Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 21, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:35

Ep. 92 - Hillary Is Anti-Israel, Obama Is Pro-Cuba, Is Anybody Pro-America?

Hillary goes to AIPAC to tell some lies, Obama heads to Cuba to cover for a communist dictatorship, and Trump faces down the media. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So Hillary Clinton, our good friend, spoke at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee today.
	That's AIPAC.
	She said all the usual nice things about Israel.
	They're our ally, and we stand with them, and we'll stand with them against anti-Semitism.
	She says this stuff all the time.
	And there were a lot of pro-Israel people tweeting up a storm, really a storm, about her wondrous words.
	These are the same people, likely, who tweeted up a storm about President Obama's wondrous words at AIPAC in 2008.
	That was shortly before he launched the most anti-Israel administration in the history of the United States.
	So, here's just a little reminder to pro-Israel people just what Hillary Clinton stands for.
	Hillary Clinton is the woman who corresponded regularly, while Secretary of State, with the vicious anti-Israel viper, Sidney Blumenthal.
	That's a guy who lectured her consistently on the dangers of the, quote, Israeli leadership and the U.S.
	Jewish community, and sent her the work of his son, outright anti-Semitic terror lackey, Max Blumenthal, who actually went and protested at AIPAC while Hillary was speaking.
	Hillary is the woman who helped initiate the Iran deal, which is the worst international agreement in the history of the Middle East, if not the United States.
	She's the woman whose State Department condemned Israel for defending itself during the Gaza War and labeled Jerusalem not a part of Israel.
	Seriously, if you're born in Jerusalem, it now says on your passport, it doesn't say Israel, It just says Jerusalem.
	She's the anti-Israel extremist who personally called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2010 to yell at him about Jews building bathrooms in Jerusalem, who slammed Israel in December 2011 as moving in the quote opposite direction of democracy and categorized voluntary
	Same sex segregated buses as quote more suited to Iran than to Israel and said in December 2012 that Israelis had a quote lack of empathy for Palestinians and needed to quote demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their mind.
	That's Hillary Clinton, the people there.
	She's they're calling her pro-Israel now.
	And she's a disaster for Israel.
	Now, there's talk about Jews walking out of Donald Trump's speech at AIPAC tonight.
	Trump has said some pretty bad things about the Israelis and the Palestinians.
	He said that he wants to remain neutral.
	But Hillary's record, not her words, her record is anti-Israel.
	Anybody who walks out on Trump but cheered Hillary isn't just a hypocrite.
	You're an idiot.
	I'm Ben Shapiro and this is The Ben Shapiro Show. - The other side of the article is got-- - Tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
	- Okay, so we're back.
	It is indeed a Monday, and the world survived, albeit barely.
	But we have to start today with a quick question for you.
	So you've been watching as President Obama tries to ram through his new Supreme Court nominee, a guy named Merrick Garland, which sounds like it's a dude who's opening for the Blues Brothers in a chicken wire bar somewhere.
	But in any case, President Obama keeps saying the Constitution mandates that the Senate must, must, must give him his nominee, must give him an up or down vote.
	If you don't know whether that's true or not, if you're somebody who has read the Constitution but you haven't studied it very closely, if you're somebody who watches Donald Trump talk and you're wondering if what he's saying is in comportment with the Constitution, if you're somebody who watches American politics and you know the Constitution, you know what it's supposed to say, you know the we the people bit, but The rest is a little bit vague.
	You need to go over to my friends at hillsdale.edu.
	So Hillsdale College is a wonderful institution.
	I know many grads there.
	I know current students there.
	I speak there regularly.
	Hillsdale College is a wonderful institution, but it's not just great for current and future students.
	It's great for people like you, because if you want to know more about the Constitution, if you want to know more, About how the Constitution actually works.
	Not just kind of the famous parts, the free speech and the free press, but actually how it works.
	They have a free course called Constitution 101 at Hillsdale College.
	It's hillsdale.edu slash ben.
	Hillsdale.edu slash ben.
	You can sign up for their Constitution 101 course for free.
	It's an online course that teaches you everything you need to know about the Constitution.
	You'll know not just more than President Obama, Which would be anything, but you'll know more than a lot of the Republican legislators, which would be something.
	So, Hillsdale.edu slash Ben.
	Know your rights.
	Know how the Constitution works.
	That's Constitution 101 at Hillsdale.edu slash Ben.
	Okay, so as I say, it was a busy weekend and it's a busy beginning of the week already.
	Let's start with Hillary Clinton at AIPAC.
	So, As I mentioned, Hillary Clinton speaks at AIPAC and she's getting all sorts of plaudits.
	People are super duper happy with Hillary Clinton.
	And I want to talk about AIPAC in a moment.
	What exactly AIPAC is.
	Because it's usually derided as the Jewish lobby, the Israel lobby in the United States.
	Let's start with Hillary though.
	So let's flash back to 2005.
	Here's Hillary speaking at AIPAC.
	I believe this was for the first time speaking at AIPAC in 2005.
	And here's what she had to say.
	And a strong, lasting relationship between the United States and Israel is essential to our efforts to build that world of peace and security. lasting relationship between the United States and Israel is essential As all of us know, our future here in this country is intertwined with the future of
	Okay, so we can stop it there.
	Hillary Clinton then proceeded to join the Obama administration where she participated in the creation of the Iran deal, which is the worst deal in the history of the Middle East, as I mentioned.
	It's a deal that basically gives the Iranians a nuclear weapon within 10 years without any ramifications.
	Excuse me, whatsoever.
	And it's giving them $100 billion a year in economic growth.
	Hillary Clinton participated in that.
	She consistently and repeatedly took an anti-Israel position.
	Her chief advisor, Sidney Blumenthal, he was wildly anti-Israel.
	She was wildly anti-Israel.
	Well, now she comes back to AIPAC.
	And she's speaking in 2016, now running for president again.
	And she says this about Israel.
	Here's what she had to say.
	At our best, both Israel and America are seen as a light unto the nations because of those values.
	This is the real foundation of our alliance, and I think it's why so many Americans feel such a deep emotional connection with Israel.
	I know that I do.
	And it's why we cannot be neutral about Israel and Israel's future.
	Because in Israel's story, we see our own.
	And the story of all people who struggle for freedom and self-determination.
	Okay, so she's in all this romantic language about Israel, how much she feels in common with Israel.
	She's been saying the same stuff for 10 years, and then she's been doing all the same stuff for the last 10 years, too.
	Anti-Israel stuff.
	So she went there, she ripped Donald Trump, she said that Trump's language with regard to Israel is really bad.
	I agree.
	Trump's language with regard to Israel.
	Now people are saying, well, he never said he's anti-Israel, he said he's neutral.
	If I were to tell you that someone said during World War II that they were neutral between the British and the Nazis, you might be right to suggest that they were anti-British.
	You're anti-Israel if you suggest that there's a neutrality between a moral democratic state like Israel and a fascistic terrorist state like the Palestinian Authority.
	But for all these people who are going to walk out on Trump tonight, and supposedly there are a lot, Hillary Clinton's actual record is anti-Israel.
	Her actual record.
	And AIPAC is a real disappointment to me.
	I have a lot of friends and And people I know who are going to AIPAC.
	This has become a big thing all across the United States.
	Literally tens of thousands of people go to AIPAC every year for their big convention.
	There are big communities, entire communities of people who go this year, big supporters of AIPAC.
	That's fine, as long as you know why you're supporting AIPAC.
	This is for all my pro-Israel friends, fellow Jews who are pro-Israel, Christians who are pro-Israel.
	You have to know what AIPAC is and what it isn't.
	So AIPAC says that their job is to essentially teach people in Congress about Israel.
	That's fine.
	They do a good job of that.
	They send them good information.
	They take them on trips to Israel.
	They give them the tour.
	All that's fine.
	They also say that they're supposed to be the lead advocate for the pro-Israel sentiment in the United States.
	And this they do not do.
	This they do not do.
	Now, they're talking about organizing resistance against Trump.
	In 2012, they refused to invite Ron Paul because Ron Paul is anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.
	That's fine.
	That's fine.
	But be consistent about it.
	AIPAC isn't.
	AIPAC in 2014 had the opportunity to push Democratic legislators into voting against President Obama's Iran deal.
	They had the ability to push the Senate into at least having a vote over whether the deal was a treaty, which would have required a two-thirds approval in the Senate.
	And AIPAC didn't do it.
	And the reason AIPAC didn't do it is because they don't stand up for Israel so much as they stand up for Democrats.
	The head of the organization is a guy named Bob Cohen, major Democratic fundraiser, has given tons of money to the Democrats.
	See, I'm honest about this.
	Ron Paul's a Republican.
	He's also anti-Israel.
	Donald Trump is a Republican, sort of.
	Donald Trump is somebody who is not pro-Israel enough for me.
	I'm very ideologically consistent on this.
	I don't care which party you belong to, I care what you think.
	But unfortunately, the people at AIPAC, in an attempt to be bipartisan, they've lent credence to people like Hillary Clinton, who is, in fact, wildly anti-Israel.
	The same thing is true of Joe Biden, who's wildly anti-Israel.
	And unfortunately, it's true for a lot of Democrats, and they keep covering for these people because AIPAC is not pro-Israel, so much as it is pro-Democrat.
	When the two aren't in conflict, they're fine.
	But if they are in conflict, they will side with the Democrats over Israel, and that truly is awful.
	Okay, so that's one thing that's happening today on the foreign policy front.
	On the other foreign policy fronts, the President Obama has now traveled to Cuba.
	He's headed over to Cuba, and he landed, touched down there this morning.
	He was not met by Raoul Castro on the tarmac.
	He was met by the foreign minister, I guess.
	Raoul Castro reserves his meetings on the tarmac for people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former leader, president of Iran.
	He met him on the tarmac, but not President Obama.
	The whole thing is just a humiliation tour for the United States.
	So, for example, Here is President Obama's, clip 23, here's President Obama, and you can see him standing alongside the Cuban dignitaries.
	If you can't see this, folks, there's a picture that's going around and is ticking off a lot of people, as well it should.
	And the picture is President Obama standing there with all the dignitaries, and behind him is a building, and on that building is a giant mural of Che Guevara.
	Che Guevara for all the people who don't know who he is, including you moron Bernie Sanders college student supporters who wear Che Guevara t-shirts.
	Che Guevara was a mass murderer.
	Che Guevara was a racist.
	Che Guevara wanted to actually commit essentially a nuclear attack.
	In the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he wanted a terrorist attack on Thanksgiving in the United States.
	Che Guevara was a hardcore evil communist terrorist piece of garbage.
	And there's the President of the United States posing lovingly in front of a building with Che Guevara's image on it.
	And it tells you everything you need to know, by the way, that building, about Cuba.
	Right?
	The building's just an absolute crap hole.
	I mean, the building looks like garbage, and there on the side of it is Che Guevara.
	There are five reasons why this trip to Cuba is such a bad idea and is such a problem.
	And it really is.
	It exposes the left for what it is.
	You know, there's a lot of problems with Donald Trump.
	There really are.
	I mean, I've been talking about them for literally weeks, and we'll get back to them probably a little bit later on the program.
	But the left is so horrible in every aspect.
	Now Trump's a nationalist populist.
	That's dangerous stuff and something I won't endorse.
	The left deep down is communist and they're fine with the invasion and destruction of human freedom so long as it pushes their particular view of the universe.
	So here are five reasons why this is such a disaster for the United States this trip.
	So the first thing is, before Obama gets there, there's a massive crackdown on dissidents.
	The regime takes everybody who could possibly disagree with the regime, and they throw them in prison.
	This is according to the New York Times, which of course loves President Obama and loves Cuba.
	Here's the report today.
	President Obama touched down in Cuba on Sunday, pledging to interact directly with the Cuban people and accelerate engagement between the U.S.
	and Cuba after more than a half century of hostility.
	But hours before Air Force One landed at Jose Marti International Airport, I love how the New York Times phrases that, by the way.
	It's just a challenge inherent in normalizing relations.
	I love how the New York Times phrases that, by the way.
	It's just a challenge inherent in normalizing relations.
	It's not that they're an evil communist regime.
	It's just that these are challenges.
	We'll get through them.
	New York Times says the protest, which takes place most Sundays outside a suburban church here, was widely seen as a test of Cuba's tolerance for dissent during the presidential trip, and the arrest confirmed Cuba was maintaining its long history of repressive tactics, if not intensifying their reach.
	So, I love that they have to buy it back a little bit.
	They may not be intensifying the reach, but you know, this is what they've been doing forever.
	So nothing is changing here.
	They're still cracking down on dissidents.
	The only difference is now President Obama is posing there as cover for them.
	For Mr. Obama, who is scheduled to meet with dissidents, the detentions threw a spotlight on the core challenge of the visit, how to work with the Castro government while expressing concern for its handling of human rights and free expression.
	And then the New York Times coverage is amazing here.
	Security and control are mainstays of any country preparing to host the president.
	See, all countries do this.
	We all crack down on dissidents.
	We all throw them in jail.
	They say, but Cuba, a nation still working out just how much to open up to the world and to its own people after decades of isolation, has gone above and beyond to prevent embarrassing surprises.
	I mean, the New York Times could be written by the Cuban regime with this kind of press.
	They're just trying to work out how much to open up, you know, to their own citizens, you know, the people who live there.
	They're trying to figure out how much to not arrest them for disagreeing with them.
	They're just trying to figure it out, you know, after decades of isolation, which is really, you know, the United States' fault, their isolation.
	The baseball game Obama is supposed to watch with the Tampa Bay Rays on Tuesday.
	It's an invitation-only event with most seats going to government loyalists.
	Old Havana shops have been closed.
	The police have been sweeping up prostitutes from nightclubs and beggars from the streets.
	And all of the dissidents are being held for hours before they are released.
	So it's just a delight.
	So reason number one, this is a terrible idea.
	The Cuban government has given an excuse to go out and arrest all of the dissidents and throw them behind bars.
	Okay, reason number two.
	Re-enshrinement of the Castros.
	Raúl Castro is an evil guy.
	His brother Fidel was even more evil, but they're both equally evil.
	They agree with the same philosophy.
	They're both in favor of repressing and destroying human freedom.
	Raúl Castro could not be any happier about all of this because President Obama is going there and shaking hands.
	He even did his little bow, which has become habitual for Obama now.
	Anytime he meets a foreign leader, he bows his head a little bit.
	That's Obama's routine.
	He's been doing it now for almost eight years, so no shock there.
	But look how the media in defense of Obama, the media in defense of Obama, are willing to legitimate the worst people on earth.
	They already did it with Iran.
	Now they're doing it with Cuba.
	So, for example, here's a tweet from ESPN.
	So I'm a big watcher of ESPN because when I'm working out, I don't wanna watch politics.
	I wanna watch something distracting like sports.
	Unfortunately, they've decided to completely overrun their sports with politics.
	As I say, ESPN has basically become MSNBC with bouncing balls.
	So here is what SportsCenter tweeted.
	Savior and scourge, Fidel Castro was many things, many things to many people, right?
	One thing we can all agree on, he loved his sports.
	Right, there's ESPN writing that.
	I mean, if there's that one thing we can agree on, he loves his sports.
	Come on, guys.
	I mean, let's be real.
	Savior and Scourge?
	Savior to whom, exactly?
	Who is saved by Fidel Castro?
	Anybody?
	I mean, people are literally trying to take their 1950s-era cars, inflate the tires enough so that the car actually floats, and then float their way from Cuba to Florida.
	You got people who are engineers, people who are professors, trying to float to Florida in order to take jobs as dishwashers in Miami.
	Right, that's how bad things are in Cuba.
	But here's SportsCenter, which is a sycophantic organization for Obama.
	ESPN is just, I mean, they just kiss Obama's ass nonstop.
	And here they are, writing, Savior and Scourge.
	Fidel Castro, he loved his sports.
	He just changed the words, right?
	Savior and Scourge.
	Hitler was many things to many people.
	One thing we can all agree on, he loved his dog.
	I mean, like, what in the world does that, is that supposed to, he loved his sports?
	What is that supposed to, how is that a good thing?
	Senator Ted Cruz, who of course is of Cuban extraction, he says on Sunday, President Barack Obama, a retinue of celebrities in tow, is expected to arrive in the Cuban capital to hang out with Raul Castro and his henchmen, all of which will be breathlessly documented by the media mavens along for the ride.
	Meanwhile, political prisoners languishing in dungeons across the island will hear this message.
	Nobody has your back.
	You're alone with your tormentors.
	The world has forgotten about you.
	And that's exactly right.
	That's exactly right.
	So, imprisonment of dissidents, re-enshrinement of the Castro's.
	Of course, humiliation of America would be the third one.
	President Obama standing in front of that Che Guevara sign is unbelievable.
	It's unbelievable.
	And we should be used to it by now.
	I mean, he's constantly being used as a propaganda tool by various evil regimes.
	Fourth is pretend changes.
	So Obama doesn't just legitimate the Castro's.
	He doesn't just legitimize the Castros.
	President Obama also pledges change that's never going to happen.
	So just before arriving in Cuba, President Obama tweeted, "Que bola Cuba, just touched down here.
	"Looking forward to meeting and hearing directly "from the Cuban people." Okay, there's only one problem.
	No one in Cuba has Twitter.
	No one in Cuba has the internet.
	How censored are things in Cuba?
	They're so censored.
	They broadcast sometimes mainstream American baseball games.
	When there are Cuban expatriates who are playing in the United States, they black out their bats.
	They black them out.
	They just disappear from the broadcast.
	Because they don't want people to know that people can escape and live decent, fun, well-rounded, rich lives in the United States.
	So Obama pledged change.
	He says that Google is gonna cut a deal with Cuba.
	It'll probably look very much like the deal that China has with Google, which is, if you do what we say, then we let you stay here.
	If not, we kick you out.
	Finally, maybe the thing that I hate the most, All of this results in a romanticization of poverty because socialism and communism inherently end with poverty.
	When you take people who achieve and force them not to achieve, or you take away the fruits of their labors and hand them over to people as a reward for non-labor, what you end up with is a poorer population.
	But the left instead decides to romanticize poverty.
	And they kick it into high gear with Obama in Cuba.
	So, for example, here's the New York Times today.
	Cuba at times can feel like a nation abandoned.
	The aching disrepair of its cities, the untamed foliage of its countryside, the orphaned coastlines, a half century of isolation has wrapped the country in decay.
	Yet few places in the world brim with as much life as Cuba.
	A contrast runs sharper amid its faded grandeur.
	The people are more alive because they're poor, you see.
	They're more in touch with who they really are.
	This is something that a bunch of college students have this idea.
	Idiot college students who love Bernie Sanders.
	They go abroad to foreign countries where people die at age 35 and they think, oh, these people, they're really in touch with the land.
	They're really in touch with nature.
	They're in touch with themselves.
	They haven't been perverted by this cult of capitalism.
	I guarantee you any of those people would sell their soul to come to the West and be involved in capitalism.
	Here's Time Magazine yesterday.
	Joachim Eskildsen has always felt a strong connection to Cuba.
	Over the last few years, the Danish photographer has produced a body of work that attempts to show the life and energy that defines the Caribbean island nation.
	Quote, Cuba desperately needs a change to its system so it will work better for its people.
	But this does not mean they should embrace an American vision.
	I hope Cuba can stand against this.
	But it is difficult, as the U.S.
	has a lot of money and possibilities, and Cuba has none.
	So it's good for them to be poor.
	It's good for them to live lives of misery.
	Those cars over there, these supposed wonders of the past, there's a reason we don't drive them anymore.
	They're crap.
	The reason no one drives a Ford Etzel anymore is because it's garbage.
	People have fun restoring these things.
	They're not restored in Cuba.
	It's all they have.
	It's all they have because they've cut themselves off for two generations now, and now they're gonna enter three and four generations because of what President Obama just did.
	So it's a disaster all the way around, and I'll tell you why President Obama did it in just a minute.
	But first, we have to take a brief profit timeout with our friends over at Reagan.com.
	So Reagan.com, if you don't know anything about Reagan.com, great organization.
	Basically, they handle your email for you.
	It's an email service.
	So you go to ReaganPrivacy.com, It's reaganprivacy.com, and you log in, you get a new email address, and it's your name at reagan.com.
	This does two things for you.
	The first thing that it does for you is it means that all of your lefty friends have to see Reagan's name on all your emails, which is super cool because, let's face it, they're super obnoxious and terrible.
	And I don't know why you're friends with them in the first place, but if you have lefty friends, then I guess you should go to reaganprivacy.com to annoy them.
	The second reason is because Reagan.com pledges, and they vow, that they will not turn over, copy, scan, sell a single word of your email content to marketers or to the government.
	You can access your email from anywhere.
	It works on any device.
	Reaganprivacy.com is where you go for all of this.
	And if you go right now, then you get the first two months free.
	So that's pretty cool.
	So Reaganprivacy.com is where you go get the first two months free for your Reagan.com email address.
	Check it out right now.
	Okay, so the question back to President Obama in Cuba is why he does this.
	Why does he do this?
	Why is he constantly surrendering to America's enemies?
	And the answer, unfortunately, is pretty simple.
	President Obama sides with America's enemies because President Obama believes that the United States is a pretty rotten place.
	He believes that we're a country that has a history of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and imperialism.
	And it's that last one that counts.
	President Obama believes all the evils of the world are explained by the evils of the United States.
	If it weren't for the evil capitalism of the United States, there wouldn't have been a Cuban uprising or a communist revolution.
	And there's a certain romance that attaches to anyone who resists the capitalists.
	The Bicycle Thief has become a very popular film among people of a younger age in the United States.
	It's a movie about Che Guevara.
	And you see all these kids wearing the Che Guevara t-shirts, as I mentioned earlier.
	Why is that?
	You're living in the United States, which is a living repudiation of everything Che Guevara stood for.
	Why are you doing it?
	Because it makes you feel a sense of moral superiority, unearned moral superiority.
	By standing against the finest system in the history of the world, You're showing that you don't stand with the power brokers.
	You don't stand with the bad guys.
	You don't stand with the people who force their way down everybody's throat.
	Never mind that Cuba actually forces their way down the throats of their own citizens.
	Never mind the fact that it's illegal to get information from the outside in Cuba.
	Never mind all of that.
	Obama, by going and continuing his now eight-year-long apology tour, he's surrendered America's moral credibility at the foot of some of the worst people on planet Earth, and he's happy about it, and the left is cheering him.
	And the polls show that most Americans are fine with this.
	And the polls just demonstrate, as I said last week and got a lot of flack for it, that the people can be wrong.
	Polls show that the people very often in the United States are wrong.
	This is just another example of that.
	If you're a Cuban expatriate looking at this today, you have to be sick to your stomach.
	And certainly if you're living in Cuba, you ought to be even more sick to your stomach.
	This is the equivalent of President Obama going and hanging out with the folks in Iran while the protesters in Iran got rounded up and shot or thrown in jail.
	It's really, it's really devastating.
	And again, culmination of President Obama's foreign policy.
	By the way, I'm not sure that Donald Trump would do anything particularly differently here.
	I'm not sure that he would do anything differently.
	Not because he likes free trade, he doesn't.
	But because Donald Trump doesn't see things in terms of the moral.
	He doesn't see- I mean, he said this with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.
	I'm not sure what he would do.
	Like, he says that he doesn't like what Obama's doing with Cuba.
	I'm not sure were he in the same position that he would do anything wildly different.
	He sees himself as a dealmaker, and any deal that he can cut is a good deal.
	But this one's on President Obama, and yes, it's on his former Secretary of State and the rest of his administration.
	So it really is...
	It makes you sick to your stomach when you look at the president.
	This is our president doing this and it does make it it makes you a little bit nauseous when the president of the United States is standing up there.
	In front of a mural of Che Guevara to do propaganda for the hardcore communist left.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to rise to the nomination.
	Big meeting in Washington, D.C.
	today.
	And at that meeting in Washington, D.C., a bunch of people show up, including Jim DeMint at the Heritage Foundation, several senators, a bunch of Congress people.
	They all show up, some to kowtow, some to hear what Trump has to say.
	Trump is still embroiled in this controversy over his protesters who continue to get into altercations with people.
	His campaign manager got in another altercation with somebody.
	So let's start with the fact that Donald Trump is not losing popularity because of this.
	So Donald Trump had this to say.
	He was asked over the weekend by George Stephanopoulos about his protesters getting violent with people and here's what Donald Trump had to say.
	You appear to be much more upset by the protesters than by the violent response to those protesters.
	I am very, uh, I wouldn't use the word upset.
	I think it's very unfair that these really, in many cases, professional, in many cases, sick protesters can put cars on a road, blocking thousands of great Americans from coming to a speech, and nobody says anything about that.
	But they'll say something about whatever.
	I will tell you, George, it's very unfair.
	Let me just tell you, it's very unfair.
	Why don't you mention the fact that people were delayed for an hour to get into an arena In the only road going there, that they were delayed for an hour because people were blocking the road.
	And why don't you say in Tucson, where the people were blocking the main entrance into the arena?
	We showed that blockade right at the top of the broadcast.
	Okay, he says we showed it right at the top of the broadcast.
	Right.
	But then you downplay it and you ask Trump about it.
	You've never asked Hillary or Bernie Sanders about their protesters blocking people off or getting violent in Chicago or any of the rest of it.
	Trump is actually right here.
	Here's the problem, right?
	So Trump is correct.
	And we'll explain why this is a problem in a second.
	So one of the reasons Trump is popular is because all the people who could be calling him out and the people like me on the right who think that the left is awful.
	So when we call him out, I think that has more credibility.
	But George Stephanopoulos calling out Donald Trump Excuse me, for violence at protests is insane.
	That's totally nuts.
	George Stephanopoulos has backed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom have incentivized their own supporters to get violent across the country, whether it's Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter.
	And nothing has happened.
	George Stephanopoulos has said nothing.
	Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, she made this point too.
	She says, yeah, look, Democrats, if people have been blocking events, they would have been ticked.
	If people blocked the road to an Obama event in 2008, what would the Democratic reaction have been to that?
	The way they blocked the road to the Trump event.
	I think you know the answer to your question, and I'm not, and I'd like to say that... Which is what?
	Sorry, in case people at home don't.
	People would, Democrats would have been outraged at the notion of people blocking access to Obama events.
	And I think that actually there is a role for protest, but there also needs to be space, and we've talked about it before with respect to the Black Lives Matter movement and stopping Sanders from There has to be space for Trump to relay his message as odious as it is, and there is appropriate space and time for protesters to disagree with that message without squelching it entirely.
	Okay, so what she's saying there is exactly right, and Trump is exactly right, which is the media focus so much on what's going on at the Trump rallies and the Trump protests that they forget that the left has been doing this for literally decades.
	I mean, I was reading back about the 1960s over the weekend.
	Great book by Roger Kimball.
	It's called The Long March that I'm in the middle of.
	Really terrific book from about 10 years ago.
	It's very, very good.
	And he talks specifically about the fact that the free speech movement on campus was an attempt to shut down speech.
	They were hijacking campus buildings.
	They were trying to shut down trials of convicted criminals.
	They were threatening violence against people.
	They were committing violence against people.
	And the left was fine with that.
	The left has been fine with this forever.
	I mean, there were campus issues in the 1930s in favor of the communist left.
	So the left has always been fine with this.
	And the fact the left is fine with it means that it's very disingenuous when they turn around and they say, oh, Trump, you know, you're the one who's violent.
	So when George Stephanopoulos asks Donald Trump about discouraging supporters from rioting at the convention, he doesn't have any credibility to ask this question.
	Here's that.
	So, I say this, if you're going to disenfranchise all of those people, some of whom have never voted before and they're 50 years old and older, but if you're going to disenfranchise all of those people, independents, democrats, you know we have a lot of democrats coming over, we have a lot of independents coming over.
	It's okay for them to riot?
	We do have some people that have never voted before.
	I don't know what, I didn't say, all I can say is this, I don't know what's going to happen, but I will say this, You're going to have a lot of very unhappy people.
	And I think, frankly, for the Republicans to disenfranchise all those people, because if that happens, they're not voting and the Republicans lose.
	If the Republicans embrace these great people that are showing up, The Republicans are going to have a massive victory.
	It's not going to be a Mitt Romney slaughter because he was such a bad candidate.
	The Republicans are going to have a massive victory in November.
	Will you tell your supporters not to riot if you lose the convention fair and square?
	Well, I would certainly tell them that.
	But, you know, look, these people are fervent.
	They want to see positive things happen for our country.
	And I would certainly say that.
	I don't want to see riots.
	I don't want to see problems.
	But, you know, you have millions of people we're talking about, George.
	Okay, we can stop it there.
	As we've said, every time somebody uses a sentence and then in the middle of the sentence they say but, what happens after the but is the part of the sentence that matters.
	But again, Stephanopoulos has no credibility to call him out on this.
	And you can tell this from the video of the actual protest.
	So, for example, here's a video of a protester being punched and kicked by a Donald Trump supporter.
	This is clip 13.
	Clip 13 is what it looked like at a Donald Trump rally recently.
	Okay.
	So right there, what we have is the protester, the supporter of Trump there, is actually a black guy.
	He's an Air Force veteran.
	And he goes after a protester, and clocks him in the face, and then kicks him.
	And then he's arrested.
	So, there are people on the right, including the Trump campaign, who are saying that this was, and this is where the double standard sets in.
	Donald Trump is the result of the double standard.
	That's what Donald Trump is.
	Donald Trump is a bunch of people across the country basically saying, you've had it this way for a long time, and you've told us we can't do it this way, well we're gonna do it, we're gonna be everything that you say we are, because you are all of those things.
	That's essentially the argument that they're making.
	So in that video, what you don't see, what prefaces this, is that the protester was wearing a KKK outfit and doing a Heil Hitler salute.
	Now, I still think you don't get to clock people for that.
	I think that if the guy's disrupting the protest, you call security and you have the person removed.
	I'm not in favor of shutting down protesters by punching them in the face, but there were people who were on the right who were saying, well, you have to see what came before that.
	And if you're on the left, If you're on the left, I don't know how you can deny that.
	Let's say, for example, that this were a Democrat rally.
	Let's say this were a Democrat rally.
	And let's say, for example, that the guy who came in in the KKK outfit actually was a member of the KKK.
	Let's say that he was an actual member of the KKK and he walked in in a KKK outfit to a Democratic rally.
	Or to a Republican rally.
	Right?
	And he was an actual member.
	He wasn't just doing it facetiously or as a joke.
	He was an actual KKK member.
	There are a lot of people in the United States who would say, that guy deserves to be punched in the face for wearing a KKK outfit, right?
	Well, once you say that someone can be punched in the face for speech, it doesn't matter what the speech is, someone can get punched in the face for speech.
	Because there's always somebody offended enough by speech to punch somebody else in the face.
	So the left can't say certain people deserve to be punched in the face for their speech and certain people don't.
	The same left complaining about Donald Trump and saying he's violent, they're the same people who took a poll over the weekend finding that more Americans than not would actually like to punch Donald Trump.
	They're the ones asking that poll question.
	You don't get to have it both ways.
	The problem, of course, is that I thought that we, here on the right, were supposed to be advocates for civilization, right?
	We were supposed to be advocates against the idea that you get punched based on speech, that if somebody's wearing a costume you don't like next to you, you don't have the right to punch them in the face, that this is a basic American principle.
	So long as they're not violating the law, you don't have the ability to take the law into your own hands, no matter how offended you are.
	I always thought that this was the basic notion.
	And the problem is it's extended all the way up the Trump campaign.
	So he's taking all of the space that's been created by the left.
	That space to riot, it wasn't just created by the mayor of Baltimore for the Black Lives Matter movement, it was created for everyone.
	Because when you say people can riot or they can engage in acts of violence based on whether they have the right political viewpoint, there are people eventually who are gonna say, well, we think we have the right political viewpoint, right?
	We disagree with you, but you said violence is okay.
	We have a political viewpoint.
	Why can't we do violence?
	So for example, Corey Lewandowski, who is Trump's campaign manager.
	We talked about this last week a lot.
	Corey Lewandowski grabbed Michelle Fields by the arm hard enough to leave a bruise, right?
	And a lot of people on the Trump train, they say, well, he didn't grab her that hard.
	She's making a big deal out of this.
	Here's the bottom line, folks.
	If somebody did it to your wife, you'd be pissed, wouldn't you?
	Yes, you would.
	And if you're saying no, then you're a liar or you're a bad husband, right?
	That's how that works.
	Corey Lewandowski, at first the Trump campaign said he didn't do it.
	Well, their credibility is basically shot here.
	Here is Corey Lewandowski grabbing a protester.
	You're gonna see Corey Lewandowski in this video.
	Grab a protester by the back of the shirt and pull him, and you're simultaneously going to hear Donald Trump say that Corey Lewandowski did not actually touch the protester.
	So first, here's the video of Corey Lewandowski, his campaign manager.
	I don't know what he's doing in the crowd in the first place.
	You know, when we went to Cal State LA, we went with a bunch of staff people.
	None of them wandered into the crowd to assault the protesters.
	Here's Corey Lewandowski in the crowd, and you're gonna hear Trump talk about it as the video plays, and you're gonna hear him deny what you're watching, like, directly in front of you.
	We also have seen that video there of your campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who does appear in that video to grab the collar of the protester, also your private security.
	Why is your campaign manager out in the crowd engaging protesters?
	This is the second incident in about a month.
	Well, you know what, because the security at the arena, the police were a little bit lax.
	And he had signs, they had signs up in that area that were horrendous, that I cannot say what they said on the sign, but the ultimate word, and it was all over the camera, and frankly, the television cameras can't take it, and they can't do anything about it, and I will give him credit, spirit.
	Now, he didn't touch, he wasn't... Well, the video does show that he touched him.
	Your private security pulled him, but it does show he grabbed the top.
	I give him credit for having spirit.
	He wanted them to take down those horrible, profanity-laced signs.
	I give him credit for having spirit.
	No, he didn't touch him.
	Yes, he did.
	So this is the second person Corey Lewandowski has grabbed inappropriately and Donald Trump has denied and then gotten away with.
	And the reason he gets away with it is because the person asking him the questions.
	Is George Stephanopoulos, right?
	Who's gone along with leftist violence for literally decades.
	Okay, so that's one reason why Trump has been creative and has space.
	Another reason why Trump has been creative and created and has space is because of people like David Brooks.
	So we've talked about David Brooks a lot on the program before.
	He's the fake conservative columnist for the New York Times.
	Here is David Brooks.
	He's on ABC News.
	I think he's on their panel, their roundtable.
	And he was asked about Merrick Garland, who's the new Obama nominee, I guess on PBS.
	He's the new Obama nominee.
	Here is David Brooks, the conservative, the supposed conservative on this panel, saying what Republicans should do with Merrick Garland.
	Frankly, I think it's an excellent choice.
	I mean, he's a guy with apparently an amazing temperament.
	He is the model of judicial restraint.
	He seems to be a man of both amazing integrity and capacity to be emotionally moved.
	And so everything I hear about him is superlative.
	And if I'm a Republican, frankly, running the Senate, I'm thinking this is the best I'm going to get.
	And if Donald Trump is down 15 points in the summer or fall, I'd confirm this guy.
	Because Hillary Clinton, if she gets elected, who knows what the Senate will look like.
	It'll be, from a Republican point of view, a lot worse.
	So I think Republicans should say, okay, we'll take this guy.
	Okay, so go along, get along.
	He's from their point of view, he's a model of restraint.
	He's a model of restraint.
	He doesn't just say that they should go along because it's the best they're going to do.
	He says he's a model of restraint.
	He's a model.
	He's a great jurist.
	He's going to be awesome.
	Okay, Merrick Garland is not gonna be awesome.
	Merrick Garland is a far-left jurist, just like all the other people Obama has nominated.
	Nothing has changed here.
	But David Brooks is the conservative, right?
	And so if you're watching this as a conservative, your immediate response is just a giant middle finger.
	And then this guy turns around and here's what he has to say about Donald Trump, right?
	Same broadcast.
	Here we go.
	Republicans, including myself, who find him morally repulsive.
	And he's just not... There are some things more important than winning an election.
	And supporting a guy who tears at the social fabric, who insults the office of the president by being completely unprepared for it, who plays on bigotry and fear, who is the sort of demagogue our founders feared would upset the American experiment in self-government, well, that kind of guy you just can't support even if it means a defeat.
	And I think a lot of Republicans feel that way, which is why you get those 40% numbers of defectors.
	Okay, so what he's saying here is actually right.
	I also find Trump morally reprehensible.
	I think that he is everything that is wrong with reactionary politics.
	But, because David Brooks is the guy who goes along to get along, because David Brooks is the guy who thinks the left is okay, People respond with, I'm going to disregard your entire opinion.
	So the problem is David Brooks and the media created Donald Trump because Donald Trump is just a backlash.
	He's just a giant backlash.
	That's all he is.
	People look at Brooks and they say, we want someone tough who's going to stand up.
	Even if he's lying to us, he says he's going to stand up.
	And so he'll stand up.
	People look at the media, the same media that defended leftist violence for literally decades, and they say, you're going to tell us that we can't do this now?
	We're excited.
	You always said that you were passionate.
	Well, we're passionate and excited too.
	And if you will, if you try and chide us, we'll stick it.
	We'll stick it.
	Because, hey, you know, we have to, a phrase I like to use, punch back twice as hard.
	The problem is that the way that they're punching back is by nominating a guy who is not conservative, who's not going to defend the principles.
	All he is is a reaction.
	And the reason he feels like a reaction is because of how he talks, because he doesn't talk like a politician, because he talks at third grade level, because he has the worst grammar of any political candidate.
	He speaks like a guy at the bar.
	And so you think he's a guy at the bar.
	He's not a guy at the bar.
	He's just a guy who's on the left, and who's never spent any time in a bar, by the way.
	He doesn't drink.
	Which...
	is amazing, considering his behavior.
	But Donald Trump, because of all the people who rip him, that is what has created Trump.
	That's what has created him.
	And it's really pathetic.
	Now, a note to the Trump supporters.
	You know, that's me sort of in defense of you, saying, you know, I understand why Trump has come up here.
	I understand what you're doing.
	I feel the same feelings that you do.
	I just think Trump is a terrible vehicle for it.
	If you want to react, react in strategic fashion with somebody who actually believes the thing you believe, not just somebody who yells a lot.
	But, you know, there are people out there who say, well, Trump is the most likely to win.
	I've made this case myself on the program.
	I've said that Trump, for months I've said, Trump may be the most selectable Republican in the field because he is drawing in these kind of white, these blue collar white voters in the Rust Belt.
	Well, I'm starting to fade on that one, too.
	Here is Donald Trump over the weekend on Mitt Romney, for example, right?
	He's campaigning in Utah.
	Here's what he had to say.
	Everybody's so amazing.
	And do I love the Mormons, okay?
	Do I love the Mormons?
	I have many friends that live in Salt Lake.
	I have a lot of friends.
	No, I have a lot of friends.
	By the way, Mitt Romney is not one of them.
	Did he choke?
	Did this guy choke?
	He's a choke artist.
	I can't believe.
	Are you sure he's a Mormon?
	Are we sure?
	He choked!
	He choked!
	Okay, so he- He should have beaten Obama!
	Okay, we can stop.
	This, this is how, because he's a big middle finger, he's just a big human middle finger, but when he says things like, Mitt Romney's not even a Mormon, there's a poll out over the weekend, it shows that Donald Trump might lose to Hillary Clinton in Utah.
	In Utah.
	Utah's the most Republican state in America.
	He could lose Utah to Hillary Clinton.
	So all the talk about Trump is gonna win, he's gonna, he's the only one who could win, he's winning, winning.
	Not quite so fast.
	Not so fast.
	And what's sad is that the Republican Party is going along with the ride.
	Reince Priebus, the RNC chair, he said this over the weekend.
	He said it's too late to stop the Trump movement.
	The Stop Trump movement is over.
	We can't stop him anymore, basically.
	What do you say to that Stop Trump movement talked about in the New York Times this morning?
	The possibility of recruiting a third-party candidate like Senator Tom Coburn or maybe even Governor Rick Perry of Texas.
	Will that doom your chances, as Mr. Trump says?
	Well, sure it would.
	Of course it would.
	But I also think it's far too late.
	I think this is a... Some folks find it to be interesting and that's great, but it isn't likely and it's probably too late.
	And there is no definitive answer right now as to who the nominee is going to be of our show.
	I think all of it's far too early, George.
	And Sean Spicer, who's the spokesman for the RNC, says if Trump is the nominee, we'll get behind him 100%.
	Apparently throwing themselves headlong into a battle that will end not only in loss, but in the discarding of conservatism in favor of this sort of reactionary anger.
	Honestly, I'm so much in favor of the anger itself, but it has to be channeled.
	It's just a waste of time unless it's channeled.
	It's just my two-year-old yelling unless it's channeled, and so far it has not been channeled.
	And so what you get is the equivalent of a two-year-old yelling on the national stage just because Because they don't get a cookie.
	And I understand.
	Everyone should get a cookie here.
	I get it.
	But you're not going to get the cookie, by the way.
	Yelling is not going to make the cookie happen.
	It's just yelling.
	Okay, time for a thing I like and then something that I hate.
	Okay, so here's a thing I like.
	One of my favorite movies.
	I haven't rewatched it recently, so I was watching clips of it, and it is a truly terrific movie.
	The movie's a man for all seasons.
	It did win Best Picture when it was up for it in the 70s, I believe.
	It's based on a play by Robert Bolt.
	The cast is Paul Schofield, who won Best Actor, and Robert Shaw, who wasn't nominated but should have been for Best Supporting Actor, as Henry VIII.
	And it's about Sir Thomas More, and it's about Sir Thomas More standing up against King Henry VIII and saying that he would not go along, he's his Chancellor, and he said, I won't go along with the idea that you are the head of the Church of England, the Pope is still the head of the Church, and you don't get to just make up your own rules because you want a divorce really, really badly.
	From Catherine of Aragon.
	So here is, this is a key scene, and it's a scene that should, I think, resonate with conservatives today.
	It's a very important scene.
	One of my favorite speeches in all of film.
	Here's Paul Schofield in A Man for All Seasons.
	Arrest him!
	For what?
	He's dangerous!
	A libel!
	He's a spy!
	Father, that man's bad!
	There's no law against that!
	There is God's law!
	Then God can arrest him!
	While you talk, he's gone!
	And go he should, if he were the devil himself, until he broke the law!
	So, now you'd give the devil benefit of law?
	Yes, what would you do?
	Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?
	Yes!
	I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
	Oh?
	And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
	This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast.
	Man's laws, not God's.
	And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
	Yes.
	I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
	Okay, so what he's arguing against is ultimate power.
	What he's arguing there is complex language, but he's arguing against his ultimate power.
	So what happened there is a guy comes in who's an emissary from Henry VIII, who's an enemy of Sir Thomas More, and he's gonna go back to Henry VIII and report that Sir Thomas More is siding against him in this battle over the church.
	And they say to him, you need to arrest that guy.
	You don't grab that guy before he goes and reports on you.
	And Sir Thomas More says, but I can't do that because he hasn't broken any law.
	And they're saying to him, it doesn't matter if he's broken any law.
	He's violating God's law.
	He's violating religious law.
	And you should go grab him right now.
	And you should do something to make him stop.
	And Sir Thomas More says, in Paul Schofield here, he says, here's the deal.
	Law is more important than your opinion of law.
	Meaning that if the law does not protect people, simply because whenever something bad happens, we get to break the law and just violate it in favor of justice, what you end up with is arbitrary tyranny.
	What you end up with is the devil completely in charge.
	Because what the law is designed to do is protect us from arbitrary rule.
	That's what the law is designed to do.
	John Adams said that we need a government of laws, not of men.
	What he meant by that is that the law itself is supposed to protect against bad men.
	That's what it's designed to do.
	The Constitution was meant to protect us against tyrants like President Obama and aspiring tyrants like Donald Trump.
	That's what the Constitution was meant to do.
	And when you say we're gonna put all the rules aside, the rules of civilization and the rules of nonviolence and the rules of Decency and the rules of the Constitution, we're gonna put it all aside because we have to pursue, we have to pursue what's right, we have to go after what's right, we have to fight the devil, so we're gonna knock down all the laws.
	When you do that, the law is worth nothing.
	And once that happens, it's just a question of who wields the sword.
	Once we've gotten rid of the book, and all that's left, once the law book is burned, and all that's left is the sword, the only question is, who holds the sword?
	Today it could be you, but tomorrow it's gonna be somebody else.
	The Democrats have created this situation, but Republicans ought not participate in it.
	Conservatives ought not participate in it.
	That's the case that he's essentially making there.
	He's saying, if we have to sacrifice our own interests because the rule of law must be preserved, then we have to sacrifice our own interests because rule of law must be preserved.
	I feel this way about conservatism.
	If the philosophy of conservatism can only be, quote-unquote, upheld by destroying the philosophy of conservatism, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
	It's not worth anything.
	Conservatism must stand after this election.
	And that means you cannot discard the principles of conservatism in pursuit of it.
	And I don't just mean politicking.
	I mean electing a man who is not conservative in any way to be the emissary of conservatism, perverting it beyond all recognition, and driving a conservative base of support into the hands of a national populist, a nationalist populist.
	Okay, so that's the thing.
	I like A Man for All Seasons.
	Really terrific movie.
	If you have patience for kind of...
	British drama, it's great.
	It really is a very good movie.
	Okay, things that I hate.
	So, Mark Hamill's been sounding off again.
	Mark Hamill is, of course, Luke Skywalker.
	And he tweeted this today.
	Every town is an anti-gun group.
	And they wrote, thanks, Hamill himself, for speaking out.
	That's his handle on Twitter, at Hamill himself.
	And Mark Hamill writes, don't get me wrong.
	As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, he spells it with two M's, I believe in every American's right to own a musket.
	Believes in every American's right to own a musket, right?
	First of all, I can't spell.
	But second of all, this is something the left constantly says about the Second Amendment.
	When it was written, it only meant to apply to muskets.
	It didn't mean to apply to the kinds of weapons that we have today.
	Sheer nonsense, not true in any way.
	The best reply I saw was from, I think it was David Ferdoso over at The Federalist, who replied, or Washington Examiner, who wrote back something like, don't get me wrong, as a strong supporter of the First Amendment, I believe in every American's right to own a hand printing press.
	Right?
	Because that's what they used for when it said freedom of the press.
	That's what they meant.
	It was an actual printing press.
	Didn't mean a printer.
	Didn't mean a computer.
	They didn't have those then, presumably.
	And this is the stupidity of the left's argument.
	Besides which, Luke Skywalker, if anybody else, should know that a man who has been disarmed has also been dishanded.
	So, you know, no blaster control if you're Luke Skywalker.
	But this is celebrities mouthing off about things they don't know anything about.
	Speaking of celebrities mouthing off, by the way, there was a big event today with Chelsea Clinton and Lena Dunham, who is famous mostly for getting nude and being ugly.
	If she were nude and pretty, then nobody would know her name, because that's everybody in Hollywood.
	But she's nude and ugly, so everybody knows her name.
	She was campaigning alongside Chelsea Clinton, who's known for having a famous last name, as well as America Ferreira, who's in Ugly Betty, and I guess she's in other things now, but nobody knows why or what.
	But they all campaigned today.
	The celebrities of the left, it's funny, the celebrities of the right get laughed at, but the celebrities of the left are far more laughable than the celebrities of the right.
	Mark Hamill just being the latest example.
	Okay, folks, so we will be back tomorrow.
	We'll see how much further President Obama can plunge the nation into doom and disaster as he goes on his world apology tour.
	And as always, if you have mail for us, we will go through it on the mailbag.
	It's bshapiro at dailywire.com if you want to join the mailbag.
	There's plenty more coming this week.
	It's gonna be a very busy week and we look forward to spending it with you.
	You have a good night.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲