Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 13, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:10

Ep. 195 - Everybody's a Hypocrite About Sexual Assault

Accusers emerge to allege sexual assault against Trump, the media spin for the Clintons, and the mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Pretend for just a moment that the media were not shilling on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
	She'd be in serious trouble.
	With the massive coordinated hit on Donald Trump unleashed by the mainstream media over his alleged sexual assault and harassment, the quiet implosion of Hillary Clinton's campaign has gone unnoticed.
	This week, Bill Clinton called Trump's base, quote, your standard redneck.
	This would normally be relatively crippling.
	The Clintons have now declared Trump's voters both deplorable and redneck, which isn't particularly smart.
	That, however, is the least of their worries.
	The Clinton team, thanks to the subservience of the media, has been able to escape talk of Bill's alleged sexual assaults and Hillary's alleged cover-ups with just a bit of head-shaking and tut-tutting.
	When Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway appeared on CNN with Breonna Keillor and started attacking the Clintons on these grounds, Keillor brushed her off and redirected to Trump.
	Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg spent their day on The View on Monday mocking Clinton's alleged victims.
	But in the real world, we'd be taking Juanita Broderick every bit as seriously, actually more seriously since her allegations are more serious than Trump's accusers.
	Then there are the leaks from the FBI.
	Multiple reports have emerged that the FBI and DOJ employees are devastated.
	They failed to prosecute Hillary Clinton for obvious lawbreaking.
	And then there are the WikiLeaks.
	We now know that DNC official Donna Brazile told the Clinton campaign she had some town hall questions from CNN's upcoming event, and Roland Martin had probably sent it to her.
	According to Politico's Hadass Gold, Martin sent CNN producers his question.
	Brazil somehow obtained the question and sent it to Hillary.
	We also know that Doug Band, who worked for Bill Clinton, got a call from a close friend who told him that Chelsea had told one of George W.'s daughters that she was, quote, conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation from the global initiative to the foundation.
	Not smart.
	Oh, so no corruption then.
	We also know the Democrats created a fake Catholic organization to create a quote-unquote Catholic Spring, kind of like the Arab Spring, to move the church in wild leftist ways.
	One of John Podesta's advisors wrote, quote, there needs to be a Catholic Spring in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle Ages dictatorship.
	Remember, they're talking about the Catholic Church and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
	Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen?
	Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic Church.
	Yeah.
	Another advisor, John Halpin, wrote Podesta, quote, frigging Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.
	Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic, many converts from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.
	It's an amazing bastardization of the faith.
	They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.
	Jennifer Palmieri, who's Clinton's communications director, she said the Catholic converts only did so because, quote, they think it is the most socially acceptable, politically conservative religion.
	Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.
	Other messages from WikiLeaks describe Hispanic party leaders as, quote, needy Latinos.
	All of this would be disastrous for Hillary's campaign if anybody were paying attention.
	They're not.
	Unfortunately, neither is Donald Trump.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	So tons to get to today here on The Ben Shapiro Show.
	We'll get to all of it.
	We have the mailbag today.
	We're also going to sneak in a little Bible talk since I just did my big repentance yesterday.
	That means I have to talk about the Bible today.
	We normally would have done it yesterday, but I was too busy ensconced in prayer because that's just the kind of person I am.
	That's because that's what we're required to do.
	But first, we say hello to our advertisers over at Wink.com.
	Wink.com is W-I-N-C.com.
	It's Club W. Remember our friends at Club W?
	They're the folks where you go to their website, and then you type in all sorts of information about the foods you like, the tastes you like.
	And then they recommend a bottle of wine for you.
	So if you don't know anything about wine, I don't know anything about wine.
	The kind of wine that I've historically liked is kind of soda water.
	But if you don't know anything about wine, but you want to look like you know something about wine, you want to be sophisticated about the wine that you choose at a particular meal or you're bringing it as a gift, then Wink.com is the place to go.
	So, Club W is now called Wink.
	It's W-I-N-C, as I say.
	It's a new name.
	It's an improved look, but it's still the same wine company introducing you to these new wines that you will love, and the prices are very affordable.
	I haven't tried the wines because they're not kosher, but all the people in the office have, which is why they're drunk all the time and the show is so bad.
	So, they've tried the wine, and they love the wine.
	They say that it tastes fantastic.
	And right now, if you go to Wink, it's offering my listeners $20 off their deal right now.
	Go to trywink.com slash Ben.
	It's trywink.com slash Ben.
	They cover the shipping as well.
	So you get fine wine that's personalized to your palate, and you get it for a cheap price delivered right to your door.
	Again, complimentary shipping, $20 off.
	If you go to trywink.com slash Ben, make sure you use the slash Ben so you get the money off.
	It's winc.com trywink.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so.
	Well, I leave for 24 hours, and every woman west of the Mississippi accuses Donald Trump of groping her.
	So it's been a busy 24 hours.
	But I want to start with the fact that, yes, conservatives have a right to be super ticked off about the media coverage of all of this, because it is fully and insanely absurd.
	The same people who thought that it was not a big deal when Bill Clinton did all of his stuff, now think it's the world's biggest deal when Trump does all his stuff.
	I think it's a big deal either way, because I'm still one of these people, I know it's quaint, who believes that character matters when it comes to our presidential candidates, but I'm in the minority, obviously.
	And the WikiLeaks revelations continue to come forth, and I just want to show how the media treat any allegations with regard to Hillary versus how they treat allegations with regard to Trump.
	So Jennifer Granholm is on, I think she's on MSNBC.
	And she suggests, on Bloomberg Politics rather, and she suggests that all of this WikiLeaks, there's something nefarious behind it.
	There's someone behind it.
	Probably the Russians.
	You see this report, for example, from Newsweek, from a reporter whose email appeared in this WikiLeaks batch, which was, in fact, manipulated.
	So the email that comes out is not, in fact, accurate.
	So you can't even validate that these are true emails.
	And it gets back to the point about what the heck is Russia doing interfering in our elections.
	Okay, so she says that it's a conspiracy, and by the way, it probably is, right?
	The Russians probably are interfering in our elections, and they are using WikiLeaks as their source.
	Okay, that's true.
	And the media accept this, right?
	I mean, they ask questions to Donald Trump in debate about this.
	James Rosen reports that the WikiLeaks reveal that the DNC and CNN were actually colluding.
	James Rosen of Fox News, here's his report.
	Brazil only became interim DNC chair during the party's convention in July, after a WikiLeaks dump of DNC emails revealed pervasive collusion between Brazil's predecessor, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, and the Clinton campaign against the Sanders forces.
	Today, Brazil said she supported both candidates and, quote, often shared her thoughts with both.
	As it pertains to the CNN debates, I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did.
	The Podesta emails also show Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, formerly a spokesman for the Department of Justice, getting a heads up from an unnamed DOJ official on the night of May 18th, 2015.
	Hey Brian, this was filed tonight.
	Fourteen minutes later, Fallon emailed Clinton confidant Cheryl Mills to relate the tip.
	DOJ just filed a briefing saying the government proposes releasing HRC's cache of work-related emails in January 2016.
	Get out!
	exclaimed Mills.
	Palmieri then looped in Podesta and Huma Abedin to set a conference call for the morning.
	This will be a thing tomorrow and she is in front of the press.
	Okay, so what he's reporting is not only coordination between the media and Clinton, but also between the DOJ and Clinton.
	And anybody who expresses this is, of course, seen as a kook.
	If you say that the media is in Hillary's pocket, that's just you being kind of kooky.
	And if you say that the DOJ and the FBI were working in cahoots with the Clintons and giving them special treatment, that's also kooky.
	So this sort of thing will drive you nuts.
	And so when Donald Trump says that the media can't report on the establishment because they are the establishment, he's exactly right, is what he had to say about it.
	The corporate media can't report on the establishment because the corporate media is the establishment.
	Such a big part of it.
	We're going to break up the special interest monopoly and we're going to win this country back for the American people.
	We're going to do it too.
	Okay, so what he's saying there is exactly right, and I understand why people are so frustrated.
	Now, on to the actual issues.
	So, the big issue of the day is that everybody's a hypocrite.
	Every person is a hypocrite, okay?
	The people on the right are hypocrites, the people on the left are hypocrites.
	The people on the left are hypocrites because they pretend that they care deeply about Donald Trump sexually assaulting people, allegedly.
	And people on the right are hypocrites because they apparently were lying when they cared about Bill Clinton doing it.
	Because you don't get to say certain sexual assault victims are better than other sexual assault victims because of the nature of the person who allegedly perpetrated.
	You don't get to do that, right?
	If you can show me evidence that Juanita Broderick is more credible than the women who are accusing Donald Trump, then I'll listen to it.
	If you can do vice versa, I'll listen to that too.
	So far, I haven't heard any of that.
	I've just heard a lot of people saying it's not a big deal if Trump does it because Clinton does it.
	And a lot of people on the Clinton side saying it was never a big deal when Clinton did it, but now it's a huge deal when Trump does all this.
	All that said, not to say that I'm right about everything, but I've been right about a lot of things.
	Here's the thing I was right about.
	So if you recall, back on Monday, we were reviewing the debate, and I said that this was the key moment of the debate.
	Here's this exchange.
	Just for the record, though, are you saying that what you said on that bus 11 years ago, that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women without consent?
	I have great respect for women.
	Nobody has more respect for women than I do.
	So for the record, you're saying you never did that?
	You hear these things, they said.
	And I was embarrassed by it, but I have tremendous respect for women.
	Have you ever done those things?
	And women have respect for me.
	And I will tell you, no I have not.
	Okay, so no, he has not done any of those things, right?
	And I said at the time, I said it in real time, I tweeted it out, this exchange was the setup, and the rest of the week would be the punchline.
	Remember I said this, I said this on the show, and we could pull the tape, I have the tweets to prove it, okay?
	And naturally, that's exactly what happens.
	The media then dumps every accuser that's going to accuse Trump of having groped them, or kissed them without permission, or any of the rest of it.
	So the Trump people are getting out in front of this.
	These allegations are decades old.
	who used to work for Breitbart, as every Trump advisor apparently has.
	And she comes forward and she says, you know, all of these allegations are nonsense because anybody reasonable would have already made these claims.
	These allegations are decades old.
	If somebody actually did that, Chris, any reasonable woman would have come forward and said something.
	Yeah.
	Isn't that trivializing sexual assault?
	Do you think that sexual assault doesn't happen?
	In the New York Times piece itself, it mentions at the very end, gee how convenient, that both of these women are Hillary Clinton supporters and Hillary Clinton donors.
	Forgive me for not finding this credible.
	Okay, so, she says it's not credible, and none—okay, so here's what I'm going to do, okay?
	And it's—the problem with this argument is, of course, it works the opposite way.
	Kathleen Willey doesn't like Hillary and probably won't vote for her, as far as I know.
	Neither does Paul Jones.
	Neither does Juanita Broderick.
	All these people have sided with Trump.
	So, this argument works both ways.
	And here's where we get into the hypocrisy argument on both sides, and it really is kind of gross.
	I'm just going to show you tape of the women, and you tell me whether you think they're credible.
	So here's Jessica Leeds.
	This is one of the women who accuses Trump of having groped her.
	And here is her telling her story to the New York Times.
	And the New York Times, of course, running with this in a way they never would with Juanita Broderick.
	You suppress it.
	It's not part of your active thinking every day.
	But you don't forget.
	You're all over me.
	It wasn't until they cleared the meal that Somehow or another, the armrest in the seat disappeared.
	And it was a real shock when all of a sudden his hands were all over me.
	He started encroaching on my space.
	And I hesitate to use this expression, but I'm going to.
	And that is, he was like an octopus.
	It was like he had six arms.
	He was all over the place.
	And if he had stuck with The upper part of the body.
	I might not have gotten that upset.
	But it's when he started putting his hand up my skirt.
	And that was it.
	That was it.
	I was out of there.
	Okay, so that's her story.
	You either find it credible or you don't.
	Okay, but that's not the only story.
	So former Miss Utah, she says that Trump came up to her and kissed her without permission.
	I remember him walking over.
	My dad was very confident, and he really admired Donald Trump.
	And so he went over and introduced himself first, and then he introduced me.
	And it was at that time where he turned to me and embraced me and gave me a kiss on the lips.
	And I remember being shocked, because I would have just thought to shake somebody's hand, but that was his first response with me.
	And I remember, I mean, I was very young, and I remember feeling kind of embarrassed, like wanting to turn and almost wipe my mouth.
	OK, and so that's her story.
	You can either believe it or you can't.
	But again, the reason this is now being brought up is because of this tape from last week that Trump, with Trump bragging that he does exactly this, that he can grope women, that he can kiss them without their permission.
	And these are not the only two women who are now alleging any of this.
	I mean, there's like a long list of women who are alleging this.
	There's a bunch of teen beauty queens who are now alleging that Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants as young as 15 were changing the form of Miss Vermont Teen USA.
	I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, oh my god, there's a man in here.
	Which, by the way, Trump's best solution here would probably be to just say, I was identifying as female at the time.
	Because we've learned that if you do that and you're a man, then it's totally fine.
	Then actually it would be a civil rights violation for her to get offended.
	But, uh, three other women who asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting engulfed in a media firestorm also remembered Trump entering the dressing room while girls were changing.
	Two of them said the girls rushed to cover their bodies, with one calling it shocking and creepy.
	The third said she was clothed and introduced herself to Trump.
	Okay, here are some of the other allegations that have come out.
	And as I said, this was all a setup from the beginning.
	Anderson Cooper asked this question, so now it doesn't just look like Trump did these things, it looks like Trump lied about doing these things, which is even worse.
	Okay, there's a girl named Jill Hearth, a woman named Jill Hearth, she says in 1992, That she filed a lawsuit in 97 saying Trump made a series of lewd comments about her, groped her, and raped her.
	She withdrew her lawsuit as part of a confidential settlement.
	For several months in 1998, Hearth and Trump dated, apparently after the lawsuit, so that's weird.
	And then she says she tried to bury the hatchet and reached out to him.
	That one does not seem as credible, just because you don't date people who have raped you typically, but it's possible.
	Temple Taggart, 1997.
	She says she was 21 when she was Miss Utah.
	He kissed me directly on the lips.
	I thought, oh my God, gross.
	He was married to Marla Maples at the time.
	I think there were a few other girls he kissed on the mouth.
	I was like, wow, that's inappropriate.
	Rachel Crooks in 2005, she said she was working as a receptionist for a development company, and one time she saw Trump waiting for an elevator.
	She introduced herself.
	She told The Times they shook hands.
	He began kissing her on the cheeks and directly on the mouth.
	She said, it was so inappropriate.
	I was so upset.
	He thought I was so insignificant he could do this.
	A writer for People Magazine wrote a story yesterday about visiting Mar-a-Lago.
	She said that They were doing a story about Melania Trump being pregnant on their first anniversary.
	And she said, Cassandra Searles from 2013.
	She says that Trump treated pageant contestants like property.
	She said he groped her repeatedly, asked her to come up to his hotel room.
	He probably doesn't want me telling this story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room, she wrote in a Facebook comment.
	So, there are lots of allegations now, and the allegations are coming fast and furious.
	So, the Trump team is responding with denials, which is kind of normal.
	The problem is, the question is, do you believe any of this is believable?
	So we can take each of these allegations individually.
	When there's a huge number of women who are now saying it, though, you enter into Bill Clinton, who was never prosecuted, Bill Cosby territory, right?
	You do.
	I mean, you just—the bulk of allegations make it more believable, plus the fact that Trump makes jokes about this kind of behavior all the time.
	The media's making a big deal.
	By the way, not all of these things are a big deal.
	Like, for example, here's a tape of Donald Trump joking about a 10-year-old.
	He did this, I guess, in 1992.
	And the media are making a big deal out of this.
	This is one I don't think is a big deal.
	Thursday night.
	You're going up the escalator?
	I'm going to be dating her in 10 years.
	Can you believe it?
	So he says to some 10-year-old girl, he says, I'm going to be dating her in 10 years.
	OK, that's obviously him joking about the fact that he dates younger women.
	It's not him trying to.
	He didn't say, I want to date her now, which would be child molestation, presumably.
	He said, I want to date her in 10 years.
	Is it pleasant?
	No.
	But this is a guy who's also joked about having sex with his daughter.
	So it's kind of his sense of humor.
	All of this is true.
	Now, the way that the Clintons respond to all of this is just by suggesting that it's crazy that he does all of this.
	Because they're hypocrites.
	They do the exact same thing, and they're giant, giant hypocrites.
	Right?
	Trump says all this stuff.
	He does all this stuff.
	The Clintons, you know, the Clintons act as though all of this is wildly new to them.
	How could anyone act like this?
	And, of course, they act like this all the time.
	We'll get to the Clintons in just a second, and the hypocrisy from the other side of the aisle.
	So, but first, we have to say hello to our friends at dstld.com.
	It's distilled, but it's dstld.com slash Ben.
	If you need a great pair of jeans, if you need a pair of jeans that's A really high-quality pair of jeans.
	Instead of costing you hundreds of bucks, it costs you $65, starting at $65.
	There's no markup, no BS.
	It's great jeans.
	I have a pair of them.
	They fit really well.
	They're very comfortable.
	Very high-quality.
	And they start at $65, which is great, because if I had known that they were going to be one of our sponsors, I wouldn't have bought a $150 pair of jeans, like, a month ago.
	But they make terrific jeans at dstld.com slash ben.
	You get $10 off of your first pair, so it's more like $55.
	Dstld.com slash Ben for that $10 off.
	And, you know, celebrities wear these things.
	I've got a pair of these jeans, and I wear them.
	They're part of the rotation.
	They're great.
	Dstld.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, Bill Clinton's on the trail, and Bill Clinton's been hit with all these allegations because the Trump team has said, we're going to go to war on the Clinton allegations, which they sort of have to do at this point.
	They don't have a choice.
	The only other thing they could do, I think this would be a smarter move, Would be just to say, OK, if it's nonsense, just deny it.
	Say it's not true.
	And then say, why don't we talk about the real issues?
	Instead, they're starting an open war over sexual assault allegations.
	The problem is that it's already baked into the cake for the Clintons.
	We've known for 20 years that Hillary covered up for Bill's sexual assaults or alleged sexual assaults.
	We know that Bill committed these sexual assaults or allegedly did.
	And so it's already baked into the cake.
	And so that gives the Clintons the ability to just sort of shrug at it.
	They just sort of shrug at it.
	So here's Bill Clinton shrugging at all of this.
	I thought much more about her than I did about him.
	I'm beyond being moved or surprised.
	He says, I'm beyond being moved or surprised.
	I just can't believe they would treat me this way.
	Yeah, Bill, well, at least Donald Trump wasn't putting you in the back of the Oval Office and then groping you or pulling out his ding-dong and saying, kiss it, as you allegedly did.
	I mean, this is, it's bad stuff.
	Now, the media's granting all sorts of credibility, tons and tons of credibility to all of the accusers of Trump.
	Here's one accuser of Clinton that they're just absolutely ignoring, no matter that she's out there speaking openly.
	Now, here's Juanita Broderick, who accuses Bill Clinton of having raped her in 1978, and then Hillary Clinton of having intimidated her afterward.
	Here's Broderick.
	This is an interview with Breitbart News, the Trump official outlet.
	And I knew I had to get out of there.
	Well, just as he moved, here comes Hillary straight for me.
	And she gets to me and she starts saying, I just want to thank you for everything you were doing in Bill's campaign.
	And it's so nice to meet you and all of these things.
	So I just nodded and told my friend, let's go.
	And I thought somebody from behind had grabbed ahold of my arm.
	But it was her.
	She grabbed ahold of my arm and my hand, and she pulls me into her, and she says with this very angry look on her face, which had been so pleasant seconds before, and in a low voice, says, do you understand everything you do?
	And that frightened me.
	Do you think at that point she knew that Bill Clinton raped you, or do you just think that she knew something happened?
	What do you think she knew? - At that moment, people have asked me that, said, "Well, do you think she knew what happened?" At that moment, and I have to go by what I felt then, and the look that she gave me, I felt like she knew.
	That he ripped you.
	Yes, and that she was telling me to keep quiet.
	Keep quiet about her husband.
	Okay, so we can stop it there.
	So this allegation comes forward and the media, of course, ignores it completely.
	We have to break there, but I want to talk about the media hypocrisy, which I think is a huge story here, over at dailywire.com.
	Subscribe for eight bucks a month and you become part of the Daily Wire team.
	You get to join us with the mailbag.
	Are we doing mailbag today, guys, or we didn't have a chance?
	No mailbag today?
	We'll do mailbag.
	Okay, we'll do mailbag next week, but dailywire.com to be part of the mailbag.
	You can be part of the live mailbag that we normally do on Thursday.
	It's been a little bit delayed because yesterday was Yom Kippur, but you also get to view it live.
	There are a bunch of new goodies that are coming in the very, very near future to dailywire.com.
	And so go there, check it out, become a subscriber, and be part of the Daily Wire team, as well as part of the Ben Shapiro podcast team, the largest conservative podcast in the United States.
	Okay, so the media reaction to all of this, you've got these dueling narratives, right?
	You got the narrative of the accusers from Trump and the accusers of Hillary Clinton.
	And what you see is that the media are completely ignoring the accusers about Hillary and Bill.
	Partially, that's because Hillary's not the one who actually did the sexual—the alleged sexual assault and harassment.
	She's just the one who intimidated, and that's a little bit more attenuated.
	It's slightly more attenuated.
	But part of that is because they just love the Clintons and they hate the Trumps.
	And so you can see that in real time.
	Here is Kellyanne Conway, the spokesperson for the Trump campaign, campaign manager, versus Breonna Keillor on CNN.
	I referred to this exchange a little bit earlier.
	It really is pretty egregious.
	He's describing that himself.
	And yes, I understand that you are his current campaign manager, but the purview of your job extends beyond that.
	He is responsible for what he's said in the past.
	What do you make of this?
	Of course, what do you make of this?
	I can't comment on what she's saying because I'm not her and I wasn't in the pageant or any other pageant.
	Okay, but your candidate is talking about how he did what she described.
	Yeah, I heard you.
	Okay.
	Well, no, he didn't say what she described was pretty graphic and detailed, so let's not conflate the two.
	I heard what she said and I heard what he said.
	And the fact is that all you want to do, it seems, is talk about something he said 10, 15 years ago, and yet we never ever want to talk, particularly CNN, where we've offered up these women to you, we never want to talk to the women who were shamed and blamed by Hillary Clinton because they had sexual contact with her husband, some consensual, long-time affairs, of course, including in the White House, and then others, victims of predatory conduct.
	That somehow is not relevant.
	But Donald Trump on Howard Stern's show is relevant.
	And you want me to believe that a critical mass of Americans agrees with that?
	Nah, not really.
	Never at the volume, never at the volume of the fever pitch here.
	So is she.
	covered it on this pitch here.
	Well, Donald Trump is running for president.
	And we have certainly looked at your allegations.
	She's awful to those women.
	We have fact checked that if you go on CNN.com, We've gone painstakingly through the very claims you're talking about, and we found that they were exaggerated.
	So I want to talk to you about your candidate.
	I'm sorry, I'm sorry, what was exaggerated?
	I'm sorry, what is exaggerated?
	No, I'm talking to you about this.
	I'm sorry, what is exaggerated?
	Oh, you don't want to talk about it?
	That's my point.
	What was exaggerated?
	Juanita Broderick's rape claim is exaggerated?
	Paula Jones getting $850,000 in a sexual harassment settlement Is exaggerated?
	I'm asking you about your, I'm asking you about your candidate.
	I know.
	So when he, when he describes this.
	Okay.
	And that's exactly, and Kellyanne Conway, who, you know, she's exactly right.
	She's exactly, I've had some really harsh words for her this week.
	She is 100% right on this.
	The media are interested only and solely in Donald Trump.
	And you can see that she, I mean, like what basis does she have for saying that these other women's claims are exaggerated?
	I haven't seen anything on CNN.com explaining what Juanita Broderick said that was exaggerated or debunked or anything.
	But again, the media are interested only in one side of this particular debate.
	And it's not just Breonna Keller.
	Anderson Cooper did the same thing with a Trump defender.
	But in this case, he's pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump defenders.
	It just doesn't seem like it.
	You can bet Juanita Broderick means nothing to her.
	Do you think, well, how do you know that?
	I mean, if that's her ground, why didn't she talk about it?
	Why didn't she say, if groping me is bad, raping Juanita Broderick is not so good?
	I mean, she didn't go there, did she?
	Right?
	I don't even understand that.
	I'm not sure I understand.
	First of all, that was an interview about what she said was an incident that happened to her.
	You're saying you wanted her to talk about Juanita Broderick in that interview?
	I'm saying, if we're going to get into the entire issue of this, Then we have to deal with the entire issue.
	And, of course, this comes back to Hillary Clinton.
	I guess my question is, why do you believe Juanita Broderick and you don't believe these two women?
	All I'm saying is, give them the equal forum.
	I mean, these four women... We've just reported them.
	We've reported on Juanita Broderick.
	Anderson, the New York Times is not going to sit down and do a long sit-down with Juanita Broderick.
	There's a story in TMZ today about NBC executives having this tape, this last tape that was released, for months.
	And they held it deliberately.
	So everybody is actually sort of right here, right?
	I mean, he's saying you guys are hypocrites because you won't cover Broderick, and Anderson Cooper's saying you're a hypocrite because you think Broderick's telling the truth and these other women are lying.
	And they're all right!
	Everybody's a hypocrite.
	Everybody's a hypocrite.
	Because they all pretend that sexual assault matters to them, and it doesn't matter to any of them so long as the person who's actually doing the sexual assault agrees with them on politics.
	And it really is pretty gross.
	And, you know, this is all devolving, you know.
	Ben Carson, for example, he says that this is a—he just dismisses out of hand the Trump allegations about unwanted advances.
	You know, there's an atmosphere that's been created by the New York Times and others that says, look, if you're willing to come out and say something, we'll give you fame, we'll give you whatever you need.
	What a bunch of crap.
	You know, but the people have to see through this because, again, the train is going off the cliff.
	Our country's going off the cliff financially and in so many other ways.
	If we don't deal with this stuff now, our children are completely going to be disadvantaged.
	Okay, I don't know what basis Ben Carson, a religious Christian, has for saying that these women are lying, but he just spills it right out there.
	He just says straight out that they're lying, which of course is doing wonderful work on behalf of the Republican idea that there isn't sexism and that sexual assault abusers are not being victimized by people who simply doubt their story for no apparent reason.
	It's just—it's egregious.
	Katrina Pierson does the same thing on national TV.
	She's not Kellyanne Conway, which means she's not smart.
	And so, Katrina Pierson, spokesperson for Donald Trump, here's what she says about the—her defense of Donald Trump against the charges by that woman that Trump was trying to grope her up the skirt.
	We're talking about the early 1980s, Don.
	Seriously.
	Back then, you had planes.
	What?
	A DC-9, a DC-10, an MD-80, 707, and maybe an L-1011.
	But she said specifically this was to New York.
	And this is what's important, so we can X out the L-1011 and the DC-10.
	Guess what?
	First class seats have fixed armrests.
	So what I can tell you about her story, if she was broke on a plane, Katrina, we'll get our aviation expert here to talk about the airplanes.
	How could it happen?
	Explain how that happens.
	There are fixed seats on first class.
	So if it happened, it wasn't by Donald Trump, and it wasn't in first class.
	Katrina, there are more than six seats in first class.
	Sometimes there are... She said fixed.
	Fixed, I thought she said six seats.
	But listen, I'm not gonna... F-I-X-E-D.
	Okay, we don't know what kind of plane they were on, we don't know what the seats were like, so I'm not going to argue about that.
	That's not all the options, okay?
	Donald Trump had his own plane.
	Katrina, I'm not going to argue about an airplane now.
	Let's talk about the woman here who says she's a victim.
	You're asking about her story.
	It's false.
	What did these women have to gain by coming out?
	Here's why she said she finally spoke out.
	Fame?
	That woman look like she's looking for fame?
	I don't think so.
	OK, Katrina Pearson sitting around talking about women seeking fame is pretty astonishing.
	Again, if your best argument here is that there was a fixed seat on the aircraft, OK, what does that do about the other dozen allegations that have happened?
	Also, I'm sorry, but Katrina Pearson does not strike me as an expert in all of the various models of plane that were flying in whenever this thing was supposed to have occurred.
	And nobody's being fair-minded about any of this.
	Nobody's being fair-minded about any of this.
	Either you believe all of it or you believe none of it, is sort of my view on this.
	Either it's all true or it's all false.
	My tendency is to believe that it's all true, or at least large swaths that are true, on both sides.
	That Donald Trump is who his accusers say he is, and that Bill Clinton is who his accusers say he is.
	And so this brings us to, this brings us to the real problem.
	And that is, I'm old enough to remember when Republicans used to say things like character in the presidency mattered.
	Maybe it doesn't.
	Maybe it just doesn't anymore.
	Jerry Falwell Jr.
	over at Liberty University.
	He was asked on Aaron Burnett's show on CNN about voting for Donald Trump even if these New York Times reports were true.
	And here was Jerry Falwell's answer on all of this.
	I do just want to get an answer from you directly about how you feel about this.
	If these things happened, would you still support him?
	Would you still vote for him if these things happened?
	I can't answer a hypothetical question you're saying.
	If he murdered somebody, would I forgive him?
	That's like asking something as ridiculous as that.
	These are allegations.
	These are women saying it with their names.
	I've been open about this.
	I want to say it again.
	I've known him for a long time.
	I've never experienced anything like this from him.
	He's been professional.
	I do know someone very well who did get kissed by Donald Trump without his consent.
	That was in 2010.
	So yes, I'm giving you a hypothetical because these women are coming forth and telling their story and he says it isn't true.
	But I'm saying to you, if what they say is true, does Jerry Falwell Jr.
	vote for Donald Trump?
	I'm going to vote for Donald Trump because I believe he's the best qualified to be president of the United States.
	And I'm not going to say anything to besmirch the character of any of these women.
	It's the heat of an election.
	It's four weeks away from election day.
	And everybody's in a frenzy.
	And so we have to keep that in mind.
	The New York Times is very anti-Trump.
	And I believe the statement that was just released.
	They absolutely deny all the allegations.
	Okay, so he says it right there.
	I mean, he just says that even if it were true that Donald Trump was groping women against their will, he'd still vote for him because he's the best candidate for the presidency.
	Which, by the way, is a plausible position.
	I'm not going to say that I think it's a fully moral position, because I don't think it is, but it's a plausible position.
	The other person who's making this case, although not in the same terms, is Eric Metaxas.
	So Eric Metaxas is a very smart guy.
	He has a show on Salem Radio Network, which does my morning show.
	And he has a column in the Wall Street Journal today about exactly this issue, and it's called, Should Christians Vote for Trump?
	I heard him on Dennis Prager's show this morning talking about it.
	And I just want to read some of this column, because I think that it's telling about how the hypocrisy has now entered into every arena of American life.
	And Falwell is the clearest example here because he, I assume, still proclaims, as his dad did, that there is a moral majority that cares about character and not just policy.
	That character and policy are at least partially inseparable.
	Not totally inseparable, but partially inseparable.
	The reason character matters.
	The reason character matters is because in order for us to believe a politician, the fundamental go-to is that politicians lie for personal gain.
	Right?
	That's what we all believe about politicians.
	The reason we believe character matters is because character matters not in terms of who's going to babysit your kids, we don't care about that, but in terms of who is going to fulfill their promises to do things that you believe are moral with the government.
	Or who's going to do things that you agree with with the government.
	They have to be plausible, they have to be believable, they have to be people who don't lie.
	You know, these are certain basic things.
	Like, there are certain aspects of character that you probably don't care about.
	I mean, there are certain things that you might consider a sin or that you might consider a character foible that you don't care about.
	For example, somebody has a potty mouth.
	That's probably something that you don't care about very much because it doesn't impact their level of honesty.
	But it does impact your level of honesty if you go out there and you say that you've never abused women and then you've abused women for years.
	Or you've abused women and then you've had your wife cover it up.
	Or you've gone out there and abused your position of power, right, which is what the Clintons have done and that's what the allegations are, with Trump going into the Miss Universe contestant hall and then abusing your power with these young girls, 15 years old.
	That's a problem.
	That's the character argument.
	We've now apparently reached the point, the Democrats were at in 1999, forget about his character, he has our policies, right?
	This is what Nina Burleigh said and all the conservatives made fun of her.
	All the conservatives made fun of her.
	She said, I think that we should all be getting on our knees and favoring Bill Clinton for keeping abortion legal.
	In other words, it doesn't matter what he does so long as he does what I want him to do.
	You know, the question is, when it comes to character, does it matter as a human being?
	Does it matter as a religious person?
	And does it matter in a politician?
	And it seems that we're increasingly coming down on the same side the Democrats came down on in 1998 in order to justify quote-unquote our guy.
	So here's Eric Metaxas today sort of making this case.
	Not in the same way as Falwell.
	Falwell actually says, You know, Falwell will actually go out of his way to sort of excuse some of Trump's behavior, which is pretty crazy.
	Metaxas doesn't do that.
	But what Metaxas does do is he falls back on this lesser of two evils argument.
	And so he basically says, well character is character, but she also has a character and her character is worse.
	He says, this question should hardly require an essay, but let's face it.
	We're living in strange times.
	America is in trouble.
	Over this past year, many of Donald Trump's comments have made me almost literally hopping mad.
	The hot mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying.
	And then he says, we have a very knotty and larger problem.
	What if the other candidate also has deal breakers, even a whole deplorable basketball?
	Suddenly things become horribly awkward.
	Would God want me to simply not vote?
	Is that a serious option?
	What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before and while he was president?
	Won't God hold me responsible for that?
	What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and, in recalling the case, laughed about getting away with it?
	Will I be excused for letting this person become our president?
	What if she used her position as Secretary of State to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs?
	Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them simply by not voting?
	Many say they won't vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
	But this is sophistry.
	Neither candidate is pure evil.
	They are human beings.
	We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them.
	Not voting, or voting for a third candidate who cannot win, is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences.
	He's saying neither of them is totally evil, so there's a lesser of two evils election.
	Except then he goes on to characterize Hillary Clinton as totally evil.
	He makes a comparison.
	He says, two heroes about whom I've written face similar difficulties.
	William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.
	Why?
	Because as a sincere Christian, he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others.
	Second, he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed.
	So, he's now violating his own logic a second ago, where he said the lesser of two evils doesn't apply because neither candidate is totally evil.
	And then he immediately says, "This is like preventing slavery." In other words, Hillary Clinton is evil.
	And then he compares Hillary Clinton to Hitler.
	He says, the anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by.
	He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government.
	He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay morally pure would allow the murder of millions to continue.
	Doing nothing or merely praying was not an option.
	He understood God was merciful and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him, but he knew he must act.
	And he finishes off this column by saying, "For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious.
	But please consider this: a vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself.
	It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election.
	Not to vote is to vote.
	God will not hold us guiltless." In other words, you're a bad religious person if you don't vote for Donald Trump.
	Right?
	Jesus, God, whichever, Jewish, Christian, Allah, you're not going to be forgiven as a religious human being, particularly Christians, those who he's talking to.
	So Christ will not forgive you if you don't vote for Donald Trump, because Donald Trump is the lesser of two evils.
	Here is C.S.
	Lewis on the lesser of two evils in mere Christianity.
	I feel a strong desire to tell you, and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me, which of these two errors is the worst.
	That is the devil getting at us.
	He always sends errors into the world in pairs.
	Pairs of opposites.
	And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking about which is the worst.
	You see why, of course.
	He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one.
	But do not let us be fooled.
	We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors.
	We have no other concern than that with either of them.
	In other words, you have to keep calling out badness where you see badness.
	Now, I think that Metaxas is calling out badness, but the problem is that when he says that Trump is still the lesser of two evils, and then compares Hillary to Hitler, in the end what he's basically doing, and he's not saying Hillary's Hitler, but effectively his argument is that Hillary is the evil that we must avoid.
	He's doing a couple of things that are logically problematic.
	One is he's assuming that this is an election in isolation.
	He's assuming that your vote in this election between Trump and Hillary is the only thing that matters, right?
	There's no external consequences to how people vote.
	Now, for the ordinary voter, maybe that's true.
	It's not true for Eric Metaxas.
	When Eric Metaxas endorses the idea, Trump above Hillary, what he's actually doing is he's saying to an enormous group of people all across the country, he may not mean it this way and it's not his fault, but this is how it's going to be interpreted, that Donald Trump's moral standards do not matter to him because he stands for things with which Eric Metaxas agrees.
	Even though he's not plausible, even though he has no character.
	So character doesn't matter.
	Only policy matters.
	You're voting for policy, you're not voting for character.
	Except that the character of the person has an impact on the policies they're going to implement.
	Whether we can believe them or not, Metaxas just assumes away that everything Trump says is honest and true.
	Second of all, the fact is that most people are not like Metaxas or Prager, people who are going to criticize Donald Trump.
	Most people are more like Jerry Falwell Jr., in the sense that they're going to start justifying a lot of bad things Trump has done, and in the end, rip away the moral essence that is the heart of conservatism, in order to get an incrementally better guy for the next four years, theoretically.
	That's the argument, anyway.
	Here's the biggest problem I have with all of this.
	Okay?
	And here's why I agree with C.S.
	Lewis.
	When it comes to the idea that character matters, either it does or it doesn't.
	If character does not matter at all, and that's really what we're talking about here, because Trump has no character, Hillary has no character, arguing differences of character between them is like arguing the differences between Coke and Pepsi, essentially, except if both were made of crap.
	So it's—neither of them has any character that's worth speaking about.
	They both are characterless individuals trying to pretend that Hillary is a worse character than Trump, is ignoring how bad Trump is, trying to pretend that Trump is a worse character than Hillary, is ignoring how bad Hillary is.
	And so you say, OK, fine, so we just won't talk character.
	We'll just talk policy.
	Except for the fact that if you think character matters at all, then you cannot have someone who is characterless that you put your imprimatur of decency on.
	If all it comes down to is just the policies that these people lie about, Then fine.
	Then fine.
	Why don't we just, from now on, we won't even pretend that any of this matters.
	Maybe that's the world that we're getting to.
	We won't pretend that any of this matters.
	You can act however you want so long as you stand for the quote-unquote right things.
	And even if you don't stand for those right things, you say you stand for those right things, so you're believable.
	If character no longer matters at all, and that seems to be the direction that we're going, then we can do away with this.
	We can dispense with the notion that our politicians are better than their politicians, or that it matters if our politicians are better than their politicians.
	We can have—if so, the only thing that Donald Trump ever said that was true in this campaign is he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
	And Hillary feels the same way.
	And it's already true on the left.
	Hillary could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
	I was unaware that people on the right, who constantly make the argument to their children and to the society that character matters, say when it comes to politics, character doesn't matter because after all, we're hiring a plumber, we're not hiring a pope.
	Right?
	Yes, that's true, except if you know that the plumber is a kleptomaniac.
	Right?
	You don't hire the plumber if you know the plumber is a kleptomaniac.
	And if you have a choice between a plumber who's a kleptomaniac and a plumber who's a rapist, maybe you just try to fix the pipe yourself.
	Maybe that's the ideal.
	Otherwise, we all end up hypocrites in some sense.
	Either get rid of the standard entirely, or you're going to have to deal with your own hypocrisy.
	That's the way that this narrative goes, unfortunately.
	And it's really, really ugly.
	Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to be in crisis.
	is still going after Paul Ryan, who obviously is his enemy in all of this, and because Paul Ryan somehow planted evidence that Donald Trump was sexually abusing women 15 years ago, those clever, clever coxervatives, Donald Trump is still going after Paul Ryan, and here is Donald Trump going after a guy.
	By the way, Paul Ryan is still an endorser of Donald Trump's. - Tell you what, folks, this is the last time you'll ever have a chance It's not going to happen anymore.
	You won't be able, the numbers will be too great.
	Already the Republican nominee has a massive, a massive disadvantage.
	And especially when you have the leaders not putting their weight behind the people.
	They're not putting their weight behind the people.
	Instead of calling me, And saying, congratulations, you did a great job, you absolutely destroyed her in the debate, like everybody said.
	You know, Pat Buchanan wrote the big article today, you saw it.
	He said, and I'm not bragging, I'm just saying, maybe a little bit, but yeah.
	He said it was the single greatest debate performance in the history of presidential politics.
	So, wouldn't you think, That Paul Ryan would call and say, good going, in front of just about the largest audience for a second night debate in the history of the country.
	So, you know, you'd think that they'd say, great going, Don.
	Let's go.
	Let's beat this crook.
	She's a crook.
	Let's beat her.
	We got to stop it.
	No, he doesn't do that.
	There's a whole deal going on there.
	So, I mean, you know.
	There's a whole deal going on.
	We're going to figure it out.
	I always figure things out.
	But there's a whole sinister deal going on.
	Yeah, there is a sinister deal going on.
	The sinister deal here is that Donald Trump has no intention of winning, and so he's going to blame everybody to his right of being at fault instead of himself.
	That's the sinister deal that's going on.
	Everybody insisting that people just embrace the idea that character no longer matters in elections.
	Fine.
	If it no longer matters in elections, then I guess we're done here.
	I guess we're done here.
	And then it's just a question of which characterless person will be the president, and then you can't be surprised if a characterless person is lying to you.
	You can't be surprised if your bad guy is lying to you and was fibbing to you the entire time.
	But let's not pretend anymore about what we are.
	We're not people who care about character, if that's the case.
	We're only people who care about policy, and we only hope that those people in power Regardless of their character, do what's right for us.
	Okay?
	Let me tell you something about people without character.
	People without character don't care about systems.
	People without character don't care about your rights.
	People without character care about themselves.
	And so we'll just elect, you know, whichever—our selfish guy versus their selfish person, our corrupt person versus their corrupt person.
	If that's the choice every election, if that's what it's—if that's what we're down to, honestly, if that's the place where we are, vote for Trump because Eric Metaxas is right.
	But if you think that When it comes to character, there is hope for something better than maybe a holdout for something that isn't quite so bad.
	And that's really the question.
	And I see it both ways.
	I see it both ways.
	There's the pessimistic side of me that says, fine, we've come this far.
	Everything is in the crapper.
	Values no longer matter.
	Principles no longer matter.
	Character no longer matters.
	Vote Trump over Hillary because, hey, it's the only thing that's left.
	Well, and then there's the part of me that says, OK, there's still a movement to be had here.
	I still respect the intelligence of the American people enough to believe that at some point, if presented with a real choice between good people and bad people, between good candidates and bad candidates, they'll choose the right one.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe that's too hopeful.
	But if I'm too hopeful on that, then the country's done anyway, and Donald Trump's just a holding pattern until the Democrats destroy it, or until he does.
	Okay, time for things I like, and then things I hate, and a little bit of Bible.
	So, things I like.
	So, over at Yom Kippur, you're sitting in synagogue for hours and hours and hours and hours, so I don't have the attention span to pray consistently for seven hours straight, so I bring a book with me.
	The book that I brought this week was Essays on Ethics, a weekly reading of the Jewish Bible by Jonathan Sachs, the chief rabbi of England.
	The foreword is by Senator Lieberman.
	The foreword is nothing particularly special, but the book itself is really interesting.
	He does what I do here on the show.
	He goes through every Parsha, every week, every Torah portion, and gives a brief explanation of the ethics implicit in that portion of the Bible.
	It's a great biblical review for folks, and it reminds her about biblical ethics.
	So the book is Essays on Ethics by Rabbi Jonathan Sachs.
	It's quite good.
	Okay, Things I Hate.
	Let's do it.
	Things I hate.
	So, somebody won the Nobel Prize for Literature.
	Yay!
	Okay, the person who won the Nobel Prize for Literature.
	First of all, most of the people who win Nobel Prizes, at least in the arts, don't deserve them.
	They're usually garbaggio.
	But, winning the Nobel Prize for Literature usually means you have to be engaged in, I don't know, literature.
	Now it means you get to warble like a cat being run over with a steamroller.
	And that would be Bob Dylan.
	Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature.
	Bob Dylan is awful.
	His songs are garbage.
	He's untalented.
	He sings like a dying rodent.
	And he can't play the harmonica for crap.
	So here is, just for people who think, honestly, the boomers have given us, the baby boomers in this election, in this year, the baby boomers have given us Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bob Dylan.
	Thanks a lot, guys.
	Really appreciate it.
	Thanks also for the national debt.
	This has been awesome.
	So Bob Dylan, here he is singing, the times, they are a-changing.
	The real reason he won, of course, is because he's a wild leftist.
	Come gather round people wherever you roam And admit that the waters around you have grown And accept that that soon you'll be drenched to the bone If your time to you is worth saving Then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stove For the times, they are a-changing And then you place one chord on the harmonica because it stinks
	The reason Baby Boomers thought this was good at one point Is because they were so unbelievably high That this was entertaining to them But it is pretentious garbagio, okay?
	This is on the order of John Lennon's Imagine.
	I mean, it's really awful stuff, and it's all about how he knows better than you, and the young people, they know better than everybody, and all the old principles, they're a-changin', and if you just jump on the choo-choo train with Bob Dylan and smoke a little dope, everything will be wonderful.
	And that's all of his songs.
	All of his songs are like this.
	First of all, you can't listen to the song anymore without thinking of the beginning of Watchmen.
	But aside from that, there's this pretentious notion, and all these 60s boomers still have it, that they are the greatest people who ever were.
	They remade the world in their image.
	Well, great job remaking the world in your image, guys.
	You did it.
	It was horrible.
	It's so luxury.
	You've got this nebbishy dude here who can't play the harmonica yelling at you, Really?
	Okay, dude.
	And it's, the whole thing is just all, he's, there's a, come senators, congressmen, please heed the call.
	Don't stand in the doorway.
	Don't block up the hall.
	For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled.
	There's a battle outside and it's raging.
	It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls for the times they are a-changing.
	Really?
	Nobel Prize for Literature?
	Eh?
	Really?
	Really?
	Okay.
	I guess that's what we've come to, is that we're now handing out Nobel Prizes to the people we agree with politically.
	Al Gore's won one.
	Barack Obama's won one.
	But handing Bob Dylan a Nobel Prize for literature is like handing Yasser Arafat a Nobel Prize for peace, because he has done violence to the English language as well as to poetry with his stupid, obnoxious lyrics.
	I know there are some people—boomers can't get over this guy, really.
	I mean, they love Like a Rolling Stone.
	I heard Hugh Hewitt today called Like a Rolling Stone the single greatest rock song of all time.
	Really, he called it—well, listen to it, okay?
	For your next new hero, tell me how that feels.
	This is the single greatest rock song of all time.
	Tell me how that feels.
	Tell me how you know.
	Oh, this is spectacular.
	Wow.
	It's really those three chords, I think, that really do it for me.
	The complexity and musical genius of three chords and screaming like a nut.
	I have to admit, when I was younger, my sisters and I rewrote the lyrics to this, and every time we'd go to Coffee Bean, we'd sing like a raisin scone.
	But in any case, again, the pretentious nature of the 60s, and we're seeing it played out.
	Hillary Clinton is the child of Bob Dylan when it comes to ideology and ideas, and you can see this sort of pretentious holier-than-thou routine from her.
	Somebody, I think, compared this to sort of Bob Dylan versus the Rat Pack, this election cycle, and I think that's kind of right.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	So, somebody has decided that it was absolutely requisite that they make a YouTube show about young Hillary Clinton.
	Yes, I'm serious.
	Here's what it looks like.
	No!
	Dear Diary, student body president is the dreamiest job a girl could hope for.
	I'm immensely qualified for office.
	I'm even thinking I'd like a career in public service.
	But who knows what the future holds?
	I'm shocked at everyone's reaction to my campaign.
	Why?
	Because there's never been a girl student body president?
	I was on the campaign trail today when my opponent, whose name I shall not transcribe, says to me, Hey, dummy.
	Is there anything else you can do with your time?
	Get a real job.
	In the home.
	What else should I be doing with my time, good sir?
	Cultivating my cross-stitching?
	Perfecting the ratio of chocolate chips to batter in my cookies?
	Writing letters to Ringo telling him I also know what it's like to be underappreciated?
	Surely my fellow Americans are able to view male and female candidates with the same level of respect.
	This is 1964.
	In ten years, I guarantee there will be female heads of state all over the world.
	I love a parade, don't you?
	Okay, maybe 20 years tops.
	Okay, first, okay, okay.
	Golda Meir, by the way, was prime minister of Israel by 1973, so she's wrong about that.
	Also, like, really, this is what, this is the propaganda we're now gonna push on little girls, that women have it so rough and Hillary Clinton is the great barrier breaker.
	Give me a break.
	Give me a break.
	She's not broken a single barrier.
	She wasn't the first secretary of state who's female.
	She's not the first senator who's female.
	She's not even close to it.
	She's certainly not the first lady who is female.
	She'll be the first president who's female simply because Donald Trump is the worst candidate anyone has ever seen or heard of.
	But this is the propaganda they have to push.
	The Young Hillary Show.
	If they actually made a half-hour program out of this, you'd gouge out your eyeballs and then put them back in so you could pour acid on them.
	Just awful all the way around.
	Okay, on that happy note, let's do a little bit of Bible study.
	We don't have mailbag this week because Austin was neglectful.
	So, it's time for the Bible.
	I just repented yesterday and I'm already getting myself in trouble.
	So here is this week's Parsha, this week's Torah portion that we go through this week is Hazinu.
	We're right near the end of the Torah.
	In terms of the Jewish cycle, we go through all of the five books of Moses over the course of the year.
	This one is from Hazinu, which means it's Deuteronomy 32.
	And I thought these were particularly relevant passages.
	And he said, this is about God, he said, I will hide my face from them.
	I will see what their end will be, for they are a generation of changes.
	They are not recognizable as my children whom I have reared.
	They have provoked my jealousy with a non-God, provoked my angers with vanities.
	Thus I will provoke their jealousy with a non-people and provoke their anger with a foolish nation.
	I don't have to read too deeply into this one.
	But this whole passage is about Moses warning the people, if you betray God, if you attribute your own successes to God or God's successes to you, then you're going to end up straying from him and God will not be happy with you.
	That's just the natural consequence.
	And the idea of God hiding His face from you, the idea there is that God's face is present in history.
	When you see cause and effect, you're seeing the face of God.
	When you see a natural relationship between what you do and the outcome that it achieves, that's the way that you see God in the world, because you know that his system is working.
	When he hides his face is when you get chaos.
	It's when the purpose of the universe becomes less apparent.
	And he says there are a generation of changes that are not recognizable because they've decided to break the covenant.
	When he says they've provoked my jealousy with a non-God, provoked my angers with their vanities, it's really interesting.
	He doesn't say they've provoked my jealousy with idols.
	They've provoked my jealousy with a non-God, with something that is not God.
	Them, their priorities, their own idea of morality.
	They've provoked my anger with their vanities, with their foolishness.
	And then he's gonna provoke their jealousy with a non-people.
	What does that mean?
	Well, what does it mean to be a people?
	To be a people, in the godly sense, is not just to be a family.
	It's not just biological.
	To be a people, in the godly sense, is to be a people based on a covenant.
	A people based on an idea.
	And so, if you give up your peoplehood for the idea of a non-people, you'll be provoked with a non-people.
	Meaning, a bunch of people coming in who don't have a common idea, but they decided to rip down your common idea.
	He's gonna provoke their anger with a foolish nation.
	Right?
	People who don't care about those priorities.
	People who don't care about that covenant.
	They're going to come in and they're going to rule over you.
	And that's what happens when you abandon the mission.
	When you abandon the mission, it's not just that your jealousy is provoked with the non-people and your anger is provoked with the foolish nation, although there are some people who are religious who believe this, that they're being provoked this way.
	You become that non-people.
	You become that foolish nation.
	You fall apart.
	But God pledges in the end that if you hold to him, and whether or not you hold to him, if you hold to him, God will bring it back around, and he'll pledge to help you, because he'll remember the covenants even if you fail to.
	So that's the hope that God gives at the end of Moses' speech.
	Okay, that brings us to the end of this week.
	Next week, unfortunately for you guys, but fortunately for me, more Jewish holidays.
	So Monday, Tuesday is the holiday of Sukkot.
	That's the one where we sit in the booths that we've built for ourselves outside our houses, and that's supposed to represent the fact that life and material things are transitory.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

▲