Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 10, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:03:53

Nancy And The Giant Impeachment | Ep. 929

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Nancy Pelosi is hailed as a genius while pursuing an idiotic impeachment gambit.
	Members of the media blame Trump for Iran accidentally shooting down a civilian airliner.
	And Congressional Democrats suddenly object to executive war-making power.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.com.
	Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Okay, so we have now reached the point where impeachment might at some point be given to the Senate.
	I mean, I can't say that it's actually gonna happen, that, you know, the impeachment charges will be handed by Nancy Pelosi to the Senate, because she's still playing this idiotic game where she's like, maybe I'll hand it to them, but maybe I won't, but maybe I will, but maybe I won't.
	Make up your mind, lady.
	Which is it?
	Even members of Nancy Pelosi's own party are starting to look at her like, is there a strategy to any of this?
	Or are you just kind of winging it?
	Like, what was this?
	Here's the problem for Nancy Pelosi.
	Originally, when she launched this impeachment effort, she figured that it was a low-risk High reward gambit.
	That basically, no matter what happened, she was gonna be on good terms with her own base.
	Because something super damaging would come out about Trump.
	Something damaging enough that would really hurt him for 2020.
	So even if they impeached him in the House and he was acquitted in the Senate, it would hurt Trump going forward.
	There's only one problem.
	Trump's poll numbers have been absolutely stable.
	Everything in the world is baked into this cake when it comes to Trump.
	Everything.
	Eggshells, baby poop, custard, like everything is in the cake, okay?
	And everybody knows that it's in the cake.
	So, Nancy Pelosi thought, well, Probably they will dig something up.
	It turns out they didn't dig up anything that was supremely to the point of impeachment damning.
	They dug up some stuff that probably could have gotten him censured in the House, maybe even censured in the Senate, but nothing that merited impeachment.
	And so now Nancy Pelosi is stuck with this conundrum.
	If she submits these articles of impeachment to the Senate and the Senate just dismisses them immediately, then this thing is over.
	And she was a giant failure because she has declared herself a very important person for having pursued this nonsense.
	If, however, she holds this thing back and doesn't submit it to the Senate, then I guess in her own mind, she looks stubborn.
	I guess in her own mind, she looks like she's trying to play brinksmanship with Mitch McConnell, but she doesn't have any leverage.
	The whole thing is idiotic.
	So here was Nancy Pelosi yesterday explaining that she was actually saving the country with this impeachment effort.
	She's been busy.
	She's been too busy to go to San Francisco 49ers games.
	By the way, not too busy to go to fundraisers, not too busy to mouth off about how her home city of San Francisco is being run beautifully despite feces and needles on the street.
	But she's saving the country, is Nancy Pelosi.
	So here is Nancy Pelosi explaining yesterday that her gambit of not handing the impeachment charges to the Senate is somehow saving America.
	You're going to the Niners game?
	It would be my intention to go.
	I went to one game in San Francisco.
	We watched all together the second game in Seattle.
	I have, unfortunately, responsibilities to save our country this weekend, so I'm wearing my Democratic hat of political leader this weekend.
	She has responsibilities to save the country this weekend.
	Oh, the superhero!
	The same members of the media who term Ruth Bader Ginsburg the notorious RBG suggest that Nancy Pelosi is somehow saving the country with this idiotic gambit.
	We'll get to more of Nancy Pelosi in just one second.
	But first, let's talk about a simple fact.
	If you look at every single study that's ever been done, the fact is, if you look better, if you look Like you are doing your hair in the morning, if you look like you're doing your makeup, if you are a lady, if you look like your teeth are straight.
	All of this can help you in life and in business.
	Looking better is a very important thing in life.
	I know, sounds superficial, but it's just the reality.
	Well, if you understand that and your teeth have slipped out of place ever since you had braces when you were a teenager, you need to be using Candid.
	Why?
	Well, Candid delivers clear aligners directly to you and straightens your teeth for 65% less than braces.
	Unlike braces, Candid Clear Liners are comfortable, removable, totally invisible, so you can transform your smile without anyone noticing a thing.
	Plus, you never have to set foot in a doctor's office or waiting room.
	Your treatment is prescribed remotely by a licensed orthodontist.
	Candid delivers everything you need directly to your door, which is a lot better than having to go to the orthodontist's office and sit in the office and wait around, have an appointment.
	Instead, you can do it all from your home.
	I did the entire early process from my house.
	They make it super easy.
	They give you a step-by-step guide.
	Unlike other companies, Candid only works with orthodontists.
	They don't just work with general dentists, which means that your treatment will be designed by an expert in tooth movement with 20 years of experience on average.
	So, are you ready to take the first step towards straighter teeth?
	For a limited time, you can get started with $75 off.
	By using code Shapiro at CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	That's CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	Use code Shapiro for $75 off.
	CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	Code Shapiro.
	CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	Use that code Shapiro for $75 off.
	Okay, so Nancy Pelosi says that she will, at some point, send the impeachment charges over, but not right now because, like, right now's bad because it's just bad, guys.
	And when asked about her strategy, she's like, I have a strategy.
	It's in my head.
	It's the most brilliant strategy you ever heard.
	No, I'm not holding them indefinitely.
	I'll send them over when I'm ready.
	playing there, because it sounds like Trump.
	Here's Nancy Pelosi doing her routine.
	No, I'm not holding indefinitely.
	I'll send him over when I'm ready.
	And that will probably be soon.
	I don't, you know, he said, if you don't send him over, I'm going to pass the Mexico-U.S. Canada trade agreement.
	OK, but we want to see what they're willing to do.
	OK, and you can see her with her hands.
	She's fumbling with things on the podium.
	She knows, she knows that she has put herself in this idiotic strategic box.
	And so the only tool that she has left is clubbing her Democratic colleagues into submission.
	So yesterday, there's a Democratic representative who made the crucial error, his name was Adam Smith, of suggesting on live television that the Speaker of the House should move along the charges.
	And then, within hours, he was walking that thing back because Nancy Pelosi called him up and said, you can't do that.
	So he wrote a tweet.
	He said, I misspoke this morning.
	I do believe we should do everything we can to force the Senate to have a fair trial.
	If the Speaker believes that holding onto the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate, then I wholeheartedly support that decision.
	I'm concerned that Senator McConnell won't have a fair trial.
	I'm with the Speaker that we should do everything we can to ensure he does.
	Ultimately, says Representative Adam Smith, I do want the article sent to the Senate for the very simple reason that I want the impeachment process to go forward.
	So reiterating his original position, but bending over backwards in order to please Nancy Pelosi.
	All of this is a mess.
	It's a mess.
	CNN's Don Lemon even was puzzled last night saying, I'm confused.
	So if she hands over the charges, is she caving?
	If she doesn't hand over the charges, is she somehow doing something strongly?
	What is going on here?
	Leader McConnell, he's not giving in to Nancy Pelosi's demands.
	So if she sends the articles without knowing what's happening in the trial, isn't he getting exactly what he wants?
	For now, it sure seems like that.
	And I think if you were making a prediction, you would say this is going to be an impeachment trial, probably without witnesses.
	OK, so again, this puts Pelosi in a position where she has now set up a standard for herself she can't meet.
	Because if she doesn't submit the impeachment charges, then McConnell just moves on with his day.
	And if she does submit the impeachment charges, then McConnell moves on with his day.
	So she has no leverage whatsoever.
	Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell signed on to Senator Josh Howley's resolution yesterday to change the Senate rules, which would allow the Senate to vote to dismiss the Democrats' articles of impeachment if Nancy Pelosi has not submitted the articles of impeachment within the next 25 days, according to Ryan Saavedra over at Daily Wire.
	New York Times reporter Nicholas Fandos reported on Thursday that McConnell had signed on to the resolution as a co-sponsor to change the Senate impeachment rules to allow the chamber to dismiss the House's articles if they are not sent over within 25 days.
	Now, one of the reasons that's important is because there's been a lot of speculation.
	Could Nancy Pelosi just hold the impeachment charges for like three years until Democrats eventually gain control of the Senate and then they impeach Trump if he's re-elected?
	Could they just do that?
	Like, let's say the Democrats lose the House but gain the Senate.
	Could they actually act on old impeachment charges?
	There are all these kind of weird vagaries in American law this way.
	Right now, there's a big debate that's about to happen over the Equal Rights Amendment.
	Yes, you heard that right.
	The Equal Rights Amendment, which did not pass back in the late 1970s.
	Well now, Democrats have tried to revive in a few states the Equal Rights Amendment, and then suggested that they have the supermajority of states approving the Equal Rights Amendment.
	There's only one problem.
	It's been a 40-year delay, and the original Equal Rights Amendment proposal by the United States Senate contained within it an expiration date.
	But this is something the Democrats actually have done in the past.
	They've tried to bring up old legislation and then pass it as though it were new.
	So McConnell is saying about impeachment, here, we'll just dismiss it, okay?
	If you're not going to do this, we'll dismiss it.
	We'll take up your bill as though you had submitted it to us, and then we'll just dismiss it, and we'll change the Senate rules.
	In order to do so, McConnell slammed Pelosi for spending, quote, 12 weeks undermining the institution of the presidency with a historically unfair and subjective impeachment.
	And now for the sequel, they've come after the institution of the Senate as well.
	When you step back from the political noise and the pundits discussing leverage that never existed, what have House Democrats actually done?
	He said this is what they've actually done.
	They initiated one of the most grave and unsettling processes in our Constitution and then refused to allow a resolution.
	The speaker began something she herself predicted would be so divisive to the country, and now she's unilaterally saying it cannot move forward toward resolution, which of course is true.
	Now, this is not going to stop the media from proclaiming Nancy Pelosi a full-scale Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein-style genius.
	Time magazine has a cover story with a glowing picture of Nancy Pelosi.
	I mean, it's so beautiful.
	The picture online is a picture of her backlit a little bit so you get the halo around her head.
	It's just gorgeous.
	And it's called, We've Upped the Ante.
	Why, Nancy Pelosi is going all in against Trump.
	Molly Ball writing.
	And the entire piece is just this boring, annoying pandering to Nancy Pelosi.
	Everything that she does is brilliant and wonderful.
	Everything she does is draped in genius.
	According to Molly Ball, Pelosi has spent decades at the highest levels of politics, but the past 12 months have arguably been her most consequential.
	Returning to the speakership after eight years running the House Democratic minority, she established herself as a counterweight and constrainer of this divisive president.
	Yeah, she's a Democrat.
	Like, that's called being a Democrat.
	Which, by the way, were mostly overturned by the Supreme Court.
	And she was the tactician behind the investigation that resulted in Trump's impeachment on December 18th.
	She oversaw an unprecedented litigation effort against the executive branch, racking up landmark court victories, which, by the way, were mostly overturned by the Supreme Court.
	And she was the tactician behind the investigation that resulted in Trump's impeachment on December 18th.
	Wow, the tactician.
	Can you imagine the tactical genius that it requires in order for you to get your own caucus to vote to impeach a president of the opposite party?
	I mean, it must just be tactical genius.
	I mean, this person, she's like the George Patton of politics.
	I mean, it's just amazing.
	It's like Robert E. Lee during his great forays into Northern Virginia.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	This is just nonsense.
	It's just pure nonsense.
	But again, the media will always portray Democrats as brilliant, At worst, Democrats are misunderstood.
	They're never just dumb.
	They never just did a dumb thing.
	Instead, it's, no, Democrats are geniuses and you don't all understand their genius.
	That's the big problem.
	You don't all understand their genius.
	So, is this impeachment effort going anywhere?
	The answer, of course, is no.
	Nancy Pelosi understands it's going nowhere, which is why she's not pushing this to the Senate.
	Because the moment it's taken up by the Senate, we are one week away from this whole thing being over, and then the attention turns back to the Democrats and the fact that they have a bunch of garbage candidates running for president, and the economy is strong, and President Trump has taken out the two top terrorists on planet Earth in the last four months.
	Okay, they don't want that.
	They want the impeachment in the news, but they don't want it in the news so much that people actually look at the fact that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats do not have a proper case.
	In just one second, we're going to get to the latest Democrat and media spin about President Trump and Soleimani because, of course, everything that Trump does, no matter how good, must be portrayed as bad and evil.
	We'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that maybe you just moved.
	Maybe you're just looking around that new apartment.
	Maybe you're looking around that new house and you're thinking to yourself, I need to upgrade this place.
	Or maybe you've been living in your place for a while, but you haven't really thought about upgrading the place in a while.
	Now, one thing that people tend to overlook when you move into a place or when you've been living there for a while is the window coverings.
	I realized this maybe a year ago when I was looking around my house and I was like, I've been here for a few years and there's still something dingy about it.
	And I realized that the window coverings on the back windows were the same as they were when I had moved in.
	They're probably the same as they were like three owners ago.
	Well, it was time to replace all those.
	And so I went over to blinds.com and you should too.
	Blinds.com makes it really easy for you.
	If you're not sure what you want or even where to start with blinds.com, you get a free online design consultation.
	You just send them pictures of your house and they send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, and specific rooms.
	They'll even send you free samples to make sure that everything looks as good in person as it does online and that every order gets free shipping.
	And here's the best part.
	If you accidentally mismeasure or you pick the wrong color, if you make a mistake, blinds.com will remake your blinds for free.
	So, I mean, you're the screw up.
	Blinds.com will make the magic happen for you.
	For a limited time, get 20% off everything at Blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
	That is Blinds.com, promo code Ben, for 20% off everything.
	That's the faux wood blinds, the cellular shades, the roller shades, and more.
	Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
	Rules and restrictions do apply.
	Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
	Okay, so, in the effort to turn the Soleimani killing, which ended with the Iranians backing down, into a loss for President Trump, The Democrats and the media will seize on literally anything in the most disgusting, despicable fashion.
	I mean, this really is disgusting and despicable.
	So yesterday, it turned out that there was a Ukrainian jetliner that crashed near Tehran on Tuesday, right, in the middle of these missile attacks that were being made by the Iranian government on Iraqi air bases.
	And the American government has now declared that it was likely that these were shot down by Iran.
	It's pretty obvious from the fuselage that it was shot down by Iran.
	There was no actual emergency call.
	The black box will not be turned over by Iran to Boeing because it's a Boeing jet.
	So it was not mechanical failure.
	Iran almost certainly did this.
	Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose country lost at least 63 citizens in the downing, said in Ottawa, we have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence.
	The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.
	Likewise, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison offered similar statements.
	Morrison also said it appeared to be a mistake.
	All of the intelligence as presented to us today does not suggest an intentional act, which of course makes perfect sense.
	Why would you shoot down a plane originating from your own territory?
	This was somebody got trigger happy on the Iranian side while they were firing missiles, and they thought maybe that there was some something coming the other way, and they decided that they were going to shoot down a civilian airliner.
	So it was likely a mistake.
	It shows How horribly run the Iranian administration is.
	This was not caught in the crossfire.
	There was no crossfire.
	This was just the Iranians sucking at their jobs and the deaths of 180 people resulting therefrom.
	Again, this thing took off from Tehran's airport.
	It was in the air for less than two minutes, and then it was shot down.
	So that's Iran's fault.
	That's Iran being a horrible dictatorship that was in the middle of firing missiles into a foreign country and decided, or somebody got trigger happy and shot down a civilian airliner.
	So that was the story.
	The media tried to blame Trump for this.
	Somehow it's Trump's fault that Iran accidentally shot down a civilian airliner in its own airspace originating from its own airport.
	Somehow this is President Trump's fault.
	It doesn't matter that the United States had issued a no-flight order over Iran and Iraq hours before the Ukrainian plane was down.
	The FAA had stopped U.S.
	commercial traffic over the region, understanding that Iran was likely to do something bad.
	The no-fly orders were published roughly three hours before the accident, according to an FAA spokesperson.
	The no-fly order outlined flight restrictions that prohibited U.S.
	civil aviation operators from operating in the airspace over Iraq, Iran, and the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
	Doesn't matter.
	Many in the media and the Democrats tried to blame Trump for this.
	So in other words, the Iranians would never have shot down an airliner accidentally over their own airspace.
	They didn't do it on purpose.
	They didn't do it in retaliation for the United States doing a thing.
	They accidentally shot down their own airliner because they're incompetent and because they're evil.
	And those two things are combined, okay?
	Because it was not just evil, right?
	They didn't purposely shoot down the airliner, but their evil in attempting to retaliate for the killing of their terror leader led to them accidentally shooting down a civilian airliner and murdering a bunch of civilians.
	Members of the left are trying to blame President Trump for this.
	The headline at Huffington Post today is Collateral Damage, Scores of Civilians.
	Collateral damage?
	The United States didn't do anything here.
	The United States didn't blow up the civilian airliner.
	The United States wasn't even firing anything into Iran.
	This happened over Iranian airspace, not even over Iraqi airspace.
	But according to the Huffington Post, the downed plane, which is solely the fault of the Iranians, is apparently Trump's fault.
	The Associated Press did the same thing.
	The Associated Press tweeted out, This is insane, sickening.
	Imagine having a family member on that plane.
	What began with a drone attack on a top Iranian general rippled outward until dozens of Iranian Canadians and dozens of Iranian students studying in Canada were dead.
	So in other words, if Trump had never hit Soleimani, then the airliner never gets downed.
	Alternatively, if Iran weren't a garbage terror regime that was intent on spreading terror across the region, none of this would have been a problem.
	Because guess where civilian airliners aren't getting downed by members of their own government?
	Any Western country.
	That's not a thing.
	And in times when the United States has accidentally downed an airliner, like back in the 1980s, there was actual crossfire.
	There was actual crossfire happening.
	This is much more reminiscent of the Russian government.
	The Russian government purposely shot down a Malaysian airliner, probably.
	This one was accidental because it doesn't benefit Iran in any way.
	They obviously didn't want to do it.
	It wasn't like Iran was like, you know what?
	We got to do something to hurt those Americans.
	We're shooting down our own airliner.
	That's what we're doing today.
	That's not what happened.
	But the attempt to blame Trump for this is full-scale crazy towns.
	I mean, it's nuts.
	Pete Buttigieg being Pete Buttigieg.
	Every so often he sort of masquerades as a moderate, but that ain't who Pete Buttigieg is on the inside.
	Pete Buttigieg tweeted out, Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit-for-tat.
	Caught in the middle?
	The United States didn't fire any ordnance into Iran.
	We took out a terrorist bad guy in Iraq, Iran shoots down an airliner of its own airspace originating from Iranian airports, and that's the United States' fault?
	That is legitimately like saying that somebody comes and robs your house, you call the police, the police arrive at that other person's house, and when the police arrive, the person inside the house in an attempt to shoot the police shoots their own wife.
	Is that your fault?
	Or is that the fault of the person who shot their wife accidentally?
	Like, this is ridiculous.
	Then Booty Judge says, my thoughts are with the families and loved ones of all 176 souls lost aboard this flight.
	Well, if your thoughts are with them, then maybe you should think about the fact that the regime that shot them down is the regime that is to blame for all of this.
	It wasn't just Buttigieg, either.
	This has become the talking point.
	On the left, because Trump won a victory against Iran, because Iran backed down, because their terror leader is dead, they have to find something they can pin on Trump.
	They were trying to pin World War III on Trump.
	That was never going to materialize because the Iranians, more than anybody else, the Ayatollahs, did not want to go to full-scale war with President Trump.
	He had just vaporized their terror leader.
	The Ayatollahs did not want to end up in the same number of pieces that Soleimani ended up.
	So Trump gets the win.
	They won't give him the win.
	Instead, Iran doing a bad thing to people originating from its own country, in its own airspace, now that's Trump's fault.
	So I suppose that if Iran starts shooting dissenters in the streets, that's also Trump's fault.
	Because Trump is opposing Iran too strongly.
	What is even the logic here?
	How is this logic even followable?
	It doesn't matter.
	People have to find something to blame Trump for here and turn a win into a loss.
	There's another report from the Wall Street Journal today doing the same thing.
	There's a report from the Wall Street Journal... By the way, people should know, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative.
	The Wall Street Journal news page is actually more liberal than the New York Times.
	There have been studies that have shown this.
	Okay, so, the Wall Street Journal...
	The Wall Street Journal reports today that Trump was saying to people that he hit Soleimani in order to get wavering senators on his side for impeachment.
	What wavering senators?
	There's literally no evidence that a single Republican senator was ready to vote for impeachment.
	So this is just pure fantasy.
	It's just pure nonsense.
	It doesn't matter.
	Everything Trump does has to be turned into an L. It doesn't matter.
	If it's a big W, it has to be turned into an L by the media and by the Democrats, and so they'll come up with this strained logic where Iran shoots down an air—again, it was an Iranian-originating flight in Iranian airspace two minutes after takeoff, and it was accidental.
	The Iranians didn't want to do this.
	Ben Rhodes, that piece of— Oh yeah, tell it to your boss after the Libyan debacle.
	I'm sorry, this is all ridiculous.
	It's ridiculous and it's purely politically driven.
	Okay, we'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about what you do if you have, you know, an employee who really is on that board.
	Let's say that there's an employee at your company.
	Let's just call her Nika, for example.
	And let's say she's really just a delight.
	She's really delightful.
	But, she does the makeup on your show, and every so often, while you are in the middle of reading your phone just before the show, you know, checking the news, doing what's really important, she sort of sprays you in the face with makeup.
	Just randomly, just boom, right in the grill.
	And let's say you think, you know, I don't really want that today.
	Instead, I need to go to ZipRecruiter.
	Because ZipRecruiter is where you're going to get the best possible candidates.
	ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
	With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
	As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you're never going to miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
	It's really important to get hiring rights that you don't have someone like, let's say, Nika, who just sort of mixes up your wardrobe with the wardrobe of the other hosts and suddenly you're trying on shirts that are too small for you.
	Really, right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire, upgrade your business, get the best people.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	So as I say, the attempt to turn this win for Trump into a loss is pretty astonishing.
	I had on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the radio show.
	This is why you should subscribe over at DailyWire.com.
	I had Secretary of State Pompeo on the show yesterday and rightly he is bewildered by the media coverage of this because the media coverage of this is just egregious and so is the Democratic response.
	Representative Jackie Speier of California who really, I mean, has the intelligence of a potato.
	She was on with Wolf Blitzer explaining that it was Trump's fault that Iran shot down a passenger plane again originating from its own airport in its own airspace.
	If what is being projected is true, this is yet another example of collateral damage from the actions that have been taken in a provocative way by the president of the United States.
	OK, so the United States is normally when you say collateral damage, what you mean is that the United States didn't airstrike on a terror target.
	And there were civilians nearby.
	And those civilians were hurt or killed.
	That's what collateral damage is.
	It's where we do something that ends with civilian casualties, but we're actually not aiming at those people.
	We're aiming at the bad guys.
	What relationship does that have to Iran shooting down a civilian airliner in its own airspace?
	What relationship?
	No crossfire, by the way.
	Again, no confusion here.
	The United States did not launch a single piece of ordinance that night.
	Not one.
	And yet the media are covering this as though this is Trump's fault because they got to find something to blame Trump for, even if it's just the Iranian government being a garbage terror regime.
	Sarah Rao, who once ran for Congress as a Democrat, she's the author of some books that nobody cares about, she tweeted out every single one of the 176 passengers on the Ukrainian plane that went down was murdered by Donald Trump.
	Murdered by Donald Trump?
	Weird.
	Because it seems like the piece of anti-aircraft ordnance that went through the plane had Iranian markings on it, happened on Iranian territory, in Iranian airspace, and there was nothing coming from the United States at all.
	She says, we have to start calling a thing a thing and stop pretending that this man and America are not the biggest terrorists in the world.
	America is the biggest terrorist in the world?
	America.
	Okay, you want a one-way ticket to Iran?
	I mean, I wouldn't take it, because it doesn't seem like they treat their airliners all that well, but there is a cadre of Americans who really, really blame America first for nearly everything, and it's disgusting.
	It's disgusting.
	Okay, Barack Obama's policy was truly awful.
	It was truly awful, and it lacked.
	And you could point to his policy as the rationale for strengthening bad guys around the world.
	But when a terrorist commits a terror act, that's not Barack Obama's specific fault.
	When the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting happened under Obama's administration.
	That was not Obama's fault.
	I mean, that was the fault of the terrorists.
	And that's especially not Obama's fault if you were fighting ISIS harder.
	The claim that Trump was too harsh on Iran, so Iran shot down accidentally its own airliner, so this is Trump's fault, is just patently insane.
	It's patently insane.
	But again, the Democrats will do anything in order to blame Trump for what is obviously a win and suggest that everything was hunky-dory until this very moment, and then everything that goes wrong from the point at which Trump does a thing, that's all on Trump.
	It's amazing.
	The Democrats tend to read current events the same way they read history.
	So, Democrats, members of the media, what they do when they look at American history, for example, is they point to all of the bad things that have happened in American history.
	And yes, there are plenty of them.
	The mistreatment of Native Americans, the centuries-long issue of slavery, the century of Jim Crow.
	They point to all the bad things in American history.
	And then they say, because America is uniquely bad.
	And they never ever take a broader view and say, OK, well, it's true.
	America did all of these terrible, horrible, no good, very bad things.
	But most of human history is replete with all of these terrible, horrible, very good, very bad, no good things all over the globe.
	The question is, why did America do things right?
	Not why did America do things wrong?
	Why did America do things right?
	So it's always thrown into, for Democrats, for the media, it's always that everything can be blamed on America because they hone in on everything America does wrong.
	They never ever contrast what America does right with the rest of the world.
	So it becomes America's fault whenever anything goes wrong.
	That's a very convenient way of looking at the world if you wish to suggest that America needs to withdraw, that America's power in the world needs to be minimized, that America's history is egregious and bad all the way through.
	That myopic view is ugly and wrong and stupid, but it is pursued by a huge number of people these days, including former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has to insist that the world began spinning when Donald Trump became president.
	Until Trump became president, Everything was sort of Rousseau-ian paradise.
	It was an Edenic place, the world.
	And then Donald Trump came along, and then things started to go bad.
	Now, this happens to be a complete lie, but that's what John Kerry is best at.
	The worst secretary of state in American history, John Kerry.
	Also an awful senator.
	Also a liar about his fellow troops in Vietnam.
	John Kerry, he has a piece in the New York Times today called, Really, was it?
	Was it working?
	Because I seem to remember a vast outbreak of Iranian terrorism all across the region, plus additional development of ballistic missile technology under the Iran nuclear deal that you promoted and lied to the American people about.
	But John Kerry says, President Trump says that on his watch, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
	But if he had wanted to keep that promise, he should have left the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in place.
	Instead, he pulled the United States out of the deal.
	That deal, at best, at best, had Iran voluntarily agreeing not to develop further its nuclear program until like 2023, 2025, somewhere in that period.
	That was it.
	That's all the deal did.
	And then, they could turn the spigots right back on, form those nuclear weapons, and they could be part of the world economy while doing it, and have expanded their terrorist regional power.
	The Iran nuclear deal was not even a band-aid.
	It was a misdirection from the key problem, which is that the Iranian regime is cancerous.
	But according to John Kerry, it's all about Trump.
	He says, after Mr. Trump authorized the killing of Major General Qasem Soleimani last week, Iran announced it was no longer obligated to follow the agreement.
	Though Mr. Trump has since walked back from the brink of war, I can't explain the chaos of his presidency as it lurches from crisis to crisis, real or manufactured.
	The president has said he doesn't do exit strategies, clearly.
	He doesn't do strategies, period.
	John Kerry.
	Hey, look.
	Okay.
	Let's just point out that the Obama administration's strategy was to sign checks to these people.
	Was to give money to Soleimani.
	That was their actual strategy.
	But according to John Kerry, everything bad that has happened is the fault of Trump.
	This is amazing.
	Here's John Kerry.
	Let's get one straw man out of the way.
	General Soleimani was a sworn unapologetic enemy of the United States.
	A cagey field marshal who oversaw Iran's long strategy to extend the country's influence through sectarian proxies in the region.
	He won't be mourned or missed by anyone in the West.
	Occasionally, when American and Iranian interests aligned, we were certain to be disbeneficiaries of his relationships, but this was a rare exception.
	This underscores the tragic irony of Mr. Trump's decision to abrogate the nuclear agreement it played into General Soleimani's hardline strategy by weakening voices for diplomacy within the Tehran regime.
	So he's just going to keep going with this lie.
	This was the lie promoted by the Obama administration that there were hardliners and moderates and Obama had empowered the moderates.
	Really?
	I need you to show me the moderates.
	Point to them.
	Is it Hassan Rouhani?
	Really?
	Is it Hassan Rouhani?
	Was it Ahmadinejad?
	Who are the moderates inside Iran?
	In the Iranian government?
	The moderates I see are the ones getting shot in the streets by the Iranian regime, propped up by the money that John Kerry and Barack Obama handed to them.
	It's all just a disastrous attempt to back Bill Obama's crap foreign policy.
	That's all this is.
	Okay, meanwhile, the House voted on a resolution to curtail Trump's war powers yesterday.
	It's a non-binding measure, so it means absolutely nothing.
	According to Politico, the House voted on Thursday to halt further U.S.
	military action against Iran in a powerful rebuke of Donald Trump's use of force overseas without congressional approval.
	Really, was it a powerful rebuke, or was it a bunch of Democrats with virtually no Republican support saying that they don't like Trump?
	Is that what that is?
	Because I'm missing the powerful, and I'm missing the rebuke, and also, I'm missing how this means anything.
	The answer is, of course, it doesn't.
	Democrats are just mad that Trump got a W here, and so, of course, they're trying to turn it into an L with the help of the media.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second, because the behavior of the Democrats on this score has been utterly ridiculous.
	Utterly ridiculous.
	We'll get to more of it in a second.
	First, it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout-out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
	Next week, it could be you.
	Today, it's Lisa Albert on Twitter, who knows good news when she sees it.
	In this picture, Lisa is holding the glorious, incomparable Leftist Tears Tumblr into frame next to her adorable puppy.
	Look at that doggie!
	It's a good doggie!
	In response to a tweet of the Ayatollah weeping at terrorist General Soleimani's funeral, Lisa writes, Yes, indeed.
	He was a bad, bad, evil, very bad man.
	Trump was right to take him out.
	The world is better off in his absence.
	Thanks for the picture, and thanks for your support.
	You could be featured next week.
	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, which is a pretty fantastic feature if you haven't checked it out yet.
	If you choose the new all-access plan, you'll get all of 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, special guests on a weekly basis.
	So stop depriving yourself and come join the fun.
	You are listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So Politico reports the mostly party line vote on a symbolic non-binding resolution came days after Trump ordered the killing of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
	Now, you want to hear how hypocritical and ridiculous the Democrats are on this point?
	I'm just going to play you a couple of clips of Nancy Pelosi.
	So yesterday, Nancy Pelosi said that this was an assassination and an assault on Iran.
	It was an assault on Iran to kill the terror leader who's been spreading terror, like literal death against American troops for years, who's been spreading terror across the region.
	His killing was an assassination, which means it was in violation of American law.
	The word assassination has actual legal ramifications because there are executive orders in place to prevent assassination of foreign officials.
	And she says it was an assault on Iran.
	So Trump is the bad guy.
	Here's Nancy Pelosi saying we have to curtail Trump's war powers because Trump is the bad guy, despite the fact that Iran has been consistently pursuing terrorism across the region from administration to administration without cease.
	The United States had a high level, maybe the second most important person in the country, assassinated wherever the United States might consider that assault on our country, right?
	And the Iranians might as well, even though this took place at the Iraqi airport.
	And so it's foggy.
	There are those who think, well, it was in Iraq, so it counts.
	But it was an assault on Iran, so it shouldn't count.
	She's literally defending the Iranian regime now.
	From their perspective, it was very bad.
	I mean, she is defending the Iranian regime.
	That's not defending Soleimani as a human, but she's defending the Iranian regime.
	She's saying that America was the aggressor in killing an Iranian terrorist on Iraqi territory.
	It's unbelievable.
	And on that basis, she says we need a war powers resolution to restrain power.
	Now, as I said yesterday, if you're Senator Mike Lee, and it is your shtick, and it is, that the Constitution grants war-making power to Congress, and you have, across administrations, wanted that power brought back to Congress, I get it.
	Mike Lee is consistent.
	I may disagree with his application of the rules, but he's a consistent person.
	Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are just full of crap.
	Here's Nancy Pelosi flashback, like a couple of years, saying that Barack Obama not only did not need authorization to kill terrorists, he did not need congressional authorization to enter a full-scale air war in Libya.
	Forget about killing a terrorist, which is fully legal.
	Barack Obama did not need congressional authorization to conduct a full-scale war in Libya.
	This is Nancy Pelosi like five minutes ago.
	They are so full of bleep, it's unreal.
	Madam Speaker, Madam Leader, you're saying that the president did not need authorization initially and still does not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?
	Yes.
	Yes!
	Just straight up yes!
	No authorization!
	This by the way was weeks after the invasion of Libya.
	So are we supposed to take this complaint by Nancy Pelosi seriously?
	Super seriously?
	She cares about the constitutional limits and the prerogatives of Congress.
	Sure, sure she does.
	And this is the Democratic message.
	The Democratic message is they are doing PR for the Iranian regime, which of course is not a surprise because the Obama administration routinely did PR for the Iranian regime.
	That in fact was part of the bargain.
	The Iran nuclear deal was predicated on the Obama administration lying to the American people that now all problems with Iran were solved, up to and including when they put American sailors on their knees, forced them to hold their hands behind their head as they took an American ship hostage.
	Okay, the fact is that Iranian terrorism around the region never ceased.
	And I'm sick to death of this notion that everything began when Trump became president, or when Trump did X, Y, or Z. Read a damned book, you idiots!
	Then you have- I mean, they're really doing- It's amazing.
	They're doing full- They should be paid.
	Honestly, if you're gonna do this, at least take the money.
	Elizabeth Warren, yesterday, who had to be bullied into admitting that Soleimani was a terrorist by Meghan McCain because nobody in the media will ask her a straight question because she's- She's Elizabeth Warren.
	She's got a plan for that, and she's the worst dancer in human history.
	She was doing an interview with that unbelievable journalistic outlet Cosmopolitan Magazine.
	So Cosmopolitan Magazine's cover was like, Elizabeth Warren speaks about Iran and also nine new sex positions that'll blow his mind.
	Here was Elizabeth Warren last night explaining that Soleimani was a bad guy, but he He was a high-ranking Iranian official and therefore we probably shouldn't have done this.
	It's not that he was a bad guy, it's that he was a terrorist.
	This is a legal standard.
	He'd been labeled a terrorist by the American government.
	He was in a car with another terrorist.
	But she won't say that, right?
	Unless Meghan McCain is there basically browbeating her.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren getting away with her... Yeah, he was a mean... Like, how bad was he, Nancy?
	I mean, Elizabeth.
	How bad was he?
	Was he, like, bad as in, like, The Bachelor?
	Like, a mean guy on The Bachelor?
	Or was he bad as in, like...
	murdering hundreds of American troops.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren downplaying how bad Soleimani was in order to claim that he was just sort of a normal, bad, antagonistic official.
	No, Vladimir Putin is a bad guy who's a foreign official.
	This guy was pursuing terror building across the entire region.
	The principal job of the president of the United States is to keep America safe.
	And ordering the killing of Soleimani, who was a bad guy, but a high-ranking Iranian government official, has not made America safer.
	He was a bad guy, yeah, but he was a high-ranking government official.
	Who was the leader of their terrorist operation?
	Now, there are still a few sane Democrats out there.
	Democrat Max Rose from New York, for example.
	And he says, listen, I don't think that we need to limit presidential war powers here just because the President of the United States killed a terrorist.
	Like, that's absurd.
	When it comes to congressional power, much of this power is found in appropriations.
	If Congress disagrees with a protracted and extensive war, and that's not what we see today with Iran, well, it has the power of the purse.
	And that's where Congress should exert itself.
	We should not be passaging resolutions like we just did today, which sends the message to the American people that we're on the brink of war.
	I don't believe that we are.
	Qasem Soleimani was a terrorist who should have been killed, and no one should mourn his loss.
	Good for Max Rose.
	How about that guy in the Democratic primaries?
	How about Max Rose?
	How about, like, a reasonable human being in the Democratic primaries?
	No?
	We can't do that?
	Even Jay Johnson, the Homeland Security Secretary under Barack Obama.
	Barack Obama, who used to do a drone war, killing terrorists routinely.
	Jay Johnson was like, yeah, of course it's legal for Trump to kill Soleimani.
	What is this nonsense where it's illegal, or it's an assassination, or it's an act of war for Trump to kill a terrorist?
	under existing office of legal counsel opinions on the president's constitutional authority to to engage the armed forces without a congressional authorization if you read those opinions he had ample constitutional authority to take out general solomoni if you regard that as an isolated uh... what these all well see opinions say is that the president can
	Take lethal force, so long as it's short of war, if it's in the important national interest.
	And this operation was.
	Even Jay Johnson, who's an Obama guy, is like, yeah, no, pretty fine, pretty fine.
	It's only the people who are defending Obama's overall strategy who have a problem with this, including all of the idiots in the media, Chris Cuomo.
	A living human log was on CNN last night explaining that every single person, if they were a patriot, should have voted for the War Powers Resolution.
	I remember him being super-exercised about the war in Libya.
	I remember him being super-exercised about Obama's drone war.
	I remember him saying, you know what we need?
	We need a rebalancing of legislative and executive power.
	Again, I'm fine with the principle of rebalancing legislative and executive power, although I think it would be very difficult to draw a standard under any circumstances.
	Under which the Constitution of the United States does not give the commander-in-chief the ability to make a quick strike against a terrorist.
	I think George Washington would have done it.
	Okay, but Chris Cuomo trying to suggest that he's just a constitutionalist.
	Why won't anyone stand up to this president for doing what is fully within his legal authority?
	And by the way, backing down the mullahs.
	It was so bad.
	It was so mean.
	Why isn't everyone on board?
	Here's Chris Cuomo, human block of wood.
	That's what is in the Constitution.
	My argument.
	I can't believe it wasn't unanimous.
	And no, this is not about the GOP just choosing Trump over the truth.
	There's some of that.
	But Democrats have been anxious to give more power to presidents as well.
	This has been going on for a long time and it's gotten worse.
	And it is the worst example of congressional cowardice.
	Shame on you and every Trumper and never Trumper who voted against this.
	Unbelievable.
	I mean, truly, this is where you're drawing the line?
	In what is clearly a decent kill?
	A correct kill?
	Killing a terrorist?
	This is where you draw the line?
	This is where you're like, we gotta- we gotta seize back that congressional war-making power.
	Barack Obama conducted a full- I remember.
	I was there.
	Okay, don't gaslight me.
	Libya was a thing that happened.
	It ended with the murder of our ambassador in Benghazi.
	It ended with the legitimate government of Libya trying to govern from offshore in an oil tanker.
	I re- I was there.
	It's amazing.
	If you ask the American people, were we ever at war in Libya?
	It's only been like six years or eight years.
	Everybody's like, what?
	Who?
	No.
	What?
	Barack Obama was the most peaceful president who ever was.
	And Iran was our friend.
	Unbelievable.
	Last word from the media goes, of course, to our friends, Chris Matthews.
	I was gonna say, so last night, he was very mad at Joaquin Castro to talk about this, had on some other lady I don't recognize, and come out here, sit on a rumpel, come out here to the show.
	I'm very upset about Soleimani's death.
	Soleimani, he was a very popular man, Soleimani.
	Let me tell you about Soleimani, how popular he was, why it's a bad idea because Soleimani was such a popular guy, so popular, probably held concerts with like millions of screaming women who are fainting in the aisles.
	Go, Chris Matthews, go!
	You know, when some people die, we, you know, you don't know what the impact's going to be.
	When Princess Diana died, for example, there was a huge emotional outpouring.
	These kinds of... Elvis Presley in our culture.
	It turns out that this generally killed was a beloved hero of the Iranian people to the point where look at the people we've got pictures of now.
	These enormous crowds coming out.
	There's no American emotion in this case, but there's a hell of a lot of emotion on the other side.
	Should our leaders know what they're doing when they kill somebody?
	He's like Elvis.
	He's like Princess Diana.
	He's like a beautiful, glamorous woman who died in a car crash, except for like an Iranian terrorist who murdered hundreds of people, but exactly the same otherwise.
	He's like Elvis.
	And we thought he was a devil in disguise, nothing but a hound dog.
	He was actually a pocket full of rainbows.
	I just wanted him to be my teddy bear, but now he's just a hunk of burning love.
	I'm feeling a visit to the Heartbreak Hotel.
	Soleimani, always on my mind.
	I'm feeling all shook up.
	Then you wonder why America's like, when Trump rips on the media, yeah, okay, fine, fine.
	I never, I'm not an enemy of the people kind of guy.
	I've never liked that commentary from President Trump.
	I don't think that the members of the media are enemies of the people, but I think that in a lot of cases they are enemies of the truth and enemies of decency and enemies of morality.
	And when you're parroting democratic narratives because your nose is so far up Barack Obama's ass that it's coming out his mouth, I think at that point you've lost a lot of credibility, haven't you?
	Okay, President Trump did a rally last night.
	He responded to all of this and...
	What he said is basically correct.
	He says, it's a good thing for Iran, nobody was hurt, because if somebody had gotten hurt, this is actually before the rallies at the White House, he says, if somebody had gotten hurt, then this story would have been very different, which is why, by the way, so I interviewed Secretary Pompeo last night on the radio show.
	And Secretary Pompeo, I asked him directly whether the Iranian government had issued pre-warnings to the Iraqi government to get everybody out of the way.
	And he said, he kind of hesitated.
	And then he said, well, I'll go with what the defense secretary has said, which is that they were aiming to kill people.
	Okay, well, with all due respect to members of the administration, they're saying what they have to say, because if you wish to ratchet down tensions with the Iranians, you let them save face by saying, yeah, they aimed at us, but they just missed, they were just really bad at it.
	But, there have been multiple reports, these are reports that I tend to believe, that the Iranians called up the Iraqis, they said, we're gonna fire a few missiles into your territory, you're gonna let it go, and then we'll all go home happy.
	Here's Donald Trump saying, fortunately for them, nobody was hurt, because if somebody had been hurt, then they would be in a world of hurt.
	If you look at what happened with Ukraine, that's a hoax.
	Well, this is a hoax, too.
	Iran went in, and they hit us with missiles.
	Shouldn't have done that, but they hit us.
	Fortunately for them, Nobody was hurt.
	Nobody was killed.
	Nothing happened.
	They landed.
	Very little damage, even, to the base.
	They landed.
	Okay, and this is correct.
	This is correct.
	So, President Trump then did a rally last night in which he got a little more fired up, and he said, you know, all you whiners in the media, it was amazing.
	So, there's a congressperson, Well, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, and he was tweeting out the day that the U.S.
	Embassy was burning in Baghdad that this was just proof that Trump was weak.
	Okay, then Trump kills Soleimani and Chris Murphy turns around, he's like, I can't believe that he would be so mean and so terrible.
	Trump was like, okay, you guys let Benghazi happen.
	Not only did you let Benghazi happen, you then lied about it to the American people for months on end.
	And then members of the media would mock anybody who had questions about the lying by the Obama administration and whether they had taken proper precautions in the first place.
	Don't you remember all of those Twitter memes where people would use the letters Benghazi and they would tweet them vertically with silly words in the middle because it was all a myth.
	Why would we possibly be worried about Benghazi?
	And then the minute that the embassy was burning in Baghdad, it was like, oh, this is Trump's Benghazi.
	Here was Trump saying, no, it wasn't my Benghazi because the difference is I'm not a pansy.
	He ordered the violent assault on the American embassy in Baghdad.
	And you saw this was the anti-Benghazi.
	We got there very quickly.
	We got there very quickly.
	This is the exact opposite.
	We did it exactly the opposite of Benghazi, where they got there so late.
	All they saw when they got there days later were burning embers from days before.
	Okay, President Trump is correct about this.
	And then President Trump goes after Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom have been suggesting that Trump is the aggressor in the region.
	And he's like, you know, you guys are whining an awful lot for, you could just say thank you for me taking out Soleimani and us not going to war.
	You could just do that.
	But here's a guy who slaughtered and butchered civilians all over and military, whoever was in his way.
	And we have Bernie and Nancy Pelosi.
	We have them all.
	They're all trying to say, how dare you take him out that way?
	You should get permission from Congress.
	You should come in and tell us what you want to do.
	You should come in and tell us so that we can call up the fake news that's back there and we can leak it.
	Okay, so a lot of people are very upset with President Trump for suggesting that people like Pelosi or Bernie would leak it.
	And listen, do I think that the Democrats were going to get on the horn and then immediately leak the stuff?
	No, I don't.
	Is there precedent for the President, for Democrats leaking national security information of other nations that prevent attacks on Iran?
	Absolutely.
	There were several examples of the Obama administration Well, I don't think that the gang of eight was then going to go and talk to the New York Times or the Washington Post if he was going to hit Soleimani.
	I can't help but think that there is an itch at the back of my mind that says that was in fact a very, very slight possibility.
	President Trump then gives the real excuse, which is, listen, when Soleimani comes up, and this happens like an hour out, I don't have time to call up all of the Democrats and be like, what do you think I should do about Soleimani?
	So they want me.
	So, you know, these are split second decisions.
	You have to make a decision.
	So they don't want me to make that decision.
	They want me to call up, maybe go over there.
	Let me go over to Congress.
	So come on over to the White House.
	Let's talk about it.
	When can you make it?
	Well, I won't be able to make it today, sir.
	How about let's say in a couple of days?
	Oh, sure.
	Come on over.
	No, we got a call.
	We heard where he was.
	We knew the way he was getting there.
	And we had to make a decision.
	We didn't have time to call up Nancy, who is not operating with a full deck.
	And here's the bottom line.
	Here's the bottom line takeaway.
	The Democrats right now are defending that they're defending the Iranian regime against the president of the United States taking out their top terrorist.
	That is in effect what they are doing, because we already know they're still operating from this ridiculous position they had four days ago, where World War Three was imminent.
	It didn't happen.
	It wasn't close to happening.
	And yet they're still operating from that position.
	And so they're just going to keep lying about it, and the American people are going to have to make a decision.
	Do you want a president who's going to back Iran off its marks, or do you want a president who's going to sign them checks?
	Those are your two choices, because the Democrats have made very clear what their choice should be.
	I mean, the key Democrat here would be, in the end, Ilhan Omar, who was explaining yesterday that sanctions on Iran are an act of war, but sanctions against Israel are very good.
	This lady sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee and was praised by Nancy Pelosi.
	The PDS movement is a movement that is driven by the people.
	The sanctions on Iran are sanctions that are being placed to create maximum pressure by a government.
	That's very different.
	Okay, except for the sanctions in BDS.
	S. S. Sanctions.
	Those would be governmental sanctions.
	Institutional sanctions being pressed for by members like Ilhan Omar.
	She doesn't care about the distinction between popular movements and the... You think she'd be sad if the United States placed sanctions on Israel tomorrow?
	You really think that she'd be like, oh, the poor Jews.
	Or she'd be like, oh, the Jews!
	That's not a lady who likes Jews very much.
	Okay, but she definitely wants to protect Iran against the sanctions.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I like and then a quick thing that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	First of all, any video of Elizabeth Warren dancing is a good video.
	What is an even funnier video is Elizabeth Warren dancing than Cory Booker defending it.
	So, Elizabeth Warren is legitimately the worst dancer on planet Earth and I speak as somebody who is an awful dancer.
	I have a lot of authority when I say I know bad dancing when I see it because I own a mirror.
	Elizabeth Warren puts me to shame.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh, it's so awkward.
	And you can see everybody awkwardly, oh, Grandma's dancing again.
	There's the crazy lady from the HOA wearing her black jumpsuit and her latest blue sweater.
	And she just won't stop the dancing.
	You can't stop, won't stop.
	And then you got Joaquin Castro standing next to her, awkwardly clapping.
	And she won't stop dancing!
	Everybody's like, stop dancing!
	So Cory Booker comes in and says, why are you making fun of her dancing?
	Why?
	Why?
	I'm putting my angry eyes.
	Why?
	Why?
	Why are you stopping the dancing?
	Can't stop the beat.
	Can't stop it.
	By the way, Cory, I just want to note, Cory Booker needs to stop sending me creepy notes.
	So Cory Booker, his campaign keeps sending over very odd messages.
	Very odd messages.
	So he sent one out.
	Like, two days ago, they said, I'm asking you to dinner, Ben.
	First of all, I don't know what Rosario would think, Cory.
	I mean, really, I think it's awkward.
	And then he sent up a follow-up from one of his campaign people saying, did you see Cory's note about dinner, Ben?
	Stop stalking, dude.
	It's creepy.
	Nobody wants you as a candidate.
	And no, I'm not interested in dinner with Cory Booker.
	Anyway, he tweets out about Elizabeth Warren.
	Raise your hand if you know why people are trolling Elizabeth's stance moves and not my dad jokes.
	Because your dad jokes are not nearly as funny as Elizabeth's dance moves, that's why.
	Because dad jokes are not as funny as people dancing awkwardly.
	But it's gotta be sexism.
	I love that Cory Booker is still doing the, I'm the only black person left in the race, vote for me.
	I like women!
	I like women like Elizabeth Warren!
	I'm not a sexist, I'd never make fun of a woman dancing as though she's been hit with some sort of galvanizing frog electricity and spasming.
	How dare you make fun of this incredible dancer?
	How dare you make fun of a woman going... How dare you?
	I can't believe it.
	I can't.
	Angry eyes out.
	So there is Cory Booker.
	I do enjoy that.
	Yeah, okay, now for... This is a thing that I both like and hate, so we'll count it as a thing that I like.
	What I hate is the underlying reality.
	What I like is this documentary.
	This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen in my life.
	It is available on Amazon Prime.
	It is called One Child Nation, and it is a deep look inside China's evil policy from the 1970s to 2015 that mandated That Chinese couples only have one baby.
	This resulted in something like 350 million forced abortions inside the country of China.
	It resulted in families abandoning their female children to death.
	Spartan fashion.
	Like literally taking, if they would have a baby, the baby would be fully born.
	Just full-scale infanticide.
	Taking the babies, throwing them in garbage pits.
	Taking the babies, taking them to the market, leaving them there, and then letting them die.
	The person who created this documentary had direct relatives.
	She had an aunt on one side and an uncle on the other side.
	Her uncle actually abandoned a female child at the market.
	The child died two days later of exposure and lack of nutrition because not a single person in the village would take the female child because of the one-child policy in China.
	And what's amazing about the documentary, and what remains true, is that by pulling data, if it were to be taken, these policies remain pretty popular in China.
	Why?
	Because it turns out that human beings are incredibly malleable when it comes to their morality.
	And when people are informed, through propaganda, for decades on end, that infanticide is just a necessary part of heightening the collective, people will go along even with that.
	It's why you see similar polls in Russia talking about the popularity of Stalin, who's only responsible for the deaths of 20 million minimum.
	Members of the USSR population.
	So, the documentary is disturbing.
	Also, if you are a pro-choice person, if you are a pro-abortion person, this is the only documentary I've ever seen where people will actually show what fetuses look like.
	Because, according to the leftist western way of morality, abortion is only bad if it's forced.
	But if it's voluntary, it's okay.
	At no point does the left actually come face-to-face with what it is that they are aborting.
	In this documentary, there are actual videos of babies, fetuses that were recovered from dump sites.
	There's an artist in China who recovered these babies, these living human beings who were murdered, and preserved them in formaldehydes that he could show people what these babies look like.
	And these are not embryos, right?
	These are not zygotes.
	These are fully formed seven-month-old, eight-month-old, nine-month-old babies.
	China used to post messages on the wall in China up to like three years ago, four years ago.
	They post messages on the wall saying better to abort, better to never get pregnant than to have a second child.
	The evil of collectivism cannot be overstated.
	It is a full-scale evil.
	And when people pretend that the Chinese regime is somehow a lot more benign than the USSR, absolutely untrue, remains untrue to this day.
	Here's the trailer from the documentary.
	It's disturbing, it's heartbreaking, and it's a reminder that you are so lucky to live in the West, and most of all, your children are so lucky to live in the West, and you have the same duty to protect life in a free country that you would in a non-free country.
	I was born in China in 1985, a time when China's population crisis was making headlines around the world.
	In an effort to protect its people from starvation, China has enacted a policy limiting families to just one child.
	I never thought much about what the policy meant for me or anyone until I learned that I was going to be a mom.
	None of my family questioned the policy or how it was implemented.
	This documentary has effectively been banned in China.
	They're not covering the fact that it was shortlisted for the Oscar.
	There's no question it should win the best Oscar for documentaries.
	I would be surprised if it does simply because it is incredibly pro-life.
	And it has to be pro-life because the Chinese government was anti-life and remains anti-life.
	The evils of collectivism, the evils that human beings will allow in the name of collectivism, truly, truly disturbing.
	You should watch it.
	You should get everybody you know to watch it.
	It's a phenomenal documentary.
	Again, this stuff was happening in our lifetimes until four years ago.
	And the Chinese government is not our friend.
	The Chinese government He's not a friend of freedom.
	It is not a friend to development.
	The Chinese government is a horrible, horrific, tyrannical, fascist regime.
	OK, time for a quick let's end the week on a bit of a higher note.
	So quick Bible talk.
	Very quick Bible talk.
	So this week's Parsha.
	So in the Jewish religion, as I explain every few weeks, I've been doing this.
	I should have been more consistent about it every few weeks.
	We will talk about a portion of the Bible that the Jews read every week.
	So the Jews have this cycle over the course of the entire year.
	The Jews read the entire Bible.
	So this week's Parsha is the very end of the book of Genesis.
	In Hebrew it's called Vayechi.
	And it is the very end of the book of Genesis when Jacob blesses his kids.
	And it's sort of fascinating because when Jacob blesses his kids, if you're going to bless your kids, You would think, first and foremost, what advice would I give them?
	What would I tell them that I think they should know in order to succeed in life?
	What are the things that I would impart to my kids that give them the best shot at success?
	That's not what Jacob does.
	If you read the blessings, what Jacob does is he does bless them with specific blessings, but he begins by describing each of the kids.
	And he doesn't describe them in glowing terms.
	He talks about Simon and Levi, he talks about Shimon and Levi, and he talks about how vindictive they are and how likely they are to be angry.
	He talks about how Ephraim and Manasseh, the kids of Joseph, he talks about how the younger will be greater than the older.
	I mean, this is harsh stuff.
	It's a really weird way to bless your kids.
	If you look at all of the blessings, he describes Everything in very specific fashion to all of his kids.
	And so why does he do that?
	Why does he do that?
	The answer is, I think, a real rejection of one way that people in the United States think about the world.
	Like, take this for example.
	He talks about Ephraim and Manasseh, and he brings them into the family, or he takes his grandkids and he makes them equivalent to his sons, and then he suggests that Manasseh will be greater than Ephraim and all the rest.
	It really is, sort of, he crosses his hands in order to bless one with his right hand as opposed to his left hand.
	So why does he do all of this?
	In the West, we have this perception, which is people are born with unequal qualities.
	And that, of course, is true.
	People are born with unequal qualities.
	Some people are smarter.
	Some people are dumber.
	Some people are taller.
	Some people are like me.
	Some people can dunk.
	Some people can't even hit a 10-foot jump shot, right?
	The fact is that we all have different qualities.
	And the cause that has unified so many people across the world for a lot of time is to rectify these cosmic imbalances, what Thomas Sowell called the quest for cosmic justice, trying to suggest that with the heavy hand of collectivism, with the heavy hand of government, we can reestablish a baseline equality, not of rights, not that we all have equal we can reestablish a baseline equality, not of rights, not that we all have equal access to use our rights, but a baseline And what this means is that if there is any disparate outcome for any people at all, some injustice has been done somewhere.
	It's sort of Rawlsian morality.
	John Rawls famously suggested the morality was to be placed behind the quote unquote veil of ignorance, that we should design a human system where you didn't know if you were going to be smart or whether you're going to be stupid, whether you didn't know whether you're going to be rich or whether you're going to be poor, that the best way to design a moral system was to operate from a morality where you didn't know where you were going to be in the that the best way to design a moral system was to operate from a morality where you didn't know Well, that does tend toward a collectivism and a mentality of collectivism, because if you don't know if you're poor or rich, then you're going to suggest, well, you know, it'd be great if everybody made the same.
	Then it doesn't matter if I'm born stupid or if I'm born smart.
	There's one problem with this.
	It does not accord with human nature.
	And this is what Jacob is doing.
	Jacob is saying, if you want to succeed in life, this is so true.
	If you want to succeed in life, know your own qualities, know your own shortcomings, deal with the fact that you have these shortcomings and that you have these qualities, and then operate in the universe on the basis of what it is that you are capable of doing and what you are not capable of doing.
	And don't try to invade the rights of people who may have more in one area or less in a different area.
	Instead, recognize that one of the beauties of human existence is the diversity between all of these various categories.
	And one of the things that the free market does, through comparative advantage, beautifully, is it enacts the ability for people who have variant qualities to provide to each other.
	This is one of the beautiful things about comparative advantage that people don't tend to understand.
	If you are great, let's say you're very high IQ, and you're great at a lot of things.
	You could be a great plumber.
	You could be a great writer.
	You could be a great business person.
	Well, what comparative advantage says is, sure, you could probably be a better plumber than the guy who's slightly lower IQ, but is that the best use of your time?
	Rather, you should specialize in the thing that you are best at, and he will specialize in the thing that he is best at, and therefore, you only have to trade a small chunk of your time for plumbing, and he can trade a large chunk of his time for plumbing, and you're both better off.
	Comparative advantage takes into account the fact that human beings are created diverse by nature or by God, depending on how you believe.
	This is the way to run a system because once you start assuming that the root of all evil is baseline natural inequality of human beings in terms of their actual qualities, not in terms of rights, in terms of their actual qualities.
	Once you assume that that is inherently a bad thing and must be cured by some overarching authority that God did it wrong and that the best way for us to cure this is to construct a system that makes up for certain deficiencies among all human beings.
	Because again, we are all created different with different qualities.
	That's how you end up with China's one-child policy.
	That's how you end up with full-scale tyranny.
	And the way that you end up with diversity is by acknowledging that people are different.
	And yes, that means that some people will be more successful than others.
	And yes, that means that some people are going to have an easier time in life than others.
	But what it also means is that if you are one of the people who is born without, people will appreciate you for what it is that you are capable of doing rather than seeing you as a leech on their own efforts.
	It is the equality of rights that guarantees that we treat each other equally.
	As human beings, in society, because if I feel like the government is just taking away my stuff to give it to you because they're trying to correct for something that I can't control and you can't control, then the society basically is divided between the people who are living off people and the people who are providing to those people.
	The basic Marxist notion, from each according to his ability to each according to his need, is unworkable in terms of having a friendly, decent society.
	It is just not workable without enormous amounts of coercion.
	Because what you're essentially saying is that there's a group of people who are leeching off another group of people.
	But, if you recognize that in the diversity of humankind, you know, barring the people who we must take care of, people who are, of course, cannot take care of themselves, people who are ill, people who have mental illness or serious deficiencies such that they cannot contribute in an economy, if you actually Want to construct a society where we all have respect for one another?
	We have to respect each other for our strengths, and yes, for our shortcomings.
	We have to understand that we don't have an unlimited amount of time on this planet.
	And that's what Jacob is saying.
	He's saying, listen, you guys want to be successful.
	You tribes, you're all brothers, right?
	You love each other.
	But I'm not going to pretend that all of you are equal in all of your capacities because you're not.
	Instead, I'm going to describe to you what you are, and if you want to be successful in life, you need to take a hard look at who you are as a human being, and then you need to try and correct for your own flaws, and then you need to try and maximize your own possibilities, and you need to respect your brothers for doing the same.
	That's the way to bless somebody.
	Jacob does it right at the end of the book of Genesis.
	We should all take that lesson forward into politics and into our personal lives as well.
	Okay, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here on Monday for more news and commentary.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.
	Supervising Producers Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Technical Producer Austin Stevens.
	Associate Producer Colton Haas.
	Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Sijewicz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	On The Matt Wall Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

▲