All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
26:04
Ep. 247 - The Left Gets Violent at Berkeley
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On Wednesday night, Milo Yiannopoulos stopped by University of California at Berkeley to do his shtick.
Leftist protesters, joined by a large contingent of anarchist rioters, promptly gave him everything he could ever hope for.
A riot, complete with violent destruction of property, large objects set on fire, and Yiannopoulos supporters beaten in the streets.
It was a vicious and disgusting display of just how fascist many on the campus left to become.
A few thoughts.
First, the campus left has been engaging in this sort of fascism for at least a year.
Not every campus leftist group engages in this sort of violence.
I spoke at Berkeley last year, no problem.
But a shocking number of campuses have experienced this sort of fascist anti-free speech garbage.
Iannopolis has been at the receiving end of these sorts of receptions at campuses dotting the country.
And the riots aren't really about Iannopolis.
They're about the very concept of allowing someone on campus who the left considers radical.
Last February, I was met with a near-riot at Cal State Los Angeles.
At Penn State, students tried to break through locked doors to disrupt one of my speeches.
I was banned from DePaul in the aftermath of a student disruption against Yiannopoulos and told I would be arrested if I set foot on campus.
Jason Reilly of the Wall Street Journal was disinvited by Virginia Tech before finally being allowed on campus.
So this stuff is happening all the time.
The academic left, second of all, has prepared the way for a lot of this campus fascism.
Why is all this happening right now?
Well, because the campus left has built up a pseudo-intellectual bulwark around such fascism.
They've told students they deserve safe spaces, areas in which their ideas are not challenged in any way.
They've forwarded the culture of microaggressions, which urges students to see any speech they find offensive as a form of aggression to be countered by other aggression.
Here's NYU professor Jonathan Haidt on the phenomenon.
He says, As a professor at Cal State LA As a professor at Cal State LA posted on his door before my speech there last year, quote, the best response to microaggression is macroaggression.
This line of thought actually encourages evil.
As Professor Roy Baumeister writes in Evil Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, hypersensitive people, who often think their pride is assaulted, are potentially dangerous.
Even when a neutral observer would conclude no serious provocation occurred, It is still important to recognize that, in the perpetrator's view, he or she was merely responding to an attack.
Colleges churn out and reward these oversensitive people.
Third, writing against speakers you consider radical, it helps those speakers.
You idiots!
Okay, Yiannopoulos' shtick, it relies on opposition.
The clips from his speeches are all about triggering members of the campus left, which, by the way, is the easiest thing in the world to do.
He relishes this publicity.
Like or dislike Milo, and I am certainly no fan if you know anything that I've said about him, his provocateur schtick only works if he provokes a response way worse than that which he's engaged in.
When the left shuts down his speeches, when they riot, when they engage in actual violence, when they pepper spray those who come to hear him and hit them with metal poles, all they're doing is legitimizing Iannopoulos in the public eye and making him the victim and selling him lots of books and making him lots of money.
President Trump has weighed in via Twitter.
He says that he will withdraw federal funds from UC Berkeley if they can't maintain free speech principles.
That's actually appropriate.
Spray painting a kill Trump on walls, smashing ATMs, assaulting people.
That is not appropriate behavior in any civilized society.
And for those who are doing the spray painting and the smashing and the assaulting to proclaim that they're anti-fascist is patently insane.
Forget Iannopoulos.
The issue is the left and they are out of control.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Okay, tons to get to today.
In just a few minutes, we're going to be having on former Assemblyperson from the state of California, Mike Gatto.
He and I got into a Twitter spat a few weeks ago.
I'm going to be having on to discuss that.
We'll talk capitalism, we'll talk Berkeley.
Good guy, and we'll be having on in just a couple of minutes.
We're also going to be talking more about what happened in Berkeley and what that means.
Plus, Donald Trump was at the National Prayer Breakfast, so what better time to talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings on The Apprentice.
Yes, really.
This is the world in which we now live.
We'll get to all of that, but first we have to say thank you to our advertisers over at Lyft.
So, if you are somebody in need of a ride, and you want a safe ride, a clean ride, then you need to use Lyft.
My wife uses it all the time.
She's a doctor.
That means that she's coming home at all hours of the evening.
Last night she was coming home midnight.
That means sometimes she's too tired to drive after having helped birth babies for the last 12 hours.
And so she uses Lyft, and if she trusts Lyft, if I trust Lyft, you should trust Lyft too.
The reason is because All of their drivers are fully vetted through a 10-point safety standard, including criminal background check and DMV background check.
You're gonna get around quickly and safely.
All the Lyft drivers are rated after every ride, so only the best stick around.
You're not gonna get some creeper in an old beat-up van, in a rape van, picking you up.
That's not how Lyft works.
It's actually gonna be somebody, a nice person, in a decent car.
Picking you up.
You can tip in the app as well, which leads to happier drivers.
It means the drivers are going to be more friendly to you.
And thanks to Lyft, you never have to worry about drunk driving, or about driving tired, or about driving unsafe, or honestly, even about owning a car.
If you live close to work, sometimes it's cheaper to actually just use Lyft everywhere than it is to own a car itself.
Right now, Lyft is offering our listeners a special deal.
You get three free rides right now, up to $10 each, so $30 value, when you enter promo code SHAPIRO.
So check that out.
Lyft.com.
Promo code Shapiro and it's Lyft.
Download the free Lyft app and use the promo code Shapiro in the payment section and you get that $30 off.
Again, they're the people that I trust, they're the people that my wife trusts, and most importantly, they're the people I trust with my wife's safety.
So, if I trust them with that, then you should trust Lyft as well.
They are the best in the business.
Okay.
All right, so here we are.
Another day, another violent outburst.
And this is becoming more and more common across the country.
As I say, I've been in the middle of these things.
Actually, half our staff has been in the middle of these things.
A lot of our staff was there at Cal State Los Angeles when there was a near-riot last year when I spoke at Cal State LA.
And the question is, what's driving this?
Because the truth is, the vast majority of people who are showing up to protest these things have never heard of Milo.
They've never actually seen anything Milo's done or seen anything that I've done or read anything that they've done.
They've sort of read headlines from Salon or Slate and that's about it.
They don't actually do their research.
If they actually wanted to stop Milo, the easiest way to do it would be to ignore him.
Milo is sort of like the doomsday monster.
The more electricity you shoot at him, the more he absorbs it and expands.
If you actually ignored Milo, he'd probably go away.
But the fact is that the left can't ignore Milo because they have decided that in the name of their safe spaces, everyone they disagree with must be banned.
So you have the mayor of Berkeley I mean, that's basically their motto.
saying that hate speech is not welcome in his city, and that marginalized groups being attacked by people like Yiannopoulos, that's something that he's not good with.
The only marginalized group in Berkeley are the people that the mayor doesn't like.
Berkeley is a haven for a lot of folks.
I mean, there are a lot of people from a lot of different political aisles.
It's obviously left, but I mean, that is the place where you let your freak flag fly.
I mean, that's basically their motto.
So the idea that there's people coming in who are gonna disagree with that, and they have to be shut out, That sort of has bled down.
Unfortunately, it's bled.
It's now coming from the top.
So I think that the election of Trump has made the left in many ways fully insane to the point where civilized behavior is becoming less and less common.
This, of course, does not apply to everybody who's a liberal.
It doesn't apply to every Democrat.
But there is this strong strain that's building up in the more extreme circles that say that violence is okay.
What they say is, somebody's a Nazi, violence against Nazis is okay, therefore I can attack X, right?
So this is why, the other day, there's a neo-Nazi, a white nationalist is probably fairer, named Richard Spencer, who was punched in the head on the street while he was doing an interview.
And so the internet lit up with, is it okay to punch a Nazi?
And the answer is no, it's not okay to punch a Nazi.
It isn't.
Because by the same logic you can punch a Nazi, you should be able to kill a Nazi, right?
If you're violating someone's bodily integrity on the basis of their political viewpoint, you are doing something uncivilized and wrong.
But there's an actual argument over, can you punch the Nazi?
Okay, so a lot of the left says, great, Richard Spencer got punched in the face, that's just terrific.
And then they say, well Milo is Richard Spencer.
And then they say, well, Trump is Richard Spencer.
And they say, well, Shapiro is Richard Spencer.
And pretty soon it's bled down to Mitch McConnell is Richard Spencer.
Anyone I disagree with is Richard Spencer, and Richard Spencer is Hitler.
Therefore, I can use violence against them.
Sarah Silverman tweeted today that she wants basically a violent uprising.
She says, fascists should get overthrown.
We'll use the military to overthrow.
Wake up and join the resistance, all caps.
Once the military is with us, fascists get overthrown.
Mad King and his handlers go bye-bye.
An articulate statement from one of the world's most brilliant political commentators, Sarah Silverman.
Yeah.
And she's not the only one who's saying this sort of stuff, unfortunately.
We talked the other day about how at the Screen Actors Guild, David Harbour got a standing ovation for saying that you were going to punch people that you disagree with.
Joy Behar, just yesterday, she was on The View, and on The View, Whoopi Goldberg's already labeled Trump the Taliban, so here's Joy Behar on The View saying that Democrats ought to bring a rhetorical gun to the knife fight.
I think their job is to look at what's being brought to them.
That's how it played out.
You know, the Democrats always go to a gun fight with a knife.
Let them go with a gun this time.
I'm sick of it.
I'm sick of it being okay for the goose, but not the gambler.
The problem is the people are the only ones who suffer.
We need to keep moving forward.
You fight the fights that are good, like pick your battles.
If you really don't like this candidate, fight against him.
Okay, so the point here is not that she actually means pick up a gun, but this sort of violent rhetoric has become much, much, much more common.
As I say, that's not a good thing.
Once the violent rhetoric becomes more common, once you label your political opponents the enemy to actually be hurt, and everything is on the table, then that means you're going to get a lot more of this sort of activity.
Now I do want to say one quick thing about the Berkeley students.
My guess is that if you look at the footage of these riots, the rioters don't look like Berkeley students.
They don't look like kids who are lefties at Berkeley.
It looks like those kids are standing around and then a bunch of anarchists came in from Oakland or from Berkeley or from San Francisco to make trouble.
They look like WTO protesters from 1999 smashing windows and looting and doing this sort of stuff.
I don't want to blame all Berkeley students for the actions of a few, but the problem is this sort of mentality is spreading.
Well, joining us now on the program, I'm pleased to welcome Former Assemblyperson for the State of California, Mike Gatto.
I think he's going to be a statewide candidate for office soon, if I'm not mistaken.
What are you running for now?
Well, I haven't decided yet.
I think politics is a little bit up in the air right now.
Okay, so he's running for governor.
So Mike Gatto is a longtime Assemblyperson from the State of California.
He and I got into a Twitter spat the other day, and that's why I'm having him on.
So I think a good place to start is with what's happening in Berkeley.
What do you make of the hubbub of the chaos?
What is a riot that happened in Berkeley last night?
Well, first of all, I was in office when you were at Cal State LA last February, and I want to apologize.
I want to start by apologizing on behalf of the state of California for what you went through.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
I mean, nobody should ever, when they're on a publicly funded campus that is paid for by taxpayer dollars, have to have their free speech quelled.
You could argue maybe it's different on a private campus, but that was a public campus where people sought to clamp down on your free speech.
The state of California owes you an apology to the extent that I can do it on behalf of the whole state.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate it.
It's not your job to do it on behalf of the whole state, obviously.
You didn't do it.
I only like to put responsibility where it lies, but I appreciate that.
So, yeah, I mean, I think that the first place to start is that this is why I like having people who disagree on the show.
I'm going to start doing this a lot more often now that we can have guests.
And I think that that's fun because it's fun to have the discussion and it's really negative what happened last night.
Before we get to what we were spatting over on the internet, which was a lot of fun, I do want to get to it because it's kind of a kick.
I want to ask you, Assemblyman Gatta, what do you make of, how should the Democrats treat the accession of President Trump?
So a lot of people seem to be going kind of nuts over this.
What do you think is the best way for Democrats to deal with this?
Because obviously I think that this sort of extreme rhetoric and tactics, I'm not sure this is going to be productive.
Correct.
I was talking to a veteran Democratic Congress member from D.C.
yesterday, and he said, you know, think about it.
Everything that Trump has done so far in office is designed to appeal to rural Pennsylvania and rural Michigan, all the key areas of the swing states that Democrats lost.
And then by lighting cars on fire in Berkeley, I'm not sure that we're going to win those hearts back.
Well I appreciate the honesty and I think that obviously I think the Democratic Party could use more people like you in positions of power saying that because it seems like the Democratic Party is moving in a more extreme direction by embracing some of the candidates they're talking about for the DNC chairmanship.
There was that event a couple of weeks ago where the DNC chair candidates were saying things like As white people, we have to sit down and shut up, and we just have to listen to black people.
It's my job to shut the other white people up.
That doesn't seem to me geared toward winning the white middle-class voter in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Wisconsin.
So, okay, so I want to talk a little bit about your broader worldview, because the reason that I invited you on in the first place is because we got into this fight, as I've referenced a couple of times on Twitter, and the reason that that came up is because I wrote a piece about one of the things, a talking point that folks on the left have been pushing for quite a while is this idea that the people at the very top of the income spectrum have way more money than a talking point that folks on the left have been pushing for quite a while is this idea that the people at the very top of the income spectrum have way more money than everybody else, that people who are in the 1% own as much wealth as the
The people at the top, unless they stole it from the people at the bottom, why is this a problem?
And I talked specifically about Bill Gates, who's now about to become the world's first trillionaire apparently, and I said, you know, there's hundreds of thousands of people who have worked for Microsoft, they create a product that millions of people buy and makes their businesses better, what's the issue here?
And you then proceeded to tweet this, so this is the tweet on feudalism.
Your screed is a gross oversim... See, it's so much more polite when we're in person.
Your screed is a gross oversimplification, too, akin to medieval mentality of kings and nobles protected us in battle, so nobility is awesome.
Did I write that?
You did, actually.
Sorry about that, Mike.
So maybe you'd like to explain where that comes from.
I asked you, so what makes Bill Gates a medieval feudal lord?
Well, first of all, I never gained as many Twitter followers, or I never got my behind spanked as much as when I tried to troll you.
So your followers are very, very... Enthusiastic?
Yes.
But the point I was trying to make is this.
So I'm a traditionalist.
Believe it or not.
There's a democratic traditionalist.
I know that our founding fathers believed in small everything.
They believed in small government.
They believed in small concentrations of wealth.
They thought that if we had the return of nobility in this country, that we'd be in a really bad place.
We'd look like those countries in Europe that people had left.
We would have this great concentration of power.
It would start to seem like nobility.
And that's what that reference was.
And I do believe that there are times in history where the wealthy have more and they start to look like Russian oligarchs.
And nobody would disagree that Russian oligarchs are kind of like nobility.
They can control government.
They have the power of life and death in certain towns and in certain provinces.
And that's not good for our American way of value.
Well, you and I agree on the idea that oligarchy is bad, obviously, but I'm not comparing Bill Gates to a Russian oligarch.
I'm not saying he is, too, but there is a saying that all great fortunes come from some crime.
I don't think that's true, though.
Unless you can actually prove the crime, it's a little bit of a slander to suggest that people are engaged in crime just because they're wealthy.
There's a lot of companies that when they start out, the regulations are not quite there yet, and they act in a regulatory vacuum, and in many cases they're taking resources that you could argue belong to society, and they are exploiting them to their well-being.
Well, unless you're talking about people actually going into the commons and drilling for oil in areas that's not owned, for example, then what resource do corporations like Google exploit, or corporations like Microsoft exploit?
It seems to me that their employees are some of the happiest people on the planet.
It seems to us that, you know, you and I have great technology because of companies like this, and seeing wealth as an indicator, a red flag for something criminal has occurred, number one sort of lets people who are poor off the hook if they actually commit crime, and number two says that wealthy people are actually the ones who are criminals, when it seems to me that a lot of the people who are wealthy are wealthy specifically because they're engaging in lots of voluntary mutual transactions, which is the way our economy works.
If it's not voluntary, you and I are on the same side.
If somebody's actually exploiting somebody else, we don't disagree.
But if somebody is not exploiting somebody, then what's the problem?
So you and I are both against the redistribution of wealth, but my point was there's many ways to redistribute it.
So Rand Paul and Ron Paul both have said to audit the Fed, and I've supported that.
I think the Federal Reserve, which is a quasi-governmental agency, it's appointed by the president, the governors are appointed by the president.
I think that their policies have favored those who own lots of stocks and those who own lots of property.
So you're in favor, like the Pauls are, of a return to the gold standard?
You know, I think the gold standard, for a long time, served our country just fine.
I'm actually in favor of a return to the gold standard as well.
It's real money, and it's tied to something that government can't create.
So why are you a Democrat?
I don't understand.
Listen, there are some Democratic traditionalists out there, and I think I'm one of them.
I mean, I think there's nothing wrong with being a small government Democrat.
And I think there's also nothing wrong with saying that the Federal Reserve's policies have benefitted those who own it.
When you're lending money at next to nothing and you're inflating these bubbles, the people who tend to own those resources benefit from it.
So in a weird way, that's a redistribution of wealth, too.
No, I totally agree.
It's redistribution of wealth by government.
And as I say, I'm very libertarian on a lot of this stuff, and that is keep the government out unless somebody's rights are actually being exploited.
Now, I don't want to hit you over the head with your tweets, but I'm going to hit you over the head with your tweets.
So here's one more.
This is you talking about inherited wealth.
And again, things get dicey on Twitter in a way that they don't when we speak to each other face-to-face.
I'm curious what the great-grandchildren of the wealthy invented to deserve it.
A smarter Ben Franklin railed against nobility.
So the implication here seems to be that the founders were against inherited wealth.
Benjamin Franklin did speak openly about the estate tax.
He liked the idea of an estate tax because European nobility was not quite the same thing as American capitalism producing people who are wealthy.
There's a mercantilist system in Europe where the government actually gave charters to specific friends of the government.
It actually looks a lot more like what presidents of both stripes have been doing actually lately where it looks like the green jobs program or like Trump giving favors to a particular company, which it looks like corporatism.
That's what old-school European nobility looked like.
And in fact, Ben Franklin, when it came to his own distribution of wealth at his death, Ben Franklin actually handed virtually all of his wealth to his children.
He gave a thousand pounds to the city of Philadelphia, a thousand pounds to the city of Boston, and that was it, right?
So it wasn't like he liquidated all his wealth and said, kids, you're on your own.
So are you in favor of the idea of a high estate tax taking lots of money away from people who have already been taxed on that money because we don't want their kids having it?
So I do tend to take the Ben Franklin approach.
Thomas Jefferson was more of an extremist on the estate tax.
He didn't think that people should inherit much at all.
Ben Franklin actually wrote that he thought that the average middle class person should be able to pass on their home, even two homes, three homes, to their kids.
But he did think that their really, really big estates Well, I mean, listen, I'm no Paris Hilton fan, but I also don't think that I have the right to take away grandpa's wealth just because I don't want Paris Hilton to be doing Carl's Jr.
very, very, very wealthy, the high end.
There should be some estate taxes.
Otherwise, you just run the risk of our society devolving into a bunch of Paris Hiltons.
She's beautiful, she's talented, but it was like her great-grandfather founded something useful and she didn't do much.
And that's what that tweet was relating to. - Well, I mean, listen, I'm no Paris Hilton fan, but I also don't think that I have the right to take away grandpa's wealth just because I don't want Paris Hilton to be doing Carl's Jr. commercials. - Yeah, but that is a little bit of postmodern stuff that you might criticize if the left was saying it because government does have the right to draw lines.
When we elect the government, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, we are saying, please draw the lines.
I think an estate tax would be much more fair than an income tax.
I think.
So do you want to remove the income tax?
If you're in favor of removing the income tax in favor of a small estate tax, then maybe I'm with you.
Yeah, our country survived for the first 150 years on primarily three taxes.
There was a sin tax.
It was the whiskey tax, right?
There was estate taxes and there was tariffs.
And I think if we could come back to some sort of system where we relooked at our tax code and said, hey, this is more fair.
We're going to break up large estates, we're going to tax sins, and we're going to rely on some sort of tariffs to penalize the worst abusers of slave labor in third world countries.
I think that would be a better system than what we have now.
OK, that's interesting because, you know, look, I think it's immoral to tax people twice.
So if you're going to have an income tax and then you're going to steal money that I've already paid taxes on.
One of my, I mean, you have children, I assume.
Yeah.
I mean, how many kids do you have?
I have two and a third on the way.
Okay, well congratulations.
That's exciting.
So I have two under three.
And one of the reasons that I work really hard is because I would like to pass on lots and lots of money to my children so they don't have to work so hard, which is part and parcel of the American dream.
It's not just I work hard, I get ahead.
It's I work hard, I get ahead so my kids don't have to work quite as hard to get ahead.
And when it comes to inherited wealth, I think there's this vast misnomer that the people who are the wealthiest in our society All of them inherited their wealth.
And actually, when you break it down, that's not really true.
According to 2012, there's the Forbes 400.
And 35% of the Forbes 400 was born poor or middle class.
22% were born upper middle class.
That means 57% were born either poor, middle class, or upper middle class.
11.5% inherited more than a million dollars.
7% inherited more than 50 million, so that would be Paris Hilton.
And 21% inherited enough money to just stay on the list, right?
So tax the 7%.
When I got the tweets back with our exchange from your followers, a lot of people said, hey, I'm just a middle class guy.
Do you want to take my wealth?
The answer is no.
I do not want to take that wealth.
I'm the same way.
I work very hard so that my children will have a better life.
And by the way, I'm not a career politician.
I really have had jobs and I have a job now and I'm working very hard.
But I do think we do run this risk of returning to this era of nobility if we don't break up the vast, vast fortunes.
It's that 7% or 6% you talked about.
Yeah, see, to me, I don't think that those fortunes should be broken up.
I think the key is to protect the system itself so that those fortunes can't impact government.
And that means, you know, having a smaller government in total.
Because the problem is, once you get to the point where the government can confiscate estate wealth, you know that the government is so corrupt that there are going to be some estates that somehow escape, and there's going to be some estates that get it.
Yeah, but they confiscate.
Sales tax, they confiscate.
Income tax, they confiscate.
So many things.
We have to have tax.
We have to pay for the crumbling roads in L.A.
that are never paved.
Right, why punish me just because I made a lot of money?
Well, it's not punishing you because you made a lot of money.
What it's trying to do... It sort of is.
You're only hitting me if I'm really, really wealthy.
Yeah, but I mean, listen, that's how a lot of tax codes are.
I know they suck, yeah.
Well, they do.
They do.
But if you think about it, the wealthy guy who buys a Rolls-Royce, he pays more in sales tax than someone like me who doesn't own a car.
Right, but he has a choice to buy that car, right?
Right.
That's a little bit different.
Now you're talking about, you just look at the bottom line, you say, okay, you made more than $7 million, you made $2 million, the $7 million guy, Maybe you cut it off at a billion dollars.
But the point is, I just think, I'm a traditionalist, and I think our founding fathers believed in this system, which was, yeah, you let the person pass on three, four, five houses to their kids, that's fine.
You let them pass on their cars and their bank accounts.
But maybe the person who starts to look like a Russian oligarch, because they've got so much power and so much money, we probably don't want that in America.
And by the way, this type of This type of people ignoring this, politicians in power ignoring this for so long is why Donald Trump won all these Midwestern states.
It's because he actually talked to people and said, look, I'm going to try to return good jobs to your class.
I think that's right.
I think it's also, I think it's ironic that you say Donald Trump is an example of that because Donald Trump is actually part of that 7%.
A crap load of money.
All right, well, thank you so much for stopping by.
It really is a pleasure to have you, and it's always fun to have a cordial conversation with somebody with whom I disagree.
So thank you for the time, and thanks for coming in.
And look out for him.
He's going to run for governor, even though he says he's just considering it.
So make sure that you keep an eye on that.
Well, we have to say thank you to another one of our sponsors.
These are our sponsors over at CISO.
So, if you love comedy, I mean, if the political system isn't enough comedy for you and you just love comedy and you want more of it, CISO is the place to be.
CISO is streaming content.
CISO is acclaims original series it's handpicked classics it's hours of stand-up specials no commercials completely ad free you get a month for free right now when you go to cso.com cso.com cso.com and you use promo code shapiro so if you check that out right now then you get at least one month for actually it's two months for free now i guess so it's two months for free with the promo code ben at checkout that's cso.com promo code ben my My wife and I have been watching one of their shows called Harmon Quest, which is really funny.
It's sort of making fun of the Dungeons and Dragons crowd, and it's pretty funny.
So you can check that out.
They have a lot of original series.
They have a lot of old content.
They have old episodes of The Office from Britain, which is really funny.
They have a lot of British comedy.
They have all of the SNL back from when SNL was good and not just a Trump attack vehicle.
Check it out at CISO.com.
Promo code Ben.
And it is fantastic.
As I say, it is normally $3.99 a month.
You get the first two months for free.
You can cancel at any time if you don't like it.
So give it a try.
I promise you won't be disappointed.
Okay, so, as you say, the situation in Berkeley is really ugly.
I want to show you some of the footage from Berkeley so that folks know what we're talking about.
last night.
Here's some of the people shooting off fireworks at public buildings last night at Berkeley.
Edgy, so edgy.
And you can see it's black block.
I mean, that's what they call themselves because they wear all black and they're basically terrorists.
And the police...
Where are the cops in all this?
What are the cops doing?
I have no idea.
This is the experience that we had at Cal State LA as well, by the way.
The cops were basically told to stand down because they didn't want to promote violence, they didn't want to have a violent clash, so instead you let the rioters run roughshod.
There's more of this here as them shooting off some flares.
All righty, so you can see it got really, really ugly last really ugly last night.
And we'll talk a little bit more about that.
Plus, we have the mailbag coming up, but in order for you to see that, you have to go over to dailywire.com right now and become a subscriber.
You can watch the rest live, become part of the mailbag.
We're going to do live mailbag questions today.
Yay!
That's very exciting.
So we're going to check that out today.
Go to dailywire.com.
$8 a month will get you a subscription. $8.
A month.
And then if you get an annual subscription, then you get a free signed copy of my book, True Allegiance.
That deal is ending soon.
So check it out right now at dailywire.com.
▲
Export Selection