All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:58
Trump’s California Dreamin’ | Ep. 491
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump takes on California's sanctuary cities.
Democrats refuse to disassociate from Louis Farrakhan.
And the weather is getting stormy out there for the Trump administration.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Oh yes, we are here and there is much news to cover.
Some of it breaking.
The President of the United States now seems to be backing off some of his tariff plans.
He just said a moment ago that he has, quote, the right to go up or down on country, based on country, to which I say my two-year-old son says the same about the sea sauce.
That's very exciting.
But I have many things to discuss with you, including it's International Women's Day, which is just...
Fantastic, we'll talk about all of that.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Thrive Market.
So, Thrive Market is the place that you are going to go from now on to get the best organic food.
It's an online grocery with a mission to make healthy living affordable and accessible to everyone.
You're sick of going down to the Whole Foods and paying oversized prices to hang out with people who are annoying and drive Priuses and mess up your bumper and then drive away while virtue signaling all the while.
You don't have to do that anymore.
Now, you go over to my friends at Thrive Market.
You can, with one click of a button, sort Thrive Market's catalog by 90 values based on your dietary needs, from vegan, gluten-free, paleo, non-GMO, and more.
It's great for me.
They even have a kosher value.
They have a hyper-curated catalog.
So instead of there being 15 almond butters at the local health store, all overpriced, instead, you're gonna be able to search for the three to four best almond butters on Thrive Market, but you know that it's sourced from the best, with the best ingredients, at the most affordable prices.
They also have supplements, they have protein powders, which is something I take to get bonked up!
Okay, and more on that that we mentioned on the show at 50% off retail.
All the best product over at Thrive Market.
Imagine spending just $12 for almond butter instead of $16 at your local Whole Foods.
And for all of my listeners right now, my friends at Thrive Market are offering you $60 of free groceries plus free shipping and a 30-day free trial, which is just An awesome deal.
$60 of free groceries, plus free shipping, and a 30-day free trial when you sign up.
Keep in mind, Thrive Market's prices are already 25% to 50% off retail, and now they are offering an extra $60 off of free groceries.
Go to thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro and get your instant $60 of free groceries.
That's thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro to get that instant $60 off Okay, so first of all, happy International Women's Day.
And again, their prices are already less expensive.
They already have a better catalog, and you can curate by value.
So there's no reason for you not to use thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro.
Use that slash Shapiro so they know that we sent you and you get the special deal.
Okay, so first of all, happy International Women's Day to all of my favorites.
That's Nikki Haley.
That is Condoleezza Rice.
That is Margaret Thatcher.
Long may her name be celebrated.
That is Golda Meir.
That is Susan B. Anthony.
That's Harriet Tubman, the gun-packing underground railroad head.
Lots of great women to celebrate today.
I was mildly put off.
Eve Peyser, who writes for, I believe, Salon.com, she tweeted out, Well, I mean, that's like a red flag in front of a bull for me.
I mean, come on.
First of all, let me just note about International Women's Day.
Gender is a social construct, we have been told.
Okay?
So I don't know why—why is it that International Women's Day—are we celebrating biological women, or are we celebrating gendered women?
So does Caitlyn Jenner get to celebrate International Women's Day, or is Caitlyn Jenner a man?
And if Caitlyn Jenner gets to celebrate International Women's Day, then why can't any other biological man celebrate International Women's Day by being a woman?
And none of these answers are easy in coming, because if you think gender is a social construct, it makes the feminist movement very difficult to take.
You know, I'm sorry to be annoying.
I am a man.
But for the purposes of this segment, let's just say that I'm a woman, and therefore I can comment on International Women's Day.
Again, I'm perfectly fine with International Women's Day.
It's fine.
I don't care.
Whatever.
You know, good.
Let's celebrate women.
My mom—we'll celebrate my mom.
My mom, who worked all through my childhood, and my dad stayed at home and took care of the kids.
We'll celebrate my wife, who rumor has it is a doctor.
We'll celebrate all of the women who are working and all of the women who are staying at home.
We'll see if any of the women who are pushing International Women's Day are celebrating stay-at-home moms who are home taking care of their children and ensuring that the next generation of Americans are better than the last generation of Americans.
So, happy International Women's Day to everyone with that proviso.
Again, remember, gender is a social construct.
Okay, so, in other news.
Jeff Sessions is now going to war with my stupid state, the state of California.
So he announced on Wednesday that he was going to escalate the Trump administration's war with California, suing over its so-called sanctuary state law and clashing with Democratic Governor Jerry Brown in a fiery exchange of words.
So Sessions said, I can't sit idly by while the lawful authority of federal officers are being blocked by legislative acts and politicians.
So here's the legal case with regard to sanctuary cities and sanctuary states.
The federal government cannot force local law enforcement to do its bidding.
So if the federal government says to local law enforcement, we want you to arrest people for violation of federal immigration law, they can't do that.
There's the Posse Comitatus Act essentially forbids the use of drafting local law enforcement into the effectuation of federal law.
So you can't do that.
So if there's a sanctuary city where the cops just say, listen, we're not going to enforce federal law, that is not illegal.
It is illegal, however, if they're actively impeding people from following federal law.
So if the cops are, for example, letting people out of prison, knowing that they are illegal immigrants, then hiding that information from the feds, that is violation of federal law.
So Sessions is saying that's exactly what California is doing.
Jerry Brown, the governor of our stupid state, he of course is very upset about all this.
He fired back on Jeff Sessions.
He climbed out of bed, got on his walker, and then he just ripped into Jeff Sessions.
Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, lying about what happens here in the state of California.
He always dies in the middle of my impersonations.
It's unfortunate.
What Jeff Sessions said is simply not true.
And I call upon him to apologize to the people of California for bringing the mendacity of Washington to California and trying to insert discord and division.
And I might add dysfunctionality in a state that's really working.
So let's build some bridges, not walls.
Law enforcement in the state is not working.
Crime rates have been rising.
The homeless rate has been rising.
Welfare payments have been rising.
The state of California is a garbage heap, and that's largely thanks to the leadership of people like Governor Jerry Brown.
Jeff Sessions particularly pointed out a situation in Oakland where apparently the story was that the city of Oakland had been actively impeding deportations.
So, Sessions criticized Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf for warning the public about an unannounced raid by federal deportation officers recently in California.
Sessions said it allowed hundreds of wanted criminals to avoid arrest.
And he said, how dare you?
How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda?
And, of course, Sessions is exactly right.
That's what happens in the state of California.
Because a huge percentage of voters in the state of California are Hispanic, a lot of the Democratic politicians think that Hispanics are necessarily going to vote in favor of a more open borders agenda.
And so they pander by saying that they're going to resist federal law enforcement.
Now, one of the things that's amazing is that you recall the Obama administration sued the state of Arizona when the state of Arizona was arresting people based on immigration status under SB 70.
SB 70 was a law that was passed in the state of Arizona when Jan Brewer was governor.
that allowed local law enforcement to aid federal law enforcement by arresting people for violation of federal law, the Obama administration actually sued the state of Arizona, saying, you guys can't enforce federal law, only we can enforce federal law.
So, according to Democrats, it's illegal to help enforce federal law, but it is not illegal to actively impede the investigation of federal law.
Just amazing.
Here's the Oakland mayor, Libby Schaaf, responding by saying that Jeff Sessions is, you guessed it, a racist.
How dare you vilify members of our community by trying to frighten the American public into thinking that all undocumented residents are dangerous criminals?
How dare you distort the reality about declining violent crime in a diverse sanctuary city like Oakland, California, to advance your racist agenda?
Okay, except for the fact that the violent crime rate is apparently going up.
So according to the Public Policy Institute of California, California's violent crime rate increased by 3.7% in 2016 to 444 per 100,000 residents.
in 2016 to 444 per 100,000 residents.
There were other recent upticks in 2012 and 2015.
Obviously, this is not comparable to the '60s, but these upticks are troubling, And in the city of Los Angeles, for example, which is a sanctuary city, we have seen not only increased crime rates, we've also seen an attempt to obfuscate those increased crime rates by the simple, ridiculous measure of reevaluating what exactly counts as a crime.
So, the police have basically been told that in order for them to hit certain marks, they should just redefine things from felonies to misdemeanors.
It was a bill that passed recently—it was a referendum, actually, that passed recently in the state of California that redefined a bunch of felonies as misdemeanors and also allowed the state to allow people out of prison on misdemeanors.
So, if you just miscount the statistics, it's pretty easy to get to California has a lowered crime rate, even when the quality of life in California is declining.
So, is Jeff Sessions right to go after the state of California on all of this?
Of course he is.
Sessions in his speech referenced Confederate states that refused to abide by federal law.
Kamala Harris, the senator from California who wishes to run for president of the United States in 2020, she of course ripped into Jeff Sessions for making such a reference.
Listen, as far as I'm concerned, Jeff Sessions should be advised, and I'll advise him right now, that it's a bad idea for him to start talking about anything to do with the history of slavery or Reconstruction or the Civil War in the United States.
His credibility is pretty much shot on those issues.
Why?
Why?
Jeff Sessions prosecuted members of the KKK when he was a DA.
Why exactly is his credibility shot on those issues?
Because a white guy from the South?
Is that the implication here?
And then she suggested that Republicans are hypocritical because they're Federalists when it comes to issues like environmentalism or drugs, but they're not Federalists when it comes to immigration law.
Well, of course we're not federalists when it comes to immigration law, in the sense that states should have control over their own borders, because that's one of the basic powers that is granted to a centralized federal government.
That's just stupid.
If she says, you can look at members of this administration, whether it's the head of the EPA, when he was attorney general of Oklahoma, said that federal emission standards and other standards as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions should not apply to the states, What he actually says, the EPA does not have the federal authority under law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is true.
She says you can look at this attorney general who said that imposing the terms of the Voting Rights Act on the states creates an undue burden and is meddling with the affairs of each state.
That is also true of the Voting Rights Act, which was a federal attempt to get rid of racism in the registration of voters in the South and has been obsolete for decades now.
That is a violation of state sovereignty.
It clearly is under the Constitution.
It's amazing how folks on the left will conflate certain terminology in order to avoid the obvious implication of what they're doing, which is nullification of federal law.
Sanctuary cities are a nullification of federal law, at least insofar as they're actively impeding the federal government from doing its job.
Now, the question is whether the state of California can have its funds cut by the federal government, whether cities can have their funds cut by the federal government, because there are laws on the books, there are constitutional issues with regard to attaching strings to federal funding.
But certainly, you know, President Trump is supposed to come to California to talk about the Sanctuary City issue in the next few days.
It is an issue that is top of mind for a lot of people in the state of California.
And I'm not somebody who is particularly radical on illegal immigration.
I'm not somebody who says that we ought to deport everybody who's here illegally.
I think that we ought to go through and determine on a one-to-one basis whether people belong in the country or not, whether they are of use to the country or not.
And if they are not, then we should deport them.
But that's not the same thing as saying everybody who came here illegally should be deported.
In fact, there's not a person living in Southern California who has not met or worked with an illegal immigrant at some point.
But with all of that said, a state that is actively preventing the federal government from enforcing the law is violating the supremacy clauses of the Constitution of the United States, and there is no legal justification for anything remotely resembling that.
Okay, in just a second I'm going to talk about the continued radicalism of the Democratic Party.
They're so radical that now they're embracing the idea that sanctuary cities can actively fight the federal law enforcement officers.
But it gets even worse than that.
Before we get to that, first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Tripping.com.
So, when you plan a vacation, finding a place to stay that makes everybody happy is really tough.
That's particularly true if you're staying in a hotel.
So, my family, when we vacation, we can't stay at hotels because we need a kitchenette.
We keep kosher, so we bring a lot of our own food.
And we have two kids.
So if you stay in a hotel, you really think everybody's gonna fall asleep at the same time?
Good night.
It ain't gonna happen.
This is why Tripping.com is the best.
Tripping.com lets you, with one search, compare every home from the world's top vacation rental sites in one place to find the best deal on your perfect vacation rental.
Vacation rentals are better.
I mean, we're talking kitchens, we're talking washers and dryers.
There's more space.
It really is a home away from home as opposed to being crammed into a small room with a tiny mini fridge that refuses to cool to the proper temperature.
Tripping.com is the best way to book a vacation rental.
You can join the millions of travelers who find more savings with rates up to 80% less than traditional hotel rooms.
So if you're planning a spring break on the beach in Florida, it's Tripping.com.
If you can't wait to swim in Lake Tahoe this summer, Tripping.com.
If you're dreaming of sitting on the deck of a Smoky Mountains cabin, Tripping.com.
You want to go to Hawaii and you want to stay in a condo, Tripping.com.
Again, this year, save time and money when you book the vacation home of your dreams with Tripping.com.
That's T-R-I-P-P-I-N-G.com.
Find that perfect vacation rental, tripping.com slash Shapiro.
Go check it out.
Use that slash Shapiro also so that they know that we sent you as well.
Again, this is how we book all of our vacations in the Shapiro household, and for good reason.
Okay, so there's still fallout for Democrats over the Louis Farrakhan hubbubs.
So, Louis Farrakhan obviously is an anti-Semite.
We played clips of him a couple of days ago in his latest iteration of anti-Semitism.
He is still, for some odd reason, given a Twitter verified checkmark, which is an amazing thing, right?
We were told that you would have your verification removed, like Richard Spencer had his verification removed by Twitter because he's a disgusting racist.
Okay, I thought that was a bad move because verification on Twitter is supposed to be designed to prevent fraud.
It's supposed to be designed to prevent people from pretending to be Richard Spencer, for example.
Why you'd want to do that's beyond me.
But pretend to be Richard Spencer, and that's what the checkmark is for.
So for fake Ben Shapiro accounts, they can be distinguished from the real Ben Shapiro account by the blue checkmark.
But Twitter decided they were going to use the blue checkmark as a sign of approval.
So they got rid of the blue checkmark for Richard Spencer.
They did not get rid of it for Louis Farrakhan.
So, Louis Farrakhan is out there tweeting, making a fool of himself.
And he's also—I mean, he tweeted this 24 hours ago.
The FBI has been the worst enemy of black advancement.
The Jews have control over those agencies of government.
This is a guy who's been embraced by three of the four heads of the Women's March.
Happy International Women's Day, gang.
By three of the four heads of the International Women's March.
And now, a woman named Tamika Mallory, who actually went to Louis Farrakhan's latest lecture with the Nation of Islam, and this lecture included him talking about the Satanic Jew and all the rest of it, she has written a defense of herself.
So here is what she wrote.
This is for newsone.com, which is, I believe, a black-oriented political website.
She says, I proudly serve as a leader for one of the largest women's advocacy organizations in the world.
For that reason, my recent presence at the Nation of Islam Savior's Day Convocation troubled some of the very people who I have fought for and worked alongside for most of my life.
I've heard the pain and concern of my LGBTQAI siblings.
I don't know when AI joined it.
Is artificial intelligence part of LGBTQ or am I screwing up those initials?
Maybe.
To my Jewish friends and black women, including those who do and those who don't, check off either of those other boxes.
I affirm the validity of those feelings, and as I continue to grow and learn as both an activist and as a woman, I will continue to grapple with the complicated nature of working across ideological lines and the question of how to do so without causing harm to vulnerable people.
This one's not tough.
Don't go to lectures by an open anti-Semite.
Really not difficult.
Amazing that Barack Obama was able to get away with it with Reverend Wright.
It is not surprising that these women are able to get away with it with the Women's March.
She says, You're not helping, lady.
That doesn't help your case.
Savior's Day to lead anyone to question my beliefs, especially considering that I've been going to this event regularly for over 30 years.
Okay, you're not helping, lady.
That doesn't help your case.
Okay, if your case is I'm not a radical anti-Semite, I just go and listen to Louis Farrakhan spout about the satanic Jew and the white devil every year for 30 years.
That's weird.
Kind of weird.
I go to synagogue every week.
If the rabbi said things that I thought were truly racist or awful, I would leave because why would I go to a service where the rabbi did that?
But she goes to Savior's Day every year, apparently for 30 years.
She says, She says, Okay, what does that have to do with Farrakhan being an awful, egregious, disgusting anti-Semite?
Nothing.
Because I am the same woman who helped build an intersectional movement—intersectional just means a movement that is built on identity politics—that fights for the rights of all people and stands against hatred and discrimination of all forms, except against the Juden.
I am the same person today I was before Savior's Day, which begs the question, why are my beliefs being questioned now?
Well, her beliefs are being questioned now because we have tape of her at this event.
That's the answer.
Because I was raised in activism, and I believe that as historically oppressed people, blacks, Jews, Muslims, and all people must stand together to fight racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia.
Except that she's not going to throw Farrakhan under the bus anywhere in here.
Anywhere in here.
And we'll continue with this in just a second, because it really is Amazing.
It's amazing the length to which she goes to avoid saying Farrakhan's name.
There's an entire piece about Louis Farrakhan and not once is Louis Farrakhan's name mentioned.
She says, I go into difficult spaces.
I attend meetings with police and legislators, the very folks so much of my protest has been directed towards.
I've partnered and sat with countless groups, activists, religious leaders, and institutions over the past 20 years.
I've worked in prisons as well as with present and former gang members.
It is impossible for me to agree with every statement or share every viewpoint of the many people who I have worked with or will work with in the future.
As I do not wish to be held responsible for the words of others when my own history shows that I stand in opposition to them, I also do not think it is fair to question anyone who works with me, who supports my work, and who is a member of this movement because of the ways I may have fallen short here or in any other instance.
And she says it is her intention to walk in the tradition of Dr. Dorothy Height, successor to Marion McLeod Bethune, as president of the National Council of Negro Women.
In 1995, she faced criticism for participating in the Million Man March, which was organized by the Nation of Islam.
She said financial support was withheld from her organization.
And she said—and she stood strongly and addressed the Million Man March anyway.
And she said, I am here because you are here.
Oh, isn't that nice?
Except that, again, you've been going here for 30 years.
How hard is it to condemn anti-Semites if you're in the middle of an intersectional movement?
Apparently super hard, because you are most afraid of alienating other members of your intersectional community than you are of alienating open anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan.
Pretty astonishing.
But this is how the left operates now.
So you are a bad person if you are not of the Marxist left, and you are a bad person if you question people who are of the Marxist left.
New York Times columnist Barry Weiss has found this out over in her position at the New York Times.
Barry Weiss is not a conservative.
Barry Weiss is probably—I don't know if she voted for Hillary Clinton.
I would assume she did.
But Barry is, I would say, a mainstream classical liberal.
She's certainly not a hardcore conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
But she wrote a column for the New York Times talking about the pathetic attempts by people on the left to continuously call people who are not of the radical left fascists.
And she points out all of the protests that we've seen over the last week against Jordan Peterson and Christina Hoff Sommers and a variety of other figures.
I mean, Steven Pinker is being called alt-right now.
We talked about Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychologist, who has been an ardent Democrat for his entire life and now is now being labeled right wing and labeled a fascist because he refuses to buy into politically correct notions about non-differentiation between the sexes, for example.
So she wrote a piece, New York Times columnist Barry Weiss.
She penned an op-ed explaining the rising tendency on the left to label all those who are not sufficiently woke as fascists.
She's, of course, exactly correct.
I've been labeled a fascist by a bunch of people on the left.
They call me alt-right, which is just insane considering I was the alt-right's number one target during the 2016 election cycle.
Weiss writes this, quote, We live in a world in which politically fascistic behavior, if not the actual philosophy, is unquestionably on the rise.
And she names Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and Bashar Assad.
But she continues, these are generally not the extremists the left is focused on.
Instead, they seem to believe that the real cause for concern are the secret authoritarians passing as liberals and conservatives in our midst.
So, who are these people?
Christina Hoff Sommers and Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University, who questioned whether people should be run out of town on a rail in campus show trials if a professor has sex consensually with a student.
Is that deserving of being fired or destroyed?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is an atheist, a black female atheist, who's now being considered a fascist because she objects to the excesses of radical Islam.
Mary Beard, who's another feminist who's being run out of town on a rail.
She says, The main effect is that these endless accusations of fascism or misogyny or alt-right dull the effects of the words themselves.
As they are stripped of meaning, they strip us of our sharpness, of our ability to react forcefully to real fascists and misogynists or members of the alt-right.
Okay, this is, of course, exactly correct.
Everything Barry Weiss says here is right.
So, what was the reaction of people on the left?
Amanda Marcotte, who is one of the stupidest humans on planet Earth, she writes for Salon.com.
Here's what she tweeted, quote: "Remember, Barry Weiss calls herself a classic liberal, a favorite term of alt-righters who mistakenly think they're cleverly fooling you." So the entire point that Barry Weiss is making is that the left keeps using labels on mainstream conservatives and liberals.
And Amanda Marcotte's solution is that clearly Barry Weiss is a fascist alt-righter.
Just fantastic.
If the left thinks they're going to win any contests through this, they must be out of their minds.
We have now boiled down politics to culture wars, and these are not culture wars the left is likely to win if they continue along these lines.
OK, so before I go any further, and we'll talk Stormy Daniels, we'll talk guns, we'll talk foreign policy, and also there's a piece in Vox.com that I may or may not discuss because I think that the left is making a disturbing mistake with regard to sex, particularly.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Upside.com.
Let me ask you this.
How great would it be to have the kind of support astronauts get when they take a business trip?
You know, having a whole team of people who are just sitting around at mission control, making sure that your trip goes exactly as planned, and fixing your problems if you experience them.
Well, that's what Upside.com is.
I mean, we're talking concierge service, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We've got a team of specialists there to help you, making sure that your flight, hotel, and car rental all go off Without a hitch, they monitor your trip around the clock.
They proactively keep you posted on everything from if it's going to rain to alternate return flights home in case you want to squeeze in one more meeting or you want to leave a little bit early.
Once you've experienced a committed team behind you helping you with your travel, there's no way you're going to go back to anything else.
Upside.com slash Ben.
Easy booking, competitive prices, and a team that always has your back.
And right now, they have a special deal.
If you sign up today for your free account, you get a free pair of Bose headphones on your first business trip.
Pretty awesome deal.
Upside.com slash Ben.
You get a free pair of Bose headphones on your first business trip.
Again, that's Upside.com slash Ben.
When you sign up today for your free account, $600 minimum purchase required within 90 days.
See the site for complete details.
Again, Upside is the best way to travel.
We're talking affordable prices, easy booking, and again, that concierge team that ensures that your travel goes off without a hitch.
Because there's nothing more irritating than getting to the airport, realizing there's a screw-up, and now you booked it online and you are totally jacked.
That is not what happens with you at Upside.com slash Ben.
Go to Upside.com slash Ben, let them know we sent you, and again, that special deal.
Sign up today, you get that free account and a free pair of Bose headphones on your first business trip.
Minimum purchase of $600 required within 90 days.
Alrighty, so, in other news, Stormy Daniels is back in the news, and CNN is just beside itself.
So when I go to work out, one of the things that is unfortunate is that CNN is what's on the TV.
Well, that means that it was wall-to-wall Stormy Daniels coverage yesterday.
So Stormy Daniels' lawyer is now suing the president to try and avoid an injunction.
So, Michael Cohn, Trump's lawyer, as we know, signed an agreement with Stormy Daniels, former porn star, or current porn star, I guess she's still a porn star, and paid her $130,000 to keep her story under wraps.
And now Daniels is suing Trump because she says that Trump did not actually sign that agreement.
Now, legally speaking, it's not clear that that actually is a good legal case.
Like, if I sign an agreement, and then you don't countersign and send it back to me, not supremely clear that I'm still not bound by the agreement.
So, you know, I mean, because the reason being that if there was a meeting of the minds, then there could theoretically be a constructed agreement.
But in any case, she's claiming that the Trump campaign paid her off and that they then did not sign a contract with her.
She filed her lawsuit on Tuesday, and then Cohn obtained a temporary restraining order against her, prohibiting her from violating an NDA she signed in October 2016, just before the election.
Cohn allegedly dispatched his own attorney, Lawrence Rosen, to caution Daniels against breaking the terms of the order.
Michael Avenetti is Daniels' lawyer.
He told NBC News that he is not going to be stopped by this.
He said earlier today...
Mr. Cohen, through his attorney, Mr. Rosen, further threatened my client in an effort to prevent her from telling the truth about what really happened.
We do not take kindly to these threats, nor will we be intimidated.
So...
You know, getting into the legal vagaries of this is not really worthwhile.
There are really only two questions of any sense.
One is, did Trump know that his lawyer was paying off Stormy Daniels?
And two, do we care?
Those are the only two questions that matter here.
So, the media obviously focusing in like a laser beam on all of this.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was grilled yesterday from the podium.
Apparently Trump was very unhappy with how Sarah Huckabee Sanders answered these questions.
He wanted her to Say in more convincing fashion that she thinks that Trump didn't know about the payment by Michael Cohen, his lawyer, to Stormy Daniels.
Here's Sarah Huckabee Sanders answering some questions.
The president has addressed these directly and made very well clear that none of these allegations are true.
This case has already been won in arbitration, and anything beyond that I would refer you to the president's outside counsel.
So she wouldn't answer what exactly the arbitration case was, she didn't answer what it meant to have won this case in arbitration, and then she was asked repeatedly whether Trump knew that Cohen was paying off Stormy Daniels.
Now, let's be frank about this, okay?
Let's just be clear.
Obviously Trump knew.
Of course Trump knew.
Anyone who thinks Trump didn't know is a fool.
This is just ridiculous.
Lawyers don't go around spending $130,000 on behalf of clients to pay off their former porn star lovers out of the goodness of their heart.
It's just not something that happens.
And to suggest to anybody that they ought to buy that account is just insane.
You have to be a crazy person to actually believe that, or you have to be so in the tank for Trump that you are willing to overlook basic reality.
Obviously Trump knew his lawyer was paying off Stormy Daniels, which brings us to the second point.
Does anyone care about any of this?
Now, there are two sub-questions there.
One is, do we care in general?
And the second is, is this a violation of campaign finance law?
Not clear this is a violation of campaign finance law.
A settlement outside of court that allows you to pay somebody to keep quiet is not rare in the legal world.
In fact, John Edwards was basically paying alimony to a camera woman that he knocked up, and she was pregnant with his baby.
He paid her $900,000 from campaign funds, and that was not a violation of law according to the court.
So, if that's not a violation of law, not sure why $130,000 is a violation of law, they're going to have to go further than just saying that Trump paid off a porn star to say this is a violation of campaign finance law.
Maybe it's an in-kind contribution by Michael Cohen or something, but it's going to be kind of hard to make this particular case.
Then there's the more general question, should we care?
So on a moral level, yes, we should care that the President of the United States is a douche with regard to women.
President Trump is not great on the female front.
The fact that this is even mildly controversial is again demonstrative of the fact that we have broken down into tribal identity.
I'm sorry if it hurts feelings.
The President of the United States has had three wives.
He has cheated on all of those wives.
Each and every one of those wives has been cheated on.
We are only lucky that Stormy Daniels is not the current First Lady of the United States.
Because that's what Trump does.
And Trump is a sleazebag with regard to women.
He always has been a sleazebag with regard to women.
He is the kind of person who said in interviews that nothing matters as long as you've got a beautiful and young piece of ass.
He's the kind of person who said that surviving the 1970s without acquiring an STD was his own personal Vietnam.
This is not a guy of quality with regard to how he treats women in his sex life.
That said, does anyone care?
No, because he's been like this his entire life.
We already knew.
This is baked into the cake.
So, should we care?
Yes.
Should it make a difference?
Yes.
Will it make a difference?
No, because we already know what we're getting.
Bottom line, we already know what we're getting.
So the media's attempt to try and turn this into a big scandal, it's not going to be a big scandal because we already know.
It's not a thing.
Okay, so, before I go any further here, and I want to talk about an article that is—we'll talk a little bit about the poll outlook for Democrats in 2018, and then there's an article that I think is worth discussing at Vox.com.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at the USCCA.
So right now, obviously, gun rights are really under assault.
Gun rights are under attack.
The left is making clear that it wishes to deprive you of your right to self-defense.
They want you to outsource that to the state.
They say that the country will be better off if no one has a gun.
They lie about it.
They say that they just want to ban certain types of rifles.
They don't want to confiscate weapons.
And then they say to Australia, which is a place that has gun confiscation.
The left isn't honest about their agenda, but we are honest about their agenda.
The U.S.C.C.A.
knows that the way that you protect yourself is with a gun.
The way you protect yourself and your liberty is with a gun.
And that is why the U.S.C.C.A.
is giving you, my law-abiding lucky listeners, ten chances to win $1,500 to buy an expensive new Kimber 1911.
It is their mission to train, protect, and ensure responsibly armed Americans like you and like me.
As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I'm a proud member of the USCCA, and they love giving away free guns to law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families.
Go to defendmyfamilynow1.com, defendmyfamilynow1.com, to lock in your 10 free chances to win right now.
That's all you have to do.
Don't miss out on the chance to win $1,500 for your very own Kimber 1911, one of the finest handguns there is, but it all ends next week.
Go to defendmyfamilynow1.com right now for your 10 chances to win.
You can enter in seconds, and it is 100% free, but again, it ends soon.
Go to defendmyfamilynow1.com, enter before it's too late, defendmyfamilynow1.com.
It's all right there in the URL, defendmyfamilynow1.com.
The reason we want guns is to defend our families, and that is why my listeners are having a shot.
You're law-abiding?
Great.
You now have a shot to win a gun to defend yourself and your family.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Go check that out.
Alrighty, so, before we go any further, unfortunately, we're going to have to sign off on Facebook.
However...
If you wish to see the rest of this show live, all you have to do is go over to dailywire.com and subscribe for $9.99 a month.
You get the rest of my show live, Clavin's show live, Knowles' awful show live.
You get all of those things, plus the mailbag tomorrow.
And our next episode of The Conversation is coming up Tuesday, March 13th at 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific, featuring me, the best.
Subscribe today to be a part of the conversation so I can answer your questions and make your life infinitely better in this hour-long live Q&A.
My conversation will stream live on the Ben Shapiro Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
It'll be free for everyone to watch, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
If you want to ask questions, all you have to do is log into our website, dailywire.com, head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
After that, start typing into the Daily Wire chat box.
I will answer questions as they come in for an entire hour.
Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by me, Ben Shapiro, Tuesday, March 13th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific, and join the conversation.
And if you want the best possible deal, get the annual.
The annual subscription is where it's at.
Check that out.
By spending $99, you get all of those aforementioned wonders, plus this, the greatest in all beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
Ah, look at it.
Just feast your eyes upon this.
You could have this for $99.
Not just the tumbler.
It's a little expensive for a tumbler, but it's great for the whole package, plus the tumbler.
So, check that out.
If you just want to listen later, go over to iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube.
Please subscribe.
Please leave us a review.
It always helps.
We are the largest, most fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So there's an article out of Vox.com.
I asked my wife to read it because I wanted to see if she had the same reaction to it that I did.
And it's kind of a fascinating article because the article is about sexual assault within marriage.
Now, sexual assault can happen within marriage.
We're in a Me Too moment.
Obviously, it's International Women's Day.
And so, you know, it's very important to talk about proper behavior toward women.
It's important to talk about what women should expect from men.
It is important to talk about how men should behave toward women.
All of that's very important.
One thing that I'm seeing in the feminist movement, it's been happening for a long time, is conflation of a lot of terminology that is actually dangerous to relationships and dangerous to marriage.
There's an article today about sexual assault within marriage by Anonymous over at Vox.com.
Anonymous happens to be a feminist professor, shockingly, and this article is about how she says she was sexually assaulted within marriage.
Sexual assault can occur within marriage.
Obviously it can occur outside of marriage as well.
Sexual assault is just a woman says no and a man says I'm doing it anyway, right?
That's sexual assault, right?
A woman refuses consent and a man disobeys that and then does the most evil act a human being can do outside of murder, which is that he takes advantage of a woman against her will, right?
That is, in my view, should be punishable by castration or death.
I mean, that's how seriously I take sexual assault.
But one thing that the left has done is they have watered down consent.
So we saw this with the Aziz Ansari story, where a woman accused Aziz Ansari of violating her consent when she did not, in fact, say no to him at any point.
When she did say no, he stopped.
It was just him being persistent.
There was really no evidence that he raped her or sexually assaulted her in any way.
She got naked in his apartment.
They performed sex acts on each other.
That whole story was ridiculous.
Vox.com has another story that Ezra Klein is calling deeply important.
And so I think it's important to recognize a couple of things.
Within marriage, number one, As a married man, and as a man, and as somebody who reads social science studies, and as someone who believes in evolutionary biology, men want sex more than women do.
Or at least they want sex on a more regular basis than women do.
Every social science study ever done shows this.
Men, on average, want sex more often than women do.
The great feminist lie that women want sex in the same way that men want sex is just absurd, it's crap, it's not true.
Men are more aggressive about sex.
Men want sex more often.
Men want sex with more different partners.
All of these things are supported by a vast bevy of social science statistics.
What that means is that within marriage, there is often an imbalance.
Men want sex more often than their wives do.
And so, a question arises.
What happens if a woman does not really want to have sex, but the guy wants to have sex?
So, the way traditionally women have treated sex within marriage is that there's a difference between I actively don't want to have sex with my husband and I'm not super into it, but I'll go ahead with it anyway.
Okay, I'm not super into it, but I'll go ahead with it anyway because I love my husband, is a pretty common thing within marriage.
In fact, it's a very common thing within marriage.
And I think it's a good thing within marriage.
I don't think it's an active... I think the woman is not doing something wrong.
I think she's doing something healthy and right for the relationship.
Because when it comes to... That's not saying that a woman should have sex if she really doesn't want to, if she thinks her husband's a boor and disgusting person.
If that's the case, divorce him.
Or if the woman's feeling sick, or she's not up to it.
Like, a woman should never have sex if she doesn't want to have sex in the most egregious possible terms.
But there are lots of times when women go along with a man.
A man says, I would like to have sex with you.
And the woman's like, well, not super into it.
The guy says, please.
And the woman says, OK.
This is a thing that happens routinely within marriage.
It happens within every marriage.
And it is healthy for marriage.
Because one of the things about doing things for people you love is that you're constantly doing things where you are ambivalent about them, but you do them for the sake of the person that you love.
Now what's weird is that the feminist left treats it as though the only form of sex that can ever be had is the most passionate, the most interested form of sex.
Women have to be just really super into it in order for them to consent in the first place, which seems to violate the women's principles of consent.
There are lots of women who are willing to have sex with their husbands just because they think that it's a sign of love to their husbands, even if they're not physically in the mood.
That happens all the time, and I don't think that that's a bad thing.
I think it's a very healthy thing.
I think it's setting an expectation up for women that can't be fulfilled within a relationship if they think that a man is going to be happy with his wife, only having sex with him, only at the times when she's most enthusiastic about it.
Because again, just biologically speaking, women are not going to be enthusiastic about sex nearly as much as men are.
Relationships are about people doing things that they are ambivalent about, or even maybe don't want to do all that much, because they love their partner.
Again, this is not to say that men should be able to violate the consent of their wives.
Of course not.
That's rape.
But it is to say that there are lots of situations in which women consent, aren't super enthusiastic, and consent anyway.
We have this in everyday life with a variety of issues.
And it's true of sex as well.
The reason I say this is because this article from Vox.com blurs this line.
They say that anytime a man says to his wife, can we have sex, and she says, you know, I'm not super into it, but okay, that he's now raping her.
This is a problem.
This undermines the nature of relationships.
It creates false expectations for women on how sex is supposed to go within relationships.
It creates false expectations for men on how sex is supposed to go within marriage.
So here's what this anonymous person writes, who is of course a feminist.
She says, a feminist professor, she says, eight years into our marriage, sitting in a therapist's office with my husband, I mustered all my courage and said my deepest, darkest truth.
When we have sex, I feel like I'm being violated.
The unwanted sex at times made me sick.
Once I had to run straight from the bed to the bathroom where I retched into the toilet, I spared him and the therapist that detail.
Now, she doesn't say that she said no and then he raped her anywhere in this article.
She just says that she didn't want the sex, she apparently said yes or consented to it, and then she went and retched.
Which is just, I mean, I wonder why these people were married.
There's part of the story we are not hearing here.
That's not a normal thing.
You have sex with your husband on a consensual level and then you go vomit?
I'm gonna go with they've got some other problems.
So, quick note here.
Men see sex as a substitute for intimacy.
head with more indifference than disdain, replied, "She's always so melodramatic." His response didn't surprise me.
It was his standard reaction to my complaints about the sad state of our marriage, his way of training me to see my needs, emotional connection and communication as excessive, and his primarily sex as entirely reasonable." So quick note here.
Men see sex as a substitute for intimacy.
Women see intimacy as a reason for sex.
So if a woman won't have sex with her husband, the man sees that as a rejection of him.
The man sees it as a rejection of love for him.
If a woman doesn't feel emotional intimacy and she feels like she is only being used for sex, then she feels like she is being used.
So men and women are almost coming at sex from polar opposite directions.
Okay, but the way that they meet is inside a committed relationship when intimacy and sex are completely overlapped.
One of the things the feminist movement has done, and I think it's been really egregious, is they've separated off intimacy and sex.
They've said sex is a bodily function, and intimacy is an emotional function.
And that means that you can separate these two things off.
They did this so that they could separate commitment from sex.
They did this so they could say that marriage had nothing to do with sex.
They did this so they could say single people sleeping around, totally fine, totally praiseworthy, totally healthy, no bad ramifications.
All you have to do is just see sex as pooping, and it's the same thing, right?
Sex is eating.
It's just another bodily function you engage in.
Why should there be any emotional connection?
But then, when it comes to how actual human beings behave, intimacy is inherently connected to sex.
And that's true for men as well.
If a woman who is married to a man will not have sex with him under any circumstances, he is going to feel slightly peeved.
He is going to feel as though the woman doesn't love him.
And I don't think that's completely unjustified.
Anyway, this woman continues, "I had dragged us to the couple's counseling because I could no longer live in the vacuum left behind after the emotional intimacy had seeped out of our marriage.
My husband hadn't noticed the loss, proclaiming himself happy.
At home having," he sounds like an insane person, by the way, "to be happy in this relationship.
At home, having tried without success, the therapist prescribed exercises for restoring emotional connection, check-ins about feelings, non-sexual touch.
My husband lobbied for his own solution.
The thing you need is really complicated and difficult, and it's not something I can do.
But the thing I need is easy and quick.
Why can't you just give me the thing I need?
I acquiesced.
That's called consent.
So she's stupid, first of all.
She sounds like a person who at least is making bad decisions.
If your husband says to you, I can't give you anything that satisfies you emotionally, just give me the sex, and you go along with that, You're making a mistake in your relationship.
It says, at the time, it didn't feel like a choice.
It felt inevitable.
I lived every evening dreading the signals of my husband's desire.
I bargained my way out of sex as often as I could.
I gloried in being sick enough to have the right to refuse.
On the nights when I couldn't get out of it, we used a method I taught myself to tolerate and that he astoundingly tolerated as well.
I read a book to distract myself for as long as I could while he did the thing he needed to do.
I did not let him kiss me for the last several years of our marriage.
That was the rule.
You can bleep me, but you can't kiss me, and I don't have to pretend to like it.
That satisfied him.
First of all, he sounds like a real messed up dude.
If that satisfies any guy, if a guy feels satisfied by that sort of level of sexual connection with his intimate partner, then that person is screwed up.
There are a lot of deeper issues in this marriage, but the problem I have with this article is the conflation of what seems to be... what she's talking about is a failed marriage, a real failed marriage, where she hates her husband and he doesn't care about her.
But what she's conflating that with is every woman who has ever said yes to sex with her husband When she wasn't like super into it.
And she's conflating that with sexual assault.
But I blame myself.
But I blame myself.
Well, I mean, to a certain extent, you should have used your volition, right?
I mean, you should have stood up and said no if this is the way that your marriage was going.
And he does sound like a piece of work.
But, honestly, it sounds like you never said no.
I mean, it sounds like you never said, listen, without emotional connection, nothing's happening in the bedroom, Buster.
Which seems like the right way to do this.
But if you're setting up the expectation, here's the problem that I have with all this.
If you're setting up the expectation from men that men are only going to have sex with their wives when their wives are fully, fully emotionally deployed, fully into it, really horny, right?
If that's the idea, then that's not going to work inside marriages.
It just isn't.
Women routinely make the decision that because they love their husbands they are going to have sex with their husbands at times when it seems inconvenient or at times when they are okay with it but not supremely into it.
At times when it's not passionate lovemaking on the beach all from here to eternity.
If women are told that they don't have to...
Not that they don't have to.
They don't have to do anything they don't want to.
But if women are told that it's healthy for a marriage, that they can have a fulfilled, emotionally stable relationship on the basis of turning down sex except when they are most enthusiastic about it, that's not going to work.
It's setting up unfulfillable expectations with regard to men.
And if men are told that when they get married, then there's no greater access to sex than when they were single, Then, to be perfectly blunt about this, there will be less marriage.
One of the reasons that men have sex, one of the reasons men get married, in the basic bargain of things, is because when they love a woman and believe that they are in a relationship for life, they're giving up polygamy, polyamory, for the sake of frequency in the basic economic bargain.
That's to put it in its most blunt terms.
On an emotional level, what they're really doing is they're saying, I love this woman so much, I'm willing to be with her the rest of my life, and because we love each other so much, we are going to have a lot more sex than I would if I were a single guy.
Men identify sex with love, and women do too.
They just come at it from different angles.
Okay, so...
It's time for a couple of things that I like and then some things that I hate.
So, let's do a thing that—let's start with a thing that I like.
So, we've been doing heaven-related things this week.
We've been doing all sorts of art that has been related to heaven.
So, there's a really underrated Broadway musical called The Secret Garden.
The musical is actually written by Lucy Simon, who has written a bunch of pop songs as well.
She's Carly Simon's sister.
And Lucy wrote all the music to The Secret Garden, which is a really quite beautiful musical.
This ran for, I believe, 709 performances on Broadway in the early 90s.
And one of the numbers, the singer, I think, is named Rebecca Luca, she sings Come to My Garden from The Secret Garden.
The story of The Secret Garden, if you don't know, is a little girl whose parents die.
She's adopted by her uncle, and her uncle is, his wife died.
He had a child with his wife, who is a cripple.
And who is, I believe, a paraplegic, a Colin.
And she has also locked—she had a garden on this estate, and the husband has locked away this garden because after she died, he never wanted to see it again.
It was kind of their special place.
He locked it away.
And it's the discovery of this little girl of this garden, and she brings the crippled child to the garden.
And the musical is quite beautiful.
This is—this number is the ghost of the wife and mother.
Singing to the son who is paraplegic.
And of course, miracles happen in the Broadway show.
But here is, this is the most beautiful song from the show.
show.
Come to my garden, rest there in my arms.
There I will see you safely nude among your knees.
Stay in my garden when love lives be among.
Come to my garden, come soon, child.
Let's lay up and leave me to the ground.
So it really is a good musical, and it's too bad that it never met the sort of acclaim that it should have.
It's Rekha Luker is the name of that singer.
I mean, just historically gorgeous voice.
So check out The Secret Garden.
Get the Broadway cast recording virtually anywhere, and it is well worth it.
Mandy Patinkin plays the father, and he's quite good in it, although he is very Mandy Patinkin.
So he's very Mandy Patinkin.
So check that out.
OK.
Other things that I like.
So Joe Scarborough versus Ted Cruz.
So yesterday, Every American doesn't have a constitutional Second Amendment right to carry an AR-15.
Things got pretty wild.
Scarborough went after Cruz on guns, and Cruz went right back at him.
Every American doesn't have a constitutional Second Amendment right to carry an AR-15.
Yes or no?
I'm not going to debate that.
The courts will assess it.
No, but the courts have assessed it.
No, they haven't.
That's not what a denial of cert means.
I don't need you to lecture me on what the Supreme Court does and what it doesn't do.
There is not a constitutional right, and you know it, And you can talk down to me all you want to, but you know there is not a constitutional... Joe, who's talking down to who?
If you want to stop violent crime, this debate is dancing on the head of a pin.
Okay, but... Here's what stops... But hold on, I may agree with you, Senator.
So you can see how Scarborough is trying to browbeat Cruz.
He does need a lecture on constitutional law.
Ted Cruz litigated before the Supreme Court dozens of times, so he knows constitutional law a hell of a lot better than Joe Scarborough does.
It is amazing to see Joe Scarborough, who once had an A from the NRA when he was in Congress, flip completely, and now he's a gun control guy because he's on Morning Joe, of course.
But Cruz did a pretty good job with Scarborough.
He should have gone back harder at Scarborough, I think, but that's because I have a different debating style than others.
OK, other things that I like.
So I think this is a worthwhile thing that happened last night on cable TV, which is a rare thing to say.
Tucker Carlson got into a big debate with John Bolton.
John Bolton is rumored to be up for National Security Advisor if H.R.
McMaster should step down inside the White House.
And Tucker has a suddenly isolationist view of foreign policy that I don't remember him having quite as much during the Bush administration.
Bolton is not.
Bolton is more of an interventionist.
And Bolton tries to educate Carlson on foreign policy.
I'm obviously on Bolton's side of this debate.
You just said that Iran is the single greatest threat to us and to that region.
I think you'll concede that Saddam was the greatest counterbalance to Iran, and they were empowered by his fall.
So I think it's fair to say if you think Iran is the real threat that way, it's kind of hard to defend that decision, right?
No, because I think your analysis is simple-minded, frankly.
The Iranian threat, which stems from the revolution of 1979, was underway quite apart from what Saddam Hussein was doing.
The Iranians have been trying to get nuclear weapons for 25 years.
Wait, so you don't think the fall of Saddam made Iran stronger?
I think it made...
The fall of Saddam, no, did not make Iran stronger.
What made Iran stronger ultimately was the withdrawal of American forces in 2008.
So if you, I mean, I'm not saying you're the only person who thinks that, you're the only person I have met who thinks that.
OK, that is not true.
I mean, there are a lot of people who think that.
The fall of Saddam Hussein did not necessarily make Iran stronger if we had stayed and if we had stabilized Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran.
So, I understand Tucker's point, which is that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was anti-Iran.
It is also true that Iraq was participating in terrorist activity, that they threatened their neighbors, that Saddam Hussein was clearly proclaiming that he was pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
All of that is clearly true.
It's worthwhile.
Go back and watch the entire debate, if you have a chance, between John Bolton and Tucker Carlson, which I think is intelligent and useful, actually.
Although Tucker does get a bit snarky at the end, which is something I'm not fully appreciative of in that sort of discussion.
OK, time for a quick thing that I hate.
OK, a couple quick things that I hate.
So, first of all, Daniel Malloy, who's the governor of Connecticut, called the NRA a terrorist organization.
This is just obnoxious on every level.
That's clip four.
So, let's watch the governor of a state actually suggest that a domestic lobbying group is equivalent to al-Qaeda.
The NRA as it exists today is a far cry from the NRA that in 1999 said teachers shouldn't be, shouldn't carry weapons in schools.
Or between, in the 90s also said that we should have universal background checks.
They have in essence become a terrorist organization.
That's absurd.
That's absurd.
So what, are you going to start arresting members of the NRA?
Is this kind of language that ensures that we're never going to be able to move forward on anything remotely resembling a debate about crime and violent crime in the United States?
OK, other things that I hate.
So there's this thing that's come into fashion now, and it is corporate virtue signaling.
You want to get a free headline?
All you have to do is virtue signal to the left.
McDonald's yesterday decided to flip its golden arches in order to celebrate women everywhere.
So it took the M and turned it into a W. A quick way to get a headline.
And what's amazing is that people on the left are perfectly willing to grant that headline to a major corporation like McDonald's, which every other day of the week they are ripping as a low-wage employer.
All you have to do is flip that M into a W, like for Wario, instead of Mario, and suddenly everything changes, and we are supposed to pretend that McDonald's is a halcyon and a beacon of light in the darkness.
It is amazing how easily these corporations play the left, and it's amazing how easily the left allows itself to be played by these corporations that normally they hate and want to put out of business.
Okay, so we'll be back here tomorrow for much more.
And we'll be back here tomorrow.
It's a Thursday already, right?
So that means mailbag tomorrow.
Yeah!
So it's time to subscribe.
Go over to Daily Wire and check that out so you can be part of the mailbag.
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