All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:26
Time To Die, Humans! | Ep. 682
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A philosopher says humans should kill themselves.
Maybe.
An 11-year-old drag kid makes a trip to a bar.
And Democrats focus once again on Russian interference.
But there's a twist.
I'll explain.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, a lot happening.
We'll get into all of it.
First, I want to make a big announcement.
Tonight, 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific, tune in to the story with Martha McCallum on Fox, where I will be revealing the title and cover of my latest book.
I know, I've been talking incessantly about it for months, but now you're finally going to get to find out what it is.
Will it be a book that shreds, wrecks, or possibly slams?
Does it destroy?
Does it annihilate?
Who knows?
You'll find out this evening on Martha McCallum's show on Fox News, 4 p.m.
Pacific, 7 p.m.
Eastern.
Tune in and find out.
Also, before we jump into the news, let me remind you that if you wish to look stylish, it is not enough for you to go to your local department store and then just grab a suit off the rack.
It's holiday time.
It's time for you to look as good as possible, and that means Indochino.
They make made-to-measure suits, and these made-to-measure suits fit better compared to generic off-the-rack suits.
Not only that, you actually get to customize.
these suits.
You get to go to the actual Indochino store.
I went to one in Santa Monica, and you meet with tailors, and they show you a bunch of fabrics, and they show you a bunch of customizations, the buttons, the lapels, the monograms, all this sort of stuff, and then they tailor a suit made direct for you, and if you don't have the time or you don't have a location to go to one of these areas, then instead, you can just do this online.
You take the measurements yourself, you choose your fabric, you choose your design customizations, you submit your measurements with your choices, and then you relax while your suit gets professionally tailored and mailed to you in just a couple of weeks.
All of a sudden, you get to go to the actual Indochino store.
All of this happens at Indochino.com and any premium Indochino suit is just $359 at Indochino.com when you enter promo code Shapiro At checkout.
That is 50% off the regular price for a made-to-measure premium suit, plus shipping is free.
That's Indochino.com, promo code SHAPIRO for any premium suit for just $359 and free shipping.
It's an incredible deal for a premium made-to-measure suit.
Go check it out right now.
Indochino.com, promo code SHAPIRO for any premium suit, just $359 and free shipping.
And these suits look better than anything you're going to get off the rack.
Okay, well I want to start today with a piece, a couple of pieces of breaking news.
Piece of breaking news number one is that President Trump now says that he is not going to, in fact, go through with a government shutdown over the border wall.
This is according to spokesman, spokeswoman Sarah Sanders.
She said this early on Tuesday.
The White House, according to the Washington Post, wants to avoid a partial government shutdown and has found other ways to get the border wall President Trump is demanding, according to Sanders.
Sanders' comments came four days before large portions of the federal government will begin a shutting down unless Congress and Trump reach a funding deal.
Trump has been demanding $5 billion from Congress for his border wall, which Democrats refuse to give.
But Sanders told Fox News Channel, we have other ways we can get to that five billion.
She said, at the end of the day, we don't want to shut down the government.
We want to shut down the border.
Sanders said the White House was exploring other funding sources and believed it could be legally done.
She says, there are certainly a number of different funding sources we've identified we can use that we can couple with money that would be given through congressional appropriations.
And that would help us get to that five billion dollars the president needs in order to protect our border.
OK, well, if that's the case, why hasn't he done it so far?
I mean, really, if it's that easy, he's been in office for nearly two years at this point, why doesn't he just fund the border wall?
This was his number one promise to all of his constituents.
It was his promise to the American people is that border wall was going to get done.
And he originally promised Mexico was going to pay for it.
Mexico is not going to pay for it, but at least it was going to get done, right?
Well, it hasn't been done.
We've replaced some of the border fencing with better border wall, but that's about it.
So, if President Trump believes he doesn't need a new congressional appropriation, then what exactly has he been waiting for over the past couple of years?
And if he does believe that he needs that congressional appropriation, then why in the hell is he caving to a Democrat Congress?
Maybe he wants to do this again when there's a Democrat Senate?
Right?
I guess we'll wait till 2021?
I mean, when exactly does he want to have this fight?
There are people who are big Trump boosters, people like Ann Coulter, who are livid over all of this, because she says, listen, he made one promise, and that was this key promise, and now he won't even go up against Nancy Pelosi in the House in order to get it done, or Chuck Schumer in the Senate in order to get it done, or fellow Republicans in order to get it done.
He's not willing to bear a little bit of pain in order to prevent the vast number of people who are trying to cross that border illegally.
And it's especially dumb if you're gonna signal like this.
It just proves that you don't have any... You don't have any bite to back your bark.
And the fact is, the President of the United States, like, two days ago, went on national television with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, and he says, I'll own the shutdown.
I'll do a shutdown.
Happy to do a shutdown.
And Schumer said no.
And Pelosi said no.
And then Trump was like, oh, okay, I guess we won't do that.
How exactly is that the mark of a great negotiator?
How is that the mark of a man taking a strong position and then sticking with it?
Really, if you are a border hawk, how can you be okay with this?
I don't really understand.
Now, maybe you say that the border wall wasn't that important to begin with.
Okay, that's a position.
Maybe you say that what we really need to be doing is focusing on deportations as opposed to physical barriers.
Okay, fine.
You want to make that case, make that case.
But that's not the case President Trump has been making.
So the wall either gets built or this one's on him.
Because now, he's not only claimed that he's not going to shut down the government, he's not going to fight that way, now he claims he can do it himself.
According to The Washington Post, Sanders' comments come after a series of miscalculations by Republicans in recent days over how to try and get Democrats to sign on to $5 billion to pay for the construction of a wall along the Mexico border.
Of course, last week, President Trump said he'd be proud to shut down the government over the issue.
And then on Monday evening, Senate Republicans said they were anticipating a formal proposal from the White House, but that never materialized.
The White House never promised a 5 p.m.
proposal.
Senate Republicans signaled they plan to move ahead on an overhaul of the criminal justice system this week.
So, let's get this straight.
President Trump came into office pledging to be a law and order president who is going to shut down the border.
He's not going to shut down the border, and he's going to pass criminal justice reform.
Now, I've talked on the program about, I think, the costs and benefits of criminal justice reform.
Overall, I would vote against it.
And I have very strong personal friends who are in favor of criminal justice reform.
You know, close political connections who are very much in favor of criminal justice reform, both in the White House and in the Senate as well.
I'm not in favor of criminal justice reform that simply grants greater power for wardens to let people who they deem nonviolent out of jail.
The chances that people are going to go back to crime after they've been in jail, particularly federal crime, very high.
Recidivism rates are incredibly high.
If you want to lower the sentences, then go through a legislative process of lowering the sentences.
But if the idea is that we're just going to do this through a discretionary process, that ain't going to solve the problem.
If you want to get rid of mandatory minimums, if you want to rewrite the penalties for particular crimes, do that.
But what this bill really does, is it says that wardens can adjudicate on basically a case-by-case basis whether somebody is deemed nonviolent, and then if they are deemed nonviolent, then they can be released early.
Or they can have time that they've already spent in prison count toward the time they've yet to serve.
So we're doing that.
You know, Ben Sasse of Nebraska has come out against the bill.
There are a bunch of other more kind of conservative Congress people who have come out against the bill.
A lot of Libertarians.
Rand Paul's in favor of the bill.
Mike Lee's in favor of the bill.
There's a lot of controversy over this bill, but suffice it to say that this was not what President Trump promised, right?
What President Trump promised was that border is going to have a wall on it.
That border is going to be secure.
And as it turns out, statistically speaking, the Trump administration has deported fewer people than the Obama administration did during the same period in the first couple of years of their administration.
So for all the talk about border security being ramped up dramatically, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of it.
And I think that President Trump's constituents have a right to question him about all of this.
One of the reasons, apparently, that President Trump is afraid of the government shutdown is because the stock market has been dropping precipitously in recent weeks.
It is now at a loss on the year, over the course of the entire year.
Trump has attacked the Federal Reserve, but apparently it's rattled him that the stock market has dropped, which it should.
If the stock market drops too much, and if the economy downturns, not only is he not going to win re-election, he's going to get skunked.
I mean, the president is not personally particularly popular, but he does have a good economy and people can at least point to his track record of success.
If the economy takes a downturn, he's got a real problem.
So, in other words, the stock market, which has taken a dump for a variety of reasons, including the fact that President Trump has decided that tariffs are a good way of making trade policy, The stock market takes a hit, and then President Trump decides that border security is less important than criminal justice reform.
Again, I've got to question the priorities.
I do.
Just politically speaking, I have to question the priorities here.
They don't make a lot of sense to me.
Now, meanwhile, in other news for the Trump administration, Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, is about to be sentenced today, or he has been sentenced today, rather.
A judge began the sentencing for President Trump's former national security advisor, saying he needed to address other issues before deciding the punishment that Flynn should face.
Both prosecutors and defense attorneys had urged that Flynn face no prison time for his crime, noting he was an early cooperator in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
We still don't know what Flynn exactly has said here, but in their sentencing submission, Flynn's attorney suggested that he might have been fooled into lying to the FBI because he'd not been warned in advance that doing so is a crime.
That prompted the judge to request more documents.
The special counsel's office last week pushed back on the idea Flynn was mistreated.
As I discussed last week on the program, I am not under the opinion that Flynn was wildly mistreated in a way that other people are not mistreated by the criminal justice system.
Very often police call you in for some sort of interview, you are not in custody, and then you are not given a lawyer.
Prosecutors said the court should reject the defendant's attempts to minimize the seriousness of these false statements to the FBI.
Nothing about the way the interview was arranged or conducted caused the defendants to make false statements to the FBI.
A concession from Flynn could disappoint supporters who for months have advanced the notion that Flynn was wronged, although reluctance to admit guilt could prompt the judge to send Flynn to prison.
The real issue here is that Flynn's bad activity really has very little to do with Russia.
For all the talk about him having, you know, connections with Russia, really very little of this has to do with Russia at all.
The vast majority of his bad activity has to do with his relationship with the Turkish government.
It was basically paying him as a lobbyist without him registering as a lobbyist.
I don't think that the Flynn plea is going to result in anything truly nasty for President Trump.
What's ironic about all of this is that the left has spent just an insane, inordinate amount of time talking about Russia interference in the election, talking about all of Trump's top officials being ensnared in Russia interference, when it turns out that all along the best legal avenues they had for attack on President Trump were the ones that you would have thought you would have had in 2016, right before any of the Russia stuff came up.
His sort of personal foibles with women.
His financial foibles.
The fact that he runs kind of a sleazy real estate empire.
The fact that he has always been kind of a charlatan when it comes to his business relationships.
I mean, the guy...
Somehow made a casino go bankrupt in Atlantic City, right?
I mean, there's always been a lot of questions about corrupt practices, but the Russia stuff took forefront because it explained a couple of things for Democrats.
It demonstrates how, for Democrats, the truth really was secondary to the priority.
The priority for Democrats in all of this was to delegitimize the election.
It was not about getting to what crimes Trump may or may not have committed.
That was never the priority.
They're only now talking about that stuff as a secondary.
Primarily, they were worried about why did Trump win the election.
And so, the Russia narrative allowed them to say two things.
One, Trump was a criminal.
Two, he stole the election.
All of the other criminal activity that is now being laid at the feet of President Trump, all of that other activity doesn't explain why Hillary Clinton lost the election.
It doesn't.
Because, as we all know, if Trump had simply come out a week before the election and said, yeah, I stripped Stormy Daniels years ago, no one would have cared.
Nobody would have cared if he'd said, I pay hush money to women.
We all assume that he did.
And that's why Democrats weren't focused in on the Michael Cohen stuff.
It's why they haven't been focused in on the Trump Foundation.
Because their priority was always delegitimizing the election of 2016.
In a second, I'm going to talk about another corruption charge now being laid at the feet of the Trump administration.
And then I want to talk about A story that's kind of shocking about how it was the Democrats were already laying the groundwork for this Trump-stole-the-election narrative very, very early on.
But first, we need to talk about your Second Amendment rights.
Now, I know you love your Second Amendment rights just like I do.
You want to be able to defend yourself.
Well, your time is almost up.
You still have a chance to win big today from the U.S.C.C.A.
The U.S.C.C.A.
wants to give you a free gun right now.
They are giving away a different gun every single day this month, but these guns are going fast.
They want to make sure that law-abiding citizens have weapons to protect themselves and protect their rights.
You are almost out of time to win.
Just text the word SAFE to the number 87222 and get entered right now.
You could get up to 24 chances to win a gun every day.
It could be 24 Kimbers, 24 Glocks, maybe that AR-15 that you've had your eye on.
But they are running out fast, so get yours now.
All you have to do is text SAFE to 87222 Totally free.
There's not a lot of time.
The gun of the day will always disappear at midnight.
And they're almost gone.
So hurry right now.
This is your big chance to take home one of these guns.
Don't miss out.
Text SAFE to 87222.
Get entered to win your free gun right now.
The USCCA has a number of fantastic services ranging from legal defense help, in case, God forbid, you have to fire a gun at somebody, to all sorts of advice and classes.
All sorts of great stuff over at the USCCA.
Go check them out right now.
Text SAFE to 87222.
Again, SAFE to 87222.
For your chance to win a gun today from the USCCA.
Great organization.
I'm proud to be associated with them.
Go check them out right now by texting SAFE to 87222.
Okay, meanwhile, President Trump has agreed now to shut down his embattled personal charity.
Amid allegations he used it for his personal and political benefit and gave away its remaining money according to New York AG Barbara Underwood.
She announced this on Tuesday according to the Washington Post.
Underwood said the Donald J. Trump Foundation is dissolving As her office pursues its lawsuit against the charity, Trump and his three eldest children are also being sued.
The suit was filed in June.
It alleged persistent illegal conduct at the foundation and sought to have it shut down.
Why?
Well, because Donald Trump was basically signing personal checks, according to the allegations, for personal expenditures and then funneling it through the charity.
Which is pretty ugly stuff.
Underwood is continuing to seek more than $2.8 million in restitution and has asked a judge to ban the Trumps temporarily from serving on the boards of other New York non-profit organizations.
Underwood said Tuesday her investigation found a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation, including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.
One of the allegations with regard to the Trump Foundation is that the Trump Foundation basically gave a giant check.
To a veterans group in the middle of the election cycle and President Trump campaigned on that basis.
So this was allegedly using charitable contributions for a political purpose is sort of the idea.
The shuddering comes after the Washington Post documented apparent lapses at the foundation.
Trump used the charity's money to pay legal settlements for his private business, to purchase art for one of his clubs, to make a prohibited political donation.
Trump denied he'd done anything wrong, but in 2016 he said he wanted to close the foundation, but the AG blocked the move while they investigated.
Underwood said the foundation's remaining $1.75 million that are in charity right now would be distributed to other charities approved by her office, as well as a state judge.
The Trump Foundation was never super impressive.
It was only about $3.2 million in the bank in 2009, which is pretty small.
The real estate mogul used other people's donations to build up the foundation's assets.
The biggest donations came from Vince and Linda McMahon in recent years.
The post reporting showed that for years, Trump appeared to treat the foundation as a checkbook for gifts that bolstered his interests.
The largest donation in the foundation's history, a $265,000 gift to the Central Park Conservancy in 1989, appeared to benefit Trump's business.
It paid to restore a fountain outside Trump's Plaza Hotel.
The smallest, a $7 foundation gift to the Boy Scouts that same year, appeared to benefit Trump's family.
It matched the amount required to enroll a boy in the Scouts the year that his son, Donald Trump Jr., was 11.
The Attorney General's probe turned up evidence that Trump and Donald Trump Jr., Eric Ivanka Trump, all listed as officers of the charity, had not actually attended a board meeting.
The board hadn't met since 1999.
And one of the charity's official treasurers, Allen Weisselberg, told investigators he wasn't even aware that he was on the board.
At one point, he used the charity's money to make a $25,000 political donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the charity didn't tell the IRS about it.
Instead, they listed a donation as a gift totally unrelated to a charity in Kansas with a similar name.
During the 2016 campaign, there was also some issues with coordination between the Foundation and the Trump campaign, for example.
And there's a large portrait that Trump bought in 2007 for $20,000 using money from the charity.
We still don't know what happened with exactly that money or with that portrait.
Why is all of this relevant?
Well, it's only relevant in the sense that for Democrats, This could have been their line of attack from the very beginning, and it would have been a richer line of attack from the very beginning.
They could have, January 20th, 2000, 2017, they could have come out and they could have said, listen, President Trump has got a corrupt personal charity, we know that his business has some corruption issues, and we think that he hasn't properly separated off from those businesses, there's corruption going on, we need to investigate all of that.
That would have been a much richer line of attack, but Democrats didn't do that.
Why?
Solely and completely on the narrative that Hillary Clinton had lost the election because Donald Trump cheated.
And they're still pushing that nonsense.
They're still pushing that nonsense.
The latest evidence of this nonsense is they're pushing a report very, very hard that suggests that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube were all working hand-in-glove, basically, with Russian sources in order to manipulate data in the run-up to the election.
Shira Frankl, Daisuke Wakabayashi, and Kate Conger over at the New York Times report, when lawmakers asked YouTube, a unit of Google, to provide information about Russian manipulation efforts, it did not disclose how many people watched the videos on its site that were created by Russian trolls.
Facebook did not release the comments its users made when they viewed Russian-generated content.
And Twitter gave only scattered details about Russian-controlled accounts that spread propaganda there.
The tech company's foot-dragging was described in a pair of reports the Senate Intelligence Committee published on Monday in what were the most detailed accounts to date about how Russian agents Excuse me.
First of all, very difficult to tell what is Russian manipulation and what is just Russian citizens posting stuff.
Google, Twitter and Facebook were described by researchers as having evaded and misrepresented themselves and the extent of Russian activity on their sites.
The companies were also criticized for not turning over complete sets of data about Russian manipulation in the Senate.
First of all, very difficult to tell what is Russian manipulation and what is just Russian citizens posting stuff or American citizens posting stuff.
This report was done with a particular conclusion in mind.
The conclusion was that the Russians were attempting to throw the election to Trump and successfully accomplish this.
The studies renewed questions, according to the New York Times, about whether social media companies have withheld data on Russian activity and how willing they really are to address the issue.
And herein lies the actual Democratic agenda.
In all of this, from beginning to end, the agenda in the Russian investigation was all about Trump was illegally elected, and two, All of these social media companies need to change their algorithms, need to change how they provide you information, need to prevent you from gathering the information that you want specifically in order so that a Democrat will win in 2020.
Okay, that's really what's going on here.
Let's be frank about this.
Let's be honest about this.
What Democrats want is for social media companies to continue to manipulate the data according to their particular preferences under threat of government largesse.
Okay, under threat of government pressure.
That is what they are looking for.
That is what Democrats want, and that's what all of these articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post are expected to do.
That's what they are trying to do.
And it's a bunch of nonsense.
If you think that this election was twisted because of Russian propaganda on Facebook, you are out of your mind.
Even Nate Silver, who is no right-winger, is saying, this is a bunch of crap.
If you think that Russian memes swung the 2016 election, then you legitimately don't know what you're talking about.
There's an article in the New York Times today from Michelle Goldberg, who's really not a very good columnist, and she writes about the supposed link between Russian propaganda and the election results, and she talks about the massive impact of Russian propaganda.
Okay, for those of us who actually know something about internet statistics, we laugh at this.
Okay, laugh at it.
It's absurd.
Absurd.
Okay, here, let me give you some of these statistics, because if you don't know, these sound big, but they're not.
Okay, so, According to Michelle Goldberg, Russian propaganda, one of the reports found, had about 187 million engagements on Instagram, reaching at least 20 million users, and 76.5 million engagements on Facebook, reaching 126 million people.
Approximately 1.4 million people, the report said, engaged with tweets associated with the Internet Research Agency, which is a Russian front group.
Okay, now those sound like really big numbers, right?
1.4 million people.
1.4 million people engaging with tweets.
Okay, now I'm going to give you how many people have engaged with my tweets last month.
Just my account.
How many people engaged with just my tweets last month alone?
Not for the entire election cycle of 2016.
Last month.
We had 197 million tweet impressions.
Okay, according to this study, the Russians got 1.4 million tweet impressions for an election cycle.
I had 200 times that amount last month.
Okay, but all this data is basically a bunch of crap.
Like they say, You know, that 187 million engagements on Instagram, 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
OK, my engagements on Facebook in the last month, mine personally in a month, 87 million.
So more than the entire Russian propaganda network in a year, in a year and a half.
But we're supposed to believe that's what swung the election.
What absolute garbage!
What absolute silly nonsense!
And yet, this is what they are focused on pushing.
In a second, I'm going to explain to you why this study says what it says.
And there's a very good reason for it, uncovered by the folks over at Media Research Center.
I'll explain to you in a second.
But first, let's talk about how you're going to mail stuff this holiday season.
So, the holidays are really busy.
You know, you don't have time to run to the post office.
The post office is great, but you don't have time to schlep all the presents over there.
Instead, what you really should be doing is going over to my friends at Stamps.com and looking for help.
Stamps.com brings all the services of the U.S.
Postal Office right to your desktop.
Buy and print official U.S.
postage for any letter, any package, any class of mail using your own computer and printer, and then the mail carrier just picks it up.
No trips to the post office required.
It could not be easier.
Print postage any day, any time.
Stamps.com is always open.
Stamps.com not only saves you time, it saves you money.
Stamps.com helps you print the right amounts of postage every time, so you never overpay again.
And with Stamps.com, you get discounts on postage you can't even get at the post office.
With all the time and money you'll save, Stamps.com is the best gift you can give yourself this holiday season.
I use Stamps.com because it's simply easier.
I don't want to wait in line.
I don't want to get in the car.
I don't want to do any of those things.
I just want to be able to do everything from my desk and be done with it.
Right now, you can enjoy Stamps.com's service.
With a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus postage, and a digital scale without long-term commitments.
Go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in promo code Shapiro.
That's stamps.com, promo code Shapiro.
Go check it out right now, stamps.com, promo code Shapiro.
Okay, so why exactly are all of these studies suggesting that Russian interference swung the election?
Because the sources of the study are Democrats.
Okay, this is a study called the Oxford University Computational Propaganda Project.
And the study, according to Media Research Center, was produced by Oxford and Grafika.
Two of the people behind that study, junk news consumption, were involved in another study.
Okay, that study was all about how if you are on the right, you are a member of junk news.
So basically, the people behind the Russia study were also behind another study that suggested that conservative outlets were junk news.
Which outlets were junk news?
Drudge Report, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Free Beacon, Life News, National Review, The Federalist, and Red State.
Those were all junk news according to the same authors who are now claiming that Russia propaganda swung the election.
Maybe they have an agenda?
Is it possible they have an agenda?
Yes, of course, and so does the New York Times.
You think the New York Times doesn't understand internet analytics?
You think the reporters at the New York Times don't have comparable data from how the New York Times performs on Facebook so that they know what the actual impact of these various Russian Facebook pages was?
And now they're trying to claim that these Russian Facebook pages, because some of them were front groups that were supposed to appeal to Black Lives Matter folks, that it somehow suppressed black voting in 2016.
Absolute hogwash.
Nate Silver points that out today.
He says this is just nonsense.
Of course, it didn't suppress black voting in 2016.
Black voting in 2016 was the highest in any election ever, except for 2012 and 2008, both of which had Barack Obama on the ballot.
But, again, all the Democrats care about is the narrative.
If they cared about corruption, they'd care about corruption, but they clearly don't.
What they actually care about is just the narrative, and the narrative says that Trump somehow corruptly seized the election.
Okay, meanwhile, we spent a little bit of time on this editorial yesterday, and I felt like I didn't give it the attention it deserved.
You know, it's very rare on this program that I think to myself the next day, you know, I didn't do a sufficient job the previous day.
Usually I think to myself, yesterday's show was just spectacular, and today's is even better.
But yesterday, I felt like I didn't give the full flavor of an editorial that appeared in the New York Times about human extinction, titled, Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?
The reason I didn't give it full shrift is because it actually speaks to some deeper philosophical points that I think are important.
Now, I said at the top of the show, That tonight, on Martha MacCallum's show, we're announcing the title of my book and the cover of my book.
And this editorial is about as good a case for buying my book as you could possibly imagine.
My book is all about purpose and meaning and why human life matters and why humans are unique and why human life is sacred.
All the big issues.
This editorial in the New York Times that says basically we should all kill ourselves is truly the last gasp of a civilization that has failed to recognize certain eternal truths.
So, this article was written by a Clemson philosophy professor, who I'm sure is teaching wonderful stuff, named Todd May.
And he begins by saying that he acknowledges that the experience of humans coming to an end would be a bad thing, or at least it would cause some pain because people dying is painful.
He's agnostic on the question of whether human beings as a species deserve to die out.
He says what he's really wondering is whether it would be a tragedy if the planet no longer contained human beings.
His conclusion, it would be a tragedy and it might be a good thing.
To which my response is, okay dude, like, there are a bunch of bridge overpasses near Clemson, you can just, you know, go there anytime.
May's reasoning, though, is really interesting.
So, he argues that human extinction would be tragic because we have a tragic flaw, which is that we have wrecked the Earth, and that would be rectified by our extinction.
He says humanity is the source of devastation in the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.
So we're mean to animals, so we should die.
Well, he recognizes that nature is itself hardly a Valhalla of peace and harmony.
He says humans are uniquely cruel and destructive, which is a weird case to make.
Like, we are uniquely productive, and we are also uniquely destructive in the sense that we have greater capacity than animals.
But we don't, for example, have a generalized habit of cannibalizing our mates, as many insects do.
We don't generally kill our stepchildren, as many primates do.
But according to Todd May, we are wrecking the world.
He says, to make that case, let me start with a claim I think will be at once depressing and upon reflection uncontroversial.
Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it.
Okay, I do think that's arguable, by the way.
The fact is that there are more trees now in the United States than there were before settlers actually settled the United States.
He says this is happening through at least three means.
First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies.
So global warming.
So we should all die because of global warming.
Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact.
So coral reefs are going out of business.
Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals, for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery.
Before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways, there's no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish anytime soon.
Quite the opposite.
Well, actually, I do think that factory farming is probably going to diminish sometime in the near future as developed countries begin to look again at whether they think that that's a good idea or a bad idea.
But he says humanity is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale difficult to comprehend.
He says if this were all there were to the story, there would be no tragedy because the elimination of the human species would be a good thing.
Full stop.
Now, what's funny is that he would never make this claim about any other species on the planet.
So there are lots of species on the planet that end up devastating the ecosystems in which they grow, in which they inhabit.
Would he be for the complete extinction of those animal species?
I mean, there are places where the deer population is too large, and it's a threat to other populations in the area.
Is he in favor of not just culling the deer population, but, like, wiping it out completely?
It's kind of a weird argument.
So it's weird because May doesn't treat up people as members of the animal community, but he does treat us as members of the animal community.
So we are not members of the animal community because we are capable of making conscious decisions and rational decisions, but then he places our interests on a level with animals.
So my answer to factory farming is bad is I would like to see more humane conditions for animals, but also people are more important than animals and we can eat animals because we need the protein.
And his position is, humans and animals are in precisely the same moral plane, but it's bad if humans eat animals.
Why?
Is it bad when a lion eats a zebra?
May continues by stating that human beings bring... So what's his case that we should survive, maybe?
His case is that human beings bring an advanced level of reason that can experience wonder, as well as our creation of literature, music, and painting.
Well, this right here is philosophically incoherent, because if a mass murderer wrote symphonies, for example, he'd still be worth killing, presumably.
So if we are wrecking the planet, why does it matter that humans are responsible for Beethoven's 9th?
He says it would be a loss to the world if those practices and experiences ceased to exist, ignoring the fact that there wouldn't be any humans around to enjoy them.
So it would be a loss to whom?
A loss to the world?
The world is a planet.
It's a big rock floating through space.
I don't think the rocks care if Beethoven's 9th exists or not.
In the end, there's no real way to justify humanity's murderous existence, as long as you say that humans and animals are equivalent.
And that is precisely the conclusion at which May arrives in the end.
I'm going to give you his conclusion in just a second, because it really is astonishing and speaks to the nihilism that undergirds a philosophy that says that human beings are not made in God's image, that human beings are not special, and that human beings do not have a real meaning and purpose in the world other than just to be animals wandering about on a giant rock floating through space.
We'll get to his punchline in just a second.
First, let's talk about how you can Find a better health insurance program, how you can get insurance in a better way, and also a way that helps build the social fabric, a way that helps you look out for your neighbor, a way that reinstitutes exactly the sort of Judeo-Christian values that I'm talking about here on the show every single day.
This is called MediShare.
MediShare is a Christian healthcare sharing program.
It's been around for 25 years.
They now have more than 400,000 members all around the country.
And get this, Over the years, MediShare members have shared over $2 billion of each other's medical bills so they could help share your needs as well.
Also, you can save a lot of money with MediShare.
The typical savings for a family is about $500 a month.
Your savings could be more or they could be less, but it could be a lot of money that you could be saving.
So go check them out right now.
Head over to MediShare.com slash Ben or call 844-61-BIBLE.
844-61-BIBLE to find out more.
There's no pressure.
They are super easy to talk to.
I know the founders of it.
It's really great.
Go check it out.
Medishare.com slash Ben, that's M-E-D-I, share.com slash Ben, or call 844-61-BIBLE for more information.
That's 844-61-BIBLE, again, 844-61-BIBLE.
Go check it out right now.
There's a reason, again, that since its inception, members have shared more than $1.9 billion in medical expenses.
Medishare works, and you don't have to pay for things you don't believe in, because, again, it is a Christian healthcare sharing program.
Go check it out, Medishare.com slash Ben, or call 844-61-BIBLE.
Go check it out right now.
Okay.
Also, let me remind you that it is almost time for our next episode of The Conversation.
So tomorrow at 5 30 p.m.
Eastern, 2 30 p.m.
Pacific.
I will be taking your questions and answering them to the best of my abilities, which means the best of anyone's abilities.
Live on air.
So make the questions good.
The lovely and talented Alicia Krauss will be hosting and making sure that the exorable Michael Knowles has been murdered and buried in the garden.
Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by me tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific.
Join the conversation.
Now, if you actually want to ask questions, though, you have to be a subscriber, which is why you should spend $9.99 a month and become a subscriber.
What have you been doing all this time?
You listen to the show every day and you don't subscribe?
Who are you?
Why?
What kind of person are you?
I mean, I know this is a hard sell, but I mean, really, guys, get it going.
Also, for $99 a year, you get access to the mailbag, you get to see the rest of the show behind the paywall, and come January, you get two additional hours of the show.
I mean, what more can I give to you?
My lifeblood?
What more?
Also, you get when you spend 99 bucks a year, you get this.
He left his tears hot or cold tumbler.
You know the drill.
This sucker, unbelievable.
It holds any liquid.
I mean, literally any liquid so long as it is not actual magma or acid.
Those are the only two that I think it doesn't hold.
All the other liquids it is capable of holding.
That doesn't mean you should pee in it.
It's too good for that.
Don't do that.
Don't do that to the tumbler.
But it is fully capable of holding your coffee.
It is fully capable of holding your water.
It is magnificent.
Go check it out right now for $99 a year.
Also, check us out over at iTunes, SoundCloud.
I remind you that iHeartRadio, right now if you go to iHeartRadio.com, they have these podcast awards that are coming up next month.
Go vote for us in the news category because we appreciate it and that would be awesome.
Also, check us out and review us over at iTunes.
That helps with our ranking.
We always appreciate it.
show we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So here's the conclusion to this deeply nihilistic article in the New York Times about whether humans should go extinct.
After this guy basically says humans are like animals, and as animals we're really bad animals, he says, So then, how much suffering and death of non-human life would we be willing to countenance to save Shakespeare, our sciences, and so forth?
Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and non-human animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals.
Right?
And this is, he's right.
If you believe that humans are just animals and have the same moral status as animals, then maybe humans should go extinct.
Thankfully, we have a 3,000 year tradition saying that humans and animals are not, in fact, the same.
Humans are different.
Humans have a quality that Aquinas would call a soul.
Humans have the capacity to reason.
Humans have the capacity for beauty and wonder.
All of these things make humans unique and more important than animals.
You're more important than your dog.
I know you love your dog.
You're more important than your dog.
You're more important than your cat.
It's one of the reasons, you know, I have two kids.
When I hear people say that their animals are their four-legged children, I'm like, you stop that right now.
Those are not your four-legged children.
I mean, did you bear that dog?
If so, that's weird.
But also, that is not a thing, okay?
Humans are not on the same moral level as animals.
And if you believe they are, then Todd May is making a strong case.
And listen to his conclusion.
He says, there is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase.
It would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger.
Moreover, those among us who believe there is such a gap should perhaps become more familiar with the richness of lives of many of our conscious fellow creatures.
Our own science is revealing that richness to us, ironically giving us a reason to eliminate it along with our own continued existence.
So basically, if you study the monkeys long enough, then you'll want to kill yourself.
Good.
Good pitch, man.
And then he says, one might ask here whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering.
Yes, that was the literally first question that appeared to me.
That a man who writes a piece called, Would Human Extinction Be Okay?
might want to go grab himself some rope.
But he says, although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans.
In other words, I'm not going to kill myself.
That's not something I'm going to do.
But he says, to demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying.
In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice.
The two situations then are not analogous.
So, in other words, kill all the unborn babies, don't have any more babies, but you don't have to kill yourself.
Man, I mean, just go hog wild, because in a generation it's all going to be gone anyway, and then it's going to look like Logan's run.
I mean, the Capitol building is going to be all covered in vines and stuff.
So, have fun, you, but just don't have any babies.
Just don't have any babies.
If this is the kind of fulfilling life that you see yourself living, buying into the deep-seated philosophy of the left, Enjoy, man.
It's all you.
It's all you.
And the value system that the left is promoting right now is so nihilistic and so deeply disturbing that it's almost impossible to describe.
And this is not to suggest that everyone on the left believes this stuff.
Obviously not.
But if you don't believe that human beings are special, if you don't believe we're created in God's image, if you don't believe we have the capacity to reason, if you don't believe that the universe has a rational basis that we can comprehend, if you don't believe any of those things, And yet, you are still living in a way that suggests you believe those things.
Maybe you ought to examine your first rules, your first values, the stuff that you actually believe way down deep.
Because I would think a lot of people who consider themselves atheists and agnostics are still making the same assumptions that religious people take for granted because they are in fact religious assumptions about life.
And those religious assumptions about life extend to the moral sphere.
So, the idea that you are made in God's image and that you are more than just a body.
That you are more than just a body and that your autonomy ought to be used for the sake of reason.
Your autonomy ought to be used for the sake of doing good.
That's something that's gone completely by the wayside since we are apparently just a ball of synapses.
And you can see that in the generalized attitude toward what is actual degradation and perversion.
Okay, what we are about to watch is actual degradation and perversion.
An 11-year-old boy who's become a very famous drag kid.
So he's 11 years old and his parents dress him in drag.
That is, in and of itself, sexualized.
Drag queens are sexualized.
The idea of dressing up as a girl in midriff-bearing clothes as a young boy is, of course, sexualized.
This little boy, this poor little kid, who is, in fact, being victimized by his parents because parents get to make decisions for their children.
I have no tolerance for this garbage that an 11-year-old boy gets to decide whether he wants to appear at a strip bar, at a gay bar, dancing at a strip bar at 11 years old.
You don't get to do that.
Hey, if a stranger came and took your kid and did this, they'd be prosecuted.
If a parent does it, then apparently it's okay.
On December 1st, an 11-year-old boy dressed in drag danced on stage in a sexual manner at a gay bar in Brooklyn, New York, called Three Dollar Bill.
This is according to Amanda Prestigiacomo over at Daily Wire.
The child, Desmond Napoles, was dressed as a Gwen Stefani lookalike, full drag makeup, a blonde wig, and crop top included, as he bounced around on stage to no doubt like a girl.
Here's a little bit of the video.
And what you can see, On stage, dancing.
This kid's 11.
I mean, what the actual F?
A small 11-year-old boy, dressed in drag, dancing in front of a bunch of gay men, and then stripping.
Stripping off a dress to dance some more.
And the patrons begin offering him dollar bills.
They begin offering this little 11-year-old kid dollar bills.
This is... This is pedophilic.
I mean, there's no other way to put it.
This is absolutely pedophilic.
The club apparently has no cell phone policy.
One of the people who went there... This is not a rip on gay folks, by the way.
This is a rip on this kid's parents and the patrons who decided that it was okay to hit on 11-year-old boys.
One of the patrons, who is not a sick person, said, This was on Saturday night.
a child dance on stage for money at nighttime.
This was on Saturday night.
I've been feeling disturbed ever since.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
And by the way, it is worth noting that the mainstream media has propped up this kid's publicity.
RuPaul wrote a disturbing piece in the Daily Beast talking about how much he loved a drag kid.
Desmond and the Today Show promoted this kid, saying that he's taking over social media with an inspiring message.
This is a society that has lost its moral moorings on every conceivable level.
A society that has lost its moral moorings.
Really disturbing stuff.
Okay.
In just a second, I want to get to a couple of big stories.
Here's a story with regard to Russian collusion that you're not hearing from the mainstream media today, but is making the rounds in sort of conservative media, and it should be.
So I said earlier on the show that Democrats are very deeply concerned with The idea that they lost the election in 2016 because of Russian interference.
How deeply concerned are they over this?
That they were preemptively concerned over this.
They were preemptively planning to make a fuss over Russian interference if Hillary were to lose.
According to Ron Scarborough over at the Washington Times today, British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election.
That's a pretty bombshell statement.
Christopher Steele, you remember the Steele dossier guy, he is now saying in legal filings that he was hired by Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie in order to gather data that would lead to a conclusion that the election was stolen.
He said the law firm's Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference.
His scenario is contained in a sealed August 2nd declaration in a defamation lawsuit brought by three Russian bankers in London.
The trio's American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against Fusion GPS.
In answers to interrogatories, those are questions asked by the opposing lawyer, Mr. Steele wrote, Fusion's immediate client was law firms Perkins Coie.
It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity Based on that advice, parties such as the DNC and HFACC could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.
So in other words, Democrats were already planning In the middle of the election cycle for how they were going to challenge the results of the election should Hillary lose.
So if Hillary won, they weren't going to talk about Russian interference.
If she lost, not only were they going to talk about it, they wanted to see if there was a way they could file a legal lawsuit to prevent the election from being legally stamped.
That's pretty unbelievable stuff, especially from a party and a media that were complaining loudly and every day about how terrible it was that President Trump probably would not accept the results of the election.
The Democrats were prepared to accept, to challenge the results of the election based on this crappy dossier of which not a single part has yet been substantiated.
Maybe there's stuff in the Steele dossier that's legit.
We haven't heard any of it.
All the stuff that we've heard has been illegitimate.
It's pretty incredible stuff.
So this is why I say when Democrats talk about the institutions of the United States falling apart, when they talk about how they're going to fix the institutions of the United States gerrymandering, when they talk about how Wisconsin legislature is curbing the power of the incoming governor, oh my goodness, it's a violation of the law of the land.
No, it is them in one-sided fashion complaining about how the system works.
It is them in one-sided fashion complaining, whatever they lose.
And this goes to a bunch of deeper issues about what's going to happen in the next couple of years.
Because what you're going to hear from Democrats is that President Trump cannot be allowed to be president.
He must be impeached on the basis of his Cohen campaign finance issues.
And that's what you're going to hear from them.
And they're going to say, listen, we want to have an objective standard by which we can judge presidents.
And if you trust a Democrat with an objective standard when it comes to rules like this, you are making a foolish error.
Because what Democrats have shown over the last four decades is that they are not trustworthy when it comes to setting an objective standard by which they then later are expected to hold.
They're very upset about challenging the validity of elections unless Stacey Abrams loses in Georgia or Hillary Clinton loses in 2016.
Then they're fine with challenging the validity of elections.
They're very deeply disturbed when a president commits some crime in office, when he suborns perjury.
Except if it's their president, in which case they don't care at all.
They're deeply disturbed about gerrymandering unless they're the ones doing the gerrymandering.
They're deeply disturbed about limiting the power of incoming parties unless they're the ones doing it.
All of which is to suggest not that there shouldn't be any rules, but that you shouldn't fall for the Democrat trick that suggests that they are actually interested in engaging with you and setting up a new set of rules.
They have not established a grounded basis for us to trust them in helping to set up a set of rules we can live by.
And until they show some good faith in that by going after some of their own when something bad happens, no, they don't get the benefit of the doubt in any of this sort of stuff.
OK, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So things I like today, normally I would do music, but it is in fact a Jewish fast day, which means no music for me.
So instead, we will be doing the best video ever.
So this video is just spectacular.
I first saw it when Sonny Bunch of the Washington Free Beacon tweeted it out.
Basically, there is a guy who had packages stolen from his front porch.
So what he decided to do is create a package.
This package was basically a prank package.
So if it was stolen, the minute somebody opened it, it was going to shoot out glitter, destroying the person's car and or house.
And then it was also going to unleash a fart smell to destroy their car and or house.
It is just amazing.
And this guy is a full on engineer.
So he spent like six months doing this.
Here's a little bit of the video.
It's awesome.
This guy took a package from my porch, and now he's about to open it in his car.
But what he doesn't know is this is a custom-built bait package that is recording him on four different cameras, and it's about to unleash a pound of the world's finest glitter, along with some other surprises.
It's so good.
So America, America's already great.
Okay, this whole making America great again, America's already great when it's filled with people who are willing to spend time punishing criminals by making over the course of six months, handmade stink bombs and glitter.
Bombs that have the capacity to detape so we can all enjoy that together?
That's America right there.
I mean, that's the spirit of the West.
That's the pioneer spirit happening right there.
This guy, by the way, has designed technology that's currently on Mars.
I mean, I guarantee you he feels more proud of what he did with this than designing technology that is currently on Mars.
As well, he should.
One of the great things about humanity is that human beings have shown that they are willing to give up affirmative goods in order to punish evildoers.
There are a bunch of social experiments along these lines.
They're really fascinating.
They basically suggest that if you are in a game where you can take, let's say that you are given a dollar, and without the other person knowing how much money you have, you can split the dollar with that person.
So, you can either split it 50-50, or you can take 90 and give them 10, or you can take 95 and give them 5.
If it's a repeat game, and people find out that one person keeps taking all of the money, And not distributing the money equitably?
Then people begin to actively cheat.
They begin to actively punish the person.
So everyone will then collude to deny that person any money every time they sit next to him, even if they would normally be looking for a 50-50 split.
It's pretty amazing stuff.
Like, this is just how human beings operate.
And you can see that in its more complex fashion with this glitter bomb and stink bomb.
So, good for that guy.
That is some heroic stuff right there.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
Idris Elba, the actor, who I love Idris Elba, I think he's great, but he says that the Me Too movement is only difficult if you're a man with something to hide.
This is just a load of garbage.
He says it's only difficult if you're a man with something to hide.
And he earned praise, of course, from Valerie Jarrett and Shonda Rhimes for saying so.
What a bunch of hooey.
That is a bunch of hooey.
That's like saying that you have nothing to fear from the police ransacking your house if you have nothing to hide.
Maybe true, maybe not.
You're really depending a lot on the honesty of the police, if that is the case.
You are depending a lot on the honesty of women with regard to an objective assessment of their Me Too situation, if you believe that you have nothing to lose in these situations.
And this goes back to the whole women never lie about rape, or women never misconstrue an activity, or women never subjectively remember an event in a way that's not objectively verifiable.
It's just not true.
I mean, if that's actually going to be the standard, then we should believe every accusation about everything.
Why is sexual assault or sexual misbehavior any different than any other crime?
Why shouldn't we just believe everybody?
Every accusation should immediately be believed because people are believable.
You wouldn't lie about somebody robbing your house.
You wouldn't lie about somebody stealing your car.
You wouldn't lie about somebody slandering you.
We should just believe every accusation.
The accusation is, in fact, the proof at that point.
Of course, we don't operate like that because that's incredibly dumb.
And Indra Selva, I promise you that he is taking precautions in his own personal life so that he does not get hit with a Me Too moment just like every other wealthy, famous person does.
And if you're not, you're a fool.
Really, if you're subjecting yourself to random women coming up to your apartment at random odd hours, without worrying about me too, because, hey, I'm a gentleman.
You are so stupid.
Okay.
Time for a couple of other things that I hate.
So, there's an ad that, it's the first ad that's come out from President, for President Trump.
It's from Brad Parscale, who is the head of President Trump's, basically, technological campaign committee.
He was the guy who was responsible for a lot of the data analytics in the last campaign.
Here's a little bit of the ad.
It is not a, it's, it's not the best ad, I think.
This is Brad Parscale, campaign manager for President Trump.
President Trump has achieved more during his time in office than any president in history.
And that is why I need every Trump supporter to pick up the phone right now and deliver a personal thank you to your president.
We have a booming economy, historical unemployment, including the lowest unemployment rate for minorities in history.
We're bringing jobs back to America through new trade deals and the world is a safer place.
We need to let President Trump know that we appreciate what he's doing for America.
I need you to call the number on your screen and deliver a thank you to President Trump.
Call or go online now.
Call 800-684-3043 now.
Okay, the reason that this is not a great ad is because it assumes a level of personal fealty to the President that is not necessary.
So, it is, and then there's a bunch of videos of these people saying, thank you President Trump, thank you President Trump, thank you President Trump.
You know, the beginning of the ad where he says that President Trump has accomplished a lot of stuff?
Fine.
Solid.
But if we are really going to run just a personal loyalty campaign, I hated it when- I don't like cultural personalities in the presidency.
I don't like it when it comes from the left.
I don't like it when it comes from the right.
I am not a fan of this whole, you have to thank President Trump personally for all he's done for you.
I thought that was his job, right?
I mean, wasn't that why people elected him?
I thought that was sort of his job.
So wouldn't it be better to just say, President Trump has fulfilled his campaign promises, and that's why he needs your support today.
But this whole, you must say thank you, say thank you, to President Trump.
Maybe he should say thank you to, you know, his voters, or maybe he should say thank you to his donors, or maybe his donors should just say we want to see him re-elected, but I'm not a fan of this particular tack.
Okay, a final thing that I hate today.
So Nicole Wallace says just very silly things on a regular basis over at MSNBC.
She's talking about President Trump and his attitude toward the Michael Cohen investigation, and she says that criminals are now going to use President Trump as their model.
Are there criminals out there who will point to the president and say, well, you know, the president's lawyer said he wasn't going to do it.
That's already happening.
Are there criminals who are going to model the president's conduct while under federal investigation and make it harder to solve crimes?
Yes, I'm sure that's what criminals are going to do.
Criminals have never been criminals until they heard that President Trump said stuff on Twitter.
Then they became criminals.
The level of myopia that it takes in order to say something like this is really extreme, but it has unfortunately become the mainstream opinion among a lot of quote-unquote journalists on the left.
Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow to break down all the latest 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