All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:38
Trump’s Biggest Moment | Ep. 690
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump prepares to assume the bully pulpit to push for his border wall.
Democrats declare President Trump an unprecedented threat to the Constitution.
And Whoopi Goldberg has some pooping advice for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
I mean, if me pitching Whoopi Goldberg talking about bowel movements with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez isn't enough to hook you in today's show, I just don't know what is.
We have a lot of good stuff coming up for you here today.
A lot of bad stuff, too.
So basically, just a lot of stuff.
And we'll get to all of it in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact you're losing your hair.
I know you've been in denial.
You've been looking in the mirror and thinking, no, I look just as fulsome up top.
As I used to, except now you don't.
You're starting to look like your father.
And this is why you need Keeps.
Losing your hair stinks, and you don't realize how much you care about it until you start losing it, which is why you should be using Keeps, the easiest and most affordable way to keep the hair that you have.
These FDA-approved products used to cost so much, but now, thanks to Keeps, they are finally inexpensive and easy to get.
For five minutes now and a buck a day, you're not gonna have to worry about hair loss again.
Getting started with Keeps is really easy.
Sign up takes less than five minutes.
Just answer a few questions, snap some photos of your hair, a licensed physician will review your information online and recommend the right treatment for you, and then it is shipped directly to your door every three months.
Keeps offers generic versions of the only two FDA-approved hair loss products out there.
You've heard of them before, but you've probably never gotten them for this price.
It's only 10 bucks to 35 bucks a month, plus now you get your first month for free.
One hell of a deal for getting to keep OK, so the big news today, of course, is that the President of the United States is going to give an Oval Office address tonight, as I recommended last week on this show.
You remember?
Treatment at keeps.com slash Ben.
Keeps.
Hair today, hair tomorrow.
K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben for a free month of treatment.
Go check it out right now.
Okay, so the big news today, of course, is that the president of the United States is going to give an Oval Office address tonight.
As I recommended last week on this show.
You remember?
Go back.
Listen to the rewind.
Last week, I said to President Trump that he should give an Oval Office address and he should explain to the American people exactly why the government is shut down.
Because everything has been filtered through the lens of a highly partisan, brutal media that sees everything President Trump does as deeply and inevitably awful.
Trump needs to go directly to the American people and force Democrats to defend their position that walls are inherently bad.
According to the Associated Press, that's exactly what President Trump is slated to do tonight.
With no breakthrough in sight, President Donald Trump will argue his case to the nation on Tuesday that a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border requires the long and invulnerable wall he's demanding before ending the partial government shutdown.
Hundreds of thousands of federal workers face missed paychecks on Friday as the shutdown drags through a third week.
Worth remembering, all those people will be paid back pay as soon as the shutdown ends, which inevitably it will in the next couple of weeks.
Trump's Oval Office speech, his first as president, will be followed by a visit Thursday to the southern border to highlight his demand For a barrier.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that he will use the visit to meet with those on the front lines of the national security and humanitarian crisis.
Again, optics does matter.
The president going and meeting with Border Patrol agents who want to see a wall down there is a ringing rebuke to Democrats who keep claiming that Border Patrol doesn't actually need a wall, that the wall is Border Patrol.
If border patrol agents are telling the president that they need more resources, and the president says, we need more resources, that is a pretty good argument.
The administration is also talking about the idea of declaring a national emergency to allow Trump to move forward on the wall without Congress approving the $5.6 billion that he wants.
Vice President Mike Pence said that the White House Counsel's Office is looking at the idea.
Now, this is where I part ways with the president.
I think this is a very, very bad idea.
I think it's an immoral idea from a constitutional perspective.
The President of the United States is not given unilateral power to just start going around siphoning money from one area of legislatively delegated cash to another area of non-legislatively delegated cash.
This is a really bad precedent and it's a really bad policy.
The president of the United States should not be declaring a national emergency on the southern border akin to a military emergency, like a military invasion that requires him to go to the Defense Department coffers, open them up and then take money that has been delegated for the building of a base somewhere else.
And then say, well, I'm going to use it for a border wall now.
The reason this is a bad idea is not just because this is a congressional issue and Trump should be forcing the Democrats feet to the fire on this thing.
The reason this is a bad idea is because if Elizabeth Warren, God forbid, becomes president or at some point in the future in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes president.
And then she declares that we have a national climate emergency that we ought to mobilize in the same way that we've mobilized for wars in the past.
We have a national emergency, and that necessitates us taking the entire Defense Department budget and plunging it into windmills.
Are we all going to sit by and say, you know what?
National emergency requires that the president has this sort of power.
The answer, of course, is no.
The president does not have this sort of power.
That national emergency power was granted to the president in a time of basically foreign invasion specifically so that if Congress did not have the ability to Approve the building of a base somewhere in the middle of a war zone.
The president could just go ahead and do it if he needed to do it.
It was meant to atom break.
It was meant to make better and make greater the president's war powers as commander-in-chief.
It was not meant to allow the president to run roughshod over the desires of Congress.
Now, Democrats themselves are having a tough time defending exactly why they feel about the wall the way they feel about the wall, and they're struggling for an answer.
They've relied heavily on a media that hates President Trump, just really, really despises President Trump.
The way this is going to work tonight is that President Trump is going to give his address, and then that will immediately be followed by some Democrat giving a response address.
Last night I was asking on Twitter whether Republicans had had that opportunity when Obama was president.
I was answered by Dave Weigel over at the Washington Post that yes, Republicans did have that opportunity in 2011.
President Obama at that point spoke about deficit reduction, and then John Boehner was given a five-minute response time to respond.
In 2009, apparently Republicans were given the same.
So this isn't completely unusual.
Pelosi and Schumer want equal airtime.
Now, equal airtime is not exactly the same thing.
If Trump speaks for 45 minutes, I don't think that we have to hear Chuck Schumer speak for 45 minutes in response.
That's not what the networks gave.
But having Democrats issue their own response, fine.
I mean, honestly, I am fine with the idea of having Democrats have to spend 10 minutes explaining why their position on the border is exactly the same as MS-13's.
That seems like a win for the President of the United States.
And frankly, it seems like a clarification of the controversy in the country.
So, according to Pelosi and Schumer, they put out a letter right now, and this letter says, Okay, again, the demand for equal airtime is silly.
have decided to air the president's address, which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation.
Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime.
Okay, again, the demand for equal airtime is silly.
Republicans were not given that, at least as best I can recall, during the Obama administration, but being put on the air seems fully fitting.
And then they say, the facts are clear.
President Trump has the power to stop hurting the country by reopening the government and ending the Trump shutdown.
Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans in Congress have repeatedly urged the president and leader McConnell to end the Trump shutdown and reopen the government while Congress debates the president's expensive and ineffective wall.
Unfortunately, President Trump keeps rejecting the bipartisan House-passed bills, which have already received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, to reopen the government.
Instead, he's still demanding that American taxpayers pay at least $5.7 billion for his wall, which can't pass either chamber of Congress and, of course, Mexico is not paying for.
Now that the TV networks have decided to air the president's address, Democrats must be given equal airtime.
Okay, well, here is the thing.
The networks, because the networks are far to the left, basically have agreed with the Democrats, not on giving them equal airtime, but on the notion that President Trump must be fact-checked in real time.
Now, this is something they didn't do for Obama, I remember, because I was there.
When Obama gave his speeches on Obamacare, which were chock-full of absolute falsehoods, like, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, there were never any chyrons on the bottom of the screen at CNN saying, President Obama lies, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Or President Obama lies, he wants to lower the deficit.
I don't remember any of those fact-checkers.
I remember there were fact-checks afterward from organizations that do political fact-checks, but there was no real-time fact-checking by the TV networks.
But now, there's a lot of talk about how we need this sort of real-time fact-checking specifically for President Trump, because President Trump is such a liar.
Now, do I think that this is because they really believe that Trump is so much more of a liar than Obama?
No, I think this has a lot more to do with the fact they disagree with President Trump.
If President Trump were on the left, then I think they would be fine with President Trump fibbing.
Take, for example, Alison Camerota over at CNN.
So she says, basically, that the fact-checkers at the networks should spend their nights fact-checking everything President Trump says.
I do not remember this sort of talk in any lead-up to any Obama lie told about Obamacare or about the border or about any other issue.
Here's Alison Camerota, though, prepping the groundwork for the media to claim that President Trump is a vast liar, therefore trying to make his speech ineffective tonight.
Now, the best thing that the White House can do, by the way, as I'll explain in just a second, the best thing that the White House can do is to tell the truth as openly as possible.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
But here's Camerata setting up the combat, which is not going to be between Trump and the Democrats.
It's going to be between Trump and the media.
This morning, the fact-checkers are eating their Wheaties and getting extra rest since they will be working overtime tonight to separate fact from fiction on this border situation.
I mean, listen to that kind of media coverage.
That's objective media coverage.
The fact-checkers are getting ready for President Trump to tell a bevy of lies.
How about this?
How about you just fact-check him?
How about you just fact-check him?
But the hysteria over your own journalistic virtue for preparing to fact-check.
I'm glad they finally woke up after eight years of Obama.
I'm glad the fact-checkers ate their Wheaties and woke up like Rip Van Winkle after eight years of going into a complete coma when it came to fact-checking.
You can listen to the way that the media are patting themselves on the back for all of this.
Brian Stelter, who's the non-objective objective journalist at CNN.
He's their so-called media watchdog.
He quoted a guy named Brian Lowry, who's a senior editor over there.
He says this.
Two cents worth of analysis on this issue.
Trump seldom experiences clear admonition for regularly spouting falsehoods.
Really?
He doesn't?
I'm unaware of any Democrat for the last several years who hasn't said that President Trump lies a lot.
And by the way, President Trump does fib a lot.
Denying him live unfiltered access as Brian Lowry without some sort of screening or vetting.
Doesn't seem like an unreasonable condition to impose under the circumstances, even if that means facing his Twitter rap for it.
So, CNN's Brian Lowry doesn't even want CNN to air this speech unless they have a CNN-Chiron fact-checker underneath Trump's speech.
That's asinine.
It's insane.
You can do a retrospective fact-check.
I think that's fine.
Although, again, I will acknowledge that I don't think they did this during Obama's tenure.
But better they should do it for Trump and Obama than they should not do it for either.
But the fact is that when they say things like, we should not air the president's speech unless we have a real-time fact-checker on a split screen explaining what President Trump is saying that is wrong.
First of all, that assumes objectivity on the part of the real-time fact-checker.
That is not the case.
Second, when was this ever applied to anyone on the other side of the aisle?
I love that the media are preemptively trying to take the teeth out of President Trump's speech because they know it'll be effective, right?
That's the real problem for them.
They know that when the president gets on national TV and he says, listen, we have 60 to 80 percent of the women who are crossing the southern border have been sexually assaulted, according to studies.
That is a humanitarian crisis.
We have terrorists who are crossing that southern border.
That's a crisis.
We have criminals who are crossing that southern border.
That's a crisis.
And we need a barrier.
And the Democrats won't pay for it.
That that's a losing position for the Democrats, and so they're going to try and undercut what the president has to say with all this talk of real-time fact-checking.
Stelter continues by saying, keep in mind, most Americans see right through the president's tricks.
Poll after poll shows that most Americans do not trust him.
That's why I'm skeptical any primetime speech will have a serious effect.
But worth noting, polls also show that the American people do not trust the media.
OK, we're going to get to what Trump should say tonight in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you maintain your online privacy and security.
As a public figure, I am constantly worried about being hacked or spied on.
I don't want my emails compromised or my credit card number or online banking password stolen.
That happens to hundreds of millions of people every year, so how can you protect yourself?
The answer is ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN secures and anonymizes your connection by encrypting 100% of your network data, hiding that IP address.
That means nobody can record or access your online activity.
Download the ExpressVPN app on your computer or smartphone, and then use the internet just as you normally would.
You click one button in the ExpressVPN app, and voila!
You are now protected.
ExpressVPN is fantastic for accessing content from anywhere.
They have VPN locations in 94 countries.
They have blazing fast speeds.
There's a reason they're rated the world's number one VPN service for Internet users.
The nice folks over at ExpressVPN have also extended special pricing of less than $7 per month to all my listeners.
So, visit expressvpn.com slash Ben to claim your discount.
Again, that's expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Go check it out right now.
Expressvpn.com slash Ben to learn more.
That's expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Keep your online activity safe.
No reason to expose it.
Okay, so the networks actually debated, because they don't like Trump this much, the networks actually debated whether or not to even air this thing.
Now, remember, this is President Trump's first address to the nation of his entire tenure.
And he gave the State of the Union, but he hasn't had a direct to the people Oval Office address ever.
This is his first time, which is why it's important.
Obama used to do it all the time, and the networks aired it all the time until they realized they weren't getting any ratings off of it.
He did one in January 2011 on Egypt.
He did one in April 2011 announcing the government shutdown deal.
He did one in May of 2011 announcing the death of Bin Laden.
Michelle Malkin has an entire list of these.
June 11 announcing a troop drawdown in Afghanistan.
May 2012 announcing a troop withdrawal in Afghanistan.
April 2013, Boston Marathon bombing remarks.
September 2013, an address on Syria.
October 2013, August 2014, September 2014, And there are more.
He did like five of them in 2009 alone.
He did one in February, one in March, one in April, one in July, one in December.
Right?
So he was doing it just all the time.
And the media constantly covered it and they said, well, it's not a problem.
He's the president.
We ought to give him the airtime.
I love that the media actually had to debate whether to give the president airtime because they are that afraid that the president is going to say something effective.
That's really what's going on here.
The media are afraid the President of the United States is going to say something that actually works on the American people, and thus, they're preemptively preparing their fact checks.
Now, with that said, that means that the Trump administration, his speech writing team, should really lock down every stat they put in his mouth.
He's going to be speaking not off the cuff tonight, he's going to be speaking from teleprompter.
That means that everything they do should be extraordinarily buttoned down, defensible, with footnotes, just take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats.
The Democrats would like to argue Trump's honesty rather than arguing Trump's policy.
That's the reality.
And so President Trump ought to provide them nothing but honesty tonight.
Now, here's why this makes a difference.
The facts themselves are strong enough that you don't actually have to exaggerate.
So the reason this came up is because Members of the administration made some unsupportable claims about the terror threat on the southern border.
So, Chris Wallace was on Fox News on Sunday with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders had claimed something like 40,000 people on criminal and terror watch lists had crossed the southern border or something, and Chris Wallace basically shellacked her over it and said, this is an unsupportable claim.
And you can see Huckabee Sanders struggling to give an answer.
We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally.
It's by air, it's by land, and it's by sea.
across the border from Mexico.
We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally.
The State Department says there hasn't been any terrorists that they found coming across the southern border from Mexico.
It's by air, it's by land, and it's by sea.
It's all of the above.
But one thing that you're forgetting is that the most vulnerable point of entry that we have into this country is our southern border, and we have to protect it.
Okay, so when he says, when you say there are 4,000 terrorists crossing in, they're all coming in through airports.
They're not coming in through the southern border.
That's right.
Now, here's the problem.
All the administration had to do was tell the truth about how many terrorists were coming across the southern border.
Because all they have to name is one, right?
All they have to say is the proper role of the United States government on immigration is to prevent any terrorists from entering.
And here's what NBC News reports, right?
They say, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection encountered just six immigrants on U.S.-Mexico border in first half of fiscal year 2018, whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists, according to Border Patrol data obtained by NBC News.
Now, listen to the phraseology there.
Customs and Border Protection encountered just six immigrants on U.S.-Mexico border in the first half of fiscal year 2018.
So, in other words, one terrorist a month, basically, was trying to cross On the US-Mexico border.
One terrorist a month.
That sounds like a lot of terrorists to me, I'll be honest with you.
That sounds like... I mean, again, they're saying in just the first half of 2018, six terrorists attempted to do this.
And those were known terrorists.
Not unknown terrorists, and the number is probably larger.
It's probably ten or twelve.
Well, it only took five illegal immigrant terrorists to actually commit 9-11.
All the others were here on actual legal visas.
So, why exactly would we not take that seriously?
NBC News explains.
So, in other words, this is the point that I'm making with regard to the media.
including White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who said on Friday that CBP stopped nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists from crossing the southern border in fiscal year 2018.
So in other words, this is the point that I'm making with regard to the media.
The media would rather argue over whether the Trump administration is telling the truth than they would argue over the issue itself.
The issue itself.
And by the way, it's totally appropriate for them to fact check the Trump administration.
In the same way, it's totally appropriate for the media to fact check any politician.
All politicians should be fact checked.
Which demonstrates the necessity of the Trump administration really, really, really tonight sticking to the facts.
I've said this all along about President Trump.
President Trump lies a lot and it's bad.
He should stop doing it because his agenda does not require lies to support it.
If your agenda requires a lie to support it, your agenda is bad.
If your agenda can be based solely on truth and fact, then your agenda is fine.
The Trump agenda is not a problem on the border.
He should just tell the truth about it.
Alyssa Farrah, for example, over at the VP's office said it is 100% correct that 17,000 adults with a criminal record were arrested in fiscal year 2018 at the southern border as per Border Patrol.
And that's a good statistic!
17,000 adults with a criminal record arrested at the border?
How many people are not being arrested at the border with a criminal record?
And we know that basically a terrorist a month was caught at the border by Border Patrol.
That those are numbers that matter.
But this is why it's important that the Trump administration really stick to the fact, not as much as humanly possible, just stick to the facts.
That's all.
Because the case is really strong.
I take, for example, there is a former ICE director on Fox News, and he was saying, listen, we need some sort of barrier on the wall.
This is Thomas Holman, the former U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director.
He implored Nancy Pelosi to consider taking a federal funding deal that includes money for a border wall because it's her job to keep Americans safe as well.
Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, you need to love your country a little more than you hate this president.
I mean, your number one responsibility is to protect the Americans and secure our border.
We've already shown how a wall, a barrier can be effective.
So put politics aside.
Look, this is all politics.
They don't want this president to have a win on the border.
But what they don't understand is if the president wins on this border issue, America wins.
America is more secure.
This is the only issue that Republicans should be hammering over and over and over again.
This is what President Trump should hammer tonight.
And this is why Democrats are actually afraid of this Oval Office address.
You think they'd be screaming like a stuck pig if they weren't afraid of the Oval Office address?
You think that they would be making a fuss over fact-checking if they thought this was a big nothing?
By the end of the Obama administration, every time the man appeared on national TV, everybody just sort of sighed and went, and just went, okay, fine, whatever.
Dude's talking again.
And then Obama would get on, and he'd talk, and talk, and he'd talk, and he'd just say things, a lot of things, and no one would pay attention.
Well, people know that tonight lots of folks are going to pay attention to what President Trump has to say, and suddenly Democrats are going to be forced to explain why they will not give the president 11 hours worth of federal funding to pay for a permanent border solution along our southern border.
The president can do some real heavy lifting tonight.
All he has to do is make sure he doesn't undercut himself by saying things that are factually dubious.
When the president went out this week and he said that former presidents have said they want a wall too, and then we couldn't find a former president who said they wanted a wall.
The media wants to live in that space.
The media wants to live in the space where they can spend all the time not talking about the agenda, but talking about how dishonest President Trump is.
Trump ought not give them that opportunity.
This is why a president with discipline would be fantastic.
Any sort of discipline, please.
So tonight, stick to the teleprompter, Mr. President.
No exaggeration.
Just say what's true.
And if you say what's true, the American people will hear you.
Now, with all of that said, Democrats are seeking to come up with some sort of response, and their response is pretty weak tea.
I'll explain what exactly their response is in just a second.
First, Let's talk about your back.
So I will admit to you that lately I've been having some serious neck pains, some serious neck and back pain.
And one of the ways that I alleviate this pain is by hopping on my teeter inversion table.
With a teeter inversion table, you use gravity in your own body weight to decompress your spine and relieve pressure on your discs and surrounding nerves.
Decompressing on a teeter inversion table for a few minutes today, it's a great addition to anyone's daily routine to maintain that healthy spine and active lifestyle in your body.
It decompresses the spine It's really good for my shoulders as well.
I've done my homework This is the best inversion table on the market over 3 million people have put their trust in the teeter inversion table and right now they're offering a great deal for my listeners and my listeners only for a limited time and You can get the brand new 2019 Teeter Fit Spine Inversion Table Model with bonus accessories and a free pair of gravity boots so you can invert at home or take the boots with you to the gym.
Teeter Inversion Tables, I'm telling you, these folks have tons of 5-star reviews specifically because they are so good.
With this deal, you get $150 off when you go to teeter.com.
You also get free shipping, free returns, 60-day money-back guarantees.
If you don't like it, you're not going to be spending any money on it.
Remember, You can only get that new 2019 Teeter Fitspine Inversion Table plus a free pair of Gravity Boots by going to teeter.com slash ben.
That's T-E-E-T-E-R dot com slash ben.
Again, teeter.com slash ben.
Go check it out right now.
Teeter.com slash ben for the special deal, which includes $150 off, among other goodies.
So go check that out right now.
OK, so what are Democrats going to do to respond to President Trump's big address this evening?
Well, they're saying that they should go back.
You watch.
The new wave of Democratic talking points is going to be that President Trump should just go back and sign the 2013 immigration Gang of Eight bill.
Now, that bill was so bad that Marco Rubio, Senator Rubio, who was one of the original sponsors of that bill, backed away from it in 2016 when he was running for president and a little bit before, saying it was a mistake to have ever signed on to that bill.
Democrats, however, are trying to revive that bill.
Why?
Because it got 68 votes in the Senate and it was stopped by a Republican House.
14 Republicans voted in favor of that 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill.
Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, he was out there saying that this is what Republicans should do.
They should bring back up that bill because that bill at least had some money for border security.
All it'll take is, you know, amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants.
We're going to have to secure the border.
We've always said that.
You go clear back to the 2013 immigration reform bill that we did in the Senate, and we passed it with a majority of Democrats and Republicans.
I think it was 68 votes.
It was a tremendous piece of legislation.
If the president would say this, Chris, We're going to bring that 2013 immigration reform bill back up within the 30-day trial period.
Within 30 days.
It has to be voted on.
Cannot be filibustered.
Cannot be blocked out.
We're going to have to take a vote on the floor.
If he would do that, he would get what he needs.
OK, Jeff Merkley making the same point.
Democrat from Oregon.
He also wants the 2013 bill.
This is going to be the new Democratic talking point.
It's going to be, well, if Trump really wants border security, let's just do a comprehensive solution.
Now, Democrats constantly want to talk comprehensive solution because they don't like the idea of bifurcating the issue.
The issue should be bifurcated.
What we do with the people here has nothing to do with securing the border.
Nothing.
OK, why we are tying citizenship for the people who are already here to securing the border to prevent new people from coming in is beyond me.
I mean, honestly, it's like somebody breaks into your house, and you have two things to do.
One, deal with the person in your house, and two, make sure that the lock on your front door works from now on.
These are two separate issues.
You wouldn't say, you know what?
Can't deal with the lock on the front door until we deal with this person in our house.
Can't do it.
We got to deal with both of these at the same time.
You actually have to deal with each one individually.
Right?
You have to fix the lock on the front door, which is one problem, and you have to deal with the person in your house, which is a second problem.
These are both problems, but they are not related problems.
And the fact that everyone keeps trying to tie them together is demonstrative of why the government fails.
The government likes passing thousand-page bills that are packed with crap and then suggesting they've solved the problem, when indeed they've solved nothing.
They tried this back in the 1980s.
They declared amnesty.
They said it would be the last amnesty.
Obviously, it was not.
But here is Jeff Merkley claiming that the Republicans should bring back up that terrible 2013 bill.
Well, in 2013 we had a comprehensive immigration bill.
A number of folks have tried to say to the administration, we have a broken immigration system, let's fix it.
Let's have a bipartisan bill like the one that passed the Senate and would have passed the House if it had been put on the floor, but it was Republicans who blocked it.
But as time has evolved, we are happy to provide money for border security.
That isn't the issue.
So this is going to be their new talking point.
Let's go back to that 2013 bill.
You know, when Democrats ran the government.
Let's go back to that bill.
When it was not Mitch McConnell in charge.
Let's do that.
By the way, Mitch McConnell opposed that bill.
Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership opposed that 2013 border bill.
Why?
Because that border bill was filled with amnesty for 11.5 million illegal immigrants as of January 2011.
It's actually a low number.
It would have created a registered provisional immigrant status that would grant travel and work authorization, similar to the temporary resident status of 1986.
It would have streamlined the naturalization process for unlawful immigrants.
It would have said that anyone who is present in the U.S.
on or before December 31, 2011 would qualify for amnesty, which would create a massive opportunity for fraud.
And how about that border security, right?
You hear the Democrats here saying, if we go back to that 2013 bill, there was border security in it.
Except for not.
Except for not.
Okay, what this bill did was it suggested that the Department of Homeland Security would have to commence the implementation of a southern border security strategy and fencing strategy before the Secretary could begin processing applications for amnesty.
Okay, do you think under a Democrat that would last for five minutes?
All that would happen is that the Democrats would just declare that the border is secure.
Look, we have a new strategy.
Our strategy is the border is secure.
Go ahead and process all the amnesty.
This is why the only thing that matters when it comes to President Trump's overall immigration policy is the stuff that cannot be undone.
The president can do a better job of deporting folks, that's fine.
The president can change the status with regard to E-Verify, for example.
He can push harder in certain areas of immigration enforcement.
But Democrats can undo all that stuff.
What Democrats will not undo, they're not going to go to the desert and start digging up steel slats that have already been placed down.
It's one of the reasons why, when the Trump administration declared that it was moving the U.S.
embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, You know, there are folks like me saying to the Trump administration, get that sucker built now before the Democrats simply recant the statement.
And the same thing is true of the wall.
The wall cannot be undone once it is done, which is one of the reasons Democrats are fighting it so hard and why they're pushing for the 2013 bill, which would not have included a wall either.
It really is amazing.
So what is the other angle the Democrats are taking?
So angle number one is they should take border security without a wall.
We don't want a wall.
That's going to be a hard, honestly, it's going to be an uphill climb for Democrats because most Americans understand on a gut level that walls do exactly what walls have always been designed to do.
By the way, it is pretty incredible to watch as members of the comedic, the so-called comedic community, try to weigh in on all of this.
It demonstrates that No one can actually defend the Democrats' program on this.
No one can actually defend the Democrats' program that a border wall or border security doesn't matter.
No one.
Seth Meyers tried to do it.
Seth Meyers, last night, again, he spends all of his time going after the supposed factlessness of the Trump administration rather than talking about the fact that a wall would actually be a useful thing.
He shouldn't get to address the nation just to repeat his lies.
If he calls up the networks asking for airtime, they should pick up the phone and say...
Okay, first of all, I don't know what happened to comedy.
That's not even close to comedy from Seth Meyers, but this is what the Democrats are afraid of having to defend their positions.
It is that simple.
So force them to defend their positions.
Instead, the Democrats are swiveling.
So they've swiveled to the 2013 immigration bill, and now they're swiveling to the argument that President Trump is an unprecedented threat to national security.
I'll explain why they're saying that, and I'll also explain How President Trump should respond to that in just a second.
Plus, Bill de Blasio now claiming that he wants nationalized healthcare in New York City, but he doesn't know what he's talking about as per our usual arrangement.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that you've racked up some credit card debt.
So, for decades, credit cards have been telling you to buy it now, pay for it later.
The only problem is those interest rates rack up unbelievably quickly.
Well, with Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people Regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank.
No high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
All you have to do is go to LendingClub.com.
You can check your rate in minutes.
You can borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com.
Don't let that debt spiral out of control.
I promise you, you're not going to want to pay that thing down.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
All loans made by WebBank member FDIC.
Equal housing lender.
It is not responsible to allow your credit card bills to continue to rack up those massive interest rate charges.
Instead, look to consolidate that debt.
Or if you just need a swing loan for construction or something, LendingClub's the place to go.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Check that rate in minutes.
Borrow up to 40 grand.
Again, that's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Okay, we're gonna get to the Democrats' claim that President Trump is an unprecedented threat to national security because he wants to build a wall.
Or something.
We're gonna get to that in just one second.
First, you have to go over and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you can get the rest of this show live.
You can get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, and Michael Moll's show live.
More importantly than those other shows.
I mean, come on.
More importantly, is that when you subscribe, you now get two additional hours of me a day.
We're basically doing two shows a day, right?
We do the podcast, and then, later in the afternoon, like 1 to 3 Pacific Time, We do our live radio show, and that means that you can either listen to it live on the radio, or you're working at that time.
Instead, subscribe.
You can actually see the show.
We're going to start taking questions during the breaks at some point in the very near future, so you can correspond with me in the middle of the show.
It's awesome, okay?
We had literally thousands of people watching us live behind the paywall yesterday.
You should do that, too, because it's just great.
Go check it out for $9.99 a month.
For $99 a year, you get all that great stuff.
Plus, You get this.
The very greatest in beverage vessels.
Look at that.
The leftist tears.
Hot or cold tumbler.
Magnificent.
Magnificent!
Hey, you get that for $99 a year.
So much good stuff.
Go check us out at YouTube or iTunes.
Our Sunday special this week was Stanley McChrystal.
It was really good.
We have another great Sunday special guest coming up next week, as we do every week.
We have so many goodies for you.
All you have to do is subscribe.
$99 a year or $9.99 a month.
Go check it out right now.
Right now, we're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So even as President Trump rightly claims that we do need some border protection on that southern border, we need fencing, steel slats or whatever it is.
We need a physical barrier to prevent people from crossing that border illegally.
This is not really a very tough issue.
The Democrats are claiming that President Trump is an unprecedented threat to national security.
Why?
Because they say he is going to use national emergency powers.
Now, as I said earlier on the show, it would be a grave mistake for President Trump to declare a national emergency and then use the military to build the wall.
This is not the role of the President of the United States.
It is not a national emergency under any interpretation of that of that statute.
Furthermore, it relieves pressure on the Democrats to do the right thing.
Now, the cynical, the cynical politicos out there will tell you that what President Trump is going to do is he's going to declare a national emergency, he's going to authorize the military to build the wall, somebody will challenge it in court, it'll get struck down, and then Trump will go on Twitter and fulminate against the courts and Democrats and then sign a bill that just funds the government and we all move forward with nothing having gotten done.
That would be a grave mistake by the President.
It would be a serious mistake by the President.
It would be an overreach.
It would provide the precedent for Democrats to do the same thing with national emergency powers.
Again, as somebody who believes in the structural constitution, as somebody who believes that the President of the United States was not invested with these vast, overarching powers, It disturbs me that the president used national emergency powers to declare tariffs on various nations around the world, and it disturbs me that he would do the same thing to build a border wall, and congressional Republicans should not allow him to.
Congressional Republicans should be fighting tooth and nail to get him the funding that he needs to build that border wall.
But you can see, again, The big mistake here for the Trump administration would be allowing Democrats to misdirect either to falsehoods told by the Trump administration or to the national emergency powers question, both of which the Trump administration is not correct on.
The Trump administration should play straight down the middle.
They should just say, here, we want a wall.
Democrats won't give it to us.
That's their problem.
Ted Lieu, you can see where Democrats are going with this.
Ted Lieu, the horrible congressperson from California, he says that President Trump can't use national emergency powers.
That would be unprecedented.
It is my opinion that it would be illegal for the president to use the military to go build a wall simply by declaring a national emergency.
It would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
The military members would be following an illegal order subjecting them to being at risk of violating federal crime.
This is a very big deal.
I hope the president does not declare a national emergency to build a wall.
Okay, well, the Democrats want to focus on this as opposed to the wall itself.
Again, because the wall argument is not cutting in their favor.
You can see, this is the pitch the Democrats want to make.
Trump's an unprecedented threat to national security.
Just look at him trying to expand executive power.
Now, notice that none of these Democrats were whining about President Obama expanding executive power.
They're fine with that.
This is one of the things that bugs me about partisan politics.
Democrats are fine with expanding executive power so long as they're boys in the White House.
And then Republicans are fine with expanding executive power so long as they're boys in the White House.
As long as you're boys in the White House, you're cool.
As long as you're boys in the White House, you're fine with the White House expanding its powers.
That's, that's absurd.
Okay, and it's a problem.
People who care about the Constitution should care about the checks and balances of American government.
With that said, Democrats are suddenly proclaiming that they're very afraid of the centralization of governmental powers in the executive.
They don't have a lot of leg to stand on here.
Angus King, the senator from Maine, he came out and he said, Trump is what the founders were afraid of.
You go back to 1787, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, this is what they were afraid of.
What?
What were the framers afraid of that we're seeing right now?
A monarchical president.
They took such care to divide power and to allocate powers between the Congress, the President, the courts.
And here we are with a president that's trying to end-run the constitutional process, or at least is thinking about it.
If he wants to enact some kind of policy, it's got to be through the Congress.
He doesn't seem to get that.
Okay, I agree with that, but where were all these people when Obama was president?
Where were all these people?
They weren't anywhere.
Every time Democrats take power, then we start worrying about the legislative overreach and the terrorists in Congress.
Remember, they were calling them the Tea Party terrorists in Congress?
And every time a Republican's president, then we worry about centralization of power in the executive branch.
You hear Nancy Pelosi doing the same thing, the Speaker of the House.
She comes out and she says, you know, President Trump wants to abolish Congress.
That's what he really wants, to abolish Congress.
She says this literally three years after Barack Obama declared he could unilaterally suspend immigration law to legalize millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, explicitly at the time saying he did not have the executive authority under the Constitution to do it.
But here's Nancy Pelosi declaring that Trump is obviously the threat to Congress.
Our purpose in the meeting at the White House was to open up government.
The impression you get from the president that he would like to not only close government, build a wall, but also abolish Congress.
So the only voice that mattered was his own.
Okay, every president wants to believe the only voice that matters is their own, but that doesn't mean that is the only voice that matters.
Again, Nancy Pelosi was utterly silent when Barack Obama exacerbated the problem of the executive branch.
It's really maddening.
Just as a person who cares about constitutional government, it is maddening to watch as the political parties completely abdicate their responsibility under the Constitution.
The gravest threat to the American Republic on a governmental level has been the legislature abdicating its responsibility to the executive branch since the advent of administrative government in the early 20th century.
In the early 20th century, President Woodrow Wilson declared that we would have an administrative government, a government that was administered by the experts.
And that administration, the administration of government by experts, that would make the country better.
All you had to do as a Congress was pass a vague law kicking the power over to the executive and all would be well.
And people have cheered that sort of nonsense ever since.
It undermines the very fundamental basis of freedom in the country.
And whether it's coming from Republicans or Democrats, it's a problem.
The hypocrisy of members of Congress who only care about it when it's a member of the other party.
That's untenable and really quite gross.
OK, meanwhile, the Democrats continue to push forward their own radical agenda.
The latest radical agenda push is coming courtesy of Mayor Bill de Blasio in New York City.
So Democrats are already looking at nationalized health care.
They're already looking at single payer.
In fact, the House Budget Committee chairman who came forward today, Democrat, came forward today and asked the Congressional Budget Office to score the possibility of a nationalized health care system.
All of us who were claiming that Obamacare was simply the first step toward nationalized healthcare.
Turns out we were all right at the time, and Obama was lying at the time, and Democrats were lying at the time when they said no.
Bill de Blasio is leading the charge.
I do love it when Democrats make promises that they obviously cannot keep, and then the media just parrot those promises.
Notice the, let's juxtapose the media's claim that President Trump lies a lot about immigration with the way that they cover Bill de Blasio saying that he is now going to provide universal health care in New York City.
So Mayor Bill de Blasio came forward yesterday, according to NBC New York, and he said that New York City will begin guaranteeing comprehensive health care.
To every single resident, regardless of someone's ability to pay or immigration status, an unprecedented plan that will protect the more than half a million New Yorkers currently using the ER as a primary provider, Mayor Bill de Blasio said.
It's not health insurance, his spokesman clarified after the surprise announcement on MSNBC on Tuesday morning.
This is the city paying for direct comprehensive care, not just ERs for people who can't afford it or can't get comprehensive Medicaid, including 300,000 undocumented New Yorkers, according to his spokesman, Eric Phillips.
De Blasio said the plan will provide primary and specialty care from pediatrics to OBGYN, geriatric, mental health and other services to the city's roughly 600,000 uninsured.
He said the city already has a foundation for such a plan, a public health insurance option that helps get direct care to undocumented residents.
But that option will be expanded and supported with the addition of a new program called New York City Cares.
That plan will roll out in 2019 and build out over the next few years.
He said it will cost about $100 million.
Not per year, total, about $100 million.
New Yorkers will be able to access the program through the city's website or simply by calling 311.
And there will be no tax hikes to fund it, said the mayor.
It's magic.
It's magic.
We'll just be able to pay for 600,000 uninsured people with $100 million total.
And no one will have to pay for it.
De Blasio said, we'll put the money in to make it work.
It's going to save us money down the line.
I love whenever Democrats say something's going to save you money down the line.
It's like when someone sells you a timeshare.
Honest to God.
Democrats selling you government programs is somebody selling you a timeshare.
Have you ever been to one of those timeshare presentations?
So my wife and I, when we were on our honeymoon and we couldn't afford to go and do all the activities in Hawaii, we went on a timeshare presentation.
And what they do is they sit you down and they say, Do you care about the children that you're going to have one day?
Do you care about your family?
Do you care about vacation?
Are you a person who prioritizes the time you spend with your family on vacation?
Because if you do, you have to carve that out of your budget every year, right?
And maybe the best way to carve that out of your budget is to dedicate yourself.
Commit right now that you are going to have the best vacations of your life every year at this hotel for X number of dollars.
They're like, yeah.
Yeah, it'll pay for itself.
And that's what they say.
It'll pay for itself.
They say, don't worry.
It'll pay for itself.
Because if you spend a bunch of money on the timeshare, imagine, I mean, if you had to shift that vacation every year, it'll be even more expensive.
So it'll pay for itself in like 10 years.
In like 10 years, it'll pay for itself.
Now, there are a very small number of people who are very happy with their timeshares.
Most people buy it and then they're like, oh my God, what did I do?
How do I get out of this thing?
Okay, that's democratic spending programs.
Don't worry.
We'll nationalize healthcare.
It'll pay for itself.
Really, how?
How will it pay for itself?
Somebody's going to have to pay for it, and it's not the people who are going to be using the healthcare, presumably.
It won't be the health insurance companies, which will be bankrupted by nationalized healthcare.
The people who are going to pay for it are going to be the people who are no longer allowed to use private health insurance, or if they are allowed to use private health insurance, it's because they're buying over-the-top private health insurance, supplemental health insurance, and doctors who are being forced to take government cram downs, and all the rest.
De Blasio says, this has never been done in the country in a comprehensive way.
Healthcare isn't just a right in theory, it must be a right in practice.
And we're doing that here in the city.
So here's my favorite part of this.
That's the entire media report, right?
Where's the fact-checking?
Like a simple bit of fact-checking.
Say, like a simple division problem.
So he says it'll cost $100 million.
There's 600,000 uninsured people in the city of New York.
$100 million divided by 600,000 people is about $160 per person.
So he's now telling you that you're going to be able to provide comprehensive health care for 600,000 people at the cost of $160 a head.
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
That's going to happen.
Yeah, I mean, how much do you pay in health insurance?
A month.
Is it $160?
I really doubt it.
It's probably $1,000 a month.
It's probably $500 a month, right?
It's something more than $160 forever.
But he's claiming that for $160, it's going to take care of all the problems in New York City.
It'll be comprehensive, universal health coverage.
Amazing.
I mean, this is the equivalent of Michael Scott in the office when he's told that he has to declare bankruptcy.
He just gets up in the middle of the office and shouts, I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!
That's exactly what Bill de Blasio just did.
He just got up in the middle of NBC and he says, I DECLARE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!
And you're like, well, how?
And he goes, with magic.
With magic.
Poof!
It's an illusion, Michael.
That's all he has to do.
And the media eat it up.
Where's the fact checking?
Where are the fact checkers to say, is that really universal health care?
Maybe it's a supplemental health coverage.
You get one preventative health care visit.
And we're going to pay for it with $100 million.
Everyone gets to go to the doctor one time to tell them if they have the flu.
That's an actual proposal.
It's a bad proposal, but it's an actual proposal.
But I love that everybody just sort of repeats out loud that this is a comprehensive healthcare program, a universal healthcare program provided to you by Bill de Blasio.
It really is incredible.
So, well done, once again, media, who say that only Trump lies.
Trump's the only liar.
Republicans are the only liars.
Those are the only people who have ever lied.
Truly amazing.
But Bill de Blasio is a real truth-teller.
We should definitely give policy-making power to people who say that they can provide you comprehensive healthcare universally for $100 million for 600,000 people.
Uh-huh.
Sure.
Okay.
Meanwhile, Democrats are now looking for a 33% corporate income tax rate increase.
They want to hike the rate from 21% to 28%, which would place us once again among the highest OECD nations in terms of corporate tax rate.
I love that Democrats come into office and their first move is let's raise all the taxes.
Yeah, you go for that.
It worked well for Walter Mondale in 1984 when he campaigned on raising taxes.
Try it again.
Let's see how well it works for you now.
Okay, time for some things that I like and then we'll get to some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
There's a great new book out by Brad Meltzer.
As you know, I'm a big Brad Meltzer fan.
He's a terrific thriller writer.
He's written this with Josh Mench.
This one is an actual non-fiction book.
It's called The First Conspiracy, The Secret Plot to Kill George Washington.
Which is all about kind of the first assassination attempt against George Washington.
Really a fascinating book.
Meltzer is a really interesting guy, and a real patriot.
He actually emailed me recently about an experience that he had with George H.W.
Bush.
When George H.W.
Bush was ailing, Meltzer went to visit him, and Meltzer read him from one of his books about the Founding Fathers.
And George H.W.
Bush just sat there, like literally for an hour, just sat there, enraptured by the Greatness of the Founding Fathers.
Meltzer is somebody who really respects that.
If you read his children's books as well, which I've recommended on the program before, those are well worth it.
I believe this book comes out today, so go check it out right now.
The First Conspiracy, The Secret Plot to Kill George Washington.
Go check that out right now.
It's, again, really fascinating.
It's about in 1776.
An elite group of soldiers who are trained to serve as Washington's bodyguards.
But some of the men were part of a treasonous plan, and it's a secret plot and how it was revealed.
Again, well worth it.
Okay, time for, let's see, one more thing I like.
So I just have to tell you this story because it's fantastic.
I do love it when life provides you with karmic justice, and this is one of those cases.
There's a woman who is standing on her own waiting for an Uber in Rio de Janeiro.
And, you know, pretty young woman named Pollyanna Vianna, nicknamed the Iron Lady, as it turns out.
She's a mixed martial artist fighter.
And a guy who tried, a guy tried to use a fake gun to steal her mobile phone while she waited outside her apartment block on Saturday night.
She said, when he saw him, when he saw I saw him, he sat next to me.
He asked me the time, I said it.
And I saw he wasn't going to leave.
So I immediately moved to put my cell phone in my waist.
And then he said, give me the phone.
Don't try to react because I'm armed.
Then he put his hand over a gun, but I realized that it was too soft to be a gun.
It was just like a cardboard gun.
She said, I sat him down in the same place we were before and I said, now we'll wait for the police.
Because she just subdued him.
She just grabbed him around the neck and beat the crap out of him.
She said, I was fine because he didn't even react after.
Since he took the punches very quickly, I think he was scared so he didn't react anymore.
I said I wouldn't let go and that I was going to call the police.
He said, call the police then because he was scared I was going to beat him up some more.
He had to be taken to a medical facility to treat his wounds and then to the police station where she filed a report.
Which is just awesome.
Just well done by this young lady.
That's great stuff.
Gotta love that.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
So how many people have to die in your apartment before it's too many people dying in your apartment?
This is the question of the day.
A young black man, I mean, I really shouldn't laugh because it really is quite horrifying.
A young black man was found dead in the home of Ed Buck, who's a 65-year-old white man and prominent donor to the Democratic Party, with an alleged history of supplying drugs to young African-American men.
This raises the question, if everybody knew that he was doing this for years, then why exactly was he killing a second young black man in his apartment?
Allegedly.
According to West Hollywoodville News, an unidentified black man was discovered at Buck's Laurel Canyon apartment Monday morning in West Hollywood, dead from a presumed overdose.
The name of the dead man has yet to be released, but the outlet suggests this is something of a pattern.
On July 27, 2017, 26-year-old Gemma Moore was discovered dead at Buck's apartment.
The L.A.
County Coroner's Office ruled Moore's death an overdose caused by meth.
A coroner's report said drug paraphernalia was found in the home along with sex toys and clear plastic bags containing what was suspected to be meth.
The L.A.
County District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute Buck, saying the evidence was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Buck was responsible.
For the death.
And then Buck's attorney said that Buck didn't have any involvement in that death.
And then there's another problem, which is that a second dead guy showed up in his apartment.
Whenever it says another dead man shows up in your apartment, the another is the dead giveaway that you've got a real problem.
In August 2018, excerpts from Moore's journal were publicized in order to bolster a push for prosecuting Buck, led by Moore's mother, Latasha Nixon.
In one such excerpt from December 2016, Moore wrote that he has become addicted to drugs, and the worst one at that, Ed Buck, is the one to thank.
According to Open Secrets, Buck has donated tens of thousands of dollars to multiple Democratic Party candidates over the past few election cycles, including Hillary Clinton.
He also ran for elected office.
He supported a lot of various progressive causes throughout the year.
This is not to suggest that only Democrats are engaged in this sort of activity, because obviously that's not true, but it is worthy of note that This guy is a major Democratic donor and we will see if the media coverage continues to be as long and comprehensive with regard to Ed Buck as it would be if the guy were Republican.
Which I can fairly guarantee that it will not be.
Okay, other things that I hate today.
So I just have to point out the idolatry.
that the Democrats have for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It really is something astonishing.
Roger Simon, who's a writer over at Politico, he tweeted out a picture of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is apparently ailing, and he said, "If it were possible, would you subtract one day off your life and add it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's life for one extra day of good health?
If just 10,000 people did this, it would add 27 productive years to her life." I don't even, what?
I don't even know, is that a brainstorm?
Like, does he think that we have that life-sucking machine from the Princess Bride that we're gonna strap Wesley to the table?
Or take 50 years off his life and then donate it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Or does Ruth Bader Ginsburg have like a room of young virgins in the other room and she just sort of drains them of their life force?
I tweeted out, maybe we should all give a year to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and then she can live forever.
Presumably handing down pro-abortion rulings from now until the end of time.
That'll be really exciting.
Imagine that.
Do you have that kind of idolatry for anyone?
For anyone?
It's funny, there's a midrash, which is kind of like an apocryphal Jewish tale, about apparently Adam and Adam being shown King David by God.
And Adam lived till he was 930 years old, according to the Bible.
And he was supposed to live to be 1,000, as the midrash says.
And he was shown King David.
And God said, this guy is going to die in youth.
And Adam saw that King David could become something great.
He said, well, I will donate 70 years of my life to King David.
Well, Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't King David, and this deal is not on the table, and if it were on the table, and you were willing to sacrifice 24 hours of your life for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then I would suggest that you probably have your priorities not in order.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a human being.
She's not a saint.
And if you're willing to do that for anyone, like, of all the people on earth that you'd do that for, that would be it?
If I were going to give a day of my life to anybody, wouldn't it be some kid with cancer or something?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Yeah, okay.
It just... Alright, I mean, I guess your priorities are your priorities.
Okay, final thing that I hate.
So I discussed this a little bit on my radio show yesterday, but there is a new APA report out.
American Psychological Association report out.
The APA is just a pathetic organization.
I mean, that organization is a political hackery organization par excellence.
They've already declared that things that are mental disorders are not mental disorders, specifically out of political pressure with no evidence to back them.
Now they have declared that masculinity itself, traditional masculinity itself, is unhealthy to people.
Which does raise a question.
If you're a woman and you think that you are a traditionally masculine man, maybe you're not mentally disordered for thinking you're a man, but if you want to be a traditionally masculine man, now you're mentally disordered.
So if you're a transgender woman or transgender man, mental disorder isn't wanting to change your genitals or anything.
The actual mental disorder would be you wanting to be traditionally masculine, obviously.
The real problem is that you want to break rocks with a sledgehammer or something.
According to the APA, they are telling people that something is amiss for men, and they say that Well, it depends on which emotions we're telling you to be stoic about.
shows that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
Well, it depends on which emotions we're telling you to be stoic about.
If we're telling you to stop whining, in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop, better advice never given, then that seems not terrible.
If we are telling you that you should never express your feelings, then obviously that's stupid, but I'm not sure that there are that many people who truly believe that.
They say that stoicism is bad, aggressiveness is bad, all these things are bad.
How do you know that this is unscientific?
Because this team says, it says in the APA report, are you ready for this?
It's an actual sentence in a scientific report.
Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectations, there isn't much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women.
That's patently insane.
There's not only no evidence to back that, all the evidence is on the other side.
Of course there are differences in basic behaviors between men and women.
There are different behaviors with regard to sex.
There are different behaviors with regard to marriage.
There are different behaviors with regard to child rearing and job prioritization.
There are different behaviors with regard to spatial awareness, right?
There's just different behaviors and activities associated with men and women, because men and women are different.
But according to the APA, if you train your son to be masculine, then this is really bad.
So me telling my son, That he ought to be competitive?
That it's good to be competitive, so long as that is properly channeled toward productivity?
That's bad.
It's bad.
What we really need is to feminize our boys.
We need to castrate boys.
That's the only way.
The best world is a world without boys.
But we'll see how that world lasts in the face of a world that is unfriendly and chaotic.
Masculinity is what tames an unfriendly, chaotic world.
It's necessary.
It's useful.
Not only is it necessary and useful, trying to destroy it is an act of evil.
Trying to channel masculinity toward being a gentleman is the task of a civilization.
But trying to destroy masculinity in the name of femininity is an act of evil, and it's an act of prejudice and bigotry as well.
The fact the APA is saying this sort of stuff is demonstrative of the fact that you should not listen to the APA's anything but a political body.
They've undermined all of their own scientific credibility with garbage like this.
Alrighty.
Well, we will be back here tomorrow.
Actually, we'll be back here a little bit later today.
So if you don't subscribe, you really should, because we have more coming up later today previewing President Trump's speech talking about some fascinating information on Middle East policy and student debt.
We've got a lot coming up this afternoon, so you're going to want to be here for that.
Go check it out over at dailyware.com and subscribe.
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