Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 29, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:05:09

Trump’s Michigan Rager | Ep. 748

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump unleashes on all his enemies and lays out his 2020 strategy.
	Plus, we have Jussie Smollett updates and we check the mailbag.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Well, first, I want to thank everybody for continuing to make The Right Side of History my new book, the number one nonfiction book on the New York Times bestseller list.
	It is still the number one nonfiction book on all of Amazon, which is astonishing.
	Oprah has a new book.
	We're ahead of her on Amazon still, thanks to you.
	So really, thank you so much.
	I think it's an important book.
	Tell all your friends about it.
	We'll get to all the news, particularly President Trump, who just basically threw a rager in Michigan last night.
	It was pretty amazing.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how you make your company better.
	Hiring.
	It used to be hard.
	Multiple job sites, stacks of resumes, a confusing review process.
	But today, hiring can be easy.
	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 spotlights 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's ziprecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter is the smartest way to hire.
	It's why we use it here at the Daily Wire offices.
	You should use it at your business too.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire, and you can try ZipRecruiter for free. ZipRecruiter, again, the smartest way to hire.
	Okay, so President Trump basically laid out what his 2020 campaign is going to look like.
	There are good points and there are bad points.
	He did it last night in Michigan.
	Michigan is a state he won extraordinarily narrowly over Hillary Clinton.
	He beat her 47.3% to 47%.
	It is trending a little bit blue because in the last election cycle in 2018, A lot of Democrats won.
	The senatorial candidate, John James, over there, a really good, solid Republican candidate, military background, African-American, he lost, which was too bad.
	The fact is that President Trump's re-election essentially hinges on three states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
	That's it.
	That's the whole election.
	He will probably win Ohio.
	It's debatable whether he wins Florida.
	It depends on the Democrat.
	If he loses Florida, it's over.
	He has to hold all of the states that he held last time except for one.
	He can lose Wisconsin and still win the election.
	He could lose Pennsylvania as long as he holds Wisconsin and Michigan, but he cannot lose two of those three or the election is over.
	So Michigan is a crucial battleground state for him.
	On the aftermath of the Mueller report's top line findings being released, President Trump was ready to go on a rampage and rampage he did last night in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
	Half the rally was about how much he hates the media and how much he despises the people who pushed the Russia collusion hoax.
	And then half the rally was dedicated to him actually attacking the Democratic positions.
	Now, all of this is good, right?
	All of this is good for Trump.
	Trump's pitch in 2020 is very simple.
	I have been targeted like no other president in history by the media.
	I have been called a Russian stooge for two years because they couldn't get over the fact that Hillary Clinton lost.
	And yet, in spite of that, we've made all of these gains on the economy, on foreign policy.
	We're rebuilding our military.
	We're cutting regulations.
	We're making it easier to do business.
	Imagine what a second term of this will be if the media get over themselves and actually allow me to do the work that I need to do.
	That's the argument that President Trump should be making headed into 2020.
	But President Trump is nothing if not, as he likes to call himself, a counterpuncher.
	This has its upsides and it has its downsides.
	And so we return to Campaign Trump.
	Campaign Trump, who as I have described in the past, is a hammer in search of a nail.
	Sometimes he hits a nail, and it's very satisfying.
	And sometimes he hits a baby, and it is far less satisfying.
	Last night in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a pent-up crowd, I mean the crowd was just ready to roar at the slightest provocation.
	Here was the President of the United States describing what he called the collusion delusion.
	After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead.
	The collusion delusion is over. - The special counsel completed its report and found no collusion and no obstruction.
	Okay, so he's right about all of this, and this is a fair ground for him to go after the media and to go after the Democrats who lied about him for two continuous years on this basis.
	The president also suggested that this was the greatest hoax in history, which, frankly, it may well have been, considering that the media legitimately spent two years proclaiming that undoubtedly there would be evidence that he was a Russian cat's paw.
	You heard the same thing from members of the intelligence community.
	It really was astonishing.
	People talk about the failures of the intelligence community in the lead up to the war in Iraq.
	There was a widespread intelligence consensus from Israeli intelligence, British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence.
	There was widespread consensus that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD because Saddam Hussein wanted the world to think that he was in fact developing WMD.
	That was an intelligence failure.
	What we watched here was not an intelligence failure.
	What we watched here was members of the intelligence community Leverage their institutional credibility on behalf of a narrative that was absolutely not true.
	We watched James Clapper, the former head of Obama's CIA, go out there in public and suggest that he actually was the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, go out there and suggest that he had special knowledge that President Trump was probably in league with the Russians.
	We heard the same thing from John Brennan.
	Obama's former CIA director that he was going to he had some inside baseball knowledge based on his institutional knowledge that suggested that Trump was all of these things.
	We watched members of the media come out nearly every day and simply suggest without benefit of evidence that it was absolutely clear the Trump campaign had thrown the election with the help of Russia.
	So when Trump says this is the greatest hoax in history, there is a pretty solid case to be made on this basis, at least in the history of American politics.
	Current and former officials who paid for, promoted and perpetuated the single greatest hopes in the history of politics in our country.
	OK, so obviously this is a basis for him to get the base revved up.
	The question is whether this is a basis for actually campaigning.
	And the more Trump focuses on this going forward, And doesn't talk about his record, doesn't talk about what he has done, doesn't talk about what the Democrats are.
	The more he keeps the focus on himself as victim, I don't think that that is going to be a continuing effective strategy other than getting the base really revved up, which is good.
	You need a revved up base.
	But President Trump needs to win a bunch of voters who are in the middle.
	He needs to win suburban women.
	I'm not sure this mode carries him here.
	And the more worked up he gets over this, Again, I think that that's not great strategy.
	I understand it on a personal level.
	If somebody had accused me of what they accused President Trump of, I'd want to go out there and club some folks too.
	I'd want to go out there and club the media like a baby seal, rhetorically speaking.
	As a politician, I'm not sure this is the smartest strategy.
	Again, the more exercise Trump gets, the more off-putting he is, frankly, to suburban women in particular, people he needs to win in 2020.
	President Trump obviously got himself revved up.
	He has a friendly crowd here.
	Here he says that continuing probes, continuing investigations are ridiculous bull-belief.
	He just dropped some curse words.
	The Democrats have to now decide whether they will continue defrauding the public with ridiculous bull- Partisan investigations or whether they will apologize to the American people and join us to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
	OK, all of that is fine.
	Then he goes off the rails and this is where he gets into bad Trump territory.
	So this is a pretty good episode, actually, of Good Trump, Bad Trump, which we haven't done in a while because the focus has largely been on the Democrats who are vying to compete with him.
	All of this is OK Trump, to good Trump, and then it gets to bad Trump.
	And this is where he just starts slinging insults at people that he doesn't like.
	Now, I'm a podcast host.
	I can sling insults, although I try not to, particularly on the basis of physical appearance.
	President Trump has no such compunction.
	Here he goes after pencil neck Adam Schiff.
	Little pencil neck Adam Schiff.
	He's got the smallest, thinnest neck I've ever seen.
	He is not a long ball hitter.
	But I saw him today.
	Well, we don't really know.
	There could still have been some Russia collusion.
	Okay, it's funny.
	I'm sorry, that's funny.
	It's also not useful, but it's funny.
	But again, the president is not a stand-up comedian.
	Is it smart for him to be going back into stand-up comedy mode?
	This is what his base loves about him.
	I understand.
	I understand a lot of people find the center... I find it entertaining.
	It is inherently funny.
	This is the thing about Trump that I think a lot of folks in the media don't understand.
	Folks on the left don't understand either.
	Dude's actually pretty funny.
	Dude, like, he plays a room as though he's an actual stand-up comedian.
	Is it smart, however, to go after Adam Schiff on the basis of his neck?
	Like, wouldn't you just go after Adam Schiff by saying that he's a dummy, or a dunce, or a liar?
	Like, that seems like a more solid grounding.
	On the basis of his neck?
	Look at him.
	He's got a turkey neck.
	Like Jennifer Lopez and Gia the Gabba Gabba.
	What in the world?
	That actually was not even the funniest thing that he said last night.
	The funniest thing that he said last night, he was talking for some reason about the Great Lakes, because Michigan is in the Great Lakes region, and he starts talking about how much he loves lakes.
	It's... Come on, this stuff is funny, man.
	I support the Great Lakes.
	Always have.
	They're beautiful.
	They're big.
	Very deep.
	Record deepness, right?
	Okay.
	I got nothing, man.
	I got nothing.
	Again, none of this is going to particularly hurt President Trump.
	It's not going to hurt him.
	But his tendency to be President Trump is exactly the problem.
	Like, there is a speech here somewhere, but it was buried inside a comedy routine.
	And the comedy routine... Comedy is great for people who agree with you.
	Comedy is not great for people who really disagree with you.
	Unless it's self-deprecating comedy.
	Self-deprecating comedy is popular with pretty much everybody.
	Trump has never made a self-deprecating remark, so it's nearly impossible to imagine him doing that.
	Comedy is great for all the people who like President Trump, or who agree with his agenda, or agree with him on these issues.
	For people who are torn on President Trump, it's not going to do him any significant favors.
	And again, I'm looking at this from the strategic point of view, not from the is-it-funny point of view, because From the it's funny point of view.
	I mean, it's just damned hilarious, obviously.
	Now, in a second, we're going to get to President Trump's actual attacks on Democrats, because the less he focuses on his victimization and the more he focuses on their garbage agenda, the better he is going to do.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about that watch on your wrist.
	Did you did you spend a lot of money on that watch?
	Is it a watch that measures like how many steps you take?
	Every move you make, they'll be watching you.
	Is it that kind of watch?
	Or did you just get, you know, a nice minimalist watch?
	A watch that really tells you the time and looks nice.
	Because that's what movement watches are all about.
	You see this?
	This is a really nice watch.
	This is a movement watch.
	Behold it!
	Cast your eyes upon it in despair that you have not won.
	But you could have a movement watch and you could do so for a relatively inexpensive price.
	They have all sorts of new styles and new features, and they've got watches and sunglasses and other accessories.
	Movement watches are all about looking good while keeping it simple.
	Movement watches start at just $95.
	You're looking at $400 for the same quality from a traditional brand.
	Clean design, minimalist, really quality products.
	Movement has sold almost 2 million watches.
	In over 160 countries.
	Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	Movements launching new styles on their site all the time.
	Check out their latest at MVMT.com.
	That's MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	I love my movement watch.
	You will too.
	Join the movement right now, mvmt.com slash Shapiro.
	OK, so as we say, President Trump launches this Michigan campaign, really his 2020 re-election campaign, off the basis of the Mueller report.
	And that just shows you how polarized our politics are, because usually the president launches his re-election campaign on the basis of, here are all the great things that I've done.
	Instead, the president launches his triumphant re-election campaign on the basis of, I'm not a Russian agent.
	So, the goalposts have moved pretty radically here, and the Democrats are the ones who moved them.
	Here's where President Trump, however, could be really effective, and that is attacking the Democratic agenda, because the Democratic agenda truly is radical, and most people understand that.
	He has two lines of attack here that are really useful.
	One is attacking the media, because people hate the media, people think the media are dishonest.
	Why?
	Well, because many in the media are, in fact, dishonest, whether they mean to be or whether they do not mean to be.
	Their confirmation bias makes it.
	that they cover the news in the least favorable way to conservatives that he can possibly find.
	And that obviously holds true for anyone who is even remotely right of center, including President Trump, who I don't think is actually an ideological conservative.
	So when Trump goes after the media, that's going to be a popular line with most Americans.
	Here's Trump saying the media have to be held accountable.
	They have to be, I'm sorry, they have to be accountable.
	And he is not wrong about that.
	That line was popular going all the way back to Newt Gingrich in 2012 when he was running for the nomination for the Republican Party.
	It continues to be popular today.
	Nobody thinks the media have done a good job on any of this stuff.
	So that is a fruitful line of attack for President Trump.
	Casting aspersions at the media that have attacked him incessantly, that attacked Bush incessantly, that attack everybody right of center incessantly, and people who are not even right of center so long as they disagree.
	That will continue to be a fruitful line of attack.
	But he's really going to have to win on the basis of pointing at the Democrats.
	As I have said all along, if President Trump were capable of just being quiet and pointing, like Donald Sutherland in that famous gif, if he could just stand there, like Donald Sutherland from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and point in horror at the Democrats, most Americans would immediately recoil in revulsion at what they saw.
	Because the fact is the Democratic agenda is extraordinarily radical.
	And when President Trump went after it last night, that's when he was in fact at his best.
	So here was the president of the United States talking about Democrats and taxes.
	Radical Democrats are the party of high taxes, open borders, late-term abortion, crime, hoaxes, and delusions.
	The Republican Party is the party for all Americans.
	It's what we want to be.
	It's the way we want to live.
	We're the party of the American worker, the American family, and we are the party of the American dream.
	Okay, all of that is true, and that should be the basis of his campaign.
	I think it will be.
	I think it will be.
	If he can stay on teleprompter and not talk too much about pencil necks he doesn't like, then I think the president should probably be okay.
	I'm much more optimistic about his hopes for 2020 than I was, say, six months ago, when it seemed like the Democrats might, in fact, get their act together and not be crazy.
	But now the Democrats continue to double down on crazy.
	We'll get to more of President Trump's 2020 line of attack in just a second.
	So, the president then started to get into the details.
	He started talking about the Green New Deal.
	The best boon that Trump has ever received is Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
	AOC is the id of the Democratic Party in the same way that Trump is the id of the Republican Party.
	AOC and her agenda are nuts.
	So nuts she didn't get a single vote in favor of a Green New Deal bill co-sponsored by 12 separate senators on the Democratic side of the aisle.
	Not one of the co-sponsors of the bill voted for the bill.
	They all voted present on their own bill.
	Here's President Trump going after the stupid Green New Deal.
	Again, this is going to be a fruitful line of attack for Republicans and for the president.
	The Democrats are now advancing an extreme $100 trillion government takeover called the Green New Deal.
	But I'd rather not talk about it tonight because I don't want to talk them out of it too soon.
	Because I love campaigning against the Green New Deal.
	I want them to make that a big part of their platform.
	No more airplanes.
	No more cows.
	One car per family.
	One car.
	You're going to love that in Michigan.
	Hey, how do you like the idea of one car per family?
	I don't think so.
	This is where Trump is at his best.
	Comedy riffing on the Democrats?
	Yeah, man.
	I'm in for it.
	I'm in for it.
	Like, really.
	This is good stuff.
	Listen to him go off on the power of windmills.
	Democrats have been talking about the power of windmills for a long time.
	How wind power is suddenly going to power the United States.
	Fact.
	If you actually wanted to equal the amount of power that is currently being output by all of the carbon-based fuel systems in the United States, not including transportation, right, just the electrical grid, you would have to cover an area the size of California in windmills.
	That's what you would have to do.
	So good luck with that.
	Here's President Trump going after the windmills.
	If Hillary got in, you wouldn't have that stat, I can tell you right now.
	You'd be doing wind, windmills.
	And if it doesn't, If it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for that night.
	Darling, I want to watch television.
	I'm sorry, the wind isn't blowing.
	I know a lot about wind.
	A little tag.
	I know a lot about wind.
	Come on, he's so funny.
	If you can't laugh, then you have a heart of stone.
	One of the reasons he's president is because of this.
	Also, I will say this.
	Negative Trump is not as much fun as positive Trump.
	And this is true for every politician.
	Politicians who look like they're having a good time are more likely to win.
	This is true of Obama in 2008.
	He looked like he was having a better time than John McCain.
	It was true of 2012.
	Obama looked like he was having a better time than Mitt Romney.
	It's true of George W. Bush, who always looked like he was having a pretty good time.
	Sour Trump is not going to be supremely popular because people don't like sour people.
	But Trump laughing at the Democrats along with people?
	It's not a bad look for him.
	It really is not.
	And then President Trump goes after the Democrats for wanting to destroy people's private health insurance plans.
	He is not wrong about this either.
	Again, all he has to do is just point at the Democrats.
	If the American public focus on President Trump leading up to 2020, he's going to lose.
	If they focus on the Democrats, he will win.
	The Democrats are pushing socialist, government-run health care that bans private health insurance for 180 million Americans.
	No, think of it.
	A lot of you have private plans, and they're great.
	They're great.
	And you want that.
	They want to take them away.
	That's not going to work.
	I don't think that's going to work too well.
	Of course, all of that is true.
	And then Trump goes after Democrats on abortion.
	And again, here he is correct again.
	This is clip 12.
	In recent months, the Democrat Party has also been aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children To be ripped from their mother's womb right up until the moment of birth.
	And now we go a step further.
	In Virginia, the governor stated that he would even allow a newborn baby, wrap the baby up, make the baby comfortable to be executed after birth.
	Okay, again, all of this is accurate.
	The press will paint this as inaccurate.
	It is, in fact, not.
	They're trying to paint it as inaccurate when he went after the Green New Deal on the basis of even Democrats not supporting it.
	Here is Trump saying that Mazie Hirono, who is, in fact, perhaps the dumbest person in the United States Senate, which is a hell of a statement because there are a lot of dummies there.
	Here is President Trump suggesting that even Mazie Hirono knows that the Democratic Green New Deal is a mess.
	She didn't know about the Green New Deal.
	And they hit her!
	And she's from Hawaii.
	What do you think of the Green New Deal?
	It was just put up.
	By the Democrats.
	Well, I like it very much.
	But she never saw it.
	Then they said, but you can't fly anymore.
	And she's in Hawaii.
	She said, but how would I get to my island?
	They said, we're working on some kind of a train system.
	So she said, OK, well, then I am for it 100 percent.
	It is the craziest thing I've ever seen.
	And this, of course, is a little bit apocryphal, but it is true that Maisie Hirono did ask some questions about how you would get rid of airplanes since she is, in fact, the senator from Hawaii.
	Now, what are the obstacles for President Trump leading up to 2020?
	Well, obstacle number one is President Trump Saying stuff that is stupid, right?
	President Trump deciding to focus on issues that the American people aren't really focused on, or him deciding to fulminate about the Mueller report for the next couple of years, or him deciding that he is simply going to call names at the Democrats as opposed to going after their policies, which, again, is a fruitful line of attack.
	That could hurt him because, remember, it's not just about him getting out the base.
	The Republicans got out the base in 2018 and they lost by 8.6 points in the House popular vote.
	This is really going to be about, can President Trump convince suburban women that Democrats are too dangerous for them?
	He doesn't have to convince them that he is the man for suburban women.
	He does have to convince suburban women that voting against their own interests would be a bad idea and that the Democrats are so radical that they'd be voting against their own interests in voting for Democrats.
	Obstacle number one is the president's personality.
	Obstacle number two is going to be the possibility of an economic downturn, and we are watching that.
	The economy is, in fact, slowing right now.
	We'll see whether it slows enough to actually slide into a downturn or whether it maintains its sort of low-level growth.
	He can survive low-level growth, but downturns, he's got a problem.
	And then obstacle number three is the possibility that there are more headlines that are bad for him in sort of the Mueller, Michael Cohen, SDNY stuff.
	I think that that possibility has been reduced pretty dramatically.
	I'll explain why in just one second.
	First, let's talk about your holster.
	We the People holsters.
	They offer custom-made holsters all produced in the USA.
	They design their own holsters in-house, which means they don't use any third-party molds for their holsters.
	Instead, they design every unique mold in Las Vegas in order to best fit every firearm perfectly.
	They constantly update designs.
	They add new designs every month.
	That lets them stay up to date on the newest models that come out.
	We the People holsters even have their own 3D design team.
	They measure every micromillimeter of their guns to ensure the perfect fit.
	Their unique intuitive clip design allows for you to easily adjust both the cant and the ride of your holster so it fits comfortably and securely at all times.
	Every holster also has adjustable retention.
	Which is signaled with a click sound, which lets you know that your firearm is securely in place.
	Custom printed designs in-house.
	I mean, these are beautiful holsters.
	I have one of them.
	They are terrific.
	And they just start at $37 a piece.
	Every holster comes with a lifetime guarantee.
	Every holster also ships free.
	So that is one hell of a deal for a great holster.
	If it is not a perfect fit, you send it back for a refund right now.
	My listeners can go to wethepeopleholsters.com slash Ben.
	Enter promo code Ben at checkout and get $10 off their first holster.
	So that's as low as $37 and shipping is free.
	And an additional $10 off using my promo code.
	So like $27 for a holster that is customized, essentially.
	It's pretty amazing.
	Again, that's wethepeopleholsters.com slash Ben.
	Promo code Ben at checkout for $10 off.
	Go check them out right now.
	Great American company.
	wethepeopleholsters.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out.
	Okay, so as I say, there's also the possibility that more headlines arise that are bad for President Trump in a legal sense.
	Now, I do think that the vast majority of that is over.
	I think that it's over because the American public had already moved toward the conclusion that the Mueller report was going to be a nothing.
	More Americans thought that it was a quote-unquote witch hunt than thought it was legit by the time that the report was actually released.
	By the time that the top-line findings were released, most Americans were tired of this.
	Now they know the top-line findings.
	So if there's a 300-page report that just reveals all the stuff we already know about Trump, I'm not sure that goes anywhere.
	Also, it casts everything in a different light that Mueller has already exonerated Trump on the collusion stuff.
	Now we look at all of the contacts between members of the Trump team and members of the Russian government, and we say, yeah, they're just doofuses.
	Normally, there's so many human actions where we can either attribute malice or stupidity to people.
	Adam Carolla, podcast host, friend of mine, makes this point.
	With regard to cops pulling people over.
	So what Adam says is, let's say you're pulled over unjustly, right?
	You're not speeding, you're pulled over.
	If you're a white guy, you think, oh, this cop is a dummy.
	If you are a black guy, you probably think, oh, this cop is a racist.
	Which one is true?
	Well, in all likelihood, it's that the person is stupid, because most people make mistakes.
	Most people are dumb.
	Most people make dumb mistakes.
	And so if you're looking at the actions of Team Trump, and you are thinking that it was all nefarious criminality, and then Mueller comes out and says, no, no, no, it wasn't nefarious criminality.
	We looked at every aspect of this.
	It recasts everything as comedic, as opposed to tragic.
	It recasts everything as these people were just dumb and incompetent, as opposed to they were maliciously trying to interfere with the election.
	And so you go back and you look at people like George Papadopoulos, low-level Trump foreign policy aide, who met with a London professor who was in fact a Russian front.
	And here is Papadopoulos explaining that President Trump, you know, when he was talking during the campaign about how much he liked Vladimir Putin, that basically President Trump just wanted a better relationship with Russia.
	That's all this was.
	By the time I joined the campaign in March of 2016, candidate Donald Trump was obviously very vocal about having some sort of working relationship with Russia.
	I told Donald Trump to his face and Jeff Sessions to his face at that infamous March 31st meeting that I can do this for you and I think it's in the interest of the campaign.
	Jeff Sessions was very enthusiastic about it and I proceeded until the campaign basically decided that it was better not to.
	I do think there was obviously a strategic logic behind working with Russia.
	Look, at the end of the day, if we don't work with Russia, you know, China's a huge threat to U.S.
	interests.
	They're in Syria.
	They're in eastern Ukraine.
	And that's what my firm belief is, why Donald Trump wanted to work with Russia.
	So without Mueller's report, people would say, oh, well, this is obviously him lying.
	Obviously, what he was trying to do was corrupt the 2016 election.
	With Mueller's report, Just looks like the guy's being a dummy.
	Same thing is true for Donald Trump Jr.
	meeting with that Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.
	Rob Goldstone was the go-between.
	He's a music agent.
	He was the go-between on that deal.
	He was the one saying the Russians want to give you all sorts of info about Hillary Clinton.
	And here is Rob Goldstone saying, yeah, Donald Trump Jr.
	was down the chain.
	I mean, this is all just stupid stuff.
	I never considered Don Jr.
	really a part of the campaign.
	You may have seen it.
	Again, it's in public testimony.
	I questioned whether I should send it to Mr. Trump via some method, whether it's his assistant.
	And then I decided to go way down on the food chain.
	And I chose Don Jr., because I'd met him a couple of times, to run it past him enough to put him in touch with my client.
	I think I was ignorant and oblivious.
	And I think, if I had to guess, He was marginally more or marginally less ignorant and oblivious than I was.
	Right.
	And that's absolutely plausible.
	I mean, folks, if you're not watching the video, if you can't actually see the video of Rob Goldstone, look at that guy and tell me that he's a criminal mastermind who is somehow linking up the Russian government with the Trump campaign so as to pervert America's elections.
	Guy's a doofus.
	He's a doofus.
	And so the Mueller report does, in many ways, allow us to see through the prism that I've been using all along, which is that most people are stupid rather than malicious.
	Nonetheless, Democrats are still trying to hang their last hopes on the Mueller report.
	They're trying to suggest that maybe there's something in the Mueller report that was not revealed in Attorney General William Barr's synopsis of the Mueller report.
	The Wall Street Journal reporting today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Attorney General William Barr on Thursday over his handling of the special counsel's report, pressing the case for the full release of the document as President Trump and Republicans continue to claim vindication in the Russia probe.
	Pelosi said that the summary Barr provided to lawmakers last weekend was well short of what Congress required.
	Show us the report and we can draw our own conclusions, she said.
	She said, we don't need you interpreting it for us, to William Barr.
	She said it was condescending, it was arrogant, it wasn't the right thing to do, right?
	She would have preferred another month of speculation over the Mueller report.
	To simply understanding the top-line results and revelation of the report itself, which will happen in the next few weeks.
	This thing is not going to remain secret.
	Democrats, who are hoping that there will be some other breaking news, here's what's going to happen.
	The 300-page report will come out.
	There will be a couple of details that we didn't know about.
	And the media will blow these up to cataclysmic proportions.
	They will suggest that William Barr, the Attorney General, shut down an actual obstruction charge.
	That actually there was deep corruption.
	Actually, even though Mueller concluded no collusion, there was in fact deep-seated collusion.
	And the American public will go, nope.
	Nope.
	Sorry.
	You guys said that Mueller was going to save all of you.
	He didn't.
	So, nope.
	You're done.
	You don't get a second bite at this apple.
	You do not get a second shot at bat after you spend some $25 million with 40 DOJ attorneys on this case and worship at the altar of Robert Mueller.
	He doesn't give you what you want.
	You don't get to change your God now.
	That is not something that you get to do.
	So I don't think Trump is particularly vulnerable there, which means that the chief obstacle to President Trump's reelection is not going to be from Mueller.
	Now, maybe there's an obstacle from the SDNY.
	Maybe the SDNY brings down some sort of campaign finance charge against President Trump.
	But even that, I don't, I really don't see a world where the American public care very much about that sort of stuff.
	It's all baked into the cake.
	The collusion stuff was not baked into the cake.
	It wasn't.
	It might've been the only thing not baked into Trump's cake.
	Because it's so, the accusation was so incredibly wide, broad, and scary that if it had been true, it would have taken down Trump.
	But campaign finance stuff, him paying off ladies, that ain't going to cut it.
	That ain't going to cut it.
	Which means that the chief obstacle to Trump's re-election remains President Trump's personality.
	Can he be disciplined in any way?
	And if he can be disciplined, if he allows the focus to be on the Democrats, I think that he has a pretty good shot at re-election, which is something I didn't think I'd be saying six months ago.
	Okay, in a second, we're going to get to updates on the Jussie Smollett case, and we'll jump into the mailbag.
	But first, go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
	We had a great episode of Daily Wire backstage last night.
	If you were a subscriber, you could have asked questions.
	In fact, if you subscribed during the broadcast of backstage last night, then you actually had a shot at coming out here.
	We would have flown you out here, put you up in a hotel, and allowed you to come watch the Daily Wire backstage and suffer along with me.
	Listening to Michael Mulls talk while wearing shorts.
	That could have been you in that room suffering.
	I know it sounds more like a threat than an incentive, but it is, actually.
	As a thank you to our daily wary annual subscribers.
	For 99 bucks a year, you get the annual subscription, which comes along with this, the greatest in beverage vessels, that leftist-tears-hot-or-cold tumbler.
	You can go get that right now.
	And as a thank you to our Daily Wire annual subscribers, we give a shout out to a different subscriber each Friday.
	Today, Karnak the Magnificent, at Bifnola.
	We would like to thank you for being a magnificent subscriber with a name like Karnak.
	I can't say I'm surprised, I expected it.
	You can see in this photo that Karnak the Magnificent has placed his leftist years tumbler next to his shower drain, which is wise and prudent.
	Because this week, leftist viewers, tumblers across the land were overflowing.
	There were reports of flash floods.
	It was actually very dangerous.
	We urge our subscribers to emulate Karnak and place their tumblers near to high-capacity drains until further notice.
	Karnak the Magnificent, thank you for being a subscriber.
	We appreciate it.
	And if you want a chance at being featured on the show, become a DailyWire annual subscriber right now.
	Post a photo of your tumbler on Twitter or Instagram.
	You can even be in the photo if you'd like.
	Unless Karnak is the shower drain, in which case he is in the photo.
	So that's exciting.
	Okay, go check all of that out.
	You get all sorts of goodies.
	Two additional hours a day.
	We're working hard for the money.
	I mean, we are working hard for you folks.
	We've got an entire team of people working hard to bring you great content every day.
	What comes out is very often mediocre, but...
	You're just gonna have to deal with that.
	Go check it out right now.
	Annual subscription, 99 bucks a year.
	Also subscribe.
	YouTube, iTunes, so many goodies I didn't even mention when you become a subscriber.
	Leave us a review at iTunes, by the way.
	That always helps us in the rankings.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty.
	So updates in the Jussie Smollett case.
	President Trump did not leave the Jussie Smollett case alone.
	He jumped into it.
	And people on the left who are ripping him for doing this, I have a couple of words for you.
	Barack Obama, Ferguson, Missouri.
	Barack Obama, New York.
	Barack Obama, Trayvon Martin.
	Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates.
	So I'm not a big fan of the president of the United States jumping into what are effectively local scandals.
	Trump didn't start this process.
	Here's President Trump going after Jussie Smollett.
	I think the case in Chicago is an absolute embarrassment to our country.
	And I have asked that it be that they look at it.
	I think that case is an absolute embarrassment to our country and somebody has to at least take a very good hard look at it.
	Okay, and he is not wrong about this.
	They are taking a good hard look at this right now.
	Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association may be looking at disbarring Kim Foxx, the state's attorney in this case.
	They put out a statement yesterday saying the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association serves as the voice for nearly 1000 frontline prosecutors across the state who work tirelessly toward the pursuit of justice.
	The events of the past few days regarding the Cook County state's attorney's handling of the Jussie Smollett case is not condoned by the IPBA, nor is it representative of the honest, ethical work prosecutors provides the citizens of the state of Illinois on a daily basis.
	The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the state.
	Prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received.
	I mean, this is brutal.
	Even more problematic, the state's attorneys and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal.
	The public has the right to know the truth.
	We set out to do that here.
	When an elected state attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides the court shall appoint a special prosecutor.
	Here, the state's attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.
	Additionally, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was mandatory under Illinois law.
	This statement is not accurate.
	To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon a proper filing of a motion to seal.
	The State's Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but she then provided false information to the public regarding it.
	The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call.
	The public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view the proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an emergency hearing.
	To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed.
	The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.
	Lastly, the state's attorney has claimed this arrangement is available to all defendants and not a new or unusual practice.
	There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program.
	These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate.
	This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well-accepted practices of state's attorney-initiated diversionary programs.
	The IPBA supports diversion programs and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant, and the prosecuting agency.
	Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility.
	To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.
	We strongly encourage our members and the public to review the National District Attorneys Association's Statement on Prosecutorial Best Practices in High-Profile Cases.
	And that is a letter from the President of the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association.
	I would not be surprised if Kim Foxx ends up disbarred here.
	And she should be disbarred.
	This is absurd.
	It's absurd.
	By the way, a statement to USA Today on Wednesday shows that a top aide to Michelle Obama addressed reports that she had emailed Cook County State's Attorney Kim Fox to request on behalf of the Smolets that the investigation be taken out of the hands of Chicago PD.
	She acknowledges that she did that.
	I mean, it's amazing stuff.
	It's an amazing case.
	And again, the fact that this was dismissed, Kim Fox may find herself in the legal crosshairs and she probably should.
	Because she has allowed Jussie Smollett to continue maintaining his innocence in the most absurd, ridiculous, and insane way.
	As we mentioned yesterday, Jussie Smollett's attorneys are going out there and now claiming that when Jussie Smollett hired these two Nigerian brothers to attack him, In the city of Chicago, when he did that, and then described them as white people to police, he wasn't lying to police.
	Maybe it was the Nigerian brothers wearing whiteface to attack him in a hate crime that he was not involved in in the first place.
	Naturally, the Nigerian brothers' lawyers, they're like, um, this is insane.
	You're suggesting that my clients wore whiteface underneath a ski mask?
	That's your claim?
	...said that the brothers could have been wearing whiteface at night?
	I heard that, and I think that's absolutely just atrocious.
	It adds to, I think, why people are giving lawyers a bad name.
	It's to distract from the real issues here, and by putting out conspiracy theories that perhaps my clients were wearing whiteface.
	It just adds to the ridiculous and the offensiveness of this entire thing.
	Yeah, the fact that the media are even taking seriously that contention demonstrates an actual racial bias on the part of the media, and that is they will grant a lot more credibility to somebody like Jussie Smollett than if it were a white person who are declaring some sort of crime had been committed against them falsely.
	There's just no question that the media are doing that.
	The media are granting Smollett all sorts of credibility they would not grant to anybody else.
	And it's insane.
	It's fully crazy.
	But that's not unusual.
	The media are apparently willing to condone racism depending on the person from whom the racism emanates.
	Because the broader narrative is that America is racist against black people, not that people like Jussie Smollett are seeking to slander white people as racist against people like Jussie Smollett.
	Another indicator that the media are willing to not only look the other way but incentivize this sort of racism comes in today's New York Times.
	There's an article in today's New York Times by a person named Christopher Rivas.
	It is called this, quote, I broke up with her because she's white.
	When it comes to dating, I'd rather not think about race, but that's been hard to avoid.
	This entire op-ed in the New York Times is about a man who says that he will no longer date white women because he's uncomfortable dating white women.
	He says, over the years, I've dated brown women and black women, but mostly white women.
	I hadn't thought about why that was.
	When some brown and black people in my community started giving me a hard time about dating white women, I sensed they'd be happier if I stopped.
	I also got weird vibes from some white people, namely the parents of the woman that I was dating.
	The ones who ask me if I speak Mexican.
	That is absolutely a thing.
	The real reason I think I can no longer date white women isn't any of that.
	It's because in today's hashtag woke society, there's mad pressure to be hashtag woke.
	To be aware of the implications of whom you're attracted to and why.
	Which means that in the eyes of others, the color of the women I date is a big deal.
	Like I'm the problem.
	Like I'm betraying my people if I date white women.
	But I was taught that we were all one people.
	I see people watching me with a stink eye, noses turned up, as if they think black and brown people would somehow be better off if I dumped my white girlfriend.
	It's a lot of pressure.
	And then he says he started reading James Baldwin, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and other black and brown authors looking for guidance, a roadmap, help on what it means to be a brown man in the world.
	Like, yes, our bodies have been colonized.
	Yes, I am a child of blackness.
	How did we get here?
	If everybody is so woke, why are things so terrible?
	Maybe everybody isn't so woke.
	And so he says that he stopped dating white women because he had doubts about how society sees him.
	Pretty amazing stuff.
	Pretty amazing stuff.
	But the New York Times prints that piece.
	It's just incredible.
	Okay.
	You know what?
	Let's do a little bit of mailback.
	Micah says, No, that's a bad rebuttal because normally you're not allowed to kidnap people and keep them in a locked room for 20 years.
	The justice system can do that if you have committed a crime.
	A lot of people say it's right because murderers can't decide when to end someone's life.
	But the rebuttal is that if they can't, neither can the justice system.
	No, that's a bad rebuttal because normally you're not allowed to kidnap people and keep them in a locked room for 20 years.
	The justice system can do that if you have committed a crime.
	So the justice system exists for two purposes.
	One is retributive justice.
	The idea you did the crime, you do the time.
	And the other is protection of you from the public.
	Some people think rehabilitation is in the cards for the justice system.
	Typically speaking, rehabilitation programs have not been wildly successful.
	There are some success stories, but overall, not so much.
	When people talk about the decline in crime rates, that's not the success of rehabilitation systems.
	That is the The so-called mass incarceration that's taken place.
	Lots of criminals going to prison means fewer criminals out on the street.
	As far as capital punishment, in concept, I'm in favor of capital punishment.
	The way that it's practiced currently in the United States, I have serious doubts about it.
	There are certainly people who deserve to die.
	If you rape and murder a child, you should be put to death.
	If, however, we are only doing this on a sporadic basis, and you sit 30 years on death row, and you get tons of appeals, and the criminal justice system only unevenly applies the death penalty, not based on crime, then I've got some... I think there are serious questions to be asked about the system of the death penalty in the United States, but the application of the death penalty to particular people, I don't really have a huge problem with that.
	John says, Hi Ben.
	Congratulations on the new book.
	Mine is on the way.
	Well, I appreciate it.
	The book, by the way, Right Side of History.
	Free pitch for you.
	This is a very controversial area of constitutional law.
	So, the idea of birthright citizenship does have some roots in English common law.
	The idea that if you were born in Britain, you were a citizen of Britain.
	of the law itself back when it was written, or is it a more modern legal interpretation?
	Thanks for your thoughts.
	Have a great weekend.
	This is a very controversial area of constitutional law.
	So the idea of birthright citizenship does have some roots in English common law.
	The idea that if you were born in Britain, you were a citizen of Britain.
	With that said, it is true that in the 14th Amendment, it says, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
	Meaning that if you are a citizen of a foreign country and you have a baby here, that baby may be subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign country, which is why, for example, diplomats who have kids in the United States, their kids don't become automatic American citizens because they are subject to a foreign jurisdiction.
	I think that there's a pretty good case to be made that the 14th Amendment was not meant to apply to Everybody that it wasn't meant to apply to everyone born in the United States with that said it's obviously Embedded in both American law and American politics at this point.
	It's not going to end anytime soon And and thus I think that it's it's sort of a moot point on on Practical grounds if you want to read the two sides of this I believe John you has written in favor of birthright citizenship and I know that the folks over at the Center for immigration studies including people like John Eastman and You can read both sides of the case there.
	I don't know the answer to that, considering the anti-Semitic direction of the Democratic Party.
	Open anti-Semites in the Democratic Party have now been approved.
	They've been given the stamp of approval.
	I have proof for this.
	Here's Barack Obama.
	and the Golan Heights be overruled or even worse?
	I don't know the answer to that considering the anti-Semitic direction of the Democratic Party.
	Open anti-Semites in the Democratic Party have now been approved.
	They've been given the stamp of approval.
	I have proof for this.
	Here's Barack Obama, a picture of Barack Obama today with Rashida Tlaib.
	Rashida Tlaib is an anti-Semite.
	Rashida Tlaib has suggested that Jewish Americans and Israel supporters are subject to dual loyalty.
	She has supported groups that have connections to terrorism, like CARE.
	She is a supporter of the racist, anti-Semitic, and evil Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions program, which is largely sponsored by advocates of terror, particularly in the Middle East.
	Here she is with Barack Obama.
	And listen, I think taking a picture next to a politician doesn't mean that you endorse everything the politician does, but this is a little bit different.
	Here's what she tweeted.
	Barack Obama met with us, new members of Congress, and we had a thoughtful discussion about serving our country.
	The best part was when he looked straight at me and said, I'm proud of you.
	For what?
	For what?
	By the way, it also came out today that Barack Obama's administration was planning the unleashing of that horrible, evil UN Security Council resolution that condemned Israel for defending itself in 2016.
	Just before Barack Obama left office, the United States abstained from a resolution condemning Israel.
	It was Obama's administration, reportedly, according to a former Obama aide, who coordinated that resolution.
	So I'm very afraid for the future of U.S.-Israel relations if the Democrats re-enter power, because obviously the base of the party doesn't like Israel.
	They've decided that the basis of social justice requires them to support Israel's enemies, despite the fact that Israel is in every way more free, democratic, and liberal than any of the countries that surround it.
	And that certainly includes the terrorist-governed Palestinians.
	And again, even the Palestinians recognize how terrible things are now.
	I mean, many are rising up in Gaza.
	The media are ignoring it because they prefer to focus on Israel.
	Well, I think that the future of space exploration lies in private industry.
	You're seeing that with Elon Musk right now and the SpaceX program, and I think that's good.
	reasoning behind Senator Harris's theme music?
	And shouldn't it be definitely Snoop Tupac for sure?
	Also, if you will, where do you think the future of space exploration lies?
	Has government ruined that too?
	Well, I think that the future of space exploration lies in private industry.
	You're seeing that with Elon Musk right now and the SpaceX program.
	And I think that's good.
	I don't think that governments necessarily have to be the driving force behind space exploration.
	With that said, do I think that the American space program has been underfunded?
	I do, because not only has it provided enormous technological improvement, it is also a common goal to which I think we can aspire.
	It's a pretty cool thing.
	There are very few things in American government where I say it's cool so we should fund it.
	I think maybe the space program is the only exception to my general rule, as we'll discuss in a little while in Things I Hate.
	As far as her music, we picked the music from Dragnet because the critique of Kamala Harris is that she is a narc.
	I'm not making fun of her Tupac and Snoop fanship, largely because the media portray any way you identify.
	If I had picked a theme song for Kamala Harris that was rap, for example, the media would have suggested that as racist, even if I had said, I'm picking this because she said she likes this music.
	That's how the media treat this sort of stuff.
	That's how Media Matters treats this sort of stuff.
	And so I prefer to pick music that I think embodies her image in the Democratic primaries, rather than music that she herself has said she likes.
	Sarah says, Hey Ben, two questions.
	My sister and I got into a fight recently because she thinks you would prefer the label of libertarian to the one of conservative.
	I believe I've heard you reference conservatism more often.
	Can you clarify which label you more closely identify with?
	So I hate to split the baby.
	When it comes to government involvement, I'm libertarian.
	When it comes to the relationship between government and the social fabric, I'm conservative.
	What I mean by that is that my critique of libertarianism Is that libertarianism seems to suggest that the social fabric is unimportant that or at least less important than I think it should be the basis for a free government has to be in a strong social fabric and that lies historically in conservatism also.
	The idea of conservatism is that there is something to conserve.
	Libertarianism doesn't focus too much on the culture that it seeks to conserve.
	Instead, it simply says that you should be able to do whatever you want so long as the government is not involved.
	And I think that libertarianism as a government philosophy is good.
	I think libertarianism as a life philosophy Leave something to be desired.
	Sarah says, I've heard your explanation of Convention of States, was immediately excited by the possibilities.
	As I've been supporting it on social media, I've gotten feedback from both left and right-leaning friends who say it is more dangerous than helpful.
	The common argument is no rules govern a convention of states, and with our political climate, it's dangerous to be opening the power to changing the Constitution.
	As someone who is nearly a single-issue voter on the Second Amendment, I'm becoming more concerned that a convention gone rogue in this climate could lead to an abolition of my most cherished freedoms.
	What do you think about these criticisms?
	Are these concerns Serious.
	So I am not seriously concerned about a convention of states going rogue because all of the amendments that are proposed at a convention of states still actually have to be approved by the vast majority of states.
	I mean, I can read you Article 5 of the Constitution.
	Let me bring up the actual text.
	So, Article 5 of the Constitution, which deals with how the Constitution is to be amended, suggests that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes.
	As part of this Constitution, when ratified, this is the part, when ratified by the legislatures of three quarters of the several states or by conventions in three quarters thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress.
	Right, so that's the key element, is that when people talk about a runaway convention of states, you would need three quarters of the legislatures or conventions in three quarters that have been certified by the legislatures to actually approve of the amendments.
	So I'm not too worried about the abolition of the second amendment.
	Three quarters of the states are not going to vote to get rid of the second amendment.
	So I'm in favor of the convention of states because I think that there could be some things done.
	Many people who are interested in convention of states Have said that they are behind term limits.
	That's actually not something I love.
	I don't really like term limits very much because it seems to me that very often they do more harm than good.
	But I am in favor of attempts to restructure the executive branch particularly.
	I'm maybe in favor of term limits for the Supreme Court.
	I'm not a huge fan of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court particularly.
	And I'm very much in favor of the idea that we should pass amendments that restrict bills to single issues as opposed to these omnibus packages that allow legislators to escape the consequences of their own votes.
	Nicholas says, Hey Ben, would you ever consider concealed carrying a firearm if California made it remotely possible?
	Do you support national reciprocity for concealed carry?
	Thanks for all you do.
	I do support national reciprocity for concealed carry, and absolutely I would consider concealed carrying a firearm.
	I mean, I get a lot of threats.
	There are a lot of people who are not fans.
	And if I could conceal carry a firearm, I would be much more comfortable.
	In fact, I may apply for a concealed carry permit even in L.A.
	County because of the number of threats that I get.
	Anthony says, Hey Ben, congratulations on your book landing at the top of the New York Times bestseller list.
	I wanted to ask you your thoughts on stay-at-home dads.
	I've always wanted to be a father.
	I'm willing to take on that role if my future spouse wants to focus on a career.
	But is that a role that should be held predominantly by mothers?
	So, my dad was a stay-at-home dad.
	My mom worked.
	My dad was the stay-at-home dad.
	If you want to be a stay-at-home dad, I don't see anything wrong with that.
	So my dad was a stay-at-home dad.
	My mom worked.
	My dad was the stay-at-home dad.
	If you want to be a stay-at-home dad, I don't see anything wrong with that.
	Traditionally, women have been the ones who stay at home with the kids because they have more of a drive to do that.
	Because women and men are generally built differently.
	That's why women take more time off from the workplace to be at home with their kids.
	I can see it in my wife.
	When my wife finishes her residency, she wants to spend a lot more time at home with my kids.
	I can call my shots.
	I run my own business.
	I work a lot.
	There is a difference between men and women insofar as how they want to interact with children on a general level.
	But on an individual level, if you want to be a stay-at-home dad and your wife is cool with that, I don't have any problem with that at all.
	Do I think that it's important that spouses respect each other?
	Sure.
	So if your spouse is going to even innately feel that she doesn't properly respect you because you're not out earning a living, so to speak.
	That's something you should take into consideration because a healthy marriage is the basis of healthy child-rearing as well.
	I think that the question of gerrymandering being a partisan issue has been overblown radically.
	Despite all of the supposed gerrymandering that makes it impossible for Democrats to be elected, they just won a sweeping victory in the House.
	So, all of the talk about how gerrymandering ruins the system, there is no good way to draw these lines.
	And the attempt to create non-partisan commissions, they never end up being non-partisan, and then they're unanswerable, which is a problem.
	TJ says, hi, Ben, I'm reading your book, Right Side of History.
	It's awesome.
	I understand the morality is something given by God, and it's our job to establish the logic so people could be persuaded to follow the moral norms.
	In the Ten Commandments, God specifically forbids murder and adultery.
	Do you think euthanasia and prostitution can be considered murder and adultery?
	If yes, what would be your logic to explain that, and what's your take on those two issues?
	I appreciate everything that you do.
	So I am anti-euthanasia.
	I think that the idea of doctor-sponsored killings is deeply dangerous to the moral fabric of a society.
	Now, I think there's a difference between that and quote-unquote withholding care.
	So if you are brain dead and you're on life support and life support is withdrawn because you can't live on your own, I don't think that's the same thing as actively injecting poison into your veins to kill you.
	In terms of preserving life, I'm against you.
	I don't think that's a doctor.
	It's not a doctor's job to kill you.
	I mean, it violates the basic precepts of the Hippocratic Oath, which I know we have forgotten about.
	As far as prostitution, can it be considered adultery?
	It depends.
	Are you committing adultery when you're with a prostitute?
	So on a moral level, prostitution is a grave evil.
	Because the commodification of sex is deeply dangerous, again, to the moral fabric of society.
	Does that mean it should be illegal?
	Not sure.
	Should euthanasia be illegal?
	I think euthanasia should remain illegal because the taking of human life, even with consent, is not something that we should be in favor of.
	Human life ought to be protected.
	That is one of the fundamental concerns of government, and your permission is not required to protect your life.
	Cassandra says, what is your opinion on abortion in cases in which the baby is 100% non-viable, i.e. no skull, missing organs, rearranged body parts, etc., sometimes not discovered until after the heartbeat?
	Well, in those rare cases, the non-viability of the baby is typically, it typically results in miscarriage, biologically speaking.
	You know, There are cases of non-abortion, right?
	DNCs that occur when, for example, there is a baby in utero that no longer has a heartbeat, so essentially it's a floating corpse.
	At that point, you're not talking about the taking of a human life, so I have no problem with a DNC in that particular case.
	If you're talking about a baby that is not going to be born healthy, but is still alive, I think that you are getting into dangerous moral territory.
	Especially because there are cases where they actually get it wrong.
	I know multiple parents who have been told that their babies are going to have severe abnormalities and the babies don't actually end up having severe abnormalities.
	I'm not in favor of precipitous ending of human life even for purposes of non-viability.
	Philippe says, what is the purpose of art in society?
	What is the importance of art generally?
	Well, the purpose of art is to beautify life and to contain eternal truths in temporary or somewhat permanent form.
	Art beautifies life.
	I mean, that's just what it is.
	Now, does art make you more moral?
	No, it depends on the message of the art.
	Depends what art does.
	When people say that art ennobles, some of the great art in human history was created right in the lead up to World War II in Germany.
	And that did not ennoble.
	I mean, Germany was probably the most cultured country on planet Earth.
	At the time the Nazis arose.
	So there is no necessary linkage between the quality of art and the quality of the human beings who either produce that art or consume that art.
	But there's no question that art beautifies life.
	Okay, final question.
	Matthew says, "Ben, as you know, "people often point to a conspiracy theory "about Zionist Jews.
	"Can you explain why this is typically "a front for antisemitism?" Sure, because the conspiracy doesn't exist.
	So, anti-Semitism is itself a conspiracy theory.
	It's a suggestion that the Jews band together in secretive evil groups, and that they control the markets, or they control foreign policy, or they control this, or they control that.
	And then that is used as a way to target Jews, and to hurt Jews.
	Because, obviously, if the Jews are secretly powerful, then we have to do something to take them down a peg.
	It's different than other forms of racism.
	Most forms of racism are based on the innate inferiority of a particular group of people.
	Anti-Semitism is based on the threat of this supposed group of people that Jews are innately threatening because they have these secret connections with one another.
	It's a bunch of nonsense.
	The conspiracy theories about Zionism that Zionists all over the world are controlling foreign policy, it's obviously untrue.
	I mean, the EU is really anti-Israel as a general rule.
	The United States Democratic Party is not in favor of Israel increasingly, which is really sad.
	There's still some old guard folks like Steini Hoyer who are, but that's a minority movement, it seems.
	No one seems to be able to explain.
	If the Jews are so all-powerful, why are they constantly getting slaughtered at an incredible rate?
	And why is it that even in a state that they've developed from nothing, like legitimately nothing, from swampland and sand, they've developed a thriving state.
	Why is that state constantly under attack and the Jews are expected to somehow take it on the chin from people firing rockets into their civilian areas in the name of social justice or some such nonsense?
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I like and then we'll do a quick thing I hate, because that was a long mailbag.
	So, things that I like.
	There are a bunch of movies that I've been watching at night because they... I have to sign a lot of books.
	I mean, thank God.
	A lot of people bought Right Side of History.
	I have to sign legitimately tens of thousands of books now.
	So that means that each night, I basically watch a movie and then sign 2,000 books.
	So, there was one that I watched the other night that actually didn't get nearly any play, but is a good, interesting movie.
	I love westerns.
	I'm a huge fan of westerns.
	And the acting particularly in this Western is terrific.
	John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal.
	It's called The Sisters Brothers.
	It barely got any play at all because it's weird.
	It's not a usual Western, but it does raise serious sort of moral questions about how people live in the world, about the value of family, about good and evil.
	I thought it was kind of a fascinating film.
	It's called The Sisters Brothers.
	Here's a little bit of the preview.
	We're the sisters brothers.
	S-I-S-T-E-R-S.
	Like sisters. - Thank you.
	Stop what?
	Killing people.
	We have enough money to stop for good.
	Stop what?
	Killing people.
	Yeah, right.
	I'll acknowledge that I think Joaquin Phoenix may be the best actor working today.
	And I cannot wait, honestly, for his Joker movie.
	And I was very much against the concept of a Joker movie, because the Joker doesn't have an origin story.
	But, with that said, I mean, the acting in this is really first-rate.
	Jake Gyllenhaal is terrific in it as well, so if you like good acting and you like Westerns, then this is a movie for you.
	It's got a lot of gunfire, but not a lot of interesting gunplay.
	But it's interestingly filmed, and there's a lot to like about this film.
	The Sisters Brothers, go check it out.
	I think it's on demand right now.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So I hate dishonesty in media coverage, particularly when it comes to the coverage of government spending.
	So there's a lot of hubbub over the past few days about the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, proposing a budget that did not fund the Special Olympics.
	The Special Olympics does not need public funding.
	It doesn't.
	People give tons of money to the Special Olympics.
	The Special Olympics is a wonderful thing.
	It is.
	It's terrific.
	I would give money to the Special Olympics.
	Betsy DeVos gives money to the Special Olympics.
	But the implication is that if you don't want the government signing a check to things that can be privately supported, that somehow you are cruel.
	This is a bizarre contention.
	Are we supposed to identify compassion simply with government spending?
	So if I sign a check to a charity and then I say, you know what?
	I don't think the government should excise taxpayer money to support that charity because there are lots of people like me who support that institution.
	Does this somehow make me non-compassionate toward the very charity to which I sign a check?
	That was the implication that was made about Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education.
	It's just nonsense.
	It's just silly.
	The federal government supplies something like $18 million to the Special Olympics.
	And I understand it's bad optics to quote-unquote defund the Special Olympics, but let's be real about this.
	The Special Olympics doesn't actually need the money.
	All Trump had to do, if Trump wanted to actually do something good on this, what he should have said is, Betsy DeVos is correct.
	The Special Olympics does not require public funding, and I'll show you why they don't require public funding.
	I'm giving a million dollars, and I'm going to tweet out to all my supporters, let's fill that gap and show that the American people are big-hearted and kind-hearted, and that we don't need to spend taxpayer dollars to get this done.
	It would have raised twice the amount of money the federal government spends in legitimately about an hour.
	Because the American people are warm-hearted and generous, and we don't have to demonstrate that through tax policy.
	Nonetheless, because of public pressure, President Trump backed down on this, and he said that he was going to fund the Special Olympics, instead of using this as a teachable moment, as a learning opportunity for people, showing that the American people are insanely generous when it comes to good causes.
	The Special Olympics will be funded.
	I just told my people I want to fund the Special Olympics.
	And I've just authorized a funding of the Special Olympics.
	I've been to the Special Olympics.
	I think it's incredible.
	And I just authorized a funding.
	I heard about it this morning.
	I have overridden my people.
	We're funding the Special Olympics.
	I mean, again, the falling for the democratic narrative, which is that you don't have sympathy for something unless you publicly fund it, is dangerous to the health of the republic and to the health of conservatism.
	We've gotten the same thing when it comes to school lunch programs.
	I've said before, I think school lunch programs are a giant fail.
	You know, just statistically, they are.
	Kids are more likely to be obese if they're on a school lunch program than if they are just bringing lunch from home.
	The statement that I've made about school lunch programs is if you want to deal with systemic poverty, school lunch programs ain't gonna do it.
	And it is also true that as a parent, you should be incentivized to get food for your child.
	This is literally your first priority.
	It's one I mentioned to Adam Carolla earlier on the program.
	It's school lunch programs that made Adam Carolla into a libertarian.
	Because he would go to school and they would serve him this slop and then he'd go home and he'd see his parents sitting around on their welfare check instead of actually making sure that he had a healthy lunch.
	This seems to me like the very basis of being a parent.
	If you cannot feed your kids...
	I mean, we spend tens of thousands of dollars on welfare programs for poor households in the United States.
	If you can't feed your kids despite that massive social safety net in the United States, you shouldn't have those kids in your house.
	Seriously.
	Child starvation in the United States is not a problem.
	Systemic poverty may be a problem.
	Child starvation is not, in fact, a problem.
	When you say this sort of stuff, it's like, oh, well, you lack sympathy.
	Really?
	I lack sympathy?
	How much charity did you give last year?
	It's the identification of compassion with government spending is a dangerous thing.
	And again, I think Trump could have done something much more interesting here if he had chosen to.
	Instead, he sort of moved on with it, which I think is a bad move.
	Alrighty.
	Well, we will be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours.
	This weekend, go pick up a copy of The Right Side of History.
	I know it was barely in bookstores.
	A lot of the bookstores weren't even really carrying it this week.
	Then it shocked the world and became number one on the New York Times bestseller list.
	So it should be available in bookstores this weekend.
	Go pick up a copy of my new bestselling book, The Right Side of History.
	Tell all your friends about it.
	And either we'll see you here this afternoon if you subscribe and you listen to radio, or we'll see you here next week.
	Have a wonderful weekend.
	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.
	Copyright, Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, we're going to discuss what I think is an epidemic of groupthink in our society.
	People seem to be less and less, I'm sure you've noticed this, people are less and less willing and able to think for themselves, form their own ideas and opinions and perspectives.
	So I'd like to analyze that problem.
	Also, Jussie Smollett's lawyer has come up with a really hilarious and pitiful alibi excuse for Jussie Smollett.
	PETA embarrasses itself yet again, and I want to deal with the claim, very common claim you hear all the time, that Jesus was just a polite, nice guy who never would have insulted or confronted anyone.

▲