Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 16, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:07

The Full Comey | Ep. 518

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	James Comey gets his two-hour special, President Trump attacks Syria, and the March for Science takes place.
	It is massive, meaning no one showed up.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	So as you can tell, I am in fine form this morning.
	I'm here with a cold and up at five in the morning since my wife is on rotation, so everything is awesome.
	But don't worry, everything is also awesome in the world of politics.
	I will describe for you all of the crazy that happened over the weekend.
	No Disneyland for anyone.
	I took my kids to Disneyland yesterday.
	If you're a fan of mine and you were there yesterday, that was strictly forbidden.
	You're not allowed because obviously I told you not to ruin things over the weekend as always and I said there would be no Disneyland for you if you did continue to ruin things and yet things have been ruined and I will discuss all of those things in just a minute.
	First I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Keeps.
	So Keeps is the easiest way to keep your hair.
	Right now you're thinking, well I'm a young buck.
	I'm not going to lose my hair anytime soon.
	Wrong you are!
	Take a look at your pops.
	And the good shot is that your hair will be gone before you know it, which is why you need Keeps.
	Keeps offers the only two hair loss products that are clinically proven to keep the hair that you have.
	You can sign up in less than five minutes and Keeps is entirely online, only $10 to $35 a month.
	So it's a buck a day or less on average, which is half of what you typically pay at the pharmacy.
	And getting started is really, really easy.
	All you do is go to Keeps.com and then a licensed doctor will remotely review your information and give you the right prescription.
	All without ever leaving your couch.
	Within two to three days, a three-month supply of your treatment will arrive perfectly packaged at your door.
	So keep your hair the easy way with Keeps, offering customized treatment plans with the only clinically proven hair loss products for about a buck a day from the comfort of your couch.
	To receive your first month of treatment for free, go to keeps.com slash ben.
	That's K-E-E-P-S dot com slash ben.
	That's a free month of treatment at keeps.com slash ben.
	Again, Keeps.
	Hair today, hair tomorrow.
	And if you're looking for the only products that are clinically proven to keep the hair you have, Keeps is the place to get them.
	Keeps.com slash Ben.
	That's K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben.
	Go check it out now before it's too late and your hair is gone and you just sit here regretfully thinking about what if you just listened and done what Shapiro told you to do.
	That's why you need to go to Keeps.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so the big news over the weekend is, well, twofold.
	Number one, there was an attack on Syria, which we'll discuss in a little bit.
	And second of all, James Comey sat down with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.
	So, first of all, it is always obligatory, whenever I mention James Comey, whenever I mention George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, I must recall, he was the former chief of staff for the Clintons.
	So, this is a guy who is very tied into the Democratic network.
	I mentioned that not because I thought he did a particularly terrible job last night in the interview, but to point out that the media are wildly biased in favor of James Comey, who is playing one of the great scams of all time.
	I mean, the guy was largely responsible for Hillary Clinton losing the election, and now he's going to retire off of Democrats who are angry that Hillary Clinton lost the election.
	So well done, James Comey.
	I mean, that is a scam for the ages.
	That is usual suspects-type stuff.
	Just incredible stuff.
	So James Comey does a full Two hour interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News.
	Did he have anything brand new, shocking to say?
	Not really.
	It was mainly vindictive and self-gratifying and self-justifying.
	That's what it was.
	It was James Comey grandstanding at his best.
	There are a few takeaways from this interview.
	It was kind of interesting.
	He had some interesting things to say.
	I have to say, the amount of ego that was just pouring off the screen was incredible.
	The amount of smug between Stephanopoulos and James Comey.
	It is amazing that the world did not implode from simple overload of smug.
	And I should know.
	I mean, I'm a pretty smug dude.
	But let me tell you something.
	James Comey and George Stephanopoulos outclassed me by at least a couple of weight classes.
	It's pretty impressive.
	James Comey started out the interview by saying, quote, I was never going to write a book, but I decided I had to try to write this one to try and be useful.
	That was my goal after I was fired, to be useful.
	And it occurred to me maybe I can be useful by offering a view to people, especially to young people, of what leadership should look like and how it should be centered on values.
	In other words, maybe I should write a book talking about how awesome I am in order to inform all the young people about how awesome I am so they too can one day be awesome like I am.
	Or, alternative explanation, you're fired.
	And you want to make a lot of money.
	I'm going to go with that one.
	You're going to get a giant advance and sell hundreds of thousands of copies of your bitchy book.
	I'm pretty much going to say that's probably what James Comey was doing.
	It probably wasn't like, you know what?
	I'm out of office now.
	What do I have to do?
	You know what?
	I'm going to go home.
	I'm going to look over my flower garden.
	I'm going to write about leadership.
	Because that's what young people need today.
	Leadership.
	No, it's probably the whole selling lots of books thing.
	And then he goes on in the interview to rip on President Trump.
	He, of course, says that Trump is a forest fire, going to do tremendous damage, going to damage important norms.
	But a forest fire gives healthy things a chance to grow.
	They had no chance before that fire.
	And the entire interview is just incredibly self-serving.
	My favorite metaphor that he used for himself is he said that when he went to the White House to talk to President Trump, he said, there's a movie called The Sixth Sense that I talk about in the book where Bruce Willis doesn't realize he's dead.
	That's the way I felt.
	I felt like I was totally alone, that everybody hated me, that there wasn't a way out because it was really the right thing to do.
	He's talking about now going to the White House to talk to President Obama about revealing the fact that Hillary Clinton's emails have been found on Anthony Weiner's server.
	And that, in a way, I'm ruined.
	But that's what I have to do.
	I had to do it that way.
	What a hero.
	He's just like Bruce Willis from the Sixth Sense, guys.
	It's just amazing.
	He's walking around, he's dead, he doesn't know it the entire time.
	Spoiler alert!
	James Comey.
	Don't worry, though.
	He doesn't have ego.
	This is a man who is completely free from ego.
	What a wonderful man he is.
	Throughout the interview, he praises President Obama, Jeh Johnson, the former Department of Homeland Security Secretary.
	He says that he wishes Hillary Clinton would read the book so that she would know why he did what he did during the election cycle.
	And then, of course, he dumped on Trump personally.
	So here was James Comey dumping on President Trump personally.
	This is clip seven.
	It was the first time he met Donald Trump.
	What was your impression?
	He had impressively coiffed hair that looks to be all his.
	I confess I stared at it pretty closely.
	And my reaction was, must take a lot of time in the morning.
	His tie was too long as it always is.
	He looked slightly orange up close with small white half moons under his eyes, which I assume are from tanning goggles.
	Okay, so this is definitely the kind of image that James Comey wants to project, right?
	He wants to project lawman image.
	And that's what a lawman would do.
	I mean, that's really, if you were just like Jimmy Stewart, G-Man, and you were to give an interview about a president who you thought might be corrupt, the first thing you'd do is talk about the half moons under his eyes and the length of his tie.
	That really makes James Comey look real good here.
	I mean, this is obviously not somebody, he was writing a book about leadership, guys, a book about leadership for children.
	That was his goal.
	It was not to be the center of attention.
	No, not he.
	Not he.
	And then, of course, James Comey liked to drop a bunch of inflammatory lines in the middle of this interview because there really is nothing new in the book other than him whining about President Trump and talking about how President Trump is terrible.
	Now, whatever you think about Trump, they're two separate questions, right?
	Is Trump corrupt?
	Has Trump done things that are ill-advised?
	Has President Trump interfered in investigations, right?
	These are all legit questions, but What is not really a legit question is whether James Comey is a politically motivated actor.
	He's pretty clearly a politically motivated actor.
	That was pretty obvious when he admitted on camera that when he went to speak with President Trump, you recall, he went to speak with James Comey, former FBI director, when he was, when Trump first was about to take office, Comey went to brief him.
	He briefed him on the Russian dossier, the Steele dossier, which had been compiled by a British spy named Christopher Steele.
	It had been paid for by Fusion GPS, which was being paid for in turn by Hillary Clinton's law firm.
	And James Comey did not reveal to President Trump that this dossier had been gathered at the behest of Hillary Clinton's pay.
	He admits that in clip 8.
	Did you tell him that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents?
	No.
	I didn't even think I used the term Steele dossier.
	I just talked about additional material.
	But did he have a right to know that?
	That it had been financed by his political opponents?
	I don't know the answer to that.
	It wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.
	Well, who cares about your goal?
	He's the President of the United States.
	Don't you owe him that information?
	I mean, you work for him.
	I mean, you're the head of the FBI, and the FBI is an executive branch agency.
	Shouldn't you have told him that the Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton?
	Wouldn't that have been a little bit important for him to know?
	But again, the goal here is for James Comey to obviously come off as above the fray.
	Well, he didn't come off as above the fray anywhere in this interview.
	There's an enormous amount of self-serving material in this interview.
	And of course, he's giving the press everything spicy they want to.
	Is Clip 9 available?
	Do we have Clip 9?
	Okay, so, at one point during the interview, Comey is asked specifically about the pee tape, and here's what he said.
	He said, and then Trump said to me, another reason you know it's not true is I'm a germaphobe.
	There's no way I'd let people pee on each other around me.
	And that caught me so much by surprise, I actually let out an audible laugh, and because it was just one of those, I was startled by it.
	And I remember thinking, well, should I say that?
	As I understand the activity, sir, it doesn't require an overnight stay, and given that it was allegedly the presidential suite at the Ritz-Carlton, I would imagine you could be at a safe distance from the activity.
	All these things are bouncing around my head, but instead of saying it, it just led me to think the world's gone crazy.
	But again, the goal here for James Comey is to sell as many books as humanly possible.
	There are really three scandals in which James Comey is involved, right?
	Scandal number one is the Hillary Clinton issue, right?
	The Hillary Clinton issue.
	Scandal number two is the Russian issue with President Trump.
	And scandal number three is his firing.
	They're three separate issues.
	And in each one, the story he tells is really not particularly great.
	Okay, so the Hillary handling itself was bad.
	First of all, let's get out of the way how much he hates President Trump.
	The man just hates President Trump.
	So, here are several clips of him talking about how much he hates President Trump.
	Here's where he compares President Trump to a crime family.
	Again, I'm not sure why no political advisor sat Comey down and said, you know, James, it might be worthwhile for you to appear not to hate President Trump if you actually want to go after him, right?
	You might want to look as though you're disinterested rather than that you have a personal animus toward him.
	Apparently nobody bothered telling him, so instead he compares Trump to a crime family.
	I had a flashback to my days investigating the mafia, La Cosa Nostra.
	There's a distinction between a friend of yours and a friend of ours.
	I felt this effort to make us all, and maybe this wasn't their intention, but it's the way it felt to me, to make us all a Mika Nostra.
	We're all part of the messaging.
	We're all part of the effort.
	The boss is at the head of the table.
	We're going to figure out together how to do this.
	How strange is it for you to sit here and compare the president to a mob boss?
	Well, okay, come on.
	What kind of question is that, George Stephanopoulos?
	How strange is it?
	He's doing it on purpose to sell books, you idiot!
	But of course, George Stephanopoulos knows that.
	He's not an idiot.
	Okay, that was not all that Comey had to say about President Trump personally.
	And then he talks about how Trump was morally unfit to be president, this is clip 16.
	This is Comey talking about how Trump is just unfit, right?
	Again, a lot of this is being driven by the fact that Comey is angry that Trump fired him.
	You're right that President Trump is unethical, untethered to the truth.
	Is Donald Trump unfit to be president?
	Yes.
	But not in the way I often hear people talk about it.
	I don't buy the stuff about him being mentally incompetent at early stages of dementia.
	He strikes me as a person of above average intelligence who's tracking conversations and knows what's going on.
	I don't think he's medically unfit to be president.
	I think he's morally unfit to be president.
	Okay, and then he continued exactly along these lines, again talking about how Trump has been compromised by the Russians.
	He says that it's possible the Russians compromised Trump.
	Now again, he doesn't have any evidence of this.
	Anything's possible.
	Anything's possible.
	Does George Stephanopoulos follow up by saying, do you have evidence that the Russians have compromised Trump?
	No, of course not.
	They just sort of let it hang out there.
	So here's James Comey saying that it's possible that Trump is compromised by the Russians.
	Do you think the Russians have something on Donald Trump?
	I think it's possible.
	I don't know.
	These are more words I never thought I'd utter about a President of the United States, but it's possible.
	That's stunning.
	You can't say for certain that the President of the United States is not compromised by the Russians.
	Yeah, it is stunning, and I wish I wasn't saying it, but it's just, it's the truth.
	Great interviewing there again.
	Great interviewing there again by George Stephanopoulos.
	Just reiterate the point.
	That is stunning, what you're saying.
	I'm not going to ask you for any evidence of what you're saying, but it is stunning that you would even say that, Mr. Comey.
	Just incredibly stunning.
	Again, the goal here for Comey is to sell books.
	The goal here for George Stephanopoulos is to use Comey as a baton in order to club President Trump.
	Okay, that is the goal here.
	Now, we can talk about in a second exactly what Comey did during the Hillary scandal, during the Trump investigation, and to get fired.
	We'll talk about all that in just a second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Thrive Market.
	Thrive Market is the best place to buy your organic food, okay?
	It is the best place to get your healthy food.
	You can shop for thousands of the best-selling non-GMO foods and natural products, always at 25-50% below traditional retail prices.
	That's what Thrive Market is for.
	So you're never going to have to go to Whole Foods, which is overpriced, and you have to get stuck in the tiny parking lots with the Priuses.
	Again, instead, you go to Thrive Market online, More than 70% of the Thrive Market catalog cannot be found on Amazon.
	They're the largest retailer in the country that sells exclusively non-GMO groceries, and you can catalog everything by your values and dietary preferences.
	It doesn't matter if you're paleo or gluten-free or vegan or kosher like me.
	You can shop for 90-plus values, also including non-GMO, sustainably farmed, Fairtrade certified, BPA-free, more in just one click of a button.
	You never have to read a label again because Thrive Market does all of the homework for you.
	And in each product page, you can see things like why I love it, price comparisons to retail, nutritional ingredients.
	Many of the product pages even include the brand's background story and why the product is safe for your family.
	Here's how it works.
	Go over to thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro and users get $20 off their first three orders of 49 bucks or more plus free shipping.
	Most shoppers spend more than 49 bucks on the site anyway.
	Do the math.
	You spend 49 bucks and Thrive automatically gives you back 20 bucks.
	Your total purchase becomes 30 bucks and you get this deal three times in a row.
	Go over to thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro, thrivemarket.com slash Shapiro to get your instant $60 of free groceries.
	ThriveMarket.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, it is easy to shop there.
	It is cheaper to shop there.
	It is healthier to shop there.
	Go to ThriveMarket.com slash Shapiro and never bother going to your local organic grocery store again with all of the crazed Hillary voters there.
	ThriveMarket.com slash Shapiro and you can safely shop for healthy, great food in the anonymity of your own home.
	ThriveMarket.com slash Shapiro to get your instant $60 of free groceries.
	All right.
	So Comey, in his book, he talks about really three separate things.
	He talks about the Hillary investigation.
	He talks about the Trump investigation on Russia.
	And then he talks about being fired.
	And so what he says about Hillary demonstrates what a political actor he is.
	So recall that back in July, it was James Comey who came out and made a long statement basically about why Hillary Clinton had violated the law but should not be indicted.
	Remember, he said that she had been extremely careless with her emails, which is the definition of gross negligence under the law.
	And then he says we won't indict her anyway.
	We shouldn't have indicted her anyway.
	So now he says he shouldn't have described how sloppy Clinton was with all of her email server stuff.
	Was trying to be honest and clear with the American people.
	What she did was really sloppy.
	Okay, he says what she did was really sloppy, but he says that he made a mistake describing how sloppy she was with her email scandal because in doing so it made it look like she had violated the law, when in his opinion she had not actually violated the law.
	Then later he says that the reason that he came forward with the letter, remember the letter right before the election in which he says that hundreds of thousands of her emails were found on Anthony Weiner's computer?
	And then he says that he released a letter a few days before the election.
	Now he says the reason that he did that is because the polling showed that Hillary was really far up in the polls.
	And if she won, he didn't want this cloud to be over her presidency.
	So he says, I came out with that letter just to be completely transparent.
	And he says that assuming Hillary would have won, probably influenced his decision making.
	I don't remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been.
	Because I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump.
	And so I'm sure that it was a factor.
	Like I said, I don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been.
	That she's going to be elected president, and if I hide this from the American people, She'll be illegitimate the moment she's elected.
	So he's so above the fray.
	Don't you see how above the fray James Comey is?
	He's such a non-political actor.
	What a good guy he is.
	You know, he wants to exonerate Hillary Clinton before the election, or at least he wants the American public to know about this stuff so that when she's elected, then she'll be clean.
	But don't worry, he's totally above the fray.
	You can see how upset he was that Trump was elected because he literally says in this interview, Oh my God, did we have some role in this?
	It is legitimately what Comey says in the middle of this interview.
	And what part of you is thinking, I helped elect Donald Trump?
	A whole lot of me was thinking, oh my god, did we have some role in this?
	Did we have some impact on the election?
	Okay, well, why would you be thinking that?
	Let's say that you actually were the typical G-man.
	Let's say that you were the honorable FBI guy, the loyal FBI guy that James Comey says he is.
	Wouldn't you just abide by the law?
	Instead of saying, oh my God, were we part of this?
	Wouldn't you have just said, listen, the law says I have to do X, this is what I have to do.
	And therefore, no, that had no impact on my decision making.
	I did what I had to do, that's my job.
	I'm above personal petty grievances.
	I'm above personal petty politics.
	But he had no intention of saying any of that because, of course, it's not true.
	The reality is that James Comey is not above personal petty politics, as we've seen.
	He doesn't like President Trump.
	He was very disappointed when Trump won.
	It's pretty obvious.
	Or now he's at least disappointed that he was fired.
	And so he's trying to drag out every piece of dirt he can on President Trump.
	He's trying to dump that out in the public view.
	But he really doesn't have a lot there.
	And so it's all speculation.
	Maybe Trump obstructed justice.
	Maybe he's going to be blackmailed by the Russians.
	When there's no there there, all you have to do is dump out a bunch of inflammatory material and the media will pick it up and try and run with it.
	Okay, well now, in the meantime, President Trump is firing back, so President Trump takes to Twitter, and here are some of the things that President Trump has been tweeting about James Comey.
	Quote, Comey drafted the crooked Hillary exoneration long before he talked to her, lied in Congress to Senator G, then based his decision on her poll numbers, disgruntled he, McCabe, and the others, committed many crimes.
	Okay, so.
	All of this is true.
	I just don't know why President Trump feels the necessity to go out there and say it, because again, look, I know President Trump is a counterpuncher.
	I know that he doesn't like what Comey's saying about him, but this is not productive.
	The president should shut up.
	All he is doing is driving the news cycle.
	All he's doing is driving people to buy the book, the same way that he drove the Fire and Fury Crap book to the top of the bestseller list.
	Now he's going to help drive James Comey's book to the top of the bestseller list.
	If you can somehow get Trump to attack you and you're in the book market, that is the best way to sell books.
	Trump continues along these lines.
	He tweets, "Slippery James Comey, "a man who always ends up badly and out of whack.
	"He is not smart, exclamation point.
	"Will go down as the worst FBI director in history, by far." Again, don't know what useful, how useful it is.
	I never asked Comey for personal loyalty.
	I hardly even knew the guy.
	Just another of his many lies.
	His memos are self-serving and, all caps, FAKE.
	But he's not done yet.
	He continues.
	Okay, but is he done yet?
	Nope, the president has even more.
	Jail.
	Why did he lie to Congress?
	Okay, but is he done yet?
	Nope, the president has even more.
	Okay.
	Why didn't they take it?
	Why the phony memos?
	McCabe $700,000 and more.
	Okay.
	And so, you know, this is, you know, President Trump on the warpath on Twitter, obviously.
	Now, here's the reality.
	Everything he's saying in this Twitter thread is true.
	Everything he's saying about Comey in this Twitter thread is true.
	Again, the question is not true or not true.
	The question is useful or not useful.
	When the president attacks Comey and Comey attacks the president, Trump is punching down and he's allowing Comey to go out there and respond to him.
	He's allowing Comey to go out there and tell his side of the story with broader public appeal.
	It's not smart of the president to punch back in this particular way, even though I think that Comey is exposing himself for what he is.
	And he concluded this Twitter thread, Trump did, by saying, Unbelievably, James Comey states that polls where crooked Hillary was leading were a factor in handling stupidly of the Clinton email probe.
	In other words, he was making decisions based on the fact he thought she was going to win and he wanted a job.
	Slimeball.
	Okay, so I guess we have slippery James Comey and slimeball James Comey.
	The president really going after it on Twitter, really enjoying himself.
	Yeah, again, he has the right to do whatever he wants.
	Do I think this is highly useful?
	I do not, especially because Comey's getting himself in hot water with a bunch of people, right?
	Not just folks on the right.
	He's now got himself in hot water with Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general at the time.
	James Comey has accused Obama and Loretta Lynch of taking actions that jeopardized the DOJ's status in the middle of the Hillary Clinton email investigations.
	What he says is, when Loretta Lynch got on the plane with Bill Clinton, that necessitated the FBI stepping in and making some sort of argument as to why Hillary should or should not be indicted, because obviously now people are going to think the whole thing was corrupt.
	Well, now Loretta Lynch is firing back on Comey and suggesting that Comey is terrible.
	She says, The Justice Department's handling of the Clinton email investigation under my leadership was no exception.
	Any suggestion I invoked this bedrock policy for any reason is simply false.
	Throughout the process, I did what I always do, rise above my politics and uphold the law.
	Does anyone really believe Loretta Lynch rose above her politics to uphold the law?
	Does anyone truly believe that?
	Well, neither did James Comey.
	You wonder why people don't trust the so-called deep state at this point?
	It's because it's filled with people who are political appointees, and these political appointees have actual access to grind.
	And so, you know what's the best way for you to appear above the law?
	By being above the law.
	By being above the law, by acting as though you are above, or rather, by being above politics.
	You want to appear as though you're above politics?
	All you have to do is be above politics.
	But none of these people are, and that is eminently obvious at this point in time.
	Well, in just a second, I'm going to get to Syria, plus the March for Science happening over the weekend.
	But first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Skillshare.
	Folks are moving jobs pretty routinely in this market, which is a good thing.
	It means that you're going for a raise or getting a better job.
	But in order for you to get that raise or that better job, you need to make your skill set better.
	And that's where Skillshare comes in.
	It's an online learning platform with over 18,000 classes in design, business, technology, and more.
	You can take classes in graphic design, social media marketing, illustration, mobile photography.
	They've got classes in pretty much everything.
	There are these 45-minute classes taught by experts.
	Over at the office, we've taken Search Engine Optimization, we've taken Social Media Marketing, I've taken a course in Watercolor Painting.
	Believe it or not, gotta calm down after the day.
	That's what Skillshare is there for.
	Join the millions of students already learning on Skillshare today, and they have a special offer just for my listeners right now.
	Get two months of Skillshare for just 99 cents.
	So Skillshare is offering my listeners again two months of unlimited access to over 18,000 classes for just 99 cents.
	Once you start learning, you're not going to want to stop.
	To sign up, go to Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, that's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro to start your two months right now.
	That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, that's just 99 cents for those two months of unlimited access.
	And they've got classes in pretty much everything.
	If you're looking to make that resume better or you're just starting a side business and you need more skills in order to start that side business, that is what Skillshare is there for.
	And as I say, we use it around the office.
	All of their classes are just first rate.
	Try Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	And you get 18,000 classes for just 99 cents for two months, which is pretty awesome.
	Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Use that slash Shapiro so they know that we sent you.
	Okay, so meanwhile...
	The March for Science happened over the weekend, and the March for Science is stupid.
	The reason I say the March for Science is stupid is because it is not a march for actual science.
	Because, as Dave Burge over at IowaHawk put it, that's like saying, I'm going to go dance for architecture.
	What does that even mean?
	March for science.
	Dance for architecture.
	Preach for mathematics.
	What are you even talking about?
	There's no such thing as a March for Science.
	Because everyone that I know is pro-science.
	Like if you want to say you're anti-flat earth, right?
	Like there's three people who still believe in the flat earth.
	Or let's say that you want to say you're going to march for cap and trade, right?
	That's an actual policy you're marching for.
	One of the things that drives me most crazy is when you name your march something that is universally applicable and then claim that anyone who opposes your march is against those things.
	When you say march for our lives, right?
	This is the pro-gun control march.
	So there's a pro-gun control march, and they call it March for Our Lives.
	Why don't they just call it March for Gun Control?
	Well, because then we'd all be able to be pro or against it.
	But when they say March for Our Lives, the implication is that if I oppose your agenda, I want you to die.
	Which, of course, is not true.
	Well, they're now doing the same thing with science.
	They have their March for Science.
	And if you say, listen, this march is really dumb because all you're preaching here is non-scientific stuff, Then they say, well, no, that's because you hate science.
	That's the real issue here.
	You hate science.
	First of all, I will just point out the media coverage of the March for Science was glowing.
	Much more glowing than the March for Life ever is.
	The March for Life is always undercovered.
	The March for Life, of course, is the pro-life march that happens in Washington, D.C.
	each and every year.
	And the March for Science was way down in attendance.
	So last year, a bunch of people showed up to march because in 2017, you could get people to march for virtually anything because they were angry about Trump.
	So he said, march for chicken.
	And people would be out in the streets going, we hate Trump.
	We hate millions of people in the streets marching for chicken.
	Well, now people are not showing up for the March for Science because they have better things to do.
	But listen to how CNN describes the March for Science.
	It's pretty incredible.
	They say, quote, Saturday's crowds were notably smaller than those that showed up for the first march in April 2017.
	Really?
	Is that news coverage?
	Can we have a scientific measure?
	It's a March for Science.
	Can we have a scientific measure of the hope and optimism, please?
	Can we know by what specific percentage the hope and optimism were up or down over the last year?
	Real scientific writing there in the March for Science, CNN.
	Sure, half the people showed up, but let me tell you, their spirit is what counted.
	It was their heart that mattered.
	It was their, so much enthusiasm, so much optimism.
	So, did they actually talk about science?
	Did they get up there and lecture about physics?
	Did they start doing Bernoulli's formula?
	Like, is this their thing?
	No, that's not what they did.
	Instead, they talked about racial diversity amongst scientists, quote, The challenges are real for underrepresented students in science, said Corey Welch, director of the STEM Scholars Program at Iowa State University.
	We have to overcome the reality that few or no faculty share our identities or fully understand our situation on campus, and now we have to relate back to our communities.
	The diversity research clearly demonstrates, bringing all people to the table, to the scientific table.
	I don't know what the scientific table is.
	They're like the table of elements.
	This is what Welch says.
	Cory Welch, the director of science, technology, and math at Iowa State University.
	OK, does any of that sound scientific to you or does that sound like a bunch of garbled nonsense?
	Because, let me tell you something, it isn't scientific.
	Okay?
	Studies do not show, in fact, that racial diversity leads to better ideas, kinds of more ethical solutions, or a more informed public policy.
	This is untrue.
	Robert Putnam of Harvard University, who is a leftist, says, quote, So, if we're going to pretend that, like, because we have a couple of black scientists in the room, they have black answers to scientific questions, this sounds suspiciously like idiotic Eugenic policy in the early 20th century.
	Again, you want to talk about something that is wildly anti-scientific, it is the idea that racial diversity has anything to do with scientific discovery.
	That's ridiculous.
	Ideas have to do with scientific discovery.
	There are great black scientists, there are great white scientists.
	Their blackness or whiteness have nothing to do with their Quality as scientists.
	Nothing.
	Zero things.
	You know why?
	Because science is verifiable or non-verifiable.
	And your race has nothing to do with whether your scientific experiment is verifiable or non-verifiable.
	Science is perfectly objective.
	Or at least it should be.
	And yet we are being told at the March for Science that one of their chief goals is to ensure that there are more black people in the sciences.
	What does that have to do with marching for science?
	If you want to say it's a march for affirmative action, fine.
	That's at least honest.
	But how are you going to say that's a march for science?
	It, of course, is not a march for science.
	This is incredibly stupid.
	Nazi policy, by the way, is that there was such a thing as Jewish science.
	Jewish science was that weird Einsteinian stuff.
	You know, the stuff that actually led to the creation of the nuclear bomb that ended World War II?
	Honestly, if the Nazis had not been anti-Jewish, and they'd been able to harness the intellectual firepower of all the Jews living in their society, there's a good shot the Nazis would have had a nuclear weapon before the United States did, and all of world history would have changed.
	Thank God, they were a bunch of horrible, racist pieces of human filth, and therefore, they thought there was such a thing as Jewish science versus non-Jewish science, and they threw all the Jews out.
	It turns out there isn't such a thing as Jewish or non-Jewish science, there's just science.
	Well, again, The people who are in the white coats, it doesn't matter what race they are, so long as they are actually pursuing science.
	But the March for Science has nothing to do with science.
	This guy named Adam Best, who's a left winger on Twitter, he tweeted, quote, Hey, conservatives, mocking March for Science.
	Log out of Twitter.
	Get off your phone or computer.
	Power down AC refrigerators and TVs.
	Flip off the lights.
	Stop taking medication or supplements.
	Pee and poop outside.
	No driving cars either.
	Show science who's boss.
	America.
	Okay, this is ridiculous.
	Again, the reason to oppose the March for Science is because it had nothing to do with science.
	It has to do with science!
	But science is not the same as science.
	Okay, so science is just like, you know, verifiable data, and you do experiments with hypotheses, and they're either shown to be correct, the hypotheses, or not.
	Science, however, is just a bunch of left-wing terminology, right?
	It's cap-and-trade, and racial diversity above all, and again, a bunch of assumptions you're making about policy that may or may not be true, but certainly are not verified by any sort of hard scientific research.
	If this idiot, Adam Best, can show me what a march for science has to do with creating a cell phone, then I'm happy to put down my cell phone.
	But it has nothing to do with it.
	I hate to break it to the folks on the left, but the march for science was never about science in the first place.
	And it is the extremism of the left that is so galling today with the march for science.
	There's a piece by Jonathan Chait over at New York Magazine.
	It's amazing.
	The left has so little self-awareness.
	I mean, a tremendous lack of self-awareness.
	Jonathan Chait wrote a piece in the New York Magazine today asking why so many Republicans had not jumped to the Democratic Party after President Trump was elected.
	The piece was called, The GOP's Never Trumpers Are Really Just Never Democrats.
	And then he criticized David Brooks of the New York Times, who suggested that Democrats ought to reach out to Republicans, and Chait wrote instead, quote, So his take is that if you were really a good Republican, you'd be a Democrat.
	is hopelessly immune to reason, and a reasonable person such as Brooks should instead refocus his political energies on curtailing its political power.
	So his take is that if you're really a good Republican, you'd be a Democrat.
	If you're really a good conservative who didn't like President Trump enough, you would just have voted for Hillary Clinton.
	Here's what Chait writes.
	He's trying to figure out why it is that people didn't jump from not supporting Trump to supporting Democrats?
	anti-intellectual was apparently as unfathomable to David Brooks as a fish in a polluted river deciding to live on land.
	If you want to understand why an event as large and potentially cataclysmic as the election of Donald Trump has not yet scrambled the long trench warfare stalemate between red and blue America, this dynamic is a good place to start.
	He's trying to figure out why it is that people didn't jump from not supporting Trump to supporting Democrats.
	I can give him a very simple answer.
	Democrats are extreme leftists.
	That's why.
	I would never have voted for Hillary Clinton even though I did not vote for President Trump.
	I would never have voted for Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton is a wild leftist who not only disagrees with me on policy, she thinks I'm an deplorable human being for believing that babies before birth deserve a right to life and believing that my church or synagogue ought to be able to do whatever it damn well pleases.
	And she thinks I'm a bad person for thinking that.
	Why would I possibly vote for Hillary Clinton?
	I think her viewpoint is anti-American.
	Why would I possibly vote for her just because I didn't approve of President Trump's comments about grabbing women by the bleep?
	It's ridiculous.
	It's a ridiculous argument Shane is making here.
	It's the extremism of the left that is driving people to the right.
	It's a major factor.
	But in just a second, I'm going to explain a little bit more about this.
	First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
	When you do, you get the rest of this show live, you get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, you get the rest of Michael Knoll's show live.
	You also get extra segments of my show occasionally.
	Plus, you get to be part of the mailbag, which we will be doing on Friday, a little bit later in the week.
	So if you subscribe now, you actually get to ask questions and have them answered live on air.
	Also, with the annual subscription, You get this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	And I will demonstrate, full-scale this week, how this thing can cure the common cold.
	Okay, I've got a cold.
	You'll see, by the end of the week, my cold will be gone because of this.
	Because I want to say correlation equals causation, but it might.
	It might.
	Okay, so just check that out.
	$99 a year, you get the annual subscription, which comes along with the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	Check that out.
	You want to listen later for free, go over to iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube.
	Download our show.
	Please subscribe.
	Please leave us a review.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So back to Jonathan Chait's piece at the New York Magazine.
	So he's arguing again that Republicans should have become Democrats if they didn't like President Trump enough.
	They didn't like President Trump, so they should have just voted Hillary Clinton.
	He says, quote, quote, says, quote, quote, says, quote, quote, says, quote, quote, Looking around at what 16 months of President Trump has wrought, watching Fox & Friends, refreshing the news sites for the latest national security debacle, would you decide each morning to remain in the Republican Party?
	The absence of Republican moderates, among both elected officials and intellectuals associated with the party willing to openly join or work with the Democratic Party, suggests that the power of partisanship remains overwhelming, even among those Republicans who profess the strongest aversion to partisanship.
	Well, I am anti-partisan in the sense that I am not going to knee-jerk vote for a Republican just because they're a Republican.
	I am a conservative.
	You have to back my values.
	That's the way this works.
	But, that's the point.
	I am a conservative, and I don't support leftist values.
	Why would I go hang out with Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi just because I think that President Trump's record with women is abominable?
	Why would I do that?
	How does that make any sense at all?
	My whole point is that I don't think Trump is conservative in his personal life.
	I don't think that he's conservative enough on certain social issues.
	So my solution is to go to the party that says you should stab a baby in the head and suck its brains out one day before it's born?
	That's my solution?
	How in the hell is that a solution?
	See, here's the thing.
	Democrats don't understand this.
	Folks on the left don't understand this.
	You know, there's this really interesting chart that's been done for years by Gallup, and it shows the overlap in ideas between the two parties.
	And what it looks like is basically two sort of mountains that overlap a little bit, right?
	So you'll have the one that's the Republican mountain, and then they'll have the Democratic mountain.
	And you see that the shape of the mountain changes a little bit over time, because it flattens out in certain places and it rises in certain places.
	The reason being that the views inside the parties change.
	Well, since 2010, the right has basically been stagnant.
	The right has had the same ideas now that it had in 2010.
	The left, however, has moved dramatically to the left.
	Dramatically.
	Remember, in 2010, Barack Obama still endorsed Traditional marriage.
	That only came later, the same-sex marriage stuff.
	That was only eight years ago.
	Not only that, Barack Obama never in 2010 would have talked about the idea of forcing churches to perform same-sex ceremonies or forcing bakers to cater same-sex weddings.
	Certainly Barack Obama probably would have used the language in abortion of safe, legal, and rare.
	The Democratic Party doesn't do any of these things.
	All pro-lifers have been forcibly excluded from the Democratic Party at this point.
	And then folks on the left are wondering why Republicans don't join them even if they don't like what Trump is doing.
	Because they still like what Trump is doing a hell of a lot better than what you're doing.
	Trump's still a lot closer to the values that I profess than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer or any of the rest of these wild leftists.
	If Democrats want to know why it is that President Trump can alienate so many members of his own party and still get away with it, one of the reasons is because the left has been so overtly nasty to people who are conservative.
	So overtly crappy to people of conservative bent.
	Again, why in the world would I pay attention to a party whose spokesman Joe Biden is saying that Republicans don't want black people voting?
	Hey, Joe Biden actually came out and said that over the weekend.
	He's going into the Wayback Machine all the way back to 2012 when he suggested that Mitt Romney could not be President of the United States because Republicans want to put y'all back in chains.
	Now Joe Biden is using that same exact sort of nasty language, and then you wonder why I'd never vote for Joe Biden?
	This is why I would never vote for Joe Biden, right here.
	You realize just this past year, in 24 states, the administration's allies have introduced 60 pieces of legislation, or maybe 70 pieces of legislation, to curtail the franchise.
	Look, that's what these guys are all about, man.
	Yeah.
	These Republicans don't want working class people voting.
	They don't want black folks voting.
	Okay, and he's saying this to Al Sharpton, one of the worst race baiters in the modern history of the United States.
	And then you wonder why conservatives aren't going to back Joe Biden or Al Sharpton.
	Al Sharpton was a Democratic presidential candidate as late as 2004.
	Of course we're not going to back this party.
	Of course not.
	So Jonathan Chait, you want to know why it is that we're ignoring your call to join you?
	Because the party that you purport to represent has no interest in representing people like me.
	They hate people like me.
	They may have temporarily forgotten that hate for five seconds when I've been critical of President Trump when I think he's deserved it.
	But that hate still exists.
	I know it does.
	So does everybody on the right.
	Everybody on the right knows how Joe Biden feels about them.
	Everybody who's mildly right of center knows that Joe Biden thinks they're rubes.
	It's just, it's so, it's so gross that all these folks on the left, their suggestion is that the only way to forestall their anger, the only way to prove your moral mettle, is to join the party that espouses everything you disagree with.
	You don't see people on the right saying this, by the way.
	It's so weird.
	You never see people on the right saying things like, you know, you guys, you really didn't like Hillary Clinton.
	Why didn't you give President Trump a try?
	I mean, I assume that you didn't like Hillary Clinton because she was corrupt and because she was off-putting, but I don't assume that you agree with my principles.
	I mean, you've been voting Democrat your whole life.
	But here's the point.
	Folks on the left think that folks on the right only vote for the right because they are morally deficient.
	And they can't understand why, if there are people who didn't vote for Trump, which they think is morally praiseworthy, those people aren't automatically Democrats.
	They see every question of politics as a question of character.
	We don't on the right.
	We see certain questions of character as questions of character, and certain questions of politics as questions of politics.
	Okay, so meanwhile, Obviously over the weekend.
	The other big story is that war broke out once again in Syria.
	The United States launched some missiles into Syria backed by the UK as well as France.
	According to CNBC, the Pentagon claimed Saturday the US led attack on Syria set back the regime's chemical weapons program for years, but experts contend those assertions may be exaggerated.
	On Friday, forces from France, Britain, and the U.S. launched combined strikes on three military targets associated with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons program, including a research and development facility outside Damascus.
	But defense analysts suggested that some of the dangerous material is probably still available or relatively easy to reproduce.
	The damage assessment is suspiciously quick, said Anthony Kordsman, a former Pentagon official who's an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is a Washington, D.C. think tank.
	Well, President Trump, for his part, was very excited about these strikes, which happened late Friday night after Shabbat was just beginning to start on the West Coast.
	Here was President Trump's tweet.
	Quote, a perfectly executed strike last night.
	Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine military.
	Could not have had a better result.
	Mission accomplished.
	Okay, so it was the mission accomplished that got him a little bit in trouble.
	He then had to tweet out his explanation for why mission accomplished.
	And his tweet was, quote, The Syrian raid was so perfectly carried out with such precision that the only way by the fake news media could demean was by my use of the term mission accomplished.
	I knew they would seize on this, but felt it is such a great military term it should be brought back.
	Use often!
	Exclamation.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And the reason people were upset with the mission accomplished is because, of course, George W. Bush's mission accomplished banner after the original Operation Iraqi Freedom, the original invasion, in three weeks toppled the Saddam Hussein regime, and he put mission accomplished, or his people did, on an aircraft carrier.
	Apparently it was members of the aircraft carrier who did it, and he was ripped for that for years.
	Now Trump is purposefully using that phrase.
	I don't think he did it because he's historically knowledgeable.
	I think he did it because he's historically ignorant, but honestly, who cares?
	The question is, was the mission accomplished?
	And the answer is, we don't know.
	Because the actual mission here is to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons.
	We're not going to know the answer.
	He would have said, mission accomplished in April 2017.
	And then Bashar Assad used chemical weapons again.
	Here is the major problem.
	The United States and the people of the United States do not know what we want our role in the world to be.
	Do we want our role in the world to be global policemen?
	Do we want to be I don't actually buy the argument that's been pushed by some folks who are in favor of a larger Syrian intervention, that use of chemical weapons in Syria is somehow a threat to the United States because now it will be more commonly used on the United States.
	Anybody knows, they fire on U.S.
	troops, we will go to war with you and we will finish you.
	Hey, if the United States wanted to take out Bashar Assad, like finish his regime, the United States, if we wanted to exert the full brunt of our military, the United States could take out Bashar Assad inside of a week.
	Like legitimately inside of a week.
	It would take a while to do cleanup, right?
	Years to do cleanup.
	But if we wanted to, we could.
	But the fact is that we're not sure that we want to, and we have this weird bipolar personality disorder when it comes to foreign policy.
	We don't care what happens in Syria until there's a picture on our TV of a kid choking to death, and then all of a sudden we care what happens in Syria.
	Well, we're going to have to figure out pretty quickly what it is that we think our role in the world is.
	If we want to stop chemical weapons usage, then probably this sort of strike is not going to do it.
	Probably going to need a larger effort to counter Russian and Iranian influence in the region.
	And there has to be the possibility of deposing Assad, or at least crippling his capacity to expand his growing dominance inside Syria.
	He's basically won the Syrian civil war.
	At this point, it was a mistake for us to pull out of Iraq in 2010, 2011.
	That led to the rise of ISIS.
	That also led Bashar Assad to have the excuse to attack Syrian rebels.
	None of this has been good.
	But the question as to where we go from here is a definitional one.
	What do we want America to do in the world?
	If the goal here is to stop him from using chemical weapons, the threat against him and Russia and Iran has to be great enough that he doesn't do it again.
	I'm not sure a couple of airstrikes are going to do it.
	And if we want to ensure that people aren't being gassed en masse, then we're going to actually have to solidify northern Syria, a place where certain progress actually has been made in the face of the Assad regime and despite the intervention of the Turks as well.
	So, it's important for us to define what exactly our mission is before we declare mission accomplished.
	Unfortunately, I don't think that the Trump administration has actually done that.
	I think they say mission accomplished every time they fire a missile.
	I think the left complaining about it is similarly ridiculous.
	They were the ones talking about pinprick strikes five seconds ago when Obama was president.
	Okay, time for some things that I like and then some things that I hate.
	So I have an awful lot of things that I hate today, but I have a couple of things that I like to start.
	So, first thing that I like, Jonah Goldberg's new book is going to be coming out very shortly.
	I believe it comes out later this week.
	It comes out April 24th, so it comes out a week from tomorrow.
	It is well worth pre-buying.
	It's called Suicide of the West, How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy.
	So I have some significant quibbles With Jonah about his book, but his book is indeed a really good defense of Enlightenment philosophy.
	There's a lot of this going around lately.
	Steven Pinker has one that defends Enlightenment philosophy.
	I've recommended it on the show.
	Jonah Goldberg is defending Enlightenment philosophy.
	Jonah's book really is less about defense of the Enlightenment philosophy and more about what happens if we allow that Enlightenment philosophy to fall apart.
	Now, the quibbles that I have with Jonah, I'm going to say from my own book, which I'm in the middle of writing right now.
	I'm about two-thirds of the way through it.
	And it covers a little bit of the same ground, but mostly not the same ground as Jonah's.
	My big quibble with a lot of the Enlightenment thinking right now is that it seems to assume that history sort of started in 1750 for no reason, that suddenly out of nowhere sprang the enlightenment.
	And I just don't think that that's true.
	I try to trace the roots back into history, try to figure out where it came from and why it is that it's important that we keep those roots intact.
	Jonah's main contention here is really not about that.
	His main contention here is that we're looking at the forcible and willing suicide of a civilization that was a brief, unique moment in time.
	And if we don't preserve those values, then we're going to lose it.
	Contention with which I wholly agree.
	Check out Suicide of the West by Jonah Goldberg.
	That is worth checking out.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So today, or last night, I guess, there was a Capitals fan who was a little girl who was waiting right behind the glass.
	And you're going to see one of the players here ensure that she gets a puck.
	Apparently, she's not given the puck, and two of the boys around her are.
	And then finally, he just keeps coming back until she finally gets a puck.
	It's really cute.
	Look at this adorable little girl, banging on the glass.
	Brett Connolly saw her and just figured, I'm going to make this girl's night, right?
	Look, here's the problem with being the shortest kid around.
	That kid grabbed the first puck from her.
	Now look at her face.
	Look at this.
	Is that the saddest?
	Look at her.
	She is devastated.
	So Connelly comes back, and now that kid steals a puck from her!
	What are we doing here?
	Were you raising gentlemen or what?
	So now Connelly's got to go back, get a third puck.
	If he could rip that pane of glass out and just hand it to her, he would, which would have been nice because, ay-yi-yi, what are we doing?
	Connelly!
	Hey, that father orchestrated that because only the cute little girl was gonna get it.
	He made sure all three of his kids got a puck.
	Right, so that's good for Connelly.
	It is true, by the way.
	There's no question that the dad knows.
	Okay, so the dad's getting a lot of flack today, actually, because the dad gave the pucks to the other two boys first before he gave to the girl.
	It's only to say he's sexist.
	He's sexist.
	Or maybe he's manipulating, right?
	Maybe the dad there is grabbing the pucks and he's making sure that all three of his kids actually get pucks and he knows that while the little girl is really excited about it, in two years she's not going to care about hockey in all likelihood, but the boys will and it'll make their lives.
	So he's going to ensure they get pucks even though Connelly wants to get it to the little girl.
	Good for Connelly in any case.
	He's a real gentleman and you like to see when people treat people well that way.
	Okay, time for some quick things that I hate.
	So, Bill Maher on HBO, he came out over the weekend and he said that if President Trump was president in 1938, he would have loved Hitler and Mussolini.
	And by the way, if this was 1938, what do you think Donald Trump, if Donald Trump is president in 1938, before we know about the death camps, okay, I'll give him that, what do you think he would have been saying about Hitler and Mussolini?
	America first.
	Strong leaders.
	Strong leaders.
	Very strong.
	Turkey, Philippines.
	Yes, he would love them.
	He'd be saying America first, which is what the Nazis in the United States were saying in the 1930s.
	Okay, so let me point something out.
	The people who are actually the biggest fans of Mussolini and Hitler at the very beginning were folks on the left.
	There were a lot of folks on the left who were big fans of fascism.
	H.G.
	Wells in Britain, a lot of members of the Roosevelt administration were big fans of Stalin.
	Big fans of Hitler.
	I like that Marge sort of leaves out Stalin right there because the left, of course, was sponsoring Stalin.
	We're big fans of Stalin.
	But Mussolini and Hitler.
	Read Liberal Fascism by Goldberg, his other great book, and what you will see is that the left was very much ensconced with it.
	They loved the idea of a centralized power structure that was going to restructure all of civilization and therefore change the nature of man.
	Mussolini and Hitler were very, very, very popular with the American left.
	Really popular.
	And there's a reason that Hitler was labeled Time's Man of the Year, I believe it was in 1938.
	So, again, this is a misread of history.
	Listen, I don't know what Trump would have thought about Mussolini and Hitler in 1938.
	There were a lot of decent people who thought Mussolini and Hitler weren't that bad in 1938 because they didn't know the first thing about politics, and they didn't care about fascism, and it was before the death camps.
	There's this revisionist history that reads back into history.
	The entire left hated Mussolini and Hitler.
	Stalin had a treaty with Hitler at this time in 1938.
	And Mussolini had a treaty with Hitler.
	All of these people were allied with one another.
	And the left kind of liked it.
	Not kind of.
	Strongly liked these folks.
	It was only after Hitler launched war in 1938-1939 that the left began to come around.
	But that took a while.
	So this is revisionist history at its finest.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	Over the weekend, there was a report that Colin Kaepernick, who is the former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, that he had not been offered, actually, the ability to try out for the Seattle Seahawks, and he had not been offered that ability because he still wants to kneel for the national anthem.
	Now, listen, that is his choice.
	It's also the choice of the Seattle Seahawks, whether they want to deal with the fallout from that this year, or whether they actually want fans in the stands to be able to come and cheer.
	Sunny Hostin, who's one of the hosts over at The View, she says that Kaepernick is the greatest of all time, and it's just great what he's doing.
	The most patriotic thing you can do is exercise your constitutional rights.
	Colin Kaepernick is the new Muhammad Ali.
	He is the GOAT.
	He has put everything on the line for what he believes in, and that's what a true American does.
	My feeling is that, and there's a lawsuit, let's remember, there's a lawsuit that Colin Kaepernick has filed with the assistance of my friend Mark Garagos, and he has filed a lawsuit saying that the NFL owners have colluded to keep him from playing, and that is exactly what they've done.
	There have been...
	Depositions in seven cities this week, all around the country, and the NFL is going to have to pay Colin Kaepernick.
	I'm going to make that prediction right now because they're keeping him off the field and it is not productive.
	Okay, they're not keeping him off the field.
	He is keeping himself off the field because he's the one who's deciding exactly how he wants to act on the field.
	That is Colin Kaepernick's choice.
	Now maybe you like what he's doing, maybe you don't.
	I don't.
	I think it's stupid, I think it's counterproductive, and I want to point out that Colin Kaepernick only started the kneeling routine After he was made a backup.
	He was made a non-star, and then he decided to make a name for himself by kneeling.
	Now, maybe it's not quite as cynical as all that.
	Maybe he actually believes what he's doing.
	Maybe that's possible.
	Although I will point out, the man has worn socks depicting cops as pigs on them, and that's ignored by the entire left.
	But this idea that Colin Kaepernick is some sort of great civil rights hero because he was paid millions and millions and millions of dollars and then he decided that he was going to kneel when he became less popular, I just find that a little bit hard to believe.
	Maybe I'm just being too cynical.
	Okay, final thing that I hate.
	There is a — I mentioned last week that there was this girl, Lizzie Martinez, who was asked by a school official at Braden River High to cover her nipples with Band-Aids because she showed up to school wearing no bra.
	And I suggested, maybe if you're a 17-year-old girl and you show up to school wearing a loose shirt with no bra, and your nipples are showing through the shirt, then you might know exactly what you're doing with regard to dudes.
	That's not a justification of bad male behavior, but it is to suggest that we have dress codes in school for a reason.
	Well, now she's holding a bra cot with fellow students on Monday.
	Participating girls can forego their bras and participating boys could place bandages over their shirts.
	Apparently, this is now a civil rights issue.
	She said it's a form of silent protest that speaks not only to what happened at the school, but also what happens around the country.
	She says besides the incident on Monday, I think it's been an ongoing issue that women have these standards they have to supposedly live up to, even with the Women's Rights March, the Me Too movement.
	I think it's all very relevant.
	Okay, you are not part of the MeToo movement.
	You were not sexually harassed or assaulted.
	You weren't, I'm sorry.
	You went to school, dressed inappropriately, the administrators asked you not to dress inappropriately, end of story.
	That is perfectly within their rights.
	If you showed up wearing no shirt at all, and then the administrator said, you know what, that might be a problem, would that also be part of the MeToo movement?
	So unbelievably stupid.
	So unbelievably stupid.
	But of course, we have to be outraged about everything, including the dumbest things on planet Earth.
	If we're not outraged about things, then I guess that, you know, what else are we going to do with our lives if we're not outraged about dumb things like 17-year-old girls trying to not wear bras to school and then claiming they're victims when the teachers say, put a bra on?
	OK, so we'll be back here tomorrow.
	We didn't have time for Federalist Paper today, but hopefully we will tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲