All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
50:46
Are Victims Sacrosanct? | Ep. 504
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, we're going to discuss today when victimhood counts as the fallout from Parkland continues, plus Stormy Daniels befuddles the White House, and Paul Ryan, is he on his way out?
I'm Ben Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Oh man, so many things to get to today.
And we will get to all of them.
First I want to say thank you, however, to our sponsors over at Bull & Branch.
So, you've not been getting enough sleep.
And you think that you've not been getting enough sleep because you're stressed or because you're not exercising.
But one of the reasons you're not getting enough sleep is because your sheets stink.
Okay, you know they do.
You just stopped at the side of a road and there's some weird guy who's selling thousand thread count sheets and you pick them up and you've been sleeping on a plastic tarp ever since.
Well, Bull & Branch can fix that for you.
Bull & Branch makes the best bedding, the best blankets made from pure 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft, they get even softer over time, and you can buy directly from them, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store.
Bull & Branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks, and that's well worth it since you're sleeping on them every night.
Everyone who tries Bull & Branch sheets loves them.
In fact, we threw out all of our other sheets and bought only Bull & Branch after we started working with them.
That's why they have thousands of five-star reviews.
It's why Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Fast Company, they're all talking about Bull & Branch.
Even three U.S.
presidents and Bill Clinton's ex-lovers sleep on Bull & Branch sheets.
Shipping is free.
You can try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
But you're not going to want to send them back.
They really are that good.
To get you started, right now my listeners get $50 off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com promo code Ben.
That's bullandbranch.com promo code Ben for $50 off your first set of sheets.
Again, all of their sheets are just phenomenal and their other products are as well.
You sleep much better in your own bed when you have a great pair of sheets.
That's what Bull and Branch does for you.
B-O-L-L and branch.com.
Use that promo code Ben to get $50 off and let them know that we sent you.
All right.
We've been hearing for weeks that those of us who are in favor of Second Amendment rights are somehow weird, crazy, because we're all worried that they're going to take our guns.
And what you'll hear from people on the left is, no, we don't want to take your guns.
No, we're not interested in taking your guns.
Why would we want to take your guns under any circumstances?
No.
No.
And then, of course, they argue that they want to take our guns.
The latest example of this comes courtesy of former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
So John Paul Stevens was appointed by Republicans and then he proceeded to govern left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That is not a joke.
If you actually look, people have charted.
How particular justices govern and rule from the bench.
John Paul Stevens is one of the most liberal members of the court for nearly his entire tenure.
He's one of the worst picks.
I believe he was appointed by President Reagan, one of the worst picks of President Reagan.
And he has just been disastrous.
In fact, you know, I'm going to check that real fact that he that he was appointed by he might have been appointed by Nixon.
Yeah, he's appointed by President Nixon.
Oh, sorry.
Gerald Ford is appointed by Gerald Ford.
But he was one of Gerald Ford's worst moves.
And now he has an op ed in The New York Times literally titled Repeal the Second Amendment.
Which makes the second op-ed in the New York Times in the last two years calling for a full repeal of the Second Amendment after Bret Stephens wrote the same thing, and Bret is their in-house conservative over there.
So, John Paul Stephens writes this full op-ed about why we should get rid of the Second Amendment entirely.
First of all, completely unrealistic.
In order to pass a constitutional amendment, you require two-thirds approval of each House of Congress plus three-quarters of all state legislatures.
Look at a map.
It's all red.
There are 30-some governors in the United States who are Republican.
Zero state legislatures are actually going to pass this thing outside of California, Massachusetts, New York, and maybe, you know, Minnesota or something.
And the notion that a bunch of people are sitting around waiting to repeal the Second Amendment is just not accurate.
But let's go through John Paul Stevens' awful argument in the New York Times for why the Second Amendment should be repealed.
So, he begins by praising the marches and rallies that have been taking place since the Parkland shooting.
He writes this.
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday.
These demonstrations demand our respect.
They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
So number one, this is stupid.
This is incredibly stupid.
If you really believe that big rallies mean that there's tremendous support for hardcore anti-gun legislation, then you've never seen a rally before.
First of all, this rally wasn't that big.
There were like 200,000 people who showed up in D.C.
Sizable rally?
Sure.
In 2000, there was the Million Mom March, also for gun control, also anti-NRA, and three quarters of a million people showed up in Washington, D.C.
At that point, I believe Bill Clinton was still president, technically, and nothing happened.
Zero things happened.
And there's been pretty much zero gun legislation between 2000 and 2018, despite multiple major rallies on gun control.
And it's worth noting that when Tea Partiers were out there by the hundreds of thousands, nobody seemed to care about that either.
Every year, the March for Life happens.
It's several hundred thousand people.
And pro-life legislation does not inevitably follow, nor would people on the left suggest, wow, look at the public support for that.
That means we suddenly have to get rid of abortion rights.
So this is really dumb.
And then he continues.
He says,
Again, for those who don't know anything about guns, a semiautomatic weapon just means you pull the trigger once, and one bullet fires, and another one is loaded into the chamber.
That is all a semiautomatic weapon is.
The only thing that distinguishes between a revolver and a semiautomatic weapon is that there is a changing cylinder in a revolver that doesn't exist in a semiautomatic weapon.
Virtually every weapon in the United States, unless it is bullet-loading, muzzle-loading, or a revolver, is a semiautomatic weapon.
Virtually all of them.
And there are 300 million of them in the United States.
So he says, well, no problem.
Just get rid of some automatic weapons.
Everything will be fine.
Yeah, good luck with that one.
OK, but then he says that he wants the Second Amendment gone.
So it's not enough to just get rid of it.
And then I love this, that the left keeps saying that we're just idly worried about Second Amendment rights being violated.
We're not.
We can have common sense gun regulations.
Yeah, at least Stevens is being honest.
At least he's being honest.
So, he says, let's get rid of the Second Amendment entirely.
He says, quote, Well, no.
No, it isn't.
The concern that the federal government would invade our rights in a really egregious manner and that we might need guns to protect ourselves, I'm wondering how that's a relic of the 18th century when we have had, beyond the 18th century, full-on slavery in the United States, Jim Crow, removal of gun rights from black folks, removal of gun rights from a wide variety of people, including Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the forcible imprisonment of Japanese during World War II.
It seems to me that an armed population is a better guarantee than sitting around thinking that the government will never go tyrannical.
It just is.
That's not to suggest that every armed rebellion is good, or that it will end well, or that armed rebellions are largely successful, but one of the reasons that the government doesn't go full tyrannical is because they know that there are 100 million people in the United States who own guns.
Try telling a bunch of Texans they are not violating their rights when you say you want to go into their basements and take out all of their guns.
Again, good luck with that.
You know how historically ignorant you have to be to believe that it's a relic of the 18th century to worry about centralized government taking your guns and then invading your rights?
It's happened in virtually every tyrannical country.
It's happened in China.
It has happened in the Soviet Union.
It's happened in Nazi Germany.
This sort of stuff happens all the time, routinely, a lot.
So then he continues, says, for over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation.
In 1939, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a quote-unquote well-regulated militia.
Well, that's not even a real reading of the case.
That's a bad reading of the case.
The idea here is that you have to be a member of the militia in order to carry a gun.
That is absolutely untrue.
It is not true at the time of the founding.
It is not true throughout American history.
It's not even true in the case that Stevens is citing.
Stevens was a bad Supreme Court justice, and he is an ignoramus when it comes to actual jurisprudence.
The case he's citing is United States v. Miller in 1939.
Justice Scalia explained this case to Stevens in his opinion in D.C.
versus in Heller v. D.C.
He said, quote, Miller did not hold that and cannot be possibly read to have held that, quote, the judgments in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge to men's federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce in violation of the National Firearms Act.
It is entirely clear that the court's basis for saying the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were bearing arms, not for military purposes.
Rather, it was the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for the Second Amendment protection.
This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, though only arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
Had the court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon, rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Furthermore, this has been understood for literally hundreds of years.
One of the reasons in the Dred Scott decision, the evil, horrible Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court decided that black people in America could not be full citizens of the United States, Justice Taney wrote in that decision that one of the reasons black people could not be citizens of the United States is that if you made them citizens of the United States, then they'd be able to carry guns.
The obvious underlying assumption being that citizens of the United States have the ability to carry guns.
That they have the right to carry guns under the Constitution of the United States.
And here's what Justice Tawney wrote in that evil Dred Scott decision.
It would give to persons of the Negro race who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union the right to enter every other state whenever they please.
It would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which citizens might speak, to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
And this scared Justice Tawney.
This is why he said that we wouldn't allow black people to be citizens and that they had to remain sort of property in this evil decision.
He said, because if you were to make them citizens, then there are rights that comes along with being a citizen.
One of those rights is carrying firearms.
But Stevens isn't done.
Then he quotes Chief Justice Warren Burger, who is the man responsible for such constitutional abominations as Roe versus Wade.
And he says that Chief Warren Burger used to say that the NRA was stupid.
Who cares what Chief Warren Burger had to say?
That guy was a terrible justice.
Warren Burger was such a bad justice that Potter Stewart, another justice on the Supreme Court, leaked dramatically to Woodward and Bernstein.
I think it was Carl Woodward.
Was it Bernstein or Woodward?
It was to one of them in their book, The Brethren.
The Brethren is a book about the inside workings of the Supreme Court.
Potter Stewart hated Warren Burger so much that he leaked the entire book.
Okay, to Woodward and Bernstein about why Warren Burger was an idiot.
Everybody on the court thought Warren Burger was an idiot, except for John Paul Stevens, apparently.
Okay, so in any case, he then rips into District of Columbia v. Heller, that's D.C.
v. Heller, the 2008 case that re-enshrined the American right to keep and bear arms, and here is what Stevens concludes.
He says, That decision, which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable, has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power.
Well, actually, they had a Second Amendment before that.
Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple.
It would do more to weaken the NRA's ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
Okay, so, it would be easy to get rid of the Second Amendment.
Go ahead and try.
Leftists, please, do it.
Make this your rallying cry.
Please, tell Republicans all over the country they're going to take away their weapons and repeal the Second Amendment.
Do it.
I dare you.
You want to see yourselves get killed in November?
Politically speaking?
You want to see us get destroyed politically speaking?
Do this.
Push for a giant gun control effort.
OK, in just a second, I'm going to talk about another idiotic rant on gun control.
But first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at the USCCA.
As you may have noticed, your gun rights are, in fact, under attack.
The folks on the left are interested in taking away your gun rights.
And that's why we are working very hard to ensure that people who have guns know what to do with them, not just for resistance to government, but also because as a law-abiding gun owner, you have a right to keep and bear arms.
You are running out of time to claim your free mass shooting survival guide and audiobook.
If you're listening right now, you know we live in dangerous times, but enough is enough.
When it comes to protecting the people you love, you deserve to know the truth.
You're about to miss your free copy of the complete mass shooting survival guide from the USCCA.
Go to defendmyfamilynow.com.
While you still can, it's defendmyfamilynow.com.
It's 100% free.
In this book, you will learn what we really need to know about mass shootings, how to survive an attack, proven strategies for stopping a shooter, and a whole lot more.
Again, While the left fulminates about guns generally, make sure that you know how to protect yourself.
That's what this guide is for.
Plus, you can claim your copy in seconds.
It's 100% free.
And if you act now, you also get a bonus security checklist to print off your local school, church, or office.
Don't miss this life-saving guide and audiobook.
Your 100% free copies will be gone next week.
Go to DefendMyFamilyNow.com to claim yours while they last.
Again, it's DefendMyFamilyNow.com.
DefendMyFamilyNow.com.
Ensure that you and your family are protected.
In case of, God forbid, a mass shooting, make sure that you know what to do.
This is why the USCCA is helping you out in a way the leftists aren't.
Okay?
The folks on the left are saying, give up your gun and we'll keep you safe.
The USCCA is saying, keep yourself safe and know how to do it.
Get your free copy of the Complete Mass Shooting Survival Guide from the USCCA.
DefendMyFamilyNow.com.
That's DefendMyFamilyNow.com.
Okay?
That wasn't the only dumb notion that was being pushed by the left today.
From John Paul Stevens.
There's also a tweetstorm from Michael Ian Black, who's a comedian.
And that means that he must know lots about guns, right?
Because he's a comedian.
So that means that he knows a lot about guns.
So here's his tweetstorm.
Stormy says, quote, I'll say it.
Assault weapons aren't the problem.
Handguns are the problem.
By all means, ban AR-15s and the like, but handguns kill far more people.
The solution is to repeal and replace the Second Amendment.
Make gun ownership a privilege, not a right.
Okay, at least they're being honest now.
At least Michael Ian Black and John Paul Stevens, they're being honest now.
And they will be increasingly honest as time goes on.
I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats claimed they weren't for nationalized healthcare.
And now, of course, this has become a thing they like to do, is nationalized healthcare.
And Michael Ian Black continues along these lines.
He says, Well, no, I like that number to be zero.
But let's recognize that 38,000 Americans didn't die of gun violence.
Two thirds of those died of suicide.
And among the others were a various number of criminals.
And then he continues along these lines as well.
Cutlery doesn't cause obesity, but guns do cause gun deaths.
Well, that's idiotic.
Guns do not cause gun deaths.
That's like saying guns cause death.
No, the person who pulls the trigger causes death.
The person who uses the cutlery is what makes them fat.
So, actually, this is just dumb.
And the stupidity continues.
Yes, having the ready ability to take someone's life is dominion over that person.
Gun ownership could be viewed as slavery by another name.
So me owning a gun and protecting myself is slavery.
So I'm glad to know that Michael Ian Black is a complete historical ignoramus.
As you may have heard just a few moments ago, the Dred Scott decision was fearful that black people would have guns.
In fact, gun control legislation in the South was specifically designed for literally 100 years to prevent black people from being able to protect themselves.
Listen to Condoleezza Rice talk about her dad having a gun and how he helped protect her family with that gun.
If you really believe that gun ownership is slavery, you have no knowledge of history, contemporary politics, or gun ownership.
I mean, this is just inane.
It's just inane.
Gun ownership due to slavery.
I'll tell you what slavery is.
Slavery is me giving up my gun to a government that says it will protect me, and then they let me die in a hail of bullets when a criminal just decides not to obey the law.
But he's not done yet.
Well, considering that black people are largely shooting black people and white people are largely shooting white people, it's hard to imagine that people of color want their gun rights removed.
historically, and that's been bad for them.
He says, "How's it working out for people of color now?" Well, considering that black people are largely shooting black people and white people are largely shooting white people, it's hard to imagine that people of color want their gun rights removed.
Law-abiding people of color want their gun rights removed.
That's a weird argument.
So, again, all these arguments are sort of weird.
And then he finally continues, and he says, Again, none of this has any relationship to reality.
But, doesn't matter.
suicide attempts and successful suicides.
In fact, the evidence is mixed on that.
The Japanese suicide rate has remained intensely high despite the fact there are very few guns in the country.
Again, none of this has any relationship to reality, but it doesn't matter.
Folks on the left are firmly convinced it's time to get rid of the Second Amendment, and we thank them for their honesty because now we can have a real debate, a real conversation.
It's all I asked for from Piers Morgan years ago.
Just tell me the truth about what you want, and then, guess what?
Guess what?
We can have a conversation, and we can decide whether Americans are really ready to surrender their right to self-defense and their right to keep and bear arms to a government that fails to protect them on a regular basis.
Okay, so meanwhile, a lot of hubbub has broken out about quote-unquote attacks on the students of Parkland.
No one's attacking the students of Parkland.
We're attacking their arguments.
They have a right to speak out.
We all feel terrible for them.
Obviously, witnesses to a shooting have gone through something traumatic and horrible.
It does not make them experts on gun control.
We're all making the same argument here.
And it's amazing to see which survivors of gun violence are actually put in the media, and how the media plays this stuff up.
So, I do love this.
Morning Joe did another one of their ubiquitous montages.
This montage had to do with the March for Our Lives on Saturday, and they played Joe Scarborough's protest song over it.
So here's what that montage sounded like.
And they're showing all of these marches about Vietnam.
And now they're showing this montage of Iraq.
And there's the Tiananmen Square.
They showed this yesterday.
The march against poverty.
And now, there it is, the march for our lives.
Okay, so they basically just recut this montage in order to include the March for Our Lives.
Okay, then the real reason for this, of course, the real reason that they decided to show this montage is so they can push Joe Scarborough's crappy song.
I do love that the only way that Joe Scarborough can sell his song is to do montages on Morning Joe, where they play his song.
Like, nobody's buying the song, apparently.
So it's like if every time I played something sad on the show, I played myself playing Schindler's List.
Joe Scarborough has to play It's just amazing.
Every time there's a protest now, he's gonna find like three guys standing outside of McDonald's protesting for a raise and suddenly Joe Scarborough is gonna show up with his guitar and start playing.
It's gonna be amazing.
I just, I love it.
I love it.
It's so, it's so self-serving and so self-aggrandizing.
It's incredible.
Okay, bye.
Speaking of the students who must never, ever—their arguments must never be attacked.
Again, it's amazing which victims we choose to focus on.
So, the Eagles of Death Metal frontman went after the students.
He said that these Parkland students are acting inappropriately.
He is, of course, exactly right.
And here is what he had to say.
He unleashed a torrent of criticism.
So he put up a bunch of posts.
And in some of the posts, he said that some of the student marches were, quote unquote, pathetic and disgusting for playing hooky at the expense of 16 of your classmates' blood.
And then he shared this image of Emma Gonzalez ripping up the U.S.
Constitution.
Now, what's funny about that is I don't know if you've seen this going around, but there is an image.
It's a GIF that's been photoshopped of Emma Gonzalez tearing up a copy of the U.S.
Constitution.
Anybody who watches it knows that this is obviously a gif that is meant to be symbolic, that Emma Gonzalez doesn't like the US Constitution, therefore she's ripping it up.
If you believe that gif was real or that picture was real, then you're an idiot.
But the media is playing it like the entire right believes that picture is real.
That, of course, is not true.
Anyway, he says, quote, As the survivor of a mass shooting, I can tell you from firsthand experience that all of you protesting and taking days off from school insult the memories of those who were killed and abused and insult me and every other lover of liberty by your every action.
May every one of these disgusting, vile abusers of the dead live as long as possible so they can have the maximum amount of time to endure their shame and be cursed.
I guess it's a pretty harsh language.
I wouldn't use it, but does he have unquestioned moral authority, Jesse Hughes?
He was the bandleader of Eagles of Death Metal, who was, of course, at the Bataclan when that place was shot up, right?
It was his concert that was attacked.
Does he have unquestioned moral authority?
Is he allowed to question other survivors?
Or is it only certain survivors that we give unquestioned moral authorities?
And then I do like this.
He tweeted out a graphic that says, "Pills that are hard to swallow.
"Our guns aren't going anywhere.
"There are only two genders, "and Donald Trump will be your president "for seven more years." Yeah, it's a little bit funny, I will admit.
And again, are we allowed to question the arguments of students?
Because some of the arguments are really dumb.
So here's one Parkland student who's on with Brian Stelter and inadvertently saying something really true and really profound about the state of journalism in our country.
I think that, for me, the purpose of journalism is to raise, you know, the voices of people that maybe don't have a voice.
And so I think that in its own right, journalism is a form of activism.
Okay, so a lot of people on the left were saying, were trying to distance themselves from this comment that journalism is a form of activism.
It is pretty obvious in the wake of these shootings that journalism is indeed a form of activism.
I've been saying this for a very long time.
It's why I call myself an opinion journalist.
I'm honest about it.
Folks at CNN are not honest about it.
They claim that they are objective news journalists.
In reality, they do have an agenda.
They are pushing that agenda.
They are pushing that agenda day in and day out.
No wonder the student journalist believes that journalism is activism.
She watches CNN.
Of course she believes journalism is activism.
If I watched CNN on a regular basis, I'd believe that too.
Journalism, for CNN, is indeed activism.
This is how journalists see themselves.
In fact, I remember I visited the ABC News offices with the God King of the Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring, and one of the things he said on the wall was something to the effect of, we give voice to the voiceless.
And I just thought to myself, that's not journalism.
Journalism isn't about giving voice to the voiceless.
It's about objectively covering facts.
People in the journalistic business believe that it is their job to actually push a particular political agenda.
They believe that they are do-gooders in the world, not just people covering the news and informing folks.
This girl has obviously imbibed from that, and she's just spitting back what she's heard from the media.
Unfortunately, she told the truth a little bit too honestly right there for the media to handle.
OK, so in just a second, we'll get to Stormy Daniels' fallout.
We'll get to Paul Ryan and all the rest.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Genucel.
You've been wishing that those bags under your eyes would just go away?
Or your wife?
She's been wishing that?
Well, this is why GenuCell is there.
GenuCell is a serum with plant stem cell technology from Chamonix.
My wife uses it.
My mom uses it.
My mom steals the materials from my wife in order to use it.
It is just fantastic.
Susan from New Jersey says, I've been using GenuCell for a couple of months.
The puffiness around my eyes is gone.
The crow's feet, the small lines, they've disappeared and they have not come back.
Again, my wife uses it.
She loves it.
My mom uses it.
She loves it.
My sisters are getting it.
There's a reason that GenuCell is so popular, and that's because it works.
With its instant effects, you will see results actually in the first 12 hours, or your money back.
I guarantee it.
More importantly, so do the folks over at Chamonix.
So, order now.
Get that GenuCell Collagen Builder and Deep Firming Serum.
Two best sellers, also free.
You can look younger.
You can look better.
Call 800-663-2904.
800-663-2904, 800-663-2904, or visit genucel.com.
That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, genucel.com, 800-663-2904.
If you call right now, express shipping is also free.
It's 806-663, sorry, 800-663-2904.
And again, genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
They've been advertising with me since my days in Seattle, and my wife has continued to use their product even since my days in Seattle.
It's been years now, which is why my wife is young and beautiful and smoking hot and also a doctor.
So genucel.com, check it out, 800-663-2904.
Try it for yourself.
They really are great.
Okay, so meanwhile...
The Stormy Daniels controversy continues.
Now, let's be real about this.
The real reason that people care about Stormy Daniels is it gives them an excuse to Google Stormy Daniels lesbian activity on Google Images.
Okay, let's be real about this.
If Stormy Daniels were not a porn star, nobody would care about this.
Because if we're going to pretend that people are deeply worried about the corruption of the Trump administration, there are a thousand other stories that seem to go deeper on the quote-unquote corruption stuff than the Stormy Daniels thing.
Now, is it sort of a clean bust that Michael Cohen paid her $130,000 to shut her yap?
When it came to the election time?
Yeah, that's bad.
Is it a campaign finance reform violation?
Not sure.
I mean, John Edwards paid $900,000 to a woman to keep her yap shut after he fathered a child with her, right, while he was married to his cancer-ridden wife.
So that is not, you know, I'm not sure that this violates campaign finance law.
What's funny is that Trump's approval ratings continue to go up.
So yesterday there was a big stock market bounce.
The stock market yesterday jumped something like 680 points or 700 points.
It was the third biggest stock market gain in one day in the history of the stock market, actually.
That's not super surprising because there was such a big stock market adjustment yesterday.
The stock market is up again today.
So, you know, it's up and down, it's up and down.
I think part of that is because all of the tariff talk that's happening from the Trump administration is starting to soften just a little bit.
So the talk before was that Trump was going to slap these tariffs on products and leave them there forever.
And now the talk is that he's going to slap the tariffs on long enough to negotiate a better deal.
If the latter is true, then all right.
I guess that's OK.
If the latter is not true, then the stock market will go back down again.
But in any case, people who are wondering why Trump's approval rating is going up, beyond obviously the economics of all of this, one of the reasons that the approval ratings are going up is because when you talk about a rich dude stripping porn stars, most people are like, well, yep.
Remember, Donald Trump was elected after building an entire apartment decorated by Saddam Hussein's decorator.
Donald Trump is not exactly genteel about his wealth.
It's funny, growing up, my grandparents, my mom's parents, were relatively wealthy.
I wouldn't say that they were hugely, enormously successful, but they owned their own home, they had their own business.
But one of the things that I always appreciated about my grandparents is they never showed off their wealth.
They always drove a normal car.
They were not people who were garish in their spendthrift ways.
There are a lot of folks who get rich, and then they decide that they're going to demonstrate to the entire world just how wealthy they are.
But the best people are the people who you meet and you don't know that they're wealthy.
Well, Donald Trump is not one of those people, right?
Donald Trump got famous for being the really gauche guy on Lifestyles on the Rich and Famous.
That was essentially his profile for a very long time.
And there are a lot of folks in the United States who want to be Donald Trump.
Let's just be frank about this.
There's an aspirational side to Donald Trump that appeals to the worst of our sensibilities, where people who are poor look at Donald Trump and they think, if I were rich, you know how many porn stars I would nail?
A lot, man.
I would really go for it.
Okay, so Donald Trump shipping a porn star, not a shock.
Again, I'm not sure why we're supposed to be surprised Melania Trump posed naked with other women during the time that Trump was dating her and went on Howard Stern and talked openly about their sex life together.
Like, Melania now is pretty classy, but back in the day when Trump met her, not so much.
I mean, I believe he was still married to wife number two when he started going with Melania.
And when he was dating wife number two, he was still married to wife number one.
In fact, there's a famous story.
I'm not sure whether it's apocryphal or not.
I'm fairly certain it is not.
But the story is supposedly that when Donald Trump was married to Ivana, right, who is Ivanka's mom, That Donald Trump was dating wife number two, right?
It was Marla Mapes.
And Marla Mapes was at the same resort where Donald was keeping one wife, right?
So he was keeping wife number one on one floor, and he was keeping his mistress on another floor.
And Ivana discovered that Trump was, in fact, stooping Soon to be wife number two on a different floor of the hotel.
She found out about it while he was on the ski slopes and she went up to the top of the ski slopes with him.
He tried to ski away from her and she was yelling at him the entire way down the hill while skiing backwards because Ivana is actually an expert skier.
So again, the weird idea that Donald Trump is some sort of Prophetic, godlike, wonderful Christian figure on sexual morality is absurd.
In fact, one of the reasons he's popular is because Donald Trump is the guy who unapologetically schtups porn stars.
So, when he's in the news for schtuping porn stars, and most guys are Googling to figure out how Stormy Daniels looks naked, he's not going to lose approval ratings from dudes on that score.
And most women are going to look at Stormy Daniels and go, like, are we supposed to believe she's a victim?
This is a woman who has sex for money.
Like, this is her entire career is to have sex for money on camera.
And she herself has said she's not a victim.
She herself has said that she is not a Me Too person, that she fully consented to sex with Trump.
And so we're thinking to ourselves, a lot of Americans are thinking to ourselves, I'm not sure what the big deal is here.
Now, again, is it immoral?
Yes.
Is Donald Trump an immoral guy with women?
Yes.
Should he be paying off women to keep silent?
No.
Is any of this surprising?
No.
None of this is surprising.
The only thing that is mildly surprising is the White House keeps denying the underlying claims.
So here's the White House yesterday being asked about Stormy Daniels, and here's Raj Shah from the briefing room being asked about Stormy Daniels and not coming up with a fantastic answer.
Well, I can speak for only the White House, and I can say categorically that obviously the White House didn't engage in any wrongdoing.
specifically election law regarding that payment? - Well, I can speak for only the White House, and I can say categorically that obviously White House didn't engage in any wrongdoing.
The campaign or Mr. Cohen-- Yeah, the campaign or Mr. Cohen can address anything with respect to their actions.
With respect to that interview, I will say the President strongly, clearly, and has consistently denied these underlying claims, and the only person who's been inconsistent is the one making the claims.
Well, I mean, to be fair, do you believe that Stormy Daniels had sex with Trump?
Because I do.
Some of the inconsistency from Stormy Daniels is fully driven by her career.
She took the money when she felt like that was the money she could get to shut up, and then she decided to speak up when she feels like there's more money in it to speak up.
Stormy Daniels is no heroine here.
Stormy Daniels is a woman who had an affair with a married man, fully knowing that he was married, and did so for career reasons.
And then she went quiet when it was time for her to get paid by the Trump campaign, basically, by Michael Cohen.
And then she decided to not shut up anymore when it became obvious that she could make a lot more money by not shutting up anymore.
So Stormy Daniels is not a victim here.
That doesn't mean that Trump is a saint.
We have this tendency in American politics to say that there can't be two villains in the same story.
That if Stormy Daniels is terrible, then Trump is wonderful.
And if Trump is terrible, then Stormy Daniels is wonderful.
How about they're both scuzz?
Okay, just in terms of personal morality and sexual morality, they are both just gross.
And Stormy Daniels' lawyer is showing that on a pretty regular basis.
Again, Stormy Daniels is doing like stripping tours now.
Okay, like right now in the middle of this, she's going around, you know, basically making the pitch, you can see what Donald Trump saw.
Well, gentlemen, again, Google is available.
You don't have to pay Stormy Daniels your money to see what Donald Trump saw.
She's widely available on the Internet.
In any case, Stormy Daniels' lawyer was teasing the idea that maybe there's pictures of Donald Trump naked, which would just be the worst of all possible scenarios, right?
I mean, no one wants to see that.
Stormy Daniels has said she didn't even want to see that.
At least Stormy Daniels thought she had a shot on Celebrity Apprentice.
If we have to see pictures of Donald Trump in the nude, oh, it's just going to be so terrible.
Now, I don't actually believe, by the way, that Stormy Daniels has pictures of Trump in the nude.
I think that is very, very unlikely.
This happened in 2006.
Camera phones in 2006 were garbage.
You still had flip phones in 2006.
OK, we can only hope the pixelation was really bad at that point.
But if it's true, oh, no, just no, no, no, no, just no.
He's been a polygraph expert for three decades.
No galvanic skin response.
No blood pressure.
The questions were all wrong.
Do you know the person who administered the slide detector?
I have no idea.
So you don't know anything about the record of this person?
He paid $25,000.
There's nothing about it.
He paid $25,000.
I looked at a picture.
By the way, thank you for supplying that picture.
That's not the last one.
That's not the last picture.
Oh yeah, where is it?
Buckle up.
Where is it?
I should buckle up?
Buckle up.
Believe me, I'm not going to buckle up.
You'll need a big one.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
All right.
Now.
OK, so here he says that maybe we have pictures.
Maybe we have pictures.
OK, so we'll find out whether he is bluffing or not.
And then he had some other things to say.
But to hear all of the other things that Stormy Daniels' lawyer is saying about the star of The Witches of Brestwick, that is an actual movie that Stormy Daniels is in, you'll have to go over to DailyWire.com and subscribe.
So for $9.99 a month, you get a subscription to dailywire.com.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live, the rest of Knowles' show live, the rest of Clavin's show live.
You get all of those various glories.
Plus, you get to be part of our mailbag, get to ask live questions.
And when you get the annual subscription for $99 a year, you get this, the very finest in all beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
It is just magnificent.
You get all of that with the annual subscription.
Plus, I'll make an appeal to you.
The fact is that one of the things that helps our company run is your subscription dollars.
And if you can, subscribe.
You're helping out our company.
I get a lot of emails from folks asking how they can help out with our mission of helping to inform more people, keep people up on the news, promote conservative values.
Subscribe.
Honestly, it's a really good way to help support us and ensure that all of the otherwise unemployable waifs that populate our office still get to eat at night and don't huddle in the cold, hungry, under the overpasses in Los Angeles.
So you can help make that happen.
Consider it an act of charity.
Go over to dailywire.com right now and subscribe.
Just want to listen later, go over to iTunes, go over to SoundCloud, go over to YouTube.
Please subscribe.
Please leave us a review.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So that wasn't the only tease about material that apparently Stormy Daniels still has on Trump.
One of Stormy Daniels' friends, her name is Ilana Evans, she says she still has the dress from the night that Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump got it on.
Do you know, are you aware that she has any such evidence?
Has she spoken to you about it or shown you anything along those lines?
I am unaware about text messages or pictures or any type of evidence she might have that would fit on a disc.
All I know is that Stormi still has the dress that she wore from that night.
And she kept that for what reason?
Maybe a keepsake.
Maybe it's because it's actual proof.
I can only speculate the things that may be on that dress, especially if it's never been washed.
Understood.
We'll leave that there.
Yee!
Not again!
Are we doomed to live 1998 over and over again in perpetuity?
Aye, aye, aye.
Guys, this is one of the reasons why you should not put that there without that thing on it.
I mean, like, come on.
Also, I do love this story.
This story is from the Washington Post.
President Trump has privately sold several people that adult film star Stormy Daniels' allegations of an affair with him are a hoax, and that Daniels isn't the type of woman he finds attractive.
Um, what?
Is that really his strongest case?
That he really is saying that Stormy Daniels is not the kind of woman that he finds attractive?
Okay, I am currently looking up a picture of Marla Maples.
Marla Maples is a dead ringer for this woman.
Okay, that was his second wife.
I mean, Marla Maples looks a lot like that woman.
And if you look up a picture of Ivana Trump when Ivana Trump was young, Ivana Trump looked—guess like whom Ivana Trump looked?
She was a blonde, buxom, young woman.
Guess who she looked like?
Stormy Daniels.
Donald Trump has a type, okay?
Melania actually is less of his type than Stormy Daniels is, but just—what?
Come on.
Just come on.
Again, none of this is believable, but none of it's going to hurt Trump in any real sense anyway.
Because, as I say, it's all baked into the cake.
I don't think anything here is going to change.
Now, the only thing that could change is if somehow Stormy Daniels comes up with the sort of evil deep throat threatener in 2011.
So one of the allegations Stormy Daniels made during that interview on CBS on 60 Minutes was that in 2011 she was ready to tell all to In Touch magazine, which shows you how hot Trump was in 2011.
The only people who would pay for this story were In Touch for 15 grand.
And then she was approached by someone, some dark, mysterious figure, who came to her in a parking lot and said, Now, is it possible that happened?
Sure, it's possible that happened.
Maybe we'll find out that it was Michael Cohen who did it.
I have my serious doubts that any of this is true, but Stormy Daniels' lawyer is going after Michael Cohen's lawyer.
All of this is just Jerry Springer material, and that's how most people in America are treating it at this point.
Because, honestly, the only reason anybody's watching this is because Stormy Daniels is a porn star, again, for the 30th time.
Let's talk about Michael Cohen, what kind of man this is.
This is the kind of guy who claimed, in connection with that story, that there's no such thing as spousal rape.
This is a legal genius.
Right, right.
Completely false.
The guy doesn't even know the law.
He's a thug.
Your friend is a thug.
Thank you.
That's a million dollars, a million dollars, a million dollars.
Thug.
Okay, I love that Anderson Cooper, who's supposed to be the guy keeping a lid on this, is just sitting back and letting it happen.
I mean, you're one second away from Jerry!
Jerry!
That's the next thing that happens, is that Avenetti, this lawyer, is going to pick up a chair and clock this guy on national TV.
Thug!
Thug!
That's a million dollars!
Thug!
Thug!
Come on!
Come on!
We're supposed to take this scandal seriously?
I'm sorry, I'm having a tough time taking this scandal seriously when the only reason everyone is in it is for the pre-orient appeal.
That's really the only reason.
Now, is Michael Cohen an idiot?
Yes, of course Michael Cohen's an idiot.
Michael Cohen's an adult.
Michael Cohen's a fool.
Like, I don't know why this is a shock to anyone.
Michael Cohen is a guy who said that spousal rape is not a thing.
Okay, which is idiotic.
Michael Cohen is the guy who you recall from the last election cycle, he's on CNN, and in the middle of the election cycle when Trump was losing by like 10 points, he was asked on CNN by Breonna Keller, Why?
What was his opinion on the polls?
And Michael Cohen said, what polls?
You remember this clip?
It went viral at the time.
OK, so is this is any of the shock?
No, but this is not coming off as something that's threatening to the office of the presidency.
You know, the famous quote is that history doesn't doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Or that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the first time as comedy, the second time as tragedy?
Well, I think in this case it's the reverse.
The first time was the tragedy, and now we get to watch the comedy.
Because this is uproariously funny stuff.
If you cannot appreciate the fact that America's culture has gone down in a flaming ball of crap, and we're all just watching from the sidelines as it happens, and talking about stormy freaking Daniels, Stephanie Clifford, and Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States.
Every so often, you just have to look around and realize that we're actually living inside a Salvador Dali painting.
Yeah, this is one of those moments where you realize that the Salvador Dali painting has come to life.
The clocks are melting off the side of the wall.
And all of the dimensions have been screwed around with, among other things.
Trump, by the way, has been completely silent about the Stormy Daniels thing, which is probably the best indicator that a lot of it is true.
But there's no reason for him to talk about it.
He should keep silent.
There's nothing in it for Trump to talk openly about all this stuff because, again, anything he says is just going to be more fodder for the fire.
But I will say the media's attempts to turn Stormy Daniels into some sort of terrible victim case and some sort of heroine speaking her truth Okay, this is a woman who's on the make.
Trump was on the make.
They're both gross.
There's a reason they had sex with each other, even though she was not attracted to him, and even though he was married at the time, because both of them are just yucky humans.
Okay?
This is not a complicated story.
Yucky humans tend to be yucky, and those yucky humans continue to be yucky for years.
Now, none of this is to say that Trump is a bad president.
None of this is to say that Trump is not doing things that I like in the office of the presidency.
But I think that we ought to acknowledge realities about human character, and the realities of the characters involved in this.
Ain't nothing good happening here.
These are not people you want your kids living up to.
Okay, so, meanwhile, the only good news for the Republicans is the Democrats.
The Democrats continue to struggle with the fact that their party is split.
In serious measure between radicals and non-radicals, right?
Between radicals and people who are trying to move to the moderate middle.
On the moderate middle side, people like Claire McCaskill.
So Claire McCaskill is, of course, the senator from Missouri.
Her seat is in serious trouble in Missouri.
Quite possible Missouri, which has moved hard red, goes against Claire McCaskill.
And McCaskill is trying to disown sort of the radicalism of her own party by throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus.
This has been an additional move by a lot of folks on the left recently.
So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, and moving forward.
Were these comments from Hillary Clinton helpful to you?
No, probably not.
You know, I understand the point she was trying to make, but it felt like she was criticizing Missouri voters.
And I would draw, when you talk about drawing a line, I would draw a line there.
I have great respect for Missouri voters.
So for those of us that are in states that Trump won, we would really appreciate if she would be more careful and show respect to every.
Okay, this is what the Democrats have to do.
They have to disown Hillary Clinton, and they do have to move to the middle.
This is one of the things that we saw in that PA18 race, where Conor Lamb won.
He basically ran as a moderate Democrat, and he won.
If Democrats run hard to the left, they're going to be in some trouble.
But, here's the problem.
When it comes to their presidential candidates, they want the people who are hardest to the left.
So Mitch Landrieu is the new mayor of New Orleans, and he is seen as a possible successor to Hillary Clinton as the nominee in 2020, for no reason that I can discern.
Here is Mitch Landrieu talking about American values.
Again, this is not going to be a winning pitch.
And it was fought for the cause of preserving slavery.
It's hard to have a racial reconciliation conversation unless we can just clearly articulate that particular truth.
And of course now that we see, in the moment that we're in, that when we're dealing with other issues, whether it's immigrants, whether it's transgender, whoever it is, that we have a closed society.
We're turning away from each other rather than towards each other.
And when you begin to judge people based on race, creed, color, sexual orientation, or country of origin, That's antithetical to what American values are.
This entire country is built on the idea that we treat people based on what they do, not who they are.
Okay, that's all true, except for the part about where he says that we don't judge people based on immigration status or transgender behavior or any of the other stuff.
So, one of the things Democrats have had a tendency to do, and this is where you get into identity politics, is they have identified behavior as identity.
Right?
Your behavior is now your identity.
Well, if that's the case, then everyone is discriminatory all of the time.
Because we all discriminate on the basis of behavior.
People who you like do certain things that you like.
People you don't like do certain things you don't like.
If the idea is that if they do things you don't like, you're not allowed to condemn them because that is their identity, then we've essentially put an end to any sort of real-life judgment.
You can't judge anyone because they're doing things, and the things they do make them who they are.
In reality, we are supposed to separate the actions that people take from who they are in terms of immutable characteristics.
So, if you're a black person who's a wonderful person, you're a wonderful person, right?
The wonderful person part is the part that trumps any racial category, right?
Whether you're black, white, or green.
If you are, but according to the left, if you're a black person, a bad person, the black person status overrides the bad person status because black people have been victimized by American society.
And we cannot criticize you on because of your particular race.
Now, the left is also saying that if you are, for example, a man who acts as a woman, right, that this is not, in fact, an aspect of behavior.
This is an immutable identity characteristic.
That if you are a man who puts on a dress that this is somehow not behavior, this is identity.
And once you start identifying behavior with identity, then you can't make laws on anything because everything we do is behavior.
And every law that discriminates against behavior discriminates against someone's identity by that very definition.
Literally anything you do is now tied to your identity.
So if you say that my kleptomania is part of my identity, so we can't have laws against stealing, well, then you've basically gotten rid of all thievery laws in the United States.
And none of this is to say that there should be laws against transgender identity, transgender identification, or cross-dressing, or there should be laws against any other form of behavior that doesn't hurt anyone else.
But to be clear in our own minds, Discrimination against identity is not the same as discrimination against behavior, and conflating the two merely confuses things.
Conflating the two is the end of law, it's the end of discrimination in a good sense, and it's the end of a civil society at large, because we can't make judgments about anything.
If we can't make judgments about anything, we can't live in a society together.
That is, in and of itself, a judgment.
It's a judgment that you can't make judgments.
And that's a problem, because we all make judgments about each other all the time.
OK, time for some things I like, and then some things I hate, and we'll do a very brief deconstruction of the culture.
Things I like today, I have been reading Joseph Soloveitchik's Lonely Man of Faith.
So we're coming up on Passover.
I'll have some thoughts on Passover a little bit later in the week, probably tomorrow during our biblical segment.
But this book, The Lonely Man of Faith by Joseph Soloveitchik, Rav Soloveitchik, also known as the Rav in the Orthodox Jewish community, was the founder of Yeshiva University.
He was the guy who founded the idea of Torah Umada, who believed that you had to learn secularly and you also had to learn in terms of Torah.
So this is one of the things that distinguishes the modern Orthodox community from certain parts of the Haredi community, for example, in the Orthodox community.
There are certain parts of the Orthodox community that think that you should only engage with the Torah, you should only engage inside the Jewish community.
The modern Orthodox community suggests that you should read widely and you should learn from a lot of people, not just from the Torah, although the Torah is the sacrosanct and highest source of morality.
So Soloveitchik, this book is accessible to everybody, and it's about the nature of human beings and how we are essentially dual.
On the one hand, we are the achievers who seek to strike out and forge new paths as individuals.
On the other hand, we are communal...
People who need a communal identity and an identity in relation to the cosmos.
We're not just brave warriors striking out into chaos.
We are also people who require a safe harbor of religion and a relationship with the transcendental that allows us to feel worthwhile.
The book is a little bit of a hard read, but it's a well worth it read.
Joseph Soloveitchik, Rahab Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith, check that out just in time for Easter or Passover.
It's equally applicable actually to both.
It's quite good.
Okay, other things, let's see.
Other things that I like.
Well, the U.S.
did expel 60 Russian diplomats.
So, over the weekend, the Trump administration announced that they were expelling 60 Russian diplomats after the Russians poisoned a guy in Salisbury, England.
They poisoned a former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England.
And the United States has expelled 60 Russian diplomats from our country.
That, of course, is a worthwhile thing to do.
And it also gives light to the idea that Trump is not hard.
on Russia.
He says, "According to CNN, "this is the most forceful action "Trump has taken against Russia today." Well, I mean, we also have put on some pretty severe sanctions and armed the Ukrainian government against Russian-backed forces.
So again, that gives the lie to the idea that Trump's just been pro-Russia all the way.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So the thing that I hate today, it's this really, really awful story There's an 85-year-old woman who was murdered in France.
She was a Holocaust survivor, and she was murdered by anti-Semites in France.
It's just a horrifying, horrifying story.
Of course, the police are saying that the motive was anti-Semitism.
They have not actually released the identities of the suspects.
Details were sparse.
A judicial official would only say that one of the suspects was born in 1989.
One woman's son said, We are really in shock.
I don't understand how someone could kill a woman who has no money and lives in a social housing complex.
Her son said that one of the suspects was like a sentinel and a frequent visitor who had come to her apartment the day of the fire.
And she was one of an estimated 7,000 French Jews rounded up in 1942 and held at the now-demolished Vel d'Hiv cycling track.
Most of those held were later deported to Auschwitz.
She ended up marrying a fellow Holocaust survivor, settling down in Paris, and she lived there until her death.
It's just horrifying.
And again, this was very much like the murder of Sarah Halimi, who is another Orthodox Jewish—she was a physicist and kindergarten teacher, and she was 66, and she was thrown from a window last year by anti-Semitic Muslims living in France.
Again, we don't know the identity of these particular people, but the rise in anti-Semitism across Europe is absolutely frightening, and Jews should leave.
Okay, they really should.
It's a sad thing to say, but I think the time for Jews to be able to live safely in Europe is once again over, which demonstrates that the never again sloganeering from the folks in Europe was a bunch of crap.
They've allowed a bunch of folks to move in who are fully happy murdering Jews, and it's despicable.
Okay, a quick deconstruction of the culture.
So, today, We honor Cardi B. So we've already done Bodak Yellow, in which I tried to read through her glorious Robert Frost-like lyrics, but she actually did something that I love, okay?
She paid taxes.
And then when she paid taxes, she realized, hey, wait a second, taxes suck.
So here's Cardi B in the most eloquent rip on why taxes are garbage in modern American history.
I mean, this is better than anything since Ronald Reagan.
Here's Cardi B explaining that the government should not be taking our money.
So you know the government is taking 40% of my taxes and Uncle Sam I want to know what you're doing with my fucking tax money because you know what I'm saying like when you donate like when you donate to a kid from a foreign country they give you updates of What they doing with your donation?
I want to know what you're doing with my fucking tax money because I'm from New York and the streets is always dirty.
We was voted the dirtiest city in America.
What is y'all doing?
There's still rats on the trains.
I know y'all not spending it in no prison because y'all be giving us like two underwears, one jumpsuit for like five months.
So what is y'all doing with my fucking money?
What is y'all doing with my fucking money?
I want to know.
I want receipts.
I want everything.
I want to know what you're doing with my money.
What is that doing with my money?
Uncle Sam, I wanna know what you're doing when I'm doing 20. - Yes, Cardi B, yes.
Cardi B 2024.
Indeed.
Yes.
Correct?
This is the main question.
Now, Cardi B will go out and vote Democrat, I'm sure, like all of her other friends in Hollywood, because she's been told that that's what she has to do.
But Cardi B.
Let it be known.
You have worked hard for your money.
You've worked it, girl, with an E. And that means that you ought to be protective of your cash because the government is wasting your money, enormous quantities of it, on things like Social Security and Medicare that you're not going to need because your soup's rich.
Hey, there's no reason why the government should be taking that much of your money.
And you're right, New York is a steaming heap.
Okay, because Bill de Blasio's a garbage mayor.
And because they've done a terrible job keeping the upkeep in that city decent.
So, you know, thank God the crime rates are still low, but that's only because of the aftermath of Giuliani and Bloomberg.
In any case.
Cardi B, join us.
Join the revolution.
Okay?
Taxes suck.
You know it.
I know it.
Let's forge a partnership here.
Shapiro, Cardi B. We can make this happen.
We can bridge all the gaps.
We can bring America together around Uncle Sam.
Why are you taking our MFing taxes?
Where is my MFing money?
Where are the receipts?
I want them.
What the F?
Cardi B, ladies and gentlemen.
Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with much, much more.
Plus, we'll have a little bit of biblical analysis in the run-up to Easter and Passover.
So, lots of good stuff happening.
We will see you then.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection