All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:00
Ep. 115 - Congratulations, Women! You're Horrible Jim Crow Bigots

The party of women rejects women on behalf of fake women, Obama prepares to drop a rhetorical bomb in Hiroshima, and the left says that cultural appropriation is bad (unless it's from white Europeans). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies, you are the Bull Conners of the bathroom.
So says Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who, by her own standard, may or may not be a woman, depending on how she feels, like right now.
She explained on Monday, the North Carolina law giving businesses the liberty to maintain sex-specific bathrooms across the state was, in fact, a violation of federal law.
So Lynch says the law constitutes discrimination.
It's discrimination now.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination on the basis of sex.
Yes, that's precisely what the Civil Rights Act creators thought when they wrote it.
That men had to be protected from women who insisted that men were men and who objected to seeing penises in ladies' restrooms.
Lynch said, quote, "This is not the first time we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation.
We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.
We saw it in the fierce and widespread resistance to Brown versus Board of Education.
And we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex marriage that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry." This is insulting, and it's stupid, but it's really insulting to actual women.
So as I mentioned yesterday, on Saturday I watched my wife give birth.
You have to be crazy, fully insane, out of your freaking gourd, to believe that Caitlyn Jenner and my wife belong to the same sex.
Honestly, God.
Small children, like tiny children, like my two-year-old, understand this.
The federal government doesn't, and the federal government wants you to relearn everything that you've known since you were two, because they're disgusting and terrible.
The left used to deny, by the way.
The gender neutral bathrooms were on the docket.
In the 1970s, the left began pushing something called the Equal Rights Amendment.
The Equal Rights Amendment said that there shouldn't be any sort of discrimination between the sexes in any law at all.
And the right said, well, if you get rid of gender neutrality, get rid of gender in legislation, then you have to require sex-neutral bathrooms, for example.
Phyllis Schlafly, she said at the time that unisex bathrooms and eligibility of females for the draft would both be on the table.
And feminists said, no, no, we'll never do that.
Jane Mansbridge was a feminist at the time.
She said, the unisex toilet issue fed the fervor of anti-equal rights amendment forces by giving them something absolutely outrageous to focus on.
It could conjure up visions of rape by predatory males.
So the feminists said, no, we'll never do any of this.
Except that Schlafly was right.
If women and men are exactly the same, but for their subjective self-identifications, you can't have separate bathrooms.
By the way, you can't have separations for purposes of the draft.
There goes the feminist case entirely, that women are special.
Women don't actually even have to be women.
They can be men.
They can be men with penises.
And women are bigots.
Bigots!
They're like Jim Crow bigots.
Like slave-holding Jim Crow bigots, if they say differently.
This is the argument put forward by the media who ask if there is any long history of transgender women raping actual women in bathrooms.
The answer is, no, of course not.
That's because we have laws that prevent men from entering women's bathrooms.
This argument is just dumb.
It's like asking whether we ought to allow felons to vote, because after all, felons haven't been abusing their right to vote.
Right, because they don't have a right to vote.
If you change the law, maybe they'll start abusing it.
But the left actually does want to do that too, by the way.
They want felons to vote.
There are two morals to this story.
The first moral is that everything the left denies, they want.
Every single thing.
They will be openly embracing and pushing as the only moral thing to do in a matter of just a few years.
Second, anyone who stands in the way of the left's agenda will be labeled a bigot, even girls who prefer not to be unclad in closed quarters alone with delusional grown men.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show. - Tend to demonize people 'cause they don't care about your feelings. - Alrighty, so here we are.
And I want to start today by talking about, we've been talking a lot about Trump.
I want to talk not about Trump, although Trump will tie into this.
The reason that Donald Trump is rising, one of the reasons that he's risen, is because so many people are so upset at the delusional nature of our politics.
I mean, totally delusional.
Not even connected with reality, untethered completely from reality at this point.
And so people look at Trump and they say, okay, so he lies, so he makes things up.
Everybody lies.
Everybody makes things up.
But at least he's not lying and making things up on behalf of things that are eminently stupid and untrue.
At least he's saying things that are politically incorrect sometimes.
And the reason that this becomes sort of a decent notion of how the world should work, the reason for that is because The left is so out of its mind.
I mean, they've absolutely lost their mind when it comes to pretty much everything.
So, let's start today with Loretta Lynch.
We just discussed it.
Here's Loretta Lynch talking about how North Carolina's law that says, and this is what the law says, the law says that if I'm a private business owner in North Carolina, there is no local authority that can force me to create unisex bathrooms or allow men into women's bathrooms.
Right?
If I want to, I can.
If I want to, I can have unisex bathrooms, but I'm not going to be forced by local legislators into building a unisex bathroom instead of two separate bathrooms for men and for women.
And it says that people should be assigned to bathrooms based on their gender, right?
Based on their birth gender, okay?
None of this nonsense where you get to make up your gender as you go.
My baby was born a couple of days ago on the birth certificate.
It says male and female.
It doesn't say one of the 58 other genders that Facebook talks about, right?
Because they don't exist.
Because that's all crap that you make up in your head.
Anyway, Loretta Lynch says that the law in North Carolina Is not just wrong, it's Jim Crow wrong.
So here's Loretta Lynch, a black woman.
I can't imagine how black people feel about this.
I mean, are black people who agree with this really dupes like this?
Are they really dupes like this?
If she compared this to the Holocaust, wouldn't Jews be upset?
And if Jews weren't upset, wouldn't you say, boy, they're dumb?
Boy, that's inappropriate.
You know, for Loretta Lynch, a black woman, to say that a white man can be a black woman is the height of silliness.
But here she is saying that if you don't want, if I don't want a man walking into a bathroom with my wife, if my wife goes into a bathroom and then a man follows her in there, And I don't feel like that's appropriate.
I should be able to go get a security guard and not be seen as somebody who's nasty or discriminatory.
Here's Loretta Lynch saying that I am like a Jim Crow person and my wife, if she's uncomfortable knowing that in the stall next to her is some dude, unclad, if that makes her uncomfortable, Loretta Lynch says that basically this makes you a Jim Crow racist.
More to the point, they created state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals.
Okay, let's pause it for one second.
Let's pause it for one second.
The most private of functions in a place of safety and security.
a right taken for granted by most of us.
- Okay, let's pause it for one second.
- Last week, our civil rights division notified state officials-- - Let's pause it for one second.
The most private of functions in a place of safety and security.
Okay, that would seem to me to describe the women who are in the bathroom.
The most private of functions, that would actually have to be in a private place.
And safety and security requires that women be in a place with women when they are performing this function.
What's so hypocritical and delusional about all of this, aside from the idiotic notion, idiotic notion, that men magically become women by thinking it is so, which is just insane.
It's crazy.
Aside from that, what's amazing is that the same people who are saying that women should not be so offended by men walking into their bathrooms, they're saying that transgenders should be really offended if I call him a her or her a him.
If I misgender, then I have to be prosecuted by the city of New York.
But if I walk into a bathroom with women in it, no problem.
And if the women are offended, it's their problem.
So if I offend a transgender person by calling them the name of their birth sex, I'm the problem.
If a transgender woman makes someone feel uncomfortable by walking into a bathroom of the opposite birth sex, then the problem is the person who feels uncomfortable.
You see the inconsistency here and the silliness here?
She continues along these lines.
...in North Carolina, that House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws.
We asked that they certify by the end of the day today that they would not comply with or implement House Bill 2's restriction on restroom access.
An extension was requested by North Carolina and was under active consideration.
But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice.
As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward.
Today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, and the University of North Carolina.
We are seeking a court order declaring HB 2's restroom restriction impermissibly discriminatory, as well as a statewide bar on its enforcement.
Now, while the lawsuit currently seeks declaratory relief, I want to note that we retain the option of curtailing federal funding to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina as this case proceeds.
Okay, this isn't insanity.
We can stop it there.
This is totally crazy.
This is totally crazy.
I'll explain the legal reason it's totally crazy.
This is also why leftists Reinterpreting law is disgusting.
So the way that this works is that when the Civil Rights Act was written in 1965 and it said women and men, it said there were two sexes in the law itself.
It says there are two sexes, women and men.
So what does the left do?
Now they're redefining what it means to be a woman so that men fit into the category and then saying that the law originally would have prevented discrimination against men who think they are women if we don't treat them like women.
You understand what's happening?
You're just the same way that the left likes to pretend that the equal The equal rights under law provisions, the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the way they like to pretend that this is about gay people, when it eminently was not about gay people.
Just because they, so what they do is they expand the definition and then they fit it within what they're looking to do.
They did the same thing with the Civil Rights Act here.
Women and men meant what women and men meant then, and still mean now, except in the crazy heads of liberals.
But leftists are now redefining what it means to be a woman, what it means to be a man.
And that's what this whole thing is about in the end.
It's not about transgender bathrooms.
No one cares.
There's five transgenders in the entire United States.
There's so few transgender people in the United States, they're not even a statistical hash mark.
But the fact is that what this really is about is telling women and men they are exactly the same.
But I guarantee you, by the way, that if universities said, OK, women and men are exactly the same, here's what we're going to do.
No men's teams, no women's teams.
The best athletes get on the team.
Right?
Best athletes get on the team.
Which, by the way, would kill women's sports.
Destroy it.
Women's sports would be over within a day.
It would be over in a day.
You'd say, okay, we're gonna start a new baseball team.
It's just our baseball team.
Because you've said it's discrimination if I don't allow a woman to participate on a man's team or a man to participate on a woman's team.
We're just getting rid of separate men's and women's teams.
Title IX of the same Civil Rights Act she's talking about says, Do you have to spend the same amount of money or have the same amount of opportunities in sports available?
It's destroyed college athletics by the way.
Do you have to have the same amount of money available for women's sports as for men's sports or the same resources available for women's sports as for men's sports?
This is what they say.
Well, so now she's saying that Title VII, which says no discrimination between women and men, is in direct conflict with Title IX, which says you must have a separation between women and men in terms of what you're funding and what you're backing.
So if a university came along and they said, look, you just said we can't discriminate between women and men.
No men's team, no women's team, baseball team.
Right?
And whoever throws 90 miles an hour makes it.
And it turns out there are zero women in the United States who throw the ball 90 miles an hour.
Literally zero.
Literally zero.
When people say throw like a girl, by the way, people on the left, because they're crazy, they like to say things like, it's so sexist to say throws like a girl.
You know why men say throws like a girl?
Because women throw like girls.
And everyone knows what that means.
You know what that means?
It means that according to scientific study and survey, if you took 1,000 men off the street, 1,000 men off the street, and you took the average woman, and you took the average woman, she will throw slower than 997 of the average men.
She'll throw slower than all of them.
Because women are not built to throw baseballs.
Men were built to throw rocks at beasts, right?
Women were not built to do this.
So, it's not a bad thing.
I don't think it's a real important life skill to be able to throw an object really hard.
But, there are differences between men and women, but the left simultaneously wants to say there are, for Title IX purposes, and then there are not for Title VII purposes.
So legally speaking, this is all idiotic.
So, Eugene Volokh, He is a professor.
He used to be a professor, I think, at UCLA in law.
Now he teaches... No, he still is.
He's over at UCLA School of Law.
Genius genius.
I mean, Eugene Volokh... Like, I went to UCLA when I was 16 years old.
Eugene Volokh went to UCLA when he was 12.
Okay?
He's a genius genius.
And he writes at the Washington Post, some say that a ban on sex discrimination, quote, requires unisex restrooms in public places.
Emphatically not so, according to a prominent feminist.
So who wrote that?
Who wrote that?
So who wrote that?
Anybody?
Who wrote that?
Anybody?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that back in 1971.
Now, of course, she's on the Supreme Court, and presumably she would vote precisely the opposite.
She would say that the law requires... She said that when they passed the law, right?
She would now say the same law that she was writing about at the time now requires that we get rid of private restrooms for men and for women.
Eugene Volokh says, Title IX bars sex discrimination in educational institutions.
The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination in many other places.
The Equal Protection Clause has, since 1975, been interpreted by the Supreme Court as pretty close to what the Equal Rights Amendment would have provided.
So, the bottom line is that what she said back then is still true.
What she said back then is still true, but they're going to pretend it isn't.
Maybe the nature of sex has changed.
This is what happens when you have folks on the left Who pretend that reality is rewritten every generation.
Not just the rules, reality itself.
We get to make it up in our minds, and we get to rewrite it every generation.
Now, the normal person sits back and goes, what are you talking about?
Are you crazy?
Like, I can see my son, I can see my daughter.
My son is literally four days old.
He acts different than my daughter did.
He has different parts than my daughter has.
This is so out-of-the-box crazy, but the left just keeps pushing this craziness.
And if you gaslight America often enough, you gaslight us often enough, right?
Gaslighting is this thing where somebody drives you crazy and then pretends they're not driving you crazy.
You gaslight Americans often enough, we will go crazy, and then we'll nominate Donald Trump in response.
If you make us crazy, we'll go crazy.
This is what's happening here.
So, Loretta Lynch, as we mentioned, she went ahead and she said that this bathroom law was just like Jim Crow.
Okay, so I want to just make clear to people how not like Jim Crow this is.
Okay, so here is, like a week ago, Caitlyn Jenner, right, who is Bruce Jenner, who's a six-foot-three dude, right, who got a boob job and some collagen implants and facial surgeries and mutilated himself in the saddest possible way.
Right, he hasn't gone the full Monty, right?
He hasn't gotten, he hasn't dropped the chestnuts yet, but he's, but because he still likes those.
But here's Bruce Jenner, who is a man, who thinks he is a woman, and I feel terrible for him, walking into Trump Tower to pee.
Okay, this is what it looks like when transgenders have to deal with which bathroom to go to.
Here we go.
Oh my god, a trans woman in New York, I gotta take a pee.
Anyway, um...
Oh my god!
A Trump International Hotel!
I love this.
Okay, last week Donald Trump said I could take a pee anywhere in a Trump facility, so I am gonna go take a pee in the ladies room.
And there's Bruce Jenner.
Caitlyn Jenner walking through.
Just walking right in the ladies' room.
Now, nothing happens, right?
Not anymore.
He stops by the men's room.
Not anymore.
Walks into the women's room.
And then he walks out.
And he's completed his P, presumably standing up because he still has man cards.
So that doesn't look too tough, right?
That doesn't look too tough.
Although, there's bizarre...
You know, when people are mentally ill, they do bizarre things, like say, I used to be a man, but now I'm a woman, and Caitlyn Jenner clearly, when this video, you should subscribe, folks, so you can see the video, because unless you see the video, you can't see this in all of its massive glory.
You go to dailywire.com to subscribe, but...
This is what Caitlyn Jenner looks like when Caitlyn Jenner has not been retouched by the folks over at the magazine, right?
When Vanity Fair isn't retouching Caitlyn Jenner, this is what Caitlyn Jenner looks like, and Caitlyn Jenner looks like a man in drag.
Right?
That's all it is.
Okay, so that's Caitlyn Jenner at Trump Tower.
That's not even the point that I'm making.
Okay, so Loretta Lynch says this is just like the Jim Crow South.
This is a clip from Birmingham, Alabama during the Civil Rights era.
Okay, this is what happened when Bull Connor decided that he was going to sick dogs and fire hoses on peaceful protesters.
Does this look like Caitlyn Jenner at Trump Tower?
In 1963, under orders by City Commissioner Eugene Bull Connor, Birmingham, Alabama City Police used fire hoses and police dogs against children and adults engaged in nonviolent protests against segregation.
The demonstrations were part of Martin Luther King Jr.' 's Birmingham campaign.
Television news coverage of the attacks by police sparked mass nationwide protests.
Okay, does that look like Caitlyn Jenner taking a pee?
It doesn't look like Caitlyn Jenner taking a pee to me.
It also doesn't look like the same thing.
Because black people trying to eat in restaurants where white people are allowed to eat is not the same thing as a man whipping out his junk in a ladies restroom.
But, nonetheless, the black community, because they've already gotten their civil rights era, they now have to... This is how the left works together.
People always ask, why is it the left, which favors gay rights, for example, also favors the radical Muslims in the Middle East over Israel, for example?
Why do they do this?
And the answer is because they've created a coalition of victims.
So what happens is, if you claim victimhood at the hands of the status quo, and if you want to destroy the status quo, we won't pay attention to why you're claiming victimhood, or what victimized you.
We will just say, oh, you have the same goal I do, tear down the status quo.
The way we do that is we all are victims together.
So here is the head of the NAACP saying that Loretta Lynch is right to compare the North Carolina bathroom law to Jim Crow racial segregation, not letting black kids into schools, transgenders facing the equivalent of white people bombing churches.
This is...
It's maddening.
It's maddening.
Here he is.
You're a lawyer.
You went to Yale Law School.
When she makes comparisons to Jim Crow, Brown v. Board of Education, is she right?
She is right.
If we think about Brown v. Board of Education, the court said that separation and segregation does something to the inside of a child.
There are ways in which when we set people aside, when we separate them, when we segment them, when we treat them differently, we do something to their dignity.
It is an assault on their dignity as well as an assault on their rights.
And so, the Attorney General is doing what a tough, smart Attorney General is supposed to do, which is to enforce the law fairly.
She did what she had to do.
This is nuts.
This is nuts.
I mean, what he's saying right now, which is that the law discriminates if you feel bad about things?
Well, it's amazing.
Women feel really bad when men come in their bathrooms and they're hulking over them.
Right?
When somebody who's mentally ill walks into the bathroom, dressed as a woman, That might make women feel uncomfortable.
It would make me feel uncomfortable, and I'm a dude, okay?
So, and I'm, you know, physically capable of handling myself.
My 5 foot 2, 105 pound soaking wet wife, if Caitlyn Jenner comes on hulking in there, I'm not gonna feel like she's a bigot if she feels slightly uncomfortable with that.
But again, this idea is that the law has to protect feelings.
We have to have equality of feelings.
MSNBC's Ari Melber, he says the same thing.
He says, the Department of Justice is arguing it's discriminatory, it's discrimination, to say you don't have the right to identify as your chosen gender.
Here is the explanation.
What do they find it specifically in violation of when they wrote that letter saying you cannot enforce it?
Well the issue with the bathrooms is essentially the DOJ is taking the position that by excluding people from bathrooms based on their, shall we say, born gender and not their chosen gender or their gender identity and all of these terms of course Uh, can be terms of art and difficult, but by gender identity they basically mean what people identify themselves as.
And so the state going in and saying you don't have that right, this is a matter of civil rights, to identify as the gender you choose is itself discriminatory.
And the other point procedurally, and I know procedure is less dramatic than some of what we just heard, but it's important is Attorney General Lynch also emphasized that the DOJ tried to give an off-ramp here, tried to give North Carolina an opportunity, and they felt that was completely rebuffed, and that's why they're taking North Carolina to court.
Okay, so North Carolina has the right to run its own state, but what's amazing about this is, again, the idea that the federal law requires a right to identify as what you—and not just a right for you to identify that way, a right for all of us to respect how you identify yourself?
That right doesn't exist.
I mean, the irony of all of this is, of course, the same people doing this were all over the Rachel Dolezal story, the white lady who pretended she was black.
And she said, no, I identify as black.
I legitimately identify as black.
There is more of a case that Rachel Dolezal is black than that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.
Significantly more of a case.
Significantly more of a case.
She at least shares a common ancestor with black folks.
You go back far enough.
She said this herself.
You go back far enough.
We're all from Africa, right?
There's mitochondrial Eve.
You go back far enough.
We all share a common ancestor.
Okay, men and women?
We share common ancestors, but they were all men and women, right?
There was no point in human history where it was men and men creating a baby or women and women creating a baby.
Never happened.
Didn't exist that way.
But, you know, again, this is delusional.
So, point one, the delusions of the left extend to everything up to and including idiocies like this bathroom stuff.
What's amazing about this, by the way, is that Donald Trump is willing to buy into this delusion, but we'll explain the Trump tie-in in a second.
So, the left is saying, we're going to deny reality.
With regard to the nature of the differences between men and women, and we're gonna cram that new reality down your throat.
Then, they also say they want to deny reality on foreign policy.
So, one of the things that the left has been pushing very hard is the Iran deal.
And the Iran deal, it turns out, was, as we talked about yesterday, marketed.
It was marketed by the Obama administration via all of its friends in the media.
They just lied about what the Iran deal was.
They created an alternative reality, a fictional reality, where Hassan Rouhani, the elected leader of Iran, Who was only elected because the mullah's hand chose him to run, right?
They portrayed him as a moderate and they said, oh, he came into office as a moderate and we finally had an opportunity to deal.
This was a lie.
They were looking for a deal from the Iranians back in 2012.
Rouhani was not made the president of Iran until 2013.
So they created their own alternative reality.
Yesterday, it turns out, the State Department chopped out.
Chopped out.
They create their own reality.
What you'll see in this tape is the State Department editing a briefing video.
Editing a briefing video from December 2013.
There was an exchange.
James Rosen from Fox News had this exchange with Victoria Nuland, who is the spokeswoman.
He said, there have been reports that intermittently and outside of the formal P5 plus 1 mechanisms, the Obama administration or members of it have conducted direct secret bilateral talks with Iran.
Is that true or false?
Nuland said, with regard to the kind of thing you're talking about on a government to government level, no.
That's an outright lie.
But they just cut it out.
Here's what that clip looks like.
...step agreement on their nuclear program, but there are remaining concerns that we have, as you all are familiar with, whether it's their involvement in support of the regime in Syria or humanitarian issues uh and so that has not changed that the obama administration says we showed up because and there's the edit okay we can stop it right there that white flash of light that's actual missing footage they flash light boom it's gone never happened amazing how that works they could they're gaslighting us right we know what's true they're lying about it
and then they're going back and they're just memory holding things that don't that don't help them right even democrats are starting to say this administration is memory holding things that they don't like but Brad Sherman, who's my congressperson, unfortunately, out here in California.
Brad Sherman, he says that the FBI strong-armed people on the pages from the 9-11 report that were redacted.
Here's Brad Sherman saying that the government just memory-holed things that they don't like.
I didn't even know about this incident until I talked to Glenn on the floor, the senator's daughter.
This didn't become a major story because Senator Graham is such a calm person.
But they took a former senator, governor, grabbed him at an airport.
Hustled him into a room with armed force to try to intimidate him into taking different positions on issues of public policy and important national policy.
And the fact that he wasn't intimidated because he was calm doesn't show that they weren't trying to intimidate him.
It just shows us that Senator Graham is a much calmer person than I am.
So what he's saying, for people who are missing it, is that Senator Graham, Bob Graham, Democrat from Florida, he was pushing for the declassification of 28 pages of the 9-11 Commission Report.
The Obama administration doesn't want to declassify that stuff.
So they took a sitting U.S.
Senator, and they brought him into a small room at the airport, the FBI did, to try and pressure him into stopping all of this.
They're memory-holing things they don't want.
And then they'll deny it ever happened.
It never happened.
There's more of this, more delusional denial of reality.
Sidney Blumenthal, who's a former aide to Hillary Clinton, he's a hatchet man for Hillary Clinton.
Sidney Blumenthal is really one of the more egregious people on planet Earth, really a bad guy, and he's the one who's been sort of a foreign policy advisor for Hillary Clinton all throughout her time as Secretary of State, was sending her secret emails that were uncovered when all of her emails came out.
He was asked whether he was interviewed by the FBI by Chris Matthews or M.A.C.
And Sidney Blumenthal, he won't even answer whether he's been interviewed by the FBI.
I want to ask you about the Clintons right now.
And I guess the first question is, have you been interviewed by the FBI for this email investigation by the FBI?
Have you been interviewed?
Well, thank you, Chris.
My feeling about this is that I'm as eager as anybody for this to be resolved.
And what I would like for this to be completely transparent, Yes.
and for the Department of Justice to finally issue its report.
I have been urging transparency.
I urged that my deposition before the Benghazi committee be made public the second I walked out.
I wanted it to be a public hearing and not a private one.
So I'm in favor of complete transparency in this process and a very quick resolution so that we can see that, in my view, in my understanding...
I think most people want that.
In my understanding, there's no problem there.
However, have you been interviewed by the FBI yet on this matter?
Well, you know, I really don't want to talk about an ongoing inquiry right now.
And there it is.
You can't say whether you've been interviewed or not.
No, I can't.
Well, my feeling about it is that let's wait and see at the end and see what happens to everybody involved in it and see what the resolution is.
And then I would like to see the Department of Justice issue a very transparent report.
So, again, the left is gaslighting us on foreign policy, too.
And the latest element of gaslighting, the latest trolling element from the left, President Obama is set to visit Hiroshima, Japan, right?
shoe every morning.
Even I know that that's not transparent.
You say you want transparent, but why not just come out, right?
Why not just tell me the answer?
I don't understand.
Mike Lissikoff, what say you?
So again, the left is gaslighting us on foreign policy too.
And the latest element of gaslighting, the latest trolling element from the left, President Obama is set to visit Hiroshima, Japan, right?
The place where he dropped the atomic bomb during the world that ended World War II.
And Ben Rhodes, who is the spin master for the Obama administration, the guy we talked about earlier this week, the guy who writes fiction for the Obama administration.
He wrote a piece for medium.com.
And he says that he wants to, he wants to explain why it is that Obama is going there.
He says, the president will visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, a site at the center of the city dedicated to the victims of the atomic bombing, where he will share his reflections on the significance of the site and the events that occurred there.
He will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II.
Instead, he will offer a forward-looking vision focused on our shared future.
And then he says about World War II, he says, "Their cause was just.
We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude, which the president will again commemorate shortly after the visit on Memorial Day.
The visit will offer an opportunity to honor the memory of all innocents who were lost during the war." And then he says that he was going to pursue the longstanding commitment to peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.
So, why is he visiting Hiroshima?
Again, this is gaslighting.
This is denial of reality.
Why is he visiting the Peace Park?
He's not visiting the Peace Park to talk about how great it was that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, is he?
He's not going there to mention the fact that we probably saved a million U.S.
lives that would have been spent in invading the island of Japan if we had not dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.
Right, he's not gonna, he's not gonna do that.
Otherwise he wouldn't be visiting, the whole point of visiting the park, this is like the German chancellor visiting Yad Avraham, a holocaust memorial, and then saying, oh well, I'm not here to talk about the holocaust or anything, I just think that human rights are good.
Right, the fact is that there's no comparison there in the sense that we were morally right to drop the atomic bomb and the Holocaust is morally unjustifiable by any standard, but the idea is that the reason Obama is visiting is the same reason a German Chancellor would visit a Holocaust memorial.
It's because Obama thinks the dropping of the atomic bomb was a bad thing.
He thinks the dropping of the atomic bomb was a bad thing, but he's lying to us.
So he's- Obama is now losing wars retroactively.
So he's already lost us the- he's already lost us the Gulf Wars retroactively by pulling out all troops from Iraq.
He's lost us the Korean War retroactively by handing all sorts of power to Kim Jong-un.
He's losing the- he's lost the Cold War retroactively by allowing Vladimir Putin to do what he wants.
And now he's gonna lose World War II retroactively by pretending that what we did in Japan was morally unjustifiable.
So, here's what the result of all this is.
This is all big buildup, okay?
Here's what the result of this is.
If you deny reality for years on end about basic things like the differences between men and women, if you deny reality about foreign policy, and you suggest that everything America has ever done is bad, and you go and you pay homage to a site that is supposed to be a referendum on how nasty the United States was for dropping the atomic bomb, or if you cut things out of State Department briefings to gaslight us, what you end up with is tremendous frustration.
You end up with tremendous frustration.
And what you look for is somebody who tells it like it is.
And you look for somebody who doesn't care what people think.
And you look for somebody who's willing to say crazy things.
And you put aside crazy, because we're now in the realm of crazy.
We've now entered crazy land.
There are no sane people in crazy land.
Right now that we've entered this place where everybody is... Everybody's nuts.
Everybody lies.
You don't care if you're a guy who lies, so long as he's not telling you lies that are such obvious stupidities that it makes you sick to your stomach.
When Trump tells lies, when he says things that are not true, it's always a grain of truth surrounded by a lie.
Donald Trump.
So when he says that he wants to end all Muslim immigration to the United States, I think that's bad policy, but the underlying grain of truth is that Muslim immigration to the United States, mass Muslim immigration from countries we don't know, is a major problem for national security.
So people can look at him and they can say, okay, well he might be crazy, but he's not your crazy.
Right, he might be crazy, but you made us crazy.
I mean, you're saying that Islam is not even a threat at all.
Radical Islam is not a threat at all.
When Donald Trump says, yeah, fine, I'll nuke Europe.
You know, screw it.
I'll just, I'll do what I want.
I'll nuke Europe.
I'll nuke anybody.
I'll nuke anybody at any time.
That's a direct response to the left saying, it is bad to use nuclear weapons even when you must use nuclear weapons to save millions of lives.
Right, when Donald Trump says things about women that are nasty, And people on the left proclaim that's bad.
People who support Trump, they say, well, listen, you don't, you guys don't get to defend women.
You're the ones who are saying that transgender men get to go into women's bathrooms.
When you enter the realm of dishonesty, once honesty is no longer an element of American politics, you can't be surprised when the result is dishonesty on all sides.
And the left has ripped away honesty.
They've ripped away the basic terms of the debate.
We can no longer discuss these things anymore.
When words no longer have meaning, you just look for the guy who says the words you like, even if he's lying to you.
If words no longer have any meaning, then this is good dating advice, ladies.
Don't think that all men are bad.
All men are not bad.
When I say men are pigs, what I mean is that men have the capacity to be pigs.
All men are sexual beings who want to have sex as much as possible with as many different women as possible.
This is just the male drive.
But, that does not mean all men are pigs.
The reason that I don't say, and I don't believe, that all men are pigs is because what that leads women to is, okay, well, if all men lie to me, then I might as well pick the guy who tells me the prettiest lies.
And the guys who tell you the prettiest lies are typically the ones you don't want to bring home to mother.
Because they'll tell you all sorts of lies about how they're gonna drop their cocaine habit and how they're gonna leave their wives for their mistresses and all this stuff.
The person who you want is the person who actually tells you the truth.
We still should be in pursuit of truth, but the left has made the pursuit of truth secondary to their own narrative.
If we all make the pursuit of truth secondary to our own narrative, which is what's happened with Trump, If we all do that, we end up in a world where no one is trustworthy, where everyone lies, and the only question is who wields the power to define reality for you?
Now for me, I don't think a politician should define reality for me.
I don't think a political movement should define reality for me.
To me, reality is reality.
And if I sense evidence that something is not true, I'll change my opinion on it.
But, again, what the left has done is they've driven us all mad.
They've driven us all mad by saying that words have no meanings, basic things like male and female have no meanings, basic things like right and wrong, they have no meanings.
And so the answer is, okay, well, if these things have no meanings, then I'll just pick the most vulgar, terrible person I can find who says things that I like to hear.
And for a lot of people, that's Donald Trump, who tells them that he's going to bring their jobs back by magically punishing people, and who suggests that he's going to protect them through the power of his persona.
He says the things that they want to hear.
And he's big and he's strong and he says things like that.
So, that's why I think all of this leads to a politics that is totally broken and the left has broken our politics.
We at least used to be able to debate these things.
Now, if I say men and I say women, I don't even know if the person I'm talking to knows what I'm saying anymore.
It's like we're speaking different languages because we have different realities.
Mine is actual reality.
There's a fiction of their own creation, both on foreign policy and on domestic policy, which includes social policy.
Okay.
Meanwhile, The consolidation continues to pace behind Donald Trump on the Republican side of the aisle.
People who I heretofore respected and thought were good at their jobs, Rick Perry for one, he's now saying we have to respect Donald Trump's win.
Here's what the former governor of Texas had to say.
We agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on.
I mean, if you want to split hairs, if you want to get your panties in a wad over this issue or that one, that's fine.
But the point is, Donald Trump is going to be our nominee.
He's earned it.
And we need to respect that.
Okay, so he's earned it and we need to respect that.
Okay, I can understand that he's won the nomination, but I don't have to respect the decision of the voters.
I keep hearing this.
Respect the decision of the voters.
As Andrew Klavan said on his show yesterday, but what if they do stupid things?
Right?
Voters picked Obama twice.
That didn't mean I respected their decision.
He was still my president.
I'd respect his authority.
I'll respect Trump's authority.
But I won't respect his positions, and I won't pretend that I stand for them, because I don't.
But this is always the go-to response for a lot of Trumpkins.
It's never, no, Donald Trump actually is somebody you can trust, because it's hard to defend Trump on the merits.
It's always, well, he won.
He won.
So what?
I don't care.
Like, what does that mean to me?
He didn't win the presidency.
The Republican nomination does not come with authority.
It doesn't.
There's no authority that attaches to the Republican nomination.
It's just your opportunity to run for the presidency.
If you think that authority attaches to the Republican nomination...
Ask yourself, from 2012 to 2016, what kind of authority did Mitt Romney wield?
No authority attaches to the Republican nomination.
But, you know, this is the new line, is that you have to back Trump because he won.
And what's happening now is that there's a false narrative being constructed.
And when we talk about false narratives in reality, a false narrative is being constructed.
And that is that everyone opposes Trump for the same reason, and the same reason is that we're all establishment.
Anybody who's watched this show or listened for more than five minutes knows I despise the establishment.
I've spent this entire election cycle railing against the establishment and the fact that now so many establishment figures like Mitch McConnell, like John Boehner, are backing Donald Trump.
Right, but there's a conflation that's happening now that suggests that I oppose Donald Trump for the same reason Jeb Bush opposes Donald Trump.
And when Trump slams Jeb, by the way, for not supporting him, I even resonate to this, and I agree with Jeb that we ought not support Donald Trump.
Here's Donald Trump slamming Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham.
If you look at the Republican primary votes, millions and millions of people came in that nobody expected, and they voted for me.
So what are you going to tell them in that meeting?
I'm going to say, look, this is what the people want.
Jeb Bush just said he's not going to vote for you.
Well, I understand Jeb Bush.
I was rough with Jeb Bush.
And I think if I was Jeb Bush, I wouldn't vote for him either, if you want to know the truth, George.
Okay, if I were Jeb Bush, I wouldn't vote for me either, but I don't need his vote.
And there's this sort of feeling from Trump like, okay, well, you know, I beat him up and he lost and so now he's whining about it.
And again, you see him go to that same argument.
You have to respect me because I won.
Okay, there's a very good book for kids called Once and Future King.
It's not really for kids.
It's really for teenagers.
The Once and Future King by T.H.
White.
Probably the best fantasy book ever written.
Much better than Lord of the Rings.
And it's about Lancelot and Guinevere and Arthur.
And one of the things in it is this running theme.
Might does not make right.
Might does not make right.
Okay, the idea that you won doesn't mean that you were right.
And Trump is evidently somebody who thinks that Mike makes right.
But here's the thing.
So Trump slams Bush and he says, you know, Bush isn't backing me and I sort of get why.
And the implication a little bit is he's not backing me because he's establishment.
This is what all these people say.
Now here is Ron Paul taking a second group of people, people who won't back Trump on principle because he's not conservative.
And here's Ron Paul conflating them with the establishment.
Ron Palestinian Paul.
Raise his name right now.
I mean, you take Crystal and Romney and put them together and think, well, you know, this is exactly what the complaint is.
These people have been losing.
And I think this dream of having a third party.
Yeah, I can't see.
I think it's purely a dream.
I can't believe this would come about in Romney already.
He said that he wasn't that much interested, but I think what the neocons will do to build crystals of the world, and you hear it already, they're going to go with Hillary.
Hillary is a Wall Street person, and she's a neocon, and she wants to spend money in the military, so a lot of them will go there.
They're not going to get Romney to run, so I think it will shift a lot of people over to Hillary, because I've always argued that Hillary could possibly have run as a Republican with some of her positions.
Okay, so he's saying that people like me, people like Bill Kristol presumably, and I'm more conservative than Kristol is, and I'm not as much of an interventionist in foreign policy, the real reason we don't support Trump is because in the end we're going to go to Hillary.
I've said repeatedly, I will never vote for Hillary.
Ever, ever, ever, ever.
She is morally unpalatable on every level.
I also will not vote for Trump for the same reason.
Be careful when you're examining this race not to conflate a false reality presented by the Trumpkins with the real reality, which is that there are many different reasons not to support Donald Trump.
I'm not on the side of the establishment when I don't support Donald Trump.
I'm on the side of me.
Hey, you can slap whatever label you want to on me.
I am me.
I'm not supporting Trump because I think he's not conservative and because I think he's unfit for the presidency.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
Okay, things that I like.
So, people tend to say that I pick older movies for the movies that I like.
Here's a- this is still an older movie now because it's amazing how fast time moves, but there was a time in my life where this was a new movie, um, The Truman Show.
which is a terrific, really a very, very good movie with a terrific ending.
I'm not a huge Jim Carrey fan, but Jim Carrey is good in this film.
It's a brilliant script, really well written.
Ed Harris is terrific in the film.
For people who haven't seen this, I think it's available on Netflix now, and you can watch it for free on Netflix and Amazon Prime.
A really good movie.
Here's what the trailer looked like.
Comments are still headed.
What else is on?
Yeah, let's do what else.
Coming to you now from the largest studio ever constructed, it's The Truman Show!
Yeah!
Good morning!
Good morning!
Oh, and in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening and good night.
What if?
No scripts, no cue cards.
Morning, Spencer!
How's it going?
What if you were watched every moment of your life?
How many cameras you got there in that town?
5,000.
I believe Truman is the first child to have been legally adopted by a corporation.
That's correct.
Brilliant.
What if everyone you knew was pretending?
Hi, honey.
Look what I got at the checkout.
Dishwasher safe.
That's amazing!
What if your world was make-believe?
Cue the sun.
While the world he inhabits is counterfeit.
I'm not allowed to talk to you.
It's how I look.
Not your type.
There's nothing fake about Truman himself.
What if you didn't know it?
Until now.
A lot of strange things have been happening.
Stand by rain cap.
Is he looking at us?
Does he think he knows?
I think I'm mixed up in something.
Something big.
Okay, so it is a really, really good, and super clever, and it's about the nature of reality, so it kind of fits in with the theme of the show.
Okay, things that I hate.
So, there's an operetta that's written by Gilbert and Sullivan called the Mikado, and the Mikado is an operetta We don't have to put up the letter because it's hard to read there, but it's from Lamplighter's Music Theater in San Francisco.
And they've announced that they are no longer... It's about Japan.
They've announced that they are no longer going to play this as a Japanese play.
Instead, here's what they said.
said.
They said, we have seen the controversy intensify.
In 2014, the Seattle Gilbert and Sullivan Society saw widespread protests against their yellow face production.
Last year, New York's Gilbert and Sullivan players felt obliged to cancel their production of the Mikado because of public outcry.
The lamplighters have, of course, been aware of all this.
Although traditionally set in Japan, the Mikado is not actually about Japan, and we feel there are many ways to perform the production respectfully while keeping all of the original humor and brilliance.
Our original plan was to set this year's Mikado in the late 19th century Meiji period, the time when it was written, and a time of international cross-cultural exchange.
We tried to reach out to various Japanese and Asian Bay Area organizations in the hopes of encouraging discussion and collaboration.
Instead, people protested.
This risks the survival of our company.
So, instead we're going to use Renaissance Italy, the backdrop for many of Shakespeare's greatest works.
People have been outraged.
Some have been relieved.
There are people who feel like they have been, that they have capitulated.
We live in a diverse world.
The Lamplighters have made the decision to lead the way to ensure the continued viability of the Mikado in today's cultural environment.
This is what they wrote.
So, they took a play that was written, not by Japanese people, about Japan, and they decided to reset it in Renaissance Italy, which makes no sense because the Mikado doesn't exist in Renaissance Italy, and they decided to do this because there were all these Asian groups that were ticked about it.
Okay, the Mikado is not a piece of work that's designed to make fun of Japanese people any more than Rodgers and Hammerstein.
They did a musical about Japanese Americans.
Neither of them are Japanese.
They did a musical about Japanese immigrants to the United States.
It's a pretty good musical.
Um, and it's a, uh, and it's, it's like saying, well, they can't write that because they're not Japanese.
So Rodgers and Hammerstein, we have to get rid of that because they're not Japanese and it's cultural appropriation.
That's what this all always comes down to.
Uh, and it's just, it's just ridiculous and it's just dumb.
It's called Flower Drum Song, by the way, is the name of the musical.
Here's the thing.
The same people, the same exact people, celebrating Hamilton on Broadway for being an all-minority production of a bunch of things white people did.
Right?
White Europeans did.
Those are the same people saying, if white people do a production about Japan, and they dress up as Japanese people, that's racist, it's cultural appropriation, and it's terrible.
So in other words, the only culture it's okay to appropriate is white European culture.
Or culture created by white Europeans.
That's the only culture it's okay to appropriate.
You can take that, and you can even take- Hamilton is no longer a white guy, now he's a mixed race... Puerto Rican guy, I think.
And Aaron Burr's a black guy.
We can just do that, and that's okay.
Again, I don't really care that much about it except that I don't like the idea that the only way to teach people of different races about your culture is to make the people of your race a different race.
I think that's culturally divisive.
The idea here is that if you set a play anywhere that is not your home, I can only write about Jewish people, Lindsay can only write about white people, Mathis can only write about people with hair like James Dean, that's all we can do, right?
All we can do is we can just write about people who look like us or who act like us.
You may as well forget culture, you may as well forget the conversation.
Everything left us is designed to end conversation.
All of it.
It's designed to end conversation between people.
We can't identify with other people's feelings.
There's no universality to art.
There's no universality to language.
There's no universality to terms.
Women and men, we can't explain the difference between them, so that goes away.
There's no universality to any of that.
All this creates is simultaneously the notion that all human beings are basically the same underneath, but we can't talk to each other, so what does it matter?
Right?
We're all the same underneath.
Lindsay and I are exactly the same in every respect except she identifies as a woman and I identify as a man.
Otherwise, we're totally the same.
But we still can't talk to each other because our definitions of women and men may not be the same.
Also, she's Christian and I'm Jewish.
And so I can't understand Christians and Christians can't understand Jews, so we can't get along.
This is the idea.
So what is the government there to do?
The government is there to make sure that we get along, right?
This is where it all ties into the left.
The government is there to make sure that this vast broiling pot of humanity where we're all the same underneath, but we can't communicate with each other?
The only way we can communicate with each other is government because it's the only thing we all have in common.
It's the only thing, as Barack Obama said in 2012, it's the only thing we all share is the government.
We don't share a language.
We don't share a culture.
All we share in the end is our common humanity and the government.
That's it.
And the government is there to cram down a common culture on all of us that we have to accept, a common language, a common reality that we have to accept based on what the government wants us to accept, and always reinforces that same idea that we can't get along with each other without the government, but underneath...
We're all the same, so if we could just have a government that smushes us all together in one big sandwich, if basically government takes us all and puts us in a blender, then we can create a homogenous mix of people, and we'll all taste the same.
It'll taste terrible, but we'll all taste the same, and the government has made us all the same.
So, that's today's show.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection