Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 18, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:08

Is Trump Tearing Children From Their Parents? | Ep.562

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The media suggests that President Trump is cruelly tearing children out of the arms of their illegal immigrant parents, Harvard goes racist, and some leftist columnists celebrate Father's Day by saying fathers are unnecessary.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	Ben Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	All right, so we have tons to get to today.
	I mean, like, there is a lot happening, and we are going to get to all of it in just one second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at FilterBuy.
	So, I'm just going to put this out there.
	I suspect that you are not sitting around thinking about your air filters because, I mean, let's face it, that's not the most interesting topic.
	But the reality is that if you're hacking up a lung or you're feeling unhealthy at home, Maybe one of the reasons is because you haven't replaced your air filters in forever.
	I know that we hadn't replaced our air filters in forever until we went to FilterBuy, and FilterBuy made sure that we did, and the air is just that much better.
	According to the Department of Energy, the most expensive utility for most Americans is their electricity bill.
	It makes up roughly 9% of their annual housing expenditure.
	This number is aggravated depending on where you live.
	Take California.
	We actually get clobbered on energy bills.
	Well, Adding insult to injury, the salary season has been one of the worst, further straining your system.
	So you can help lower all of these bills and make the air better by going to Filter By, America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
	They carry over 600 sizes.
	If you're one of those difficult people, they can even make custom filters.
	Just for you.
	Plus, they ship free within 24 hours.
	And if that isn't enough, all of this is manufactured right here in the United States.
	So you have no excuse.
	And set up auto delivery so you don't have to worry about checking those air filters on a regular basis.
	Instead, they just arrive when they're supposed to arrive.
	Plus, you save 5%.
	Save money.
	Save time.
	Breathe better with Filterbuy.com.
	I know I do.
	That's Filter B-U-Y dot com.
	Filterbuy.com.
	Tell them Ben sent you.
	And we use it here at the Daily Wire offices.
	I use it at my house as well.
	Filterbuy.com, filterbuy.com.
	Plus, just wanted to make clear to you that our next episode of The Conversation is coming up tomorrow, Tuesday, June 19th, 5.30 p.m.
	Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
	Pacific, in which all of your questions will be answered by me, Ben Shapiro, with our host, Elisha Krauss.
	Our live Q&A is available on YouTube and Facebook for everybody to watch.
	Only subscribers get to ask questions over at dailywire.com.
	Check out our pinned comments on this video for more information.
	So, go check that out right now.
	Alrighty, so, the big news of the day is that apparently Donald Trump hates children.
	Now, if you're on the left, this comes as no surprise because you always thought that Donald Trump hated children, right?
	I mean, that's not a giant shock, but the reality is that Donald Trump supposedly is a guy who wants to remove children from the arms of their parents as those parents cross the border illegally.
	So, you're coming across the border to make a new life for yourself, and you've brought your child, and you're picked up by ICE, and they cruelly take those children, and they rip them away from you.
	They take the children, and they just, they rip them away from you.
	OK, there is only one problem with all of this.
	OK, there's only one problem with all of this.
	This is just not the case.
	OK, the reason I say this is just not the case, I'm going to go through the actual applicable law here so that you know what it is that is going on.
	OK, the reality is that the law requires that if you cross the border illegally and we arrest you for it, that your children cannot stay in custody with you.
	Okay, that's just the way it is.
	Okay, the way that it is, according to the law, okay, and that is a 2008 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	According to the law, you are not allowed to take the children and leave them with their parents in custody.
	Okay, so the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that non-detention of minors applies to accompanied illegal immigrants.
	The reason this happened is there was an agreement, it's called the Flores Agreement, back from the 1990s, in which the federal government was sued, and they came to a federal settlement, and the federal settlement said that when Unaccompanied illegal children come across the border.
	They have to be released, remanded into the custody of some sort of parental figure or guardian in the United States.
	And then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 ruled that those children actually had to be released whether or not they came with a parent.
	So you come across with mommy and daddy.
	We still cannot keep you in custody for a long period of time.
	We still have to release you ASAP.
	Now, the problem with this is this has created a spate of headlines that Donald Trump, because he is more strictly enforcing border laws, that because he is doing that, this means that he is somehow separating the children from their parents.
	Again, it is by operation of law that the kids are removed from their parents.
	It is not Donald Trump decided, I want to remove children from their parents and therefore I'm cruel and nasty and that's what I want to do.
	That's not how any of this works.
	Rich Lowry has a good column.
	Making all of this clear, he points out in his column at National Review today, And it's the last that is operative here.
	The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit.
	Those remain the same.
	Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child's parent or is a threat to the child or is put into criminal proceedings.
	And it's the last that is operative here.
	The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit.
	The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults.
	The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry.
	Illegal entry is a misdemeanor.
	Illegal re-entry, however, is a felony.
	When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, writes Rich Lowry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S.
	Marshals.
	In no circumstance anywhere in the United States do the Marshals care for the children of people they take into custody.
	The child is taken into the custody of HHS, that's Health and Human Services, who cares for them at temporary shelters.
	The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor, such as a prior illegal entity or another crime.
	The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all on the same day, although practices vary along the border.
	After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE for deportation.
	If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it's relatively simple.
	The adult is reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit.
	In this scenario, there is only a brief separation.
	When it does become more of an issue is when parents start claiming asylum.
	If you claim asylum, adults are going to be detained longer.
	And the law is that you are not allowed to hold children for longer than 20 days in custody.
	And that's the Flores Consent Decree.
	A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended the 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units.
	So even if you would like to hold a family unit together, even if you want the kid to stay with mommy and daddy, you cannot by operation of law.
	You are forbidden from doing so because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wanted to make it less appealing for the government to keep families in custody.
	They wanted All of these families released into the general population in the United States.
	Rich Lowry writes, The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled.
	That migrants is allowed 10 days to seek an attorney, there may be continuances or other complications.
	This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and the children together into the country, pending the adjudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children.
	If the adult is held, HHS places the kid with a responsible party in the US, ideally a relative.
	Even if Flores didn't exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate.
	ICE only has about 3,000 family spaces and shelters.
	It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx.
	So family units can go home quickly.
	All they have to do is not plead asylum and they can all go home together.
	Also, there's a better way to claim asylum.
	So, the separation of parents from children only happens if you are arrested.
	If you walk up to a border station, In the United States.
	You don't go between border stations.
	You just walk up to, for example, the U.S.-Mexico border, you know, down near San Diego.
	If you just walk up to that border and you say, I need to claim asylum, you will not be arrested.
	You're only arrested if you try to cross between the borders, because then the idea is probably you're lying to get into the country.
	Otherwise, you just walk up to Border Patrol, not along the border, but in specific border stations, which everybody knows where they are, and then you claim asylum, and then you're not arrested at all.
	Then you get to stay with your kids.
	Right.
	Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary.
	It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed they had no chance of getting into the United States.
	Now it's going in earnest again because the message got out that despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn't actually changed.
	Even if a migrant does have credible fear of persecution, writes Lowry, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim.
	It does not involve entering the United States illegally.
	First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, for example, Mexico.
	Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry, that's what it's called, the technical term, a port of entry, and they make their claim there, rather than crossing the border illegally.
	There's significant moral cost to not enforcing the border as well, as Rich Lowry points out, if you just start releasing people in general into the middle of the country, lots more people are going to start crossing into the country illegally.
	And it is well worth pointing out that under the Obama administration, and under the Bush administration really, immigration surges were rooted in government policy.
	So July 7, 2014, this is from the New York Times.
	It was one of the final pieces of legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, along with a pension bill and another one calling for national parks to be commemorated on corners.
	This is a piece of legislation we're very proud to sign.
	A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, told reporters December 28, 2008, Now the legislation, this is the New York Times, right?
	Not Breitbart.
	very effective around the world in trying to stop trafficking in persons.
	Now the legislation is the New York Times, right?
	Not Breitbart, not a right wing publication.
	Now the legislation enacted quietly during the transition to the Obama administration is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow of unaccompanied minors to the nation's Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone, who are not from Mexico or Canada, by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.
	They have an opportunity to appear in an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate.
	This of course lengthens, it puts strains on the system, lengthens the amount of time that these kids are in the system in the first place.
	So, there are a bunch of lies that are being told right now.
	And we'll go through a lot of the lies that are being told by the media in just a second.
	But some of the lies being told are that Trump is randomly deciding to separate kids at the border.
	He doesn't have to do that.
	He does have to do that by operation of law.
	The only thing the Trump administration is doing differently is they are treating everyone who is crossing the border illegally As an illegal immigrant for prosecution, for purposes of prosecution.
	And then because you're doing that, the kids can't stay in custody with the parents longer than 20 days.
	And that is operation of law once again.
	Now, the media are going nuts over all of this, and they are making a huge fuss out of all of this.
	They're showing up at the border, and they're showing up at these particular border stations where the kids are being held.
	The kids are being held separately in what are cages, essentially.
	Now, when they say cages, it makes it sound like, you know, it's like a chicken coop, like it's tiny.
	It isn't.
	But, of course, technically they are cages because it's chain-link fence separating people.
	So the administration has tried to fight back against the cages.
	The Cages descriptor saying the kids are being treated pretty well.
	The kids are being treated by some accounts well, by some accounts not as well.
	Apparently one of the regulations on the books is that federal employees are not allowed to touch the kids.
	For fear of lawsuit.
	So that means that some of the illegal immigrant children are changing the diapers of other illegal immigrant children they don't even know.
	The conditions are not good.
	All of this is underfunded.
	Congress could solve all of this, by the way.
	Congress could solve all of this today.
	All they have to do is pass a law that says that if you come into the country illegally with your parents, your parents and you get to stay together.
	You get to stay in custody together.
	That would be the way that you fix this law.
	And then it's the parent's option whether they want the kids released to the custody of the HHS or released to the custody of a family member already in the United States, but they get to stay with the parents otherwise.
	Congress can do that tomorrow, and Congress should do that today or tomorrow.
	Apparently, I'm hearing from the Speaker's office, from Speaker Ryan's office, that's exactly what Speaker Ryan is going to pursue.
	Plus funding for expanded facilities to ensure that parents can stay together with their kids when they come across the border.
	So all of this is in the process of getting solved.
	I do find it somewhat suspicious that the media have decided to jump both feet on the bandwagon, as though this is some sort of great human rights catastrophe brought on by the Trump administration, when of course all of this started under the Obama administration, or at least it was happening under the Obama administration.
	Brandon Darby from Breitbart He had a bunch of photos.
	I remember when I was working at Breitbart, still, he put out all these photos.
	These are all photos of a bunch of people, including children, who are at these detention facilities.
	It doesn't look that great, right?
	I mean, this is from 2014.
	You can see all the photos.
	This is from 2014, and it's children who are separated from males, who are separated from females.
	These facilities are overcrowded.
	All of this was happening in 2015.
	There's nothing new happening here.
	But the implication is there's something new happening here because it's Trump.
	And that, of course, is not true.
	That's just not true.
	We're going to get to the media coverage of this in just a second and talk about the administration's response and really what the administration did do wrong in just a second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Wink.
	So all of this makes you want to drink, doesn't it?
	I mean, politics is not the kind of thing that makes you want to be sober.
	But the reality is that if you just want to kick back at night and have yourself a nicer evening, well, that's what Wink is for.
	Well, we've all taken time to wring ourselves out from the holiday parties halfway through the year, and you deserve Wink.
	Wink makes it easy to discover great wine.
	Wink's Wine Expert.
	Select wines matched to your taste, personalized for you, shipped right to your door, starting at just $13 a bottle.
	There's nothing like coming home to a box of delicious Wink wine, selected just for you.
	So here's the way it works.
	You go to the Wink Palette Profile Quiz.
	And you answer a bunch of simple questions that nobody would ever seek to ask you, really.
	Like, how do you like your coffee?
	Or do you like blueberries?
	And then Wink sends wines curated directly to your tastes.
	The more wines you rate, the more personalized your monthly selection.
	So it's like Netflix, except for wine.
	Each month, there are new delicious wines.
	Their insanely popular Summer Water Rose is making the rounds right now.
	No membership fees.
	You can skip any month.
	You can cancel any time.
	Shipping is covered.
	And if you don't like a bottle, they send you.
	They replace it with a bottle you will love.
	No questions asked.
	Discover great wine today.
	Go to trywink.com slash ben.
	That's t-r-y-w-i-n-c-dot-com-slash-ben for $20 off.
	That's trywink.com-slash-ben.
	You get $20 off your first shipment.
	Again, trywink.com-slash-ben.
	It's fantastic.
	It makes a great gift.
	If you're late for Father's Day, get your dad a subscription to this.
	It's really fantastic.
	Trywink.com-slash-ben.
	People around the office have tried wink wine, and those are days when we don't get a lot of work done.
	So trywink.com-slash-ben, and you get to try it for $20 off your first shipment.
	Trywink.com-slash-ben.
	Alright, so.
	The Trump administration, with all this said, that the Trump administration is basically following the law, and if you don't like the law, change the law, the Trump administration did do a couple of things wrong here.
	So the first thing they did wrong is they sent out Stephen Miller and John Kelly to say incredibly dumb things.
	So Stephen Miller, who's sort of the president's immigration guru, I know Stephen, I think Stephen's a nice guy, but Stephen made the big boo-boo of going out in public and saying that we want to use the separation of children from parents as a deterrent to prevent people from crossing the border.
	Hey, you should not be using the suffering of children as a deterrent to keep parents from crossing the border.
	That's not the way to do this.
	The deterrent to crossing the border is that you get sent back.
	It should not be that you take kids away from their parents.
	This causes psychological harm and psychological damage.
	It shouldn't be a situation, as we've heard from some of these reports, where the parents aren't even told that they're being separated from the kids, that the kids are sort of taken away, and then two hours later, the parents are told, oh yeah, by the way, you're not gonna be able to see your kid again, right?
	That kind of stuff is a problem, and that kind of stuff is frightening, and should not be happening in the United States.
	To say that you're using that as a deterrent effect, that's a serious problem, and that should not be done.
	That's stupid.
	Jeff Sessions also came out, and he quoted the Bible.
	He said, listen, the Bible says that you should abide by the law.
	If you violate the law, you subject yourself to prosecution.
	I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government.
	Because God has ordained the government for his purposes.
	Okay, so again, I know Senator Sessions or Attorney General Sessions, and I think on some of his immigration policy he's been exactly right.
	You probably shouldn't be grinning so broadly when you talk about separating families from their children.
	It's just not smart.
	For folks who can't see the video, he's standing there and he's grinning pretty broadly as he quotes the Apostle Paul.
	Again, you don't have to do that.
	Just say, abide by the laws of this country.
	I mean, this is a very serious topic, obviously.
	Well, the Homeland Security Secretary, Secretary Bridget Nielsen, or sorry, Kirstjen Nielsen, she has come forward, and she says that the reporters and by members of Congress, the reporting is not true on this, and she's correct.
	She says, this misreporting by members, press, and advocacy groups must stop.
	It is irresponsible and unproductive.
	As I've said many times before, if you are seeking asylum from your family, there's no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry.
	This is exactly right.
	And right now, the policy is if you cross between ports of entry, we will arrest you and we'll prosecute you.
	But if you show up at one of the border ports of entry, then you'll be treated as an asylum seeker and you won't be separated from your kids.
	And she continues.
	She says.
	You are not breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry.
	And she continues as well.
	And she says, for those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger.
	There is no custodial relationship between family members or if the adult has broken a law.
	And she finishes up.
	She says, DHS takes very seriously its duty to protect minors in our temporary custody from gangs, traffickers, criminals, and abuse.
	And then she finishes by saying, we do not have a policy of separating families at the border, period.
	Everything she says there is factually true.
	Now, the media are lying about this.
	And in just a second, I'm going to show you how the media are lying about all of this and turning it into a major issue when, in fact, this is an easily solvable issue if we could just get past all the politics.
	So we begin with Chuck Todd.
	So Chuck Todd has on Kellyanne Conway on NBC News on Sunday.
	And he says that the goal of the Trump administration is to hold children hostage to get Democrats to pass some law.
	That obviously is not the goal here.
	The operation of law, the operation of law, it's not up to Trump.
	The operation of law says that if you arrest a parent illegally crossing the border, the kid cannot be held in custody for longer than 20 days.
	That is the law.
	Trump did not make up the law.
	Trump cannot violate that law unless he just decides to release illegal immigrant parents who are crossing between border ports of entry illegally.
	Yeah, all the lies that are being told today are really astonishing, and Chuck Todd forwards that game here.
	And this is going to sound harsh, but it sounds like you're holding these kids hostage.
	No.
	To get the Democrats to the table to pass some law.
	You just laid out a very compassionate case for why.
	I understand.
	You just laid out a very, with a lot of compassion and a lot of empathy in there.
	But it's not very empathetic that the most traumatic thing to do to a kid?
	Separate them from their parents.
	Okay, so what's your solution, Chuck?
	So what's your solution, Chuck?
	Right, this is the part that makes me crazy.
	The solution that is being proposed by people on the left is that Trump should just release people into the interior of the United States.
	That is the solution that they are proposing right now.
	That is not a solution.
	There are laws on the books.
	You do not get to cross into the country illegally.
	Again, we have provisions that say if you come to a port of entry in the United States, then we will treat you like a normal asylum seeker.
	If, however, you are sneaking through the brush near Sonoma, and you just decide to cross the border illegally, not near a port of entry, and we catch you, we're not going to treat you as though you were an asylum seeker, because if you were an asylum seeker, you would have gone to a port of entry.
	But the media are just lying flat out about this.
	I will say, I thought that the most hilarious thing is after Jeff Sessions quoted the Bible to say that people should abide by the law, MSNBC decided to ask, what would Jesus do?
	So apparently Trump has now won the war on Christmas.
	Trump has officially won the war on Christmas because he's got the anchors at MSNBC actually reading the Bible.
	I do enjoy when folks on the left start reading the Bible.
	And they skip over all the parts about, you know, like abortion and same-sex marriage and adultery, and they skip over all of those parts and they go straight to the most vague portions that support their position.
	So here's Ali Velshi on MSNBC, who I guess went to some sort of seminary, and he did a full segment on MSNBC called, What Would Jesus Do About Illegal Immigration?
	But Jesus said, suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
	What does that have to do with illegal immigration?
	Let's go to Matthew chapter 25 again, this time verse 40.
	And the king shall answer and say unto them, verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
	That's just a small sampling of what's in the Bible.
	Well, hallelujah!
	MSNBC calling out the priests and the pastors to talk about everything that's going on on the border.
	Again, you're not going to see them do this with regard to Planned Parenthood.
	That was the most ironic tweet in all of this.
	Planned Parenthood tweeted this out.
	Here's what Planned Parenthood tweeted.
	They tweeted out, In our hearts and minds today, all of the fathers and parents who have been separated from their children at borders, keep families together.
	Hashtag Father's Day.
	Um, and then it says, you deserve to be together regardless of immigration status.
	Keeping families together is reproductive justice.
	You kill babies!
	Okay, that's what Planned Parenthood does for a living.
	300,000 unborn children a year.
	Now, whatever you may say about separating families from children at the border, and again, I think there's an easy congressional fix to all of this that Speaker Ryan's office has told me they're already pursuing today.
	You know, even if you believe that that's something that ought to be fixed, what Planned Parenthood does to kids, a lot worse than separating them at the border for a week and a half.
	They kill them.
	So I do love how the left suddenly is interested in God and the Bible when it comes to illegal immigration.
	By the way, I just want to note this, you know, as someone who's fond of the Old Testament, right, I wear the funny hat on my head because I'm fond of the Old Testament.
	And I like it in the original Hebrew, you know, the hardcore way.
	And whenever it talks about treating strangers in your land with certain respect, the precondition in all of Jewish law for all of Jewish history is that people have to accept the law of the land.
	If you violate the law of the land, you're not treated like a stranger in the land, like a ger toshav, right?
	You instead are treated like somebody who is violating the law of the land.
	You're treated like a criminal.
	So to misquote the Bible purposefully is really ridiculous.
	Now the worst of all is Kathy Griffin, of course, because Kathy Griffin only makes a headline when she says something absolutely awful.
	So she decided that she would go off on Melania.
	She said, F you, Melania.
	You know damn well your husband can end this immediately.
	Feckless, complicit piece of bleep.
	I do love that so many folks on the left are so angry at all the women in the Trump administration.
	They're feckless and complicit.
	It's so funny.
	All those people wouldn't say that Hillary Clinton was feckless and complicit when it came to her husband's exploitation of women.
	But it's a different thing when you're talking immigration policy and Melania Trump.
	Like, Melania's just going to stroll on into the Oval, and suddenly Trump's going to shift his immigration policy because Melania said something.
	Now, the routine that is making the most headlines today is Laura Bush has an op-ed today that we need to go through in just a second.
	Plus, we have a bunch of preening Democratic lawmakers I want to talk about.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at stamps.com.
	So right now you can get practically everything on demand, right?
	I get everything on demand.
	I get my entertainment on demand.
	I get products on demand.
	So why are you still taking trips to the post office to mail letters and packages?
	It doesn't matter how much you love the post office.
	It's pretty great.
	The reality is that you can save a lot of time and money simply by staying in your office and going over to 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.
	You can buy and print official U.S.
	postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer.
	The mail carrier picks it up, you just click, print, mail, and you're done.
	And then, go over to stamps.com and you get a special deal right now when you use promo code SHAPIRO.
	It includes 55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week free trial.
	Which is pretty amazing.
	So go check it out right now.
	When you go to Stamps.com, before you do anything else, click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
	That's Stamps.com, and enter promo code Shapiro.
	Again, it includes up to $50, $5 free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
	See whether you like it.
	We use Stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
	It saves us a lot of time.
	We don't have to have our employees run over to the post office.
	It saves me a lot of time at home.
	Again, you just print it right out onto the envelope, the postage.
	They give you a postage meter as well.
	A digital scale, rather, and that allows you to know what kind of postage you need for all this stuff.
	It's just great.
	Go to stamps.com, check it out, and use promo code Shapiro to let them know we sent you, and so you get the special deal.
	Alright, so, Laura Bush has now sounded off.
	Now, I do find this weird, okay?
	I really like Laura Bush, I have a lot of respect for Laura Bush, I think she was a very good first lady, but I don't know why it was that Laura Bush was silent about so much of policy under the Obama administration, and now she's speaking out about the Trump administration.
	I suppose the idea here is that Republicans are supposed to police their own, so when something really bad happens, Republicans are supposed to speak up.
	That's fine with me, but I think that this particular piece is not supremely accurate.
	And not only do I think that it's not supremely accurate, I think that it actually forwards some falsehoods.
	So here's what Laura Bush has to say.
	She says, I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents.
	In the six weeks between April 19th and May 31st, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care.
	More than 100 of these children are younger than four years old.
	The reason for these separations is a zero tolerance policy for their parents.
	Well, they're not accused.
	They illegally crossed our borders.
	So, again, here's the problem.
	I understand empathy.
	Empathy makes for bad politics.
	It does.
	Okay, sympathy makes for good politics.
	Empathy makes for bad politics.
	Sympathy is, I feel bad for you.
	Empathy is, I feel you.
	Meaning, I am putting myself in your shoes.
	Well, how about putting yourself in the shoes of the immigration agent who has to decide whether to release an unvetted illegal immigrant family There are stories, by the way, of gangs who have been smuggling children across the border specifically for this purpose, because they know that if they have a kid with them, they're more likely to be released into sort of general society.
	Now, that's a rarity, but it is happening.
	And we have to be vetting who comes into the country in the first place.
	Is the policy supposed to be that if you show up with a six-month-old, that we just release you into the country?
	Because right now, that's the law.
	Right now, you have two choices.
	I can either arrest the parent and separate out the kid, or I can release them into the country.
	If the idea is you come in with a kid under four, you get released, how many people do you think are going to rush that border?
	A lot.
	A lot of people.
	This is not to say you should create a policy to deter immigration by separating the kids.
	Instead, you should change the policy so the kids get to stay with the parents in some sort of custody.
	That'd be the way to do this.
	But if the alternative is release a bunch of kids in the middle of the country with their parents, I just don't see that.
	Here's what Laura Bush writes.
	She says, Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside El Paso.
	These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in American history.
	We also know this treatment inflicts trauma.
	Interned Japanese have been two times as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease or die prematurely than those who are not interned.
	This is not Japanese-American internment, okay?
	That was taking American citizens and forcibly relocating them to camps when they were integrated into American society already.
	They had rights under the U.S.
	Constitution.
	The same is not true of people illegally crossing the border.
	And again, it was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most left court in America, that made this policy.
	It was not Trump.
	I don't like the inaccuracy here.
	You can make a case for legislation that fixes all of this without being inaccurate about your reporting.
	Laura Bush continues, Americans pride ourselves on being a moral nation, on being the nation that sends humanitarian relief to places devastated by natural disasters or famine or war.
	We pride ourselves on believing that people should be seen for the contents of their character, not the color of their skin.
	We pride ourselves on acceptance.
	If we are truly that country, then it is our obligation to reunite these detained children with their parents and to stop separating parents and children in the first place.
	People on all sides agree our immigration system isn't working, but the injustice of zero tolerance is not the answer.
	I moved away from Washington almost a decade ago, but I know there are good people at all levels of government who can do better to fix all of this.
	Yes, of course we can.
	2018, can we not as a nation find a kinder, more compassionate, and more moral answer to this current crisis?
	I, for one, believe we can.
	Yes, of course we can.
	But this starts by not being inaccurate about the state of the law.
	It starts by not being inaccurate about the state of the law.
	It also starts by not being inaccurate about illegal immigration and the cost of illegal immigration.
	Now, there's been a lot of talk about illegal immigration increasing crime rates.
	The data are mixed on all of that.
	There's been a lot of talk about illegal immigration and its effects on the economy.
	The evidence suggests that illegal immigrants are more of a drain on the economy than a help to the economy since they don't pay taxes.
	They pay, you know, state sales tax, but that's about it.
	But it is certainly true that every crime that is committed by an illegal immigrant inside the United States is a crime that didn't need to happen.
	For example, over the weekend, authorities said five undocumented immigrants are dead following a chase involving Border Patrol agents on Sunday afternoon.
	Dimmock County Sheriff Marion Boyd said the crash happened off Highway 85 in Big Wells at about noon.
	Boyd said agents were chasing the SUV when it lost control and overturned.
	The vehicle was traveling at more than 100 miles per hour when it crashed.
	Fourteen people were inside, including the driver and passenger.
	Twelve immigrants were ejected.
	Four died at the scene when the car crashed and rolled over, according to Boyd.
	A fifth person later died at the hospital.
	A total of nine people were transported to the hospital, including five who went to San Antonio Military Medical Center.
	The rest went to local hospitals.
	The driver is a United States citizen who was among those transported.
	A Border Patrol agent observed three vehicles traveling one behind the other on FM-2664 and suspected a smuggling attempt was happening, the agency said in a statement.
	The agent was able to stop one of the vehicles and called out a description of the other two.
	A second Border Patrol agent was able to pull over the second vehicle.
	The third refused to stop.
	The agency said multiple arrests were made in both vehicles.
	The passenger, also believed to be a U.S.
	citizen, is currently in custody.
	Boyd says they need a wall built in this area because this is a real problem in the area.
	So, while there's a lot of talk about weakening immigration law, you know, we ought to remember that a country worth its salt does have borders.
	Now, lawmakers are making hay while the sun shines here.
	So are politicians.
	Michael Hayden, General Michael Hayden, who is a member of the Obama administration, I believe.
	I would have to actually look up his credentials, but Michael Hayden tweeted this out.
	Like Laura Bush, you know, trying to compare all of this to internment camps.
	Michael Hayden then tweeted out a picture of the railway station at Auschwitz, right?
	Like Auschwitz-Birkenau.
	He tweeted out, other governments have separated mothers and children.
	This is so insulting and so insanely stupid, I can't even tell you.
	It is bad enough to compare this to Japanese-American internment camps because it is not similar.
	It isn't.
	But to compare it to the Nazis is just insane.
	He's a retired U.S.
	Air Force four-star general.
	He's former director of National Security Agency and former director of the CIA is Michael Hayden.
	The fact that he thinks this just demonstrates the lack of knowledge at all levels of the American government.
	There was separation of children from parents at Auschwitz and then both were gassed.
	And then they gassed every child to death, and they gassed most of the mothers to death as well.
	That is not the same thing as, we're going to put you in protective custody while we take care of your parents' asylum claim.
	Not quite the same thing at all.
	But it's just...
	It's just ridiculous.
	Again, all this media coverage is ridiculous, all of it is unfair, and all of it is designed to elicit an emotional response, when an emotional response may be merited.
	Right?
	You can see a reason for being emotional about all this stuff.
	What you can't see is lying about all of this.
	And this is indeed lies.
	I mean, these are lies.
	Okay, so, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com for the rest of the show live.
	For $9.99 a month, you get the rest of this show, the rest of Andrew Klavan's show, the rest of Michael Moll's show, plus, as I said earlier on the show, we have an episode of The Conversation coming up tomorrow.
	In that episode of The Conversation, we'll include me taking your questions.
	When you're a subscriber, you get your questions asked.
	When you aren't, you don't.
	You just sit there, in chastened silence, as I answer the questions of others.
	If you get the annual subscription, you get this.
	The very greatest in leftist tears.
	Hot or cold tumblers.
	It is just fantastic.
	It is magnificent.
	When I go to public events, I see people bring them with them, they cherish them, they treasure them, they put them in glass cases so that they're not harmed.
	That's how great these are, that's how much people love the tumblers.
	You get that for $99 a year, cheaper than the monthly subscription, so go check that out right now.
	Also, go check out our YouTube and our...
	iTunes page.
	Please subscribe.
	Please leave us a review.
	We always appreciate it.
	We have another Sunday special that came out yesterday with Michael Shermer.
	You're really going to enjoy it.
	When you subscribe, you get that as well.
	We have another Sunday special next week.
	I'm trying to remember who we have next week.
	We'll get it to you tomorrow.
	Jason Whitlock.
	That's exactly right.
	I didn't remember how we were scheduling.
	So Jason Whitlock is next week.
	The former Kansas City Star columnist and sports columnist.
	We'll talk sports and everything else, so check that out as well.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So among all of these stupid responses to this immigration debacle is Bill Clinton's So Bill Clinton responded to all of this because we obviously need his take on the immigration situation.
	He tweeted out, On this Father's Day, I'm thinking of the thousands of children separated from their parents at the border.
	Honestly, I thought on Father's Day he might be thinking of all the children he's never met that he has.
	He said, On this Father's Day, I'm thinking of the thousands of children separated from their parents at the border.
	These children should not be negotiating too.
	And reuniting them with their families would reaffirm America's belief in and support for all parents who love their children.
	OK, well, I seem to remember back to the 90s, you know, like flashback back to the 90s.
	Remember this picture?
	Remember this one?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That was when they took Elian Gonzalez from his family at gunpoint and then sent him back to Cuba.
	Right, because we had to have good relations with Cuba.
	It's very important.
	So we actually sent a SWAT team in to remove Elian Gonzalez from the United States.
	But apparently on Father's Day, this is what Bill Clinton doesn't remember.
	Bill Clinton, amidst his hookers and blow, he's sitting around thinking about All of the children separated from their parents at the border.
	All of this is just overwrought and has nothing to do with the actual law.
	Again, there will be a law passed this week to fix this process as well there should have been before.
	Now I'm glad there's focus on it because I think the process ought to be fixed, but there's no reason to lie about it.
	And you see all these lawmakers who are lying about it.
	Here are lawmakers holding a press conference after touring in the immigration facility.
	This is Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the greater demagogues in the country, Democrat from Texas.
	And here she is making a fuss.
	Let me just quickly say that when you have a mother tell you directly that she's in fear that she will never see her child again, and when the United Nations Human Rights Commission indicates to the Trump administration you're violating human rights, then you know that what we are saying today is, President Trump, cease and desist, because you are moving the arc of justice to the heap of despair and the trash heap of injustice.
	After the parents are in handcuffs, their kids are taken away to parts unknown.
	That is appalling.
	And it is un-American.
	Okay, that's Peter Welch, Democrat from Vermont.
	Heap of despair and trash heap of history and arcs of justice and oh my goodness.
	Okay, if you're a parent and you feel like you're never gonna get your kid back, that's horrifying obviously, which is why we should correct the situation.
	It is also true that every child has been returned to their parent.
	Has there been a case?
	Where a kid has been permanently removed from their parent?
	Have we heard of any of those cases?
	No, because this is all exaggeration.
	OK, now again, the policy is not good, but this policy was not implemented by the Trump administration.
	All they're doing is enforcing the immigration law.
	That's it.
	That's the whole thing.
	But it's just it's it's so irritating to watch people fib and lie about the situation.
	And this stuff is.
	It's fibs and it's lies, and it's inappropriate to fib and lie about politics, even if you think that it's going to be helpful.
	These are the same people who say that Trump lies routinely, while the media are lying about the situation, and it's really, really unpleasant.
	Okay, now speaking of unpleasant, Peter Strzok.
	You'll recall last week we talked at length about the Department of Justice Inspector General report about the FBI's actions in the Hillary Clinton email case.
	And that IG report was pretty damning.
	The person at the center of the IG report was Peter Strzok.
	Was an FBI agent who was one of the head agents in charge of both the Russia investigation as well as the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
	And you'll recall that there was a text that he sent to his lover.
	He's a delightful fellow who's married, having an affair with a woman who is also married.
	So just delightful people all the way around.
	And she texted that Trump wouldn't be president, she hopes, basically.
	And he said, we'll stop it.
	Right?
	That was a direct quote.
	We'll stop it.
	Which is just fantastic.
	So now, Strzok says that he will testify before the House Judiciary Committee without a subpoena.
	According to his lawyer, Aiton Goleman, he wrote the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, a letter obtained by a long crime quote.
	I've read press reports that you are initiating the process to issue a subpoena to special agent Strzok to testify before your committee.
	While you are, of course, free to continue pursuing this process, it is wholly unnecessary.
	Special agent Strzok, who has been fully cooperative with the DOJ Office of Inspector General, intends to voluntarily appear and testify before your committee and any other congressional committee that invites him.
	So the reason that he's so eager to get in front of the committee, obviously, is because he can fib about all of this.
	He can just say, when I said, we'll stop it, I mean all of the anti-Trump voters, right?
	That's really what I meant.
	Or when I said that I don't want Trump to be president, I didn't mean I was going to use my official auspices to do all of this.
	Or when I decided that I was going to delay the decision-making about Hillary Clinton's email investigation to pursue the Russian investigation, which is what happened between late September and late October.
	And when I made that decision, that wasn't politically motivated.
	After all, if I were politically motivated, I would have released all this stuff to the press.
	He already said all this stuff to the DOJ, and the DOJ itself found some of this stuff non-incredible.
	The DOJ itself said that it had problems with Strzok's story, that it thought that it cast really bad light on the FBI's actions in the Hillary Clinton email case.
	On Thursday, the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General blasted Strzok for his behavior amid the probes into Russia collusion in Hillary Clinton's emails, to say they were ambivalent doesn't quite capture their tone.
	On the one hand, investigators said they found no evidence tying investigative decisions to anti-Trump messages involving Strzok, according to LawAndCrime.com.
	On the other hand, quote, When one senior FBI official, Strzok, who helped lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, that, quote, will stop candidate Trump from being elected, after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind, but even more seriously implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects.
	This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the DOJ.
	Moreover, as we describe in Chapter 9, in assessing Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following on the Hillary-related investigative lead discovered on the Wiener laptop in October 2016, these text messages led us to conclude we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision was freed from bias.
	So how's the lawyer fighting back?
	He says, well, Special Agent Strzok did not back burner inspection of the Wiener laptop in fall of 2016.
	Second, while Special Agent Strzok openly admitted he believed the Russia investigation was far more important to American national security than the Clinton email investigation, this conclusion is evidence of Special Agent Strzok's lucidity, not his bias.
	And so I guess Strzok is eager to testify because he's eager to grandstand about all of the Russian collusion that's supposedly going on.
	Now, again, there's been no actual evidence presented as of yet of anything beyond attempted collusion.
	Now, attempted collusion ain't great, but it ain't the same as actual collusion.
	Strzok wants to get in front of Congress.
	He wants to get in front of those cameras.
	It needs to happen.
	Right?
	And here's the reality.
	No matter what he says, the left will claim that Strzok was acting in the best interest of the country, and the right will suggest, I think rightly so, that bias was taking place with regard to the Russia investigation and the Hillary investigation.
	Bottom line is this.
	Strzok is still working at the FBI.
	How he has not been fired is absolutely beyond me.
	It's absolutely beyond me.
	No other area of American government would you be allowed to get away with this.
	If you were a local police officer and there were a shooting, and they found in your messages, text messages about the person that you shot, Yeah, that's ridiculous.
	about how you were eager to watch that person die, right?
	Presumably you'd be prosecuted.
	Okay, Peter Strzok basically did that with regard to the Trump investigation, and we're all supposed to pretend that it didn't happen?
	Yeah, that's ridiculous.
	Okay.
	Now, meanwhile, speaking of ridiculous, there's a lot of talk on college campuses these days about structural bias, about racism, institutional racism.
	Well, now it turns out that Harvard University is institutionally racist.
	So a group that is suing Harvard University is demanding that it publicly release admissions data on hundreds of thousands of applicants saying the records show a pattern of discrimination against Asian Americans going back decades.
	The group was able to view the documents through its lawsuit, which was filed in 2014, and challenges Harvard's admissions policies.
	Basically, what they found is that Harvard kept saying over and over and over that all Asian applicants were not good leaders, basically.
	And they said that they were not good leaders or they had personal flaws, and that's why they couldn't be admitted despite higher test scores.
	And what you see is a bevy.
	So the Caltech, I saw a fascinating chart over the weekend, Caltech admits people simply on the basis of scores and on the basis of grades.
	And what you saw is that the number of Asian Americans at Caltech has been increasing dramatically over the past 20 years.
	It started off at a certain level, and then it rose dramatically to the point where it is now, and it looks like a straight line up, basically.
	It's an arithmetically increasing line.
	Well, if you look at the levels at Harvard, what you see is a boost in the 80s of Asian-American people attending Harvard, and then it flattens out, and it's stayed flat ever since the 90s.
	And the same is held true at Yale, and the same is held true at NYU, and the same is held true at most major college universities, which suggests that there is racism going on.
	It's just that the racism is coming from the left in the form of admissions bias to prevent Asian Americans from getting into schools.
	You want to talk about institutional racism?
	We should be talking about institutional racism on the part of these universities.
	Now, in other news, on Father's Day, It's a good time to celebrate fathers.
	The good news is that the left has decided that fathers are useless.
	Noah Berlatsky is a columnist for NBC News and he writes for their Think page.
	This Father's Day, men are experiencing a crisis of masculinity.
	The solution?
	More feminism.
	Yeah, that's probably it.
	Yeah, that'll probably fix it.
	Tell your boy that he ought to wear a tutu.
	That's probably going to fix it.
	Or tell your boy, don't rape!
	That's probably going to fix this thing.
	It's not that you need men modeling better behavior.
	What you really need is men preaching the messages of Gloria Steinem.
	That's definitely going to solve things.
	Here's what the piece says.
	We're experiencing a crisis of masculinity.
	That's the claim of Canadian psychologist and self-help author Jordan Peterson.
	Peterson argues that feminism and policies like no-fault divorce have destabilized traditional family and social structures.
	As a fix for this, Peterson recommends a variety of things, including enforced monogamy, a solution that implies men are oppressed due to lack of consensual sex.
	Okay, first of all, that is a lie that we have talked about on the show before.
	Jordan Peterson, when he says enforced monogamy, he does not mean government-enforced monogamy.
	He means a societal standard that promotes monogamy, which I thought feminists would be for, in many cases, so that men wouldn't be scumbags cheating on them on a routine basis.
	Hey, Peterson's claims have been broadly criticized, but he does have his defenders as well.
	He's often argued that the crisis of masculinity has been caused by feminism, which has led to evolving norms generating confusion and mixed signals in the words of Cathy Young writing in the LA Times.
	Feminism has sent men adrift.
	They're no longer sure how to be men.
	And as a result, they are struggling economically and psychologically.
	Well, that is kind of true.
	But here's what Noah Berlatsky says.
	He says, men experience violence and oppression because norms are not changing.
	And it is in general powerful men who enforce these unhelpful and sometimes dangerous masculine expectations, not tyrannous feminist women.
	As in one example, consider male suicide rates.
	Men are victims of three quarters of suicides in the United States.
	This isn't because feminists have successfully carried out a campaign to keep men from having sex.
	Rather, male suicide rates are tragically high because of traditional stereotypical standards of manliness.
	Well, that's idiotic.
	Okay, if that were really the case, if you really believe that it was traditional standards of stereotypical masculinity, then why exactly has male suicide increased?
	Right?
	If the standards were the same 50 years ago as they are today, you would expect the suicide rate to be the same 50 years ago as it was today.
	It isn't.
	But Noberlatsky has an idiotic point to make, and here's his idiotic point.
	Oh, that's it.
	That's it.
	It's that men won't go to the doctor.
	That's why they're dying in higher numbers.
	Sure, they didn't go to the doctor 50 years ago, but it's that they won't go to the doctor now.
	Encouraging boys not to cry is dangerous.
	Encouraging boys to love guns is even more so.
	Okay, again, loving guns has been part of male culture for as long as guns have been around.
	And encouraging boys not to cry?
	Okay, I don't think anybody should cry unless it is warranted.
	Boys or girls.
	And then he talks about gender expectations and stereotypical views of men.
	Mass incarceration disproportionately affects black people and people of color, but it also, and relatedly, affects men.
	Well, no, it turns out that men have always gone to prison at higher rates because men are more aggressive biologically.
	So, in order to get to this idiotic point, basically, Noah Borlatsky has to suggest that the only thing that has changed is that men have become worse, which is stupid and untrue.
	And the only thing that has changed is that societal standards have changed, and this is making men more unhappy in certain ways, and maybe we should take a look at those societal standards and determine whether they are useful or not, or whether they are counterproductive or not.
	Okay, time for some stuff I like and then some stuff I hate, and then we'll do a Federalist paper.
	So, Thing I like today.
	I get a lot of questions about what kind of Jewish literature is worth reading.
	There's an excellent book I finished over the weekend by Micah Goodman.
	This came out in Hebrew and Israel.
	It's been translated now.
	It's called Maimonides and the Book that Changed Judaism, Secrets of the Guide for the Perplexed.
	It really is a sophisticated take on Guide for the Perplexed, which is a very difficult book to read unless you know Aristotelian philosophy and teleology.
	You've read some Plato.
	It's a very complex book.
	Leo Strauss, who's one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, has about 500 pages of essays on the Guide for the Perplexed.
	Well, Michael Goodman breaks it down in very user-friendly fashion.
	The book's only about 240 pages, something like that.
	Really worth a read.
	Michael Goodman's Maimonides and the book that changed Judaism.
	So if you're interested in sort of a good take on what Judaism constitutes, this is a pretty good primer on some basic philosophy in Judaism.
	It's definitely worth the read.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So this was hilarious.
	So Jimmy Kimmel was criticizing Ted Cruz.
	And Ted Cruz challenged Jimmy Kimmel to a game of basketball.
	And Jimmy Kimmel took him up on it.
	Now, I'm old enough to remember, because I'm from Los Angeles, when Jimmy Kimmel was the sports guy on Kevin and Bean on KROQ 106.7 out here.
	That was literally how he started his career.
	He started his career by giving the sports updates in the morning on KROQ.
	Suffice it to say that I did not listen to K-Rock on my own.
	I was in a carpool and I used to sit in the middle of the backseat in carpool because I was the smallest kid and I did not get to choose what was on the radio.
	But that meant I heard a lot of Jimmy Kimmel in his younger days doing the sports updates.
	The sports guy played Ted Cruz.
	And Ted Cruz beat him.
	Ted Cruz beat Jimmy Kimmel in basketball, which is just hysterical.
	He beat him, apparently, 11-9.
	And Ted Cruz had a good sense of humor about the whole thing.
	He went out and took a picture with Grayson Allen, because they're lookalikes, Grayson Allen, the Duke star, and Ted Cruz.
	And he beat him 11-9.
	They raised a bunch of money for charity.
	And this leads me to think that we should have more charity basketball games between celebrities, because something like 5,000 people showed up, which is more than a typical WNBA game.
	So why not?
	Ted Cruz versus Jimmy Kimmel.
	I'd be more interested in watching that than the WNBA.
	I mean, I'm sure the level of skill is higher in the WNBA, but still, Jimmy Kimmel, and it's a disgrace to the game of basketball, I'm sure, but it was pretty funny.
	I mean, if you look at the footage, so good for Ted Cruz.
	That's got to be just a blot on Jimmy Kimmel's record.
	He's just got to go home and cry about that every night that he got beat by Ted Cruz in basketball.
	Hilarious.
	OK, time for a thing that I hate.
	All right, so Van Jones, right, had on Kim Kardashian.
	Kim Kardashian, of course, is one of the great moral voices of our time.
	She just, as we know, freed Alice Johnson from prison, the 63-year-old drug dealer who dealt in 3,000 kilograms of cocaine, something like that.
	So that's very exciting.
	So she got one person free.
	Now she's apparently looking for other people on death row that she can go to President Trump with and try to get him to pardon.
	So that's very exciting.
	Van Jones sat down with Kim Kardashian, and he asked her if she wanted to run for public office.
	Oh, no.
	Would you ever run for office?
	Oh, I don't... I don't think that's even on my mind.
	Trump's president.
	It could happen.
	I know.
	That's why Kanye loves him.
	It's the idea that anything can happen.
	So, could anything happen with, uh... I guess, never say never, but that's not gonna be like a Kim's run.
	Never say never for Kim Kardashian.
	That's just what we need.
	Great.
	Okay, you made a celebrity culture.
	Live in that celebrity culture.
	It's garbage.
	It's garbage.
	Just because people are famous doesn't mean that they're smart or know what they're doing on politics or know that I know I know we're all supposed to pretend that it's wonderful because Kim Kardashian is talking with Trump and now we're all supposed to pretend this is like a great thing.
	Yay.
	So exciting.
	Okay, I am not excited that Kim Kardashian is talking with Trump because I don't think she knows things.
	I think she knows things about certain things.
	I don't think that the criminal justice system is one of those things.
	If Trump wants to talk with an expert referred by Kim Kardashian, that's one thing.
	But if Kim Kardashian is now going to be a politician, I hate that our politics has now suggested that study, reading books, knowing things, these are negatives.
	It makes you hoity-toity to know stuff.
	Well, what utter what utter nonsense and stupidity?
	OK, one more thing that I hate.
	So there's an article.
	At a site called The Cut, about a woman who had her boyfriend move in with her and her husband, and they had a kid.
	So, well done on screwing up your kid.
	And here's what the piece says, by Ariel Greenberg, as told to Kim Brooks.
	Rob and I were together for 12 years before we decided to open our marriage.
	It happened not that long after we had our last child.
	For most of our relationship, I'd been very focused on my career and then motherhood, without much time to think about my sex life.
	Once we were done having kids, my sex drive came roaring back.
	We loved each other very much, but we'd never been a perfect match in terms of sexual compatibility.
	I told him I didn't think our marriage was big enough for my new sexual curiosity.
	I wanted to explore.
	Rob was very receptive, but we wanted to take things slowly.
	Okay, so note to ladies who say they want an open marriage, the reason your husband is very receptive to open marriage is because men are naturally polygamous and want to go screw as many women as possible.
	So no wonder your husband wanted in.
	Are you sure?
	Like, shocker.
	Okay, and then, first of all, I don't believe, I'm gonna say this, I don't believe that a lot, that the issue of sexual compatibility is a real issue.
	I think it's an issue of personal compatibility treated, extended into the realm of sex.
	That's what I think about sexual compatibility.
	I think that if you're a giving person in the bedroom, you're likely to have a very good sex life.
	I think that if you're an a-hole in real life, you're likely to be an a-hole in the bedroom.
	I think that's just the way that it works.
	I think that if two people love each other and they give to each other, they will have a very good sex life.
	If not, they'll have a garbage sex life.
	This issue of, oh, you know, we love each other and we're really giving and we're great in every other aspect of life, but just in the bedroom, we're really bad together.
	I think you're doing something wrong.
	I think you're doing something wrong and I blame you.
	Okay, I don't blame it on, oh, you have exquisite sexual taste and now I need to go out and explore the world and do the Cirque du Soleil tour of sex.
	I just don't buy it.
	I think it's because you're, I think you're not working hard enough on your relationship.
	And now that's, sometimes there are physical, actual problems.
	That's not what I'm talking about.
	I'm not talking about you have some sort of physical defect.
	I'm not talking about you experience pain or something like that.
	I'm talking about, well, you know, you can have perfectly comfortable sex, but you're just not that into each other sexually and all this.
	Work on it.
	Stop being a jerk.
	Okay, so this article continues, and then, apparently, we were very open about what we were doing with everyone, including our kids, who were four and eight at the time, because you will burn in hell, okay?
	We sat down with them and explained that some people think when you're married to someone, you can only love that one person, but that we didn't believe that.
	We thought you could love more than one person at the same time.
	Our oldest child thought about it and said for a moment, and then said, well, right, I love you, and I also love data.
	And I said, right, and that was the end of the conversation.
	That's not the same thing.
	That is not the same thing.
	I'm sorry, having sex with multiple people is not the same thing as I love my wife and I love my child.
	Unless you're really perverse.
	Okay, like that's not the way that works right there.
	I say, children are naturally very tolerant about these things.
	We teach them our intolerance.
	Right, because children are stupid.
	Right, because children are dummies.
	Okay, I've got two kids under five.
	They're wonderful.
	They're very smart for their age.
	They're dummies.
	Okay, that's because they're kids.
	Like, you're supposed to inculcate good values.
	Okay, anyway, both of us started dating, says this article.
	Rob began dating a woman pretty seriously, and I was seeing Mike when I first met in my 20s.
	Ah-ha-ha!
	This is what was really going on.
	She hooked up on Facebook with an old boyfriend.
	Right, we'd had a passionate but brief relationship while living on opposite coasts.
	We had since fallen out of touch.
	Now he was living five hours away.
	And we began a long-distance relationship where I'd see him every month or two for a couple of days.
	After about two years of long-distance dating and getting to know our whole family, Mike decided to move to our town to be close to us.
	He was divorced and had no kids and a job he could do from anywhere.
	When he first moved, he rented an apartment a few blocks away.
	The idea was he'd live there for a year or more and we'd see how it went.
	But it became immediately apparent that it didn't just make sense because he and I wanted to spend every night together.
	And he was eating all his meals with us.
	So it turns out that she wasn't, like, just not happy with her husband.
	She didn't want to have sex with him at all.
	She wanted to have sex with this other dude.
	But she wanted to have her cake and eat it too.
	Rob and Mike got along well from the start, not like best friends, but they genuinely enjoyed each other's company.
	If I wasn't home, they'd watch basketball or make dinner together.
	Because your husband's a doof.
	They wouldn't turn to each other if they were in crisis.
	For that, they'd turn to me.
	But they got along well.
	Of all the questions people ask me about non-monogamy, the one I get most is probably about the living arrangement.
	People want to know why Mike got to live with us while none of the people Rob dated got to.
	This seems like such a silly way to look at it.
	The reasons you do or don't choose to live with a partner are complicated.
	It's not that Mike got to live with us, it's that it made sense for him to move in.
	He was getting a divorce.
	He had no kids.
	He worked from home.
	And sure, we had two kids who weren't involved with Mike, but my kids don't matter because, hey, I want to get my rocks off.
	And they decided to have a small bedroom on the first floor because it was more private.
	The idea is that Rob and I would keep the master bedroom and I could go downstairs and sleep with Mike when I wanted to.
	Honestly, Rob has always preferred to sleep alone and was happy to have the bed to himself because Rob, as we have mentioned before, is a doof.
	And then the best part of this?
	At the very end, it turns out that they're thinking about divorce.
	Shocker!
	Shocker!
	It says, I love this.
	Mike and I, I love this.
	Living together worked really well for us for four years.
	Recently, Rob decided it was time for him to get his own apartment, mostly because he wants a little more autonomy, even though he lives right nearby and comes over for dinner most nights.
	So he decided to divorce.
	Oh!
	Is that what happened?
	I can't believe it!
	No!
	Shocker!
	It turns out that when you told your four and eight-year-olds that you can love more than one person at a time, you couldn't!
	Sho- I couldn't- Wow.
	That was not predictable in any way that you would get divorced after having sex with another dude and bring him into your house.
	Couldn't- Wha- I'm just- pfft.
	Mind blown.
	Unreal.
	People might point to that and say, oh, so I guess non-monogamy didn't work in the end.
	I guess it ruined your marriage.
	Or they think, poor Rob.
	But Rob dates.
	He has a life he fully enjoys and chose.
	He's about to turn 50.
	He wanted to feel what it was like to steer his own ship for a while.
	To have a little more space.
	And that's what he has.
	Mike and I are going to get married soon.
	I think people assume that now we'll be monogamous since our relationship is so romantic.
	But nope.
	We have no interest in a marriage that doesn't provide us space to express and act on attractions to other people and to continue to change and grow.
	In a funny way.
	And given the statistics around infidelity, I think we're a lot more committed to non-monogamy than most monogamous people are to monogamy.
	No.
	Statistically speaking, this is false.
	You are 100% committed to non-monogamy, and the majority of monogamous people are committed to monogamy, and so you ruined your life, and you ruined your children's life, and you ruined your husband's life.
	So well done, all because you weren't sexually compatible, which really means that you weren't willing to be giving in the bedroom, or your husband wasn't, and you wouldn't talk about it.
	So well done, lady.
	These people put their kids last.
	Make me sick.
	Make me sick.
	The kids in this?
	They don't even come into the picture.
	It's all about just how you feel in the bedroom.
	Well, if you're going to do that, don't have kids in the first place, really.
	If you want to live that lifestyle, live that lifestyle.
	Don't F up your kids.
	Ridiculous.
	Okay, time for a quick Federalist paper.
	So, Federalist number 33.
	From the ridiculous to the sublime, Federalist number 33.
	Alexander Hamilton continues discussing the federal taxing power.
	So he's talking in the Constitution about the fact that you get to tax at the federal level.
	A lot of people were afraid this would lead to the federal government becoming overbearing and encroaching.
	Which happened.
	Okay, so he begins by discussing the so-called Necessary and Proper Clause.
	This is the clause of the Constitution that says that the federal government has the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers by the Constitution vested in the government of the United States.
	In other words, if there's a power in the Constitution, then the federal government can pass a law to effectuate that power.
	And here's what Hamilton says.
	He says, What is a power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing?
	What is the ability to do a thing but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution?
	What is a legislative power but a power of making laws?
	What are the means to execute a legislative power but laws?
	What is the power of laying and collecting taxes but a legislative power or power of making laws to lay and collect taxes?
	In other words, when it says necessary and proper, if I say you have the power, the legislature has the power to regulate interstate commerce, that means it has the power to pass laws and create agencies to effectuate those laws.
	Right?
	Everybody agrees with this.
	Hamilton says the point of this clause is to restrict the power of the federal government to only that which is necessary.
	So otherwise, you would just say the government has the power to do whatever it wants.
	Instead, it says the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, and then it says the government has the power to do what is necessary and proper to accomplish those effects.
	Right?
	Now, here's the problem.
	Hamilton is totally right about this, but the Supreme Court decided that the Necessary and Proper Clause was not actually the Necessary and Proper Clause.
	That it was the Government-Should-Be-Able-To-Do-Whatever-It-Wants Clause.
	It's a serious problem.
	So, there's a landmark decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland.
	He decided wrongly that the Necessary and Proper Clause was used as the justification for the creation of a national bank.
	So, the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by taxing out-of-state banks.
	The Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank, the court ruled against Maryland, and Justice John Marshall said that the Constitution didn't give Congress the permission to create a federal bank, but it gave Congress the implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause so Congress could realize or fulfill its expressed taxing and spending powers.
	This is a wrongly decided case.
	Necessary and proper means necessary, not wanted.
	Necessary.
	Was it absolutely necessary for there to be a Bank of the United States to tax and spend?
	No, we haven't had a Bank of the United States for a century and a half in the United States.
	And we've been able to tax and spend pretty well.
	So this was not true.
	The worries about the Necessary and Proper Clause were well-founded, but it's not clear that without the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supreme Court wouldn't have done the same thing.
	Okay, so we will be back here tomorrow with all of the latest.
	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.

▲