Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 7, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:05:59

Biden Folds | Ep. 797

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Joe Biden reverses himself on public funding for abortion, President Trump reaches the verge of a major win on immigration, and we check the mailbag.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	We have a lot of news to cover today.
	I'm just grateful it's a Friday.
	Aren't you?
	We're almost there to the weekend.
	You've almost made it.
	We'll get into all of the news.
	But first, let me just tell you, the best suit that I own is Indochino.
	The reason?
	It is customized to me.
	I'm like buying a suit off of the rack.
	Indochino makes...
	Made to measure menswear.
	I mean, this is awesome stuff.
	They make suits and shirts to your exact measurements for an unparalleled fit and comfort.
	If you're in the middle of planning a wedding, they got tons of options for people looking to outfit the wedding party.
	So here's how it works.
	You can visit a stylist at one of their showrooms.
	Indochino has over 40 showrooms in North America.
	They'll take your measurements personally.
	You feel like James Bond.
	It's really awesome.
	I went to one.
	Over in Santa Monica.
	It's really terrific.
	Or you can measure at home and then shop online at Indochino.com.
	You choose your fabric and design customizations and then you submit your measurements with your choices online and relax while your suit gets professionally tailored and then mailed to you in just a couple of weeks.
	This week, my listeners can get any premium Indochino suit for just $359 at Indochino.com when entering promo code SHAPIRO at checkout.
	That's 50% off the regular price for a made-to-measure Premium suit, plus shipping is free.
	Indochino.com, promo code Shapiro.
	For any premium suit, just $359.
	Incredible deal.
	For a premium made-to-measure suit, there is no reason.
	Listen, everything today is customized for you.
	Why would you not get a suit that is customized for you?
	I mean, this is literally how suits were designed to be made.
	So go check out Indochino.com, promo code Shapiro.
	For any premium suit, just $359.
	Best suit I own, best suit you will own as well.
	Indochino.com.
	All right, so.
	The big news of the day is that the first cracks are appearing in Joe Biden's facade.
	So Joe Biden obviously continues to lead in the polls.
	According to the RealClearPolitics poll average, he is well ahead of the rest of the field at this point nationally.
	But he has been dropping.
	He's been dropping.
	He was up near 40 percent in the RealClearPolitics poll average just a couple of weeks ago.
	He's down to 34 percent.
	In the RealClearPolitics poll average right now, he leads Bernie Sanders in Iowa by just 4%.
	He's up on Bernie Sanders by about 13 points in New Hampshire, but there are no real late-breaking polls there, so my guess is that the lead is smaller than that.
	And the reason that he's beginning to recede, he's beginning to regress back to the mean, is because Joe Biden is not a good candidate.
	The problem for Joe Biden is this.
	His pitch is basically, you know me.
	You know, I'm old Joe, old Joe Biden.
	And because I'm old Joe, you know, you've known me for 30 years.
	I've been consistent.
	I'm a rock of solidity in a time of instability.
	You can feel comfortable with old Joe Biden.
	Well, the only problem is that if the case that you are making is that you are a rock of solidity, you cannot be waving around like a palm tree in the wind.
	You can't do that.
	If the idea is that Donald Trump is too volatile, and that you are, again, going to be that safe harbor for Americans who just want something steady in a time of trouble, you're gonna be that ship that doesn't move with the waves, you're just gonna plow right on ahead through those eddies.
	If you are that guy, you can't be the guy who switches your mind every five minutes out of pressure to the left.
	Because now, many Americans are gonna feel that you are unstable, and many folks on the left are gonna feel that you are insincere.
	See, what people are looking for in a candidate is a level of authenticity.
	This is why Donald Trump was the nominee and why he's the president.
	Because when it came right down to it, he has a level of authenticity that is well, that I think is rare in politics, and people see that.
	That's interesting.
	I was listening to another podcast by a guy named Larry Wilmore, who's a comedian and a comedian of the political left.
	And he made a distinction that I thought was actually quite a good distinction.
	The distinction was he was talking about politics and he said there are three types of people in politics.
	There are the truth tellers, people who say things that you don't want to hear, but are true.
	And then there are people who are honest.
	And then there are people who just spout bullcrap.
	Bullcrap are people who just say what they think you want to hear.
	Kirsten Gillibrand, perfect example of the bullcrap candidate.
	The candidate who just wants to say whatever it is that you want her to say.
	And then there's the honest candidate.
	The honest candidate isn't necessarily honest about the situation, but is honest to their feelings.
	So they're saying what is in their heart.
	And this is very attractive to Americans because usually these are the only two choices available.
	And sometimes honesty beats the third choice, truth-telling, because if truth-telling amounts to, I'm going to tell you something you don't want to hear, people don't want to hear that stuff.
	And they also don't want to hear BS.
	They don't want to feel like they're being pandered to.
	So what they're looking for is somebody who mostly tells them the things that they kind of like, but somebody who says what is in their heart, because now we can get a glimpse at the real you, right?
	That is Donald Trump's appeal.
	Well, Joe Biden is a master BSer.
	As Larry Wilmore says, and he's exactly right about this.
	Joe Biden is a B.S.
	artist.
	And the problem is you cannot beat honesty with a B.S.
	artist.
	You can only beat honesty with somebody else who is perceived as honest.
	And this is the case that the radical left is making.
	They're saying, listen, of all of our candidates, the guy who is the most honest is Bernie Sanders.
	Now, the left is having to determine whether Elizabeth Warren is honest or whether she is a B.S.
	or to them, whether she's just telling the radical left.
	Whether she's just telling the radical left what they want to hear.
	But one thing is becoming eminently clear.
	In the first few weeks of his campaign, Joe Biden, who portrays himself as Honest Joe, a guy who gaffes into honesty, but he's honest and he's solid, he is none of those things.
	He is a BS artist who will shift all of his opinions on a moment's notice if he receives any sort of pressure.
	Today's example, Joe Biden has now caved on the Hyde Amendment.
	So the Hyde Amendment, for those who don't know, is an amendment that was passed in the 1990s to a federal bill.
	It has been attached in virtually every appropriations bill since and has been continuously enforced for 20 some years.
	The Hyde Amendment says there will be no federal funding for abortion.
	So if federal funds are available for a clinic, the clinic has to make sure that it is not using those federal funds for abortion.
	So Planned Parenthood gets funding from the federal government, but they have to pledge that that money is not going to be used for abortion.
	Now, the reason that this isn't helpful when it comes to Planned Parenthood is because Planned Parenthood is an abortion clinic.
	So that means that all the money is fungible.
	Any cost that they defray from federal funding in one area, they can then use money Money from another source and then put it into sponsoring abortion.
	With that said, the Hyde Amendment is obviously a very good part of law.
	And the reason it's a good part of law is because you should not be paying for somebody else's abortion, obviously.
	You know who used to agree with this?
	Was Joe Biden.
	So here is a brief history of Joe Biden on this issue.
	I'm going to tell you the history and then we'll play some audio of Joe Biden backing up the case.
	David Harsanyi of The Federalist puts this out there.
	In 1976, Biden voted for the Hyde Amendment, a law banning federal funds to pay for abortion.
	In 1981, the Biden Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act banned any American aid from being used in research related to abortions.
	In 1984, Biden supported the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding for private organizations that provide abortion, advocate to decriminalize abortion, or expand abortion services.
	In 1993, Biden voted to save the Hyde Amendment.
	In 1995 and 1997, Biden voted for partial birth abortion bans that would be vetoed by Bill Clinton.
	On June 5, 2019, Joe Biden continued his 40-plus year support for the Hyde Amendment.
	In fact, I have right before me a New York Times piece that we talked about just two days ago.
	Two days ago!
	The title of it was, Biden Still Backs Hyde Amendment, Which Bans Federal Funds for Abortions.
	And that piece discussed an exchange that Joe Biden had regarding the Hyde Amendment.
	He was asked by the ACLU whether he still supported the Hyde Amendment.
	And he said, no, I no longer support the Hyde Amendment.
	And then he reversed himself again.
	So back in 2007, here was Joe Biden talking about public funding for abortion on Meet the Press.
	Are you still opposed to public funding for abortion?
	I still am opposed to public funding for abortion.
	And the reason I am is, again, it goes to the question of whether or not you are going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right, but an affirmative action to promote.
	OK, so that was Joe Biden's perspective and that remained his perspective from 1976 all the way to 2019.
	Then about a month ago, he was asked this question by a member of the ACLU on the Hyde Amendment.
	And here's what he had to say.
	This is May 4th, 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina.
	I heard you did, but I'm glad you just said you would commit to abolishing the Hyde Amendment.
	It can't stay.
	Yes.
	And by the way, ACLU member, I got a near perfect voting record my entire career.
	I heard you did, but I'm glad you just said you would commit to abolishing the Hyde Amendment.
	Right now, it has to be.
	It can't stay.
	It can stay.
	That's what he said.
	And then about three weeks later, he was asked about it again.
	It started to become an issue.
	And he said, no, no, no, no.
	I still am in favor of the Hyde Amendment.
	The Hyde Amendment is still a very good thing.
	He said, oh, you know what?
	I screwed this up.
	What I meant is the Mexico City policy, which he also used to vote in favor of.
	Now he says he's not in favor of the Mexico City policy, but he's still in favor of the Hyde Amendment.
	And this brought him under fire.
	From Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who tweeted, Repealing the Hyde Amendment is critical so that low-income women in particular can have access to the reproductive care they need and deserve.
	Reproductive rights are human rights, period.
	They should be non-negotiable for all Democrats.
	Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said, There's no middle ground on women's rights.
	Abortion is a constitutional right.
	Under my Medicare for All plan, we will repeal the Hyde Amendment.
	Senator Elizabeth Warren said, this isn't about politics.
	This is about what's right.
	She said, hair are moving.
	The Hyde Amendment should not be American law.
	And CNN's Dana Bash said, well, listen, all of this may be true, CNN's Dana Bash, but Biden's not going to change his mind.
	She said this yesterday.
	Yesterday.
	OK, here's Dana Bash.
	The Democratic Party has moved over the last four years and even a little bit before that.
	But Joe Biden hasn't.
	I've done some reporting on this today and I am told explicitly that it is Joe Biden himself who says, this is my conviction and I'm not changing it.
	This is how I have felt and this is how I have voted for my four decades in public service and I'm not changing, despite the fact that the party clearly has changed.
	Okay, that was Dana Bash yesterday on CNN.
	He's clearly not changing.
	He's not going to change.
	And then Elizabeth Warren says, let's repeal the Hyde Amendment.
	Here she was on MSNBC yesterday saying, we need to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.
	By the way, she's voted in favor of the Hyde Amendment several times because it's attached to virtually every appropriations bill.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren explaining.
	Former Vice President Joe Biden came out and said that he would not support repealing the Hyde Amendment.
	That is a provision of federal law that bars the federal government from funding abortion services from Medicare, Medicaid, and others.
	You disagree with that position.
	Yes, I do.
	Is Joe Biden wrong?
	Yes.
	And what do you say if someone says, no, this is the smart political move if you need to win in a general election to support the Hyde Amendment?
	This is not about politics.
	What this is about is about healthcare, about reproductive freedom, about economic freedom, and about equal opportunity for all women.
	Okay, now this would be the point where Joe Biden stands up and he says, no.
	You know, the Hyde Amendment is good law.
	The reason the Hyde Amendment is good law is because it ensures that a taxpayer who disagrees with abortion in Georgia does not have to pay for somebody getting an abortion in New York.
	He could stand up tall if you're going to portray yourself as the moderate in the race, if you're going to portray yourself as the guy who can unite all Americans.
	This would be a great moment to have a sister soldier moment, as Bill Clinton supposedly had, and you're supposed to stand up and say to your radical left flank, guys, hold up a minute.
	I agree with you about abortion, but I don't agree with you that somebody else is supposed to fund somebody else's abortions, right?
	This would be the moment when Joe Biden distinguishes himself from the field.
	Joe Biden really shows the American people why he's different from the rest of these jokers, why you should trust him, why he should be earning 40% here, why he should be looking at the presidency straight in the face.
	This would be the moment for Joe Biden.
	So what does he do?
	He collapses like a house of cards.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	Let's talk about the fact that I'm spending way too much on my cell phone bill.
	You're spending way too much on your cell phone bill.
	The fact is, you could be spending hundreds of dollars on your cell phone bill.
	Why?
	Mainly because you're paying for a lot of data that you actually don't need.
	Well, thanks to Mint Mobile, you don't have to overpay for wireless anymore.
	With Mint Mobile, you can cut your wireless bill down all the way to 15 bucks a month.
	Which is a pretty dramatic drop.
	They've reimagined wireless.
	They're making it easy and online only.
	That means they can pass significant savings on directly to you.
	Mint Mobile makes it easy to cut your wireless bill down to just $15 a month.
	Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
	You can keep your old number along with all those existing contacts.
	With Mint Mobile, choose between plans with 3, 8, or 12 gigs of 4G LTE data.
	Stop paying for unlimited data you'll never use.
	This is how the phone companies get you.
	Every plan comes with unlimited nationwide talk and text.
	To get that new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month and get the plan shipped to your door for free, go to mintmobile.com slash ben.
	That's M-I-N-T-M-O-B-I-L-E mintmobile.com slash ben.
	Cut that wireless bill all the way down to 15 bucks a month.
	Get free shipping on your Mint Mobile plan at mintmobile.com slash ben.
	That's mintmobile.com.
	Slash Ben.
	And again, 15 bucks a month.
	That's nothing.
	Go check it out right now.
	Mint mobile dot com slash Ben.
	All right.
	So Joe Biden has the opportunity now to stand up to his radical left base based on 46 years of a consistent position on federal funding of abortion.
	And this is a position, by the way, that is widely popular with Americans.
	Most Americans are not in favor of federal funding of abortion.
	This is particularly true in a lot of the swing states that Joe Biden needs to win.
	This is true in Pennsylvania.
	It's true in Wisconsin.
	It's true in Michigan.
	It's true in Ohio.
	It's true in Florida.
	Even people who tend to be kind of pro-choice, or at least don't want full pro-life bills on the table, even those people say, you know what seems like a pretty good solution here?
	Pay for your own abortion.
	I'm not going to pay for your abortion.
	Nobody else has to pay for your abortion.
	This is pretty solid middle ground.
	Joe Biden gets a little bit of pressure from the left.
	And by a little, I mean a few tweets.
	I mean, Kirsten Gillibrand tweets at him.
	I mean, Elizabeth Warren says a thing.
	I mean, Bernie Sanders says a thing.
	And by the way, Joe Biden can fight back against all of these people except for Bernie Sanders.
	Because next time Elizabeth Warren says this, he can say, listen, Elizabeth, you voted for this thing.
	He can say, listen, Kirsten, for all your talk, I've been standing up for abortion rights for years and years and years.
	You just voted for the Hyde Amendment like two days ago in 2018.
	Instead, overnight, Joe Biden flips and then flops and then flips again.
	So in May, he says, yeah, you know what, no more Hyde Amendment.
	Then he flips back and he says, no, the Hyde Amendment's good.
	Now, I meant the Mexico City policy, guys.
	I mean, you can understand how I would mix up the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City policy.
	I mean, they sound exactly the same.
	Like the words Hyde Amendment and Mexico City policy, resemblance.
	I mean, if I've ever heard something that is ripe for confusion, it is those two terms.
	But does he stand up to his original position and just say, yeah, that was a that was a boo boo?
	No, he doesn't.
	Instead, he folds.
	He folds.
	I mean, this dude folds more often than an origami set.
	It's incredible.
	It's incredible.
	He is more flexible than the USA gymnastics team.
	So here is Joe Biden yesterday explaining That he has now shifted his position on the Hyde Amendment after 46 years.
	This is sheer political cowardice, and it undermines his case to be president.
	His case to be president is that he stands like a rock where he believes that he doesn't change based on the prevailing winds, that pressure from outside groups is not going to shift him or move him, that he is the moderate in the race who understands the heart of Americans.
	Instead, he gets a little bit of pressure from a crazy old loon like Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and suddenly he moves.
	It's amazing.
	I don't see so many Republican governors denying health care to millions of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans by refusing even Medicaid expansion.
	I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right.
	If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone else.
	Wow.
	So what's his excuse?
	His excuse is the Republicans, which is hilarious.
	So his new excuse is, oh, you know what?
	I'm seeing these pro-life bills being passed in Georgia and Alabama, and that means I have to support federal funding of abortion.
	What?
	Why?
	Why?
	I mean, that logic doesn't even hold.
	You know, there are lots of pro-lifers all across the United States.
	And those pro-lifers have been pro-life for Joe Biden's entire career.
	And it is also true that there are certain states with more abortion restrictions than others.
	This has also been true over the course of Joe Biden's career.
	Don't give me this crap where Joe Biden switched his position because Republicans are doing things.
	Joe Biden switched his position because he's a coward.
	Because the knees buckled.
	Because Joe Biden stared directly into the face of the hard left, and instead of making the stand that would have allowed Joe Biden to continue to portray himself as a moderate in the face of this radical left group inside his own party, instead he decided that he was going to try to co-opt that left part of the party.
	It ain't gonna work, guys.
	It's not gonna work.
	If you're on Joe Biden's campaign, and so far your entire campaign has been a series of apologies and hiding, He's like the Bonnie and Clyde of the campaign trail.
	He pops out to apologize and then he flees back into his car into the backwoods.
	And then he pops out again to apologize.
	If that's your idea of a campaign, that you hide and then apologize and then you hide some more and then you apologize, do you really think that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, these folks are going to let up?
	You really think Kamala Harris is going to go, is suddenly going to be kind to you?
	Is that what they think?
	Because here's the thing, Biden's been doing this consistently.
	Hey, this is now a pattern.
	It's not just on the Hyde Amendment.
	This is the most obvious example where he flipped and then flopped and then flipped.
	I mean, dude was basically like a dolphin out of water, flipping and flopping all around.
	But this is not the first time that Joe Biden has done this in this campaign.
	Back in January, Joe Biden trying to shore up his black support He said in remarks at a Martin Luther King Jr.
	breakfast that he had made mistakes when it came to criminal justice issues.
	He says, You know, I've been in this fight a long time.
	It goes not just to voting rights.
	It goes to the criminal justice system.
	I haven't always been right.
	I know we haven't always gotten things right, but I've always tried.
	He's still coming out now and quasi defending the 1994 crime bill, which, by the way, was a good bill.
	Crime rates in the United States were skyrocketing.
	The 1994 crime bill went into effect with mandatory minimums and more policing resources available, and the crime rates began to drop, and they have continued to drop to today.
	It's one of the great reversals of crime in the history of the United States.
	Joe Biden is running away from his own record on that.
	Now, Joe Biden is doing exactly what he's done on the Hyde Amendment, which is he's still maintaining today that the 1994 crime bill was necessary and good, and he's sort of defending it.
	Within two months, he will deny that he had anything to do with it.
	Within two months, he will suggest that the 1994 crime bill may have been a necessary preventative measure at the time, but it was a bad bill, and he never should have supported it, and oopsie whoopsie daisy.
	That's where this is going.
	How do we know that?
	Because he'll do this on even the simplest things.
	Even the simplest, stupidest things.
	He will reverse himself like a damned coward.
	What kind of simple, stupid things?
	How about calling Mike Pence a nice guy?
	I mean, this is ridiculous.
	Now, I've spoken.
	With a bevy of Republicans who know Joe Biden, the vast majority of them say that Joe Biden is a nice guy.
	They say that he is a decent guy.
	They disagree with him on politics.
	You know, we had Senator Ted Cruz in here on Daily Wire backstage and Senator Cruz talked about Joe Biden.
	He said he's a very nice guy.
	Everybody gets along with Joe Biden, right?
	Everybody does.
	So no one on the right side of the aisle really has a problem saying that Joe Biden is a decent guy.
	Well, Joe Biden called Mike Pence a decent guy.
	This is something you are no longer allowed to do.
	If you are a member of the hard left, or you kowtow to the hard left, if you call somebody on the right a decent person, you are now to be excoriated, you are to be cast out of the tent.
	So Joe Biden, earlier last year, he called Mike Pence a decent guy, and he got ripped for it.
	Here's what it sounded like when he was actually being a decent human by calling Mike Pence a person with whom he disagrees, a decent fellow.
	I was followed on by a guy who's a decent guy, our vice president.
	who stood before this group of allies and leaders and said, I'm here on behalf of President Trump.
	And there was dead silence.
	Dead silence.
	So even in the midst of ripping Pence, he says that Pence is a decent guy.
	Cynthia Nixon, a failed gubernatorial candidate in New York, who's a radical, she tweeted out, Joe Biden, you've called you've called America's most anti LGBT elected leader a decent guy.
	Please consider how this falls on the ears of our community.
	And then she tweeted, Joe Biden's wife.
	And Joe Biden then kowtowed, just like he did with regard to the Hyde Amendment, a little bit of pressure from Cynthia Nixon, and boom, he falls down.
	Instead of him just saying, listen, Mike Pence is a decent guy, we disagree on politics, which would be the normal, right thing to say.
	Instead, he caved immediately.
	He tweeted out, "You're right, Cynthia.
	"I was making a point in a foreign policy context "that under normal circumstances, "a vice president wouldn't be given a silent reaction "on the world stage.
	"But there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, "and that includes the vice president." So he goes from, "Mike Pence is a decent guy," to, "Mike Pence is an indecent guy," based on a Cynthia Nixon tweet.
	"This is your idol of stability, Democrats?
	This is the person that you're going to put up as a as a solid counter to the chaos of President Trump, a guy who switches his positions every five seconds, depending on the amount of pressure that he receives.
	Americans are going to perceive this.
	This Hyde Amendment thing is not just about the Hyde Amendment.
	This Hyde Amendment thing is about something much more.
	I'll talk about it in just a second.
	First, let me tell you, you know, I talk a lot about my sleep quality.
	I have a really tough time sleeping.
	I am not a good sleeper.
	Every night when I try to fall asleep...
	It's very difficult for me.
	Until I tried the Calming Comfort Blanket by Sharper Image.
	It is awesome.
	It's a luxurious weighted blanket that helps you relax so you can fall asleep and stay asleep naturally.
	Now, I know that it sounds kind of weird to have a weighted blanket.
	Like, what's that for?
	Well, what it does is it actually calms your body.
	It's super cool.
	Calming Comfort...
	It's designed with high density comfort fill to provide exactly the right amount of weight to help relax your body.
	It mimics the soothing feeling of being hugged for less stress in a restful night's sleep.
	Calm & Comfort applies an even amount of pressure over your body to help the production of serotonin and melatonin, simulating deep touch pressure stimulation.
	Calm & Comfort is 100% machine washable and dryer safe.
	And the Calm and Comfort Weighted Blanket comes with a 90-day anxiety-free, stress-free, best night's sleep of your life guarantee from Sharper Image, so you really have nothing to lose.
	It's so good that I got one and then I got another one for my wife.
	Right now, just for our listeners, you can go to calmandcomfortblanket.com.
	Use promo code BEN at checkout to receive 15% off the displayed price.
	Again, that is calmandcomfortblanket.com.
	Promo code Ben, because you can't put a price on a great night's sleep.
	Go online now, calmandcomfortblanket.com.
	Use promo code Ben for your special discount today.
	So, as I say, what this says about Joe Biden goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment.
	It goes to the core of his candidacy.
	He says he is the most electable guy.
	The reason he is supposedly electable is, again, because he is Captain Stability.
	He's not a kook like Bernie Sanders.
	He's not a wild-eyed like Elizabeth Warren.
	He's not an unknown like Kamala Harris.
	And he's certainly not chaotic like that terrible President Trump.
	He's Old Slow Joe.
	But, when he looks doddering, when he looks as though he can be pushed around by anybody on his side of the aisle, How do you think he's going to face up against President Trump in a general elect matchup?
	It's pretty impressive to see a man destroy his entire case for qualification on the basis of having to please the radical left.
	If there's any question who's in control of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden just answered it.
	Joe Biden and the so-called moderates, they ain't in control of this Democratic Party anymore.
	All of that is over.
	The people who are in control of the Democratic Party are indeed radical, and they are only going to get more radical.
	I'm talking about folks like Cory Booker.
	So Cory Booker is not in control of the Democratic Party, nor is he going to win the Democratic nomination.
	But Cory Booker is basically souped up Kirsten Gillibrand.
	Wherever he thinks the money is, that is where he will go.
	And so Cory Booker, who used to be perceived, again, as a moderate who could reach across the aisle.
	Again, I know senators who deal with Cory Booker.
	They say he's a very friendly guy.
	They say he's a nice guy.
	But Cory Booker moves with the wind.
	There is no I am Spartacus moment for Spartacus over here.
	There is none.
	OK, because Spartacus is about standing up in the face of pressure.
	Cory Booker has never done that his entire career.
	There was Cory Booker pandering on the basis of the Hyde Amendment and suggesting that you're racist if you don't support the Hyde Amendment.
	It was this kind of rhetoric that drove Joe Biden to disown his own position.
	This assault on women's reproductive rights is an assault on women, but it's a particularly assault on African-American women.
	And the Hyde Amendment to deny people through Medicaid and Medicare abortion rights, that is an assault on African American women too.
	God, he is so terrible.
	I mean, just as a candidate, he's so terrible.
	I mean, he is the spinal tap speaker.
	It's always up to 11, man.
	You could've just made 10 higher.
	Nope, you gotta go to 11.
	That's Cory Booker.
	All over.
	And when I say he goes to 11, I mean, I know this is a side point, but when Cory Booker goes to 11, there is something innately hysterical about somebody who is hysterical, and Cory Booker getting hysterical in the most calculated possible fashion.
	He's basically like a jukebox of anger.
	Like, you take a quarter and you drop it in, and you wait for the quarter to drop, And suddenly, the volume is up too loud?
	That's Cory Booker.
	So here we go.
	We're gonna drop the coin in.
	Clink!
	Make this a movement election that activates the consciousness of a country that brings out everybody from the sidelines of a democracy to getting on the field, joining together in unison, in collective voice and say, I too dream of America.
	If we do like that, then we won't just win an election.
	We will change neighborhoods from coast to coast.
	Communities like mine will see a nation where justice does roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.
	Oh, sorry, the jukebox ran out right there.
	Sorry, the quarter ran out.
	We'll have to get another quarter later and then see if we can tune up the Cory Booker anger jukebox again with just dropping a coin.
	But here's the thing.
	This is contagious.
	Even the folks who were supposed to campaign as moderates have been taken over by the far left policies.
	Pete Buttigieg, when he first announced, I said he was one of the more attractive Democratic candidates because he seemed like a person who actually wanted to get along and have conversations.
	And then, of course, he has run directly to the left.
	I mean, it's incredible.
	All Democrats have to do to win in 2020.
	I don't mean to give them advice because I don't want them to win.
	But all Democrats have to do in 2020 is run directly at the finish line.
	The finish line is right here.
	All they have to do is run directly at the finish line.
	And it's like they let the horse out of the gate at the Belmont and the horse runs directly into the center lane.
	I mean, it just runs directly into the rail.
	That's what's happening right here.
	They're in a swim meet.
	All they have to do is swim straight.
	And instead, like, oh, look, the lane line.
	I'm going to run right at that.
	So they let Pete Buttigieg out of the gate.
	He's like, I got my eye on the prize.
	There's the finish line right there.
	Just going to run right for that finish line.
	Runs right off the road.
	Here's Pete Buttigieg running off the road by suggesting that Stacey Abrams is the legitimate governor of Georgia, which is just a bunch of crap.
	But he's speaking in front of the African-American Leadership Summit.
	And so we have to pretend that a lady who lost an election by 55,000 votes is the actual elected governor of Georgia.
	Stacey Abrams ought to be the governor of Georgia.
	When racially motivated voter suppression is permitted, when districts are drawn so that politicians get to choose their voters instead of the other way around, when money is allowed to outvote people in this country, we cannot truly say that we live in a democracy.
	And it is time for us to stand up for democracy, not just because our party tends to do better when more people are allowed to vote, But because every American will be better off when our democracy lives up a little more to its ideals.
	Okay, this is the supposed moderate in the party pretending that voter suppression prevented Stacey Abrams from winning the governorship, which is just a bunch of hooey.
	Joe Biden could have distinguished himself.
	He could have distinguished himself in this field.
	He chose not to distinguish himself in the field.
	He figures, with a high level of name recognition, that he can run directly back to the pack.
	It's unreal.
	It's unreal.
	All he had to do was not be this.
	And he can't stop himself.
	And here's the thing.
	He's not really this.
	And people are going to detect that.
	Going back to that tripartite distinction, that BS, honesty, truth-teller distinction.
	Ain't nobody in the Democratic Party doing serious truth-telling.
	A lot of folks in the Democratic Party doing BSing.
	There are a couple of people who are honest.
	And if I have to pit the honesty of or purported honesty of Elizabeth Warren on leftist principles or Bernie Sanders on leftist principles against Joe Biden, who now appears to be a BS-er, it feels to me like Joe Biden is set for a fall.
	I think there's a reason he is receding back to the field.
	And there ain't no second win for Joe Biden.
	Dude's got a front run all the way.
	If he ever drops back into the field, he is toast.
	If he ever drops back into the pack, he is finished.
	And we are beginning to see this happen in a lot of these polls.
	His lead in a lot of these polls is dropping precipitously.
	Again, that RealClearPolitics poll average has him dropping.
	It has him dropping.
	He was at, in the latest Economist poll that came out on June 4th, has him all the way down to 27%.
	He's not going to win this thing at 27%.
	It ain't going to happen.
	So, in a second, we're going to get to a victory, a maybe victory for President Trump on tariffs.
	Maybe I will have to admit that I was wrong.
	Something I don't really enjoy doing, but will do if I am.
	So, we'll get to that in just one second.
	First, you know what you need this Father's Day?
	More meat.
	You know what your dad needs?
	He needs more meat.
	And he needs great meat.
	And that's where Omaha Steaks comes in.
	So, I have a lot of friends who eat Omaha Steaks, and they just rave about the quality.
	And right now, we have an unbelievable deal.
	If you go to OmahaSteaks.com and you enter promo code Shapiro in the search bar, you get 74% off the Father's Day Steak Fix gift package.
	That's a $235 value, now for only $59.99.
	Order now, and here's what you get.
	You ready for this?
	For under $60.
	Order now, and here's what you get.
	Two filet mignons, two top sirloins, two pork chops, four Omaha Steaks burgers, four gourmet jumbo franks, four chicken fried steaks and all beef meatballs, four chicken breasts, four caramel apple tartlets, a packet of Omaha Steaks signature seasoning, and four extra Omaha Steaks burgers for free.
	All for under 60 bucks.
	Give that amazing package as a gift for dad, or just stock up for incredible summer grilling.
	Because summer is a coming.
	I'm excited about it.
	All at 74% off.
	Again, order right now and get that exclusive Omaha Steaks Father's Day Steak Fix package.
	Valued at $235 for just $59.99.
	Go to omahasteaks.com.
	Type promo code Shapiro into the search bar.
	That offer does end soon.
	So go check them out.
	OmahaSteaks.com.
	Type promo code Shapiro in the search bar and get the Father's Day steak fix package today.
	Okay, in just a second, we are going to get to a possible victory for President Trump over Mexico.
	You know, it was a strategy that I doubted, but if it works out, if it works out, then big win for President Trump.
	We'll get to that in just a second first.
	So I talked to you a lot about subscribing.
	I talked to you a lot about subscribing here on the Daily Wire, like every day I mention it.
	But as you know, YouTube has taken a big step in silencing conservatives by moving to demonetize Stephen Crowder's videos on the basis of nothing.
	They openly said he did not violate community standards, yet they would demonetize him anyway, based on the fact that basically a bunch of wild leftists complained that he was being mean to them.
	If this worries you, and it should, if you think this is the first step in big tech censoring conservatism, It's not the first step.
	It's actually like the third or the fourth step.
	It's time to make your voice heard.
	If you want to do that, head over to dailywire.com slash YouTube.
	Add your name to the list of folks standing up to the bullies at YouTube, speaking out for free speech.
	This actually is pretty important.
	Again, that's dailywire.com slash YouTube and go join the fight.
	Also, you know how you can help us?
	You can help us by subscribing, and when you do, it's that glorious time of week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
	Today, it is Twitterer Mark Sutherland of Wilmington, North Carolina.
	He knows what every sports science expert knows worth their weight in creatine.
	Nothing replenishes a body more effectively than fresh leftist tears delivered via our state-of-the-art Tumblr.
	In this photo, Mark, who is covered in bits of dirt and mud while proudly holding his elite beverage vessel, appears to have just completed a Spartan race, which is pretty awesome.
	If that is his SUV behind him with all the stickers, this is like his 19th or 20th.
	Mark writes, refueling after a tough race.
	Hashtag Daily Wire.
	Hashtag Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Good on you, sir.
	An elite athlete deserves an elite beverage vessel.
	We very much appreciate your support.
	If you want a chance of being featured on the show, become a DailyWire annual subscriber.
	If you're not already one, post a photo of your Tumblr on Twitter or Instagram.
	You can even be in the photo if you would like.
	To become a subscriber, head on over to DailyWire.com, click on the subscribe button at the top of the page.
	Now, as I've been saying for weeks at this point, before the Crowder thing even happened, If you want to ensure that you can still get the material that you want, you can still hear this show, that the left's attempted boycott tactics do not succeed, that the left's attempts to de-platform people on the right do not succeed, they can still have alternative methods of receiving information, you do need to subscribe.
	We really not only appreciate it, but it's vital.
	We need you to be part of the team.
	Go over to dailywire.com right now and subscribe.
	$9.99 a month gets you all the goodies.
	$99 a year gets you all the goodies, plus leftist tears hot or cold tumblr that you just saw in that picture.
	It is indeed fantastic.
	As I pointed out yesterday, the reason that we labeled it leftist tears, not liberal tears, is because liberals are people I disagree with politically.
	Leftists are people who want to silence you, and their tears are in fact delicious.
	You know how to produce more of those tears?
	Go subscribe over at dailywire.com right now.
	We have all sorts of great stuff for you when you subscribe.
	The Sunday special comes to you on Saturday.
	You get all the material behind the paywall.
	This week's Sunday special is with Senator Ted Cruz.
	We have great Sunday specials coming up in the next few weeks.
	I can't wait to share them with you.
	They really are spectacular.
	Go over and subscribe right now.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty, so in other news, as you know, I've been highly critical of President Trump's tariff strategy with regard to Mexico.
	I was very skeptical that the president threatening 5% tariffs, then 10, then 15, then 25% tariffs on Mexican goods by October was going to actually drive the government of Mexico to start making moves to stop illegal immigration into the United States.
	I was skeptical also because President Trump has always been kind of unclear on whether he uses tariffs as a leverage mechanism or whether he just likes tariffs.
	Now his supporters will say it's a leverage mechanism and he sort of pretends to like tariffs to show that he's not bluffing.
	Fair enough.
	It seems in this case that might actually be true in which case I would owe the president an apology because I've been ripping on the policy.
	Here is what the Washington Post reports today.
	Mexico aims to avoid tariffs with potential deal limiting migrants going north, allowing the United States to deport Central American asylum seekers.
	They report U.S.
	and Mexican officials are discussing the outlines of a deal that would dramatically increase Mexico's immigration enforcement efforts and give the United States far more latitude to deport Central Americans seeking asylum, according to a U.S.
	official and a Mexican official who cautioned the accord is not final and Trump might not accept it.
	Faced with Trump's threat to impose steadily rising tariffs on goods imported from Mexico beginning on Monday, Mexican officials have pledged to deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to the area of the country's border with Guatemala, a show of force they say will immediately reduce the number of Central Americans heading north toward the U.S.
	border.
	In other words, they're going to stop people at their southern border so they don't come up to America's southern border.
	The plan, a sweeping overhaul of asylum rules across the region, would require Central American migrants to seek refuge in the first country they leave, they enter after leaving their homeland, the two officials say.
	Which makes some sense.
	In other words, if you are seeking to avoid Guatemala because of human rights conditions in Guatemala, then why do you have to come to the United States for that?
	Why would not applying for asylum in Mexico be sufficient?
	You're not going to be persecuted, presumably, in Mexico, the same way you are in your home country.
	For Guatemalans, that would be Mexico.
	For migrants from Honduras and El Salvador, that would be Guatemala.
	His government held talks last week with acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan.
	Any migrants who made it to the U.S.
	border generally would be deported to the appropriate third country.
	Any migrants who express a fear of death or torture in their home country would be subjected to a tougher screening standard by U.S.
	asylum officers more likely to result in rejection because one of the things that's been happening is hundreds of thousands of people appeal for asylum on America's southern border and then We have to take them in by U.S.
	law, and then we just sort of release them, and they never show up again.
	Or they show up at their first check-in, and then they just stick around and get a provisional green card.
	Mexico has repeatedly said it would not accept what is known as a safe third-country agreement with the United States, requiring it to take in all U.S.-bound asylum seekers.
	The U.S.
	has such a pact with Canada, it requires asylum seekers to apply for refuge in whichever country they first arrive, since both countries are considered safe.
	On Thursday, the Mexican official said the Mexican government indicated it's willing to make asylum changes for the sake of a coordinated regional approach to stem the flow of Central American migrants now flooding into the United States.
	But Mexican negotiators also made it clear they will withdraw the offer if Trump makes good on his threat to impose tariffs, telling their U.S.
	counterparts the economic damage would undermine Mexico's ability to pay for the tougher immigration enforcement.
	Well, here's what it sounds like.
	It sounds like President Trump threatening the tariff got results in like two weeks.
	Which is an incredible win for President Trump, if all of this is verifiable.
	So, this could be a huge win for President Trump.
	And if he was able to leverage the Mexican government into a third party agreement, that is pretty astonishing.
	A safe third country agreement, that's a pretty astonishing result for basically a Twitter threat.
	Under existing trade rules, of course, the vast majority of U.S.-Mexico trade is duty-free.
	A sudden shift to tariffs on all Mexican products would overwhelm the companies that move imports through U.S.
	customs checks.
	Now, again, this is a heavy bet by President Trump.
	And the fact is that President Trump should take the win.
	Should take the win.
	Trump officials have told Mexico that their prior pledges are not enough, making it clear that the White House will be only satisfied with a return to the numbers tallied in the months after Trump was inaugurated, when arrests fell below 20,000, the lowest level in half a century.
	Trump said he had still not made up his mind.
	He said something pretty dramatic could happen.
	He said, we've told Mexico the tariffs go on, and I mean it, too.
	Trump also dismissed Republican senators' threat to block his tariff plan, saying they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to tariffs.
	This is the part where I'm always a little disquieted, because Trump appears to actually like tariffs.
	He's been pretty consistent about it since the 1980s.
	But again, if these are used as leverage, then, and he successfully does that, then it's a gambit, it's a big bet that pays off for the president, and he gets the credit.
	He definitely gets the credit.
	So, on that one, if he, listen, results are results, and if the president gets results, good for him.
	Good for him.
	He's going to need results on this one because if he doesn't get, when I say it's a big bet, what I mean is that the economy seems to be slowing.
	So if he doesn't get the results that he is seeking and the tariffs do go into place, then it's going to get dicey for him.
	Job growth numbers sputtered in May, but people think that the Fed is going to loosen the monetary supply.
	According to the Washington Post, hiring cooled in May, the Labor Department reported on Friday as firms appeared more hesitant to bring on new employees amid the uncertainty and concern over President Trump escalating the trade war with China.
	The U.S. economy added some 75,000 jobs in May, a significant pullback from 224,000 jobs added in April.
	That is likely to heighten fears that the trade war is taking a greater toll.
	The unemployment rate remains at a five decade low of 3.6%.
	There's anemic job growth in manufacturing and construction.
	A lot of folks are worried about the tariffs.
	So as I say, this is a high risk, high reward play for the president.
	If the tariffs don't go into effect and we get some actual results on illegal immigration, huge win, huge win for President Trump.
	All righty.
	It's time for some mailbags.
	So it's Friday.
	We've got to answer some questions.
	Let's do it.
	Benjamin says, long time listener.
	I just subscribed for the first time because it seems more important than ever to financially support shows and websites like The Daily Wire to fight back the heckler's veto.
	Well, I appreciate it.
	Thank you for subscribing.
	As I've been saying to everyone, you need to subscribe to your favorite shows right now because the left is intent on making them unavailable or destroying their profit motive by going after advertisers and secondary boycotts.
	This is the evil of media matters.
	It's really gross.
	rose.
	Benjamin says, my wife and I are expecting our first child this month after years of trying.
	We feel overwhelmingly blessed and want to re-enter the faith community as a result of what we believe was an actual gift from God.
	I was raised in a mixed religious household.
	My wife was raised Catholic.
	What are your thoughts on conversion to create a cohesive family unit in which to raise our first child?
	Well, I do agree that both parents should share a faith.
	This is why I'm not in favor of mixed marriages, generally speaking, across religious lines when both parties are interested in raising kids religious.
	You have to share values with your spouse, and very often those values are religious values.
	So, if you're Jewish, I think that you should marry Jewish.
	If you're Catholic, I think you should marry Catholic.
	If you're Protestant, I think you should marry Protestant.
	If you're Muslim, I think you should marry Muslim.
	I think it's just generally a better rule.
	Just as if you hold certain values on specific social issues, you should marry people who agree with you, because you want to raise your kids in a certain way.
	If you are able to do that, I think that it's a very good thing.
	It's a general rule.
	Again, parents should share religious values.
	Dana says, hi, Ben.
	I'm a huge fan and a new subscriber.
	My daughter is in sixth grade public school in New Jersey.
	She just received an assignment from her honor science teacher stating she has to write a letter to the president regarding climate change, urging the president to sign the Green New Deal, which is just insane.
	I raised my daughter with conservative values.
	She knows the Green New Deal is socialist drivel.
	I told her to do the assignment, but to instead write in the letter real solutions to climate change that don't involve banning planes, cows, car farts, etc.
	Well, I think that, again, in 6th grade, the answer is yes.
	but I may get a bad grade on the assignment.
	I told her I don't care if she is graded poorly on the assignment because I don't think she should be told what to write.
	That's indoctrination, I believe.
	Am I doing the right thing?
	What are your thoughts?
	Thank you for all you do.
	Keep fighting the good fight.
	Well, I think that, again, in sixth grade, the answer is yes.
	In junior year of college, the answer is probably no.
	So I differ from my friend Dennis Prager on this Prager says that always you should write what you believe on all of your tests and all the rest of this sort of stuff.
	In 6th grade, your grades really don't matter.
	In fact, funny story about this, I have a younger sister who is now, she's an opera singer and she's highly educated, went to USC and then went to Manhattan School of Opera.
	And back when she was a little kid, she came home from school one day, and she was really upset about her homework.
	She'd really stressed herself out.
	She's a very meticulous person, even when she was a little kid.
	And she went to my dad.
	She was very stressed out about her homework.
	And my dad said, don't worry about the homework.
	It's fine.
	Grades don't matter.
	We'll get through it.
	They don't matter until you're in high school.
	So she goes back to school.
	And the next day, her teacher hands her her homework assignment.
	And she says to the teacher, I don't want it.
	I'm not taking it.
	And the teacher says, well, you have to take it.
	And she says, well, I'm not going to take it.
	I don't want it.
	And the teacher sends her to the principal.
	And the principal says, well, why won't you take the homework assignment?
	And she says, I don't want to take the homework assignment.
	And the teacher says, well, you know, if you do that, you're not going to get a good grade.
	And she says, my grades don't matter until I get to high school.
	And accurate.
	She didn't end up taking the homework assignment, from what I understand.
	So, you know, the idea that your kid is going to get a bad grade in sixth grade and it's going to affect life, I don't think that's right.
	Once you get to college, the question is, what is your end goal?
	And if your end goal, I've said this to many college students, if your end goal is to get through college with the degree and not be stifled by the left, then sometimes you have to play their game.
	You have to determine sort of risks and rewards in particular circumstances.
	In this circumstance, I think that writing a letter about the value of nuclear power would probably be a worthwhile thing.
	I'm a huge fan.
	I enjoy every minute of the show.
	Wow, every minute.
	I don't even enjoy every minute of the show.
	I would like to know your opinion on the matter of states trying to eliminate the Electoral College.
	Is there anything that can be done legally to stop this?
	Right, so there's some states that have tried to pass bills that basically say that they will cast all of their electoral votes in favor of the popular vote winner.
	I know Nevada tried this.
	There is nothing unconstitutional about this.
	States get to determine how exactly the electors are delegated.
	It's a stupid idea.
	It's a really stupid idea.
	And, again, it's a stupid idea because the Electoral College is one of the things that militates in favor of the country staying together.
	Yes, certain areas of the country are going to get slightly disproportionate weight in the Electoral College over the popular vote.
	But it does answer the question as to why Wyoming should give a crap what California thinks if Wyoming actually matters in the national election.
	Chad says, one issue that Republicans seem not to take very seriously is that of climate change.
	Well, obviously, the Green New Deal is extremely unrealistic.
	What policies would you like to see the Trump administration put forward in order to better deal with carbon emissions and setting our planet up for a brighter future?
	Well, I think that we should be delegating studies on how to mitigate the effects of climate change, because from what I've seen, all of the all of the attempts to curb climate change themselves have been quite foolish.
	We actually need to deregulate a lot of the fracking industry, for example, because fracking has been a boon to reducing carbon emissions as opposed to, for example, just oil drilling.
	So, Nuclear power would be a great solution.
	There should be a push for more innovation.
	Deregulation in industry generally creates more innovation.
	The fact is that if people care enough about this sort of stuff, then there will, in fact, be a move toward technological change.
	The big question here is what are the effects of climate change?
	I've said this before.
	When it comes to the changing of degrees over the course of a century, what are the costs and what are the effects?
	William Nordhaus just won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and one of the things he talks about is how much global warming can we accept before it does so much damage that it outweighs the risk of harming the economy.
	And he comes to the conclusion, I believe, if I'm not misstating it, that 2.5 degrees Celsius increase is about what we should accept before we even discuss harming the economy.
	Now, that may well be within what actually happens over the course of the next century.
	A lot of the climate models that have been used are wrong.
	There have been many climate models that have been used.
	I agree with the general perception by scientists that the climate is warming over the course of the last century, and that a majority of that activity is caused by human activity.
	But the answer to that is actually more prosperity.
	It's developing countries that are emitting on a global level.
	As I've said before, if you agree with the sort of catastrophic take from the left, then we have no choice but apparently to go to war with India and China and bomb all their coal plants because a huge percentage of emissions are coming from those countries.
	The United States is actually dropping in terms of emissions on a year-to-year basis.
	We've reduced emissions more than any other country on planet Earth since 2015.
	So we're doing something right.
	Innovation will take care of a lot of these problems.
	Technological change takes care of a lot of these problems.
	And obviously mitigating, building seawalls, ensuring that infrastructure is shored up.
	That'll take care of the problems too.
	I'm not of the opinion that the so-called sort of carbon taxes that are being proposed are going to do enough to mitigate the effect that it won't just be a giant waste of money.
	Diane says, hey Ben, I'm currently in a summer class on the Old Testament where We're discussing the authorship of the Torah.
	What's the traditional view of Orthodox Jews on the first five books of the Bible?
	Do you think Moses was the sole author or do you think there were multiple sources loved the show?
	So the traditional Orthodox view is that Moses was the sole offer.
	Well, Moses via God, right, is that when Moses went up on the mountain for 40 days, God dictated the Bible to him.
	There are questions that are raised by some of the commentaries about how much of the Torah was written to that point.
	In other words, after the 40 days on the mountain, a lot of stuff happens in the Torah.
	Was that Moses writing contemporaneously?
	Was that Moses prophesying that that was going to happen?
	How about the last few verses of the Torah where Moses dies?
	Did Moses write that?
	Also, there's a sort of rich commentariat on the case.
	But what Orthodox Jews do not believe is the sort of Wellhausen theory that became very popular in the 19th century, that there are multiple authors and that these authors can be dated from the Pharisaic period or they can be dated from the earlier period.
	This is a compilation and a cobbling together.
	Orthodox Jews don't believe that.
	They believe that the Torah is a cohesive document and the Talmud is based upon that basic standard.
	The Talmud and Talmudic logic is based upon the use of words So, I think that this is the direction the left wants to move.
	Wrote all of this, so there's an intentionality to every single word.
	Okay, let's see.
	Carlos says, hey Ben, Vox Adpocalypse was the last straw.
	I'm now going to test out the Crowder mug and the leftist here's Tumblr in person.
	Well, thank you.
	However, as the end point of all of this, two separate parallel economies all the way down to the most basic transactions, ultimately living as separate societies.
	So I think that this is the direction the left wants to move.
	The left is basically saying that if you're on the left, you can't eat at Chick-fil-A.
	The left is basically saying that if you are on the left, then you must buy Marc Jacobs and get Gillette Razors.
	The left is trying to make the argument that only socially woke companies ought to receive your business, and if you are not overtly woke, then you will be boycotted.
	And if, God forbid, you're owned by somebody who opposes you politically, then you should be shellacked as well.
	Well, that's an absurd contention.
	It's always been an absurd contention, but it will generate a parallel economy.
	If the left simply starts boycotting companies that are not openly left-wing, the right will start patronizing those companies.
	The right will fight back here.
	If YouTube decides that it's going to crack down on Crowder, people will go subscribe to Crowder because they still want Crowder.
	If people decide to crack down on us at the big tech companies, people will subscribe to Daily Wire.
	And this will extend down to the lowest common denominator.
	It's one of the reasons that I've been militating very hard against the politicization of sports and culture and product lines.
	I know that a lot of these corporations think that by pandering, they're going to win additional converts.
	They think that conservatives are simply going to sit still as they pander to the hard left.
	And that's why you see, for example, during Pride Month, all of these major corporations start to virtue signal about gay pride.
	Now, why Oreo Cookies has anything to do with gay pride is beyond me.
	They release this stuff in order to show where they stand on the issues because they understand that the left is focused on buying products that they think agree with them.
	Well...
	Spoiler alert for folks on the left.
	If you really think that Oreo executives care deeply about Pride Month, they're just making a buck off of you, right?
	Capitalism always wins.
	But if it gets to the point where the left pushes these corporations to actively alienate conservative audiences, conservative audiences will find other places to shop.
	New companies will spring up.
	It is just exacerbating the divisions in the country and making it so not only are there no common spaces, there are no even common products.
	There will be a coffee company, like Black Rifle Coffee, that rises up at great coffee, better coffee than Starbucks, but rises up in response to Starbucks.
	That is a thing that will continue to happen.
	And the left will be advertising for these right-wing products every time they decide to crack down on right-wing beliefs, and every time they decide to virtue-signal to the hard left, which is censorious and nasty by nature.
	William says, Hey Ben, what do you think would have happened if the D-Day invasion had failed?
	There are some who speculate that the Soviets, who are already fighting against the majority of the German army, would have defeated the Germans regardless of the campaign in the West.
	I find this difficult to believe.
	Also, thank you for the amazing Sunday special with all the different WWII veterans.
	Well, it's always very difficult.
	To actually, you know, speculate about what would have happened militarily.
	It is certainly true that Stalin was militating extraordinarily hard for the Allies to launch the D-Day invasion, specifically because he wanted the Germans to redirect troops away from the Eastern Front.
	It's kind of fascinating.
	If you look at the map during World War II, you know, a lot of people question, why did Hitler declare war on the United States?
	Worst mistake he ever made, right?
	Why did he declare?
	The two worst mistakes Hitler ever made, turning on the Soviets and then simultaneously declaring war on the United States.
	Huge mistake.
	So you bring the Soviets from basically neutrality into opposition.
	With their enormous tens of millions of man army and then you turn and take the most powerful industrial country on planet earth and turn it against you.
	Why would they do that?
	Well, it's because if you look at the map, basically it goes United States.
	I mean, the world is a globe, obviously, but it goes United States, Germany, Russia, Japan.
	And so with the United States fighting Japan, There's a fair bit of historical speculation that Germany wanted the Japanese to attack the United States.
	Well, basically, Japan had to attack the United States.
	Germany was hoping that Japan was going to attack Russia from the other side.
	And so in order to get Japan to fight that war, the Germans basically declared war on the United States.
	So it looked sort of like a checkerboard.
	All right.
	Well, you know, with all of that said, obviously a terrible mistake.
	If the United States had failed in D-Day, that wouldn't have been the only amphibious attempt, obviously.
	But let's say that the United States and Britain and France, that all of the allied countries fail to make significant pushes into Western Europe via a Normandy invasion.
	Well, obviously there was already a lot of fighting that was going on from the south.
	The United States had, by the time D-Day, the United States had already pushed the Germans into full scale retreat, not only in Africa, but also in Italy.
	So it's possible that that invasion continues to succeed.
	But let's say that the United States has stopped cold everywhere here.
	Yeah, then Germany wins the war.
	I mean, Germany probably wins the war.
	I mean, the fact is that it was German lack of resources that led them to lose the war against the Red Army, not brilliant strategy by the Red Army.
	I mean, the Red Army was basically just throwing men in many cases without guns in the front lines in the Battle of Stalingrad.
	Featured a bunch of Russians charging the Germans with no guns, knowing they would be shot in the back by their own people if they didn't do it.
	The Red Army was extraordinarily brutal because Stalin was one of the worst people ever to walk planet Earth.
	So yeah, D-Day made a difference during the war.
	Of course D-Day made a difference.
	By the way, it made even more of a difference in the post-war.
	It's funny, the Russian foreign ministry put out something saying, well, it was the Red Army that won the war.
	Well, if it had not been for the D-Day invasion, all of Western Europe then is probably red.
	Let's say that the Red Army, quote-unquote, liberates France, and liberates all of Germany, and liberates Italy, and liberates all those countries.
	That wouldn't have been a liberation.
	All of those countries then would have been under the heel of Soviet domination for the foreseeable future.
	The Soviet Union probably doesn't fall for another 50 to 100 years.
	So that made a bit of a difference.
	Well, I believe that the states should actually be in the business of preserving natural wonders.
	I'm not sure the federal government was created to preserve those natural wonders.
	I'm very much in favor of minimizing the federal government.
	Well, I believe that the states should actually be in the business of preserving natural wonders.
	I'm not sure the federal government was created to preserve those natural wonders.
	I'm very much in favor of minimizing the federal government.
	I think states are fully capable of doing a lot of that stuff.
	Lauren says, Dear Ben, what is your opinion on patents regarding pharmaceuticals?
	Do you believe they incentivize the creation of better drugs or does the interference in the free market create an inefficiency when once companies patent the drug, they have no incentive to improve it?
	Thanks, Larry.
	Well, I mean, the fact is that certain patents don't really change in the pharmaceutical industry, right?
	The patent on aspirin and Advil, these things have existed, but the formula has not changed radically.
	There is a serious question to be asked about how long the patent should last.
	So right now, the patent period for pharmaceuticals In many cases, it's somewhere between five and ten years.
	That is a long time to have a quasi-monopoly on a particular type of drug.
	And sometimes you can see somebody comes along, they take the drug, they reverse engineer it, they release it as a generic.
	That's better for consumers, obviously, but you do have to have enough of a patent to incentivize the creation of the drug.
	The libertarian case against patent protection for drugs is that you create the drug, you have a manufacturing advantage, you're first in the market, and so that's your benefit.
	Honestly, I'd want to look more deeply at the costs and benefits of it on a financial level.
	Mason says, Hey Ben, I don't know why a former president would want to, but theoretically, could a former president run on a ticket as vice president after?
	Could President Obama run for VP on a Michelle Obama ticket?
	Thanks.
	No, you have to be qualified for the presidency to run as vice president.
	Asherah says, Hey Ben, what are your thoughts on Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism?
	Do you think she takes it too far?
	Thanks for all you do.
	So I think that Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism works quite well when it comes to economics.
	I think that it works quite horribly when it comes to interpersonal relationships.
	Objectivism basically says selfishness is a virtue.
	I mean, she wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.
	That's a fine philosophy, and really is not unique to Ayn Rand.
	I mean, that goes all the way back to Mandeville and the Parable of the Bees.
	The idea that your selfishness creates market opportunities for other people, and also your selfishness creates a creative imperative in you to do creative things that benefit other folks.
	So when it comes to that, I agree with that on a very basic level.
	I've called capitalism forced altruism, because again, your selfishness is now channeled toward creating a product somebody else needs, wants, and must have.
	However, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, The problem here with objectivism is it becomes entirely subjective, meaning that your perception of your own best good has externalities that are quite difficult, particularly with children.
	One of the things my dad once noted about Ayn Rand's books is that there are no kids anywhere.
	Anywhere, right?
	In The Fountainhead, no kids.
	In Atlas Shrugged, no kids.
	The reason there are no kids is because when you have kids, this virtue of selfishness stuff kind of goes out the window.
	Now, what objectivism does is they sort of play around with the term.
	What they then suggest is, well, you know, you selfishly want to protect your kids.
	You're doing that out of your own self-interest.
	You're doing that because what you really want is to take care, like, it makes you feel good about yourself.
	You give charity because it makes you feel good about yourself, and that's a selfish thing.
	Okay, well now you, I think, are stretching the definition of selfishness a little bit far.
	There may be a grain of truth to that, but when I'm waking up at 4 a.m.
	in the morning to take care of my kids...
	Should somebody be able to judge me?
	I mean, I guess here's the question.
	Should some third party be able to judge me for abandoning my wife and children?
	I think the answer is yes.
	I think that is on an objective level a bad moral thing to do.
	Objectivism says if you perceive that as your highest moral good, then no way anybody else can judge you.
	I'm not sure you can build a society on that or even build a stable family on that basis.
	Okay, time for a quick thing I like and a quick thing I hate, because we did an extra long mailbag right there.
	Okay, things that I like today.
	Great movie.
	Born Yesterday.
	This is a movie with William Holden and Judy Holliday, who won an Oscar for this.
	Judy Holliday, I mean, tragically passed away at the age of 43, which is crazy.
	She was a terrific, terrific actress.
	And of course, Broderick Crawford, who had already won an Oscar for All the King's Men, which is a really, really good movie.
	One of my favorite movies, in fact.
	Well, this movie is basically about Broderick Crawford is a gangster, Judy Holliday is his mall, and William Holden is a journalist who is brought in to educate Judy Holliday to become more knowledgeable about Washington, D.C.
	because Broderick Crawford is trying to buy politicians, basically.
	Here's a little bit of the trailer.
	Hey!
	What?
	Not bad, huh?
	Sorry!
	Born Yesterday stars Judy Holliday in her history-making stage role as Billy Dawn.
	Blonde, beautiful, brazen, an old brother.
	Are you one of these talkers, or would you be interested in a little action?
	Academy Award winner Broderick Crawford as that man of distinction, Harry Brock.
	And William Holden as a guy with a nose for news, an ear to the ground, and an eye for a blonde.
	What are you doing?
	Well, if you don't know, I must be doing it wrong.
	The movie is really good.
	One of the things that's fascinating about the movie is that when you watch the film, half of the movie is dedicated to William Holden taking Judy Holliday around and teaching her about the American way of life, basically, because she doesn't know anything.
	And so he takes her to the Jefferson Memorial, which must be torn down because Jefferson was evil.
	And then he takes her to the Library of Congress and she sees the Constitution, the Declaration, and he teaches her about the fundamental principles of the country.
	It's an incredibly patriotic film.
	Basically about how America is a wonderful place and it's wonderful because of these founding documents.
	And it's a movie that could not be made today because now it would be about how America is horrible and he has to teach her to be woke and America was steeped in racism and sexism and bigotry and all the rest of it.
	There's something nice about the fact that Americans used to believe that America was rooted in terrific fundamental principles that thank God have now been extended over the vast swath of Americans.
	That's a really great thing.
	And the movie's patriotism is quite obvious.
	And one of the best moments of the movie, not to give it away, but one of the best moments of the movie is Judy Holliday, who's again in a gangster's mall.
	She's talking about her dad, who she hasn't seen in years.
	And she's talking about how he would just go to work every day and get up and take care of her and her siblings and her mom died young.
	And she, over the course of the movie, realizes that her dad is more of an American than this rich gangster who's trying to bribe politicians.
	Because her dad goes to work every day and lives out the founding principles.
	It's really a terrific, funny, patriotic movie.
	Go check it out.
	Born Yesterday.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	So there is a really good thread on Twitter by a person who calls himself Woko Harambe.
	But the thread is actually a pretty serious thread.
	This person points out that the woke activists are using something called power mapping.
	They're using something from a site called Beautiful Trouble.
	And Beautiful Trouble is basically an activism site for the left.
	And he points out the strategy that is being used by the left to target people like Laura Ingram, or like me, or like Steven Crowder, or like Tucker Carlson, or like anybody else on the right that you like.
	So here is what they do.
	First, they target the company with the power.
	So in the case of Steven Crowder, it would be YouTube.
	In the case of Fox, it would be their advertisers.
	Then, they would choose a secondary target.
	Because according to this website, again, Beautiful Trouble, They say you might not have enough power to push your primary target at first, but your actions may help you identify a secondary target that can be pressured to leverage their influence on the primary target.
	So, what they actually do is they identify who they are targeting and then they find a group of allies.
	And this is the part of the analysis that I found pretty sophisticated and I thought was quite good.
	They said there are five groups.
	Active allies who fight with you.
	Passive allies who agree but don't act.
	Neutrals.
	Passive opposition who disagree but don't act.
	And then active opposition that actively fight you.
	The goal is to shift each group over one notch, which shifts the entire spectrum.
	So the idea here would be to make active opposition Basically, they stick around.
	But passive opposition becomes neutral, neutrals become passive allies, and passive allies become active allies.
	Shift everybody over one notch.
	The goal is to win by shifting the support out from under them.
	Determine the social blocks at play on a given issue, and then work to shift them closer to your position.
	So you try to move people one notch at a time.
	You want to force your target into a situation where they have to respond, but they have no really good options.
	So, here's the example that this Twitterer writes, and I think this is exactly correct.
	I don't know who this is.
	I can't vouch for anything else they write, but this take is correct.
	They say, Carlos Maza put YouTube in a decision dilemma.
	Whatever YouTube did wouldn't be enough for Carlos Maza.
	He'll just accuse YouTube of homophobia during Pride Week.
	The only way to avoid that PR damage is to de-platform Crowder.
	YouTube then looks like they were trying to strike a middle balance between the far left and Crowder by demonetizing them.
	But then, they just say that's not enough.
	So all of this was planned.
	Now, the way all of this stops is for YouTube to basically say, listen, No.
	We're not going to.
	Like, all of this stops by just a few people saying no.
	And this is true for advertisers.
	This is true for YouTube.
	This is true for Facebook.
	This is true for Twitter.
	All a few people have to do is get their backs up and say, no, we're not going to do that.
	And you know what?
	We're not going to be controlled by Carlos Maza.
	A lot of people are allowed on our platform we disagree with, and that is just fine and dandy by us.
	We do not have to agree with everything they say.
	They can be vile.
	They can be terrible.
	They are not banned.
	That's all they have to say.
	We have a standard, and our standard is no.
	And then you want to fulminate?
	Fine, you guys go create your own woke Twitter or your own woke YouTube.
	But instead, by utilizing the power of public pressure, by taking journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post and shifting them from passive allies to active allies, by taking people who are sort of neutral on Twitter and then showing them a montage video of Steven Crowder being mean to Carlos Maza, shifting the neutrals into passive opposition, and then Into passive alliance, rather, by taking passive opponents and shifting them to neutrality by making those people feel uncomfortable.
	Then you can shift the entire spectrum.
	I think it's a really good analysis of what you are seeing happen on a regular basis with advertisers.
	And all it takes is for people to say no.
	And it takes active opposition to push back and say, listen, there will be consequences the other way.
	The active opposition has to act just like the activists are acting.
	In other words, they have to take all of their passive allies and shift them into active allies.
	They have to take all of the neutrals and shift them into passive allies.
	And the way to do that is by pushing back on the principle and by saying, listen, There will be consequences for this game.
	You play this game, there will be consequences.
	Those consequences will involve us not subscribing to YouTube Red.
	Those consequences will involve us subscribing to channels that we like.
	Those consequences will involve us boycotting advertisers that decide to boycott our favorite shows.
	There will be consequences.
	That's the only way to fight back against this, but it is a clever strategy.
	It is not organic.
	It is entirely astroturfed.
	Okay, we will be back here next week.
	Now, I'm warning you, Monday, I'm not going to be here because Monday is Shavuot, which is the holiday that celebrates the giving of the Torah.
	Pretty big thing for the Jews.
	This is one of these sort of forgotten holidays that Orthodox Jews know about and nobody else does.
	So, Orthodox Jews know about Shavuot.
	It's one of the big three.
	It's Passover.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	Shavuot, and Shavuot.
	So this is one of the sort of big three holidays aside from the high holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah.
	So we won't be here Monday, but we will be back here Tuesday and the rest of the week.
	We'll see you then.
	Have a wonderful weekend.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	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 Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

▲