Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 4, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:14

So. Much. Journalisming. | Ep. 794

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	MSNBC goes wild for Mayor Pete, Stephen Colbert spills the beans on political comedy, and President Trump gets the royal treatment.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Well, Trump in Britain always is going to bring the laugh, so we have a lot to laugh about today.
	Mostly the president doing a pretty good job over in Britain, and the Brits making clear that their brand of comedy has sunk a bit since Monty Python.
	We'll get to all of that in just a second.
	First, we're never going to agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that we can use more sleep.
	I am one of those humans.
	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 your sheets.
	That's why you should check out Bull & Branch.
	You think your sheets don't matter.
	You think, oh, I've got a great mattress.
	I've got a great bed frame.
	No, the sheets need to be good.
	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.
	Shipping is free.
	You can try them for 30 nights.
	If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
	I doubt you're going to want to send them back because they're awesome.
	They're so good that when my wife and I got Bull & Branch Sheets, we threw out all of our others because they ruin other sheets for you.
	That's how good they are.
	There's no risk and no reason not to give them a try.
	To get you started, right now, my listeners, get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Go to bullandbranch.com today for 50 bucks off your first set of sheets.
	That's B-O-L-L-N-B-R-A-N-C-H.com, promo code Ben.
	Bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Go check it out right now.
	Okay, we begin today with more media heroism.
	So over the past 48 hours, really over the past week, We've seen an enormous amount of journalism.
	I mean, true journalism.
	So we saw the Daily Beast go after a Rando who posted a video of Nancy Pelosi slurring her words because it was deeply important for us to find out that he was an African-American Trump supporter who had an itinerant work history and had a criminal conviction.
	Very, very important.
	And then today you had BuzzFeed go after a guy for the grand crime of properly handling a racist.
	According to Ash Scowl, writing over the Daily Wire, a man working the front desk at a Holiday Inn Express in Austin, Texas, became an internet hero on Monday due to the way he calmly responded to a woman who had called him an effing N-word earlier on the phone.
	The man filmed himself telling the woman he wouldn't let her stay at the hotel and that it's above me now.
	The woman apologizes for the slur she used.
	She said she had a bad day.
	A family member had recently died.
	The hotel clerk didn't give in.
	He said it was hurtful for him to hear what she said and directed her to the best Western hotel next door.
	The guy happens to be both black and gay.
	He quickly became a meme on Sunday night and into Monday.
	Good news!
	BuzzFeed then decided to drag up his old tweets.
	I kid you not.
	So this guy apparently properly handled a racist who called him an effing n-word on the phone.
	And then, everybody decided it was important to resurface everything he had ever written on Twitter and thus to ruin his life.
	BuzzFeed News wrote about his video, soon after, internet sleuths, as BuzzFeed News called them, this is what we're calling people who are jackasses now, people who decide that whenever anybody jumps into the public eye, we have to go back and look up anything they have ever said.
	You know, that human beings are not shaded.
	Either they are entirely good and heroic, or they are entirely bad and evil.
	And if they've done a bad or evil thing, or even a thing that has just crossed the politically correct lines drawn by our society, if they do those things, then we have to cast them out among the lepers.
	BuzzFeed News wrote that internet sleuths dug through the man's old tweets and found his past comments about transgender individuals.
	Blue check Twitter users then amplified his past tweets, many of which simply state his opinion that he doesn't agree with transgenderism and pointing out that men can't get pregnant and women can't fertilize an egg, which is basic biology.
	Other tweets were responding to members of the trans community criticizing his tweets.
	It doesn't matter.
	The guy is gay and black.
	Not intersectional enough, my friends.
	He happens to be a biological man who believes that biological males exist.
	BuzzFeed took its original story, louding the guy, and then updated it to include the man's past tweets and join in on the shaming.
	The man initially responded, repeating what he had said on Twitter, that he was not against transgender individuals, but he's not with it, meaning the phenomenon of society approving of transgenderism as something but a mental disorder, presumably.
	He said, they're mad, lol, I said what I said.
	People are so sensitive.
	I'm gay, and I know people will not agree with me being gay.
	I just don't, and will never get trans.
	Period.
	That didn't stop the social justice mob from coming after him.
	So, this is the way things work now.
	A guy does something that the left cheers, and then even that guy gets destroyed because he once posted a tweet that some people on the social justice warrior left do not like.
	This is the world in which we now live, and our mainstream media outlet's pushing this.
	BuzzFeed News is a mainstream outlet.
	It is a highly, highly trafficked outlet with production deals in place from major companies for tens of millions of dollars.
	So newsy.
	So incredibly newsy.
	BuzzFeed, of course, just last week, went after me with the suggestion that a guy who tried to swastika a synagogue had been inspired by my writing.
	Which you'd have to be insane to believe.
	I'm an Orthodox Jew who is the lead antagonist of the alt-right.
	But BuzzFeed News doing yeoman's work.
	The Daily Beast doing yeoman's work.
	Resurfacing.
	All of the criminal history of a man who made a video about Nancy Pelosi that made her seem slightly drunk.
	Man, I'm so glad our journalists are on the beat.
	I can't understand why Americans don't take our media so seriously anymore.
	I just I don't understand it.
	I mean, when they are engaged in such journalism on a regular basis, why wouldn't we take them seriously?
	These are these are the people, the honest truth to power people, absolute truth to power.
	And this spreads over into, obviously, presidential politics.
	So Chris Matthews, all I'm gonna say is doing an interview with Pete Buttigieg, Mayor Pete, South Bend, Indiana.
	Indiana's a state I don't know much about.
	I get up in the morning, come to the show, come on in, and I say, where's Indiana?
	Everybody says, I don't know.
	I say, well, seems like a state.
	Like the Pacers, they play in Indiana, right?
	He's got Reggie Miller.
	He's a good player.
	Rick Smits.
	Don't know much about him beyond that.
	Ah!
	Well, he decides that he's going to have on Pete Buttigieg.
	I will point out here that the town halls that have been run on Fox News have been run with their objective news anchors.
	That'd be people like Martha McCallum or people like Bret Baier.
	The town halls on MSNBC are run by Chris Matthews, an ardent Democrat, who likes to push Democrats as hard as he possibly can.
	Get up in the morning, come to the show and push Democrats.
	Put them on my little scooter, push them around.
	So here he is praising Pete Buttigieg.
	He opens up by talking about Pete Buttigieg being the most important candidate since Jesus Christ.
	First arrived in Bethlehem.
	I mean, this guy is just, Mayor Pete is a hero to millions.
	He's a saint.
	Listen to this intro from Chris Matthews.
	Honestly, this is not shock from Chris Matthews.
	I don't know if you remember this, but back in 2008, he talked about how he got a tingle up his leg.
	Sitting there watching Barack Obama.
	Sitting there, suddenly my leg is tingling.
	I thought I'm having a heart attack.
	No, it wasn't a heart attack.
	It was sexual distraction.
	Chris Matthews, talk about Mayor Pete Buttigieg, go!
	Not since Barack Obama was a candidate has someone ignited so much buzz, so fast.
	He's 37 years old, a graduate of Harvard, a Rhodes Scholar, a Naval Reserve officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, and the mayor of a small city in Indiana, population 100,000, Pete Buttigieg.
	He says his eight years leading South Bend, Indiana gives him more experience to be president than Donald Trump had.
	He gave me a tour of his hometown, which a decade ago was cited as one of America's 10 dying cities, the same year Buttigieg was elected mayor.
	And then he proceeds to go into this hagiographic description of South Bend, how everything is all about it.
	Crime rates in South Bend still suck, by the way.
	South Bend has not been healed as a city.
	You know, Buttigieg is a controversial mayor, to say the least.
	He is not this kind of wonder-kind mayor who has healed the city and made all the problems go away.
	There are a lot of minority folks in the city who are very angry at Pete Buttigieg.
	They say that he basically was bulldozing minority-owned housing for some of his public-private projects.
	In any case, that opener, that he's the most buzzed-about candidate since Barack Obama in 2008, Yeah, there's this guy who ran for president.
	I don't know if you remember his name.
	2015 or so, comes down an escalator and proceeds to own every piece of media coverage ever.
	Like, media coverage going back all the way to the time of the Romans.
	This guy was so buzzed about that he became president on the basis of basically being him.
	You may recall him because he's currently president of the United States.
	If we're gonna talk about candidates who have drawn buzz, Mayor Pete don't rank in like the top five.
	Mayor Pete has driven enough buzz to get him to about 6% in the latest polls presidentially.
	That's where he is.
	There's a new CNN poll out today.
	Pete Buttigieg is at 5%.
	5%.
	Does that sound like somebody who's received just the most buzz since Barack Obama?
	Doesn't to me.
	Sounds like somebody who's got a lot of people in sort of the left liberal white enclaves of the media buzzing.
	But outside those enclaves, does anybody give a crap about Pete Buttigieg?
	Really not so much.
	He's kind of like Beto O'Rourke.
	By the way, he is tied with Beto O'Rourke in the polls right now.
	But apparently, according to Chris Matthews, someone's journalized me, just journalized me all over Pete Buttigieg over here, talking about Pete Buttigieg being the most buzzed about candidate.
	I trust our journalistic class.
	Man, are they good at their job.
	And then my favorite part of this particular interview with Pete Buttigieg is Matthews basically trying to steer Pete Buttigieg where he wants him to go.
	It really is incredible.
	It's like me trying to teach my five-year-old how to ride a bicycle.
	You sort of point her front wheel, then you give her a little push, and then she sort of falls over.
	That was this interview.
	Pete Buttigieg fell over a lot, and then when my daughter falls over on her bike, then I say, good job, honey, let's try it again.
	That was this interview.
	Basically, Chris Matthews gets Pete Buttigieg on the bike.
	Okay, we're gonna push it down this hill a little bit, and if you fall over, we'll pick you right up.
	Little Pete will pick you right up, brush off your boo-boos, and then we'll talk some more about why you're so great.
	So here is Chris Matthews talking to Pete Buttigieg about slavery reparations, which, for the record, was not on the table for Democrats until five minutes ago.
	Everybody in the Democratic Party feels the necessity now to talk about slavery reparations.
	Now, check my math.
	Slavery ended in the United States in 1865.
	The current year, if I am not mistaken, is 2019.
	That means that 154 years later, we are talking about slavery reparations to people who are the great, great, great, great, great grandchildren of slaves, for the most part.
	And from people who were never involved in slavery.
	The vast majority of white people in America were never involved in slavery.
	Many of them are descended from people who died to end slavery.
	Nonetheless, this has become kind of the rote part of the democratic Stump speech in 2020 is that slavery reparations ought to be on the table, all because everybody in the left has also decided that Ta-Nehisi Coates is a great intellect, the wildly overrated writer from the Atlantic whose expertise in purple prose.
	I mean, my goodness, that guy's writing is overwrought.
	He thinks he's James Baldwin.
	He's like James Baldwin if somebody took an entire bucket of fuchsia paint and poured it on him.
	I mean, his writing is just dripping with overwrought, annoying purple silliness.
	And everybody on the left has embraced it because, of course, this is how they show they are woke.
	So here is Chris Matthews urging Pete Buttigieg to show that he's woke.
	Buttigieg, by the way, needs this because Buttigieg has approximately zero percent of the black vote right now because it turns out that black voters are not super into a 37-year-old mayor from South Bend, Indiana.
	Who has no particular connection with the black community.
	So now we're going to just try to go full pander.
	Here's Chris Mann.
	Let's talk about slavery reparations, Pete Buttigieg.
	What do you think of slavery?
	Is it good or is it bad?
	Let's do this thing.
	What would be the form of representation that would have an ongoing, enduring value to African Americans in this country?
	Not just money up front, but a change in their opportunity.
	How do you do it?
	Yeah, that's what the commission ought to work out.
	But there's no way you can do it without putting dollar resources behind it.
	Now, the right can't wait to caricature this as a check in the mail that they say would be unfair.
	But we did it with Japanese Americans.
	That's right.
	And there can be ways of doing this that are fair or at least bring us to a more just reality than the one we're living in right now.
	OK, that sounds like not an answer.
	That sounds like I love Chris Matthews saying, right, that's a good idea.
	Commission people talk about it.
	And then the Republicans are mean.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	People to judge.
	Yes, so much journalism.
	I love Pete Buttigieg's response to all of that.
	You know, we did this with Japanese Americans.
	Yes, they had just been freed from internment, unjust internment, during World War II.
	So the people who had been wrongly imprisoned were paid money.
	Just like today, people who are wrongly imprisoned are usually given massive legal settlements.
	The Japanese Americans were not talking about their victimization at the hands of other people 154 years beforehand.
	Or how that would get done.
	Don't worry, there's more Chris Matthews coming up.
	So if you love my Chris Matthews impersonation, man, you're gonna get plenty of it coming up in a second.
	First, finding a new job is a lot of work.
	What if you had your own personal recruiter to help you find a better job?
	Now, ZipRecruiter's technology can do just that for you.
	Just download the ZipRecruiter job search app.
	Let it know what kind of jobs you're interested in.
	Its technology starts doing the work.
	The ZipRecruiter app finds jobs you'll like and puts your profile in front of employers who may be looking for somebody like you.
	If an employer likes your profile, ZipRecruiter lets you know, so if you're interested in the job, you can apply.
	No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated job search app.
	My listeners should download the free ZipRecruiter job search app today.
	And let the power of technology work for you.
	Don't wait.
	The sooner you download the free ZipRecruiter job search app, the sooner it can help you find a better job.
	So ZipRecruiter is not just for employers looking for employees.
	It is for prospective employees looking for a solid employer.
	So if you're looking to work at, for example, Daily Wire, and you want to be notified when a job comes free, ZipRecruiter is the place to do it.
	Go head over to ZipRecruiter job search app.
	Go download it right now.
	It will help you find a better job.
	This is what ZipRecruiter is here to do.
	Connect good employees with good employers and make everybody's life better.
	Yay free markets!
	ZipRecruiter job search app.
	Go download it right this very instant.
	OK, so Chris Matthews continues on his tour of Pete Buttigieg's mind.
	It's great.
	So he continues along this way, gets up in the morning, comes out of the show and he talks about impeachment.
	Why don't you impeach?
	Impeach!
	Do it, Pete Buttigieg!
	Doesn't matter that Buttigieg isn't in Congress.
	Doesn't matter that he's not going to be president.
	Let's talk about impeachment.
	Go!
	Look how he answered that question.
	It's not as though I was looking for an answer that I was definitely going to get right there.
	That's journalism.
	Journalism-ing all up in here.
	I mean, unbelievable.
	And then Chris Matthews finally asks Pete Buttigieg about his take regarding Vladimir Putin.
	He says that he wants Buttigieg to respond to what he would say to Putin the first time he met him.
	What would you say to him?
	I have these fantasies, Pete Buttigieg, that the first time you meet Vladimir Putin, you'd rip his face off and shove it up his ass.
	That's my fantasy.
	Can you make my fantasies come true for real, Pete Buttigieg?
	What would you say?
	Chris Matthews, I'm gonna say, go!
	If you're elected President of the United States, what would you say to Vladimir Putin the first time you met him?
	Because you will get to meet him.
	Well, don't mess with our elections.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Oh, my God.
	Look at the toughness on him.
	He'd say, don't mess with our elections.
	And then Vladimir Putin would laugh in his face and rip his leg off and beat him to death.
	How is that even a question?
	What would you say?
	I have a fantasy.
	What would you say, Pete Buttigieg?
	Well, how about, like, what would your policy be to counter Russian aggression?
	Like, that's a question.
	But I love the fanfic that is happening here from Chris Matthews and the left media to these Democratic candidates.
	So what would you say?
	Would it be the most, would you say the most brutal thing?
	Would you say a cutting remark?
	A witty, cutting, Aaron Sorkin remark?
	People to judge?
	Would you?
	And people just, yeah, I would say, stop messing with our elections.
	It's like, thank you.
	Oh, my God.
	Tingling in the leg, in the head, everywhere.
	Tingling everywhere.
	Why don't people trust our media?
	Why?
	I mean, with questions being asked like that, why?
	Now, listen, I know that there are a lot of people on the left right now listening and they're going, well, listen, Fox News did the same thing with President Trump.
	And it is true.
	There are hosts on Fox News who did exactly the same thing with President Trump.
	And you know what I did?
	I made fun of them.
	Go back and listen to the show.
	Back in 2016.
	I am not very much in favor of journalists asking questions to politicians that are simply there for purposes of kiss-ass or the sort of leading them around on a leash.
	Here's the answer I want you to give to me and then if I get that answer I will show you how pleased I am.
	I don't like it when it's right or when it's left.
	This is why a lot of people have criticized the media for being harsh on Trump.
	I've never really criticized the media for being harsh to Trump.
	I've criticized the media for being unfair to Trump.
	And there's been a lot of that.
	Mischaracterization of President Trump.
	Drawing conclusions where conclusions do not need to be drawn.
	Attempting to push a Russian collusion hoax that was in fact a hoax.
	There was no collusion.
	Exaggerating evidence that wasn't there.
	Suggesting that the big scandal was just around the corner.
	All of that stuff was a bunch of crap.
	And I ripped the media for that.
	But when it came to, they're covering how he handles Trump Hotel.
	Or they're covering the Trump Tower meeting.
	Or they're covering the stuff that President Trump has said at odd times, and he's said bad things.
	I've never ripped the media for that.
	In fact, I've been one of the few commentators on the right who has said that when President Trump says fake news, I do not like the label unless it is being applied to legitimately fake news.
	When he applies it to just stuff he doesn't like, that is not fake news.
	That's just stuff that Trump doesn't like.
	I'm also one of the few people on the right who has said that when Trump uses the enemy of the people routine, I don't like that either.
	Chris Matthews isn't an enemy of the people.
	He may be an enemy of intelligence, but he is not an enemy of the people.
	He may be an enemy of hairspray, but he is not an enemy of the people.
	Right?
	He just, he disagrees with me.
	Okay.
	He disagrees with you.
	That's, that's fine.
	But when people look at the media and they see folks like Chris Matthews run out there as journalists, it begins to annoy them.
	And it's not just our journalist class.
	It is also our comedian class.
	One of the things that is highly irritating to so many people on the right That there are certain groups of professions where you assume that a certain level of baseline honesty and that honesty is supposed to extend to both sides of the aisle.
	I think one of the reasons that people like this show is because everybody knows I'm conservative.
	I'm very open about that.
	But I'm going to give you my honest take on what's happening in politics.
	This is why when President Trump does something good, I will praise it.
	When he does something bad, I will rip it.
	Because you're getting my honest take on this stuff.
	Well, people sort of expect the same thing from their comedians, except the comedians don't come out and state their politics openly.
	Instead, they pretend that they're just there for the comedy.
	We're just here because we are comic relief.
	We're just here to be the jesters, to be the high and the mighty, to mock them in the way that the jester mocks king leader.
	And we're just going to walk around and we're going to comment on the action.
	That's what comedians are there to do.
	And so when people on the right look at comedians and it turns out they're a bunch of leftist hacks who basically are Chris Matthews with a couple of badly written punchlines, people start to get angry.
	It's no wonder that the right is angry at late night TV, because this is what late night TV has become.
	Stephen Colbert has a long interview in the New York Times Magazine, which is the most boring magazine in the world, apparently.
	I mean, it's like, it's like Nunn's Life, the New York Times Magazine, in terms of magazines.
	In any case, Yes, that was an airplane reference.
	In any case, the interview with Stephen Colbert in the New York Times is pretty telling because he does state exactly where he is.
	And this is why everyone on the right has turned off Stephen Colbert.
	It's also why the left, which has decided to politicize everything, has basically made Stephen Colbert the champion of late night.
	So Colbert is not funny.
	There was a time when he was on The Daily Show when he was funny because his mandate was to go make fun of pretty much everybody.
	And so as a correspondent on The Daily Show, I vividly recall one segment that Stephen Colbert did where he made fun of Al Sharpton.
	He went and interviewed Al Sharpton.
	It was really funny.
	It was when Al Sharpton was doing his hunger strike over Guantanamo Bay.
	And I remember Stephen Colbert kind of prodding and going, it looks like somebody here could use a hunger strike.
	This is Al Sharpton in his fat days.
	It was pretty funny stuff.
	Now Stephen Colbert has just become a Chuck Schumer talking points machine.
	He and Jimmy Kimmel are in the College of Cardinals of leftist comedy.
	And then they just have an open competition as to whom will be elected pope of leftist comedy.
	And then somewhere in the background is Jimmy Fallon going, guys, I want into the club, please.
	Like, no, it's too late.
	You ruffled Donald Trump's hair.
	You can't.
	And so he's been falling in the ratings because he wasn't woke enough to begin with.
	Well, there's only one problem with that, which is that most of the country is not particularly interested in Stephen Colbert's brand of comedy.
	He only has to win a very, very small segment of the audience to win Late Night.
	Nobody watches Late Night anymore.
	Probably nearly as many people watch this show on a daily basis as watch Colbert's show.
	Maybe more, if you count our radio show.
	But nonetheless, we'll get to Stephen Colbert's perspective in just one second.
	First, dudes, summer is here.
	Tommy John is ready to have you looking and feeling ready for Memorial Day barbecues and 4th of July fireworks.
	They'll keep you patriotic this holiday with their all-new red, white, and blue underwear collection, including a USA flag print for both men And women.
	The collection comes in all their best-selling fabrics, including the cool cotton fabric that features breathable, lightweight fibers that keep you 2 to 3 times cooler and dry 4 to 5 times faster than regular cotton.
	Both Tommy John men's and women's underwear sport a no-wedgie guarantee, comfortable staple waistbands, a range of fabrics that are luxuriously soft, designed to move with you, not against you.
	Plus, now through the end of May, Tommy John is donating 5% of every purchase of select red, white, and blue styles to the Honor Foundation to support veterans transitioning to civilian life.
	They're so sure you're gonna love the fit and feel of Tommy John.
	It's all backed by their best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free, guaranteed.
	That means if you don't love your first pair, you get the full refund.
	Tommy John, no adjustment needed.
	I know how comfortable Tommy John's underwear are.
	Why?
	Because they are gracing my tuchus right now.
	Go to TommyJohn.com slash Ben right now.
	Save 20% on your first order.
	That's TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	For 20% off, TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	TommyJohn.com slash Ben for that special deal.
	20% off.
	Not bad.
	All right, so Stephen Colbert does this interview with the New York Times.
	It is incredibly fawning, as most of these interviews are.
	And here's what he says.
	He's asked, Now, this is normally where you would stop and say, then you're not doing your job, right?
	I mean, like, you're a comedian.
	And Colbert says, "I make no claim that we do." Sometimes it's the same joke.
	Now, this is normally where you would stop and say, then you're not doing your job, right?
	I mean, like you're a comedian.
	Wouldn't you have to make different jokes?
	Half of humor is the element of surprise.
	No, you can keep making the same joke about Trump and your leftist audience will eat it up.
	And it's not even a callback joke.
	Like when I do my Chris Matthews voice, it basically is a callback joke because it's inherently funny because it's kind of a mediocre impersonation, but it's got sort of the cadence down.
	But it's a callback joke, mostly.
	Like, half of the funniness is the familiarity of it.
	That's not the case with the punchlines that he tells about Trump.
	He says sometimes there's still meat left on that chicken.
	Trump consumes the news cycle, and our mandate, says Stephen Colbert, as we've established for ourselves, is that I want to inform the audience of my opinion about what they've been thinking about all day.
	So if the news has been orange Thanos, then I'm not going to change that.
	I'm going to do my best to stand in the teeth of that particular bleep hurricane and make jokes about how we're all being lied to for my own heart's ease.
	I'm not going to pretend that Trump is not lying to me.
	The alternative is to stick your head in the sand.
	Oh, what a truth teller he is.
	This is the same guy who spent his years on on the Colbert report, mocking Bill O'Reilly and smooching Barack Obama's posterior.
	But what a truth teller he is.
	Now, listen, I do appreciate that Stephen Colbert is basically now just saying, look, I'm a leftist.
	I'm gonna make leftist jokes.
	All right.
	That at least is fair.
	But it is worth noting that when a lot of these comedians do the clown nose on, clown nose off routine, where it's like, well, I make a joke about Trump because I'm a comedian.
	I make jokes about everybody.
	And then the minute they talk politics, I'm sincere.
	I'm sincerely a Democrat on the left.
	I'm a sincere, sincere person.
	Pick one or pick the other.
	If you're a Democrat who makes jokes or you're a joker who happens to be a Democrat.
	But you can't be both.
	And people like Stephen Colbert want to pretend they're both, they really are not.
	The New York Times says, that thing about not wanting to let Trump get away with a lie.
	Is it fair to say you feel a moral imperative behind your work?
	Well, look at those hard-hitting questions from the New York Times.
	Well, when you make jokes about politicians, there's what they say and what they do.
	It's hard to make jokes about someone who says something and then kind of does it.
	But with a guy who points east with his words and west with his action, that's where all the jokes live.
	Now, what are the things he's lying about?
	If the things he's lying about have a moral component, your jokes will have a moral component.
	In other words, you don't choose the flavor.
	The flavor is chosen by politics itself.
	And then, the New York Times asks a more important question.
	They say, "There's a sort of general answer "about the default moral nature of political satire.
	"I was asking more specifically about whether or not "you personally feel any sense of moral obligation "about your work." He says, "No." Okay, that's obviously a lie.
	He obviously does feel a moral sense of obligation.
	He has just said in his past two answers that he feels a sense that he has to speak truth to Orange Thanos or he can't sleep at night.
	But now he's going to tell you about his high-minded comedying.
	This is what I mean by the clown is on, clown is off routine.
	He says, I mean, I have morality.
	I suppose it's rated to my catholicity.
	You mean Catholicism?
	It says I was raised in a devout Catholic home and bottle-fed Robert Boltzmann for all seasons, which is about how it's important that you not let the tide of history sweep you along if you don't actually agree with it.
	And William Buckley said he stands with Ward History yelling, stop.
	I think we with this show stand with Ward History and say, that's dumb.
	What a little bleep that is.
	Is that moral?
	I don't know.
	I know that public lies that you are impelled to believe are worse than private ones, but I'm not Aaron Brockovich.
	I'm sure as hell not Howard Beale.
	A fair amount of the time I'm making poop jokes.
	Matter of fact, Jon Stewart, when it looked like the Colbert Report had come out of the box fully assembled and was going to happen, he said to me, when your children go up to get their diplomas at whatever college they end up going to, I want you to whisper to yourself quietly as they get the sheepskin, I paid for some of this with poop jokes.
	Well, again, this is the part that drives people on the right up a wall.
	Up a wall.
	Just say what you mean, dude.
	You're a far lefty and you like making jokes about Trump and you feel a moral sense that you have to make jokes about Trump.
	Don't tell us it's all about the poop jokes.
	It isn't about the poop jokes.
	The poop jokes are a way for you to make money off of hating President Trump, off of hating Republicans and conservatives.
	And that's why your poop jokes don't land most of the time.
	Colbert has become a less funny human being since he decided he was a political partisan.
	The fact is, you can be a political commentator with some humor.
	I think that's what this show is.
	Or you can be a comedian who does some politics.
	That's theoretically what Colbert's show is, but his show is probably closer to mine now.
	And I haven't changed my show one iota since the very first day we started doing it.
	That says something about why people are not as interested in late night TV generally, at least on the right.
	He says, for example, The New York Times asked Colbert, the other day your monologue was about the de facto Alabama abortion ban.
	He said, yeah, I'd avoided making jokes about it because you just can't win making jokes about abortion.
	Half of the people are just going to be mad at you.
	But Alabama was an unavoidable one.
	The reason we did it was because that was about, I thought, a very cynical, purposeful overreach.
	Even the people who are writing the law said they don't want that law.
	He's going to have to cite some sources on the people who wrote that law don't want the law.
	I've talked to the people who wrote the law.
	They want the law.
	Okay, so in other words, again, he says, oh no, you know, I wasn't, you're gonna piss off, but Alabama, that's when I had to make my stand.
	Pick a lane.
	Pick a lane.
	Either, if you're Chris Matthews, pick a lane.
	Are you a journalist or are you a democratic hack?
	If you're Stephen Colbert, are you a comedian or are you a leftist hack?
	Which one is it gonna be?
	And you can say you're a comedian with left leanings.
	I'm okay with that.
	But that means occasionally you're gonna have to tell jokes about people with whom you agree politically.
	It's pretty, no wonder people don't trust the media.
	Okay, meanwhile, President Trump is over in Britain, being greeted by some of the most mature humor that the great minds over in Britain have to offer.
	So, there's this story that was pumped up, no pun intended, by the Huffington Post.
	Uh, about a farmer who, uh, or I guess a British high school student, a cheeky British high school student, carved a giant penis into his family's spacious lawns to give Donald Trump a big resistance hello as the president flew into London on Monday.
	The penis paired with the words, Oi Trump!
	Well, I guess that, you know, according to the Constitution, Article 35, Trump is no longer the president.
	instead airport where Trump landed.
	The protest art also included a giant polar bear with the message, climate change is real.
	Well, I guess that, you know, according to the constitution, article 35, Trump is no longer the president.
	If he sees a giant penis mowed into a lawn from the air, He's done.
	It's amazing.
	I know you didn't know about that particular provision of the Constitution.
	Turns out it's true.
	All I could think of when I saw this picture of a high school cartoon penis labeled Oy Trump and then pushed by the Huffington Post.
	All I could think of is Trump from the air going, I'd sell it.
	I mean, wait till they see this thing.
	Because you know that that was Trump's response, right?
	I do love all the people in Britain who think that they've really gotten under Trump's skin with this sort of thing.
	And it's not just that.
	It's also there are protests in in London.
	And not only were there protests in London, the BBC, which is the state sponsored broadcast network, as I have been made aware, it's a state sponsored broadcast network.
	Of course, I knew this for Forever.
	I mean, it's the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation.
	And the and the BBC had in the studio the blimp of baby Trump, which is a staple of resistance stupidity.
	It's just a blimp that looks like Trump.
	It isn't all that big.
	I remember when the when the media started pushing this, they made it sound like it was the size of the Hindenburg.
	In fact, it's basically, you know, the size of like a small bouncy house.
	And the BBC had it in studio.
	Here is what that looked like.
	President Trump touched down in the UK for his state visit an hour ago, and he kicked things off with one of his trademark controversial tweets, describing the Mayor of London as a foolishly nasty and a stone-cold loser.
	Protests are planned across the UK, including in London, where a bigger version of this Trump baby balloon is due to fly over the capital.
	And they had it in studio.
	Imagine if Fox News had, like, the bullrider mask of Barack Obama in the studio at Fox.
	What would the reaction be?
	That's a state-sponsored news outlet, by the way.
	So when I rip the BBC, it's because the BBC absolutely deserves it, as every conservative in Britain knows, with the exception of people who are paid by the BBC.
	It's pretty incredible.
	Okay, we'll get to more of the British treatment of President Trump in just a second.
	First, here's an alarming statistic for you.
	Over 75% of Americans are dangerously deficient in omega-3 levels.
	If you're experiencing joint pain or chronic inflammation, lack of concentration, weight gain, chances are you might be one of them.
	No matter your age, height, weight, gender, omega-3 fatty acids are vital to your overall health.
	They are considered a pill worth taking by the experts.
	They are clinically proven to improve mood, memory, brain, cardiovascular health.
	Many of the top sellers simply don't contain a lot of omega-3, at least not enough to notice therapeutic results.
	If you want to feel the benefits instantly, what you should try is Omax 3 Ultra Pure.
	Omax!
	They're offering my listeners 50% off a one-month supply of Omax 3, plus free shipping and that 60-day money-back guarantee.
	All you have to do is head on over to omaxhealth.com.
	And enter code SHAPIRO today to take advantage of this incredible savings.
	That is OMAXHEALTH.COM.
	Enter code SHAPIRO for 50% off a one-month supply.
	You hear all the hype around Omega-3s.
	Well, now's your chance to try the most trusted Omega-3 on the market today.
	Go to OMAXHEALTH.COM.
	Enter code SHAPIRO.
	So, who can benefit from OMAX3?
	Pretty much anybody.
	Just go check them out right now at OMAXHEALTH.COM.
	And enter promo code SHAPIRO for a special deal.
	OMAXHEALTH.COM.
	Alrighty, so in just a second we'll get to the rest of President Trump's quasi-hilarious British visit.
	We'll also be getting to a debate that is broken out in conservative circles that I think is kind of fascinating and I think is worthy of explication.
	First, you're gonna have to go and subscribe over at dailywire.com.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription over at Daily Wire.
	When you do, you get the rest of this show live.
	Two additional hours of the show every day.
	As I've said before, that basically means that you're getting the show all day long, because we do this show in the morning, and then we have another show in the afternoon, so whatever breaks in between, we cover.
	And then we come back and do it again the next day.
	This is why you should subscribe.
	Also, for $99 a year, you get this.
	The very greatest in beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
	So you can enjoy those Leftist Tears, both hot and cold.
	While listening to me do a Chris Matthews impersonation.
	That sounds like the height of life enjoyment to me.
	But then again, I'm the one doing it.
	So I hope you enjoyed as well.
	Go check that out right now with the annual subscription.
	Also, when you get the annual subscription, you get access to the Sunday special on Saturdays.
	We have a great Sunday special coming up this Sunday.
	We have some fantastic ones that are coming up in the real near future with some people across the other side of the aisle, which makes them really interesting.
	We're going to do all that sort of stuff.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty, so Jeremy Corbyn, who is a terrorist mouthpiece, he says that President Trump, the Trump-London protest is a chance to stand in solidarity.
	He's the leader of the British Labour Party and a radical anti-Semite.
	And he joined a protest against Donald Trump because nothing says good relations quite like protesting a guy you may have to deal with if you become prime minister of the UK.
	It's just a genius political move.
	He tweeted out, "Tomorrow's protest against Donald Trump's state visit is an opportunity to stand in solidarity with those he's attacked in America, around the world, and in our own country, including just this morning Sadiq Khan." Sadiq Khan, of course, is considered a victim because Sadiq Khan was ripped on by President Trump.
	Now, the reason that President Trump ripped on him is because on Saturday, Sadiq Khan wrote a long editorial for The Guardian, which is the far-left newspaper in Britain, called it's un-British to roll out the red carpet for Donald Trump.
	Now, there's something rich about Sadiq Khan talking about it being un-British to be nice to the American president.
	The fact is that the dude has some pretty shady connections.
	According to the Daily Mail, this is back in 2016, before Sadiq Khan was elected to the mayoralty of London.
	Sadiq Khan, who is a local Labour MP, he was at a funeral in 2016.
	One figure whose hand he stopped to shake stood out, convicted terrorist Babar Ahmed, a man who had been blamed for inspiring a generation of extremists, including the gang behind the London bombings of July 7th, 2005.
	The pair exchanged brief pleasantries before Khan moved on.
	The encounter took place a few months ago, around the time of Khan's nomination as Labour's mayoral candidate.
	Since then, riding on the crest of Jeremy Corbyn's leftist takeover of the Labour Party, Khan has left Conservative mayoral candidate Zach Goldsmith trailing in his wake.
	New revelations this weekend about how Khan shared a platform with Yasser El-Siri, a convicted terrorist and associate of hate preacher Abu Qatada, and Sejil Shaheed, a militant who helped to train the ringleader of the London bombings, are the most serious allegations so far.
	Sadiq Khan's interactions with controversial characters are not all in the past.
	Furthermore, it transpires that the MP for Tooting is a divisive character in his South London community with dark allegations of threats and betrayal in his own political background.
	So Sadiq Khan has a long history of some pretty nasty connections.
	And not just that.
	His policies in London have been a complete abysmal disaster.
	Knife crime in London has been up dramatically under Sadiq Khan.
	There's tremendous cultural strain inside of London, largely because Sadiq Khan is not a unifying figure.
	He's a very polarizing figure.
	So he got into a fight with President Trump.
	And so Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, backing him because Corbyn backed him for mayor of London in the first place.
	Trump arrives in the UK Monday morning for a three-day visit.
	Trump, not only mocked Khan, but he came out just today and he said that Jeremy Corbyn wanted to meet with him and that Trump turned him down.
	So whether that is true or not is anybody's guess.
	Trump has said this about a bevy of politicians, many of whom it's not true about.
	Very often when somebody rejects Trump, he goes, I rejected you first.
	Boom.
	Take that.
	With that said, Jeremy Corbyn is a bad human.
	And the fact that he is protesting Trump is demonstrative of just where he stands on a lot of these issues.
	Now, the good news is that Queen Elizabeth is still being nice to Trump, as she should.
	She is the ceremonial head of state in Britain.
	So here she is praising President Trump and saying, you have a connection to this country.
	Look, the reason that Trump is over there is because it's the 75th anniversary of D-Day.
	I mean, we just did.
	A Sunday special about the 75th anniversary of D-Day, in which the United States sent a million people to stay over in Britain and then help liberate the European continent from Nazi evil.
	So, the President of the United States visiting for that, that doesn't seem like it should be wildly controversial.
	Nonetheless, it is because everything is stupid and controversial.
	Now, here is Queen Elizabeth talking to President Trump.
	As we face the new challenges of the 21st century, the anniversary of D-Day reminds us of all that our countries have achieved together.
	Of course, it is not only our security which unites us, but our strong cultural links and shared heritage.
	Every year, there are almost 4 million visits by Americans to the United Kingdom.
	With a great number claiming British descent.
	And with your own Scottish ancestry, Mr. President, you too have a particular connection to this country.
	Okay, so all of this is nice and wonderful and all of it is being treated with scorn and mockery by the mainstream media who are too busy tweeting out pictures of President Trump's too long vest.
	This is really what they spent the day doing yesterday.
	There's a picture of President Trump and he is wearing his tuxedo vest and just like his ties, he wears his tuxedo vest too.
	And so, it drops at least a full four feet below his actual dinner jacket.
	This apparently is a major scandal over in Britain.
	The same media that said that it was no big deal when Michelle Obama touched the personage of the Queen were going crazy because apparently Trump touched the personage of the Queen.
	Listen, I'm very glad we don't have royalty in this country.
	I really am, because those sorts of rules are so dumb.
	I'm sorry, like, what's she gonna do?
	Burst into flame?
	It's not for religious reasons of modesty.
	She's just the royal personage.
	In any case, Whenever Barack Obama traveled abroad, it was stories from the media about the triumphant, the triumphant mood of President Obama abroad.
	Whenever Trump travels abroad, it's always about the protests.
	The reality is the protests were smaller than expected in London because no one really cares.
	And he was treated the way that he should have been treated by the vast majority of people in positions of power in London.
	Those will not be the headlines that you are reading today.
	Meanwhile, there's been this fascinating debate that I've been waiting to sort of comment on until everybody had their opinions out there.
	This debate was kicked off by a guy named Sourabh Amari, who I am friends with.
	I'm friendly with Sourabh Amari.
	He is the editor of the New York Post op-ed page, and he's written a really good book that I've recommended on the show about his conversion to Catholicism.
	He wrote a piece Basically ripping on David French, a person who I'm also friends with and who has been a guest multiple times on the show.
	I thought that the piece was misdirected against French.
	But basically, Sourabh Amari was criticizing the libertarian instincts of a lot of Republicans.
	What he was saying is that government needs to be involved in certain ways in order to promote virtue and family formation.
	Whereas David French, people like me, we have suggested that a smaller government is the best answer and that culture cannot be built by the government culture Precedes government.
	And so what you really need to do if you want to have a better virtuous culture, what you really need to do is change hearts and minds.
	And you need a government that is unable to fight those sorts of cultural movements from below.
	So the role of government is really the question here.
	Ross Dudat is a very thoughtful columnist over the New York Times, and he has a piece about this today.
	And I think that it's worthy of note because it does go to something that's been roiling the conservative movement for a little while.
	He says, basically, the best way to understand the Sorobamari-David-French split is in light of the old fusion, the old consensus, that the first things manifest to attack.
	So, First Things is a Catholic magazine, and they wrote a piece a while back called Against, I believe it was called, Against the Dead Consensus.
	And they were apparently ripping on the kind of Reagan coalition, the idea that social conservatism, government libertarianism, small government, that this could coexist.
	Basically, it was an argument, sort of in Tucker Carlson mode, that government needs to be more involved in promoting virtue.
	So, here's what Dudehat writes.
	writes.
	He says, French is a religious conservative who thinks that the pre-Trump conservative vision still makes sense.
	He thinks his Christian faith and his pro-life convictions have a natural home in a basically libertarian coalition, one that wants to limit the federal government's interventions in the marketplace and expects civil society to flourish once state power is removed.
	He thinks that believers and non-believers, secular liberals and conservative Christians can coexist under a classical liberal framework in which disputes are settled by persuasion rather than constant legal skirmishing or else are left unsettled in a healthy pluralism.
	Amari, on the other hand, speaks for the cultural conservatives who believe that the old conservative fusion mostly failed their part of the movement, winning victories for tax cutters and business interests while marriage rates declined, birth rates plummeted and religious affiliation waned, and appeasing social conservatives with judges who never actually got around to overturning Roe versus Wade.
	These conservatives believe that the current version of social liberalism has no interest in truces or pluralism and won't rest till the last evangelical baker is fined into bankruptcy, the last Catholic hospital or adoption agency is closed by an ACLU lawsuit, They think that business interests have turned into agents of cultural revolution, making them poor allies for the right, and that the free trade and globalization championed by past Republican presidents has played some role in the dissolution of conservatism's substrates, the family, the neighborhood, the local civitas.
	And they've warmed quickly or slowly to the politics-is-war style of the current president.
	But what specifically do these conservatives want besides a sense of thrill and convent that David French's style denies them?
	And that really is the big question because I agree with both of these characterizations, right?
	I actually agree with both Ahmari and French.
	So, I agree with David French that a small government is the best solution because I believe that government is the ring of power.
	If you think that you can control the ring of power and then use that ring of power for your own side, it is only a matter of time before it falls into the hands of the other side and is used against you.
	I think there are two dueling narratives here.
	Dueling narrative.
	Narrative number one is sort of the libertarian narrative.
	And that is, here's what happened in the United States.
	Here's why social liberalism has conquered all.
	Basically, government got larger.
	And government got larger in order to perform functions that a lot of conservatives were sort of on board with.
	And then government continued to grow larger and larger.
	People began to rely on government more than they relied on their local community, more than they relied on that civitas.
	And then, as government grew larger, the country grew more liberal.
	So there's a straight-line correlation between the growth of government and the growth of leftism.
	And now that huge, massive, burdensome government is going to be used by the left to cram down its values on the rest of us.
	That's the version I believe.
	Then there is the version that is being promoted by some of the first things authors and their version goes something like this.
	Government grew big.
	And it grew big for some good reasons and some bad reasons.
	And then, because government grew big, there was a counter response that was libertarian in nature.
	Conservatism became libertarian and wanted less government.
	Along with that libertarian move came a surrender first I agree with version number one.
	I don't think that William F. Buckley was stumping against social conservatism.
	issues.
	So the idea would be that in order to fight the growth of government, conservatism decided to abandon government's role in promoting public virtue.
	And that's what led to the hollowing out of civic institutions.
	And so what we really need to do is grab government back and then use it to promote those social institutions again.
	I agree with version number one.
	I don't think that William F. Buckley was stumping against social conservatism.
	I think that William F. Buckley was basically saying, I think that conservatives for decades have basically been saying that the business of civic virtue is something that is supposed to be inculcated by a strong social network, understanding the history of Judeo-Christian values in our society.
	I I just wrote an entire book about this.
	But that you can't impose that from above, because if you do impose that from above, number one, it's not going to work.
	Number two, it doesn't allow for the pluralistic vision of a society that the founding was supposed to create.
	How do you determine when the government has gone too far in its imposition of morality, for example?
	Wouldn't it be better to leave this to the local level?
	And if you disagree with the local government, you can leave.
	Wouldn't it be better to leave this to informal mechanisms in society?
	Why are we seeing government as the great promoter of religion or of Judeo-Christian values when that really should be done in the churches and the real key should be preventing government from encroaching into those spaces?
	Now, listen, I understand the temptation.
	I understand the temptation for a lot of conservatives, which is those spaces are not going to exist if the left gets its way.
	The question is, can you retain those spaces by grabbing the government back?
	What are the prospects of grabbing government back and using it to cram down values that you believe and protect the values you believe?
	And what are the prospects of simply destroying the government power altogether?
	I am much more in favor of throwing the ring into the fire because I think that that sword can be and has been used historically by the left.
	Perfect example, same-sex marriage.
	So, I used to be in favor of governmentally enshrined traditional marriage.
	And then, I became in like 2011, 2012, before Barack Obama, I believe, I started talking about how conservatives should be libertarian.
	Why?
	The reason was not because I believe that same-sex marriage is moral.
	As a religious person, I not only believe that it's sinful, but on a natural law level, I don't think same-sex marriage provides the same benefits to society as traditional marriage, obviously.
	But, I said that the best solution for conservatives was to remove this power from government altogether because sooner or later the government was going to move to the left and then they would be cramming down their values on your churches and that's exactly what has happened.
	So the question is, what's the best way to promote conservative values?
	From the bottom up?
	With a social network?
	Promoting a social network in the absence of government encroachments?
	Or from the top down, by keeping a strong government and trying to capture that regulatory power on behalf of the values that you like?
	This is the battle that is happening right now.
	I think it's an open battle.
	I think it's an honest battle.
	I think it's a worthwhile battle.
	But I do think that it is worthwhile for libertarians to consider on a serious level what sort of social networks are necessary to fill in that gap.
	And I think it's necessary for social conservatives, who may want to control things at a governmental level, to consider what happens if you lose.
	And you've now built the machine of your own destruction because you built it to protect you, but now it can be turned against you.
	That's really the question going forward for conservatives.
	Okay, time for some things that I like and then some things that I don't.
	So...
	Things that I like today.
	So as you know, I am a huge baseball fan.
	I've read virtually all the baseball books.
	There's a good new book called Powerball by Rob Nayer.
	It really is pretty great.
	He is the... I believe he used to write for Sports Illustrated and ESPN if I'm not mistaken.
	In any case...
	Nayer's book basically takes a meaningless late season game between the Oakland Athletics and the Houston Astros and breaks it down out by out.
	And it sort of had these cutaways to various discussions of issues in the game baseball, ranging from whether the ball has changed, spoiler alert, yes, the ball has changed, that's why you're getting more home runs, to the pace of play.
	It's really great.
	It's kind of like listening to a really great broadcaster watching an actual baseball game.
	The key to a really great broadcaster when you watch a baseball game is that during the periods of dead space, when things aren't really happening on a field, can they give you more information and more stuff that you want to know?
	And that's sort of what Rob Nair does here.
	The book is definitely worth reading.
	Now, he does have the obligatory SJW stuff.
	He has, I think, three separate sections on whether there is a gay baseball player.
	I don't understand why anybody cares about that.
	Like, really, it doesn't matter to me.
	If a player is gay, I don't think it matters to pretty much anyone at this point whether a player is gay, but Rob Naylor suggests that it's still massive homophobia inside the MLB, this sort of stuff.
	If you can get past that sort of stuff, then the baseball portion of this is really good.
	My one critique, the editor should have removed some of the exclamation points.
	He writes with a lot of exclamation points, and those should have been toned down.
	But that is an editorial critique.
	The book itself is very enjoyable.
	Okay, let's do some things that I hate.
	So, the fact that the left will embrace anybody who just says bad things about Trump is pretty astonishing.
	Charles Blow, the aptly named Charles Blow over at the New York Times, who's a terrible columnist, he has a piece called The Princess vs. the Demagogue.
	Wow, it's gonna be like a fairy tale.
	He says, in an interview Saturday with Rupert Murdoch's right-wing British tabloid The Sun, President Trump characterized statements by Meghan Markle before she became the Duchess of Sussex as nasty during the 2016 campaign.
	Of course, Trump was being led in this exchange to be precisely who we all know he is.
	The question itself was problematic, as it disclosed a biased characterization by the journalist, who asks Trump, I don't know if you saw that.
	see her because she wasn't so nice about you during the campaign.
	I don't know if you saw that.
	I love Charles Blow calling out media bias.
	That's pretty, pretty, the guy works for the New York That's the paradox.
	That's not a paradox.
	A paradox is like if an object is large and also small.
	parties wanted.
	The Sun is in some ways like a British print edition of America's Fox News, but it is also Britain's largest paper.
	That's the paradox.
	That's not a paradox.
	A paradox is like if an object is large and also small.
	It is not a paradox to say a conservative newspaper has a lot of subscribers in the UK.
	This is why I say not a good columnist.
	He says, Indeed, shortly after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, The Sun published an ominous headline that covered nearly all of the front page.
	In a large white font on a black background, the paper asserted one in five Brit Muslims sympathy for jihadis.
	As The Independent reported, the headline was accompanied by an image of British ISIS member Mohammed M. Mwazi, also known as Jihadi John, who was hoisting a knife.
	There's a reference to a piece entitled, Time for Britain to Shut Door.
	The paper was ordered to admit that the story was significantly misleading, but you can understand why Trump would be amenable to it.
	How does he get to this from Trump saying that he is, that he thought that Meghan Markle was nasty?
	Here it says, it was simply wrong to characterize Markle's comments as nasty.
	They were simply factual.
	She said in a 2016 interview on The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore that Trump was divisive and misogynistic and vocal about it.
	Where's the lie?
	Oh my God.
	Like, really?
	So you're gonna rip on Trump for saying that she was nasty to him after she called him divisive, misogynistic, and vocal about it?
	Okay, like, really?
	You may agree with her characterization, but it isn't nice, right?
	I mean, I assume that half the stuff I said about 2016, President Trump wouldn't like.
	He's fully entitled not to like things.
	A better journalist, says Charles Blow, if he or she wanted to have Trump weigh in on the comments, would simply read Markle's response and ask for the president's response.
	But they didn't.
	And Trump went directly to the place he feels most comfortable, referring to women who opposed him as nasty.
	I have no royalist fetish or reverence, says Charles Blow.
	Indeed, I find the existence of royalty in any society problematic.
	But this isn't as much about Trump's reaction to a princess as it is about his reaction to a woman.
	In this case, a black woman.
	Yeah, I... Really?
	Seriously, this is what we're going to do?
	Trump has called a bevy of women nasty.
	He said it about Hillary Clinton.
	I believe at one point he said it about Megyn Kelly.
	He said it about, I believe, Stormy Daniels.
	Are any of those women black?
	He has said that men are nasty to him.
	So now the president uses the word nasty and it's about race and sex?
	You wonder why people are getting pretty irritated with the use of the racist sexist label?
	This would be the reason.
	This would be the reason right here.
	And then it's just Charles Blow quoting all the old stuff about Trump being mean to women.
	Yes, Trump is bad with women.
	He's been bad with women his entire career.
	Do you have anything new to present here, Charles Blow?
	Or do you just wish to rail against President Trump calling Meghan Markle nasty?
	That one does not even rank in the top hundred comments Trump has made about women, by the way.
	Not the top hundred public comments.
	Charles Blow concludes, society itself offers a graduate-level course in misogyny, and every exam is a take-home test.
	What the hell does that even mean?
	God, do the editors at the New York Times have nothing to do all day?
	That doesn't even mean anything.
	Every exam is a take-home test?
	The real work comes in consciously combating our bias and attempting to deprogram ourselves from blindly accepting privileges and ignoring oppressions.
	But here's the thing.
	Trump is absolutely a misogynist.
	As made notice...
	Oh, sorry.
	When I hear a column repeated 100 times in a row by the same columnist, I start to lose interest.
	Sorry, Charles Blow.
	I couldn't finish that one up for you.
	My bad.
	Seems like you as a columnist couldn't finish it up either, but, you know, it's my job to read it, I guess.
	OK, final piece of news today.
	There's a new CNN poll.
	You want to talk about media bias?
	This is pretty great.
	So Ryan Strzok is a Statistics analyst for CNN.
	He put out a new CNN poll today.
	Here is the poll.
	Biden, 32.
	Sanders, 18.
	Harris, 8.
	Warren, 7.
	Buttigieg, 5.
	O'Rourke, 5.
	Booker, 3.
	Castro, 2.
	And then I always look for Kirsten Gillibrand just because it's hilarious.
	Kirsten Gillibrand, 1.
	Which is always humorous to me.
	Here is the best part.
	Ryan Strzok tweets out, Biden's support stands at 32%, down slightly from 39% in April.
	How is 32% down slightly from 39%?
	Like, just a question.
	If any other candidate lost 7%, wouldn't that be a pretty major move?
	Moving from doubling up Bernie Sanders to losing 7 points that is now dispersed among the crowd, isn't that a sign that maybe Joe Biden's high point has come and gone?
	That maybe Joe Biden is going to start collapsing in on himself.
	I mean, wouldn't that be like a more interesting, at least, analysis?
	How's a 7 point drop a minor drop?
	That is Elizabeth Warren's entire support base.
	She's at 7% right now.
	If she went from 7 to 0, would that be insignificant?
	Joe Biden, man, a lot of members of the media rooting for him because they think he's going to beat Trump.
	But, you know, these stats are showing that Joe Biden's got some vulnerability.
	He may have hit his high point already.
	All right.
	We will be back here later this afternoon with two additional hours of programming.
	We 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 Ciejewicz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Karumina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright, Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, the knuckleheads on Knucklehead Row, that's the op-ed page of the New York Times, are predicting the end of the Republican Party.
	Why?
	They think we can't handle diversity.
	Guess what, knuckleheads?
	We don't give a crap about diversity.
	We don't care what color you are, as long as you're colored American.

▲