All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:52
Ep. 141 - People Died, Hillary Lied

The new Benghazi report comes out, Democrats love abortion, and Trump tells George Will to take a hike. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, good news.
Now that the Department of Justice can't find any evidence that people are acting according to racist motivations, they will be delving into the unconscious of their employees.
Reuters reported yesterday that more than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors will receive training aimed at preventing unconscious bias from influencing their law enforcement decisions.
Department officials told Reuters the bias prevention plans follow a spate of shootings, they say, of unarmed black men by white police officers.
Of course, there's no evidence that such shootings were driven by race.
In fact, as Professor Peter Moskos of John Jay College found just a few months ago, white suspects in violent confrontations with the cops are more likely to be shot by police than black suspects.
But implicit bias.
That's the new left-wing buzzword.
So, what is implicit bias?
Well, It's bias you didn't know you had.
It's unconscious bias.
Now, usually leftists like to try out studies that suggest that white people and black people both respond more quickly to word association, picture association, matching criminal words with black faces.
These are known as implicit association tests.
Your friends probably send them to you on the internet and tell you to take them, and look, you're a racist.
But those studies are not particularly reliable.
They have a pretty small sample size, and they find no significant correlation between implicit bias, the stuff the DOJ cares about, An actual behavior in the real world.
Texas A&M psychologist, Professor Hart Blanton, he points out that scores on the implicit association test, particularly exceeding supposed bias cutoff scores, mean pretty much nothing.
He says there's not a single study, not one, showing that above and below that cutoff, people differ in any way in their behavior based on that score.
Social psychologist Russell Fazio of Ohio State University, he says, quote, as traditionally implemented, the test really has problems.
Even advocates of the IAT, such as the creator of it, Professor Anthony Greenwald, admit that implicit association test findings are simply not appropriate for settings like courtrooms.
In fact, at least one major study has found that, quote, being alerted to potential bias and limited response control through direct personal experience, such as that provided by the IAT, can lead to worse rather than better behavioral regulation.
Actually, statistics show that correlation between the IAT and political preference are stronger than racial preference.
So, there's good evidence to suggest that IAT measures in-group, out-group implicit bias rather than racial bias per se.
So if you're told which group is in your group, you associate good things with that group right off the bat.
It's even possible that the IAT measures intelligence.
How quickly can you overcome your implicit reaction to particular pictures?
Are you more biased if you're slower to hit the right key on the keyboard?
In other words, the DOJ is just pushing absolute crap.
So naturally, the DOJ is using implicit bias training for people whose main function is court-related.
Perfect.
This isn't science.
It's an attempt to cram down a vision of the world based on non-evidence on employees of the federal government.
What's more, it's unfalsifiable, which is the test of scientific tests, right?
If you can't falsify something that's not scientific, this is unfalsifiable.
If crime statistics continue to be insufficiently satisfying to the left, they always claim that implicit bias hasn't been alleviated enough.
We need more training!
Back to the training camps with you.
But of course, the best way to police bias is to actually show evidence of bias, not ghost hunt for unconscious bias, what's going on in your evil little brain.
But the left isn't interested in policing actual racist behavior.
They're interested in the continuing polarization of the country along racial lines.
And what better way to do that than suggesting that you're a racist and you don't even know it?
I'm Ben Shapiro.
this is the Ben Shapiro show.
Alrighty, so welcome to our first Facebook live stream of the Ben Shapiro show.
We're going to go about 15 minutes here, and then at the very end, if you want to keep watching, obviously our show goes sometimes 45 minutes, sometimes an hour, depending on if I can push my producers to go longer, which I will.
If you want to watch the rest, you can go to dailywire.com and subscribe, or you can go to iTunes and download it, you can go to SoundCloud and download it.
But we're going to be live here at the very beginning, which is really exciting, and I'm happy to see All of you.
Although I'd be happier if you paid me.
But, since we're here, and since we're doing it, we might as well do the news.
So, here's the news.
Okay, so the DOJ, we'll start with, finish off with my points about the DOJ.
So the DOJ is utterly insane.
They've lost their mind.
We'll get to Benghazi in just a second, because I know that's the big news of the day.
The DOJ has utterly lost its mind.
So the DOJ, this is a story that hasn't been covered a lot, they've now declared that they could prosecute you criminally for saying things that they don't like about Muslim refugees.
So if you haven't been following this story from Idaho, there is the story from Idaho where three young Muslim boys, 7, 10, and 14, allegedly sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl.
The reports say that the seven-year-old sexually touched her and then peed on her.
This is what the reports say, and the other two boys videotaped it.
That's according to most of these reports.
What made this national news is the fact that the three boys are Muslim refugees, apparently from Sudan and Iraq.
So naturally, the right-wing press covered the story, and the left-wing press pretended that it never happened.
Well, the Obama Department of Justice, U.S.
Attorney Wendy Olson in Idaho, the federal prosecutor, she just issued this statement, and this demonstrates fully how tyrannical the left is.
She said this, quote, the spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law.
We have seen time and time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities.
Did you get that?
She's saying that the spread of false information or inflammatory statements, that may trigger federal prosecution.
And not threatening these people, but just saying that you don't like Muslim immigration to the United States, Muslim refugees not being vetted properly.
You know, being very specific, even.
Not even Trump-style, you know, overbroad stuff.
Even if you just say, Muslim refugees have to be better vetted before they come into the United States, generally, even if you want to let them in.
Even that sort of stuff could be violative of federal law.
This is what she's saying.
If you think the left cares about free speech, you are out of your mind.
Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post, who's a libertarian, he says, the federal prosecutor surely knows how to speak carefully and precisely about what very limited sorts of speech he can prosecute.
But she chose to equally threaten federal prosecution, not just for punishable true threats, but also for an unspecified range of inflammatory statements.
Right?
So the Obama administration doesn't care about the First Amendment.
They don't care about actual law enforcement.
Everything for the Obama administration is a tool of power.
That's all they care about.
All they care about is cramming their vision of the universe down on you.
That's all they want in life.
It's why the left is so dangerous.
All the left cares about is their perception of the world being enforced by law.
And that perception has to be enforced at the point of gun, because in the end, that's what they're talking about.
So the DOJ will force its own people into retraining camps, essentially, in order to make sure that they are not implicitly biased.
And how do we know when that's been solved?
When they stop arresting black people, of course, because that's how you can tell the system is racist.
Because we arrest too many black people is the idea.
So once we arrest less black people, then presumably, we won't be implicitly biased anymore.
Nevermind, the reason so many black people are being arrested is because so many black people are committing crimes.
Same thing here.
Instead of focusing in on the threat of unvetted Muslim refugees coming into the country, they're saying, if you talk about it, and we don't like how you talk about it, we'll come after you.
And remember, Loretta Lynch said something very similar to this just a few months back.
Just a few months ago, Loretta Lynch said that she would be interested in prosecuting people For anti-Islamic speech, basically.
She had to backtrack on that because it was too controversial, but that is where the left stands.
That's what the left believes.
So there's so much news to get to.
I want to start today with a little bit of fallout from the abortion decision by the Supreme Court yesterday.
So yesterday, the Supreme Court comes down with this abortion decision, which we discussed at length legally.
Here on the Ben Shapiro Show.
But the most controversial thing that happened yesterday with regard to this abortion decision came courtesy of legitimately the least funny human being on planet Earth.
I mean, there are terrorists who are more funny than Trevor Noah.
Trevor Noah is... He's comedy cancer.
He ranks somewhere between the Black Plague and an actual devastating climactic apocalyptic world event.
In terms of funniness.
Okay, so he's awful.
So he tweets out, the Daily Show tweets out yesterday, celebrate the SCOTUS ruling.
Go knock someone up in Texas.
This is what the Daily Show tweets out.
And the left was sufficiently embarrassed that a lot of them said, oh, this is really out of line.
I can't believe that Trevor Noah tweeted this.
Here's what I don't understand, why the left cares.
I don't understand why the left cares.
It seems to me that the left should be fully embracing this.
And when I was at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, In Charlotte.
I remember, very clearly, walking down the street past a bunch of anti-abortion protesters, pro-life protesters, carrying posters of aborted babies.
And walking near me were a bunch of people who were Democrats going to the convention.
And there were a bunch of young guys wearing Obama shirts and wearing buttons.
And the buttons said, I love pro-choice girls.
And I thought to myself, well, I can imagine why you love pro-choice girls.
Right?
Because you knock one up and then they go have an abortion.
They treat it as birth control.
I've never understood the left's idea that there's some... Why exactly... I really don't get why they're upset about this.
Go knock someone up in Texas.
They don't believe that you're even creating a baby by knocking someone up in Texas.
Right?
You're creating a polyp that can be removed.
That's why when Hillary Clinton says things like safe, legal, and rare, when she says safe, legal, and rare, she doesn't mean any of that stuff.
Because the reality is, that if you believe that basically a baby is nothing but a ball of cells that's useless human flesh, then what do you care if it's removed?
It shouldn't be rare, it should just be a thing you do, right?
Nobody's ever said, removing a polyp from your colon should be rare.
Nobody's ever said that, it's just a polyp, who cares?
They say that abortions should be rare because they know deep down in the cuckolds of their perverse minds, they know that these are babies.
And if these are babies, then they would presumably have to admit at some point that it should be illegal to kill them.
You shouldn't kill babies.
The fact that you have to say these sentences out loud in modern America shows what a paganistic road we've now run down.
We shouldn't kill babies.
Really?
Like, this is stuff that we have to... Yes, we have to argue this.
We have to argue this.
And the left refuses to acknowledge the implications of the things that it says.
So last night, I was on The Kelly File.
Martha McCallum was hosting for Megyn Kelly.
And I got into a debate with Ebony Williams, who's a contributor on Fox News.
And you'll see me press her on this point, and you'll see she really has no good answer for it.
Well look, I thought the tweet from Trevor Noah was ignorant, sad, and very distracting from what I thought was a very classical constitutional analysis delivered by the court today, and I thought that was sad.
I've got to respectfully disagree with Ben on the fact that most Democrats see abortions as a primary method of birth control or method at all of birth control.
I'm just simply not aware of the data that shows that.
I know for people that I know personally that are pro-choice, They are just that.
They're pro the woman's right to choose.
Actually not pro-abortion even, and certainly not advocating that that be some method of a birth control.
That's why we have other actual birth control options.
Yeah, I mean there were other pro-choice individuals who said that they were horrified by some of these expressions, right?
The one that Trevor Noah put out.
You're shaking your head, but you don't believe that?
Yeah, why?
I thought it was a disgusting claim because it was a celebration and it kind of, to me, underscored the point you made, Ben, and I think it's a sad and disgusting point that anyone in this country would view abortion as a method of birth control.
But why would you object to that?
If you don't think that the child is fully human, then why would you care?
First of all, nobody said that.
I think that you're connecting dots that I've certainly not stated.
So if the child is fully human, why are you okay with aborting it?
So to be pro-choice.
Actually, you know what?
Senator Marco Rubio, I thought, really brilliantly laid out this analysis in one of the debates where he talked about This issue of whether or not the child is unborn, and does the child have rights, and also does the mother have rights, and where do those rights intersect or overlap?
And I'm someone that believes that certainly the child, unborn child, has rights.
I believe that the mother has rights.
I simply happen to be a person, and some believe that those mothers' rights deem to usurp those rights.
But certainly it's not to disrespect.
In what world would any of my rights allow me to kill another human being?
Well, Ben, again, you're not a woman, and as a woman, I'm someone that's simply saying it is my position that a woman has a right to dictate the choices around her body, but that is not to ignore or take away the rights of any unborn child.
I'm not a slaveholder either.
That doesn't mean that I get to let slaveholders define what constitutes property and what constitutes a human being.
Well, thank goodness you're not a slaveholder, Ben.
That's good news.
I'm really glad that you're not.
No, the point that I'm making, I mean, let me finish the sentence.
The point that I'm making is that the greatest moral problem in society historically is the idea that you get to arbitrarily define what is human and what is not based on your own convenience.
I don't believe it's arbitrary, and again, this is not a discussion about humanness, but thank you.
And Martha looks a little bit flustered by the exchange here.
But you can see that Ebony has no comeback to this because she's arguing in a circle now.
She says, well, if there are rights for the baby and rights for the mother, I think it's an unborn baby that has rights.
Once you say that, the argument's over.
Because no matter what you think my rights are, my right doesn't include my right to kill you.
That's where my rights end.
So there's no argument for the left here, and they know it, and that's why they always have to hide behind silly little phrases like safe, legal, and rare, and they have to pretend that they're really upset by abortion, but they're not really upset by abortion.
They actually love abortion.
Abortion is a sacrament to the left.
It's why Wendy Davis was super happy yesterday.
You know, the lady who was filibustering for 14 hours because she loves abortion so much.
She was super happy.
There are people literally clinking champagne glasses over this decision.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Now, the main news of the day, aside from fallout from the abortion decision, is the Benghazi report.
So the Republicans have now dropped the Benghazi report, and the Benghazi report is 800 pages long.
Quick note, Trey Gowdy, who led the Benghazi House Select Committee.
Trey Gowdy comes out and he says, you know, to the media, they say, what's in here?
Are you saying Hillary Clinton's a liar?
He says, no, I'm not saying Hillary Clinton's a liar.
Go read the report for yourself.
Republicans suck at everything.
All of the things that is possible for Republicans to suck at, they suck at, and things that have not yet been invented yet, they also suck at.
Okay, if you drump an 800-page report on somebody, nobody's gonna read that, particularly not a media that loves Hillary Clinton to the point of waxing her cankles.
Okay, the media are not going to read an 800-page report to come up with the points that you want to distribute.
It is your job.
You have that five-second segment where you get your punchline.
Here's the punchline, okay?
Trey Gowdy wouldn't do it.
The punchline is, the Obama administration dithered, people died, and Hillary lied about it.
Okay, that's the punchline of this 800-page report.
The 800 page report basically says that there were three stages to the Benghazi screw-up.
Stage one was they invaded Libya.
They didn't care what happened next because that was Hillary's big win.
Then when things went bad, they ignored it, so they didn't give security to Ambassador Stevens.
Then when things went really bad, They didn't send people there because they were afraid that it would look like we were declaring war on Libya.
There was information that came out about that.
I'll discuss in a second.
And finally, finally, the third part is that when everything went to hell in a handbasket, they turned around and they said that it was all the fault of a YouTube video specifically so that they could pretend that this was unforeseeable.
It's not our fault.
It's not our fault we didn't give them security.
Nobody could have seen this coming, right?
That's what the report basically says.
So Hillary lied.
People died.
That's true.
In actual order, it's actually Hillary did nothing.
People died.
Hillary lied.
That's the exact order.
Well, that sort of concludes where we are on Facebook Live today, but if you want to continue with us, then you go over to SoundCloud, go over to iTunes, and check out a Daily Wire.
You can subscribe, you can get the whole thing, and it's well worth the price because, as you know, I'm not only brilliant, but I'm...
Definitely and devastatingly handsome.
So, if you want to see more of me, then go to dailywire.com and we'll see you there.
Okay, continuing along these lines.
Okay, so here is what the Benghazi report actually says.
There's a bunch of stuff on the Benghazi report I'm going to go through right here.
There are basically 11 major points in the Benghazi report.
It's 800 pages long, so if 11 sounds like a lot of points, that's only because I've distilled 800 pages down to 11 points for you for user ease.
So, Here we go.
Number one, the Obama administration repeatedly rejected additional security requests for Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Hundreds of times, he was asking for additional security.
Hundreds of times, he was rejected.
Some of them in Hillary Clinton's name.
Okay, number two, even though President Obama and the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, supposedly ordered military assets to deploy to Libya during the attack to help people, that never happened.
For eight hours.
Nobody did anything.
Right, so they said, go, go help, and nobody helped.
What happened?
Where did that scrup occur?
Well, it'd be nice if the Obama administration would answer questions, but they won't, as we'll see.
Number three.
As the attack unfolded, while it was happening, while it was happening, the Obama administration had a meeting.
And at this meeting, they focused.
Half their questions were about what narrative we're gonna push to the public.
Half of them.
And the narrative they decided on was a protest based on a YouTube video led to the attack.
Right, so they wouldn't be blamed.
So they wouldn't be blamed.
Fourth, and this one is the really crazy one that nobody knew until now.
The Marines who were sitting on a tarmac in Spain, waiting to be deployed to Libya, because Spain and Libya are actually not that far apart by air.
The Marines who were sitting on a tarmac in Spain, they were told to change in and out of their uniforms four times.
Four times, and then they never deployed.
Why?
Because the Obama administration didn't want it to look like we were invading Libya.
So there was a big debate.
Do we send them in out of uniform?
Does that make them spies?
Does it mean they're non-combatants now?
As opposed to, people are on rooftops getting blown away, and you idiots won't send soldiers there in uniform.
I mean, this is evil stuff.
Fifth, no military forces deployed on time.
None.
So they were given orders, they didn't deploy.
Sixth, the Libyans who helped evacuate the Americans, they weren't our grand and glorious Libyan allies being cultivated by the CIA and Hillary Clinton's State Department.
That's not who evacuated the annex.
You know who evacuated the annex?
Qaddafi's allies.
The people that Hillary Clinton said were the bad guys.
Those are the people who helped the Americans get out.
Seventh point.
Susan Rice, she gave this ridiculous spin on national TV.
You remember this, where she got up and she said, it's all the YouTube video.
It's the YouTube video.
We can't, we can't, Islamophobia like that leads to terrible, terrible things.
It had nothing to do with anybody in the State Department originally.
It came courtesy of Obama's campaign operative, David Plouffe.
David Plouffe.
David Plouffe went to Susan Rice and he says, here's a narrative that I think would help us.
Let's run with that.
Eighth point.
Even the State Department employees who watched this thought that this was crazy.
They watched this on TV and they testified before Congress.
This was insane.
This had nothing to do with anything.
Ninth point.
The administration didn't send a rescue team to Benghazi eventually because they actually thought the attacks were over when the attacks were not over.
So they said, ah, screw it.
We're not going to send anybody.
So, people were still under fire, and they were saying, no, no, no, the attacks are over, it's fine.
Tenth point, Hillary Clinton stonewalled, she didn't answer questions, she avoided scrutiny.
And finally, the Obama administration stonewalled any investigation, any investigation into weapons transfers to Libyan rebels.
So this is a big one, right?
Hillary says, and the Democrats say now, oh, you evil Republicans, you want to hand guns to ISIS, right?
You want to sell guns to ISIS.
They legitimately handed guns to Al-Qaeda, and then they smuggled guns through Libya to Syria, some of which fell into the hands of ISIS.
They didn't want to testify about any of that.
So all of this should be devastating, right?
All of this should be pretty devastating to Hillary Clinton.
Fortunately for Hillary Clinton, none of it's devastating to Hillary Clinton because the media is on full-scale defense mode.
The New York Times says, no new revelations in Benghazi reports.
This is the game they play.
There's a scandal.
And they say, it's too soon.
It's too soon.
You can't politicize this.
Don't politicize the scandal.
People died.
How dare you?
The bodies are still warm.
Never mind that Hillary is standing in front of those bodies, lying to the family members of the dead people.
No, you can't politicize it.
That's just too cruel.
If you don't think Hillary Clinton cares about those bodies, you're the problem.
You're the problem.
Right?
So that's the first step, is it's too soon.
It's too soon.
Second step is, how dare you politicize this?
Hillary cares.
Don't you think Hillary cares?
Are you saying she's uncaring?
Are you saying she's unfeeling?
And then they delay, meanwhile, right?
You say she's uncaring and this is a partisan witch hunt.
Then a couple of years passes, you actually do all the digging, and then you say, as Tommy Vietor said, one of Hillary's spokespeople, you say, well it's been two years, I guess it's old news now, it's old news, we can't, there's nothing to talk about here, it's old news.
And then finally you issue your 800 page report and they say there's nothing new here, we knew all this stuff two years ago.
It's very frustrating.
I mean, you're being gaslit by the Obama administration and by the media.
And all of this is to protect Hillary Clinton.
So anybody who believed that the media had been destroyed by the Republicans and by the new media, they're missing the point.
Most Americans think Benghazi is a non-issue because the media have spent the last several years, and this happened in 2012, they've spent the last four years telling people that this means nothing, that Hillary didn't do anything wrong, that she was a great hero of the situation, that even though she went home and went to bed, Shouldn't make any mistakes.
That even though Obama didn't go to his security briefing the next morning, he didn't go, this is a piece of news in this report, he didn't go to his security briefing the next morning, where'd he go?
He went to Vegas to party with Beyonce.
Even though that happened, we're gonna pretend that it had no impact at all.
It's amazing stuff, it's amazing stuff, but...
Again, none of this is going to hurt Hillary Clinton, because the media don't want it to hurt Hillary Clinton.
And the media control all this stuff.
They don't care.
They're going to cover up for it, no matter what.
And it really is quite disgusting, all the way through.
So, the Benghazi Report should be damaging to Hillary Clinton, but it won't be.
Hillary came out today, just before the show, which I'm glad that's over with.
It never started.
It never started.
Because the fact is that if you're a Republican, and you're investigating criminality, then you're gonna be stonewalled at every turn, and the left will say that you deserve to be stonewalled because the evil Republicans are partisan.
I'm so sick of this nonsense, by the way.
This partisan nonsense, where people say, oh well, they're just out to get Hillary because she's a Democrat.
Let's assume that's true for a second.
Let's assume that's true for a second.
Were Democrats not out to get Richard Nixon because he was a Republican?
Has there ever been a political scandal in the history of the country that wasn't broken by the opposition, the political opposition to the person who was enmeshed in the scandal?
When's the last time you saw Democrats attack other Democrats on a scandal?
Does it ever happen?
I've actually seen Republicans do it on occasion.
Republicans, last I checked, were the ones who went after Mark Foley and forced him out of the House after there was the House Page scandal, for example.
But...
That's a rarity.
I mean, typically, it's the opposition that targets you.
This idea that, oh, it's a partisan witch hunt.
What other sort of witch hunt would there be?
I mean, the Democrats are willing to elect a witch.
They're not going to hunt her.
I mean, they're not interested in preventing Hillary Clinton from cackling her way to the White House, riding that broom into the sky and writing Surrender Trump there.
They're not going to stop her in any way.
So of course it's going to be the Republicans who try to.
And this is my problem with the Republicans, is once again, they blew the optics.
They blew the optics.
Well, what Trey Gowdy should have done is he should have walked out with this 800-page report, which is like that thick, he should have walked out, he should have plopped it down on the desk, and he should have said, here is all of the evidence, boom, that Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States, she's unqualified, and President Obama is a liar who let people die in Benghazi.
That's what he should have done.
He wouldn't do that because he's a lawyer and because he's scared that there will be fallout.
But if you're not going to play the game right, don't bother to play the game at all.
It's amazing.
The Republicans won't even call Hillary Clinton a liar.
The Democrats will go on the floor of the House and sit there for 14 hours calling Republicans terrorists.
And Republicans won't even call Hillary Clinton a liar on stuff where she is documented to be a liar.
And it is.
It is documented that she is a liar.
And Hillary Clinton, I mean, beyond that, Hillary is just... She's a terrible person.
I mean, Hillary is legitimately a nasty cuss.
There's an ex-Secret Service agent who's now brought out a book about Hillary Clinton and did an interview last night about how Hillary Clinton talked about how she is a person with Sean Hannity.
Here is that Secret Service agent.
And you felt compelled to tell the story because you... because why?
Let me ask that.
Because I want the people... I want Americans to know what the real Clinton administration is like.
Mrs. Clinton is not a leader.
She's a very, very angry person all the time.
She's... I've seen many instances that I talk about in my book, Crisis of Character, where she displays this Um, holier-than-thou attitude, do as I say, not as I do.
She's a dictator.
She comes across as a dictator.
I've seen her berate many people, and myself included.
And I've never seen any example that would lead me to believe that she couldn't lead this country.
You know, you describe a woman that is very phony.
In other words, You talk about how she'd tell you to go to hell, or tell another agent to go blank himself.
Correct.
And how she threw a Bible at a Secret Service officer or agent.
Agent, yes sir.
Okay, and the vase story, which we'll get to in a minute.
Right.
But if the cameras were on, she was close to Bill, but it was manufactured, it was not real.
Absolutely.
Camera goes off, different person.
Yeah.
And if she had guests, she'd say, oh, he's my favorite Secret Service guy.
Sure, she actually did that to me one time when she berated me about an hour before over something, and then introduced me to this tour from Arkansas, a group of people that were getting a special tour, and told them what a wonderful, I was her favorite officer, and patted me on the back, and almost to the point where, like, I almost believed her.
But I knew what the truth was.
Yeah.
I'd seen this behavior before.
You said, and with Hillary Clinton's latest rise, I realize, her own leadership style, volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, disdainful of the rules set for everyone else, has not changed a bit.
A lot has been made about temperament, and the temperament of a president.
Yes.
You're describing someone, by far, that does not have control over emotions or temperament.
Yeah.
She exhibits some very dangerous behavior, as I would describe it.
Stop it there.
But this is, of course, true.
I mean, all of this stuff is true.
And the cultivated, the carefully cultivated Hillary image, where she's just robotic, she actually isn't.
She's actually a pretty volatile character.
She just uses the robot to hide the volatility.
Right?
She's the robot from Ex Machina.
Right?
She's going to snap and kill people.
And that's basically what we're getting here, is that she's programmed and she's robotic.
But at a certain point, she's going to blow a gasket and she's just going to go ape poop on everybody.
And things are going to go wildly sideways.
Hillary Clinton herself understands.
I get why people don't trust me, but listen to Hillary's description of herself.
By the way, I have to say that watching this competition between Hillary and Donald Trump, Is there anyone in the United States under the age of 1,200?
I mean, really.
Hillary and Trump, their combined age is older than the age of the universe.
I'm fairly certain that both of them were conceived before the Big Bang.
But Hillary Clinton, particularly, is not looking good lately.
I mean, she looks like death walking.
And here is Hillary Clinton, who is also ideological death walking, saying that she understands why people don't trust her, but I love that the way she says this is so insincere that it's pretty wonderful.
A lot of people tell pollsters they don't trust me.
Now, I don't like hearing that.
And I've thought a lot about what's behind it.
And, you know, you hear 25 years' worth of wild accusations, anyone would start to wonder.
And it certainly is true.
I've made mistakes.
I don't know anyone who hasn't.
So I understand people having questions.
Now maybe we can persuade people to change their minds by marshalling facts and making arguments to rebut negative attacks.
But that doesn't work for everyone.
You can't just talk someone into trusting you.
You've got to earn it.
So yes, I could say that the reason I sometimes sound careful with my words is not that I'm hiding something.
It's just that I'm careful with my words.
I believe what you say actually matters.
She's careful with her words.
I think that's true in life.
Hillary Clinton is very careful with her words, which is why she goes on national television during a debate and says that her chief enemies are Republicans.
It's why she has said in the past that she's not a stay-at-home little lady like Tammy Wynette.
It's why she spent her entire career ripping on Republicans.
It's why she went on the floor of the Senate in the aftermath of the Iraq War and held up a sign saying, Bush knew.
What did Bush know?
Hillary Clinton, careful with her words.
No, Hillary Clinton is not careful with her words.
She is calculated when it serves her to be calculated.
You can also tell from her body language here, she is really mad.
When people say that people don't like her, she doesn't understand why people don't like her.
She doesn't get it.
Now, one of the charming things about people who actually don't care whether people like them or not is that they don't care whether people like them or not.
The problem for Hillary is that she's utterly unlikable, but she actually cares whether people like her.
But the fact is that Hillary is not trustworthy because Hillary is Hillary.
Hillary has proved to us that she is not trustworthy.
Benghazi is just the tip of the iceberg.
She's the only first lady in American history fingerprinted by the FBI.
And people always say, again, it's this whole same game for the Democrats.
There's a scandal.
They say it's too soon.
They say, how dare you question my sensitivity?
And then they say it's too late, right?
That's the process.
So Hillary now, you'll say, well, you know, she was the first and only first lady ever fingerprinted by the FBI.
She's been corrupt for 30 years.
Well, that's old news.
Well, that's old news.
Well, you weren't saying it was old news when Mitt Romney cut a gay kid's hair in, like, 1932.
Then you were saying that was perfectly fresh, but it's old news that Hillary Clinton has been lying consistently and has never stopped lying all the way through.
And Hillary's allowed to get away with this by the media, and it's amazing what the media will do to defend Democrats.
Not just Hillary over Benghazi, but let's take, for example, Elizabeth Warren.
So Elizabeth Warren is Hillary's new best friend.
They're new besties.
And I think it's worthwhile reminding people that Elizabeth Warren hates Hillary Clinton.
Like, if she could strangle Hillary and get away with it, she would do it.
Or more appropriately, if she could tomahawk Hillary and get away with it, she would do it.
This is a flashback to Elizabeth Warren talking about Hillary Clinton in 2004, when she had some weird Amish hair going on.
And here is Elizabeth Warren.
Actually, when I knew Elizabeth Warren, this was what her hair looked like, when I knew her at Harvard Law School.
She used to wear her hair like this, and then she decided it wasn't senatorial enough, maybe, or something.
But, uh, or, yeah, I mean, it was not culturally sensitive to have this hair, maybe.
But here's what she had to say about Hillary Clinton back in 2004.
This is what she actually thinks of Hillary.
One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the bankruptcy bill.
This is a bill that's like a vampire.
It will not die.
There's a lot of money behind it.
The bill her husband had vetoed.
Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.
And?
She voted in favor of it.
Why?
As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different.
It's a well-financed industry.
You know, a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals, it was consumer credit products.
Those are the people the credit card companies have been giving money.
And they have influence.
And Mrs. Clinton was one of them, a senator.
She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
So what does this mean, though, to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class and then beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class?
What does it say about politics today?
You know, this is the scary part about democracy today.
We're talking again about the impact of money.
Okay, so we can stop it here.
But you can see, she thinks Hillary is a corrupt old bat.
Right?
She thinks that Hillary was bought off by Wall Street.
And this is what she has said.
I mean, when I was at Harvard Law School, she was apparently saying things like this.
So this is nothing new.
It's nothing old.
She's always been saying this.
Now, here's Elizabeth Warren, who's being bought off basically by the Clinton campaign, right, who's out there stumping for Hillary Clinton.
So yesterday, she was out there stumping with Hillary Clinton and ripping on Donald Trump and talking about how Trump is going to crush the middle class into dirt.
And she's in a Hillary-coordinated outfit, so they're wearing the exact same color.
They're twinsies.
And it's really cute.
They go to tea parties together and they go on the slip and slide and and they have water balloon fights and then they go and they and they dry off like raisins.
So here is here is Elizabeth Warren talking about how Donald Trump is going to crush you into the dirt.
The same stuff you're saying about Hillary like 10 years ago.
When Donald Trump says he'll make America great, he means make it even greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump.
Great for the guys who don't care how much they've already squeezed from everyone else.
Great for the guys who always want more.
Because that's who Donald Trump is.
The guy who wants it all for himself.
And watch out, because he will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants.
That's who he is.
So she no like Trump peep.
The reason I keep making fun of her over her Native American ancestry is because she has none.
So the reason that I keep saying this is because when she says things like Trump is crushing you into the dirt and he's doing it for his own benefit, let's explore the history of Elizabeth Warren for just a second, shall we?
Elizabeth Warren made oodles of money back in the 2000s by selling foreclosed properties.
She went in and she took foreclosed properties, she flipped them, and she sold them.
Right?
In a bunch of sweetheart deals with her brother, apparently.
Elizabeth Warren also claimed the way she got her job at Harvard Law, if you look at this and you say, she doesn't seem like the brightest egg.
She doesn't seem like she's some sort of genius or anything.
Like, what is she doing teaching at Harvard Law?
The answer is they were looking for a non-pale-faced professor.
And so they went to Elizabeth Warren because she claimed that she was a Native American.
What was her support for the proposition she was a Native American?
She once submitted a recipe to a book called Pow Wow Chow.
I'm not making this up.
To a book called Pow Wow Chow of Native American Recipes.
What was the recipe that she submitted?
It was a recipe for crab bisque.
Okay, crab bisque, which as we all know is a famous Native American dish.
We know that the Sioux and the Cherokee, who are in Oklahoma, where she's from, that the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, that they loved chasing down with their spears the crabs on the open plains.
The crab bisque is really the traditional recipe.
So she said, oh, well, I submitted a recipe to Pow Wow Chow.
Doesn't that make me Native American?
No, darling, it doesn't.
And then she said, well, you know, I used to walk through my family house and And my mother would tell me.
She always does this kind of soft-spoken voice.
I hate it when everyone does this, by the way.
Cruz did it.
I hated it.
I hate it when... Trump doesn't do it.
He just kind of yells at you, which I prefer.
Hillary tries to do it and fails because Hillary's 1 on the volume level is still a 10.
It's like when your dad is talking to you on the phone and he doesn't understand.
He's like 60 and he doesn't understand there's a microphone in the phone.
So he thinks that if he just yells into the phone that somehow the connection's gonna get better.
That's Hillary all the time.
So she doesn't have this kind of modulating in her voice.
Elizabeth Warren goes very soft.
So she's talking about, yeah, I used to walk to my family home.
And when I'd walk to my family home, my mother, she'd point up to the pictures on the wall and she'd point out, look at all the high cheekbones.
That's not racist.
That's not racist.
So she was a Native American because she has high cheekbones.
Mm-hmm.
By the way, the reason this matters is not just because it's ridiculous, but because she actually took advantage of a fake racial status in order to presumably edge aside other racial minorities for that Harvard Law gig.
So talk about crushing people into the dust for your own personal ambition.
That's Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren, though, continues along these lines.
Now the Elizabeth Warren who's totally at odds with Hillary Clinton.
Now she's totally for Hillary Clinton.
She's got the crazy Jennifer Granholm robot arms going.
You'll see it in just one second.
It's like she's lost control of her arms, and it looks like she's gonna spin around and smack Hillary in the face, which should actually be kind of funny, but it didn't happen.
But here here is Elizabeth Warren.
Hillary Clinton believes that racism, hatred, injustice, and bigotry have no place in our country.
She fights for us!
She fights for us, and we will fight for Hillary Clinton!
She fights for us!
Please join me in welcoming to the stage our next president!
Crazy arms.
Ah, the crazy arms then hit.
Hillary, you also did the crazy arms.
Field goal!
Oh, crazy arms for everybody!
Woo!
Crazy arms!
The right to bear our crazy arms!
Yeah!
Hey, it's the blue woman group!
With the crazy arms!
And everybody's got crazy arms now, woo!
Okay, so crazy arms for everybody, and they're all clapping for each other, and then skinny Elizabeth Warren gives way to fat Elizabeth Warren.
Okay, so, that's the new Democratic campaign, and it's a fraud, and it's ridiculous.
So now it's time.
Now it's time to play our favorite game.
Our favorite game, as we know, our favorite game, for those who have never yet experienced it, and now you're new from Facebook, so you're subscribing, of course, is Good Trump, Bad Trump.
It's time.
Okay, so.
We will begin with good Trump.
This is my favorite Trump.
My favorite Trump is Trump on attack against people who deserve it.
So here is Donald Trump going after Elizabeth Warren, and it is just wonderful.
In every way it's possible for it to be wonderful.
He said that he hopes that Elizabeth Warren is selected as Hillary Clinton's presidential running mate, indicating his campaign has turned both barrels on Warren, if that is the case.
Trump telling me that his campaign has ready, essentially in the can, comments that Warren has made about Hillary Clinton in the past, things that Trump believes Democrats will find, quote, devastating.
Trump said Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud.
He talked about claims that she exaggerated her Native American heritage, saying she made up her heritage, which I think is racist.
He said, I think she's a racist, actually, because what she did was very racist.
When pressed on this, he said she's been totally unable to prove she's Native American, and yet used that to advance her career.
He said, I hope she is the one chosen by Crooked Hillary.
He also, earlier, called her a fraud, essentially.
So some very harsh words from Donald Trump going after Elizabeth Warren.
Okay, so that is good Trump, right?
That's good Trump, yeah!
Going after Hillary, going after Elizabeth Warren, saying that Elizabeth Warren is indeed a fake and a fraud, which of course she is.
The problem is, and this, again, as I said yesterday, the left is becoming so open and obvious in their disdain for the Constitution, for the country generally, That it's becoming harder and harder not to fall into the camp that says, yeah, Trump is an absolute crap show, but at least he's not Hillary Clinton, right?
It's harder and harder to maintain that position, and that's why it's important to remind people that even if you are voting for Donald Trump, you still have to call him out when he does stupid stuff.
It's still important to be honest.
I don't think that honesty takes a backseat to showing for any candidate, and that particularly includes a career Democrat who gave money to Hillary Clinton.
So, Donald Trump, now it's time, unfortunately, for bad Trump.
So, bad Trump, yeah, sad Trump.
So, bad Trump is Trump trotting out his spokeswoman, Katrina Pearson, who has one of the more difficult jobs in American politics, namely explaining away every position that Donald Trump takes because So there's no religious part to this.
If you're Muslim and you can be vetted, it's not a problem.
different one in 30 seconds.
Conversely, if you hate his positions now, wait a week because it may change.
Right.
He's a magic eight ball of positions.
So so Donald Trump spokeswoman, Katrina Pearson, she's trying to walk back now.
Trump's ban on Muslim immigration.
And here's what it sounds like.
So there's no religious part to this.
If you're and you can be vetted, it's not a problem.
You can come into the country is what you're saying.
Well, even in his initial statement, when he said until our politicians can figure out what's going on.
That's exactly what that means.
But our politicians have told us, we cannot vet these people coming across the border right now, and we're bringing them in by the tens of thousands.
There is a problem and a disconnect between the politicians and the people of this country.
So, Christians, how would that work?
I mean, what is the religious aspect here?
If they're Christian and they can't necessarily be vetted, Then that's a problem too, is what you're saying.
What I'm saying is, if you are coming into this country and you cannot be vetted, then you should not be allowed in until you can be vetted.
This is not rocket science.
This is a man who wants to protect the homeland.
Unlike what we see with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for 15 years have allowed our borders to be wide open, using taxpayers' dollars to bring in refugees and others into this country, creating homegrown terrorism.
That has to stop.
Okay, so, she's not my position.
Congratulations, you've arrived, Katrina.
Congratulations, Trump campaign, you've now arrived at my position, which is that if you are from a heavily Muslim country in which we cannot vet you, then you have to be given extraordinary screening, or we can't let people from those countries in if we can't vet you at all.
And even if you're a Muslim from France, for example, then if we know nothing else about you other than that you're a Muslim and you regularly go to mosque, then you should get more screening than the Swedish grandmother who's a Presbyterian.
Right?
That's...
That was my position all along, so welcome to my position, but it just demonstrates that the Trump campaign will flip positions on a dime.
Now, the way for Trump to drive people like me into his camp, you know, never-Trumpers, and there are fewer and fewer of us, so we're not a huge group, you know, the people who are never-Trump people, the way to drive people like me into your camp is by saying, we want you to come, we understand you have qualms, we understand you have problems, but Hillary Clinton is the worst, right?
Just keep saying that over and over, Hillary Clinton is the worst, because I believe that.
I agree with you.
If you just keep saying Hillary Clinton is the worst, ignore our guy, Hillary Clinton is the worst, and you don't try to convince me Trump is great, and you don't try to lie to me about how wonderful Trump is, then you can actually bring people in.
Right?
It makes the draw strong.
Because the fact is that, again, the lesser of two evils argument is a valid argument.
I don't think that it's a dispositive argument, but my entire argument against voting for Trump has been, conservatives are shifting their principles to accommodate Trump.
They're dumping over their principles in search of victory, and they will get neither victory nor principle.
Right, this has been my problem all along.
So if Trump spends the next six months, you know, repudiating all the stupid crap that he said in the past about Mexican judges, and he keeps himself from saying new stupid crap about Mexican judges, and the disabled, and all this kind of stuff, and all he does is attack Hillary Clinton, and then he says to people like me, we want you on the train.
We don't have to agree on everything.
We want you on the train to stop Hillary Clinton.
That is a pitch that is going to draw a lot of people.
It's an actual pitch that theoretically could work if Trump had any discipline.
Unfortunately, that's not the line that the Trump campaign is following.
The new line the Trump campaign is following, they have this sort of bizarre schizophrenic view of people who are not backing them on the right, and that is, it's your fault we're losing, and also we don't need you at all.
Right?
This is their schizophrenic view.
It's your fault.
You keep coming after us.
You're bothering us.
And also, get out.
So here's Mike Huckabee, who sacrificed all principles in favor of 30 doughnuts long ago.
And Mike Huckabee says to people like George Will, who's been a Republican his entire career, He says to people like me, if you want to leave over Trump, fine, get out, get out, says the man who blew up the budget in Arkansas and has sold out Christian principles in favor of a twice-divorced guy who brags about committing adultery with other men's wives.
Here's Mike Huckabee, that pillar of principle.
Your reaction to George Will leaving the party because of Trump?
Bye, George.
Good riddance.
Look, if he will not stay with our party and the nominee that the people have nominated with the greatest level of votes in the history of the party, and I wrote this on Breitbart.
I wish people would go and read my column.
It is blistering.
But my feeling about George Will is if he wants Hillary Clinton to be president, and if he's willing to go vote for her as he said he would, then he is not a Republican.
And he needs to just be honest.
And frankly, if he's one of these guys, it's my way or no way, then goodbye.
So what?
Yes, absolutely.
I'm frustrated because, look, we have a party, we have an election, not a selection.
It's not a backroom bunch of good old boys who get to make the decision.
We respect the voters.
Brian, look at this from an obvious standpoint.
Donald Trump was not my first choice to be the nominee.
You were.
I was.
But once I got defeated, did I go around and say, well, fine, if I can't be the nominee, I'll just quit the party.
I just won't be a part of anything anymore.
No.
Okay, let's stop right there.
No.
No, effectively what Mike Huckabee did.
What Mike Huckabee did effectively, just to remind you, is he went over to Donald Trump, a man who agrees with virtually none of his principles, over Ted Cruz, a guy who supposedly agrees with most of his principles, out of solely, and I know this for a fact, personal pique at Ted Cruz.
Out of personal anger at Ted Cruz.
So don't tell me about principle, Mike, but he's not the only one.
Bill O'Reilly, yesterday he was on TV and he's claiming, does anyone even care about George Will leaving?
Like, who cares if he leaves?
Well, he's asking Brit Hume this question.
Okay, so George Will, your friend, you're on Fox News Sunday with him.
He says, ah, I'm out of there, I'm not a Republican anymore.
Do you think that matters one iota to voters?
Yeah.
No.
No, I don't think he does.
In fact, the only reason this is known is that he said it Uh, in a, you know, basically not publicized meeting of the Federalist Society.
And the word got out, and it's become a bigger deal, I think, than he ever imagined it would be.
And so he's being asked about it everywhere, and it got in the papers, and I think he was probably a little surprised by that.
Why?
Any liberal paper is going to use any Republican defection as a page one, so he should not have been surprised.
Well, it wasn't page one, and it wasn't just liberal papers, but that's neither here nor there.
Okay.
Okay, so, none of it matters.
Get out, George.
We don't care about you anymore.
Well, you say that about enough people and you're gonna hurt a lot of people.
Okay, so, we can stop there for the moment.
Let's do a quick thing I like and then a thing that I hate because my producer's yelling at me.
Silently.
Silently screaming in the night.
So, okay, a quick thing that I like.
So, this week we have been doing pre-Hays Code movies.
So, The Hays Code, as I explained yesterday, is a voluntary code adopted by Hollywood that basically took sex and violence largely out of the movies before the Hays Code was implemented.
If you look at the movies from the 20s and 30s, they look like movies from the 90s.
I mean, there's a lot of sex, there's a lot of violence, but there were some really, really good flicks that were made.
So yesterday we did M.
Today, there's a movie, really underrated film, called I'm a Fugitive from a Chain Gang with Paul Muni.
And it's about a guy, it's a critique of the chain gang system.
So it used to be that when people were convicted to hard labor, they would legitimately, like, make them go out and break rocks.
Right?
It's what you see in all the old cartoons.
Bugs Bunny when he goes to jail.
So the chain gangs actually existed.
This movie was a critique of the chain gangs and Paul Muni plays the lead.
It's a really, really good type movie.
It's about 80 minutes long.
It's really good.
good.
Here's what the trailer looks like.
James Allen escapes again from Prison Chain Gang.
Here he is, the man who preferred death to the tortures of the chaingang.
His was the most sensational escape in chaingang history.
Crawling through the thick brush, bloodhounds at his heels, hiding in swamps, he outwitted his pursuers at every turn.
This man has lived a thousand lives in one.
A hunted thing on earth.
So you'll see his complete life story in I Am A Fugitive from The Chainmail.
So it's not the best kind of film, but it's a really, really good film.
It was nominated for Best Picture.
And the final scene is really chilling.
It's a great, great movie.
You can go and check that out.
Okay, another quick thing that I like.
So I'm never in favor of the government because the government stinks at everything, but here's one thing that they're good at.
They made a funny video.
Good for them.
So the Los Angeles City government made a video called Safetyville.
Safetyville is a very dangerous place for stick figures.
So, what you're about to see is stick figures violating safety rules and bad things happen to them.
Here is an example.
It's a beautiful day in Safetyville and Jose is on his way to a job interview.
His tie is straight, his teeth are brushed, and his hair is looking fabulous.
Jose is all set to make a strong impression.
Uh oh, it looks like Jose's career took a different path.
Always stop before the limit line at train crossings.
Safety begins with you.
So, the good news is that you remember not to do that anymore.
Also, stick figures being dismembered is sort of funny, so I'm just in favor of that as a general rule.
Okay, final thing that I dislike.
So Chris Cuomo is the brother of Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, and Chris Cuomo also happens to be a completely incompetent reporter at CNN who recently got in a massive car wreck after driving drunk in a drag race.
He's really making a success out of himself in life.
He was on TV yesterday talking with the head of the Catholic League about the Pope, and the Pope had come out and said that the Catholic Church should basically apologize to gays because gays have been mistreated by the Catholic Church, and here is this exchange.
Always good to have you make the case on New Day.
Thank you so much.
Do you feel like apologizing to the LGBT community?
As a matter of fact, I want an apology from gays.
I've been assaulted by gays.
I've never assaulted a gay person in my entire life.
You blame all gays?
No, I blame the people who are at a parade, a protest parade, who watched me be assaulted by lesbians.
See, the other thing is this, I want to correct something because CNN is factually wrong as it is today, and so is today's New York Times.
How so?
Because they said that the Pope said that the church said that we have to apologize.
He said Christians.
He said, this is a direct quote on the plane with Sidney Wooden, he said, the church is holy and we are sinners.
Christians are sinners.
Now, if a Catholic or Protestant or Jew or Muslim has offended a gay person or anybody, of course they should apologize.
But the idea of a blanket apology because you're a member of some demographic group, I mean, I don't know, what church teaching is it that you have a problem with that maybe the church should apologize for?
Well, one, it's refreshing to hear you refer to LGBT as a demographic group.
Often you only see gays as their behavior, as if it wasn't who they are, it's what they do.
But just to be accurate, I believe that the church not only should apologize, like that Marxist cardinal said, and then he laughs, And not only should apologize to this person who is gay, whom it has offended, but has to apologize to the poor, to exploited women, to children exploited for labor.
He has to ask forgiveness for having blessed many weapons.
Okay, so we can stop it here.
The point that I want to make is not even a rip on Cuomo, because Cuomo is just a typical lib trying to speak in the name of Catholicism.
This pope has done more grave damage to the cause of decent religion than any pope in my lifetime.
We had two really good popes in a row.
We had Pope John Paul II, and then we had Pope Benedict, and both of them actually stood up for basic standards.
This pope places an extraordinary amount of time and effort into we must apologize for hurting people's feelings.
There are a few things that you can apologize for, for example, that are worthwhile apologizing for.
You should apologize, for example, for...
If you have actually persecuted people and called for them to die, that would be a thing to apologize for.
But you don't apologize to gay people across America or across the world for saying that homosexuality is a sin.
And that seems to be the implication here, is that if you say homosexuality is a sin, and if you don't back down off of that, then you're supposed to apologize.
For that.
I mean, he spends all of his time apologizing.
He's on the Catholic apology tour the same way that President Obama went on the American apology tour after being elected president.
That doesn't make more pro-America people, and this doesn't make more pro-Catholic people.
If you believe the Catholic principles, that religious principles are eternal, you stand up for the principles, you don't apologize for the principles.
And if there are individuals who betray those principles, yes, you call them out.
But the idea that the church itself is supposed to apologize for its stance on same-sex marriage, Which seems to be what the media's going crazy over here.
And the Pope knows that's what they're going crazy over here.
There's this whole routine where they act like, oh, the Pope doesn't know, he says stuff and the media mistranslated.
Well, if the media's always mistranslating you in one particular way, maybe you ought to be more careful with your words.
Maybe you ought to be a little bit more careful with the things that you say.
Because you know what the headline's gonna be when you say this sort of stuff.
You know what the headline's gonna be.
The fact is that the Catholic Church has standards.
They should stand by those standards.
Religious people should stand by their standards.
There's no need to apologize for your standards.
Nobody should be mistreated by anybody else.
And mistreatment is mistreatment.
But if the idea is that the Catholic Church has to apologize for taking a moral stance on homosexuality, That's a completely different thing, but that seems to be what the media really is talking about here, is that they're linking now the Catholic Church's moral stance with mistreatment of gays.
And that's unacceptable, and it's unacceptable for the Pope to greenlight that, even unintentionally.
Okay, well, we'll be back tomorrow.
Donald Trump is making a speech right now about economics in which he's talking about how tariffs are wonderful trade policy.
We'll talk about bad Trump because that is very bad Trump.
We'll talk about that tomorrow and we'll get to the latest in the continuing escapades of Hillary Clinton in Oz.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection