Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 9, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:53

Oh My, Omarosa | Ep. 599

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Omarosa says she's got tapes, Jim Acosta makes a mockery of himself once more, and the Oscars decide to change things up.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	You know it's a long night when you come in hot like that right off the top.
	Just really solid stuff to open the show right there by blowing the intro.
	So that's what happens when the alarm goes off in your house at one in the morning and you're just creeping around your house trying not to wake up your kids at one in the morning and then of course it turns out that it's all a malfunction.
	I do actually have news to get to today, but I have to remind you that next week we are actually taking Our show, on the road, to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix.
	It's next week.
	Each venue is almost entirely sold out.
	If you have not yet gotten your tickets, head over to LiveNation.com or Ticketmaster.com.
	Search Ben Shapiro.
	You don't want to miss it.
	It's going to be a blast and I can't wait to see you there.
	Also, I want to remind you that if you need to relax, Okay, if you've just been stressed out over the summer, stressed out about the news, about your job, well, the best way to ensure that your stress is alleviated is by heading over to zeal.com, because Zeal is the place where you can get a massage on demand.
	You don't have to go to a spa, you don't have to wait in line, you don't have to pay exorbitant prices.
	Zeal.com ensures that you can select from top local, licensed, and pre-screened massage therapists.
	You choose your favorite technique, gender preference, time, and location for your massage, and Zeal will then send one of their 10,000 licensed massage therapists with a massage table, music, and supplies to give you a five-star massage.
	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.
	It's privacy, it's convenience, it's quality, it's comfort.
	I've gotten Zeal for my wife, for my parents, for my sister, for my Mother-in-law.
	Legitimately, everyone in my family has used Zeal at one point or another because it is just great.
	And you can do it on the spur of the moment.
	To help you get started, our listeners can get 25 bucks off their first massage with promo code Ben.
	Again, that's Zeal.
	Z-E-E-L dot com.
	Promo code Ben.
	Right now, go to Zeal dot com or the iPhone or Android app.
	Get that special offer when you try Zeal today.
	Again, promo code Ben.
	You get 25 bucks off your first in-home massage.
	They bring the spa to you.
	It is just great.
	So go check that out.
	Okay.
	Chaos continues to reign inside the Trump administration, despite the fact that the situation in the United States is good.
	The economy is very solid.
	We're not enmeshed in any serious foreign crises.
	The chaos that has been caused by the staffing of this administration just continues to resonate.
	The latest story is that Omarosa Manigault, who never should have been anywhere near the Oval Office, has tapes inside the Oval Office.
	Which, who would have suspected that from her crazy appearances on The Apprentice?
	Who would have suspected?
	That the woman who played a villain on The Apprentice would actually end up taping Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump has suspected pretty much everyone of taping him, but it turns out that the two people who actually did tape him are his own lawyer and Omarosa Manigault.
	According to the Daily Beast, Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal attorney and fixer, isn't the only one with secretly recorded audio of the president.
	Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation tell the Daily Beast that Omarosa Manigault, the infamous former Apprentice star who followed Trump to the White House, secretly recorded conversations With the president, conversations she has since leveraged while shopping her tell-all book, which is titled Unhinged, right?
	She's going to make every buck that she can off of being associated with Trump.
	She was a nobody when Trump found her.
	She's gonna be a nobody again.
	But not before she makes trouble for President Trump by suggesting she has tapes of all the worst things Trump has ever said.
	I'm not sure, honestly, what you could catch him on tape doing.
	That would be worse than what he has tweeted.
	But I guess we're going to find out.
	For months, it has been rumored that Manigault has clandestinely recorded on her smartphone tapes of unspecified private discussions she had in the West Wing.
	Audio actually does exist and even stars Trump One person confirmed to the Daily Beast they'd heard at least one of the recordings.
	Multiple sources said that the recorded conversations are anodyne everyday chatter, but they did appear to feature Trump's voice, which grants her additional credibility in pumping her book.
	The media, of course, will treat her with all sorts of respect.
	There's this phenomenon in the media where if you rip on a Republican figure and you were once a friend with the Republican figure, then you get this sort of Grand new respect, a strange new respect.
	Suddenly you are taken very seriously.
	If you used to work in the Trump administration and then you turn on Trump, you're Michael Cohen, then all of a sudden everybody's like, ooh, Michael Cohen, great truth teller.
	Really good guy.
	Omarosa, who everyone despises.
	Suddenly Omarosa is a wonderful person again.
	But it does demonstrate that when President Trump says that he staffs up with the best people, not so much.
	Here's a flashback to President Trump tweeting just five years ago, Unless she's recording you.
	Like with her phone.
	In her pocket.
	So, none of that is particularly good.
	Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is on the road trying to gin up support for the President in the Mueller investigation.
	As I have suggested before, the idea of putting Donald Trump in a room with Robert Mueller is the height of stupidity.
	There is no way in hell that the President of the United States should sit down with Robert Mueller.
	He doesn't have a legal obligation to do so, according to Supreme Court rulings.
	There's a Supreme Court ruling in U.S.
	v. Nixon which suggests that the President of the United States can be subpoenaed for evidence.
	If there's physical evidence, like the Watergate tapes, then he can be subpoenaed for that.
	But it is absolutely unclear whether the President of the United States has to sit down with members of the Justice Department, which he runs, or the FBI, which he is the head of.
	That is unclear at best.
	Right now, Trump is negotiating with Mueller to sit down with him.
	Apparently, Rudy says that if Trump sits down with Mueller—Rudy Giuliani, of course, being Trump's lawyer—Rudy says that if Trump sits down with Mueller, they shouldn't cover two topics, the firing of James Comey and the discussions about Michael Flynn with James Comey.
	As you recall, Michael Flynn was the president's former national security advisor.
	After he was fired, James Comey suggested that he might be prosecuted.
	The president of the United States said to him that he would like it if Comey could find his way clear to letting Flynn off the hook because he's a good guy.
	Nothing ever really came of that.
	And then, of course, he fired James Comey.
	The suggestion here is that Trump doesn't want to talk to Mueller about issues of obstruction of justice, because there are really three areas in which Trump bears possible legal liability.
	Two of them, I think, are particularly weak.
	The first one is that Trump theoretically could be caught up in a conspiracy charge.
	A conspiracy charge involves you and I decide that we're going to rob a bank.
	So we get together and we make a plan to rob a bank.
	We have now committed conspiracy to rob the bank.
	But there has to be an underlying crime.
	There has to be something we were going to do that was criminal.
	If you and I get together and we drop a conspiracy to go down to the grocery store and shop, that is not a crime because there is no underlying crime.
	Well, the question is whether there is an underlying crime in which the president of the United States was involved.
	The evidence there is not good.
	Okay, so there's no evidence whatsoever that Trump either knew about any conspiracy between the Trump team and the Russian government, or even that a conspiracy between Team Trump and the Russian government was happening.
	Insofar as a criminal conspiracy.
	Because it's not clear that it's actually criminal for Team Trump to get, for example, oppo info on Hillary Clinton.
	Now, does that mean it's good?
	No.
	That doesn't mean that it's good.
	But it doesn't mean that it's illegal?
	Not quite the same thing.
	Legal charges are not the same thing as doing bad things, as a lot of people found out with regard to Hillary Clinton.
	It turns out that destroying a server that you create may not actually be legally prosecuted, but it is still a bad thing to do, and you may lose an election because of it.
	So, that's area number one, is the conspiracy area.
	Area number two is the obstruction area, and here the idea would be that if the President of the United States tried to shut down the Mueller investigation, or tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation in any way, then perhaps he can bring a charge.
	That's really weak, because Trump is the head of the executive branch.
	If he fired Mueller tomorrow, that wouldn't actually be obstruction.
	Obstruction would be if he tried to hide evidence, or if there was a pending judicial proceeding and he tried to bribe somebody, or if he went to Mueller and he ordered him to come up with a particular result on the investigation.
	So, obstruction is weak sauce, unless Trump goes in front of Mueller and says, in front of Mueller, That he intended to fire James Comey to stop the investigation.
	If he says that, then you have a pretty cut-and-dry obstruction charge.
	That would be a serious problem for President Trump, which is why Trump doesn't want to talk to Mueller about any of that.
	And then finally, you have the biggest issue for Trump, which is why he shouldn't talk to Mueller at all, and that is lying to the FBI.
	The president has an unfortunate habit of saying everything that comes into his head.
	He has a severe case of dysentery of the mouth.
	I mean, it's just diarrheic overflow of the mouth.
	And when he is in front of a lawyer, that is a really bad problem.
	As I said on Fox yesterday, on Kennedy's show, if you are a person who wants to be taken seriously, but not literally, don't go into law.
	Law is all about taking people literally, not just seriously.
	Trump says a lot of stuff where we all kind of go, yeah, that's just Trump being Trump.
	Lawyers don't do that, particularly prosecutors.
	So Trump would be foolish to sit down with Robert Mueller.
	Well, Rudy Giuliani was on with Sean Hannity yesterday, and Hannity asked him, like, why are you even having these talks in the first place?
	Why is this even happening?
	Hannity said, I know some of it, which is not particularly surprising since he coordinates with the Trump administration a lot.
	The real question is what we talked about before.
	There's a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet.
	A lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier.
	Hannity said, I know some of it, which is not particularly surprising since he coordinates with the Trump administration a lot.
	And Giuliani said, can it get any worse?
	I mean, what do we need to know that this is a totally illegitimate investigation based on a report, a dossier that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
	So Sean asks the correct question, which is, OK, well, then why don't you just fire Mueller?
	If this whole thing is illegitimate, why don't you fire him?
	And why would you talk about sitting down with Team Mueller?
	And Giuliani essentially said, well, we know there will be political blowback also.
	If this thing is not over by September, it's going to be a problem.
	I'm not sure that Team Trump has the greatest strategy here, but Giuliani can only do, as a lawyer, what his client wants him to do.
	All of that said, these are criminal questions.
	This is not the political question.
	The political question is how much this affects the Republican Party going into the midterm elections in 2018.
	A lot of Trump fans think all this stuff doesn't have any impact on congressional elections.
	I'm very skeptical of that point of view.
	There's a good piece by Sean Trend over at RealClearPolitics today talking about the actual statistical trends going into the 2018 elections.
	He says the results On Tuesday night, which we talked about here yesterday in Ohio's 12th congressional district and across the country, the results were fully consistent with a Democratic wave in the House washing up on our shores in November.
	While there's still time between now and then, there's not a lot of time, and we're at the point where these elections start to be suggestive, if not fully predictive.
	Start with Ohio.
	This is a Republican district.
	Overall, it leans Republican by 7 points.
	There are around 60 GOP-held districts that are less Republican than this one.
	A Democrat has won this area of the state just once since the Great Depression.
	The last time this seat was open in 2000, the Republican won by 10 points.
	And the district has been made substantially Republican since then.
	In short, Democrats had no business being competitive here, even with a good candidate in O'Connor.
	So what happened?
	Two things.
	First, turnout was down in the rural portions of the district compared to the urban areas.
	That means that Trump voters didn't show up in Ohio.
	Franklin County, which is Columbus, cast around 35% of the vote Tuesday as compared to 32% in 2016.
	But that means greater energy on the Democratic side.
	Second, Democrat vote share was up in urban and suburban areas.
	These are all the voters that President Trump has been alienating in suburban areas.
	Franklin County was a different story.
	This portion of the district contains a lot of the older suburbs of Columbus, places people moved to in the 70s and 80s.
	Tiberi won 59% of the vote here.
	Balderson won 35%.
	Tiberi was the candidate, the Republican candidate, before Balderson.
	So the suburbs The Republicans are just falling off in a serious way.
	Sean Trent, who's a very good elections analyst, he concludes, this isn't a great sign for the GOP that Democrats combined to run three points ahead of Republicans in the 8th district, something of a Seattle analog to Ohio's 12th.
	This would be the Washington 8th district.
	Of more concern for the GOP, Republicans ran only a half point ahead of Democrats in the 3rd district, which leans Republican by about four points.
	So it could be bad stuff for Republicans come November, which is why they really need to focus in on the issues.
	And it's not like they don't have something to work with.
	It's not like they don't have something to work with.
	I'm going to talk about what congressional elections really revolve around in just one second.
	But first, Let's talk about your underwear.
	When it comes to comfort down below, there is underwear and then there is Tommy John, the revolutionary clothing brand that has redefined comfort for Americans everywhere, including me.
	I wear Tommy John underwear and they are just fantastic.
	Tommy John's does not give an F. They give three Fs.
	Fabric, fit, and function.
	Tommy John obsesses.
	Over every little detail and stitch by using proprietary fabrics that perform like nothing you've ever worn before.
	As a result, Tommy John's men's and women's underwear sport a no wedgie guarantee, comfortable staple waistbands, a range of fabrics that are luxuriously soft, feather-light, moisture-wicking, breathable, designed to move with you, not against you, which means no bunching, no riding up.
	The wedgie guarantee would have been very helpful to me in high school.
	Tommy John is so confident in their underwear that if you don't love your first pair, you can get a full refund with the best pair you'll ever wear or its free guarantee.
	This includes the new life-changing women's underwear.
	They sold those things out in just six weeks, but now it's fully back in stock.
	So go check it out.
	Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off your first order.
	That's Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off your first order.
	Again, Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro.
	They make the best underwear in the country.
	Go check them out right now.
	Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro.
	Okay, so...
	How do these congressional elections actually work?
	There's this misnomer that all politics is local.
	And when it comes to congressional elections, it's all about the local election.
	I have a question for you.
	How many of you actually know who your congressperson is?
	I would wager that most people who vote in elections probably don't even know who their congressperson is, or if they do know, they don't know much about them.
	People use mental shortcuts to determine for whom they are going to vote.
	They use the R or the D a lot more than they use the name of the candidate in their particular district, which is why it is very indicative of whether a district will go in one direction or another, what the constituency of that district is.
	So in our plus-10 district, it almost doesn't matter who the candidate is, the Republicans should win, unless what you are seeing is a wave against Republicans.
	This means that all elections are national.
	One of the great lies that we've been told about politics is that all politics is local because of the prevalence of media.
	Because most people who are engaged in politics are reading newspapers or listening to shows like this one or watching Fox News or CNN.
	All elections are basically nationalized at this point, which is why Republicans swept through in 2010 on a national platform, a national Tea Party platform.
	And it's why right now Republicans who are running locally in the hopes that they can avoid the stigma of Trump They have a problem.
	It's why Trump is a problem for them.
	Trump is a drag on a lot of these Republican congressional tickets.
	He is not a boost to them because he is the national issue.
	Now, the Republicans do have national issues they can campaign on.
	It's the same national issue they campaigned on in the Georgia 6th District, and that is Nancy Pelosi should never be Speaker of the House.
	Nancy Pelosi is a full-on wild left disaster.
	The idea that she should be running policy from the House of Representatives is frightening and should be frightening to a lot of folks.
	Why Republicans are not running nationally, the real answer is because they feel like if they run nationally, they're going to get hit with the Trump.
	And President Trump is such a volatile quantity that if you cross President Trump, there's a good shot he'll go on Twitter and then he'll knock you off with your own base.
	If the president really wants to maintain Congress, what would be helpful in the next 90 days is for the president not to be particularly loud, not to be particularly vocal, and for Republicans to campaign against Democrats.
	I said yesterday, if you want to win elections, you have to make Democrats the issue.
	If you want to lose elections, make Trump the issue.
	Right now, President Trump is the issue, and it's a problem for Republicans.
	When Democrats become the issue, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the headline of the day, that's really good for Republicans.
	And you're actually seeing that in the polling right now.
	The polling keeps opening and closing.
	There's this gap that keeps opening and closing and opening and closing.
	It's very reminiscent of 2016 when Hillary Clinton would open these big gaps against President Trump and then within days they would close up again because The question was, who is the referendum on?
	Was it on Trump?
	It was on Trump.
	Hillary got a lead.
	If the referendum was a referendum on Hillary, the lead went away.
	And that means the Republicans must turn every issue to Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tom Perez and Keith Ellison and the radicalism of the Democratic Party.
	It's why I keep hammering this issue.
	Now, speaking of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you'll remember that yesterday on the show, I offered money out of my own pocket to sponsor a debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or even a Sunday special with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	Shockingly, we have not actually heard back from the Ocasio-Cortez campaign.
	I have my doubts that she is willing or interested in talking about these issues with anybody who can ask her a serious question.
	I think the reason for that is probably because she says silly things on a routine basis.
	I mean, the fact that she's propped up as one of the great minds of our time is astonishing to me.
	The same left that said that Sarah Palin was a doofus and a dunce and mocked Sarah Palin inordinately.
	I can see Russia from my house, a thing that Sarah Palin never said.
	And that became the stigma of Sarah Palin.
	Sarah Palin was an idiot.
	Michelle Bachmann was an idiot.
	We just kept hearing about every Republican woman.
	Every Republican woman was an idiot.
	These same people keep praising Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as some sort of world-beating genius when it comes to politics.
	She did an interview with Chris Cuomo.
	Chris Cuomo is not the world's toughest interview.
	At least not with regard to Democrats.
	And he stumps her, not because he is a stump of wood, but because she legitimately has no capacity to answer basic and simple questions.
	So, for example, she was asked about how she's going to pay for all of her government programs, and she described how Medicare is going to save us all money.
	This is an astonishing statement made by a human whose brain apparently is at least partly functional.
	Here she is trying to explain why Medicare will save money.
	See if you can spot the flaw in her logic.
	People talk about the sticker shock of Medicare for all.
	They do not talk about the sticker shock of the cost of our existing system.
	We're paying for this system.
	Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is.
	And what we're also not talking about is, why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare?
	That is part of the cost of our system.
	Why don't we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy, because they're having issues like diabetes or they don't have access to the healthcare that they need.
	I think at the end of the day, we see that this is not a pipe dream.
	Every other developed nation in the world does this.
	Why can't America?
	And that is the question that we need to ask.
	Okay, that is a lie that every other developed nation in the world does this.
	And to apply all of those rules to everything else is just, it's just not correct.
	It's just not correct.
	The Washington Post has given that claim before Three Pinocchios, by the way.
	Like, that's just, it's just not true.
	But my favorite part of that clip is where she explains, with a straight face, that one of the costs that we don't take into account when we look at our healthcare system is the cost of funerals.
	I just want to note that even if you believe that Medicare lengthens life, which is a dubious proposition, there are studies that suggest it does not, even if you believe that it does, at the end of that life, everyone gets dead.
	Right?
	Death happens.
	It's a thing.
	And everyone will have it.
	And then everyone will have a funeral.
	So funeral costs don't disappear when Medicare is made universal.
	That is a very weird claim.
	That is a very weird claim indeed.
	And then she claims that Medicare is going to prevent lost productivity and it's going to prevent people from dying of diabetes.
	They won't have diabetes anymore.
	I don't know what she thinks Medicare is, but it actually is not a unicorn that poops health.
	I just don't I don't even know what she's talking about here.
	But she again is the great brain.
	Again, this this, you know, the claim that she makes here that all of these things save money.
	It's just it's not correct.
	The idea that we save two trillion dollars, a claim that Ocasio-Cortez makes here.
	That earned a three Pinocchios rating from the Post.
	That's the claim that I'm specifically talking about that Ocasio-Cortez makes here.
	The best one, the best part of this interview, though, was when she was asked about the Democratic leadership.
	Even Ocasio-Cortez can't defend the fact that Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the House Democrats.
	She gives an answer here that is very much akin to the answer that Miss South Carolina once gave about maps in the Miss Universe contest, in the Miss USA contest, when she was asked about what kids need in schools.
	And she said she thinks they need maps.
	They know where the Iraqs are.
	Um, that's, that's like the such as the Iraq's that that's what Alexander Ocasio-Cortez sounds like right here.
	She is the leader of, of, no, no, she, I mean, um, um, speaker or rather leader Pelosi.
	Hopefully, um, you know, we'll see.
	She's a, she's the current leader of the party and I think that the party absolutely does have its leadership in the house.
	We have our leadership in, in the Senate as well.
	Oh, thank you for that clarification.
	Brain of the Democratic Party?
	How can Republicans not defeat this?
	If you cannot defeat this, you don't deserve to be in office.
	And I don't mean defeat her in a district that is very heavily Democrat.
	I mean, if you can't use this to nationalize your message, I honestly don't know what you are doing, making a living from this particular area of human life.
	This is... Come on!
	Come on!
	Medicare is getting- we're not taking into account funeral expenses?
	What in the world?
	What in the- I can't imagine why she won't come on the Sunday special.
	I can't- I just- I can't imagine it.
	Okay, before we go any further, let's talk about your hair and the fact that you are losing it.
	Because you are, okay?
	As you're getting older, you're looking at your dad and you're going, Wow, do I really want to be as bald as pops over there?
	Well, if you don't, then you really need to go check out Keeps.
	Okay, there is a solution.
	There are two clinically proven medications that actually let you keep your hair.
	Now, they are inexpensive and easy to get.
	You don't need to lose that hair if you don't want to, and that's what Keeps is for.
	For five minutes now and just a buck a day, you'll never have to worry about hair loss again.
	Getting started with Keeps is really easy.
	Sign up takes less than five minutes.
	Just answer a few questions, snap some photos, a licensed doctor remotely reviews your information, recommends the right treatment for you, All without ever leaving your couch.
	Keeps offers generic versions of the only two FDA-approved hair loss products out there.
	Some of you have probably tried them before, but you've never gotten them this easily for this price.
	Keeps is only $10 to $35 a month, plus now you can get your first month for free, which is a hell of a deal for getting to keep your hair.
	There is no reason to put it off any longer.
	Stop hair loss today.
	Go check it out.
	Receive your first month of treatment for free.
	Go to keeps.com slash ben.
	That's K-E-E-P-S dot com slash ben again.
	Free month of treatment at keeps.com slash ben.
	You're getting the drugs that, you know, are the ones that the FDA approves, and you're getting them for a cheaper price, so you really have nothing to lose.
	Keeps.com slash Ben.
	Go check it out right now.
	K-E-P-S dot com slash Ben.
	Keeps is here today and here tomorrow.
	Okay, so...
	Meanwhile, the other issue that Republicans should be campaigning on is obviously the self-involvement of the media.
	Always a big winner for Republicans.
	And the leader in this particular category is Jim Acosta.
	That dude loves him.
	Some Jim Acosta.
	I mean, whoa!
	Does Jim Acosta love Jim Acosta?
	So last night, he was on Stephen Colbert's show.
	Now, I would just like to make a note about people who don't believe in media bias.
	Jim Acosta is on Stephen Colbert's show.
	Pod Save America, which is a podcast that does similar or smaller numbers than this podcast, has its own outlet on HBO.
	When do you think HBO is going to come a call in?
	This is not a complaint.
	We do fine here.
	I mean, we don't need HBO's money, but...
	If you don't think there's a media bias, the fact that Jim Acosta and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been on Colbert and we have never received a single phone call from a late night show is sort of, and it's not just us.
	I mean, you're never going to see any of the major hosts on the right ever invited on any of these late night shows because these late night hosts don't actually want to have to have an argument with these folks.
	They just want to invite on fellow lefties that they can talk with and feel comfortable with.
	Jim Acosta, who is definitely not, definitely not a self-aggrandizing jerk.
	Jim Acosta is definitely not a self-infatuated person, right?
	He's certainly not a guy who believes himself to be the great savior of the media.
	He is certainly just fighting for you, the people.
	He tweeted this out.
	out, getting ready to bring some hashtag real news to Colbert Late Show with Stephen at home, hashtag not the enemy.
	And then it's a picture of him looking in the mirror at himself, which, okay, first of all, he actually, there's somebody else taking this picture, right?
	He has to have a guest, somebody else who's in the room with him, stage this photo so that he can look, like, it never occurs to him how self-aggrandizing and arrogant this looks.
	That's what's amazing.
	The truly incredible part of this particular photo is the fact that Jim Acosta is looking at Jim Acosta in the mirror, smiling smugly to himself, and he handed somebody his phone, presumably, to take that well-lit picture of him looking like a hero looking into the mirror.
	I mean, the funny part of this is that Jim Acosta sees himself looking in the mirror, and he sees Superman, and the rest of us see that guy from The Hangover who's lost his front tooth looking in the mirror.
	Right?
	That's really what this is.
	And the other part of this tweet that's just great is he says he's gonna bring some real news to Colbert Late Show.
	Stephen Colbert is legitimately a satirist.
	It's a late night show.
	So he's gonna bring real news.
	Real news is going on the Colbert Late Show.
	So what exactly did Jim Acosta say on the show?
	We've been looking everywhere for this video, but here's what he actually said.
	He actually said this and thought it was an intelligent thing to say, which is an amazing thing.
	He said, Okay, that's fair.
	of our anchors, our photographers around the world, our producers, some of my fellow reporters who go into war zones and put their lives on the line.
	They're not the enemy of the people.
	Okay, that's fair.
	But then he says this, my colleagues at ABC, CBS, NBC, and yes, Fox News, they're not the enemy of the people either.
	In a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, there's no such thing as an enemy of the people.
	That last sentence makes no And the fact that he had to think about that and write that up and memorize it beforehand, that doesn't make any sense.
	If the media were actually part of the government, at least the argument makes sense.
	Although that suggests that there are people in the government who can never be enemies of the people, which I think is blatantly untrue.
	There are plenty of governments all over the world that are enemies of their own people.
	But that last line, that a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, there's no such thing as an enemy of the people, you know who used to say that?
	You know whose line that is?
	By the people, for the people?
	Of the people, that is a line from Abraham Lincoln who legitimately jailed journalists.
	So there's that.
	But also, again, the idea that the media and the government are one and the same is sort of the problem here.
	Because the media and the government are one and the same until it comes time to critique a Republican.
	Then all of a sudden, they are the watchdogs on the front lines of truth.
	Jim Acosta, man.
	The media just doing what they can to demonstrate that they are completely out of touch with the American people.
	And speaking of out of touch with the American people, I'll talk briefly on Hollywood for just a second.
	So, Hollywood made an announcement yesterday.
	That they are changing the Oscars.
	So what are they doing?
	Well, they're going to focus on a three-hour broadcast, because right now it's approximately 37 hours, the Oscars.
	I think the last time I actually watched a full Oscar telecast, it's got to have been at least 10 years since I watched a full Oscar telecast, because why in the world would you?
	And one of the reasons nobody watches the Oscars anymore is because every film that is nominated is basically, which is the most social justice warrior film.
	So last year was The Shape of Water, which was a social justice film about a woman having sex with a fish.
	And her little gang of friends who are going to help fight the American government with the help of, I am not kidding you, this is the plot of The Shape of Water, a communist doctor, a gay man, and a black woman who is put upon by her husband.
	And the woman who is the main character is a mute.
	She's not deaf.
	That is the actual plot of The Shape of Water.
	It's a terrible, terrible film at one best picture.
	It's splash if somehow that film had fallen on its head as a baby.
	The Shape of Water is, and I don't say this with any animus toward the actors.
	I mean, I think that Nick Sirisi, who's in the film, is a friend.
	But the film is just absolute hogwashing garbage.
	The only doubt was whether that was going to win or whether Call Me By Your Name A movie about a 27-year-old dude seducing a 17-year-old kid, whether that was male kid, whether that was going to win Best Picture.
	So every year it's social justice warrior films that nobody has actually seen.
	And then they wonder why they're losing ratings.
	So how do they decide to combat this?
	Do they decide to combat this by actually nominating some films that people wanted to see?
	You know, big blockbuster films that people actually like watching?
	Like, for example, I believe The Dark Knight was nominated for Best Picture in 2008.
	That's the last time a really popular film was nominated for Best Picture.
	It was probably 10 years ago, like a real blockbuster film.
	I'm old enough to remember when Lord of the Rings, all three films, were nominated for Best Picture.
	Would those be nominated today?
	I can't imagine they would be.
	I can't imagine they would be.
	The only filmmaker who is even somewhat commercial, whose films will be nominated anymore, is Christopher Nolan, and even he has not won a Best Director Oscar, which is just insane.
	Instead, you'll get pictures like Moonlight winning.
	Even La La Land, which is an artsy film that did well at the box office, even there, it lost to Moonlight a coming-of-age story about a gay black kid.
	So, the Oscars have been kind of out of touch with what the American people are actually interested in paying money to see at the theaters for a long time.
	So how are they fixing this?
	Well, the way that they are fixing this is they are creating a new category designed around achievement in popular film, which automatically implies that there is also achievement in unpopular film, right?
	Achievement in unpopular film, that's the stuff that Hollywood likes to make, and then achievement in popular film is the stuff where, basically, they're going to do the MTV Movie Awards.
	Where it's like, oh, here's where we nominate Black Panther, and here's where we nominate Thor Ragnarok, and here's where we nominate the Avengers films.
	We'll put all the superhero films in one category, and we'll pretend that they're not actually quality, and then we'll have all of our quality films that no one saw, but that we feel make us special at cocktail parties.
	And this is because Hollywood is an insular little island all to itself, in the same way that the media have become this insular little island all the way for itself.
	It's so stupid in every way.
	It's basically an acknowledgement that the folks in Hollywood hate you.
	That they are taking your money to make movies like Mission Impossible, and then they're taking some of that money and siphoning it off into the real projects they care about.
	The story of the lesbian transgender little person who overcame all odds to become the head of a prostitution ring.
	Right?
	Legitimately, that's almost the plot of that film that Scarlett Johansson was supposed to star in, that no one would have seen, except that Scarlett Johansson was in it.
	My favorite part of that story, by the way, is that the social justice warriors killed that film outright because they said Scarlett Johansson should not star in it, and now that film will never get made and never get distributed.
	So, just spectacular.
	It's so stupid.
	In every way.
	They're not going to focus on making stuff that people want to see.
	They're going to continue to separate off the stuff they want to make from the stuff people want to see, and then patronize the audience by suggesting, here is the award for the rubes, and then here is the award for those of us who really, really matter.
	Also, let's be real about this.
	The real reason they're creating this new category is so Black Panther can win an Oscar.
	Right?
	That's really why they're creating this new category.
	They didn't think of creating this new category three years ago, but they think Black Panther ought to win an Oscar.
	And legitimately, I don't see why Black Panther shouldn't be nominated for an Oscar, like, in the regular category.
	It's a good movie.
	It's a fine movie.
	I liked the movie.
	I had some problems with it, but overall I thought it was one of the better Marvel flicks.
	But...
	Yeah, again, Hollywood is completely out of touch as well.
	This out-of-touchness is something, this culture war is something where the Republicans really could do some serious damage if they chose to do so.
	Speaking of the culture war, I'm going to play you this clip from Mila Kunis because it really does suggest how broadly the culture war has spread.
	And it has some relevance to the conversations we are now having about race in the country, believe it or not.
	But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com to subscribe.
	So for $9.99 a month, get the rest of the show live, get the rest of Clavin's show live and Knowles' show live.
	We have some brand new stuff that is coming for subscribers.
	I can't wait to tell you about it.
	But if I tell you about it, my business partner will murder me because I legitimately forwardcast things two years in advance.
	C.A.K.A.
	The Shapiro Store.
	But the bottom line is, there's all sorts of good stuff coming if you become a member.
	Also, you're helping us out.
	$99 a year, you get this.
	The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	Look at this magnificent piece of vessel.
	Check it out.
	It is just great.
	You get that for $99 and all sorts of other goodies.
	Also, subscribe to iTunes and YouTube.
	When you do that, you actually get to see our Sunday special and listen to our Sunday special we're having on Tai Lopez this week.
	In upcoming weeks, we have a bunch of great guests I can't wait to announce to you as they come up.
	Like, really awesome guests.
	So, check that out.
	out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay.
	So speaking of Hollywood being out of touch, Mila Kunis, who is a very big star, although she's in a new movie with Kate McKinnon, that's basically a spy thriller.
	No one will see It's getting terrible reviews, but I'm sure that's just because of sexism.
	It's not because it's a bad movie.
	It's because of sexism, because it has two female leads.
	I do love the idea that what women really want to watch at the movies is women.
	I don't know where this idea came from in Hollywood, that all women want to do is watch Eat, Pray, Love, or that they want to watch an action movie with women.
	I don't, maybe I'm just biased here.
	I don't know a single woman, like not one, who is desperate to watch an action flick with a female lead.
	I was under the impression that most women kind of like men.
	I was under the impression that they would rather watch Tom Cruise run around than watch Mila Kunis run around.
	Most men would rather watch Tom Cruise run around than watch Mila Kunis run around because Tom Cruise runs faster than Mila Kunis.
	And there's this sort of Hollywood absurdity where you have these 90-pound women who are kicking 300-pound guys in the chest, and the guys are, like, flying through glass windows, when in reality, the 300-pound man would take the kick and then take the woman by the leg and chuck her, right?
	I mean, Hollywood has these bizarre notions.
	I will survey.
	The only woman in the room, Senya, would you prefer to watch Mila Kunis in an action flick or Tom Cruise in an action flick?
	Daniel Craig.
	Okay, that's fair, right?
	Okay, Tom Cruise is old, but Daniel Craig is not old.
	By the way, I just saw the Mission Impossible flick.
	Tom Cruise is 58 years old, man.
	That dude is in crazy shape.
	That is wild.
	But...
	Daniel Craig, fair enough.
	When they talk about let's make Jane Bond as opposed to James Bond, yeah, try that.
	You know how much money it will make at the box office?
	Zero dollars.
	They tried this with Atomic Blonde, in which they basically substituted Charlize Theron for a man in like every possible way, including the lesbian sex scenes, and the movie wildly underperformed because it turns out that when you watch a female character, you'd actually like her to have certain indicative female stereotypical attributes that Okay, but all of that is beside the point.
	Mila Kunis is in this new movie and she's being interviewed about why she is pro-choice.
	useful.
	But if you could substitute a man into the part like directly without changing a single line of dialogue, it's very difficult to see why people should go see that film as opposed to seeing Daniel Craig in the same film.
	Okay.
	But all of that is beside the point.
	Mila Kunis is in this new movie and she's being interviewed about, about why she is pro-choice.
	And the answer to why she's pro-choice is because she legitimately has never met a pro-lifer.
	Now, I don't know any Republican in America who's never met a pro-choicer.
	I, I seriously don't.
	And I talked to hundreds of thousands of Republicans, right?
	I don't understand why it is that so many folks on the left have never met a pro-lifer, except that every view on the right must be castigated as horrible and evil.
	Here's Mila Kunis talking on a podcast with Marc Maron about why it is that she is pro-choice.
	I didn't even know there was one?
	You legitimately didn't even know that there's a pro-life movement in the country?
	I will say this.
	Here's what happened.
	So there's an address that was listed online that's not necessarily my personal address, but it's listed as if it's my personal address.
	And so then people started giving donations to the opposing side, which I didn't even know there was one.
	OK, I don't want to promote it, whatever it is.
	I didn't even know there was one.
	You legitimately didn't even know that there's a pro-life movement in the country.
	Like you didn't know that there's a group of people who think that you shouldn't kill babies in the womb.
	That sort of insular thinking is exactly the culture gap that is really ripping the country I think the culture gap that's tearing the country apart is not a racial culture gap.
	I think the racial stuff is almost a weird overlay on top of cultural battles that are being fought.
	And this is one of the things that the left doesn't understand.
	They think that when President Trump is appealing to quote-unquote white culture, what he's really appealing to is a racial culture.
	What he's really appealing to is a group particularly of white people in the middle of the country who have a gap not with black people so much as with other white people on the coast.
	There's this weird idea on the left that there's this thing called whiteness.
	I was listening to a podcast with my friend Jane Koston over at Vox.com, and she was doing the podcast with Ezra Klein.
	It's the Weeds podcast.
	It's kind of interesting.
	Basically, the three people who are on it are Ezra Klein, who is sometimes thoughtful on the left and sometimes just wrong and nearsighted, and Jane, who I think is thoughtful, and Dylan Matthews, who's basically the Leroy Jenkins of that show.
	Like, he just kind of runs in randomly and shouts, Leroy Jenkins!
	And nobody knows.
	Why he's just spouting the typical lefty line.
	In any case, they were talking about all of this talk lately about racism and whiteness and why it is that ripping on white people is different from ripping on black people.
	And their suggestion was that you can't be racist really against white people.
	You can only be racist against black people was sort of the implication.
	of the show.
	And they were suggesting that whiteness is a concept that has some merit, that there is this thing called whiteness.
	And what is whiteness?
	Well, Ezra Klein says that what whiteness really is, is the stuff white people kind of do stereotypically.
	Now, if you applied that same logic to blackness, of course, you'd be a racist.
	But if you do it to whiteness, then it's OK.
	But the truth is that Ezra Klein is wrong.
	Ezra Klein is wrong.
	The culture gap in the country is not between quote-unquote whiteness and quote-unquote blackness.
	The culture gap is between secularist and religious.
	It is between left and right.
	It is between certain value systems.
	It is not between people of different colors.
	And in a second, I want to read you a little bit of this piece from my friend David French, which really hits this on the nose and really speaks to the gap that has emerged between the media and the rest of the country and Hollywood and the rest of the country.
	OK, so we played that clip of Mila Kunis and Mila Kunis says she's never heard of anybody who's pro-life in the country.
	Jim Acosta, who is completely out of touch with the middle of the country and every so often The middle of the country sort of rears its ugly head and they go, ooh, let's send somebody out there.
	As though they're Steve Irwin in the Outback.
	Like, oh, look at these people.
	These crazy people living in the middle of the country.
	Wow.
	I don't even know what accent that was, but it's sort of an Australian accent.
	In any case, they treat people in the middle of the country, white people in the middle of the country, as foreigners.
	They're going to go and they're going to examine their culture, mate.
	They're going to see what the stingrays do out here.
	Well, That is really the attitude that divides the country.
	So, here's what David French writes.
	He says, Klein brought up the old stuff.
	We're talking about this podcast with Ezra Klein and Jane Koston and Dylan Matthews over at Vox.
	He says, at that point, Klein brought up the old blog, Stuff White People Like.
	I remember it well as the son of the rural South who spent some time living in prosperous quarters of progressive America, Manhattan, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Center City.
	I thought it was funny.
	And that brings me to the subject I think has to be discussed right alongside race when discussing American life and American politics.
	White people in that blog were nothing like the white people I grew up with.
	And that brings me to the subject I think has to be discussed right alongside race when discussing American life and American politics, the great white culture war.
	And basically what French argues is that when you have all these people like Mila Kunis who say, you know, I don't care about whiteness in the country.
	Whiteness can decline at any rate I want it to decline at, and that's totally fine.
	Which is a perspective with which, like, I don't care about race.
	It doesn't make any difference to me.
	I don't care what color people are.
	I'm Jewish.
	And even if I were white, I wouldn't care.
	I mean, in certain cases, I'm perceived as white.
	I don't care how many white people are in the country versus how many black people are in the country.
	I care about the stuff inside their heads.
	That's the stuff I actually care about.
	But the point that French is making is when people on the left talk about whiteness, people like Mila Kunis, presumably, or people like Jim Acosta, or people on the left in these little bubbles, they're really not talking about whiteness.
	They're talking about white people in the middle of the country they don't like, because Mila Kunis is not giving up her job anytime soon for a person of color, and neither is Jim Acosta.
	They're talking about a certain white cultural elitism that pervades the coast and that they feel they are in agreement on as long as they pander to a bunch of people of color.
	That's what they're really talking about.
	So when they rip on whiteness, they're not ripping on the whiteness of Portland, Oregon.
	What they're really ripping on is the whiteness of Tennessee.
	What they're really ripping on is the whiteness of Texas, which, by the way, is going to be predominantly Hispanic in the very near future.
	So this is really the culture war that is being fought right now.
	And it's because people fail to take into account anything remotely resembling a multiple regression analysis that you end up with these simplistic takes on politics.
	So a multiple regression analysis for people who didn't take stats courses in college, when you are determining how many factors lead to a particular outcome, you can basically create, you can do this with an Excel spreadsheet, basic statistical analysis, you can create formulas that try to correlate A particular phenomenon with the factors leading to the phenomenon.
	So, for example, you want to figure out which factors lead to being an NBA player.
	And so you determine what percentage of black people are NBA players, what percentage of tall people are NBA players, what percentage of athletic people are NBA players.
	How do each of these things factor into playing in the NBA?
	And that multiple regression analysis will show you that blackness has very little to do with playing in the NBA, but being very tall does have something to do, and athleticism has something to do with playing in the NBA.
	Well, you may look at the NBA and say, oh, blackness is an asset in the NBA.
	That's not correct.
	Height and athleticism are assets in the NBA.
	How do you know?
	Because you actually did a multiple regression analysis.
	Well, if you're looking at the gaps in this country, people on the left see disparity.
	And the first thing they do is they leap to race.
	The reality is that we have to look at all of the cross-cutting other factors before we go to race, because race is a secondary characteristic.
	It's just the color of your skin, really.
	And the attempt by the left to blame everything on racism, to say that every inequality between groups is rooted in American bias and racism.
	If you're going to go there, first, I would suggest that you rule out more obvious factors that could be contributing to those statistical disparities.
	So, for example, there's this tweet that came out about the wealth gap.
	It now has some tens of thousands of retweets.
	And it says, white people get $50,000 checks from their elderly grandparents.
	Black people are buying their elderly grandparents groceries.
	This is the wealth gap.
	The suggestion, of course, being that white America is racist and that's why black people are poor.
	Now, is it true that historical racism has a lot to do with the continuation of a wealth gap, particularly in terms of home ownership and historic wealth?
	Of course, that's true.
	Of course, that's true.
	But if you're looking at the rates of progress in America, that has very little to do with historical racism.
	Rates of progress in America are much more tied to individual decision making.
	And you can tell this with a multiple regression analysis.
	It has much more to do with choosing to marry the woman who's going to bear your children.
	It has much more to do with getting a job and finishing high school.
	These are the things that make you wealthy in America.
	The fact that the left has this flattering view of itself where it is on the side of everything that is good and true and not in favor of quote-unquote whiteness.
	What they really mean is we're not in favor of the white people in the middle of the country.
	Those are the bad guys.
	We're the good white people and we can show you we're the good white people by criticizing other white people but not giving up anything that we actually hold dear in these little enclaves of wealth and power and privilege.
	And that's the reason you have this culture gap in the country that is widening every single day.
	It is widening all the time.
	OK, so I want to talk about a couple of stories that the media have been ignoring, and then we'll get to a thing I like and a thing I hate.
	First, there's this story that it's really amazing.
	And the media are covering the story, but they're missing, I think, the punchline.
	OK, so it turns out there's an Islamic man who was arrested last week at a New Mexico compound where 11 children were abused.
	He was training the children to commit school shootings, according to newly released court documents.
	Now, if you look at the headlines today, all of the headlines are, man was training children to commit school shootings.
	There was a big factor that was missing from the headlines.
	OK, so this is a case where the media's failure to do a multiple regression analysis is kind of obvious, right?
	What they will say is, well, this just shows that the culture of gun ownership in the United States is leading to school shootings.
	Well, maybe it has more to do with the ideology of the person who is training children to shoot up schools.
	Maybe it has to do with the fact that the guy was a radical Islamist.
	The court filings say, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj was conducting weapons training with assault rifles at the compound near the Colorado border where 11 hungry children were found in filthy conditions.
	His father, by the way, is a guy named Siraj Wahhaj.
	He was named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
	Ironically, that is also a person, I believe, who's been linked to Siraj Wahaj, if I'm not mistaken.
	He was named by Linda Sarsour as one of her mentors, if I'm not mistaken.
	So, Linda Sarsour, of course, is one of the leaders of the Women's March, and she is just a delight.
	She praised Imam Siraj Wahaj just a few years ago.
	So, she's a wonderful person.
	Maybe it has more to do with ideology than gun ownership.
	The media won't tell you that.
	Instead, they will headline with the idea that it is the guns.
	They will also not headline the fact that the Parkland Broward County school system knew full well that the shooter in Parkland had gone to them multiple times to ask him for help.
	They turned him down, then he went and shot up a school.
	Instead, we'll get a non-multiple regression analysis in which we do not learn the other factors leading to the school shooting in Parkland.
	Instead, we learn that it was really about the guns.
	Now, the truth is, according to the local 10 News in that area, throughout the more than 15 years this shooter spent in the Broward County school system, staff members reported violent outbursts and antisocial behavior.
	Others noted periods where his behavior and academic performance markedly improved.
	The document was originally redacted, but an electronic copy made public by the school district contained information underneath the blackout portions.
	And what it found is that he actually kept going in there for help, and they kept sending him away until he shot up a school.
	But that's not the story that the media will actually tell you today.
	The story that the media will tell you is that it's all about the guns.
	The media have an interest, people have an interest in simplifying complex questions down to their most obvious basics.
	But you actually have to determine which factors, how many factors are important in determining cause and effect.
	You can't just say there's a disparity or there's an event and it happened because of this thing.
	You instead have to look at all of the factors that were involved in it and determine which factors were most likely to have contributed heavily to this possible outcome.
	Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, A thing I like today.
	This is maybe my wife's favorite movie.
	She loves this movie and the score to it is really great as well.
	This of course is Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley.
	Keira Knightley is She's kind of an interesting actress.
	I've never been a fan of hers, but then every time I see her actually perform, I think she's actually quite good in this.
	In Pride and Prejudice, she is terrific.
	And the movie is just beautifully produced, so you should go check it out.
	It's a very romantic film.
	If you're married, dudes, this is a film to show your wife.
	Go check out Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley.
	This one's about 15 years old, maybe?
	Something like that.
	Very good movie.
	Is he amiable?
	Is he handsome?
	He's single!
	Hebel is.
	Oh my goodness!
	Everybody behave naturally!
	Mr. Collins, at your service.
	In an era when marrying a rich man was the most a woman could hope for, Elizabeth Bennet was way ahead of her time.
	I singled you out as the companion of my future life.
	Sir, I cannot accept you.
	Don't worry, Mr. Collins.
	Tell her you insist upon the marrying.
	Oh, please.
	You will have this house.
	I can't marry him.
	And save your sisters from destitution.
	She cannot make me.
	Okay, so it's really great, it's really well done, and the score of it is terrific as well.
	Go check it out.
	Really, really a worthwhile watch.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	So over the past 48 hours, Israel has been hit with legitimately 150 rockets from the Gaza Strip.
	Now, you will not see this in the media.
	Speaking of stories you won't see covered in the media, you'll never see this in the media because when Jews are being shot at by Palestinians, it's not a story.
	When Jews shoot back at Palestinians, it's a story.
	So when Israel goes in with overwhelming military might and attempts to knock out Hamas bases, which invariably are located in civilian areas because Hamas knows that they will make a headline every time a civilian is killed, That's the story that makes CNN.
	I've said it before, CNN, a lot of the mainstream media, they are Hamas's propaganda outlets when it comes to this sort of stuff.
	It's disgusting.
	Here's an actual video of what it looks like when rockets are fired against Israel.
	You're basically given 10 seconds to get to a bomb shelter.
	There have been 14 people who have been injured.
	These are rockets being fired into civilian areas.
	There's not one country on planet Earth that would tolerate this except for Israel.
	There's not one country on planet Earth that would be as humane as Israel has been in its response to all of this.
	Can you imagine if Mexico started firing rockets into San Diego?
	Like 150 rockets got fired by Mexico into San Diego.
	You know how fast we would topple that government?
	That would take us five minutes.
	Legitimately five minutes.
	The United States would go in and knock out the entire government and then replace it.
	I mean, when Al Qaeda murdered 3,000 Americans, we knocked down two Islamic countries, two of them, okay, when they killed 3,000 citizens with some airplanes.
	Israel took 150 rockets over the past 48 hours.
	They did some very specific targeted pinprick bombing.
	And you watch, that'll be the story, right?
	The story will be the civilian that was killed because Hamas plants all of its headquarters underneath hospitals.
	Here's what the video actually looks like when rockets are flying and you have five seconds to get your kids underground.
	You can see the smoke rising from another rocket.
	I mean, these things are landing in civilian areas, they're landing in streets.
	The media's bias is never more apparent than when you see their coverage of this conflict.
	It is just disgusting.
	The media's lack of interest in radical Islamic fanatic murderous ideology is astonishing and demonstrative of this Okay, well we will be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
	Many in the media hold that if a country is prosperous like Israel, it must be because it's victimized somebody else like the Palestinians.
	It can't just be that Palestinian culture is unsuccessful by and large because they are electing terrorists to lead their government in Hamasistan and in Palestinian authority land, and that those governments are then stealing hundreds of millions of dollars to use for terrorism and to line their own pockets.
	The media's coverage of these issues is just abysmal, abysmal.
	Okay, well, we will be back here tomorrow with all 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.

▲