All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:14
Being Alive | Ep. 730
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
AOC jumps on every rake in sight, Google uncovers some inconvenient data about the wage gap, and British women panic about global warming.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
I have to admit there are some days when I have to rejigger the entire show schedule because of breaking news in the morning.
And this was one of those days.
I didn't really want to talk about AOC, but now AOC has decided that she is just going to let all of the silly flow free.
Just all of the silly and the malice and the animus flow free.
We'll talk about it in just one second.
Let's talk about the national debt.
In 2008, the national debt was $10 trillion.
Today, the debt is $22 trillion and it is rising like a hockey stick.
If you don't think that we're sitting on a bit of a house of cards here, you're living with your head in the sand.
But since you're listening to my podcast, that means you are clearly smarter than the average American.
So what is your plan?
Can you afford another hit to your retirement like the last downturn when the S&P dropped 50%?
Hedge against inflation and hedge against uncertainty and instability with 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, Birch Gold Group.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move that IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
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 A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Contact Birch Gold Group and get a free information kit on physical precious metals.
See if diversifying into gold and silver, at least a little, makes some sense for you.
This comprehensive 16-page kit shows how gold and silver can protect your savings.
Go check them out right now by texting BEN to 474747.
That's to get your no-cost, no-obligation kit.
Text BEN to 474747.
Again, text BEN to 474747.
474747 again text ben to 474747 alrighty so as i was saying the fact is that every evening i put together the schedule for this show the sort of preliminary schedule and then it very often changes Rarely does it get completely overhauled.
This morning was one of those mornings, because AOC decides that she is going to be aggressively awful about everything in the world at the same time.
Now, listen, I understand that we now live in a political time.
When aggressive ignorance is actually a benefit in politics.
Aggressive ignorance.
Because here's the thing.
The more you know about various issues, the more nuanced your thinking tends to be.
Or at the very least, the more you tend to understand the ins and outs of the opposing side's thinking.
When you don't know things, you tend to speak in Easy bumper stickers.
You tend to say things that are bumper sticker slogans, and then people who don't know much cheer you on.
And the nice thing about easy bumper sticker slogans is that when they are revealed to be aggressively ignorant, then you can always backfill the ignorance.
You can always create a nuanced backstory to try and backfill the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about in the first place.
When you add on to this the benefit of being an intersectional leftist, the soft bigotry of low expectations that attends being a minority or a woman or ranking high on the intersectional scale, people are willing to let you off the hook, people are willing to attribute aggressive ignorance to different viewpoints, That makes it pretty easy to be a popular politician like an AOC.
She's getting the benefit of the doubt every which way and she simply does not deserve it because she continues to make mistakes and not just make mistakes, say things that are aggressively bad.
Aggressively morally bad.
So let's start today with her take on the Afghanistan war.
So she has decided that she is going to defend, obviously, Ilhan Omar.
So you'll recall that Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite, that she has repeatedly said anti-Semitic things over and over and over again.
She has apologized no less than three times in the last six weeks for anti-Semitic remarks because she is, in fact, saying things that reflect her underlying worldview, which is that the Jews are a nefarious force in the world and particularly in United States politics with regard to support for Israel.
Well, AOC, who is one of the fresh faces, incredibly fresh as well as face, of the New Democratic Congress, along with Ilhan Omar.
Remember, they both appear on the cover of this month's Rolling Stone with Nancy Pelosi.
She has decided to come out and defend Ilhan Omar against her fellow Democrats, by the way.
So, for example, Representative Juan Vargas.
He said it is disturbing that Representative Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community.
And the response from AOC was, Now that, right off the bat, is a lie.
if Representative Vargas will further explain his stance here that it's unacceptable to even question U.S. foreign policy.
Now that, right off the bat, is a lie.
He is not saying that he can't question America's foreign policy.
What he says is that questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship on the basis of conspiracy theories about Jews is unacceptable.
That's what he is talking about.
But AOC is going to deliberately mischaracterize Vargas' statements so she can defend Ilhan Omar.
Now, let's be real about this.
Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite.
Rashida Tlaib, the congresswoman from Michigan, is an anti-Semite.
And AOC is perfectly comfortable with anti-Semitism.
I don't mean a little comfortable.
I mean obviously and perfectly comfortable with it.
No less than two weeks ago, she tweeted out her joy at speaking with open anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn, who's the head of the British Labour Party.
So she is fine with anti-Semitism.
She hangs out with anti-Semites on a regular basis and defends them on a regular basis.
Meanwhile, you see folks on the political left, particularly Jewish folks on the political left, some of whom happen to be pro-Israel, Ringing their hands and clutching their pearls and, oh, isn't it sad, isn't it terrible that AOC just doesn't know things?
This is where aggressive ignorance really helps you.
Because, again, this isn't a matter of aggressive ignorance.
She knows what she's saying, she just doesn't care very much.
Anyway, AOC continues.
She says, plenty of Democratic members have asserted that discussion and debate on this issue is fair and merited.
Is this stance a departure from that?
No, it isn't.
You're just deliberately mischaracterizing Vargas's statement so that you can pretend this is about free speech when it really is about embracing antisemitism.
And then she continues, and here's where she veers from the defense of antisemites into ridiculously ignorant territory, for which she will be excused by the media.
She says, All of Congress was wrong, including both GOP and Dem Party, and led my generation into a disastrous and wrong war that virtually all would come to regret, except for the one member who stood up, Barbara Lee.
Well, Barbara Lee was basically a communist who actually stood against the authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
When corrected on her aggressive ignorance, AOC then said, Or now, even with a disastrous choice like Elliott Abrams at the helm, a man guilty of crimes related to Iran-Contra, including misleading Congress, it still seems like critiquing U.S. interventionism is taboo.
History shows that making some questions unacceptable is a mistake, which is a hilarious take from AOC, who wants to make all questions about her Green New Deal unacceptable.
Right, she's the boss.
She declared it.
She is the boss of the Green New Deal, unless somebody else presents a plan that she gets on board with, which she won't.
So she's the boss, and if you question her, you're a climate denier.
But then it gets even better.
So, she says all of this, and then she corrects herself about Barbara Lee.
She says, oops, the Afghanistan War.
She means the Afghanistan War was bad.
She says, honestly, we shouldn't have been in either, and we should end the AUMF now while we're at it.
Okay, that's...
Ridiculous.
That is ridiculous.
We shouldn't have been in the Afghanistan war, and we should end the AUMF now while we're at it.
And then she's questioned about that.
And people are like, wait, hold up.
Are you saying that after 9-11, we should not have gone into Afghanistan?
Is that your actual contention, AOC?
And she's like, yeah, maybe.
Sure, why not?
I mean, really, it's pretty astonishing.
So she tweets out, following some blowback about this, that what she really means, Jake Tapper asks her a question about it.
Jake Tapper asks her, so what exactly do you mean by this?
And she immediately responds by saying, well, perhaps, perhaps what we should have done, she says, I think our decision to enter unlimited engagement in Afghanistan, particularly through the AMF, AUMF, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Congress's abdication of power and decision-making with the passage of the AUMF, was a mistake.
And she says other options.
Targeting the network itself, limited engagement, and non-intervention.
So she literally was saying non-intervention in the aftermath of 9-11 was another option.
And then she says limited engagement or targeting the network itself.
This is aggressively fatuous.
Aggressively fatuous.
Because again, you have to be ignorant of history to say this.
You could not target Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan without entering Afghanistan in the first place.
She says target terrorist networks.
Where does she think Al-Qaeda was located?
I'm old enough to remember 9-11.
So is she, by the way.
And I'm old enough to remember when President Bush asked the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, and Mullah Omar refused, which led directly to the use of force in Afghanistan.
Secondly, she criticizes the AUMF.
She obviously has not read the AUMF.
It gave the president the power to target terrorists specifically.
It does not say a word about invading Afghanistan, and it reserves the powers of Congress under the War Powers Act.
It was not an unlimited AUMF.
Now, Congress may have later abdicated its responsibility.
But the AUMF itself was actually limited.
And not only that, you're gonna say in the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack in the history of the United States, that you would not have authorized the president to take action against terrorists?
How does she think that the president actually targeted terror finance networks?
It was under the AUMF.
The AUMF was the legal authority for that.
So again, this is just her being aggressively stupid.
Her saying aggressively incorrect things.
But that's no shock, because this is what she does.
And she's not just aggressively incorrect and aggressively wrong about Afghanistan, obviously.
She's also aggressively defending anti-Semitism, as I mentioned.
So she is now engaging in obvious whataboutism.
So whataboutism is this term that has come about in the aftermath of President Trump, really, which suggests that when someone says something bad about Trump, people say, yeah, well, what about Hillary?
And it's dumb.
It's dumb.
Because when Trump does something bad, it's bad.
And when Hillary does something bad, it's bad.
Now, what you can do is say that.
That's not whataboutism.
So if, for example, you say it's bad when Trump does it, and also it was bad when Hillary Clinton did it.
That's not whataboutism.
That is pointing out consistent standards.
But AOC engages us in full-on whataboutism with regard to antisemitism, essentially suggesting that we should let Ilhan Omar off the hook for her antisemitism, because in her view, other bigotry has not been excoriated harshly enough.
And even in the process of making this defense, she's aggressively ignorant.
So she tweets out, She's not even right about this.
the extent to which reprimand is sought of Ilhan is that no one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx and other communities.
During the shutdown, a GOP member yelled, go back to Puerto Rico on the floor.
She's not even right about this.
During the shutdown, Republicans yelled at Democrats, go back to Puerto Rico, not because the Democrats were Puerto Rican, but because Democrats were vacationing in Puerto Rico during the government shutdown.
So she's just wrong about this.
And I'm old enough to remember when the House, including Republicans, voted to censure Steve King on the floor of the House, and they stripped him of his House assignments.
And yet here she is saying that Ilhan Omar should undergo nothing.
That is classic Whataboutism.
She says, it's not my position to tell people how to feel, or that their hurt is invalid, which is of course exactly what she is doing, but incidents like these do beg the question, where are the resolutions against homophobic statements?
For anti-blackness?
For xenophobia?
For a member saying he'll send Obama home to Kenya?
And I assume she's talking about Mark Meadows now, who said in a rally back in 2012 something about this, which nobody even remembered or knew anything about until now, basically.
But Steve King is the best available comp, and she just ignores the fact that Steve King was just stripped of all of his committee assignments.
She says, It's the difference between calling in and calling out.
others we should actively check anti-semitism anti-blackness homophobia racism and all other forms of bigotry and the most productive end goal when we see it is to educate and heal it's the difference between calling in and calling out this is where we get into her her minority studies classes at boston university where she starts lecturing people like a psychologist like she knows anything about what she's talking about Calling out is one of the measures of last resort, not first or second resort.
We do it when repeated attempts to call in are disrespected or ignored.
And I believe that Ilhan, in her statement a few weeks ago, has demonstrated a willingness to work and listen with impacted communities, which is absolute sheer horse nonsense.
She has legitimately dropped three anti-Semitic slurs in the course of six weeks.
And here is AOC saying, well, you know, we just need to educate Ilhan.
That's really what it's about.
Lady, you need some education.
You're the one who's hanging out with Jeremy Corbyn and defending open anti-Semitism.
Even Batya Unger-Sargon, who's the editor of the far left newspaper, The Forward, she says, how exactly is it hurtful when the right thing is done for Jews just because it wasn't done elsewhere?
Shouldn't that mean we work harder to condemn other forms of hurtful speech?
Not that we refrain when it's Jews?
It's not a zero-sum game.
It's so disappointing to see it cast as such.
And then AOC says it's not zero-sum and we have a serious responsibility to listen to communities when they feel pain.
Where I struggle is how we deal with that pain.
The how after the what.
I also fear brooding resentment because people of color are always promised that people will work harder without commitment.
What in the world is she talking about?
So she immediately swivels back into, I'm going to ignore the anti-Semitism because maybe it'll upset people of color.
What is she even talking about?
We'll get to more of AOC's aggressive, aggressive ignorance and the painful excuses being made for her and for Ilhan Omar and for Rashida Tlaib in just one second.
First, let's talk about something we can all agree on, saving money.
Opinions aren't like smartphones.
Everybody has them, but we can all agree that getting the best deal is important when shopping online.
You probably heard me talk about Honey.
It's an amazing free browser extension that automatically helps me save money on all my favorite sites.
I wouldn't be doing this my job if I didn't tell you about how Honey makes even Amazon better.
I love Amazon.com.
I buy an enormous number of products from Amazon, and I save money nearly every time because I am using Honey.
With millions of sellers on Amazon selling the same products, how do you know you're really getting the best price?
You don't unless you're using Honey.
As you shop on Amazon, Honey's Best Price Finder automatically compares the prices of millions of sellers that carry the item you want.
Honey even factors in shipping, sales tax, and Amazon Prime status to make sure you're getting the lowest total price.
It shows you the best deal every time, even if Amazon doesn't.
It's like having your very own smart shopping assistant.
I've bought on Honey recently.
I bought some weights for my wife.
She started working out and Honey saved us a bunch of money on that.
It saves us a bunch of money pretty much every week.
More than 10 million people are using Honey to save money right now.
So next time you're shopping on Amazon, treat yourself to the free upgrade that guarantees you always get the absolute best price.
Add Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
That is joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Honey, the smart shopping assistant that helps you save time and money.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so AOC's aggressive ignorance doesn't stop there, believe it or not.
So, she also is aggressively ignorant when it comes to her own policies.
So, AOC, for example, suggests that she's upset when she gets 10 plastic bags at the store.
She's trying to make excuses for the fact that she is a consumerist, the way that most Americans are.
She says that she gets upset at how many plastic bags she is handed at the store.
I wouldn't be upset that I get ten plastic bags at the grocery store and then have to toss out my plastic bags because the recycling program in the area is tough and that's okay.
All of these are not reasons to stop fighting.
All of these are reasons to keep fighting.
And these are all reasons and pieces of evidence to say, hey, we need to make it easier to recycle.
Okay, well, again, you know it's one solution to people handing you ten plastic bags at the grocery?
Not taking them.
I know, unbelievable, right?
Personal choice.
I love that according to folks on the left, personal choice, at least on the radical left, personal choice is not something you engage in.
The only time you should make a choice is when government forces you to do it.
So AOC will continue taking the 10 plastic bags and then throwing them away in the garbage to be flushed away into the ocean and kill the dolphins or something until the government tells her not to do it.
But she's going to stump for the government to tell her not to do it.
Until then, she just won't do any of it.
I legitimately— I live in L.A.
In L.A., they don't give you bags unless you ask for the bags, and sometimes they make you pay for the bags.
And very often, I will say no to the bags.
I believe New York has the same rules.
So I'm not sure what she's whining about, but nonetheless, she is indeed whining about All of that.
Also, AOC says that we should be talking about investigating President Trump.
So add to the to the ignorance and hypocrisy bandwagon for AOC.
She says that the real issue in American politics right now is that we are not aggressive enough about talking about President Trump's money.
So here she is going off on President Trump and his lack of transparency.
Well, he's talking collusion, collusion, collusion.
I think in oversight, we should be talking about taxes, taxes, taxes and his bank account, his bank account, his bank account, his financial statements.
Statement statements.
Because that's where I think actually some of the most troubling practices are with direct relevance to the American people under the scope of oversight.
Okay, all of that is fine and dandy, unless it turns out that your chief of staff was funneling a million dollars in slush funds from the campaign to LLCs run by him with no actual transparency as to where the money went.
That's according to Ilana Goodman over at the Washington Examiner.
Two political action committees founded by AOC's top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the FEC on Monday.
The cash transfers from the PACs, overseen by Saikat Chakrabarty, the freshman Socialist Democrat's chief of staff, run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of dark money in politics.
Chakrabarty's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.
The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to a complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.
Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as really weird and an indication there is something amiss.
They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went, meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.
In other words, what happened is that AOC's campaign basically funneled, or a super PAC associated with AOC, funneled a million dollars, a million dollars to two shell companies controlled by her chief of staff, and then no one knows where the money went.
And FEC lawyers are looking into this now.
This may be a violation of law.
Adav Noti is a senior director for the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC lawyer.
He said the arrangement was highly unusual and seemed intended to obscure the destination of the funds.
He said, none of this makes any sense.
I can't even begin to disentangle that.
They're either confused or they're trying to conceal something.
He says it does seem like there's something amiss.
I can only think of really two likely possibilities for this sort of pattern of disbursements.
One is a scam pack possibility.
They're really just paying themselves and they're concealing it by using the LLC.
The other is that there's actually another recipient that the money is going to the LLC and then being dispersed in some other way that they want to conceal.
So none of this is very good for AOC, but here's the thing, none of it matters for AOC because in the end, the Democratic Party is going to continue to defend its fresh faces.
Why do they continue to defend the fresh faces?
Because the higher ups in politics understand that at this point in time, it is better to have a bunch of aggressively ignorant but attractive faces at the head of your party than it is to have somebody who knows what the hell they're talking about.
Nancy Pelosi is happy to have AOC out there pushing the envelope, broadening the Overton window, raising the issues, even if it means that she's going to say dumb things every once in a while, because the Democrats are fully aware that they can walk this stuff back.
This is one of the benefits to having a media that is willing to cover for any amount of insanity on your side of the political aisle.
The media bias that allows Democrats to get away with legitimately everything is pretty amazing.
It's really, truly amazing.
So, for example, the Democrats right now have been engaging in a cover-up of open anti-Semitism, and Politico is covering for them.
Politico has an article today, says House Dems will take floor action to confront Omar's latest Israel comments.
And their big question here is not whether Ilhan Omar should be personally called out, of course, because we can't personally call out Ilhan Omar the same way that Steve King was personally centered on the floor of the House.
No, Ilhan Omar shouldn't be personally called out.
The real issue here, according to Politico, is that GOP leaders have begun to pounce.
It's the GOP leaders pouncing.
And it's not just Politico.
The New York Times headlined about all of this.
Ilhan Omar's criticism raises the question, is AIPAC too powerful?
What in the living hell is that headline?
So her anti-Semitism did not raise the question, is her anti-Semitism correct?
When Steve King said what he said about white nationalism, the New York Times did not ask the question.
Steve King's comments raised the question, is white nationalism stigmatized?
Like what in the hell are they talking about?
The answer is the New York Times is fine with sliding over into anti-Semitism because they are so radically anti-Israel they don't even see the line.
And here's the truth.
You can criticize Israel, of course.
You can criticize AIPAC.
I've criticized AIPAC.
I thought AIPAC did a garbage job when it came to stumping against the Iran deal.
You can criticize the state of Israel.
I've criticized a bunch of administrations, including Bibi's.
But there is a distinction between that and claiming that general support for Israel is pushed by Jewish money and Jewish dual loyalty, which is what Ilhan Omar actually said.
It's what Ilhan Omar actually... It must be beautiful to have the media on your side to this extent.
It must make life so incredibly easy.
Now, what it does lead to when the media are constantly parroting talking points is these awkward moments when reality breaks through.
I'm gonna get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you protect your online activity.
Admit it, you think cybercrime is something that happens to other people.
You may think that no one wants your data or that hackers can't grab your passwords or credit card details, but you would be wrong.
Stealing data from unsuspecting people on public Wi-Fi is one of the simplest and cheapest ways for hackers to make money.
When you leave your internet connection unencrypted, you might as well be writing your passwords and credit card numbers on a huge billboard for the rest of the world to see.
That's why I decided to take action.
To protect myself from cybercriminals, I use ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN secures and anonymizes your internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address.
ExpressVPN has easy-to-use apps that run seamlessly in the background of your computer, phone, and tablet.
Turning on ExpressVPN protection?
That only takes one click.
Using ExpressVPN, I can safely surf on public Wi-Fi without being snooped on or having my personal data stolen.
For less than $7 a month, you can get the same ExpressVPN protection that I have.
ExpressVPN is rated the number one VPN service by TechRadar.
It comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
Protect your online activity today.
Find out how you can get three months for free at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Ben for three months free with a one-year package.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to learn more.
Well, as I say, the media's willingness to cover for virtually any left-wing narrative benefits the left, not only in allowing them to defend against the insane things that so many folks on the radical left say, But it also pushes a narrative that benefits the left.
A narrative of impending doom and crisis.
A narrative that America is a terrible place that requires deep-seated change in the nature of the American bargain in order for justice to be done.
And every so often, this media experience runs up against reality.
First, it convinces a lot of people.
You want to know one of the reasons why politics feels so critical today?
You want to know one of the reasons why people are so polarized?
It's because our amygdalas light up every time there's a headline.
Because the media make a lot of money off crisis thinking.
Off the idea that this is the end of the world.
That being alive is, in essence, a dangerous bargain.
And none of that is true.
So the impact of media coverage on stuff like this is a constant feeling of crisis, which of course would require constant government intervention, bigger government intervention, more cover for people like AOC, who after all are just trying to do the right thing.
In the end, the defense that the media make of people like Ilhan Omar and AOC and Rashida Tlaib and Jeremy Corbyn, the defense that they are constantly making of these folks, is heavily reliant on the fact that they think that if you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, you break a few eggs to make an omelette, because the world is in peril.
And this leads millions of people into a certain crisis mentality about the state of the world that simply is not accurate.
So, indicator of that crisis mentality, there's amazing video from the BBC of this crazy group of women who are now suggesting that they are not going to have children because of the danger of global warming.
And listen to the rhetoric these women are spouting.
And the BBC humoring it, patting them on the head, basically suggesting that maybe they're right.
AOC has said the same thing, right?
AOC said last week, maybe people shouldn't have kids because of climate change.
Now this has become a thing.
In Britain, women pledging not to have children because of climate change.
Our planet is in a kind of collapse.
The natural world is collapsing around us and that's actually happening right now.
And I'm so disappointed by the response by authorities to this crisis.
And so freaked out by it.
Everything I've read.
Um, that I've, basically last year I came to the decision that I couldn't bring a child into that.
If we're in this situation now, you know, even since my parents had me, we've destroyed 60% of life on this planet.
What would that be like when my child's my age?
Will there be 10% left?
Okay, this is just sheer craziness.
Okay, so she's suggesting humanity's wiped out 60% of animal population since 1970.
That is according to a particular environmental report.
It is very questionable as to whether this is actually true.
Ed Young over at The Atlantic says that that finding has been widely mischaracterized.
The team behind Living Planet Index relied on previous studies in which researchers estimated the size of different animal populations, whether through direct counts, camera traps, satellites, or proxies, like the presence of nests or tracks.
The teams collated such estimates for 16,700 populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish across 4,000 species.
That covers just 6.4% of the 63,000 or so species of vertebrates, that is backbone animals that are thought to exist.
And then they calculated that the size of vertebrate populations has declined by 60% on average, which does not mean that humans have culled 60% of animals.
The report itself says that's not true, but the media covered it as though 60% of animals were dying.
That is simply not the case.
The media have an interest in promoting the idea that the world is in grave danger so that we hand more power over to ignorant people who pledge to fix everything because the media agrees with their general agenda.
Now, here's the reality about the world we live in.
It's a pretty unbelievable place.
It's a truly incredible place.
Here's an article from the New York Times.
You want to know about the ingenuity of humankind?
You want to know about the incredible innovativeness and adaptiveness of human beings?
This is an unbelievable story.
It's from the New York Times today.
Today, and this will get a lot less coverage than the idea that we are on the verge of a meltdown in terms of human life and that we must give all control of government to government because of great inequality and burgeoning civil war and all this.
It's just not true.
Apoorva Mantavilla reporting.
HIV reported cured in a second patient.
Scientists have long tried to duplicate the procedure that led to the first long-term remission 12 years ago.
With the so-called London patient, they seem to have succeeded.
For the second time since the global epidemic began, a patient appears to have been cured of infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
The news comes nearly 12 years to the day after the first patient known to be cured, a feat that researchers have long tried and failed to duplicate.
The surprise success now confirms that a cure for HIV infection is possible, if difficult, researchers said.
Publicly, the scientists are describing the case as a long-term remission.
In interviews, most experts are calling it a cure, with the caveat that it is hard to know how to define the word when there are only two known instances.
We live in a time when we are developing toward cures for diseases that have wiped thousands of people, and in Africa, tens of thousands of people off planet Earth.
We live in a time when we have wiped out some of the gravest diseases that have ever threatened mankind.
We live in a time with more prosperity and more freedom than any time in human history.
And we are being told by the media at every turn that everything is a crisis.
And if everything is a crisis, then we look for an easy solution.
And the easy solution comes in the form of a bumper sticker.
The truth is, there are very few easy solutions.
The only easy solution is to let people live.
To leave people alone.
To let innovativeness sprout.
To treat other people with a generalized level of tolerance, even if you disagree with them.
That's the actual solution.
But when the media are constantly promoting the idea of doom and gloom, it's the end of the world, we're all gonna die, The natural instinct is to turn to people who share radical solutions.
And that aggressive ignorance, again, is not only promoted by media.
Anybody who cuts against the aggressive ignorance, anybody who cuts against that narrative is deemed not sufficiently woke.
So for example, best story of the day along these lines, Google has done a study.
They studied their own pay.
And here's what the study found.
They found that men were being systematically underpaid as compared with women.
Why does that matter?
Because then Google tried to walk back the results of its own studies so as to agree with the generalized narrative that America is sexist, including Google.
It's unbelievable.
Wokeness, this belief that America is naturally bad, that the West is naturally filled with inequality and poverty and cruelty and malice and that the Earth is dying because of the West, This belief has been so inculcated into the media and by the media, That we are willing to buy sheer nonsense from politicians who mirror that belief, even as they say crazy things on every other score.
And we're willing to overlook all of the worst things they say, because after all, they are morally right.
As AOC has said before, factually wrong doesn't matter.
Only morally right matters.
In a second, I'm going to tell you more about this Google study, which, again, we have known this stuff for years.
There is nothing new here.
Women are treated unbelievably well in the United States.
Women actually have the upper hand when it comes to college degrees.
Women have an upper hand when it comes to many life choices?
Seriously, in the United States?
Let's not pretend that women are a victim class in the United States.
They simply are not.
That's not to say there aren't individual victimized women.
Of course there are.
But that is not the same as saying that females, who represent a majority of the voting population and a majority of college-degreed people, Are a victim class in the United States.
That's a ridiculous contention.
But we can't say that.
If we say that, we're undercutting the narrative of cataclysmic horror that apparently is overrunning the American bargain.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
We'll talk about how the media have convinced themselves that reporting fiction is more important than reporting fact, simply to maintain the woke bargain.
In just a second.
First, let's talk about how you can get out of that credit card debt.
For decades, credit cards have been telling us to buy it now, pay for it later with interest.
Despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control pretty quickly.
With Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
That means no trips to a bank, no high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com, tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow, Pick the terms that are right for you.
If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to 40 grand.
That is LendingClub.com slash Ben.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
All loans made by WebBank, Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.
Be responsible.
Make sure that you handle your credit card debt.
Make sure that you can consolidate all of that and get out of the kind of debt that could cripple you for life.
Go check them out at LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Check that rate in minutes.
Borrow up to 40 grand.
That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Okay, in just a second, I'm gonna get to some more of the media.
Just absolutely pushing a particular line that results in the victory of the most ignorant among us and the people who are lying about the state of the West, the state of the world, at this point in time.
We'll get to that in just a second.
First, you're going to have to go subscribe.
At Daily Wire, $9.99 a month.
That makes sure that you can get a subscription.
And two hours of the show later, later on today, for example, we are having on the incredible Adam Carolla.
The godfather of all podcasting.
We're having Adam on a little bit later, so check that out.
For $9.99 a month, you too can be part of the Daily Wire.
For $99 a year, you get all of that and more.
You also get this.
The Daily Wire Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler, the finest in all beverage vessels.
Curing disease the world over.
I can't actually make that claim.
Maybe curing disease.
The world over.
Go check that out right now.
Also, we have Sunday specials coming up that are just going to be awesome.
We have a couple of Sunday specials that are coming up.
I know who the guests are, but you don't.
But you will if you subscribe and you get the Sunday specials a day early.
You can be part of our mailbag.
I answer questions from our subscribers during breaks on the radio every afternoon.
So you can be part of that as well.
We have so many goodies for you.
Go check us out over there.
Also, subscribe over at YouTube or iTunes.
Leave us a review.
We always appreciate it.
it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in America.
So as I say, the victory of people like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and to a certain extent, Donald Trump relies on the media pushing this notion of crisis that we are constantly And that notion of crisis is simply not true.
And when reality butts up against that narrative of crisis, the media don't know what to do.
Neither do our big tech overlords who want to push that narrative.
So Google has been pushing the narrative that women are victimized in American society.
Then, it turns out, they conducted a study to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups.
Instead, Google found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.
The study is done every year, but the latest findings arrived as Google and other companies in Silicon Valley face increasing pressure to deal with gender issues in the workplace, from sexual harassment to wage discrimination.
Where is that pressure coming from?
To a large extent, that pressure is coming from outside woke groups that are interested in promulgating a narrative that counters the facts.
Women are treated better in Western civilization, and yes, in places like Silicon Valley, than pretty much anywhere else on Earth.
That, again, does not mean that there are not evil men who do evil things.
It does not mean that there are individual women who are not deeply mistreated and preyed upon by men.
It does mean that if we are going to say that, generally, women are victimized in American society, that is a load of crap.
It is a load of nonsense.
Gender inequality is a radioactive topic at Google, says the New York Times.
Yeah, you know why?
Because the New York Times will rip Google if Google even suggests that gender inequality is not a massive problem at Google.
Critics say the result of the pay study could give a false impression.
Yeah, who are those critics?
Presumably the experts at the New York Times.
Company officials acknowledged it did not address whether women were hired at a lower pay grade than men with similar qualifications.
Okay, well, then how about some proof?
How about some proof as opposed to simply the suggestion?
But again, a result that finds that women are not discriminated against is very upsetting to people on the woke-skulled left.
Here is the truth.
Here's the truth.
As early as 2010, there was a study reported in Time magazine, and it found that in 147 out of the 150 biggest cities in the United States, the median full-time salaries of young women were 8% higher than those of guys in their peer group.
In 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the United States.
And that figure, by the way, has not budged.
The gap is huge in places like New York City, LA, and San Diego.
17%, 12%, 15% as of 2010.
That applies to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities.
Right, because women who have children end up having other obligations.
Women who get married tend to change their priorities.
That is not the fault of employers.
But to point out these facts is to undercut the consensus woke view of the world.
And that cannot be allowed by the media.
I'll give you a great example of this.
So Robin Roberts of Good Morning America did just a ridiculous interview, you'll recall, with Jussie Smollett.
Jussie Smollett, of course, was the star of Empire who now has been charged with a racial hoax.
He claims that he went out at 2 a.m.
in Chicago and was accosted by two MAGA-hatted Trump fans, who then garroted him with a noose, poured bleach on him while shouting, this is MAGA country, again, at 2 a.m.
in the middle of a polar vortex in the city of Chicago.
It was a ridiculous story on its face.
Everybody took it seriously, including Robin Roberts, who did a full interview with Jussie Smollett, where she basically allowed Smollett to claim that half the country, at least, was racist, sexist, bigoted, and homophobic.
And then Robin Roberts was asked about this.
So Robin Roberts did an interview.
And this just shows you where the media's heads are at.
For the media, the woke narrative must trump everything else.
It must trump everything else.
And if the woke narrative does trump everything else, that means it trumps ignorance, it means it trumps stupidity, it means it trumps the fact that people don't know what they're talking about very often.
Because as long as the narrative is preserved, nothing else matters.
And the narrative right now, when it comes to Congress, is that the fresh faces of the Democratic Party have something new and exciting to say, that they are the leaders who are going to change the future, that America is a deep, dark, terrible place, that the West is a deep, dark, terrible, racist, bigoted place, and that we need brash newcomers, even if they're a little bit on the Jew-hating side, we need those brash newcomers to come forth and lead us to a better future.
So here's Robin Roberts on Chelsea Smollett.
You'll notice that what she says, it's truly amazing.
She says it was a no-win situation doing the interview.
So what she says is, quote, I'll be completely honest.
I was like, I don't know if I want to do the interview or not.
I said, I don't want to sit down with him if he's going to lawyer up.
And then I was told he wants to speak with you because he was outraged by people making assumptions about whether it had happened or not.
And then she finally agreed to do the interview, she said, after being told she'd be able to ask Smollett about all the red flags that were surrounding his story and perhaps shed some light with new information.
She said she was hoping to remain neutral, but as a gay black woman interviewing a gay black man, she felt like she was put in a tight spot.
Here is the key line.
He's saying there's a hate crime.
So if I'm too hard, then my LGBT community is going to say, you don't believe a brother.
If I'm too light on him, it's like, oh, because you are in the community, you're giving him a pass.
It was a no-win situation for me.
How is that a no-win situation for Robin Roberts?
She's a journalist.
It is her job to ask the questions.
But she is admitting openly that if she was too hard on Jussie Smollett, she was afraid of the blowback she was going to get from her own community for not being woke enough.
The media are invested in these narratives.
These narratives of social inequality and tremendous American injustice and tremendous American bigotry.
So invested that they're willing to overlook blatantly false stories.
They're willing to overlook the anti-Semitism of some of the members of their own caucus.
Because in the end, the only thing that matters is the preservation of the narrative.
That's all that matters.
That's all that matters.
It's vile and it's why the most aggressively ignorant and bigoted among us are probably going to have an upper hand in politics for some time to come.
Speaking of which, coming up, I'll talk in a second about that sort of aggressive ignorance.
So, Cynthia Nixon.
I'll give you another example of this.
Cynthia Nixon is an actress.
She ran for governor of New York against Andrew Cuomo and she got shellacked.
Now, when you get beat by Andrew Cuomo, like a rug, when you get beat like a rug by Andrew Cuomo, that means you're a bad politician.
It means people don't like what you have to say.
I mean, Andrew Cuomo has about as charisma as a stump, a tree stump.
And Cynthia Nixon, She lost to him, but now she pressured Joe Biden.
So here is the woke narrative suggests that people on the other side of the aisle are inherently bad.
They're inherently bad for disagreeing about mainstream political issues.
It's not bad to be an anti-Semite if you're on the right side of the woke.
But if you're on the wrong side of the woke, then it is very bad to take political positions like, say, traditional marriage is a good thing.
and that traditional marriage is superior on a social level to same-sex marriage.
To take such a position, which was officially the position of the Democratic Party until, what, six years ago?
To take that position makes you a vile, bad human being.
So Cynthia Nixon went after Joe Biden, Why?
Because Joe Biden said that Mike Pence was a decent human.
And then she was like, no, Mike Pence is not a decent human because he disagrees with me on LGBT issues.
And Joe Biden, caving to the woke scolds, immediately surrendered and said, you're right.
You know what?
I changed my mind.
I changed my mind.
It turns out that Mike Pence is no longer a decent human being because he disagrees with me.
So Cynthia Nixon duplast Mike Pence.
So, Duplass is a verb meaning to cowardly stab somebody in the back who you have no relationship to.
It was coined after Mark Duplass, an actor-director, did the same thing to me.
He said I was a decent guy online, people attacked him, he took down his tweet, and then suggested that I was a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
He had run afoul of the woke scolds.
So Cynthia Nixon is then given space in the Washington Post.
This is our media, the Washington Post, to sort of blow up her claim, to fully claim that Mike Pence is actually a bigot.
And in the process of her column in the Washington Post, she makes a variety of false claims about Mike Pence personally.
This op-ed in the Washington Post, she says that Pence was insidious— And she just lies about Pence's record.
She says he signed a religious freedom bill that would have allowed LGBTQ discrimination.
That is false.
He actually called for changes to the bill that, quote, make it clear discrimination won't be allowed.
That Mike Pence, quote, refused to lift a ban on needle exchange programs until a preventable HIV outbreak reached epidemic levels.
That is, again, false.
He issued an executive order in March 2015 allowing distribution of needles, while also acknowledging that there are serious public health concerns about needle exchanges.
She said he suggested support for so-called conversion therapy.
Again, that is a lie.
There is no mention of conversion therapy on his website, the one that she cites.
She says that he published an article urging businesses not to hire gay people.
That's utterly false outright.
She just made all of these false claims in the pages of the Washington Post.
Totally fine.
You can lie about the Vice President of the United States because it supports the narrative.
And that narrative will continue to be supported because it is unfalsifiable.
This is the beautiful thing about the woke narrative.
If you say, hey, wait a second, you don't have any evidence.
That Mike Pence is a bigot?
You don't have evidence that America is a terribly bigoted, homophobic, racist, sexist place?
You don't have any evidence that America is a terrible place?
Or that it requires the solutions of full-on socialists?
Then the left will say, well, that's because your eyes have not been opened because you don't see the truth.
But once you see the truth, you can't unsee the truth.
And this is how you end up with the ridiculous spectacle, the ridiculous, insane spectacle of Brie Larson, an actress who does not know things, speaking at the Women in Film Festival.
About her new movie, Captain Marvel.
Now, the execs over at Disney have just got to be beside themselves.
Because it turns out that a lot of the people who like to go watch comic book movies are young men.
And Captain Marvel was already a little bit outside the box in the sense that it is a female superhero.
Now, young men will go see a female superhero.
They will.
Wonder Woman made a boatload of money at the office, at the box office.
But Brie Larson suggests that America is a sexist, bigoted, terrible, homophobic place.
And then she goes even further.
She says that she doesn't care if white people go to see her movies because she's not going to take criticism from white people.
She is a white woman.
Here she is going off, again, backing the woke narrative.
And what this is really meant to do, seriously, what this is meant to do is provide cover.
Because for people who are at least half clever, if they understand that the media is willing to provide cover for anyone who echoes the woke narrative, then the best thing to do is to echo the woke narrative, right?
That way, if your movie is a bomb and it sucks, then they can just blame all of those terrible, no good, very bad boys.
It's all those boys who wouldn't go see the movie because they were sexist.
It's not that your movie was garbage.
It's that these evil, terrible boys... You remember, we did this with Lady Ghostbusters.
Lady Ghostbusters is not a good movie.
I'm not even a fan of the original Ghostbusters.
Lady Ghostbusters is not a good movie.
But because it was made with women, and because it didn't do well at the box office, it turned into... Its non-success was not a referendum on the filmmakers.
It was a referendum on America's deep sexism.
Well, Brie Larson is playing right into that.
Here is Brie Larson actively alienating her chief audience so that I guess later she can claim that it's not her fault if and when the movie bombs.
Our industry has gone through a major growth.
We are expanding to make films that better reflect the people that buy movie tickets.
But they are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that these films were made for.
I do not need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn't work for him about A Wrinkle in Time.
It wasn't made for him.
I want to know what that film meant to women of color, to biracial women, to teen women of color, to teens that are biracial.
Oh, really?
Who does she think buys tickets in this country?
Does she think that when Disney sunk $100 million into A Wrinkle in Time, that they were looking to actively alienate 40-year-old men who, by the way, who do you think is bringing their daughters to these movies?
It's a bunch of 40-year-old guys.
When I'm 40, my daughter is going to be 10.
I'm going to be the one bringing her to movies with people like Brie Larson.
Does she actually think that alienating people like me is going to be big box office?
Of course not.
She knows that.
She's not completely dumb.
But she also knows that the media are now going to lay the groundwork for the failure of her film.
So if her film falls apart, if it's just a mediocrity, it's going to turn into, America's a deeply terrible place.
Now, what's hilariously unfalsifiable about this is that if Black Panther does unbelievable business, that is not proof that America is not racist.
America's still racist even if Black Panther does a bajillion at the box office and gets nominated for Best Picture despite being, in my opinion, the fourth best comic book movie of the last year.
America's still racist even if Black Panther does well, but if Captain Marvel fails, it'll be because of American sexism, therefore we need more women empowerment, therefore AOC.
That's how this math works.
It's ridiculous, it's insipid, America's a pretty wonderful place, and ignorance should not be excused simply because the ignorant tends to support the woke narrative.
Okay, time for some things I like, and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
So, I had heard a lot about this Marie Kondo thing, and I actually went out and got her book, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, and I have been going through it, and I will admit, I like this thing.
I do.
Now, I know, it's a little touchy-feely.
There's a lot of stuff in there about thanking objects before you throw them out, but contrary to popular opinion, I actually do have feelings, particularly about the stuff in my house, and She is not wrong that thanking objects before throwing them away, for example, is not about the objects, obviously, taking account of your feelings, but it is about you recognizing that your memories are going to remain even if you throw away a particular item of clothing that you haven't worn for 30 years.
There's a lot of good advice in this book.
Really?
Listen, I have young kids.
That means my house is constantly a mess.
Like, all the time.
Because they take out their toys, I tell them to put them away, they argue with me, they put away three quarters of the toys, and then the other quarter of the toys are left until I have time to actually put them away.
But, she is correct that going through one large spate of cleaning your house is significantly better than constantly cleaning.
I just went through my wardrobe a couple of days ago.
And I gave away like half the stuff in there to goodwill.
My closet is cleaner.
I feel better about it.
So give it a try.
Seriously.
I know, really off-brand, right?
But go check it out.
The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up by Marie Kondo.
Kind of a fun book.
Okay, other things that I like.
So I have to acknowledge, when we're talking about the woke media and the woke narrative, there are certain questions that the woke media can ask that nobody else is allowed to ask because these questions are actually racist.
So Bernie Sanders was asked by Charlemagne Tha God on one of these podcasts, About, Charlamagne Tha God is what, a rapper?
Yes, okay, thank you.
So Bernie Sanders, the leading Democratic presidential candidate, a near-octogenarian socialist who has never done a productive thing in his life, he was asked about whether America needs another white president.
Now, let's just stop there for a second.
You know how wildly and insanely inappropriate that is?
Why wouldn't America need another white president?
Can you imagine anybody saying, listen, we had Barack Obama, dude, suck, do we really need another black president?
That'd be ridiculous.
It depends on who the black person is.
I said this when Obama was elected.
I didn't want Obama to be president because I wanted a better qualified black person.
Because I wanted a better qualified person.
I wanted someone who agreed with my principles.
I didn't care about his race.
I'm more than fine with having a black president.
I would just like that black president to agree with all of my principles on politics.
Well, folks on the left though, for them that's not enough.
So they're asking Bernie Sanders whether he is too white to be president.
Bernie Sanders' answer is pretty much spot on here.
So Bernie, 44 out of 45 presidents in this country have been white men.
Do you think we need another one?
I think you need this one.
Look, we are living in an unprecedented time.
We have the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country.
Somebody who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe.
A racist, a con man, a cheat.
Now you're just getting warmed up here, man.
Now this is a bad news guy, and the most important thing that has got to happen is that this dangerous president is defeated.
Okay, so his rip on Trump is obviously inane, and it's in sort of typical rote.
He just has the list in his head, he flips through the Rolodex.
That's not the good part of the answer.
The part of the answer that is good is he says, listen, you should just look at me as a candidate.
Stop looking at my race.
Now, this has pissed off the woke left.
The woke left is upset about this, because in their view, Bernie Sanders is too post-racial.
You need someone who's going to back the idea that we need a black president to fix a country that is historically racist, even though we just had a black president for eight years, and the country actually got more racially polarized as a result of his deliberate stoking of racial flames.
Good for Bernie Sanders for refusing to back down on this issue.
Honestly, I would rather have Bernie Sanders' view on race than Kamala Harris' views on race.
And I think that Bernie Sanders' views on class are actually less dangerous to the country than Kamala Harris' views on race.
Because America is not going to be divided by class.
We won't.
There's too much income mobility in the United States.
The vast majority of people who earn inside the 1% this year will not earn inside the 1% in 10 years, and have not earned inside the 1% 10 years before.
Class distinctions in the United States are largely artificial.
The attempt to tribalize people by race is much more dangerous to American politics.
That's what I like about burning inside the Democratic Party.
So, alright, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Well, there comes a point with the woke when you're so woke that your brains fall out.
One of these incidents comes courtesy of the Daily Mirror today.
So the Daily Mirror is a newspaper in London.
And here is the title of their piece.
Married lesbian couple are now husband and wife after one became a man.
And then it says, Ty and Anaya Kennedy from Florida say they don't care about genders as they are madly in love.
I'm gonna go with that's not what happened.
That a married lesbian couple are now husband and wife after one became a man.
I'm fairly certain that the husband is still a woman.
But it's gonna make things real awkward for the left if they continue along these lines.
Because they're going to have to decide whether sex is innate or whether sexual orientation is innate.
They can't have it both ways.
If sex is not innate, and you can simply change your sex, well then sexual orientation is also malleable, and you can actually just change your sexual orientation.
I mean, this is the first line of the article.
Childhood sweethearts Ty and Aniyah Kennedy were both females when they started dating five years ago, but they now identify as husband and wife in a straight relationship after Tay began to undergo the transitioning process to become a man.
So, it was funny.
Folks on the left were trying to get out of this rather illogical conundrum by suggesting that they're both bisexual, but they don't consider themselves bisexual.
The girl, apparently, the one who actually stayed a woman, according to the left's logic, became straight.
She said it, not me.
So you want to argue with her about her sexual orientation?
Have at it, man.
But apparently, her sexual orientation was malleable, which is not allowed.
But sex was also malleable, which is allowed.
Or it could be that male and female are innate categories and that sexual orientation is not nearly as malleable because a lot of this stuff is innate.
Maybe all of that is true, but again, the left is so confused they don't even know how to characterize this stuff anymore.
So well done, folks on the left.
This has always been puzzling.
You know, the kind of grouping together of LGBT has always been kind of weird because the truth is that T tends to overrule LGB.
Once you obliterate the distinction between the sexes, then what's the need for categories like LGB anymore?
Sexuality simply becomes fluid.
You don't need lesbianism, the idea that you prefer women to men.
Why would that exactly be a category if women can be men and men can be women?
Obviously, there's some rather deep illogic here, but the left doesn't need logic.
All they need is a narrative.
All right.
Well, we'll be back here a little bit later today.
Adam Carolla will be stopping by.
We'll have much more to talk about.
So this is why you should subscribe.
You can get two hours of our show later today, commercial free.
Go check us out then.
If not, we'll 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 Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
▲
Export Selection