All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 18, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
51:29
The Fake News Awards | Ep. 456
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The economy is doing really well, but is it the end of the world?
Are we all going to die?
According to the media, sort of.
President Trump announces his fake newsies and everyone is agog.
Plus, the worst form of art slash not art that you have ever seen.
It's really horrifying.
We'll talk about it.
about a Ben Shapiro show.
Indeed, many things to talk about.
From the president speaking at the March for Life, which is a good thing, to the president tweeting out absolute nonsense about his own policies that makes no sense, which is a bad thing.
Lots of good Trump, bad Trump today.
We may have to break out the old theme a little bit later on in the show.
But first, we want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Birch Gold.
So, even though the economy is doing really well right now, even though the stock market is doing really well right now, There are a lot of people who are looking to hedge their bets, which is why, of course, there are currencies like Bitcoin that are doing so well.
Well, the original Bitcoin is gold, right?
That was the hedge against inflation.
It was the hedge against market uncertainty.
And it remains the real hedge against market uncertainty and market inflation and the government jacking around with the currency.
That's why you should have at least part of your portfolio in precious metals.
Not the whole thing.
You should certainly have some of your money in stocks and some of your money in, well, I don't really believe in bonds, but you should believe in stocks.
But you should also have some of your money in actual precious metals, because it's just a safe haven.
That's where my friends over at Birch Gold Group come in.
They have a long-standing track record of continued success, thousands of satisfied clients, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Contact them now.
for a free information kit on physical precious metals.
They have a comprehensive 16-page kit, and it shows how gold and silver can protect your savings and how you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA.
To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit, go to birchgold.com slash ben.
That is birchgold.com slash ben.
Make sure you have all your questions answered and you feel comfortable, and then when you do, birchgold are the people you need to talk to.
birchgold.com slash ben.
That lets them know that we sent you.
Okay, so we were told that all human life would be ended It would be like deep impact, except if crisis had not been averted by the tax cut, right?
The tax cut was going to end all human life on Earth.
And that obviously has been happening.
The latest evidence that millions will die because of the Trump tax cuts comes courtesy of Apple.
Run by Tim Cook, a lefty, who said that they would now pay a one-time tax of $38 billion on their overseas cash holdings and ramp up spending in the United States as they seek to emphasize their contributions to the American economy after years of taking criticism for outsourcing manufacturing to China.
Why?
Because we changed our tax policy.
Right now we've changed our tax policy.
The corporate tax rates were dropped dramatically, which means that now Apple doesn't have to outsource, right?
All of its costs just went down for doing business in the United States.
They say they will invest $30 billion in capital spending in the U.S.
over five years.
That would create more than 20,000 jobs.
The total includes a new campus, which initially is going to house technical support for customers.
They're calling this Apple HQ2.
And right now there's an open competition among cities around the United States to get the new Apple headquarters.
It'll probably be in Austin, Texas.
If anybody thinks it's going to come to L.A., that's on their final list is L.A.
They'd be fools to put this headquarters in L.A.
L.A.
is, for lack of a better term, a bleephole country.
I live here.
I get to say that.
Okay, the total includes a new campus and $10 billion toward data centers across the country.
It also will expand from $1 billion to $5 billion, a fund it established last year for investing in advanced manufacturing in the United States.
Now, one of the reasons that I think that this is good that Apple is announcing this is, as I've been saying for months, there's a difference between the government giving a company-specific giveaway To places like Apple and making broad-scale policy changes that have a good impact on Apple.
It's useful for companies to sound off publicly and say, here are the policies that benefit my business, so long as those policies are not specifically geared toward paying you off.
That's not what this policy was designed to do.
Apple's $38 billion tax commitment, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the largest such sum announced in response to the major overhaul of the U.S.
tax code President Trump signed into law late last year.
That law included an incentive for U.S.
companies to bring home offshore holdings, with companies required to pay a one-time tax of 15.5% on overseas profits held in cash and other liquid assets.
Instead of them having to keep all of that money overseas, instead, they get to now bring that money home and invest it here in the United States.
These tax changes are very good.
Obviously, not the end of all life on Earth.
So Tim Cook, who is the post-Steve Jobs head of Apple, was asked about all this.
He said some of this was planned already, but some of it wasn't, and the Trump tax cuts had something to do with it.
No, there are clearly, let me be clear, there are large parts of this that are a result of the tax reform, and there's large parts of this that we would have done in any situation.
So it sounds like President Trump's tax bill has been a huge windfall for Apple.
Well, there are two parts of tax bill, right?
There's a corporate piece and an individual piece.
I do believe the corporate tax side will result in job creation and a faster-growing economy.
Okay, so again, all of the talk about how this is the end of the economy, everything is going to go terribly, it's nonsense.
The stock market has gained 1,000 points in the last eight days.
Consumer confidence is high, as well it should be.
Again, confidence in the economy is less based on the actual policy that the economy is currently sustaining.
It is more based on predictability.
In the economy, if you own a business, right?
We run a business here at Daily Wire.
One of the things that makes it very difficult to do business in the state of California is you don't know from day to day what exactly the state legislature in California is going to do.
That means that we have to think twice before we hire someone.
Do we want to hire somebody simply to fire them?
Or do we want to hire somebody simply to have our profit margins cut arbitrarily by the state through tax regulation?
The same thing holds true in all areas of the marketplace.
The marketplace is always in flux.
That is why, I think it's George Gilder who talks about the idea that the economy A well-run economy should basically be like the static on a phone line.
The job of the government is to make sure that that static is as low as possible.
If there's a certain predictability to whatever hum is in the background, the worst thing that can happen on a phone is not that there's static, but there's intermittent static.
You actually would prefer a low level of consistent static on a phone call to every so often you just lose the call for five to ten seconds.
Because then you can't understand what anybody is saying.
It's the predictability of the economy that matters even more Then the level of static in the economy, so long as the level of static in the economy isn't at some enormous rate where nothing can get done and it totally stagnates the economy.
Now, what's amazing about all of this is, again, the economy is doing really well.
The jobless claims are at their lowest level now since something like 1973.
So there's still problems in the economy in terms of people reintegrating into the economy after years of spending time out of the economy.
We're still paying too much in terms of people who are on unemployment insurance, but the economy continues to do really well.
And the Democrats are very upset about this.
People on the left are very upset about this, which goes to show, you know, when people like me said we wanted Obama to fail, I said, I think that Rush Limbaugh was right.
I wanted Obama to fail.
The reason I wanted Obama to fail was not because I wanted something bad for the country, but because I thought I wanted his policies to fail.
I didn't want him, as president, to fail.
I would prefer that he embrace all of the policies that I like, do all those things, and the country succeeds.
The reason I wanted Obama to fail is because he disagreed with all of my policies, and he helped stagnate the economy.
The difference is that people on the left are actually not happy when the economy does well.
When the economy did well under President Obama, or did mediocre under President Obama, I urged caution because I thought that his regulatory policy was really bad.
But I was quite happy that the economy was doing well.
You can see the difference.
Chris Matthews is very upset about this.
So he's back from vacation.
You remember there were a lot of accusations that Chris Matthews, our MSNBC, has been playing hardball with the female employees.
He's been yelling at them, saying mean things to them.
Wake up in the morning, comes out of his shoe, and says stuff.
And now he's back.
He's on MSNBC with Beardy McBeard a lot.
Don't know who this guy is.
And Chris Matthews starts talking about how maybe it is a bad thing if the economy grows.
Maybe it's bad for America if the economy grows because Trump or something.
I get the sense that one of the reasons that Dow Jones is going up It's generally good news, but in this case, I wonder if it is, because what it means is all the stuff that we rooted for for the last 40 or 50 years, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, all the things that good legislators like Ed Muskie got through are being termited to death, are being killed by administrators who want the government to fail in its mission.
Don't you understand?
We need the regulations that kill the economy because it makes life better for so many Americans.
That's why.
The regulations are great.
And if it screws a bunch of Americans and your stocks go down, you lose your 401k, well, ha!
I laugh at you!
And then I go buy another shoe to comb my hair with.
First of all, I love that MSNBC actually has chyrons like this.
Look at the chyron on this MSNBC clip.
Just put up the freeze frame here.
It's even worse than you think.
And then it just shows America on fire.
Yeah, they're not rooting for disaster or anything.
It's even worse than you think with the Maricon Fire.
Well, I didn't think it was that bad, honestly.
I think that it's a lot better than you think.
I mean, these people are crazy.
People talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I mean, this is full-on Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I hope that the economy goes to hell so we can blame Trump for regulatory policy.
This comes from the same school of thought, where people are very angry that in places like Seattle, there are companies that now will say, here is what your bottle of soda would cost, here is what it costs with the soda tax, and it doubles the price.
And they're very angry that people would make this clear.
Or businesses that say, here's what I'd be charging you if I didn't have to pay my employees minimum wage.
People say, oh, how dare they?
People did this with Obamacare, too.
Reality suggests that when you get rid of regulations on businesses, businesses do better.
Sorry that reality does, but that's just the reality.
But over on MSNBC, they refuse to recognize reality because reality is oftentimes discriminatory, sexist, racist, bigoted, etc.
Okay, so before we go any further, we're going to get to Trump's fake news awards in just a second.
The fake newsies.
They were, shall we say, a disappointment.
He should have just Rickrolled everybody.
It would have been better.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Helix Sleep.
So Helix Sleep is the best mattress on the market.
It's a mattress personalized to your unique preferences and sleeping style that won't set you back thousands of dollars.
It's great.
The reason I know it's great is because I get so little sleep that when I do sleep, I better damn well be comfortable.
And my daughter had a horrible cough last night.
That means that we didn't fall asleep until 1 a.m.
But I'm here, energetic and refreshed, because of my Helix Sleep mattress.
Go to helixsleep.com and you take their simple 2-3 minute sleep quiz.
They ask you if you like the mattress firm or soft.
Do you like it to retain heat or do you like it to dissipate heat?
And they'll build a custom mattress so that you and your spouse can have different sides of the mattress be at different settings.
and it's the best thing you've ever slept on.
We actually took a more expensive mattress and moved it out of our room in favor of our Helix Sleep mattress.
It comes to you in the mail.
You open up the box and inflate it right there in front of you so you don't have to schlep on down to a store.
It doesn't come in, you don't have to try and figure out how to fit it through the doorway.
And then you sleep on it, it's great.
And what's better is you can try it for 100 nights and if you don't like it, they'll pick it up and refund you in full.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Ben right now.
You get $50 toward your custom mattress.
That's helixsleep.com slash Ben.
Right now, 50 bucks toward your custom mattress.
It's a lot less expensive than getting a mattress at a retail store The markup's insane.
Helix Sleep, you're getting really quality stuff at a much less expensive price.
HelixSleep.com slash Ben for 50 bucks toward your order.
Again, that's HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
And use that slash Ben so that they know that we sent you.
By the way, they have other products too, like the Helix Mattress Protector, the machine washable and dryer safe and completely waterproof.
That's particularly good for ordering for kids.
So they have lots of great products.
HelixSleep.com, slash Ben, use the slash Ben so they know that we sent you.
Okay, so, last night was the much awaited, much ballyhooed fake newsies.
Now, I was hoping, look, if there's one thing that we could expect from this president, one thing I think would be fair to expect from this president, it is that if you're gonna do a reality TV show, at least be good at it.
I mean, my goodness, The Apprentice is actually an entertaining show from like the one episode, or half an episode I ever saw of it before turning out.
But, the, but, You would expect it.
I mean, Trump has actually appeared at the Tony Awards or the Emmy Awards.
He actually did an entire number of Green Acres with Megan Mullally, I believe it was, at the Emmy Awards.
And you can find this tape online of Trump singing Green Acres.
So I was hoping for some musical interludes from the president.
I wanted to hear him sing Moon River.
I thought that'd be great.
And he could actually do it by mooning the press during the fake newsies.
The Moon River, wider than a mile.
And then just moon the press?
It could have been fantastic.
It could have been great all the way through.
None of that happened.
Instead, it turned out that he sort of said that he was going to give fake news awards, and then he just half-assed it.
Another Moon River reference.
Then he just didn't really do it properly.
He tweeted out a link to the GOP.com website.
And the GOP.com website was basically like an article that you'd find at Daily Wire or Washington Examiner or The Federalist that listed like 10 of the worst Fake news stories of the year, of 2017.
He got some of them wrong.
He suggested, for example, that CNN had edited.
Remember, we talked about it on the air.
CNN made a big deal out of Trump dumping a bunch of fish food in the koi pond.
And it turned out that the prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, had actually done exactly the same thing a minute before.
But you didn't see that because the CNN cameraman had zoomed in on Trump.
And then people suggested that Trump was just a rude buffoon because he did it himself.
So that was on the list.
They said that CNN had edited the tape falsely.
That wasn't really true.
There's plenty of fake news on the list, though.
I mean, again, Chris Matthews suggesting that it's even worse than you think is fake news.
That, of course, is not true at all.
But he releases the fake newsies.
And here are some of the winners.
We'll go through some of the winners.
What he said was, first of all, CNN came in in first place.
They are the Sally Fields.
You like me.
You really like me.
of the fake newsies.
The New York Times' Paul Krugman claims on the day of President Trump's historic landslide victory that the economy would never recover.
First of all, I love that the Trump administration keeps trotting out the lie that this was a historic landslide victory.
It was not, in fact, a historic landslide victory.
He lost the popular vote by 3 million.
Just to be accurate, it is fake news that it was a historic landslide victory.
It was not a historic landslide victory.
It was a very, very close election in which he lost the popular vote.
In the Electoral College, he outpaced everyone but I think George W. Bush in 2000.
2000.
I mean, he was outpaced by every other election for the past 40 years, except for W in 2000, which was a dead heat, essentially.
Then they put on ABC News' Brian Ross choked and sent markets into downward spiral with false report.
That is indeed fake news.
CNN reporting that Donald Trump and his son had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.
That was fake news.
He's correct.
Time reporting that Trump removed a bust of MLK from the Oval Office.
It wasn't really Time.
It was a Time reporter who tweeted it out and then retracted it within a couple of hours, just to be a little accurate here.
The Washington Post reporting that the president's sold-out rally in Pensacola was empty.
OK, that should not make the top 10.
That's just, it's weak tea.
It's like when Crash won the Oscar for Best Picture.
That one really is not on the list.
But beyond that, it wasn't the Washington Post that reported it.
Again, it was a Washington Post reporter who then walked that back within, I think, an hour of tweeting it out.
And then I mentioned the CNN video about the feeding of the fish.
CNN falsely reporting about Anthony Scaramucci's meeting with the Russian and then retracting it due to a significant breakdown in process.
That was indeed a bad one.
Newsweek reporting that the Polish first lady, Agata Kornhauser-Duda, did not shake President Trump's hand.
I remember when the media did this.
I believe it was, again, a reporter for Newsweek, not necessarily the publication itself.
Although Newsweek is a garbage publication.
I mean, today, Newsweek has an article about how Hillary Clinton could still be president.
I am not kidding you.
And not that she's gonna win in 2020.
Like, how she can still be president now.
How if they find collusion, Hillary can still end up president.
What's their weird theory over at Newsweek?
I'm not joking about this.
This is an actual thing.
Their theory is that Trump would be forced to resign, and then Pence would be forced to resign, and then Paul Ryan would assume the presidency, and name as his vice president Hillary Clinton, and then Paul Ryan would resign.
That's the actual argument Newsweek is making.
OK, by that standard, I could be president, except that I'm not 35.
Right?
Your dog could be president by that standard.
Paul Ryan could grab Gene Simmons, the front man from Kiss, and make him president by that standard.
But when we talk about the media being insane, and then Trump saying fake news a lot, this is why Trump says fake news a lot, is because there is indeed a lot of fake news, and also because Let's be real about the narrative here.
The fake news narrative arose originally because the media needed an explanation for why Hillary Clinton had lost and because they felt that they had not been successful in elevating her to the presidency.
So if the media felt they'd been overcome, what could have overcome them?
Well, it couldn't have been that people just didn't believe them.
It couldn't have been that people didn't believe their narrative.
It had to be that there was some nefarious fake news out there that people were paying attention to.
Now, there's a difference between narratives that are false or legit fake news, like Pizzagate, and then stuff that the media believe is fake news, like people talking about Uranium One.
Okay, Uranium One is actually questionable.
It's actually questionable.
Like, there was a guy who was indicted the other day for stuff that had to do with Uranium One.
So the idea that everything that the media disagree with on a narrative level is fake news, it is mirrored now by the Trump administration saying everything they disagree with on a narrative level is fake news.
Then, let's see what else is on the list.
CNN reporting that former FBI Director Comey would dispute Trump's claim he was told he is not under investigation.
The New York Times falsely claiming on the front page that the Trump administration had a climate report.
That was indeed a bad moment for the New York Times.
So, the New York Times got two of these ten.
CNN got four, so CNN definitely, I mean, it's like going with the wind.
They swept the Oscars.
They swept the fake newsies.
And then finally, everyone, Russia collusion.
You knew they were going to have to put this on the list.
Last but not least, Russia collusion.
Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.
There is no collusion, all caps.
Okay?
I tend to agree that there's not a lot of evidence of collusion at this point.
To say it's perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people in history, You'd probably have to put the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution up there, maybe.
If you're on the left, you'd have to say the argument on weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War.
Russian collusion.
How about the lie that blacks weren't people for 150 years?
I think that would probably be a pretty big hoax.
How about the hoax that's currently existing since the 1960s?
The babies in the womb aren't babies.
They're instead magical kill creatures that you can just get rid of with no moral consequence.
But that is what it is.
So what's hilarious about this is that this comes out and everybody is really celebratory for just a second.
Like we're all really excited.
Maybe it's actually gonna be a tape of Trump in a tuxedo with a glass of champagne announcing the fake newsies.
It would have been amazing It would have been amazing.
I mean, the troll possibilities would have been incredible.
And if you're not going to troll well, then, as I say, you might have gone with the pure Rick role.
Right?
You should have actually just sent people to an actual video of Rick Astley singing Never Gonna Give You Up, which would have been also amazing.
But instead, we sort of got the second-rate Oscars.
I mean, it's like those years when they weren't using Billy Crystal, and they also weren't using Johnny Carson, and so they just had, like, this bunch of randos in the middle.
There's just a bunch of people who you never heard of hosting the Oscars, and it was really like, why am I watching this?
That was kind of what the fake newsies turned out to be.
But what's hilarious about this is that there's this image that's being promulgated by the left.
And this one is, I would say, if not fake news, fake narrative.
That Trump is the most dangerous president ever.
That he's super duper dangerous.
He's dangerous to press freedoms.
And this is being helped along by people like Jeff Flake, the senator from Arizona.
I agree with a lot of Flake's critiques of Trump's language on the press.
But the idea that Trump is a legitimate danger to the press?
The guy's not a legitimate danger to a—I mean, the only thing he's a legitimate danger to is a Big Mac.
I mean, the President of the United States is not capable of taking down the press.
If the last—look at MSNBC's ratings.
The idea that President Trump is doing severe damage to the institution of the press—he's prosecuted fewer people in the press by a long shot than the Obama administration did.
He's been far more transparent, actually, with the press than the Obama administration was.
This is not to compliment his handling of the press.
I think it's really dumb three-quarters of the time.
There's this idea that he's some crazy authoritarian who's about to shut down the press.
Now listen, his language with regard to the press, it does give impetus to people who feel like he's not going to call out anti-press activity in foreign countries.
That's an actual danger to foreign press.
But in the United States, the idea that the New York Times is on the verge of shutting down, that they're the failing New York Times because he says failing New York Times, is just a figment of their imagination.
So Jeff Flake, who wants to run for president in 2020 and primary Trump, and then force everybody into this awkward primary situation.
Flake gave a speech yesterday on the floor of the Senate.
Now, I'll be honest, I kind of like speeches on the floor of the Senate that have to do with broad topics, because this is what the Senate is for.
Nobody showed up for it, though.
I mean, you can see all the empty seats behind him.
Like, no one cared.
Except for the press, which made a huge deal out of it.
Here is Flake talking about the authoritarian impulse.
Mr. President, it is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Joseph Stalin to describe his enemies.
It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase, enemy of the people, that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of, quote, annihilating such individuals, unquote, who disagreed with the Supreme Leader.
This alone should be the source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the President's party, for they are shameful, repulsive statements.
This feedback loop is disgraceful, Mr. President.
OK, so I agree with the idea that a lot of what Trump says on these topics is really ridiculous.
But the idea that the authoritarian impulse is what's animating America, that we've reached the end of America, that fascism is upon us.
Listen, I'm very much afraid of tribalism.
I'm afraid that we are getting close, or to that point, under President Trump.
But the idea that we are really threatened by the fake newsies, The president is not—you've got to make a choice, Democrats.
Is the president ineffectual, or is the president a true danger to Western civilization?
You can't have it both ways.
And I think that, as I've said since the beginning, there's a strong case to be made that the president of the United States—you ought to attribute to incompetence rather than malice most of the stuff that he does that you don't like, because that just seems more honest to me.
Okay, so in just one second, we are going to talk about, let's talk about this immigration fallout for just a second.
So, the latest from the Hill is that the President, speaking of ineffectual, the President of the United States just undermined everything that his own party is doing.
So right now, there's a big debate happening over government funding.
So, the government has to get funded, I believe, by Friday, or we enter government shutdown territory.
Now, I'm a person who doesn't care about government shutdowns.
You're probably a person who doesn't care about government shutdowns.
If you think you care about government shutdowns, it's because you don't know what a government shutdown is.
Mandatory government services continue.
You're still going to get your social security checks.
You're still going to be—you're still going to be—the military will continue to be funded.
The military ops will continue.
The government will stay open.
This is why, when there was a big government shutdown in 2013, the Obama administration had a manufacture crisis.
They had to shut down open-air monuments.
Things where there wasn't any guard there.
They just shut them down to show you that if the government isn't operating, you can't visit this rock in this park here.
So the idea that government shutdowns end the world is silly.
But everyone wants to avoid it because it's a press-manufactured crisis, and politicians believe it because they think they're the most important people on planet Earth.
So the way this is operating is that Republicans are saying, here's what we want.
We want a short-term continuing resolution.
It'll continue to fund the government for 30 days.
It won't be a brand new budget or anything.
And in order to get this passed, we are not going to include anything with regard to DACA.
So we are not going to solve the issue of the Dreamers.
We're not going to say that they can stay.
We're not going to renew their quasi-green cards.
We're not going to do any of that.
That's a separate negotiation.
We just want to fund the government.
And in order to sweeten the deal and get Democrats on board, we are going to sign into law a six-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Now, the Children's Health Insurance Program is a federal program by which the federal government basically subsidizes states to take care of underage minors who don't have sufficient health insurance.
It's basically an expansion of Medicaid on the federal level.
I actually have some problems with CHIP, not because I think the government doesn't necessarily have a role here, but because I think the federal government doesn't necessarily have a role here.
If states are going to shoulder the burden, or local communities are going to shoulder the burden of what to do with children who are underinsured, that makes a lot more sense.
I'm a localist at heart.
I don't know where the federal government finds the authority in the Constitution to spend billions upon billions of dollars on any of these social programs, and that includes even ones that I think are doing good things, like CHIP, for example.
It's a very popular program.
It's obviously going to be remandated.
All of that.
Republicans have been trying to remandate it since October.
Democrats refused to go along with it because they want some strings attached.
So, right now, the Republicans are proposing that we go forward with this temporary funding, this continuing resolution.
No cuts, as always, because, as I've said many times on the show, no one has an interest in cuts.
Everyone has an interest in spending.
The Democrats are saying, though, that they are not going to vote for the continuing resolution.
Now, there's some budget hawks on the Republican side saying, listen, we want some cuts.
You want to do this continuing resolution stuff?
We want cuts.
This would be the House Freedom Caucus.
We need something in return for continued funding of the government.
And so that is leaving Republicans a little bit short of a majority, and no Democrats are jumping on board because they want the government to shut down because they think that Trump will be blamed for a government shutdown.
The reality is that it's a little more complex than that.
Democrats could sign up for this continuing resolution and fund CHIP, but they're not going to do that.
So the Democrats are very frustrated by this tactic, even though this is the same tactic they've been using for years.
It's one of the reasons, by the way, I oppose omnibus budgets and omnibus packages, because it basically allows you to take a A sweet meat, you know, put something good in a sandwich that's a crap sandwich and then say, if you don't vote for this crap sandwich, you're voting against the children.
And if you don't like this continuing resolution, you're voting against the children.
This is why I don't like these omnibus packages.
I do think that everything should be voted on individually and funded individually.
You shouldn't be able to pass a bill that isn't funded and everything that you fund should be passed on an individual level so we can determine whether it's something that is good or something that is bad.
That's on an ideological level.
But what the Republicans are trying to do at this point is Get past the government shutdown.
And in order to do that, they're using CHIP as a certain amount of leverage against Democrats.
They're saying, listen, you don't vote for the continuing resolution.
You're voting down your opportunity to continue the longest extension of CHIP funding in American history.
So naturally, the Democrats are really peeved about all of this, and they say, well, you know, you guys should just fund CHIP separately.
Why are you connecting all of the funding in the continuing resolution to all of this CHIP funding?
Why aren't you putting DACA in there?
The Republicans, on the contrary, are saying, listen, you want the CHIP funding?
Let's just pass a continuing resolution.
We're good to go.
Only one problem per day.
President Trump has a Twitter account.
So, President Trump tweets out today, quote, CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or short-term extension.
Maybe he doesn't understand how this works.
That's the Democrat talking point.
The Democrats are saying that they want Chip to be part of a long-term budget deal, not part of the continuing resolution, because they're trying to extract concessions from Trump and team.
So Senator John Cornyn actually had to tweet out at the president exactly what they were doing, trying to explain to him via Twitter how this works.
And by the way, it is 100% true that the president is coached more by Twitter and by Fox News than he is by people who are inside the White House.
OK, it is 100% true that the most powerful Steve in America was never Steve Bannon.
It was always Steve Doocy.
Fox & Friends, which is, you know, I think a good informative show, there's no question that the President of the United States watches Fox & Friends and then makes decisions.
I mean, you can see how he live tweets Fox & Friends.
I mean, he really does it a lot.
Now, all of that said, is this going to make a huge difference?
Not really.
But it is demonstrative of the fact that if you're going to pose Trump as some sort of nefarious, evil, Dr. Evil figure, he doesn't know what the hell's going on, guys.
I mean, let's be real about this in policy terms.
In the last three weeks, he has done this three times.
Three.
He did it on immigration.
Remember, he did this in the meeting with Democrats.
He started saying that Dianne Feinstein's idea of taking DACA off the table, of solving DACA, and then doing comprehensive immigration reform, he said, yeah, let's do that.
Let's sign a clean DACA bill.
And then Kevin McCarthy had to step in and go, uh, Mr. President, no.
And then Trump went, oh yeah, that's what I meant.
When I said yes, it meant no.
Right?
So there was that.
And then, last week, there was a FISA Act renewal that was up.
And the administration position is that FISA should not be weakened, at least with regard to surveillance of foreign subjects.
And then Trump tweeted out, because he was watching Judge Napolitano on Fox & Friends, that we should weaken FISA.
sending the entire thing into disarray, and we have this in disarray, and now immigration is in disarray.
So Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, is just utterly bewildered as to what Trump wants at this point.
He says, "Listen, we are happy to support an immigration deal as soon as we find out what the hell Trump is talking about." Because, I mean, let's be—what?
Like, I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm looking for something that President Trump supports, and he's not yet indicated what measure he's willing to sign.
As soon as we figure out what he is for, then I would be convinced that we were not just spinning our wheels going to this issue on the floor, but actually dealing with a bill that has a chance to become law and therefore solve the problem.
So there's McConnell saying, I don't know.
That's not great.
I mean, it's not great for the policy of the United States when the president's own party is scratching their head going, with a majority in Congress, going, Your guess is as good as mine, guys.
Now, is this a little bit of a push from McConnell?
Yeah.
I mean, McConnell knows deep down that he could pass anything and Trump will sign it.
Trump hasn't exercised his veto, I think, one time in his entire presidency.
So the idea that McConnell will pass anything and then Trump will sign it is silly.
I think what McConnell's trying to do politically here is avoid blame.
If he gets a bad deal and Trump signs it, then Trump will just blame him.
He'll say, listen, I just signed the deal they brought to me.
I wasn't a part of the negotiation, and McConnell's trying to throw it back on Trump, saying, dude, give me something to work with here.
And Trump is like, I don't, no, no, you're on your own.
So it's been a lot of fun to watch the president fighting with his own party.
Again, this does give the lie to the idea that Trump is some sort of MAGA, MAGA, MAGA evil genius who's going to destroy the world.
No, that's just not accurate.
Okay.
So, in a second, I want to talk about my hypothesis with regard to President Trump and porn stars.
Oh yes, if that's not a sexy tease, nothing is.
So, you'll have to check that out by going over to Daily Wire and subscribing.
For $9.99 a month, you can buy a subscription to Daily Wire.
And when you do, you get not only the rest of my show live, you get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, the rest of Michael Knowles' show live, you get to be part of my mailbag tomorrow and have all of your life's questions answered in the most mellifluous fashion.
I mean, it'll be beautiful to listen to.
You'll just enjoy it.
From top to—it'll be fantastic.
So you get all of that, plus, if you can get the annual subscription for $99 a year, you get all of those wonderful things, all of those wonders and glories.
And this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold mug, it is currently filled with Cory Booker's tears.
It has been filled with those for the last couple of days, at least.
And there'll be plenty more where that came from because—not because You know, even bad thing is happening to Democrats just because they can't stop crying.
It's really weird.
But we will talk about all of that.
Also, if you just want to listen later, iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, all of the places where you can listen to the podcast.
Please subscribe at all of these places and leave us a review, which always helps us.
us, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
All right, so I'll get back to immigration a little bit.
But first, I want to talk about the Me Too movement and Trump and porn stars and all sorts of good stuff.
So, let's start with Trump and porn stars.
So, as I mentioned yesterday, there's a 5,500 word interview that's about to break from a woman named, what is her name now, Daniels?
Her name is Stormy Daniels, which is always a great way to come up with a porn name, right?
Just come up with a weather condition followed by a first name.
Right?
So, Cloudy Ryan, right?
Over here would be Overcast Bob.
Not the greatest porn name.
That one you're probably not going to get hired with.
But in any case, this porn star is supposed to give an interview in which he fully describes the president in the boudoir, which, I mean, frankly, this is the first time Trump has ever not wanted that to happen.
Back in the 1980s, Trump used to pose as a guy named John Miller.
He'd get on the phone with reporters and be like, hey guys, this is John Miller.
And they'd be like, is this Donald Trump?
No.
No, it's not.
I just had sex with a supermodel.
Like, really?
Which supermodel?
Like, Carla Bruni.
She was amazing.
They'd go to Carla Bruni and she'd be like, I have no idea who this guy is or what the hell he's talking about.
And they'd be like, well, Trump says that he's the best sex anyone ever had.
Right?
John Miller says it.
I know this John Miller guy sounds exactly like Trump, but...
You know, he says that he's unbelievable in bed.
Carla Bruni, what do you say?
She's like, I don't know.
It's been great.
Trump literally used to call up tabloids and brag about the people he was dating.
And he wasn't dating like three quarters of them.
Now he's paying women to shut up.
So apparently in 2016, he paid Stormy Daniels.
He was obviously into her because of her higher intellect and conversational ability.
She is a porn star.
She has sex for money on camera, so obviously of high quality.
And the president has a particular taste in women overall.
And so she is supposed to give a 5,500-word interview in which she also describes, I guess the 2011 interview they're now releasing, in which she describes the president's genitals, which is just The only person in America excited about this is Marco Rubio to find out whether his theories about hand size were in fact correct.
But all of this is happening and no one cares.
Okay, this is the funny thing.
No one cares.
So I'm old enough, like this week was the 20th anniversary of the Lewinsky scandal, in which the President of the United States had a consensual affair with a 21-year-old intern.
And everyone went nuts.
I was there.
I remember it.
Everyone thought, what an immoral piece of garbage this Bill Clinton is.
Now we have a president of the United States who is supported by 80% of evangelical Christians and has sex with porn stars while he is married to another woman who he was having sex with while he was married to another woman who he was having sex with while he was married to another woman.
He can follow this inception-like sex life.
By the time you get to the original level of the dream, all that is, you're an old man waiting in pain and despair.
In any case, no one cares, right?
No one cares.
Like, you don't care, I don't care, no one cares.
So here's why no one cares.
Here's my theory of President Trump.
In economics, there's something called the Efficient Market Hypothesis.
The Efficient Market Hypothesis is a hypothesis that suggests you cannot beat the stock market.
So all of these people who tell you that if you day trade and you find the inefficiencies in the market, you can make millions, right?
All these people who are selling programs to you online about this is how you beat the market.
You cannot beat the market.
This is the Efficient Market Hypothesis.
The reason being, there are literally millions of people who spend their day analyzing every bit of information that is coming out from every single company, and then that is priced in, right?
It's baked into the cake.
It's baked into the cake.
And so stock market shocks usually happen when there's a change in government policy or when there's a downturn in government policy and new information is added to the system.
That's why the market goes up and down.
But the idea that you can beat the market because you know the market better than anybody else is just not true.
The evidence for the efficient market hypothesis is that if you take the people who are the top hedge fund managers at any given point, if you take the people who are the top stock pickers at any given firm in one year, by the next year the chances are that they are actually the lowest on the totem pole.
The chances that somebody remains the best stock picker 10 years in a row is almost nil.
People tend to bounce around a lot, so they'll have one great year, and if they're lucky, that great year is where they spent the most money and bought the most stock or sold the most stock.
And then they'll have five really crappy years, because there'll be regression to the mean.
And this is true.
If you actually look at the performance, the suggestion is you're better off investing in stock indices than you are in stock picking.
And that is traditional kind of common knowledge in the stock community and in the investment community.
If you ask somebody for investment advice, this is typically what they will say at one of the big firms like Goldman Sachs.
They'll tell you, take your money, stick it in the stock market, leave it there.
That's why Warren Buffett didn't lose a lot of money in the stock market in 2007-2008, because he continued buying stock.
My stock plan, just so folks know, is that I buy a certain set amount of stock every month, rain or shine.
It does not matter.
I tend to buy higher risk stocks.
There's like a basket of higher risk stocks I tend to pick because I can afford to lose some money.
If I lose some money, I'm 33 or now I'm 34.
My birthday was this week.
So I can afford to lose a little bit of money and then make that money back.
But what I do is I'm constantly buying stock and I never sell stock.
I just never sell it.
Because if you hold on to it, the good news is if the market goes down, I just bought really cheap.
And if the market goes down, I didn't sell really cheap.
So my stock portfolio is always going up so long as overall the market is going up.
That's the basic idea of the stock market and the efficient market hypothesis.
There are a few different versions.
There's the strong efficient market hypothesis, which suggests legitimately you cannot beat the market.
And then there is the semi-strong version of the efficient market hypothesis, which suggests that publicly available information, you can't beat the market.
But insider information, you could beat the market.
The strong efficient market hypothesis says even insider information is priced in because there are people who That's actually the case against having insider trading laws.
There are a bunch of libertarians who believe insider trading laws are actually negative because they prevent, like, if I know Daily Wire is going down the tubes, I'm going to sell my stock.
That's a hint to everybody else that they should sell their stock, too.
Whereas if I were prevented from using my knowledge about Daily Wire, then that would prevent the market from knowing the knowledge.
That's the case for insider trading.
So there's the strong, the semi-strong, and the weak.
The weak basically says that you might be able to defeat the market on an occasional basis, but you're not going to be able to do it very often, essentially.
Here's my theory about Trump.
Here's why I'm talking about this.
My theory about Trump is a strong, efficient market hypothesis.
There is no information, none, that changes your view of Trump.
No, zero.
Literally anything.
Anything in the world could happen that President Trump could do, or it could be said about him, or there could be a report about him, and nothing could change people's views of the President of the United States.
Because it's all baked into the cake now.
And this is actually his strength, and it's also his weakness, right?
His weakness is that it's very hard to convince people that you're somebody that you're not when everybody has a strong opinion on you.
The strength is that when you're hit by Pornstar was paid off to the tune of $130,000 in 2016, everybody goes, Because it's already baked in.
That was already information that we already knew.
We already knew who this guy was.
Character is the efficient market hypothesis.
We already know Trump's character.
Everybody already has a judgment.
And evangelical Christians are going to say, listen, I know the guy's a scumbag when it comes to his personal sexual morality.
Didn't I ever pretend otherwise?
Like, we already knew that.
But, King David.
I mean, come on.
King David was just like that.
Or they will say, that's the worst version, right?
That's the Jerry Falwell Jr.
version.
Then there's the secondary version, which is, yeah, I know the guy's a bit of a douchebag, but at least he's trying to stop abortion, right?
I mean, he's going to speak this week in Good Trump News.
He's going to speak this week at the March for Life, or he's going to go to the Rose Garden and give an address and then appear on the big screens at the March for Life.
The guy's defending my priorities, so even if he's sticking his wing-wing in places I wouldn't, then so what, right?
It's baked into the cake.
So there was a whole, after I issued this efficient market hypothesis theory yesterday online, there were a whole group of people trying to debunk it.
Jonathan Lastover at the Weekly Standard was saying, is there anything Trump can do?
Like, for example, what if he selected some bad liberal judges?
And what I said is, no, that's already priced into the market.
All that will happen is his supporters will say, listen, he wanted to appoint a conservative, but the Republicans just are too weak-kneed in their support for him.
He had to find a way to compromise and move to the middle so he can win re-election.
They'll make an excuse, in other words.
What if Trump committed murder?
Let's take his theory.
He shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Most people in his base would say, guy probably deserved it.
Most people who don't like him would say, Trump spent 71 years on this earth not shooting people.
You think he just shoots somebody for no legitimate reason at all?
I mean, he's violent.
We all know who he is.
We all know who he is, is the efficient market hypothesis.
The problem is that if this is true in politics, if my theory is correct, that there is a strong efficient market hypothesis that applies to characters like Trump, but doesn't apply to cleaner characters, it's a serious problem for our politics.
If you cannot change your view of a man based on new evidence, if your judgment of his character is so set in stone that nothing can change it, People like me who think that he's deficient in character.
If Trump made an open confession of all of his sins and decided to turn over a new leaf and started talking like a statesman, could I change my position on his character?
If the answer is no, then I'm so set in my ways it's a problem.
The problem is this.
Let's say somebody good, Mitt Romney, runs for president.
The strong efficient market hypothesis no longer holds.
Any piece of information about him will change people's minds because he's seen as clean.
The cleaner you are, the less is baked into the cake.
People do not give good people the benefit of the doubt.
They give bad people the benefit of the doubt because they already knew they were bad.
If you are good, everyone wants to see you come down a peg.
So if you're Mitt Romney and you're basically You know, I'm personally a saint.
I mean, Mitt Romney is about as good a person as run for President of the United States.
And then anything comes out about you, anything, right?
You strap the dog to the top of your car.
It's the end of the world.
Suddenly, it's a new piece of information in the market, and you start ping-ponging around in the polls.
And so there's something to be said for the idea that Trump is stable, not because he's a stable genius, but because everybody has essentially made up their mind about him and nothing is going to change.
OK, which brings us to the Me Too, the latest on Me Too.
So there's a tweet that went out in the continuing collapse of Me Too.
This is just another episode.
Amber Tamblyn, who's an actress, And apparently a nice person from people who know her.
She was talking about this case that was reported by Babe.
We've been talking about it for three days now.
This insane piece reported by Babe in which a woman had sex with Aziz Ansari or oral sex a couple of times with Aziz Ansari and then suggested that she had a bad time and that this was somehow sexual abuse or sexual assault.
She was ripped by Ashley Banfield on CNN, on HLN.
Here's Ashley Banfield going after Ansari's accuser saying, like, listen, you gotta have some standard for what counts for sexual abuse here, or we're just talking about nothing.
And now here is where I am going to claim victim.
You have chiseled away at a movement that I, along with all of my sisters in the workplace, have been dreaming of for decades.
A movement that has finally changed an oversexed professional environment that I too have struggled through at times over the last 30 years in broadcasting.
If you're lucky, there's a really good chance that you're not going to experience the toxic work environment that the rest of us have endured, and that is because of the remarkable progress being made against the Harvey Weinsteins and the Kevin Spaceys of the world.
The Me Too movement has righted a lot of wrongs, and it has made your career path much smoother.
And here's where I'm guessing it's going to be a long career path.
You're 23.
What a gift.
Okay, so she's talking about the reporter who reported all of this, and she's saying, listen, you're basically destroying the MeToo movement.
And there's truth to this.
this.
So Amber Tamlin tweeted out, she actually tweeted out, I had dinner with a woman who told me a brutal story about being coerced into sex by a very famous guy.
Awful.
After seeing how the woman who spoke out about Ansari is being treated, she decided not to share her story publicly.
Let this lose you some sleep tonight, Twitter.
What?
Why didn't she just come out and talk about it?
Like, the problem here is not that people are siding with rapists like Harvey Weinstein or sexual abusers like Kevin Spacey or any of these people.
The problem is that this lady's story about as he's unsorry did not wash, right?
That was the story.
That was the problem.
She got naked in his apartment, voluntarily performed oral sex on him twice, and then suggested that she had given him no signals.
There's another signal being given there.
But again, this idea that all stories have to be believed on the most subjective level, it's the end of me, too.
And then here's the funniest thing.
So Katie Way is the name of this reporter.
So Katie Way.
decided that she was going to respond to Ashley Banfield.
And she was asked to go on Ashley Banfield's show.
Here's the letter she wrote, which is just insipid.
Quote, Ashley could have talked to me.
She could have talked to my editor or my publication.
But instead, she targeted a 23-year-old woman in one of the most vulnerable moments of her life.
Someone she's never effing met before, for little attention.
I hope the ratings are worth it.
I hope the 500 retweets on the single news write-up made that burgundy lipstick bad highlight second-wave feminist have-been feel really relevant for a while.
She disgusts me.
And I hope when she has more distance from the moment she has enough of a conscience left to feel remotely ashamed, doubted, but still.
Must be nice to piggyback off of the fact that another woman was brave enough to speak up and add another dimension to this societal conversation about sexual assault.
Grace wouldn't know how that feels because she never struck out into this alone because she's the bravest person I've ever met.
Really?
Then you should meet a soldier.
I would never go on your network.
I would never even watch your network.
No woman my age would ever watch your network.
I will remember this for the rest of my career.
I'm 22 and so far not too shabby.
Well, actually a little shabby.
And I will laugh the day you fold.
If you could let Ashley know I said this, that she has no holds barred the reason, it'd be a real treat for me.
Thanks, Katie.
The feminist movement doing itself all sorts of favors by ripping other women who are in favor of Me Too as burgundy, lipstick, bad, highlighted, second-wave feminist has-beens.
Well done, Katie Way.
Just geniuses over there at the Me Too movement.
And then they wonder why people are failing to take it particularly seriously.
Maybe it's because of all this nonsense from the third-wave feminists.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, in things I like, my friend Jordan Peterson, who is really terrific, he was being interviewed on, I believe it was CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, and he was asked by this interviewer about why he does not use the gendered and he was asked by this interviewer about why he does not use the gendered Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.
poorly for the interviewer.
I mean, this one is like, this one goes under Peterson destroys on YouTube.
It's just hideous.
Here we go.
Why should your right to freedom of speech, Trump, a trans person's right not to be offended?
Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive.
I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now.
You know, like you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.
Why should you have the right to do that?
It's been rather uncomfortable.
Well, I'm very glad I put you on the spot.
Well, you get my point.
You get my point.
It's like, you're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on.
And that is what you should do.
But you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me.
And that's fine.
I think more power to you, as far as I'm concerned.
So you haven't sat there and... I'm just trying to work that out.
I mean... Ha!
Gotcha.
OK, so yes, that is a bad moment for her, because this is obviously true.
Every political conversation I've ever had about these subjects is always, why should what you want to say trump my right to not hear you say it?
It's like, because that's the definition of freedom of speech.
And we can't have a conversation unless I'm actually telling you what I think.
But this is how dumb the left is, that they actually think that I'm supposed to manufacture what I believe and think in order to please particular people, which is the opposite of an honest political conversation.
OK, time.
You know what?
We can skip the thing that our production crew spent so much time cutting and go directly to things that I So here, let's do a couple of things that I hate here.
So we begin with human nature.
I hate it.
Okay, so here's the thing about human nature.
There is a story that is out today from Daily Mail, and it's sort of hilarious.
So basically, at the time that in Hawaii, people thought they were going to be nuked into the earth, right?
And they thought they were all going to die because of a North Korean nuclear missile.
The traffic on porn sites dropped dramatically.
Makes sense.
You only have half an hour to live.
You probably have better things to do than spend it with one hand occupied, right?
You actually are going to hopefully make peace with your God, talk with your family, watch that season finale of Cheers.
Whatever it was that you were going to do, it's probably not going to be spent on a porn site.
Here is the problem.
Immediately after the alert ends, Porn sites saw a 50% increase in traffic from Hawaii after the ballistic missile threat was revealed to be false.
So in other words, in the shadow of death, people are like, well, this is probably a bad idea to be on this porn site right now.
My wife walks in right now, my life is just going to end in a variety of terrible ways.
And then, as soon as it ends, they're like, you know what?
Maybe I'll make peace with my God.
It's time to repent.
It ends like, OK, I'm back on wackadoodle.com.
Right?
I mean, this is just, it's an astonishing statement about what people feel when they're under pressure.
And it's one of the reasons why religion is necessary, is to remind you on a daily basis, you're going to die.
Okay, like, not to be too dark about this, but there will be a time for you.
And at that time, you might think back on your life and think, you know, if I spent hours a day in front of a computer looking at images of women who are acting for my benefit, rather than, you know, doing meaningful things, then that would be good.
But we have a unique capacity as human beings to put that out of our minds that we can waste hours a day online looking at naked people doing things to each other.
Human nature, not the best place.
One of the reasons why civilization is required.
Okay, final thing that I hate.
So, everything is art now.
Legitimately, everything is art now.
I've hated the definition of art this way, because if art is everything, then art is nothing.
One of my favorite stories about this is there was a modern art museum, I believe it was in San Francisco, where some guy went into the modern art museum, took off his glasses, put them on the floor, and then stood there and started taking pictures of it.
And within minutes, a crowd of people had gathered around to take pictures of this guy's glasses on the floor, because they thought that it was an exhibit.
Because this is where art has gone.
Well, the latest indicator of art might be over.
We may be past the days of Michelangelo, and art may be dead, like Rembrandt may be beyond us.
They've now created vibrator art.
Yes, that's right.
Now they have digitally charted female orgasm, and they have made art projects out of this, which is a really weird thing to hang around your house.
I mean, like, your kids are walking around, and you're like, Mommy, what's that?
Oh, that was September 11, 2013.
It was the greatest night of my life.
Like, it was just kind of weird.
And so here is this idiot video.
Like, oh my God.
I hope to God that we don't get hit by a nuclear missile, and this is what I die talking about, because really, that would just be terrible.
This vibrator turns your orgasm into art, is what this video says.
The women-led team at Lioness created a new vibrator with special sensors.
I grew up in a conservative family from the Midwest, and we never talked about sex.
I wanted to create a vibrator that could empower women to learn more about their own bodies.
I like that people think they invented orgasm like now, like it hasn't existed for the last several hundreds of thousands of years.
Is to eliminate the taboos and the misconceptions that have become all too common for women across cultures.
Is there a taboo about female orgasm in the West?
Did I miss that?
Okay, the feature is available to app users in the spring.
Just wonderful stuff.
I suppose that for men, the next invention will be fart art.
They'll actually be able to chart your physical responses in real time to passing gas, and that will now be considered a high form of art.
Again, I'm not sure this is any worse than Karen Finley getting naked and smearing chocolate on her body, or people who have done enema art, which has been a thing in art schools for literally years.
But it does demonstrate that we may be in the decadent phase of capitalism.
We may be in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire here, when we are literally starting companies to sell vibrators so that you can be solipsistic enough to look at a digital imaging of your orgasm.
My goodness.
I wonder why society is on the ropes.
I just can't understand it.
Okay.
We'll be back here tomorrow with much, much more, hopefully much, much less of that.
We'll be back here with more tomorrow.
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 Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection