All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:22
Practicality vs. Moral Character? | Ep. 839
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Trump stays silent as Hong Kong faces down Chinese authoritarianism, the bond yields invert, and somebody allegedly shoots up an ice facility.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Oh, man, a lot to get to today and not very much of it good news, but we will get through all of it together.
Don't worry.
It's a normal day just like any other and together we will soldier through.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
First, There are a thousand different types of cars on the road.
I mean, just look around at the cars on the road, and you will quickly realize that if you wanted to buy a part for any one of those specific cars, it would be very difficult to do so by going to your local auto parts store.
The chances that they are completely in stock on the part that you need, very, very low.
And this is where rockauto.com comes in.
You know, you want to order the exact part that you need online rather than wait in line at a store for a part that probably isn't going to fit properly anyway or do the best job.
Rock Auto solves that problem for you.
It's a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com and shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, you can get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is super easy to navigate.
You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and filter by brand, specifications, and prices.
Best of all, the prices over at rockauto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
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.
Write Shapiro in there.
How did you hear about us box?
So they know that we sent you again.
Write Shapiro in that.
How did you hear about us box?
And then they'll know that we sent you.
Helps them.
Helps us.
Go to rockauto.com.
Alrighty, so.
The stock market is down again today.
It is down again on fears about the future of the trade war, on slowdowns in the German economy, on slowdowns in the Chinese economy, particularly in the Chinese manufacturing sector.
As of this morning, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had dropped over 400 points.
It was down nearly 2%.
The NASDAQ was down nearly 2%.
A lot of uncertainty about the markets.
And a lot of that is being triggered also by the fact that the main yield curve had just inverted.
This is the first time this has happened since 2007.
The last three times that the yields curve has inverted, that has prefaced a recession.
So people are getting really worried at this point.
According to CNBC.com, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note broke below the two-year rate early on Wednesday, an odd bond market phenomenon that has been a reliable, albeit early, indicator for economic recessions.
The yield on U.S.
30-year bonds fell to an all-time low, dropping past its prior record, notched in summer of 2016.
The moves show increasing worries about the global economy as investors rush into safe havens.
And normally what you would expect is that you get a lower yield on short-term bonds than you do on long-term bonds.
And that just makes perfect sense.
I mean, the fact is that you are going to want more in return for storing your money with the government for 30 years than you'd want for storing your money with the government for five.
But when people have very little hope for the future of the stock market or alternative investments, the yield in the near term starts to drop on bonds.
People start to run to bonds as safe haven.
The yield starts to drop on short-term bonds and it continues to remain at the level it was for long-term bonds.
And that's when the yield curve so-called inverts.
That is a sign of deep...
and surprising mistrust in the strength of the global economy at this point.
Early on Wednesday, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note was at 1.623% below the two-year yield at 1.634%.
In practice, that means that investors are better compensated for loaning the U.S. over two years than they are for loaning for 10 years.
Again, that's because they don't want to loan for two years, right?
So the government has to incentivize them to loan for two years by offering them higher rates.
So this is not a good sign for the economy.
And this comes in the midst of a lot of trade tension between the United States and China.
That trade tension has been ratcheted up by the Trump administration, not for national security reasons purportedly, but for economic reasons.
So President Trump came into office on the back of a promise to restore some sort of trade balance between the United States and China.
As it turns out, the tariffs that he has imposed have actually exacerbated the trade imbalance between the United States and China.
They've not made things all that much better, and they have resulted in less Chinese investment in U.S.
assets because, after all, why would China invest in U.S.
assets in the middle of a tariff war?
So what we've seen is a slowdown in particular sectors of the economy, agriculture being the chief one, but also in manufacturing in the United States.
And this came before the hubbub between China and Hong Kong.
So just a few weeks ago, well, rather a couple of months ago, this controversy broke into the open regarding Hong Kong, which wanted to reassert some of its Long-standing rights against the Chinese government.
When the British government left Hong Kong and made a deal with China, the idea was that Hong Kong was still going to retain a heavy degree of independence.
China has repeatedly violated that.
The people of Hong Kong are sick of it.
And millions of them have been chanting in the streets, marching in the streets, carrying American flags, calling for more civil liberties and more freedom.
And China has responded with a crackdown.
And now the only question is how harsh that crackdown is going to be.
According to the New York Times, as of yesterday, anti-government protesters clashed with Hong Kong riot police on Tuesday, crippling the airport for the second straight day, targeting a potent symbol of the city's position as a global center of commerce and finance that is essential to China.
The mass protests have forced the airport to suspend check-ins, creating long delays for passengers and forcing airlines to cancel hundreds of flights over the past two days.
After a chaotic night, check-ins resumed on Wednesday morning.
The airport warned that flights would be rescheduled.
Hong Kong's flagship carrier said there would be a further flight disruption at short notice.
The protests at the airport have been deeply tactical, as the largely leaderless movement strikes at the vital economic artery, according to The New York Times.
Hong Kong International Airport, which opened in 1998, a year after China reclaimed the territory from Britain, serves as a gateway to the rest of Asia.
Sleek and well-run, the airport accommodates nearly 75 million passengers per year.
Protesters are trying to intensify pressure on the government, which has refused to meet their demands.
After earlier efforts to occupy local roads, shopping malls, and parks failed to produce concessions, they decided to shift their efforts to a more global stage.
And there, the protesters are handing out pamphlets in different languages explaining their position.
The protesters say their other tactics are not working and that other countries aren't paying attention to any of this.
Clashes began late Tuesday evening after a group of demonstrators attacked a man they accused of being a mainland Chinese police officer impersonating a protester, which would not be surprising.
The Chinese have apparently been attempting to infiltrate some of the protests.
And as medics and police tried to evacuate him in an ambulance, protesters blocked a road outside the department hall.
The departure hall, rather.
Here is what that actually looked like.
here, then began running after demonstrators, wrestling some to the ground.
A group of protesters inside surrounded a police officer, taking his baton and then beating him with it.
And they were treated after he pulled a gun.
Here is what that actually looked like.
Hong Kong protests really did get violent.
It started to get quite ugly.
It could have gotten a lot uglier if this police officer had pulled his gun and shot somebody.
Right now, the Chinese government is trying to portray the protesters who have been nearly entirely peaceful as rioters.
They've been trying to portray them as rabble-rousers who are trying to stand up to the Chinese government in illegal ways.
According to the Washington Post, after late-night mob scenes marred a demonstration that paralyzed the city's airport, protesters on Wednesday issued apologies, seeking the international public's sympathy and forgiveness, as they fought to regain control over a narrative that seemed to be tilting in Beijing's favor for the first time.
The appeals included apologies to the police force and come as struggle over public opinion reaches a climax.
While Hong Kong's protest movement has become steadily radicalized and fractured, the Chinese government is ramping up its own propaganda effort in state media and on social networks, attempting to discredit and deflate a movement that to this point enjoyed wide support across Hong Kong society.
The Chinese government is now labeling the protesters rioters, and they say that they are asking for self-destruction.
Military vehicles have been mobbing, have been massing nearby.
President Trump tweeted that out yesterday.
He said our intelligence has informed us that the Chinese government is moving troops to the border with Hong Kong.
Everyone should be calm and safe.
Meanwhile, the city's embattled leader, Carrie Lam, told the news media on Friday the law-breaking activities in the name of freedom were damaging the rule of law and that the Asian financial hub's recovery from anti-government protests could take a long time.
So this could be used as an excuse for even more of a crackdown on the people of Hong Kong.
Now, what you would want here is for the United States to take a strong position.
And the fact is that if we have a Tiananmen Square type event here, the United States is going to have to take strong trade action.
And President Trump has not been shy about talking about taking that sort of action, except now.
In the very recent past, meaning in the last 48 hours, he seems to be backing off all of that.
And he seems to be backing off all of that because he's finally realizing that his tariffs hurt the American economy.
Now, as I've been saying for months, the only way for the president to make the case for his tariffs is to make them on national security grounds.
You cannot make a case for a tariff on economic grounds.
Tariffs do not help the domestic economy.
They are attacks on American citizens.
They hurt consumers.
President Trump finally recognizing this as Christmas approaches and as the economy seems to be possibly tipping into recession, certainly into economic slowdown.
The New York Times reports, that yesterday, President Trump unexpectedly put off new tariffs on many Chinese goods, including cell phones, laptop computers, and toys, until after the start of the Christmas shopping season, acknowledging the effect that his protracted trade war with Beijing could have on Americans.
So Trump has been fibbing to you the entire time with regard to tariffs.
He said that trade wars were easy to win and good for the economy.
Neither of those is true.
It turns out that Beijing does not care about its billion citizens nearly as much as Trump cares about the domestic economy here in the United States.
What's more, Trump said that it would be good for the economy?
No.
Tariffs are a tax on American citizens.
They hurt American consumers.
And Trump is now acknowledging that.
So to fail to recognize that Trump is now switching his position on this would be dishonest.
Trump pushed a 10% tariff on some imports to December 15th, excluded others from it entirely, while facing mounting pressure from business and consumer groups over the harm they say the trade conflict is doing.
Trump explained, quote, just in case they might have an impact on people, what we've done is delayed it so that they won't be relevant for the Christmas shopping season.
That is a full scale acknowledgement by Trump that tariffs hurt American consumers.
Trump is frustrated that negotiations have failed to yield an agreement.
He said on August 1st, the U.S.
would impose a 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports September 1st.
That would be in addition to a 25% tariff already imposed on $250 billion of Chinese goods.
Well, Trump painted himself into a corner.
I mean, that's really what happened here.
Trump painted himself into a corner.
And now with the economy on the brink of a slowdown, This has put President Trump in a very difficult position.
It's put him in a position where, if he takes a strong stand against China, it could in fact damage his re-election prospects in a serious way.
And so, in a time when we should be ratcheting up the possibility of economic sanctions, we are actually ratcheting down the possibility of economic sanctions.
Whereas before, when we should have been negotiating a trade deal, we shouldn't have exited the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we should have renegotiated it.
It was a mistake to exit TPP, which is a trade deal directed against the economic strength of China in Asia.
All the lies about the TPP, that it was good for China, is a lie.
TPP was designed explicitly as a counterbalance to Chinese infiltration economically in the region.
You know, in a time when we should have been looking for a trade deal, we were searching instead for trade conflict in a time when we should be ratcheting up trade conflict as a as an effect of trying to help the Hong Kong protesters.
We're not doing any of that.
And so this has led President Trump to this bizarre kind of halfway position on Hong Kong.
So in the last 24 hours, he's tweeted out, quote, As usual, China said they were going to be buying big from our great American farmers.
So far, they have not done what they said.
Maybe this will be different.
I don't know what the hell that means.
And then he added, quote, "Many are blaming me and the United States for the problems going on in Hong Kong.
I can't imagine why." Again, Trump is not responsible for what's going on in Hong Kong, but this would be a time for him to stand up for freedom in an area of the world that deserves it, had negotiated for it, and now is not receiving it from what is a geopolitical enemy of the United States, China, stealing our technology, building rival 5G networks that attempt stealing our technology, building rival 5G networks that attempt to provide a counter balance to the 5G networks we are building right now.
We are in a second Cold War with the Chinese.
It will stay cold, we can all hope, but the fact is that the Chinese are an expansionist power And they have been, both militarily and technologically.
They're doing so at the expense of the United States, and the United States, if we're gonna take harsh action against China, you need to make the case.
Now, Trump has converted, he keeps making this sort of weird case where Xi Jinping is his best friend, and we're great, we're gonna negotiate a deal together, and then at the same time, the Chinese keep jacking us, and the Chinese are the worst, and they're cheating us, and they're stealing our manufacturing jobs.
Explain what it is you are doing, President Trump, if you want the American people to be with you.
And especially, again, in the midst of a time when there are protesters in the streets in Hong Kong who may be mowed down by the Chinese government in the very near future, this would be a time for you to stand up and say, this is why we have been putting tariffs on China.
It's because of crap like this that we've been putting tariffs on China.
And as JFK put it, we will bear any burden in the name of liberty.
And I'm sorry, but getting slightly more expensive goods from China in the name of liberty doesn't seem like all that much of a burden to bear to help the people of Hong Kong who are flying the American flag while they are protesting for their freedom.
But that's not the kind of statement that Trump is making right now.
Barack Obama, back in 2009, had the opportunity to stand with protesters against the Iranian regime.
And instead, he completely undercut them.
And he suggested that it was an Iranian internal problem, and the protesters were mowed down in the streets, and the Iranian government instead got a sweetheart deal from the American government.
It was disgusting.
You don't want the same thing from the Trump administration with regard to China, if they should run roughshod over the protesters for human rights and democracy in Hong Kong.
Trump's only statement with regard to Hong Kong directly, he said our intelligence has informed us that the Chinese government is moving troops to the border with Hong Kong.
Everyone should be calm and safe.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the protesters' aims here.
In fact, it's pretty milquetoast.
Trump was elected for his tough talk.
Now, in a second, I want to talk about the practicality versus the moral character question in foreign policy, because I understand what President Trump's defenders on this score are going to say.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the post office.
I honestly kind of like the post office, but the fact is, last time I went to the post office, I ran inside for five minutes, I came back out, there was a parking ticket.
There are dangers attendant to parking outside of a post office in Los Angeles.
Namely, that the only efficient part of Los Angeles government is not removing the trash from the streets, removing the open needles from the streets, or making sure that homeless people don't sleep under every single overhang.
No, what they are great at is the traffic tickets.
Fantastic at it.
So, my deal?
Not going to the post office again.
Instead, I use stamps.com.
Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
Postal Service directly to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
It is indeed that simple.
With Stamps.com, you get five cents off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail.
Not to mention, fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
Right now, my listeners get a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
No long-term commitment.
Just go to Stamps.com, click on that microphone at the top of the homepage, type in promo code Shapiro.
That's Stamps.com and use Shapiro to get that special deal.
Four-week trial, free postage, digital scale, no long-term commitment.
Hell of a deal.
Well, the Hong Kong thing is a very tough situation.
Very tough.
We'll see what happens, but I'm sure it'll work out.
Okay, so President Trump was asked about the Hong Kong situation verbally, and here is what Trump had to say.
Okay, so the case for Trump doing this is that he doesn't want to make trade negotiations harder, so the case for Trump doing this is that he doesn't want to make trade negotiations harder, that he's not willing to That practicality overcomes morality.
But the fact is that even by Trumpian standards, this is really kind of bizarre and weak.
It is not up to Trump's par.
Like Trump doesn't even, he doesn't seem to understand necessarily what's even What seems to be in dispute.
When he says the Hong Kong thing is a very tough situation, very tough, we'll see what happens, that's sort of his normal Trump pap, well, pablum, the sort of normal Trumpian pap for what he's asked a question that he doesn't really know anything about, and he sort of just mumbles about it.
You know, this would be the time when Trump should stand up with the protesters.
In fact, his own administration, there are members of his own administration who are being a lot more clear about this.
A senior administration official recently told CNBC, quote, freedom of expression and assembly are core values we share with the people of Hong Kong.
Those freedoms should be protected.
The U.S.
firmly rejects the notion that we are sponsoring or inciting the demonstrations.
Again, that is sort of splitting the baby a little bit.
But what you have seen from Mitch McConnell, what you have seen from Nancy Pelosi, what you've seen across the political aisle is a general support for the protesters.
You're not seeing that from the Trump administration.
Now, people are going to say, again, that's a practical move by President Trump.
What do you expect him to do?
Go to war with China or arm the protesters?
No one's talking about that.
But again, This is a guy who declared a trade war with China on the basis of them supposedly cheating us.
Would it not behoove him to make similar threats with regard to them running roughshod over protesters?
That if they should trash their own protesters, if they should kill a bunch of protesters, run them over with tanks or something, that the United States will take harsh and appropriate non-military action, economic sanctions action, that we certainly will do, right?
Trump is not going to sit still for that.
So wouldn't you want to issue some sort of threat at this point?
Issue some sort of form of support for the Hong Kong protesters?
Practicality and moral rhetoric do not have to be On opposite sides, Ronald Reagan was able to call the Soviet Union an evil empire even as he was negotiating with them.
So this weird notion that you have to either kowtow rhetorically to a country or go to war with them is just not proved by anything in American history.
Very often the very people we are negotiating with are the people that we are speaking most harshly about in order to bring them to the table.
Trump likes to kind of wheedle people into deals, but his wheedling hasn't produced a deal with North Korea.
I understand that everybody is very up on Trump's negotiations with North Korea.
They've produced nothing.
Literally nothing.
Except the legitimization of the North Korean regime.
That's it.
So before we get into the, this is a masterclass in negotiation, how about we see some good results from one of these negotiations and then you can talk about the masterclass.
In fact, the areas where Trump actually has accomplished something with negotiating tactics are the areas where he has been the harshest.
With regard to Mexico, for example, he was able to negotiate a quasi-immigration deal with Mexico to keep many illegal immigrants in Mexico, to have them strengthen their own southern border.
He did that by threatening them.
President Trump is more effective when he is the braggadocious bully that he typically is, not when he is doing the wheedling, glad-handing routine with dictators in Turkey or China or anywhere else on the planet.
It's a bad look.
It really is a nasty look.
Now, meanwhile, the media continue to push forward the idea that President Trump's rhetoric is inherently awful and violent.
This is the narrative that they continue to push.
And it's really kind of ridiculous.
Okay, so listen, when Trump says stuff that I think is disgusting, as I've said many times pretty much every day, I will call it out.
But the media are now running with the idea that he is responsible for acts of violence across the country.
And the way they are doing this is by falsifying the statistics.
This has become part of the Democratic 2020 pitch.
So there's a coordinated pitch between the Democrats 2020 and the media.
I'm not saying they're formally coordinating this.
I'm saying that the media are a Democratic Party outlet and mainstream media spend an awful lot of time parroting Democratic talking points.
So it is no coincidence that even as Democrats argue that Trump is responsible for the El Paso shooting, the media are picking up on that and they are running with it.
So, for example, you've got Beto O'Rourke, who's going to deliver a campaign reset speech on Thursday, which is hilarious, right?
Beto has been in the race for just a few months.
He's already had two campaign resets.
Apparently, he's going to deliver his first major written address on Thursday.
Well, good for him.
As Stephen Miller, not the Stephen Miller from the administration, but another Stephen Miller, put it on Twitter, and I'm playing a sold-out concert in my living room.
Like, who cares that Beto O'Rourke making a major campaign speech is like me making a major campaign speech.
I'm not running, and really neither is he.
But apparently he's delivering a major campaign speech, and you can guess exactly what it's about.
It's about how Trump is a horrible, no-good, terrible, very, very bad man.
According to NBC News, Former Texas Representative O'Rourke plans to deliver that first major written address on Thursday, offering a reset of his presidential campaign.
The wheels fell off the skateboard bra.
A new focus and fresh strategy for going forward in the wake of a mass shooting in O'Rourke's hometown.
O'Rourke will recommit to holding President Trump accountable for the state of the country and focus on the stakes of removing a president from office whom he has explicitly linked to the deaths of fellow El Pasoans, according to a senior campaign official.
He'll focus heavily on three key issues.
Racism, white supremacy, and guns.
And plans to propose what the campaign calls new bold solutions.
The new bold solutions involve Beto O'Rourke going on TV and talking about these things while waving his hands wildly like a bizarre windmill.
That's his solution.
But the media are all in on that particular narrative.
So Mike Levine reporting, remember this is an opinion piece, reporting for ABC News.
He says this.
This is the headline.
No blame?
ABC News finds 36 cases invoking Trump in connection with violence, threats, and alleged assaults.
So Trump is responsible for all of the violence and all of the threats and all of these alleged assaults.
36 of them.
By the way, last I checked, there are like 330 million people in the country.
So 36 crimes in which people invoked Trump in a court proceeding?
Okay, spare me the wave of Trumpian violence wracking the nation.
There's not a lot of evidence for that.
And as we'll see from this particular study, the study itself is skewed to achieve a particular result.
And you can tell, I mean, this is a case example of media bias.
It's pretty stunning.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, there are a lot of options.
When you go to the store and you need shaving products, you go to the store and just tons of shaving.
You don't know which ones are good.
You don't know which ones are bad.
Many of them are overpriced.
You know what would be great?
Not having to go to the store at all.
And this is where Dollar Shave Club comes in.
Dollar Shave Club helps make your life easier, taking out the guesswork and guaranteeing quality shaving products.
They've got really fantastic products.
They've got this executive razor.
I use it under my jawline, but they've also got fantastic shave butter.
They've got all sorts of soaps and shampoos.
They have this amber lavender body cleanser that is just delightful.
I mean, it is calming and soothing.
Dollar Shave Club has way more than just the razor.
They've got you covered head to toe.
They've got everything you need to shower, shave, style your hair, brush your teeth, It is a one-stop shop for all of your grooming needs.
And Dollar Shave Club can keep you automatically stocked up on the products you use, so you don't have to wait until you run out, and then you're in the shower one day, and you look down, there's no shampoo, and you're like, God damn it, now I have to use soap in my hair.
Instead, you will be constantly stocked up on all the products that you want.
As a Dollar Shave Club member, I know that I'm going to receive regular shipments of the stuff that I want, and that what I'm getting is the highest quality.
Right now, you can put the quality of Dollar Shave Club's products to the test.
Their Ultimate Shave Starter Set has basically everything you need for an amazing shave.
They've got the Executive Razor, Shave Butter, Prep Scrub, Post-Shave Dew.
The best part?
You can try it for just $5, and then the Restock Box ships regular-sized products at regular prices.
So go get the Ultimate Starter Set for just $5 at dollarshaveclub.com.
That's dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben wants more dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
OK, in just one second, we're going to get to.
This this insane piece from ABC News accusing President Trump of a wide swath of violence across the country and explore how the media like to bias this particular case again.
Trump has raised the temperature in the country.
The temperature was already quite hot politically, and Trump Cannot be blamed for these acts of violence any more than Bernie Sanders can be blamed for a congressional baseball shooting.
ABC News tries to parse it.
I'll explain in just one second.
First, you have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
When you do, then you get all sorts of goodies.
You get the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr for 99 bucks a year.
The annual subscription.
It's fantastic.
You also get access behind the scenes.
You get to ask me questions in the mailbag.
You get to get early access to our events.
You get two additional hours of the show.
I mean, for goodness sake, I'm working my tail off for you here.
All you have to do is go subscribe.
You get this.
Look, we even brought it on the road.
The very greatest in beverage vessels, that leftist here's hot or cold tumbler.
Look at that.
We always bring it on the road, but this time I have deactivated the cloaking device that we normally use on the road to keep it safe.
So it's an amazing piece of vesselware.
I mean, just incredible.
It's like the holy grail of political vesselware.
So go check that out.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Okay, so this ABC News piece tries to blame President Trump for all kinds of violence.
Again, the title of the piece, No Blame, ABC News finds 36 cases invoking Trump in connection with violence, threats, and alleged assault.
And here's what the piece says.
Again, this is journalism-ing of the highest order.
Serious, serious journalism-ing.
It says, President Trump has repeatedly refused to accept any responsibility for inciting violence in American communities, dismissing critics who have pointed to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration for some citizens acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate.
I think my rhetoric brings people together, he said last week, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others.
But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 36 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence, or allegations of assault.
Wow, 36 criminal acts in a country of 330 million people in an extraordinarily polarized time?
Shocking.
But here's where it really gets good.
Listen to how they did this analysis.
In nine cases, perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically attacking innocent victims.
Yes, all of that's evil and bad.
In another 10 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others.
And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant's violent or threatening behavior.
And so those last 10 cases, very often what you see in those cases is a defense counsel trying to make an overt pitch for media attention and sympathy based on their client invoking Trump after the fact.
And so I don't trust any of that.
If there was no prior evidence that the attack was linked to anything Trump had said or to Trump, if there was no shouting of Trump in the middle of the attack, and then afterward the defense attorney was like, yeah, it was just like Trump, man.
It's because of Trump.
I don't buy it.
I don't buy it.
So take that 36 down to 26.
Okay, seven cases involved violence or threatening acts perpetrated in defiance of Trump, with many of them targeting Trump's allies in Congress.
So that means that really it's not 36, it's 26.
And now you're talking about 7 of the 26 are actually threats or violent acts targeting Trump.
Okay, but it gets even better.
They say the 36 cases identified by ABC News are remarkable in that a link to our president is captured in court documents and police statements under penalty of perjury or contempt.
In many cases of assault or threat, charges are never filed.
Criminal acts committed by Trump supporters or his detractors have nothing to do with the president.
But in 36 cases, court records and police reports indicated some sort of link.
And they say, of course, these are mostly hate crimes.
These are directed against minority people.
This is where it gets really good.
While asserting that a fake media coverage is exacerbating divisions in the country, Trump has noted that a fan of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders opened fire on Republican lawmakers playing baseball in a Washington suburb two years ago.
Nobody puts Bernie Sanders in the headline with the maniac, Trump said last year.
And last week, Trump similarly insisted that the man who fatally shot nine people in Dayton, Ohio, three days earlier, supported Sanders and other liberal causes.
But there's no indication either of these shooters mentioned Sanders while launching their attacks.
And no charges were ever filed because they were both fatally shot during the assault.
Okay, so you are now changing the standards of crime.
Okay, so first of all, I agree that the Dayton, Ohio shooter, there's nothing that connects his politics to the shooting so far that we know of.
We know that he was on the political left, but we have to be intellectually fair and honest here.
There's no indicator that his politics drove the shooting.
With that said, The shooting, the congressional baseball shooting was obviously an anti-Trump, pro-Bernie Sanders shooting.
I mean, there's just no question about that.
The reason there's no question about that is because the day before he committed the shooting, he posted a bunch of crap on social media about how much he hated Trump and Trump supporters.
And then he went and shot explicitly Republicans.
And here's ABC News trying to contend that that had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders because the guy wasn't shouting, Sanders!
as he committed the assault.
It's absurd.
And then it gets even better.
Again, ABC News, really doing serious journalisming here.
In conducting its review, ABC News did find several cases where pro-Trump defendants were charged with targeting minorities, or where speculation online suggested the defendants were motivated by Trump.
But in those cases, ABC News found no police records, court proceedings, or other direct evidence presenting a definitive link to the president, so those were excluded.
So they excluded... Also, ABC News excluded incidents of vandalism.
Okay, well, that's kind of a thing because I would say that a huge amount of vandalism across the country right now is anti-Trump vandalism.
Also, ABC News excluded several cases of violence from attacks on anti-Trump protesters at Trump rallies to certain assaults on people wearing MAGA hats that did not establish explicit ties to Trump.
So just to be straight about this, if somebody attacked somebody at a Trump rally or beat up somebody wearing a MAGA hat, they didn't count that.
So basically, you went looking for cases where you could blame Trump, and you found some cases where you could blame Trump.
Congratulations, guys.
Really, solid stuff.
Solid stuff.
It's no wonder that so many people on the right buy into Trump's characterization of the media.
And again, you're not seeing the media ask the very difficult questions with regard to left-leaning rhetoric, because they agree with the left.
So over the last 48 hours, there was an attempted shooting at another ICE office.
San Antonio police, according to the National Review, are questioning a man who's suspected of shooting at downtown office buildings occupied by ICE, according to a local CBS affiliate.
Police responded to reports of gunshots around 3 a.m.
Tuesday morning.
The suspect fired at the building from across the street, damaging several windows, according to police.
No one was harmed in the incident.
Police are investigating whether the shooter intentionally targeted the ICE office.
That, of course, comes roughly one month after the most undercovered story of the year, a lone gunman trying to blow up an ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, armed with a rifle and throwing incendiary devices at the facility while trying to blow up a propane tank nearby.
Here is AOC, by the way, asked whether she regrets the concentration camp language, which was, in fact, explicitly used by the ICE attacker a month ago.
And AOC says, no, I don't regret that at all.
Not in the slightest.
Do you feel on Israel, you said, this administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized and dehumanizing conditions and dying.
You got a lot of grief for using the word concentration camps.
Do you regret that?
Or do you think people misinterpret it?
Yeah, well, I think there's a few things at play.
One, I don't regret it at all.
Okay, so she doesn't regret it at all.
Not at all.
And nobody's gonna ask real serious follow-up questions linking her to any sort of violence, of course, while the ABC News making sure that there is the narrative that Trump is causing swaths of violence across the country, when in reality, the evidence for that is scanty.
And then we'll see the left trying to defend AOC as the brightest and wisest among us.
And Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with the congressional baseball shooter, even if Trump is responsible for El Paso or some such silliness like that.
Again, this is why people on the right don't trust the media.
Another great example of why people on the right don't trust the media.
So today there's a big controversy over Ken Cuccinelli.
Ken Cuccinelli is the acting U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Director, former senatorial candidate in Virginia.
And he was on CNN, and he was asked about the immigration policy of the Trump administration, which was recently changed to make it difficult for legal immigrants to stay in the United States if they were on public welfare, which makes perfect sense.
We don't want to admit people who are simply going to live on the dole.
No sovereign country can do that and hope to survive as a sovereign entity.
Well, Cuccinelli was asked about that on CNN, and then the media slandered him.
Wretched, poor, refuse, right?
That's what the poem says America's supposed to stand for.
So, what do you think America stands for?
Well, of course, that poem was referring back to people coming from Europe, where they had class-based societies, where people were considered wretched if they weren't in the right class.
And it was introduced, it was written one year, one year after the first federal public charge rule was written, that says, and I'll quote it, any person unable to take care of himself without becoming a public charge, unquote, would be inadmissible.
Okay, so the way that the media cover this is that Cuccinelli is saying that the original poem was written only to apply to European citizens who wanted to immigrate to the United States.
That is not what he is saying.
What he is referring to is the class-based society that the poem was meant to fight.
Meaning that the poem was meant, according to Cuccinelli's interpretation, to specifically target the class-based distinctions that he felt were, that the poet felt were nonsensical in Europe and should not be applied in the United States.
I mean, people seem to ignore the part of the poem on the Statue of Liberty.
You know, the part with the poor, tired, huddled masses.
They seem to be forgetting the phrase, yearning to be free.
Yearning to be free is not the same as yearning for free stuff.
That's why there were public charge rules that were on the books at the time that the Statue of Liberty was built.
And that's the point Cuccinelli is making.
Nonetheless, here's the headline.
Immigration official Ken Cuccinelli is from USA Today.
Statue of Liberty poem refers to immigrants from Europe.
He wasn't saying that the only people who can immigrate to the United States are from Europe.
He's specifically talking about the literary value and what it's referring to in terms of class-based systems.
He's not saying that we can't have immigrants from other places.
Beto O'Rourke being the...
No, that's not what he's saying.
is, tweeted out, this administration finally admitted what we've known all along.
They think the Statue of Liberty only applies to white people.
No, that's not what he's saying.
That's obviously not what he's saying.
Josh Marshall, again, dishonest, says, Cuccinelli, that Statue of Liberty poem was about people coming from Europe.
Again, it was about the class-based distinctions that we were attempting to eradicate in the United States.
That classifying people based on class for purposes of immigration was a mistake, but not based on their inability to take public welfare.
Washington Post opinion columnist saying that he said the quiet part out loud and all the rest of this.
OK, this is why it's lack of endemic trust that leads to this gap between what people see as practicality and moral character.
So for the left, because Donald Trump is Hitler and because everybody on the right is Hitlerian in intent and effect, because of all of that, anything is justified, including lying.
We can just falsify the data with regard to Trump creating a swath of violence across the country.
We can simply falsify the data about what Ken Cuccinelli actually said.
We can simply make things up, because all of that is justified.
If you're truly moral, as AOC has said out loud, If you are truly moral, the truth doesn't matter.
Only moral truth matters.
And that means that you can simply make things up or twist the truth to fit what you are looking for.
And I criticized Trump earlier for valuing what he sees as practicality above moral character.
I said these things do not have to be in conflict.
In fact, moral character can be practical because it lays out the stakes of what is happening.
But we seem to have abandoned this.
And what that's led to is, on the other side, a willingness to say, OK, well, if you guys aren't playing fair, well, then we're not going to play fair.
Practicality now demands that we abandon moral character.
Practicality demands that we throw brick bats at you.
Practicality demands that we cheer for a person who confronts Chris Cuomo and calls him Fredo in public.
Practicality demands that we be as mean as the other side.
And it's immoral not to be as mean as the other side.
So instead of morality being used in service to practicality, And practicality and morality buttressing one another.
Now morality is redefined to meet the needs of practicality.
You're seeing it on the left with the media coverage of the Trump administration and you're seeing it on the right with the cheering on of activity that you would never tolerate from people on the left.
And again, if you think that politics is simply warfare by other means, then all is fair in love and war.
But politics was not supposed to be warfare by other means.
Not in a country where we're supposed to share certain types of values.
This is not supposed to be the point.
It is the reason why, and it's so funny because the left will see this on the right.
The left will see on the right people who are religious people who are backing Trump will say, why are they backing Trump?
How could they do this despite Trump's myriad imbecilities and despite the fact that Trump says bad things all the time?
The reason is because the right has made peace with the idea that you guys are fighting a battle and they're not going to be left behind fighting a different battle.
That's why the right is doing this.
Now, is that the answer for the country's woes?
No, we actually need an armistice.
We need both sides to come back to the table and recognize that the practical attempt to take down the other side by any means necessary is really bad for the country.
And in a war of all against all, everybody ends up dead.
This is a mistake.
But I don't know how you expect the people on the right to be the first to go weapons down when it comes to practical support for President Trump.
When you guys are unfairly attacking Trump, Trump supporters, as racists and bigots.
As I've said a thousand times on the show already, when folks talk about double standards, the alternative to double standards is not a single standard.
Double standards are not standards.
Double standards are the evisceration of standards.
And as we eviscerate all of our standards, there's not a lot that's gonna be left.
Okay, gotta give you a quick update on Jeffrey Epstein here.
So Jeffrey Epstein, I mean, this is just ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
It would make me suspicious, except I always think that people are morons.
I think that politics is veep, it is not house of cards.
So there is a report from the New York Times on Tuesday.
Apparently, both guards assigned to protect accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein fell asleep while they were supposed to be protecting him from himself.
Both of them.
Both fell asleep.
How is that even possible?
They didn't check on him for three hours.
The guards and the warden have now been removed.
The two employees were placed on administrative leave.
The warden was also reassigned pending the outcome of the investigation.
The two staff members apparently went to sleep.
And then they falsified the logs.
They falsely recorded in a log that they had checked on the financier every 30 minutes as was required.
That is a federal crime.
In fact, the two people guarding Epstein had been asleep for some or all of the three hours, according to three of the officials.
Insane.
You wanna give fodder to conspiracy theorists?
How about you say both guards simply gave up and went to sleep, and then falsified the logs afterward?
Well done, everyone.
I think we should trust these folks with our healthcare, don't you?
I really think that everybody in government, they're the best.
And we should trust them to run our economy.
We should trust them to run our healthcare.
That's the only way, really, to make everything all better.
Unbelievable.
Meanwhile, the 2020 Democrats are getting weirder and weirder.
Actually, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is now engaging in open conspiracy theorizing.
So remember when it was a big deal that Trump did it?
Well, de Blasio is now doing it openly.
He was on Fox Business on Tuesday.
He said it was too convenient.
That, that Epstein would commit suicide just as he was about to implicate many other powerful people.
He said, quote, this is way too convenient.
This makes no sense.
He's one of the most prominent prisoners in America at that point.
He had either attempted suicide previously or been assaulted.
Either way, it's the same reality.
He needed to be watched 24 hours a day.
He said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but he said there's no normal explanation for all of this.
Well, I mean, I will say that de Blasio does have some experience in getting away with the murder of groundhogs.
So he really has some expertise here.
Perhaps we should listen to him.
In other stupidities among the 2020 Democrats, we've got Beto O'Rourke relaunching his campaign with a speech no one cares about.
Bill de Blasio crafting conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein.
And then we have Elizabeth Warren, who suggests that it's time for Walmart employees to be paid like the Walmart heirs.
You know, the founders of Walmart.
She tweeted out yesterday, quote, The Walmart heirs make $4 million an hour.
A new Walmart associate makes $11 an hour.
Walmart is the single biggest employer in America.
It is not close.
like the Waltons would help level the playing field for working families and rebuild the middle class.
Okay, question.
When has a new Walmart associate employed 2.2 million people?
Walmart is the single biggest employer in America.
It is not close.
2.2 million people have their jobs through Walmart.
Yeah, it seems to me that a new Walmart associate should probably be paid less than the person who bears the entire financial risk for the future of a company that employs 2.2 million people.
Seems to me that's probably appropriate.
And we here at the Daily Wire got about a little under 100 employees.
You know who bears the risk of insuring those people get paid every month?
I do.
My business partner does.
Our investors do.
We bear the risk.
Should we get paid more for bearing that risk?
Yeah, we should probably get paid more for bearing that risk.
Elizabeth Warren implying that the guy stocking the shelves at a Walmart should be paid the same as the people who bear the risk for 2.2 million workers.
And we should put these folks in charge, honestly.
They're the best.
They're the smartest.
They're the wisest.
And then we also have Kamala Harris, who, by the way, is just a dud.
I mean, it is amazing how much of a dud she is politically.
Right now, the latest RealClearPolitics poll average has Joe Biden still with a very wide lead.
In the RealClearPolitics poll average for the first time, Elizabeth Warren has now overtaken Bernie Sanders.
It is Joe Biden 30, Warren 19, Sanders 18, Harris all the way down at 8.
So Harris has fallen off the map.
Warren and Sanders, if they both remain in the race, then Biden clearly wins the nomination on a primary level.
But when you look at the primaries, things start to look a little bit more interesting.
In Iowa, there have been polls that show Biden up.
There was a poll today that actually showed Bernie up in New Hampshire.
So Biden is up in Iowa.
In New Hampshire, Biden is basically running dead even with Bernie, and Warren is only trailing by a little bit.
In South Carolina, Biden retains an extraordinarily wide lead because he has a big lead among black voters.
Among white voters, Warren is actually winning in South Carolina.
But something like 60% of the primary base in South Carolina is black, and Biden is blowing everybody out among those voters.
So Kamala Harris is getting desperate at this point, and she continues to trot out promises that she can't keep.
She says nobody should have to work more than one job in the United States.
Nobody should have to work more than one.
Okay, sure.
You know, I find it very interesting, something about this administration and this president.
You know, he's going around crowing about how this economy is doing so well, right?
Oh, the economy is great, he says, right?
And they refer to the unemployment numbers.
Well, yeah, I'm traveling our country.
Let me tell you something.
Yeah, people are working.
They're working two and three jobs.
And in our America, we must agree nobody should have to work more than one job to have a roof over their head and food on the table.
Okay, well, the fact is that if you had to work more than one job to have a roof over your head or food on the table, you probably shouldn't have taken the job that's not paying you enough.
That'd be a you problem.
Also, it is not true that the vast majority of people in the United States are working two jobs.
It just is not true.
According to the census statistics, a small but steady number of American workers have more than one job because either they need extra income or because they want to gain more experience or explore different interests.
There's a recently released U.S.
Census Bureau report, and apparently what it found is that approximately 8.3%—this is as of 2013, so it's actually lower now—8.3% of workers had more than one job.
That was as of 2013.
It's a lot lower now.
So this notion that there are just tons and tons of people who are working multiple jobs, it is not really true.
It's not actually the reality.
In May, 5% of Americans had multiple jobs.
5%.
That's really what's bringing down the unemployment rate?
Is those 5% of workers who have multiple jobs?
Okay, for all of the talk about people working at Uber, it's held to that range actually really since 2009.
It's always been a very, very low number.
So this again is just a lie.
It is also this bizarre idiocy that you can dictate to the economy what the economy ought to do.
Every time everybody tries to dictate to the economy what it ought to do, the economy fights back, because it turns out the aggregate knowledge of the market economy knows more than you do.
I know, shocking.
Bernie Sanders starting to get desperate on his own, and he has turned against a new enemy, and that is the media.
Now, listen, I actually sympathize with Bernie, because I think that Bernie got the Beto O'Rourke treatment in 2016.
The media really pumped him up.
They talked about what a wonderful, brilliant, new thinker he was, even though his ideas were from CCNY circa 1932.
And he got that.
And now they've turned on him because there's a newer, more attractive Bernie in town by the name of Elizabeth Warren, which shows you how old the Democratic Party, that Elizabeth Warren is the newer, more attractive version of Bernie.
And she's 70.
Bernie Sanders has been going after the media.
He's going after Jeff Bezos, sounding a lot like President Trump.
He said, so I think Jeff Bezos is on the phone telling the editor of The Washington Post what to do?
Absolutely not.
It does not work that way.
And then he elaborated and he said that nonetheless the media have turned against them.
He says, for example, I've been in politics for a few years.
You know what?
Not one reporter has ever asked me, Bernie, what are you going to do about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality?
Are you going to ask me that?
Is that what the part of what the media talks about?
Um, yeah, actually, they ask you that all the time, Bernie, because you're on the left and you've gotten kid glove treatment.
But I feel bad for Bernie in the sense that, again, he had the knees cut out from under him by people he trusted, which is sad for him.
But again, maybe do something productive with your life for the first 80 years of it before you decide to run for president.
OK, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So things that I like today.
I'm in the middle of a biography of Ulysses S. Grant by Ron Chernow.
There's been this really interesting rethinking.
of grant as a president the old story was that grant was super corrupt his his not grant himself but his administration was plagued by corruption and crony capitalism and that he was a really ineffective president and now the revised history basically suggests that grant moving out of the presidency was a horrible thing for the united states because with the end of grant's presidency really ended the reconstruction efforts that could have alleviated jim crow in the south
That the radical Republican efforts to reshape the South died with Ulysses S. Grant's presidency and that it was replaced by a willingness to go along to get along with the Jim Crow South.
The book does talk about that.
It talks about Grant as a character who's a really fascinating and underrated character because everybody sort of assumes that he was just generic Dolt who sort of stumbled his way as a drunk into being the head of all American forces during the Civil War, of the Union forces during the Civil War.
Not true.
The biography is very detailed.
It's very long.
Honestly, his autobiography is shorter and probably better, but the biography is pretty good by Ron Chernow.
Grant, it's worth checking out.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
Okay, so there's been a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks about the Trump administration weakening the Endangered Species Act.
The idea is that the Trump administration is going out there and hunting bald eagles.
That somewhere, Trump is going out there with a 223, thinking, you know what?
I'm gonna bag me a bird today.
Boom, boom, boom.
That's not what's going on here.
The Endangered Species Act has been too broadly applied, generally speaking.
The Endangered Species Act was applied under the Obama administration to apply to areas that once were used by animals but no longer are, or could be used by animals in the future, but are not being used by those animals right now.
What that means is that the federal government has been ruling off limits more and more land.
There was a piece back in 2013 by David Vitter, Senator from Louisiana, in which he talked about the Obama administration using the Endangered Species Act in order to basically tromp and trample on local authorities and the ability of business people to do their business.
He said Obama's policymakers often act nefariously through a tactic called sue and settle.
They settle litigation with their allies and environmental groups behind closed doors in a way that advances their far left agenda, blocking out of the process those citizens, states and local governments affected by their decisions and their subsequent rules and regulations.
So here's how it works.
One or more far-left environmental groups sue the federal government, in this case under the Endangered Species Act, claiming that the government is not satisfying its regulatory obligations.
Then the groups and their friends in the administration draft a settlement agreement completely behind closed doors.
He says this tactic has led to extreme and abusive actions very near where I live in Louisiana.
There, Washington bureaucrats are telling a private landowner his land cannot be used in any commercial way, thus driving its value down to near zero.
This is all to protect the dusky gopher frog, a species that's alive and well in Mississippi, but has literally not been spotted in that part of Louisiana for nearly 50 years.
So, what is the new Trump ruling that is apparently so terrible?
Well, new rules will allow the administration, this is according to the Washington Post, to reduce the amount of habitat set aside for wildlife and remove tools that officials use to predict future harm to species as a result of climate change.
So, basically what this new thing does, it says, you're using these estimates of where these species are going to inhabit 50 years from now in order to rule out of use land right now?
And we're going to instead look at economic impact on that.
We're going to start taking economic impact into account, which should be part of the conversation.
Economics is merely the study of trade-offs.
And pretending that there are no trade-offs when you ban the use of land to preserve the dusky gopher frog that is in Mississippi, but not in Louisiana, that's a mistake.
Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, said the revisions finalized with this rulemaking fit squarely within the President's mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public without sacrificing our species protection and recovery goals.
Of course, the left is reacting by suggesting that this is an attempt to destroy endangered species.
Under the administration's new rules, it would have been nearly impossible to designate the polar bear as threatened in 2010 because of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, one of the fastest warming areas in the world.
Nearly 200,000 square miles of barrier islands in Alaska were listed as critical habitat.
Officials relied on climate models to predict how warming would impact polar bear habitat more than 80 years into the future.
The new rules called such predictions in doubt and said officials can now only determine impact in what it described vaguely as the foreseeable future.
Okay, well, this is true.
I'm sorry.
This happens to be the case.
It happens to be the case that as the projections move further and further out, they are less and less certain with regard to climate change and the impact on species.
I remember there was talk about opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and how this was going to drive down the caribou population.
Instead, it turns out that the caribou liked the heat from the pipelines, and so they go there to mate.
So there are lots more caribou.
If all of this were as simple and predictable as environmentalists wish that it were, it would be a lot easier.
The new rules limit the area of land that can be protected to help species recover and survive.
Currently, land that plants and animals occupy is set aside for their protection in addition to areas they once occupied or might need in the future.
Could it get any vaguer than that?
Now, critical habitat that is not occupied might not be protected, opening it up for other forms of development.
Also, a rule changed stripped-away language that said that the Secretary, the Commerce Secretary and the Interior Secretary, shall make a listing determination solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information regarding a species status, regardless of cost.
Well, now they can look at the economic impact of a listing.
Well, that makes a lot more sense.
Again, these are trade-offs.
To pretend that trade-offs do not exist is incredibly stupid.
But the way that we are treating this is as though there are no trade-offs.
But this is not Trump saying, okay, go out and hunt the whales.
That's the way that the media are covering this.
It's Trump saying, free reign on the permafrost and the whales.
That is not what this rule does.
And that is simply dishonest.
Okay, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.
Stay tuned, 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 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 everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection