Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 6, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:38

The Coming Apocalypse Nobody Cares About | Ep. 554

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There's a story nobody is talking about, but we will talk about it.
	Plus, we'll talk about President Obama lying repeatedly to the American public and President Trump's most patriotic event ever in history of humanity.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	So many exciting things happening in the world and we'll get to all of those things.
	But first, I want to make an announcement.
	This Father's Day, we are having a special live stream.
	This Tuesday, June 12th, 7 p.m.
	Eastern, God King Jeremy Boring of The Daily Wire will host a roundtable discussion with me, Andrew Klavan, and Michael Mulls, and we will discuss All the elements of fatherhood, because all of us are fathers except for Knowles, and we can hope that never happens, because my God, think of his children.
	But again, that's this Tuesday.
	Subscribers will be able to ask us questions live.
	If you subscribe, that means you can ask us a question at DailyWire.com, and if you're not a subscriber, then you can just tune in to Facebook or YouTube and watch us all hang out, and everyone else will smoke cigars, and I will laugh at them as they die of lung cancer.
	So check that out, Tuesday, June 12th, 7pm Eastern, 4pm Pacific at DailyWire.com.
	Also, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Bowl and Branch.
	So, as I have mentioned a thousand times on this show, I suck at sleeping.
	I'm great at a lot of things.
	I mean, I'm just amazing.
	But, sleeping?
	Not one of those things.
	Terrible at sleeping.
	And that's why I really appreciate a good set of sheets.
	I didn't even know I appreciated a good set of sheets until I tried a really good set of sheets over from Bowl and Branch.
	Bullenbrand sheets are made from organic cotton, which means they get softer every time they get washed.
	And you buy directly from Bullenbrand, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
	Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store.
	Bullenbrand sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
	Everybody loves Bullenbrand sheets.
	Three U.S.
	presidents plus The latest person Bill Clinton is sexually harassing probably sleep on Bull and Branch sheets.
	So you can check out Bull and Branch sheets right now and get a special deal.
	50 bucks off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	That's bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Again, these sheets are so good that we actually threw out the rest of our sheets at our house and bought a bunch of other pairs of sheets because they're just that good.
	bullandbranchsheets.com, promo code Ben, and you get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets.
	It's B-O-L-L and Branch.com.
	Promo code Ben.
	Go over there and check it out for the special deal.
	50 bucks off.
	Bull and Branch.com.
	Promo code Ben to let them know that we sent you.
	Okay, so the big story of the day is actually courtesy of the Obama administration.
	So we've been hearing non-stop.
	from the media that President Trump is the worst liar in history.
	His administration just lies and lies and lies and lies.
	And we here on the Ben Shapiro show have called balls and strikes when President Trump says something that I don't think is true.
	I will tell you that I think that he said something that is not true and I will hammer him if I think that he did something wrong.
	I'm happy to do that because he's the president of the United States and it is our job to call the president of the United States when he does something wrong.
	But One of the things that conservatives find so incredibly galling about the media coverage of President Trump is that the media are so eager to use the word lie about President Trump in every possible context, but they will refrain in every possible context from using the word lie about President Obama, and they did for years.
	Well, it turns out today, a stunning report from the Associated Press, the Obama administration, shock of shocks, was lying to the American people for years on end about helping out the Iranian mullahs.
	So when we talk about President Trump lying, when the media talk about it, usually what they are talking about is President Trump is fibbing about his inauguration crowd, or President Trump is fibbing about a note that he wrote about Donald Trump Jr.
	in a Trump Tower meeting, something like that.
	Something that really has very little to do with governance per se.
	President Obama lied about key areas of American governance in a way that President Trump never has.
	President Obama lied repeatedly about Obamacare.
	He said, if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.
	That was a complete lie, and he kept lying about it over and over and over.
	And what's hilarious is that the media covered for him at the time.
	I believe it was PolitiFact that originally said that that statement was half true.
	And then three years later, when it turns out that it was a lie all along, they called it their lie of the year, which is just incredible and demonstrates how biased all of these sources are.
	President Obama lied repeatedly about his treatment of illegal immigration.
	He said 22 times he did not have the executive authority to unilaterally suspend enforcement of immigration law.
	And then what did he do?
	He unilaterally suspended enforcement of immigration law.
	So he lied two dozen times about that issue.
	And the media basically let him get away with it.
	The Obama administration lied repeatedly about Benghazi in the aftermath of the murder of four Americans in Benghazi in a terrorist attack, a pre-planned terrorist attack.
	The Obama administration lied and lied and lied.
	First, they lied that they had not denied security.
	Then they lied and said that the whole thing had been caused by a YouTube video when it clearly had not been caused by a YouTube video.
	They lied repeatedly.
	They lied when it came to the IRS.
	The Obama administration lied on issues of serious national policy.
	Trump lies because that's what Trump does about silly things on a lot of issues, right?
	Trump will fib, for example, about the Philadelphia Eagles kneeling for the national anthem.
	And I'll smack him on it, as I did on yesterday's show.
	But, typically the stuff that Trump lies about It tends to be rather small potatoes when you compare it to the actual central policy ramifications of the stuff that President Obama lied about.
	Today's story from the Associated Press is the most obvious example.
	So, according to the Associated Press, the Obama administration attempted to end around its own sanctions in order to give cash to the worst terror sponsor on the planet.
	So while the Obama administration was pitching the Iran deal, while they were suggesting the Iran deal was going to be some sort of great savior of the moderates inside Iran, and at the same time saying that Iran was not pursuing terrorism, They had sanctions in place.
	But the Obama administration was attempting to end around those sanctions, and they were lying to the American people about it at the time.
	According to the AP, quote, The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros.
	By exchanging them first into U.S.
	dollars.
	If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S.
	financial system.
	So in other words, Iran, in order to use its capital, has to transform it into Omani rials.
	These are very difficult to then transfer into American dollars, unless there's a waiver.
	And President Obama was secretly pursuing just that sort of waiver.
	So basically what happened is that the Obama administration went to a bunch of American banks and tried to get American banks to go along with violations of American sanctions, to issue them a waiver.
	And these banks said, no.
	The banks said, listen, we don't want to be caught up in the middle of this.
	We're not going to run money for Iran on your behalf.
	Only the fact that U.S.
	banks did not want to violate American law prevented Iran from getting its hands on $5.7 billion more in American dollars.
	Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, he says, quote, So at the same time that Obama was pursuing this Iranian deal, which was a garbage deal from the very beginning, they were lying to the American people saying the sanctions were fully in force and that they had no intention of becoming money launderers essentially for the Iranian regime at the very time they were attempting essentially money laundering for the Iranian regime.
	The Obama administration repeatedly lied over and over again about their supposed unwillingness to allow Iran access to the U.S.
	financial system.
	Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew even testified before Congress to that effect, which could amount to perjury.
	So, what does Team Obama have to say about the fact that they were trying to help out Iran so Iran could avoid sanctions passed by the United States Congress, held globally?
	What was Obama saying at the time?
	Well, they were saying that they weren't doing it, and now what are they saying?
	Unnamed Obama officials, according to the EAP, said they were acting, quote, So they weren't acting in line with the letter of the law, they were acting in line with the spirit of the deal, which is apparently to give away the store and bend over backwards for the worst terror regime on the planet.
	They said the lies were justified because they were attempting to debunk arguments that Team Obama wanted to give even more concessions to the Iranians.
	So in other words, people were saying, you're bending over backward from Iran for Iran.
	And so Team Obama lied about bending over backward for Iran to prove that they weren't bending over backward for Iran.
	Yeah, well done guys.
	It's somewhat like arguing that Bill Clinton didn't lie about sex with Monica Lewinsky, he just wanted to debunk rumors that he had sex with an intern.
	And it turns out the Obama administration activity on behalf of Iran went even further.
	In March 2016, this is all according to the AP, okay?
	It's not a right-wing news source.
	According to the Associated Press, in March 2016, Obama officials, including the exorable Secretary of State John Kerry, quote, fanned out across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, trying to convince banks and businesses they could do business with Iran without violating sanctions and facing steep fines.
	So the Iranians were complaining, listen, you guys want us to sign a deal with you, and we have signed a deal with you, but we're not seeing the benefits of this deal, so why don't you go out there and act as our PR agents?
	And Team Obama said, sure, let's do it.
	Let's go out there.
	Let's be Iran's friends.
	We'll go out there.
	We will be their foreign ministry.
	And so the Obama administration was the foreign ministry for the Iranian government.
	They talk about collusion with Russia by the Trump administration, the same Trump administration that has killed some hundreds of Russians in Syria, the same Trump administration that has armed Ukrainian resistance with lethal weaponry.
	They talk about Trump collusion with Russia.
	They don't talk about collusion.
	The Obama administration was covertly playing foreign ministry for the worst terror regime on planet Earth.
	That was covertly pursuing nuclear weapons, as it turns out.
	There's another story in a second that I'm going to tell you.
	The AP continues.
	The same week, the AP reported that the Treasury had prepared a draft of a license that would have given Iran much broader permission to convert its assets from foreign currencies into easier-to-spend currencies like euros, yen, or rupees by first exchanging them for dollars at offshore financial institutions.
	The draft involved a general license, a blanket go-ahead that allows all transactions of a certain type, rather than a specific license like the one given to Oman's bank Muscat, Which only covers specific transactions and institutions.
	The proposal would have allowed dollars to be used in currency exchanges provided that no Iranian banks, no Iranian rials, and no sanctioned Iranian individuals or businesses were involved, and that the transaction did not begin or end in U.S.
	dollars.
	In other words, they're going to cover this up as far as it could possibly go, but it was the American government helping out the Iranian government.
	Obama administration officials at the time assured concerned lawmakers that a general license would not be coming.
	But the report from the Republican members of the Senate panel showed that a draft of the license was indeed prepared, though it was never published.
	So in other words, they were pursuing it at the same time they were lying and saying they weren't pursuing it.
	When questioned by lawmakers about the possibility of granting Iran any kind of access to the U.S.
	financial system, Obama-era officials never volunteered that the specific license for Bank Muscat in Oman had been issued two months earlier.
	So they lied about this.
	I mean, this is perjurious stuff.
	This is criminal stuff.
	And yet the Obama administration?
	We were told that they were honest, they were clean as the driven snow.
	Just absolutely pure.
	And by the way, this is the second deal this week demonstrating that Team Obama lied to Americans about the Iran deal.
	That Iran deal that Obama treasured so dearly.
	President Obama believed that Iran should become a regional power, and by granting it more power, it would moderate Iran.
	An insane proposal, but tied into President Obama's misconceptions about the nature of Shia Islam and the Muslim world in particular.
	And so, here is the second story that is a serious problem for the Obama administration, if anyone cared, in the media.
	On Tuesday, and by the way, I should mention, of course, the AP is reporting this, so it's not everybody in the media ignoring this, but why is it that the media were so happy to go along with all of these lies for eight long years, and only two years after Obama leaves office we find out about this?
	Well, on Tuesday, the Iranian government announced they'd completed a new centrifuge assembly at their Natanz facility.
	That's just a month after President Trump killed the Iran nuclear deal, which is sort of suspicious.
	Since we were assured that the Iranians had dismantled all of their nuclear capacities.
	That the Iranians were going to dismantle those nuclear capacities for the next 10 years.
	And they weren't going to be able to reconstitute their nuclear program so quickly.
	So here's how the Obama fanboys of the New York Times reported this odd development, quote, While Iran said it would keep enrichment within limits set by the 2015 nuclear accord, the center's opening seemed to signal that it could swing to industrial-level enrichment if that agreement, which the United States withdrew from last month, should further unravel.
	Under the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran stopped enriching uranium to the 20% limit that would allow for rapid development of a nuclear weapon and agreed to a limit of under 5%.
	It will adhere to that limit, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said in a speech on Monday.
	Yes, surely the mullahs, who have been lying for literally decades about this stuff, would not have lied to the Obama administration.
	I do love how the New York Times tries to twist this into, well, it's really Trump's fault.
	If Trump hadn't pulled out of the Iran deal, they wouldn't have fired up those centrifuge facilities again.
	The real question is, why is it that in a month they were able to redevelop their centrifuges?
	I thought these had been dismantled.
	I was assured that the Iranians would not simply snap back to a nuclear program the minute the seal was over by President Obama.
	I remember him saying it.
	And yet, it seems like that's exactly what happened.
	That's not the extent of the lies.
	There are more lies than that.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Burroughs.
	So, you're sitting on a couch right now listening to my podcast, right?
	Well, look at that couch.
	Like, look at it.
	It's got the stains.
	It's just terrible.
	It's probably the same sofa your grandmother died on.
	Well, you don't want to sleep on that thing anymore.
	You don't want to lie on that thing anymore.
	You don't want to sit on that thing anymore.
	Instead, what you want is a brand new sofa that is just awesome.
	And that's where Burrow comes in.
	Burrow sofas, they're handcrafted in the same factories in North Carolina as other high-end retailers.
	They actually have a USB charger built into the sofa, which is awesome.
	innovative, award-winning design.
	They've been ergonomically designed to allow for those multi-hour Netflix binges, triple header game days, late night work sessions.
	The work sessions are particularly important for me because they actually have a USB charger built into the sofa, which is awesome.
	It's amazing nobody's thought of this before.
	And you can customize your burrow sofa to match your style by selecting the color, size, armrest height, and leg color that is perfect for you.
	Shipping is fast and free, unlike the rest of the outdated furniture industry, so check it out.
	Enjoy 30 days of cozy on your comfortable Burro, risk-free, or try out one of them at their partner showrooms today.
	Go customize your own Burro and get $75 off your order by going to Burro.com slash Ben Shapiro.
	That's B-U-R-R-O-W dot com slash Ben Shapiro.
	Burro.com slash Ben Shapiro for $75.
	Off your order.
	It's just awesome.
	Bro.com slash Ben Shapiro.
	OK, so the extent of the Obama administration's lies on Iran are pretty extraordinary.
	Of course, their biggest lie about the Iran deal is that the Iran deal was pursued because there was an opening in negotiations.
	You remember that Ben Rhodes?
	Remember that guy who was basically sitting there in stunned silence during the Trump election?
	And it was hilarious and wonderful.
	Remember that guy?
	Well, that guy spent most of the Obama administration publicly lying about Iran, saying that Iran had now moderated, there was a new Iranian regime in place that was eager to reach out to the American people and make a deal with the world.
	That was all a lie.
	He went around bragging to the New Yorker magazine that he had created an echo chamber strategy to anybody who would listen.
	That he had used people like Jeffrey Goldberg, the new editor over at The Atlantic, who I believe was a pawn and a lackey for the Obama administration.
	Rhodes basically suggested the same thing.
	Rhodes said that we were lying to everybody about what was going on with the Iran deal.
	They went ahead and did it anyway.
	And this is why so many people on the right are so fed up with the media suddenly getting harsh with President Trump.
	Now listen, I wish the media were just as hard on President Obama as they've been on President Trump.
	I think the solution to the media's disproportionate focus on Trump is to increase its coverage of Democrats, not to decrease its coverage of Republicans.
	There's this feeling on the right that turnabout is fair play.
	If the media was going to ignore all the bad stuff that Obama did, why shouldn't we ignore all the bad stuff that Trump does?
	My feeling is, how about we hold all of our politicians to the same account, and when they do bad stuff, let's call them on it.
	But is there a media double standard?
	Absolutely.
	Abso-freaking-lutely there is a media double standard when it comes to the Obama administration versus the Trump administration.
	And this latest spate of stories regarding Iran is the most obvious example of this.
	I mean, it is just stunning.
	It truly is stunning.
	Remember, Obama was lying to the American people over and over again.
	The word lied was never used with President Obama with regard to anything.
	Go back and look.
	The media never said that Obama lied about things.
	They said that maybe he made a mistake, or maybe he exaggerated.
	I mean, even this AP report, this really, really damning AP report, at the very beginning of the report, they try to soft-pedal the nature of the report itself.
	It's really quite astonishing.
	At the very beginning of the report, here is what the AP actually says.
	So the report begins with these words.
	The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access, albeit briefly, to the U.S.
	financial system by sidestepping sanctions set in place after the 2015 nuclear deal.
	I love those two words, albeit briefly.
	Just wonderful.
	Albeit briefly.
	Can you imagine them saying that about Trump?
	Trump fibbed, albeit briefly.
	They would never use that kind of language with regard to President Trump because this is how the media treat Democrats versus how they treat Republicans.
	Obama gets to run around saying he had a clean administration when he absolutely did not.
	Now, speaking of this sort of stupidity, last night, Stephen Colbert had on Bill Clinton.
	Now, as you'll recall, Bill Clinton is the worst.
	So Bill Clinton is not only a human being who has sexually harassed half of the women in the United States, he's just as bad about women as any allegations about Trump ever have been.
	Bill Clinton, some of the allegations are worse.
	I mean, there are allegations of rape, a credible allegation of rape against him by Juanita Broderick.
	Bill Clinton went on NBC's Today Show and then he got all mad at the interviewer yesterday.
	We pointed this out.
	He got very upset with the interviewer and started waving his bony finger at the guy and saying, how dare you ask me these questions?
	I apologize to the entire American people.
	Well now, Stephen Colbert is asking Bill Clinton about all of this.
	But, Stephen Colbert, remember a guy who said that President Trump had been used by Vladimir Putin as his bleep holster, as his genital holster.
	You remember, he said this on national TV.
	I guess that Stephen Colbert's idea of a strong interview is to act as precisely that for Bill Clinton.
	to perform the job no one but Monica Lewinsky would perform on Bill Clinton.
	Apparently that's what Stephen Colbert was doing.
	Look how he opens this interview.
	Now, later in the interview, Colbert says, you know, you're the most prominent man in my lifetime to sexually harass the help.
	But listen to how he opens this interview with Bill Clinton.
	I noticed she didn't enjoy that entire interview.
	I want you to enjoy this one, but I do want to ask you something, which is when I got home last night on the CNN, they had a lower third banner that said something about William Clinton's tone-deaf response to the question from the Today Show.
	My question is, would you like a do-over Okay, why don't you just stick your hand up his ass and use his face as a meat puppet?
	I mean, as long as you're going to just feed him the answer, you may as well just be a full ventriloquist.
	Like, Stephen Colbert could have done an interview with Stephen Colbert dressed as Bill Clinton with that question.
	I mean, that's as bad as any leading question that was asked by anybody during the election cycle on Fox News to Donald Trump.
	Okay, that leading question is astonishing.
	The last part of that question, do you understand why some people thought that was a tone-deaf response to his question on the MeToo movement?
	Here's the part where he feeds in the answer, I love it.
	And how might you reflect on your behavior 20 years ago?
	And how that reflection may change based on what you've learned from the MeToo movement?
	Why don't you just give him the answer?
	Why bother asking the question?
	Would you like a do-over?
	Imagine that Donald Trump were to come on the show right now, and Stephen Colbert, and Donald Trump just did an interview about the sexual harassment allegations, and he'd gotten really grumpy about it, and Stephen Colbert, you think Colbert would lead off with, you know, Mr. President, would you like a do-over?
	Would you like to reflect on how the MeToo movement has changed your perspective on these things over the years?
	Or do you think that Colbert would have said, you know, Mr. President, Looks like you weren't too happy with that sexual harassment question.
	Maybe because you sexually harassed people.
	Don't you think that's what Colbert probably would have said to lead off that interview?
	And then, of course, here's Bill Clinton's answer, because he gets thrown a softball right over the middle of the plate, and he hits about a single.
	I mean, he barely clears the second baseman's head.
	It wasn't my finest hour, but the important thing is that was a very painful thing that happened 20 years ago, and I apologize to my family, to Monica once again, her family, to the American people.
	I meant it then, I meant it now.
	I've had to live with the consequences every day since.
	And I still believe this Me Too movement is long overdue, necessary, and should be supported.
	Okay, so now he believes in the MeToo movement.
	Yeah, I love that.
	He comes back and he actually spouts Colbert's direct answer back at Colbert.
	Yes, great interviewing skills.
	And then you wonder why people on the right aren't willing to watch Stephen Colbert.
	Why people on the right are looking at people like Colbert and saying, this is endemic to the media.
	You wonder why we don't take the media seriously?
	President Trump, when he says fake news, I've said this a thousand times, I'll say it again, when President Trump says fake news and people resonate to that, it's not because they're just blindly following President Trump.
	They're doing that because they didn't like the media in the first place.
	They figured the media was lying to them because the media does lie to them.
	The media plays defense for Democrats on a regular basis all the time.
	And then we are supposed to believe them when suddenly they turn on one politician in particular?
	At the very least, we're going to say it's disproportionate.
	As I said yesterday, the same media who are complaining about coverage of Hillary Clinton's health issues was spending the last week suggesting that maybe Melania Trump had been abducted and anally probed by aliens or something.
	These are the same people.
	It really is quite amazing.
	Okay, so in just a second, I want to get to more fallout from the disinvitation to the White House by President Trump of the Philadelphia Eagles, and President Trump holding a rather hilarious event, a patriotic event, on the lawn at the White House to compensate.
	We'll get into all of it.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Filter Buy.
	So, I don't want to assume too much, but I suspect that you have a lot of bills to pay already, and that is why you need to be spending, you know, the appropriate amount of money on your air filters.
	Not too much, Not too little, the appropriate amount.
	And listen, I know you don't want to hear about air filters right now.
	I know it's not the sexiest topic, but let's be real about this.
	The reason that you're hacking up a lung at night could be your air filters.
	The reason that you're going home, you don't feel so good?
	You feel like you've got phlegm in your throat and all this?
	It could be because you haven't bothered to clean your air filters in the last 37 years, and there's basically the equivalent of a human body's worth of ash in your air filter.
	So maybe you might want to check that out.
	And then, head over to my friends over at FilterBuy.
	According to the Department of Energy, the most expensive utility for most Americans is their electricity bill, and you can drop that electricity bill by getting air filters that actually work.
	America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses available over at FilterBuy.
	They carry over 600 sizes.
	If you are one of those difficult people who have to deal with this stuff, they can make custom filters just for you.
	Plus, they ship free within 24 hours, and if that isn't enough, they are manufactured here in the United States.
	There is no excuse not to do it.
	Set up auto delivery.
	You never have to think about it again.
	And you save 5%.
	Additionally, you extend the life of your system.
	You don't want to bust your HVAC because then you're really screwed.
	So go check it out.
	Set up auto delivery.
	It makes life easier.
	You save 5% as well.
	Save time, save money, and breathe better with FilterBuy.com.
	FilterBuy.com.
	FilterBuy.com.
	And let them know that I sent you.
	FilterBuy.com.
	Get 5% off.
	Alright, so, President Trump, in the most bizarre and strangely hilarious and yet dispiriting controversy of the week, this would be President Trump's decision to disinvite the Philadelphia Eagles.
	So, the White House has an alternative story as to why President Trump disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles.
	So the going story is that the Eagles weren't going to show up with enough players, Trump got mad and he cancelled it.
	The White House story is that the Eagles were basically jacking them around, that it was a setup.
	I've been hearing this from a lot of conservatives.
	I just want to say this.
	If you think that President Trump is constantly being set up by people, there's a way for him to avoid the setup, and that is to just not fall for it.
	I'm getting kind of tired of the constant excuse-making.
	Trump makes a mistake, and then it's, well, he was set up to make that mistake.
	OK, guess what every test you ever had in school was set up to do?
	It was set up to test you.
	Yes, it's true.
	President Obama's political opponents, President Trump's political opponents, rather, test him on a regular basis.
	The question is how well you handle those tests.
	So, I'm not saying the Philadelphia Eagles are pro-Trump.
	They're not.
	The owner, Jeffrey Luria, is a wildly left guy.
	But, President Trump could have handled this better, no question.
	But here is Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggesting that the Eagles were planning a political stunt.
	Now, I will explain in a second what exactly the White House should have done about it.
	Look, if this wasn't a political stunt by the Eagles franchise, then they wouldn't have planned to attend the event and then backed out at the last minute.
	And if it wasn't a political stunt, then they wouldn't have attempted to reschedule the visit when they knew that the president was going to be overseas.
	And if this wasn't a political stunt, they wouldn't have waited until Monday, well after a thousand of their fans had traveled and taken time out of their schedules Okay, so apparently, so the idea here is that they had originally said they were going to bring 100 people, and then they said they were only going to bring like 10 people, and then at the very end it was only like Nick Folk, who is the quarterback for the team.
	Fine!
	Fine!
	So Trump should have hosted Nick Folk, on behalf of your team, and the media would have made fun of it, and then he should have said, listen, I understand if people don't want to visit the White House, that's their prerogative.
	Again, there was a member of the Boston Bruins back in 2012 who didn't visit the White House.
	The media ripped him up and down.
	I mean, speaking of media bias, the media ripped that player up and down.
	Tim Thomas, who was the goalie for the Boston Bruins, they said, how dare he not visit the White House?
	It just demonstrates what a bad faith guy he is.
	Now the entire Eagles team doesn't really want to visit and the media is like, fine, but How should the White House have handled it?
	What they should have done is they should have said, listen, the White House is always open to any of these players who want to visit.
	And if they don't want to visit, you know, that's really them missing out because the White House is an amazing place and we would really love to see them here.
	But, you know, we can have our political differences.
	I just wish they didn't extend to the sporting world.
	Right?
	Being gracious is not the end of the world.
	And listen, again, I understand.
	President Trump is a hammer in search of a nail, and he's constantly hammering, and he's constantly kicking back.
	I get it.
	I get that's his tendency.
	I don't think he is well-served in this particular case.
	So here is how Trump responded.
	So President Trump responded by saying, you know what?
	We won't have the Eagles.
	We'll cancel the Eagles, but we'll have a patriotic event, a deeply patriotic event, at which we'll get the Marine Corps band out here to play God Bless America.
	And I will talk about how much we respect our flag.
	The problem I have with this, of course, is that A lot of the Eagles aren't showing up because they don't like Trump personally and don't like his politics, not necessarily because of the kneeling for the national anthem controversy at all.
	Trump, as I said yesterday, lied when he said that Philadelphia Eagles members were kneeling for the anthem.
	Not one Philadelphia Eagles member kneeled the entire year for the national anthem.
	But here was President Trump yesterday doing his event, saying that he respects the flag.
	The suggestion, of course, being that his political opponents do not respect the flag.
	I don't like this.
	If you want to say Colin Kaepernick doesn't respect the flag, agree.
	If you want to say that You know, every member of the Eagles who didn't show up doesn't respect the flag.
	I don't think President Trump is the flag.
	I don't think that this administration is the flag.
	I hated when President Obama did the same thing.
	If you disagreed with him, you were disagreeing with America.
	I hate that crap.
	It's just nonsense.
	Here was President Trump doing it yesterday with respect to the flag.
	We love our country.
	We respect our flag.
	And we always proudly stand for the National Anthem.
	We always will stand for the National Anthem.
	So about a thousand people showed up.
	A lot of these people were White House staffers and White House interns.
	There were some Philadelphia Eagles fans who showed up as well.
	But, you know, the fact that Trump felt the need to do this, this kind of thumb in the eye.
	Listen, I understand a lot of people who are Trump supporters like this sort of thing.
	They like that he's fighting the culture war.
	I think it's divisive.
	I think that it's useless.
	I think it's counterproductive.
	And then, of course, it leads to awkward moments like this.
	So if the idea was to avoid an awkward moment, such as Trump's there just with the quarterback of the Super Bowl winning team, then You could avoid, then you shouldn't have awkward moments like this where Trump is standing there and he's got the Marine Corps choir standing next to him flanking him and singing God Bless America and then it appears he doesn't know the words.
	God bless America, land that I love.
	Stand beside her and guide her through the night with Okay, is it like a big deal that he doesn't know the words?
	No.
	We had the same in controversy when he visited a football game.
	It was a college football national championship, and he supposedly didn't know the words to the Star Spangled Banner and all the rest of it.
	Is it a big deal?
	No, it's not a big deal.
	It's just, I don't like this kind of showmanship.
	This is not what the presidency is for.
	It is not an imperial office.
	It is not a place where you summon people to meet you, and they are required to meet you.
	It is not a place where if you don't come to meet the president, then he gets to bring out the Marine Corps band and imply you're not a patriot.
	I just, I find this sort of stuff distasteful.
	And you should put the shoe on the other foot if you disagree.
	If you think it would have been good if Hillary Clinton had, like, did you like it when President Obama shined the rainbow flag on the White House?
	I thought that was utterly obnoxious.
	I thought the idea that you're using the people's house to push your own personal politics, suggesting that all of America endorses your view of same-sex marriage, it was gross.
	It was counterproductive, and it increased the cultural divides.
	That's why President Trump was elected, because of those cultural divides.
	Well, by the same token, even if I agree with President Trump's message about patriotism, I don't like the use of patriotism as a club to wield against political enemies, particularly when I don't agree with the idea that everyone who refuses to visit the White House is unpatriotic.
	Maybe they just don't like President Trump.
	Just as Tim Thomas was a patriot, maybe he just didn't like President Obama.
	All of these things are quite possible.
	Now, with that said, do I think that it's foolish that all these athletes keep saying they're not going to visit the White House?
	I do think it's foolish.
	I understand that, listen, they have their prerogative.
	That's fine.
	You know, they don't have to.
	I would like to hear their specific beefs with President Trump as their excuse for doing this.
	But now, President Trump has basically gotten into a culture war.
	He thinks he can win.
	Both sides think they're winning this culture war.
	In the end, only the American people lose.
	So President Trump thinks that he's winning when he's fighting the NFL and the NBA, because in one sense, he is.
	Most people agree with him about kneeling for the national anthem.
	Most people agree with him about patriotism being a part of our sporting heritage.
	Most people agree with all of that stuff.
	And so he thinks he's winning.
	On the other side, people on the left think they're winning because they think whenever they get in a culture war with President Trump, what they are doing is winning people over to their side because President Trump is personally unpopular.
	So in just a second, I'm going to show you how the NBA and the NFL, how all these people are responding to President Trump in an attempt to win more leftist fans.
	I'll explain that in just a second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Tommy John's.
	So, Father's Day is coming up.
	We are right upon it.
	And now is the time to get your dad a Father's Day gift that he will really appreciate.
	I am talking, of course, about the best underwear that money can buy.
	Give your dad the gift of evolved underwear with limited edition Father's Day gift sets from Tommy John.
	Innovative designs, no-brainer features, they've got the time-saving horizontal quick-draw fly, the ingenious stay-put waistband so it's not going to roll down on you, and the first-of-its-kind no-wedgie guarantee, which I seriously would have appreciated in junior high and high school.
	Tommy John cannot be beat.
	They only use proprietary forward-thinking fabrics, they are soft, they are light.
	Dad will swear that he is going commando, and I promise you don't want to check him on it.
	Tommy John's also got socks that stay up all day, lightweight undershirts that never come untucked, silky soft second skin t-shirts that never shrink, and so much more.
	Their gear is just fantastic.
	You can get all this stuff for Father's Day.
	Plus, all of their underwear is backed by their best pair he'll ever wear.
	It's free guarantee, so you don't have to believe me.
	You can actually try it out.
	If he doesn't like it, then he can send it right back.
	So, check that out.
	As a Tommy John customer myself, I can tell you this stuff is really great, and as often as it goes through the wash, it comes out just as good.
	Shop limited edition Father's Day gift sets at TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro right now and get 20% off your first order.
	That's TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, you get 20% off your first order, and those limited edition Father's Day gift sets are available right now.
	TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro.
	Okay, so we're going to talk a little bit more about the NFL, plus the story that nobody actually wants to talk about, but probably is the biggest story of the year, decade maybe.
	We'll talk about that in just a second.
	You're going to have to go over to dailywire.com to subscribe for all of that.
	$9.99 a month gets you the rest of this show live.
	Gets the rest of Clayton's show live.
	Knowles' show live.
	And the annual subscription gets you this.
	The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	The leftist here is hot or cold tumbler.
	It is magnificent.
	Plus, More great news for podcast listeners.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is now available alongside our other Daily Wire podcast at Amazon Alexa and the Google Home device, so your home can be filled with my voice at all times of the day.
	A frightening prospect, I would think, but maybe you're into it.
	With Alexa, you have to enable the skill.
	It's like adding an app.
	You say, Alexa, enable the Ben Shapiro Show skill, and then you can tell Alexa to play or open.
	You say, Alexa, play the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Google doesn't need to be added by a user, but you have to speak super clearly.
	Again, you have to be extraordinarily rude to Google in order to make this happen.
	You say, OK, Google, Talk to The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Or, OK Google, speak to The Ben Shapiro Show, and then you can actually hear the show.
	And now your device should be able to play the podcast.
	Check out the pin posts on Daily Wire Twitter, Daily Wire Facebook, if you don't understand how that works.
	Now, the reason that you should subscribe, the reason you should listen, is so we can also bring you awesome Sunday specials.
	So last Sunday we had Joe Rogan.
	This Sunday, coming up, we have Jonah Goldberg, who stopped by to talk about his new book.
	Jonah, of course, is the author of the best-selling book, The Suicide of the West, and we got into a lot of deep talk, so check it out.
	Here's what it's going to be.
	Hi, I'm Jonah Goldberg and I'm here on the set with the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special and tune into this Sunday for a pretty interesting conversation where we talk about almost all of the important things in the universe.
	It was a lot of fun and we kept the nudity tasteful and integral to the plot.
	So check it out.
	It is a great episode.
	You're going to want to check that out on the Sunday special.
	That's why you should subscribe over at YouTube.
	Subscribe over at iTunes.
	That way it just automatically will download to your feed and then you'll be able to watch it or listen to it however you choose to do so.
	Okay.
	You should obviously get the subscription.
	Okay.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So the NFL controversy, of course, has bled over to the NBA, where a bunch of players hate President Trump with a passion, and they are looking for an excuse to make a headline about how much they dislike President Trump.
	So LeBron James has decided to comment.
	Now, LeBron has a long history of disliking President Trump.
	He said that President Trump had revivified rage in the country and hate in the country and all this stuff.
	Here is LeBron James saying that if we win the NBA Finals, we will not go to the White House.
	And then Steph Curry says the same thing.
	I mean, I know no matter who wins this series, no one's No one wants to invite anyway so it won't be Golden State or Cleveland going.
	We have a lot of freedom in our country and guys, men or female, have the right to do what they want to do, you know, in a very respectful manner and I think if they decided they don't want to go then They have the right.
	So I obviously agree with LeBron James.
	You have the right not to go to the White House.
	Choosing not to go to the White House, you know, that's your problem.
	I didn't have a problem when Tim Thomas did it with the Boston Bruins.
	I find this whole controversy very off-putting and silly.
	I think it's a waste of time.
	Seth Curry said the same thing.
	So for all those people saying, well, LeBron's never going to go to the White House anyway because he's going to get swept.
	That's true.
	But Seth Curry is saying the same thing.
	I don't think, I think I agree with Bron.
	I'm pretty sure the way we handled things last year, kind of stayed consistent with that.
	But at the end of the day, like I said, every team has an opportunity to make a decision for themselves and speak for themselves.
	And I think that's powerful. - Okay, again, I can't really disagree with the idea that people have a prerogative not to go to the White House.
	I think the best way for Trump to have handled this was, as president, just to say, listen, now I'm the president, we're not gonna do all of this showmanship, we're not gonna do all this reality TV stuff.
	I know Trump would probably be not a guy to embrace that particularly.
	That particularly muted line, but I still think that that's the way the presidency ought to operate.
	The presidency is not a showpiece.
	The presidency is not a place for photo ops.
	The presidency is not a place where you spend all your days meeting celebrities and handing each other jerseys.
	I hate this stuff.
	I've hated it since the Obama administration, and I continue to hate it today.
	Now, meanwhile, the President of the United States is preparing for his big meetup in Singapore with North Korea, and apparently Dennis Rodman is going to show up.
	No, I'm not actually kidding about this.
	Apparently, he is Kim Jong-un's dear friend, and sources tell the New York Post that not only will Dennis Rodman be in Singapore at the time of the meeting, but he could take part in the negotiations.
	One source told the Post, quote, no matter what you might think about his presence, one thing's for sure, the ratings will be huge.
	A lot of times in situations that involve complex diplomacy, countries like to identify ambassadors of goodwill.
	And whether you agree with it or not, Dennis Rodman fits the bill.
	So Rodman, of course, has visited North Korea some five times, and he believes that he was responsible for the North Korean dictator understanding Trump in April, He told TMZ that he gave Kim Jong-un a copy of Trump's book, The Art of the Deal, for the dictator's birthday in 2017.
	He said, quote, I think Kim didn't realize who Trump was at that time, I guess, until he started to read the book and started to get to understand him.
	Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un are pretty much the same.
	Well, that's not good.
	I don't think that's true, number one.
	And number two, if you have to use Dennis Rodman as your ambassador of goodwill, if you're trying not to look—like, you better come away with something material.
	Here's all I'm going to say about this North Korean summit.
	You better come away with something real.
	If you go in, and you have no plan, and all that comes out of it is a second summit at Mar-a-Lago, where Kim Jong-un comes to the United States.
	First of all, I think that if Kim Jong-un comes to the United States, we ought to strangle him.
	He's the worst dictator on planet Earth.
	I think the first opportunity we have to assassinate him and the leadership of his regime, we should.
	I'm not in agreement with the Carter administration policy that we can't kill foreign officials.
	It seems to me that people who are keeping millions of people in a giant gulag slave state probably deserve to die.
	Kim Jong-un has killed enough of his own family members to know exactly what I mean.
	So I'm not a big fan of this whole thing.
	Unless you actually have a real plan.
	Unless you actually have a serious plan.
	I'm not getting the idea that they have a really serious plan, but maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe Kim Jong-un actually wants to come to the table, but it better be worth it because otherwise it's just going to be a bunch of photo ops.
	You know, President Trump doesn't like bad photo ops.
	It's just going to be a bunch of photo ops of Dennis Rodman alongside Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un and people mocking that from here until the end of time if they don't come away with anything material here.
	It's legitimately like the equivalent of Ronald Reagan bringing Mark the Bird Fidrich to negotiations with Gorbachev.
	If this is important enough, I'm not sure that it ought to be a photo op for Dennis Rodman.
	Rodman added modestly, I don't want to take all the credit.
	I don't want to sit there and say, I did this, I did that.
	That's not my intention.
	My intention was to go over and be a sports ambassador in North Korea so people understand how the people are in North Korea.
	I think that has resonated to this whole point right now.
	But in 2017, when Rodman visited North Korea, he was asked about the detention of four Americans in North Korea.
	He said he wasn't going to mention it.
	He said, that's not my purpose right now.
	My purpose is to go over there and try to see if I can keep bringing sports to North Korea.
	So will something come of this?
	Maybe, maybe not.
	Color me skeptical.
	I've always been skeptical of the idea that we got together with the North Koreans in the first place.
	This seems like a low level diplomacy issue.
	I've never thought that summits themselves are a diplomatic win.
	I think diplomatic wins are a diplomatic win.
	I don't think that meeting with Hassan Rouhani by John Kerry is a useful thing.
	I don't think that the Donald Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un is inherently a useful thing.
	I don't think meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev were inherently useful unless something good came out of those meetings in the first place.
	The difference is that at least you could say that Gorbachev was the leader of a world power with nuclear weapons who was threatening the entire security of the world.
	And so the meeting was a meeting between two superpowers.
	You can't say the same thing about this, which obviously grants additional legitimacy to the Kim regime in North Korea.
	So, granting the sort of legitimacy I find a little bit off-putting.
	Now, meanwhile, we are hearing some rumors that perhaps there will be an agenda here.
	Perhaps the Trump administration knows what they're doing.
	I'm willing to withhold judgment because we don't know what they're doing quite yet, but apparently...
	Well, the idea here is they're looking for some sort of timeline on disarmament.
	That's the idea, is that there will be a timeline on disarmament.
	General Mattis, Secretary of Defense, is not going to this.
	John Bolton apparently is going to this.
	And they are also looking forward to the possibility, as I say, of a second summit.
	The White House wants Kim to commit to a timetable.
	And I guess that they're looking for the possibility of a second summit at Mar-a-Lago.
	Committing Kim to a disarmament timetable is not useful unless there are significant snapback sanctions in place, or unless there's, and not or, and unless there's tremendous capacity for us to actually verify what exactly Kim Jong-un is doing in the first place.
	Okay, so now, I've been promising it all show, the most important story of the day, okay, and the story that the media will largely ignore.
	Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Medicare will become insolvent in 2026.
	Okay, it is currently 2018.
	That means in eight years, Medicare will not be able to pay for itself.
	It's not able to pay for itself right now.
	It's already running in the red.
	Social Security is going to follow in 2034.
	So within 15 years, we are going to see Social Security essentially go bankrupt.
	Now, it's a government program, which means it can't go bankrupt.
	It means instead, they're going to have to radically raise taxes or radically reduce benefits.
	Medicare and Social Security, along with Medicaid, do represent a majority of the federal budget every year.
	So when you hear about, oh, we're spending so much money, it's waste, fraud and abuse.
	It's all waste, fraud and abuse.
	This was Trump's line.
	It was also the line of the left during the last administration that, you know, the way to cut spending was to look at waste, fraud and abuse.
	But we can never.
	Never restructure our key entitlement programs.
	Those are what are driving our debt.
	Those are what are driving our deficit.
	Medicare and Social Security, as with Medicaid, represent a majority of the federal budget every year, and they are mandatory spending.
	Okay, that means you can't change them unless you actively go and change the law.
	Even in a government shutdown, people get their social security checks.
	And social security has been running a negative cash flow for years.
	If we were actually to take into account the amount of unfunded liability we have in Medicare and social security, some estimates say that our national debt is not $20 trillion, it is $90 trillion.
	90.
	Because we are not taxing to the necessity necessary to pay for all of this stuff.
	My grandmother was paying like 50 bucks into social security 40 years ago, 50 years ago.
	Now she's taking out thousands of dollars.
	That's not because they invested in the stock market.
	That's because they're taxing me thousands of dollars for my grandmother.
	If I want to help out grandma, that's my responsibility.
	But it shouldn't be my responsibility to help out your grandma.
	One of the things that Social Security has done is that it has shifted the burden of responsibility from individuals and families to the government.
	There's actually been a net negative.
	It's meant that people feel less necessity to take care of their parents, they figure the government is going to do it, and really the government isn't doing it because the government doesn't have its own money supply.
	The government is just taxing my kids in order to pay for their great-grandmother, and not just their great-grandmother, somebody else's great-grandmother as well.
	The original ratio with regard to social security, like the number of people who are taking out of social security, compared to the number of people paying in, it was like one person's social security taxes were paying for 12 to 15 people.
	Today it is two.
	Your social security taxes are paying for two people.
	Soon it will be one.
	Soon it will be a direct monetary transfer from my kids to old people, to old baby boomers, who, by the way, are the wealthiest cohort in the United States.
	As you get older, you get richer.
	So you're taxing people who are poor to pay for people who are rich.
	It is actually a regressive policy.
	As you get older, you have more money, you have more assets, you have a house, you've been earning for 50 years.
	And yet the idea is you're going to tax people who are not yet born in order to pay for all of this.
	And yet politicians of both parties are unwilling to look this right in the face.
	The only politician who really talks about entitlement reform over the last several decades has been Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, but he's basically been shellacked for it.
	Donald Trump ran promising not to touch entitlements, and so he has not.
	Republicans are in control right now if they do nothing about entitlements.
	That is a giant fail on the part of Republicans because we're going to feel the brunt of this.
	And then it will come down to Democrats saying, do you want to raise taxes?
	And Republicans saying, do you want to cut benefits?
	The estimate is that if we do not actually raise taxes dramatically, then when the Social Security fund goes insolvent, when Medicare goes insolvent, you're going to have to cut benefits by 20 percent.
	My feeling to that is, okay, well I guess that's the way it's going to have to be.
	Because I don't see why my kids should be put behind the economic 8-ball so that my parents won't have to get as much money out of Social Security.
	I just don't see why that should be.
	I'll pay for my parents.
	That's my responsibility.
	And my parents will pay for themselves.
	That's their responsibility.
	So again, there are a few solutions here.
	We could increase the payroll tax right now from whatever it is, 11.7% to something like 14 or 15%, or we'll have to cut cost of living adjustments, or we might have to confiscate cash from people.
	You know, people who paid into Social Security, but they're more wealthy, they just won't get anything out of Social Security.
	Or we could raise the retirement age, which is really what we ought to do, right?
	We ought to raise the retirement age, because the reality is that retirement, I don't think, is actually particularly good for people.
	And retiring at 65 made sense in an era when the average age of death was 63.
	It doesn't make a lot of sense in a day when the average age of death in the United States is now over 80 for women and just about 80 for men.
	That's 15 years that Social Security is supposed to pay for you.
	Delaying retirement and moving the retirement age up seems like it would make more sense than all this, but we're not going to focus on any of these problems.
	We're just going to fight useless, stupid culture wars because that's what we do now.
	That's what we are more involved with.
	But this is what we should be paying attention to.
	If the government was designed for anything, it's to solve problems exactly like this.
	And yet, because of the gridlock in our system, which is usually a good thing, in this case it's a bad thing, it means that we're probably going to do nothing, kick the can down the road until that can ends up exploding in our face.
	Okay, time for some things that I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	I just, I had to laugh at this.
	So, nature is red in tooth and claw, as the saying goes, and this is obvious.
	So this family decided that, you can see the small kids, they decided that they were going to raise a caterpillar into a butterfly.
	So they fed the caterpillar.
	It's like the hungry caterpillar.
	They fed the caterpillar, and they let it spin its cocoon, and then it turned into a butterfly, and finally they were ready to release it into the wild.
	And then something unexpected happened.
	Okay, if you can't see it, they released the butterflies.
	The butterfly took about three flaps of its wings, and the family dog ate the thing.
	Boom.
	Just ate it right up.
	I tweeted out that this basically was the narrative of the 2016 election, that the media fed Hillary Clinton, and they bathed Hillary Clinton, and they wove a cocoon for Hillary Clinton, and they ensured that Hillary Clinton would never be challenged, and then just as she began to spread her wings, Along galumphed the family dog, Donald Trump, and ate Hillary Clinton.
	And that is basically the story of the 2016 election in one hysterically funny nature video.
	Also, this demonstrates, again, everybody has this romantic view of nature.
	Nature is trying to kill us, okay?
	Civilization was built to avoid nature.
	Jess, I know you're sitting there shaking your head because you love the nature.
	You don't love the nature enough that you're going to sleep in that tent every night.
	Okay?
	Nature is trying to kill you.
	Nature's been trying to kill you for years.
	Half of human life is about trying to avoid nature, trying to murder you.
	So, if you want to go out and, like, vacation with nature because nature's the bad boyfriend, alright, that's your thing.
	But, let's stop trying to pretend that nature is kind and cuddly and cute and friendly, okay?
	That dog is a wolf deep down.
	And that dog likes to eat the family butterfly.
	That's what's going on right there.
	So that's pretty spectacular.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So every McDonald's in the United States is going to have self-order kiosks by 2020, according to CEO Steve Easterbrook.
	1,000 stores will get the new kiosks every quarter for the next few years.
	They already exist in 3,500 of the roughly 14,000 domestic outlets.
	So fight for 15, guys.
	It's not like McDonald's will come up with a solution where they replace your stupid job with a machine, right?
	Like jobs that are pretty easy to replace with machines.
	And then you won't have to worry about people spitting in your food.
	It's not like McDonald's will just do that.
	McDonald's, these machines are going to replace everybody in low-level jobs.
	It's one of the reasons why there's now talk of, how do we retrain people?
	What do we do for people who have low skill sets?
	If menial jobs go away, how do we handle all that?
	But if you keep artificially boosting the price of labor, Particularly entry-level jobs.
	McDonald's is just going to substitute a bunch of machines for your job.
	Easterbrook told CNBC that customers who use kiosks tend to browse the menu and order more food.
	He said, if you think about only two years ago, if you were a customer, there were two ways you can get served at McDonald's.
	You walk to the front counter and lined up, and took your drink and find a table, or you go through the drive-thru.
	We're introducing many options.
	They can order through mobile, they can come curbside, or run it out, as well as the existing traditional ways.
	You can pay in different ways and customize your food in different ways.
	First of all, this is better service.
	And they're not just saving money, they're making life better for you.
	Can you imagine how awesome that is?
	I order out from restaurants all the time because my wife, you may have heard, is a doctor.
	That means she has not cooked dinner in 1,000 years.
	I've cooked more dinners than she has feminists in the audience.
	My wife doesn't cook dinner all that often.
	When she does, it is a pleasure.
	She is an excellent cook.
	It has not happened since I was but a wee pup.
	And that's why we order out a lot.
	So it would be great if the kosher restaurants that I went to had the capacity to run the meal out to the curb for me.
	Because I have two kids who are screaming in the back.
	And I can't abandon them in the back of the car.
	So good on McDonald's.
	The service is getting better.
	It's getting cheaper.
	Technology is awesome.
	By all means, leftists, continue to push your stupid Fight for 15 nonsense and watch as McDonald's replaces you with a computer.
	So there's that.
	Also, I have to enjoy this.
	Howard Schultz, the former head of Starbucks, he just stepped down.
	He says that the Democrats are moving too far to the left.
	He wants to run for president in 2020 because what better to represent the Democratic Party than a latte-sipping liberal from Seattle?
	He says that he's ripping the Democrats in an interview on CNBC.
	He suggested the Democratic Party needs a leader who won't let it veer too far to the left.
	Now, this is true.
	I agree with Howard Schultz.
	Unfortunately, Not gonna happen.
	Unfortunately, the Democrats have moved into their own populist mode, where they have embraced the left-most perspective on everything, which is why Chris Matthews is upset with the elitism in the Democratic Party.
	He thinks that they need more grassroots, down-home feel.
	They need more Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party.
	Chris Matthews, get up in the morning!
	Come to this show!
	Come on in here, all rumpled!
	Don't even know I'm here!
	Don't even know what I'm talking about!
	I hate elites!
	Sure, my wife runs the entire hotel chain!
	Sure, I'm super wealthy!
	But elites are just the worst!
	They're garbage!
	Elites, we need less elitism in the Democratic Party!
	Go, Chris Matthews!
	Go!
	A true Democrat, lowercase d, thinks they're no better than anybody else.
	That's what a Democrat is.
	And when the party regains that with white, black, Hispanic people, everybody, starts to think of themselves as one of them, instead of being better than them, they'll get back to the party of the people.
	And they're not there yet.
	Okay, and then the music rises in the background as he makes this populist speech, and there's the upshot with the light right behind him so you get him in heroic profile, Chris Matthews.
	When we start to realize that we're the party of the people, I hate the party of the people nonsense.
	You know why?
	Because every perspective appeals to some people.
	Maybe the elite perspective on this, meaning that you shouldn't run to the Bernie Sanders left, maybe that perspective is right.
	One of the things that I really dislike about the talk of elites is that we have not actually distinguished between elites and elitism.
	If you're elite, this means you are good at something.
	LeBron James is an elite basketball player.
	Would I prefer to watch a non-elite basketball player?
	Would you prefer to watch me clang seven footers?
	Probably not.
	Because being elite at something is actually a good thing.
	If you are elite in the business of economics, you know what economics looks like.
	If you are elite in the perspective-giving business, it's because you're entertaining and hopefully knowledgeable and have a perspective to contribute.
	If you are elite in politics, presumably, you are good at it.
	Hey, elitism is a different thing.
	Elitism is I'm bossing you around.
	Now, that's the stuff we should all be railing against, right, left, and center, is the idea that we get to boss each other around.
	That's stuff I hate.
	That's not what Chris Matthews is saying.
	He's saying that if you think that your perspective is better, and that perspective entails, for example, more freedom, not less, then maybe you're an elitist.
	Maybe you're elite.
	Maybe it's got... Get out of here.
	I'm gonna show a whole deal.
	Okay, time for a thing that I hate.
	So for the second time in just two weeks, there is a black woman screaming at somebody on the subway that has made news.
	So this is a crazy video uploaded to YouTube last week, and it shows an encounter between two passengers on the New York City subway system.
	Actually, you know what?
	This may be the same...
	No, this is not the same video.
	It's a different video.
	So this woman gets on the subway and this unidentified black woman can be seen verbally abusing an Asian passenger, according to LawAndCrime.com, who she claims stole her kid's seat.
	This is the same exact setup as a video.
	The reason I'm getting confused is there was a setup last week I talked about in which a black woman got on the subway and People didn't stand up for another black woman and this first black woman started ripping into the Jews.
	In this particular case, this black woman gets angry and starts ripping into the Asians because this unidentified mother starts verbally abusing an Asian passenger who she claims stole her kid's seat.
	The mother proceeded to curse her out, push her on the ground and accuse her of not giving up the seat because her daughter is black.
	Two children could be seen seated next to the Asian woman.
	So in other words, this Asian woman is sitting there with her kids, which you are supposed to do when you have kids because you're trying to keep track of your kids.
	And here's what the video sounds like.
	I will move you off that seat!
	Try me!
	No!
	Move from the seat!
	Move from my daughter!
	Push her!
	Get my daughter back!
	Push her off the seat!
	Go ahead!
	Move it!
	Move it!
	I got a child!
	Give me my bag!
	I'm gonna put my child out of seat because my daughter's Spanish and she's Chinese!
	You're gonna get up for her to sit down!
	You right out here crazy!
	I spit at you!
	And she said, well, you got me effed up.
	Welcome to America.
	Eff your calm.
	Put my effing child out of a seat.
	And then she realizes that she is being recorded.
	And then she says, what you're recording, my bleep in your mouth.
	So she sounds like a charming person.
	She said, she put my child out of seat.
	This ain't your country.
	Welcome to America.
	The reason that I point this out is not because I think that this is endemic to any particular race in the United States.
	The point is that it's not.
	A lot of the talk in the last election cycle is about xenophobia on the part of white people in the United States.
	This idea that white people in the United States, in blanket fashion, thought this was their America.
	And when Donald Trump said, make America great again, what he really meant was make America white again.
	The reality is that too many people have a tribal tendency.
	It's something we all have to fight.
	It actually is a tendency in us from when we are children, this tribal tendency that says my tribe is more important than your tribe.
	Using purported victimization as an excuse to be a nasty human being to other people on the basis of group identity makes you a nasty person.
	It makes you a bad person.
	Okay?
	This woman is a bad person.
	Suggesting that this is not an Asian woman's America because I'm a member of one group and you're a member of another group is really gross.
	And pretending that it's not racism because it comes from one group as opposed to another group is also really gross.
	Bad behavior is not unique to any one group, racial or ethnic, in the United States.
	It is possible among all groups.
	And we all have to be careful of letting our own perception of victimhood turn into victimization of others.
	We all have to be careful of allowing our tribal identities to overcome our treatment of each other as individuals.
	OK, we'll be back here tomorrow with much more.
	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.

▲