All Episodes
Previous Next
June 6, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
31:08
Ep. 313 - Did Russia Hack The Election After All?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
According to Heat Street, Ontario has now passed a law that would allow the government to invade your home and strip you of your child if your little Billy comes home from school one day and announces he's little Sally, and if you have the temerity to tell him that he is not in fact Sally.
By a shockingly broad margin of 63 to 23, the Supporting Children, Youth, and Families Act of 2017 passed through the Ontario legislature.
It tells child services and judges to consider factors including race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in removing a child from the home.
Michael Couteau, who is the minister of child and family services, was explicit in his tyranny.
He said, quote, I would consider that a form of abuse when a child identify one way and a caregiver is saying, no, you need to do this differently.
If it's abuse, and if it's within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.
If all of this sounds bizarre, that's because it is.
It is also fascism.
To remove a child from the home because the government disagrees with basic biology is beyond the pale of the reasonable.
Unfortunately, it's not going to be long before leftists in the United States push the same thing.
The first step on that road is the widely acclaimed spate of legislation banning so-called conversion therapy for children with homosexual tendencies.
This is not an argument in favor of the efficacy of conversion therapy, which is iffy in even the best circumstances, but If a child is disturbed by homosexual feelings, and you bring that child to a therapist to talk it through, that would now be considered illegal in states including California and New Jersey.
As Scott Shackelford of Reason Magazine explains, quote, Bans on conversion therapy are fundamentally censorship of an idea, and there is a slippery slope and consequences that people with narrow interests in halting abusive treatment of gay and transgender teens simply do not grasp.
This isn't a ban on particular dangerous technique like electroshock treatment, for example.
It's a ban on anything, even just speech, coming from a licensed therapist that suggests homosexuality can be cured.
It is dangerous to allow the government to control the classification of speech and to recast speech as something else just because commerce is involved.
The next step will undoubtedly be removing children from parents who pursue such therapy in spite of the ban, purportedly for the good of the child.
The left's next step could be to remove accreditation from schools that do not traffic in LGBT advocacy.
After all, California has attempted to remove non-profit status from the Boy Scouts.
Schools in California have now mandated that kids learn about LGBT history in public schools.
What happens when people homeschool, and the state decides that homeschooling is inappropriate for children if they aren't taught the state's educational approach?
It's not difficult to imagine Child Protective Services removing children whose parents won't teach them positively about the full spectrum of sexual orientation.
In the interests of the child, of course.
Or leftists could skip directly to the Ontario scenario.
They could claim that transgender children are being shackled by their bigoted parents and must be protected by the state.
This is scary stuff.
It's particularly scary not only for religious parents, but for anyone who understands that there is no evidence that transgender feelings among children are unchanging, the vast majority of children with such feelings grow out of them, or that boys cannot actually become girls.
In Ontario, the state has now placed itself in direct opposition to science and freedom.
In the United States, the movement to do the same must be stopped now, before families are torn apart on behalf of a propagandistic sexual agenda.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Lots to get to today.
President Trump is now taking on the mayor of London.
We are also going to be talking about this leak, this leaker who was arrested, whose name was Reality Winner.
Yes, that was actually the name of the leaker, Reality Winner, who was in reality a loser.
And also, if your last name is Winner, I'm just going to recommend a few ideas for you, for children.
Cross court, forehand, backhand, big, lottery, all of these would be preferable to reality.
But before we get to any of that, I want to talk about one of our sponsors, Bull & Branch.
So, I've said before on the show, I am not a solid sleeper.
I sleep very poorly at night typically, but I have not been sleeping poorly since I've been using Bull & Branch sheets.
That's because they are 100% organic cotton.
They really breathe.
They are super comfortable.
They are so comfortable that I literally threw out all of my other sets of sheets and bought a couple more sets of Bull and Branch sheets.
And you can try them right now for 30 nights.
And if you don't like them, you can send them back for a refund.
Bullandbranch.com, promo code BEN.
You get $50 off your first set of sheets, plus free shipping.
Three ex-presidents, plus President Clinton, if he's one of those, his lovers.
Sleep on Bull and Branch sheets.
They are the best in the business.
There's a reason that they are so great.
Quality sheets can cost up to $1,000.
Bull and Branch sheets are a small, small fraction of that.
And again, it's something you're sleeping on every night.
There's no excuse not to treat yourself with Bull and Branch sheets.
B-O-L-L and branch.com.
Promo code Ben.
$50 off your first set of sheets, plus free shipping.
Again, that's B-O-L-L.
at branch.com promo code Ben and use that promo code Ben so that they know that we sent you as well as getting that $50 off that first set of sheets plus free shipping.
It'll totally change your sleep pattern.
It'll it'll you're never going to be able to sleep on other sheets.
It's that good.
OK, so big news today is that a leaker has now been arrested.
President Trump has been very worried about people inside the intelligence community leaking against him.
But this leaker was arrested after leaking material to a lefty publication called The Intercept.
The Intercept is sort of...
Sympathetic to the Edward Snowden position on intelligence.
And this leaker, whose name, as I say, is Reality Leigh Winner, 25, she was arrested by the FBI at her home on Saturday, June 3rd, and it was probably about, people are still not sure, but it was supposedly about this document that she passed on to The Intercept that showed that a couple of days before the election, the Russians were attempting to hack into actual voting machines in the United States.
Which would of course throw the entire election system into turmoil.
There have always been these conspiracy theories about how it happened in 2000, there are conspiracy theories in 2000 and in 2016 as well, that these voting machines were actually hacked and that's why Trump won is because the Russians were going in and actually manipulating the final voting outcome.
There's still no evidence that they succeeded in that.
The document from the NSA that was leaked by Reality Winner did not actually show that the Russians were successful in their attempts to hack.
It just showed that they tried to.
But she was arrested.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, he said, Exceptional law enforcement efforts allowed us to quickly identify and arrest the defendant.
Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our national security and undermines public faith in government.
People who are trusted with classified information and pledged to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.
So apparently, according to the criminal complaint, Reality Winner, I'm never going to get tired of saying that name.
I just feel like Reality Winner should have at some point dated Carlos Danger, and they should all touch the orb together and they should say, Covfefe.
We've now reached peak stupid, I think, in 2017.
But every time I say that, there's like another two weeks that go by and we're even stupider than that.
We're in the alternative timeline in which Marty McFly did not prevent Biff from using the Sports Almanac in order to bet on games.
In any case, the criminal complaint alleges that Winner, a contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, was employed at a U.S.
government agency facility in Georgia since roughly February 13th, and she held a top secret clearance sometime around May 9th, She printed an improperly removed classified intelligence reporting, which contained classified national defense information from an intelligence community agency, illegally kept it, and then illegally transmitted the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet, which would be The Intercept.
And I guess the way that they tracked her down is The Intercept printed the actual copy of the document.
And it showed that the document had been folded, which looked like it had been an actual original document that was printed out at the facility, folded up, put in a pocket, and then walked out.
So then they were able to look at who exactly had access to these documents and who had printed it out, and they came up with her.
So well done, The Intercept, protecting your leaker.
Just genius job there.
Really well done.
But the amazing thing, the amazing thing is I think we're going to have to issue a ban on the importation of people into government service.
Until we know what the hell is going on.
Because our extreme vetting is just not working.
It is just not working.
Here is the fact.
Reality Winner, again, a person whose name I will never tire of saying.
Reality Winner, if you looked at her Twitter feed, this is not a person who should have ever had top secret security clearance.
Top secret security clearance usually includes not just a criminal background check and employment history, but also a background investigator verifies all the information, does a grueling and lengthy process of speaking to past employers, neighbors, spouses, ex-spouses, and acquaintances to determine whether you're trustworthy enough to be given clearance according to TheBalance.com, which is an employment and acquaintances to determine whether you're trustworthy enough to be given It covers a 10-year period, and they give you a polygraph in many cases.
But they didn't check her Twitter feed, okay?
Like, two days, literally two days before she started working for the federal government, she went on Twitter, and she responded to a tweet from Javad Sarif.
Javad Sarif is the dictator, or the foreign minister, rather, of the Iranian terrorist government.
He said, we will never use our weapons against anyone except in self-defense.
Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement, talking about nuclear use.
and And Reality Winner tweeted back, Okay, she had top-secret clearance.
And she was saying, with top-secret clearance, that if the United States had to go to war with Iran, she would side with Iran.
Um... What?
How did she... Where's the extreme vetting?
Am I concerned about the ability of our government to vet people who are coming in from abroad?
Yes.
But I am even more concerned if we can't vet the people who are getting top sec- I don't have top security clearance, do you?
I don't think anyone in this room has top security clearance.
I doubt I'd be given top security clearance under the standards of the federal government because I'm very outspoken in my political views.
But this gal went on Twitter and she was just sounding off on whatever she felt like sounding off on.
There's one point where she tweeted at Kanye West, again this is after she was working for the federal government in February 2017, quote, you should make a shirt that says, being white is terrorism.
Hmm?
Okay, this person got top-secret clearance, so well done, federal government, as always, just doing a stellar job.
Now, the left is jumping on the arrest of reality winner to say a couple of things.
One, they're saying, oh, Trump is going after leakers.
How dare Trump go after leakers?
It's just so terrible.
Okay, first of all, let me just point out that Trump going after leakers Obama would have gone after this leak or two.
I mean, the idea that this was in any way legal or acceptable is just nonsense.
Anyone would have gone after Reality Winner.
But what the Democrats are really jumping on is the fact that the document that she exposed said that these voting machines were hacked.
So Tim Kaine, the vice presidential candidate, along with Hillary Clinton in 2016, he said that he thinks that it's not out of the realm of possibility that Hillary actually won the election and that the Russians hacked the voting machines.
Do you think the vote count could have been affected by the Russians?
Oh, I definitely think so, and let's just make a distinction here.
I don't think anybody has suggested that the actual tallies on the machines were affected, although that's certainly something we should look at, but I haven't heard anybody suggest that there's evidence that that occurred.
But, when the combined weight of the intelligence committees say that Russia was engaging in a wide-ranging pattern of action to affect the election, to say we can determine that there was no effect, you'd be foolish to say that.
Especially when you add to the leaking of information the fact that they were sucking data about individuals outside of state boards of elections.
And again, Aaron, that is all publicly reported material that I'm giving you.
So, look, they intended to affect the outcome.
We have to get to the bottom of everything they did so we can protect future elections.
We won't rule out the idea that they actually hacked the election results.
I'm just wondering here, again, if you're moving without evidence on this thing to suggest that it's possible the actual election was hacked, which is what Democrats have been saying for a year now, is that the actual election was hacked, or since the election, they've been saying the actual election was hacked.
You should actually have to show some evidence of that, because otherwise you are just participating in exactly what Democrats were whining about leading up to the 2016 election, saying Republicans wouldn't accept the outcome.
We are now months and months and months beyond the election.
They still won't accept the outcome.
And they are again buying into the notion, without evidence, that the actual election results were hacked.
They keep saying the election was hacked.
It was not.
But I think the broader point here is not about the insanity of the Democrats, which is consistent.
It is that it is very difficult to vet people.
It's very difficult to vet people, which means we have to be extraordinarily strict, extraordinarily stringent about who we let into the country and give the priorities and privileges of citizenship.
So Here's an example.
In the West, we are very cordial about our rights, obviously, and we should be.
But that very often veers into the stupidity of either granting top security clearance to people who shouldn't have it, as in the case of Reality Winner, or pretending that violent jihadis are not violent jihadis because they live in the West.
So, for example, there's this terrorist whose name is Butt.
That's really his name.
His name is Khurram Shahzad Butt.
And this is one of the London terrorists.
And he was featured in a documentary on the BBC about jihadis.
It was called The Jihadi Next Door.
And he was actually on that documentary.
And yet they still were not keeping tabs on him enough to stop him from helping commit this London Bridge terror attack.
Here's video of Khurad Shazam Bhatt in the jihadi next door.
Okay, if you can't see this.
Guys, please help me to Qibla, please.
Come on.
Somebody determine the Qibla.
Anyone got a smartphone?
He's just going to now find out the direction for prayer.
For us, so this is a type of Jihad for you.
That you came out to do Dawah.
In joining good and forbidding evil.
And don't be deterred.
B, you've got personal details on you.
We'd like to speak to you.
No.
I don't think so.
There's no personal details on you.
B, don't touch me.
Stop for a minute.
You're detained.
Detained for what?
You're detained for the purpose of search.
Are you insane?
What search?
You're not searching me.
Are you insane?
Search.
Search for what?
Why are you touching me?
What for?
You're detained for the purpose of search.
Okay, and you can see this actual terrorist being confronted by a cop, and then the cop is surrounded by a bunch of young Muslim guys.
Here is the question.
Why is it that the West seems so bad at vetting?
And the answer is because we in the West have a basic assumption, which is that all the people who live in the West are going to appreciate the privileges and values of the West.
That is absolutely untrue.
It's absolutely untrue.
And because we assume that, we make the mistake of granting privileges and immunities to people who ought not have them.
The fact that this guy appeared on a documentary called The Jihadi Next Door means he should have been under 24-hour surveillance.
This is insanity.
It's insanity.
You want to know about all the red flags?
A great piece by Aaron Bandler over at Daily Wire today about all the red flags on this particular terrorist, okay?
Not only was he on this Jihadi Next Door Documentary.
But also, in 2015, the police were alerted about him when he attempted to spread Islamic propaganda to children in a park.
He was confronted by a mother after her two children came home and said, Mommy, I want to become a Muslim.
She passed along the information.
He was trying to radicalize the children, said the mother.
He would go down to the park and talk to them about Islam.
And he tried to recruit them to Islam.
And the police, of course, let that go.
A friend of Butt's also reported him to the police due to comments he made to justify a terror attack.
Apparently one of his friends phoned the anti-terror hotline and they told him about the conversation and why he was radicalized and nothing happened.
He was part of a radical Islamic organization known as Al-Muhajiron, which has lobbied for Sharia law and has been linked to 50% of all terror attacks in Britain over the past 20 years.
He wanted to wage jihad in Syria, according to a relative of Butt's wife.
Butt never acknowledged women in conversation.
He was kicked out of a mosque for arguing with an imam during a sermon.
They've been conducting surveillance of a terror cell in the London town of Barking, where Butt lived, since March, and they missed him.
The day of the attack, Butt asked his neighbor where he could find a van.
And again, he was known to the Met Police, the Metropolitan Police, as well as MI5, but they didn't touch him because obviously that would be politically incorrect.
When President Trump says that he's very upset about the political correctness that dominates when it comes to policing of Islamic jihadism, he is absolutely right.
We should also be just as attentive to the fact that there are people who are attempting to get top security clearance, who have political motivations against...
Again, it's one thing just to be politically left.
That's not a big deal.
But if you are somebody who is expressing sympathy for the Iranian regime over the United States, I think that it's probably a mistake to give you top security clearance.
Vetting, vetting, vetting.
I know that the left has this basic principle that they never want to engage in risk calculation.
They think all risk calculation is profiling.
All criminal behavior can be profiled through risk calculation, but attempting to profile through risk calculation is considered racist, sexist, xenophobic, politically incorrect by the left, and that's why you end up with bad people slipping through the cracks.
Well, in just a second, I'm going to be joined by Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
He has a brand new book out, but before I get to that, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at My Patriot Supply.
So, are you concerned about the direction of security?
Are you concerned about terrorism?
Are you concerned about the possibility of a big terror attack that would leave you cut off from supplies or a big natural disaster?
That's why you need to go to PrepareWithBen.com or call 888-803-1413.
888-803-1413.
Preparewithben.com.
888-803-1413 for your four-week emergency food supply for just $99 plus free shipping.
You get that four-week emergency food supply.
Keep your family safe.
It apparently tastes exactly like home cooking according to people in the office.
Preparewithben.com.
That's preparewithben.com.
You know, you buy it once.
You never have to worry about it again.
888-803-1413.
Preparewithben.com.
Be the person who's prepared in case of emergency.
Your family is going to thank you for it.
Again, $99 for a four-week emergency food supply.
Okay.
So yesterday we had the opportunity to speak with Senator Mike Lee.
And here is a bit of our conversation with the great senator from Utah, maybe the last honest man in the United States Senate.
it.
Well, joining us here now on The Ben Shapiro Show is my favorite senator, the last honest senator in America, Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
He has the benefit of also being from a state that actually elects conservatives every once in a while.
So Senator Mike Lee has a brand new book out called Written Out of History, The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government.
It's soaring up the charts at Amazon.
It was all the way up to Thank you, Ben.
So, why don't we jump right into the book, because it's fascinating that everybody reads the Federalist Papers, nobody reads the Anti-Federalist Papers.
And if they'd read the Anti-Federalist Papers, they would understand that a lot of the debates that were had back then are being had today, except with a government that is much bigger.
So why don't we jump right into the book because it's fascinating that everybody reads the Federalist Papers.
Nobody reads the Anti-Federalist Papers.
And if they had read the Anti-Federalist Papers, they would understand that a lot of the debates that were had back then are being had today except with a government that is much bigger.
Your book is about not necessarily the people who were writing in the Anti-Federalist Papers but people who were bringing a different point of view to bear even at the time of the founding about the overreach of federal governments.
So let's run through some of these people, because I think it really is fascinating content.
So let's start with Aaron Burr, who's been portrayed as the great villain of American history.
Now, of course, Hamilton is a big hero to everybody, because there's a musical that very few people have seen, but everyone has heard of.
And Aaron Burr is portrayed largely by a guy who ended up as a traitor trying to destroy the country.
What exactly is the true story of Aaron Burr and how did he impact the building of the country?
Aaron Burr was himself a victim of an overreaching president, Thomas Jefferson, who had this political rage problem.
He became obsessed with his own power.
When Aaron Burr was vice president under Thomas Jefferson, As vice president, he's also president of the Senate.
There were a number of people who were themselves the victims of Jefferson's political road rage, who found themselves at the receding end of impeachment proceedings.
Aaron Burr, as president of the Senate, afforded them due process and fairness.
This bothered Thomas Jefferson a lot.
It also bothered him that Aaron Burr was still kind of a political threat to him.
And so later, during Jefferson's second term, when Uh, uh, Burr was no longer his vice president.
Jefferson went after him and accused him of treason, prosecuted him for treason, a capital offense.
So, but for some language in the Constitution, Burr would have lost his life at Thomas Jefferson's tavern.
Now look, Jefferson did some great things.
He was a great mind, the author of the Declaration of Independence, but he wasn't perfect.
And this story and the story of Aaron Burr's involvement in it is a lasting reminder to us that even A wise, bright man.
Thomas Jefferson.
It's fascinating that you talk about that, because obviously, you know, now there's a lot of talk about whether it's necessary to have character in government.
There's a lot of talk after this last election cycle where a lot of people were concerned about the character of both major candidates for president of the United States.
And a lot of people, it seems, have basically come to the conclusion after the Clinton years that character doesn't matter in the president at all, and that we should just pick somebody.
The system will handle itself.
There's not really a great threat.
What do you make of that argument in light of American history?
Well, I think what we have to remember is that when even a good person is someone who might abuse power, we have to carefully cabinet that power.
I remember when I was a kid seeing a movie where there was this tyrannical king.
I don't even remember the name of the movie, but the tyrant king Got really mad one day and said, that's it, I'm canceling Christmas.
I thought, what kind of society even gives power to the king to cancel Christmas?
They shouldn't ever do that in the first place.
You don't want to give power to a king to take away something as fundamental to people as their religious holidays.
And so regardless of where you start with the person, even a person who is an absolute saint should not be trusted with unlimited power.
The entire founding generation, including the people I focus on in my book, Written Out of History, were suspicious of government power.
Everyone expected George Washington to be our first president.
They all respected George Washington, but they still deliberately created a relatively weak presidency.
Meaning someone who wouldn't have too much power in the first place to abuse.
Well, the book is written out of history, The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government.
Another name that people will know but may not know about him is Elbridge Gerry.
Everybody knows his name because of gerrymandering, of course, and there are so many lawsuits now about whether districts are being properly drawn because they are quote unquote gerrymandered.
But what exactly was Elbridge Gerry's role in the founding of the country?
Well, he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
He was one of those who had some real serious concerns.
With the Constitution, even at the end of the drafting process, he was in many respects the forebear, the progenitor of the Bill of Rights.
He was the author of the language that became the Tenth Amendment.
Only his version of the Tenth Amendment would have been better.
It contained one word that's lacking in the Tenth Amendment as it was ultimately drafted and ratified, and that is expressly.
The way Jerry wrote it, Originally, it would have been all powers not expressly granted to Congress or prohibited to the states or reserved to the states or to the people.
And James Madison took that out, took out the word expressly, thinking it was unnecessary.
Many decades later, about 150 years later, I think Elbridge Gerry was proven right in that.
We would have been better off had the word expressly been included.
So I want to talk a little bit about applying lessons written out of history to modern government.
So obviously the government has grown far more than any of the founders ever would have perceived.
The battles between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists and the people who were critical of government power at the time, centralization of power, and the people who were in favor of that centralization of power.
John Adams, who was a big proponent of a stronger executive and a stronger federal government, even he would look at the situation now and probably vomit and never stop vomiting.
Because none of these guys were in favor of the overarching federal government that we have now.
How do we pare that back?
Because it seems like we have an incentive system where Congress has an incentive to pass incredibly vague laws and blame all of the implementation on the executive.
The executive has the incentive to continue accreting as much power to itself as humanly possible.
And the Supreme Court and the court system has as much incentive as possible to increase their own power by green lighting federal power.
So where exactly can we stop this cycle?
Is it an Article 5 convention?
Is it we're just gonna have to wait for people to wise up and learn American history?
Because that may take a while.
What exactly can we do, not only as citizens, but what can you do in Congress to actually help effectuate this?
Okay, great question.
This is actually something that's at the heart of why I wrote this book.
Regardless of the mechanics, Whether it occurs through an Article 5 Convention, which is an option, or whether it occurs through a series of legislative reforms or constitutional reforms brought about within Congress.
Regardless of how it happens, it's not going to happen until it has to happen, until the people insist on it happening.
But that, in turn, isn't going to occur until such time as people reacquaint themselves with our true founding story.
Our modern day accounts of America's founding and of the founding of the Constitution have been sanitized.
They've been sanitized by an educational and political and media establishment that wants a single narrative, wants the sort of post-New Deal era narrative to dominate the discussion.
And so as a result, what we've all been taught in public school, in college, even in most private schools, is that those who advocated for a bigger, stronger national government are the ones to be revered.
The anti-federalists like Luther Markham, who I discuss in the book, have been sort of passed aside.
The problem is that we don't have both sides of the story being told.
Once the American people become reacquainted with the other side of the story, the one that's been written out of history, they can begin to exercise the political will and move forward with these movements.
Again, whether it's through an Article 5 convention or otherwise, the will has to be there on the part of the people.
But the people aren't going to have the will until they re-appoint themselves with these stories and until these become part of our national political discourse.
We're talking with Senator Mike Lee, author of Written Out of History, The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government.
I'd be remiss, Senator Lee, if I didn't ask you a little bit about what's going on in the Senate right now, just in terms of politics.
We're looking at, we're now 150 days into the Trump administration, and aside from the Congressional Review Act, no major legislation has really passed through Congress.
Do you foresee there being a major tax Right now it seems like in order to get a good tax reform bill through, they need to get some sort of health care reform through in order to build up the savings that they can use to pass on those savings to reconciliation for purposes of tax reform.
Do you think that we're going to get one of those, neither of those?
And a broader question as a follow-up.
Would it be better if we just stopped with all these omnibus packages in general and started passing three-page bills that everybody could vote up or down?
Yes.
So let me let me deal with your last question first.
Absolutely.
This is one of my biggest frustrations with the place is that for years and years, or at least the six and a half year period, I think Congress has not been appropriating this passing bills that spend money through the regular order process.
In other words, we wait until the deadline.
We run right up to the limit placed on a spending bill, usually September 30th.
And then we're told, you either pass this bill, either a continuing resolution or an omnibus spending package, or the government's going to shut down.
Take it or leave it.
And by the way, in this package, the CR or the omnibus or whatever it is, it's gonna fund Planned Parenthood, it's gonna fund all these bad things, it's gonna fund Obamacare.
But you have to do this, or you're going to get blamed for a shutdown.
That's how it's been working.
I wish we would take this in a step-by-step fashion, pass much smaller, more granular spending bills, so that we can bring the attention Uh, to each individual area of government spending.
With respect to your other question about tax reform and Obamacare repeal.
Look, I believe both of those are going to happen.
I'm probably in the minority in saying that, at least from those who are speaking out in public.
The reason I think that is that we have to.
The Republican Party is going to be in serious, serious jeopardy if it doesn't pass both of these.
And most people seem to think that the Obamacare repeal needs to come first for tax reasons.
I'm agnostic on that point.
I actually think you could do it together if you wanted to.
But regardless, we have to pass both of them.
And if we don't, we're in for a world of trouble.
That's usually where something happens in Washington, where members of Congress are made aware of the fact that there's going to be hell to pay if they don't do it.
I think we're in that circumstance with Obamacare repeal and with tax reform.
And I, therefore, think something will happen.
Senator Mike Lee, thanks so much for joining the show.
The book, again, is Written Out of History, The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government.
You should definitely check it out.
You can hear, obviously, Senator Lee is super fluent, not only in American history, but also in governance.
And this is a must-read for people who are concerned about the future of government, just as they should be about the past of American government.
You can't understand where we are without knowing where we've been and what the arguments were on the other side, many of which were actually correct.
As time went on, it was proved that they were correct.
Senator Lee, thanks so much for joining the show.
Keep doing what you're doing.
Obviously, we're big admirers here at the show, so thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so, I want to discuss President Trump's battle with the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, in just a second, but for that you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com, become a subscriber for just $8 a month.
You can be a subscriber at dailywire.com, see the rest of the show live.
You can also see the rest of Clavin's show live.
You can be part of the mailbag, which we're going to be doing on Fridays now, thanks to the addition of a fifth show a week.
Yes, that's right, we are now broadcasting every single weekday.
Yay!
Yay!
So, $8 a month will get you that.
Annual subscription will get you a free signed copy of the new book that I have out with my father, Say It's So, Papa, Dad, Me, and the 2005 White Sox Championship season.
It is a great Father's Day gift.
It's perfect for your dad.
I know because I wrote it with mine.
So it's a lot of fun.
Endorsed by Mark Levin and Dana Perino and Jerry Krasnick over at ESPN.com.
Really good baseball book.
Not political so much as it is just about relationships and father and son stuff.
You can get a free signed copy of that when you go over to dailywire.com and become an annual subscriber.
Even if you're a regular subscriber, if you upgrade to an annual subscription, then you can get a free signed copy as well.
▲
Export Selection