Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 23, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:02:00

Ep. 139 - Democrats Hold The World's Dumbest Sleepover

Democrats threaten to sit there until we destroy the Constitution, Obama threatens to yell at us if we don't destroy the Constitution, plus the Vaunted Mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	On Thursday, Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams announced a not-guilty verdict on all charges against Officer Cesar Goodson in the death of 26-year-old arrestee Freddie Gray last April.
	Goodson had been charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, manslaughter by vehicle, and reckless endangerment, among a bunch of other trumped-up charges, based on driving a van in which Gray died.
	This particular verdict makes Goodson the third officer set free in the case.
	The judge in the case, he rightly said that the prosecution didn't show anything bad.
	They didn't show that Goodson, the driver, meant for anything bad to happen to Gray.
	The only thing the state had shown, according to the judge, was a failure of duty and not buckling Gray in at the fourth stop along the route.
	That wasn't criminal negligence, he just didn't buckle the guy up.
	He said there was no evidence Goodson was aware or should have been aware that Gray was hurt in the first place.
	This, of course, is totally right, according to the evidence.
	Despite the judge's ruling, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, she's the nasty piece of goods who said last year that she allowed protesters in Baltimore room to riot when they set the city on fire after Gray died.
	She issued a statement announcing an administrative review against Goodson, because that's how things work now.
	You get a second bite at the apple.
	She said, quote, Now that the criminal case has come to an end, Officer Goodson will face an administrative review by the police department.
	I am proud that we as a community have come together to move our city forward over the past year.
	Yeah.
	Nah.
	That didn't happen.
	The Freddie Gray case was just another excuse for the left to be as horrible toward police officers as they always are.
	Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby, who pushed these ridiculous charges forward, if you remember, she held this really ballyhooed press conference at the time in which she pledged to the people of Baltimore and demonstrators across America, I heard your call for no justice, no peace.
	Her office then repeatedly hid evidence from the defense to cover up the fact that she didn't have a case.
	The left immediately began talking her up as a possible senator or governor.
	President Obama, if you recall, jumped into the act too.
	He said, This is not new.
	We shouldn't pretend it's new.
	The good news is perhaps there's some newfound awareness because of social media and video cameras and so forth that there are problems and challenges when it comes to how policing and our laws are applied in certain communities and we have to pay attention to it.
	No, it isn't new for Democrats to turn a non-crime into a racial conflagration for political gain.
	What would be new would be watching Mosby and Rawlings-Blake and Obama pay a political and legal price where available.
	Until that happens, officers will simply stop policing.
	There's a reason the Baltimore murder rate rose 63% last year.
	Tell the cops not to do their jobs.
	Tell them that if they do do their jobs, you're going to prosecute them.
	Turns out they won't do their jobs.
	And so more Americans die.
	But those Americans don't matter.
	And those who don't care about those Americans also don't matter.
	So long as cops get dragged through a railroading so that those politicians can find success.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro show.
	Tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
	All righty.
	So we live in a in a post-racial America that is completely racist.
	The Baltimore verdict comes down today, and that's just one piece of news.
	The other piece of news on the race front is that the, there are a few, but the other piece of news on the race front is that the Supreme Court has determined that affirmative action is mandated by the Constitution essentially.
	Affirmative action is okay with the Constitution in any case.
	The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which says explicitly that everyone must have equal protection under the laws, meaning you can't say that there's a law for blacks and a law for whites and the punishment for each are different.
	You can do that when it comes to racial admissions on the Supreme Court level.
	So that was the big news at the Supreme Court today.
	The other big news at the Supreme Court, and we'll get to this in just a minute, and we'll get back to it, is their Supreme Court ruling today about President Obama's executive amnesty.
	Effectively, it strikes down President Obama's executive amnesty, which is quasi-good news.
	I'll explain why it's good news and why it doesn't really matter that much in a little while.
	But, the big news over the course of the night.
	Was that Democrats had decided that they were going to do a sit-in on the House floor, on the floor of Congress, in order to protest Republicans not turning the no-fly list into a no-gun-buy list.
	Meaning that if you're on the no-fly list, they want it to be that you can't buy a gun for five years or some such nonsense.
	And this was rejected in the Senate, as you recall.
	This bill was rejected in the Senate two days ago.
	The House Democrats didn't really want to push the bill, but they did want to make a big, grandstanding move about it.
	So yesterday, sometime in the morning, they just decided, OK, you know what we're going to do?
	We're going to sit down right here on the floor of Congress.
	And as we mentioned yesterday, the conversation apparently was supposed to go something like this.
	We're gonna sit here if you don't destroy due process, right?
	We want you to take the secret list that you can't get off of.
	This secret list, we want people on this list not to be able to buy guns.
	And if you don't give that to us, we're gonna sit here.
	And we're like, okay, you can sit there.
	And he's like, no, no, no, you don't understand.
	We're gonna sit right here.
	Like, right now, here.
	Our butts, here.
	We're like, okay.
	All right.
	He's like, no, no, no.
	Like, we're gonna sit Here.
	You understand?
	Like, here we're gonna sit.
	Like, we're not gonna move.
	Like, okay, you can sit there until you grow into the carpet.
	Like, we don't care.
	That's okay.
	You know, but, but we're sitting!
	Do you under- This went on for 25 hours.
	Legitimately 25 hours.
	They just broke it up now.
	My favorite thing about that is that they were using the hashtag.
	It was something like, no bill, no break.
	Well, they didn't get a bill, but they did break.
	So what exactly drove the break?
	Well, number one, they may have run out of Depends.
	That's a possibility.
	And number two, it's also a possibility that they were getting food shipped to them on the house floor.
	I mean, these people were really sacrificing.
	They were really sacrificing.
	Sitting in an air-conditioned, climate-controlled room, a richly apportioned climate-controlled room where they could get up and go out and come back anytime they pleased, and bringing in pillows and bringing in blankets, and Elizabeth Warren bringing in a teepee to house herself, and...
	They had a buffet, right?
	They actually had a buffet.
	They brought in full food.
	They called it the Buffet Rule or the Buffet Rule.
	But they brought in a buffet so they could really enjoy themselves.
	It was real sacrifice.
	They did this for 25 hours and then they stopped.
	Maybe the reason they stopped is because someone gave them the bill.
	And just like all Democrats, they decided they couldn't pay, so they skipped out on the check and stuck Paul Ryan with it.
	But in any case, they went on for over a day with this nonsense and provided all sorts of fun video and fodder for us to make fun of.
	And so we'll be doing a lot of that right now because the Democrats, the theme of today's show is that the Democrats fully want to destroy every aspect of the Constitution.
	President Obama wants to destroy the limits on Article 2 power.
	The Supreme Court and the leftists therein want to destroy the limits on the Equal Protection Clause.
	The Democrats want to destroy the Second Amendment.
	They want to destroy the Fifth Amendment.
	And what they threaten us with, President Obama threatens us with yelling.
	He's going to yell at us.
	And that's really, I feel very threatened.
	I feel very scared of President Obama telling me, once again, I'm on the wrong side of history.
	And that the arc of history bends toward justice or whatever.
	I know I'm scared.
	I know that I'm ready to burn copies of the Constitution because President Obama says I should.
	And then on the other hand, I'm being threatened by Democrats that if I don't give up my right to due process before they take away my ability to buy a gun, then they're gonna sit there.
	And I gotta tell you, if not you, I am deeply disturbed by the prospect of a bunch of useless people whose job literally consists of sitting there doing nothing, sitting there and doing nothing.
	I am really concerned about this.
	It started with John Lewis.
	John Lewis is a representative from Georgia.
	He was a civil rights marcher.
	He was actually a civil rights hero back in the 1960s.
	Like, he did sit-ins at counters at segregated stores and, like, risked life and limb to do that, to protest government regulations, Jim Crow regulations.
	Now he was sitting on the floor of the house to protest the government should have secret lists so that they can take away guns from people, which is just spectacular.
	By the way, the other part of this that's ironic is he's protesting in favor of the no-fly list being used to prohibit people from buying guns.
	You know who's on the no-fly list?
	John Lewis.
	John Lewis is on the no-fly list.
	He was put on there by accident.
	And he's been struggling to get off of it for, I believe, more than two years.
	He's been pulled over at airports 35 to 40 times on the no-fly list.
	But he says the no-fly list is so good that you should be able to be barred from the Second Amendment rights.
	Well, if it's that good, John, then maybe, if you're on the no-fly list, you shouldn't be eligible for election to Congress.
	How about that?
	How about if you're on the no-fly list, you just don't get to be in Congress?
	I mean, hell, it seems dangerous to have people on the no-fly list buying guns.
	It seems more dangerous to me if they're voting on American policy, for God's sake, and being exposed to American intelligence information.
	I mean, isn't that a risk?
	Isn't that a real risk?
	Anyway, John Lewis gets up with a bunch of weird-looking people from his congressional caucus.
	And you have to see the footage, folks.
	This is one of those days where you really should subscribe to Daily Wire because the footage today is truly spectacular.
	And thanks to Matheson, his crazy haircut, for cutting all of it.
	And so here is John Lewis saying that they're going to continue to fight.
	We lost too many of our children, our babies.
	Too many of our mothers and fathers.
	Our brothers and sisters.
	And we will continue to fight.
	A little more than 50 years ago, I crossed the bridge, not just one time, but it took us three times to make it all the way from Selma to Montgomery.
	We have other bridges to cross, and when we come back in July, we'll start all over again.
	But the American people, they want us to act.
	They want us to do something.
	Okay, no, they actually don't.
	They actually don't want them to do anything.
	The ACLU, the leftist organization, the ACLU, is on my side of this argument.
	They know the no-fly list is garbage.
	And they are on my side.
	They say you can't use the no-fly list to take away people's due process of law.
	That is so insulting.
	I mean, to his own history it's insulting.
	He knows better than this.
	It's so insulting for John Lewis to equate his march against legislation that removed rights for people based on race for no reason to equate that with him now wanting to remove rights from people based on no evidence.
	Not the same thing at all, but I guess you can grandstand if you're John Lewis.
	That wasn't the worst grandstanding.
	The worst grandstanding yesterday was last night around 9 o'clock.
	I don't know if they all got drunk or what.
	They were taking selfies from the floor of the house, and Elizabeth Warren was smoking peace pipe.
	Chief Warren was big heap angry over boom boom stick, and she was sitting there getting very upset.
	Over the prevalence of guns in America.
	Now remember, folks, this was just voted down in the Senate two days ago.
	So they didn't have a proposal.
	Like, they were asked by people, so what law do you want to pass?
	And they said, we don't really have a law.
	So it's like, what are you doing here?
	Well, we're sitting here!
	Come on!
	That's what we do!
	They weren't just sitting there.
	Last night, they began to sing.
	Like, they're sitting there on the floor, and they start singing.
	No, really, they started singing.
	I do believe you, we shall forgive all you take.
	So what they're doing is singing, we shall overcome on the house floor and changing some of the words Can't pick out exactly what they're saying from my earpiece.
	Maybe the folks at home can.
	But again, singing We Shall Overcome, which was sung many times during the Civil Rights Movement and is also sung during Black History Month at celebrations and at churches.
	What is that civil rights movement or black history movement?
	So these idiots are sitting there singing, we shall overcome.
	Like literally sitting there singing, we shall overcome, like this is Martin Luther King's march.
	Want to know something ironic?
	Martin Luther King was on a secret government watch list from the FBI by J. Edgar Hoover, and he owned a gun.
	So according to John Lewis and according to these people singing, we shall overcome, I guess Martin Luther King should have lost his license to have weapons.
	They should have taken away his ability to have a weapon.
	After all, he was on the FBI's watch list as a possible subversive.
	So, there they are singing We Shall Overcome.
	Really making a difference.
	Really making a difference.
	It's pretty amazing.
	Bernie Sanders apparently came down to the floor for all of this, and he sat down on the floor and then immediately shouted, I've fallen and I can't get up.
	The media, of course, lapped all of this up, like the lapdogs they are.
	They just loved this.
	This was their favorite thing.
	Now, back in 2008, Republicans did the same thing.
	Republicans took to the floor, and they basically filibustered, and they wouldn't get off the floor in order to protest Democrats' fracking ability.
	I will say this.
	I think the Republicans should take a note out of the Democrat playbook, and they should do this on abortion.
	They should do this on defunding Planned Parenthood.
	As long as we're gonna be grandstanding full-time now, as long as our politics is just grandstanding, do it on things that matter, not stupidities like getting rid of due process.
	This is truly amazing.
	The media's there, and they're worshiping at the altar.
	Oh, this is a historic moment!
	I am so sick of hearing you declare something historic in real time.
	You know when I'll know something is historic?
	When 30 years from now, we're still reading about it.
	In two weeks, nobody's gonna remember this.
	Historic moment, come on.
	Come on.
	And so the media were cheering about this, and apparently, according to a reporter from IJ Review, there were 30 members of the media.
	All 30 members asked all the various members of Congress how historic this was.
	Halfway through this idiotic charade, the Democrats turn to the media and actually start applauding the media.
	James Clyburn from South Carolina, they actually turn to the media and start applauding the media, which just demonstrates exactly what this is.
	Let me begin my remarks by thanking the media.
	And the media thanking them right back.
	It's just amazing!
	It's amazing!
	Today stands out as a great example of what we mean when we talk about a free press and why we need one.
	- Yeah, correct. - Okay, we can stop it here.
	Free press and why we need one.
	The Democrats hate the press, okay?
	President Obama has shut the press out of more reporting than any other president in history.
	Maybe except for Woodrow Wilson or Abraham Lincoln during the actual Civil War.
	But the Democrats applaud the media.
	Of course they applaud the media because the media created for them an echo chamber.
	Nancy Pelosi says exactly this, clip 9.
	Nancy Pelosi was standing outside the House, talking to the media, and here is what she had to say about what's the point of all this?
	Why are you guys sitting around, growing your tentacles into the carpet?
	Why are you just, like...
	Why do you think it makes a difference for you to sit on your fat cans for 25 hours doing nothing and getting food shipped into you?
	Like, we have plenty of people in America who do that now.
	We don't need more people that we pay to do that.
	We have lots of people who do that now.
	They're on welfare, I guess, are Democrats.
	Here's Nancy Pelosi explaining the real goal.
	As we gather here on the steps of the Capitol, our colleagues are gathered in great numbers on the floor of the House.
	As I said at the beginning, they still are.
	Called together by John Lewis, John Larson, and led by our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
	They have been in and out, but again, this is an echo.
	We are echoing each other.
	And what we hope to do is create an echo chamber throughout America of a repeated message of no bill, no break.
	Okay, we desperately hope that there will be an echo chamber.
	And that's what the Democrats want, and they get it with the help of the media.
	By the way, I love her bracelet.
	You have to see, she's wearing this huge bracelet.
	I mean, it looks like Wonder Woman's bracelet here.
	She's wearing this giant rainbow bracelet.
	No, this isn't posturing at all, gang.
	This isn't posturing in any way.
	Of course it's posturing.
	That's what they do.
	They don't have any plans here.
	They don't know what they're doing.
	It's just posturing.
	And remember, all of this is on the heels of a jihadist attack, right?
	All of this is on the heels of a jihadist attack.
	Louie Gohmert.
	I really like Louie.
	Louie's the only person in Congress that I really enjoy.
	He's a representative from Texas, the most sincere guy in Congress, way too good a fellow to be in Congress.
	And at a certain point in the middle of this last night, it was like 8 o'clock last night, Pacific time, Louie just comes down to the house floor and he starts yelling at these people.
	He says, the hell is wrong with you?
	Why are you talking about taking away due process from me?
	Why are you talking about gun control?
	You know who did this?
	A radical Muslim jihadist did this.
	You know who did this?
	A jihadi did this.
	Why are you talking about that?
	Louie Gohmert loses it and it's pretty great.
	Here it is.
	It appears as if the gentleman is afraid to vote and afraid to debate.
	And given the weakness of his arguments and his position, his fear is well founded.
	Hello to your leadership and say it's time for a real debate on these issues.
	No fly, no gun!
	So Louie comes down, he starts yelling at them.
	Radical Islam killed these people.
	- No fly, no gun! No fly, no gun! No fly, no gun! No fly, no gun! - So Louis comes down, he starts yelling at them, "Radical Islam killed these people.
	Radical Islam killed these people." - Why do you wanna let terrorists buy a gun?
	Why do you want to let terrorists fight you?
	Okay, we need to stop it here.
	So, Louis, my favorite part here is they say, "You guys don't want to have a debate." So, Gohmert comes down, he says, "Okay, Radical Islam killed these people." And they go, "No bill, no break, no bill, no break, shut 'em up, no bill, no break, we can't talk, terrorists, no gun." La la la.
	Yeah, right, exactly.
	And that's the, yes, this is the kind of debate that they want.
	Now, I have to admit, I have to admit, I think that the Republicans should bring up this bill for a vote.
	I think they should vote it down, and I think they should hammer Democrats on this issue.
	It's a losing issue for Democrats.
	I'm not sure why Paul Ryan decided not to bring this up for a vote.
	Bring it up, reject it.
	Bring up your bill, make them reject it.
	You know, do all the things that, do all the posturing the Democrats do.
	And if you're going to leave them there, and you're going to declare the House an adjournment, which you did last night, then, for goodness sake, don't just allow them to continue to maintain in an air-conditioned chamber.
	Do exactly what Nancy Pelosi did to Republicans in 2008.
	In 2008, she turned off the lights, she turned off the cameras, she turned off the air conditioning.
	Paul Ryan could have done that today, but he didn't.
	He took the sort of pansy way, which, I'm gonna sit here, I'll let them do what they're gonna do, it'll burn itself out.
	In any case, here's what it looked like when Paul Ryan intervened to have a vote for adjournment.
	Basically, the House broke into a little bit of chaos.
	This is the unprecedented situation.
	We were anticipating the Speaker trying to convene the House, the Democrats chanting, no bill, no break.
	Let's watch this.
	House Joint Resolution 88.
	The clerk will report the title of the joint resolution.
	The question is, will the House, on reconsideration, pass the joint resolution?
	The objectins of the President, to the contrary, notwithstanding, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Klein, is recognized for one hour.
	Okay, so you can see them losing their minds and they're shouting and nothing's happening because this is stupid Occupy Wall Street crap.
	When President Obama said he was going to community organize America, this is what he meant.
	That the House was going to turn into an Occupy Wall Street routine, complete with people pooping on cop cars and such.
	None of this does any good, obviously.
	All of this is just ridiculous.
	And the Democrats don't have any good arguments on any of this.
	So Paul Ryan says this is a publicity stunt, and clearly he's correct.
	But recognizing it's a publicity stunt, why don't you deal with it like a publicity stunt?
	Here's Paul Ryan to Wolf Blitzer last night.
	Here's a key point.
	A new CNN poll shows an overwhelming majority of Republicans, look at this, 90% of Republicans support that idea.
	So why won't you at least allow a vote on this on the floor of the House?
	Well, first I would tell you, Wolf, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
	That's point number one.
	Point number two is this bill was already defeated in the United States Senate.
	Number three, we're not going to take away a citizen's due process rights.
	We're not going to take away a citizen's constitutional rights without due process.
	That was already defeated in the Senate, and this is not a way to try and bring up legislation.
	Now let's focus on the issue at hand here, terrorism, and let's find out what we need to do to prevent future terrorist attacks.
	And if a person is on a terror watch list, And they go try to buy a gun.
	We have procedures in place to deal with that.
	We want to make sure that those procedures are done correctly, and that's something we should be able to do in a calm and cool manner, without these sort of dilatory publicity stunt tactics, to try and bring a bill that already died over in the Senate to the House floor.
	Why not at least allow a vote, up or down?
	First of all, they know that we will not bring a bill that takes away a person's constitutionally guaranteed rights without their due process.
	We don't agree with that, and the Senate already doesn't agree with that.
	So I think, look, the point here, Wolf, is this is a publicity stunt.
	They're trying to get you to ask me those questions for publicity's sake.
	This isn't trying to come up with a solution to a problem.
	This is trying to get attention.
	Okay, and this is right.
	The Democrats, by the way, are already raising money off of this.
	They've sent out all of their fundraising letters trying to raise money off the dead people in Orlando based on this little publicity stunt.
	The problem for Ryan is that Ryan is such an accountant.
	He's such a goody-two-shoes.
	He doesn't know how to deal with the publicity stunt.
	What he should be doing is he should be turning off the lights.
	He should be... Either do that or...
	Hold the vote and hammer them.
	Like, I still don't understand why not just hold the vote and hammer them.
	It seems to me like that would be a better strategy than allowing them to grandstand on this basis, because that's, it's just, it's silly.
	That said, the Democrats have no arguments at all here.
	I mean, their arguments are just egregiously bad.
	My favorite terrible Democratic argument comes courtesy of Charlie Rangel, who is legitimately an idiot.
	And Charlie Rangel, from New York, he was asked specifically why he has security.
	Like, if we don't need guns, why do you have security?
	And here was his answer.
	Why should, say, the uber-wealthy who have protection, have that protection, but individuals or law-abiding citizens in your district should not?
	Let's talk about that.
	Well, law-abiding citizens just shouldn't have to carry a gun, you know that, so you're not going to push me in that direction.
	But you're protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol.
	Awkward laugh.
	Well, that's a little different.
	I think we deserve, I think we need to be protected down here.
	We deserve it.
	You don't deserve it.
	We deserve it.
	Great answer, Charlie Rangel.
	I'm so glad that our protected political class thinks they deserve protection, but none of the rest of us do, especially from people like them who want to take all of our rights away.
	But it's not just Charlie Rangel.
	Here's another Democratic representative explaining that there is definitely free... This is Crowley.
	I think it's Joseph Crowley or Jonathan Crowley.
	I can't remember his first name, from Massachusetts.
	And he's asked about this, and his answer is similarly hilarious.
	But vote with your conscience.
	Vote for the right thing.
	Do the due process.
	One of my colleagues started yelling out, what about due process?
	I'll start chanting due processes.
	I said, what about due process for the little child who's killed in a classroom?
	What about the due process for a young person who's dancing in a nightclub and they come in and their heads are blown off by an automatic weapon?
	What about their due process?
	I believe in due process.
	I think we can work a bill that covers the rights of people's due process at the same time takes hands out of the hands of terrorists and criminals and people who want to do harm to average ordinary American citizens.
	Okay, this is a very good argument on every level.
	I believe in that.
	His name is Joe Crowley, and he's from New York.
	So Joe Crowley there, he says that what about the due process rights for the person who's killed?
	Well, it's not just their due process rights that are violated.
	It's their basic right to life that is being violated in that case by somebody else, which is illegal.
	The problem here is that you're saying it should be legal for you to take away my rights.
	Not illegal, legal.
	If somebody comes in here and, God forbid, shoots me, they've violated my rights and they've broken the law in doing so.
	If you come in, what he's saying is he wants to come in here and tell me that I can't buy a gun, and that should be perfectly legal for him to do.
	The Democrats, this sort of logic is the logic of tyranny.
	This is the logic of tyranny.
	Well, what about the, what about the, every right becomes secondary to this.
	Think about it this way.
	I say, well, I have a right to free speech.
	And he says, well, your free speech generates the people who kill little kids in classrooms.
	Doesn't that kid have a right to free speech?
	He's dead now.
	So you can't complain about your right to free speech being infringed.
	Any right, you can do that.
	Any right, any right.
	Every right that you have.
	I have a right to own my property.
	Well, your right to own your property is impoverishing some kid in the third world.
	Doesn't that kid have a right to life?
	Doesn't that kid have a right to live?
	Doesn't his right trump your right?
	Once you get to his rights trump your rights, you're not talking about rights anymore.
	You're talking about tyranny and the government allocating its priorities to one person and taking away the rights of another in order to do so.
	That's what tyrants do.
	Nazis under the Nazi regime had rights.
	Nobody else did.
	The idea here is that the little kid in the classroom has rights, which I acknowledge, but that he has to take away my rights in order to protect that kid, which of course is not true in the slightest.
	It's such a bad argument.
	It's such a tyrannical argument.
	And he's not the only one making stupid arguments.
	Seth Moulton is a Democrat from Massachusetts, and he gave a speech last night in favor of the no-fly, no-buy legislation, and he said that the right to travel is so basic we didn't have to include it in the Bill of Rights.
	We'll see what he's talking about here.
	And what we're asking for is so reasonable.
	If you're on a no-fly list, if you're not allowed to fly, you ought not to be able to buy a gun.
	And if there are problems with the no-fly list, then let's fix it.
	But tell me this, if there are so many problems with the no-fly list, why do we have the no-fly list?
	Why are these people not allowed to fly?
	I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that everybody in this body flies home every weekend.
	Is the freedom to travel not afforded to Americans?
	Is that not a right that we care about?
	Do we live in a government that can go and tell you you're not going to get on that plane just arbitrarily?
	No.
	That's a basic freedom.
	It's so basic we didn't even have to include it in the Bill of Rights.
	We can stop it right there.
	So his argument here is that the right to travel is more basic than your right to own a gun.
	That's the argument that he's making.
	It's so basic we didn't have to include it in the Bill of Rights.
	Oh, this is so stupid.
	It's head-hurtingly stupid.
	The whole point of including things in the Bill of Rights is because they're basic.
	That's why they were included there.
	Is the right to travel more basic than the right to free speech?
	That one was included in the Bill of Rights.
	Which one is more important, do you think?
	Which one do you think the founders cared about more?
	What absolute assininity.
	And when he's talking about the no-fly list, here's the truth.
	You can still fly if you're on the no-fly list, so long as you can differentiate yourself from the suspect who they think that they're trying to pursue.
	So this is why John Lewis is on the no-fly list, but he's still been able to fly, right?
	But again, this isn't about arguments, this is all about posturing.
	And that's all the Democrats want to do, is just posturing all over the place, posturing Right.
	And left.
	And of course, celebrities are all in on this.
	Celebrities from Britney Spears to Lady Gaga, they've been jumping in.
	They wrote an open letter to Congress about how they think that it's just terrible, that there isn't more gun control.
	It's this long list of useless celebrities whose opinions I don't care about because they're paid to sing songs other people write, and they're paid to read lines that other people write.
	I mean, it's people like Demi Lovato and Ellen DeGeneres.
	Why would I possibly care what Demi Lovato has to say about anything?
	Her famous song is about being hot for the summer.
	Why would I care what Lady Gaga has to say about anything?
	Her knowledge of the Constitution is rivaled only by her subtle tastes.
	I mean, it's just, it's this long, long list of useless people I could not care less about.
	Questlove.
	Ooh, Ricky Martin says I shouldn't have a gun.
	Well, now that Ricky Martin says it, well, I guess I won't be living La Vida Loco with Ricky Martin.
	I guess I'm really, I'm really on board with all of this.
	Tony Bennett.
	I mean, come on.
	Come on.
	So our rights should go away, because a lot of celebrities say our rights should go away.
	And this, again, is the theme of today's show.
	The left doesn't like your rights.
	The left thinks that your rights are bad, because the left thinks you are bad.
	See, the left has no problem with their own security carrying guns, because those people are good, they're protecting them, but you disagree with them, so you shouldn't be able to carry a gun.
	This is why no-fly lists, this is why terror watch lists are scary, because the people who are in charge get to simply dictate who goes on the list and who doesn't.
	Is there any doubt, is there any doubt, that if Nancy Pelosi were in charge of that list, and that list was the easy way of preventing people from getting guns, anybody who supports her political opponents goes on that list?
	Is there any doubt that happens?
	Of course that's exactly what happens.
	Of course that's exactly what happens.
	But this is what Democrats do.
	They're interested in curtailing your rights so that they can pursue their broader agenda of controlling you and getting rid of rights altogether.
	And what they really want in the end is they want the rule of their friends.
	They want the oligarchy.
	They want the tyranny.
	They want the guy at the top.
	So the other big story of the day Is that the Supreme Court split 4-4 on President Obama's executive amnesty.
	If Justice Scalia were alive, then presumably he would have voted against President Obama's executive amnesty.
	President Obama, in case you don't remember, had said somewhat like 20 times, something like 20 times, that he did not have the presidential authority to go ahead and just amnesty millions of people.
	Then he went ahead and amnestied millions of people.
	Somebody appealed that.
	26 states appealed that to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't really do that so much.
	So President Obama was super pissed about that today.
	And President Obama spent about 20 minutes this morning talking about how it was everybody else's fault that he even had to do that in the first place.
	And, well, Congress should have passed comprehensive immigration reform.
	It's their fault that I had to do this.
	It's the Supreme Court's fault that I had to do this, because they could have sided with me.
	And if the Republicans would just greenlight my justice that replaces Justice Scalia, if they would just greenlight Merrick Garland, then, hell, I wouldn't have to do any of this.
	I could just, you know, go ahead and get what I want through legal methods, but they won't give me what I want, so I did what I wanted anyway.
	This is how Democrats govern.
	Democrats believe that rule of law is an obstacle to them getting things done.
	This is why I'm very much in favor of the sit-in that happened on the floor of Congress.
	I hope it would continue year-round.
	I hope it's all year they do this.
	I don't want them doing things.
	I think that their action is an obstacle to my freedom.
	They think that my freedom is an obstacle to their action.
	This is the scary thing about Democrats, and this is the scary thing about the left.
	My rights are an obstacle to them doing what they want, so the rights simply have to be overruled.
	So President Obama, he basically said, yeah, I know what I was doing was illegal, but Congress wouldn't act, so I'm invoking the F.U.
	Clause of Article 2 of the Constitution, the one that says, F.U., I'll do what I want.
	You remember, the founders put that in there in case things ground to a halt.
	There's a long history of this sort of thing ending poorly, where government says, we're just going to, we're just going to overrun your rights because things are too important, things are too important.
	This is how enabling acts get passed in Germany.
	This is how fascist governments rise in Italy.
	This is how tyrants take power.
	They don't do it on the back of, the tyrants don't do it on the back of, I'm gonna be a jackbooted thug who's gonna come in and take all your rights.
	They do it on the back of, doesn't that kid getting shot have a right?
	Don't we have rights against the bad guys?
	Don't you have a right to be free of economic impurity and economic insecurity?
	Well, all you have to do is, if you think those rights are important, all you have to do is give me all your other rights, and then you don't have to worry about any of that stuff.
	I'll take care of everything.
	I'll take care of everything.
	And a lot of people go, yeah, that's right, democracy just isn't workable.
	Democracy isn't workable.
	Now, Democrats have a secondary plan here, and that is to purposefully make democracy unworkable.
	And so they go down to the House floor, and they protest, and they scream, and they make democracy look stupid.
	And then they say, well, you know, the democracy doesn't work.
	Obama says democracy doesn't work.
	I'm just going to do what I have to do on my own.
	I'm the president after all.
	Somebody's got to do something around here.
	This is how tyrants take power.
	This is how tyrannies rise.
	And unfortunately, it is on both sides of the aisle.
	I think that Donald Trump has a bit of the same, more than a bit of the same in him.
	The, if we won't get something done, I'll just do it myself attitude.
	I think a lot of Americans buy into this.
	I don't think it's just Americans.
	I think historically, human beings have a desire for a tyrant who agrees with them.
	Aristotle said this.
	He said, if you have a monarch who agrees with you, it's better than having a democracy.
	Well, that's if you don't believe in rights.
	I think a democracy is better, even if the democracy doesn't agree with me, so long as that democracy isn't violating my rights.
	Once the democracy violates my rights, and my rights to be free of you, then it's no longer a decent democracy.
	So the Democrats are full-scale on attack against all of this, which is very troubling and very frightening.
	All together.
	So, now let's do some things I like, some things I hate, and then the mailbag.
	It's a Trump-free episode, by the way, of The Ben Shapiro Show, so this is- I know, it's been a while, but Donald Trump's over in Scotland, so there's not really much to say about that, other than there's some weird conversations going on where Donald Trump's over at his golf course, like, uh, isn't this a magnificent golf course?
	Like, get out of here!
	What are you doing?
	Why are you here?
	Why are you wearing a kilt?
	Who's this crazy orange-haired guy standing here?
	Okay, so, okay, time for some things I like and things I hate.
	Okay, so, this week, the Jewish community, we read the Parsha.
	Parsha just means portion.
	We read the Torah portion, the Old Testament portion, known as Behaloscha.
	Okay, so this is a portion where it talks about, it's more about what is done in the temple, about the building of the menorah, and this is also the part where the Jews complain.
	Basically, the Jews in the Bible just stand around complaining the whole time, and God keeps saying, God, you guys are awful, but I made a covenant with you.
	Fine!
	So this week's episode of that is they complain about the fact that the manna that falls from heaven is not good enough for them.
	They would prefer some meat, and so God's like, fine, here's some meat, and then he has like a giant flock of birds just fall on the camp, right?
	That's one of the big elements of this week's Parsha, but the part I want to talk about is there's one sentence, there's one verse in this week's Torah portion that is cited by the left very often, and that is Numbers 9.14.
	And it says, if a proselyte dwells with you and he makes a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, according to the statutes of the Passover sacrifice and its ordinances, he shall make it.
	One statute shall apply to you, to the proselyte and to the native born citizen.
	So what the left likes about all of this is that the left cites the last part, right?
	One law will apply to you, and to the proselyte, and to the native-born citizen.
	What they seem to imply is if an illegal immigrant lives in the United States, they're bound by law.
	Morality requires that we treat the stranger among you as we would treat you.
	This neglects the actual Jewish law and the actual Torah law that says that in order for somebody to be considered a proselyte, they actually have to abide by the law.
	They can't be somebody who just sits down in your house and now you have to treat them with respect.
	It has to be somebody who's accepted the mantle of the law on them, and then they get treated like everybody else.
	Then they belong under that one statute.
	But if they just come in and they say, we're not paying attention to any of your laws, now treat me great, it doesn't work that way.
	So when you talk about Syrian Muslim refugees, for example, coming to Europe, And taking part in Europe, but not really.
	Kind of separating themselves off, setting up their own courts, and not just their own courts, but ignoring basic moral law in these nations.
	You can't treat them, the illegal immigrants, just the same as you would anybody else.
	You actually have to have a set of laws, especially for them.
	I think it's important to debunk leftist notions of the Bible because the left constantly cites the Bible out of context.
	I can't wait.
	At some point here on Friday, we're supposed to have a crossover show where Clavin and I and Jeremy Boring, we all sit together and we chat over this stuff.
	I can't wait to do biblical exegesis with Clavin because I like about half of Clavin's biblical exegesis and half of it I think is way too soft.
	And so I'm looking forward to having that conversation.
	I listened yesterday to his exegesis of Judge Not from the New Testament, and not that I'm an advocate for the New Testament, because I'm sure Clavin knows the New Testament better than I do.
	After all, he believes it.
	You know, that goes in his nonfiction section, it goes in my fiction section.
	I'm a Jew.
	But I've read it, and the part where it talks about Judge Not, I'm pretty sure that Jesus did not mean, Judge Not means that I don't have the capacity to admonish you if you are doing something sinful.
	Judge not just means I don't know what your sins count for in the eyes of God, and so I have no right to declare myself better than you in the eyes of God because of the sin that you're doing, but I still certainly know what the sin is, and if you look in the Old Testament, in another explicit order in the Old Testament, it specifically says that you shall not put a stumbling block in front of the blind.
	What it means by that is that you have a duty to warn people about the sins that they are committing.
	In Judaism, it's called the Hasra'ah.
	You're supposed to give people a warning about the things that they are doing that are wrong, And it's actually part, it's a vital part of Jewish criminal law, biblical criminal law.
	So I can't wait to have those crossover conversations because the Bible continues to be the foundation document for all of Western civilization and how we interpret it.
	I'm not sure there's anything more important than that.
	Okay, things that I hate.
	So, I want to talk about Ben Affleck for a second.
	So Ben Affleck is... I thought he was great in Batman vs. Superman, actually, and I really don't like Ben Affleck as an actor at all.
	I think he usually wouldn't.
	But he played a real, kind of dark, nasty Batman in Batman vs. Superman, and since I think that's actually who he probably is, he played it really well.
	He was on this new show, Any Given Wednesday, with Bill Simmons.
	Bill Simmons, I really enjoy Bill Simmons writing a lot.
	I don't think he's very good on TV.
	But Bill Simmons does this show and now he has Ben Affleck on and it's all awkward and stuff.
	Ben Affleck launches into this screed, just a yelling, drunken rage about Tom Brady and The Flakegate.
	And we'll play a little bit of it.
	The Flakegate.
	Is this the ultimate Boston sports story that ever could have happened, us against them?
	The Flakegate is the ultimate bulls**t.
	This is the most outrageous of sports ever.
	It's so fucking stupid that I can't believe... You realize they gave him a suspension for a quarter of the regular season, which would be equivalent of suspending a baseball player for 40 fucking days.
	40 and a quarter days, to be exact.
	Which is what they do for when you get busted taking steroids.
	Right.
	Which... And by the way, if the NFL had a real testing... If they really knew how to test for steroids and HGH in the NFL, Right.
	So instead, what they did was suspend Tom Brady for four days for not giving him his f***ing cell phone.
	And for having a friend who called himself the deflator.
	If I got in trouble for all the things that my friends called themselves, I would be finished, okay?
	Okay, so he goes on like this for five minutes.
	First of all, he got in trouble for nailing his nanny.
	Then he'd also be in trouble.
	But Ben Affleck, what I love about this is that Bill Simmons, there's a great column by Jim Garrity at National Review on this.
	Bill Simmons pitches this as, we're going to say the things that no one will say.
	And this is making the rounds now.
	It's going viral because Ben Affleck is cursing about to flake it.
	He's saying the things no one will say.
	Does anybody find this that controversial?
	Like, anything that he's saying?
	Does anybody find any of this really controversial?
	Like, deflategate is kind of stupid, and if everybody in the NFL were tested for actual steroids, then there wouldn't be an NFL- Like, this isn't controversial.
	I love that the new standard for hot talk is, I say stuff, but I drop the f-bomb a lot.
	That's the new standard for hot talk.
	The problem that I have with that is that what they actually end up doing because of this is they take well-accepted opinions and then they say, well, this is super edgy and fringy.
	And then when you say something that's not particularly well-accepted because it is, for example, politically conservative, then it's not just edgy and fringy and it's not just biting and it's not hardcore.
	No, when you say it, now you're just like a loon bag.
	Like you're out of the realm of even rational discourse because you see, here's the mainstream.
	And then on the edge of the mainstream is Ben Affleck talking about Deflategate.
	And then there's you over here saying that men are actually men and not women.
	Right?
	You're way out here.
	You're crazy.
	I mean, because Ben Affleck, that dude's edgy.
	You're more than edgy.
	I mean, you are a nut.
	You are out of your mind.
	That's what I hate about this stuff, because it's so stupid.
	I mean, like, what he's saying here is so uncontroversial.
	And people are like, ooh, wow, he's ripping on the Flakegate.
	What a snorer.
	Okay.
	That too.
	Lindsay thinks that Ben Affleck is absolutely drunk during this.
	I think that's just Ben Affleck as normal.
	He actually looks like Ben Fatfleck there a little bit.
	He doesn't look like he's been working out since Batman.
	He kind of let himself go, and then he'll juice himself up for the next Batman role.
	I have to say, I was not overly impressed.
	In Batman vs. Superman, the part that I was not overly impressed with was the workout routine.
	Because I was looking at that, and I was like, I kind of do that stuff.
	Like, if I can do that, Batman should be doing stuff that's way harder than that.
	Like, I'm in pretty good shape, but I'm not Batman.
	Or am I?
	So it's okay.
	Okay, time for the mail back.
	Okay, so Luke writes, Hey, Ben, what do you say to someone who says the Constitution is out of date?
	That argument seems to be popular.
	I say that this is a tyrant in waiting.
	So the Constitution is based on there are certain values that change and then there are certain values that don't.
	And one of the things that doesn't change is human nature.
	The Constitution is based on a concept of human nature that says human beings are capable of great good or we're capable of great evil, but we're basically driven by our own interests.
	And the only way to make sure that my interest doesn't overwhelm your interest, the only way to make sure I don't come into your house with a gun and steal all your stuff, is to ensure that there are checks and balances.
	Because in a pure democracy, for example, I wouldn't need to come into your house and steal all your stuff.
	I and three of my friends would go vote against you to go into your house and steal all of your stuff.
	This is called communism, right?
	So what the founder said is, we need a complex process by which interest is pitted against interest.
	This is what it says in Federalist 51, faction against faction.
	And they fight each other, and maybe there's no winner.
	And the only way that things really get done is if everyone agrees.
	If there's a broad consensus.
	That's when we do things.
	Otherwise, we all kind of just, everything balances out in the wash, nothing happens, and you're left to your own devices.
	That's why the Constitution is relevant.
	The left hates that, because the left wants a pure democracy where they can ram down your throat whatever they think the community wants, and the community in their case is just the left.
	Like, you don't count as a person in the left viewpoint.
	So whenever somebody says the Constitution is outmoded, what they really mean is they don't agree I know a lot of people have talked about this.
	I haven't talked about it too much, mainly because it's Britain and not the United States, but it's sort of the equivalent.
	or that they are just ultimately good, wonderful human beings who don't need a check on them.
	Colin writes, hey, Ben, what are your thoughts on Brexit?
	So Brexit is, I know a lot of people have talked about this.
	I haven't talked about it too much, mainly because it's Britain and not the United States.
	But it's sort of the equivalent, I know Clavin talked about this yesterday, of if Texas had decided that it was just seceding from the unions.
	So it's a big deal.
	It's a big deal.
	It's not quite that bad because the fact is that Texas was a republic.
	It still calls itself the Republic of Texas.
	But Texas was pretty quickly integrated into the United States.
	Britain existed for hundreds of years before the rise of the EU and the European Commission in the 1960s and 70s.
	And then it became the European Union in the 1980s.
	So it's really kind of a short-lived thing.
	It really is only an after World War II thing that the EU is created.
	And so it's not quite the same thing as Texas being part of the Union, but in some ways it is.
	In the sense that, like, Britain has its own army, they can make their own foreign policy.
	Texas can't do that.
	Britain has its own domestic policy.
	That does look more like Texas.
	But there are a bunch of problems with the European Union as it currently is constituted.
	And I think that there are good reasons why, if I were living in the UK, I would probably vote for Brexit.
	Number one, sovereignty matters.
	So, over at the EU, they have this European Parliament.
	That basically is just a rubber stamp for a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels who pass all these rules, and then the European Parliament greenlights them, and then they're incumbent on everybody to follow.
	This is taxation without representation, or at least regulation without representation.
	It's a bunch of bureaucrats telling people what to do in Britain, who never voted for any of this stuff.
	Never voted for any of this stuff, and that I think is just on a root level really, really wrong.
	On immigration, I think that Britain has every case to be made that why should they have to accept refugees that Germany's accepting just because Germany did it?
	There are countries that aren't really part of the EU that are in Eastern Europe, And they're looking at this and they're saying, well, we're building fences to keep these people out.
	Like, we're not going to let you just... But there's free travel within the EU, and so the idea is that refugees could just come into Britain from France or from Germany, and they don't like that.
	I think that's a good reason.
	And finally, the bureaucracy itself.
	I mean, they pass all sorts of idiotic rules at the EU level.
	And then there's the socialistic aspect, which is that the EU sponsors all of these failing states, like Greece, which is why Germany has been paying for Greece for years.
	And Britain is kind of sick of it.
	Britain kept its own currency.
	It doesn't take part in the euro.
	But all these connections mean that it doesn't have the freedom to operate as it sees fit.
	I know a lot of people are afraid that if Britain exits the EU that this will kill global trade.
	I don't see why that should have to be true.
	The United States has trade policies with the EU.
	Norway has trade policies with the EU.
	Switzerland has trade policies with the EU and isn't a part of the EU.
	There are plenty of countries in the Nordic areas That are not part of the EU, but have really easy trade relationships with the EU.
	We have trade relationships with Japan.
	Like, I don't see why you should have to be part of the European Union in order to trade with the European Union.
	I also don't see why you should have to be part of the European Union to have a common security apparatus.
	You already do.
	It's called NATO.
	So, I would vote for Brexit if it were up to me.
	Obviously, I'm not a citizen, so it doesn't really matter.
	Lindsay writes, I mean, really, really, really impressive.
	I agree.
	I mean, you should see me without the makeup.
	I look like Cookie Monster.
	"Seems to be very impressive." I mean, really, really, really impressive.
	I agree, I mean, you should see me without the makeup.
	I look like Cookie Monster.
	He says, "I can't get enough of her.
	"Isn't Lindsay great?
	"What are your thoughts on her awesomeness?
	"Would amazing be the word you choose?
	"Or maybe effervescent." Okay, so first I should point out, Lindsay cultivates the mailbag.
	So, the fact that this is in the mailbag, I can't say that this kind of, this seems to have been sneaked in by somebody, and also Lindsay wrote it.
	So Lindsey, thank you for your mail.
	No, you don't get a raise, but it's okay.
	I can't believe that I didn't see that coming, and that is hilarious.
	And I look forward to subscriber Mathis writing in next week to tell me how great Mathis's hair is.
	Okay.
	Greg writes, Hi, Ben.
	We welcomed our first child to the world last month.
	Do you have any parenting books to recommend?
	Thank you, Greg.
	Yeah, there's not Dr. Spock.
	There's books by Dr. Karp, and those books are good for little kids.
	Uh, and first of all, I think that the best parenting manual you have is probably your own parents.
	Pick up on what you think was good, do that, all the things you think were bad, don't do those things, and you'll probably be a better parent than your parents.
	I had really great parents, that makes it easy.
	Also, quick tip.
	If you're worried about sleep training for your kid, and there's this whole new theory that you're supposed to go in and, like, pat their backs while they're crying, and then you leave them, then you come back and pat their backs.
	You don't do any of that.
	Once they're four and a half months, five months, you let them cry, right?
	You put them down for a nap.
	It's really hard.
	It's really painful.
	You put them down for a nap, they cry for like 45 minutes, then they get tired and fall asleep.
	The next day it's like half an hour, then 15 minutes, then five, and then done.
	And they go to sleep as soon as you put them down.
	And also have a normal bedtime routine, but...
	Yeah, I think that as far as parenting books, I haven't read any that I thought were super spectacular.
	The reason I recommend CARP is because CARP has some solutions to fussing and also to kind of colic for babies that are really good.
	I'm sure that your pediatricians told you about them, but yeah, that would be a good place to start.
	Frank writes, how does the concept of freedom of religion survive when there is a foundational cultural conflict like the one we see today between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West?
	Great question, Frank.
	Okay, so, freedom of religion does not mean I have to accept every crazy aspect of every crazy religion that comes into the United States.
	The Supreme Court has ruled like this, and this is true.
	If I have a religion that says, hey, it's the religion of Molech, and it's time for some child sacrifice, gang!
	Let's do that.
	I mean, number one, we would immediately make them presidents of Planned Parenthood, because that's what they do over there.
	But, aside from that, we would also say this is not necessarily a religion that falls under freedom of religion.
	There are certain basic rules that everybody has to follow, and freedom of religion really has to do more with your ritual practice than it has to do with your violation of basic cultural precepts.
	Like, we all have to agree on basic cultural precepts.
	This is one of the things that's so scary about multiculturalism, And the left sees it when it comes to religion, but they don't see it when it comes to multiculturalism.
	If you come here and you want to kill your kid because you're a secular, you're a secular from some crazy part of the world where this is what they do, then the left kind of goes, oh, okay, that's kind of spectacular, that's kind of cool.
	But if you come in and you say, you know what, I don't want to serve your same-sex wedding because my Bible says not to, then the left says, no, that's terrible, that's religious discrimination.
	Freedom of religion is meant to suggest that you get to act out your religion in public and private so long as you don't hurt anybody else, and that's the rule, right?
	As long as you don't hurt anybody else.
	Radical Islam hurts other people.
	That's why the practices of radical Islam are problematic, not because of anything it says in the Quran.
	It's why, you'll see, I don't cite the Quran.
	I don't go into long...
	Explanations what the Quran says versus the Bible.
	I don't think that is actually super important I think how people act is much more important and their thought process is Important to that, but I'm not going to I'm not an Islamic expert.
	I'm not gonna tell you what's a more legitimate form of Islam I'm just gonna tell you that it's Osama bin Laden knows more about Islam than I do and so does and so does So do various moderate Muslims around the world, but I can tell you what the percentages are which and who's the threat Okay, Robert says, Ben, I'm a huge fan of both yourself and Klavan, and anxiously await each new podcast.
	Would you consider doing a debate with Stefan Molyneux?
	I don't really know him, so I'm happy to debate with pretty much anybody.
	I was even happy to debate with the ex-Scribble Milo Yiannopoulos until he chickened out because he's a coward.
	A lot of what he has to say, I have a hard time understanding his Trump fandom.
	And so he wants me to debate him.
	Again, I'm happy to debate him.
	Sure.
	Daniel writes, Ben, love the show.
	Getting to see that mug of yours and hear the unbeatable knowledge spill out of it for the price of a Netflix subscription is well worth it.
	Well, I appreciate it.
	And everyone else should follow Daniel's lead.
	He says, the next time you're on a talk show with the leftists and they start complaining about how everything is the right's fault, you should whip out your violin and play along with their lament.
	That would be funny.
	I am in fact a good violinist, although I have not practiced in a couple of years, which means it's like riding a bicycle, you don't lose everything, but you're also not in racing shape.
	David says, Ben, people on the left often use Zionist as an argument, ender, the way they use bigot, racist, Islamist, homophobe.
	As far as I can make out, all it takes to be a Zionist is to believe in the legitimacy of the statehood of Israel.
	Well, I can distort my brain to understand why the left hates that.
	Is there more to their definition of the word, or should it be filed under, I have no argument, so I'm going to insult you?
	No, that's how it should be filed.
	That's the entire argument.
	Zionists, there are people who try to read into Zionists, like, ooh, well, it's racial nationalism.
	No, it's religious nationalism, actually.
	It was established, the state of Israel was established specifically to provide a safe haven for Jews around the world, which As each succeeding generation demonstrates, is increasingly necessary.
	And beyond that, it was founded as a liberal democracy to preserve the precept of Judaic religion and thought.
	And the ethnic Judaism is actually secondary.
	The only reason ethnic Judaism matters at all, I really don't care about it.
	The only reason ethnic Judaism...
	Matters at all is because it's a precept of religious Judaism.
	So it's part of the religion.
	If it weren't, I wouldn't care.
	And this is why when people say Zionism is racism, for example, really?
	Ethiopian Jews were flown in, like tens of thousands were flown in on planes, and those are black people, right?
	I mean, they're from Africa.
	The Syrian Jews were flown in.
	Russian Jews were flown in.
	I mean, Judaism is multi-ethnic.
	It's multi-ethnic.
	It has no ethnic component beyond just if you happen to be born to a Jewish parent, but you can convert to Judaism and then you're a Jewish parent.
	Mitchell writes, Hi Ben, my girlfriend and I have been taking classes at a Lutheran church where we wish to have our wedding one day and have our future children grow.
	While in the class, our pastor explained all that believe in God will be saved as long as they believe in the one true God.
	In previous lessons, we learned that one must believe in Jesus as the Savior.
	I asked about Jews.
	Although you may not believe Jesus was our Savior, you believe in God and that He is the one true God.
	When I asked if they would be saved, he could not answer my question.
	Why could he not answer me?
	We believe in the one true God.
	I believe God will save the Jews as well as the Christians.
	What is your take?
	Well, I mean, I can't answer for your pastor.
	I know there are some Christians who believe that Jews are saved.
	I think that the mainstream position is that Jews are not saved because we don't accept Christ and Christ is the way and the light and there is no path to heaven except through me.
	That doesn't bother me in the slightest.
	I don't care.
	You know, when I die, then I guess I'll deal with that.
	So long as we're friends here and we're allies here fighting the same battle, then after we die, we can have that argument.
	You know, I think that you're going to heaven if you believe in Jesus and you obey certain basic principles of decent life.
	If you believe I'm going to hell, I really could not care less about that.
	It doesn't matter to me so long as you don't plan on sending me there, like a lot of radical Muslims, then I don't care.
	I really... This is...
	This doesn't bother me one iota.
	One iota.
	Of course, religions believe that other religions are wrong.
	You know, that's why Judaism isn't Christianity and vice versa.
	Okay, Andrew writes, Well, I mean, a Clinton-Trump ticket or a Trump-Clinton ticket is basically two sides of the same coin, so sure, why not?
	have a Clinton-Trump ticket because at this point why not?
	I mean a Clinton-Trump ticket or a Trump-Clinton ticket is basically two sides of the same coin so sure why not, why not?
	Last one.
	I haven't seen it yet.
	I plan on watching it.
	I'll let you know as soon as I do.
	I haven't seen it yet.
	I plan on watching it.
	I'll let you know as soon as I do.
	I do know that the left's sick, perverse attempt to target children with their propaganda in kids' films makes me want to vomit.
	It's disgusting.
	And it's something that every parent should be policing.
	I mean, you've heard me talk about Frozen and the social messaging implicit in Let It Go.
	Now they're using Finding Dory.
	We've talked about this.
	Finding Dory, there's a random lesbian couple that shows up.
	Apparently there's a trans fish or something.
	It's a stingray, it was a stingray and now it's a stingronda, I guess, which is weird because in the animal kingdom that doesn't happen because if that happened in the animal kingdom, everybody would die off, basically.
	But this attempt to socially engineer children...
	It gives a lie to the left when they say, if you just leave us alone, then we won't bother you or your kids.
	That is an absolute lie.
	They absolutely will bother you.
	They absolutely will bother your kids.
	And if you don't fight back using your market power, they will continue to do that endlessly.
	And it's difficult because so many talented people make so much good art that disagrees with that.
	But it's one thing for me as an adult to expose myself to art that I know disagrees, that I disagree with.
	It's another thing for me to expose my five-year-old child to art that has an agenda that is subtle and that I disagree with and that I find sinful and problematic.
	Okay, folks, we've reached... Oh, yeah, we have one video question.
	Thank you for the reminder.
	Okay, video question.
	Hi, Ben.
	Thanks for all you do.
	My question is, aren't sex educators, the middle school, high school sex education teachers, aren't they accomplices of rape?
	Because they're teaching sex education, giving out condoms, providing resources, telling kids that they can have consensual sex when, by law, children Until you're 18, some states 16, but generally 18, you cannot have consensual sex.
	Ow!
	You can't get consent.
	So this is actually a good question.
	It also illustrates the difference between statutory rape and what they call forcible rape.
	Now, Todd Akin got himself in all sorts of trouble because he was making a legal distinction that people don't understand.
	He was also saying something really stupid, scientifically idiotic.
	But there is a legal distinction between statutory rape and forcible rape, right?
	Statutory rape is a 20-year-old guy has sex with a 16-year-old girl, and there's no Romeo and Juliet law, and so he is now guilty of statutory rape because he's raped someone who's not capable of giving consent to someone that much older.
	That's not quite the same thing as forcible rape, which is a 20-year-old guy sees a 16-year-old girl walking down the street.
	She's not his girlfriend.
	They're not dating or anything.
	He grabs her off the street, puts her in the back of a van, and rapes her, right?
	There is a distinction in law with regard to the punishment that goes along with that.
	When it comes to statutory rape, of course this is true.
	Of course this is true.
	You teach a 12, 13-year-old girl that sex is wonderful and fine and beneficial and so long as it feels good, do it.
	And then she meets a 20-year-old guy who says, yeah, so long as it feels good, do it.
	Yeah, of course you're facilitating statutory rape in that way.
	My view is that it's up to the parents to teach their kids about sex.
	I don't want teachers teaching my kids about sex.
	I want to teach my children what my standards are and what moral standards look like.
	I don't trust anybody else to teach my kids about the most vital parts of life.
	That's my job as a parent.
	One of my problems with sex ed is this abdication that's occurred where parents say, oh, well, I don't have to have the talk, that confusing talk.
	I've never understood this, by the way.
	All these people in society, oh, oh my god, I can't believe I have to have the talk with mom.
	I can't believe I have to talk with dad.
	And these idiot parents, oh my god, it's going to be so awkward when I have to tell my daughter about sex.
	It's going to be so awkward.
	Why is it awkward?
	Why is it awkward?
	It seems to me that one of the goals, unfortunately, of the secular left is to shroud sex in mystery and then to pretend that there's no mystery at all about it, right?
	So they want it both ways.
	They want to shroud it in mystery like, oh, it's something that's too dirty to be talked about.
	It's so dirty.
	That's what makes it sexy.
	It's so dirty.
	We can't talk about it.
	And then at the same time, there's no mystery about it at all.
	It's just like pooping.
	It's just a bodily function.
	It's like eating or pooping.
	People just do it.
	It's totally great.
	Okay, here's the reality.
	There is a mystical component to sex.
	Clavin talks beautifully about this.
	He says that the difference between rape and consensual sex is a spiritual difference because the physical act is precisely the same.
	All that's lacking is consent.
	It's a crime against the soul, not just against the body.
	For you to talk to your kids about sex is incumbent on you as a parent.
	And it shouldn't be confusing, and it shouldn't be upsetting.
	And the fact is, the more outright and forthright you are about sex with your kids, the better you- And this isn't to say that- And when I say outright and forthright, I mean like in a biological sense.
	The more clear you are about how things work, the less it's gonna be like, ooh, I have to experiment to figure out where things go.
	No, you don't.
	I mean, here's a biology- This is literally what my dad did.
	I think I was a little older than usual.
	I was probably 10 when my dad told me.
	I was a first child.
	So in a child with many families, sorry, in a family with many children, depending on the number of children, the age of knowledge about sex goes down with each preceding child, right?
	So the first child, it's like he's 10.
	The next child's like 7.
	The next child is 5, right?
	Because the kids tell each other.
	So when I was 10, my dad sat me down, maybe 9, my dad sat me down with a biology textbook and he said, this goes here.
	Right?
	He said, here's how this goes, this goes here, you do this when you're married.
	Right?
	When you're married, this is one of the great things about being married, you get to do this.
	And he didn't put it in the context of when man loves a woman, when you love each other.
	Because that's too vague.
	It is too vague.
	And kids can't understand that, and you can't expect kids to understand that.
	Because kids are not fully mature.
	And it's not just when you love somebody.
	If you want to have a productive sex life, not just a pleasurable... All sex is pleasurable, essentially.
	All consensual sex is pleasurable.
	But if you want to have a productive sex life, like one that's going to actually enrich your life in a positive way, you need a commitment that goes along with that.
	And marriage is the standard of commitment.
	So the way I'm going to teach my kids about sex is I'm going to say, when you get married, here's what you do.
	Not when you love somebody, because you can love lots of people.
	Not when you... And especially for girls, that's particularly damaging.
	I don't think sex is the same for girls as for guys, spiritually.
	I think that's a lefty, feminist, bull, pucky routine.
	And just look at the suicide rates among young girls who have sex versus the suicide rates among young boys who have sex.
	Not the same at all.
	Not the same at all.
	Promiscuous girls in their teenage years, significantly higher depression and suicide rate than teenage boys who have promiscuous sex.
	Because for men, sex is much more of a biological function, and for girls it's much more Connected to a deep well of spirituality and feeling, which is why for every I think every man on a gut level understands that a one night stand is may just be some guy getting his rocks off and every woman understands that it's more than that.
	And so, you know, I think you should teach your kids about all these things.
	The more open you are, the more they're going to come to you with questions and not feel ashamed.
	And for you not to be ashamed about your sex life, doesn't mean, like, spill it out in front of the kids, but for you to say, yeah, of course mom and I have sex.
	Of course we do that.
	And it's wonderful because we're married and we love each other.
	Right?
	That's a good thing.
	It provides a positive role model.
	Otherwise, they're going to get messages about sex from TV where everything is taboo.
	And what makes things sexy is the violation of taboo.
	And the problem is, in our society, With each progressive year, the taboos get knocked down.
	So we're now reaching the point where there are no more taboos.
	And so we have to create new taboos to knock down.
	And that's why we're now creating... The taboo was homosexuality.
	Now the taboo is transgenderism.
	Soon there will be another taboo that's designed to turn people on.
	And the reason that transgender stories do well, typically, is because people are fascinated by the taboo.
	Okay, so that is the end of the mailbag.
	That is the end of the week.
	We'll be back here...
	On Monday with more insanity, and I'll give you the update.
	I'm supposed to be at Politicon this weekend.
	I'm debating Sally Cohn, which should be entertaining at the very least, and maybe we'll have some video clips of that if it's available.
	But you have yourself a wonderful weekend.
	Try to survive, and we'll be back here on Monday if the world still exists.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲