Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 22, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:38

The Easter Massacre | Ep. 764

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Devastating bombings by radical Islamists kill hundreds on Easter in Sri Lanka, fallout from the Mueller report continues, and Democrats open fire on each other for the 2020 nomination.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	A lot of news, most of it horrific over the weekend.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about my all-time favorite underdog story in the business world.
	I'm talking, of course, about MVMT watches.
	Founded on the belief that style should not break the bank, they've sold almost 2 million watches worldwide by bringing quality designs at fair prices.
	Here is my favorite new style.
	Check this one out.
	Look at that.
	It's minimalist.
	It's nice, right?
	I mean, you get it for a price that is not going to break the bank.
	They've got new styles that come all the time.
	And I've received compliments on this stuff all the time.
	I've got movement watches for my wife, for my parents, for my in-laws.
	They really are spectacularly nice.
	And what really makes them great is, again, they're not going to tell you how many steps that you're taking.
	They're just going to tell you the time in the classiest, minimalist fashion.
	Movement Watches are all about looking good while keeping it simple.
	And you folks know that I'm all about supporting ground-up entrepreneurs who work hard for what they want, which is one of the reasons I love Movement.
	They are a true success story.
	It makes wearing their products much more meaningful.
	They came up and made a name for themselves in one of the most established markets in the world and reached exponential growth, which is amazing for such a young team.
	Movement Watches start at just $95, so if you're looking at $400, for the same quality from a traditional brand, you are wasting your time.
	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 mvmt.com slash Shapiro, mvmt.com slash Shapiro.
	Join the movement.
	And when you use that slash Shapiro, get 15% off.
	All right.
	So the big news over the weekend, obviously, are these devastating bombings in Sri Lanka.
	A According to the Agence France-Presse, the AFP, Sri Lanka said on Monday it believed a local Islamist extremist group was behind deadly suicide bomb blasts that killed nearly 300 people as it ordered a national state of emergency beginning on midnight.
	Government spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said investigators were looking at whether the national Falkeeth Jamaat, NTJ group, had international support for the deadly Easter Sunday attacks on churches and luxury hotels So far, 24 people have been arrested in connection with the attack.
	So this is a large, coordinated attack.
	Apparently, there were seven suicide bombers who detonated near simultaneously in different spots.
	No details were given about the people who were actually arrested yet.
	Little is known about this particular group, but documents seen by the AFP show Sri Lanka's police chief issued a warning on April 11th, so not very long ago at all within the last couple of weeks, saying a foreign intelligence agency had reported that the group was planning attacking churches and the Indian High Commission.
	The group had previously only been linked to vandalizing Buddhist statues, so all sorts of tolerance and wonder from the radical Muslim world.
	Again, Sinarotini said of the deadly attacks, we don't see that only a small organization in this country can do all that.
	They think that this was created by outside support as well.
	They say we are now investigating the international support for them and their other links, how they produced the suicide bombers here, how they produced bombs like this.
	The death toll from Sunday's attacks rose dramatically on Monday to 290, including dozens of foreigners.
	It's the worst atrocity since the country's civil war ended a decade ago.
	More than 500 people were injured in the assault that saw suicide bombers hit three high-end hotels popular with foreign tourists and three churches, unleashing a carnage in Colombo and beyond.
	Two additional blasts were triggered as security forces carried out raids, searching for the suspects.
	Presumably, these places had been booby-trapped as well.
	When folks look at the casualty statistics in areas like this, what they tend to often do is look at the deaths and not at the injured.
	Well, knowing some people who have been injured in terrorist attacks, the injuries are often devastating and life-demolishing in nearly the same way that a KIA would be, in nearly the same way that being killed
	On-scene would be I mean people lose limbs people are mentally crippled from from these attacks if they're hit in the head People lose years off their lifespan I mean it's so so pretend that this is just about the 290 dead obviously the 500 injured plays into this as well Police also found 87 bomb detonators at a Colombo bus station as well.
	So obviously all of this is extraordinarily scary and devastating The government has announced that the victims' families and the injured will receive some government compensation.
	They say that they'll compensate all the people who died, which is about 100,000 rupees for their funeral expenses.
	So 100,000 rupees is not all that much money, unfortunately.
	But, you know, the government is going to do what they're going to do.
	It's about $1,000, $1,400 in American currency.
	The health minister has said that authorities were warned full two weeks before the attacks.
	They had the names of the attackers, but that information was not shared with the prime minister.
	The president has the portfolio of defense.
	This is the only country where when the prime minister summons the security council, they don't assemble.
	Minister Sarinatne said, we're not trying to evade responsibility, but these are the facts.
	We were surprised to see these reports.
	So it looks a lot sort of like the Chinese wall that was created between the FBI and CIA in the United States prior to 9-11.
	It looks like the health ministry apparently not only knew about the attacks, they knew the names of the potential attackers, but the prime minister didn't actually have that information.
	And the president and the prime minister weren't talking to one another.
	So obviously internal government issues there.
	Now, there is something odd about the reaction to these attacks.
	There's something very odd about the reaction to these attacks.
	So in the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks in New Zealand, everyone came forth, And they said, it's time to re-examine, and it's time to examine, the relationship between white supremacy and Islamophobia, between the slaughter of innocents at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, and the evils of white supremacy.
	And that was perfectly appropriate.
	The evils of white supremacy are indeed evil.
	And looking at white supremacist groups, and looking at the evil they perpetrate, is well worth looking into.
	I don't know a good-hearted person who avoided this conversation.
	We did, I think, two or three full episodes on exactly this issue after Christchurch.
	And yet, oddly and strangely, folks on the left seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge that what happened here was a radical Islamist terror attack.
	So Hillary Clinton tweeted this out, quote, This was in the aftermath of Christchurch.
	In the aftermath of Christchurch, I want you to contrast, compare and contrast Hillary Clinton's tweets on Christchurch and what just happened in Sri Lanka.
	And Christchurch was awful, and it was evil, and 50 Muslims were killed.
	About six times as many people were killed in Sri Lanka on Sunday during Easter, which is in fact a holy day.
	So this is a pretty apples-to-apples comparison.
	Hillary Clinton tweeted this in the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks.
	Quote, my heart breaks for New Zealand and the global Muslim community.
	We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms.
	White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere.
	Their murderous hatred must be stopped.
	In contrast to that, which is a very strong statement about the victims, right?
	It states who the victims are, it states who the perpetrators are, and it states that their ideology must be fought.
	Contrast that with Hillary Clinton's comments after nearly 300 people are murdered while going to church during Easter in Sri Lanka.
	So here's what she said about Sri Lanka.
	Quote, on this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence.
	I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attack on Easter worshipers and travelers in Sri Lanka.
	Okay, so do you notice the difference?
	No clear explanation of who was targeted.
	Easter worshipers, not Christians.
	Easter worshipers.
	Also, a holy weekend for many faiths.
	Well, I would be the other faith for which this is a holy weekend, right?
	This is Passover, so this is Pesach for me.
	I would be the other faith for which this is a holy weekend.
	It's Easter, and it's Passover also.
	We weren't targeted this weekend.
	There are lots of other weekends on which Jews are targeted.
	There are lots of days on which Jews are targeted that are not holy days.
	This was not one of those days.
	This was a day in which Christians were targeted in Sri Lanka.
	This was an attack specifically on Christians, not about a holy weekend for many faiths.
	It was specifically about Easter.
	It was not about Pesach.
	It was not about Passover.
	When she said, we must stand united against hatred and violence.
	So now it's just broad scale hatred and violence.
	It's so funny.
	When Ilhan Omar says something anti-Semitic, then the Democrats condemn racism fully across the spectrum.
	When a white supremacist does something evil, we condemn white supremacy.
	So, if it's a form of evil, if it's an evil ideology...
	That kills lots of people but is not white supremacy, then we just condemn evil generally.
	But when it's white supremacy, we condemn white supremacy specifically.
	We should condemn white supremacy specifically.
	This is not an argument to whitewash white supremacy or water down criticism of white supremacy.
	The opposite.
	It is an argument to continue to focus in on that and also to focus in at least a little on radical Islam, which is responsible for exponentially more deaths worldwide than white supremacy is.
	I'll give you the statistics in just a second.
	I mean, that tweet from Hillary, that contrast is really stunning.
	What kind of hatred?
	Any clues?
	Do we have any clues?
	Well, it turns out one of the bombers, one of the guys arrested, one of the planners of this, his name is Mohammed Mohammed.
	Do we have any clues as to who this may have been?
	It turns out that there was an Islamist group that the government knew about and has already taken credit for this.
	Any clues?
	At all, guys?
	Or is it just generalized hatred and violence?
	The same sort of hatred and violence as when my son pushes down my daughter?
	Like, what kind of hatred and violence are we talking about?
	Any specifics?
	Okay, Barack Obama did the same thing.
	Here's what he did in the aftermath of Christchurch.
	Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand.
	We grieve with you and the Muslim community.
	All of us must stand against hatred in all of its forms.
	So he grieves with the people of Christchurch and the Muslim community more generally.
	Here's Barack Obama in the aftermath of what just happened in Sri Lanka.
	He tweeted out, the attacks on tourists and Easter worshipers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity.
	Not on Muslims everywhere, on humanity, generally.
	On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.
	Is it forbidden to say Christians?
	Are we not allowed to say the words Christians?
	Obama's is not as bad as Hillary's, by the way.
	Hillary's is much worse.
	Hillary comes forth and she says, we have to fight Islamophobia in all of its forms, and white supremacy in all of its forms, and then radical Muslims go and kill a bunch of Christians at church on Easter Sunday, and it's, hatred and violence are really bad, guys.
	Can't really get more specific than that.
	Don't know how to get more specific.
	Yeah, Obama, you can at least make the argument that by Easter worshipers like I don't think the Easter worshipers part of this silliness is the worst part of it.
	I think that it is indicative of a failure on the part of many people on the left to single out Christians as victims because that does not fit within the intersectional hierarchy in the United States.
	The intersectional hierarchy for the left is the suggestion that we know just Based on our own experiences, based on anecdotal evidence, we know who are the most victimized groups in America.
	Those victimized groups are transgender people and black people and Muslims.
	Those are the people who are most victimized in America.
	Never mind the hate crime statistics that say that on a per capita basis in the United States, Jews are the most victimized.
	And never mind the global statistics that say on a global basis, Christians are the most victimized group on planet Earth.
	There's a Pew report from June of 2018 that specifically says this.
	This is not me just making up that Christians are the most victimized religious group on planet Earth.
	They are.
	According to Pew Research Center, the center's report on religious harassment in 2016 found that Christians were harassed in 144 countries, up from 128 the year before, while Muslims were harassed in 142 countries, up from 125 in 2015.
	By the way, that's kind of astonishing considering that there are many, many more officially Muslim countries than there are officially Christian countries on planet Earth.
	There's 50-odd officially Muslim countries on the planet.
	And there are... How many officially Christian countries are there?
	A couple in Eastern Europe that I believe are officially Christian?
	They say there's a state religion?
	In any case, the report says Christians and Muslims have typically been harassed in the largest numbers of countries around the world.
	Those two groups are the largest religious groups in the world.
	They have substantial populations in more countries than other smaller and less geographically dispersed religious groups.
	We'll get to more information on this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how you send your packages every day.
	Well, no one really has time to go to the post office.
	In fact, this reminds me that I have an unpaid parking ticket from the last time I went to the post office, which I'll have to handle after the show.
	You're too busy to go to the post office.
	You don't have time for the traffic.
	You don't have money for the parking tickets.
	Instead, you need stamps.com, one of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses.
	Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office and saves you money with discounts you can't get even at the post office.
	Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
	Post Office directly to your computer.
	Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
	Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
	postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
	Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
	It is indeed that simple.
	With Stamps.com, you get 5 cents off every first class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail.
	Not to mention, it is a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
	Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
	It saves you time, it saves you money.
	It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
	Right now?
	My listeners get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and digital scale with no long-term commitment.
	Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in code SHAPIRO.
	That's stamps.com and enter SHAPIRO for that special awesome deal.
	We use stamps.com in the office for a reason and you should too.
	Like most small businesses, we want to save money.
	Stamps.com allows us to do that and saves us time as well.
	Stamps.com and use code Shapiro.
	So as we say, the Pew Research Center found that Christians are in fact the most persecuted religious group on planet Earth, not on a per capita basis, but on a generalized basis.
	It is also true that while we have spent enormous attention focusing on white supremacy here in the West, and again, I think every iota of that is deserved, If you are going to compare the deaths and the carnage attributable to white supremacy to the deaths and carnage attributable to radical Islam, the numbers are not even remotely close.
	They're not remotely close.
	The only way that you can get to close to parity in any sense is if you look specifically and only within the West.
	If you look specifically and only within the West, then it looks like white supremacist terror attacks Are somewhere near on par since 2003 with Islamist terrorist attacks in the West.
	Although Islamist terrorist attacks in the West have been responsible for vastly more deaths, there are a lot of white supremacist terror attacks that don't end in as many mass casualty incidents.
	So you have white supremacist terrorist attacks in places like the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue where I believe 11 people were killed or Christchurch where 50 people were killed.
	Every year we have a couple of Islamic incidents where 50 people are killed at a Christmas market in Berlin.
	And this sort of stuff happens on a fairly regular basis.
	But if you look worldwide, and Sri Lanka is not in the West, Sri Lanka is not a European country.
	If you look worldwide, radical Islamic terrorism is a significantly greater threat than white supremacy.
	It is not close.
	It is not even remotely close.
	Okay, I'll give you an example and it does demonstrate how the media coverage here is extraordinarily skewed and almost darkly funny because of how extraordinarily skewed it is.
	There's an article in US News and World Report Called Globally, Terrorism Deaths Are On The Decline.
	This is from December of 2018, so just a few months ago.
	And it talks about the 6th Global Terrorism Index, which was published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, an independent non-profit think tank based in Australia.
	And it looked at the number of terrorist deaths across the world.
	It found that in 2017, there were 18,814 deaths globally, according to the study.
	That was a 27% drop, according to the study.
	Now, in just a second, I'm going to give you the actual breakdown in how many of those were white supremacist deaths.
	So as we say, the deaths attributable to terrorism in 2017, 18,814 globally, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace.
	How many of those were due to white supremacy?
	So listen to how the media covered this.
	This is in U.S. News & World Report.
	The threat of far-right political terrorism is a growing concern in North America and Western Europe, according to the findings.
	While the U.K., Spain, Finland, Sweden, and Austria were the only countries to experience increases in deaths from terrorism in Western Europe, both Canada and the United States experienced increases in total deaths in North America.
	Far-right groups and individuals caused 66 deaths and launched 127 attacks in the regions between 2013 and 2017.
	So, they spend several full paragraphs discussing the threat of far-right political terrorism in the West.
	Again, that's fine.
	This report says that in 2017 alone, globally, there were nearly 19,000 deaths from terrorism.
	19,000 deaths from terrorism, 19,000.
	19,000!
	Between 2013 and 2017, there were 66 deaths from white supremacist terrorism in the West compared to 19,000 in 2017 alone globally.
	And yet the media will spend vastly more time talking about white supremacist terrorism than they will spend talking about radical Islamic terrorism, which is a very important Why is that?
	It's not because of the numbers.
	It's because it reinforces a narrative.
	The narrative is that the true threat to the West and the true threat across the world really is white supremacist evil.
	And in the West particularly, if we're going to look at white supremacy, white supremacy is a threat.
	Again, this is me for the 90th time this show saying that we should take white supremacy seriously as a person who has full-time security thanks to threats from white supremacists, as a person who has security at their shul basically thanks to threats from white supremacists.
	Let me suggest that we should focus on white supremacy, but the media's unwillingness to even say radical Islamic terrorism when an obvious radical Islamic terror attack occurs somewhere else in the world or at home on American soil is pretty astonishing and indicative of a worldview that is perverse.
	If you cannot label specific evil by the specific type when it happens because you are afraid of the consequences, you're part of enshrining that evil.
	The left says this all the time.
	If you can't label Christchurch a white supremacist terror attack, then you are lending cover to people who commit those sorts of terror attacks?
	I think, on a philosophical level, there is some truth to this.
	If that is true, I think that on a philosophical level, if you refuse to acknowledge that the Orlando Pulse attack or the San Bernardino terrorist attack were radical Islamic terror attacks, if you say that what happened in Sri Lanka was due to generalized racism and violence, generalized hatred and violence, Then you are providing cover to some pretty terrible people.
	You ought to be able to name evil for what it is.
	You ought to be able to label evil for what it is, so then we can determine how we ought to distribute our resources in fighting that evil.
	And we also ought to be able to suggest that two threats are present at the same time and not in equal numbers.
	This is why when people were criticizing Ilhan Omar for not taking terrorism seriously, they were correct.
	Ilhan Omar does not take terrorism seriously.
	Representative Omar had suggested in a column in 2017, which I think is worse than any other thing that she's written other than a letter in 2016, where she tried to have a judge let ISIS recruits off early because they were victims of what she called American marginalization.
	In 2017, she wrote a piece suggesting that America was founded in genocide and slavery.
	And in order to misdirect away from our foundations in genocide and slavery, We therefore focused on international terrorism.
	That provides cover for a radical ideology that does create violence.
	Why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?
	It's one thing to say we don't pay enough attention to white supremacy.
	I would argue that is certainly not the case now.
	It is another to argue that we should ignore one type of terrorism in favor of another type of terrorism.
	And those tweets from from Hillary Clinton are pretty damned telling.
	You should be able to label this stuff for what it is.
	And if you cannot, you should be able to explain why it is that you cannot label these things for what they are.
	Turns out there are lots of different types of victims and lots of different types of perpetrators.
	And those perpetrators commit crimes at wildly variant rates.
	And particularly when you are talking about problems abroad and violence abroad, radical Islam has bloody borders.
	Radical Islam does create the vast majority of terrorism worldwide.
	It is not even close.
	It is simply not close.
	All righty, meanwhile, the other big story over the weekend was, of course, all the fallout from the Mueller report.
	So, last week, you want to listen to my total take on the Mueller report, listen to our shows on Thursday and Friday, because I had read the entire report by the time we did the show on Thursday, and I broke it down on Thursday, and then I broke it down in eight specific ways from eight angles on Friday.
	My bottom line in the Mueller report is that there's no collusion, obviously.
	The report itself, the first half of the report is basically an empty vessel.
	There's not much there other than a lot of smoke, With various members of the Trump campaign who are sort of hobnobbing with Russians in incompetent ways, but that never getting passed up the chain.
	The Trump Tower meeting turns out to be a big nothing.
	It turns out that virtually all of the smoke turned into no fire.
	It was a waste of time.
	It was a giant waste of time in the original theory of the Mueller Report and of James Comey and of Andrew McCabe and of and of James Clapper and of John Brennan.
	The original theory that Donald Trump was somehow in cahoots with Putin in 2016, that was a bunch of nonsense.
	That was finding number one.
	Finding number two is that there was no proof sufficient to prove obstruction of justice because President Trump was basically walking around the White House and fulminating and fuming.
	over all of the wrongs done to him by the Mueller report and so he's walking around telling people to fire people and send letters and lie to the press and none of that is good stuff but none of that is obstruction of justice.
	He could have fired any of those people and it wouldn't be obstruction of justice in a technical criminal sense.
	Maybe it was impeachable but it wouldn't have been obstruction of justice in any criminal sense.
	Now the Trump administration continues to come out and suggest that the Mueller report got it wrong.
	Now at this point if you're the Trump administration what you'd probably want to do is just say Look, Mueller found what he found.
	No prosecution is taking place.
	The American people are ready to move on.
	Rudy Giuliani, however, is challenging some aspects of the report.
	So Rudy Giuliani is the president's lawyer, and he says, yeah, you know, some of the things in the report are plain false.
	This is a prosecutor's document.
	400 pages, the prosecutor's view.
	And then a prosecutor, which I think people would grant, had a lot of people that were somewhat biased against the president.
	I don't know that everybody would grant that, but okay, that's your opinion.
	But in any event, A lot of things are left out.
	A lot of things are false.
	I shouldn't say a lot of things.
	Some things are false.
	A lot of things are questionable.
	It's clear that they tried very, very hard to create a case that the president was involved in Russian whatever.
	Couldn't do it.
	They tried a hundred different ways.
	Okay, and that was also true of obstruction of justice.
	The most exonerating part of this report is how when you read that second half of the report, it is obvious that Mueller and Mueller's prosecutors really do not like Trump.
	It is really obvious that they are trying to draw the worst possible conclusions from what is, by all available evidence, just evidence of a volatile and shallow personality problem the president has.
	I mean, his volatile behavior is well known to everyone.
	This is not anything new.
	The attempt to draw some sort of nefarious conclusion about him obstructing justice or shutting down the Mueller report when the Mueller report, as we know, reached a terminus.
	It reached a conclusion is a pretty absurd thing.
	Well, the left is now saying, well, we have the material to impeach.
	We'll talk about that in just one second.
	So what they're saying is that while Trump did not testify and members of his administration were declaring that they didn't know things, The idea was that, presumably, if they had all talked, if we had been able to get to the bottom of this, there would have been something criminal and impeachable.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, it's springtime.
	It's the time of year when seeds grow into flowers and you grow up financially.
	At least your family needs protection if something happens to you.
	So grow up.
	That means you need life insurance.
	Thankfully.
	PolicyGenius makes it easy to get the financial security without the growing pains.
	PolicyGenius is the easy way to buy life insurance online.
	In just two minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find your best price.
	Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape.
	No commissions, no hidden fees, just financial protection and peace of mind.
	No strings attached.
	PolicyGenius doesn't just simplify life insurance.
	They also make it easy to compare and buy home insurance, auto insurance, and disability insurance.
	So the next time you stop to smell the roses, pull out your phone, head on over to policygenius.com, and you can get back to enjoying your life, because who really wants to spend all their time thinking about life insurance?
	Just get it taken care of, and then you don't have to worry about it ever again.
	Make it the top of your list.
	Get it done in two minutes over at policygenius.com.
	Policy Genius, bring us here and kick it off by nipping life insurance in the bud and ensuring that your family is taken care of.
	Make sure that you're not buried in a pauper's grave, and if you should be hit by a truck tomorrow, that your family has some money to take care of them.
	Go over to policygenius.com right now and get it taken care of.
	Come on, just be an adult.
	All right.
	Meanwhile, as we say, the left is focusing in on the Mueller report as the basis, not for criminality, but for impeachment.
	And they are clinging to a couple of different lines of argument.
	Line of argument number one is that while the report found no collusion, there's still collusion.
	This is so empty and so foolish, but listen, Adam Schiff still has to defend himself.
	I mean, Representative Schiff from California has spent the last two years claiming that he has secret knowledge that Mueller would get Trump, that in the end, Mueller would uncover the secret meeting.
	In a Russian hotel, in which prostitutes peed all over the President of the United States as he shouted, I hate Hillary!
	And then, he went in the other room, cleaned himself off, and signed an agreement with Vladimir Putin to build Trump Tower Moscow in return for, in return for, giving some sort of favors to Vlad.
	That's what Adam Schiff has sort of been suggesting all along.
	And the Steele dossier is probably true.
	Everything, all this stuff is true.
	And if it's not, there's other information that's definitely going to come out.
	We kept hearing this.
	And we kept hearing over and over, Mueller has information, you do not.
	And I thought, well, that's true.
	Mueller does have information that I do not.
	But it turns out he didn't have that much information.
	I did not.
	Which is kind of a problem for him.
	Adam Schiff continues to maintain, however, that there is still evidence of collusion.
	What a joke this guy is, the fact that he's still being treated with seriousness.
	It speaks to the same media that treated Michael Avenatti with seriousness for years and started promoting him as a potential 2020 candidate.
	Here's Adam Schiff still making excuses for the fact that he's a liar.
	When I talked about evidence of collusion in plain sight, I used those words in plain sight.
	And I pointed to the meetings in Trump Tower that Don Jr.
	and Kushner and Manafort took.
	And what more clear intent to collude could you have than the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what was described as an effort to help Mr. Trump in the campaign?
	And Don Jr.
	saying, if it's what you say, I would love it.
	Now, I don't know how you find more abundant evidence of an intent to collude than that.
	Okay, well, I mean, the intent to collude, you'd actually have to, I don't know, have intent to collude.
	And all of the plain sight evidence that he was, like, calling on Wikileaks to release stuff, or that Don Jr.
	met with a lawyer to get OPPO, that is not collusion.
	That is accepting OPPO.
	You know who else accepted OPPO about their opponent from foreign sources during the campaign?
	That'd be Hillary Clinton.
	That'd be Fusion GPS, which accepted OPPO from a foreign source, namely from Christopher Steele.
	Who it turns out was not some high-ranking spy.
	He was a hack who put together, cobbled together, a terrible piece of OPPO research that the FBI then accepted as the basis for things like a FISA warrant.
	Ash Scow over at Daily Wire, my site, she has a great piece today talking about how the New York Times has finally acknowledged that the Steele dossier might actually not be all that great.
	She says the salacious and uncorroborated dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used by the media to justify its endless attacks on President Trump and accuse him of treason.
	The dossier was never anything more than oppo research paid for by Fusion GPS, and not even good oppo research at that.
	Steele reported rumors and gossip, including some internet comments to bolster his report.
	What wasn't corroborated was downright debunked by special counsel Robert Mueller's report, including the allegations that Trump's attorney, former attorney Michael Cohen, went to Prague to meet with the Russians.
	Now, after two years of using the dossier to perpetuate the collusion narrative, the New York Times has finally acknowledged what those of us not parroting the collusion delusion have known for years.
	The dossier was Garbaggio.
	The Times reported, quote, Mr. Mueller's report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims, but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out.
	underscored what had grown clearer for months, that while many Trump aides had welcomed contact with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove.
	Mr. Mueller's report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims, but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out.
	Now the dossier is going to be subjected to two inquiries, one from the DOJ's inspector general and one from congressional Republicans.
	The FBI, according to the Times, appears to have been suspicious of the dossier That was right around the time that media outlets reported on the existence of the dossier, and BuzzFeed published the unverified document in a breach of journalistic ethics without checking out any of it.
	And so the fact that the FBI doubted the dossier's credibility was never part of the story.
	Instead, media outlets like the Times spent years talking to sources claiming Mueller had evidence supporting claims in the dossier.
	So pretty funny that the New York Times has finally acknowledged, but Democrats will not.
	And so they continue to say that impeachment is on the table.
	Now this puts them in a box because the American people are not interested in impeachment.
	By polling data, a majority of Americans want to move beyond this.
	Only 39% of Americans say that they want further investigation on all this.
	That would be the hardcore anti-Trump base.
	The vast majority of Americans not interested in more of this.
	We've spent $25 million and two years and billions of dollars in free media coverage on a nonsense issue that never had any verifiability to it.
	Aren't we done already?
	Like at a certain point, don't you cut your losses?
	But according to Democrats, the answer is never.
	We will never cut our losses.
	So Jerry Nadler, Democrat from New York, he says, listen, all of this stuff is impeachable.
	Maybe we'll think about impeachment.
	Do you think this is impeachable?
	Yeah, I do.
	I do think that this, if proven, if proven, which hasn't been proven yet, some of this, if proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes.
	Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable.
	And you're going to go about to see if you can prove it?
	Well, we're going to see where the facts lead us.
	It was not provable.
	It was not proved.
	And we'll see where the facts lead us.
	You guys were buying votive candles of Mueller five minutes ago.
	And then when he didn't recommend prosecution, you say, well, maybe he's wrong.
	Maybe it turns out that he's wrong all along.
	Amazing, amazing stuff.
	And then, of course, you have nutty Maxine Waters, who says, yeah, you know, let's impeach.
	Of course, she was saying let's impeach, even if he wasn't guilty of collusion, just because she doesn't like him.
	Now, if we're going to talk about public officials who should have been impeached long ago, Maxine Waters, who is one of the most corrupt members of Congress, allegations that when she was on the House Financial Services Committee a dozen years ago, she was funneling money to a bank in which her husband was an investor.
	Maxine Waters says that Trump should be impeached.
	Why?
	Because Auntie Maxine doesn't like him.
	She does, however, like the L.A.
	uprising, not the L.A.
	riots.
	She calls it the L.A.
	uprising.
	She should delight Maxine Waters.
	I have been calling for his impeachment for a long time because I understood very clearly who this man is, how he conducted himself during his campaign, and the kind of information that we learned about him even before Mueller came on board.
	The fact of the matter is, I think that when you look at this report, you can see that there's enough information there, not only on obstruction of justice, but also on collusion or conspiracy, whatever you want to call it, to move forward with impeachment on this president.
	Okay, they're just going to continue with this over and over.
	They are not going to stop.
	And so all of these impeachment-minded folks are going to continue to push.
	They're going to suggest over and over that impeachment is still on the table.
	Go for it, guys.
	You want this?
	All of you.
	All of you.
	Because the revelation of the report is not that President Trump is a volatile human.
	Did you not know that President Trump was a volatile human?
	Do you have eyes and ears?
	Do you have sensory organs?
	Are you unaware that President Trump is a volatile human who does volatile things and says silly things and yells at people and treats his employees badly?
	Where have you been?
	He became famous on a show where he fired people.
	He became famous by posing for the cover of Playboy magazine.
	Donald Trump He basically bankrupted the USFL.
	He bankrupted his own casino in Atlantic City.
	What exactly are you suggesting?
	We did not know about Donald Trump at this point.
	That's, I think, why so many people are off-put by tweets like Senator Mitt Romney.
	So Romney, who everyone felt did not fight Barack Obama with the alacrity that President Trump fought Hillary Clinton, that he left some of the ammo in the closet, He tweeted out in the aftermath of the Mueller report, Senator Romney, quote, It is good news that there is insufficient evidence to charge the president of the United States with having conspired with a foreign adversary or with having obstructed justice.
	The alternative would have taken us through a wrenching process with the potential for constitutional crisis.
	The business of government can move on.
	Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the president.
	I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens worked in a campaign for president welcoming help from Russia, including information that had been illegally obtained, that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement, and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine.
	Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders.
	On an ideological level, I don't really disagree with much that Romney says there, but the angle is totally wrong.
	We knew all this stuff.
	These criticisms were perfectly appropriate for two years when we found out about George Papadopoulos, when we found out about the Trump Tower meeting.
	And when we found out about Paul Manafort, all of these things were perfectly appropriate then.
	But that was not the breaking news.
	The breaking news of the report is not all the stuff we already knew, it's all the stuff that we didn't.
	And all the stuff that we didn't know basically just suggests that the president is volatile, and the president is mean to people, and the president yells a lot, and that his advisors stop him from doing dumb things, and also, most importantly, that there was no obstruction of justice.
	That's where this lies.
	And so the story was not Trump being Trump.
	The story was the media were proved to be what they are.
	The story was Democrats were proved to be what they are.
	That was the revelation.
	The Democrats were lying when they said they had extra information.
	That the media were lying when they suggested that there was far more to come.
	That the media proclaiming that Robert Mueller is going to end Trump's presidency, that that was a bunch of nonsense for two years and that they are motivated players in this space.
	That was the revelation.
	So Romney can make those criticisms.
	I think a lot of those criticisms are fair.
	I've made those criticisms for the past two years, but that was not the story when the Mueller report came out.
	The story when the Mueller report came out was indeed no collusion and no evidence sufficient to establish obstruction of justice.
	In fact, I think that the Mueller report's attempted definition of obstruction of justice, as I talked about last week, was far too broad.
	Okay, in just a second, We're going to jump into the 2020 race because it is starting to heat up.
	First, attention American patriots, this is your last chance to win a gun that has revolutionized the firearms world.
	I've teamed up with the USCCA to give you 19 chances to win this very special gun.
	Remember...
	This is the 100% American-based organization that is dedicated to bringing you industry-leading education, training, and legal protection.
	So, which gun are you going to win?
	Here are some hints, one more time.
	Its high-tech polymer frame makes it lightweight, comfortable to conceal.
	It is highly customizable, renowned for being durable, rugged, and reliable, even in the most extreme environments.
	And, with its 15 plus 1 round capacity, this gun will never leave you hanging at the range or in a self-defense situation.
	If you want to see this beautiful gun for yourself, all you have to do is text WIN to 87222 right now.
	Reveal what it is.
	Instantly lock in your 19 free chances to win.
	That is WIN to 87222.
	WIN to 87222.
	It is quick, simple, and free.
	But you need to hurry because the giveaway ends April 30th.
	So text the word WIN to 87222 right now.
	Lock in your 19 entries before it is too late.
	Text WIN to 87222.
	That is WIN to 87222 and lock in your entries to win this fantastic firearm.
	Go check it out right now.
	Also, the USCCA has all sorts of great services.
	They're a wonderful organization.
	You should be a member regardless.
	So text win to 87222.
	Alrighty.
	So in just a second, we're going to get to the 2020 campaign, which is heating up Elizabeth Warren, throwing random ideas at the wall to see what sticks.
	Most of them are exactly what that phrase would suggest.
	They're crap.
	And she'll see what crap sticks to the wall.
	We'll get to her latest brilliant proposal from the Native American princess in just one second.
	First, head on over to dailywire.com and you can subscribe to see the rest of the show.
	$9.99 a month brings you the rest of the show live.
	It brings you, on most weeks, two additional hours of the show a day.
	This week, because it is Passover, I'm only doing the podcast.
	The live radio show will be variously performed by the excorable Michael Mowles, as well as Jason Ranz from up in Seattle.
	So we have a pretty awesome guest host this week, so you're going to want to check that out anyway.
	But normally, you get two additional hours of my stuff.
	Also, you get to be part of the mailbag.
	Also, you get our Sunday specials on Saturday.
	We have all sorts of goodies available for you.
	And when you spend $99, you get this, the very greatest in leftist tears, hot or cold tumblers, the sign of a man of taste and propriety.
	To have one of these Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblers.
	You can have one.
	It makes you smarter.
	It makes you wiser.
	It makes you more healthy.
	None of those claims guaranteed.
	Go check it out right now.
	Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler and that annual subscription, cheaper than the monthly.
	Subscribe over at YouTube and iTunes as well.
	When you do that, then you can ensure that you get all of our free material that downloads directly to you.
	Please leave us a review.
	It always helps.
	helps we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty, so the 2020 race is heating up.
	Democrats are getting ready to attack each other.
	So we are about to enter the most juicy portion of the 2020 race.
	Are you excited?
	I am, because so far they've been laying off of each other.
	And it started off like this in 2016.
	If you can go back in your Wayback Machine, all the way back to mid-2015, all the Republicans said were nice things about each other.
	Oh, how much Rubio loved Cruz, and how much Cruz loved Rubio, and how much both of them kind of liked Trump.
	I mean, he was a populist, sure, and he didn't really know a lot of things.
	But he was a shot in the arm, was Trump.
	And then, as the months went on, the long knives came out and the carving began.
	And by the end of it, everybody looked like Riff and Bernardo after the fight scene in West Side Story.
	And it was just, it was brutal.
	It was brutal.
	Well, get ready, because it's going to be fun this time among the Democrats.
	There are 20 candidates fighting for scraps and apparently another candidate just joined a guy named Seth Moulton from Massachusetts.
	He's probably gonna he was looking to lose his primary race in Massachusetts.
	He's considered a slightly more moderate Democrat, but it's hilarious.
	I mean there are 1 million candidates.
	They're all struggling for attention and a lot of the people who are supposed to be top tier simply have had failure to launch.
	Top among those has of course been Senator Elizabeth Warren, our Native American princess, who once wrote a recipe for pow wow chow to demonstrate her Native American bona fides.
	That pow wow chow recipe was apparently a New York chef-based recipe for crab bisque, a traditional Cherokee dish about crabs roaming the fruited plains of Oklahoma.
	In any case, Elizabeth Warren is trying to jump out to the radical left.
	She's trying to out Bernie Bernie, so good luck with that.
	Here she was over the weekend suggesting that President Trump must be impeached.
	The report is absolutely clear that a foreign government attacked our electoral system to help Donald Trump.
	He welcomed that help.
	And then, when it was investigated by our own federal authorities, Donald Trump took multiple steps to try to obstruct justice.
	Equal justice under law.
	No one is above the law, and that includes the President of the United States.
	It is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to follow through on that.
	I mean, it's the responsibility of Congress?
	Like, she knows she's never gonna have to vote on this.
	This is one of the beautiful things about being a Democrat in the Senate running for president.
	There are 90 of you, and you have a minority in the Senate.
	So no matter what you do, you can vote for Trump's impeachment, get all the credit, and never have to actually live with the consequences, politically speaking.
	So, Elizabeth Warren pushing for impeachment.
	She's trying to push to the left of Bernie Sanders.
	Sanders has not actually commented formally on impeachment at this point, so far as I'm aware.
	And now she's rolling out another proposal.
	She rolls out a proposal every day because she figures, okay, at some point, some of these have got to make some headlines.
	I mean, come on guys, what do I have to do here to get some attention?
	I mean, I already did a DNA test and you just made fun of me.
	So now I'm just going to roll out a proposal every single day.
	Every single day.
	It's like when my son... Her campaign is like when my son wants a sweet from the closet but doesn't want to tell me.
	So we have a pantry in our house.
	And what he will do is he will stand directly outside the pantry.
	And then he will say, Daddy, open pantry.
	And I'll say, No.
	What do you want in there?
	And he'll say, Something.
	And I'll say, what is the something?
	He'll say, something.
	And I'll say, what is it?
	And he'll say, crackers.
	And I'll say, you don't want crackers.
	And he'll say, squeezy.
	And I'll say, you don't want squeezy.
	And then finally he will admit that it is candy that he wants.
	Well, that's Elizabeth Warren.
	And Elizabeth Warren stands out there and she says, I am progressive!
	I'm like, okay, what do you mean?
	And she says, progressive!
	I'm like, okay, what do you mean?
	And she's like, free stuff!
	Free stuff for everybody!
	That's what I mean!
	Like all of the reasonable nature of Elizabeth Warren that existed in 2001, 2002.
	She wrote a pretty good book called The Two-Income Trap about the struggles of families to get by and all this stuff.
	She used to be for school vouchers.
	All that has gone out the window.
	All she's in favor of now is free stuff.
	She's gonna out-free Bernie Sanders.
	So Bernie Sanders has suggested free college tuition.
	Elizabeth Warren is gonna go even further than Bernie Sanders.
	It's gonna be amazing, guys.
	In a second, I'll tell you what.
	So, Elizabeth Warren Is now proposing the Senator to try and get attention.
	She is now proposing to wipe out Americans college debt completely.
	College debt forgiveness.
	Okay, which would actually be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.
	That would be a full-on violation of the Takings Clause.
	The Takings Clause suggests that I cannot simply, as the government, declare all private debt to be null and void.
	That would be me taking something of value from you without just compensation.
	Not even for public use.
	That's for private use, right?
	You get to keep the benefits and it's not going to the government.
	The benefit doesn't go to the government.
	Eminent domain is the government needs your house because they're building a highway and so they compensate you for the house.
	Eminent domain really was not supposed to be the government takes my house and hands it to you because you are more capable of paying higher taxes because you're adding a second story onto the house.
	And certainly it's not the government just feels like bulldozing the house because the government feels like bulldozing it for no reason.
	Well, that's what she is talking about right here.
	She's talking about a violation of the Takings Clause, simply forgiving all college debt.
	Now, this is stupid in 1,000 ways.
	In 1,000 ways.
	Let me read you what her proposal is, and then I'll explain why this is so incredibly dumb and counterproductive, and doesn't fulfill even what it is attempting to do.
	So she has proposed to wipe out student debt and tuition at public colleges.
	She unveiled on Monday her proposal for easing access to higher education.
	It would spend $1.25 trillion over 10 years to eliminate up to $50,000 in student debt with household incomes under $100,000.
	Okay, first of all, I will note, this is already a wealth redistribution that actually favors people who are middle class or wealthier.
	Because who do you think is going to college?
	It's mostly people who are middle class or wealthier people who have higher income potentials and higher income trajectories.
	So you're talking effectively about taxing low-income people in favor of middle and high-income people.
	She says she would allow states to make public colleges tuition-free.
	There are already states that do this, like University of Tennessee.
	And she wants to spend $100 billion on expended Pell Grants to defray more non-tuition expenses.
	So she wants to simply wipe out all of this college debt.
	Her plan would scale back relief for people with incomes above $100,000 and would end it entirely at the $250,000 level.
	She said her proposal would benefit 95% of the 45 million Americans carrying a student debt and wipe it out for 75% of them.
	She said that this would stimulate the economy by improving credit scores.
	That's so funny.
	I love that.
	So we're going to eliminate debt that you're unable to pay to improve your credit score.
	In other words, we're going to game the credit score system.
	The credit score system is, I took out a debt.
	Now I have to pay back that debt.
	Every time I pay back that debt, my credit score goes up.
	Every time a debt collector is called, my credit score goes down.
	Her solution?
	What if we just forgive the debt, and then that increases your credit score?
	This is the equivalent of when the city of Los Angeles decided that South Central Los Angeles had too much crime, and if they just called it South Los Angeles, that would fix the problem.
	No, the problem is you're not paying your debts.
	The problem is not that your credit worthiness goes up if we simply forgive your debts.
	It's insane.
	And then she says this would increase home buying.
	Great.
	So the people who are incapable of paying back their college debts, we should definitely make it super easy for them to take out home loans.
	Maybe we could call them...
	Like, I know these aren't prime borrowers.
	Maybe what we should do is probably call them subprime borrowers.
	What we could do is have the government subsidize subprime home loans to people who are incapable of paying off their debts in other ways.
	And then we could grant them these subprime home loans with government subsidies.
	And we could incentivize private businesses by saying that if those subprime home loans are not paid back, then the government will bail you out.
	It'll be totally fine.
	I feel like this would be a really good plan for fixing the mortgage system.
	Subprime home loans Provided by the government for people who are not creditworthy.
	What could go wrong?
	Nothing.
	Probably everything will be fine, guys.
	Everything will be fine.
	And then she says this will ease small business formation.
	If you want to ease small business formation, let me make you a recommendation.
	Instead of incentivizing lenders to give money to people to go to college, to major in lesbian dance theory, instead, we should be incentivizing lenders to lend money to people who are starting businesses.
	You know one way to do this.
	Stop insisting that everyone who is smart has to go to college.
	Stop insisting that the pathway to success in the United States is to go major In Maya Angelou's poetry at JUCO.
	That is not correct.
	She also wants to cut off federal money from for-profit colleges.
	She says those enrich themselves while targeting lower-income students.
	Targeting lower-income students?
	You know how hard Harvard is trying to get low-income students in?
	They're kicking Asians out for no reason to get low-income students in Harvard.
	She says that private colleges are the problem.
	No, you want to know why the cost of tuition is so high?
	Because of publicly sponsored tuition.
	That's why the cost is high.
	Every area where the government subsidizes, prices go up.
	This is true in healthcare.
	It is true in tuition.
	Every time the government gives you free money, people increase the prices on the thing that you are now buying.
	Why?
	Because there's more money in circulation?
	Ya dolt.
	Okay, so her proposal makes no sense.
	If you actually wanted to fix all of this, you actually eliminate federal involvement in student loans, and fewer people go to college.
	And that would be a good thing, because not everyone needs to go to college.
	Instead, we would have apprenticeships, people who are skipping college to apprentice themselves in a business where they get to learn a skill set.
	What colleges are good for, I've said this for years, what colleges are good for is two things.
	They're fundamentally a sorting mechanism.
	So if you went to Harvard, we assume you're smarter than someone who went to JUCO.
	And two, they create a social fabric of friends with whom you can correspond and get jobs.
	That's what college is for.
	Well, by vastly broadening the number of people going to college and creating affirmative action programs that skew the system, And what you're actually doing is eliminating both of the actual effective methods of increasing income mobility inside colleges.
	You're getting rid of the sorting factor on the one hand, and on the other hand, you're also getting rid of the AirSat social fabric.
	Because you don't create a social fabric at JUCO.
	Those are not people you associate with the rest of your life.
	This really only applies to elite colleges.
	That doesn't exist.
	Sending somebody to a low-level state school with free tuition to major in whatever they please is not going to materially better their lives.
	That's silly talk.
	So Elizabeth Warren is proposing all of this stuff.
	Kevin Williamson laid this out a while back in a piece that he wrote for National Review, a three-step plan.
	Actually, he wrote this a couple of days ago.
	He said, here's a three-part plan for doing something practical.
	One, the federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans.
	Why?
	Because that would force banks to actually try to determine whether a loan was going to be paid back based on the major.
	I could take a loan for law school.
	Why?
	Because I was going to be a lawyer, which meant I was a good bet.
	The collateral was me.
	Two, step two, it should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions or require the application of ordinary credit standards in any private educational lending, treating the student as the main credit risk in the same way that you would a mortgage.
	And three, it should make student loan debt dischargeable in ordinary bankruptcy procedures.
	So this would put the risk on the banks.
	The banks would have to make an actual decision as to whether people should get a loan or should not get a loan based on whether they think the person is going to be able to pay the thing back or not.
	This makes sense.
	What Elizabeth Warren is talking about makes no sense.
	Fortunately, being in the 2020 Democratic Party means never having to say anything sensical.
	You don't have to say anything.
	You just have to promise a lot of free stuff.
	So Elizabeth Warren going to trot this out and hope that this sticks as well.
	Unlikely.
	Unlikely, but who the hell knows.
	Alrighty, time for some things I like, and then some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	Over the holiday, I re-read a book by Gerald Schroeder, who is an MIT physicist, MIT-educated physicist, called The Science of God, The Conversions of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom.
	It's really interesting stuff.
	Perfectly appropriate for both Easter and Passover.
	It's really good.
	It's all about how the book of Genesis can be read in a way that makes room for science, which is something that I am very much in favor of.
	And his take particularly on how the six days of creation match up with the timeline for creation that is expressed via science is really fascinating.
	The essential thesis is that there is a universal background clock of the universe that is being used up until the creation of man.
	And that 24 Earth hours correspond to a certain number of background radiation wavelengths in the universe.
	Blackbody radiation wavelengths in the universe.
	For 24 hours within the creation time frame.
	Within the Big Bang time frame.
	So, to get a little bit more complex on that, and simplify actually, you have to read the book.
	Go check it out.
	The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.
	Great religious and scientific reading.
	It really is pretty cool stuff.
	Okay, time for a bevy of things that I hate.
	A cornucopia of things that I hate.
	All right, so thing that I hate, number one.
	There is a story in, what is this?
	The UK Daily Mail.
	Gay transgender man tells story of giving birth.
	Okay, so it says, not only women feel broody, transgender man reveals he was desperate to have a child before he went through a total loss of self as he became pregnant with his baby.
	Okay, let me explain.
	This person is not female.
	I mean, this person is not male.
	This is not a male giving birth.
	If a male gave birth, do you have any idea how bad that would hurt?
	We have a urethra.
	We do not have a birth canal.
	You try pushing a 10-pound baby through a urethra, you will die.
	Hey, this is not, where's that baby coming from?
	If you are a male, like a genetic biological male, you can't poop out the baby and you can't pee out the baby.
	There's no way to get the baby out.
	Also, you have no uterus, so there's no place for the baby to grow.
	So, biology suggests that this is in fact not a gay male who had a baby, because that's silly.
	This is actually a genetic female who had a baby.
	I love this.
	Freddie McConnell, 30, is a gay transgender man who gave birth to a baby boy.
	No, Freddie McConnell is a woman.
	A woman who had a surgery.
	Who gave birth to a baby.
	I like that he said that she, because this is a genetic female, she is now a gay transgender man, which means a woman who is attracted to men, but had a surgery.
	That makes more sense than whatever the hell this mishmash word salad that you've created here.
	A film of his experience of pregnancy will premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival.
	His mother described her fears for her son as he embarked on the pregnancy.
	He spent most of the nine months he was pregnant with his son in Diehl, Kent.
	Wow, spectacular stuff.
	Here's a little bit of this magical film about a female having a baby, but this female has a beard because of hormone treatment and because of breast removal.
	So, wonderful stuff.
	So, hormone treatment, breast removal, genetic female.
	This is not shocking.
	This is just a person who did something to her body.
	When I took the first vial of testosterone, Quite quickly I was being read as male all the time.
	It's not about more male because more valid.
	It's just, this is me.
	I've always wanted to have kids one day.
	Not only women feel broody.
	I'm going to have my own baby when I will be a dad.
	I love being pregnant.
	Everyone should experience it, shouldn't they?
	Especially men.
	This is not a man!
	Everyone should experience being pregnant, especially men.
	This is not a man, this is a woman.
	Okay, and you can make the woman look like the man, but that is still a woman.
	It's not only women who feel broody, you are a woman.
	No one is suggesting only women feel broody, but you happen to be one.
	You happen to be a woman.
	The unbelievable stupidity of a media that refuses to objectively cover facts of biology is insane.
	And biology is certainly implicated when we are talking about, you know, biological things like giving birth, like the biological organs necessary to the birth giving.
	How do you suggest that gender is the thing on the table when what we are really talking about here is a pure biological process?
	We'd all be shocked if we read a story about a man having a period, because that's impossible.
	A man does not have a period, by definition.
	But the media will repeat this crap like no problem.
	It's just insane.
	So why do I get upset about this?
	Because I don't like being lied to?
	Because I think that this is a direct attempt to undermine both science and objective truth?
	And I don't care what your interior feelings are.
	Your body tells the story.
	Your uterus developed a baby, and then you pushed that baby through a birth canal, ending in a vagina.
	That is what happened here.
	That means that you are a genetic female.
	My goodness.
	So that's Crazy Towns.
	Okay, other stuff that I... The media coverage is crazy.
	Okay, the...
	Other stuff that I hate today.
	So apparently there's a story that Mexican troops actually drew weapons on American soldiers on the U.S.
	side of the American border.
	According to the Washington Examiner, armed Mexican troops disarmed two U.S.
	soldiers while they were on the American side of the border, U.S.
	defense officials have said.
	U.S.
	Northern Command said in a statement that five to six million Mexican, sorry, five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S.
	Army soldiers.
	If it were five to six million, we'd have an invasion on our hands.
	Five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S.
	Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations this month.
	The U.S.
	soldiers were in an unmarked Customs and Border Protection vehicle near the southwest border near Clint, Texas.
	Officials confirmed the Mexican troops were armed with what seemed to be rifles.
	They raised their weapons when they saw the two U.S.
	soldiers and then took a pistol from one and put it on the CPB vehicle.
	According to officials talking to CNN, the two Americans obliged in an attempt to de-escalate a potentially volatile situation.
	Throughout the incident, U.S.
	soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols, the statement said.
	The two U.S.
	troops were on the south side of the security perimeter.
	But North of the Rio Grande and elsewhere in the United States on the American side of the border, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security officials demanded an explanation from the Mexican government.
	An inquiry by CPB and DOD revealed that the Mexican military members believed that the U.S.
	Army soldiers were South of the border.
	Though they were South of the border fence, U.S.
	soldiers remained in U.S.
	territory North of the actual border.
	So this looks like confusion more than anything else, but the fact that This confusion almost led to a violent incident is definitely on the Mexican government, which should be spending a lot more of its resources prohibiting people from moving across the American border en masse.
	We have hundreds of thousands of people descending on the American border now every month.
	That's a disaster area the Mexican government should obviously be helping more with.
	The fact that we have a failed state on our southern border is a disaster area nobody seems to want to face up to because it would actually there's a better case for American intervention in Mexico, frankly.
	Maybe a wall solves that.
	for American intervention in Syria.
	One's on our border and is creating a human catastrophe in which the drug cartels are in control of large swaths of the territory is leading to not only humanitarian problems, but actual direct impact on America's southern border.
	Maybe a wall solves that, maybe a wall doesn't.
	But what we're watching in Mexico is really a continuing problem.
	OK, we'll be back here tomorrow.
	As I say, there's two more hours of the show, but I'm not hosting them later today because it's Passover and I want to take a little bit of time off.
	And damn it, I deserve it.
	Come on.
	OK, so we're going to do that.
	We'll see you here tomorrow.
	So enjoy the rest of your day.
	And if you can enjoy Michael Moll's, I know it's difficult.
	We'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Adam Sajovic.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Karamina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright, Daily Wire 2019.
	Islamic terrorists in Sri Lanka murdered 290 Catholics on Easter Sunday.
	Around the world, churches have become the number one target for attacks.
	We will explore lies and ignorance in our post-Christian society, fellow Easter worshipers.

▲