Democrats formulate their 2020 narrative, the Omar Tlaib BDS train continues to roll, and Antifa gets more favorable media coverage.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
All righty.
Well, we have a lot to get to today.
We'll get to the Antifa hubbub in Portland a little bit later on in the show.
Plus, we'll get to the economic update.
Well, we begin today with the Democrats trotting out the new narrative for 2020.
It was obvious that this was going to be the narrative for 2020.
The truth is, it was the narrative for 2012.
It just wasn't the narrative for 2016.
So in 2012, the Democrats ran on the platform that, effectively speaking, there was no great way for the for the United States to get past its racial bias, except by electing Barack Obama president of the United States again.
That was the only good way to do this.
And Mitt Romney thus had to be thrown under the bus.
Mitt Romney was a terrible, no good, very bad man.
Mitt Romney was the kind of fellow who was going to put people back in chains in the words of Joe Biden.
Well, then in 2016, the Democrats switched it up because Hillary Clinton was the nominee.
And it turns out it's difficult to run on a narrative of American racism.
Well, your nominee is a white woman.
And so now we are moving forward to 2020.
Donald Trump has been the president by that point for four years, and people are looking for a narrative to use against Trump.
Now, there are many narratives that the Democrats could use against Trump in 2020.
They could do what Joe Biden has done.
They could use a character narrative that Donald Trump is short on character, that Donald Trump is divisive and derisive, that Donald Trump is mean and cruel and alienates suburban women.
That would be their smart move.
The reason it would be their smart move is because it would attempt to emulate the coalition of 2008 for Barack Obama.
So in 2008, Barack Obama did not run On the race narrative.
In 2008, Barack Obama did not run on the idea that the United States was deeply rift by racial strife and that the only way to fix that was to elect him president.
He basically ran on the suggestion that America was moving toward a better day.
No red states, no blue states, the United States.
He ran on hope and change.
And then he won a broad-based victory.
Yes, with heavy black turnout, but also with extraordinarily high white turnout and with a lot of people in the middle switching sides to favor him.
He won a much broader victory in 2008 than he did in 2012.
Then in 2012, Obama created what Democrats thought was the new electoral normal.
And the new electoral normal suggested That he was going to be at the Democrats forever.
We're going to be able to turn out at insane rates, minority voters.
They were going to be able to turn out at wildly disproportionate rates, minority voters.
That's why Barack Obama was reelected, because he turned out minority voters in heavy numbers in a lot of swing states like Ohio, for example, where about 10% of the population was black, but about 13% of the electorate was black.
So Democrats in 2016 thought, okay, the new normal is 2012, not 2008.
And they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to be able to draw exactly those same black voters, and they would show up at exactly the same rates, and then she would run away with the election.
It didn't happen.
Well now, move forward to 2020, and Democrats have to make a choice.
Do they choose to run on Barack Obama circa 2008, or do they choose to run on Barack Obama circa 2012?
And it is becoming more and more obvious that Democrats are addicted to the narrative that 2012 is the new coalition, not 2008.
That running on the basis of Trump's moral shortcomings and lack of character is not a winning strategy.
Instead, the strategy is going to be that Donald Trump is a vicious racist, that America is terribly, horribly sinful and racist and racism is built into its DNA.
And the only way to fix that is to elect a Democrat.
Now, it's going to be very awkward if Joe Biden is the nominee.
If Joe Biden is the nominee, it's going to be extraordinarily awkward for Democrats to run on the race narrative because Joe Biden's own racial history is, as we have seen from Kamala Harris's critiques of him, at least somewhat checkered going all the way back to the 1970s and desegregation through busing and all of this.
But if they were to nominate somebody like Cory Booker or Kamala Harris, it becomes a lot simpler.
In any case, the media, who are well-educated white liberals who live in major metropolitan areas, it turns out that they are more interested in the racial narrative than they are in the reach out to the white folks in the middle of the country narrative.
They're more interested in replicating the 2012 Obama coalition than they are in replicating the 2008 Obama coalition.
And this mirrors some of the statistics that we have seen about the political preferences of white Upper educated college liberals living in major cities.
Those are the people who are the foundation of the new woke politics.
And it is more important to appeal to those people than it is to appeal to the people in the middle of the country, according to Democrats, because those are the people who constitute the media.
And so you're seeing the Democratic Party embrace their 2020 strategy.
Their new 2020 strategy, it turns out, is not only that Donald Trump is a racist, but that Donald Trump is representative of a long line of American racism stretching all the way back to slavery, and that America is rife with Endemic problems that are created by slavery and that cannot be wiped out absent total revolution.
That is the narrative that Democrats are trying to draw.
It justifies their revolutionary rhetoric.
It justifies their radicalism.
It justifies nearly everything.
If it turns out that America was based in, rooted in, not just that America was reliant upon economically, but that America was, all of its institutions were infected with and infused with and rooted in and based on slavery, then the only way to fix those institutions is to rip them down To branch and branch and tree.
I mean, the entire thing must be ripped down.
And that is what Democrats are now claiming, as we will see.
Democrats, particularly, again, those media, those media radicals, this is the narrative they are pushing.
We'll get to that in just one second.
I'll explain what the narrative is and why it is taking a grain of truth and then blowing it up into a massive, massive lie.
Again, slavery is a massive part of America's founding.
It is not the root of America's founding.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you staff your business.
So let's say that you did, let's say a podcast, for example, and let's say it was somebody's job during that podcast to make sure that the microphone that was normally attached to your shirt actually was attached to your shirt and that didn't happen.
Well, then you might think to yourself, hey, I need a new employee.
And that's when you look to ZipRecruiter, ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter sends your job posting to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and then spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
And if you don't intend on firing a producer, you just want to add another producer whose sole job it is to make sure that microphone is added to your shirt, then you should check out ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
Make sure that your employees are the best and make sure that they live on Tenterhooks every time you read an ad.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so as I say, the democratic narrative leading up to 2020 is now being formulated.
And it's being formulated in real time.
It's being backfilled.
And it's being backfilled because it turns out that the Democratic narrative was supposed to be Donald Trump is a Russian tool.
And it's no longer Donald Trump is a Russian tool.
Now it is America is rife with racism.
Donald Trump is representative of the James Buchanan South.
Donald Trump is representative of John C. Calhoun.
Right.
That's that that is who Trump is.
That's what America is.
And this is now the narrative that is being pushed by the left.
As I say, as we will see, there is a there is more than a grain of truth to the idea that slavery was a deeply rooted, endemic part of American life for several hundred years, beginning in 1619 and ending officially in 1863.
Right.
Yes, that is official.
It depends on whether you're dating it from the Emancipation Proclamation or the 14th Amendment, might say 1865.
In any case, the fact is slavery was, of course, a massive part of America's history.
Jim Crow was a massive part of America's history.
But it is a lie to suggest that America was founded based on slavery.
Surely the Puritans who arrived on the Mayflower were not there to bring slavery about, nor was it the Southern economy that lent the great strength of America's economy her strength.
We'll get to that in just one second, but here's the thing.
Beto O'Rourke, who is now trying to channel exactly what the media want from him.
So Beto O'Rourke is a man in search of love.
Beto O'Rourke had that love back in the 2018 Senate race against Ted Cruz.
He had it going.
It was going to be his moment, and the media loved him for it.
Well, now Beto O'Rourke is a man in search of love.
He is searching for media love, and the only way he can see toward finding it is becoming the most white, woke person on planet Earth.
So yesterday, Beto announces his campaign.
His campaign is that America was founded on racism, and so we need a woke, white guy who was born into immense privilege.
He's worth that $9 million because his daddy was very, very wealthy and very, very powerful in his area.
We need that guy to lead us to a broader American future.
And this country, though we would like to think otherwise, was founded on racism, has persisted through racism, and is racist today.
But this racism, though foundational, for so long it had flown under the surface.
But it was only until this administration, Trump is the real America, according to Beto O'Rourke.
Trump is representative of America's true, dark, evil, slave-ridden heart.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, I've never held a slave.
I am not a racist.
And you're right.
You've never held a slave.
You're not a racist.
But according to the Democrats, even if you are not a racist, you still suffer from the afterpayings of white supremacy.
It is buried deep within you.
It is unconscious.
It's exactly as AOC said a couple of weeks ago in a tweet thread, white supremacy is so deeply embedded in American life that there is no way of extricating it from American life, which suggests that the only solution is radical chemotherapy.
But if the cancer is everywhere, if it has infected the entire body politic, the only answer is radical chemotherapy.
And that's what Beto is calling for.
This justifies the radical changes Democrats are calling for.
It justifies the overthrow of a lot of the wonderful great things about America.
Because after all, if all those wonderful great things are rooted in one of the most evil institutions in the history of mankind, it's difficult to make the moral case for them being retained, even if they have had some good positive effect.
As we will see, this is exactly what the New York Times is about to claim.
So the New York Times has launched something called the 1619 Project.
Now, on its face, there is nothing wrong with the 1619 Project.
There's nothing, not only is there nothing wrong, there's something quite good about America learning about its own history, about staring the evils of racism in the face, about staring the evils of slavery and white supremacism and Jim Crow directly in the face, recognizing their ugliness.
Too many Americans don't know much about slavery.
They just hear it as a word and they don't understand the tremendous suffering.
They've never read any of the slave memoirs.
They've never read Frederick Douglass.
They've never watched any of the documentaries about slavery.
They haven't looked at any of the materials.
They don't understand the deep cruelty, the malignant malice and racism and evil of slavery.
Many Americans don't understand how that was projected forward a hundred years through Jim Crow.
How institutions took slavery as their model and then used that in order to keep black people down and segregate them and destroy their lives and make it impossible for them to progress in American society.
Too many black folks in the United States, right?
That is stuff that, of course, should be taught about.
And if the 1619 Project were that, that would be one thing.
But the 1619 Project is not that, as it turns out.
The 1619 Project is about something that is much deeper and much more radical.
And that is radically rethinking America as the quote-unquote product of slavery.
That everything in America is due to slavery.
That America's founding ideology is a slave ideology.
It's an ideology about promoting and promulgating slavery.
And so, as we'll see, the New York Times has shifted its premise.
Now, the reason the New York Times is doing this is purely political.
This is not because they've suddenly become interested in educating the American people about slavery 150 years after it ended.
That is not what is going on here.
This is a political move by the New York Times, and they're basically admitting as much.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, I look at screens all day long, right?
Whether I'm looking at the cameras, whether I'm looking at this screen right here in front of me, whether I'm looking at my phone, I'm looking at screens all day long.
That can give you a real headache.
And then when I go home, I'm watching TV with my wife sometimes, more screens.
Probably out of every 15 hours a day that I am awake, Probably seven or eight of them.
I'm staring at some form of screen.
I'm not unusual that way.
Most Americans are doing the same thing.
Well, maybe that's giving you eye trouble.
Maybe it's making your vision worse.
Well, this is one of the reasons why you need Felix Gray blue light filtering glasses.
You need to protect your eyes from the effects of the screen because you're not going to stop looking at the screens, nor should you.
I mean, you have to work.
The majority of Americans live with tired, dry eyes, blurry vision, headaches caused by screens.
If this sounds familiar, Felix Grey glasses are for you.
Felix Grey glasses filter out 90% of high energy blue light and eliminate 99% of glare coming from your daily barrage of screens.
Unlike other blue light filtering glasses, Felix Grey uses proprietary blue light technology embedded into the lens, as opposed to a cheap coating that can chip or scratch over time.
Felix Grey's glasses, they are fashionable, high quality, blue light protection, widely accessible by offering a variety of frames for all face shapes and style preferences.
I've got these Felix Grey glasses.
I wear them around the office.
Believe it or not, it makes me look awesome.
I look like an MSNBC host, just as cool.
But actually, they're really good looking.
Felix Grey glasses are available in non-prescription, prescription, readers, as well as adult and kid sizes.
Don't go another day looking at screens without the help of some Felix Greys.
Go to FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben for free shipping and 30 days of risk-free returns or exchanges.
That's FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben.
They look terrific.
And again, they will protect your eyes, which is the most important thing.
FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so as I say, this is part of a narrative that is now being driven by the media.
And that narrative is, again, rooted in a basic truth, which is that slavery was a serious part of America's founding, that it was a massive part of America's history, which, again, I think most people know on a basic level, but don't understand at a root emotional level.
All of that would be fine and dandy.
But that is not what the 1619 Project really is about.
The 1619 Project is really about driving a narrative ahead of 2020.
The Washington Examiner reported last week that Dean Beckett, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president's alleged racism.
Baquette said that they had built up their entire staff, basically, to cover Trump-Russia, and then it turns out that Mueller blew up that narrative.
And Baquette said, I think we've got to change.
The Times must, quote, write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.
I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier, said Baquette.
How do we cover a guy who makes these kind of remarks?
How do we cover the world's reaction to him?
How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies?
How do we cover America that's become so divided by Donald Trump?
And that in and of itself is an editorial decision that it's Trump dividing America as opposed to pre-existing divisions that have been exacerbated and made worse by President Trump.
And then he continues.
He vows a vision for the paper for the next two years.
Quote, how do we grapple with all the stuff you're talking about?
How do we write about race in a thoughtful way?
Something we haven't done in a large way in a long time.
That to me is the vision for coverage.
You all are going to have to help us shape that vision, but I think that's what we're going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.
And in case you think that that is the Washington Examiner taking this stuff out of context, it is not.
There's a full transcript of Dean Beckett's exchange.
He's the executive editor of the New York Times.
His exchange with a bunch of staffers That was obtained by Slate.
And in the middle of this exchange, he references the 1619 Project three separate times.
And here is what he said.
I'll give you each of the contexts.
He says, quote, what I'm saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden.
They sometimes want us to pretend he was not elected president, but he was elected president.
And our job is to figure out why and how and to hold the administration to account.
If you're independent, that's what you do.
The same newspaper that this week will publish the 1619 Project, the most ambitious examination of the legacy of slavery ever undertaken in a newspaper, to try and understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump.
In other words, slavery led to the election of Donald Trump, and the 1619 Project is an attempt to explain that.
That is what he is saying.
You just heard me quote him.
And that, of course, is not the only time that Dean Beckett talked about the 1619 Project.
A staffer asked him about the 1619 Project and said this, quote, Hello, I have another question about racism.
I'm wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting.
Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know?
Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn't racist.
I just feel like racism is in everything.
This is what a staffer says to the executive editor of the New York Times.
In everything.
It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting.
And so to me, it's less about the individual instances of racism and sort of how we're thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all the systems in the country.
All the... the foundation.
Not just a part of all the systems in the country.
The foundation of all the systems in the country.
Not just that racism was something that America has fought with, and struggled with, and given into, and fought to overcome, but the root of all of our institutions is what this staffer is saying.
Which is sort of like saying that, let's say that you get married, and let's say that your marriage involves emotional abuse.
That the marriage was rooted on emotional abuse.
No, the marriage was probably rooted on all of the other stuff and then endured it despite the emotional abuse.
Emotional abuse is a major part of the story, but it is not in fact the whole story, nor it is the foundation of the story.
The staffer says, I think particularly As we are launching a 1619 project, I feel like it's going to open us up to even more criticism from people who are like, okay, well, you're saying this and you're producing this big project about this, but are you guys actually considering this in your daily reporting?
The staffer said, it's less about the individual instances of racism and sort of how we're thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all the systems in the country.
All of them.
And here's how Bacchette responded, quote, I do think that race and understanding of race should be a part of how we cover the American story.
Sometimes news organizations sort of forget that in the moment, but of course it should be.
I mean, one reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that.
So they're going to teach their readers that they have to think of every issue in America through the lens of race.
Race in the next year, and I think this is, to be frank, what I would hope you come away with this discussion with, race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story, Question, why in the next year?
What's happening in the next year?
Anybody?
The election, obviously.
Race is only a part of the American story for the next year.
How weird, how weird that the timeline matches up precisely with the 2020 election.
He says, I mean, race in terms not only of African Americans in their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos in immigration.
I think one of the things I would love to come out of this with is for people to feel very comfortable coming to me and saying, here's how I would like you to consider telling that story.
Because the reason you have a diverse newsroom, to be frank, is so that you can have people pull together to try to tell that story.
By diverse newsroom, he doesn't mean ideologically diverse newsroom or philosophically diverse newsroom.
He means a racially diverse newsroom, of course.
That is the only thing that matters in the end for Dean Beckett.
So.
The point that I am making is, again, not that it is bad to review the history of slavery in the United States, or to try, in some statistical, data-driven way, examine the impact of slavery on a going-forward basis in American life, and how we obliterate the vestiges of Jim Crow and slavery in our institutions when we identify them.
I'm all for all of those things.
Those are all great things.
That is not what this project is.
This project is a media-driven enterprise designed How do I know this?
That people who support Donald Trump are part of the legacy of slavery.
Those who oppose Donald Trump are not.
It is a bit of virtue signaling on the part of the New York Times.
Not designed to raise awareness about America's past, but designed to do so specifically in order to draw modern connections with political movements they don't like.
How do I know this?
Because that's exactly what they do.
In one second, I'm going to explain to you some of the pieces from the 1619 Project.
There are a bevy of them.
The vast majority of them are not very good.
There are a couple that I think are appropriate.
There's one in particular that I think is appropriate, if overstated.
And then there are a bunch that are really not, that are really quite sloppy, that are designed to be op-eds directed against conservatives.
And the idea here is that if you say that these op-eds are sloppy and directed against conservatives, it's because you're not taking the legacy of white supremacy and slavery seriously enough.
This is designed, specifically, not to bring America together to learn about our history, but to polarize around modern political issues by linking them directly with slavery.
By saying, if you disagree with me, it's because you don't take slavery seriously, it's because you don't take white supremacy seriously, and if you did, you would recognize that I'm right on my politics today.
That is what these pieces are, which is why they are universally written by members of the political left.
Now there are people on the right who are historians, who have studied slavery.
Theoretically, some of them could have been asked to write.
There are prominent black people in America who are conservative.
Senator Tim Scott would be a good example of this.
Jason Reilly at the Wall Street Journal.
There are plenty of them.
Thomas Sowell.
None of them were asked to write a piece for any of this.
Instead, it was a bunch of left-leaning scholars and commentators.
I hesitate to call Jamel Bouie a scholar because I don't think that he is a specialist.
I'm not a scholar either, by the way, on this stuff.
And yet, what you see, too much, is the New York Times basically driving a narrative.
That's what this is.
In a second, we'll get to all of that.
First, let's talk about the fact that you've been encouraged for far too long to buy now and pay for it later.
This is how people get roped into credit card debt.
Get that credit card.
Take out the credit card.
We'll give you 15% off on this purchase.
Then you take out the credit card.
You spend too much.
You can't pay it off.
I'm gonna get in charge like 25% a month on interest rates.
Suddenly, you're really behind the eight ball.
Well, this is where you need Lending Club.
Lending Club can consolidate your debt and pay off your credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
It's really easy to get into debt, but it shouldn't be that hard to get out of it.
This is why you need LendingClub.
At least you need a plan to get out, and LendingClub can help you.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Check your rate in minutes.
Borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lender.
That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so now to the contents of the 1619 Project.
It's this big issue of the New York Times Magazine.
And it leads off this way.
In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia.
It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans who were sold to the colonists.
No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed.
Now, I think that's an overstatement, but a mild one, meaning that, of course, America was affected deeply and in a variety of ways by slavery.
I think it would be difficult to say that no aspect of the country was untouched by years of slavery, but that's within the realm of possibility.
You see, on the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.
And then the original text suggested they've changed the text a little bit.
They said that the true founding of the country was in 1619.
We have to understand 1619 as the true founding.
Sorry, here, they didn't change it.
Here's what it says.
The 1619 project is a major initiative from the New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery, which again, worthwhile.
It aims to reframe the country's history This is where we get into trouble.
It aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.
And now, again, placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the center of the American story is totally fine.
I don't have a problem with that.
But 1619 was not the true founding of the country.
It was not.
1607 was Jamestown.
Plymouth Rock was 1619.
It was in a different part of the country.
This notion...
That slavery was not just a part of the American founding, but the central factor in the American founding is just a historical lie.
It is not true.
It is historically inaccurate.
It is inept.
It ignores the fact that there was an entire northern part of the country in which slavery was banned.
It ignores the Civil War.
It ignores 200 years of attempted development away from slavery.
It ignores a lot.
And as we will see, the essays that are attached to the 1619 Project are not about the legacy of slavery so much as they are about an attempt to link modern politics with slavery so that Democrats and liberals and leftists can claim that any conservative policy is in fact rooted in slavery and thus racist and bigoted.
So there are a couple pieces here that are worthwhile.
There's one by Nicole Hannah-Jones that I think is over overstated, but generally correct, which is our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written.
Black Americans have fought to make them true.
Now, that little stinger right there is not true.
They were not false when they were written.
They were wrongly applied when they were written.
If you read the Declaration of Independence, Or the Constitution, both of which Frederick Douglass suggested were freedom documents.
And he was right.
The founding ideals were not false when they were written.
They were wrongly applied only to white Americans.
They were not applied to Africans.
And that, of course, was wrong.
But they were not false when written.
Okay, now, maybe we can read it, that they were falsely applied when written, but if the idea is that the ideals were originally corrupt, that's not true.
This particular piece is actually fairly good, right?
This piece, as I say, by Nicole Hannah-Jones talks about how black Americans have shaped America, changed America, made America better, helped America live up to its original eternal values.
And that is, that's good, right?
That's worthwhile.
So this piece, while I say, I think that this piece overstates the case in terms of the impact of slavery on the nation.
I think that in general, this piece is fine and worthwhile, right?
She says, it would be historically inaccurate to reduce the contributions of black people to the vast material wealth created by our bondage.
Black Americans have also been and continue to be foundational to the idea of American freedom.
Of course, totally agree.
More than any group in this country's history, we have served generation after generation in an overlooked but vital role.
It is we who have been perfectors of this democracy.
That is true, although I think that you would have to include among the people who have perfected the democracy all the people who fought to free slaves, including hundreds of thousands of white people who died to free slaves, including the abolitionist movement, which was generally led by white people.
In other words, it was not just black people fighting against white people, it was good people fighting against people who were wrong.
And to boil that down to black people versus white people is racially untrue.
It is true that black people were fighting for rights that they ought to have had.
It is also true that they were joined in that fight by a huge number of people who did not share their race but did share their ideals.
That is what made America great.
This, uh, Nikole Hannah-Jones writes, Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4th, 1776, proclaims that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, but the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in our midst.
Okay, that's not true for all the white men.
It's just not true for all the white men.
It's true for some of the slave-holding white men.
It was certainly not true for a bunch of the founders who were actual abolitionists, who opposed slavery.
John Adams opposed slavery, of course.
Despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believe fervently in the American creed.
Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals.
Again, all of this is fine.
All of this is good.
This particular essay is not the problem.
It's the other essays that are the problem.
Is there a bunch of other essays?
These other essays link everything from capitalism to Trump To the criminal justice system, to differences in medical outcome, to slavery.
So in other words, anything that the left doesn't like, any inequality is due to inequity, and any policy the left does not like is due to slavery.
There's an essay in the New York Times Magazine as part of the 1619 Project that suggests that America's failure to embrace Medicare for all is rooted in slavery.
That America's failure to embrace nationalized healthcare is rooted in slavery.
Now that's just idiocy, I'm sorry.
That has nothing to do with history.
And as... I mean, I've read all these pieces.
And these pieces have a common pattern.
And it's very sloppy.
It's very sloppy thinking and it's very sloppy writing.
First, the piece is open with talking about the depredations of slavery.
Again, totally valid and worthwhile.
We should all understand that.
We should all know that.
We should all learn the history.
Got it.
Worth it.
Good.
Then, they all fast forward about 150 years, and then they say, and just as slavery was bad then, here is an institution now I don't like, and it's connected to slavery.
And they don't really explain how that institution is deeply connected with slavery, they just sort of fast forward, and then make the assumption, and they assume that the good-hearted liberal readers at the New York Times will understand precisely what they're talking about, because the good-hearted liberal readers at the New York Times wish to believe that their political opponents are pro-slavery and pro-Jim Crow.
It's extraordinarily lazy.
It's extraordinarily lazy writing by the New York Times editors, by the columnists, for the most part.
And it's... It is intellectually...
Sluggish.
It is just not tightly written.
If you're gonna make an argument like every institution in America is founded on slavery, that should be some pretty tightly reasoned stuff because that's counterintuitive.
It turns out that the North's industrial power was significantly greater than the South's agricultural power.
And yet you have an essay in the New York Times suggesting that American capitalism is rooted in slavery.
That's nonsense.
It's just crap.
The reason the South lost is because their enterprise was not free market or capitalistic.
Capitalism is not rooted in the destruction of other people's human rights.
It is a violation of free markets.
Because chief among the priorities of a free market is the ability to alienate your own labor.
You can't enslave people in a free market if you live by free market systems.
Okay, we'll get to this.
Consent relies at the root of the free market system.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
And again, this is the New York Times driving a narrative.
It is not them exploring history.
And my great fear is that the New York Times is purposefully doing this sort of stuff deliberately and cynically.
In order to suggest that if you disagree with the implications that they are drawing from slavery, that you are not taking slavery seriously.
And that's a lie.
You can take slavery and Jim Crow seriously, you can take racism seriously, and still disagree with the New York Times, that Medicare for All is not mandated by opposition to slavery.
For God's sake.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, got some great news.
The Daily Wire has somehow managed to turn four years old.
Unbelievably.
As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses the code BIRTHDAY.
That's correct.
For all of August, as we celebrate this milestone, we are giving away a free first month for our new premium monthly subscribers.
Again, just use that code BIRTHDAY.
Come join the fun.
Never been a better time to become a member.
We are in the homestretch also when it comes to our backstage show.
There are only a few days left to purchase tickets to our backstage live show.
It's a special one-night-only event this Wednesday, August 21st, at the fantastic Terrace Theatre in Long Beach, California.
I'll be there.
DailyWire God King Jeremy Boring will be there.
Andrew Clavin will be there.
Michael Moles will be there.
Live, we'll get into politics, pop culture.
We'll answer your questions from the audience.
Tickets are available at dailywire.com slash backstage, including our limited VIP packages that guarantee premium seating, photos, meet and greets with each of us, a gift from me.
I promise you it's beautiful and more.
They're selling fast.
So head on over to dailywire.com slash backstage.
Get yours today.
We're basically out of tickets.
So if you want to buy, buy today.
Dailywire.com slash backstage.
Go check us out right now.
Please, we have said subscribe.
And there are folks on the left who literally spend all day just trying to parse what we say so that they can target us for destruction.
The way you prevent that is by going over to Dailywire and subscribing right now and becoming part of the team that protects us.
From the cruelties of a left that seeks to destroy everyone with whom they disagree in the most cynical and nasty of ways.
Go check us out at Daily Wire.
We really appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Okay, so as I say, the 1619 Project contains a couple of essays that are good and some poetry that's good.
And then it contains a lot of cynical politicking by people who are cynical politicos.
Take an example.
There's a piece by Jamel Bouie.
Now, Jamel Bouie is a very radical dude on politics.
He still claims that Stacey Abrams is governor of Georgia.
He still thinks that she lost the vote by 50,000 votes.
He still thinks that she was the duly elected governor of Georgia and only racism prevented that, despite the fact that black voters turned out in massive numbers in the last election cycle and were not, in fact, suppressed.
He has a piece in the New York Times Magazine in the 1619 Project.
It says, America holds on to an undemocratic assumption from its founding that some people deserve more power than others.
And I can tell from that blurb that this is going to be wildly overbroad, that he is now going to suggest that because America was founded With slavery as part of its founding compact.
That slavery was tolerated and there was an assumption that some people deserve power and others did not.
That this is now the same in American politics.
So he talks about the Tea Party.
And he talks about the debt limit standoff that took place in 2011.
He says, quote, the debt limit standoff was a case study of a fundamental change within the Republican Party after Obama took office in 2009.
Republicans would either win total victory or they would wreck the system itself.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, used a variety of procedural tactics to effectively nullify the president's ability to nominate federal judges and fill vacancies in the executive branch.
In the minority, he used the filibuster to an unprecedented degree.
Well, actually, Harry Reid then ended the judicial filibuster.
That was unprecedented.
In the majority, after Republicans won the Senate in the 2010 midterm elections, he led an extraordinary blockade of the Supreme Court, stopping the Senate from even considering the president's nominee for the bench.
First of all, the Republicans didn't win the Senate in 2010.
They won the Senate in 2014.
The Democrats, between 2010 and 2014, Insured that the judicial filibuster went away.
Harry Reid did it at the time.
So you at least got to get your facts straight.
The Republicans won back the Congress in 2010.
In any case, the debt limit, he's trying to suggest that the debt limit standoff, believe it or not, is racism and slavery.
Equivalent that it is an outgrowth of it.
He says, where did this destructive sectarian style of partisan politics come from?
Conventional wisdom traces its roots to the Gingrich revolution of the 1990s, whose architect pioneered a hardball insurgent style of political combat, undermining norms and dismantling congressional institutions for the sake of power.
This is true enough, but the Republican Party of the Obama years didn't just recycle its Gingrich era excesses.
It also pursued a policy of total opposition, not just blocking Obama, but also casting him as fundamentally illegitimate and un-American.
He may have been elected by a majority of the voting public, but that majority didn't count.
It didn't represent the real America.
And that's just a bunch of crap.
Sorry, it's just a bunch of crap.
Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
They never made a move to impeach Barack Obama, despite the myriad scandals that cropped up during his administration.
I'm not aware of a single major Republican figure who said that Barack Obama was not the legitimate president of the United States, despite the fact that Democrats have claimed that George W. Bush was illegitimate.
They've claimed that Donald Trump is illegitimate.
So this is just not true.
And doubts about Barack Obama's belief system came from Barack Obama being an extraordinarily radical figure.
Barack Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform the nature of the country.
That's a pretty radical statement.
Jamel Bui says, Obama's election reignited a fight about democratic legitimacy, about who can claim the country as their own, and who has the right to act as a citizen that is as old as American democracy itself.
What a bunch of hooey.
Really, what a bunch of hooey.
Did anyone, like, who was claiming that Barack Obama did not have the right to act as a citizen?
Okay, so basically, if you opposed Obama, it's because you were an outgrowth of slavery.
And then he goes into the history of John C. Calhoun, right?
and arrest the power of majorities beyond the limits of the Constitution, has its own peculiar history, not just in the ideological battles of the founding, but in the other institutions that define the American Republic as much as any other.
Okay, so basically, if you opposed Obama, it's because you were an outgrowth of slavery.
And then he goes into the history of John C. Calhoun, an actual secessionist who was militantly in favor of slavery and talked about it being a positive good for black people, vicious racist John C. Calhoun.
He says, listen to how he fast forwards here.
Okay, you ready?
Listen to this fast forwarding.
And this is what I say.
Intellectually incredibly sloppy.
Incredibly lazy and sloppy intellectually.
He says Calhoun died in 1850.
Ten years later, following the idea of nullification to its conclusion, the South seceded from the Union after Abraham Lincoln won the White House without a single southern state.
War came a few months later, and four years of fighting destroyed the system of slavery Calhoun fought to protect.
But parts of his legacy survived.
His deep suspicion of majoritarian democracy, his view that government must protect interests defined by their unique geographic and economic characteristics more than people, would inform the sectional politics of the South in the 20th century, where solid blocks of Southern lawmakers worked collectively to stifle any attempt to regulate the region.
Okay, a couple of things here.
One, suspicion of majoritarian democracy is not unique to John C. Calhoun.
Okay, that is true for everyone from Montesquieu to John Locke.
It is true for all of the Enlightenment philosophers who lay at the foundation of American democracy.
If you read the Federalist Papers, there is deep concern about maturitarian democracy, which is why we have checks and balances.
So this is not unique to John C. Calhoun.
Calhoun used it in the worst possible way and for the worst possible excuse.
But to blame a belief in federalism on favoring slavery is just historically illiterate.
Bui says, despite insurgencies at home, the Populist Party, for example, swept through Georgia and North Carolina in the 1890s, reactionary white leaders were able to maintain an iron grip on federal offices until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Another thing worth noting here, when he says majoritarianism ought to rule the day, populism ought to rule the day, you know who was a majoritarian populist president?
Like, probably our first one?
Maybe our second after Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, a brutal, horrible racist who declared himself a big man governing with the will of the people through majority without reference to the checks and balances of American government.
Those checks and balances were designed to protect In many cases, what one justice in the Supreme Court called in a case called Caroline Products, a discreet and insular minority.
In other words, black people have largely been a discreet and insular minority throughout American history.
The system should have been designed to protect those discreet and insular minorities, not just majorities.
Majoritarianism for most of American history was the worst threat to black people in the United States.
He says, even then, the last generation of segregationist senators held on through the 1960s into the early 2000s, united like their predecessors, by geography and their stake in Jim Crow segregation, they were a powerful force in national politics, a bloc that vetoed anything that touched their regional prerogatives.
So now, he has fast-forwarded all the way from 1865 to the early 2000s, and now he's going to claim that everything that he opposes is an outgrowth of slavery.
He says there's a homegrown ideology of reaction in the United States inextricably tied to our system of slavery.
And while the racial content of that ideology has attenuated over time, the basic framework remains fear of rival political majorities, of demographic replacement, of a government that threatens privilege and hierarchy.
So now if you oppose Bernie Sanders, you know, a government that threatens privilege and hierarchy, then that's because you've been, you've been somehow infused with the spirit of slavery.
The past 10 years of Republican extremism is emblematic.
The Tea Party billed itself as a reaction to debt and spending, but a close look shows it was actually a reaction to an ascendant majority of black people, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and liberal white people.
This is such self-praising nonsense.
It must make you feel real good to label all your political opponents secret slavery advocates.
The larger implication is clear, says Jamel Bouie.
A majority made up of liberals and people of color isn't a real majority.
No, it's a real majority.
But many of us have concerns about a pure majoritarian system, and those concerns are embedded in the Constitution of the United States for good reason.
Majorities sometimes do horrible things to minorities, as Jamel Bouie of all people should understand.
Anybody who's minority in America should understand the majorities.
They're called minorities for a reason.
Majorities can hurt minorities.
That's been a lot of the history of the United States.
That's why we should enshrine protections for minorities.
Why we should have checks and balances, for example.
The recent attempt to place a citizenship question on the census was an important part of this effort.
To write people out of the polity, to use every available tool to weaken their influence on American politics.
So now, Jamal Bowie is trying to connect the effort to determine who's an illegal immigrant in the country to slavery and racism.
And then you wonder why conservatives are not taking the 1619 Project at face value.
Because the people who are writing it are not taking it seriously.
If you took seriously talk about slavery, you wouldn't connect questions about citizenship in the census with slavery.
That is an unserious thing to do.
And it turns out a bunch of the pieces are like this.
Perhaps the silliest piece comes courtesy of Matthew Desmond.
Who's written a book called eviction that's actually a pretty interesting book, but he has a tendency to ascribe to American capitalism all of the all of the problems that individuals experience in their lives.
He has a piece that cuts against the very foundations of economic theory for the last 200 years.
He has a piece blaming capitalism on slavery.
So we've already had Jamal Bowie saying that everything that he doesn't like in today's politics is because of slavery.
Now we have Matthew Desmond writing a piece that says, in order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.
Weird, because I thought that if you wanted to understand capitalism, you might start with, you know, industrial era revolution, the industrial revolution in Britain.
Maybe you start with managerial capitalism in the United States post-Civil War.
Maybe you start with financial capitalism that begins in the United States in the 1970s and 80s.
To start with the most backward part of the American economy, You know, the part of the American economy so backward that the entire South was overrun simply through the sheer industrial might of the North is pretty incredible, but Matthew Desmond somehow manages to turn this ridiculous trick.
He connects Martin Shkreli to slavery.
Not kidding you.
So here's... Again, you want to make the argument that slavery ought to be examined as part of the legacy of American institutions?
Do it.
But this is not the way to do it.
This is irresponsible, and it's cynical, and it's obviously politically motivated.
And by the way, it's just factually wrong in many cases, which means the political motivations really matter more than they otherwise would.
Matthew Desmond had this piece a couple of years before he was convicted of securities fraud.
Martin Shkreli was the chief executive of a pharmaceutical company that acquired the rights to Daraprim, a life-saving anti-parasitic drug.
And then he talks about Shkreli being terrible.
He says, No one wants to say it.
No one's proud of it.
Proud of it.
But this is a capitalist society, a capitalist system and capitalist rules.
This is a capitalist society.
It's a fatalistic mantra that seems to get repeated to anyone who questions why America can't be more fair or equal.
But around the world, there are many types of capitalist societies ranging from liberating to exploitative, protective to abusive, democratic to unregulated.
When Americans declare we live in a capitalist society, what they're often defending is our nation's peculiarly brutal economy.
No, what I'm defending when I say we live in a capitalist society is that we live in an economy that has generated the vast majority of the world's growth for the last 50 years and raised half of the world's population from abject poverty in the last 30.
That's what I'm talking about when I say we live in a capitalist society.
But according to this columnist for the 1619 Project, Matthew Desmond, Those searching for reasons the American economy is uniquely severe and unbridled have found answers in many places.
But recently, historians have pointed persuasively to the natty fields of Georgia and Alabama, to cotton houses and slave auction blocks as the birthplace of America's low-road approach to capitalism.
And then he talks about the, again, this is the same sloppy intellectual move.
We're going to move directly from slavery is bad to capitalism is slavery.
Which is a hell of a move.
So he talks about nearly two average American lifetimes have passed since the end of slavery, only two.
It's not surprising we can still feel the looming presence of this institution, which helped turn a poor fledgling nation into a financial colossus.
The surprising bit has to do with many of the eerily specific ways slavery can still be felt in our economic life.
Oh really?
You mean the agricultural economy?
That represents what, 3% of the American economy?
Nearly none of it based in cotton and none of it rooted in slavery right now?
That's...
That's the legacy of like, what are you talking about?
You don't mean industrial capitalism in the North was rooted in slavery?
You're gonna have to explain that one.
You're gonna have to explain why financial capitalism is rooted in slavery.
And as it turns out, he doesn't.
He just immediately jumps from the evils of slavery and then fast forward.
So what is his connection?
His connection is that slaveholders had a system of management of their plantations.
And that the systems of management were what?
Adopted by the industrial North?
That's absurd.
It's absurd on its face.
They were not adopted by the industrial north.
That would suggest that these plantations were the site of incredible and disproportionate productivity as opposed to the north.
Now they did become more productive over time through these managerial processes and mostly through the use of machineries like the cotton gin.
But the fact is that the industrial north was way more powerful than the south and it was not close.
Slavery is a net drag on an economy.
Because to hire people, it turns out, is cheaper than to have slaves.
That people are motivated to work when they are paid and not owned.
Aside from all the endemic moral evil of slavery.
As an economic prospect, slavery is not good for your economy.
Nonetheless, this article argues that capitalism is rooted in American slavery, which is just silly.
It says, the uncompromising pursuit of measurement and scientific accounting displayed in slave plantations predates industrialism.
Northern factories would not begin adopting these techniques until decades after the Emancipation Proclamation.
But supposedly it had to do with slavery.
So you're telling me that it started in the South, and it was wonderful.
It worked amazing.
It was wonderful economically, but it wasn't adopted for decades, but it was rooted in slavery.
He tries to connect people using Excel to slavery.
I am not kidding you.
He says companies have developed software that records workers' keystrokes and mouse clicks, along with randomly capturing screenshots multiple times a day.
The core impulse behind that technology pervaded plantations.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
No, literally unbelievable.
He says, consider a Wall Street financial instrument as modern sounding as collateralized debt obligation, CDOs, as ticking time bombs backed by inflated home prices in the 2000s.
CDOs were the grandchildren of mortgage-backed securities based on the inflated value of enslaved people sold in the 1820s and 1830s.
That's insane.
That's insane.
You mean that collateralized debt obligations, like you sell a mortgage, that that's rooted in slavery too?
Because it turns out people owned houses before that and took out mortgages.
You're seriously connecting the crash of 2007 to slavery?
It's irresponsible and it's bad journalism.
In fact, it's not journalism at all.
And as it turns out, a lot of these pieces are not.
A lot of these pieces are designed to elicit a particular emotional response that, again, suggests that if you disagree with the conclusion being drawn, you don't take slavery seriously enough.
No.
I take slavery incredibly seriously, and Jim Crow incredibly seriously, as all Americans should.
I should spend more time getting educated.
You should spend more time getting educated on it.
We all should.
New York Times ain't doing that.
New York Times is just saying, if you disagree with their political conclusions, It's because you don't care enough about slavery and you don't understand that at the heart of every beating foundation of the United States, at the beating heart of every foundation of the United States, lies this evil institution and thus they all must be torn down.
There's an article in here by Bryan Stevenson suggesting that our criminal justice system is rooted in slavery.
Now again, they're going to have to explain how it is that people commit crimes and go to jail.
There are parts of America's criminal justice system that, of course, were vestiges of slavery and brutality to black people and Jim Crow, particularly.
Of course, that's true.
But the people in jail today are not there because of slavery or Jim Crow.
It's because they committed a crime right now.
It's because they committed a crime 10 years ago.
And it's not just prisons.
We also have articles that suggest that if you oppose the Affordable Care Act, it's because you're pro-slavery.
We have articles that suggest that the gap in maternal mortality between black women and white women in the United States is due to slavery and differences in beliefs about racial characteristics, based on incredibly flimsy evidence and also not really explaining why it is that Europe has the same gaps.
And Europe, of course, eliminated slavery a lot earlier than the United States.
So as I say, this is a narrative.
It's a narrative that's being driven.
And the kickback against it should be on that level.
It should not be on the level of, we shouldn't study this stuff, and I don't really see a lot of people who are making that case.
What I do see is a lot of people on the left who are cynically suggesting that if you disagree with them politically, it's because you don't take slavery seriously enough, and lead among them is...
Okay, time for a thing I like and then we'll get to a quick thing that I hate.
of the New York Times, who's deliberately attempting to link slavery with the 2020 election.
That's what's going on here.
Okay, time for a thing I like, and then we'll get to a quick thing that I hate.
Okay, things that I like.
It turns out America is filled with wonderful, wonderful people.
For all the hatred that we tend to show each other on a daily basis, particularly on social media, which is bleeding over into real life, The fact is that when called upon, the American people can be wonderful to each other.
Amazing example.
So there is an El Paso shooting victim who was a widower with no other family.
And Tony Vasco lost, as you said, the love of his life, Margie.
to the funeral and they were afraid that nobody would show up.
My friends were afraid that nobody would show up.
Instead, hundreds of people showed up, hundreds of strangers showed up for the victim's funeral.
There's still a lot of good-hearted, compassionate people in the United States, lest we forget. - Tony Basco lost, as you said, the love of his life, Margie.
They'd been married 22 years.
She was one of the 22 people killed at the Walmart.
He has no other family in the world.
And all of a sudden, we see a total inside and outside of this church of at least 850 people.
And I just want to give you a look at this line, how far it spreads.
And keep in mind, right now in El Paso, it is 99 degrees outside.
And this is the line here.
People waiting here with the fans.
And most of them are from the El Paso area and also nearby New Mexico, but I've talked to people also from California, from Arizona, and from Utah.
I mean, it's amazing.
People driving in from surrounding states to be part of a funeral that they don't know the person.
It's amazing stuff.
America is still a great country and becoming better in its tolerance, becoming better in its willingness to overlook differences and its acceptance of people who are different.
That's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
Divisive attempts to tear Americans apart, whether it's coming from the right, left, or center, are bad.
And this is evidence.
I mean, people are looking to be out there for each other, and they should be.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So clashes broke out in Portland over the weekend because it was a weekend in Portland, and there were some dueling rallies, one by the Proud Boys and one by Antifa.
We've seen these sorts of things break out routinely.
Naturally, the media covered this as though we're fascists and anti-fascists.
Doesn't matter that Antifa has gotten extraordinarily violent with people in the past, including in Portland.
They beat up my friend Andy Ngo.
Democrats still will not denounce Antifa.
They're going to go along with this bizarre notion that Antifa actually is anti-fascist and not just a bunch of thugs in masks running around beating people up.
Here is a list of Democrats, how they responded to TPUSA's Benny Johnson when he asked them to denounce Antifa.
Here's Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, for example.
I was wondering if you could take this opportunity to denounce Antifa as a hate group.
Would you be willing to publicly denounce Antifa today?
Would you?
Mayor Blasio?
Nope.
Will you denounce Antifa, Senator Sanders?
Would you be willing to publicly denounce Antifa today?
Would you be willing?
That's Julian Castro.
Nope.
Would you be willing to publicly denounce Antifa?
Would you be willing to denounce Antifa publicly right now?
I'm not denouncing anybody.
You're not denouncing Antifa.
It's Marianne Williamson.
OK, and it just goes on and on and on and on.
The only person who would even come close to doing it was Joe Biden, who said that he denounces hate on all sides.
That at least is closer to the answer.
But the fact that the Democrats, that people on the left continue to cover for Antifa is pretty telling about what they want from American politics.
Antifa are really bad folks.
Really, really bad people.
There are people who have threatened my life, the lives of people that I know.
The fact that you cannot get a willingness to denounce just the same way that on the right, you should have a willingness to denounce white supremacists and people who get violent.
This is, this is, it's getting ugly.
So the flip side of people gathering together to try and, to try and band together against the forces of darkness is people who will not do so, apparently, including leading Democratic politicians.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
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 everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
The New York medical examiner has declared the death of the New York Times a suicide after the wealthy but perverted former newspaper strangled itself in a philosophical cell of its own making.
We'll get to the heart of the conspiracy on The Andrew Klavan Show.