All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
49:42
Ep. 163 - Trump Speaks Conservatism As A Second Language

Trump talks Second Amendment, Hillary is deeply corrupt as always, and Mika and Joe have a lover's quarrel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This week, President Obama penned a ridiculous piece in Glamour magazine.
It dripped with self-regard.
It oozed with moral preening.
Barack Obama, said Barack Obama, is a true Barack Obama feminist.
This, of course, might not have been obvious from the fact that the Obama White House pays women 89 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
It might not have been obvious from the Obama administration's bizarre belief that men can be women, so long as they think it so.
And they can invade women's bathrooms based on that subjective belief.
But Obama, said Obama, is indeed an Obama feminist.
And he is here to change souls.
The most important change, he lectured, may be the toughest of all, and that's changing ourselves.
How should Americans change themselves?
Well, Obama explained, we need to keep changing the attitude that permits the routine harassment of women, whether they're walking down the street or daring to go online.
We need to keep changing the attitude that teaches men to feel threatened by the presence and success of women.
This sort of unearned moral righteousness makes you want to vomit and never stop vomiting.
Notice, Obama doesn't offer any solutions to these supposedly widespread problems.
He just sort of throws out the notion that he understands female lady problems.
To borrow some feminist language, that's kind of patriarchal.
To condescend to tell women that you understand their problems and then you don't really need to present any solutions.
As the subtext goes, all women really want is someone who can feel along with them.
But it's worse than that.
According to Obama, quote, we need to keep changing the attitude that punishes women for their sexuality and rewards men for theirs.
But why should anybody be rewarded for their sexuality?
Do we reward people when they poop?
Do we reward people for eating?
The only sort of sexuality that society should celebrate is the kind that takes place responsibly within the bounds of marriage, given that if sexuality produces kids, we would like kids to be born into solid two-parent families with their parents present.
Society should be, at best, neutral about other sorts of sexuality.
It seems kind of weird that feminism should ask for promiscuity to be treated as virtue for women just because bad people have treated it as virtue for men.
This stuff isn't feminism, it's just politically correct virtue signaling.
See, here's the thing.
I fully believe in the basic notion of original feminism, that women should be able to make whatever career choices they want based on merit.
I grew up in a house where my dad was the stay-at-home dad and my mom ran TV and film companies.
My wife is a doctor.
I'm certainly at home with the kids more than she is at this point, but she took time off for both of our kids.
I want my daughter to be able to pursue whatever dream she sees fit, but I don't think America's soul needs changing.
That's because I know Americans agree with me.
If they didn't, my mom's career wouldn't have been possible, neither would my wife's, neither would my daughter's.
I don't spend every day worrying about my daughter's possibilities, because in a free country, she can go just as far as her skills and decisions take her.
If she faces obstacles from sexists, I'll be right there calling for action if she wants my help.
But I'm not going to pretend, for the sake of PC and popularity, that sexism is widespread and pervasive.
It isn't.
America is a glorious place for women, the best in human history.
And the only way to make it even better is to target actual sexist activity and to stop slandering men as sexist without evidence and telling our daughters there are no glass ceilings, just a world of options waiting for them.
After all, that's kind of the truth.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show. - Tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings. - Alrighty, so first we need to start by thanking one of our fantastic sponsors, Helix.
So helixsleep.com is the place you want to go if you need a mattress.
The way this works is, you don't want to go to these mattress stores.
Very stupid.
Have you ever been to a mattress store?
I've been to a mattress store, and what you do is you lie on a bunch of mattresses for three seconds.
And then you say, oh, I'll take that one.
And then three months later, the mattress is sagging in the middle, and you and your wife are on opposite ends of the mattress, and by the middle of the night, you're lying next to each other because you've rolled down into the concave vortex that is the mattress.
You need to go to HelixSleep.com.
What they do there is you go there, and they actually give you this kind of questionnaire based on four key preferences, and you can determine what you want the mattress to be, not just the size, but also the firmness level and other variables.
And the mattress can actually be different for you and your spouse, you and your partner.
So you customize each side of the mattress, which is great, because I like the mattress a little bit harder.
My wife likes the mattress a little bit softer.
And by the way, they're cheaper.
They're significantly cheaper.
Their shipping is 100% free.
You have 100 nights to try it out, and if you don't like it, then they'll pick it up for free and give you 100% refunds.
It's not like they're going to take that and reuse the mattress, gang.
That's a loss for them.
That means they're really confident in their product.
Everybody is talking about HelixSleep.com for a reason.
I've gone on their website.
I've ordered the mattress.
I can't wait to get it.
I can't wait to try it.
Go to helixsleep.com and if you use slash ben, so it's helixsleep.com slash ben, then that ensures that not only will you get a discount, you get $50 off of your order, but also that ensures that they know that I sent you, which is great for the program and it helps keep all of our illegal immigrants employed.
So that's really good.
So helixsleep.com slash ben, helixsleep.com slash ben is where you want to go for all this.
And the mattresses, the product's great, it's cheaper, it's convenient.
So helixsleep.com slash ben.
Okay.
So, lots to get to today here on the Ben Shapiro Show.
Let's begin with the story that should be the lead story of the day.
So the story that should be the lead story of the day is courtesy of the New York Post.
Quote, Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat cat donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Including a shady billionaire, according to smoking gun emails released on Tuesday.
The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton's inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Sheryl Mills.
In an April 2009 message to Abedin and Mills, Doug Band, who was overseeing the Clinton Foundation at the time, that was the Clinton slush fund, urgently asked for a meeting between a top U.S.
official and Gilbert Chiguri.
Who's a major donor to the Clinton family charity.
He's a Lebanese business person, does a lot of business in Nigeria, so he's like a Nigerian scam prince, except that instead of asking you for $200 so he can send you a million, instead he just donates lots of money to the Clinton Foundation to get favors from Hillary.
So this guy who works for the Clinton Foundation, he wrote, we need to speak to the substance person regarding Lebanon.
As you know, Chiguri's key guy is there, and to us, and is loved in Lebanon.
And so he's trying to suck up to the big donor.
It's Jeff Feltman, Abedin wrote back, referring to America's former ambassador to Lebanon.
I'm sure he knows him.
I'll talk to Jeff, said Abedin.
Less than 20 minutes later, Band replied, better if you call him.
Now preferable.
This is very important.
He's awake, I'm sure.
So in other words, basically the State Department was reaching out to specific Clinton Foundation donors.
He is a Lebanese Nigerian billionaire who gave the Clinton Foundation between a million and five million dollars, and he pledged a billion dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009.
He has financial interests around the world.
He's been convicted of money laundering.
He's paid 66 million dollars in a plea deal.
And by the way, all of this paid dividends.
According to the New York Post, in June 2011, Band, Doug Band of the Clinton Foundation, formed the Teneo Consulting Firm with Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman.
In 2012, Abedin won permission to work as a $15,000 a month consultant for Teneo in a special arrangement that allowed her to remain on the State Department payroll.
So basically, they created kind of a middleman between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, and these disclosures came via Judicial Watch, which does a lot of wonderful work, Judicial Watch.
So, none of this, of course, bodes well for Hillary Clinton, and it would be the top story of the day, and it should be the top story of the day.
The other top story of the day should be that Hillary Clinton let the father of a terrorist sit behind her at one of her rallies, and now she's running from questions.
So Hillary Clinton was doing an event, and one of the reporters asked her a question.
Watch as Hillary plays deaf.
They're presumably there, too.
What could be going on?
Maybe those doctors are there for her hearing.
Or in case she falls down.
Thank you all very much.
Okay, so the person clearly and audibly asks, should you have known that your campaign rally, there was a terrorist there, or a terrorist dad there?
I don't hear anything.
What could be going on?
Maybe those doctors are there for her hearing, or in case she falls down.
But in any case, this should be the top story, right?
I mean, come on.
Imagine if David Duke's dad had shown up at a Donald Trump rally and they sat him, like, right behind Donald Trump.
Of course it would be an enormous story.
So all of this should be the top of the news.
All of this should be top of the news.
That the State Department was doing special favors to Clinton Foundation donors.
That Hillary Clinton is seating people like Omar Mateen's father, the Orlando jihadist, directly behind her at a rally.
All of this should be top of the news.
Instead, instead, because it is a day ending and why?
Donald Trump is the top of the news.
And Donald Trump is the top of the news.
I mean, honestly, it's got to be tough being, like, the Trump headquarters intern.
Can you just picture the scene?
You see the Trump headquarters intern, and watching TV, and then her face gets all sad, and she walks up to the whiteboard that has written on it in big letters, days without accident.
And she erases the one and then sadly writes a zero.
At this point, it's not days without accident.
Now they've actually brought it down to hours.
So if you hit 24, then you get to go to one day and everybody is very excited.
Like a bell rings, confetti falls.
But Trump cannot help himself.
So last night, he's doing an event and he drops this particular line.
This is what's made all the news.
And the news is dominated by this, of course.
Here's Donald Trump doing something very silly.
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment.
By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.
But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.
That would be a horrible day.
So, there are a bunch of people who tried to spin this, and we'll get to the spin in a second.
There's a bunch of spin.
What does he actually mean?
Okay, what he clearly means, what he clearly means, the Second Amendment people and Trump's crazy small brain are the gun people, right?
Those crazy gun people will do something.
And they'll either storm the White House with their guns, or they'll shoot somebody.
They'll do something.
He's obviously not- Okay, so let's put one thing aside.
He's obviously not talking about voting or political lobbying.
Okay?
You can tell that from what he says.
There are two things there that demonstrate that's not what he's saying.
And I know, I know people want me to show up for Trump.
I know that there's this desire.
We have to lie for Trump.
I'm not gonna lie for Trump, okay?
I'm just not.
I don't lie for people and I'm not gonna lie for him.
I'm gonna call it like I see it.
Do I think, by the way, I'm gonna tell you in a minute why I don't think this is the world's biggest deal.
But there's two indicators from what he said.
He's not talking about political activity.
One is, he says, if she appoints these judges and they take away your gun rights, there's nothing you can do.
He didn't mean there's nothing you can do except vote.
He means there's nothing you can do.
And then he says the Second Amendment people might do something.
Right.
Like, use their Second Amendment, right?
Like, grab the guns.
And then he says, that would be horrible.
That's the second indicator.
So, yes, that would be a horrible day.
Why would it be a horrible day if they went to Congress and, like, petitioned?
Why would it be a horrible day if they used their political activism?
No, he clearly means they're gonna do something violent.
So there's a reason to be not upset about this, and then there's a reason to be actually upset about this.
So let's start with the reasons not to be upset about this.
First of all, the entire media, oh my god, he threatened Hillary Clinton's life.
If you really believe that Donald Trump is threatening Hillary Clinton's life, you're just a stupid person.
Donald Trump is not threatening Hillary Clinton's life.
He's not intending on killing her.
He's not implying that anyone should kill her.
He's not doing any of that, right?
He made a stupid joke, a very ill-timed, foolish joke, because this is what he does, about how those crazy gun people are going to do something about Hillary Clinton.
That's what it is.
And whenever the left acts all offended, ooh, how could he say something like this?
Let's flashback a little bit to 2009.
Here's Barack Obama telling a joke at a commencement ceremony.
I learned never again To pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets.
It won't happen again.
President Crow and the Board of Regents will soon learn about being audited by the IRS.
So he tells this joke, everybody's laughing.
Oh, it's so funny.
He'll be audited by the IRS.
Charming smile, Barack.
Except that Barack Obama then used the IRS to audit all of his political opponents.
So, you know, he joked about something that actually happened, and people at the time were rightly outraged.
Barack Obama is a guy who has said that the Tea Party are like terrorists.
Well, last I checked, Obama brags frequently about how great he is at killing terrorists and droning them.
So, you know, this kind of violent language is not something completely new.
It isn't.
And so anybody making a big deal out of it is ridiculous.
Like, how much blowback have you seen?
Will Smith, you know, he's in Suicide Squad.
He's very far to the left.
Here's Will Smith talking about Donald Trump supporters.
How much blowback have you seen today on the news about this?
As painful as it is to hear Donald Trump talk, and as embarrassing it is as an American to hear him talk, I think it's good.
We get to hear it, we get to know who people are, and now we get to cleanse it out of our country.
Cleanse it out of our country.
So you can talk about cleansing the Trump supporters from the country.
No blowback there.
We can just cleanse it out of the country.
We're going to cleanse it.
I don't know how you want to cleanse it.
Probably not the word you want to use.
Well, cleansing has bad historical connotations, but no blowback there.
So that's the reason why I'm not like all up in arms about this sort of thing on that level.
I don't think that anybody is going to go around trying to shoot Hillary Clinton because Donald Trump said that gun owners are going to shoot Hillary Clinton.
I think the gun owners don't do that sort of thing.
I think leftist gun owners do it after buying guns illegally, but I don't think that that's typically a right-wing thing to do.
We don't go around shooting politicians with whom we disagree.
That tends to be more of a Lee Harvey Oswald communist type routine.
Okay, so that's why I'm not upset.
Here's why I am upset about this.
The reason I'm upset about this is because Donald Trump speaks conservative as a second language.
There are certain people—I speak Hebrew as a second language.
My Hebrew is not very good.
I can understand a lot of it, but I can't really speak it particularly well.
I'm trying to learn Spanish right now, and my Spanish as a second language is garbage.
I can sort of get across my very, very, very basic point if I'm asking your name, but beyond that, we're screwed.
No good conversation is going to take place, and if I tried to explain to you the complexities of politics in Spanish, it would utterly fail.
It would utterly fail.
Well, that's how Trump speaks conservative.
So Trump speaks conservative in a way that, like, a small child struggling to walk for the first time is trying to walk.
Like, I've watched my toddler trying to walk.
When she first tried to walk, she'd walk four steps and then she'd fall right on her rear.
That's Trump trying to be a conservative.
And every time he says something about conservatives, you can tell what he actually thinks of conservatives is the same sort of thing Barack Obama thinks of conservatives.
He actually thinks that conservatives are these bitter clingers who cling to God and guns and xenophobia.
And yeah, I had to use him to get here, and I sort of agree with him on immigration a little bit, but really they're all kind of stupid, right?
Like these pro-lifers.
You can always tell he's trying to pander.
He always is trying to approximate where the conservative position is, but he's like little Jack Horner in the corner, sticking his thumb in the pie, hoping he hits a plum.
And he's like that with all the conservative positions.
So I'm pro-life, right?
They ask him about pro-life, and he says, yes, of course I would prosecute the mothers who try to abort their babies.
There's not a pro-lifer in America who thinks that.
But Donald Trump isn't particularly pro-life.
He speaks it as a second language.
Even if he is pro-life now, he certainly wasn't before, and so it's foreign to him.
He speaks it as a second language.
When it comes to religion, and he's talking about Christianity, he speaks it as a second language.
They ask him his favorite passage from the Bible, and he says, an eye for an eye.
Which, last I checked, was explicitly rejected by the Sermon on the Mount for Christians, and doesn't mean what he thinks it means even for Jews.
He speaks it as a second language.
He does this even on immigration.
You know, all these people who are border hawks.
People like, I've been a border hawk much longer than Donald Trump, and I'll be a border hawk after he's not a border hawk anymore.
Donald Trump's border hawk talk is all about, you know, he embraces the Jeff Sessions program, and he talks about how they're stealing our jobs.
But then he says things like, Barack Obama wants to deport all these people.
I don't want to do that because I have a heart.
He's speaking conservative as a second language.
I think the most obvious example of this, actually, was when Donald Trump did this at the RNC.
So at the RNC, he's giving a speech, and at one point during the speech, he says, we want to protect all of the gay people so they're not shot by terrorists.
Right?
And everybody cheers.
Yay!
We don't want people shot by terrorists.
And Trump stops in the middle of the speech, and he says, I am so proud that Republicans are cheering this.
Okay, you're only proud of Republicans cheering that because you speak conservative as a second language.
You don't have to be pro-homosexuality or pro-the-LGBT movement in order to acknowledge and recognize it is bad when terrorists kill Americans, whether they're red, white, brown, or gay.
This is very simple stuff, but Trump doesn't get it.
So he does the same thing to gun owners here, and it's a problem, right?
He basically says about gun owners that we're all sittin' around with our AR-15s, just waitin'.
Just waitin' for the Supreme Court decision to come down.
Then we're going to march on the White House, and we're going to stake out some positions, and put the snappers up in the trees.
Then we're just going to go in, full squad, boom, boom.
Okay, that's not what anyone who's a Second Amendment advocate or a law-abiding gun owner thinks.
The only time that law-abiding gun owners would start using the Second Amendment in order to fight the government is if the government legitimately— more than a Supreme Court decision, it would take actual troops coming to their house to remove their guns from law-abiding citizens.
Right?
Somebody coming and trying to take all the guns.
That's not what happens even if the Supreme Court were to reject Heller.
Right?
Heller didn't exist for most of the Supreme Court's history.
Right?
It's a very recent decision.
And it didn't happen across the country.
The gun owners were shooting members of the government.
It just didn't happen that way.
That's the problem that I have with Trump's response.
Well, we have to let Facebook Live go here, but we will be continuing here at Daily Wire, so go to dailywire.com, become a subscriber, $8 a month.
We are, far and away, the largest conservative podcast in the nation, and you can be part of that.
Also, you're going to want to email, you can join the mailbag if you subscribe so you don't just get the pleasure of seeing my face for the rest of the program, which, let's face it, is indeed an inducement.
You also get to email and become part of the mailbag and really join the show and interact with me, which is where the fun is.
So you want to do that.
And obviously go later to iTunes and SoundCloud and you can listen to the rest of the show at that point.
Gnarly.
Okay, so Donald Trump says this, and obviously he's speaking conservatism as a second language.
And I wrote a column in National Review specifically about that that you can check out.
Now, beyond that, Donald Trump's defense of himself, he tried to defend himself a variety of ways here, and none of these are good defenses.
This is the problem with the Trump defense movement.
The Trump defense movement, right, the TDM, the Trump defense movement, they've come along and they feel the necessity to now defend everything that Trump says.
They can't just say, oh, he made a joke.
Calm down.
They can't just say, oh, he made a joke, and it wasn't a great joke, and he probably shouldn't have said it.
Now let's all move on with our lives.
Hillary Clinton's a corrupt liar.
They can't just do that.
They have to try and spin it and pretend he never made the mistake.
So here's Donald Trump trying to pretend that he didn't say what he said.
We have tremendous power, the people like myself that believe in the Second Amendment.
If Hillary Clinton gets elected, I think she's going to decimate the Second Amendment, if not abolish it.
And she'll do that through judges, through the justices of the Supreme Court.
But the Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they're so united.
Okay, so he says that the Second Amendment people— First of all, I love how he says Second Amendment people like we're a different tribe.
The Second Amendment people, they live in their caves.
They come out only at night, and they beat the bongo drums and chant around the fire, carrying their AR-15s.
And then, like wraiths, they fade into the darkness.
I mean, it's like a National Geographic special with this guy.
Because you've got the Second Amendment people, and then you've got the evangelicals, and you've got the blacks, and you've got the Hispanics, and you've got the Jews, and you've got, like, he just separates everybody by these things.
It's so silly.
The Second Amendment people.
This crazy tribe.
So he says, what I meant is that they would exercise their political power.
Okay, clearly, 1,000%, this is not what he meant.
Giuliani then makes the same case.
He says, you have to be corrupt to buy all of this.
Rudy Giuliani.
That it was a joke and that what he meant by that was that they would kill her.
Now, to buy that, you have to be corrupt.
Because if you said that to me, I would say to you, are you out of your mind?
I saw it.
I heard it.
I know what it meant.
I heard how the crowd reacted to it.
Because if he had meant what they're saying he meant, or suggesting he meant, they would have reacted the way you just reacted.
So here's what it proves.
It proves that most of the press is in the tank for Hillary Clinton.
They won't buy any lie, any distortion, any spin that the Clintons put out.
And they've been doing it since he was governor of Arkansas.
They've been doing it during the time he was president of the United States.
They were doing it all during the time she was a senator from my state.
And upstate New York fell apart because of her broken promises.
So my favorite thing about Rudy Giuliani, and there are two things I love when Rudy Giuliani speaks.
First of all, the accent is phenomenal.
When he pronounces the word saw as though it's spelled S-A-W-R, that's my favorite thing in the world.
And I also like the fact that you just feel like at any moment he's going to take off the tie, rip open his shirt and start body surfing the crowd.
It's just, it's fantastic.
But what he says there, this is the problem, right?
So he's saying, no, Trump never meant any of this.
He definitely didn't mean any of this.
And the media are corrupt.
The media are corrupt.
Now the media are corrupt.
But that's not what Trump meant.
So now we've heard from Trump himself.
That's not what I meant.
What I meant was political activity.
Then we hear from Giuliani.
That's not what I meant.
That's not what Trump meant.
You have to be corrupt to buy into this.
Then we got Dan Mangino, who's a former Secret Service guy and a big Trump defender.
He's on CNN and he loses his mind trying to defend Donald Trump.
Shouldn't he be as clear in his words as possible?
Go ahead.
Don, you want me to?
I'll answer that question.
Listen, we can disagree about how imprudent he worded that, but to suggest that he was calling to violence means to me that you came into this with the idea that Donald Trump was calling to violence, let me make the case afterwards.
You didn't come into this with a clear and open mind.
Listen, I was, I endorsed Cruz in the primary campaign.
I'm not a Trump surrogate.
I'm supporting him now.
What you're saying right now makes no sense.
I'm sitting at home.
I'm watching Donald Trump.
I have two ears, and I have two eyes, and I can see the reactions of the people behind me.
And I'm not, we're not stupid.
Every single person you have on this panel, who are very smart people, David Gergen, who's respected, hang on, can you let me finish, Dan?
David Gergen, who's respected by people on both sides, by Republicans and by Democrats, who've worked for Republicans and Democrats, who has worked for a president who's had an assassination attempt, who's lived through presidents who've been assassinated, knew exactly what Donald Trump is saying, and we're supposed to be stupid enough not to understand that and to believe the spin Coming from the surrogates and from people like you, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Don, frankly I'm ashamed that you're talking to me as if I'm a child when 12 years of my life I was a superstar.
No, you're treating me as a child because you're telling me what I'm supposed to hear.
And you're sitting here on television lying to the American people.
You don't know crap about this, Don.
You're a TV guy.
I was a Secret Service agent.
Now cut off my mic.
Do what you want.
I'm not going to cut off your mic.
I'm going to tell you that you're sitting here and lying to the American people.
So it just devolves from here.
He didn't mean that.
So Lemon is overplaying his hand, right?
Trump wasn't saying Hillary should be assassinated.
He was saying that the Second Amendment people are going to do something if the Supreme Court were to overrule Heller.
The Second Amendment people, that crazy trap.
But again, it's the same line, right?
Trump didn't actually mean any of this.
It's all false.
And then Katrina Pearson goes on TV.
And Katrina Pearson is, like, Trump has a couple of surrogates who are really, really not good.
He's got Ben Carson, who's officially been named by the Guinness Book of World Records the worst campaign surrogate of all time.
And then he's got Katrina Pearson.
And Katrina Pearson, now remember, the Trump line here is he just meant political power, right?
That's what he meant.
He meant that the NRA and the pro-gun people, the Second Amendment people, they were going to use their political power to fight against the Supreme Court and Hillary Clinton.
That's their line.
Then Katrina Pierson goes on TV, and it's double-face palm time, gang.
Trump was saying exactly what he said.
He was talking about Hillary Clinton and gun control, essentially, which is something that has been talked about a lot on the campaign trail.
Hillary Clinton is a gun grabber, and everyone knows if she's in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices, she will do everything she can to remove the Second Amendment.
So Mr. Trump was clearly pointing that out, as he does every day on the campaign trail.
But we also know that unification is key, which is exactly what our statement says coming out.
There are a lot of Americans in this country who support the Second Amendment.
There are millions of members of the NRA, and the NRA endorsed Mr. Trump earlier than anyone in history.
So this is very important in November, if you care about your Second Amendment rights, to get out there and vote.
And that's what he's talking about.
But Katrina, he was talking about what Second Amendment activists could do To stop her, if she won, to stop her from appointing a gun control nominee to the Supreme Court.
It wasn't about November, it was, you know, if she gets in there, folks, there's nothing you can do.
I don't know, folks, maybe Second Amendment folks, maybe there's something you can do.
So it's not about November, it's after November.
Well, no, that's actually not what he was talking about, because just before that he was saying what could happen, as you just said, what could happen.
And he doesn't want that to happen.
And in order to stop that, people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out there and stop Hillary Clinton from winning in November.
Okay, we can stop it.
Oh no.
Because she just admitted what Trump was actually saying, right?
What she admitted there was that Trump was in fact saying that Second Amendment advocates might go out there and shoot people.
So again, it's a real disservice to Second Amendment advocates, first and foremost.
It's just, it's stupidity on every level.
And it puts all these people in a position of having to spin for Trump.
It's always spinning for Trump, spinning for Trump.
And I, you know, the...
The TDM, the Trump Defense Movement, their attempts to spin for Trump, this is not going to go well.
It's not going to go well, because Trump puts them in an indefensible position nearly every day.
He just doesn't have to make these mistakes, folks.
You can be a Trump fan and still say, your guy has to do better.
And he does.
I mean, if he continues along this path, he's going to get beat in historic style, and it's not going to be good.
And you can see the discomfort, the level of discomfort from a lot of the Trump defenders.
Paul Ryan, who won big last night.
He had his primary last night.
Peter Nalen was the guy who was running against him in Wisconsin, I think it's District 8.
And the Breitbart contingent, the alt-right contingent, were trying to oust Paul Ryan.
I'm not a huge Paul Ryan fan, but I was kind of rooting for Paul Ryan just because I wanted to see some of these people get their comeuppance.
Paul Ryan won like 90% of the vote, blew Peter Nalen out.
And Paul Ryan, he's kind of been forced into this position where he has to back Trump.
Here's Paul Ryan answering questions about Donald Trump again.
The point I made before is, with any endorsement of anyone, they are never blank checks.
Look, let me just say it this way.
I believe here in Wisconsin we have a unified Republican Party.
We have a unified Republican Party because we tell people who we are, what we believe, what our principles are, and what we'll do if we get elected.
And then, like we had happen here in Wisconsin, we did it.
OK, so he says it's not a blank check, except it's sort of a blank check, and people are seeing it that way.
They're seeing it that way.
So now, the question becomes, OK, let's assume that Trump is not doing well.
And again, it's very painful.
This whole conversation is painful, because there are so many people that I respect who have become part of the Trump defense movement.
They've become part of the TDM.
And it really is painful to me.
So you got Dennis Prager on TV last night, and he was asked about the gaffes.
And I love Dennis.
I mean, I'm friends with Dennis.
And here's Dennis on CNN defending the gaffes.
But I think I'm going to say something that will sound shocking, but it is not meant at all to shock.
I would say that all of them put together are inconsequential compared to the president and many, many, like at the New York Times and Democrats generally, who purvey the notion.
Many say that police disproportionately kill blacks because they're black.
When, in fact, that has been shown to be false, even in a New York Times report just from a few weeks ago with a black professor of economics at Harvard who studied the whole issue and found that, in fact, blacks were disproportionately less killed.
So when we talk about purveying conspiracy theories, the left has it over Trump in spades.
Okay, so what Dennis is saying there is 100% true, but what it looks like, how that reads, what he's saying is true.
And a lot of Trump defenders are saying true things.
But there's what you say, and then there's how it reads on the public.
There's how it imprints on the public.
And the way this imprints on the public is as Trump defends.
You don't want to talk about his gaffes, so instead you swivel to Hillary Clinton.
And that's not a rare political move, but it just puts conservatives in this awkward position where they're constantly having to shift away from conservative defense and into, let's attack Hillary instead of defending our own guy, because we can't defend our own guy.
His gaffes are bad and he says silly things, and so they're forced into unpalatable Unpalatable things.
Senator Jeff Sessions, another one.
He's a big Trump backer.
Trump has been on the campaign trail saying this election is going to be rigged.
And so now you've got Senator Jeff Sessions out on the campaign trail, a conservative guy.
You've got Senator Jeff Sessions out there saying that the 2000 election, where George W. Bush won, that could have been rigged.
But you don't really believe a presidential election can be rigged?
Well, you know, we don't know how Florida came out.
There were a lot of hard feelings about that and Bush-Gore.
So one precinct in one major state can make a difference in an election, and there is fraud still in America today.
Okay, and so basically we've now come to the point where anything can be said in defense of Trump.
Truth becomes a secondary priority.
There's not voter fraud in Florida.
That's not what happened in Florida.
What happened in Florida is that Bush won the state of Florida.
It's tough, tough bananas for Al Gore, but that's just the way that it was.
There's this attempt now to defend Trump at all costs.
I had this conversation with Hugh Hewitt this morning.
Hugh Hewitt calls into the morning show that I do.
Hugh is a syndicated host for Salem Radio Network.
And Hugh was trying to make the case that anybody who wasn't lying for Trump, basically, anybody who wasn't—who was talking about any of Trump's gaffes, they were ensuring that Hillary Clinton is going to make Supreme Court appointments, which is silly, okay?
It's not my job to defend Trump.
It's my job to tell the truth.
And the reason that—and let me explain why we've been talking Trump as opposed to Hillary's scandals.
Okay?
Reason number one.
Everybody who's listening to me already knows Hillary is the most corrupt person ever to run for President of the United States.
I despise her on a visceral level.
I think she's a bad person.
I think she's a corrupt, nasty human being.
Okay?
All of that is true, and that's been true for literally my entire political lifetime.
None of that has changed.
In order for something to be newsworthy, however, truly newsworthy, it needs to be a departure from information we already know.
So if I came to you and I said tonight, you know, Bill Clinton is having sex with a woman who's not his wife.
Like a different woman who's not his wife.
Your reaction would probably be, OK, next headline.
We know that.
Of course he's doing that.
He's a dog.
We know he's a dog.
There's nothing new there.
If I say to you, Donald Trump said tonight that Hillary Clinton ought to be shot, your ears are going to perk up because that's new information in the system.
The problem with Trump is that Trump keeps providing new information in the system.
Hillary is running this robotic, boring campaign, but she's not providing any new information in the system.
Even when there are these new reports about Hillary using the State Department as her personal grab bag of cash, everybody who believes Hillary is corrupt already knows this.
None of this reinforces anything.
Now, if Trump were out there saying it every day, if Trump were out there pushing it every day, the media would be forced to cover it, even though it's boring.
But Trump provides them this shiny object out here, and then they can cover the shiny object.
And so that's what's been happening with Donald Trump, and it's really hurting him in the polls, obviously.
And then finally, you get to the final spin, and the final spin—so anyway, before I get to that, sorry, Hugh Hewitt called in, and I want to go through this very briefly because this is one of the arguments I've been getting a lot, and I get a lot of emails about this.
Okay, you say that you don't support Trump, you don't support Hillary, you don't support any of these people, throw them all out with the bathwater.
What about the Supreme Court?
So Hugh Hewitt calls in and he says, Donald Trump is going to assure that we have a conservative Supreme Court.
And I said, Hugh, you know that's not true.
The reason you know that's not true is because Democrats will have enough votes to filibuster any conservative judicial nominee.
If you have faith out there that Mitch McConnell is going to invoke the nuclear option in the Senate in order to assure a conservative on the Supreme Court, you're out of your mind.
Mitch McConnell will do nothing of the kind.
Mitch McConnell will never, ever invoke the nuclear option.
It's not going to happen.
The proof of that is that Mitch McConnell has never invoked the nuclear option.
He's not going to do it.
He's simply not going to do it.
And after they filibuster, Trump will come back with somebody who's not conservative, he'll be confirmed with 70 votes, and he'll end up being a worse version of John Roberts.
That's what's going to happen here.
And Trump doesn't have the intestinal fortitude or the mental wherewithal to pick a conservative and ram that person through.
He doesn't care that much about the court.
It's not a priority for him.
In any case, Now that all this has been put out there, as it's becoming clear that Trump is failing, that Trump is having a tough time, that he can't keep that whiteboard clean, the no mistakes on the job whiteboard clean for more than five minutes, all the pro-Trump people, the Trump defense movement, now they're looking for a scapegoat.
So Sean Hannity has been the guy who's really out there first and foremost looking for a scapegoat.
Here he is.
For all those people that say they're Republicans, that just, we went down the entire list of differences now between you and Hillary.
And if they're gonna stay, you know, on this never Trump thing...
They're responsible for her Supreme Court picks.
They're responsible for the refugees that are unvetted.
They will be responsible for whatever illegal immigrants do.
They'll be responsible when we have a depleted military and a crisis comes.
So I think this is a very, this is a compare and contrast election to me.
Very different visions for the country.
These are terrible people.
They're terrible people.
You know, anybody, anybody who doesn't back Donald Trump is a terrible person.
If Trump loses, and he loses by a large margin, it's not because he's a crappy candidate who says stupid things, distracting from real issues every day, is a Democrat on many of the major issues of our time, and has been pushed by people in a way that is not honest.
No, it's the fault of all the people who are over here saying, guys, you're blowing this.
You're blowing this.
And you blew it the minute you nominated this guy.
And I'm not going to ride this train to hell with you.
You want to go into Eastwood Ravine, that's your problem.
I'm not riding this train with you because it's important that we preserve a remnant of conservatives and conservatism beyond all of the people who have been co-opted into the TDM, drafted into the Trump defense movement to defend Donald Trump's non-conservative policies and the foolish things that he says while he turns conservatism into a laughingstock.
Well, he translates conservatism into conservatism as a second language.
It's a waste of time, and the whole election's very disappointing.
If I sound depressed, it's because I'm deeply depressed, and if there were a bathtub here as well as a plugged-in toaster, I'd be seriously considering my options.
Okay.
All that said, it is mildly hilarious that the media are beginning to turn on each other.
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski had a bit of a lover's quarrel on MSNBC over Paul Ryan, and this was just mostly amusing.
He can't stop himself.
He is a train wreck going a thousand miles an hour.
It is about the Republicans around him now.
The story is about you.
And I don't mean to have a nasty tone, and I say to Paul Ryan, go home and spend some time with your family.
You're a Democrat.
Mika, you're a Democrat.
Let me say this.
Let me say this, okay?
Because it means nothing coming from you, okay?
You're a Democrat.
Excuse me?
It means nothing coming from a Democrat to these Republicans.
Well, actually, the Democrats are going to win the election, so if you want to actually have a playing chance, you're going to have to do something.
We've already said that.
That makes sense.
Let me say this to my Republican Party.
You are letting Donald Trump destroy the party.
And you've done it from the beginning.
We've said from the very beginning when he started blowing himself up, when Paul Ryan endorsed him, that it's only going to get worse.
And it just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?
And when I say go home and spend time with your family, I mean look at your children in the eyes.
Look at your wife in the eyes and really ask Okay, enough.
because you were doing the wrong thing by supporting this candidate.
You were doing the wrong thing 10 times over.
You're hurting this country for your-- - Okay, enough.
I'm not gonna be lectured by a Democrat who supports the most corrupt person in the history of American politics for president about how you're morally deficient if you vote for Donald Trump.
You're all morally deficient if you vote for Hillary Clinton.
Much more morally deficient than the people who say we'll vote Trump to stop Hillary Clinton.
But I think we can assume from this clip pretty fairly that Joe Scarborough will be sleeping on the couch tonight.
So that's the latest from media world.
By the way, I have been thinking that it would be fun to do—I get a lot of notes about my Chris Matthews impersonation.
And so I've been encouraging a friend of mine, Brian Whitman, to do a Chris Matthews Christmas album.
And if he doesn't do it, then I think that it might be worthwhile doing that.
We could do a Chris Matthews and Barack Obama, a very special Matthews Christmas with guest stars Barack Obama and perhaps, let's see, who else do I do on this show?
Maybe John Kerry would stop by.
Harlan Night, lol.
Holy nart, all is calm, all is bright.
Cause now there's sleigh bells ringing, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling, jingling Ethan Hawke was recently in a science fiction movie that I didn't like very much, Predestination, which is just the weirdest movie that you've ever conceived of.
Basically, it involves an involuntary sex change in a person.
I don't want to give away all of the secrets in case you decide to waste $4 on Amazon.com and rent it, but it is a very, very weird movie.
A not-so-weird movie that's actually very good.
With Jude Law and Ethan Hawke as Gattaca, which is a very, very good science fiction film and a thought-provoking science fiction film.
The nice thing about science fiction is that science fiction can sort of explore philosophical areas that a lot of other fiction can't, because it's much more about ideas and worlds being created than it is about characters.
So I know that Andrew Klavan doesn't like science fiction for precisely that reason, because he loves the characters and he doesn't care so much about—he thinks the ideas are revealed through the characters.
Science fiction is much more just about the ideas.
It's just a lot of ideas.
Well, Gattaca is a movie about ideas.
There's character in it, but it's very idea-driven movie.
Here's a little bit of the preview of Gattaca.
Genetics.
What can it mean?
The ability to perfect the physical and mental characteristics of every unborn child.
...to choose the future...
In the not too distant future, our DNA will determine everything about us.
A minute drop of blood, saliva, or a single hair determines where you can work, who you should marry, what you're capable of achieving.
In a society where success is determined by science, divided by the standards of perfection.
That gives you the premise of the film, and it's a really, really interesting film.
It's got a lot of good ideas to it, and it's actually a very conservative film, because it basically suggests that genetics is not the be-all, end-all, that you have the capacity to rise above your biological limitations and become something better if you're willing to put in the hard work and if you're willing to make the right decisions.
It's a really good movie.
I like the movie a lot.
It's a little bit slow, but it's a movie that's well worth the watch.
Okay, other funny things that are worth pointing out.
Jennifer Granholm is one of the craziest people in American politics, former governor of Michigan.
She made herself kind of quasi-famous in 2008 when she spoke at the convention.
She started waving her arms like a nut job up at the podium.
So Jennifer Granholm was on TV, and she uses a term on live television that no one should really use on live television.
In another rally.
We're not allowed to punch back anymore.
In the old days, they'd be carried off in a stretcher.
Or, part of the problem is that no one wants to hurt each other anymore.
Or, these are all different rallies.
If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them.
You remember he offered to pay for the legal fees of a guy who, you know, cut-blocked one of the protesters.
Okay, he did not offer to pay the legal fees of someone who blank-blocked somebody.
That is not what that word means, Jennifer Granholm, but this is what happens when you have insane people running your political systems.
I just thought it was amusing that she dropped that word on national TV and everybody just sort of brushed right by it.
Okay, so Wednesday's our Bible Day here on the Ben Shapiro Show, so we do a little bit of Parsha.
So Parsha, for people who don't know, I say this every week, the Parsha is the segment of the Bible that Jews read every single week.
We have a different segment every week, and by the end of the year, we've gone through the entirety of the five books of Moses.
So this week's Parsha is Devarim, which is the beginning of the book of Deuteronomy.
And so we're taking this actually from, let's see, I screwed this up.
It should have been from Deuteronomy 3, 21-22, but bottom line is, you don't have to show it, but let me look it up real fast so that we actually have the correct, let's see, Deuteronomy 3.
It'll take me just one second, gang.
Deuteronomy 3.
See, this is the problem.
We need a better internet.
Deuteronomy 3, 21, 20.
Okay, here we go.
Okay, here we go.
So it says, "At that time I commanded Joshua, "you have seen with your own eyes "all that the Lord your God has done to these two kings," a couple of kings that the Israelites defeated, "the Lord will do the same to all the kingdoms "over there where you are going.
"Do not be afraid of them.
"The Lord your God himself will fight for you." So this sort of language troubles a lot of people, both religious and secular.
The idea that God is fighting on somebody's behalf.
We get this debate every time there's an athlete who points up to God after scoring a touchdown.
We think, okay, really was the defensive back not good with God that day?
What happened?
And if so, then why the hell is Terrell Owens scoring so many touchdowns?
Got problems, right?
So we're always thinking in terms of why, when it says, the Bible says, God will fight with you, God will be on your side.
What does that mean?
Because it seems like one of two things is happening.
Either you're being deprived of your free will, because God is fighting on your side, or you are fighting on God's side, in which case there's a preordination to the universe.
There should be some sort of magical matchup between free will and what happens to you.
If you do a good thing, good things happen to you.
If you do a bad thing, bad things happen to you.
Why does God talk in these terms in the Bible about Him being on your side?
God will do all these things for you.
So, a couple answers.
One is that there are historical anomalies where God clearly intervenes in history.
The creation of the United States is obviously one of these situations where God intervened in history, where there are too many miracles that occurred at the creation, the foundation of the United States.
For it to have been just coincidence, for it to have happened out of nowhere, this tiny army defeating the greatest army on the face of the planet, this great congregation of minds coming together all at the same time in Philadelphia to create the Constitution.
I mean, there has to be some sort of godly intervention there.
But the real question is for us on an individual level.
There's no guarantee.
We all know this.
There's no guarantee that if we do what God wants, good things happen to us in this world.
There's no guarantee of that.
It's one of the saddest things about life is that you can be a perfectly good person and have a perfectly miserable life.
You can be plagued by health problems and marital problems.
You can make a good decision that seems good at the time and turns out to be a bad decision.
Where is God when all this happens?
Well, this is the downside of having free will.
And the whole purpose of life is to try and understand that your free will has to be shaped to what God wants of you.
And trying to figure out what God wants of you is often a very difficult task.
And you're never going to achieve it completely because if you could achieve complete godly understanding, then you would understand the mind of God.
And no one is capable of understanding the mind of God.
That's just not the way that God works.
It's not the way that religion works.
What God means here is that as a general rule in life, and the Bible is all about general Yes, there's an individual level of divine inspiration and intervention in each individual life.
But if you want to understand God's relationship with humanity, you can't look at God's relationship with individual humans.
You have to look at God's relationship with humanity more broadly.
And if you look at God's relationship with humanity more broadly, there are certain basic rules by which you live where God rewards you nationally and internationally for the sorts of decisions that you make as a society.
If you're a society that decides to throw marriage aside and pretend it no longer matters, then you're going to end up as a society that doesn't produce children and that ends up falling into the abyss.
If you're a society that doesn't care about morality and foreign policy, you're going to end up being abandoned by all your friends and you'll be eaten last in the international sphere.
God created the world with certain rules.
The Bible is sort of a rule book.
It's sort of a handbook that allows us to discover what those rules are.
That doesn't mean that it's perfectly clear because it isn't.
It's still opaque.
We still have to try and decipher it.
Every day is our attempt to decipher what God wants of us.
But that doesn't mean the rule book doesn't exist at all.
And Deuteronomy is God's promise that if you try and understand the rule book, you will in all likelihood, not always perfectly because if there were a one-to-one relationship between doing good things and having good results, there would be no free will.
But if you do good things, in all likelihood, in all likelihood, you will lead a better life.
And if you as a nation decide to make good decisions, then you will have good results that accrue to you because of that.
Okay, that's the Bible study.
Okay, quick thing that I hate, and then we'll get out of here.
So the thing that I hate, now it appears that Claremont students, so Claremont colleges, they were supposed to have me speak there That was another college this year where they didn't want me on campus because I'm offensive to people by saying things that aren't lovey-dovey.
And so they have now decided, apparently, a group of students at Claremont Colleges in search of a roommate insists that their roommates not be white.
Student Kari Urena posted on Facebook that non-white students in need of housing arrangements should reach out to either her or two other students with whom she plans to live in an off-campus house.
The post states, people of color only will be considered for this living opportunity.
She added, I don't want to live with any white folks.
Dalia Zada expressed concerns to anti-white discrimination.
She wrote back, POC only?
People of color only?
Maybe I'm missing something or misunderstanding your post, but how is that not a racist thing to say?
And then AJ Leon, who's a member of the Pitzer Latino Student Union, wrote back, this is directed to protect people of color, not white people.
Don't see how this is racist at all.
Sarah Rashtish, you said, people of color are allowed to create safe POC only spaces.
It is not reverse racism or discriminatory.
It is self-preservation.
Reverse racism isn't a thing.
Yes, it is a thing.
And it's not reverse racism, it's just racism.
Racism is the idea that one group ought to be separated off from the other groups simply based on their biology, simply based on the color of their skin.
Not even due to culture, right?
Just based on the biology.
Because the truth is, a black student may be much more similar to a white student in all aspects of their life except for the color of their skin, but according to this sort of logic, the black person is inherently different from the white person, which is of course what the KKK thinks.
So, of course it's racist.
Of course it's racist.
But we've taught these kids That you are incapable of racism if you are a member of a victim group.
This is the highest form of racism.
It leads to tremendous evil.
When tribalism trumps basic common decency, we're toast.
Societies are destroyed on the shoals of this kind of stuff.
When you say that your tribe is more important than basic morality, you got a problem.
So I get a lot of emails from white supremacists.
I do, unfortunately.
Where they say, well, you're Jewish, and you're Jewish supremacist.
No.
I'm not a Jewish supremacist.
I don't care one iota about Jewish ethnicity.
I think Jewish ethnicity is pretty much worthless.
The only reason that Jewish ethnicity matters at all is because in religious terms, it allows you the capacity to be a practicing Jew.
But, in terms of Jewish supremacy, the only thing I think is supreme about Judaism is Jewish values, which is why I'm a Jew, just as Christians think the Christian values are best.
I have no truck whatsoever with the idea that if somebody does bad things, they're better because they're a Jew.
The essence of racism is, if I do a bad thing, it's okay because I'm white or because I'm black or because I'm green.
That's a bunch of crap, and the university's reinforcing this stuff because they feel so guilty about this long history of American racism.
It really is counterproductive.
It's actually giving credence to the very people that anti-racism efforts were meant to fight in the first place.
Okay, we will be back tomorrow.
Hopefully, we can all hope that perhaps, for one day, Donald Trump can stop tripping over his own shoelaces like something out of The Three Stooges.
Can we do that?
Can we try to do that for like one day just because it's getting boring already?
Like, please?
Okay, we'll find out tomorrow.
The suspense is there.
Also, we'll have the mailbag tomorrow, so be there or be square.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection