Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 23, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

47:24

Ep. 77 - State College Tries To Ban Me - I'm Going Anyway

Ben talks about the CSULA ban, plus Trump vs. Cruz and why you should NEVER apologize. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, hey there.
	It's a Tuesday, and we are back as always.
	And there's so much to talk about.
	The presidential race, of course, we'll get to.
	Nevada is having its caucuses today.
	But chiefly, first and foremost, we're going to have to talk about the fact that the precious snowflakes over at Cal State University Los Angeles don't want me there.
	So, hey, F them.
	I'm going anyway.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show. - Tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings. - So a little bit of backstory.
	Let's start with when this thing was scheduled.
	This thing has been scheduled for at least two and a half months.
	So, two and a half months ago, the YAF, Young America's Foundation, the Fred R. Allen Lecture Series, they decided to sponsor me to go to ten campuses all around the country.
	And one of the groups that applied to have me come speak was the Young America's Foundation student group over at CSULA, California State University, Los Angeles.
	Now, I pay taxes in the state of California, which means I'm supporting all of these students to go to this second-rate school.
	And I decided, you know, obviously to go, and it was going to be a good event.
	We had people on the ground, kids were on the ground, putting up flyers.
	And as we've been reporting from time to time all throughout this process, There's been a lot of blowback from various folks on the left.
	So, for example, there's a professor named Robert Wide who threatened to wrestle students for sponsoring the event.
	He called them white supremacists because there's nothing white supremacists love better than orthodox Jews talking in public forums.
	We're their peeps.
	There is a Black Lives Matter activist who's a professor named Malina Abdullah.
	Her big thing is abolish the police, which won't hurt black people in any way if the police just go away.
	That'll definitely help black people.
	And she posted on her Facebook page, quote, I say this event is a problem.
	What we gon' do, y'all?
	And I pronounce it that way because it's spelled what we, G-O apostrophe N, do, y'all.
	Y apostrophe A-L-L, question mark exclamation point, question mark exclamation point.
	This is how she wrote this.
	And one of her apparent students, a guy named Ruben Martin, replied, quote, you want, and I'm reading this as it's written, okay?
	I'm not making fun of the guy.
	He wrote, you want, I should hoid him, boss.
	I's got a few's ideas.
	Me and da fella's been kickin' round.
	Only thing is, he won't be talking or looking so nice no more, we'll take the cannolis.
	And it's written exactly like that.
	Like Hoyt is spelled H-O-I-W-T.
	And Boss is spelled B-W-O-S-S.
	So clearly, the academic credentialing over at CSULA is not particularly high.
	But, aside from that, we're going ahead with the event, they said there was going to be a protest.
	And fine, that's how this stuff tends to go.
	Well, late last night, I got a call from my friends over at Young America's Foundation.
	They have received an email from the president of the university.
	President of the university is a guy named William Covino, and here's what he wrote, quote, After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro's appearance for a later date so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity.
	Such an event will better represent our university's dedication to the free exchange of ideas and the value of considering multiple viewpoints.
	As nothing says free exchange of ideas and value of considering multiple viewpoints like canceling the guy who disagrees with you.
	Nothing says that.
	He says it's a postponement.
	A postponement that has not been rescheduled, no date was set, no suggested date was set, and it has to be in the context of other people who disagree with me.
	Right?
	Which is, the point is, I'm the diversity.
	When we talk about diversity of viewpoint, that's me.
	That's why I'm going there.
	Because no one at this campus thinks the way that I do, except for some of the students, who presumably are told to keep silent.
	And so that was the point, is I'm the diversity.
	But that's not diverse enough to them, and what they mean by that Is that in order for there to be more diversity, I need to be subsumed in this broader conversation by folks on the left brow beating me.
	So, here's the deal.
	Number one, this violates the law.
	Okay?
	It violates the First Amendment.
	It actually violates 18 U.S.C.
	1983.
	It violates civil rights law.
	None of- all of that is secondary to me.
	This is a free speech principle now.
	And now they've made it a fight about free speech.
	Because they scheduled this event.
	They greenlit this event.
	I've been told that the student body, student government, greenlisted this event twice.
	Like said, it was okay not once, but twice, because people were protesting, so they reinforced that this event was okay.
	And now they're saying that we can't do the event in the stated room, at the stated time, and they cancelled the event.
	Say it's a postponement, it's a cancellation, they're postponing it till, you know, February 29th in a non-leap year.
	That's the idea.
	Never going to happen.
	So, I'm going anyway.
	Because screw you, gang.
	I don't care about your feelings.
	If you've never seen one episode of this show, or listened to one episode of this show, if you've never read anything I've ever written, if you've never watched a YouTube video about me, The only thing that you really need to know about my view of the world is in my only pinned tweet.
	I have one pinned tweet, and my pinned tweet says, So, you little precious snowflakes, you.
	I don't care!
	I'm gonna come, and I'm gonna talk, and I'm gonna say things that are factual, and if you wanna come and make a fuss, that's your prerogative.
	Now, if you call the police, you're just proving my point.
	Which is that you care about diversity of skin color, but you are absolute fascists who want to shut down freedom of speech when people disagree with you.
	Which makes you a totalitarian jackass.
	It makes you a bad human being.
	It makes you, makes your president, makes your university a nasty, fascistic, totalitarian authoritarian place.
	So screw you, I'm coming anyway.
	And anyone who wants to come is free to come.
	It's happening at 2pm at CSU LA.
	I think it's called the USU room.
	If the door is locked, we will hold the event right there in the hallway.
	Doesn't matter to me.
	And if they call the cops, then they will just have proved my point.
	They will just have shown the world this is who they are.
	That when somebody comes who disagrees, that they already pre-approved.
	That they already pre-approved twice.
	That they'd already planned to protest.
	That when that happens, you guys call the men with the guns.
	Because this is who you are.
	It ain't us, or the fascists.
	It is you.
	Okay, so we'll bring you the latest on that as it develops.
	By the way, I'm hearing from my reporters over at Daily Wire that they've called up the university for comment about these professors, particularly this one threatening violence against the student, and we were told by a representative of the president of the university that that is a personal matter.
	So just to get this straight, it's a personal matter when a professor paid for by my tax dollars threatens students who don't agree with him, but I have to be banned from campus because they need a more diverse viewpoint.
	Again, that's called viewpoint discrimination under the Constitution.
	It's not a value-neutral thing.
	They've had many leftist speakers speak on campus before, ranging from Cornel West, the radical Black liberationists, essentially, to Angela Davis, the former terrorist and communist.
	And all these people have spoken at their university, and no problem.
	Only I need to be drowned out in diverse voices.
	So, this is all very exciting.
	And we'll keep you apprised.
	There will be cameras.
	I know that there's multiple websites, multiple press outlets that are coming.
	And it should be a hubbub.
	So, stick around and make sure that you watch that.
	We'll obviously post any video that comes in from that.
	I already know what I'm going to say in the speech, and let me tell you folks, it's dynamite.
	It's a really good speech.
	So, I'm very much looking forward to speaking with the students, as well as with the panty-waist fascists who run these universities.
	Okay, on to the presidential race.
	So, another day, another Trump victory.
	This is the way that this is working.
	Nevada, there are no results as of yet from Nevada, but Trump is widely expected to win in Nevada today.
	It would be very surprising if he does not.
	I've talked to people who are on the ground in Nevada today.
	And and what they have what they've said is that Trump is likely to win.
	A high percentage of the vote, like higher than he did in South Carolina.
	He could hit 40% today.
	And then we head into a series of primaries that do not favor Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.
	They favor Cruz more than Rubio, but they don't favor either.
	Trump is now leading in Ohio by five points, according to the latest poll over John Kasich, which means John Kasich has no reason for being in the race.
	He's behind Ted Cruz in Texas by eight points, 37 to 29.
	The problem is Texas is a proportional representation state.
	So what that means is that Trump ends up winning a bunch of delegates, even though he loses.
	In order for Cruz to trigger the winner take all provisions of the Texas primary system, he has to win above 50%.
	That's extraordinarily unlikely to happen.
	So this is a Trump could run the table here.
	It's very possible that Trump runs the table.
	So let's talk about where Trump is on policy.
	It's sort of our daily update.
	What Trump said today.
	So what did Donald Trump say today?
	So we'll talk about You know, all of his various policy flip-flops.
	So on Sunday, here is Donald Trump appearing to endorse Obamacare's individual mandate.
	This is on Sunday, I believe, on Meet the Press.
	So here is, or let's see, Trump on healthcare.
	Okay, yeah, yes, that one.
	Trump on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd, who it did occur to me who he looks like.
	I said yesterday he looks like a comedian.
	He looks like Tom Green.
	So here is Donald Trump talking to Tom Green about healthcare policy.
	Are you, it comes across, are you taking positions that you believe, and are you, or are you sort of, as things get heated, are you switching at the last minute?
	What are we to make of all this this week?
	Well, on the mandate, if you look at the mandate, we had a situation where we were, Anderson Cooper, who's terrific by the way, did a terrific job, but we were talking over each other.
	Uh, I want, uh, we're gonna, we're gonna repeal and, and replace Obamacare.
	Obamacare is a total and complete disaster.
	It's gonna be gone.
	We're gonna come up with a great healthcare plan, whether it's healthcare savings accounts.
	We have a lot of different things.
	We're gonna get rid of the lines between states.
	We're gonna have great competitive bidding.
	But I say all the time, you can call it anything you want.
	People are not gonna die in the middle of the street.
	People are not gonna die on the sidewalk.
	If I'm Let me get something definitive from you on this.
	Chuck, I say that to packed houses with thousands and thousands of people, Republicans mostly, and I get standing ovations.
	I'm not going to let that happen.
	If I'm president, we're not going to have people dying on the streets.
	So you can call it whatever you want.
	I don't call it a mandate.
	I just say it's common sense. - You can cause it there because the rest of it's irrelevant.
	So he doesn't call it a mandate, he calls it common sense.
	In other words, he's pro-mandate.
	So forcing people to buy health insurance is something he's for and he doesn't want people dying on the streets.
	Have you seen a spate of people just plotting right in the middle of the street?
	I've missed it.
	If there are people who are just walking around and then they start coughing and they got the black lung pop and they just keel over and die in the middle of the street, I've been missing it, but he says he's going to stop people from dying in the middle of the street.
	He'll be just like Elijah.
	He'll walk up and he will breathe life back into their lungs personally with his pursed lips.
	So he says that on Sunday.
	Then on Monday, he goes on with Sean Hannity, and he's asked about the health care mandate, and here's what he says.
	This is 24 hours apart.
	Here is him with Sean Hannity on the health care mandate.
	Do you or do you not support mandates?
	In other words, mandating that the American people... No, I don't support them, but I want to take care of people... On healthcare?
	Look, on healthcare.
	People are not going to die.
	I make many speeches to tremendous crowds of people.
	Tonight I'm going to have 12,000 people after this.
	There's not enough room for 12,000 here, but there were about 12,000 outside.
	I talk about healthcare a lot.
	And I know a lot about health care, because I've had tens of thousands of people over the years working for me.
	I know a lot about health care.
	It's a very important thing, and I feel very proud that I've been able to give so much education to people in health care, you know, to people that have worked for me.
	And they don't have to worry about Obamacare, my people.
	I treat them really good with health care.
	It's a very important thing.
	But I'll tell you, when I'm president, I am not going to let people die in the middle of the street because they have no money.
	Can't do it.
	And when I speak...
	So immediately these, you know, conservatives, the one that wrote the 27 people wrote about Donald Trump not being conservative.
	Because honestly, I'm more conservative than most of those people in most ways.
	But I say it, and I say it in front of big crowds of 10, 15,000 people, I get standing ovations.
	Largely Republicans, I guess, but we're gonna have a lot of Democrats and a lot of Independents going over and we have a lot of them in our audiences.
	I say we cannot let people, we can't let people die in the middle of Fifth Avenue, in the middle of different streets all over the country, all over this country.
	They have no money.
	And you know I get standing ovations when I say- Okay, pause it.
	So, has any of this been clarifying?
	So, he can't let people die in the middle of Fifth Avenue unless he shoots them and then tells his supporters and they still support him.
	None of this is clarifying.
	He says he's against mandates, but then he proceeds to say, again, with this nonsense about people dying in the middle of the streets.
	Folks, it is against the law for emergency rooms not to treat people if you walk into an emergency room and you have a medical emergency.
	It is against the law.
	Doctors are bound to provide you care.
	This is nonsense what he's saying, but he says he's for the health care mandate.
	He's against the health care mandate.
	He's not gonna let people die in the streets, but he's more conservative than anybody else who's in the race.
	Okay, so that's one quasi flip-flop from Trump.
	Last week, Donald Trump also said that, we played it last week on MSNBC, he was asked about Israel versus the Palestinians.
	He said, I really don't want to take a side on this.
	This is not something where I feel like neutrality is important.
	I don't want to give away my position.
	So Hannity asks him about that last night and Trump flips 180 degrees.
	Here we go.
	No, I was made over the issue when you said that you would be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you do see that Israel is the victim.
	Yes.
	In this.
	I'm a great friend of Israel.
	I was the Grand Marshal of the Israeli Day Parade.
	I was the Grand Marshal of the Israeli Day Parade.
	I have so many friends.
	In fact, one of them, one of my great friends, where is Jared, my son-in-law?
	Where is he?
	My son-in-law is Jewish.
	And he's fantastic.
	A very successful guy in New York real estate.
	He's expecting a baby any day now.
	Ivanka is going to have a baby over the next week or so.
	Yeah, baby!
	There's nobody closer.
	And Bibi Netanyahu asked me to do a commercial for him for his campaign.
	I did a commercial for him.
	But I think what you want to do is, the ultimate deal would be making a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, if we could do that, if that's possible, okay?
	I have been told by people, very high-level people, it's impossible.
	Because the hatred, especially on the one side, I won't even say one side.
	On the Palestinian side?
	Is so intense, it's so incredible, and from the time they're two years old, they're told to hate, to hate, to hate.
	It's got to be taken away.
	I mean, I've heard stories that are just unbelievable.
	It's got to be taken away.
	But here's the thing.
	I've been told, and I use that as an example.
	When a deal is tough, I say it's nothing compared to this.
	This is the toughest of all deals.
	I'm not saying the best.
	This is the toughest deal to make, okay?
	If they can't make the deal like the Iran deal, that's like a simple deal.
	That should have taken a week or less.
	It took years and years and years.
	This is a deal that's tough.
	I've had people that are very smart and great negotiators involved in negotiations and that deal, they have not been able to do it.
	So again, he's saying he's pro-Israel and then he says it would be a great deal to make but it's a tough deal and I don't know if we can make the deal.
	First of all, it's not a question of a deal.
	I mean, for folks who have been watching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a while, it is a conflict between people who want to live and people who want those people to die.
	I mean, that's what the conflict is.
	There's no deal there.
	And he's sort of saying that, but...
	Who knows?
	I mean, if he got in office, we should have done the Iran deal in a week.
	Well, what is he even talking about?
	What is he even talking about?
	And then, none of this matters.
	None of it matters.
	And the reason it doesn't matter is because of the next clip.
	Because here's Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton.
	Before we get to our next question, we were talking during the break about Hillary Clinton, and if a Republican wins, if you win, you'll have an attorney general.
	The statute of limitations will not have passed.
	Six years, actually.
	Well, look, you have no choice.
	I mean, we have to solve all sorts of problems and fairness is you have to look into that.
	Now, maybe she can prove her innocence, but it just seems to me that I think the public knows everything that they're going to know.
	You know, the emails have come out and it's it's she seems to be guilty.
	But you know what?
	I wouldn't even say that.
	But certainly it has to be looked at.
	If a Republican wins, if I'm winning, certainly you will look at that as As being fair to everyone else.
	So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did.
	So she's being protected.
	But if I win, certainly it's something we want to do.
	So you think she's running for her own survival?
	I think she's running a very important race.
	The most important race of her life before.
	Not just because it's president.
	I mean, she's running a very important race.
	I'll bet you that Barack Obama would pardon her before he leaves.
	Let's get back to our...
	I didn't say I would partner, but, you know, come on.
	I agree with Mr. Trump on this.
	Okay, so, Trump says, I'll prosecute Hillary Clinton if I become President of the United States.
	First of all, why no one else in the Republican race has said this?
	I'll have my Attorney General look into it, and prosecution certainly looks warranted.
	is beyond me, but this is why, because everything else goes by the wayside.
	Trump fights, he fights, and because he fights, he wins.
	And Trump is a total reaction to the blowback from the establishment rights.
	So David Brooks, he's just become a joke.
	I mean, David Brooks is the establishment conservative New York Times writer.
	For folks who can't see me, I put that in air quotes.
	He's not conservative.
	He's a guy who just wrote a column like a week ago saying that he's going to miss Barack Obama as President of the United States.
	David Brooks on Sunday said that Republicans should consider Barack Obama's judicial nominee.
	Trump is a direct reaction to people like David Brooks, and you'll see why.
	There may not have been disagreements that way, but there certainly are disagreements politically, David, over what's going to happen now.
	The president says he's going to nominate someone.
	The Senate Republican leadership is saying, well, we're not going to confirm them.
	We may not even consider.
	Yeah, well, of course they should consider.
	I mean, he is president, and the Constitution says the president nominates, and the Constitution is there to put rules around our struggles for power.
	John Marshall was nominated by John Adams, like, after the election had already happened.
	And so I think it's totally fair, and the Republicans are going to probably get away with not doing anything.
	And to me, what it will do, and I don't know the effect of this, it'll polarize the bases.
	It'll create more conflict, it'll elevate the social issues on the Republican side, it'll elevate campaign finance on the Democratic side, and so probably have a polarizing effect on the election.
	If the candidacies are strong, it would probably help a Cruz and a Sanders, because the issues that would get elevated.
	So the Republicans, to avoid all of this, they should just go along and get along?
	And so people say, screw this guy, I'll go with the guy who's the most brash, and that's Donald Trump.
	The other problem for some of the other candidates in the race is because Trump is so brash, he actually has a strategy to what he's doing.
	And we can kind of gaze into how this strategy works.
	Clip 10 is the one that I'm looking for here.
	This is Ted Cruz talking about what he wants to do with illegal immigrants.
	And the reason that this is important, I'll explain in just a minute.
	Here's Ted Cruz last night with Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor.
	Here's a policy question I need you to define for me tonight.
	12 million illegal aliens here in America.
	Mr. Trump says he would deport them forcibly.
	The federal authorities would round them up and send them back home.
	It costs a lot of money, but he says it's worth it because we just can't allow the law to be broken this way.
	Would you round up 12 million illegal aliens here, and if so, how?
	Listen, we should enforce the law.
	How do we enforce the law?
	Yes, we build a wall, we should triple the border patrol, and federal law requires that anyone here illegally that's apprehended should be deported.
	You know the biggest difference, Bill?
	Would you go look for them, though, as Mr. Trump would look for them to get them out?
	Would you do that if you were president?
	Bill, of course you would.
	That's what ICE exists for.
	We have law enforcement that looks for people who are violating the laws, that apprehends them, and deports them.
	But Bill... Wait, wait, wait.
	Just let me get this straight, because this is important, very important.
	So, and I use the same example.
	So Tommy O'Malley from County Cork in Ireland is over here, and he overstays his visa, and he's got a couple of kids, and he's settled into Long Island, and you, President Cruz, are going to send the feds to his house, take them out, and put them on a plane back to Ireland?
	You better believe it.
	Now, right now, we actually can't do that because we don't have a biometric exit-entry system, so we don't know when, in your example, Tommy goes home.
	Federal law requires... But then the court would probably, as I told Trump, the court would probably block you.
	Look, I'm sorry to cut you off, but I want to get to the meat of this.
	The federal courts would probably block you from doing that, taking Mr. O'Malley and putting him on the plane.
	Why would they do that?
	Because due process.
	Why would they do that?
	Due process.
	Even if you're here illegally.
	Listen, I've spent my entire life as a constitutional lawyer.
	No, that is not.
	So federal law right now requires a biometric exit entry system on visas.
	The Obama administration refuses to enforce federal law as president.
	I will put that in place so we will know the day someone overstays their visa and be able to send law enforcement to apprehend them and send them home.
	And the biggest difference, Bill, between Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and myself Is that both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio would allow those 12 million people to become U.S.
	citizens.
	Donald said once he deports them he'd let them back in as citizens.
	I will not.
	And for anyone who's concerned about jobs doesn't want to see wages driven down.
	They are going to be under existing law.
	They're not eligible to come back in legally if they have been deported for breaking the law.
	And I think Donald Trump and Marco Rubio are wrong.
	So we can stop this here.
	So here's Ted Cruz taking a very, very hardline position.
	Now, just about a month ago, Jake Tapper from CNN asked Cruz the same question.
	He asked him, would you send people to go out and apprehend all the illegal immigrants?
	And here's what Cruz said then.
	He said, No, I don't intend to send jackboots to knock on your door and every door in America.
	That's not how we enforce the law for any crime.
	We don't have any system that knocks on the doors of every person in America.
	We also don't have people going door to door looking for murderers.
	We don't live in a police state.
	We do have law enforcement.
	So it's not a complete contradiction because here you have Cruz Saying that once you have biometric scanning systems, you'll know where people are so you won't have to go door-to-door or anything, but there's no question he took a much harsher tone now than he's taken five weeks ago.
	Cruz seems to think he can outflank Trump on immigration.
	He can't.
	The reason he can't is because Trump plays this game on his positions and makes it very, very difficult to actually pin him down.
	Here's what he does.
	Because Trump is a simplistic thinker on politics.
	He hasn't spent any time with the political issues.
	It's all gut for him.
	If he's asked a question, he immediately takes the most extreme possible view.
	So people ask him about illegal immigration.
	We're gonna build a wall, make Mexico pay for it, and deport everybody.
	That's what he says.
	Then we get to ISIS and he says we're just gonna either let Putin take care of them completely or we'll bomb them into submission completely.
	And then when it comes to immigration, he says, no Muslim immigrants of any sort, even if they're people who have been allies of the United States in Afghanistan, working with American soldiers, no way, no Muslims, no how, right?
	And then that's only the first step.
	The next step is, he looks at the polls.
	And if the polls like what he's saying, he doubles down on it.
	And he says, I'm, not only do I not want people coming in illegally, I'm deporting everybody, and I'm the strongest on this issue, and I've always been the strongest on this issue, doesn't matter, I switched my position from three years ago, I'm now the strongest person on this issue.
	If the polls, by the way, say that they don't like what he says, he pretends he never said it.
	I never said that.
	I never said I liked the individual mandate.
	I've always been against the individual mandate.
	Now, we need something that doesn't let people die on the streets, you know, like kind of an individual mandate, you might say, but you need something, right?
	So, he takes the poll, and then he adjusts.
	And then, if somebody tries to outflank him, he attacks.
	So, you have Cruz here trying to outflank him on immigration.
	He says, no, no, no.
	I was always here.
	I was always the harshest guy in the race.
	It's Ted Cruz, who's now trying to steal my thunder because he's copying me.
	So it's impossible to outflank him, except in an unpopular position, right?
	Because he's already looked at the polls.
	So what he does, he takes this position here, all the way out on the right, and then if the poll says, go to the center, he moves to the center, and if someone tries to outflank him, he knows he wins already because he's already moved to the popular position.
	And if the popular position is the hard right position, which he didn't come to ideologically, he just kind of spat it out, then he stays there and then no one can outflank him.
	So that's the way that Trump plays this political game.
	And he gets away with it because people like him, they sort of like his persona, they trust that he's being honest even when he's being wildly dishonest.
	And that's why Cruz is going to have trouble making this particular attack.
	Marco Rubio's tried a different tactic.
	Marco Rubio's tactic, senator from Florida, his tactic has been, I'm going to attack Trump for being unelectable.
	People don't like him.
	People think he's a jerk.
	He's unelectable.
	Here's Marco Rubio making that case on, making that case in his clip six.
	We can't win if we nominate someone.
	If we nominate someone that half of the Republican Party hates, we're going to be fighting against each other all the way to November.
	I don't care how much you may think they're funny, or how interesting they may sound, if we nominate someone that 40-50% of our party can't stand, we are going to lose.
	We are going to lose if we nominate somebody that the Republican Party can't stand, right?
	And there's only one problem, Marco, which is that half the party hates everybody.
	I mean, the Trump people, if you're the nominee, they're not gonna show up.
	The Trump people can't stand you, so this is a poor argument, too.
	Trump has a better electability argument than Rubio does, actually, because Trump at least says, here are the people I'm gonna bring in who you're not, right?
	Who are the people?
	I had this argument with a friend yesterday.
	Which are the states that Marco Rubio is going to win that Mitt Romney did not?
	He might win Florida, it's his home state.
	Is he going to win Virginia when Romney didn't?
	I don't know that he will.
	Is he going to win Ohio?
	Why would he?
	Maybe he wins Colorado because there are more Hispanics there, but does he win Iowa or Wisconsin?
	Does he win Indiana?
	Which are the states that propel Rubio to victory?
	If you say Trump, I don't know.
	Trump could lose 50 states.
	He could win 50 states.
	I mean, there's a plausible world in which Donald Trump wins New York, for example.
	That's not completely implausible.
	It's a lot more plausible than Rubio winning New York.
	So the electability argument isn't going to cut it either.
	And Donald Trump is kind of brushing at Rubio.
	He's brushing him off.
	He's not really even taking Rubio seriously.
	He's expending most of his effort right now on Cruz because the next set of primaries are in the South and tend to benefit Cruz more than Rubio.
	So here's Donald Trump playing the eligibility card.
	He's going to declare everybody in America ineligible except for Donald Trump.
	It's really quite astonishing.
	You actually sent out a retweet yesterday suggesting that Marco Rubio might be ineligible to be president.
	A tweet that said both Cruz and Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS.
	Do you really believe that?
	I think the lawyers have to determine it.
	It was a retweet.
	Not so much with Marco.
	I'm not really that familiar with Marco's circumstance.
	But then why retweet it?
	Uh, because I'm not sure.
	I mean, let people make their own determination.
	I know Ted is being now, I think he's being sued by somebody, having nothing to do with me, by the way, is being sued by somebody, uh, maybe it's in New York, having to do with eligibility.
	You're really not sure that Marco Rubio is eligible to run for president?
	You're really not sure?
	I don't know.
	I've never looked at it, George.
	Honestly, I've never looked at it.
	Somebody said he's not and I retweeted it.
	I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and I retweet things and we start dialogue and it's very interesting and maybe that's why I have 14 million people and others have 200 million.
	So he says what he feels like saying, and he starts dialogue.
	I'm sure he retweeted some white supremacist somewhere, but started a dialogue, didn't it?
	I mean, come on.
	That's all that really matters.
	He's sort of brushing away Rubio.
	And the reason he's brushing away Rubio is because Rubio is actually a very poor strategist.
	So Rubio is great on the stump, but what people are neglecting to point out about Rubio is that he is not good at the strategy game.
	So Cruz has his flaws as a strategist.
	He thinks that the only way to defeat Trump is to not out-masculine Trump, but to out-conservative Donald Trump.
	That's not working because of the strategy I pointed out earlier.
	Rubio thinks that the way he's going to defeat Trump is becoming more establishment than Trump, which is just a mistake.
	So he trotted out Bob Dole yesterday, age 197.
	Bob Dole, after having granted his patina of approval to Jeb Bush, took his leprous touch to Marco Rubio.
	Here we go.
	My good friend Jeb Bush is no longer running.
	I'm supporting Rubio.
	Wait, did we just make some news here?
	So you're endorsing Marco Rubio?
	Right.
	He worked for me in my 96 campaign in Dade County, Florida.
	And so I've had an acquaintance with him way back to 96.
	And he was a hard worker.
	And as much as I love John Casey, you know, Rubio I think is probably a better candidate.
	And he's young.
	He's 44.
	He's two years older than Kennedy was when he was elected.
	Three years younger than Obama when Obama was elected.
	But I think you would bring- We need to stop this before I go comatose.
	I'm sorry.
	There's only so much Bob Dole that you can take in a setting.
	Bob Dole.
	You like it.
	I like it.
	The American people know it.
	So Bob Dole endorsing Marco Rubio in what has to be one of the most inspirational endorsement messages ever recorded for a presidential candidate.
	And then Rubio doubles down on his moderate credentials.
	He says that illegal immigration, yeah, I'm not going to try to out-tough Donald on illegal immigration.
	If we just clear up this whole, like, border mess, I think everybody will be okay with the illegal immigrants who are already here.
	Here's Marco Rub- Remember, this is the guy who says that he's not for amnesty anymore.
	Here's Marco Rubio.
	Your vision.
	Not the American people's vision.
	Your vision.
	You got 12 million people living here.
	Trump says he's gonna round them up, use federal authorities and federal power to force them to go back home.
	Some people say that's not realistic.
	Some people say that won't happen because courts would block it.
	But your vision is to deal with illegal aliens here who have broken our laws.
	How?
	What will you try to sell the voters?
	Yeah, and first just to set the record straight, my parents came in 1956 before Castro.
	They came through the regular green card process.
	They applied and they entered the country the normal immigration way.
	They didn't have any sort of special status.
	And then as far as the 12 million that are here, look, I don't believe the American people support some sort of militaristic roundup of individuals and I don't think you could carry it out.
	The sort of tactics that would require would offend the American people.
	And the good news is we don't have to do it that way.
	If you secure our border, If you secure our border, if you put in place mandatory e-verify, if you put in place a mandatory entry-exit tracking system, if we prove to the American people that illegal immigration is finally under control, I think the American people will respond in a very rational, reasonable, but responsible way.
	But what do you do with someone that fits certain criteria?
	Okay, so that's the end of it.
	What he's saying right now is, yes, amnesty, as soon as we've cleared up the border issue.
	Which, again, that does not make anybody feel real sanguine about Marco Rubio as president.
	Trump continues to dominate because he's the toughest guy because of his strategy because of all of this and he's been spending a lot of time Knocking out the only other contender who's Cruz.
	And so as I said, Cruz is trying to outright wing Trump instead of out masculine him, and it's failing dramatically.
	So yesterday, there was this video that was going around of Marco Rubio, and it's a video that was distributed by the Cruz campaign, by Rick Tyler, who was the Cruz communications director.
	Here's what that video looked like, and then we'll tell you the rest of the story.
	Meanwhile, we've actually got a little bit of video from the campaign trail.
	I know, Brett, you're familiar with it.
	Over the weekend, Saturday morning, at a Hampton Inn, Marco Rubio was going down to breakfast.
	He spotted Ted Cruz's father, Rafael, at breakfast, on the table next to him, a Bible.
	Also, a Cruz staffer right next to him.
	What happened then was somebody incorrectly subtitled what had happened, put it on YouTube, and then the Cruz campaign retweeted it and whatever, put it out there.
	But anyway, what was said was, Rubio said, got a good book there, all the answers are in there, especially in that one.
	But the way it was incorrectly subtitled, not many answers in that book, and now the Cruz campaign has had to apologize.
	Okay, so that's a good explanation of what happens in the video.
	It doesn't even make sense that somebody would think that's what Rubio said.
	Like, why would Rubio walk by and say, that's a great book, it's crap, right?
	Like, it doesn't make any sense.
	So clearly that's not what Rubio was saying.
	Rick Tyler, who's the communications director, he tweeted it, and then he proceeded to apologize for having tweeted it out.
	He put up a message on his Facebook.
	He said, I want to apologize to Senator Marco Rubio for posting an inaccurate story about him here earlier today.
	The story showed a video of the senator walking past a Ted Cruz staffer seated in the lobby of a hotel reading his Bible.
	The story misquoted a remark the senator made to the staffer.
	I assumed wrongly that the story was correct.
	According to the Cruz staffer, the senator made a friendly and appropriate remark.
	Since the audio was unclear, I should not have assumed the story was correct.
	I've deleted the post because I would not knowingly post a false story.
	The fact remains I did post it when I should have checked its accuracy first.
	I regret the mistake.
	And so that's what his communications director does.
	Rubio says that's not enough.
	Somebody's head has to roll over this.
	And so Cruz obliges.
	Cruz fires him.
	So here's Ted Cruz firing the communications director yesterday.
	Deleted the tweet.
	Apologized.
	And pulled it down.
	Although I've spent this morning investigating what happened.
	And this morning, I asked for Rick Tyler's resignation.
	I have made clear in this campaign that we will conduct this campaign with the very highest standards of integrity.
	That has been how we've conducted it from day one.
	It is why, when other campaigns attack us personally, Impugn my integrity or my character, I don't respond in kind.
	None of you have heard me throw the kind of insults at Marco Rubio that he throws at me every single day.
	If other candidates choose to go into the gutter, we will not do the same.
	Rick Tyler's a good man.
	This was a grave error of judgment.
	It turned out the news story he sent around was false, but I'll tell you, even if it was true, We are not a campaign that is going to question the faith of another candidate.
	Even if it was true, our campaign should not have sent it.
	That's why I've asked for Rick Tyler's resignation.
	Because the standards of conduct in this campaign have been made absolutely clear for every member of the campaign.
	So, okay, that's enough.
	So he's firing him because he doesn't meet the standards of the campaign.
	So did that help Cruz or did that hurt Cruz?
	Well, here's how the Rubio campaign responded.
	Ted Cruz, well here it is, Rick is really a good spokesman, who had the unenviable task of working for a candidate willing to do or say anything to get elected.
	There is a culture in the Cruz campaign, from top to bottom, that no lie is too big and no trick too dirty.
	Rick did the right thing by apologizing to Marco.
	It's high time for Ted Cruz to do the right thing and stop the lies.
	So in other words, Cruz does what Rubio wants, and Rubio proceeds to stab him right in the face with a piece of glass.
	What did Donald Trump do?
	He tweeted, quote, Ted Cruz has now apologized to Marco Rubio and Ben Carson for fraud and dirty tricks.
	No wonder he has lost evangelical support.
	And then Donald Trump went on TV and called Ted Cruz a liar.
	Here's Donald Trump calling Ted Cruz a liar after having fired a guy for tweeting bad information.
	Here it is.
	I have one going on now, Cruz.
	He's got an ad, something to do with, I want to take away your land and I want to keep it in the federal government.
	I don't even know what the hell they're talking about.
	It's an ad.
	It's a cruise ad.
	It's a cruise scam.
	I'll tell you, so the evangelicals didn't vote for him.
	You know why?
	Because they don't like liars.
	They're really smart people.
	They don't want to vote for a liar.
	Okay, that's enough.
	So we don't want to vote for a liar.
	By the way, Donald Trump, same day, same day, here's Donald Trump saying he never questioned Cruz's Christianity.
	Last week when the Pope made his remarks questioning your Christianity, you said, quote, no leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith.
	But just last week, you questioned Ted Cruz's Christianity several times in the course of the campaign.
	It might have even helped you win South Carolina.
	So why is it okay for you and not okay for the Pope?
	No, I never questioned Ted's anything having to do with his religion.
	I just said, you can't lie and hold up a Bible, and you can't do that.
	You just can't do that.
	It's not appropriate.
	Oh.
	And I was tough on him on that, because things were said about me that were not true.
	And Marco Rubio actually said that he lied.
	And I've never seen a politician say to another politician that he lied.
	I guess it happens.
	But what Marco actually gave me cover, because he actually said the same thing.
	And he said it during the debate.
	Okay, so that's enough.
	I mean, this is such nonsense, but this is what Trump does.
	So Trump is taking out Cruz on the base.
	So Cruz apologized.
	This is the no apologies campaign, folks.
	This is how this works.
	He who apologizes first loses.
	That's how this works in these primaries.
	You apologize, people are going to step On your throat and they are not going to step off your throat until you are done breathing.
	The biggest mistake that Ted Cruz made in this campaign, the biggest one, was not standing by as Trump rose and then riding his coattails a little bit and then turning on him.
	None of that was a huge mistake.
	That all made sense.
	The part that was a mistake was apologizing to Ben Carson after Iowa.
	Because all that did is it said to all of the Trumps and the Rubios of the world, now we've got him.
	We can claim that he's an untrustworthy character, and because Cruz is, as we've said on the program, facially challenged, because he has bad physiognomy, because just the way his facial bones are constructed, he doesn't look trustworthy, so they just hammer that home over and over and over.
	So, for all the talk about Cruz gonna surge and overtake Trump, I don't see it.
	For all the talk about Rubio's gonna surge and overtake Trump, I don't see that one either.
	I think Trump is the nominee.
	And that makes me sad, because I think that If Cruz had not spent so much time nailing Rubio as a wishy-washy guy, then maybe Rubio would have a better shot.
	I think if Rubio hadn't spent so much time giving Trump cover by hitting Cruz as dishonest, that wouldn't give Trump cover either.
	But now, I think that both candidates may be too severely damaged to really stop Trump in any real way.
	Okay, moving on to the Democratic side of the aisle.
	President Obama is... Understand, no matter how dishonest the people on the Republican side of the aisle are, and there's a lot of dishonesty, the Democrats take the cake.
	President Obama, over the weekend, was joking about naming a replacement for President Scalia.
	This is the National Governors Association dinner.
	President Obama looking thrilled in his tuxedo as the country goes down the tubes.
	And here he is, making fun of Justice Scalia's death, essentially.
	I am going to be brief.
	There comes a time in the second term when the President should make his toasts short.
	And this is one of those moments.
	Tonight, I plan to fulfill my duty and give you an indisputably qualified set of remarks.
	I trust that you'll give them a fair hearing.
	I mean, he is so galling.
	So there he is saying that they have to give his nominee a fair hearing.
	His Vice President Joe Biden in 1992.
	Just to show you how dishonest these folks are.
	This is Joe Biden back when he had real hair.
	And he'd just come off of a plagiarism scandal that finished his presidential campaign in 88.
	Here he is in 92 saying that they shouldn't give a fair hearing to George H.W.
	Bush's nominee.
	Here it goes.
	Mr. President, Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
	As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
	Okay, so we can shut this idiot up.
	But that's what's amazing.
	So on the Democratic side of the aisle, they're so dishonest.
	Chuck Schumer has said that they shouldn't approve late-term Bush nominees.
	You got Joe Biden saying they shouldn't approve late-term Bush nominees, but everybody should approve late-term Obama nominees.
	Dishonest people altogether.
	Okay, time for a couple of- one quick thing I like, and then one quick thing that I hate.
	So, thing I like, I've been doing a little bit of music this week.
	So yesterday, we did Carole King.
	Today, I'm sort of dating myself here, but these are all people before my time.
	So I grew up on this music because my parents were into this music.
	The Doobie Brothers.
	So I'm a big Doobie Brothers fan, and particularly the song China Grove, which has one of the great openers of all time.
	So here's the beginning of China Grove from the Doobie Brothers.
	We'll be right back.
	Okay, so that's good stuff.
	And just notice something.
	The Doobie Brothers, there's like the Good Doobie Brothers, and then there's the not-as-good Doobie Brothers.
	So Tom Johnston, as the lead singer, Good Doobie Brothers.
	Michael McDonald?
	Years?
	No.
	No, no.
	If you're ever into Doobie Brothers stuff and want to check it out, make sure that you have the early Doobie Brothers, not the late Doobie Brothers.
	For whatever reason, Michael McDonald sounds like he's singing through a dishrag.
	I don't know why that is.
	The only thing that he has in common with Tom Johnson is that they don't speak English.
	None of what they're saying is ever... I have no idea what the lyrics to this song are, but it's a good song.
	Okay, a quick thing that I hate, Louis Farrakhan is making headlines again, this anti-Semitic piece of human debris, head of the Nation of Islam.
	So he has said, and we'll save more discussion of this for tomorrow, but Beyonce, after her terrible Super Bowl performance, her racist Super Bowl performance, which we talked about at length, a lot of police departments around the country have said, we're not gonna provide free security for her concerts.
	If she wants to hire people, she can do it.
	We're not doing it.
	And Louis Farrakhan came out yesterday and he said, don't worry, Nation of Islam will provide security for Beyonce concerts, which I'm sure all the white people who are going to Beyonce concerts, nothing will make them feel more secure than Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam showing up.
	That wasn't the only stupid thing he said yesterday.
	He also said that the NBA is like slavery.
	So here is Louis Farrakhan, just terrible person talking about racism and slavery in the modern United States.
	Please don't put up another basketball court thinking that you're giving back to the black community.
	Basketball courts are training ground for a basketball plantation. - Thank you.
	What?
	Do they grow basketballs?
	Do you understand what I'm saying?
	No.
	No, actually.
	You know when we were slaves?
	When?
	When we were in a different kind of slave situation?
	Oh.
	White folk would put us on the auction block.
	Come by and squeeze your buttocks.
	Look at you and say, this is a strong specimen.
	How much for this one?
	I'll buy it.
	And we got bought and sold just like that.
	Well, that's what you do in sports.
	You run up and down the field.
	You show them how swift you are.
	How clever you are.
	And they're sitting there, watching you, timing you.
	That's a good one.
	Okay, so we can pause it here.
	Okay, so Louis Farrakhan, by the way, good friends with Jeremiah Wright.
	I think that he and Barack Obama were on like back-to-back issues of Trumpet magazine, which was Jeremiah Wright's church magazine.
	This is so intensely stupid.
	I mean, so intensely stupid.
	First of all, there's no such thing as a basketball plantation because basketballs are not made on a plantation, folks.
	They're actually made in manufacturing plants where they make basketballs.
	There's no place that they grow basketballs.
	It just doesn't work that way.
	Also, what's he talking about?
	Like, yes, slavery was evil and horrible.
	But the slaves were not getting paid $15 million a year.
	Like, when they were squeezing the buttocks of the slaves to check whether they were healthy or not way back when, that's because they were going to pay the slaveholder to sell this human being, which is an act of evil.
	In the NBA, you have people who are volunteering to run up and down a field and get paid vast quantities of money themselves.
	Like, nobody else is getting paid for that.
	But it all goes by the wayside because the vast American racist conspiracy has to continue according to Louis Farrakhan.
	And there are people who listen to this guy.
	There are people who listen to this nonsense.
	There are people who think that even aspects of American life where blacks are Inarguably, wildly successful, like the NBA, which is at least 75% black.
	This is some sort of discrimination against black people.
	It's madness.
	And this is where you really create generations of black people who feel like they're being victimized.
	Because if you're even being victimized when you're winning, then how does it feel when you're losing?
	If Charles Barkley, you know you remember he posed for Sports Illustrated wearing like a neck chain at one point like he was a slave, it was very controversial.
	If even when you're making millions and millions of dollars a year you're still a slave, how's the guy in the inner city supposed to feel who's making ten bucks an hour working at McDonald's trying to struggle to get by?
	Mentality matters.
	What you teach people matters.
	And this kind of stuff isn't just counterproductive, it's actually evil because it's a lie.
	Well, when we come back tomorrow, well one day until the blow up at CSULA, we'll give you the updates because I'm sure there will be some.
	Plus we'll tell you how the Nevada caucuses went.
	Cross your fingers that a miracle occurred and Donald Trump didn't win in Nevada.
	But if he did, that'll just fulfill my predictions and I get sick of being right sometimes.
	We'll be back tomorrow and you can hear me be right again.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲