All Episodes
Previous Next
March 11, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:02
The Wayback Machine | Ep. 734
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Tucker Carlson gets knocked by media matters, Democrats re-embrace socialism, and the 2020 Democratic candidates race to the far left.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, we have a lot to get to today, and we'll jump right into it.
But we begin first by reminding you that when you enter the bathroom to make yourself presentable for the day, you need the best products available.
And that's why I love Dollar Shave Club.
I love that Dollar Shave Club has everything I need to look, feel, and smell my best.
What I love even more is the fact I never have to go to a store.
That's because number one, DSC delivers everything I need directly to my door, and number two, they keep me fully stocked on what I use so I don't run out.
Here's how it works.
Dollar Shave Club has everything you need to get ready no matter what you are getting ready for.
They have you covered head to toe for your hair, your skin, your face, you name it, they've got it.
And they have this new program where they automatically keep you stocked up on the products you use.
You determine what you want, when you want it, it shows up right at your door from once a month to once every six months.
That's what I do for their Amber Lavender Body Cleanser.
It is so calming and soothing.
And I'm a guy who can use some calm and smooth soothe.
So go check out their product stage.
Black pepper shampoo.
They've got just the best product.
Plus, with their handsome discount, the more you buy, the more you save.
And right now, they've got a bunch of starter sets you can try for just five bucks, like their oral care kit.
After that, the restock box ships regular sized products at regular price.
So what are you waiting for?
Get your starter set for just five bucks right now.
Alright, well we begin with Media Matters doing what Media Matters does, being terrible people who spend all of their time digging up old comments by people they don't like.
Now, the way the media covers all of these Media Matters stories is they cover it as though suddenly audio was unearthed.
As the old material suddenly rose up out of the soil like a volcanic eruption and suddenly the material was made public.
So what you will see today is headlines about Tucker Carlson of Fox News in which the media report that old audio emerges.
It's a USA Today's headline.
...is Tucker Carlson refuses to apologize amid uproar over past comments on extremely primitive women.
And then you've got in a headline from CNN.com, Tucker Carlson refuses to apologize for his misogynistic remarks.
And then you've got Market Watch, Tucker Carlson unapologetic after using C-word, hurling other insults at women.
In interview, he shrugs off as naughty.
Okay, all of this just randomly occurred.
You know, it's magical.
It's spontaneous.
And the outrage is very real.
Okay, it's not ginned up in any way.
It is very real.
It's a bunch of people who are walking around, and suddenly old audio from like 2007 just, boom!
Clocked them right in the head, and they were super offended, and now they have decided to hashtag boycott Tucker Carlson.
Okay, so let me go back to the beginning.
Here's what Media Matters is.
Media Matters was a Clinton-associated institution founded by David Brock, who is one of the slimiest people in the history of modern American politics.
And it was specifically designed to take right-wing hosts off the air.
Media Matters was specifically designed as an organization that was going to target right-wing hosts, the members of the quote-unquote vast right-wing conspiracy, and then destroy them.
And the way they were going to do this is they were going to dig up comments or find comments that they could either take out of context Or that they could spin up to levels of rage unforeseen by human eyes before, and then they were going to call up advertisers.
So they were going to militarize a small base of people to call up advertisers on right-wing shows and then convince those advertisers to pull their advertising lest there be blowback and boycotts.
So they did this to Rush Limbaugh.
Remember, they did this to Rush Limbaugh in the aftermath of his Cassandra Fluck comments.
You'll remember that they've tried to do this to Sean Hannity.
They've tried to do this to Laura Ingraham.
They've tried to do this to pretty much everybody on the right.
Media Matters makes a living going after the advertisers of everybody else, and they have this huge endowment from a variety of left-wing sources, including George Soros.
So they have a huge amount of money, and this means they can dedicate employees full-time to simply going back and digging up everything that people who are conservative have ever said, and then trying to use those things to club them over the head.
It's all bad faith.
It's all gross.
And the specific goal, I mean, they're not shy about this.
The specific goal is to knock people they disagree with off the air.
Now, this is actually a very easy business.
It really is.
I know, because a few years back, I ran an organization called Truth Revolt.
Truth Revolt was specifically and openly designed as a right-wing version of Media Matters.
We said so openly.
It was in Aspect of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
And what Truth Revolt was designed to do was create mutually assured destruction.
So, for example, what we would do is every night we would watch Al Sharpton's show.
And every night we would watch Martin Bashir's show.
And every night we would watch Alec Baldwin's show.
Every Friday night.
And then we would call up advertisers.
We would have a hundred people.
That was all it took.
We'd have a hundred people and we would issue emails to those activists.
And we would tell those activists, call these advertisers and tell them to stop advertising on Martin Bashir when Martin Bashir says that somebody should excrete into sarah palin's mouth and then the advertisers would drop because advertisers are notoriously squirrelly when it comes to political when it comes to political advertising they don't want the blowback mostly advertisers want to be left alone mostly what advertisers want is they want to be able to advertise to their audiences in peace they advertise on a wide variety of shows every advertiser on my show for example advertises on left-wing shows as well
And that's good for the country.
It is good for the country that advertisers advertise on a wide variety of political shows.
But Media Matters wants to make it unpalatable for advertisers to advertise on any show that is not on MSNBC.
Which is why they are now digging up audio that was publicly available when Tucker Carlson was working for, wait for it, MSNBC.
And now they're using it to try to start boycotts against, wait for it, Fox News.
That's what Media Matters does.
You have to understand this agenda before you can understand why all of this outrage is ginned up, why all of this is fake, why an enormous amount of this outrage is simply created out of whole cloth by the left wing in order to target Tucker Carlson.
There is not one person hashtagging boycott Tucker Carlson today who's a regular watcher of Tucker Carlson's show.
Not one.
There's nobody going after Tucker Carlson today who is a Tucker Carlson fan and now is just shocked at the stuff he said to Bubba the Love Sponge between 2006 and 2011 because that's what all of this is.
The columnist, a researcher at Media Matters who has the worst job in America, Madeline Peltz, she says she spent a hundred hours listening to Tucker's old episodes with Bubba the Love Sponge, a shock jock radio program between 2006 and 2011.
Now you may be asking, Was any of that old audio offensive at the time?
Did people really care at the time?
And the answer was no.
Bubba the Love Sponge is actually a pretty popular radio show, and it was certainly popular back when Tucker was on it.
And no one seemed to have any real problem with the stuff Tucker was saying because they understood.
This is a shock jock radio program where the entire purpose of the show is to shock people.
Bubba the Love Sponge was basically a softer version, slightly, of Howard Stern.
So this is the same thing as when the media tried to dig up old appearances of Donald Trump on Howard Stern and then use that to bash Donald Trump.
As though appearing on Howard Stern is what people really think.
Or as though appearing on Bubba the Love Sponge is Tucker's most thought out political commentary.
So Media Matters spends hundreds of hours, hundreds of man hours, digging through the archives to try and find stuff that they can go after Tucker for.
And honestly, this is how the internet works now.
I experience it pretty much every day myself, where folks on the left will go back into my Twitter archive and try to find something, take it out of context, find a bad old tweet that I don't agree with anymore, and then bring it up ten years later, and then say, oh, well, you know, you're a bad guy because you tweeted this ten years ago.
You know what I don't have?
A time machine.
You know what you do have on the internet is a Wayback Machine.
The Wayback Machine allows you to see pretty much anything anyone has ever said.
And what that means is that you're probably going to find some stuff you don't like.
But here's the deal.
There is a statute of limitations when it comes to political opinions.
If you have moved forward from those opinions, or if you are asked about those opinions and you say, yeah, I don't believe that anymore.
That's fair.
Because you know what you can't do, realistically speaking?
Go back in time.
Tucker can't go back in time to 2007 and say to Tucker in 2007 on Bubba the Love Sponge, you know, Tucker.
Yes, Tucker.
You know what, Tucker?
I think it's a bad idea to say that.
All right, Tucker.
I agree.
That's not something we can do in real life.
Here's what you can do in real life.
Ask Tucker about those comments.
You can say, you know, Tucker, you said this back in 2007.
Is that something with which you agree?
And then you might get a good faith response from Tucker Carlson.
You can always tell the folks who are bad faith in politics by their refusal to hear any response to their own old stuff.
If you go to somebody and you say, like Bernie Sanders, for example, you say to him, you know, back in the 1980s, you defended Cuba.
What's your take on that?
Then you have to listen to his answer.
Maybe he says he was ignorant.
Maybe he says that he disagrees with what he said then.
Whatever it is.
The reason that old audio of Bernie Sanders is still useful is because Bernie still believes all the things that he believed back in the 1980s.
The same thing, I'm sure, is not true of the stuff that Tucker Carlson said on Bubba the Love Sponge.
And listen, this is not about me defending Tucker, per se.
I defended James Gunn.
James Gunn was a director.
You'll remember him from Guardians of the Galaxy.
And James Gunn had some bad old tweets.
Some bad old tweets in which he made pedophilia jokes.
And those were taken out of context in bad faith to try and suggest that James Gunn was actually pro-pedophilia or was a pedophile himself because he was making pedophilia jokes.
Because just like Tucker, he was a shock jock back then and he was doing shock jocky things.
Tucker was on with the shock jock.
James Gunn was sort of a shock filmmaker and that's what he did.
And I said at the time, this is old stuff.
Everybody knew about it at the time.
That's not what he does now.
Why are we doing this?
Why do we have to manufacture outrage?
There are enough things to be outraged over in modern American life, you don't actually have to go back 15 years to the stuff that people said back on Twitter, and then get angry about it.
And we see this in its most extreme form with a couple of weeks ago, people going after the old comments from 1971 of John Wayne, and getting outraged over crap that John Wayne said.
John Wayne's been dead for 50 years, and people are still getting angry at the stuff he's saying.
Why?
Because it connects with a political agenda, which is to polarize us in the here and now.
So here is what Media Matters found.
So they went back and they found some stuff that Tucker said on Bubba the Love Sponge, in which he diminished the actions of Warren Jeffs, who was then on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list for involving arranged illegal marriages between adults and underage girls.
He talked about sex and young girls, and he defended statutory rape.
Now, some of this, I'm sure, was him just being shocky because he was on with Bubba the Love Sponge.
And all of it was public at the time.
It wasn't like he was saying this behind closed doors and suddenly it emerged.
Bubba the Love Sponge was widely listened to.
Nobody seemed to have a problem with it then because he was on MSNBC.
Now, does that mean his comments are unobjectionable?
No, if he actually believes that, this stuff is egregious.
But the question is, do you actually think that Tucker believes this stuff now?
Do you think that Tucker actually believed that stuff then, or was he just appearing on a shock jock radio show and saying shock jock things because he was on with a shock jock?
Now, Media Matters knows better than this, obviously.
This is all bad faith garbage, and everybody knows it's bad faith garbage.
So Tucker has now responded to all of this.
He put out a little statement.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about your morning coffee.
So I will tell you, yesterday the clock skipped forward and I woke up in the morning and I was dead.
And that's why I needed my morning coffee from Black Rifle Coffee.
Morning coffee is an American institution.
That's why when it comes to starting my day, I reach for the most American coffee on the market.
Black Rifle Coffee.
Black Rifle Coffee gives a portion of their sales to veterans and first responder causes.
Black Rifle Coffee is roast-to-order, guaranteeing you fresh, delicious coffee with every order.
Black Rifle's Coffee Club makes things easy.
You just pick your blend in the amount you want, and Black Rifle ships your coffee right to your door every month, hassle-free.
And while liberals threaten to further tax your hard-earned money with their socialistic agenda, Black Rifle Coffee is fueling the fight for freedom by upping their offer to 20% off.
Take advantage by visiting BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
Receive 20% off your entire order.
That is BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben for 20% off.
BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
And when you use that slash Ben, you get 20% off your entire order.
Again, the folks at BlackRifleCoffee, wonderful.
Pro-America people, they give a portion of their sales to veterans and first responder causes, and their coffee's terrific.
Go to blackriflecoffee.com slash ben, check it out and get 20% off your entire order.
Alrighty, so Tucker has fired back at Media Matters, and he did so in what is the most appropriate way.
He tweeted out this statement.
That's refreshing.
Good for Tucker.
Honestly, good for Tucker, because here's the way this usually works.
more than a decade ago, rather than express the usual ritual contrition.
How about this?
I'm on television every weeknight live for an hour.
If you want to know what I think, you can watch.
Anyone who disagrees with my views is welcome to come on and explain why.
That's refreshing.
Good for Tucker.
Honestly, good for Tucker, because here's the way this usually works.
Media Matters targets somebody over a statement that is objectionable, but not career ending, or they dig up a piece of old audio that nobody cared about 20 years ago, but now we're all supposed to care about now.
And then the person is hit with a wave of advertiser boycotts, and then they express contrition for their comments.
And then the contrition is used as an excuse to pummel them further because it's an admission of guilt.
And then the person apologizes further, and they just sort of hope it goes away.
This is Media Matters MO.
This is what Media Matters do.
This is their favorite thing to do.
And they and their allies will do this based on comments that forget about objectionable like Tucker's comments from 2007.
They'll do it based on unobjectionable content.
They tried to do this to me early this year when I made some comments about why pro-life people Would not be in favor of abortion across the board, even if you knew that a person was going to commit crimes in the future.
And it made a reference to pro-life people not killing Hitler in the womb because the idea was that pro-life people don't believe that you should be able to kill people based on the possibility of them committing future crime.
That was specifically directed at an argument in the book for economics.
Folks on the left took it out of context and then they tried to call our advertisers and manufacture outrage.
This is what folks on the left do.
So good for Tucker Carlson for not playing that game.
Good for Tucker Carlson for saying, listen, I'm not going to pretend that my contrition is going to somehow alleviate your crazy.
It's not going to.
If you want to ask me about it today, come, ask me about it today.
But if you're going to dig up old stuff that I said 10 years ago and then use it as an excuse to just try and destroy me as a human being, try to destroy my livelihood, you can go to hell.
Honestly, good for Tucker, because this is what the response should be from everyone.
You know what the response should be from everyone when somebody digs up a piece of 10-year-old audio?
Honestly?
The response should be, was it public?
If it was, then the response should be, am I supposed to be deeply disturbed by it now?
Maybe I'll go ask this person about that audio.
And then if the person doubles down on a piece of bad audio, if the person doubles down suggests that they were right about a behavior, then that's a here and now problem.
So I'll explain in just a second what this means for people who are not Tucker Carlson, like for example Joy Reid over at MSNBC.
So Joy Reid, host over at MSNBC, and Joy Reid has a long history of bad blog posts.
There are a bunch of homophobic blog posts and Anti-Semitic blog posts, apparently, back from 2004, 2003, going back 15 years ago.
And people were digging those up and using them against Joy Reid.
And my initial take on Joy Reid was exactly the same as it was on Tucker Carlson, which is, she shouldn't be fired.
She shouldn't lose advertisers.
If you're going to lose advertisers, you should lose advertisers based on stuff you say now, not stuff that you said back in history, because nobody has a time machine.
We all have a wayback machine, we can all see what people said 10 years ago, but none of us can go back and correct the things we said 10 years ago.
If we're given the opportunity to do so now, and we don't, that's a different story.
And that's where Joy Reid went wrong.
So Joy Reid was asked about all that stuff, and instead of her just saying, listen, I've grown, I've progressed, I don't believe those things anymore, I wish I'd never written them, which is the honest way to go about a conversation with any human being.
If she had done that, that's fine, right?
This is the way that we all deal with stuff that we've done in our past that we don't like.
When we have a fight with our spouse, Forget our spouse.
We have a fight with a friend or an acquaintance.
And we say, you know, I really didn't like what you did to me a year ago.
And the person says, you know what?
You're right.
I'm sorry.
That's the end of the story, is it not?
Now it's different if the person says, you know what?
I'm glad I did what I did a year ago.
I'm glad I smacked you in the head a year ago.
Good for me.
That's a sin in the here and now.
That's not a sin in the past.
You can't correct sins in the past.
All you can do is express atonement for them or say that you've changed and changed your mind.
That's all you can do.
If you double down on them, that's a sin in the here and now.
That's where Joy Reid went wrong because what Joy Reid did is she said, that wasn't me.
I was hacked.
I never made a mistake.
I've never made a mistake.
Now again, I've talked about this in a variety of contexts, this idea that we have now created a society where it is impossible to apologize for stuff that you've done in the past.
Where something arises from the past.
We talked about this in the context of Kevin Hart during the Oscars.
You tweeted something 10 years ago.
You did a comedy routine 10 years ago.
And people now bring this back up to try and wreck you.
And if you apologize, they say, aha, that's because you were guilty, which means you were bad.
And because you were bad, we're going to try and wreck you.
Or alternatively, you say, you know, I've changed.
They say, well, you don't get to change.
Sorry.
If you would really, if you didn't like that stuff you said, you should have preemptively come out and you should have apologized for it preemptively.
And that's the take of a lot of folks on the left.
Well, what that means is the only people you're going to get in politics or public life are people who are A, unrepentant, Or B, willing to preemptively, every time they change their mind, preemptively come out and say something about it and unburden themselves.
We talked about this in the context of Ralph Northam in Virginia.
I said about even Ralph Northam, a Democrat in Virginia with whom I heartily disagree on a variety of issues, including infanticide.
I said about Ralph Northam that if Ralph Northam had come out about his Facebook in 1980, his yearbook in 1985, the one where there was a guy in blackface and a guy in a KKK outfit, and said, that was ignorant and terrible of me.
It shouldn't have been on my Facebook page.
I feel terrible about it.
The reason I've not commented on it until now is because I feel guilty about it.
I wish people had forgotten.
Now that it's raised again, it's opened old wounds that I, that honestly I wish had been buried.
That's not been my life?
That would have been a good response to the situation.
Instead, he said that it wasn't his, and it somehow sneaked into his yearbook.
He gave the same answer as Joy Reid.
Well, that is a sin in the here and now.
That's not a sin 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago anymore.
That's a sin in the here and now.
Here's the way these things should go, honestly.
Somebody brings up an old thing you said.
You either say, I agree with it, or I disagree with it.
And then you say, you know what?
Deal.
Deal.
If you're that offended by crap I did 15 years ago, take a hike.
And if I say it now, then you have a right to be offended.
But none of this 20 years later.
I'm going to go back and dig up something that you did and then get super offended by it now.
That's generally absurd because, once more, there are no time machines.
You don't get to wreck somebody based on stuff they said 20 years ago without even asking them whether they agree with it now or looking at whether they were joking or whether they were on a shock jock show or any of the rest of it.
Because let's be real, you're not actually outraged by this stuff.
The number of people who are actually outraged by Tucker Carlson's bad comments from 2007 is no one.
Everybody on the left And again, that doesn't mean the comments were outrageous.
I think if I had heard these comments in 2007, maybe I would have been outraged.
I didn't know about them.
But I'm not going to pretend to be outraged by something that Tucker Carlson said on Bubba the Love Sponge in 2007.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my life.
Now, if Tucker comes out today and starts defending Warren Jeffries, if Tucker comes out today and starts talking about how much he's in favor of 27-year-olds in arranged marriages with 16-year-olds, which is allegedly what he said, well, it's what he said on tape, with Warren Jeffs or whatever, about Warren Jeffs on Bubba the Love Sponge, if he says that today, then there's a reason to rip him up and down.
But there's no reason to rip him up and down based on old audio that he has not even given a chance to talk about or defend or disassociate himself from.
The reason this is dangerous is because it can be done with pretty much anybody.
Anybody who's been in public life for more than the last 30 seconds is going to have stuff on their record nobody likes.
And if we make it the rule that you can't advertise on any show where somebody has ever said anything you dislike, ever, there will be no more advertising on political radio or political television.
It will, in fact, circumscribe the capacity of people to bring their political opinions to the fore.
We'll be polarizing the public for no apparent reason?
Listen, if you don't like Tucker, you already don't like Tucker.
How many people additionally don't like Tucker today because of stuff that Tucker said 15 years ago, or 10 years ago, or whatever it is?
The answer is zero.
Everybody already had an opinion.
All that faux outrage is, is faux.
And this is faux outrage for Media Matters, and they do it professionally.
Because their real goal here is not to make America better by cleansing it of its past sins.
That is not the goal here.
The goal here is to throw Tucker Carlson off the air.
If they don't like Tucker Carlson, they should watch his show tonight.
And if he says something they disagree with, then they should argue with him.
But I will also say, holding advertisers responsible for the 10-year-old sins of hosts is really gross.
You think that Joy Reid's advertisers approve of everything Joy Reid said in 2003?
They weren't advertising with her then.
And by the way, if you're going to boycott anybody for Tucker's old comments, boycott MSNBC.
They were hiring Tucker at the time.
He was working for MSNBC when he said this stuff.
Not for Fox News.
All right, meanwhile, the Democrats are full-scale embracing socialism.
I mean, they're enjoying their ride to the left.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
First, let's talk about Congress.
I've had it with them.
You've had it with them.
We've all had it with Congress.
Frankly, I've also had it with the executive branch.
I'll be honest with you.
I've had it with the vast majority of the federal government at this point because they've completely overrun the boundaries that were drawn for them in the Constitution of the United States.
Those beautiful checks and balances that were created by the Founding Fathers to limit the power of the federal government, they've been completely overthrown.
And that's why one of the ways that we can fight back is to use a convention of states I'm a big believer in calling a convention of states where we the people can propose amendments.
Amendments like, for example, reestablishing the checks and balances between Congress and the presidency, getting rid of executive branch agencies, ensuring that legislation passed by Congress is understandable and on a single issue.
No more omnibus packages.
There's lots of stuff we could do with some constitutional amendments.
Calling a Convention of States, however, is the only way to make that happen.
There are already 3.8 million people with us on this.
There are more every day.
So join me and my friend Mark Meckler.
Go to conventionofstates.com slash ben and sign the petition today.
That is conventionofstates.com slash ben.
Go check it out right now.
The limitations of the Constitution have been overthrown.
There's a reason to re-establish them.
Go to conventionofstates.com slash ben to sign the petition today and volunteer and help out.
It's a great way to help restore the founding philosophy of the country by re-embracing the Constitution.
Alright, speaking of people who have not embraced the Constitution, the left has decided to full-scale embrace socialism, which is deeply exciting.
Bernie Sanders is correct.
He is, in my opinion, the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination at this point.
I know Joe Biden hasn't jumped in, but I think that the best day of Joe Biden's campaign will be the first day.
Bernie Sanders is making overt outreach plays toward the intersectional base.
I've been saying for a while, the Democratic Party is really splintered along one line, intersectionality versus socialism.
Now, they don't necessarily have to be in conflict, and this is where Bernie is going.
What he is trying to do is say that socialism ought to be applied first for people of minority status.
He believes that socialism overall is a solution for everyone of every race equally, but Bernie is now beginning to make sort of overtures toward the intersectional base.
He's trying to jump into the America's a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic place, as opposed to America just hates poor people, which was his old line.
So Bernie is coming out and he's saying, listen, my radical ideas have now been embraced by the base of the party.
And this, of course, is exactly right.
Those ideas that we talked about here in Iowa four years ago, that seemed so radical at that time.
Well, today, virtually all of those ideas are supported by a majority of the American people.
And they are ideas that Democratic candidates from school board to presidential candidates are running on today.
Okay.
Okay, so, you know, he is right about this.
The fact is that because we live in a time where people are disconnected from the actual impacts of socialism, very few people in the United States have ever lived under socialism, and all of them are expatriates from socialist dictatorships, essentially.
It's very easy to re-embrace bad ideas because nobody ever sees the price tag.
One of the beautiful things about being Bernie Sanders, and being a socialist in general in the United States, is you get to point to programs in other countries and say, we ought to do that.
And then when people ask, how do you pay for that?
You go, it'll pay for itself!
Which is the same thing you hear in timeshare presentations, and it is not true.
And whenever somebody says, you know what?
Forget about the price tag, it's gonna pay for itself.
Check your wallet.
Because I'm sure it is gone.
And somebody is already buying stolen VCRs from the back of a truck with it.
That is the way socialism tends to work.
Well, it's not just Bernie Sanders embracing this stuff, it is the mayor of New York.
So, Bill de Blasio tweeted out over the weekend, brothers and sisters, There is plenty of money in this country.
There's plenty of money in this world.
It's just in the wrong hands.
Yes, I would like all the money to be in the hands of a man who has never done anything for his entire life, Bill de Blasio.
I also love the brothers and sisters.
Comraden!
Comrades!
If we just— We are this far from an omelet.
All we have to do is break a few eggs.
Gotta get rid of the kulaks.
They have all the money.
Once we take the money, it'll be all better.
By the way, worth noting, New York City is bankrupt.
So that's sad.
So his own city is essentially bankrupt at this point, and he's got nothing to say about that, except that he wants to take more money from rich people.
Which, of course, is not going to work.
Even New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has said, we can't raise taxes on the rich people anymore in this state.
They're all leaving and going to Florida.
The largest contingent of New Yorkers outside of New York is now living in Florida because everyone is leaving.
Including, by the way, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's mom, who said she moved down to Florida because there was less property tax.
But Bill de Blasio is still trying to play this class warfare game where he is pushing for taking away wealth from some and giving the wealth to others.
Socialism is all fun and games until it's actually implemented.
When it is implemented, like in Venezuela, there's no electricity.
Caracas, Venezuela, is now in its fourth day of complete darkness.
Refrigeration has failed.
People are eating spoiled and rotten food.
Socialism, working wherever it's tried.
And don't get me Norway and Denmark, guys.
Those are capitalist countries with some redistributionist programs stacked on top.
If you're talking about socialism, you have to talk like Bill de Blasio, which means nationalization of industry and removal of money from those who make business to those who don't.
Well, one of the lead proponents of this nonsense is, of course, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who says the same dumb stuff as Bernie Sanders, but is younger and more attractive, and snaps her fingers in a Z formation.
And so, that means she's cool, I guess.
I don't know what that means.
In any case, AOC says, if you do not have a job, she's speaking at South by Southwest, and she said, if you don't have a job, you're left to die under capitalism.
Socialism means not leaving people to die.
Which is weird, since socialism killed over 100 million people in the last century, and is killing a bunch of people in Venezuela right this instant.
But apparently, under AOC, if you don't have a job under capitalism, you are left to die.
We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work, right?
We should be excited by that.
But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die.
And that is, at its core, our problem.
Oh, that's a problem!
Oh, you're right.
She's the first person ever to discover that leaving people to die is bad.
Which is weird, since again, socialism routinely leaves people to die, so long as those people get in the way of the grand socialist vision.
Mass exterminations under socialism have not been rare, it turns out.
Dissidents are still in jail in Cuba.
People in Venezuela, as I mentioned, starving to death.
China eradicated some 40 million of its own citizens.
The Soviet Union routinely gulagged political opponents and also killed a bunch of people in the Ukraine in the 1930s.
So socialism basically has been a party.
The notion that socialism is just wonderful for human lives, that they are seeking to preserve every human life, and that if you don't have a job you're left to die under capitalism, it's just absurd.
First of all, capitalism has been responsible for more people rising from extreme poverty than any force in the history of humanity.
Look at world GDP since the implementation of free markets, and what you will see is a straight line up.
It's exponential growth in world GDP since the implementation of free markets.
When it came to top-down control of government, top-down control of markets via government, you don't even have to go back to the socialist past to see how much that has failed.
That was the rule, not the exception, in virtually all human societies up till about 1800.
And then, we started thinking, hey, wait, what if we left individuals to pursue their own economic decisions in peace?
And world GDP exploded.
It is also amazing to me, and truly astonishing, how folks on the left so often conflate Government action with kindness.
I mean, I don't know how much AOC gives in charity.
I do know that people who tend to vote socialist give less charity than people who tend to vote Republican, because Republicans tend to be religious.
And that means that we spend a lot of our money on charity.
We give tens of thousands of dollars, I mean, literally, per person, in many cases, to charity.
If you just look at the studies, people in red states give more charity than people in blue states.
People who are religious give more charity than people who are non-religious.
People who vote Republican give more charity than people who vote Democrat.
These are just well-established facts.
The conflation of government action with helping the poor is truly perverse.
The fact is that over the long span of history, including in modern history, the first place that religious people go when it comes to hard times is their religious community.
Under capitalism, capitalism does not bar you from being part of a social institution that helps pick up the slack.
Government grabbing all the resources and getting rid of the profit incentive, which is what AOC wants to do.
She doesn't just want to redistribute the gains.
She wants to get rid of the profit incentive entirely, as we'll see.
That generates enormous poverty.
That's not about helping the poor.
It's about dragging everybody through the mud, including the entire economy.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about hiring at your business.
So you don't want to hire people who don't know what they're talking about, like AOC.
You want to hire people who actually know how to do a job.
That is why You ought to be using ZipRecruiter.
Hiring used to be hard.
Multiple job sites, stacks of resumes, a confusing review process.
But today, hiring can be easy, and you only have to go to one place to get it done.
ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
But they don't stop there.
With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience, and then invites them to apply to your job.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one, and they spotlight the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that 80% of employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire. That is ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire, D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
There's a reason that 80% of employers posting on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
All right, we're going to get to the rest of AOC's embrace of socialism, and then we'll get to some 2020 Democrats who are...
Making trouble for themselves.
They've actually got some trouble.
We'll get to all of that in just a second.
First, you're going to have to go check out dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you get the rest of the Ben Shapiro show.
You get two additional hours per day of the Ben Shapiro show.
We do a two-hour radio show in the afternoon.
And you get to be part of that.
You get to ask us questions during the breaks.
All sorts of goodies available to you.
Plus, you get Andrew Klavan's show.
You get Michael Moll's terrible show.
All sorts of great things.
Plus, Michael Moll's show, when you subscribe.
For $99 a year, you also get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels.
Check out that Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
It is magnificent.
Now, I want to remind you, in just eight days, my new book, The Right Side of History, detailing the crisis of purpose that's happening right now in Western civilization, is released.
So if you want to know how we got here, how we can get back on track, if you want to know what Western civilization is all about, pre-order today at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, any major bookseller.
I really can't wait to share it with you.
I think it's a really important piece of work.
I think it's the most important thing I've ever written.
So I would love for you to check it out.
I really do think that it's a great resource, particularly if you are interested in the roots of our civilization.
Go check out the right side of history today.
Quick note, there are some people who are bringing up an old tweet in which I say that the right side of history is a stupid phrase.
Yes, it is a stupid phrase when it is used to justify whatever your politics of the moment are right now.
When you are Barack Obama and you say that if you believe in traditional marriage, you're not on the right side of history, that's a nonsensical silly phrase.
History does not have intent.
The whole title of the book is a play on the phrase.
The whole title of the book is, if there is a right side of history, it's that the right things Throughout history have been generated by certain fundamental truths.
It's about looking at what in history is good.
It is not about trying to justify your silly social proposal of the day by appealing to in a hundred years history will have justified me.
And just a quick note on that.
Anyway, go check out the book.
The book is totally worthwhile.
I think it's really good.
Endorsed by lots of wonderful people ranging from Daniel Hannan over at the EU Parliament to Jordan Peterson.
To Arthur Brooks.
I mean, just a wonderful plethora of people have endorsed it.
I'm truly grateful for that.
Go check out The Right Side of History right now.
It comes out in eight days.
I do do the audio read.
So if you love the sound of this voice, you can get like six and a half more hours of it by going to... Yeah, I read fast.
Go check out The Right Side of History today.
All right.
Also, check us out at YouTube, iTunes, leave us a review.
We always appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So AOC, so fresh, so face.
She is a good representative of the fact that so many Democrats have now embraced socialism whole scale.
And her description of socialism versus capitalism is always telling.
Whenever you hear people, as I say, say, I would love this thing.
And the cost?
Irrelevant.
It'll pay for itself.
That's garbage.
And also, when people say, are you a socialist?
And people say, if by socialism, you mean unicorns in a meadow filled with gumdrops.
And you're like, no, that's not what I meant.
I meant nationalization of industry, abolition of the profit motive, and generalized poverty.
When they say, if by socialism you mean, and then say a lot of good things, they don't know what socialism is.
AOC doesn't actually know what socialism is because she's lived in a capitalist country her whole life.
I mean, it's so funny to me that she talks about people who lack privilege in American society.
She went to Boston University.
She got a degree in econ and learned zero things.
And then she bartended.
And at 29, she went straight to Congress.
Does that sound like a life where you lack privilege?
Where things are real rough for you?
How does she think things would have gone for her if she'd been living in Cuba or Venezuela or China or Vietnam?
Does she think things would have been lots better for her, you know, in socialist countries?
Anyway, AOC says capitalism is irredeemable.
This is maybe the most pathetic, stupid, ignorant statement of, I don't know, at least the last 48 hours because stupidity is running real high these days.
Here's AOC calling capitalism irredeemable.
You know, the system that has raised One that has raised virtually everyone on the globe from abject poverty.
That system, according to her, there's been an 80% decline in the world's worst poverty since 1980.
But according to AOC, capitalism is irredeemable.
Capitalism isn't, to me, it's an ideology of capital.
It puts capital, the most important thing is the concentration of capital and it means that we seek and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else and we seek it at any human and environmental cost.
That is what that means.
And to me, that ideology is not sustainable and cannot be redeemed.
Okay, that is not... What is she even talking about?
That is not what capitalism suggests.
Capitalism does not suggest that profit by destroying other people is okay.
That's not what free markets are.
You don't get to violate the rights of other people.
For example, you know what's not capitalism?
Me and my friends voting to steal your money, kill you, and then use your money for what we want.
According to AOC's description of capitalism, that fits right in, right?
I'm maximizing my own personal profit at cost to you.
That's not what capitalism is.
Free markets are about the idea that you as an individual have innate value given to you by God, that I as an individual have innate value, and that in recognition of each other's innate value, we own our own labor and creativity, and that we can trade our labor to one another.
For additional benefit to ourselves and that we have a right to accrue profit based on our voluntary exchanges with other people.
That's what capitalism and free markets are.
When you mischaracterize capitalism and socialism, it's real easy to fall in love with socialism.
It's truly incredible.
And then it's hilarious.
She describes what she thinks capitalism is, and everything that she describes is actually an aspect of corporatism, of a perversion of free markets.
So she says, you know what's real bad about capitalism is that corporations have taken over our government.
Just as there's all this fear mongering that government is going to take over every corporation and government is going to take over every business or every form of production, we should be scared right now because corporations have taken over our government.
Okay, corporations have taken over our government.
Yay!
Okay, so her proposal is that corporations should not take over government.
I agree.
Hey, corporations should not take over government.
You know what that's an aspect of?
Corporatism.
Top-down government control.
When the government has too much power, corporations try to grasp at the government's power.
You know what also is not a solution?
Government taking over corporations.
In both cases, you're talking about small groups of people who are now controlling the entire system on behalf of themselves.
But she doesn't see this.
Because once again, it is easy to be a socialist when you never actually have to imbibe the cost.
When the cost has nothing to do with the actual proposals that you are making.
Now AOC's foolishness doesn't stop there.
And the reason we spend so much time on this is because AOC really is, in the same way that Donald Trump is the id of sort of populist nationalism, he says whatever comes to mind.
AOC is the id of the socialist push in the United States.
And that id has about as much brains as my two-year-old son sticking his finger repeatedly into the light socket and then declaring himself a light bulb.
This is really dumb stuff.
Okay, so let's continue.
AOC is talking here about how real capitalism is about corporate exploitation.
That is not what capitalism is about.
And then she suggests, you know what would solve all of this?
If we taxed corporation at 90% so people can sit around writing poetry.
Now this is something that I remember Nancy Pelosi suggested a while back.
She was talking about why healthcare should not be connected to having a job.
And she said that we wouldn't want people to have job lock.
We wouldn't want people to be locked into jobs, you know, where they have to provide services and goods to others at a price.
Instead, what we want is people who are able to fulfill their deepest aspirations, like finger painting or writing poetry.
Here is AOC saying the same thing.
Let's tax corporations at 90% so people can write poetry.
One thing she doesn't seem to understand.
Who's going to work for the corporation if the corporation makes no profit, thereby providing the pay for people to do useless crap like write poetry that she reads?
Bill Gates has talked about taxing robots at 90%.
And what that means, what he's really talking about is taxing corporations at 90%.
And we should be excited about automation because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing and investigating in the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in.
I'm sorry, we can stop.
What is she talking about?
More time going to space?
On what?
On what?
More time doing scientific inventions?
Right.
Because what we need is... The unemployed are typically where all the best inventions come from.
That's usually where it happens, right?
You just quit your job and then you go in your back room and you tinker around like you're on Wonder Lab from the 1990s on Nickelodeon with Bill Nye or something.
And then you, that's when you come up with the greatest inventions.
Greatest inventions are not made by people, you know, employed by universities or who are working for some sort of R&D department.
The greatest inventions are made by unemployed people in their basements.
Historically.
Like Dr. Frankenstein, for example.
Unemployed guy in his basement.
Made an awesome, you know, person out of different body parts.
Unemployed?
What if that guy had had to work?
Would he have ever made an animate monster?
No, he would not have.
And then would the world have been worse off?
You bet.
You bet.
I mean, what is she?
Going to space?
What, does she think people go home and they just build a rocket in their backyard?
You think Elon Musk just goes home and builds a rocket in his backyard?
Or does it take billions of dollars to build those programs?
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, legitimately, the insane ignorance of this human being, being touted as a genius, and she says, oh, let's tax corporations at 90%.
Okay, if we tax corporations at 90% of their profit margin, you think they're going to maintain the same employment base?
Do you really think they're not just going to fire people?
Or do you think that maybe they will organize in a different way without filing as an LLC, for example?
They'll just file as an individual.
And then you'll get conglomerations of individuals who all just divvy up the money as it comes in to avoid the legal ramifications of filing as a corporation.
Oh, the level of stupid.
Finally, she finishes up with her real proposal.
The real proposal of the socialists is that America is no good, very bad, terrible.
Alexander's horrible, no good, very bad day.
That is AOC's characterization of the United States.
America is garbage.
She actually says this.
America is garbage.
This beneficiary of the greatest, freest, most democratic system ever created by human minds This human being is suggesting that America is garbage as she sits there having been useless virtually her entire life, now being championed at South by Southwest.
She was more useful when she was bartending.
At least she was providing a good or service somebody wanted.
Now she's providing a good or service nobody wants at taxpayer expense.
I think all of these things sound radical compared to where we are, but where we are is not a good thing.
And this idea of like 10% better from garbage It shouldn't be what we settle for.
It feels like moderate is not a stance, it's just an attitude toward life.
Dream big, guys.
Dream big.
America's garbage.
We have full employment by economic statistics, but America's garbage.
She's sitting there at a conference for losers and getting paid for it, presumably, or her campaign is.
And she's sitting there in presumably a nice set of clothing, which is great.
Everybody should have nice clothing and a nice chair with a microphone.
Making Instagram videos with her instant pot that she got on Amazon, a capitalist corporation.
After taking Uber, a capitalist corporation.
Using sweet potatoes, provided by a capitalist corporation.
On a camera, provided by a capitalist corporation.
To people who are consuming it from their homes, which they paid for with money earned from a capitalist corporation.
But America's garbage, guys.
America's garbage.
Now, what's hilarious about this is you have to have not visited or learned or read a book or done... You know how sheltered you have to believe, have to be, to believe that America is garbage?
Truly sheltered.
You know how privileged you have to be to believe that America in 2019 is garbage?
You are the most privileged person in the history of humanity to be living in this time, in this place.
If people were dropped into America 2019 from 1800, they would literally think they had died and gone to heaven.
As of 1900, 1 in every 10 babies died in infancy.
As of 1850, the average life expectancy in Europe was 36.2 years.
The average life expectancy.
And she's talking about America's garbage.
Our average life expectancy is over 80.
No one is dying of starvation.
Obesity is more of an epidemic among the poor in the United States than starvation is, and it ain't close.
We have more of a problem of our poor people dying of heart attacks from being overweight than of dying from starvation.
Yet America is garbage?
The utter ingratitude of this perspective is truly astonishing, and the mischaracterization of free markets, and the attempt to paint socialism as some sort of boon for humanity's good side, as opposed to the collective simply trumping the individual, which is the root of socialism.
The root of socialism is that individuals don't have power over their labor, that individuals don't have power over their creativity, that The only way for us to ensure that human powers of flourishing can break free is by collectivizing everything and then redistributing it so that some of us can fingerpaint while others of us have a gun pointed to our head at the behest of the federal government.
If that sounds great to you, then by all means, join the socialist revolution of AOC and Bernie Sanders.
My goodness.
Alrighty, time for some stuff I like and then some stuff that I hate.
So, Things that I like.
So I was convinced by producer Austin that I should watch The Umbrella Academy with my wife over the weekend.
I was also convinced by my wife.
So we were trying to browse for something to watch over the weekend.
And my wife said, this kind of looks fun.
Why don't we try this?
And I said, well, you know, it's got Ellen Page.
I don't think she's much of an actress.
Plus, I don't like her as a person since she thinks Mike Pence is responsible for fake hate crimes.
My wife's like, you know what?
Don't be silly.
Just because you don't like an actress's Political speech doesn't mean that you shouldn't watch her show.
And I thought, you know what?
Good for my wife.
This is correct.
This is correct.
So we watched The Umbrella Academy, and it's great.
By the way, the best thing in it is the guy who plays Diego.
I can't remember his name.
He was also in a movie that I recommended last week with Jean-Claude Van Damme.
He's a terrific actor, actually.
The show is called The Umbrella Academy on Netflix.
It's a lot of fun, and it's really good, despite Ellen Page's inability to act.
In October 1989, 43 women around the world gave birth.
None of these women had been pregnant when the day first began.
How much do you want for it?
I have adopted six children.
Gifted with abilities far beyond the ordinary.
I give you The Umbrella Academy.
Does anyone wish to speak?
It was a monster.
Okay, so the show's actually pretty good, and it's pretty entertaining.
The actor I'm talking about is David Castagnata.
He's terrific.
I can't remember the name of the kid actor, also.
There's one who plays a kid, and he's really good.
So the show is fun.
It's kind of a riff on superhero genre stuff, and I've been enjoying it.
We're about three episodes in, and it's definitely enjoyable.
So go check out The Umbrella Academy if you are a Netflix person.
Okay, other things that I like.
So Alyssa Milano, speaking of actresses with silly political opinions.
She tweeted out, I'm trans.
I'm a person of color.
I'm an immigrant.
I'm a lesbian.
I'm a gay man.
I'm the disabled.
I'm everything.
And so are you, Kirk.
She was talking to a guy who asked if she was trans.
So why did she care about the issue?
Don't be afraid of what you don't know or understand.
No one wants to hurt you.
We are all just looking for our happily ever after.
Now what's hilarious about this is this was sort of the woke position like 35 seconds ago.
35 seconds ago, it was, I'm all of these people.
We're all the same, man.
You know, you're trans, and I'm not trans, but we're all the same.
Our inner humanity means that we're all the same.
Alyssa Milano got eaten alive by the left for this tweet.
She got ripped up and down by the left, saying, you're not any of those things.
You're not a lesbian.
You're not a person of color.
I mean, you are a person of color.
You're not an immigrant.
You're not trans.
You're not gay.
You're not disabled.
You're not any of those.
You can't even understand those experiences.
How dare you suggest that at our root lies a level of common humanity?
When the left eats the left, it's one of my favorite things in the world.
This sort of Marianne Williamson, Sarah McLaughlin, you know, emo, we're all the same underneath stuff that was the hot liberalism of 2005 is now not woke enough.
And so Alyssa Milano got destroyed for that tweet in which she was trying to suggest our common humanity.
Man, the left has gone off the rails.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So Ilhan Omar, you'll recall, is the awful anti-Semitic congressperson from Minnesota who has spent the last six weeks, eight weeks in Congress saying openly anti-Semitic things and then quasi-apologizing and then being defended by her Democratic colleagues.
Well, over the weekend, she said that she was in fact a victim.
Once more, she was a victim.
I know what hate looks like.
We experience it every single day.
I have people every single day on Fox News and everywhere posting that I am a threat to this country.
I know what it feels to be someone who is of faith that is vilified.
I know what it means to be of someone who is of ethnicity that is vilified.
I know what it means for people to just see me as a black person.
Okay, so this is her shtick.
Her shtick is not that people are angry at her because she's a vicious anti-Semite.
The reason that people are angry at her is because she is a black woman, she's from Somalia, and because she's Muslim.
Now, this is sheer nonsense.
When Ilhan Omar came to Congress She wanted to wear a hijab in Congress, and they had to change the rules in Congress because you're not supposed to wear head coverings in Congress.
And I actively applauded Ilhan Omar being able to wear a hijab in Congress.
As a person who wears a funny hat daily, I see no problem with anybody else wearing a hat for religious reasons or a head covering for religious reasons.
I think that is totally and utterly fine.
I think it is quite good that we have Muslims in Congress.
I mean, I don't really care so long as you hold the right principles.
The problem with Ilhan Omar is she doesn't hold any of the right principles.
She believes a lot of terrible things.
Okay, so with all that said, what she says is terrible.
And what the right does then, and the right criticizing her is correct.
The worst thing would be if somebody would come out and say that, for example, Ilhan Omar shouldn't be in Congress because she's Muslim and because she wears that head covering.
Like, that would be super dumb and would play directly into Ilhan Omar's misdirected sense of victimhood.
Hugh Jeanine Perrault from Saturday.
She's not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party.
So if it's not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?
Think about it.
Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33, colon 59, tells women to cover so they won't get molested.
Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?
Oh, no.
So, Janine Pirro, that's terrible crap.
Even Fox News came out and said, we didn't approve that monologue, which is always a bad sign.
That's so gross and silly and stupid and backwards.
No, wearing a hijab does not mean that you believe all sorts of evil, terrible things.
And the actual charge that Omar leveled at Jews, that Jews were suffering from dual loyalty to Israel, is now being leveled at Omar in that particular clip, with Janine Pirro basically saying, you wear a hijab, therefore you have dual loyalty to your Islamic principles and not to American principles.
By the way, this is the same charge of dual loyalty that was originally leveled at Catholics in the United States.
People saying you're loyal to Rome and to the Pope instead of to the United States.
It's sheer nonsense.
You have to show the actual conflict between the principle and American principles.
You can't just point to somebody's funny hat and then say, well, that because of that person's funny hat, they don't believe in America.
If somebody did that about my yarmulke, it would be anti-semitism.
If somebody does it about Ilhan Omar's hijab, that's Islamophobia.
It's silly.
It's not just silly, it's nasty and wrong.
So, Jeanine Pirro has already quasi-apologized for it, as well she should.
I will recognize here that virtually everyone online, I saw zero defenders, pretty much zero defenders of Jeanine Pirro over this comment, whereas the entire Democratic Party infrastructure came forward to defend Ilhan Omar over being a rabid anti-Semite.
So there's that.
Alrighty, we will be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours.
This is why you should subscribe, because then you get two more hours of the show later today and every day.
In the meantime, go pick up my book, The Right Side of History.
Which is coming out in eight days.
Go pre-order it right now and make sure that you get the audio version, too.
If you just want to listen to it, you can pre-order that, too.
If you don't want to listen to the show later, you don't subscribe, you're lost.
But we'll be back here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
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