Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

58:27

The ‘Real’ Jews | Ep. 669

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleads guilty.
	And there's a lot of news about it.
	A CNN commentator calls for the elimination of the Juden from the Middle East.
	And a new study suggests that white leftists pandered to minorities.
	Who would have thought it?
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	The news cycle simply does not slow, and we will get to all of it in just one second.
	But first, let's talk about what you need to do if you actually want to sell your house.
	So, you know, a couple of years ago, I had to sell my house or wanted to sell my house, and I was looking for a great real estate agent.
	And it was very difficult.
	I'd go through several real estate agents before we found the right one who was able to sell our home at the right price in the right amount of time.
	You shouldn't have to struggle through that.
	You should have the best real estate agent available to you anytime.
	And this is why you need HomeLike.com.
	It's the innovative solution that makes it easy to find the best real estate agent for you.
	Why do you need a top real estate agent?
	Because on average, top agents sell homes 8 days faster and 9% above asking price, which could mean thousands of dollars back in your pocket.
	Having a great real estate agent makes a huge difference.
	I know, I've had bad ones and I've had good ones.
	HomeLight is 100% free, unbiased, and it takes less than two minutes.
	Unlike some other real estate agent sites, agents actually can't pay to advertise on HomeLight.
	Instead, HomeLight uses data from over 38 million home sales and 2 million agents to recommend the top real estate agents.
	HomeLight brings trust and transparency to the real estate space so you can buy or sell with confidence knowing that you're working with the best real estate agent for your needs.
	They've introduced over 247,000 buyers and sellers to top local real estate agents.
	So if you're planning to sell your home, now is the time to find the best real estate agent.
	All you have to do right now to get started is go to HomeLight.com slash Shapiro today.
	That's HomeLight.com slash Shapiro.
	Get started.
	You can earn up to $500 when you buy or sell your home using a HomeLight-referred real estate agent.
	Again, that's H-O-M-E-L-I-G-H-T.com.
	Homelite dot com slash Shapiro for up to 500 bucks when you find the best real estate agent and buy or sell your home with Homelite.
	Totally worth it.
	Really.
	I mean, this is an important thing.
	Terms and conditions do apply.
	Go check it out.
	Homelite dot com slash Shapiro.
	OK, so the big breaking news, Michael Cohen, the president's personal lawyer.
	Not a smart cookie, as the president might say.
	He has now pled guilty in a new deal with Robert Mueller.
	Now, this is kind of a shock because people thought that Michael Cohen, the president's personal lawyer, was going to plead guilty in a deal with the Southern District of New York, the D.A.
	of the Southern District of New York.
	That's because the original investigation around Michael Cohen that everybody was worried about was the investigation concerning the supposed bribery of Stormy Daniels.
	The original story, if you recall, was that President Trump had allegedly used Michael Cohen as a thoroughfare for paying off his former lover, Stormy Daniels, and had done so specifically in order to avoid campaign finance law.
	That was the allegation, in any case.
	That's why the Southern District of New York was investigating, because it had nothing to do with election 2016 and the Trump-Russia election stuff.
	It had to do with campaign finance reform.
	It had to do with the election, but not with any of the Trump-Russia stuff that is actually under Robert Mueller's purview.
	Well, now it turns out that Michael Cohen has pled guilty in a deal with Robert Mueller.
	So why exactly is he pleading guilty in a deal with Robert Mueller?
	Well, here's where things begin to get quite dicey for the Trump campaign slash administration.
	Here is the ABC News report.
	Special Counsel Robert Mueller has reached a tentative deal with Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney and longtime fixer for President Donald Trump, sources told ABC News.
	Cohen appeared in federal court in Manhattan Thursday, where he entered a guilty plea for misstatements to Congress in closed-door testimony last year about his contacts during the presidential campaign, when the AP reported that it was a surprise appearance, which is sort of a weird statement.
	It's like Barbara Streisand showing up randomly at the Hollywood Bowl, except that it was Michael Cohen showing up in court to plead guilty.
	First of all, It is a very rare occurrence when somebody pleads guilty for misstatements to Congress.
	That's very rare.
	What it suggests is that Mueller thinks that he had more hanging over Cohen's head.
	Cohen pled guilty to a lesser charge and then gave all sorts of material to the Mueller investigation.
	So what exactly is the Mueller investigation getting in return for allowing Michael Cohen to take a light guilty plea?
	Well, here's what ABC News reports.
	Cohen's earlier plea deal with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York implicated President Trump in campaign finance felonies.
	Since then, Cohen has spent more than 70 hours in interviews with Mueller's team.
	Never a good thing.
	The questioning has focused on contacts with Russians by Trump associates during the campaign, Trump's business ties to Russia, obstruction of justice, and talk of possible pardons.
	Sources familiar with the discussions have told ABC News.
	Kendall Coffey, a former U.S.
	attorney in Florida, says the potential significance of Cohen's cooperation is immense.
	So what exactly is Cohen telling the Mueller investigation?
	That is not eminently clear at this point, but the suggestion is that Cohen lied to Congress about President Trump's continuing connections with Russian companies in the middle of the 2016 election.
	Sources familiar with the special counsel's proposed agreement with Cohen told ABC News the 52-year-old New Yorker will admit to making multiple misstatements to two congressional intelligence committees investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.
	It was not immediately clear what Cohen told the congressional committees in the fall of 2017 that he will now say was false.
	The other reports are already speculating that it's that Cohen had said that Trump was not involved in negotiations over the building of a Trump Tower in Moscow into mid-2016, and now it turns out that Trump was directly involved in exactly those sorts of conversations.
	Cohen played an integral role, according to ABC News, in discussions about a possible Trump Tower in Moscow, negotiations that were going on at least through the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign.
	So, here's where we get a problem, okay?
	The reason that this is a problem is because If it turns out that the president of the United States during the 2016 campaign was involved in business transactions with the Russian government and the Russian government was basically rooting for Trump to win because they thought that they had him bought and thus they were helping him out in the election, this is another avenue of investigation for Mueller.
	Cohen, according to the Steele dossier, it asserted that Cohen had a key role in secretive Trump campaign connections with Kremlin operatives.
	Cohen claimed in a statement that the proposal he worked on during the campaign to build a Trump property in Moscow, quote, was solely a real estate deal and nothing more.
	Cohen said the plan was terminated in January 2016 after it was determined that the project was not viable for business reasons.
	Now, apparently, he is saying something different.
	Now he is saying that the deal continued all the way into June 2016.
	This is according to Reuters.
	President Trump has responded.
	He denied working on a Trump Organization real estate project in Moscow, which Cohen said they'd pursued until June 2016 during the presidential campaign.
	Trump attacked his former lawyer, who called him a weak person, and accused Cohen of lying about the real estate project to try and obtain a reduced sentence from prosecutors.
	Trump told reporters outside the White House he had decided not to build the building in Moscow, although he did not specify when he decided against pursuing that project.
	Now, again, the reason this is important is because if Trump was actually in the middle of business negotiations with a geopolitical enemy of the United States in the middle of a presidential run in which there are accusations that that geopolitical enemy was rooting for Trump and trying to hack his political opponent in order to release material to get an ally elected, that is a problem.
	Now, even if that were true, would that mean that there was active collusion between Trump and the Russians?
	No, actually.
	Let's say that President Trump were in the middle of a business relationship with the Russian government to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
	Would that look bad?
	Sure, that would look really bad.
	Would it look about as bad as Hillary Clinton using the State Department to reach out to various and sundry governments who were giving donations to the Clinton Foundation?
	It would look kind of like that.
	Would it mean that President Trump was selling influence?
	No, because he wasn't president yet.
	Would it mean that he was colluding with the Russians to release Hillary Clinton's emails?
	No, that would have to be proven independently.
	However, it would create an incentive for the Russian government to want Trump to win, and this has been a hot point of contention In the Mueller investigation all along.
	Is it the Russians really wanted Trump to win or is it that they just wanted to cause electoral chaos?
	There's been a split in the intelligence community over which it is.
	Did they actually want Trump to become president and so they were rooting against Hillary and trying to undermine Hillary or were they undermining Hillary just to create chaos assuming that Hillary Clinton was going to win anyway?
	So all of this is is obviously dicey for President Trump and it comes amidst a bunch of other dicey material with regard to President Trump That other material includes the Mueller office now looking at phone calls between President Trump and Roger Stone, a longtime President Trump confidant.
	As we mentioned yesterday, there was all this material that was coming out with regard to Roger Stone, the suggestion that Roger Stone had been coordinating with WikiLeaks in the dump of material on Hillary Clinton and that he had been sort of a go-between for President Trump.
	Mueller's office is now apparently looking at late-night phone calls between Roger Stone and President Trump, according to the Washington Post.
	This broke late yesterday.
	The calls almost always came deep into the night.
	Caller ID labeled them unknown, but Roger Stone said he knew to pick up quickly during those harried months of the 2016 presidential campaign.
	There'd be a good chance the voice on the other end of the line would belong to President Donald Trump than just Donald Trump.
	Dialing from a blocked phone number, those nocturnal chats and other contacts between the man who now occupies the Oval Office and an infamous political trickster have come under intensifying scrutiny as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation bores into whether Stone served as a bridge between Trump and WikiLeaks as the group was publishing hacked emails.
	Roger Stone, of course, denies that President Trump and he ever talked WikiLeaks.
	Who the hell knows whether that is true or not.
	Roger Stone is a congenital liar, and President Trump is not exactly forthcoming on these matters.
	Here's Roger Stone telling Sean Hannity, no, no, no, we never talked about any of that sort of WikiLeaks stuff.
	Did you ever talk to the president about Julian Assange or WikiLeaks ever?
	Absolutely not.
	So the president told the truth in what we learned today?
	Yes, absolutely.
	At no time did Donald Trump and I, either candidate Trump or President Trump, discuss WikiLeaks.
	Meanwhile, Jerome Corsi, another supposed go-between between WikiLeaks and actually Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi rejected a plea agreement this week suggesting that he was not going to be forced to lie by the Mueller team.
	He says, listen, I'm not taking a deal and I could go to jail because I'm not going to allow Team Mueller to force me to lie in order to go after President Trump.
	You were offered a plea deal by Bob Mueller's team.
	That's correct.
	Why did you reject it?
	Well, I felt the deal was fraudulent.
	It required me to lie, and it required me to violate various regulations, and even, I thought, commit fraud.
	And I won't do that.
	I will not lie to keep myself out of jail.
	And I realized that I could go to jail for the rest of my life.
	I'm 72 years old.
	I might die in jail, but I'm still making this decision.
	OK, so one of the possibilities here is that it's not that he's actually innocent and all this stuff.
	It's that he's angling for a presidential pardon like Paul Manafort.
	But Michael Cohen obviously has a spirit of a presidential pardon and is now working with the Mueller investigation forthwith.
	Stone and Corsi both have defense arrangements with President Trump's team.
	This leads to a point that we were talking about yesterday with regard to the possibility of President Trump pardoning Paul Manafort or pardoning Roger Stone or pardoning Jerome Corsi.
	The president could theoretically cut off all ends of an investigation simply by pardoning all the people who are under investigation.
	Ken White, known as Pope had on Twitter, is a criminal defense lawyer, former federal prosecutor.
	He has an article in The New York Times specifically talking about Paul Manafort and why Paul Manafort has a defense agreement and why exactly the Mueller team is now deciding to revoke his plea arrangement in favor of prosecuting him more strongly.
	Here's what Ken White says.
	He says, on Tuesday, The Times reported that Mr. Manafort's lawyers have been telling Mr. Trump's lawyers what the special counsel asked Mr. Manafort and what the latter said in response.
	The first development isn't much of a surprise.
	This is the development that suggests that Mueller filed a status report accusing Manafort of lying.
	Wise prosecutors know cooperating witnesses can be notoriously unreliable.
	It's not unusual for prosecutors to catch cooperators in lies or recidivism.
	But the second development, Mr. Manafort's lawyers have been spilling the details of their clients' cooperation to Trump lawyers under the cover of an often used but little understood pact called a joint defense agreement is shocking.
	The revelation is a potential catastrophe for everyone involved.
	In a second, I'm going to get into Ken White's analysis of what exactly it means that Paul Manafort now has a joint defense agreement with President Trump.
	And apparently it looks like the same thing may soon exist with Jerome Corsi or Roger Stone.
	What all this means for President Trump and impeachment, we'll get to in just a second.
	First, let's talk about how you defend your rights.
	The reality is that the Founding Fathers believed deeply in Second Amendment.
	Why?
	Because they knew that the only thing standing between tyranny and the American people is the American people's right to defend themselves.
	Bravo Company Manufacturing knows that too.
	They were started in a garage by a Marine veteran 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 be used in a life or death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
	Every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled, tested by Americans to a life-saving standard.
	BCM works with leading instructors of marksmanship.
	From top levels of America's Special Operations Forces, from Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance, to U.S.
	Army Special Ops Forces, who can teach the skills necessary to defend yourself, your family, or others.
	They have all sorts of great services, plus they produce great products.
	To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
	That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	If you need more convincing, go check out all of their videos over at YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
	That's YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
	OK, so back to the analysis of Paul Manafort and whether Paul Manafort will be pardoned by President Trump.
	Ken White analyzing this over at The New York Times.
	He says that the development that Manafort has been coordinating with Trump is a blow to Robert Mueller's team, because their questions to Mr. Manafort may be a roadmap to at least part of their special counsel investigation.
	Mr. Trump's lawyers can now adjust their defense and the president's responses, and with their filing on Monday asserting Mr. Manafort's dishonesty, the prosecutors have now lost him as a cooperating witness.
	It's a blow to Mr. Manafort, who will receive no sentencing credit for his brief cooperation.
	But it also may be a blow to President Trump.
	Why?
	Because it turns out that the joint defense agreement may not, in fact, hold.
	Here's what Ken White says.
	He says, Mr. Manafort, like many of the hapless former luminaries snared in Mr. Mueller's investigation, had a joint defense agreement with Mr. Trump.
	Such a pact lets defense lawyers exchange information without waiving attorney-client privilege.
	So Manafort's lawyer could talk with Trump's lawyer about what was going on and privilege would not be waived.
	And so the federal government couldn't come in and say, OK, what were you guys talking about?
	What were you coordinating about?
	is very beneficial to Team Trump, obviously.
	Under normal circumstances, if a lawyer reveals what a client said in confidence or reveals strategy and analysis of a case, that information is no longer confidential, however, and the government can compel testimony about it.
	A joint defense agreement allows lawyers for people with a common interest in a case to share what they learned from clients without that information losing its confidential nature.
	Joint defense agreements are pretty common, but the pact almost always explicitly require the parties to withdraw from the agreement immediately if they cooperate with the government.
	In other words, if Manafort's team and Trump's team were coordinating before any of the plea agreement was arranged with Manafort, And then Manafort made the plea deal.
	And anything they said after the plea deal is no longer confidential.
	When someone begins to cooperate, says Ken White, his interests are no longer in common with the other members of the joint defense agreement.
	By definition, they're now adverse.
	This is often how we learn that someone will soon plead guilty.
	The former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, also had a defense pact with the president, but his withdrawal from it signaled his cooperation and plea.
	So maybe what happened here is that Mr. Manafort's lawyers actually uncovered By doing this, they may have actually uncovered their communications with Team Trump and offered material to Mueller.
	So all of this is complicated.
	All of it's complex.
	Suffice it to say, none of it is very good for President Trump.
	Now President Trump is responding to all of this with the ire that Could either demonstrate guilt or innocence, right?
	He's saying that all of this is a witch hunt, that there was no collusion with the Russians.
	And again, I tend to believe that there was no collusion with the Russians, of which President Trump was aware, because President Trump does not have a greatly functional brain to malfilter.
	And that means that he says whatever comes to mind.
	He never said that he was colluding with the Russians, so I don't think that he was.
	I mean, really, it almost is that simple, because the president is not particularly good at hiding things.
	But With that said, is it possible that collusion was going on at a low level with Don Trump Jr.
	and the Russians, or with Paul Manafort and the Russians?
	That's a possibility as well.
	President Trump is responding to all of this by saying, listen, enough is enough.
	Enough is enough.
	If we're actually going to do this thing, then I will go after the Democrats.
	If the Democrats continue to push this forward, then I will hit back as hard as I possibly can.
	I'm just going to declassify everything that makes Democrats look bad.
	Here's what President Trump had to say about it.
	He said, what he actually said is in an interview with the New York Post, He said, if they go down the presidential harassment track, if they want to go and harass the president and the administration, I think that would be the best thing that would happen to me.
	I'm a counterpuncher and I will hit them so hard.
	They'd never been hit like that.
	He said, I think it would help my campaign.
	If they want to play tough, I will do it.
	They will see how devastating these pages are, meaning that the FBI investigation was a setup by members of the Obama administration to get him back in 2016.
	There's no actual material.
	This is all basically just a hit job.
	He says that he could declassify FISA warrant applications and other documents from Robert Mueller's probe.
	He predicted the disclosure would expose the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Clinton campaign as being in cahoots to set him up.
	This would be the longtime theory on the right.
	The Mueller investigation was launched under false pretenses before it was the Mueller investigation, right?
	When it was just an FBI investigation into Russian collusion, it was launched by people like Peter Strzok, And Lisa Page in an attempt to get Trump because they didn't like Trump personally.
	And then this thing is just spun out of control and that the Clinton campaign had put together the Steele dossier, which was used as the most solid basis for attempting to go after President Trump and his allies like Carter Page.
	President Trump threatening to declassify all that.
	I've always asked why he didn't declassify all of that.
	He basically said, I didn't want to do it yet because I can save it.
	Meaning that maybe he wants to drop that as the responsive bombshell.
	Instead of just declassifying the stuff and undercutting the Mueller investigation, he wanted to wait until it was most useful to him and then drop it at that point, which is An interesting move.
	I don't think that it's very good for transparency, but if President Trump does have the material, I think that it would behoove him to drop it now as opposed to later.
	Again, using material that implicates the FBI, DOJ, and Clinton campaign and corruption, keeping that under wraps as just a response may be politically smart, but it's not particularly good for the country.
	President Trump also responded to accusations that he is engaged in obstruction of justice because the president I came out and you recall that he has now gotten rid of Rod Rosenstein over at the Department of Justice.
	And he had retweeted a picture of a bunch of Democrats and Rod Rosenstein showing his deputy attorney general there.
	And they are all behind bars.
	Why was he showing his own deputy attorney general behind bars?
	Well, I guess the reason he's showing his own deputy attorney general behind bars is because, as he says, he never should have picked a special counsel.
	So obviously he's very angry about all of this.
	He's not happy about Anything that is happening.
	He said that Rosenstein belongs in jail because he never should have picked a special counsel.
	By the way, I'm sorry.
	He has not actually fired Rod Rosenstein at this point.
	He just... Sessions is gone, but Rosenstein is still there.
	In any case...
	None of this translates well for President Trump.
	Does any of this actually spell Russian collusion?
	That's the bottom line to everybody.
	The claim that was made by the Mueller investigation, and that they still have to prove, is that there was actual collusion between Team Trump and the Russian government, and that that investigation is going to undercover that collusion, and that the president is going to be implicated in that collusion.
	It's now been nigh on two years.
	It's been two years since all of this began.
	We have yet to see any solid evidence that that occurred.
	We've seen hints.
	We've seen talk about Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi.
	We've seen a lot of dots.
	We've seen not a lot of connections between those dots.
	We haven't seen clear testimony at this point.
	Jumping to conclusions would be wrong.
	And while the left is overtly excited about everything that is currently happening right now, I have my doubts that this is going to result in exactly what people on the left and in the media hope it results in, namely the demise of President Trump.
	I don't actually think that that's...
	What's going to happen here?
	I think that in the end, the Mueller report will come out.
	It will implicate some low level people.
	It will implicate people like Michael Cohen.
	It may hit Paul Manafort.
	But I don't think it's going to get all the way to the president of the United States.
	I think Trump is probably safe here, which is why his best strategy is to not do much here and simply let the investigation go forward.
	OK, in just a second, I want to talk about media bias on another score.
	And An epidemic of anti-semitism that is acceptable, according to the left.
	I'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the amount of stress that takes place upon your eyes every day simply by the fact that you're staring at screens.
	Like, I stare at screens all day long, right?
	I stare at my computer screen, or I stare at a television screen, or I'm staring at my phone legitimately all day long.
	And you know what helps me with the stress on my eyes?
	Felix Grey glasses.
	They filter out 90% of high-energy blue light.
	They eliminate the glare coming off of all those screens.
	So I can live my life without those tired, dry eyes or blurry vision or headaches.
	Usually it seems like a hassle to protect your eyes, which is why most people don't do it.
	You don't have to put one of those crazy screens over your computer screen that make it look all dark.
	Felix Grey glasses aren't like those weird computer glasses that you've seen before either.
	They're not looking like those Coke bottle glasses from Office Space.
	There's no yellow lens tint and Felix Grey glasses are handcrafted from premium Italian acetate so they won't make you look nerdy, which by the way would be a massive improvement for me.
	In fact, throwing on some Felix Greys is an easy way to look pretty put together.
	Felix Grey glasses are available in non-prescription, prescription, and readers makes me look sophisticated.
	When I just feel like looking more intelligent, I throw on my Felix Gray glasses and walk around the office.
	Don't go another day looking at screens without the help of some Felix Grays.
	Go to FelixGrayGlasses.com slash Ben to protect those eyes today.
	That's FelixGrayGlasses.com slash Ben.
	Go check it out, honestly.
	Avoid the headaches.
	FelixGrayGlasses.com slash Ben.
	Use that slash Ben so that they know that we sent you.
	So I have to say that in the past few weeks, really since the Pittsburgh shooting, the left has been on a tear about the supposed anti-Semitism of the Trump administration, We saw a piece from the New York Times saying that Jared and Ivanka were complicit in anti-Semitism.
	We saw many pieces talking about how the Trump administration had forwarded anti-Semitism, rises in hate crimes against Jews and all the rest.
	First of all, The statistics that were cited by the ADL were just not true.
	But, beyond that, if you want to talk about real, mainstreamed antisemitism, it does not exist in the Trump administration.
	It exists on the left.
	And this is coming from a guy who received an enormous amount of antisemitism in 2016, like the most of anyone on the internet in 2016, from the alt-right, from people who I thought Trump was winking and nodding at during 2016.
	But, To suggest the Trump administration has been complicit in antisemitism is just bizarre.
	It's a bizarre claim.
	There's no evidence of it whatsoever.
	The Trump administration, not the Trump campaign.
	The Trump administration.
	That is a bizarre, weird, and unsupportable claim.
	The mainstream left, however, is daily involved in antisemitism.
	And it is amazing to watch as the left defends its own from open antisemitism.
	The latest example comes courtesy of a guy named Mark Lamont Hill.
	Mark Lamont Hill is considered an intelligent political commentator over at CNN.
	And he was speaking at the UN yesterday, and he called for the elimination of the state of Israel.
	He used the language of Hamas.
	Here's what Mark Lamont Hill had to say.
	We must advocate and promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but we cannot Endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing.
	To commit to political action that will give us what justice requires, and that is a free Palestine.
	Okay, of free Palestine.
	And then he went on, and he said that the free Palestine must be from the river to the sea.
	Which is the 1488 statement.
	So the 1488 statement in Nazi terminology, it's meant to be, 88 is supposed to be the 8th letter of the alphabet twice.
	So, Heil Hitler.
	The 14 words are something like, uh, we pledge to protect and keep the white race, or some such nonsense.
	The 1488 statement is sort of the credo of Nazis, okay?
	The credo of radical Muslim Nazis, okay?
	The credo of these folks is, Palestine shall be free from the river to the sea.
	This is a thing that gets chanted at every terrorist rally.
	The idea being that Palestine from the river to sea, meaning Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, will be entirely Judenrein.
	The idea here will be that Palestine will exist.
	Israel will no longer exist.
	Palestine will replace Israel.
	And that inherently means the destruction of the Jews and the genocide of the Jews.
	They've not been hiding the ball on this.
	It is not as though any of this is a giant secret.
	None of this is a giant secret.
	Okay, and Marc Lamont Hill has a long history of such anti-Semitic comments.
	In May 2018, Hill implied that Israelis were murderers in the Huffington Post, according to Hank Barian over at the Daily Wire.
	He says, this is about the 70-year struggle of a people who have been expelled, murdered, robbed, imprisoned, and occupied.
	He defended Palestinians' right to use violence against Israel, and then said the Palestinians actually wanted peace, which is nonsense.
	He then continued by slamming Israel's right to exist.
	He said, by naturalizing the idea that nation states have a right to exist, we undermine our ability to offer a moral critique of Israel or any settler colony's origin story.
	Israel is not a settler colony.
	Israel is the eternal homeland of the Jewish people.
	The only reason anyone cares about it ever historically is because the Jews were there first.
	It is biblically promised.
	And not only that, there's been a continuous presence in the land of Israel by Jews since anyone gave a damn about the land.
	Mark Lamont Hill is also a guy who has basically sloughed off openly anti-Semitic commentary from Louis Farrakhan.
	Mark Lamont Hill said that it was offensive to compare Palestinian resistance to settler colonialism to the actions of ISIS, even while Hamas was firing rockets at Jewish areas.
	And in 2014, he tweeted that he opposed the occupation of Gaza.
	The only problem being that there was no occupation of Gaza.
	Israel left Gaza in August of 2005.
	In 2008, Sean Hannity confronted Marc Lamont Hill with the remarks of Louis Farrakhan.
	Louis Farrakhan had called Judaism a gutter religion.
	Marc Lamont Hill was tight with Louis Farrakhan.
	And here is what Hill said.
	He said, quote, I do not know whether Farrakhan is an anti-Semite.
	Those quotes are severely out of context.
	So, Marc Lamont Hill has been a longtime anti-Semite.
	There's not really a lot of question about this.
	His statement here is an open embrace of anti-Semitism.
	So, what have you seen from the left?
	Nothing.
	Dead silence.
	Nothing.
	Not a thing.
	So, we get a lot about Steve King.
	We get a lot about President Trump.
	We get a lot about the alt-right.
	And we hear a lot about anti-Semitism on the right, even though the amount of anti-Semitism on the right is significantly lower than the amount of anti-Semitism on the left.
	But Marc Lamont Hill goes out there and says, from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free, calling for the full-scale genocide of 7 million Jews.
	And everybody's like, oh, whatever.
	Whatever, he's just a CNN commentator.
	So what?
	And this, this does have an interesting relationship with the left's view of antisemitism generally.
	So in this context, I bring up Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	Now, every time I bring up Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I do so with this proviso.
	The reason I'm talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is because she has been appointed by the media and many on the left as a thought leader for the Democratic Party.
	I'm not picking, It's not like I just pick random Congress people out of a hat.
	It's not like I'm just, there are 435 of them.
	It's not like I'm just like, you know what, let's talk about some weirdo from like, from Kansas today.
	Okay, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez was a national figure.
	She was made a national figure and the face of the party by the media.
	When the face of your party is associating with open anti-Semites like Linda Sarsour, when the face of your party Has embraced everyone associated with the boycott divest sanctions movement, which is anti-semitism.
	The idea that people should not buy products from Israel and every product from Israel should be labeled basically with a Jewish star so people cannot buy.
	But then Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, she does all this, right?
	She supported the Iran deal.
	She is a routine basher of Israel.
	She spent a long time bashing Israel.
	We'll get to her past comments in a second.
	She has said that she is not in favor of a two-state solution.
	She told Haaretz, which is the anti-Israel Israeli newspaper, she told Haaretz back in, this would have been July, that she didn't know whether she was in favor of the two-state solution.
	She said maybe there should be a one-state solution, which means the abolition of the state of Israel, right?
	She said all of this clearly, and then she tweets out stuff like this.
	This is a picture from NBC News of that migrant family running away from tear gas.
	gasp says asking to be considered a refugee and applying for status isn't a crime.
	It wasn't for Jewish families fleeing Germany.
	It wasn't for targeted families fleeing Rwanda.
	It wasn't for communities fleeing war torn Syria.
	It isn't for those fleeing violence in Central America.
	Comparing migrants at the southern border to Jewish victims of the Holocaust is not only disgusting, it's insulting historically, intellectually on every level.
	But it does speak to something deeper.
	And this is something I want to get into in just one second.
	Something deep and important about how the left views anti-Semitism.
	I'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about making your face look better.
	I mean, you wake up every morning, you look in the mirror and you go, ah, well, you shouldn't have to do that.
	Hey, it's that saggy jawline, that jawline, double chin.
	That's what gives your age away.
	Well, you don't have to do that.
	Introducing the brand new GenuCell Jawline Treatment with Dual Peptide and MDL Technology, Chamonix's most advanced technology ever.
	And not only tightens that saggy jawline, it plumps the lipophilic layers of your skin to contour and define the jawline within minutes.
	It uses peptides and metal lactones together for the first time, and it works amazingly quickly.
	The results get better every day.
	No one else has this technology or their proprietary chemical-free base.
	So say goodbye to that double chin.
	Minimize that double chin right now.
	And here is the good news.
	It is yours free when you order GenuCell for the under eye bags and puffiness as well.
	I know that this product is great because my mom uses it.
	It comes to our house.
	It originally came from my wife.
	My mom grabbed it.
	She started using it, and now every time it shows up at the house, my mom steals it.
	Thanks, mom.
	For results in 12 hours, GenuCell's immediate effects is also free.
	Text CHIN to 77453 or go to GenuCell.com for this introductory offer.
	Imagine that double chin going away in about a week with that jawline treatment.
	And here's the thing, it's 100% guaranteed or you get your money back.
	So if you don't like what you're seeing, well, you get your money back.
	So what are you risking exactly?
	Text CHIN to 77453 or go to GenuCell.com one more time.
	CHIN, text it to 77453 or go to GenuCell.com.
	Go check it out right now.
	Okay, I want to get to Why the left completely blows it on antisemitism and a deeper form of antisemitism in which the left is engaged, which is really messed up.
	I'll talk about that.
	Plus a new study about how the left treats black folks in the United States, which is pretty fascinating.
	And I think.
	Worthy of discussion.
	And I have to tell you this story of how a pedophile basically escaped prosecution because he happened to be rich and had famous friends.
	We'll get to all of that, but you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, get the rest of this show free, get the rest of Andrew Klaven's show, get the rest of Michael Knowles' show.
	When I say free, I mean for $9.99 a month.
	You get all of those things.
	Behind the paywall.
	And you also get access to our Sunday special.
	We have a bunch of fantastic Sunday specials coming up.
	I'm very excited.
	It's a lot of religion talk just before Christmas, but it's religion and politics.
	So much good stuff over there.
	We have so much brand new material.
	I can't even explain to you how much great stuff you are going to get when you go behind the paywall.
	I will say to you that with $99 a year instead of $9.99 a month, you get this, the leftist here's hot or cold tumbler.
	Now, I've been making the claim that this is keeping me free from disease.
	So far, so good.
	I will keep making that claim until I actually am diseased, at which point I will claim it had nothing to do with the tumbler.
	So, full disclosure, it is a great tumbler, okay?
	It keeps your hot drinks hot.
	It keeps your cold drinks cold.
	How does it know?
	Go check it out right now for $99 a year.
	It's pretty spectacular.
	Also, make sure that you check us out.
	YouTube, iTunes.
	Please leave us a review at iTunes.
	It always helps our ranking over there.
	there.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay.
	So let's talk about what this actually means in terms of anti-Semitism on the left.
	So, Marc Lamont Hill makes openly anti-semitic statements.
	He's pretending it's not anti-semitic to say, from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free, which means Israel no longer exists, and Israel as a Jewish state no longer exists.
	I'd like for him to name a Muslim-dominated country where the Jews are treated fantastic and where the Jews exist.
	Quick quiz!
	What percentage of Israel's population is Arab or Muslim?
	Answer.
	About 20%.
	Quick quiz.
	What percentage of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas population is Jewish?
	Answer.
	Zero.
	Zero.
	Zero Jews live in those areas.
	And yet we are supposed to believe that these are morally equivalent entities.
	It's just insane.
	And not only that, Marc Lamont Hill wants the latter entity to take over for the former entity.
	Fantastic.
	But what you see from the left are Open engagements with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, like Linda Sarsour, like Ilhan Omar, like Rashida Tlaib, both of the latter two of whom are elected members of Congress, like Keith Ellison, who's now attorney general of the state of Minnesota and was the deputy DNC head.
	All of these people in positions of prominence, anti-Semites all, involved in anti-Semitic activity and rhetoric, No problem, but then you'll see the exact same people using the Holocaust as a club on ancillary issues.
	And here's what's happening.
	Basically, a lot of folks on the left have decided that anti-Semitism is only important when it is not applied to the Jews.
	So anti-Semitism is good to use as a model, right?
	You can talk about the Holocaust, but only in the context of talking about people who are the new Jews.
	Right?
	The Jews themselves, they're not victims.
	The Jews are very powerful.
	The Jews are behind world events.
	The Jews themselves are very rich and well-educated.
	But what we can learn from history is that people can be victimized.
	And those people now would be the new Jews.
	So the migrants, according to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are the new Jews.
	The Jews in Israel?
	Not the new Jews.
	Right?
	Not Jews at all.
	Right?
	In terms of anti-Semitism.
	They're not victims of circumstance.
	The left says anti-Semitism is about victimhood.
	Victimhood does not apply to the Jews.
	It applies to the new Jews.
	There's been a sort of replacement theology in antisemitism on the left, in which the Jews have been removed from the question of antisemitism.
	And this allows folks on the left to engage in open anti-Jewish behavior, open antisemitism, while simultaneously using antisemitism as an excuse for pushing policy with regard to other groups.
	Now, you would never see this.
	This in and of itself is a form of antisemitism.
	The reason I say that is that you would never see this with regard to any other group.
	You don't see it.
	You don't see anybody say, you know what?
	Black slavery.
	Black slavery.
	The black folks in America, they're just fine.
	Let's not talk about black folks in America anymore.
	The real slaves, the real black slaves in America today are X group.
	If you said that, you'd be accused of making light of slavery and properly so.
	But instead, what we've got on the left is we can use the Holocaust and use it as the basis of arguing about migration patterns on our southern border, but we can simultaneously pretend that Hamas is fine and that Israel should be boycotted and divested from.
	If you're making anti-semitism a political tool on behalf of a non-Jewish disfavored group, and you're ignoring your own treatment of the Jews, I would suggest that you are making light of anti-semitism and, in fact, engaging in a soft form of it.
	In Marc Lamont Hill's case, not even a soft form, a very hard form of anti-semitism.
	Okay.
	Speaking of intersectionality and race, I do have to point out today that when it comes to leftist hypocrisy on racism, There is really no limit.
	Jay-Z, who has been hosted at the White House, right?
	He's a great American political figure.
	You know, it was really bad when Kanye West went to the White House.
	Well, when Jay-Z went there with Obama, like, every five minutes, that was totally cool.
	Jay-Z, he made a statement today.
	He is in a case with the American Arbitration Association.
	They are judging a trademark case.
	And here is what he said.
	He said, the AAA's lack, the American Arbitration Association's lack of African-American arbitrators came as a surprise, in part because AAA's advertising touts its diversity.
	He says that the panel from the American Arbitration Association is too white to be fair.
	What is in this case is basically Jay-Z filed a case against the clothing company Iconics to delay an impending arbitration over his trademark infringement claims related to a line of Roc Nation baseball caps.
	Iconics bought Jay-Z's apparel brand in 2007, and then Iconics sued the mogul in Manhattan federal court last year, claiming that a hat deal with Major League Baseball interfered with their licensing agreement.
	Jay-Z said he was confronted with a stark reality when he reviewed members of the American Arbitration Association.
	He could not identify a single African-American arbitrator on the large and complex cases roster, composed of hundreds of arbitrators that had the background and experience to preside over the situation.
	The association eventually identified three black arbitrators, but one of them couldn't serve due to a conflict of interest.
	Jay-Z argues minority business owners should be able to select from a group that reflects the diverse population.
	I'm old enough to recall when President Donald Trump, then a candidate Donald Trump, said that a judge of Mexican heritage could not adjudicate properly his Trump University case in California because he had a particular immigration program and the quote-unquote Mexican judge would be biased against him.
	This was called racism.
	It is also called racism when Jay-Z says, I cannot have anyone but a black person arbitrate my case.
	It's plain, simple racism.
	But, if you're on the left, that sort of racism is just fine.
	So, racism in which a member of the black community says, only black people can judge me, that's cool.
	Anti-Semitism, in which we talk about the elimination of Israel while at the same time using the Holocaust to promote immigration policy on our southern border, that's totally fine, according to the left.
	And the white left just goes along with this.
	Why do they go along with this?
	Because the white left panders.
	And they don't just pander in terms of their policy.
	They pander in terms of their language.
	This is a fascinating new study.
	It's a study from Yale Insights.
	It reports that Sydney Dupree, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Yale School of Management, and her co-author Susan Fisk of Princeton University, they wanted to know how whites interacted with minorities.
	Dupree stated, there's less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities.
	We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups and how effective these strategies are.
	I'll tell you the punchline of the study in just one second.
	So here's what happened.
	The researchers examined the words used in 74 different campaign speeches delivered by Democrats and Republicans over a 25-year period.
	Around half the speeches were delivered to a mostly minority audience.
	Those speeches were then compared to speeches delivered to a mostly white audience.
	Two elements of the speech were analyzed, words related to competence and words related to warmth.
	Here's what the results showed.
	The results showed that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words speaking to minorities than when speaking to white audiences.
	Republican candidates did not change their discourse.
	In other words, Democrats pander to minority audiences by refusing to talk about the same topics in the same way that they would talk to white audiences.
	They are racially discriminating against black people.
	They are.
	Maybe you think it's a beneficial discrimination, but it is certainly a discrimination.
	When you say something in front of a black audience, you would never say it in front of a white audience, and vice versa.
	Dupree said it was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.
	The researchers then tested white participants to see how they would interact with a hypothetical or presumed real interaction partner.
	Half the time, the partner was given a name that ostensibly sounded white, like Emily.
	The rest of the time, the partner received a name that sounded ostensibly non-white, like Lakeisha.
	Participants chose a list of words, all of which had been rated for warmth or competence, to use to send an email to the partner.
	The researchers found that leftists eschewed using words that would limb them as highly competent when addressing minorities.
	Conservatives simply talked the way they always did.
	According to Dupree, it was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect.
	Even if it's ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.
	Seen as patronizing, it is patronizing.
	If you are using words that you would never use with white people, with black people, because you think that you have to pander to black people in some way, this would be intersectional discrimination.
	But the left's okay with that.
	Because if you have to pander to certain members of the intersectional...
	Pretty astonishing stuff.
	And then you hear folks on the left say that President Trump is undermining the unity of the country?
	President Trump is undermining the unity?
	Listen, I have no illusions that President Trump is a great unifier.
	Not so much by white liberals who are attempting to reach out to black audiences.
	Pretty astonishing stuff.
	And then you hear folks on the left say that President Trump is undermining the unity of the country.
	President Trump is undermining the unity.
	Listen, I have no illusions that President Trump is a great unifier.
	I don't think that he is.
	I think President Trump can do better on that score.
	But to suggest that the left is a great unifying body in America is a lie.
	President Trump is a reactionary force.
	President Trump and the current Republican administration are a direct reaction to the polarization of politics around racial and identity politics for eight years under Barack Obama and longer under the Democratic Party more generally.
	You know, Chris Matthews, I remember they say, saying that, President Trump's thinking about, it's like Zimbabwe over here.
	Neglecting the fact that Zimbabwe is a case in point in which the leadership of Zimbabwe, a tyranny, forcibly discriminated against white farmers I was reading about Zimbabwe today, and I've been to Zimbabwe.
	I was reading about Zimbabwe today, and I'd been to Zimbabwe.
	I know it's a young country with all kinds of problems, but that's sort of a young democracy trying to figure things out.
	He is taking us back to where they are.
	Where all the opposition does is say that people win elections are crooked, that everything's rigged, nothing's on the level, there's no such thing as objective truth, everything is tribal.
	I swear, these people are insane.
	This is insane.
	This is insane.
	They're saying that President Trump is the one who started tribalism?
	He's the one?
	Barack Obama said about Trayvon Martin, if I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin without even bothering to examine the facts of the case.
	President Obama went out there in the middle of the Ferguson riots and said that the community of Ferguson wouldn't make something up like Michael Brown, except that it was made up about Michael Brown.
	It's just, it's maddening.
	And then you wonder why there's a reactionary tribalism on the other side?
	Tribalism in all of its forms is garbage.
	This sort of tribal politics is yucky.
	Your identity group politics is gross.
	But let's not pretend that the left is not the initiator of it, because the left is the initiator of it, and it's pretty obvious the left has initiated all this sort of stuff.
	Yuck, yuck, yuck.
	Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	My wife and I have delved into another series.
	This is the series Bodyguard on Netflix, starring the guy who plays Rababa from Game of Thrones, who it turns out is actually a really good actor.
	So he's good in Game of Thrones and he plays a completely different character in this.
	It's compelling, it's well shot, it's interestingly written.
	I have no idea where it's going specifically, but you can check out Bodyguard on Netflix, really good.
	Here's a little bit of the preview.
	David, I'm signing you to the Home Secretary.
	Very good, Mum.
	To move up.
	Mum, this is P.S.
	Bunn.
	Pleasure to meet you, Mum.
	I'm late for a meeting.
	She's got an agenda.
	To heighten fear and to seize power.
	That doesn't require apologising for the past.
	Did you mean what you said?
	I don't need you to vote for me.
	I need you to protect me.
	Rest assured, Mum.
	I'll do as required.
	Stay down!
	It's okay.
	It's okay.
	It's really good.
	Okay, so this series is well worth watching, well shot, interesting.
	Also, it turns out that you're allowed to make a TV show with radical Muslims who commit terror attacks.
	Who knew?
	Who knew you were allowed to make such TV shows?
	But it turns out that you actually are.
	Now, I don't know where this series is going.
	All I can say is that it does actually take that threat somewhat seriously, which is Something I haven't seen on TV too often, really since, I guess in the Jack Ryan series they do it a little bit, and really since before that, maybe 24, you'd have to go all the way back to 24, early seasons before they were told they're not allowed to have radical Muslim terrorists be bad guys.
	Okay, time for a bevy of things that I hate.
	So many hateful things today.
	OK, thing that I hate, number one.
	So number one, there is a there's a video of me talking about global warming that's going around.
	And I just want to correct the record because people are such stupid idiots.
	So the the the video of me is talking about the fact that human migration has always reflected climate change.
	Meaning that people move to places that are not underwater, for example.
	Like there are places now, cities, that are underwater.
	Who lives there?
	The answer, no one.
	Okay, you know why?
	Because you can't live underwater.
	You can't breathe underwater.
	So, in any case, there's a speech that I was giving where I was talking about, you know what will happen if the water level rises on the coast?
	People will move.
	They will sell and they will move.
	And people are like, well, they can't sell their houses if they're underwater.
	It's like, oh God, you people are so stupid.
	That's not what I'm saying at all.
	What I'm saying is that if you forecast that in 20 years your place is going to be underwater, you're going to sell it right now at the earliest available opportunity.
	I don't see Barbara Streisand selling her beachfront property in Malibu.
	I don't see any of these folks in Miami who are complaining about global warming selling their property.
	If they really thought this was a grave threat, wouldn't they be selling it right now?
	And by the way, If you aren't, if there's no market, if you can't sell the property because everybody knows it's going to be underwater, then you don't sell and you move.
	The point that I was making there is not that you're not going to lose money if you live on a beachfront property and the water level rise.
	Of course, you're going to lose money.
	What I'm saying is you're not going to die because if it's rising three inches a year, you're not just going to sit there in your living room for like 50 years waiting for the water level to reach your nose.
	That's what I'm saying.
	People don't stay where there is a slow creeping knowledge that they are going to die.
	Because that's stupid.
	And if they think that's going to happen over the next 50 years, they're going to sell and move inland.
	That was the point that I was making.
	So, well done Lefty.
	Great gotcha.
	Just want to point out how dumb that is.
	Okay, a couple of other things that are incredibly dumb.
	So, the Huffington Post, making everything garbage, they've now cut a video saying that Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is bad.
	Because everything is bad.
	All the things are bad.
	There are no good things.
	Now, suffice it to say, I'm not a devotee of the Santa.
	Right?
	Santa?
	Never sat in his lap.
	Never got, he never came down my chimney.
	Wouldn't know I'd get his fat butt down there anyway.
	Have no clue.
	I'd be, frankly, if some random dude showed up in my house and was sticking gifts under the tree, he'd get shot.
	I mean, that's just that's I'm not I'm not a fan of strangers entering my premises.
	But in any case, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is a charming little stop action cartoon.
	It's it's it's charming and it's lovely and there's nothing wrong with it.
	But it is problematic, according to The Huffington Post.
	Why is it problematic?
	It is heteronormative, cisgender and racist.
	Well, yes.
	No, really, this is.
	Raggy?
	What?
	What?
	Huh?
	Okay, so here is Huffington Post trying to explain why you should never let your children watch Rudolph the Red-Nosed Ranger.
	Instead, you should let them watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade where two women make out.
	Rudolph the Red-Nosed Ranger is a holiday classic, says the Huffington Post.
	That returns to TV each holiday season.
	But lately, viewers are noticing the tale may not be so jolly after all.
	Uh-huh.
	Former fans are pointing out Rudolph's father verbally abuses him.
	Santa Claus berates Donner for his son's nose.
	The school coach encourages bullying.
	Donner forbids his wife from joining the search for their son.
	Clarice's dad is a bigot.
	Even the elf is an outcast for wanting to be a dentist.
	Okay, let me point out a couple of things.
	The entire narrative of Rudolph is that he's mistreated for 95% of the story.
	That's literally the story.
	This is like...
	Honestly, honestly, God, this is like the story of the ugly duckling.
	Like, you know what we just found out?
	The story of the ugly duckling is problematic because the swans treat the duck badly.
	Like, yeah, that's the story.
	I bet.
	What?
	Now?
	But yes, everything is bad.
	So I love this.
	It's going to ruin your child's innocence if they watch a fictional reindeer be mistreated because of his glowing nose, only to emerge triumphant in the end.
	Your child will not be damaged if you put them on puberty blockers at age six.
	Yeah, I'm gonna trust you guys with my kids.
	Makes perfect sense to me.
	Okay, speaking of people who you should not trust with your kids, another thing that I hate today.
	So, there's a story from ABC about how some people at Southwest were making fun of a five-year-old.
	Why are they making fun of the five-year-old?
	Because she has a weird name.
	Here's the mom talking about it.
	The gate agent started mocking my child's name, laughing, pointing at me and my daughter, and talking to other employees.
	So I turned around and just said, like, hey, I can hear you.
	So if I can hear you, my daughter can too.
	Like, I'd appreciate it if you just stop.
	OK.
	It turns out that the reason that everybody is going to, the reason that her daughter was being mocked is because she named her daughter, I kid you not, Abciddy, spelled A-B-C-D-E.
	Now, you shouldn't mock the five-year-old.
	It's not the five-year-old's fault what their idiot parent named them.
	You should mock the mother.
	And the mother is well worthy of mockery.
	Please, parents, do not name your kids something that is just going to get them mocked.
	Like, your kids are people.
	They have lives.
	Please don't do that, right?
	Name your kid something that has meaning, you know?
	Like, I'm just glad that she didn't pick, like, VWXYZ, right?
	Then her kid's name would have been Wixes.
	Which would have been really awkward.
	And I wouldn't mock the kid, but I'd mock the mom, who has the brains of a kumquat, apparently.
	Parents, you have responsibility to your children, and just because you wanted to name your kid after the alphabet... I mean, is her name Alphabetty?
	Maybe that'd be kind of great, if her name was Alphabetty.
	In any case, it's... yeah.
	Bad parenting at work, right there.
	Okay.
	Other things that I hate today.
	So, there's a video that's now making the rounds.
	If Jesus is a... If Jesus was Republican.
	If Jesus was a Republican.
	So, this is coming from NowThis, which is the repository for many things stupid.
	I can't say all things stupid, because I've already reserved Vox for that.
	Although, technically, if Vox is the repository of all things stupid, there wouldn't be any stupid left over for NowThis.
	So I have to revise my statement.
	In fact, they're both repositories for many stupid things.
	Here is NowThis, which is promoting a video in which Jesus is a Republican, but Of course, it's a bunch of people who have done a cursory read of the Old and New Testament, if they've done that, and then they basically misinterpret radically what Jesus was saying, and then they say that Jesus is actually a social justice democrat in favor of transgenderism, abortion, and gay rights.
	So here is a little bit of this comedic video.
	Allegedly comedic.
	I say unto you, whoever welcomes one of these little ones in my name might be letting in a murderer or a drug.
	Let's get her to a detention center.
	You know, so we can figure out what's going on.
	This comedy sketch asks, what would Jesus do if he were a Republican?
	I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat.
	I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink.
	and behold now i'm all lazy and entitled you shouldn't have done that do unto others as you suspect they might want to do unto you what is a man profited if he gained the whole world but lose his soul a lot he has profited a lot okay like you don't understand conservatism you don't understand republicanism and you don't understand anything about the bible like a thing about the bible Jesus never says illegal immigration is mandated by the Bible.
	That's absurd.
	That's absurd.
	In fact, Jesus' family was on the way to register Jesus' birth.
	I'm not a New Testament scholar, but that's what they were doing when he was born in Bethlehem.
	And as far as this idea that do unto others as you would have them do unto you, that that is somehow do unto others as you think they're going to do unto you.
	Nothing, nothing in Christianity says you have to allow other people to murder you or endanger your kids, obviously.
	The idea that the Republicans are anti-charity?
	I'd like to see this guy's tax returns.
	Okay, on a per capita basis, religious people in the United States give far more charity than anyone else, and people who are Republican give far more charity than people who are Democrats.
	Not close.
	Red states, per capita, much more charitable than blue states, per capita.
	But again, this lazy misreading of the Bible by people who don't care about the Bible at all.
	Okay, I want to see your video on what Jesus actually had to say about, you know, the sanctity of human life.
	Or, Or marriage.
	Getting real controversial there, what Jesus had to say about marriage.
	You know, women submitting to their husbands and all that?
	Real dicey stuff.
	Like, I love that when they selectively quote Jesus at people.
	It's like, come on.
	Come on.
	It's like when people selectively quote the Old Testament at me.
	I'm like, okay, you wanted the original Hebrew?
	You want the surrounding Psukim?
	Like, what do you want here?
	And I'm not even a great expert.
	I'm just like a normal Orthodox Jew.
	It's what we do.
	Like, on a daily basis.
	You idiots.
	Okay.
	Time for one more thing that I hate, and then we will get out of here.
	So this is a horrifying story.
	So it turns out that there's a guy named Jeffrey Epstein.
	You may remember Jeffrey Epstein.
	Jeffrey Epstein, as you'll recall, was a pedophile, okay?
	And this pedophile was deeply connected with a multiplicity of major characters, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, okay?
	According to the Miami Herald, Jeffrey Epstein had a little black book filled with the names and personal phone numbers of some of the world's wealthiest and most influential people, from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to actors, actresses, scientists, and business tycoons.
	A money manager for the super rich, Epstein had two private jets, the largest single residence in Manhattan, An island in the Caribbean, a ranch in New Mexico, and a waterfront estate in Florida.
	But Epstein also had an obsession.
	For years, Epstein lured an endless stream of teenage girls to his Palm Beach mansion, offering to pay for them for massages.
	Instead, police say, for years he coerced middle and high school girls into engaging in sex acts with him and others.
	As evidence emerged that there were victims and witnesses outside of Palm Beach, the FBI began an investigation in 2006 into whether Epstein and others employed by him were involved in underage sex trafficking.
	But in 2007, despite substantial evidence that corroborated the girls' stories of abuse by Epstein, The U.S.
	Attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, signed off on a secret deal for the multimillionaire, one that ensured he would never spend a day in prison.
	Acosta is now President Trump's Secretary of Labor.
	He agreed to seal the agreement so that no one, not even Epstein's victims, would know the full extent of his crimes or who was involved.
	So basically what happened is that Epstein was able to get off on a minor charge for legitimately hundreds of cases of child molestation because he apparently had deep connections to a variety of highfalutin characters.
	Epstein was basically a career Democrat.
	The prosecutor in this case is a Republican.
	All this goes to show is that there is truth to the idea that if you have friends in the right places, America's criminal justice system can be a serious, serious problem.
	That there is the ability for prosecutors to let you off on crimes you never should have been let off on.
	And what's worse is that we still don't know who's out there.
	Because the agreement was sealed, we don't know who else was implicated.
	We don't know which friends and associates were implicated in all of this.
	And this is ugly, ugly stuff.
	If you look at his inner circle, you're looking at, you know, you are looking at big names.
	You're looking at his associates.
	You're looking at people ranging from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump to Alan Dershowitz.
	There's just a variety of people.
	Now, were all of these people implicated in his sex abuse?
	No.
	But we don't know who was implicated and we don't know how many victims there were because of this perversion of justice.
	You want to talk about a MeToo problem?
	This is a MeToo problem.
	And it spans the political aisle.
	You want to talk about a MeToo problem?
	How about Les Moonves over at CBS, who apparently had a plan To bury a sexual assault allegation.
	And it's reported by the New York Times today.
	Powerful people have been getting away with bad crimes for a very, very long time in this country and in every other country as well.
	It is why the Bible says that you should treat the poor and the rich equally under justice and under the law.
	And it's why we have to have a justice system that is answerable for everybody.
	This Epstein case is just an example of how that is not true.
	Just a shocking, shocking story.
	Okay.
	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.

▲