All Episodes
Previous Next
May 7, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:24
Rule Of Law? | Ep. 533
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
John Kerry violates the Logan Act, Rudy Giuliani makes the rounds, and there's a reason that people think that feminist studies professors are all sticks in the mud.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
We have a lot to get to today, but before we get to any of it, I mean, a lot happened over the weekend.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Ring.
So, our sponsors over at Ring, they're the video doorbell company.
They allow you to see and speak to anyone when they come to your door.
Well, now they've sent us some actual footage of Ring busting crooks in the acts.
Here's a creeper, it's nighttime, and a woman catches a strange dude standing at her door, and here's what it looked like.
We're in the middle of dinner, can I help you?
Yes, how are you?
Good, how are you?
Good, I haven't seen you in a while.
I don't know who you are.
I'm Justin.
I don't know you, Justin.
I met you a long time ago when I was younger.
No, I'm sorry.
You're in the wrong place.
Much love and God bless for both gods.
Well, future senator from West Virginia right there trying to break into somebody's house, I guess.
But this is what Ring video doorbell allows you to do.
You don't actually have to go to the door and deal face-to-face with Justin.
Instead, you can actually deal with it from 3,000 miles away.
Because there's a lot happening at your front door.
Ring has a floodlight cam, a spotlight cam.
They let you build a ring of security around your entire property.
Stop crime before it happens.
Help make your neighborhood safer with Ring.
Save up to $150 off that ring of security kit at ring.com.
We use it at the Shapiro household.
Alright, so, over the weekend there was a lot of hubbub about the Mueller investigation and the evils of the Trump administration and the supposed dishonesty therein.
But there's another story that the media seemed to have been paying less attention to, but that is, in fact, a lot more troubling.
And it is this.
John Kerry, you recall him, he's the former Secretary of State.
And that guy is the worst.
Right?
John Kerry was one of the worst Secretary of States of all time.
John Kerry.
Well, according to the Boston Globe, he has now been traveling across the world attempting to fix up the Iran deal.
Like, really.
He's not the Secretary of State anymore.
He's just a guy.
And he's going around the world.
He's going to Tehran.
He's going to France.
And he's trying to move behind the back of the Trump administration in order to broker some sort of resistance to Donald Trump.
So, here's the Boston Globe.
Took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official.
Now, just before I go any further, let's recall something.
You remember Mike Flynn?
Mike Flynn was the former National Security Advisor.
And you remember that Mike Flynn got in all sorts of trouble because he lied to the FBI about the fact that he had been calling up the Russians after the election.
And just as before he was supposed to take his official role as National Security Advisor, he'd been calling up the Russian ambassador and having conversations about sanctions with regard to Israel.
And this was a big deal, right?
This was supposedly a Logan Act violation.
The Logan Act is a piece of legislation that may very well be unconstitutional.
It's about two centuries old.
It's been invoked, I believe, once in a criminal prosecution.
And it is that you are not allowed to have your own foreign policy.
So I can't go and purport to be speaking on behalf of the United States government and go conduct foreign policy against the foreign policy of the United States.
Right.
That is a federal crime.
Well, Mike Flynn was accused of doing just that in talking to the Russians, even though he was the incoming national security adviser.
And the president, Donald Trump, had already been elected.
He was already president elect.
That was considered criminal by a bunch of people on the left who were deeply upset about the Logan Act.
Here you have an actual former secretary of state who is not in any way connected with the current government of the United States going around and attempting to perform his own foreign policy on foreign soil as well as domestic soil.
He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who is the Foreign Minister of Iran, to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran's nuclear weapons program.
It was the second time in about two months the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.
With the Iran deal facing its gravest threat since it was signed in 2015, Kerry has been on an aggressive yet stealthy mission to preserve it, using his deep lists of contacts gleaned during his time as the top U.S.
diplomat to try to apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.
Trump is now firing back, by the way, on Kerry.
Kerry met last month with the German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
He's been on the phone with top EU official Federica Okay, but this has gone relatively unremarked upon by the mainstream media.
Okay.
But John Kerry is doing the same thing except it could very well be illegal and that is not a big deal at all.
So Donald Trump has responded now to John Kerry, and Donald Trump tweeted out, "The United States does not need John Kerry's possible "illegal shadow diplomacy on this very badly "negotiated Iran deal.
"He was the one that created this mess in the first place." Totally fair.
John Kerry has fired back, quote, I think every American would want every voice possible urging Iran to remain in compliance with the nuclear agreement that prevented a war.
Secretary Kerry, I stay in touch with my former counterparts around the world, just like every previous secretary of state, Genghis Khan.
John Kerry, he continues to suggest that it is his job to do foreign policy against...
Again, just pointing out the hypocrisy of a left that suggested that Michael Flynn was the world's worst criminal for calling the Russians well.
He was the incoming national security advisor, but the former Secretary of State can do whatever he wants.
Rudy Giuliani made this point on national TV over the weekend.
He is, of course, exactly correct.
Certainly before April 5, 2018, the president knew that Michael Cohen had made these payments because he, in fact, had reimbursed Michael Cohen for them.
I don't know, and I don't think it's at all relevant anymore.
This is another tangent like, you know, chasing the Flynn tangent, when it turns out that John Kerry is now violating the Logan Act, and nobody seems to care.
You haven't asked me about it.
Right, and then Giuliani is exactly right about this.
Nobody's asked him about the Kerry-Logan Act violation, of course.
By the way, we're now finding out the FBI is not interested in investigating the text sent between Carter Page and Lisa—sorry, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
So there's no interest in investigating the text of the FBI agents who apparently were texting with each other while they were having an affair.
Both were married about Donald Trump and the investigation.
No interest in that.
But every page of Donald Trump's memoirs has to be dug through.
Michael Cohen has to be dug out of the closet.
All of his files have to be put before the FBI.
Again, if this all turns out to be just a campaign finance thing, this is really egregious overstep by the FBI.
If the Mueller investigation turns out to be nothing but a giant fishing expedition, that is going to reflect horribly, not only on the FBI, but also on the DOJ that has allowed this to go forward.
Remember, Rod Rosenstein.
Who was the Deputy Attorney General who appointed Robert Mueller.
He has to set the basis for the Mueller investigation.
He actually has to set the limits of the Mueller investigation.
And the Mueller investigation was originally supposed to be limited to Trump-Russia collusion and all of the elements that were related there too.
But now we're all the way at Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort and all this kind of stuff.
Now judges are beginning to look at the scope of the Mueller investigation and they're saying, this has nothing to do with your original investigation.
Now, does that mean that Paul Manafort, for example, is off the hook?
No, you could have an attorney general in the District of New York suddenly take up the Manafort case.
But the question is, what is the scope, the proper scope of the Mueller investigation?
And again, when you go back and you read the original Rosenstein memo that was appointing Robert Mueller to the special counsel, it was quite It was quite circumscribed.
It was not a broad mandate.
It was Trump-Russia collusion alone.
But now they've gone far beyond that, and that's why over the weekend, according to Politico, a federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller's request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S.
District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off a scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.
So, the 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S.
court, and the judges are looking askance at Mueller's prosecutors.
They're saying that Mueller's prosecutors do not have the authority to actually go after anyone on these grounds.
Mueller's team sends a formal copy of the sanctions to all these people, and then they submitted it to the judge, and the judge is not interested.
to the office of the prosecutor general of Russia to be delivered to the defendants.
That office, however, declined to accept the summons.
The government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty.
Okay, Mueller's team sent a formal copy of the sanctions to all these people, and then they submitted it to the judge, and the judge is not interested.
The judge is basically saying that this is a waste of time, that there's no supporting legal authority to any of this.
Again, if this all turns out to be a giant wild goose chase, it's one of the worst abuses of power in modern American history, honestly, To run the presidency ragged for a year and a half and bankrupt a bunch of people in the Trump administration over nothing is a pretty astonishing thing.
Meanwhile, the Michael Cohen investigation, which is not taking place under the auspices of Mueller, is continuing apace.
That, of course, was an FBI raid on Michael Cohen's office.
Michael Cohen, you'll recall, is the personal attorney of President Trump, and that investigation is being pursued not by Mueller's office, but by the U.S.
District Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
Trump's new lawyer is attempting to go around and explain why Trump didn't do anything illegal.
The case he's making for why Trump didn't do anything illegal is he's saying there was no campaign finance implication at all to Trump paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to shut up.
He says, basically, Trump has a slush fund with Michael Cohen.
There are probably payments out of this fund regularly to shut up stories about Donald Trump, which means this had nothing to do with the campaign.
So it may be gross, it may be seedy, it may be yucky, but it's not actually a violation of law.
That's the case that Rudy was making.
You said this was a regular arrangement you had with Michael Cohen.
So did Michael Cohen make payments to other women for the president?
I have no knowledge of that, but I would think if it was necessary, yes.
He made payments for the president, or he conducted business for the president, which means he had legal fees, monies laid out, and expenditures, which I have on my bills to my clients.
OK, so the case that Giuliani is making legally here, people are going crazy over this.
Kellyanne Conway saying, I'm not sure why anyone would say what Giuliani is saying.
Here's Kellyanne Conway trying to move away from Rudy Giuliani.
But Giuliani has a legal strategy here, and it does make some sense.
I'll explain in a second.
I don't know why anyone would say that.
I would not characterize it the way the president himself characterized it as not a campaign expenditure.
All I can tell you is that as the campaign manager for the winning part of the campaign, this never crossed my desk.
I was never made aware of this.
Okay, so the case that's being made by Giuliani, and sort of here by Kellyanne Conway, is that Trump regularly pays off his mistresses.
And so, if he paid off a mistress right before the election, that was by coincidence, because he basically gives a giant chunk of change to Michael Cohen every year, and Michael Cohen basically shuts down any rumors that he's having sex with porn stars.
That's Michael Cohen's basic job.
That's not completely implausible, but it is not great for the President of the United States to be saying that, except that it's Trump and we all know that he's doing this stuff anyway.
No one's really shocked by any of this.
And if you are shocked, it's because you haven't watched Donald Trump any time for the last 40 years.
I mean, this has been his shtick for a really long time.
The real danger to Trump, you know, if he can make this case, then it's not a danger to Trump.
The real danger to Trump is only going to be self-imposed, and I'll explain in a second why the only person who can damage Trump in a lot of these legal proceedings is going to be Trump himself.
But first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at MVMT.
So you've heard me talk about MVMT, and you know those two college dropouts that started their own watch company?
They've now sold...
Two million watches in 160 countries.
And they're revolutionizing fashion on the belief that style should not break the bank.
I own two MVMT watches.
I own sunglasses from MVMT.
My wife owns sunglasses from MVMT.
They've doubled the number of watch styles lately, but they are still expanding.
It's just fantastic.
Their MVMT watches start at $95.
At a department store, you're looking at $400 to $500.
And the watches are all really durable.
My son beats the crap out of my watch.
It looks just the same as it did when it came out of the box.
Brand new.
They're really beautiful looking watches.
Really, really nice, clean, simple, and really just effective.
They look like they're $400, $500 watches, and it's $100.
Movement figured that by selling online, they could cut out the middleman, and that's just what they've done.
It's classic design, quality construction, styled minimalism.
My dad has one of these watches as well.
Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
See why Movement keeps growing.
Go to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
And again, you get 15% off with free shipping and free returns.
Their watches are just terrific.
Go to mvmt.com slash appear, and they have more than that.
Now they have bracelets, and they also have the sunglasses.
So you can basically get everything you need over at mvmt.com slash appear to go out looking stylish.
mvmt.com slash appear.
That's movement.
Join the movement.
Use that slash appear.
Let them know that we sent you.
Okay, so the only person who can really damage Trump, it seems, if Trump is telling the truth and he had this giant slush fund and he was always paying off mistresses, Then the Cohen thing will probably come to nothing.
Cohen might be hit with a campaign finance violation, but that's about it.
Cohen might be hit for some ancillary violations, but it's not going to damage Trump.
Which brings us back to the Mueller investigation.
The only thing that could hurt President Trump in the Mueller investigation is if he goes off half-cocked and decides that it would be a very, very smart idea for him to suddenly, for no reason at all, fire Robert Mueller because Mueller's not going anywhere and he's annoying me.
I'm going to rip off the band-aid and fire him.
That would be a huge mistake.
And it seems like that might be the way that he is leaning.
A lot of his closest allies are now attempting to put restrictions on the Mueller investigation.
Again, I think this is a mistake, not because the Mueller investigation is acting properly.
I don't know.
You don't know.
No one knows because we're only hearing leaks.
But because it gives the impression that he's trying to hide something, even if he's really just annoyed.
Trump fires people when he gets annoyed.
He doesn't fire them when they're ineffective.
He doesn't fire them when they're bad at their job.
He fires them when he personally is annoyed by them.
And this is the case with James Comey.
Now it's the case with Robert Mueller.
But you can see that the groundwork is being set by certain members of the Trump administration to do this.
So here's Rudy, Trump's lawyer again, who's saying, you know, if Mueller grants, if he sends a subpoena, if there's a grand jury subpoena for President Trump to testify, Trump does not have to comply.
What happens if Robert Mueller subpoenas the president?
Will you comply?
Well, we don't have to.
He's the president of the United States.
We can assert the same privileges other presidents have.
President Clinton negotiated a deal in which he didn't admit the effectiveness of the subpoena.
They withdrew it.
But he did testify before the grand jury.
Is the president willing to do that?
But only for two and a half hours?
Only with an arranged format?
Okay, so, Rudy's wrong.
Trump will comply with the subpoena if the subpoena comes down, because otherwise he'll be held in contempt of court, presumably.
It could create all sorts of legal problems for him.
He will go.
It will be pre-negotiated, and he will probably testify.
But, no guarantee there's going to be a subpoena anyway.
It's the militant stance that Rudy is taking against Mueller that's really interesting here.
You're seeing this also from Devin Nunes.
Devin Nunes, of course, is the House Intelligence Committee chairman, and he's saying that he wants to hold Jeff Sessions in contempt, the Attorney General.
He's saying the DOJ is stonewalling Congress on a bunch of material.
Now, the DOJ does have an obligation to turn over all that material.
Congress is an oversight body for the DOJ, and the DOJ does have to turn over these materials.
The DOJ is saying, listen, we don't have to turn over confidential materials in the middle of an investigation, because that doesn't comply with regulation.
Nunes is now saying he wants to hold Sessions in contempt.
Now, remember, this is Nunes doing Trump's dirty work.
Trump doesn't like Sessions.
He's angry at Sessions.
He believes Sessions never should have recused himself in the first place.
So here's Devin Nunes saying, let's hold Sessions in contempt.
Remember, Sessions is Trump's own attorney general.
Two weeks ago, we sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a classified letter.
Per usual, it was ignored, not acknowledged, just completely ignored.
So last week, we sent a subpoena.
And then on Thursday, we discovered that Uh, they are not going to comply with our subpoena on very important information that we need.
So what are you gonna do?
The only thing left that we can do is we have to move quickly to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt.
OK, so in just a second, I'm going to show you more evidence that the Trump administration seems to be moving against Mueller and seems to be moving against anyone who would protect Mueller.
So, for example, Rudy Giuliani, he comes out yesterday, he says, listen, here's what Trump wants.
Trump wants the Hillary Clinton treatment from Robert Mueller.
So Hillary Clinton got kid glove treatment from the FBI and the DOJ.
That's what Trump wants as well.
Again, the implication being that if Mueller doesn't give that sort of treatment, then suddenly he's going to turn around and fire Mueller.
I'd rather have the Hillary Clinton treatment.
Yeah, I think President Clinton was before the jury, before more than two and a half hours.
No, he was two and a half hours in the grand jury.
Approximately, maybe three.
We'll take three.
But Hillary Clinton treatment is what I'm looking for.
And that is, no under oath, only a Q&A, and then we get the questions in advance, and they write the report two weeks before.
Okay, so, again, this is, I think, the move that's being made by the Trump administration.
Let's shut this thing down.
Right?
Shut it down.
Shut it down.
Now, what's interesting is that the people who have political aspirations inside the Trump administration are not saying quite the same thing, right?
Nikki Haley is saying, no, you know, let's let this probe go.
And the reason she's saying that is, of course, she doesn't want to be seen as someone who's stonewalling on behalf of the president.
I have a feeling there's a Nikki Haley-Donald Trump confrontation coming sometime in the relatively near future here.
Here is Haley's statement when asked about the Mueller investigation.
Should the president shut it down?
No, not at all.
I mean, anything that comes like this, it should play its part, it should go through the process, but they need to do it quickly.
For the good of the country, this investigation needs to happen quickly.
Okay, so this is really, it's interesting, because again, I think Haley is correct, but I think Trump is leaning away from this.
Now, there is a danger for Democrats here, too.
I've talked about the danger to Trump.
If Trump were to fire Mueller, it would look like he was stonewalling, like he was covering something up.
There's a danger for Democrats.
The Democrats have staked their entire 2018 and 2020 hopes on people hate Trump.
Everyone hates Trump so much that we don't have to provide anything in the form of an alternative.
We don't have to be good at our jobs.
We don't have to have a program.
We don't have to have good candidates.
All we have to do is just yell and scream about Trump.
This is not going to work.
Right now, they are staking a lot of 2018 on, if you put us in a majority in the House, then we will impeach President Trump.
But the polls are not really very much in support of the idea of impeaching President Trump.
Most Americans are not thrilled with the idea that there are going to be impeachment hearings and throw Trump out of office on the basis of what?
On the basis of nothing right now.
Jonathan Karl is right that the best thing that could happen, Jonathan Karl, the reporter from ABC News, he's right.
The best thing that could probably happen here for the Republicans is for Democrats to start pushing impeachment on the basis of zero evidence at this point.
The Republicans that are running this strategy, in terms of from Capitol Hill, don't necessarily want that.
It's a district-by-district, state-by-state effort.
Some of those candidates will have to distance themselves from Donald Trump.
But the Trump political team believes that you have to make this all about, you have to make this a referendum on impeachment, a referendum on the president.
And I think that's exactly right.
I mean, I think that if the Democrats push for impeachment, that backfired against Republicans after they tried to impeach Clinton in 1998, 1999.
And I think it will backfire against, yeah, I think it will backfire against Democrats if they try it now.
Democrats believe this too.
Karen Finney is a former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, and she's admitting that if Democrats try to push for impeachment, it's actually going to be very bad for them.
And the Democrats cannot let that happen because, I agree with you, that is the way to fire up that base.
And Matt, I disagree with you.
I mean, part of why the messaging from the Democrats does matter is they've got to try to keep the president's numbers as low as they can and create as much of a wedge for Republicans who are either running for re-election or running in these races.
It's part of what we've seen, the challenge that they've had already in these special elections.
But this is the problem that Democrats have with their own base.
While the politicos understand that you can get your own base revved up with the impeachment talk, most Americans don't like it.
The Democratic base only wants to talk impeachment.
And Michael Knowles, the ex-Gribble Michael Knowles, he actually made a really good point over the weekend.
Only time you'll ever hear me say this.
Michael Knowles actually came out and he said, listen, Stormy Daniels is the de facto head of the Democratic Party, and that's basically right.
They're now using Stormy Daniels as the physical embodiment of the Trump lies argument.
And you can see this right on SNL, they featured Stormy Daniels on Saturday night.
And she got a big cheer, Stormy Daniels.
Why?
Because she slept with the president once?
And then she reneged on a $130,000 settlement agreement?
But listen to the cheers she gets from the crowd when she appears.
And then this little segment on SNL turns into, what it really turns into is her stumping for Trump's impeachment and the crowd cheering it along.
Stormy, this is Michael Cohen.
Are you alone?
Yes.
And what are you wearing?
Excuse me?
Okay, Michael, I can take it from here.
Okay, but as your attorney, I highly advise against you... So, what up, girl?
Hello, Donald.
Come on, Stormy, stop making such a big deal about this.
Everyone knows it's just an act.
I work in adult films.
We're not really known for our acting.
Just tell me, what do you need for this to all go away?
A resignation.
Yeah, right.
Okay, so stop it there.
Okay, this is what the Democrats want.
What the Democrats think is that Stormy Daniels is going to be responsible for Trump leaving, which is why this gets big cheers.
Now, I want to show you that the Democrats don't have exactly the same perspective when it comes to Democrats.
Because this is not the first time that a presidential paramour has appeared on Saturday Night Live.
Okay, it happened before, in 1998 actually.
And I'll show you what that looked like in just a second.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Stamps.com.
So, these days you can get practically everything on demand.
Well, one thing that you heretofore have not been able to get on demand is stamps, right?
You have to go down to the post office and you have to wait in line.
The post office is great, but you might not have time to leave the office.
Well, instead, now you can sit at your desk and you can get all of this done.
With stamps.com, you can access all the amazing services of the post office right from your desk, 24-7 when it is convenient.
For you, we use stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
It saves us a lot of time, and it saves us a lot of money, because time is money.
You can buy and print official U.S.
postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer.
You can print it out onto the envelope.
You can print it out onto stickers.
You can print it out onto a piece of paper and tape it to the envelope.
And then, you can just mail it, right?
You never have to worry about going to the post office again, which is great.
And right now, you can use Shapiro for a special offer, okay?
It includes up to 55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
So don't wait.
Go to stamps.com, and before you do anything else, click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Shapiro.
That's stamps.com, promo code Shapiro.
When you do that again, you get that special deal, 55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
Post office is great.
Stamps.com makes it even more convenient.
Go to stamps.com, and again, enter promo code Shapiro after you click on that radio microphone at the top of the homepage.
Okay, so when you look at SNL's treatment of Stormy Daniels, what you see is that they're treating her like she's a heroine.
The Democratic Party believes that Stormy Daniels is going to save them.
She's going to come like deus ex machina, going to come from the outside and somehow save the Democratic Party from the predations of Donald Trump.
Well, people are pointing out that this is not the first time that a former lover of the President of the United States has appeared on television on SNL.
Particularly, Monica Lewinsky did an actual cameo in 1998.
But you actually have to see how Monica Lewinsky treats Bill Clinton in this little cameo.
It's not about Bill Clinton's resignation anymore.
She basically tut-tuts him for being a bit of a sleaze.
But that's about it.
And there is a difference.
There is a difference.
Here's what it looked like in 1998 when Monica Lewinsky was on SNL.
Will you please welcome our guest, Ms.
Monica Lewinsky.
Come on, everybody.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah!
This guy at work is considerably older than me, and also, he's my boss.
Oh, your boss?
Uh, well, Monica, maybe you should answer this one.
Uh, well, I'd say it's not a good idea to get involved with people you work with.
Believe me.
Uh, first, people around the office start gossiping, and the next thing you know, your face is all over Arabic newspapers.
Yeah, I know that's what happens to me all the time.
Okay, so again, it turns into this sort of tut-tutting, isn't it funny that she had an affair with the President of the United States?
But it's not Stormy Daniels demanding a resignation.
It isn't resignation porn, it's just porn.
And it's basically how the media treated Bill Clinton as opposed to how they treat Donald Trump.
This is why the Democratic Party has a problem.
If they run on resignation of Donald Trump, they will lose.
But the base insists that this is exactly what they run on.
The only thing that the left cares about right now is Donald Trump.
Their entire universe revolves around the giant son of Donald Trump in the very center.
It's an amazing, amazing thing to watch because there's so much else going on.
This is why they're now hailing John McCain as a hero.
So John McCain is unfortunately dying.
And he knows that, right?
I mean, he's going to go pretty soon.
And he's already planning who he wants at his funeral.
So the left is very, very excited because McCain has said he does not want Donald Trump at his funeral.
According to NBC News, people close to Senator McCain have told the White House the ailing Arizona Republican does not want Trump to attend his funeral and would like Vice President Mike Pence to come and said.
A source close to McCain confirmed to NBC News.
He's been battling an aggressive form of brain cancer for nearly a year, and he's back home in Arizona after undergoing surgery last month.
And he's been ripping into Trump.
He obviously is doing a new HBO documentary in which he's going to criticize Trump.
Now, I think that's McCain's prerogative.
Listen, if I were McCain, would I want Donald Trump, a guy who said I wasn't a war hero, at my funeral?
A guy who consistently used me as his foil at my funeral?
Probably not, right?
And when you're dying, you definitely have to pick who comes to your funeral.
So all these people who are like, oh, it's so terrible.
How could he rip Trump like that, not wanting him at his funeral?
To be fair, Donald Trump was ripping McCain first.
But it's the media's response to this that I find truly fascinating.
The media are suddenly over the moon about John McCain again because John McCain has been resistant to Trump.
Everything for the left revolves around Donald Trump.
That is not a good way for you to run a political party.
It actually makes your political base nuts.
I think that there's a good case to be made that Barack Obama made the Republican base a little bit crazy.
And I think that the same thing is happening to the Democratic base with regard to Donald Trump.
Except a lot more so.
Except a lot more so.
Okay, so meanwhile, I have to tell you a couple of amazing stories.
So first, you wonder about the extremism of the left?
Here's an example of the extremism of the left.
So on Sunday, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on a supremely important development.
A male professor Made a joke about lingerie in an elevator.
And who else was in the elevator?
A gender studies professor.
So you can predict how this thing was going to go.
According to Catherine Mangan, who's the reporter at Chronicle of Higher Education, political theory professor Richard Ned Lebow of King's College was in an elevator with a bunch of other humans, including professor Simona Chironi, who teaches women's and gender studies at Merrimack College.
She is a professional useless person.
And Chironi, who clearly had been conditioned to submit to the patriarchy, she offered to hit buttons on the elevator.
And that's when Liebaud did the unthinkable.
He jokingly asked for the women's lingerie department.
Which has been like a joke since the 1950s, that you get on an elevator with a bunch of people, and then somebody says, which button would you like to hit?
And they say, lingerie department.
You know, just as like a stupid joke.
So his buddies, those jerks, those patriarchal jerks, they laughed.
How dare they?
So what did this lady do?
Okay, this women's studies professor complained to the International Studies Association just as an empowered woman would.
She went and she whined to the male bosses of the ISA.
She tremblingly wrote, quote, I am still trying to come to terms with the fact that we froze and didn't confront him for making a joke about the women's lingerie department in an elevator.
Okay, they launched a full investigation of Liebau.
Why?
Because here's what Liebaud did.
She wrote to him, and he wrote back, quote, And then he suggested that Chironi, who was born in Romania and raised in Israel, might have misinterpreted his remark.
When he was young in the 1950s, he said, it was a standard gag line to ask the elevator operator for the hardware or lingerie floor as though one were in a department store.
And then he wrote, like you, I'm strongly opposed to the exploitation, coercion, or humiliation of women.
As such evils continue, it seems to me to make sense to direct our attention to real offenses, not those that are imagined or marginal, By making a complaint to ISA that I consider frivolous, and I expect will be judged this way by the Ethics Committee, you may be directing time and effort away from the real offenses that trouble us both.
But this was the big problem, right?
Why was this a problem?
Because he was doubling down.
And not only that, he was mansplaining!
He mansplained to the gender studies professor.
You must never mansplain to a gender studies professor that she's being an idiot.
Too bad that she couldn't woman understand, but he had to mansplain it to her, and that was the big problem.
Andrew Clavin's line there about woman understanding.
According to the association, this was the cruelest cut of all.
That Li Bao didn't just bow grovellingly before her and say, I wish I had never made that lingerie joke.
I know.
I know.
It was just the same.
Just the same as forced abortions in China.
But, you know, I really apologize now.
So she says it didn't feel frivolous.
Instead, the association said that Liebau, this professor, had to write an unequivocal apology.
Liebau said no, because he's not a ridiculous stupid moron.
Instead, he wrote an email calling the entire situation, quote, a horrifying and chilling example of political correctness that encourages others to censor their remarks for fear of retribution.
Retribution.
But Cerrone, this female professor, was steadfast.
She wrote, quote, for decades.
Women and other marginalized groups in the academy had to put up with white men who decided what counts as a violation and what is frivolous.
As someone who has dedicated her life to confronting sexism and other forms of discrimination and oppression in academic spaces, I cannot and will not remain silent when misogyny is at play.
You can hear the swelling music from behind and you get the upshot with the lights behind her and you see her in profile.
She looks out staring into the sun because of the magical thing she's just done in resisting a joke about a women's lingerie department.
Just amazing.
Amazing courage.
And then people wonder why people think that gender studies professors are humorless scolds you would never want to spend any time in an elevator with.
Probably because they're humorless scolds that you wouldn't want to spend any time in an elevator with.
My goodness.
But this is the extent to which the left has gone extreme.
I have a couple more examples that I want to give you in just a second.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Tommy John.
So Tommy John is the 21st century clothing company.
They're famous for their no wedgie guarantee.
And they're now celebrating 10 years of underwear excellence.
OK, all of their underwear is supremely comfortable.
Not only is it supremely comfortable, You don't have to trust me.
They have the best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free, guarantee.
If it's not the most comfortable underwear you have ever worn, Tommy John will pick up the tab.
There's a reason that Tommy John has sold over 5 million pairs of underwear in 10 years.
More than half a million dudes have switched to Tommy John.
They use proprietary fabrics, innovative designs to make sure the legs never ride up, the waistband never rolls down.
It is impossible to get a wedgie.
Again, that is something I definitely could have used in high school.
Plus, Tommy John's time-saving, quick-draw fly is effective and useful.
And again, you don't have to believe me.
They have a best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee.
So if you try it and you don't like it, it's now free.
Hurry to tommyjohn.com right now slash Shapiro for 20% off your first order.
That's tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off your first order.
Again, tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro and get 20% off that first order.
The underwear are incredibly comfortable.
They also have a women's line as well.
Check it out.
Again, you don't have to trust me.
Try it.
You don't like it?
It's free.
Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off.
It's just the best there is.
Okay, so, meanwhile, speaking of extremism on the left, there's a CNN columnist who's now explaining that violence, all violence in the United States, is due to the patriarchy.
It is due to the patriarchy.
It's not due to guns.
It's not due to lack of fathers in the community.
It's due to the patriarchy.
I'll explain the extremism of this idiotic perspective in just a second, but for that you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
When you go over to dailywire.com, you get the rest of this show live, the rest of Clavin's show live, the rest of Knowles' show live.
You also, if you get the annual subscription, get this.
The very greatest in all beverage vessels, the leftist here's hot or cold tumbler.
It is spectacular.
You will love it.
By the way, when you're a subscriber, you also get to take part in The Conversation.
The next episode of The Conversation is coming up Tuesday, May 15th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific.
All of your questions will be answered by The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles.
I know, I know.
Why you think Michael Knowles has anything to answer you is beyond me, but you get to ask him any question that you want, including why he has hairless legs.
Alicia Krauss will be there to host it and keep Knowles in line, which is a really, really difficult job.
I do not envy her that.
This month's episode will stream live on Daily Wire's YouTube and Facebook pages.
It's free for everyone to watch.
Only subscribers can actually ask the questions.
To ask a question as a subscriber, you just go over to our website, dailywire.com.
You head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
After that, you start typing into the Daily Wire chat box.
Michael will answer questions as they come in for the entire hours.
So once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by Michael Knowles, Tuesday, May 15th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific, and join the conversation.
Also, I just wanted to note, thank you for subscribing last week, and thank you for watching our Sunday special.
So the Ben Shapiro Sunday special came out, and it was the interview with Jordan Peterson.
It's been getting amazing numbers, and I think rightly so, because it's a really good interview.
Jordan said it's the best interview that he's done in a really long time, maybe ever, and I appreciate that.
Our next week's interview, I'm not going to announce the guest now.
You'll have to wait to hear who the guest is.
But it's another big-name guest for next Sunday.
We're going to have a big-name guest every Sunday because that's what we do here.
So check all of that out.
If you just want to listen, go over to iTunes, go over to YouTube.
Please subscribe.
Please leave us a review.
We are the largest conservative podcast in the nation.
So talking about the polarization and extremism of the left and the fact that they want to impeach Donald Trump, the fact that you have feminist studies professors who are attempting to shut down jokes in elevators.
Well, the latest example comes courtesy of CNN.
There's a community organizer there named Richard Edmund Vargas, and he has finally cracked the code to violence in American society.
It is not guns.
It is not lack of fathers.
It is testicles.
Testicles are the real problem.
According to Vargas, quote, "It's safe to say there is something wrong with how our culture socializes men." So Vargas has spent a lot of time with prisoners, and what he's found is that the patriarchy is to blame.
He writes this.
Again, this is at CNN.com.
"Patriarchy is a social system that defines men as being inherently violent, dominant, and controlling, while rewarding them with power for being that way.
It is no secret, especially these days, that we live in a patriarchal society.
Why are we continually surprised when a man takes up arms and commits mass murder?
First of all, we live in a less patriarchal society than any time in human history.
If by patriarchal society, you mean the rule of men.
There are more women in positions of power now than at any time in the history of humanity.
Beyond that, this idea that men are continuously taking up arms and committing mass murder is not true.
Those numbers have been declining steadily for the last several decades.
Violent crime rates have been in consistent decline since 1994.
Second, men constitute most violent criminals in every society, no matter how feminist they are.
Every society ever, men are more violent than women.
That's just the way that it works.
It's not the patriarchy.
It's because men are built to be more violent than women.
And finally, it's really funny that this guy wants to blame the entire patriarchy when it is in fact lack of men in society that is leading to a violent uptick where there is a violent uptick.
Single motherhood is one of the leading indicators in American society of criminality among young men.
It's very weird that Vargas is willing to blame a culture of American patriarchalism at large for violence, rather than looking at specific cultures that have a violence problem and saying, OK, what do all of these things have in common?
It has nothing to do with race.
There are violent white cultures.
There are violent black cultures.
There are violent Hispanic cultures.
One of the things that they have in common is lack of men in the community teaching boys that they are safe, that they don't need to react violently, and that it is, in fact, bad to react violently.
Instead, Vargas blames cartoons, video games, and contemporary politicians, which is just idiotic.
Cartoons have been around since the 1940s, 1930s.
They've always been violent.
They're less violent now than at any time, probably in the history of cartoons.
Watch cartoons now, really.
They're a lot less violent than they were even in Tom and Jerry's day.
That's why, in The Simpsons, they mock the old cartoons with Itchy and Scratchy, the uber-violent cartoons from Itchy and Scratchy.
That's supposed to be making fun of the cartoons.
It's Tom and Jerry.
That's what it's supposed to be mocking.
Okay, those cartoons have gotten less violent.
Video games, very little evidence to show that playing video games makes you violent.
In fact, there's virtually no evidence to show that.
And contemporary politicians, again, blaming Trump, I understand.
It just shows how Trump has warped the minds of the left.
Blaming Trump for upticks in violence is insane, considering that whatever uptick in violence has happened in the last couple of years predated him.
The uptick in violent crime was due to the Ferguson effect in 2015 and 2016, as cops stopped getting aggressive in high-crime areas, and that led to an increase in crime generally.
So where is Vargas getting his evidence for the idea that America's patriarchal society is responsible for the evils of violence?
Here's what he says.
In my own life, I was taught by patriarchy that real men don't ask for help.
And because of the ways that patriarchy is racialized, I was taught that black men like myself were supposed to act in certain ways.
Hardened.
Shallow.
Unaccountable.
When I was 19, I followed this script and decided that committing robberies was an acceptable way to deal with the fact that I couldn't pay my rent.
When my girlfriend offered to help me pay it, I saw accepting a woman's help as weakness and decided to rob instead.
That led to me being sentenced to 10 years in state prison.
It was all a little bit vague.
Like, where's the patriarchy?
Who told him this?
Who socialized him?
Who?
Was it his dad?
Was it his brothers?
Was it other—was it gang members?
Like, who did it?
He doesn't say, because instead—again, this is one of the big problems in having political conversations.
When people say, the problem is white privilege, the problem is the patriarchy, the problem is generalized American institutional racism.
None of this is helpful because you're not naming me a specific problem I can deal with.
It's like me saying, the problem is society.
What the hell am I supposed to do about society?
What are you supposed to do about society?
The answer is, you can't do anything about society.
You actually have to name me the specific problem that I can help you fight.
Otherwise, you're just shouting in the wind and blaming people you disagree with for your problems.
Vargas' solution in the end is feelings.
He says that young men must be taught to share and regulate the spectrum of human emotions.
Or, maybe what we actually need is more of a patriarchy.
A system of men bringing up boys.
A system of men growing up, roughhousing with their sons, teaching them the limits of violent play.
A system of men.
Who are inculcating in their sons the idea that they have to be protectors of women and children.
That they are not to act out violently.
Maybe you need more men, not fewer men.
Maybe you need more masculinity, not less masculinity.
Maybe testosterone is not the problem.
It's unchanneled testosterone because there's no other men there to deter the use of testosterone.
You know why boys don't listen to their moms?
Because boys, very often, are physically more powerful than their moms.
Okay, talk to any guy who's alive now, right, any man who has lived through the age of 16 or 17 and ask them if they were really intimidated by their mom.
The answer is no.
But ask any of those men who grew up with powerful dads if they were afraid that if they crossed the line, their dad was going to whoop their butt.
The answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
That was always a deterrent.
You need a system.
In fact, it's not even having a father in the home, it turns out.
That's the most important thing.
It's having a lot of men in the community at large.
There's that study that I talked about a few weeks ago from Harvard, in which they looked at violent crime statistics, and what they found is that the leading indicator of depressing violent crime wasn't actually having a father in the home.
It was having lots of fathers in the neighborhood.
It was having an entire system of men.
So getting rid of the men isn't the solution.
And feminizing men isn't the solution either.
The answer is channeling masculinity in a positive way that matters.
Channeling masculinity in a special, positive way.
And you need men to do that.
Now, meanwhile, speaking of the racialism of the left, there's a long 5,000-word essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates now on Kanye West.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is considered one of the great writers of our time.
For the life of me, I don't know why.
I think that he uses very flowing, romantic language.
He likes run-on sentences.
He's very fond of paragraph-long lists.
His writing has been favored by all of the great intelligentsia.
He's considered the heir to James Baldwin, the racial writer from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 50s.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a long essay in which he is very, very angry with Kanye West.
Why is he angry with Kanye West?
He's angry with Kanye West because Kanye West says that he wants to think outside the box.
So, what does Ta-Nehisi Coates do?
Kanye West's argument is, I'm not just a black man, I'm an individual, and that means I can have an individual perspective.
And Ta-Nehisi Coates' answer to this is, stop being an individual with a perspective, be a black man.
So he begins his 5,000-word essay with an ode to Michael Jackson.
He says, "Michael Jackson was God, "but not just God in scope and power, "though there was certainly that, "but God in his great mystery, "God in how a child would hear tell of him, "God in how he lived among the legend and the lore, "God because the Walkman was still uncommon, "and I was young and could not count on the car radio, "because my parents lived between NPR and WTOP." Oh, such language, oh.
And he talks about how Michael Jackson was his God, but then Michael Jackson started turning white.
He says that he had always been dying, dying to be white.
This is what he says about Michael Jackson.
That's pretty overwrought language.
By the way, it's also kind of nasty because it turns out that Jackson had vitiligo, right?
So Jackson, there was a lot of suspicion that he was bleaching his skin, but it turns out that on his autopsy, they actually found he did have vitiligo, which actually makes your skin white.
And he would bleach the rest of his skin to match the vitiligo because he can't bleach the vitiligo.
So, you know, again, that's easy for Coates to rip on him for wanting to be...
Listen, there are a bunch of reasons to rip on Michael Jackson.
The skin stuff, I think, is the least of it.
But according to Coates, that's because Michael Jackson was a sellout.
What does that have to do with Kanye West?
He says, Kanye, a god in this time...
Okay, first of all, if you are worshipping cultural figures as gods, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than Kanye West.
It's Kanye West, a god in this time, awakened recently from a long public slumber to embrace Donald Trump.
He hailed Trump as a brother, a fellow bearer of dragon energy, and impugned those who objected as suppressors of unpopular questions, thought police, whose tactics were based on fear.
Which is basically true.
And then Kanye West, and then Ta-Nehisi Coates, plays the thought police.
Right, he says that Kanye, like Jackson before him, is trying to escape his blackness.
He says, That Donald Trump is nothing new.
He says, the tragedy is so old, but even within it, there are actors, some who have chosen resistance and some like West, who have blithely chosen collaboration.
So apparently, he is now a collaborator.
And here is the amazing part of this ridiculously long and silly article.
He says West is the great betrayer.
He's the great betrayer.
Why?
Because when Jackson sang and danced, when West samples or rhymes, they're tapping into a power formed under all the killing, all the beatings, all the rape and plunder that made America.
The gift can never wholly belong to a singular artist, free of expectation and scrutiny, because the gift is no more solely theirs than the suffering that produced it.
So in other words, Kanye West is not an individual.
He is merely a sort of a sort of embodiment of black culture collectively, and therefore he can't be an individual, he has to be that embodiment of black culture.
And so here is where he gets to the point.
He says, "What Kanye West seeks is what Michael Jackson sought, liberation from the dictates of that we," the we being black people.
"In his visit with West, the rapper T.I. was stunned to find that West, despite his endorsement of Trump, had never heard of the travel ban.
He didn't know the things that we know because he's removed himself from society to a point where it doesn't reach him," T.I. said.
West calls his struggle the right to be a free thinker and he is indeed championing a kind of freedom, a white freedom.
Freedom without consequence.
Freedom without criticism.
Freedom to be proud and ignorant.
Freedom to profit off of people in one moment and abandon them in the next.
A stand-your-ground freedom.
A freedom without responsibility, without hard memory.
A Monticello without slavery.
A Confederate freedom.
The freedom of John C. Calhoun.
John C. Calhoun talks about the glories and merits of slavery.
Not the freedom of Harriet Tubman, which calls you to risk your own.
Not the freedom of Nat Turner, which calls you to give even more.
But a conqueror's freedom.
Freedom of the strong, built on antipathy or indifference to the weak.
The freedom of rape buttons, pea grabbers, and F-U-N-U-A-B.
Freedom of oil and invisible wars.
The freedom of suburbs drawn with red lines.
The freedom, the white freedom of Calabasas.
So Kanye West said, I want to think for myself.
And Ta-Nehisi Coates' response is, you're just like John C. Calhoun.
You're just like the slaveholder.
You're just like the person who killed Trayvon Martin.
You are looking for the white freedom of Calabasas.
I think that Ta-Nehisi Coates just proved Kanye West's point.
Kanye West's entire point was, you won't let me think for myself, because you suggest that if I do, then I am betraying black people everywhere.
And Ta-Nehisi Coates says, you're right.
You are betraying black people everywhere by thinking for yourself.
Stop that.
Return to being a cog in the machine, because after all, Your culture is not your own.
Your music is not your own.
Your creativity is not your own.
It's mine.
He has a Marxist view of society in which we are all outgrowths of the social milieu in which we live.
And Kanye West is just that.
And if he betrays that social milieu, then he has become a traitor, a race traitor.
He finishes up Ta-Nehisi Coates by saying, I wonder what he might be if he could find himself back into connection, back to that place where he sought not a disconnected freedom of eye, but a black freedom that called him back, back to the bone and drum, back to Chicago, back to home.
OK, well, maybe he doesn't need to be called back to Chicago, back to home.
Maybe home is where you make it because you're an individual.
But this clash between collective and individual is too much for Ta-Nehisi Coates to stand.
It's too much for the left to stand.
And that is a root conflict that is not going to go away anytime soon.
OK.
Time for some things I like, and then some things I hate, and we'll do a Federalist paper.
So, things I like.
Over the weekend, HBO is recommending, I have Amazon Prime and I subscribe to HBO, so one of HBO's documentaries is this fascinating documentary called Going Clear.
Now, it started off as a book, and the book itself is quite good.
The documentary is quite frightening.
If you've never followed what the Scientologists believe or what they do, what the Church of Scientology is, this is a really good introduction.
And it is scary, it is quite scary.
It is also scary insofar as it's not that hard to get people to believe a lot of kooky, crazy things.
And I say this as a religious person who believes some kooky, crazy things, right?
I mean, the fact is that it is not that hard to get people to believe stuff that is damaging to themselves.
And this is true whether you are secular or whether you're religious, because Scientology is not really particularly religious.
The draw to Scientology, the original draw to Scientology, is psychological, right?
It's, we are going to better you, we're going to make you stronger, we're going to make you a better version of you.
It's only when you reach the upper levels of Scientology that they start giving you all the weird stuff about Xenu and Thetans and all that kind of stuff.
But, it just shows how people who are looking for answers can be gulled into a lot of crazy stuff.
Here is a little bit of the preview for Going Clear, Scientology and the Prison of Belief.
Someone had told me there's this cult and it'll make anything possible in your life.
I was deeply convinced that we were getting to save the world.
It was a transcendent experience.
You feel euphoric.
Everything you do for endless trillions of years depends on what you do with and in Scientology.
They sell it all in the beginning as something quite logical.
You take on a matrix of thought that is not your own.
It's so strong that it sticks you by glue.
Okay, the documentary is really good.
It does investigate John Travolta's relationship with Scientology and Tom Cruise's relationship with Scientology.
It is super creepy.
Check it out, going clear.
Okay, time for A Thing That I Hate.
So actually, I have a couple of things that I hate today.
The first thing that I hate, there is this tweet that had, at last count, it was deleted, but it had almost two million views, I believe, on this little video.
And it is a person who is berating a small Jewish child.
I mean, this kid, how old is this kid?
Maybe four?
I mean, this kid looks the age of my daughter, maybe.
And this is a Hasidic kid from probably Crown Heights, New York, walking around wearing a yarmulke.
And what some of the more Hasidic members of the community do is, because they believe that you're supposed to let your side locks grow, the kid has really long side locks and the kid's hair is cut really, really short.
So here is this video that it was being mocked, right?
The kid was being mocked.
This is a small child being mocked for his parents' religion.
Here's this kid who's getting mocked.
And again, this thing had like two million views on Twitter and everybody laughing at the kid and these stupid people who do this to the kid.
The guy's standing there mocking the kid.
He's not mocking the parents, he's mocking the kid.
Here's what it sounded like.
He's just gonna keep looking at me.
I'll be crying if I look like that too, bro.
That's f***ed up what they be doing to y'all.
I ain't even gonna hold you, bro.
I be saying that's f***ed up.
Like, bro, you probably had the full washing set.
Your sh** be fired probably if they ain't cut your sh**.
It's f***ed up, bro.
It's your life.
Okay, that guy is just, it's an awful person.
But if you looked at the Twitter comments, it was all anti-Semitic crap about how dare they, you know, these terrible, terrible parents.
I promise you that these kids' parents, this kid's parents right here, they're better parents than the guy who's talking.
The guy who's talking?
That guy had crappy parents.
You know how I know?
Because that guy's a piece of human debris.
Okay?
And what's amazing is that this, of course, there have been a couple of beatings of Hasidic guys in New York in the last few weeks, like anti-Semitic beatings of Hasidic guys in New York.
In the last couple of weeks.
It's been largely unremarked upon by national media because only certain, only certain beatings get actually covered by the national media.
If there's an Islamophobic beating, for example, an Islamophobic attack, well-deserved media coverage.
If there's an anti-Semitic attack, only if it's Trump supporter, if it's an alt-right guy, for example, then it gets media.
But if it's a black guy attacking a Hasidic kid in New York, which is what that sounds like, then, and if you look at the comments and the person who tweeted it out, the person who tweeted it out is black, Then it's totally fine, right?
No comment at all.
This is pure anti-Semitism.
The idea that anti-Semitism only exists on the alt-right is idiotic.
It is not true.
It is false.
If you look at the polls, anti-Semitism inside the black community is much higher than anti-Semitism in the white community, which is a real problem, and it's something that needs to be dealt with internally in the black community, but it's...
It's really, really gross.
You know, the media won't cover any of this stuff because you're not allowed to say that the intersectional coalition actually has fault lines, that black people, that the polls show that the black community has more of an anti-Semitism problem than the white community, because obviously blacks are supposed to be allied with Jews, and all of them are supposed to be allied against the white power structure, but that is not the reality.
The reality is that there are serious fault lines between a lot of these communities, and those need to be rectified in all directions.
Okay, other things that I hate.
Alyssa Milano decided to show up to the NRA event over the weekend, and she brought along her security guard.
Well, her security guard was armed.
And an NRA member pointed out that Alyssa Milano was walking around with an armed security guard and she got really uptight.
We must prevent civilians from deploying weapons of war.
You cannot accept guns.
But you are armed.
You have armed security here.
I'm going to ask you to leave.
That's what I'm going to ask you to leave.
Because you got a gun.
I'm going to ask you to leave.
Okay.
But I'm going to ask you to leave.
Hey, you already told him that.
I'm going to ask you to leave.
You already told him that and he's going back.
Hey, I'm leaving.
I'm leaving.
How far do I have to go before I'm going to go?
I need you on the sidewalk.
The sidewalk?
Yes, sir.
Hypocrite.
Alyssa, you're a hypocrite.
But you are armed.
You have armed security here.
You are armed.
You have armed security here.
Okay, and then she claimed that she knew that the security was armed, which is highly unlikely.
Okay, as somebody who travels with security, I know when my security is armed.
I know when my security is not armed.
By the way, this is a public forum, so moving this guy off of the sidewalk.
As long as he's not disturbing anyone is not actually a thing.
But it just goes to show you the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to gun control.
It only extends so far as their security guards.
Okay, now time for a Federalist paper.
Every week we do a Federalist paper here on the Ben Shapiro Show.
We are all the way up to Federalist number 27.
Alexander Hamilton wrote this one and it is all about the fears that the federal government would use the military to execute its laws.
Now this Federalist paper is kind of weird because it actually has some holes in it.
Hamilton argues that the people are not going to have to worry about the federal government cracking down using federal troops because they're only going to rebel.
People are only going to rebel if the government sucks.
He says, quote, "I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that the American people's confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration.
So therefore, if they administer well, you're not going to have to worry about the military." That's not really a very good argument.
That's an argument like, well, I'm worried that the police are going to come into my community and harm me.
And the answer is, well, if you obey the laws, then the police won't come and harm you.
Well, what if the laws are the question?
What if the extent of the legal authority is the question itself?
Okay, then Hamilton continues. then Hamilton continues.
He says, the more you are going to be likely to obey its commands. - But at the same time, this should be a case for the federal government doing less.
Because that is true.
The more you deal with the federal government, the more you become dependent on the federal government.
What Hamilton is using as an argument in favor of a standing military at the national level should actually be used as an argument in favor of less federal intervention, because the fact is, the more the government is interacting with you on a daily basis, the more you're going to accept them interacting with you on a daily basis, which they should not be in the first place.
I think this argument actually cuts in the opposite direction of how Hamilton wants it to cut.
Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
As always, I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and 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 Ford Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection