All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 16, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
50:47
Is #MeToo Falling Apart? | Ep. 454
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As sexual allegations become more and more vague, are we reaching the end of the Me Too moment?
Plus, President Trump's comments on immigration are polarizing the country.
But are Republicans and Democrats both painting themselves into different corners?
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
So I have a lot to get to today.
Apparently, writing the Handmaid's Tale is not enough to get you off the hook with the feminists.
You actually have to be a full-fledged crazy person in order to earn the love of the feminist movement.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Dollar Shave Club.
So, you've heard me talk before of the amazing shave that I get using my Dollar Shave Club razor.
I use it right here.
under my jawline because in Judaism you have to use an electric razor above that.
But the razor is just fantastic.
And I use their Dr. Carver's Shave Butter as well.
I am here to tell you that my membership will remain no matter what because I'm adding DSE products to my daily routine.
They make products for your hair, your face, your skin, your shower, everything you need.
They have me looking, smelling incredible.
Just ask my wife.
It's their all original ingredients.
They use only the finest premium stuff.
They deliver it to you just like they do their razors.
And that means no more annoying trips to the store, trying to figure out which thing to buy, and do you get the generic brand, it just, Use Dollar Shave Club.
You never have to worry about this stuff ever again.
You can use Dollar Shave Club for almost anything.
Razors, body cleanser, hair gel, and yes, even their fabled butt wipes.
DSC has you covered head to toe.
And now is a great time to give Dollar Shave Club a try.
You can get your first month of their best razor along with travel-sized versions of shave butter, body cleanser, and even those magical butt wipes for just $5.
After that, replacement cartridges ship for just a few bucks a month when you subscribe.
You never have to worry about it again.
It's the DSC Starter Set.
Get yours for just $5 exclusively at DollarShaveClub.com slash Ben.
That's DollarShaveClub.com slash Ben.
Again, when you use that slash Ben, then you get their first month of their travel size version of everything plus the razor for $5.
So check it out right now, dollarshaveclub.com.
Use the slash Ben so they know what we say and get the best shave possible and get the rest of their great products as well.
And I'll say butt wipes one more time just because it's hilarious.
Okay, so now let's begin with the collapse of the Me Too movement.
So the Me Too movement is going to continue because it should.
Nobody is in favor of rape or sexual assault.
I have yet to see all the people out there marching in the streets in defense of Harvey Weinstein, which demonstrates once again that the idea that we live in a rape culture that is fine with rape is I would say wildly overstated.
What we are concerned with, and what we should be concerned with, is this feeling that more and more people are now being dragged into a dragnet of exaggeration and awkwardness and uncomfortableness.
The idea being that if a woman is uncomfortable or awkward about sex, and afterward she feels bad about it because maybe she shouldn't have been there in the first place, then we are supposed to believe that she was raped or wronged in some way.
Now, I believe she was wrong by her, right?
If you put yourself in a bad situation and then you go forward with something without any indicator to the person that you are having sex with, that you don't want to do this and then you feel bad later, you have been wrong.
By you.
Okay?
That is your fault.
Okay?
And I know it's not victim blaming because you're not the victim except you're your own victim.
Okay?
If you say to a guy, I'm going to come back to your apartment, I'm going to have sex with you, you go through the whole thing, and then the next morning you feel bad because it was awkward, or it turns out the guy was a jerk, and halfway through the sex you felt like you didn't like it, but you didn't let him know that, you didn't say, no, get off of me, you just went forward with it because it was too awkward to say no, you at that point are your own victim, you're not his victim, and blaming him you at that point are your own victim, you're not his victim, and blaming him for that situation is no more right than blaming anybody for something for The guy can't read minds.
It's so funny, we're talking constantly about mansplaining things, Like if I explain something to a woman, I'm mansplaining.
Feminist-splaining is where you explain to me I was supposed to read your mind based on outward indicators that make no sense.
The reason this is coming up now is because, as we discussed yesterday, there's a long article in babe.com about Aziz Ansari, this comedian who plays Tom Haverford on Parks and Recreation.
And there's this long 3,000-word piece about this woman named Grace who went back to Aziz Ansari's apartment, engaged in multiple rounds of sexual activity with him, and then as she was leaving said she felt uncomfortable and wronged, and then he said, well, I'm sorry you felt that way, and that was the end of the story.
But this was treated by a bunch of feminists as actual evidence that Aziz Ansari should have his career ended, that he should be finished by this.
Now, I'm glad to report that I'm not the only one who's saying this story is ridiculous.
Barry Weiss over at the New York Times wrote a very good piece on this.
Over at the Atlantic there was a very good piece on this.
But there are feminists who are coming out nonetheless and suggesting that Aziz Ansari should basically be put away and his career should somehow take a ding because he, a famous celebrity, invited a girl back to his apartment where she proceeded to get naked with him and then engage in several rounds of sexual activity.
This is insipid.
What's particularly insipid about this is it actually undermines the foundations of feminism itself.
The entire idea of feminism is that women have sexual agency.
That women are supposed to be able to make their own choices.
But now we're learning that a lot of feminists think that women should not be able to make their own choices.
That men should be able to make the choice for the woman saying, well, you know what?
I don't think it's in your best interest to have sex with me right now.
So it's not just on men as to whether women have sex.
It's on men as to whether women have a good sexual experience all the way through beginning to end.
Which leads to bizarre stories like this one.
So there's a new app.
I'm not kidding.
It's called Legal Fling.
This is from Daily Wire.
Emily Zanotti reporting.
Worried your consensual one-night stand will turn into a rape allegation because you didn't get proper verbal and written consent from your sexual partner?
Well, now there's an app for that.
The new program Legal Fling claims to provide couples who hook up on the fly with an easy way to avoid being later accused of taking advantage of one another.
An app that couples can use to create a legally binding contract saying that both of them consent to their casual union.
See, we used to have something like this called a marriage contract, but it actually came along with obligations.
Where you actually were supposed to do things for one another beyond getting your rocks off.
But now, we have to have legal consent forms for you to have a one night stand.
After downloading LegalFling, you can send requests to potential partners who then have the option of checking off certain boxes like, use a condom, photo and video, and BDSM.
How convenient.
And I mean, does this say love?
I mean, it says love to me.
I know that when I'm thinking romance, nothing says romance to me like a legal app, like an actual form that you fill out with boxes to check.
Every time I decide to get romantic with my wife, this is what I do.
I walk in the room, I drop a quick contract because I'm a lawyer, and then I say, please sign and date on the dotted line and initial at these particular paragraphs if you're into this.
It works great.
She loves it.
If you later decide you want to revoke your consent, you grab your phone and electronically end the hookup.
You can also, according to the app's website, use the app to write notes about your experience.
All of these notes and contracts are then maintained securely and privately using blockchain.
The app's creators believe they are solving the problem of consent issues, but legal fling still hasn't passed either Apple or Google's approval process.
It's also questionable as to whether the contracts are in fact legally binding.
They are not, of course, because according to the left, consent is a continuous issue, meaning that in the middle of the sex, if the woman says, I'm done, then the consent has been ended.
So unless you grab the app in the middle of the actual coitus, then you are going to presumably be accused of violating the woman's consent, even if she signed the contract beforehand.
Now, what's funny is that the left used to recognize how prudish and silly all of this was.
There's a show called New Girl.
What's the name of the woman who stars in New Girl?
Thank you.
Zooey Deschanel, who's famous for her bangs.
And the show, the first couple seasons was actually pretty funny.
There's one episode of the show, which is a flashback to Zoe's prom night, when she's looking forward to having sex for the first time.
Because this is America, where this is now the big thing, is that on your prom night, you're supposed to have sex for the first time.
Not on your wedding night, on your prom night, with some rando from high school who has pimples and is ugly.
That's typically how prom night is supposed to go.
Very exciting here in America, where traditional sexual mores have been thrown away.
In any case, This is a very funny scene in which Zooey Deschanel basically is with a guy, and it demonstrates the disconnect between what feminists think they want out of sexual experiences and what they actually want out of sexual experiences.
Because Zooey Deschanel's character on the show is a feminist.
She is a single woman who's living with a bunch of dudes in an apartment.
But this is a flashback to her prom night, and it demonstrates the stupidity of apps like LegalFling.
I'm going to take off your dress.
Do I have your permission?
Yep.
Yep.
I can't find the zipper.
Oh, there is no zipper.
Um, I made this dress and my mom sewed it in.
Um, maybe I could try, you know, abdominal area here.
Is that okay?
Do I have permission?
Yes, you have my permission.
Just, um, you know, maybe, um, you know, um, cause maybe you could just rip it.
I just want to make sure you're feeling safe.
No, no, no.
I feel like so safe and like I've never felt like more safe.
Well, do I have your permission?
Just be a man and rip it off.
- - Now I'm feeling very unsafe. - Okay, the reason that's funny is because this is stupid, people.
Okay, if this is how you think sexual encounters are supposed to go, or that any sexual encounter in history has gone this way, you're out of your mind.
That's why Hollywood used to be able to joke about this stuff, but now Hollywood can't even joke about it because they think that this is the ideal sexual scenario.
The ideal sexual scenario is where you're asking every step of the way for permission.
There's not a woman alive who feels like this is sexy.
Not one.
If you can name this woman to me, who thinks that this scene is really hot, then you're going to have to show her to me.
Because I don't believe you.
I think you're lying.
The reality is that women want men to act like men.
That involves a certain amount of aggressive activity.
Not rape, obviously.
Not doing things that women don't want.
But if a man is acting like a passive do-nothing in the bedroom, women are not interested.
And it's just, it's just a lie.
I'm sorry.
It's just a lie.
If you're acting like the, like the Jeff Goldblum, like the, uh, not the Jeff Goldblum, the lawyer character in Jurassic Park.
Okay?
And that's, that's your, that's your sexual come on strategy.
It's not going anywhere.
This is all fictional nonsense that was created by a culture that has refused to make any rules and now is backtracking and making new rules to fill in the rules that should have been there in the first place.
Absolute stupidity.
OK, before we go any further, I want to talk about President Trump and bleepholes, because that's all we can talk about now.
Using our Dollar Shave Club wipes, we can wipe up this bleephole situation.
We'll get to all of that in just a second.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Tripping.com.
Do you need to get away?
I do.
Okay, that's why we need to go to Tripping.com.
So Tripping.com is the place to go for your vacation rental.
So I'm in a unique situation when I go on vacations.
I can't really stay in hotels because they don't have a kitchen, right?
I keep kosher.
That means that I need a kitchen.
Also, I have small children, which means I need a washing machine because they get everything insanely dirty all the time.
Well, that's why I need Tripping.com, because if I were staying in the local Hyatt, it might be nice, but it's smaller, doesn't have any of these amenities.
Tripping.com makes sure that I can go any place that I want, basically, and they have vacation rentals there for you.
With Tripping.com, one search lets you filter, Compare, sort over 10 million available properties on trusted sites like VRBO, TripAdvisor, Booking.com, and more.
And you don't have to worry about getting the best deal because you're saving an average of 18% per night by booking your vacation with Tripping.com.
As I say, I only use Tripping.com.
I can't because when I'm booking a vacation, I'm not gonna stay in a hotel.
Don't forget, if you wanna save time and money, go to Tripping.com slash Shapiro today.
Tripping.com slash Shapiro.
Tripping.com slash Shapiro.
Go and do that right now when you use that slash Shapiro.
That lets them know that we sent you.
As I say, You know, you think the vacation's good because you're staying at a hotel.
The truth is, it's much better when you have more room to spread out.
It's like home away from home.
It's just fantastic to stay at one of these nice vacation rentals.
My wife and I do it every time we go on vacation now, and Tripping.com makes that possible and makes it less expensive.
Again, Tripping.com slash Shapiro.
Use the slash Shapiro so they know that we sent you.
Okay.
So, meanwhile, in other news, The Democrats are grilling on the Hill today the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, a woman named Kirstjen Nielsen, about President Trump's alleged statements regarding immigrants from bleephole countries.
And they're grilling her.
Did he really say bleephole countries?
Did he really say he wants fewer people from bleephole countries?
OK, we are now in, what, day six of this controversy?
This interminable controversy where we're supposed to discuss ad nauseum whether the president is racist or whether he was just making comments that were about which countries we ought to prioritize, and we're just going to go around in circles on this thing and everybody's going to make each other crazy.
One thing I will say, when Democrats suggest that they are deeply concerned about the president's racism for saying that he wants immigrants from Norway over Haiti, And they refused to acknowledge, by the way, that the day before, the ambassador from Norway was at the—or the prime minister of Norway was at the White House, which is probably why Trump was saying Norway.
And they refused to acknowledge that Trump said in that same report, the Washington Post report, that he wants more immigrants from South Korea, which is not exactly indicative of racism, because South Koreans are not white, it turns out.
Maybe it's just possible Trump was talking about a merit-based immigration system.
Now, maybe he wasn't.
Maybe he was saying something racist.
Maybe he was saying, I want fewer black people in the United States.
Or maybe he was saying that you have created a system by which we are supposed to judge a hierarchy of countries that we are supposed to take immigrants from.
And I'd prefer to take immigrants from countries where the countries are closer to the Western way of life than countries that are less close to the Western way of life.
Which, again, that's not racist.
And it may be wrong, because the fact is what I would like is a merit-based system where we judge individuals instead of judging the country of origin.
But if you're going to judge solely based on country of origin, of course you're going to value South Korea over Russia, for example.
Because South Korea is a more westernized country than Russia is.
I've used Russia as the example because there are a lot of Russian immigrants to the United States who do really well.
I mean, my great-grandparents were Russian immigrants to the United States.
Russia is also a place that's governed in a very different way, has a different culture and a different language.
Right?
In South Korea, everybody virtually knows English.
It's taught in schools, I believe.
And South Koreans come to the United States and have a history of doing incredibly well here.
So is it wrong to talk about prioritization of countries if we are going to talk about prioritization of countries?
And here's how you know the Democrats are fibbing about all of this.
So Chuck Schumer was on CBS's Late Show last night because We have to have our comedy shows be replete with politics.
And here is what he said.
He said, Trump's comments over and over and over again can be described as nothing but racist and obnoxious.
He says he's not a racist.
Well, I have a challenge for Donald Trump.
Okay, actions speak louder than words.
If you want to begin, just begin that long road back to proving you're not a racist, you're not bigoted, support the bipartisan compromise that three Republicans and three Democrats have put on the floor, everyone gave, and get the dreamer safety here in America.
That's what he should do.
In other words, embrace the policy that Chuck Schumer likes, and that's how you can prove that you're not a racist.
And that's what I was saying yesterday, is that it seems to me that a lot of what Democrats are doing here is using the racism club in order to beat Trump into a corner on policy.
And there's a certain irony to this, right?
Chuck Schumer is saying that Trump is a racist for saying that people from certain countries are going to assimilate better than people from other countries, or that we should prioritize certain countries over other countries, and that's racist, right?
But Chuck Schumer is proposing a legal regime that prioritizes certain countries over other countries.
If Chuck Schumer really wanted us not to judge people based on their place of origin, he should be in favor of getting rid of the diversity visa lottery.
He should be in favor of getting rid of country-based, origin-based immigration systems.
He should be in favor of an individual merit-based system, which, I am told, President Trump wants.
And President Trump says that he wants.
So if we were really all on the same page, and we were all anti-racism, or anti-bigotry, or anti-discrimination based on birthplace, then we'd have a system that didn't take into account birthplace, wouldn't we?
We'd have a system that looks purely at whether somebody ought to come into the United States or not on an individual level.
But Democrats don't want that.
And that's how you can prove that what they're talking about, this deep caring about Trump's a racist, Trump's not a racist, it's all a lie.
They don't care about that.
They want their policy priorities.
If they really cared about racism and immigration, they would be trying to wipe out any semblance of country of origin being the adjudicative factor when it comes to immigration itself.
But I think that there's something else going on here, too.
And I think the Democrats are painting themselves into a corner.
So I think they're doing this on shutdown talk.
So right now, there's talk of a government shutdown.
So Republicans obviously control Congress.
President Trump, the immigration deal is basically dead.
It's going to be unlikely that There's any sort of immigration deal cut with Democrats.
Democrats have no interest in giving Trump any sort of win here.
But you could have a government shutdown if the Democrats do not go forward with the Republican budget.
Now I highly doubt the Democrats will do that.
I think Democrats will probably go forward with the budget.
Trump will sign into law some big budget just like he did last year with very few cuts attached.
It won't include border funding.
It'll basically be a clean government funding program the same way it was last year, because I don't think that Trump actually has the intestinal fortitude to have a government shutdown fight with Democrats over border wall funding.
I think he should, but I don't think he will.
All that said, Democrats have painted themselves into a bit of a corner.
Like Claire McCaskill says, Welcome to our world.
We've got people running for president all trying to find their base, and then you've got people from Trump states that are trying to continue to legislate that we always have by negotiation, and never the twain shall meet.
In other words, she is saying that there's not a lot of interest in actually coming to an agreement here, but nobody else wants to be blamed for an actual government shutdown.
So there's a lot of hubbub.
Obviously, a lot of the senators are fighting with one another, but the chances that we shut down the government over all of this, I think, are incredibly low.
There's another way, though, in which Democrats are painting themselves into a corner, and here is how.
Hillary Clinton got herself in all sorts of trouble.
Hillary Clinton lost the election in large part on the basis of suggesting that the vast majority of Americans, or at least a large swath of Americans, were deplorables, racists, bigots, alt-righters.
That anyone who supported Trump was a member of this group.
That anybody who was sanguine about Trump as president was ignoring his bigotry in order to vote for him.
That all of these people had to believe that bigotry and racism didn't matter, making them racists and bigots.
And there are a lot of people who felt like, you know what, Hillary's a jerk, I'm going to vote against her just because she disdains ordinary Americans.
Democrats are verging on that.
When they say that Trump is a racist, They're not just saying Trump is a racist, usually.
What Democrats are usually saying is that all the things that Trump has done are racist.
This is the Chuck Schumer point.
That if you want to prove you're not a racist, you have to agree with me.
But there are a lot of people who don't agree with Chuck Schumer and who are not racist.
I don't agree with Chuck Schumer.
I'm not a racist.
I don't agree with Chuck Schumer.
In fact, I think Chuck Schumer's policies with regard to immigration are kind of bigoted because he wants to benefit certain countries over other countries as opposed to using a merit-based system.
But Democrats, when they suggest that Trump's policies and his rhetoric are all of a piece, that everyone who agrees with Trump on policy must be a racist, what they are doing is driving away large segments of the American population.
They're making you choose.
You can either choose Trump's policies and his racism, or you can choose Democratic policies and their non-racism.
Well, what if I neglect to make that choice?
What if I say I like a lot of Trump's policies, but I don't like a lot of the things Trump says?
Well, Democrats say I'm not allowed to make that choice.
They've created this false dichotomy, this false binary.
And I'm now supposed to fall into that trap.
The problem is, that alienates voters.
If you're a Democrat and you're saying that, you should think twice about saying that.
You should think twice about saying that Trump is a racist, not just because it's questionable as to whether Trump is actually a Richard Spencer-type racist, but also because if you are going to say Trump is a racist, you need to say his comments are what make him a racist, not his policies.
But Democrats aren't doing that.
They're just saying that Trump is a racist bully and the implication, and I think that all Trump voters are reading into that, I think a lot of people who are not even Trump voters, I didn't vote for Trump and I'm reading into that, I think what they're reading that when people say Trump is a racist, what they're really saying is anyone who agrees with his immigration policy is a racist.
That they're using Trump as a proxy for anyone who agrees with Trump policies.
So when Elizabeth Warren says Trump is a racist bully, she's actually, I think, painting Democrats into a dangerous corner, ripping the American population by proxy.
Donald Trump is a racist bully, and we know how to deal with bullies.
We do not back down.
We do not shut up.
We fight back.
And no matter what they throw at us, nevertheless, we persist.
Nevertheless, we persist.
Of course, there's her slogan because she wants to run for president.
Again, the idea that Elizabeth Warren is going to lead the fight against bigotry after using false Native American heritage allegedly to gain her job at Harvard Law School is beyond insane.
She's not the only person Democrats are trotting out.
Again, if you're going to go out and call Trump a racist, you have to use non-racist to call Trump a racist.
You can't trot out Al Sharpton.
They trot out Al Sharpton, a guy who is legitimately responsible for at least helping to incite riots in Crown Heights in 1991 against Orthodox Jews, and then again against Freddie's Fashion Mart in New York City that ended with the burning down of the store and the death of many people who are minorities.
Al Sharpton is one of the worst racists of the last 35 years, and here's Al Sharpton ripping Trump as a racist.
You don't have to spray paint the N-word over the Oval Office and sleep with a KKK hood to be a racist.
If you have racist policies, say racist things, operate in a racist manner, you are a racist.
Period.
End of story.
Okay, so it's that part where he says racist policies that's fascinating, right?
When he says racist policies, that's the part where Democrats are going to lose everybody.
If they just said Trump's a bad character, I think a lot of people agree.
If they said Trump might be borderline racist in terms of his statements, I think a lot of people would probably agree or at least give Democrats the benefit of the doubt.
When they say you must agree with us or you are a racist just like Trump, you're going to lose the entire population.
And now they're trotting out celebrities to make this case.
So, in just a second, I'm going to explain to you which celebrities are actually making this case.
Apparently, it's everybody in the NBA, essentially.
And they're not being they're not being coy about this.
They don't just believe that Trump is a racist.
They believe that anyone who agrees with Donald Trump on policy is a racist.
The Democrats, I think this is such a major political mistake they're making right now.
So let's start here with LeBron James.
So LeBron, who, again, I don't know why the one of the best powerful words in the history of the NBA has amazing things to say on matters of immigration.
I wasn't aware that penetrating the paint has anything to do with making border policy.
But in any case, here's LeBron James saying that Trump has given racism an opportunity to be out.
Again, what he's really saying here is that because of Donald Trump, everybody in Donald Trump's base, they're secret racists, but now they're coming out.
People in racism, negative racism, an opportunity to be out and outspoken without fear.
And that's the fearful thing for us.
Because it's with you and it's around every day, but he's allowed people to come out and just feel confident about doing negative things.
OK, so this idea that Trump has emboldened racists, what he is really suggesting, listen, I said this during the campaign when he was actively appealing to the alt-right, is that Trump should have done more to tamp down racism.
But what LeBron is actually saying here, LeBron James, when he says that Trump has given racism an opportunity to be out of the closet, and then he says, I like when he says negative racism as opposed to presumably positive racism.
The idea that racism begins and ends with Donald Trump, I think, is an exaggeration.
Now, what LeBron says is not all that awful.
You know, I think that you can make the case that Trump did that during the campaign.
But what Greg Popovich does really is awful.
And this is where he says that Trump can't even prove to me that he's not a racist.
There's no way Trump can prove to me he's not a racist, other than by presumably agreeing with Greg Popovich, the coach of the San Antonio Spurs.
It's insidious.
It's still our national sin that we have to work on.
And every time I hear somebody say they're not a racist, you know they are.
Okay, this is the logic of the left, okay?
And Greg Popovich, I mean, this is so obnoxious.
I like Popovich as a coach, but he should really shut up about politics because this is an obnoxious, ridiculous statement.
That if somebody says they're not a racist, every time I hear somebody say they're not a racist, you know they are?
Okay, Greg, I'll say you're a racist.
How's that?
You're a racist.
Now, how do you respond?
Presumably you respond by saying, no, I'm not a racist.
But according to your logic, this now means you're a racist.
So we're now caught in a Knight-to-Knaves logic problem, where the minute somebody's accused of being a racist, there's no way to get out of it, right?
Because if you deny that you're a racist, then that means you're a racist.
And if you say that you're a racist, then you're obviously a racist.
So there's no way to avoid being a racist.
As soon as somebody throws the charge racist at you, we're all supposed to run for the hills and just assume that that person is a racist.
And then you wonder why Trump won?
You wonder why Trump still has a solid base?
It's because everyone's attempt to lump together Trump's base with Trump.
Everyone's attempt to lump Trump's policies together with Trump's rhetoric.
Everyone's attempt to take Trump's individual statements and then suggest that it is indicative of a broader worldview.
I don't know that Trump has a worldview about anything.
I mean, I'm not even sure that Donald Trump has a worldview about Starburst.
There's a story yesterday, by the way, it's pretty great, that staffers at one of the Senate offices were being tasked with going through boxes of Starbursts and picking out the pink and red Starbursts as a gift to President Trump, which is just astonishing.
I hope if I were ever president one day, I would force everybody, I wouldn't just buy the sour packs of jelly beans, I would force Senate staffers to go through entire bags of jelly beans and try to determine which one were the sour jelly bellies, and then make them give them to me.
It'd be like Willy Wonka's factory, I'd make them all into my Oompa Loompas.
In any case, It's not just NBA stars and coaches who are doing this silly nonsense.
Bill Press, the famous lefty, he suggests that Trump's base is filled with extreme wacko racists.
This is where the left is going.
Good luck with this one, gang.
Good luck with this one.
Remember last week, Stephen Colbert suggested that America was the real bleephole.
That all these other countries were not bleepholes.
America was a bleephole because Trump was president.
The disdain for Americans who disagree with the left is really coming out now because they're using disdain for Trump as the proxy.
And I think that this is what so many Trump supporters and Trump voters are basing their support for Trump on.
I think wrongly in some ways, but I think that this is what they're basing their support on, is every time they read an attack on Trump, they read an attack on them.
Because every time there's an attack on them, it's an attack on Trump.
And what Bill Press here says is so indicative of a worldview and mentality that comes from the left that everyone can read into the verbiage.
Listen to what Bill Press says and then you'll see that people make the connection between what Bill Press said and what Hillary Clinton said and what Elizabeth Warren is saying today about Trump.
I am sick and tired of talking about Donald Trump's face.
So he's got 35% of the most extreme, wacko, racist, I don't know, rednecks in the country.
Paso de Wacko.
I'm gonna speak for the deplorable.
Let me speak for the...
average American.
We have another term for the...
But you know, everything is...
This is fine.
He can say whatever he wants because it pleases his base.
He can do whatever.
He said it best.
He could go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and his base would say, good for you, Donald Trump.
Come on.
Let me say more than that base.
Now, I've said before that I think there is some truth to the idea that Donald Trump's base is too attached to Donald Trump.
But I also think that it is true that one of the reasons that they're so attached to Trump is because they see Trump and the slings and arrows that he takes as a proxy for the slings and arrows that they would take if he were not there.
That how the left feels about Donald Trump is exactly how the left feels about Donald Trump's base, and they felt that way about Donald Trump's base when Donald Trump wasn't there.
This is why I think, I've said this before, I think in many ways 2012 broke the country.
I think that the attempt to paint Mitt Romney and his supporters in the same exact way as the left now attempts to paint Donald Trump and his supporters is demonstrative of why Donald Trump won.
You can only call people racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes for so long before they finally say, listen, whoever they call a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe must not be one and everybody's full of crap and whoever stands up to that nonsense is going to be the guy that I back.
I think it is almost as simple as that.
I think that Trump's presidency is a backlash.
I think it's a backlash against the entire left, which suggested that everyone on the right was a deplorable, not just when they were voting for Trump, but long before that.
I've spent my entire life being called a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe by the left.
I am not any of those things, and my entire career is proof positive that I am not those things.
The left has suggested that anyway, about somebody like me, the guy who did not support Trump.
But the idea that now they're going to attack Trump, I think this is what's happened.
I think that people are making a mistake of logic, but it's an understandable mistake of logic.
The mistake of logic that they are making is they are buying into the idea that any attack on Trump is an attack on them.
It isn't.
But it is true that the leftists attack on Trump.
Very often, it is sort of an attack on them.
Bill Press' attack on Trump is really not an attack on Trump.
It's an attack on everybody on the right.
Elizabeth Warren's attacks on Trump are not just an attack on Trump.
They're an attack on everyone on the right, including people like me who did not vote for Trump.
This is why you see this grand and ridiculous disconnect in the leftist media on how they approach people like me, who back Trump's policies, but don't necessarily think Trump is a great president or good for the country in a lot of other ways.
The way they approach that is they say, listen, if you really don't like what Trump is saying, you shouldn't support any of his policies.
Which suggests to me an ulterior motive.
You're painting yourselves into a corner.
Democrats, you want to keep doing this?
You want to keep on with the deplorable stuff?
All you have to do is keep saying Trump is a racist and that his base is racist for supporting his policies, not just his rhetoric.
In just a second, I want to discuss how I think Republicans on the other side are actually painting themselves into a corner as well.
I think everybody is painting themselves into a corner because they're using Trump as the prism for politics.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
So for $9.99 a month, you get a subscription to dailywire.com.
That means you get the rest of this show live.
You get the rest of the deplorable Michael Knowles show live.
You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live.
When I say Knowles is deplorable, I don't just mean he supports Trump.
I mean he's actually a deplorable human being.
But you get the rest of his show live.
Also, you will get to be part of today, right?
Later today, Andrew Klavan is going to be doing one of our world-famous conversations.
Today, January 16th, 5 p.m.
Eastern, 2 p.m.
Pacific.
It's our fifth episode of the conversation featuring Andrew Klavan, moderated by host Alicia Krauss.
Subscribe today to be part of the conversation.
You can ask Drew live questions, which you will answer for everyone to hear.
Drew's conversation streams live on the Daily Wire Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
It's free for everyone to watch, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
To ask questions as a subscriber, log in to our website, dailywire.com, head over to the conversation page, watch the live stream after that, just start typing into that Daily Wire chat box, and then Alicia will funnel those questions to Drew and he'll answer them for an entire hour.
Once again, subscribe and get your questions answered.
Bye, Clavin.
Today, 5 p.m.
Eastern, 2 p.m.
Pacific, join the conversation.
Or if you want the annual subscription, you get all of those things, plus the leftist tiers, hot or cold Tumblr.
Magnificent.
I'm going to wet my whistle with it.
Ah, I'm revitalized.
Just incredible.
So check that out for $99 a year, which is cheaper than the monthly subscription.
Or later, you just want to listen to the rest of the show, go over to iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
We have lots of great videos that come out there on a regular basis.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
All righty, so it's not just Democrats painting themselves into a corner.
Because Trump has become the prism through which everyone views politics, I think things have gotten skewed.
We're basically living in a funhouse mirror.
We're looking at a funhouse mirror, and none of it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
So Democrats, on the one hand, are seeing in everyone who supports Trump's policy a mirror of Trump.
Everyone who supports Trump's policies on immigration, for example, All of those people must be the tiny little Trump racist dolls, like these little bobbleheads that have funny hair.
That's how the left sees everybody on the right.
And the right, meanwhile, sees themselves as forced to defend everything that Trump says because they feel like it's an attack on them.
They feel like if Trump is our shield, then we must be his sword.
If Trump is the guy who's taking all the slings and arrows, it's our job to go out there and defend everything that Trump says.
I know there are people who believe this because they're in our office.
I have this conversation pretty much every day with Andrew Klavan and Michael Mullins, both of whom have suggested that I'm not doing enough to fight back against the slurs against President Trump.
What I say is, when I think it's a slur, I'll fight back against it.
I've actually been Pretty strong on suggesting there are two possibilities on the bleed poll comments, for example.
But when he does something that I think is wrong and or stupid, I'm going to call it out because my job is not to defend Trump.
My job is to defend conservative principles, and that includes defending conservative principles and the future victory of those principles.
From President Trump, if Trump toxifies himself, right?
What I'm scared of, and I think with good reason when you look at the polls, is the possibility that I like a lot of Trump's policies, and that if Trump's toxicity smears those policies, Republicans lose the House in 2018, they lose the Senate in 2020, and they lose the White House in 2020, and then you have an era of Democratic dominance brought about because nobody on our side had the guts to say, I like a lot of what Trump is doing, but I don't like a lot of what Trump is saying, and I think it's polarizing and problematic.
That's, I think, the fundamental disconnect here.
And this is where I think Republicans are painting themselves into a corner, too.
So if Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by alienating 40 to 45 percent of the country by suggesting that if you agree with Trump's policies, then you are therefore a racist, just like Trump's a racist.
If that's the Democratic problem, and they've alienated a huge percentage of the population, the problem on the right is that by defending everything Trump says, you're also alienating a huge percentage of the population.
What I've said is that Trump deserves, and every president deserves, the ability of the commentariat to judge each individual action or comment on its own merit.
Obviously, we take character into account.
I said during the last administration, I thought the Obama administration was a Jew-hating administration, at least in terms of their policies toward Israel.
And that's very much like the left suggesting that Trump is a racist.
The difference is that if somebody on the right, I think, is a Jew-hating person, like Pat Buchanan, then I will say so and have said so for many, many years.
People on the left won't do that with regard to their own.
But with regard to President Trump and labeling him a racist, you can take your view of Trump and his racism and separate that off from a particular policy and determine whether the policy is motivated by animus or whether a lot of people who support the policy are not motivated by animus.
That's, I think, my critique for people on the left.
It's also my critique for people on the right.
Just because Trump says something doesn't mean that we have to defend it.
In fact, sometimes it's better for Trump if you're trying to convince him to stop doing these things.
If you want Trump to do better, then what you would really like from President Trump is to continue with the policies that you like, but not to have to fight a week-long battle over whether he means that people from Haiti should not be allowed to immigrate to the country because, quote-unquote, all Haitians have AIDS.
It's not a battle that you want to fight.
Because, let's be real, I've spent my entire career fighting for a conservatism that believes in certain principles about immigration, merit-based immigration, that have nothing to do with those sorts of nasty comments, or alleged nasty comments.
And here's the trap Republicans fall into.
They think that every defense of Trump is a defense of Trump's policies.
It is not.
Even Trump doesn't believe that.
So, Anthony Scaramucci, right?
The mooch!
He's back on TV and he was grilled by Katie Tur on MSNBC, asked about the bleephole comments.
I think the reason the media likes doing this, by the way, is because The media just enjoys saying bleephole on television.
Let's be true about this.
Again, I mentioned last week that the folks in the media had no problem bleeping out President Obama or Joe Biden.
There was another instance, by the way, that came to mind.
There was a story by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic talking about Barack Obama's comments about Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Obama called Netanyahu in that article a chicken bleep.
And it's the exact same bleep as the bleephole, right?
Okay?
It's poop, right?
It's the S-word.
They called him a chickensh.
That's what he did.
Was that reported?
Did they report it just by saying, like, you know, if you say that about an ally of the United States, the prime minister of an ally of the United States, then maybe that's newsworthy, so we'll just say it 195 times in a day as CNN did.
No, of course not.
Look, they just want to drop the idea that Trump is vulgar in a way that Obama is not.
I don't think that that's actually true, at least when it comes to the language used.
Anyway, the Mooch is on MSNBC, and Katie Turd grills him, and you'll see the Mooch doesn't have a lot of really good defenses.
He did say it, according to multiple people, and Lindsey Graham, who's a Republican and on his side a lot, has not denied it.
Let's stipulate for this conversation that he said it, so we don't have to argue about whether he said it or not.
I don't know if he said it, but just for this conversation, because I want to make a broader point.
If you are in a private conversation in the White House with a group of people that you're trying to get a deal done, and you are prone to New York-style rhetorical flourishes, which unfortunately I also happen to be prone to.
Why do that to the guy?
He's there... That's neither here nor there.
We're both assuming that he said it, as you just said.
Why do people from Norway, why do they have more merit to come here than people from Africa, according to what the President said?
Having known the President for a long period of time, I don't really think that's what he meant.
I'm not going to interpret what he meant because I don't understand his mind entirely.
OK, so this is the problem.
If Republicans are going to do, I'll defend Trump, but I don't know his mind.
I think Jonah Goldberg got this right.
He said that if you're spending all of your time saying, here's what the president meant, the president needs to do better.
How's that?
If I have to explain everything the president is saying, if I have to be the Trump translator, if it's my job to be his magical Star Trek-like translator where suddenly I understand alien languages, Then he's not doing his job correctly.
Especially for a guy who's supposed to be this grand communicator and great brander.
Shouldn't he know better than this?
And when you do this, it allows the Democrats to play this game where they get to label you a racist, particularly if you're a person in a position of prominence or power.
And that does alienate, again, another group.
So I think there are two groups in America, and they're alienating each other.
And the question is, who's alienating more people in the middle?
And I think that that's an open question.
But here's the thing.
One of these things can be solved very easily.
And in fact, solving one of these things sort of solves both of these things.
If President Trump doesn't make controversial and silly comments, if he doesn't make comments that could be interpreted as racist, then Republicans don't have to defend him and Democrats don't have the opportunity to attack him or his base.
Right?
So in the end, the president shouldn't say this stuff.
But the various interpretations, by the right to defend everything and by the left to attack him and all of his supporters on policy, both of these things are deeply polarizing.
They pre-existed Trump, by the way.
I think it happened during the Obama administration, too.
The best approach here is what Ben Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, had to say.
He was asked about what the president said on this, and here's what he said.
And you know, I'm a member of this administration.
And I don't agree with the president about everything that he said.
Or of how it's said.
If the way you say things is so inflammatory that people can't hear your message, it's not helpful.
And that's why I don't do that anymore.
Okay, and good for Ben Carson, right?
This is what needs to happen.
Nikki Haley, I know, has done some of the same stuff.
It doesn't hurt Trump, by the way, to do this.
I think there are a lot of people on the right who believe, oh, it hurts Trump.
It just, it really hurts Trump.
If you say you disagree with his rhetoric, you're undermining Trump.
Trump is not on the ballot until 2020.
He's not on the ballot.
Republicans are.
This year.
Okay, there's an election.
This year.
There's an election in 2020 as well.
But Trump can take it, man.
I mean, I've never seen anybody take as much abuse as Trump took during the last election cycle.
Some fair, some unfair.
He didn't just weather it, he won.
To this idea that Trump is this delicate snowflake that we all have to protect from the ramifications of his own verbiage, that every time he says something we all have to rally around him and we must defend the leader, must defend the flag.
Trump's perfectly capable of defending himself.
I mean, this is why he won't get off Twitter, supposedly.
It's because he's fully capable of protecting himself.
And again, do I think this will do any long-term damage to Trump?
I think you'd be a fool to believe that these comments will do any long-term damage to Trump.
Nothing else has.
I mean, they hit him with a brick during the last election.
They've been hitting him with bricks ever since.
The Democrats haven't stopped talking about a Russia collusion scandal that has yet to materialize based on which he has supposedly stole the election with the help of Vladimir Putin.
But all of that said, I'll tell you what can't take it.
What cannot take it, and what I mean by it is critiques of racism and suggestions that you're bad people.
The people who can't take it are not Trump.
The people that are going to pay the price for that are people in the Republican Party.
Trump is Trump.
He stands on his own.
against a lot of the Republican Party itself, against the Republican establishment, and he won.
He's a very powerful figure.
And not only is he a very powerful figure, in many ways he's kind of Teflon.
That doesn't mean that he can't lose.
It doesn't mean that he won't be down at 35%.
But Trump has a way, as we saw in the last election cycle, of dragging people down in the mud.
Here's what I don't understand.
You can't have it both ways if you are a big Trump supporter, a MAGA, MAGA, MAGA 4D genius guy.
You can't suggest that he's such a genius that he requires my help to help him out of these situations, and also that he dug himself this bleep hole, stuck himself in it, and now requires me to pull him out with a rope.
Either he's such a genius that he put himself there knowing that it was a win for him, or he needs my help.
But not both.
Not both.
And by the way, I think there's actually a third possibility, which is that he's not a super genius who put himself there on purpose.
He ended up there, and he also doesn't need my help.
He's fully capable of crawling out of that hole himself.
Again, the man can take an inordinate amount of abuse, and his administration will survive.
He's not going anywhere.
And when we get to 2020, we'll get to 2020.
It's not like this didn't come up during the last election cycle, for God's sake.
I mean, the man said during the last election cycle he didn't know who David Duke was in the middle of an election cycle.
The guy said that a Mexican judge was incapable of judging his fraud case in the middle of the election cycle, and then he won.
So the idea that he needs our defense, I don't think is right.
But I'll tell you what can't happen.
If the entire Republican Party rushes to the defense of bad comments, that does have ramifications not only in the now, but down the line for how young people think of the Republican Party.
Let's put it this way.
Who makes you feel warmer toward the Republican Party?
The Mooch or Ben Carson?
In those two contrasting clips.
What makes you feel warmer toward the Republican brand?
Toward conservatism?
The Mooch or Ben Carson?
I think it's a good Rorschach test.
I think it's a good Rorschach test.
Now, there may be some Trump supporters who see the entire political scene as a reflection of Trump, who think that the mooch is better for the Republican Party than Ben Carson in those two contrasting clips.
I would argue ultimately the opposite, that what you need are more people doing what Ben Carson does, saying, I like the policy, I don't always like what's being said, and fewer people doing what the mooch did there, which is, you know, I know it's hard, he just talks like a New Yorker, and even if it sounds super bad, that means that I just have to defend it all the more.
Again, things that are defensible are worth defending, and I'll do that.
But I think it's a mistake for everybody on the right to paint themselves into a corner by defending everything Trump does on the basis that Trump did it.
Okay, time for some things I like, and then some things that I hate.
So, let's jump right into things I like.
So over the weekend, it was indeed my birthday, and my wife and I went and had a delicious dinner at one of the great kosher steakhouses in town.
And then we went to see The Darkest Hour with Gary Oldman.
So that's a good wife who takes you to see a World War II drama on your birthday.
So Gary Oldman, first of all, the performance by Gary Oldman in here, he should win an Oscar.
There's no question that he should win Best Actor Oscar in the World War II.
It is a phenomenal performance.
It's a different Churchill than I think most people see.
A lot of people are upset with it because it kind of portrays Churchill as sort of a colorful bumbler and fumbler a little bit, whereas Churchill actually was a genius.
I mean, if you read anything that Churchill ever wrote, the man was a genius, no question.
But it does point out something.
A lot of people on the right who love Winston Churchill and think of Winston Churchill as the constant in a world of political vacillations.
The fact is that if you had to sort of liken Churchill to any personality on the American scene, Churchill was actually, I would say, less like Ronald Reagan and more like John McCain.
The reason I say that is because Churchill started off in the conservative party, then he moved to the liberal party, then he moved back to the conservative party.
He'd been responsible for a number of disasters, including Gallipoli, which comes up in the movie.
During World War I, he wanted to do an operation through Turkey to try and defeat the Germans by creating another front.
By going through Turkey, it ended with the death of 25,000 British soldiers in Gallipoli.
He was the Lord Admiral of the Navy.
First Lord of the Navy, sorry.
I can't remember the official title.
In any case, the movie itself is quite good.
Now, the problems that I have with the movie are the same problems everybody has.
It's historically inaccurate.
Once Churchill took over, there was very little consideration of actual negotiation with the Hun, as he liked to call them.
Very little talk of negotiation with Adolf Hitler.
From May 24th to May 28th of 1940, there was some talk of negotiation, but it ended by the time June 4th came around, by the time Dunkirk was essentially launched.
And the idea that Churchill himself was divided on this, like he had any moral considerations about whether to negotiate with the Germans, is largely exaggerated.
There's also one scene in here that is pure Hollywood cheese.
The suggestion being that Churchill sort of had to have his spine reinforced by the British people.
The British people were like, oh, let's fight the Germans.
We don't want negotiations.
That's not true.
Churchill had long been the guy saying, you cannot negotiate with Hitler.
He was continuously the one saying, you cannot negotiate with Hitler.
But it does show, I think, less about Churchill than about the fate of the British and what the mood of Britain was at the time.
The idea of, what do you do when your entire country is under attack?
Do you negotiate and try to buy off the bad guys in the hope of a little temporary security?
Or do you stand tall, even at the risk of losing thousands and thousands of men?
And it does go into the minds of somebody who's having to make those difficult decisions.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
It's really worth watching.
The cast is universally tremendous.
And Oldman, I don't know how they did the prosthetics, because you watch this movie and you're like, where is Gary Oldman?
And that's Gary Oldman.
He's just amazing.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
We must now select my successor.
And it's only one man the opposition will accept.
He stands for one thing and one thing only, himself.
Why have I been forced to send for Churchill?
This record is a catastrophe.
Let me see your true qualities.
Your lack of vanity.
Here, my lion will.
Your sense of humour.
Ho, ho, ho.
Your Majesty.
It is my duty to invite you to take up the position of Prime Minister of this United Kingdom.
I speak to you for the first time as Prime Minister.
I mean, it's an incredible performance by Oldman.
It really is great.
And the truth is that Churchill was kind of a hammy character.
Like, the idea that Churchill was this kind of stalwart, non-camera-friendly guy.
The guy wanted to be prime minister, and they say this in the movie, and it's right, since The Cradle.
I mean, he thought his father should have been prime minister.
His father obviously ended up having mental illness.
A lot of people thought it was because of syphilis.
But he spends his entire life trying to live up to his dad.
And there's a lot to that with regard to Churchill.
But one of the things that's really cool about this, by the way, is that if you ever go to London, you can actually go to the Churchill Museum.
And when you go to the Churchill Museum, they take you down into the war bunkers.
So, my wife and I have been there, so it's kind of neat to see a movie that's basically made in a replica of the bunkers.
The two people who get a little bit of a raw deal in this movie are Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, who is the foreign secretary.
But the main points, I think, are... I think it's a very good movie.
I do.
I know that that's controversial in conservative circles.
I think that the movie is quite good.
Okay, time for a couple quick things that I hate.
Okay, so the first thing that I hate is there's a speech that the Palestinian quasi-dictator Mahmoud Abbas gave.
He's a terrorist.
He's a Holocaust-denying terrorist who signs checks to other terrorists to murder Jews.
He gave a speech over the weekend in which he ripped into President Trump.
He said, And then he said, Shame on you, this is about Trump.
accept his project, the deal of the century, which has become the slap of the century, but we will slap back.
And then he said, shame on you.
This is about Trump.
He said, may God demolish your house about President Trump.
So this is Israel's peace partner and the supposed person we're supposed to be signing hundreds of millions of dollars in checks to.
He also suggested, quote, In other words, there will be no peace talks.
Instead, it'll just be us committing acts of terror.
And then he suggested that anyone who criticized him could go to hell.
He said about Nikki Haley, quote, she threatens to hit people who hurt Israel with the heel of her shoe.
And the response to her speech will be harsher.
And then he denied that there is any connection between the Jewish people in the land of Israel, which is just historically inaccurate and asinine.
Jewish connection to the land of Israel predates Islam, like the foundation of Islam, by a solid thousand and a half years.
It's absurd.
But he said, quote, they wanted to bring Jews here from Europe to maintain European interests in the region.
They asked Holland, which had the largest navy in the world, to transfer the Jews.
Israel is a colonialist project that had nothing to do with the Jews.
OK, these are Israel's peace partners?
OK, don't tell me that Israel is intransigent and won't make concessions to people who refuse to acknowledge any Jewish claim to Israel at all, suggest that Trump's house should basically be destroyed, and then threaten Nikki Haley.
Give me a freaking break.
The soft bigotry of low expectations is pretty astonishing.
OK, one more thing that I hate.
So there's an Iowa lawsuit.
The University of Iowa is now caught up in a legal fight because there's a conservative Christian student group that denied a leadership position to a student who's gay.
So the university has a policy that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
And there's a 10-member group called the Business Leaders in Christ.
Well, the group says its membership is open to everyone, but leaders must affirm a statement of faith that rejects homosexuality.
The university says it respects the rights of students, faculty, and staff to practice religion, but does not tolerate discrimination of any kind, so they're trying to shut down the group.
This demonstrates, full scale, once again, that the tolerance of the left does not extend to people who do not agree with the left.
Imagine if this were a Muslim group and they said, listen, we're not going to allow anybody to take a leadership position in our Muslim group who doesn't profess allegiance to Allah.
Do you think that the University of Iowa would shut them down?
Say this is discrimination?
That this is discrimination based on religion?
I highly, highly doubt it.
This is anti-Christian discrimination pretty clearly and openly and if the government rules against the student group and suggests that the university gets to make the rules for the student group on the basis of You know, their anti-discrimination policy, that anti-discrimination policy trumps right to association and freedom of religion, then we really have reached the end of the road for both freedom of association and freedom of religion in the United States.
And that seems to be the direction, unfortunately, that everything is moving.
All right, well, we'll be back here tomorrow.
We'll have a recap of everything that's happening on the Hill, where the Secretary of Homeland Security is being grilled by Democrats about bleep holes, because that's our new world.
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 Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection