All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:33
Tearing Down Our Institutions | Ep. 849
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Will the Federal Reserve go to war with President Trump?
Should America stop detaining illegal immigrants?
Is a lesbian dating a transgender man?
Now straight.
All of these questions and more will be answered on this episode of The Ben Shapiro Show.
I'm not kidding.
We're actually going to answer that last question.
Or at least the Washington Post is going to try to, because the media are our guardians and our firefighters.
Everything's going swell in America, guys.
So, let's just jump right into the news.
Apparently, the key yield curve has now inverted to the worst level since 2007, so that's some good news to brighten up your morning and your afternoon.
30-year rate has now dropped under 2%, according to CNBC.
Long-term Treasury rates added to their month-long slide on Tuesday, aggravating a key yield curve inversion and sending the 10-year yield to its lowest level against the 2-year rate since 2007.
In other words, everybody in the world is buying long-term bonds.
They're trying to store their money in long-term bonds because they do not have a lot of faith in the short-term economy.
The yield on the benchmark 2-year Treasury note, more sensitive to changes in Federal Reserve policy, fell to 1.526%, which is 5 basis points above the 10-year note's rate of 1.476% after closing inverted On Monday, before August, the last inversion of this part of the yield curve was the one that began in December 2005, two years before the financial crisis and the subsequent recession.
So there's pretty solid information now that sometime in the next couple of years, the economy is going to slow substantially and maybe dump into recession.
Now, the Federal Reserve has been pressured, obviously, by President Trump in heavy ways to pump up the inflationary policy at the Fed.
That, of course, is a bad idea as a general rule.
I am not in favor.
Conservatives should not be in favor of manipulation of the currency at the Federal Reserve level.
They should not be in favor of the Central Bank of the United States.
Effectively manipulating interest rates.
They should not be in favor of any of this because when the Federal Reserve messes around with the interest rates, there is the significant possibility that you are creating a bubble that will then burst.
It is also true that the Federal Reserve was supposed to be apolitical.
Their goal is to be a backstop in case of emergency.
It was supposed to be a 2007-2008 recession.
The Federal Reserve steps in to cut interest rates and jog spending, for example.
It was not supposed to be that a politician needs a lift, and so the Federal Reserve cuts rates.
In fact, the Federal Reserve was supposed to be the responsible actor here.
And the fact that President Trump is calling on the Federal Reserve not to be responsible in order to pump up the economy in advance of the election is not a particularly good thing.
And if a Democrat were doing this, Republicans would rightly be outraged.
Now, does that mean that the Federal Reserve should be acting politically?
No, it doesn't.
The theme of today's show is going to be the failure of our institutions and the fact that everyone is losing faith in our institutions and for good reason.
The politicization of our institutions in every single possible way is devastating to America's social fabric, to our trust in each other.
If you cannot trust that our institutions are going to run like they are supposed to run, then it's going to be very difficult to explain why we should have delegated power to those institutions in the first place.
Maybe it leads to a libertarian moment.
Alternatively, maybe it leads to tribal warfare politics in which you don't care about the institutions themselves and maintaining the integrity of the institutions themselves.
All you care about is who's in control of the government gun.
We'll get to all of this in just one second, this particularly depressing message in just one second.
But first, I believe in gun ownership for a variety of reasons.
I believe in gun ownership because I care a lot about my personal safety and the safety of my family.
I care about gun ownership because I believe that the Second Amendment is a check against government encroachments on all the other amendments.
Right now is your chance to claim 19 free entries to win a gun from the U.S.C.C.A.
Responsible people should own firearms and use them responsibly, and the U.S.C.C.A.
believes the same thing.
This month and this month only, you'll get 19 free chances to win $1,000 to buy a gun, any gun you'd like.
Even a beautiful brand new Kimber 1911 just by texting in right now.
Just text the word WIN to 87222 and claim your entries.
It really is that simple.
The U.S.
Concealed Carry Association is dedicated to providing world-class self-defense education, training, and legal protection to responsibly armed Americans like you and like me.
Their mission is to provide you with the tools and resources that you need.
To protect yourself and your loved ones before, during, and after a self-defense incident.
I trust them to help me become a better protector of my family.
You should trust them as well.
Text WIN to 87222 right now.
Find out more.
Claim your 19 free entries to win a thousand bucks for a new gun.
Again, that is text WIN to 87222.
W-I-N to 87222.
The USCCA provides all sorts of great resources to gun owners and potential gun owners.
Go check them out right now.
Text WIN to 87222 to check them out and also to have that ability to be entered to win A chance to win a thousand bucks to buy any gun you want.
It's 87-222-WIN to 87-222.
Okay, so, with the economic backdrop that we currently have, as the backdrop, there's a report from the New York Times that should undercut your faith in institutions.
If the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an impartial broker, if the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an institution that stands apart from the hurly-gurly of everyday politics, well then, this should be a disquieting story.
According to the New York Times, The Fed could hit back at Trump, a former top official suggests.
According to Gianna Smialek reporting for the New York Times, a former top Federal Reserve official implied that the central bank should consider allowing President Trump's trade war to hurt his 2020 election chances, an assertion that drew a firestorm of criticism and rare pushback from the Fed itself.
William Dudley is former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is now a research scholar at Princeton University, and he said in a Bloomberg opinion piece that President Trump's re-election arguably presents a threat to the U.S.
and global economy.
Dudley added that if the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.
That's an astonishing statement from the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
He's openly stating now that the officials at the Federal Reserve should be attempting to tip the election to a Democrat in order to help the economy.
Does that give you faith in the Federal Reserve?
Similarly, should it give you faith in the Federal Reserve if the Federal Reserve chairman were just taking orders from the President of the United States?
Would that make you feel secure about the safety and security of America's economy?
This is a particularly controversial statement, says the New York Times, coming from an official who ranked among the Fed's most powerful policymakers as recently as 2018.
It also comes at a sensitive moment for the Fed, which has been under attack from Mr. Trump and trying to assert its independence from the White House and politics in general.
Michelle Smith, a Fed spokeswoman, said when asked about the column, quote, But this is the problem with how the Federal Reserve operates as a general rule.
by its congressional mandate to maintain price stability and maximum employment.
Political considerations play absolutely no role.
But this is the problem with how the Federal Reserve operates as a general rule.
The fact is that the Federal Reserve is constantly attempting to tip balances for or against particular executive policies pursued by presidents of both parties.
Really what the Federal Reserve should be there to do is to set a low steady interest rate.
This is Milton Friedman's point.
Milton Friedman suggested the Federal Reserve should set a low steady interest rate and that there should be basically they should aim for maybe a 2% inflation rate every year to jog the economy to keep people spending.
But they should not be inflating the currency wildly or deflating the currency wildly.
And they should be there in case of some sort of catastrophic collapse.
This is the sort of Chicago School of Economics view in order to ensure that currency doesn't just disappear from the marketplace.
The Austrian School of Economics would go even further.
They'd say there should be no Federal Reserve.
You should just peg the price of the dollar to the price of gold and be done with it.
There shouldn't be any government agency that is involved creating this sort of moral hazard that the Federal Reserve is going to fix all problems with the economy.
Regardless, both the Chicago School of Economics and the Austrian School of Economics would suggest that the politicization of the Fed, which did happen under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, That the politicization of the Fed, the executive branch ordering the Fed what to do, or conversely, the Fed acting as an independent political agent to militate against a president of a particular party, that is going to undermine your faith in Republican institutions.
And it should.
And we are watching this happen day in and day out.
Faith in each of our institutions, it's seemingly one by one, Is crumbling.
Now, what that would theoretically suggest is that what we need is for the constitutional system of checks and balances to kick in.
What we need right now is if you don't have faith in any one branch of the government, then you should have faith that the entire government is going to gridlock itself.
That you're not going to... Sure, we don't trust the executive branch if you're a Democrat right now.
Well, that's what the legislature is for.
And you don't trust the legislature if you're a Republican?
Well, that's what the executive branch is for.
You don't trust the judiciary?
That's what the legislature and the executive branch are for.
You don't trust the federal government in general?
That's what the state governments are for.
The entire system of checks and balances imposed by the founders assumed an endemic level of mistrust in our institutions.
So this is where the Constitution really should become valuable.
Unfortunately, There are a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the left these days, who are pushing against those checks and balances at the same time we're losing faith in the institutions.
So the institutions no longer have our faith, and now they want to get rid of the checks and balances.
So if you don't trust the institutions, and you don't like the checks and balances, what you're really arguing for is taking control of the institutions so you can use them on behalf of your own favored policies.
Well, that is very dangerous in Republic.
Basically, that is two people.
That turns government into the Joker's game in the Dark Knight, splitting a pool queue in two and throwing it out there and saying, OK, whoever controls the pool queue gets to be employed here.
It turns it into a tribal fight, war by other means, as I suggested earlier this week.
And pushing this are the folks in the far left.
So Jamel Bui, who is not a very good columnist over at the New York Times, he, I enjoy some of his work.
I will say that I don't think that he thinks through a lot of his own ideas.
He has an opinion piece in the New York Times suggesting that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez understands democracy better than Republicans do, which is false.
AOC understands literally nothing except for using Instagram better than Republicans do, and maybe dancing on rooftops, but that is a matter of opinion.
Yes, because that's true.
Bowie says, spend enough time talking politics on the Internet or in any other public forum, and you'll run into this standard reply to anyone who wants more democracy in American government.
We're a republic, not a democracy.
Yes, because that's true.
You saw it over the weekends, says Jamel Bowie, in an exchange between Representatives AOC and Dan Crenshaw of Texas, friends at Ben Shapiro Show.
In a brief series of tweets, Ocasio-Cortez made the case against the Electoral College and argued for a national popular vote to choose the president.
She said every vote should be equal in America, no matter who you are or where you come from, The right thing to do is establish a popular vote and GOP will do everything they can to fight it.
Crenshaw, who has sparred with AOC before, jumped in with a response.
Abolishing the electoral college means that politicians will only campaign in and listen to urban areas.
That is not a representative democracy.
He said, we live in a republic, which means 51% of the population doesn't get to boss around the other 49%.
And then Jamel Bowie suggests that the crux of Crenshaw's argument, we live in a republic, is wrong.
He says he doesn't say not a democracy, but it's implied by the next clause where he rejects majority rule.
You can fill in the blanks of the argument from there.
The founding fathers built a government to stymie the tyranny of the majority.
They contrasted their republic with democracy, which they condemned as dangerous and unstable.
As John Adams wrote in an 1814 letter to the Virginia politician John Taylor, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
But there's a problem, says Jamal Bowie.
For the founders, democracy did not mean majority rule in a system of representation.
The men who led the revolution and devised the Constitution were immersed in classical literature and political theory.
Ancient Greece, in particular, was a cautionary tale.
When James Madison critiqued democracy in Federalist No.
10, he meant the Athenian sort, a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person.
He says, in more modern terms, the Founders feared direct democracy and accounted for its dangers with a system of representative democracy.
Yes, this republic had counter-majoritarian aspects, but it was not designed for minority rule.
Nobody suggested that it was designed for minority rule, but if Jamal Bowie is truly suggesting that the Founders were big fans of pure majoritarianism, he hasn't read the entirety of the Federalist Papers.
I'm sorry, Federalist 10 isn't the only Federalist Paper.
There are like 80 of them.
So, no.
That is incorrect.
The Federalist Papers make quite clear that the Founders were very much afraid of faction.
They were afraid of the power of a majority to overrun the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
It's amazing to see, but we completely missed the point like this is virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country to diminish faction in favor of consensus.
And in the case of the Electoral College, the point wasn't to stymie majorities, but to provide a way to find a competent and popular chief executive in a large nation of parochial states.
Well, it was to form a an Electoral College majority out of a plurality was probably one of the purposes.
So it was to turn a minority into a majority in some cases.
And when it comes to producing representative majority, overwhelming majorities, the founders were very much in favor of.
51% to 49%, they were very much not in favor of.
But again, this is Jamal Bowie stumping against institutions of our government that were designed to curb our lack of faith in the institutions themselves, right?
So now he wants to get rid of the checks and balances.
Because AOC's argument could be made on exactly the same basis for getting rid of the United States Senate.
After all, the United States Senate gives the exact same number of representatives to Montana, which has like 10 people, as it does to California, which has 50 million people.
So why shouldn't you make the same argument about getting rid of the Senate of the United States?
As it turns out, this isn't the only attack on institutions that our media are pushing.
They're also pushing attacks on our very system of immigration, on borders at all.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the uncertainty that we are seeing right now, springing from the Federal Reserve, springing from international currency markets.
Do you feel uneasy with the fact that policymakers across the world are now relying on central banks to prop up their economies with inflation and deflation and raising interest rates and lowering interest rates.
Maybe you're interested in investing in currency that is not dependent on the vacillation of central bankers who are now dependent on the political whim of their masters in governments all over the world.
Well, this may be one reason that you want to seriously consider including some cryptocurrency in your portfolio.
Cryptocurrency is basically the digital equivalent of gold.
What it is, is a currency that is protected by blockchain.
They're not manufacturing more of it.
The idea is that it holds value specifically because you can't change it.
There's nobody who's manipulating the currency.
eToro is smart crypto trading made easy.
Etoro's social trading platform has over 11 million traders and facilitates over $1 trillion in trading volume per year globally.
You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.
They've got 15 different coins available.
They've got low and transparent fees.
Try it before you trade with a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget.
Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts.
Sign up today.
At eToro.com slash Shapiro.
That is eToro.com slash Shapiro.
eToro.com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
It's really great because you can try it before you can trade.
And that means that you actually get experience with it.
See how it works for you.
eToro.com slash Shapiro.
That's eToro.com slash Shapiro.
Crypto may sound intimidating, but this is why you should go give them a look over at eToro and learn more.
eToro.com slash Shapiro.
It is not just an attempt to undermine institutions like the Electoral College or the United States Senate.
More and more Democrats are suggesting the Senate is not representative because obviously it's not.
It wasn't created to be representative.
It was created to require the manufacture of large-scale majorities, near super majorities in many cases, in order for the government to get anything done.
Specifically because the founders feared that the institutions would not be faithfully executed.
The solution for a lot of folks on the left and some people on the right, too, is that we should just overrun all those checks and balances.
And really, we should have an effective government that gets things done the way I want them done.
That is incredibly dangerous.
Your rights are protected by the inability of the government to do things.
That is what the founders thought.
Okay, but now you've got the New York Times stumping not just against the Electoral College or the Senate, you've got them stumping against the very idea of borders.
So the New York Times editorial board, their wonderful editorial board, they have an editorial today called, The Immigration System is a Mess.
Trump's policies are making it worse.
They say it has been an eventful few weeks in President Trump's ever-escalating crusade to restrict immigration.
On August 12th, his administration announced a rule change making it more difficult for poor immigrants to obtain green cards by giving officials more leeway in assessing who is likely to become a public charge, meaning someone who relies on public services.
That's good policy.
If you immigrate here and we think that you're going to be on welfare, you shouldn't be immigrating here.
On August 21st, it introduced a new rule jettisoning the existing 20-day limit on holding migrant children in detention.
That was designed specifically so that we didn't have to separate children from parents and also so that we did not have to release parents into the interior of the United States where they show up for one court hearing and then receive a provisional green card and overstay that green card and become permanent illegal residents of the United States.
The next day, according to the New York Times, The president reasserted his interest in abolishing birthright citizenship, the constitutional guarantee that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.
They say, whatever its long-term implications, the president's obsession with what he has termed an immigrant invasion is already undermining the functioning of his administration and the safety of the nation.
The Boston Globe reported last week a mass diversion of immigration officers from New England to the southwest border will bring to a stop the processing of nearly all 40,000 asylum requests pending in New England.
Similarly, back in March, senior staff members at U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services We're told that by year's end, the agency would shut down its international division, which assists overseas applicants applying to immigrate to the United States to redirect resources to the border crisis, as if the legal immigration system needed additional stressors.
Okay, so now you're just objecting to Trump redirecting resources so that we can enforce our southern border.
I don't see you calling on Democrats to provide additional funding so we can continue doing all of these things while ensuring safety and security at our southern border.
What the New York Times wants is catch and release.
What the New York Times wants is catch and release.
End of story.
They want open borders.
They do not want people who have entered the United States illegally deported, and they also don't want people who are entering the United States, possibly illegally, before their asylum claims can be adjudicated, detained.
They simply want an open border where people can walk across, disappear into the interior, and stay forever.
That is pretty much the only way to read this editorial.
They say the White House appears ambivalent about the threat of white supremacism.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that for more than a year, the White House rebuffed efforts by Homeland Security to make domestic terrorism a strategic priority.
So now they're suggesting that Trump is ignoring white nationalism in favor of immigration policy.
But our federal government spends $4 trillion a year.
It seems to me they should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
And if we are talking about long term effects on the United States, yes, white nationalism is evil.
It is a problem.
White supremacism is a problem.
It is also a minute number of people in absolute terms who are providing an outsized threat as opposed to, you know, if you are if you're just talking about things that will affect the country on a broad level for decades to come.
Millions of people entering the country illegally without any check and balance is going to provide a pretty significant change to the country.
Now, obviously that change is going to come with good.
It's going to come with bad.
It's not an unmitigated evil like white nationalism or white supremacism.
Of course, of course, of course.
I'm not equating the two.
But to suggest that the federal government should spend all of its priority money on fighting white nationalism and none on the border is insane.
That's patently crazy.
The New York Times, though, again, stumping against the institution of having a border that every president brings into office a particular set of principles and priorities.
But when those biases start undercutting the government's ability to pursue smart policies or even carry out basic duties, a responsible leader must think less about his personal prerogatives and more about the nation's overall security.
Again, I don't see the New York Times ever covering it when an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime goes on to commit more crimes.
The fact is, there are significant downsides associated with not knowing who comes into the country.
This is perfectly obvious.
Yes, we should be spending more money and more time and more resources fighting white supremacists, but this is not an either-or choice.
At all.
It's patently insane to suggest that it is.
Okay, so, we're busy undermining our faith in the Federal Reserve.
We're busy undermining our faith in the checks and balances that would stymie our lack of faith in these various institutions.
We are undermining basic policy that any country has to enforce, like having a border.
And now, we are talking about undermining the credibility of the media that's supposed to cover all of this.
And that the media can do themselves.
They don't need any outside actors doing that.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about losing your hair.
Okay, so male pattern baldness runs in my family.
That means I am deeply worried about losing my hair.
Lots of dudes are.
Losing your hair is no fun, and 2 out of 3 dudes will experience hair loss by the time they are 35, which makes me nervous since I am now 35.
Introducing Keeps, the easiest and most affordable way to keep the hair you have.
Starting at just $10 per month, you'll never have to worry about hair loss again.
Getting started is super easy.
Signing up takes less than five minutes.
Just answer a few simple questions, snap some photos to complete your online doctor consultation.
A licensed physician will then review your information online, recommend the right treatment for you.
It's shipped directly to your door every three months.
Keeps treatments are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.
It's only $10 to $35 a month, plus right now you can get your first month for free.
If you suffer from hair loss, the last thing you need is to wait to see a doctor.
I mean, you should try it right now before you lose all your hair.
With Keeps, there's finally a way to get the help you need when you need it.
For a limited time, receive your first month of treatment for free.
Go to keeps.com slash ben.
Again, if you suffer from hair loss, you can receive your first month of treatment for free.
Just go to K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben.
That's keeps dot com slash Ben.
Go check it out right now.
OK, so the media, another institution that you would figure has to provide some sort of check and balance.
So we no longer trust the Fed.
We apparently are not going to trust the Electoral College.
We're going to get rid of the checks and balances.
So what would be the check and balance on that?
Well, an honest media, right?
A media that covers the covers the people in power without fear or favor.
I've got some bad news for you, folks.
It turns out that our media are not doing any of that.
It turns out that our media are one-sided, that our media have been kissing the asses of Democrats for literally my entire lifetime and probably before, while simultaneously reporting the flimsiest speculative evidence.
about Republicans.
Today's example comes courtesy of Lawrence O'Donnell.
So Lawrence O'Donnell was on MSNBC last night and he was with Rachel Maddow, who is happy to engage in conspiracy theories, particularly about Russia.
And O'Donnell simply dumped out there this idea that he has a source inside Deutsche Bank that said that President Trump's loans were underwritten by Russian billionaires Again, this is now trending on Twitter, right?
Hashtag Russian cosigners.
It's now trending on Twitter.
Why?
Because Lawrence O'Donnell said he has a one source, a secret source, who says that Trump has Russian cosigners.
Now, I'm just going to point out a quick double standard here.
Years back, I think it was 2012, I was working at Breitbart News, and I reported a story where I had a source, and the source suggested that Chuck Hagel, then the nominee for Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama, had spoken to a group called Friends of Hamas.
It was a bad story.
We shouldn't have run it.
It was based on this single source.
It was reported as a rumor.
In fact, I reported it exactly the same way that Lawrence O'Donnell did here, right?
I said, this may not be true, it's a rumor, Hagel has refused to respond, all the rest of it.
I was correctly excoriated for that.
The story shouldn't have been reported.
You shouldn't report rumors.
Lawrence O'Donnell says it on MSNBC.
Not only has it lent an enormous amount of credibility, it's now trending on Twitter as an absolute fact that this happened.
Here's Lawrence O'Donnell doing exactly what I was excoriated in 2012 for doing properly, but doing it and not only that, being feeded for it.
Here's Lawrence O'Donnell just kind of spilling out nonsense.
This single source close to Deutsche Bank has told me that Donald Trump's loan documents there show that he has co-signers.
That's how he was able to obtain those loans.
And that the co-signers are Russian oligarchs.
What?
Really? - Really?
That would explain, it seems to me, every kind word Donald Trump has ever said about Russia and Vladimir Putin, if true.
And I stress the if true part of this.
Yeah, that is a scenario that I have never contemplated.
This is true, if true, if true.
Yes.
And the media ran with this.
I mean, this is being widely reported now.
There is no other evidence to suggest this is true other than Lawrence O'Donnell's word based on a single source supposedly placed inside Deutsche Bank, who somehow has gotten hold of Donald Trump's loan documents.
Sure, sure.
And now it's trending on Twitter and people are saying Trump will be impeached because of this.
Yes, undercutting your own institutional credibility.
Believe me, you didn't need Trump to call you guys fake news in order for you to destroy yourselves.
It's pretty astonishing.
And there are a bevy of examples of this this week.
I mean, there are just a bevy of examples of the media humiliating themselves today.
I mean, not even this week, like in the last 24 hours.
So let me give you another example.
Big headline over at The Washington Post.
William Barr books Trump's hotel for $30,000 holiday party.
That sounds bad, right?
I mean, it sounds like the DOJ is spending money with the president's hotel, maybe in order to curry favor with him or something.
It doesn't sound good.
There's only one problem.
Okay, here's the problem.
Pretty much the story is nonsense.
Here's the Washington Post reporting.
Attorney General William P. Barr is planning a holiday treat for his boss.
Oh, really?
Is that what he's doing?
It's a holiday treat for Trump, right?
Last month, Barr booked President Trump's D.C.
hotel for a 200-person holiday party in December that is likely to deliver Trump's business more than $30,000 in revenue.
Barr signed a contract, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post, for a family holiday party in the hotel presidential ballroom December 8th.
The party will feature a buffet and a four-hour open bar for about 200 people.
Okay, then, here is the actual crux of the story.
Barr is paying for the event himself.
The DOJ is not covering any of this.
No taxpayer dollars are being expended on this.
Also, Barr only chose the venue after the other hotels in DC, including the Willard and the Mayflower, were booked, according to the DOJ.
So it wasn't like he went to Donald Trump and was like, you know what, I'm gonna slip 30 grand in your pocket here.
First of all, Trump's pretty rich.
He doesn't need 30 grand.
You're going to need to do more than that, I assume, to bribe the president of the United States to do what exactly?
But apparently it's very bad.
William Barr went to three separate hotels.
The only one that had availability the night that he wanted was Trump's hotel, which is a big hotel in D.C.
Believe it or not, there are not a lot of big hotels in Washington, D.C., like in the immediate area.
If you've ever stayed in Washington, D.C., it really is like two or three hotels.
All the other hotels are kind of hole in the walls and small.
The official said the purpose of Barr's party wasn't to curry favor with the president.
Well, clearly not, because he could just pick up the phone and kiss Trump's ass if he wanted to curry favor with Trump.
It ain't that difficult.
People do it on Fox & Friends all the time.
Really, not tough.
Barr holds the bash annually!
Okay, so it's not even like he does this irregularly.
He has the party every single year.
He went to two other hotels, trying to book it there.
They were both booked.
So he went to Trump's hotel, and he's spending the money out of his own pocket.
And, by the way, this was cleared with the Ethics Office.
The official said career ethics officials were consulted.
They determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting his annual party at the Trump Hotel.
Okay, but it didn't matter.
This is on the front page of the Washington Post.
Obviously, it's corruption.
Man, we should totally trust our media.
Okay, then the Washington Post had a piece yesterday.
They ran an op-ed yesterday that is just disastrously stupid.
The piece was by a woman named Marissa Brostoff, Okay, and it was all about how the pro-life movement is truly white supremacist, which is just absolute sheer garbage.
It is absolute sheer garbage.
One of the chief talking points of the pro-life movement is that more black babies are aborted in New York City every year than born.
Pro-life people want to see more babies.
We do not care whether those babies are black, white, or green.
This is ridiculous.
I mean, if you were talking about the pro-life movement being white supremacist, presumably they'd be very much in favor of the continued access of minority people to Planned Parenthood.
Because Planned Parenthood disproportionately performs abortions on ethnic minorities.
Pro-life people have been fighting against the eugenicist movement for literally the entirety of the pro-life movement.
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and the founder of Planned Parenthood.
She was a racist and a eugenicist.
This is insane.
Okay, but The Washington Post went even further in running this op-ed, okay?
This op-ed originally included the following paragraph.
You ready?
As border controls tighten, the links between pro-natalism and nativism have once again become visible.
Inspired by Steve King's admiring remark about Gert Wilders, who's a politician in the Netherlands, Isla Stewart, creator of a popular white nationalist blog called Wife With a Purpose, issued a white baby challenge that went viral in alt-right circles.
The mother of six asks audience members to have as many white babies as I have contributed.
Hey, that part is idiotic, but here is where it gets crazy.
Meanwhile, as replacement discourse enters the conservative mainstream, talk of birth rates comes along with it.
Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves.
That should bother us, J.D.
Vance, author of the best-selling Hillbilly Elegy, told his audience at the National Conservatism Conference last month.
Earlier this year, he described himself as appalled by Democrats' permissive attitudes toward abortion.
Vance did not need to spell out exactly who was included in the word our, as in our people.
He didn't need to.
No, actually, he did need to!
Because it turns out what he was talking about was Americans.
He said Americans need to be having more babies.
Why?
Because it undercuts America's culture.
Not for Americans.
All Americans.
Not to have more babies.
Because it undercuts our economy.
Not to have a future generation of taxpayers paying into our garbage upside-down pyramid schemes.
That's what he was talking about!
But according to the Washington Post, J.D.
Vance is a vicious, brutal racist.
For no reason, the Washington Post actually had to cut it, and then they didn't even really issue a correction, they just cut the line.
Yes, I totally trust our media.
Another example of insane media bias today.
There's a piece in the Washington Post, the Washington Post really covering itself in glory today.
There's a piece in the Washington Post called, A Harvard Freshman Says He Was Denied Entry to the U.S.
Over Social Media Posts Made by His Friends.
It's by Deanna Paul and Susan Svrgluga.
Ismail B. Ajaoui touched down at Boston Logan International Airport on Friday night, prepared to begin his freshman year at Harvard University.
The 17-year-old Palestinian student never left the airport.
The Harvard Crimson reported U.S.
officials detained Ajaoui for eight hours.
After interrogating the minor and searching his phone and computer, they revoked his visa and sent him home to Lebanon.
Why?
According to a statement by Ajaoui, an immigration officer claimed, she found people posting political points of view that oppose the U.S., though she discovered nothing Ajaoui had posted himself.
Ajawi wrote, After the five hours ended, she called me into a room and she started screaming at me.
She said she found people posting political points of view that opposed the U.S.
on my friends list.
I responded, I have no business with such posts and I didn't like, share or comment on them and told her I shouldn't be held responsible for what others post.
Then the Crimson reported, Ajawi's visa was revoked and he returned to Lebanon.
Ajawi did not return any messages from the post seeking comment.
The Harvard spokesman, Jonathan Swain, said in an emailed statement that the university is working closely with the family and appropriate authorities to resolve the matter.
Michael McCarthy is a spokesman for CBP, for Customs and Border Protection.
He said the department is responsible for ensuring the safety and admissibility of the goods and people entering the U.S.
Applicants must demonstrate they are admissible into the U.S.
This individual is deemed inadmissible based on information discovered during the CBC-CBP inspection.
And the State Department says visa records are kept confidential under American law, so we can't discuss the details of individual cases.
So, in other words, this story is solely based on a Facebook account by a person who will not return phone calls from The Washington Post, who has not turned over his social media accounts to The Washington Post, and whose story cannot be verified or disproved by CBP by law.
But apparently this is indicative of the Trump administration's xenophobia.
Again, solid reporting there, guys.
Really, really well done.
I'm sure that's the entire story.
Because I'm sure that a person barred from the United States and barred from their spot at Harvard because CBP found something in their profile, I'm sure they would never ever fib to the media or on Facebook.
Ever.
Now maybe the story went down exactly the way he said, but certainly this story does not provide sufficient evidence that this should be reported.
That's pretty insane.
But, again, the faith in our institutions is declining at a rapid rate, as well it should be.
I'm gonna give you another Washington Post story covering itself in glory in just one second.
This one, I think, is the height of insanity.
First, The Daily Wire has turned four years old, so congrats to us.
Congrats to our employees who keep getting paid.
As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses this code.
Birthday.
Ooh, magical.
For all of August, as we celebrate this incredible milestone, we've been giving away a free first month for new premium monthly subscribers.
Again, just use that code, BIRTHDAY.
Time is quickly running out.
There are only three days left to get this deal, so subscribe today and come join the fun.
Also, get that annual subscription.
When you do, you get this.
The very greatest in beverage vessels.
It grants eternal life to you.
I mean, that's the pitch.
So far, it has not yet been disproved.
But, you know, let's put that out there in the universe, because I have a source inside Deutsche Bank who says it's true.
In any case, Leftist Jeers Hierarchical Tumblr, you get that with the annual subscription, $9.99 a month or $99 a year, which is cheaper than $9.99 a month.
Look it up.
Look it up.
Do the math.
Google it.
In $9.99 a month or $99 a year, check us out at dailywire.com.
We really appreciate you joining the club.
We are the fastest growing, largest conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So it's not just that the media have undermined institutional credibility in themselves, which they have in radical fashion, and the polls show it.
It's not just that we have no real institutional trust in the DOJ or the Federal Reserve.
It's not just that we've lost trust in the system of checks and balances that keeps all of these institutions in check.
Now we are undermining trust in the most basic social institutions.
I'm talking about the institution of family.
I'm talking about institutions that aren't even institutions.
They're just presuppositions of a civil society like language, right?
Like using terms in common, like logic.
You cannot have a functional republic or even a functional democracy if we are not speaking the same language.
We have basically devolved into a Tower of Babel scenario.
So, the left decided that we were all going to move in one universal direction.
It turns out that human beings have different priorities.
And so, instead of us all speaking the same language to build something in common, good or bad, we have now been devolved into this insane, this bizarre, chaotic Treatment of language and logic that means that we can never have a conversation with each other again.
Let me give you an example of how we can never have a conversation again.
This was a piece published on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday.
The piece was titled, To some, this queer couple looks straight.
For him, that's okay.
For her, it feels like a lie.
Again, this was published on the first page of the Washington Post website by Samantha Schmidt and Forrest Milbord.
So at first, you might be asking yourself, why is this being reported at all?
Why is this a story?
That a person feels uncomfortable.
Person feels uncomfortable is not a story.
No media outlet worth their salt would run a story with that headline.
Person feels uncomfortable with self-definition.
Welcome to the world where lots of people feel that way.
No, this article is about how society is cruel and mean because it will not use a constantly shifting standard for sex and gender that makes everybody feel comfortable in their own skin.
That's what this article is truly about.
What you're about to hear is an insane level of manipulation of language that makes no logical sense.
There's no common standard, no logical sense, no internal structure.
And yet, if you don't buy into the idea that words can randomly change, chimerical shapeshifters, they can just move around, then that's because you are bad.
So now we're undermining human language.
It's not just enough to undermine the Federal Reserve or undermine the media.
Now the media are busily undermining basic human language, ability to communicate with each other.
Because after you read this piece, you'll be so confused you never want to read another piece.
When Kate Murray and Andy Arnold first started dating in their early 20s, they were part of a tight-knit group of lesbian friends in the district.
The couple and their friends hung out almost every weekend, organizing potluck dinners and frequenting ladies' nights at local gay bars.
Then, about two years ago, Andy came out as a transgender man.
And as he transitioned with Kate's support, the couple suddenly felt they no longer belonged in the women-centric spaces they were used to.
They tried testing out a new group of friends, a blank slate, a group in which Andy wouldn't have to talk about his trans identity, he said.
He could just blend in as a man.
To the new friends, they were just Andy and Kate, a man dating a woman.
And that was just how Andy liked it.
But to Kate, it felt like a lie.
She wanted to express her queer identity, she said, but how could she do that without making Andy uncomfortable?
Okay, so we have two conflicts of vision here.
And the one vision, you have a lesbian who wants to be known as a lesbian because she feels like it's a part of her identity to be a lesbian.
And she's dating a biological woman.
So that would seem to fit the criteria.
On the other hand, we have a society in the media that suggests that if a biological woman has surgeries and hormone treatments and believes that she is a man, that she is now a man, which means that the formerly lesbian woman is actually straight because she is a lesbian.
She's a woman who is dating a man, right?
So by biological definition, Kate is right.
So if she uses normal definitions of sex, you know, the ones we've been using for all of human history, then Kate is correct.
But she's also insensitive and cruel because then she'd think like I am, right?
So instead, the media are purporting to provide this view that Andy is an actual man, which means that Kate is straight.
So who's intolerant?
Is Kate intolerant because Kate doesn't consider Andy an actual man?
Or is Andy intolerant because he doesn't consider Kate an actual lesbian?
Which one is it?
The Washington Post answer?
Society is intolerant.
It's you!
You reading the story!
You!
We are intolerant because we're looking at this and we thought that this is a pretty binary question, right?
Either Andy is a man or Andy's a woman.
I mean, there are no other choices here.
There's no other choice on the board.
Either Andy's a man or a woman.
By one standard, the crazy left media, insane gender studies, bizarro standard, Andy is a man, which means Kate is straight.
By the biological definition, Annie's a woman, which means Kate's a lesbian.
Those are the only two choices.
Nah.
You thought that this was a logical Kobayashi Maru problem?
Wrong that you are.
William Shatner here has found a way out of the Kobayashi Maru problem.
His solution is you're the bigot for reading the story and believing in logic and language.
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
Okay?
For the couple who are now engaged to be married, there are no clear answers to this, Andy said.
No matter how much I want to separate my trans identity from who I am, I can't.
I can't separate it from my relationship with Kate because she's a queer woman.
It's a daily dance we navigate.
This tension is a daily reality for many queer couples who feel the way others perceive them is at odds with who they really are.
That's the sentence right there.
Right?
It's a daily reality for queer couples who feel that the way others perceive them is at odds with who they really- It's you!
You're not understanding enough!
You with your logic and your language and your definitions!
You're intolerant!
You're undercutting both Andy and Kate who'd lead a happy life if you would simultaneously agree that Kate is a lesbian and also that Andy is a man!
How dare you!
How dare you, sir!
This is just ridiculous!
And then the article talks about How Andy is quote-unquote passing, but Andy isn't really passing because Andy is a man.
Or is Andy a man?
Unclear.
Andy says, I want to be seen as a man.
I don't want to have any sort of mark on me that says I'm trans.
I think if I were more inclined to do that, Kate and I would probably have an easier time.
Some people do feel like I need to represent the group I'm a part of, but not me.
I just want to blend.
And then the Washington Post really drops the hammer.
Again, it's about you.
Right, so this bizarre situation that clearly exposes the flaws in gender studies thinking, it's a problem with you.
Many Americans still have a hard time grasping the fact that gender and sexual orientation are independent from each other.
A person's gender identity does not determine whom they will be attracted to or who will be attracted to them.
See, you're the bigot.
Now again, this article has nothing to do with that sort of confusion at all.
At all, right?
But it's about you and your intolerance.
Transgender and non-binary people identify as genders different from those on their birth certificates.
But, for example, a transgender man might be attracted only to women, or only to men, or both.
It depends entirely on the person.
And when a person transitions well in a relationship, it doesn't necessarily change their partner's sexual orientation.
Just because Kate is no longer dating a woman doesn't mean she is no longer queer.
Distinguishing between identities in the LGBTQ community has become increasingly complex as more categories for gender identities and sexual orientations have emerged, many of them breaking with traditional binary notions.
Terms such as pansexual have emerged to describe people who are attracted to frying pans.
Oh, no, no, no, sorry.
Pansexual have emerged to describe people who are attracted to a full spectrum of gender identities.
It's a double-edged sword, says the Washington Post.
Okay, so if your faith in your ability to understand human language has been undercut, that would be the point.
That would be the point.
It's just... All of this is insanity, but it doesn't stop there.
Because all of this is really... In the end, this is designed to reduce all of life into subjectivism.
It's designed to reduce all of life into subjectivism, once all of life is reduced to subjectivism.
That the only true happiness can be found within.
Because reason and logic go out the window.
Because you really can't control your own behavior.
Subjectivism is the only thing that counts.
Well, if the only thing that matters is your subjective pleasure, your subjective self-definition, then you are going to identify as a member of a tribe, with people who think like you.
And then, politics just becomes a question of tribal warfare.
How does your tribe gain power over another tribe?
And that is exactly what politics is becoming because it used to be you could have a conversation with somebody who disagreed.
Now conversations with people who disagree with you are considered verboten.
They're considered bad and wrong by the left.
How do I know this?
Well, I'll tell you a brief story.
So, just a few weeks ago, I was in a room with a dude who happens to be, I'm not gonna name him, I'm not gonna name the podcast, happens to be very prominent on an extremely popular left-wing podcast.
Friendly guy, right?
We got to talking.
We obviously disagree on a wide variety of things.
And I said to him, you know what we should do?
We should do a crossover podcast because your podcast is popular and my podcast is popular.
You'll get huge audiences.
It'd be really interesting.
It could show that conversation is still possible.
And he said to me, your audience would be fine with it.
I said, I know my audience would be fine with it because my audience doesn't care if I have a conversation with somebody on the other side.
In fact, when we do my Sunday special every week, I have conversations with people on the other side.
Probably 35% to 40% of the time.
Everybody from Andrew Yang to Piers Morgan.
I do it all the time.
Larry Wilmer.
We do it a lot.
I'm happy to have conversations with people on the other side of the aisle.
What he said was, my audience would kill me.
He said, my audience would not allow you in the room.
They would kill me.
And that is, that's correct.
That's what politics has come down to.
So why should I trust a political system that allows that guy and his audience to dominate me?
Why would I possibly be in favor of that?
And that's what a lot of folks on the radical left would like at this point.
Not a conversation, not a system of checks and balances that requires a super majority of Americans or a heavy majority of Americans to agree to something to change the system, which seems proper in a diverse republic.
No, instead what they want is sheer power politics, and they want to indoctrinate your kids into all of this.
And there's an article at the Huffington Post that I think is pretty telling along these lines.
By Lucy Rimmelauer.
Is my kid fluent in racism?
So now we're talking about the indoctrination of children into this particular belief system.
Radical subjectivism.
A belief that American history is awful and evil.
A belief that we can't have conversations with each other.
That we have to change human language in order to mirror your personal preferences.
The article is at Huffington Post.
The repository of all things stupid.
It says, My three-year-old has an uncanny ability to bust me on curse words.
The whole ride home from school, he ignores my questions about his day, dinner preferences, upcoming activities, but then, sure as bleep, What did you say, Mommy?
He asks sweetly.
Oh, I was talking about a thing, I stammer.
No, Mommy, what did you say about that man in the parking lot?
He persists.
He's referring to when I expletived about a man blocking a busy parking lot aisle.
But I'm far more concerned about the foul racist language he's going to encounter.
I'm not talking about Trump's racist tweets or comments.
These crimes are the headline.
Where I feel out of my depth as a parent is the insidious, heavily biased storytelling that I won't always be able to interpret for my son.
The language of the news.
It says not merely that we're going to twist language now, it's that we're going to indoctrinate children in the twisting of language.
She says, when news stories describe latinx asylum seekers as illegal aliens or refer to African-American protesters seeking social justice as thugs, that becomes the hateful way that kids see latinx and African-American people, perhaps including themselves.
So just to get this straight, if you illegally immigrate to the United States and you are not properly an asylum seeker, which is the vast majority of people who apply for asylum in the United States, Then it's racist to refer to you as an illegal immigrant.
And here's the example this woman used.
You ready?
When the 1992 Los Angeles riots happened, I was 13 years old, living in an L.A.
suburb.
Now, I remember this too.
I was 8 years old, living in an L.A.
suburb.
She says, I was glued to the TV along with my parents, my brothers, and everyone else I knew.
The lens for my experience was not the unjust acquittal of the four officers who beat Rodney King.
No one on the local news was talking about social justice.
They were talking about looters and violent people burning down our city.
Yes, because that's what the LA riots were.
Literally people running out into the street, bashing in-store windows, stealing TVs, and beating the living hell out of truckers who got caught in the middle of the area.
Korean shop owners were perched out on top of their stores with rifles to protect their own property.
The LA riots were a horror show.
You want to protest the Rodney King verdict?
Go for it.
That's not what the L.A.
riots were.
They were riots, and a lot of the people taking part in them were people who were looking to steal a TV.
That is just the reality of the situation.
It was not an L.A.
uprising.
It was not a politically motivated quote-unquote uprising against authorities.
If it were, it would have been directed at the mayor's office, which is in downtown L.A.
That is not what happened.
But apparently, if you called the riots what they were, then this is an element of bigotry and racism.
So we are devolving into a society where you can't even have a common conversation.
Which, of course, undermines the faith in the institutions.
But then, also, you don't want the institutions of checks and balances to stop you from beating up the other guy.
So you want to get rid of the checks and balances.
You want institutions that you can't trust unless you control them.
This is how you get to tyranny pretty quickly.
This is how you get to people who don't want to have a conversation with anybody living in the same country with them on the other side, but desperately want to cram down their policy preferences on people on the other side of the aisle.
This is not going to end well in any way, shape, or form.
It's going to get worse and worse unless people come back to the table and start having conversations again.
But I don't think those conversations are possible In our current political climate, that's for damn sure.
Okay, I'm gonna do a quick thing I like, and then a quick thing that I hate.
So, a thing that I like, I have to admit, I laughed really hard at this.
So Bernie Sanders apparently was speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, and he stopped by the Muhammad Ali Museum.
Ali, of course, the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time.
And Bernie Sanders decided that he was going to take a turn on the speed bag.
Now, As somebody who exercises frequently, I am not a person who is great with the speed bag in the gym.
You actually have to practice with it.
Bernie Sanders apparently thought that he could get away with this.
It did not go well for him.
You should subscribe just to see this clip.
He's 80 years old, he hits the speed bag, it comes back at him, and it nearly knocks him out.
He nearly gets KO'd by the speed bag.
Which makes sense, because if the speed bag is logic, Then Bernie Sanders getting KO'd.
He hits the logic.
The logic comes right back at him.
And he gets... I mean, the wild overreaction.
Bernie Sanders almost breaking a hip here.
That's some pretty spectacular stuff.
I would say that Bernie Sanders... You know, that is the only thing he is worse at.
Then punching a speed bag, apparently, then jabbing at a speed bag, like an octogenarian, because he is one, is his take on China.
So this transitions into things I hate, but we'll just do it right here.
Here's Bernie Sanders, yesterday, suggesting that China has done a wonderful job alleviating poverty, as though communism and socialism are responsible for that, and not the market capitalism, the free market capitalism, that the Chinese authoritarian regime has taken part in, at least partially, It was that embrace of open markets and free trade that allowed China to raise a billion people from poverty in 30 years.
Because before that, China had a different way of alleviating poverty that was kill 40 million people in the Great Leap Forward.
I think China is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions.
We would have hoped that they would move toward a democratic, more democratic form of government and moving in the opposite direction.
But what we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership.
Because if I'm not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization.
Good for them.
I mean, Bernie Sanders, I do love some communist authoritarianism.
Again, there's only one problem, which is that the reason that poverty was alleviated in China has nothing to do with the communism and everything to do with embracing free trade.
That literally everything to do with opening itself up to different markets, and embracing in capitalist commerce.
That's what dengism was.
It was the emphasis on practicality over communist doctrine.
Now Xi Jinping is trying to reverse a lot of that stuff.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So speaking of the media undercutting its own credibility, there is something deeply amusing about Chris Matthews on MSNBC complaining about the dirtbag politics, dirtball politics, of digging up people's old tweets and using them against them.
I'm pretty sure this is what MSNBC does at the behest of Media Matters on a near daily basis.
Here's Chris Matthews saying it's just terrible.
People digging up stuff on journalists.
What are they going to find about me?
I come in here, my hair all rumpled every morning.
Roll on in here.
Don't even prepare for the show.
Just kind of jabber on about random things.
And what are they going to find?
Remember that time I had to tingle up my leg about Obama?
I hope they don't find what I was doing backstage.
That's weird.
Let's talk about the dirtbag politics of digging up bad stuff on people, which we do daily.
Let's go!
Dirtball politics.
Where do you catch this?
Trump allies are out unleashing dogs on journalists now, pulling together oppo research and compiling dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts, all in an attempt to try to discredit, intimidate, whatever, chill reporters.
He wants their media to stop reporting on him objectively, so they're going out after people's families.
It's exactly what Joe McCarthy did, and we do it also, but it's bad when they do it, and it's really, really good when we do it, because we're speaking truth to power.
This is very reminiscent of when folks on the left decide to redefine racism.
So that racism isn't just bigotry against another racial group.
It is bigotry combined with power.
This allows the left to redefine racism so that if somebody who is black is racist, they're not racist because they don't have power.
So if Ilhan Omar ends up being anti-Semitic, she's not actually a bigot because she doesn't have enough endemic institutional power.
Very much like this.
There's the media saying, very bad when they do it, very good when we do it.
It's pretty spectacular.
If I decide to dig up people's old tweets, that's just something I do over here.
But if you dig up an old tweet about how much I wanted to massage Barack Obama's foot, that's awkward for me.
I don't like it very much.
You're trying to undercut my objective journalism.
Subjective.
Ha!
Yeah, good stuff, media.
We definitely will continue to trust you.
OK, one more quick thing that I hate.
So Beto O'Rourke demonstrating again that if you ask a Democratic question about abortion, things get supremely ugly.
So the fellow who actually asked Beto O'Rourke this question called into our radio show yesterday and told us this story.
Pretty simple question.
Beto blows it like a like a like a marijuana My question is this.
Very, like I do it.
Here's Beto going for it. - My question is this.
I was born September 8th, 1989.
And I wanna know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value. - Of course I don't think that.
And of course I'm glad that you're here.
But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same.
This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making.
That's a decision for the woman to make.
So in other words, I'm glad you're here, but also, if your mom had killed you the day before you were born, well, then I guess you wouldn't be here asking me this awkward question, would you?
That would make my life a lot easier.
By the way, I think what we've all learned from this particular segment is I really need to get up on my drug vernacular because it is not strong.
All right.
We'll be later.
We'll be here later today with two additional hours of content.
Otherwise, 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.
▲
Export Selection