Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 12, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

54:50

Everybody In The Pool! | Ep. 895

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Deval Patrick thinks about tossing his hat into the ring, Trump plans his impeachment strategy, and the sports media, they're for political discussions, until they aren't.
	I'm Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Protect your online privacy today, like right now, at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
	Okay, we got a ton to get to today.
	There's a piece in The Atlantic that I really want to analyze about the possibility of the country coming apart.
	It's by Yoni Applebaum.
	It's a really interesting piece.
	It's got some points to make, but I think it misses the core point, and we'll get to that in a little bit.
	We'll also get to Rudy Giuliani's new strategy, which involves apparently doing a podcast.
	I think Rudy would do an interesting podcast, but not on impeachment.
	And not while his client is under investigation and not while he's under investigation.
	We'll get to all of that.
	We begin today, however, with some new polling data in the Democratic presidential race.
	So according to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Joe Biden continues to lead in the Democratic presidential primary race by about seven points.
	He's about six, seven points on Elizabeth Warren.
	Followed by Bernie Sanders in the national numbers.
	In the Iowa numbers, Warren is up about four points on Buttigieg, followed by Sanders, followed by Biden.
	So in the RealClearPolitics polling average, Biden has fallen to fourth in Iowa, although his organization has really yet to make itself felt.
	In New Hampshire, however, there's a poll in New Hampshire that is a little bit more telling.
	You would expect that in New Hampshire, you would have a runaway for Warren and Sanders, right?
	I mean, they are from neighboring states.
	Sanders is from Vermont.
	Elizabeth Warren is from Massachusetts.
	And yet, the latest poll from New Hampshire has Joe Biden in the lead in New Hampshire.
	If Joe Biden wins New Hampshire, he wins the nomination.
	Because the fact is, at that point, the Democrats have failed to blunt his momentum, and he will move forward into states that he's actually leading in the polls.
	He's leading in Nevada.
	He's leading in South Carolina.
	He's leading across the South.
	So, if Joe Biden were to win one of the first two contests, he's pretty much guaranteed the nomination.
	And this shows that Elizabeth Warren is not quite as durable as people are making her out to be this early on In the race.
	And remember, we still are really early on in the race, guys.
	I mean, not a single primary has been held.
	We are months away from the first primary being held.
	And Elizabeth Warren is only starting to feel now the sort of blowback on her bad policy positions and what is, in fact, a very rigid and weak candidacy when exposed to the light.
	Well, according to Quinnipiac, the latest Quinnipiac survey of New Hampshire finds Biden at 20 percent, followed by Warren at 16, Buttigieg at 15, and Sanders at 14 percent.
	Buttigieg's big hope here is that he somehow pulls out Iowa, and this spurs him to victory in New Hampshire, and then he's off to the races.
	Still unlikely that he wins the nomination at that point.
	If Buttigieg were to take the first two states, there is a very solid shot that Biden ends up winning the nomination simply because Buttigieg has no black support whatsoever.
	He has not consolidated any.
	Warren seems to be eating a little bit into those numbers from Biden, but not enough for her to actually provide the overall consistent threat that would oust him from the race.
	The Quinnipiac Survey of Iowa released last week similarly found a four-candidate crunch at the top about three months out from the first ballots being cast.
	Quinnipiac pollster Tim Malloy said, New Hampshire has mountains, Iowa has plains.
	They couldn't be more different except for the results of the last two Quinnipiac University polls, which both show four candidates in the top tier.
	Although Biden has a slight lead in the Granite State, it's far from rock solid, and both states are clearly up for grabs.
	Well, this is kind of reminiscent of the polling data leading up to the 2016 nomination for the Republicans, in which Donald Trump was right near the top in Iowa, but he wasn't at the top in Iowa.
	And then he was at the top in New Hampshire, but not by some huge amount.
	He ends up coming in second in Iowa.
	And then he ends up blowing out the field in New Hampshire after Marco Rubio's collapsed because the person who actually won Iowa, Ted Cruz, had no shot in New Hampshire.
	You could see something similar happen here with somebody, say, like Pete Buttigieg.
	A strong majority of voters, 61%, said they could still change their minds before Election 14% said they are completely undecided at the moment.
	Among independent or undeclared voters in New Hampshire who say they're likely to vote in the Democratic primary, Biden leads at 16%, followed by Sanders and Buttigieg at 14%, Warren and Gabbard at 10%.
	Biden also leads among registered Democrats who expect to vote on primary day with 25% followed by Warren very close at 24%, Buttigieg at 16%, Sanders at 14%.
	Sanders has the firmest, most enthusiastic base of support in New Hampshire.
	57% of Sanders backers say their mind is made up and they will definitely vote for him.
	The next closest is Biden at 43% followed by Warren at 29% and Buttigieg at 24%.
	So this thing is a highly contested race.
	I mean, this thing is really up for grabs.
	Right now, Joe Biden continues to lead in the black vote, and this is a problem for his competitors.
	I mean, the fact is that when you get to the southern states, a majority of the electorate in states like South Carolina in the Democratic primaries is black.
	So it's going to be very difficult for Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg to win that state if Biden continues to retain these sorts of numbers.
	The Washington Post has a piece about this today.
	State Representative Crystal Simmons, one of two black women elected to the South Carolina legislature last year and a supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, has been perfecting her pitch to the droves of African Americans who tell her they love former Vice President Joe Biden.
	Tell me what you like about Joe Biden.
	The only rule you can't say is Obama.
	Simmons tells them.
	They get mad when I do that.
	But of course, that is exactly why Joe Biden is popular, right?
	He was Obama's VP for two terms.
	You would assume that that would have some hangover impact with regards to the electorate.
	In fact, that's his entire pitch.
	If you were still Senator from Delaware, nobody would care.
	You'd just be running another quixotic campaign for the presidency.
	The fact that he was Obama's VP is effectively his entire pitch.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, Let's talk about how easy it is to rack up that credit card debt.
	You know, you take out that credit card and you figure, okay, I'll be able to pay this thing off.
	And then you fall just a little bit behind and suddenly you're getting charged at 20% per month because the credit card rates, once you actually don't pay them off, pretty exorbitant.
	Well, it's easy to fall into debt.
	It is harder to get out of that debt.
	And this is why you may need LendingClub.
	With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
	LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
	No trips to a bank.
	No high-interest credit cards.
	Just head over to LendingClub.com, tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
	Pick the terms that are right for you.
	If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
	LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
	Again, very easy to get into debt, a lot harder to get out of it, which is why you should consolidate that debt and do the responsible thing.
	Check out my friends over at LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	You can check your rate in minutes, borrow up to 40 grand.
	That is LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lender.
	Go check them out.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so as the Washington Post points out, The Sanders is working frantically to narrow Biden's commanding lead among South Carolina's African-Americans, who make up just under two-thirds of the state's Democratic voters, which is a huge number.
	Rather than attack Biden directly, his rivals are mostly deploying tactics that include church visits and tailgate parties, holding private conversations, teaming up with young influencers who can spread the word.
	Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg have each faced obstacles attracting support from Black voters, a challenge that has been apparent as each has drawn increasingly large and excited, albeit mostly white crowds, to campaign events.
	Biden has held a wide lead in South Carolina since he entered the race, the beneficiary of wide name recognition, decades of trips to South Carolina, and a stamp of approval earned serving in the White House under Barack Obama.
	Warren is trying to appeal to black women.
	It's not really succeeding.
	Buttigieg and Sanders are aiming at younger activists.
	That's not really succeeding, and that means that Biden has a commanding lead among black voters in the Democratic primaries, which is exactly the coalition you need in order to win the nomination.
	This is why Barack Obama was the 2008 nominee and why Hillary Clinton was the 2016 nominee.
	She had much more black support than did Bernie Sanders, who actually won among white voters in 2016.
	Well, the problem is that if you are a top-line, top-of-the-party Democrat, and you look at this field, And you're saying, OK, on the one hand, you got radical Elizabeth Warren.
	On the other hand, you have very, very old Joe Biden.
	I mean, he looks old.
	He feels old.
	He feels like he is not solid.
	He feels like he is not in command.
	You look at that field and you go, oh, this field is really, really flawed.
	And that feeling grows when you realize that the next several weeks are going to be a referendum on Hunter and Joe Biden, because as the impeachment effort moves forward against President Trump, The Republicans are going to respond by pointing out that it wasn't illegitimate for Trump to ask about Hunter Biden because Hunter Biden and Joe Biden may in fact have been engaged in corruption.
	And if you're concerned about Ukrainian corruption, then you would want Ukraine to investigate corruption happening inside their own country.
	This is why it doesn't really help that Hunter and Joe have been dragged into the middle of this for the Democrats' 2020 hopes.
	So you have Jill Biden who's out there saying that Hunter and Joe shouldn't be forced to testify.
	Never a good sign for your candidacy when the subject of an impeachment inquiry wants you to testify.
	You know, this, I think, has been, Donald Trump, this plays right into his hands because this, for him, he's trying to distract the voters.
	You know, what Donald Trump did was wrong.
	Flat out wrong.
	Calling a foreign leader and asking them, you know, and holding back foreign aid unless he investigated my husband and my son.
	You know, that is just flat out wrong.
	And I think that the American people see that.
	I think the people in Congress see that.
	And they're going to stand up to him.
	Okay, never a good look for the Biden campaign.
	And then you look at the other candidates in the race.
	And they are similarly not great.
	You got Elizabeth Warren, who continues to make her pitch basically Bernie Sanders, but nastier and more vicious.
	I mean, I'm not sure how to characterize her talk about billionaires other than that way, right?
	Here is Elizabeth Warren mocking billionaires.
	Again, if you're a billionaire in the United States, it's not because you confiscated wealth from anybody else.
	It's because you involved yourself in an enormous number of consensual transactions that bettered both parties.
	The fact that Elizabeth Warren has basically made her platform ripping on rich people when she's worth $12 million says a lot.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren being a radical.
	Maybe you've heard, there are some billionaires who don't like this.
	Yes, they've been interviewed on TV, I've noticed lately.
	So sad!
	So sad!
	Okay, this is such nasty garbage.
	I mean, we went through, on yesterday's show, at length, her wealth tax proposal, which is a complete, unworkable fiasco.
	I mean, it's a joke of a proposal.
	It would obviously have significant impact on the stock market.
	It would force people to liquidate businesses.
	It would force wealth to flee the country.
	How do we know this?
	Because everywhere else it's been tried.
	This is exactly what has happened.
	Warren is very off-putting.
	She is.
	There are other Democratic women who are not as off-putting.
	Amy Klobuchar, not as off-putting.
	Tulsi Gabbard, not as off-putting.
	Elizabeth Warren is very off-putting.
	She was off-putting when she was at Harvard Law School.
	This idea that it is sexist to point out that she's personally sort of off-putting.
	Sorry, that's the way it is.
	And that ain't sexist.
	There are plenty of males who are off-putting as well.
	We can name them.
	There were many in the 2016 Republican primaries who are very off-putting.
	Chris Christie is an off-putting human being.
	There are lots of off-putting human beings.
	Elizabeth Warren happens to number among them.
	The way she's fighting back against that accusation is saying that if you even question whether she is the kindest, generous, most wonderful person, the person you'd want to have a beer with, which just sounds awful, then this means you're a sexist.
	She put out a statement yesterday saying, over and over, we are told that women are not allowed to be angry.
	It makes us unattractive to powerful men who want us to be quiet.
	No, you're allowed to be angry, but we're also allowed to react to your anger by saying, lady, we have a 3.6% unemployment rate.
	You're worth $12 million.
	You came, according to your own story, from nothing.
	What exactly are you whining about?
	She says, it's not just women.
	When we speak up against Wall Street and big tech, when we make our voices heard against injustice and greed, we are told everyone who has less power should be quiet.
	No, you can talk as much as you want.
	In fact, continue talking, Elizabeth Warren.
	I would prefer that she continue talking.
	She says, this fight isn't really about anger or emotion or civility.
	It's about power.
	Those who have it and those who don't plan to let it go.
	She's a Harvard Law professor living in the lap of luxury worth $12 million, receiving endless, endless accolades from a drooling media.
	But don't worry, she is not powerful.
	She's not powerful.
	She's one of you.
	She's one of the people.
	She says, well, I am angry and I own it.
	This is so tiresome.
	It is supremely tiresome!
	Because I'm angry on behalf of everyone who was hurt by Trump's government.
	Okay, so, is that the candidate Democrats want?
	So you got Biden, who is basically doddering around like Weekend at Bernie's.
	He's effectively a political corpse being wheeled around with a giant Obama sign around his neck.
	And then you've got Elizabeth Warren, who's deeply off-putting and proposes plans that are just absurd and insane.
	And then you got Bernie Sanders, who's a full-on kook.
	Bernie Sanders put out a piece today called How to Fight Antisemitism.
	Now, I definitely, as an Orthodox Jew, somebody who has a real stake in fighting antisemitism, I definitely want to hear from the guy who is endorsed by Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour.
	And who has embraced the most radical left positions it is possible to take on the state of Israel, including the idea that you should condition American aid to Israel on Israel giving money to Hamas, an actual terrorist group.
	This is something he said.
	He said that the United States should withdraw aid from Israel and give it instead to the quote-unquote Gaza Strip, which happens to be run by a terrorist group called Hamas.
	I definitely want to hear about antisemitism from Bernie Sanders, an avowed agnostic slash atheist who has no relationship to Judaism, or really anything related to Judaism, but he knows how to fight antisemitism.
	He has this piece in jewishcurrents.org, which is one of these lefty Jewish websites.
	And the piece is just an absurdity.
	It's an absurdity.
	And this is the other alternative.
	He says,
	Yes, President Donald Trump's own words helped inspire the worst act of anti-Semitic violence in American history.
	So now he's blaming Trump for the Tree of Life massacre.
	I wonder, who's responsible for the attempted shooting of congressional baseball players?
	Congressional Republicans playing baseball on a softball field.
	Who's responsible for that, Bernie Sanders?
	It seems like that guy was quoting you.
	So if we're gonna play this game, then you got some blood to answer for yourself.
	I mean, if this is the new standard.
	But don't worry, the piece gets worse.
	He says, Right, like every other Jew.
	He has family members who were killed in the Holocaust.
	This is true of every Jew.
	This does not grant you absolute license to hand over your foreign policy to actual, honest-to-God, day-to-day anti-Semites like Ilhan Omar, which is exactly what he has done.
	He says, I'm not someone who spends a lot of time talking about my personal background because I believe political leaders should focus their attention on a vision and agenda for others rather than themselves.
	But I also appreciate it's important to talk about how our backgrounds have informed our ideas, our principles, and our values.
	And then he talks about how he's a proud Jewish American, which is the first time I've heard him mention this, by the way.
	He doesn't really talk about it a lot because, again, his relationship with Judaism is strained at best.
	And then he talks about his father immigrating from Poland to the United States in 1921, and he talks about his family being slaughtered by the Nazis, which, of course, is true, as I say, for virtually every Jew has relatives whose extended family was slaughtered in Europe.
	And then he gets to the point.
	He says, The New York Police Department reported in September that anti-Semitic hate crimes in New York City have risen by more than 63% in 2019 and make up more than half of all reported hate crimes.
	Just last week, on November 4th, we learned that federal authorities had arrested a man in Colorado they believe was involved in a plot to bomb one of the state's oldest synagogues.
	This wave of violence is the result of a dangerous political ideology that targets Jews and anyone who does not fit a narrow vision of whites-only America.
	Okay, so, a couple of things.
	One, he is correct that there are white supremacists and anti-Semites.
	I know.
	I mean, earlier this year, one of them was arrested for threatening me and my family by the FBI.
	So yes, I am very, very well aware of these people.
	In fact, I speak about them publicly.
	I'm very, very well aware of white supremacists and their antisemitism.
	However, to suggest that that is the only threat to Jews in America is absurd.
	He himself cites the New York Police Department statistics on hate crimes against Jews rising 63% in 2019.
	Not a single one of those hate crimes has been linked to a white supremacist.
	Not a single one.
	The New York City police have said that uptick is happening in non-white communities, demographically speaking.
	So, he is just ignoring a large portion of antisemitism in the United States because it doesn't fit his agenda.
	Because he would prefer to side with, you know, actual antisemites.
	People like, again, Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour, both of whom have endorsed Bernie Sanders.
	We'll get to more of this absurdity because Bernie Sanders is a crazy old kook who just says ridiculous things and happens to be a damn liar on this particular issue.
	We'll get to more of that in one second.
	First, You know how easy it is for people to get a hold of your personal information?
	Well, I am a prominent public figure, which means that lots of people are constantly searching for my information online.
	I'm sure there are hackers who are seeking to get into my email, my credit cards.
	And that is why I use a VPN.
	I use ExpressVPN.
	Now, you don't have to be a prominent personality for people to want to hack your info.
	People want your credit card info.
	Big tech wants to follow you around, make money off your data.
	The government wants to follow you around, keep tabs on you.
	This is why you should be using a VPN too, and you should be using ExpressVPN.
	Right now, you need to act to protect yourself from hackers, the government, big tech, with ExpressVPN.
	Just get it done.
	You might be thinking security threats don't affect you personally.
	Wrong way of thinking about it.
	Not using ExpressVPN, it's like you leave your front door unlocked every night.
	That's good until it isn't.
	Right?
	Not using a VPN, it works until it doesn't.
	One of the easiest ways to secure your internet data is with ExpressVPN.
	You click one button on your computer or smartphone and you are now protected.
	So, The only question is, why haven't you gotten ExpressVPN yet?
	I mean, seriously, go protect yourself.
	Visit my special link right now, expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Get an extra three months of ExpressVPN for free.
	Protect your internet today with the VPN I trust to keep my data safe.
	Go to expressvpn.com slash ben to get started.
	Okay, so to continue with this idiotic Bernie Sanders piece...
	He says, The wave of violence is the result of a dangerous political ideology that targets Jews and anyone who does not fit a narrow vision of a whites-only America.
	We have to be clear that while anti-Semitism is a threat to Jews everywhere, it is also a threat to democratic governance itself.
	The anti-Semites who marched in Charlottesville don't just hate Jews, they hate the idea of multiracial democracy, they hate the idea of political equality, they hate immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ people, Women and anyone else who stands in the way of a whites-only America.
	So watch what the trick, the trick that Sanders is playing here, is he says anti-Semitism is not unique.
	It is not a unique type of hatred that spans the political horizon.
	Instead, it is just a subset of white supremacist racism.
	That's the only type of anti-Semitism they should focus on.
	That way he can still ally with people of color who happen to be vicious anti-Semites, like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, both of whom endorse Sanders.
	He says, this is the conspiracy theory that drove the Pittsburgh murder, that Jews are conspiring to bring immigrants into the country to replace Americans, and it is important to understand that this is what antisemitism is.
	A conspiracy theory that a secretly powerful minority exercises control over society.
	That's true, what he is saying.
	I mean, like, if somebody were to say, it's all about the Benjamins.
	If somebody were to say that Congress is basically a Zionist-controlled entity.
	If somebody were to say that Israeli lobbyists control Congress.
	Or that Israel hypnotizes the world, right?
	It might fall in that category.
	And then they might endorse Bernie Sanders, because those are all basically paraphrases of Ilhan Omar.
	He says, like other forms of bigotry, antisemitism is used by the right to divide people from one another and prevents us from fighting together for a shared future of equality, peace, prosperity, and environmental justice.
	Again, playing that trick of subsuming antisemitism under the rhetoric of broader anti-discrimination, which of course is a lie.
	You know, Tolstoy famously suggested at the beginning of Anna Karenina that happy families are all happy in the same way, unhappy families are all unhappy in different ways.
	Okay, well the fact is that not all racisms are the same.
	Meaning they're all evil.
	They're all wrong.
	But they have different components to them.
	And treating antisemitism the same way you would treat anti-black racism is a category error.
	They're not the same.
	They have different people who promote them.
	Not exactly the same thing.
	He says, opposing antisemitism is a core value of progressivism, which is of course why he's hanging out with Linda Sarsour.
	He says, it's very troubling to me that we are also seeing accusations of antisemitism used as a cynical political weapon against progressives.
	Ah, so if you mentioned Ilhan Omar, now you're misusing antisemitism, says Bernie Sanders.
	One of the most dangerous things Trump has done is to divide Americans by using false allegations of antisemitism, mostly regarding the US-Israel relationship.
	We should be very clear, it is not antisemitic to criticize the policies of the Israeli government.
	Okay, that's true.
	But it is antisemitic to suggest that Israel hypnotizes the world, or to suggest that boycott, divestment, and sanctions from Israel is justified while maintaining that, for example, there should not be sanctions on Iran, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Venezuela, or Turkey, which is exactly what Ilhan Omar has done.
	And then he suggests that truly fighting antisemitism means standing up for a Palestinian state, which is a very weird, very weird move.
	So the idea, I guess, here, Is what?
	That unless you kowtow to actual Palestinian terrorists who are in charge of the Gaza Strip.
	And by the way, the Palestinian Authority, literally just like the PA head, Mahmoud Abbas, just paid tribute to six, to a family that had six members of the family who were terrorists like two days ago.
	Unless you kowtow to them, you're an anti-Semite, according to Bernie Sanders, which is a weird take.
	So basically, the way to fight anti-Semitism is to side with Ilhan Omar, Linda Sarsour, and to rip into Israel on a dedicated, consistent basis.
	He says that he says my pride and admiration for Israel lives alongside my support for Palestinian freedom and independence.
	I reject the notion there's any contradiction there.
	I mean there isn't so long as the Palestinians were to be led by you know people who actually care about freedom and independence as opposed to murdering Jews wholesale.
	He has yet to find that leadership.
	He says, the forces fomenting anti-Semitism are the forces arrayed against oppressed people around the world, including Palestinians.
	The struggle against anti-Semitism is also the struggle for Palestinian freedom.
	Okay, that one you're gonna have to show your work there.
	My goodness.
	The struggle against anti-Semitism is also the struggle for Palestinian freedom.
	Literally, if you go to Israel and you drive on the road to Hebron, Hey, there's signs on the road.
	And the signs will show you a black arrow if you stay on the road, like, keep driving straight, and then there's a red arrow if you go off the side of the road.
	There's a big red sign.
	Since this area is governed by the Palestinian Authority, it is dangerous and we cannot guarantee your safety.
	Because if you drive in there with an Israeli license plate, they will pull you out of your car, and there's a good shot you get killed.
	So let me get this straight.
	Fighting anti-Semitism requires what?
	Giving authority to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?
	That's exactly what Sanders is.
	So this is the other Democratic candidate?
	So you got Bernie Sanders, who's a full-on nutjob, who is supported by Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour, but says he's fighting anti-Semitism.
	And then you've got Joe Biden, old slow Joe.
	And then you've got Pete Buttigieg, who is Hyper-articulate.
	I mean, he's good at what he does.
	The problem is that when Matt slips, he's just as radical as any of these other cats.
	I mean, he will spend his time ripping on anybody who believes traditionally in the Bible and suggest that Pastor Pete is going to teach all of us about how to get to heaven by ignoring large swaths of the Old and New Testaments, which is exciting stuff.
	So that's your field.
	And this is how you get to Deval Patrick saying he's going to throw his hat in the ring.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, here's the fact.
	If you run a business, we run a business over here.
	That means that we have to be on top of every dime we spend.
	We have to be on top of every receipt that we have not yet received.
	And this means that if you run a business, you need to be on top of every single aspect of your business.
	If you don't know your numbers, you don't know your business.
	But there's a problem that growing businesses routinely have, and that is the hodgepodge of business systems that you have to navigate.
	And this is why you need NetSuite by Oracle.
	It's the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy-to-use cloud platform, giving you the visibility and control you need to grow.
	With NetSuite, you save time, money, and unneeded headaches by managing sales, finance, and accounting, orders, and HR instantly.
	And you can do it all in one place, right from your desktop or phone, which is the reason that NetSuite is the world's number one cloud business system.
	Again, you need to know everything about your business if you want to be profitable in a competitive business environment, and this is why you should be using NetSuite.
	Right now, NetSuite is offering you valuable insights with a free guide, 7 Key Strategies to Grow Your Profits at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
	That's netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
	To download your free guide, 7 Key Strategies to Grow Your Profits, netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
	Go check them out right now.
	In the midst of all this, Democrats increasingly are going, OK, this field stinks.
	And this is why Michael Bloomberg said that maybe he's going to jump in.
	And now you've got former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who's apparently considering a presidential run.
	According to NECN.com, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is exploring a late run for president, according to people with knowledge of Patrick's deliberation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
	Patrick would need to decide soon because the deadline for candidates to get their names on the ballot is rapidly approaching in some states, including New Hampshire, the first in the nation.
	Patrick ruled out a run earlier this year.
	He has since been talking with Democratic operatives and donors about launching a campaign.
	Patrick served as governor of Massachusetts from 2007 to 2015.
	He has not yet made a final decision on whether to run.
	New York Times first reported Patrick's deliberations.
	In December, he said he was not going to run because he said that it would create a negative process for his family.
	His wife, Diane, apparently struggled with her husband's transition into public life in 2006, though he said last year she had encouraged him to make the run.
	He would be competing against Elizabeth Warren.
	He's very, very closely allied with Barack Obama.
	In fact, a few years back, there were a lot of accusations that Barack Obama was cribbing off of Deval Patrick's homework because a lot of Deval Patrick's lines were hijacked by Obama and then used.
	Very famously, Barack Obama Quoted a speech by Deval Patrick.
	Patrick gave a speech in 2006 for governor in which he did this routine about words.
	He said, don't tell me words don't matter.
	I have a dream, just words.
	We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, just words.
	That's what Obama said.
	And Patrick had said the exact same thing the same year.
	And Barack Obama just ripped him off, just ripped him off.
	And that was in one of his speeches.
	I can't remember which one it was in 2008.
	So he just ripped off Deval Patrick wholesale.
	He'd done that a few times.
	And he suggested repeatedly that they had sort of traded rhetoric with one another.
	So Obama is very close to Patrick, which definitely cuts in Patrick's favor.
	The problem for Deval Patrick is that he is not popular on the left and he is certainly not popular among moderates.
	So on the left, the Huffington Post has a hit piece on Patrick today by Zack Carter talking about how he was a foreclosure mogul.
	The sub-headline is how the 2020 Democratic presidential contender helped a Republican billionaire rip off the middle class It says, what makes Patrick a Democrat and extremely effective messenger for a fundamentally conservative idea?
	What I feel we often describe as income inequality is a shorthand for economic mobility, he once told a think tank crowd, which sounds fine to me, except that's not what he is saying now.
	Patrick has plenty of political assets, but the support from Barack Obama is the chief reason that Patrick is being mentioned as a top 2020 contender in the Democratic Party.
	Because, as this columnist says, told from a different angle, Patrick's biography isn't an uplifting rags to riches story, but an ugly tale of corruption among the American power elite.
	Patrick didn't just make a lot of money.
	He made a lot of money helping a Republican billionaire rip off the black middle class.
	He talks about this story.
	In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Republican Party mega-donor Roland Arnall to serve as ambassadors to the Netherlands.
	Arnall, his wife, and the companies they controlled were the biggest contributors to Bush over the previous three years, spending over a million bucks on his second inauguration.
	Ambassadorships are frequently dispensed to big donors, but Arnall had no diplomatic experience.
	The appointment looked bad enough that a few senators, including Barack Obama, cried foul, but Arnall got help from an unlikely source.
	Patrick and Arnall got to know each other in 1996, when Patrick was helming the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.
	Arnall was running Long Beach Mortgage Company, which the DOJ was investigating for racial discrimination in the subprime lending market.
	The DOJ and Long Beach eventually reached a $4 million settlement.
	When Arnall came up for ambassadorship, Patrick wrote to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to heap praise on Arnall.
	The billionaire was a good man, Patrick wrote, and Arnall's AmeriQuest was a good company.
	He said that Arnall had stepped forward after the settlement.
	He said he used the experience to make a better company.
	According to Huffington Post, this was not true.
	Apparently, according to New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera, the AmeriQuest became the world's largest subprime lender and it was notorious.
	And apparently Deval Patrick was making about $360,000 a year working for AmeriQuest.
	He joined the company's board in 2004, lending his credibility as a former civil rights attorney to both the company's operation and the public image of its founder.
	So expect that to come up.
	Expect the fact that while Deval Patrick was governor, he was involved in a wide variety of bad activities.
	Howie Carr, the radio host in Boston, called Deval Patrick the worst governor in Massachusetts history.
	Why, well, he called out the fact that the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, regulated by the Department of Public Health, had done such a terrible job that 64 people died.
	He talked about thousands of criminal drug cases compromised at the state crime lab.
	He promised to cut real estate property taxes, then didn't do it.
	He bungled the Obamacare website that cost the state 70 million bucks.
	He increased the state sales tax by 25%.
	He instituted sales taxes on alcohol, which already had an excise tax, so he was taxing the tax.
	The unemployment rate was higher under Deval Patrick than it was above the national average.
	Described the 9-11 terror attacks as, quote, a failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other.
	Tried to push through a $2 billion tax increase the year before he left office.
	So there's some serious questions to be asked about Deval Patrick.
	How does that shake up the race, however?
	Well, I mean, the fact is if Deval Patrick seems to be chomping into Joe Biden's black support in states like South Carolina, Elizabeth Warren probably becomes the nominee, unless you were to gain so much momentum that he takes the nomination himself.
	That's a serious issue for the Democrats, as Deval Patrick possibly jumps into the race.
	Okay, in just a second, I want to discuss a fascinating piece in The Atlantic about the country coming apart, because we can all sense it, right?
	We can all sense this feeling that the country is starting to Fracture in a serious and irreconcilable way.
	And there is an entire issue in the Atlantic about how America is coming to power.
	Can we hold together?
	Yoni Applebaum has a piece about it.
	And I think it misses a couple of key components.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that if you own a gun, that is a major responsibility.
	It's a major responsibility to own a weapon.
	You should know how to use it.
	You should be safe in how you store it, obviously.
	And gun owners know this, by and large, in the United States.
	This is why law-abiding citizens should own a gun.
	To protect themselves, to protect their rights.
	The rights of self-defense pre-exists government.
	This is why you should own a gun.
	Well, the USCCA believes the same thing.
	If you want to defend like the best, then listen up.
	Because right now, my friends at the USCCA are giving away 19 free chances.
	To win a thousand dollars toward the military service gun of your choice.
	Which gun could you get?
	Well, here are some hints.
	Each one is used by the brave men and women of America's fighting forces like the U.S.
	Marine Corps, Special Forces, U.S.
	Army, and more.
	All of them are known for accuracy, reliability, and for being the guns that America's defenders can depend on.
	You want to know what they are?
	Well, simply text WIN to 87222 right now to reveal these guns and lock in 19 free chances to win one.
	That's WIN to 87222.
	It is simple, quick, 100% free.
	It is honorable, and frankly, I think a sort of ticket to good citizenship to be a responsible gun owner.
	Make it happen for yourself right now.
	Text WIN to 87222.
	You'll want to hurry.
	The giveaway ends Friday, November 29th.
	Text WIN to 87222.
	W-I-N to 87222+.
	When you work with the USCCA, you get all sorts of other benefits they've got.
	All sorts of resources, educational resources and legal defense resources, all sorts of good stuff over at the USCCA.
	Go check them out right now.
	Text WIN to 87222.
	Okay.
	Well, we're going to get to this piece in The Atlantic in just one second, because I think it is an important piece and has some interesting points to make, but misses the key point as to why the country is dividing.
	We'll get to that in just one second, but first you have to subscribe.
	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 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, which is a pretty great feature if you haven't checked it out yet.
	If you choose that new all-access plan, you'll get that, plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr and our brand new Ask Me Anything-style discussion feature that allows you to engage our hosts, writers, and special guests on a weekly basis.
	Driving yourself.
	This is America.
	Come join the fun over at dailywire.com.
	We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So as I say, The Atlantic has a big issue coming out called How to Stop a Civil War.
	Suffice it to say, they don't know the answer.
	But there is an interesting piece from Yoni Applebaum called How America Ends.
	A tectonic demographic shift is underway, is the subtitle.
	Can the country hold together?
	And it's a fascinating piece because he basically suggests that the big thing that is driving American disunity at this point is the demographic shift.
	The fact that America is becoming less white is really his argument.
	He says, Trump's apocalyptic rhetoric matches the tenor of the times.
	The body politic is more fractious than at any time in recent memory.
	Over the past 25 years, both red and blue areas have become more deeply hewed, with Democrats clustering in cities and suburbs, and Republicans filling in rural areas and exurbs.
	In Congress, where the two caucuses once overlapped ideologically, the dividing aisle has turned into a chasm.
	And then he talks about how Americans dislike each other more and more, don't want their friends and family.
	Marrying members of the opposite political party, for example.
	And he says, what has caused such rancor?
	The stresses of a globalizing post-industrial economy, growing economic inequality, the hyperbolizing, hyperbolizing force of social media, geographic sorting, the democratic provocations of the president himself as in murder on the Orient Express.
	Every suspect has had a hand in the crime.
	But the biggest driver, says Yoni Applebaum, might be demographic change.
	The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced.
	Its historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority, and its minority groups are asserting their co-equal rights and interests.
	Okay, now here is where Applebaum starts to miss the point.
	If it were just about members of minority groups asserting their co-equal rights and interests, I don't think there'd be a huge argument here.
	I mean, everyone of good heart is in favor of things that ending Jim Crow was a very, very good thing, for example.
	Nobody wants discrimination.
	By the government, enshrined in law.
	Nobody is in favor of that.
	Nobody likes racism.
	But what he is basically saying, and this is where he misses the point, is he suggests that the real reason that all this is happening is white people are pissed that non-white people are going to become the demographic majority at some point in the next 20 to 30 years in the United States.
	Now, as I've said on the program and elsewhere, I don't care about the skin color of people in the country.
	I don't.
	I don't care whether the majority is white.
	I don't care whether the majority is brown.
	That doesn't make any difference to me.
	I care about the ideology of the majority.
	I care about the philosophy of the individuals who compose the majority.
	I don't think we ought to think of Americans as various groups of voter blocs.
	Black voter blocs and Hispanic voter blocs.
	I think that every American is an individual.
	I thought that was one of the bases of the Declaration of Independence.
	And the Constitution of the United States.
	And yet what the left has done, and this is where they're missing the point, what the left has done is they've made exactly this argument.
	That basically, the story of America is a story of a white majority cramming down its patriarchal assertions on minority groups, and the story of the last half century is those minority groups now fighting back, in effect, to establish their rights.
	That's not really true.
	That's not really true.
	The story of America is about excellent and eternal founding principles, which were not lived up to by the founders or by generations of Americans, and the gradual imposition of those principles more and more broadly over time.
	That means that we're all part of the same story.
	But the story that Applebaum is telling is a different story.
	He's telling a story where there's basically a powerful majority that is now being overthrown by a powerful minority, which is becoming a majority.
	And so the majority is just going to have to get used to becoming a minority.
	Well, what happens to the idea that we're all part of one country and that we hold similar principles?
	That's where the fusion lies.
	That's the only thing that's going to hold together the country.
	I'm working on a book right now all about the disintegration of the country, and one of the things that I assert is that the only way a country can last is if the nation believes that it has a common history and culture and language.
	And the left has been forcibly disabusing Americans of this notion, saying that we don't have a common history, right?
	America wasn't founded in 1776, it was founded in 1619.
	That we don't have a constitutional culture.
	Free speech is just a tool of the patriarchy.
	Free speech is actually not about each individual citizen being able to speak freely.
	It's really about the powerful cramming down their interests on everybody else.
	Language itself has been twisted this way.
	We assert that the rules of linguistic use have to change because the majority has been using language to its own advantage.
	Using he and she as biological pronouns is in fact discrimination.
	But what the left sees is a bunch of white people who don't like demographic change.
	That's not accurate.
	What you're seeing in the Republican Party is a reaction to the fact that the left has decided on two key factors.
	One, that people who come into the country should not assimilate to American values.
	Now, here's the reality.
	People who are coming into the country are assimilating.
	They are.
	I mean, studies show that they are learning the language.
	Hispanic immigrants to the United States are learning the language just as fast as other immigrants to the United States have in the past.
	But there's a giant welfare system in the United States, and it turns out that new immigrants take advantage of that welfare system in a way that Old immigrants didn't because the welfare system didn't exist in 1900.
	It does exist now.
	So that means that the interests have changed a little bit.
	It is also true that the left has basically pushed harder and faster for infringements of basic rights.
	So let's say that the right and the left agreed on basic American rights.
	And this were just a question of everybody assimilating into those notions of rights.
	Then demographic change wouldn't be a problem.
	The demographic change that a lot of people on the right seem to be worried about is really not a demographic change.
	It's an ideological change.
	There's a suspicion on the right that people on the left are specifically looking to bring people into the country who actually agree with the left and not with the right about fundamental American values and then reshift the political landscape along those lines.
	And that's what the right fears.
	And not without reason, because this seems to be what the left is doing.
	The left has not stopped pushing against fundamental American rights.
	There is a basic disagreement on the nature of what America should be and what our founding values are, and whether those founding values should be overthrown.
	And the demographic change just plays into that.
	It just plays into that basic division.
	If that division didn't exist, no one would care about the demographic change.
	What the left is suggesting, though, is if we change the values of the country, if we try to overthrow the First Amendment and the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, we try to overthrow all of those amendments, And if we bring in immigrants who are more likely to vote with us on all of those specific issues, that the reason that the right objects to that is because of the color of those immigrants' skin.
	That's not true.
	The reason that many on the right are objecting to that is because the left is seeking to infringe upon rights that we hold dear.
	And then they're expanding the immigration pool in order to make that happen.
	That's a question of ideology.
	That's not a question of race.
	That's a question of ideology, not a question of race.
	But according to Yoni Applebaum, it's a question of race.
	This is why I say that the piece misses the point.
	He says, the biggest driver of this division might be demographic change.
	The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced.
	It's historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority.
	Yet these presidents, if there are precedents for such transition, they lie here in the US where white Englishmen initially predominated and the boundaries of the dominant group have been under negotiation ever since.
	Yet these precedents are hardly comforting.
	Many of these renegotiations sparked political conflict or open violence, and fewer as profound as the one now underway.
	Okay, but the fact is that those definitions were expanded.
	The definitions were expanded.
	Why?
	Because the definition itself was not supposed to change.
	The application of the definition changed.
	The rights of Englishmen, those were expanded to include people who are not Englishmen, people who are not white, people who are not male, people who are not property owners.
	They were expanded.
	The definition's application was expanded, but the definition itself was not supposed to change.
	What's happening right now is that the left is changing the definition of citizenship itself, and then they're suggesting that what the right actually objects to is the expansion of the application of the definition.
	That's a completely different argument, and it happens not to be an honest argument.
	According to Yoni Appelbaum, he says, within the living memory of most Americans, a majority of the country's residents were white Christians.
	That is no longer the case, and voters are not insensate to the change.
	Nearly a third of conservatives say they face a lot of discrimination for their beliefs, as do more than half of white evangelicals.
	Well, by the way, you can see that happening, and he seems to be suggesting that that is chimerical.
	That is obviously not true.
	I mean, the fact is that the people who are leading the institutions of our culture are people who actively do attempt to discriminate against Christians.
	There's a story today about a scientific, some scientific group that has decided to oust BYU from the science group.
	Why?
	Because BYU still holds by traditional values on sexuality.
	But Yoni Applebaum says more epochal, like E-P-O-C-H-A-L, than the change that has already happened is the change yet to come.
	Sometime in the next quarter century or so, depending on immigration rates and the vagaries of ethnic and racial identification, non-whites will become a majority in the US.
	For some Americans, that change will be cause for celebration.
	For others, it may pass unnoticed, but the transition is already producing a sharp political backlash, exploited and exacerbated by the president.
	In 2016, white working class voters who said that discrimination against whites is a serious problem, or who said they felt like strangers in their own country, were almost twice as likely to vote for Trump as those who did not.
	Okay, that is not because of race.
	Okay, that is because of the left's attempts to rewrite what it means to be an American, and then suggest that if you object to that, you're a racist.
	Yoni Applebaum says in 2002, the political scientist Roy Teixeira and the journalist John Dudas published a book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which argued that demographic changes, the browning of America, along with the movement of more women, professionals, and young people into the democratic fold, would soon usher in a new progressive era that would relegate Republicans to permanent minority political status.
	The book argued, somewhat triumphantly, that the new emerging majority was inexorable and inevitable.
	But many conservatives surveying demographic trends are concluding that Teixeira wasn't wrong.
	They can see the GOP's sinking fortunes among younger voters and feel the culture turning against them, condemning them today for views that were commonplace only yesterday.
	They are losing faith they can win elections in the future.
	With this comes dark possibilities.
	Okay, but that's not a racial point.
	The reason that Republicans are fearful of losing elections in the future more so than maybe any time in recent history is because the consequences of losing an election may mean losing your basic freedoms.
	You have Obama Administration State Department officials writing that he wants to overthrow- Richard Stelter wrote this in the Washington Post.
	That he wants to- or Stengler.
	He wrote in the Washington Post that he wanted to see the First Amendment overthrown in favor of hate speech regulation in the United States.
	That makes me more fearful than any number of immigrants of any color.
	According to the Atlantic, The history of the United States is rich with examples of once-dominant groups adjusting to the rise of formerly marginalized populations, sometimes gracefully, more often bitterly, and occasionally violently.
	Partisan coalitions in the U.S.
	are constantly reshuffling, realigning among new axes.
	Once-rigid boundaries of faith, ethnicity, and class often prove malleable.
	Issues gain salience or fade into irrelevance.
	Yesterday's rivals become tomorrow's allies, but sometimes That process of realignment breaks down.
	Instead of reaching out and inviting new allies into its coalition, the political right hardens, turning against the democratic processes it fears will subsume it.
	A conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism when it converts to its principles and evolving with each generation.
	A conservatism defined by identity politics reduces the complex calculus of politics to a simple arithmetic question.
	And at some point, the numbers no longer add up.
	Now, if the argument here is that Republicans and conservatives should try appealing to every demographic group, I totally agree with that, obviously.
	Totally agree with that.
	And I think most Republicans agree with that.
	Most Republicans, most conservatives agree with this.
	Most conservatives are interested in pushing forward.
	Most conservatives are interested in pushing forward Their case into minority community.
	I spoke at the California Republican Party annual event, the convention, the CRP convention 2011 maybe, and I was encouraging people in the crowd to learn Spanish.
	Not because I don't think that people should speak English, but I think that the language of conservatism is not relegated to English.
	So everybody should want to reach into new demographic communities.
	The problem is that the left is playing a trick.
	And the trick is that if you object to the rise of the left ideologically, and if you object to the left's immigration policy on the basis that you believe that the left is attempting to import people who agree with them, rather than people who are going to agree with basic constitutional principles, that that's a racial thing.
	It's not a racial thing.
	It's not an ethnic thing.
	And making it into a racial and ethnic thing is actually a pretty strong Democrat pitch, right?
	They try to say that if you disagree with the Democrats, what you really disagree with is the racial movement of the country.
	The Atlantic says, the collapse of the mainstream Republican Party in the face of Trumpism is at once a product of highly particular circumstances and a disturbing echo of other events.
	According to political scientist Daniel Ziblatt, he says the key variable distinguishing states that achieve democratic stability from those that fell prey to authoritarian impulses was not the strength or character of the political left or of the forces pushing for greater democratization, so much as the viability of the center-right.
	A strong center-right party could wall off more extreme right-wing movements, shutting out the radicals who attack the political system itself.
	Okay, that's true.
	I do believe that the, I don't think it has to be center-right.
	I think that true, people who are conservative should wall themselves off from people who want to wage ethnic war, demographically.
	They should wall themselves off from the white supremacists and the white nationalists.
	And people believe that demographics is destiny.
	But in order to make that argument, the left is also going to really have to stop pushing for radical policies that overthrow rights, and then suggesting that opposition to their agenda is racism.
	Because that drives people right into the arms of the bad guys.
	So this is where I say that the Atlantic misses the point.
	If you actually want the country to come back together, then it's not just about the center-right standing up against racism.
	I do that every day here on the program.
	I make full speeches about it at Stanford University.
	It's something that is imperative.
	But it's not just about that.
	It's about the left stopping its full-scale quest to break down the Constitution It's about the left recognizing that immigration policy should be to the benefit of all Americans, that people who enter the United States, it's not just about assimilation, that they should believe in the vision of American values.
	It's about the left stopping its full-scale attack on the Constitution of the United States, and then using immigration as a weapon in that process.
	That's what is going on right here, and that's what's creating the kickback.
	That's what's creating the division.
	A feeling the very definition of Americanism is being changed under the noses of the American people by the left, And then you're accused of being anti-American if you oppose that change in definition.
	Not the broader application of the definition, the change of the definition itself.
	Okay, time for a thing I like, and then we'll get to a thing that I hate.
	So, things that I like today.
	So I was doing some Jewish reading over the weekend.
	People frequently write in and ask me about good Jewish books to read, because I am obviously a proponent.
	There's a great book called Rabbi Akiva, Sage of the Talmud by Barry Holtz.
	It's about probably the greatest sage cited in the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva, who was also part of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, lived through the destruction of the Second Temple, as well as the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and then died horribly at the hands of the Romans.
	It's a really good exploration into not only Rabbi Akiva, but the Talmudic world and the Mishnaic world.
	So if you're interested in Judaism at all, you should go check it out.
	If you're interested in the ancient world at all, actually, you should go check it out.
	It's really fascinating.
	Rabbi Akiva, Sage of the Talmud by Barry Holtz.
	Definitely worth the read.
	Very easy read and pretty good stuff.
	Alrighty, time for a thing that I hate.
	Okay, so there is a rule in sports media.
	The rule is that if you are on the left and you want to talk politics, then you are a hero.
	And if you're not on the left and you want to talk politics, you get fired.
	That is the rule in sports media.
	I've talked about this with my friend, Clay Travis, who is a lifelong registered Democrat, so far as I'm aware, and he fully agrees that the sports media are extraordinarily biased to the left.
	Like, more so, statistically speaking, than the news media, actually.
	And so this is how you end up with these two juxtaposed stories.
	In the New York Times, an editorial by a guy named Barry Pacheski, Who's the former deputy editor of Deadspin?
	Deadspin had turned into this wild left outlet that had almost nothing to do with sports, right?
	They spent their days ripping on Ted Cruz, until Ted Cruz owned them.
	He has a piece called, I was fired from Deadspin for refusing to stick to sports.
	It says, two weeks ago, I was fired as acting editor-in-chief of Deadspin, where I'd worked since 2009.
	The entire staff resigned, following me out the door after we refused a new company mandate to stick to sports.
	Jim Spanfeller, installed as the chief executive of GeoMedia by the private equity firm that bought the company seven months ago, called me into his office, pointed some offending stories on our homepage, and had me escorted from the building.
	This is the first time I'm speaking about my firing, and my stance remains the same as in the countless meetings with management where I explained and insisted that sports don't end when the players head back to the locker room.
	We refuse to stick to sports because we know that sports is everything, and everything is sports.
	It's the NBA kowtowing to its Chinese business interests.
	It's pro sports leagues attempting to become shadow justice systems for publicity reasons.
	It's the opioid epidemic roiling NFL locker rooms, at least as hard as anywhere in Appalachia, even as the league refuses to relax its marijuana policies.
	It's racist fans chanting, chasing black players.
	Off the pitch in Italian soccer matches, it's Washington Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki wearing a Make America Great Again cap at the White House.
	These last few stories occurred in the past week, and so we're not covered on Deadspin.
	The Stick to Sports Tick-Tot forced the outlet to ignore the biggest sports stories in the world.
	Reporting sports with integrity requires knowing that there's no way to wall off games from the world outside.
	And this guy's a hero!
	I mean, it doesn't matter that Deadspin was basically bankrupt, which is why a private equity firm had to buy them, and reinvigorate them, and change everything out.
	But the idea here is that if you speak about politics from the left in the sports world, then you are a hero of the republic.
	Deadspin was the voice of the long-suffering fan finding the humor and the heartbreak in everything in the world of sports.
	It was the fan wondering why he was paying $200 to go to a football game to watch a team whose owner would rather pocket profit than pay to improve the roster.
	It was also the fan troubled by the culture and politics of sports.
	The fan who couldn't help noticing the larger issues of the real world spilled onto the field.
	Okay, so the New York Times gives that guy an op-ed, right?
	And we're all supposed to lament the return of Deadspin to pure sports.
	Then there's Don Cherry.
	So Don Cherry is a longtime hockey analyst for the NHL.
	And he was on Sportsnet, and he commented on Sportsnet on the fact that it was Remembrance Day in Canada.
	Well, on Remembrance Day in Canada, I've been there, everyone wears a red poppy in remembrance of the Canadian soldiers who fell during World War I. And he was upset, because he said he was walking around the streets of Toronto, and he saw people who he assumed were immigrants, who were not wearing the red poppy, and here's what Don Cherry said.
	I live in Mississauga, nobody wears, uh, very few people wear a poppy.
	Downtown Toronto, forget it, downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy.
	And I'm not gonna, he says, wait a minute!
	How about running it for the people that buy them?
	Now you go to the small cities, and you know, you know, those, the rows on rows, you people love, you, they come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppy or something like that.
	These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada.
	These guys paid the biggest price.
	Okay, so he said this and, you know, might not be well articulated, but he is entitled to his opinion unless he happens to be on the, on the...
	Okay, well, I mean, you could just say that, right?
	which point he gets fired.
	And Don Cherry was indeed fired from Sportsnet.
	Sportsnet president Bart Yabsley said, quote, sports brings people together.
	It unites us, not divides us.
	Following further discussions with Don Cherry after Saturday night's broadcast, it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down.
	During the broadcast, he made divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what we stand for.
	Okay, well, I mean, you could just say that, right?
	I mean, you could just have that debate, theoretically.
	But the point here is that the media will lament if Deadspin is told not to do politics.
	But if Don Cherry is told not to do politics, then that is Sportsnet acting as just as a wonderful, diverse company.
	You've seen the same thing at ESPN.
	At ESPN, they will cover Colin Kaepernick kneeling for years on end, but if Mike Ditka says something they don't like because it happens to be conservative, he says something about how he doesn't like Barack Obama or something, they'll fire him.
	He's gone.
	End of Mike Ditka.
	You see that with Curt Schilling too, right?
	Curt Schilling can't appear on the network because Curt Schilling once tweeted that Al-Qaeda was bad and compared Al-Qaeda to the Nazis, which of course you're not allowed to do even though Al-Qaeda is kind of like the Nazis.
	So, just gonna point out the double standard in sports media.
	One of the reasons why sports circulation is declining.
	The answer to this, probably, is to separate off politics from sports again.
	Or, if you are going to not separate off politics from sports, then you should, in fact, allow the same sort of freedom of opinion to reign as you would in the political sphere.
	Don Cherry wouldn't have been fired for saying what he said on CNN.
	So, if politics and sports are not separate, Then let a thousand voices be heard.
	And if politics and sports are separate, well then stop lamenting it when left-wing political hacks start hijacking sports websites for their own political agenda.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here today with two additional hours of content.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Siavitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Thirty years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, destroying Soviet communism and vindicating the conservative Reagan revolution.
	But that great victory for freedom created a big problem for the libertarians, traditionalists, and religious right who made up the post-war conservative movement.
	What unites us all now?
	We will examine the rubble of the Berlin Wall.

▲