Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 25, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:32

Burning The Social Fabric | Ep. 567

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets denied dinner, Maxine Waters goes philosophically fascist, and George Will goes too far.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Man, over the weekend, I turned to my wife and I said, I am exhausted by the news cycle.
	And then the rest of the news cycle hits.
	That was awesome.
	Lots of stuff to talk about today.
	Apparently, you can't go anywhere for dinner now, which is kind of frightening.
	We'll get to all of that.
	First, I want to mention that we have a special live stream coming up Monday, July 2nd at 7 p.m.
	Eastern.
	It's our July 4th special.
	We will be joined by special guest Jordan Peterson to celebrate Independence Day.
	God King Jeremy Boring will host a new edition of Daily Wire backstage with me and Andrew Klavan and Michael Knowles.
	So look back on our country's birth and look ahead to its future.
	Subscribers will even be able to write in live questions for us to answer on the air.
	Jordan's going to be sitting in with us as well.
	That is Monday, July 2nd, 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific with Jordan Peterson.
	And you can find our special live stream on Facebook and YouTube.
	So don't miss it.
	Also, before we get started, I want to mention our sponsors over at Zeal.
	So, there's certain things in life, as I've said many, many times, that make you feel wealthy without actually having to be wealthy.
	Well, Zeal is one of those things, because you're at home after a long day of work and your back hurts, and you're thinking, okay, maybe I need to schedule a massage over at the spa.
	But if I do that, it's going to take me a week to get in there, and then it's going to be really expensive, and I don't know who's going to be massaging me anyway.
	Well, that's where Zeal comes in.
	ZEEL.com Z-E-E-L.com allows you to select from top local licensed pre-screened massage therapists.
	You can choose your favorite technique, gender preference, time and location for your massage.
	It's on demand and ZEEL sends you one of their 10,000 licensed massage therapists with a massage table and music and supplies.
	They do the whole thing right in your house.
	A five-star massage right in your apartment or your house.
	Scheduling, booking, payment fast and easy.
	Even the tip is included Seven days a week, 365 days a year, a Zeal massage therapist can be at your door in as little as an hour.
	I've used it for myself, for my wife, for my mother-in-law, for my parents, for my sister.
	It's become a very popular thing in our family, a popular gift we give to one another over at Zeal.com with the Zeal app.
	There's a reason that Zeal has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Vogue, and on Good Morning America.
	To help you get started, our listeners get a $25 discount off their first massage with promo code BEN.
	That's Z-E-E-L dot com, promo code BEN.
	And right now, again, go to Zeal dot com.
	And when you use that promo code BEN, then you get 25 bucks off your first in-home massage.
	It really is spectacular.
	So go check that out.
	OK, so over the weekend, we decided we can't live in the country with each other.
	Very, very exciting stuff.
	It turns out that we no longer want to eat dinner with one another.
	We no longer want to serve one another.
	I'm not talking about people who have religious objections to participating in a same-sex wedding.
	I'm talking about if I don't like your political viewpoint, you are not allowed to enter my restaurant.
	Now, as I've said before, it's a free country.
	You can do whatever you want.
	You don't want me to eat in your restaurant because I'm a Republican?
	That's your business.
	You want to ban me from your private college campus like you did at DePaul University?
	That's your business, right?
	It's a free country.
	You can do that.
	Does it make for a better country?
	No.
	And I do want to distinguish here between trying to force somebody to participate via governmental intervention in somebody else's activity and whether something is good or not.
	So, as I've said many times, I think that as a general rule, you should serve everybody who comes into your establishment.
	I don't think that necessarily means you have to serve everybody who comes into your establishment.
	I don't think that means that you must serve people who want special privileges or they want you to participate in a ceremony that you feel is immoral.
	But I do think that as a general rule, just as a good person, if I owned an establishment, I would service you if you came into my establishment.
	I wouldn't service a same-sex wedding because I have moral objections to a same-sex wedding, just as many of these bakers and photographers do.
	But if I owned a restaurant like Chick-fil-A, I would allow anybody to eat there, just as Chick-fil-A does.
	And I think that is the moral thing to do.
	I think that is the right thing to do.
	Again, you have the freedom to reject anybody.
	So...
	There's been a big brouhaha over the weekend because it turns out that Sarah Huckabee Sanders went to a restaurant called The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia.
	And Stephanie Wilkinson, who's the owner of The Red Hen in Lexington, asked the press secretary to leave the restaurant on Friday evening.
	She apparently took a staff vote before privately asking Sanders to leave the restaurant.
	And Sanders replied, that's fine.
	I'll go.
	One diner posted an image of 86 next to her name, industry slang for kick out.
	So the owner of the Red Hen restaurant has revealed why she refused to serve the White House press secretary.
	On Friday night, Sanders was asked to leave the Lexington, Virginia restaurant where she was dining with her seven family members.
	And restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson said she took a staff vote before asking Sanders to leave.
	When they voted to boot her out, Wilkinson complied.
	Tell me what you want me to do.
	I can ask her to leave.
	And they said yes.
	So apparently she started texting to all of her employees about it.
	She said, Well, this doesn't really uphold your morals to throw somebody out of your restaurant if you disagree with them politically.
	But, you know, again, it's a free country.
	You can do what you want.
	Well, Sarah Huckabee Sanders then tweeted out about this, and she tweeted out what exactly happened.
	And she didn't call for a boycott against the restaurant.
	She said, So there are a bunch of separate issues we need to separate out here.
	1.
	Is it bad to throw people out of your restaurant because you disagree with them politically?
	The answer is yes.
	2.
	Do you have the right to tweet about it?
	The answer is yes.
	3.
	Do you have a right to boycott that restaurant because of that activity?
	The answer, of course, is yes.
	and will continue to do so.
	So there are a bunch of separate issues we need to separate out here.
	One, is it bad to throw people out of your restaurant because you disagree with them politically?
	The answer is yes.
	Two, do you have the right to tweet about it?
	The answer is yes.
	Three, do you have a right to boycott that restaurant because of that activity?
	The answer, of course, is yes.
	Now, when are boycotts appropriate?
	Well, I think a boycott of the Red Hen here is not inappropriate.
	The reason being that it's appropriate to boycott a restaurant or a photographer or a baker, for that matter, if their private political perspective translates over into their business.
	Now, I may not agree with a particular boycott, but I don't think it's wildly inappropriate to boycott.
	I think it's inappropriate to boycott Chick-fil-A, for example, because Chick-fil-A doesn't actually Discriminate against anybody.
	Chick-fil-A doesn't actually have any rules that blow back on anybody, so boycotting them over the private views of their owner seems to me completely counterproductive and stupid.
	Boycotting the Red Hen over what they did to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or even boycotting a baker with whom I agree about same-sex marriage for not catering a same-sex wedding.
	All of that seems to me within the realm of permissible dialogue.
	All of that makes a certain amount of sense, even if I agree with what one business did and disagree with what another business did.
	But instead, what the left has done is the left, which says that you should not be allowed.
	The government should force you.
	The government should force you to bake that cake.
	The government should force you to make that pizza.
	The government should force you to photograph that wedding.
	The same left that says that says it's wonderful that a business just kicked out Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
	That I don't understand at all.
	To make that case requires an amount of hypocrisy that is well beyond the norm.
	And even some folks on the left are acknowledging this, right?
	Like the Washington Post editorial board wrote a piece saying that people should let Sarah Huckabee Sanders basically eat where she wants to eat.
	They say we nevertheless would argue that Ms.
	Huckabee and Ms.
	Nielsen and Mr. Miller, too, should be allowed to eat dinner in peace.
	The reason they mention Kirstjen Nielsen is because something else happened to Kirstjen Nielsen I want to talk about in just a second.
	She's the Secretary of Homeland Security.
	The Washington Post says, those who are insisting that we are in a special moment justifying incivility should think for a moment how many Americans might find their own special moment.
	How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families?
	Down that road lies a world in which only the most zealous sign up for public service.
	That benefits no one.
	I think that's exactly right from the Washington Post.
	Shockingly, they get this one right.
	David Axelrod tweeted something out that was very similar.
	He tweeted out that he was appalled by Democrats cheering this.
	He said, kind of amazed and appalled by the number of folks on left who applauded the expulsion of press secretary and her family from a restaurant.
	This, in the end, is a triumph for Donald Trump's vision of America.
	Now we're divided by red plates and blue plates.
	Hashtag sad.
	Now, the reality is this stuff does benefit President Trump.
	It does benefit President Trump.
	Because when you escalate these conversations to the point of no return, when you escalate to the point when we can't have a civil society together, then Trumpian punching looks pretty good.
	It looks pretty good.
	I'll give you an example.
	So this was not the worst example over the weekend.
	There were several examples of this sort of uncivil, boorish behavior over the weekend.
	So Kirstjen Nielsen, this happened late last week, she was eating at a restaurant.
	In Washington, D.C., and a bunch of protesters decided to crash the restaurant.
	It wasn't the owners.
	The owners were fine with her eating there.
	A bunch of outside protesters decided to crash the restaurant and to yell at her until she left.
	And then she did leave.
	Hey, that was terrible.
	And then Pam Bondi, who's the Florida Attorney General, she was spit on.
	So left-wing activists saw Pam Bondi on the street and they started chasing her down to harass her and spit on her.
	Here's a little bit of what it sounded like.
	What would Mr. Rogers think about you and your legacy in Florida, taking away health insurance with people with pre-existing conditions?
	Sam Bondi, shame on you!
	So what exactly did Pam Bondi do that was so bad?
	She went to a screening of a Mr. Rogers documentary.
	No, I am not kidding.
	She went to a screening of a documentary about Mr. Rogers, the leading advocate for civility over the past half century in the United States, and then left-wing activists came and shouted her down.
	So Christian Nielsen, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, run out of a restaurant for the great sin of working for the Trump administration.
	Sarah Huckabee Sanders, barred from a restaurant by the owners for the great sin of working for the Trump administration.
	Pam Bondi screamed out on the street for the great sin of being a Republican and being in favor of Rick Scott's policy on health care.
	Now, I will say that I think Huckabee Sanders' situation is slightly different from the Christian Nielsen and Pam Bondi situations, specifically because the owner does have a right to kick people out of their place.
	What you don't have a right to do, you actually do not have the right to walk into somebody else's restaurants and harass somebody until they leave, right?
	So just legally speaking, the people who showed up at the restaurant with Christian Nielsen, she should have sat there and she should have made the police come and arrest those people.
	She shouldn't have left.
	She should have said to the restaurant owners, call the police because this is harassment.
	This is actually a violation of specific rights.
	You are not allowed to go into somebody else's place of business and shut down the business because you are having a problem with one of the patrons who is patronizing that business.
	The worst example, however, of incivility over the weekend was none of these.
	It was Maxine Waters.
	So Maxine Waters is just awful.
	Maxine Waters is indeed a moron.
	She's been a moron for 30 years, at least as long as I've been following her in American politics.
	I'm only 34 years old.
	And I remember when I was very young, 1992, L.A.
	riots.
	I was eight years old.
	And Maxine Waters was out there calling it the L.A.
	uprising and talking about how necessary it was.
	It did a billion dollars in property damage and ended with people dead.
	And she was talking about how wonderful it was.
	She has been just the worst kind of politician in an American public life for decades now.
	Well, she went out there and she was at the federal building over on Wilshire Boulevard.
	And she was doing some event, and she started screaming and yelling about why it is that we should now harass people in their homes.
	We should shut people down.
	Kirstjen Nielsen, by the way, protesters showed up outside her home, the Department of Homeland Security secretary.
	They showed up outside her home.
	They were protesting.
	The same thing has happened to Chuck Schumer on immigration, right?
	Democrats, it's happening to, too.
	But Maxine Waters loves this stuff.
	And so she's going to push tactics that are, by any historical metric, far closer to brownshirt Nazi tactics than anything the Trump administration has done at the border.
	Here's Maxine Waters.
	Okay, I mean that's an insane statement.
	Okay, I mean, that's an insane statement.
	What she is talking about there is essentially a fascist jackboot tactic.
	I'm going to read you a section from a great three-volume history of Nazi Germany.
	Now again, I'm not saying that she is a Nazi.
	I'm saying this is a Nazi tactic.
	It is a Nazi tactic to say that you're going to get a bunch of people together and you're going to go harass public officials when they stop at a gas station.
	I'm not saying she's a Nazi.
	Again, I'm not saying her policies are Nazi policies.
	I'm saying this is a brown shirt tactic because it is a far closer tactic to brown shirtism than anything that Trump has done at the southern border, including arresting people and then by dint of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, separating kids from parents.
	I'm going to explain in a second why I am not being shy about using a Nazi analogy here, because I think that Nazi analogies are appropriate when you can actually make the historical reference point.
	So I'm going to talk not in vague terms about what this reference point is in just a second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Peter Miller.
	Look at this shirt.
	This magnificent shirt.
	This shirt is just the greatest shirt that I have ever... It really is a fantastic shirt.
	And the shirt comes courtesy of our friends over at Peter Millar.
	OK, they started off as providing clothing for golfers, but recently I've been receiving my style tips from the clothing experts at Peter Millar because Peter Millar stuff, it's quality, it's value, it's style.
	Right now, I am wearing their performance polo.
	And what I love about these shirts is they are just comfortable.
	They're really stylish.
	I mean, it's a great looking shirt.
	I also have their five pocket pants, which are terrific.
	They're lightweight.
	They are highly breathable, made from the highest quality Pima cotton, and they have comfort stretch for ease of movement.
	I also have a pair of shorts from Peter Millar, and they are just terrific.
	I wore them to Disneyland yesterday.
	They were awesome.
	They fit like your favorite jeans with the style to be worn anywhere due to the five pocket pants.
	And they have Peter Millar's exclusive wash and finish to enhance the softness.
	They can be worn year round.
	And since they are machine washable, they're easy to take care of.
	They really do look like the sort of thing you'd have to dry clean, but you don't have to dry clean them.
	They're really terrific.
	Again, the performance polo, fantastic.
	So are the five pocket pants.
	Everything I get from Peter Millar is top notch.
	I also have a shirt from Peter Millar, a long sleeve shirt from Peter Millar that's just great.
	PeterMillar.com slash Benny.
	You can check out some of my Peter Millar favorites.
	Be sure to use my link and you'll receive complimentary shipping as well as a free hat.
	So check it out.
	Peter Millar, M-I-L-L-A-R dot com slash Ben.
	That's Peter Millar dot com slash Ben.
	Once again, Peter Millar dot com slash Ben.
	They're awesome.
	There's a reason I wear their clothing.
	Peter Millar dot com slash Ben.
	And when you use that slash Ben, you get complimentary shipping as well as a free hat.
	So when Maxine Waters says that people should get out at gas stations and they should shout, no peace, no sleep, no peace, no sleep.
	And when she says that in an apartment store at a gas station, get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere.
	You tell people they're not welcome in public life.
	That is, in fact, a fascist tactic.
	Again, I'm going to say it for the 30th time.
	I'm not saying that Maxine Waters is a Nazi.
	I'm saying that this is a Nazi tactic.
	It is a fascist tactic.
	There are people who argue that fascism is only the government that's coming in and using force to compel you to obey the government.
	That's the only definition of fascism.
	What I'm talking about here is a philosophically, culturally fascist tactic, and that is destroying the social fabric in the name of politics by destroying every public space And using violent means to shut them down, right?
	Antifa shutting down speeches.
	That's a fascist tactic.
	And this is a fascist tactic, too.
	This is a section from Richard Evans's book, The Coming of the Third Reich, considering the treatment of Social Democrat Reichstag deputy Otto Buckwitz in Silesia.
	Here's what it says.
	Brown shirts.
	This is in 1931, before the Nazis took power.
	So for those who say that Nazism only Oh, you can only say Nazi when somebody's in power in the government?
	That's just not true.
	The Nazis existed before they were in power in the government.
	Here's what it says.
	Brownshirts occupied the seats at his meetings, shouted insults at him, and on one occasion fired a shot at him, causing mass panic amongst his listeners and leading to a brawl in which more shots were fired by both stormtroopers and Reichsbannermann.
	Several Nazis and Social Democrats had to be taken to the hospital and not a single table or chair in the hall was left intact.
	Here we go.
	This is the part that's interesting.
	After this, gangs of 8 to 10 Nazi stormtroopers harassed Buchwitz outside his house when he left for work in the morning.
	20 or more crowded around him when he came back to his office after lunch.
	And between 1 and 200 hassled him on his way home, singing a specially composed song with the words, when the revolvers are shot, Buchwitz will cop the lot.
	Nazi demonstrators always halted outside his house, chanting death to Buchwitz.
	Okay, so harassing people outside their homes, bullying them from gas stations, bullying them from restaurants, these public confrontations over politics, these are a serious and dangerous business.
	So here is the basic rule for a civilized society.
	You have the right to refuse service to anyone you choose.
	Yes, that applies to Red Hen.
	You have the right to criticize that restaurant.
	You have the right to protest any public official in a public setting.
	You do not have the right to invade someone else's property, to harass someone dining in a public place, or to harass people at their homes, as with Christian Nielsen.
	Waters' approach is way worse than what happened at the Red Hen.
	What Waters did is way worse than what happened to Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the Red Hen, and every Democrat should be asked on the record today what Maxine Waters said about what Maxine Waters said.
	They should be asked whether they agree with Maxine Waters' tactics here, whether they think that that is something that is half-decent.
	Because I promise you, if this were a Republican, they'd be asked every single time, right?
	When President Trump said that at his rallies, he said at one of his rallies, that if somebody punched a protester, that he'd pay for their legal defense bill.
	Every Republican in the country got asked about it.
	And that was wrong.
	Trump shouldn't have said that.
	Will any Democrat be asked today about Maxine Waters' comments?
	If not, it just demonstrates once again why you can't trust the media.
	Now, speaking of the consequences of all of this, I think things could get a lot worse.
	So it's not just That protesters descended on DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's home.
	It turns out they are also threatening DHS employees' children.
	DHS employees have been warned that there have been credible threats made against both them and their children in a system-wide email that also went out this weekend from the department's deputy secretary, according to Emily Zanotti, over at the Daily Wire, which also included a list of emergency services and security protocols, along with information on how to access the department's security force.
	This assessment is based on specific and credible threats that have been levied against certain DHS employees and a sharp increase in the overall number of general threats against DHS employees, although the veracity of each threat varies.
	In addition, over the last few days, thousands of employees have had their personally identifiable information publicly released on social media.
	Is this the fault of Democrats who are ratcheting up the rhetoric?
	Now, I'm not comfortable with saying that Democrats who are ratcheting up rhetoric are responsible for threats of violence or for violence itself.
	Unless you are overtly calling for violence, as Maxine Waters appears to be doing, then I'm not going to blame you for violence that takes place.
	However, is there any question that the social fabric of the country is decaying in real time?
	We're watching people tear it and set it on fire for political benefit?
	No question about that.
	And is it also true that as the tenor of public debate grows and grows, as the fiery rhetoric grows and grows, that there are unbalanced people who are going to do unbalanced things?
	It was a year ago, like literally about a year ago, that a Bernie Sanders fan decided to go shoot up a congressional baseball game.
	I know we all forgot about that.
	But he attempted to murder as many Republican congresspeople as he should.
	That wasn't Bernie Sanders' fault, but it is indicative of the fact that we are raising the temperature.
	And when you raise the temperature in the country, you can't be surprised when some frogs get boiled, right?
	The tenor of the country right now is really, really ugly.
	Protesters outside Nielsen's home are apparently unsatisfied that Nielsen and the Trump administration insist on enforcing immigration laws, even as the administration reversed its policy on separating detained adults from their minor children while they await an asylum hearing.
	Not only that, there's a story over the agents about leftist protesters who are attempting to basically storm an immigration facility in McAllen, Texas on Saturday.
	According to Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins, about 200 protesters from the League of United Latin American Citizens were bused into the McAllen facility from all areas of Texas.
	At one point, when a bus carrying illegal immigrants tried to leave the facility, the protesters surrounded and stopped the bus.
	However, during the melee, a Border Patrol agent attempting to control the crowd was injured while protecting an older woman, Jenkins reported, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
	That agent suffered a broken ankle, Jenkins said.
	During the incidents, protesters screamed, set the children free and shame on you to Border Patrol agents, who eventually helped maneuver the bus out of the facility.
	It was unclear where the bus was headed.
	A U.S.
	Customs and Border Patrol spokesman told CNN the immigrants on the bus were being transferred to the custody of ICE agents.
	Again, things are getting violent and ugly out there, and they're going to get more violent and more ugly when you have people who are exaggerating the case.
	Celebrities who have decided that it's imperative for them to go down to the border and grandstand on this issue.
	They're not making intelligent arguments.
	They're not interested in making intelligence arguments.
	They're not interested in reason.
	Instead, we are getting a bunch of celebrities going down to the border so that they can pose with signs, so they can prove to all of their fans just how generous and wonderful they are.
	So Lena Dunham has decided to go down to the border.
	So she and Sia, I don't know how anyone could tell it was Sia because she still had her hair in front of her face, and Amber Heard and other stars visited the border city of Tornillo, Texas to protest the Trump administration's policy.
	So in this picture, you can see it's kind of hard to see them because they're wearing hats, but you can see Amber Heard, I believe, is on the upper left there.
	You can see Constance Wu.
	You can see, let's see, who else?
	Bella Thorne.
	You can see I believe, is it Anna Kendrick down there as well?
	I believe so.
	The Sia shows up.
	Again, you're not going to recognize her because of her crazy hair.
	And then Lena Dunham, of course, is there as well.
	So you see a bunch of folks on the left from Hollywood who have decided it is necessary to go and do this routine.
	Sorry, not Anna Kendrick, Kendrick Sampson.
	Don't want to get the wrong person here.
	Kendrick Sampson, who I guess is a A TV guy.
	He's on The Flash, I suppose.
	So a bunch of kind of quasi-celebs go down to the border to make a big deal out of all this.
	All this is going to do is generate opposition on the other side.
	A similar Miroslav Vino came out and suggested this is just like pre-Nazi Germany.
	Again, it's not like Nazi Germany to storm restaurants and try and destroy people's private lives.
	It is like Nazi Germany to enforce immigration law, apparently.
	Did you ever think that you would see that kind of thing, those reports being happening, but they're about the United States of America?
	I feel that we are in pre-Nazi Germany.
	The stages of things that are occurring on a daily basis, the obfuscation, the lies, the totalitarian behavior is shocking and horrendous.
	So it's just like pre-Nazi Germany.
	Again, this sort of rhetoric is particularly unhelpful.
	If you're going to make a Nazi comparison, you're actually going to have to bring the history.
	When I make the Nazi comparison to the tactic of shutting down people's restaurant-going experiences and sitting outside their houses to harass them, that is closer to a Nazi tactic than enforcing immigration law as per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Okay, in just a second, I want to explain why this is all so dumb.
	I also want to talk a little bit About the moral rule that we should apply in our society, because I think that the moral rule that we apply in our society is not exactly the right one with regard to how we treat others.
	Okay, so, Jay Johnson, here's the part that's unbelievably stupid.
	So, none of this was the reaction in 2014 because Obama was president.
	So all of these Democrats who are very upset, all these leftists who are very upset, saying this is pre-Nazi Germany, while still, while many leftists are using Nazi-esque tactics to shut down people's dinner and stand outside their house and threaten their kids, Jay Johnson, who's the Department of Homeland Security Secretary under Obama, right?
	He says, listen, of course we detain kids, right?
	This is what we were doing.
	What do you think we were doing the whole time?
	He says this to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.
	Without a doubt, the images and the reality from 2014, just like 2018, are not pretty.
	And so we expanded family detention.
	We had then 34,000 beds for family detention.
	Only 95 of 34,000 equipped to deal with family.
	So we expanded it.
	I freely admit it was controversial.
	We believed it was necessary at the time.
	Oh, weird!
	Weird!
	Had nothing happened because of that.
	So people say, yeah, there was media coverage.
	There was media coverage of it at the time.
	Was it a blanket like this?
	Were there comparisons to the Japanese internment camps in Nazi Germany?
	Did you have celebrities jetting down to the border other than Glenn Beck to hand out actual soccer balls to some of the kids who were being detained?
	And then he was being ripped right and left for doing that?
	Only Jeh Johnson gets away with this.
	Because, of course, Jeh Johnson was a member of the grand and glorious Obama administration.
	All of this brings about a question, and that is, what is the moral rule we ought to apply in our society?
	So, a lot of people are big fans of the Golden Rule.
	The Golden Rule, of course, is stated in the New Testament.
	They do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is sort of a variation on the Old Testament rule, love thy neighbor as thyself.
	So, do unto others as they would have them do unto you.
	There's another rule that's suggested by the Talmud, and I would suggest that this is a superior moral rule, at least when it comes to building social fabric.
	And that moral rule comes courtesy of the elder Hillel.
	So there's a famous rabbi, his name was Hillel, and there's a famous story in the Talmud, and it goes something like this.
	There's a guy who came to a famous rabbi named Shammai, and he said, I want you to teach me the entire Torah while I stand here on one foot.
	Right?
	He's trying to mock Shammai.
	And Shammai threw him out and got angry at him.
	And then he went to Hillel, who was famous for being a lot more tolerant.
	He went to Hillel.
	And he said, I want you to teach me the entire Torah, meaning the entire Old Testament philosophy, while I stand here on one foot.
	And Hillel said back to him, that which is hateful to you, do not unto others, the rest of it is commentary, now go and learn.
	Right?
	So he said that's the theme.
	Now, there's a difference between those two rules.
	Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not quite the same rule, the golden rule, as what's called the silver rule, which is that which is hateful to you, do not do unto others.
	I believe the silver rule is a better rule for governing our relations in public society than do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
	The reason I think that it's a superior rule is because do unto others as you would have them do unto you makes your standard of personal behavior the standard for everyone else.
	So what you could say, you could see a situation in which you say, listen, if I were a Nazi, I hope that people would come to my restaurant and shut me down.
	If I were working for Trump, I hope that people would come to my restaurant and shut me down.
	If I were Pushing this immigration policy?
	I think that people totally should threaten my kids.
	And I'll do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
	If I were a bad person like that, then I'd be fine with that.
	Right, but the counter rule, that which is hateful to you, do not do unto others, is not quite the same thing.
	That is, it doesn't matter your moral status or how you perceive yourself to be a more moral person, a better person.
	If you don't like someone doing something to you right now, not as you perceive yourself to be, if you don't like somebody doing something to you right now, then you shouldn't do it to somebody else.
	If you don't like somebody shutting down your dinner, don't shut down anybody else's dinner.
	If you don't like the idea Somebody's gonna threaten your kids?
	Don't threaten somebody else's kids.
	If you're not a big fan of people protesting you when you go to a gas station, then you shouldn't protest people when they go to gas stations.
	The prohibitive rule, in my view, is a much better rule, just in terms of interpersonal relationships.
	Not community, not religious community relations.
	I would say the do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you rule is very good for communal relations in a religiously like-minded community.
	So my Jewish community, for example, do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you is a fine rule.
	Because I would have people give me charity, so I should give them charity.
	Or I would have people be kind to my kids, so I would be kind to their kids.
	But that's because we have a general same view of the world.
	If I don't have the general same view of the world as you, then my inclination to use the golden rule would be, well, if I were as nasty as you, I hope somebody would do that to you.
	But the silver rule says it doesn't matter how nasty I think you are.
	I don't want somebody doing that to me.
	They do not get to do that.
	They don't get to do that to you.
	That's the silver rule.
	So I'd say the silver rule in social relations is actually superior to the golden rule.
	And this is why.
	And this is why.
	Now, with all of that said, President Trump responds not by calling us the better angels of our nature, but by being fully, fully Trump.
	I mean, dude is just unstoppable.
	So President Trump decides that he is going to tweet out, this is 14, he decides that he's going to tweet out about the red hen situation regarding Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote, The Redhead Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors, and windows.
	Badly needs a paint job, rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
	I always had a rule.
	If a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside.
	Yeah, just like Lincoln would have done.
	Ripping into the paint job over at the Red Hen restaurant.
	Because obviously, he's never eaten there, he doesn't know anything about the Red Hen, but he knows that it looks dirty in the pictures.
	And if it looks dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside.
	I just, I love that.
	I wish he had the same philosophy about porn stars.
	But it's just...
	No, of course it's not contributing to a great public discourse.
	And this is part of the problem.
	going after the red hen rest right now.
	Is that contributing to a great discourse, a great public discourse?
	No, of course it's not contributing to a great public discourse.
	And this is part of the problem.
	I think that what happened here is that the left really thought, the reason they're so angry right now is because the left truly thought that after Obama, they had changed politics forever.
	This was going to be their thousand years of heaven.
	They were going to get their never-ending paradise after Obama won.
	And he had changed the face of politics, right?
	We were never going to get a Republican president again, let alone a Republican president and Republican Congress, let alone a Republican president and Republican Congress and 30-plus state legislatures and governors who are Republican.
	Everything had changed because of Obama.
	And then, The ultimate anti-Obama came in the form of President Trump, and he destroyed all their dreams, and they've lost it.
	They've just lost it.
	And then President Trump tends to exacerbate the loss of civic culture.
	I'm not going to sugarcoat President Trump's behavior when it comes to his additions to civic culture.
	The guy's not great for civic culture.
	Now, I understand people on the right who are saying, well, yeah, he's punching back.
	And there's some truth to the idea that he is punching back here.
	But is this the way that civic culture gets better?
	Does civic culture get better because the president of the United States is tweeting about the canopies over at the Red Hen?
	Is that what heals the country?
	No, of course not.
	So maybe you think the country is beyond repair.
	Maybe you think the country is beyond healing and all we can do at this point is just punch each other in the face as hard as we can.
	I don't think it is.
	I think that there is a civic engagement that needs to happen here, but it's not going to be led by the leadership on either side, apparently.
	And that's why, in just a second, I'm going to talk about George Will's latest column, which I think is totally, totally wrong.
	I'll get to that in just a second.
	First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	So for $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
	This allows you many privileges, many great benefits, many great things will accrue to you.
	It's just a boon.
	You get the rest of this show live.
	You get the rest of Michael Knowles' awful show live.
	You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live.
	You get all of those things live.
	Plus, you get to ask me questions in the mailbag.
	And when Jordan Peterson is here on July 2nd, you are going to get to ask Jordan Peterson questions in the mailbag as well because you're a subscriber.
	And when we have events like the Daily Wire live events that we're doing in August in Dallas and Phoenix, tickets still available at dailywire.com slash events.
	If you wanted the VIP tickets, those are all sold out.
	But if you'd been a member, you would have had first crack at those tickets.
	So becoming a member is really great.
	Plus, it helps support the show.
	For $99 a year, you get all of those magnificent privileges.
	And you get this.
	The leftist here is hot or cold Tumblr.
	You will love it.
	It is wonderful.
	And it automatically refills, apparently, every time Christian Nielsen goes to dinner or something.
	It's very weird.
	It just sort of spontaneously refills in my house.
	I have to keep pouring it out.
	It's bizarre.
	But check it out.
	You get that with the $99 a year subscription.
	Which is cheaper than the monthly.
	Also, please go over to SoundCloud.
	Please go over to YouTube.
	Please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
	We have all sorts of great videos constantly coming out.
	We had a great Sunday special last week with Jason Whitlock.
	Our Sunday special next week is going to be with Adam Carolla, I believe.
	So it's going to be just great.
	And when you subscribe, then you get to see that as well.
	So go check that out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So George Will came out with a column that I think is utterly, utterly incorrect.
	So, George Will, in the face of all of the incivility and all of the Trumpian politics of the moment, he came out with a column that I think is not just wrong, I think it's frankly quite stupid.
	He came out with a column suggesting that people should not only not vote Republican in the upcoming congressional elections, and Will is a lifelong Republican, that they should actually vote affirmatively for Democrats.
	This is nuts.
	This is nuts.
	The same people who are championing Maxine Waters as anti-Maxine, saying Maxine Waters is a wonderful person, she's anti-Maxine, right?
	She's just a charmer, Maxine Waters.
	The woman who pushed riots and now is pushing people to harass people at gas stations.
	That lady's wonderful.
	That same party should vote for them to stop Trump.
	If you're a Republican and you believe this, I think it's...
	Fair to say that you've lost your moorings, that Trump has unmoored you as well.
	You've been so unmoored because you can't deal with the cognitive dissonance of a Republican running things who is also President Trump and has all the character flaws of President Trump, you become unmoored.
	And this column is unmoored.
	So here's George Will.
	He says, First of all, Where's the carnage?
	You know, just to point this out, despite all of the crazy of the news cycle, and I'm the first to admit, this is crazy, okay?
	It's a news cycle every 30 seconds.
	President Trump has been president for 111 years at this point, and he's only been president for a year and a half.
	Not even a year and a half, the president of the United States.
	But we in the news business measure time moving by news cycles, and President Trump does five news cycles a minute.
	I remember when Barack Obama was president, long ago.
	It was one news cycle a week, and it was always a crappy news cycle.
	Now, a lot of the news cycles are good, and some of the news cycles are bad, but it's a new news cycle every 35 seconds.
	But to read the Republican rule of Congress as carnage?
	The economy is hitting all-time highs, we're not in the middle of any brutal foreign wars, and you're calling this carnage?
	I just don't get that.
	He says, the family shredding policy along the southern border, which was merely the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something.
	This is George Will.
	Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy is given to independent and temperate Republicans, these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts respectively, fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.
	The principle is, the Congressional-Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced.
	Not sure how you got that from the immigration policy, considering that congressional Republicans wanted to fix that immigration policy and Democrats want to release everyone.
	So substantially should they be reduced, says Will, that their remnants reduced to minorities will be stripped of the Constitution's Article 1 powers.
	They've been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article 2 powers.
	They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them.
	So he's suggesting that Republican members of Congress have failed because they have not taken back legislative power.
	I agree in that sense.
	I think that Republican members of Congress should have seized back executive power from the executive branch while Obama was president.
	I feel they should do it right now.
	When Trump is president, I think that the legislature has abdicated its responsibility for decades.
	But if you think that's getting fixed by Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, you got another thing coming.
	And yet, and yet, George Will, who again I think has lost it because of President Trump, continues along these lines.
	He says, consider the melancholy example of House Speaker Paul Ryan, who wagered his dignity on the patently false proposition that it is possible to have sustained transactions with today's president, this Vesuvius of mendacities, without being degraded.
	And then he goes into a long shtick from A Man for All Seasons.
	He says, Ryan traded his political soul for a tax cut.
	He who formerly spoke truths about the accelerating crisis of the entitlement system lost everything in the service of a president pledged to preserve the unsustainable status quo.
	Ryan and many other Republicans have become the president's poodles, not because Jim's Madison system has failed, but because today's abject careers have failed to be worthy of it.
	And again, I don't disagree with this general analysis of Congress.
	I think this has been true when Democrats were in Congress, when Republicans are in Congress.
	I think what we have watched over the last 50 years in this country is a dramatic acceleration of the movement of power from Article 1 to Article 2, from the legislature to the presidency.
	But to suggest that the solution, again, to this is to put Democrats in charge is just ridiculous.
	I don't understand why the solution would be—like, I understand there are problems within the GOP.
	I've been talking ad nauseum about them for legitimately years.
	But to suggest that the solution to that is that radical Democrats ought to take over, and then they will check the power of the presidency by seizing power back to the legislative branch No, what they will do is they will immediately attempt to pass a bunch of really bad bills that the federal government has no business doing.
	Because there are two things that the Article 1 power is supposed to grant you.
	One is the power to check other branches of government, and the Republican Congress isn't exercising that.
	But two is, the Article 1 legislative power is supposed to prevent the government from outgrowing its prescribed size under the Constitution itself.
	The legislature is supposed to be subject to popular rule, and that means they're not supposed to run roughshod over the Constitution's boundaries on the legislative power.
	So, even if you believe that Democrats would do a better job of checking the growth of executive power, they certainly would not do a better job of preventing the expansion of the federal government.
	That's fully insane.
	The Democrats want to expand the federal government at the fastest rate in human history.
	And yet, George Will concludes, That Republicans should be ousted.
	He says, in today's GOP, which is the president's plaything, he is the mainstream.
	So to vote against his parities, cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation's honor while quarantining him.
	A Democratic controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate's machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House.
	And to those who say, but the judges, the judges, the answer is Article three institutions are not more important than those of Article one and two combined.
	But his suggestion is that Democrats and Republicans would fail to get anything done in Congress.
	But I thought that's also his complaint.
	So now I'm confused.
	So he was saying that Republicans aren't getting anything done to check Trump's power in Congress, but then he suggests there will be enough Republicans in Congress to prevent Democrats from doing anything bad.
	So is his complaint that Congress is doing not enough or that it is doing too much?
	Again, this is why I say that I think everyone has been completely debased by the Trump presidency.
	I think people have lost their minds, and they're spinning off in a variety of different directions, all of which have nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
	The reality of the situation is this.
	President Trump's governance itself is very mainstream conservative, or at least has been, except with regard to some peripheral issues that are becoming central now, like tariffs.
	But the governance itself has been pretty Republican.
	President Trump's manner has not been Republican.
	His manner has not been conservative.
	His manner has been Trumpian.
	And I disapprove of a lot of it.
	But again, Democrats, their response to that has not been a return to normalcy.
	Their response has been full-scale insanity.
	I'm going to talk about that in just a second, because what I really believe right now is that if Democrats Were to run a candidate who would run on a 1920 Warren G. Harding style return to normalcy campaign, Trump would have some problems.
	But Democrats are incapable of doing that because Democrats are just too radical for all of that.
	So here is the proof of all of this.
	So Kamala Harris is now considering Running for president.
	That, of course, is not a shock.
	She's a senator from the state of California.
	California is the dumbest state in the country.
	I can say that.
	I've lived here my entire life.
	And Kamala Harris is an awful, awful senator.
	She's not ruling out running for president.
	If the Democrats had any brains at all, they would run a candidate who made people feel safe and secure and solid.
	Because right now, everything is going really well in the country, just in terms of the economy and in terms of foreign policy.
	Everything seems to be going pretty decently.
	But there is a general feeling of unease about the future of the country because of all the crazy.
	If the Democrats were to run somebody reassuring, They would have an upper hand in 2020, I think.
	But instead, they're going to run to the radical intersectional left, trying to please that radical base that they think is going to win them unerring victory and unfailing success in coming campaigns.
	Kamala Harris is an intersectional candidate, as radical as they come, and she's talking about running for president in 2020.
	Right now, I'm focused on this.
	I'm focused on a lot of other things that is a higher priority.
	But you're not ruling it out?
	I mean, you know, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I'm not ruling it out.
	Okay, so her not ruling it out, that's not shocking.
	And it wouldn't be shocking if Democrats nominated her.
	Because that's what Democrats are looking to do.
	They're looking to move more and more radical.
	And this is why you get Trump.
	So as Democrats move more radical, Trump moves more radical.
	As Trump moves more radical, Democrats move more radical.
	And what you're seeing right now is a polarization of the parties Now, what's funny about this is that Trump is actually not all that radical in terms of policy.
	He's been pretty straight-line conservative.
	But because he's juxtaposed to a lot of weak-kneed Republicans, he looks strong to a lot of his base.
	Take, for example, Jeff Flake.
	So Jeff Flake, who's voted with President Trump the vast majority of the time in Congress, He is opposing President Trump's agenda on tariffs, which I think is correct.
	There's a story out today that Harley-Davidson is about to offshore a bunch of their jobs, right?
	Harley-Davidson, who Trump in 2017, just a year ago, claimed was the perfect case in point for why we need tariffs, is now offshoring jobs due to President Trump's tariffs on aluminum and steel.
	They're now taking all their jobs, or a lot of their jobs, and they're moving them to Europe because they sell about 40,000 motorcycles a year in Europe, and they can still reimport all of those motorcycles into the United States.
	So Jeff Flake doesn't like President Trump's tariff policy, which I agree with, but his solution to stopping Trump on tariffs is to hold up a bunch of good judges.
	Well, where are the Republicans saying, well, why don't we pass the judges and also stop the tariffs?
	Where are the Republicans who are saying that?
	They're nowhere to be found.
	So the Republican Party is broke down into the people who back everything Trump has done and the people who are willing to hold up some good parts of the agenda in order to stop some bad parts of the agenda, which I don't understand at all.
	Here's Jeff Flake making that case.
	I think myself and a number of senators, at least a few of us, will stand up and say, let's not move any more judges until we get a vote, for example, on tariffs.
	How is that even good policy?
	That doesn't even make any sense.
	And then Jeff Flake goes even further.
	He says, let's not attack Democrats on immigration.
	But Democrats' program on immigration has been made absolutely crystal clear.
	They want every illegal immigrant in the country released.
	This is what they would like if they had their druthers.
	They don't even really want serious border checks.
	They want catch and release to be reinstated.
	And, but Jeff Flake says, let's not attack Democrats on immigration.
	Like, this is why people go to Trump, because even moderate Republicans can't hold it together long enough to make the case, or even straight line Republicans can't hold it together long enough to make the case that Trump's judge picks are good, but his tariffs are bad.
	I don't understand why any of this is particularly tough, but Jeff Flake apparently can't figure it out.
	Congress has to fix this.
	And what is bothersome is the president's rhetoric about the Democrats and their unwillingness to have any type of border security or control.
	They are on record supporting significant border control.
	They have turned down every deal on border control that Trump has ever presented them with.
	Trump presented them with a deal on border control that provided a basic minimum funding for the wall.
	It wouldn't have paid for the whole wall by any stretch of the imagination.
	And it would have provided some more security for customs and border patrol.
	But it would have allowed 1.8 million illegal immigrants, right?
	1.8 million dreamers and unregistered dreamers to become essentially citizens, to join a pathway to citizenship.
	Democrats turned that down.
	So Jeff Flake is just wrong.
	This is why George Will is wrong, Jeff Flake is wrong.
	The Democrats are increasingly radical, and surrendering to Democrats is not the solution.
	You can stand up to Trump's heresies, while at the same time praising the stuff that he does well.
	And if you fail to do that, then all you are doing is driving people into Trump's arms on the stuff that is more heretical, and driving more people into Democrats' arms on the stuff that is not heretical.
	It's just it's not good all the way around.
	And again, I think it's it's being contributed to by tremendous amount of anger in the public discourse, all of which is is really, really dangerous.
	OK, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So.
	Today's things I like.
	There's a great book by Gerald Green called The Last Angry Man.
	It was made into a movie by a movie with Paul Muni.
	It was his last movie.
	And The Last Angry Man is about Gerald Green's dad, basically.
	It's about a TV producer, because Gerald Green wrote for TV, who comes back and he's talking to a he comes back to Brooklyn and he's talking to this old doctor who sort of is he's an He's angry at society.
	He's angry at dearths in society.
	But he cares for everybody in the society and his anger is what makes him unpalatable for TV because they want to see happy smiling faces and he's angry at the status of society while at the same time taking care of people.
	Well, the last angry man is what we need more of in America and I don't mean more angry.
	I mean People who are angry, but also capable of taking care of others.
	Because I think right now our anger is channeling itself, not toward making the country better, but toward making the country worse.
	I think all of the anger that is right now being directed at the Trump administration, if you don't like what the Trump administration is doing, by all means go down to the border and bring some actual resources for the kids who are down at the border.
	But if your solution is that you're going to go down to the border and shout about Nazis, or you're going to go down to Christian Nielsen's restaurant and throw her out of a restaurant, or go to her house and yell at her outside her house, none of this is productive.
	People are not righteously indignant at this point.
	They are faux-righteously indignant, which means that they are using anger as the fuel for all of the bad stuff that they want to do and then claiming they're righteous on the surface.
	That's not the kind of anger that we need.
	Yes, we should all be angry at societal injustices, like real societal injustices, but the solution to that should be to work to rectify those injustices, not to scream and shout and be uncivil and be nasty and be stupid.
	All of that is deeply counterproductive.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	So, have you ever read Little House on the Prairie?
	I remember growing up, I read Little House on the Prairie, and I thought that it was quite a good book, because it's been famous for a very long time.
	They made a series of it.
	It's really terrific, right?
	Who grew up watching Michael Landon in Little House on the Prairie?
	A lot of folks, right?
	I got a couple of hands in the studio, and we only have three other people in the studio right now.
	Two out of the three watched Michael Landon in Little House on the Prairie.
	Now, the Association of Library Service to Children Board voted this weekend to change the title of their annual Legacy Award for Excellence in Children's Literature Away from the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award.
	Instead, they will change it to the Children's Literature Legacy Award.
	Why?
	Because Wilder's work includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ACLC's, ALCS's, sorry, core values.
	The change reportedly received a standing ovation from the Chicago-based organization.
	Why?
	Because they objected to Wilder's works being widely read and promoted.
	Because they said her legacy was complex and not universally embraced.
	Why?
	Well, because she was considered controversial and not woke enough.
	She speaks of her family's fear of Native American attacks, and she had era-specific views on blacks.
	Intellectuals and historians might teach Wilder's works in the context of her upbringing, but apparently children's librarians are incapable of the same level of nuance.
	Again, who has read Little House on the Prairie and came away a racist who hates Native Americans?
	Like, really, I'm lacking the words for this, exactly.
	I read it, and I'm wondering, like, if you watched that show with Michael Lenz, did you come away and you were like, man, I am so glad the Trail of Tears happened?
	Like, is there anyone who felt that way?
	The answer, of course, is no, but we have to assume the full-on stupidity of the American public, and we have to assume that when children read Laura Ingalls Wilder, they want to reinstitute slavery because they read about a little family, a settler family, on the prairie.
	Clearly, that was the main thrust of her books.
	All of this is stupid.
	We are going to wipe away any past... Look, here's the reality.
	In a hundred years, people will think we're barbarians.
	In a hundred years, people are going to look back on us, and I think there are probably two areas of American life where people will think that we are barbarians when they look back on us.
	One is in the area of abortion.
	I think in a hundred years people will look back and they'll say, wow, this society was celebrating the murder of the unborn.
	That is nuts.
	Because as science progresses, it's becoming clearer and clearer that that is just an insanely non-human rights position.
	And then I think that there's a high probability that a hundred years from now, when we've developed better science for the development of meat and meat substitutes, people will look at the treatment of animals in our society and they'll say that was really inhumane.
	I think there's a good shot that that happens.
	But does that mean all the literature from today should be immediately cast out because in virtually every book there's somebody eating steak?
	Ooh, look how they treated the animals in that book.
	Wow, they used to keep dogs as pets, but now we know how smart dogs are.
	We would never let dogs be pets.
	You could see this happening in a hundred years, because we're doing it now, with stuff that happened 200 years ago.
	How about this?
	How about we assume that literature from the past was written at that time, and then we take that for granted, and then we look into that when we read the stories, and then we can make distinctions, because that's what human beings do on a regular basis.
	Okay.
	Other things that I hate.
	One more thing that I hate, and then we'll get to a Federalist paper real fast.
	So, There's this really idiotic idea that all cultures are created equal.
	All cultures are not equivalent.
	Here is the proof of that little obvious statement, which I know is deeply controversial in today's society.
	We have to assume that all cultures are created equal.
	So late last week, Science Magazine archaeology writer Lizzie Wade released a report on the shocking scale of human sacrifice among the Aztecs.
	For generations, Students have wondered at the horrifying tales of priestly murder among the Aztecs, the removal of the heart still beating from a living person's torso, the decapitation of the corpse, and the creation of literally racks of skulls to be placed at what is called, I'm going to mispronounce this, but it's called the Tenochtitlan Tzampantli?
	Which is now buried under Mexico City.
	Mexico City is over the site.
	When the Spanish reached this site, they saw this barbarity and they promptly raised the entire... The tump apparently was, I guess, these giant racks of human skulls.
	Like literally thousands and thousands of racks of human skulls.
	So they raised all of that and they knocked down a couple of the Aztec pyramids and then they basically built on top of it.
	Now, according to this author over at Science, some conquistadors wrote about the Tzompantli and its towers, estimating the rack alone contained 130,000 skulls.
	Historians and archaeologists knew the conquistadors were prone to exaggerating the horrors of human sacrifice to demonize the Mexico culture.
	As the centuries passed, scholars began to wonder whether this had even other existed, whether this had existed in the first place.
	But archaeologists at the National Institute of Anthropology and History now say with certainty it did.
	Beginning in 2015, they discovered and excavated the remains of the skull rack and one of the towers underneath a colonial period house on the street that runs behind Mexico City's cathedral.
	The other tower, they suspect, lies under a cathedral's back courtyard.
	The scale of the rack and tower suggests they held thousands of skulls, testimony to an industry of human sacrifice unlike any other in the world.
	An imposing rectangular structure, 35 meters long, 12 to 14 meters wide, slightly larger than a basketball court.
	And likely five to four to five meters high from their knowledge of the era of the Templo Mayor, which is the the giant pyramids.
	Archaeologists, the ziggurats, estimate that the particular phases of the Tum Pantley they found were likely built between 1486 and 1502, although human sacrifice had been practiced since its founding in 1325 here.
	And here's the point.
	All pre-modern societies make some kind of offering, Tulane University bioarchaeologist John Verano says.
	And in many societies, if not all, the most valuable sacrifice is human life.
	About 75% of the skulls examined so far belong to men, most between the ages of 20 and 35, prime warrior age.
	Little side note, how could they tell they were the skulls of men?
	How did they identify?
	How dare they?
	But 20% were women, 5% belonged to children.
	So 5% of all these skulls were kids who they were cutting the living hearts out of and then decapitating.
	So good times over there.
	Our culture has a really nasty habit of romanticizing all things that are foreign to Judeo-Christian civilization.
	A lot of those things kind of suck.
	Turns out human sacrifice is one of those things.
	And the Bible is very anti-human sacrifice.
	That doesn't mean that when the Spanish got to the New World that they treated people humanely.
	They did not.
	It does not mean that they were justified in all of their action.
	They were not.
	But listen to the way that Science Magazine writes this.
	For the Aztecs, The larger cultural group to which the Mexica belonged, those skulls were the seeds that would ensure the continued existence of humanity.
	They were a sign of life and regeneration, like the first flowers of spring.
	But the Spanish conquistadors who marched into Tenochtitlan in 1519 saw them differently.
	For them, the skulls and the entire practice of human sacrifice evinced the Mexica's barbarism and justified laying waste to the city in 1521.
	OK, I don't know whether it's justified to lay waste to an entire city.
	I'm going to go with no.
	But is it kind of barbaric to, I don't know, chop the heads off children?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, kind of barbaric.
	Not all cultures are created equal in every way.
	This is not merely a cultural difference.
	I think we can say with certainty that certain things are objectively worse than other things.
	And human sacrifice is one of those things.
	If you've never seen the movie Apocalypto, which is Mel Gibson's underrated work, it is an excellent take on this exact issue.
	It is well worth watching.
	Okay, time for a quick Federalist Papers.
	So we are all the way up to Federalist 34.
	We are making steady progress through the Federalist Papers.
	This one is, again, by Alexander Hamilton.
	He wrote the vast majority of the Federalist Papers.
	And this one continues to deal with the issue of federal taxation and why it is the federal government should be able to be given...
	Taxing power because there are a lot of folks in the states who said once you give the federal government taxing power They will never stop that of course ended up being largely correct He argues that of course the feds have to have taxing power because they may have to do more in terms of defense He says to form a more precise judgment of the true merits of this question It will be well to advert to the proposition to the sorry advert to the proportion between the objects that will require a federal provision in respect to revenue and those which will require a state provision or We shall discover the former are altogether unlimited.
	In other words, it'll cost more to run the federal government because we have to fight wars.
	And the latter are circumscribed within very moderate bounds.
	So that's why we don't have specific limits on the amount of taxation that the federal government can participate in.
	He says the feds will mostly spend on defense and here is the key.
	For all those people who say today that we spend too much money on defense, but we don't spend enough money on social services, the founders thought precisely the opposite.
	They thought that the central function of the federal government was defense and social services were best left to the states and localities, if at all.
	And here is what Hamilton writes.
	What are the chief sources of expense in every government?
	What has occasioned that enormous accumulation of debt with which several of the European nations are oppressed?
	The answer is plainly wars and rebellions.
	The support of those institutions which are necessary to guard the body politic against these two moral diseases of society.
	He says the expenses arising from those institutions which are relative to the mere domestic police of a state to the support of its legislative executive and judicial departments and judicial departments with their different appendages and to the encouragement of agriculture and manufacturers are insignificant In comparison with those which relate to the national defense.
	In other words, all your other functions, those are not going to be nearly as much as you spend on national defense.
	This is why when you hear people say that the founders, when they said general welfare, meant the government ought to spend lots and lots of money on social services.
	No, the founders never believed this.
	They never thought this.
	And they would be appalled at the size and scope of the federal government.
	OK, we'll 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.

▲