All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:00:05
The She-Woman Men Haters Club | Ep. 642
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Radical feminists unveil their agenda, Hillary Clinton will never leave, and President Trump does a silly thing.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Let me remind you, I will be at Politicon this Sunday.
Since I'm wasting my Sunday there, you need to come too.
Okay?
We all just suffer together.
Come join me for a keynote speech, a book signing, and a panel with all the Daily Wire gang.
It is guaranteed to be a great time for you and to produce an abundance of leftist tears so you won't want to miss it.
Make sure you use promo code DW when you get your tickets so they know that we sent you.
Also, Don't miss Andrew Clavin's next chapter of Another Kingdom, performed by the exquirable Michael Mowles.
Today we'll be live streaming the first 15 minutes of episode 3, titled The Beast.
Head on over to dailywire.com, subscribe to watch the full episode, and get early access to upcoming episodes every Monday.
We're going to get to the news in just a second, but first...
If you have been watching the battle for the House, you know that there's a lot of uncertainty in the economy, because let's say the Democrats were to win the House and the Senate.
Well, that could have some pretty severe ramifications for your 401k, could have some severe ramifications for the stock market, which is why you need to go talk to my friends over at birchgold.com.
Birchgold is the place to go for your precious metals investing.
It's a hedge of precious metals.
They've always been a hedge against inflation and uncertainty and instability.
Gold is a safe haven against uncertainty, which is why you should be at least partially diversified.
The company that I trust with precious metal purchases is Birch Gold Group.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
It is perfect for folks who want to protect their hard-earned retirement savings from future geopolitical uncertainty.
Contact Birchgold Group right now to request a free information kit on physical precious metals.
It's a comprehensive 16-page kit.
It shows how gold and silver can protect your savings.
It can legally move that IRA or 401k out of risky stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA if that's something you're interested in.
To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit, go to birchgold.com slash ben.
That is birchgold.com slash ben.
Again, birchgold.com slash ben.
Go check it out.
Let them know that we sent you.
Okay, so Hillary will never, ever, ever go away.
Ever.
Okay, so there's a new article in Politico today about how Hillary may want to run for president for a third time.
Now, I think that folks on the right are a little bit too sanguine about this.
I think they figure, okay, Trump beat her last time, he'll beat her again this time.
And let's face it, Hillary's a garbage candidate.
She's a smoking garbage sheet of a candidate.
The reason that President Trump is president is, yes, because he has a certain skill set.
This kind of skill set that makes him dangerous to people like you.
But, President Trump's skill set is not the actual reason that he is president alone.
It is because Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate in the history of American politics.
How do I know this?
Because she lost to Donald Trump in a race for the presidency.
And she won by two and a half million votes in the popular vote still.
So, all the folks who are being sanguine, well, what's really funny is you see folks on the right.
And they say things like, well, silly Hillary.
Didn't even visit Wisconsin.
Didn't even visit Michigan.
The implication being that if she had visited Wisconsin or Michigan, she would have won.
Which is to suggest that maybe that election was really, really, really razor-thin close.
Now, it is true that President Trump will now have a very good economic record to run on.
It is also true that a lot of folks just didn't show up to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Donald Trump won fewer votes in Wisconsin in 2016 than Mitt Romney won in 2012.
Romney lost the state by something like eight points.
Hillary lost the state of Wisconsin.
No one likes Hillary Clinton, but Because no one likes her, a lot of people thought that she was going to run away with it and just didn't show up to vote for her.
There was no enthusiasm.
It's like, okay, I'm not going to ruin my day.
New York Times says there's a 99% shot she's going to be president anyway.
Why am I going to bother?
If she were to come back, I'm not quite as sanguine as everybody else that it ends in a radical defeat for her.
I think Democrats show up in large numbers in a sort of revenge play.
I think that's a significant possibility.
That said, Would Trump prefer her to some of the other candidates who are out there?
No question.
I mean, she's a person.
He knows how to handle.
She's got more baggage than any national airline that you care to speak of.
And she is truly, truly awful at what she does.
Still, she won't go away.
Because the minute she goes away, she can't make money on her other lucrative side gigs.
If you look at the donations to the Clinton Foundation, incredibly, donations to the Clinton Foundation dropped precipitously as soon as she was no longer running for president, because that's how things work in Clinton-land.
If she is not relevant to the national political discourse, the money train dries up.
So a bunch of folks on the Democratic side are trying to basically say to her, stick around, but kind of go away.
So Michael Avenatti, my favorite of the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders, and I'm openly rooting for Michael Avenatti.
I've made this absolutely clear.
I root for entertainment value.
The outcome's going to be what the outcome's going to be.
I'm not God.
I can't control the outcome.
I can tell you how I think you should go vote, but if I'm rooting for a candidate, make it Michael Avenatti, guys.
Democrats, just like an Avenatti-Trump race would just be the greatest.
The first question in a debate would be, which one of you slept with Stormy Daniels more times?
That would be an actual question in a presidential debate.
And I'm all for it.
I mean, we're there, man.
Let's embrace the hurricane.
Embrace the suck.
Like, let's just do this thing.
Michael Avenatti, here's what he had to say about Hillary Clinton in this article in Politico.
He says, if I was running, I could see certain circumstances in which she could be helpful from a rally perspective in certain locations on a limited basis, which is to say, like, stay away, Hillary.
Stay far, far away.
I think there's still a lot of people that support her, and for that reason, she could certainly play a positive role in some capacity in 2020.
This is like the question in a job interview where they ask you to name your worst quality, and you're desperately trying to think of your worst quality to name.
So you're saying, like, name a good thing about Hillary Clinton.
Maybe she'd be good at, like, standing there sometimes.
So that's pretty great.
But that is not dissuading anybody in the Hillary Clinton camp from thinking that maybe she's toast.
So Philippe Raines, who is just a jerk.
So Philippe Raines has been known for years, legitimately two decades, as Hillary's fixer, and he's a nasty guy, and he attacks his opponents with aplomb and alacrity.
Here is what he says about Hillary Clinton.
He says chalking the loss up to her being a failed candidate is an oversimplification.
Nope, it is not.
She is a giant failed candidate.
She lost to Barack Obama, a nobody, an absolute nobody in 2008, with the entire media behind her at the beginning of that race.
And then she nearly lost to Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian, crazy loon bag socialist who was tossed out of a commune in the 70s for being too useless.
She almost lost to that guy in primaries.
And then she lost to a real estate developer whose main claim to fame is saying you're fired on national television and running a Miss USA.
Shtick.
Like, that's legitimately who she lost to.
So I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that she is the worst candidate you could possibly imagine.
Like, if you were creating a bad candidate in a lab, that candidate would look exactly like Hillary Clinton.
But Reign says, she is smarter than most, tougher than most, she could raise money easier than most, and it was an absolute fight to the death.
And then he was asked, will Hillary run?
He says, the likelihood is somewhere between highly unlikely and zero, but it's not zero.
So everywhere, Democrats, you can hear the shrieks of Democrats through the walls here.
In fact, our leftist-tears-hot-or-cold Tumblr is overflowing because even Democrats understand that Hillary Clinton running for president is a bad, bad idea.
The problem is that Democrats have actually set up the narrative for her to run.
This is the part that's really fascinating, is that the Democrats are now trying to run, again, their War on Women playbook from 2012.
And they're doing it in a more intense way now.
Now, Hillary would be a very bad fit for that playbook, except that Democrats are out of their minds.
So she'd be a bad fit for the War on Women playbook because she legitimately fought a war on every woman that her husband harassed, abused, slept with.
She literally did that for a solid 15 to 20 years of her career.
But because she is woman, we must hear her roar.
And you can see that the radical feminists are out in force.
They think that this is their time.
And when I say radical feminist, I mean radical feminist.
The best radical feminist piece of the day comes courtesy of Tori Truscheit over at Slate.com, the repository for much of American stupidity.
This is the actual title of the piece.
The Rage of All Women.
Okay, there's a quote from the piece.
This isn't me being homophobic.
There's a quote from the piece.
Man-hating dyke is the worst thing you can call a lesbian.
But in the Me Too era, it's time to reclaim it.
Okay.
What do you mean, Tori Druescheit?
Well, she will tell you.
In the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, a dyke friend in her 20s posted that, real talk, she doesn't like men.
I hit the like button super fast, feeling secretive and sort of guilty about it.
She'd come through the same radical queer and trans circles I came up in, and in that click, I felt relieved to acknowledge an obvious truth.
Most men treat women like something less than human, whether accidentally or on purpose, and that means it's hard to like them.
Men are bad.
Men are evil.
Solid political argument.
I can see that you're aiming for political victory here by immediately alienating half the population.
I had recently been scanning the men coming into my workplace, wondering about their histories of sexual assault.
Yeah, that's a normal thing to do.
That's a real normal thing to do.
Sonia, how often have you done that at the office?
You just walk in, you're like, I wonder who here has raped someone?
Okay, so I stand corrected.
Senya says she does this every day.
In any case, this woman says, is he a rapist?
What about him?
Where does he fall on the creep scale?
It was an old impulse that had returned in force as the nation debated just how many of their husbands, brothers, and sons were perpetrators, given that one in three American women experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes.
Okay, again, that is a very, very vague definition of sexual violence.
If you're suggesting that one in three women in America is raped over the course of her life, that is just not a true statistic.
That is just a false statistic.
Republicans insisted that men were the ones who should be afraid, while women recounted the everyday harrowing ways we reroute our lives to avoid assault.
My woke male co-workers made me two jokes, as if the whole thing were a funny spectacle.
It was enough to make me want to stop talking to men entirely.
I have a feeling that the feeling was mutual.
Yet still, inside my head, the not all men chorus roared.
What about the dads of two who liked all my angry tweets?
Or the guy who showed up at the hospital with too much food when my spouse was in labor?
Or my friends who are trans men?
That's where it gets really confusing.
When you actually have a woman who says she's a man, are you supposed to hate her for being a man?
Or are you supposed to like her for being a woman?
This is when things get really baffling for folks on the left.
Patriarchy runs so deep that I defend hypothetical men's feelings right away, even to myself.
I am a married lesbian, as far away from needing male approval as a woman can get, and I still feel it, the slow, poisonous drip of cultural conditioning that tells me to prioritize men.
Actually, that cultural conditioning says you might want to treat human beings like, you know, individual human beings, because they're human beings.
Just my imagination, that thing that could break us out of American fascism, Your imagination is not going to break anybody out of anything.
I mean, it's not even going to break you out of the asylum, lady.
She says, it's trapped in an old feminist loop, because I've been trained that the worst thing I can be is a man-hating dyke.
But it's time to confront the latent homophobia in that insult.
It's not latent homophobia, that's an actual just homophobic insult.
There's nothing latent about that.
And she says, in our fear that anger makes us seem too gay, because anger, not fear, is precisely the emotion that's needed these days.
Beware the person who says that anger is the proper response to your life.
The people who say that anger is the proper response to the generalized situation in your life, that person is not giving you good advice.
My friend Andrew Klavan, he has a great phrase, he says, anger is the devil's cocaine.
I think that is basically correct.
I think that if you are looking at your life and you don't have a specific instance of injustice to point to, you just have a generalized outrage about the world, You're going to fail in life.
A great way to fail in life is to sink yourself into a generalized feeling that you will never be able to succeed, especially in a free country.
It's one thing to say that in a dictatorship, but this is the freest country in world history.
I mean, this lady is writing a piece about how much she hates men in the pages of a national newspaper, basically.
And probably being championed for it by a bunch of folks on the left.
The radical feminist movement is in full swing.
And this is why Hillary Clinton could still come back, because it would be easy for Hillary to say, the real reason I lost was radical sexism, and then try and drive out single women to the polls in high numbers to take revenge against Donald Trump.
I'm going to get more into this in just one second.
But first, let's talk about a sponsor who's been in the news recently.
23andMe.
So, Elizabeth Warren recently took a DNA test.
It was really good that she did, because it revealed that she is whiter than the backside of this piece of paper.
And she's incredibly, incredibly white.
I mean, she makes Marky Mark look like MC Hammer.
Elizabeth Warren is an incredibly white person.
And she knows that because she took a DNA test showing that she is 1,024th white.
Well, if you are interested in actually checking out your own ancestry and finding out whether you, in fact, are less white than Elizabeth Warren, the way that Lindsey Graham is doing right now, check out 23andMe.
It's a DNA testing service that can offer insights into your ancestry, health, wellness, and traits.
It gives you a bitter taste report versus sweet and salty reports.
They can tell you how DNA plays a role in determining food preference.
Sleep reports.
They can tell you if you are more likely to be an especially deep sleeper.
They can give you a saturated fat and weight report telling you based on your genetics how your weight might be affected by saturated fats in your diet.
Order your 23andMe Health and Ancestry Service Kit at 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
That's the number 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Everybody's doing it.
It's the hot new thing.
Make sure that you, like Elizabeth Warren, know your ancestry.
23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Don't be caught up short when you claim Native American ancestry but have no evidence to prove it.
Go to 23andme.com slash Shapiro and check it out right now.
Honestly, they're having a great week over at 23andMe.
Like really, this is a great week to advertise.
The anger that has broken out on the radical feminist left is good for Hillary Clinton, obviously.
It's also good for folks like Kamala Harris.
On the intersectionality scale, radical feminists are trying to push women up that scale.
Right now, there's a philosophy that I've talked about a lot on the show, on the left, that says that we can prioritize people's viewpoints based on their genetics, based on their ancestry, based on their ethnicity, based on their Class.
So basically, here's how this hierarchy goes, of views that we should respect.
It goes like this.
LGBT person.
Black person.
Hispanic person.
Woman.
Asian person, Jewish person, white person.
That's how it goes.
That's the hierarchy.
And women are somewhere in the middle, as I mentioned, right?
They're kind of behind Hispanic, but ahead of Asian.
That's where women are.
So what radical feminists are trying to do is elevate women in the hierarchy of victimhood higher up the ladder.
And that way folks like Hillary Clinton have a better shot at being elected by claiming victimhood.
This is why it's because women aren't high enough on the intersectionality scale that you saw Elizabeth Warren trying to claim Native American ancestry.
Because she was saying, it's not enough for me to be a woman in Democratic primary.
I also have to claim membership in a historically victimized group.
I'm also a Native American.
That, of course, fell apart for her.
So, if you can't beat the intersectionality course, you join the intersectionality course.
Radical feminists are trying to elevate women as victims in American society.
And so, this woman at Slate, as crazy as she sounds, this Tori Truscheit, who says that she basically wants to be part of the She Woman Man Haters Club.
The reverse of the gang from Alfalfa.
When she says this, this is not actually that far out of the realm of the mainstream in certain democratic circles.
I love this.
Here's another example.
Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist over at the Washington Post.
And there's a letter.
Here's the letter.
Dear Carolyn, I have a daughter, and some other moms of daughters and I have started getting together at a local playground at a set time each week.
Recently, a mom of a boy brought her son to the playground at the same time we were there.
I asked her nicely, I thought, if she would mind leaving because we had wanted it to be a girls-only time.
She refused and seemed angry at me.
If she comes back, is there a better way I can approach her?
This has been such a sweet time for moms and daughters, and having a boy there is naturally going to change things.
We live in a world where boys get everything and girls are left with crumbs.
And I would think this mom would realize that, but she seems to think her son is entitled to crash this girl's only time.
I know I can't legally keep her from a public park, but can I appeal to her better nature?
And then the response was, shooing off the mom and her boy was terrible.
But I have to admit that I actually have a little bit of sympathy for the mom.
Not in the sense that she should shoo off the boys, but Boys do change the dynamic when girls are playing.
I have a son, I have a daughter.
They play very, very differently.
When boys go to a girls-only group, it changes the dynamic.
Boys are different than girls.
Radical feminists want to have it both ways.
Boys and girls are exactly the same, but girls are different from boys and therefore should be separated off from boys when they want to be separated off from boys.
I think that we should recognize some truths.
Boys and girls are different.
Also, we live in a free country.
And because we live in a free country, people should be able to rise and fall on their own merit without claiming victimization at the hands of the freest society in world history.
OK, so is Hillary Clinton going to run again?
I highly doubt it.
I don't think she's going to, but maybe she will.
Who the hell knows?
OK.
Meanwhile, President Trump, he did a rally last night and his rallies are usually highly entertaining.
He's speaking in Missoula.
And, you know, his rallies are basically stand-up comedy routines.
The president doesn't rally like President Obama would, go out and make a stump speech.
The president goes out there and he just riffs for an hour.
And it's usually very entertaining, and a lot of folks have been to President Trump's rallies.
They say it's a lot of fun.
Obviously, the crowd is there to have a good time.
It really is kind of half a political rally and half a comedy routine, because Trump is a highly entertaining human.
Well, sometimes that has upsides, and sometimes that has downsides.
Because, like all comedians, when President Trump gets a riffin', sometimes the riff is good, and sometimes he is just going to put his foot so far down his mouth that it comes out his colon and out his rear end and back around again.
Sometimes he creates an Ouroboros of human physicality.
So, here is the good.
Sometimes you see President Trump do stuff like this.
Like, this is kind of funny.
So, President Trump, there's a woman in the crowd, and she shouts, I love you, and here is President Trump's response.
Wise guys.
The Democrats have turned... I love you too.
Who said that?
It's finally a woman.
You know, I get it from the men all the time.
So far, every guy that said, I love you, they're just not my type.
I finally heard it from a woman.
Thank you.
I mean, come on, that's funny stuff.
That's funny stuff.
And then people break that down, oh, it's because he's sexist.
It's because he's funny, okay?
That's a funny thing to say.
That's a funny thing to say.
The problem is, because the president is actually a performer, Donald Trump is a performer.
He spends his entire life being a performer.
As someone who performs on stage, I know what it's like.
You play to the crowd.
The crowd that's in front of you responds with cheers, and they respond with boos, and they respond with laughter, and you're constantly trying to keep them hooked.
And President Trump even said this when he was just candidate Trump.
He would say that he'd go to a rally, And if he was on his stump speech and he was three quarters of the way through his speech and people looked bored, he would just start saying build the wall because it got people all jazzed up.
Like he actually says that he performs like a performer.
Well, the problem is that when you perform like a performer, the president doesn't actually have a fully functional brain to mouth filter.
Like, that filter is pretty shoddy.
Whatever starts here, ends up here.
And it doesn't matter what started there.
It's one of the good things about the president.
It's why he's authentic.
People like authenticity in politics.
The reason he's authentic feeling is because he's authentic in the same way that my four-and-a-half-year-old is authentic.
She thinks it, it comes out.
That's the way it is.
Like, there's no pretense.
That's good in politics because it's honest, right?
You get the feeling that he's honest.
Even the stuff that Trump says that is dishonest feels honest because he actually believes it at the time.
People who say that Trump is just going out there and he's lying and he's prevaricating.
Donald Trump believes everything that Donald Trump says.
That doesn't mean everything that Donald Trump says is right or factual, but it is authentic.
So that's the good side of Trump.
The problem is, sometimes the thoughts that go through the head should not come out the mouth.
And that happened yesterday.
Twice, actually.
So, he was talking about Greg Ginfort, who is the, he's Montana congressman, and I guess Ginfort was at this rally.
And the president decides, you know what would be a great idea?
To praise that time that Congressman Gianforte body-slammed a reporter.
So if you all recall back to the 2016 campaign, there was a situation in which a reporter confronted Greg Gianforte, it was like two nights before the election, and Gianforte got mad and he went full Macho Man Randy Savage on him.
Right?
He went full Undertaker.
He like grabbed him by the neck and he slammed him to the ground.
And this is caught on tape.
And then he had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
President Trump thinks, you know what?
I'm in front of a crowd.
I've done WWE before.
Let's talk about this thing.
You know, this is an issue that really needs to be out on the table two years later.
Let's do this.
So here is President Trump.
And the only reason I'm smiling is because this is the world we have chosen.
This is the business we have chosen, as Hyman Roth says.
Okay, we're here.
We can't go back.
I'm only smiling because I'm smiling like that guy in the Survivor GIF.
Have you ever seen the Survivor GIF that's online?
Where, where, It's a bunch of women who are standing in the foreground and they don't know a piece of news and the guy in the background knows the piece of news.
And all the women start getting very upset.
They start crying.
And the man in the background just starts smiling broadly.
That's me about politics right now.
I know all this is going to happen.
And if you've been watching, you know all this is going to happen.
So all of the tears and the suffering, Like, that's just because you didn't know it was going to happen.
But if you've been watching, you knew it was going to happen.
What were the chances that Trump wasn't going to mention Gianforte body slamming a reporter if Greg Gianforte is in front of him?
What were the chances?
0%?
Negative 100%?
I'm just shocked that Trump hasn't flown in Gianforte as an actual rally mascot.
Does that mean that it's a smart move?
No, it turns out it's an unbelievably dumb move.
And I'll discuss in a second what Trump said and why it was an incredibly dumb move and why entertaining the crowd in front of you is not always the smartest thing when there are cameras present in the room.
You're not actually speaking to the crowd in front of you.
You are speaking to everyone who can see you on the TV.
But we'll talk about that in just a second.
First, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights.
When the founders crafted the Constitution, The very first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas.
The second thing they did was say, you need a right to bear arms to protect that first right.
Bravo Company Manufacturing believes the same thing.
BCM was started in a garage by Marine vets more than two decades ago to build a professional-grade product that meets combat standards.
BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American regardless of whether they're a private citizen or a professional.
BCM is not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, manufacture life-saving equipment.
They assume that each rifle leaving their shop will actually be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
Because that's what the Second Amendment is for, is to protect you.
It's not so you can go hunting or target shooting.
It's really to protect your life and protect your liberty.
Each component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans to a life-saving standard.
Feels a moral responsibility to provide tools that are not going to fail you in a life-saving situation.
And that's why they also work with leading instructors of marksmanship from top levels of America's special ops forces who can teach the skills necessary to defend yourselves.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com.
These are spectacular dudes.
I know some of them.
Where you can discover more about their products, special offers, upcoming news.
That is BravoCompanyMFG.com.
And go check them out also at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
You can learn more about them.
And the awesome people who make their products.
Again, that's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Go check them out right now.
All right, so, the president of the United States, speaking in Missoula.
I've given enough lead up to this clip.
Here is the president, just fresh off his messaging about how the Democrats are engaged in mob politics and violent rhetoric, talking about how it's a good thing that a Republican congressman body slammed a reporter.
Yep, this is real.
Mm-hmm.
Play it.
And we endorsed Greg very early.
But I had heard that he body slammed a reporter.
And he was way up and I said, oh, this was like the day of the election or just before.
And I said, oh, this is terrible.
He's going to lose the election.
Then I said, well, wait a minute.
I know Montana pretty well.
I think it might help him.
And it did.
Now, he's a great guy.
Tough cookie.
Here's why that's bad.
So, you're trying to make the argument that it's weird to me that I have to explain why it's bad when the President of the United States says it's good for people to bodyslam reporters.
Like, but I guess that's where we are right now.
Guys, you're not supposed to bodyslam anybody in public or in private, it turns out.
Like, violence, not good in civilized society.
Bad.
Bad.
Honest to God, I punish my two-and-a-half-year-old for pushing his sister.
I would not allow a congressman for picking up another human and body-slamming him by the neck.
It's almost two parts of stupidity what Trump said here.
So part one is, I thought it was bad when he body-slammed the guy, and then I thought, well, maybe it'll help.
OK, first of all, you are now removing the moral component from you shouldn't body slam people.
And then second of all, you are saying that your own people, the folks who support you, are the kinds of people who are enthusiastic about the treatment of by violence of your political opponents in the middle of a giant campaign in which you are tweeting hashtag jobs, not mobs.
Why?
Why, God, why?
And then the president doubled down on this.
He challenged Joe Biden.
And he again makes a reference to June 4th.
So it's not a mistake.
It's not like he just slipped out.
Now he knows that the crowd cheered for it.
So because the crowd cheered for it, the president has to double down on it.
Very, very important that the president makes clear, absolutely clear, that he has no problem with body slamming reporters.
Here he is again.
How about sleepy Joe Biden?
Sleepy Joe.
Remember, he challenged me to a fight, and that was fine.
And when I said he wouldn't last long, he'd be down faster than Greg would take him down.
He'd be down so fast.
OK, so now the president is saying, yeah, let's do the fight.
So it was idiotic when Joe Biden challenged Trump to a fight.
And now Trump's like, yeah, let's fight.
First of all, I will admit, would I actually like to see a 2020 debate that is just fisticuffs between two 80 year old men?
You bet your ass I'd love it.
I would love every second of it.
They would just get up there.
They have their walkers.
They have the tennis balls on the bottom and they just club each other.
It would just be great.
I mean, let's— And by the way, it'd probably be more articulate than an actual debate between Joe Biden and President Trump.
Like, there'd actually be more political content to them just smacking each other with walkers than them actually talking politics.
But, is it good that the president again references Gianforte?
No, it is not.
It is not because this is immoral behavior.
I can like, for the millionth time on this program, I can like a lot of President Trump's policy.
I can like a lot of what President Trump does.
I can be inclined to support him in 2020.
And I can also think, hmm, this is stupid and also immoral.
These things can coexist.
Two things can be true at once because this is reality and the world works that way.
Now, President Trump does benefit from the fact that the media are completely insane.
So instead of the media simply saying, You know, he's talking about mob politics and Democrats being violent, and then he goes out and he says stuff like this, and it's really hypocritical and gross and he shouldn't say that sort of stuff.
Instead of them doing that, the direction they go is, you know what?
This is just like the Saudi Arabian government.
That just took a guy in the Istanbul consulate, killed him, chopped up his body, and then liquefied it.
When he says that Greg Gianforte should be body slammed, that's probably, that's that type of attitude that led the Saudis to believe that they could murder a journalist.
I'm not making this up.
This is what members of the media say.
Now, because the members of the media are insane and respond, so let's say Trump says something that is 100% stupid.
And then the members of the Democratic Party and the media come back and say something that is 400% stupid.
Folks on the right go, see, Trump triggered him.
Trump triggered him.
Trump is really good at triggering them.
Well, I don't think it's actual genius.
I always attribute to stupidity what I cannot attribute to malice.
And I think that what we are watching here is President Trump just saying stuff and then the media being unable to hold themselves back and saying stupid things in response.
So do I think that this is President Trump manipulating the media into being crazy?
No, I think they're crazy and he drives them crazy and he's good at poking them, but they have a unique capacity to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.
He'll say something.
And then the media overreaction is so insane that you go, well, I guess I can't side with those people.
So here is CNN, CNN hosts, drawing a comparison and a link between President Trump praising Greg Gianforte and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi Arabian government.
You know how stupid you have to be to make this link?
The Saudi Arabian government has been murdering people since, you know, their entire existence.
They've been murdering dissidents and journalists for literally decades.
But it was only Trump.
We're just going to ignore all of his... Trump came around?
This is the part that's so annoying about the media.
Yes, Trump says bad things.
Guess what?
The world was also a rough, bad place before President Trump was born and before he was president.
The world didn't start spinning the moment that President Trump was elected.
Here are CNN hosts, though, trying to attribute the spike in treatment of bad journalists in places like Saudi Arabia to Trump, as though Trump is dictator of Saudi Arabia.
At that rally last night, we'll play it for you, the president praised the body slamming.
I need a guy who can do a body slamming like that.
So why does it matter?
Well, you might think that assaulting a journalist in any circumstance is bad, but remember, this happens three weeks after the apparent murder and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
And the president, we should note, acknowledged that it certainly looks Okay, so if you think that President Trump is okay with the murder of a journalist because he says something stupid about Greg Gianforte, no.
And if you think that President Trump is suddenly driving press members around the world to be killed because he said, like, the Russian government needed a cue from us, Like, I don't remember this sort of talk about President Obama when journalists were being killed all around the world under his watch, and journalists were legitimately being killed around the world under his watch, but because he didn't say this kind of public stuff, there was no linkage.
Well, there's still no linkage, but Trump says dumb things, which is the obvious, you know, answer to all of this.
The worst example of this came courtesy of Joaquin Castro, one of the Castro brothers, who wants, I guess Julian wants to run for president.
Joaquin is just the other role, he's the other one.
And nobody cares about that much.
And he was on CNN, and he suggested that President Trump's administration had literally greenlit the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi Arabian government.
And then he was kind of using the Gianforte comments as evidence of this.
Do we have that clip?
Let me get to the point that I think is most disturbing right now.
The reporting that Jared Kushner may have, with U.S.
intelligence, delivered a hit list, an enemy's list, to the crown prince, to MBS in Saudi Arabia, and that the prince then may have acted on that, and one of the people that he took action against was Mr. Khashoggi.
That didn't happen.
That's not a thing.
Jared Kushner did not send a hit list to the Saudi Arabian government and tell them to go murder journalists.
There's no evidence of this and I like how Joaquin Castro says there's a rumor going around.
There's a rumor going around that Joaquin Castro dismembers babies and eats them in his backyard.
I don't have to provide any evidence for this rumor.
It's just a rumor.
I heard it.
Around.
This is why Trump will continue to win so long as people do not treat him with the proper level of objectivity.
And by the way, objectivity does not mean moral censure when he says bad stuff.
It means that if you respond like a dumbass to his dumbass comments, then double dumbass on you.
In the words of Star Trek 4.
So, in a second...
We are going to get to more of all of this.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you get the rest of this show live.
You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live.
You get the rest of that garbage Michael Moulse show live.
You get all those wonderful things, plus Michael Moulse.
You get all those things.
And you also get to be part of our mailbag, which we will be doing momentarily.
So I know you have lots of questions, life questions, serious questions.
You want to ask them to me.
I'm not going to answer your questions unless you pay me.
Let's just be frank about this.
So you're gonna need to go and subscribe right now at dailywire.com.
Check that out.
$99 a year.
Gets you the annual subscription.
It comes along with this.
The very greatest in beverage vessels.
I mean, look at this thing.
Lectious tears.
Hot or cold tumbler.
The glory and holiness emanating therefrom.
Illuminate your life!
And fill your mind with joy.
All you have to do is spend $99 to get all those things, and your life is just better.
Plus, we have the Sunday Special coming up this Sunday.
We have a couple of guests that are coming up the next couple of weeks that are big-name guests.
It's gonna be a lot of fun.
And when you subscribe at YouTube or iTunes and leave us a 5-star review, then you get all those things.
Technically, you don't have to leave us a 5-star review to get access to the Sunday Special, but I'm gonna pretend so you give us a 5-star review.
So go check that out right now.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Alrighty.
So meanwhile, as the media continue to wildly overreact and blame President Trump for the murder of a Saudi journalist, I would like to make one note about this particular topic.
When it comes to the murder of this Saudi journalist, couple of things.
One, the people who are most loudly criticizing President Trump for his treatment of the Saudi government are people who are absolutely in the pocket of the Iranians.
It's members of the former Obama administration who want the Middle East to be controlled by an Iranian hegemon spreading its power from Afghanistan in the east to Lebanon in the west and south to Yemen.
It is Obama characters who are saying that Saudi Arabia has to be cut off by the United States.
Now, should there be serious consequences to an ally's murder of a journalist?
Of course there should be.
But I'm not going to take at face value the complaints from Turkey, an actual despotism that has arrested 150,000 dissidents in the last two and a half years.
I'm not going to take at face value their complaints about human rights, and I'm not going to take at face value complaints about human rights from a bunch of people who propped up and gave billions of dollars to the worst human rights violator and dictatorship on planet Earth outside of North Korea.
I'm not going to do that.
So, two things can be true at once.
Don't murder journalists and there should be consequences.
And also, that doesn't mean that we in the United States have an interest in undermining an alliance with the Saudi Arabians on behalf of the Iranians the way that the Obama administration wanted to do.
Okay, you know what?
I can't handle this anymore.
Let's just do some mailbag.
Let's just do mailbag.
Okay, fine.
You know what?
Too much, too much of this.
All right, mailbag time.
Joe says, Hey Ben, who do you think is the favorite to win the 2020 Democratic nomination?
In addition, who are some people you think Trump would beat handily in an election?
Who are some people you think he would struggle to beat?
Thanks and love the show.
Okay, so in the category of people he would beat handily, Cory Booker.
He would mess up Cory Booker, right?
Farticus would go down harder than a journalist at the hands of Greg Gianforte, as the president would say.
Cory Booker is mechanical and awful.
He is awful at his job.
He posed as a moderate and he actually is a radical leftist.
And he, like Hillary Clinton, he's actually like a bad version of a robot.
He's not even like a good T-1000 from Terminator.
He's like the early version that spazzed out a lot and kind of broke down on the battlefield.
He's more like Gizmo from some of those old series.
He's not...
You can see every gear turning for Cory Booker, a man who is very bad at his job.
So Trump would finish him, because Booker is the most inauthentic candidate since Hillary Clinton.
Just a terrible candidate.
I think that Trump would also womp somebody like Eric Garcetti, the LA mayor, who pretends to be cool but is actually just a dork.
So I think Trump would destroy him pretty quickly.
I think that the most dangerous candidate for him Would have been Elizabeth Warren if she didn't implode.
Frankly, I thought she was a lot smarter politically than she is.
And I was shocked to watch her set herself on fire, sending smoke signals to the rest of the world that she didn't know what she was doing.
And she just sat there and set her teepee on fire.
And I didn't understand why she would do that.
But she's kind of taken herself out of the smart candidate circle.
I would say right now, of the top Democratic contenders, the most dangerous is still Biden because it's hard to destroy a guy who's been in the public eye that long.
One of the benefits that Trump has is that everybody has an opinion on him, which means that nothing that you say about him changes anybody's mind.
If you say that Donald Trump is bad with women, everybody goes, eh, right, we knew, yep.
Okay.
And if you say Donald Trump says things sometimes that are really bad and immoral, you're like, well, yep, we've been here, we know.
And if you say that Donald Trump shot a man on Fifth Avenue, we'd all be like, well, kind of, probably, okay.
Right?
Like, he really is right.
That was the truest thing Trump ever said.
High name recognition and a history of skeletons in your closet means that it's very difficult to actually destroy somebody politically if they've dealt with the skeletons in their closet and they're obvious about it.
So Joe Biden has been out there for a long time.
There's not a lot out there that isn't known about Joe Biden.
That makes him dangerous.
Also, he does have blue-collar appeal in a lot of the states that Trump won, places like Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
That is sort of Biden territory, democratically speaking.
So Biden would be a dangerous candidate.
So when Trump says he wants Biden, I don't think that's right.
Kamala Harris, I have yet to see.
So Kamala, she is much better at this routine than Cory Booker is.
She also happens to be somebody, her downside is that she has this kind of absolutely clean, clean-as-the-driven-snow image in a lot of the public mind.
That she's just a prosecutor, a hard-nosed prosecutor asking the tough questions.
I think when people start digging into clean characters in politics, they don't stay clean for long.
And President Trump is a master of throwing dirt on people's hems.
He's just great at it.
So I think he would fare okay against Kamala Harris.
Okay, let's see.
Ophir says, hello, Hebrew Hammer Shapiro.
I loved your election special on Fox News.
Will you ever have a permanent show on Fox?
Hashtag Shapiro 5784, which is 2024 in the Hebrew calendar.
Um, You know, I don't know.
Maybe.
You know, I really enjoyed doing the election special and it was a lot of fun and it was great to be able to do it right before the election.
We'll see what, you know, what comes.
We will find out.
We'll find out.
Joel says, as the saying goes, a way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
What food does your wife make that falls under this axiom?
Any foods that signal events.
Wow.
Dude.
Okay, so I have to be honest about this.
My wife has cooked me three meals in the last ten years.
That is because my wife.
Wait for it.
Is a doctor.
That means that she's incredibly busy.
And she has not actually cooked meals very often at all.
Early in our marriage, the way to my heart was through boiling ravioli like it was literally that.
You just go to the store, pick up some pre-packaged ravioli.
And man, I miss when I was young and my metabolism was great.
Because I would down like three bags of that stuff.
I'd eat like legitimately like 35 ravioli in a sitting.
It was pretty spectacular.
Can't do that anymore.
But, Whoever said that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach?
No, that's true of, like, motherly love.
When it comes to your wife, the way to a man's heart is not through his stomach.
Jordan says, Well, the problem is that every government program also has an incentive to grow.
Seems to me having a profit incentive to imprison people is bad, and I can't see how the free market helps us in this area.
Well, the problem is that every government program also has an incentive to grow.
Name a government program that has shrunk over time.
Every government program that is subsidized by tax dollars ends up growing over time.
So the government also has an interest in growing.
The government has an interest in growing the number of people who work for it, the number of prisons that are built.
There is legitimately not one area of American public life that has shrunk over time.
So if your problem is that the private businesses have an incentive to build new prisons, I'm still confused as to how those private businesses are leveraging us to change our criminal laws to imprison more people.
I don't think the problem with the prison system is a private-public system as much as it is an issue of oversight.
There's not very good oversight of our prison systems, and our criminal laws in some cases are too harsh and in some cases are seriously not harsh enough.
I mean, in the state of California, I think the average time served for a rape is something like five and a half years, which is just nuts.
And what do you do when you have a termite problem?
As an American Jew, it's difficult not to feel threatened by the growing anti-Semitism coming from the extreme liberal left.
This is, of course, a reference to Louis Farrakhan calling for the extermination of Jews and saying that he's not an anti-Semite, he's an anti-termite.
Which is weird, because every time I try to fumigate my house for termites, what they do is they then proceed to build half the inventions in human history, create the basic morality of the West, and create the only successful state in the Middle East.
Every time I try to fumigate the termites, that's what happens.
It's an astonishing thing.
He hasn't been banned from Twitter, of course, because he's Louis Farrakhan, and Democrats love him.
According to Shelby, my very own Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who's supposed to represent one of the most Jewish areas in the world, is being cheered on stage by openly anti-Semitic figures like Linda Sarsour.
Where do you see this ending?
The answer is nowhere good, because, I mean, let's look at history.
It never ends all that well for the Jews.
The difference is, this time, number one, America, I do believe, is a different country.
I do believe that an America steeped in Judeo-Christian values, that believes in the Biblical truth of the Jewish mission and the Christian mission is very friendly to Jews and has historically been so.
And there is a state of Israel, and the state of Israel does have the capacity to defend itself, and that changes the very nature of the history in which we live.
Charles says, Dear Ben, why do large cities seem to always vote Democrat and more rural areas Republican?
The answer is because in rural areas you tend to be a lot more self-reliant and there's a lot less conflict with the people you live around.
If you have a big part of space, if you have a big piece of land, your neighboring can bother you that much.
So you don't feel the necessity to regulate your neighbor all that much because there are no externalities to what your neighbor is doing.
When you live in a city, externalities are everywhere.
When you live in a city, the guy next door is playing his music too loud?
It bothers you.
And that means that you need a regulation about how much noise is allowed in a particular residential building.
If the guy next door decides to keep a messy apartment.
And the smells emanating therefrom are a problem.
You need regulations.
If the streets are not clean and we all share the same streets, well then, that requires regulation too.
And all this requires tax dollars.
Spillover effects in highly populated areas are more significant.
This is the reason why cities tend to be more highly regulated and more top-down driven.
Now, does that mean that's how they should be run, economically speaking?
No.
Doesn't mean that's how they should be run in terms of regulatory policy.
No.
But that's the reason why you get a lot of people together in a very small area.
It does generally drive people toward the idea that we have to heavily lock down how we live in a way that you wouldn't if you were out in the middle of nowhere where you're not bothering anybody and nobody's bothering you.
Reid says, Hey Ben, much like you, I was viciously bullied in middle school and high school.
I feel like a stronger person for it, but I also avoid thinking about those times.
Have you been able to forgive the bullies from your youth?
If yes, how so?
Well, I think forgiveness requires, in Judaism, forgiveness requires somebody to ask for forgiveness.
I think one of the guys who did this asked for forgiveness at one point.
It wasn't actually one of the guys.
It was one of the guys who was there and didn't do anything.
He asked for forgiveness that I had no problem giving.
If somebody came and asked for forgiveness now, I think I would do it just because we were all kids, we were young, and people act like idiots when they're young.
They act terribly when they're young.
But, I don't think you have to forgive to move beyond.
As long as you're not spending your entire life focusing on how you were wrong and letting it eat your brain, then you can just move on with your life.
And sure, when I see those guys, is there a pang of like, God, that guy was just the worst?
Absolutely.
But is that something that I spend an awful lot of time thinking about?
No.
And do I think that it made me stronger?
Yeah, I do.
I think that when you go through adversity and you come out the other side determined to succeed, I think that does make you stronger.
Good question.
says, "Who's a better composer, Chopin or Liszt?" Good question.
I will say that I prefer Chopin, but I am fond of both of them, although I have to say that, to me, both are composers of showier pieces.
I prefer what would be termed more serious music, folks like Brahms.
Let's see.
Stephen says, Dear Ben, I'm a college student and looking for advice on how or where to find court case rulings on topics in general without digging through endless opinion articles.
What other resources does your team use to find objective opinion on topics in regard to laws or government policies?
Please help me be less like Skylar Turden and more like the Benjamin Shapiro show, Facts Over Feelings with Steven.
Skylar Turden, of course, a reference to Steven Crowder's character, Skylar Turden, who does this debate show that I was just on a little bit earlier this week.
When I'm looking for Objective law, I tend to look directly at the court rulings.
This is one of the benefits to being a lawyer.
I can actually read those court rulings, and I can read the law, and I can understand it.
So that, obviously, is very helpful.
Also, there are some sites that are pretty good about trying to sum up these things without too much opinion injected.
SCOTUSblog is pretty famous for being fairly good about this sort of stuff.
Oyez is a good resource on this sort of thing.
They'll just kind of give you the ruling, the controversy of the ruling, and the extension of the ruling.
So there are a number of sites that are not partisan in this way.
So I have to admit, I'm split on congressional term limits.
On the one hand, I think that people should be able to elect whomever they want.
And if people continue to elect the same Congress people because they're lazy, that's on you.
That's your fault.
I think that freedom for voters is something that I am in favor of.
On the other hand, because congressmen have basically been using government resources not only to enrich themselves, but also to enshrine their own capacity to stay in Congress, the idea of term limits has some appeal.
One of the great advantages to being in Congress is you can use office stationary to send out missives that are basically campaign literature, and even if you're not openly campaigning, When you send out a missive to your entire population saying, here's something great I did for you.
It's obviously a piece of campaign literature.
You just guise it as a piece of information that you're trying to give folks.
So, I'm split on it.
I think I could probably fall either way on all of this.
Let's see.
John says, good morning.
Given that Democrats have moved and are still moving further and further to the left in 2020, what do you think will be the most significant or most ridiculous change to the official Democratic Party platform from 2016?
I would not be surprised if the Democratic Party platform in 2016 embraces full-on nationalized healthcare.
I would also not be surprised if they embrace the idea of gender neutrality, meaning that it would be that they're in favor of anti-discrimination laws that prevent Any sort of difference in outcome between men and women, and even reflect the idea that legislation should allow you to self-register in terms of gender.
That would not be a great surprise.
I think that's probably not 2020.
I think by 2024 that's probably in the platform.
Derek says, Hey Ben, I teach in the ROTC department of a major university and our program receives constant opposition from the school to the point where our cadets can't wear uniforms to class without harassment and can't use dummy rifles in training.
How do you recommend we approach the school to solve this problem Thanks.
Well, here's the way I would deal with it, and this is the last question.
The way that I would deal with this is I would actually go to my congressperson, and I would threaten them with the Solomon Amendment.
So the Solomon Amendment says that if you defund ROTC, then you lose your federal funding.
Extending that to the allowance of ROTC to do what it needs to do on college campuses seems to me perfectly rational.
If you're going to try and crack down on ROTC for political reasons, why are you taking federal funding from the federal government that is defending you?
Those ROTC folks are going to be in the military defending the rights of people to be idiots on college campuses all over the world.
Sorry, I'm going to do one more because this one seems very sincere.
Jesse says, I was hoping you could help me because I feel like I'm being a bad conservative.
In the news and popular culture, it's become well documented that conservatives love to denigrate women, marry women, and make them subservient to men.
So far, one and a half years into my marriage, however, my wife hasn't worked, as she is pursuing a master's degree and I'm the primary earner.
Her school schedule often keeps her too busy to help around the house, so I cook about 90% of all the meals, make sure lunch is ready for both of us, meal plan, etc.
She does tend to clean more than I do, but I attribute that more to her having a more strict definition of cleanliness than I do.
I love my wife and I'm very proud of her for the work she's doing, but sometimes I worry.
Am I being a bad conservative for loving my wife and making sacrifices to the overall benefit of our marriage?
Jesse.
Jesse, I feel you, man.
I just said earlier on the program, my wife hadn't cooked a meal in like 10 years.
OK, I spend more time with our kids right now than my wife does.
That'll change when she takes time off or if she works part time after she graduates.
But I've been there.
I feel you, dude.
And no, it doesn't make you a bad conservative, obviously.
I understand the letter is sarcastic.
It doesn't make you a bad conservative to be kind to your wife.
But this does raise a good issue about marriage that you should know.
The reason that marriages fail is because you have unrealistic expectations of the other party.
The lower your expectations are of your spouse, the better your marriage will be.
That doesn't mean that you can't have reasonable expectations that your spouse treats you well.
It doesn't mean that you should allow your spouse to treat you badly or anything like that.
But presumably you married them because you don't think that they will.
What I mean is that if you have an expectation that all housework is going to be split 50-50, not going to happen.
If you have an expectation all childcare is going to be split 50-50, not going to happen.
If you have an expectation that your wife is going to take care of things or your husband is going to take care of things, you're setting yourself up for failure.
The first rule in marriage is do it yourself.
And then if your spouse does something for you, it's a nice thing.
And you can appreciate it.
But you shouldn't... Expectations are a killer of relationships.
This is true in politics also, by the way.
Expectations kill politics.
If you expect that politics is going to solve all of your problems, you're going to be disappointed in life and in politics.
If you expect that the circumstances surrounding you are going to solve all of your personal problems, you're destined to failure.
And if you expect that getting married is going to solve all your problems because your wife is going to butter your bagel every morning, then you're destined to fail.
Before I got married, I actually said to my parents, I hate buttering my bagel.
I hate it.
I hate it.
Now, I'll be honest.
I miss bagels.
I've been on a low carb diet for a long time.
Bagels are spectacular.
I hate it.
When I was a kid, I hated buttering my bagel.
And I always said to my sisters, when I get married, I have only one requirement, and my wife buttered my bagel for me.
My wife has never buttered a single bagel.
Ever.
Has never happened.
You know what?
It's fine.
I don't care.
And if she ever did it, I'd be so happy.
Like, whenever she cooks a meal, I'm the happiest person.
Not because, like, she's a great cook, though she is a very good cook.
She cooks Moroccan.
It's terrific.
But because When you treat everything that your spouse gives you as a gift, you're likely to be a happier person than if you feel like your spouse has done it out of fulfillment of an expectation.
True of God as well, by the way.
True in religion.
People think that God is a gumball machine.
If I pray hard enough and if I act well enough, God will be nice to me.
God has no requirement to be nice to you.
That is not God's job.
Your job is to do your duty.
And then, your job is to acknowledge that God is in control of the world as a religious person.
This is why whenever people say, and listen, I feel the emotional appeal of something bad happened to me in my life and therefore I blame God for it.
I feel the emotional appeal of that, particularly in absolutely tragic situations.
Something happens to a child, you live through the Holocaust, you know, stuff like that.
But, expectations of God are unfair to God and unfair to you.
Because that's not the way the world works.
And then when God gives you a gift, you can be grateful for it.
Gratitude is the number one ingredient in happiness.
Okay, time for a couple of things I like, and then a couple of things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
So, I was on an Elvis kick this week.
As you know, last week I actually visited Graceland.
Senya is very pleased.
Senya is a huge Elvis fan.
And we brought her back a mug from Graceland, as well as a cup from Graceland.
We're cheap that way.
So, we've been doing a little bit of Elvis this week.
I have to say, I didn't realize, because I hadn't listened to a lot of Elvis, that Elvis actually could sing.
Because when you actually just do pop culture stuff with Elvis, it's always like Elvis impersonators in Vegas.
It's just not great stuff.
Bad Elvis, late Elvis, fat Elvis.
And that's not best Elvis.
Or, you have the Jailhouse Rock version of Elvis, which is a lot of energy, but not necessarily tremendous vocal skills.
He's a very good ballad singer.
I think his best stuff is actually ballad singing.
He's actually pretty soulful.
So here is what I think is his best song, Can't Help Falling in Love, which was from Blue Hawaii, I believe, was originally recorded for this.
And it's quite a beautiful song.
One of the funny things about a lot of Elvis songs, Elvis never wrote any of his own stuff.
He didn't write a single.
I think he wrote two of his own songs his entire career.
But, half of his great songs are actually old foreign songs translated into English with different lyrics.
So, it's Now or Never is Solemnia, just slowed down.
And this song, Can't Help Falling in Love, was actually an old French ballad that was updated and then given English lyrics.
What's the other famous Elvis song?
I mean, there are many, but there's a very famous Elvis ballad Love Me Tender is actually an old Southern Civil War ballad that was updated and given new lyrics.
Kind of interesting stuff.
Anyway, here is Elvis singing Can't Help Falling In Love.
My kids love this song.
They're right, it's a great song.
Wise men say Only fools rush in But I can't help Falling in love with you That's a great sound.
Also, his gospel stuff is really good.
Go listen to his gospel stuff.
He grew up singing gospel, and he's very into gospel music.
Elvis was really kind of a fusion musician.
He did gospel, he did R&B, and he did country.
And he sort of merged all those three into one form.
I've become a new appreciator of Elvis since I visited Graceland.
And that's why I'm going to do my hair like Mathis Glover.
So, other things that I like.
So, this is really spectacular.
Nikki Haley, my spirit animal, sadly to depart from the Trump administration.
I still lament the movement of my spirit animal on from here.
She was at the Al Smith dinner, and she dropped a great line on Elizabeth Warren.
It's just, this is great stuff.
So here is my beloved spirit animal, Nikki Haley.
Last year you went with Paul Ryan, who's a boy scout, and that's fine, but a little boring.
So this year you wanted to spice things up again, right?
I get it.
You wanted an Indian woman, but Elizabeth Warren failed her DNA test.
That's a good joke.
See?
Republicans can tell jokes.
Nikki Haley's great.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
If you feel like everybody is taking crazy pills, that's because they are.
So, I'm about to play for you the worst ad in political history.
Are you ready for this thing?
This thing is hot garbage.
So, this is an ad that is currently making its way across the FM waves in Arkansas.
It is targeted at black voters.
And it is from a GOP super PAC, a GOP-associated super PAC.
It's not actually run by the GOP and it's not run by Congressman French Hill.
The ad is run on behalf of Congressman French Hill from this kind of unnamed group.
The ad starts off bad, but if you wait for it, it gets worse.
It's so bad, it's great.
So here is the ad for Congressman French Hill from Black Americans for the President's Agenda.
Woo boy!
What will happen to our husbands, our fathers, or our sons when a white girl lies on them?
Girl, white Democrats will be lynching black folk again.
Honey, I've always told my son, don't be messing around with that.
If you get caught, she will cry rape.
I'm voting to keep Congressman French here and the Republicans because we have to protect our men and boys.
We can't afford to let white Democrats take us back to bad old days of race verdicts, life sentences, and lynchings when a white girl screams rape.
Well.
That.
Well.
Um.
Okay.
Yeah.
So there's that.
Moving on, Steve Schmidt.
What can you say about that?
My goodness.
Okay, well then.
So French Hill, to his credit and to his necessity, came out and said, that's a bad ad.
I have nothing to do with that ad.
I certainly hope not, because whoever did have to do with that ad obviously fell from the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
They also fell from the racist tree and then hit every branch on the way down, followed by falling from the sexist tree and then hitting every branch on the way down.
Solid stuff there.
We've seen some pretty spectacular ads in this last election campaign, haven't we?
I mean, we had the guy who's doing Cocaine Mitch, which was just amazing.
This tops Cocaine Mitch, I think.
This is a better ad than Cocaine Mitch.
Cocaine Mitch, although, that will stick a little bit longer, because it actually is a great name for Mitch McConnell, Cocaine Mitch.
Okay.
Oh yeah, that was the same ad where he did describe Cocaine Mitch being married to a China person, which was pretty great.
Okay, other things that I hate.
So I think we can all acknowledge that that is not a good ad.
However, MSNBC cannot acknowledge what is a good guest.
So, Steve Schmidt, former Republican consigliere to the McCain campaign, who's made a living for the past eight years, nine years, ten years, off of basically going on MSNBC and ripping into other Republicans.
He says that the Republican Party is treating immigrants like slaves at an auction, which makes perfect sense if you know nothing about immigration, slavery, or auctions.
So here is Steve Schmidt doing this routine.
When they reach the border, and they see a uniform with an American flag, and they are no longer safe.
But that baby is ripped away and put into an internment camp?
No, please.
This is a moral outrage that hearkens to the worst excesses in the history of the country.
To the separation of families at the slave auction blocks.
Yes.
To the separation of Native American families.
I love everybody nodding along like this is an intelligent thing to say.
And Rosie O'Donnell, I'm old enough to remember when the media thought that Kanye West was crazy.
And then they brought Rosie O'Donnell on MSNBC and said that Rosie O'Donnell was totally with it.
Rosie O'Donnell's a crazy person.
Rosie O'Donnell is a legit insane person.
And just to prove that, here's Rosie O'Donnell saying, in that same segment, as she nods there, sagely, Comparing an actual 9th Circuit Court of Appeals policy about separation of families at the border, specifically designed to prevent the detention of children in jails.
Instead, the children were supposed to be given over to guardians outside jails, right?
That's a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, implemented under the Obama administration and then extended under the Trump administration.
Rosie O'Donnell sitting there nodding sagely when that is compared to a slave auction, which is deeply insulting to black folks.
It really is.
Here is Rosie O'Donnell then saying that she wants to send the military to the White House after Trump.
Do you even constitution, bro?
People were like, Marshall, what's wrong with you?
You're a lunatic.
He wants to send the military to the border.
I want to send the military to the White House to get him.
Gene.
So much humoring.
Ah, the laughter!
Ah, the revelry!
She wants to send the military to the White House to get him.
Man, such good joking.
Such good comedian-ing from Rosie O'Donnell.
Ah, my heart, I can't take it anymore.
Okay, well, we'll be back here on Monday with all the latest news.
Can it get more absurd from here?
I would have said no, did we not live in a parallel universe.
But in this universe, in this universe, not only can it, it most certainly will.
And we'll be back on Monday to discuss the fact that King Kong has overtaken the entire White House and is now ripping out the West Wing and replacing it with a Polly Pocket set.
We'll be back here on Monday to discuss that news.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection