All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:01:42
President Leeroy Jenkins | Ep. 817
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Democratic piranhas tear each other apart, so President Trump decides, hey, why not jump into the water?
And ICE concerns hit fever pitch.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, the first rule of politics is don't stop your enemy when they're in the middle of making a mistake.
But President Trump breaks all the rules, man.
That's just the way he rolls.
I know that there may not be a lot of World of Warcraft fans here in the Ben Shapiro Show audience, but I do need to make a reference that requires explanation.
So, there is a game, an online game called World of Warcraft.
It is a multiplayer game, apparently.
I'm not a World of Warcraft player myself.
And all of the, all of the, there's one very famous meme that has come from World of Warcraft in which a bunch of people who are all playing World of Warcraft together are sitting around planning their next move and one of the players is away from his computer preparing himself a plate of chicken.
He comes back and they are all still preparing their plan and he decides to randomly charge directly into the middle of a firefight thus killing everyone while shouting LEROY JENKINS!
Well, This is President Trump.
The news cycle this weekend could have been the Democrats tearing each other apart.
The news cycle could have been this weekend people attempting to raid an ICE facility and one guy getting killed while attempting to destroy an ICE facility.
All of that could have been the news cycle this weekend.
Instead, the news cycle was LEROY JENKINS, the President of the United States, deciding to tweet xenophobic nonsense.
In the middle of a Democratic infight and to do so in such a way that the Democrats were able to unite against him.
This is so intensely stupid.
It is almost impossible to overstate how stupid this is on a political level on a moral level.
It is idiocy of the highest order now.
Does this mean that the people whom President Trump is attacking are suddenly godsense, that they are wonders to the United States?
No, that's the point.
The point is that a targeted, a targeted political attack on Ilhan Omar would be well taken.
She's a terrible congressperson with terrible ideas.
Or, alternatively, shut up and let the Democrats do it.
Because here's where we were when last we left our story last Friday.
When last we left our story, Nancy Pelosi and AOC were in the middle of a massive firefight with one another.
And it was glorious.
As a conservative, it was glorious to watch all of the specters, all of the ghosts of Christmas past, the intersectional ghosts of Christmas past, come back to haunt Nancy Pelosi.
It was wonderful, because Nancy Pelosi had enabled this intersectional nonsense for years on end, proclaiming that everyone who disagreed with the left agenda was a racist, and it had come back to bite her directly on her posterior, thanks to AOC and her crew.
And meanwhile, she was going after AOC too, and everybody was going after everybody.
And then Leroy Jenkins appeared, President Jenkins.
And he decided to insert himself.
We'll explain exactly how all of this played out since last week, and why on a political level it's moronic, and beyond that, why on a moral level it is bad stuff.
Of relatively high order.
We'll get to that in just one second first.
Let me tell you, I wear movement sunglasses.
I wear movement sunglasses because they are awesome.
That's not the only movement product I wear.
I also wear a movement watch.
They have sunglasses, they have watches, they have all sorts of great stuff that are not going to cost you a fortune and they are high quality.
MVMT sunglasses start at 60 bucks.
No pair prices over 95 bucks.
So you're guaranteed to find a style you love with quality that doesn't break the bank.
They've sold over 2.5 million products across more than 160 countries.
Their collections are always expanding.
Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
See why the MVMT keeps growing.
Check out their expanding collection.
I love MVMT products.
I have MVMT products.
My wife has MVMT sunglasses and a MVMT watch.
My parents have MVMT watches.
They really are first rate.
This is a company that started really small and has gotten really large, and they are undercutting all of their competition by selling direct to you.
So go to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
That's MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
It's minimalist style, really classic styling, and all of it is really durable stuff too.
Go check them out at MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
MVMT.com.
slash Shapiro for sunglasses, watches, and everything else get 15% off with free shipping and free returns when you use that promo code, MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
Okay, so let us review.
This all began when Nancy Pelosi, she spent basically the last seven months vacillating between praising AOC for her supposed energy and brilliance and knocking AOC as a dolt, who doesn't know what the hell she's doing, who's too radical, who attacks moderate members of the Democratic caucus. who doesn't know what the hell she's doing, who's too It was criticism like this that we're about to hear from Nancy Pelosi that led AOC to strike back.
So this began with Nancy Pelosi attacking AOC and suggesting that a glass of water would win AOC's district if it had a D on it, which of course is true.
When we won this election, it was a very good thing.
It wasn't in districts like mine or Alexandria's.
However, she's a wonderful member of Congress.
I think all of our colleagues will attest.
But those are districts that are solidly democratic.
This glass of water would win with a D next to its name in those districts.
And not to diminish the exuberance and the personality and the rest of Alexandria and the other members.
Okay, the exuberance is wonderful, but they're idiots, is what Pelosi's saying.
Well, this caused AOC to get mad, and then she told the Washington Post, quote, But the persistent singling out, it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful, the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.
So now she is calling out Nancy Pelosi as a racist.
moderate members, which I understood.
But the persistent singling out, it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful, the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.
So now she is calling out Nancy Pelosi as a racist.
The reason Pelosi is attacking AOC or Ayanna Pressley, who again is the Ringo Starr of the squad's Beatles.
Or Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib.
The reason that Pelosi is attacking those people is not because they are so radical that they are undercutting democratic appeal in the middle of the country.
She's not attacking them because they're dolts who don't know how Congress works.
And publicity hounds who are interested in the nearest camera.
Now the reason that Pelosi is attacking AOC according to AOC is because Pelosi's a racist.
And all of us on the right were like, yes.
Yes, make the magic happen.
Do it.
Let them fight.
This is what we were waiting for.
We were waiting for the moment when the intersectional caucus came for old Nancy Pelosi in the same way that the intersectional caucus is coming for Joe Biden.
And then AOC upped the ante.
She suggested that Nancy Pelosi was responsible for death threats against AOC and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley.
...singling out poor individuals.
And knowing the media environment that we're operating in, knowing the amount of death threats that we get, knowing the amount of concentration of attention, I think it's just worth asking why.
Do you think she has racial animus?
Is she racist?
No, no, absolutely not.
No, no, I'm walking away.
Bye.
Yeah, kind of.
She's racist.
So that all leads to the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, then firing back on AOC and her squad on behalf of Nancy Pelosi.
Why?
Well, because Saikhat Chakrabarty is the chief of staff for AOC.
Some say AOC's brain.
And he has spent the last several months attacking the quote unquote new Democrats, Southern Democrats, many of whom are black and who happen to be more moderate in orientation on some of the policy issues that AOC is pushing.
So he originally tweeted out that these New Democrats were like 1940s-style Jim Crow Democrats.
Even though many of them are black.
And then he retracted that, and then he tweeted out, didn't realize this needed to be said, but you can be someone who does not personally harbor ill will toward a race, but through your actions still enable a racist system.
And a lot of New Democrats and Blue Dogs did that today.
This is in reference to my comparing Blue Dogs and New Democrats to 1940 Southern Democrats.
Southern Democrats enabled a racist system too.
I have no idea how personally racist they all were, and we're seeing the same dynamic play out now.
So he was out there, her chief of staff, calling the other Democrats a bunch of vicious racists in the mold of the Southern Democrats who are enabling a racist system.
Why?
Because they voted for additional funding for ICE so that ICE could do its job and ensure that people who are crossing the border illegally weren't being penned up in cages 20 to a room.
And as it turns out, it's not enough funding anyway.
So Saikhat Chakrabarty was attacking all of these other so-called New Democrats.
Well, this then led the House Democratic account on Twitter.
This was Friday.
The House Democratic account, which apparently is handled by Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, He tweeted out, who is this guy?
And why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?
And the reason that this is being brought up is because Chakrabarti also tweeted, I think the point still stands.
I don't think people have to be personally racist to enable a racist system.
And the same could even be said of the Southern Democrats.
I don't believe Sharice is a racist person, but her votes are showing her to enable a racist system.
He was referring to Sharice Davids, right?
Congresswoman Sharice Davids, who voted in favor of ICE funding.
So Hakeem Jeffries tweeted out on behalf of the entire House Democratic Caucus, apparently, who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?
Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice.
She's a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue.
And then with the black colored hand emojis, Keep.
Her.
Hand.
Out.
Of.
Your.
Mouth.
Oh, well, you know that they've gone fire, the House Democrats, when they start using the clapping emojis.
Clapping emojis are, in the left, a sign of seriousness.
If you use a fire emoji or a clapping emoji, this means you are super-duper, super-duper pooper-scooper serious on the left if you start using those sorts of emojis.
So, they're using the emojis on AOC's Chief of Staff, and it appeared that this was all coming to a head.
It appeared And the Democrats were all going to go directly after Chakrabarty.
They weren't going to go after AOC because they can't do anything about AOC.
They weren't going to go directly after Ilhan Omar, who, after all, just two months ago they defended, even though she's a rabid anti-Semite.
They were going to go after Chakrabarty and knock him off.
And by knocking off Chakrabarty, who is allegedly AOC's brain, they were basically going to render AOC feckless and defunct.
And then that caucus would basically disappear from the front pages because, let's face it, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are not nearly as media attractive as AOC is, which is why AOC gets all the attention.
In a second, we'll explain how this was getting even worse for AOC and the squad and how they were fighting back until Leroy Jenkins arrived.
I'll explain in just one second.
First, losing hair, it's not fun.
Two out of three dudes will experience hair loss by the time they're 35 years old.
Introducing Keeps, the easiest, most affordable way to keep the hair you have.
These FDA-approved products used to cost a lot, but now, thanks to Keeps, they're finally inexpensive and easy to obtain.
For five minutes now, starting at just $10 per month, you're never going to have to worry about hair loss again.
It should take a lot off your mind, considering that if you got hair loss running in your family, you kind of sit there worrying every day, how much hair am I losing?
And it's never coming back.
Getting started is super easy.
Signing up takes less than five minutes.
Just answer a few simple questions, snap some photos to complete your online doctor consultation.
A licensed physician will review your information online, recommend the right treatment for you, and then it's shipped directly to your door every three months.
Keeps treatments are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.
Only 10 bucks to 35 bucks a month.
Plus, now you can get your first month for free.
That's a hell of a deal for keeping your hair.
As you know, hair loss runs in my family, and there is a reason that Keeps should be on the front of your mind.
If you suffer from hair loss, the last thing you need is to wait to see a doctor with Keeps.
There's finally a way to get the help when you need it for a limited time.
Get your first month of treatment for free.
Go to Keeps.com slash Ben.
If you suffer from hair loss, get that first month of treatment for free.
Go to K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben Keeps dot com.
So, this gets even worse for the squad.
Congressional Black Caucus member Gregory Meeks ripped into the Justice Democrats who are led by Chakrabarty and aligned with AOC.
They started attacking them just in the last few days, right?
And they were going after them hard.
So the Justice Democrats were backing primary challengers to eight-term Representative Henry Queller of Texas, a Hispanic caucus member, and 10-term Representative William Lacy Clay of Missouri, who's a member of the CBC.
They were also talking about challenging the Democratic caucus chairman, Hakeem Jeffries, who of course hates them.
And he, of course, is seen as an heir apparent to Nancy Pelosi.
And he is also the person who's in charge of that House Democrats account that was attacking Chakrabarty.
Well, this prompted Gregory Meeks, a senior CBC member, to say, quote, I don't know what the agenda is, but if they want to come after members of the Black Caucus, it's two ways.
Black Caucus, individuals who have stood and fought to make sure that African-Americans are included in part of this process.
I don't know what the agenda is, but if they want to come after members of the Black Caucus, it's two ways, meaning that we are going to, they're either going to win or they're going to lose.
A lot of folks very upset with the Justice Democrats.
So all this was breaking out into the open.
All of this was wonderful.
And AOC's wing then came to her defense.
So Ilhan Omar then came to her defense.
She was appearing at NetRootNation, which is a conference of crazy people on the radical left.
Where, as we'll see later in the program, they actually perform fake abortions on watermelons.
It's all good times over at NetRootNation.
And Ilhan Omar told the crowd that lawmakers, quote, shouldn't ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead.
In other words, we're not going to listen to Nancy Pelosi.
She said, we recognize every single person has a role.
Our role is to take our votes.
Leadership's role is to wrangle votes.
And so if everyone understands what their role is, then everyone succeeds.
That's Omar saying, Nancy, you stick to your job, you stick to wrangling our vote, and you let us say what we want.
She was also on a panel alongside Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, again, the Beatles of socialism here.
And Omar said, there's a constant, often struggle, oftentimes, with people who have power about sharing that power.
So that was her subtweeting Nancy Pelosi.
She said, we are not really in the business of asking for that share of that power.
We are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people.
So that is the, again, Non-moderate, non-rational Ilhan Omar trying to wrest control away from Nancy Pelosi.
Ayanna Pressley went even further.
Again, Ringo Starr here of the squad.
She, at Netroots Nations, she again attacked the Congressional Black Caucus, and she said, listen, here's what we don't need.
We don't need black people who don't know that they're black, or gay people who don't know that they're gay.
We need people who think exactly like Ayanna Pressley does, because Ayanna Pressley is the greatest expository of what it means to be black or gay or Latino or whatever.
She knows what it is to be a true member of the intersectional community.
Here is Ayanna Pressley launching a tax on democratic leadership.
If you're going to come to this table and for all of you that have aspirations of running for office, for whatever lived experience and identity that you represent, if you are not prepared to come to that table and to represent that voice, don't come.
Because we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice.
We don't need black faces that don't want to be a black voice.
We don't need Muslims that don't want to be a Muslim voice.
We don't need queers that don't want to be a queer voice.
Okay, and everybody cheering because everybody's crazy over at Netroots Nation.
Who in the Democratic caucus is she talking about?
A black person who doesn't want to be black?
Or a queer person who doesn't want to be queer?
She's allowed to use that word, I guess.
So I guess we're all allowed to use the word in that context.
Okay, fine.
This is, this is...
The Democrats tearing each other apart.
And then Karen Atia, who's the global opinions editor over at the Washington Post, she tweets out, what people need to see in this newly formed Maureen Dowd, Speaker Pelosi, Donald Trump Axis of Sheevil is that white supremacy relies on dismissing, silencing and undermining women of color, putting them in their place by any means necessary.
I mean, this thing was out in the open.
That is the global editor of the Washington Post editorial page saying that Maureen Dowd and Nancy Pelosi and real Donald Trump That's his Twitter account.
They're all on the same page.
They are all white supremacists.
They're all white supremacists.
That's a hot take, man.
And all Trump had to do was sit back and be quiet.
And it got even better because Maureen Dowd then decided to join the fight.
So she's referenced in that Karen Atia tweet.
She had a piece in The New York Times on Sunday in which she was talking about the internecine warfare between Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
She says, quote, "I was feeling on edge.
Writing a column that sparks an internecine fight among the highest profile women in the Democratic Party is nerve-wracking.
So I went to the gym.
Alex Twissant, the digital Peloton instructor inside the screen on my spinning bike, had some wisdom for me, the kind of new-age bromide dispensed in spin classes everywhere.
You climb the mountain to see the world.
You don't climb the mountain so the world can see you.
I only wished AOC was cycling alongside me to hear it as well.
AOC ensorcelled me from the start.
I love the bartender makes good Cinderella story.
The shake up the capital idealistic dreams.
The bravado about how the plutocrat president from Queens wouldn't know how to deal with a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx.
She's not from the Bronx.
And I imagine the most potent feminist partnership in American history.
Nancy Pelosi is sensei, bringing her inside game, and AOC, the karate kid with a wicked Twitter game.
But instead, the 79-year-old speaker and the 29-year-old freshman are trapped in a generational and ideological tangle that poses a real threat to the Democrats' ability to beat Donald Trump next year.
Pelosi told me, after the AOC squad voted against the House's version of the border bill and trashed the moderates, the very people who provided the Democrats the majority, that the squad was four people with four votes.
She was talking about a legislative reality.
If it was a knock, it was for abandoning the party.
That did not merit AOC's outrageous accusation that Pelosi was targeting newly elected women of color.
She slimed the speaker who has spent her life fighting for the downtrodden and who was instrumental in getting the first African-American president elected and passing his agenda against all odds as a sexist and as a racist.
AOC, says Maureen Dowd, should consider the possibility that people who disagree with her do not disagree with her color.
Glad to see the left come around on this one, gang.
That's entertaining.
Glad to see the left finally realize, oh wait a second, if I think AOC is just stupid, then maybe it's because I think she's stupid, not because of the color of her skin.
Because lots of people with lots of different colors of skin are incredibly stupid, as we will see.
In just a second, we'll continue with Maureen Dowd's column.
This was all, what was the news cycle?
This was the news cycle, okay?
This is where the news cycle was.
We'll get back to it in just one second.
With that, it's time for a wake-up call with Black Rifle Coffee.
Today, I am drinking the light roast from Black Rifle Coffee.
I'm not man enough for their dark roast.
The Black Rifle Coffee Gang.
Their coffee is first-rate.
There's nothing quite like Black Rifle Coffee when it comes to giving you a kick in the pants with tons of different roasts to choose from.
Black Rifle ships the best roast to order coffee directly to your door.
And a portion of all Black Rifle's profits go to supporting veterans, law enforcement, fire, first responder causes.
When you drink Black Rifle Coffee, you're supporting a company that gives back to veteran and first responder causes and serves coffee and culture to those who truly love the country.
Get your wake-up call with Black Black Rifle Coffee.
Don't get any of that watered down stuff from the companies that are interested in pandering to the social justice left.
Instead, visit BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
Get 20% off your first purchase.
It's BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben for 20% off that first purchase.
I know the folks who run Black Rifle Coffee.
Not only is the coffee awesome, so are the dudes who run Black Rifle Coffee.
Marine, it was veteran created and veteran run.
It is awesome.
BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
You're not going to regret it.
It is a definite upgrade over whatever you're drinking right now.
BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
Okay, so Maureen Dowd lamenting the fight between AOC and Nancy Pelosi.
She says, the young lawmaker went further, implying that the speaker was putting the squad in danger, asking why Pelosi would criticize them, knowing the amount of death threats and attention they get.
Huh?
AOC pulled back and said she wasn't calling Pelosi a racist, but once you start that ball rolling, it's hard to stop.
You know how topsy-turvy the fight is when the biggest defenders of Pelosi, who has endured being a caricature of extreme liberalism for decades, are Trump and the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
The AOC crew threw down a gauntlet in a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post by The Intercept's Ryan Grimm.
He wrote that when Pelosi and other Democratic mandarins try to keep the image of the party centrist, they are crouching in the defensive posture they've been in since the Reagan revolution.
Corbyn Trent, spokesman for AOC, co-founder of Justice Democrats, said, The greatest threat to mankind is the cowardice of the Democratic Party, with the older generation driven by fear and unable to lead.
Message, Pelosi is past her prime.
Except, says Maureen Dowd, she's not.
And then there's the real instigator, Sycott Chakrabarty.
As I say, all the guns were out on Sycott.
I mean, the sights were leveled at Sycott Chakrabarty as of 24 hours ago.
That's AOC's 33-year-old chief of staff, who co-founded Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, both of which recruited progressives, including AOC, to run against moderates in Democratic primaries.
The former Silicon Valley Bernie bro assumes he could apply Facebook's mantra, move fast and break things, to one of the oldest institutions in a country.
But, says Maureen Dowd, Congress is not a place where you achieve radical progress, certainly not in divided government.
It's a place where you work at it, and work at it, and don't get everything you want.
The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad.
Not wrong, but bad.
Guilty of some human failing.
Some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom.
Rahm Emanuel told me Chakra Bharti is a snot-nosed punk who has no idea about the battle scars Pelosi bears from the liberal fight she's led.
What votes did you get, Emanuel said, rhetorically challenging AOC's chief of staff?
You should only be so lucky to learn from somebody like Nancy, who has shown incredible courage and who has twice returned the Democratic Party to power.
We fought for years to create the majorities, to get a Democratic president elected and re-elected, and they're going to dither it away.
They've not decided what's more important.
Do they want to beat Trump?
Or do they want to clear the moderate and centrist out of the party?
You really think weakening the Speaker is the right strategy to get rid of Trump and everything he stands for?
In the age of Trump, says Maureen Dowd, there is no more stupid proposition than that Nancy Pelosi is the problem.
If AOC and her Pygmalions and acolytes decide that burning down the House is more important than deposing Trump, they will be left with a racist backward president and the emotional satisfaction of their own purity.
So Maureen Dowd, long knives out for Chakrabarty, long knives out for AOC and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley.
And they're all fighting back.
I mean, this is the biggest Democratic infight that I have seen in recent memory.
And then it gets even worse for the Democrats, because it turns out that over the weekend, all of their talk about ICE actually results in some pretty nasty side effects, some pretty nasty sides.
Here are a couple of stories about what was going on.
Over the weekend, so here's what's happening really with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
What's happening is they're overwhelmed at the border because Congress has not provided them the funding.
Congress has not provided them the necessary funding because Democrats do not wish to provide them the necessary funding.
Democrats wish for there to be a humanitarian crisis at the border that would supposedly justify releasing large numbers of people into the interior of the United States without keeping proper tabs on them so that eventually they will be given amnesty and become American citizens or so that they can live illegally in the country.
So over the weekend, Mike Pence Went down to the border.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
So Mike Pence heads down to the southern border for a visit, and he looks at the migrant detention centers in Texas.
He toured two border patrol facilities and It was not great.
And Mike Pence made clear that it was not great.
He sort of gave a little bit of conflicting testimony here.
The tour, according to the New York Times, gave journalists covering the VP a rare glimpse inside a border patrol station near McAllen, Texas, where they observed nearly 400 men crammed inside a cage with no space to lie down, no mats or pillows, according to pool reports.
Before members of the news media were ushered out of the facility, some of the detainees shouted they'd been there for more than 40 days, were hungry, and could not brush their teeth.
One pool reporter described the stench as horrendous.
Some of the agents wore face masks.
and said it was sweltering inside the detention center, which is less than 10 miles from the Rio Grande, a river that divides the United States and Mexico.
Mike Pence had this to say about the situation on the border.
These families are receiving compassionate care in a proper environment.
And I asked every one of those little children, are you being well taken care of?
And they all looked at me and said, yes.
See?
And that did my heart good.
It made me proud.
But everyone even in that temporary facility, Pamela, is getting three meals a day.
They're getting health care.
They're getting hygiene.
And the Customs and Border Protection is doing their level best In an overcrowded environment and a difficult environment to address this issue, but Congress has got to act to make it possible for us to reduce the numbers of people coming into our country illegally.
So CNN juxtaposes, obviously, Pence talking about children and the treatment of children with the treatment of adults, which is not exactly the same thing.
Pence then commented on the situation at the border with regard to those adults, right?
He said, I was not surprised by what I saw.
He said, I knew we would see a system that was overwhelmed.
This is tough stuff.
And this is the point.
The situation on the border is bad.
And the reason that it is bad is because Democrats do wish it to be bad.
The Democrats wish to rip ice.
They wish to portray ice as an Auschwitz like situation.
They wish to portray immigration and customs enforcement as running concentration camps.
Those are the words of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Alyssa Milano, the heart of the Democratic Party.
She tweeted out a picture of Mike Pence.
Viewing these detention facilities alongside a picture of Heinrich Himmler viewing the concentration camps, which makes perfect sense until you realize that Himmler had everybody inside those camps gassed, whereas everybody who is inside that cage will eventually either become an American citizen or be released back to their home country, which is not the same thing at all.
And they would all be treated better if Democrats would sign a damn check to make sure that ICE could do what it needs to do.
And this becomes obvious when you see members of ICE speaking publicly about this situation.
So, late on Friday, there was a hearing about the situation on the border.
Representative Garcia was speaking with a former ICE head, whose name is Homan, and he went directly after Representative Garcia.
He said, you know, you're going after ICE.
We're the ones doing the hard work on the border.
What the hell are you talking about?
Mr. Holman, I'm a father.
Do you have children?
How can you possibly allow this to happen under your watch?
Do you not care?
Is it because these children don't look like children that are around you?
I don't get it.
First of all, your comments are disgusting.
I've served my country for 34 years.
This is out of control.
I've served my country for 34 years.
What I've been trying to do my 34 years serving my nation is to save lives.
So for you to sit there and insult my integrity and my love for my country and for children, that's why this whole thing needs to be fixed.
Okay, and this is the truth, right?
Democrats are grandstanding on this issue.
That's Jesus Garcia, Democrat of Illinois, and that was former ICE Enforcement Chief Tom Homan, who is testifying on all of this.
Well, this was leading to this grand rift between the right and the left on ICE, where Democrats are basically now claiming that they want open borders, and in order to achieve that open border situation, they want to make sure that nobody gets funded.
So that nobody can actually be held at the border and processed in an orderly fashion.
Take, for example, Ilhan Omar.
So the representative, radical representative from Minnesota.
She was at Netroots Nation and she said, we live in a society and govern in a body that treats dogs better than children, right?
Ripping into Americans as racist and xenophobic and terrible.
This, ICE is apparently an emissary of evil.
Here's Ilhan Omar.
One of our members said to me, if there were dogs in those cages, every single member of Congress would vote to make sure that all of these cages didn't exist anymore.
So we live in a society We live in a society and govern in a body that might value the life of a dog more than they value the life of a child who might not look like theirs.
Okay, it's a disgusting thing to say about the country, obviously.
We don't live in a society where Americans value the life of a dog over the life of a child at the border.
It's insane.
Why do you think there's such outrage about what's going on at the border?
Why do you think that everybody, right, left, and center, wants more funding at the border, wants something to be done so that this is not the situation at the border?
But the Democrats are making that impossible because at the same time that they are claiming that they are deeply Concerned about the situation at the border.
People like Ilhan Omar are voting.
She voted against funding at the border.
She voted against a $5 billion bill that was passed by the House Democrats to fund the situation over at the border.
And meanwhile, you have top Democratic officials like Mayor Eric Garcetti in my hometown of Los Angeles, suggesting that illegal immigrants who are caught up in ICE raids, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, in his city will be defended at taxpayer costs in Los Angeles.
I mean, this is full-scale incentivization of open borders.
This is what Democrats were pushing over the weekend.
No matter their immigration status, I want every Angeleno to know their rights and how to exercise them.
Remember, you have the right to remain silent.
You don't have to open your door to a nice agent that doesn't have a warrant signed by a judge.
You have the right to speak to a lawyer before signing any documents or speaking to law enforcement.
And if you need help finding an attorney, you can call 311 and learn more about our Justice Fund and other resources that offer legal support.
And most importantly, I want you to know you do not need be afraid.
Your city is on your side.
And rest assured, here in Los Angeles, we are not coordinating with ICE.
Right.
I mean, this is a major city.
It's a hometown to a lot of folks who are illegally immigrants, illegal immigrants here in the United States, obviously.
The Democrats are pushing a radical agenda on the border.
So here are the headlines over the weekend.
Democrats pushing radical agenda on border.
Democrats at war with each other.
And then there were a couple of other headlines that are getting completely ignored that have to do with the immigration situation.
These would have all been the headlines if The president hadn't Leroy Jenkins'd the whole thing, which we'll get to in just a second.
We'll get to the morality of what he had to say as well.
We'll get to all that in just a second.
First, nowadays there are a lot of different types of cars on the road.
There's no way the auto parts store can stock everything.
Why would you wait in line to find the right part that's probably overpriced when you can do it all with the convenience of Rock Auto?
Rockauto.com is a family business.
They serve auto parts customers online.
They've been doing it for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com.
Shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They got everything.
Engine control modules, brake parts, everything from that to tail lamps and motor oil, even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
They've got amazing selection, reliably low prices.
All the parts your car will ever need.
Rockauto.com.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck right now.
In their How Did You Hear About Us box, write Shapiro so they know that we sent you.
That helps us.
It also helps them.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Great selection.
Better prices.
Write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
That's rockauto.com.
Okay, we're going to get to the rest of the insane news cycle over the weekend and President Trump's Much maligned and supremely covered tweets.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, a couple of things.
First, you need to subscribe over at dailywire.com.
$9.99 a month, $9.99 a year.
You already know you get this, the best in beverage vessels.
get all extra access to all sorts of great stuff that we do including the daily wire backstage and our sunday special last week's was daniel hannon it was terrific also i want to mention that apollo 11 what we saw episode 2 came out today so i interviewed bill whittle the host of apollo 11 what we saw last friday on the program in stuff i like and things i like and the series is doing great business I mean, it's number three overall on iTunes.
It really is, it's beautifully produced.
Bill does a great job with it.
Episode one was already one of the highest rated episodes on iTunes.
Episode two came out today as well.
If you haven't subscribed, go over to iTunes, wherever you listen to podcasts, SoundCloud, wherever you listen, and you can subscribe at Apollo 11, What We Saw.
Episode two, again, out today.
Go check that out right now.
And again, that helps us bring you all sorts of content, including Apollo, when you subscribe, brings all this content, including the Apollo 11 series, all sorts of good stuff happening over at Daily Wire.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Well, all the hubbub over immigration has some pretty extreme stories associated with it.
So I'm always hesitant to say that rhetoric causes violence.
I'm always hesitant to say it.
Unless you are explicitly calling for violence, I don't believe that you are the cause of that violence.
Unless you say, go punch that guy in the face, I don't think that you caused somebody to punch that guy in the face.
If you say, I don't like that guy, not the same thing.
If you say, I think that guy's a jerk, not the same thing.
Even if you say, I think that guy's a racist, not the same thing.
What is obvious is that the lack of any sort of rational discourse happening around the immigration situation is raising the temperature.
And when you raise the temperature, you are going to get more of the water spilling over the sides of the pot.
And that's what you have over the weekend.
Over the weekend, this is a story that was wildly undercovered.
How this is not leading national news, how President Trump's Twitter is leading national news, is both a referendum on President Trump's use of Twitter and on the media's coverage of various issues.
Because you know what's a little more important than whatever the president tweeted today?
The fact that a man attacked an ICE detention center over the weekend and then was fatally shot by the police.
According to the New York Times, the police fatally shot a man who was attacking an immigration detention center in Tacoma, Washington on Saturday morning, the authority said.
Imagine that a right winger had gone and attacked the IRS with a gun.
You think he might be leading the national news today as opposed to whatever Obama tweeted about it or Trump tweeted about it?
Instead, the man, who was armed with a rifle, was throwing unspecified incendiary devices at the Northwest Detention Center, according to a police statement.
The man was identified by officials on Saturday.
We don't say the names of people who commit these sorts of terrorist acts.
He was 69 years old.
He's Vashon Island, Washington.
That's where he's from.
He continued throwing lit objects at buildings and cars.
One car was fully engulfed in flames, according to Officer Loretta Kuhl, a spokeswoman for the Tacoma Police Department.
He attempted and failed to ignite a commercial-sized propane tank attached to the center, said Sean Fallow, the resident agent in charge of the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility.
He said this could have resulted in the mass murder of staff and detainees housed at the facilities.
These are the kinds of incidents that keep you up at night.
Officers arrived at 4 a.m.
and called out to this would-be shooter who's wearing a satchel and had flares.
The statement said shots were fired that resulted in his death, although Officer Kuhl could not say whether he had opened fire.
This would-be shooter was declared dead at the scene.
He died of multiple gunshot wounds.
Police have not established a motive for the attack, but according to his longtime friend, She said that he had intended to provoke a fatal conflict.
He did release apparently some sort of manifesto, and in the manifesto he suggested that ICE detention facilities were in fact concentration camps.
That is the language that he used.
It's fascinating to watch as the media, which have declared over and over again that if somebody in their manifesto Use his language that they can somehow connect to President Trump and it's President Trump's fault.
But if somebody says concentration camp and then goes and tries to shoot up an ice facility, then presumably the rhetoric is still not overcharged.
We'll still get defenses from the Washington Post of the rhetoric.
From particular Democratic Congress people who use exactly that kind of rhetoric.
We've seen the same thing, of course, during the congressional baseball shooting, which would still be a national story if Democrats had been the victims of it.
But it was Republicans who were attacked by a man who was basically quoting Bernie Sanders at the time.
So he didn't get any questions about how rhetoric leads to violence.
That only happens on one side of the aisle.
So that was one incident over the weekend.
That wasn't, by the way, the guy claimed apparently in his manifesto that he was a member of Antifa five seconds ago.
The media were defending Antifa.
Seattle, apparently in one of his Facebook, he put up a Facebook manifesto in which he said, quote, I am Antifa.
I stand with comrades around the world.
Seattle Antifa put up an actual statement about his death, saying when our good friend and comrade took a stand against the fascist detention center in Tacoma, he became a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism.
He was kind and deeply loved by many communities.
We cannot let his death go unanswered.
So apparently more violence coming from Seattle Antifa.
Throughout history, we idolize figures like John Brown for their courage to take the ultimate stand against oppression.
Today, we stand strong in our support for yet another martyr in the struggle against fascism.
May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action.
Direct action, of course, is a code for violence.
That was not the, by the way, another hundred people gathered today outside the That was not the only attack on an ICE facility over the weekend.
There was also a non-violent but trespass attack at an ICE detention facility in Aurora, Colorado over the weekend.
According to the Denver Post, more than 2,000 people had assembled outside the ICE detention facility in Aurora on Friday night to protest the Trump administration's planned immigration roundups when Claudia Castillo noticed a commotion.
A group of protesters had broken through a chain marked private property, no trespassing, headed for the front of the detention facility.
Castillo is a 22-year military intelligence officer in the U.S. Army.
Army and legal services coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition.
She pled with the group of 25 that initially pushed through.
Didn't matter.
They then pulled down an American flag from in front of the facility.
They put up a Mexican flag.
Nothing says, we believe in America and America's not living up to our standards.
Quite like pulling down an American flag and putting up a Mexican flag on American sovereign territory.
Some people tried to burn the American flag.
Others spray painted nasty words about police.
We have a little bit of the footage.
You can see them raising the Mexican flag as people cheer up top this ICE facility.
Nothing says that you believe in America quite like replacing the American flag with a Mexican flag.
Nothing says that you really are just looking for the best for America in your immigration policy quite like removing an American flag and putting a Mexican flag up top a flagpole at an ICE detention facility after breaking in.
So all of this All of this was the news cycle.
The news cycle was Democrats fighting each other.
It was an actual violent attack on an ICE facility by a person claiming that it was a concentration camp.
It was people who were breaking into an ICE facility to pull down the American flag, try to burn it, and put up a Mexican flag.
That was the news cycle over the weekend.
And that's when President Leroy Jenkins arrived.
So President Trump Decided yesterday, because apparently he was bored and he was watching TV, that he was going to tweet about things.
And what did he decide to tweet about?
He decided that he was going to tweet about the Democratic freshman Congresswomen.
Now, he was not specific.
If he had said that Ilhan Omar doesn't seem to have proper gratitude for the country that took her in, she seems to think this country was founded and steeped in racism and bigotry and homophobia and it's a terrible place to be.
If he had said basically what Tucker Carlson said last week, it would be controversial, but it wouldn't be what it is.
President Trump did something else.
He tweeted out about the quote-unquote progressive Democratic Congresswomen without naming names.
And then he suggested they should go back to their home countries.
There's only one problem with this.
Well, there are many, but there's one big problem with this.
Only one of the so-called progressive Democratic Congresswomen, to whom he is apparently referring, actually was born outside the United States.
I'm going to read you what President Trump had to say word for word.
And then we'll analyze what the defenders are saying, he said.
And then we'll talk about what people who are attacking him say that he said.
And then we'll talk about what he actually said.
So, because there are sort of three versions of this.
So here's what President Trump tweeted.
He tweeted, So interesting to see progressive Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt, and inept anywhere in the world, if they even have a functioning government at all, now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came?
Then come back and show us how it is done.
Those places need your help badly, and you can't leave fast enough.
I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements.
Okay, so...
The defense of President Trump goes something like this.
What President Trump is saying is he's not referring to AOC or Rashida Tlaib, who was in fact born in the United States, or Ayanna Pressley, who was born in the United States.
He's referring to Ilhan Omar.
And if he's referring to anyone else, he means that they should go back to their failing districts and then come back.
Except that he says they should go back to their home countries because they all come from bad countries.
And then they claim maybe he's just talking about Ilhan Omar, so why is he saying progressive Democratic congresswomen?
Or they refer to some of the other Democratic congressmen, Representative Jayapal, for example, who is sort of loosely associated with the squad, except that he's pretty clearly not talking about her because she hasn't been hit by Nancy Pelosi anywhere in here.
Here is, okay, so the defense of him on its own merits, that he is not talking in xenophobic terms about people, that fails.
Then there is the charge by folks on the left that this is blatantly racist.
Now, I'm not sure that it is racist.
I am sure that it is xenophobic because what he's actually, he's not saying that people who are brown are not from the United States.
He is not saying that all people who are brown and not looking like him are not from the United States.
He's not saying that all people who don't look like him and who have darker skin hue are inferior.
What he is doing is he is suggesting that a bunch of Congresswomen of color with whom he does not agree, he is assuming they are not from here, which is more a xenophobic point than a racist one, right?
He's basically saying, I don't like these women, therefore, they must be foreigners.
Therefore, they must not be from here.
Now, there may be a racial tinge to it.
I think it's sort of undeniable, considering that these are all women of color.
But it's more xenophobic than I think in the racist camp.
Xenophobic pretty clearly.
Now the Democrats, of course, jumped on this.
So there is the moral content of what he is saying.
If he had just said, again, Ilhan Omar, terrible congresswoman, awful ideas.
Ideas that actually are un-American in many ways.
I think that's true.
I think she says things that are un-American on a fairly regular basis.
By un-American, I mean she says that the United States is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad place.
The American society treats children like dogs, or worse than dogs.
I don't think that that is particularly American stuff to say.
I don't think that that means that she is, quote-unquote, a traitor.
I'm not going to accuse her of dual loyalty the same way she accuses everybody else of dual loyalty who disagrees with her.
I will say that I don't think that her rhetoric is particularly patriotic.
Can we put it that way?
I think that's fair.
If he attacks her that way, I think that's fine.
If he attacks her the way that Tucker Carlson attacked Ilhan Omar, saying that she's a product of a failed immigration system, and she came here with a series of beliefs about the United States that are not properly appreciative of the United States, I think there's an argument to be made.
It's dicier, but I don't think that that's racist or xenophobic in and of itself.
But that's not what Trump said.
Instead, he said progressive congresswomen, and he's referring to a bunch of people, including a bunch of people who were born here.
And so what he's basically saying is if you disagree with Nancy Pelosi and with me, and if you are radical, and if you are brown, then I'm going to assume that you came from somewhere else.
That's bad stuff, okay?
There's no way to slice that where that is not bad stuff, and it appears to be bad stuff.
And it's also politically idiotic.
Hey, there's no question it's politically idiotic.
Now listen, there'll be people who defend President Trump saying he's just attacking people who have bad ideas.
Again, I have no problem with him attacking AOC or Presley or Tlaib or Omar, all of whom I think are dumpster fires of Congress people.
I think they're all awful, garbage Congress people with awful, terrible ideas.
I think Ilhan Omar is one of the worst things to happen to American Congress in a decade.
I think that she is just awful.
She's the worst Congress person that I can remember since Cynthia McKinney.
She's terrible in every way.
She's toxic.
But, That attack is wrong, and it is wrong in a pretty obvious way.
It is also politically moronic, because the Democrats are busy attacking each other.
And President Trump shouts, LEROY JENKINS, and goes charging right into the middle of a firefight.
So the piranhas are eating each other, they're cannibalizing each other, and he's like, what if I just jumped in?
What if I just, you know, like, headlong, right in?
This, of course, Resulted in exactly what you would think it did.
It immediately, like that, unified the Democratic caucus back together again.
They put all of their arguments with one another behind them.
And Nancy Pelosi began tweeting about how the president was a racist.
Quote, when Donald Trump tells four American congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to make America great again has always been about making America white again.
Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.
Well, you're not really unified, but now that Trump has said something, you can pretend to be.
I reject Donald Trump's xenophobic comments meant to divide our nation.
Rather than attack members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values.
Stop the raids.
Families belong together.
So again, President Trump immediately made the Democratic caucus more cohesive again.
Absolute stupidity on every possible level.
Now, I know people love his tweets.
That's fine.
You can love his tweets.
That doesn't mean that they are smart and politically calibrated.
They certainly were not.
It does not mean that the series of tweets was good.
It was not.
Now, I will also point out that the media do not cover this stuff in any way the same if it comes from the left or it comes from the right.
If it comes from the left, then the media cover the Democrat side.
So now it's, has every Republican come out and condemned Trump?
What do they have to say about Trump?
What did every Democrat have to say about Ilhan Omar?
What did every Democrat have to say about Rashida Tlaib?
Every Democrat not only went ahead with Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, they feeded them, they patted them on the back, they gave them hugs.
They passed a resolution condemning all hate instead of anti-Semitism.
So I'm not going to take a moral lecture from people like Ilhan Omar and AOC about intolerance.
That's not a thing that's going to happen.
But it's not whataboutism at the same time.
If you're going to say, President Trump said something wrong, why can't you guys condemn your own people when they say something wrong?
The Democrats never condemn anyone.
I certainly understand the frustration of folks on the right going, why do you think I'm going to come out and say anything when you guys won't say anything?
I mean, the answer is you say something when something is wrong, and you shouldn't be making that decision based on what the Democrats have to say about their own people.
That's why you are not a Democrat, presumably.
But, at the same time, there is certainly a double standard in how this sort of stuff gets covered.
Trump says something that is bad, everyone is all over him.
I think half properly so?
Not totally properly, half properly so?
When Democrats say stuff that is wrong, we get a bunch of think pieces about how Democrats aren't actually wrong.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
So, I don't know if you had a chance to watch at all yesterday's Wimbledon final.
I was heartbroken for Roger Federer.
Roger Federer is, in my opinion, and the opinion of most tennis observers, the greatest men's tennis player of all time.
He had 20 majors.
He should have won the match yesterday.
Frankly, he choked.
I mean, it's hard to say that about a guy who you really like, but there's very little doubt he choked.
He had a match point twice against Djokovic.
Djokovic is incredibly versatile.
He's incredibly durable, and he's really tough-minded.
So Djokovic is, at this point in his career, better than Federer.
I mean, Federer's on the downslope of his career.
He's nearly 38 years old.
Djokovic is still only 32.
He's got 16 majors, but the match itself went for five hours, and it was just incredible quality tennis.
If Federer had had a little bit more, he pulls out this match.
He really won the match pretty thoroughly.
He just lost in the numbers.
So, like Hillary Clinton, it doesn't matter.
This thing gets decided by the final score.
It doesn't get decided by the quality of play.
Here's a little bit of the match.
I mean, you can see it.
It's really first rate.
Yeah, you can just, I mean, these guys are, they're both so good.
This is high-level, quality competition, and Federer is just terrific.
When he was in his prime, he was the best player who ever lived.
I mean, from 2003 to 2007, dude was basically unbeatable.
Djokovic, in the end, because he's only 32, it's possible that he ends up winning more majors than Federer, but he's catching Federer on the downslope.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
So let's talk about something a little bit lighter, but also similarly stupid, and that is the movies.
So, Scarlett Johansson is now being ripped up and down because she has suggested she should be able to play various characters.
One of the things the left has done is they've basically decided that you can only play a character if you look like that character unless the character was historically a white character, in which case we can make that character whatever we want the character to be.
So in other words, if there was a character who was black in the movies and you make that character white, that's a problem.
If there's a character now who is transgender and that character who is transgender is played by a non-transgender person, That's bad.
But if there was a character who was historically white, and then we make that character non-white, then that is a good thing.
That is inherently good.
Now, frankly, I don't care about too much of this in any case.
I'll explain why I think that that is not true in the case of James Bond.
Not as far as color, but as far as sex.
I'll explain that in just a second, but Scarlett Johansson got caught up in all of this.
So she said in a statement to Variety that she there's an interview that was recently published.
She said it was edited for clickbait and was widely taken out of context.
She said the question I was answering in my conversation with the contemporary artist David Sally was about the confrontation between political correctness and art.
She said, I personally feel that in an ideal world, any actor should be able to play anybody and art in all forms should be immune to political correctness.
That is the point I was making, albeit it didn't come across that way.
She then went on to clear up some of the points made during the original interview, noting that not every actor gets the same opportunities as their Caucasian cisgendered counterparts.
She said, I recognize that in reality there is a widespread discrepancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian cisgendered actors and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to.
I continue to support and always have diversity in every industry and will continue to fight for projects where everyone is included.
Johansson had come under fire for her response to a question about political correctness because she'd been cast to play a transgender woman named Dante Tex Gill in an upcoming film.
The film was cancelled after people started protesting that she wasn't trans enough because it turns out that Scarlett Johansson is a beautiful, a beautiful woman.
And like, an actual biological woman.
So this was a weird controversy over the weekend in which we were apparently supposed to figure out, we were supposed to suggest, I guess, that something deeply wrong had happened with regard to Scarlett Johansson saying that you should be able to play a variety of parts.
Okay, so with that said, there is this new standard on the woke left.
And again, the standard is that Scarlett Johansson cannot play a transgender woman, but you can recast James Bond as a black woman.
Now, Now, again, I think this story is being miscovered.
I don't think that the Bond series has any intention of making James Bond into a black woman.
I don't think that's what's happening here.
But, there is news that is obviously designed to elicit clicks, and that is that 007 is going to be played by Lashana Lynch in the next movie.
Now, 007 is a codename.
Right, so you could be, there have been other movies in fact where 007 is temporarily taken, somebody temporarily takes the place of 007 and then James Bond becomes 007 again.
Right, that has happened in the movies before.
But the left was going nuts over this.
They were so excited about the possibility that an iconic character like James Bond would suddenly become black and female.
Now, I don't care at all about the race of James Bond.
In fact, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the part of James Bond.
In fact, I was kind of stumping for Idris Elba to become James Bond, because I think he's a terrific actor.
I love him in everything I've ever seen him in.
And he was kind of stumping for it, too.
I think you'd make an excellent James Bond.
I don't think that color has anything to do with the part.
There are certain parts where color has something to do with it, right?
If you're watching Mississippi Burning and Gene Hackman's character is black, it makes no sense because color is obviously part of the movie.
If you're watching Black Panther and everybody's white, that doesn't make any sense because color is obviously a part of the movie.
And there are certain parts where color is a part of the movie.
That is not really true of James Bond.
Maybe it was truer back in like the 19- if you're setting it in the 1950s or 60s when race is more of an endemic quality to the social system.
But it's not true today, right?
You can have a black action hero.
Denzel's been doing it for 30 years, 40 years.
There's nothing new about that.
So having a black guy play James Bond, I think makes perfect sense on an artistic level.
It makes perfect sense on a narrative level.
What makes no sense on an artistic or narrative level is having James Bond played by a woman.
Makes no sense at all.
Because as it turns out, The natural differences between black folks and white folks are basically restricted by most good data, are basically restricted to the color of your skin, right?
I mean, that's what separates a black person from a white person.
All the other standards are somewhat malleable and move around, because who is black and who is white, even that is a standard that is somewhat malleable.
That is not true for male and female.
There are very, very significant differences between male and female.
And that is particularly true in two specific areas in which James Bond actually has to be a man.
One, in terms of physical prowess, And two, in terms of sex.
James Bond is about two things.
Blowing things up and sex.
That's all James Bond is about.
James Bond is a 17-year-old boy's fantasy, and there are a lot of 50-year-old 17-year-old boys.
That is the James Bond crowd.
That has always been the crowd.
That's why Bond girls were always seductive maidens, and James Bond's special skill was at getting them into bed.
Now the left is celebrating because they think, The Daily Beast has an entire piece called Lashana Lynch, a black woman, is taking over as 007.
It's about damn time.
Really, why can't you just create a new character who's a black woman and also an action hero?
I mean, that seems plausible, does it not?
Is there a reason why you have to take a traditionally heterosexual hero like James Bond, a heterosexual man, a virulently heterosexual man, and then turn him into a woman?
Does that make any sense at all?
The Daily Beast says, In news that will surely come as a shock to James Bond fans and the film industry at large, it was revealed today that longtime 007 Daniel Craig will pass the Walther PPK to black British actress Lashana Lynch in the iconic role.
For years, there's been intense speculation about who would take over the reins of one of the most durable and profitable film franchises in history once Craig stepped aside.
Much of that speculation has revolved around whether the series might make a nod toward diversity and cast a person of color or a woman for the first time.
But if the report from the UK tabloid, The Daily Mail, is to be believed, the 007 producers are going for a radical twofer, casting a 31-year-old black female newcomer as Bond's apparent heir.
Well, no.
That is not actually what's going to happen.
Okay, it is very unclear that this is going to be the permanent replacement for James Bond.
In all likelihood, this actress is going to walk in, play 007 for five minutes, and then be elevated to the M position, perhaps, or to a higher level position where she is Bond's boss, for example.
But the eagerness with which the left is greeting this demonstrates they don't care very much about art, and they care a lot about political correctness, particularly when it comes to art.
So here is the problem.
They made a movie with female James Bond.
It was called Atomic Blonde and it starred Charlize Theron.
And the movie is pretty good.
It's a pretty good movie.
There's only one problem.
The movie makes no sense on any level because Charlize Theron is basically a male character Who is a female.
In other words, she beds beautiful women, and she is incredible in terms of physical conflict, and all this, and there's no reason, there's nothing about her character that says, okay, she has to be a woman.
If you replaced her with a man, then the movie would basically be exactly the same.
And that doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of sexual dynamics.
The reason it doesn't make a lot of sense is because a lesbian relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship.
Men are different than women.
That's not a judgment of quality.
That is a judgment of fact.
I'm not saying better or worse, even.
I'm just saying that it is different.
Any lesbian will tell you the same, I would assume.
Men and women are different.
And this is particularly true with Bond.
So, to take a perfectly obvious example, number one, there's this movie trope that a 130-pound, soaking wet woman can knock over a 200-pound man who is physically trained.
That's absurd.
It's absurd in the extreme.
One of the things about the Bond series is that Daniel Craig is ripped beyond belief, and he can beat the crap out of anyone, and so at least that part of the movie is plausible.
If you're talking about somebody who's a bowling ball of a human going into other people and breaking them up, that makes a lot more sense.
There's less suspension of disbelief along those lines if it turns out that the hero is actually physically large.
And that is one aspect of James Bond.
And then there's the other aspect, right?
Because Bond is about the guns and the girls.
When it comes to the seduction of women, There is a very, very large difference between a woman and a man.
I'm not even going to get into the lesbian aspect of this because I don't know if this character is going to be a lesbian.
Let's assume that she's not for a second.
Let's assume that she is just black female James Bond, which means that she's betting the most handsome men.
That is not in any way a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the men who typically watch the Bond films, because a disproportionate share of the Bond audience is male.
So unless you're completely shifting the character, it makes no sense.
It also, on a narrative level, makes no sense at all.
Because the challenge for James Bond to be completely Sexist about this.
Okay, the challenge for James Bond is conquest, right?
That's obviously been part of the trope of the series is this conquest driven mentality by James Bond.
Now they're trying to make it as though he has to be in a relationship every movie because they're trying to make it as though he is not an abuser of women.
Understood.
Okay, but...
That was always the appeal of Bond, is in every movie he was going to somehow seduce the most beautiful woman in the movie into bed with him.
And this is what made him an idol to millions of men, who of course would like to seduce beautiful women, but are incapable of doing so.
Because there's an actual challenge to it.
Now, let's say that there's a beautiful woman who is playing James Bond, like Lashana Lynch, let's say.
And now she wants to seduce the most handsome man.
Is that in any way difficult?
Because men and women are different.
To quote the great intellectual icon of our time, Amy Schumer, Amy Schumer correctly said that she can walk into a bar and catch a D anytime she wants.
That is her comedic line.
That is true.
Men, okay, there's a difference between men and women when it comes to sexual conquest.
Men only need a time and a place.
Women need a reason.
And to pretend that men and women are exactly the same defeats part of the narrative natural structure of the Bond films.
But again, we're supposed to ignore all of that because it is very important that we be woke.
And wokeness assumes that men and women are exactly the same in all of these aspects.
Which is, again, silliness.
One of my favorite sociological studies ever done.
It's been replicated several times.
There's a study where professors took an attractive woman, a college-aged woman, and they had her walk through a bar in a college town and proposition 100 men, saying, would you like to come home with me tonight?
Over 70% of the men said yes.
Men, they replicated the experiment, except they had an attractive man walk through a bar asking women, would you like to come home with me tonight?
0% said yes.
Zero.
These differences between men and women, it's one of the things that makes life beautiful.
It was created by evolution or God or both, depending on your perspective on this.
It is not evolutionarily beneficial for women to be as sexually aggressive about partnership as with men because women, historically and evolutionarily speaking, had a chance of getting pregnant.
They wanted to be more selective about the genetic material that might provide a child.
Men, however, have a different and contrary evolutionary expectation, which is to reproduce with as many people as humanly possible.
To pretend all of this crap doesn't exist as the backdrop to something like Bond is just silly.
And the fact that the left is celebrating all of this is even sillier.
Art takes a backseat to political correctness and you end up with absolute stupidity of the highest order.
Okay, final thing that I hate today.
So, Netroots, as I've said, is an agglomeration of crazy.
And Liz Winstead is a comedy writer for Comedy Central.
And she did a panel on abortion, during which one of the participants demonstrated how to do an abortion on a watermelon.
She's the co-creator of The Daily Show.
And a delight, and a delight.
Here she is showing how to do an abortion on a watermelon.
This is what you do over at Netroots. - So this would go through the cervix and into the uterus.
And then we create section to remove pregnancy tissue.
And this doesn't work as well as it would with a papaya, but this is what we would use for about an eight-week pregnancy, so for about two months, and you get a wee little watermelon penis.
And that's literally double-sheeting.
And this is why we fight to make sure that advanced practice clinicians can provide early abortion care, because it is not surgery.
It is basic healthcare.
It is easy to do.
It is safe.
It's basic healthcare.
It's easy to do and safe and wonderful.
Watch as we abort this watermelon.
How nice.
What delights they are over at Netroots.
Can't imagine why people think they're radical.
Really solid stuff.
Alrighty.
We'll be back here later today for two additional hours of content or we'll see you here tomorrow.
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.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Our president, Donald Trump, is acting like a jerk again.
The never-Trumpers clutched their pearls.
The pro-Trumpers thumped their chests.
But with the Democrats swiftly becoming an anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-prosperity party, we need Trump to win in 2020.
So it's wise to ask, how much jerk is too much jerk?
We'll ask on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection