All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 5, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:52
The State Of The Union Is Stupid | Ep. 710
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump prepares for the State of the Union address, Stacey Abrams prepares for her response, and Virginia Democrats continue their slow-motion implosion.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Man, who is excited for the State of the Union address tonight?
Woo!
Yeah, yeah, you can sense that excitement out there.
I'm so excited I'm gonna go in the back and hang myself later.
I am very pumped up about this.
But I'll do it after we have our State of the Union address coverage tonight because I know that we all have to suffer through that together.
I was so excited about the government shutdown.
We'll get to all of this in just one second.
First, let's talk.
Let's talk about how you can send your packages more cheaply.
So, postage rates have gone up again.
Thankfully, stamps.com can ease the pain with big discounts off post office retail rates.
With stamps.com, you save five cents off every first class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.
That kind of savings really does add up, especially for small businesses.
Plus, stamps.com is completely online, which saves you time.
No more inconvenient trips to the post office.
Stamps.com automatically calculates and prints the exact amount of postage you need for every letter or package you send.
You're never going to overpay or underpay again.
Stamps.com brings all the services of the U.S.
Postal Service directly to your fingertips.
This means that you can buy and print official U.S.
postage on any letter, any piece of mail.
You print it right onto the envelope or you print it onto a piece of paper and tape it to the envelope or you print it onto a sticker.
Stamps.com makes it super easy.
They even send you a free digital scale, which automatically calculates exact postage for you.
That's why we use Stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices to save ourselves time and money.
Right now, our listeners get a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale.
See for yourself why over 700,000 small businesses use stamps.com.
Stamps.com.
Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in promo code Shapiro for the special deal.
That is stamps.com promo code Shapiro.
Once again, stamps.com promo code Shapiro.
I have to tell you, a little bit of behind the scenes here at the Ben Shapiro Show.
It's not an auspicious day for the State of the Union here at the Ben Shapiro Show because it's raining in Los Angeles, first of all.
And whenever it rains in Los Angeles, people around the area believe that God's wrath has fallen upon this town at long last.
Second of all, our normal studios, you may have noticed that if you watch the show, that our normal studios, you know, with the bright, beautiful lights, have been replaced by this deep, dank cell.
You know, this terrible, terrible place.
That resembles the Pit of Despair from The Princess Bride.
Well, it turns out that not only have we moved into a temporary studio while we build out our beautiful new magnificent studios, but also there are huge leaks in here that happen every time it rains.
So, as we prepare for the State of the Union Address, we are also smelling the decomposing corpses of people that our producer Senya murdered.
Earlier and then stacked up behind the curtains behind all the soundstage boards and everything.
So, you know, it's a little depressing to be contemplating your own mortality while smelling the mold coming off the corpses as you prepare for the State of the Union address.
So that's that's my mood this morning as I prepare for the State of the Union address.
President Trump, of course, is supposed to give the State of the Union address tonight at long last.
The government shutdown did have its good aspects.
One of those aspects was no State of the Union address.
Now, I know there are some people who get super pumped up about the State of the Union.
They love the pump.
They love the circumstance.
They are into it, man.
They are just excited as can be about the State of the Union address.
They cannot wait for President Trump to go out there and say a bunch of words that no one's going to remember five minutes after he said them.
Quick quiz.
Do you remember anything from President Trump's State of the Union address last year?
I do, but only because I do this professionally.
I remember a couple of things.
One, there was the North Korean guy who's picking up his crutches.
And second, There was the soldier's wife, who he paid tribute to, while some Democrats stood for a second and then sat down, right?
But those were both controversial.
I don't remember a single thing that he said.
I remember the people that he used for the props, because this is what we've been doing since Ronald Reagan, where the president points up into the rafters and he goes, and now let me tell you the story of Bob.
And then everyone points to Bob and is like, yeah, Bob!
Woo!
So we're going to get a lot of that tonight.
And that's why we treat this thing like it is an entertainment vehicle.
And one of the big questions is, who's going to bring whom as guests?
Which guests are going to show up?
So here are the people who President Trump is bringing for his guests at the State of the Union at the Capitol building tomorrow.
The guests are going to include Deborah Bissell, Heather Armstrong, and Madison Armstrong.
These are family members of Gerald and Sharon David who were killed by an illegal immigrant.
President Trump, I'm sure, is going to talk about illegal immigrant crime and how it's linked to his need for a border wall, obviously.
I have recommended that what President Trump actually should do is literally take a paragraph from Bill Clinton's State of the Union address in 1993 and just read it straight, and let the media go nuts over how extreme it is, and then release a video of him side-by-side with Bill Clinton saying the exact same words on his Twitter feed.
The other folks, Matthew Charles, was released from prison under the First Step Act, that's criminal justice reform.
Grace Eline, a 10-year-old cancer survivor.
All worthy people.
One of the names on the list is Joshua Trump.
Who is Joshua Trump?
Is he any relation to Trump?
No.
He has no relation to President Trump.
Wiberly, the father of a Navy Seaman killed in a terrorist attack.
All worthy people.
One of the names on the list is Joshua Trump.
Who is Joshua Trump?
Is he any relation to Trump?
No, he has no relation to President Trump.
He is a sixth grader who the White House explains has been bullied in school due to his last name.
So a couple of months ago, there was a big story about him.
Here's what it said.
The bullying started two years ago when he was at Claymont Elementary School, according to his principal.
That was about the time Donald J. Trump became president.
Joshua's family might change his last name from Trump, which he got from his mother, Megan Trump, to Berto, his father's last name.
All that to stop Schoolyard teasing.
He said, I had to sit down with my son and hear him tell me that he hates himself and that he feels sad all the time, his mom said, on Facebook.
So, a couple of things that are sort of odd about this.
First of all, I'm not denying in any way that this kid got bullied, obviously.
I mean, if you are bullied, I mean, I was viciously bullied in school.
Bullying is awful.
And people who are bullies are pieces of human debris.
With that said, is the single best example of bullying across the country somebody who shares the president's last name?
Like, there's something peculiarly self-serving I'm going to talk about bullying.
And you know who's really bullied?
People with the last name Trump.
Those people.
Oh my goodness.
I had suggested earlier that it would be kind of hilarious if President Trump went, and the person who's been bullied the most, the person who's been bullied the most, is that man.
Ronald Trump.
And then just points up into the balcony, and it's a picture of Donald Trump with a mustache on.
Again, this whole event.
You may sense that I'm making light of the State of the Union Address.
That's because I think it's incredibly stupid.
The State of the Union Address was meant to be a letter sent by the President to Congress saying, what's going on?
And now it's this big, Monarchical display where the president comes in and we all cheer, yeah, because the executive branch is so important, even though it was supposed to be the second most important branch after the legislative branch.
And then we have members of the Supreme Court who sit there and they clap and then they sit there silently while the president insults them.
It's what Barack Obama did to members of the Supreme Court.
So it'll just be, it'll just be a good time.
So who else is President Trump bringing?
He's bringing Ashley Evans, who has struggled with opioid and substance abuse for much of her life.
In 2017, she was pregnant and suffered a relapse.
Her recovery began with the birth of her daughter, along with the help of Bridges Path Medical Care Facility in Kettering, Ohio.
So that's one of the guests.
Elvin Hernandez, a special agent with Trafficking in Persons Unit of the Department of Homeland Security.
Roy James, who's plant manager of the Vicksburg Forest Products Lumber Facility.
So I guess that Vicksburg was designated an opportunity zone, so he's going to talk about the tax act.
You know, it'll be a lot of people.
It'll be a lot of people.
It'll just be like a whole group of folks.
Alice Johnson is showing up, of course.
Alice Johnson was the woman who was released thanks to the intervention of Kim Kardashian, so that'll be exciting.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are preparing their response to the State of the Union address, and the person who they have chosen to give this State of the Union response is Stacey Abrams.
Now, Stacey Abrams, you'll recall, narrowly lost her gubernatorial race in Georgia.
She did very well in the suburbs, Stacey Abrams.
One of the reasons she did well in the suburbs when she ran for governor of Georgia is because her sort of radical intersectional message is not what she spat out in the Georgia suburbs.
In the Georgia suburbs, she talked about sort of a moderate plan for keeping people safe and some new government programs, but she did not campaign as sort of a hardcore intersectional pander to the Democratic-based candidate.
That is exactly what she has become after this race was over.
She started, number one, complaining that the election was not legitimate.
She still refuses to acknowledge that she lost that race.
And then she started talking in pure intersectional terms about why we should divide each other by identity group.
And she has a long piece in Foreign Affairs magazine, a very long piece, in Foreign Affairs magazine in which she talks about how upset she is with Francis Fukuyama.
Francis Fukuyama, the end of history guy from the 1990s who suggested that liberal capitalism had won the world and therefore the end of history may have arrived.
Well, he wrote a piece recently in which he decried identity politics as tribalism.
And he talked about the tribal nature of our politics and why it's supremely dangerous.
Well, Stacey Abrams wrote a response in which she said she's a fan of tribal politics.
She thinks that intersectionality, which is basically the theory that we can all be described as human beings by the groups to which we belong.
So I am not an individual human named Ben Shapiro.
I am a Jewish white male who is upper income, right?
That's all you need to know about me.
You don't need to know my personal experiences.
You don't need to know how I got here.
You don't need to know if I've experienced any discrimination.
All you need to know is about those groups.
My producer, Senya, is a Hispanic female.
That's all you need to know about her.
You don't need to know her thoughts, her dreams, her aspirations, her serial killer record.
You don't need to know anything about her except for the groups to which she belongs.
This is the intersectional notion.
It's really vile, because again, intersectionality doesn't just suggest that we can learn sort of information about you from your group.
It suggests that the only information that is necessary for us to know about you is your group information, and therefore we should categorize you as a member of your group.
And if you think differently than other members of your group, it's because you are not legitimately a member of your group.
You have become some sort of group traitor.
That's the problem with intersectionality in a nutshell.
It is identity politics.
It's a response of identity politics.
And so there's this cycle of identity politics that has occurred.
Stacey Abrams says that we don't actually need to be anti-intersectional identity.
We should instead encourage group identification.
This is the response to the State of the Union address.
Now, President Trump is supposed to give a big unifying address tonight.
Is he the best proponent of American unity?
No.
I mean, I don't think that President Trump has ever unified anything.
Like, legitimately anything.
He didn't unify, like, his business offices at Trump Tower.
So, I don't think he's the most unifying character, and I don't think that that's a huge shock to anybody.
But, I also think that the Democrats have made an actual strategy to divide and conquer among particular groups in the United States, particularly split along racial and now class lines.
Stacey Abrams is arguing in favor of that.
So, here is what she says.
In this piece in foreign affairs, she suggests that intersectionality is a result of Donald Trump.
That is just a lie.
It is not true.
And the reality is that intersectionality was a theory proposed by Kimberly Crenshaw a solid decade ago and has roots in the broader social justice movement that started in the 1960s that divides people from people by group.
And then it was promoted by Barack Obama in a very heavy-handed way during his presidency.
It led to incredible rises in the amount of discontent along racial lines in the United States.
If you look at the polls, what you will see is that most Americans of every race were moving toward the idea that America was post-racial.
As of 2008, Barack Obama was elected.
Suddenly those numbers started to split again.
That is not a surprise.
I'll explain in a second why that is.
Like, why exactly America is now more racially split than it was before Barack Obama was president.
I'll get into that and then we'll get into Stacey Abrams' take on what American politics should be and why it's a problem.
First, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights.
When the Founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas without limitation by their government.
The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
You know, I really believe in the Second Amendment, and so do the folks over at Bravo Company Manufacturing.
BCM was started in a garage by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago to build a professional-grade product that meets combat standards.
BCM believes the same level of protection should be available to every American, regardless of whether they are a private citizen or a professional.
BCM is not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment.
They assume every rifle that leaves their shop will be used in a life-or-death situation.
By a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or soldier overseas.
Every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans to a life-saving standard.
BCM feels a moral responsibility as Americans to provide tools that will not fail the user when we're not just talking about a paper target, but someone coming to do you harm.
This is why BCM works with leading instructors of marksmanship from top levels of America's Special Operations Forces.
To learn more about BCM, check out BravoCompanyMFG.com.
That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
You can see their special offers, upcoming news, or check them out at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Go check them out right now.
They're really great folks.
Barack Obama in 2008 took office, and he was given this incredible opportunity to unify Americans.
He was given this opportunity to say, listen, we're all striving to move in the right direction.
My election is proof.
My overwhelming election against an American hero, John McCain, is proof that Americans want to move into a post-racial era.
And that means that we are going to call out instances of racism where we see them, but we are not going to spread the label of racism To a bunch of stuff to which it doesn't apply.
Instead, Barack Obama knew that his most solid political path, that would have been a politically risky path.
It would have been, because it would have meant surrendering his greatest advantage in politics, his race, as a way of defending himself against political attacks.
He wasn't willing to do that.
Instead, what he did is he said that every attack on him was, in essence, a racial attack.
Attacks on Obamacare were backed by racism.
Tea Party formation was based on racism.
And then, every opportunity he could to stoke the flames of racial conflagration, he did.
From Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown.
Every time there was any sort of racial incident in the United States, or incident that had nothing to do with race in the United States, but could be perceived as racial, Barack Obama stoked that flame.
He used the intersectional identity politics In order to divide Americans so that he could win re-election and build an agglomeration of the aggrieved.
And you can see this, right?
In 2008, Barack Obama won, not because he separated Americans, but because he said, I'm here to unify.
And then in 2012, running a rough re-election race against Mitt Romney, he decided more important to win re-election than to continue to run under a sort of unity ticket.
Because he governed as a very divisive guy.
And so because his policies divided us, he instead implied his race divided us.
People bought into that, and then the Democratic Party began to say things like, well, you know what, maybe we don't need white voters anymore.
Maybe what we really ought to do is go after this agglomeration of increasing minority voters, who will eventually be a majority, and those will be the people who rule the roost.
And then in 2016, Trump ran on the backlash, right?
Trump said, okay, well, You guys are going to do this routine where you pander to every minority group?
Well, I'm going to treat a lot of white folks as though they are not, in fact, as though they are under assault from this viewpoint, which is at least half true.
That was part of Trump's campaign.
So Obama started this cycle, and then Trump responded to the cycle.
And both of those things are a problem.
Now, Democrats are saying, well, let's respond in kind.
Let's keep going with the Obama program.
Here's the deal.
Stacey Abrams is about to give the State of the Union address response tonight.
So, her perspective on intersectionality is actually a very damaging perspective.
It is the perspective that basically suggests that intersectionality, group identity, is inherently good and useful as a political tool.
And her tendency, like a lot of Democrats, is to blame President Trump for identity politics.
That President Trump is basing his perspective on sort of a white identity politics that is nasty and negative and dangerous.
But the reality is that that identity politics, which I agree, I think Trump engaged in 2016, is actually a response to the identity politics in which Barack Obama engaged.
So to understand where we are with identity politics, we have to start from the Barack Obama administration.
We have to start back in 2008, when Obama was elected.
The American people were extremely optimistic about race relations in America.
If you look back at the polls, they show that most Americans, black, white, brown, everyone thought that race relations were moving in the right direction.
Obama was then elected on a particular basis.
Barack Obama was elected on the basis of uniting Americans.
He ran a campaign that said, we are all individuals, right?
We're not white Americans.
We're not black Americans.
We're all Americans.
There's no red America.
There's no blue America.
There's just America.
That's how he was elected, and he won a broad-sweeping victory on that platform.
Then, when he came into office, he had the ability to say, OK, now we're going to have an honest discussion about what's racist and what's not in America, and I'm not going to pretend that every policy with which I disagree is steeped in racism.
I'm not going to pretend that the Tea Party is racist.
Maybe they just oppose me based on the size of government.
I'm not going to pretend that Republicans who oppose me on the basis of Obamacare Do so because they are vicious racists, because there's no evidence of that.
Instead, Barack Obama, particularly in 2012, decided that he was going to ramp up racial tensions in order to win re-election.
He decided that he was going to use every racial flashpoint in America as a prop for his presidency.
So when Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman in Florida, he was going to come out and say, Trayvon Martin could have been my son.
He was going to say about Michael Brown, people in Ferguson, they're not just making things up.
He was going to do that routine.
And by doing that routine, he helped divide Americans.
The response to that was Donald Trump.
So in 2012, Obama ran on this idea that there is this oppressed group of Americans who historically have been put under the thumb of the American hierarchy.
We're going to unite.
We're going to sweep back to victory, and it's a proof that the minorities in America have finally achieved dominance in America.
You saw this in the media a lot, the talk about the shrinking white majority and how there is going to be this durable coalition of minority groups for the future.
Then in 2016, Donald Trump ran largely on the basis of, we're not going to stand for that, and he won.
And the Democrats at that point had a choice.
They could have said, listen, this intersectional politics stuff is dangerous.
This stuff where we divide each other by group instead of appealing to each other as individuals, it's really dangerous and it's a real problem.
Instead, they decided we're going to double down on that.
We are going to suggest that in order to fight Donald Trump, in order to fight his preferred policies, we are going to call everything that he believes racist and all of his voters racist.
And then we are going to unify as groups in order to fight the Trumpian agenda.
Well, Stacey Abrams is a loud and proud progenitor of this argument.
So she has a piece in Foreign Affairs magazine called Identity Politics Strengthens Democracy, which is a weird thing since identity politics from white people for most of America's existence was evil.
Identity politics of white people caused slavery.
It caused Jim Crow.
It caused discrimination against gays, Jews, and Asians.
Identity politics was the problem in the United States.
So what's changed?
Why is it no longer dangerous?
Well, according to Stacey Abrams, identity politics is different now because of the identity of the groups.
So, here is what she suggests.
She says, Francis Fukuyama, who has written an essay about why identity politics is dangerous, she says, Francis Fukuyama and other critics of identity politics contend that broad categories such as economic class contain multitudes, and that all attention should focus on wide constructs rather than the substrates of inequality.
But such arguments fail to acknowledge that some members of any particular economic class have advantages not enjoyed by others in their cohort.
U.S.
history abounds with examples of members of dominant groups abandoning class solidarity after concluding that opportunity is a zero-sum game.
The oppressed have often aimed their impotent rage at those too low on the social scale to even attempt rebellion.
This is particularly true in the catch-all category known as the working class.
So she's pointing at working class racism to suggest that now identity politics is more important than class solidarity.
Now my view is that class solidarity is wrong and identity politics is wrong.
I don't feel a solidarity with other people of my economic class.
I don't feel like I have more morally in common with people who make the same amount of money that I do.
I wasn't making this amount of money five years ago and I had the same values.
So, this argument that some working class white people are bad to working class black people, therefore black people are a class and white people are a class, that doesn't follow.
It is also possible that if we treat each other as individuals, we are best off.
So she is correct.
She's not wrong to suggest that group identity politics were originally created by a white majority intent on marginalizing particular groups.
That, of course, is true.
You had a white majority enslaving a black minority.
You had a white majority keeping black people in dire straits thanks to Jim Crow.
Of course, that's true.
And maybe those groups had to mobilize in order to fight back against the dominant white majority.
They had to mobilize, but they had to appeal to white people at the same time.
They had to use a universal message while mobilizing as a group.
They had to do both of those things.
But if you're now suggesting that we are living in a system that oppresses people as groups, you're going to need to show evidence of that.
It's not just enough to say that black people are generally victimized in the United States.
In 1960, you could point to Jim Crow as an actual legal system that kept black people under the thumb of white people.
If you can't point to a system that does that right now, then you're going to have to abandon your notion that you have to mobilize as a group to fight back against another group.
Right?
Groups form in opposition to other groups.
If there is no dominant group that identifies as a group and that is attempting to quash your group, your group identity is no longer threatened.
So for you to use your group identity as a baton to wield against other people is actually an act of evil.
Here's what she says.
She says, The facile advice to focus solely on class ignores these complex links among American notions of race, gender, and economics.
She says, My campaign championed reforms to eliminate police shootings of African Americans, protect the LGBTQ community against ERISAT's religious freedom legislation, expand Medicaid to save rural hospitals, and reaffirm that undocumented immigrants deserve legal protections.
I refuse to accept the notion that the voters most affected by these policies would invariably support me simply because I was a member of a minority group.
My campaign built an unprecedented coalition of people of color, rural whites, suburban dwellers, etc, etc.
And then she talks about how she lost because she was cheated, basically, which is not true.
And then she says, to seek redress and inclusion, the first step is to identify the barriers to entry, an array of laws and informal rules to prescribe, diminish, and isolate the marginalized.
And here is where she gets into her main point.
Her main point is that discrimination in the United States is still done along group lines.
And this is a lie that intersectional Folks are going to tell you all the time.
The intersectional proponents tell you.
We'll get into it in just one second.
First, let's talk about a great gift that you can get someone this Valentine's Day.
I'm talking to you, ladies.
I'm not just talking... Here's something you can get for your men this Valentine's Day.
I'm talking, of course, about man crates!
Man crates knows what dudes like.
They have hundreds of gifts options, so you'll know to find the perfect surprise for him.
These gifts are totally unique.
Most gifts ship in a sealed wooden crate.
With a crowbar.
Opening them is an experience he'll never forget because he will have to prove his manliness and strength to you by breaking into the man crate.
They've got unique gifts like the personalized barware crate with personalized pint glasses and bottle opener and the pizza grilling crate with pizza stones and two-sided dough roller he'll use all the time.
I have a couple of man crates.
I use the stuff in man crates all the time.
I have a whiskey appreciation crate.
As you know, I don't drink whiskey except With my whiskey appreciation crate.
Because come on, man.
It's whiskey and appreciation and a crate.
What exactly is wrong with that?
ManCrate has a take on Valentine's with the jerky heart.
A heart-shaped box full of beef jerky or the salami bouquet.
The name says it all.
Every ManCrate comes with a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
So, get him a ManCrate plus one of their meaty Valentine's gifts and save.
Just for Valentine's Day, you get 14% off when you spend $100 or more at mancrate.com slash Shapiro.
That's 14% off.
When you spend a hundred bucks or more at mancrates.com slash Shapiro.
Again, that's mancrates.com slash Shapiro.
Go check it out and make him prove that he is indeed a man when he breaks open the man crate.
Okay, so Stacey Abrams is supposed to give the response to the State of the Union tonight, and she is very much in favor of an intersectional politics she thinks will drive her to victory.
The problem for her is it won't.
In Georgia, the reason that she came close to winning is because she appealed to suburban women.
White suburban women are not really turned on by the intersectional notions that are pushed by people like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey Abrams and Ta-Nehisi Coates.
This is not really what they are thinking when they're thinking, who do I want running the government?
But the case for intersectionality, which again is identification with group politics, It's a dangerous case, and here she is making the case.
She says, The specific methods by which the United States has excluded women, Native Americans, African Americans, and the LGBTQ community from property ownership, educational achievement, and political enfranchisement have differed.
So too have the most successful methods of fighting for inclusion.
Hence the need for a politics that respects and reflects the complicated nature of these identities and the ways in which they intersect.
The basis for sustainable progress is legal protections grounded in awareness of how identity has been used, To deny opportunity.
And so she suggests, for example, anti-abortion rules disproportionately harm women of color and low-income women of every ethnicity, affecting their economic capacity and threatening their very lives.
This is a perfect example of how the intersectional identity is evil.
Anti-abortion laws are not directed at minority women.
They are not directed at quashing the hopes and aspirations of minority women.
To mobilize minority women against a law that is not targeting them by suggesting that their identity is under threat is an appeal to tribal politics that is evil by its nature.
Anti-abortion laws are directed at protecting the unborn.
That's all they're protecting.
They're aimed at doing that.
They're not created by white patriarchies in order to harm women of color.
To mobilize qua women of color and suggest to people that their group is under threat is to constantly be pressing the red alarm button in a situation that does not call for it, and to be dividing Americans on the basis of perceived threat, where no threat exists.
And when you do that, when you do that often enough, you end up in a very dangerous political environment Where every political difference is now grounds for all forms of resistance up to and including, in some cases, violence.
If you feel your identity is threatened, not your politics, your identity, your identity as a woman of color is threatened by an anti-abortion law, you are likely to feel a lot more passionately about the evil of the people who are proposing that law than if you just say, well, it's a political disagreement about the nature of life and when it begins.
I mean, this is why intersectional identity is dangerous, dangerous stuff.
And it's funny, because people on the left used to acknowledge this.
People on the left used to acknowledge that identity politics was bad when it was the identity politics of white people.
But now that it's the identity politics of groups they hope to mobilize against the prevailing hierarchy, then identity politics is good.
Stacey Abrams concludes, the current demographic and social evolution toward diversity in the United States has played out alongside a trend toward greater economic and social inequality.
These parallel but distinct developments are inextricably bound together.
The entrance of the marginalized into the workplace, the commons, and the body politic spawned reactionary limits on their legal standing and restrictions meant to block their complaints and prevent remedies.
Okay, this is just a lie.
What she is suggesting is that as black people have been more accepted in American society, informal rules have come about to make them less equal.
That's simply not true.
She's going to have to point to what exactly are those informal rules.
What are those informal limits?
If she can point to limits and rules that actually exist, that we can all fight together, then I'm sure we'll all be on the same side.
But if the suggestion is that as we have become more tolerant, we have also become more unequal because there are secret, nefarious forces at work in society to keep minority groups down, then you're spouting conspiracy theory bull.
And that conspiracy theory bull is dangerous.
It was dangerous when it was directed against Jews historically.
It was dangerous when it was directed against blacks historically.
Whenever there is a conspiracy theory about a particular group of people seeking to keep your group of people down, you can't point to any actual rule doing it.
It's just out there in the miasma of politics.
You're participating in an extraordinarily dangerous exercise in polarization of Americans along tribal lines, and it really destroys the nature of America.
She says the natural antidote to this condition is not a retrenchment to amorphous universal descriptions devoid of context or nuance.
So we can't just appeal to each other as Americans or individuals.
Instead, we have to recognize that we are inevitably part of groups and that those groups are our chief mode of identification.
She says, This is such absolute, sheer, unmitigated bullcrap.
This is such absolute sheer unmitigated bull crap, I can't even tell you.
That if you think that the way to unite Americans is to say, yeah, but you're not really an American, you're a black American, you're a Hispanic American, you're a Jewish American...
And until we recognize your unique identity as these things and your unique history of victimization, we can't move forward.
Listen, I can acknowledge the victimization of an enormous number of groups in American history.
The question is, what do we do now?
And if your idea is that we have to treat you as a member of a group rather than as an individual subject to a creedal identity, You're destroying the very nature of what was great about America in the first place.
Okay.
Meanwhile, as all of the State of the Union preparations continue...
Ralph Northam in Virginia is in serious, serious trouble.
So he is going to maintain that job.
He is not leaving.
He says that if he left right now, then he would be leaving in disgrace.
People would think that he's a racist for the rest of his life, so he's just not going to leave.
There is something to this, right?
If you are a politician, your best bet right now is to double down and never leave.
The minute that you show your neck, somebody's going to chop it off.
There used to be a sort of agreement in American politics that if you resigned in disgrace, You sort of went away.
And then over time, we warmed to you.
Even Richard Nixon, he went away in disgrace.
And then over time, Americans kind of went, yeah, that was a terrible thing that he did with Watergate.
But was he really like an evil, nefarious, terrible, horrible human being?
Probably not.
Bill Clinton was the same sort of thing.
If he had resigned in 1998, he would have been a troubled guy with problems of sex.
Instead, he stuck it out in 1998.
And now we have this situation where politicians are best off sticking it out.
Because if you can stick it out, then you get to rewrite your legacy completely.
Right, if Ted Kennedy had done the right thing after driving a woman into a river and leaving her to drown, if he'd done the right thing and just ended his political career, then he would have lived off his life in obscurity in the 1970s, but he stuck around.
And by sticking around, he got to rewrite his legacy into Lion of the Senate.
And so if you're Ralph Northam, why in the world would you leave?
What is the upside of leaving?
The answer is, there is no upside of leaving.
OK, we're going to get into Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax, where things are going wildly wrong for the lieutenant governor of Virginia as well.
First, reminder, you need to subscribe.
Why?
Well, because tonight, at long last, it's our episode of Backstage State of the Union.
You can tell I am so excited about the State of the Union address.
I am so excited about the State of the Union address.
I just, I can't, I can't wait for it.
I think it's just going to be spectacular.
I just, I think it's going to be amazing.
OK, I just, it's going to be incredible.
Well, while I suffer with it, you know, through it with you, we'll all be there celebrating it, enjoying ourselves, drinking ourselves into oblivion.
You can do all these things.
With Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring and me and Andrew Clavin, the exquirable Michael Knowles and Alicia Krauss, we'll all be here discussing the important issues and, of course, answering your questions.
Will we finally see Trump deliver the State of the Union address?
Will he use the word big or huge more than 37 times?
Will he appeal to John Miller as the most victimized man in America?
Who knows?
You will tonight.
As always, only Dailyware subscribers get to ask those questions, so make sure to subscribe today.
Go check that out right now over at Dailyware.
$9.99 a month gets you a subscription.
Also, we do two hours later today.
So basically, I'm broadcasting all day.
All.
Day.
To you folks.
So you need to go subscribe right now.
With the annual subscription, $99 a year.
You also get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels.
The leftist here is hot or cold tumbler.
View it, cast your eyes upon it.
It is indeed magnifique.
You will enjoy it.
A little French for you there.
It's just, it's unbelievable.
Unreal, incredible, tremendous, endorsed.
Okay, go check it out right now.
Also, subscribe over at YouTube and iTunes.
We have all sorts of great Sunday specials for you and extra questions and extra segments.
Just become a subscriber and join the team.
You'll really enjoy it.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So, Ralph Northam in serious trouble...
So now he's trotting out all of his friends to say that he is not, in fact, a racist.
And it's getting awkward.
So here's a childhood friend of Ralph Northam's, one of his black friends, because this is good politics, is to say, I have a black friend, and then you're like, here is my black friend.
So here is one of his black friends on with block of wood Chris Cuomo on CNN.
And she is explaining that she believes that he is not the man in the picture from his yearbook page.
of a man in blackface and another man in a KKK outfit at a Halloween party or something.
She says she believes that it's not him because she's never seen him be racist.
What the governor did was took ownership of a picture that had his name as a prominent heading.
He took ownership of, as the governor, he had to, he felt compelled to address that.
Ralph Northam is not the person that is depicted In the photograph that's on his page.
If Ralph tells me he's not in that picture, I believe him.
Okay, well, you know, at this point, honestly, his best move was to basically say, I don't remember being in that picture.
If I was in that picture, I apologize.
It was a dumb, racist, insensitive thing to do back in 1985.
I'm a different person than that.
People who know me know I'm a different person than that.
And then he would have been able to live this out.
His botching of the entire situation is what's led to a lot of the crisis for him.
Meanwhile, His lieutenant governor is in even hotter water than Ralph Northam.
So, if Ralph Northam did indeed dump the oppo on his lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, about his 2004 sexual assault allegation?
Successful!
I mean, wow!
Well played, Ralph Northam, if it was you.
He says it was not.
Nonetheless, his lieutenant governor is now blaming the governor of Virginia for dumping oppo on him about an alleged 2004 sexual assault.
Does anybody think it's any coincidence that on the eve of potentially Mai being elevated, that that's when this uncorroborated smear comes out?
A year ago, this was brought up.
And yet, the post who investigated it for three months dropped the story, did not do it, and they did not do it because it was uncorroborated, and it's uncorroborated because it's not true.
And so, it goes away for a year, and it crops back up right at this moment.
You don't have to be Okay, so he's obviously implying that the Virginia governor dumped the apple on him.
Then he softened that suggestion.
He said he had no indication that Northam was responsible late on Monday night.
In the same conversation, he then hinted that LeVar Stoney, who's the mayor of Richmond and a potential rival to Fairfax for the 2021 Democratic nomination for governor, may have played a role.
He praised the acumen of a reporter who inquired whether Stoney might have been responsible.
And then Mr. Stoney said, the insinuation is 100% not true, and frankly, it's offensive.
So now we have a three-way standoff.
I mean, it's the end of the good, the bad, and the ugly, basically.
You have three major Democratic figures in Virginia who are all pointing guns at each other, seeing who is going to fire first.
And Justin Fairfax is just wildly shooting into the air, trying to hit whomever.
Here's the reality about the sexual assault allegation against Justin Fairfax.
It is already eminently more plausible than Christine Blasey Ford's allegation against Brett Kavanaugh.
Why?
Well, because Fairfax has acknowledged that he knows the woman and had sex with the woman.
So, right off the bat, you have at least commonality that they went back to a hotel room.
What happened in the hotel room is anybody's guess.
Now, there are no witnesses as to what happened in the hotel room.
You have a basic he-said-she-said scenario from 2004.
Does that mean that I believe the woman?
No, I don't have any evidence to believe the woman at this point.
Maybe she's telling the truth, maybe she's not.
I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.
But I'll tell you this, there's a lot, there are a lot fewer red flags about her story than there were about Christine Blasey Ford's story as it emerged.
Or she didn't know time, place, she didn't know date, she didn't know location, she didn't know any, and all the people she said were at the party said, uh, no, I don't remember any of this happening.
In this particular case, the woman knows the time, she knows the date, she knows the location.
He agrees with her about the time, date, and location.
He just says that she consented, and she says that she did not consent.
So, she has now, I mean, this is getting rich, she has now hired the law firm for Christine Blasey Ford.
She has hired the exact law firm that Christine Blasey Ford used, so we'll see if the media are as eager in pressing on with the investigation into the allegations against Justin Fairfax as they were in pressing the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh that ended, ironically, with another yearbook scandal in which Democrats were questioning the potential justice on the Supreme Court about the use of the word boof on a Facebook page from his high school days.
So, it's amazing.
You know, they say that history repeats itself first time as tragedy, second time as comedy.
And that's fairly accurate.
I mean, Brett Kavanaugh, that was a tragic situation for the country.
Now, I think it's fair to say that we have reached the point of comedy.
Have we reached the point of comedy in this whole thing?
I think so.
Because we're now going through every major Democratic figure and finding a scandal a day about them.
It is amazing, by the way, that nobody found out any of this stuff.
Like, where were the Apo researchers in Virginia?
I know it's easy for me to say I wasn't doing the Apo research.
Still.
Pretty amazing stuff.
So that is the latest from Virginia, where the Democratic Party is falling apart.
I mean, frankly, they're just blowing each other up.
It could provide an opening for Republicans if Republicans could actually take advantage.
And all Republicans in Virginia have to do, honestly, all they have to do is the same thing that Democrats nationally have to do with Trump.
Not be crazy.
So we'll see if Republicans can do better in Virginia at not being crazy than Democrats have done nationally at not being crazy.
In the not-being-crazy sweepstakes, Democrats are doing horribly on the national level.
How horribly are they doing?
Well, yesterday, Democrats decided that it was deeply necessary to fight against, I promise you, fight against an anti-infanticide bill.
I am not kidding.
Okay, so Senator Ben Sasse, we had him on the show last Friday, and yesterday, he introduced a bill to ban infanticide.
And Democrats voted to stop it.
He wanted to bring it up by unanimous consent.
And the Democrats rejected it.
They rejected it.
What would the bill have done?
It would simply suggest that if a baby is born alive, you have to use life-saving measures on the baby.
You can't just let the baby die or kill the baby.
The legislation would create criminal penalties for doctors who allow infants to die rather than providing medical care after attempting abortion procedures.
It mandates that a child born alive in an abortion clinic be transported to a hospital for further care.
Health care practitioners must report any violations of the law.
The bill institute penalties for intentionally killing a newborn, including fines and up to five years imprisonment.
It would also grant the woman on whom the abortion is performed a civil cause of action against the abortionist and protection from prosecution if her child is not cared for after birth.
Senate Democrats opposed it.
Senate Democrats opposed it.
So in a second, I'm going to play you Senator Ben Sasse explaining exactly what happened here, and then we'll get into the increased radicalism of the Democratic Party, which just continues apace.
So, here is Senator Sasse explaining that Democrats were going to block this anti-infanticide bill, which they proceeded to do.
In a few minutes, the United States Senate is going to have an opportunity to condemn infanticide.
100 United States senators are going to have an opportunity to unanimously say the most basic thing imaginable, and that is that it's wrong to kill a little newborn baby.
Every senator will have the opportunity to stand for human dignity.
To stand for the belief that, in this country, all of us are created equal.
Because if that equality means anything, surely it means that infanticide is wrong.
Okay, well, Democrats found that it was not wrong.
They say, well, this wasn't really going to change the status of the law.
That is not true.
Alexandra DeSantis, over at National Review, she writes, as of 2014, only 26 states had laws creating a specific affirmative duty for physicians to provide medical care to infants born in botched abortions.
As of 2016, only six states required that abortion providers report instances of infants born alive under such circumstances.
In New York, a born-alive protection was on the books.
The recent abortion expansion from the state removed it.
The new Virginia bill would have downgraded the requirement that doctors provide care to newborn infants from a must to a shall standard, which is a legally significant definition.
So Democrats say that nothing was actually going to change her.
They say it's part of good medicine to be able to let the baby die.
Diana Green Foster, a professor of obstetrics, recently told the Judiciary Committee in the Senate that doctors and nurses and women themselves know best whether care would lead to survival.
Well, maybe not.
I don't know why women themselves would know whether care would lead to survival.
They're not doctors, so that in and of itself is pretty insane.
The extremism of the Democrats continues apace.
Ilhan Omar, who is one of the fresh faces of the Democratic Party, so fresh, so face, tape has now emerged of her from 2013 blaming the United States for the rise of Al-Qaeda because she should sit on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
I see no reason why a woman who despises Israel, who is openly anti-Semitic, who Blames the United States for the rise of Al Qaeda.
I don't see any reason why she shouldn't sit on the House Foreign Affairs Committee as a Democrat.
We don't hear the American apologize when their troops, when their states destroy other countries, when their state's empire misbehave overseas.
Nobody wants to face how the actions of the other people that are involved in the world have contributed to the rise of the radicalization and the rise of terrorist acts.
Right, so it's all the United States' fault that there's been an increase in terrorist acts.
The Democratic Party doing a wonderful job of painting themselves into a national corner.
My favorite instance of Democrats just destroying themselves yesterday was Nancy Pelosi.
I do love when people in the Democratic Party quote the Bible.
It's one of my favorite things.
So here is Representative Nancy Pelosi, an ardent advocate of abortion, speaking about the Bible.
She quotes a Bible verse that, in fact, does not exist.
I can't find it in the Bible, but I quote it all the time, and I keep reading and reading the Bible.
I know it's there someplace.
It's supposed to be in Isaiah.
But I heard a bishop say, to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship.
To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.
It's there somewhere in some words or another, but certainly the spirit of it is there.
No, that is not in the Bible.
That's not a thing.
She does quote it apparently all the time, but that is not a thing.
So, I don't know what she's talking about, but it is fun to be able to just pretend things are in the Bible that are not in the Bible, and then pretend that there are things in the Bible that don't belong in the Bible.
It really is fun to watch Democrats selectively quote the Bible while simultaneously cracking down on religious people across the country.
It's one of my favorite things.
I love it.
Meanwhile, I have to acknowledge the incredible wonder of Andrew Cuomo.
Andrew Cuomo is just a fool, and it's hilarious because Democrats who keep saying that we ought to tax the rich into oblivion, why not a wealth tax?
Why not a 70% top tax bracket?
Why not just take all of their money?
Well, it turns out they were trying this in New York.
It's a giant, giant fail.
So Governor Andrew Cuomo on Monday announced a dramatic drop in state income tax revenue of $2.8 billion.
He says it will prompt him to revise his 2019-2020 budget and reconsider spending on schools, health care, and repairs to roads and bridges.
But why not just raise taxes in New York, Governor Cuomo?
I mean, aren't there rich people in New York, Governor Cuomo?
I have heard there's an endless pile of money, and that all the rich people in New York have giant money bins like Scrooge McDuck, and they go swimming in them at night.
Can't you just suck those money bins dry and use it to pay for all the impoverished in New York, Governor Cuomo?
And here was Governor Cuomo's answer to that question.
He said, no, we can't do that.
He said, if we do that, all the rich people will leave.
Yeah, no bleep, Sherlock.
I mean, we all know that, you idiot.
Then why are you guys on a national scale pushing for exactly those kinds of policies over and over and over?
He says, at this point, there is no doubt that the budget we put forward is not supported by the revenues.
It's as serious as a heart attack.
And then he suggested that it would be a horrible idea to raise taxes on the wealthy again.
He said that would be a very, very bad idea.
He says, we did everything right from a tax point of view, yet somehow all the rich people continued to leave.
How weird.
How strange.
He said that he and his administration are blameless.
He said the continued exodus of residents from the state and a temporary millionaire's tax created in 2009 to contend with the Great Recession, but which he has since extended, so it was not temporary, that was not a contributing factor.
But he said also, God forbid that the billionaire should leave the state.
I do love the odd choice that Democrats are forced to make between tax all the billionaires and we need billionaires so we can tax them.
That's always fun.
The Democrats saying, we need lots of billionaires so we can take all their money, but also there shouldn't be a system that allows billionaires.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez said that.
She said there shouldn't be a system that allows billionaires.
That'd be terrible.
Also, we need the billionaires to exist so we can steal all their money and use it for our garbage programs.
You're gonna have to pick one, guys.
Do you want the rich people to exist so you can take their money, or do you want to obliterate the rich and then have no money at all?
Choose.
Democrats, you know, generally have to make that choice eventually, and that choice eventually is you have to let the rich people exist, is the reality.
Otherwise, all the rich people leave, and you can redistribute nothing, and then you can see how well that goes for you.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
I do love, love this CNN article.
It is one of my favorite CNN articles of all time.
The article was, here's their tweet.
Why are Adam Levine's nipples fine for air, but 2004's wardrobe malfunction made Janet Jackson a pariah for years?
That's the question some fans are asking after the Super Bowl.
And here is, it's a piece, it's a news piece by A.J. Witt.
Willingham and Brandon Griggs.
One of my favorite things is a news article that says, Some Are Asking.
So it's basically just an op-ed where you quote a couple of people to pretend that it's a news coverage story.
They say, Another Super Bowl is in the books, and let's just say it was okay.
It was adequate.
It was a football game that was played to completion, but you know things are slow when one of the most notable plays of the night was a punt.
The night wasn't without a few moments that got people talking.
Here are some highlights from a mostly somnolent Super Bowl The Super Bowl.
Okay, they say people had opinions about Adam Levine's nipples.
Maroon 5's Adam Levine slowly molted throughout the halftime show, shedding a jacket, then another jacket, and finally a tank top until he was bare-chested in front of God and Big Boy and everyone.
This didn't sit well with some fans who wondered why Adam Levine's nipples were apparently fine for air, while 2004's Nipplegate made Janet Jackson a pariah for years.
So the rest of the halftime show was mostly underwhelming.
Okay, so a couple of notes about Adam Levine going shirtless.
Number one, you have to have made some really terrible decisions in life to have a giant tattoo of the word California above your belly button.
Like, that's just a bad decision.
Like, why?
Like, in case you get drunk in Vermont or something and you end up shirtless on the side of a road so they mail you to California?
At least you should, like, tattoo your home address on your shoulder or something.
Then they just shove you in a giant box and send you via stamps.com back to California.
That's a solid life call there, Adam Levine.
But also, as I noted yesterday, you know the number of male fans who are desperate to see Adam Levine with his shirt off, generally.
I mean, males love Maroon 5.
They love him.
And then they also love Adam Levine with his shirt off.
It's just one of their favorite things.
But I love it.
I love the fact that CNN is bewildered by why there is a difference between Janet Jackson flashing her boob during a show and Adam Levine with his shirt off.
Hint, it's because apples and bananas are not the same.
CNN said that they call an apple an apple.
This is not a banana, it's an apple.
Apples are not bananas.
And breasts are not male pectoral muscles.
Men are not women.
And they are treated very differently in terms of sex.
They're treated very differently in terms of attraction.
And this is so silly.
It's so silly, but it is indicative of how stupid everyone is altogether.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
All right, thing that I hate today.
First of all, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer did a cameo on Stephen Colbert, which is basically just the weak Democratic National Committee comedy show.
That's all that happens now.
So here was Stephen Colbert at his supposed Super Bowl party with Gritty from the Philadelphia Flyers and Patrick Stewart.
And then suddenly Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer show up because why the hell not?
I mean, they have nothing better to do, right?
Oh, doorbell.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.
Please, Stephen, we're friends.
Just call us Chuck and Speaker of the House Nancy.
Okay, so what are you guys doing here?
We figured your little get-together needed us.
Why is that?
Because we're the party leaders!
Well, I'm glad you're here.
Why don't you come on in?
Oh no, there's more trouble in Washington.
We gotta go.
Oh, okay.
Use it, Nancy!
Oh, so much hilarity.
So much, you know, it's the joshing with the Democrats that really gets me about Colbert.
It's just all the joshing, you know?
That they josh together.
Cause, you know, you don't want like actual comedy or funny stuff or cutting, biting commentary.
What you really want is a little bit of gentle joshing.
It's just, it's so much fun, right guys?
So sincere.
Gotta love it.
Okay, final thing that I hate today.
So, Liam Neeson is being ripped up and down for a piece of audio in which he explained that a friend of his, this must have been, what, 30, 40 years ago or something, because Liam Neeson is now 80, that some time ago, a female friend of his was raped, and he asked her, by whom, and the friend said, a black person, and then he had a tribal, vicious, evil response.
And he explained that.
And then he says on the tape that he felt that it was an act of evil.
He never should have thought like this.
It just demonstrates what darkness lies in the human heart.
Here's a bit of the audio.
I asked, did you know who I was?
No.
What color were they?
She said it was a black person.
I went up and down areas with a kosh, hoping I'd be approached by somebody.
I'm ashamed to say that.
And I did it for maybe a week, hoping some black bastard would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know?
So that I could kill him.
And it took me a week, maybe a week and a half, to kind of go for that.
And she said to me, where are you going?
I said, I'm just going out for a walk, you know?
What's wrong?
No, no, nothing's wrong.
Fine.
It was horrible.
Horrible, when I think back.
But I did that.
And I've never admitted that to... I'm saying it to a journalist.
God forbid.
It's awful.
But I did learn a lesson from it.
When I eventually thought, Okay, so the entire moral of the story is tribal instincts take over sometimes and they're evil and they're bad and you have to fight them.
So everybody immediately took away the important lesson, of course, which is Liam Neeson is a racist.
So he tells a story about how he did something terrible back when he was young and now he is going to come forward and explain that those instincts are things that you have to fight because they're evil and they're bad and there's a dark side of humanity.
And people are like, how dare he tell this story about a bad thing he did when he was young?
He never should have done a bad thing when he was young.
Okay, I think you're missing the point of redemption.
I think you're missing the point of every story about where somebody did something wrong and then learned not to be that person.
And maybe you ought to rethink how you think about humans if your first reaction to that story is not, I'm glad that Liam Neeson learned a lesson and can now inform people about how terrible human nature is.
And instead it's, I can't believe Liam Neeson ever sinned or thought a bad thing.
You know, that's... You're doing being a human wrong, honestly.
Like, how about a little bit of grace, and particularly grace for people who are redeeming themselves and coming clean about some evil things that they may have thought or done in the past.
If we don't have grace as a society, we're finished.
Alrighty.
Well, we will be here later today with two more hours, and then we're gonna be here covering the State of the Union Address, which, as I've told you, I'm so eager about it, I'm gonna go drink some cyanide now.
It's gonna be awesome!
So if we're there, you should be there too, because come on, we'll all suffer through it together and enjoy ourselves to the utmost.
See you then.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by 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