All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:20
Omar Oh My! | Ep. 717
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe comes out and says that the 25th Amendment was considered against President Trump, the media struggled to exonerate Ilhan Omar of anti-Semitism, and we talk about the one-year anniversary of Parkland.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
All righty, so we're going to get to all the news, and it is a big news day today.
First, we need to talk about the U.S.
national debt.
You remember 2008?
Remember there was this guy named Obama?
He was elected.
And the U.S.
national debt at the time was $10 trillion.
Today, the debt is nearly $22 trillion.
It is rising like a hockey stick.
If you don't think that we're sitting on a house of cards, you're living with your head in the sand.
But since you're listening to the podcast, You're already smarter than the average American.
So what exactly is your plan?
Can you afford another hit to your retirement like the last downturn when the S&P dropped 50%?
Well, this is why you should put at least some of your money in a hedge against inflation and uncertainty with some precious metals.
Gold is a safe haven against uncertainty.
My savings plan is diversified and yours should be as well.
The company I trust with precious metal purchases is Birch Gold Group.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
It's perfect for people who want to protect their hard-earned retirement savings from any future geopolitical uncertainty.
Look back historically.
When the bottom falls out of everything else, gold tends to safeguard savings.
Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Contact Birch Gold's group.
Get a free information kit on physical precious metals.
See if diversifying into gold and silver makes some sense for you.
That comprehensive 16-page kit reveals how gold and silver can protect your savings.
To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit, text BEN to 474747.
474747 again text ben my name to 474747 to get that no cost no obligation kit alrighty so the big news today is that former acting fbi director andrew mccabe now has i believe a new book coming He has an interview with Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes.
And in this interview, in this interview, he tells Scott Pelley that he and a bunch of other people at the FBI and inside the DOJ considered recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Here is Scott Pelley reporting that from CBS this morning.
The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn't know about.
There were meetings at the Justice Department in which it was discussed whether the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the President of the United States under the 25th Amendment.
These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel.
And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.
Okay, and this is fully insane, right?
If you recall, this was first reported by the New York Times.
They reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who's always been seen by President Trump as sort of anti-Trump, as the guy who was allowing Robert Mueller to run wild in the Mueller investigation.
The New York Times reported last year that Rod Rosenstein had basically convened meetings about whether the 25th Amendment could be used to declare President Trump mentally unfit.
That's not his job.
That was not his job.
That was the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Not his job.
The decision as to whether the 25th Amendment could be invoked or should be invoked would have to be initiated by at least a sitting cabinet member, you would imagine.
It can't just be some low-level staffer over at the Attorney General's office who decides, you know what, let's have some internal discussions about removing the President of the United States, specifically in the aftermath of the President firing the FBI Director.
Which, by the way, he has every right to do.
Trump has responded in a pair of tweets on Thursday morning after Rosenstein said that McCabe's account of the discussion was inaccurate and factually incorrect.
Trump responded in Twitter form.
He said, disgraced FBI acting director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a poor little angel when in fact he was a big part of the crooked Hillary scandal and the Russia hoax, a puppet for Lincoln James Comey.
IG report on McCabe was devastating.
Part of insurance policy in case I won.
Many of the FBI top brass were fired, forced to leave or left.
McCabe's wife received big dollars from Clinton people for her campaign.
He gave Hillary a pass.
McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our country.
All capitals make America great again.
Now, Trump is not wrong to rip into Andrew McCabe.
You'll recall that Andrew McCabe was originally fired for lack of candor.
He was fired last year.
He had denied any wrongdoing and he claimed after he was fired that he was innocent and he justified his leak by claiming that James Comey knew about it.
He had leaked to the media that there were developments in the Hillary Clinton case.
He had leaked that to the Wall Street Journal and then he had lied about it internally.
Katie Pavlich has a piece over at The Hill about this a few months back.
She says that McCabe hired a K Street lobbying firm to set up a legal fund where he raised $500,000 from sympathetic leftists who viewed his firing as unjust, even cruel, since it happened just two days before his retirement.
You remember, he was stripped of his retirement because of the firing.
The truth is McCabe's line was worse than previously imagined and cited for his firing.
Speculation about his lack of candor was overwhelmingly confirmed by a long-awaited Office of the Inspector General report late last week Which showed that McCabe's behavior was not only dishonest, but that he lied multiple times under oath to OIG investigators and FBI agents.
OIG investigators concluded his repeated lying was calculated and beneficial to him, not the Bureau or the agents who work inside of it.
According to the report, as detailed in this report, the OIG found that then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions in connection with describing his role, in connection with a disclosure to the Wall Street Journal, and that conduct violated FBI code.
The OIG also concluded that McCabe's disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in the manner described in this report violated the FBI's and Department's media policy and constituted misconduct.
Now, does that mean that McCabe was part of the quote-unquote Russia hoax?
Does that mean that McCabe was actively undermining the president in 2016?
It doesn't mean that because If you recall, the reason that he was fired was because he leaked information about Hillary Clinton to the Wall Street Journal.
Nonetheless, McCabe has some honesty problems, obviously, and him suggesting that inside the DOJ there were actual meetings about getting rid of President Trump is pretty insane stuff.
According to the New York Times, they reported last year that Rod Rosenstein, who is currently the Acting Attorney General, had suggested, or he's the Deputy Attorney General, he suggested that he secretly record President Trump in the White House.
Which is pretty insane.
Rosenstein disputed the account.
A Justice Department official said he made the remarks sarcastically.
The accounts tended to back up Rosenstein's account, but McCabe told Pelley that Rosenstein's offer to wear a wire was made more than once, and that he ultimately took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss.
McCabe, who was named acting director of the bureau after Comey's firing, launched obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.
Now that's the part where McCabe becomes part of the quote-unquote deep state.
Launching investigations that are entirely baseless or based on speculation just because you don't like that your boss got fired?
That is not justifiable.
There was no evidence at the time that obstruction of justice was what had caused President Trump to fire, to fire James Comey.
President Trump said pretty openly the reason that he fired James Comey is because Comey wouldn't just say that he wasn't under investigation at the time.
And yet McCabe launched these obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into Trump.
That looks pretty damning.
It looks pretty damning.
McCabe says, I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid grounds in indelible fashion that where I removed quickly or reassigned or fired that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.
Now, again, that is not his job.
The FBI is still a part of the executive branch.
The president of the United States still has unitary power over that executive branch.
If the president were to step in and actively stop an investigation, then presumably that would be obstruction of justice.
You'd have whistleblowers and the president would be in danger of impeachment.
But that is not what happened here.
And McCabe saying that he was setting in process a bunch of investigations specifically with an eye toward the possibility that Trump was some sort of foreign agent is pretty crazy stuff.
In an excerpt of the book published Thursday in the Atlantic, because he has a new book coming out, which is why he's doing all of this, McCabe describes a phone call he received from Trump on his first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI.
According to McCabe, Trump told him he had hundreds of messages from FBI people saying how happy they are that I fired Comey.
You know, boy, it's incredible.
It's such a great thing.
People are really happy about the fact the director's gone.
It's just remarkable what people are saying, Trump said, according to McCabe.
Have you seen that?
Are you seeing that too?
McCabe was eventually fired in March 2018.
So McCabe coming forward with this bombshell once again is going to raise the specter that President Trump is not in the wrong when he says that there are motivated people inside the DOJ and the FBI who are attempting to oust him from office without proper evidence.
If that is true, if inside the DOJ there were actual meetings about invoking the 25th Amendment without a single member of Trump's cabinet asking for it or asking for that investigation, that's pretty insane stuff.
Again, that is not their job.
That is not their job.
And Trump has every right to be extraordinarily upset about all of that.
Meanwhile, President Trump is deciding whether or not to sign this border wall deal.
It appears pretty obvious that today President Trump is going to sign the border wall deal.
It doesn't actually provide tons of money for the border wall.
It provides about 1.375 billion dollars for additional border fencing.
According to the New York Times, Congress will move quickly on Thursday to pass a border security deal that deprives President Trump of what might be his last chance to build his wall.
It doesn't really deprive him of the chance.
I mean, President Trump Maybe reelected?
Maybe he uses his executive powers in order to build more fencing along the drug corridors?
The New York Times, though, is hopeful that Trump signs this into law.
The Senate will vote first on the legislation, which includes the seven remaining bills to keep the final quarter of the government open through the end of September.
House and Senate negotiators unveiled the 1,159-page bill just before midnight on Thursday, leaving little time for lawmakers to actually digest its contents.
First of all, this kind of stuff has to stop.
This, this is just not the way government was ever supposed to work.
That negotiators were supposed to dump 1,200 page bills in front of the people voting on it the night before.
Number one, no bill should be this long.
Every bill should be about three pages long in English that people can understand with a legislative synopsis and should be posted 24 hours, at least before voting.
And we should have a chance and an opportunity to peruse the actual bill.
Dropping 1,200 page omnibus packages is just a way for legislators to escape responsibility for their culpability in writing garbage bills that are just crap sandwiches.
Passage is expected tonight when the House takes it up.
Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa and the President pro tem of the Senate, began Thursday's session by praying that President Trump will sign the bill.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said the agreement is something both sides should view as an important step.
Passing the bill, McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor, will provide the certainty of a fully functioning federal government.
Bottom line is that nobody has the taste for another government shutdown at this point, which is why President Trump is likely to sign this into law.
The final result?
Not a lot of wall gets built.
Ann Coulter hardest hit.
And President Trump, I guess, gets the political victory of being able to point to the Democrats and say, these folks don't care about border security going into 2020.
The border security compromise, which is tucked into the $49 billion portion of the bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security, represents the most stinging legislative defeat of Mr. Trump's presidency, according to The New York Times.
It provides $1.375 billion for 55 miles of steel post fencing.
A pale comparison to the $5.7 billion request for more than 200 miles of steel or concrete wall the president wanted is actually less in mileage and money than what was included in the deal the president rejected in December.
But the money allocated for fencing and immigration detention was more than what the left flank of the Democratic Party had wanted because they wanted to actually abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
So is it a good deal?
No, it's a garbage deal.
Is Trump going to sign it?
Probably.
Will he try to find another way to build some of this border fencing?
I'm sure that he will.
It is a sign of bad negotiation by the president.
At the very least, it's a sign of bad negotiation.
So there are two takeaways.
The president is not the great negotiator he claims to be when it comes to negotiating with Democrats.
This is the second time he has caved to Democrats.
You'll recall a couple of years ago, he went around Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and just signed a deal straight with the Democrats, giving them everything they wanted on the budget.
He's not a great negotiator.
Okay, just end of story.
The president is not.
Number two, it demonstrates once again, Democrats do not care very much about border security, and they are willing to allow the border to remain a thoroughfare for drugs and gangs and illegal immigration, if it means dealing President Trump a political blow.
Okay, in just a second, I want to get to the anti-Semitism controversy that continues on the Democratic side of the aisle.
First, let's talk about you getting a suit that fits you better.
I know, you think you can go down and pick up a A suit at a department store from the rack and it looks like it doesn't.
It looks like you're wearing a tarp.
Instead, you should go over to Indochino.
Indochino is the world's most exciting made-to-measure menswear company.
They make suits and shirts to your exact measurements for an unparalleled fit and comfort.
You want to feel like James Bond?
Go to an Indochino store.
They let you pick all of your customizations.
They measure you out for a suit that is custom tailored to you.
If you're getting married, they have tons of options for people looking to outfit their wedding party.
Guys love the wide selection of high-quality fabrics and colors to choose from.
Not to mention, you can personalize the details, including lapel, lining, pockets, buttons.
You can write your own monogram.
Here's how it works.
You visit a stylist at their showroom.
They will take your measurements personally, or you can measure yourself at home and shop online at Indochino.com.
Get all of those personalizations, and then you just wait, and the suit arrives, and it is ready to wear.
It fits you great.
This week, my listeners can get any premium Indochino suit for just $359 at Indochino.com when you enter promo code SHAPIRO at checkout.
That is 50% off the regular price for a made-to-measure premium suit, plus shipping is free.
Indochino.com, promo code SHAPIRO for any premium suit for just $359 and free shipping.
It's an incredible deal for a premium made-to-measure suit.
Once you go custom, you're not going to want to go back.
Check out Indochino.com.
Use that promo code SHAPIRO to let them know that we sent you and to get that special deal, $359 for a suit.
All right, so the president, if he signs this, will be dealing a blow to his own border agenda.
There's just no way around that.
However, going into 2020, does that have any actual impact?
The answer is actually no.
Over the last month, the president has gained substantially in his average approval ratings.
In the Gallup tracking poll, the president is up something like 7% over the last month and a half, despite the government shutdown, despite all of this.
Why?
Because the more that the president can show the Democrats in the proper light, the more he can show how radical they are, the better it will be for him.
We live in a binary system.
President Trump's approval ratings are not completely dependent on President Trump.
Much of his approval rating is dependent on how terrible the Democrats are.
And fortunately for President Trump, the Democrats are pretty damn terrible.
Speaking of which, in just a second, I want to get to the latest in the Ilhan Omar controversy.
So...
Ilhan Omar continues to be a horrible congressperson.
Just an awful, awful congressperson.
Yesterday she made a fool of herself when she was interviewing Elliott Abrams.
Elliott Abrams is the special envoy to Venezuela.
Elliott Abrams has been a lifelong envoy to South America during the 1980s.
He worked with a bunch of governments in South America.
Now, you'll have to recall that in the 1980s, there were serious conflicts in South America in which the Soviet Union was specifically attempting to overthrow certain governments in South America and Latin and Central America, attempting to overthrow those governments and put in place communist dictatorships.
And the United States was deeply involved in funding a lot of regimes that were bad.
But the question is, were those regimes actually worse than communist dictatorships?
The answer was no.
Nonetheless, is it true that the United States has unclean hands in South America?
Of course, that's true.
Elliott Abrams was working for the Reagan administration.
He was not in favor of human rights violations.
He was in the middle of a Cold War and he was attempting to make changes in South America and work with governments making changes in South America that would eventually lead to democracy.
So, he worked, for example, in El Salvador.
In El Salvador, there was a civil war between a communist uprising, a communist front group that was run basically by the Soviet Union and funded by the Soviet Union.
The United States backed the El Salvadorian government, which was a dictatorship.
In 1984, there was an election in El Salvador, and that began the process of transition away from military dictatorship and toward a A democracy that did not violate human rights in the same way during the same period the United States took in hundreds of thousands of Salvadorian refugees.
So it is simply not true that the Reagan administration, the Clinton administration, they turned a blind eye to all of the human rights violations in El Salvador.
Omar was, Ilhan Omar, was asking Elliott Abrams questions and you have to understand, The reason that she was going hard after Elliott Abrams was not really because of things she suspected that he did back in the 1980s.
That is not the real reason she's going hard after him.
The real reason Ilhan Omar is going hard after him is because she is a defender of the Maduro regime.
So for a lady who is complaining about human rights violations in the 1980s, she's sure doing an amazing job of defending one of the worst human rights violators on planet Earth, Nicolas Maduro and the socialist evil regime that exists in Venezuela.
So Ilhan Omar, The U.S.
policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement.
Yes or no, do you still think so?
From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy.
That's a fabulous achievement.
Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?
That is a ridiculous question.
Yes or no?
No!
I will take that as a yes.
I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack, which is not a question.
Okay, and of course, he is exactly right.
Also, Democrats should know by now, no means no.
No does not mean yes.
The idea that she can say, do you believe in human rights violations?
And he says, no.
And she says, well, I'll take that as a yes.
Well then, take a hike.
Take a hike, lady.
I mean, what vile nastiness.
By the way, she doesn't even know what she's talking about.
I mean, she was questioning him about Iran-Contra, and she was mispronouncing half of her words.
She legitimately doesn't know anything about the topic she's questioning about.
Her staff preps her, and then she goes out and asks questions by mispronouncing the actual words that she's supposed to be saying.
Mr. Adams, in 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Qortra affair, for which you were later bartered by President George H.W.
Bush.
On February 8th, 1982, you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about U.S.
policy in El Salvador.
In that hearing, you dismissed, as Communist Propaganda Report, about the massacre of El Mesote.
Okay, so look, she doesn't know what she's talking about, and she's a nasty human being, to not even allow Abrams to answer the questions.
I don't know what the purpose of these hearings is other than to provide these sort of moments for the fresh faces of the Democratic Party, so fresh, so face, to demonstrate how they can destroy Republicans, and then we just clip out the part where he answers, and then we pretend that she did an amazing job of tearing him down.
But that is not the extent of the defense of Ilhan Omar.
So Ilhan Omar did that yesterday.
If a Republican congressperson did that to any Democratic nominee, everybody would be up in arms in the media.
Instead, she was cheered as a real truth-teller by members of the media.
But it's not just that.
Ilhan Omar is a lifelong anti-Semite, or at least a career-long anti-Semite.
Her record of anti-Semitism is clear and convincing.
It was not just that she tweeted something out that was anti-Semitic last weekend.
Hey, as I said, with regard to Ralph Northam, you have to judge people by their body of work.
When that photo came out of Ralph Northam from 1985, I asked the question, do you actually think that Ralph Northam is a racist?
That was a racist thing to do.
Do you think that Ralph Northam is actually a racist based on his 59 years on this planet?
Do you think that overall he is a human being today is a racist?
And the answer, by way of his record, is probably no.
It's probably no.
And the same thing is true of Attorney General Mark Herring, in the same state, who dressed up as a rapper in 1980.
The point that I'm making is that people say dumb, ignorant stuff sometimes.
They do dumb, ignorant stuff sometimes.
And when people do dumb and ignorant stuff, and we can adjudge that it has been dumb and ignorant, then forgiveness is in the cards.
Forgiveness is not in the cards when you have a long record of doing bad stuff and then you say a thing.
When you have a long record of saying things and then you say another thing.
At that point, forgiveness is not in the cards, nor should we adjudicate your statement in the same way we would as if it was the first time that somebody else had said it.
Ilhan Omar has a long record of this sort of garbage.
We'll go through that record briefly.
Ilhan Omar She tweeted out, let's start with her Israel has hypnotized the world tweet.
She started out in 2012 and she tweeted, quote, Israel has hypnotized the world.
May Allah awaken the people and help them to see the evil doings of Israel.
Hashtag Gaza.
Hashtag Palestine.
Hashtag Israel.
And then, she still says, like today, that Israel does not have a right to exist.
Right?
That's a thing that she still says, like today.
Okay, so that was 2012.
Nothing has changed.
Nothing has changed.
In the last month, she said Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.
I'll show you that clip in just a second.
So nothing has changed.
There's a long record here.
And I'll explain why this matters in just a second.
First, let's talk about the safety and security of your home.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you'll get an alert and be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone.
That is thanks to HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
My family has a Ring device on our outer fence.
It is spectacularly useful.
We can tell who is showing up.
If I'm away from home, I can answer the doorbell so people don't know whether I'm home or not.
As a listener, you have a special offer on a Ring Starter Kit available right now.
With a Ring Video Doorbell and a Motion-Activated Floodlight Cam, the Starter Kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home.
This stuff is really necessary.
A lot of break-ins occurring in major cities around the country, and a lot of those break-ins happen when somebody rings the doorbell to determine if you're home, and then they break into your house.
Ring prevents that because you can pick up your phone anywhere, they don't know if you're home or not, and you can call the cops.
Just go to ring.com slash ben.
That is ring.com slash ben.
Ring.com slash ben.
And that helps you get that special offer on a Ring Starter Kit available right now.
Ring.com slash ben.
Make your home and your neighborhood safer by extension.
Okay, before I get to the rest of Ilhan Omar and her long record of antisemitism, I've been getting emails from people asking me to define antisemitism.
Because people are doing this routine on the left where they say, being anti-Israel doesn't mean that you're anti-Semitic.
Opposing certain actions that Israel takes does not mean that you're anti-Semitic, obviously.
Opposing actions taken by the Israeli government or perspectives of the Israeli government on particular issues does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
I'm not anti-American, and I oppose some of the policies of every administration.
I'm not anti-Israel, obviously, and I oppose many policies of the Israeli government.
Most obviously, the 2005 pullout from the Gaza Strip that turned over the entire place to the terrorist group Hamas.
That's not anti-Semitic.
What is anti-Semitic is believing, one, that Israel does not have a right to exist, two, treating Israel in a way that you would never treat any other state.
So holding them to a standard you would hold no other state And three, suggesting that Jews everywhere are responsible for the specific actions of Israel and punishing Jews as a collective for the actions of the Israeli government.
So you see this in Europe a lot.
Every time Israel's in a war, people try to burn down synagogues.
That's obviously anti-Semitism.
It is also anti-Semitic to buy into giant anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
The idea that the Jews are manipulating world events as a collective.
We get together at our synagogues and we control the weather and the financial system and the media.
That's anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nonsense.
The problem for Ilhan Omar is that she believes a lot of these things.
And it is obvious from her statements and her activities that she does believe a lot of these things.
By the way, my suggestion that this is what anti-Semitism is, is not unique to me.
It is the State Department definition of anti-Semitism.
Here are some of the examples of anti-Semitism that the plenary in Bucharest decided to declare in the Stockholm Declaration are anti-Semitic.
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective.
Such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Accusing the Jews as a people or Israel as a state of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, the dual loyalty canard that is engaged in openly by Rashida Tlaib.
Hey, that is definitional anti-Semitism according to the State Department.
of their own nations, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
That is definitional anti-Semitism according to the State Department.
Here's Ilhan Omar doing exactly that in the last month.
When I see Israel Institute law that recognizes it as a Jewish state and does not recognize the other religions that are living in it, and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East, I almost chuckle because I know that You know, we see that in any other society.
We would criticize it.
We would call it out.
We do that to Iran.
We do that to any other place that sort of upholds its religion.
Okay, she's just lying now.
She's lying openly.
Muslims have more rights in Israel than they do in any Muslim state anywhere in the Middle East.
Islam is a religion that is protected by Israeli law.
Mosques are protected by Israeli law.
The Islamic Waqf controls the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount itself.
She's just full of it, right?
And her suggestion that Israel cannot exist as a Jewish state is an anti-Semitic canard and fully in keeping with everything that she has said in the past.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, another State Department-recognized version of anti-Semitism.
Using symbols and images associated with classical anti-semitism, claims of Jews killing Jesus, or the blood libel, to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Bottom line is this, if we're going to analyze anti-semitism, and I've done this before on the program, it seems to me that in the modern world there are three types of anti-semitism.
One is old school religious antisemitism, the belief that Judaism is a gutter religion in the view of Louis Farrakhan.
That is sort of classical antisemitism, that Judaism is inherently evil and terrible and wrong and therefore it must be wiped out, right?
That is classical antisemitism.
You can say religious antisemitism.
Then there is racial antisemitism, the idea that the Jews as a race are nefarious, evil, Attempting to undermine society, right?
That is the second type of antisemitism.
You see that mostly associated with sort of alt-right, Nazi-esque groups.
The idea that the Jews are a separate group of people genetically, and therefore, they have an agenda all their own.
And then, there's the left-wing version of antisemitism, and that is that the world is made up of people who are more privileged and less privileged.
Jews are more privileged, therefore, the Jews are engaging in activity to keep their privilege to themselves.
And that crosses over a lot with intersectional theory.
So people wonder how it is that the far left, which doesn't share a lot of priorities with radical Islam, seems to share priorities when it comes to Israel and antisemitism.
And the answer is, because there's a lot of crossover.
Radical Islam says religiously Jews are evil and also they cross over into Nazi territory with the Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys.
Israel is a gutter state.
Israel shouldn't exist.
And then you have the far left, which says that Israel obviously is a victimizing, exploiting state and uses its world power in order to hypnotize the world.
There's a lot of crossover between these two things.
So, is Ilhan Omar anti-Semitic?
Yes, she's anti-Semitic.
She's been anti-Semitic for years.
There is nothing new here.
There were those of us who were calling it out for legitimately months before she was elected, as soon as she started making the national stage.
I mean, this is a woman who appeared on a show with a guy who suggested that Israel was the Jewish ISIS.
And she joked on that show about people in the United States taking too seriously and being too afraid of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
This is back from 2013.
I remember when I was in college, I took a terrorism class.
Is there a such thing?
Yeah, there was.
So you go, there is a lab for that?
There was a class.
Do you go to the lab?
No, we learned the ideology.
I'm glad you do that.
And so the thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said Al-Qaeda, his shoulders went up.
He's in command here.
He's an expert.
Okay, so yeah, we can laugh about al-Qaeda, we can laugh about Hezbollah.
She suggested at the time, by the way, that it's American action in the Middle East that causes terrorism in the Middle East, which is, of course, a trope that is used by radical Islamists all over the world.
So, there's nothing new under the sun.
There's a reason Ilhan Omar celebrated with Linda Sarsour During the Women's March, there's a reason that she interviewed with that same guy, that same anti-Semite that she was talking to right there.
She interviewed with that guy again in January 2017.
There's a reason that in less than two weeks, she's supposed to speak at an event next to an open anti-Semitic pro-terror leader.
But we're supposed to pretend that she's not an anti-Semite.
The reason that this is relevant, I will explain in just one second.
The reason I'm laying all of this out I'll explain.
First, let's talk about how you protect yourself.
When the founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was to 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 how strongly I believe in those principles?
I'm a gun owner.
And owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
Building rifles is no different.
This is why Bravo Company Manufacturing was started.
It 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 provided 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, and they assume that each rifle leaving their shop will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
Each 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 it's not just a paper target, but someone coming to do them harm.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com Where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
That is BravoCompanyMFG.com.
If you need more convincing, check them out at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
Great company, wonderful people, and their product is awesome.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Go check it out right now.
All right, the second, I'm going to get to why it is important to lay out Ilhan Omar's entire history.
Because doing so completely deflates the media's attempts to defend her and the Democrats' attempts to defend her.
I'll explain in just one second.
But first, you're going to have to go and subscribe over at dailywire.com.
For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live.
You get two additional hours every day of this show, every afternoon.
And you can ask me questions during our radio breaks.
So, as you know, those last two hours are part of a three-hour packaged syndicated show that goes out to hundreds of stations all around the country.
But you can only listen to old episodes if you're a subscriber at Daily Wire.
You missed the show?
Well, now you can listen to it.
Commercial free, by the way.
You go over at Daily Wire and check that out for $99 a year.
You get all that stuff.
You get to be part of the Daily Wire backstage, ask me questions.
When I do the radio show during the breaks, I answer questions sometimes.
You get to do all those things and get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler for $99 a year.
So that's a solid deal.
Go check it out right now.
Subscribe over at YouTube and iTunes as well.
Make sure that you do so that you get our Sunday special.
When you subscribe to the Daily Wire, you actually get the Sunday special on Saturday, so you can actually watch stuff early, which is pretty awesome, so you won't have to even spend one day without me.
I know.
I know.
What a dream.
What a dream.
You get all those things when you subscribe.
Go check it out right now.
Right now we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So the reason to lay out Ilhan Omar's entire record here is to suggest that when she makes an anti-Semitic comment in 2019 that is consistent with anti-Semitic commentary she has been issuing for legitimately 10 years, for every moment she has been in the public eye, that this is not in fact a break from her perspective.
It is an integral part to her perspective.
And we should be treating her the same way publicly that the Republicans treated Steve King.
The reason that Steve King went under the bus is because Steve King for years had been saying stuff that was really, really on the line.
And there was a way to interpret some of those things as not nefarious.
And then all of that exploded when he made these comments about white nationalism and why should we treat white nationalism as a term of no value.
Once he did that, I was like, okay, well now we have to go back and look at his whole record in that light.
With Ilhan Omar, you didn't even need this comment to do it.
She's apologized for anti-Semitism two times in the last month.
That's who Ilhan Omar is.
Now the reason I also bring this up is because the media have attempted to suggest that President Trump and Ilhan Omar are somehow alike when it comes to the issue of anti-semitism.
This is plainly absurd.
It is plainly absurd and frankly it's insulting.
So it's insulting to the intelligence.
And now listen, President Trump has said stuff that can be perceived as anti-semitic.
He has done stuff that can be perceived as engaging in anti-semitic tropes.
The reason this came up is because yesterday, we'll start at the beginning, President Trump suggested Ilhan Omar should resign.
So here was President Trump yesterday saying that Ilhan Omar should resign.
Now she should resign, but she shouldn't resign because she tweeted out an anti-Semitic thing over the weekend.
She should resign because she's an anti-Semite.
She should be kicked off her committees, certainly not be on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for God's sake, because she is an anti-Semite for as long as she has been in public life, and she has never once wavered from that sentiment, ever.
She may have been cudgeled into saying that she made a mild boo-boo.
But she's as anti-Semitic as she ever was.
We laid out her record.
Here is President Trump, though, focusing in.
There's a mistake.
He focuses in on the anti-Semitic trope that she used over the weekend as though that's the real problem, not the long record of anti-Semitism that preceded it and engaged with this particular comment.
Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress.
And Congressman Omar is Terrible what she said, and I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology, and that's what it was.
It was lame, and she didn't mean a word of it.
Was just not appropriate.
I think she should resign from Congress.
Okay, Trump is exactly right when he says this is deep-seated in her heart.
That is obvious from every action.
All of them are consistent.
There has never been a point, a point where you can say that this is a philo-semitic person or even a neutral-semitic person.
Like, there's no way to do that.
None.
So Ilhan Omar naturally went back at Trump by suggesting that he's a racist and a bigot and all this stuff.
She says, Okay, that is a lie.
She has not learned from people impacted by her words.
It's a bunch of nonsense.
Muslims, indigenous immigrants, black people, and more.
I learned from people impacted by my words.
When will you?
Okay, that is a lie.
She has not learned from people impacted by her words.
It's a bunch of nonsense.
Yesterday on the program, I read you a piece from the Twin Cities Tribune, from Minneapolis Star Tribune, in which Jewish leaders went to Ilhan Omar years ago and tried to have a sit down with her in anti-Semitic intervention and came away completely disturbed by everything So she's just lying about that.
The misdirection by the media from Omar to Trump is a very convenient ploy, but it is not realistic for a few reasons.
Number one, Ilhan Omar's apology was complete bunk.
The reason it was bunk is because she went right back to engaging in the same stereotypical tropes that she used a minute before.
She just got rid of a little bit of the conspiracy theory.
So what she did is she says, Jewish money is responsible for American-Israel support.
AIPAC!
And then she apologized.
She said, oh, I guess that was offensive.
But it's AIPAC money that's responsible for Jewish-American support.
I mean, for America's support of Israel.
That is carving it back just enough so we can pretend it's not anti-semitic.
But, again, every comment that she's made for 10 years has been basically anti-semitic when it comes to Israel and Jews, so I'm not sure what we're supposed to take away from that.
Also, does this seem like a person who is deeply, deeply regretful of her activity?
Yesterday, she sent out an email that was raising money off the entire issue.
Adam Rubenstein tweeted this out.
If you go to ilhanomar.com, she actually is raising money off of this, saying, we will not be silenced.
Stand with Ilhan.
We will not be silenced.
We will not be silenced?
No one's trying to silence you.
We're trying to say that you say terrible, terrible things, and that you've taken terrible positions and associated with terrible people, all of which is true.
Does this seem like the activity of a person who is deeply regretful of her actions?
Here was Ilhan Omar being asked about this by a CNN reporter.
Did she stop and say, listen, I am, I've already said I'm deeply sorry about this.
It was a mistake.
It came out of ignorance and I've learned from it.
No, here's how she acts when asked about it.
What's wrong with you?
I'm asking you a question about your tweet.
You had a tweet saying the President tried to talk to me.
Yes, I tweeted.
There's a response.
You can run that.
Have a nice day.
What a nasty human being.
She turns to Manu Raju, who is a reporter for CNN, by the way.
And she says, what's wrong with you?
What's wrong for even asking the question?
Yes, obviously, this is a person who is completely, completely apology ridden.
I mean, this is a person who feels complete penance in her heart, clearly.
Now, the media rushed to her defense, naturally.
The media rushed to her defense.
They suggest that the reason that she's being attacked is not because she has a long history of anti-Semitism.
The reason that she is the reason she is attacked is because she is a Muslim.
So here's Chris Cuomo doing that idiotic routine, this moronic block of wood on CNN, suggesting that the reason people are angry at Ilhan Omar is not because she has a long record of anti-Semitism, but because she's a Muslim woman and we just can't stand a Muslim woman in Congress.
Right.
Sure.
I mean, by the way, worth noting, I've stated on the show, I've stated on the show that I was happy that Congress changed its rules so that Muslim women could wear hijab on the floor.
I think it's a good thing.
I was against Trump's Muslim ban when he first proposed it back in 2015.
But apparently the reason that I'm anti-Ilhan Omar has nothing to do with a radical antisemitism.
It's just that she is a Somali woman who happens to be Muslim.
Now to the president.
He's calling for Omar to get out.
And that is interesting.
Because he seemed to say something very similar to what Omar said when addressing the Republican-Jewish coalition in 2015.
You're not going to support me because I don't want your money.
You want to control your own politician?
That's fine.
Now, why is it different?
Is it because Omar's Muslim?
And wears a hijab?
I hear a lot of that.
And it's not right.
Especially when you remember that this president has been down the road of intolerance more than most.
Okay, so there's Chris Cuomo doing that routine.
Jake Tapper did this routine as well.
He turned it into kind of a shtick on his show, which, you know, I like Jake as a reporter, but I thought that this was really ham-fisted and not fair.
I'll explain in just a second.
So, Jake Tapper on CNN yesterday turned the Ilhan Omar scandal against President Trump by playing old clips of President Trump engaging in anti-Semitic tropes.
Here was Tapper doing this with the help of his producers.
There is nothing that this White House finds more offensive than a politician feeding into stereotypes about Jews and Jewish money and controlling politicians, which is what Congresswoman Omar is accused of having done.
You know, you're not going to support me because I don't want your money.
You don't want to give me money, okay?
But that's okay.
You want to control your own politician.
That's fine.
I'm sorry, that was the wrong clip.
Control Room, I want the Omar clip.
Give us the Omar clip.
Wait, no, that's not it either.
That's a deleted Donald Trump retweet from 2016.
Please, the Omar tweet.
Can you show it, please?
This isn't it either.
This is unbelievable.
Okay, so a couple of things that are worth noting about the various clips that Jake Tapper shows right there.
First of all, the clip of Trump speaking is at the Republican-Jewish coalition.
So he's speaking at the Republican-Jewish coalition, and he followed that statement up by saying, I too have engaged in trying to buy politicians.
Okay, so a little context there is necessary.
It doesn't mean that he wasn't engaging in an awkward and ignorant anti-semitic trope.
He was.
And it doesn't mean that when he retweeted something from alt-right accounts, which he was doing consistently in 2016, that that was not forwarding the aspirations of the alt-right.
I was the number one recipient of anti-semitism online in 2016 from the alt-right, so I know this better than anyone.
However, if you are going to suggest that the real pro- This is why the media have been trying to boil down Ilhan Omar's sin, to this particular statement.
They don't want to talk about her entire record, because if they talk about her entire record, then the question becomes, why was she elected as an open anti-Semite in the first place?
Why are Democrats tolerating her continued open anti-Semitism?
If they can boil it down to, oh, she said a bad thing, well, Trump has said bad things in the past too, then it makes it easy to ignore the fact that Trump is also the most pro-Israel president in American history, that he has Jewish grandchildren, that his daughter is a convert to Judaism, his son-in-law, who is probably his top staffer, is also a Jew.
It makes it very easy to ignore all of those things when you focus in on the individual statements.
Now, as I said, as I said, you have to analyze people.
I said this at the very outside of this monologue.
You have to analyze people by the bulk of their work.
So, if Trump says an ignorant stereotype about Jews in front of the RJC, while simultaneously being incredibly pro-Jew across his business life, across his administration, in his family life, then you say, okay, probably this comes from ignorance.
If, however, an open anti-Semite for years says the same thing, then maybe we shouldn't take it exactly the same way.
If Ralph Northam, dressed in blackface in 1985, then spent the next 30 years caring for poor black children in the inner city in his doctor's office, I think maybe we should take that as a notion of ignorance, as opposed to an actual KKK member who spent 30 years terrorizing black people and burning crosses on their lawn, dressing up in blackface.
In other words, the activity itself can be bad in both contexts, but how we adjudicate the person based on the activity changes based on the lifetime of experience.
So by just saying the real problem is Ilhan Omar's comment, not Ilhan Omar's viewpoint, What the left is doing is escaping culpability for their own complicity in antisemitism.
That's what's happening here.
They're pushing against Trump in order to avoid the fact that the left has become very, very comfortable with antisemitism in their own ranks.
And look at the media trying to defend Ilhan Omar.
Here's Brooke Baldwin on CNN saying, well, you know what?
You know, Ilhan Omar apologized, so we should let it go at this point.
She's apologized twice in the last month.
Okay, and she has a long history of anti-Semitic viewpoints.
And yet, CNN is there.
Oh, she apologized.
We're done here.
Really?
So if Steve King had apologized, would you think CNN would have said, you know what, we're done here?
Nothing more to see?
Of course not.
Of course not.
But here was Brooke Baldwin doing that routine yesterday.
Everyone is offended by something today.
Okay, don't.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
And if that's the standard... Don't, don't, don't blanket statement.
Seriously, if that's the standard... This is anti-Semitism.
Okay.
This is anti-Semitism.
Okay, but if we are going to... She, she, hang on, Rob.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
If we're going to have everyone resign... Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
For stupid sayings... Sir.
Nobody left.
She apologized.
It took her a little while and people could say, eh, maybe that's an apology or not.
Slow your roll.
She apologized.
We just played three clips from the candidate and then the man, the president himself.
Correct.
Tell me how many times he's apologized for those comments.
Oh, well, slow your roll.
She apologized.
Her apology meant nothing when her entire viewpoint is laced with anti-Semitism.
I say that we should accept apologies when the apologies are credible.
And when it looks like somebody made a mistake.
Not when they said something completely in keeping with her view.
This wasn't a gaffe by Ilhan Omar.
This was in keeping with her viewpoint.
And that's what CNN wishes you to ignore.
And Nancy Pelosi, I thought, had the most telling take on all of this.
So Nancy Pelosi was asked about whether Ilhan Omar would lose her committee assignments the same way Steve King did.
And she said, she said no.
She said a newcomer member of Congress has apologized for her remarks.
It took them, what, 13 years to notice Steve King?
Okay, so first of all, she's already comparing Ilhan Omar to Steve King.
So she knows exactly what Ilhan Omar is, because Nancy Pelosi believes that Steve King is a deep-seated racist.
So she knows what... So what's the lesson here?
You get 12 years of free antisemitism before anybody gets to do anything?
That because the right was too slow to awaken to Steve King, that therefore Ilhan Omar, who is perfectly obvious, significantly more obvious in her anti-Semitism than Steve King was in his racism until the last few months, that now she's got, I guess, a dozen year reign of anti-Semitism before her, before Nancy Pelosi decides to pay attention to it?
The reality is Democrats know exactly what Ilhan Omar is, and they are keeping her on these committees because she is a fresh face.
That's all they care about.
All they care about is pretending that they are part of this intersectional pyramid that trumps all else.
It's really disgusting.
And Nancy Pelosi admits as much.
That's an awful justification, right?
Imagine a justification where somebody does something wrong, and you say, well, you've done something wrong for 12 years, and then you finally acknowledge it, so I guess I get to do something wrong for 12 years.
That is not a justification.
That is Nancy Pelosi admitting that in her view, Ilhan Omar is Steve King, but she's not going to do anything about it because Republicans were too slow on Steve King.
Way to take the moral high ground there, Nancy.
The reality is that Ilhan Omar will remain so long as she wishes to remain because the Democrats are fine, fine with anti-Semitism in their ranks.
They have been for years.
They've been hosting dozens of Congress people who routinely meet with Louis Farrakhan in their caucus for years.
And we're all supposed to overlook that, because President Trump said some stuff that engaged in anti-Semitic tropes that was bad stuff, but that did not mesh with his career record.
Again, a difference between that and statements that completely mesh with your career record, which is the state of the case for Rashida Tlaib, it's the state of the case for Maxine Waters, it's the state of the case for Ilhan Omar.
Alrighty, let's get to, let's get some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, yesterday, since I played the Soviet National Anthem in honor of Bernie Sanders and AOC, that got me thinking about great National Anthems.
And of course, perhaps the greatest National Anthem is the French National Anthem, the Le Marseillaise.
And the best use of Le Marseillaise comes In the greatest movie of all time, Casablanca.
This is the best scene from the best movie of all time in Casablanca.
A bunch of Germans are standing around in a Moroccan... It's French Morocco.
Occupied French Morocco.
A bunch of Germans are standing around in a bar owned by Rick Blaine, who is played by Humphrey Bogart.
And Victor Laszlo, who's a resistance leader, is there as well.
And the Germans start singing the Watch on the Rhine, which is a famous Nazi drinking song.
And Victor Laszlo, the heroic resistance leader, goes to the band and says, it's time to play La Marseillaise.
Play La Marseillaise.
Wait.
The flagpole!
Okay, so this is from 1942.
One of the things that makes that scene so effective, by the way, is that a lot of the actors in that scene were actual expatriates from Europe who'd been expelled by the Nazis, or had to flee the Nazis.
And this was made in 1942 in the middle of the war, so the idea that La Marseillaise was eventually going to triumph over The Watch on the Rhine was still very much in doubt at the time.
What a phenomenal movie.
It's such a great movie.
The one quibble I have with Casablanca is that Paul Henr— Like, when I watch the movie, I don't understand why Ingrid Bergman would be into Humphrey Bogart over Paul Henry.
Paul Henry's character is just a much better character.
Part of it is that Humphrey Bogart's a little too old for the part, but obviously a fantastic movie and a great national anthem.
Okay, time for a bunch of things that I hate.
Okay, so we begin with things I hate today with Jussie Smollett.
So you'll recall that Jussie Smollett claimed that at 2 a.m.
on a Chicago street, he was accosted by two MAGA fans who started shouting at him the F-word and the N-word, and then suggested that he had invaded MAGA country on the streets of Chicago, roped a noose around his neck, and hit him with bleach.
Now, there's no camera evidence that any of this happened.
He's walking home.
The camera stops for about... There are a bunch of cameras in Chicago.
He's missing on camera for about 60 seconds.
During that 60 second break, suddenly a rope appears around his neck or a clothesline.
He walks, wearing that, straight through his lobby, at home, straight through his lobby, still carrying his Subway sandwich, by the way, straight through the lobby, up to his room, waits 40 minutes to call the police, and then, when the police come, and they say, okay, well, can we see your phone?
Because you said you were on the phone at the time.
He says, no, you can't see my phone.
Then finally, when he turned over his phone records, he turned them over, and they were so redacted that they no longer, that they no longer were of any use to the police, which is what the police said.
Well, now, Jussie Smollett, who, again, this story was never particularly credible, now he goes on Good Morning America, and he says, how dare anyone Distrust my story, and he cries about it.
I'm pissed off.
What is it that has you so angry?
Is it the attackers?
It's the attackers, but it's also the attacks.
It's like, you know, at first it was a thing of like, listen, if I tell the truth, then that's it, because it's the truth.
Then it became a thing of like, oh, How can you doubt that?
Like, how do you not believe that?
It's the truth.
And then it became a thing of like, oh, it's not necessarily that you don't believe that this is the truth.
You don't even want to see the truth.
Oh, so it's that we all don't want to see the truth, which is that you were walking down a street in Chicago at 2 a.m.
when two MAGA fans who watch Empire recognized you and shouted about MAGA country and beat you up and kicked you in the ribs and roped a noose around your neck and poured bleach on you and then you waited 40 minutes to call the police, didn't turn over your phone, changed your story multiple times.
Why wouldn't anyone?
It must be natural American racism.
It can't be skepticism of stories that seem like they don't hold.
It's got to be natural American racism.
That's what's going on here.
This implication is really obviously stupid, but I guess that GMA will run with it.
ABC News will simply run with it without asking the serious questions about whether the story is even true or not.
You need some evidence.
You would assume there'd be some evidence that this thing happened in the first place.
Other things that I hate today.
So Trevor Noah, deeply unfunny human on Comedy Central, He was talking about Howard Schultz.
Howard Schultz, of course, the former Starbucks CEO, who said on TV something unsayable.
He said, I don't see color.
By which he meant, I judge people as individuals.
Not that he's colorblind or that he has no capacity to see the difference between a black person and a white person in terms of his visual fields, but that when he looks at people, he doesn't see them as members of a race first, which is what we should all aspire to, I thought.
I thought that was the idea.
But according to Trevor Noah, that's very bad.
White people aren't allowed to say this.
I didn't see color as a young boy, and I honestly don't see color now.
Oh!
This works out great, because I don't hear bullsh**.
Uh, yeah.
I'm sorry, but you have to see color.
There's nothing wrong with seeing color.
You just shouldn't treat people differently because of their color.
But you have to see it, especially if you want to be president.
You know what's interesting?
You know what's interesting to me is that it's always white people who say they don't see color.
I've never heard a black person like, hey yo, did y'all know Ed Sheeran is white?
Okay, well, that's not what he meant, obviously.
Howard Schultz, again, did not mean he doesn't see that somebody is black.
He meant I don't treat people differently based on their race.
And everyone should aspire to that, including Trevor Noah.
In fact, Trevor Noah basically says that.
He says that we should see color in the sense that we know people are of different races, and then we should treat them exactly the same.
The attempt to paint all white people as racist for saying that they are not racist is really amazing.
So, Howard Schultz says I'm not a racist, and then Trevor knows, why are white people always saying they're not racist?
Probably because they're racist.
They go, oh my god, what exactly is the guy supposed to say?
So if he says that I do see color, but I get over that, and I treat people as individuals in spite of that, then it's, oh, you see color.
That means that you are probably a racist.
And then you say, well, you know, I don't see color in the sense that people are black, people are white, don't really care.
Well, that means that you're a racist because you don't see color, but we know you see color, so you're hiding your racism.
I mean, this is, if she's a witch, throw her in the water.
And if she drowns, that means she's innocent.
And if she floats, that means she's guilty.
That's what we're doing on Race Now.
It's really pathetic.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two more hours of live programming.
Go check it out over at dailyware.com.
Subscribe so you can get the rest of the content.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villarreal.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
▲
Export Selection