All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
28:41
Ep. 284 - So, Is There A Plan?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
According to the Courier-Journal, a passenger on a flight from Chicago to Louisville was forcibly removed from an airplane after the airline overbooked the flight and no passenger was willing to give up his or her seat for a stipend from the airline.
Three members of security apparently began speaking with the man who refused to leave.
They then grabbed him and yanked him out of his seat and dragged him from the plane.
Here's what the spokesperson for United Airlines had to say, quote, Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville is overbooked.
After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave.
The aircraft was voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate.
We apologize for the overbooked situation.
Further details on the removed customer should be directed elsewhere.
The Courier Journal reports that passengers were told the plane had been overbooked by four seats.
The airline offered a $400 travel voucher and a hotel stay, which nobody took them up on.
At that point, they had the computer randomly select four travelers on the flight and tell them to give up their seats to United employees who were required in Louisville for the next day.
One doctor, who said he needed to see patients in the morning, refused to get out of his seat, at which point security carted him off.
Here is the Courier Journal.
Quote, witness Audra Bridges said the man became very upset and said that he was a doctor who needed to see patients at a hospital in the morning.
The manager told him that security would be called if he did not leave willingly, Bridges said, and the man said he was calling his lawyer.
The man was able to get back on the plane after initially being taken off.
His face was bloody and he seemed disoriented, Bridges said, and he ran to the back of the plane.
Passengers asked to get off the plane as the medical crew came on to deal with the passengers, she said, and passengers were then told to go back to the gate so that officials could tidy up the plane before taking off.
United Airlines is taking a serious hit publicly for this incident, as well they should.
It is appalling.
Here's what the United Contract of Carriage states, quote, All of UA's flights are subject to overbooking, which could result in UA's inability to provide previously confirmed reserved space for a given flight or for the class of service reserved.
Under Rule 25 of their Code of Carriage, United states that it will request volunteers, but that if nobody volunteers, they can deny people boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA's boarding priorities.
If you're removed from a flight involuntarily, the airline pays you a multiple of the airfare beyond your original ticket.
This isn't an unreasonable policy, actually.
Passengers routinely miss flights, overbooking is common practice in order to fill planes instead of wasting money and time flying extra routes.
But there are two elements here that are unreasonable, if not legally, then certainly in terms of business.
First, there's the question of the airline employees bumping paying passengers.
Yes, the airlines have contracts with their stupid unions that require a certain number of staffers on particular flights.
But when the unions trump the customers, the business is doing a terrible job.
I will admit this has happened to me.
I've been forced to miss a speech before hundreds of college students because the airline cancelled my flight, then refused to book me on the next flight in order to fly a bunch of its own employees.
Second, there's the problem of force.
Why didn't United decide which passengers were bumped before boarding them?
Or better yet, Keep upping the offer until somebody on the plane took it.
$400 isn't a lot of money to give to somebody to compensate them for having to stay overnight in a location that prevents them from working the next day.
Is there any question that if the company had simply upped its bid, somebody would have taken them up on it?
In the end, people are going to call for government regulation because that's what they do.
But this is actually a really good example of the market working.
United is going to take a massive public relations hit today.
They'll lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over this fiasco.
Their stock price may even be affected.
They'll change their policy to ensure this never happens again.
Other companies will take advantage with better service, and customers will be served.
And that customer who was removed will probably be amply compensated in settlement too.
The market still works, even if people are going to want government action on stupidities like this.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
All right.
So we have a lot coming up today.
Today is the last day before Passover.
Passover begins tonight.
So we're going to try and jam-pack the show even more than usual.
In a little while, we're going to be having on a feminist advocate from Connecticut named Jillian Gilchrist.
And she has a column in which she says that originalists are all sexist.
So I have a few questions for Ms.
Gilchrist.
So we'll be discussing with her shortly.
But first, We want to say thank you to our friends over at Ring.com.
So, if you are somebody who worries about security, I worry about security a lot.
My wife and I are deeply worried about security and have been for years.
Basically, ever since I did the Piers Morgan interview on CNN, I've been getting death threats pretty regularly.
And so we are worried about people coming to the house and burglarizing the house.
And we're also worried about people who ring the doorbell to see if somebody's home and then decide whether to enter the house or not.
And that's what Ring.com is good for.
So Ring.com, what they do is they have a ring video doorbell.
You put it on your fence or on your gate or on your front door and they ring the doorbell and then you can actually see a camera shot of the person who's outside the door and what's cool is that you can do it from anywhere.
So if I'm sitting right here after the show and somebody arrives at my house and they ring the doorbell, I can pick up my phone, I can see exactly who's at the door, and I can determine whether or not this is somebody who is safe or not.
This is really great for preventing burglaries, because most burglaries are, they ring first.
They want to find out whether somebody's home, then they know you're not home, and then they rob the place.
This helps prevent that.
And right now, they have an advanced motion detection technology that you can get with the Ring of Security Kit, which includes the Ring Video Doorbell for that front door, and then a Ring Stick Up Cam, which is a wireless weatherproof HD camera to keep an eye on other parts of your property.
They both install in minutes.
I've installed them myself.
And when they're working together, they do provide that 24-7 monitoring of your entire home, whether you are there or whether you're actually at the office or someplace else.
Again, when I'm out of town, I rely on Ring to make sure that, you know, everything is okay at home.
And I really enjoy and we use their product a lot, obviously.
For a limited time, listeners to this show can get $150 off a Ring of Security Kit.
Right now, just go to Ring.com slash Ben.
Ring.com slash Ben.
Use that slash Ben to get the $150 off that Ring of Security Kit.
Plus, they'll know that we sent you Ring.com slash Ben.
Again, Ring.com slash Ben for that $150 off the Ring of Security Kit.
Okay, so, the big news over the weekend, we'll get to Gorsuch in a little while, but Gorsuch was sworn in justice, now Gorsuch has been sworn in to the Supreme Court, which is cool.
But the big story over the weekend was not that.
The big story over the weekend was obviously what's been happening in Syria.
So, the big question has been, what exactly is the plan here?
And the Trump administration has not made very clear that there is a plan.
So I offered two theories last week as to what could be going on.
One is, Trump saw some stuff on TV and fired a few missiles at it.
Very possible, because that would fit with his personality.
The other is that Trump saw some stuff on TV, saw that it was really bad, and then went to his people and said, let's come up with a coherent, cohesive strategy, and the first step will be firing some cruise missiles at this particular airbase that was responsible for the gas attack.
Now, it is worth noting that a couple of facts have happened here.
One is that the Syrian government immediately launched a plane from the airbase that was supposed to be out of order.
And began launching air raids against their enemies right afterward to demonstrate that they had not been hurt by the United States, which is sort of a black eye for the Trump administration.
The other thing that's happened is that Russia has become very aggressive in its rhetoric.
Russia obviously sees a central interest in Syria.
One of the reasons is because Russia has propped up the dictator Assad there, and if he falls, then their credibility in terms of guarantees for the Iranian regime, in terms of the Iraqi regime, which is now at least partially sponsored by the Iranians, That guarantee seems to be worth a little bit less, and so the Russians want to make sure that they stand by their man in Syria.
So they're getting very aggressive.
They're saying that they're going to treat any bombing like this in the future as an act of war.
Now, the real question is going to be, do we want to go up against Russia here?
Do we want to play a game of chicken with them?
If we do play a game of chicken, are they actually going to try and shoot down an American plane?
If they did shoot down an American plane, would we then be in a state of full-scale war with Moscow?
Vladimir Putin is not in a strong position in his own country, other than the fact that he controls the military and the money.
So, I mean, that sounds funny because those are the two most important things to control, but he does not control the population.
The population clearly is not super fond of Vladimir Putin.
And so one of the ways he has to maintain his power is by promoting this image of himself as a very, very powerful guy who will stand up to anyone, up to and including the United States of America.
That means that he's going to want to play chicken.
The United States may have more of an interest in allowing him to play chicken and give off a sense of superiority to his own people than in challenging the Assad regime.
But if Assad keeps firing gas bombs, Trump has now set the red line.
The red line exists.
If he keeps gassing people, Trump is going to have to do something.
Otherwise, he is not just Obama.
He's actually worse than Obama because he's shown That he's like Bill Clinton in 1998, after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, that just wants to shoot a camel in the ass and be done with it.
And that's not a winning strategy when it comes to deterrence.
So, there are a lot of mixed messages coming out of the administration.
One message is that Assad has to go.
The other message is that Assad can sort of stay.
Chris Wallace over at Fox News, he asked H.R.
McMaster, who's the new National Security Advisor, a guy who really does know military strategy.
His book, Dereliction of Duty, is required reading over at the War College.
And it is a very, very good book.
It's worth getting.
So here's Wallace asking McMasters, aren't you sending a few mixed messages here?
The Trump administration seems to be sending mixed signals this weekend.
UN ambassador Nikki Haley says that getting rid of Assad is a priority.
On the other hand, Secretary of State Tillerson says that first we have to get rid of ISIS, destroy ISIS, Assad can wait.
So which is it?
And McMaster didn't have a great answer for that.
Bernie Sanders, of course, says that the Trump administration has no plan either.
When you get this guy screaming at you, you always are going to take it with a large grain of salt.
But here is Bernie Sanders talking about Syria and why he cannot find his pudding no matter how hard he tries.
Asking the Republicans, what are you going to do when you throw 20 million people off of health insurance?
How many of them are going to die?
What's your plan?
Okay, again, we'll get to what the actual plan is in just a second.
But first, I want to bring in to join us a special guest, Jillian Gilchrist, who is a feminist advocate from Connecticut.
She champions public policy on issues of gender, gender-based violence, and reproductive choice.
She's an organizer with the Women's March in Connecticut.
And she currently teaches political advocacy at the UConn School of Social Work.
Jillian Gilchrist is also a, she also wrote a column for her site in which she talked specifically about the idea that Judge Gorsuch would be terrible for women, and the reason that he would be terrible for women is because he's a proponent of originalism.
Professor Gilchrist, are you actually a professor, or is it just Miss Gilchrist?
I want to address you properly.
Hi, it's Ms.
Gilchrist.
Thank you.
Ms.
Gilchrist, thanks for coming on the show.
I appreciate it.
So what you actually wrote is you wrote that Gorsuch, like Antonin Scalia, is a proponent of originalism, which means he believes a judge should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written.
When the Constitution was written, women couldn't own property.
In 1787, women didn't have the right to vote.
It would be 133 years before women won that fight, a fight they fought for 72 years.
Considering women had no rights when the Constitution was written and there was no mention of women in the Constitution, originalism is sexist.
So, let me ask you first to expand on that.
Is it the Constitution that's sexist, or originalism that's sexist, or both?
Um, well, actually the original constitution is sexist.
Um, and then the originalist perspective that actually looks to the original document is also sexist.
And so, um, we know that when a judge practices originalism, they look backwards.
Um, they don't try to see the constitution in the current context of society.
And so by looking backwards, as I said in my piece, um, at the time the constitution was written, women didn't have any rights.
We were property.
So, yes, the originalist perspective is sexist, and so I think Neil Gorsuch will not be good for women on the Supreme Court.
Okay, so two quick things.
One, you're right, obviously, that women did not have rights under the Constitution in many ways.
The idea that they were property is an overstatement.
They couldn't be sold into slavery.
I mean, black people were property.
Women were not property under the Constitution of the United States.
I do have a basic question here, which is, what do you think a judge's job is?
I mean, a judge, from where I sit, and according to the structure of the Constitution, his job is to interpret the law as it's written, not to make up what he wishes the law were.
That's what we have legislatures for, that's why we have people who vote on things.
The idea that you're going to have some sort of super legislature made up of the great wise men, or women, who decide what a text means that has nothing to do with the original meaning of the Constitution, what do you think a judge's job should be?
Well, so what an originalist actually does, though, is goes even beyond that interpretation.
An originalist thinks that the 14th Amendment, which would actually give women equal protection, based on what we know from Justice Scalia, he didn't actually think that that protected women.
And so he thinks that equal protection does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.
An originalist like Scalia Also feels that the right to privacy is not included in the Constitution.
And so I understand what a judge's job is, but then we also have, thankfully, the legislature.
And so the legislature can pass public policies that will give women rights.
And Scalia, to be fair, that's what Scalia says.
I mean, that's what Robert Bork says.
That's what Justice Thomas says.
I'm an originalist.
This is what originalists say.
We say, this is why we have legislatures.
The purpose of a legislature is to pass things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You don't have judges who just sit there and then pass legislation.
This is why we have separate branches.
So again, I ask you, You're upset at the outcome of some of what the judges say, because the judges are reading the text according to what texts mean.
I mean, it's not poetry.
But what do you think a judge should do that is distinct from what a legislature does?
Well, to answer that, I mean, what now is happening is so the legislature passes a policy to give women greater access.
Let's use Hobby Lobby, since that's a case that Neil Gorsuch, you know, ruled on.
The Congress passed health care reform to allow women to have greater access to birth control.
And when that then went through the court process, because conservatives argued against that, when it went through the court process, it was ruled down.
Yes, we might have the legislature.
Yes, we have judges.
But with an originalist perspective, like Neil Gorsuch's and like Scalia's, when we try to progress women through public policy, it then is still being shot down in the courts because that originalist perspective, as I mentioned, is a sexist perspective.
Okay, so, again, the problem is that, I mean, take Hobby Lobby as an example.
It wasn't that Neil Gorsuch is against contraception, presumably.
I mean, his church apparently is pro-contraception.
The idea that Neil Gorsuch has a personal view that's anti-contraception, that's not accurate.
I mean, Neil Gorsuch's view is that there's a First Amendment to the Constitution which protects the freedom of religion of people like the religious owners of Hobby Lobby and said that they don't have to violate their own religion in the provision of health care.
Now, you may disagree with that policy.
That's why we have an amendment process.
The Constitution basically enshrines certain fundamental rights.
If we disagree with those fundamental rights, there's an amendment process.
Or do you think that we should just get rid of the Constitution completely?
Because it seems to me that's sort of what you want.
We shouldn't have judges.
We shouldn't have judicial review.
We shouldn't have a Constitution.
We should just have a legislature that does all the things that you want them to do, or judges that just say the legislature can do all those things.
No, not at all.
We could certainly, we need to pass public policies or we could amend the Constitution.
And women did try that through the Equal Rights Amendment, but that too didn't make it through.
Right.
And so to your point about Hobby Lobby, it is the first decision where two competing interests, the religious freedom, religious rights of individuals, did actually then trump the rights So how should a judge read a text?
Should a judge just decide what the judge wants to be the law and then just say this is the law?
like Neil Gorsuch's wouldn't have ruled in that way.
So how should a judge read a text?
Should a judge just decide what the judge wants to be the law and then just say this is the law?
What standard do you use?
So my standard is that with the Constitution, I think it was supposed to be a document, a guiding document.
And so I don't think anyone at the time the Constitution was written thought that the world would always exist as it was.
And so I certainly think we need that text, but we should interpret it in light of what is happening in present day.
We've changed a lot as a culture and as a society.
And so to assume that you can use a text from hundreds of years ago to decide cases today, just seems ridiculous. - Except that we do that with texts literally every day in the courts.
We use the Sherman Antitrust Act to rule on antitrust.
We use the Food and Drug Administration Act to determine what the FDA is allowed to regulate.
Legislation is designed to be interpreted as text.
You know, this is just basic legal 101.
I mean, you're supposed to read a text as it's written, not as a piece of T.S. Eliot. - Yes, but we use that text to interpret current day problems.
And it seems that when it comes to women's rights, originalist perspective tends to side in the air of always looking backward and not looking at current day.
Because they're trying to, because if you're looking, if I wrote a piece of legislation 10 years ago, and I said to you, okay, you and I write a piece of legislation today.
Right?
And we use the language of today.
We mean something by that language.
In this conversation, somebody will read this 100 years from now, and we will have meant what we're saying to each other.
We understand what we're saying.
If somebody wants to read what we're talking about today, and then it turns out that all the words that we're using now mean the reverse because things have changed, did our conversation mean the reverse of what it meant, or does it mean what we're talking about right now?
Words have meaning at the time they are said, and to try and read new meanings into old words just because quote-unquote times have changed, you can end up with some really bizarre results.
I mean, and the problem here is that, you know, you may not like what Neil Gorsuch is trying to do, but at least it's a rule of interpretation.
In the constitutional structure, what we've had is the Supreme Court very often reversing itself on the exact same language by using the sort of rules that you want.
So, for example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, you had the Supreme Court say that the 14th Amendment did not apply to black people insofar as segregation was okay.
And then 50 years after that, they say, no, it turns out the 14th Amendment actually meant that segregation is not okay anymore.
Well, That's silly.
I mean, it either meant one or it meant the other.
It didn't mean two different things at the same time.
One of those decisions is wrong and one of those decisions is right.
That's true for every judicial decision.
The idea that we can just look to our hearts to determine what a text meant 200 years ago is silly when we can find out what they meant 200 years ago by reading what they're talking about now.
And yes, I wouldn't disagree where you made the point, though, that our conversation we're having today, what we're saying to one another is what we're saying to one another.
And if looked at a hundred years from now, it would still mean the same thing.
But people using our conversation a hundred years from now would have to apply it to that current day because it's not going to look the same.
And so we do need to look back at texts, but we need to interpret them with the current climate.
To say that, I mean, Justice Scalia came out and said that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.
Justice Scalia came out and said that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
Right, because there aren't any of those things in the Constitution.
If you want to establish one, you create an amendment.
There's no right to abortion in the Constitution.
The right to privacy is not the right to have an abortion.
The right to privacy also covers the right to access birth control.
Yes, Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965.
I'm well aware of the case.
But the idea that the founders, the people who wrote the Constitution, were deeply concerned with access to birth control in the federal Constitution It's just silly.
Again, this is why we have legislatures.
The point is that I'm in favor of availability of contraception.
This is why I would elect people who would be in favor of availability of contraception.
If you just want the courts to do what you want them to do, why not just appoint a couple of oligarchs?
We can have Ruth Bader Ginsburg be our queen, and then we don't actually have to have a legislature anymore.
We can skip all these expensive election things.
Donald Trump wouldn't be president, and the notorious RBG would just rule us all.
The problem for women in this country is that when we pass public policies to increase our rights, they are then shot down by the court who doesn't believe what you just explained, that we don't have a right to privacy or that we don't have equal protection under the law.
That's not accurate.
There are dozens of states that had already legalized abortion in large part before Roe v. Wade, and the courts had never struck that down on any grounds.
I mean, now you're reversing it.
I mean, the fact is that if a state legislature passes a law that makes availability of contraception a thing, that's still not the same thing as, for example, Hobby Lobby, where you're actually forcing people to pay for your contraception in violation of their religious obligations.
So if you're just talking about access to health care, then a state is perfectly capable of passing whatever law that it wants, and the courts won't strike it down.
There are countervailing interests in some of these cases under the Constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is talking about in an originalist Jurisprudence, but if you want to pass a constitutional amendment go for it again I guess my final question is this and I unfortunately have to let you go to an interesting conversation But my final question is this why bother having elections?
Why bother having legislatures?
Why do you if the American people are?
are constantly doing things that are stupid, or if the American people are constantly electing legislatures that are terrible, and if we can just have judges who are going to be able to apply the Constitution as you see fit, again, I ask, why not just appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg the actual Queen of the United States, and she can rule from above, and she'll do all the things you want, and why isn't that okay with you?
I mean, tyranny with someone who you agree with seems okay with you a little bit.
Tyranny is never good.
And right now I feel as though we're under a tyranny.
Why?
What is it?
Again, I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm just wondering what he's done exactly.
But we can get into that in a bit.
That would be another conversation for another time.
No, I certainly think checks and balances are what we need in this country.
You know, I'd end by saying what we haven't tried in this country is equal representation.
And so maybe when we get We get a legislative body that is equally men and women, and we get a Supreme Court that's equally men and women, we might see.
What about when we have an electorate that's 54% women?
At that point, can we say that we have equal representation?
Because most people who vote are women?
Nope, not yet.
Why not?
What happened to the women?
Are they all slaved by the men?
We might have equal voting, but we do not have equal representation in any of our bodies of government.
And so until we have that, I think we'll see a big difference In the policies and the rights we have as women in this country.
So a woman is not really a female voter if she elects a man?
I'm just I'm confused again by like, like, I just think that to your point of should we have just a judicial branch ruling all?
I was answering that no, we need equal representation in all leadership bodies in this country.
And so I was speaking to that piece.
I think It's fantastic we have both men and women voting for both men and women.
Okay, so Ivanka Trump for president then.
She's a woman, so yay.
I wouldn't go there!
Okay, well I appreciate you taking the time.
Jillian Gilchrist, very kind of you to come on.
Feminist advocate from Connecticut.
She teaches political advocacy at the UConn School of Social Work, and if people want to find her work, what's the best way to get in touch?
Great, they can find me on Twitter at Jill Crest.
That would be the best plan.
Great, really appreciate it.
Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Okay, so, we have to say, I want to say thank you to our advertisers over at ZipRecruiter.com.
So, if you're looking to hire, not on the basis of sex, but on the basis of merit, and you would like to just hire somebody who's great for the job, the best way to do that is over at ZipRecruiter.com.
You can post your job to 200 plus job sites, including social media networks like Facebook and Twitter, With a single click instead of having to go all around and post at a thousand different sites.
You can find candidates in any city or industry nationwide.
You post once and those candidates just roll right on in.
They have a very easy to use interface so you can dismiss people or accept people.
It's great.
We're starting to use it over at dailywire.com.
And right now, my listeners can post jobs over at ZipRecruiter for free by going to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That is ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
Ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
You can post your job for free.
Make sure you get that slot filled, again, on the basis of merit, not on the basis of the gender of the person being online.
God, okay.
So, all righty.
So, I want to discuss this Syria thing for one more second before we have to break on the podcast Facebook Live.
So, as I say before, sorry, final note on that interview.
I just would like to note, again, there is no reason that Ms.
Gilchrist could come up with, none, that suggests that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not be Queen of the United States.
She says she's against tyranny, but then she says that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be able to read whatever she wants into the Constitution in order to apply Ruth Bader Ginsburg's values.
She says that she's in favor of checks and balances, and then explicitly says that she's angry that the Supreme Court would act to check and balance a legislature that oversteps its boundaries in violation of rights.
This just demonstrates, once and for all, that when it comes to the left view of the judiciary, it is judicial tyranny they are after.
They are not after any sort of consistent rule of law.
They have no idea what judges should be doing, as opposed to legislatures.
They think that judges should just be doing the things they want them to do, and they have no good answers on any of this.
Okay.
When it comes to Syria...
As I was saying before the interview, the fact is there's a lot of confusion on Syria.
Two messages coming from the administration.
One is that Assad should be left in place, and the other is get rid of him.
So here's Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, saying that the first priority is to defeat ISIS, and for the moment, let's leave Assad alone.
We believe that the first priority is the defeat of ISIS, that by defeating ISIS and removing their caliphate from their control, we have now eliminated at least or minimized a particular threat, not just to the United States, but to the whole stability in the region.
And once the ISIS threat has been reduced or eliminated, I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria.
We're hopeful that we can prevent a continuation of the civil war and that we can bring the parties to the table to begin the process of political discussions.
Clearly that requires the participation of the regime, with the support of their allies, and we're hopeful that Russia will choose to play a constructive role in supporting ceasefires through their own Astonotops.
I don't think Tillerson is entirely wrong here.
When Tillerson says we have to defeat ISIS and we just have to stop Assad from basically running roughshod over everybody, I think that's probably the right strategy.
As I said last week, ousting Assad seems to me a secondary priority.
It's not like, get rid of Assad, that'll make the country better and then go after ISIS.
The question is whether Assad even cares about going after ISIS.
I don't think he does.
I think we're going to have to do it ourselves.
That said, we can keep Assad in check at the same time we are going after ISIS.
The idea that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time is silly, but I do not think that we are in a position to rebuild the country at the same time that we're trying to protect people from Assad and ISIS.
I think that's a mistake.
I mean, getting rid of Assad and then having a giant chaotic vacuum And seems to be opening a can of worms we have no answers to.
H.R.
McMaster, the National Security Advisor, he still seems desperate to keep Russia involved in this.
He says Russia should be part of the solution in Syria.
Medvedev wrote, the U.S.
is, quote, on the verge of a military clash with Russia.
Sir, what are we prepared to do if Russia defends its interests in Syria?
Well, this is part of the problem in Syria, is Russia's sponsorship for this murderous regime.
And so, we would want to appeal rationally to Russia.
This is a great opportunity for the Russian leadership to re-evaluate what they're doing.
Why they're supporting a regime that is committing mass murder against its own people.
So it would be a great opportunity, except they're not going to do it.
So what do we do next?
Well, that's the big question.
So to get that answer, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com right now and become a subscriber.
You got a little bit of extra today, but normally you wouldn't.
So that means that you have to go over to dailywire.com.
You can see the rest of the show live.
You can also be part of the mailbag, which we will do a little bit later this week.
And right now for $8 a month, you get that subscription.
If you become an annual subscriber, you get a free signed copy of Reasons to Vote Democrat, a comprehensive guide by our own Michael Moles, Yale graduate.
It's gotten stellar review, really.
A stellar review from WeeklyStandard.com, which is hysterical since it is an actual blank book.
But it is a great gag gift.
It is the most thorough book on democratic ideology there is.
Go check it out over at DailyWire.com.
Become an annual subscriber.
Or if you just want to listen later, then go over to iTunes or SoundCloud.
Leave us a review.
We appreciate it.
It helps iTunes recognize that we are a massive podcast because indeed we are.
Our numbers are stellar.
▲
Export Selection