Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 14, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:10:12

Agents Of Foreign Influence | Ep. 801

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Iran allegedly bombed some ships, so obviously this is Trump's fault.
	Trump reaps the whirlwind after saying he'd take opposition research from foreigners, and the left loses its taste for tolerance.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	It's amazing.
	Iran bombed some ships, and somehow this is Trump's fault.
	Because everything is Trump's fault.
	Everything in the entire world.
	We'll get to it in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that it is 2019, so everybody needs a great pair of wireless earbuds.
	I spend an enormous amount of time walking around every day With the earbuds in my ears because I am watching video for the show or I am listening to music.
	But before you go dropping hundreds of bucks on a pair, you need to check out the wireless earbuds from Raycon.
	These things are incredibly comfortable.
	They're incredibly easy to use.
	They're stylish as well.
	I own a pair of them.
	I'm getting a pair for my wife too.
	Raycon earbuds start at about half the price of any other premium wireless earbuds on the market.
	And they sound just as amazing.
	The company was actually co-founded by Ray J and celebrities like Brandy, J.R.
	Smith, are already obsessed with it.
	Raycon's E50 wireless earbuds have totally changed the game for me because they're really comfortable and they are easy to take anywhere.
	Unlike some other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are both stylish and discreet.
	There are no dangling wires, there are no stems, and of course, they don't just look great, they sound great as well.
	Raycon offers their wireless earbuds for everyone in a range of fun colors and at an unbeatable price.
	They're very stylish.
	Go to buyraycon.com slash ben to get 20% off your order.
	That is buyraycon.com slash ben for 20% off Raycon wireless earbuds.
	If you've been eyeing up here, now is the time to get an amazing deal.
	One more time, that's buyraycon.com slash ben.
	Buyraycon.com slash ben.
	They really are terrific.
	Go check them out right now.
	Buyraycon.com.
	Okay, so, the big story today is the supposed militancy of the Trump administration.
	This Trump administration getting so militant over Iran, you know, bombing things.
	Stupid Trump and his anger over people bombing American allies.
	Why doesn't he just, like, sit down and then ship a billion dollars in cash to them?
	I mean, why does he even do that?
	Like, that's what Obama would have done.
	Because Obama was the best, man.
	Obama was so great that he cut a deal with a bunch of terrorists who run a regime to basically give them a 10-year window to start building up their economies so they could build a nuclear weapon and then they could spread their terrorism everywhere.
	That guy was great.
	That guy was awesome.
	And he knew that the Iranians were to be trusted.
	And then there's this Trump guy and he's just sitting there and the Iranians start mining ships and Trump gets all mad about it.
	Man, because he's volatile, right?
	This is the way the media have been covering this particular issue.
	For the last day and a half, the media have been running stories that say things like, Trump administration alleges, without evidence, that the Iranians are behind the bombing of ships in the Persian Gulf.
	Who do they think did it?
	Santa Claus?
	And Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, came out yesterday and he said yes.
	It turns out that intelligence reviewed by American officials showed that Iran was responsible for attacks earlier in the day on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a critical waterway for the transit of much of the world's oil.
	See, it's all fun and games for folks when it comes to Iranian militancy until the Iranians effectively choke off one of the actual bottlenecks In oil supply, in terms of global oil supply, and suddenly the price of oil doubles.
	You know, that would be kind of unfortunate, would it not?
	Here's Secretary of State Pompeo talking about this, and then we'll get to the media saying, well, he's making up the intelligence.
	It's weird how the intelligence community under George W. Bush was never to be trusted, ever, ever, ever to be trusted.
	You cannot trust them because of the Iraq War fiasco, because they got WMD wrong, despite the fact that intelligence services all over the world got WMD wrong because Saddam Hussein was actively lying about WMD.
	The intelligence community was terrible.
	And then it came to the Obama administration and suddenly the intelligence community was awesome again.
	Suddenly they were great at their job and everything we were told by the Obama administration about, for example, the newfound moderation of the Iranian regime.
	That was all.
	It was all true.
	We could take it as gospel truth without any evidence to support it.
	And then Trump became president.
	And then the intel community went back to being sort of half-awesome and half-awful.
	Half-awesome when they were targeting President Trump and Russian collusion, and super-awful when it came to their record in terms of foreign policy in the Middle East.
	So here's Mike Pompeo explaining that yeah, it was the Iranians who were behind the bombing of these couple of ships in the Persian Gulf yesterday.
	The Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Amman today.
	This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
	This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests.
	And they should be understood in the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
	Okay, that of course is true.
	The Iranian Navy has a long history of getting itself involved in attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
	It has ended poorly for them before, as we'll get to in just a second, but the media coverage of this thing is just about what you would expect it to be.
	So, the New York Times says, Mr. Pompeo did not present any evidence to back up the assessment of Iran's involvement.
	The assertion is certain to further fuel tensions between the Trump administration and Iranian leaders.
	See, it's not the Iranians bombing things that fuels tension.
	It is the Trump administration responding to the bombing of things that fuels the tension.
	You see, Iran puts mines on ships and blows holes in them and sets them on fire and people have to evacuate.
	And then Trump gets mad about it.
	But it's the Trump getting mad about a part that I think is really the problem.
	That's what the media think.
	That's where the big problem really is.
	The sarcasm font there is very strong.
	And then the New York Times says, the assertion is certain to further fuel tensions between the Trump administration and Iranian leaders, which have been at heightened levels since early May, when the White House announced military movements in response to what American officials have said is an increased threat from Iran.
	So again, twice in one paragraph, the New York Times basically suggests that America's response to Iranian aggression is what causes the Iranian aggression.
	You get the timeline wrong here, guys.
	Iran got militant, and then we put 1,500 additional troops into the region.
	Iran has been bombing things, and then we have been responding to the bombing.
	They're now using cycle of violence language they usually only reserve for the Israelis when the Israelis are being hit by unprovoked rocket assaults.
	Now they're using it on the Trump administration.
	So the Iranians bomb stuff, Trump gets mad.
	Trump's anger caused the Iranian bombing.
	What, do you have a time machine?
	How exactly did this work?
	Well, there is a little bit of tape that we have seen that has been released of apparently the Iranian Navy in the SS Minnow from Gilligan's Island approaching a larger ship and removing one of the mines that was on it.
	This is before the attack.
	It's black and white footage.
	There's no sound on it because it's security footage.
	The Iranian Navy, needless to say, is not exactly the world's most powerful Navy.
	And the fact that we have been allowing them to basically bully us in the Persian Gulf for the past several years going all the way back to the Obama administration really is pathetic.
	You remember there was that incident in which the Iranian Navy hit a U.S.
	vessel and then basically took a bunch of Americans prisoner.
	And there are pictures of the American prisoners on their knees with their hands behind their head.
	It was quite humiliating, but since Obama was president, it was great.
	And that was the way the media covered it.
	It was evidence of President Obama's tremendous diplomatic abilities that we were able to get those American soldiers out of Iran.
	Listen, we should be able to tell Iran to release our soldiers whenever we please, considering the fact that, again, their navy is made up of ships that barely fit inside my son's bathtub.
	I mean, it's the Iranian Navy is not exactly well known for it.
	It ain't the British Navy, OK?
	It doesn't it doesn't rule the globe.
	But it is amazing to watch.
	As folks on the left claim that Trump is trying to manipulate everybody into war.
	Again, do you really think that Trump wants to go to war in Iran?
	Do you think this is something that Trump desperately needs?
	Trump hates the idea of going to war in Iran.
	He has said so over and over.
	There's infighting inside the administration over what exactly should be done about Iran.
	But the Obama administration, folks, they're now pushing the lie that this is being manipulated into war.
	It's just like when Bush and with WMD and blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Here's Ben Rhodes, who's a damned liar, especially on Iran.
	He tweets out, This definitely feels like the kind of incident where you'd want an international investigation to establish what happened.
	Huge risk of escalation!
	Ben Rhodes, may I have a seat, my friend?
	Ben Rhodes, the national security advisor to Barack Obama, was the guy who openly admitted that he lied to the American people about the incipient moderation of the Iranian regime.
	Basically, in 2009, there was a near-Iranian revolution, again, to overthrow the Iranian government, and Barack Obama sat by and allowed people to be slaughtered in the streets without any level of support other than a few tepid public statements.
	And then he made out that the Iranian regime was on the verge of a turnaround.
	And if only we paid them billions of dollars in cash, if only we opened up their economy by allowing them to develop quote-unquote peaceful nuclear power.
	Because if there's one thing that Iran, one of the most oil-rich nations on earth needs, it is nuclear power.
	It has nothing to do with developing a nuclear weapon that they have been seeking for decades at this point.
	If only we did that, then they would come around, then they would moderate.
	And they were about to moderate, according to Ben Rhodes.
	Ben Rhodes went out there and he lied to the American people over and over.
	And he said that the Iranian government was on the verge of moderation, that Hassan Rouhani was a different, he was a different kind of person than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
	And now the Ayatollahs were finally coming around.
	If only we were nice to them and stroke their buttocks in precisely the proper way by giving them money and allowing them to re-enter the family of nations.
	Of course, all of that was a lie.
	And now here is Ben Rhodes, who actively admitted to falsifying narratives about Iran to the American people.
	Saying that the Trump administration is falsifying narratives about Iran in order to what?
	Bomb Iran?
	Like we want to go to war with Iran?
	Now here's the reality.
	Next time, if they hit an American ship, if there's any situation in which they hit an American flag vessel, we should do exactly what we did to the Iranian Navy all the way back in 1988.
	According to History on the Net, there's a pretty good description of what happened.
	There's something called Operation Praying Mantis.
	A western and allied navies participated in the Persian Gulf tanker war during the mid to late 1980s, protecting oil tankers from attack by Iranian small craft.
	In April 1988, the frigate Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine, sustaining heavy damage but no casualties.
	Physical evidence proves what was already apparent, the mine came from Iran.
	In response, Enterprise and her escorts, with a surface action group, launched Operation Praying Mantis, attacking Iranian facilities in the Gulf on April 18th.
	The 46th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid, primary targets were two Iranian oil platforms that offered a base for Revolutionary Guard speedboats harassing, re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers.
	Marines helicoptered onto one platform, leaving explosives to disable the facility.
	In response, the Iranians deployed Swedish-built Boghammer speedboats, threatening transiting tankers.
	Two Enterprise intruders intercepted the boats, dropping rockeye cluster bombs that destroyed one Boghammer and hold another.
	Meanwhile, one of Iran's fast La Combatante Class frigates exchanged missiles with two U.S.
	ships coming off Second Best around Joshin Sank with heavy loss of life.
	Shortly thereafter, an Iranian frigate sortied, firing SAMs, the surface-to-air missiles, at nearby A-6s.
	The intruders combined with the destroyer to smother the 1,100-ton Sabalon with harpoon missiles and later laser-guided bombs.
	She drifted away unfired and was towed to port for repair.
	During the day, the Iranian Air Force launched two pair of F-4 Phantoms.
	Neither could intervene.
	The first two diverted when illuminated by a destroyer's fire control radar.
	The second set was engaged by a guided missile cruiser, damaging one of the American-made fighters and forcing its withdrawal.
	In all, Praying Mantis destroyed an Iranian frigate, a gunboat, three speedboats, and damaged another frigate.
	A Marine Corps helicopter crashed during the operation with two flyers killed in the accident.
	So the only Americans who died were thanks to basically mechanical failure.
	And some 56 Iranians were killed in the operation, and basically we sank their entire navy in like a day.
	So...
	When people talk about this would break out into all-out war, what would happen if the United States took harsh military action?
	What would happen is that we would sink all of their tiny little boats in the Persian Gulf.
	That's what would happen.
	Because it turns out the United States is the most powerful military in the history of the world, and it is not particularly close.
	And it's certainly not close when you compare it to a second-rate naval power, third-rate naval power, like Iran.
	We're not even talking about the Iranian land army, okay?
	The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is very large.
	I mean, it's like a couple of million people.
	It's very, very large.
	But You know what is not particularly large or particularly strong is the Iranian Navy.
	They're mosquitoes and they're harassing.
	And, you know, if they approach American ships at any point, we should just blow them out of the water.
	Seriously, it will not end in a full-scale war because that is the last thing the Ayatollahs want.
	What they want is to look strong to their people by harassing American ships and then have plausible deniability when it comes to the international stage, knowing that people like Ben Rhodes will cover for them.
	Okay, we'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, You know those times when every day feels the same, like you're on autopilot, and you're caught up in your routine, and you forget to take care of yourself?
	Well, Dollar Shave Club makes it easy to take care of yourself when that happens, because they have quality products that arrive direct to my door.
	I don't even have to think about it.
	And those quality products help me look, feel, and smell my best.
	I get everything I need from Dollar Shave Club without going to a store.
	Not only do they have the greatest razors, shave butter, face cleanser, everything, they also have terrific other stuff.
	They have soap, and they have shampoo, and it's all just amazing.
	They have amazing, amazing products.
	I use it literally every day because their products are so good.
	And here's the beautiful thing, it arrives to your door on a regular schedule.
	As amazing as their shave stuff is, Dollar Shave Club is way more than just the razors.
	They've got the body washes I mentioned, the shampoo, they have toothpaste, you name it, they've got it.
	I use all of it, right?
	They've got the Amber Lavender Body Cleanser which is just Delightful.
	Dollar Shave Club has spent years developing, crafting, refining their products.
	They're so much better than anything that I have used before.
	Right now, you can get a Dollar Shave Club starter set for just five bucks.
	You can give it a try.
	It comes with everything you need for a great shave.
	The Executive Razor, Shave Butter, Face Cleanser.
	You're going to love it as much as I do.
	Get your starter set for just five bucks at dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
	That's dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	There's this bizarre notion when it comes to American foreign policy that folks are eager to go to war with the United States.
	And it really is nonsensical.
	People are not eager to go to war with the United States.
	You know why?
	Because when they do, they lose.
	There's a lot of talk about the United States hasn't won a war since World War II.
	Really?
	Is that the case?
	Really?
	Okay, so South Korea is a free country because the Korean War was won by the United States.
	At least a free and independent South Korea was achieved.
	The Vietnam War was won until basically Congress decided to give it away in the mid-70s, in the early to mid-70s.
	The Persian Gulf War, number one, was a victory.
	The second Persian Gulf War was a victory.
	He may not like what came afterward, but there's no question it was a victory.
	The United States military has an undefeated record in combat.
	There's no way to say that even the Vietnam War is a loss for the United States military.
	It was a political loss.
	Just look at the killed numbers from the United States versus the Viet Cong, for example.
	So this idea that countries around the world are itching for a full-scale military conflict with the United States is just a joke.
	Which means that there's no reason why the United States should tolerate any of this placing of mines on vessels in the Persian Gulf, Iran choking off the Straits of Hormuz.
	It's just nonsense.
	It's truly, truly nonsense.
	There are certain countries where you don't want to play chicken with them.
	China would be a country where you don't want to play chicken simply because they have tremendous leverage over the American economy and they have a massive military and they have the power to project into the South China Sea.
	But the Iranian Navy?
	Really?
	The Iranian?
	No.
	No.
	OK, so again, that is not the Trump administration itching for war.
	And I don't even think that's the perspective that they are taking right now.
	But it is a perspective that is on the table.
	OK, meanwhile, A lot of hubbub is being paid to Kellyanne Conway.
	Supposedly, Kellyanne Conway violated the law.
	An independent government agency recommended on Thursday that President Trump fire Kellyanne Conway, his White House counselor, for repeated violations of an ethics law barring partisan politics from the federal workplace.
	Is according to the New York Times.
	In a letter accompanying a report to Mr. Trump, the agency called Ms.
	Conway a repeat offender of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaign politics at work, saying that her flagrant defiance of the law justified her dismissal from the White House.
	Really?
	Okay, so the Hatch Act is dumb.
	Let me just say that right off the bat.
	Head of the agency says, as a highly visible member of the administration, Ms. Conway's violations, if left unpunished, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act's restrictions.
	Her actions erode the principal foundation of our democratic system, the rule of law.
	Really?
	Okay, so the Hatch Act is dumb.
	I'll just say that right off the bat.
	The Hatch Act is completely incoherent, legally speaking.
	The Hatch Act basically says that you do have a right to speak out and vote how you want as a federal employee, but you can't use the power of your office to endorse any political candidate.
	Well, what exactly do these people think politics is?
	I totally agree with the idea that you should not be using government resources in order to stump for a particular candidate, right?
	By the way, Congress people are not federal employees, so they don't really have these sorts of boundaries.
	But Congress, this is actually the biggest issue, is that incumbent Congress people can use all sorts of congressional resources in order to push their reelection.
	So this is why you get a letter from your congressperson paid for by you that says, here's all the great things that I've done this year.
	I mean, that is obviously campaigning.
	It's legal, but I don't think that's right.
	When it comes to federal employment, is the idea here that Kellyanne Conway is allowed to talk about how great Trump is, but she can't say how much Joe Biden sucks?
	That's...
	That's really where we're going with this?
	The Hatch Act should have been held unconstitutional after it was written.
	It is far too broad.
	It conflicts.
	It says you have free speech rights, but then you're not allowed to exercise those free speech rights in certain ways.
	It doesn't make any sense at all.
	So should Kellyanne Conway be fired?
	No, they should rewrite the Hatch Act.
	The Hatch Act is dumb.
	I'd be saying the same thing if this were a Democrat.
	It has never occurred to me that members of the federal executive branch are apolitical actors who are not going to be using at least their ability with their face to talk about people they don't like.
	It's very silly, okay?
	In other administration news, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is headed out.
	According to the New York Times, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary who fiercely defended President Trump through one of the most tumultuous periods in American politics, while presiding over the end of the iconic daily news briefing, will step down at the end of the month.
	I do find it hilarious that so many members of the media, all of whom have dealt with press secretaries for their entire political career, suddenly are finding it shocking that Sarah Huckabee Sanders fiercely defended President Trump.
	I'd like for them to name a time when Jake Harney or Robert Gibbs or any of the other myriad spokespeople for Barack Obama went out there and they're like, yeah, you know that Obama?
	That was pretty bad what you said, right?
	Like, this is the job of the press secretary.
	You're literally paid to be a show.
	That is your entire job.
	You're paid to stand out there and defend the president.
	Yeah, you don't even have any of your own opinions.
	And what was hilarious was to watch members of the press say things to Sarah Huckabee Sanders like, well, what, Sarah, what do you think of what the president had to say?
	It's like, she's the press secretary.
	If she wanted to run for office, she can.
	She's going to go back to Arkansas, maybe she'll run for office there.
	Then you can ask her what she thinks of various statements of President Trump.
	But if her job is to be the press spokesperson for the President of the United States, then she has asked the administration's position on things, not her personal position.
	It was always bizarre to me watching the media try to separate out Huckabee Sanders from Trump and then be like, that's Sarah Huckabee Sanders shilling for the president.
	Literally, the job should be retitled shilling for the president.
	That is what these folks are paid for.
	So, I don't really buy it.
	Folks on the right, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, what a stalwart defending the president.
	That was her job.
	She was paid to do it.
	Sean Spicer was bad at that job, which is why he left that job.
	Sarah Huckabee Sanders was better at that job because she could, with a straight face, defend many of the things Trump was saying.
	In many cases, she militantly did so in rightful fashion.
	In many cases, she stood up there and, like a trooper, she basically took one for the team.
	Whatever that is, that is the job of a good press secretary, is to take one for the team, basically.
	It's the roughest job in America.
	It's a very rough job, which is why I nominate Michael Knowles for it.
	I think he'd be perfect for it.
	First of all, he would suffer in the job, which I would greatly appreciate.
	Second, it would take him off my payroll.
	And third...
	I think that he would be perfectly willing to show for President Trump.
	So I think that he is probably the best pick for a replacement for Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
	Now, the big story that the press are focused on today is not the turmoil inside the administration on these grounds.
	The big story is that President Trump is a very bad man.
	Why?
	Because President Trump said yesterday that he would consider not reporting to the FBI if he was approached with opposition research by a member of a foreign government or a foreign national agent.
	And people lost their minds over this.
	Now, you should morally lose your mind over this.
	On a moral level, it is very, very bad when politicians are saying that they would take information presented to them by foreign governments about their political opposition.
	It was bad when Hillary Clinton did it, too.
	Now I know that we're not supposed to talk about Hillary Clinton doing this, but Hillary Clinton did do this.
	There's a lot of talk about Trump receiving information from Russia.
	There's no actual information he received from Russia.
	The Mueller Report does not provide a shred of information that the Trump campaign directly received from Russia.
	You know what did happen?
	A DNC staffer was in open communication with the Ukrainian embassy digging up dirt about President Trump.
	So that would be a...
	A baseline case in point of a foreign government providing information to the DNC.
	That was the thing that happened.
	Christopher Steele was a foreign national and he was getting his information from Russian governmental officials and then funneling it to Hillary Clinton.
	Hilariously enough, folks on the left have been defending the Steele report on the grounds that, well, that's legal because the, because Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele.
	So if you pay a foreign national for the information, then it doesn't violate the law.
	So let me get this straight.
	If a foreign national just comes to you and says, I have some information, want it?
	You're like, yeah, sure, give it to me.
	That's illegal.
	But if you pay the foreign national to go get the information, then it's not illegal?
	No, I do not buy this particular line of legal argumentation.
	Nonetheless, Ellen Weintraub, who is the head of the FEC, she issued, she was nominated under George W. Bush a while ago, she issued a statement about all of this.
	And the statement is basically a slap at President Trump It's not actually legally true, and herein lies the issue.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about making your neighborhood safer.
	So, I am deeply worried about personal security, because I receive a number of death threats all the time.
	And I'm also worried about my neighborhood safety, because the fact is I live in Los Angeles, and Mayor Eric Garcetti's a terrible mayor, which means that the city has devolved into a hellscape.
	Well, this is one of the reasons why I rely on Ring.
	Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
	You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
	Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
	So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you'll get an alert and be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone.
	That's thanks to HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
	We've been using Ring devices in my house for years.
	It makes sure that if somebody rings my doorbell, I know exactly who it is, no matter where I am in the country, no matter what time it is.
	As a listener, you have a special offer on the Ring Starter Kit available to you just right now.
	With a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight cam, the Starter Kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home.
	So, your home can be just as safe as mine is, and mine's basically a fortress.
	Just go to ring.com slash ben.
	That's ring.com slash ben.
	Check it out.
	Ring.com slash ben for a special deal.
	Okay, so, Ellen Weintraub is the head of the Federal Election Commission, and in response to the President of the United States saying that Sure, he might or he might not report to the FBI.
	He'll sort of take it on like a case-by-case basis.
	That's the Trump campaign line right now, by the way.
	According to Kayleigh McEnany, the campaign's press secretary, she said on CBS's news red and blue on Thursday, the campaign will follow President Trump's lead when it comes to handling potential offers.
	Quote, the president's directive, as he said, it's a case by case basis.
	He said he would likely do both.
	Listen to what they have to say, but also report it to the FBI.
	And that's not great stuff.
	I mean, honestly, if Trump just said, listen, I'm going to what am I supposed to like block out my ears if they give me a good piece of information, but I'll report it to the FBI for sure.
	That is perfectly defensible.
	But this whole, maybe I'll report it to the FBI, maybe I won't report it to the FBI.
	He sort of had it every which way in his statement the other day with George Stephanopoulos.
	He said, I think maybe you do both.
	I think you might want to listen.
	There's nothing wrong with listening.
	It's not an interference.
	They have information.
	I think I'd take it.
	If I thought there was something wrong, I'd maybe go to the FBI.
	And then he suggested that he might not go to the FBI because the FBI doesn't have time, and who goes to the FBI anyway?
	And all of this.
	So it was a very bad statement.
	I talked about it yesterday.
	And again, it is a morally bad statement.
	When Hillary Clinton...
	When the DNC was coordinating with the Ukrainian government, that is a bad thing.
	Now it's worse if you're coordinating with an overtly adversarial country like Russia.
	If you're getting information from an overtly adversarial country like Russia, that would be worse.
	There's no evidence the Trump campaign actually received that sort of information from the Russians.
	But Ellen Weintraub from the FEC, she says that this is a violation of law.
	That if a foreign national approaches you with OPPO research, or a member of a foreign government approaches you with OPPO research, that this is obviously a violation of law.
	I don't actually think she's right.
	I'll explain in a second.
	Again, there's a difference between legal and moral.
	I've just said many times in the past few minutes, it is immoral to take opposition research from a foreign party and not report it to the FBI.
	It is not illegal.
	I'll explain in a second.
	So Ellen Weintraub said, I would not have thought I needed to say this.
	Well, weird, because Christopher Steele gave a lot of stuff of value to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	"to the American public and anyone running for public office, "it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, "or receive anything of value from a foreign national "in connection with the U.S. election." Well, weird, 'cause Christopher Steele gave a lot of stuff of value to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	Don't see the incipient prosecution happening.
	This is not a novel concept, Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation.
	Our founding fathers sounded the alarm about foreign interference, intrigue, and influence.
	They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's.
	Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.
	Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	Hey now, there's what you should do and then there's what you are legally mandated to do.
	The provision of law that governs all of this is section, it is 52 U.S.
	Code section 30121.
	Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.
	Prohibition.
	It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection with a federal, state, or local election.
	And it is unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution described in subparagraph A or B of paragraph 1 from a foreign national.
	They say a foreign national means a foreign principal, except that the term foreign national should not include anybody who has dual citizenship, and it means an individual who's not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States who's not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
	Well, Christopher Steele was a non-resident alien, so he actually kind of falls under this definition, and if the idea is you paid him for it, I'm not sure how that really changes the game very much on a legal level.
	Anyway.
	The question in the law is whether this provision, a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, means also information.
	And it's pretty dicey to say that it does.
	The reason is because throughout American law, whenever it says other thing of value, it doesn't mean information.
	It typically means Another thing of value.
	In other words, they give you a desk.
	They give you a bar of gold.
	They give you something that is of value.
	But not information.
	Because the problem with information is once you are talking about the conveyance of information, you run into First Amendment issues.
	Serious First Amendment issues.
	So Eugene Volokh, who's a professor over at UCLA Law, wrote a long piece back in 2017 specifically talking about this in the context of the Trump Tower meeting.
	He says it would make opposition research on much possible foreign misconduct virtually impossible if this stuff were legal.
	Say that Hillary Clinton's campaign heard rumors that the construction of a Trump resort in Turkey might have involved some shenanigans.
	It's likely impossible to effectively follow up on that without soliciting some valuable information from foreign nationals, such as the foreign government officials, who are hypothetically and allegedly bribed, or rivals, who may have a motive to provide information.
	Or say that Bernie Sanders' campaign heard rumors of some misconduct by Hillary Clinton on her trips abroad.
	It wouldn't be allowed to ask any foreigners about that under these particular interpretations of the law.
	So the case that's being made that it is illegal for Trump to receive information from a foreign national, OPPO Research, again, Hillary Clinton actually did it in 2016.
	That is undeniable.
	She actually received opposition research from a foreign national by the name of Christopher Steele, who is receiving information in turn from Russian governmental officials.
	She actually did it.
	It was not illegal.
	It was also not illegal when the DNC was soliciting information from the Ukrainian embassy about Donald Trump.
	Also not illegal.
	But, immoral?
	Sure, yes.
	It's one of the reasons why Republicans are mad about the Steele report.
	Now, you're seeing folks come out and say that what Trump said is completely different.
	So Andy McCabe, who of course hates President Trump because basically Trump ended his career after he lied to the inspector general of the FBI and ended up losing his pension.
	He's a very bitter man.
	So he's on CNN talking to block of wood Chris Cuomo, and he explained there is no equivalent on how Hillary and Trump acquired opposition information from foreigners.
	You shouldn't have Russians giving you anything and you shouldn't have been paying Russians for information to amass a dossier the way Clinton did.
	Do you see these as analogs?
	Not at all, Chris.
	There's no equivalence between those two examples.
	To say, to openly invite foreign intelligence officers, representatives from a hostile foreign government, to steal information, to acquire opposition research in any way, in any illegal way that they might do that, and to present it to you, is one thing.
	Okay, so, in other words, if you pay somebody for the information, it's not illegal, but if they give it to you for free, then it's illegal.
	No.
	That is a bizarre interpretation of law at the very least.
	who then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal. - Okay, so in other words, if you pay somebody for the information, it's not illegal, but if they give it to you for free, then it's illegal.
	No, that is a bizarre interpretation of law at the very least.
	Okay, in a second, we'll get to why this is still political poison for President Trump.
	So again, I'm just debunking the idea that this is obviously illegal that was put out by the FEC.
	It's not obviously illegal.
	I'm not the only one saying it.
	Eugene Volokh, who really studies this stuff, has been saying it for literally years, going back to 2017.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, attention gun lovers.
	If you want to win one of the most popular and advanced 1911s on the market, Listen up.
	I've teamed up with my friends over at the USCCA, and we are going to give you seven chances to win $1,234.
	That's the exact amount of money you need to buy this very special gun.
	Now remember, the USCCA is the country's number one organization that provides education, training, legal protection to responsible gun owners like you and me.
	And they love giving away free guns to those responsible gun owners.
	I believe that if you are a responsible human being, you should know how to use a gun, know how to protect yourself, know how to protect your family.
	The USCCA agrees.
	So, which 1911 is it?
	Well, here are some hints.
	To start, it's lightweight, it's easy to shoot, making it one of the most popular 1911s to carry concealed.
	It boasts night sights, G10 grips, and comes in a beautiful flat dark earth finish.
	If you want to see it for yourself, just text WIN to 87222 right now to reveal the gun and instantly lock in your 7 free chances to win it.
	That's WIN to 87222.
	It is simple, quick, 100% free.
	But your opportunity is slipping away because the giveaway does end Friday, June 28th.
	So get in now.
	Text the word WIN to 87222 right now for the official rules.
	Lock in your seven entries before it's too late.
	That's text WIN to 87222.
	W-I-N to 87222.
	Go check it out right now.
	Alrighty, so.
	We're going to get back to the Trumpian foreign interference suggestion in just one second.
	First, you have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	So we have so many goodies for you this week.
	So if you want to listen to something fun, yesterday, Larry Wilmore put out an interview that he did with me.
	I'm sure he's getting all sorts of crap for it from the left.
	Larry Wilmore, you'll remember from Comedy Central, very controversial figure at the time in 2016.
	He was at the White House Correspondents Dinner and he controversially, I criticized him for it, he controversially Suggested that President Trump was his N-word, and this made all sorts of waves.
	Larry and I disagree about virtually everything, but Larry Wilmore is also an open-minded, good dude who's willing to have a conversation, which is something I appreciate.
	I think a lot of conservatives appreciate.
	So, he was on my podcast, and I was on his podcast.
	You can go listen to our conversation with him interviewing me.
	It covers a lot of issues regarding race and American history.
	It's called Larry Wilmore Black on the Air.
	It comes from The Ringer.
	You can go download that.
	Also, you should definitely subscribe so you can check out our Sunday special with Larry Wilmore on Saturday.
	It really is a fascinating and awesome episode, I think.
	Go check it out.
	Here's a little bit of the preview.
	When I was growing up, people would say I wasn't black enough, you know, or that I don't talk black.
	And I said, well, I'm talking and I'm black.
	Ergo.
	And I'm like, maybe brothers shouldn't say ergo.
	The interview is really terrific.
	It covers a lot of ground and it covers some of our agreements and disagreements and good for Larry Wilmore, seriously.
	You know, it's something that I really do appreciate because the fact is that if we are going to have a politics together, then we are going to have to have conversations with people with whom we disagree and treat them with respect and not turn every conversation into an opportunity to club somebody to death.
	It's really funny.
	I get a lot of criticism that my brand is beating people up.
	Watch every conversation that I have with somebody publicly, unless they attack me, unless they decide to get militant.
	Every conversation is exceedingly polite because my view is we should treat other people we are talking to As human beings.
	Now, Twitter is for jokes.
	But in real life, when we have conversations, every single Ben Shapiro destroys video of me with a college student or me with a member of the media is a polite conversation in which people who like what I'm saying think that I made a good argument.
	That's all those videos are.
	And this Larry Wilmore thing, I'm sure he will get hit for it.
	I'm sure folks on the left will suggest that Deadspin, which is a disgusting website, is already suggesting Larry Wilmore is a very, very bad man for even having a conversation.
	Well, good for Larry Wilmore for having the conversation.
	And that's what we need more of in this country.
	We need more conversations between people who disagree that are polite and well-motivated and people who are interested in learning more about the philosophy of the other, because the conversation themselves reinstills a feeling that we ought to live in a country together and not just separate and go our own separate way.
	So go check out our Sunday special with Larry Wilmore.
	It really is first rate.
	And check out his podcast as well.
	Larry Wilmore, Black on the Air, has conversations with I think I'm the first Also, it's that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
	David Froman and Rick Wilson, I think, were on his show.
	But I'm the first, let's say, my pitch on his show was not the anti-Trump pitch.
	And the show, I think, is really good, his and mine.
	So go check out both of those.
	When you subscribe, you get it a day early.
	Also, it's that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
	Today, it's Twitterer Tyler Adams, who has just successfully weathered one of the Middle school sucks, dude.
	I am so glad for you that you have graduated.
	Fantastic, dude.
	the picture, Tyler is raising his leftist years tumbler into frame under gold and silver balloons spelling out grad.
	He writes, owning the libs and consuming these nutritious tears got me through the middle school years.
	Hashtag leftist years tumbler.
	Fantastic, dude.
	Congrats to Tyler, who also is apparently an amazing basketball player too.
	Keep up the good work.
	Thanks for your support.
	If you want to be featured on the show, you have to be a DailyWire annual subscriber.
	You have to post a photo of your Tumblr on either Twitter or Instagram with the hashtag LeftistTearsTumblr.
	You can even be in the photo if you would like to be.
	If to become a subscriber, go to DailyWire.com, click on the subscribe button at the top of the page, and then send us your Tumblr pics if you want a chance at getting a shout-out on the show.
	So, go check us out over at DailyWire.
	Subscribe.
	It really does help us out.
	There are a lot of bad people out there.
	We're attempting to prevent you from getting the show.
	You can ensure that we can continue to bring the show by joining the team and subscribing for $9.99 a month or $99 a year and get that left to steer as hot or cold tumbler, which is phenomenal.
	Go get all of those aforementioned glories and help us out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Alrighty, so just because the president of the United States didn't do anything illegal in 2016, nor would it necessarily be under current law illegal for the president to accept opposition nor would it necessarily be under current law illegal for the president to accept opposition research from a foreign source tomorrow, as I explained a minute ago,
	It is not politically smart, especially because the Democrats have crafted a narrative whereby President Trump is a tool of foreign powers and is open to being a tool of foreign powers, and President Trump's own language tends to underscore this sort of silliness.
	And President Trump is a guy who said in 2016 repeatedly that the United States, our foreign policy is somehow akin to Vladimir Putin's.
	He's a guy who has really kissed the rear of Kim Jong-un, one of the worst dictators on planet Earth.
	I've been highly critical of him for that.
	Obviously, I continue to be.
	I think it's morally not only unbecoming, but disreputable.
	So President Trump needs to not underscore all of that by suggesting that he is willing to work with foreign powers to undermine some sort of Democrat who is running against him.
	Mark Warner, the senator from Virginia, says Americans should be outraged at even the very suggestion.
	Here is where, again, I think it goes a little bit too far.
	You might want to look to your own party, dude, and talk to like Hillary Clinton, who actually did some of this stuff, too.
	If there is a standard, We should uphold it for everyone.
	It is not whataboutism for me to point out that what Trump did is bad but not illegal and also what Hillary Clinton did is very bad but not illegal.
	That's called a standard.
	Whataboutism would be me saying that what Trump did was okay because Hillary Clinton also did it, which is not a thing that I am saying.
	Mark Warner, many other politicians seem to be completely ignoring the fact that there are other politicians who do this stuff and pretending as though this is a singular incident of President Trump doing something out of the realm of normal bad.
	OK, it is, in fact, normal bad and it is, in fact, bad.
	Here's Mark Warner.
	I think this last incident and again, time will probably prove me wrong again.
	But there was beginning of folks stepping up.
	And I frankly, at the end of the day, it's also up to the American public.
	If the American public, no matter whether they watch Fox or MSNBC or anything in between, isn't outraged by the comments that he made yesterday, then shame on Americans as well.
	Shame on all of us.
	This is why it's still politically damaging.
	And of course, you have Senator Mitt Romney from Utah, and he says it's the same thing.
	It's unthinkable for a presidential candidate to accept dirt from a foreign government.
	I agree, and that applies to all candidates equally, Democrat and Republican.
	That would be simply unthinkable for a candidate for president to accept that involvement, to encourage it, to participate with it in any way, shape, or form.
	It would strike at the very heart of our democracy.
	OK, and then you have Lindsey Graham, who's an ally of the president, who is acknowledging it's a mistake for the president to talk this way on a political level.
	It's more than a mistake.
	It is, in fact, a lack of morality to say that you wouldn't report it to the FBI if the Chinese government approached you with some sort of negative information on Joe Biden.
	Here's Lindsey Graham.
	What are the implications of hearing of a president of the United States saying it's okay to accept foreign dirt from about an opponent?
	I think it's a mistake.
	I think it's a mistake of law.
	I don't want to send a signal to encourage this.
	And I hope my Democrat colleagues will be equally offended by the fact that this actually did happen in 2016, where a foreign agent was paid for by a political party to gather opposition research.
	All those things are wrong.
	Okay, this is exactly right.
	What Lindsey Graham says right there is exactly right.
	Now, should President Trump be talking the way he is?
	No, which is why it's very awkward when Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, has to go out there and say, yeah, Trump doesn't want foreign interference, while the president is out there saying, well, you know, we'll take it on a case-by-case basis, guys.
	Doesn't the president have to set a tone about what is right and what is wrong?
	I think the president's been very clear.
	The president does not want foreign governments to interfere in our elections.
	He's been very strong about that.
	He did not say he'd have a foreign government to interfere.
	He said he'd look at the information, listen to it, and if there were a problem, he would go to the FBI.
	I've watched the president.
	I believe the president would always do the right action.
	OK, OK, Mr. President, Mr. President, first of all, bad, bad.
	Your job as the president of the United States is not only to do the moral thing, but also as a politician, it is to make it easy for your defenders to defend you.
	Kevin McCarthy is out there trying to defend this.
	Why don't you just make it easy for him by saying the right thing?
	Why not just do that?
	Instead, you're out there saying that your own FBI director, Chris Wray, is wrong when he says that you should report this sort of stuff to the FBI.
	After all, who has time for- This is bad stuff.
	It's stupid stuff.
	The president shouldn't say it.
	Now, Democrats in the media, remember that time when you guys did all this kind of stuff?
	Remember that?
	And then you don't care?
	Remember how that was?
	Yeah, I remember it.
	But we're going to pretend that you didn't do it because apparently that is the way that all of this works.
	It's only bad when Trump does it.
	Orange man bad.
	And when the orange man is doing a bad thing, by the way, that does not excuse you for also doing the same bad thing.
	Pretty impressive how the standard just seems to malleably change.
	As soon as Trump does it, it becomes very bad.
	When Hillary did very similar stuff, no problem at all, because after all, you had to stop the orange man.
	Okay, time for some mailbag, because it is indeed a Friday.
	So, let's jump right in.
	Elizabeth says, Hey Ben, I wanted to let you know I didn't go through with an abortion because of your show.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Well, thank you so much.
	Your child thanks you.
	That means an enormous amount to me.
	I mean, that's the real reason we do the show.
	Honestly, like I was, I was doing politics long before we were, we had a huge audience.
	We're making money from it.
	So thank you.
	You are doing exactly the right thing.
	You are doing, I kid you not, God's work.
	Okay.
	Bringing a child into the world and not having it killed before it's born.
	Thank you.
	It's sad to say that that's an act of heroism in today's society, but it absolutely is.
	Elizabeth says, I'm giving the baby up for adoption through a church, which again is great.
	Put the kid in a home where they can grow and thrive.
	Good for you.
	That is an act of generosity of spirit.
	It is an act of heroism.
	Thank you.
	God thanks you too.
	What are your thoughts on adoption in the states?
	Well, adoption needs to be made much easier.
	Right now, it's insane.
	But states are basically cracking down on adoption agencies if those adoption agencies have religious backgrounds.
	We've seen adoption agencies in places like Massachusetts actually shut down if they prefer to hand a baby over to a traditional male-female couple as opposed to a same-sex couple.
	So Catholic charities have shut down adoption services in Massachusetts because of this.
	Now, I think that there is a perfectly secular, rational case for handing a baby over to a male and a female, because I don't think that males and females are the same.
	I don't think fathers and mothers are the same, which is why every single Father's Day and Mother's Day, I make the same joke on Twitter.
	It's a running joke, and it is, happy second legal guardian of unspecified gender day.
	Because if you don't think there's a difference between fathers and mothers, or males and females, then why have a Father's Day or a Mother's Day?
	Just have an unspecified legal guardian day.
	But if you feel a child needs a mother and a father, then yes, I think that it is perfectly fine and perfectly rational and, in fact, good to prefer all other things being equal, obviously, a male-female couple to a male-male or a female-female couple or a single mom.
	There is nothing, I think, remotely controversial about that in a social science sense.
	Now, again, that's all other things being equal.
	If you're talking about an abusive household where the male is abusing the female as opposed to two males who are not abusing each other, obviously that is different.
	If you're talking socioeconomically, the difference between growing up in a house on food stamps as opposed to growing up in a middle-class household, that makes a difference too.
	It's multifactorial, in other words, but One of the things that would make adoption easier is more adoption agencies, not fewer adoption agencies.
	Also, the hoops that you have to run through in order to adopt are just ridiculous.
	And one of the things about... We already have laws against child abuse.
	We already have laws against child endangerment.
	The notion that the state has to be involved in every adoption runs counter to my libertarian sensibility that suggests that if I give... Let's say that I wanted to put my kid up for adoption.
	And so I went to my local church or synagogue and I said, I want you to put the kid up for adoption.
	The local synagogue or church has an interest, presumably, in the child going to a good home.
	That's why I'm a member of the synagogue or the church.
	The state does not have a particularly wonderful record in its treatment of children.
	I have friends right now who are seeking to adopt, and they're asked some of the dumbest questions I have ever heard, the process is years long, and you basically have to sign on to the government's version of what good parenting looks like in order to get a child.
	So if you tell a member of the state's adoption resources that, for example, you might swat the kid on the fanny if the kid tries to run into the street, it will put you in basically a re-education course in order to make you eligible for getting the kid.
	This seems insane to me.
	Now, I've never spanked my kids.
	I'm actually not into spanking.
	I don't think that it is necessary.
	When I was growing up, my parents spanked a little bit, but really not much.
	I don't think there's a lot of data to back spanking, but There are a lot of friends of mine who do believe that on occasion you have to spank a kid.
	I've seen no evidence that mild spanking is the end of the world.
	But according to the state of California, if you say that to them, they will not give you a kid.
	So in other words, you have a beautiful middle-class household, you have a beautiful religious household, and every so often you say, if my kid is deeply disobedient, I'm going to slap them on the tuchus.
	And then the state's like, no, you can't have a baby.
	Instead, we're giving it to this couple that we like.
	I find that problematic.
	The United States is way better.
	The reason the United States is way better is because of the inherent instability of coalition systems that exist overseas.
	So Israel is the perfect example of a parliamentary system that collapses in on itself every five seconds.
	Almost literally every five seconds.
	They just had an election and then Prime Minister Netanyahu couldn't form a coalition government and so he dissolved the Knesset and made a new election.
	The problem with parliamentary systems is that there are so many interests to juggle that you can never actually get any political work done.
	Basically you have to appease everybody.
	So if you are worried about bribery in the United States Congress, if you are worried about Conflicts of interest in the U.S.
	Congress?
	Take a look overseas, where in order to form a coalition, you have to bribe this little party, and this little party, and this little party, just to get them to stick around.
	You have to make sure their welfare benefits are maintained.
	It takes disaster in order to motivate those governments to do anything of real consequence.
	Pat says, Hey Ben, thank you for everything you do.
	I'm a recent subscriber to the Daily Wire and many other conservative platforms to show support against this leftist censorship lunacy.
	Thank you.
	I'm 31 years old, have been a conservative libertarian basically my whole conscious life.
	However, aside from passing conversations with friends and living according to my values, I've sat mostly on the sidelines of public political discourse in my life.
	My question to you is, what, in your opinion, is the best way to get involved in the war of ideas and changing hearts and minds when you don't have a large platform?
	Thanks again.
	Well, you know, I honestly think that the best way to get involved in the war of ideas and change hearts and minds is to act well for the other people that you know.
	Truly, if you live out your values, that is the best way to convince people that your values are something worthwhile and something worth preserving. - Yeah.
	I think this is one of the reasons why so many folks on the left are unwilling to grant the basic humanity of their political opposition.
	Truly unwilling to grant the humanity of their political opposition.
	In a second, I'm going to give you an example of this and things that I hate.
	But one of the aspects of living with each other in a society is that we get to learn what a good person looks like.
	And very often that good person doesn't share your political values.
	And so that makes you think, OK, well, that person can be good and not share my political values.
	Well, maybe that means that my political values are up for debate and I can still be a good person.
	So being a good person to the people around you is deeply worthwhile.
	It's funny.
	I got a note from somebody yesterday.
	So I am a member of a club in Los Angeles called the Magic Castle.
	I'm a brand new member.
	It's fantastic.
	I love it.
	So I'm very into magic, sleight of hand.
	It's an amazing skill set.
	It's really, it's super cool.
	So the other night I was over at the Magic Castle.
	And Magic Castle has all of these different rooms where people are doing different magic acts.
	And in one of the rooms, which is kind of off the main rooms, one of the cool things is that sort of in random corners, there are random magicians who are trying out their acts and working on them, and it's really cool.
	There was a really young guy, I mean, under the age of 21, so he had a probably special dispensation to be there, and he was doing a magic act.
	And this kid was terrific.
	I mean, this kid was first-rate.
	He was doing stuff I've never seen anybody do with cards.
	He was doing tricks I have never seen.
	His whole kind of act was really well thought out.
	His manner was really unassuming.
	Just amazing, amazing stuff.
	So my wife and I and my parents were there and we were sitting in the back and we're clapping for him because he's terrific.
	And he calls me and he has one of these tricks where there are four people sitting around the table.
	He calls me up, I'm part of the trick a little bit.
	And then I go back and I mean, the kid's amazing.
	So he finishes and I go up to him and I say, you know, that was really amazing.
	If you ever need any help, like getting anywhere to let me know, because I would love to help you out because you are first rate.
	Okay, so don't know the kid from Adam at all.
	Walk out.
	A few days later, I get a note from a friend that this person has posted on Facebook that the person knew me.
	I had no idea who this person was.
	This person apparently knew who I was and disagreed with me politically, which is totally fine.
	I live in LA.
	Everybody disagrees with me politically.
	And this person posted a long note.
	About how he had sort of assumed that I would be a jerk because we disagreed politically.
	And then when we actually met, we met in a different context, and it turns out that I was actually a decent person, like a nice person to him, and it made him sort of rethink things a little bit.
	Now, that's not me complimenting myself, that's just me recognizing that there's been this political duality that's been set up, where if you disagree with somebody politically, then we are automatically to assume that they are a bad person.
	And if we can get past that, if you can break down that barrier, then you can actually have some good, productive Conversations.
	And in that particular situation, all it took was being a nice person.
	And I would treat that guy the same whether I knew his politics or didn't know his politics.
	He did a great act.
	He's terrific at what he does.
	Be a good person in your daily life.
	That is the best.
	Honestly, it's the best thing you can do to be a representative of your values and your politics.
	Sean says, Hey, Ben, just started listening to you recently after enjoying you as a meme for so long.
	Now I'm a huge fan.
	Like you, I'm also a big fan of classical music.
	I foolishly went to music school and got a degree in composition.
	So did my dad.
	I have a classical music question for you.
	What's your opinion of atonal music like Schoenberg or Weber?
	Best regards.
	Gonna pick up the book soon.
	So I don't know Weber's music very well.
	I know Schoenberg's music.
	So, Schoenberg's early music is really terrific, before he goes full atonal.
	I am not a fan of fully atonal music because it seems to me to defeat the purpose of music.
	The human ear is looking for a level of consonance in music that is not provided by the absolute dissonance of atonal music.
	It's one of the reasons why, for example, I like Béla Bartók, who uses a lot of atonal music and then generates it toward consonance.
	So, the first movement of Concerto for Orchestra, for example, the end of it, The entire first movement is incredibly dissonant, and then it comes together in this non-dissonant moment, and it's tremendous, because music creates tension and then relieves tension.
	It's also why the interval of the seventh was considered basically forbidden in Western music for centuries, because it was considered the devil's chord, because it wants to resolve.
	The seventh wants to resolve to an octave, and it's also one of the reasons why, for example, If you listen to Bach's music, very often he'll have a minor piece and it ends on a major chord.
	The reason is because the undertones, there are undertones to every tone, the undertones in music like organ music, for example, the undertones resonate in churches.
	And so if you finished on a minor chord, there would be dissonance to undertones.
	And so you'd finish on a major chord to avoid the dissonance.
	One of the purposes of music is to, again, have dissonance that resolves.
	Or, to move toward consonants, I'm not a huge fan of atonal music.
	Schoenberg was deeply talented, but I think the 12-tone method is a huge mistake.
	Nick says, Hey Ben, I love your show a lot.
	I'm 14 years old and currently taking a rhetoric and civics class for my high school.
	The topic we are debating is U.S.
	arms dealing and how the country that purchases the most weapons from the United States is Saudi Arabia.
	We're debating if we should ban all arms sales there because they use those weapons to torture and starve their people.
	What are your views?
	Also, why was FDR such a bad president?
	Didn't he get us out of the Great Depression?
	Thanks so much.
	P.S.
	I've been using the Daily Wire articles for examples of credible sources.
	Good.
	I mean, we really try to work hard over at Daily Wire.
	Okay, so that's actually two questions.
	So question number one, should we ban all arms sales to bad countries?
	No.
	I mean, it's an unfortunate reality of the modern world and of the world generally that you do have to side with bad people very often to fight worse people.
	So the Lend-Lease program in World War II meant that the United States was providing enormous support, material support to the USSR One of the worst countries in the history of the world, run by one of the worst people in the history of the world, Stalin, in order to fight probably the worst person in the history of the world, Hitler.
	So, this is true throughout international politics, and it means that our allegiances shift and change.
	So, there may be a time when we are arming people against Saudi Arabia, depending on what Saudi Arabia's interests in the region are.
	Right now, we're arming Saudi Arabia against Iran, which is more threatening to American interests.
	Realistic understanding of politics means that sometimes you have to work with bad people in order to achieve better ends.
	Now, in an ideal world, would we be able to not arm any of these folks?
	Sure, that'd be great.
	But, in an ideal world, Iran wouldn't exist.
	In terms of the Iranian government, Iran would still exist as a country.
	Saudi Arabia's government would not exist the way that it does.
	All these countries would be liberal democracies in an ideal world.
	They are not, and so we have to make some decisions as to which values we seek to promote and which countries we seek to protect.
	How about FDR?
	FDR was a crap president.
	He did not get us out of the Great Depression.
	In fact, the Great Depression was lengthened, according to studies from UCLA, by at least eight years by FDR's crap economic policy, which was a terrible economic policy.
	He's also set us on the road to bankruptcy with programs like Social Security.
	Also, FDR imprisoned literally hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, which everybody seems to forget, during World War II.
	He put them in actual concentration camps.
	That seems like kind of a bad thing.
	He was a very, very bad president.
	He has given credit for his leadership during World War II, and he deserves credit for his leadership during World War II, and that's about it.
	Otherwise, he was an incredibly divisive president.
	He was a president who castigated the mere earning of wealth.
	He was a president who went after his political opponents that would make Nixon look like nothing.
	He was one of the worst presidents in American history, I think, bar none.
	Mark says, hello, Lord Shapiro.
	Wow, I've been knighted.
	When talking about the census question of being a citizen, you briefly mentioned that the district's Congress should change.
	What would happen if a large population moved, let's say, out of New York State to Florida?
	Would New York districts merge together based on population size?
	And if so, how would that work for, say, let's say AOC and a neighboring district congressperson battling it out?
	Then would Florida create a whole new district?
	Bottom line are the number of house seats locked in?
	No, the number of house seats are not locked in.
	They're based on the census, which is why there's so much controversy right now over the census and whether we should be able to ask about legal immigration status, as I explained yesterday on the program.
	The reality is that we should base our district on the number of legal citizens living in the district.
	It should not be based on the people living illegally there.
	If you ask people whether they are living there legally or illegally, then you will end up with redistricting, which is what Democrats are afraid of.
	They would prefer to stack up Democratic districts with illegal immigrants so they can have more of those Democratic districts and thus more Congress people.
	Well, I appreciate the compliment, by the way.
	And yes, we do put an enormous amount of time and effort.
	I promise you, at the end of every day, I'm pretty much exhausted, at least until I get home and see my kids, because they don't care, and the energy has to pick up, or I'm not being a good father.
	Love the show.
	Thanks for all the time and effort you put into creating great content.
	Well, I appreciate the compliment, by the way.
	And yes, we do put an enormous amount of time and effort.
	I promise you at the end of every day, I'm pretty much exhausted, at least until I get home and see my kids because they don't care.
	And the energy has to pick up or I'm not being a good father.
	Okay.
	So as far as the Trump in prison talking point, yes, this is a way for Nancy Pelosi to avoid saying that she wants to impeach him because then she doesn't have to do anything.
	Thanks, Larry.
	Well, I don't know Section 35, so I can't speak specifically to that.
	section 35 where individuals who are alcohol or substance abusers are forced to be treated.
	Do you think this is an effective way for families to help their loved ones or does it impede on an individual's free will?
	What would your solution be for families with this issue?
	One issue I see with this is it will deter substance abusers from seeking medical treatment when it may be necessary.
	Thanks, Larry.
	Well, I don't know section 35, so I can't speak specifically to that.
	I think that the making it more easy to involuntarily commit somebody who is mentally ill and a danger to self or others is a very good thing.
	I think one of the big problems we have right now is that there's this perception that if you're a threat to yourself or others, you should simply be left out there and make it impossible to involuntarily commit people who desperately need help and who are not in control of their own minds.
	As far as alcohol or substance abuse, If you are a substance abuser, there is a good shot that you are unable to actually reason that you... I mean, addicts are addicts.
	I mean, this is a disease.
	And like other diseases, this being treated as an act of will alone, I think could be a huge mistake.
	Now, I think you have to very carefully apply this power, because obviously you don't want people being involuntarily committed because they have relatives who don't like them or something like that.
	But if you're talking about somebody who is a deep drug addict who will not voluntarily check into a clinic, And is basically stoned out on the street, living in a tent?
	It seems to me that that is not a bad solution.
	Family members saying, we need to do something about this.
	This person is a danger to themselves.
	In that case, I am not against the idea of involuntary commitment.
	Okay, Eric says, hey, Ben Kenobi, on the most recent backstage with Dave Rubin, someone asked a question about anti-discrimination laws in employment and whether political affiliations qualified.
	You and Jeremy discussed how anti-discrimination laws protect against discriminations for people things cannot change, such as race and sex, but malleable things like political affiliations are not covered.
	My question is, operating under the leftist narrative that sex is malleable, wouldn't that notion negate someone's sex from being protected under anti-discrimination law?
	Thanks for all your- Yes!
	Actually, yes, it would.
	Which is why you're seeing the left try to broaden out anti-discrimination law in weird ways.
	So, This is one of the sort of odd aspects of the way they're trying to broaden out anti-discrimination law.
	So anti-discrimination law does not cover, for example, sexual orientation federally.
	It does cover it in many states.
	But sexual orientation is actually not about what you feel.
	It is about how you are perceived and what action you take.
	In other words, there's no way for me to tell what your sexual orientation is unless you tell me your sexual orientation.
	There's no way for me to tell what your sexual orientation is unless I see you and you are with a boyfriend and you're a man.
	There's no way for me to tell that, which means that now I'm supposed to not discriminate based on action, not on an immutable characteristic that I can detect objectively from the outside.
	There's no way to do that.
	Broadening that out means that they can also now broaden that out to more More choice of display driven things, like choosing your own gender, for example.
	So I can't tell if you're transgender just by looking at you, unless you are actually dressed in the garb of the opposite sex, or unless you have undergone some sort of physical transformation.
	What that means is that, you know, I can't detect what's in your head, in other words.
	Anti-discrimination law was never meant to protect folks against what is in their head.
	Now, that is not saying these things aren't real.
	I mean, when I say in your head, I mean, like, I literally can't tell what you're thinking, not that it's in your head or you're crazy or anything like that.
	OK, so my problem is that I don't really believe in anti-discrimination laws, period.
	What I mean by that is that the government should not be allowed to discriminate, but the government should not be forced to allow private citizens forced.
	The government should not be able to force private citizens to act in the way that the government wants them to act.
	The solution to discrimination in private life is for people not to associate with people who discriminate, for people to boycott businesses that openly discriminate.
	Listen to my podcast with Larry Wilmore.
	I talk a lot about this, I've said for years.
	I would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 because it needed to happen.
	The Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather, because it needed to happen.
	But would I oppose on an individual level Title II, which deals with public accommodations and specific I don't think that that is my power.
	I don't think it's your power.
	individual private business owners to act in a way that the government wants them to act.
	I oppose that on principle, even though I agree it is very bad and in fact evil not to allow black people to eat in your restaurant.
	I don't think that I have the power to use the government to compel people to serve people.
	I don't think that that is my power.
	I don't think it's your power.
	I don't think it's anybody's power.
	I think that you have the right to do bad things that I disagree with so long as you are not depriving me of my rights and I don't have a right to make you That's just not a thing.
	Hey, Elizabeth says, I was born in 1995, so I'm right on the edge between the generations, although I probably relate more to the boomers.
	I keep waiting for Generation Z to decide that they want to be rebels and go against the millennials by leaning conservative.
	Do you think I'm being too optimistic?
	I don't.
	I think that there are a lot of Generation Z folks who are looking at the Millennials, and they're saying, these people are woke-skulled, they're annoying, they're irritating, we can't have conversations.
	They suggest that people that disagree with them are bad and evil, and can't be talked to.
	And I think that that is obviously not only wrong, but stupid.
	Well, first of all, he's great in John Wick.
	with the John Wick trilogy and his appearance at E3.
	I've noticed a rise in Keanu Reeves' popularity.
	He's very popular for being wholesome in meme culture as well.
	Why do you think this is?
	What do you think of him?
	Thanks for all you do.
	Well, first of all, he's great in John Wick because he's perfectly Keanu Reeves.
	It's just the perfect part for him.
	Perfect part, perfect time in his life.
	It's terrific.
	I am noticing that the popularity of Keanu Reeves is largely related to the restoration of an idea of a movie star that existed in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.
	And that was that movie stars were protected from studios, so you didn't know much about their personal life.
	What you saw of them, you saw on screen.
	And then in their regular life, they were expected to act like just normal, decent human beings.
	We didn't care all that much about We cared, but we didn't know much about their sex lives, or about whether they were alcoholics, or drug users, or their family lives.
	The studios really guarded the image of their stars.
	And the stars were what you saw on screen, which is why you would go see a Katharine Hepburn movie, because Katharine Hepburn was a star.
	You didn't know anything about her other than what you saw on screen, and you saw some glamour shots of her in the paper.
	That's basically Keanu Reeves.
	He acts like a nice guy publicly, you don't know much about him and his personal life, he doesn't make his personal life into a political issue, and then he goes and makes movies that you like.
	You want to restore the star system in Hollywood?
	This is actually what you need to do.
	It's very ironic that so many members of Hollywood think that the way to create stars is to put them in the public eye at every available opportunity and to make them as human beings the issue.
	You want to create a star?
	It's the image that matters, not the actual human being behind the image.
	The way to wreck an image of a star is to turn the star into a human being.
	You wouldn't turn Coca-Cola, the brand, into the group of people who work at Coca-Cola because that's not what you're buying.
	You're buying the brand.
	It's very weird that Hollywood doesn't seem to understand this dichotomy.
	Okay, time for a quick thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate and we'll be out of here.
	So, things that I like.
	Speaking of Katharine Hepburn, there is a great old comedy.
	Again, I've been on an old movie spate with my wife.
	We watched last night Spencer, Tracy and Katharine Hepburn in their best movie together, Adam's Rib, which is a movie about Two lawyers, Spencer Tracy, a prosecutor, Catherine Hepburn, a defense lawyer, who basically try opposite sides of the case.
	They're also married to each other.
	The movie is is really funny and really good.
	It's about the battle of the sexes.
	It takes feminism very seriously, but it also takes the idea that the sexes are different seriously.
	It was written by a man and a woman and Garson Kanan and Ruth Gordon, who ended up being, of course, an Oscar winning actress on her own.
	And the and the movie is is really funny.
	Here's a little bit of the trailer.
	Adam!
	What?
	Don't you dare slam that door!
	All right.
	Hello, all you pleasant people.
	This is a Smith named Pete yapping at you about a Tracy named Spencer.
	The movie's really good.
	So go check it out, Adam's Rib.
	It's a lot of fun.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	Jim Acosta is on a book tour.
	Now, I don't really like that in the sense that I think that his book is any good.
	I highly, highly doubt that it is.
	I have not read it.
	So I will just express my doubts.
	I'm open to having my mind changed, although we will.
	Yeah, sure.
	So Jim Acosta was doing an interview and he said, what I really want is for Republicans to read my book.
	Oh, yeah, because you're such a reach across the aisle kind of guy, Jim Acosta.
	I'm sure when you wrote this book, you weren't selling it in order to get all of your allies to pick it up.
	All the people who hate Trump and think that you are a righteous crusader for truth rather than a self-aggrandizing boor.
	No, you wrote it for Republicans, didn't you, Jim Acosta?
	We're at each other's throats.
	And as I write in the book, towards the end of the book, I don't want to give it away.
	But, you know, I essentially end with the message, we've just got to get back to a place where we have more faith in one another.
	We're all on the same team.
	We're all Americans.
	I am not your enemy.
	You are not my enemy.
	Some folks may accuse me of writing this book for the resistance.
	I'll tell you, if you read this book, I'm writing this book also for the Republicans.
	Uh, because I really feel, you know, deep down in my heart that, you know, Republicans are just as patriotic as everybody else, and they want a country handed off to the next generation that is just as strong as the one we inherited.
	Okay, that language at the very end is so telling.
	I believe deep down in my heart that Republicans are as patriotic as anybody else.
	Oh, well, thanks.
	Thanks for that, Jim.
	And thank you for deigning to grant us the patina of legitimacy.
	I really, I appreciate it.
	When Jim Acosta says I'm patriotic, I can tell you my heart just warms up.
	It just warms up.
	What a good man Jim Acosta is.
	And he might be a nice guy in person, I have no idea.
	I can tell you that what he does for a living, which is basically grandstand, is really irritating.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	Charlotte Clymer is a transgender woman who works for the Human Rights Campaign.
	I just say she's a man who believes that he is a woman, because that's what transgenderism is, says that he's a woman.
	Okay, in any case, Charlotte Clymer tweets out, So far, I actually agree with this.
	Not all opinions are equally true.
	Not all opinions are deserving of our time and consideration.
	So far, I actually agree with this.
	Not all opinions are equally true.
	Not all opinions are deserving of our time and consideration.
	Agree.
	Here's where it starts getting weird for Charlotte Clymer, supposedly an advocate of tolerance and diversity.
	Not all opinions should be given space in the public square.
	If you push a belief that is directly harmful to others, you have moved past opinion and into a threat to public safety.
	If you push a belief that is directly harmful to others... So who defines a belief that is directly harmful to others?
	Beliefs aren't directly harmful to others.
	Actions are directly harmful to others.
	If you do an action that is directly harmful to somebody else, we call that a crime.
	If you have a belief, the belief isn't directly harmful to others because it is in your mind.
	This notion that this is now a threat to public safety, if you have a belief.
	The belief itself is a threat to public safety, and thus we must shut you out of the public square.
	This is the excuse every dictator ever has used in order to shut down political debate.
	Now, a bunch of people jumped on Charlotte Clymer for saying this, and Charlotte Clymer immediately said, well, I was talking about vaccinations.
	Well, there's nothing in that tweet about vaccinations.
	I, as folks know, am very much in favor of vaccinations.
	I think that anti-vaccination material is generally propagandistic.
	I think that vaccinations have been responsible, based on the science, for the vast decrease in killer diseases over the past century.
	But I think anti-vaxxers are allowed to have opinions.
	I think people who are anti-vaccines are allowed to have opinions and allowed to express those opinions, even if I think those opinions are wrong, and even if I think that people acting on those opinions is dangerous to children and to others.
	Because this is a battle that ought to be fought in the public space.
	And that's not even an argument about legislation.
	But this idea that you get to shut down opinions because the beliefs are dangerous?
	There is no actual limit to that.
	There's no actual limit to that.
	I assume that Charlotte Clymer would suggest that because I say that Charlotte Clymer is a genetic man, because Charlotte Clymer is a genetic man, that this is a belief that is directly harmful to Charlotte Clymer.
	Well, no.
	It is a belief that happens to be based on biological fact, And it is not harmful to Charlotte Clymer that I believe this.
	It would be harmful to Charlotte Clymer if I were to come and do something bad to Charlotte Clymer.
	But me believing a thing is not inherently a threat to public safety.
	The unwillingness to distinguish between thought and action in leftist thought is incredibly dangerous, and it is going to lead to a crackdown on speech and thought itself, and you're already seeing it in the way that the left treats folks.
	It's pretty astonishing.
	Okay, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours, or we'll see you here next week.
	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 Sievitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	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 guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, is it bigoted and homophobic that the Trump administration won't let American embassies fly gay pride flags at their embassies?
	Well, of course it's not, but the left says that it is, and we'll talk about that today.
	Also, Hollywood is continuing in its efforts to destroy your children.
	We'll talk about the latest in that war.
	And finally, a woman on Twitter.
	Basically just says that she wants to be a good wife one day to her future husband and this sends the left into a tizzy.

▲