All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 12, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:03
Of Trump and Haiti | Ep. 452
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All righty, so the President of the United States is in supremely hot water after he calls a bunch of countries bleep holes and then suggests that people shouldn't immigrate from there to here.
We will explain what the controversy is about from every possible angle.
Plus, we've got the mailbag and the media have decided that they don't actually have to use bleeps anymore.
They're just going to say straight out holes.
So we'll talk about all those things.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
It's another day and another controversy, which means that all of Twitter, all of the news cycle, all of Facebook is now a flaming bleephole.
This is where we are now.
Yes, it wasn't as though anyone could have predicted that life would become a turd tornado.
Should politics make a turn in this direction?
No one ever would have used that sort of language, say, a year ago, two years ago.
But, you know, we'll just leave that out there.
OK, before I go any further, I want to say the next Tuesday, January 16th, you should tune in at 5 p.m.
Eastern, 2 p.m.
Pacific to DailyWire.com or our Facebook page or our YouTube page, because we're doing our fifth episode of The Conversation, which features Andrew Klavan and Elisha Krauss.
Subscribe today and you become part of the conversation.
You can ask Drew live questions.
And he will answer those for everyone to hear.
Again, his conversation is going to stream live on the Daily Wire Facebook page.
If you want to ask questions, you have to go over to our website at dailywire.com, click on the conversation page, you can watch the live stream, just type your questions into the Daily Wire chat box, and Alicia will funnel those to Drew.
So you can only do that if you subscribe.
Again, you can get your questions answered by Andrew Klavan, Tuesday, January 16th, 5pm Eastern, 2pm Pacific, and join the conversation.
So I'm very eager.
To break down everything to do with President Trump's alleged remarks.
I say alleged because it is not clear whether he actually said them.
He is now denied saying them.
A bunch of people in the room say that he said them.
We don't know what he said or how he said it.
There's no context.
There's no tape.
We'll get to all of that in a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Texture.
You love information, and you love in-depth information.
You love in-depth reporting.
Well, that's where the magazine business really does some great stuff.
You know, Daily Wire, we have a lot of great commentary, and we have a lot of great quick hit reporting.
But if you want these sort of in-depth, long-form profiles where you learn in-depth information about topics, that's where the magazine industry really does a tremendous job.
Texture gets you there.
gets you there.
Texture has leading titles like Time the Atlantic, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Wired.
Texture has leading titles like Time the Atlantic, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Wired.
And right now, you can try Texture for free.
And right now, you can try Texture for free.
It's better than print because you get it all digitally.
It's better than print because you get it all digitally.
You can have over 200 of your favorite magazines and their back issues anytime, anywhere.
You can have over 200 of your favorite magazines and their back issues anytime, anywhere.
You're sitting around, you're bored, you pull out your iPad, and suddenly you're looking at back issues of Sports Illustrated.
You're sitting around, you're bored, you pull out your iPad, and suddenly you're looking at back issues of Sports Illustrated.
It's fantastic.
It's fantastic.
You can go to texture.com slash Ben right now, texture.com slash Ben, and you get a free trial, texture.com slash Ben.
And if you try it and you love it, then you get texture.com for $9.99 a month, and that's 30% off their listed price.
It's actually more than 30% off their listed price.
You get a discount when you use texture.com slash Ben, and you get your free trial.
And then if you choose to continue, then texture.com slash Ben allows you to get texture for just $9.99 a month, which is over 30% off their listed price.
Texture.com slash Ben.
Make sure that you're getting the best and most in-depth information that the magazine industry has to offer.
Again, that's like less than the cost very often of getting one or two of these magazines subscribed, and I get 200, which is pretty awesome.
Okay, so...
Yesterday, all hell breaks loose.
All hell breaks loose.
Because the President of the United States has a bipartisan meeting over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Now, Trump thinks he's behind closed doors.
And he thinks this is an off-the-record conversation.
As Trump should know by now, when you're in a room with Democrats and or Republicans, the chances that what you say remain on background or secret are very, very slim to none.
Trump apparently forgot this little problem.
And so he decided to sound off about immigration.
So here's what The Washington Post originally said.
So they reported yesterday that Trump had been having a conversation about protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries.
And when he was talking about El Salvador, that was particularly of interest because the Trump administration had moved to basically revoke the temporary visas for people who have been in the United States from El Salvador, 200,000 of them.
They've been there for, I think, 15 years, and Trump revoked some of their visas.
We don't know the context of the comments.
It's unclear where Trump made these comments.
But here is what he said.
We don't know whether he was talking about the visa diversity lottery program or whether he was talking about targeted deportation of illegal immigrants from particular countries.
That does make a difference because here's what Trump supposedly said.
He said, quote, Bleep is another word for poop.
Why are we having all these people from bleephole countries come here?
Bleep is another word for poop.
Why are we having all these people from bleephole countries come here?
And then the post continues, Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday.
The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt they helped the United States economically.
He then reportedly continued, why do we need more Haitians?
Take them out.
So Jake Tapper reports that what he meant by that is he was specifically talking about revoking the temporary visas for Haitians who have been here after the earthquake of about 10 years ago.
So that's the entirety of the comments, right?
That apparently he was talking about Haiti and African countries.
And he said, why are we having all these people from bleep hole countries come here?
And then he said, why do we need more Haitians?
Take them out.
So I'm going to give you my basic take on all of this, but in light of how people have reacted to this.
So there have been a bunch of reactions against these comments.
Obviously, is this something that the President of the United States should be saying?
Not even close.
Not even close.
Again, this is not something the President of the United States should be dropping in private or public.
It's kind of yucky.
And not just is it yucky, the implication could be taken as racist.
Now, I'm going to give you two possible reads of his comments.
It's very hard to read, by the way.
The second comment is, why do we need more Haitians?
Take them out.
As anything but bigoted.
But those first comments, why are we having all these people from bleephole countries come here?
People are taking this to mean that he means that everyone from bleephole country is a bleephole, and that's why they shouldn't come here.
I'm not sure that that is fully in evidence.
So, there's a few reasons why people are angry today.
And we'll go through why people are angry, and as we go through, you'll see sort of why I think that this may be a little bit overblown, depending on how you interpret his comments.
First of all, let me explain the vagary in the comments.
There are two ways of interpreting this comment.
Way one is he's saying there are bleephole countries and the people from those countries are bleepholers and therefore they shouldn't come to the United States.
This would be bigotry, right?
To suggest that Haitians cannot come to the United States because Haiti's a bad country is just silly.
OK, it's just a silly idea.
It's not just silly, it's bigoted, it's racist, it's counterproductive.
A huge number of Haitian immigrants come to the United States and get college degrees.
I believe that the statistic is something like, for new African immigrants, for countries, Haiti's not in Africa, but for African immigrants, the number of People who come to the United States and get college degrees actually higher than the American population at large.
Immigrant populations very often are escaping bad countries.
That's the reason they're coming here.
And so they know why their countries are bad, right?
Look at Cuban immigrants who are coming from Cuba.
Cuba is kind of a bleephole country according to many Cuban expatriates.
That's why they're leaving.
That's why they're coming here.
The same thing is true of the Vietnamese boat people who left and came here because they're trying to escape the destruction of their country.
So the idea that you're coming from a country that's a bleephole, and therefore you're a bleephole, is obviously racist and silly and bigoted.
A huge percentage of people who came over from Nazi Germany ended up being wonderful citizens of the United States, Germans and Jews alike.
The same thing is true of people who are trying to escape Russian pogroms and Polish pogroms.
The same thing is true of people who come from China.
The vast majority of immigrants to this country are wonderful people who are trying to do hard work and enrich the country by coming here.
So the suggestion that you can judge a person from the country because they're from the country is, of course, bigotry.
And people who are reading Trump's comments this way have a little bit of support in the idea that Trump has said in the past, for example, that a Mexican judge could not properly judge him because he was Mexican.
So people are looking at Trump's track record of linking ethnicity to politics or to judgment or to capacity, and they're saying that this fits in with those comments.
So that's a plausible read.
Here's another plausible read.
And this is the one people are ignoring.
The other plausible read is that Trump is saying, look, we have a diversity visa lottery program.
And that diversity visa lottery program is designed to take in people by country.
It doesn't evaluate them on an individual level.
Now, let me backtrack for a second.
My own position on immigration is if there is no welfare, if there is no social safety net, I am for free and open immigration.
Whoever wants to come can come.
I don't have a problem with anybody coming here so long as they're not mooching off anyone.
I don't care what country they are from.
I do care about cultural impact.
I do care about the viewpoints they espouse.
But if they're not coming here to be violent, if they assimilate to American ideology, I don't care where you are from.
Okay, that said, The Diversity Visa Lottery Program is the opposite of that.
The Diversity Visa Lottery Program says that we are specifically going to bring people in from downtrodden countries, from countries that don't send a lot of immigrants through the legal immigration process.
We're going to go to those countries and bring in a large number of immigrants from those specific countries.
Originally, the Diversity Visa Lottery program was actually designed to get more Irish immigrants into the country in 1965, because there had been a rapid decrease in the number of Irish immigrants entering the country, and so they wanted to use the Diversity Visa Lottery to increase the number of Irish, apparently, in 1965.
That shifted in 1990, and the number one beneficiary of the Diversity Visa Lottery program are people from African countries.
So, here's what Trump could be saying.
He could be saying, listen, if we have to judge people only by country, We're not going to look at them as individuals, which is really how we should do an immigration program.
We should look at people and say, is this a good person?
Or is this a bad person?
Is this someone we want in the country?
Or is this someone we don't want in the country?
That's the way we should do immigration always.
But the diversity visa lottery program says, OK, you're from Ghana, you get in.
You're from France, you don't.
That's really how the lottery program works.
And so Trump might be saying, listen, that seems backward to me, in the sense that if you are just going to take as the only descriptor the country of origin, you have to look at the country of origin, and country of origin does make a difference.
It is easier, put aside race, it's easier, for example, to integrate someone from Great Britain into American ideals than it is to integrate somebody from, say, Russia in American ideals.
Now, Russians are still white people, but the idea that you're coming from a government where there's no history of American ideology That makes no difference at all.
On average, it does make a difference.
And I'll give you some statistics later that show that it makes a difference.
But the point is this.
We shouldn't be responding to the diversity visa lottery by doing what Trump said, which is bringing more people from Norway.
We should be saying, no diversity visa lottery because every individual should be elevated or degraded on their merits.
We should have a merit-based immigration.
Immigration system.
That's the way that we should do this.
So those are the two plausible ways of reading what Trump said.
Now in a second, I'm going to explain to you all the various ways that people have taken his comments and the way that the left, I have to say, they are so stupid because they have a win here, right?
If they want to hit Trump as a racist, it's not hard to get from point A to point B, but they somehow completely miss point B and they just go to point Z.
It's truly crazy.
I'm going to show you in just a second.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Tommy John's.
So right now, this moment, I'm wearing the best underwear that I have ever worn.
They are just spectacular.
Tommy John's, okay?
Innovative designs, patented fabrics.
It ensures that your underwear doesn't ride up.
It's true, it does not ride up.
The waistband does not roll down.
You will never get a wedgie.
You don't have to... It's really comfortable.
It's stretchable.
You never have to adjust.
It's...
Like, these underwear are truly magnificent, and they have some unique design features that are quite convenient and wonderful.
So, check out Tommy John's, okay?
I've tried a bunch of different underwear brands, and this one is the best.
Okay, Tommy John, I can say, even if they were not an advertiser, I'd be saying this.
Tommy John's is the best.
They've taken their comfort expertise, they've applied it to the rest of your apparel as well, so you can get undershirts that stay tucked, socks that don't fall down, second skin tees that are really, really soft, and a choice of smart fabrics for every situation or outfit.
Also, if you don't like it, they have a best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free guaranteed, so you've got nothing to lose.
You order it, you don't like it, and it's free.
So Tommy John, no adjustment needed.
Go to TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro.
You get 20% off your first order.
That's TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro, and that gets you your 20% off your first order, plus it lets them know that we sent you.
You're not going to regret it.
The underwear are just terrific, and so are their other Okay, so the media lost their minds yesterday.
Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro.
No adjustment needed.
And that is meant in every sense of the phrase.
Okay, so the media lost their minds yesterday because they didn't just say.
What Trump is saying here is that he's judging immigrants by their country of origin, and that's bigoted.
There you'd have a pretty solid argument.
Right?
You'd have a solid argument.
Now, as I say, Trump could say, listen, I wasn't saying that you're judging people by their country of origin.
I'm saying that if you are going to judge people by their country of origin, as the diversity visa lottery suggests, then you do have to look at the difference between the cultures of Great Britain and the cultures of, say, Russia or Spain or Greece or any other country.
You're going to have a hierarchy of countries from which it is most likely that people are going to be easily able to assimilate.
That doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me.
And Trump could even say, if you look at that Washington Post story, I say as much.
I say I want more Asian immigrants, meaning from places like South Korea, which has a very westernized country, as opposed to, say, Ivory Coast.
There are certain countries where integration is going to be easier.
And then you'd have to provide some statistics to prove it.
And we'll talk about the statistics in a little while.
But that is not what the media are going nuts over.
So the media have gone nuts over a few different things here.
The first thing they've gone nuts over is the actual vulgarity that Trump said the word bleephole.
Now, number one, Trump said the word bleephole behind closed doors.
And I find it a little bit ridiculous that everybody in the media is saying, how dare Trump say that there are countries that are bleepholes?
I've sat with a lot of these members of the media.
They will call red states bleepholes.
They will call their apartment a bleephole.
They will suggest that the recycling center two blocks from their house is a bleephole.
The idea that you can't say the word bleephole, that suddenly they're very offended by this, is belied by the fact that they then went on TV and decided to say the actual word bleephole by not bleeping it Over and over and over.
So Jim Acosta went nuts yesterday and he just decided to say bleephole 1,000 times in a row.
Again, I don't know what editorial standard is here.
I know NPR has now said that they're not going to bleep it out.
They're going to say shhhole, right?
They're not actually going to bleep it out.
They're going to say the entire word.
Now, what's amazing about this is, of course, this is not the first time in American politics that people have cursed before.
Before I get to the media going crazy over this, first, I want to show you, okay?
You remember when Joe Biden, it was a big headline, Joe Biden said to Barack Obama that when Obamacare passed, he said on an open mic, that this is a big effing deal.
Flashback, okay?
Here's Biden saying that.
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.
Obama.
Thank you, everybody.
Okay, so he says there, if you can't hear it, this is a big effing deal.
This is a big effing deal.
And this was such not a big deal to people that the Democratic Party put out a t-shirt with this on it.
They put out a t-shirt with health reform is a BFD.
I remember they sold this on it.
On the Democratic Party website.
Did the media actually write out, you know, actually spell it out?
Did they actually spell out the F word?
Did they actually report that that's what he said or did they bleep it out?
Of course they bleeped it out, right?
They bleeped it out the same way that we're bleeping it out.
Same thing is true when L.A.
Mayor Eric Garcetti swore at a King's Rally.
This was just a couple of years ago.
This guy wants to run for president and he got up and he said, you know, this is a big effing day.
This is what it looked like.
But there are two rules in politics.
They say never, ever be pictured with a drink in your hand and never swear.
But this is a big f***ing day.
Way to go, guys!
Okay, so there he is saying big f***ing day.
Did the media print any of that?
Of course they didn't print any of that.
But now they're going to say s***hole over and over and over because Trump is the president.
I mean, let's be clear.
This is why they are changing their editorial standards.
So here's Jim Acosta saying it over and over and over.
We bleeped it out, but he did not bleep it.
in which the president referred to countries like Haiti and countries in Africa as a sh**hole.
Obviously, I apologize for using this word here, but this is a quote from the president: "Why are we having all these people from sh**hole countries come here?" Why are we having all these people from...
you get the point.
And I noticed you, Wolf, you hesitated to use that word.
I hesitate to use it myself as an S-hole or S***hole is what the word that The Washington Post is quoting the president is saying.
Okay, I remember when they were suggesting, there was a rumor that I think it was Barack Obama directly to Jeffrey Goldberg.
So you get cursed about Benjamin Netanyahu, if I'm not mistaken.
I think that that happened as well.
This new editorial standard where you only quote the curse word in order to humiliate Trump is obviously directed at Trump.
Chris Cuomo, who's just an ass of epic order, he came out and he said that Trump gave this word to the world.
No one had ever heard this word before.
Trump actually originated it.
The president is just showing you who he is.
This is who he is, okay?
We sum it up in a word, okay?
There it is.
This is the gift that he decided to give the American people.
He says the president, this is who he is.
He is a bleephole, right?
This is what Chris Cuomo now says about Trump.
So, are they really that upset about the vulgarity?
Of course they're not upset about the vulgarity.
That's nonsense.
Okay, that's nonsense.
They don't care about the vulgarity.
Now, the second thing they've become upset about, again, wildly overshooting the mark.
If they want to hit Trump, they should hit him on the idea that immigrants cannot be judged by their country of origin.
Right, that's where they should live.
They should live right there.
But they're too stupid.
They can't do it.
It's impossible for them.
So instead, the media have decided to say that there are no countries that are bleep holes.
All countries are fantastic.
Right, there are none.
All the countries are great.
If you believe this, ask an expatriate from North Korea whether the country is a bleephole.
Ask an expatriate from Sudan whether they would prefer to go back.
Only the left could be this stupid.
Seriously, you have to be a moron to fall into this particular trap, saying that there's no such thing as a bleephole country.
Rich Lowry humiliated Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor, yesterday on the network.
Specifically asking her, like, you're saying that some countries are not bleepholes.
Would you rather live in Haiti, with its average income GDP, its average annual GDP per capita at $730 a year, its average life expectancy at 63, its literacy rate at 61%, would you rather live there or Norway, where the average income is $62,000 a year?
And watch Joan Walsh try to run screaming from this question with her hair on fire.
You know, you're really contradicting what the administration has already said.
They have said the reason that they're ending these protections for Haitians and for Salvadorans specifically is that those countries are no longer basket cases and they can go back.
Now, so you can't really have it both ways.
Well, you're contradicting yourself then.
So if you say they shouldn't go back, Because they're so dangerous, they're so violent, which in the left position, you're saying there are bad cases.
I don't have a left position.
Both countries have a lot of problems.
And a lot of these people have lived here 10, 12, 17 years.
They haven't caused trouble.
Would you rather live in Norway or Haiti?
I didn't actually interrupt you.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I haven't been to either place.
I don't know?
I don't know.
Like, come on.
I don't know.
Of course she knows!
Are you kidding?
Joan Walsh probably wants to move to Norway now.
That's absurd.
It's absurd.
And she's not the only one doing this.
The worst, of course, is Stephen Colbert.
So Stephen Colbert, last night, goes on his show, and this is clip 17, and he explains that there are no bully poll countries except the United States.
We're the only one because Trump is president.
This afternoon he was meeting with lawmakers to discuss immigration policy.
Several of these lawmakers suggested lifting restrictions for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and various African countries.
Trump reportedly said, Why are we having all these people from **** whole countries come here?
Sir?
They're not whole countries.
For one, Donald Trump isn't their president.
OK, stop it right there.
The idea that this is going to win Democrats' elections, are they insane?
This is going to be their pitch?
That Haiti's not a bleephole, but the United States is a bleephole because Trump is president?
Like what?
This logic escapes me.
Again, there's plenty of ways to hit Trump over these comments and plenty of reason to do so.
But to live in the, nobody's a bleephole country except for the United States.
I mean, try, yeah, good luck with that one.
Good luck with that one.
Also, there is something a little bit contradictory about the idea that people have to escape bad countries to come here, but we won't label the country bad in the first place, right?
So Anderson Cooper yesterday talks about how he's been to Haiti and he's helping Haitian children.
This, this is, oh, it's a great story, but I'm wondering, you know, if Anderson Cooper is making the case that people from Haiti are wonderful, that's fine.
But if he's making the case that Haiti is not a bleephole country, you know, in the sort of common parlance, that it's not a crappy place to live, I mean, obviously it is a crappy place to live, and Anderson Cooper is telling you a story about how crappy a place it is to live.
Here he is.
I was there when a young girl named Bea, who'd been trapped in rubble for nearly a day, was rescued by people who had no heavy equipment.
They just had their God-given strength and their determination and their courage.
I was there When a five-year-old boy named Manli was rescued after being buried for more than seven days.
Do you know what strength it takes to survive on rainwater buried under concrete?
A five-year-old boy buried for seven days.
Haitians slap your hand hard when they shake it.
They look you in the eye.
They don't blink.
They stand tall.
And they have dignity.
It's a dignity many in this White House could learn from.
OK, so I totally agree with everything that he's saying about Haitians.
I know a lot of Haitians who are just wonderful, wonderful people.
People who immigrate to this country, by and large, are wonderful people who are coming to make the country better.
But if your argument is that Haiti is a great country, Haiti is not a great place to live.
OK, he just talked about a kid who was buried for seven days under rubble.
That doesn't happen in the United States.
We don't get that in the United States on a regular basis.
We don't have tens of thousands of people who are buried under rubble when an earthquake happens.
Because America is a better place to live than Haiti.
America is a better country than Haiti.
And I mean that by government.
It's a better governed country.
And I mean that in terms of whatever cultural attributes lead to a bad governance there.
That's not to suggest people can't come from Haiti and be wonderful American citizens.
They can.
But to suggest there are no differences between countries is just silly.
It's just silly.
And that's why I'm so bewildered by the attack that the media have chosen to take here.
Now, in a second, I'm going to explain where the media are on more solid ground, and how they are universal in their condemnation, and where there's a possible read that is a little more vague than the one that they are espousing in just a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Legacy Box.
You're looking to preserve your memories, right?
You're looking to preserve all of those old family memories.
You've got all of these old family videos.
You've never looked at them in 30 years.
They're just sitting out there in your garage gathering mold.
It's time for you to grab all that stuff and send it to my friends over at Legacy Box, right?
You grab all that stuff, you send it over to Legacy Box, and what they do is they convert all of it to a DVD or thumb drive ready to watch and share and relive.
We've done some of this with the Shapiro materials.
It makes for a fantastic gift, particularly Father's Day or Mother's Day.
It makes a great Valentine's Day gift.
Again, you're preserving all those old memories, and instead of you having to schlep around tons of boxes, instead, now you get to bring a DVD or a thumb drive.
If there's, God forbid, some sort of natural disaster, a fire in your house, there's some reason you have to leave your house, you're moving, it makes it a lot easier to grab a thumb drive than to put a bunch of photo albums in your car.
That's what it's for.
2018 is the year you preserve your family's legacy.
That's what Legacy Box is.
And for a limited time right now, you save 40% at LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
Get started for just 45 bucks right now at LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
When you use the slash Ben, you save 40%.
This is just a fantastic, fantastic...
I have long suggested that people need to preserve their memories because once those memories are gone, there's no one there to relive them with you.
You need to go out and preserve your memories today.
That's what Legacy Box is for.
Legacybox.com slash Ben.
Again, that's Legacybox.com slash Ben.
Save 40% and get started for $45.
Okay, so now we get to the root of the matter.
People who are suggesting that Trump is a racist.
So, the list of people in media who are saying that Trump is racist for saying this are... it's endless, right?
It's a very, very long list.
So here's just a quick montage of everybody in the media suggesting that President Trump is obviously a racist for the stuff that he said.
The President of the United States is racist.
If it's accurate, it confirms what I've said on this show before.
Donald Trump is a bigot.
Yes, he speaks in a racist way.
It just shows that the president has racist views.
Let's be real clear.
This is the most racist, bigoted, Al Sharpton, my God.
But it doesn't make what he said any less ignorant or any less racist.
Not racial, not racially charged, racist.
Let's not kid ourselves.
This remark by the President of the United States smacks of blatant racism, the most odious and insidious racism masquerading poorly as immigration policy.
This is ignorance.
This is ignorance to speak in such vile, racist terms.
We can dance around it and not really put our finger on it, but the president seems to harbor racist feelings about people of color.
And that last one is Jim Acosta.
Of course, Jim Acosta is the White House press correspondent.
He's not an opinion guy, right?
He's supposed to be the objective news journalist.
So there are a few things here.
So as I have suggested, It is a plausible read that the President of the United States is saying that people from Haiti cannot properly immigrate to the United States because they are bad people because it's a bad country.
That would be racist.
Okay?
That would be racist.
It would be stupid.
To say that he harbors feelings of animosity for people of color as a whole, I think, would be a little bit too broad, considering that in the same article it says that he wants more people to come in from countries like South Korea.
That's full of Asian people who are not white.
But that said, Yes.
I'm not going to pretend it's not a plausible read.
It is a plausible read.
Mia Love, who's the daughter, I believe, of Haitian immigrants, she tweeted out her statement on this.
this.
She said, The president comments, The president comments, The president comments, They worked hard, paid taxes, and rose from nothing to take care of and provide opportunities for their children.
They taught their children to do the same.
That's the American dream.
The president must apologize both to the American people and to the nations he so wantonly maligned.
Okay, so, you know, I think that this is a perfect statement, honestly.
I think that what Mia Love says here is essentially correct.
You come here, you work hard, you play by the rules, you assimilate, you get involved in the American dream.
Anyone who does that should be able to come in.
And if what Trump is saying is that people should not be able to come in based on their country of origin, that's silly.
Okay, that's silly.
It's not just silly.
It's racist.
It actually is racist, and it is bigoted.
But there's another plausible way to read what Trump is saying, right?
The other plausible way to read what Trump is saying is for him to be saying what I said earlier, which is that if you are going to judge people alone by their country, which you should not, You should not, but that's what the Diversity Visa Lottery Program does.
If you're going to judge people's merit based on just country of origin, you cannot pretend that all countries of origin are equally likely to produce the same level of assimilatable citizens.
That would just be silly.
It's obviously untrue.
And the data support this.
There's a study from the Institute for the Study of Labor, December 2009.
And here are their findings.
Their findings are, although immigrants from South America, Canada, Oceania, and Europe use any form of welfare at the same rate as U.S.-born immigrants from Asia, Africa, Central America, and U.S.
protectorates, those ones use welfare more.
So, if you're an immigrant from Asia, Africa, Central America, or U.S.
protectorates, you use welfare more.
And then, they actually analyze to see whether this was just based on the level of poverty that people are when they come over to the United States, if it's based on family size.
They say, we reject the hypothesis that welfare usage is identical across immigrants and U.S.-born, and also reject the related hypothesis that welfare usage is identical for immigrant groups.
This result suggests that welfare usage is not affected by solely economic and standard demographics.
This implies that culture, value, network information, or institution of groups might have a significant role to play in an individual's choice to use welfare.
Culture, values, network information, and institutional background were not controlled for in our probability model and may explain the differential welfare usage across group despite controlling for the standard economic and demographic variables that should predict welfare usage.
Birthplace matters for welfare usage in the U.S.
This is their conclusion.
Birthplace matters for welfare usage in the U.S.
Now, that's not, again, to imply that where you were born means that inevitably you're going to use welfare.
That's silly and racist.
It doesn't mean that as individuals we can judge you based on your country of origin.
It does mean that if you are going to say, we get to now take in 10,000 immigrants, Those 10,000 immigrants are either going to come from South Korea or they're going to come from Russia, an Asian country, or they're going to come with a history of Western civilization, or Russia, where there is very little history of Westernization.
Which one are you going to choose?
And you can only choose one.
You're just going to do it based on the country description.
Then you would probably say, I'd want the South Korean citizens and not necessarily the Russian citizens, if you were going to create a hierarchy of people who are able to assimilate easily in the United States.
That's not a rip on individual Russians.
My ancestors are from Russia.
My great-grandparents came over from Lithuania.
The idea that it doesn't matter at all where you came from in terms of the average, if you're doing it simply by numbers, is obviously not true.
But the idea that you can judge individuals based on this is racist.
This is the same thing as saying, And the black crime rate in the United States is higher than the white crime rate in the United States.
This is true.
But it is racist to say that a black person, this black individual right here, is going to commit crime because he is black, right?
That's not the same thing.
And that distinction is important.
You can say that on average, people who come from sub-Saharan African countries are going to have a tougher time integrating and assimilating into the United States than people coming from Great Britain.
But that's not racist.
But it is racist to say, this particular person from Sudan cannot assimilate because they're from Sudan.
That's racist, OK?
So that distinction makes a difference.
And I don't know that Trump knows enough to actually make that distinction.
I don't know if he does.
Maybe he doesn't.
I mean, as I've said before, his history shows that he's said stuff like, a Mexican judge, meaning a judge who is descended from Mexican parents, can't properly judge his case because they're Mexican.
There are cases where Trump has sounded really bad and racist.
If you read these comments in the context of those comments, it's hard to avoid the conclusion the media want you to draw.
But I would like more evidence on what actually happened in this conversation, because all I'm hearing is secondhand.
I don't have a full transcript in front of me, and I am shy of jumping on the media's account of a secondhand conversation that was being related by Democrats.
I think that to do that would be unfair.
I hope that I would hold the same standard for the Obama administration or for any other politician, for that matter.
So, again, should Trump have said this?
No.
Should he clarify what he meant?
Absolutely.
Should he walk it back as much as he can?
He absolutely should.
The left's suggestion that there's no such thing as a bleephole country is silly.
The left's suggestion that they're angry because he cursed is silly.
And the left's suggestion that the only way to read that comment is simply in terms of Donald Trump is saying that every immigrant from Haiti is bad because they're black.
I think that that requires a logical jump, at least.
Maybe that jump is real.
Maybe that's what Trump is thinking.
But there's a lot of mind reading going on.
And I think that that mind reading is not necessarily guaranteed to be correct.
Okay, so in just a second, we're going to give you the latest on the DACA deal, plus things I like, things I hate, and the mailbag.
First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
When you do, then you not only get to be part of the mailbag, which is right now, you get to ask questions, specific questions.
You also get to see the rest of the show live.
You get to see the rest of Klavan's show live and Knowles' show live.
And you get to be part of the conversation, which is happening with Andrew Klavan, on Tuesday, the 16th, 5 p.m., Eastern, 2 p.m.
Pacific, ask Drew questions live in the Daily Wire chat room.
When you become a subscriber to Daily Wire, $9.99 a month, $99 a year, you get to view the annual subscription, including this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears hot or cold mug, which is just overflowing these days for a variety of reasons, both good and bad.
Check it out.
You get that with the annual subscription.
If you just want to listen later, SoundCloud, iTunes, YouTube, Google Play, Stitcher, we're available on all of those outlets.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Now, one of the things that's going to be fascinating about what Trump just said is how it impacts his base.
Because what happened yesterday is that the Republicans basically signaled that they were going to cave on DACA.
So the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, of course, is the program that Obama instituted to basically give green cards in the long run to dreamers, so-called dreamers, people who are brought over as young people through no fault of their own, as the phrase goes, and have been in the country for years.
So Trump wanted an end to chain migration.
He wanted an end to the diversity visa lottery program, and he wanted his wall.
And maybe E-Verify.
That's what he wanted.
Here is the deal they're talking about cutting right now.
By the way, this deal is not going to happen now.
I think now that Trump made these comments, the chance of a DACA deal went down to zero.
Democrats know they can posture as much as they possibly could want.
It's why Trump should shut his mouth.
It's a huge mistake politically and also morally for him to do what he did.
The fact that And that Trump said this sunk even the possibility of a deal.
Now Democrats are going to wait around.
They're going to let DACA die on Trump's watch, claim Trump is a racist, and then know that Trump will just reinstate DACA himself, which will probably be what happens come March.
In any case, before all this blew up, Trump was talking yesterday about this deal.
You ready for this?
this because it ain't good.
Path to citizenship for DACA recipients and those eligible for DACA who did not sign up.
Only, only $2.8 billion for border securities.
So $1.6 billion for a fence barrier.
They're saying it'll cost a minimum of $18 billion to actually build a fence.
An additional $1.2 billion for other border priorities.
Again, not enough money.
Family-based migration.
Parents of DACA cannot become citizens, but will get temporary protected status.
So that doesn't really change much, because that just means that when a Democrat enters office, he'll give them citizenship.
And then visa lottery.
Some of the 50,000 slots will be used for people in the country who have lost their temporary protected status, and some will be used for low-immigration countries.
So they'll just reallocate some of the diversity visa lottery stuff.
Very, very weak deal if this is all Republicans can get out of this.
Jeff Flake, who is pretty weak on immigration, he came forward and said, we're very close on the deal.
This was his statement yesterday.
The bipartisan group I'm talking about, the six of us working, that we're shopping among our colleagues now.
We don't want to release details until we talk to more of our colleagues.
Well, so much for that.
That's pretty much done.
That's pretty much dead.
So I think that it is...
It's just another side effect of the fact that the President of the United States cannot keep his mouth shut, and he'd be better off just being quiet in many scenarios.
So things that I like today.
I wanted to point out that immigrants from low-quality countries, immigrants from If you want to say bleephole countries, I think Nazi Germany would rank as a bleephole government.
Immigrants who are trying to escape that have provided some of the great contributions to American society.
Forget about the atomic bomb, which is an atomic energy, which is obviously a contribution of people who fled Nazi Germany.
But some of our great movie music.
Eric Korngold was a Jewish emigre from Nazi Germany.
He left in the late 20s, I believe.
He came here and he wrote some of the great American scores.
A great classical composer, really underappreciated because film scores are underappreciated.
If you don't know the original Adventures of Robin Hood, I think it may have been the very first movie I recommended on Things I Like on this show, then the music is just glorious.
It was conducted by Eric Korngold.
Here's a little bit of that music.
So I mean, that's great music.
It's not just that.
Okay, the Max Steiner was another émigré from Nazi Germany.
He wrote probably the most famous score in Hollywood history.
of course, the music to Gone with the Wind.
The End I mean, it's just glorious stuff.
So the idea that you come from a crappy country, therefore you can't contribute to the United States is just asinine and racist and stupid and bigoted.
If that's what Trump was saying, then he's all of those things.
If that's not what Trump was saying, then he is not.
And I would urge people to actually look at the evidence in front of them and come to your own conclusion.
I think that either read, to be frank with you, is plausible.
But I don't think that it is necessarily an irrevocable Proof that Trump is racist, that you read it in one of these two ways.
Okay, so time for, you know what, let's skip the things I hate and we'll just go straight to the mailbag.
So let's do some mailbag.
Here we go.
Junelle writes, Hey Ben, what exactly is the problem with Keynesian economics?
So the problem with Keynesian economics is the suggestion that if you redistribute money from top to bottom, or you jumpstart the economy by borrowing against the future and injecting cash into the spending matrix that this somehow betters the economy in any real way.
It will increase consumption, of course, but the question is whether consumption alone drives economic growth.
And the answer is what actually drives economic growth, what actually makes your life better.
Economic growth is not a phrase that means a whole hell of a lot.
Makes your life better is a phrase that means a whole hell of a lot.
It may make your life better in the temporary here and now for the government to give you a little bit more money.
It will make your life a lot better now and in the future for people who know what to do with their money to keep their own money and invest it in things that are going to benefit you.
In other words, money in Bill Gates's pocket is actually more useful than money in my pocket.
And I'm talking about me personally, right?
I'm pretty good with my money.
Bill Gates has made better use of his money than I have made of my money.
Not only has he invested it wisely, he's also built a company with tens of thousands of employees and built products that millions of people use.
And the idea that when you take money from borrowing against the future, when you take money and inject it into the economy, that this somehow gets the gears running again, that demand is what creates supply, is not true.
Supply creates demand.
Meaning the reason that you buy a new product is not because you have a little bit of extra money in your pocket.
It's because the new product is available.
You couldn't buy an iPhone 30 years ago because the iPhone didn't exist.
It wouldn't matter how much money the government gave you.
You can buy an iPhone now because there were creators who discovered the hidden demand in the marketplace and crafted a product specifically for it.
This is my problem with Keynesian economics.
The idea of the multiplier effect, I think, is sheer nonsense.
Henry Hazlitt has a very long but thorough look at the flaws in Keynesian theory.
It's called The New Economics, I think.
The Flaws in the New Economics, something like that.
It's about a 500-page book, but he really blows apart Keynesianism with alacrity.
I think that it's idiotic to tax your citizens abroad.
If you're abroad and you're earning all your money abroad, I'm not sure what the United States has to say about that, per se.
I think that it's idiotic to tax your citizens abroad.
If you're abroad and you're earning all your money abroad, I'm not sure what the United States has to say about that per se, but I feel that generally about taxes here.
I mean, I think that the only possible argument that can be made is taxing our citizens abroad for defense purposes because our military defends you abroad the same as it would at home, right?
Maybe that's the only excuse.
Alex says, "Ben, what do you think of Switzerland's "recent legislation that took away "welfare recipients' right to vote?" I don't know enough about this, so I actually wanna check the facts on it before I comment.
So I'll beg off that question until I can actually get some more information.
Ari says, hey, Ben, you speak a lot about the left's hierarchy of victimhood, which groups are more likely to be victimized to get a higher place in the hierarchy.
Based on this, why are Jews lower on the hierarchy than Muslims and Latinos when, according to the FBI statistics, Jews face more hate crimes by a large percentage?
Well, the reason is because the left does not perceive victimhood in terms of being victims of hate crime or victims of crime generally.
The left perceives victimhood in people they perceive to be harmed by the system, really in terms of economics.
This is why the intersectional hierarchy is basically a Marxist invention.
The idea is that Latinos and Muslims are more put upon by American society because they are, on average, poorer.
Jews are highly educated and rich in the United States.
That means they cannot be victims.
Even if they are many times over more victimized than other so-called victim groups in the United States.
I got back to Trevor Noah on The Daily Show and I said, if you want to do this thing live, as in live live, then I'm happy to do it.
If you want to do it on tape delay, I'm not going to do that because I saw how you sliced and diced Jonah Goldberg, and I'm not going to allow you to slice me out of context and then not give me a copy of the tape so three million people see me, you know, getting destroyed by Trevor Noah, when in reality, it's the other way around.
I don't think we have heard back from them ever since I made that demand, which is not particularly shocking.
Let's see.
Nicholas says, Dear Ben, I wanted to know what your response to the 1929 Great Depression would be from a policy standpoint.
Would you have just simply cut taxes, launched public works, etc.? ?
I wouldn't have launched Public Works.
I probably would have cut taxes.
I would not have gotten the government deeply involved, to be frank.
I mean, there was a huge economic meltdown in 1920-21, and the entire market recovered quickly.
The reason that you had an eight-year lengthening of the Great Depression, according to UCLA Economist, is because of all the government interventionism.
I certainly would not have raised tariffs.
I certainly would not have moved toward government interventionism in the fiscal sector.
There are two theories, basically, in conservative circles for why the Great Depression happened in the first place.
One theory is the so-called tightening of the money theory, which is the Milton Friedman Chicago School of Economics, and they suggest that the Fed policy was too stingy, and therefore we needed to inject more money into the economy with a low inflation rate, which would have allowed people to retain their mortgages, for example.
I tend not to agree with Milton Friedman.
I'm more on the Vienna School of Economics on this thing, which suggests almost the opposite.
They almost argue the opposite.
They sort of argue that the Fed policy was too inflationary and the stock market was overvalued, and that's why you saw a stock market crash.
And that the only way to get out of it would have been to, if not tighten the grip on money, then to maintain the gold standard.
Now, the gold standard was technically maintained, but gold was revalued against the dollar under FDR on a pretty routine basis.
Josh says, Hey, Ben, with censorship against conservatives discovered on so-called free speech platforms like Google and Twitter, do you think we'll see a rise of a conservative social media platform?
I don't think that there'll be a choice if this continues.
And I know that there are institutional investors who are looking to do just that.
Well, the best ones from Shakespeare, I love his tragedies.
I'm not as big a fan of Shakespeare's comedies.
I enjoy them.
But his tragedies are, of course, his great masterpieces.
particular relevance to the current political atmosphere in the United States.
Well, the best ones from Shakespeare, I love his tragedies.
I'm not as big a fan of Shakespeare's comedies.
I enjoy them, but his tragedies are, of course, his great masterpieces, and those would be in order of my preference.
I'd probably go Hamlet over Lear, but it's really tight.
It's a really tight, So maybe Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, and then Othello.
Those are considered his four greatest works, and I agree with that.
And then I love his historical plays, too.
I really like Henry V, Julius Caesar is fantastic.
The thing about Shakespeare is virtually everything that he writes is relevant because so much of it is political.
So much of it is political.
I mean, I made a lot of leader references during the last election cycle with regard to how Trump treated members of the media who did his dirty work for him, people being sycophants in front of him.
I've made references to Hillary Clinton being a corrupt figure in search of power, a sort of Macbeth figure.
And when it comes to politics, Julius Caesar has a lot of reference to the politics of our age, how populism can be whipped up by a mob and then somebody can jump in front of it and use it for its own particular purposes, even if it started off well, right?
Even if it's Brutus trying to start a popular uprising against tyranny, somebody can jump in front of that and then misuse the movement, right?
That's very possible as well.
You see it with Bernie Sanders, I think to a certain extent you saw it with Trump.
So there are so many great Shakespeare plays that have contemporary relevance.
Isaac says, So as I've said, going back to a gold standard I think would be useful.
The way that you would do that is pegging the value of the dollar to the value of gold.
The reason I say that is because the value of gold doesn't change radically over time in terms of the amount of gold that's being discovered.
So it used to be that the value of gold changed a lot because there's so much new gold being discovered, but there really isn't that much gold on planet Earth, and it's not like tons of it is being discovered on a daily basis, so you don't have to worry about the fluctuations as you do right now in, for example, Bitcoin.
The beauty of going back to a gold standard is that the government then does not have the capacity to inflate itself out of bad spending habits.
The reason that you can inflate yourself out of bad spending habits or spend a lot of money is because the government can then come in and just inflate its way right out of it.
And that's something that I think is deeply detrimental to the economy.
Dane says, Hey Ben, who's your favorite director currently in Hollywood?
What are your top three movies made in the last 10 years?
Okay, so, Favorite director currently in Hollywood, if I've not made this clear, is Christopher Nolan.
Christopher Nolan followed by Christopher Nolan.
He's the best director working in Hollywood.
And top three movies made in the last ten years.
So I believe Lives of Others is just outside the realm.
What year was Lives of Others?
I think that Lives of Others was 2003?
2006.
So I just missed with Lives of Others.
The Dark Knight was 2007, right?
Was it 2007 or 2008?
Well, count that as the last 10 years.
So, 2008.
Whiplash, I loved.
I think Whiplash is a fantastic film.
And then, I'm trying to think of what my third film would be.
As I say, I love Nolan, so I really do like a lot of the movies that other people don't like of his.
I really like Interstellar.
People really like Dunkirk.
I like Interstellar.
I think Interstellar actually has a little more heart than Dunkirk.
You know, I'll have to go back and look at my list of the movies that I've liked over the past few years.
But those are the ones that pop to mind immediately.
Okay, Matthew says, hey Ben, quick abortion question.
What would you say to a libertarian who from a legal standpoint thinks abortion should be legal given that there is no constitutional obligation to protect non-citizens but from a moral standpoint thinks abortion is repugnant?
Well, there is a constitutional obligation to protect non-citizens in the United States from being killed, right?
Like, you're not allowed to kill non-citizens.
If there's an immigrant in the United States illegally, I can't just drive down to the local Home Depot and bash a guy with a rock.
That's not a thing.
So that argument doesn't cut a lot of weight with me.
Megan says, "The city I live in has a huge problem "with an increasing homeless population.
"How should my city council handle this issue?" Well, the truth is that being homeless should be illegal.
It is illegal.
It is loitering.
The reason that the homeless population is so high is because local and state have really underfunded mental health services.
This one is on local government.
Local and state need to fund mental health services, and then when people are on the streets and are suffering from severe mental disorders, you know, they have schizophrenia, and they can't take care of themselves, it is evil to leave them out on the streets not taking their medication.
It is evil.
To suggest that it is an aspect of freedom to not take your medication and live in a delusional, paranoid world is insane.
It's bad for citizens.
It's bad for the homeless people.
It's really bad.
The vast majority of people who are homeless from the studies that I have seen have some sort of mental disability, are alcoholic, or are drug users.
You do not have the privilege of living on the streets.
My tax is paid for those streets.
I have as much access to those streets as you do.
And if you are occupying them, then you are loitering.
You're violating the law.
It's not that hard to clean up the homeless problem.
But you have to have some sympathy for people who are mentally ill and people who are drug users.
So I think that it's not a matter of just providing housing for the homeless.
A lot of people don't want to abide by the rules.
The rules are for everyone, and you don't get to avoid them just because you wish to live on the streets.
Yusuf says, Well, I think a lot of this changed after 9-11. I think a lot of this changed after 9-11.
If you look at the 2000 election, I believe that George W. Bush actually won a plurality of Muslims in the United States in the 2000 election.
After 9-11, things radically shifted because foreign policy became the dividing line for a lot of Muslims in the West who saw Israel or American policy in Iraq or Afghanistan or profiling of Muslims as the chief political issue.
In terms of social issues, Muslims, Jews, and Christians are basically on the same page.
In terms of economic issues, I think that there's a fair argument to be made by a lot of reform and moderate Muslims that conservative economics is on the same page as well.
Personal responsibility, messages that you actually have responsibility to people.
So I agree with you, but I think foreign policy, if you're moderate, in the Muslim community, and you don't actually suffer from a lot of the delusions that I think some of the more radical members of the Muslim community suffer from, less so in the West, but more in other countries, then I think you're more likely to be on the conservative side of the aisle on all the other issues, and maybe vote Republican.
I've recommended a lot of fiction books on the show, I think.
Do you ever read fiction?
And if so, what books would you recommend?
I've recommended a lot of fiction books on the show, I think.
My favorite is Moby Dick.
So that is where I would start.
I'm also a big fan of Leon Uris as a writer.
He's kind of a fun writer if you just want fun writing.
One of my favorite books that nobody's ever heard of is a book called The Secret of Santa Vittoria by Robert Crichton.
So see if you can pick that one up on Amazon.
I love reading fiction.
I think I just recommended a few weeks ago a bunch of books, a bunch of fiction books by, what's the name of the author who did Power of the Dog.
There's a bunch of, and Cartel, the Cartel.
Don Winslow.
I just recommended some fiction books by him two weeks ago, maybe.
So, go back and look at my entire things I like list.
I believe there are people online who actually keep tabs on all of these things.
So, we should.
At some point we probably will.
Ha ha ha.
But check that out.
Trevor says, Well, the answer there is that education, education, and education is the only solution.
The founders thought they had cured this problem.
huge fans.
Our question is, once you have an ideal small government, how do you prevent it from inevitably getting larger over time?
Well, the answer there is that education, education, and education is the only solution.
The founders thought they had cured this problem.
Obviously not.
Parchment barriers are just parchment.
You require an educated population in order to maintain freedom.
This is why Ronald Reagan said that freedom is always one generation away from extinction.
That's why I'm optimistic that in an era in which freedom seems to be less and less respected, I always think freedom is one generation away from revival.
Justin says, Hey Ben, my friends are very anti-Israel.
A common argument they make is this.
Why do Jews get to rule their ancestral homeland after centuries of foreign occupation, but Native American tribes don't?
How would you respond to this?
They aren't religious, so any biblical arguments I try to make usually fall flat.
Well, I mean, the truth is that Native American tribes do have reservations.
I think that it's unjust how the reservations are created.
I think that American policy toward Native Americans has been historically quite awful.
But the idea that there is not Native American rule in these areas is not true.
I mean, federally speaking, these are territories that are independent of state government, right?
Native American reservations are governed by federal law, so there actually is self-governance in Native American reservations.
The question is, what sort of culture do you think ought to have self-rule?
So the idea of a Jewish democracy, I think that should have self-rule because I think Judaism has values, Judaic values have values, and democracy has value, and I don't think these things are in conflict.
As far as Native American self-rule, I think it would depend on the values that are being promulgated by various Native American communities.
I don't think all of the values are necessarily the same and kind of linking together all Native American tribes under one broad rubric.
I don't want to pretend knowledge where I don't have.
So my general rule is If you can govern a country well, or a territory well, and if you have a historic claim to that area, then we can talk about it.
But when it comes to Native American tribes, there are some serious questions as to whether there's historic Native American claim to particular land, considering that there is no such concept in many cultures, in Native American culture originally, of private property or tribal ownership of particular property.
In other words, now we're sort of past that point.
But the idea of having sovereign Native American land is basically written into American law.
I mean, this has become a major issue with regard to Child Protective Services and the Indian, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Native American Affairs.
All righty, so we have reached the end of this week's Mailback.
We'll be back here on Monday.
I'm sure, I'm sure that things will continue to burn down, because they always do.
And we'll be here to help you sift through the ashes.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Bluver.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection