All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:14
The Media’s Self-Defeating War | Ep. 508
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's a Hobbesian war of all against all as CNN and Fox News do battle, Trump fulminates over immigration, and Hamas makes its move.
I'm Ben Shapiro and this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
All right, so we have a lot to get to today.
Big show coming up.
We're going to talk about the continuing attempt to boycott Laura Ingraham's show, the blowback that is going to be unleashed on CNN and MSNBC if this continues.
We're going to talk about Trump on DACA.
We're going to talk about the media wars.
Apparently Sinclair Broadcasting did something so horribly egregious, the entire media is a Twitter over it.
We'll talk about all of those things.
Plus, later in the show, I'm going to do an interview with the producer on the new fantastic film Chappaquiddick, which I have a lot to say, talk about a little bit later in the show.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Upside.
So, let me ask you this.
How many times you've been on a trip and suddenly something goes wrong and you don't know who to turn to?
Because you booked through some sort of travel site and there's no one on the other end of the phone.
Well, that will never happen when you use Upside.com.
When you go to Upside.com, Upside is your mission control, right?
You're up there in space, you know what you're doing, but there's somebody on the ground helping direct you.
Upside is that group of people.
They have a team of specialists working 24-7 to make sure 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 alternative flights home in case you want to change the time.
Have you ever experienced that level of service before on any of these other sites?
The answer is no, of course you haven't.
I've tried all these sites and I promise you, there's nothing worse than your trip going wrong in the middle of a trip and there's no one to talk to.
And even if you go to the airline, they say, oops, it's too late, you booked through another travel site, so you're screwed.
That's no longer going to happen when you use Upside.com.
For easy booking, competitive prices, and a team that always has your back, go to Upside.com slash pen to book your next business trip.
Again, sign up today for your free account and get a free pair of Bose headphones on your first business trip.
So you get that as well.
It's a pretty awesome deal.
That's upside.com slash Ben.
Again, upside.com slash Ben.
When you do, you get a free pair of Bose headphones on your first business trip.
$600 minimum purchase required within 90 days.
See the site for complete details.
Check it out again.
Upside.com slash Ben.
They are your mission control for travel.
All right.
So we begin today with the update on everything that has been going on regarding Laura Ingram and the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, which is now six weeks ago.
But the media have been all over it since then pushing the gun control agenda.
I want to begin by pointing out that the media's agenda here is absolutely clear.
The media is using the Parkland shooting as a crutch, as a lever, in order to push gun control and in order to attack their political opponents.
And really, it's more the latter than the former.
It's not even about pushing gun control so much as castigating anyone they don't like.
Castigating anyone with whom they disagree as a bad human being.
This is what the media are into.
The media want to make it seem like if you disagree with them on gun control, this makes you a bad person.
They're actually not that interested in gun control legislation actually getting passed.
Because if they were, They would stop browbeating people like Marco Rubio, senator from Florida, who's been working with Bill Nelson, a Democrat senator from Florida, to push legislation.
They would stop ripping on Republicans as uncaring, unfeeling monsters with blood on their hands.
The media are interested in one thing and one thing only in the aftermath of Parkland, and that is pushing the gun control narrative specifically so they can push their more important primary narrative.
The gun control narrative is secondary.
The primary narrative is that you are a bad person if you like guns.
You are a bad person if you're pro-Second Amendment.
Okay, this is their agenda.
How can you tell this is their agenda?
Because even other left-wing agenda points go by the wayside if it doesn't serve the primary agenda.
So here's what I mean by that.
There's a whole group of students over at Parkland who are even further left than the group of students you've seen on TV.
The Emma Gonzalez's and the David Hogg's and the Cameron Kasky's.
There's a whole group of students that are even more to the left, but you never see them on TV.
Why don't you see those left-wing students on TV?
After all, the media is full of leftists.
The answer is because these students are not serving the left-wing agenda of pushing gun control, and therefore they are not pushing the broader left-wing agenda of making those of us who are anti-gun control look like bad people.
So here are some of the kids who have been talking but not being heard.
There's some black students over at Stoneman Douglas who are being completely ignored by the media.
You've never seen any of these folks on TV.
You've never heard of any of these people.
But here they were, and the agenda they're pushing is that they don't want more school safety officers in school because they're afraid that that's going to lead to more arrests of black kids.
So here is them talking about this.
The Black Lives Matter movement has been addressing this topic since the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012.
Yet we have never seen this kind of support for our cause, and we surely do not feel that the lives or voices of minorities are valued as much as those of our white counterparts.
I am here today with my classmates because we have been sorely underrepresented, and in some cases, misrepresented.
Okay, so you can stop it there, but these people were not heard, right?
You're not hearing from any of these students, right?
This appears maybe a little bit in local media, maybe for a brief second in national media, and then it goes away.
available so that they can be heard.
Okay, so we can stop it there, but these people were not heard, right?
You're not hearing from any of these students, right?
This appears maybe a little bit in local media, maybe for a brief second in national media, and then it goes away.
Why?
Wouldn't this be the intersectional moment?
Wouldn't this be the intersectional talking point?
Remember, the left ideology is intersectional.
They believe that you can judge someone's opinion and the value of their opinion simply by looking at the group identity.
Simply by looking at the group to which they belong.
So, these are black students.
That means that their opinions should be held in higher esteem than the white students like David Hogg, right?
Otherwise, you're just exacerbating white privilege.
But the media aren't focusing on these black students.
Why aren't they focusing on these black students?
Because these black students do not serve their agenda.
If these black students were out there front and center calling for gun control and suggesting that everyone who didn't like gun control is a bad person, the media would have them on every single day.
So this is why when people say they are intersectional leftists, what they really mean is they are leftists first and intersectional second.
Intersectionality, that identity politics philosophy, that philosophy that we can judge you as an individual by your group identity and your viewpoint's value by your group identity, that's only important to the left when it serves the purpose of the left.
Clarence Thomas isn't a legit black man, according to the left, because his intersectional experiences as a black man don't count because he doesn't agree with the left.
Well, the same thing is true of these students.
They're not forwarding the left's hardcore agenda, and that means that their black skin no longer counts in the intersectional hierarchy because they're just not that important.
Which shows you that all the members of the intersectional hierarchy, all the members of this intersectional coalition, who are supposedly going to get together to rip down the system, It's really far less about mutual respect for ethnicity and much more about mobilizing to defeat the supposed patriarchy, to defeat the white privilege system.
And that's why the media can safely ignore these black kids and pretend like nothing is happening with them because it doesn't serve their higher agenda.
Well, what does serve their higher agenda?
Right now, what serves their higher agenda is using gun control to push for boycotts against media figures they don't like.
So this is a continuation of what happened last week.
Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, she was boycotted.
Not even really boycotted.
There's an Astroturf boycott attempt by David Hogg, who's a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and he was present when the shooting happened.
And he's obviously been put all over the media.
You've seen him saying really vile things about people he disagrees with, saying they have blood on their hands, saying that Marco Rubio's a murderer who basically took $1.05 from the NRA for every Florida student and all the rest.
Well, David Hogg, He was interviewed by TMZ after visiting some colleges, and he was asked how the college admission stuff was going, and he said, Well, you know, to be honest with you, it ain't going that great.
There are four colleges that didn't let me in, and I understand there are a lot of people who can fill those slots, but if the colleges want to help us out, they can help us out, and if they don't want to help us out, they don't want to help us out.
Well, this prompted Laura Ingraham to tweet out that he was whining about his college admissions.
Was that ill-advised?
Yes.
Is it something I would have recommended saying?
No.
Do I think that we should attack the perspectives that are wrong?
Yes.
Do I think we should attack the people expressing those perspectives?
Not really.
But, Laura says all of this, and then, Hogg's response is not Well, Laura, that was kind of a jerky thing to say.
His response is directly from the Media Matters playbook.
Media Matters, if you don't know, is a left-wing group co-founded essentially by Hillary Clinton, and that group has been designed for literally a decade and a half to launch astroturfed boycotts against major right-wing media figures.
People like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and now against Laura Ingraham.
And so this student, David Hogg, he immediately comes forward with a list of the advertisers on Laura Ingraham's show.
Within minutes, he's got a list.
Amazing.
Amazing how that worked.
It was just incredible.
And then, all of these advertisers start dropping Laura's show because they don't want the blowback.
Because here's the dirty little secret about a lot of advertisers.
They're more afraid of the blowback than they are interested in experiencing the Pleasure of advertising on a given show.
When an advertiser advertises on a show, usually what they're looking for is an outlet to speak to a vast group of people.
What they don't want is bad publicity.
So even the merest sign of bad publicity for a lot of advertisers is toxic and a lot of them run away.
And so Laura Ingraham apologizes and David Hogg says, I'm not going to accept the apology.
I'm still gonna push forward with the boycott.
And the media are giddy over this, because finally, they have a kid that they can stand behind.
And this kid is unattackable, right?
You're not supposed to say anything bad about him, even about his perspective.
You're not even supposed to say he says immoral things, because that would be attacking him.
And this is according to the folks in the media.
Brian Stelter on CNN said, he does not ask people like David Hogg questions when they say things that are absolutely unacceptable, because that would be somehow impugning their dignity or honor.
I think Brian tries, but I think that was a pretty telling statement.
David Hogg is being used as a shield by the media in order so they can push the sword at their political enemies, like Fox News and Laura Ingraham.
So Hogg, of course, is really excited about this, and he's going to become the boycott leader of the left, and the left is happy to use him this way.
He says that corporate America is standing with him.
Here's him making the statement to Allison Camerata, who, by the way, last week said that what college wouldn't, what college wouldn't let someone like you in?
Well, David Hogg wasn't let into some of the colleges on the West Coast because his SAT scores weren't high enough.
I mean, all of his admissions were done months ago before any of this happened.
And his SAT scores, apparently, according to David Hogg, are like a 1270, which is a fine SAT score, but that's 100 points below the average at UCLA, so he wouldn't expect to get into UCLA.
In any case, here's Allison Camerata and David Hogg making out on national TV, or at least plastering her lips to his butt.
I think it's great that corporate America is standing with me and the rest of my friends because when you come against any one of us, whether it be me or anybody else, you're coming against all of us.
And I think it's important that we stand together as both corporate and civic America to take action against these people and show them that they cannot push us around, especially when all we're trying to do here is save lives.
Okay, that's all he's trying to do.
Forget all the things that he said that are terrible about people calling Dana Lash a murderer, and someone who doesn't care about her children, and saying the same thing about Marco Rubio, and Allison Kamaraj just sitting there nodding through this whole thing.
Corporate America is not standing with David Hogg.
Corporate America is standing with non-controversy.
And this is the truth about corporate America.
They don't want controversy, which is understandable.
If you run a business, and you are selling a sleep aid, and you are on a show, and the show starts to become very controversial, and suddenly your sleep aid is popping up in all the ads, you're afraid of the blowback.
And so maybe you pull your advertisements.
The left knows this, and that's why they're pushing it.
And so David Hogg decides to push this even further.
He says, listen, I understand that Laura Ingraham apologized to me, and I don't accept her apology, but she shouldn't just stop there.
She should also apologize again on CNN, of course, on CNN.
And then he says, you know what else?
I would really appreciate if she would apologize to LeBron James.
Why LeBron James?
Because a month before this shooting happened in Parkland, she said to LeBron James that he should shut up and dribble.
We talked about it on the show.
It wasn't something that I was fond of her saying.
In fact, I criticized her saying it.
But David Hogg is now going to be the apology police.
He's the civility police.
This guy who goes around saying that you have blood on your hands if you disagree with him, this is Captain Civility now, according to the members of the mainstream media.
Here he is explaining that Laura Ingraham should apologize to LeBron James, too, or something.
There have been multiple instances throughout Ingram's professional career where she's tried calling out people, for example, at Dartmouth University because of their sexual orientation, and she told LeBron James to shut up and dribble.
I don't see any apology for those people.
I mean, why?
It's just, it's really sad.
It's disturbing to know that- Okay, stop.
Whatever, whatever.
Okay, it's just absurd.
Why should she apologize to David Hogg if he's not going to accept it?
And then why is he calling on her to apologize to other people if he says the apologies mean nothing?
None of this makes any sense, except insofar as the media are happy to watch David Hogg go out there and call for boycotts because they want Fox News boycotted, they're a competitor, and then they are firmly convinced that you cannot attack anything that David Hogg says.
Again, David Hogg seems like a smart kid.
David Hogg seems like a politically wily player.
That doesn't mean everything that he says is moral or decent.
In fact, I think a large percentage of what he says is immoral and indecent.
Okay, before I go any further, I'm going to show you what CNN's real agenda here is.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Zeal.
So, you want to know the only thing better than getting a massage?
Getting a massage inside your own home.
Whether your back hurts from running after the kids, or your muscles are sore from working out, or you're stressed after a long day of work, ZEAL brings you same-day in-home massages with the best licensed and vetted massage therapists right to your home.
So I've used it for myself.
I've gotten ZEAL massages for my wife.
I've gotten it for my father, my mother, my mother-in-law.
I've gotten ZEAL massages for my sister.
The reason for this is because it is so convenient.
It is so easy.
Before we used ZEAL, there was a masseuse that my family regularly used.
And the problem was you had to set an appointment with her weeks in advance.
It was really expensive.
And then you had to drive out to the middle of nowhere in order to get the massage.
Well, now ZEAL makes it clear that you don't have to do this anymore.
ZEEL.com or on ZEEL's iPhone or Android app.
ZEEL.com and you can select from top local licensed pre-screened massage therapists.
Choose your favorite technique, gender preference, time and location for your massage.
And ZEEL will send one of their 10,000 licensed massage therapists with a massage table, music and supplies to give you that five-star massage.
Scheduling, booking, payment, fast and easy.
Even the tip It's just fantastic.
Z-E-E-L dot com.
days a week, 365 days a year.
A zeal massage therapist can be at your door in as little as an hour.
Privacy, convenience, quality, comfort, all in your home.
There's a reason.
It was featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Vogue, Good Morning America.
They're on demand.
They'll be at your house and they will be the best massage that you can get at a moment's notice.
It's just fantastic.
Z-E-E-L.com.
And when you use promo code Ben, you get 25 bucks off your first massage with promo code Ben, Z-E-E-L.com or on their iPhone or Android app.
Again, you get that special offer.
Promo code Ben, 25 bucks off your first in-home massage, Z-E-E-L.com.
Promo code Ben.
Go ahead and check it out.
Okay.
So as I say, a lot of the media are very excited about the boycott against Ingram.
You can see this on a CNN panel, right?
So CNN says they have a panel and all of these people agree.
How is it even possible that Laura Ingram has a show?
How is it possible that Laura has a show?
Well, she has a show because there are a lot of people who want to listen to her.
But this is the real goal here, right?
The real goal here is knocking Ingram off the air, just as the real goal was knocking Sean off the air, and knocking Rush off the air, and knocking all of these various folks off of Fox News.
The entire goal of the left here is to pretend that something truly egregious happens, even when nothing truly egregious happens.
Now sometimes, something truly egregious has happened.
Sometimes there's a multi-million dollar sexual harassment settlement, for example, against a particular host.
And advertisers don't want to associate with that.
But that's a genuine move by advertisers.
Right here what we have is an intimidation campaign by left-wing media sources propping up a Parkland survivor for political gain, and then using that kid as a club to wield against their own political opponents.
It's really stomach-churning stuff.
Here's the CNN panel saying they can't believe Ingram has a show, they want her deprived of the show, obviously.
We so seldom see people acknowledge that they did something wrong.
She did.
She said that she wished that she hadn't done it.
So, Jake, I still don't... I can't believe Laura Ingraham actually has a show.
So, like, I'm kind of at a point where I'm there.
She apologized.
Look, you know, with free speech in this country also comes consequence.
You have the right to say anything you want to say, but it also are consequences to those actions.
And so those advertisers are pulling out, and I think rightfully so.
And I don't think she'll be back on TV after this pre-planned vacation.
OK, let's be clear about this.
She has a pre-planned vacation this week.
She will be back on TV because this is not going to stand.
Fox News viewers are not going to be cool with Laura Ingraham being ousted over what is, by Twitter standards, a very, very mild tweet.
It's not something I would have tweeted.
It's not something I think was a good idea.
But come on.
I mean, you're going to end somebody's TV career over that?
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
And again, I think the media is in for a rude awakening because things are going to get really ugly on the other end of this.
Like, for example, I think CNN's beginning to realize this.
Let's take a quick example.
Let's begin with Joan Walsh.
So, Joan Walsh is a contributor on CNN.
And she says a lot of egregious things on a fairly regular basis.
She's featured very often in the Things I Hate segment.
So, Joan Walsh tweeted out a series of attacks on Kyle Kashuv.
And Kyle Kashuv is one of the Parkland survivors, and there are a bunch of people who decided to attack Kashuv on Twitter.
Among them was Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the attack.
Kyle had tweeted out something like, And Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter died in the attack, he says, no, no, no, it's all about saving lives.
Well, obviously, Kyle wasn't talking to him.
Kyle was talking to David Hogg and the rest of the Parkland survivors who have been on TV routinely pushing gun control.
He was saying that the AstroTurf boycott against Laura Ingram is not about saving lives.
It's obviously about political gain.
Well, Joan Walsh liked all of these tweets, right?
Joan Walsh liked all of these tweets.
And then Kyle Cashew responded, just so everyone knows, CNN would never take a side.
And then he tweeted at Joan Walsh.
And Walsh responded by insulting him, saying, good luck handling your stress.
So let's use the left standard here for a second.
Can you imagine if this were reversed for a second?
Kyle Kashub, are you really policing?
Are you really policing the likes of a grieving Parkland father who lost his daughter?
Good luck handling your stress, Kyle.
That's what Joan Walsh tweeted out.
Can you imagine if this were reversed for a second?
Imagine if I tweeted at David Hogg, good luck handling your stress, David.
The boycotts would be imminent, right?
I mean, this would be an attack on him.
Well, now you have Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor, who is attacking Kyle Cashew, and nothing.
No boycotts, no nothing.
Well, so here are a list of CNN's advertisers.
You want to play this game?
If people really want to play this game, we can play this game.
We can boycott CNN's advertisers.
They're there for everyone to see.
We can see all of the various advertisers.
Okay, their top advertisers in February 2018 were a Tesla, T-Mobile, GEICO, Progressive, Qumira, Nutrisystem, BMW, NordVPN, AT&T, and GoodRx.
Okay, those were their top advertisers.
So, should we boycott all of those?
I'm not saying we should.
I don't think we should.
I think it's really bad for discourse in America when we AstroTurf boycotts against the advertisers based on a fake outrage.
Based on a level of outrage that is completely disproportionate to the crime that has been committed.
Do I think that Joan Walsh's terrible, horrible crime here is really so terrible and horrible?
No, I don't.
I think Joan Walsh is obnoxious.
Do I think CNN's advertisers ought to pay monetarily for something Joan Walsh said that's dumb on Twitter?
No, I don't.
And she hasn't even apologized.
Hey, Laura Ingraham apologized and people on the left are still trying to push her out.
It's really gross.
Brian Stelter, good for him.
He acknowledged this yesterday.
He essentially acknowledged that we cannot have a functional media ecosystem if we're all going to boycott each other's advertisers based on basic political disagreements.
David Zerwick, are ad boycotts the right answer here?
I'm personally pretty wary of this.
I think it's dangerous to see these ad boycott attempts happening more and more often in this country.
My view is let's not shut down anyone's right to speak.
Let's meet their comments with more speech.
Let's try to respond that way.
What is your view of these ad boycotts?
Okay, so that's the point.
I don't need the rest of this, but what Stelter says there is exactly right.
When Stelter says, listen, if you don't like what Laura Ingraham is saying, you have a very simple solution.
Turn off your TV.
If you don't like what Brian Stelter is saying, very simple solution.
Turn off your TV.
You don't like what Joan Walsh is saying?
Turn off your TV.
Turn off your Twitter.
Unfollow her.
Block her.
You can do all of these things.
In a free country, you as a viewer have the capacity to choose what it is you want to watch.
There are very few instances when an advertiser deserves to be hit for advertising on a program.
Usually, it's when something so blatantly egregious and awful is done or said that the advertiser themselves would pull out anyway, because the ratings would drop anyway.
I'm not a big fan of secondary boycotts, especially because they are easily astroturfed, because advertisers are afraid of controversy, and folks who are politically motivated know that.
So if the left wants to play this game, the right can play this game too, and we'll see if CNN likes it as well as MSNBC, and we'll see if both of them like it as well as Fox News, because otherwise what we are watching here is a pure political hit done by certain networks against other networks for a political purpose.
That's all that's happening here, and it's pretty incredible.
Meanwhile, speaking of pure political hits, there's a lot of weird talk over the weekend about something that happened on Sinclair Broadcasting.
So Sinclair Broadcasting has brought up all these local affiliates all over the country.
They have like 173 local affiliates.
All over the country.
And some of these affiliates, all of these affiliates, had their anchors read the same message.
And in a second, I'm going to tell you what are the messages that those affiliates were reading.
Because the left went totally crazy over this.
The media went totally nuts over it.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Legacy Box.
So, this service, Legacy Box, I think it's really one of the most important things that you can do.
We've done it in my family and it's really meaningful and it's really worthwhile.
Here's what it is.
Legacy Box is a simple and affordable way to get your recorded moments digitally preserved on DVD or thumb drive.
So you load your Legacy Box with your old tapes, films, pictures, audio recordings, and then you send it back to them.
And in a couple of weeks, you get all of it back on DVD or on a thumb drive.
So instead of you having these boxes full of old pictures that are moldering in the garage, instead, now you've got it right next to your computer.
You can pop it in, look at those pictures anytime.
You've got it on a DVD, on your shelf.
It's easy.
If, God forbid, there's a flood or a fire, you don't have to worry about losing all your memories.
You just grab the thumb stick and go.
The thumb drive and go.
Legacy Box takes care of everything, and they provide updates at every step of the process.
My family, we sent in some old films that my dad had of his dad, and we got it back from Legacy Box.
It's just fantastic.
350,000 families have used Legacy Box.
For a limited time, go to LegacyBox.com and you get a 40% discount on your order.
40% discount when you use legacybox.com slash ben again legacybox.com slash ben use that slash ben so they know that we sent you also so you get that 40% off again this service i think is just indispensable i think that that there's no better way to preserve memories and life is about creating those memories and preserving them so make sure that you do so with legacy box just a fantastic fantastic service again legacybox.com slash ben and you get that 40% off okay so
As I say, the media, their agenda is pretty obvious in the left-wing media, and that is to destroy what they perceive as the right-wing media by any means necessary.
We've talked about how that's happened via Facebook.
We've talked about how that's been happening with regard to this boycott against Laura Ingraham that is being fostered and pushed on by people over at CNN and MSNBC.
Well, the latest iteration of this is the push by the left against Sinclair Broadcasting.
So Sinclair is a right-wing company.
It's owned by people who are on the right and are Trump supporters.
And Sinclair has bought up 173 local affiliates all over the country.
And these local affiliates all over the country have local news channels, right?
Local news stations.
Fine.
Great.
Well, over the last couple of weeks, they have had all of their local news anchors read the same message, right?
Speak the same message.
So I'm going to play you the message and then I'll explain to you why the left went nuts over this.
I am Fox San Antonio's Jessica Hedley.
And I'm Ryan Wolf.
Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities.
The El Paso, Las Cruces communities.
Eastern Iowa communities.
Mid-Michigan communities.
We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that CBS 4 News produces.
But... We are concerned about a growing trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country.
Plaguing our country.
The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.
More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first.
The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.
More alarming, some media outlets...
Okay, so it's a little hard to hear because the way this is cut, it's cut from Deadspin, and the way that it's cut, they're trying to show you how all of these anchors are saying the same thing.
And this is supposed to be super nefarious.
Ooh, all the anchors saying the same thing.
This means that it's a Trumpian plot to take over the media.
Ooh!
It's Trump!
Ah!
Run!
Scare!
Ah!
Okay, so, here's what they actually say.
say?
They say, hi, I'm blank.
Our greatest responsibility is to serve our local communities.
We are extremely proud of the quality balanced journalism that this station provides, but we're concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible one-sided news stories plaguing our country.
The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.
More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories.
Stories that just aren't true without checking facts first.
Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think.
This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
At our station, it's our responsibility to pursue and report the truth.
We understand truth is neither politically left nor right.
Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.
So Sinclair had all of their local news anchors say this message.
Does that sound terrible to you?
Was anything in there, did anything in there say, we support Trump?
All news is fake news?
Was there anything in there about, you shouldn't watch CNN, you shouldn't watch MSNBC because all of it's fake news, you shouldn't get the New York Times?
None of that is in there.
And now Jimmy Kimmel, of course, the late-night pope, as Guy Benson likes to call him, issued this Twitter encyclical.
He said, quote, And of course, what he's mocking there is the line in the actual statement by all of these Sinclair Broadcasting hosts that all of this, that bad news is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
But the left went nuts over this.
It just shows that Sinclair Broadcasting is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by Trump.
It's now a White House outlet, and they are forcing their anchors to say pro-Trump things.
There's only one problem.
I just read you the entire message.
I just read you the whole thing.
Okay?
And there is nothing in the message that smacks of Trumpism.
Nothing.
In fact, if you had Brian Stelter of CNN or Jake Tapper or anyone else, Anderson Cooper at CNN, read that message, people on the right would assume that that message is a slap at Trump and a slap at Fox News.
That message has no political orientation whatsoever.
But the left is firmly convinced that because Sinclair Broadcasting is a right-wing outlet, that means that what they were doing here was shilling for Trump.
And it just goes to show you how confirmation bias can really addle your brain.
Because if you look at that message and you say, it's Trumpism being ladled down our throats forcibly, there's no way to avoid it.
Then you're misreading the message and you're attributing views to those anchors that don't exist.
Now listen, there are companies.
I know of them.
I've worked for some of them.
There are companies that have a particular view on Trump and that require that you mirror that view on Trump.
That's bad.
I don't think that's a good thing.
At Daily Wire, we have a wide disparity of opinion with regard to the president's performance on various and sundry issues.
That's the outlet that I run.
But Number one, it's our outlet.
And number two, that's not what's going on here.
I mean, there's no evidence that was happening at Sinclair Broadcasting.
Didn't stop the left from going nuts over it anyway, because the left will go nuts over anything that President Trump does.
Speaking of which, the left is going nuts over President Trump because President Trump is going nuts over the fact that there is this vast cadre of illegal immigrants So, according to the Washington Examiner, Mexican officials have aided a holy week caravan of over 1,000 migrants headed to the U.S.
border to demand Easter asylum, according to reports.
Mostly Hondurans, they posted celebration videos on Facebook and chanted, According to an account from the Center for Immigration Studies, Mexican authorities have allowed the migrants to drive north with relative ease.
Researcher Causha Luna added that the group Pueblos Sin Fronteras, which aids immigrants, bragged about speeding into Mexico.
It said on Monday, Pueblos Sin Fronteras posted a video with the caption, The refugee caravan knocking down borders yesterday and Oaxacan immigration agents abandoned the post when they saw us coming.
The people celebrate this first small victory.
Locals have provided supplies along the way.
So Trump, I think rightly, is upset with the Mexican government for fostering illegal immigration into the United States.
This would be a clear case where the Mexican government is not doing its job.
The Mexican government has very, very stringent border policies on its southern border, unless it thinks that you're moving right along through up to the United States.
In that case, they seem to be perfectly okay with people crossing the border.
The border laws in Mexico are extraordinarily harsh.
Like, if you're an illegal immigrant from Mexico, they will deport you immediately or jail you.
It is much harsher than the strictures in the United States.
So President Trump started tweeting about this.
And of course, the left thinks that he's wrong to even be outraged about this at all.
You know, I think that some of what he says here is not factually correct, but he's not wrong to be outraged at Mexico for allowing this to happen.
He says border patrol agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the border because of ridiculous liberal Democrat laws like catch and release.
Getting more dangerous.
Caravans coming.
Republicans must go to nuclear option to pass tough laws now.
No more DACA deal.
OK, so I agree with the president that that these caravans have to stop.
Obviously, he's tweeted Mexico is doing very little, if not nothing at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their southern border and then into the US.
They laugh at our dumb immigration laws.
They must stop the big drug and people flows or I will stop their cash cow NAFTA.
Need wall.
OK, again, this is about half right.
You know, what he says about the Mexican government doing very little to stop people from flowing into the United States is basically correct.
And he says these big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA.
They want in on the act.
Here's where there's a hole in Trump's logic.
The hole is this.
It was Trump who decided that he's not going to just deport all these folks, right?
Trump has the executive authority already to deport all of these people.
He does.
Under current immigration law, if you were to just enforce current immigration law, all of these people could be deported.
DACA is not the state of the law.
He has already revoked DACA.
So DACA really has nothing to do with this particular move by people crossing the border illegally.
In fact, he already revoked that program.
And when he says build the wall, the president was elected to do just that.
Right now, if he wanted to, he could presumably shift funds from defense measures over to building the wall along those lines.
When he says that he's going to do something about NAFTA because that is Mexico's cash cow, again, I don't really appreciate that the president's first move on all this stuff is always to tariffs.
His first move is always, we need tariffs and that'll solve all of our problems.
Killing NAFTA would actually be really bad for a lot of manufacturers in the United States.
But where the media is wrong is when they're wrong when they suggest that Trump is being too harsh with Mexico on their facilitation of illegal immigration.
They are right when they say that he's obviously not speaking in any sort of reasoned language about DACA, because again, DACA's on the president.
That's an executive policy.
If Trump wants to get rid of DACA, he has every ability to do so.
I'm going to talk a little bit more about that in just a second, but first, I want to say thank you to our brand new sponsors, the folks over at the movie Chappaquiddick.
Now, it is a real pleasure, really.
I'm very excited that the folks who made Chappaquiddick are advertising with us, because Chappaquiddick, which opens up in theaters on April 6th, is just a fantastic movie.
It's a really, really good movie.
I've had a chance to screen it a little bit later in the show.
I'm going to have on one of the producers of the film so that we can actually talk about how Chapel Critic was made, because it's sort of an astonishing thing it was made in the first place.
Chapel Critic is, of course, the story of Ted Kennedy who drove a woman off a bridge and left her to drown in the car.
Really, she suffocated in the car.
And the movie does not soft-pedal this.
And the movie is it's not a right wing screed.
It doesn't go along with it.
It doesn't try to go beyond what the evidence shows.
So, for example, there's nothing in the movie that suggests that that Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopetny were clearly having an affair that she was pregnant because there's no evidence to support that.
But it does stick to the evidence and the evidence is damning enough.
It is an amazing thing that this this film got made.
And it's amazing thing that it's getting wide releases.
All the performances are universally great.
And Ted Kennedy does not come off well in this movie, as well he should not.
It took 50 years for this movie to be made, and it is worth every minute of the film.
If you're a conservative and you worry about Hollywood skewing to the left, if you're somebody who said in the last couple of weeks, I'm watching Roseanne because I want to show Hollywood that my voice counts.
Show Hollywood your voice counts.
Go see Chappaquiddick.
Take your family to see Chappaquiddick.
It's important to know how the Democrat machine worked in Chappaquiddick.
Half the story's about the Kennedy family.
The Kennedy family does not come off well.
A lot of the story's about the Democratic infrastructure in law enforcement in Massachusetts at the time.
Does not come off well.
Again, really well written, beautifully filmed, beautifully acted, and Chappaquiddick tells the story that the left media has wanted to ignore for 50 years.
Remember, after Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy still ran for president in 1980, and he almost defeated Jimmy Carter, the incumbent.
Ted Kennedy wanted to run in 1984.
It did not end his career.
This movie shows you why it should have ended his career, indeed.
You're not going to want to miss this story again.
Chappaquiddick in theaters everywhere on April 6th.
You almost have a moral obligation to go see the film.
Okay, so, I have a lot more coming up, but for that, you're going to have to subscribe over at dailywire.com.
So dailywire.com, $9.99 a month, you get the rest of the show, you get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show, the rest of Michael Knowles' show, And when you subscribe, you also get to be part of our mailbag, which we will be doing a little bit later this week on Friday, which should be awesome sauce.
So check that out.
Also, if you get the annual subscription, you get the Tumblr that I do not have with me because when I'm traveling, I can't bring it.
It's just too magnificent.
I can't risk it being lost in transit.
But you can get it.
You can get it in the mail.
You can put it next to your bed.
You can treasure it.
You can drink from it, sip from it, imbibe the glories and wisdom.
Also, if you subscribe, you get to be part of the conversation.
So, next Tuesday, April 10th, 5.30pm Eastern, 2.30pm Pacific.
If you haven't yet joined the conversation series, it's our monthly Q&A, hosted by Alicia Krauss, where we answer any and all questions from politics to the personal.
And this month features our very own Andrew Klavan.
It streams live at Daily Wire YouTube and Facebook, but If you want to ask questions, then you have to be a subscriber.
So you log into our website, dailywire.com.
You head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
After that, you just start typing into the Daily Wire chat box, and I'll answer questions as they come in for an entire hour.
Rather, Clavin will answer questions as they come in for an entire hour.
Subscribe to get those questions answered by Drew on Tuesday, April 10th, 5.30 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 p.m. Pacific.
Join the conversation.
Or if you just want to listen later to the program, check out iTunes or SoundCloud or Please subscribe.
Please leave us a review.
It always helps.
We are the largest, fastest growing show, conservative show in America.
OK, so what President Trump had to say about the about the DACA deal, again, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.
He's not wrong to be angry about the situation on the border, but this is what people elected him to stop, and he already has the authority to do it.
So when Trump says that he wants to pass some sort of DACA bill, solving the DACA problem doesn't actually solve the DACA problem.
Mexico has got to help us at the border.
and you're not deporting them, that has nothing to do with DACA.
That has to do with your enforcement regimen.
So President Trump owes it to his supporters to actually deport the people who are coming across the border.
This is actually a great, it could be a great moment for him, right?
Here is Trump talking about Mexicans wanting to take advantage on DACA.
Mexico has got to help us at the border.
If they're not going to help us at the border, it's a very sad thing between two countries.
Mexico has got to help us at the border.
And a lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of DACA.
And we're going to have to really see.
They had a great chance.
The Democrats blew it.
They had a great, great chance.
But we'll have to take a look.
But Mexico has got to help us at the border.
They flow right through Mexico.
They send it to the United States.
Can't happen that way anymore.
OK, that doesn't make any sense with regard to DACA.
But again, the president doesn't have the authority to stop this, and he's right that it has to be stopped.
This could be a good moment for him to stand up for American sovereignty and say, look, just because people want to enter the country illegally does not mean that we have to let people enter the country illegally.
OK, in other news, meanwhile, There's a big turmoil brewing over in Israel where Palestinians sponsored by Hamas, the terrorist group, have decided to try to walk across the Israeli border or to break down the physical barrier between the Gaza Strip and Israel proper.
And the media, of course, are lying about this entire situation.
They're suggesting that Israel is indiscriminately firing into crowds and trying to kill random people.
Obviously, this is untrue.
There are tens of thousands of people who started camping along that border.
Israel killed virtually none of them.
Okay, Israel shot into crowds of people who are throwing Molotov cocktails and rolling tires that were on fire at Israeli soldiers and throwing stones at those Israeli soldiers who are attacking Israeli soldiers.
How do we know this?
Because only 15 people have been killed and 10 of the people who have been killed in that border riot are active members of terrorist groups.
Active members of terrorist groups.
If Israel were really indiscriminately firing into the crowds, then there would be hundreds of people dead, not 15 people dead.
And if Israel were really attacking that entire group of people, they'd be using their F-16s to presumably strafe the tens of thousands of people who are there, not fire, in very discriminate fashion, at the people who are attempting to break down the border.
Now, the left hates Israel, of course, so Bernie Sanders says he doesn't believe Israel's story because Bernie Sanders is a rabid anti-Israel extremist.
No, I don't.
I think, from what my understanding is, is you have tens and tens of thousands of people who are engaged in a non-violent protest.
I believe now 15 or 20 people, Palestinians, have been killed and many, many others have been wounded.
So I think it's a difficult situation, but my assessment is that Israel overreacted on that.
Of course, of course that's his assessment, because there's never been an assessment by Bernie Sanders where Israel didn't overreact.
When terrorists are firing rockets into the center of Israel, then Israel is still presumably not overreacting.
It's still overreacting, because Israel's always in the wrong, according to Bernie Sanders, because he's a socialist first, rather than a defender of Western civilization.
Here is according to the Jerusalem Post.
As the day wore on, hundreds of Palestinian youths ignored calls from the organizers and the Israeli military to stay away from the frontier, where Israeli soldiers across the border kept watch from dirt mound embankments.
The military said its troops had only used live fire against people trying to sabotage the border security fence, some of them rolling burning tires and throwing rocks, and that at least two of the dead were Hamas operatives.
It is also worth noting here, how much money did Hamas spend on this little demonstration?
They spent $15 million on this demonstration.
$15 million.
Right now, Hamas is in a state of complete economic collapse.
The Gaza Strip is in a state of complete economic collapse.
And yet Hamas is spending $15 million for this protest specifically because they want to misdirect from the fact that they are a terrorist group, like an actual State Department-sponsored terrorist group that is now sponsoring acts of additional terror against Israel.
That is the goal here.
And Israel ought to be doing a better job on its PR.
But again, it's demonstrative of the fact that when it comes to this particular conflict, the media only seem to care about Israelis killing Palestinians, even if the Palestinians are terrorists.
Worth noting that I think in the last month, something like 25, 30 Palestinians were killed in Syria.
Over the course of the Syrian conflict, almost 4,000 Palestinians living in Syria have been killed.
That's been completely unremarked.
When Muslims kill other Muslims, it's not a news story.
When Jews kill Muslims, it's a news story.
When Muslims kill Jews in Israel, it's not really a news story.
It's amazing how that works and that's because of the soft bigotry of low expectations that the media have attached to Muslims all over the world so that when Muslims commit violent acts the media basically ignores it or pretends that it's the effect of some sort of some sort of inequality or nastiness on the part of Western civilization when in reality
Muslims should be held all over the world to the same exact moral standards as Jews and as Christians, which is you don't get to kill people and get away with it unless you're killing people in self-defense, which is actually what's going on in the Gaza Strip, despite all of the rabidly anti-Israel media coverage.
No shock there.
Okay, time for some things I like, and then we'll do some things I hate, and we'll do a quick Federalist paper.
So things that I like today, I had the actually rather on Friday, I had the pleasure of sitting down with one of the producers for Chapel Quinn, because I say the movie is just spectacular.
And and here's what it sounded like when we sat down together.
You have the opportunity to sit down with Mark Chardy.
He is the producer of the brand new flick, Chappaquiddick.
It is a phenomenal movie.
I had the opportunity to screen it a little bit early.
And Mark, it's really fascinating.
First of all, I have to ask you, how did this thing get done in the first place?
I'm sure you're getting this from everybody on the right.
How did a movie about Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to drown underwater?
Yeah, I mean, we didn't set out to make a political statement.
It came to me from a friend who's a manager, represented these two young writers.
They had heard this word Chappaquiddick and knew nothing about it, so they started doing research.
They got so transfixed that they started to pull all kinds of material.
The inquest most of was their research, and they just wrote a script.
They spec'd the script, wrote it, and my friend sat down, and we had a lunch together, and he said, hey, I got this script.
He goes, I have no idea how How Hollywood is gonna, you know, respond to this, but he said it's really good.
So we read it, loved it, and we acquired it, and then set... I mean, we had no idea if we could make it.
You know, you obviously gotta get a director and a star and cast, but everyone responded incredibly well.
I mean, it was just such a kind of page-turning thriller that... and a history lesson as well, that's fascinating.
Did you get any pushback in town on making it from different actors who turned it down?
Yeah, there were a couple actors that really loved the script but just felt like maybe it was a little tricky, you know, politically.
So we kind of had thought, like, maybe we'd get an Australian or a UK director or actor and, you know, Jason Clarke, he's Australian and, you know, it's a brave choice but the role is so good and he's so good in it and if you can execute what was on the page, we knew we'd have something.
And there's so many great actors in the film, from Kate Mara who plays Mary Jo Kopechny and does it with just a tremendous amount of sympathy because you don't really see her as a full-fledged character until you see the film, to you have a couple of comics who are playing kind of the sidekicks to Ted Kennedy and it really is an amazing task.
Yeah, John Curran who directed it, you know, with the cast, he felt like, because the movie's so serious.
You know, there's a tragedy involved that he wanted to have, I wouldn't say lightness, but to the moments when you're in the war room, there's moments of levity, of kind of absurdness and where Ed Helms and Jim Gaffigan can kind of mine those.
You get laughs in the movie, believe it or not.
Some are uncomfortable, but some are just like absurd.
And when you have that timing, it helps.
And those guys were tremendous.
And Bruce Dern is in it for five seconds and he's just really powerful.
Terrific.
Terrific.
And well, I think one of the reasons that the movie is going to not only do well, I think that the critics will be okay with it is because you actually stuck really as much as you could to the facts.
I mean, there is no rumor mongering in this at all.
So as somebody who studied this from the time that I was younger as a conservative, where this is a big thing, right?
Yeah.
But there's all this speculation about was Ted Kennedy sleeping with Mary Jo Kopechny?
Was she pregnant?
You know, all of the sort of various things that people speculate because there's so many unanswered questions.
But the movie really, Sticks to what you know, which I think is one of the strengths of the film.
Yeah, that was the purpose going in, you know, to not take, to go right down the center, just tell the facts.
And, you know, it's an indictment, no doubt.
You can't get around that.
But I think there's more nuance to the film.
And that was the intent.
And yeah, critics are responding.
And people on both sides of the aisle.
I mean, we did three screenings in Martha's Vineyard that were incredible.
And people just appreciated the care we took with it.
And, you know, you brought up Mary Jo Kopechny.
You know someone that never had a voice through this through 50 years their family had reached out before we made the movie I'd made brief contact and didn't want to be swayed in any way of kind of putting what we had down you know into the film and So when the movie was finished, we connected again and we set up a screening for the family and they were incredibly appreciative.
It was very difficult to watch, obviously, but what they loved is that she's portrayed as smart and funny and ambitious and just, you know, a real person rather than not just a picture associated with, you know, a name, Chappaquiddick.
And that entire sequence of what happens to her is so heartbreaking, and it just really infuses the rest of the movie, because instead of it just being, okay, Ted Kennedy's just a lost little lamb, you know, with his family, you realize that a person died, and that keeps coming up throughout the rest of the film, obviously.
That's the thing, you go back and forth with, you know, I wouldn't say there's any sympathy for Ted, but, you know, there's some understanding and emotion to all the characters in it.
And so if you, you know, again, have a little nuance with the film, you know, it'll keep you going both ways.
He has a chance to kind of do the right thing, and then he doesn't.
Then he does something maybe that he should, and then he shouldn't.
So you kind of go back and forth through the whole movie.
It really is a tremendous film.
The film is Chappaquiddick.
And of course, we're talking with producer Mark Chardy.
And thank you so much for joining us.
I mean, I'm excited that the movie's even out there.
It's a story that has needed to be told for half a century.
I mean, I'll just say this on my own behalf.
If this had happened to a Republican, this would have been a movie within 30 seconds of it actually occurring.
So the fact that it took half a century for it to happen about Teddy Kennedy, one of the most famous men in the history of American politics, is pretty incredible.
Yeah.
Well, thank you, and, you know, we'd love to have all our audiences support it, but especially conservatives.
You know, they talk that Hollywood never does these kinds of movies, and we do, and it's not a partisan movie at all, and I think it's enjoyed by both sides, but certainly conservative audiences should support this.
I think it's almost a moral obligation for conservative audiences to go see this.
If they're going to talk about how much Hollywood is biased, they at least need to go support things that are not biased in favor of the left and that are good, solid takes on the facts like your movie Chappaquiddick.
Thanks so much for stopping by.
Thank you.
Everybody, go see the film.
It's terrific.
Appreciate it.
Okay, so that was a pleasure to sit down with Mark Chardy.
The movie, again, is fantastic.
I cannot recommend it highly enough.
And you have an obligation as a conservative to go see movies that are not overtly left-wing and that tell the truth about folks on the left.
So go out and see the movie and tell all your friends to see the movie as well.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
So we've been told that the youth shall lead us, that the youth are the greatest among us, that the youth are the wisest among us.
Well, I have a story that puts the lie to this.
There is something called the Teenage Snorting Condom Fad.
I am not joking.
This is a real, actual thing.
According to the Sacramento Bee, it sounds like an April's Fools joke, but educators are warning about a condom challenge being spread online by YouTube videos and social media.
Also known as the Snorting Condom Challenge, or Condom Snorting Challenge, the fad actually dates back several years, but recently has gone viral again, educators say.
Now, you ask yourself, hey, listen, back when I was a teenager, it was just cocaine.
But no, now they're snorting actual physical objects that have mass and size up their nose.
Why?
Because no one really understands.
So the challenge involves, according to the Sacramento Bee, snorting an unwrapped prophylactic up one nostril, then pulling it out from the throat Through the mouth, according to a Newsweek story.
Participants then post a video of the completed challenge to YouTube.
And the challenge has gone viral.
Okay, it is not new.
This first apparently started with YouTube star Savannah Strong in 2013.
Apparently, YouTube has been moving these stories and videos for a long while.
But it is not a good idea, it turns out, because you could, number one, choke on it, and also because you are putting a condom up your nose, you idiots.
What could you possibly be thinking?
Why are you stupid?
Okay, this is the same generation we had to just warn against eating Tide Pods, which is an actual cleaning product.
Okay, so don't eat Tide Pods, and also don't put condoms up your nose.
Comprehensive sex ed is just not going the way that people on the left thought it was going to go.
You know, when they were breaking out the prophylactics of the bananas back in third grade, they figured that they were trying to explain one thing.
It turns out that people were just trying to figure out a way that they could get the condom into facial bodily orifices.
It's just, what in the world?
And these are the people, these are the youth shall lead them.
Again, this is not to say that young people can't have some interesting things to say, but interesting sometimes means stupid, apparently.
And also, when you're young, just in terms of brain development, your brain does not really stop developing.
It doesn't reach its full developmental stage until you're about 25, 26 years old.
When you are 17, 16, 15 years old, you are the kind of person who does dumb stuff like this because you have an amygdala, which is your emotional response center, which is doing virtually all the heavy lifting, and your prefrontal cortex is underdeveloped as compared to your amygdalas.
That means you do lots of dumb crap when you're a teenager.
You do a lot of dumb stuff when you're a teenager.
And yet, the left is now saying, why don't we lower the votering age to 16?
Why don't we suggest that 12-year-olds can get an abortion without parental consent?
Why don't we say that 3-year-olds can change their gender?
You know, just because.
They're three.
I mean, come on, they're the most innocent and beautiful among us.
Why should we put our societal values on them?
Because you're an adult, and kids are kids.
And I'm speaking as someone who's a syndicated columnist at age 17.
I didn't know as much stuff at 17 as I do now.
My self-control was not as great at 17 as it is now, and I had pretty good self-control when I was 17, and still I've had more self-control now than then.
So before we hear all about how the youth shall lead us, perhaps they should learn where particular, where particular prophylactics are designed to be used, okay?
It's not the nose.
What in the world?
So good job, everybody.
Speaking of people who appear to have snorted a condom and left it just in their brain, embedded there, Chelsea Handler tweeted something out really insane about the Second Amendment the other day.
Here's what it looked like.
She tweeted, Because she was asked about being ignorant of the Constitution and not knowing anything about how the Constitution works.
So somebody tweeted, get rid of your armed guards and then you can talk to the middle class about feeling safe.
And she said, my armed guards aren't killing children and don't have semi-automatic weapons.
First of all, I would guarantee that her armed guards have semi-automatic weapons and she doesn't know what a semi-automatic weapon is.
That's number one.
Because every armed guard I've ever worked with has a semi-automatic weapon.
You know why?
Because virtually every pistol in the United States is a semi-automatic weapon.
Unless they're carrying a revolver.
Unless they're carrying, like, an old-style Dirty Harry Colt .45.
It's a semi-automatic weapon.
Second of all, guess who else isn't killing children?
Anyone else who has a semi-automatic weapon in the United States and is not the shooter in Parkland.
And so it's all fun and games for Chelsea Handler because I guess her armed guards are apparently the only people in the United States who have semi-automatic weapons who are not murdering children.
Amazing!
I mean, good for her that she found the five guys in America with semi-automatic weapons who aren't shooting children.
What an amazing feat!
It's not that there are millions of Americans who own semi-automatic weapons and use them to defend their children and not to shoot children.
No, it's that Chelsea Handler's people are just the best people.
They're just the best people.
And then they wonder why we don't trust them on Second Amendment issues, when they've got spokespeople like Chelsea Handler and condom-snorting teenagers.
Not to suggest the kids at Parkland are doing that, but again, the youth of America, there are some questions to be asked, that's all I'm saying.
Okay, so, Federalist paper.
So every week we go through a Federalist paper.
We are now up to Federalist 22.
Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist No.
22, and this Federalist paper continues with the flaws of the current Articles of Confederation that was replaced by the Constitution of the United States.
He makes several criticisms of the Articles of Confederation in this particular Federalist paper.
First he says, We need a system that does not allow internal tariffs or allow various parts of the country to refuse to abide by foreign tariff rules.
In other words, you need a federal government that can set tariff policy and you can't have states that override it.
Otherwise, none of the tariff policies that you actually impose are going to be workable.
If you work a deal with Great Britain to lower your trade barriers and then South Carolina says we're going to set up our own tariff.
Well, then why exactly would Britain negotiate with the United States as opposed to just negotiating with each individual state, thereby separating them off from the mother country?
He says also, under the Articles of Confederation, the way that the army was summoned was by going to particular states and requesting that they send men.
This actually did not work well during the American Revolution, and he says this actually created a system of bidding where particular states, knowing they had to submit a certain number of men, would actually just put out a price, a wage price for particular soldiers, and people would leave their home state and go to the other state because they knew that they were going to be able to be called up there and get paid a higher price.
Also, Hamilton says that we can't have a system that's completely like the U.S. Senate, where it's equal representation for every state and then a two-thirds majority to decide things because then nothing will get done.
Instead, he says that we need a majority, at least one house, that's a house of representatives where population is represented in the number of representatives.
And then finally, he suggests that we also need a judiciary capable of interpreting the laws and treaties.
And he says that if we're going to be able to If we don't have a judiciary that is going to interpret those laws and treaties from the federal level, then again, that allows state courts to basically stand as an obstacle to federal policy.
The most important thing that happens in this Federalist paper, Federalist 22, is what he says at the very end.
What he says is that the Constitution of the United States is to be approved by the people themselves.
That is why we the people is the beginning of the Constitution of the United States.
And the reason for that, and the reason this is important, is because one of the arguments in the Civil War was that once the federal government had violated the sovereignty of particular states, those states were signatories to the Constitution, and therefore, they no longer had to abide by it.
That the contract against the states had been violated, and so states had the ability and the right to pull out.
This is what they called compact theory, that the Constitution was a compact between the states.
It was not actually a compact of the people.
Hamilton, foreseeing this problem in 1789, is already writing about it.
He says, He says, on the solid basis of the consent of the people, all caps, the streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority.
So this is why there were specific constitutional conventions called in each state in order to approve the constitution.
The idea here was that it was the people themselves who were going to approve the constitution.
And so the compact of the constitution is between all of the people, not just the various states who have their various interests at play.
Okay.
So we'll be back here tomorrow with all of the latest news.
I'm 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