All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
50:20
The Democrats’ LGBT Town Hall | Ep. 877
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Democrats lay out an insanely extreme agenda to culturally divide the country.
The NBA caves to the Communist Chinese government.
And Democrats target Rudy Giuliani's associates.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN Podcasts.
Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
All righty, so let us begin with a basic truth.
All the Democrats had to do was not be insane.
That's it.
That's all they had to do.
I've been saying this since the day of the election of 2016.
All Democrats would have to do is not be crazy.
If they wanted to defeat Trump in 2020, they did not have to be exceedingly forthgoing.
They didn't have to be really winning.
They didn't have to be very exciting.
All they had to do was not be bat bleep loony.
That's it.
All they had to do was be not totally insane.
Naturally, Democrats have been unable to do that.
And so we have seen Democrats not only go insane over things like the Mueller report, but on policy they've been swinging radically to the left.
And that's not just true on things like Medicare for all, where frankly, there's a pretty healthy debate in the country over exactly which direction we should go with our national medical system.
Should it be more regulated?
Should it be less regulated?
Medicare for all happens to be a controversial topic, but that is at least within sort of the realm of traditional American discussion.
It's been up for debate since at least the 1990s when Hillary care was discussed.
Democrats have decided that they are going to go all out crazy on social leftist issues.
And this is where you get into the issues, the kind of issues that divide Americans beyond all recognition.
If you want the country to actually divide, all you have to do is keep putting your thumb directly in the social issues and just pushing.
That's all you have to do.
Because there are certain principles that Americans are not going to compromise on.
And if Americans are forced to choose between adherence to religious principle, adherence to moral principle, what they teach their children, and the dictates of the social left, they will stand with their own religious and moral principles.
And if they are castigated as bigots, They are still not going to cave to the social left.
They're not going to cave to the editorial board of the New York Times or the anchors at CNN.
They're not going to cave to the board members at the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Campaign, who tell them that their attendance at church and their teaching scripture to their children or teaching their children traditional natural law principles about human behavior, that this is somehow bigotry, that this somehow manifests animus.
They're not going to do that.
And if the Democrats, if the left in this country decide that they're going to shut down religion in the country, if they decide they're going to shut down any moral principle that differs from theirs on very personal moral issues, including issues regarding how they raise their children with regard to gender and sex, Then this country is simply not going to last.
Because if you have states like California that decide to go full social leftist and effectively make illegal any viewpoint that is not the social left line, everybody who is not that is going to have to move out of the state.
And you're going to see a vast separation in the country.
And if you want two Americas, this is how you're going to get it.
Not through economics, not through Medicare for all.
Those are open debates that can be had.
But if you are fundamentally questioning the principles of a fellow American to the point where you are Effectively threatening to indoctrinate their children with your principles because you think that your principles are so sacrosanct and their principles are so evil?
Well, that is the basis for actual conflict in the country.
I don't think it'll come to armed conflict in this country.
I think instead what you will have is a vast population separation and then a mutual parting of ways if this continues.
The reason I say this is because I actually spent some time watching that Democratic Town Hall last night, the so-called Equality Town Hall, the LGBT Town Hall.
And it was not about equality.
It was about discrimination against religious people.
It was about rage against people who disagree with the prevailing social left agenda.
It is that simple.
That is what that was.
And it was not about, we just want tolerance.
We just want acceptance.
First of all, tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing.
They're not.
I tolerate lots of behavior that I don't accept.
I tolerate lots of behavior that I believe to be wrong, right?
That is what it means to be American, is to tolerate viewpoints and behavior that you may not think is wrong, but that does not actually change your life or hurt you in any way.
Toleration and acceptance?
Not exactly the same thing.
But the Democrats want to go one further, and that is celebration.
Eric Erickson, my colleague, has said before, you will be made to care.
And it's not just you will be made to care.
It's not just enough for you to throw up your hands and say, listen, do whatever floats your boat.
That's not enough.
What the left wants is your approval.
It's not just acceptance, it's approval.
They want your celebration.
If you are not properly celebrating, this is evidence that you are a bad, bad person who's benighted and indoctrinated by centuries of religious bigotry and all of this.
And the Democrats went full bore on that last night.
They were cutting campaign commercials for Donald Trump last night.
If you want Americans to go out and vote for Donald Trump, do this.
Because I'll be honest with you, over the last week, Trump's had a terrible week.
Trump's had an awful week between all the impeachment gate talk in Ukraine and President Trump pulling out of the Kurdish areas of northern Syria and getting blowback from his own party for that.
It's made him an extremely unattractive candidate for a lot of people in the middle and even a few people on the right.
But if you want people like me to walk over broken glass on my knees to vote for Trump, all you have to do is tell me you're going to outlaw my synagogue.
That's all you have to do.
All you have to do is tell me that you're going to tell me I can't raise my kid the way I feel I should raise my kid.
Because let me tell you something.
You don't know my kid's name.
You don't know a damn thing about my kid.
And I will raise my kid better than you will.
And I'm talking to you, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar.
If you think you can educate my kid better than I can educate my kid, you can go F yourself.
And I know there are millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of Americans who feel the same way.
And what we saw last night on CNN was an abject attempt to seize the reins of cultural conversation, not just to push, not just to convince, but to cram down.
If you are talking about using the heavy hand of government to cram down your social viewpoint, you are no different from the people who you label theocrats on the other side.
You say that there are people who are theocratic on the other side, these evil, horrible religious people who want to use religious principle and ram that down on you from above.
This is what the left is constantly claiming.
And I keep saying, I don't see the theocracy.
Where is it?
You keep saying Mike Pence is a theocrat.
Please name the things that are theocratic that Mike Pence has done.
But your religion of social leftism, it is indeed a religion.
And you are the ones who are seeking to take control of a government and then use it to destroy how I raise my child, the people with whom I associate, how I practice my religion.
I've not done anything to you.
I've not done anything to you.
I was libertarian on same-sex marriage before, or Birchfell.
Okay, the fact is that you are still trying to come in and wreck my community.
You're trying to wreck how I raise my child.
You're basically at the verge of threatening my ability to raise my own child.
It's insane.
I'm gonna show you clips from this Democratic town hall in just one second.
And you will see the animus for religion.
You will see the desire to use the federal government as a club to beat into submission anyone who disagrees on social policy.
You want a country to last, you have to live and let live.
It was funny.
I thought that was basically the slogan of the gay rights movement, right?
It was live and let live.
We're not bothering you.
Leave us alone.
Fine.
Good.
Okay, well, I'm not bothering you.
Leave me alone.
And if you don't leave me alone, well, then I'm going to have to fight back.
I'm either going to have to move or I'm going to have to fight back.
Those are the only two choices you are leaving available to people when you will not let them live and let live.
And when you dictate that their entire way of raising their children is morally wrong and benighted, and more than that, not just morally condemning those people, which is fine, right?
It's a free country.
You can morally condemn whoever you see fit.
By the way, the left should know this, right?
They're busy morally condemning everybody who disagrees with them that there are 93 separate genders that attack Helicopter's agenda.
They're busy telling everyone who's like that that they're ignorant and terrible.
But they have no such sympathy for people on the right who say, you know what?
I disagree.
And I think that there are only two genders, male and female, and that my child is born the biology that they are born.
Or that I believe, according to natural law principles, that heterosexual behavior is morally superior to homosexual behavior, not because of religious principle, because of natural law principles that men and women belong together, that they produce families, that produce children.
And that is not in any way a justification of discrimination against people who are homosexual.
That is not in any way a justification of nastiness against people who are gay.
That is not in any way a justification of people discriminating against people who behave in certain ways.
But that is a moral judgment.
I get to make that moral judgment in my own life and with regard to how I raise my kids and live my life, just as you get to make a moral judgment about me.
It's a free country.
Feel free.
Whatever floats your boat morally.
But I'm willing to say that.
Some people, a lot of people on the left, and the Democratic Party, are simply not willing to say that.
They're not willing to acknowledge that in any way, shape, or form.
And that is what we are about to see.
It's not just about social disapproval of people who disagree.
It's about using the power of government to target people who disagree.
And this is where you raise everybody's hackles.
It's not just about you saying that I'm morally wrong because I disapprove of homosexuality on a religious and natural law level.
You can say that.
Fine.
First of all, I don't even know why you care what I think about these things.
As I say, I'm libertarian.
Whatever floats your boat.
But it's not about that for the Democrats.
For the Democrats, it's about how we enshrine our principles in law and force you to behave in ways that conflict with both your religious and moral principles.
You want to break apart the country?
This is the way to do it.
We'll get to more of this in a second.
We're going to jump into this Democratic town hall because it was truly insulting on virtually every level.
I mean, when Barack Obama suggested that religious Americans are bitter clingers clinging to God and guns and religion, when people talk about the scorn that the high-level left has for traditional Americans and for basically everyone living somewhere between Los Angeles and New York, this is what they are talking about.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about hiring.
Hiring can actually be slow and difficult.
If you want to get the right people, you have to make sure you have the right people.
The last thing you want is to hire somebody, and then you have to somehow cudgel them into being a good employee.
Hiring is all about finding the right person and then setting them free to fulfill their potential.
But you know who can help you do that?
The folks over at ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter will help you find employers, employees within the very first day.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
So, let's say that you have an employee who, you know, really tries his best but simply can't get clips done on time.
You know, like Colton or something.
And you wanted to replace Colton.
Well, what you would do is go over to ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Go check them out right now at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
See, the thing about that ad is that whoever is in the room gets the short straw.
So for the next several weeks, Colton is going to get smacked with ZipRecruiter.
Because Colton's traveling with me while we are out of town.
Okay, so, he actually did a good job pulling clips this morning, I will say.
Good for you, Colton.
Okay, so, in any case, this Democratic town hall was a full-scale display of insanity.
Let's start with the most ardent of the Democrats.
So, it used to be that Bernie Sanders was the voice of the most crazy Democrats.
Now it's Beto O'Rourke.
Beto is desperate for attention.
And because he's desperate for attention, And he's just standing outside every Democratic forum, sort of like the weird balloon guy that you see on the top of car dealerships, just kind of waving his arms all wild like a crazy guy.
That's Beto O'Rourke now.
Beto O'Rourke will say anything for attention, but he does represent the, at root, most radical and most true Democratic positions.
So yesterday, Beto O'Rourke said the thing out loud.
Last night, he said the thing out loud that Democrats have refused to say.
I've been saying that this is what they want for years.
I've been saying for years that the real danger of the social left movement in the United States is that they were going to go up against every church, religious institution, religious school in America.
But their goal was going to be to use same-sex marriage not to preserve the ability of two men to have tax benefits for being married or two women to have tax benefits for being married or anything like that.
That was not the actual end goal.
That was not going to be the end of the road.
The end of the road was going to be using laws that make such marriages enshrined, sacrosanct by law, using those to club into submission and destroy religious institutions.
The next step would be to do the Bob Jones University move.
The Bob Jones University move Back in the early 1980s, there was a federal tax case in which the IRS decided to remove tax-exempt status from Bob Jones University.
Why?
Well, because Bob Jones University had an anti-interracial dating policy.
The policy was benighted and stupid and ignorant and immoral.
Okay, Bob Jones had that policy.
There was nothing in IRS policy that suggested that you could simply remove tax-exempt status from organizations that had such rules.
But the folks at the IRS decided, you know what?
We don't like what Bob Jones University is doing.
It's discriminatory.
Tax-exempt status removed.
So the Supreme Court ruled that they could do that.
They could remove tax-exempt status.
Well, by basically equating same-sex marriage, which is not the same as interracial marriage, but equating the two, by saying that race is the same as sex when it comes to marriage, which is a patently insane position because male and female are inherently different in a very, very different way.
Then people who have different skin colors, right?
Different skin colors is a thing that does not matter when it comes to the ability to function as a married couple.
Okay, when it comes to two males and two females versus a male and a female, one of the key functions of marriage, historically speaking, has been the production and rearing of children.
When I say one of the key functions, I mean really the key function.
Right, so that makes a bit of a difference, but by equating same-sex marriage with interracial marriage, I said the next move of the left was going to be to declare that every major religious institution in the United States was basically operating in discriminatory fashion, remove their tax-exempt status.
Once you remove their tax-exempt status, and you say they don't have tax-exempt status anymore, you treat them like a normal LLC.
Well, if you have anti-discrimination laws in states like California, or if you're the Democratic Party, and you're trying to pass the so-called Equality Act, which is really a way of cracking down on religious institutions, And forcing people to abide by social rules that they don't want to abide by, and in violation of the First Amendment, blatant violation of the First Amendment, the founders are spinning so fast in their graves, they're drilling directly to the core of the earth at this point.
The fact is that the goal here...
would be to then kick these religious institutions from 501c3 tax-exempt institutions into normal LLC territory and then declare that those LLCs are in violation of non-discrimination policies and shut them down as violative of law.
We've already seen them do this with Arlene's Flowers in Washington State, where if you are a florist who is religious and only will cater to weddings that are traditional, you'll be shut down or fined.
We've seen it with photographers.
We've seen it with with Jack Phillips, the baker in Colorado, right?
We've seen all of that.
Again, we've seen the Democrats and the left do this.
They're gonna do that to your church.
They're gonna remove tax-exempt status and they're gonna shut it down.
They're gonna do it to your religious school.
In fact, they're more likely to go after the religious school.
They'll just say, no more accreditation.
If you don't teach what we want on LGBT topics, we're just gonna shut you down because you're not teaching your children properly.
And if you say, listen, I'm gonna, fine, do that.
I'm gonna now have homeschool, right?
Me and my friends, we're gonna get together at homeschool.
They will come in and they will shut that down.
As a fake school, they will come after your children for truancy.
Those will be the next steps.
And people say, oh, that's alarmism.
We would never do that.
We would never do that.
We would never come after you.
I mean, come on, live and let live, right?
You're not bothering anyone.
Live and let live.
Yeah, Beto O'Rourke just destroyed any semblance of that notion last night during this CNN town hall.
Crazy, but this is the actual position of the Democratic Party.
We'll get to that in one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that you're losing your hair.
Two out of three dudes will experience some form of male pattern baldness by the time they are 35.
I am unlucky.
My mom's family, her dad, he balded really early.
So I've been deeply worried about losing my hair.
But there is good news.
With today's advancements in science, Keeps offers proven treatments that can combat the symptoms of hair loss.
Keeps has revolutionized the way men are treated for hair loss.
You used to have to go to the doctor's office for your hair loss prescription.
Now, thanks to Keeps, you can visit a doctor online and get medication delivered to your home.
No more waiting rooms.
No more pharmacy checkout lines.
Get doctor attention and discreet drug delivery all from the comfort and privacy of your own home.
Prevention is the key.
Once the hair is gone, it's very hard to regrow.
Keeps treatments really do work.
They're up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.
The sooner you start using Keeps, the more hair you're going to save.
So, go check them out right now.
Their treatment starts at just $10 a month.
Plus, for a limited time, you can get your first month for free.
They make it super easy to keep the hair you have.
If you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss, go to Keeps.com slash Ben to receive your first month of treatment for free.
That is K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben.
Okay, so as I say, the Democrats decided they were going to cut a bunch of ads for Donald Trump last night.
Beto O'Rourke led the way.
Here's Beto explaining that colleges and churches that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax-exempt status.
So he is saying exactly what I have been saying for 10 years.
People have been saying that I was alarmist about all of this.
One of the reasons I'm libertarian on same-sex marriage is not just because I don't think that the government has a role in regulating activity that doesn't harm anybody else, but also because I was deeply afraid that the government getting involved and redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage would end in exactly with what Beto O'Rourke is talking about right here.
So here is Beto O'Rourke.
saying straight out that he wants to remove tax-exempt status, which is the first step toward basically getting rid of these institutions altogether, from every college, every church that opposes a same-sex marriage, right?
Any institution, he says any charity.
What does he think churches are?
Churches are charities.
Remove tax-exempt status.
They won't be tax-exempt any longer.
So you won't be able to give charity to your church because if you do, you'll be acting in discriminatory ways.
Here's Beto O'Rourke saying it out loud.
Colleges, churches, charities, Should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?
Yes.
There can be no reward.
Okay, so in other words, if you're a church, you're not infringing on anybody's rights.
You're just saying, you can't come here for your marriage.
and the full civil rights of every single one of us.
And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans. - Okay, so in other words, if you're a church, you're not infringing on anybody's rights.
You're just saying you can't come here for your marriage.
Go to the church down the street.
You're saying, listen, you want to learn about gay rights?
Go to the public school down the street.
Okay, you want to learn about gay rights?
You can just go to that secular atheistic crossroads school in Santa Monica.
Like, enjoy yourself.
That's your problem.
Go enjoy.
Fine.
You're not infringing on anybody.
Your mere existence is an infringement, according to Beto O'Rourke.
The institutional existence is an infringement on liberty, according to Beto O'Rourke, and you must be shut down.
You want a culture war in this country?
You damn well have it, Beto O'Rourke.
You want a culture war in this country?
You want this country to come apart that seems, this is how you do it.
Because I promise you, if you come to tell me that you're going to indoctrinate my kids in particular policy, and that I can't pull my kid out of the school and send my kid to a school I want to send them to, that I can't go to the church or synagogue that I want to go to, And if you make that national policy, not just California policy where I can move, but national policy, people are not gonna stand for that.
They're not going to stand for that.
And if you send a truant officer to remove my child, I have two choices at that point, right?
If I have no place to move, because you've now made this national federal policy, I now have two choices.
One is to leave the country utterly.
Two is to pick up a gun.
Those are the only choices that you have left me.
And now people are like, oh, this is, how could you say stuff like that?
How could you be so extreme?
It's not extreme to defend the fundamental rights the Constitution was created in order to protect.
These rights pre-exist government.
My right to raise my child in my faith is my right.
That is a First Amendment right.
There's only one reason the government exists, to protect those rights, not invade those rights.
It is my right to raise my child with the moral precept that I find to be beneficial for my child.
Beto O'Rourke does not get to raise my child.
And if he tries, I will meet him at the door with a gun.
That is insane.
That is insane.
If he tries to remove my child from a home, and, well, he's not suggesting that.
Where do you think this goes?
What do you think the next step is?
If, I mean, he's saying it openly, that there can be no reward for doing this.
How far is reward from compulsion?
How far is reward from compulsion?
Because the Equality Act basically suggests that businesses should be shut down if they disagree with Beto O'Rourke.
Okay, I'm looking three steps down the road.
This is where this is going.
And the fact that there are people on the left who are cheering for this, do they want this conflict?
You want to live in a country with me?
I want to live in a country with you.
I disagree with Beto O'Rourke on all this stuff.
He's still an American.
I still want to live in a country with him.
He obviously doesn't want to live in a country with me or anyone like me.
He wants us changed to meet his definition of the good, his definition of the higher moral decency.
The answer there is no.
And it wasn't just Beto O'Rourke last night.
As we'll see, it was a bunch of candidates.
A bunch of candidates.
And if they weren't saying it out loud, that was the basic theme.
The basic theme was, we're gonna cram down on all of American society, our views.
This is theocracy.
It is theocracy of the left.
It is religious rule of the left because there is no data to back this up, okay?
This is not a data-driven, social science-driven teaching.
This is not driven by evidence.
This is driven by a religious conviction that the leveling of all human beings and the attempt to level all human behavior to the same moral level is an inherent good.
That is a religious faith-based belief.
There's no evidence of it whatsoever.
I'll show you the lack of evidence for what these folks are saying in just one second, because it's patently crazy.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, let's talk about the Second Amendment.
So as you may notice, I've mentioned a couple of times in the context of defending rights already, the importance of the Second Amendment.
And the fact is that if you're a law-abiding American, you should have a gun for several reasons, including the protection of yourself from actual armed invasion, the protection from threat, the protection from people who want to come and hurt you.
Well, when the founders crafted the Constitution, when they crafted the First Amendment, they wanted to protect our rights.
And then they crafted the Second Amendment to allow us to protect our rights.
That's why I am a gun owner.
Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
Building rifles is no different.
Started in a garage by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, builds a professional-grade product which is built to combat standards.
Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment.
The people at BCM assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life or death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to bravocompanymfg.com and you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
That's bravocompanymfg.com.
If you need more convincing, find out even more about BCM and the awesome people who make their products at youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa.
That is bravocompanymfg.com.
MFG.com, go check them out right now.
They make awesome products.
Okay, so it's not just Beto O'Rourke who has been doing this extremist routine.
It's also Cory Booker.
Here's Cory Booker yesterday, suggesting that Catholic schools across the country... He's basically suggesting we should shut down every Catholic school in America, Cory Booker.
He says Catholic schools across the country are using religion to justify discrimination.
Insane.
And so, for me, I cannot allow, as a leader, that people are going to use religion as a justification for discrimination.
I could respect your religious freedoms, but also protect people from discrimination.
And as I said in an earlier answer, I grew up in a household where my parents talked to me about how people used to use religion to justify the discrimination against African Americans.
I cannot allow?
Who the F are you, dude?
You cannot allow?
Guess what?
That's not your right.
My right is to act in ways that don't harm anybody else.
And if I choose to have an institution where I am going to elevate heterosexuality above homosexuality, that is not harming anyone else.
You don't have to participate in that institution.
It's a free country.
I mean, you have institutions where you don't tolerate my religious beliefs.
I don't expect that when I walk into a mosque, that suddenly they're gonna start practicing Judaism.
I don't expect that when I walk into an atheist meeting, they're gonna start keeping kosher.
And I don't expect that when I walk into the offices of the Human Rights Campaign, that they're going to start handing out literature from Leviticus.
Like, why in the world would you not express the same degree of tolerance toward people who disagree with you than toward people you agree with?
If you are only tolerant to people who agree with you, this is a good indicator you're not a very tolerant person.
You will not allow... First of all, the very implication that the reason the Catholics are...
against homosexual activity is simply out of bigotry and discrimination is an absolute ignorance of Catholicism.
It's an absolute ignorance of the natural law history of Catholicism, of the natural law arguments with regard to human sexuality.
For the same reason that Catholics are against abortion and contraception, they're also against homosexual activity.
Namely, they believe that the end of the sexual act is procreation and that because Sex is directed toward procreation and toward the deepening of relationships that end with procreation.
Heterosexual sex ought to be favored over homosexual activity, or by the way, over activity that ends with pregnancy outside of marriage.
Over adultery, over polygamy, right?
I mean, there are plenty of sexual rules in religion, and picking out one of them and pretending that that's the only one that matters is pretty insane by the left anyway.
It demonstrates a full-scale lack of understanding of how religion works.
But notice that for the left, they truly believe, many people on the left, like Booker, they truly believe that practice of religion is in and of itself discrimination.
Okay, well guess what?
Religion is exclusive.
My synagogue is about practicing 613 commandments.
And if you don't practice a commandment, that'd be a sin.
Catholic faith.
One of the tenets of Catholic faith is that you have to believe in Jesus.
If you don't believe in Jesus, you're doing something wrong.
You have to have a faith in Christ.
And if you don't, then you're excluded from the Catholic faith.
You are not a practitioner of the Catholic faith.
Is that discriminatory?
Sure, but that's called religion.
And guess what?
Cory Booker is discriminatory too because I am barred from the kingdom of heaven because he and I disagree on social leftism.
Amazing.
Tolerance only flows one way.
It only flows one way.
It flows from people like me, religious people like me, who don't have any problem with Cory Booker feeling what he wants to believe, or Human Rights Campaign believing what they want to believe, or GLAAD believing what they want to believe.
Do what you want, man.
It's a free country.
But that tolerance does not extend back the other way.
Not in any way, shape, or form.
And you can't have a society that operates this way.
By the way, Cory Booker is crazy.
Okay, Cory Booker was asked about the Pulse terror attack.
For those who don't remember the Pulse terror attack, it was, up until the attack in Las Vegas, I believe, the deadliest terror attack in the United States since, and we still don't know if Las Vegas was effectually a terrorist attack or a mass shooting.
It's kind of on that fuzzy border of classification, because there's no actual political motive there.
We know the motivation in Pulse, where 49 people were killed at this gay bar.
The motivation at Pulse was Islamic radical terrorism.
Cory Booker tries to blame it on white supremacy, because we can never mention the intersectional conflict between radical Islam And gay rights.
Whenever Cory Booker or Beto O'Rourke are attacking someplace, notice how they always attack synagogues and churches.
They never have anything to say about mosques that believe exactly the same thing as synagogues and churches on traditional sexual morality.
Now here's Cory Booker being a moron and suggesting that white supremacy was responsible for the Pulse terror attack.
So first of all, very clearly, it is a national emergency.
The majority of terrorist attacks in this country since 9-11 have been right-wing extremist groups.
The majority of them have been white supremacist and hate groups.
And I will elevate, as President of the United States, an office on hate crimes and white supremacy to make sure it is a presidential-level effort to protect our country as a whole.
But I'm not stopping there.
Okay, by the way, the question here, the question that Booker was asked was about the Pulse terror attack.
It sounds like he's being asked about Tree of Life or something.
He was asked about the Pulse terror attack, which was committed by an actual terrorist.
Okay, by an actual Islamic terrorist.
Tree of Life was committed by a white supremacist terrorist.
A bit of a difference there.
In just one second, we are going to get to more from this insane town hall, because some of this was attitudinal.
And you've noticed that I'm putting the attitudinal stuff below the compulsive stuff, the compulsory stuff, because I don't think it's quite as important.
It's still important because the attitudinal The attitudinal direction toward these issues is informing the Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, we are going to cram down our viewpoints on you routine.
And the viewpoint itself is wildly out of step with evidence.
So as I say, this is not about, we're bringing the best social science data to bear in a completely secular way.
And if that affects religion, it affects religion.
As Justice Scalia would have said about religious practice, it is a neutral law of neutral applicability, right?
That it's just a law that applies to everybody and it is not, Specifically directed at religion?
No.
This is not a neutral law, okay?
This is a non-evidence-based viewpoint on human relations that is going to be crammed down in religious fashion.
We're going to get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the earbuds that you're using to listen to this show right now.
Maybe you got the old-fashioned earbuds with the big wires that go down to your phone.
Maybe you have the really expensive earbuds, and you're afraid you're going to lose one of them, or maybe you did lose one of them, and now you need a replacement.
Well, Raycon is the place to go.
Raycon earbuds start at about half the price of any other premium wireless earbuds on the market.
They sound just as amazing as other top audio brands that you know, but the latest model is the best one yet.
Six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass, a more compact design that gives you a nice, noise-isolating fit.
Raycon's wireless earbuds are so comfortable, they are perfect for on-the-go listening and for taking phone calls.
And unlike some of the other wireless options, they don't have Any sort of wires or stems.
They are stylish and discreet.
I really love my Raycons.
They come in a variety of colors.
They actually have a bunch of different fits in case you have a different shaped ear.
Now is the time to get the latest and greatest from Raycon.
Get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com slash ben.
That is B-U-Y-R-A-Y-C-O-N dot com slash ben.
For 15% off Raycon wireless earbuds, that is buyraycon.com.
Once more, B-U-Y-R-A-Y-C-O-N.com.
Go check them out right now.
Buyraycon.com.
Okay, in just a second, we are going to get to the rest of this Democratic town hall, and then we'll get to, I mean, it was insane, man.
It was wild.
And then we'll get to the Rudy Giuliani of it all, and the whistleblower of Impeachment Day 2019.
We'll get to that update in just a second.
First, folks, the Daily Wire's long-awaited app is finally here.
It's fantastic.
If you're a subscriber, you can access all of our content, including articles, shows, and more, straight from the app.
All Access subscribers get our new and exclusive discussion features, where they can interact directly with our hosts, writers, and other special guests.
The app is available on Apple and Android, so download it today, become a subscriber, and come join the fun.
Also, you should subscribe because you get access to our Sunday special.
This Sunday is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
We discuss a variety of science-based issues, from global warming to transgenderism.
It gets kind of spicy.
Go check it out this Saturday if you happen to be a subscriber, but you have to wait until Sunday if you're not.
Also, if you subscribe, as you know, 99 bucks a year, you get the great It's an All Beverage vessels, the left is Sears, hot or cold tumbler.
Ooh, cast your eyes upon it and weep that you have it now.
But, you could.
If you go over to dailywire.com right now, 99 bucks a year gets you that and all the other goodies.
We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty.
So the attitude of the Democrats here is just as insane as their contention that the government ought to be used to cram down that attitude.
Amy Klobuchar, who's the supposed moderate, senator from Minnesota, she committed, in the middle of this town hall, to putting a third gender on federal identification.
So you can arbitrarily decide that you are this third gender.
Now, notice, this is not evidence-based.
There is no test that we can use to determine whether you are this third gender.
Now, there are pretty obvious tests we can use.
To determine whether you're a male or female.
Namely, we can look at your birth certificate as a first line of resort.
And if you're intersex, well, that is a very small percentage of the population, but that's an objective test too.
Because we can either use genetic testing, or, in some cases, if you happen to have genetic anomalies, then we can actually check you.
There needs to be some objective metric, in other words.
When you're looking at government data, what you would like is objectivity.
You don't want subjectivity.
For example, We would laugh if Rachel Dolezal said on her ID that she's a black person.
Right?
We'd want to reclassify her as a not black person, as a white person.
Why?
Because she's a white lady.
Okay?
And that's... How do we know?
By looking at her.
And looking at her parents.
Right?
Really not difficult as it turns out.
Sex is even less difficult because race is to a certain extent a fuzzy construct.
There are sort of fuzzy lines around race, because how black is black, how white is white, we don't actually know.
But we damn well know how female is female, namely you got two X chromosomes, right?
You have the SRY gene.
And this will help determine whether you are male or female.
This is really not tough.
But Amy Klobuchar wants, in completely evidence-less fashion, to allow you to randomly recategorize yourself I currently identify as non-binary.
In California, I am able to change my gender to X. However, on the federal level, there is no such option.
Will you recognize third gender markers on a federal level?
Yes.
Thank you.
I will.
Yes.
Oh, yeah.
Of course.
Of course.
I identify as non-binary.
I identify as non-binary.
I identify as an immediate giveaway that the government should not actually be recognizing Your self-identification is of zero relevance when it comes to checking your gender when you get pulled over at a traffic stop.
Your ID is used to identify you.
Notice, ID has to do with identification.
How others identify you.
That's what an ID is for.
Your ID is not a five paragraph essay on how you feel about the movie Titanic.
Your ID is about objective identification by others of you.
When I travel with a passport, you know what they do?
They look at my picture on the passport, then they look at me, then they look at the picture, then they look at me, and they go, oh, that's you!
You know how I can tell it's you?
Because I have this objective identification right here, this ID, and it tells me exactly who you are.
What if instead of that, it didn't have, I said, you know what?
I don't identify as my picture.
I don't.
That's not how I feel on the inside.
I feel like a woman.
And so my picture does not really identify who I am on the inside.
Like, this defeats the purpose of an ID.
What the hell are you talking about?
This is not based in evidence.
Now, everybody cheers because it's very tolerant.
Oh, it's so tolerant.
But guess what?
The government policy is not about tolerance.
When it comes to ID, there are certainly other areas where it is.
When it comes to racial non-discrimination, for example.
But when it comes to Trying to identify you to get on a plane.
It seems like it should matter to the TSA whether they can identify you as the correct gender or not.
They're pretty clear, obvious physical markers of this sort of thing.
Like this woman, okay, this is pretty obviously a woman, identifies as quote-unquote non-binary.
But I just told you this is a woman because how could I, by using my eyes.
I know it was very, very difficult.
And then you had the pandering of Kamala Harris, who announced her pronouns.
This is the new routine on the left.
To demonstrate that you believe that gender doesn't exist, and that gender is an arbitrary construct, and that you can pick your own gender, you now have to identify the own pronouns by which you wish to be called.
Because the world must be shaped according to your whim.
When you talk about tolerance, by the way, tolerance is expressly about your ability to recognize that other people view the world in a way different from you.
That's what tolerance is.
Tolerance is about, I recognize that you view the world in a way that is different from me.
But the entire basis of the pronoun debate is the rest of the world must never view the world in a different way based on objectively defined characteristics.
The rest of the world must define the world how I wish to define the world.
Because I have no objective standard.
My standard changes day to day.
I can change my gender however I please.
But you have to identify me by what I wish to be identified as.
That is the least tolerant position of all time.
The least tolerant position is I identify the world in a certain way based on no objective markers that you can see or that I can see.
But you're supposed to redefine your entire reality and the rest of the world is too around whatever pronouns I choose.
So here's Kamala Harris announcing her pronouns and then Chris Cuomo being an idiot and trying to identify as a woman as well.
Good to see you, Senator.
Thank you for joining us.
How are you?
Anna.
Thank you, guys.
And my pronouns are she, her, and hers.
She, her, and hers?
Mine too.
All right.
All right.
First question.
I mean, is Chris Cuomo just like a complete full-scale idiot and he just made a mistake there?
Or is he actually making a joke about the pronoun stuff?
Because if he's making a joke about the pronoun stuff, it's kind of funny.
If, in fact, he is identifying as a woman, well then that sort of undercuts the entire basis of the argument, does it not?
Because we all know Chris Cuomo is not a woman.
Chris Cuomo is not Fredo.
I mean, we all know how to identify Chris Cuomo at this point.
The over-the-top nature of this event is so crazy.
I mean, so crazy.
For example, Joe Biden is just the most awkward human being alive.
And there are a couple of moments that prove this.
So in the middle of this debate, Joe Biden just launches into this thing about the wonders of same-sex marriage.
Fine.
You know, make that case.
That's totally cool.
You want to make the case that same-sex marriage is better than non-marriage?
And that monogamy is better than non-monogamy?
Great, go for it.
But he starts launching into this soliloquy about how gay couples are better than straight couples.
Gay couples are more likely to stay together than straight couples.
Now, by data, This is not true.
There's exactly one study of which I am aware out of Vermont, and it surveyed like 500 couples, and what it found is that female same-sex couples are significantly more likely to break up than heterosexual couples, and that male couples are more likely to stay together.
That is a small sample size, and it's in Vermont.
There's a broader study that happened in Bowling Green State University.
In 2017, they sampled 14,000 individuals, including three distinct types of couples, different sex, female same-sex couples, and male same-sex couples.
And heterosexual couples were far more likely to stay together than either of the other two types of couples.
What's more, when Joe Biden says this sort of stuff and he talks about couples staying together, He's failing to also define the nature of the relationship.
What I mean by that is that if you were going to define staying together as like living in the same house, then I guess that's one way to define it.
If you were going to define it as monogamy, then same-sex couples are not operating in the same universe as heterosexual couples in terms of monogamy.
And that's not according to me, that's according to the gay couple study out of San Francisco State University, which followed 500 gay couples over many years and found that about half the couples By the way, that is a statistically driven argument about the nature of these relationships that Joe Biden is ignoring in order to pander.
at least the rule and the exception, at the very least it's a very large minority of same-sex couples that are engaged in extra-marital sexual behavior with the consent of the other partner.
It's a very different type of relationship than monogamous heterosexual relationships, which are generally expected to be monogamous.
By the way, that is a statistically driven argument about the nature of these relationships that Joe Biden is ignoring in order to pander.
So here is Joe Biden pandering. - Gay couples are more likely to stay together longer than heterosexual couples.
Okay, again, not statistically true, except for one study from Vermont, which tends to be an outlier.
That wasn't even nearly the weirdest moment for Joe Biden.
He went over to Anderson Cooper and nearly kissed him.
I mean, this was the Michael Scott and Oscar scene from The Office, where Michael is trying to demonstrate how tolerant he is of same-sex couples because Oscar comes out of the closet.
And so Michael goes over and tries to kiss him on the lips.
This nearly happened on national TV with Joe Biden.
How they think this guy is a frontrunner is beyond me.
And I got to tell you, you know, he's a great guy.
I went in on Monday and all the national press said Biden's going to really get nailed when he walks in and sees the president every morning.
He got up and he walked over to me, said, well, you told me you gave me a kiss.
I swear to God.
So.
So anyway, it was, but it's just, look folks, it's just kind of basic stuff.
Do your love.
And Anderson, the crowd laughs awkwardly, Anderson Cooper leans away like, oh my god.
Worst moment for Anderson Cooper since Donald Sterling asked him if he had ever been in love with a woman.
So that was, that is one of the great moments in TV history.
And Anderson is like, uh, no?
Good stuff there from Joe Biden.
The cruelest moment, I thought, was a moment from the CNN producers, okay?
And this is cruel because you should not exploit children on national TV, no matter what the children are doing, no matter who the children are.
You should not exploit children.
Okay, so there was this moment during the debate, and there's a nine-year-old transgender kid, okay, which is a girl who believes that she is a boy.
This is a child who is suffering from gender dysphoria.
Okay, that is a- that- I cannot imagine what it would be like to suffer from gender dysphoria.
I seriously have nothing but sympathy for people who suffer from gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria.
It must be just the most painful thing.
And when people write about it, they say it is the most painful thing.
You have a nine-year-old who is suffering from this.
A nine-year-old, right, who's not hit puberty yet and so doesn't know the full meaning of what it means to be a member of the quote-unquote opposite gender because without the full development of brain, the full development of testosterone or estrogen, how could you possibly know what it's like in prepubescent fashion to be a member of the opposite sex?
Things change pretty radically when you become hormonal.
And anyways, in any case, this nine-year-old transgender boy is brought out by by her parents, because this is a girl, brought up by her parents, and she asks a question to Elizabeth Warren.
And the purpose of this for CNN is to make it impossible to question Elizabeth Warren's answer, and also to basically emotionally blackmail the audience into suggesting that if you believe it's exploitative for CNN to do this, if you believe it's exploitative of this kid's parents, and I do, I believe it's deeply exploitative of this kid's parents, I feel awful for this child, It's a terrible, terrible thing.
To turn a child into a political tool is a deeply wrong thing.
And this is true whether you are taking your kid and forcing your kid to protest at rallies on police brutality or abortion.
Or whether you are choosing to take your kid and trot them out on national television to talk about their own mental state at nine years old.
I don't care what your mental state is.
Talking about your mental state on public television at nine years old is insane.
It's insane for CNN to do this to this kid.
I feel awful for this kid.
And they bring out this kid to question Elizabeth Warren, and this is treated as a great heroic moment for Elizabeth Warren.
Children should not be treated like this in any context, let alone a context where the kid is suffering from a condition.
And whatever you believe about transgenderism and the maleability of gender, there's no question that gender identity disorder is a condition, and that gender dysphoria is a condition, and a painful condition at that.
Here is this moment, this very terrible moment, that CNN voiced.
Again, this has nothing to do with My name is Jacob and I'm a 9-year-old transgender American.
exploitation of the child for whom I feel awful.
Really, truly.
I have a child who's five, I have a child who's three.
I cannot imagine doing this to my kid.
And I can't imagine allowing a national television network to do this to my child.
Anyway, here is CNN doing this.
My name is Jacob and I'm a nine-year-old transgender American.
My question is...
All right, Jacob.
Hold on.
What will you do in your first week as president to make sure that kids like me feel safer in schools?
And what do you think schools need to do better to make sure that I don't have to worry about anything but my homework?
Oh, I like that question, Jacob.
We're gonna do this.
Hey, there's no purpose to having the kid ask that question.
The mom can ask that question.
The mom is right there.
She has a microphone next to her.
The only purpose in having the kid ask the question is to create the situation where if you say anything that is politically incorrect about the nature of, for example, locker rooms in schools, that girls should have their own locker rooms and boys should have their own locker rooms, and that girls should not be allowed to go into boys' locker rooms and vice versa.
If you say any of that stuff, you are now considered intolerant and bigoted.
That's the whole purpose of doing that.
It's the whole purpose.
And the evidence-free cheering of a declaration that a child can determine their own gender at 9, show me the evidence that this is the case.
Show me the evidence that this is objectively speaking the case, that this child is actually a boy and not a biological girl.
This is a child suffering from a condition, the exploitation of that condition, I mean, I want these people raising my child?
You think I want Elizabeth Warren deciding how I raise my child?
You think I want the Democrats and Chris Cuomo and CNN deciding how I raise my child?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Okay, well, unfortunately, we weren't able to get to any of the other news because this filled up the entire episode of this show.
We'll bring you all the latest news next week when we are not in the middle of Jewish holidaying.
Again, there's another Jewish holiday that is Monday, Tuesday in the United States.
So we'll get to all of the latest on impeachment in 2019 and all of that next week.
Suffice it to say that in the great social battle, which is the most divisive battle, because you're talking about how we raise our kids, where we go to church, how we deal with our neighbors.
If you believe the government should cram down the left's point of view, You're dividing the country in a way that is making it nearly irreconcilable.
And that is what the left is seeking to do on a daily basis, and they will even exploit children who are suffering with a condition in order to do that.
They will exploit children to do that.
You think I'm gonna trust these folks on how to raise my kid, handle my church, deal with charity in my community?
Not a damn chance.
Okay, time for a quick thing I like.
So, things that I like to do.
We're not going to do a thing I hate, because, frankly, the prospect of a Democratic Party that wants to shut down all religious practice across the nation and dictate how you raise your kids is frightening enough for today's episode.
But, a thing I like.
So, as I mentioned, I am in Israel for all the Jewish holidays, and it's pretty amazing.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit a place called the City of David.
Now, when people think of the City of David, they think of the Tower of David in Daldavid.
The Tower of David, which is in Old Jerusalem, does not actually have anything to do with David.
It was built by the Crusaders, so it was way after the time of David.
The City of David is the actual archaeological dig site that is just to the southeast, I believe, of Jerusalem, in the valley.
And that's where the actual original city of Jerusalem used to be.
The old city of Jerusalem has only really been built up over the past 500 years.
The original city of Jerusalem, like where David used to live and where his dynasty ruled, is actually away.
It's kind of to the south of the Temple Mount.
And they've been uncovering All sorts of antiquities over there.
One of the big battles right now in politics is the Muslim world's, large swaths of Muslim world's, their denial of the Jewish history of Israel, the Jewish history of Jerusalem, which is patently insane.
They deny the Christian history.
The Palestinian Authority, for example, will deny the Christian history of Israel as well, because that's based on the Jewish history, so they can't allow that either.
Well, you go and visit the city of David, you can actually see what they now believe was the palace of the Davidic dynasty.
And not only that, they have now obviously uncovered the 2400 year old staircase that went from the large scale pool where people would cleanse themselves in ceremonial fashion They would actually ascend to the temple mount for the temple worship service.
This road, it's now underground.
They've been uncovering it at exorbitant cost.
They've been uncovering this vast stone staircase that travels upward probably half a mile.
And this is the place Jesus walked.
I mean, the chances that Jesus walked this exact road are 100%.
Not 90%, not 95%, 100%.
Because this is the road that everybody took to go toward the Temple Mount.
So when it talks in the New Testament about Jesus overturning money tables of the money lenders along, this is the road that they're talking about.
Not the Via Della Rosa, none of that stuff.
We're talking about the actual places where Jesus walked, and for a thousand years before, people were walking.
Hundreds of years before, people were walking.
They've uncovered seals with names on them in ancient Hebraic script.
That are the exact names that are mentioned in Tanakh, that are mentioned in the prophets.
It's an amazing, amazing thing.
Here's a little bit of video, in case you can see it, of what some of this looks like.
So you can see, this is all antiquities that have been uncovered.
These are thousands of years old.
One of the fun things about coming to Jerusalem is that when you're in the United States and you visit an ancient place in the United States, maybe you visit Gettysburg.
That's like 150 years old.
Maybe you go visit Independence Hall.
That's 230 years old, maybe.
And then you come to Israel, and you're visiting places that are 3,000 years old, right?
You're walking on the same exact pathways that were walked by people 2,000 years ago, 2,500 years ago, when people deny the Judaic nature of the origins of this land, they are just denying history.
And the city of David proves it full-scale.
We are talking about Jewish occupancy of the land of Israel fully 2,000 years before the rise of Islam.
So when people when the UN when the UN declares that the old city of Jerusalem is Islamic territory, that is insane.
Okay, I'm sorry.
That's insane.
If you're declaring that they've tried to stop a lot of the digging for antiquities specifically because they don't like the Jewish connections to these places.
The the Palestinian Authority has famously urged the Islamic Waqf on the Temple Mount to actually dig up and destroy antiquities on the Temple Mount in order to prevent the Jews from claiming that the Temple Mount is Jewish.
The Obama administration, in all of their horrific ridiculousness about the state of Israel, they actually, in the very late stages of the Obama administration, allowed a UN resolution to go forward declaring that the Temple Mount, as well as the Western Wall, were occupied territory.
Okay, if you're talking about the holiest sites in Judaism that pre-exist Christianity by a full thousand years and Islam by full 2,000 years, if you're talking about that as occupied Jewish territory, it's because you are deliberately ignoring history.
The city of David proves it.
If you're in Jerusalem, you should totally check it out.
It's a pretty amazing experience.
Alrighty, well, we will be back here next week after the Jewish holidays.
I'm sure I'm gonna miss a lot, so when I come back, there will be a lot to talk about.
In the meantime, have yourself a wonderful weekend, or join us a little bit later today for two additional hours.
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 Haigh.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
Assistant Director, Paweł Wajdowski.
Edited by Adam Sajewicz.
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.
On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.
▲
Export Selection