All Episodes
April 6, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:02
The Radical Left Rises | Ep. 512
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hillary Clinton goes off on gun control.
Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times tries to explain the Second Amendment.
And we check the mailbag.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
All right, we have a lot to get to here today.
We have a particularly full segment of mailbaggery today.
A lot of people have written in in the mail and they want their questions answered.
And since it is our first week on syndicated radio, we are going to have a lot of opportunity to explore a broader than normal mailbag.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Bit IRA.
So you've heard all the stuff about millionaire next door and the Bitcoin millionaire next door.
But here's the thing.
Cryptocurrency is actually a good investment, or at least it can be a good investment.
George Gilder, who's one of my economic mentors, a guy who I really believe when he talks about economics, says Bitcoin is the perfect libertarian solution to the money enigma.
Now, what you've heard about Bitcoin has been about the volatility, or maybe you've heard about the enormous amounts of money people are making in it.
But what Bitcoin really is is like gold or silver.
It is an asset.
that the government cannot control and cannot touch.
And if you put your money in, it is a great hedge against inflation and government interventionism.
And because Bitcoin is still growing, it could also be a very good investment.
If you put your money in and more people buy into Bitcoin, then the Bitcoin prices go up because the limit, Bitcoin is based on a limited supply supply.
So if there's a limited supply of Bitcoin, more people are buying in, the value goes up.
So if you get in early on Bitcoin, you tend to do better over time, just as if you invested in gold very early before a mass supply was increased, then you do really well on gold as well.
Well, the folks from Birch Gold Group, the same people who help you purchase precious metals for your IRA, have created a new company and it's called BitIRA.
And it helps you tap your IRA or 401k into the growth potential of cryptocurrencies.
To help you learn more, BitIRA actually offers a free copy of their essential guide to digital IRAs, which you can claim at bitira.com slash Ben.
That's bitira.com slash Ben.
If you have over $20,000 in an IRA or 401k, go to bitira.com slash Ben, get free info guide with zero obligation to you.
Again, that's bitira.com slash Ben.
Ask all your questions, get all your answers.
And then if you're interested in putting a little bit of money in cryptocurrency, again, as a hedge against inflation and government intervention, then go over to bitira.com slash Ben.
That's bitira.com slash Ben to check it out.
Okay, so Hillary Clinton is back in the news again.
She just will not leave under any circumstances.
And no matter what, she cannot be pushed out.
No one will push Hillary Clinton off.
I mean, she's like the Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls, right?
She is telling you she's not going.
We're the best man she'll ever know, and she's not going.
So Hillary Clinton is just gonna stick around, and now she's gonna be talking about gun control.
So she is praising the Parkland teens.
She's saying they are changing the conversation.
This is the great myth of the left, is that the conversation is routinely being changed, even though the conversation is exactly the same as it ever was.
Here's Hillary Clinton, one of the worst, not one of the worst, the worst candidate in American history who will not leave, still talking about gun control in Parkland.
Very exciting to see the The movement started by the students from Parkland about taking on the NRA and the gun lobby.
So what we've got to do is to say we're for the assault weapons ban, we're for universal background checks, we are going to hold elected officials accountable, and we're going to vote against those who will not agree with those particular policies.
And I think we've got a real shot to defeat the NRA again.
But the problem is, it never ends.
Oh, sorry.
I fell asleep.
Hillary Clinton was talking.
My bad.
OK, so we're back.
But she's not the only one who's pushing the idea that the gun control issue is now on the table and Democrats finally have the advantage because of the Parkland teens.
Ooh, the Parkland teens.
OK, so one of these folks who's pushing this idea is Nicholas Kristof, who is one of the worst columnists in America.
He writes for the New York Times op-ed page, which, of course, means that, by definition, he's one of the worst columnists in America.
The New York Times op-ed page is a trash heap of misery and stupidity.
But in any case, here is what he writes.
He has an entire column this week talking about the Second Amendment, and it's called, So I thought to myself, well, if Nicholas Kristof knows how to win an argument about guns, maybe we'd better read those arguments, because maybe he's finally given a guide to the left on how they can defeat the Second Amendment agenda.
Wow!
I mean, maybe he's finally broken the code.
It turns out, not so much.
So here's what he writes.
Tragically, predictably, infuriatingly, we're again mourning a shooting, this time at YouTube's headquarters, even as the drive for gun safety legislation has stalled in Washington.
Polls show that nine out of 10 Americans favor basic steps like universal background checks before gun purchases.
But the exceptions are the president and a majority in Congress.
Now, this alone should make you stop and think.
Well, why is it that if 9 out of 10 people think one thing, but a majority of people in Congress who are elected by those same people think another thing?
Why that disparity?
Well, the answer is, of course, that 9 out of 10 people do not support universal background checks.
9 out of 10 people are told a slogan called universal background checks, and then when they are told that this means that you will not be able to give your gun to your kid, right, when this means that you will not be able to buy a gun for your brother, when this means that you won't be able to lend a gun to your friend to go hunting, they go, well, that seems weird.
Like, that's, I'm not up for that.
So, all these polls mean nothing.
In any case, Nicholas Kristof continues, usually pundits toss out their own best arguments while ignoring the other sides.
But today I'm going to try something new and engage directly with the arguments made by gun advocates.
Quote, you liberals are in a panic over guns, but look at the numbers.
Any one gun is less likely to kill a person than any one vehicle, but we're not traumatized by cars and we don't try to ban them.
So here's how Nicholas Kristof responds to this claim.
It is true that any particular car is more likely to be involved in a fatality than any particular gun, but cars are actually a perfect example of the public health approach we should apply to guns.
We don't ban cards, but we do work hard to take a dangerous product and regulate it to limit the damage.
Um, there are already federal background checks on guns.
You cannot own a machine gun.
States across the country have gun legislation that restricts magazine size.
I was recently at a gun shop in California, and in California, if you buy a rifle, you cannot actually have a replaceable magazine.
You literally have to unscrew every magazine that you use.
You use a magazine, you use the limit, you have to unscrew the magazine.
You have to take out a screwdriver and release the magazine before putting in a new magazine and re-screwing it in.
Okay, so these gun Laws exist all over the United States and Christophe apparently doesn't know that.
He says, Or we could have said it's pointless to regulate cars because then bicyclists will just run each other down.
Instead, we relied on evidence and data to reduce the carnage from cars.
Why isn't that a model for guns?
Well, here's the part that's hilarious about this entire argument that he's now proclaiming.
He's saying that we've done a great job with cars, except that cars still kill more people than guns.
Right, so how does that follow?
Right, if the idea is that all these regulations on cars have made them less deadly, why is it that guns, as a percentage of the population, the number of guns in American society has increased wildly since 1994, and yet the gun death rate in the United States has decreased wildly since 1994.
He just sort of skips over that part.
Okay, Nicholas Kristof continues, He says, Yes, but courts have found the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation.
There is no constitutional objection to say universal background checks to obtain a gun.
It's crazy that 22% of guns are obtained without a check.
Again, he's right on this one.
OK, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot have a universal background check.
It is also politically unpalatable because a lot of people don't want a universal background check.
Then he says, whoa, again, this is Christoph going back and forth, trying to explain why all the conservative arguments on guns are wrong.
He says, whoa, you're inflating the gun violence numbers by including suicides.
Almost two thirds of those gun deaths are suicides.
And the blunt reality is that if someone wants to kill himself, he'll find a way.
It's not about guns.
Because actually, that's not true.
Scholars have found that suicide barriers on bridges, for example, prevent jumpers and don't lead to a significant increase in suicides elsewhere.
OK, first of all, there are like five jumpers in the United States.
Okay, the number of people who die by jumping off bridges in the United States every year is really, really low, so that's not a great sample size.
And he says, likewise, almost half of suicides in Britain used to be by asphyxiating oneself with gas from the oven.
When Britain switched to a less lethal oven gas, the suicides by oven plummeted, and there was little substitution by other methods.
So it is about guns.
Well, no.
That's like saying that suicide was about ovens in Britain.
Suicide is much more common on a per capita basis in many countries in Europe than it is in the United States, where guns are not nearly as prevalent.
The suicide rates in Japan continue to be quite high, for example, and guns are essentially forbidden in that society.
To pretend that guns are the cause of suicide is just inane.
Suicide is something social scientists have been studying for nigh on 200 years, really since Comte.
And they're still waiting to figure out exactly how this functions.
People don't understand why people commit suicide.
There's no good one answer to it.
They suggest it's all about the guns, it's just dumb.
He says, no, it's more about our violent culture.
The Swiss and Israelis have large numbers of firearms and they don't have our levels of gun violence.
He says, yes, there's something to that.
America has underlying social problems and we need to address them with smarter economic and social policies.
But we magnify the toll when we make it easy for troubled people to explode with AR-15s rather than with pocket knives.
Well, there's not a lot of evidence to that, and that doesn't rebut the supposition, which is that a good person with a gun stops a bad person with a gun, and if a bad person gets a hold of a gun, you don't want to be armed with a pocket knife.
In fact, gun violence rates vary widely across American society, and if we're really looking to save lives, maybe we should stop with the gun confiscation rhetoric and start talking instead about how exactly we should stop all of these underlying social problems that are causing the crime in the first place.
And finally, Nicholas Kristof writes, you liberals freak out about guns.
If you have a swimming pool or a bathtub, that's more dangerous to neighborhood kids than a gun is.
Kids under age 14 are much more likely to die from drowning than from firearms.
So why this crusade against guns, but not against bathtubs and pools?
So here's Kristof's response.
Your numbers are basically right, but only because young children routinely swim and take baths, but don't regularly encounter firearms.
Right, because the vast majority of people with firearms lock them up.
There are 300 million firearms in the United States.
There are 100 million gun owners in the United States.
My guess is that there are fewer pools than that in all of the United States because 300 million pools would be a lot of pools in the United States.
I don't think there are that many pools in the United States.
So he says, look at the picture of the population as a whole.
Overall, 3,600 Americans drown each year while 36,000 die from guns.
Yes, including suicides.
There's one more reason to be talking more about gun safety than about pool safety.
Well, no, that's more of a reason to be talking about why guns should stay away from kids and why, again, so apparently we're not allowed to talk about deaths from cars because something happened.
And we shouldn't talk about deaths from pools because guns, gun deaths are more common than pool deaths, even though if we talk about guns in pools then we come up with the conclusion that pools are more dangerous to children than guns.
None of this makes any sense.
Finally, he says, Note that a backyard pool isn't going to be used to mug a neighbor or to invade a nearby school.
Schools don't have drills for an active pool situation.
Okay, that's an emotional argument, not really a logical one.
He said, While some 200,000 guns are stolen each year, it's more difficult to steal a pool and use it for a violent purpose.
Okay, so now he's calling for a full-scale gun confiscation and then telling us why we shouldn't worry about that.
Okay, so again, Nicholas Kristof defeating his own arguments.
Well done there, Nicholas Kristof.
Just strong stuff from the New York Times columnist.
David French has an excellent column on all of this.
And he points out that all the straw man that Nicholas Kristof erects here do not even withstand Nicholas Kristof's attempt to undercut those arguments.
The arguments that he props up there are actually stronger than his counter arguments.
French says Kristof won't win his argument because he can't.
We've proven we can decrease crime while we protect the Second Amendment, and expand access to guns.
We know we can reduce suicides without restricting any person's right to self-defense.
We know we have fewer suicides than many other developed countries, even as we have more guns.
Moreover, we know that various so-called common sense gun control measures wouldn't have prevented a single recent shooting.
And David French certainly is right about all of that.
Okay, so in just a second, I want to discuss the latest over at Facebook where disaster has broken out yet again, but this time over something that I don't really think is Facebook's fault.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Skillshare.
So, Skillshare is the place to go for you to broaden and deepen your resume.
You need to make your skillset better.
You do.
If you want a better job, if you want to raise the job that you are currently at, you need to go to Skillshare.com and take a class with the experts over there.
Skillshare is an online learning platform with over 18,000 classes in design, Business, technology, and more.
You can take classes in graphic design.
We here at the office take social media marketing, search engine optimization.
They have classes on just about everything.
They're a lifelong learning tool.
And it is just great.
I mean, I've even taken a class on watercolors just for the fun of it from Skillshare.
Join the millions of students already learning on Skillshare today.
And we have a special offer just for my listeners.
You get two months of Skillshare for just 99 cents.
So Skillshare is offering Ben Shapiro shows listeners two months of unlimited access to over 18,000 classes for just 99 cents.
To sign up, go to Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
To start your two months now, that's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
Again, you get 99 cents, two months of Skillshare.
It's really a great service and there's a reason that we Have all of our employees take Skillshare classes.
You should too.
You want a better job?
You want to get paid more?
This is the way to do it.
Skillshare.com slash Shapiro also lets them know that we sent you.
Okay, so meanwhile, Facebook has gotten itself into some hot water.
Why?
Because on Wednesday, they said that most of its users who had a specific search function enabled had had their profile scraped by third parties.
Zuckerberg sat on a call with reporters, quote, He says, I would assume, if you had that setting turned on, that someone at some point has access to your public information in some way.
The setting he's referring to is one where users let other users search for them by email address or phone number rather than just by name.
So, their Chief Technology Officer, Mike Shropfer, said most Facebook users could have had their public profile scraped.
He said, quote, quote,
And given the scale and sophistication of the activity we've seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way.
So a lot of people are very upset about this because, oh, Cambridge Analytica was scraping public information and using it in order to cross-tabulate with political preference, and now other companies are doing this.
Guys.
The internet is not private.
If you put a profile on Facebook, other people can see it.
That is the purpose of it.
If you think marketing companies are not taking advantage of that, you don't know anything about social media.
So this one is not on Facebook.
What is on Facebook is that they have lost the trust of the American people because Facebook has not been transparent about what exactly their purpose is, about what it is that they do.
Are they a social media platform where you interact with friends and pick people you want to follow?
Or are they a publisher that decides what you see?
If they're going to act like this kind of panopticon company that is going to expose all of your information to various sites and then also going to dictate what it is that you see, then you feel a little more boxed in than if we say, listen, you have a profile, you put it up there, it is what it is.
If people take it and use it, that's their problem.
But at least you get to see what you see and interact how you want to interact.
Facebook has some real problems along all of these lines, specifically because they've not been clear about what it is that they do.
If they want to be clear about what they do, if they want to be transparent with the people who use Facebook, now is the time.
I understand that they don't want to give away proprietary trade secrets, but that's not what we're asking for.
All we're asking for is to know, how are you deciding what shows up in my feed?
How are you deciding what information is protected?
These are not difficult questions.
These are questions that should be easy to answer.
And if Facebook answers those questions, I think that consumers at that point can make an informed decision.
Okay, so now I want to talk a little bit...
about the latest on the Stormy Daniels scandal.
Ooh, Stormy Daniels.
So, the left is obsessed with the Stormy Daniels story because Stormy Daniels is a porn actress who has been in many a massive masterpiece, including The Witches of Brestwick, an actual film in which Stormy Daniels starred.
I'm not kidding.
And she also obviously had an affair with the President of the United States.
All the talk about Trump denying that, like, come on.
Come on.
Does anyone really believe President Trump on that?
Probably not, because it's just not particularly believable.
But, one of the things the media have done with Stormy Daniels is they have made her out to be a victim.
They've said that this porn star who had an affair with the President of the United States before he was President, knowing he was married, in an attempt to get him to put her on Celebrity Apprentice, And then took $130,000 to shut up about it before the election.
Now she's some sort of great victim, and she's really a hero, Stormy Daniels.
You know, she's really coming out with information that the public needs to know.
Now, I'm not saying that Trump is innocent in all of this.
He's not.
He bribed a woman to shut up about an affair that he had while he was married.
That's disgusting.
Okay, plus, I mean, having sex with Stormy Daniels is not exactly virgin territory.
Okay, but in any case, you know, when President Trump Is it illegal?
Maybe, maybe not, probably not.
Is it a campaign finance violation?
in all of this.
No, he's not innocent in all of this.
Having your lawyer pay people off to shut up about affairs is gross behavior.
Is it illegal?
Maybe, maybe not.
Probably not.
Is it a campaign finance violation?
Probably not.
Which means that I think it raises moral questions about the president, but those moral questions have been an offing for something like 40 years I mean, there's nothing new under the sun here, and there's nothing new under Stormy Daniels' moon, apparently.
So, you know, this idea that the president has somehow violated the trust of his own base, like, everybody knew that this is what Trump was when they elected him.
Come on!
Melania was wife number three, okay?
This is not like, wow, this guy, he's a paragon of moral rectitude.
So why exactly is the media obsessed with this?
Because they think this is gonna take down Trump, and they've painted Stormy Daniels as some sort of victimized figure by President Trump.
Well, all of that sort of exploded on the Democrats yesterday, because Stormy Daniels, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, was interviewed by Megyn Kelly.
Megyn Kelly is a fantastic interviewer.
She's a great prosecutor.
This is what she is best at.
Right?
The stuff that she's best at, I think she's okay at all of the kind of morning show host kind of stuff, but the stuff that Megan just dominates at, that she's terrific at, is when she asks hard questions to people.
She was great at this on Fox News, and she just grilled Michael Avenetti last night, and it was brutal.
Why would Stormy Daniels be leading the charge on whether that payment violated the election law?
Because, and I mean this is the honest to God truth, this is a principled woman at this point.
She wants the truth.
She wants the truth.
Now they're laughing at you.
She's so principled that 11 days before the election she had information about the possible next president having an extramarital affair with an adult film actress and she shut up about it in exchange for just over a hundred grand.
Yeah, and I think she's providing an explanation as to why that is.
Because she wanted the money.
She wants the truth to be known to the American people.
Then why'd she take the money?
Why didn't she just talk 11 days before the election?
You'd have to ask her that.
I don't have an explanation for that.
Come on.
She wanted the dough!
Okay, so this is where Megyn Kelly is fantastic.
If every show were like this with Megyn Kelly, her ratings would be phenomenal, because that's amazing television.
That is so good.
And she's exactly right, of course.
It's amazing how the media can't stand any of the psychological, cognitive dissonance that people experience every day.
In order for them to say that Trump did something bad here, they have to say that Stormy Daniels is some sort of heroine.
Stormy Daniels is kind of gross, okay?
This is a woman Listen, if she didn't want the money, then why is it still in her bank account?
Like, she could just give the money back, right?
shut up about it before the election.
And now she knows she will make more money if she doesn't take that money.
So the best part of this was Megyn Kelly actually asked Michael Avenetti, listen, if she didn't want the money, then why is it still in her bank account?
Like, she could just give the money back, right?
That could be a thing that would actually happen.
And that is not what happened, right?
I mean, so she did not actually give the money back, obviously.
And the impact of that is that she shut up for the duration of the election.
Pretty amazing stuff.
So good for Megyn Kelly for finally asking some questions.
It just shows the desperation of the left that they've tried to make some sort of martyr out of Stormy Daniels, who's anything but a martyr.
Anything but a martyr.
Amazing, amazing stuff.
Again, I want more of this from Megyn Kelly.
I would watch this show every day.
Like this right here, I would watch that every day.
I would just replay that clip over and over because Megyn Kelly shellacking Michael Avenetti is something that is long overdue and demonstrates really the lack of objective media experience on the part of the media, right?
The media say they're objective, they're not.
If they're really objective, they all would have been asking Michael Avenetti these questions weeks ago.
But it took Megyn Kelly to ask it on a morning show on NBC News in order for them to be asked.
Okay.
All right, so now it is time for some mailbag, correct?
Is it mailbag time?
Yeah, let's do some mailbag.
All right, so we have some really good mailbaggery today.
So you all have sent us some great questions, and I want to take some time with them.
So we begin today's mailbag with an email from George.
George is a young guy who apparently lives in Sacramento, and he writes this.
Hi, Ben.
I'm the guy in the Al Jazeera Plus video that went viral over the weekend in connection with the Stephon Clark protests.
I was wondering if there was any suggestion you could give me on how best to respond.
I'm an avid fan and subscriber.
OK, so here is what the video looked like.
Here's what the video sounded like.
And I will explain to you what exactly is happening in the video.
I'm looking at it as we do the show.
And now I'm going to explain to you what's in it so that you can actually hear what's going on.
So what it looks like is a young white guy is in a BMW.
He pulls up.
to a route that has been blocked off by protesters.
These protesters are protesting after the death of Stephon Clark, who's a black guy who was shot to death under what would be extraordinarily refuted circumstances in Sacramento.
The police were chasing, apparently, a black suspect through a neighborhood.
They ended up in this guy's backyard.
This guy was just out back on his cell phone, and they shot him to death for no reason.
It's an amazing, amazing story and really a travesty and demonstrates lack of police training and, you know, how bad things can get when you're in a crime-ridden neighborhood and the cops responsible are definitely going to spend some time in jail, I think.
And certainly for police malfeasance.
But in any case, these protesters have blocked off the intersection and the person who wrote me this letter, George, he steps out of his BMW to talk with the protesters because he's just standing there and they're blocking traffic.
And here's what it sounds like. - Are you telling him to stop killing us? - Are you telling him to stop killing us? - He says, and so he says, you can tell by the way he answered all the people yelling at him.
He says, do you honestly expect this medium of protesting is going to serve your purpose well?
Do you truly believe that?
He said, I'm not going anywhere.
And then they're all yelling at him.
You're crazy.
We're not going anywhere.
This bleep crazy.
You can't go nowhere, man.
And then he says, I don't at all dispute or invalidate or devalue anything you're trying to do.
And then a guy yells at him, if your brother got killed, then you'd be saying different.
He says, my brother did get killed.
Okay.
And the other guy says, well, if you were, if you were shot by police for no reason, then it would be something different.
He says, you have every right to voice what you're doing, but what I'm getting at is you have sidewalks.
Right.
And they're yelling at him, and they're screaming at him, and they're saying that he's a terrible person.
He's saying, I can't speak, right?
You're not even letting me talk and make my argument.
And they all start talking about how he's a racist.
They're saying, you're shaking.
Come on, bro.
Just hop in your sweet car.
And people are telling the media not to pay attention to any of this.
So this went viral and Al Jazeera says, was this a meaningful conversation or was this guy just trying to exercise his white privilege to get home?
Okay, so let me start by asking a question.
Is it a white privilege to get home?
Is that a thing now?
Like why is it a white privilege to get home?
I wasn't aware that it was a racial thing if you want to get home.
Like seriously, I don't understand why that has anything to do with white privilege.
So the argument here is apparently that he is a racist for even objecting to the streets being stopped, presumably without a permit.
Because if there had been a permit, there would have been street signs directing people around the protest.
But instead, he gets stuck at this intersection and the idea is that everybody is supposed to just deal with it.
Okay, so, George, here's what I would say.
You did nothing wrong here.
I think that, you know, there's an attempt to do a race-based class war on the part of the left based on this video.
They're trying to say that because you're white and because you are driving a BMW, this means that your argument is no longer valid.
But your argument is valid.
If you were a Hispanic guy driving a Honda Civic, your argument would be just as valid.
You want to get home.
Why are people blocking the public thoroughfare?
And there's nothing wrong with you asking that question.
By the way, it is also true that what you are arguing, that you actually agree with the protesters, right, and that you want them to do something more effective for their cause, the data back you up.
Okay, the data show that there's polling data that shows this from the Atlantic, and what it shows is that if you block traffic, people are less likely to listen to your message.
People are more likely, in fact, to think that you're a jerk who's blocking traffic.
So what you were doing there was attempting to say to these folks, listen, I'm on your side.
And this isn't just about me getting home.
If you actually want to do something effective that raises sympathy levels, then go get a permit and then protest because no one's stopping you from protesting.
We just don't want you shutting down traffic in the middle of rush hour so you can't get home.
There's nothing unreasonable about that.
And by the way, it is worth noting that when people say, well, Martin Luther King, you know, he shut down highways.
Yes, there was a federal court order that was issued that allowed the Selma march to happen.
Okay, so the entire history of the Selma March is really, really interesting.
And there's an interesting column by a guy named Ronald Krastoszynski, that was written in 2015 for the LA Times, in which he talks about the legality of the Selma March.
So first of all, you have to, he's a professor at the University of Alabama Law School, is this professor.
And he served as a law clerk to Judge Frank Johnson in 1991, 1992.
So first you have to determine, is the purpose of the march to get arrested?
Sometimes the purpose of the march is to get arrested, because you want to show that you are being arrested for an unjust reason.
But it is also worthwhile noting that a lot of the time you can have a protest, and the goal of the protest is to gain public sympathy, and the worst way to do that is by shutting down traffic.
So here is what this law professor writes, quote, to mark the 50th anniversary of the Selma marches of 1965, we'll replay the inspirational words of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., recount the courage of the marchers in the face of police brutality, and recall the shock to the conscience that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
But we should also consider an important question.
Could a march like Selma happen today?
The 52-mile march down U.S.
Highway 80 on March 21st through 25th required more than determination.
It required a court order.
After Alabama state troopers and local sheriff's deputies attacked the 600 people crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, March 7th, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference went to federal court on Monday.
They asked for an immediate injunction ordering Alabama state officials to permit the march to proceed.
They didn't get it, but U.S.
District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr.
scheduled a hearing for later that week.
In the meantime, he ordered the SCLC not to march from Selma to Montgomery.
King was under tremendous pressure to proceed, even if doing so might land him in contempt of court.
In the end, what did King do?
He respected the court's order.
And so on Tuesday, marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but then returned to Selma.
After a four-day hearing, Johnson held the march could proceed.
And then they were protected by federal troops all the way.
Okay, so King abided by the law because he understood.
He understood that he didn't want the scene of people being beaten, presumably for breaking law.
Instead, what he wanted was if people were going to be attacked, he wanted them to be attacked while abiding by the law.
The whole goal of King's March here was to demonstrate that people could abide by the law and still be treated unequally.
That was the whole point.
So the question here is, number one, what are these people protesting?
Are they protesting police brutality?
Are they protesting for new police procedures?
That's one thing.
If they are protesting, however, the idea that the police are generally racist, or that America is generally racist, and then they're going to shut down traffic to do it, I do not understand the logic of that.
So, George, your question was, how should you best respond?
I think that you should write all of this.
I think that you should write a letter, an open letter, saying, here is why I was talking to the protesters.
I was trying to help them.
It wasn't just about me getting home.
I was trying to recommend that they pick a better way of doing this.
So that their message is better heard and more concerted, and then I can join them, because I'd like to stand out there and march with them, but I can't march with them when I'm stuck in my car.
I can't just leave my car there, right?
So what I would like is a scheduled march at a legal time and place that I can join, because that will also be the most effective, with a message that I can join into.
Not saying the police are systematically racist and systemically racist without evidence, but saying that the police need new procedures, that we need to figure out how best to educate cops, that these sorts of mistakes don't happen in the U.S.
military.
When they do, they very often end with a court-martial.
So, again, the real travesty in that video is nothing that was done or said by you, George.
The real travesty is the people who are standing there shouting at you that you're a racist because you're asking a serious question, and the people who are on Al Jazeera claiming that it's white privilege for you to even ask the question.
As though a white person couldn't march with black people.
There were white people who were marching with MLK in Selma.
And I'm sure that there are white people who will march on behalf of Stephon Clark as they should because that shooting is egregious.
Okay.
Other questions from the mailbag.
Sarah says, Hi Ben.
Has there ever been a time in history the Democrats were actually a good party?
I can't say that Republicans are great right now, but we do carry the moniker Party of Lincoln as well as a few others.
Does the Democratic Party have a highlight like that that we as conservatives can look back at and say, Oh, why don't they go back to being like that?
Also, are there any books that give a balanced history about the history of both parties you might recommend?
Thanks for being awesome.
Well, Sarah, I appreciate it, and you're welcome for being awesome.
But here's the answer about the parties.
It's very difficult for me to say that the parties overall are great or bad.
There are certain policies that parties have embraced in the past that are very good.
So the Democratic Party, for example, did embrace the civil rights movement.
They did it a little bit late, but they did it.
The Democratic Party did embrace attack cuts under JFK, for example.
They were cold warriors under JFK, although not to the same extent as some Republicans.
FDRs, the way that he operated World War II, with the exception of Japanese internment, was great.
So Democrats have done great things in the past, and to ignore that would be to ignore history.
But to say the Democratic Party was ever great as a whole, Just like I don't think the Republican Party was ever that great as a whole.
I think there have been things in the Republican Party that have been great.
I would say that Radical Reconstruction Republicans were great.
I would say that Lincoln was great.
I would say Reagan was great.
But there have been times that the Republican Party has backed some really pretty stupid policy.
You know, there was a time when the typical country club Republican was considered a guy who wouldn't open his golf club to Jews.
So what I would suggest is instead of following party banners and saying, you know, that the Democrats were always great or the Republicans were always great, you can say, here are good people.
Now, which party best represents those causes and people now?
That's the more important thing.
I don't think the labels matter nearly as much as people seem to think that they do.
Okay, well I have more of these questions that I want to answer, but first you're going to have to go over to DailyWire.com.
For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to DailyWire.com.
When you do, you get the rest of my show live, you get the rest of Clavin's show live, you get the rest of the Michael Mullins show live, plus there's an episode of The Conversation coming up on Tuesday.
Andrew Clavin will be answering all of your questions live, as in you go on DailyWire, And if you're a subscriber, you type questions into the chat box and we'll answer your questions.
Anyone can watch at YouTube or Facebook or on our website, but you can only watch on our website and ask questions if you go to dailywire.com and become a subscriber.
It's $9.99 a month for $99 a year.
You also get the Magical Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler, so better price, and you get the mug.
So check that out.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
All righty.
So more questions from the mailbag.
Here we go.
Okay, Scott, so here is why.
So, Jews lean left because most Jews are not observant.
Most Jews do not pay attention to Jewish law.
They do not pay attention to the Torah.
They do not really pay attention to Israel.
Okay, Scott, so here is why.
So Jews lean left because most Jews are not observant.
Most Jews do not pay attention to Jewish law.
They do not pay attention to the Torah.
They do not really pay attention to Israel.
Jews are, by polling numbers, the most atheistic religious group in America.
So when you poll Jews, you're polling a bunch of people who say they are ethnically Jewish but have never attended synagogue or do so once a year on Yom Kippur and then they break for lunch, right?
Even though Yom Kippur is a fast day.
So you can't take that seriously as a representative of Judaism.
So, when you say, why do Jews vote left?
For the same reason that most ethnically white people living in major blue states, in major blue cities, lean to the left.
With high levels of education and an upper class income.
That's the description of the normal, non-religious Jew.
That's reason number one.
Reason number two is that there are a lot of Jews who think that the best way... So, the reason that Jews have been active in leftist movements like socialism historically is because socialism promised that it was going to get over anti-Semitism.
Jews who were living in Tsarist Russia were victimized by anti-Semitism on a regular basis.
Now, as it turns out, socialism in the Soviet Union didn't cure that, right?
Anti-Semitism continued to be a thing.
Jews were still dramatically victimized Under the USSR, but there were a lot of Jews involved in the socialist movement because they thought that if we could see each other as a brotherhood of man and get beyond religion, then maybe Jews would finally be treated with enlightenment equality.
That, of course, did not happen.
Plus, there are a lot of Jews who react to Christians with a certain level of antipathy, which I think is not justified by Christian behavior, at least in the modern era.
I think that there are a lot of Jews who go back You know, a hundred years, and they say that a lot of anti-Semitism was driven by Christians, and so why would we ally with Christians now?
Whichever party is more pro-Christian is the one I'm not going to be a part of.
Again, this describes why secular Jews are anti-Republican and anti-right.
It does not describe why religious Jews are, because religious Jews aren't.
The dirty little secret is that Orthodox religious Jews vote about 70-30 Republican.
Okay, Timothy says, Hi Ben, I'm a senior in high school and I wondered what protections or rights you think animals should have.
What is your view on animal conservation?
Do you think it serves any purpose?
So, I'm in favor of animal conservation.
I think we should be saving as many of the endangered species as we can because we are given the earth to guard and cultivate.
Even biblically speaking.
As far as what rights animals should have, they have the right against excessive cruelty.
I don't think anyone should be cruel to animals.
As far as meat eating, it seems to me that, from what I've heard from my wife anyway, she says, and she is a doctor as you may know, she says that the human body does require a lot of the nutrients in meat.
So that is a reason for meat eating out of necessity.
The idea that animals should be cruelly treated, I think, is forbidden by virtually every major Western religion.
Daniel says, "Hi Ben.
Earlier this week, you talked about marriage and having kids and that having kids makes you extremely happy.
As someone who is not married and is unsure if I want kids, I wanted to know what you thought having kids would be like before you had them.
Did you have an idea of how happy you would be or is it a completely different experience than you were expecting?" Well, it wasn't like I thought that everything with kids was going to be wonderful rainbows and sunshine and unicorns.
As they say, when you have kids, the spectrum of happiness wildly expands, which means that you go from a possible 10 out of 10 to a 1,000 out of 10, but it also goes to a negative 1,000, right?
So that means that the worst suffering you will do is when your child suffers or when your child misbehaves or does something bad, and the best your life will be is when your child does something good.
But you should have kids because having kids makes you a better person and because I think you have an obligation to contribute as a solid thinker to the betterment of humanity through the next generation, creating a next generation of people who will help preserve values that matter.
So I think it's more a matter of obligation than enjoyment.
In other words, having children.
I think it's met expectations in terms of happiness.
I think it's exceeded expectations in terms of amount of work because it's an enormous amount of work to have children.
And it changes your life dramatically.
You will never sleep again, nor will you ever have a night off again.
At least until your kids hit 21.
And even then, you'll stay up nights wondering what your kids are doing with their life.
It's a lot of work.
I joke that it's sort of like a cult having kids.
Once you have kids, you have to convince other people to join the cult, but you can't tell people about the downsides, because then they won't want to join.
And then once they're in, they now feel a moral obligation to spread the good word.
But it is an amazing experience.
It will make you a better human being.
Okay, more questions from the mailbag.
Spencer says, No, I definitely share that view.
I know Zell Miller, the senator from Georgia who recently passed away, he was a big advocate of changing the 17th Amendment so that it was elected by state legislators.
has resulted in a severe diminution of state power and contributed to the massive expansion of the federal government during the 20th century.
Do you share this view or are you more sympathetic toward the 17th Amendment?
No, I definitely share that view.
I know Zell Miller, the senator from Georgia who recently passed away, he was a big advocate of changing the 17th Amendment so that it was elected by state legislators.
The reason for that is because when you directly elect senators, then they become your federal representatives as opposed to being people who are standing there in favor of the state's interest.
They no longer represent the state, because the state's interests are best represented by the interests of the legislature.
Instead, they're representing the public at large, and it's easier to fool the public at large than it is to fool state legislators, who actually have a stake in maintaining a certain amount of state power.
People don't follow politics closely enough to elect senators who are going to stand up For the for the values of the state.
But they do have the values to elect those people to state legislature and then the state legislature wants to guard its own its own power.
And so they tell the senators what to do and what not to do.
So we do not spank.
I'm not a big fan of corporal punishment.
So we do not spank.
I am not a big fan of corporal punishment.
And when I was growing up, it wasn't that my parents had an ideological boundary against spanking.
I think I was spanked maybe once, my sister was spanked maybe twice in like her entire childhood, and a couple of my sisters weren't spanked at all.
The only time I think that it is appropriate to spank, honestly speaking, the only time I think it is appropriate to spank is when your kid is doing something dangerous.
So if you have a three-year-old who's continuing to run into the street, and you say, don't run into the street, and the three-year-old runs into the street, and you say, don't run into the street, because you will get hit by a car, and the three-year-old runs into the street, I think it is appropriate, as a physical deterrent, to say, if you run into the street, you will get a potch.
And then, open palm, butt, I think is the proper way to do it.
And I know there are others who disagree, but I think this is the proper way to do it.
But, the only time to do it, really, is literally the same way you would with an animal, to train an animal not to run into the street, right?
And that's all it's for.
For moral suasion, I'm not a huge fan of spanking, because I think that kids then don't know the reason why they're doing what they are doing.
And kids should learn to obey you without you having to threaten them with physical punishment.
There are other forms of punishment that you can use.
Like, we're constantly saying, like, my daughter knows that if she disobeys, I say, sweetheart, if you do this, then you are violating the rules.
And the rules say you have to get a punishment.
I don't even have to tell her what the punishment is, and she immediately starts crying.
Like, she knows that she doesn't want the punishment.
Usually the punishment is something pretty anodyne.
Usually it's something like, you can't watch TV tomorrow, or you're not going to have any sweets this weekend, something like that.
And then you have to stick with it, right?
If you actually punish the kid, there has to be an actual punishment that attaches.
You can't keep playing chicken with the kid, because then the kid knows that if they cry a little bit, they get what they want anyway after being bad.
Wyatt says, Hi Ben, I'm a West Texas high school junior attending Central High School.
Currently, I'm taking all advanced level courses, along with one period devoted to helping a teacher grade papers, take roll, etc.
Throughout my years in high school, I've noticed the majority of students in my advanced classes are more inclined to agree with the left on politics and other issues.
I've also noticed that those in the regular classes tend to agree with the politics of the right.
I want to ask why this is.
In my mind, I feel there's a distribution should be the opposite, as statistically speaking, the members of the right are generally more educated and wealthy.
Thank you for reading this.
I hope your answer will help.
I think the reason why, frankly, is because one of the ways that you do well in school is by listening to teachers.
One of the ways you do well in school is by mirroring what teachers have to teach you, not by mirroring what your parents think.
And so many of our schools are dominated by teachers who are to the left that this is a problem.
I think also that people who tend to consider themselves highly educated, there's a high correlation between higher levels of education, PhDs, college graduates, and being of the left than among people who are just partial college graduates, for example.
It doesn't always line up with the earning power, but the studies that I've seen tend to show that higher levels of education tend to make you more of the left because you tend to feel that you can control society, that if only you, the greatest and wisest of all beings, were to control society, society would be better.
Example, when I went to Harvard Law School, which is, of course, the left's favorite institution, when I went there, the first day, Elena Kagan, who is now on the Supreme Court, was the dean, and she brought us into a room.
It was a mahogany, beautiful room, 500 students all sitting there.
It's our orientation.
We're all really excited to be there.
And she says this, she says, listen, you've heard a lot about how Harvard Law is really tough.
You've heard a lot about how the competition here is really brutal.
Well, I'm here to tell you, you've already won the competition, right?
You're in.
That means you're getting a job.
You're not gonna have to worry about anything.
And more than that, we have, I think at the time it was four out of nine Supreme Court justices or three out of nine.
We have 30 senators who've gone to Harvard Law.
You, one day, the people in this room will be the rulers of the universe.
You will be ruling the world.
And so what you learn here is what you're going to rule with, basically.
That's a pretty dangerous message.
But that is also the message that is being pushed to people who go to institutions of higher education, and they believe it.
Because when you're smart, you believe that you should be able to control people who are less smart.
And one of the things that's great about the Founders is that they realize that there will always be someone smarter, and those people will always try to control you.
So we need to set up an institution of checks and balances to prevent that sort of control from ever taking place.
Jake says, So, the answer is that in Orthodox Jewish canon, the cycle of prophecy essentially stopped with, I believe, around the time of Ezra.
Ezra, the scribe.
The idea is that God sort of withdrew his presence.
Like Maimonides, if they are prophets, when do Jews believe the cycle of prophets leading the people stopped and why?
Thanks, Jake.
So the answer is that in Orthodox Jewish canon, the cycle of prophecy essentially stopped with, I believe, around the time of Ezra.
Ezra, the scribe.
The idea is that God sort of withdrew his presence.
He sort of hid his presence more in the universe.
Maimonides has a very interesting take on this in Guides to the Perplexed.
He says that essentially we lost access to prophecy because we stopped being able to access our reason in the same way, that we don't have as many cultivated people now, and if we were to cultivate ourselves, then maybe prophecy would be opened up to us again, but nobody would ever be a prophet like Moses.
But that's a controversial perspective.
The year of prophecy ended, and according to traditional Jewish perspective, it ended because the Jews essentially rebelled against God so many times that God withdrew his presence a little bit to let the Jews have the brunt of it, sort of.
That's a very blunt, that's a very basic way of understanding it.
John said, Hi, Ben.
I'm a daily listener and a huge fan of the show.
My question comes from last week's mailbag when you said you were in favor of mandatory vaccination.
I agree they should be mandatory due to positive externalities, but who would fit the bill as it is now a mandatory purchase?
Would it be the consumer, a like-mandated auto insurance, or would it be covered by our taxes, or would it be something in the middle where low-income persons are covered?
Keep up the great work, thanks.
Well, I think that it would probably be if people can't afford it, then we help out with some sort of redistributionist program because it is mandatory, but If you can afford it, then you should be paying for it because, again, it serves your child as well as it serves other children.
Like, you get in what you get out.
I have a takings perspective.
The Richard Epstein book, Takings, is really good about this.
Basically, what he says is the government can tax you to the extent it provides you services in return, and this would be one of those things, right?
It mandates that you spend money on a mandatory vaccine, and it's like car insurance.
You got to do it because it has externalities.
I think she's toast.
Justin says, Ben, do you believe the Democratic Party is truly done with Hillary Clinton?
Or should we expect to see more of her in the upcoming years?
I think she's toast.
I think she just won't leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Michael says, Ben, of these three composers, how would you rank them?
Hans Zimmer, Howard Shore, John Williams?
John Williams, Zimmer, Howard Shore.
The only reason that Howard Shore isn't ranked higher is because his only great score really is Lord of the Rings.
He has a bunch of kind of okay scores.
Hans Zimmer has a bunch of very good scores.
I think he has a couple that verge on the great.
John Williams, of course, has a bunch of great scores.
Michael says, hey, Ben, I'm currently finishing up my thesis for my undergrad.
I chose to conduct my research on how Publius thought federalism should work as he presented the state national relationship in the Federalist.
I read several critiques of the Federalist.
I was wondering if you have a favorite and why.
I also heard your wife is a doctor.
Is that true?
It is true, Michael.
As well, as far as the Federalist, the thing you should read really is the anti-Federalist papers, which are a great critique contemporaneously of the Federalist papers, also the Federalist.
Also, there's a great book on the history of political philosophy edited by Leo Strauss, and it has an entire little essay on the Federalists.
So check that out, it's really interesting.
Okay, Ashley says, Hi, Ben.
Can you recommend any reading about the fabled platform swap that took place between the Democrat and Republican parties?
It's hard to find a good source out there that isn't completely biased.
I believe Dinesh D'Souza has written about it.
I've written about it as well.
And also, stay tuned because I will have a book coming out in the near future through Daily Wire that will be a refutation of all the leftist myths that are out there.
Like 101 Leftist Myths Debunked, this is one of them.
So we can check that out.
Okay, so, uh, should we get to things I like and things I hate?
Okay, let's do some things I like and some things that I hate.
So, things I like.
I've done a lot of Passover stuff this week.
Uh, and so, I've decided that it is time to do an Easter thing.
So, the greatest Easter movie, maybe the only really great Easter movie of all time, because Passion of the Christ really isn't about Easter, it's about Good Friday.
But the greatest Easter movie of all time, of course, is Ben-Hur.
Uh, that doesn't mean it's the greatest... Maybe I should rephrase.
The greatest movie that has Easter in it.
Is Ben-Hur.
Okay, maybe there are better Easter movies that are, like, about King of Kings or something and that actually tackle just Jesus' story.
But this movie ends, of course, with the Easter crucifixion of Jesus.
It ends with the crucifixion of Jesus and his blood washes away the leprosy of Ben-Hur's family members.
The movie itself is just a masterpiece.
The original.
Don't watch the remake, obviously.
The original with Charlton Heston is an amazing film.
William Wyler was the director.
And this, of course, I'm about to show you is one of the great scenes in movie history in which Ben-Hur is in a chariot race with Masala, who is his kind of lifelong former brother figure, but now enemy.
And Masala is trying to trying to kill him.
He's got blades on the spokes of his wheels.
So here's what this looked like.
Okay, so, I mean, it's an amazingly shot scene.
Look how this scene is shot, right?
This is all, like... This is not happening against background, right?
I mean, this is done with... It's just an ama... It's an amazing film.
It's an amazing film.
And it is, of course, the glass... The great classic epic.
It's so good.
And this particular scene...
It cost a fortune to shoot.
There was a rumor that Alex was bringing up to me that someone was killed during the making of the scene.
It's not actually true, so it's worth debunking.
But the movie itself is really worth watching, so check that out.
This is what Hollywood does best, right?
This is the epic stuff that Hollywood does best.
Just amazing.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So it is amazing whom the left will continue to trot out.
So they trot out Hillary Clinton's talk about gun control, even though no one likes Hillary Clinton.
And now they're trotting out Dan Rather to talk about how to avoid fake news, which is an amazing thing, right?
Dan Rather was ousted from his job in 2004 because he insisted that a letter that was put out, it was false, it was manufactured.
Number one, understand that trusting a news outlet does not mean they're perfect.
No one's perfect.
It means they tell you when they screw up.
of the election cycle was actually true.
It was forcibly debunked by the internet.
Dan Rather stuck by it.
He ended up losing his job over it.
And now he's on the Young Turks, of course, talking about how to gauge fake news.
It's pretty incredible stuff.
Here's Dan Rather.
Number one, understand that trusting a news outlet does not mean they're perfect.
No one's perfect.
It means they tell you when they screw up.
Number two, don't rely on just one news outlet.
Number three, don't rely on just the news to understand an issue.
Read books.
Find the experts.
Okay, so here's the thing.
I actually agree with all the advice that Dan Rather gives here.
We can stop there, but I agree with a lot of the advice Dan Rather gives.
The question is why you can't find a better spokesperson for this than Dan Rather.
Like, I've said a lot of the same things, and again, I think what Dan Rather is saying here is fine.
But the left attaches to its people and will not let those people go, no matter how bad they are.
This is why you should go see Chappaquiddick this weekend.
Like really, if you want to see how bad it can get before the left will still not let you go, go view Chappaquiddick and see what Teddy Kennedy did and still survived politically.
I mean, the guy was elected a thousand times in Massachusetts and was considered the lion of the Senate after leaving a woman to die at the bottom of a river.
It's still an amazing, amazing thing.
Okay, final thing that I hate.
So Larry Kudlow is the new National Economic Council chair for President Trump.
And in that role, he is essentially backing Trump's plan, a lot of this stuff.
I think that what he's trying to do is convince Trump that Trump's actual economic policies can be turned toward a more free market way.
That's the sort of nice version of what Larry Kudlow is doing.
But Larry Kudlow came out and he backed Trump's war on Amazon.
I just think this is not correct.
I think the president's intent here is to develop a level playing field between online retailers and land-based retailers with respect to taxes and other issues.
I think that's his intent.
Create a level playing field.
There's always been confusion.
Positive steps have been made in some cases.
The Supreme Court's going to make a ruling very soon on this that will, again, move towards the level playing field.
There was a time When we wanted the United States, as a matter of policy, wanted to protect, you know, nascent internet businesses by keeping down the tax burden, but that time is long gone.
So, I just think the level playing field is the best way to look at it.
But should the President be the one who's out front on this, tweeting like he has?
I mean, the President of the United States.
The President of the United States, the President of the United States, Stu.
If he wants to tweet, he's going to tweet.
That's the way it works.
Okay, again, this is really dumb.
Because what Kudlow is saying here, where he's saying that Trump just wants a level playing field.
Okay, if you really want a level playing field, call for an end to state sales taxes.
But Amazon is paying the state sales taxes in all of these places, right?
If they are mandated to pay state sales tax in 45 out of 51 jurisdictions in the United States, including Washington, D.C., they're paying the mandated sales tax in those states.
What Trump is really doing here is he's mad because he thinks that Amazon is killing brick-and-mortar retail shops because they're undercutting them.
You know why?
Because Amazon is a better company.
Sorry to break it to folks, but it's more expensive to run brick-and-mortar than it is to actually just send you stuff through the mail.
I've known this for years.
I'm one of the hypocrites who goes to the bookstore that I love, views the books online, finds the one that I want, I'll go to the bookstore, I'll look at it, and then I will take out my phone and I will see how much it costs on Amazon.
If it's like a $3 difference, I'll just buy it at the bookstore.
But if it's a $10 difference, I'll buy it on Amazon.
I'm not going to spend an extra $100 just to go to a brick-and-mortar shop.
I'm not sure why I should have to.
And I don't see why it's the President of the United States' responsibility to make me as a consumer pay more just because he has a fondness for brick-and-mortar when consumers clearly don't.
I'm not going to subsidize brick-and-mortar as a consumer.
Why should I subsidize it as a taxpayer?
Okay.
Well, we will be back here on Monday with much, much more.
Have a wonderful weekend.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
Export Selection