that means if somebody throws the ball inside, right toward your body, you're stuck.
You're doing the dinosaur arms and you tend to ground out or pop up.
So what pitchers will do in order to brush back the hitter is they'll be strategically wild.
They'll throw really hard in different places in order to intimidate the batter.
Get out of there because if you're close to the—you know I'm trying to throw out the plate, but if I get wild at any point, I'm going to hit you in the head and you're going to die.
So there has been strategic wildness in baseball before to make hitters uneasy with digging in at the plate, really getting themselves set.
Instead, they're kind of jumpy at the plate.
They move back.
So if Trump is strategic wildness, then okay, fine.
That's something I can deal with.
It's the controlled chaos.
What I fear is that he's uncontrolled chaos.
He's just chaos with everything, and I think there's more evidence to that effect than to the opposite effect, which is why I have said for a long time I don't believe Trump is a consistent conservative, and this attack is just more evidence of his inconsistency.
Trump, however, is hilarious, and so we'll finish the Donald Trump segment of today's show with this clip from a rally.
If you remember, just a few weeks ago, Donald Trump was at a rally, and some guy shouted out something about how Muslims are the problem, and Trump didn't correct him, and people went insane.
Somebody shouted that Obama was a Muslim, and he didn't correct him, and everyone went out of their mind.
Well, yesterday, this is what happened at a rally when something similar happened in New Hampshire.
Why did you sit in here?
Okay, I didn't say it.
I didn't say it!
I refuse to get in... Oh, I'm supposed to reprimand the man... Who is the man that said that?
I have to reprimand.
How dare you?
Okay, have I rep...
I've reprimanded him.
Now the press can't be angry.
This is the part of Trump that's hilarious because, honestly, it's such a ridiculous rule that you're supposed to correct every protester who shows up at your rally.
And so this is the part of Trump where, again, the politics of convenience is very amusing.
Okay, time for some things that I like and some things that I really, really don't.
So let's start with something that I like.
There's a great series of books, starting with Shogun, and one of the books is also called King Rat.
There's a very good movie of it.
James Clavell is the author, and it's a very good series, and it's all about the relationship between the United States and Old Japan, right?
And all the way—and it traces the history of the U.S.-Japanese relationship all the way from the 1700s all the way up to modern times, and it's really good.
That's actually not what I'm recommending.
James Clavell wrote—it is very good.
And not all the books—King Rat and Shogun are both very good books.
James Clavell, who's the author, wrote another very, very short book.
It's about maybe 50 pages.
It's really a short story.
And I think they turned it into a play.
And it's called The Children's Story.
And The Children's Story is... It's a really fascinating piece of work because The Children's Story is about... It starts off with this... You really don't know what's going on.
This woman walks into a classroom with a bunch of kids in it and she's the substitute teacher.
And over the course of the class, she starts quizzing the kids about what it means to be American, what it means to be American.
And the kids don't know anything beyond the slogans.
They think, oh, the flag is great.
She says, well, why is the flag great?
It's just a piece of cloth.
And wouldn't it be a better piece of cloth if we just cut it up and handed you all an equal piece of the cloth?
Like, here it's all unified, but, you know, why should it just be unified up here?
Why don't we just cut it up and we'll just give you each a piece?
Okay, that's something that I like.
Now, time for some stuff that I hate.
takes the kid away.
And you realize over the course of that, I won't spoil it, but it's really worth checking out.
The children's story by James Clavel, very, very conservative piece of work.
And there's a reason that the left has never really performed this en masse, even though it's very, very effective.
Okay, that's something that I like.
Now, time for some stuff that I hate.
I have discovered, and the media has been covering, there's something on Tumblr.
It's a Tumblr account.
I don't really do Tumblr.
I guess Tumblr is like Instagram, right?
It's just pictures and you have your own account.
And so apparently somebody started an account called Male Feminists of Tinder at Tumblr.
And so they've been going across Tinder and finding men who say that they are feminists and putting their profiles up.
So, for example, Sean, 29, he is six miles away and says, I only pay for myself on the first date.
That's out of respect for both yourself and me.
If that's offensive to you and you're not interested in why I'd say so, we're not likely to agree on much.
If you see a potential partner as your equal, please talk to me.
Now remember, okay, people who use Tinder generally are looking for a hookup.
They're not generally looking for a long-term marital relationship, and they're certainly not looking for a long-term happy marital relationship.
They're usually looking for a quick nail.
That's pretty much what Tinder is for.
At least, this is what I have been told by those who have used it.
So, here's this guy, and this seems like a pretty good excuse, by the way.
When I say feminism has worked out to the benefit of pig guys, Proof positive right here, right?
I mean, this guy Sean, 29, he's saying that out of respect for you, he won't pay for your dinner.
I'll just tell you, when I was dating my wife, I took her out to dinner for our first date, actually I took her out to coffee for our first date, I took her out to dinner for our second date, and then on our third date we went out to dinner and I paid for dinner and then we went to sort of like a tea garden.
And my wife insisted on paying, and I actually got angry at her, and I said, I'm the man, that's my job, I'm paying.
And she later, now she'll say, yeah, I'm kind of embarrassed I did that, because I didn't want to be offensive to you, and I said, well, you sort of more offended me by suggesting that it's your job to pay on a date that I asked you out on.
But feminism has hurt everyone, and it's made either Opportunistic jackasses or pansies out of men.
That's basically what feminism has done.
It used to be that women trained men to be better.
Men are savages and then women civilize us.
That's essentially the truth.
You're civilized by a couple of things in your life.
You're civilized by mom and dad, and then you are finally civilized by your wife.
Mom and dad have to do most of the work, and then when your wife comes in, she teaches you why it is that mom and dad were so focused on doing that work in the first place.
Well, we've, as a society, we've gotten rid of the importance of mom and dad, and now we're getting rid of the reason why men need to be protective of women.
And so what is that?
When men are liberated from having to protect women, that means that they tend to victimize women.
If you don't have to protect, men are binary.
Men who don't protect women tend to victimize them.
There's not really a neutral.
Either you protect women and their value, or you victimize them.
And so, one of these two things, maybe these people are delusional enough to believe they're protecting women by pansying out, but let's look at a couple more of these because they're sort of amusing.
So, Jeff, 25.
Feminist, etc.
I want to lie on your butt and ask you difficult questions.
Alright, so there's a man who obviously has really grasped what feminism is all about.
Josh, 24.
Come dismantle the patriarchy with me.
Will 30 doing a yoga pose.
Feminist in the street, misogynist in the bed.
And this is what these guys are doing.
And there's Adam 25 wearing a shirt that says feminist.
By the way, ladies, if you would date this guy whose shirt says feminist, that is a guy who No polite way to put this.
He's going to cry during sex.
There's just no way that's... That right there.
Any guy who wears a shirt that says feminist is just pathetic.
Because modern feminism is not about equality for women.
It's about female superiority in every aspect of American life and male inferiority and subordination.
That's what feminism has become about.
And subordination of reality to utopian vision where femininity is better than masculinity.
And they're not even equal.
One is superior to the other.
So that's something I hate.
The male feminists of Tinder, although I will say some of them are very funny.
The other thing that I have to point out hating today is Facebook, which I use frequently, and we have a big Facebook account, and I have a big Facebook account, and I really like Facebook a lot.
Facebook is a private company.
They can censor people.
And they do.
They do censor people.
And one of the ways you know that they censor people is there's a video that has now been released that comes out courtesy of something called the Israel Project.
And they did an experiment on Facebook because they've been hearing complaints that Facebook is anti-Israel and anti-Jew.
So there's an anti-terror organization called Shirat Hadin Israel Law Center.
And what they did is they set up Two competing Facebook pages.
One page was designed to be against Palestinians.
The other was designed to be against Jews.
And we'll take a quick look at some of the images from this page.
So here, for example, is a page against Jews, right?
And you see that there's this Palestinian terrorist and he's looking to wipe out the Jewish state, right?
You've got the X across the Jewish flag.
Right, and the whole thing is about destroying the Zionists.
Here's another one, right, and it shows a map of Israel taking over for Palestine and destroying, destroying all of the Palestinian areas.
The Zionists bite Palestine part after part and the world is silent.
We'll stop them on any way we can, is what this says in its articulate manner.
Right, and then there's another page and it says, Today, more than ever, the Zionist army uses violence against Palestinian kids.
These children will liberate Palestine with blood and fire and demolish the Zionist invaders.
Okay, so this is one of the Facebook pages.
Let's move forward to the page that's designed on the other side, the one that's against the Palestinians.
So, now what do you see?
It's exactly parallel, right?
You see Israeli soldiers and then you see an X across the Palestinian flag.
Right, you see the X across the Palestinian flag.
Okay, next photo.
You see it's exactly the same.
Greater land Israel should return soon from the hands of the Muslim enemy back to Jewish sovereignty.
We'll do it in any way we can.
Which is actually less bad than the one on the Palestinian page, right?
The one on Palestinian page says we will use our children To do this, whether we have to use blood and fire or whatever.
This is actually less bad than what's on the Palestinian anti-Israel page.
It says, more and more soldiers in the Israeli army know that there is a need to destroy the Arab enemy.
We are ready for war against the enemy.
So all of this is actually less bad on the Israeli side than it was on the Palestinian side, just in pure objective terms.
And finally, it says, death to Palestine.
The other one said, death to Israel and death to the Jews.
Okay, so, this group set up both of these pages.
And then, they simultaneously reported both pages to Facebook.
Shockingly, on the same day that the page inciting against Palestinians was reported, it was closed by Facebook.
However, complaints against the anti-Jew page?
Those were refused by Facebook, and that page stayed up.
They suggested, according to the Daily Wire today, that posts inciting hatred and violence against Jews were not in violation of any Facebook rules or standards.
The pages were virtually identical.
They filed a lawsuit against Facebook for inciting violence against Jews, and they are, in fact, suing Facebook as well.
They should.
And this goes to show you that for the left, when the left says there's a moral equivalence between Jews and Palestinians, they don't even go that far.
Like feminists saying that there's equality between men and women, and what they really mean is that females are more important than males, and men are worthless pieces of dreck unless they subordinate themselves to women.
This is how the left also feels about the Palestinians versus the Jews.
It's not that they're equivalent, it's that one side gets to stump for destroying the other side, and the other side has to be stopped from saying pretty much anything.
It is pretty amazing.
And it is, once again, evidence that even Facebook is a filter.
Even user-generated pages are filtered by Facebook.
So it's important to know that before you even look at Facebook so that you know what you're looking at.
I hope that you have a wonderful weekend.
I hope that you don't cry fake tears of sorrow at any point.
I hope that nothing forces you to vomit.
I hope that you don't bother watching President Obama on CNN in that testosterone fest with Anderson Cooper.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection