All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:35
Everybody In The Pool! | Ep. 704
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Every Democrat in the world declares for 2020.
Anti-Semites pay tribute to the Holocaust.
And Twitter decides that maybe we shouldn't tell journalists who are unemployed to learn to code.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, I hope you had a wonderful, relaxing weekend.
I did, until both my kids came down with 103 degree fevers, because that's the way being a parent is.
It's fantastic, except when it sucks.
Well, we'll get to the news in just one second.
But first, let's talk about how you can make your company more efficient.
How?
By getting better employees, of course.
I mean, look at the schlubs around you.
You need ZipRecruiter.
Hiring can be pretty time-consuming.
You post a job to several online job boards only to get tons of the wrong resumes.
Then you have to sort through all of the resumes just to find a few people with the right skills and experience.
Those job sites that overwhelm you with the wrong resumes are not smart, which is why you should be using ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
Unlike other job sites, ZipRecruiter finds qualified candidates for you.
Its powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education, and experience, and then actively invites them to apply to your job.
So you get qualified candidates fast.
It's no wonder ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the United States.
That rating comes from hiring sites on Trustpilot with over 1,000 reviews.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
We use ZipRecruiter here at The Daily Wire, and you should use it at your own business.
If you love the show, show your support for the show and ZipRecruiter by going to ZipRecruiter.com Alright, so we begin today with the big announcement.
Oh, I know everyone in California was waiting for it, just so excited about our garbage Attorney General Kamala Harris, our garbage Senator Kamala Harris, deciding that she was going to run for President of the United States.
It was all super exciting because she's basically like Hillary Clinton, except even more intersectional.
Which is just amazing.
So she gave her opening speech, her I'm going to run for president speech, based on zero actual accomplishments in office.
She's been senator for about five minutes.
So she's following the Barack Obama path to glory.
Kamala Harris's career as a senator has been, shall we say, Testy.
She spent most of the Kavanaugh hearings suggesting that religious people were terrible and also that Brett Kavanaugh is a gang rapist.
That seems like a great platform to run on a unifying, a unifying theme.
So Kamala Harris announced yesterday in Oakland, number one, important to note, she drew a big crowd in Oakland.
That's not that hard to do for people like Kamala Harris.
And I'm not talking about her race, I'm talking about the fact that if you are a lefty in Oakland, Donald Trump won 5% of the vote in Oakland in 2016.
5%.
She was introduced by Libby Schaaf.
For people who don't remember the Oakland mayor, Libby Schaaf, Libby Schaaf is such a leftist, she's such a crazy leftist, that she actually probably obstructed justice when she informed illegal immigrants in her own city of an upcoming ICE raid.
In February, Schaff issued a public warning for the immigrant communities in her city that U.S.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents in San Francisco were going to be engaging in raids of illegal immigrant criminals.
So she warned criminals, and they all escaped.
She was the person who decided to introduce Kamala Harris.
So that's where Kamala Harris is.
Kamala Harris is a very, very far-left character.
She's masquerading as a middle-of-the-road character so that she can get ahead in these primaries.
Now, she has some advantages a lot of the other Democratic candidates don't.
And if you had to handicap the race right now, you would think that she would have a pretty heavy advantage.
Number one, she checks two intersectional boxes.
She is a woman and she is black.
A heavy dose of the Democratic base is black.
About 30% of the Democratic primary base in 2008 was black.
That's what allowed Barack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that I believe in the end she won more popular votes in the primaries than he did.
While Kamala Harris is going to have I think some of those same advantages because she is the only black candidate who has yet declared running for president.
She also has the advantage of tremendous media coverage.
The media love her, and the media love her specifically because they think that she is Obama part two.
We had Obama part one with Obama, and now we're gonna get Obama part two with Kamala Harris.
She's more attractive than Hillary Clinton, just physically attractive than Hillary Clinton, And so that's going to help her out.
I'm not saying that.
Barack Obama is saying that.
Barack Obama in 2013 labeled her, what was it, the hottest attorney general in the country?
He was not labeled a sexist for that, by the way, which is fascinating.
And more than that, Kamala Harris touches all the various aspects of the Democratic base that need to be touched.
So she's got a foot in sort of the moderate camp because she's not as wild and crazy and out there as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, at least overtly.
She is privately.
She touches on the intersectional camp.
She touches a little bit on the millennial camp, not as much as people like Beto O'Rourke or maybe even Bernie.
But she's probably the most well-rounded Democratic candidate just in terms of who she can reach out and touch.
She also has an inherent advantage because of her race.
So if she wants to reach out to black folks, she does not actually need to play the pandering game.
Now what you'll see from all the other Democratic candidates who have declared today is that they are indeed playing a pandering game.
Where they do this routine where they go out there and they talk about racism a lot.
And the problem for them is that by doing that, what they actually do is they push people away during a general election.
Kamala Harris, because she is who she is, doesn't have to talk about racial polarization all that much.
People sort of assume that she understands the issue because of her race.
And so that gives her the ability to just simply go over the top.
Not talk about the racial issue as much.
Barack Obama did much the same thing in 2008.
Alright, so she kicked off her presidential campaign with about apparently 20,000 people showing up in Oakland, and she did it speaking against City Hall.
So I'm not even sure how she got a license to do that, but she did it against City Hall, so it looked like a presidential address.
And she quoted Bobby Kennedy, because we will never escape the baby boomers.
She said, these are not ordinary times, and this will not be an ordinary election.
She then threw out a bunch of platitudes, although she dropped a few kind of new twists.
Like, for example, she talked about transphobia, which I'm sure is going to be a massive winner across the country in a general election.
She also stressed her experience prosecuting sex crimes and fighting transnational gangs.
Now, the funny part about this is that she was a terrible attorney general.
She was such a bad Attorney General that she was roundly criticized by law enforcement for her general failures to defend law enforcement.
In fact, there was one particular case where illegal immigrants On the left, there are a lot of people who criticize Kamala Harris because they feel that she was too harsh.
They feel that she was too willing to put people in jail, particularly for drug crimes.
and that led a lot of law enforcement officials to come after her and criticize her for good reason.
On the left, there are a lot of people who criticize Kamala Harris because they feel that she was too harsh.
They feel that she was too willing to put people in jail, particularly for drug crimes.
In any case, here was Kamala Harris announcing her run yesterday in Oakland.
We are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental question.
Thank you.
Who are we?
Who are we as Americans?
So let's answer that question to the world and each other right here and right now.
America, we are better than this.
So I mean, that's some pretty boring stuff right there.
She's not an inspiring speaker by any stretch of the imagination.
She's pretty charisma-free, but that's not going to hurt her all that much, because again, we're going to get the media's favorite thing, which is she's the first.
So Barack Obama was the first black president, and we're going to have the first female black president.
And then in eight years, we will have the first female black little person of Native American heritage Who has transgender as president.
It'll be very exciting when that happens.
Then, Harris, who is a radical leftist, she says, I'm running to be president of the people.
Okay, this is just a lie.
She's running to be president of Democrats.
Again, this is a lady who has insulted Catholics, suggested that Catholics don't belong on federal courts.
This is a lady who has suggested that Brett Kavanaugh was a gang rapist.
This is a woman who was so bad at representing the people of California that when the people of California voted in favor of traditional marriage, and then there was a lawsuit, I'm running for president because I love my country.
that vote.
She refused as California attorney general to represent the people.
This was actually an issue.
It went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of Kamala Harris alone deciding that she was not going to stand up for the vote of the Californian people.
They decided they weren't even going to take up the case and they would strike down Proposition 8.
But here she is pretending to be a uniter rather than a divider.
I'm running for president because I love my country.
I love my country.
I'm running to be president of the people, by the people and for all people. - Yeah!
Okay, well, again, no.
That's not a thing that's happening.
And the way you can tell this is because even in the midst of her speech, she started dropping all sorts of alienating language.
So here she was yesterday explaining that in her fights against transnational gangs, a wall won't work.
We can't have a wall, obviously.
What we need instead is the sanctuary city policy that she herself supports.
Black people meant fighting transnational gangs who traffic in drugs and guns and human beings.
And I saw their sophistication, their persistence, and their ruthlessness.
And folks, on the subject of transnational gangs, let's be perfectly clear.
The president's medieval vanity project is not going to stop them.
Okay, you know what probably won't stop them either, by the way, is her sanctuary city policy.
Again, the person who introduced her here was Libby Schaaf, the Oakland mayor, who legitimately warned criminal gang members that ICE was going to come raid the city.
So if you feel safe with Kamala Harris, let me tell you, as a resident of California, crime rates rose under Kamala Harris when she was Attorney General out here.
Okay, the crime was not great under her.
She did not do a good job.
Doesn't matter.
She's going to be touted by the media anyway.
And why does she have such a bad relationship with law enforcement?
Because she, like Barack Obama, like much of the Democratic Party, spends an awful lot of time suggesting that the police are basically racist.
I'm running to fight for an America where no mother or father has to teach their young son that people may stop him, arrest him, chase him, or kill him because of his race.
Okay, this is such a slander against law enforcement.
It's such a slander against law enforcement that law enforcement officials are running around shooting black people because of their race.
It's just a lie.
There is no statistical evidence to support that whatsoever, that there is a wild racial discrimination problem in police departments across the country that results in police officers shooting black people simply because of their race.
It's a myth that was pushed by the Obama administration.
It is simply not true.
By every statistic I have ever seen, this is simply not true.
Okay, particularly when you're talking about people being shot.
If you want to make the case that police treat black folks disproportionately in terms of roughing them up during arrests, there's some evidence to back that up.
There was a Harvard study by Roland Fryer that suggested that maybe that was the case.
But when it comes to the idea that police are disproportionately overall racist and are going after black folks because of race, again, no evidence of this.
But look, she's a radical and the media love this.
She does have a pretty big problem with her resume, and I'm going to explain this in just one second.
But first, let's talk about birthdays, anniversaries, Valentine's Days.
These things are just around the corner.
So when you are looking for the biggest and best quality roses out there, you need to talk to my friends at 1-800-Flowers.com.
Right now, you can get 18 red roses for $29.99 or upgrade to 24 red roses for $10 more.
It's a fantastic offer from 1-800-Flowers.
I've been using 1-800-Flowers for years.
I mean, every time I'm on the road, I send my wife flowers because that's just the kind of husband I am.
But you can also be a great husband, be a great partner.
18 Red Roses for $29.99 or upgrade to 24 Red Roses for $10 more.
It makes it easy to shop.
The quality is fantastic.
It's better than anything you're going to get at the local grocery store.
Roses from 1-800-Flowers are picked at their peak and they're shipped overnight to ensure freshness and her amazement.
18 Red Roses for $29.99 or upgrade again to 24 Red Roses for $10 more.
It's the perfect reward for thinking ahead and ordering early.
Bouquet prices will indeed be going up soon, so you do want to order early.
Pick your delivery date.
1-800-Flowers handles all of the rest.
I don't settle for anything less than 1-800-Flowers when I am buying my white flowers.
To order 18 red roses for $29.99 or upgrade to 24 red roses for only $10 more, go to 1-800-Flowers.com slash Shapiro.
That's 1-800-Flowers.com slash Shapiro.
Hurry, that offer expires Wednesday.
Go check it out right now.
1-800-Flowers.com slash Shapiro for that special deal.
They're really great.
What is the big problem for Kamala Harris?
Well, the biggest problem for Kamala Harris is she's utterly unqualified.
Right?
She's utterly unqualified for this office.
Again, she was not a good attorney general of the state of California.
She's a terrible senator from the state of California.
And the way she got started, if she had gotten started, if any Republican woman had gotten started in politics the way Kamala Harris got started in politics, she would be a laughingstock.
Off the bat, she would be a laughingstock.
What am I talking about?
I'm talking about Willie Brown.
So for folks who don't know California politics, Willie Brown is the former leader of basically the Democratic caucus across the state of California, a very powerful man in California politics.
Well, Willie Brown has been married for many, many years.
And there's one problem with that, which is that he has also dated half of the women in California while he was married.
Yeah, he's a bit of a douchebag.
Brown served as San Francisco mayor from 1996 until January 2004, and he was considered a very, very powerful Democrat across the state.
He was succeeded by Gavin Newsom.
He was sort of associated with Arnold Schwarzenegger a little bit.
In any case, when he was 60 years old, Willie Brown met Kamala Harris.
He was married at the time.
And Kamala Harris, who was 30, started dating him.
I'm sure it was just a partnership of love.
I'm sure they fell in love at first sight.
I'm sure that she looked at him and she thought, 60-year-old, so attractive, 60-year-old man, twice my age.
That's, that's the, I love him.
That's, that's what's gonna happen here.
Or, alternatively, Or alternatively, and this is not cynical, this is just the fact, he gave her a bunch of jobs.
How do I know he gave her a bunch of jobs?
Because he says so in an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle today.
Here's what he writes.
I've been peppered with calls from the national media about my relationship with Kamala Harris, particularly since it became obvious that she was going to run for president.
Most of them I have not returned.
Yes, we dated.
It was more than 20 years ago.
He was married at the time.
He was 60.
She was 30.
Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was assembly speaker.
First of all, that's just an outright admission of corruption.
That you were nailing somebody until you appointed them to state commissions when you were assembly speaker?
Like, how is that okay?
I'm wondering.
How is that not just blatant corruption?
Of course, it is blatant corruption.
By the way, both of those jobs were near six-figure salaries for nothing, for doing nothing, except for presumably dating a married man.
And then he says, I certainly helped her with our first race for district attorney in San Francisco.
I've also helped the careers of Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other politicians.
Oh, really?
Did you date them also?
I missed the part where you were dating Gavin Newsom.
I missed the part where you were dating him and presumably Enjoying each other?
And then you decided that you were going to help Gavin Newsom with his mayoral run.
Missed that part.
He says the difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I so much as jaywalked while she was DA.
Right, because she has to say that, because if she doesn't say that, then it looks like open corruption.
Because that's politics for you.
Wow, just amazing stuff.
In a second, I'm going to explain why nobody in the media is going to pay attention.
They're going to call it sexist if you mention this story.
Right?
If you mention this story, it's... Okay, so the media are going to say that Willie Brown did something terrible by mentioning this.
Except for the fact that, again, if any Republican ever had done anything like this, they would be a laughingstock.
Let's say that... Let's say, for example, That Sarah Palin, when she was selected for vice president, it had come out that she dated George H.W.
Bush while he was married to Barbara, and that he made sure that she got her start in Alaska politics.
You think that might have been a bit of an issue for her for her VP run?
You think?
Or no.
If it turned out that Nikki Haley, for example, had gotten into politics by dating a man twice her age who then gave her political favors, you might think that'd be used as a club by the media.
Yeah, I think so.
Unless you think that this is a sexist thing, it is not.
You know how many times I have mocked John Kerry?
John Kerry, former 2004 candidate and Secretary of State.
I've mocked him one million times for having married Teresa.
He married one rich woman and then divorced her and then married another rich woman and then lived off her fortune.
It's always seen, and it should be seen, as a bad thing in American politics to marry for political purposes.
This was the rip on Hillary Clinton, too, by the way, is that she lived off her husband's name and lived off of his coattails so that she could then run for senator and president and be secretary of state.
Kamala Harris is not a feminist icon if she was dating Willie Brown so she could get appointed to a bunch of positions while he was married, by the way.
I know that we gloss over this in American life now.
And on both sides, in both political parties, we have ignored the idea that adultery is bad.
I know that Republicans now think, oh, well, you know, it happens because of President Trump.
And I know that Democrats Do they have been doing this routine for literally decades that since the era of JFK, whatever, so they commit adultery.
It's kind of bad when you are the other woman to a married man who is then providing you with giveaway jobs in the California state government.
That's kind of bad.
Now, nobody's going to attack her on this, because if other Democrats do, then she will claim sexism.
President Trump might, because President Trump has no limits.
One of the beautiful things about the man is that he will say anything at any time.
But should that be an issue?
Of course that should be an issue.
It is obvious.
Overt corruption.
And she should have to answer questions about that.
And she shouldn't be able to shy away with answers like, oh yeah, I fell deeply in love with Willie Brown when he was 60 and I was 30.
Eh.
Yeah, that's a thing that happens all the time.
And there are lots of 60-year-old men.
You know how many of them who are, you know, kind of middle-class schlubs, who aren't powerful men in politics, are getting 30-year-old up-and-coming law student girlfriends?
Tons of them.
Tons.
Just, it happens all the time.
And meanwhile, it's not just Kamala Harris who's jumping into the pool.
It's also Elizabeth Warren.
Now, Elizabeth Warren is going to campaign as an open communist.
I'm old enough to remember when Elizabeth Warren was writing books like The Two-Income Trap, all about how the middle class in the United States was suffering And how school vouchers, for example, could be a solution for some of these families.
Well, now she's decided to steal Bernie Sanders' audience by going overtly commie.
And the New York Times is praising her for it.
So here's what she tweeted out over the weekend, did Elizabeth Warren.
This billionaire NFL owner just paid $100 million for a superyacht with its own IMAX theater.
I'm pretty sure he can pay my new ultra-millionaire tax to help the millions of yachtless Americans struggling with student loan debt.
There's a reference to Dan Snyder, who's the owner of the Redskins.
Well, Elizabeth Warren might have a problem with the owner of the Redskins.
In any case, I do love the overt communism of this is pretty astonishing.
So, is there any allegation that Dan Snyder did not pay his taxes?
No.
He paid his taxes, as far as I know.
Is there anything wrong with him buying a giant yacht, which presumably employed lots and lots of people to build?
I love the idea from a lot of folks on the left that when you spend money on a product, there's no one on the other end of that product.
Ooh, he spent money on a yacht.
You know how many people made that yacht?
If it costs $100 million, I thought you guys were in favor of spending.
I thought you liked spending over saving.
So, shouldn't you be in favor of him spending $100 million on a yacht, as opposed to simply putting it into his bank account?
But I guess that if you buy something that is excessively expensive, then Elizabeth Warren will come after you.
By the way, Elizabeth Warren is worth something like 15 to 18 million dollars herself, so she can start giving away her cash anytime she damn well pleases.
What's hilarious to me is the way that the media treat all of these candidates.
So, they'll treat Kamala Harris with kid gloves even though, again, a married man is openly relating in print how he dated her and then corruptly gave her jobs.
Elizabeth Warren is one of the more charmless candidates in the 2020 race.
And there's a piece in The New York Times called Elizabeth Warren's 2020 strategy stands out by nerding out.
Now, it is incredible.
When's the last time you heard a Republican referred to as a nerd by the New York Times?
Like, maybe they'll do it every so often with somebody like Ben Sasse or something because they have a book review, but when is the last time you heard an actual political candidate for office, like Ted Cruz, called a nerd by the New York Times?
Usually, they are considered charmless manipulators.
Right?
They never call them nerds.
If a Republican fails to connect to people, that's because that Republican is cold and calculating and Machiavellian.
When a Democrat fails to connect to the people, it's because they're just too smart.
Al Gore was just too smart.
Sure, he wasn't smart enough not to tell a masseuse to go after his third chakra, but he was really, really smart.
John Kerry.
Sure, he wasn't smart enough to get into Harvard Law School.
After going to Harvard undergrad, he ended up at BU, which is not a great recommendation for his intellect.
But John Kerry, he couldn't connect with the people.
He was just so smart.
Hillary Clinton, just so brilliant.
So brilliant.
But that's why she couldn't connect to humans, because she's like a whiz in there.
I mean, just so many brains.
Now they're doing the same thing with Elizabeth Warren.
So here is the New York Times, the objective, unbiased New York Times.
The gym was hot.
The lights malfunctioned.
But the audience of nearly 1,000 people was engrossed as Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat and presidential hopeful, did what she does best.
Nerd out, as she puts it.
Well, I ain't just carry around a drool bucket, people.
After talking up gun control laws and criminal justice reform on a recent South Carolina campaign swing, Ms.
Warren dug into the nitty-gritty of free market regulation and a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency she helped create, which has returned more than $12 billion to people in refunds and canceled debts.
Nothing made her more enthusiastic.
By the end, she had many in the audience cheering.
Okay, now remember, this is not just like a regular audience.
They came up to see Elizabeth Warren.
It's like if you buy a ticket to a Broadway production these days, you will never go to a Broadway production that does not receive a standing ovation at the end.
Why?
Because if you drop a hundred bucks on a ticket, you want to make yourself feel that you actually did it for something worthwhile, so you give a standing ovation.
If you drive out to see Elizabeth Warren on a school night, you gotta give her a standing O at the end so you feel like you did something useful with your time.
Almost one month into her presidential campaign, says the New York Times, Ms.
Warren's passion for policy minutiae has become her way of standing out in an increasingly crowded Democratic field, establishing herself as a wonk's wonk whose expansive ideas and detail-oriented speaking style are her bid for a good first impression on voters.
Wow.
She's just so brilliant.
She's so brilliant.
In a second.
I'm gonna read you some more of this, and we'll get into the other Democrats who have jumped into the race, legitimately everyone on Earth.
We'll get to Howard Schultz, too, in just a second.
First, let me remind you that the best present that you can get for a parent or loved one these days?
Legacy box.
Why?
Well, because legacy box helps you preserve all those memories.
You know, my wife and I, we were looking through our pictures the other day, and we thought to ourselves, we have so many digital pictures, but how many of them do we have printed out?
And then we have a bunch of old pictures since before we had digital cameras.
I know, we're that old.
We actually took pictures, like film.
What happens if those should be in a flood or something?
Well, this is where Legacy Box comes in.
It's particularly true if you have older film, if you have VHS tapes, all that stuff's out, moldering in the garage.
Well, you need Legacy Box.
What Legacy Box does is it saves your family films and photos from being degraded or lost forever.
You take all of these old home movies and pictures, and then you send it in to Legacy Box, and they do the rest.
They professionally digitize your moments onto a thumb drive, digital download, or DVD.
They have easy-to-follow instructions and safety barcodes, including for every item.
Receive all your original recorded moments back, along with perfectly preserved digital copies.
Get personalized updates at every step.
Receives up to 12 personalized email updates all the way along the line, so you know what's happening with your materials.
Over 450,000 families have trusted LegacyBox.
Instead of you having all of this stuff in the garage you're never gonna look at again, now you've got it all on a handy thumb drive, so if, God forbid, there's a fire, you can run.
And also, you got it everywhere you need to be, which is awesome.
There has never been a better time to digitally preserve your memories.
Go check out LegacyBox.com today to get started.
Honestly, your life is your memories.
You're not going to want to miss this.
Go check it out.
LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
And when you use that slash Ben, you get 40% off your first order.
That's LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
You get 40% off your first order.
LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
Save 40% today.
Go check it out right now.
All right, so the New York Times, praising Elizabeth Warren, listens to the description of the various candidates.
So they say that she has expansive ideas and a detail-oriented speaking style, a.k.a.
she's boring.
And they say that Kamala Harris focuses on sweeping themes of unity and change, that Ms.
Warren is making a personal and political wager that audiences care more about policy savvy than captivating oration, which is her saying, basically, I'm incredibly boring, but let me just talk to you about my garbage tax ideas.
So that is the way the New York Times is positioning Elizabeth Warren.
Very, very exciting stuff.
She's a nerd.
She's a nerd.
And then there's Senator Bernie Sanders.
So he is also considering running for president now.
He says that he is set to announce his 2020 presidential run.
Two sources with direct knowledge of his plans told Yahoo News that Sanders, an independent and self-described democratic socialist, plans to announce his presidential bid imminently.
In the latest polls, by the way, The most recent poll that I saw, I believe it was a Politico poll, and what it showed was Biden up front with 26, Bernie with like 16, Kamala Harris with 9, everybody else with 5.
So, Sanders is still a presence in the race.
He's still charming to millennials for the same reason that old people at the old age home are sometimes charming to young people.
He's kind of like a fun uncle.
He's like a fun uncle.
Sure, he says kooky things about Venezuelan dictatorship, but he's kind of kooky.
He's kind of cookie.
So Sanders is is going to jump in as well.
You could actually actually see a brokered convention.
Honestly, like there's so many candidates right now that if the vote splits eight ways from Sunday and the superdelegates don't actually get to have an impact on the Democratic race this time.
What you could see is 83 candidates all running and maybe two or three who are viable as a presidential candidate.
Now, I don't think that's going to happen.
I think that if you have to handicap the race right now, then you put Kamala Harris probably near the top again because she's the best-rounding candidate.
And then maybe Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders after that.
Joe Biden wants to jump in, too.
Biden is doing exactly what I suggested earlier in the show.
Joe Biden wants to appeal to minority Americans.
He knows that the only way he wins the primaries is if he gets black folks to vote for him.
Well, now he's got a challenge because Kamala Harris is in the race.
So here he is talking about racism.
Joseph R. McBiden, the same guy who once said that all people who run 7-Elevens are Indian and who said that Mitt Romney wants to put black people back in chains.
Here's Joe Biden going off on race.
The bottom line is we have a lot to root out.
But most of all, there's systematic racism that most of us whites don't like to acknowledge even exist.
We don't even consciously acknowledge it, but it's been built into every aspect of our system.
White America has to admit there's still a systematic racism and it goes almost unnoticed by so many of us.
Super weird how that systematic racism magically disappeared for like eight years there.
And then now it's back!
Boom!
Check that stuff out!
Whoa!
Where'd that racism come from?
Oh, it came from people didn't elect Democrats.
So all the racism is back.
Even Hillary Clinton is still thinking about running.
Now, Hillary would not win the nomination because Democrats do not want this.
Again, they just don't.
But would she be at the top of the polls initially?
Yeah, she would.
Okay, apparently.
According to CNN White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny, he said on Sunday that Clinton told people as recently as this week she isn't closing the doors to the idea of running in 2020.
According to Zeleny, I'm told by three people that as recently as this week she was telling people that, look, given all this news from the indictments, particularly the Roger Stone indictment, She talked to several people saying, look, I'm not closing the doors to this.
It doesn't mean there's a campaign in waiting or a plan in the works.
She said last October she would still like to be president.
By the way, if she ran again against President Trump, I am not certain she doesn't win.
Not because she is better at campaigning, but simply because the reason she lost last time is because people assumed she was going to win and she's deeply unlikable.
Well, she's still deeply unlikable, but there are gonna be a lot of Hillary revenge voters out there.
Here's the problem for Democrats.
They have so many people running that you could see an incredibly fractious primary.
And that's exactly what Republicans are hoping for.
It's one of the reasons why they've closed the doors to the possibility of a strong primary run inside their own party.
They're hoping if Republicans consolidate around Trump early and Democrats savage each other, that that will end up dividing the party.
Well, what's kind of surprising is that a lot of Republicans are also apparently negative on Howard Schultz running.
So Howard Schultz is the CEO of Starbucks, the former CEO of Starbucks.
I think he stepped down recently.
And he announced on 60 Minutes that he might run for president.
Now, he is just, he is just what the radical left is looking for.
An older white guy who's a billionaire and head of a corporation.
I know, I know.
It's just what people have been looking for.
But if he runs as a moderate, he could take votes away from a radical left candidate in the Democratic Party.
So here is Howard Schultz expressing his wish to run.
Do you worry that you're going to siphon votes away from the Democrats and thereby ensure that President Trump has a second term?
I want to see the American people win.
I want to see America win.
I don't care if you're Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican, bring me your ideas and I will be an independent person who will embrace those ideas.
Okay, first of all, what I love is that Democrats have gone nuts over this.
How many Democrats are actually gonna vote for Howard Schultz?
The same number of Republicans who are gonna vote for Michael Bloomberg, okay?
It's a very limited number of folks.
But, you're seeing Democrats go off the wall about this, because they are afraid that somebody will come in and split the vote again.
They think that the Libertarian vote is what won Donald Trump the presidency, Jill Stein's vote.
They think that won Donald Trump the presidency in 2016, so they are deeply afraid of Howard Schultz running.
And this has led a lot of Democrats to attack Howard Schultz.
Now, if you're Trump, you've got to be sitting there going, OK, fine.
Good.
Schultz is a lefty.
Let him run.
But unfortunately, President Trump has the habit of immediately dumping on whoever else jumps into the race.
So he tweeted out this morning, Howard Schultz doesn't have the guts to run for president.
Watched him on 60 Minutes last night, and I agree with him that he is not the smartest person.
Besides, America already has that.
I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower.
Oh, a lot going on here.
So many things going on.
First of all, Mr. President, Schultz is not a threat to you, he's a threat to the Democrats!
Stop it!
You want Howard Schultz to run.
You want him to split the vote.
That is your goal.
Second of all, I just love that Trump declares himself openly the smartest person.
You have to love that.
I know lots and lots of really smart people.
You know how many of them go around telling everybody how smart they are?
Like on a regular basis.
The thing about smart people is they know they're usually not the smartest person in the room.
I mean, I know people who have incredibly high IQs, and when I'm in the room with them, they are smarter than I. But...
They don't go around talking about it, right?
It's just, it's amazing stuff.
You gotta love that the president, that's a man with confidence right there.
Okay, in a second, I wanna get to Holocaust Memorial Day and the left's reaction to Holocaust Memorial Day.
But first, you need to subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you can subscribe to this show.
It means you get the rest of the show live.
Also, two additional hours live of this show later today.
Why would you miss that?
Why would you miss it?
We have thousands of people watching behind the paywall and asking me questions during the breaks.
It's going to be awesome.
Go check that out.
Also, tomorrow, we have Daily Wire backstage.
Why?
I don't know, but you should come.
Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring, me, Andrew Clavin, the ex-Gribble Michael Knowles, and Alicia Krauss will be here discussing all the important issues and, of course, answering your questions.
I know why.
Originally, we were going to do this as a State of the Union, Daily Wire backstage, and then Nancy Pelosi cancelled it, and so we're still doing it.
We'll be here anyway tomorrow night, so you're going to want to be here with us, because if I have to suffer with these people, you should too.
As always, only Daily Wire subscribers get to ask those questions, so make sure to subscribe today.
Go check it out.
We have all sorts of goodies behind the paywall.
Also, make sure you subscribe at YouTube and iTunes.
We have a fantastic Sunday special that came out yesterday with Lewis Howes.
We have another one that is coming out next week with a special guest we have not yet named.
Let's just suffice it to say, dude, it's a great guest.
It's a great guest.
And you're going to want to be part of that conversation.
Go check it out.
Leave us a review at iTunes.
We always appreciate it.
It helps us with our ranking.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty.
So I want to talk for a second about Holocaust Remember in the States.
So International Holocaust Remembrance Day is not Yom HaZikaron.
Yom HaZikaron is a Holocaust Memorial Day.
It's celebrated in Israel in early May, like May 7th.
International Holocaust Remembrance Day is sort of celebrated, well commemorated, worldwide.
And what's amazing about the commemorations for the Holocaust is how few people actually know jack squat about the Holocaust.
There's a poll that showed that two-thirds of Americans, two-thirds, did not know anything about the Holocaust, particularly two-thirds of millennials don't know what Auschwitz was.
Which is an amazing, amazing thing.
I mean, that's just tremendous ignorance of history.
According to a 2018 poll, two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is, according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day that found that knowledge of the genocide that killed six million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.
22% of Millennials said they had not heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they have heard of it.
That's twice the percentage of U.S.
adults as a whole who said the same.
Only 41% of respondents and 66% of... Well, let's see.
41% of respondents and 66 2-thirds of Millennials could not come up with a correct response identifying Auschwitz as a concentration camp or extermination camp.
Which is, what I love the most about this is that millennials, who apparently know the least about the Holocaust of any generation in American history, are also the most likely to call people Nazis.
So the same people who don't know a damn thing about the Holocaust or Auschwitz, they're the same people who will say that Trump is a Nazi, that I am a Nazi.
This is the way that this works.
The less you know about the Holocaust, the more you throw around the term Holocaust as though you know what the term Holocaust means.
And the worse it is.
And you see this from the left.
The left is only interested, at least many members of the left, not all members of the left, many members of the hardcore radical left, So let's take, for example, Planned Parenthood.
are not real fond of Jews, are very fond of using the Holocaust as a reference point in their political propaganda.
So let's take, for example, Planned Parenthood.
So Planned Parenthood, lest you forget, is an organization that slaughters some 300,000 unborn children every year.
They are the closest thing to a murderous organization in the United States right now.
And Planned Parenthood actually tweeted out this, right.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the tremendous, immeasurable human cost of bigotry, and we reaffirm that there can be no place for antisemitism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or any form of hatred in our communities, our politics, and our country.
This is very typical of the intersectional left.
Instead of talking about the specific hatred of Jews, which is what Holocaust Memorial Day is about, or about the dehumanization of innocents for purposes of slaughtering them en masse, which might undercut Planned Parenthood's entire business plan.
Instead, they sort of do this vague gloss on the Holocaust, where the Holocaust is just a bad thing that happened because of racism.
The Holocaust is just, racism is bad.
That's the lesson that we take away from the Holocaust.
Not that you cannot dehumanize your political opposition.
Not that you should not dehumanize entire groups of people for purposes of murdering them.
Not that you might want to think about anti-Semitism in its own context, as opposed to as a subset of a broader racist rubric.
Instead, they just cite the Holocaust as a way to beat up on people who, for example, believe in biological sex or also believe that you shouldn't kill babies.
This is how the Women's March can proclaim that it opposes bigotry, even while its leaders call for anti-Semitic boycotts against Israel from the podium at the Women's March.
See, here's the thing about the Holocaust.
The more specific you get about the Holocaust, the less likely you are to actually invoke it as an analog, as a basis of comparison.
When folks in the pro-life movement talk about a Holocaust of the unborn, that's a very specific charge.
The charge is that there are groups of people who are dehumanizing a specific subset of humanity for purposes of exterminating them.
That's very specific.
When people say, everybody I don't like is a Nazi, That's them taking the Holocaust and taking Nazism and then zooming out with the lens so far that the Holocaust and Nazism become meaningless.
And this is very common.
This is how you get people like Jeremy Corbyn, who's an open anti-Semite, tweeting this out.
Jeremy Corbyn is the head of the Labour Party.
He's so anti-Semitic that people inside his own party have had to run screaming from him.
He tweeted out, In memory of the millions of Jewish people and others who perished in the Holocaust, let us never allow anti-Semitism or any other form of racism to disfigure our society.
Jeremy Corbyn is an open anti-Semite who has backed Hamas and Hezbollah.
He has worked with them to speak in the parliament.
He's an ardent Israel hater who is associated with characters who actually repeat the medieval blood libel that Jews are using the blood of non-Jewish children for various purposes.
He has worked with Holocaust deniers in the past and Jeremy Corbyn is tweeting that out.
Why?
Because for people of the radical left, the Holocaust is only important so long as you can use it as a club against your political opponents.
Same thing for Representative Ilhan Omar.
The Democrat from Minnesota.
Now you remember Ilhan Omar from such glorious things as tweeting out that Israel was hypnotizing the world and may Allah awaken everyone.
Well, over the weekend she tweeted out an ADL, an ADL tweet.
And it said right-wing extremists committed nearly every extremist murder in 2018.
There's an older tweet from the ADL and also that report was deeply flawed.
Okay, the report was deeply flawed not because right-wing extremists don't commit murder, but because the ADL's case that there was an increase in the number of murders in the United States is simply not true.
Ilhan Omar tweeted out, today we remember the murder of 17 million people including 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
First of all, necessary to To point out that there's a difference between people who are innocent who died during World War II and the Holocaust, which was the systemic targeting and killing of a specific group of humans.
At best, 10 million people were killed in the Holocaust.
Even that is upper end in terms of systemic targeting of particular groups.
Six million people who were Jews were specifically targeted because they had the last name that ended in Stein or Berg.
With the rise of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi ideology, writes Ilhan Omar, It's more important than ever that we learn from the atrocities of the past and commit to fighting intolerance.
Hashtag Holocaust Memorial.
Yes, I want to hear from the lady who has backed terrorists in the past against Jews and joins with people who want boycott of Israel to destroy the only Jewish country on planet Earth to talk about the Holocaust and to talk about anti-Semitism.
It's amazing how many folks from the left are willing to use terminology they actively do not know anything about or know better than to use in order to push their political agenda.
It truly is an astonishing thing and shows how cynical so many of these folks are.
Ilhan Omar and Jeremy Corbyn paying attention to Planned Parenthood, pretending they care about the Holocaust.
Yeah, give me a break.
Give me a break.
Okay, meanwhile, meanwhile, there's this amazing thing that's happening on Twitter, according to John Levine.
Okay, John Levine is a media editor over at The Wrap, and he tweeted this out earlier.
Now, to understand why this is hilarious and ridiculous, you have to understand what's happening.
at any recently laid off journalist will be treated as abusive behavior and as a violation of twitter's terms of service and now to understand why this is hilarious and ridiculous you have to understand what's happening so buzzfeed recently laid off a couple of hundred journalists now i'm in the journalism business the opinion journalism business and i'm never happy to see journalists laid off of any particular stripe because i like more opinion i I like people battling it out.
I think it's good for the country when we have people battling it out.
It is also true that a lot of these enterprises expanded too fast and then had to contract because they did not control their growth.
Instead, they simply hired a lot of people on the basis of projected future growth as opposed to cash flow, and now they've had to fire a lot of people.
Well, the irony here is that there are a lot of folks on the left, and particularly in the sort of elitist left, who have been suggesting that when people who are Trump supporters lose their jobs in small towns, that the solution is to learn to code.
This has become sort of shorthand for elitists sneering at people who are less educated than themselves.
Now, I've said to myself, listen, if you're in a dying town, then maybe the best solution is to move out of the dying town, because I don't think that the politicians are going to bring your job back.
The learn-to-code point has been something that you get from left-leaning elitists for a long time, and when illegal immigrants come into the country and threaten, for example, the labor base, that that's not a problem because people should just learn to code.
Well now, these journalists are being laid off, and a lot of people who are Trump supporters are going after the journalists saying, well look, you lost your job, it ain't coming back, so learn to code.
Well, John Levine is now reporting that Twitter is going to ban people for telling journalists to learn to code.
That's right, our nation's bravest firefighters, the intrepid people out there every day, bringing you the truth, cannot handle somebody telling them to learn to code.
Okay, yeah.
Sure.
Twitter, that's not a mockery of anything.
No reason.
That doesn't make a mockery of these journalists.
It doesn't make them look like children in pansies to be very upset about.
Learn to code.
Come on.
I love it.
Just amazing.
What's good for the goose is not good for the gander in the media.
This is why Jim Acosta is going to be writing a book about Jim Acosta being a victim because Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta.
Because the members of the journalistic community have such a picture in their head that they are all heroic, Woodward and Bernstein types, that if somebody tells them, hey, maybe you ought to get a job for a living, then they get very upset.
Whereas a lot of them will tell everybody else to get a job for a living.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Okay.
Now, I wanted to bring you an update on the government shutdown, which ended last Friday when President Trump unilaterally decided, we are done here.
No more government shutdown.
Maybe we'll be back here in three weeks.
My guess is that in three weeks, the president will declare Some national emergency and then try to activate border funding from other parts of the Defense Department.
But there was a poll that came out last week that was largely ignored until just about now.
And it's pretty interesting.
There is a NBC Wall Street Journal poll.
And here is what this poll showed.
What this poll showed is that by popularity, by popularity, Who was the least popular?
Who was the least popular politician during the actual shutdown?
Now, if you listen to the media, you would have thought it was Donald Trump, right?
It was Trump who had lost the most ground during the government shutdown.
But that is not true.
That is not true.
So they've done sort of a before and after the government shutdown snapshot of poll numbers.
And here's what they found.
The Democratic Party, by the end of the shutdown, 35% of Americans were positive on the Democrats.
40% were negative.
So that means that they were 5 points underwater.
The Republican Party was 9 points underwater.
34% positive, 43% negative.
So they had basically the same positive rating as the Democratic Party.
Almost identical.
Trump was more popular than both.
He was at 39%.
39% positive, 51% negative, which means he was 12 points underwater.
Mitch McConnell was 18 points underwater, 17% positive, 35% negative.
Who was the most unpopular politician in America during the government shutdown?
Nancy Pelosi.
She was at 28% positive, 47% negative.
So in other words, the same media that were cheering her, you remember Seth Meyers, on his show, saying they should build the wall out of Nancy Pelosi since she's just so tough, The same media, cheering Nancy Pelosi, shockingly, were not covering her radical drop in popularity.
They weren't covering the fact that the government shutdown was hurting Nancy Pelosi even worse than it was hurting President Trump.
And that media coverage caused people to jump early in the Republican Party, thinking that the damage from the government shutdown was simply too great.
As I said last week, if President Trump wanted to go all the way on the government shutdown, then you have to be willing to go all the way.
There's no such thing as a good bluff in politics.
You have to be willing to pull the trigger.
Trump was not willing to pull the trigger.
Now he's going to take, I think, the other way out, which is the national emergency route.
But it is important to note that that headline only came out after the shutdown ended.
After the shutdown ended, suddenly we are learning that Nancy Pelosi, in fact, was deeply unpopular with the American people.
Amazing.
Amazing how that worked.
Just a shock.
That's not media bias, though.
That's simply... They must have missed it.
They must have missed it.
And meanwhile, there's still aftermath from the Roger Stone indictment last week.
So Roger Stone, as you recall, was arrested last week on charges that he lied to the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI.
Over the weekend, Stone went off on the FBI.
He was very upset at the FBI, obviously.
He said these are Gestapo tactics, which, again, no, they're not.
A warrant and an arrest for lying to law enforcement, that's not the Gestapo.
Please do not make Holocaust comparisons that are completely stupid.
I'm 66 years old.
I don't own a firearm.
I have no prior criminal record.
My passport has expired.
The special counsel's office is well aware of the fact that I'm represented.
The idea that a 29-member SWAT team in full tactical gear with assault weapons would surround my house.
It's an offensive show of force to try to depict me as public enemy number one, the OG.
It's an attempt to poison the jury pool.
Let's get... These are Gestapo tactics.
Let's get... No, they're not Gestapo tactics, but was it over the top?
Yes.
No.
He is saying that he may in fact cooperate with Robert Mueller's probe.
He was talking with this week, and he said that that's a question I'll have to determine after my attorneys have some discussion.
If there's wrongdoing by other people in the campaign that I know about, which I know of none, if there is, I'd certainly testify honestly.
So we'll see if there are any more shoes to drop on the Roger Stone indictment, as I said last week.
What that indictment says to me, mostly, is that there was willingness by members of the Trump campaign to get information from Wikileaks, but no evidence of actual quid pro quos happening between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
And if you're using Roger Stone as a go-between...
These are not high-level contacts.
It's not Steve Bannon or Jared Kushner calling up Vladimir Putin and saying, what can you do for us today?
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things I like.
I've been on a sports book kick lately.
I just need some relaxation over the weekends.
So I've been reading Jeff Pearlman's books.
I really enjoy them.
He's a good sports writer, former Sports Illustrated guy.
He has a book called The Bad Guys Won about the 1986 Mets.
Now, I am a primary White Sox fan, but I'm a secondary Red Sox fan.
I picked up all of my father's sports allegiances.
He was a White Sox fan for his entire life, then he moved to Boston for college and he became a bit of a Red Sox fan.
So, 86 is still painful for people who are Red Sox fans, but this book is great.
It really paints an interesting picture of the New York Mets, and it doesn't pull any punches.
I mean, they're a bunch of jerks, basically.
And the book is really colorful and fun.
It's very gossipy, so if you're into sports books, go check out The Bad Guys 1 by Jeff Pearlman.
Really been enjoying it, and it is worth the read.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
So Tom Brokaw was, you know, the old guy from NBC.
He was on Meet the Press, and he started talking about immigration.
And in the middle of talking about immigration, he simply labeled all Trump supporters racists who don't like racial intermarriage.
It got very weird very quickly.
Here was Tom Brokaw's statement.
Yeah, I hear when I push people a little harder.
I don't know whether I want brown grandbabies.
I mean, that's also a part of it.
It's the intermarriage that is going on and the cultures that are conflicting with each other.
I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation.
That's one of the things I've been saying for a long time, you know, that they ought not to be just codified in their communities, but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English and that they feel comfortable in the communities.
And that's going to take outreach on both sides, frankly.
Okay, so he was ripped up and down for this.
Now, he said two things.
One of them was really bad, right?
He said that Trump supporters don't want brown grandchildren, which, come on, that's just absurd.
No one, really, most people don't care what color their grandkids are, so long as they have grandkids, honestly.
As far as his statement that Hispanics are not learning English fast enough, there's some mixed...
Mixed stuff on this, okay?
So, there's one study that came up in 2013, and it suggested that the children of immigrants are learning English as fast as the children of immigrants have learned English in the past.
According to the Washington Post, as of 2013, first-generation Mexican immigrants still lag behind on learning English, but second-generation Americans, including those who live with their first-generation parents, acquire English just as fast as do Asian or European immigrants by the third generation.
Virtually all Hispanics in the United States speak English.
And this is reflected, actually, in support for English as the official language by racial group.
74% of Americans as of 2013 were supportive of English as the official language.
So were 71% of blacks, 70% of Asians, and 68% of third-generation Hispanics.
So, you know, people are, according to that data, learning English quickly, having...
However, there's other research that sort of suggests differently.
According to NPR, there's a study conducted by the Philadelphia Education Research Consortium.
It looked at English learners who entered the district as kindergartners in 2008 and their progress through the end of the third grade.
And what it found is that students whose home language was Spanish were considerably less likely to reach proficiency than any other subgroup.
Spanish speakers were almost half as likely as Chinese speakers to cross the proficiency threshold.
So what this suggests is that this isn't necessarily a, this isn't really a Hispanic problem.
What this really is, is an American problem where we are not encouraging people to assimilate.
And in places like California, we are engaging in bilingual education, right?
You should not be engaging in bilingual education.
When my ancestors got here, they did not go to schools where they were taught Yiddish and English.
They went to schools where they were taught English, even if they spoke Yiddish at home.
The multicultural attempt to break people down into separate communities is really a problem.
And pretending that there are not cultural differences between people who have assimilated and people who have not assimilated is, of course, very silly.
So, I think some of the ire for Tom Brokaw is earned.
I think some of the ire is an attempt to avoid some real questions about how particular education system in the United States works.
Okay, other things that I hate.
Dan Savage was just a sleazeball.
Dan Savage was on Bill Maher's show.
You'll remember him from such things as he leads some sort of anti-bullying crusade, even though he is a massive bully, Dan Savage.
This is a guy who wrote for, I believe it was Salon back in 2000, that he hated Gary Bauer so much that he volunteered for Gary Bauer's presidential campaign and then had the flu and licked doorknobs around the office.
In order to give other people on the campaign the flu.
I mean, Dan Savage is a vile, hateful person.
Here is Dan Savage, though, suggesting that all Trump supporters are racist, white bleeps.
They're good at demagoguery, they're good at racism, they're good at stoking fear.
Everybody's like, oh, it's economic anxiety, oh, it's the working class.
All those first reactions to Trump's wins, all the research, all the social science research and data sense have proven it's racist, white, dumb f***s in our anti-democratic system.
Okay, if this is how Democrats want to see it, they will lose.
I mean, if they really want to alienate everybody in the middle of the country by calling them racist, white, dumb bleeps...
Keep going with that.
Keep going with that.
That'll get you a lot of applause in places like Los Angeles, but it ain't gonna get you a lot of applause in places that you need to win in the middle of the country.
If you want to have a shot in Georgia, you probably shouldn't be calling people racist white bleeds for considering the possibility of voting for Donald Trump.
Now maybe, look, the worst case scenario here is that Trump has been so off-putting in his years in office that he actually alienates the American people into voting for an open radical, an open socialist.
That would be a disaster.
But if Democrats continue With this theme that everybody who doesn't think like them is a racist, evil person?
Then America is not only irrevocably broken, but Democrats, I think, will have a worse shot at winning election.
You can't just insult Americans.
You can't insult your way into the White House.
You can insult other candidates into the White House.
Donald Trump did that.
You can't insult the American people into the White House.
It just doesn't work that way.
All right, we will be back here later today.
We have two more live hours coming up later, which is why you should subscribe, because there's so many goodies.
If you're not subscribing, you're missing out.
Go check it out.
We'll see you here tomorrow.
If not, 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.
▲
Export Selection