All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:30
Bloomberg Is The News | Ep. 893
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Michael Bloomberg officially enters the race.
Democrats compete for nuttiest solution on climate change, and we check the mailbag.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
It's how my listeners secure their internet.
It's how I secure my internet.
Join them at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
Okay, well, yesterday was a busy day.
We did the show, we did the radio show, and then went over to Stanford, did a big speech, From the 1700 kids, the Stanford left had attempted to shut this thing down for a while.
I mean, they were ripping down posters and putting up little notes about how I was going to assault minority communities and I was going to incite violence against minority communities.
And my speech was actually about the convenient alliance between the radical left and the alt-right.
There is this sort of newfangled alt-right thing that's happening.
In which a bunch of people who are basically white supremacists pretend that they are actually just kind of normal Trump supporters, even though they overtly say radically racist, radically anti-semitic, overtly white supremacist things.
And then they've been going to various college events for people like Dan Crenshaw or Charlie Kirk or Matt Walsh.
And then they've been asking idiotic questions to them and discussing questions to them in an attempt to show that they are the true conservatives.
I talked about that and how the fact is that the left loves that.
Well, they love it because their entire goal is to lump in the entire mainstream right with the alt-right.
So that was the topic of the speech.
So it was sort of an awkward moment for the left, I will say.
It was an awkward moment because as I am doing a 35 to 40 minute speech about the evils of white supremacism and how racism is evil and how people who hijack conservative language in order to promote racism are disgusting, As I'm doing that, a bunch of these idiot lefty students, who just, I mean, beyond having no manners, are just stupid, they get up in the middle of the actual speech, and they decide it would be a good time, like, well, I'm ripping Nazis.
Well, I'm actually ripping white supremacists.
They say, now would be an excellent time to get up and protest.
Here's a little bit of what it sounded like.
Hey, hey!
Ho, ho!
That's a beautiful spectacle!
Hey, hey!
Ho, ho!
That's a beautiful spectacle!
I have one question.
Are you protesting the part where I'm condemning the Nazis?
Like, you hear what I'm doing right now.
Do you have ears?
I'm literally condemning Nazis, and you're telling me to leave.
Do you hear yourselves?
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
I've got to be honest with you.
I'm extraordinarily puzzled.
I'm standing up here bashing the living shit out of Nazis, and they're telling me I have to leave over it.
What's a guy gotta do?
And it is astonishing.
The left is so all-fired interested, and the hard left is so all-fired interested in lumping everybody on the mainstream right in with the white supremacists, that they will literally get up and shout for people to leave while they are ripping white supremacism.
And it does show the agenda of the far left.
And by the way, it extends over into the media.
The Boston Globe last week suggested that The Daily Wire was an alt-right outpost.
We forced them to retract.
That follows on The Economist suggesting that I'm an alt-right sage.
We forced them to retract.
It just is incredible.
I thought that that was worthy of note, and it does demonstrate the complete disconnect from reality that is being had by so many people on the radical left, including in the mainstream Democratic Party, unfortunately.
Okay, meanwhile, the big news of the day is that Michael Bloomberg is jumping into the race.
Is that really big news that Michael Bloomberg is jumping into the race?
You mean a delusional billionaire from New York is jumping into the race?
It's not particularly shocking.
Bloomberg has been talking about it for a while.
He sort of has the same attitude that Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, had when he was talking about jumping into the race, which is there aren't enough moderates in the Democratic Party to actually win an election.
He, of course, is correct.
And that's why Joe Biden is the best shot for Democrats to win the election of 2020 and not Elizabeth Warren.
You can see that Bloomberg is frightened that Warren is going to get the nomination.
He's been thinking about jumping in for quite a while.
Does he actually have a base?
The answer is pretty much no.
Pretty much no.
And Elizabeth Warren is doing exactly what you would expect her to do.
She is suggesting, of course, that Bloomberg is a billionaire and therefore he's bad.
Now, Elizabeth Warren, who is worth a hefty amount of money, by the way.
She has a very, very nice house in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Elizabeth Warren pretending that she is not of the elite is one of the more amusing factors in this race.
It really is.
But Bloomberg is crazy if he thinks that he's getting any level of support in this primary.
It's also funny that that Bloomberg is now considered a moderate.
I mean, seriously, because Bloomberg, his policies in New York with, for example, banning certain soda sizes.
He's a full-on government control fanatic.
And this is somebody who wanted to ban basically all guns in the city of New York.
This is somebody who was intent on taxing the hell out of soda.
He actually closed the Manhattan worship services of something like 57 churches and synagogues.
According to nycreligion.info, way back when, this is 2012, in a move with no precedent in New York City history, Mayor Michael Bloomberg will shut down after today the worship services of scores of what he calls religious groups.
At least 57 churches and synagogues are affected.
Separation of church and state is one of the basics of our country, Bloomberg said at the time.
The more religious you are, I think the more you should want to keep the separation because someday the religion the state picks as the state religion might not be yours.
So he closed down a bunch of religious services that were taking place inside of schools.
And it's truly, this guy is not, in any way, a moderate.
And yet he, because the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left, is now a moderate.
He's now considered a moderate.
By the way, that policy was so bad on churches that Bill de Blasio reversed it.
In any case, Bloomberg, being a person with a lot of money and a lot of time on his hands, he has now announced he's jumping in.
According to Politico, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is preparing to file paperwork to qualify for the Democratic presidential primary in Alabama ahead of a Friday deadline.
The move would be a first step toward a national campaign, though Bloomberg has not made a decision to run.
run.
We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated.
But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that.
Longtime Bloomberg aide Howard Wolfson said in an email, if Mike runs, he would offer a new choice to Democrats built on a unique record running America's biggest city, building a business from scratch and taking on some of America's toughest challenges as a high impact philanthropist.
See, the problem is that while Bloomberg is pretty far to the left on a lot of issues, he still happens to be a capitalist who's not completely insane on the state of Israel.
And and that means he has no shot at the nomination.
None.
Zero, zip, zilch.
But, he could carve into Joe Biden just a little bit.
You could see him carve into- like, so Elizabeth Warren should be pretty happy today that Bloomberg is jumping into the race, because obviously, he's not gonna draw support away from Elizabeth Warren, he's gonna draw support away from Joe Biden if he draws any level of support at all.
Now, honestly, when I first saw that Bloomberg was running, I thought, OK, maybe he's running as an independent.
I mean, truly, because if he had run as an independent, I think there's a shot that Michael Bloomberg could win 10 to 15 percent of the vote as an independent.
President Trump is pretty unpopular across the country.
The Democrats are going to run a radical.
Somebody running down the middle could actually create a fairly large groundswell.
But Bloomberg instead is going to run inside the Democratic Party, and he's immediately going to be ousted.
We'll talk a little bit more about this in just one second.
First, let's talk about our veterans.
So our veterans, obviously, they are heroes.
They are doing braver things than I am, for sure.
They are doing things that are incredible every single day.
And that's why the USCCA supports veterans, and they support all Americans.
And they also are taking advantage of the limited time opportunity this month to allow you and veterans to protect the best with 19 free chances to win $1,000 for the military gun of your choice.
The military is doing amazing work and you should have the same level of protection.
that our military members do in order so that you can protect your rights, in order so that you can protect, you can use self-defense in order to protect yourself.
Now, you're a responsibly armed American, and you should be.
You could own the same gun that's carried by the U.S. Army, Special Forces, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.
Not fully automatic weaponry, of course, because that would be illegal in the United States, but the same kind of gun that is used effectively by the greatest members of America today.
Text the word WIN to 87222 for your 19 free chances to win and to reveal some of the incredible guns that could be yours.
Don't miss your chance to win this month's very special offer.
Text WIN to 87222 to claim your 19 entries right now.
It's free, 100% real, completely safe.
Text WIN, that is W-I-N, to 87222.
Go check them out right now.
The USCCA, by the way, wants to make sure not only that responsibly Armed Americans are responsibly armed.
They also make sure that you have all the resources for education that you require as a responsibly armed American.
You have the legal resources necessary to defend you in case, God forbid, you have to fire a shot in order to defend your family.
Go check them out right now.
Text WIN to 87222.
Okay, so Politico says Bloomberg has engaged in a will-he-or-won't-he routine for longer than a decade about running for president, but he's declined to jump in each time.
Earlier this year, he was exploring a bid only to bow out after former VP Joe Biden made clear he would run.
Bloomberg said back in March, I believe I would defeat Trump in a general election, but I'm clear-eyed about the difficulty of winning the Democratic nomination in such a crowded field.
He's tired of being the almost-trans had one former Bloomberg advisor on Thursday.
Mortality is weighing heavily on him.
This is the last time he can run.
So basically, this is a personal decision because he's afraid that he's going to become irrelevant.
Bloomberg won't qualify for the next debate in Atlanta on November 20th.
He'll have to spend tens of millions of bucks in the next few weeks to make the debate stage in December.
That's okay though, because his current wealth is estimated at $52 billion, so he's got plenty of money to go around.
asked why Bloomberg changed his mind.
Nate said, it's not about anyone candidate, but he said he is worried about the state of the Democratic primary campaign, the possibility we could lose in November.
He wants to avoid that more than anything else.
Elizabeth Warren, as I say, immediately came out and ripped into him So did Bernie Sanders' campaign manager.
See, being a useless human being who has lived on the taxpayer dole for the last several decades while passing no significant legislation in Congress, that's better than being a billionaire who built up a business and then ran the city of New York for a decade.
Again, I do love the fact that inside the Democratic Party, somebody who built themselves up from pretty much nothing to be worth $52 billion is the enemy.
That person's bad.
shakir sanders way and weighed in on twitter saying the billionaire class is scared and they should be scared i again i do love the fact that inside the democratic party somebody who built themselves up from pretty much nothing to be worth 52 billion dollars is the enemy that person's bad clearly the people we should have running the country are not people who are capable of building up wealth people who are capable of running a business people who are capable of running a city in Instead, it should be useless people who are kicked out of a commune for not doing enough work, like Bernie Sanders, and then lived off the taxpayer dime since the time they were 30.
Obviously.
I mean, if I have to choose between, you know, a successful business person and a complete useless buffoon whose only level of credibility was achieved by running against Hillary Clinton, which, by the way, is the easiest way to achieve credibility.
And running against Hillary Clinton, it turns out, is basically gold for everyone.
Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Barack Obama.
Like, it's fantastic.
In fact, but if the Democratic Party has to choose between Bloomberg and Sanders, they will choose Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren doing the same routine, which is rich in irony, considering, in fact, again, Elizabeth Warren is worth a lot of money.
She is.
She's not a poor lady.
She says, if you're looking for policy plans that will make a huge difference for working people, and which are very popular, start here.
And then she clicked a link to her wealth tax, because obviously, this is all just class warfare, and the wealth tax is very popular with people.
Of course it's popular.
It's always been a popular proposition that if you can legally steal from somebody else, then great!
People tend to back the idea that they can steal money from other people, so long as they can get away with it.
David Axelrod, who is an aide to Barack Obama, said that really what this is about is Bloomberg being concerned that Biden was going to collapse here.
Apparently, Axelrod said there's no question that Bloomberg's calculus was that Biden was occupying a space.
The fact he's getting in is a clear indication he's not convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch.
So yeah, I don't think this is a positive development for Joe Biden.
Bloomberg has been ripping into Warren's wealth tax proposal.
He suggested her policies toward the rich could lead the United States on a path to becoming Venezuela, which of course is true if you take them far enough.
Bloomberg would be the second billionaire to jump in after Tom Steyer.
Joe Trippi, Democratic strategist, said he didn't think the former New York City mayor would enter the race without a realistic path to victory.
He says they probably did some actual polling.
So, you know, there's the feeling that this is at least more serious, but hardest hit is not Elizabeth Warren, hardest hit is Joe Biden.
Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, her radicalism is on full display.
So she was endorsed yesterday by Black Women For, Black Wimix, Wimix?
I don't even know how, Wimixon?
For?
Okay, which is a group, it's Wimixon because they don't want to say men, because men is a very bad word, right?
Really, so they spelled women, W-O-M-X-N, which makes it utterly unpronounceable.
It's like, it's like Cthulhu, right?
The crazed monster, the crazed scientific, the science fiction monster from fiction literature.
Wimixin.
Thank you, Black Wimixin.
There's no way to pronounce it.
Black, and then Elizabeth Warren got their endorsement.
Black trans and cis women, gender non-conforming and non-binary people are the backbone of our democracy.
And I don't take this endorsement lightly.
I'm committed to fighting alongside you for the big structural change our country needs.
Black, trans, and cis women, gender non-conforming and non-binary people, are the backbone of our democracy?
If by that she just means, like, all Americans are the backbone of our democracy, sure, why not?
Like, you're an American, welcome, you're the backbone of our democracy.
If she specifically means that, like, the key to our democracy Are gender non-conforming and non-binary people?
And black, trans, and cis women?
I'm gonna need some- I'm gonna need her to show her work on that one.
Like, really.
Like, if they're more significant than everybody- If she wants to say they're just as significant as anybody else- Yes, agree.
If you're saying they're more- Like, they're the backbone of democracy?
I'm gonna need her to show me some math.
Because I'm not- Not seeing how that works.
But this is Elizabeth Warren's shtick.
Now, the problem for Elizabeth Warren, again, is that she is completely out of touch with reality.
She happens to be completely inauthentic.
So again, Bloomberg jumping in the race helps Biden.
I mean, helps her against Biden.
But Elizabeth Warren is not doing herself any favors.
Demonstrating, once again, her inauthenticity.
She said yesterday at an event that if she had to choose between going out on the town and Netflix and chill, she favors Netflix and chill.
I don't think she knows what that means.
Here's Elizabeth Warren saying a thing.
Okay, Netflix and chill or Broadway and dinner?
Oh, Netflix and chill.
Okay.
Pretty sure she doesn't know what that means.
It doesn't mean you only watch Netflix.
Over the last several years, that term has morphed fairly significantly.
But she's with the people.
Okay, Boomer.
That's not her only area of craze.
So the entire Democratic Party yesterday, they were doing the climate change thing.
And that means it's time to propose ridiculous things.
So Bernie Sanders came out and proposed that his Green New Deal was going to require an expenditure of $17 trillion because money just comes directly from the ass of a unicorn.
So you can just spend that money.
On fighting the sun.
You can spend that money on ignoring the fact that China and India are not lowering their emissions anytime soon.
And that the United States is the leading decreaser in emissions in the world and has been for the last several years.
You can spend all that money to no effect.
But Bernie Sanders admitted it's really not, I mean on Twitter, he said this is not about actually lowering climate change, it's about restructuring the economy.
Elizabeth Warren had some words on climate change as well.
We'll get to all that in just one second.
First, Here is a straight fact.
Going to the post office?
It's a waste of time.
Now, the post office is great.
They offer fantastic services.
But last time I went to the post office, I got a ticket on the curb.
I had to wait in line.
Why would you do all that when you can just get all the great services of the post office directly from your home computer?
Stamps.com brings all the services of the U.S.
Postal Service directly to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
It is indeed that simple.
With Stamps.com, you get 5 cents off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail.
It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
So, if you haven't tried it yet, There's really nothing for you to wait for.
There's a reason I use Stamps.com personally.
There's a reason that Stamps.com is used by our office managers here at The Daily Wire.
Don't spend a minute of your holiday season at the post office this year.
Send everything from home.
Sign up for Stamps.com instead.
No risk.
And with my promo code Shapiro, you get a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
No long-term commitments or contracts.
Using our code, you'll be saving money and supporting the show.
Just go to Stamps.com, click on the mic at the top of the homepage, Type in Shapiro.
That is stamps.com.
Enter code Shapiro.
Stamps.com.
Don't go to the post office ever again.
Okay, so when Elizabeth Warren isn't pretending to be a woman of the people who likes to Netflix and chill, she is saying, she's making dire predictions about the future of Earth because the world is warming.
Here's Elizabeth Warren suggesting that there will be fights over land and water, unlike the rest of human history when there has never been a fight over land and water.
As the shorelines impinge on their traditional homelands, they will become climate refugees.
And it's true all around the world.
The consequence of that is not simply that people will need aid and help, but it's also that it will produce more conflict.
There will be fights over water.
There will be fights over land that can be farmed for food.
Okay, so again, all of these dire sort of predictions, they're not really borne out by sort of the best available projections.
You hear this all the time, that it's going to cause mass migration.
Well, over the course of the next hundred years, there will be population movement.
This has also been true throughout human history.
And when she makes these predictions about the rise in terrorism, and William Nordhaus writes about this in his book Climate Casino, These are things that are largely unpredictable.
The idea that she can forecast 100 years into the future with her magic wand.
She's got her magic mirror on the wall and she says, show me climate refugees.
And people keep saying it's climate refugees in Syria.
No, it's pretty much not about climate refugees in Syria.
It's pretty much about the fact that the Syrian regime has been slaughtering wholesale its enemies.
Trying to blame war on climate, it's hard to do that.
It really is.
And you want to know one way that you're actually going to be able to alleviate a lot of the environmental degradation with regard to loss of water and all of this?
That would be increased GDP.
Like, there are a lot of places on Earth that don't have tremendous natural resources, and thanks to increased GDP, they are able to take care of themselves.
Unfortunately, the proposals that Warren and her crew endorse are exactly the same sort of proposals that undercut the ability of developing countries to actually develop, so they're not reliant as much on the exact sources that are going to be undermined by the climate change that she fears.
It's not just Elizabeth Warren doing this routine.
Cory Booker is saying crazy things too.
So Cory Booker, who again is a complete irrelevancy in this particular race, he came out yesterday, he said that he was going to make foreign aid from the United States contingent on adopting American climate change policies, which is bizarre and crazy.
Because if you're making contingent foreign aid to Africa, if the contingency is that they have to adopt our climate emissions policy, Literally they're trying to keep their people from having to use dung as fuel over there.
I can't think of anything more cruel than saying our foreign aid to you is now dependent on you picking up developed world standards of climate emissions, of carbon emissions, while you are just trying to keep your people from living past, dying before the age of 40.
Here's Cory Booker saying something dumb.
America is the indispensable leader on the planet to deal with this issue.
Without us, we're not going to get there.
And so this is not just rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, which I will do right away.
It's actually using every lever of foreign policy we have, from our foreign aid to countries making a contingent on climate action.
It means using our diplomacy, our alliances, our trade deals, center to them must be labor and climate.
Okay, well, good luck with this.
Really, the key to actually developing beyond carbon-based fuels is going to be prosperity, not poverty, and linking trade to people making conditional Conditional policy about climate emissions is about the worst way of reducing climate emissions that you could possibly think of.
Then you just got Bernie Sanders who's just completely crazy.
He says, don't worry, we'll create 20 million new jobs fighting global warming.
Now, Sanders believes in the labor theory of value, like the Marxist labor theory of value.
So he thinks that if we just hire 20 million people to dig ditches, that we have created 20 million new jobs.
He's an actual believer that if you create a job, a person sitting on the side of the road, making a pie out of mud, that you have now created a job.
That's how you create jobs.
Here's Bernie Sanders saying dumb things.
I'm not here to suggest that my plan is going to solve every problem.
But my plan understands the severity of the crisis and acts boldly.
And in the process, when we make a fundamental transition away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, we create 20 million new jobs.
There will be some job loss.
But we create 20 million new jobs.
Yeah, there will be some job loss, like in every major industry in the United States.
And by the way, you're not going to create 20- I love that, again, the Democratic Party is saying that Bernie Sanders knows how to create jobs, but Michael Bloomberg does not.
That Elizabeth Warren knows how to create jobs, but Bill Gates does not.
The full-scale insanity of a party that suggests that people who are professors and lifelong legislators who have never achieved anything, that those are the people we should rely upon to run the United States economy.
Like, this is what Trump should be running against, obviously.
This is what the campaign should be about.
And Democrats know that that's what the campaign should be about, which is why, obviously, they are focusing in on impeachment.
That's why they're spending every waking moment thinking, how do we sink President Trump's approval ratings through all of this impeachment stuff?
Now, Trump is not handling himself great on the impeachment stuff, as you would fully predict.
The reason being that President Trump is sort of offended that this stuff is even happening in the first place.
And of course, he's offended by the fact that the media are willing to run with literally any story.
There's an incredibly non-credible Non-credible book by the author of it.
The book is called A Warning by an anonymous author, supposedly a top staffer in the Trump White House.
And it's not credible because literally the very first thing that was revealed about the book is that the book suggested that Mike Pence was ready to invoke the 25th Amendment against Trump.
It was completely non-credible.
Is that stopping the media from running front page stories about the book?
Of course not.
Instead, you've got the Washington Post running pieces by Philip Rucker about how the presidency is on the brink The piece says senior Trump administration officials considered resigning en masse last year in a midnight self-massacre to sound a public alarm about President Trump's conduct, but rejected the idea because they believe it would further destabilize an already teetering government, according to a new book by an unnamed author.
Again, these are just completely wild, speculative comments with no basis in actual evidence, and it's being run on by the media.
I mean, the media are fully invested in building up the narrative that things are crazy over at the White House, that it's impeachment-gated.
Again, because you look at that Democratic field, when it's that, when it's so weak that Michael Bloomberg is like, you know what?
I've been waiting for 20 years to jump in.
Now's the time.
That's how you know the Democrats have a problem.
In a second, we're going to get to the latest in Impeachment Gauge 2019.
But first, let's talk about cryptocurrency.
So you hear cryptocurrency and a lot of people are like, oh, I don't know anything about that.
It sounds kind of shady.
All cryptocurrency is, it's basically digital gold, right?
All it is, is you are investing in a currency that is protected by blockchain, so it can't be inflated or manipulated by central governments.
That's all cryptocurrency is.
And so, when you are looking to invest in something that is not subject to the whims of centralized governments, many people, many very smart people, like George Gilda, for example, are big fans of cryptocurrency, specifically because they are not in favor of the government being able to manipulate how much your money is actually worth.
Like last week, China devalued its currency, markets tanked, Bitcoin prices rose.
That is not a shock.
Again, every time governments mess with their currency, Bitcoin prices rise, crypto markets rise.
Well, eToro is smart crypto trading made easy.
eToro's social trading platform has over 11 million traders and facilitates over $1 trillion in trading volume per year globally.
You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.
They got 15 different coins available.
Low and transparent fees.
And I love this.
You can try before you trade.
They give you a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget so you can actually see how the market works before you spend any of your own money.
Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts as well.
Sign up today at etoro.com slash Shapiro.
E-T-O-R-O dot com slash Shapiro.
Try out that virtual portfolio.
It's pretty cool.
etoro.com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so.
The Democrats are apparently now moving their deadline to Christmas.
So originally they said they were going to try and move this thing by the end of October.
Then they said they're going to move this thing by the end of Thanksgiving.
Now they say they're going to move this thing by Christmas.
I have my doubts.
I think they're probably gonna carry this thing over into next year, again, because as they see that their field is weak, it behooves them to carry the impeachment thing forward into 2020.
So the original idea was, we get this thing over quick and dirty, we know we don't necessarily have enough, and therefore, we are going to just do it, get our base on board, and then we move on to the election.
But, as they see that their own field is filled with problems, as they see that their own field is filled with radicals who do not have a wonderful chance at winning in the middle of the country, Their best play is to push impeachment through into next year.
So make him wrong.
Maybe this thing ends by Christmas.
I have serious doubts.
I think it is much more likely that this thing pushes forward all the way into the Democratic primaries so the Democrats can keep going into debates and instead of debating each other, they can rip on Trump being super corrupt.
According to CNN, House Democrats are signaling they are now on a fast track in their impeachment proceedings, avoiding court battles that could delay their inquiry, limiting the number of witnesses at public hearings, all signs that President Trump could be impeached as soon as next month.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not shared her thinking on the final timeline with her colleagues.
Democratic sources say the timing is still fluid and could continue to evolve.
But in a series of moves this week, Democrats have shown they are rapidly moving to complete the proceedings by Christmas, something that could result in Trump being just the third president to be impeached in history.
The schedule became apparent, according to CNN, in recent days after House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, announced that public hearings would begin next week and also suggested Thursday that there's a limit to the witnesses that they would call for the public hearings.
Now, again, I don't think that that is absolutely correct.
I think that if the Democrats feel like they're actually making political hay, if they're watching the polls and the polls start to rise in terms of support for impeachment, they're going to delay this thing.
They're going to continue to drag it out.
Because why rush?
It makes more political sense to actually have this thing take a while.
The more TV time you get, the worse it hurts Trump, would be the theory.
Plus, Democrats also withdrew a subpoena of a former White House official to ensure their proceedings were not delayed by a court battle.
So they decided not to subpoena John Bolton because John Bolton said, well, you're going to have to get a court order.
And they're like, no, no, no, we're not going to do that.
Everybody's logic has sort of been shifting on this.
The Democrats originally wanted to fast track it, then they wanted to slow track it.
Now, supposedly, they want to fast track it again.
The next phases of House impeachment proceedings could conclude before 2020.
Apparently Schiff has announced three witnesses will testify next week publicly.
Democratic lawmakers expect at least one more week of public hearings before his panel, likely to follow on the week of November 18th.
Now, here's the thing.
Some of the testimony favors Trump.
A lot of the testimony does not favor Trump.
The theory that is now being trotted out by some in sort of Trump's camp and in the Republican Senate is that Okay, fine.
So there were people who wanted to quit pro quo.
There were people who wanted to pressure Ukraine using military aid to go after Joe Biden, but it wasn't really Trump.
It was really all these lackeys.
It was like Rudy Giuliani.
It was Gordon Sondland.
This is not gonna play.
I'm sorry, this narrative is not going to play.
It's not gonna play because it's obviously not true.
It isn't.
If you think that Rudy Giuliani was freelancing with Sondland without Trump's approval, he is Trump's personal attorney.
If you think that Trump was not involved in talking with Rudy about what was going on in Ukraine and about those investigations, That is not credible.
And yet today you had President Trump like he is his own worst defense lawyer.
It's truly incredible.
Here is President Trump today, suggesting, Gordon Sondland?
I barely even know Gordon Sondland.
The reason Gordon Sondland is the EU ambassador is because he gave a million bucks to Trump in the 2016 election cycle.
Here is Trump claiming that he doesn't know who Gordon Sondland is.
Let me just tell you, I hardly know the gentleman.
But this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo.
And he still says that.
And he said that.
I said that.
And he hasn't changed that testimony.
So, this is a man that said, as far as the President is concerned, there was no quid pro quo.
Everybody that's testified, even the ones that are Trump haters, they've all been fined.
They don't have anything.
OK, well, the last defense, right, which is that they are all saying if there is a quid pro quo, they're saying that based on third party testimony or based on their own perception of the issues.
That's true.
But the I don't know, Gordon Sondland thing and the attempt to say, well, maybe this is all cooked up by, you know, Kurt Volker and Sondland and Giuliani independent of Trump.
That's not going to work.
It's not going to work.
The best defense, as always, is the defense that was laid out by me.
And then it's been picked up by some in the Senate, including Senator Cruz.
The best defense here is that President Trump overall was interested in Ukrainian corruption in the 2016 election and that in his mind, he'd been given a bunch of information by Rudy Giuliani, some of it bad, he wrapped it all up in a ball and he said, I want all of this cleared up before the aid goes to Ukraine, right?
That was always the best defense.
It remains the best defense.
And by the way, it is back to a certain extent by testimony of some of the witnesses Democrats are calling.
So one of the people who was called and whose testimony has now been publicly revealed is Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, who oversaw Ukraine policy at the State Department.
So according to the media, they're ignoring the actual interesting part of his testimony.
He told lawmakers that Trump demanded that the country's new president, Vladimir Zelensky, announce investigations into the 2016 election.
Trump's former rival, Hillary Clinton, and former VP, Joe Biden, in exchange for an Oval Office meeting.
He said that Trump wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to a microphone and say investigations Biden and Clinton.
That's what he said in his testimony.
But he also acknowledged that he'd not heard that directly from Trump.
He said that that was not something that he and Trump ever personally discussed.
So that was his perception.
So his perception is as good as your perception on all of this.
He doesn't have inside information that that is exactly what Trump wanted.
He's seeing the same material that you have now seen publicly.
But there's another problem, which is that buried deep down in this New York Times article about all of this, is Ken's acknowledging that there were significant concerns inside the State Department about, wait for it, Joe Biden, circa 2015.
I'm reading directly to you from the testimony of George Kent now.
The questioner says, the vice president's involvement with Ukraine is pretty significant at that point in time.
And it remained until he, you know, through 2016, correct?
And Ken says yes.
And then the questioner says, the question was, you know, were there any discussions of perceived conflict of interest on the part of either Hunter Biden or the vice president?
Answer.
When I was, the first time I was in Ukraine as acting deputy chief of mission in the period mid-January to mid-February 2015, subsequent to me going into the deputy prosecutor general on February 3rd and demanding who took the bribe and how much of it was to shut the case against Zlochevsky, I became aware that Hunter Biden was on the board.
I didn't know that at the time.
And when I was on a call with somebody on the VP staff, I can't recall who it was, just briefing on what was happening in Ukraine, I raised my concerns.
I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody, that the U.S.
government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back, and that it could create the perception of a conflict of interest.
Question, what did the person on the other end of the line tell you?
The message I recall hearing back was that the vice president's son, Beau, was dying of cancer, and that there was no further bandwidth to deal with family-related issues at that time.
And he says that was the end of that conversation.
Okay, that's a pretty suspicious answer, is it not?
I mean, does that mean that it's really all that bad for Trump to raise the question of Hunter Biden?
George Kent himself is saying it's pretty suspicious that Hunter Biden is on that board.
I raised it with the Obama administration.
They said, oh, we didn't have the bandwidth because Beau was dying.
I'm not aware that the entire federal government runs at the behest of the vice president of the United States.
It seems like the vice president should at least take the question as to what, that's not a family related issue.
That's a corruption related issue.
That's pretty amazing.
It's pretty amazing, right?
Jim Jordan asked, you knew Burisma was a troubled, corrupt company, right?
And Ken said, it had a reputation for not being the cleanest member of the business community.
So all of this, you know, raises some serious questions.
And that means that Trump's best defense, as always, that there is this bag of corruption in Ukraine.
It includes Hunter and Joe Biden, and that's what he was talking about.
And it also includes his wrongfully informed perceptions of CrowdStrike, et cetera.
There's another story today that Tucker Carlson broke on his show last night in which he is claiming that Maria Ivanovich, who was appointed to be U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine, allegedly made false statements under oath during her October 11th closed-door testimony in House Democrats impeachment inquiry.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the quality of your employees.
So, the fact is that my employees here at The Daily Wire, they're just great across the board.
They really are great across the board.
But occasionally, occasionally, they forget to do the kinds of things that they should do.
Occasionally, they forget to reverse the teleprompter, make sure that the clocks work.
Let's say that there's a guy named Nick, and let's say that he just forgot to check whether the clocks work before the show one day, let's call it yesterday, and it made it much more difficult to do the show.
Well, if at that point I was thinking, you know, I really need someone better than Nick, The place I would check out is ZipRecruiter.com.
Why?
Because ZipRecruiter makes sure that you get the best candidates fast.
You need the best candidates fast.
With the results like ZipRecruiter provides, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
Don't worry, Nick is fine.
He's not gonna be fired or anything.
I mean, at least not yet.
We haven't even posted his job description on ZipRecruiter yet.
See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That's ziprecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Okay, more on ImpeachmentGate.
And we'll get to Roger Stone.
Also, I wanna do some mailbagging.
We haven't done mailbag on the show, on the podcast, for a while.
But first, if you're not already a subscriber, you're really missing out.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
For as little as 10 bucks a month, you get our articles ad free, access to all of our live broadcasts, our full show library, select bonus content, and our exclusive Daily Wire app.
So exclusive, so beautiful.
And it's like being able to get into the special VIP room at the club.
If you choose the new all-access plan, you'll get that, that, plus the legendary Leftist Years Tumblr.
Ooh, ah.
And our brand new Ask Me Anything style discussion feature that allows you to engage our hosts, writers, special guests on a weekly basis.
I believe I'm doing one of those today, actually.
So stop depriving yourself.
Come join the fun.
Also, it is indeed that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
Since I was in Israel, we couldn't do this, but now we can.
Today, it's a Twitterer named Sam who understands the importance of hydration and brain stimulation while working through the wee hours.
In the picture, Sam has his elite beverage vessel and copy of my book, The Right Side of History, sitting in front of a bright yellow U.S.
Coast Guard helicopter, which is awesome sauce.
The caption reads, nothing like a good book and some warm, salty tears to help pass the time on the night shift.
Hashtag, leftist tears tumbler.
Kudos to you, Sam.
We're glad we could help.
Thanks for the picture.
Thanks for your service, as always.
Again, go check us out over at dailyware.com.
We've got all sorts of goodies for you.
We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Speaking of further developments in the impeachment gate saga, apparently, according to Ryan Seveder reporting for dailywire.com, Maria Ivanovich, who was appointed to be the US Ambassador to Ukraine by former President Obama, allegedly made false statements under oath during her October 11th closed-door testimony in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry.
According to Fox News' Tucker Carlson, before the contents of the whistleblower complaint were known publicly, a Democratic congressional staffer contacted the former American ambassador to Ukraine to discuss what the staffer described as a quite delicate and time-sensitive question.
This show has obtained exclusively an email for that Democratic staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent by private email to the former American Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Carlson continued.
Yovanovitch, you know, is a key player in the Democrats impeachment probe and was recalled from her post in Ukraine by President Trump in May 2019 following allegations of serious partisanship and political bias.
The email that Carlson obtained states, quote, I'm writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat.
In particular, I'm hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring.
I'd appreciate the change to ground truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate and time-sensitive, and thus, we want to make sure we get them right.
That email was sent on August 14th, said Carlson, two days after the whistleblower complaint was filed, a month before the complaint became public.
The whistleblower, however, went to Adam Schiff's team before filing the complaint.
The question, Carlson says, is did Schiff's office tell other Democrats on Capitol Hill what was in the complaint?
In other words, how long did this effort play out in secret before the rest of the country learned of it?
Carlson also noted that Representative Lee Zeldin of New York asked Yovanovitch about email during her testimony, and she allegedly stated she never responded to that email.
Carlson says, in fact, it turns out she did respond.
She said she looked forward to chatting with the Democratic staffer.
As Congressman Zeldin pointed out, the ambassador's original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath.
Zeldin confirmed Carlson's statement on Twitter.
He wrote, it appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her impeachment inquiry deposition under oath.
So that could be a problem.
Fox News' Greg Ray later reported that Yovanovitch replied to the staffer identified by Fox News' Laura Carey, saying she would quote, love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you.
Zeldin told Fox News, I would highly suspect this Democratic staffer's work was connected in some way to the whistleblower's effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade.
We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with Schiff's team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint, even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming there was no contact.
Zeldin says, I specifically asked Yovanovitch whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department.
It is greatly concerning that Yovanovitch didn't answer my questions as honestly as she should have, especially, well, under oath.
So people on the right are pointing out, well, if Yovanovitch was not telling the truth under oath, should that be a legal problem for her, considering that we are now in the process of a major trial of Roger Stone specifically for lying to investigators?
It is, again, several things, as I always like to say, can be going on at once.
Thing going on, number one, there can be troubling questions to be asked about the Trump-Ukraine withholding of military aid.
Was it done for personal benefit or political benefit?
Was it done instead because Trump perceived corruption in Ukraine?
Those are questions that are going to be asked and answered.
Also, was this whole thing organized behind the scenes by Adam Schiff as a way to get Trump?
They can both be true, but certainly if this looks like a partisan effort by Democrats to quote-unquote get Trump organized with the help of Democratic partisans in the so-called deep state, it's really going to undercut the credibility of the inquiry ultimately, which is why you're seeing Adam Schiff now say that he doesn't want the whistleblower interviewed.
By the way, there's another story today about the whistleblower suggesting that the whistleblower apparently was a Biden guest at a State Department banquet in October of 2016 to honor the Prime Minister of Italy.
So, all of this, it can all be a mess, and it appears to all be a mess.
Okay, you know what?
We haven't done mailbag in a while, so let's do some mailbag here on the Ben Shapiro Show.
Ariel says, Hey Ben, I've had a question on my mind for some time now, would like your insight.
Considering all the people who have left the Democratic Party due to movements like Jexodus, Blexit, and WalkAway, do you think Trump is headed for a landslide?
Also, how do we believe the pools after the 2016, the polls I assume, after the 2016 fiasco?
Thanks for your hard work and all you do.
Okay, so, I don't know that Trump is headed for a landslide.
I think that the country is too closely divided for anybody to win a landslide anymore.
I just don't think that that is a thing that is likely to happen unless the economy tanks, in which it would be a landslide the other way.
I will say that some of the new polls, particularly in the swing states, are showing surprising Trump resiliency, particularly among minorities.
Actually, he's polling better among minorities in terms of approval rating than he did back in 2016.
If he starts to carve away some of those numbers from the Democratic base, they've got a real problem on their hands.
Listen, I think that minority groups in the United States have been ill-served by the Democratic Party.
I think the Democratic Party has counted on their support and done nothing for them.
I think that they've basically misdirected away from the fact that the Democratic Party has not served members of the black community, the Jewish community, the Hispanic community.
I think that they've lied about that by basically suggesting that Republicans are anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jewish, and all the rest of this nonsense.
But the fact is that the Republican Party can always do a better job of outreach.
Honestly, I'll be fascinated to see in 2020 whether Trump actually carves into some of those numbers.
Because he did not underperform.
Trump did not underperform among Hispanics in 2016.
He performed basically the same as Mitt Romney did.
And among black voters, there was some suggestion that he may have outperformed Romney among black voters and that those numbers may be growing.
So that'll be fascinating to watch.
Alex says, one of my closest friends from high school, whom I've lost contact with since graduation several years ago, has transitioned to what I assume is the female gender, though he is using pronouns they, there.
I'll be meeting with him on Monday for the first time since his transition.
He's one of my closest friends, so I know him well and know that he has struggled with depression for many years.
He has never showed any signs of femininity or any desire to become female.
I'd like to help him, but don't know how.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
I love your show.
Thanks for all you do.
Well, I mean, frankly, look, In personal relationships, you always treat people with sensitivity.
This is completely separate from the generalized question as to whether we should acknowledge that men can become women and women can become men.
So I've said before on this show and in public that, and I've done this before, that if you are in a personal one-on-one conversation with somebody who is transgender, then you treat them Normally, meaning, like, you don't go out of your way to say things that are gonna make them feel bad, obviously.
With that said, if you are on such an intimate basis with this person, if you're on such a first-person basis with this person, that you can say to them, listen, I only want what's best for you, and I'm afraid that you're making decisions about yourself and your body that are gonna be damaging to you long-term, I know you well enough to know that this is a mistake, what you're doing, then there's nothing wrong with saying that.
Really, I mean, I'm bewildered by the idea that you always have to, like, that you can't intervene with anybody regardless of their personal condition.
If somebody in your family were depressed and they were considering doing something bad to themselves, you would intervene and you would say, like, I think this is a mistake.
If you're on that level with somebody.
Now, if you're not on that level, then going out of your way to offend the person I think is dumb.
But that's only something that you can tell.
It's really between you and the other person how close your relationship is.
Now, none of that has any impact on the generalized political debate as to whether the law should pretend that men who say they are women are actually women.
The answer there is no.
Or whether the law should compel people to use preferred pronouns.
The answer is no.
It's violative of the First Amendment and violative of basic biology.
But on a sensitivity level, there are lots of things you do that are sensitive to other people that you don't want approved on a societal level.
You always treat people with sensitivity and decency on a personal level, even if you believe that generalized policy is best off setting up an incentive structure that does not incentivize bad behavior.
Mary says, I really enjoyed your talk at Stanford this week.
Appreciate it.
I recently had a conversation with a friend about whether there is systemic racism in the United States, and she brought up some studies that suggest black patients are taken less seriously by doctors, and as a result, have worse health outcomes than non-black patients for the same diseases and conditions.
Do you have any insight or alternative explanation for these statistics?
Thanks for everything you do.
So I have taken a look at a lot of these studies, and I don't find the studies to be entirely credible.
And the reason I don't find the studies to be entirely credible, and you can cite particular studies, we can go through them actually, there are specific studies that suggest that, for example, when black patients report a certain level of pain, they get opioids less frequently than white patients do.
Now, is that a result of people being racist against black people or is that a result of there being a generalized concern about the white patients being more whiny in terms of Yelp, for example?
These things actually do play into how doctors treat patients, unfortunately.
I mean in blind study, it is also true that attempting to attribute all of this to race as opposed to behavioral differences in patients, patients behave differently all the time.
I mean, they really do.
And trying to attribute that to a racial divide, specifically, tends not to work.
Now, I'd want to actually go through the specific studies that are being cited, because there have been a bunch of them.
But they always seem to be more correlative than causative.
It's not like a black person comes into the... Like there was one study, for example, that showed that doctors who are less good tended to believe in things about black patients that were not true.
Like black patients have thicker skin or something.
And the answer to that is not that the entire medical profession is racist.
It's that doctors who suck at things also tend not to know things.
They tend to be bad doctors, and doctors who are bad are bad.
So that's a study that shows that bad doctors are bad doctors, not that doctors are generally racist and therefore that doctors are treating black patients worse.
So I'm very suspicious of studies that suggest that doctors overall are somehow imbued with the sense of racism in medical school.
Like, again, I don't see the evidence for that.
It's sort of a weird supposition.
And the studies that I've seen, again, tend to be more correlative than causative.
They'll take a bad doctor who doesn't know things, and then they'll be like, oh, the bad doctor doesn't know things.
That means that the bad doctor is a racist and that racism is widespread.
And that's a bit of a stretch.
Elijah says, hey Ben, love the show.
While I'm a libertarian personally, I've got a few Bernie bro friends who are all enchanted by the political work of Noam Chomsky, claiming that America's political systems are controlled by corporate interests, that the wealthy control all of society, we need economic democracy, et cetera.
What are some good arguments that rebuke these contentions?
Well, I mean, how about the fact that a huge number of people who go into politics, including Bernie Sanders, are wildly successful by ripping on rich people?
Elizabeth Warren is probably going to win the Democratic nomination by ripping on rich people.
The idea that corporations control the United States government while the corporate tax rate was not even competitive with most of the business world abroad for decades is somewhat telling.
Also, it is true that there are lots of union interests who are, quote-unquote, not corporations, who have an enormous amount of power.
It doesn't line up with reality, in other words.
If the idea is that all of politics is compelled by corporate interests, is the idea that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are controlled by the corporations?
Which corporations are we talking about?
Are we talking about left-wing corporations or right-wing corporations?
And by the way, is the solution to that to have a cadre of, so I guess the complaint is that a cadre of supremely powerful, disproportionately powerful people are controlling the United States government.
So your solution to that is to create a cadre of completely unanswerable, powerful people, not answerable to outside American voting or economic investment in politics.
But stand at the top of the government and just distribute everything.
So your answer to a powerful cadre of people controlling the United States government is a more powerful cadre of people who have never created a job controlling the power of government.
Makes sense.
In crazy towns.
Kenneth says, we recently had a transgender male to female join our company.
I've been organizing my thoughts on transgender topics.
While I don't agree with the transgender agenda, I'm still a bit confused about why civil rights laws might not apply to the transgender community.
For example, I recently read that religiously affiliated adoption agencies can opt not to provide services to anyone who is LGBT due to freedom of religion.
I believe you discussed this several times before, but would you be able to provide insight into the transgender versus civil rights debate?
Well, again, civil rights is about race specifically.
It's about immutable characteristics, and there's no discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics.
Quote-unquote discrimination against transgender behavior is discrimination against behavior.
Meaning that the entire argument of the transgender movement is that your inward self-identification is what is being discriminated against when you change your outward behavior.
And that is a weird statement because, again, the vast majority of human behavior is connected to some sort of inner feeling.
And we discriminate on the basis of behavior all the time.
There's a vast difference between saying to somebody, you can't work here because you are black, an unchangeable feature about yourself, and here's Bob, and then he came into work today, dressed as Sally, or here is Sally, who is a woman, and she came into work today, dressed as Bob, and she's now having hormone treatments, and this is a Hooters.
And she wants to work here, and wants to be called he, and is Bob now.
The problem, again, is that when it comes to human behavior, the only thing that we can treat based upon is behavior that is outwardly visible to people.
Behavior that is outwardly visible to people.
So there's a difference between behaviorally-driven discrimination, which is stuff that we do every day, and identity-driven discrimination.
What the left has done is they've conflated inner feeling with identity, which is a pretty hefty trick.
A pretty solid trick, actually.
Alrighty.
So, we're gonna do a quick thing I like, a quick thing I hate, and then we will Be at the end of the week, guys.
Wow.
Okay, time for a quick thing I like.
So, Chris Stapleton is a fun country singer, and there's a great new video that he has put out.
I just enjoyed this, because my business partner sent this to me, and honestly, I just got a kick out of it.
I thought you'd get a kick out of it, too.
The entire video is wild and crazy.
It basically is a Lego version of a Chris Stapleton concert.
Apparently, it features the voice of Chris Pratt.
It's a lot of fun.
Check it out.
I won't leave my life behind.
Don't let me be the second one to know.
You're the second one to know.
It's pretty wild and crazy going on.
Go check it out.
It's kind of a fun music video.
It's appropriate for the kiddies and it's kind of a kick.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
Okay, so, a couple of quick things that I hate, actually.
So, according to the Christian Post, parents who filed a human rights complaint against a school where their six-year-old daughter was being taught there is no such thing as boys and girls have now filed a lawsuit against the school board principal and the teacher.
This is in Canada.
The teacher, who taught a first-grade class at Devonshire Community Public School in Ontario, Canada last year, presented a YouTube video on gender.
presented a YouTube video on gender called He, She, and They, Gender, Queer Kid Stuff 2, which was part of the lesson plan that day, Pamela Buffon, the mother of a six-year-old girl, told the Postmillennial earlier this year.
Buffon and her husband subsequently filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against the school system after their daughter started worrying she might not be female after watching the video.
Last week, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, a legal advocacy organization specializing in Canadian constitutional law that is representing the Buffons and their daughter, filed an amended application noting the child's rights to security of the person and equality were being infringed.
Buffon said she was very passionate about all kinds of social justice topics, most of which our daughter really enjoyed learning about.
The teacher of the first grade class had drawn a gender spectrum on the whiteboard and asked the children where they placed on the spectrum.
Buffon's daughter picked up the furthest end of the spectrum designated girl.
Their human rights complaint claims the teacher instructed the class that girls are not real and boys are not real, which greatly distressed their daughter.
Of course it did, because that's asinine.
It's ridiculous and abiological and anti-scientific.
And the fact that this stuff is being taught in schools now, if you think that doesn't have an impact on kids, it's because you're an idiot.
It's amazing.
People on the left will suggest that everything has an impact on kids.
You bringing your kid to a church, a July 4th parade.
Everything.
Violence on TV.
It all has an impact on your kids.
But, then they say, we're also going to teach your 5-year-old that he can be a she and she can be a he.
It won't have any impact on your kids at all.
Yeah, if you're crazy, if you're a crazy person.
Speaking of crazy people, according to the UK Daily Mirror, a cafe has now replaced the term gingerbread men with gender-neutral gingerbread person, which is a bit of a mouthful, just like a gingerbread man.
According to the Daily Mirror, when a customer at the tannery in Auckland questioned why human-shaped snacks were called gingerbread men and not gingerbread people, owner Andre Satina was inspired to make a change.
The label on the jar has now been changed to read gingerbread gender-neutral person.
Which is kind of hilarious.
He says it was completely tongue-in-cheek from the start, but it's become a really good conversation piece in the cafe.
He says, it used to be that 90% of the time we sold the gingerbread men, it was to kids.
There's a lot more people buying them now, which is quite funny.
Apparently, they posted a picture of the jar with the caption, a little something for everyone with a winking face.
It's unbelievable.
Honestly, if you're so bothered by gingerbread men that you have to have the jar changed at the local bakery, you got problems bigger than the gingerbread men.
Okay, we'll be here later today with two additional hours of content.
Ah, so I will see you there then.
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, Paweł Wydowski.
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