Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 15, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:29

Is Trump Biased? | Ep. 453

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Is Donald Trump a racist?
	We will talk about it.
	Plus, the Me Too movement goes completely off the rails, and Hawaii apparently almost got nuked, or not really, but things went wrong.
	We'll talk about that as well.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	So today is a day that America celebrates a great man's birthday.
	Mine.
	No, I'm just joking.
	It's Martin Luther King Day.
	It is also my birthday, but of course today is Martin Luther King Day, and I have some Martin Luther King Day recommendations a little bit later in the show.
	I also want to get to everything Trump-related, the fact that Hawaii is not under nuclear assault, as well as this crazy story that somebody put forward about Aziz Ansari, the comedian.
	He's really obnoxious, Aziz Ansari, but the implication that Aziz Ansari is some sort of Incipient rapist, and that we all have to lump him in with the rest of the Me Too movement.
	The Me Too movement is really going overboard at this point, something I have feared for a while.
	I'll talk about all of that.
	First, I want to say thank you to our new sponsors over at LegalZoom.
	So, right now, you're thinking about starting a new business, or you're thinking about having to do a will, or you're thinking about having to do an estate plan.
	Well, LegalZoom is for you.
	Plus, if you need legal advice, LegalZoom is for you.
	They can help make this a memorable year before all the distractions take hold.
	This is the year you finally get serious about launching and running your business.
	And the legal part of your business is a very expensive part of your business, unless you are going to, my friends, at LegalZoom.
	LegalZoom has been helping people like you take care of their dreams and responsibilities for more than 16 years.
	Look, I'm a lawyer.
	I know how much it costs for legal services.
	And LegalZoom is far less expensive and it's just as good.
	They have all the forms that you need.
	They have people who are there giving advice to you when you get a subscription plan.
	They're not a law firm, but they have the resources to keep you on the right path, including advice from their network of independent attorneys all at your fingertips.
	So whether you want to take your business to the next level or take control of your family's future with that estate plan, LegalZoom plugs right into your life so you can take care of the things that matter most.
	Again, As a lawyer, I've used LegalZoom myself.
	It's that good.
	Get off to a strong start.
	LegalZoom.com today.
	LegalZoom.com.
	And you get special savings when you enter Ben in the promo box at checkout.
	So use that promo code Ben, you will get some special deals and discounts on their services.
	Plus, when you go to LegalZoom.com and use promo code Ben, that lets them know that we sent you as well.
	Again, LegalZoom, where life meets legal.
	And again, Your business is going to cost a lot of money if you go to lawyers who charge $500 an hour.
	That is not the deal with LegalZoom, and it's just as good in most cases.
	So go to LegalZoom.com today, and again, use that special promo code BEN at checkout and get a discount as well.
	Alrighty, so...
	Over the weekend, the media have decided that President Trump's a racist.
	Now, that's no different from any other weekend.
	Every weekend, the media decide that President Trump is a racist.
	Now, some weekends, they have more material than others to call President Trump a racist.
	Now, let me start with this.
	I want to start by talking about what makes someone a racist.
	What makes someone racist?
	So I think there are a few different ways to look at this.
	One is a person whose entire worldview is inherently racist.
	So this would be like the Richard Spencer group of people, people who think that black people are innately inferior, more prone to criminality, have lower IQs, but not in terms of— it's not racist to suggest that black folks, on average, may have lower IQs because racial groups differentiate, but that that may have lower IQs because racial groups differentiate, but that that is a natural thing and that that has behavioral consequences that cannot be cured by culture, You're running some really dicey territory there.
	But the idea that you believe that black people are innately inferior, they're morally inferior, they are inferior by dint of their skin color and their genetics.
	That is racist.
	That's what racism is.
	Richard Spencer is one type of racism.
	Then there are people who say racist things.
	You say a racist thing.
	So, when President Trump, for example, said that he didn't condemn the KKK and didn't know who they were, that was a racist thing in my view.
	I talked about it at the time.
	People say racist— Al Sharpton, when he says things about Jews that are racist or anti-Semitic, those are anti-Semitic things to say.
	When people do racist things, when people discriminate against black people in their businesses or discriminate against black people in their housing, these are racist things.
	I think that what the media are trying to do right now is use the term racist and label people racist, so not actions, not activities.
	I'm always hesitant to label anyone overtly racist, say that the person themselves is completely racist, unless we are suggesting that their entire worldview is dominated by racism.
	Now, there are racists, obviously, whose entire worldview is not dominated by racism.
	But when it comes to public policy, when it comes to public figures, we have to determine what's the usefulness of saying whether somebody is a racist or not.
	Now, there are three reasons why you would say somebody is a racist.
	And I'm going to get to why I'm talking about this and all this in a second.
	There are three reasons why you might suggest that somebody is racist.
	One, it's just true.
	You're saying it because you apply it across the spectrum.
	When someone holds racist views, then you are going to call it out.
	Al Sharpton is a racist, and you think Donald Trump is a racist, or Al Sharpton is a racist, and Richard Spencer is a racist, and Jared Taylor is a racist.
	You're going to try and call out racism wherever you see it, and you're going to label people racist based on their worldview.
	That's reason number one.
	Reason number two is because you're trying to use racism as a baton to wield against somebody.
	So this is when people suggest that everybody on the right is a racist and that's why they can't be trusted, right?
	This is just a political baton that you're using to wield against somebody because racism is the most dangerous charge that you can throw against somebody in public life.
	Right, that if you shout somebody's a racist, you never have to listen to them again.
	That's the idea here.
	Okay, and then there's reason number three.
	Once you label somebody a racist, overall, once you say that Donald Trump, for example, is a racist, which is what the media have been saying over the weekend.
	Once you say Donald Trump is racist, then what you are doing is allowing yourself the ability to avoid evaluating individual instances of racism.
	It allows you the ability to avoid saying whether he just did something racist or whether maybe there is another reason.
	So, for example, if you think Donald Trump is a racist, now every time you talk about his immigration policy, you don't actually have to evaluate whether the immigration policy is bad or good, whether it is being driven by racial considerations, Or whether it is just an immigration policy that makes sense for a variety of other reasons.
	Once you call somebody a racist, it allows you the ability to avoid saying what you think is good or bad about a policy.
	It allows you to paint with a broad brush.
	This brings us to Trump's statements last week.
	As we talked about at length on Friday, President Trump is now accused by a bunch of Democrats, and at least one Republican, Lindsey Graham, of saying that people from bleephole countries should not come to the United States.
	Now, there are two ways to read that comment, as I talked about on Friday.
	Way one to read it is the racist way.
	You're from Haiti, therefore you don't belong here because Haitians cannot assimilate and Haitians are stupid and bad and dirty and have AIDS, right?
	That's sort of the racist way of reading what Trump said and that links in with some accusations.
	The AIDS comment particularly links into an accusation made about Trump in the New York Times back in June in which Trump supposedly said that all Haitians have AIDS.
	That was disputed by the White House.
	They denied that comment entirely and you don't know what to believe because it was It was anonymously sourced.
	That is way one of reading it.
	Trump was saying, I don't want more black people here.
	I don't want more Haitians here.
	I don't want more people from Ghana here.
	Get them out.
	They're the wrong color.
	They're the wrong race.
	They're the wrong ethnicity.
	Therefore, they should leave.
	That's way one of reading this.
	And people reading Trump's comments in light of what he said about Mexican judges, for example, they will say, obviously, this is an instance of racism because the president is a racist.
	OK, then there's way two of reading the comments, which is Trump was specifically talking about the diversity visa lottery, where we determine by country who to let in.
	And he was saying, why do we need more people from Ghana as opposed to more people from Great Britain?
	Why do we need more people from Russia as opposed to more people from Great Britain?
	If you're going to make differentiations among countries, then we have to have a hierarchy of countries that we give priority to.
	Why would we have less people from South Korea when we could have more people from South Korea and fewer people from Haiti?
	That's a way, too, of reading it.
	And that one is not really racist.
	It's not really even bigoted.
	That way is trying to force people into thinking about which countries are most likely to provide citizens who are most likely to assimilate to American values.
	That's way too of reading it.
	Now, how you read that comment is basically a Rorschach test on what you think of Trump.
	But what's happened is that the media have been so determined, bound and determined, to hit Trump with the racist charge and read his comments in light of this background that he's a racist, that this prevents them from actually having to make an argument about the diversity visa lottery or about policy.
	I think there's some ulterior motives going on in any case.
	So, let's go through this.
	First, let's point out a bunch of Republicans denied that Trump said it.
	Now, Republicans denying that Trump said it, I've been pretty weak on this stuff.
	So, Sonny Perdue, who is a senator—or, sorry, David Perdue, not Sonny Perdue.
	David Perdue, who is the senator from Georgia.
	He was in the room when Trump apparently said this stuff, and he denies that Trump ever said this stuff.
	What he is really saying, and what the Republicans are saying, is that Trump didn't say that these people come from bleep hole countries.
	He said they come from bleep house countries, which makes no difference whatsoever.
	So, if that's the peg you're going to hang your hat on, forget about it.
	Here is David Perdue denying that Trump ever said this stuff.
	Those comments have been confirmed by multiple sources.
	You're saying it didn't happen?
	Multiple sources?
	There were six of us in the room.
	I haven't heard any of those six sources other than Senator Durbin talk about what was said.
	Look, this was a private meeting, Senator Scott, but the reports were basically accurate.
	Well, you'll have to deal with him, but basically it's an operative word.
	The trouble here is that Senator Durbin came and brought a proposal.
	Let's put this in perspective.
	I want to get to the proposal, but you're saying flat out, definitively, the President did not say those words.
	I'm saying that this is a gross misrepresentation.
	It's not the first time Senator Durbin has done it, and it is not productive to solving the problem.
	Okay, so there's denial happening from Perdue.
	Tom Cotton also was asked about this.
	He also denied that Trump said this, and then he was grilled whether Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, was lying about it.
	Here's what Cotton had to say.
	What Senator Durbin and Senator Graham proposed is to expand our country of origin and quota-based system.
	The president reacted strongly against that, as he should, and I do as well, because we want to get away from a country of origin system that treats people as Nigerians or Norwegians and treats them as individuals, as doctors and scientists and computer programmers and so forth.
	I understand your sentiment, you're quite clear on that, but the President's sentiment, you're saying in all of these meetings there was never an instance in which he did what you're saying, where he grouped people in that fashion.
	John, in his tweets, in his interviews, in his public statements, just Tuesday, when we had the large meeting in the cabinet room, he repeatedly insists that we need to move to a skills-based system.
	But you were in the room where it happens, so you're saying in that room you didn't hear any of this sort of lumping everybody together, is that what you're saying?
	I did not hear derogatory comments about individuals or persons.
	Okay, so he's basically not denying the account.
	He's just, he's accounting for it the way that I account for it, right?
	He's trying to explain away what Trump said using this explanation.
	I don't find it completely implausible.
	In a second, I'm going to explain what the New York Times is saying about this, right?
	What the New York Times are trying to do is create this backdrop where Trump is a racist, so we don't even have to evaluate whether the statement itself was racist.
	We don't have to evaluate whether Trump was saying something terrible.
	We can just call him a racist overall.
	I'll get to that in just one second.
	First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Wink.
	You know, right now, you're sitting at home, and you're thinking to yourself, I could use a bottle of wine.
	Because, let's face it, the holidays are over, we're getting back into the work year, and you want to relax with a nice bottle of wine.
	Or, you have to go over to somebody's house tonight, and you want to bring a bottle of wine, but you don't know anything about wine.
	I mean, you're more likely to go down to the local liquor store and just pick up a bottle of Manischewitz, and bring it there, and it tastes like cough syrup.
	Instead, what you ought to be doing is going over to Wink.
	It's W-I-N-C.
	Wink makes it easy to discover great wine.
	Wink's wine experts select wines matched to your taste, personalized for you, shipped right to your door, and starting at just $13 a bottle.
	They'll send you a personalized gift card, and let your recipient choose their wine as well.
	Okay, here's how it works.
	You go over to Wink.com, and then you check out their palette profile quiz.
	They ask a bunch of simple questions, they profile you, and then finally, they'll ask you things like, how do you take your coffee, how do you feel about blueberries, and then, determining kind of what you like to drink, what you like to eat.
	They send wines curated to your taste.
	And every month there are new delicious wines like the insanely popular summer water rosé.
	People around the office are consistently drunk from Wink, and that is why the quality of the show has declined so markedly in recent weeks.
	But if you check it out, trywink.com, T-R-Y-W-I-N-C.com, you get $20 off your first shipment.
	That's trywink.com, T-R-Y-W-I-N-C dot com slash ben for $20 off.
	Again, trywink.com slash ben.
	Not only are you gonna get a great bottle of wine, it's gonna be personalized just to you.
	So trywink.com slash ben.
	Again, shipping is complimentary.
	If you don't like a bottle, they'll send you, they replace it with a bottle you love, no questions asked, which is pretty awesome.
	Trywink.com slash ben, $20 off your first shipment.
	Okay, so check that out.
	All right, so, as I say, there are a couple of different ways to read Trump's comments, and the goal of the media here is to make it seem as though there's only one way to read Trump's comment, the way in the most racist light possible.
	The most racist light possible.
	Now, listen, as I say, I don't think it's implausible that Trump said something racist here.
	I don't, right?
	Mia Love, I think, had a solid take on this, the representative whose parents are from Haiti.
	She was speaking on State of the Union with Tapper on CNN, and here's what she had to say, a Republican from Utah.
	What do you say to the Haitian American who comes to you and says, Congresswoman, I think the president's racist?
	Well, here's what I say.
	My parents have always taught me not to be a victim.
	My parents have taught me that no matter what somebody else feels, that's their problem, not mine.
	That I'm not the one that's flawed when somebody feels some way about me because of the way I look or my gender or whatever that is.
	Were the comments racist, do you think?
	Um, well...
	I think they were—yes.
	I think that they were unfortunate.
	I don't know if they were taken—I wasn't in the room.
	I know the comments were made.
	I don't know which context they were made.
	I'm looking forward to finding out what happened.
	But more importantly, I'm looking forward to— Okay, so the reason that she hesitates before she says yes is because, again, there are two plausible reads.
	It's not just because Republicans are trying to avoid the implication that the president of the United States is a racist.
	It's also because there are actually ways of reading that statement that are not racist.
	What the New York Times is trying to do is now create a narrative whereby Trump is racist, so everything that he says must now be seen in that light.
	Now, do I think that President Trump's entire ideology is dominated by a belief about the differences between races?
	I don't believe that.
	I don't.
	I don't see that in President Trump.
	I think that President Trump says dunder-headed things.
	I think he's like a 1960s-style Archie Bunker type who has a root level of disdain for people—for But then as individuals, he overcomes that.
	That's my general take on him.
	Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my psychological read.
	I don't like doing psychological reads on people, typically, because, again, it prevents you from actually doing a read on particular instances of what the people are saying.
	So here's why I keep citing The New York Times.
	So today, The New York Times has a long piece by David Leonhardt, who is one of the assistant op-ed editors over at The New York Times, called Donald Trump's Racism, the Definitive List.
	This follows hard on a piece from Charles Blow called Just Say It Trump, sorry, by Leonhardt called Just Say It Trump is a Racist.
	In that piece, Leonhardt a couple days ago wrote, is it possible to defend some of his racially charged statements by pointing out that something other than race might explain them?
	Sure.
	Is it possible that he doesn't think of himself as a racist who views white people as superior to non-white people?
	Yes.
	But the definition of a racist, the textbook definition, as Paul Ryan might say, is someone who treats some people better than others because of their race.
	OK, but the because of their race is the entire question.
	Is he treating people differently because of their race or because of some other factor?
	And this is the laziness of the New York Times and the laziness of the left.
	By calling Trump a racist, the idea is that now they don't actually have to evaluate any of these instances on an individual level.
	And here is the evidence.
	So if you actually look at the list that is put together by Leon Hart and Ian Philbrick.
	Here's their list of Trump's definitive racism.
	It includes things that are obviously racist or racially tinged, right?
	Stating that a judge of Mexican descent would be unable to adjudicate his Trump University fraud case because of his ethnicity.
	I talked about that at the time.
	I said it was racist.
	Trump refusing to condemn the KKK on live TV.
	I talked about that at the time.
	I said I thought it was racist.
	Trump saying there were good people marching in an anti-Semitic racist torchlight parade in Charlottesville.
	I thought that that was a problem, right?
	I said this at the time, but here's the problem.
	The list also includes a bunch of stuff That is not racist, right?
	It includes a bunch of stuff that at best is questionable, right?
	There are a bunch of statements that have been repeated by third parties, but not by Trump himself and not in public, right?
	There was a guy who accused Trump of saying at one point that laziness was a trait in blacks.
	There was that New York Times report a couple of weeks ago saying that Trump had said all Haitians have AIDS.
	None of these are confirmed.
	So you can't take those at the same value that you take as public statements or the stuff that's been reliably reported.
	But here's the biggest problem.
	Leonhardt and the New York Times then name a bunch of instances they call racist where there's no evidence at all that racism is the motivating factor.
	So you remember during the campaign, Trump at one point pointed out a black guy in the audience and he said, there's my African-American over there.
	Is that racism?
	Is that really racism?
	I don't think so.
	I think it's Trump being an idiot.
	Like, does that sound like a guy, like, is that a guy who's saying blacks are inferior, therefore there's my African American?
	Or does it sound like I'm so proud that some African American support me and there's the black guy who supports me in the crowd?
	Right, so it's stupid, but it's obviously not racist.
	In fact, it's the opposite.
	It's Trump saying I'm proud I have black support.
	They cite, as evidence of Trump's racism, Trump calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas.
	Okay, that's not racist.
	Elizabeth Warren was the one who appropriated Native American heritage in order to get a job at Harvard Law School, apparently.
	And Trump calling her Pocahontas is a way of mocking her, not mocking Native Americans.
	They say that Trump's support for Roy Moore was obviously racist.
	Are you kidding?
	Are you kidding?
	Trump supported Roy Moore because that was the only candidate left in the race, and because Trump was suckered by Steve Bannon into supporting Roy Moore.
	They say Trump supported Joe Arpaio, and that's because Trump is a racist.
	Okay, Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio not because Trump's a racist, but because Trump is hardcore on immigration, and Joe Arpaio was perceived as an immigration hawk.
	Maybe you make the argument it's racist, but that is dubious at best.
	I mean, I'm not sure how you make that argument exactly.
	And then they name instances where Trump was—those are the ones that are even questionable.
	Here are the ones where he's obviously not being racist.
	They say that Trump complains about the growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism abroad.
	How in the world is that racist?
	First, oh, Islam is not a religion.
	What the hell are they talking about?
	Or Trump criticizing crime rates in inner-city communities.
	The whole point of him talking about that is to reduce the crime rates in the inner city communities.
	That is literally the entire point of him talking about that.
	But they lump that in with Trump's a racist.
	Trump calling Obama lazy.
	Okay, they're saying that's because he's racist against Obama.
	Or is it because Trump calls everybody lazy and he's a jerk?
	And is it also because Obama used to go golfing a lot?
	I mean, it's just silly.
	Then there are instances that lie somewhere in between, right?
	Instances where it's not clear that this is because of racism, but it's convenient for people to talk about it as though it's because of racism.
	So Trump's birtherism, for example, is that racism?
	Or is it just that Donald Trump is saying that stuff because it was politically useful for him to do so at the time?
	I mean, he basically admitted that he wasn't necessarily a birther.
	He just wanted to pander to the birthers.
	Is that racism?
	Is it quasi-racism?
	Not supremely clear.
	My point is this.
	Each one of these instances should be adjudicated on its own merits.
	But what the media are trying to do by labeling Trump a racist is avoid having to adjudicate any of these on their own merits.
	Now, everything Trump says is going to be painted with the brush of racism.
	As I say, to go back to my framework, there are only three reasons why in politics you label somebody racist.
	One is, you actually are thorough-going about whom you label a racist.
	So, for example, I said that the Obama administration was a Jew-hating administration because of their treatment of Israel.
	And I have said that people on the right, like Pat Buchanan, are Jew-hating because of their treatment of Israel.
	I'm very consistent about how I address these particular topics.
	The media are not.
	They will never call Al Sharpton a racist.
	In fact, they will quote Al Sharpton calling Trump a racist.
	So the media are not consistent about this.
	If you're not going to use the term racism in an actual consistent way, then it looks more like you're using it as a weapon.
	Which is the second rationale for using the term racism, is to use it as a weapon, to shut people down.
	To suggest that, like, I've been called a racist a thousand times.
	I'm obviously not a racist, and anyone who calls me so is a jackass.
	The idea that I'm a racist is absurd.
	I have repeatedly and forcefully spoken out about racism at every opportunity that I can find.
	But people call you a racist because they're attempting to shut down the debate, right?
	It's the best epithet you can use in American politics.
	And the media are doing that so they can drive Trump into the ground.
	Finally, there's the third rationale, and that is the rationale I'm talking about.
	It alleviates the media from the consequences of having to judge whether anything Trump does is specifically racist or not.
	And there's something else, too.
	If they don't have to do that, if they can label Trump a racist, and then something comes up that's at best dicey, right?
	The bleephole comments being a case where it's dicey, right?
	I would suggest that he never should have said them because Trump's stupidity and vagueness lead to problems for him on issues like this.
	But they're two plausible reads of the situation.
	Instead of offering the two plausible reads of the situation, You see the media immediately jumping to everything he says is racist.
	The media is doing something else here, too, which is if you don't label it racist, the media then labels you racist.
	So the media will take an incident that is dicey, and then they'll say, obviously it's racist because Trump is racist.
	And then if you say, well, but the situation is dicey, they say, no, no, no, you're a racist because you won't label it racist.
	So it's a way for them to claim that there's institutional white privilege and nationalized racism happening whenever people disagree with the media about whether a particular incident is racist.
	So there's an ulterior motive that is going on here from the media that I find really kind of gross with regard to calling President Trump racist.
	I don't think this is coming from an honest place for a lot of people in the media who have not been honest about labeling racism wherever they see it.
	They're fine with the—with The Obama administration suggesting to black people that Mitt Romney is going to put them all back in chains.
	That was fine.
	But it's not fine.
	But everything Trump says must be taken exactly the same way.
	This smacks of media bias and the misuse of racism as a term of art in order to slander political opposition.
	So, in just a second, I'm going to show you the proof of this.
	I'm going to show you that the use of the racism term is very often about an ulterior motive.
	In this particular case, it is about the situation with regard to immigration.
	So, let's jump in there.
	So, here is the latest.
	So, all of this was happening in the context of a negotiation over DACA, over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
	All of this is happening in that context.
	Trump is trying to make a deal.
	And the deal is going to be that Trump is suggesting that he wants border security, the building of a wall, E-Verify, all of these goodies in return for allowing the Dreamers to stay, basically.
	That's the deal.
	And the Democrats are trying to sink the deal.
	The Democrats don't want a deal.
	The Democrats showed up.
	to this meeting with Trump because they wanted to look like they want a deal.
	They don't actually want a deal.
	What they want is a clean DACA bill, which they made pretty clear during the meeting.
	And now they have an excuse to have a clean DACA bill because they're going to go to Trump.
	They're going to say, you're a racist.
	Any policy that you prescribe is obviously motivated by racial animus.
	Therefore, no.
	Therefore, no.
	And that's where they are going with this.
	And Rand Paul hits this pretty much on the head.
	He says, listen, you can't have an immigration compromise if everybody is busy calling Trump a racist.
	But what I regret is I do want to see an immigration compromise, and you can't have an immigration compromise if everybody's out there calling the president a racist.
	They're actually destroying the setting, and he was a little bit of it, but both sides now are destroying the setting in which anything meaningful can happen on immigration.
	And I think that is 100% true.
	I think it's being done on purpose as well.
	I think that Democrats are jumping on these.
	Remember, these comments were made in private.
	Who leaked them to the media?
	Dick Durbin.
	Right?
	It was Dick Durbin.
	It was the Democrat.
	These were not comments that were made in public.
	Trump did not say these things for public consumption.
	That doesn't alleviate the responsibility that he never should have said them, but it does show that the Democrats were leaking this information specifically to sink the DACA talks.
	That was one of the things that they were doing.
	And you see this from Republicans like Jeff Flake.
	So Jeff Flake is beginning to irritate me.
	I like a lot of the things that Jeff Flake has said in the past about the problems with the Trump administration.
	I think a lot of those things are true.
	But Jeff Flake obviously has an ulterior motive.
	So he starts off by saying, Trump said over the weekend, Democrats are negotiating in bad faith.
	The reason that they're making a big deal out of the bleephole comments is because they want to pull out of DACA.
	And Jeff Flake says, no, no, no, the Democrats are negotiating in good faith.
	They really are.
	They're in good faith.
	I mean, don't you see?
	Those who benefit from this DACA bill will not be able to use chain migration to become citizens.
	We just don't do it for everybody like the President wants to do.
	If we want a comprehensive bill, I'm all in.
	But we can't do a comprehensive bill which will take months and months to negotiate before the March 5th deadline.
	And one thing I do take big issue with the President on is he is saying that the Democrats aren't moving forward in good faith.
	I can tell you I've been negotiating and working with the Democrats on immigration for 17 years, and on this issue, on DACA or on the DREAM Act for a number of years, and the Democrats are negotiating in good faith.
	So Flake says the Democrats are negotiating in good faith, but Flake is not honest, right?
	Flake is not negotiating in good faith.
	Flake is supposed to give a speech on the floor of the Senate today in which he terms Trump's language on the media Stalin-esque.
	I'm not kidding about this.
	He's actually going to use the term Stalin-esque to describe Trump's treatment of the media.
	No one in the media has been arrested.
	No one in the media has been shut down.
	Nobody in the media has been silenced.
	Nobody in the media is really having a problem under the Trump administration.
	Everybody's ratings are up and access is better than it was under the Obama administration.
	Plus, this is a supremely leaky Trump administration.
	But here is Flake suggesting that Trump is just like Stalin or something, but we're supposed to believe that he has no ulterior motive in going after Trump?
	Well, I'm saying that he borrowed that phrase.
	It was popularized by Joseph Stalin, used by Mao as well.
	Enemy of the people.
	It should be noted that Nikita Khrushchev, who followed Stalin, forbade its use, saying that that was too loaded, that it maligned a whole group or class of people, and it shouldn't be done.
	I don't think that we should be using a phrase that's been rejected as to loaded by a Soviet dictator.
	Listen, I didn't like the phrase when Trump used it either, but to suggest that Trump is somehow in line with Mao and Stalin is just insane.
	These people are responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
	It's just crazy.
	But what is Flake's ulterior motive?
	Here's Flake's ulterior motive.
	He's asked whether he wants to run for president in 2020.
	You say you should oppose him when you think he's wrong.
	Do you think that there is a moral obligation or duty for someone else in your party to challenge him for the nomination in 2020?
	I don't want to put it that way, but I think he will have a challenge.
	Is it going to come from you?
	He'll certainly have a challenge if somebody isn't independent, but I think he'll likely have a challenge in the Republican Party as well.
	I'm not the only one, not the only Republican who is saying, you know, I'm not sure this is This is my party.
	Okay, so he's basically saying maybe I'll run.
	Okay, so that's the ulterior motive right there.
	So this is why I say when people start throwing around the racism charge, you have to determine whether they're doing it because this is just their honest assessment of the situation or whether there is another goal that is being pursued here.
	Dick Durbin, another example.
	Dick Durbin, again, is the guy who leaked the bleephole comments in the first place.
	Again, this is not to absolve Trump of responsibility for saying something intensely stupid in front of Democrats, and maybe quasi-racist, depending on your interpretation.
	But when Dirk Durbin suggests that he is somehow brokering in good faith, that's absurd.
	I mean, he actually said over the weekend that the term chain migration is offensive to people whose ancestors came over in chain.
	OK, the term chain migration, just to briefly explain, the term chain migration means that I come and then, like a chain, I pull in all of my relatives to come into the United States.
	It has nothing to do with physical shackles used upon slaves.
	That's absurd.
	But here's Dick Durbin, a guy who once compared American soldiers to Pol Pot and the Nazis on the floor of the Senate, suggesting that Trump shouldn't use terms like chain migration because it's offensive to black people.
	...to the issue of, quote, chain migration.
	I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people?
	Come on.
	African Americans believe that they migrated to America in chains.
	And when you speak about chain migration, it hurts them personally.
	And he said, oh, that's a good line.
	I mean, come on.
	Come on.
	Dick Durbin wants to sink these talks.
	That's the whole purpose of sending him.
	Trump should have known that.
	Trump should have been wary when he was in the room with him.
	It's dumb of Trump.
	But again, I think that when you're in political situations, it is imperative that you be a little more cynical than just suggesting that everybody is operating in the best of faith and that everyone was so deeply offended that Trump said something.
	Okay, let's be real about this.
	They all know who Trump is.
	Everybody knows who Trump is at this point.
	And the idea that everyone is sitting around being deeply offended at Trump, not using that offense as sort of a faux outrage in order to sink DACA talks is silly.
	Obviously, one thing has very much to do with another here.
	And again, none of this is to deny that Trump has done or said racist things in the past.
	I don't think that's deniable, frankly.
	But I think the idea that Trump is overall a racist?
	Yeah, as I get older, I'm more and more hesitant.
	I think when I was younger, it's easier to just label people as a whole.
	Somebody's a hero, somebody's a villain, that's a good person, that's a bad person.
	The reality is that as you get older, you tend to try and determine on a one-by-one basis, calling balls and strikes.
	There's a person who's trustworthy, somebody who you trust.
	There might be a person that dictates your action.
	Your action toward them is dictated by your view of their character.
	This person doesn't have character.
	But I think that That can only be used as a backdrop.
	It can't be used as the dispositive statement about every one of their actions.
	You may believe, in other words, that Trump is a racist, but it's still incumbent on you to analyze every one of his actions and determine whether that is a racist action or statement, and not just jump to the conclusion based on your perception of his worldview that you don't have full evidence for, is I think where I would go with that, and I think it's true in everyday life as well.
	Okay, so in just a second, I want to talk about the Me Too movement and where it has gone wildly wrong, because it has now.
	Plus, we'll get to Hawaii.
	But first, we're going to have to break on Facebook and YouTube.
	So, if you want to watch the rest of the show, you need to head over right now to dailywire.com for $9.99 a month.
	You get a subscription to dailywire.com.
	That means that you get the rest of my show live.
	You get to be part of my mailbag.
	It means that you get to be part of Andrew Klavan's show live.
	You get to be part of his mailbag.
	Part of Michael Moulse's show live.
	Lots of goodies for you when you subscribe.
	Plus, we're going to have discounts at the Shapiro store and all the rest.
	Also, Time to get those wheels turning and the keyboards humming, because tomorrow, January 16th, 5 p.m.
	Eastern, 2 p.m.
	Pacific, we're doing our fifth episode of The Conversation, featuring Andrew Klavan, moderated by Elisha Krauss.
	Subscribe today.
	Be part of the conversation.
	Ask Drew live questions.
	He will answer for everyone to hear.
	Drew's Conversation will stream live on the Daily Wire Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
	It will be free for everyone to watch, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
	To ask questions as a subscriber, log into our website over at dailywire.com, head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
	After that, just start typing into the Daily Wire chat box, and Drew will answer questions as they come in for an entire hour.
	Again, subscribe to get your questions answered by Andrew Klavan on Tuesday, January 16th at 5 p.m.
	Eastern, 2 p.m.
	Pacific, and join the conversation.
	Or later, make sure that you check us out at SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher.
	For the annual subscription, by the way, it's $99.
	You get all of those aforementioned glories, plus this, the Leftist Tears hot or cold Tumblr Which is filled to overflow nearly every day.
	So check it out over at dailywire.com.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So it looks like the Me Too movement is now devolving and that it has gone wildly wrong.
	As evidence for this, there is a piece in a magazine called Babe.
	I'd never heard of it before.
	And it was written by a woman named Katie Way.
	And Katie Way details anonymous allegations by a photographer who had an awkward and terrible intimate evening with comedian Aziz Ansari.
	I want to explain those allegations in just a second and show you in detail why the Me Too movement is off the rails.
	First, I think it is necessary to quote a woman because I don't want to mansplain this to you.
	I think that we need to stop with the womansplaining of men's motives.
	Right?
	The womansplaining of men's motives, this idea that women can read men's minds and they know that we're all pigs and all evil and all nasty and all terrible and all brutish and all willing to overcome their consent, and that they are always in danger of rape.
	Don't womansplain to me my own mind, okay?
	I'm not going to mansplain to you your mind, but you don't get to womansplain to me my mind either, okay?
	We can have general views of how people should use their rationality, and I think that's perfectly fine.
	But to attribute motivations to men generally, I think that the movement to expose these circumstances is a good thing.
	In any case, here's Condi Rice saying, we are in danger of turning this Me Too movement into a snowflake moment for a lot of women. - I think that the movement to expose these circumstances is a good thing.
	Let's clear the air about it.
	I do think we have to be a little bit careful Let's not turn women into snowflakes.
	Let's not infantilize women.
	And what I really don't want to happen is I don't want it to get to a place that men start to think, well, maybe it's just better not to have women around.
	Well, and unfortunately, that's the way that it is going, because if every activity by a man can be perceived as sexual assault or sexual harassment, men will stop hiring women.
	They will.
	They will stop working with women.
	This actually happened in the aftermath of the American with Disabilities Act.
	The idea was that if you are a workplace, you now have to install, if you have a disabled employee, you have to install ramps everywhere and all the rest of it.
	You can't just have an elevator or somebody help you up the stairs.
	You actually have to have ramps.
	And so the employment for Americans with disabilities actually declined, or actually went down.
	So that's a serious consequence.
	When she says that consent is being dumbed down, that agency is being dumbed down, this is 100% true.
	Now men are not only supposed to determine whether a woman wants to do something, they're supposed to decide for the woman whether she wants to do something.
	The case in point is this Aziz Ansari case.
	So let me start with this.
	I think Aziz Ansari is a jerk.
	Yeah, Aziz Ansari sounds like a douchebag, and Aziz Ansari, he's one of these guys who wears the Time's Up button and then sounds like he treats women in a kind of trashy fashion.
	But this story is not a story of sexual assault.
	It's a bad penthouse letter.
	That's all it is.
	Okay, and this was printed, and it got all sorts of play, and Aziz Ansari was essentially accused of sexual assault allegations.
	It's really insane.
	Okay, so Ansari is a nincompoop, as Matt Walsh points out, but This woman who calls herself Grace, she met Ansari at the Emmy Awards in 2017.
	She approaches him, he blows her off, but she ends up leaving with Ansari's number in her phone anyway, and then they go on a date, and then Ansari only offers her white wine even though she prefers red.
	Okay, like, presumably she could have said something about it, but then he wants to get her back to his place.
	Okay, now at this point, if you are a person with any semblance of rationality, you're thinking, the guy basically wants to rush through dinner to get me back to his apartment.
	What do you think is going to happen at his apartment?
	Is he desperate to go home and play Parcheesi?
	Does Aziz Ansari really want this woman to go back home with him and they're just gonna play Twister?
	Like, with their clothes on?
	Like, that's really his intent?
	Going back?
	Of course not.
	The woman knows going back that probably some sexual interplay is going to happen there.
	So the two start going at it.
	As Matt Walsh points out, as soon as they arrive in their apartment, they take their clothes off, they perform various acts of sex.
	Here's the actual story, right?
	So she says he resumed kissing her.
	Okay, so first of all, they get undressed.
	Ansari says that he wants to grab a prophylactic, and the woman objects, saying, whoa, let's relax for a second, let's chill.
	And then she continues.
	She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed certain sex acts upon her, and asked her to do the same thing to him, which she did, but not for long.
	Quote, it was really quick.
	Everything was pretty much touched and done within 10 minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.
	At no point in here did she ever say, no, I'm uncomfortable with this, let's stop.
	And when she did, guess what?
	He stopped.
	She accused Ansari of pulling her hand toward his genitals several times, but she never got up to leave.
	And every time she said no, or evidenced that she didn't want to do something, he stopped.
	So he was persistent, but he was not physically moving her, he was not physically forcing her.
	When she said no, he didn't stop her.
	When she pulled away, he didn't stop her.
	But here's what she says.
	Throughout the course of her short time in the apartment, she says she'd verbal and nonverbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was.
	Well, you could have quoted it.
	Did she ever say, I don't want to do this?
	In fact, one time she does say, I don't want to do this.
	And that's have full-on penetrative sex.
	She says, I don't want to do this.
	And guess what?
	They don't.
	Right?
	The woman says, I know I was physically giving off cues I wasn't interested.
	OK.
	This idea that you know you were physically giving off cues, unless you were actively pushing him away, the idea that you were physically giving off cues that you're not interested, Men aren't good with these cues.
	Okay, men are not good with these physical cues.
	You may have thought that you were sitting there saying, no, I'm not interested.
	But if you are not at like, really, to expect him to read your nonverbal cues is insane.
	People are bad at reading each other's cues generally.
	But this is particularly true when hormones are running high and you're in a room naked with each other.
	It turns out that's a pretty big nonverbal cue to a dude that you might want to have sex.
	If you're in a room naked with a guy, making out with him, and performing certain sex acts with one another, we could call that a non-verbal cue that you might be into things.
	And you know how I know this?
	Because I'm married, and when my wife doesn't want to have sex with me, she's not in a room naked with me, it turns out.
	Amazing how this works.
	Okay, and then the cues, as I say, the cues were at best ambiguous.
	She told Ansari she didn't want to have sex because she didn't want to feel forced.
	He said, okay.
	And then they sat on the couch and he asked her for another sex act.
	And here's what it says.
	Ansari instructed her to turn around.
	He sat back and pointed to his genitals and motioned for me to perform the sex act.
	And I did.
	I think I just felt really pressured.
	It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment, because I told him I was uncomfortable.
	Was it the most unexpected thing you thought was going to happen at that moment?
	Like, more expected than a dragon popping through the window and blowing flame at you?
	Was it the most unexpected thing?
	That you were in the middle of a sexual evening, and he asked you to perform a sex act that you had already performed earlier in the evening, and then he did it.
	Was it the most unexpected thing?
	Like, really, was it shocking to you?
	You never could have imagined it.
	It was like Chris Farley coming back to life and busting through the apartment door.
	Like, that would have been more unexpected, I feel like.
	I feel like a pizza arriving at that moment might have been more unexpected.
	I feel like... I feel like the new episode of Game of Thrones dropping might have been more... Like, there are a few things in life that might have been a little more unexpected than you in the middle of having a bunch of sex acts with a guy, him asking you to perform something, then you doing it.
	Also, which part of the nonverbal cue was it when you started actually performing the sex act?
	Again, the woman can feel however she wants.
	I'm sure she felt used.
	I'm sure she felt awkward.
	Because she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
	She can make that choice.
	But then she doesn't get to say the next day, By the way, he should have figured out that I felt awkward.
	He asked you to do something and you did it.
	I don't know how he's supposed to read your mind.
	Again, it doesn't make Aziz Ansari any less of a jerk.
	It doesn't mean he's not gross.
	It doesn't mean that you ought to feel like, that you have no right to feel how you want to feel.
	You can feel however you want to feel.
	But what we are arguing about now is whether there is an objective measure by which Aziz Ansari, he disobeyed your consent.
	That there is some objective measure by which we could lock Aziz Ansari up or ruin his career over this.
	And the answer I'm finding is no.
	Okay, this is a bad Penthouse Diary entry.
	Nothing in the piece suggests Ansari took advantage of the woman.
	She acquiesced to performing oral sex not once but twice.
	No physical force was alleged at any time.
	Okay, and then she says, well, you know, I texted him afterward.
	She said, I texted him afterward.
	Okay, she says, and she did, she texted him.
	He texted her and said, thanks, it was nice to meet you last night.
	Which, by the way, shows there is something wildly wrong with our sexual culture.
	Right, you literally met and then you had this evening and then you text, it was nice to meet you?
	We've totally reversed the polarity and the order of when you're supposed to have sex in American society.
	The way I grew up was, you get to know a woman, you get to love a woman, you marry a woman, you commit to a woman, and then you have sex with the woman.
	And we've completely reversed all of those things, right?
	Now it's, we'll have sex and maybe it was fun, maybe it wasn't, and I'll text you the next day, maybe.
	And then you're surprised that men aren't picking up the cues?
	Men are stupid, particularly with regard to sex.
	Men are morons.
	Okay, this is... I'm fully unaware as to when culture... I don't understand when culture decided that men were brilliant with regards to their penises.
	Like, this has never been true in the history of humanity.
	Like, going all the way back to Adam and Eve.
	Like, men are not smart with regard to this stuff.
	But now men are supposed to be Carnac the Magnificent.
	And they're supposed to be able to mind read.
	I mean, really, this is the end of MeToo.
	If you want a MeToo movement that means something, you actually have to restrict bad activity to activity that has some sort of standard.
	And there are people who are tweeting out, well, you know, there are various levels of consent.
	I actually agree that there are various levels of consent.
	Which is why committed relationships are useful.
	And why you shouldn't have sex with men you don't know.
	Because when you know people, then you are more likely to take into account the various levels of consent.
	There are times when women are reluctant to have sex and they're more reluctant and what a man will do if he loves the woman and they have a committed relationship will say, OK, she's more reluctant.
	She'll do it if I push her a little bit and it won't be like I'm raping her, but she's more reluctant and maybe I'll just let it go this time.
	But the guy is like in this situation, she's there for sex.
	He's there for sex.
	They just met.
	He brought her back to his apartment.
	You think that Aziz Ansari really cares for this girl?
	Obviously not.
	And then she's using his texts against her, right?
	So she texts that, I think the actual text said something like, I'm trying to find the actual text, here it is.
	She texted a friend, she had to say no a lot, he wanted sex.
	Okay, and then she said no a lot, and then he didn't have sex with her.
	Also, had to say no a lot used to be the standard definition of male-female relationships.
	Guess what?
	Women say no a lot to men.
	And good men respect the no.
	Okay, later she texted Ansari, last night might have been fun for you, but it wasn't for me.
	You ignored clear nonverbal cues.
	Again, nonverbal cues.
	Maybe he didn't ignore them.
	Maybe he was just being persistent because sometimes nonverbal cues are ambiguous.
	Like, again, being naked and performing sex acts with one another.
	And she says, you kept going with advances.
	I want to make sure you're aware so maybe the next girl doesn't have to cry on the ride home.
	Ansari replied, I'm so sad to hear this.
	Clearly I misread things in the moment.
	I'm truly sorry.
	And then they're reading that as evidence that he's admitting that he raped her or something.
	Okay, that's him being mildly polite.
	What are you going to say to this crazy lady?
	Okay, are you really going to say to this woman?
	You know what?
	You're wrong.
	I didn't read those non-verbal cues.
	And then she blows it up.
	He's hoping if I just say something nice then she goes away.
	That's what Aziz Ansari is hoping.
	Okay, all of this is stupid.
	And it's why the MeToo movement is doing itself a massive disservice.
	Right?
	The Me Too movement is doing itself a massive disservice.
	Of course the woman feels used, because she was used.
	But she made the decision to be there and be used and give off a lot of nonverbal cues that suggest that she wanted to be used.
	And the fact she felt bad about it the next day or during the act?
	You know what's the easiest way to not feel bad about things?
	Don't do them.
	That's the easiest way to not feel bad about things.
	And don't expect the guy to care for you, or be nice to you, or be cordial to you, or make up your mind for you.
	By the way, if he had said, listen, I don't think you really want to have sex right now.
	And she could have come out the next day and said, he deprived me of my agency.
	I really did want to have sex then.
	And he was making up my mind for me.
	You can't have it both ways on this.
	Either you are responsible for your own consent or you are not responsible for your own consent, particularly in situations where you don't love the person you're having sex with and it's not in the confines of anything remotely resembling a committed relationship.
	Okay, so now I want to move on to the situation in Hawaii, from one disaster area to another.
	So, over the weekend, there was a false alarm that went out in Hawaii.
	That suggested that there was a nuclear attack imminent in Hawaii.
	And people went nuts.
	So people were actually taking their kids and putting them in storm drains and then taping it, which I don't know why you would do this.
	You want this for the family album later?
	I'm always bewildered.
	It's in the middle of an emergency and people are grabbing their phones to tape the emergency as opposed to, you know, getting to a safe place.
	In any case, here's a little bit of this tape.
	This one is open.
	The other one is a little bit bigger.
	OK, so they're putting the kid in the storm drain, which is just great.
	And then Jim Carrey, of course, blamed Trump, which makes perfect sense, because it's somehow Trump's fault that some idiot in Hawaii, on a state level, hit the button that said that there is a nuclear attack imminent.
	So he said, I woke up this morning in Hawaii with 10 minutes to live.
	It was a false alarm, but a real psychic warning.
	If we allow this one-man Gamora and his corrupt Republican Congress to continue alienating the world, we are all headed for suffering beyond all imagination.
	Then Jim Carrey tweeted out a picture of a mushroom cloud.
	What now?
	What does Trump have to do with any of this?
	This is a state that is run by Democrats.
	I'm confused.
	In fact, the state is so incompetent at this that the worker was not even fired.
	The worker was reassigned.
	I'm not joking.
	The worker is still working.
	They just moved him to a different area.
	It's so hard to fire government employees that when you send out an alert to your entire state that everyone's about to be nuked in 10 minutes, you retain your job.
	Okay, the government may be too big and too bad at everything that it does.
	So, no, this is not Trump's fault, okay?
	I know you want to blame Trump for everything, but no, this one is actually not Trump's fault, and that's really, really, really, really, really stupid.
	Okay, so time for some things I like and then some things that I hate, and we will do a Federalist paper.
	So...
	Things I like.
	So today is, of course, Martin Luther King Day.
	His birthday is indeed more important than mine is.
	One of the things that's totally insane is the way people are covering Martin Luther King Day.
	So instead of just looking at the stuff that we actually pay tribute to, they decided to look at his entire life.
	There are lots of—this is what I was saying about great men or important people or heroes or villains.
	Everybody has stuff that they've done that is not why we pay tribute to them.
	So Winston Churchill had some pretty nasty racial things to say during the course of his life.
	The reason we pay tribute to Winston Churchill is because of his strength in the face of the Nazis and in the face of the communists.
	Martin Luther King, we pay tribute to his strength in the face of racial discrimination, not— We don't care that much about his economic policy.
	CNN is trying to make it that we care about his economic policy.
	That's just silly.
	OK?
	This is the same thing the left tries to do with George Washington, where George Washington is honored because he's the father of the country, not because he held slaves.
	But they say, well, it's really his slave owners, it's his status as a slave owner that matters.
	No, no, no.
	OK, in any case, if you want kind of the basic take on Martin Luther King Jr., And why it's good and what you should read to your kid today.
	There's a great book called I Am Martin Luther King Jr.
	It's by Brad Meltzer.
	It's illustrated by Christopher Eliopoulos.
	I believe I've recommended at least one of these books in the series before.
	There's one about Jackie Robinson that's quite good.
	There's one about Albert Einstein that's very good.
	I think I recommended I Am George Washington, which is also a favorite of my daughter's.
	And the whole point of this book is it really does tell the basic story of Martin Luther King Jr.
	sans assassination.
	It does tell the entire kind of basic story of why he's an important figure in American history.
	My daughter loves this book.
	It's really kind of beautifully written, and it's well-drawn, and it's fun to read.
	So check that out.
	That's a good way to educate your kid about Martin Luther King Jr. and Martin Luther King Jr.
	Day today.
	Okay.
	Other things that I like.
	So I have to show you the final play of the Vikings-Saints game.
	If you didn't see this, and you're not a football fan, this will make you into a football fan.
	So the Saints were leading 24-23, and you're about to watch the worst missed tackle in the history of the NFL right here.
	And it leads to the Vikings winning the game on a miracle play.
	The ball on the boundary.
	And steps into it.
	Pass is caught.
	Diggs!
	Sideline!
	Touchdown!
	Unbelievable!
	Vikings win it!
	Okay, so that's an insane play.
	That guy, that mistackle is just a career ender.
	I mean, if you can't see it, the fellow from the Saints, I don't know the defensive back's name, that is inexcusable.
	I mean, just a basic mistackle.
	Holy moly.
	How do you miss that tackle?
	That's insane.
	And then they run into each other, which turns into a Benny Hill sequence.
	But, great play.
	And now, we get the fantastic spectacle of watching two of the worst quarterbacks in the league go after each other next week.
	It's Nick Foles versus Case Keenum.
	So, that'll be awesome in the NFC Championship game.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate, and then we'll do a Federalist Paper.
	Okay, the quick thing that I hate, we'll talk about Trump and paying $130,000 allegedly to a porn star tomorrow.
	I really don't have much to say on that other than...
	Like, are we shocked?
	Are we surprised?
	It's not something I hate because it's something that I sort of figured.
	I mean, Donald Trump is not, speaking of people who are not particularly smart about where they put their wing-wing, the president definitely falls into that list.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	Chelsea Manning now wants to run for U.S.
	Senate.
	So I think this is just great.
	We've got Joe Arpaio running for the Senate on the right.
	We've got Chelsea Manning running for the Senate on the left.
	And this is the campaign ad for Chelsea Manning in the U.S.
	Senate.
	Chelsea Manning, of course, is a traitor.
	is an actual traitor who took time in prison for revealing classified documents that put American lives in danger.
	And then got out because Chelsea Manning is transgender and obviously all transgender people are heroes.
	Just like all gay people are heroes and all minorities are heroes, Chelsea Manning deserved to be released from prison.
	Not because Chelsea Manning wasn't guilty of treason, but because Chelsea Manning thinks that Chelsea Manning is a woman and it's very important to the press that we all agree.
	So here's Chelsea Manning's campaign ad.
	We live in trying times.
	Times of Fear A Of suppression.
	Did Anonymous cut this ad?
	Of hate.
	hate.
	You don't need more or better leaders.
	We need someone willing to fight.
	We need to stop asking them to give us our rights.
	They won't support us.
	They won't compromise.
	We need to stop expecting that our systems will somehow fix themselves.
	We need to actually take the reins of power from them.
	We need to challenge them at every level.
	Holding a rose right now?
	We don't need them anymore.
	We can do better.
	What is this?
	Damn right we got this.
	OK, we got this is Chelsea Manning's hashtag.
	And Chelsea Manning uses emoji.
	Like, the actual ad has on it emojis and hashtags.
	Chelsea Manning has some serious problems.
	OK, Chelsea Manning, and I'm not even talking about the transgenderism right now.
	I'm talking about the serious problems Chelsea Manning has with being a traitor and then thinking that he is going to run for U.S.
	Senate.
	Hashtag we got this.
	Rainbow flag.
	Emoji sunglasses.
	If that gets in the United States Senate, if Chelsea Manning is in the United States Senate, if that person is in the United States Senate, I mean, just, whatever.
	I guess it wouldn't, let's be frank, it wouldn't decline the quality of the Senate that much.
	Probably.
	I mean, ugh.
	Okay, time for a quick Federalist paper.
	So every week we do a Federalist paper.
	Here's a quick summary of Federalist 11.
	Federalist 11 is by Alexander Hamilton.
	This one has to do with trade negotiation.
	Hamilton making the case for the Constitution of the United States and the federal government.
	He says other countries want to divide us on trade in order to make us less powerful.
	That's basically why we should have one country so that we can negotiate with other countries on an equal level.
	He also says we need to build a powerful Navy so that we can have a chance of being a powerful nation.
	And then he makes a fantastic point, a really interesting one.
	I actually want to read it to you.
	It's only a couple sentences.
	This is from Hamilton, talking about what the U.S.' 's role in the world can be in overthrowing European visions of ethnocentrism.
	It's really fascinating.
	He says, remember, Alexander Hamilton grew up outside the United States as a bastard child.
	He said, By her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over them all.
	Africa, Asia, and America have felt successively her domination.
	The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as mistress of the world and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit.
	Men admired as profound philosophers have in direct terms attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals and with them the human species degenerate in America.
	That even dogs cease to bark after having breathed a while in our atmosphere.
	Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans.
	It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race and to teach that assuming brother moderation.
	Union will enable us to do so.
	Dishunion will add another to the victim of his triumphs.
	Let Americans sustain to be the instruments of European greatness.
	So what he's saying now is you want to prove that America is not filled with a lesser stock?
	Then become a successful country.
	He's basically saying that Europe has essentially seen itself as the leader because it has victimized other countries Let's become a non-victim country, and then we'll demonstrate to everyone that Americans are not a lesser stock.
	And it's interesting, you can apply that same logic everywhere across the world.
	The best revenge against racism is dominance.
	The best revenge against ethnocentrism is success.
	The best revenge against the stupidity of people saying that You can't be a good immigrant if you're from Haiti, is the Haitian success rate, right?
	That's the best revenge.
	And Alexander Hamilton talks about it explicitly in Federalist 11, which is quite fascinating and I think appropriate for Martin Luther King Day.
	Okay, so we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲