Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 13, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:29

They Dreamed A Dream | Ep. 716

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	California kills its high-speed rail, the 2020 Democrats face some campaign troubles, and Ilhan Omar escapes culpability once again.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	All righty, so a lot of news to get to today.
	We are going to get into, in detail, a bunch of Democratic proposals that even they do not take seriously.
	It's the reason why President Trump's approval rating has risen seven points over the last month, even according to the sort of real clear politics poll average.
	We'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, we need to talk about what you are using to send your packages this year.
	So I know Valentine's Day is coming up, but it's not just a Valentine's Day issue.
	It's an everyday issue.
	What are you going to do every time you need to schlep your boxes down to the post office?
	Well, instead of doing that, what you could do is use stamps.com.
	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, and they make it really easy.
	They send you a free digital scale that automatically calculates the exact postage you need.
	You can buy and print official U.S.
	postage for any letter, any package, any class of mail.
	It prints it right out there onto the package or directly onto a sticker, Or onto a piece of paper that you can take to the box.
	Stamps.com saves you time and money.
	That's why we use it here at The Daily Wire.
	Right now, our listeners get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
	See for yourself why over 700,000 small businesses use Stamps.com.
	Go to Stamps.com.
	Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Shapiro.
	That's Stamps.com.
	Enter code SHAPIRO.
	Stamps.com.
	Click on that mic.
	Enter code SHAPIRO and get the special deal.
	Alrighty, so here is the latest on the government shutdown.
	It apparently has been averted.
	President Trump is expected today to sign into law a bipartisan accord to avert another U.S.
	government shutdown, according to Reuters.
	It's a bad deal.
	It's a bad deal.
	This deal basically gives the president something like $1.375 billion for border security.
	It allows him to build another 55 miles of fence, maybe.
	It's not what he was looking for.
	It's actually less money allocated to border security than was allocated to border security in the original budget that was proposed by Democrats back in November that President Trump turned down.
	Now, the saving grace is that President Trump is likely to declare under 10 U.S.C.
	284 that drug corridors must have additional fencing built, which he can do.
	He can have the Defense Department mobilize and redirect funds for that purpose.
	He's likely to do some of that.
	He's also illustrated that Democrats are full-scale crazy on the subject of a border wall when he did his big event On Monday night in El Paso, he was talking about the necessity for a border wall standing about a thousand feet maybe from the border fencing between El Paso and Mexico.
	And meanwhile, Beto O'Rourke was standing a thousand feet from him and was saying that walls are terrible.
	There was a wall at Beto O'Rourke's rally, by the way, to prevent people Again, is it a bad deal?
	onto the territory of Beto O'Rourke's rally, even as he was proclaiming that walls were really, really bad.
	On Wednesday, CNN, The Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal all reported that Trump intended to sign the measure into law if it passes Congress.
	Representatives for the White House could not be reached immediately for comment.
	Trump on Tuesday did not rule out vetoing the legislation.
	He said he was not happy with the deal, but he's not going to get into another shutdown here.
	Again, is it a bad deal?
	Did President Trump do a bad job of negotiating this thing?
	Yeah, he did.
	I mean, he went into a poker hand, and he was bluffing from the very outset.
	Democrats knew that he was bluffing.
	They kept upping the ante, and President Trump was not willing to try to buy the pot, basically.
	He was not willing to carry the bluff all the way to the final contingency.
	He was not willing to allow the government to remain shut down.
	Democrats knew that, and so they were able to basically win the hand with a pair of twos.
	That's essentially what happened in this particular poker game.
	Now, again, the president does have another card that has yet to drop here, and that is the possibility of declaring some sort of national emergency.
	Zero Hedge is reporting that the president is considering exactly that.
	According to Zero Hedge, which is Sort of a little bit of a sketchy website when it comes to reporting.
	They say, in an interesting twist, it looks like Trump has decided on a middle path that will allow him to keep the government open while getting more of his border wall built than Congress had initially authorized.
	According to Washington Post, Trump will use an executive order to reallocate federal funds to finance the wall or at least something more than the 55 miles that the compromise bill would finance.
	A White House official told The Post this morning that the president sees signing the border deal if passed by Congress as the way to avoid another shutdown.
	This is according to Robert Costa.
	But he would also likely pursue an executive order to reallocate federal funds to barrier projects, the official said.
	So, that...
	Is the solution that probably makes the most political sense?
	Once again, President Trump, his big success here is illustrating once and for all that Democrats do not care about border security, or at least they don't care enough about border security.
	Remember, it was a point of negotiation.
	During this actual border negotiation, Democrats wanted to lower the amount of funding available just for beds to house criminal illegal aliens.
	And President Trump did not want to lower those numbers because he was saying, well, if we can't house these people, we have to release them into general society.
	And Democrats were stumping for that.
	They were stumping for Trump to just release criminal, illegal aliens into American society.
	It's a pretty good talking point for President Trump come 2020.
	Again, all President Trump has to do in 2020 is just point at the Democrats because they are exposing their radicalism every single day.
	How radical are the Democrats?
	Even they, even they are scared by their own radicalism.
	Senator Mitch McConnell, cocaine Mitch, He really demonstrated that full scale yesterday.
	So the Democrats have been going crazy over the Green New Deal.
	Everybody loves the Green New Deal.
	The media.
	They love the Green New Deal.
	It's ambitious.
	And audacious.
	And hopeful.
	And bold.
	The Green New Deal.
	It's so wonderful.
	So wonderful that even the people who sponsored it will not vote for it.
	That's what Mitch McConnell showed yesterday.
	So turtley Mitch.
	He popped his head out of the shell.
	Snorted some coke, and then he said, you know what we're gonna do?
	You love this Green New Deal so much?
	Yeah, I love it too.
	Because it shows who you folks are.
	So, how about we do this?
	How about you come out, and we force you Democrats to vote for it?
	After all, you keep talking about how great and ambitious it is, but you don't want to vote for it.
	Remember, in the House, which is controlled by Democrats, the Green New Deal resolution did not come up for a vote.
	Republicans don't control the House.
	That means that Nancy Dentures Pelosi said she was not going to bring it up for a vote, despite mouthing all sorts of platitudes about how wonderful and excellent and hopeful and ambitious the thing was.
	By the way, when politicians say that something is a bold new idea, it's bold in the same way that my son trying to plug a toaster into the wall is bold.
	It's a bold move, Cotton.
	Let's see how they do with it.
	Here's Mitch McConnell putting Democrats to the test, saying, listen, you guys proposed this thing.
	How about we just vote on it?
	You know, let's see if you like it that much.
	Mitch McConnell, go.
	I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal.
	And we're going to be voting on that in the Senate.
	We'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.
	Man, he is so low-key.
	He's like Ben Stein of the U.S.
	Senate.
	And he cannot hide his glee at this.
	I mean, you have to actually see his face.
	This is why, if you don't subscribe to the program over at Daily Wire, you really should.
	Because if you can't see Mitch McConnell's face for clips like this, what is video made for?
	I mean, it's just fantastic.
	So Mitch McConnell, who smiles once every 70 years, he's like Haley's Comet.
	He cannot hold back a smile at the fact that Democrats were this stupid.
	So how stupid were the Democrats with this?
	It's so great.
	It's just so great.
	So Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts, you'll recall, is the Senate co-sponsor of this Green New Deal resolution.
	It was sponsored in the House by the venerable and intelligent and brilliant young fresh face AOC, so fresh, so face.
	Ed Markey, who is not a fresh face, is in the Senate, in Massachusetts, and he co-sponsored it on the Senate side.
	And this bill was endorsed by all the Democratic heavyweights.
	Spartacus Cory Booker.
	Kamala Nark Harris.
	It was co-sponsored by Elizabeth.
	Focahontas Warren.
	I mean, like, all of the Democrats running.
	Kirsten.
	I take every side of every issue.
	Gillibrand.
	All of them endorsed the Green New Deal.
	So Ed Markey is very concerned, though.
	So why?
	Now, let's say that you wanted to pass a piece of legislation.
	Let's say that you thought that climate change was the most important issue on America's dial.
	That Americans needed to be made aware that this Green New Deal thing had to be passed as a resolution to demonstrate to Americans that we need to take this crisis seriously.
	Wouldn't you want it to come up for a vote?
	I mean, if you wrote the resolution?
	Senator Ed Markey tweeted this out today.
	It's so fantastic.
	He tweeted out, "Don't let Mitch McConnell fool you.
	This is nothing but an attempt to sabotage the movement we are building.
	He wants to silence your voice so Republicans don't have to explain why they are climate change deniers.
	McConnell wants this to be the end.
	This is just the beginning." So let's try to unpack this logic.
	You propose a bill.
	It is supported by every major Democratic heavyweight.
	Mitch McConnell says, let's vote on it.
	And that's sabotage.
	So if Mitch McConnell didn't bring it up for a vote, then you would say he obviously doesn't care enough about climate change.
	He's sabotaging us.
	And if he does bring it up for a vote, then he's sabotaging your movement.
	If your proposal is so toxic that the mere fact of bringing it up for a vote would expose it as toxic, I'm pretty sure you're the one who just sabotaged your own vote.
	Now, Ed Markey is in the back of the ship drilling a hole directly through the hull, and Mitch McConnell's like, Sir, if you would prefer, I will bring you a stick of dynamite.
	And then Markie's like, well, Mitch McConnell's trying to sabotage this thing.
	It's your bill, dude.
	You wrote the thing.
	You don't get to claim it's sabotage when Mitch McConnell brings it up for a vote.
	That's Mitch McConnell being ultimate troll master.
	Mitch McConnell, cocaine Mitch.
	Power move by cocaine Mitch.
	I do love it.
	Again, it is hilarious to me.
	The Democrats are now claiming it is sabotage for Mitch McConnell to bring up for a vote.
	A proposal, they say, is so popular and so powerful that every American needs to be made aware of it.
	Mitch McConnell's like, fine, let's make every American aware of it.
	And the co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate's like, no, no, no.
	No, no, no.
	We can't vote on that.
	I didn't mean it.
	I didn't really mean it.
	It's... It really is amazing.
	I mean, it's a situation where you got in a fight with your spouse, and you just kept upping the ante, and then finally, your spouse is like, fine, go for it.
	And you're like, uh-oh.
	That's pretty much what happened here.
	The Democrats kept upping the ante on how important climate change is to the point where they're like, let's ban cars.
	Let's kill the farting cows.
	Let's get rid of airplanes.
	Let's do all those things.
	And Mitch McConnell's like, all right, that's what you want.
	Let's do this thing.
	Let's make it public.
	And Democrats are like, oh, no.
	Uh, Ownership of the Libs with Fact and Logic by Mitch McConnell.
	You gotta love that.
	He's an underrated politician, is Mitch McConnell.
	And for all the crap we give him for his negotiations on border measures, Power move!
	Power move.
	Now, one of the things that's hilarious about the new wave of Democrats is that all of their proposals are similarly ambitious and similarly stupid and similarly undoable.
	And we are finding this out day after day when they run screaming from their own proposals.
	Like, legitimately, they run screaming from their own proposals.
	I'll give you a couple of examples in just one second.
	From across the country, Democrats propose audacious, ambitious, bold things, like my son with the toaster.
	They propose bold things.
	And then?
	They're the dog that catches the car, and then they realize that by catching the car, they've now put themselves in direct proximity to the back wheels, and if that thing is in reverse, they're gonna get smushed.
	We'll talk about it in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the best present I really think that you can get a parent, a sibling, yourself.
	I'm talking about Legacy Box.
	Your life is a series of experiences and memories, but right now, you've got all those experiences and memories sitting out in the garage, moldering.
	A bunch of old pictures that are being bug infested.
	Well, instead of all that old tape that you can no longer play because it's on actual film reels, what you should do is send all that stuff over to Legacy Box, and then they take all that stuff, they put it in digital format, and they send it back to you.
	It's really awesome.
	You can save your family films and photos from degrading or being lost forever.
	You can put them in a usable format.
	You can make sure that if, God forbid, something were to happen to your garage, then you've got all of those memories saved.
	You can ensure your family history is preserved forever.
	Send your legacy box filled with old home movies and pictures.
	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 included for every item, so you can track every item as it goes along in the process.
	You get all your original recorded moments back, along with perfectly preserved digital copies, and you get personalized updates every step of the way, receiving up to 12 personalized email updates every time that there's an issue.
	There's never been a better time to digitally preserve your memories.
	Visit LegacyBox.com today to get started.
	I really think it's a deeply important thing.
	It's not just a great gift.
	It's an important thing because your life is your memories.
	Plus, for a limited time, they are offering my listeners an exclusive discount.
	So go to LegacyBox.com slash Ben and get 40% off your first order.
	That's LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
	Get 40% off today.
	Start preserving your past.
	Make it available for your kids.
	I mean, it's really important stuff.
	LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
	Use that slash Ben.
	Get 40% off your first order.
	Okay, so how unrealistic, how unrealistic are democratic plans?
	Democratic plans are so unrealistic that, first, here's usually how this math works.
	Usually, some Democrat proposes something insane and stupid.
	Then, the saner Democrats in the room go, oh, that's a bad idea.
	But then, the crazy Democrats gain the momentum, and then the sane Democrats start to embrace the crazy.
	They start to embrace the crazy.
	And then, they realize, after trying this thing for a couple of years, it's totally crazy and they abandon it.
	This is how a lot of democratic plans end.
	So, for example, in the state of California, we have a governor.
	His name is Gavin Newsom.
	He's basically a living Ken doll with all the brains that come along with it.
	And Gavin Newsom was Lieutenant Governor.
	Well, back in 2014, I had Gavin Newsom on my radio show, and I specifically asked him about a proposal that Californians had voted in favor of for a high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
	It would have stops in places like Sacramento.
	It would have stops in Bakersfield, for whatever reason.
	And this was going to cost us legitimately billions and billions of dollars, like billions of dollars, this high-speed rail.
	Now, those of us who live in California, we're sitting around going, but isn't there a giant highway called the I-5 that also connects Los Angeles with San Francisco?
	And the answer was yes, there is a giant highway called the I-5 that connects all of these various cities.
	But it was very important that we build a high-speed bullet train in one of the most sparsely populated areas of California, that giant corridor where no one lives except for Bakersfield and Fresno, between Sacramento and Los Angeles.
	Deeply, deeply important to spend billions of dollars on that monstrosity.
	Well, I asked Gavin Newsom about this all the way back in 2014.
	So now, five years ago, I asked him about this, and he said at the time, yeah, this is a really dumb idea.
	We shouldn't do it.
	Are you pro or against the train, especially given the fact that the Californian public, which approved the train in the first place, now has reneged and no longer likes the train?
	Yeah, I think I'm where the public was and is.
	I would take the dollars and redirect it to other more pressing infrastructure needs.
	And I am not the only Democrat that feels this way.
	And I gotta tell you, I am one of the few that just said it publicly.
	Most are now saying it privately.
	Right, he said it publicly, and then he immediately backtracked, because the train was already off and running.
	We were already gonna do the train, man.
	Jerry Brown was... Jerry Brown, our governor, who is 1,000 years old, he's actually... I think he passed away, sadly, about 10 years ago, and they've just been wheeling him around ever since, and then playing a tape of Jerry Brown from behind his head.
	And so every so often, he sort of nods off in the middle of press conferences, like, I love the train.
	It's a great train.
	Well, Jerry Brown made the train super popular among Democrats, but... And then Gavin Newsom embraced it.
	He was like, yeah, the train's great, I love the train now, and he completely flipped on it.
	It was a big story back when he was running for governor that he flipped on the train.
	Well, now Gavin Newsom has flipped back on the train, because it now turns out that this was a stupid idea in the first place.
	In a second, I'm going to get to that.
	Gavin Newsom, the new governor of California, said this during his first State of the State speech.
	He surprised listeners by announcing he would put the quest for high-speed rail connecting San Francisco and LA, championed by his predecessor, far on the back burner.
	Instead, Newsom offered a consolation prize, high-speed rail between Bakersfield and Merced.
	Oh yeah!
	Glamour!
	Get on that high-speed rail, and with your cocktail, the love train.
	That's what I'm going to do.
	I'm going to drive my wife over to Bakersfield, and I'm going to say, you know what, honey?
	Let's take a romantic trip to Merced.
	That's what we're going to do.
	We're going to spend billions of dollars for a high-speed rail between two cities that, unless you live there, these are not tourist destinations.
	Nobody in New York is like, you know what?
	Summer vacation.
	What do you say we go to Merced?
	These are not places where people, they're not even destinations in California.
	Bakersfield is a city.
	It's fine.
	I've been there.
	Merced, also a city.
	Great.
	Do we need a high-speed rail connecting these two cities?
	Of course we don't!
	But he's using this as now a consolation prize because we're not actually going to build A high-speed rail between San Francisco and L.A.
	Which, by the way, was always an idiotic idea.
	We were talking about spending literally billions of public dollars building a high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
	You know how much it costs you for a plane ticket between L.A.
	and San Francisco one way?
	It's like 80 bucks.
	It's legitimately, like, Southwest puts on deals for under $100.
	You could make that, you could make that travel happen.
	And it would take you less time going to the airport than it would to get on that bullet train.
	And yet we were going to spend billions of dollars.
	Now even Democrats have to back off of this.
	Newsom said, Let's level about the high-speed rail.
	Let's be real, the current project as planned would cost too much and respectfully take too long.
	Right now there simply isn't a path to get from San Francisco to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA.
	I wish there were.
	Fortunately, there is.
	It is called the I-5.
	I drive it all the time.
	So does everyone else in the state of California.
	Not only that, we have these things.
	I know, controversial though they are.
	They were invented in the early 20th century.
	And if you... It's a vehicle.
	And if you drive it fast enough, and you have enough thrust behind the vehicle, and the wings are actually directed at the proper angle to the ground, these things fly.
	I know, it's wild.
	These giant machines, they fly and they will take you from LA to San Francisco through the air.
	I mean, that's high tech right there.
	Maybe we should invest in those.
	Recent estimates assess Governor Jerry Brown's plan would cost $77 billion.
	$77 billion.
	I kid you not.
	So I'm just going to do a quick back of the envelope calculation right now.
	OK, $77 billion.
	Divided by the price of a one-way ticket, like 80 bucks to Sacramento or San Francisco.
	That would pay for, the state of California could legitimately, for that same price, pay for 962,500,000 tickets.
	Really?
	They could pay 962,500,000 tickets.
	Okay?
	Which there are about 50 million residents in the state of California.
	So let's divide that.
	So that means that we could pay for 19.25 one-way tickets for every person living in the state of California.
	Every single person living in the state of California, right this very instant, we could pay for 20 tickets between LA and San Francisco via plane for the price that it would take to build this stupid high-speed rail.
	Honestly, Jerry Brown, the Democrats in California, they're just the guy from The Simpsons.
	They're just the monorail guy from The Simpsons.
	It's truly amazing.
	So, you know, well done.
	It was always an idiotic plan.
	Everybody already knew it was an idiotic plan.
	And yet we were supposed to pretend it was not an idiotic plan.
	By the way, it's actually more tickets than that because they're not 40 million, they're not 50 million residents in the state of California, there are 40 million residents in the state of California, so we could pay for 24 tickets for every resident in the state of California to go from L.A.
	to San Francisco.
	And yet we were going to spend all this money.
	The point here is the Democrats say dumb things.
	Like, it's a moon shot.
	You know what's the cool thing about the moon shot?
	We got to the moon.
	You know what's the bad news about a high-speed rail between Merced and Bakersfield?
	You end up in either Merced or Bakersfield.
	And they're fine.
	Again, they're fine.
	It's not exactly the moon.
	Also, you know how much it would cost me to drive from Merced to Bakersfield?
	Like, a tank of gas?
	Like, 20 bucks?
	Maybe?
	30 bucks?
	Maybe?
	Oh my goodness.
	So, this is one of the things you gotta love about Democrats.
	They make these proposals, and then they have to back off their own proposals.
	It's just like the state of California.
	At one point had considered universal health care, and then they were like, oh yeah, we can't pay for that.
	And it was like, well, you are the most left-leaning state in America.
	The most left-leaning state in America.
	And your own Democratic Senate would not even vote on it.
	Why?
	Because universal health care in California would cost $17 billion per year.
	$17 billion per year.
	And the budget of the state of California, last I checked, is $200 billion.
	$200 billion.
	So it would cost an additional $20 billion per year minimum.
	That is not a thing that is going to happen.
	And you're seeing it play out in New York, too, where New York has pursued every idiotic policy they can possibly think of, and now they're shocked.
	Shocked!
	That none of their policies are working out.
	So Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is, as we have said, in a running gun battle with his brother to be the stupider Cuomo brother.
	We have a block of wood on CNN, and then we have the governor of New York, who is a block of slightly more brittle wood, a little bit older, sort of petrified stone.
	Well, he is now complaining about Florida.
	Why is New York complaining about Florida?
	Because it turns out anyone with money is trying to get out of New York and into Florida.
	So here is what CBS Miami reports.
	He said this week the governor of New York blamed budget shortfalls on the state of Florida.
	So he's blaming his own inability to take in tax dollars in New York on Florida.
	Why?
	He said New Yorkers were fleeing to the Sunshine State to save big time on taxes.
	It all goes back to the tax reform passed by Congress.
	The changes increased the incentive to move to the Sunshine State dramatically.
	Well, why?
	Because one of the things that the tax bill did is it did not exempt state taxes from federal income tax.
	So people who are high income in states like California and New York, where you're already paying an inordinate state tax, they couldn't take that as a discount on their federal taxes.
	So you're basically getting double taxed in states like California and New York.
	The point being that there shouldn't be a federal incentive for states to raise their taxes.
	So what he's really complaining about is that Florida isn't governed like complete garbage, and New York is governed like complete garbage, and when you raise taxes inordinately, you end up driving people out of the state.
	You'll recall that just a week ago, Andrew Cuomo basically admitted they can't tax people in New York anymore because if they keep taxing people, all the billionaires leave, all the millionaires leave.
	No one wants to be in these badly governed states.
	Bad democratic ideas will not even be embraced by bad Democrats at this point.
	And yet we're supposed to let them govern based on their high hopes and their commitment, their commitment to the future, their ambitious and bold plans?
	Yeah, let's hand over governance to these schmucks.
	We'll get to a little bit more of this in just a second.
	Let's talk about the presidential race.
	So, a lot of these Democrats are having a very, very difficult time in the presidential race because they have what Sarah Jessica Parker might call failure to launch.
	One of those candidates is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who has been described as Minnesota nice, which I guess is just a euphemism for I throw binders at my staffers.
	That was a report that came out in the last couple of weeks, is that she is apparently, allegedly, routinely abusive to her staffers, up to and including throwing objects at her staffers.
	I have to say, there are a lot of people who work at this company, and when I abuse them, I do it publicly on air.
	Behind the scenes, I'm actually much nicer than I am to folks on air.
	They won't confirm this, and if they don't, I'll fire them.
	I mean, this is the reality of how things work here.
	It has never even crossed my mind to throw objects at the people who work here.
	Number one, it's a lawsuit.
	And number two, you shouldn't throw objects at people.
	I don't even let my kids throw objects at each other.
	Amy Klobuchar reportedly took binders and threw them at people.
	So, Mitt Romney, not fit to be president because he had a binder full of women he thought about hiring.
	Amy Klobuchar, a woman who throws binders, now being considered for president.
	Now, the best part of this is a great story.
	According to Mediaite, in a potentially embarrassing AP report for Senator Amy Klobuchar, more than a dozen current and former staffers describe her as an abusive boss who often tried to have job offers rescinded when they tried to jump ship.
	Interviews with some of Klobuchar's Capitol Hill staffers portray a hostile work environment run on fear, abuse, and humiliation.
	According to staffers, the overly critical senator will sometimes turn a single mistake into a multi-day affair of shaming and demeaning, followed by post-work angry late-night phone calls and all-caps emails.
	The way she treats staff is disqualifying, said a former female staffer.
	And one of the staffers says, I will not vote for her because she's a bad person.
	Three former Klobuchar staffers told the Huffington Post their boss made them or their co-workers run personal errands for her, such as picking up her dry cleaning, packing her suitcases for travel, and even cleaning and washing her dishes at home.
	And frankly, I want to be a senator.
	This sounds great.
	If I can make my staffers do this sort of stuff, are you kidding me?
	Like on the public dime?
	Like make people wash my dishes on the public dime?
	That sounds amazing!
	She has one of the highest rates of staff turnover in Congress.
	So how widely has Klobuchar's mistreatment of her staff been rumored?
	It's been rumored so widely that SNL, actually a Veep writer confirmed, a writer for the show Veep, confirmed That they had a joke on the show about a staffer shaving Amy Klobuchar's legs, and that joke was inspired by reality.
	That they had heard a rumor that the staffers were so abused that they were like shaving the senator's legs, and so they made a similar joke on Veep.
	That's how bad the rumors have been about Amy Klobuchar.
	So, Minnesota Nice, when they say Minnesota Nice, they don't actually mean the Francis McDormand character in Fargo.
	They mean the guy who throws people into a wood chipper on Fargo.
	Amy Klobuchar having a tough time.
	Meanwhile, Kamala Harris having a tough time because she's a narc.
	So one of the most beautiful things is watching as far left Democratic candidates are not far left enough for the Democratic base.
	Kamala Harris was a prosecutor.
	This is nearly disqualifying for a lot of people on the far left in the Democratic Party.
	They look at Kamala Harris, And they say, well, this lady prosecuted people and put them in jail.
	This means that she is a narc.
	And so we can't let her anywhere near the halls of power.
	We need the people who say they want to disband ICE, who say they want to defund the Department of Homeland Security.
	Meanwhile, Trump is back there just twiddling his thumbs going, this is great.
	Keep going.
	Please.
	More.
	Do it.
	I won't say what other contexts Trump may have said such things in.
	In any case, Kamala Harris, this is a bad story for her.
	Now, this would be a good story for somebody in any normal time.
	In any normal time, this story about Kamala Harris would be a non-story.
	It would be, actually, a point in her favor for moderates.
	But, in the modern Democratic Party, it is a point against her.
	According to CNN, Kamala Harris supported a 2008 San Francisco policy that reported arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE.
	Oh no!
	She's a... Law and order?
	Kamala Harris?
	Supported?
	If a 17-year-old illegal immigrant killed someone, reporting them to ICE?
	I'm sorry, she's too moderate for the modern-day Democratic Party.
	According to CNN, as District Attorney of San Francisco, Kamala Harris supported a city policy that required law enforcement to turn over undocumented juvenile immigrants to federal immigration authorities if they were arrested and suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually convicted of a crime.
	Harris sided with then-Mayor Gavin Newsom in a political fight over San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city that split the city's municipal government, with the mayor's office supporting the policy and the city's elected board of supervisors opposing it.
	Kamala Harris is too much of an arc for the Democratic base.
	Her past position, according to CNN, could open her up to attacks from immigration activists, as well as the more progressive wing of the party as she seeks the Democratic nomination in 2020.
	The fight over the San Francisco policy was covered extensively at the time, but Harris' role has not been closely examined since she entered the national spotlight.
	In a statement to CNN, Harris' campaign spokesman, Ian Sams, said the policy was intended to protect the sanctuary status of San Francisco and to ensure local police, who needed to have strong relationships with the communities they serve regardless of immigration status, were not forced to operate as immigration agents, which is the responsibility of the federal government.
	Looking back, this policy could have been applied more fairly.
	Oh, that last line is a killer for Kamala Harris.
	Because that means she is going to be accused of anti-immigrant racism!
	So Democrats being hoisted on their own petards here.
	They're now in a serious problem because it turns out that the Democratic base is too crazy for the candidates.
	Legitimately too crazy for the candidates.
	How crazy are segments of the Democratic base?
	Segments of the Democratic base are angry at Kamala Harris because she's married to a white person.
	Really.
	She was asked specifically in an interview why she was married to a white man.
	And she answered it.
	She actually answered the question because this was considered a legitimate question.
	She was asked in an interview on Monday why she married a white man and how she could do so while defending her black heritage.
	And she said, look, I love my husband.
	He happened to be the one that I chose to marry because I love him.
	And that was that moment in time.
	And that's it.
	And he loves me.
	But I love the fact that this is I love the fact that this is controversial.
	Here is Kamala Harris giving an answer, like legitimately answering a question that should never have been asked.
	And I don't think it's fair, because I don't even think the person or life should matter, but they do mention your husband a lot.
	And they say, how is she so black, but she married white?
	Look, I love my husband, and he happened to be the one that I chose to marry because I love him, and that was that moment in time, and I'm... That's it.
	Alright.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	And he loves me.
	Alright.
	The proper answer there, the proper answer is, what the hell kind of question is that?
	I mean, imagine there was a white candidate who had married a black woman.
	Or the opposite, a white woman who had married a black man.
	And let's say that that person had been asked, you know, there are a lot of people asking about you marrying cross-racially.
	Wouldn't the answer be, what a racist question?
	We live in a free country where I can marry whomever I damn well please and color shouldn't matter?
	Wouldn't that be the proper answer?
	The fact that Kamala Harris has to take that question seriously is a demonstration that our politics is full-scale broken.
	That intersectional politics is evil.
	That question itself is an evil question.
	Why did you marry a white guy?
	How disgusting.
	Truly.
	Okay, in a second we're going to get to other problems that the Democrats are having with their own base.
	But first, you're going to have to go over to Daily Wire and subscribe.
	When you subscribe, you get not only the rest of this show live, you also get two additional hours of this show every day!
	I mean, my goodness, and it's full to the brim with great stuff.
	Not only do we have updates from news over the course of the day, we also have fantastic guests.
	I mean, we've been averaging basically a senator a day on the show.
	We have all sorts of wonderful material that you won't get if you just listen to the podcast itself.
	And when you subscribe, you get access to that, commercial-free, behind the paywall, which is pretty great, on demand.
	We have thousands of people who watch it live as subscribers.
	And during the breaks, I sometimes take questions.
	As well, so you can interact with me, which is a cool thing.
	So go check that out.
	Also, when you subscribe, you also get the extra question in our Sunday special.
	For $99 a year, by the way, you get all of this.
	$99 a month or $99 a year.
	For the $99 a year, you also get this.
	The leftist here's hot or cold tumbler.
	Notice it says leftist, not liberal.
	I get a lot of questions about this tumbler.
	Aren't you being discriminatory?
	No, leftists are terrible.
	And leftism is terrible.
	Liberalism are just people with whom I disagree.
	Leftists are people who want to shut down the debate and or nationalize all industry.
	In any case, go check all of that out.
	Also, as I say, subscribe to YouTube and iTunes so that you can get the Sunday Special, which, by the way, available a day early on Saturdays for our Daily Wire subscribers.
	This week's Sunday Special, Daniel Krauthammer, the son of the late Charles Krauthammer.
	Here's a little bit of that.
	This Sunday on the Ben Shapiro Sunday Special, we're hosting Daniel Krauthammer, the son of Charles Krauthammer.
	I'm very glad to be on with Ben.
	We'll be talking about my father, Charles Krauthammer, his last book, The Point of It All, his life, his writings, and his legacy.
	Okay, so it is totally a worthwhile listen.
	We talk a lot about Krauthammer, who I think was one of the seminal figures of 20th and 21st century conservatism, so go check that out.
	And leave us a review over at iTunes and YouTube, that always helps us.
	We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	As we say, the Democrats, the Democrat candidates for 2020 are being outflanked by their own base.
	And so virtually every Democratic candidate is now being dragged through the mud for saying some quasi-moderate things.
	So, for example, Cory Booker the other day, who, you know, Spartacus, A very, very brave person, Spartacus.
	He said something not terrible on race, and he is just being ripped up and down over it.
	He was in Des Moines, and he was specifically asked about the Virginia situation with people who had dressed up as Michael Jackson or rappers back in 1980.
	And here was Booker's answer, which, by the way, for the record, is actually a pretty good answer.
	How do we get to a point where we can start having the conversation without people falling into a defensive crouch?
	Because sometimes when folk want to tell the truth about something, they fear.
	Speaking the truth or talking to people about what they don't understand.
	We've got to tell the truth, but we, all of us, black, white, gay, straight, we've got to start extending grace to each other so we can have honest conversations and leave room for growth.
	And people are angry at him for saying this.
	For him saying we need to have grace with each other and maybe acknowledge that some people have been ignorant in the past about their activities.
	And maybe we extend forgiveness.
	People are angry at him about this.
	The Democratic base is too radical, even for the most radical members of the Democratic Party.
	But that's only part of the Democratic base.
	And this is why you have a split.
	This is why you end up with a situation where every Democratic candidate is endorsing the Green New Deal that Democrats are scared to death will be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
	That is why.
	And it's also why you're seeing some of the most pandering, ridiculous moves by Democratic candidates.
	So, Elizabeth Warren, the non-Native American senator from Massachusetts, she actually showed up on Tuesday to do her professional pandering.
	According to CNN, she showed up on Tuesday, she made an unannounced appearance at a lunch on the sidelines of a major Native American conference in Washington.
	Which again, bad form.
	You know, white people taking over Native American territory.
	That is not a good thing, Elizabeth Warren.
	Her remarks came amidst continued scrutiny of the Massachusetts Senator's past claims to Native ancestry.
	According to details provided by a campaign aide, after Warren's appearance at the National Indian Women's Lunch Honor Luncheon, she introduced Wampanoag tribe of gay head Aquena Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews Maltais, a tribal leader and former senior advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs during the Obama administration.
	The senator was introduced by New Mexico Representative Deb Haaland, who is one of the first two Native American women elected to Congress last year.
	Warren did not address or make any mention of the controversy surrounding her past claims to Native American heritage, an aide told CNN, including an attempt to prove her ancestry with a DNA test last year.
	Apparently, in her introduction, she said, whether it's building coalitions among allies or reaching across the aisle to bridge divides, Cheryl is masterful at persuading public policymakers to do what's right for Native communities.
	So, Elizabeth Warren, because she has to keep pandering to the intersectional crowd, she cannot stop herself from putting her hand directly on the stove.
	She is just going to keep going back to that abscessed tooth and sticking her tongue in it over and over and over.
	Nothing she does is going to change the fact that she lied about her Native American status for years.
	Nothing is going to change that fact.
	And yet she keeps going back to it.
	I mean, she's very bad at this game, and she's not going to be forgiven to it, because forgiveness is not an aspect of the Democratic left.
	There is no forgiveness for the Democratic left.
	There's convenience.
	Ralph Northam will be left as governor of Virginia out of convenience.
	Justin Fairfax may survive as lieutenant governor of Virginia out of mere convenience.
	But there is no forgiveness if you actually cross a line for Democrats.
	Elizabeth Warren crossed the line.
	That means no forgiveness is available.
	The Democratic base is radical and they are vicious.
	And Howard Schultz is finding that out too.
	The former Starbucks CEO, he's doing his national campaign and he got himself in all sorts of trouble yesterday because, again, he said some stuff that the Democratic base does not want to hear.
	One of the things he said is that he does not actually see color.
	Right?
	And you're not allowed to say this.
	You're not allowed to say that you don't see color in the modern United States to the Democratic base.
	You're supposed to say, I see color because I'm a white person and white people see color and white people are racist.
	That's what you're supposed to say.
	Here's Howard Schultz saying the opposite.
	This is going to alienate the Democratic base.
	It was a terrible moment for the company.
	It's not something that we're going to forget, and it's something that we learned a great deal from, and we're still learning it about.
	And I would just say, as somebody who grew up in a very diverse background as a young boy in the projects, I didn't see color as a young boy.
	And I honestly don't see color now.
	Oh, you're not allowed to say that.
	Everybody sees color, Howard Schultz.
	How terrible for Howard Schultz to say this.
	He's got an enormous blowback from the left for saying that he is colorblind and tries not to see color.
	He's getting ripped up and down for it.
	By the way, the fact that he even acknowledges that something bad happened in Philadelphia is in and of itself a joke.
	I've talked to people who went down to that Philadelphia Starbucks.
	Not only are there cameras in the Philadelphia Starbucks that could have shed light on the situation, And then Starbucks did not release the tape because they'd already jumped on the PC bandwagon.
	But the woman, if you recall the Starbucks situation from several months ago, what happened is that two black men went into a Starbucks, they were asked repeatedly to buy something if they wanted to use the restroom, they apparently sat there for hours, and then, when the police were called, they refused to leave the restaurant.
	They just stood there and basically asked to be arrested, as though this were a civil rights sit-in at a Starbucks in Philadelphia, a city which is plurality black.
	As though no one's ever seen a black person in Philadelphia before.
	It turns out that the woman behind the counter who is slandered as a racist is, according to people who know her, a far-left LGBTQ activist.
	And she was slandered as a racist for all of this.
	So Howard Schultz not only is not wrong about any of this stuff, Howard Schultz Are you surprised by the blowback?
	Some of it hostile?
	Did that take you by surprise?
	And we were not surprised by it.
	I think the extent of it has taken us back a bit.
	reasonable things from time to time makes him completely unpalatable to Democrats and puts him directly in their crosshairs.
	Were you surprised by the blowback, some of it hostile?
	Did that take you by surprise?
	And we were not surprised by it.
	I think the extent of it has taken us back a bit.
	But I think any time you try and go against the grain and take the road less traveled and challenge the status quo, and actually that's something I've been doing my whole life, but not at this level, Clinton.
	Clearly we're going to have some resistance.
	So we expected it, perhaps not as acute as it has become.
	Well, I mean, frankly, I'm shocked that Howard Schultz finds himself taken aback at the radicalism of his own political side of the aisle.
	They've been radical for a long time.
	Now, I said earlier that Democrats have no forgiveness for people who have violated their standards.
	But this is exactly the point.
	You can always tell what violates Democratic standards by the standard of forgiveness they use.
	So Democrats have no standard of forgiveness.
	When it comes to things that they perceive of as anti-black, even if they're not in fact anti-black, they have no forgiveness for stuff that is perceived as anti-gay, like, you know, Christian churches.
	No forgiveness there.
	No grace there.
	But you can always tell what their standards are by where they are willing to apply forgiveness.
	And this brings us to Ilhan Omar.
	So Ilhan Omar, for the 1,000th time over the weekend, said something anti-Semitic.
	She has a long history of being an anti-Semite, okay?
	This is not her making a mistake.
	She has a history of anti-Semitism.
	Not only that, her anti-Semitism continues.
	She is slated still to speak February 23rd next to an actual advocate of anti-Jewish terror.
	Ilhan Omar has a long history of this sort of stuff.
	And yet, Democrats are willing to forgive her pretty much anything.
	They're willing to forgive her.
	Why?
	Because this did not violate their standards.
	End of story.
	The New Democratic Party is okay with generalized anti-Semitism.
	So long as you can couch it in anti-Zionist, anti-Israel terms.
	So long as you can hide your anti-Semitism behind outdated, silly notions about Israel as a fascist state.
	So long as you can do that, you can get away with it.
	Ilhan Omar's only boo-boo is that she came out front and said something openly anti-Semitic.
	But if you can even mildly pretend you're not anti-Semitic while being completely anti-Semitic, then you get away with it.
	Case in point is AOC, who just a week ago tweeted out that she had a conversation with Jeremy Corbyn, who is an open, vicious, pro-terrorist anti-Semite, the head of the Labour Party in Britain.
	And AOC tweeted that out.
	And people were like, oh, you know, he's an anti-Semite.
	She's like, oh, I'll check into it.
	No follow up.
	None.
	The media have not asked her a single question since about any of that.
	AOC came out yesterday and actually defended Ilhan Omar.
	So Ilhan Omar, you'll recall over the weekend, suggested that Jew money was behind the American support for Israel, which, of course, is not true.
	And then Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez came out and defended her.
	Well, first, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez came out and tweeted something from Peter Beinart, who is a self-hating Jew of the highest order, a Hamas defender of the highest order.
	He wrote a piece for the very left-leaning, often anti-Semitic Forward magazine, a Jewish magazine that really is willing to defend any level of anti-Semitism, including, in many cases, open anti-Semitism.
	Peter Beinart had said, if you denounce Ilhan Omar but support Donald Trump, you don't really oppose bigotry, you don't even really oppose anti-Semitism, what you oppose is criticism of Israel.
	Except that Trump is not anti-Semitic, there's no evidence of his anti-Semitism.
	And Ilhan Omar is an open anti-Semite, who has called for the full-scale destruction of the state of Israel, basically.
	Okay, which is in and of itself anti-Semitic.
	AOC then tweeted out the Peter Beinart piece, and she tweeted, unlike this president, because the fallback position for every Democrat is, don't pay attention to how evil I am, Trump.
	That's always the fallback position.
	So AOC tweeted out in support of Ilhan Omar, unlike this president, Representative Ilhan Omar demonstrated a capacity to acknowledge pain and apologize, use the opportunity to learn about history of anti-Semitism and grow from it while clarifying her stance.
	That is a lie.
	She has not learned a damn thing about antisemitism.
	She doesn't care about antisemitism.
	She's a longtime antisemite.
	In fact, there was a story that came out yesterday that for years, the Jewish community in the Twin Cities has been trying to have normal conversations with Ilhan Omar, and they have been absolutely shocked by her attitude about antisemitism.
	So this notion that she is somehow doing something out of the box and that she's not really an anti-Semite, that is betrayed by her entire record.
	This is a piece from TwinCities.com.
	Ilhan Omar has been talked to about this before.
	Last year, before she was elected to the House of Representatives, before she emerged from a crowded Democratic field in Minnesota's liberal 5th congressional district, leaders of Minneapolis' Jewish community fashioned what could be described as an anti-Semitic intervention of Omar, a rising star of the left whose remarks had made many fellow Democrats in the Jewish community uncomfortable.
	This is relevant because Omar, a freshman member of Congress, has come under fire this week after suggesting on Twitter that supporters of Israel in Congress are bought and paid for by a bipartisan pro-Israel lobbying group.
	To many, the remark went beyond a critique of money's influence in politics and evoked the anti-Semitic myth that Jews seek to control the world via money.
	The response by some, ranging from Chelsea Clinton to fellow U.S.
	Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, is to engage her in a type of educational discussion.
	Apparently, this has already been tried.
	Last year, State Senator Ron Latz, a St.
	Louis Park Democrat, who has served in the legislature since 2002, invited Omar to his house, where a number of Jewish leaders had gathered.
	It wasn't an ambush.
	Omar knew the group was there, and their purpose was to enlighten her.
	Maybe Omar, who spent four years from age 8 to 12 in a Kenyan camp for Somali refugees, just didn't understand.
	Latz recalled some wondering at the time.
	The apex or nadir of antisemitism, the Holocaust, would be a matter of European history for a then 36-year-old Muslim native of Somalia.
	Did she know it?
	The trappings of antisemitism in Minneapolis, restricted hospitals, country clubs, property covenants, were American manifestations that vanished decades before Omar came to America.
	The subtleties of language, the code words used to marginalize Jews.
	Did she understand the nuance?
	Latz recalled, we wanted to reach out to her.
	We were a bit troubled about several things she had said.
	Among those things was a 2012 tweet in which Omar wrote, As of Tuesday morning, Omar had still not deleted the tweet, even after supposedly apologizing for it.
	Apparently, Lattes emphasized the problem wasn't the policy dispute with Addiction and the tone they had a two-hour gathering with Ilhan Omar.
	He declined to recall the exact statements made by him or others, but here is his summary.
	Over the course of two hours, we shared with her our concerns for things, including language that has references and meanings beyond just the meanings of words.
	Tropes, dog whistles, call them what you will.
	We explained to her how hurtful and how factually inaccurate they were.
	Most of us came out of that conversation very troubled by the answers we received.
	Remember, this is four years ago.
	I was not convinced she was going to give a balanced approach to policy in the Middle East, and I was not convinced where her heart is on these things.
	Okay, so the bottom line is that Omar has been a longtime anti-Semite, she continues to traffic in anti-Semitism, and Democrats don't care.
	They don't.
	They forced a fake apology out of her.
	They're not removing her from any committee assignments.
	She's had to apologize for anti-Semitism two times in the last four weeks.
	When Steve King said a thing that was construed as openly racist, he was removed of all committee assignments by a Republican Congress.
	Ilhan Omar has twice in four weeks apologized for open antisemitism, and we're going to treat her like she's a five-year-old, as though she doesn't know what she's saying, when she's been saying openly antisemitic garbage for years on end.
	Why?
	Because, as I say, the Democrats brook no forgiveness for people who violate the standards they care about, but they don't actually care about anti-Semitism.
	Their forgiveness is readily available.
	Their Ilhan Omar maintains her status as a fresh face of the Democratic Party.
	AOC maintains her status as a fresh face.
	Rashida Tlaib, another anti-Semite, retains her status as a fresh face.
	Because anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party is not a violation of standards.
	It is, in fact, the new standard.
	The new standard is anti-Israel, anti-Zionism that borders and crosses over into anti-Semitism all too frequently.
	Alrighty, time for some things I like and some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like...
	Bill Gates is apparently fed up with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well he should be, because her proposals are silly, they are backwards, they are asinine, they are counterproductive.
	Even Bill Gates, who's a very left-leaning dude, a career Democrat, he says that AOC is missing the big picture, that she just doesn't get it.
	What do you make of the notion that our government should work harder?
	That the idea that we should just tax folks like you at a 70% marginal tax rate, and that that money should be used to build infrastructure and services like this?
	Certainly the idea of the government being more effective in terms of how it runs education or social programs, you know, there's a lot of opportunity for improvement there.
	We can be more progressive, the estate tax and the tax on capital, the way the FICA Social Security tax worked, we can be more progressive without really threatening the income generation.
	So you're not like in a modern monetary theory that says, don't worry about the deficit, we'll just print the money and do it.
	That is some crazy talk.
	I mean, it's certainly out there.
	It's gaining currency.
	Well, that's crazy.
	It will come and bite you.
	That is, the people you owe the money to, you will have a problem.
	Well, Bill Gates, who knows something about money generation and generating jobs, and is a career Democrat, is coming out and saying the New Democratic Party is out of its mind.
	He will be cast out with scorn and hatred within the next five years.
	The Democratic Party has just moved too far to the left.
	Now, if we're going to become the Soviet Union, if AOC were to receive fruition, we would nationalize all industry, we would abolish capitalism and all the rest.
	People would die.
	It would be a pretty terrible place.
	It would be pretty awful for the economy of the world.
	The Soviet Union, an awful, evil, terrible, no good, very bad place.
	The one thing, the one upside, they had a great national anthem.
	I mean, I know, awkward, but they did.
	In fact, the National Anthem for the Soviet Union was so good that Vladimir Putin recently brought it back and changed the words, because the National Anthem for the Soviets is pretty great.
	Here's a little bit of the Soviet National Anthem.
	and we may as well just get used to it since presumably this will be played at the 2024 Democratic National Convention when AOC is nominated.
	AOC is nominated.
	AOC is nominated.
	Unbelievably evil country, fantastic National Anthem.
	So, there's that.
	I mean, if we're gonna go down this path, maybe we can... I mean, it's a better National Anthem than our National Anthem, just on a musical level.
	Not on a freedom level, obviously, but on a musical level, I've been a long-time believer that we should actually substitute America the Beautiful for our National Anthem.
	I think the Star-Spangled Banner is just musical garbage.
	It actually was an old British drinking song.
	Did you know that?
	Interesting.
	Anyway, so...
	That is that.
	Also, if you enjoy that, you can watch the Hunt for Red October, where people actually sing the Soviet National Anthem to let the Americans find the Soviet defectors, which is pretty great.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	Okay, so, over the last couple of days, President Trump held this rally in El Paso.
	It was a big story because a cameraman was attacked at the Trump rally.
	There's a little bit of tape of what that actually looked like.
	Like, here was President Trump speaking, and then you will see what happened to this camera person.
	Okay, it's a little bit hard to see, but basically there's a cameraman, a guy in a MAGA hat pushed the but basically there's a cameraman, a guy in a MAGA hat pushed Now, what the media are not reporting is that the crowd started booing the guy who pushed over the reporter, and he was being held back by another guy in a MAGA hat.
	So, you know, that seems to me a bad person doing a bad thing.
	And other people there stopping him.
	The White House Correspondents Association then tried to blame it on Trump.
	The White House Correspondents Association put out a statement saying that they condemn the physical attack on our colleague at the President's rally in El Paso, Texas.
	We're relieved that this time no one was seriously hurt.
	The President of the United States should make absolutely clear to his supporters that violence against reporters is unacceptable.
	Well, honestly, like the administration has said that multiple times.
	And they repeated that this morning with Sarah Huckabee Sanders going on TV and saying, of course, we condemn this violence.
	We don't want violence against reporters.
	We just think that they should stop fibbing.
	But those those are completely separable.
	Reporters should actually report the news and be better at their jobs.
	And also, separately, no one should attack anybody else in a civilized country.
	You condemn any sort of attacks on anybody, right?
	Absolutely.
	And the idea that the president or anybody on his team or in his administration would encourage violence is absolutely absurd.
	The president stopped, asked, and made sure everyone was okay before continuing on with the event.
	Certainly, we condemn violence in any form against anyone, and that certainly includes the press.
	Of course that's true.
	There's this weird relationship the press has to free speech where they say that certain speech causes violence but not if it's leftist speech.
	So Bernie Sanders' supporter shoots a bunch of Congress people on a baseball field?
	Nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
	Which, by the way, I generally agree with.
	A Trump supporter assaults a journalist at a Trump rally?
	Obviously Trump's fault.
	You can't have it both ways.
	Okay, either words only cause violence when you're actively encouraging violence, or words cause violence if a cracked person could take them to heart.
	You're gonna have to choose.
	And if that's the case, then Beto O'Rourke should preemptively condemn violence, because at his rally, there were people who were beating the living crap out of a Donald Trump piñata.
	So the pinata is not a person, but I think it's fair to say this is a somewhat violent activity, obviously.
	So good times over there at the Beto rally.
	Again, the tenor of politics in our country does have to change pretty radically, but I think that if the media are going to try and blame Trump for violence, then they're going to have to hold an equal standard.
	I'm a big fan of objective standards.
	I like a country of rules, not arbitrarily applied standards.
	I like to know what the rules are before we get into the political game in the first place.
	Okay, we'll be back a little bit later today with two more hours, which is why you should subscribe at dailywire.com.
	If not, we will see you back here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villarreal.
	Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Adam Sajovic.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Karomina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

▲