Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 24, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:10

Is God Political? | Ep. 766

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Mayor Pete says God has no political party.
	Kamala Harris flip-flops once more.
	And Democrats prepare further investigations.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Oh, man, a lot happening in the news.
	We'll get to all of it in just one second.
	First, we're never going to agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that we could all use more sleep.
	Certainly, I agree with me on that.
	Getting a great night's sleep is easier and more affordable than you think.
	You don't need a new expensive mattress or sleeping pills.
	You need to change the sheets.
	That's why you should check out Bull & Branch.
	Bull & Branch is the best sheets on the market.
	Everything Bull & Branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft.
	They get even softer over time.
	You buy directly from them, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
	Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store.
	Bull & Branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
	Everyone who tries Bull & Branch sheets loves them, which is why they have thousands of five-star reviews.
	Even three U.S.
	presidents sleep on Bull & Branch sheets.
	Shipping is free.
	You can try them for 30 nights.
	If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
	But I doubt you're gonna wanna send them back.
	There is no risk, no reason to not give them a try.
	To get you started right now, my listeners can get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	That's bullandbranch.com for 50 bucks off your first set of sheets, bullandbranch.com today.
	B-O-L-L and branch.com, promo code Ben.
	My wife and I have these sheets.
	We actually took all our other sheets and threw them out.
	Bull and Branch will ruin your other sheets for you.
	They are that good.
	Check them out right now.
	bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Go check them out and enjoy a better night's rest.
	Okay, so.
	I want to begin today by talking about a point that was made by Pete Buttigieg, Mayor Pete, the man who is the man of the hour in Democratic media, the guy who is rising from the crowd.
	He is now running third in Iowa after Bernie and Biden.
	He is running maybe third nationally after Bernie and Biden.
	And he's come out of nowhere because obviously he is the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a town that is smaller than probably my district.
	In California, in terms of population.
	Almost certainly my district in California, in terms of population.
	That's pretty astonishing.
	And it has to do with a couple of facts.
	Fact number one, he's a very articulate guy.
	Dude knows how to speak.
	He knows how to handle himself.
	He has a very strong intellectual background.
	Obviously went to Harvard.
	He's a Rhodes Scholar.
	Studied at Oxford University.
	Very smart guy.
	Point number two, he's gay, and that means he has intersectional credibility.
	He needs both of these things.
	If he were just a gay guy who did not have this sort of articulateness, he would not be succeeding.
	If he were an articulate guy who were not gay, he would be going nowhere inside a democratic primary that values intersectionality above all else.
	Intersectionality, radicalism, or name recognition.
	Those are the top three right there.
	Intersectionality, Pete Buttigieg.
	Radicalism, Bernie Sanders.
	Or name recognition, Joe Biden.
	Well, Buttigieg is gaining an enormous amount of credibility in the media, too, because members of the media have long been seeking a spokesperson for their bizarre views on religion.
	Their bizarre view of religion is this.
	You can call yourself a Christian or a Jew, and you can have You can pick and choose which views you want to abide by in the Bible.
	You can call yourself biblically literate.
	You can call yourself a Bible believer.
	You can call yourself biblically adherent while ignoring vast swaths of the Bible in favor of your preferred leftist politics.
	This is something that happens widely in the Jewish community.
	It's also happening increasingly in the Christian community.
	Now, let me make this clear.
	I do not believe that religion ought to be discussed as a matter of politics.
	I don't.
	Whenever I make a political argument, I don't cite God to back my political argument, nor do I cite the Bible to back my political arguments.
	Why?
	Because it's not effective.
	It's not effective.
	It's not useful.
	Many people do not share that frame.
	I'm arguing based on authority if I do that, and that authority is not held by everyone.
	So a proper response to what I'm about to say is God doesn't exist or I'm an atheist.
	That's fine.
	That doesn't matter.
	You and I can have a political conversation without invoking God.
	In fact, as I say, I prefer those sorts of conversations because I think that those are the ones public policy should generally be based on.
	Every single public policy should have a secular rationale to support it.
	I say this as a religious person.
	I do not believe that invoking the Bible is any sort of argument for a public policy decision.
	I don't.
	So, put that to one side.
	There are a group of people on the left who really, really, really want to be able to reach out to religious people by telling those religious people they've gotten their interpretation of text wrong for the last several thousand years.
	And those people are not truly religious.
	Truly religious people would be secular leftists.
	Truly religious people would be people who say that they believe in the Bible, but then read out broad swaths of the Bible.
	And Mayor Pete is the man for them.
	Mayor Pete is the guy who is the youth pastor from Sunday School at an Episcopalian church Who will tell you all about how much pizza and guitar are great and how much God loves you.
	And also we have no standards for behavior here.
	Everyone is welcomed.
	Everyone is loved.
	And sin is not really a thing that you should worry about.
	You should really just find yourself.
	Now that is not a true biblically based perspective.
	The Bible says things.
	I think we can all agree.
	The Bible says things.
	Okay.
	And those things that the Bible says are supposed to be taken seriously.
	So again, I'm not speaking to people who believe in a generic version of God, not speaking through the Bible.
	Buddha Judge proclaims that he is a Christian.
	That means that purportedly he takes the Bible seriously, both the Old and the New Testaments.
	This is one of the requirements for being a Christian.
	Well, folks on the left don't want to take that.
	They want to say, I'm a Christian because I believe in Jesus, but not because of any of the other stuff.
	All of the other stuff is uncomfortable.
	All of the other stuff makes me feel weird.
	All of the other stuff has moral standards attached to it.
	And this is why Mayor Pete has become their guy.
	Because Mayor Pete will go out there and say, I am also a Christian.
	I'm a deeply believing Christian.
	And also, I don't abide by any of the traditional categories of sin.
	Not on traditional sexual mores.
	Certainly not on abortion.
	Not on the traditional definition of gender, which also happens to be the biological definition of gender.
	Mayor Pete basically says, yes on Jesus, no on everything else.
	And this is something that the media love.
	The media are very into it.
	They would like to see religion moved in this direction.
	Now, religion has been moving in this direction in the United States, and that is why you have been seeing adherents to the church running, screaming away from the church.
	This is why you have been seeing the increase in secularism and atheism, because the only dividing line between seculars and atheists And the sort of religion that Mayor Pete is promoting here is belief in God.
	Because the principles are exactly the same.
	It's just, do you want God or do you not want God?
	If you don't want God, then you say, well, I'm tough-minded and I don't want God and I don't think God is necessary.
	I think that he is the thesis that is unnecessary, the unnecessary thesis in the language of Laplace.
	And so I'm an atheist, or I'm a secularist.
	And if you believe in God, you say, well, I want a spiritual life, I believe there's something beyond, so I believe in God, but this God doesn't mean that I have to do anything.
	Or if I do have to do something, it's only the more soft, emotionally-driven commandments.
	Anything that demands anything of me, no.
	Anything that says, be a more humble human being in concert with the universe, you know, all of that kind of stuff, the sort of stuff that you could get from a Marianne Williamson lecture, That sort of stuff we will find in the Bible.
	So the reason that I bring this up is because there is an inactive attempt by members of the media to promote Mayor Pete's version of religion as the true version of religion and Mike Pence's version of religion or the traditional view of religion or biblical scholars view of religion as a sort of intolerant sham.
	There's a dark underbelly to this attempt.
	The dark underbelly to this attempt is the attempt to suggest that if you believe in traditional notions of sin, this is because you are a bigot and you are simply covering for your bigotry with God's language.
	Basically, you're using religion as an excuse to be a bigot.
	This is what backs a lot of the push for anti-discrimination law that targets religious people.
	This is what backs the idea from so many people that if you believe, for example, that same-sex marriage is sinful.
	I'm a libertarian on same-sex marriage when it comes to government.
	Again, I think all arguments in public policy realms need secular rationales.
	But when it comes to my personal view of sin, because I'm a biblically living and believing Jew, I believe that homosexual activity is a sin.
	The left wants to suggest that that is just thinly veiled bigotry.
	That even if I didn't believe that stuff, then I would still believe that homosexuality was wrong simply out of bigotry, not out of any natural law beliefs, not of any traditional philosophical beliefs, simply out of sheer hatred and bigotry.
	This is what undergirds a lot of the argument being made in favor of what Mayor Pete is saying.
	So I keep invoking Mayor Pete.
	The reason I invoke Mayor Pete is because this is the hard push that he has been making now for weeks and months, and the media have picked up on it and amplified it.
	So here is Buttigieg yesterday suggesting that God has no political party.
	As you know, it can be challenging to be a person of faith who's also a part of the LGBTQ community.
	And yet, to me, the core of faith is regard for one another.
	And part of how God's love is experienced, according to my faith tradition, is in the way that we support one another, and in particular, support the least among us.
	One of the things about Scripture is different people see different things in it.
	But at the very least, we should be able to establish that God does not have a political party. - Okay, there are a couple of things there that are very much worthy of note and go to this underlying conflict over religious philosophy.
	Number one, Mayor Pete's version of religion is the same as Barack Obama's version of religion or Hillary Clinton's version of religion.
	They're going to quote one verse from Matthew about the least among us, and then they're going to ignore the rest of the entire Bible.
	That is going to be their thing.
	We have to treat people.
	Also, they're going to conflate treating people with respect or tolerance with treating their sin with respect or tolerance.
	So therefore, if you see somebody in front of you who you believe is committing a sin, Even if you treat them nicely, but you don't accept that their sin is decent, then this means that you are not respectful or tolerant.
	That, of course, is untrue.
	I, as a religious Jew, I've said this before, you can watch me on Dave Rubin's show, as a religious Jew, I believe homosexual activity is a sin.
	I have many, many, many gay friends.
	The reason that that is relevant is because I treat gay people very well, just the way I would treat everybody else, because it turns out that lots of people that I know sin in a variety of ways of which I do not approve.
	I still treat them really well.
	That does not mean that I have to think that their sins are no longer sins, just as they don't have to take seriously my religious point of view.
	Differences of opinion are fine so long as we treat each other With a certain modicum of respect.
	Now, that modicum of respect does not mean I have to violate my religion.
	It doesn't mean I have to attend a gay wedding.
	It doesn't mean that I have to cater my services to a same-sex wedding.
	It doesn't mean that I have to bake a cake for a gender transition ceremony.
	I don't have to do any of those things.
	That is not a demand of respect.
	That's a demand of service.
	Demand of service is not the same as a demand of respect.
	Respect just means I have to treat you just as I would any other human being when I deal with you interpersonally.
	It does not mean that I have to leverage my behavior or my activities on behalf of your specific sin, which is why I've said to my friend Dave Rubin, I'm more than happy to go out to dinner with you and your husband.
	I'm not willing to go to your gay wedding because one is the celebration of something that I religiously consider sinful, and the other is just me going out with my friends.
	And if they commit a sin, that's on them.
	I mean, that's not really my responsibility.
	These distinctions matter because what's the underlying drive here is to paint all religious people as bigots, as intolerant.
	So if I don't do what you want me to do, I'm a bigot and I'm mean and I'm intolerant.
	I have a right to think what I want about a behavior in which you engage.
	And you have a right to think that my religion is stupid.
	You have a right to think whatever you want.
	And if you want to have a diverse worldview, if you want to have a diverse Society, you're going to need to accept that other people may not think of sin in the same way that you think of sin.
	And so long as we all treat each other decently when we interact with one another without necessarily green lighting each other's sins or each other's philosophies, then we can have a perfectly nice society.
	If not, things are going to get really ugly really quickly.
	Now in a second, I want to explain the second part of Buttigieg's statement where he says that God has no political party.
	Which I think is half true and 100% disingenuous.
	I'll explain in just one second.
	First, let's talk about making your business better.
	ZipRecruiter.
	Okay, if you want to make your hiring process easier, you need to use ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
	They don't stop there.
	With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
	As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that 4 out of 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
	Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That's ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Go check them out right now and try them for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	Whenever we are looking to upgrade at the DailyWire offices or hire new people, we go and check out ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	You should too, ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	Okay, so the second half of Mayor Pete's statement there Where he suggests that God has no political party.
	As I say, that is half true and it's 100% disingenuous.
	So it is half true because yes, God did not say you must vote Democrat or you must vote Republican.
	God says that you have free will.
	You can choose whichever.
	Nor does God give statements about the party platforms of the two parties.
	But if you're a Bible believer, and again, this entire conversation is in the context of defining Bible believing.
	It's in the context of defining Judeo-Christian.
	So if you don't believe in the Bible, if you don't believe in Judeo-Christian values, this conversation is not for you.
	And, as I say, this is not an argument that every voting decision must be predicated on your belief in Judeo-Christian values.
	You can just say, I don't vote along the lines of my religion.
	That's fine.
	You can say, I don't vote along the lines of Judeo-Christian values.
	That's fine, too.
	It's a free country.
	The point that I'm making is that if you're like Mayor Pete, and you're going to invoke Judeo-Christian values and the biblical God in order to back your position, as Mayor Pete does on a routine basis, It's a package deal.
	You know, it gets pick and choose.
	When I say that Mayor Pete leverages his religion on behalf of his politics on a routine basis, I mean it.
	So for example, Pete Buttigieg said just the other day that he is faithful because he is humble, whereas President Trump is not.
	He said this in the same interview on CNN.
	Part of where I'm coming from is a faith tradition that counsels me to be as humble as possible, that counsels me to look after those who need defending.
	And frankly, it couldn't be more radically different than what I see certainly in this White House, where there's a lot of chest-thumping and self-aggrandizing.
	Not to mention abusive behavior.
	So President Trump obviously does not believe in God, whereas Pete Buttigieg believes in God.
	That's according to Pete Buttigieg.
	He's the one making the religious arguments right now.
	So since Buttigieg is going to make religious arguments, I'm going to make religious counter-arguments.
	When he says that he is humble, there's nothing less humble than I can imagine, that I can imagine, as a religious person, than going in and willy-nilly rewriting 3,000 years of biblical history.
	That seems pretty non-humble to me.
	And as you'll see, Pete Buttigieg does this on a routine basis.
	So I'm not a big believer that Donald Trump is a religious man in any traditional sense.
	I don't think that he believes in traditional definitions of sin either, or if he does, I don't think that he abides by them.
	He's a sinner in the way that everybody else is a sinner, maybe more so.
	But for Buttigieg to stand there and say, I am a humble servant, whereas Donald Trump is an arrogant man, Okay, he may be more humble than Trump in some ways.
	He is not more humble in the sense that Donald Trump is not the one coming forward and saying, oh yeah, these millions of believers who have believed this stuff for the last 3,000 years and it's written in the text.
	I'm just going to override all of that because that's how I feel about things.
	That seems pretty arrogant to me.
	I'll show you evidence of this arrogance in just one second.
	So, evidence of Pete Buttigieg's arrogance.
	Number one, Pete Buttigieg is in favor of late-term abortion.
	Now, again, you can argue God has no political party because God doesn't say in the Bible, vote Republican or vote Democrat, but God does have principles in the Bible.
	God is not silent on issues of morality in the Bible.
	The Bible is a long, long, morally based document.
	It establishes a system of ethics and morality.
	God has things to say about issues that affect us now.
	Religious values do have implications for politics.
	So, for example, if you are a religious believer, you cannot read the Bible and come away with, it's okay to abort a baby at any point during the term.
	There's just no way you can do that.
	There's no way you can do that.
	Whether you are reading Psalms, or whether you're reading the Old Testament, or whether you're reading the New Testament, there is just nothing in there.
	There is nothing in there that suggests that you can abort a fully grown baby inside the womb.
	Nothing.
	There is nothing in the Old or New Testament that suggests that homosexual activity is not sinful, for example.
	Now, again, you don't have to agree with any of this.
	That's fine.
	That's your prerogative.
	And this doesn't have to have implications for public policy.
	But what you cannot do is claim that a religious perspective says X because I want it to say X. And you cannot claim, if you claim to believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that God is silent on these issues because God is not silent on these issues.
	By the way, you can believe that something is a sin without government having to legislate it.
	I'm a libertarian.
	I believe that people are basically allowed to sin so long as they are not harming anyone else.
	Which is why I was libertarian on same-sex marriage before Obergefell, and why I have been in favor of legislation barring abortion since forever.
	Because one harms a human, and another is a consensual relationship.
	There's a difference in terms of secular public policy.
	I never make a religious argument on this sort of stuff.
	But, from a religious perspective, God is not silent on either of these issues.
	God is not silent on the issue of, for example, the differences between the sexes.
	Male and female, He created them.
	God is not silent on this, if you're a Bible believer.
	God is not silent on the idea of government fixing all of your problems.
	God does not believe that government ought to fix all of your problems.
	God believes that God is God, not government as God.
	God certainly doesn't believe in anti-religious discrimination, which is something the Democratic Party seems very much in favor of these days.
	So, if you're going to match up God's priorities with party priorities, that's something that every religious person is going to have to do.
	So when Buttigieg says, God has no political party, that's his easy sloganeering way of ignoring the fact that if you're a religious person, you have to match up your values with a party that matches your values.
	God doesn't have a political party, but God does have values, and you as a human being are going to have to decide which of these two parties mirrors those values better.
	That's perfectly logical.
	And as I tweeted out yesterday, I agree.
	God doesn't have a political party.
	And maybe you believe that God is more concerned about tax rates, progressive tax rates, than he is about abortion.
	I'd have to see the evidence for that.
	But if you believe that, make that argument.
	But I can tell you this.
	There is no evidence that God would support a party that supports infanticide, late-term abortion, same-sex marriage, And more than same-sex marriage, the use of same-sex marriage to cram down against religious institutions, practices that violate their specific beliefs, anti-discrimination laws that target religious people.
	There's no evidence that they would back that God would be super in favor of the abolition of sex, of biological sex.
	And so, God does have perspectives.
	I know, there are a lot of people out there who are like, why are you talking about God?
	Because Buttigieg is talking about God.
	On this program, go back, listen to the entire history of the program.
	The number of times I've mentioned God on this program in a religious context, in a truly religious context, probably it's less than the number of fingers on my hands in the course of the four-year history of this program.
	But I'm mentioning it now because Buttigieg is trying to make a move that I think is actually philosophically dangerous.
	And here's an example.
	So Buttigieg says God has no political party, and then he's asked, okay, fine.
	So what does God say about abortion?
	Listen to him stumble over this.
	Your candidacy now, officially, has also piqued the interest of religious conservatives.
	They talk about the sanctity of life, and they can't get past your support of late-term abortion.
	What do you say to them?
	To me, it's a very complex issue that should be guided by a very simple principle, which is that having these things dictated by government does not make that decision any easier.
	In some ways, some of these questions are...
	Religious or metaphysical, however you want to put them, they're not things that are knowable in a traditional sense.
	But to people who would criticize that, they'd say, actually, it is a pretty easy answer.
	These are the women facing some of the most unbelievably excruciating decisions.
	This is why Buttigieg is being arrogant, and this is why he's being a liar.
	He's being a liar when it comes to religion.
	If he wants to say, I disagree with the traditional religion on abortion, that's fine.
	But you can't say that someone says something that they do not.
	That's unfair and it's wrong, whether you're quoting the Bible or you're quoting another person.
	To quote somebody and say this is what they are saying when that is not what they are saying is silly.
	When Buttigieg suggests that he has a religious set of values and then he's asked directly about abortion and he immediately reverts to narrow, pro-choice America language.
	He at least has to acknowledge the conflict.
	As I said before, it is not a sign of human... In fact, Dennis Prager is a religious scholar.
	He has an entire series coming out with commentaries on the Bible.
	His interpretation of the commandment in the Bible, that thou shalt not bear a false witness, or that thou shalt... It's actually, thou shalt not use God's name in vain.
	That particular commandment, thou shalt not use God's name in vain.
	Dennis's interpretation, I think this is largely backed by the text, and I think that ideologically is correct, is that using God's name in vain is not about you shouting, It's not about you using God's name in the middle of a curse or something, just saying God bleep.
	That's not what taking God's name in vain means.
	Dennis says, and I think this is correct, that taking God's name in vain is quoting in the name of God the reverse of what God says.
	So saying that God says X, when in reality God says not X, is a sign of deep intellectual arrogance, not a sign of humility.
	So does God have a political party?
	No.
	Does God have principles?
	Yes.
	Do you have to decide how those principles apply to modern-day politics?
	Absolutely, if this is something you care about.
	And if you don't care about it, good for you.
	That's fine.
	You don't have to.
	But Pete Buttigieg keeps suggesting that he is speaking from a religiously-based perspective?
	Okay, well then he's going to have to explain how that meshes with the Bible itself.
	This is his standard, not mine.
	I don't have to explain how my perspectives match up with the Bible because I don't say that my secular standards match up with the Bible.
	He has a very easy answer on all of this stuff, by the way.
	And his very easy answer is, yes, I'm a religious person, but I don't believe that religion ought to have any impact on public policy.
	It's very easy for him to say that.
	He won't say that because he is attempting to twist the very nature of what religious practice is to fit his definition of politics so he can appeal, presumably, to people who believe that religion and politics are deeply intertwined.
	That's a clever move, but it's not an honest move.
	Okay.
	In a second, we're going to talk about the other 2020 Democratic candidates because this race is heating up.
	First, let's talk about Dollar Shave Club.
	I love that Dollar Shave Club has everything I need to look, feel, and smell my best.
	What I love even more is the fact that I never have to go to a store.
	That's because first, DSE delivers everything I need directly to my door.
	And second, they keep me fully stocked on what I use so I don't run out.
	Here's how it works.
	Dollar Shave Club has everything you need to get ready, no matter what you're getting ready for.
	They've got you covered head to toe, hair, skin, face, you name it, they've got it.
	And they have this new program where they automatically keep you stocked up on the products you use.
	You determine what you want when you want it.
	It shows up right at your door from once a month to once every six months.
	That's what I do for their Amber Lavender Body Cleanser.
	It is delightful.
	Plus, with their handsome discount, the more you buy, the more you save.
	And right now, they've got a bunch of starter sets you can try for just five bucks, like their Oral Care Kit.
	After that, the restock box ships regular-sized products at regular price.
	So, what exactly are you waiting for?
	Get your starter set for just five bucks right now at DollarShaveClub.com slash Ben.
	That is DollarShaveClub.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	DollarShaveClub.com slash Ben.
	When you use that slash Ben, you can get that starter set for just five bucks.
	And then the restock box ships regular size products at regular price.
	Go get the special deal right now at DollarShaveClub.com slash Ben.
	All righty.
	Meanwhile, the other Democratic candidates are having a little bit of trouble.
	So Joe Biden is preparing to launch his campaign.
	He's supposed to launch his campaign tomorrow with some sort of online video.
	And then the idea is that he's going to travel to Pennsylvania and he's going to give his first address in some sort of Philadelphia Union Hall, which is exactly where he should, right?
	I mean, that is the smart political move.
	His base is going to be in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin.
	At least that is the case that he is making.
	He can win back the states that President Trump won when he broke the so-called While Biden is set to announce on Thursday with an online video, according to people familiar with the plans, they are reporting it to CNN.
	The former VP's team has been laying the campaign groundwork for months, with Biden's decision growing less secretive or suspenseful by the day.
	But now that he has given the green light to his advisors, says CNN, Biden is facing one of the biggest challenges of his half-century career in politics.
	He's scheduled to hold his first campaign event in Pittsburgh on Monday.
	Sorry, not Philadelphia, Pittsburgh.
	A source said he plans to hit the road to early voting states of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire in the coming days.
	His political action committee, American Possibilities, sent an email to supporters on Tuesday to urge them to sign up for the news.
	We'll cut to the chase, the message said.
	There's been a lot of chatter about what Joe Biden plans to do.
	As one of Joe's top supporters, we want you to be the first to know.
	He's jumping into a race already in progress, likely becoming the 20th Democrat to declare candidacy.
	He's closely watched the campaign from the sidelines, they'd say, following the policy debates and the introduction of rising stars less than half his age.
	This will mark his third run for the White House.
	Everything is different this time because this time he was vice president for Barack Obama, although he ran in 88 and 2008 and was a giant fail.
	Now, everyone is sort of forgetting that Joe Biden is a terrible campaigner.
	Everybody seems to be forgetting the fact that he is good as a VP campaigner because he's not the guy at the top of the ticket.
	People weren't voting for Joe Biden in 2008 or 2012.
	They were voting for Barack Obama.
	If they've been voting for Joe Biden, it doesn't go quite the same way.
	People only like Joe Biden when he is talking about other people.
	When Joe Biden talks about himself, he is far less popular, which is why he was a fail in 1988 and had to drop out over a plagiarism scandal.
	And then in 2008, he botched it within the very beginning of the run by suggesting that Barack Obama was the first, quote, clean and articulate black man ever to run for president of the United States.
	Joe Biden is a gaffe machine.
	People forget this.
	The more he is on the stump, the more he will gaffe.
	The more he gaffes, the more there will be people like Pete Buttigieg waiting in the wings to stab him in the back.
	Joe Biden also has made a strategic mistake here.
	He waited too long to get in because there's a lingering question whether he can fundraise, particularly in small dollars.
	There are a lot of Democratic bigwigs who want to get behind him, but how many of the truly motivated base players are ready to hand their five or ten dollars to him?
	Bernie Sanders has tons of those people.
	How many of those people are going to turn to Joe Biden?
	I wonder.
	There are 20 candidates in this race.
	Everybody has their own particular favorite.
	The polls are split 1,000 different ways, and that means that Joe Biden is going to have to suck up an inordinate number of dollars to truly do damage, at least from the grassroots.
	I'm not sure he does that.
	As I say, I think that the best day for Joe Biden may be his first day.
	Now, he is getting some help, apparently, from the University of Delaware.
	According to Brent Scherr over at The Free Beacon, the University of Delaware library is in possession of nearly 2,000 boxes of archival records covering Joe Biden's 36 years as a senator, but has not committed to releasing them before the presidential election.
	I mean, this is insane.
	You have thousands of pages at the University of Delaware, which I believe is a state school, and they're not going to release it before the election?
	What is this nonsense?
	The same people who are fighting mad that Donald Trump has never released his tax returns are now saying that they want to cover up thousands of pages of Joe Biden's Senate records?
	Those things should be a matter of public record.
	I mean, he does have a library.
	The records were donated by Biden to his alma mater during his first term as vice president in 2011.
	Biden stipulated when he donated the papers, their release could come no sooner than two years after Biden retires from any public office, according to the library.
	Well, Biden left office January 20th, 2017, but now the library says that they have made a new agreement with Joe Biden to keep the archive closed until at least the end of the year.
	Why would they make that new agreement exactly?
	Why would they do that?
	I mean, they don't have to.
	The agreement's already over.
	And this sets a pretty bad precedent, which is you turn your papers over, and then you just don't do any— and then you dictate that they can never become public.
	So then what was the purpose of you turning them over?
	The Biden senatorial papers are indeed still closed pending the completion of processing still underway and as per our agreement with the donor, which is that the papers would remain closed until the later date of December 31st, 2019 or two years after the donor retires from public service.
	They say that they won't guarantee the archive would open to the public immediately once the Biden imposed deadline had passed.
	In a Thursday morning email, the head of the library said there were no other stipulations on the release of papers made by the donor.
	Last December, the university launched the Joseph R. Biden School of Public Policy and Administration.
	So he has a pretty cozy relationship, obviously, with the University of Delaware.
	So what exactly does Joe Biden have to hide in those Senate records?
	Who the hell knows?
	And meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has more to hide.
	It turns out that Bernie Sanders has been drawing his mayoral pension.
	It's wonderful to be a socialist when you're at the top of the chain.
	When you're at the top of the government chain, then you get to live high on the hog.
	It's one of the beautiful things about being a socialist.
	Socialists like to rail about income inequality.
	The true income inequality in a socialist country is everybody else living in penury, and you living off the government largesse, off taxpayer dollars.
	Bernie Sanders has been drawing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for the last four decades.
	And now he complains that America just isn't generous enough.
	It turns out that Sanders, who earns $174,000 a year as a senator, received about $5,000 from Burlington, Vermont's pension system in 2018.
	He's still drawing a pension for his eight-year stint from the 1980s as mayor of Burlington.
	He could forgo that.
	But Bernie?
	Forgo a buck?
	Are you kidding?
	I wrote a bestselling book!
	I will not give that money up.
	His total income with his wife last year Or in 2018, was $561,000.
	That was down from the more than $1 million they earned in the prior two years, largely as a result of his book about running for president in 2016.
	The practice is not illegal.
	It's not unknown in Congress either.
	There are a bunch of people in Congress who double dip, but it doesn't look great.
	It doesn't look great.
	In fact, former Obama administration official, Ro Khanna, conducting a challenge to incumbent representative Mike Honda of California, blasted his fellow Democrat, Honda, for double dipping.
	Well, Ro Khanna is now part of Sanders' second bid for the White House.
	He's one of four national co-chairs of Sanders' campaign.
	So I guess his perspective on double-dipping has gone completely by the wayside.
	David Sirota told CNBC, quote, Wonderful that the people of Burlington can continue to pay Bernie Sanders.
	He's raking in millions of dollars.
	for his service as mayor of Burlington.
	Wonderful that the people of Burlington can continue to pay Bernie Sanders.
	He's raking in millions of dollars.
	They're $5,000 a year because he once served as mayor back when I was in diapers.
	So that's pretty exciting stuff.
	In a second, we'll get to some of the other Democratic candidates.
	Kamala Harris having a rough go of it.
	Basically, every time Kamala Harris says anything, she has to backtrack it within 24 hours.
	It's actually a rule of her campaign.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First...
	Remember when the left called the Green New Deal bold?
	How about their bold defense of antisemitism in the house?
	How about their definition of bold is just wrong?
	The way I define bold, that's the taste of freedom I get every morning with my Black Rifle Coffee.
	Black Rifle Coffee is the best coffee on the market.
	It tastes great.
	The founders of it are awesome dudes.
	Black Rifle Coffee gives a portion of their sales to veterans and first responder causes.
	Black Rifle Coffee is roast to order, guaranteeing you fresh, delicious coffee with every order.
	Black Rifle's Coffee Club makes things easy.
	Just pick your blend in the amount you want.
	Black Rifle ships your coffee direct to your door every month hassle-free.
	For a bold cup of America's best coffee, visit BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	Get 20% off your first purchase.
	That is BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben for 20% off your first purchase.
	BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	This is the best coffee on the market.
	And again, it's a great company, a great American company founded by awesome Americans.
	And they give a portion of their sales to veterans and first responder causes.
	You got nothing to lose.
	It is awesome.
	Go check them out right now at BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	Get 20% off your first purchase when you do.
	BlackRifleCoffee.com.
	Rose to order?
	Fresh, delicious coffee with every order.
	BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so we have a lot more to get to on today's show, but you're gonna have to subscribe.
	DailyWire.com, $9.99 a month.
	Get to the rest of the show.
	Two additional hours of the show every afternoon.
	Now this week, I'm off from my radio show because of Passover.
	I've decided to take a little bit of relaxation time with the family, but...
	You can still get two additional hours of other hosts.
	I think it's Jason Rantz today, or Jeremy Boring hosted it yesterday.
	I'll have to find out for you.
	In any case, next week we'll be back with the two additional hours every afternoon.
	You get to be part of our mailbag.
	You get all sorts of wonderful goodies.
	And when you subscribe annually, you get the very greatest in beverage vessels, the leftist tiers, hot or cold Tumblr.
	Cast your eyes upon it and despair that you have it not.
	But you could have it if you got the annual subscription.
	So what exactly are you waiting for?
	It gives you strength of mind, peace of soul.
	None of those guaranteed.
	Go check it out right now.
	Leftist Sears Hydro-Cold Tumbler for $99 a year.
	Makes julienne fries, all sorts of wonderful things.
	So, also subscribe at YouTube and iTunes.
	Make sure that you leave us a review.
	We always appreciate it.
	By the way, We were, according to statistics, the second most downloaded news podcast in America for the entire last month, following only the New York Times as the daily.
	So help us there.
	Go check us out, YouTube and iTunes.
	We always appreciate it.
	it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the United States.
	All righty.
	So Elizabeth Warren is in the race.
	Beto O'Rourke is in the race.
	Bill de Blasio is in the race.
	But the rest of the 2020 Democratic candidate field is led by Kamala Harris.
	So Kamala Harris has an unfortunate habit.
	The senator from California says things, and then she realizes they are dumb things, and then she walks back to dumb things.
	So she has done this multiple times already in the race.
	Virtually every time she appears on CNN, she feels like she has to appease the crowd that is in front of her, and then she has to walk it back.
	So you'll remember that last time she was on CNN for her town hall, she suggested she wanted to do away with all private health insurance plans.
	And then within a week, she backtracked that by saying, well, maybe we could do that, but maybe we won't do that.
	Well, In the last 48 hours, she was on CNN saying that we should seriously study the question as to whether terrorists sitting in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, ought to be able to vote from prison.
	And then she realized, oh, this is a bad idea.
	And then she walked it back.
	It's that kind of decisive leadership I think America is really seeking and looking for.
	The decisive leadership of Kamala Harris, who will decisively steer in one direction, and then, when rejected, decisively steer in precisely the reverse direction.
	Here is Kamala Harris.
	You'll hear her complete reversal within 24 hours right here.
	I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship.
	But people who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote?
	I think we should have that conversation.
	Do I think that people who commit murder, people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights?
	Yeah, I do.
	Oh, well, that's different, isn't it?
	I mean, wow, what could have happened to change her mind within such a short period of time?
	Clearly, it must have been new evidence or compelling arguments, or alternatively, everybody looked at her and said, a lady, what are you talking about?
	That is some crazy bleep.
	I think it's the crazy bleep thing, probably.
	So Kamala Harris, the reason that she is flailing is because she's basically a combination of the worst aspects of Hillary Clinton and Kyrsten Gillibrand.
	Yes, I understand.
	She's super intersectional.
	Woo!
	But, aside from her being super intersectional, she's got nothing.
	She's as charmless as Hillary Clinton, she laughs just as weirdly and awkwardly every time she's caught in a lie, and she flips positions like Kyrsten Gillibrand at a Twister party.
	It's amazing.
	It's amazing.
	So I think that Kamala Harris is the reason Pete Buttigieg is gaining.
	Listen, this is a wide open race.
	Any Democrat could have grabbed the mantle here.
	None of them have.
	I think even Pete Buttigieg is going to start receding.
	The reason I think Buttigieg will start receding is because I think his record will come under fire.
	And also because the part that is the part about Buttigieg that is attractive is the fact that he pretends to be a moderate when he is not.
	As he moves away from moderation, And he will be forced to by the other Democratic candidates.
	I think that he will become less popular over time.
	Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is getting owned by the Washington Post editorial board.
	By the Washington Post editorial board.
	So she came out with another one for audacious, bold, incredible plans.
	Audacious and bold.
	Our media synonyms were incredibly stupid.
	She came out with her plan earlier this week to forgive all student loan debt, which makes perfect sense because we want to make sure that all the middle income and middle upper income and rich people in the country who incurred student loan debt, people like Pete Buttigieg, who admitted yesterday that he had $100,000 in student loan debt.
	By the way, I think a basic rule of thumb, you shouldn't be elected president if you still have student loan debt.
	It seems to me that a very basic function of you being a responsible adult is you paid off your student loan debt.
	But put that aside, Elizabeth Warren suggested that all the upper-income people who went to college should have their student loan debt removed from them, which doesn't make any sense.
	Also, it punishes people who actually spent the money to pay off the student loan debt.
	I know, I've paid off two student loan debts.
	I've paid off my own from Harvard Law School, and I paid off my wife's medical school loan debts.
	So I'm very well aware of student loan debt and how much it costs and how you have to pay for it.
	But those were choices we make to incur debt.
	And then we paid off the debt like responsible humans.
	Even the Washington Post is looking at Elizabeth Warren and going, lady, you're too radical for us.
	When you are too radical for the Washington Post editorial board, you may have lost the thread of the plot.
	The Washington Post editorial board says the nation's households owe almost $1.5 trillion in student loans, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
	This represents a burden on many families, which under Ms. Warren's plan would disappear completely for 75% of them, and at least partially for 95% of them.
	No one can accuse Ms.
	Warren of thinking small.
	One of the things I love about the very objective editorial boards at our nation's newspapers is when they see a stupid idea and then they soft-pedal how stupid the idea is.
	No one can accuse Ms.
	Warren of thinking small.
	It's a synonym for, this is a stupid idea, but she's audacious and bold and bold and audacious and bodacious and old.
	What she really needs is a better sense of proportion, is what the Washington Post says.
	Her premise seems to be that student debt is all burden and no benefit, but this is not true.
	It represents an investment in skill acquisition that pays substantial long-term benefits.
	This is true!
	So, I love that the Washington Post is now ripping on Elizabeth Warren.
	So, she's got troubles, too.
	There's a reason that she is not launching.
	Other candidates in trouble.
	Apparently, Beto O'Rourke... Beto?
	That dude's in trouble as well.
	Why?
	Because he's no longer running against Ted Cruz, yeah.
	So...
	The good news for Beto O'Rourke is he was running against Ted Cruz.
	Not that Ted is a super weak candidate, but Beto O'Rourke received the unstinting applause and accolades of the entire mainstream media, which they hate Ted Cruz with a passion.
	They hate Senator Cruz.
	And so Beto O'Rourke, I mean, he could have been a ham sandwich and they'd have been like, this is the greatest ham sandwich.
	This ham sandwich will probably save the world.
	This ham sandwich cures cancer.
	And then, as soon as the race is over, they're like, ah, this ham sandwich has mold on it.
	This ham sandwich is kind of gross.
	I feel like it's spoiled.
	The bread is not high quality.
	That's what's happening with Beto O'Rourke.
	He's the ham sandwich.
	So, Beto O'Rourke, it's now found.
	Shockingly, the media have somehow tracked down the officers on the scene of his 1998 DWI.
	That's amazing!
	He's been in the public view for years and years and years.
	He was in the public view running against Ted Cruz for a year and a half.
	And yet no one could track down the mysterious police officers who were there for his DWI.
	Until now.
	The former police officer who arrested Beto O'Rourke for driving drunk in 1998, along with the sergeant who signed the incident report, both say they believe now what they reported at the time.
	O'Rourke tried to leave the scene of the wreck he caused.
	O'Rourke admits he was intoxicated, says there is no justification for his actions, but he has denied that he tried to flee.
	Beto's DWI is something he has long publicly and openly addressed, said O'Rourke's spokesperson.
	But neither the investigating officer nor his former supervisor specifically recalls the events of that night.
	They said the report they compiled and signed is accurate.
	However, they say there is no doubt he tried to leave the scene of the DWI.
	Weird, because the media allowed him to get away with this for years when he was running against Cruz.
	Suddenly, he's running against Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
	And oh, now we have to report on Beto.
	And Beto's like, dude, what happened?
	Why are you ripping on me?
	I'm just ripping this bong.
	Why are you ripping on me?
	And the answer is he's no longer running against Ted Cruz.
	OK, we'll get to a couple of other Democratic candidates and then we'll get to the Democrats, the Democratic members of Congress seeking new subpoenas and all the rest.
	So other Democratic candidates for president.
	So he has not declared yet, nor should he.
	But Bill de Blasio continues to be just world's stupidest human.
	One of the things that I love about New Yorkers is that they truly believe they're the smartest people on planet Earth.
	They really do.
	I mean, they believe their city is the greatest.
	New York City's amazing.
	They believe they're the smartest people on planet Earth.
	Some New Yorkers are smart, but you guys elected Bill de Blasio.
	That was you, I didn't do it.
	Okay, so don't tell me how smart you are.
	I don't claim that Los Angelinos are smart.
	We elected Antonio Villaraigosa to be our mayor, and then we followed that genius move up with Eric Garcetti.
	I'm not pretending that my city is full of geniuses, but New Yorkers seem to have this perspective that their city is completely full of people with 150 IQs.
	Your mayor is this doofus, Bill de Blasio, who announced over the last 48 hours that he doesn't want any more buildings made of steel and glass in the city of New York.
	What are you made of?
	Hemp?
	Groundhog corpses?
	What exactly?
	Here's Bill de Blasio.
	We're going to introduce legislation to ban the glass and steel skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming.
	They have no place in our city or in our earth anymore.
	If a company wants to build a big skyscraper, they can use a lot of glass if they do all the other things needed to reduce the emissions.
	But putting up monuments to themselves that harmed our earth and threatened our future, that will no longer be allowed in New York City.
	Yeah, let's tear down the city!
	Woo!
	My goodness.
	Apparently, people inside the industry are like, um, what?
	is made of two things, steel and glass.
	So where do you want to start?
	The Empire State Building or should we head over to the Chrysler Building?
	Where should we start with this thing?
	Steel and glass.
	My goodness.
	Apparently, people inside the industry are like, I'm what?
	Everyone in the real estate industry was saying, what is this?
	Glassy buildings are the rage among designers.
	You know why?
	Because they're nice.
	Because when you sit inside a giant glass building, you get to look out over the world, and it's really pretty.
	You know what's not nice?
	Giant, gulag-style, East Germany cement blocks.
	Those were all the rage in the 1970s, and they were ugly.
	They were seriously ugly.
	de Blasio said, We certainly felt the opposition at the real estate lobby in these last months, but to the credit of everyone there, we said we don't care how much opposition there is.
	So, good luck with this.
	All he wants to do is make New York City uglier.
	Uglier.
	Okay, that... Nice.
	Nice Bill de Blasio.
	Okay, meanwhile, the Democrats are still trying to push forward.
	With more subpoenas and investigations against the Trump administration.
	Adam Schiff is writing, he wrote a piece for the Washington Post about President Trump and ensuring he's not working for foreign interests.
	The fact that he is even still able to show his face in public after spending years claiming that he has inside information, that President Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin, is simply incredible.
	But he has a full piece at the Washington Post today, this dolt, saying that the president of the United States may in fact be still working for other outside influences.
	He says that that the counterintelligence investigations showed that the president was deceiving people about Trump Tower Moscow, which means he was really in the pay of the Russians.
	And all this is many Americans have expressed deep concerns that foreign powers, especially Russia, cultivated or possessed financial leverage or influence over President Trump or his associates.
	Why did those many Americans say that, Representative Schiff?
	Maybe because someone on the House Intelligence Committee kept going out there and lying about his inside information?
	Could that be it?
	Could that be the problem?
	But the Democrats are using this as the jumping-off point to try and push for more information from President Trump.
	They want more subpoenas.
	They want his tax returns.
	Now, Their claim to get his tax returns is actually fairly strong.
	Just legally speaking, the Democrats do have the power.
	The legislative branch does have the power to investigate.
	And in fact, there were a lot of people over the last couple of weeks talking about the Mueller report who said that really the power to investigate things like the Mueller report, which may become the basis for impeachment hearings, that shouldn't be done inside the president's executive branch.
	That should be done inside the legislative branch.
	That is what the separation of powers means.
	I am one of the people who suggested this.
	That means that Congress has investigative powers.
	Now, the law may be too broad.
	There is a law right now that allows the House to request tax returns from any private citizen, which I believe is too broad.
	I think that violates privacy concerns.
	I think it's a bad law, and it should be changed.
	And maybe it violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution about unreasonable search and seizure.
	But the law is on the books right now.
	Democrats do have that law at their disposal.
	President Trump is trying to claim executive privilege on a vast variety of materials now.
	Now, that is nothing new.
	Barack Obama tried to claim executive privilege to shield his Attorney General Eric Holder on questions about Fast and Furious.
	That was overruled by a court.
	I have a feeling the same thing is in order for President Trump.
	Representative Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said that the White House has adopted the untenable position that it can ignore requests from the Democratic majority in the House.
	Cummings said in a statement, it appears the president believes the constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight.
	Cummings was specifically referring to Carl Klein, a former White House personnel security director who was subpoenaed by Democrats.
	He was supposed to be deposed about granting security clearance to Jared Kushner, for example.
	Trump has told the Washington Post, I don't want people testifying to a party because that is what they are doing when they do this.
	Meanwhile, the administration on Tuesday didn't defy the demand from the Ways and Means Committee to turn over six years of President Trump's tax returns by the close of business.
	Now, can he actually do this?
	Probably not.
	And the legal record here is pretty clear.
	There is a case called Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, a Supreme Court case, that found that Congress can subpoena private parties.
	Under exactly the sort of law.
	So I don't think the president's delay tactics are going to work here.
	They also plan to fight the House subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn.
	That's because Don McGahn is in the Mueller report.
	And in the Mueller report, it says that Don McGahn was ordered by the president of the United States to lie about certain things.
	He refused to lie about those things.
	And then that was sort of the end of the story.
	That was used as the basis for a quasi-obstruction accusation.
	So the Congress wants to hear direct from again.
	Trump is going to claim executive privilege.
	There are a couple different kinds of executive privilege.
	The first kind of executive privilege is the right of the president to prevent the Congress from overseeing certain national security needs.
	The Congress doesn't have a right to oversee the president on matters of national security and also protecting the privacy of White House deliberations because what you don't want is it made public every time the president has a conversation that has public impact.
	That probably does not apply when you are talking about the president ordering his aides to Lie, or do bad things, or commit a crime, or defend him personally.
	That stuff probably does not apply, so I think that executive privilege claim is probably gonna come up short.
	Okay, time for some things I like, and then some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like today.
	Now, this is not exactly a thing that I like, but it's a thing that is worthy of note, and we should be taking note, and I hope that the Trump administration will formally recognize the Armenian Genocide.
	Today is Armenian Genocide Day.
	April 24th, every year, is the date upon which we mark the Armenian Genocide.
	The American government has not done it.
	Many Western governments have not done it specifically because they don't want to tick off the Turks.
	The Turkish government has long claimed that the Armenian Genocide is a myth.
	That is not true.
	The Turkish government has also suggested repercussions for anyone who says that the Armenian Genocide took place.
	The repercussions?
	Honestly, the West should say, screw you.
	It happened because it did.
	On this date in 1915, hundreds of Armenian intellectuals, Christians for the most part, We're forcibly deported from the Turkish capital of Constantinople.
	The numbers soon escalated into the thousands.
	Most of these people were eventually murdered.
	That kicked off the Armenian genocide, which was the persecution of Christian Armenians by the young Turks who were Muslim.
	They wanted to cleanse the country of the troublesome non-co-religionists in preparation for the new Turkey in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and supposedly in order to ensure against the possibility of the Armenians siding against the central powers in World War I.
	By the time the genocide was over, it lasted from 1915 all the way to 1923.
	Hundreds of thousands of Armenians had been killed.
	Top range estimates put that number at 1.5 million.
	There were massive atrocities, including forced death marches, placing women and children allegedly aboard ships and then deliberately sinking them.
	CNN reports, quote, While the death toll is in dispute, photographs from the era document some mass killings.
	Some show Ottoman soldiers posing with severed heads, others with them standing amid skulls in the dirt.
	The victims are reported to have died in mass burnings by drowning, torture, gas, poison, disease and starvation.
	Children were reported to have been loaded onto boats, taken out to sea and thrown overboard.
	Rape too was frequently reported.
	Now, as I say, the current dictator of Turkey, who is granted far too much respect by the Western world, he should not be.
	He is an Islamist radical who supports terrorist groups like Hamas.
	He is also a deeply threatening figure in places like Syria, as well as to the Kurds.
	Erdogan has threatened multiple foreign countries for daring to consider the use of the term Armenian genocide.
	He warned he could throw 100,000 Armenian immigrants out of Turkey in 2010.
	So he is a delight.
	The world did turn a blind eye while the Armenian genocide was occurring.
	However, a German corporal did not.
	In 1939, he was already dictator of Germany.
	He told Nazi officers in 1939 to kill without mercy in Poland, adding, allegedly, according to contemporaneous records, quote, And go ahead and kill whoever you have to kill, because no one cares.
	Rabbi Shmueli Boteach has said, Hitler's confidants learned from Turkey's genocidal playbook As Hitler strategized his rise to power in the early 1920s, his lead political advisor was Max Erwin von Schroedner-Richter, a young German consular officer in Erzurum during World War I, a region of Ottoman Turkey densely populated with Armenians.
	Turkey's ethnic cleansing in World War I was well-known and admired by Nazi ideologues.
	In 1923, a journalist named Hans Trubbs wrote in the Nazi newspaper Heimatland, these bloodsuckers and parasites, Greeks and Armenians, had been eradicated by the Turks.
	This chilling praise of genocide foretold atrocities to come.
	So, certainly the Armenian genocide is well worthy of note, and I have a lot of sympathy for Armenian claims, particularly against the current Turkish government.
	Okay, time for a thing that I hate.
	So, baby boomers may have ruined America.
	Baby boomers spent all the money, and then they whined about it, and then they taught their children very little in the way of values.
	And it appears that their children, my generation, millennials, have picked up on a lot of the self-centeredness of the baby boomers, unfortunately.
	There's a new article from Business Insider that says American millennials have less money than other generations did at their age, but we are delusional about the amount of wealth that we have.
	Many American millennials think they will be millionaires by middle age.
	They have a generally positive view about their finances, according to several studies, but research shows that millennials are currently behind financially.
	Well, that is because they've been told for years by their parents that if they go to college and major in lesbian dance theory, they will be millionaires.
	This is not true.
	This is not true.
	Now, income mobility in the United States is still quite strong.
	You can still move up if you make good decisions, but you have to make those good decisions and your firm belief that you were born in a place where you will be a millionaire simply by dint of the fact that you are an American born in America at this time and place.
	Now, get off your butt, work a little bit.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	So this is a crazy story.
	A guest lecturer at Boston University said last month that white people who judge others as individuals instead of by the color of their skin are dangerous, according to a report in the College Fix.
	The lecture was entitled, What Does It Mean To Be White?
	It was given by a University of Washington professor named Robin DeAngelo, a white woman, who presumably should have given up her slot to a woman of minority descent, if she really wants to make these points and stop her white privilege from applying.
	DeAngelo specializes in whiteness studies.
	Whiteness studies.
	Great.
	She added that people who say they've been taught to treat everyone the same deny black people their reality.
	As I have mentioned many times, there is no such thing as your reality.
	There is just the reality, and then your opinion about the reality.
	If you're being honest, you've probably said it.
	She said of being taught to treat everyone the same, your parents could lecture you to do it, but you don't do it.
	You can't do it.
	There's no human objectivity.
	I'll start arguing with MLK then.
	Because this was MLK's perspective.
	This is also the perspective of the best in Western civilized values.
	If you want people to treat each other as members of tribal race, things are not going to end well, historically speaking.
	D'Angelo said when she hears people say they are colorblind, they are revealing their own ignorance.
	This person doesn't understand basic socialization.
	This person doesn't understand culture.
	This person is not self-aware.
	She said while teaching as a whiteness professor, as a white woman refusing to give up her slot at a major university, lecturing a bunch of white kids.
	And I need to give a heads up to the white people in the room, D'Angelo said.
	When people of color hear us say this, they're generally not thinking, all right, I'm talking to a woke white person right now.
	Usually some version of eye rolling is going on and a wall is going up.
	Right, if you want to be labeled woke by the intersectional crowd, you have to say, I surrender all my perspectives to you.
	My perspectives are no longer of consequence.
	I will sit here and shut up and listen and never say anything again.
	I've turned myself into a potted plant upon which Harvey Weinstein will ejaculate.
	That's basically what people are looking for.
	D'Angelo's remarks are, of course, diametrically opposed to certain centralized values of Western civilization, but it's good to know, and it's very exciting to know, that there are professors out there teaching students that it is very, very bad, that it is very, very terrible to treat people equally and not based on the color of their skin.
	Yes, our society may be nearing its terminus.
	Alrighty, so we'll be back here tomorrow with the last episode of the week because Friday is again a Jewish holiday.
	So I will see you then.
	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.
	I'm Michael Knowles, host of The Michael Knowles Show.
	A woman is suing an Uber driver for refusing to take her to an abortion.
	Meanwhile, leftists weep over a sack full of puppies in a dumpster.
	We will examine our clinical culture.

▲