All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
59:49
Kavanaugh II: The Revenge | Ep. 861
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Democrats call for Justice Kavanaugh's impeachment over another vague allegation.
Joe Biden slugs it out with the media over race.
And Iran targets Saudi Arabia.
I'm live from New York.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Oh, yes, we have tons to get to, Tammy.
A lot of news happening over the weekend.
Kavanaugh, the revenge!
We get another round of this routine, because the New York Times is doing amazing journalistic work in uncovering another story about Brett Kavanaugh's penis.
Very, very important stuff.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that there seems to be an awful lot of economic insecurity, and a lot of that economic insecurity is driven by the fact that we don't know what the central banks are going to do.
Sometimes you have the central banks talking about lowering interest rates.
Sometimes you have them talking about increasing interest rates.
And all of that is having an impact on the value of the dollar and the value of other currencies.
One of the ways that you can hedge against central bank manipulation of currency is to actually invest in crypto or blockchain currencies.
Last week, China devalued its currency and markets tanked.
One consequence was that Bitcoin prices rose.
It's time to seriously consider including some crypto in your portfolio.
The best place to trade crypto is eToro.
E-Toro is smart crypto trading made easy.
E-Toro'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 with low and transparent fees.
You can try before you trade with a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget so you can see if this thing is for you.
Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts.
Sign up today at etoro.com slash Shapiro.
That's E-T-O-R-O-dot-com-slash-Shapiro.
I know, Bitcoin sounds scary.
The fact is, all it really is is a blockchain-protected currency that isn't manipulable by central banks.
Go check them out today at etoro.com-slash-Shapiro.
E-T-O-R-O-dot-com-slash-Shapiro.
Okay, so the big story of the day is that the New York Times has a brand new breaking allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, you know, the Supreme Court Justice.
And we just did this, like, a year ago.
A year ago, as you recall, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh was on his way to confirmation on the Supreme Court when suddenly there was an allegation brought forward by Dianne Feinstein, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and it was leaked out and the allegation was from Christine Blasey Ford that Brett Kavanaugh had allegedly held her down and tried to rape her back when he was 17 years old.
There was no collaborative, there was no any sort of evidence.
There was nothing that corroborated.
There was no corroborative evidence.
There was no hard evidence.
She couldn't name the time.
She couldn't name the date.
She couldn't name the place.
It didn't matter.
This turned into a massive, massive story.
And then the media started trying to dig up other allegations of sexual impropriety by Brett Kavanaugh, all from when he was very young.
Now, Brett Kavanaugh is nearing 60s in his mid-50s.
All of this stuff supposedly happened back when he was in high school or at Yale.
None of the allegations were corroborated, none of them were backed up, and none of them provided any material evidence for the allegations.
Well, now the New York Times is back because there's a brand new book out about Brett Kavanaugh.
It's called The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, an Investigation from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, who are reporters with the Times and authors of that book.
Well, they had a piece in the New York Times In their news analysis section.
So not in their news section, because that would actually require some news.
Their news analysis section, which allows them to basically pass off non-news as an op-ed.
And they bring forward a new allegation.
Now the problem is the allegation is exceedingly vague.
Well, let me read you what they have to say in the New York Times.
First of all, this story is framed not in terms of news about another allegation against Brett Kavanaugh.
Instead, it is framed as a story of victimhood about Deborah Ramirez.
Now, you remember Deborah Ramirez.
Deborah Ramirez is the lady who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh supposedly, at some sort of party, waved his penis in her face at Yale.
There's only one problem.
It was originally reported by the New Yorker, by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer.
And the story has not only no corroboration, it has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
There are a bunch of questions about that original story.
For example, in the story itself, it says the New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was even present at the party where Ramirez claimed he was.
The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident.
Many did not respond to interview requests.
Others declined to comment or said they did not attend or remember the party.
The New York Times also could not find a single witness to back up her allegations.
The Times, quote, had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story and could find no one with first-hand knowledge.
In the New Yorker story, Farrell and Mayer provided a quote from one of the main men named by Ramirez as somebody who was apparently there.
One of the male classmates who Ramirez said Egdon Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party.
I don't think Brett would flash himself to Debbie or anyone for that matter.
Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, I have no idea.
A third person Ramirez claims is at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident.
Ramirez apparently contacted her former classmates asking about the incident, and she admitted that she wasn't even sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself.
Ramirez, quote, herself contacted former Yale classmates, asking if they recalled the incident, and told some of them she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
Buried 1,700 words into the original New Yorker piece, the report says, a former friend, who says she was best friends with Ramirez, says Ramirez never mentioned the story.
The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved and who signed the statement said of Ramirez, This is a woman I was best friends with.
We shared intimate details of our lives.
I was never told this story by her or by anyone else.
It never came up.
I didn't see it.
I never heard of it happening.
Ramirez wasn't even sure her memory was corrected.
This was the most damning part of that original New Yorker story.
The outlet reported, quote, in her initial conversations with the New Yorker, Ramirez was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty.
After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said she felt confident enough of her recollections to say she remembers Kavanaugh.
Okay, if you have to take six days to assess your memories and consult with your attorney, I'm gonna say you don't have the requisite level of certainty to make an allegation like that.
I said this at the time, everybody else said this at the time, because of course, that is ridiculous.
Okay, if you're making an allegation that somebody at a party came up to you, exposed themselves, thrust their penis in your face, pretty good shot you're gonna remember who that person was.
Right, but apparently, and Brett Kavanaugh is apparently fairly well known on campus.
But Ramirez wasn't even clear in her own mind, and then she talked with her attorney, and after six days of militating about it, finally she came out with the story.
Okay, so that is all the backdrop to today's report in the New York Times by Pogrebin and Kelly, who are trying to sell this book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.
And again, this thing is painted not as a new revelation about Brett Kavanaugh, it is painted instead as Ramirez, she just was not socially accepted the way that Brett Kavanaugh was.
As though it is some sort of sin to be from an upper-class or upper-middle-class background and go to Yale, as opposed to being from a poorer background and going to Yale.
Last I checked, that was not the allegation against Brett Kavanaugh.
Nor is that a disqualifying allegation for the Supreme Court.
If we ruled out everyone who grew up fairly wealthy in the United States from sitting on a federal court, you can wipe out two-thirds of the federal bench.
So here's what the New York Times story says.
Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983, but she wasn't prepared for what she'd find there.
A top student in southwestern Connecticut, she studied hard but socialized little.
She was raised Catholic and had a sheltered upbringing.
In the summers, she worked at Carvel, dishing ice cream, commuting in the $500 car she'd bought with babysitting earnings.
At Yale, she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds.
First of all, It doesn't sound like she was impoverished, right?
I mean, she apparently was raised in southwestern Connecticut, not known for being the poorest area in America.
She worked at Carvel, dishing ice cream.
She was able to buy a car with babysitting earnings, in any case.
That's not to say that her background is rich, but this doesn't sound like somebody who was growing up in the inner city.
Okay, in any case.
The New York Times says at Yale she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds.
Many were affluent and had attended elite private high schools.
They also had experience with drinking and sexual behavior, and Ms.
Ramirez, who had not intended to be intimate with a man until her wedding night, laughed.
During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply.
She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it.
Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.
To Ramirez, it wasn't funny at all.
It was the nadir of her first year, when she often felt insufficiently rich, experienced, or savvy to mingle with her more privileged classmates.
Okay, so a few things about this.
Number one, she was apparently voluntarily at a drunken dormitory party.
That would not excuse sexual assault in any case.
But if the idea here is that Brett Kavanaugh and his colleagues corrupted Ramirez, I'm not seeing the evidence of that because, again, putting aside the alleged incident, she was at a dormitory party heavily drinking, according to her own admission, before she met Kavanaugh.
So that's not Kavanaugh's fault.
The allegation here is reported with basically no countervailing evidence, right?
She and some classmates have been drinking heavily when she says a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh, etc, etc.
Now, I just pointed out to you all of the problems with her story.
They were originally mentioned at the time.
So there's nothing new in the story so far, but this is now being presented as a case of fact.
I had gone through high school, I'm the good girl, and now in one evening it was all ripped away, she said in an interview earlier this year at her Boulder, Colorado home.
By preying upon her in this way, she added, Mr. Kavanaugh and his friends made it clear, I'm not smart.
Okay, now, again, she took six days to figure out whether it was Kavanaugh.
There's no corroborating witnesses, none, at this apparently well-attended dorm party, where everybody's drunk.
Kavanaugh denies the claims, obviously.
Ms.
Ramirez's story would seem far less damaging to Kavanaugh's reputation than those of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who claimed that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth.
But while we found Dr. Ford's allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms.
Ramirez's story could be more fully corroborated.
At least seven people, including Ms.
Ramirez's mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge.
Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting it was discussed among students at the time.
Okay, but none of those people came forward to the New Yorker to say, indisputably, that Kavanaugh did it, or that she had said that Kavanaugh did it, or who the person was who did this thing.
And then we get to the new allegation.
Okay, that's all the old stuff.
Then we get to the new allegation in the New York Times.
So here's the new allegation.
Quote, Apparently, this is the most well-trafficked Apparently, this is the most well-trafficked penis in the history of Yale.
And not only is Kavanaugh thrusting it in people's faces, according to these allegations, now his friends are apparently grabbing his junk and pushing them into other people's hands.
So, basically, it's a FedEx package at this point.
Mr. Steyer, who runs a non-profit organization in Washington, notified senators and the FBI about this account, but the FBI did not investigate, and Steyer has declined to discuss it publicly.
Well, if he declines to offer any details that are worth investigating, then what the hell is this supposed to mean?
Okay, so the original story does not include the following line.
Okay, the original story said, We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Steyer.
The female student declined to be interviewed.
That is where the sentence originally ended.
Okay, that is where the sentence originally ended.
Then, much later, the New York Times has to come forward with a correction.
And their correction says, quote, Friends say she does not recall the episode.
Now it seems to me that, number one, if you're Ramirez and somebody thrust their penis in your face at a party and it was devastating, you would remember who the person was.
But beyond that, and that somebody else at the party could corroborate it, but beyond that, the female student in this story says she does not remember the incident.
And the New York Times didn't originally include that.
Originally that wasn't in the story.
That's a pretty major revision, right?
The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all.
The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.
That's an amazing update!
Right, the editor's note.
They added an editor's note to this story, which basically destroys the entire story.
It says, an earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party.
The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed, and friends say she does not recall the incident.
That information has been added to the article.
Why was it left out of the article?
Really, I mean, that's a pretty serious point, isn't it?
It was in the book.
It wasn't in the article.
Why wasn't it in the article?
If I say to you, there's an allegation that you murdered someone, and then it also says in the book that the supposed murder victim is walking around Fifth Avenue, That might be relevant.
Leaving out the actual relevant part of the story would be a pretty massive piece of botchery by the New York Times.
It's always very weird.
You know, people would say that there's no media bias.
Why is it that every mistake is in one direction?
Why?
Why is it that every single error is in one direction over at the New York Times?
This is amazing.
In one second, we will see how Democrats reacted to the original allegation.
Because this shows how deeply cynical the original Kavanaugh allegations were and were treated by the Democrats.
I was willing to go back and listen to the tape.
I was willing to give all sorts of credibility to Christina Blasey Ford, and then it turns out she couldn't name where, when, what.
She couldn't name a single person there who could corroborate her story.
And it became clear that she had nothing.
That the story had fallen apart.
That there really was nothing there.
Or at the very least, there was nothing that we could corroborate.
So maybe the story was true, but if we can't corroborate in any way, there is this idea of due process and innocence until proven guilty.
If I allege that you rape puppies in your backyard and offer no supporting details, you should probably take that with a grain of salt.
Okay, now we have Deborah Ramirez, whose story originally was full of holes.
And the New York Times comes forward with this report attempting to shore up the story, not by referring to Ramirez's story, but by referring to a secondary incident, to an unnamed female who says she doesn't remember the incident, as reported by a man who says he reported it to the FBI, but won't talk about it publicly or give any serious details.
How are we supposed to take all that seriously?
How?
And the answer is, you're not supposed to take it seriously.
You're just supposed to go along with the Democratic line that Brett Kavanaugh is actually a rapist and a ritual serial assaulter.
And that if you want him on the Supreme Court, or you believe that there's no evidence to oust him from the Supreme Court, it's because you're a sexist.
If Democrats want to play this game, it did not go well for them the first time.
We can do it again.
But I think this is a pretty botched move.
We'll see in a second how the 2020 Democrats are trying to militarize this particular story.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, You may be walking around right now listening to this show on a pair of earbuds and maybe those earbuds are old-fashioned and they have the wires or they have the stems.
Maybe they cost you too much money and you're looking for a second pair of earbuds that you're not going to lose and that look good and sound good.
Well this is where Raycon wireless earbuds come in.
Raycon earbuds start at about half the price of any other premium wireless earbuds on the market and they sound just as great.
Raycon's E50 wireless earbuds have totally changed the game for me.
They're incredibly comfortable, they're very easy to take anywhere, and unlike some of your other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are both stylish and discreet.
They don't have the dangling wires, they don't have the stems, and of course, they don't just look great, they sound terrific as well.
I love my Raycon wireless wireless earbuds you will too raycon offers their wireless earbuds for everyone in a range of fun colors at an unbeatable price all you have to do head on over to buyraycon.com slash ben to get 15 off your order that's b-u-y-r-a-y-c-o-n.com slash ben for 15 off raycon wireless earbuds if you've been eyeing a pair now would be the time to get an incredible deal go check them out right now at buyraycon.com slash ben That's B-U-Y-R-A-Y-C-O-N dot com slash ben.
Buyraycon.com slash ben.
Use that slash ben and let them know that we sent you and also get 15% off your order.
Okay, so the Democratic candidates jump on this completely Unsupported, uncorroborated, unspecified story.
And they start tweeting about how Justice Kavanaugh should now be impeached from the Supreme Court.
Now, this is all crap.
They're never going to get an impeachment of Kavanaugh.
It's a thing that is not going to happen.
But Democrats are trying to provide the false hope to their constituents that if elected, they will impeach Kavanaugh, replace him with somebody on the left, and fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat.
And they're trying to reshift the majority on the Supreme Court in a left-leaning direction, basically by railroading Kavanaugh on the basis of non-evidence.
I will point out one quick thing here.
We've had a bevy of public figures in recent years who have had their genitalia described on national television by people who allege sexual assault.
Stormy Daniels famously described President Trump's genitalia.
Bill Clinton's genitalia.
Details of such were talked about.
Nobody has yet described Kavanaugh's genitalia.
Now, that's not dispositive.
Maybe they were generic.
Who knows?
But the bottom line is we've had no corroborating details on any of these stories.
All of them apparently happened in public places with other witnesses available, and not one witness has been there who corroborates any of these stories.
It's unbelievable.
And yet the Democrats are still saying that Kavanaugh should be kicked off the Supreme Court based on, what, a new report from a guy who says that he was at a party and saw a male grab Kavanaugh's penis, which, by the way, would be sexual assault, and then thrust it into the hand of a female who says she doesn't remember the incident?
It seems like you might remember that incident.
Just gonna put that out there.
But if you're a female innocently sitting at a party, and suddenly some dude comes and takes someone else's junk and thrusts it into your hand, it feels like that might be memorable.
I'm gonna go to the woman in the room.
Jess, does that seem like a memorable incident to you?
It seems like a memorable incident to Jess.
I will take Jess as generic woman here, because I think that that is a fairly memorable incident.
I think any normal person would probably remember that, and if called by the New York Times, oh, were you at a party where someone grabbed somebody's junk and thrust it into your hand?
Seems like it might be memorable.
And the New York Times cutting that and then replacing that back into the story is really insane.
Okay, so Kamala Harris, of course, immediately tweets out that it's time for Kavanaugh to go.
It's time for Kavanaugh to go.
By the way, Steyer, the chief executive of a nonpartisan group in Washington, declined to comment on Sunday.
But this did not stop the Democrats.
So the Democrats started tweeting out immediately.
Kamala Harris says, Yeah, you sat through those hearings.
I remember you tried to railroad him in those hearings.
In fact, you brought up Michael Avenatti's allegations that he was engaged in a chain gang rape, as I recall.
Yeah, you sat through those hearings.
I remember you tried to railroad him in those hearings.
In fact, you brought up Michael Avenatti's allegations that he was engaged in a chain gang rape, as I recall.
So, lady, as a prosecutor, as a duly appointed officer of the court, seems to me you don't know how to lawyer.
There are a lot of allegations that she has been pretty rough in prosecution.
At least the people she puts in jail have a jury trial.
My God.
I mean, she's out there saying that he lied.
What is her evidence that he lied?
Does she have any evidence that he lied?
Of course not.
All of this is about pandering to the base.
All of it is about, if I show sufficient zealousness in pursuit of Brett Kavanaugh, then I'll win a primary.
It's really disgusting.
Elizabeth Warren did the same thing.
And Elizabeth Warren knows better.
She's a lawyer, too.
She, of course, knows better.
But again, Elizabeth Warren is deeply cynical.
In the same way that Kamala Harris is deeply cynical, Warren's just better at it.
Kamala Harris is so cynical that you can see the wheels turning in her mind.
Catherine Hepburn once described Meryl Streep as an actress where you could actually see every wheel turning, that she was transparent, you could see all the gear shifting in her mind when she was acting a scene.
Well, that is the same way with Kamala Harris.
Elizabeth Warren is better at hiding it, but she is the same way.
She has shifted nearly every position she ever held in order to appeal to the woke base of the Democratic Party.
Well, now she's doing the same routine.
She says, Last year, the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him.
Well, there was an FBI background check.
And by thorough examination of the allegations against him, do you mean, like, a crapload of investigation by the Senate and no corroborating evidence on any of the massive allegations made against him?
Like, none?
Warren says, confirmation is not exoneration.
And these newest revelations are disturbing.
I love the reversal of the burden of proof right there.
Confirmation is not exoneration.
It's not your job to exonerate Kavanaugh.
It's your job to prove, not even beyond a reasonable doubt, how about by preponderance of the evidence?
Hell, how about by any corroborative evidence that Kavanaugh did this stuff?
How about that?
How about any shred of evidence beyond just a mere allegation?
Because a mere allegation ain't enough to get anything done.
Warren says, like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.
Ooh, so Trump should be impeached too.
See, now we have a bidding war on impeachment.
So apparently Kavanaugh should be impeached, and then Trump should be impeached, and then Pence should be impeached.
And they should probably just impeach every- like Mitch McConnell, let's go for him for good measure.
But you'd have a bidding war.
Bernie's gonna be like, we impeach everybody!
Everybody should be impeached except for me, I will remain.
I mean, this is pretty sick stuff.
Beto O'Rourke does the same thing.
Smokes up a dude and he's like, brah, yesterday we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh.
One we didn't find out about before he was confirmed.
Because the Senate forced the FBI, brah, to rush its investigation to save his nomination.
We know he lied under oath.
He should be impeached.
No, you don't know he lied under oath.
You can provide no evidence that he lied under oath, actually.
I love Beto O'Rourke, a man who literally crossed a median barrier while driving under the influence and hit another car and then drove away from the scene all over Brett Kavanaugh because one guy made an allegation he won't even talk to the New York Times about.
Julian Castro joined the club.
He said, it's more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath.
He should be impeached.
Really?
Again, where's the evidence of this?
Any evidence?
He's saying Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter.
On the basis of what?
The New York Times corrected its own story to suggest that the alleged victim in this case does not recall the incident.
That there is no evidence that she even recalls the incident.
That this is based on one uncorroborated allegation by a dude at a party.
And there are lots of other people at the party.
And there's a victim.
And the victim says she doesn't remember it.
I mean, we went through all of this at the time, so the only new allegation here is the Max Steyer allegation.
And that Max Steyer allegation actually includes a case of sexual assault, not against Kavanaugh, but against the guy who grabbed his junk.
As John McCormick points out at National Review, he says, can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here?
Was Kavanaugh allegedly walking around naked when his friends pushed him into the female student?
He says, no, if I'm reading Pogromin and Kelly right, the friends didn't push Kavanaugh on the back, rather, the friends pushed his penis.
He says, what?
How did that happen?
Who are the friends?
Who's the female student?
Were there any witnesses besides Steyer?
He says, all that the authors write in the New York Times essay about the corroborating, Is this, Mr. Steyer notified senators and the FBI about the accounts, but the FBI didn't investigate and Steyer has declined to discuss publicly.
So they corroborated the fact that Steyer made the allegation to the FBI, but they gave no indication that they corroborated any details of the incident.
Molly Hemingway, who's written her own book about the railroading of Justice Kavanaugh, she wrote on Twitter, the book notes quietly that the woman Max Steyer named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event.
As McCormick says, omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory.
He says, even if you take this accusation at face value, it doesn't appear to be an allegation of assault against Kavanaugh.
If somebody grabs you and throws you into somebody else, you are not actually the assaulter.
The person who grabbed you and threw you into somebody else would be the person guilty of assault.
The same thing would be true here.
As McCormick says, as I wrote last October, here's why Ramirez's allegation was dubious.
Deborah Ramirez is the Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's who now claims Kavanaugh exposed himself as a college freshman at a party.
Her claim is already dubious because named witnesses deny the allegation and Ramirez herself wasn't sure in recent weeks if Kavanaugh had done what she now alleges.
It doesn't matter.
All that matters is that the Democrats are calling for Kavanaugh to be impeached, which is really about... it's a bunch of nonsense.
Now, President Trump has responded to the allegations, and he is dead right on all of this.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about going to the post office.
Now, I'll be honest with you.
I kind of like the post office, but I'll tell you what I don't like.
Spending a lot of time in line, having to schlep all my stuff down to the post office, it's a pain in the butt.
So instead, I save time and I save money by using stamps.com.
Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
Postal Office directly to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, stamps.com can handle it all.
With ease, you can simply use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or you drop it in a mailbox.
It is indeed that simple.
Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
It saves you time, it saves you money.
It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
Go check out stamps.com right now, especially because, you know, you used to have to go to the grocery store to get your stamps, or go down to the post office.
No longer.
Stamps.com saves you both money, because the stamps are actually, you get deals on the stamps.
Also, it saves you all sorts of time.
Right now, my listeners get a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
No long-term commitment.
Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in Shapiro.
That is stamps.com.
Enter Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so.
Trump has responded to these ridiculous allegations against Kavanaugh.
He tweeted out, Now the radical left Democrats and their partner, the lamestream media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment.
He's an innocent man who has been treated horribly.
Such lies about him, they want to scare him into turning liberal.
Which, by the way, is not wholly untrue.
Okay, the fact is that one of the things that the media love to do is grant strange new respect to people who suddenly begin interpreting the law according to their favorite designs.
John Roberts has been the recipient of strange new respect in the past.
You've seen other Republican justices, Republican appointed justices, Justice Stevens, for example, Justice Kennedy, who are also hit with the strange new respect.
Trump says Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue.
Now, I'm not sure how the Justice Department will come to his rescue.
Politicizing the Justice Department by having him investigate the people making the allegations.
I'm not sure how that's a federal crime.
He says the lies being told about him are unbelievable.
That is true.
He says false accusations without recrimination.
When does it stop?
They're trying to influence his opinions.
Can't let that happen.
Now again, that's not really what they're trying to do.
It really is not about influencing Kavanaugh to do their bidding.
It really mostly is about making the false promise to their voters that they are going to be able to get rid of Kavanaugh and then replace him with a leftist.
Majority leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate wrote that the far left's willingness to seize on completely uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegations during last year's confirmation process was a dark and embarrassing chapter for the Senate.
Of course, all the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, as I mentioned, are now calling for his impeachment despite the fact that there really is no evidence that any of this is true.
Mike Davis, who was chief counsel for Senator Charles Grassley during the Kavanaugh nomination process, said that, to the best of his knowledge, Grassley's office had no record of the allegation.
He says, even if we did receive an allegation from Mr. Steyer, as described by the New York Times reporting, it is difficult to see how this unsubstantiated hearsay, quote-unquote, corroborated by anonymous sources, involving an alleged victim, who other unnamed sources said does not even remember the event, would have changed the outcome of the confirmation vote.
All of this is ridiculous, and all of it is politically driven.
But if Democrats want to play this game, then I guess that they can play this game.
Now, it's interesting.
One of the Democrats who did not go here was Joe Biden.
And this is because Joe Biden is smart enough to recognize that this dog won't hunt in a general election.
Joe Biden seems to be the only Democrat who seems at all to care about the general election.
He seems like the only person in the Democratic Party who is even considering what the general election means.
All the other Democrats are so busy trying to pander to the far left of the party that they are willing to put out their uncorroborated allegations to target people without any evidence that something was done wrong.
It's pretty insane.
And for that trouble, Biden is being ripped, of course.
So Biden's great sin in the last debate was apparently that he didn't answer a question about the legacy of slavery properly.
Instead, he rambled about record players and education, and it was real weird.
Remember that last week he had made some suggestions about how education, because poorer kids don't hear as many words per day, they need to have record players played to them or something.
It was very, very odd.
And people pointed this out.
And the media have gone after him for all of this.
The media do not want to see Joe Biden as the nominee because they feel that he is not radical enough.
Members of the media are not interested in Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is, even though he is pretty radical on policy, he's too moderate for them.
They want to see a true visionary.
They want to see Kamala Harris, a racial visionary.
Or they want to see Elizabeth Warren, a visionary, a socialistic, progressive visionary, or Bernie Sanders.
They don't want anything as boring as a Biden-Trump race.
That's not what they want.
So instead, they're going to attack Biden on the racial issue.
This dog is not gonna hunt, and I'll explain why in a second, but there's no question this is where the media are going.
An entire CNN panel on Sunday was devoted to the idea that Joe Biden comes from the era of racist paternalism, that somehow it's paternalistic to point out that children of single mothers who are disproportionately minority might need some help in the home.
And that's not a race-based thing.
You only have one parent there, and that does have a pretty significant impact on the education of a child.
But apparently this is now racist paternalism, according to a CNN panel.
It seems to me that he constantly makes these gaps which are out of touch with where we are today because he comes from an era of this like racist paternalism in public policy making of how we have looked at dealing with the issues that the black community faces which frankly come from racist public policy making.
OK, so I'm sorry, but not having fathers in the home does not come from racist public policymaking.
It does not.
That is just silly.
OK, it's silly at this point in time.
It did start with that when it came to slavery, when you were forcibly separating families.
But the fact is that more children are now born out of wedlock in the United States in the black community than were born out of wedlock during slavery in the black community.
That is not a result of slavery.
Because you can see the single motherhood levels declining in the black community dramatically all the way up to the 1950s when only 20% of kids born in black families were born to single mothers.
Now that number is more like 70%.
Is that the result of racist policymaking?
If so, that's a result of welfare.
The best case to be made for the increase in single motherhood in both the black and white community is that when the government comes in and pays you benefits in order not to have a father in the home, that is going to make it easier for you not to have a father in the home.
But apparently, if Joe Biden points out that there are significant downsides to single motherhood, and that is true cross-culturally, then this makes him a racist.
There's an article in the Washington Post to this effect today, saying no record players won't solve inequality.
There's an article by Mikhal Raz, who is the professor in public policy at the University of Rochester, suggesting that Joe Biden is in fact racist and paternalistic because if he points out an education gap in particular racial communities, then this is in and of itself racist.
She says the mention of the word gap in response to a question about centuries of American racism reveals a broader problem.
While Biden mentioned redlining and other racist practices at the beginning of his answer, he ends it with the word gap, itself a paternalistic racist idea.
Well, no, a gap is a statistical anomaly.
A gap is a statistical reality.
That's ridiculous.
If you mention the word gap between two groups of people because there is an actual statistical gap, that is not racism.
But the woke left is going to try and portray Joe Biden as a racist for talking about certain realities on the ground.
As we will see, this has become a talking point in the Democratic Party.
They ain't going to go anywhere, and I'll explain why in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you get the word out about yourself.
When you go to a party, And somebody asks you for a business card.
Are you pulling out, like, something that you made over at Kinko's in, like, 1997, and it's on cheap paper, and it's printed in Helvetica font or something?
What you really need is a nice-looking business card.
It really does make a difference.
I get handed a lot of business cards, and the ones that tend to make it to my assistants' Rolodex are the ones that people have spent time on, they've spent money on, or the ones that look the nicest.
Here's the nice thing.
If you go to Vistaprint, you can get the ones that look like you spent time and money on them, and you don't have to spend a fortune.
Your next big opportunity is coming right now.
All it takes to feel like you're ready to own the now is $10.
For just $10, Vistaprint gives you 500 personalized cards with exactly the look that you want.
That's a low price to make a lasting impression.
And because you can choose the colors and the fonts and the designs and the images, you can create something as unique and compelling as your business.
You can feel good, by the way, also knowing that Vistaprint uses carefully selected inks, responsibly sourced paper stocks as well, and your satisfaction is 100% guaranteed.
Or your money back.
They'll make it right.
So, I mean, that's a pretty solid deal.
Vistaprint wants you to be able to own the now in any situation, which is why our listeners will get free shipping on all business cards, any style, any quantity.
Just go to vistaprint.com.
Enter promo code SHAPIRO2 for free shipping on all business cards, any style, any quantity.
Limited time offer.
Own the now at vistaprint.com.
Promo code SHAPIRO2.
That is promo code SHAPIRO followed by the number 2.
You support our show when you support our sponsors.
Go check us out.
Okay, in just one second, we're going to get to the continued Democratic attack on Joe Biden as some sort of racial retrograde.
We'll get to that in one second.
It's not real, but this is the line that's being pushed.
First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live.
You get the rest of Andrew Clavin's show, you get the rest of Matt Walsh's show, you get the rest of Michael Moll's show, if that's something that you want.
You also get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, when you get the annual subscription.
Ooh, look at this thing.
You could have, like, we actually deactivated the cloaking device just so you could see it today, because we're on the road and normally we cloak it for safety.
But today, since we're in New York at one of our beautiful radio studios, you can check us out over at dailywire.com and get one of these.
I mean, look at this baby.
It's fantastic.
Go check that out right now.
Also, when you subscribe, you are also ensuring that we can bring you the content that you know and love.
The fact is that the left wants to silence opposing voices, as you see with Brett Kavanaugh, and they will go after everyone and anyone, which is why you should go subscribe right now.
We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So as I say, the rap on Joe Biden is twofold now.
One is that he is an old-style racist who's just covering it up.
And the other is that he's really old.
We'll get to the old thing in one second.
But the old-style racist thing, Pete Buttigieg tried to say this yesterday.
Woke Pete Buttigieg, who's been having some pretty significant racial problems in his hometown of South Bend, Indiana, where he's mayor.
He was on CNN, and he suggests Biden gave a really bad answer on the legacy of slavery.
So now, the way that you're going to become the Democratic presidential nominee is we are going to have you recite from memory portions of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a garbage piece of crap book.
And if you do it properly, like Beto O'Rourke, then we all cheer like seals.
Oh, it's so exciting.
So Pete Buttigieg did his reading last night from Howard Zinn, and now he's very angry at Joe Biden.
It was a well-intentioned answer and it was a bad answer.
The reason that we are seeing racial inequity in this country is that it was put into place on purpose.
And I'm not just talking about slavery beginning 400 years ago.
I'm talking about policy decisions that happened within living memory that excluded black Americans from everything from fully being able to access the GI Bill to labor protections.
These have consequences.
Okay, so again, this is going to be the claim.
The claim is going to be that Joe Biden is insufficiently woke on race.
There's only one problem.
He was Barack Obama's VP for eight years, and that goes a long way.
Joe Biden gave a big speech in Birmingham, Alabama at a church that was formerly bombed during the civil rights struggle.
And here was Biden talking about racism and talking about slavery and talking about Barack Obama.
We must acknowledge that there can be no realization of the American dream without grappling with the original sin of slavery.
We have not relegated racism and white supremacy to the pages of history.
But the greatness of this nation has always been, and must continue to be, that we still strive to relegate it.
Okay, so that line, by the way, is a great line.
Like, I actually agree with Joe Biden.
There's a gap that is breaking out in the Democratic Party between Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party.
One is the version of history that Beto O'Rourke is pushing.
America was founded in slavery.
America's real founding wasn't 1776, it was 1619.
And this is the version cheered on by the New York Times and CNN.
And then there's the version that was actually pushed by Barack Obama.
Right?
It actually was.
Yeah, I think that Barack Obama was terrible on a lot of issues, but he never really suggested that America's foundational principles were rooted in slavery, right?
His line typically was a lot more along the lines of what Joe Biden is saying, which is that, yes, America has this dark side, right?
There's the other half of the coin, but America has been striving to get rid of that for years.
I will say that I think Obama's straight into Howard Zinn territory a fair bit too often, saying that racism was written into the American DNA and all this kind of stuff.
But Joe Biden's line here is more appealing to a mass audience.
And let's be real about this.
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, these are all very, very white candidates.
And even when Kamala Harris tried a racial attack, it turns out that didn't work for her.
Cory Booker's been trying it.
It's not working.
Why?
Because Joe Biden was Barack Obama's vice president.
So I think that this is unlikely to work on Joe Biden.
Even the attempts to get Joe Biden, like there was an attempt to get Joe Biden yesterday because he told a story about facing down a razor-wielding gang leader named Corn Pop.
And it was all, it was very weird.
It was very weird.
But it turns out that a leader of the NAACP was there and actually says that this story is true.
Here's Joe Biden telling a very weird leader, a very weird story about how he was once in a real-life production of West Side Story.
And Corn Pop was a bad dude.
And he ran a bunch of bad boys.
And I did.
And back in those days, you see how things have changed?
One of the things you had to use, if you used pomade in your hair, you had to wear a bathing cap.
And so he was up on the board, wouldn't listen to me.
I said, hey, Esther, you, off the board, or I'll come up and drag you off.
Well, he came off, and he said, I'll meet you outside.
He said, I'll be waiting for you.
He was waiting for three guys in straight razors.
Not a joke.
Okay, and then he continues to tell this story.
People were all over him for this.
A leader of the NAACP said it was true.
Again, I think that the racial attack on Joe Biden is unlikely to work.
So, that moves the Democrats to their secondary attack.
And the secondary attack is, Joe Biden is really old.
So Pete Buttigieg, who is just smarmy beyond belief, he was asked about Biden's fitness for office on ABC News, as though he's actually relevant.
And Buttigieg dodged the question, of course.
You jumped on one of the contenders, Julian Castro, after he made that inaccurate suggestion that Vice President Biden didn't remember what he was saying at the debate.
But it did raise all these questions again about Vice President Biden's age and fitness for office.
Do you share that concern?
I think that's for the voters to decide.
Look, each one of us is competing based on our abilities and based on our vision.
And I think the candidate who has the best abilities and vision is going to prevail.
I think we can lay out the differences without hitting below the belt.
Okay, except that you refuse to answer the question.
What you could just say is, I think Joe Biden's with it.
If he's the nominee, I'll back him.
I just don't think he's the best candidate at this time, right?
But the booty judge isn't going to go there.
Again, I think that this attack is probably going to fall flat.
It is all baked into the cake at this point.
Plus, Joe Biden is a feisty oldster.
I mean, that is true.
I mean, he does fall asleep randomly on the street and he drools sometimes.
And, you know, he likes that early bird dinner at Denny's, but if you ask him certain questions, then he gets kind of feisty.
A reporter asked him about being too old and he threatened to wrestle him yesterday.
Are you releasing your medical records to address concerns?
Yes.
I don't have what the hell concerns, man.
You want to wrestle?
When will you release them, sir?
Well, when I get the next physical.
Look, I'll release my... Before there's a first vote, I'll release my medical records.
There's no reason for me not to release my medical records.
Okay, so again, I don't think that, yes, he's old, yes, he's stammering.
I don't think that any of this is fatal to his candidacy.
Now, we'll see what the poll results have to say about the results from last week's debate, but the other Democrats are increasing, they're very weak, and I think that the attacks on Biden are particularly weak.
I thought that Elizabeth Warren was going to rise above the crowd.
That has not happened thus far.
Okay, now, in other news over the weekend, non-presidential news over the weekend, There was a massive attack on a Saudi oil facility by allegedly Iran.
Now, the reason I say allegedly Iran is because Iran denies it, but in reality there's no other force in the region capable of carrying out this attack.
The attack was done by drones apparently provided by Iran to the Houthis in Yemen, who are the Iranian-backed Rebel group in Yemen.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran for coordinated strikes on the heart of Saudi Arabia's oil industry, saying they marked an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply.
The strikes actually shut down half of the kingdom's crude production on Saturday, potentially roiling petroleum prices and demonstrating the power of Iran's proxies.
Iran-allied Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen claimed credit for the attack, saying they sent 10 drones to strike at important facilities in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern province.
Pompeo said that there was actually no evidence the strikes had come from Yemen.
He says they came directly from Iran.
He said the United States will work with allies to ensure that energy markets remain well-supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression.
He added that the strikes showed Iran was not serious about diplomacy.
Which is a major shift in tone and tenor because there was a lot of rumor mongering that President Trump was going to meet directly with the Iranian proxy president Hassan Rouhani in person without preconditions.
Trump has now backed off of that.
Trump has now tweeted out that it was always fake news that he was ever going to meet with Hassan Rouhani, which it was not.
Okay, Mike Pompeo was on national TV talking about how Trump might meet with Rouhani without preconditions.
And there's a lot of concern in some quarters, including my quarter, that the ouster of John Bolton amounted to President Trump preparing to make concessions to the Iranians.
I would not be surprised in the slightest if the Iranians saw Bolton's ouster as an excuse for them to engage in an act of violence like this.
to try to intimidate the Europeans into caving.
It is exactly the same behavior that you've seen from the North Koreans for years, is when they seek to extract a concession from the West.
They fire off a bunch of missiles.
They do a bunch of nuclear tests.
And then they say, you know, we won't do any of that if you give us money.
Iran might be trying the same thing here.
Also, they are artificially raising the price of oil, apparently so that their limited supply can bring more on the open market.
They also attacked a tanker over the weekend in the Straits of Hormuz again.
The production shutdown amounts to a loss of about 5.7 million barrels a day, the Kingdom's national oil company said, which is roughly 5% of the world's daily production of crude oil, which is pretty significant.
Officials said they hoped to restore production to its regular level of 9.8 million barrels a day by Monday.
The energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, said lost production would be offset through supplies of oil already on hand, so he pledged that there wouldn't be a dramatic spike in the price of oil.
The Wall Street Journal says the strikes mark the latest in a series of attacks on the country's petroleum assets in recent months, as tensions rise among Iran and its proxies like the Houthis and the U.S.
partners like Saudi Arabia.
The attacks could drive up oil prices if the Saudis can't turn on their production quickly enough.
Trump called Saudi Arabia's day-to-day ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, on Saturday.
He said the U.S.
was ready to cooperate with the kingdom in supporting its security and stability.
And of course, as I say, the attacks happened a few days before world leaders are set to gather in New York for the UN General Assembly.
The Iranians presumably will attempt to claim that it is Trump's pressure and exit from the Iran deal that have provoked all of this.
Naturally, the left in American foreign policy will agree with that, because always blame America first.
You always got to make it about America being the agent provocateur in the Middle East, despite the fact that Iran has been engaged in widespread terror campaigns for at least the last four decades.
Saturday's attack was the largest yet claimed by the Houthis in terms of its overall impact on the Saudi economy.
Fabian Hinz is an arms researcher at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California.
He said the attack has been quite surprising.
He says we've seen quite a few drone and missile attacks against Saudi infrastructure.
In most cases, the actual damage has been quite minimal.
Even before Pompeo tweeted about it, analysts cautioned against accepting the Houthi claim that they are the ones who did it, as opposed to the Iranians directly.
Iran of course is denying and then they say they're ready for war with the United States.
So it's an intimidation tactic is what this most looks like.
An intimidation tactic by Iran in an attempt to extract concessions from Europe and the United States to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States with regard to Iran.
If by the way this does create that effect, If what you see here is the Europeans siding with the Iranians, it just shows the cowardice of the Europeans, because it's perfectly obvious what the Iranians are doing here.
Do you really trust a country that is bombing Saudi oil facilities to keep its commitments if we just sign them some cash?
Or do you think that probably they're going to keep funding all of the groups they were funding before, except in elevated fashion?
According to the Wall Street Journal, this is the big one.
They call this the big one.
They say the technical sophistication and audacity of Saturday's attack will linger over the energy market Well, the truth is that this could have some pretty significant impact on world markets generally and how we allocate resources to protect those markets.
And yes, we are still dependent enough on oil that we should be protecting against Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia just the way that we protected against Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and attempting to invade Saudi Arabia back in the first Gulf War.
The limited goal of protecting America's oil supply, that does have a massive impact on the global economy and allowing Iran concessions.
So that Iran can go forward and participate in terror is an insane, insane policy.
Again, I think that what you're seeing is the Trump administration come around to that.
Iran, ironically, actually just cut in favor of John Bolton's position with their increased violence.
There's one thing that Trump doesn't like, and that's being pushed into a corner.
Nobody pushes baby into a corner.
President Trump is not interested in being pushed around by the Iranians.
Their best move here would have been to keep quiet, just the way that the North Koreans were keeping quiet for a while, and then try to engage in personal diplomacy with President Trump.
But apparently they needed cover with their own people for any sort of meeting.
There are a lot of analysts today who are suggesting that basically Iran engaged in these acts of violence so that they can then engage in negotiations while telling their domestic audience that they are standing up to the United States.
But there's one problem.
Trump ain't gonna sit down if you're punching him in the face at the same time.
President Trump does not like being humiliated on the public stage, and he sees this as an attack on his prestige and on his willingness to take a strong stand.
So this is a pretty major mistake, I think, by the Iranians.
Meanwhile, over in Israel, it is 48 hours to the Israeli election.
The media are doing their damnedest to get rid of Benjamin Netanyahu.
They are trying to claim that Netanyahu is a fascist.
He is not.
He's been elected a bajillion times.
He is not in any way encroached on democracy in the state of Israel.
The media continue to operate fully and freely and openly.
There's a long article, a terrible article, in the Washington Post today suggesting that Israel is part of the decline of liberal order, which is insane.
Israel is the only liberal country in the Middle East.
The contention is that because Israel is trying to navigate the world of international politics by making friends with illiberal states like Saudi Arabia and Hungary, that somehow this amounts to Netanyahu giving in to fascism.
Well, why don't you provide him an alternative by, let's say, France not being anti-semitic or Germany not being anti-semitic or Britain not making way for Jeremy Corbyn?
You know it's a really easy way for Israel to be more pro-France, for France to be more pro-Israel.
It turns out that Israel has a pretty Obvious agenda here, and that's its own survival.
But apparently, according to the media, that's out of bounds.
They're going to be very surprised, honestly.
The media are going to be super surprised if Blue and White, which is the rival party to Netanyahu in Israel, if Blue and White is elected, and they somehow form a coalition, which looks doubtful in the lead-up to this election.
It looks like, by latest polling, Netanyahu still has enough for a coalition, which is unbelievable.
The guy's an incredible poli- Just on a political level, you have to admire the guy.
With that said, if blue and white were to take over, Kachov Levan, what you would see is actually them mirroring Netanyahu's exact foreign policy.
That foreign policy is not changing.
Why?
Because the on-the-ground conditions have not changed.
In fact, you know who supports the idea of extending Israeli sovereignty over some of the Jordan Valley?
Kachov Levan.
The exact party that the left is trying to uphold.
Now you want to know why the left really opposes Netanyahu?
The hard left?
Because Netanyahu's just a proxy for Israel, that's it.
And if Blue and White were to take over, they would feel the same way.
Because any party in Israel that refuses to make concessions to terrorists will be seen as the problem.
The person who makes this clearest, of course, is brutal anti-Semite Ilhan Omar, who can't go more than 35 seconds without shouting about the Jews while she was on Face the Nation, because we have to pretend she's a legitimate political figure, unlike Steve King, who is not a legitimate political figure.
Ilhan Omar, who is a bigot, is on Face the Nation talking about her wonderful grand plans for the country.
When she talked on Face the Nation about Netanyahu, she said Netanyahu's existence, his existence, was a threat to peace.
You know, not Hamas, a terrorist group that fires missiles into the center of Israel.
Not Hezbollah, a terrorist group that fires rockets into northern Israel.
Not Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group that is part of a coalition government.
Not the Palestinian Authority, which pays the families of terrorists.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the duly elected leader of Israel, his existence, his very breathing is a threat to Middle Eastern peace according to rabid anti-Semidel Hanomar.
Do you stand by your call for a boycott of Israel?
I certainly hope that the people of Israel make a different decision.
And my hope is that they recognize that his existence, his policies, his rhetoric really is contradictory to the peace that we are all hoping that that region receives and receives soon.
Okay, so that would be a yes.
I'm continuing to call for Israel's boycott.
Does anyone truly think that Omar is suddenly going to call off her desire for a boycott if Netanyahu is no longer Prime Minister?
What absolute garbage.
What absolute nonsense.
Netanyahu, again, is great at domestic politics.
I love when there's international scrutiny on domestic political infighting in a full-on democracy.
It's always very entertaining to me.
There's never any sort of scrutiny on, you know, the actual ruling coalition in the Palestinian Authority.
Mahmoud Abbas is currently in the, let's see, 13th year of a four-year term?
Have you seen any scrutiny about that at all?
There's a story today about the Turkish government claiming that Israel's an apartheid state.
Oh, you mean the radical dictatorship in Turkey that supports Hamas?
The media's coverage of Israel is always wild and insane and biased.
The fact is, there is wide consensus in Israeli society on foreign policy, and I think the world will be shocked to learn that that consensus is not driven, in fact, by Bibi Netanyahu and his cruel, cruel view of the world.
It's driven by actual circumstance, namely, that the supposed partners in peace over there are actual terrorists.
Okay, coming up, we'll do a quick thing I like, and then we'll do some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
So my boy, Andrew Yang, I thought said something that was quite classy.
Over the weekend.
So Andrew Yang was asked about this guy who is on SNL.
And this person on SNL, apparently in some old tape, he used some racial slurs about Asians.
And he suggested that he made some racist jokes about the Chinese.
According to the New York Times, he made racist remarks mocking Chinese people, used a racial slur in a podcast episode last year.
He then apologized on Twitter for it.
Apparently, the conversation began with a discussion about Chinatown.
And Gillis said, I'd like to go down there and be like, what are you guys doing here?
Get those ducks out of that window.
And then later, Gillis mocked a Chinese boy who he described as practicing his English, said we had to move tables.
It was so annoying.
That's more annoying than any other minority playing music at a restaurant loud on their phone.
And then he said, nice racism, like walking it back and making a joke about his own racial joke.
OK, so then he apologized for it.
And everyone went nuts.
Should he be fired?
Should he lose his job?
Because no one has ever told a racially-tins joke in comedy.
No one's ever done anything like that.
You mean professional comedians tell racially-tins jokes?
By the way, Dave Chappelle's getting all sorts of flack for his latest comedy special because of his words on woke social justice warriors.
Half of the special is about how he doesn't care about white people dying on streets of heroin overdoses, okay?
So people are making comedy jokes about race all the time.
As he's on Sari's special, he does the same thing.
So racial jokes are only okay when they're directed one way, apparently.
But this is why, again, I think Andrew Yang may be the only, like, nice person running for president of the United States, so I call him my boy, Andrew Yang, who came on my Sunday special and actually is a nice person whom I have met and is a human being.
So he was asked about this by Jake Tapper, and he said, you know what we could use in this society?
Maybe, like, a little forgiveness.
There's been a number of reactions to my call for forgiving Shane Gillis, and I've experienced a lot of anti-Asian racism throughout my upbringing, and it hurts.
But at the same time, bigger picture, I believe that our country has become excessively punitive and vindictive about remarks that people find offensive or racist, and that we need to try and move beyond that if we can, particularly in a case where the person You know, is in this case, to me, like a comedian whose words should be taken in a slightly different light.
Wouldn't you rather live in Andrew Yang's world than live in the woke, scold world where somebody uncovers a comment from 15 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, and you've changed, and you've apologized since it?
I mean, really, good for Andrew Yang.
Good for Andrew Yang.
I know that's unpopular among members of the social Democrat base, the same people who say that Joe Biden's a vicious racist, but good for Andrew Yang.
That is a good thing.
We need more of that in our society, and frankly, more of that from both sides of the aisle.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So last week, you'll recall, there was a big controversy that broke out over an ad that ran during the Democratic debate in particular markets.
It was an ad from a group, this company's called New Minority Pack, and it was an ad directed against socialism by a Cambodian woman.
And the ad looked something like this, sounded something like this.
This is the face of socialism and ignorance.
Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know the horror of socialism?
My father was minutes from death in Cambodia before a forced marriage saved his life.
That's socialism.
Forced obedience?
Starvation.
Mine is a face of freedom.
My skin is not white.
The lady's name is Elizabeth Heng.
And the name of the group is New GOP Faces Super PAC.
That lady's name, Elizabeth Heng.
And she got all sorts of flack for this.
Now again, it's a very hard-hitting ad.
I'm not sure I love the image of AOC's face being burned away, but it really is not about violence against AOC, the ad.
The ad is about how she doesn't understand socialism.
So the media, of course, took this to mean that this was calling AOC Pol Pot.
No, this is not calling AOC Pol Pot.
This is saying, I mean, the ad literally says she doesn't understand the effects of actual Marxist socialism.
So Chris Cuomo, who is a block of wood on CNN, Yeah, we're not allowed to call him Fredo, so we won't call him Fredo.
We will never ever call him Fredo.
It's a racial slur apparently for Italians, which Chris Cuomo discovered like three weeks ago, but we will never ever call him Fredo.
So here's Chris, here's not Fredo, who is talking on CNN with Elizabeth Hang, explaining that Pol Pot's regime wasn't about socialism, which is really interesting because it was totally about socialism.
You are so well educated, you know that you can talk about socialism any way you want.
Pol Pot was a brutal autocrat and dictator.
That wasn't about socialism.
That was about him being an evil human being.
You can go to Scandinavia or Denmark and see socialism.
They're not killing people.
No, that is, no, nope, no, nope, nope, nope.
If you go to Denmark or you go to Scandinavia, what you're actually not seeing is socialism.
You're seeing a social safety net based on a capitalist economy in which free market economics works and most ownership of goods and services is in private hands.
If you want to look at full-scale government top-down socialism, it does look like Pol Pot.
Every time it's tried.
If you're talking about full government nationalization of resources, it looks like Cuba, it looks like Venezuela, it looks like the USSR, it looks like Pol Pot.
Now, you can make the argument that AOC isn't for full-scale government nationalization of these industries.
The problem is that she keeps saying she's for nationalization of all industries.
There's a very famous joke about Winston Churchill talking to Clement Attlee, and the two of them are going to the urinal together, and Clement Attlee looks over, and Churchill sort of shies away, and Clement Attlee says, what, are we embarrassed, Winston?
And Winston looks back and says, no, Clement, it's just that every time you see something large, you want to nationalize it.
Well, that is the view of AOC when it comes to major American industries.
Chris Cuomo suggesting that Pol Pot has nothing to do with socialism is absurd.
It's absurd.
I mean, it's like saying that Hitler's Nazism had nothing to do with big government, it was actually a libertarian movement.
That is absolute sheer nonsense.
And then Chris Cuomo does super big journalisming.
It's journalisming time for Chris Cuomo.
Here's Chris Cuomo explaining that it's not just that Pol Pot isn't a socialist, it's that Elizabeth Hang, this pro-Trump Republican woman.
She's misdirecting her angst about socialism.
She should actually be angry at Trump.
So here's Chris Cuomo explaining as an objective journalist that someone with a different viewpoint should believe like he does as an objective journalist who hates Trump.
You know, I get that you want to make political points with this, but, you know, people like your family and what you represent, which, again, I believe is part of the blessing of this country, your fight is with the president that you support.
He's the one who talks about people like your parents, like there's some other that shouldn't be in this country, because they came here with nothing except the hope in their heart and wanting to make it.
He doesn't want those people in this country now.
AOC isn't your enemy.
You can go after her policies and say they don't fit in a capitalist society.
But if you may not believe it, but it's the truth, Elizabeth.
He's the one who's going after people like you.
Okay, no, it is not the truth.
It is your opinion.
Okay, Chris Cuomo declaring that what he believes, his opinion, is the truth.
So his opinion is Pol Pot wasn't a socialist, which is absolute crap.
It's ahistoric nonsense.
He is a self-stated Marxist-Leninist who attempted to cram down a Marxist-Leninist regime from above, so much so that he wanted the flag of Cambodia, which looked like a checkered flag.
It was the logo of his party.
He actually forced Okay, that is how doctrinaire Pol Pot was in his Marxism and Leninism.
looked like the flag, so there were perfectly equal squares looking like a checkerboard.
Okay, that is how doctrinaire Pol Pot was in his Marxism and Leninism.
And then he follows that up with, also, you should hate Trump, because Trump wouldn't let your parents in.
Is there any evidence that Trump would not let in the Vietnamese boat people?
Like, really, is there a lot of evidence of that?
Because I'm not particularly seeing that evidence.
Maybe you'd want them vetted, as far as humanly possible, for safety precautions.
But I've seen no evidence that Trump would have rejected the Vietnamese boat people who are attempting to escape, or Cambodians attempting to escape the Cambodian genocide.
Or people who are coming here legally, and not illegally.
That's pretty wild stuff there from Chris Cuomo.
Again, our media just outdoing themselves day in and day out.
Brilliant, brilliant stuff.
Alrighty, well we will be back here later with two additional hours of content, or we'll see you here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Siavitz.
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