All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:26
Workers Of Venezuela, Unite | Ep. 702
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Venezuelans rally against dictator Nicolas Maduro, President Trump caves on the State of the Union, and the MAGA hat wars continue.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Many things to get to today.
We're going to get into the latest on Venezuela because it is interesting how certain people, certain fresh faces, aren't being asked serious questions about the situation in Venezuela.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let me remind you that there is no reason that you need to live with an enormous amount of credit card debt.
For years, credit card companies have basically been telling you, yeah, live off the debt.
It's totally fine.
And then it turns out that you're getting exorbitant interest rates and you've racked up these enormous charges.
It's going to take you decades to pay off.
No more.
With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, LendingClub 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.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Check your rate in minutes, borrow up to $40,000.
That is LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.com again LendingClub.
The State of the Union, it's not the government shutdown, it's what's happening in Venezuela.
Literally hundreds of thousands of people marching on the streets of Venezuela.
It's astonishing.
I mean, the pictures are just incredible.
Here's a picture from Caracas, Venezuela, the capital, where hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets in opposition to the evil dictator of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro.
Maduro, you'll recall, took office after the death of Hugo Chavez, who was also an evil dictator.
For a long time, the left loved them some Hugo Chavez.
They thought that Chavez was just wonderful because Chavez used the oil wealth of the country to even out income inequality.
He was the one who had cured poverty.
He's the one who had cured the healthcare system in Venezuela.
Well, now people there are eating dogs because it turns out that when a bad person gets in charge of a top-down centralized government system, they wreck the country.
And that happened with Hugo Chavez, and now it's happened with Nicolas Maduro.
Here's what some of the footage looked like from Caracas, Venezuela.
I mean, this footage is astonishing.
You can't see the number of people.
I mean, I was just at a rally last Friday with probably half a million people.
This is bigger than that.
People cheering, holding the Venezuelan flag.
The United States has recognized Nicolas Maduro's opposition, a guy named Juan Guaido, as interim president on Wednesday, leaving Nicolas Maduro ever more isolated as he faces unrest at home and threats from the United States.
According to Reuters, longstanding leftist allies Bolivia and Cuba are now the only countries in the region to explicitly voice support for Maduro, as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru have all backed Guaido.
The United States and Canada have also recognized Guaido, the 35-year-old leader of Venezuela's opposition-dominated National Assembly, as Venezuela's legitimate ruler.
Mexico struck a discordant note because the leftist president there, President Andres Manuel López Obrador, said it would not take sides and they branded support for Guaido a violation of sovereignty.
Okay, so this is breaking down really along two lines.
One is the line that says, no, Maduro should stay in power and they should negotiate a settlement.
And the other is Maduro needs to go.
And most of the Western world has taken the position that Maduro needs to go.
Your friendly democratic socialists have decided, at least in part, no, you know what?
Maduro should stay.
Nevermind that he's an evil piece of crap.
I mean like a legitimate evil piece of human debris.
It's amazing.
I'll explain to you in a second how amazing it is that there are folks coming out in quasi-support for Maduro.
And make no mistake, when you have hundreds of thousands of people who are marching to oppose a military dictatorship instituted from above, and folks are saying, no, we should have a negotiated settlement, it's pretty clear which camp they are in.
Reuters says the telegenic Guaido declared himself Venezuela's temporary president on Wednesday at a rally that drew hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans.
He accused Maduro of usurping power and promised to create a transitional government.
The diplomatic support for Guaido was a striking move in a region where countries tend to refrain from criticizing each other despite their political differences.
Criticism of Maduro has grown in recent years as his government has sidelined the National Assembly, held widely questioned elections, and overseen an economic crisis that has forced millions of Venezuelans to flee, mostly to other South American countries.
At the same time, because of all of this, right-leaning governments in South America have risen to power in places like Brazil, because the fact is you can only run on somebody else's money for so long.
The same thing has happened in Argentina.
President Trump has reiterated that all options are on the table.
His administration signaled potential new sanctions against Venezuela's vital oil sector.
So who is opposing the move to get rid of Maduro?
We got Russia.
So Vladimir Putin is coming out against this move in Venezuela.
So Russia is saying that the United States should not intervene militarily in Venezuela.
By the way, nobody's talked about military intervention in Venezuela.
As of yet, and nobody is really seriously discussing that, we're talking about new economic sanctions at this point, and again, providing whatever resources to the opposition are necessary.
That's not really a military intervention.
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself interim president on Wednesday, as we have said.
Violence has flared during big protests across Venezuela.
When they mean violence has flared, what they mean is that Maduro's forces are now attacking the protesters.
In an interview with Russian journal International Affairs published on Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Moscow would stand with Venezuela to protect its sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in its domestic affairs.
Weird.
Weird that Russia would do that because I seem to recall Russia invading a sovereign neighbor specifically on the basis that their domestic affairs were not properly in order.
Russia invaded Crimea and they also invaded Georgia on specifically this basis.
So in other words, Russia is completely full of it as per their usual arrangement.
Asked about the prospect of U.S.
military intervention in Venezuela, Ryabkov said Washington should steer clear as well.
So we warn against that.
We consider that would be a catastrophic scenario that would shake the foundations of the development model which we see in Latin America.
There is no development model in Venezuela.
The development model in Venezuela is to grab all the resources, centralize them in Nicolas Maduro, pass them out to his friends, supporters, and military allies, and destroy the people of Venezuela.
That is his program.
It has always been his program.
That was the program of Hugo Chavez as well when it turned out that centralizing resources and his populist top-down government was going to fail.
When it became clear that you can't just make a country prosperous by grabbing all its wealth and redistributing it, Hugo Chavez simply started paying off all of his political allies to keep himself in power.
And this has been true for legitimately years.
Now what's amazing about this is that you would assume that some of the folks who are sort of Friendly toward the Maduro regime in the United States, some folks in the Democratic Party would be asked about such things.
You might assume that Michael Moore, who has come out in favor of Hugo Chavez years ago, would be asked about such things.
I think, for example, it might be worthwhile to ask Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the fresh face of the Democratic Party, about this thing.
Why?
Well, she was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America until the last five minutes.
She was a member, I believe, of the DSA as of May 2016, when they called on President Obama and the U.S.
Congress to end unjust sanctions against Venezuela.
Quote, this kind of dishonest and cynical behavior is an embarrassment to all good people in the United States.
For DSA, a group of activists committed to fighting for socialism and democracy in the U.S. and around the world, it is especially repulsive.
We therefore state our solidarity with the people of Venezuela and call on our own government to stop its illegal, unjust interference with Venezuela, specifically to repeal these terrible laws and reverse this dishonest executive order, statistically.
They're ripping on Obama for being too harsh on Venezuela, the DSA, while AOC was purportedly a member.
And so we're sort of all waiting with bated breath.
What would AOC say about all of this?
Especially since nobody's asking her.
Nobody in the media seems it's appropriate to ask.
So this morning, just in the last few minutes, she has tweeted out, she retweeted something from a guy named Ro Khanna.
Ro Khanna is an Obama commerce alum, that's what he calls himself.
And here is what Ro Khanna tweeted.
With respect to Senator Durbin, Senator Dick Durbin came out in favor of Maduro's opponent.
Rochanna tweeted, with respect to Senator Durbin, the U.S. should not anoint the leader of the opposition in Venezuela during an internal polarized conflict.
Let us support Uruguay, Mexico and the Vatican's efforts for a negotiated settlement and end sanctions that are making the hyperinflation worse.
In other words, he is coming out in favor of the Maduro regime.
I mean, that's what that is.
If you are coming out in favor of a negotiated settlement that removes sanctions and leaves Maduro in power, then you are coming out in favor of the Maduro regime.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, her only comment so far has been to retweet that.
Now, when I point that out, there are a bunch of folks on the left who say, well, that's taking her out of context.
No, that's the whole context.
I read you the entire tweet, and she retweeted it.
Take that for what it's worth.
I think there's only one way to interpret that, and that is as undercutting the democratic opposition in Venezuela.
Because right now is the time to move.
Right now is not the time to say, oh, well, you know, negotiated settlement, Maduro has a point, we can't interfere, let's remove the sanctions.
Weird that she and Russia have the exact same position on this.
Very odd, isn't it?
Very strange.
And this is the same thing you hear from the left when AOC is parlaying with all the folks who want to boycott Israel, and then folks on the left say, no, no, no, she doesn't support boycott of Israel, she just hangs out with all those folks and forwards their agenda.
Okay, how about a straight question that she's forced to answer by the media?
Asked repeatedly, do you think Nicolas Maduro must go now?
Like, it's straight, easy question.
Will she be asked that question?
Maybe she should be asked, like, what did he do wrong?
Like, you're an economics expert, supposedly, so what did he do wrong?
What did Maduro do wrong?
Where did Venezuela really get screwed up?
What did they do wrong?
But nobody on the left will be asked these questions, despite longtime support for Hugo Chavez on the populist left.
Remember Oliver Stone traveling down to do a movie about Hugo Chavez and his greatness.
It's also worthwhile remembering that Venezuela's government is just one of the most evil governments on planet Earth.
So this notion that you're supposed to negotiate with Nicolás Maduro, and you're supposed to undercut the protesters by not recognizing the National Assembly-led opposition, is insane.
Amnesty International, a left-wing outfit, if ever there was one, Amnesty International says that the Venezuelan government is responsible for the worst human rights crisis in its history.
This is as of September.
The organization claimed that several human rights abuses had taken place in the South American country, including the use of lethal force against the most vulnerable in its society.
It said that 8,292 extrajudicial executions had taken place between 2015 and 2017, so over 8,000 murders of people who didn't agree with the regime between 2015 and 2017.
It found that 22% of all homicides in 2016 were at the hands of security officials.
It found that the levels of economic insecurity in the country were at 87%.
87% of Venezuelans were living in abject poverty.
There was a 65% increase in maternal mortality and a 30% increase in infant mortality.
Venezuelan authorities have publicly stated that killing people in the context of security operations is a successful practice.
Since 2014, 2.3 million people have fled Venezuela.
But don't worry, AOC thinks a negotiated settlement with Maduro is going to do the trick.
Yeah, but it has nothing to do with her support for Venezuela's democratic socialism.
Nothing.
We'll get to more of this in a second.
First, let me remind you, you want to make your business better this year?
Well, why would you overspend on legal costs?
The fact is, you can spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal costs, but there's no reason for you to do it.
Instead, Go check out LegalZoom right now.
With their network of independent attorneys licensed in all 50 states, LegalZoom can help you navigate your legal needs.
From wills and trusts to LLCs, trademarks, contract reviews, and more, LegalZoom has helped more than 4 million people like you take care of their responsibilities.
The best part is LegalZoom is not a law firm, so you won't get charged by the hour.
Now, lawyers use LegalZoom for a lot of their forms, but now you get even more than just the forms over at LegalZoom.
I've been using it for years.
Now you have that network of licensed attorneys.
So make this the year you finally do the right thing for your business and don't waste money with lawyers you don't need.
Start writing your 2019 story at LegalZoom.com right now.
For special savings, be sure to enter promo code BEN in the referral box at checkout.
LegalZoom is indeed where life meets legal.
That is LegalZoom.com.
And again, when you enter promo code Ben at checkout in the referral box, then you will get special savings.
So go check them out right now.
LegalZoom.com.
Make sure that you are saving on your legal services the way that you should.
Venezuela is indeed a terribly run country.
And here's the reality.
It's been a terribly run country for years.
I know that the left wants to suggest that this is just since Chavez died or the late years of Hugo Chavez.
It's been terribly run since the late 90s, when Hugo Chavez's government decided to nationalize all of the oil industry, redistribute the wealth, put that company in the hands of his best friends in the government, centralize all power, move all the dissenters out of the military.
If you take a look at Chavez's record, you see people on the left praising him for reducing poverty in Latin America.
That is really not the case.
The fact is that poverty across Latin America reduced during the 1990s and 2000s because of economic growth.
It kind of was equivalent in Venezuela, about the same.
But Chavez destroyed the economy.
I mean, just destroyed it.
Because he made the entire economy dependent on oil.
The entire economy dependent on the government's exports of oil.
So when the oil prices dropped, the economy just fell apart.
Fell apart.
So here are a few ways that Chavez destroyed the economy and Maduro has followed suit.
It's from Stephen Keppel over at ABC News.
Number one, Venezuela went from being Heavily dependent on oil in 1998.
77% of Venezuela's exports in 1998 were oil.
By 2011, oil was 96% of all exports.
That's because of the idiotic Marxist notion known as dependency theory.
Dependency theory is this idea that if you are a state like Venezuela, you're a country like Venezuela, and you are importing goods, You are dependent on those goods.
You have been made dependent.
So you have to raise tariffs to extraordinary levels so that you can create homegrown industry.
The only problem is your consumers can't afford any of that stuff, and so you end up impoverishing your country.
The only thing Venezuela was exporting, the only thing, was oil.
So when the oil prices dropped, catastrophe.
The Chavez government crippled private businesses and national industry through expropriations and nationalizations.
They expropriated or nationalized various sectors, including aluminum, cement, gold, iron, steel, farming, transportation, electricity, food production, banking, paper, and the media.
The number of private companies and industry dropped from 14,000 in 1998 to 9,000 in 2011.
No one in their right mind would build a factory in Venezuela because it was going to be nationalized, expropriated, and stolen by the government of Venezuela.
No one was investing.
In 2011, Latin America enjoyed a record of more than $150 billion in foreign investment, with Brazil receiving $67 billion.
Venezuela's neighbor Colombia received $13 billion.
Venezuela, a country rich in natural resources and human labor, received only $5 billion.
The Venezuelan currency has been a mess because it turns out that when you borrow enormous quantities of money in order for you to pay off all of your friends and supporters, well, somebody is going to want that money back, and then you have to inflate your way out of it.
The Bolivar Fuerte lost two-thirds of its value since it was launched in 2008.
It was launched in 2008 because of a previous devaluation of the currency.
Prices in Venezuela went up by 23% per year for more than 10 years as of 2011.
Imagine, right now in the United States, we have an inflation rate in prices of maybe 2-3% per year on average.
Imagine that everything you buy went up 20% every year.
So within five years, the price of everything had doubled.
That's what was going on in Venezuela.
And of course, Venezuela became unbelievably violent because not only were there local police forces and extrajudicial gangs supported by the government killing people, but they weren't policing actual crime.
The murder rate per 100,000 citizens went from 25 in 1999 to 45 in 2011.
I mean, that's incredible.
In the same period of time, violence has dropped pretty much everywhere else on the planet, but not in Venezuela.
So when you hear the left was defending Venezuela for years on end, I mean really defending them, and then now it's collapsing, I feel like we should go back and we should have to ask all these folks who defended Venezuela why we should let them run the American economy.
We should have to ask folks like AOC what her perspective is on Venezuela.
Why does she think Venezuela failed?
And if she says, well, I'm not an expert on Venezuela, and say, well, read a book, lady.
How about you actually, like, that's fine.
You don't have to be an expert on Venezuela.
How about you do some reading and come back to us and say a week?
How about that?
But the notion here is that if you are on the left and you support a radical regime that is socialistic in nature, and then it fails, you have nothing to apologize for.
And this has been the most crucial aspect of the left's continuing momentum for the last hundred years, is that they never have to apologize for supporting regimes that end in failure, tragedy, and human destruction.
The left was heavily supportive of the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s, even as millions of people were being slaughtered.
The left, in America, was heavily supportive of Cuba when Castro took power.
He was lauded by the media.
He did an American tour.
Che Guevara was featured on a bunch of top-line news networks as a revolutionary leader.
There are still college students wearing around Che Guevara t-shirts today.
He was an evil mass murderer.
Cuba is a human gulag.
After a little while, this stuff becomes uncomfortable for the left, and then they move on to the next country.
They'll have their country of the future.
Venezuela during the 90s and the early 2000s was the country of the future.
Well, now it's the country of the past.
And it's interesting to see how folks on the left are reacting to all of this.
Again, if you are satisfied, if you are satisfied with AOC's answer on all of this, let me suggest that you and the media, you firefighters, are not doing your jobs, which is just a massive shock.
I know I'm shocked that you're not doing your jobs.
I'm shocked that you're not going and asking Bernie Sanders about Venezuela and his perspective on Maduro.
Now a lot of these folks on the hard left are going to hide behind non-interventionism.
And we can't get involved, guys.
We really can't get involved.
Same people will argue, by the way, that the state of Israel should be boycotted.
Because the state of Israel is mean.
Even though the state of Israel is more liberal than any of the countries that they have supported.
In terms of human rights, in terms of accepting other people, in terms of economic freedom.
But the same... We can't interfere.
Venezuela's business is Venezuela's business.
Well, it was that same perspective that has led to the continuation of the Iranian regime.
Again, no one has suggested.
So I'll tell you where the next move is going to be.
Now the left is going to say, are you suggesting war in Venezuela?
The answer is no.
We're suggesting a continuation of exactly the same policies that have brought hundreds of thousands of people into the street with massive public support to depose one of the worst regimes on the planet.
And if you don't support that, if you think the solution to this is to leave Maduro in power and to undercut those protesters, I don't know what to tell you, because let me tell you what the next step is.
If there is a negotiated settlement, and Maduro is left in power, and the military, which is run by Maduro, is left in power, the next thing that will happen is the world will turn its eyes away, and then a bunch of people will get slaughtered.
Because that is exactly the same thing that has happened in Turkey.
In Turkey, there was an attempt, a failed coup attempt, against Erdogan, who is an Islamist dictator.
It happened, what, a year ago now?
There are those of us who are rooting hard for Erdogan to go.
He did not go.
The West turned a blind eye.
He proceeded to jail or murder tens to hundreds of thousands of people.
No one cares.
Now he's part of the community of nations again.
The only way to fight dictatorship is to keep your eye on it all the time and to condemn it and to call for its ousting.
There cannot be deals made with evil dictators who are running roughshod over their own people to keep those dictators in power.
Especially when those dictators are not allies of the United States.
I mean, when it comes down to American interests, there's no question America's interests lie in Maduro going.
Alright, in just a second, I'm going to talk about the State of the Union Address and President Trump caving on that.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about your online security and privacy.
So, 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, but that does happen to hundreds of millions of people every single year.
So, how can you protect yourself?
Well, the company I trust to defend my online security and privacy is ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN secures and anonymizes my connection by encrypting 100% of my network data and hiding my IP address.
That means nobody can record or access my online activity.
Download the ExpressVPN app on your computer or smartphone and then just use the internet the way you normally would.
You click one button in the ExpressVPN app and voila, you are now protected.
ExpressVPN is great for accessing content from anywhere with VPN locations in 94 countries and blazing fast speeds.
ExpressVPN is consistently rated the world's number one VPN service for internet users.
So, if you want to protect yourself online, which you should.
I mean, there's nothing worse than having your identity hacked, your credit card stolen.
The nice folks at ExpressVPN have extended special pricing of less than $7 per month to all my fans.
So go visit expressvpn.com slash ben and go claim that discount.
Again, that is expressvpn.com slash ben.
To learn more, expressvpn.com slash ben.
Go check it out right now.
Okay.
Meanwhile, President Trump, unfortunately, just caved.
When it came to the State of the Union address.
So as you recall, there was a showdown between the President and Nancy Pelosi.
So Nancy Pelosi issued an invitation for the President to deliver the State of the Union address.
And then she revoked that invitation, saying that there were no security resources available, which of course was a lie.
And then President Trump said, well, maybe I'll just do something else for the State of the Union address.
Maybe I'll go over to the Senate chamber and give the State of the Union address from there.
Or maybe I'll go down to the border.
Maybe I'll counter-program the State of the Union address.
Well, now President Trump has basically caved.
He says, as the shutdown was going on, he just tweeted this out, as the shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union address.
I agreed.
She then changed her mind because of the shutdown suggesting a later date.
This is her prerogative.
I will do the address when the shutdown is over.
I am not looking for an alternative venue for the State of the Union address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition, and importance of the House chamber.
I look forward to giving a great State of the Union address in the near future.
So what that means is that if he caves and then has to give a State of the Union address after caving to Democrats, it's going to be humiliating for him.
So either it means he's doubling down on his position with regard to the government shutdown, or it means that the government shutdown ends ignominiously with him taking some sort of executive action to redirect funds from one area to another area.
Whatever it is, not a great look for the president.
As I suggested, he should have counter-programmed this thing.
He should have simply said, OK, well, you know, you don't want to have me to the Congress because you don't want me pointing directly at you and saying that this is your fault, Nancy Pelosi.
Well, instead, I'm just going to go down to the border and I'm going to say that this is your fault because, in fact, it is your fault.
The president of the United States has come out with several proposals for changing the math here.
But those proposals have been met with complete Complete apathy and indifference by the Democratic Party.
Now, as the shutdown continues, things are in fact getting worse and worse.
You know, in the early days of a shutdown, the good lesson to be learned is that a lot of the essential services that we, the non-essential services that we think we can't live without, we can actually live without.
But as the shutdown continues, and essential personnel, you know, folks in the TSA, folks in the Department of Defense, as those folks, Department of Homeland Security, don't get their checks, Then things get ugly very quickly.
Air controllers, air traffic controllers, they're saying, listen, we got a lot of folks retiring.
And those folks have no interest in staying employed if they're not going to get paid.
So we may be, in fact, understaffed.
And the president can't simply order new hires when there's no money coming into the federal government and no spending taking place on the federal government level.
So, things are going to get worse and worse.
Folks are, in fact, showing up at food lines because they don't actually have money, because they're not getting their checks.
So, let's not pretend that the government shutdown isn't a bad thing.
It is a bad thing.
This is not how the government is supposed to operate.
But the answer to that is Nancy Pelosi signing a minute check for some border fencing.
That's all.
Which, again, necessitates the president getting on his horse and going around the country telling Americans why exactly the government is currently shut down.
Right now, Democrats have come up with a counter.
So, according to the Associated Press, House Democrats, feeling pressure to display their vision for border security, are preparing a package that would ignore President Trump's demand for $5.7 billion for a wall with Mexico, and would instead pay for other areas aimed at protecting the border.
Again, this shows how petty they are.
Because they're willing to spend a bunch of money on border security, but not on the fencing.
As I said before, I think the solution to the government shutdown is pretty easy.
That is, President Trump should say, listen, I know you guys hate me.
I know that you guys don't want to give me a victory.
And I know that you're pretending that we don't need a border fence because you think that I'm doing something deeply wrong because I am Trump.
But here's an idea.
I won't even intervene.
I want you to delegate $5 billion to border security to be allotted as the people in border control see fit.
We will let an impartial panel of border control specialists who work for border control, who work for ICE, and who work for immigration naturalization, we will let all the border patrol agents decide where the money goes.
So it's not up to me, it's not me saying I need the wall, it's border patrol deciding where the money goes.
And then Democrats can say, okay, we didn't give him his wall, we gave the money to border patrol for them to use it where they best see fit.
And then if it turns out it's a wall, Trump gets his win.
And Democrats can say, we didn't give him the win.
Border Patrol gave him the win.
In essence, kick all the responsibility over to Border Patrol.
That seems like not a terrible idea to me.
Democrats are instead saying, sure, we'll do border security, but we won't give Trump anything that he wants.
As the government slogged through a record 33rd day of its partial shutdown on Wednesday, details of Democrats' border security plan and its costs remain to work in progress, according to the AP, though some said it might match Trump's $5.7 billion figure.
Party leaders said it would include money for scanning devices and other technological tools for improving security at ports of entry and along the boundary, plus funds for more border agents and immigration judges.
If his $5.7 billion is about border security, then we see ourselves fulfilling that request, only doing it with what I like to call using a smart wall, said No.
3 House Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina.
Again, listen, I don't know that Trump is a border expert.
I certainly know that House Democrats are not border experts because they haven't really cared very deeply about border security for quite a while.
So again, the solution?
Kick it over to the regulators.
I mean, it's hilarious.
We have now found the one area of American government where legislators don't want to kick the responsibility over to the regulators.
So the legislature will constantly pass bills saying, you know what?
EPA, you write all the regulations.
We'll send you some funding and you fill in all the blanks.
We'll send you legislation that looks like Mad Libs.
It says here's a billion dollars for blank and you just fill in what you think you need.
We'll do that with the Department of Education.
We'll do that with the Department of Health and Human Services.
We'll do it with every executive department.
When it comes to Border Patrol, then the Democrats are like, you know what?
We know this stuff.
We know this down to the marrow.
So we're going to specifically determine where that money goes.
Or is it just a cynical ploy?
The answer, of course, is that it is, in fact, a very cynical ploy.
Well, the shutdown, according to polling data, again, is hurting President Trump with the general public.
Just 34% of Americans like his performance as president, according to this latest Associated Press poll.
6 in 10 assign a great deal of responsibility to him for the shutdown, around double the share currently blaming Democrats.
There's a Senate GOP bill that would temporarily shield from deportation 700,000 DREAMers, and in return, Trump would get his border security wall.
Democrats have objected to other provisions in that same bill because they're saying there are poison pills in there.
OK, again, this is where the negotiations should start.
But there is no negotiation that is currently taking place.
There are a couple of proposals that have been floated out there.
I'll get to those in just one second.
But first, let's talk about your mobile bill.
So the big and big wireless provider stands for a lot of things.
Big contracts, big bills, big fees.
Like AT&T has a new $800 million administrative fee increase.
But what Big Wireless doesn't want you to know is there is a way to cut your wireless bill down to just $15 a month.
This is why you need Mint Mobile, the game-changing company that's taken everything wrong with Big Wireless and made it right.
You can save like $1,000 a year with Mint Mobile without sacrificing quality service.
How?
Well, Mint Mobile makes it really easy.
You use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
You can keep your old number along with all your existing contacts.
Choose between two, five, or ten gigabyte 4G LTE plans.
It's the way a lot of these phone companies get you is they say you need unlimited data, and then you don't use anything like unlimited data, and then they charge you for the unlimited data.
Well, you don't need to do that.
Every plan comes with unlimited talk and text.
If you are not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their 7-day money-back guarantee, so you can try it for a week, and if you don't like it, we'll give you your money back.
Ditch that old wireless bill.
Start saving right now with Mint Mobile.
To get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, plus free shipping on your new Mint Mobile SIM card, go to mintmobile.com.
I want to talk about some of the other proposals for the border shutdown.
I also want to talk about the latest with regard to Covington Catholic because it turns out that the real issue here is MAGA hats.
MAGA hats are inherently terrible and racist.
Really?
We'll get to all that in just one second.
First, you're going to have to go subscribe.
$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to this show.
It gets you a subscription to Andrew Klaven's show, Matt Walsh's show, Michael Knowles' show.
All sorts of great shows and Michael Knowles' show.
Like all sorts of great stuff.
And when you subscribe, you also get two additional hours of me in the afternoon.
You know how stressful and painful it is to do those two hours?
Just ask my producers.
They have to sit here with me.
But we're doing it all for you.
So that's why you need to subscribe.
$99 a year.
You get all of that plus this.
The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
Go check it out right now.
And you can enjoy those tears which are flowing freely each and every day here at the Ben Shapiro Show.
Go check that out right now.
Also, when you subscribe over at YouTube, iTunes, you get access to our Sunday specials, you can ask me questions, all sorts of great stuff.
Like during the radio show, actually, during the breaks in the radio show, if you're live watching, then you can ask me questions during the breaks and I'll answer them for you.
So, all sorts of awesome stuff happening behind the paywall.
Go check it out right now.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty, so some of the new proposals that are being floated in order to end this government shutdown.
According to Axios, Republican senators, including James Lankford of Oklahoma, have advocated for a particular idea.
Give a path to green cards to the 700,000 current DACA recipients.
So it's not just that they have a three-year stay of execution in terms of the deportation, but they actually would have a path to green cards so they could stay permanently.
Jared Kushner has been relaying this idea to his colleagues in the White House.
Nobody thinks that the Trump current offer is going to pass.
Seven Democratic senators are needed to pass any package at this point.
A Republican senator involved in the immigration debate said that Kushner actually wants to go big, but senators are saying that if you throw green cards on the table, then this falls apart immediately.
There are not enough senators on the Republican side of the aisle who are willing to go along with this.
So, we will see whether this is something that is actually being pushed.
It seems like not, which is probably right.
Bottom line is, extra pressure, extra pressure.
This is where you need the president to get out there on the campaign trail and do his job.
This is, honestly, the president has a couple of jobs.
One is to govern, and the other, or to at least enforce the existing law, and the other is to go out there and make the case to the American people.
Twitter ain't gonna do it.
Twitter is not the real world in case people have make that mistake as of recently.
Alrighty, so I need to give you...
The latest with regard to the MAGA hat wars.
So it turns out that this whole Covington Catholic High School controversy, it's a big, it's a big nothing burger.
Not only is it a nothing burger, it turns out that the guy at the center of it, this Nathan Phillips guy, is pretty much a con man.
He's pretty much a con man who goes around leading random protests against people and lying about his Vietnam service.
He says that he served in Vietnam.
He said that he actually was in country, I believe, in one of his interviews.
He was not.
He was a refrigerator repairman enlisted in the Marines from 1972 to 1976, who also went AWOL three times.
None of that reported by the mainstream media.
You have to get that in the right-wing media.
So, now, here's how the story evolved, basically.
They said that these kids surrounded the guy.
Not true.
They said that the kids were racist to the guy.
Not true.
They said that the high school was racist.
Not true.
They said the high school was sexist.
Not true.
They said a different high school was racist and sexist.
Not true.
They said that kids from this high school long ago were racist.
Not true.
None of that was true.
So what was this really about?
Because when you remove all the other factors, when you remove the fact that these kids were not being racist, that they were not mocking the guy, that they were not being violent to the guy, what does this come down to in the end?
It's that the MAGA hat is inherently triggering.
That if you wear a MAGA hat, then you deserve anything you get.
The media can destroy you simply for wearing a red hat.
I don't like, as somebody who wears funny hats on a daily basis, I am not interested in a country where you can be targeted based simply on the message that your hat conveys.
Particularly when people are taking away a message that you are not conveying with the hat, right?
There are certain hats that convey messages, right?
Like, my yarmulke conveys the fact that I'm an orthodox Jew that comes along with a set of values.
A MAGA hat comes along with a set of values too, but the set of values that is being conveyed is not necessarily the set of values that is being interpreted.
There is in fact a gap when it comes to the MAGA hat.
A lot of people wearing the MAGA hat are saying a couple of things.
One, I'm conservative.
I'm pro-life.
I support President Trump's general governance.
And screw the media, right?
That's usually the undercurrent to the MAGA hat, right?
Screw the media, you guys are terrible.
And that's fine, because a lot of them are terrible.
Like, okay.
But the message that a lot of people take away from the MAGA hat is the worst things about President Trump.
The same thing happens in a normal conversation about President Trump.
If you say, I support President Trump, you're a Republican, you say, I support President Trump, what people on the left take away from that is you're a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
Now, to be fair, if you had said, I support George W. Bush, the left would have taken away that you're a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, because this is generally many on the left's takeaway for being even remotely right-wing on any issue, is that you're this.
But the MAGA hat conveys it in spades to a lot of people on the left.
So, here is a CNN commentator explaining the real reason all this happened.
It's because the kids were wearing MAGA hats.
And MAGA hats are just like KKK hoods.
I kid you not, this was a thing set on national television.
Forget Donald Trump for a moment and just think about the symbol of that red hat.
When I see the Make America Great Again hat now, Chris, I am triggered.
I'm so triggered.
This Make America Great Again hat is just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood.
Like, that is the type of hatred that his policies represent.
And until we can have common ground and understanding about that, that it's that triggering, we're going to continue to have problems.
Okay, his policies represent KKK policies.
Like, this lady is just saying it straight out.
And I think it's telling.
Because what she's actually saying there is not that Donald Trump is a KKK member so people support him because of that.
She's saying that his very policies are KKK-like.
So any Republican who supports his administration's policies, which, by and large, have been traditionally conservative, is basically a KKK member.
Well, it's that sort of language that leads people to put on the MAGA hat.
Seriously.
It makes people... Like, I remember, I spoke at University of Michigan a couple of years ago.
It was in the middle of the election cycle in 2016.
As you know, I did not vote for any of the presidential candidates in 2016 because I thought that election was a complete...
Leap show.
I thought it was terrible.
Okay, so, in the middle of that election cycle, I traveled to University of Michigan to give a speech.
And a bunch of the students in the University of Michigan College Republicans and Young America's Foundation had gone around campus and they had written Trump's Make America Great Again slogan on the ground in chalk.
A bunch of folks on the left had been so triggered by this that they went around crossing it out, complaining, suggesting that it was racist to write Trump's name on the ground.
So when I went to University of Michigan, I, a non-Trump supporter in 2016, went to the chalkboard and wrote Trump 2016 on the chalkboard.
Because you know what?
Screw you!
Really, take a hike, son.
I am not interested in your perspective that everyone who supports Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
But this is what it comes down to.
These Covington kids were wearing the MAGA hat, and therefore they deserved anything they got.
Which is why the media continued to treat Nathan Phillips with all sorts of respect, despite the fact that he deserves none.
He lied about a bunch of high school kids for political gain for himself.
He lied about his own military service for years.
And now we are supposed to treat him with a continuing level of respect.
The students are asked, Would you meet with Nathan Phillips?
The answer is no.
I don't meet with pathological liars who slander me on national television as beasts, thugs, and racists.
No, that's not a thing.
In a second, I'm going to show you that this is not, in fact, a rare argument.
This is not, in fact, a rare argument that the MAGA hat is inherently bad.
So, there's a piece by Noah Berlatsky over at NBCNews.com.
And here is what the piece is titled.
You ready for this?
Nick Sandman, who I've met, by the way, very nice kid, a student at Covington Catholic, says he was a silent bystander in viral video, but his MAGA hat spoke for him.
You wear the MAGA hat, means you hate Native Americans.
That's just the way it goes.
By the way, you identify as a Native American when you're not.
That means you love Native Americans, apparently, according to Elizabeth Warren's campaign.
The piece says, aligning oneself openly with Trump's movement sends an aggressive political message.
Yeah, you know what it suggests?
It suggests that maybe you voted Republican or would like to in the next election cycle.
Or maybe it suggests that you're sick of Republicans being maligned.
But according to the left, it sends the message that you are all terrible things to all people, so if you even wear the hat, you deserve all the things that fall upon you.
Here's what Noah Berlatsky, schmuck, writes.
Before he encountered Omaha elder Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial, Covington High School student Nick Sandman had already taken steps to provoke and insult people of color.
He'd put on a MAGA hat.
So now if you put on a Make America Great Again hat, you are deliberately provoking and insulting people of color.
Somebody should tell Kanye West.
Sandman's face went viral over the weekend when footage began circulating of him and his classmates at the Lincoln Memorial.
The moment has become something of a political Rorschach test that also raises thorny questions about the way various perspectives become amplified and even weaponized on social media, sometimes without the benefit of important facts.
Context is key.
This is something both conservatives and liberals can agree on.
Well, it turns out liberals do not agree on this, actually.
But in this case, that context must include what the teens were wearing and what that apparel has come to represent.
Sandman was in Washington, D.C.
with his all-male Catholic school classmates to participate in the March for Life.
By the way, he adds all-male here because they're sexists.
They go to an all-male Catholic school.
Yeah, you're a sexist now.
I went to an all-male high school.
You know why?
Because we didn't want the guys associating with the girls so that the girls were protected from the guys.
Seriously.
That's really why there are separate boys and girls classes in religious high schools.
Because you don't want the kids schtupping.
That's really what it's about.
But the clip that rocketed across social media depicts a smiling Sandman standing toe-to-toe with Phillips as the latter beat a drum and sang a traditional prayer song.
I love how innocuous that sounds.
He walked into a crowd of kids, got up in the kid's face with a drum, and banged it in the kid's face.
But here is the part that gets really great.
But this characterization is misleading.
Sandman and his classmates were making a political statement as soon as they wore their MAGA hats in a public space.
Aligning oneself with Trump's movement is an aggressive political statement.
It's difficult to believe the students, who after all were in Washington for a political march, were unaware of this.
Rebecca Jennings at Vox says teens love MAGA hats because they are transgressive.
The hats, she says, can have different meanings for different people.
That's no doubt true.
But it's also true that kids wear Trump regalia or invoke Trump's name in order to bully and insult immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, Hispanics, or members of any of the other marginalized groups who Trump himself regularly attacks.
Or, alternatively, they're wearing the MAGA hat because you, Noah Berlatsky, are a jerk.
And they want to show you that they can wear whatever hat they please because you're a jerk.
Okay, there is something transgressive about wearing a MAGA hat.
But what it's really about is people being sick of being called deplorables, being sick of being called bad people, being sick of being called anti-Semitic, and racist, and bigots, and sexist, and homophobe, just because you disagree with them.
That's why Trump won the nomination, that's why he won the presidency, is because he was a giant middle finger to all of those people.
And wearing the MAGA hat is a giant middle finger to all of those people too.
But resisting the overreach of the left is not the same thing as endorsing racism, It's just, this is inane.
But this isn't the only, honestly, this isn't the only article like this today.
There's another article from Father Edward Beck over at CNN.
Maga hats don't belong on a Catholic school trip.
Weird, you know what I don't think belongs on a Catholic school trip?
Meeting with Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, who is a Catholic all in favor of murdering babies in the womb up to point of birth.
By the way, important side note, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo came out today, he says, you know what?
In consonance with Catholic law and religious thinking, I want to fight the death penalty.
So lethal injections for nine-month-old babies, not for people who murder babies.
Solid call.
First of all, if I were in the Catholic Church, I'd be calling on the Pope to excommunicate Andrew Cuomo, like, immediately.
But priorities.
Priorities over at CNN.
The priority is no MAGA hats for Catholics.
In a recent tweet of mine that went viral, I made three simple points about the now infamous Covington Boys incident in Washington, D.C., writes Father Edward Beck.
The boys acted inappropriately.
Chaperones should have intervened.
The boys should not have been permitted to wear MAGA hats if they were representing the school.
I welcome this opportunity to expound on those comments and more than the 180 characters that Twitter allows.
So, he continues and he talks about where were the chaperones.
First of all, the chaperones were there for part of it.
The kids didn't do anything bad.
But here is the part where I'd say, Any hat donned should have had the school name or a logo identifying them as participants in the March for Life event, not a hat with a logo that may suggest stances not in accord with the mission statement of their school.
The Catholic Church's pro-life teaching encompasses a panoply of issues such as abortion, immigration, capital punishment, the environment and climate change, sex trafficking, and the inequitable distribution of the world's resources.
So, in other words, you can't wear a MAGA hat to a pro-life event for what has been practically the most pro-life administration in recent American history.
You can't wear a MAGA hat because that might conflict with other parts of the pro-life Catholic message, like we have to redistribute resources?
Weird.
Well, or maybe people just don't like it.
I mean, first of all, nobody should say bad things to people, obviously.
But maybe the reason people didn't like your tweet is because your suggestion is that if you wear the hat, you're a bad person.
Again, for the left, red hat bad.
Orange man bad.
That's what all this comes down to.
of the vast political, racial, and religious divides that still exist in our country.
Or maybe people just don't like it.
I mean, first of all, nobody should say bad things to people, obviously.
But maybe the reason people didn't like your tweet is because your suggestion is that if you wear the hat, you're a bad person.
Again, for the left, red hat bad.
Orange man bad.
That's what all this comes down to.
Government shutdown is about orange man bad.
Covington High School is about red hat bad.
If your political universe breaks down into Trump and Trump is bad and everything else doesn't matter, then you're a simpleton.
You're a fool.
Turns out Trump, just a guy in the White House.
He is not the avatar of all good or all evil.
He is not the avatar of all conservatism or all non-conservatism.
If you're thinking in these simplistic terms, then I suggest you go do some remedial reading of both the Bible and basic political texts.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, Bono, yesterday, came out, he was at Davos, and he was asked about the new push for socialism.
He pointed out, guys, capitalism's been kind of helpful.
Capitalism is not immoral.
It's amoral.
It requires our instruction.
Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other ism, but it is a wild beast, and if not tamed, it can chew up a lot of people along the way.
Okay, so here's the problem with what he's saying.
So what I like is that Bono is actually defending the free market system which has created more wealth than any system in the history of humanity.
When he says that capitalism is amoral, that is not true.
Free markets are inherently moral because free markets assume at their root that you as an individual have rights and have duties.
Free markets assume that you are a person of worth and that therefore you have charge of your own labor, you have charge of your own product, you have charge of how to dispense with that labor and that product.
The free market is about individual freedom.
That's why it's free.
Any other form of market is a way of somebody else telling you what to do with your labor because other people's interests trump your own.
Now, he says that capitalism can be avaricious.
No, it's not capitalism that's avaricious.
It's not free markets that are avaricious.
Typically, it's people who are perverting the free market by grabbing government incentives in order to shut down somebody else.
The nice thing about the free market is that over the long haul of time, bad companies go under.
Bad people who cheat tend to go under over the long haul of history.
Because no one wants to do business with people who have been shown to be cheaters.
The amount of turnover in the market is astonishing.
But does that mean that the market will always produce, particularly in the short term, the best people winning?
No, of course it doesn't mean that.
Of course it doesn't mean that, but neither does socialism.
Socialism means that the best people never win.
It means that the people who would normally succeed in a free market are often condemned to penury because there's somebody who knows better at the centralized government level.
That's the lesson of Venezuela.
That's the one we should keep our eye on.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
All righty, so Kate Hudson is now doing the trendy thing.
I love when we get to learn how actresses are raising their children, because that's who I would look to to raise my kids, are people who read lines for other people.
So Kate Hudson is embracing a genderless approach when it comes to raising daughter Rani Rose, the 39-year-old actress who welcomed her first child with boyfriend Danny Fujikawa in October, recently opened up about her parenting style with three-month-old Rani in a new interview with AOL.
First of all, You can't raise your kid gendered at three months old.
Because kids poop, and they vomit, and they eat.
That's all they do at three months old.
So I'm not sure what this would involve.
I mean, really.
Like, realistically speaking, you treat a girl baby and a boy baby exactly the same when they are three months old, except for the manner in which you wipe their butts.
Legitimately, that's the only difference.
I have a boy and I have a girl.
I know.
Okay, so.
I'll also note that there is something highly irritating about rich, famous people who are having babies with people with whom they are not married.
It is a bad social lesson.
If the idea is you can't afford to get married, Then you're being like, think about your kid for a second.
Wouldn't you want to lock that in?
Wouldn't you want your parents to actually be locked into raising the child?
But parents matter more than kids when it comes to Hollywood.
How you feel about your own life as an individual in Hollywood is more important than how your child is insured a biological father and mother raising them in Hollywood.
When asked if she does anything differently when it comes to parenting a girl compared to boys, Hudson explained to the outlet that having a daughter doesn't really change my approach, but there's definitely a difference.
I think you just raise your kids individually regardless, like a genderless approach.
We still don't know what she's going to identify as.
Well, you called her a she, so that's a good indicator right there.
This asinine, utterly unscientific, hard differentiation between we don't know what gender she's going to be, it's It's as though people are picking a career.
We don't know whether she wants to be an engineer or whether she wants to be a painter.
And so we're going to raise her with all available options in front of her.
We don't know whether she's going to identify as a girl or as a boy, so we leave all available options in front of her.
Well, we have some early indicators.
See, when you're three months old, it's pretty fair to say that you don't know whether she's going to be an engineer or a painter.
It is not quite fair to say you don't know whether she's going to be a girl or a boy when she's a girl.
Hudson, who is also mom to sons Ryder, 15, and Bingham, 7, from previous relationships.
There it is, right?
Great job parenting Kate Hudson.
We should definitely go to her for parenting advice.
She has a bunch of different kids from a bunch of different men.
I'm sure that's working out fantastic for the kids.
I'm sure there is no psychological damage whatsoever from her having shacked up with a bunch of different dudes and had a bunch of different kids by a bunch of different dudes.
Because after all, she's rich and in Hollywood.
She said, I love this.
So, I love this.
She says she's raising the kid genderless, but then she acknowledges she's buying different stuff for the girl than she is for the boy.
You know why?
Because this is all stupid.
This is all stupid, trendy garbage.
But this is the way that we parent now in the 21st century.
Stupid, trendy garbage.
Now, I do find comfort in the fact that in the long run of history, all of this nonsense will be wiped away because reality and biology do win out when it comes to sex.
All of the people who are raising their kids genderless, the only real issue I have with this is the damage done to the kid.
It does damage kids when you deliberately confuse them about their sex.
Kids are easily confused.
They don't know things.
Reinforcing basic truths about the world is a useful thing.
And it is far more psychologically damaging to a child to tell them that you don't know whether they're a boy or a girl.
You're going to have to take your cues from your three-year-old.
Honestly, it's more damaging to them in the long run to repeat that sort of messaging than it is to let them play outside by themselves for a little while.
I'm sure Kate Hudson has security full-time on her kids, but it seems like security might want to protect her kids from her, because this is just silliness of the highest order.
Okay, other things that I hate.
One more thing that I hate.
So, the USC student government is now trying to prevent conservative speakers after I spoke there last year.
Last October, I spoke there in front of a couple thousand students.
Now the student government, Senator Megan Lane and Senate aide Adenike McKinday have justified a new bylaw amendment Okay, it's a piece of amendment that would prevent conservatives from being invited to campus.
They claim Ben Shapiro's campus president incited undue violence on the day of his presentation.
By the way, there was no violence the day of my presentation.
None.
Zero.
The proposed amendment points out there is no process for review or scrutiny of speakers invited by student organizations.
The amendment proposes speakers be subject to a special guest approval if the event is ticketed, expected to have an audience of over 100 people, if the student's safety is at risk, or if substantial security is required.
Three reasons are given for students petitioning speakers, including persons who have accepted endorsements from hate organizations.
So they say that the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a radical left group that labels everything on the right hateful, that they should decide whether somebody can speak at a campus.
They recently had to settle with Majid Nawaz and his Quilliam Foundation for falsely labeling the foundation as anti-Muslim extremists, by the way.
The other two grounds for petitioning speakers are those who are publicly supported members of hate organizations, or those, quote, on record as having publicly incited, supported, or explicitly encouraged violence or harassment.
Okay, well...
That's going to be pretty fungible.
I promise you, folks on the left are going to expand that to include anyone who says a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl.
This is all in direct response to the fact that we sold out in like an hour at USC.
Amazing how the left doesn't want to... Listen, there was a big protest outside.
It was all fine.
Nothing happened.
But that in itself was bad.
I was heard.
Can't have that.
Well done, leftists, demonstrating that you yourselves are very much in favor of ideological diversity and freedom of thought.
Alrighty, well, we will be back here a little bit later today with your two-hour live show.
This is why you should subscribe.
Go check it out right now for $9.99 a month, $9.99 a year.
You get the Tumblr as well.
Go check that out.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villarreal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera, production assistant Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
▲
Export Selection