All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:19
The Hit On Hannity, And Much Much Moore | Ep. 416
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, Sean Hannity is in the middle of another boycott.
We will discuss how to fight it.
Plus, Roy Moore, guilty or innocent, we will go through all of the details.
And President Trump sends the best tweet of his career, bar none.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.
So every week is an adventure around here.
I mean, really an adventure.
And if you were wondering, yes, I still have my cold.
That's why I sound so deep-voiced and masculine today.
But in any case, there's so much to discuss.
I want to talk about a New York Times column, which is one of the worst columns I have ever seen, in which the author, a professor at Yeshiva University, suggests that his black child should not be allowed to play with white children.
No, I am not kidding.
We'll go through the Keurig.
Boycott.
There are a lot of people who are breaking their Keurig coffee machines, and I'll explain why to you.
Plus, we'll look at the latest on the Roy Moore accusations.
Breaking news that Gloria Allred, the famed gadfly and media hound, is supposed to show up in about two hours here and make some announcements.
She's supposed to have a press conference, I guess.
In which she announces that there is a second accuser who says that when she was underage, Roy Moore, the Senate Republican candidate in Alabama, sexually assaulted her.
We'll discuss all of this in just a second, but first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Legacy Box.
So, I think that one of the most important things that you can do, especially as you get older, is ensure that your family memories are preserved.
This is particularly true for your parents.
You know, your parents are getting older, they've got boxes and boxes of crap in their garage.
All the old photos, all the old reels, all these things that you'll never be able to watch because they're not even on VHS tapes, let alone on DVD.
Well, what you need to do is go over to Legacy Box.
They send you a box in the mail, you take all of these items, you pack them up, you send it back to them, and Legacy Box puts them all together, and they send it back to you on a DVD or a thumb drive.
So all of those family memories are no longer in these waterlogged boxes in your infested garage.
Instead, they're in your house, and you can take them out, you can look at them whenever you want, and when there's a fire, you just grab the thumb drive instead of trying to schlep 37 pounds of photos on your back out of the family garage.
So, that's what Legacy Box is for.
So, Legacybox.com slash bed, you get a 40% discount on your order.
250,000 families have used them, and they take care of everything.
They provide updates at every step of the way, so you know that they've got your materials.
They put individualized barcodes on every one of your items, so you can trace it all the way through the process.
Again, it's Legacybox.com slash bed to get a 40% discount on your order.
That's Legacybox.com slash bed, Legacybox.com slash bed.
slash bed and make sure they use that slash bed so you get the discount and also so that they know that we sent you.
It really is a fantastic gift, great Christmas gift, great Hanukkah gifts if you're trying to figure out what to get for mom and dad.
Nothing better than preserving the family memories.
Okay, so we begin today with the Keurig boycotts.
So this is going crazy online.
I want to talk a little bit about the tactic of it and why I think sometimes it is useful.
So we have to begin with an interview that Roy Moore did with Sean Hannity.
So Sean Hannity, I think, has been probably the strongest Donald Trump defender in the media.
He's also been a big Roy Moore defender.
However, when these allegations arose against Roy Moore, Sean Hannity went through them and Media Matters basically decided that they were going to target Hannity.
Now, Media Matters is a left-wing agitprop group run by David Brock.
They've targeted Rush Limbaugh before.
They've targeted Sean Hannity before.
They've targeted virtually every major right-wing host has been targeted at some point by Media Matters.
And Media Matters is a Clinton agitprop organization.
They were co-founded, essentially, by the Clintons and the Podestas.
And their entire goal was to defend the Democratic agenda from the outside.
What they do is they, in some cases, take quotes out of context or make up allegations.
And then they call up all the advertisers on programs like Sean Hannity, and then they convince them that there are tons of people who are super outraged at these advertisers for advertising on Hannity, and they get them to pull their advertisements.
So, what they alleged is a couple of things.
They said that Sean Hannity had said that it was consensual, the allegations about Roy Moore, that he had taken a 14-year-old girl out, that he'd taken her from her home, that he'd stripped her down, that he'd touched her, and then made her touch him.
They said that Hannity had said that was consensual.
Hannity never said any such thing.
We went through that tape last week, if you recall.
Then, they said that his interview with Roy Moore was basically propaganda for Roy Moore.
It certainly wasn't.
Here's some clips from the interview with Roy Moore.
You should remember these clips, because these will also become relevant when we discuss the actual allegations against Roy Moore in the Senate, Republican candidate in Alabama.
At that time in your life, let me ask you this, you do remember these girls.
Would it be unusual for you as a 32-year-old guy to have dated a woman as young as 17?
That would be a 15-year difference or a girl 18.
Do you remember dating girls that young at that time?
Not generally, no.
If I did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything, but I don't remember anything like that.
But you don't specifically remember having any girlfriend that was in her late teens even at that time?
I don't remember that, and I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.
And I think in her statement, she said that her mother actually encouraged her to go out with him.
These allegations are completely false and misleading, but more than that, it hurts me personally because, you know, I'm a father, I have one daughter, I have five granddaughters, and I have a special concern for the protection of young ladies.
Okay, so Moore, you know, there was not good responses by Moore, but it was pretty good interviewing by Hannity.
Hannity went through each of the charges individually.
He discussed them at length with Roy Moore.
It was a good interview.
Doesn't matter, Media Matters decided they were gonna target Sean anyway, so they go after Keurig by having, by astroturfing a bunch of people to tweet at Keurig, and Keurig responds with this tweet.
So Keurig responds by saying, Angela, so Angela Carusone is the, is the head of Media Matters.
She says, Good afternoon, Keurig.
You are currently sponsoring Sean Hannity's show.
He defends Chow-Molester Roy Moore and attacks women who speak out against sexual harassment.
Please reconsider.
Okay, he can't name how Sean actually defended Chow-Molester Roy Moore.
And he also can't explain exactly how Sean attacked women who spoke out against sexual harassment.
Like he doesn't actually have any evidence of that.
This is all nonsense.
But Keurig responds because advertisers get afraid of controversy.
So Keurig responds by saying, Angelo, thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention.
We worked with our media partner and Fox News to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity show.
So they pulled their advertisements.
Well, this drove a lot of Sean's fans to basically pull a reverse boycott and say, okay, we're not going to buy Keurig products anymore.
If you're going to pull stuff based on media matters going after Sean Hannity, well, then we're not going to sponsor you, right?
You won't sponsor Sean, we won't sponsor you.
Now, there are a couple of things that are right about this, and maybe one thing that I think is a problem.
But here's some video of people destroying their Keurig machines.
So this one has gone viral.
This is a fellow who decided to go golfing against his Keurig machine.
He tweeted, guys, MAGA Twitter is drilling Keurig machines with 10-pound practice drivers.
Here we go. - Let's see what we can do to this thing. - And there goes the Keurig machine.
I believe we have one here at the office.
We have not yet shattered it.
The reason we haven't shattered it yet is because if you shatter a machine that you already bought, that doesn't actually involve a boycott.
Right?
Like if I shatter something I've already bought, all that means is that I don't have the thing anymore.
So I'm not really sure how that is effective.
But the idea that you're going to boycott a place like Keurig for pulling out advertising, it's not completely wrong-headed.
I think that a lot of people who are making fun of it today, this is not the only example of somebody destroying a Keurig machine.
Here's another example of somebody doing it.
Wait.
Oh boy.
And boom, there it goes from the second story.
Somebody broke the Keurig machine.
Again, I don't see the point of buying a product and then breaking the product.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If you want to boycott Keurig, just don't buy more K-Cups.
But here's sort of the logic.
When I was at Truth Revolt, we launched boycott campaigns against people like Al Sharpton, against Martin Bashir on MSNBC.
We launched a boycott campaign against Alec Baldwin.
We helped get Alec Baldwin kicked off the air at MSNBC.
The point of those was not because we thought that boycotting advertisers that sponsor programs politically is wrong.
In fact, we obviously love that.
The reason we did that is because we were trying to prove to the left that this is a bad tactic.
We wanted mutually assured destruction.
The idea here is that whenever the left gets angry, they pressure advertisers to pull advertising from political programming.
And that's really dangerous because what that ends up doing is creating a market vacuum where people refuse to advertise on places like Fox News.
You want to know why Fox News is constantly running, you know, catheter ads?
And why MSNBC, which has lower ratings, is constantly running car ads?
The reason is because nobody is boycotting the cars, but a lot of people are boycotting cars if they appear on Fox News.
So long as the left insists on playing this game, playing the game in reverse seems to be justified as a mutually assured destruction scenario.
It shouldn't be something that we embrace wholeheartedly.
It shouldn't be something where we say, yeah, boycott advertisers.
I don't like boycotting advertisers.
I think that it's generally wrong.
But if the idea here is that you have to teach advertisers, number one, that you can astroturf a call on pretty much anything, and number two, teach the left that this This has the same effect on the left that it has on the right, and everybody should put down their guns.
That seems to me like that would be a worthwhile thing.
The bottom line here is that Media Matters is a really despicable organization, and they're making up allegations in order to go after Sean.
There are plenty of things that Media Matters could go after Sean after if they wanted to, but that's not exactly what they decided to do instead.
They decided to take Sean out of context deliberately in order to go after him, and it's pathetic that advertisers fell prey to that.
Speaking of taking out of context, there's an article in Time Magazine today that I just want to correct.
Time Magazine ran an allegation by a girl who was 16, I guess, when she met George H.W.
Bush, H.W.
was 79 at the time, and apparently H.W.
grabbed this girl's ass.
Apparently he, this is the allegation anyway, is that H.W.
grabbed this woman's butt, and she was shocked by it.
Here is the piece from Time Magazine.
Her name, I guess, is Rosalind Corrigan, I just couldn't sit with that.
I can't.
I can't sit with that.
I can't sleep anymore because that's not true and it's not an excuse.
she's a listener of the show is because it says in the article, she said recently, she was listening to an episode of a podcast hosted by Ben Shapiro called "Is Everything Sexual Assault Now?" That was a couple of weeks ago.
Allegations against Bush were discussed on the show.
And she said, "When I heard that was the reason, like, oh, he's just an old man and he doesn't know any better and he's just being harmless and playful and it's just where his arm falls, I just burst into uncontrollable sobbing," Corrigan said.
"I just couldn't sit with that.
I can't.
I can't sit with that.
I can't sleep anymore because that's not true and it's not an excuse." Well, that's not what I said on the show.
And I actually don't think that's what Corrigan is saying.
To give her credit, I really don't think that this particular lady is saying that I said on the show that H.W.
Bush did it because he was senile.
What I said on the show is if he did it because he's actually senile, that's a different story than if he did it not being senile, in which case he deserves to be punched, right?
If somebody grabbed my wife's ass, I would punch them.
At the very least, I'd push them around a little bit.
The idea that it's okay if you're not senile but you're old is just ridiculous.
The idea that old guys can do this stuff, I said it on the show two weeks ago.
You can go back and listen to the show, but Time Magazine reports that out of context as though I was defending Bush and saying he was senile.
I wasn't saying that at all.
I was saying if he's senile, that changes the scenario, but if he's not senile, then that's obviously disgusting behavior.
I, you know, not to toot my own horn here, but I've been pretty damn consistent on the sexual harassment front here.
I've been pretty consistent on the sexual assault, sexual harassment front, and that's why I'm trying to, you know, on the Roy Moore stuff, be as objective as possible.
So today, one of the things that I want to do here is Go through what I think are five various perspectives that are all being lumped together with regard to the Roy Moore allegations.
The latest on the Roy Moore allegations, as I say, is that Gloria Allred is saying that she wants to present another accuser who's underage and Roy Moore sexually assaulted her.
That's the accusation, apparently, according to the mainstream media.
And Breitbart News also is going out of its way.
They're sending a couple of different reporters down to Alabama to try and discredit the story about the 14-year-old girl Uh, who is, uh, who has accused, now she's, you know, in her fifties, uh, who accused Roy Moore of, uh, of taking her home and then sexually assaulting her, essentially.
So here are the five perspectives on the Roy Moore saga.
So you listen to the audio already.
Okay, listen to the audio of Moore.
I don't find it particularly a compelling defense.
Saying, I always talk to their mothers first is not really an excuse for dating underage girls.
The idea that when he says, I can't remember dating some of these women, and then he says, well, there's one of these women and I remember being friends with her.
If you want to call it a date, I guess it's a date.
None of this speaks well to his recollection of events.
He was very careful in that interview to say he'd done nothing illegal, but he did not really deny knowledge of anything except this 14-year-old girl.
Now, the reason the 14-year-old girl, her allegations are credible is because there are supporting details that are credible, right?
So she says that she met him in court and more basically recruited her outside a courtroom.
Her mom was in the court.
And Roy Moore said, I'll wait out here with your 14-year-old daughter.
And then he started hitting on her and got her phone number and all of this.
Moore was at the court at the time.
She was at the court at the time.
Her mom was at the court at the time.
There are multiple witnesses who say that this woman has told the story over and over.
And then she was sought out by the Washington Post, right?
She wasn't looking for glory.
She wasn't looking for a settlement.
She wasn't looking for cash.
Instead, the Washington Post had to basically push her into testifying.
Now, the way that Breitbart pushes that, Breitbart News has pushed this in the sense that, well, look at the Washington Post.
They're politically motivated.
Right, we know they're politically motivated.
That's true.
That doesn't mean the underlying facts are not true.
It's politically motivated when Andrew Breitbart goes after Andrew Wiener.
I know, I know Andrew.
You know, that's it, but that doesn't mean that what he was saying was false.
And I think we have to separate these things out.
Politically motivated does not always mean false.
Okay, so here are the five perspectives, I think, on Moore and what to do about him.
So, perspective number one is turnabout is fair play.
There are a lot of people I'm seeing on the right who are looking around and they're saying, listen, The left is not willing to throw anyone out, no matter what the standard.
We can't play, we can't disarm ourselves.
This is the prisoner's dilemma I was talking about last week.
I don't think it's necessarily a moral perspective, but it's a politically advantageous one, I guess.
This is the idea that the left is not going to throw out people like Bob Menendez.
So why would we throw out Roy Moore without an actual conviction?
And even if he were actually convicted, the Democrats are not going to throw out Bob Menendez, right?
Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, was asked about Bob Menendez, who is currently on trial for corruption, the senator from New Jersey.
And he's asked, if he's convicted, will you move to kick him out of the Senate?
And Durbin won't even answer the question.
If your colleague, Senator Bob Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, is convicted on the corruption charges, he's on trial right now, the jury is still deliberating, will you vote to expel him?
I'm not going to get into the hypotheticals on either of these situations.
As I said, several steps removed.
I'm hopeful that when all is said and done that Bob Menendez will be returning to the Senate representing the state of New Jersey.
Okay, so this idea that the Democrats are somehow moral players here is obviously not true, and a lot of Republicans are responding to this by basically saying, well, fine, if you're not gonna get rid of Menendez, why would you get rid of Moore, right?
Amy Klobuchar, who's the Democrat senator from Minnesota, she says that maybe if Moore is elected, maybe we'll expel him.
But I don't remember her saying anything like this about Menendez, who's actually on trial right now.
But you're in favor of starting the expulsion process, potentially, if he is elected?
That's one way we can do it, but the other way is for the people of Alabama to look at these two candidates.
And yes, I have faith that they're going to look at what happened and these allegations and the fact that there's 30 witnesses and make a decision on someone else.
Then again, on the hypocrisy front, Lawrence O'Donnell, who has not said one word as far as I'm aware about expelling Bob Menendez, he asks Mitch McConnell, he says, what are you going to do about Moore?
What are you going to do about more?
And a lot of people on the right are like, well screw you, you won't do anything about your own people, why should we do anything about our people?
Again, I'm not saying this is a moral perspective, and I'm going to explain my own perspective further, but I think that it's worthwhile elucidating the various perspectives.
Before I go any further here, I first want to say thank you to our sponsors over at MyPatriotSupply.
So, you've seen a lot of natural disasters on the news lately.
You've seen natural disasters in California, and Texas, and Florida, and Puerto Rico.
You've seen natural disasters, a big earthquake yesterday in the Middle East.
When this stuff happens, it should be a reminder that natural disasters can happen, and there may be a time when you can't actually get to the grocery store, but you're out of supplies.
The government can't get to you for a couple of days.
That's why you need MyPatriotSupply.
The government recommends that you have a certain amount of food on hand in case bad things happen.
That's what MyPatriotSupply is for.
Get their 102-serving survival food kit for just $99.
It includes breakfasts, lunches, and dinners.
It is shipped to your home for free.
Order a kit for yourself right now.
Call 888-803-1413 or go online to preparewithben.com.
Again, that's 888-803-1413 or go online to preparewithben.com. 888-803-1413, preparewithben.com.
People at the office have tried it.
They say it tastes like home cooking.
It lasts 25 years in storage.
So for $99, you're basically making your family safe for the next 25 years.
Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Okay, so here is Lauren.
So Donald ripping on Mitch McConnell and saying, what are you going to do about Roy Moore?
Meanwhile, the entire Democratic Party continues to pretend that Bob Adidas doesn't exist.
If these allegations are true, And how will Mitch McConnell decide if they are true?
Will he question Roy Moore about it?
He has the power to do that.
Will he bring Roy Moore right back to Washington to sit with his potential future Republican colleagues?
And allow those colleagues to question him about this.
Again, this all this pressure from the left.
It makes a lot of people on the right.
We can stop it there.
It makes a lot of people on the right feel as though this is a political partisan hit job.
And then if the situation were reversed, they would be defending their Democrats, which probably is true, right?
Jeffrey Goldberg says the Washington Post is neutral on Moore.
Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor of the Atlantic.
That's obviously laughable.
The Washington Post is not neutral on Moore.
Their editorial board endorsed his opponent in Alabama.
So obviously they have some feelings on the issue.
Now, Does that mean that the allegations are not credible or the reporting is bad?
No, it doesn't.
But when people keep insisting that the Washington Post has no agenda with regard to the election, two things can be true at once.
They can have an agenda and the allegations can be true.
But people seem to be able to take only one perspective.
If they have an agenda, that means the allegations are false, or the allegations are true and they have no agenda.
Here's Jeffrey Goldberg saying that Washington Post has no agenda, which obviously is not true.
So on the one hand, we do have an intolerance for this across different fields and industries.
On the other hand, you can still succeed in America pretty easily with some really nasty stuff in your background.
Well, especially if you believe that the other side is making this stuff up or doing it only for partisan reasons.
I mean, this is why so many people are sticking with the party because they believe that the other side is lying about what really... They're trying to cast the Washington Post as oppo research and the Washington Post is actually neutral.
Okay, this idea when you have all these media people who hate Trump, hate Moore, sitting around going, we're neutral arbiters.
No wonder so many people are reacting this way.
There's a poll out today showing that 37% of evangelicals said that they are more likely to vote for Roy Moore in the aftermath of the allegations.
That's not because they actually believe he raped a 14-year-old or tried to, right?
That's because they believe that the media is out to get him.
Right?
It's that simple.
That's obviously what's going on here.
So this perspective, I think, has become the default perspective for a lot of Republicans and a lot of Democrats.
Because next time there's a Bill Clinton character who goes around sexually assaulting women, Democrats are going to say, well, you guys were fine with Trump and Moore.
That's the way this is going to go.
And it has been going this way for the last 20 years.
I think that Trump and Moore are just the culmination of that effect.
Right?
Here's Chuck Todd.
Chuck Todd says, did Trump get a pass from voters because of Bill Clinton's behavior?
Well, the answer is sort of yes, right?
I mean, I think there's some truth to that.
What do you say to voters who say, um, boy, all these people that were upset about Donald Trump, they weren't upset about Bill Clinton.
Do you think that one of the reasons why Donald Trump got a pass from voters is because of what happened in the 90s to Bill Clinton?
Okay, the answer to that question is obviously yes.
We don't need her answer.
The answer to that question is obviously yes.
This has become the predominant perspective.
So, perspective number one.
Not one I think is particularly moral, but it certainly is prevalent.
Is turnabout is fair play?
If nobody's gonna have any standards on this, why should we?
Okay, perspective number two is, I think, maybe the most honest and also the most immoral perspective.
This is the David Horowitz perspective, which is, okay, so he molested a 14-year-old girl, who cares?
Seriously, this is actually David Horowitz's perspective.
He tweeted out, in my view, more is guilty as accused, but one, it happened 30 years ago, which, um, so.
Two, he can't be removed from the ballot, again, um, So, this is the binary perspective that literally Donald Trump could have shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Really.
Like, literally done it.
Obama, the Clintons, Holder, Lynch, Abedin, Cheryl Mills, etc., and their crimes are far, far worse.
So this is the binary perspective that literally Donald Trump could have shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Really.
Like literally done it.
And David Horowitz would have supported him because he doesn't want Hillary Clinton to be president.
So this does raise a question that we're all going to have to deal with.
What are you willing to accept in a candidate to defeat the other side?
If you believe the other side is so deeply evil that every seat is worth electing a child molester, then we may as well kiss goodbye to any standards for our candidates at all.
Because some of our candidates will probably be good people, but some of them may be absolute crap-fests.
And to be honest, this seems like, again, a very common perspective that no one actually wants to articulate, right?
This seems almost like the underlying perspective for a lot of people who say the turnabout is fair play.
There are a certain number of them, a subset, who say, who cares?
Okay, fine, let's say he did it.
The other side's still worse.
They're still worse.
Still worse is a very good excuse for you embracing something really, really bad.
This was one of the logics that I found utterly non-compelling and actually quite off-putting during the last election cycle.
It exists on the left, however.
The left still maintains that JFK is some sort of halcyon of decency and wonder.
Right?
JFK, his Camelot.
Here's what we know about JFK, right?
We know that there was a woman named Mimi Alford who was an intern at the White House.
She was 18 when she started there.
She wrote a book called Once Upon a Secret, My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath.
She was at the White House intern, a 19-year-old rising sophomore at Wheaton College, and JFK used her as basically a drug mule and apparently as a whore.
I mean, that's basically her allegation.
According to the New Republic, her story is entirely believable.
She was an attractive, naive recent graduate of Ms. Porter's school.
Ms. Porter's was also the alma mater of Jackie Kennedy and of a slightly older White House secretary named Fiddle, with whom Kennedy was also having an affair.
And apparently he was also dallying with Fiddle's close friend, Faddle, a secretary in the press office.
I mean, JFK was just a scumbag.
Apparently he led Mimi into his wife's bedroom, unbuttoned her blouse, touched her breasts, pulled down her underwear, dropped his pants, climbed on top of her, and had sex with her.
When she told him she was a virgin, he became more compassionate, but neither in that sexual encounter nor any other did he kiss her on the lips.
And then...
There was one incident where there was a guy named Dave Powers who worked for Kennedy, who was sitting poolside while the president and I swam lazy circles around each other, splashing playfully.
Remember, she's 19, JFK at this point is in his 40s.
The allegation's about more that he was 33 and the girl was 16 or 17 or 18, except for the 14-year-old, which is another allegation.
Dave had removed his jacket and loosened his tie in the warm air of the pool, but he was otherwise fully clothed.
He was sitting on a towel with his pants leg rolled up and his bare feet dangling in the water.
The president swam over and whispered in my ear, Mr. Powers looks a little tense.
Would you take care of it?
It was a dare, but I knew exactly what he meant.
This was a challenge to give Dave Powers oral sex.
And then JFK basically manipulated this young girl into doing this.
And the left still celebrates him.
So there's a group of people on the left who say the same thing.
Well, JFK was better than his opposition.
He was better than Tricky Dick Nixon.
So who cares?
I'll give you another example of the who cares phenomenon.
Harvey Milk, considered a hero by many on the left.
Harvey Milk is considered just a wonderful, wonderful man, a hero, a sexual hero.
Okay, Harvey Milk statutorily raped a 16-year-old boy, okay?
The guy's name was John Galen McKinley, and he was 16 years old, and Milk, who was then 33, right, very similar to the allegations, began living with this kid, this 16-year-old kid.
They moved into Harvey Milk's Upper West Side apartment, according to a biography by Randy Schiltz.
It says, they bought a dog named Trick, a cat they called Trade, and settled into a middle-class domestic marriage.
At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.
Okay, his lover at this age was 16 years old.
Does the left have anything to say about that?
Again, the answer is no, because who cares?
Harvey Milk was a hero, and so we have to bury all of this stuff.
We can't imagine that people are multifaceted, and so we have to bury all this stuff.
So perspective number one is the other side does it, so who cares?
I think that's wrong, and I'll explain why in a minute I think that's wrong.
I've really explained it already a little bit, which is just because the other side does it doesn't mean it's moral for you to do it.
If the other side is electing a bunch of murderers, that doesn't mean it's moral for you to elect a bunch of murderers to fight them.
Number two is the other side is so evil that we have to do everything possible to stop them, including siding with terrible people.
That shows very little faith in humanity.
It also shows very little faith in God, really.
That God always has to use the most imperfect vessel.
And it really shows little faith in human beings because the fact is that Roy Moore, if he dropped out today, there'd be a writing campaign for Luther Strange or for Mo Brooks, and that person would likely win the seat.
Right now the polls show that Moore is down about four points to the Democratic challenger in freaking Alabama.
Okay.
Perspective number three.
is one that I'm hearing a lot.
It's sort of a legalistic perspective that I think is really just, again, a facet of the first two.
The other side does it, and who cares?
And that is, he wasn't convicted in a court of law.
I'm hearing this a lot.
I know that there's a guy online named Jacob Wohl, and he's been saying this.
He wasn't convicted in a court of law.
That's true.
You know who else was not convicted in a court of law?
Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton was not convicted in a court of law of anything, and yet we treated her as a criminal because she was committing criminal activities no matter what James Comey said, and we didn't vote her into the office of the White House because of that.
Right, so the bottom line is that, you know, in your own mind, you don't get to beg off just because the person wasn't convicted unless this is a consistent rule you uphold.
If your consistent rule is, I will vote for anyone so long as they weren't convicted, then you'd vote for OJ Simpson for higher office so long as he voted the right way on abortion.
But acknowledge that this is what you're doing.
The reality is that's not how people vote.
That's not true.
So all I'm asking from people is that they uphold a consistent standard.
If your standard is you don't care because the other side does it, or if your standard is you don't care because the other side is so evil, or if your standard is the person has to be legally convicted in order for me to care, then at least uphold that standard on all sides, but you don't get to pick and choose which people you're going to use the new standard for.
Senator Tim Scott, I think, has this exactly right.
He says, listen, in the end, it is not the judge that's gonna be the judge.
It's gonna be the voters who are the judge, just as they were with Hillary Clinton.
In this case though, if the allegations are true, he's denying them.
How do you find proof?
There's no doubt that the case is compelling.
The judge and the jury in this case will be the people of Alabama, the voters of Alabama.
They will have an opportunity to weigh in very clearly and decisively and very shortly.
But this current situation will have to be solved by the people of Alabama.
The voters will be the judge and the jury.
Okay, so that being the case, this brings up the final two perspectives, and these are the ones that I think are really the most interesting and honest.
These are the ones that I think matter the most.
Okay, the first perspec- you know, I'll give you those in one second.
These are the perspectives that matter the most.
But, before that, I first want to say thank you to our sponsors over at stamps.com.
So, you don't want to go to the post office and wait in line.
You just don't.
Okay?
You may love the post office.
It may be your favorite place.
You don't have time for that.
You have work to do.
That's why you need to go over to Stamps.com.
We use it here at the office.
Stamps.com allows you to print out postage directly at your office.
You can print it directly onto the envelope.
You can print it onto a sticker.
You can print it onto a piece of paper and tape it to the envelope.
They will give you a digital scale so that you don't have to worry about what kind of postage you're using, if it's the right amount of postage, and if it's going to come back to you.
Stamps.com is everything that you need from the post office except it's right here at your office.
They bring all the amazing services of the postal service to your fingertips.
Again, buy print official U.S.
postage for any letter, any package, any class of mail.
We use stamps.com at the office because we run a tight ship.
And if you run a tight ship, you should as well.
Right now you can enjoy the stamps.com service with a special offer that includes a four week trial plus postage and a digital scale.
It's a pretty awesome deal.
Just go to stamps.com and there's a microphone at the top of the page and type in Shapiro.
That's stamps.com and then enter that promo code Shapiro.
And that means that you will get a four week trial plus postage and a digital scale, which is pretty great, right?
You get all those things and you never have to go to the post office again.
Again, that's stamps.com.
Promo code Shapiro.
There's a reason that we use it here at Daily Wire.
Okay, so.
Finally, the last two perspectives.
So the first three perspectives all have something in common.
They're basically saying, he could have done it, and I'm still not sure that I would do anything about it.
Right?
Then, there's the perspective of the people who believe that this sort of thing makes a difference.
Right, who believe that if he actually did it, then he should not be running for Senate, and we should not elect him to the Senate.
And this brings up where I think most people actually are, right?
I think most people actually are here... Okay, let me rephrase.
Most people may be in the first category, but they like to think they're in this category.
Right, most people may be in the category where they don't really care whether Moore did it, they just want to know whether he's going to be a senator they like.
But where most people want to believe in their heart they are is that it would make a difference if a guy molested a 14-year-old in their vote.
Okay, so this breaks down into two categories.
The allegations against Moore are credible.
The allegations against Moore are not.
So what we've been hearing consistently from Republicans is if this is true, he should step down.
The problem is there's no way really to prove it's true because it's a he-said-she-said situation.
Which means that you have to use your brain and determine whether you think the allegations are credible.
And I'm not going to decide that for you.
I happen to think the allegations are credible.
I think they're credible because there are multiple witnesses who are contemporaneous who back up the account because they weren't there to see the thing but she apparently told them about it at the time.
It's credible because apparently, according to a former DA who worked with Moore, it was common knowledge she used to hang out at the high school and pick up chicks.
All of this seems credible to me, but you can certainly make the case it's not particularly credible.
You can make that case.
So, Pat Toomey, the senator from Pennsylvania, he's saying that.
He's saying, you know, I'm not sure I find these allegations particularly credible.
Again, you can hold this perspective for sure, and what you may think is that this is a political hit job, it's an opal research piece that's not well substantiated, designed to take out Moore, And so the motivation combines with the lack of credibility of the story to mean that it's all BS.
Okay, so here's Pat Toomey sort of making that case.
Look, I've said I don't find the denial terribly credible, but when someone waits 40 years before they make an accusation, you know, that raises a question itself.
So it's probably not knowable, but there seems to be enough there that it's very disturbing.
Okay, so, you know, again, it's not credible, it's not knowable.
Waiting 40 years raises questions.
Waiting many years to talk about this stuff, as I discussed last week, really is not the key issue.
Really.
If you know women who have been sexually assaulted, many of them never reported it, but they'll tell you about it.
The reason they didn't report it is because they were 14 or 15 and they felt adrift.
They felt like they may have been guilty.
They felt like the cops weren't going to listen to them.
They felt like people were going to attach that stigma to them the rest of their lives and they'd rather hide it and try and deal with it themselves.
Not rare in the slightest.
There are people trying to call into question the credibility of the count.
I think bottom line is you're either going to have to believe the woman who says that she was assaulted when she was 14 or you're not going to because Breitbart has been trying to take this apart and they're doing a terrible job of it.
So Breitbart obviously is very invested in this particular race because Steve Bannon wanted to claim credit for his primary win, Moore's primary win, even though he really had nothing to do with it.
But he's tied himself to Moore's leg, and so now he's assigned two reporters.
One of them, actually, is the Jerusalem bureau chief, Aaron Klein, who's done a good amount of good reporting in the Middle East, but hasn't done much here.
There's a piece here saying, I like Aaron, but this is not a particularly revelatory report.
This was the lead at Breitbart yesterday.
Exclusive.
Mother of Roy Moore accuser contradicts key detail of daughter's sexual misconduct story.
So that sounds pretty damning, right?
Sounds like the story's falling apart, right?
That a key detail is falling apart.
Here is the key detail.
This is a direct quote from the story.
Corfman, the woman's name is Leigh Corfman.
Clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was her phone in her bedroom on at least one of those occasions.
The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.
Wells, Corfman's mother, was asked by Breitbart News, back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?
No, she replied matter-of-factly, but the phone in the house could get through to her easily.
And then it says the Post's story relies heavily on Corfman's memory and her ability to recount events consistently.
Is that a real inconsistency that she said she was talking on her phone in her bedroom?
Okay, first of all, it's possible that the Washington Post should have put a comma after her phone, comma, in her bedroom.
Second of all, I know that all the young kids today don't remember actual phones with wires attached to them, but Every person who remembers a phone attached to a wire remembers taking a phone and stretching it all the way to their bedroom.
Every single person.
Okay, if you ever look at the old phones that have cords on them, all of the cords are stretched out of recognition.
Right, they have the curly cords, you know, they're all curled like a pig's tail.
You know, if you pull, if you go look, go look at, and you'll go to your grandma's house and look at the phone that has on the wall that cord.
That cord is stretched out of recognition.
It's all, it's all messed up.
The reason it's messed up is because kids take the phone and they pull it all the way in their room and then they talk there.
If this is Breitbart's great hope to discredit the story, that's weak tea.
Okay, here's another Breitbart headline.
Weak tea, more weak tea from Breitbart.
And the headline was exclusive.
Mother of Roy Moore accuser.
Washington Post reporters convinced my daughter to go public.
Now, if they really think that that's actually a slap against the credibility of the woman, it's precisely the reverse.
Right?
If you were a publicity whore and you were looking to get into the papers by giving a false allegation, wouldn't you be seeking out the Washington Post?
I mean, this is what reporters do.
Reporters call up people and try to convince them to go on the record.
That happens on a routine basis.
It's happened to me many times.
I've done it several times.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with that.
That's how people go on the record.
So again, this is a bit of a stretch.
Again, you may find that the allegations are not credible.
You may think the timing means that the allegations are not credible.
I don't quite buy that, but that's at least a case.
That's the case that you're going to make.
If you say child molestation is enough to keep you out of the Senate, you need to make the case the woman's not credible.
Finally, there's perspective five, and that is that this is credible.
I'll tell you who thinks this is credible.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell said today that he thinks it's credible.
The Trump administration is saying they think it's credible.
Okay, Kellyanne Conway went out yesterday and basically said she thinks it's credible.
The Trump administration said if it's true, more should step down.
Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, who's a lackey for Trump, here's what he had to say about it yesterday.
I'm not an expert on this issue, but what I would say is people should investigate this issue and get the facts.
And if these allegations are true, absolutely.
This is incredibly inappropriate behavior.
Do you believe the allegations?
Again, I just watch what I see on TV.
I know, but you have an opinion.
Do you believe them?
It appears that there is a significant issue here that needs to be addressed.
Okay, so that's basically his way of saying, yes, they're credible.
So, the reason that I'm spending so much time on this is because I think that we all need to, as moral human beings, as people who are trying to do the right thing, I think we need to examine in our own minds what our standards are, so that we know for the future.
Like, let's be honest about our own standards here.
It's the dishonesty that bothers me, not actually your standard.
Your standard may bother me, but the dishonesty bothers me more.
My standard is people who sexually abuse children at 14, or about whom there are credible allegations, should not be sitting in the Senate.
That's my standard.
And then I determine that I think these allegations are credible or not.
I tend to think that they're credible, at least according to what I've seen so far.
Then there are people who say they're not credible.
Okay, again, if that's what you come up with, if you think that these are not credible allegations, explain why, and maybe we can have a conversation about that.
Then there are the other perspectives.
One, it doesn't matter.
Because the other side is so terrible.
If you think that, we shouldn't live in a country with other people who are called Democrats.
We should actually go to war with them.
If you believe that people are so evil, that in order to fight them, you need to elect child molesters to the Senate, then I would suggest that we ought to be in a state of open war, rather than pretending that we live in the same country.
Then there's the perspective that the other side does it, so it's okay for me.
This is a way that you have a race to the bottom on politics.
I talked about this last week.
I object to the prisoner's dilemma logic, because prisoner's dilemma does not carry a moral burden.
That's just a question of game theory.
But when it carries a moral burden, there is a moral burden to you when you say, I care more about losing the Senate seat in Alabama than electing an alleged child molester to that seat.
I think that's immoral as well.
And then there's the final perspective, which is that he wasn't convicted by a jury.
If that's been your consistent standard, fine.
If it hasn't been, then just recognize that you're full of it.
Okay.
Time for... I want to talk about the greatest tweet that Trump has ever sent.
So here is the greatest tweet that Trump has ever sent.
It's one of the reasons that Trump supporters love him.
His approval rating is back up to 46%.
This demonstrates every time Trump goes abroad and he can't stay at home, fulminating about domestic issues and bothering everyone, everyone likes him.
When he's overseas...
And I shouldn't say everyone.
His approval rating is at 46% right now.
That's the highest it's been in a long time.
The reason is because he's overseas and he's kind of slapping people around overseas and we sort of like that.
So apparently Kim Jong-un called Trump old.
So Trump responded this way.
This is the greatest single tweet of my lifetime.
It's so good.
He said, why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me old when I would never call him short and fat?
Oh wow.
I try so hard to be his friend and maybe someday that will happen.
Spectacular.
Spectacular.
Pete Trump.
Okay I gotta admit like there are a bunch of people who are getting all exercise about this.
I love it.
I think it's hilarious.
Like trolling Kim Jong-un.
Okay maybe we'll all die in nuclear hellfire tomorrow.
Possible.
You know, in the history books we'll read, World War III began when a Twitter storm ran out of control and Kim Jong-un fired a nuclear-tipped missile at California based on Donald J. Trump calling him short and fat.
I don't think that's what's going to happen, so who cares?
I think it's hilarious.
It's really, really... Like, no, they have a sense of humor, people.
That's some funny stuff.
Okay, so...
I want to talk a little bit about Trump abroad.
That was the good of Trump abroad.
Then I want to talk about some of the other things he said, plus this horrible column from the New York Times.
But first, you're going to have to go over and subscribe at dailywire.com.
For $9.99 a month, you can subscribe at dailywire.com.
When you do, you get the rest of my show live on video, you get the rest of Michael Knowles' show live on video, you get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live on video, you get to be part of my mailbag, And you also get to be part of the mailbag on The Conversation.
So the next episode of The Conversation is happening tomorrow, Tuesday, November 14th, 5 p.m.
Eastern, 2 p.m.
Pacific, featuring Michael Moll's God Help Us.
Michael's Conversation will stream live on The Daily Wire website, Facebook page, and YouTube channel.
It'll be free for everyone to watch, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
That's why you should subscribe.
Subscribe today and ask Michael questions and join The Conversation tomorrow, and you can watch it no matter what, but you can only ask questions if you're a subscriber.
If you get the annual subscription instead of $9.99 a month, it is $99 a year, which is actually cheaper.
And it comes with this, the most wonderful vessel for beverage drinking ever created, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Mug, currently filled with soothing tea.
And let me tell you, it holds tea like no other vessel.
It is just spectacular.
So go over and check that out.
If you want to listen later, please subscribe to our channel over at YouTube.
Go over to iTunes and SoundCloud, subscribe there.
Leave us a review, we always appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Okay, so Trump Abroad sends that tweet, which again, I think it's just, it is a spectacular tweet.
I mean, that is a 10 out of 10 for Trump.
And then he sent some other things that were not so great.
He continues to make weird noises about Russia, about how he wants to be best friends with Putin.
Here's what he said about getting along with Russia.
Now, at the same time, I want to be able, because I think it's very important, to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve.
And frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems.
So, I'm not looking to stand and start arguing with somebody when there's reporters all around and cameras recording and seeing our conversation.
I think it was very obvious to everybody.
I believe that President Putin really feels, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election.
Okay, so who cares if you feel strongly they didn't meddle in the election?
What difference does that make?
A lot of people were upset with Trump for saying this.
Again, this is typical Trump, but the reason people on the right aren't so upset is because on the other side of the national security aisle are a bunch of people on the left who pretended that Russia was no threat at all back in 2012, when Mitt Romney was calling him the lead geopolitical threat on planet Earth, and Barack Obama was saying that the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back.
John Brennan and James Clapper, both of them political hacks, they were out there ripping Trump saying, well, it's a badge of honor to be called political hacks by Trump.
Well, they are political hacks.
I mean, James Clapper went in front of the Congress of the United States and lied openly about NSA programs.
The president also called both of you and FBI Director Comey political hacks.
All three of you worked in senior levels in the Obama administration, although you also worked during the Bush administration.
How do you respond to the charge?
Well, first of all, he was referring to us as political hacks because he was trying to delegitimize the intelligence community assessment that was done.
Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, and John Brennan did not write that assessment.
It was written by the professional intelligence officers and law enforcement officers of this great country.
Secondly, I feel very honored to be associated with Jim Clapper and Jim Comey in the same category.
And considering the source of the criticism, I consider that criticism- Okay, the problem is they destroyed their own credibility, and then Trump goes after their credibility.
This is their own fault.
If you destroy your own credibility, and then Trump goes after your credibility, even on behalf of silly causes, then that is really the fault of these people.
Trump is saying a lot of things I disagree with on the foreign policy front, but the bottom line is, so long as he's attacking people like Clapper and people like Brennan, he's gonna get away with it because they destroyed their credibility long before Trump ever touched them with a 10-foot pole.
Okay, time for some things I like, things I hate, and then we'll go through a Federalist paper.
We go through one of those a week.
So, things I like.
Over the weekend, I got to see Thor Ragnarok.
I loved it.
I thought it was, love is a little strong.
I strongly liked it.
I thought it was really, really, really funny.
You have to go in knowing that it is just funny.
Right?
It's not going to be meaningful.
It's not going to be moving.
It's not going to be deep.
You're not going to feel anything.
But you're going to laugh, because it's really funny.
Chris Hemsworth is a very talented comic actor.
Mark Ruffalo is fine.
I don't think he was particularly funny, but I think that Hemsworth was a good comic actor.
Tom Hiddleston, who plays Loki, is a fine comic actor.
There are a lot of very, very funny moments in this.
The best thing in it is actually a character who is made of rocks and is voiced by the director, who's really, really funny as well.
So, go in and enjoy yourself.
It's a really enjoyable film.
Jeff Goldblum gives a bizarre, fully... I mean, he goes full Goldblum.
Like, there is no half Goldblum.
He goes full Goldblum in this one.
And it's very enjoyable.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
So much has happened since I last saw you.
I lost my hammer, like, yesterday, so that's still pretty fresh.
And then I went on a journey of self-discovery.
Where I met you.
Where are we?
- You have no idea. - Hello, the goddess of death has invaded Asgard.
- Okay, so the movie basically has no plot Okay, the plot of the movie is almost irrelevant.
What's funny is all the jokes, and it starts right off the top.
I mean, the very first five minutes of the film has a very, very funny visual sight gag that's very funny.
Go and enjoy it.
It's just a good time.
It's not going to be something that you sit around contemplating at the end of days, but it is something where if you just need a break and you need to laugh, then it'll... By the way, this is my favorite kind of Marvel movie.
DC movies I expect some depth from.
Marvel movies I want to be Ant-Man.
This one is a lot closer to Ant-Man than it is to Captain America, which is good because I don't like the Captain America movies.
I think they're wildly overrated.
Okay.
Let's go straight to some things that I hate.
It is amazing how depending on where you are politically, you can get away with certain So, George Takei went after President Trump, as you remember, for the P-word tape, saying that if you're famous, you can grab women by the bleep and get away with it.
Here's George Takei on Howard Stern's show, being asked about sexually assaulting men.
And the Fuhrer is non-existent.
It doesn't exist.
Listen to what Takei says here.
All your years involved with c**t, you never hassled anybody or grabbed their c**t?
I never c**t anybody by the c**t. Yeah.
Did you ever grab anyone by the c**t against their will?
Uh-oh.
Oh, no.
Well, they were different times.
You never sexually harassed anyone.
Hey, boner.
Have you?
Oh, my goodness.
You've got such a beautiful car.
It's some people that are kind of skittish.
Right.
Or maybe afraid.
And you're trying to persuade.
But, you know, do we need to call the police?
The answer is yes, you do need to call the police.
But Takei gets away with it.
And then what does Takei says?
He blames the Russians.
He literally tweeted out yesterday that this is only an issue because the Russians were making an issue out of it.
He said, a friend sent me this.
It is a chart of what Russian bots have been doing to amplify stories containing the allegations against me.
It's clear they want to cow me into silence.
But do not fear, friends.
I won't succumb to that.
Succumb to what?
First of all, there's nothing there about Russian bots.
People are talking about you because you said you grabbed dudes by the wiener.
Okay, that's literally what you said on Howard Stern's show in order to encourage them.
If you're a straight man doing that to a woman, you might be arrested.
Okay, but if you're on the left, I guess you get away with this kind of nonsense.
Okay, other things that I hate.
So I mentioned there's this New York Times column that's just astonishingly awful.
It's by a professor over at Yeshiva University, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.
And this professor has written a piece basically saying that he doesn't want to teach his kids to be friends with white kids.
It starts off, the professor's name is Ikao Yanka.
And it says, my oldest son, wrestling with a four-year-old's happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend.
He says, my best friends are you and mama and my brother, Ann, but even a child's joy is not immune to this ominous political period.
This summer's images of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, prompted an array of questions.
Some people hate others because they are different, I offer lamely.
A childish but distinct panic entered his voice.
But I'm not different.
It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him.
Donald Trump election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped.
I will teach them to be cautious.
I will teach them suspicion.
I will teach them distrust much sooner than I thought I would.
I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.
This thing continues for like 900 words about why you can't if you're a black person, you can't have meaningful friendships with white people.
He says he wants to teach his child to distrust white people.
He says Martin Luther King's famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.
Well, no, that's not what he said.
He said that he had a dream that one day that would be possible, and this guy is fighting against that.
He said, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible.
It's a direct quote.
Imagine the races were reversed, and think about how Richard Spencer would write this, or John C. Calhoun.
He actually says, I mean it's astonishing, he says, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line.
Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside.
So I guess we're not all the same on the inside.
I mean, this is baseline racism being run in the op-ed page of the New York Times, but if you're on the left, you can get away with it.
Just astonishing stuff.
Again, I don't know if they're in a competition to run the worst editorial of all time every day, but each day they seem to be topping themselves over at the New York Times editorial page.
Okay, quick note.
Federalist 3, so we can do this one really quickly because this is one of the more famous Federalist papers.
We've been going through one of the Federalist papers each week.
We did Federalist 1 and 2 the last couple of weeks.
Now it's Federalist 3, this one written by John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
This is long before that, of course.
So in this Federalist paper, Jay is trying to make the case that we should have one united country instead of a bunch of little countries, right?
Why we should be one country instead of a bunch of states that have their own foreign policy and borders.
He says that we need one united country to prevent foreign invasions.
He said local governments won't be able to follow sectional foreign policies because we'll have a national government instead.
And he makes this point.
He says it is of high importance to the peace of America that you observe the law of nations toward all these powers.
And to me, it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could either be done by 13 separate states or by three or four distinct confederacies.
The idea being, if you want to bring war to the continent, all you have to do is have three or four different places on the continent each declaring war in their own good time, which of course is true.
And then he makes the point, he says, not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is.
But there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual states.
And this is true historically.
If you look at a lot of the conflicts with Native Americans, they were not driven by the federal government.
They were driven by various state governments seeking to enlarge their territory and mistreat Native Americans.
In many cases, the federal government was called in to militate against those states.
So this was the case that John Jay was making.
You need a national government because a series of smaller governments would generate more conflict and more.
That's certainly been true throughout American history.
Okay, so we will be back here tomorrow with all of the latest updates.
I'm speaking at UCLA tonight.
I believe it's sold out.
Maybe you can find some tickets online that you can find scalped or something.
But it's happening tonight at 6 p.m.
at UCLA, so I look forward to seeing you there.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection