Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 10, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:58

Another Day, Another Mass Shooting | Ep. 411

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Another horrific mass shooting in Texas.
	We'll talk all about the response by the media, the left, and the Republican Party.
	Plus, mystery in Saudi Arabia.
	What the hell is going on over there?
	And civil war in the Democratic Party.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	So another really dark weekend.
	I mean, just terrible things happening, it seems, all across the planet.
	So, well done everyone.
	But the worst of all the things, obviously, is what just happened in Texas.
	And I'm going to give you the full rundown, and why it is that the left constantly jumps to particular positions with regards to guns, and the right jumps to different positions with regards to guns, what this says about their different views of human nature, in just a second.
	But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Ring.
	So Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
	I have a Ring video doorbell at my house.
	Basically what it does is every time somebody rings the doorbell, I am notified on my phone.
	I can be 3,000 miles away.
	I can talk to the person.
	I can activate an alarm.
	I can make sure that my house is safe even when I am not at home, which is great because most of the people who are trying to break into your house will try to ring the doorbell first, see if someone's home, and then break in.
	Ring makes sure they can't do that anymore.
	Well, now Ring knows that home security doesn't end at the front door.
	So they've created what they call the Ring Floodlight Cam.
	Just like Ring's amazing doorbell, the Floodlight Cam is a motion-activated camera and floodlight that connects right to your phone with HD video and 2-way audio that lets you know the moment anyone steps on your property.
	You can see, speak to visitors, even set off an alarm directly from your phone.
	You'll know if somebody is trying to make trouble in your neighborhood if you get the Ring Floodlight Cam and also if you have the Ring Video Doorbell.
	It's the ultimate in-home security.
	Save up to $150 off a Ring of Security Kit when you go to ring.com slash Ben.
	Again, that's ring.com slash Ben.
	Ring.com slash Ben.
	And you save $150 off a Ring of Security Kit.
	It's just terrific.
	Our family has purchased additional services from Ring because they do such a wonderful job.
	Ring.com slash Ben.
	Super user-friendly products and at an affordable price.
	Again, save $150 off the Ring of Security Kit when you go to ring.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so here is what we know about what happened in Sutherland Springs.
	So yesterday, yesterday morning, at least Pacific time...
	This horrific story breaks that 26 people have been slain at a church in Texas.
	12 to 14 of those were children.
	They're pregnant women who were shot.
	Basically, there are 50 people in church.
	It looks like half of them were murdered and half of them were injured in this particular shooting.
	The shooter is a guy named Devin Patrick Kelly, and he is the gunman.
	He apparently committed, a week before, he committed the worst massacre at a place of worship in American history.
	He posted a photo, this is according to Daily Beast, of a semi-automatic rifle to Facebook with the caption, she's a bad...
	It's part of a disturbing picture emerging of the 26-year-old who was discharged under dishonorable circumstances from the Air Force in 2014, according to Defense Department records.
	Now, contrary to some of the factual kind of accounts that are going around, a dishonorable discharge is not the same as being discharged under dishonorable circumstances.
	One means that your weapon is automatically banned.
	One does not.
	It doesn't make any difference because the reason he was discharged was apparently for domestic battery.
	Apparently he committed violence against his wife and their child in November 2012, and he was sentenced with a bad conduct discharge, 12 months confinement, and two reductions in rank to basic airman.
	According to an appeals court decision in 2013 that affirmed the decision against Kelly.
	Well, what that means is that under Texas state law, you're refused the capacity for a concealed carry permit.
	Under federal law, you're banned from buying a gun if you commit a domestic violence, if you're convicted of a domestic violence assault.
	This was a domestic violence case, so he was banned by law from owning this gun as far as we know.
	Didn't matter, he was still able to obtain it anyway.
	He entered First Baptist Church at approximately 11.30 a.m.
	Sunday opened fire.
	Officials said he wore a ballistic vest and was dressed all in black so he was ready to go.
	A law enforcement source close to the investigation said that the rifle he used is similar to the one pictured.
	They couldn't confirm it was the same rifle.
	He exited the church and he dropped his rifle and he was then pursued by a civilian with a shotgun and died near the city of New Berlin.
	Apparently he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but it was thanks to the neighbors arriving and shooting at him.
	So here is some of the things that the neighbors were saying after all of this happened.
	Here's a witness talking about a citizen who stopped the massacre.
	I pulled up to the intersection where the shooting happened and I saw two men exchanging gunfire, the other being a citizen of the community.
	The shooter of the church had taken off lead in his vehicle and the other gentleman came and he said we need to pursue him.
	He just shot up the church.
	So that's what I did.
	I just acted.
	Okay, and another witness talked about this.
	They talked to one of the armed citizens who stopped the massacre.
	Here's what he had to say.
	That suspect crossed the street to the church, exited his vehicle, and began firing at the church.
	The suspect then moved to the right side of the church and continued to fire.
	That suspect entered the church and continued to fire.
	As he exited the church, a local resident grabbed his rifle and engaged that suspect.
	The suspect dropped his rifle, which was a Ruger AR assault type rifle, and fled from the church.
	Our local citizen pursued the suspect at that time.
	Okay, so this is what's, you know, there are a lot of people who immediately jump to gun control, but one of the things that is important to recognize here is that it was an armed citizen, a guy with a gun, a good guy with a gun, who showed up to stop the bad guy with the gun.
	Apparently there were two good guys with guns who showed up to stop the bad guy with the gun.
	We still don't know the details of exactly what happened inside the church.
	Was anyone armed inside the church?
	Was there any security at the church?
	You know, I've been an advocate for a long time that places of worship should have armed security there.
	Maybe that's just because I'm a part of the Jewish community.
	It's very, very common inside the Jewish community to have armed security.
	We have several security guards at the place where I worship.
	Every major synagogue in Los Angeles has many security guards, specifically because of the threat of violence like this.
	But all of the people on the left immediately respond by suggesting gun control is the answer, even though the reality is that it was illegal for this guy to own guns in the first place.
	According to The U.S.
	Code.
	There are restrictions already on possession of firearms by an individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
	This is Title 18 U.S.
	Code Section 922G9, the so-called Lautenberg Amendment in the fall of 1996.
	And it banned the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
	In this case, he was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against his wife and his child.
	And, you know, the fact that he still had a gun demonstrates that just because there are laws on the books doesn't mean that bad people will obey them nonetheless.
	So it is a good thing that there were good people with guns there to at least stop him before he could go to another location and begin trying to murder people there.
	Just a horrific, horrific event.
	Now, last week, we talked about whether it was appropriate for President Trump to talk politically about what had happened in New York City after a terror attack, and he was talking immigration.
	And you remember, the left said, how dare he politicize?
	How dare he politicize?
	Well, they could not wait to politicize this, as always.
	I mean, just like the Las Vegas shooting, they could not wait to politicize.
	So Chris Murphy, senator from Connecticut, who sort of considered the gun control guy on the left, after Sandy Hook, he issued a statement saying that lawmakers, quote, need to think about whether the political support of the gun industry is worth the blood.
	So this is just a lie, this idea that everyone who supports gun rights is beholden to the gun industry.
	I was supportive of gun rights long before we had any advertisers who were pro-gun.
	I've been pro-gun rights my entire adult life.
	Virtually everyone who's ever been on the right has been pro-gun and is not being paid by the gun industry.
	The reason that the NRA is so prominent is not because the gun industry is paying the NRA.
	It's because there are millions and millions of people who are members of the NRA who join voluntarily because maybe they're afraid that the left tries to grab guns and suggest that guns ought to be grabbed every time something bad happens.
	And they think, well, if I were in that church, I wish that I would have had a gun too.
	Here's the statement from Chris Murphy.
	Again, there's been no talk on the left, none, about why this is inappropriate, why he shouldn't be talking this way.
	He tweeted, he put out a statement and said, Again, cut into the NRA's profits.
	The impotent helplessness that washes over you as the news of another mass slaughter scrolls across the television screen isn't real.
	It's a fiction created and methodically cultivated by the gun lobby, designed to assure that no laws are passed to make America safer because those laws would cut into their profits.
	Again, cut into the NRA's profits.
	The NRA doesn't sell guns.
	They don't sell guns.
	How would that cut into the NRA's profits?
	If you ban people with misdemeanor violent crimes against family from owning guns, which we already have, would that seriously interfere with the NRA in any way?
	Would that even seriously interfere with the profit margins of gun dealerships?
	I think not.
	This is, again, Chris Murphy.
	My heart sunk to the pit of my stomach once again when I heard of today's shooting in Texas.
	My heart dropped further when I thought about the growing macabre club of families in Las Vegas and Orlando and Charleston and Newtown who have to relive their own day of horror every time another mass shooting occurs.
	Now, one of the things that I think is worthwhile noting here, before we even go any further and talk about some of the myths that are being purveyed by folks on the left with regard to this shooting, I think it's important to note that the left and right treat terror attacks and acts of violence in very, very different fashion.
	The left assumes that human beings are basically good.
	Human beings are basically good.
	And therefore, if you pass a law, most people will obey that law.
	And that if you don't pass the law, basically, human beings as restrained by the state are basically good.
	That there won't be a bad guy who breaks the law and goes out and gets a gun.
	And therefore, because human beings are inherently good, we don't need to worry about somebody breaking the law.
	And the best thing to do would basically be for everyone to put down their arms.
	On an international level, this leads to the sort of pacifism that led to the anti-nuke movement.
	The idea that if we unilaterally disarm, we will create a world without nukes.
	You saw some of this kind of pie in the sky stuff from President Obama when he was Senator Obama.
	The right thinks something different.
	People on the right tend to think, in religious terms, in natural law terms, that human beings are capable of both great good and great evil, and that a bad guy with a gun is separated from a good guy with a gun by the fact that one is good and one is bad.
	They're not separated by the gun, they are separated by the fact that one is good and one is bad.
	And this is the problem, is how do you group these people?
	So if the left sees two guys with guns, the left's first instinct is to say, the guns should be taken away from both of them.
	The right's first instinct is to say, well, who are they?
	Is the guy on the right a cop?
	Is the guy on the right good?
	Is the guy on the right a preacher?
	Is the guy on the right a doctor?
	Is the guy on the left a vagrant with a violent history?
	We have to separate by human being whether or not that person should have a particular capacity.
	The right tends to look to the vagaries of human nature when they see sin and evil, and the left tends to look to the implement of violence.
	Now, I think there's a halfway position that there are a lot of people who adopt.
	They say, okay, human beings can be good, human beings can be bad, but there are some guns that are too dangerous for even a good human being to own.
	I think most people agree with that with regards to, for example, fully automatic machine guns, which have been banned in the United States, at least new sales of those, since the 1980s.
	And there are a lot of people who feel the same way about, you know, everyone owning a tank.
	I think that's reasonable and rational.
	That's where you can have reasonable, rational discussion, is which weapons are too dangerous that the risk outweighs the benefit, right?
	The risk outweighs the reward.
	But that's not the conversation the left wants to have.
	The left wants to have the conversation, basically, that all guns are bad, because the same exact weapon that was used to gun down these people at the church was probably used by one of the civilians in order to fire at the bad guy running away from the scene.
	The AR, the Armalite rifle, is the most commonly used rifle in the United States.
	The AR does not stand for Assault Rifle.
	And I think that it's important to note all this because you have to make a decision as a human being.
	Are you worried more about the character of the people that we produce in the United States or are you worried more about the capacity of people of any stripe to get weapons like an AR?
	I'm not particularly worried about me owning an AR, or my friends at the office owning an AR, or millions of people owning an AR.
	I am worried about somebody who's been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence owning an AR, a handgun, a knife, or a toothpick.
	And I think all of these things are dangerous.
	So I'm going to talk in a second about some of the myths that the left has immediately begun to purvey online.
	It's one of them is I think really dangerous and another of them is actually just vile.
	So we'll talk about that in just a second.
	But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at My Patriot Supply.
	So getting prepared for emergencies should not be tough.
	You know, the government suggests that when you are in an emergency, you should have at least some supply of food available to you.
	You should at least have some supply of food in case you can't get to the grocery store, in case you're blocked, in case the grocery store is sold out, in case the government can't get to you.
	We've had wildfires and floods.
	We've had tornadoes and hurricanes this season.
	And that's why it's important that you at least have enough emergency food to get through a few days.
	That's why my Patriot Supply helps you prepare by giving you a 102-serving survival meal kit for only $99.
	102-serving survival food kit, 99 bucks.
	Breakfast, lunches, and dinners shipped to your home for free.
	Call 888-803-1413, 888-803-1413, or go online to preparewithben.com.
	Again, that's preparewithben.com.
	It lasts up to 25 years in storage.
	Folks at the office who have tried it say it tastes like, tastes good, tastes like home cooking.
	Preparewithben.com, 888-803-1413.
	For 99 bucks, you're keeping your family safe.
	It seems like a no-brainer to me.
	Again, preparewithben.com.
	That's preparewithben.com.
	Okay, so, as always, people run to Twitter to say the dumbest things they can think of, And basically, this is broken down along two lines.
	Line number one is the political, and line number two is the spiritual.
	So, they're sort of intertwined on the left, but there's a slight difference.
	So on the political side, there are a bunch of folks on the left, like Alyssa Milano, who just put out stuff that is not true about guns.
	So here's what Alyssa Milano wrote.
	And again, she's now seen as some sort of political figure, which is amazing.
	I'm not sure why being uncharmed makes you an expert on guns, but apparently.
	I have much to learn about witchcraft and also ignorance about firearms.
	This is untrue.
	This is a lie.
	There are background checks on long guns in Texas.
	In fact, this guy went in, he actually got a background check, and then he received a gun anyway, even though he was already federally barred from owning a gun.
	So yes, there are background checks.
	As I have said, there are universal background checks across the United States when you buy from a federally licensed firearms dealer.
	Every federally licensed firearms dealer, every FFL in the United States, must perform background checks on you before giving you a gun.
	The only ones that are not...
	Police this way are so-called hand-to-hand transactions.
	I want to sell a gun to Mathis, and so I can sell a gun to Mathis without going through a federal background check, because then I would have to go to a store, and I'd have to run a background check, and it would put the onus on me.
	And in reality, it's impossible to police, except on the way back, basically.
	If Mathis were to go and shoot somebody, that wasn't me, presumably, and then they would backtrace where the gun came from, then they could prosecute me.
	But prospectively speaking, there's no real way to prevent people from selling each other firearms in private.
	Federal-licensed firearms are a bigger issue because they can be audited at any time by the federal governments.
	So this is just not true from Alyssa Milano.
	This is also idiocy from Chelsea Handler.
	Chelsea Handler, again, another one of these political experts who knows everything there is to know about politics, including the fact that Dana Rohrabacher is actually a woman.
	She tweets, quote, Innocent people go to church on Sunday to honor their God and while doing so get shot and killed.
	What country?
	America.
	Why?
	Republicans.
	Well, no.
	No, it turns out that the shooter in this particular case is actually a militant atheist.
	If you go to his Facebook page, it is covered with militant atheist slogans.
	He's apparently on the left, on the political left.
	He went to a church and murdered all of these people.
	Apparently he'd been speaking negatively about religious people for a long time.
	You have an atheist who goes and shoots up a church, and the first instinct is to blame Republicans, which makes no sense at all.
	The idea here, of course, is if it were up to Democrats, then they would ban guns all the way.
	Now, you know, I would suffice it to say that if it were up to the left, there wouldn't be as many people going to church on Sunday to honor their God, period.
	But, you know, that's a story I'm going to get into in just a second.
	The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms.
	The founders knew that it was important that human beings be able to keep arms in order to resist tyranny from governments, foreign and domestic.
	This is why you were actually mandated in certain states in the United States, in the early colonies, to own a gun in your home.
	Mandated.
	Because in order to be a member of the militia, you had to own a gun.
	It was your job to obtain a gun.
	This is not uncommon in Switzerland.
	They basically have similar laws, essentially.
	But the idea that it's Republicans' fault when a bad guy goes and shoots up a church is really sick.
	I've never said it's Democrats' fault when a guy goes and shoots up a congressional baseball game.
	In fact, I defended Bernie Sanders when that happened.
	This is pretty pathetic from Chelsea Handler.
	But unfortunately, it's a widespread sentiment, and it's not just held by Chelsea Handler.
	Joy Reid.
	Who makes a living being wrong about everything.
	She blocked me on Twitter, so I had to see this through somebody else's account.
	She says, Now whenever a Republican says prayers, because Republicans actually take prayer seriously, folks on the left lose their minds.
	How dare they say prayers?
	They could act right now to stop all this.
	What, are you just going to pray?
	You just want to sit around and pray?
	That's your thing, to pray?
	So this demonstrates a full-fledged failure to understand what prayer is for on a couple of levels, but Joy retweets out, So, first, a bit of irony.
	These people were shot in the middle of prayers.
	They were shot and they were murdered in the middle of their prayers.
	And here you are saying that no one should pray for them.
	I'm pretty sure that the people who would be most certain Fairly certain that's the case.
	people to pray for them would be people in a church who are shot.
	Fairly certain that's the case.
	You know, you didn't hear this sort of stuff after the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the massacre at the black church.
	You didn't hear a lot of this, you know, don't say thoughts and prayers, stop saying thoughts and prayers.
	You didn't hear it as much because it was Barack Obama in power and Barack Obama was saying things like, we should express our thoughts and prayers, right?
	And then he went down there and he sang Amazing Grace.
	Imagine if Trump went down to Sutherland Springs and sang Amazing Grace.
	The left would go ballistic.
	Obama did, but because Obama was pushing their favorite policy positions, that meant that his prayers were genuine, you see.
	Because according to the left, you're a bad person if you disagree with them, and so your prayers are worthless.
	We can't disagree on politics and both pray.
	Our prayers are worthless unless we agree with you on the politics of the situation.
	So, she's not the only one saying this.
	Keith Olbermann, Keith Olbermann, is saying this too.
	He says, Speak Orion.
	Bluntly.
	Shove your prayers up your ass.
	And do something with your life.
	Besides platitudes and power grabs.
	Okay, so number one, if you're gonna tell people not to do something, then what you probably shouldn't do is, say, do something with your life besides platitudes and power grabs in a tweet that is purely platitudinous and is clearly also a power grab.
	I mean, Keith Olbermann would like to grab a certain amount of power from the American people by seizing guns.
	This idea that prayers, if I pray for you, that that's something terrible is just ridiculous.
	So prayers serve a number of purposes.
	I've talked about this more in the Bible segment, that I have in the main of the show.
	But as a religious person who prays three times daily, thrice daily, and then I say prayers before and after my meals, I say blessings before the meals and after my meals, you know, we say a lot of blessings in Judaism.
	So we're constantly blessing God.
	We're constantly praying in Judaism.
	It's a thing.
	There are a few reasons for prayer.
	One of the reasons for prayer is to seal yourself.
	Seal yourself.
	It's for you less than it is for God.
	God doesn't need you and He doesn't need your prayers.
	But you need your prayers.
	Why?
	To steal you for doing things.
	So the idea that prayer is only about prayer, that you just pray and then you go about your daily business, that's not right.
	One of religion's sort of basic premises is that it is your job as a human being when you see bad things happening in the world to recommit yourself to being a better person.
	That's what prayer helps you to do.
	It helps you to confess what you've done wrong.
	It helps you to realize what you could do better.
	It helps you realize that you were created by a creator who cares about you and cares about other people.
	And are you doing honor to his creation?
	And it helps you go out and do better things with your own life.
	Second, you know, there is a belief in Judaism and Christianity that God hears your prayers and acts because of them.
	Not, as I've said, because God is reactive to you, not because God needs your prayers, but because you have changed as a human being and we can change as a country if we pray together.
	We are more unified and God responds to that, right?
	That's sort of the idea in Jewish and Christian communities.
	It's true in Muslim communities, I assume as well, that if you pray to God, then you are signifying your subservience to God.
	And God responds favorably to that.
	So we actually believe that prayers do something.
	They're not just spewing empty words.
	And there is a great irony to all of these people spewing empty words on Twitter and saying, how dare you talk to God?
	Like, there you are, talking to your imaginary sky being, but here I am on Twitter, tweeting to no one.
	But I'm doing something, because I tweeted.
	I promise you, my prayer did more than your tweet.
	My prayer did more than Keith Olbermann's tweet here.
	Especially because what he's actually doing is driving the country apart.
	If you want to create a consensus based on anything here, you can't insult everybody who prays in the United States.
	It's like 80% of Americans pray at some point.
	So that's just, that's silliness.
	It's not just him, the sort of scorn that a lot of people on the left feel for religion, It's pretty palpable.
	Again, recognize the irony here.
	An atheist shoots up a church, and the first thing that people are saying on the left is, stop praying.
	That seems like bad politics.
	Very, very bright.
	Stephen King did the same thing.
	He basically said, it's time to stop praying, and he dropped the G. It's time to stop praying and start legislating.
	And get rid of the other G as well.
	A couple of things.
	One, again, it was illegal for this man to hold guns from all that we know.
	So, more legislation would not have stopped that.
	And two, If you really want to show the scorn that you have for the American people by dropping Gs in praying and legislating, look at those Hicks.
	With their praying, with their Jesus and their Bible.
	Those were the Hicks that were shot.
	Those were the quote-unquote Hicks that were shot.
	They were people who lived in Texas, in all likelihood.
	The parents of these children voted for President Trump because Texas went heavily for President Trump.
	It was a very small town.
	These are people going on a Sunday morning to pray.
	It's horrific.
	It's horrific.
	And for people to sit around ripping, would you hear this ever if, God forbid, a mosque had been shot up?
	Would you ever hear this?
	A mosque gets shot, would you hear people saying, you know, all these people should stop praying to Allah.
	They should stop praying to God for Muslims who are shot.
	Of course you wouldn't hear that.
	It's just scorn for Christians that really drives a lot of this, and that's really kind of gross.
	Okay, so...
	In other news today, I mean, by the way, this is not the only violent story of the day.
	Yesterday or Saturday, Senator Rand Paul was actually attacked on his own property by a guy who's a registered Democrat.
	We're still waiting to hear all the details, but the guy broke five of Rand Paul's ribs.
	Five of them.
	Okay, that's like, that's not a minor injury.
	You know, breaking a rib, you can't actually bind a rib.
	Like, my dad cracked a rib one time, and it is extraordinarily painful.
	And they can't put you in a cast.
	So you're basically walking around suffering because your ribs are poking you in the lungs.
	It's really awful.
	And this guy broke five of Rand Paul's ribs.
	There may be more to the story.
	We'll hear about it.
	But if not, then this is just another left attack on a Republican politician.
	And imagine if Bernie Sanders had been tackled and broken five ribs.
	Would that lead every newscast ever?
	Yes.
	Remember, there was a congressional baseball shooting.
	That was in the news for like four days and it was out.
	You want to look at media bias?
	Look at how these shootings get treated.
	The variety of how the shooting gets treated.
	Is it useful to the left's agenda?
	Is more of a judge than is it newsworthy?
	Bernie Sanders being tackled by a right-winger would be newsworthy, and it would also serve the left's agenda.
	It would never leave the news.
	Rand Paul gets tackled, breaks five ribs on his own property by a Democrat, and nothing.
	Nothing.
	I mean, I had to find this on Twitter.
	It wasn't even covered anywhere.
	It's ridiculous.
	Okay, so, I want to try to elucidate some foreign policy news in just a second, because it's quite fascinating what's going on over in Saudi Arabia.
	But first, I wanna say thank you to our sponsors over at Skillshare.
	So Skillshare is the best way for you to make your resume better.
	It's the best way for you to learn new skill sets that make you more marketable in your job, in your community.
	If you're looking for a leg up at work, Skillshare is how you do it.
	3 million members, 17,000 classes.
	It's the Netflix for online learning.
	You can take classes in graphic design, DSLR photography, social media marketing.
	It's perfect.
	It's perfect if you're looking to build your career or start the side business of your dreams.
	You know, I have taken, as I say, a watercoloring class, which helps calm me in the evenings.
	But beyond that, I've also taken a class in email marketing and social media marketing.
	All of their classes are like 45 minutes and they are really excellent.
	Very user-friendly.
	Skillshare is giving my listeners right now a one-month free trial of unlimited access to over 17,000 classes.
	Go to Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, that's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	To start your free month today, Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	You can't afford to sit around thinking you're going to be able to retain your job with your skill set.
	Your skill set isn't good enough.
	Keep making it better with Skillshare.com.
	Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	You get a free month.
	Check it out.
	You're going to want to continue the service because it's really terrific.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, mysterious happenings in Saudi Arabia.
	And it looks a lot like the Godfather, basically.
	Okay, it looks essentially like Michael Corleone cleaning up, Michael Corleone basically cleaning up, cleaning up events.
	After his dad dies, right?
	I mean, Clemenza's going around shooting people in elevators.
	That's basically what's happening here.
	So, over the weekend, all of these events happened.
	I'm going to tell you the events and then why I think they're happening and what I think is going on.
	We could be five minutes away from a full-on Saudi-Sunni versus Iranian-Shia internal Middle East conflict.
	We could be looking at another war in the Middle East in very short order, and there's a significant possibility the United States ends up dragged into it in some way, so I think it's important stuff.
	So here's what happened over the weekend.
	So Saudi Arabia is basically being taken over by a 32-year-old young new prince.
	This 32-year-old guy is considered a reformer.
	He is a, as I say, he is a kid.
	And he has formed a newly formed anti-corruption committee.
	Over the weekend, they arrested at least 17 princes and top officials.
	So they basically went around arresting people.
	The list includes Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
	You've heard his name.
	He's an investor in Kingdom Holding, which 95%, he owns 95% of that.
	It owns stakes in Citigroup, Twitter, Apple, Fox News, right?
	Well, News Corp, right?
	Which is the parent company of Fox News.
	After he was arrested, $750 million was wiped off of his fortune on Sunday.
	At least 38 former current deputy ministers have been arrested on accusations of corruption.
	CNN has obtained the list of 17 people, including the formal head of the royal court, Khaled al-Tuwairi, the Saudi media mogul, Walid al-Ibrahim, and Prince Turki bin Nasser.
	Okay, so all of this is basically the new guy coming in and arresting all of the people who could potentially pose a threat to him.
	Badr Asaker is the bureau manager of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and he tweeted the list of arrested business people.
	Three ministers were removed from their positions.
	Tens of former ministers were detained as part of the new anti-corruption campaign initiated by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
	So, the new king who replaced King Fahd after King Fahd died.
	His son is basically running the show, and his son is this crown prince that we are talking about, this Mohammed bin Salman, right?
	Because King Salman is the king over there.
	So the three ministers removed were the Economy and Planning Minister, the National Guard Minister, and the Naval Forces Commander.
	And they said that they needed to do this due to the propensity of some people for abuse So, in the last few months, he's eased some restrictions on women.
	stealing public funds, and will trace and combat corruption at all levels, according to the release.
	The 32-year-old crown prince does have the authority to investigate, arrest, issue travel bans, freeze the assets of those it finds corrupt.
	So in the last few months, he's eased some restrictions on women.
	He's supposedly a modernizer.
	He's eased some restrictions on women.
	He's allowed them to drive, for example.
	And he has vowed to destroy, quote, extremist ideologies in a bid to return to a more moderate Islam.
	So he's considered a reformer, and he is making some moves.
	Okay, so what are some of the other moves that he's making?
	I mean, it's really astonishing, all the stuff that happened over the weekend.
	It's really kind of creepy and astonishing at the same time.
	Prince Mansoor bin Muqrin is the deputy governor of Asir province, which is a major province in Saudi Arabia.
	He's returning from an inspection tour when his aircraft was downed near Aba late on Sunday, according to the Interior Ministry.
	He is dead, seven other officials dead in this helicopter crash.
	Why does that matter?
	Because this guy is basically the lead rival to this Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
	So, it's obviously an attempt to cement power.
	You know, this is suspicious as it looks.
	This particular province exists on the kind of southernmost tip of Saudi Arabia.
	Yemen exists just to the south.
	We'll talk about Yemen in just a second because that's important too.
	And there's news out of there as well.
	Basically, this guy's father, the guy who was just killed, I mean, it looks like, I would say, suspicion is that he was murdered.
	You know, helicopters don't randomly go down in the middle of a purge.
	This guy's father was the lead rival to King Salman.
	So Prince Mansoor bin Mukrin was kind of the next heir to the throne if the other guy had gotten picked.
	Okay, so that's another thing that's happened.
	Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is accusing Yemen of firing an Iranian ballistic missile into Saudi Arabia over Riyadh.
	Okay, so they're essentially saying that there was Iranian technology in this missile fired from Yemen into the heart of Saudi Arabia.
	They said they intercepted a ballistic missile over the capital, according to CNN.
	And now they are accusing the Iranian government of having provided the technology that was in that missile.
	Now, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been in basically a proxy war in Yemen for at least a couple of years here.
	It was the US-made Patriot system that shot down the missile.
	There have been about 14,000 civilian casualties in Yemen, 5,000 people killed from the beginning of the fighting until late August.
	And again, Saudi Arabia has been very active because they are concerned with being surrounded by an Iranian proxy on their southern border.
	So this also looks like, you know, more provocation.
	And finally, this is the final piece of Saudi Arabia news, then I'm going to explain what exactly the hell is going on here, because this is all very mysterious and it does have some significant ramifications for the United States.
	The Lebanese Prime Minister's name is Sa'ad Hariri.
	His father was murdered by the Iranians, basically.
	His father was killed, I believe it was in 2005, by the Iranians.
	And there have been basically a couple of revolutions, one called the Cedar Revolution that was a response to the Iranian presence in Lebanon.
	Lebanon is a country, for those who don't know, just to the north of Israel and just to the west of Syria.
	It has basically become a Syrian proxy state, an Iranian proxy state, but The Cedar Revolution was an attempt to move Iran out of Lebanon.
	And in the meantime, what has basically happened is that the new Prime Minister, his name is Saeed Hariri, who, again, he's a Sunni guy.
	He's not Shiite like the Iranians.
	And he has formed a coalition government involving Hezbollah as well.
	Well, now that is breaking up.
	So, the Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, resigned on Saturday during a trip to Saudi Arabia.
	He said his life was in danger.
	It created a leadership vacuum in Lebanon.
	Hariri said he feared an assassination plot accused Iran of meddling in the region, causing devastation and chaos.
	He said Iran controls the region and the decision-making in both Syria and Iraq.
	I want to tell Iran and its followers it will lose in its interventions in the internal affairs of Arab countries.
	And the Iranians are accusing the Saudi Arabian government and President Trump of coordinating Hariri's resignation in order to exacerbate tensions.
	They said the resignation was aimed at creating tension in Lebanon and the region.
	The resignation was also meant to compensate the U.S.
	for its failures after the defeat of I'm going to explain all of it, but for me to explain it all and elucidate it all and why it's important to you, you're going to have to go over to Daily Wire right now for the latest news.
	world.
	So a lot going on in Saudi Arabia.
	I'm going to explain all of it.
	But for me to explain it all and elucidate it all and why it's important to you, you're going to have to go over to Daily Wire right now for the latest news.
	So $9.99 a month gets you a subscription to DailyWire.com.
	That gets you a subscription.
	You can watch the rest of my show live on video.
	You can watch the rest of Michael Moles' show live on video, Andrew Klavan's show live on video, all worthwhile.
	Plus, you can be part of my mailbag on Fridays.
	All Also, if you get the annual subscription, then you get this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, $99 a year, so you save off the monthly subscription.
	The leftist here is hot or cold Tumblr, I see people tweeting it at me because they love it so much, as well they should, since it is magnificent.
	What a piece of hardware this is.
	99 bucks a year gets you the annual subscription, plus That's not true.
	Michael is a religious guy.
	The godforsaken Michael Knolls, is that fair?
	Maybe?
	will be coming in the near future.
	Also, be sure to tune in to watch our next episode of The Conversation on Tuesday, November 14th at 5 p.m. Eastern, featuring the godless Michael Knowles.
	That's not true.
	Michael is a religious guy, but the godforsaken Michael Knowles, is that fair?
	Yeah.
	Maybe.
	Okay, godforsaken.
	Michael's Conversation will stream live on the Daily Wire Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
	It's free to watch for everybody, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
	I'm subscribing just so I can ask Michael questions like, why do you still work here?
	Subscribe today to ask Michael questions and join the conversation as well.
	Go ahead and check it out.
	All the conversations are a lot of fun.
	I've done one, Clavin's done one, Michael's doing one now.
	So go and check it out.
	If you just want to listen later...
	Subscribe to our YouTube channel or go over to SoundCloud or iTunes.
	Subscribe there.
	Leave us a review.
	We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	All righty.
	So what exactly is happening in Saudi Arabia?
	So I think what's happening here is pretty simple.
	Saudi Arabia has been having significant problems with maintaining the grip of the Saudi royal family.
	The Saudi royal family has been threatened from two sides.
	They've been threatened by the Iranians, because the Iranians hate the Saudis, and they've been threatened by extremists inside their own country.
	There are a bunch of extremists inside their own country, and I'm talking about like Al-Qaeda, who have basically been threatening the Saudi royal family for years.
	It's one of the reasons that the Saudis were suspected of giving money to Al-Qaeda for so many years, is because basically it was a payoff to A bunch of terrorists to get them off the Saudi Royal family's back.
	This has been the suspicion for many, many, many, many years.
	In any case, Saudi Arabia has a bunch of problems.
	One, they are disproportionately young.
	It's a country that is disproportionately young and male.
	It is also a country that is disproportionately poor outside of the oil wealth of the Saudi Royal family.
	Virtually the entire country runs on the oil industry.
	And the problem is fracking, natural gas, Advanced technologies, all of these are making Saudi Arabia's oil less valuable than it once was, which has put the Saudi royal family in some trouble.
	It's also created a need for the Saudi royal family to draw close to the United States.
	We could have a Shah of Iran situation here, where basically the leadership of Saudi Arabia is unpopular inside the country and out, but...
	The United States' best option is to prop up the Saudi royal family.
	The only way the United States has the capacity to do that is the Saudi royal family has to do two things.
	One, they need to demonstrate that they're moderating.
	They need to demonstrate that they're fighting terror and that they're moderating inside their own country.
	And they'll earn sort of the respect of the United States.
	They're hoping that President Trump will back their play and that Egypt will back their play and Israel will back their play because now they're more moderate and they're moving away from the extremists.
	If they stop supporting terrorism or at least members of the family stop supporting terrorism, then this will benefit the current Saudi regime.
	So that's thing number one they have to do.
	And thing number two is they have to rally their people against...
	against the Iranians.
	They have to rally their people against the Shia threat.
	And there is a Shia threat, okay, because Saudi Arabia is again bordered on the south by Yemen, and they're bordered in the north by countries including Syria as well as Iran.
	So the fact is that Saudi Arabia is threatened, and it is important for them to defend themselves.
	But there is something else happening here, which is that the new Saudi regime is trying to use that as an excuse for preventing the—they don't actually border-run Iran.
	I'm sorry, they border Syria and Iraq.
	They come close to bordering Iran.
	In any case...
	It is important for the Saudis to demonstrate this threat because if they can turn this into a Sunni-Shia fight as opposed to a Sunni versus Sunni fight, then they're more likely to retain power.
	So what that means is right now they are exacerbating tensions.
	And the problem is both sides sort of have an interest in exacerbating tensions to a certain extent.
	Iran actually has an interest in keying down tensions until the point where they can maximize their regional power.
	Saudi Arabia has an interest in ratcheting up tensions in order to enshrine the current Saudi royal family with the help of the United States.
	So, could this break into war?
	You can see a bunch of ways this breaks into war.
	You can see the Houthis in Yemen firing ordnance, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen firing ordnance on Syria, on the Saudi capital again.
	And you can see the Saudis going in full scale with the help of the United States, and you can see the Iranians then moving in to defend their boys in Yemen.
	You can see a situation where Iran makes a direct move against Saudi Arabia because they say that Saudi Arabia is threatening them.
	Lebanon, obviously, is polarizing.
	So what is now happening, it's not really because of Trump.
	It's because of a couple of different forces that have happened.
	The Arab Spring, President Obama's Arab Spring was a disaster for the Middle East.
	It emboldened Iran.
	It emboldened, quote-unquote, reform forces in countries, but a lot of those reform forces are actually Islamists, like you saw in Egypt.
	And so you actually see the threat of terrorism increased in Saudi Arabia under President Obama.
	President Obama polarized the region.
	Now you basically have these regimes on one side and these regimes on the other.
	Okay, so on one side you have Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.
	Jordan and Saudi Arabia both living on borrowed time because both of those regimes are basically, you know, the families there that run the place are in some serious trouble.
	And then on the other side, you have Iran, Iraq, which is nominated by Iran, and you have Lebanon and Syria.
	Those are all on the other side.
	And then Turkey sort of straddles the center, right?
	Turkey is sort of Iran-friendly, but they're quasi-friendly to the Sunnis as well, sort of like Qatar.
	In any case, you're seeing the sides form up for what could be a significant regional war.
	If Iran goes wrong here, Saudi Arabia has every interest in starting a war, but only if they have the assurance of the United States that the United States will back them.
	So this is going to lead to some serious conversations about under what circumstances the United States would back a Saudi military move.
	In Yemen, the answer is they would.
	Against Iran directly, it's questionable.
	Israel would back it because Iran's nuclear capacity has to be destroyed.
	Would Saudi Arabia and Israel together, along with Egypt, go after Iran?
	You could see something like that.
	You could.
	Especially if the United States either tacitly stays out or moves in to back.
	And this could turn into a significant regional war if Russia decides to back its proxies in Iran and Syria.
	So this thing could explode very, very quickly.
	All because the Saudi royal family is attempting to maintain power.
	And there are no good options here, okay?
	I can't say that I think there's a great option here.
	We do have to back the Saudi royal family.
	We do.
	There is no alternative in Saudi Arabia.
	And so, basically, you know, we all sort of have to hope and pray this doesn't break out in the open.
	Presumably, the Trump administration could theoretically tell the Saudis, you're on your own here.
	But that would only embolden the forces that want to overthrow the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and instead establish either a terrorist state or a state that is Iran-friendly, both of which would be worse options.
	So, thank you, President Obama, for just another crap situation you handed over to President Trump.
	Meanwhile, speaking of things that President Obama destroyed, the Democratic Party continues to be in a state of civil war.
	Donna Brazile is now in a one-woman crusade to basically wreck the party.
	So she has decided that she has to go off against Hillary Clinton.
	Donna Brazile has ambitions to continue running the Democratic Party.
	She wants to move over and side with Bernie Sanders.
	So she put out a piece last week that we discussed in which she accused the Hillary Clinton campaign of basically hijacking the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Schultz's permission.
	And she sort of backed off that a little bit this week.
	For example, in her piece, she openly said, openly, that the DNC had basically rigged the primaries.
	Now she's saying, I didn't find any evidence the primaries were rigged, so here she is backtracking, but that's not what she said last week.
	George, for those who are telling me to shut up, they told Hillary that a couple of months ago.
	You know what I tell them?
	Go to hell.
	I'm going to tell my story.
	I want to tell my story, George, because this is a story of a young girl who started in American politics at the age of nine, who continues to fight each and every week of her life.
	Okay, and she has today called the Hillary Clinton campaign racist and sexist, but she's also sort of trying to back off the claim that the primaries were rigged.
	Here's what she said about that.
	Do you agree with Elizabeth Warren that the primaries were rigged?
	I don't think she meant the word rigged.
	Because what I said, George, as you well know after I left this show back on July 24th, I said I would get to the bottom of everything.
	And that's what I did.
	And I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging in the process.
	I'm on the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
	I found no evidence.
	None whatsoever.
	Okay, that is not what she said last week, right?
	That is not what she said.
	Quote, by the day I had called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
	This is literally what she said.
	She starts off this little piece by saying that she wanted to find out if things had been rigged.
	She said, I needed to have solid proof and so did Bernie.
	She said, I promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention, I would get to the bottom of the process as to whether Hillary Clinton's team had rigged the nomination process.
	I needed to have solid proof and so did Bernie.
	I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
	Now she's saying of course it wasn't rigged because she realizes that she overstepped here.
	The conversation is actually less about whether it was rigged and about how much it was rigged.
	So according to Hillary Clinton's contract...
	She was only supposed to receive certain benefits during the general election process in return for giving money to the DNC.
	The DNC said they'd offer Bernie Sanders a similar deal, but Hillary Clinton was already staffing up the DNC upon signing that contract, so it's sort of a distinction without a difference.
	Team Clinton is now defending—they're attempting to defend themselves.
	They sent a letter from a hundred people who are members of the team, including people like Huma Abedin, and they said that this is not true.
	They said that Donna Brazile is the tool of Russian propaganda.
	So it's just tearing the party apart, which is glorious to watch.
	They said, quote, there's an open letter on Medium.
	We were shocked to learn in the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic presidential and VP nominees.
	She said over the weekend that she actively thought about replacing, and this is an amazing thing, right?
	She actively thought about putting Joe Biden on the ticket instead of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine in the last days of the campaign.
	This is obviously her attempt to move beyond the Clintons and to shiv the Clintons and to end this whole Clinton debacle.
	I think that's smart by Donna Brazile.
	I think the party would be smart to throw Hillary under the bus here.
	Whether they will or not is another question.
	They've been clinging to life here, clinging to the hope that Hillary Clinton will eventually become president through some sort of weird confluence of events.
	It's not going to happen.
	It is pretty amazing, though, as they tear each other apart.
	Tom Perez, who's the current head of the DNC, he came out and he said that there was an accusation by Donna Brazile that Hillary basically had a seizure on the campaign trail, and Tom Perez says that's absurd.
	I have great respect for Donna.
	I consider her a friend.
	She's done a lot for the Democratic Party.
	The charge that Hillary Clinton was somehow incapacitated is quite frankly ludicrous.
	Hillary Clinton was a tireless senator, a tireless Secretary of State, and a tireless candidate.
	Okay, so the idea, again, that Hillary was just fine on the campaign trail, that did not seem to be supremely true, and so they're still debating this.
	The longer Hillary stays in the headline, the better for Trump, the worse for the Democratic Party, it's that simple.
	Okay, time for some things I like, things I hate, and then we'll do Federalist number two, because every Monday now, we are now going through a new Federalist paper, so you will learn more about the Constitution and the system that our founders created.
	Okay, first, Things I like?
	Over the weekend I had a chance to go see a movie.
	Instead of seeing Thor, I went to see Goodbye Christopher Robin with my wife.
	That's because I'm a huge Winnie the Pooh fan.
	I've recommended Winnie the Pooh on the show before, not just the movie but the book, because the book is just clever and charming.
	The movie is quite good.
	It's really about how the father, A. A. Milne, he created these books partially as a way to reach out to his child, but partially as a way to get over his World War I war experiences.
	And the movie is really a heartbreaking movie.
	And really, what it is more about, anything else, Like, you can read this movie in a really interesting context with regards to some of the children who have been abused in Hollywood.
	Because a lot of this movie is about basically how this kid was the first Hollywood star.
	Because he wasn't, it was before, you know, movies were really a huge thing in the early 1920s.
	And Christopher Robin was turned into a worldwide phenomenon.
	The kid basically was pushed out by his mother with the sort of tacit consent of his father to become a celebrity and how it sort of ruined his life.
	You know, I have a child star in our family, in our extended family, Mara Wilson, who was quite a good actress as a child.
	And, you know, I don't want to speak for Mara.
	We were very close to their family, obviously.
	My dad and her mom were brother and sister, and they were extraordinarily tight their entire life.
	But I think Mara would be the first to tell you that being a child star in Hollywood is a very difficult thing, and a lot of children are definitely mistreated by the Hollywood system.
	In any case, that's sort of what this movie is about.
	Celebrity can really cripple children.
	Here is some of the trailer.
	Once upon a time, there was a great war that brought so much sadness to so many people.
	Hardly anyone could remember what happiness was like.
	But something happened that changed all that.
	His name is Christopher Robin, but we generally call him Billy.
	A toast.
	C.R.
	Milne.
	C.R.
	Milne.
	It helped us to believe in the good things.
	Which one would you like?
	This one.
	Yeah, same height, please.
	Go!
	So really, it's more of a family drama than anything else, but it's very well done.
	All the acting is quite good, and it's beautiful to watch.
	So you can go check it out.
	Goodbye, Christopher Robin.
	It won't be in theaters for very long.
	I do have to say, they've really upgraded a lot of these theaters.
	They understand the crowds are not going to be as big, unless you're going to see Thor or something.
	And so they've put in the recliner chairs, the full leather recliner chairs.
	Really nice theater experience now.
	So good for them for doing that.
	So you can go check out the movie.
	It's worth seeing.
	OK, things I hate.
	So last night, I saw this headline.
	And I just thought it was really, really funny.
	It was supposedly about how President Trump had been meeting with Shinzo Abe, who is the prime minister of Japan.
	They're in Japan right now.
	And Shinzo Abe and Trump had gone and fed the koi fish, right?
	So they were going, I hate when politicians do these photo ops, but they're feeding the koi fish.
	The way that CNN cut this tape, what it looked like, and this would have been really funny.
	And what it looked like was they were both, they both had boxes of spoons and they're sort of feeding the koi fish.
	The fish food with these spoons.
	They're dropping it from what looks like a balcony into this fish pond.
	And then it looks like, according to CNN, Shinzo Abe is still spooning it and Trump just gets impatient and takes the entire box of fish food and just dumps it over the side.
	This is how CNN showed it.
	So here you can see, for those who are not watching, this is why you need to subscribe, you can see Shinzo Abe and Trump are both given a wooden box and now they're just spooning out fish food into the pond.
	Right, and you can see there, it just continues like this.
	And now they focus in on Trump, right?
	They just focus in on Trump.
	And they, and look at how the, look at how this is cut, right?
	So they cut away from Shinzo Abe.
	So you don't actually see what he does.
	Right, they pull out.
	And they're gonna pull back in on Trump.
	And they pull all the way back in on Trump, so you can't see what Shinzo Abe does.
	And what does Trump do?
	He takes the entire box and he flings it over the side.
	So it looked like, oh, look at that Trump, that boorish American.
	He just, he got bored and he didn't care.
	And while Shinzo Abe was still doing this kind of patient ritual, Trump takes the box and chucks it over the side.
	Now listen, that would be hilarious.
	It would be.
	I mean, I would laugh.
	If Trump did that, I would have thought, okay, it's such a Trump thing to do.
	I mean, the guy did make hats.
	With Shinzo Abe, it's making our relationship even better.
	He made them hats.
	It's like a gift you get for your girlfriend when you're 14.
	In any case, Well, here's what actually happened.
	CNN cut the video in order to make Trump look bad.
	The media ran with it.
	Abe threw out the fish food first.
	He actually took the box of fish food and he threw it out before Trump did it.
	And the media ran with the story that Trump had been deliberately rude.
	Absolutely idiotic.
	Same thing happened, by the way, with regard to comments that Trump made about Japanese cars.
	So Trump had said to the Japanese, if you could make some more of your cars in the United States, that would be great.
	And people were like, well, they make lots of their cars here, right?
	We have Toyota plants all over the United States.
	There are like 16 Honda plants in the United States.
	Trump said earlier in the night that he understood the Japanese made cars in the United States.
	So again, you want to know why people believe Trump when he says fake news?
	Because some of this stuff is just fake news.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Okay, time to go through Federalist Paper No.
	2 very briefly.
	So, Federalist Paper No.
	2, as I say, the Federalist Paper is written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.
	Federalist No.
	1 was written by Alexander Hamilton.
	Federalist No.
	2 is written by John Jay, all under the So, this is really about natural rights theory, and the question in Federalist No.
	2 is should we form one country or many countries?
	This is actually super relevant now when people are talking about secession, and can we even live together, and what do we have in common anymore?
	And this is the important thing to note.
	What the founders thought is that we should be one country as opposed to many because we had certain fundamental principles in common.
	I'm writing my new book on this.
	What fundamental principles did we have in common?
	Were they right?
	And should we have them in common now?
	Because we need something to hold us together.
	What John Jay says is that basically the government was instituted in order to preserve certain of our natural rights.
	And we all have to give up certain of our natural rights to the government in order So that we can live together under a government that ensures the rest of those natural rights.
	He says, "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." Right, so some of those natural rights include the idea you don't have to pay taxes, for example.
	No one can come and seize your property.
	The idea that, you know, you may have to go to a draft.
	There are certain natural rights that in a state of nature would exist, and this is sort of a theoretical construct the founders talked about, or, alternatively, the idea that you were living in an area without a centralized government, you know, you had a bunch of family farms that didn't have a centralized government, you had deadwood before the actual institution of a government.
	That in that state of nature, there are certain things you could do that you can't do once a government has been formed.
	Right?
	That's fair.
	And then he says, here's why we should form one country.
	And this is important for the policies we take now.
	With equal pleasure, I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people.
	A people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint councils, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side through a long and bloody war, He's saying don't have a South and a North, don't have a Northeast and a Southwest.
	Instead, we should have one country because here are the things he says we hold in common.
	Common ancestors.
	Okay, for the most part, this was true of the people of the United States in the main.
	and so proper and convenient for a band of brethren united to each other by the strongest ties should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
	He's saying don't have a south and a north, don't have a northeast and a southwest.
	Instead, we should have one country because here are the things he says we hold in common.
	Common ancestors.
	Okay, for the most part, this was true of the people of the United States in the main, speaking the same language.
	Right, so there are people today who say everyone should speak English.
	This is one of the reasons.
	Professing the same religion.
	We have to have a certain common denominator in terms of religion.
	It doesn't mean everyone has to be a Christian, but it does mean everyone has to have respect for Judeo-Christian values and the Judeo-Christian God.
	Attached to the same principles of government, we have to believe in a limited government instituted to preserve rights, not to infringe upon them.
	Similar in manners and customs.
	We have to talk to each other in a way where we can all understand one another, and who have fought side by side through long and bloody wars.
	These are the things we have to have in common.
	It seems like a pretty good description of what the country needs right now, and unfortunately, all of this has been dissolved.
	We're not a people descended from the same ancestors, because we bring in lots of immigrants.
	That's fine, so long as those immigrants hold the same principles.
	That's more important, but they don't, always.
	This is why there are people who say, we need to make sure that immigrants who come into the United States assimilate into American culture.
	We don't all speak the same language.
	You know, the notion that we can speak different languages and still get along, very difficult to get along and form a government together when you don't speak the same language, professing the same religion.
	When you have people who say that Judeo-Christian values are worthless, the values that the country was founded upon are worthless, backwards, and stupid.
	When they say that prayer itself is a bad thing, instead we need a government that violates rights.
	There's a difference in vision.
	It's difficult to have a country when we have basic disagreements over these things.
	And when we don't believe in the same principles of government, very difficult to have one country.
	That's why people are talking about dissolution of the United States now, because we seem to be more divided than we ever have been in these contexts.
	And then Jay laments, he finishes by lamenting, he says, whatever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet, farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness.
	This is still true.
	America, a disunited America, is a less great America.
	Okay, so we'll be back here tomorrow with lots more to discuss, plus maybe some deconstructing the culture.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲