Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 12, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

57:28

Speech Is Violence! | Ep. 758

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ilhan Omar's defenders castigate speech as incitement.
	Michael Moulds is attacked at a speech.
	No, I didn't hire the guy.
	And we checked the mailbag.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	I know when I found out that Michael Knowles was attacked last night at a speech, my first thought was, well, thank God.
	And then I found out he was okay, and I was like, damn it, if I hire somebody to do a job, you just can't get good people to do things these days, you gotta do everything yourself.
	So when he gets back to LA, I'm just gonna go out there with a Super Soaker full of bleach and go after him.
	We'll get to all that in just a second.
	First, attention gun lovers.
	How would you like to hit the range tomorrow with a brand new gun?
	I know I would.
	And the United States Concealed Carry Association wants to make that dream come true for you.
	They are here to help train and protect responsible gun owners like you and me.
	And right now, they're giving away not one, not two, but 19 free guns.
	So, what type of gun will it be?
	Well, here are some hints.
	To start, it is one of the world's most popular double-action pistols on planet Earth today.
	It's often the choice of the gun of choice for law enforcement officers, civilians, and our military.
	It's accuracy makes it an ideal concealed carry gun, and it can even be used as a perfect training gun right out of the box.
	Does this sound like something you'd want?
	I know that I would.
	Simply text the word WIN to 87222 right now to reveal the identity of this gun and instantly lock in your 19 free chances to win it.
	That's W-I-N to 87222.
	It's simple, quick, 100% free.
	Oh, extra bonus.
	The first 3,000 people to text in will also be sent a free concealed carry guide just for entering, so you really have nothing to lose.
	Pretty awesome.
	Your opportunity is slipping away.
	This giveaway does end soon.
	So text the word WIN to 87222 right now for the official rules.
	Lock in your 19 entries and get your free concealed carry guide before it is too late.
	Text WIN to 87222.
	That is W-I-N to 87222.
	Alrighty, so we begin today with the continuing fallout over Ilhan Omar getting herself into trouble once again because it is a day ending in Y and a month with more than 17 days.
	So that means that Ilhan Omar is in trouble again and she's doubling down on her being in trouble because she is not good at this.
	Also, she's not a very good person.
	So there are a few different things that are wrong with Ilhan Omar's take on 9-11.
	So She begins, this all came to light over the past few days because she was speaking at the Council on American Islamic Relations, we played the clip several times, and while she was there, she suggested that care was founded in the aftermath of 9-11, not true, to defend Muslims after some people did something.
	And people who remember 9-11 said to themselves, what now?
	Some people did something?
	That's your hot take?
	Some people did something?
	And she defended this, not by suggesting that she may have been insensitive in her remarks or that's not what she meant, or obviously 9-11 was a truly terrible tragedy for the country and an act of tremendous evil.
	All the things that you would expect a person to say in this position.
	Instead, she simply keeps doubling down on all of this.
	Like, over and over and over again.
	So, for example, Ilhan Omar tweeted out this morning, she tweeted out this morning in response to all of this, quote, The people and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.
	President George W. Bush.
	Was Bush downplaying the terrorist attack?
	What if he was a Muslim?
	What in the living hell is that supposed to mean?
	First off, let's analyze that quote from President Bush.
	I remember him saying that.
	You remember him saying that, if you are older than 17 years old, because he was standing on the rubble of Ground Zero at the time with a bullhorn and explaining to people that the people who perpetrated the attack would soon be dead because we would be sending our soldiers overseas to kill them.
	That's what he meant by that.
	The people who knocked those buildings down, we'll hear from all of us soon, was not him saying, we're going to call them and then have a nice conversation.
	That was not, that was not the idea.
	The idea was, the evil people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us in the form of missiles.
	Was Bush downplaying the terrorist attack?
	No, you doof!
	He wasn't downplaying the terrorist attack.
	And I love her take.
	What if he was a Muslim, right?
	The real victims, the real victims of 9-11 were the Muslims, obviously.
	The real victims of 9-11 across the United States were Muslims.
	Now, I am old enough to remember all of this going down.
	And the media's chief concern, one of their chief concerns in the aftermath of 9-11 was the so-called Islamophobic backlash, which did not end up materializing.
	There's a lot of worry about Muslims being mistreated across the country.
	That did not end up materializing.
	And George W. Bush went out of his way over and over and over to separate Islam from the terrorists.
	I think he went overboard by characterizing Islam as a religion of peace, for example.
	I don't think he's an Islamic scholar, so I don't think that he had the expertise to do that, but he obviously was attempting to protect innocent Muslims from being lumped in with radical Muslims who had committed terrorist atrocities.
	And yet, Ilhan Omar continues with this narrative that Muslims were truly victimized on 9-11 as opposed to the people who were murdered in the 9-11 terror attacks.
	So, you want to prove that you are sympathetic to the victims of 9-11 and your first response to all of this is to downplay 9-11 again by suggesting that the real issue here is whether Bush was treated differently because he was not a Muslim guy.
	What in the living hell?
	Now, most Democrats are running for the hills.
	They're nowhere to be found.
	They won't comment on this stuff.
	The reason they won't comment on this stuff is because they are afraid of ticking off the fresh faces of the Democratic Party.
	You know, the ones who are drawing all the attention.
	Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, who have formed the three dragons of the radical left.
	And most Democrats are refusing comments on this.
	They're running for the hills.
	They don't want anything to do with the comments, but they also don't want to tick off these three young women who are the new fresh faces, so fresh, so face of the Democratic Party.
	A couple exceptions.
	There is a top Democrat named Lujan who came out and said, yeah, this is not great stuff.
	This is, this is, you know, she, she needs to do better than that.
	Those statements were not only hurtful to me, but extremely hurtful to everyone that was personally impacted by those terrorist attacks.
	No one should refer to what happened on 9-11 with terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans as something by some people.
	Okay, that person is the Assistant Speaker of the U.S.
	House of Representatives, Representative Ben Ray Lujan from New Mexico.
	Now, he is obviously right, but you're not hearing this overwhelmingly from the Democratic Party.
	Instead, what you're mostly hearing in the media is all of Ilhan Omar's radical friends, including anti-Semites like Rashida Tlaib and anti-Semite fellow travelers like AOC, come out and defend Ilhan Omar because they're the new diverse Freshman class, ooh!
	So here's Rashida Tlaib suggesting that the real problem here is that people don't like Ilhan Omar because she's a Somali woman who is a Muslim.
	I'm not for policing people.
	You know, that's what they're doing to us women of color.
	I mean, think about it.
	This is a diverse class.
	They've never had two Muslim women.
	They've never had a Palestinian American.
	They've never had a woman that was a refugee.
	I mean, these are real-life, impactful stories that come with us because our lens is so different.
	You know, this is not just about a Congress that looks differently, but we serve differently, and we talk about these issues differently.
	But it's an institution that just is not ready for people like us.
	Oh, that's it.
	It must be the color of skin or the character of genitalia.
	It must be that you're a female or that you are Muslim or that you have a darker hue of skin color.
	It must be that, not the open antisemitism both you and Ilhan Omar repeatedly engage in.
	It can't be that Omar is a radical on foreign policy, which she is.
	Muslim or not, she is a radical on foreign policy.
	I will show you the evidence of this in just one second.
	But it must be that the criticism is all it's all related to race.
	Now, weird, because there are other Muslims in the U.S.
	Congress and they don't receive this kind of criticism because they don't say this kind of crap.
	There are other black people, there are other people who are of brown hue in the U.S.
	Congress who do not receive this kind of blowback because they're not routinely saying things that are disgusting in public.
	But it must be racism and sexism and bigotry and homophobia and all the rest.
	Leading this charge, of course, is AOC, who spends every waking moment trying to defend idiocy by suggesting that opponents of idiocy are actually opponents of minorities.
	Here she is saying the same thing.
	She says that criticism of Ilhan Omar, if you critique Ilhan Omar, you're inciting people to racist violence.
	And then Ilhan Omar said the exact same thing.
	To elicit such an image for such a transparent media, and politically motivated attack on Ilhan.
	We are getting to the level where this is an incitement of violence against progressive women of color.
	And if they can't figure out how to get it back to policy, we need to call it out for what it is.
	Because this is not normal, and this is not a normal level of political debate or rhetoric.
	It's incitement.
	It's incitement against women of color.
	Incitement, really.
	So the rule now is that if you criticize a member of Congress who happens to be a woman of color, it's incitement.
	This is the speech is violence nonsense that you see on college campuses, where people like me go to speak on college campuses, or Michael Mowles goes and speaks on a college campus, and suddenly people are popping up and actually attempting violence because speech, after all, is violence.
	If the new standard is that harshly critiquing somebody is incitement to violence, then you know who's going to be responsible for violence.
	Ilhan Omar.
	Not two weeks ago, she suggested that Donald Trump was not a human.
	She said Barack Obama was a human, but Donald Trump is not a human.
	Which is worse?
	Saying that Ilhan Omar said a terrible thing about 9-11?
	Or that she downplayed 9-11?
	And that she said terrible things about America repeatedly?
	Or, is it worse to call Donald Trump not human?
	To dehumanize a person by calling them not human.
	Which was more inciting?
	Which one?
	Here's Ilhan Omar saying that two weeks ago.
	I just want to get to your side of the story.
	Do you believe that Trump and Obama are the same, just different when it comes to their policies?
	One is human, the other is not.
	Okay, which one is more inciting, that, or people pointing out that Ilhan Omar's comments about 9-11 were, at best, insensitive?
	At best.
	It's pretty incredible.
	the two one is human the other is is it true that you just think that he's more polished than trump one is human the other is not okay which one is more inciting that or people pointing out that ilhan omar's comments about 9-11 were at best insensitive at best it's pretty it's pretty incredible aoc went even further than this again it is amazing to me that people see her as an If this is the case, sell your bonds.
	Because my goodness, AOC tweeted this out about Dan Crenshaw.
	So Dan Crenshaw is one of the people who's been critical of Ilhan Omar's comments about 9-11.
	Representative Crenshaw from Texas served in Afghanistan, lost an eye to an IED in Afghanistan.
	Did that defending Muslims in Afghanistan.
	So AOC tweets this out at Dan Crenshaw.
	So Dan Crenshaw had tweeted, AOC responds, In 2018, right-wing extremists were behind almost all U.S.
	domestic terrorist killings.
	as some people who did something.
	Unbelievable.
	AOC responds, you refuse to co-sponsor the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund, yet have the audacity to drum resentment toward Ilhan Omar with completely out-of-context quotes?
	In 2018, right-wing extremists were behind almost all U.S. domestic terrorist killings.
	Why don't you go do something about that?
	So there are about eight lies in here, Number one, he backs the 9-11 Victims' Compensation Fund.
	So does Donald Trump, to the extent that even Jon Stewart has praised the Trump administration for their work on the 9-11 Victims' Compensation Fund.
	Number two, you don't have to co-sponsor a bill to support a bill.
	Three, she's really going to suggest that people like Ilhan Omar are doing more for 9-11 victims than Dan Crenshaw, who joined the military and lost an eye To fight the people who perpetrated 9-11?
	That's your take?
	While you were dancing on a rooftop and mixing drinks, that dude was over in Afghanistan, serving and getting his eye blown out by an IED?
	That's your hot take?
	It's unreal.
	It's unreal.
	And then we're supposed to take these people seriously when they protest that, no, they love the American military.
	No, really, they take 9-11 super seriously.
	No, they really take terrorism seriously.
	By the way, the evidence that Ilhan Omar does not take terrorism seriously is not just that one clip.
	It's that over and over and over, she has said things that make it seem like she does not take terrorism particularly seriously.
	I will give you the evidence in one second.
	First, let's talk about hiring at your company.
	Hiring used to be difficult.
	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, spotlighting the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five 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.
	Ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Ziprecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	If you want to upgrade your business, there's really only one company that you should be using for your hiring.
	That is ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Give them a try for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Hey, so Ilhan Omar is protesting that no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	All of this is taken out of context.
	I am really not downplaying 9-11.
	The only reason you're saying I'm downplaying 9-11 is because I'm Muslim, and you hate Muslims.
	That's the real reason that you're doing all this.
	Again, I will point out, she is not the only Muslim congressperson.
	There are several Muslim congresspeople who have not received all of these critiques.
	There are many members of the Congress who are Muslim who don't receive this kind of blowback.
	And yet, and yet.
	So why is Ilhan Omar receiving this kind of blowback?
	Well, because she has been for years saying stuff like this.
	So back in 2012, she did an interview with a pretty radical TV slash radio show in which she questioned why exactly, why exactly is it that we say England and America in the same way that we, why don't we say England and America in the same way that we say Al Qaeda?
	Why not?
	We played it on the show yesterday.
	And she did a full clip where she was joking and laughing about Hamas and Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.
	She said that she took a class where the professor, every time he said Al-Qaeda, he said, Al-Qaeda, with like a feeling of dread.
	Why didn't he say England or America or the army in the same way?
	Because those are terrorist groups, lady, that's why.
	And that's not the only time that Ilhan Omar has said something like this.
	Just two years ago, she wrote a piece for Time Magazine We'll get to in just one second.
	Okay, so this piece in Time Magazine from Ilhan Omar.
	In this piece, she's talking about Charlottesville, and here is what she talked about with regard to the United States.
	Listen to how she characterizes the United States versus how she characterizes Islamic terrorism.
	Quote, we must confront that our nation was founded by the genocide of indigenous people and on the backs of slaves, that we maintain global power with the tenor of neocolonialism.
	So first off, virtually every aspect of that statement is wrong.
	The quote unquote genocide of indigenous people was diseased brought over centuries earlier by Europeans from a variety of different countries.
	Disease is not a genocide.
	The Trail of Tears was not a genocide.
	The Trail of Tears was an evil act by the United States government.
	It was not a genocide and it happened after the foundation of the United States.
	The nation was not founded by the genocide of indigenous people.
	That's a lie.
	And when she says that our nation was founded on the backs of slaves, slavery was an evil part of America's founding.
	Also, it did not exist in the North part of the United States.
	Members of the North were very much opposed to slavery.
	There's a big fight over it in the Declaration of Independence.
	And It is also possible that an evil thing that was a part of America's history was not actually the foundation of the country.
	The foundation of the country was the ideas.
	As I've said many times, I say this in my new book, The Right Side of History, the great divide right now in the West is between people who think like Ilhan Omar and people who have respect for the history of Western civilization.
	People who mischaracterize Western civilization as based on hatred and fear and racism and all of the great ideas of the Declaration and the Constitution were just a bunch of nonsense.
	And then there are people who recognize that the ideas of the Declaration and the Constitution are wonderful, terrific ideas that were not always fully lived up to by human beings.
	Nonetheless, she says all that and then she says, we maintain today global power with the tenor of neocolonialism.
	Neocolonialism?
	She's going to need to explain where we have settled in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	She's going to have to explain where we settled when we were bombing the Serbs on behalf of the Croats during the Yugoslavian war.
	She's going to have to explain where we settled when we were defending Saudi Arabia from the predations of Saddam Hussein.
	Where is the colonialism exactly?
	So she says all that.
	OK, that's bad enough.
	But then she follows up with this.
	Are you getting all of this?
	In other words, America is a brutally racist, terrible place.
	to correct mistakes further deepen the divide.
	Our national avoidance tactic has been to shift the focus to potential international terrorism.
	Are you getting all of this?
	In other words, America's a brutally racist, terrible place.
	And because we don't want to confront the fact that America is a brutally racist, terrible place, we make up this international terrorist threat.
	We focus on the international terrorist threat We don't have to focus on the threats here at home, you know, like white supremacy and the evils of racism and all that.
	So we just sort of make it up.
	Obviously, this is a person who takes racism, who takes terrorism super duper seriously.
	She takes terrorism so seriously that she characterized in 2016 in a letter to a judge trying to get a bunch of terrorists who had joined ISIS off the hook.
	She characterized their actions.
	I mean, talk about downplaying.
	Talk about downplaying.
	Here is how she characterized people trying to join ISIS in 2016, quote, young men who made a consequential mistake.
	Oh, is that what happened?
	It was a consequential mistake, you know, like shoplifting or a drug bust.
	They tried to join ISIS.
	Okay, she said about this.
	We must alter our attitude and approach to these young men.
	She said a long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty.
	Ah, I see.
	So terrorists, people who try to join up with ISIS, they're only doing so because America's really bad and it's marginalizing people.
	And if we sentence those people to long jail terms, we're marginalizing them even further.
	But we're supposed to believe she took 9-11 super seriously?
	She takes terrorism really seriously?
	It's pretty astonishing stuff.
	And the fact that Democrats have come to her defense on the basis of you're inciting violence against her if you quote her.
	My goodness.
	Or that Dan Crenshaw is somehow less patriotic than Ilhan Omar after losing an eye in combat and being a Navy SEAL.
	It's just insane.
	And it's insulting.
	But I guess this is what the Democratic Party wishes to become.
	I guess the Democratic Party wishes to become the party of people who rant and rave about how terrible America is routinely, and then when called upon, it suggests that this is incitement against people of color.
	It's just, it's just disgusting.
	I mean, honestly, it is just gross.
	AOC should be ashamed of herself.
	Ilhan Omar should be ashamed of herself.
	Rashida Tlaib should be ashamed of herself, but apparently there is... I guess there is no reason.
	I guess there is no reason for them to be ashamed.
	After all, the media will cover for them.
	So it's, it is pretty amazing.
	It is pretty amazing and it's pretty terrifying.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, there's a big story that came up yesterday with regard to the Daily Wire's own Michael Knowles.
	As I said earlier, when you hire somebody to put out a hit, presumably the person should fulfill their duty, but apparently you can't get good people these days on college campuses.
	Anyway, University of Missouri-Kansas City.
	Michael was speaking.
	The speech was titled, Men Are Not Women.
	This apparently is a very controversial thing over at University of Missouri, Kansas City.
	So in the middle of his speech, a bunch of the protesters get up and they walk out, but they don't all walk out for long.
	One of them pops back through the door carrying a super soaker that contained glitter-laced liquid.
	Unclear what the liquid was.
	Apparently it smelled like bleach.
	But this person pops through the door and starts shooting the super soaker at Michael, at which point one of the police officers in the room Who obviously should get some sort of tryout with the chiefs.
	Takes down the perpetrator with a strong armbar.
	I mean, this is a solid tackle right here.
	Okay, so good times over there. so good times over there. - Good times over there.
	And Michael handled it with aplomb.
	He was totally fine.
	You know, thank God.
	This sort of stuff happens on campuses all too often, but that's pretty astonishing stuff.
	Then the media covered it as though it was a mere allegation.
	Oh, allegedly, somebody popped through the door and shot something at Knowles.
	It was on tape, guys.
	It was on tape.
	And that does demonstrate How crazy things have become on campus.
	Campuses have become a disaster area.
	Now, most campuses are not like this.
	I visit lots and lots of campuses, but the fact is I also have better security than Knowles does.
	I mean, whenever I speak, because campuses are aware of the kind of controversy it causes, they have lots and lots of security.
	So nothing like this has ever gotten close to me.
	But Knowles had a little less security, and protesters decided to do something like that.
	If that gets in Knowles' eyes, obviously it's a big problem.
	This is what comes of the mentality that says that speech is violence.
	So Michael's speech is a form of violence.
	You can use violence against his speech.
	If you use speech against Ilhan Omar, then that is a form of incitement to violence.
	Amazing, amazing, terrible mentality.
	Okay, coming up, we'll get to President Trump on illegal immigration, because there's a breaking story that's getting a lot of play, and I'm not sure exactly why.
	First, codenames, deception, gadgets.
	It might seem like something out of the movies, but these are just some of the essential components of being a spy.
	Most spies are actually ordinary, forgettable people, which makes them all the more dangerous.
	So what does it really take to be a spy?
	Every single week, the Powercast original, Espionage, tells the stories of the world's most incredible undercover missions, and how those covert operations succeeded or failed.
	Find out the real-world spy tactics required to impersonate, exploit, infiltrate the most confidential places in the world.
	You'll be fascinated by the story of KGB operative Vasily Mitrokhin, who risked his life hiding highly classified material from Russian secret services and bringing it to the West.
	You'll be astounded by the life of Morten Storm, a former Islamic radical who left the religion to work for the Danish security and intelligence service as a spy in Islamic militant circles.
	Search for and subscribe to Espionage wherever you listen to podcasts.
	It's really terrific.
	I've listened to a bit of it.
	Again, search Espionage or visit podcast.com slash espionage to listen right now.
	This is really cool stuff.
	And it does blow up a lot of your preconceptions about what exactly espionage constitutes.
	Go check it out right now.
	Search espionage or visit parcast.com slash espionage to listen right now.
	Go check it out.
	Okay, so President Trump is now being ripped upon because there was a proposal that was made inside the White House that would have directed a lot of the illegal immigrants who could not be absorbed by Border Patrol.
	They didn't have enough beds.
	The White House had thought about directing those illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and send them to democratic areas and let the Democrats deal with the fallout from illegal immigration if they won't actually give us the money that we need to fund the border wall or the beds.
	According to the Washington Post, White House officials have tried to pressure U.S.
	immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of sanctuary cities to retaliate against President Trump's political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by the Washington Post.
	Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months.
	Once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S.
	southern border, and again in February amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump's border wall.
	One of the districts looked at was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco.
	The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds.
	The White House officials first apparently broached the plan in a November 16th email Asking officials at several agencies whether members of the caravan could be arrested at the border and then bused to small and mid-sized sanctuary cities, places where local authorities have refused to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.
	The White House told ICE that the plan was intended to alleviate a shortage of detention space, but also served to send a message to Democrats.
	The attempt at political retribution raised alarm within ICE, with the top official responding that it was rife with budgetary and liability concerns and noting there are PR risks as well.
	After the White House pressed again in February, ICE's legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and then rebuffed the administration.
	A White House official and spokesman for DHS sent nearly identical statements to the Post on Thursday, indicating the proposal was not under consideration.
	This was just a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion, the White House statement said.
	Nancy Pelosi's office blasted the plan.
	Her spokeswoman, Ashley Etienne, said, The extent of this administration's cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated.
	Using human beings, including little children, as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.
	Frankly, I am confused by Pelosi's reaction.
	I am.
	I don't understand the reaction.
	If the idea is that illegal immigrants coming into the country provide no threat and should be placed in areas where the resources are available, Sanctuary City seemed like a pretty good place for that.
	L.A.
	has thousands of illegal immigrants living here, and lots of resources, and it's a sanctuary city.
	Same thing in San Francisco.
	I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of a media that went along with Barack Obama shutting down open-air World War II memorials in the middle of a government shutdown just to prove to people he could make people suffer.
	And the media went along with that.
	Oh, well, he has to shut memorials, doesn't he?
	He has to shut memorials because government shutdown, man.
	Doesn't matter that it's open-air.
	Doesn't matter World War II vets can't get in.
	He's... If Barack Obama has to make people suffer to end the shutdown, I guess that's the way this is going to go.
	I also don't understand why it would be markedly worse, on a moral level, to send illegal immigrants to cities where they are going to be treated really well, presumably.
	I mean, it's Nancy Pelosi's city.
	Where they're going to be treated really well, as opposed to small border towns that are being overwhelmed with the number of illegal immigrants and don't have the resources there.
	Why is it better for these folks to be shipped and let off a bus in the middle of a small town in Texas than to be shipped to other places and be let off the bus there?
	It's confusing to me.
	I mean, why does Nancy Pelosi actually have a problem with illegal immigrants being sent to San Francisco?
	In fact, I'm old enough to remember, because I'm more than five years old, when one city in California called Murrieta objected to having illegal immigrants sent to the city.
	And they tried to stop the buses of illegal immigrants that were being bused to the city.
	And the media covered this as though the people who were protesting were racist.
	So which is it?
	If Nancy Pelosi doesn't want illegal immigrants sent to her city, is she a racist just like these folks from Murrieta?
	Or does she have rational concerns about the impact of illegal immigration on her district in the same way these people from Murrieta did?
	Here's a clip from Murrieta, circa 2014.
	This is Obama.
	This is Obama time.
	And listen to how the media cover these people from Murrieta who do not want thousands of illegal immigrants bused into their small town community.
	Go back home!
	Chanting, go back home, a wall of protesters blocked the road into the Murrieta border patrol station.
	You are obstructing the roadway.
	Please move or you will be cited.
	As anger grew in the crowd.
	We need to go back to Mexico.
	Some not understanding these migrants were all from Central America.
	Tempers flaring.
	One protester spitting at an immigration rights supporter.
	Don't touch me!
	Don't touch me!
	The anger continued hours after the buses had left.
	Anger that many in this town do find embarrassing.
	I mean, these are kids.
	I mean, your heart goes out to them.
	Okay, well, there is truth to the idea that people overreact to illegal immigration in their area, but I don't see why Nancy Pelosi gets to do it and the people from Murad don't.
	I don't understand why it is... I mean, and listen to the media coverage there.
	They seek out the people who are the most vile, the people who are spitting at people, the people who are shouting at children.
	That's the people they seek out.
	Nancy Pelosi says, don't ship people to my town.
	That's terrible.
	That's cynical.
	It's cruel.
	Why is it cynical and cruel?
	I don't understand.
	San Francisco is an extraordinarily rich area.
	So what is Nancy Pelosi objecting to, exactly?
	And the media are suddenly objecting to presidents using the power of their office to punish their political opponents?
	Now here's my view of this situation.
	Illegal immigrants should be let off in towns that have the resources to deal with them.
	If those are border towns, let them be border towns.
	If they're not border towns, then let them not be border towns.
	But in reality, none of these illegal immigrants should be being released into the general population at all.
	What we should be having are enough beds at the border to take care of these people.
	And it is the Democrats' fault that those beds are not available, specifically because Democrats want people released into the general population.
	Democrats are pushing catch and release.
	If Democrats push catch and release, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Trump administration to say, OK, well, then you get to deal with the consequences of catch and release, as opposed to these people in small border towns who didn't sign up for this.
	You signed them up for this?
	Well, maybe you ought to bear the impact, the human impact of illegal immigration, meaning a strain on your local resources.
	Now, I understand why people see that as a cynical political move by the Trump administration.
	It is a cynical move by the Trump administration.
	What I don't understand is how those same people cannot see it as cynical for Nancy Pelosi to oppose funding necessary at the border and then object when people are sent to her town.
	How can you have it both ways?
	I am confused by this, to be frank.
	If you are a sanctuary city and you are saying that you're not even going to report to ICE when illegal immigrants show up in your town and commit crimes, then why do you object to more illegal immigrants being sent to your town?
	It's pretty amazing.
	According to the Washington Post, the White House believed it could punish Democrats, including Pelosi, by busing ICE detainees into their districts before their release, according to two DHS whistleblowers.
	One of the whistleblowers spoke with the Post.
	Several DHS officials confirmed the accounts.
	They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
	Again, why do Democrats view it as a punishment?
	Why aren't Democrats like, great, we want more of these people.
	We can take care of them better than you can.
	Wouldn't that be the smart political play here?
	According to these two DHS officials, who's a senior Trump advisor, Stephen Miller, who discussed the proposal, I'll be interested to see how all the late night comedians treat this.
	Oh, it's absolute cruelty to ship illegal immigrants to LA and San Francisco.
	Ooh.
	But I thought the goal was to get to L.A.
	or San Francisco for a lot of these folks.
	Wouldn't it be better for us to just bust them there directly, actually?
	Matthew Albence, as ICE's acting deputy director, immediately questioned the proposal in November.
	He said, As acting deputy, I was not pressured by anyone at the White House on this issue.
	I was asked my opinion.
	I provided it.
	My advice was heeded, which is also true.
	The proposal itself, I am saying, is politically understandable.
	The Democratic response is not politically understandable.
	And also, the Trump administration didn't do it because of liability issues, presumably.
	Homeland Security officials said the Sanctuary City request was unnerving, and it underscores the political pressure Trump and Miller have put on ICE and other DHS agencies at a time when the president is furious about the biggest border surge in more than a decade.
	One congressional investigator said it was basically an idea Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out.
	By the way, that's not what I'm hearing from inside the White House.
	I'm hearing it was actually somebody else who originally proposed this.
	What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they're going to cut funding, you've got to make sure you're releasing people in Pelosi's district and other congressional districts.
	Apparently the idea was not presented to Ronald Vitiello, the agency's acting director.
	The day after the nomination was rescinded, President Trump said he wanted to put someone tougher over at ICE.
	According to a person named May Davis, Deputy Assistant to the President, Deputy White House Policy Coordinator, the idea was raised by one or two principles that if we are unable to build sufficient temporary housing, caravan members be bused to small and mid-sized sanctuary cities.
	There is not a White House decision on all of this.
	One of the DHS officials said, it was retaliation to show them your lack of cooperation has impact.
	I think they thought it would put pressure on those communities to understand, I guess, a different perspective on why you need more immigration money for detention beds.
	A formal legal review was never completed, so this thing didn't even go very far.
	Nonetheless, the very idea is deeply offensive.
	I'm wondering why Democrats think that's offensive.
	Really, if you're not going to provide the detention beds, I'm under- I am confused.
	Frankly, I am confused.
	Okay, in just a second.
	We are going to get to the latest on Julian Assange Plus.
	We'll jump into the mailbag first.
	It is time to move on to my all-time favorite underdog success story, movement watches.
	First of all, they make great watches, movement watches.
	You see this magnificent, you see this magnificent piece of wristwear?
	Hey, check this out.
	It is, it is spare.
	It is minimalist.
	And it tells me the time and it looks great.
	Movement was founded on the belief that style shouldn't break the bank.
	They've sold almost 2 million watches worldwide by bringing quality designs at fair prices.
	The watches are just spectacular.
	As you see, I wear one.
	I have two of them.
	My wife has one.
	My parents have one.
	I get them for everybody because they're really great and they don't cost me an arm or a leg.
	You guys know I'm all about supporting ground-up entrepreneurs who work hard for what they want.
	That's why I love MVMT so much.
	They are a true success story.
	It makes wearing their products that much more meaningful.
	They came up and made a name for themselves in one of the most established markets in the world.
	They reached exponential growth, which is absolutely incredible for such a young team.
	MVMT watches are all about looking good while keeping it simple.
	They don't tell you how many steps you've taken or blow your wrist up with text messages.
	MVMT watches start at just $95.
	You're looking at $400 for the same quality from a traditional brand.
	Clean design, minimal, really quality products.
	MVMT 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.
	Movement's launching new styles on their site all the time.
	Check out their latest at MVMT.com.
	Go to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	Get 15% off and join the movement.
	All right.
	Got a lot more coming up for you in just a second.
	First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
	Get all sorts of goodies when you do.
	Two additional hours of this show every day.
	Terrific guests.
	Later today, Colonel Allen West, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West will show up, and we'll talk about all of the issues of the day.
	Michael Knowles will stop by to tell us about his harrowing experience being attacked, actually, in a classroom.
	I'm gonna make fun of it, but...
	Doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
	We'll talk with him a little bit later today about all of this.
	You get all that kind of stuff when you subscribe over at dailywire.com.
	And when you spend $99 a year for the annual subscription, you get this.
	The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	Look at this.
	The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
	How much are people enjoying it?
	They're enjoying it so much they're going out and taking pictures of their beverage vessels.
	Now is the time of the week when we give a shout out to one of our many Daily Wire subscribers.
	Today, Kevin, WranglerUSMC on Twitter.
	Thank you for supporting what we do in this photo.
	Kevin's leftist here's Tumblr is keeping him company on the links.
	You will notice that the turf.
	Is a luscious scream.
	I assume that's because Kevin has been watering the grass with the contents of his Leftist Tears Tumblr, which has been overflowing ever since Bibi Netanyahu was reelected earlier this week.
	Kevin, thank you for being a subscriber.
	We really appreciate it.
	Also, when you subscribe, you don't only get the Tumblr, you also get early access to our Sunday special.
	It features Lauren Chen this week.
	All sorts of wonderful stuff.
	Go check it out right now over at dailywire.com.
	Also subscribe at YouTube or iTunes.
	Please leave us a review.
	It always helps.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Okay, so let's talk for just a second about the latest on Julian Assange, So Assange was arrested yesterday.
	The head of WikiLeaks was arrested.
	He was tossed out of the Ecuadorian embassy after he started releasing government documents.
	Apparently, the guy is just a turd.
	And when I say he's a turd, I mean, he literally was taking feces and smearing it on the wall before he left.
	I don't know what the obsession is with weirdos and feces, but odd.
	So he did that at the Ecuadorian embassy.
	And then the Ecuadorians were like, yeah, man, you smeared poop on the walls.
	You got to go.
	Just leave.
	So the British came in and they arrested him.
	And now they may deport him to the United States.
	They may extradite him to the United States for trial.
	It is unclear whether he will be convicted.
	The charges under which he is being charged, attempted hacking, may not hold up in court.
	We will find out soon enough.
	But it is fascinating to see who is running to his defense.
	Tulsi Gabbard, who has been very, very warm toward Russia, very warm toward Syria for years, she condemned the arrest of Julian Assange.
	She called the arrest a threat to journalists.
	She said the arrest of Julian Assange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists.
	Be quiet.
	Behave.
	Toe the line where you will pay the price.
	Really?
	He's not American and he's not a journalist.
	So there are a couple of problems with that particular statement.
	Also, if the idea is that Trump is providing a threat to journalists by arresting Julian Assange, why are members of the Obama administration celebrating all of this?
	They're like, "Mustle, Most of the members of the Obama administration are very, very happy that Assange was arrested.
	Some of them came out of the woodwork yesterday and said, listen, we tried to get him on hacking, we didn't have enough to get him on hacking, now we do, so good.
	So it's interesting to see the political breakdown here.
	There are folks on the, it's also funny to see who on the left has sort of flipped on Assange.
	So Hillary Clinton came out yesterday, she said Assange must now answer for what he's done.
	She was Secretary of State under Obama when they didn't go after Assange really.
	And when Barack Obama granted clemency to, to Chelsea Manning, who was the person funneling American classified information to Assange.
	They didn't take Assange, WikiLeaks, Manning very seriously.
	Here's Hillary Clinton.
	Now she's fighting mad.
	Why?
	Well, because Assange helped make her lose in 2016, obviously.
	I'll wait and see what happens with the charges and how it proceeds.
	But the bottom line is, he has to answer for what he has done, at least as it's been charged.
	I do think it's a little ironic that he may be the only foreigner that this administration would welcome to the United States.
	Okay, it is pretty amazing how the left has flipped on him.
	By the way, it's amazing how the right flipped on him in the middle of the 2016 election, where you have certain Fox News hosts who spent a lot of time defending Julian Assange from charges that he was, in fact, a person who had endangered American national security.
	Which, by the way, he is a person who had endangered American national security.
	Okay, one more story and then we'll get to the mailbag.
	So, there's this wild story from the Boston Globe.
	They ran a 1,200-word op-ed From a guy named Luke O'Neill, a Boston-based freelance journalist and a regular contributor to the Boston Globe Opinion section, his piece called on people to taint the food of Republicans.
	He said at one point, the original op-ed suggested that one of the biggest regrets he had in his life was not pissing in Bill Kristol's salmon in the middle of the Iraq war.
	And at the end of his piece, he suggested that patriotic waiters should somehow taint the food of Kirstjen Nielsen.
	He said, keep Kirstjen Nielsen unemployed and eating Grubhub over her kitchen sink.
	As for the waiters out there, I'm not saying you should tamper with anyone's food, as that could get you into trouble.
	You might lose your serving job, but you'd be serving America, and you won't have any regrets years later.
	How delightful.
	So this person was then suspended by the Globe, and then he was angry at the Globe for suspending him.
	He has every right to be angry at the Globe for suspending him.
	They knew what they were printing.
	They edited it.
	So I don't feel bad for the Globe.
	The Globe deserves everything it gets.
	But it does betray a certain mentality.
	At no point did I ever think that it was okay.
	Did anyone on the right that I'm aware of ever think that it was okay to defile the food that Barack Obama ate or that Eric Holder ate?
	Things have gone completely mad.
	Really completely mad.
	Okay.
	Time for some mailbag questions.
	So let's mailbag it up here.
	All right.
	James says, Hi Ben.
	I found myself wondering recently how I can simultaneously believe the following two statements.
	Man was made in God's image.
	The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.
	How do you score man's capacity for evil with the divinity of our souls?
	Well, there are several interesting spiritual takes on this particular question.
	The traditional Thomistic take is that evil is a lack of good.
	It is a diminished good.
	So God creates good, and then we, because we have free will, diminish that good, and that's what evil is.
	That is one view of what evil is.
	Another view of what evil is is that God made us effectively in two parts.
	He made the animal side of us, the animal side of our soul.
	This is the Kabbalistic view, the Jewish Kabbalistic view.
	And then he, and that is all of our desires, which can be used for perversion, or they can be used for, channeled toward good.
	And then, and then there's the divine spark that he put within all of us, which is our creative faculty, our ability to choose.
	That's the part of us that is good.
	But we have to use that good in order to pursue good, or because we're given free will, we can use that good to pursue evil.
	The Jewish view is that we have what we call the etzer hara and the etzer hatov.
	We have, we have drives to do good, and we have drives to do bad.
	And those are implanted with us because we have creative capacity and free will.
	So God did create human beings with the capacity to do evil, but he did not force us to do evil.
	He encourages us to choose good.
	What makes us human is the fact that we have that choice.
	Without the presence or possibility of evil, there is no choice.
	Indeed, you then become a deterministic mechanism that always chooses good.
	That's what the angels are in Jewish theology.
	They're messengers.
	The word malach in Hebrew is both messenger and also angel, the idea being that angels are effectively just forces in the world that have a singular purpose and do not have the capacity to choose.
	Justin says, Ben, do you think illegal immigrants, if allowed to vote, would vote along the lines of their Christian values and not the left?
	If true, what would the Democrats do then?
	Well, I think that what the record tends to show is that illegal immigrants or people who are fresh immigrants from Central America and Mexico, that people tend to vote Democrat for the first generation, then they tend to move toward the middle over time.
	Second generation Latino immigrants tend to vote more Republican, which is what you've seen in places like Texas.
	it If they are given tremendous benefits, if people are given tremendous benefits and do not integrate or assimilate, then they tend to vote Democrat for a very long period of time, which is what you see in California.
	Also, it's true that the California Republican Party treated Latinos very differently than the Texas Republican Party.
	Texas was much more welcoming.
	California was not as welcoming.
	And so you've seen the disparate impact of that in voting patterns.
	Andy says, hey Ben, do you think the Attorney General should be elected rather than appointed by the President?
	It just seems that Attorney Generals could always be portrayed as having motives in protecting the President, of which appointed them to that position.
	Would this solve any of the scrutiny Barr is facing for opening this investigation?
	Thanks, Andy.
	Well, no, we don't have a fourth branch that would create a fourth branch.
	This was actually the question with regard to special investigators, special counsels.
	Kenneth Starr was appointed under the Special Counsel Act.
	He was independent of the president.
	He couldn't be fired without congressional permission.
	And this created a situation where the executive was not in control of its own folks.
	The theory of the unitary executive that is expressed by Justice Scalia so well is that we have three branches of government, not four.
	You can't have somebody working for the executive but really working for the legislature.
	That's not the way any of this works.
	That's why you have congressional investigative bodies.
	You want to investigate from Congress?
	You can do that.
	It's the balance of power that allows us to check power from Congress and not make it the Supreme Branch.
	And it's the executive that is checked by Congress.
	So having an elected Attorney General who is free to do whatever they want, that person will be political too.
	I don't believe that anybody is completely apolitical.
	The Attorney General would then be the most powerful person, presumably, in America because they can investigate the president if they didn't like the president.
	Let's say that you elected a Democratic AG under a Republican president.
	Then all you would get is a bunch of A bunch of investigations of the president, many of them poorly motivated.
	Let's say that you had an AG who was elected, who was the same party as the president, well then you have exactly the same problem.
	Ophir says, hello, Ben.
	Should the U.S. leave the U.N.?
	What are the repercussions of leaving the U.N.?
	Yes, the United States should defund the U.N. and leave the U.N. and bulldoze the building and build apartment buildings on it.
	Yes.
	Okay, the UN is a terrible idea.
	It was always a terrible idea.
	There's no rationale for countries that are run by evil human beings to have the same weight in the UN General Assembly as the United States.
	There's no reason to suggest that Russia should be on the UN Security Council having veto power over issues in which it has a direct hand.
	Direct negotiations with Russia are a better idea than the UN Security Council.
	The UN is a mockery and a sham.
	And if you want to create a League of Democracies, create a League of Democracies.
	Create alliances without regard to this false notion that there's a family of nations.
	There is no family of nations.
	There are good nations in terms of leadership.
	There are bad nations in terms of leadership.
	To pretend that they are all on an equivalent plane is absurd.
	And that's why you see these ridiculous stories all too often with like Iran on the Women's Rights Council or something.
	Dylan says, Is there any non-religious way to explain the difference between humans and animals?
	Is there any way to argue that humans are special without relying on God?
	If not, then how can non-religious people be convinced that humans are more valuable than animals?
	Or how can they be convinced that God is the reason behind what separates us?
	Thanks.
	Well, this is one of the questions that I ask in my new book, Bestseller, The Right Side of History, the number one New York Times bestseller.
	My answer here is no, that if you are a complete scientific materialist, there is nothing that distinguishes us from a fly, let alone from a monkey.
	So, the capacity for reason is just a more complex firing of neurons, and there is nothing more moral about that, per se.
	Now, there are people who say that humans are more important than animals because we have the capacity to reason, but as I mentioned in the book, even the capacity to reason is only morally beneficial because The capacity to reason is seen as something higher, something morally good.
	Where are you getting that morality from?
	You're not getting it from evolutionary biology.
	Nothing in evolutionary biology suggests that a value attaches to the use of reason as opposed to the use of force.
	Spencer says, Hey Ben, I'm 20 years old.
	I'm starting to pick up musical instruments.
	I've been playing the piano for less than two months.
	I'm itching to start the more difficult pieces.
	What are your suggestions for learning to play difficult classical pieces like sonatas?
	Practice.
	I mean, you just have to practice and practice and practice and practice.
	You know, I can play the beginning of the Moonlight Sonata.
	That's pretty much all I can play.
	So you can train yourself to play specific pieces.
	But if you really want to get good, Then you need to start from the basics and then work your way up so that you have a skill set and so that you're not basically a jukebox with one tune on it.
	That's right.
	says hey ben after listening to you for several years i've gathered you grew up more or less on the straight and narrow with extremely high standards for yourself that's right my question is what were the key factors in maintaining that level of integrity through the endlessly challenging phases of becoming a man and what advice do you have for parents wanting to support and strengthen their son on that journey thanks donovan
	i think the number one thing is my parents always taught you have to have responsibility for your own actions that you will be held accountable by us or by god and that you are doing something that is important and good that there is a purpose to what you are doing and that the opposition that you face in life the challenges that you face in life make you stronger rather than weaker that you are for that that living on the straight and narrow is not you bowing to external pressures you're
	Living on the straight and narrow is you failing to bow to external pressures because the external pressures, the lusts that you have, the things that you want to do, the hedonism you wish to pursue, those are much stronger internal and external pressures than living on the straight and narrow and being in control of yourself.
	The highest purpose that you can have as a human being is to use reason in pursuit of virtue.
	That's the Aristotelian idea, not even the religious idea.
	I really believe in that.
	Preston says, hey Ben, Well, it depends.
	I love Enlightenment philosophy.
	I think it's really fun and really impactful, obviously.
	I love Montesquieu.
	great books of the Western world.
	Much of the program is set by the student.
	What great works would you recommend focusing on?
	Thanks, Preston.
	Well, it depends.
	I love enlightenment philosophy.
	I think it's really fun and really impactful, obviously.
	I love Montesquieu.
	I love Locke.
	I even love some of the French philosophers who I despise.
	All of them are great.
	All of that stuff is interesting.
	I think the under-kind-of-looked-at period is the slightly post-Middle Ages.
	So I think that the period from Aquinas to Machiavelli is rather underserved scholastically.
	There are a bunch of people who have written about it, but it seems to have taken a backseat to everything Machiavelli and beyond.
	That stuff is really juicy.
	I mean, Machiavelli is super juicy, but the Thomistic period, the philosophy of Maimonides, the philosophy...
	Of Aquinas.
	I find that stuff to be extraordinarily valuable and with newfound relevance.
	Tyler says, Hey man, you've talked about the seven laws of Noah to follow in order to get into heaven, one of which is not to steal.
	When I was about five or six years old, I was in a gas station with my dad.
	I stole a small box of candy.
	My father found out and lectured me on why stealing is bad, quoting the Bible.
	I wonder if this constitutes breaking the law of not stealing.
	Can I still get into heaven or is my salvation over and should I live like the hippies in the sixties?
	Thanks.
	Love your show and all the work you do.
	Okay.
	The answer is that repentance is always a possibility.
	The first thing you have to do is go back to the people you stole from, if you can find them, and then repay, which will be a weight off your head.
	I mean, repentance in Judaism, if you commit a sin against another person, you're supposed to repent to the person, and then you can repent to God.
	So if you can track down which convenience store it was, it may be a lot later, then try and do it, right?
	And you'll feel better about yourself, and that person will feel better about you.
	It would be, I think, an amazing thing.
	I think it would be an amazing, it's a great story if you do that.
	So I would do that if I were you.
	Also, if you can't track down the person, all you can really do is repent.
	And one of the key modes of repentance is acknowledging that it was wrong and you're never going to do it again.
	So I think that you've obviously done that already.
	Micah says, Hi Ben, we are two law students in the Boston area who are avid listeners.
	Why is the legal education industry such a hierarchy?
	Why do current free market solutions for for-profit law schools failed to stack up against places like HLS.
	Shouldn't the free market be able to do better than Harvard with respect to legal education, not necessarily job prospects?
	Best, Mike, undone.
	Well, HLS as a for-profit institution is going to charge what they need to charge in order to ensure that they continue to function properly.
	The legal education industry is a hierarchy because most states have laws on the books that prevent you from taking the bar without going to an accredited law school, I don't I think that's a mistake.
	I think apprenticeships should be on the table.
	I think you should be able to take the bar without going to law school.
	I think that you should be able to do one year without actually one year of law school.
	Okay, final question here.
	of law without having to go three years to law school and just rack up the debt.
	Okay, final question here.
	Mark says, after watching your talk at GSU yesterday, well, I assume that was Grand Canyon University, GCU, I was wondering, what do you suggest to atheists when balancing faith and reason?
	Are we supposed to believe in God without a reason sufficient for us?
	No, you don't have to believe in God, but you have to take as valuable assumptions, the same assumptions that Judeo-Christian values make, and you have to understand that what you're doing is making an assumption about those values.
	That's what you have to do.
	And you can't lie to yourself by saying that you can reason your way to those values, or that reason invariably carries you to those values, because I don't think that it does.
	Assuming that reason can do too much is just as dangerous as assuming that reason can't do enough.
	There's a balance between reason and faith, as I say.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I like, and then we'll get to a thing that I hate.
	So, things that I like today.
	When Kevin McCarthy did something I think was valuable yesterday, he pushed back on the Democrats in Congress who have spent their entire time running Congress, passing useless resolutions designed to make them look good and to virtue signal.
	Here is Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, going after the Democrats.
	A question more and more Americans are beginning to ask.
	What have the Democrats done with their majority?
	This Friday marks the 100th day of the new Democrat majority.
	A hundred days of Democrat disappointment.
	At this point in the last Congress, Republicans had passed 141 bills out of committee and 132 out of the House.
	By contrast, Democrats have passed 68 bills out of committee and 97 out of the House.
	So much for doing the job of the People's House.
	No.
	It's whatever leadership decides.
	Okay, well, he is not wrong about this, and it is quite sad that Democrats have decided that they're going to spend all of their time passing crazy crap like the Green New Deal or Medicare for All that's going nowhere, specifically in order to signal about stuff they have no intention of voting for at all anyway.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	Alrighty, so two quick things that I hate.
	So Maxine Waters, it is unbelievable this woman chairs a committee, particularly House Financial Services.
	She has been one of the most corrupt members of Congress for virtually her entire career.
	Yesterday, she was doing a hearing with Steve Mnuchin.
	Mnuchin had already negotiated, he's the Treasury Secretary, he'd already negotiated with the committee that he was gonna have to leave after three and a half hours, he'd be happy to come back at another time.
	He looked up at the clock, he said, listen, I gotta go, and Maxine Waters suddenly decided, still she persisted, the strength of Maxine Waters, telling him that she was violating... I have changed the agreement.
	Pray I do not alter it further.
	That was basically Maxine Waters yesterday.
	I've sat here for over three hour and fifteen minutes, I've told you I'll come back.
	I just don't believe we're sitting here negotiating when I come back.
	I appreciate your reminding us of the length of time other secretaries have been here.
	This is a new way.
	And it's a new day.
	And it's a new chair.
	And I have the gavel at this point.
	If you wish to leave, you may.
	Can you clarify that for me?
	Yes, clarify.
	If you wish to leave, you may.
	Okay, so we're dismissed.
	Is that correct?
	If you wish to leave, you may leave.
	You may go.
	Anytime you want.
	Please dismiss everybody.
	I believe you're supposed to take the gravel and bang it.
	Please do not instruct me as to how I am to conduct this committee.
	She's a crazy person!
	She's crazy!
	If you want to leave, you may.
	And he's saying, like, I need you to dismiss me so that you don't hold me in contempt when I get up and walk out of the room.
	Like, what the hell?
	What is wrong with you?
	What is this nonsense?
	This is just as bad as when you had Ilhan Omar questioning, uh, who is it, Elliott Brand?
	And saying to him, so, do you support, do you support Genocide in South America?
	And he's like, no.
	And she goes, I'll take that as a yes.
	What the hell is wrong with these people?
	What is wrong with Maxine Waters?
	Just say yes, you're dismissed.
	But she doesn't want to do that.
	She wants to do the, I'm standing up to power.
	And the media treat this as though she's standing up to power.
	She is the power.
	There's no standing up to power there.
	He pre-negotiated the time he would be there.
	And then she violated that agreement.
	And he said, can I go?
	And she's like, you can leave if you want.
	He's like, OK, well then dismiss me so that you don't hold me in contempt.
	She's like, I'm not going to do that.
	You make the decision.
	Well, what?
	What?
	How do we elect these people?
	The hell is wrong with this country?
	My goodness.
	Okay, speaking of what the hell is wrong with this country, San Jose Airport has decided it is deeply necessary to place LGBTQ pride flags in the airport in front of a Chick-fil-A.
	As though people who work at Chick-fil-A give two craps about this.
	The San Jose City Council voted 11-0 on Tuesday to hang rainbow flags in support of LGBTQ people and pink, blue, and white flags for transgender rights at or near a Chick-fil-A due to open in May at San Jose International Airport.
	What spiteful garbage human beings.
	San Jose City Council.
	And this is the equivalent, it really is the equivalent of there's a gay bakery that opens in a small Midwestern town and the City Council votes to put a bunch of crosses up on flags across from the gay bakery.
	Chick-fil-A has not discriminated against gay people.
	The owner of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, backs traditional marriage.
	We are six years after he made a statement about it, and they are still doing this spiteful nonsense where Chick-fil-A is deeply evil because the owner holds a different position on traditional marriage and homosexual sin?
	That's where we are as a country?
	I'm so glad that the San Jose City Council has solved all of their problems, and now they're going to try and shame, what, the employees of the local Chick-fil-A?
	How often do you think Dan Cathy's gonna go there?
	You think Dan Cathy's gonna stand in the window and then stare angrily out the window at the gay flags?
	What do these people think they're accomplishing?
	The answer is nothing.
	They think that they are suckering their own population into believing that they have done something meaningful by merely virtue signaling with the stupidest possible methodology.
	What idiocy.
	Okay, we'll be back here later today for two more hours.
	If you subscribe, you get that.
	If not, then we will see you here on Monday.
	Have a wonderful weekend.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	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, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, Confucius said, if you want to know the truth, you have to use the proper names for things.
	Can anyone deny that the left has made that almost impossible, whether it's calling the FBI spying, spying, or calling Julian Assange's spying journalism?
	They always get it wrong.
	I'm Andrew Klavan.

▲