Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

58:43

The Enemy Of The People | Ep. 793

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Daily Beast tracks down the nefarious American who made a funny video about Nancy Pelosi, Democrats turn on Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi struggles with impeachment.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The media really doing yeoman's work over the weekend.
	I mean, really hard work that nobody wants to do.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, no one really has time to go to the post office.
	You're busy.
	Who's got time for all that traffic, parking, lugging all your mail and packages?
	It's a real hassle, which is why you need Stamps.com.
	It's one of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses.
	Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office and saves you time and money with discounts you can't even get at the post office.
	Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
	Post Office direct to your computer, which is amazing.
	Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, 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 the mailbox.
	It is that simple.
	With Stamps.com, you get five cents off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail, Not to mention, it's a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
	Stamps.com, it's a no-brainer, saving you time and money.
	No wonder over 700,000 small businesses, including The Daily Wire, already use Stamps.com.
	Right now, my listeners get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and the digital scale.
	No long-term commitment.
	Just go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
	That is Stamps.com, enter Shapiro.
	Okay, so over the weekend, the media proved that they really stand up for the American people.
	How?
	By tracking down a rando who made a video about Nancy Pelosi.
	Now, I've never been a fan of the phrase, enemy of the people, that President Trump uses about the press.
	I think it is overwrought.
	I think that it is a phrase that has Stalinist origins.
	Stalin himself used to use the phrase in order to make excuses for shooting people.
	So I don't really believe in use of the phrase, the enemy of the people, to describe the media.
	But if the media want to make themselves wildly unpopular, if the media seek to Spread the perception that Trump is right about them.
	All they have to do is keep doing this kind of stuff.
	So over the weekend, The Daily Beast ran a piece by one Kevin Poulsen, who himself, by the way, is a convicted felon, I believe, who wrote a piece called We Found the Guy Behind the Viral Drunk Pelosi Video.
	Now, this video, you remember a couple of weeks ago, it came out on the Internet and it was just The apotheosis of evil in today's modern American politics.
	What was it?
	It was Nancy Pelosi slowed down a little bit so it looked like she was drunk.
	Now, as somebody whose words are routinely slowed down so that it sounds like I am drunk in joke videos, all I could do was kind of laugh.
	This is just the way people act online.
	Welcome to the world of online politics, where people make funny, stupid little videos and then post them.
	But this was meritorious of a full-scale investigation by the Daily Beast.
	And it really is reminiscent of the time that Joe Wurzelbacher, the plumber who was on his driveway when Barack Obama came to visit in 2008 his neighborhood, and then he asked Barack Obama about the debt, and he asked him about spending, and then the media proceeded to uncover every single detail about Joe the and then the media proceeded to uncover every single detail about Well, this is sort of the same thing, except that at least Joe the plumber's face was on video.
	In this particular case, the guy who made the video was just some guy.
	So what did the media do?
	The Daily Beast went ahead and discovered everything about him and then published it online.
	Now, it would be one thing if this guy had turned out to be some sort of Republican political operative.
	If they'd investigated and it turned out that he was an intern at Senator Mitch McConnell's office or something.
	But it is not a story that a random person posted a random video that then went viral.
	The person's identity is really not supremely important.
	It truly is not.
	And yet the Daily Beast not only went out there and discovered things about him and then publicized it, which means that this guy is now going to have a tough time getting a job simply for making a funny video about Nancy Pelosi.
	He's now going to be excoriated by the left wing media.
	He's now going to be made persona non grata in his industry, whatever that is.
	Here is the Daily Beast story.
	On May 22nd, a Donald Trump superfan and occasional sports blogger from the Bronx named Sean Brooks posted a video clip of Nancy Pelosi on his personal Facebook page.
	The clip showed Pelosi at her most excitable, stammering during a press conference as she voiced frustration over an abortive infrastructure meeting with the president.
	Brooks' commentary on the video was succinct.
	Is Pelosi drunk?
	Thirteen minutes later, a Facebook official told the Daily Beast Brooks posted a very different Pelosi video to a Facebook page called Politics Watchdog, one of a series of hyper-partisan news operations Brooks runs with help, he claims.
	This clip had been altered to slow Pelosi down without lowering the pitch of her voice.
	The effect was to make it sound as though the Speaker of the House was slurring her words drunkenly while criticizing Donald Trump.
	Fifteen minutes after that, the same doctored video appeared on a second Facebook page Brooks Manage's All News 24-7.
	This clip was identical to the Politics Watchdog video in every way, except it didn't carry the Politics Watchdog branding that was superimposed over the earlier video.
	Whoever posted it had access to the director's cut.
	On both pages, the clip was accompanied by the exact same dispassionate newsy prose.
	House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on President Trump walking out infrastructure meeting.
	It was very, very, very strange.
	The video was an instant social media smash, surging through the Internet's well-worn ley lines of credulity and venom.
	It was shared more than 60,000 times on Facebook and accumulated 4 million page views from links.
	Drunk as a skunk, mused actor turned to alt-right curmudgeon James Woods, whose tweet of the video scored 17,000 retweets and 55,000 likes.
	What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi?
	Wrote Rudy Giuliani.
	Her speech pattern is bizarre.
	So what did they do?
	They went and uncovered the guy, and then they proceeded to try to shame him online for posting a video in which he slowed down her speech slightly.
	Again, you know how easy it is to do that?
	People who listen to my podcast, many of them, listen to my podcast on twice speed or 1.5 speed.
	Many of them probably listen to it at 0.75 speed.
	If you listen to my podcast at 0.5 speed, you will get the exact same tenor of my voice, except I will now sound like I am slurring my words and I am deeply drunk.
	Is that an act of tremendous malicious evil?
	Does that merit everybody who posts video of me talking that way online, being uncovered and shamed for the public view?
	The Daily Beast dug up who this guy was and then proceeded to spill all of his details on the internet.
	He said, Brooks, a 34-year-old day laborer currently on probation after pleading guilty to domestic battery, claims that his drunk commentary on an unaltered Pelosi video had no connection to the now infamous fake clip that premiered less than 15 minutes later.
	I wasn't the individual who created that Pelosi video.
	He insisted in a telephone interview.
	It's conceivable that someone else actually edited the clip, but a Facebook official confirming a Daily Beast investigation said the video was first posted on Politics Watchdog directly from Brooks' personal Facebook account.
	So now I have a question.
	Why is Facebook answering that question from the Daily Beast?
	If the Daily Beast goes to Facebook and says, I want the identity of whomever published this video, why is Facebook revealing that identity?
	The guy didn't commit a crime.
	The guy didn't involve himself in slander or libel.
	How in the world is it Facebook's job to answer questions from the Daily Beast about the source of this sort of video?
	And how is it not an act of tremendous nastiness and evil for the Daily Beast to report on this guy's criminal record because he committed the grave crime of making fun of Nancy Pelosi online?
	Brooks acknowledged he's involved in the management of both Politics Watchdog and All News 24-7, the Facebook pages that sent the bogus video on its viral tear.
	To the outside observer, the two pages are unconnected, but after a telltale link on one of the pages led the Daily Beast to Brooks, he admitted the ad revenue for both outlets goes directly into his personal PayPal account.
	In the first hint at a possible motive for the Pelosi smear, Brooks volunteered that the video brought in nearly $1,000 in shared ad revenue.
	So it wasn't that he disliked Pelosi, it's that he was seeking to make nefarious cash off of this doctored, altered video.
	Okay, then I have a question.
	What does the media do every day when they doctor video?
	When I say doctor video, I don't mean slow things down.
	I mean when they cut things out of context.
	Let's say, how much money did the media make off the Covington Catholic Boys smear?
	How much?
	I bet it was not a thousand dollars.
	I bet you it is hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in additional links, in views, in ads.
	How much money did the media make off taking President Trump out of context?
	Or taking me out of context?
	Or taking any conservative out of context?
	And then pretending as though they have covered the news?
	So is their motive to make money?
	Or is their motive to cover the news and they happen to be biased?
	It makes money for Facebook too, he growls.
	Brooks, except that Facebook cut off any future earnings when the company's fact check partners ruled the clip as a hoax about 36 hours after its politics watchdog debut.
	It makes money for Facebook too, he groused.
	I'm sure that's their motive for not taking it down.
	Over the course of an hour and a half interview, Brooks insisted repeatedly he was not the one who posted the Pelosi clip on politics watchdog.
	He claimed he's just one of half a dozen administrators who jointly control the page and its content.
	It was one of the others, he said, who debuted the doctor video.
	It was a female admin who posted it.
	So if he's not lying, if the guy's not lying, not only did the Daily Beast out this guy with a criminal record, but then they got it wrong.
	I mean, this is...
	I don't know how the media can justify this sort of stuff.
	A review of Brooks' personal fan page reveals him as an avowed conservative and a proud member of Trump's razor-thin African-American support base.
	Yeah, there's some solid journalism there.
	Trump's razor-thin.
	So that means that he's a weirdo, obviously.
	I mean, this guy.
	A couple of Brooks' Instagram posts feature misogyny.
	The strongest example is a post last year featuring a photo he evidently snapped of a woman sitting next to him on the subway.
	This dumb B-word sitting in front of me on the E-train continues to kick me without saying excuse me, he wrote.
	Wow.
	Well, I mean, obviously we need to uncover everything this person has ever said.
	He posted a mean video of Nancy Pelosi.
	This rando published a mean video of Nancy Pelosi, just like hundreds of thousands of other people probably have done or seen.
	We must out him, and then we must dig through everything he has ever said, and then we must destroy his life.
	But don't worry, the Daily Beast has you covered as far as his personal likes in football.
	I kid you not.
	According to the Daily Beast, he runs other pages as well.
	An ardent New England Patriots fan, Brooks has a long history of online ventures around athletics, including a Facebook page called Outkick the Sports.
	Brooks' Spark LinkedIn profile lists him as an analyst at SportsBlogger, a long-shuttered blog platform where Brooks once blogged under his current Twitter screen name, SportsGruffser.
	He says, I'm in New York City, very liberal.
	People make judgments.
	I don't want to be linked to a conservative right winger and be potentially denied services and stuff.
	People are nasty.
	You should see some of the messages that are coming in.
	Weird.
	You know, I was told by the left that if I quoted Ilhan Omar, that was incitement to violence.
	If the Daily Beast posts all of this guy's personal details for the grave sin of having published an anonymous video, slowed down of Nancy Pelosi seeming drunk, Well, then that's not incitement in any way.
	That's just them covering the news, guys.
	That is them doing all the news that's fit to print over at the Daily Beast.
	Brooks said that he became a conservative after seeing firsthand the failure of liberal policies during the Obama era.
	He said, I've traveled around and seen too many things.
	I don't like the way things have been run.
	A key turning point came years ago, he said, when he was working in a warehouse in Queens doing forklift work, loading, unloading, and labeling.
	He started the job off the books, but eventually became an official hire.
	Then the managers began supplementing their workforce with undocumented immigrants willing to do the same work for less, he claimed.
	He said, I was working there four or five years and I was being paid pretty well.
	Then suddenly they started bringing these guys in vans through the side door.
	This was going on for months.
	Then all of a sudden they told me, we can't pay you anymore.
	Since then, he's taken up a bunch of temporary jobs and he showed up in California.
	He crashed a girlfriend's Riverside apartment for about a month.
	And then they went and they found the girl and she said, we got into apartments.
	We got into arguments and fights all the time.
	He has a lot of issues going on.
	He has a lot of anger issues.
	This piece is thousands of words long because a man posted a video of Nancy Pelosi sounding drunk.
	This is insanity.
	This is how journalism works in the Trump era.
	Seriously?
	And then we're supposed to respect the media?
	We're supposed to pretend that the media are really doing the hard work of uncovering the truth?
	Really, this is what they spend their time doing?
	This is what Noah Schachtman over at the Daily Beast is doing these days?
	They have some good reporters over at the Daily Beast, by the way.
	Lachlan Markey is a good reporter over at the Daily Beast.
	But this guy is not.
	And the fact that the Daily Beast sees this as its mission is pretty astonishing.
	At least part of its mission.
	I'll show you what the editor of the Daily Beast had to say over the weekend about this nonsense first.
	Father's Day is right around the corner.
	23andMe's Health and Ancestry Kit is the perfect gift.
	For a limited time, get 50 bucks off a 23andMe Health and Ancestry Kit through June 17th.
	If you buy a kit for yourself, too, you and Dad can connect.
	Celebrate your shared genetic similarities and differences with over 125 personalized genetic reports on health, traits, and more.
	23andMe is a lot of fun.
	I've got my 23andMe report.
	It gives you all sorts of information that's not just where you came from.
	It also has all of this information about your health, In your history, give dad a gift as unique as he is.
	He can discover how genes influences well-being and lifestyle choices with insights into genetic weight, muscle composition, sleep quality, and more.
	Give dad a gift that's insightful.
	Traits reports give insights into how genetics can affect mosquito bite frequency, motion sickness, fear of heights, and more.
	Give dad the gift of discovery.
	He can explore where his DNA is from out of over a thousand regions worldwide with the most comprehensive genetic ancestry breakdown on the market.
	This Father's Day, get 50 bucks off 23andme's Health and Ancestry Kit at 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
	Find out if you are more Native American than Elizabeth Warren.
	That's the number 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, that's 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
	Offer ends June 17th.
	Go check them out right now.
	That is 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
	23andme.com slash Shapiro.
	That offer ends June 17th.
	All right, so Noah Schachtman over at the Daily Beast appeared on Reliable Sources on CNN with Brian Stelter.
	And Shackman defended their choice to run this several thousand word piece about the terrible, evil, horrible, forklift operator who made a video of Nancy Pelosi slightly slowed down so that she sounded drunk.
	There's a profit motive here, that you can put up a lot of these videos on Facebook, you can make a quick buck.
	Didn't this guy say he made a thousand dollars?
	Yeah, I mean, but look, that's not... It might have been a lot of money to him, but I don't think it was a pure profit motive.
	I think for him it was a matter of ideology.
	It was, you know, he's a big Trump supporter.
	And, you know, one of the most interesting things about this story to me was that, you know, you don't need some sophisticated operation in order to Wow, so important.
	We didn't know that before.
	Nobody had ever posted anything on Facebook that was flawed or fake news or skewed in any way.
	We needed to uncover this guy.
	We needed to shame him and we needed to get his mug shot and put it up there on the internet.
	Deeply important that we ruin his future employment history so that we can show that fake news appears.
	You wonder why people are angry at the media?
	Because the media did nothing for years while Barack Obama's administration was deeply corrupt at a variety of levels and now they are digging up personal material on private citizens who post videos on Facebook.
	That is why people are angry at people in the media.
	Now, I'm for a lot of the media scrutiny of the Trump administration.
	I wish they'd done it during the Obama administration, too.
	My critique is not that they are hard on Trump.
	My critique is that they were easy on Obama.
	But there's one thing that I really dislike, and that is the idea that if regular citizens take part in politics, that now they're going to be raked over the coals in the same way as somebody who's running for elected office.
	It's really disgusting.
	It really is.
	I mean, and these places do do it for clicks.
	It's funny, there was a website a few weeks ago that, in the midst of one of my numerous controversies, because every week seems to be a controversy now, in the midst of one of the numerous controversies surrounding me, decided to post a piece, the top five things you need to know about my wife.
	My wife is a private citizen.
	My wife does not participate in politics.
	She votes.
	That's it.
	My wife does not give speeches.
	My wife does not appear publicly.
	My wife is a private citizen.
	And this website printed a bunch of facts about my wife, including where she works.
	They printed a bunch of facts about her, including where she'd gone to high school and all the rest of this stuff.
	And there's only one purpose for that, to satiate curiosity, to get clicks, and to expose her to public scrutiny.
	Now, listen, the people at my wife's work know exactly who her husband is.
	Many of her patients know exactly who my wife is.
	But the fact that this website saw fit to make my wife an issue is insane.
	To their credit, we called them up and we said, this is inappropriate, and they pulled it down.
	But the first instinct for many in the media is to get those clicks.
	So while they're accusing this guy of being clickbait motivated, you think Daily Beast isn't clickbait motivated?
	They certainly are.
	And there's another agenda here, too.
	And that is to rip on these big tech companies and try to promote Their leftism.
	What we are seeing now from both right and left is an attempt to grab the means of production.
	So Facebook is an independent means of distribution.
	And people on the left are fighting mad that because so many people get their news from Facebook, They're fighting mad they can't control this, and this is why you saw Nancy Pelosi say last week that Facebook willingly, willingly promotes lies about her, which is why they willingly promoted lies about Hillary Clinton, which is why Hillary Clinton is not president.
	This is her way of claiming that the government, and Democrats in particular, should take control of major social media pages in order to cure the dialogue.
	Whenever somebody talks about curing or purifying the dialogue, get ready for your First Amendment rights to be infringed upon.
	Here's Nancy Pelosi making that case.
	Facebook says, I know this is false, but we're, it's a lie, but we're showing it anyway.
	I was giving them the benefit of the doubt on Russia, but clearly they, I thought it was unwitting, but clearly they wittingly were accomplices and enablers of false information to go across Facebook.
	Yeah, well, this is just a- I mean, she's lying.
	She's lying.
	Facebook was not willingly an accomplice to the Russians.
	It's a platform.
	They put up lots of stuff.
	This is one of the things that I've been arguing, is that Facebook needs to stay a platform and not become a Nancy Pelosi-driven editorial board.
	The reason the Democrats are complaining about this stuff, the reason they're trying to uncover people, is because what they actually want to do, what many members of the media hope to do, is stop people from speaking out politically.
	What they hope to do is turn Facebook into just another New York Times editorial page.
	This is what they would like to see.
	And by the way, this is not restricted to the left.
	President Trump, unfortunately, has the same sort of tendencies.
	So President Trump tweeted out this morning, quote, just arrived in the United Kingdom.
	The only problem is that CNN is the primary source of news available from the United States.
	After watching it for a short while, I turned it off.
	All negative and so much fake news.
	Very bad for U.S.
	Big ratings drop.
	Why doesn't owner AT&T do something?
	I believe that if people stopped using or subscribing to AT&T, they'd be forced to make big changes at CNN, which is dying in the ratings anyway.
	It is so unfair with such bad news.
	Fake news.
	Why wouldn't they act?
	When the world watches CNN, it gets a false picture of USA.
	Sad.
	Now listen, I think CNN puts out an awful lot of misinformation or at the very least biased information.
	But the president of the United States suggesting that the owner AT&T should crack down on the editorial viewpoint of CNN does not seem like a good move to me.
	And we have seen the same thing from President Trump with regard to Amazon.
	So there's been this push from the Trump administration to go after Amazon for violation of antitrust.
	As I've said before, I don't think that Amazon is in violation of antitrust law.
	They are not effectively a monopoly.
	There are lots of other companies in the various spaces in which Amazon participates.
	Amazon is certainly not a monopoly from the consumer point of view.
	The danger of monopoly, from the consumer point of view, was, is, and always will be, that a monopoly racks up giant prices, that they gouge consumers because they're the only producers in the market.
	If you're the only producer of a good in the market, you're the only person producing cameras in the market, you can then charge $1 million per camera, and no one can compete with you because you've bought everybody else out, or forced them out, or crowded them out of the market, or you've participated in some form of regulatory capture that has prevented anyone else from entering the market.
	That is not the case with Amazon.
	The fact that the Trump administration is seeking to crack down on Amazon, I can't help but believe that it has something to do with the fact that Donald Trump does not like Jeff Bezos.
	So in the same way that the left doesn't like Facebook because they think that Facebook led Hillary Clinton to lose, Donald Trump doesn't like Amazon because he doesn't like Jeff Bezos and Bezos also operates the Washington Post.
	According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Amazon could face heightened antitrust scrutiny under a new agreement between U.S.
	regulators that puts it under closer watch by the Federal Trade Commission, three people familiar with the matter said.
	The move is the result of the FTC and the Department of Justice, U.S.
	government's leading antitrust enforcement agencies, quietly divvying up competition oversight of two of the country's top tech companies, according to those people who spoke on condition of anonymity.
	The Justice Department is set to have more jurisdiction over Google, the Washington Post reported on Friday, paving the way for a potential investigation of the search and advertising giant.
	So they're now looking to put Google under the thumb.
	They're also looking to put Amazon under the thumb.
	Very interesting article from the Wall Street Journal today about Google explaining that while the Justice Department is now looking at Google as a monopoly, Google is losing market share.
	Here's what the Wall Street Journal reports today.
	The irony that surely won't register in Washington.
	The latest crackdown on Google comes just as the internet giant is demonstrating that it is far from invincible.
	The Justice Department is preparing a new antitrust investigation against Google parent Alphabet Inc.
	This comes six years after a similar probe from the Federal Trade Commission, which resulted in no significant damage to the company that powers more than 90% of the world's internet search activity.
	Google's dominance of internet search and related advertising business make it an easy target.
	The company garners more than 60% of the world's search ad market, according to eMarketer.
	Its total advertising business has averaged 19% growth annually over the past decade.
	Analysts expect advertising revenue to surpass $135 billion this year, which is almost twice the size of its nearest competitor, Facebook.
	Yet recent developments have demonstrated that even Google isn't invulnerable.
	Alphabet's most recent quarterly results showed a significant and surprising slowdown in Google's ad business.
	That hurt the stock.
	Investors found the company's clumsy explanation unsatisfactory.
	Amazon is emerging as a potent advertising force in its own right, as the company is now charging merchants for favorable placement on its massive online marketplace.
	Amazon generated $11 billion in revenue for its other category that is primarily composed of advertising for the trailing 12-month period ending in March.
	Analysts predict that Amazon's ad business is going to more than double in size and it will come at Google's expense.
	Also, Google's dominance in search has not translated to other businesses the company has entered.
	Its Pixel smartphone has less than 1% of the global market.
	Google trails both Amazon and Microsoft by a wide margin in the fast-growing market for cloud computing services.
	In other words, all the talk about Google being a monopoly is simply not the case.
	All the talk about Amazon being a monopoly is simply not the case.
	Here's the problem.
	There are a bunch of people at the governmental level and in the media who are very much interested in controlling other folks, controlling other companies.
	It's bad news.
	You do not want these folks controlling your life.
	I would rather have open competition between companies that are run by people with whom I disagree.
	Companies run by Zuckerberg, companies run by the Eric Schmitz of the world over at Alphabet Inc.
	I'd rather have that than have it run by regulators, than have it run by members of the government.
	Because here's the thing.
	Once the government takes control of these companies, Do you really trust that the government is going to run these in fair and impartial fashion?
	If you think that's the case, remember when the government was in the Fairness Doctrine business and decided that they were going to operate how much conservative content could be put on your radio.
	I know, for those not old enough to have a radio, this was a thing.
	And the fact is that the government in control of these businesses is a bad thing.
	But that's what Democrats want.
	If Democrats want something, you can fairly certainly predict that Republicans should not want it.
	The fact that both Republicans and Democrats are now vying for control over major tech companies, I think it's pretty scary and it's fairly un-American.
	Okay, in a second.
	We're going to get to the culture war and the 2020 Democratic fight for the nomination.
	First, let's talk about something we can all agree on.
	Saving money.
	The reality is, if you're not shopping around, you're probably not saving money.
	So what if there was a way for somebody to do the shopping around for you?
	Hmm?
	Well, that's exactly what Honey does.
	Honey is a free tool that you download to your computer's browser.
	While you shop online, Honey scans the internet for coupon codes and other discounts, then automatically applies the coupon with the biggest savings to your cart at checkout.
	Just like magic.
	It takes zero effort to install.
	Just two clicks, you're ready to start saving anytime you shop online.
	There's really no reason not to use Honey.
	It's free to use, easy to install on your computer in just two clicks.
	Don't take it from me.
	Take it from our listeners.
	Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash ben.
	That is joinhoney.com slash Ben Honey.
	It's the smart shopping assistant that saves you time and money.
	I use Honey every time I shop, and it saves me money nearly every time I shop.
	Whether I am shopping for diapers for my kid, or whether I am shopping for anything else.
	I am always saving money with Honey, and you can too.
	Go to joinhoney.com.
	It doesn't cost you anything.
	You just have it run in the background of your computer and you're going to save money every time.
	That's joinhoney.com.
	If not every time, nearly every time.
	Honey, it's the smart shopping assistant that saves you time and money.
	OK, so.
	Let's talk about this 2020 Democratic race.
	The Democrats have to rely on how much President Trump is supposedly hated.
	Now, there's a new Harvard poll out today that shows President Trump's approval rating up to 48%.
	If President Trump is at 48% in the approval rating come election 2020, he retains the presidency.
	It is that simple.
	If he is anywhere within spitting distance of 50%, he will win.
	If he is anywhere close to 40%, he will probably lose.
	So, what President Trump does from here on in is very important, and how radical Democrats are from here on in is also very important.
	So, how radical are Democrats?
	They are, the base is really radical, but there's this silent majority of the Democratic Party, or at least plurality of the Democratic Party, that is not nearly as radical as the base.
	And that gap is beginning to be felt, and I'm wondering whether the silent plurality of the Democratic base can withstand the pressure from the left wing, because now it's breaking out into the open.
	I said for a long time I thought that the best day for Joe Biden was going to be his first day.
	Well, that hasn't been true.
	He's had a lot of good days since then.
	But could it be that the best couple of months for Biden come at the very beginning?
	That certainly could be the case.
	Now, you want to know where the energy is in the Democratic Party?
	It is with the wild left wing.
	There's a Democratic candidate for the presidency who is so obscure we haven't even created a theme song for him yet named John Delaney.
	And John Delaney was speaking at the California Convention, which is sort of ground zero for the Democratic Party.
	He's a businessman who is running for president.
	He was the U.S.
	representative for Maryland's 6th congressional district from 2013 to 2019.
	You've never heard of him because he was just a random congressperson.
	Well, here he was explaining that he is not pro-socialism and getting booed for his trouble.
	What we need as Democrats to build an economy that works, but it's got to be with smart policies.
	Medicare for all may sound good, but it's actually not good policy, nor is it good politics.
	I'm telling you.
	We should have universal health care.
	We should have universal health care, but it shouldn't be a kind of health care that kicks 150 million Americans off their health care.
	That's not smart policy.
	Okay, he's getting booed.
	This is the best moment John Delaney has ever had, or will ever have.
	He should be campaigning on this.
	If he did, you know how many votes he would get inside the Democratic Party?
	A hell of a lot more than all of the jokers who are running to the far left of the Democratic Party.
	But you can see where the energy is in the Democratic Party.
	The easiest way to see where people think the energy is in the Democratic Party is to follow Kirsten Gillibrand, because Kirsten Gillibrand Basically, she's a pander machine.
	She's a pander bear.
	That's all she does.
	I mean, she changes her positions routinely.
	She's got her finger in the wind all the time.
	And so she's constantly taking the position she thinks will be most beneficial to her.
	When she first ran for Senate in New York, she was fairly pro-gun.
	She was somewhat pro-life and now she's switched all of her positions because that's where she believes that the money is in the Democratic Party.
	That's where she believes the enthusiasm is in the Democratic Party.
	So here she was over the weekend, Kirsten Gillibrand, the bellwether for the Democratic Party, the weathervane for the Democratic Party, explaining that she is very much in favor of third trimester abortion.
	Are you saying also then for late term?
	So I support Roe v. Wade, okay?
	Roe v. Wade is the settled Supreme Court precedent that decides the entire issue.
	And so I support Roe v. Wade.
	I believe it should be codified.
	It's been law of the land for over 30 years.
	It should be law of the land.
	As President of the United States, I will repeal the Hyde Amendment.
	It's the amendment in law that makes it impossible for low-income women to access the care they need.
	I will make sure no matter what state you live in, you have access to reproductive care including abortion services.
	And there she is defending third trimester abortion.
	She also attacked Fox News.
	She understands this is where the enthusiasm is.
	The Democrats understand the game right now, right?
	Which is you go on Fox News and you rip into Fox News, which frankly is pretty smart.
	But they all understand that even treating people on Fox News as though they are human is a bad idea.
	This is one of the things that I think has driven the right absolutely off its rocker.
	I mean, driven us mad, is this notion from the left that if I disagree with you, I'm not a human being.
	I have conversations with people on the left all the time.
	I'm trying to reach out to people on the left on a regular basis.
	I really do.
	I have conversations with folks with whom I disagree on a regular basis.
	The unwillingness of many on the left to grant the humanity of people who disagree with them is a truly crucial and terrible thing.
	Here is Kirsten Gillibrand appealing to precisely that instinct by ripping on Fox News.
	Before President Trump gave his State of the Union, Fox News talked about infanticide.
	Infanticide doesn't exist.
	Senator, I just want to say we've brought you here for an hour.
	We have given you, we're treating you very fairly.
	I understand that maybe to make your credentials with the Democrats who are not appearing on Fox News, you're going to attack us.
	I'm not sure it's frankly very polite when we've invited you to be here.
	I will do it in a polite way, but it's to her point.
	It's to her point.
	Why don't we, instead of talking about Fox News, why don't you answer Susan's question?
	Okay, so she again knows where her bread is buttered, and this is sort of the point.
	You see the same thing from Kamala Harris, who is pandering to the far left.
	She says all women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.
	This is, of course, her speaking at a Planned Parenthood event over the weekend.
	This is a party about our conviction.
	Our conviction to make sure that every woman has the right to do whatever she chooses to do with her life and her body.
	So the enthusiasm in the Democratic Party is far to the left.
	Another example from Kirsten Gillibrand, I do find this amusing.
	So she just flat out lies about the NRA over the weekends.
	There's this terrible shooting in Virginia Beach.
	It was apparently done by a disgruntled employee.
	Something like 12 people are killed.
	And she goes after the NRA hard, does Kirsten Gillibrand.
	There's only one problem, which I'll explain momentarily.
	Is there anything you could have done that would have stopped this terrible incident?
	Yeah, stop being beholden to the NRA like President Trump is.
	He does President Trump's bidding.
	Remember, after the shooting in Las Vegas, he said, yeah, yeah, we're going to ban the bump stocks.
	Did he ban the bump stocks?
	No.
	Because the NRA came crashing down and said, don't you dare do any restrictions on our guns around this country.
	It is such a false choice.
	The NRA is lying to the American people.
	It is not about the Second Amendment.
	It is about gun sales.
	It is literally about greed and corruption.
	Okay, this is such a lie and it is also indicative of who Kirsten Gillibrand is.
	Letter from Kirsten Gillibrand, September 19th, 2008 to Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA.
	Dear Chris, Thank you again for meeting with me before the August recess.
	Even though we discussed many of my positions regarding Second Amendment issues, I wanted to provide you with a more full description of my beliefs on this issue.
	To begin with, I want to be very clear I always have and always will believe that the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it applies to an individual's right to carry guns and does not apply generally to the National Guard or a group of individuals in a state.
	On the question of outright banning certain firearms for cosmetic features, bullets of a random size, or banning magazines holding an arbitrary number of cartridges, I am adamantly opposed and do not believe that laws should be based on random limits just for the sake of limiting gun ownership and usage.
	In addition, this development of smart guns that can be fired only by their owner is an intriguing idea, but I'm afraid that mandating such technologies will harm consumers' ability to use their guns in emergency situations.
	And then she concludes this letter.
	She says, It's from about 11 years ago.
	that the NRA does to protect gun owners' rights.
	I look forward to working with you for many years in Congress.
	Signed, Kirsten Gillibrand, member of Congress.
	That's from about 11 years ago.
	Now, of course, she's flipped on the NRA, and the NRA is deeply evil, all of which prompted Chris Wallace to say to her, Lady, you switch your positions more often than the Kama Sutra recommends.
	Your campaign slogan is brave wins.
	But when you were a congresswoman representing a conservative district in upstate New York, you took pretty conservative positions on guns and immigration.
	Once you became the senator for the entire liberal state of New York, you flipped and took much more liberal positions on guns and immigration.
	So, how is that brave?
	It's because I came from a district that was really rural.
	Second Amendment was important.
	Hunting was important.
	My mom, of course she cooked the Thanksgiving turkey, but she also shot the Thanksgiving turkey.
	Okay, so that is her explaining that she switched all of her positions.
	So, solid response there for Kirsten Gillibrand.
	The point here being that Gillibrand is a great indicator of where she thinks the arrows are pointing in the Democratic Party, and they are pointing in the Bernie Sanders direction, not the Joe Biden direction.
	We'll get to more of that in just one second.
	First, let me tell you about this Helix Sleep mattress that I've got at my house.
	It is just fantastic.
	Every night, I lie me down to sleep on that Helix Sleep mattress, and my goodness, it's like being in heaven.
	It's just great.
	Helix Sleep has a quiz.
	It takes just two minutes to complete.
	It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	Whether you're a side sleeper or a hot sleeper, whether you like a plush or a firm bed, with Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising.
	Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
	CNN called it the most comfortable mattress they've ever slept on.
	Maybe the first time CNN has ever told the truth.
	Just go to HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	They will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
	For couples, Helix can even split that mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and feel preferences for each side.
	They've got a 10-year warranty.
	You get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
	Get up to $125 off at HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	That's HelixSleep.com slash Ben for up to $125 off your mattress order.
	HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so we're going to get into Joe Biden, who's basically, it's crouching Joe, hidden Biden.
	That's what it's become.
	He's hiding out somewhere.
	He basically is taking my advice.
	Which is that if he just goes away and hides in a hole for a year and a half, he could be president of the United States.
	That's basically what Joe Biden is up to.
	We'll get to that in just one second, plus Elizabeth Warren joining the Panda Express.
	But first, you're going to have to go and subscribe.
	$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to dailywire.com.
	When you do, you get the rest of the show live.
	You get two additional hours of the show every day, which is us working really hard to bring you additional content.
	Also, because we broadcast this show in the morning and then we broadcast again in the afternoon, you got my commentary on events basically all day, every day.
	So you get that.
	Plus you get...
	The Andrew Klavan Show and the Matt Walsh Show.
	And if for some reason you're incredibly bored and have nothing better to do, the Michael Knowles Show as well.
	You get all those things when you subscribe.
	For $99 a year, you also get this Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	View it.
	Cast your eyes upon it.
	Be astonished by its beauty.
	The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	Go check that out right now.
	I also want to remind you the importance of you subscribing.
	When you subscribe, it helps insulate programs like this one.
	From the vicissitudes of the of the nasty cusses over at places like Media Matters, who are constantly seeking to drive this show into the ground, who are constantly seeking to thought police everyone who disagrees with them.
	When you subscribe you become part of the team and we really do appreciate it.
	It is you joining up with the conservative movement in a really A serious, real, material way.
	So please, I'm telling you, I think it's important.
	Please go subscribe over at dailywire.com and get that annual subscription, become part of the team.
	We really do appreciate it.
	it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty.
	So let's talk for a second about a little more pandering on the part of the Democrats.
	I've played you some Kirsten Gillibrand, who knows where where the party is going.
	I played you some Kamala Harris.
	I thought the most pandering, most pandering move of the weekend had to come from Elizabeth Warren.
	So now it is Pride Month, LGBTQIAAQZ Pride Month.
	And all right.
	Whatever.
	But she tweets out a video of herself in the most awkward possible way.
	She is just Hillary Clinton on awkward steroids.
	Remember Mark McGuire was a big strong guy before he started taking steroids and then he started taking steroids and he sort of exploded?
	Well, the same thing has happened to Elizabeth Warren.
	She was an awkward person before she ran for president, and now she's taking the awkward steroids and she's exploding like Mark McGuire.
	She's breaking Roger Maris' record in terms of awkwardness.
	If you can't see this video, it is her wearing a rainbow feather boa that she must have picked up at some sort of Halloween shop, and she's walking around high-fiving people with extraordinary enthusiasm that nobody else in the crowd seems to share.
	She tweeted out, Okay, so, quick note.
	This is America 2019.
	I live in Los Angeles.
	Not a lot of gay folks who are not living without pride.
	LGBTQ plus civil rights today and every day we renew our commitment to fight until everyone can live proudly without fear I'll be right there alongside you happy hashtag pride.
	Okay, so quick note This is America 2019.
	I live in Los Angeles um Not a lot of gay folks who are not living without pride Lots of gay folks who are living quite openly as is their prerogative in a free society I don't really see what exactly she is suggesting the changes be But in any case, there she is being super awkward.
	She knows where the future of the Democratic Party lies.
	It lies with the radical left.
	Let's see how she does in the middle of the country and with voters who may not be her own.
	By the way, it's this sort of social issue pandering that is leading to one of the great divides in the country at large.
	We'll get to that in just a minute.
	First, I want to talk a little bit about Joe Biden.
	So the guns are finally starting to open up on Joe Biden from the left side of the aisle.
	According to the Associated Press, all the 2020 Democratic presidential campaigns show up in California to pander.
	Joe Biden does not.
	Why?
	Well, maybe he's afraid that he's going to say what John Delaney said and then get booed.
	According to the AP, Democratic presidential hopefuls took rival Joe Biden's absence at a California state party gathering Saturday as a chance to take subtle digs at the former VP and craft themselves as better positioned to bring Democrats into the future.
	Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said, quote, Some say if we all just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses.
	Apparently, this was a reference to Biden's comments that the GOP may have an epiphany after Trump is gone.
	But our country is in a crisis.
	The time for small ideas is over.
	She wasn't the only one to be saying stuff like this.
	Gavin Newsom said, Joe Biden is very familiar to Californians.
	He spent a great deal of time in California.
	But of course, he has also endorsed Kamala Harris, the senator from California.
	Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who governs a city smaller than What, 120th of my Twitter following?
	He says, the riskiest thing we can do is play it safe.
	There's no going back to normal.
	Representative Eric Swalwell, who is running the most bizarre campaign for president I have ever seen in my life, he referenced Joe Biden.
	He said, we don't need a crime bill.
	We need a hope bill.
	I don't even know what the hell a hope bill would look like.
	What the hell's a hope bill?
	I'm just, I'm confused what policy that is.
	Apparently, Warren and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker received the most enthusiastic response from the crowd.
	Warren reprised her, I've got a plan for that slogan.
	And Cory Booker talked about how evil guns are.
	Beto O'Rourke spoke also.
	Basically, everybody kind of took subtle digs at Biden.
	I think those break out into the open in pretty short order.
	And the New York Times is leading the way.
	They've got a long piece today titled, Biden's first run for president was a calamity.
	Some missteps still resonate.
	They say in 1988, Joe Biden was prone to embellishment.
	Hints of that linger today.
	But unlike then, his message to voters is clear.
	He's a stabilizing statement, statesman in a tumultuous time.
	And they talk about all of the lies that Joe Biden told back when he was running for president in 1988.
	And they talk about how Biden still has a tendency to exaggerate and all the rest of this.
	As I say, I think that it was only a matter of time until the Democrats opened up on Biden.
	And once they open up on Biden, we'll see how well he withstands the assault.
	Especially because I don't think that Joe Biden has a lot of taste.
	For going up against the radicals inside his own party.
	Eventually, he's going to be put to a choice.
	Is he going to side with the radicals, with the Kamala Harrises, with the Elizabeth Warrens, with the Bernie Sanders?
	Is he going to try and co-opt them?
	Or is he going to stand strong against them?
	And if he tries to co-opt them, if he tries to move into their lane, how long before they start to chip away at him?
	Because after all, Elizabeth Warren is a more eloquent expositor of far leftism than Joe Biden, who is not actually on the far left in terms of most of his policies.
	And meanwhile, I think this is worthy of note.
	Not because anything Taylor Swift does is ever really worthy of note, but because it isn't.
	Here's what I mean.
	So, apparently Taylor Swift has now publicly rejected President Trump's stance on LGBTQ rights in a letter to Senator Lamar Alexander.
	Now, you'll remember that Taylor Swift tried to endorse a Tennessee gubernatorial candidate a couple of years ago, or last year, in the gubernatorial race, and that ended up being a giant fail for her.
	Nobody cared what Taylor Swift thought about politics.
	That is not stopping her.
	But here is what the Washington Post reports today.
	Taylor Swift's newfound political streak was on full display Saturday when she posted to Instagram a lengthy letter to Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee imploring him to protect LGBTQ rights by voting to support the Equality Act.
	The act, which was passed by the House last month, would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, education, jury service, and federal financing.
	Well, it would do a lot more than that.
	It would basically mandate that if you are a private person in private life, that you have to imbibe everything that the social left tells you about the malleability of gender, of sexual orientation, of all of that stuff.
	Swift said, There are hundreds of Tennessee faith leaders who have recently disagreed and spoken out to defend the LGBTQ community, which is not an argument.
	That's an argument that if you are a traditional Christian who believes in traditional values about sin and sex, that you should basically be disregarded because she found some liberal pastors who echo her viewpoint.
	She wrote that protecting the LGBTQ community from discrimination could bring more jobs to Tennessee, citing the fact that several corporations, including Amazon, have spoken out against the anti-LGBTQ slate of hate, referring to bills moving through the state legislature that would, according to Human Rights Campaign, allow businesses, organizations, and contractors to discriminate against LGBTQ people in employment policies.
	First of all, that sort of language demonstrates the overreach that people want from government.
	Okay, it's not about allowing businesses to discriminate.
	If it's a private business, the question is, does the government have a right to interfere in private business, not what will they allow businesses to do?
	You do not get your writ from the government.
	This is not 17th century Britain.
	Free association, freedom to pursue your business in a way you see fit, is a basic American right.
	This has nothing to do with religious freedom, really.
	It has to do with freedom of association.
	If you don't want to have to hire A conservative.
	For your business.
	This would be a you thing.
	And if I don't feel like hiring somebody from the left for my business, this would be a me thing.
	And if I'm a religious institution that doesn't feel like violating my own religious precepts by performing a same-sex marriage, that's a me thing.
	And if you don't feel like accepting somebody from my synagogue into your church, that's a you thing.
	You know how we can all live in society together?
	We can lighten the F up and leave each other alone.
	That's what we can do.
	But Taylor Swift is writing this letter.
	Now, why does it matter that Taylor Swift and all these celebrities write these letters?
	The left wants to play this double game.
	The double game is this.
	Every time the right complains about a cultural figure intervening in politics, people on the left say, well, why do you care?
	They're citizens just like anyone else.
	What are you whining about?
	I mean, you say you don't care about celebrity.
	Why does it matter to you what Taylor Swift has to say?
	But then they tried out all these people at the DNC because they obviously believe that these people have something to say.
	So here's what has happened, and it's really bad for the country.
	Because the cultural has now become political, because there is no element of American culture that is free from politics, or at least mildly free from politics, because every aspect of American culture has become more and more political, from Gillette ads to sports, because every movie must be replete with social justice warrior messaging, because everything from children's book to library time has become a battleground for social issues, What's happened is that the right feels like it's not in control of the culture.
	And the right is correct.
	The right is not in control of the culture.
	The people in Hollywood are universally to the left.
	So universally to the left that people in Hollywood, it is far, far harder in Hollywood to be a conservative than it is to be gay.
	There is no question about that.
	It's just, really.
	I mean, I know many people in Hollywood, many of whom are gay and many of whom are conservative.
	And many of whom are both.
	There's no question it is harder to come out of the closet as a conservative in Hollywood than it is to be gay in Hollywood, to take an example.
	And this is why I've had Hollywood people who are friends, high-placed people in the Hollywood industry, and every time I meet with them or get together with them, I will overtly explain to them that they should never reveal to the public that we have met, because they will be destroyed by their own folks.
	The commanding heights of the culture are run by the left, and Taylor Swift proves it.
	And Taylor Swift, who was silenced for years, there was a meme online, a joke online, why doesn't Taylor Swift speak out about this issue, her silence is deafening?
	Because basically, she was apolitical and she didn't say anything about politics.
	Then in the last couple of years, her SJW friends convinced her that it was time for her to speak out about politics, and now she won't shut up about politics.
	Well, people on the right, feeling like they're not in control of the culture, then move to the realm of government for protection.
	So they pour all of their energies not into culture and not into the culture war.
	They pour all of their energies into politics because this is something that they understand.
	We can put our money behind candidates.
	And not only that, whenever there is a cultural figure with any sort of cachet who endorses the right-wing position, people on the right freak out because like, wow, there's finally someone in the culture who doesn't disdain us and sneer at us.
	It's a major reason Donald Trump is president.
	Donald Trump was a cultural figure, not a political one.
	But he was a cultural figure who did not sneer at everybody who was on the right.
	And the right was so flattered by this that they thought, oh wow, somebody who actually is willing to fight the culture wars.
	The left, meanwhile, has ratcheted up the cultural battles.
	And so people on the right have reacted by saying, okay, well we're going to elect politicians who at least are not going to kowtow to Lena Dunham out in Los Angeles and New York.
	We're going to elect people who fervently wish to ignore Taylor Swift.
	And the left has responded by saying, OK, well, if we don't have political power, we'll ratchet up our cultural power.
	As the left takes over the culture and the right moves back into politics, what you are getting is this massive war where the political class on the left has merged with the cultural class and the same thing is happening on the right.
	So politics and culture are becoming two sides of the same coin.
	And it's really not good for the country.
	It used to be that the cultural sphere is where we all got together to chat during work breaks.
	And now we can't even do that anymore.
	And it's leading to political divides, too.
	Because if all of our culture is political, and all of our politics is cultural, what do we share?
	We didn't used to share politics, but at least we shared culture.
	Now we don't share politics or culture.
	And things, I think, are getting to a breaking point.
	That's why this sort of stuff from Taylor Swift or Reese Witherspoon sounding off about abortion, that's why this matters.
	It's only a matter of time before the United States has two separate cultures.
	There's no cultural space that is shared either.
	That's not going to be good for the country.
	The left is pushing it so that there will have to be two different business lines in every business.
	People who decide to endorse the social justice warrior left, the Gillettes of the world, and people who do not.
	People who endorse the Starbucks view of the world, and people who endorse the Black Rifle Coffee view of the world.
	That's where the politics of the country is going.
	I don't think it's good for the country, but it is quickly becoming a reality, and that's because the left could not leave the culture alone.
	They decided to ratchet up the cultural control that the left utilizes on a regular basis.
	Okay, time for some things I like, and then some things that I hate.
	So, Things that I like today.
	So, number one, I've gotten... Comfort food for me is Westerns.
	Westerns are just great.
	I've gotten into watching some old Westerns recently.
	So, this happened because, you know, a couple of weeks ago I was just looking for some movie comfort food, and I came up with Tombstone, which is just fantastic.
	And then I thought, okay, well, what are some of the best Westerns I've never seen?
	Well, at the very top of the list was John Ford's My Darling Clementine.
	So John Ford, one of the great directors in American film history, directed At least 12 films that are actual honest-to-goodness classics.
	Well, one of them is My Darling Clementine, which was one of the first movies about Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp.
	Maybe the first major film about Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp.
	It stars Henry Fonda and Linda Darnell and Victor Mature.
	And it really is a good movie.
	Also, the use of the camera is pretty fantastic.
	Apparently, this is one of the movies that was utilized by Orson Welles as sort of a model for how he liked to use the camera.
	John Ford is really an underrated director in his use of the camera.
	Here's a little bit of the trailer for My Darling Clementine.
	Shave, please.
	Well, we sure want to thank you, Mr. Earp.
	Wyatt Earp.
	What?
	You're not by any chance the marshal from Dodge City?
	Ex-marshal.
	What are you doing up here?
	None of your business.
	Why don't you behave yourself?
	Go on, get out, go on back where you belong.
	I'm not leaving until she gets out of town!
	So, one of the things about the movie that's kind of fun, all of the, there's a bunch of movies about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.
	And all of the movies are basically dependent on the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp.
	In this one, Victor Mature, who was considered kind of a beefcake at the time and not much of an actor, actually turns in a very good performance as Doc Holliday.
	And the contrast between Victor Mature and Henry Fonda In this movie is quite good.
	They changed the story, obviously.
	Tombstone is a much more accurate version of the Wyatt Earp Doc Holliday story.
	And Val Kilmer gives an iconic performance in that one.
	But Victor Mature is really good in this, and the direction is beautiful.
	It's a black and white film, but the use of churro scurro is just gorgeous.
	Really a good film, worthy of the watch.
	Go check out My Darling Clementine.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So, there is an article in the New York Times.
	It's so funny how folks on the left in the media don't even understand what they are writing about, and so they think they are writing the opposite of what they are writing.
	There's an article by Joanna Klein called Fighting the Gender Stereotypes that Warp Biomedical Research.
	And they say, Rebecca Shansky, a neuroscientist at Northeastern University in Boston, thinks you might not.
	When she tells non-scientific audiences that researchers, for the most part, don't study female animals, people are blown away.
	a neuroscientist at Northeastern University in Boston thinks you might not.
	When she tells non-scientific audiences that researchers for the most part don't study female animals, people are blown away.
	She added, "It seems like such an obvious thing to a normal person.
	What you come up in the academic and science world, it's like, oh no, females are so complicated, so we just don't study them." In 2016, the National Institutes of Health and its Canadian counterpart mandated that all preclinical research they fund must include female subjects.
	Now, Dr. Shansky and other scientists wondered if that requirement will do enough to improve how research is conducted.
	In an essay published Thursday in Science, Dr. Shansky questions whether simply adding female organisms to experiments or looking for sex differences misses the point.
	She warns that this is a public health problem and says scientists should design experiments better suited to both biological sexes.
	She says if scientists don't stop looking through a male lens, outdated gender stereotypes will continue to foster dangerous assumptions about the brain and behavior, resulting in clinical studies and eventual treatments that don't work equally for all people on the gender spectrum.
	So what is she saying?
	She's saying we have to treat the sexes differently so that we can treat the sexes the same, is sort of where she's going.
	Now, what's hilarious about this, and the reason I'm pointing this out, is that It is obvious to scientists of all stripes that males and females are different.
	And yet we are told by our media betters that males and females are exactly the same, except for the fact that there are gender stereotypes that have been placed on males and females.
	Now, I am all for more scientific studies about what exactly is the biological basis for differences between males and females.
	But a science that fails to take into account those differences, and instead ignores those differences on behalf of crap science, like suggesting that male and female are cultural constructs, and that gender stereotypes are responsible for the vast majority of differences between men and women, it is just ascientific nonsense.
	And when we study the animal kingdom, we all know this.
	Because there are no social constructs in the animal kingdom.
	And yet scientists very obviously treat male and female animals differently as well they should, because they are different.
	The fact that the media are now recognizing that it was sexist to only perform experiments on male animals... I don't know how sexism can coexist with the idea that there is no such thing as biological sex.
	If there's no such thing as biological sex, and gender is really what we should be looking at, self-identification as gender, then how is sexism even an issue?
	It isn't, really, because what exactly is the... there's no biological basis for the quote-unquote stereotype.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	Well, one of the nice things about AOC is she is just a font of material.
	So the incredibly brilliant congresswoman from New York, she did a bit of bartending over the weekend to demonstrate the plight of low-income workers, and she dropped this little gem about what it must be like to be a low-income worker working at a bar.
	It is so real, the amount of exploitation and harassment.
	And labor violations that you will endure for the sake and the structure of tipped work.
	In the federal tipped minimum wage is $2.13 an hour.
	That is unaccessible.
	Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job.
	acceptable.
	Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job.
	It's indentured servitude. - That's right. - And then people cheer for this.
	Me thinks she does not understand the concept of indentured servitude, which was when a person signed a fixed contract for a long period of time and then had to work off whatever debt they had by working for the company.
	You working at a job that you signed up for at a wage that you signed up for is not, in fact, indentured servitude.
	This idea that it's exploitation to hire somebody at a wage they are willing to accept is absolute nonsense.
	But again, I wouldn't expect AOC to know things.
	I mean, that seems a little bit beyond her ken.
	Other things that I hate.
	So, it is amazing how religious intolerance is considered totally fine so long as it is from radical Muslims.
	There's a story over the weekend.
	Jews were allowed to enter the Temple Mount for Jerusalem Day.
	So, one of the unbelievably ridiculous things in Israel is that the Temple Mount, which is the holiest site in Judaism, long pre-existing, long pre-existing even the existence of Islam as a religion, the holiest site in Judaism has been the Temple Mount.
	There's not only, the reason it is called the Temple Mount is because it is where the Temple stood.
	It is the mount upon which the Temple Mount Jews are not generally allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.
	Why?
	Because the state of Israel, out of its respect for Islam, decided to hand over the keys to the Temple Mount to the Islamic Waqf, which is religiously discriminatory and does not allow Jews to go up on the Temple Mount and say psalms.
	And if you say psalms on the Temple Mount, you could be arrested by the Israeli troops that are supposed to guard you.
	Why?
	Because everybody is so afraid of ticking off the Muslims on the Temple Mount who will then go and riot.
	Well, why are they so upset about this?
	Because this is exactly what happens on the Temple Mount on a fairly regular basis.
	When people talk about religious discrimination in Israel, let me make this clear.
	In Israel, Muslims are allowed to worship wherever they please.
	Jews are not allowed to worship wherever they please.
	Out of some sort of deference, wrong-headed and stupid deference, to religiously intolerant bigots who control the Temple Mount.
	So over the weekend, here's what happened.
	Jews were allowed to enter the Temple Mount for Jerusalem Day.
	They still weren't allowed to say psalms.
	If you go up there and you say psalms, they will actually arrest you.
	Riots broke out on the Temple Mount on Sunday.
	The commander of the Jerusalem District, Major General Doron Yedid, ordered the police to enter the Temple Mount and take care of the rioters.
	As the police attempted to enter the place, Arab worshipers began throwing stones, chairs, and other objects at the forces.
	The forces responded with riot dispersal means.
	Jews are generally forbidden to enter the compound during the last days of the month of Ramadan.
	The police allowed the entrance of Jews, especially for Jerusalem Day, and people rioted.
	It's amazing to me that Israel is considered the religiously intolerant nation in the region where Muslims are allowed to pray openly, worship wherever they want, where Muslims vote, where Muslim parties sit in the Knesset.
	There are zero Jews living under Palestinian authority dictates.
	And if a Jew so much as dares to step on the Temple Mount, they risk setting off a riot.
	But don't worry, religious intolerance is apparently the province of the Jews, according to the mainstream media.
	It's really ridiculous.
	OK, well, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.
	Go check us out over there, or we'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	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.
	Pride Month is upon us when corporate America, politicians, and even priests cash in on America's obsession with unusual sex.
	We will analyze how the left took the queen of vices and turned it into the most important virtue in the country.
	Then, the 2020 Democrats continue to humiliate themselves.

▲