All Episodes
Previous Next
April 13, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:06
Come-y On Already | Ep. 517
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The media lose their mind over former FBI director James Comey's new book, Cory Booker makes a complete ass of himself, and we check the mailbag.
I'm Ben Shapiro and this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Some days you get up in the morning and you're just giddy to do the show because, I mean, let's be real, this news cycle is AMAZEBALLS.
It's incredible.
And there's so much to talk about, from slimeball to pee tapes to Cory Booker, who apparently is weirdly obsessed with gay sex and its various permutations.
So many things to talk about in the news.
But first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Helix Sleep.
Right now, you're probably not getting enough sleep.
One of the reasons you're not getting enough sleep is because you are not sleeping on a Helix Sleep mattress.
Working with the world's leading sleep expert, Helix Sleep, developed a mattress that is customized to your specific height, weight, and sleep preferences, so you can have the best sleep of your life at an unbeatable price.
So here's how it works.
You go to helixsleep.com, you fill out their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will design your custom mattress.
They can even customize each side for you and a partner.
And in 2018, Helix Sleep has taken customized sleep to the next level.
They have the Helix Pillow.
They're all new pills that are fully adjustable, so you can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type.
Helix Sleep has thousands of 5-star reviews, plus you get 100 nights to try them out.
If you don't like it, then they'll take it back.
Go to helixsleep.com slash ben right now and you get up to $125 toward your mattress order.
That's helixsleep.com slash ben, so you get $125 again.
Off your mattress order.
HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
And you get that special deal again.
Use that slash Ben so that they know that we sent you.
Their mattresses are terrific.
There's a reason that I sleep better at home than I sleep down the road.
One of them is that Helix Sleep mattress is what's underneath me when I am sleeping at home.
All right.
So, a lot in the news.
Obviously, the media are going absolutely apoplectic over the new James Comey book, which is supposedly filled with bombshells.
There's only one problem.
There are no bombshells in former FBI Director James Comey's new book.
First of all, James Comey called this thing a higher loyalty.
A loyalty to, like, the money?
Because if this was all stuff of vital public import, then why exactly did he wait a year and a book contract before coming out with it?
If he wants to demonstrate that he really is not in it for the cash, that he's really in it because he just wants to tell the truth, then he, like Stormy Daniels, could just give up the money.
He's not going to be doing that anytime soon.
And the media, I mean, they are so over the moon about this book, but they're really trying to make mountains out of not even molehills.
I mean, the stories in this book are nothing.
It's all James Comey's whiny opinions.
Chris Wallace, I think, said it best on Fox News.
He said, this book is incredibly bad.
And it really is.
And if you look at this book and you read the segments from it, That's really just nasty and petty and stupid.
That's at least what I'm getting from it because I'm not seeing any revelations here.
I'm not seeing anything that says to me, wow, this is something I didn't know.
Remember, James Comey was fired because President Trump wanted him to clear him in the Russia investigation publicly.
And James Comey said, you're not being investigated.
And Trump said, we'll say that publicly.
And Comey said, no.
And Trump said, fine, you're fired.
That's exactly what happened.
And now we're supposed to believe that something deep and nefarious happened.
Comey went on Capitol Hill.
He testified that Trump had not obstructed his Russia investigation in any way.
Trump just got rid of him because Trump apparently was unhappy with him that Comey would not publicly say the truth, which is that Trump was not the target of the investigation or even a subject of the investigation at the time.
Well, here are some of the revelations that the media are just going nuts over.
And it's wall-to-wall coverage of James Comey's book because this was a pre-set agenda.
There's a general point here to be made about the media that I think is relevant for people to understand over the last at least 15 to 20 years, most of my life in politics.
And that is, the media are trying to portray it right now as though we live in a Trump-centric universe.
We live in this universe where everything revolves around Trump.
Every story has to be refracted through the prism of Trump.
That's not true.
Okay, we actually live in a heliocentric universe, but the helios is not Trump.
The helios is the media.
Everything is about the media.
All stories are refracted through the prism of the media.
Trump is refracted through the prism of the media.
Trump is a satellite orbiting the media.
The media are the grand arbiters of what it is that you see and what it is that you hear.
And all of the politicians are speaking to, against, or through the media.
And this has never been clearer than it is with regard to how they are treating the Comey stuff.
Because the Comey stuff is not even a blip.
This book is not even a blip.
And this is not me coming at it from a, he's a political hack and all this kind of stuff.
This is just as objective as I can be about this.
If there had been a bombshell in here, I would have been happy to report it to you.
There is nothing.
Because Robert De Niro is Al Capone in The Untouchables.
untouchables.
He's got nothing.
There's nothing here.
Nothing.
Zero things.
And so let's go through some of the supposed revelations.
And first of all, he did an interview with George Stephanopoulos.
It's supposed to air on Sunday.
And here are some of the grand revelations.
Again, this is all petty nonsense.
Here's Stephanopoulos with Comey.
How graphic did you get?
I think as graphic as I needed to be.
I started to tell him about the allegation was that he had been involved with prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow in 2013 during a visit for the Miss Universe pageant and that the Russians had filmed the episode.
And he interrupted very defensively and...
I started talking about it.
You know, do I look like a guy who needs hookers?
And I assumed he was asking that rhetorically.
I didn't answer that.
And I just moved on and explained, sir, I'm not saying that we credit this.
I'm not saying we believe it.
We just thought it very important that you know.
Did you tell him you thought it wasn't true or you didn't know if it was true or not?
I never said I don't believe it because I couldn't say one way or another.
How weird was that briefing?
Really weird.
It was almost an out-of-body experience for me.
I was floating above myself, looking down, saying, you're sitting here briefing the incoming President of the United States about prostitutes in Moscow.
He says he may want me to investigate it to prove that it didn't happen.
And then he says, Something that distracted me, because he said, you know, if there's even a 1% chance my wife thinks that's true, that's terrible.
And I remember thinking, how could your wife think there's a 1% chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow?
I'm a flawed human being, but there's literally zero chance that my wife would think that was true.
So what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think there's only a 99% chance you didn't do that?
And I said to him, sir, When he started talking about it, I may order you to investigate that.
I said, sir, that's up to you.
But you'd want to be careful about that because it might create a narrative that we're investigating you personally.
And second, it's very difficult to prove something didn't happen.
Did you believe his denial?
I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth.
But I don't know whether the current president of the United States with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013.
It's possible.
Okay, this is such nonsense, stupidity.
Okay, there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Donald Trump was having prostitutes pee on him in Moscow.
Honestly, God, if the president wanted to—the president doesn't have to pay anyone to pee on him.
He's got the media doing it to him full-time for free.
Right?
George Stephanopoulos is peeing on him, OK?
He doesn't need Russian prostitutes doing it for him.
But James Comey sitting there and going, you know, it's just insane that the president of the United States would ask me to investigate this thing.
And then in the same breath, like literally in the same sentence saying, I don't know if it's true, though.
I mean, it's possible.
Well, if it's possible, then what are you complaining about him saying he wants it investigated to get to the bottom of it?
Like, you think it's sort of true.
And you're not the only one.
Like, Seth Meyers goes on TV last night, and he says, well, clearly if Trump was asking about it, then probably Trump was peed on by Russian prostitutes, which doesn't make any sense at all.
But it's amazing.
The entire media that went nuts over the pee tape for literally months is now deeply concerned that Donald Trump wanted that investigated and himself cleared of it.
Because how could he?
How could he do such a thing?
Well, maybe it's because you guys kept saying P-Tape over and over for weeks.
Probably it's that.
Here's Seth Meyers making a fool of himself.
Oh, my God.
It's real.
It has to be.
Why... Why would you ask the FBI director to investigate a P-Tape if you knew for a fact that P-Tape definitely didn't exist?
That's like me saying, can you make sure there isn't a tape of me in 1994 doing Thunder Road, a karaoke, and then barfing and then slipping on the barf and farting?
Okay, this is so stupid.
Again, if President Trump actually thought he were guilty of this, would he want the FBI looking into it?
The logic doesn't even make any sort of basic sense, but because the media are invested in making Trump into a mockery, they're going to say p-tape over and over and over and over again until all this is over.
Comey, of course, makes a bunch of other allegations in the book.
And again, he talked to Stephanopoulos about this.
Here's some more of what he had to say to George Stephanopoulos in his big primetime interview that's coming on Sunday.
Ooh, it's earth-shattering, except for the fact that all this is really about, as Nate Silver put it, not a man of the right.
Nate Silver says his book shouldn't be called A Higher Loyalty, it should be called A Higher Royalty.
Here is James Comey talking with Stephanopoulos.
President-elect Trump's first question was to confirm that it had no impact on the election.
And then the conversation, to my surprise, moved into a PR conversation about how the Trump team would position this and what they could say about this.
They actually started talking about drafting a press release with us still sitting there.
And the reason that was so striking to me is that that's just not done.
That the intelligence community does intelligence.
The White House does PR and spin.
OK, so are we supposed to believe that it's like a big deal that Trump doesn't know how government works?
Congratulations, he doesn't know how government works.
Wow, you've solved the Rubik's Cube here.
You've solved the riddle.
President Trump is not an expert on how the government works.
Shocker to everyone.
I'm sure everyone involved is just sitting around with their jaw slack to the floor.
What utter nonsense and silliness.
By the way, Comey said that he did not brief President Trump on the fact that this Fusion GPS dossier was originally funded by Democrats and Hillary Clinton.
He didn't reveal that to Trump because presumably he didn't want Trump tweeting that out.
That if he had known that the dossier was funded by the Democrats, he just would have said the dossier was funded by the Democrats.
And then that would have immediately undercut the credibility of the dossier.
So he said he didn't think it was relevant for Trump to know that.
Okay, so it's relevant for Trump to know about stupid allegations with no evidence to back them about a pee tape.
With Russians peeing on each other and him.
But it's not important at all for Trump to know that those allegations were being compiled by a firm being paid by Hillary Clinton.
Completely irrelevant.
Yeah, no, Comey's not a political actor at all.
Okay, so here are some of the other allegations that Comey makes in the book that are supposed to be earth-shattering.
So, he says that Well, he didn't, did he?
He's still around, is he not?
He is the White House chief of staff.
of the Department of Homeland Security and now the White House Chief of Staff.
And Kelly was, quote unquote, emotional over how Comey was fired.
Comey writes that Kelly was sick about the situation and intended to quit in protest.
Well, he didn't, did he?
He's still around, is he not?
He is the White House Chief of Staff.
So apparently, who cares?
Also, I love this, a couple other bombshells.
Apparently, Comey ridicules Trump for being shorter than he anticipated and described Trump as having half white, bright white half moons beneath his eyes.
He also argued that Trump's ties were too long, according to the Associated Press, and suggested that when he shook Trump's hand, he evaluated his hand size.
He said they might have been a little bit small, but not that much smaller than normal.
That's not petty and ridiculous.
That's not petty and silly.
No, this is deep stuff that we all have to know about.
I mean, James Comey is a man of honor.
He's a man of deep honor.
Sure, he blew the Hillary investigation.
Sure, he botched everything he touched since basically January 2016.
But no, he's a man of honor, don't you understand?
He's not out there grandstanding, you know, getting million dollar advances and then going on national TV to talk about Trump's hand size.
No, no.
He is a man of deep and abiding respect and honor for institutions.
Now, there are a couple of things in this book that are worth discussing, and I'll discuss them in just a second.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at the USCCA.
So, attention gun owners, I have a very big announcement that you're not going to want to miss.
Do you want a brand new gun for free?
Well, you're in luck, because the USCCA is adding serious bang to your April.
They are giving away a different gun every single day to a law-abiding citizen.
That's right, you could win a brand new gun every day this week.
And it's not just one gun.
You get up to 17 chances to win your gun daily.
It's only for a limited time.
Don't get left behind.
Just go to DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
to reveal which gun you could take home tomorrow.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Is it 1911 or maybe that new six hour you've had your eye on?
All I can say is that today's gun is one you have to see to believe.
So go to DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to see it and get entered to win it.
And hurry, because the gun of the day disappears at midnight.
Don't kick yourself tomorrow because you missed the gun you wanted today.
Go to DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to get up to 17 chances to win a new gun every day this week.
Again, the USCCA, you should be working with them anyway.
They provide you legal protection.
They provide you educational resources.
Go to DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to register.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to register and make sure that you have 17 shots at getting the gun of the day over at DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Armed citizens who are law-abiding make the country a better place and you can be one of them.
Go to DefendMyFamilyNow1.com right now.
Okay, so other revelations in the James Comey book include this one.
This is just what a self-serving sad sack James Comey is.
My goodness.
Okay, this is a legit quote from the book.
Comey writes that Obama, President Obama, sat alone with him in the Oval Office in late November and told him, quote, I picked you to be FBI director because of your integrity and your ability.
I want you to know that nothing, nothing has happened in the last year to change my view.
On the verge of tears, Comey told Obama, boy, were those words I needed to hear.
I'm just trying to do the right thing.
I know, Obama said.
I know.
Oh.
My.
Really?
Really?
Oh wow, Obama said that I'm a good guy.
He said I'm a good guy.
I almost cried when he said I was a good guy.
Okay, other things that are hilarious in this book.
So apparently, Comey says in the book that when he revealed late in the election, 10 days before the election, that Hillary Clinton, they were reopening the email investigation because Hillary's emails were found on the computer of the accused child pornographer, Anthony Weiner.
Yeah, this is really a guy who's just full-on credible.
I have to say, he is playing one of the great scams I have ever seen.
"it won't matter if I reveal this stuff now, "but if you thought that the election really close, "maybe you would have held it 'til after the election." Yeah, this is really a guy who's just full-on credible.
I have to say, he is playing one of the great scams I have ever seen.
I mean, this is a usual suspect level scam.
This is the sting level scam.
It's an amazing scam.
How good is this scam?
James Comey may have cost Hillary Clinton the election.
James Comey and his late breaking news in the election might have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.
And now the only people who love him are the people who voted for Hillary Clinton.
That is an unbelievable scam!
I mean boy oh boy if I could have thought of that one.
Cost Hillary the election and then turn on Trump and get all of the people who hated you to buy your book and declare you the most honest man in politics.
What a beautiful scam that is.
So apparently he also said in the book that as a prosecutor he used to tell juries trying to evaluate a witness that you can't cherry pick.
You can't say things like he's saying that's about Trump.
I like these things he said but on this he's a dirty rotten liar.
You got to take it all together.
So you got to wrap Trump up into a ball and then take it all at face value.
Okay, then why didn't you do that with Hillary Clinton?
Why did you pick and choose which facts you were to go over about Hillary Clinton?
Why is that a thing?
By the way, there is a serious question as to whether James Comey has violated his FBI review rules, right?
There are prohibited disclosures by the FBI.
FBI employees shall not disclose information that relates to the substantive merits of any ongoing or open investigation or case.
All of this said, James Comey may still be in violation of law, so we'll have to see how all of that shakes out.
President Trump has now responded to James Comey and it is indeed hilarious.
So here's President Trump's response.
He tweeted out a couple of things about James Comey and if you just think that America, you know, somehow we ended up in the alternative reality where Biff actually used the sports book to bet on games and then married Marty McFly's mom and somehow we ended up in that timeline.
You probably would not be wrong, because, I mean, this is a real thing that is happening right now, today, okay?
The president of the United States tweeted this out.
First of all, you have the former FBI director accusing the president of the United States of possibly having been peed on by Russian prostitutes, even though he has no evidence of it, and then jabbering ridiculously about the president's hand size.
And then you got the president.
So the president's sitting around the Oval Office, and Mr. President just, just, look, Comey's imploding.
Okay, just let him implode.
It's fine.
Everything's good.
Just stop, just stop.
But no, President Trump has to sound So, here's what the president wrote.
Pretty fantastic.
James Comey is a proven leaker and liar.
Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did until he was, in fact, fired.
He leaked classified information for which he should be prosecuted.
He lied to Congress under oath.
He is a weak and untruthful slimeball.
He was, as time has proven, a terrible director of the FBI.
His handling of the crooked Hillary Clinton case, capital C, and the events surrounding it will go down as one of the worst botched jobs of history.
It was my great honor to fire James Comey.
Boom.
Roasted.
Okay, he didn't actually say boom roasted, but he probably should have.
Because, I mean, come on!
First of all, slime ball, untruthful slime ball is pretty good.
Slime ball and pee tape is going to be a fantastic morning show somewhere.
It's going to be like, welcome to the morning show with slime ball and pee tape.
It's just, this is our politics now.
President of the United States being accused of pee tapes, former FBI director being an untruthful slime ball.
Pretty, pretty spectacular stuff.
Abraham Lincoln looks on and weeps, but, you know, this is the country that we have, and we've brought it upon, we bought the ticket, we take the ride, my friends.
You know, this is the way it works.
It wouldn't have been, you know, in some ways, we wouldn't have gotten this with Hillary, but we've gotten some pretty crappy stuff with Hillary, but I will say, it wouldn't have been this much fun.
This is pretty, this is pretty wild.
So, the best part of this is John Brennan, who's the former head of the CIA, right?
John Brennan, who's a political hack.
just par excellence.
So he responds to the, he was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Obama, and he responds with this.
This is, I love this so much.
So Donald Trump calls James Comey an untruthless snowball.
And John Brennan fights back with this.
He says, your cacistocracy is collapsing after its lamentable journey.
As the greatest nation in history has known, we have the opportunity to emerge from this nightmare stronger and more committed to ensuring a better life for all Americans, including those you have so tragically deceived.
So a cacistocracy, by the way, is a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified or most unscrupulous citizens, for those who don't know.
But I just, like, I love that.
Donald Trump calls Comey a liar, a leaker, and a slimeball.
And John Brennan replies with kakistocracy and lamentable.
Pretty spectacular.
There are a lot of memes going around this morning on Twitter.
And people saying things like, me at the dry cleaners.
Why is my dry cleaning late?
The dry cleaner.
Your cactus-tocracy is collapsing after its lamentable journey.
Oh, the ego, the pretension, the stupidity.
I'm not sure I've ever seen anything quite like it.
It is pretty spectacular in virtually every way.
And again, all of this is just getting more ridiculous.
So there was a report yesterday, and it just shows how the media is malfeasance in all of this.
There was a report yesterday that President Trump had supposedly fathered an illegitimate child.
There's no evidence that he fathered an illegitimate child.
There's something called American Media Inc.
They own the National Enquirer, and they allegedly paid 30 grand to a guy named Dino Sijudin, who was a doorman for Trump.
For the rumor about Trump having an affair with his maid in the 1980s and fathering a child with her, apparently.
Okay, so, here's the problem.
Nobody has been able to determine if the rumor is true.
So instead, what the media do is they report that the National Enquirer paid $30,000 for the story and then killed it.
So they're saying the real story is that Trump and his friends kill lots of stories about Trump.
But what they're really reporting, obviously, is the salacious rumor that President Trump has a little Trump running around somewhere that we don't know about.
My only question is whether this is the same maid who had an affair with Arnold Schwarzenegger, because that would be a pretty good record, right?
I mean, if you have a kid by Schwarzenegger and a kid by Trump, and nobody knows about it, that's pretty spectacular.
But it is worth noting that this doorman's ex-wife said, quote, he's infamous for making up stories.
He's seen the chupacabra.
He's seen Bigfoot.
One of our friends who passed away, he saw him, too, walking down the street.
But they're printing this story anyway, demonstrating once again that this is what the media are.
The media are just a bunch of rumor mongers who are seeking to get President Trump, and this is why they're on Comey, and this is why they're on this.
No wonder people don't believe the quote-unquote fake news.
Meanwhile, something intensely stupid was happening in Congress.
And this, I have some serious comments about.
Cory Booker is just an awful senator.
He was a bad mayor.
He was a guy who grand—I mean, talk about people who grandstand.
Talk about egos in politics.
You have to talk about Cory Booker, a guy who did the whole food stamp challenge where he pretended that people on food stamps are living only on the food they get through food stamps, which is not true.
It is called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Supplemental, as in like beyond the food that you already buy.
Cory Booker did that.
He was famous for posturing and grandstanding.
He was very pro-Israel when he was mayor of New Jersey.
Now, of course, he's very anti-Israel as a senator from New Jersey.
And Cory Booker, of course, is the guy who also did his famous kind of screaming routine, Who was it against?
The one where he's making the funny hands, the jazz hands, and he went crazy on somebody in Congress, and it was really ridiculous.
Well, now he's doing it again.
This time it's with Mike Pompeo.
So Mike Pompeo, who's the former head of the CIA, and now is being nominated for the Secretary of State position, he is brought up on charges by Cory Booker.
And Cory Booker asks him the most ridiculous question I've ever seen asked in Congress by anyone at any time ever.
Which is saying a lot, because Congress is filled with people of low IQ.
Cory Booker, man, he takes the cake.
Here's Cory Booker asking Mike Pompeo, I kid you not, about what he thinks about gay sex.
I am not kidding.
This is a thing that happened and is now in the congressional record, the same congressional record that hosts debates between Daniel Webster and his opponents.
Has Cory Booker asking Mike Pompeo what he thinks of sodomy?
No joke.
Here it is.
Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion?
Yes or no?
Senator, if I can... Yes or no, sir.
Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion?
Because that's what you said here in one of your speeches.
Yes or no, do you believe gay sex is a perversion?
Senator, I'm going to give you the same answer I just gave you previously.
My respect for every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, is the same.
Have you seen Brokeback Mountain?
Did you cry?
Did you make a weird face when Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal were going at it?
Mr. Presumptive Secretary?
Did you like Moonlight?
Were you a little turned on during that beach scene?
Because if not, I'm not sure you can be Secretary of State.
Did you watch Call Me By Your Name in slow motion?
Did you?
Did you see the scene with the peach?
What did you think of it?
Hmm?
Like, what in the world?
What in the world?
Like, this is a thing that's happening now.
No matter how crazy you think the Republicans are—everybody, I'm not even talking Republicans now—no matter how crazy you think Republicans are, folks, this is, like, beyond.
Okay?
It's supremely crazy.
So I got into a bait about this with a friend of mine named Jane Koston over at Vox.
So what's funny about this is that Jane originally, if you'll recall a few months back, wrote a pretty nasty piece about me for the New York Times.
But being a genial sort of fellow, I reached out and now we're pretty friendly.
Jane is a lesbian and she was very much in favor of this line of questioning.
And so I was wondering what in the world, like why does it matter what exactly Mike Pompeo thinks of gay sex?
Like does he have to watch gay porn in order to be, in order for him, like show us how much you like gay sex.
Mister?
Mister, if you want me to vote for your confirmation, you are going to have to show me how much you enjoy subscribing to Playgirl.
Right now!
Show me your subscription!
Sir!
Sir!
Okay, so why exactly is this relevant?
So Jane was trying to make the argument that as a public official, Mike Pompeo should feel good about gay sex because he's going to have to defend the rights of gay people.
This is, I think, a very foolish argument.
First of all, this is plainly religious bigotry.
Virtually every religious person in the United States, every deeply religious person, every Bible-believing person in the United States believes that homosexual activity is a sin.
I'm an Orthodox Jew.
I believe homosexual activity is a sin.
Now, welcome to a free country where I think the government should not be involved in anybody's sex life.
I've been libertarian on the gay marriage issue longer than Barack Obama, right?
And with all of this, I mean, I've been saying since legit 2012, 2011, that there should be a libertarian position from the government on same-sex marriage.
I can believe both things, right?
I believe lots of things are sinful.
As a religious person, I think that it's sinful for you to be a racist.
I also think that you have a right to be a racist in the United States because we have something called free speech.
I think that it's sinful.
I think lots of things in life are sinful.
I think that it is sinful for you to marry your aunt.
But do I have like a specific, you know, real concern about people marrying their aunts in terms of public policy?
Not like especially.
I don't think it's a major issue on the plate right now.
I think that it's sinful to take drugs, but I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to marijuana, for example.
So again, this is how most religious people in the United States think.
They think that there is a difference between what I religiously believe to be a sin and what the government should police.
And what Cory Booker should be asking here is, what is your perspective on how gay people abroad should be treated?
And Mike Pompeo just said, they should be treated with the same respect according to anybody else.
Which is perfectly acceptable.
But what I think Jane was getting at, and what Booker is actually getting at, is something a little bit deeper, which is, their suggestion is that they don't believe you.
That they don't believe me.
If I say that I think that homosexual activity is a sin, but I also think that it's a free country, you're free to think I'm an idiot, and you're free to disobey me, and you're free to do whatever you want.
I mean, I can't give you orders, you're an adult, do whatever the hell you want, right?
That if I say that, I must not be sincere if I think something's a sin.
In order for me to believe that you have a right to something, I have to believe that thing is good.
This is a really dangerous mentality.
It's the same mentality that, on the flip side, says on the left, that there is no First Amendment except for rhetoric we like.
Because, obviously, everyone believes that, right?
The only way that you should agree with the First Amendment free speech right to say something is if you agree with the thing being said.
That, of course, destroys the concept of the First Amendment.
The whole purpose of freedom is that you have freedom to do things that I may not like.
That's the whole purpose of freedom.
If we all did the same things, you wouldn't need freedom.
Freedom would be irrelevant.
But that's not the question being asked.
So the real implication here, the real implication of course, is that if you're a religious Christian, you cannot be the Secretary of State.
That's what Cory Booker really is saying.
He's saying that if you're a religious Christian and you believe homosexual activity is a sin, even if you're libertarian, governmentally, even if you think that the United States should defend the rights of people all over the world on these issues, You really don't believe it because secretly, deep down, you have animus toward gay sex.
You don't like watching gay people go at it.
Or you think it's sinful.
It is a religious test, right?
It is prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.
What Cory Booker is doing here right now is a religious test.
He is saying, if you are a religious Christian and you believe the Bible, you cannot be Secretary of State.
That's what this says.
Now, the great irony of this, the thing that's really incredible about this, is Cory Booker then goes on to question Mike Pompeo about Frank Gaffney and Bridget Gabriel.
So, Frank Gaffney runs the Center for Security Policy.
Very, very hawkish.
Very hard on Islam, and radical Islam in particular.
Bridget Gabriel runs something called Act for America.
Which is also a group that is opposed to the influence of Sharia law and radical Islam.
Now I may not agree with everything that Frank and Bridget say, but the idea that anyone who's ever associated with Frank and Bridget is somehow guilty of some grave sin is simply ridiculous.
Bridget Gabriel is a Christian Lebanese woman who was forced to live for years in like an 8x10 bunker because of Islamic terrorism in Lebanon.
So she has a pretty good case to make against Islamic terror.
But there's another thing here that's really funny.
Listen to Cory Booker go after Pompeo on his association with Gaffney and Gabriel.
Were you silent in your position of authority against these words that are violative of the American Constitution?
Were you silent with him?
Senator, my record on this is unambiguous.
Sir, if that's your response, you did not say anything to call out his remarks.
What about Bridget Gabriel?
Do you know her?
I do.
Someone who has been, who runs an organization that has been considered a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Were you silent?
Did you ever call her out on her remarks that are hateful or bigoted?
Senator, I've spoken to a number of groups in my, I believe my record with respect to tolerance and the equal treatment.
Okay, so here's the part that's really funny.
Okay, so what he's asking about specifically, because I looked up what the ADL says about Bridget and what they say about Frank.
They basically say the same thing about Bridget that they say about Frank.
What they say about both is, both of them have said that you can't really be a good American citizen if you are a fundamentalist Muslim.
If you are a religious Muslim, you can't be a good American citizen.
Now, that is something with which I disagree, depending on how you define religious Muslim.
If you're defining religious Muslim as radical Muslim, then sure.
If you're defining religious Muslim as somebody who goes to mosque, then of course not.
But here's the part that's hilarious about what Booker is doing here.
What Booker just said to Mike Pompeo is, if you are a religious Christian, you cannot be Secretary of State because you believe that homosexual activity is a sin.
But you also cannot be Secretary of State if you say that members of a particular religion might not make good citizens.
You see a little bit of a contradiction here?
So in other words, Cory Booker says that if you say that Islam is not compatible with democracy, then that is bigoted.
Which, you know, might be sorta like a quarter to half true.
Okay, but then he says, if you're a Christian, then that's not compatible with democracy.
So how is this working exactly?
How is this working exactly?
But it shows the extremism of the left.
Again, if President Trump wants to get reelected, all he has to do is somehow convince the left to nominate Cory Booker, who is a complete nutjob.
Joe Biden is obviously considering a White House run in 2020, and he is making noises, saying like, well, I'm not gonna run if there's somebody else on the Democratic side who can win.
And then, of course, he's going to run, because he's going to say there's no one else on the Democratic side who can win.
The big problem for the Democrats is that Joe Biden might be the only guy who really has a credible shot of beating Trump.
It ain't Cory Booker.
It ain't Kyrsten Gillibrand.
It certainly ain't Kamala Harris.
All three of those people are too busy ensconced in their own identity politics of stupidity and alienating vast swathes of America to ever win the presidency.
So here is Biden basically launching his presidential run.
I'm really hoping that some other folks step up.
I think we have some really good people.
Rev, I know Brock always asks me that question.
And he said, what's going to make the decision?
I got to be able to look in the mirror.
And if I walk away, no, I'm not walking away because I'm afraid or I'm worried about losing or that I just don't want to take on the responsibility.
I got to walk away knowing that it is there's somebody who can do it and can win because we've got to win.
We've got to win in 2020.
OK, so Biden obviously thinks he's the best shot at doing that.
And here's the problem for Biden.
Biden may be too moderate for the modern Democratic Party.
He could be.
He might be too moderate.
He might not be identity politics enough.
He might not be wildly, crazily anti-Trump enough.
Ted Lieu, who's a congressman from out here in California, he says, listen, if we take the House, we're going to go full-scale investigation, balls to the wall, right?
Wall-to-wall investigations of President Trump.
Nothing would be better calibrated to win Trump re-election than extremism on the part of Democrats.
American voters have an inflection point this November.
They can change the makeup of Congress and give Democrats subpoena power, and then we will conduct real investigation.
Okay, if this is the direction the Democrats want to go, then Trump really does have a shot.
Again, the Cory Booker Democratic Party is not a winning party.
Now, I'm going to get to the mailbag in just a second.
For that, you're going to have to go over to DailyWire.com.
So check out DailyWire.com, get the rest of the show live, ask your questions right now, right?
If you subscribe in like the next 10 seconds, then you get to ask me questions live right now by going to our Daily Wire chat room and asking questions in the window.
And then we'll answer those questions live on air for your listening and viewing enjoyment.
So check that out.
You also get the rest of Klavan's show live and Michael Knowles' show live and all the other goodies we're putting behind the paywall.
You get all of that.
Plus, if you want the annual subscription, you get this.
The very greatest in beverage vessels, the leftist tiers, hot or cold.
Tumblr, $9.99 a month, gets you this.
The very greatest in all vessels that hold beverages subscription.
So check that out as well.
It's cheaper than the monthly.
And you get this cup to show all your friends and take them off.
So that's pretty fun.
If you just want to listen later, go over to iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube.
Please subscribe.
Please leave us a review.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Alrighty, so time for some mailbags.
So, let's jump right in.
Elias says, hey Ben, I'm a big fan of the show.
Oh yes, aren't we all?
Well, any guild is to blame for elevated legal fees.
One of the big problems in the United States is licensure, the problem of suggesting that every different industry has to be licensed.
So, in Arizona right now, there's a big fight over their hairdressers have to be licensed.
Why in the world should you have to be licensed to be a hairdresser?
If you are a girl, you've been dressing your own hair since the time you were very, very young.
So I'm not sure why exactly you need a government license in order to cut somebody's hair.
It's just ridiculous.
The same thing is true in law.
Law school, I went there.
I went to the top law school in America, by most standards.
And that law school, the first year was useful, and the last two years were a waste of time.
And you learn more in studying for the bar than you actually did anywhere else.
And then you didn't learn anything that you really needed to know until you actually started working for a law firm and drawing up contracts and doing all that stuff.
I think apprenticeships would go a lot further than the guild system they have, where you're licensed to become a member of the bar, for example.
I returned to school after my service as an army officer to pursue an MD.
I recently got married.
Both of us want kids.
As I'm sure you can relate to, we are now both in our early 30s and we are not getting any younger.
As a man, I feel like I have an obligation to my wife and future children to financially support them, but that is not feasible for me for a very long time.
I won't even begin my residency for another six years.
I'm torn between continuing to pursue my career goals or my family goals.
Thank you for your advice.
My wife and I listen to you every day together.
Well, first of all, my real suspicion is that there is a way for you and your wife to have children while you are in medical school, even if you are supposed to be the breadwinner.
And that is, you know, the student loans are available.
There are people who are living on student loans who have kids.
If you are an MD, it's pretty easy to get a student loan, considering that they know you're going to be making money on the other end of the MD.
So I would urge you to look at all the financial solutions available.
I'd also urge you to go to your local church and talk with people about the possibility of being given a loan.
You know, I know that if there were people in my synagogue who needed a loan to go to medical school and they wanted to have a kid, that I'd be looking, giving them a loan.
You know, the charity is definitely something that's worthwhile here.
I don't think you should miss your childbearing years to go to medical school.
But, I mean, another possibility is that you have kids right now, you work for a few years, build up a little mustache, and then go to medical school.
That's a possibility, too.
I think life presents you a number of ways of slicing this particular egg, and I think that it shouldn't be worth giving up the most important thing you can do in life, which is having children and rearing them, because you have career aspirations.
Again, I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
Well, I'm glad that you enjoy your bull and branch sheets, Josh.
They are, indeed, fantastic.
Do I think we'll get involved in Syria?
I think that we'll be involved in Syria slightly more than we are currently.
I don't think we're going to full-scale war in Syria.
I don't think there's a public support for it.
I don't think there's a good strategy for it.
I think the idea of toppling Assad would require enormous amounts of manpower, money, blood.
I don't think anybody wants that.
I think the best we can do is try to check Iranian ambition in the region and let our regional allies do some heavier work around the Mideast in order to minimize their influence.
Kirk says, So, the fair tax, from what I recall, depending on the, there are different fair tax proposals, but the fair tax is essentially a national sales tax.
It gets rid of the income tax.
The flat tax says there's an income tax, but you, but it is flat across the board.
I tend to be more in favor of the fair tax.
I like the idea of a national sales tax because being taxed for per transaction on consumption is easier to monitor, and then it's also up to you what you want to do with your money.
If you want to buy things, then you're going to be taxed on it.
If you don't want to buy things, then you won't be taxed on it.
The same thing is not true of income tax.
The idea of having to turn over to the government how much money I owe on a regular basis.
If you could eliminate, let's put it this way, if you could eliminate either the sales tax or the income tax, I would eliminate the income tax.
In the state of California, we have both.
I would eliminate the income tax because I think it is much easier for people to play class warfare with the income tax than it is for them to play class warfare with the sales tax because rich people do buy more stuff than poor people.
Okay, Kenny says, Hey Ben, I was wondering your thoughts on the prenuptial agreement.
I've heard both sides.
If you do one, your marriage is doomed.
Or if you're going to be together forever, who cares?
Your thoughts.
Thank you, huge fan.
I'm not against prenuptial agreements.
Basically, Judaism almost mandates them.
That's what a ketubah is.
A ketubah is a marital document that actually includes the divorce amount.
That if I divorce my wife, it actually says in my ketubah how much money I owe her.
In fact, this is a really funny story.
In the Jewish community, particularly in the Sephardic Jewish community, there's sort of a tradition of haggling over the amount of money in the ketubah.
Right, like how much, and you haggle usually, not with your wife, because that would be real awkward, but with her parents very often.
And so I remember, I went to talk, one day I was up in Sacramento, which is where my in-laws live, and my in-laws, my father-in-law comes up to me, this is right before I was getting married, and he says, Ben, he's Israeli, he says, Ben, I have to have a very serious conversation with you.
And I said, okay.
And he says, I thought, okay, something bad's coming here.
And he says, I just want to talk to you about the amount in the ketubah.
I said, I don't care what you put in there.
I'm not getting divorced, so whatever you want.
He said, no, no, no, really, what do you want to put in there?
And I said, well, as I said, I don't care.
Put a hundred million dollars.
And he goes, my daughter isn't worth $100 million.
Put $10 million.
So that's what's in the ketubah, is $10 million.
But I'm not anti-prenuptial agreement.
I think that thinking through the consequences of your actions early is probably not a terrible idea.
And it depends.
I mean, it's the mentality going in.
I think that if you say to your wife, or your prospective wife, listen, I want you to be guaranteed a certain amount of money if things should go south.
This is actually my guarantee to you that things will go well.
It depends what you're looking for in the prenup.
If what you're looking for in the prenup is, You get off scot-free, then I think your wife has a reason to be suspicious.
If what you're putting in the prenup is, here's a liquidated damages provision that makes this, you know, pretty likely to be locked in, then I think that is not a terrible idea by any stretch of the imagination.
So, I do not have a separate bank account for my wife.
I trust my wife with our finances and I'm not concerned she's going to be stealing our money.
your thoughts on separate bank accounts for married couples.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
So I do not have a separate bank account for my wife.
I trust my wife with our finances, and I'm not concerned she's going to be stealing our money.
Also, I think that full transparency is good in marriage when it comes to finances.
Having separate bank accounts seems to me a mistake.
If you can't trust somebody enough to handle money with you, you can't trust them enough to raise children with you.
As far as the best personal finance book, I really think that a lot of what Dave Ramsey says is really terrific.
I think Dave Ramsey's program is quite good, and I know a lot of people have been helped by Dave Ramsey's program particularly.
Brian says, I read an article on the Daily Wire about South Carolina trying to leave the USA if Second Amendment is repealed.
What is the chance this happens?
And if they are successful in passing that bill, what other states will follow?
Well, you know, I don't know.
They could presumably pass a bill now to do that.
But the Civil War basically answered the question as to whether states can secede from the Union if they feel that their rights have been violated.
By the way, the Second Amendment is never going to be repealed.
The repeal of an amendment requires two thirds of states, three fifths, two thirds of Congress and three fifths of all states Yeah, I'm anti-property tax.
I'm anti-virtually all forms of taxation.
I think sales tax is probably the only kind that—it's the least objectionable kind, in other words.
worry.
Tyler says, "What's your opinion on property taxes?
Do you think they violate the founders idea of owning property since in some states you are essentially renting your property from the government?" Yeah, I'm anti-property tax.
I'm anti-virtually all forms of taxation.
I think sales tax is probably the only kind that, it's the least objectionable kind in other words.
But the idea that I'm supposed to keep paying taxes on property that I bought 10 years ago, 15 years ago, as though I'm renting from the I think that's just absurd.
I think it's ridiculous.
Well, I think, frankly, that everybody was shocked that Donald Trump won the presidency.
It's very likely the Republicans lose the House in 2018, and the upcoming generation of millennials is really, really anti-Republican.
Something like 55-21, Democrat over Republican.
That is not a great indicator for the future of Republicanism.
I was saying that a little bit hyperbolically.
I think that the chances that Republicans will never control all branches of government again is low.
I never think it's the end of the world.
But I think that the near future does not look particularly bright for Republicans on the federal scale.
It looks better on the state level.
Yes.
So the Jewish perspective on heaven is that if you fulfill seven basic commandments, then you go to heaven.
And these commandments are really, really basic.
It's like, don't kill people, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't cut flesh from a living animal, believe in God, establish courts of law.
It's all very, very basic stuff.
They're called the seven commandments that were given to the sons of Noah.
And in Judaism, everybody who is not a son of Abraham is considered a son of Noah.
Okay, so if you're outside B'nai Yisrael, or son of Jacob, then you are considered a son of Noah and subject to those particular laws.
Okay, Brad says, What is your position on the various sacrificial positions taken against animals in Leviticus?
As an Orthodox Jew, why would you not follow these things?
This is a serious question as I read the Bible.
Meaning, am I pro or anti-sacrifice?
So there's a lively debate inside Jewish commentators over what exactly the purpose of the animal sacrifices were in the Temple.
So Rambam, Maimonides, he says the purpose of animal sacrifices were to wean people away from animal sacrifices.
That basically pagan societies embraced animal sacrifices and really liked animal sacrifices.
And so what the Torah did was it said instead of you performing animal sacrifices to propitiate the gods, instead of that, what it's going to be is that we're going to regularize this stuff.
It's not going to be you slaughtering animals in your backyard.
You have to go to a centralized site that is run by priests who are worshiping God, and then you're going to have to be thinking about your relationship with God every time an animal is slaughtered in order for us to make this non-holy activity holy.
That's Maimonides' perspective.
Maimonides' perspective says that in the future, in Judaism, when the temple is re-established, then there may not be animal sacrifices at all.
That's a significant possibility.
And then there are people who say that the whole purpose of these sacrifices is to remind you that, really, you've committed sins that make your life forfeit.
And it's only through God's mercy that you are not being killed right now.
And the brutality of animal sacrifice is not supposed to be pleasant.
It's supposed to be unpleasant.
It's supposed to remind you that you are an animal unless you supersede your animalistic instincts and become something more.
Rachel says, what is your favorite Disney Pixar movie?
Well, the best five minutes of a Disney Pixar movie are the first five minutes of Op, bar none.
The first five minutes of Op are just incredible.
The rest of the movie's good, but I'm not sure that it holds all the way.
You know what?
Let me look up a real, a really quick list of all the Disney Pixar films, because now I want to try to remember.
What all of them are.
So, I thought Inside Out was quite good.
I liked Toy Story 3.
I thought it was really terrific.
I'm usually not a sequels fan, but I thought Toy Story 3 was really first rate.
Just in terms of fun, I thought Monsters University was quite good.
There's some fun stuff in Ratatouille.
I'd probably have to go Toy Story 3.
I'd probably have to say Toy Story 3 is my favorite.
Although, again, I think Toy Story 2 is quite good.
I actually don't like the original Toy Story very much.
Brayden says, hey Ben, I'm a college student and in class the other day my teacher told the class that we are all illegal immigrants because our ancestors stole the land from Native Americans and we have no legal rights to the land and saying we have no room to talk if we are against illegal immigration.
Since I've never heard that argument before, I had no way to combat the ridiculous statement, so I was wondering how you would respond.
Well, there are a couple of different responses here.
So one is sort of the founding response, which is that in order to stake a claim to a land, you have to have permanent presence on the land, and you have to cultivate it, right?
This is the Lockean response to property ownership, which is why there is such a thing in Western law called the adverse possession, which is if I own a piece of land and I just leave it fallow for 100 years, I just buy it, leave it there, and you go and you live on it, and you set up a house, and then you set up a farm, and you live there for 20 years, and I come back and I say, what are you doing on my land?
That I can't actually kick you off.
You have now adversely possessed the land because you're cultivating it, and I am not.
If Native Americans didn't cultivate the land in a way that amounted to essential ownership, then they didn't have the properties of ownership of land.
Second of all, even if you put that argument aside, which is, you know, a dicey argument in some ways, then certainly one thing is true.
Population movement has been happening forever.
Many of the Native American tribes that were present at the founding of the United States were actually relatively recent arrivals in that part of the United States.
So, Native tribes dispossessed each other.
And Native tribes during certain portions of American history dispossessed settlers.
Settlers dispossessed American tribes.
That's not to say that brutal treatment of Native Americans was justified in any way.
What it is to say is that if we're going to pretend that land is not transferred between peoples, then that is silly.
And sovereign governments do have the right to push people to set their borders.
Sovereign governments have a right to set their borders.
And then the question becomes, can you defend it?
So if you're not willing to defend it, then you're not defending it on a practical level.
But the question as to whether the United States has a right to defend its border because Native Americans were incapable of defending their borders against original American settlers, I don't see really how that follows.
There's two questions.
One is the moral and one is the practical.
On a moral level, there are two questions.
Is it immoral to dispossess people of their land as a general rule?
The answer is generally yes.
The second question is, is this unprecedented in human history or is it the regular way things work?
Practically speaking, the answer is yes.
And then the third question is, practically speaking, can states defend their borders?
And morally speaking, can they defend their borders?
And the answer on both of those is yes.
Okay, one more question.
Let's see, Santino says, Hey Ben, I've recently switched my major from music education to political science.
I've been having a real hard time dealing with this only because the university I'm attending gave me a full tuition scholarship for music, but I just don't have a passion for it anymore.
I'm stuck in a situation now where I'm gonna have to pay for college dry cut without any financial assistance as my parents do not understand the financial aid process one bit.
Well, I'm sorry I blew it up for you, dude.
Well, I can say this.
I would say that the general rule is that you're going to make more money being a poli-sci major than a music major.
There are a lot of very poor music majors.
Poli-sci majors, you can go into journalism, you can go into law, you can go into teaching, you can go into accounting, right?
I mean, poli-sci leaves a lot of doors open.
And so, I think that you'll be able to make a living, but you should decide what it is about poli-sci that you like.
Do you want to work in government?
Do you want to work outside government?
Do you want to work at a place like Daily Wire?
And then there's a set of steps that you can take to facilitate your goals.
And I would just say keep your eye on the prize and come up with a plan.
Feel free to email me, by the way, and I'm happy to send you some steps if you send me your goals, like some steps that I think would be useful for you to take in pursuit of those goals.
Okay, time for some things that I like and then some things I hate, and then that'll be the end of the week.
So let's go to things I like.
So first off, Slow clap for Rosamund Pike.
So Rosamund Pike is the actress from Gone Girl, you'll remember, and she was speaking to Uproxx, and she was asked about the possibility of a female James Bond.
And here's what she said.
So what she said was, I'd just say write a new story.
James Bond is a character that Ian Fleming created.
Of course, the Brad has become bigger and whatever, but take one of the Bond girls and give her her own story.
I think the character of James Bond is a man.
He is, really.
To have such a character in a completely independent series, why should a woman sort of get sloppy seconds?
Why should she have once been a man, and now it has to be played by a woman?
Why not make her a kick-ass female agent in her own right?
And she said that swapping a woman in to play such an iconically male role would be to underestimate a woman entirely.
There's nothing really about the James Bond characters written by Ian Fleming that resembles a woman.
It's a very masculine creation.
So sure, make her an unapologetic, unexpected, kick-ass, amazing female agent, and yes, I'll play her.
How is this even a difficult question?
Obviously, Rosamund Pike is right.
She must be listening to the Ben Shapiro show.
I've been saying this for years about the James Bond stupidity.
But it's amazing that it takes Rosamund Pike to cut through the crap here.
Well done, Rosamund Pike.
Now I'm going to see your movies more often, because I like that so much.
OK, other things that I like.
So yesterday, I played a little bit of Guys and Dolls for you.
There's a little-known musical by the same people who wrote Guys and Dolls, well, Frank Lester, who wrote Guys and Dolls.
It's called The Most Happy Fellow.
It really is Cyrano de Bergerac.
For people who don't know the original Cyrano de Bergerac, Cyrano de Bergerac is the story of a soldier who has a really big nose.
They did a version of this called Roxanne with Steve Martin.
And the soldier, he has a really big nose.
He falls in love with a woman who he is afraid of wooing because he is so ugly.
And so there's another guy who falls in love with her as well.
And he starts basically using that guy as a proxy for his own feelings.
So he writes love letters on behalf of this other guy.
The woman falls in love with the love letters of Cyrano de Bergerac.
But she's falling in love with the other guy because she thinks he's the one writing them.
And of course, that ends up being not the reality.
Most Happy Fellow is a sort of modernized take on that.
In this case, there's an older Italian fellow who falls in love with a waitress at a diner and invites her out to his Napa Valley winery.
And he has sent her a picture of somebody else who works on the farm.
And the first time she meets him, she realizes that he's actually ugly.
And this is what it sounds like.
Happy to make your acquaintance.
Thank you so much, I feel fine.
Happy to make your acquaintance.
To make your acquaintance.
And let me say the pleasure is mine.
So it's, you know, this is the fun part of the musical.
It gets very dark in certain points.
And again, it's a very modernized version because in the plot, what actually ends up happening with this woman is she, the guy who he's using as the stand-in, actually sleeps with her and impregnates her and then takes off.
And now the Italian guy has to decide whether or not he wants her, whether he likes her, whether, you know, what he thinks of her.
It's really interesting in a lot of ways.
And the woman who, the woman who's playing the lead right here actually ended up marrying the guy who wrote the musical, Frank Lesser.
Time for a couple of things that I hate.
All righty, so this is a pretty amazing clip.
So there is a speech at a law school at CUNY.
And the associate professor of South Texas College of Law in Houston, Josh Blackman, visited the college to speak on the topics of originalism and the importance of free speech on campus.
And here is what it looked like when he went to speak.
And then the answer is to change the law.
Why don't you support people?
Why don't you support people?
Well, f*** the law, right?
That's a very good thing.
You're in law school, right?
And it's a bizarre thing to say f*** the law when you're in law school.
It's not a law.
It Well, if you let me speak, let me speak.
So f*** the law, right?
That's a good mantra.
Okay, so this is an amazing thing and it does demonstrate how insane everybody has become.
F*** the law.
This is legitimately law students who are standing there saying f*** the law.
He's saying the law doesn't allow this and they say f*** the law.
Yeah, this is the tolerant, diverse left at their finest.
F the law at a law school with a law professor.
Just geniuses of highest order.
The future of our country is bright, obviously.
All right, final thing that I hate.
So Joy Behar over on The View, she says that the only thing that's saving the country right now is not the sanity of the people surrounding President Trump.
It's not President Trump.
It's not Congress.
It's not the constitutional structure.
It's the sanity of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.
We're at a point in this world now where we have to rely on the sanity of Kim Jong-un and Putin over the President of the United States.
That's where we're at.
We're hoping, because here's one of the Russian Prime Ministers, one of the guys over there said, we do not do diplomacy by tweet.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, okay, that's just sheer ridiculous nonsense.
The idea that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are the stabilizers of the universe is insane.
Russia came out today and said that Britain was responsible for the gassing of people in Syria.
Britain.
You can't come up with a better story than that?
That's who's sanity Joy Behar's relying on?
Makes me question Joy Behar's sanity.
But, you know, I'll have to discuss that with her when finally they invite me on The View.
I mean, what the hell, guys?
I was told months ago that this was a possibility.
Or are you just afraid?
What's the story?
I'm going to dare you now.
I dare you.
Bring it.
OK, let's do this thing.
Come on.
OK, fine.
Well, now we're at the weekend.
And so have yourself a merry little weekend.
We'll be back here on Monday with all the latest news.
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